Geothermal energy is one of the strategies employed by the Indonesian government to meet rising electricity demand. Developing geothermal energy is often characterized by uncertainties and requires sequential decision-making which is divided into four development phases: 1) identification, 2) exploration, 3) exploitation, and 4) engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning (EPPC) before it can be commercialized. Traditional valuation techniques often produce a negative net present value (NPV), suggesting decision to reject the project's investment plan. This paper investigates the economic viability of a geothermal power generation project using both NPV and real options analysis (ROA). Costs and uncertainties associated with the various development phases as well as the investment structure of geothermal projects are studied. We develop a framework for assessing the impact of four uncertainties using a binomial lattice: capacity factor, electricity price, make-up well-drilling costs, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Secondary data from an Indonesian context geothermal power plant was used. Positive option values were found for the lattice approach compared to negative values found for the common NPV calculation. The result of this study showed the successful outcome of the exploration stage is very critical to determining the continuation of the project. The framework supports decision-makers in evaluating the impact of geothermal power generation projects in the face of uncertainty by providing a rigorous analysis. The movement of the underlying asset's value in the whole project's lifetime will assist the management in deciding on whether to exit or continue.
Citation: Marmelia P. Dewi, Andri D. Setiawan, Yusuf Latief, Widodo Wahyu Purwanto. Investment decisions under uncertainties in geothermal power generation[J]. AIMS Energy, 2022, 10(4): 844-857. doi: 10.3934/energy.2022038
[1] | Dimitrios Kotzias . Built environment and indoor air quality: The case of volatile organic compounds. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(2): 135-147. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021010 |
[2] | Sibel Mentese, Deniz Tasdibi, Ersin Orak . Estimation of sources and factors affecting indoor VOC levels using basic numerical methods. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(4): 827-841. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.4.827 |
[3] | Masahiro Tokumura, Rurika Hatayama, Kouichi Tatsu, Toshiyuki Naito, Tetsuya Takeda, Mohammad Raknuzzaman, Md. Habibullah-Al-Mamun, Shigeki Masunaga . Car indoor air pollution by volatile organic compounds and aldehydes in Japan. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(3): 362-381. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.3.362 |
[4] | Anna Mainka, Barbara Kozielska . Assessment of the BTEX concentrations and health risk in urban nursery schools in Gliwice, Poland. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(4): 858-870. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.4.858 |
[5] | Joanna Faber, Krzysztof Brodzik . Air quality inside passenger cars. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(1): 112-133. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.1.112 |
[6] | Lars Carlsen . A posetic based assessment of atmospheric VOCs. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(3): 403-416. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.3.403 |
[7] | Tharwat Mokalled, Stéphane Le Calvé, Nada Badaro-Saliba, Maher Abboud, Rita Zaarour, Wehbeh Farah, Jocelyne Adjizian-Gérard . Atmospheric dispersion modelling of gaseous emissions from Beirutinternational airport activities. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(5): 553-572. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022033 |
[8] | Tahseen Sayara, Ruba Hanoun, Yamen Hamdan . Survey on the factors and social perspectives to participate in home composting schemes in Palestine: Anabta case study. AIMS Environmental Science, 2022, 9(3): 232-243. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2022016 |
[9] | Leonardo Martínez, Stephanie Mesías Monsalve, Karla Yohannessen Vásquez, Sergio Alvarado Orellana, José Klarián Vergara, Miguel Martín Mateo, Rogelio Costilla Salazar, Mauricio Fuentes Alburquenque, Ana Maldonado Alcaíno, Rodrigo Torres, Dante D. Cáceres Lillo . Indoor-outdoor concentrations of fine particulate matter in school building microenvironments near a mine tailing deposit. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(4): 752-764. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.4.752 |
[10] | Getachew A. Adnew, Carl Meusinger, Nicolai Bork, Michael Gallus, Mildrid Kyte, Vitalijs Rodins, Thomas Rosenørn, Matthew S. Johnson . Gas-phase advanced oxidation as an integrated air pollution control technique. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(1): 141-158. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.1.141 |
Geothermal energy is one of the strategies employed by the Indonesian government to meet rising electricity demand. Developing geothermal energy is often characterized by uncertainties and requires sequential decision-making which is divided into four development phases: 1) identification, 2) exploration, 3) exploitation, and 4) engineering, procurement, construction, and commissioning (EPPC) before it can be commercialized. Traditional valuation techniques often produce a negative net present value (NPV), suggesting decision to reject the project's investment plan. This paper investigates the economic viability of a geothermal power generation project using both NPV and real options analysis (ROA). Costs and uncertainties associated with the various development phases as well as the investment structure of geothermal projects are studied. We develop a framework for assessing the impact of four uncertainties using a binomial lattice: capacity factor, electricity price, make-up well-drilling costs, and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. Secondary data from an Indonesian context geothermal power plant was used. Positive option values were found for the lattice approach compared to negative values found for the common NPV calculation. The result of this study showed the successful outcome of the exploration stage is very critical to determining the continuation of the project. The framework supports decision-makers in evaluating the impact of geothermal power generation projects in the face of uncertainty by providing a rigorous analysis. The movement of the underlying asset's value in the whole project's lifetime will assist the management in deciding on whether to exit or continue.
Abbreviations: VOC: volatile organic compound; SVOC: semi-volatile organic compound; VVOC: very volatile organic compound; CLP: Classification, Labelling and Packaging; IARC: International Agency for Research on Cancer; DHI/BKH: Consulting Engineers; US EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency; NA: Not Available; SIN: Substitute It Now! TEDX: The Endocrine Disruption Exchange
The French Indoor Air Quality Observatory has planned a national field campaign in 100 age care and social facilities across France for 2019 to characterize the indoor air quality (IAQ). To date, these facilities have been rarely studied, though vulnerable populations spend most of their time there. To identify which volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to look for in the indoor air, a survey was performed targeting all 18,432 French age care and social facilities to describe the buildings, activities, and cleaning tasks and cleaning products used, with the objective of identifying the VOC emission sources. A focus was put on cleaning products since they may be widely used in these buildings and emit VOCs, which have an impact on the IAQ [1].
Only six studies worldwide were identified to have investigated VOCs in the indoor air of age care facilities, while none were found for social facilities. In South Korea, Hwang et al. investigated the total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) and formaldehyde in 62 facilities [2], and Lee et al. characterized the indoor and outdoor VOC and formaldehyde concentrations in 30 elderly care centers [3]. In Portugal, Almeida-Silva et al. measured the TVOCs in 10 elderly care centers [4]. Also in Portugal, under the framework of the Geriatric Study in Portugal on Health Effects of Air Quality in Elderly Care Centers (GERIA) project, the TVOC and formaldehyde concentrations were measured in 22 facilities [5]. Walgraeve et al. measured 25 VOCs in 6 elderly homes in Belgium [6]. Finally, within the European Geriatric study on health effects of air quality in nursing homes in Europe (GERIE) project, formaldehyde was measured in eight facilities in 7 countries [7]. In most of these studies, though, the individual VOCs were not measured.
An increasing number of studies have shown potential health effects due to chemical substances used in cleaning activities. Svanes et al. investigated the long-term effects of cleaning product exposure on lung function decline and airway obstruction in a cohort including occupational cleaners [8]. This study highlighted that cleaning sprays and other cleaning agents accelerate lung function decline in women cleaning at home or working as occupational cleaners. A study in California on 183 cleaning workers in an academic medical center investigated the association between acute symptoms and chemical exposure [9]. The study showed that symptoms of irritation due to chemical products are frequent for cleaning workers. Su et al. looked for the determinants of VOC exposures in healthcare settings and showed that exposure to various VOCs was associated with mixed cleaning tasks and the chemical ingredients of the products used [10]. Moreover, a recent review of epidemiological studies highlighted that the use of cleaning and disinfecting products is harmful to respiratory health and increases the risk of asthma [11]. Spray products were specifically targeted [12,13].
Meanwhile, the specific VOCs emitted by cleaning products remain poorly described. Gerster et al. identified the most used cleaning products by a survey of Swiss professional cleaning companies and, through a review of safety data sheets (SDSs), listed the hazardous substances, including VOCs, present in these products [14]. In five hospitals in the United States, Saito et al. assessed the exposure to cleaning and disinfecting chemicals among many occupations [15]. On the basis of the SDSs of the cleaning and disinfecting products, they concluded that different occupations in hospitals involved irritants or sensitizers. On the basis of the SDSs, Wei et al. identified the hazardous substances, including VOCs, present in cleaning products used in 310 nurseries and schools in France [16].
In this context, the aims of this study were to (1) describe the cleaning frequencies, techniques and products employed in French age care and social facilities, including the use of spray products and air fresheners; (2) identify the VOCs that may be emitted from these products in indoor air; and (3) compile a list of VOCs of concern based on their hazard classifications.
An online questionnaire was developed that included questions describing the frequency of floor and surface cleaning (several times a day, once a day, several times a week, or once a week or less), cleaning practices (i.e., without any product, with water, with liquid cleaning product and a mop, with pre-impregnated wet wipes, or with sprays), and storage areas (i.e., in shared living rooms or bedrooms or in a ventilated or unventilated adjacent or non-adjacent specific room). The use of air fresheners was also investigated. For each facility, a maximum of two buildings could be described, and for each building, the three most used cleaning products, along with their respective brand and commercial names, could be listed. The quantity of product used was also investigated. However, the low number of data points and disparities in the answers for this question required us to ignore this item.
The survey was performed in facilities with a susceptible population, namely, dependent elderly people and disabled people. The target facilities were nursing homes and long-term care units for the elderly and specific facilities for disabled children or adults. The contact details (i.e., email, postal address, phone number) of the target facilities were identified from the National File of Sanitary and Social Institutions (FINESS) [17] managed by the French Ministry of Health, which included 18,432 facilities. The link to the online questionnaire was sent to all facilities by email on June 6, 2017. Three reminders were sent by email in June and July to non-responders. The web interface was closed on July 31, 2017.
The first step was to clean up the database to group duplicate data and remove unusable data (i.e., dashes, question marks, only the brand or an incomplete name). Then, the SDSs of the reported cleaning products were collected from the internet, mostly from supplier websites. Some SDSs were obtained by emailing the supplier via an online contact form. When the SDS could not be found for a specific product, the product was excluded from further analysis.
SDSs provide information about the health risks associated with the exposure to or use of hazardous products. Section 3 gives the names of the chemical substances contained in each product, along with their Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) numbers, if available. Moreover, some substances, such as fragrance allergens, that can be found under section 15 "Regulatory Information" were collected. For each cleaning product, the names and CAS numbers of the chemical substances mentioned in the SDS were retrieved.
Six categories of health effects were investigated for each substance identified from the SDSs: carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction, specific target organ toxicity - repeat exposure (STOT-RE), endocrine-disrupting properties, and skin or respiratory sensitizing. When possible, different sources were checked to determine the health effects, and the most severe ranking was used.
Substances that are potentially carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction, STOT-RE, or skin or respiratory sensitizing were identified according to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) [18]. For those with carcinogenic potential, classifications by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) [19] and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) [20] were also considered. Similarly, multiple sources were consulted to evaluate the possible endocrine-disrupting properties of each substance. Using the candidate list of substances of very high concern for authorization available on the ECHA website and published in accordance with the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACh) Regulation, those classified to have endocrine-disrupting properties [21] were identified. Other projects, which were carried out for the European Commission DG ENV, the Illinois EPA (1997), and the US EPA were also taken into account [22,23,24,25,26,27]. Other non-regulatory lists were collected. First, the SIN list is a comprehensive database maintained by the non-governmental organization Chemsec, which identifies chemicals likely to be restricted or banned in the EU [28]. In this case, the list was restricted to substances included because of their potential endocrine-disrupting properties. Second, the Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) list of potential endocrine disruptors identifies chemicals that have demonstrated evidence of endocrine-disrupting properties in at least one study [29].
The health effects considered along with the different sources investigated are summarized in Figure 1.
Finally, the boiling points of the chemical substances were retrieved to classify them according to their volatility and to identify the VOCs. Four sources were considered as follows in order of priority: (1) the ECHA website [30], (2) the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB) [31], (3) the Chemspider website [32] and (4) the CompTox Dashboard by the US EPA [33]. Based on the definition provided by ISO 16000-6 [34], organic substances with a boiling point between 0 ℃ and 50–100 ℃, are considered to be very volatile organic compounds (VVOCs). When the boiling point is between 50–100 ℃ and 240–260 ℃, the organic substance belongs to the family of VOCs. Finally, between 240–260 ℃ and 380–400 ℃, the substance belongs to the family of semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs). For practical reasons, the limits between VVOCs and VOCs, between VOCs and SVOCs, and between SVOCs and non-volatile compounds were set at 50 ℃, 260 ℃ and 400 ℃, respectively.
Among the 18,432 questionnaires sent to the age care and social facilities, 4041 web questionnaires and 137 paper questionnaires were collected. After discarding incomplete or duplicate questionnaires, 2140 complete questionnaires were obtained, representing a response rate of 12% with good representativeness against the national base: among the final selected facilities, 58% are nursing homes, 25% are specific facilities for disabled adults, 14% are specific facilities for disabled young people, and 3% are long-term care units for elderly people. Because each questionnaire contained space for information regarding one or two buildings, the final Excel database contained 2739 recordings.
In more than half of the facilities, cleaning products are stored in a specific room that is non-adjacent to shared living rooms (53%) or to bedrooms (52%). The storage room is adjacent to the shared living rooms in 40% of facilities and adjacent to the bedrooms in about one-third of the facilities (29%). In both situations, the room is ventilated in most cases (72% and 79% for shared living rooms and bedrooms, respectively). In only 4% of the facilities, the cleaning products are stored in shared living rooms or in bedrooms. Information was not provided for 3% and 15% of the shared living rooms and bedrooms, respectively.
The cleaning frequencies vary according to the type of room. The floors of shared living rooms are cleaned once per day (58%) or several times per day (23%). In bedrooms, the floors are less frequently cleaned: once per day in 51% or several times per day in 4%. The surface cleaning frequencies are lower than the floor cleaning frequencies. Surface cleaning is mostly performed several times a week but not daily in both shared living rooms (40%) and bedrooms (41%). In approximately one-third of facilities, surfaces are cleaned several times per day (11%) or once per day (38%) in shared living rooms and several times per day (2%) or once per day (31%) in bedrooms. The cleaning frequencies are detailed according to the type of facility for floors in Figure 2 and for surfaces in Figure 3.
Two mains techniques of floor cleaning are highlighted: liquid cleaning products are used in 61% of shared living rooms and 50% of bedrooms, and wet wipes in 19% of shared living rooms and 23% of bedrooms. For surfaces, sprays are the most used cleaning technique in shared living rooms (36%) and in bedrooms (31%). In shared living rooms, liquid products are used in 29% of the facilities, and wet wipes in 22%. In bedrooms, the percentages of use are 22% for both liquid cleaning products and for wet wipes.
The resuspension of settled dust may have a detrimental impact on IAQ [1,35]. Cleaning with a wet mop and wipes avoids the resuspension of settled dust from floors or surfaces. However, VOCs can be emitted from the cleaning products on the wipes or used with the mop.
Air fresheners are commonly used (66%) and can be a major source of indoor air pollution. Air fresheners are more frequently used in nursing or elderly homes (75%), long-term care units (71%) and specific facilities for disabled adults (57%) than in specific facilities for young disabled people (41%). This frequent use of air fresheners may be related to the frequent bad smells in these types of facilities, as they are employed to mask these odors. Air fresheners emit many chemical substances and contribute to the production of secondary pollutants [36].
Overall, 2739 buildings were described, and for each, up to three cleaning products could be reported. In the end, 2348 answers were registered corresponding to 1403 different wordings. After sorting these wordings, 1109 answers containing the brand and name of the product were usable, corresponding to 341 distinct cleaning products. Among these 341 products, 285 SDSs were available on the internet, 14 were received from the supplier by email, and 38 could not be found or were not received. Four cleaning products without SDSs were retained for analysis because of their simple formulations, i.e., methylated spirit, rubbing alcohol, white vinegar and bleach.
The analysis of the 299 SDSs and the four additional cleaning products (n = 303 products) allowed us to list 228 chemical substances. Among them, twelve refer to mixtures and could not be associated with a CAS number. Therefore, these twelve were not included in the final list. In the end, 216 chemical substances were considered. Among them, the 22 chemicals (10%) that were the most frequently present in the 303 products are listed in Table 1.
CAS number | Substance name | Class | Use | Number of cleaning products | Occurrence across the 303 cleaning products (%) |
67-63-0 | Isopropanol | VOC | Solvent | 80 | 26.4% |
7173-51-5 | Didecyldimethylammonium chloride | Salt | Disinfectant | 72 | 23.8% |
64-17-5 | Ethanol | VOC | Solvent | 58 | 19.1% |
5989-27-5 | D-Limonene | VOC | Scenting agent | 56 | 18.5% |
68424-85-1 | C12-16-Alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chlorides | Salt | Detergent and surfactant | 41 | 13.5% |
78-70-6 | Linalool | VOC | Scenting agent | 37 | 12.2% |
69011-36-5 | Poly(oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), alpha-tridecyl-gamma-hydroxy-, branched | SVOC | Solvent | 34 | 11.2% |
64-02-8 | Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tetrasodium salt | Salt | Chelating agent | 30 | 9.9% |
2372-82-9 | 1, 3-Propanediamine, N-(3-aminopropyl)-N-dodecyl- | SVOC | Disinfectant | 29 | 9.6% |
68439-46-3 | Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated | SVOC | Detergent and surfactant | 27 | 8.9% |
68891-38-3 | Poly(oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-hydroxy-, C12-14-alkyl ethers, sodium salts | Salt | Detergent and surfactant | 26 | 8.6% |
101-86-0 | Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde | SVOC | Scenting agent | 25 | 8.3% |
1310-73-2 | Sodium hydroxide | Salt | Detergent and surfactant | 23 | 7.6% |
106-22-9 | Citronellol | VOC | Scenting agent | 21 | 6.9% |
5949-29-1 | 1, 2, 3-Propanetricarboxylic acid, 2-hydroxy-, hydrate (1:1) | SVOC | Disinfectant | 20 | 6.6% |
80-54-6 | Lilial | SVOC | Scenting agent | 18 | 5.9% |
7664-38-2 | Phosphoric acid | Inorganic | Detergent and surfactant | 18 | 5.9% |
68515-73-1 | D-Glucopyranose, oligomeric, decyl octyl glycosides | Non-volatile | Detergent and surfactant | 18 | 5.9% |
79-33-4 | L-Lactic acid | VOC | Detergent and surfactant | 17 | 5.6% |
5392-40-5 | 3, 7-Dimethyl-2, 6-octadienal (Citral) | VOC | Scenting agent | 17 | 5.6% |
2634-33-5 | 1, 2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one | SVOC | Disinfectant | 16 | 5.3% |
308062-28-4 | Amines, C12-14 (even numbered)-alkyldimethyl, N-oxides | Non-volatile | Surfactant | 16 | 5.3% |
In comparison to previous studies, 14 substances (63%) of our top 10% most frequent chemical substances in the used cleaning products are also described in Gerster et al. (2014) [14], and 17 substances (77%) of our top 10% most frequent chemical substances in the used cleaning products were also reported by Wei et al. (2015) [16].
Among the 216 substances, 41 are classified for their health effects. Ten substances are registered as carcinogenic by at least one of the sources: 9 by the ECHA and 1 by both the IARC and the ECHA. Six substances are classified as mutagenic by the ECHA. One substance is toxic to reproduction. Nineteen substances are considered to have endocrine-disrupting properties by at least one of the sources: the 19 substances are present on the TEDX list, 2 on the SIN list, 2 on the US EPA lists, and 1 in the second category of the DHI/BKH classification. Three substances are registered as STOT-RE by the ECHA: 2 in the first category and 1 in the second category. Finally, the ECHA classifies 2 substances as respiratory sensitizers and 14 as skin sensitizers. The detailed results are presented in Table 2 and Figure 4.
Substance name | CAS number | Class | Occurrence (%) (1) | Carcinogenicity | Mutagenicity | Reproductive toxicity | Endocrine disruption | STOT-RE | Sensitization | ||||
Skin | Respiratory | ||||||||||||
Didecyldimethylammonium chloride | 7173-51-5 | Salt | 23.8 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
D-Limonene | 5989-27-5 | VOC | 18.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Ethanol | 64-17-5 | VOC | 19.1 | * | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Linalool | 78-70-6 | VOC | 12.2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1B | NA | |||
Lilial | 80-54-6 | SVOC | 5.9 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolinone | 2682-20-4 | VOC | 4, 6 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Benzyl salicylate | 118-58-1 | SVOC | 4.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
1, 6-Hexanediamine, polymer with N, N'''-1, 6-hexanediylbis [N'-cyanoguanidine], hydrochloride | 27083-27-8 | Non-volatile | 2.0 | CLP 2 | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | CLP 1B | NA | |||
1, 2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one | 2634-33-5 | SVOC | 5.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
3, 7-Dimethyl-2, 6-octadienal | 5392-40-5 | VOC | 5.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Ethanolamine | 141-43-5 | VOC | 4.0 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol | 112-34-5 | VOC | 3.0 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-Phenylphenol | 90-43-7 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | DHI/BKH 2 | US EPA 1 | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |
Bio-Perge | 55965-84-9 | VOC | 2.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Bronopol | 52-51-7 | SVOC | 2.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Glutaraldehyde | 111-30-8 | VOC | 1.0 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | CLP 1A | CLP 1 | |||
Limonene | 138-86-3 | VOC | 1.0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
1-Methoxy-2-propanol | 107-98-2 | VOC | 1.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-Butoxyethanol | 111-76-2 | VOC | 1.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Octhilinone | 26530-20-1 | VOC | 1.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Methyl ethyl ketone | 78-93-3 | VOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Ethylene glycol | 107-21-1 | VOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | US EPA 2 | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | ||
Methanol | 67-56-1 | VOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
(Z)-9-Octadecenylamine | 112-90-3 | SVOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 2 | NA | NA | |||
Butane | 106-97-8 | VVOC | 0.7 | CLP 1A | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Poly (hexamethylene biguanide) hydrochloride | 32289-58-0 | SVOC | 0.3 | CLP 2 | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | CLP 1B | NA | |||
Isobutane | 75-28-5 | VVOC | 0.7 | CLP 1A | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Glycine, N, N-bis(carboxymethyl)-, trisodium salt | 5064-31-3 | SVOC | 0.3 | CLP 2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Cyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-hexahydro-4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8-hexamethyl- | 1222-05-5 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | SIN | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | ||
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light paraffinic | 64742-55-8 | VOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
dl-Carvone | 99-49-0 | VOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Formaldehyde | 50-00-0 | VVOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | IARC 1 | CLP 2 | NA | TEDX | NA | CLP 1 | NA | ||
Naphtha, petroleum, hydrotreated light | 64742-49-0 | VOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Naphtha, (petroleum) hydrodesulfurized light, dearomatized | 92045-53-9 | VOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Heptane | 142-82-5 | VOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde | 31906-04-4 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1A | NA | |||
3-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde | 51414-25-6 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1A | NA | |||
Naphtha, petroleum, hydrotreated heavy | 64742-48-9 | VVOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Octoxynol-9 | 9036-19-5 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | SIN | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | ||
Sodium perborate tetrahydrate | 10486-00-7 | Inorganic salt | 0.3 | NA | NA | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Subtilisin | 9014-01-1 | Non-volatile | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | |||
(1): occurrence across the 303 different cleaning products. *Specific classification: IARC Category 1 in alcoholic beverages only |
Among all the questionnaires registered (N = 2348), 1239 responses were not usable because of the lack of information provided by the interviewees. Most of the time, only the brand names were given, and some product names were often wrong or incomplete. The part of the questionnaire regarding the identification of the cleaning products used should have been more detailed to ensure a complete answer. Moreover, 38 SDSs were missing or were not received from the supplier after request.
The reported substances were determined from the SDSs, but the chemical compositions of the cleaning products are not fully listed in SDSs. The manufacturers must declare the compositions of hazardous substances only when their concentration is higher than 0.1% in the formulated products. Several substances with low concentrations in cleaning products were thus outside of the scope of this study. Moreover, the SDSs are declarative, and the reported information must be taken with caution (e.g., the wrong CAS number for eucalyptol was found in an SDS).
Despite these limitations, this work allowed us to list numerous substances in cleaning products with health effects and improved the knowledge of VOCs likely to be present in the indoor air of age care and social facilities.
This study showed that (1) the cleaning frequency is rather high in health care and social facilities, with floors being cleaned once or several times per day in most cases and (2) liquid cleaning products, wet wipes, and sprays are commonly used in all types of facilities and all types of rooms. The use of air fresheners is also very common. Among the cleaning products, 341 different commercial references were identified, and information about the compositions of 303 could be retrieved. Among the 216 different chemical substances listed, 41 were classified for their potential health effects: 10 as carcinogenic, 6 as mutagenic, 1 as toxic for reproduction, 19 having possible endocrine-disrupting properties, 3 as toxic for a specific target organ under repeated exposure, 2 as respiratory sensitizers, and 14 as skin sensitizers. Of these 41 chemicals, 10% (n = 4) are VVOCs, 51% (n = 21) are VOCs, 29% (n = 12) are SVOCs, 5% (n = 2) are not volatile, 5% (n = 2) are salts. The VOCs emitted from the cleaning products used in these facilities will be considered for measurement during the upcoming nationwide monitoring campaign.
We thank the French Ministries of Health (Grant 2016) and Environment (Grant 2201026654) for supporting this study.
We thank People Vox for managing the online questionnaire and all the French age care and social facilities who responded and contributed to the survey.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
[1] | IRENA (2017) Renewable energy prospects: Indonesia, a REmap analysis. IRENA-Abu Dhabi Available from: https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/Unlocking-Renewable-Energy-Investment-The-role-of-risk-mitigation-and-structured-finance. |
[2] | PLN (2019) RUPTL: Rencana Usaha Penyediaan Tenaga Listrik 2019–2028. Available from: https://web.pln.co.id/stakeholder/ruptl. |
[3] | Adi AC, Lasnawatin F, Prananto A, et al. (2019) Handbook of energy and economic statistics of Indonesia 2018 Available from: https://www.esdm.go.id/en/publication/handbook-of-energy-economic-statistics-of-indonesia-heesi. |
[4] | Bappenas (2021) Indonesia's updated NDC for a climate resilient future. Available from: http://greengrowth.bappenas.go.id/en/indonesias-updated-ndc-for-a-climate-resilient-future/. |
[5] | Peraturan Pemerintah R (2015) Peraturan Pemerintah No 79/2014 Tentang Kebijakan Energi Nasional (Government Regulation No. 79/2014 concerning National Energy Policy). Jakarta: Sekretariat Negara (Indonesian Ministry of State Secretariat). Available from: https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Home/Details/5523/pp-no-79-tahun-2014. |
[6] |
Pambudi NA (2018) Geothermal power generation in Indonesia, a country within the ring of fire: Current status, future development and policy. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 81: 2893–2901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.096 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.096
![]() |
[7] |
Fan K, Nam S (2018) Accelerating geothermal development in Indonesia: A case study in the underutilization of geothermal energy. J Sustainable Dev 19: 103–129. https://doi.org/10.7916/D80K3SJQ doi: 10.7916/D80K3SJQ
![]() |
[8] |
Stefansson V (2002) Investment cost for geothermal power plants. Geothermics 31: 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0375-6505(01)00018-9 doi: 10.1016/S0375-6505(01)00018-9
![]() |
[9] | Meier P, Randle J, Lawless J, et al. (2014) Unlocking Indonesia's geothermal potential. Prepared for the Asian Development Bank. Available from: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/157824/unlocking-indonesias-geothermal-potential.pdf. |
[10] | Mangi PM (2016) Geothermal project management. Presented at SDG Short Course Ⅰ on Exploration and Development of Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP, GDC and KenGen, at Lake Bogoria and Lake Naivasha, Kenya, 10–31. Available from: https://orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-23-0907.pdf. |
[11] | Ngugi PK (2009) Geothermal well drilling. Short Course Ⅳ on Exploration for Geothermal Resources, organized by UNU-GTP, KenGen and GDC, at Lake Naivasha, Kenya, November, 1–22. Available from: https://orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-10-0205.pdf. |
[12] | Njoroge D (2016) Monitoring and evaluation framework for geothermal projects: Olkaria I Unit 6, Kenya. Iceland: UNU-GTP. Available from: https://orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-report/UNU-GTP-2016-28.pdf. |
[13] | Ngomi GM, Peketsa (2017) Project management for geothermal energy development SDG Short Course Ⅱ on Exploration and Development of Geothermal Resources, 9–29. Available from: https://orkustofnun.is/gogn/unu-gtp-sc/UNU-GTP-SC-25-1006.pdf. |
[14] | Wahjosoedibjo AS, Hasan M (2018) Indonesia's geothermal development: where is it going? 43rd workshop on geothermal reservoir engineering, Stanford, California. Available from: https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2018/Hasan.pdf. |
[15] |
Winters MS, Cawvey M (2015) Governance obstacles to geothermal energy development in Indonesia. J Curr Southeast Asian Aff 34: 27–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/186810341503400102 doi: 10.1177/186810341503400102
![]() |
[16] | Hadi J, Quinlivan P, Ussher G, et al. (2010) Resource risk assessment in geothermal greenfield development; an economic implications. World Geothermal Congress 2010, 25–29. Available from: https://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2010/0709.pdf. |
[17] | Aragón-Aguilar A, Izquierdo-Montalvo G, Aragón-Gaspar DO, et al. (2019) Stages of a integrated geothermal project. Renewable Geothermal Energy Explorations: IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81017 |
[18] | Gehringer M, Loksha V (2012) Geothermal handbook: Planning and financing power generation. Washington D.C.: World Bank, 164. Available from: https://www.esmap.org/sites/esmap.org/files/DocumentLibrary/FINAL_Geothermal%20Handbook_TR002-12_Reduced.pdf. |
[19] | Purba D, Adityatama DW, Agustino V, et al. (2020) Geothermal drilling cost optimization in Indonesia: a discussion of various factors. 45th Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Standford University, Standford California, 14: 10–12. Available from: https://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/db/GeoConf/papers/SGW/2020/Purba.pdf. |
[20] |
Witter JB, Trainor-Guitton WJ, Siler DL (2019) Uncertainty and risk evaluation during the exploration stage of geothermal development: A review. Geothermics 78: 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geothermics.2018.12.011 doi: 10.1016/j.geothermics.2018.12.011
![]() |
[21] | Speer B, Economy R, Lowder T, et al. (2014) Geothermal exploration policy mechanisms: lessons for the United States from international applications. National Renewable Energy Lab.(NREL), Golden, CO (United States). Available from: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/61477.pdf. |
[22] |
Daniilidis A, Alpsoy B, Herber R (2017) Impact of technical and economic uncertainties on the economic performance of a deep geothermal heat system. Renewable Energy 114: 805–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.090 doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.07.090
![]() |
[23] | Van Putten AB, MacMillan IC (2004) Making real options really work. Harv Bus Rev 82: 134–142. Available from: https://hbr.org/2004/12/making-real-options-really-work |
[24] |
Kumbaroğlu G, Madlener R, Demirel M (2008) A real options evaluation model for the diffusion prospects of new renewable power generation technologies. Energy Econ 30: 1882–1908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2006.10.009 doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2006.10.009
![]() |
[25] | Mufudza T (2018) Dynamic strategy in a turbulent business environment. Strategic Management—A Dynamic View: IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.81250 |
[26] |
Yang B, Burns ND, Backhouse CJ (2004) Management of uncertainty through postponement. Int J Prod Res 42: 1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540310001631601 doi: 10.1080/00207540310001631601
![]() |
[27] |
Myers SC (1977) Determinants of corporate borrowing. J Financ Econ 5: 147–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-405X(77)90015-0 doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(77)90015-0
![]() |
[28] |
Myers SC (1984) Finance theory and financial strategy. Interfaces 14: 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.14.1.126 doi: 10.1287/inte.14.1.126
![]() |
[29] | Mun J (2006) Modeling risk: Applying monte carlo simulation, real options analysis, forecasting, and optimization techniques: John Wiley&Sons. |
[30] |
Kogut B, Kulatilaka N (2001) Capabilities as real options. Organization Sci 12: 744–758. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.6.744.10082 doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.6.744.10082
![]() |
[31] | Copeland TE, Antikarov V (2001) Real Options: A Practitioner's Guide: Texere. Available from: https://books.google.co.id/books?id=fnhPAAAAMAAJ. |
[32] |
Lander DM, Pinches GE (1998) Challenges to the practical implementation of modeling and valuing real options. Q Rev Econ Finance 38: 537–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1062-9769(99)80089-1 doi: 10.1016/S1062-9769(99)80089-1
![]() |
[33] | Fleten S-E, Maribu KM (2004) Investment timing and capacity choice for small-scale wind power under uncertainty. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Available from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6tj6v91j. |
[34] |
Kitzing L, Juul N, Drud M, et al. (2017) A real options approach to analyse wind energy investments under different support schemes. Appl Energy 188: 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.104 doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.11.104
![]() |
[35] |
Lu Y, Khan ZA, Alvarez-Alvarado MS, et al. (2020) A critical review of sustainable energy policies for the promotion of renewable energy sources. Sustainability 12: 5078. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12125078. doi: 10.3390/su12125078
![]() |
[36] |
Martín-Barrera G, Zamora-Ramírez C, González-González JM (2016) Application of real options valuation for analysing the impact of public R&D financing on renewable energy projects: A company′s perspective. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 63: 292–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.073 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.073
![]() |
[37] |
Ritzenhofen I, Spinler S (2016) Optimal design of feed-in-tariffs to stimulate renewable energy investments under regulatory uncertainty—A real options analysis. Energy Econ 53: 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2014.12.008 doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2014.12.008
![]() |
[38] |
Gazheli A, van den Bergh J (2018) Real options analysis of investment in solar vs. wind energy: Diversification strategies under uncertain prices and costs. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 82: 2693–2704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.096 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.096
![]() |
[39] |
Bøckman T, Fleten S-E, Juliussen E, et al. (2008) Investment timing and optimal capacity choice for small hydropower projects. Eur J Oper Res 190: 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.044 doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.044
![]() |
[40] |
Loncar D, Milovanovic I, Rakic B, et al. (2017) Compound real options valuation of renewable energy projects: The case of a wind farm in Serbia. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev 75: 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.001 doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.001
![]() |
[41] |
Eissa MA, Tian B (2017) Lobatto-milstein numerical method in application of uncertainty investment of solar power projects. Energies 10: 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10010043 doi: 10.3390/en10010043
![]() |
[42] |
Kim K-K, Lee C-G (2012) Evaluation and optimization of feed-in tariffs. Energy Policy 49: 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.070 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.070
![]() |
[43] | Sugiyono A (2012) Keekonomian Pengembangan PLTP Skala Kecil (The Feasibility of small scale geothermal power plant). Seminar Nasional Teknik Kimia Indonesia dan Musyawarah Nasional APTEKINDO, 20–24. Available from: https://www.academia.edu/23278618/Keekonomian_Pengembangan_PLTP_Skala_Kecil. |
[44] |
Sakakibara K, Kanamura T (2020) Risk of temperature differences in geothermal wells and generation strategies of geothermal power. Green Finance 2: 424–436. https://doi.org/10.3934/GF.2020023 doi: 10.3934/GF.2020023
![]() |
[45] |
Siyuan C, Qi Z, Yanyan T, et al. (2019) Investment strategy for shallow geothermal resource based on real option model. Energy Procedia 158: 6118–6125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.500 doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.500
![]() |
[46] |
Yu S, Li Z, Wei Y-M, et al. (2019) A real option model for geothermal heating investment decision making: Considering carbon trading and resource taxes. Energy 189: 116252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116252 doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2019.116252
![]() |
[47] | Bilqist RA, Dachyar M, Farizal F (2018) Project valuation in the geothermal power plant project: A comparison of expected net present value and static net present value approaches. International Conference on Multidisciplinary Academic (ICMA) 2018. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3248120 |
[48] | Knaut A, Madlener R, Rosen C, et al. (2012) Effects of temperature uncertainty on the valuation of geothermal projects: A real options approach. Available from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2329563. |
[49] | Nugraha HA, Saefulhak Y, Pangaribuan B (2017) Study on the impacts of incentives to the geothermal energy electricity price in Indonesia using production-based cost approach. The 5th Indonesia International Geothermal Convention&Exhibition (IIGCE). Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318420449_A_Study_on_the_Impacts_of_Incentives_to_the_Geothermal_Energy_Electricity_Price_in_Indonesia_using_Production-based_Cost_Approach#fullTextFileContent. |
[50] | Purwaningsih FO, Husnie R, Afuar W, et al. (2017) Make-up wells drilling cost in financial model for a geothermal project. IOP Publishing, 012010. https://doi.og/10.1088/1755-1315/103/1/012010 |
[51] | Sanyal SK, Morrow JW (2011) An investigation of drilling success in geothermal exploration, development and operation. Geotherm Resour Counc Trans 35: 233–237. Available from: https://www.geothermal-library.org/index.php?mode=pubs&action=view&record=1029246. |
[52] | Sanyal SK (2005) Cost of geothermal power and factors that affect it, 24–29. Available from: https://www.geothermal-energy.org/pdf/IGAstandard/WGC/2005/0010.pdf. |
[53] | EBTKE D (2017) Buku Potensi Panas Bumi(Geothermal Potential Book) 2017. Available from: https://ebtke.esdm.go.id/post/2017/09/25/1751/buku.potensi.panas.bumi.2017. |
[54] |
Croucher M (2011) Potential problems and limitations of energy conservation and energy efficiency. Energy Policy 39: 5795–5799. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.011 doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.011
![]() |
1. | Per A. Clausen, Marie Frederiksen, Camilla S. Sejbæk, Jorid B. Sørli, Karin S. Hougaard, Karen B. Frydendall, Tanja K. Carøe, Esben M. Flachs, Harald W. Meyer, Vivi Schlünssen, Peder Wolkoff, Chemicals inhaled from spray cleaning and disinfection products and their respiratory effects. A comprehensive review, 2020, 229, 14384639, 113592, 10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113592 | |
2. | M. Abbas Virji, Lauren N. Bowers, Ryan F. LeBouf, 2022, Chapter 60-1, 978-981-10-5155-5, 1, 10.1007/978-981-10-5155-5_60-1 | |
3. | M. Abbas Virji, Lauren N. Bowers, Ryan F. LeBouf, 2022, Chapter 60, 978-981-16-7679-6, 1987, 10.1007/978-981-16-7680-2_60 | |
4. | Joana Madureira, João Paulo Teixeira, 2022, Chapter 71, 978-981-16-7679-6, 1961, 10.1007/978-981-16-7680-2_71 | |
5. | Joana Madureira, João Paulo Teixeira, 2022, Chapter 71-1, 978-981-10-5155-5, 1, 10.1007/978-981-10-5155-5_71-1 | |
6. | Wenjuan Wei, John C. Little, Olivier Ramalho, Corinne Mandin, Predicting chemical emissions from household cleaning and personal care products: A review, 2022, 207, 03601323, 108483, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108483 | |
7. | Mayoro kebe Mane, Gaëlle Raffy, Philippe Glorennec, Nathalie Bonvallot, Pierre Bonnet, Orianne Dumas, Anastasie Eworo Nchama, Gaëlle Saramito, Camille Duguépéroux, Corinne Mandin, Nicole Le Moual, Barbara Le Bot, Biocide and other semi-volatile organic compound concentrations in settled indoor dust of CRESPI daycare centers and implication for public health, 2024, 471, 03043894, 134277, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2024.134277 | |
8. | Caitlan E. Ayala, Stephanie R. Vaughan, Rocío L. Pérez, Breona S. Leonard, Baleigh King, Kyle Jorgensen, Isiah M. Warner, Influence of humidity on accuracy of QCM – IR780-based GUMBOS sensor arrays, 2023, 1278, 00032670, 341677, 10.1016/j.aca.2023.341677 | |
9. | Yijun Chen, Federico Wulff, Sam Clark, Junjie Huang, Indoor comfort domains and well-being of older adults in residential settings: A scoping review, 2025, 267, 03601323, 112268, 10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.112268 |
CAS number | Substance name | Class | Use | Number of cleaning products | Occurrence across the 303 cleaning products (%) |
67-63-0 | Isopropanol | VOC | Solvent | 80 | 26.4% |
7173-51-5 | Didecyldimethylammonium chloride | Salt | Disinfectant | 72 | 23.8% |
64-17-5 | Ethanol | VOC | Solvent | 58 | 19.1% |
5989-27-5 | D-Limonene | VOC | Scenting agent | 56 | 18.5% |
68424-85-1 | C12-16-Alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chlorides | Salt | Detergent and surfactant | 41 | 13.5% |
78-70-6 | Linalool | VOC | Scenting agent | 37 | 12.2% |
69011-36-5 | Poly(oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), alpha-tridecyl-gamma-hydroxy-, branched | SVOC | Solvent | 34 | 11.2% |
64-02-8 | Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tetrasodium salt | Salt | Chelating agent | 30 | 9.9% |
2372-82-9 | 1, 3-Propanediamine, N-(3-aminopropyl)-N-dodecyl- | SVOC | Disinfectant | 29 | 9.6% |
68439-46-3 | Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated | SVOC | Detergent and surfactant | 27 | 8.9% |
68891-38-3 | Poly(oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-hydroxy-, C12-14-alkyl ethers, sodium salts | Salt | Detergent and surfactant | 26 | 8.6% |
101-86-0 | Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde | SVOC | Scenting agent | 25 | 8.3% |
1310-73-2 | Sodium hydroxide | Salt | Detergent and surfactant | 23 | 7.6% |
106-22-9 | Citronellol | VOC | Scenting agent | 21 | 6.9% |
5949-29-1 | 1, 2, 3-Propanetricarboxylic acid, 2-hydroxy-, hydrate (1:1) | SVOC | Disinfectant | 20 | 6.6% |
80-54-6 | Lilial | SVOC | Scenting agent | 18 | 5.9% |
7664-38-2 | Phosphoric acid | Inorganic | Detergent and surfactant | 18 | 5.9% |
68515-73-1 | D-Glucopyranose, oligomeric, decyl octyl glycosides | Non-volatile | Detergent and surfactant | 18 | 5.9% |
79-33-4 | L-Lactic acid | VOC | Detergent and surfactant | 17 | 5.6% |
5392-40-5 | 3, 7-Dimethyl-2, 6-octadienal (Citral) | VOC | Scenting agent | 17 | 5.6% |
2634-33-5 | 1, 2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one | SVOC | Disinfectant | 16 | 5.3% |
308062-28-4 | Amines, C12-14 (even numbered)-alkyldimethyl, N-oxides | Non-volatile | Surfactant | 16 | 5.3% |
Substance name | CAS number | Class | Occurrence (%) (1) | Carcinogenicity | Mutagenicity | Reproductive toxicity | Endocrine disruption | STOT-RE | Sensitization | ||||
Skin | Respiratory | ||||||||||||
Didecyldimethylammonium chloride | 7173-51-5 | Salt | 23.8 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
D-Limonene | 5989-27-5 | VOC | 18.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Ethanol | 64-17-5 | VOC | 19.1 | * | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Linalool | 78-70-6 | VOC | 12.2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1B | NA | |||
Lilial | 80-54-6 | SVOC | 5.9 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolinone | 2682-20-4 | VOC | 4, 6 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Benzyl salicylate | 118-58-1 | SVOC | 4.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
1, 6-Hexanediamine, polymer with N, N'''-1, 6-hexanediylbis [N'-cyanoguanidine], hydrochloride | 27083-27-8 | Non-volatile | 2.0 | CLP 2 | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | CLP 1B | NA | |||
1, 2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one | 2634-33-5 | SVOC | 5.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
3, 7-Dimethyl-2, 6-octadienal | 5392-40-5 | VOC | 5.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Ethanolamine | 141-43-5 | VOC | 4.0 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol | 112-34-5 | VOC | 3.0 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-Phenylphenol | 90-43-7 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | DHI/BKH 2 | US EPA 1 | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |
Bio-Perge | 55965-84-9 | VOC | 2.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Bronopol | 52-51-7 | SVOC | 2.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Glutaraldehyde | 111-30-8 | VOC | 1.0 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | CLP 1A | CLP 1 | |||
Limonene | 138-86-3 | VOC | 1.0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
1-Methoxy-2-propanol | 107-98-2 | VOC | 1.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-Butoxyethanol | 111-76-2 | VOC | 1.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Octhilinone | 26530-20-1 | VOC | 1.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Methyl ethyl ketone | 78-93-3 | VOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Ethylene glycol | 107-21-1 | VOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | US EPA 2 | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | ||
Methanol | 67-56-1 | VOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
(Z)-9-Octadecenylamine | 112-90-3 | SVOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 2 | NA | NA | |||
Butane | 106-97-8 | VVOC | 0.7 | CLP 1A | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Poly (hexamethylene biguanide) hydrochloride | 32289-58-0 | SVOC | 0.3 | CLP 2 | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | CLP 1B | NA | |||
Isobutane | 75-28-5 | VVOC | 0.7 | CLP 1A | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Glycine, N, N-bis(carboxymethyl)-, trisodium salt | 5064-31-3 | SVOC | 0.3 | CLP 2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Cyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-hexahydro-4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8-hexamethyl- | 1222-05-5 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | SIN | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | ||
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light paraffinic | 64742-55-8 | VOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
dl-Carvone | 99-49-0 | VOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Formaldehyde | 50-00-0 | VVOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | IARC 1 | CLP 2 | NA | TEDX | NA | CLP 1 | NA | ||
Naphtha, petroleum, hydrotreated light | 64742-49-0 | VOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Naphtha, (petroleum) hydrodesulfurized light, dearomatized | 92045-53-9 | VOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Heptane | 142-82-5 | VOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde | 31906-04-4 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1A | NA | |||
3-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde | 51414-25-6 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1A | NA | |||
Naphtha, petroleum, hydrotreated heavy | 64742-48-9 | VVOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Octoxynol-9 | 9036-19-5 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | SIN | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | ||
Sodium perborate tetrahydrate | 10486-00-7 | Inorganic salt | 0.3 | NA | NA | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Subtilisin | 9014-01-1 | Non-volatile | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | |||
(1): occurrence across the 303 different cleaning products. *Specific classification: IARC Category 1 in alcoholic beverages only |
CAS number | Substance name | Class | Use | Number of cleaning products | Occurrence across the 303 cleaning products (%) |
67-63-0 | Isopropanol | VOC | Solvent | 80 | 26.4% |
7173-51-5 | Didecyldimethylammonium chloride | Salt | Disinfectant | 72 | 23.8% |
64-17-5 | Ethanol | VOC | Solvent | 58 | 19.1% |
5989-27-5 | D-Limonene | VOC | Scenting agent | 56 | 18.5% |
68424-85-1 | C12-16-Alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chlorides | Salt | Detergent and surfactant | 41 | 13.5% |
78-70-6 | Linalool | VOC | Scenting agent | 37 | 12.2% |
69011-36-5 | Poly(oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), alpha-tridecyl-gamma-hydroxy-, branched | SVOC | Solvent | 34 | 11.2% |
64-02-8 | Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid tetrasodium salt | Salt | Chelating agent | 30 | 9.9% |
2372-82-9 | 1, 3-Propanediamine, N-(3-aminopropyl)-N-dodecyl- | SVOC | Disinfectant | 29 | 9.6% |
68439-46-3 | Alcohols, C9-11, ethoxylated | SVOC | Detergent and surfactant | 27 | 8.9% |
68891-38-3 | Poly(oxy-1, 2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-hydroxy-, C12-14-alkyl ethers, sodium salts | Salt | Detergent and surfactant | 26 | 8.6% |
101-86-0 | Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde | SVOC | Scenting agent | 25 | 8.3% |
1310-73-2 | Sodium hydroxide | Salt | Detergent and surfactant | 23 | 7.6% |
106-22-9 | Citronellol | VOC | Scenting agent | 21 | 6.9% |
5949-29-1 | 1, 2, 3-Propanetricarboxylic acid, 2-hydroxy-, hydrate (1:1) | SVOC | Disinfectant | 20 | 6.6% |
80-54-6 | Lilial | SVOC | Scenting agent | 18 | 5.9% |
7664-38-2 | Phosphoric acid | Inorganic | Detergent and surfactant | 18 | 5.9% |
68515-73-1 | D-Glucopyranose, oligomeric, decyl octyl glycosides | Non-volatile | Detergent and surfactant | 18 | 5.9% |
79-33-4 | L-Lactic acid | VOC | Detergent and surfactant | 17 | 5.6% |
5392-40-5 | 3, 7-Dimethyl-2, 6-octadienal (Citral) | VOC | Scenting agent | 17 | 5.6% |
2634-33-5 | 1, 2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one | SVOC | Disinfectant | 16 | 5.3% |
308062-28-4 | Amines, C12-14 (even numbered)-alkyldimethyl, N-oxides | Non-volatile | Surfactant | 16 | 5.3% |
Substance name | CAS number | Class | Occurrence (%) (1) | Carcinogenicity | Mutagenicity | Reproductive toxicity | Endocrine disruption | STOT-RE | Sensitization | ||||
Skin | Respiratory | ||||||||||||
Didecyldimethylammonium chloride | 7173-51-5 | Salt | 23.8 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
D-Limonene | 5989-27-5 | VOC | 18.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Ethanol | 64-17-5 | VOC | 19.1 | * | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Linalool | 78-70-6 | VOC | 12.2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1B | NA | |||
Lilial | 80-54-6 | SVOC | 5.9 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-Methyl-3(2H)-isothiazolinone | 2682-20-4 | VOC | 4, 6 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Benzyl salicylate | 118-58-1 | SVOC | 4.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
1, 6-Hexanediamine, polymer with N, N'''-1, 6-hexanediylbis [N'-cyanoguanidine], hydrochloride | 27083-27-8 | Non-volatile | 2.0 | CLP 2 | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | CLP 1B | NA | |||
1, 2-Benzisothiazolin-3-one | 2634-33-5 | SVOC | 5.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
3, 7-Dimethyl-2, 6-octadienal | 5392-40-5 | VOC | 5.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Ethanolamine | 141-43-5 | VOC | 4.0 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-(2-Butoxyethoxy)ethanol | 112-34-5 | VOC | 3.0 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-Phenylphenol | 90-43-7 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | DHI/BKH 2 | US EPA 1 | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |
Bio-Perge | 55965-84-9 | VOC | 2.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Bronopol | 52-51-7 | SVOC | 2.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Glutaraldehyde | 111-30-8 | VOC | 1.0 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | CLP 1A | CLP 1 | |||
Limonene | 138-86-3 | VOC | 1.0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
1-Methoxy-2-propanol | 107-98-2 | VOC | 1.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
2-Butoxyethanol | 111-76-2 | VOC | 1.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Octhilinone | 26530-20-1 | VOC | 1.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Methyl ethyl ketone | 78-93-3 | VOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
Ethylene glycol | 107-21-1 | VOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | US EPA 2 | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | ||
Methanol | 67-56-1 | VOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
(Z)-9-Octadecenylamine | 112-90-3 | SVOC | 0.7 | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 2 | NA | NA | |||
Butane | 106-97-8 | VVOC | 0.7 | CLP 1A | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Poly (hexamethylene biguanide) hydrochloride | 32289-58-0 | SVOC | 0.3 | CLP 2 | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | CLP 1B | NA | |||
Isobutane | 75-28-5 | VVOC | 0.7 | CLP 1A | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Glycine, N, N-bis(carboxymethyl)-, trisodium salt | 5064-31-3 | SVOC | 0.3 | CLP 2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Cyclopenta[g]-2-benzopyran, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8-hexahydro-4, 6, 6, 7, 8, 8-hexamethyl- | 1222-05-5 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | SIN | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | ||
Distillates, petroleum, hydrotreated light paraffinic | 64742-55-8 | VOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
dl-Carvone | 99-49-0 | VOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | NA | |||
Formaldehyde | 50-00-0 | VVOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | IARC 1 | CLP 2 | NA | TEDX | NA | CLP 1 | NA | ||
Naphtha, petroleum, hydrotreated light | 64742-49-0 | VOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Naphtha, (petroleum) hydrodesulfurized light, dearomatized | 92045-53-9 | VOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Heptane | 142-82-5 | VOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | |||
4-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde | 31906-04-4 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1A | NA | |||
3-(4-Hydroxy-4-methylpentyl) cyclohex-3-ene-1-carbaldehyde | 51414-25-6 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1A | NA | |||
Naphtha, petroleum, hydrotreated heavy | 64742-48-9 | VVOC | 0.3 | CLP 1B | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Octoxynol-9 | 9036-19-5 | SVOC | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | SIN | TEDX | NA | NA | NA | ||
Sodium perborate tetrahydrate | 10486-00-7 | Inorganic salt | 0.3 | NA | NA | CLP 1B | NA | NA | NA | NA | |||
Subtilisin | 9014-01-1 | Non-volatile | 0.3 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | CLP 1 | |||
(1): occurrence across the 303 different cleaning products. *Specific classification: IARC Category 1 in alcoholic beverages only |