Sources of critical contaminants in domestic wastewater: contaminant contribution from household products

Transcription

1 Sources of critical contaminants in domestic wastewater: contaminant contribution from household products Grace Tjandraatmadja, Clare Diaper, Yesim Gozukara, Lauren Burch, Chris Sheedy and Guy Price August 28

2 Water for a Healthy Country Flagship Report series ISSN: X Australia is founding its future on science and innovation. Its national science agency, CSIRO, is a powerhouse of ideas, technologies and skills. CSIRO initiated the National Research Flagships to address Australia s major research challenges and opportunities. They apply large scale, long term, multidisciplinary science and aim for widespread adoption of solutions. The Flagship Collaboration Fund supports the best and brightest researchers to address these complex challenges through partnerships between CSIRO, universities, research agencies and industry. The Water for a Healthy Country Flagship aims to provide Australia with solutions for water resource management, creating economic gains of $3 billion per annum by 23, while protecting or restoring our major water ecosystems. The work contained in this report is collaboration between CSIRO and Smart Water Fund. For more information about Water for a Healthy Country Flagship or the National Research Flagship Initiative visit Citation: Tjandraatmadja G, Diaper C, Gozukara Y, Burch L, Sheedy C and Price G 28. Sources of priority contaminants in domestic wastewater: Contaminant contribution from household products. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship Copyright and Disclaimer Commonwealth of Australia 28 All rights reserved. This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Important Disclaimer: CSIRO advises that the information contained in this publication comprises general statements based on scientific research. The reader is advised and needs to be aware that such information may be incomplete or unable to be used in any specific situation. No reliance or actions must therefore be made on that information without seeking prior expert professional, scientific and technical advice. To the extent permitted by law, CSIRO (including its employees and consultants) excludes all liability to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this publication (in part or in whole) and any information or material contained in it. Cover Photograph From: istockphoto.com Description: Close-up of kitchen sink with water running away Copyright: Jan Rysavy 28

3 Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank: Smart Water Fund for sponsoring this project Members of the reference group: Lidia Harvey, Hieu Dang, John Dennis, Adam Kazi, Michelle Carsen, Mick Anderson and Robina Westblade for their input and guidance Dr. Tony Priestley for his advice on this report Mr. Kieron Smith from the Department of Health SA for his advice on dust research. The authors would also like to express their gratitude to the volunteers who kindly agreed to take part in the dust experiments and without whom the report would not be possible Priority contaminants in household products iii

4 Table of Contents Acknowledgements... iii Index of Tables... vi Index of Figures... viii Abbreviations... ix Executive Summary... x 1. Introduction Product selection criteria Market placement of environment label products Placement of private brand products Methodology Product selection Cleaning products Dishwashing products Laundry products Personal care products Dust Collection Analytical methodology Metal analysis Physico-chemical parameters Results and discussion Product Dosage Colour/pH/conductivity/TDS in dilution Priority contaminants in dust Elements in household products Arsenic Boron Cadmium Copper Iron Lead Mercury Nickel Tin Zinc Sodium Metal loads in household streams Comparison of regular, private and enviro labelled brands Impact of product dosage Conclusions and Recommendations References Priority contaminants in household products iv

5 Appendix 1 Recommended dosages Appendix 2 Results of metals in products (mg/kg) Appendix 3 Results of cation concentrations in products Appendix 4 Detection of elements in household products Appendix 5 Frequency distribution Appendix 6 Stream estimates Priority contaminants in household products v

6 Index of Tables Table 1 Market representation of household products...6 Table 2 Detection limits for ICP-AES...1 Table 3 Assumptions for product dosages for household and personal care products for a 1 person household...14 Table 4- Metal content in dust samples from Sydney and Melbourne...19 Table 5 Maximum number of elements detected in each product category...21 Table 6 Arsenic concentration in household products...24 Table 7 Weekly arsenic load estimated from product us...25 Table 8 - Boron concentration in household products...26 Table 9 - Weekly boron load estimated from product use...27 Table 1 - Cadmium concentration in household products...29 Table 11 Weekly cadmium load estimated from product use...3 Table 12 Copper concentration in household products Table 13 Weekly copper load estimated from product use...33 Table 14 Iron concentration in household products...34 Table 15 Weekly iron load estimated from product use...35 Table 16 Lead concentration in household products...37 Table 17 Weekly lead load estimated from product use...38 Table 18 Nickel concentration in household products...4 Table 19 Weekly nickel load estimated from product use...41 Table 2 Tin concentration in household products...42 Table 21 Weekly tin load estimated from product use Table 22 - Zinc concentration in household products...44 Table 23 Weekly zinc load estimated from product use...45 Table 24 - Sodium concentration in household products...47 Table 25 Weekly sodium load estimated from product use...49 Table 26 Household streams adopted in the combined wastewater load simulation...51 Table 27 Summary of results...51 Table 28 Comparison of the wastewater load generated by products to anthropogenic loads54 Table 29 Comparison of sodium concentration in some household products...59 Table 3 Examples of recommended dosages of household products...65 Table 31 Typical appliance water consumption...72 Table 32 - Priority elements in cleaning products...74 Table 33 - Elements in laundry products...76 Table 34 - Elements in toilet paper...78 Table 35 - Elements in sunscreen...79 Priority contaminants in household products vi

7 Table 36 - Elements in deodorants...8 Table 37 Elements in oral care products...81 Table 38 Elements in shower products...82 Table 39 - Elements in dishwashing detergents...84 Table 4 Elements in household dust...86 Table 41 - Cations in household products...87 Table 42 Detection of Elements in household products...92 Table 43 - Frequency Distributions for element loads from personal care products...99 Table 44 Frequency Distributions for element loads from laundry products...11 Table 45 - Frequency Distributions for element loads from dishwashing products...13 Table 46 - Analysis of stream loads (mg/pe/week)...15 Priority contaminants in household products vii

8 Index of Figures Figure 1 Recommended dosages for laundry products as per manufacturer s instructions 11 Figure 2 Typical dosages for dishwashing detergents. 12 Figure 3 Examples of typical dosages adopted for cleaning products. 12 Figure 4 - Shampoo dosage poured by a volunteer equivalent to a 2cents piece. 13 Figure 5 Colour of household products. 16 Figure 6 ph range for household products. 16 Figure 7 - Electrical conductivity of selected household products 17 Figure 8 - Estimated TDS of selected household products 17 Figure 9 Elements in Melbourne household dust. 19 Figure 1 Sample of daily dust deposition rates in Melbourne households 2 Figure 11 Median and maximum Arsenic loads in household streams. 55 Figure 12 - Median and maximum Boron loads in household streams 55 Figure 13 - Median and maximum Cadmium loads in household streams 55 Figure 14 Median and maximum Copper loads in household streams 56 Figure 15 - Median and maximum Iron loads in household streams 56 Figure 16 - Median and maximum Lead loads in household streams 56 Figure 17- Median and maximum Mercury loads in household streams 57 Figure 18 - Median and maximum Nickel loads in household streams 57 Figure 19 Median and maximum Tin loads in household streams 57 Figure 2 Median and maximum Zinc element loads in household streams 58 Figure 21 Median and maximum Sodium loads in household streams 58 Figure 22 -Frequency distribution of As and B loads for household products 94 Figure 23 -Frequency distribution of Cd and Cu loads for household products 95 Figure 24 - Frequency distribution of Fe and Pb loads for household products 96 Figure 25 - Frequency distribution of Ni and Sn loads for household products 97 Figure 26- Frequency distribution of Ni and Sn loads for household products 98 Priority contaminants in household products viii

9 Abbreviations Ae As Ave B BW Cd Cu DW EC Fe Hg ICP-AES ICP-MS L LOD M Mg Ni Na pe P Pb PtCo RO Sn Sp T TDS TI TF WM Zn Deodorant aerosol Arsenic Average Boron Body wash Cadmium Copper Dishwasher Electrical conductivity Iron Mercury Inductively coupled plasma with atomic emission spectroscopy Inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy Liquid Limit of detection Manual dishwashing Magnesium Nickel Sodium Person Powder Lead Platinum cobalt units Deodorant Roll-on Tin Soap bar Tablet Total dissolved solids In-cistern toilet freshener Toilet bowl freshener Washing Machine Zinc Priority contaminants in household products ix

10 Executive summary Context and purpose Water conservation and reuse increase the need to understand and control elements in wastewater that impact biosolids reuse and effluent quality. Among these, water authorities have identified as parameters of interest: arsenic (As), boron (B), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), iron (Fe), lead (Pb), magnesium (Mg), nickel (Ni), sodium (Na), tin (Sn), zinc (Zn), total dissolved solids (TDS) and colour. Whilst monitoring of trade waste is a routine activity carried by water authorities, less information is available on the contribution of domestic wastewater to contaminant loads reaching wastewater treatment plants. This report aims to fill these data gaps and increase the understanding of the impact of householder behaviour on wastewater. It also aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the contribution of household products to wastewater composition in Australia, in particular the distribution of elements among different greywater streams. This project is part of the Smart Water Fund project Round 3 Project 5 Household sources of priority contaminants in domestic wastewater. Research method A selection of popular household products (15 brands) used in personal care and household cleaning, whose ultimate fate is discharge into the sewer, were analysed. Selection was based on market representation and an analysis of common household activities. The categories of product selected included: laundry cleaning and dishwashing oral care bath and shower personal care (sunscreen, moisturisers, personal skin cleansing and shaving). In each category, selection included four to five brands available in Australia, including one of the top-selling brands, one supermarket or private brand and, if available, a brand with an environment friendly label. Products were analysed for arsenic, boron, cadmium, copper, mercury, iron, lead, magnesium, nickel, sodium, tin and zinc using inductively coupled plasma with atomic emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) or inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy (ICP-MS). The elemental concentration determined in the different products was used to estimate the mass load of contaminants to sewer generated by individual streams of domestic wastewater. Household product use for a single person household was estimated based on an average product dose and an average frequency of appliance use as surveyed in Victoria by Roberts (25): 5.32 showers per week, dishwasher use of 1.8 washes per week, washing machine use of 3 washes per week and 4.2 toilet flushes per day. In addition, each brand was diluted to typical dosages recommended by manufacturers or estimated for typical applications in distilled water and analysed for ph, electrical conductivity and true colour. Priority contaminants in household products x

11 Key findings Comparison of the product types indicated that: Sodium was the only element detected in each product category. Mercury was only detected in one product among the 15 analysed. Element concentration was not specific to a product category, but brand specific, i.e. for the majority of the product categories, the elemental concentration varied significantly across brands. Private and environmentally-friendly brands did not have markedly different concentrations of arsenic, boron, cadmium, copper, iron, mercury, lead, nickel, tin and zinc when compared to regular brands. Environment label brands were not necessarily associated with the lowest contaminant load, neither did private brands display a trend towards a larger contaminant load for all products. The mass load to sewer derived from household products is dependent on the element concentration in the product and the amount of product used. Consequently a number of products, whilst containing significant element concentrations, are used in small quantities and are likely to generate small loads at or below detection limits in wastewater streams. The wide range of element concentrations observed in household products results in high variability in loads and concentrations detected in a wastewater stream. Detailed findings Dilution of products generated a ph range between 4 to 12. Laundry products were on average more basic than the other products (average ph 8.9), and personal care products were slightly more acidic (ph 5.7). The conductivity was the highest for dishwashing and laundry products with averages of 2913 and 247 S/cm. Average conductivity for cleaning products was 713S/cm, and personal care products and toilet paper had conductivities of less than 5 S/cm. The major colour sources were hair colorants, shower products and specific laundry products (over 3 Pt Co units). All other brands produced colour at less than 2 PtCo units. When considering individual elements results indicated: Sodium and boron generated the largest loads among all elements. Boron was present in a wide range of household and personal care products. Sodium was present in all products at varying concentrations. The largest concentration of both elements was in laundry and dishwashing products. Arsenic was detected in a limited range of products, including some brands of laundry and dishwashing detergents and toilet fresheners. The highest concentrations were 7mg/kg product for a brand of toilet freshener and some personal products. Cadmium was an occasional element present in low concentrations. Handwash and body wash were the two product categories identified as having the highest concentrations. Copper was present in a wide range of products, but median concentrations were less than 5 mg/kg. Red hair colourants had the highest copper concentration. Iron was a common element in the majority of cleaning and personal products. Toothpaste had the highest median concentration at 12 mg/kg. Lead was present in a number of brands across most household products, including incistern toilet fresheners, toilet paper and dishwasher tablets. Priority contaminants in household products xi

12 Mercury was undetected in all but one of the products analysed. Nickel content was very low in most products, particularly for personal care products. Laundry and dishwashing products had the largest concentrations. Tin was seldom measured above detection limits. Laundry powder and toilet fresheners provided the greatest load contributions. Zinc was present in a range of household product types; in particular shampoos (antidandruff) and aerosol deodorants had the highest concentration. Conclusions Overall, the report indicates that household products and householder preferences can have a marked impact on the loads of specific priority contaminants discharged into wastewater. The majority of household products analysed had element loads which were comparable or lower than those expected from human waste (urine and faecal mater). But particular brands of products had the potential to generate much higher loads than those expected from human waste, e.g. cadmium (+752%), iron (+8%), lead (+85%), nickel (+1813%), zinc (+56%). Sodium and boron derived from household products can generate significantly higher median loads than those expected from human waste; between 58% to 3% for sodium and 55% to 262% for boron. Hence, simple source control strategies such as product selection and stream diversion would be expected to have a significant impact on the reduction of loads for boron and sodium. Using product selection alone, it was estimated that the load from household products could be reduced to 8% and between 36% to 52% of the expected human waste load. For the remaining priority elements, present in lower concentrations in household products, product selection and/or standards for maximum contaminant levels would produce less marked results, but could ensure that these low loads are maintained. The results have also confirmed that household products, with the exception of hair colourants, are an unlikely source of mercury and copper to wastewater. Priority contaminants in household products xii

13 1. Introduction Due to water conservation and reuse there is an increased need to understand and control elements that impact biosolids reuse and effluent quality. Whilst monitoring of trade waste is a routine activity carried by water authorities, less information is available on the contribution of domestic wastewater to contaminant loads reaching wastewater treatment plants. A number of factors contribute to the final load, including the quality of the water supply, the anthropogenic contribution (i.e. human excretion from biological activities), household products disposed to sewer and corrosion of infrastructure and inflow and infiltration in the network. Understanding the composition of domestic wastewater is a complex task, as flows are highly variable and composition is influenced by location and household characteristics, such as water supply, household infrastructure and householder lifestyle. A small number of studies exist on the quality of wastewater collected in domestic catchments at household level in Australia (Connor and Wilkie 1995, Lock 1994). These studies indicate that greywater is the major source of metal contaminants in household wastewater with major inputs of lead and zinc originating in the laundry and the bathroom. Zinc was attributed to the streams derived from the toilet and some overseas studies suggest infrastructure as a major zinc source. Nickel, mercury and arsenic concentrations observed at the household level were near detection limits in wastewater so identification of their sources was not conclusive. The major sources identified for copper were the plumbing and the water supply. Majority of household cleaning and personal care products contain sodium compounds in their formulation. More data is also required on boron loads in household wastewater in order to identify sources. TDS was found to originate from a range of diffuse sources, although identification of organic versus inorganic sources has not been made and blackwater has also been reported to be an equally important source of TDS (Ibrahim 26). Apart from these studies, few studies in Australia have been identified that quantify the metal content of household wastewater streams and the potential sources of these contaminants. There are studies on single streams, such as greywater alone (Gardner and Millar 23, Christova-Boal et al 1996) which include both laundry and bathroom wastewaters but these generally focus on parameters that will affect treatment processes or land application, rather than metal and salt content. An evaluation of the contribution of specific products to metal loads in wastewater in the USA led to the discovery of arsenic as a contaminant of phosphorus in laundry detergents and their reformulation (Jenkins 1994). Metals in detergents and shampoo in Ireland and France have been evaluated (Aonghusa and Gray 22, Leblanc et al 1999), and sodium and phosphorus content of Australian laundry detergents has been undertaken by Patterson (Patterson 24), who identified a broad range of sodium content in laundry detergents. These previous studies provide some information on the possible metal and salt content of domestic wastewater but do not provide the complete picture as other household products have not been analysed (i.e. dishwasher products and personal hygiene products) and not all products are necessarily representative of Australian conditions (Aonghusa and Gray 22, Leblanc et al 1999). In order to fill these data gaps and provide a comprehensive understanding of the contribution of household products to wastewater composition in Australia, a range of common household products were analysed and characterised for specific metals and salt content. Products were selected based on market share information (Retail World 26) and standard, private label, and environmental label brands were tested. The range of products analysed included: laundry detergents and products for top and front loaders cleaning products dishwashing detergents for manual and automatic dishwashing Priority contaminants in household products 1

14 oral care products personal hygiene products used in bath and shower including soap bars, body wash, shampoo and conditioner other personal care products such as sunscreen, deodorants, skin cleansing, hair colouring, moisturisers, and shaving creams toilet paper. In addition, dust samples from nine households across Melbourne were also analysed to provide an indication of the contribution from dust and airborne pollution that can arise from activities such as cleaning and mopping. The parameters investigated were selected in consultation with Victorian water authorities. These were: arsenic (As), boron (B), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), iron (Fe), mercury (Hg), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), sodium (Na), tin (Sn) and zinc (Zn). In addition, calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) were also evaluated (Appendix 3). Products were also diluted in distilled water to typical dosages as recommended by product manufacturers or as estimated for typical applications to evaluate their impact on ph, conductivity and true colour. This report is part of the Smart Water Fund project Round 3 Project 5 Household sources of priority contaminants in domestic wastewater which aims to identify the contribution that domestic sources have on the load of metals and total dissolved solids (TDS) in wastewater. The overall project aims to identify the contribution of domestic activities to the load of priority elements in wastewater and the potential sources of priority elements in households. This information will be used to identify potential source reduction methods for elements that can impact effluent and biosolids reuse, the assessment of future water reuse opportunities and contaminant management options. Other major components of the project include: 1. Literature review of priority elements 2. Evaluation of selected element sources in household wastewater 3. Analysis of wastewater at different locations in the network 4. Modelling of future changes in urban population, product and water use to gain better understanding of their impacts on domestic wastewater quality. 2. Product selection criteria A large range of household products and brands are sold in Australia every year. Within each product category, the number of brands and their market share vary. Some categories have less than 1 major brands, e.g. floor cleaners, toilet cleaners, toilet paper and dishwasher detergents. Other product types, such as hair care and personal care lotions, have in excess of 2 brands on sale in the market. Market shares of products fluctuate depending on advertising campaigns and market conditions. Table 1 provides an indication of the range of brands available in the market, the share of market leaders, the highest ranked environment friendly product and the highest ranked private brand for the period of 24 to 26. For some categories aggregated data was used and the classification did not differentiate for product formulations or sub-categories within a brand. The top selling brands were determined using market sales statistics from Retail World s Annual report for and (Retail World 27). The publication s data was based on sales data collected from more than 7 major manufacturers nationwide for major product categories and brands. When data was not available on the breakdown of market Priority contaminants in household products 2

15 representation, as in the case of toilet paper, the selection was extended to major brands available on supermarket shelves, and information obtained from additional sources, e.g. AC Nielsen (AC Nielsen 26). The market representation and an analysis of common household activities were used to select the household products tested in this report. In each category, the brands selected included the top-selling brand, a private label or supermarket brand and an environment label brand, when available. The environment label brands also had to be sold in at least one of the major supermarket retailers, ensuring easy access to the general population. The market for an individual product type is often characterised by one of three distinct patterns: Single brand dominance, where one brand controls 4% or more of the market. This was observed for toothpaste, mouthwash, deodorant body spray and aerosols, liquid bleach and automatic dishwasher detergents. Restricted markets, where the top 3 to 4 brands control majority (>7%) of the market. This was observed for fabric softeners, floor cleaners, toilet cleaners and handwashing products. Distributed markets, where the market is shared among 5 or more brands with each brand having less than 2% of the market. Examples included laundry powders and liquids, manual dishwashing detergent, roll-on deodorants, hair care, soap bars, body wash, skin and sun care products. The evaluated products included: (a) Laundry washing: laundry powders and liquids, fabric softeners and laundry aids. Sales of powder and powder concentrated detergents predominate in Australia (71.4% of the market), with liquid detergents capturing a market share of 28.5%. (b) Cleaning: disinfectants, general purpose, toilet cleaning, and freshening products. Bathroom cleaners: the leading 4 brands captured 24.1%, 12.1%, 11.5% and 8.9% of the market sales respectively. The private brand had 3.6% of market sales for Floor cleaners: the leading 4 brands captured 32.4%, 25.7%, 24.5% and 7.8% of market sales for The private brand was not ranked and the environment label brand was in 4 th place. Toilet cleaners: the leading 4 brands captured 34.7%, 26.4%, 18.7% and 7.3% of the market. The private brand captured 2.4% of the market. (c) Dishwashing detergents for manual and automatic dishwashers. Analysis was carried on dishwashing liquids, automatic dishwasher powders and tablets. Regular liquids are preferred by the public over concentrates (68.7% over 31.4%) for manual dishwashing. In the automatic dishwashing sector, tablets and powders shared similar popularity representing 36.3% and 33.5% of sales in 25-6 respectively (Retail Wold 26). The remainder of sales was for auxiliary products such as rinse aids and other accessories for automatic dishwashers. (d) Oral care: toothpaste and mouthwash. Toothpaste is available in a range of varieties including mainstream, therapeutic, whitening, sensitive, fresh breath, child, budget, 2 in 1 liquid gel and herbal. Yet, sales of mainstream toothpaste dominate 41.5% of the market. The market share of Priority contaminants in household products 3

16 the other toothpaste varieties were respectively 17.1%, 16.6%, 6.8%, 6.3%, 4.5%, 4.3% and.6%. Strong brand dominance was observed in this sector as the leading brand had a market share of 7.4%. (e) Bath and shower: soap bars, body wash, shampoo and conditioner. Hair care products are classified into premium, family/value, anti-dandruff, economy, super premium or salon, baby/kids and 2 in 1 formulations. Sales for were dominated by premium products (45.1% of the sales), family/value (27.8%) and economy (15.2%). Anti-dandruff formulations represent 7.3% of the market, baby/kids 2.3% and 2 in 1 only 1.6%. Bath aids were classified as bars, liquid hand wash, shower gel and bath additives. Soap bars dominated the market in 25-6 with 53% sales, followed by liquid hand wash at 25.9% and shower gel at 18.2%. (f) Personal care: sunscreen, deodorants, skin cleansing, moisturising and shaving; Skin care products were sub-classified into cleansing, face, hand and body, hand cream/lotion and gift pack products. Sale dominance was verified for cleansing products at 39.3%, hand and body lotions capture 3.5%, and face creams 23.9% of the market, with the remainder categories having a limited market representation. Sun care products include sunscreen, self-tan, after sun and non-protective. In 25-6, sunscreen sales captured 79.9% of the market, followed by self-tan (11.8%), after sun (6.3%) and non-protective products (2.1%). Analysis was restricted to sunscreens only. The most popular forms of deodorant products were aerosols (39.2%), roll-ons (3%) and body spray (24.6%), whilst other product forms took the remainder 6.2% of the market sales. Analysis was restricted to aerosols and roll-on deodorants. (g) Toilet paper. Breakdown of the market share per brands was not conducted, Instead, all products available at the local supermarket were purchased for comparison. A total of 7 brands were selected and included 2 recycled brands and 1 private brand Market placement of environment label products The market position of environment label brands varied according to each product type. In some categories, such as hair dyes and bleach, no environmental friendly brands were available. Whilst for other products, their market placements vary: unranked for automatic dishwasher detergents, toilet cleaners, sunscreens and deodorants second place for shower gels fourth place for floor cleaners (<8% of market share) and manual dishwashing detergents (1% of market share) eleventh place for bathroom cleaners(<1.5% market share) tenth place for laundry liquids detergents (5.2% market share) fifteenth place with.6% market share for laundry powders. For most personal care categories, environment label products had less than 2.5% of the market share, except for shower gels which captured 8.5% market share in Priority contaminants in household products 4

17 2.2. Placement of private brand products Private brand products were available for majority of the product categories purchased from supermarkets. For a number of products (e.g. toilet paper, automatic dishwashing detergents, and floor cleaners), private brands were unranked, i.e. they were not among the major sellers in the market. However, private brands achieved significant market representation in some sectors. In the cleaning product category, private brands claimed almost 1% of the market share and in personal care they represented less than 2.5% of the market, with the exception of sunscreen where the market share was almost 12%. In the laundry sector, private brand products represented less than 4%, 2.2% and 1.7% of the market share for fabric softeners, laundry liquids and powders respectively. In many categories, private brands were one to three market positions higher than environment label products, e.g. multi-purpose and bathroom cleaners, fabric softeners, laundry liquids, powders, and personal care (cleanser, lotion, mouthwash, soap bars, sun care, toothpaste and deodorant). Overall, 25 to 26 sales records show that environment label and private brand products had a modest market representation. Their market share ranged from around 1% to 14% compared to established brands. In the majority of product categories evaluated, the market was dominated by the top 3 to 4 brands, restricting the market share of alternative brands. Priority contaminants in household products 5

18 Table 1 Market representation of household products Product category Number of brands (or number of Corporate brands) Market share of top brands by volume (%) (no. of top brands) Market leader per volume (market leader based on value) Environment label Market share by volume (%) Market placem ent Private brand Market share by volume (%) Market placemen t Ref. Cleaner Floor 6 8 (3) 1 Handy Andy A Cleaner Toilet 8 5 (2) 1 Harpic A Dishwash detergent manual 2 >6 (5) Trix (Morning Fresh) A Dishwash detergent auto > (1) Reckitt Beckinser (Finish) - - < A Cleaner multi-purpose 23 7 (5) Ajax Spray n Wipe A Cleaner Bathroom 21 >65 (5) 1 Domestos A Fabric softener 15 >7 (5) Fluffy B Laundry liquids 21 >5 (5) Dynamo B Laundry powders 18 > 6 (5) Spree (Omo) B Liquid bleach (1) White King >2 B Deodorant aerosols (3) Rexona >17 C Deodorant body spray (2) Lynx C Deodorant roll-on (5) Rexona - > C Hair care 2 4 (5) Pantene C 1 Market share by value. Priority contaminants in household products 6

19 Product category Number of brands (or number of Corporate brands) Market share of top brands by volume (%) (no. of top brands) Market leader per volume (market leader based on value) Environment label Market share by volume (%) Market placem ent Private brand Market share by volume (%) Market placemen t Ref. Facial Cleansing (5) Nivea.6 >1 1.9 >7 C Facial moisturiser (3) Nivea C Hand & body lotion > (4) Nivea C Liquid Handwash (5) Softwash C Mouth wash > (2) Listerine >3 2 C Personal care soap bars >17 6 (3) Dove.3 >2.7 2 C Personal care shower gel 3 47 (5) Palmolive Naturals >18 C Sun care 19 3 (3) Banana Boat C Toothpaste (1) Colgate C Male grooming shave preps > (3) Mennen (Gilette Series) - - <8.6 2 >5 C Toilet paper >6 - Sorbent nd - nd - D A - Retail World 26 Household Cleaning & Pest Control B - Retail World 26 Laundry Needs C - Retail World 26 Hair and Beauty D - AdNews 26 2 All private brands as a collective group. Priority contaminants in household products 7

20 3. Methodology 3.1. Product selection A total of 15 products were purchased from major supermarkets in Cheltenham, Victoria, during the period of February to March 27. For each brand, a single product sample was purchased Cleaning products The range of cleaning products selected included: 5 brands of toilet cleaner 5 brands of floor cleaners 5 brands of general purpose cleaners which included 4 disinfectants, 1 bleach, and 1 cream cleanser 3 brands of toilet bowl fresheners and 4 brands of in-cistern cleansers 7 brands of toilet paper, including 2 made of recycled paper Dishwashing products The range of dishwashing products selected included: manual dishwashing: 6 brands of liquid detergent automatic dishwashers: 4 brands of dishwasher tablets and 3 brands of dishwasher powder detergents (the environment label detergent was only available as a powder in sachets) rinse aid: 1 brand Laundry products The range of laundry products selected included: 7 brands of fabric softener 1 brand of washing machine powder (no other powder brands were available in the 5 local supermarkets in the area, instead concentrate powder was the major type of laundry product on sale) 11 brands of concentrate powder detergent 1 brands of liquid detergent 2 brands of soakers. Priority contaminants in household products 8

21 Personal care products The range of personal care products included: 6 brands of facial care creams/lotion 5 brands of body lotion 5 brands of deodorant in deodorant form 4 brands of deodorant in roll-on form 7 brands of sunscreen SPF3+ 5 brands of mouthwash 9 brands of toothpaste 8 brands of hair colouring 5 brands of shaving foam 12 brands of shampoo, including 3 anti-dandruff formulations 3 brands of conditioner 6 brands of shower gel, 6 brands of soap bars and 4 brands of hand wash 1 brand of facial cleanser, 1 brand of facial scrub and 1 brand of depilatory cream Dust collection Dust samples were collected from 9 volunteer households around Melbourne by placing sets of three uncovered petri dishes (9.8 cm diameter) indoors in undisturbed locations for a period of 2 to 4 weeks. Each household was provided with petri dishes that had been pre-treated with nitric acid (5%v/v) and distilled water and sealed to prevent metal contamination. After collection dishes were sealed and transported to the CSIRO laboratories in Highett. The dust was transferred to a beaker using a total of 25 ml analytical grade ethanol. The ethanol was evaporated. The collected dust was weighed and digested using 5 ml concentrated nitric acid (Fluka TraceSelect) and completed to 5 ml with deionised water. The solution was analysed by using ICP-AES and ICP-MS. A blank was prepared using the same procedure Analytical methodology Metal analysis Metal and cation analysis was conducted using ICP-AES and the ICP-MS for arsenic and mercury. The limits of detection for the instruments are shown in Table 2. Samples of low organic content were prepared by digestion of each product as received or diluted to 1:1v/v in deionised water. For products of high organic content, e.g. toilet paper and sunscreen, the sample was analysed in duplicate and ashed prior to digestion. Ashing of samples was performed in covered crucibles in a muffle furnace at 45 C for 1 hour or until the sample weight had stabilised. In addition a number of samples were prepared as concentrated aqueous solutions and sent for verification in a NATA accredited external lab. Digestion was conducted using high purity nitric acid (Fluka TraceSelect) and hydrochloric acid (BDH AnalaR) at 95 C. Acid was added in 5 ml increments as per method 33E (APHA/AWWA 1998). The digested sample was transferred to a 1 ml volumetric flask and the volume completed with deionised water. Blanks were also prepared for each batch of 2 samples. Priority contaminants in household products 9

22 The concentration of an element in a product was determined using equation (1). Conc product = Conc. measured x Vs x Mproduct -1 x 1 3 (equation 1) Where: Conc product = concentration of element in product (mg/kg product) Conc measured = concentration of element determined experimentally (mg/l) Vs = volume analysed (L) Mproduct = Mass of product tested (g) Table 2 Detection limits for ICP-AES Test Standard LOR mg/l Aluminium (Al).5 Arsenic.1 Boron.1 Cadmium.1 Copper.1 Iron.5 Lead.1 Mercury.1 Nickel.1 Tin.1 Zinc Physico-chemical parameters TDS is traditionally used as an indicator of salinity. It is a parameter influenced by a variety of organic and inorganic ionic species, including sodium, chloride, carbonates, fluoride, magnesium, potassium, ammonium, sulfates, etc. In this report electrical conductivity was used to estimate the TDS. Evaluation of true colour, ph, and conductivity was conducted by dissolving each product at the manufacturers recommended dose in deionised water. When recommended dose data was not available, the solution was prepared based on the typical mass used for each household activity and diluted by typical appliance volumes as outlined in Appendix 1. For each solution, the ph was measured using a TPS ph meter and conductivity was measured using a Hanna conductivity meter. True Colour was measured in Platinum-cobalt units (Pt-Co) after sample filtration (filter pore.45m diameter) using a Hach DR/2 photometer for samples of low coloration. For highly coloured samples further analysis in ADMI units was undertaken by an external NATA accredited laboratory. Calibration of the Hach photometer was performed using platinum cobalt standards prepared according to Method 212B (APHA/AWWA 1998) Priority contaminants in household products 1

23 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Product dosage The dosages of household products used by consumers are generally determined by individual householder preferences, and hence can vary significantly. Products, such as laundry and cleaning products, often display recommended dosages per application on their labels. However, the recommended dosage differs significantly for different brands within the same product category. For instance, in Figure 1 the manufacturer s recommended dosage ranged from 57g to 99 g for 1 scoop of laundry powder concentrate, 6g to16 g for fabric softeners and 6g to 16 g for liquid laundry detergents per wash for different brands. Likewise, dosages of dishwashing detergents also varied. The typical recommended daily dosage ranged between 12 g and 3 g for manual dishwashing detergents, 4 g to 21 g for dishwasher tablets and 45 g to 9 g for dishwater powders(figure 2). For cleaning products, the recommended dosage depends on the application, and can range anywhere from 8 g for cream cleansers to 127 g for floor cleaners (Figure 3). Usage of personal care products is more difficult to quantify as majority of the products do not have a recommended dosage and products vary in viscosity and specific gravity. For example, a volunteer was asked to pour a shampoo dose equivalent to a 2 cent coin using eight shampoo brands. The dosages were weighed and ranged from 1.4 g to 5 g as shown in Figure 4. Similarly, the recommended manufacturer s dosage for mouthwash across five brands ranged from 13.5 g to 22 g. Variability in dosage is also expected for lotions, deodorant, sunscreen and other personal products which are applied at the discretion of the user Mass (g) Laundry powder concentrate Soaker Fabric softener Wool Laundry liquid wash 2 Brand 1(FL) Normal - 1 scoop Brand 2 (FL) Normal - 1 scoop Brand 3 Normal - 1 scoop Brand 4 Normal - 1 scoop Brand 5 - Normal 1 scoop Brand 6-3 Tbs Brand 7 Normal - 1 scoop Brand 8 Normal - 1 scoop Brand B1 in wash - 6g Brand B2-1L in 7L Brand S1-8mL Brand S2 Automatic and Wringer -.5 cup Recommended dosage per wash Brand S3-6mL Brand S4-1 cap Brand S5-2.5 caps Brand A1 light - 6mL Brand A2 Normal caps Brand A3 Light loads - 1 cap Brand A4-2/3 cups per 5L Note: FL = front load washing machine.. Figure 1 Recommended dosages for laundry products as per manufacturer s instructions Priority contaminants in household products 11

24 Dosage (g) Reckitt PZ Cusson - PZ Cusson Calgonit Bi-Lo PZ Cusson Colgate- United Colgate- Benckiser Palmolive Palmolive 5mls 5mls 1 tablet 1 tablet 1 tablet 1 tablet (2cent size) (1mls) (7mls) (7mls) Finish dishwasher power powder Morning Fresh Tec power dishwasher powder Black and White dishwasher tablet Morning Fresh Tec Tablets dishwasher Powerball (Calgonit) dishwash tablet Bi-Lo Dishwashing Tablets Morning Fresh Super Strength dish washing liquid Spree Dishwashing liquid Trix Double Action Dish Detergent Palmolive Original Dishwashing liquid Figure 2 Typical dosages for dishwashing detergents Dosage (g) (5cent size) (1mls) 1/4 cup to 5 litres water Household Grade - 125mls to 2.5 litres of water Floors - 1/4 cup to half a bucket of water Other - pour directly onto the surface Ajax Cream Household Cleanser Shower Power household cleaner Ajax Floor Cleaner Pine-O-Cleen Disinfectant Earth Choice Floor and Surface Cleaner Figure 3 Examples of typical dosages adopted for cleaning products Priority contaminants in household products 12

25 7 6 5 Dosage (g) Sunsilk Silky and Straight Tresemme Shampoo Palmolive Aroma Therapy Shampoo Natures Organics Fruits Hair Spa Shampoo Head and Shoulders Sensitive Scalp Shampoo Pantene Pro- V Daily Moisture Renewal Shampoo Coles Complete Balance Shampoo Dove Revitalising Care Shampoo Garnier Fructis Fortifying Shampoo Palmolive Naturals Conditioner Note: Brands were randomly selected and do not necessarily reflect the products analysed in section 4. Figure 4 - Shampoo dosage poured by a volunteer equivalent to a 2cents piece The variability in product dosage increases the uncertainty in the evaluation of representative product consumption within households. Hence for the purpose of this study, a standard dosage was assumed for each product to estimate a daily load of products used within a household (Table 3). These dosages were combined with the experimental data on elements in domestic products and used to estimate the daily loads per person for personal products or per wash for major appliances. Priority contaminants in household products 13

26 Table 3 Assumptions for product dosages for household and personal care products for a 1 person household Category Product type Assumed dose per use (g) General cleaning Personal care Kitchen Laundry Frequency of use per week Toilet cleaner 15 1 Toilet freshener/ incistern freshener Other household cleaning products * 1 1 Conditioner * Shampoo * Body wash * Handwash/ Soap 2 42 Shaving foam 3 7 Face cleanser 3 7 Depilatory 3 1 Hair colorant 6.25 Toothpaste 3 14 Mouthwash Deodorant.2 7 Sunscreen 1 7 Body Lotion 1 7 Facial cleanser 5 7 Dishwashing liquid Dishwasher tablet * Dishwasher powder * Rinse aid * Fabric softener 75 3* Laundry Powder 126 3* Laundry concentrate Powder 8 3* Laundry Liquid 9 3* Laundry Soaker 45 3* Other Toilet paper Note: *Based on Roberts (25). Priority contaminants in household products 14

27 4.2. Colour/pH/conductivity/TDS in dilution The colour of selected household products diluted in deionised water is shown in Figure 5. Products such as selected sunscreens which were not soluble in water alone were not evaluated for colour. Products were diluted based on typical use dilutions as per Appendix 1. Most products when dissolved showed less than 75 PtCo colour units. The more intense colouration was for: hair colourant, between 225 PtCo units to 485 PtCo units; fabric softeners, within the range of 68 PtCo units to 476 PtCo units; and soaps and cleansers, within the range of 12 PtCo units to 51 PtCo units. However the last two groups displayed a wider colour range interval than hair colourant. Products which showed strong coloration (blue, brown, red component of the spectrum) and deviated from the PtCo range were tested using the ADMI scale. These included sunscreens, mouthwashes and certain cleaning products which had less than 25 ADMI colour. Only 3 products, mouthwashes, had measurable ADMIs: 25, 41 and 74. The ph of household products ranged between 4 to 11 (Figure 6). Basic ph (ph>8) was characteristic of laundry and automatic dishwashing detergents, with these figures applying to the wash cycle alone. Fabric softeners were slightly acidic and the ph of personal care and most other products was between 4 and 8. The electrical conductivity (EC) and the corresponding TDS of common products diluted to typical concentrations are shown in Figure 7. The TDS was calculated from the EC value using the relationship TDS =.65 x EC. The calculation is based on ideal solutions of inorganic ionic species. As the products tested contain a variety of ionic species and may also contain organic compounds which may contribute to TDS, this calculation is only an approximation of the potential TDS of the different product types. Laundry and dishwashing detergent powders produced the highest EC, up to 6,9 and 11, S/cm. The corresponding range of TDS values ranged from 1 mg/l up to 72 mg/l per application with the highest values corresponding to laundry and automatic dishwashing detergents, whilst majority of the other products had less than 14 mg/l estimated TDS per use (Figure 8). Hence the laundry and the dishwasher products are expected to be major TDS contributors. Priority contaminants in household products 15

28 6 5 4 Colour (PtCo) Cleaning 5 Laundry1 Shower 15 Dishwashing 2 Oral 25 care 3Hair coloring Figure 5 Colour of household products ph Cleaning Personal care Laundry Toilet paper Dishwashing Shower and bath Figure 6 ph range for household products Oral care Priority contaminants in household products 16

29 12, 1, Average EC (micros/cm) 8, 6, 4, , Cleaning Laundry Dishwashing Toilet paper Personal care Shower and bath Figure 7 - Electrical conductivity of selected household products Oral care TDS (mg/l) Cleaning Personal care Laundry Toilet paper Dishwashing Shower and bath Oral care Figure 8 - Estimated TDS of selected household products Priority contaminants in household products 17

30 4.3. Priority contaminants in dust Dust was collected from households to provide an indication of the potential contribution that airborne pollution and cleaning activities such as mopping and washing could have on the load of priority contaminants in wastewater. Samples collected from 9 households for a minimum period of 2 weeks were analysed for metals. The mass of the dust samples ranged between 6 mg and 37 mg. The analysis for dust was extended to also include aluminium (Al), chromium (Cr) and tin (Sn) as the parameters are often included in air monitoring. Lead was the priority element most commonly detected in the households, present in 6 out of 9 households between.21mg Pb/kg to 1.6mg Pb/kg dust. Sodium and tin were found in the ranges of 7 to 59 mg Na/kg dust and.17 to.78mg Sn/kg dust, respectively, in 5 households. Cadmium was detected in only 1 household at.24 g Cd/kg dust. Zinc was detected in the dust of 3 households ranging between 1.2 to 9.5 mg Zn/kg. The same households also had detectable levels of Al and Cr ranging between 5.4 mg Al/kg to 8.8 mg Al/kg dust and.6 mg Cr/kg to.18 mg Cr/kg dust respectively. Elements below detection limits in the dust collected included arsenic (<1mg/kg), boron (<.3mg/kg), copper (<.2mg/kg), mercury (<.5mg/kg), and nickel (<.3mg/kg). The Melbourne data was compared to data from a Sydney study (Chattopadhyay et al 23). The Melbourne samples evaluated the dust from airborne pollution for a defined time period, whilst the Sydney study gathered dust from vacuum cleaner bags, which would have included airborne dust and also dust transported by human traffic into the household, but the collection period had not been specified. The metal contribution from the dust from Sydney had been attributed mainly to airborne pollution and lead paint residues (Chattopadhyay et al 23). The contribution of metals in airborne pollution in Melbourne appears to be significantly lower than that the values recorded for Sydney (Table 4). This could imply that the transfer from human traffic, e.g. via footwear or transit, could be significant or alternatively that pollution levels in Sydney were higher, both hypothesis would require further confirmation by verification of household traffic data and a larger sampling of households in Melbourne. However, this is not intended in this study as it is not the main focus of the research. Priority contaminants in household products 18

31 1 mg metal/kg dust 9 Cd Na Cr Pb 8 Zn Sn Al HH1 Ben1 HH2 Car HH3 End HH4 Bri HH5 Che Household HH6 Bea HH7 Nar Ben2 HH8 HH9 Ken Al Sn Zn Pb Cr Na Cd Figure 9 Elements in Melbourne household dust Table 4- Metal content in dust samples from Sydney and Melbourne Location Melbourne Sydney (Chattopadhyay et al 23) Metal Median (g/g) Rangeg/g) Median (g/g) Range g/g) Cd <.1 < Cu <.2 < LOD (.2) Pb.21 < ,6 Ni <.3 <LOD (.3) Sn.17 < Not evaluated Zn <.5 < ,93 Na 6.6 < Not evaluated No. samples 9 82 Comment: Air borne dust Vacuum cleaner dust Note: LOD Limit of detection Dust removal can take various forms: vacuum cleaning, sweeping and mopping. Not all forms of cleaning will end in disposal to the sewer. Dust gathered by sweeping and vacuum cleaning is usually disposed into the rubbish bin, whilst dust gathered through mopping usually ends up in the wastewater stream. Using the Melbourne data, daily loads were calculated for each household assuming a constant diurnal rate of deposition and an average household floor area of m 2 (ABS 25) and assuming that approximately 8% of the floor area is mopped and the water disposed to sewer. Priority contaminants in household products 19

32 The maximum dust accumulation rate of.65 mg/d was estimated assuming a constant deposition rate. The estimation here performed assumed a worst case scenario, in view of the current trend of polished floorboards in new and renovated homes, and provides a scenario that considers an upper limit estimate for dust gathering. The estimated load range of detectable elements based on such scenario would be: cadmium: -.8 mg/week chromium: -.56 mg/week lead: mg/week sodium: -.75 mg/week tin: mg/week zinc: - 4.2mg/week Hence, the dust from the households evaluated contributed traces of cadmium, chromium, lead, sodium, tin and zinc. The contribution ranged from household to household, but the maximum loads verified were less than 4.2 mg/week for zinc, less than 3.64 mg/week for lead and less than.5 mg/week for the other metals. These loads were compared with loads from household products in section 4.4. This data is indicative only, as it was collected on a small sample of the population over a short time period. Dust collection is also influenced by other parameters such as location, season, household habits, weather, proximity to major roads and industry. These were not evaluated in this experiment. Figure 1 shows the dust deposition rate for the sample population and proximity to any major infrastructure (major roads, train tracks, coast, national parks or none of the previous). Such factors affect the deposition rates, and increase the variability of the data. Although their evaluation was not part of the scope of this study, the two households with greater proximity to major roads showed higher element levels and deposition rates (Figure 1)..5 Dust deposition (g/m/d) Major road Coastal region None National Park Train tracks None None Major road Train tracks House identification Figure 1 Sample of daily dust deposition rates in Melbourne households Priority contaminants in household products 2

33 4.4. Elements in household products This section shows a summary of the results obtained by the household product analysis. For each element in sections to two Tables are shown, one shows the concentration of the element in the product category and the other shows the weekly load to sewer based on the assumed product consumption: (a) Product concentrations The product concentrations, i.e. the results from the analysis of concentrations of elements in household products, are presented in Appendices 2 and 3 by product category. Leading brands are shown in bold italics, private brands with superscript p and environment label brands with superscript g. A summary of the results is also shown in Table 6 to 25 in this section. Products with metal concentrations below detection were not included in the tables. Metal content was evaluated by chemical analysis and is shown as mg metal/kg product. The minimum detectable levels reported were estimated based on the detection limit of the solution used for the ICP-MS or ICP-AES and then normalised for the mass of product analysed. A summary of the number of elements detected in each product group is shown in Table 5. For instance, up to 3 elements were detected in shave foam and up to 1 elements were detected in toothpaste (Table 5). Additional details can be found in Table 42 in Appendix 4 which shows each product category or group and the number of brands for which the elements (As, B, Cd, Cu, Fe, Pd, Hg, Ni, Na, Sn and Zn) were detected. Only sodium (Na) was detected in all products categories tested. Among the product categories 24% had up to 1 elements, 14% had up to 9, 17% had 6, 1% had 7 and the remaining 21% had 4 or less elements detected. A larger number of elements is likely to be detected in laundry and dishwashing detergents, cleaning and some personal care products for up to: 1 elements in hand wash, sunscreen, shampoo, toothpaste, dishwasher tablet, laundry products (liquid, powder, soaker) and floor cleaner 9 elements in dishwashing products (detergent, dishwasher powder), toilet paper, toilet fresheners and cream cleanser 8 elements in body wash, deodorant roll-on, mouthwash, toilet cleaner and multipurpose cleaner 7 elements in deodorant aerosol, fabric softener and disinfectant 6 elements in hand and body lotion, soap bar, conditioner, wool wash, facial care products and hair colourant. The results in Appendices 2 to 4 also show that the concentration of elements in brands within a same product group varied from brand to brand. Hence product selection will have a significant impact on element loads. Table 5 Maximum number of elements detected in each product category Product Number of elements detected Share number of total product categories Face cream 2 3.4% Hair colour Shave foam 3 6.9% Dishwasher rinse aid 4 1.3% Priority contaminants in household products 21

34 Face cleanser Face lotion Conditioner Hand & body lotion Laundry wool wash Soap bar Deodorant aerosol Disinfectant Fabric softener Body wash Deodorant roll-on Mouthwash Multi-purpose cleaner Toilet cleaner Cream cleanser Dishwashing detergent/ dishwasher powder Toilet freshener (bowl/in-cistern) Toilet paper Dishwasher tablet Floor cleaner Hand wash Laundry liquid/powder/soaker Shampoo Sunscreen Toothpaste % 7 1.3% % % % (b) Weekly loads As household products are used in different amounts and frequency depending on application, weekly loads for products based on a single person household were determined to allow comparison between product categories. The assumptions used for estimation of the weekly loads were previously shown in Table 3 (section 4.1). Weekly loads were estimated using the product load data from appendix 1 and the frequency of specific appliance use per week was taken from Roberts (25) for a single person household. Maximum weekly load Tables 7 to 26 present the data for the maximum load generated by specific product types in ascending order, i.e. product types at the top of a table exhibit the lowest daily load whilst products in the last rows of a table have the highest potential daily loads. Products with metal loads below detection were not included in the Tables. Statistical analysis of the weekly load data is shown in Table 43 to Table 45 in Appendices 5 and 6. In general, 75% or more of the loads generated by household products used in dishwashing, personal care and laundry were not normally distributed, but distribution was skewed towards lower concentrations. For instance, 95% of the boron loads from personal care products were within the range of to 1 mg/pe/week, however loads of up to 13 mg/pe/week were recorded for the 5% remainder products. For laundry products, 78% of the boron loads were within the range of to 15 mg/pe/week, 8% were in the range of 3 to 45 mg/pe/week, 9.4% were within 6 to 75mg/pe/week and 3% were within 24 to 255mg/pe/week (Table Priority contaminants in household products 22

35 44 in Appendix 5). Only iron and sodium showed a broader load distribution (<4-5% of products within a specific load range) Arsenic Levels of arsenic in household products were detected above the limit of detection (LOD =.1 mg/l) in 24% of the products analysed. Arsenic was detected in 48% of the shower products (shampoo, conditioners, shaving aids, soap bars, cleansers, body wash and hand wash) analysed, 21% of oral care products (toothpaste and mouthwash) brands, 7% of sunscreens and lotions and 33% of deodorants tested (Table 6). No arsenic was detected in body lotion, conditioner, facial lotion, roll-on deodorant, body wash, toilet paper, shaving aids, toilet freshener, dishwashing rinse aid, dishwashing liquid, dishwashing tablet or fabric softener (Table 6). In Table 7, detectable loads in personal care products included: depilatory product -.1mg/pe/week one shampoo brand -.14mg/pe/week three soap bars <.35mg/pe/week including the environment label brand face cleanser -.1 mg/pe/week facial scrub -.5mg/pe/week one handwash brand -.49mg/pe/week one sunscreen brand -.49mg/pe/week In toothpaste, arsenic was detected in only two of nine brands, yielding loads of.14 mg/pe/week and.28 mg/pe/week. In mouthwash, two of the five products tested for.7 mg/pe/week and.15 mg/pe/week. Analysis of mouthwash and toothpaste was conducted in two labs for verification of metal dosage. Arsenic was detected in one sunscreen brand producing a load of.49 mg/pe/week, but it was not detected in any of the other brands of sunscreens or lotions. Arsenic was detected in all five brands of roll-on deodorant, and three out of five aerosol deodorants produced loads of less than.7 mg/pe/week. The loads from household products were also minimal, with the highest loads estimated for specific cleaning products. Arsenic was detected in only 27% of the cleaning products, 19% of laundry products and 8% of kitchen products. The estimated load ranges for cleaning products were: cream cleanser.65 mg/pe/week,.147 mg/pe/week in one in-cistern freshener product, two floor cleaning products at.3 mg/pe/week and.7 mg/pe/week, multi-purpose cleaner at.2 mg/pe/week, one disinfectant at.15mg/pe/week and one toilet cleaner at.3 mg/pe/week. Among 24 laundry products, four out of twelve powder products had loads in the range of.5 mg/wash to.2 mg/wash, two liquid formulations had.7 mg/wash and.5 mg/wash and one soaker had.1mg/wash. Hence the arsenic load among laundry products could increase from powders to soakers and liquids. Among dishwashing products, arsenic was detected in three brands, yielding a maximum load of.17 mg/pe/week. Overall, the majority of the products did not have traces of arsenic within the detectable levels. Arsenic was present only in specific brands, not in a product class (Table 6). The weekly contribution of arsenic from household products was estimated at less than.5 mg/week (Table 7). These observations agree with those of Lock (1994) where low arsenic levels in domestic water were detected for Adelaide. Among the household streams, arsenic presence was minimal in the kitchen (dishwasher) and sporadic among laundry products. The presence of Priority contaminants in household products 23

36 arsenic in washing machine products was also minimal (<.7mg/week for 7 of 31 products). The highest loads,.2 mg/week, were attributed to two brands of laundry liquid. The contribution from laundry products was strongly dependent on specific product formulation. Combining all products, the largest arsenic loads would be expected to arise from the bathroom greywater and potentially the kitchen dishwasher. As Table 6 Arsenic concentration in household products Arsenic concentration (mg/kg product) Product type Number of brands with detectable As Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Aerosol deodorant Cream cleanser 3/ na 1/ Depilatory 1/ Dishwashing powder Dishwashing tablet 2/3 < < /4 < <.2.79 <.2 <.2 <.2 Disinfectant 1/ <1 na <.5 Facial Cleanser 1/ Floor cleaner 2/4 <.5 2. <.62 < Hand wash 1/4 6 < <1 In-cistern 1/4 <1 7 <1.12 <1 na 7 Laundry powder Laundry liquid Laundry soaker 4/ / / na na Mouthwash 2/ na Multipurpose 1/2.2 <1. < Scrub 1/ Soap 2/6 < <.76 < <1.95 Shampoo 1/1 <.2.2 <2 <1.2 <2 <2 <2 Sunscreen 1/ <1 na <1 Toothpaste 2/ Toilet cleaner 1/4.2 <.75 <.2 <2.2 Priority contaminants in household products 24

37 Table 7 Weekly arsenic load estimated from product us Product type Maximum As weekly load (mg/pe/week) Toilet cleaner.3 Multi-purpose.2 Aerosol deodorant.8 Shampoo.14 Disinfectant.15 Toothpaste.28 Laundry soaker.3 Scrub.5 Cream cleanser.6 Floor cleaner.7 Laundry powder.7 Depilatory.1 Facial Cleanser.1 Soap.1 Dishwashing powder.2 Mouthwash.1 In-cistern.147 Laundry liquid.2 Hand wash.49 Sunscreen Boron Boron (B) was detected in 62% of the household products analysed. Among the cleaning products analysed, 96% had concentrations above the LOD (.1 mg/l). These included: 74% of laundry products, 71% of oral care products, 65% of shower and bath personal care items, 54% of dishwashing products, 56% of deodorants, 43% of toilet paper brands and 27% of creams and lotions (Table 8). Products that had no detectable boron included hair colorants, facial scrub, conditioners, roll-on deodorants, facial and body lotions, depilatory cream and multi-purpose cleaners. The largest loads observed were among laundry, dishwashing and toilet freshening products (Table 8). Enviroment label brands in six out of thirteen product categories analysed had lower concentration of boron than the market leaders, including shampoo, toothpaste, soap, dishwashing liquids and powders, laundry powder and disinfectants. But a higher concentration in toilet cleaners, laundry liquid and body wash. Private brands, on the other hand, only had a larger concentration of boron than the market leader for dishwashing and laundry liquids. Among laundry products, fabric softeners produced the lowest weekly loads from.2 mg/pe/week to 1.6 mg/pe/week for four out of seven brands. Six out of ten liquid detergents had Priority contaminants in household products 25

38 boron loads ranging between.2 g/pe/week to 227 mg/pe/week, whilst powders and soakers generated boron loads up to 1262 mg/pe/week and 242 mg/pe/week respectively as shown in Table 9. In dishwashing, the highest boron load was from a dishwashing tablet (268 mg/pe/week). The loads from other products were at least 6% lower: 4 mg/pe/week and 19 mg/pe/week in only two liquid dishwashing detergents,.5 mg/pe/week in only one tablet formulation,.4 mg/pe/week and 12 mg/pe/week in the two powder formulations with detectable boron concentrations and only.2 mg/pe/week in the rinse aid (Table 9). Loads from toilet fresheners and in-cistern products were significant contributors ranging from 21.5 mg/pe/week to 429 mg/pe/week. Other cleaning products contributed much smaller yields:.3 mg/pe/week to 8.7 mg/pe/week for floor cleaners,.5 mg/pe/week and 2.8 mg/pe/week for toilet cleaners, less than 2 mg/pe/week for disinfectants and.7 mg/pe/d for the cream cleanser. No boron was detected in the multi-purpose cleaner brand analysed. In comparison, personal care products contributed much smaller loads. The largest loads were derived from specific brands of shampoo, hand wash, and body wash. The shampoo loads ranged from mg/pe/week to 68.5 mg/pe/week for the market leading brand, whilst the other three brands produced less than 39 mg/pe/week. Hand and body wash loads were comparable, ranging, respectively, up to 86 mg/pe/week and up to 19 mg/pe/week, whilst for soap bars the maximum contribution was only to 11.4 mg/pe/week. Loads for other personal care products were less significant:.5 mg/pe/week in one facial cleanser brand,.1 mg/pe/week in one shaving aid, between.35 mg/pe/week to 2 mg/pe/week in seven of the nine toothpaste brands and on average less than 1.4 mg/pe/week for mouthwash (although one brand could yield up to 134 mg/pe/week). In sunscreen, boron was detected in four of seven brands producing loads ranging from.7mg/pe/week to 6.3 mg/pe/week. The daily load for the aerosol deodorants was estimated to range between.6 mg/pe/week and.7 mg/pe/ week. Only two out of seven brands of toilet paper (one conventional brand and one recycled brand) had traces of boron yielding loads of up to 2.2mg/pe/week. Overall, laundry, toilet and kitchen products were identified as major contributors of boron within a household. In particular, laundry soakers, laundry powder, toilet fresheners and dishwashing tablets were the major sources. B Table 8 - Boron concentration in household products Boron concentration (mg/kg product) Product type Number of brands with detectable B Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Aerosol deodorant 5/ na 368 Body wash 3/ Cream cleanser Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing Tablet 1/ / / , Priority contaminants in household products 26

39 Dishwashing powder Dishwashing rinse aid 2/ / Disinfectant 4/ na 2.4 Fabric softener Facial Cleanser Floor cleaner 4/ / / Hand wash 3/ In-cistern 4/ ,13 4,383 4, Laundry powder Laundry liquid Laundry soaker 11/ / /2 14,83 17,797-16,3 14, Mouthwash 4/ Multipurpose 1/2 < Shampoo 4/ Shaving aid 1/2 5.2 < <.2 Sunscreen 4/ <.4 Soap 6/ Toilet cleaner Toilet freshener 4/ / ,587 13,413 13, Toilet paper 2/7 < <.5.71 < <.5.5 Toothpaste 7/ Table 9 - Weekly boron load estimated from product use Product type Maximum B weekly load (mg/pe/wk) Facial Cleanser.5 Cream cleanser.7 Dishwashing rinse aid.18 Shaving aid.1 Aerosol deodorant.7 Priority contaminants in household products 27

40 Fabric softener 1.57 Disinfectant 2. Toothpaste 2.1 Toilet paper 2.2 Toilet cleaner 2.8 Sunscreen 6.2 Floor cleaner 8.7 Soap 11.4 Dishwashing powder 12 Body wash 19 Shampoo 68.5 Hand wash 86.1 Dishwashing liquid 18.6 Mouthwash 134 In-cistern 236 Laundry liquid 227 Dishwashing Tablet 268 Toilet freshener 429 Laundry powder 1262 Laundry soaker Cadmium Cadmium (Cd) was detected in 44% of the products above the LOD (.1 mg/l). Although detected in most of the kitchen products and toilet paper brands, its presence in other product categories was brand specific, with concentrations ranging from zero to higher values within a same product category (Table 1). No particular distinction was observed between the cadmium concentration of private, enviro and regular brands. Overall, results from the household products indicate strong brand dependency, with cadmium below the detectable concentration for many products. It was, however, present in a range of laundry liquids and powders and also in toilet paper, fresheners, hand and body wash and dishwashing products. The loads generated by most products were minimal (less than 1mg/pe/week on average) (Table 11). The highest loads were identified for specific brands of products used in laundry products (<1.6 mg/pe/week for fabric softeners and laundry liquids). Among personal care products the highest loads were detected in a brand of sunscreen and body lotion, with loads ranging between.9 to.2mg/pe/week as seen in Table 11. The majority of cleaning products, including toilet fresheners, yielded loads of less than.2 mg/pe/week whilst other personal products contributed with less than.2 mg/pe/week. The average load in laundry products and personal care products was less than.4 mg/pe/week and.2 mg/pe/week. Priority contaminants in household products 28

41 Cadmium was not detected in bar soap, cleanser, depilatory cream, aerosol deodorant or toilet cleaners. The maximum loads expected from household products were estimated to be less than 3 mg/pe/week at most. This correlates with other literature which suggests low levels of cadmium are expected in domestic wastewater (Icon 21). Cadmium loads from dust (up to.8 mg/week) are comparable to loads generated by personal care products. The laundry data shows low cadmium levels in Australian laundry products. It was absent from a number of products and concentrations were less than.6 mg/kg for the majority of powders, but slightly higher (<2.1 mg/kg) for some laundry liquids. Instead significantly higher loads were observed in dandruff shampoo at 3.5 mg/kg product (Appendix 2). Although Gray and Becker identified greywater from the bathroom as the major source of cadmium within the household (Gray and Becker 22), the data indicates that, in household products alone, cadmium loads from laundry greywater could be comparable or surpass the load from bathroom greywater if certain detergent brands are adopted in the household. Cd Table 1 - Cadmium concentration in household products Cadmium concentration (mg/kg product) Product type Number of brands with detectable Cd Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Body Lotion 1/ Body wash 3/ Cream cleanser 1/ Conditioner 1/ Dishwashing rinse aid Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing powder 1/ / /3 < <.1 - Dishwashing Tablet 3/ Not available 1 (brand 1).59 (brand 2) Disinfectant 1/4.17 < bleach - Fabric softener 2/7 < < <.6 < Facial lotion 2/ Floor cleaner 1/4.5 < Hand wash 1/ In-cistern 3/4 < <.2 Priority contaminants in household products 29

42 Laundry liquid Laundry powder Laundry soaker 6/1 < /12 < <.9 <.6 1/2 < <.22 < Mouthwash 2/ na.28 Multipurpose Roll-on deodorant 1/ / Sunscreen 5/ Shampoo 3/1 anti-dandruff and private brands Toothpaste 1/ Toilet freshener 3/ Toilet paper 5/7 No distinction between regular and recycled brands < < (brand 1).38 (brand 2).38 Table 11 Weekly cadmium load estimated from product use Product type Maximum Cd weekly load (mg/pe/wk) Dishwashing rinse aid.2 Roll-on deodorant.2 Cream cleanser.1 Floor cleaner.1 Disinfectant.2 Facial lotion.6 Toilet freshener.7 In-cistern.8 Laundry soaker.2 Toothpaste.49 Mouthwash.67 Toilet paper.13 Hand wash.15 Priority contaminants in household products 3

43 Multi-purpose.15 Body wash.18 Conditioner.2 Scrub.5 Dishwashing Tablet.5 Laundry powder.8 Shampoo.9 Sunscreen.9 Dishwashing liquid.135 Dishwashing powder.14 Body Lotion.21 Laundry liquid.57 Fabric softener Copper Household and personal care products make a limited contribution to copper loads in wastewater (Table 12). Only 41% of the products had traces of copper above the LOD (.1 mg/l). In cleaning products, copper was detected in 41 of 74 brands. Copper was below the detection limit in fabric softeners, dishwasher rinse aids, in cistern fresheners, multipurpose cleaners, aerosol deodorant, mouthwash, shaving aid, conditioner and facial lotion and also from many of the brands within each category of cleaning product analysed (Table 12). The concentration of copper in private brands was the highest in toilet fresheners, but within range for other products. The concentration of copper in the enviromental label was the highest in the body wash, toilet paper and toilet cleaner brands analysed. The largest weekly loads detected ranged between.1 mg/pe/week to.58 mg/pe/week for specific laundry products, dishwashing powders and dishwashing liquid (Table 13). Recycled toilet paper brands had a copper load 2 to 1 times that of copper in regular toilet paper. In personal care products, only a few brands and products had a detectable copper concentration. Copper was detected in 17 out of 52 product brands (32%), with the resulting loads ranging from less than.4 mg/pe/week up to.6 mg/pe/week. Whilst in aerosol deodorants, shaving aids, facial lotions and hair conditioners tested no copper was detected. The red hair colorants were verified to contain the highest copper concentration of all products, 1. mg/kg product and 23 mg/kg product (Appendix 2), i.e. a maximum equivalent load of 15.5mg/pe/week. However, hair colourant use is often arbitrary and its frequency of use is generally lower than other products, typically once per month. Overall, the copper load from household products is deemed small. Major contributions arose from laundry and kitchen wastewater with the highest loads estimated as.58 mg/pe/week for laundry wastewater. By comparison, literature reports loads of up to 1 mg/l for tap water, between.5 to 1.96 mg/pe/d for human excreta (Tjandraatmadja and Diaper 26). Hence the copper contribution from household products is likely to be small compared to the other sources. Priority contaminants in household products 31

44 Cu Table 12 Copper concentration in household products. Copper concentration (mg/kg product) Product type Number of brands with detectable levels Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Body Lotion 3/5 < < Body wash 1/4 < < Cream Cleanser 1/ Depilatory 1/ Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing powder Dishwashing Tablet 2/6 < <.1.2 3/ /4 <.5.2 < na <.5 Disinfectant 1/4 < <.2 (bleach) Face cleanser Floor cleaner 1/ /4 < Hair colorant 5/8 <4 124 < na na Hand wash 2/4 <.5.61 < Laundry powder Laundry liquid Laundry soaker Roll-on deodorant 6/12 < /1 <.5.82 < <.2 <.1 1/2 < < /4 <.2.23 < na - Sunscreen 3/7 <.2.75 <.3.17 < Shampoo 3/1 <.5.23 < <.5 <.5 <.5 Soap 1/ <1.2 Scrub 1/ Toothpaste 1/ < <.2 Toilet cleaner Toilet freshener 4/4 < <.2.26 <.2 3/ Priority contaminants in household products 32

45 Toilet paper 7/7.44 (regular) 4.55 (recycled) 4.7 (regular) 1 (recycled) * Table 13 Weekly copper load estimated from product use Product type Maximum Cu weekly load (mg/pe/wk) Roll-on deodorant.4 Dishwashing Tablet.7 Depilatory.2 Toilet cleaner.7 Scrub.49 Toothpaste.97 Body wash.18 Floor cleaner.14 Disinfectant.35 Hand wash.5 Sunscreen.5 Cream cleanser.6 Body Lotion.7 Facial Cleanser.7 Shampoo.7 Toilet paper.4 (regular).8 (recycled) Dishwashing powder.9 Laundry soaker.11 Laundry liquid.22 Toilet freshener.29 Dishwashing liquid.37 Soap.59 Laundry powder.58 Hair colorant 15.5 Priority contaminants in household products 33

46 Iron Iron was detected in 71% of the products analysed above the LOD (.5 mg/l) with the highest loads generated by bathroom products (Table 14). Toilet paper generated loads from.6 mg/pe/week to 9.56 mg/pe/week. The largest iron loads were: a mouthwash brand at 85mg/pe/week; and toilet paper and toothpaste (up to 16mg/pe/week). Laundry and dishwashing loads were less than 3.4 and.9 mg/pe/week respectively (Table 15). The market leade brand had the highest iron concentration for dishwashing liquid, handwash, toilet cleaner and toothpaste. The enviro brand was lower than the market leader for four out of twelve products (toothpaste, toilet cleaner, liquid laundry, and dishwashing liquid) and the private brand only had the highest iron load for dishwasher tablets and toilet fresheners. For all other product categories there was no specific trend in the iron content. For example the iron concentration in laundry powder ranged from 2.87 to 19.9mg/kg, whilst market leader, enviro and private brands had concentrations between 4.4 to 7mg/kg (Table 14). Anthropogenic loads are generally 3% higher than median loads from household products. But maximum loads up to 8% higher than the anthropogenic load could be generated if certain product brands were used. Fe Table 14 Iron concentration in household products Iron concentration (mg/kg product) Product type Number of brands with detectable levels Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Aerosol deodorant 3/4 < Body Lotion 1/5 <.4.61 <.4 <4.7 <6 - <8. Body wash 3/4 < < Cream cleanser 1/ Conditioner 1/3 < < Depilatory 1/ Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing Tablet Dishwashing powder 2/ < / /.83 3/ Disinfectant 2/4 < < Fabric softener Face Cleanser 2/7 < <.3.69 <.6 < / Facial lotion 1/3 < <.6 < Floor cleaner 4/ Priority contaminants in household products 34

47 Hair colorant 1/8 < <2.9 < Hand wash 3/4 < In-cistern 4/ Laundry powder Laundry liquid Laundry soaker 12/ /1 < < / Mouthwash 2/5 < <.8 Roll-on deodorant 2/4 < < Shampoo 5/1 < < Soap 4/6 < <39 Sunscreen 4/7 < <.6 na 8.1 Multipurpose Toilet cleaner Toilet freshener 2/ / / Toilet paper 7/ / Toothpaste 7/ Table 15 Weekly iron load estimated from product use Product type Maximum Fe weekly load (mg/pe/wk) Conditioner.5 Dishwashing rinse aid.7 Roll-on deodorant.15 Body Lotion.42 Disinfectant.5 Dishwashing Tablet.3 Multi-purpose.3 Toilet cleaner.74 Facial lotion.15 Floor cleaner.195 Body wash.27 Laundry soaker.38 Aerosol deodorant.49 Sunscreen.57 Priority contaminants in household products 35

48 Hair colorant.77 Cleanser.85 Dishwashing powder.87 Dishwashing liquid.88 Fabric softener 1. Cream cleanser 1.2 Depilatory 1.2 Laundry liquid 1.7 In-cistern 1.9 Shampoo 2.47 Toilet freshener 2.53 Laundry powder 3.35 Hand wash 3.4 Soap 3.44 Toilet paper 9.56 Toothpaste 16.1 Mouthwash Lead Lead (Pb) was detected in 42% of the products analysed above the LOD (.1 mg/l) (Table 16). Traces of lead were detected in eleven of twenty-two market leader brand products (5%), in four of ten enviro label brands (4%) and in six of fifteen private label products (4%) analysed. The median weekly load was.75 mg/pe/week and the maximum load was less than.6 mg/pe/week for the majority of cleaning and personal products (Table 17). Toilet paper, toilet fresheners and dishwashing tablets showed consistent lead traces among all the brands tested. Toilet fresheners generated the highest lead loads, at 2.82mg/pe/week. The loads from toilet paper ranged between.1 mg/pe/week to.4 mg/pe/week, and no differentiation was observed between the recycled and the regular brands in regards to lead content. Lead contributions in dishwashing products were identified in three brands of dishwashing tablets, with the lead load generated being less than.1mg/pe/week, in one of the six brands of liquid detergent (.23 mg/pe/week), in two out of three dishwashing powders (<.55 mg/pe/week) and in the rinse aid (.2 mg/pe/week). A few brands of personal care products had traces of lead. The highest loads originated from one brand of mouthwash (.1 mg/pe/d) and one hair conditioner (.3 mg/pe/d). Three brands of toothpaste had lead loads ranging between.3mg/pe/d to.8mg/pe/d. Loads of less than.16 mg/pe/d were estimated for two roll-on deodorant brands, up to.5 mg/pe/d for a facial cream and up to.6 mg/pe/d for a sunscreen brand. One in four laundry products contained detectable traces of lead. The highest load estimated was.62 mg/week for a powder detergent (also the second highest load estimated). Smaller loads were attributed to fabric softeners and laundry liquids (average load.5 mg/pe/week), whilst the average load for powders was.54mg/pe/week. Priority contaminants in household products 36

49 Lead was below the limit of detection in aerosol deodorants, shaving aids, scrub, cleansers and depilatory products, soap, body lotion and disinfectants. Overall, lead in household products was product and brand dependent. The toilet, the laundry and the bathroom were identified as potential sources of lead. Contributions were less than 2.9 mg/pe/week for the toilet and on average less than.5 mg/pe/week for the other household wastewater. In comparison, dust arising from air pollution was verified to contribute between.26 mg/week to 3.6 mg/week in Melbourne. This contribution was within the same range of household products, but it was low compared to dust contributions observed in Sydney, where recorded lead levels were up to 1 times larger (section 4.3). The reported contribution from anthropogenic waste ranged from.18 to over.98 mg/pe/week (Tjandraatmadja and Diaper 26). Hence, the maximum load contribution from household products can be compared to that generated by airborne pollution and to loads from anthropogenic waste. Pb Table 16 Lead concentration in household products Lead concentration (mg/kg product) Product type Number of brands with detectable levels Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Body wash 1/4 <.1.23 <.1 <.1 <.1 - <.1 Conditioner 2/3 < Cream cleanser Dishwashing rinse aid Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing powder Dishwashing Tablet Fabric softener 1/ / /6 < < <.2 <.6 2/ < <.1 3/ /7 < < Facial lotion 1/3 <.3.1 <.1 <3.5.1 na <1 Floor cleaner 1/4 < <.6 <.2 - Hand wash 2/4 <.1.12 <.1 <.16 <.1 - <.3 In-cistern 4/ Laundry liquid Laundry powder Laundry soaker 3/1 < <.4.19 <.2 <.6 <.2 3/12 < < <.9 <.6 1/2 < <.89 < Priority contaminants in household products 37

50 Mouthwash 1/5 <.3.85 < <.4 na.85 Multipurpose Roll-on deodorant 1/2 <.4.14 <.3 <.9 < / Sunscreen 3/7 <.1.61 < <.1 Shampoo 3/1 < < <.2 <.2 Toilet cleaner Toilet freshener 2/4 < <.6 <.2.7 <.2 4/ Toilet paper 7/ / Toothpaste 3/9 < <.4 <.5 <.15 < Table 17 Weekly lead load estimated from product use Product type Maximum Pb weekly load (mg/pe/wk) Multi-purpose.1 Dishwashing rinse aid.2 Body wash.9 Roll-on deodorant.11 Facial lotion.35 Shampoo.42 Hand wash.1 Dishwashing Tablet.13 Laundry soaker.13 Floor cleaner.14 Cream cleanser.2 Toilet cleaner.3 Sunscreen.55 Toilet freshener.8 Dishwashing powder.49 Mouthwash.2 Fabric softener.22 Laundry liquid.22 Toilet paper.4 Toothpaste.59 Conditioner.93 Dishwashing liquid.23 Priority contaminants in household products 38

51 Laundry powder.624 In-cistern Mercury All the products were analysed for mercury (Hg). Only one product had mercury at the minimum detectable level, a dishwashing tablet, the equivalent load generated was estimated as.8mg/wash (Appendix 2). The other household products tested did not contain mercury at detectable limits and would therefore be unlikely to contribute to the Hg loads in wastewater Nickel Nickel (Ni) was detected in 41% of the products. It was seldom present in personal care products. Nickel concentrations were below the limit of detection in body lotions, depilatory product, facial lotions, mouthwash, shaving aids, soap bars, facial scrub and cleanser, disinfectants and rinse aids (Table 18). But traces were present in: 5% of the eight brands of deodorants (<.7mg/pe/week); 56% of the nine toothpaste brands (<.34 mg/pe/week); 7% of the ten shampoo brands (<.7mg/pe/week); two of the 7 sunscreens (<.9 mg/pe/week); and in all the tested brands of toilet paper (<.6 mg/pe/week), hand wash (<.21mg/pe/week), conditioner (<.112 mg/pe/week) and body wash (<.8 mg/pe/week) (Table 19). The loads generated were less than.6 mg/pe/d for deodorants, up to.4mg/pe/d for specific brands of toothpaste, conditioners, handwash, body wash, sunscreen and shampoo. Toilet paper also was a small contributor, with loads ranging between.2 mg/pe/week to.6 mg/pe/week (Table 19). The contribution from household products was of a similar order of magnitude, with generated loads of less than.5 mg/week for general cleaning products. In the kitchen, the nickel load generated by dishwashing products constituted up to.29 mg/pe/week for powders and liquids, but was less than.13 mg/pe/week for tablets. Similarly, laundry products contributed less than.9 mg/wash for soakers, fabric softeners and powders. But one private brand of laundry detergent generated a nickel load of 127 mg/wash, i.e. an equivalent weekly load of 389 mg/week for a single person household. Laundry and dishwashing products produced the largest nickel loads, with enviro label liquid and powder brand loads lower than those of the market leaders, but not necessarily the lowest within the range of brands tested. Overall, nickel was present in low concentrations and loads. The estimated weekly loads ranged between.3 mg/pe/week to.56 mg/pe/week for most streams (Table 19). These were dependent on brand and dosage. In comparison, the anthropogenic contribution was estimated to range between at.56mg/pe/week to 2.1mg/pe/week (Tjandraatmadja and Diaper 1996). Hence, in most cases, household products appear to be a small contributor of nickel but present in specific brands of laundry products. Priority contaminants in household products 39

52 Ni Table 18 Nickel concentration in household products Nickel concentration (mg/kg product) Product type Number of brands with detectable levels Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Aerosol deodorant 2/5 < < < Body wash 4/ Conditioner 3/ Cream cleanser Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing powder Dishwashing Tablet Fabric softener Floor cleaner 1/ / / /4 < /<.6 3/7 < <.6 <.4.4 2/4 <.5.66 <.5 <.21 < Hand wash 4/ In-cistern 4/ Laundry liquid Laundry powder Laundry soaker Multipurpose Roll-on deodorant 7/1 < , <.4 14,11 12/12 < < /2 <.6 <.6 <.6 < /2 <.4.16 <.1 <.1 < /4 < < Shampoo 7/1 < Sunscreen 2/7 < <.1.2 < Toilet cleaner Toilet freshener 1/4 <.1.47 <.176 <.26 < <.21 2/3 < < Toilet paper 7/ / Toothpaste 5/9 < <.5.39 Priority contaminants in household products 4

53 Table 19 Weekly nickel load estimated from product use Product type Maximum Ni weekly load (mg/pe/wk) Aerosol deodorant.43 Roll-on deodorant.7 Toilet cleaner.7 Toilet paper.57 Laundry soaker.81 Conditioner.11 Toothpaste.34 Shampoo.72 Body wash.8 Sunscreen.9 Multi-purpose.2 Cream cleanser.2 Toilet freshener.13 Dishwashing Tablet.13 Floor cleaner.1 In-cistern.56 Dishwashing powder.124 Fabric softener.171 Hand wash.21 Laundry powder.27 Dishwashing liquid.287 Laundry liquid Tin Tin (Sn) was detected in only 28% of the products analysed (Table 2). It was a minor element in specific brands of roll-on deodorant, sunscreen, body lotion, mouthwash and toothpaste. The maximum load estimated from such products was less than.7 mg/pe/week. The limits of detection for tin in cleaning products was seldom and only a few product categories had detectable tin across most brands which included toilet fresheners, in-cistern fresheners and dishwashing liquid (5 in 6 brands). The largest loads came from specific laundry powder brands, toilet bowl fresheners and specific brands of dishwashing liquids. Variability in element concentration across products was reflected in the load distribution. Tin ranged from.2 to 5.4 mg/pe/week and.35 to 1.98 mg/pe/week were generated by toilet fresheners and dishwashing liquids respectively (Table 21). The load of tin generated by laundry products ranged from.6 mg/pe/week to 21.6 mg/pe/week. Among laundry powders, the tin load ranged from zero to 21.6 mg/pe/week, but only three out of twelve products had detectable loads. Priority contaminants in household products 41

54 Toilet paper contributed less than.2 mg/pe/week. Tin was below the limit of detection in depilatories, facial lotion, shaving aid, scrub and cleanser, soap, conditioner, body wash, toilet cleaner, multi-purpose cleaner, dishwashing tablets and fabric softeners. The remainder of the loads derived from household products was less than.5 mg Sn/pe/week (Table 21) and the contribution from dust was less than.34 mg Sn/week (Table 4). The private label produced the largest tin load in handwash, toilet freshener, toilet paper, toothpaste and was the only aerosol deodorant with traces of tin. No other differentiation was observed in the tin content of private, enviro label and market leader brands within the range of other product categories tested. The tin load from faecal matter reported in the literature is estimated to range between.83 to.22 mg/pe/week (Altman and Dittmer ). Hence the combined load to sewer generated by household products which contain tin could be higher than the load generated by a person s anthropogenic load. Some laundry, dishwashing and toilet freshener products can generate loads greater than ten times the anthropogenic load. Sn Product type Number of brands with detecta ble levels Table 2 Tin concentration in household products Tin concentration (mg/kg product) Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Aerosol deodorant 1/5 < < Body Lotion 1/5 < <.55 <.62 <.4 - <.4 Cream cleanser Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing powder Dishwashing rinse aid 1/ / /3 < <.17-1/ Disinfectant 1/4 <.1.91 (bleach) <. 125 <.3.91 (bleach) /<.1 - <.5 Floor cleaner 1/4 < <.98 < Hand wash 2/4 < < In-cistern 4/ Laundry liquid 41 < <.4 Laundry powder Laundry soaker 3/12 <.2 9. < <.2 <.9 <.6 1/2 < <7.4 < Priority contaminants in household products 42

55 Mouthwash 1/5 <.2.34 <.4.68 <.2 - <.4 Roll-on deodorant 2/4 < Shampoo 4/1 < < < Sunscreen 2/7 <.2.86 < Toilet freshener 3/ Toilet paper 3/7 < <.2 <.2.19 Toothpaste 1/9 < <.4.14 <.15 < Table 21 Weekly tin load estimated from product use. Product type Maximum Sn weekly load (mg/pe/week) Roll-on deodorant.9 Floor cleaner.4 Sunscreen.43 Toilet paper (regular).2 (recycled) Dishwashing rinse aid.3 Aerosol deodorant.43 Cream cleanser.7 Disinfectant.9 Toothpaste.55 Mouthwash.7 Body Lotion.12 Shampoo.22 Dishwashing powder.24 Hand wash.35 Laundry liquid.35 Laundry soaker 1.89 Dishwashing liquid 1.98 In-cistern 3.5 Toilet freshener 5.4 Laundry powder Zinc Zinc (Zn) was detected in 71% of the products (Table 22). Priority contaminants in household products 43

56 No zinc was detected in the dishwashing rinse aid. The highest loads of zinc were attributed to specific sunscreen and anti-dandruff shampoo formulations, at respectively 3113 mg/pe/week and 147 mg/pe/week (Table 23). This was expected as zinc compounds, e.g. pyrithione zinc and zinc oxide, are used as active ingredients in certain formulations of anti-dandruff shampoo and sunscreens. The second largest loads originated from laundry products: liquid detergent (25mg/pe/week), powder detergent (16mg/pe/week) and a brand of dishwashing tablet (5mg/pe/week). Among bathroom products, one of the hand wash brands had a high concentration of zinc (2187 mg/kg), but the median zinc concentration among the other hand wash products was much lower at 1.4 mg/kg. Likewise specific brands of hand soap could also result in a comparable load contribution to sewer of up to 48.8mg/pe/week, as the zinc concentration in soap bars was a maximum of 581 mg/kg, but the median was only 1.3 mg/kg. These maximum loads are comparable to anthropogenic loads which range between 63 to 77 mg/pe/week as reported in the literature (Tjandraatmadja and Diaper 26). The zinc load from dust (up to 4.2 mg Zn/week) was 1 to 1 times greater than loads from surface cleaning and disinfectant products, and comparable to loads generated from some brands of floor cleaners (.2 to 9.8 mg Zn/pe/week) (Table 4). Zn Table 22 - Zinc concentration in household products Zinc concentration (mg/kg product) Product type Number of brands with detectable levels Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Aerosol deodorant 5/ Body Lotion 1/5 <.7 55 <.8 <11.6 <.7 - <.8 Body wash 4/ Cleanser 1/ Conditioner 3/ Cream cleanser 1/ Depilatory 1/ Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing powder Dishwashing Tablet 2/6 < / /4 < na 143/<.8 Disinfectant 1/4 < < <.5 Fabric softener 5/7 < < Facial lotion 4/ Floor cleaner 3/4 < <23 < Hand wash 3/4 < < Priority contaminants in household products 44

57 In-cistern freshener 3/4 < <.7 Mouthwash 1/5 <.8.43 <.4.9 <.4 - <.8 Multipurpose Laundry liquid Laundry powder Laundry soaker Roll-on deodorant 2/ /1 < <.2.38 <.7 12/ / /4 < < Shampoo 8/1 Zinc pyrithione is an active ingredient in many antidandruff formulations <.2 39,38 antidandruff 1.5 4, <.2 Shaving aid 2/ Scrub 1/ Soap 4/6 < <.2 - Sunscreen 6/7 Zinc oxide is an active ingredient used in some sunscreen formulations <.75 44, ,298 44, Toilet paper 7/ Toilet cleaner Toilet freshener 4/ / Toothpaste 5/9 < <.9.7 Table 23 Weekly zinc load estimated from product use Product type Maximum Zn weekly load (mg/pe/week) Shaving aid.2 Depilatory.3 Roll-on deodorant.45 Mouthwash.7 Priority contaminants in household products 45

58 Cream cleanser.8 Scrub.28 Disinfectant.5 Conditioner.9 Toothpaste.15 Toilet paper.18 (regular) 3.3 (recycled) Toilet freshener.25 In-cistern.29 Multi-purpose.34 Body wash.63 Aerosol deodorant.76 Facial lotion.98 Cleanser 1.75 Body Lotion 3.85 Shampoo.69 (regular) 147 (anti-dandruff) Dishwashing powder.94 Toilet cleaner 1.5 Fabric softener 1.62 Laundry soaker 1.89 Dishwashing Tablet 5.14 Dishwashing liquid 5.36 Floor cleaner 9.8 Laundry powder 15.8 Laundry liquid 24.8 Soap 48.8 Hand wash 184, else <.15 Sunscreen Sodium Sodium (Na) was monitored in household products due to its contribution to soil salinity, influence on sodium absorption ratio (SAR) and also as a major contributor to TDS. Sodium was detected in every single household product analysed (Table 24). The sodium content varied significantly between household products. Laundry and dishwasher products had the highest concentrations of sodium. Priority contaminants in household products 46

59 The rinse aid (.7 mg/pe/week) and deodorants (.35 mg/pe/week) produced the lowest weekly sodium loads as shown in Table 25. Average weekly sodium loads derived from personal care products ranged from.1 to 5,229 mg/pe/week. High variability in the sodium load distribution among brands was observed as the overall loads ranged from zero to 8,92 mg/pe/week. The highest loads were generated by a brand of sunscreen (<8,918 mg/pe/week), soaps (<5,975 mg/pe/week) and toothpaste (<2,58 mg/pe/week). For cleaning products, the overall load varied from zero to 216,17 mg/pe/week, and the average loads ranged from 43 to 8,382 mg/pe/week. Hence average loads were up to 17% higher than those generated by personal products. Laundry and automatic dishwashing products were the highest overall weekly load contributors. Weekly loads ranged from 6,238 to 216,17 mg/pe/week and up to 43,91 mg/pe/week for laundry detergents and soakers, respectively. Smaller loads were generated by automatic dishwashers: for dishwashing powders, between 76 to 34,187 mg/pe/week; and for dishwashing tablets, between 392 to 9,543 mg/pe/week. Manual dishwashing, on the other hand, only generated a maximum load of 1,432 mg/pe/week. General household cleaning products were low contributors by comparison. Among these, toilet products produced the highest loads - fresheners yielded between 649 to 5,847 mg Na/pe/week. All other cleaning products produced less than 5 mg Na/pe/week (Table 25). In summary, sodium was detected in all household products tested with the largest loads generated by the washing machine and dishwasher. Household products are significant contributors of sodium, with loads comparable and often exceeding the estimated anthropogenic load of 11,9 to 42, mg/pe/week from urine (Tjandraatmadja and Diaper 26). The sodium contribution from dust (up to.75 mg/week) was negligible in comparison (section 4.3). Element loads were comparable for brands within each product range. Private brands did not necessarily have a higher element concentration than regular brands. In most cases, the sodium content for the private brand was in the lower tier of the range (e.g. sodium in disinfectants, laundry liquids, in-cistern fresheners, shampoo, sunscreen, toilet cleaners and toothpaste). The only exception was body wash, where the private brand had a higher sodium concentration (15 g/kg) than the average (1 g/kg) (Table 24). Na Table 24 - Sodium concentration in household products Sodium concentration (mg/kg product) Product type Number of brands with detectable levels Minimum Maximum Median Average Leader Enviro Private Aerosol deodorant 4/ Body Lotion 5/ , , Body wash 4/4 6,856 14, , ,87 Cleanser 1/1 18, Conditioner 3/ Cream cleanser 1/1 6,722 6, Priority contaminants in household products 47

60 Depilatory 1/1 637 Dishwashing rinse aid Dishwashing liquid Dishwashing powder 1/ /6 1,83 19,482 7,39 8,144 8,144 1,83 8,882 4/4 238, , , , , , ,94 Dishwashing Tablet 3/3 223, , , ,85 243,99 238,329 No enviro tablet available - only powder. 257,963 3 Disinfectant 4/ ,459 7,831 1,32 34, Fabric softener Facial lotion 4/ , ,282 Floor cleaner 4/4 1,98 24,173 3,26 7,948 24,173 3,37 - Hand wash 5/5 6,839 13,67 8,695 1,165 6,839-8,681 In-cistern 4/4 22,77 175,875 95,177 97,76 175,874-22,77 Laundry liquid Laundry powder Laundry soaker 6/ ,25 22,274 34,873 8,718 11,74 1,57 12/12 174,4 576,47 299, , , , ,856 2/2 293, ,261 39,562 39, , Mouthwash 5/ , , Multipurpose Roll-on deodorant 2/2 1,68 1,873 1,74 1,74 1, / Scrub 1/1 5, Shampoo 1/ ,372 8,467 15,17 3,477-7,699 Shaving aid 5/ , ,549 58,594-1, Soap 6/6 47,67 71,127 66,56 62,254 47,67 67,878 65,135 Sunscreen 7/ , , , Toilet cleaner Toilet freshener 4/ , , , /4 14, , , , , ,885 3 Average of 2 private brands. Priority contaminants in household products 48

61 Toilet paper 7/ , ,139 1, Toothpaste 9/9 2,39 61,429 4,198 1,619 5,67 3,388 2,39 Table 25 Weekly sodium load estimated from product use Product type Maximum Na weekly load (mg/pe/week) Dishwashing rinse aid.7 Aerosol deodorant.31 Roll-on deodorant.35 Depilatory 1.9 Conditioner 8.6 Facial lotion 48.8 Fabric softener 67 Cream cleanser 67.2 Body Lotion 97.3 Scrub 15 Multi-purpose 126 Toilet paper 268 Disinfectant 344 Floor cleaner 362 Face Cleanser 392 Body wash 551 Hand wash 1,148 Shaving aid 1,23 Dishwashing liquid 1,432 Toilet cleaner 1,448 Shampoo 1,819 Toothpaste 258 Mouthwash 2,852 In-cistern 5,171 Toilet freshener 5,847 Soap 5,975 Sunscreen 8,918 Dishwashing Tablet 9,543 Laundry liquid 22,417 Dishwashing powder 34,187 Laundry soaker 43,91 Laundry powder 216,17 Priority contaminants in household products 49

62 Metal loads in household streams To illustrate the impact of household products on wastewater streams, the results for each product type were aggregated to determine the median and maximum loads that could arise from individual and combined household wastewater streams. The individual streams evaluated were bathroom (shower and vanity sink), toilet (no faecal matter), kitchen sink or dishwasher (DW) and washing machine (WM). The evaluation assumed the use of the product brand with the highest individual load for each stream providing a conservative or worst case scenario load and the use of the median load for comparison. The median value was selected due to the non-normal distribution of product loads. The average, minimum and standard deviation data for each stream can be found in Appendix 6. This illustrates the maximum loads expected, the variability in product loads and the impact that the maximum value has on the average values. In cases where elements were below detection for the majority of products, the minimum and the median were assumed to be zero. On the other hand, although many of the products within a stream can have low loads, one product with a high load can often skew the average. Variation in stream composition due to interchange of products was also considered. For instance: handwash or soap; laundry liquid or powder; toilet bowl freshener or in-cistern freshener; aerosol or roll-on deodorant; dishwashing powder, tablet or liquid. The stream loads for a household on a weekly basis are shown in Figures 9 to 15. The streams compositions were: Bathroom 1: soap, shampoo, conditioner, sunscreen, lotion, facial scrub and cleanser, toothpaste, mouthwash and aerosol deodorant Bathroom 2: hand wash, body wash, shampoo, conditioner, sunscreen, lotion, facial scrub and cleanser, toothpaste, mouthwash and roll-on deodorant Kitchen 1: manual dishwashing detergent Kitchen 2: auto dishwashing tablet and rinse aid Kitchen 3: auto dishwashing powder and rinse aid Laundry 1: powder detergent concentrate and fabric softener Laundry 2: liquid detergent concentrate and fabric softener Toilet 1: toilet cleaner, toilet paper and toilet bowl freshener Toilet 2: toilet cleaner, toilet paper and in-cistern freshener. For comparison purposes the load from anthropogenic waste (faeces and urine) derived from overseas literature was also included in the figures. The loads from other cleaning products were not included in the evaluation as these were considered appliance dependent and because of the low frequency of use compared to the other activities. The summary of these results is shown in Table 27. The overall load of household wastewater derived from the combination of the individual greywater streams were determined using the permutations shown in Table 26. The resulting wastewater streams are described as: Wastewater 1 (ww1): use of bar soap in the shower, manual dishwashing with liquid detergent, laundry powder and toilet bowl freshener Wastewater 2 (ww2): use of shower gel, dishwashing tablet, laundry liquid and in-cistern freshener Wastewater 3 (ww3): use of bar soap, dishwasher powder, laundry powder and toilet bowl freshener. Priority contaminants in household products 5

63 These were compared to the load from anthropogenic waste and are shown in Table 28. Table 26 Household streams adopted in the combined wastewater load simulation Wastewater 1 Wastewater 2 Wastewater 3 Bathroom Bathroom 1 Bathroom 2 Bathroom 1 Kitchen Kitchen 1 Kitchen 2 Kitchen 3 Laundry Laundry 1 Laundry 2 Laundry 1 Toilet Toilet 1 Toilet 2 Toilet 1 Element As Observation Table 27 Summary of results Bathroom and Toilet produced the largest loads (maximum 1.13 mg/pe/week and.2 mg/pe/week). Median loads were much smaller (.7 mg/pe/week for the bathroom and nil for the toilet respectively). Toilet: Maximum load <.21mg/pe/week, median load mg/pe/week. Only the bathroom had a minimum detectable load (.48 mg/d). Minimum and median loads were negligible compared to the average and maximum loads. i.e. loads derived from toilet were generally low, and caused by specific brands containing As. In this case, one in-cistern product was responsible for an increase in load of 2.5times. A maximum load 193% larger was generated by laundry liquids compared to powders. No detectable As loads in dishwashing liquid detergent. Yet As was present in 1 brand of tablet (.17 mg/week) and 2 brands of dishwashing powders (<.2 mg/week). Theoretical As loads from human waste would be expected to be much larger than the loads generated by individual household streams (Figure 11). B Toilet and laundry were the prime sources with loads (median 39mg/pe/week and 394 mg/pe/week, maximum 431 mg/pe/week and 1264 mg/pe/week respectively) Toilet and laundry products contained B more often, as seen in the median and minimum values (Appendix 6). Powder laundry detergents generate at least 4% larger B loads than liquid detergents. Dishwasher tablets can generate larger loads (at least 14% more) than liquids and powders. In combined wastewater, loads were estimated to range between 3% to 47% (median) and 6 to 26 times (maximum) the human waste load. Cd Loads were less than 2.2 mg/d (max.2.2 mg/pe/week, median.12mg/pe/week). The kitchen generated the highest median load, but the laundry could generate Priority contaminants in household products 51

64 Cu the maximum overall load depending on the brand of product used. Median and minimum values indicate kitchen (liquid and tablet dishwashing) are potential Cd sources, i.e. more products contained Cd as an element. Median loads were comparable to median human waste loads, but maximum loads generated by laundry and bathroom can exceed the maximum human load (Figure 13). The maximum combined wastewater load would be expected to be equivalent to less than 15% of the human waste load. Maximum stream contribution was less than.85mg/pe/d and this was only.6% of the load expected from the human load. Bathroom, laundry, kitchen and toilet were all potential sources. Toilet fresheners were the most significant contributors of Cu (min..16, max..294 mg/pe/week). Dishwashing liquids produced larger Cu loads than tablets and liquids due to their frequency of use. But powders produce higher median loads. Fe Maximum stream contribution was generated by the bathroom (max. 113 mg/pe/week, median 7.6 mg/pe/week). Pb Hg Ni Present in all household streams and common in most products as seen by minimum and median bars, particularly in laundry, kitchen and toilet streams. Comparison of median loads from household products with anthropogenic loads indicates that the human loads were 3% higher than median product loads. But when products with high iron concentration were used, the maximum loads from the bathroom were 8% higher than the maximum human load (Appendix 6). Minimum and median loads were negligible compared to the average and maximum loads (Appendix 6). Maximum load was obtained when in-cistern freshener was used (2.88 mg/pe/week with the in-cistern freshener contributing 2.8 mg/pe/week). Maximum loads were attributed to toilet, laundry and kitchen streams. However median loads from those streams were small compared to loads expected from human loads (max..59 mg/pe/week compared to less than.7 mg/pe/week) (Figure 16). Only detected in one product used for automatic dishwashing, generating a maximum kitchen load of.14 mg/pe/week. Maximum stream contribution was in the laundry when liquid detergent was used (max.389 mg/pe/week). All other streams, including human waste, had maximum loads of less than 2.1 mg/pe/week. Largest median load was for human waste, 1.3mg/pe/week. Median loads for the other streams ranged:.5.8mg/pe/week. Sn Largest loads were in the toilet and laundry streams (maximum 21.6 and 5.5 mg/pe/week). But with the exception of the toilet, minimum and median loads were negligible for most streams compared to the maximum loads (Figure 19). Toilet median was 4.8 mg/pe/week, whilst the median for other streams was less than.8mg/pe/week. No data was available in the literature for the contribution from human waste. Priority contaminants in household products 52

65 Zn The largest loads came from the bathroom (max.43 mg/pe/week, med. 2. mg/pe/week, min..7 mg/pe/week), human waste (77 mg/pe/week, median 7 mg/pe/week) and laundry (max mg/pe/week). The largest median loads attributed to household products came from the kitchen and bathroom, respectively 2.5mg/pe/week and 2. mg/pe/week. Median loads were less than 1 mg/pe/week for other streams Na Laundry was the major source (max.216 g/pe/week, median 69 g/pe/week), followed by the kitchen (max g/pe/week, median 9 g/pe/week). Powder detergent produced a larger load than liquids (the median was 19 times larger). Auto-dishwashing detergents (Median g/pe/week) produced higher loads than liquids (Median.5 mg/pe/week). In combined wastewater, loads were estimated to range between 6% to 3% (median) and 2% to 1% (maximum) the human waste load. Based on the evaluation of streams, the maximum loads for elements derived from household products are likely to originate from: Arsenic: Bathroom> Toilet (specifically in cistern freshener)> Laundry > Dishwasher (powder) Boron: Laundry (powder)>> Toilet (toilet freshener)> Bathroom> Dishwasher (tablet) Cadmium: Laundry > Bathroom > Kitchen> Toilet Copper: Bathroom> Laundry (powder)> kitchen(manual) > Toilet> Laundry (liquid) Iron: Bathroom>> Toilet> Laundry > Kitchen Lead: Toilet (in cistern)> Laundry (powder)> Kitchen(manual)> Bathroom> Toilet (freshener) Mercury: Dishwasher for only 1 brand of dishwashing product Nickel: Laundry (liquid)>> Bathroom (soap)> Laundry (powder)> Bathroom (bodywash/ handwash) > Kitchen (manual/powder)>toilet Sodium: Laundry (Powder)> Dishwasher (Powder)> Bathroom (soap) > Laundry (liquid) > Bathroom (bodywash)> Dishwasher (Tablet) >Toilet Tin: Laundry (powder)> Toilet> Kitchen (manual)> Bathroom > Laundry (liquid) Zinc: Bathroom > Laundry > Kitchen> Toilet. This has implications to wastewater quality and source control. As seen in Figure 11 to Figure 21 and Table 28, the selection of household products can have a marked impact on the loads of priority contaminants discharged into wastewater. Likewise, diversion of greywater (from laundry and bathroom) from sewers has the potential to reduce the loads of arsenic, boron, cadmium, copper, iron, sodium, tin and zinc among other streams. However, the effectiveness of product selection and greywater diversion as a source control strategy is dependent on the element considered. Priority contaminants in household products 53

66 For boron and sodium, which have the largest contribution based on the mass load compared to the human anthropogenic contribution, the results could be significant. Wastewater median loads derived from household products were estimated to be at least 55% and 58% of the respective anthropogenic loads for boron and sodium, but this could be reduced to 8% for boron and 36% for sodium through product selection alone. For arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel and in particular zinc, product selection could ensure that loads from household products remained at less than 6% of anthropogenic loads (Table 28), but stream separation would be likely to be more complex and have a lesser impact. Table 28 Comparison of the wastewater load generated by products to anthropogenic loads Ratio of load in wastewater to Human contribution [ww]/[human] Maximum As B Cd Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn Na ww nd ww nd ww nd Minimum ww nd..52 ww nd..36 ww nd..54 Median ww nd ww nd.6.58 ww nd Note: nd - not determined Priority contaminants in household products 54

67 Median As (mg/week for 1 pe) Maximum As (mg/week for 1pe) Human (ave) Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 1 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Toilet 1 (TF) Toilet 2 (TI). Human Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Bathroom 2 Toilet 2 (TI) Laundry 2 (L) Kitchen 2 (T) Laundry 1 (P) Kitchen 3 (P) Toilet (TF) Kitchen 1 (M) Figure 11 Median and maximum arsenic loads in household streams Median B (mg/week for 1 pe) Maximum B(mg/week for 1pe) Toilet 1 (TF) Laundry 1 (P) Toilet 2 (TI) Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Human (ave) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Laundry 2 (L) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 3 (P) Kitchen 2 (T) Laundry 1 (P) Toilet (TF) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Kitchen 2 (T) Bathroom 2 Toilet 2 (TI) Laundry 2 (L) Kitchen 1 (M) Human Kitchen 3 (P) Figure 12 - Median and maximum boron loads in household streams Median Cd (mg/week for 1 pe) Human (ave) Kitchen 1 (M) Laundry 1 (P) Kitchen 2 (T) Laundry 2 (L) Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Kitchen 3 (P) Toilet 1 (TF) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Toilet 2 (TI) Maximum Cd (mg/week for 1pe) Laundry 2 (L) Laundry 1 (P) Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Bathroom 2 Human Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 3 (P) Kitchen 2 (T) Toilet 2 (TI) Toilet (TF) Figure 13 - Median and maximum cadmium loads in household streams Priority contaminants in household products 55

68 Maximum Cu (mg/week for 1pe) Maximum Cu (mg/week for 1pe) Human Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Kitchen 3 (P) Toilet 2 (TI) Kitchen 1 (M) Bathroom 2 Toilet (TF) Laundry 1 (P) Kitchen 2 (T) Laundry 2 (L) Human Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Laundry 1 (P) Kitchen 1 (M) Toilet (TF) Bathroom 2 Laundry 2 (L) Kitchen 3 (P) Toilet 2 (TI) Kitchen 2 (T) Figure 14 Median and maximum copper loads in household streams Median Fe (mg/week for 1 pe) Median Pb (mg/week for 1 pe) Human (ave) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Human (ave) Toilet 2 (TI) Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Toilet 1 (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Laundry 1 (P) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 2 (T) Figure 15 - Median and maximum iron loads in household streams Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Toilet 1 (TF) Kitchen 1 (M) Laundry 1 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Maximum Fe (mg/week for 1pe) Toilet 2 (TI) Human Laundry 1 (P) Kitchen 1 (M) Figure 16 - Median and maximum lead loads in household streams Maximum Pb (mg/week for 1pe) Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Bathroom 2 Human Toilet (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Laundry 1 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 3 (P) Kitchen 2 (T) Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Bathroom 2 Toilet (TF) Laundry 2 (L) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Dust Priority contaminants in household products 56

69 Median Hg (mg/week for 1 pe) Human (ave) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 1 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Toilet 1 (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Maximum Hg (mg/week for 1pe) Human Kitchen 2 (T) Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Bathroom 2 Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 1 (P) Figure 17- Median and maximum mercury loads in household streams Laundry 2 (L) Toilet (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Median Ni (mg/week for 1 pe) Human (ave) Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Kitchen 1 (M) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Laundry 1 (P) Toilet 1 (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Laundry 2 (L) Kitchen 3 (P) Kitchen 2 (T) Maximum Ni (mg/week for 1pe) Laundry 2 (L) Human Bathroom 2 Laundry 1 (P) Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Kitchen 1 (M) Figure 18 - Median and maximum nickel loads in household streams Kitchen 3 (P) Toilet 2 (TI) Toilet (TF) Kitchen 2 (T) Median Sn (mg/week for 1 pe) Toilet 1 (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Kitchen 1 (M) Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 1 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Human (ave) Maximum Sn (mg/week for 1pe) Laundry 1 (P) Toilet (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Kitchen 1 (M) Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Bathroom 2 Laundry 2 (L) Kitchen 3 (P) Kitchen 2 (T) Human Figure 19 Median and maximum tin loads in household streams Priority contaminants in household products 57

70 Median Zn (mg/week for 1 pe) Human (ave) Kitchen 2 (T) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Laundry 1 (P) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Toilet 2 (TI) Toilet 1 (TF) Kitchen 1 (M) Maximum Zn(mg/week for 1pe) Bathroom 1 (sp,ae) Bathroom 2 Human Laundry 2 (L) Laundry 1 (P) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Toilet 2 (TI) Toilet (TF) Figure 2 Median and maximum zinc element loads in household streams Median Na (mg/week for 1 pe) Laundry 1 (P) Human (ave) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Bathroom 1 (Sp,ae) Toilet 1 (TF) Laundry 2 (L) Toilet 2 (TI) Bathroom 2 (BW,RO) Kitchen 1 (M) Maximum Na (mg/week for 1pe) Laundry 1 (P) Kitchen 3 (P) Human Bathroom 1 (sp, ae) Laundry 2 (L) Bathroom 2 Kitchen 2 (T) Toilet (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Kitchen 1 (M) Figure 21 Median and maximum sodium loads in household streams Overall the contribution from household products was strongly dependent on specific brand formulation. As a potential source of priority elements, household products: were not significant contributors of mercury, neither was the airborne dust collected from households were significant contributors of boron, tin and sodium were minimal contributors of nickel and copper contributed to various degrees to the other elements. Product selection and source control are likely to be a particularly effective strategy for reduction of boron, sodium and tin derived from household products. Priority contaminants in household products 58

71 Comparison of regular, private and enviro labelled brands Regular brands were compared with private and environment label brands in sections to to determine if any correlations could be observed between element content and those labels. The results showed that: The element concentrations in private brands were comparable to those of regular and enviro brand products, although their comparative rank varied for each element. For instance, in the case of toilet cleaners, sodium in private brands was in the lower range, whilst in in-cistern toilet fresheners the private brand had the highest arsenic concentration among the products tested (Table 6). Hence private brands are not necessarily associated with higher element concentrations. Environment label brands did not necessarily equate to lower priority element concentrations either. Whilst having a lower element concentration than a range of market leader products, for many of the environment label products concentrations were between the low and high concentration distribution ranges. For example, as shown in Table 29 for sodium, some environment label products were in the lower 35 th percentile range, but these did not necessarily have the lowest concentration. The sodium concentration was lower for the environment label toilet paper and dishwashing detergent compared to the other brands, but it was the highest among toilet cleaners and mid-range for laundry liquids. Similarly, the copper concentration in recycled toilet paper was larger than in regular brands, whilst sodium it was lower. The concentration of lead in toilet paper was not observed to be necessarily higher for recycled tissue. Hence the environment label or private brand tags on products do not necessarily equate to a reduced element concentration than regular products. Instead individual concentrations vary significantly across brands. Generally environment label products are marketed as products of low phosphorus content, and the data indicates that no particular emphasis is placed on other priority elements. However, recently a number of laundry detergents are currently being promoted in the market as containing low sodium and low phosphorus. Market leaders showed no particular association with priority elements either. For example, among shampoos, the market leader had the highest boron concentration of all products tested. Product Table 29 Comparison of sodium concentration in some household products Concentration (g Na/kg product) Market leader Enviro label brand Private brand Product concentration range Toilet cleaner Laundry powder Laundry liquid Toilet paper Dishwashing detergent Dishwashing powder Priority contaminants in household products 59

72 Impact of product dosage Significant uncertainty is also associated with the dosages adopted by householders. This was observed in the verification of recommended dosages as per manufacturers instructions and is also exacerbated by individual consumer preferences. In such regard standardisation, e.g. pre-packaged products for unitised dosages such as sachets or tablets as available for some laundry and automatic dishwashing products could be useful to control the amount of product utilised per application. In this assessment, evaluations were based on scenarios and conservative assumptions have identified the streams most likely to produce the highest loads of priority elements within the household. Loads were estimated on a weekly basis for a single person household. As the number of inhabitants in a household increases, loads are likely to differ as loads from bathroom and toilet and the anthropogenic load increase in proportion to the number of people in the household, whilst appliance based loads from the washing machine and dishwasher tend to increase at a slower rate (Roberts, 25). The estimates showed significant dependency on the products used, therefore the results need to be considered within the scope of the range of products analysed and the limited number of brands evaluated. Nevertheless, the study revealed the potential contribution that different streams were likely to have on the loads reaching wastewater. For instance, dishwashers and washing machines can produce an equivalent load as 8-1 showers or 8-1 household cleaning loads for elements such as sodium in the scenario considered in this report. During the evaluation, product performance was not within the scope of the project, and the results have not considered the efficacy or how much product is required to achieve the desired service level for a specific product brand. This is likely to affect the amount of product used by householders and is likely to differ with each product brand. Priority contaminants in household products 6

73 5. Conclusions and recommendations The report outlines the results from the analysis of a range of household and personal care products that are commonly used and may end up in wastewater through daily household activities. In the investigation the presence of elements was measured and estimates were calculated by using the products with the highest concentrations to identify worst case scenarios. Among the elements studied, sodium (Na) was present in every single product, while iron (Fe) and zinc (Zn) were present in the majority of products analysed. Boron (B) was present in a range of products particularly in laundry, kitchen and bathroom products. Traces of lead (Pb) and nickel (Ni) were present in many products. The major findings from the investigation were: Element content is generally brand specific, i.e. within majority of the product categories some brands had detectable elements loads, whilst others did not and concentrations also varied across brands. The variability within brands can seriously impact the loads generated, as particular brands had significantly larger loads than the majority of the products within the category. Private and environmentally-friendly brands did not necessarily differentiate themselves from regular brands in regards to As, B, Cd, Cu, Fe, Hg, Pb, Ni, Sn and Zn. The load derived from household products depends on the element concentration and the amount of product used. Consequently a number of products, whilst containing priority elements when adopted, are used in small quantities and will result in the generation of small loads which when further diluted are likely to be at or below detection limits. When considering individual elements: Hg was absent from all but one product analysed. Hence common household products are an unlikely source of mercury into wastewater. As was detected in a few products only, with the highest levels being 7mg/kg product for a brand of toilet freshener and some personal products. The loads are likely to be difficult to detect for on-line monitoring due to dilution in wastewater. B was present in a range of household and personal care products, with laundry and dishwashing products having the largest content. The last two were significant as the generated loads were much higher than the theoretical load expected from human waste. Cd was an occasional element present in low concentrations in a range of shower and household products, with handwash and body wash being the two product categories identified as having the highest content. Cd content had a strong dependency on individual product formulation. Whilst majority of personal care and household products produced median loads lower than the anthropogenic loads to sewer, specific brands of laundry and shower products could result significantly higher loads to sewer, between 2 to 3% for greywater from the washing machine and up to 25% for greywater from the shower. Cu was present in a range of household products, but the loads were much smaller than the loads expected from anthropogenic waste. The only product with a significant Cu load was red hair colouring. Cu was present in a wide Priority contaminants in household products 61

74 range of products in <5mg/kg, red hair colorants were the products that provided the highest content. Fe was a common element in the majority of cleaning products. However, median loads were generally lower than the excreta load. Pb was present in a number of brands across most household products, including in-cistern products. Loads at less than 1 mg/pe/week were higher than those derived from airborne pollution. Median loads were not significant compared to the theoretical human load, but certain brands of toilet fresheners and laundry powders can generate loads which are comparable to the human excreta loads. Ni levels were very low in most products, particularly for personal care products; laundry and dishwashing products had the largest content. But laundry and bathroom streams yielded the highest stream loads. Median loads for individual streams to sewer were lower than the human anthropogenic load (between <1% to 5%), but specific brands of laundry products could result in loads up to 4 times the excreta load. Na was present in all products at varying concentrations with the greatest content verified in laundry and dishwashing. Sn was seldom encountered among the products analysed, with laundry powder and toilet fresheners providing the greatest contributions. Yet the anthropogenic load is also small, and therefore the combined load generated by specific products brands that contain Sn could be up to 1 times higher than the human excreta loads. Zn was present in a range of products across the household, with shampoos and deodorants having the highest content particularly as it is an essential ingredient in some formulations. The Zn load from bathroom greywater derived from the use of certain brands of personal care products can result in significant loads compared to the human contribution. Dissolution of household products in water and the associated ph, conductivity, TDS and colour generated will depend on the volume of water adopted by the householder. A preliminary estimation of typical dissolutions was conducted and has shown that majority of household products will generate a ph range between 4 and 11. Colour was more intense for hair dyes and bathroom products with respective ranges of 225 to 485 Pt-Co units and up to 51 Pt-co units in greywater. However, as those streams are mixed with other wastewater streams further changes in colour would be expected. The conductivity and the TDS were the highest for dishwashing, laundry and cleaning products, which was not surprising considering the amount of product used in laundry and dishwashing, and whilst small dosages are used for cleaning, they are often used at low dilution, e.g. 1 bucket of 5L. However, the overall loads of TDS were seen to be much greater for the washing machine and the kitchen wastewater streams. As households adopt more efficient appliances and minimise water consumption the dilution ratios are likely to decrease and concentrations increase. Overall, the findings indicate that the type of household products adopted can have a marked impact on the loads of certain priority contaminants discharged into wastewater. Hence, simple source control strategies such as product selection and stream diversion would be expected to have the greatest impact on load reduction for boron and sodium. Majority of household products tested produced a minor load of copper, mercury, lead, nickel and tin, compared to the human waste contribution. Their relative contribution compared to other sources, e.g. water sources and infrastructure, needs to be investigated further. Despite a lesser impact, product selection and/or standards for maximum contaminant levels could ensure that these low levels are maintained. Priority contaminants in household products 62

75 The analysis conducted was based on the evaluation of a limited range of brands within each product category and hence the loads for other brands within the category may differ from the range reported. The cleaning/washing performance of the products and its impact on product usage and wastewater loads was also not considered in this analysis. Recommended steps for further research and verification of the analysis here reported include: extension of product range analysed verification of dust contribution from an extended range of parameters and pollution, where a larger sample would be used and dust gathered from mopping water would be analysed verification of human contribution to wastewater, which is planned during field house evaluation evaluation of the impact of infrastructure for parameters such as Cu verification of source water impact further analysis of stream loads sensitivity in regards to dosages, household inhabitants, behaviour patterns, etc. Priority contaminants in household products 63

76 6. References ABS (21), ABS Cat. no : Special Article - Average floor area of new dwellings, Australian Bureau of Statistics, CA256BF8BA4B?OpenDocument, last updated 8/12/26, last accessed 1/9/27. AC Nielsen (26), AC Nielsen Grocery Report 26, AdNews (26), Top Brands Special report, AdNews, 13 Jan 26, L2-L6. Altmann, P.L and Dittmer, D.S ( ) Biology Data Book, Second Edition, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,1489. APHA/AWWA (1998), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Editors L.S. Clesceri, A.E.Greenberg, A.D.Eaton, American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Waater Environment Federation, 2 th Edition. Aonghusa, C. C and Gray, N.F.(22), Laundry Detergents as a Source of heavy metals in Irish domestic wastewater, J.Environ. Sci.Health, A31(1), 1-6. Chattopadhyay, G., Lin, K. C-P. and Feitz, A. (23) Household dust metal levels in the Sydney Metropolitan Area, Env.Res., 93, Connor, M.A. and Wilkie, P.J. (1995) Domestic contributions to levels of key organics and inorganic pollutants in Melbourne sewage, University of Melbourne, June Christova-Boal, D., Eden, R.E. and McFarlane, S. (1996) An investigation into greywater reuse for residential properties, Desalination, 16, Gardner T. and Millar G. (23) The performance of a greywater system at the Healthy Home in South East Queensland three years of data. In Proceedings of On Site- 3 Conference Future Directions for On-site systems: best management practice. University of New England 3th Sept to 2nd Oct, Lanfax Laboratories Jenkins, D. (1998) The effect of reformulation of household powder laundry detergents on their contribution to heavy metals in wastewater, Water Environment Research, 7(5), pp LeBlanc, A, Dumas, P. And Lefebvre, L.(1999), Trace element content of commercial shampoos, The Science of the Total Environment, 229, Lock, W.H. (1994) Research Report (Urban Water Research Association of Australia) No.79: Heavy metals and organics in domestic wastewater, Urban Water Research Association of Australia. Patterson, R.A. (24) Laundry Product Research, Lanfax Laboratories Armidale NSW, accessed September 26. Retail World (25), Retail World Annual report (25) Health & Beauty, Household Cleaning, Pest Control, Laundry Needs, Retail Media. Retail World 26, Retail World Annual report (26) Health & Beauty, Household Cleaning, Pest Control, Laundry Needs, Retail Media. Roberts, P (25) 24 Residential end Use Measurement study (REUMS), Yarra Valley Water. Tjandraatmadja, G. and Diaper, C. (26) Water for a Healthy Country Report: Sources of critical elements in domestic wastewater a literature review, CSIRO, p. 17. Tusseau, A.C. (27) CSIRO Report: Evaluation of Greywater flows from Household Appliances, in print. Priority contaminants in household products 64

77 Appendix 1 Recommended dosages Table 3 Examples of recommended dosages of household products 4 Product Name Recommend Volumes Mass (g) Surfmatic for front loaders Omo Top Load Concentrate Spree concentrate washing powder Radiant Power concentrate washing powder Aware Front and Top Loaders washing powder Duo Concentrate washing powder Water Efficiency Appliance Quantity of Water (L or kg) WELS rating Normal - 1 scoop 83.8 High Large/Hard water scoop High Hand washing -.5 scoop 41.9 High 2 Normal - 1 scoop 65.4 High 73 3 Large/Hard water scoop 98.1 High 73 3 Hand washing -.5 scoop 32.7 High 2 Normal - 1 scoop 93. High 73 3 Large/Hard water scoop High 73 3 Hand washing -.5 scoop 46.5 High 2 Top Loading - 1 scoop 8.8 High 73 3 Large/Hard water scoop High 73 3 Front Loading -.5 scoop 4.4 High Front Loading Large - 2/3 scoop 53.9 High Top Loaders - 3 tbs 57.5 High 73 3 Front loaders tbs 28.7 High 73 4 Hand Washing - 1 tbs 19.2 High 2 Normal - 1 scoop 93.4 High 73 3 Heavy soil/ Hard water scoops 14. High 73 3 Omo Matic Sensitive concentrate washing Front Loading - 1 scoop 93.8 High Note: The brands of products in the table were randomly selected from local grocery stores to showcase the range of recommended dosages. Priority contaminants in household products 65

78 powder Surf Ocean Fresh washing powder Napisan Oxyaction Max Fluffy Fabric Softener Coles Smart Buy Fabric Rinse fabric softener Huggie Original Fabric Softener Cuddly Sunshine Fresh laundry liquid Pure Woolens and Delicates Large/Hard water scoop 14.8 High Hand wash -.5 scoop 46.9 High 2 Top Loading - 1 scoop 99.1 High 73 3 Large/Hard water scoop High 73 3 Hand washing -.5 scoop per 5 L 49.6 High 2 Inwash stain remover front loader - 3. High g Inwash stain remover top loader - 6. High g Stain soaker - 3g per 7 L 3. High 2 Paste - 1tsp with 3tsp of warm 7.6 (Top) High 73 3 water Liquid stain remover - 15g in 1ml 15. (Top) High 73 3 water Top Loading - 8mls 74.1 High 73 3 Twin Tubs - 6mls Front Loading - 8mls 74.1 High Handwash - 4mls 37. High 2 Automatic and Wringer -.5 cup 16.7 High 73 3 Twin Tubs -.5 cup to 4 L of water 16.7 High 4 Hand washing -.25 cup 53.3 High 2 Wollens -.5 cup 16.7 High 2 Top loading - 6mls 61. High 73 3 Front loading - 45mls 45.8 High Twin Tub - 45mls 45.8 High 4 Handwash - 3mls 3.5 High 2 Top loading - 1 cap 98.7 High 73 3 Front Loading/Twin Tubs - 1 cap 98.7 High Hand wash -.75 cap 74.1 High 2 Top Loading caps 9.1 High 73 3 Front Loading - 1 cap 36. High Priority contaminants in household products 66

79 Earth Choice Laundry Liquid Purity Sensitive Laundry Liquid Love 'n' Care Laundry Liquid Hand washing - 1 cap 36. High 2 Top loading light - 6mls 6.9 High 73 3 Top loading heavy - 8mls 81.2 High 73 3 Front loading - 3mls 3.5 High Small Load - 2 caps 82.8 High 73 3 Normal caps High 73 3 Large/Hard water caps High 73 3 Front Loader - 1 cap 41.4 High Front Loader Large caps High Soaking caps into 5 L 62.1 High 2 Light loads - 1 cap 8.2 High 73 3 Normal Loads caps 12.4 High 73 3 Heavy Loads - 2 caps 16.5 High 73 3 Sard Wonder Soaker laundry liquid 1 L in 7 L 56.1 High 2 Radiant Clothes washing liquid 2/3 cups per 5 L water High 2 Sunsilk Silky and Straight Tresemme Shampoo Palmolive Aroma Therapy Shampoo (2cent size) 2.6 High min/ Med 72 8 min/ Low 16 8 min/ (2cent size) 3.8 High min/ Med 72 8 min/ Low 16 8 min/ (2cent size) 2.9 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Priority contaminants in household products 67

80 Natures Organics Fruits Hair Spa Shampoo Head and Shoulders Sensitive Scalp Shampoo Pantene Pro-V Daily Moisture Renewal Shampoo Coles Complete Balance Shampoo Dove Revitalising Care Shampoo Garnier Fructis Fortifying Shampoo (2cent size) 5.1 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ (5cent size) 3.4 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ (2cent size) 3.4 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ (2cent size) 2.8 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ (5cent size) 6.1 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ 7mL 5.7 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Priority contaminants in household products 68

81 Sunsilk Supershine Conditioner (2cent size) 4.3 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Palmolive Naturals Conditioner (1mL) 4.17 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Palmolive Aroma Therapy Body Gel (2cent size) 3.3 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Soft as Soap Essential Oils (1cent size) 2.48 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Homebrand Cream Handwash (2cent size) 6.52 High 1 3 sec/ 6 Med 4 3 sec/ 3 Low sec/ Cussons Pure Moisturising Handwash (1cent size) High 1 3 sec/ 6 Med 4 3 sec/ 3 Low sec/ Dettol Fresh Hygienic Handwash (1cent size) 3.42 High 1 3 sec/ 6 Priority contaminants in household products 69

82 Med 4 3 sec/ 3 Low sec/ Palmolive Soft wash handwash (1cent size) High 1 3 sec/ 6 Med 4 3 sec/ 3 Low sec/ Olay Moisturising Lotion (2cent size) 4.1 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Johnsons' 24 hour moisturiser (5cent size) 6.5 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Coles Persona Facial Moisturising Cream (1cent size) 1.9 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Coles Persona SPF 3+ Sunscreen (2cent size) 5.4 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Nivea Soft Intensive Moisturising (1cent size) 1.4 High min/ 3 Priority contaminants in household products 7

83 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ The Cancer Council Sports Sunscreen SPF 3+ 35mL 28. High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Banana Boat Kids SPF 3+ (5cent size) 8.2 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Garnier Kids Sunscreen SPF 3+ (5cent size) 8.5 High min/ 3 Med 72 8 min/ 2 Low 16 8 min/ Fresh Breath Listermint Mouthwash 2mL 22.9 High 1 3 sec/ 6 Med 4 3 sec/ 3 Low sec/ Homebrand Mouthwash 2mL 17.6 High 1 3 sec/ 6 Med 4 3 sec/ 3 Low sec/ Colgate Plax Freshmint Mouthwash 15mL 13.6 High 1 3 sec/ 6 Priority contaminants in household products 71

84 Listerine Antiseptic Mouthwash Oral B Tooth and Gum Care Mouthwash Duck Protection Plus toilet cleaner Harpic Active Toilet Cleanser Med 4 3 sec/ 3 Low sec/ 2mL 17.8 High 1 3 sec/ 6 Med 4 3 sec/ 3 Low sec/ 15mL 13.5 High 1 3 sec/ 6 Med 4 3 sec/ 3 Low sec/ (1mL) 7.6 High (Half) High (Full) Regular (Half) Regular (Full) Old/Low (Half) Old/Low (Full) 11 1 (1mL) 15.2 High (Half) High (Full) Regular (Half) Regular (Full) Old/Low (Half) Old/Low (Full) 11 1 Table 31 Typical appliance water consumption Water Use (L) at various Efficiencies Appliance High Medium Low Dishwasher Priority contaminants in household products 72

85 Top Loading Washing Machines Front Loading Washing Machines Toilets - Old 12 Toilets - New (per half flush) Clothes Washing by Hand Shower Heads (L/min) Shower Heads (total for 8 min shower) Washing Dishes in Sink Clothes Soaker 2 4 Rinsing Under Tap (3 sec) Surface Cleaning 5 1 Priority contaminants in household products 73

86 Appendix 2 Results of metals in products (mg/kg) Table 32 - Priority elements in cleaning products Concentration (mg/kg product) Function Product Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn ID Surface CGE1* Cream Cleanser < CGE2* Multi-purpose <.4 <.4 <.4.23 <.43 <.4 <.4 <.4.9 CGE3 Multi-purpose 1.4 <2 < < <.2.16 < CGE4* Disinfectant (bleach) 1.6 < <.2 <.6 <.1 <.5 < CGE5* Disinfectant 2.5 < <.1 < <.6 <.12 <.1 <.12 <.12 <.12 CGE6 p Disinfectant.52 < < <.5 <.5 <.52 <.5 <.5 CGE7 Disinfectant <.13 < <.128 <.13 <.128 <.13 <.13 Floor and surface CFL1* Floor cleaner.68 < < <.6 <.6 <.62 <.6 <.6 CFL2 Floor Cleaner 3.32 < < <.5 <.5 <.52 <.5.16 CFL3 Floor cleaner <.1 <.1 < < <.2 93 Priority contaminants in household products 74

87 Function Concentration (mg/kg product) Product Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn ID CFL4 g Floor cleaner <.2 < Toilet CTO1 Toilet Cleaner 7.1 <1 11 <.1 < <.5 <.1 <.2 82 CTO2* Toilet Cleaner 1.16 < <.2.3 < <.25 <.25 <.25 < CTO3 g Toilet cleaner 6.85 < < < < Toilet freshener CTO4 p Toilet Cleaner private <.2.6 <.2.64 <.21 <.2 <.21 < label CTF1* Toilet freshener 99. <1 13, <.5 < CTF2 Toilet freshener 4.6 <1 11, < CTF3 p Toilet freshener private label 65. <1 14, < In cistern cleanser CTC1 In cistern toilet cleanser 4.4 <1 4, < < CTC2 In cistern toilet cleanser 25. <1 8, < < CTC3 In cistern toilet cleanser 2.9 <1 3, < < CTC4 p In cistern toilet cleanser private label < <.2.3 < < <.7 Priority contaminants in household products 75

88 Table 33 - Elements in laundry products Product Concentration (mg/kg product) Function ID Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn Softeners LFS1* Fabric < <.6 <.6 <.59 <.6 <.6 <.6 <.6 <.6 <.6 softener LFS2 Fabric 2.5 <1 < <.5 <.1 <.2 <.5.37 < softener LFS3 Fabric 5.7 <1 3.6 <.7 <.1 <.9 <.3.39 <.5 <.2 < softener LFS4p Fabric 1.8 <1 < < <.5.4 < softener private label LFS5 Fabric 163. <1 <.5 < < <.5.76 < softener LFS6g Fabric softener 1.35 < <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4.4 LFS7 Fabric softener.8 < <.1.2 <.5 Laundry powder LPC1 Top loader 1,556 <1 1, < <.2 <.5.56 < detergent Conc. LPC2 Top loader 4.7 <1 3, < <.2 < Conc LPC3* Top loader 785. <1 1, < < Conc LPC5 Top Conc. 1,158.5 <1 2, < < LPC6 p Top loader < <.6 <.6.66 < Conc private label LPC12 Top loader < <.6.64 <.6.51 Conc. LPC7 Top & Front 24 <1 1, < <.2 <.5.62 < loader Conc LPC8g Top & front loader Conc < <.93 <.9 <.929 < LPC9 Front loader 5,11 < < <.2 <.5.1 <.2 66 Priority contaminants in household products 76

89 Product Concentration (mg/kg product) Function ID Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn Conc LPC1 Front loader 99. < <.5 3 <.2 < Conc LPC11 Front loader Conc 4,239 <1 < < <.2 <.5.32 < Laundry LL1* Laundry 5 <1 < < <.2 < <.2 liquid detergent LL2 liquid Laundry 1.1 <1 < < <.5 <.1 <.2 92 Liquid LL3 Laundry 3.5 <1 < <.1 < < <.2 Liquid LL4 Laundry < <.4 < <.4.16 Liquid LL5 Laundry < < <.17 <.34 <.3 <.34 <.3 <.3 Liquid LL6 Laundry 2.57 < < <.4.4 < Liquid LL7 Laundry <.1 < < <.2 <.5 1 <.5 <.1 Liquid LL8 Laundry < <.27 < Liquid LL9 g Laundry 27 < <.2 <.6 <.1 <.5 < Liquid LL1 p Laundry Liquid private label <.1 < <.7 < <.2 <.5 14,11 <.4 <.7 LW1 Wool wash 3.1 <1 < <.1 <.5.99 <.2 < Soaker LSK1* Soaker < <.76 <.8 <.76 < LSK2 Soaker 3,92 <1 17, < < Priority contaminants in household products 77

90 Table 34 - Elements in toilet paper Concentration (mg/kg product) Function Product Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn ID Toilet paper TOI1* Toilet paper 32.5 <2 <.5 < <.2.33 < TOI2 Toilet paper 93 <2 <.5.76 < <.2.38 < TOI3 Toilet paper 29.5 <2 <.5 < < TOI4 Toilet paper 17.5 < < < TOI5 p Toilet paper private label 17.5 < < < TOI6 g Toilet paper recycled 2,523 < <.2.68 <.6 27 TOI7 g Toilet paper recycled 1,951 <2 <.5.38 < <.2.5 < Priority contaminants in household products 78

91 Table 35 - Elements in sunscreen Concentration (mg/kg product) Function Product Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn ID Sunscreen SUN1* Sunscreen 6.5 < <.3 <.6.61 <.5 < , SUN2 Sunscreen 1.5 <1 < < <.5 <.3 < SUN3 Sunscreen 7.45 < <.75 <.4.75 <7.5 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 < SUN4 Sunscreen 6.9 < <.45 <.5.1 <.2 2, SUN5 Sunscreen <.3 <.7.8 <.5 <.1 < SUN6 Sunscreen 3+.8 <1 <.4 <.1.31 < <.1 <.5 <.4 < SUN7 p Sunscreen 31 <1 < <.1 < private label Face CRF1 Face cream <.4 <1 < < <.5 <.1 <.7 12 cream CRF2 Face cream <.4 <1 < <.5 <.6 <.3 <.5 <.1 <.8 28 Face cream <11 <1 <27 <1.1 <2 <1.3 <4 <1 <.5 <3 < CRF3 p private label Lotion CRB1* Hand and 11.5 <.4 <.7.37 <7.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.37 <.4 <.7 body CRB2 Hand and 3.89 <.4 <.8 <.4.4 <7.8 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.3 <.8 body CRB3 Hand and 6.6 <.3 <.7 <.3.99 <6.6 <.3 <.3 <.3 <.3 <.7 body CRB4 Hand and body 2.4 <2 < <.1 <.5.61 <.2 <.2 < CRB5 p Hand and body private label <.4 <.8 <.4.8 <8. <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.8 Priority contaminants in household products 79

92 Table 36 - Elements in deodorants Deodorant Antiperspirant roll-on Concentration (mg/kg product) Product Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn ID DEA1* Aerosol 38, <.3 <3. < <3. <.3 <3. < DEA2 Aerosol 21, <.6 <.62 <.62 <3.1 <.62 <.6 <.62 < DEA3 Aerosol <.4 <.39 <.39 <1.95 <.39 <.4 <.39 < DEA4 Aerosol 7,351 < < <1.8 < < DEA5 p Aerosol private label 71,79 < <.3 <3.9 < <3.9 < DER1 Roll-on 1,24 <.4 <.8 <.4 <7.9 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.8 DER2 Roll-on 54,785 < < DER3 Roll-on 7,38 <.3 <16 <.6 <.3.23 <6.5 <6.5 <.3 <.32 <.3 <.65 DER4 Roll-on 37,469 <1 < < < Priority contaminants in household products 8

93 Table 37 Elements in oral care products Concentration (mg/kg product) Function Mouthwash Toothpaste Product Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn ID MW1* Mouth wash <.4 <.2 <.2 <.4 MW2 Mouth wash 1,54.7 < < <.4 <.21 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4.43 MW3 Mouth wash <.3 <.3 <.3 <.15 <.3 <.3 <.3 <.3 <.3 MW5 Mouth wash 1.5 < <.1.35 <.1 <.5 <.3.34 <.4 MW6 p Mouth wash 1.1 <1 < <.3 <.8.85 <.5 <.6 <.4 <.8 private label TP1* Toothpaste < < <.15 < < TP2* Toothpaste baking 8.3 <.4 < <.4 <.4 <.4 <.4 <.8 soda+peroxide TP3* Toothpaste 27.7 <.5 <.9.9 <9 <.5 <.4 <.46 <.5 <.9 TP4 Toothpaste < <.4 <.43 < <.43 <.43 <.43 < TP5 Toothpaste 52.5 < < <.4.81 <.4 <.81 TP6 Toothpaste < <.75.6 soft polish TP7 Toothpaste 345 < <.4 <.4.7 <.2.7 TP8 p Toothpaste private label < < < TP9 g Toothpaste herbal 14.9 < < <.45 <9.2 <.5 <.45 <.9 Priority contaminants in household products 81

94 Table 38 Elements in shower products Concentration (mg/kg product) Function Shampoo Conditioner Soap Wash Product Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn ID SHW1 Hair remover <.7 < <7.4 <.4 <.37 < SHA1* Shampoo 1.1 < <.1.88 < < SHA2 Shampoo 1.6 <2 <.5 <.1.99 <.5 <.1.47 <.2.28 < SHA3 Shampoo < <.76 <.7 <.76 < SHA4 Shampoo 2.4 <2 <.5 < <.5 <.1.52 <.2.2 < SHA5 Shampoo 2.6 <.7 < <1.47 <.7 <.1 <.7 <.7 <.7 SHA6 Shampoo < < <3.21 <.2 <.16 <.16 <.32 SHA7 Anti-dandruff 728 < <.4 93 <.3 < Shampoo SHA8 Anti-dandruff 4.9 <2 < <.1 < <.2 < ,38 Shampoo SHA9 p Shampoo private label 1.4 <2 < <.1 < <.2 < <.2 SHA1 g Shampoo 3.7 <2 <.5 < <.5 <.1 <.2 <.2.21 < SCD1* Conditioner 4.1 <2 <.5.31 <.1 <.5 < <.2.21 < SCD2 Conditioner.2 <2 <.5 <.1.88 <.5 < <.2.35 <.2.8 SCD3 Conditioner 4.8 <2 <.5 < <.5.89 <.2 <.2.65 < SOB2* Soap bar 79.2 < <.176 < <1.76 <.176 <1.76 < SOB1 Soap bar < <1.8 <.9 <17.5 <.9 <.9 <.9 <.9 <.9 SOB3 Soap bar <.93 <.93 < <.93 <.93 <.93 < SOB4 Soap bar 17.5 < <.19 <1.9 < <.19 <.19 <.19 < SOB5 g Soap bar <.124 <1.24 < <1.24 <.12 <1.24 < SOB6 p Soap bar < <3.9 <1.95 <38.98 <2 <.2 <2 <2 <2 private label SOC1 Hand wash 5.9 <2 442 <.1 1 <.5 < <.2.66 < SOC2* Hand wash <.1 < <.1 <.8 SOC3 Hand wash 1.6 <2 <.5 < < <.2.88 < SOC4 p Hand wash.85 < <.7 < <.3 < Priority contaminants in household products 82

95 Function Body Face Hair dye Concentration (mg/kg product) Produc Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn t ID SOG1 Body wash <.3 < < <.2 < <.5 17 SOG2 Body wash <.3 < <.2 < <.1 <.5 2 <.2.3 SOG3 Body wash 13.2 <2 <.5 < <.5 <.1.23 <.2.27 < SOG4 g Body wash <.1 < <.1 <.2.99 <.2.33 Environment label option FCL1 Face Cleanser < <3.5 <.2.23 < FCL2 Face cleanser.23 < <2.7 <.1 <.1 < SHV1 p Shave Foam.5 <1 <.2 <.6 <.1 <.7 <.2 <.5 <.5 <.2 <.1.13 private label SHV2 Shave foam.11 <1 5.2 <.6 <.1 <.8 <.3 <.6 <.5 <.2 <.1.8 HAI1 Hair colour <.19 < <3.7 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.4 HAI2 Hair colour 17.5 <.2 < <4.37 <.2 <.2.22 <.2 <.4 crème gloss 9 HAI3 Hair colour < <2.87 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.3 HAI4 Hair color gel gloss <.5 < <2.3 <.5 HAI5 Hair color gloss <7.1 <.7 < <.7 <3.6 <.7 HAI6 Hair colour crème 3. <5.9 <5. <254.8 <1 <5 <5 <11.9 <5 <.5 <5.1 <5.1 HAI7 Hair colour <66 <6.5 <328.4 <1.3 <6.6 <6.6 <131.3 <6.6 <.6 < HAI8 Hair colour <4.6 <4. <23. <.8 <4 <4 <81.2 <4 <.4 <4.1 < Priority contaminants in household products 83

96 Table 39 - Elements in dishwashing detergents Function Dishwashing Produ Description Al As B Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn ct ID DWL1* Liquid < < Detergent DWL2 Liquid 5.5 < <.5 12 <.4 < <.1 Detergent DWL3 Liquid 2.4 <2 <.5 3 < < Detergent DWL4 Liquid 6.2 <2 < <.1 <..94 <.2 < <.2 Detergent 5 DWL5g Liquid 1.7 <2 < <.1 <..26 <.2 < <.2 Detergent 5 DWL6p Liquid <.7 < <.6 < Detergent private label DWT1* Auto tablet - < DWT2 p Auto tablet 8 <1 < < <.5 <.6 <.5 <.8 Private label 1 DWT3 p Auto tablet 62 < < <.2.36 < private label 2 5 DWT4* Auto powder 36.5 < <.14 < DWT5 Auto powder 59.5 <3 < <.2.97 < DWT6 g Auto powder Environment < < < label option DWT7 Auto tablet < <DL <.2 <.2 <.4 < DWA1 Rinse aid 1.3 < <.3 < <.5 < <.5 Priority contaminants in household products 84

97 Priority contaminants in household products 85

98 Table 4 Elements in household dust Concentration of elements in dust (mg/kg) Household Al As B Ca Cd Cr Cu Fe Pb Mg Ni Na K Sn Zn HH1 <.1 <DL <.3 <.7 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.5 <.1 <.1 < <.5 HH2 <.1 <DL <.3 <.7 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.5.71 <.1 <.3 < <.5 HH3 <.1 <DL <.3 <.7 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.5 <.1 <.1 <.3 < <.5 HH4 <.1 <DL <.3 <.7 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.5.21 <.1 <.3 < <.5 HH5 <.1 <DL <.3 <.7 <.1 <.2 <.2 <.5 <.1 <.1 <.3 < <.5 HH6 <.1 <DL <.3 <.7 <.1 <.2 < <.1 < <.5 HH7 8.7 <DL < <.1.58 <.2 <.5.44 <.1 < < HH8 5.4 <DL <.3 <.7 <.1.16 <.2 <.5.38 <.1 < < HH9 8.8 <DL <.3 < < <.1 < Ave <.3 <.7 <.1.45 < <.1 < Note: DL detection limit. Priority contaminants in household products 86

99 Appendix 3 Results of cation concentrations in products Table 41 - Cations in household products Product ID Product Ca Mg Na (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) Cleaning products CTO1 Cleaner toilet <32 < CTO2* Cleaner toilet <1.6 < CTO3 g Cleaner toilet ,555 CTO4p Cleaner toilet <31 < CGE1 Cleaner general 31,277 <343 6,722 CGE2* Cleaner general ,873 CGE3 Cleaner bathroom ,68 CGE4* Cleaner general 66 <.2 3,13 CGE5* Cleaner general <112 <112 34,459 CGE6p Cleaner general 7.5 < CGE7 Cleaner floor 35 <68 2,65 CFL1* Cleaner floor <17 <17 24,173 CFL3 Cleaner floor ,98 CFL4g Cleaner floor <5 <5 3,37 In Cistern CTF1* Toilet bowl freshener ,934 CTF2 Toilet bowl freshener 193 2,925 14,429 CTF3p Toilet bowl freshener ,885 CTC4p Toilet in cistern freshener ,77 CTC1 Toilet in cistern freshener ,875 CTC2 Toilet in cistern freshener 179 2,28 114,491 CTC3 Toilet in cistern freshener 99 1,88 75,863 Personal Creams CRF1 Facial care CRF2 Facial care CRF3p Facial care <2 <1 1,282 CRF4 Facial care 839 CRB1* Body care 1,393 CRB2 Body care Priority contaminants in household products 87

100 Product ID Product Ca Mg Na (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) CRB3 Body care 175 CRB4 Body care ,3 CRB5p Body care 23 Deodorants DEA1* Deodorant aerosol , DEA2 Deodorant aerosol DEA3 Deodorant aerosol DEA4 Deodorant aerosol <25 <25 DEA5p Deodorant aerosol DER1 Deodorant roll-on DER2 Deodorant roll-on 6.5 < DER3 Deodorant roll-on 1,98 1,412 DER4 Deodorant roll-on 33.7 < Laundry Products LFS1* Fabric softener 18 LFS2 Fabric softener 3.7 <.3 49 LFS3 Fabric softener 22 <.8 37 LFS4p Fabric softener LFS5 Fabric softener LFS6g Fabric softener 33 LFS7 Fabric softener LPC1 Laundry powder conc. Top loader ,323 LPC2 Laundry powder conc ,44 LPC3* Laundry powder conc <12 265,794 LPC5 Laundry powder conc. Top loader ,994 LPC6p Laundry powder conc. <74 <74 71,765 LPC7p Laundry powder conc. Top/Front loader ,296 private brand LPC8g Laundry powder conc.front loader ,318 LPC9 Laundry powder conc.front loader ,139 LPC1 Laundry powder conc.front ,342 LPC11 Laundry powder conc.front ,4 LPC12 Laundry powder conc.top/front <15 <15 36,93 LPC13 Laundry powder <34 <34 576,47 LL1* Laundry liquid 9.5 <6.3 8,718 LL2 Laundry liquid ,274 LL3 Laundry liquid 81.1 < Priority contaminants in household products 88

101 Product ID Product Ca Mg Na (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) LL4* Laundry liquid ,72 LL5 Laundry liquid <44 <44 9,863 LL6 Laundry liquid 76,753 LL7 Laundry liquid ,336 LL8 Laundry liquid ,627 LL9 Laundry liquid LL1p Laundry liquid private brand ,411 LL11g Laundry liquid ,617 LW1 Laundry Wool ,216 LSK1* Laundry soaker ,864 LSK2 Laundry soaker ,261 Toilet paper TOI1* Toilet paper 367 5,279 1,435 TOI2 Toilet paper 623 1,612 32,14 TOI3 Toilet paper 61 2, TOI4 Toilet paper TOI5p Toilet paper private brand TOI6g Toilet paper TOI7g Toilet paper 5, Sunscreens (3+) SUN1* sunscreen ,427 SUN2 sunscreen SUN3 sunscreen 16 SUN4 sunscreen ,432 SUN5 sunscreen 82 < SUN6 sunscreen ,135 SUN7p sunscreen Shower and Hair Products SHW1 Bathroom hair removal 13, SHA1* Bathroom shampoo ,477 SHA2 Bathroom shampoo ,774 SHA3 Bathroom shampoo 15,12 SHA4 Bathroom shampoo ,236 SHA5 Bathroom shampoo ,533 SHA6 Bathroom shampoo 14,2 SHA7 Bathroom shampoo ,639 SHA8 Bathroom shampoo ,319 Priority contaminants in household products 89

102 Product ID Product Ca Mg Na (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) SHA9 p Bathroom shampoo private brand ,699 SHA1 Bathroom shampoo ,372 SCD1* Bathroom conditioner SCD2 Bathroom conditioner SCD3 Bathroom conditioner SOC Bathroom liquid soap SOC Bathroom liquid soap ,695 SOC1 Bathroom liquid soap ,938 SOC3 Bathroom liquid soap ,67 SOC4 p Bathroom liquid soap private brand ,682 SOC2 Bathroom liquid soap 22 6,839 SOB2* Bathroom soap bar 19.5 <195 47,67 SOB4 Bathroom soap bar 792 2, ,17 SOB1 Bathroom soap bar 71,127 SOB3 Bathroom soap bar 82.1 <411 53,33 SOB5 Bathroom soap bar <825 <825 65,135 SOB6p Bathroom soap bar private brand 67,878 SOG1 Body wash ,587 SOG2 Body wash ,856 SOG3 Body wash ,974 SOG4p Body wash private brand < ,87 FCL1 Facial Care ,961 FCL2 Facial Care 5,215 SHA1p Facial Care 1,47 SHA2 Facial Care SHA4 Facial Care 1.21 < SHA5 Facial Care <75 58,594 SHA6 Facial Care 4.59 <115 3,236 SHA7 Facial Care <15 5,36 Hair Dyes HAI1 Hair dye 1,269 HAI2 Hair dye 4,334 HAI3 Hair dye 495 HAI4 Hair dye <255 1,274 HAI5 Hair dye <328 1,576 HAI6 Hair dye < Dishwashing DWL1* Dishwash manual ,636 DWL2 Dishwash manual 91 7,319 19,482 DWL3 Dishwash manual 12 1,958 5,898 Priority contaminants in household products 9

103 Product ID Product Ca Mg Na (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) DWL4 g Dishwash manual ,83 DWL5 Dishwash manual ,885 DWL6 p Dishwash manual ,882 DWT1* Dishwasher tablet 61 <47 243,99 DWT2p Dishwasher tablet ,245 DWT3p Dishwasher tablet ,682 DWT4 Dishwasher Powder ,592 DWT5 Dishwasher Powder 425 <12 316,727 DWT6g Dishwasher Powder ,329 DWA1 Dishwasher aid 11 <.2 42 DWT7 Dishwasher tablet ,564 Tooth and Oral Products MW1* Mouthwash MW2 Mouthwash <13 < MW3 Mouthwash <22 < MW5 Mouthwash ,983 MW6p Mouthwash TP1* Toothpaste 2, ,67 TP2* Toothpaste Baking Soda + Peroxide 3,382 61,429 TP3* Toothpaste ,779 TP4 Toothpaste ,198 TP5 Toothpaste 44, ,771 TP6 Toothpaste 24, ,417 TP7 Toothpaste 35 2,39 TP8p Toothpaste private brand 6, ,134 TP9g Toothpaste herbal <941 < Priority contaminants in household products 91

104 Appendix 4 Detection of elements in household products Table 42 Detection of Elements in household products 5 Ratio of brands with concentration greater than LOD 6 to total number of brands tested Product As B Cd Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn Body wash 3/4 3/4 1/4 3/4 1/4 4/4 4/4 Conditioner 1/3 1/3 2/3 3/3 3/3 Deodorant roll-on Deodorant aerosol Face cleanser 1/1 1/1 1/1 Face lotion 1/3 1/3 3/3 Hair colour 5/8 1/8 2/4 1/4 2/4 2/4 2/4 2/4 2/4 3/5 5/5 3/5 2/5 1/5 5/5 Face cream 2/4 Hand & body lotion 1/5 3/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 Hand wash 1/4 3/4 1/4 2/4 3/4 2/4 4/4 2/4 3/4 Mouthwash 2/5 4/5 2/5 2/5 1/5 1/5 1/5 Sunscreen 1/7 4/7 5/7 3/7 4/7 3/7 2/7 2/7 6/7 Shampoo 1/1 4/1 3/1 3/1 5/1 3/1 7/1 4/1 8/1 Soap bar 2/6 6/6 1/6 4/6 4/6 Shave foam 1/2 2/2 Toothpaste 2/9 7/9 1/9 1/9 1/9 3/9 5/9 1/9 5/9 Dishwashing detergent Dishwasher powder Dishwasher tablet Dishwasher rinse aid Fabric softener 2/6 5/6 2/6 2/6 1/6 6/6 5/6 2/6 2/3 2/3 2/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 1/3 3/3 1/4 3/4 3/4 2/4 3/4 3/4 1/4 2/4 3/4 1/1 1/1 1/1 4/7 2/7 2/7 2/7 3/7 5/7 Laundry liquid 2/1 6/1 6/1 5/1 8/1 3/1 7/1 4/1 5/1 Laundry powder Laundry soaker Laundry wool wash 4/12 11/12 8/12 6/12 12/12 3/12 12/12 3/12 12/12 1/2 2/2 1/2 1/2 2/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 2/2 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 5 Sodium was excluded from the table as it was detected in all brands of products tested. 6 LOD : Limit of detection. Cells in blank signify that the concentration for all the brands tested in that product category was below the LOD. Priority contaminants in household products 92

105 Toilet paper 2/7 5/7 7/7 7/7 7/7 7/7 3/7 7/7 Toilet freshener Toilet incistern freshener 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 3/3 2/3 3/3 3/3 1/4 4/4 3/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 3/4 Floor cleaner 2/4 2/4 1/4 3/4 4/4 1/4 2/4 1/4 ¾ Toilet cleaner 1/4 4/4 4/4 4/4 2/4 1/4 4/4 Multi-purpose cleaner Cream cleanser 1/2 1/2 1/2 2/2 1/2 1/2 2/2 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 Disinfectant 4/4 1/4 1/4 2/4 1/4 1/4 Products with concentration above LOD (%) Priority contaminants in household products 93

106 Appendix 5 Frequency distribution As As As 3 Frequency As personal care products (mg/pe/week) Frequency As diswashing (mg/pe/week) Frequency As laundry products (mg/pe/week) B B B Frequency B personal care products (mg/pe/week) Frequency B diswashing (mg/pe/week) Frequency B laundry products (mg/pe/week) 27 Figure 22 -Frequency distribution of As and B loads for household products Priority contaminants in household products 94

107 Cd Cd Cd Frequency Cd personal care products (mg/pe/week) Frequency Cd diswashing (mg/pe/week) Frequency Cd laundry products (mg/pe/week) Frequency Cu Cu personal care products (mg/pe/week) Frequency Cu Frequency Cu Cu diswashing (mg/pe/week) Cu laundry products (mg/pe/week) Figure 23 -Frequency distribution of Cd and Cu loads for household products Priority contaminants in household products 95

108 Fe Fe Fe Frequency Fe personal care products (mg/pe/week) Frequency Fe diswashing (mg/pe/week) Frequency Fe laundry products (mg/pe/week) Pb Pb Pb Frequency Pb personal care products (mg/pe/week) Frequency Pb dishwashing (mg/pe/week) Frequency Pb laundry products (mg/pe/week) Figure 24 - Frequency distribution of Fe and Pb loads for household products Priority contaminants in household products 96

109 Ni Ni Ni Frequency Ni personal care products (mg/pe/week) Frequency Ni diswashing (mg/pe/week) Frequency Ni(outlier removed) Sn Sn Sn Frequency Sn personal care products (mg/pe/week) Frequency Sn dishwashing (mg/pe/week) Frequency Sn laundry products (mg/pe/week) Figure 25 - Frequency distribution of Ni and Sn loads for household products Priority contaminants in household products 97

110 Zn Zn Zn Frequency Zn personal care products (mg/pe/week) Frequency Zn laundry products (mg/pe/week) Frequency Zn diswashing (mg/pe/week) Frequency Na Na personal care products (mg/pe/week) 9 Frequency Na Na diswashing (mg/pe/week) Frequency Na Na laundry products (mg/pe/week) Figure 26- Frequency distribution of Ni and Sn loads for household products Priority contaminants in household products 98

111 Table 43 - Frequency Distributions for element loads from personal care products Frequency Distributions for As in personal care products As Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for B: B Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Cd: Cd Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Cu: Cu Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Fe: Fe Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Pb: Pb Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Priority contaminants in household products 99

112 Frequency Distributions for Ni: Ni Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Sn: Sn Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Zn: Zn Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Priority contaminants in household products 1

113 Table 44 Frequency Distributions for element loads from laundry products Frequency Distributions for As: As Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for B: B Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Cd: Cd Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Cu: Cu Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Fe: Fe Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Pb: Pb Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Priority contaminants in household products 11

114 Frequency Distributions for Ni: Ni Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Sn: Sn Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Ni (after exclusion of outlier): Ni Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Na: Na Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Priority contaminants in household products 12

115 Table 45 - Frequency Distributions for element loads from dishwashing products Frequency Distributions for B: B Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Cd: Cd Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Cu: Cu Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Fe: Fe Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Ni: Ni Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Zn: Priority contaminants in household products 13

116 Zn Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Frequency Distributions for Na: Na Midpoint N Cum. N % Cum. % Priority contaminants in household products 14

117 Appendix 6 Stream estimates Table 46 - Analysis of stream loads (mg/pe/week) Maximum As B Cd Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn Na Bathroom 1 (Sp) Bathroom 2 (Bw) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 1 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Toilet (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Human Minimum As B Cd Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn Na Bathroom 1 (Sp) Bathroom 2 (Bw) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 1 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Toilet (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Priority contaminants in household products 15

118 Median As B Cd Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn Na Bathroom 1 (Sp) Bathroom 2 (Bw) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 1 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Toilet 1 (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Average As B Cd Cu Fe Pb Hg Ni Sn Zn Na Bathroom 1 (Sp) Bathroom 2 (Bw) Kitchen 1 (M) Kitchen 2 (T) Kitchen 3 (P) Laundry 1 (P) Laundry 2 (L) Toilet (TF) Toilet 2 (TI) Human Priority contaminants in household products 16

119