
Cleaning sprays have an impact on lung health comparable to cigarettes - ClintEhrlich
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/cleaning-products-lungs-damage-cigarettes-smoking-20-day-scientists-warning-a8214051.html
======
nextos
I clean with a steamer. It doesn't project particles, and it's extremely good
at disinfecting. I also use a vacuum cleaner with exceptionally low dust re-
emission. And an air purifier.

The only "chemicals" I use are an extremely mild lactic acid based cleaner and
a pre/probiotic on toilets and kitchen tops. And I don't use any fragrances
anywhere.

My allergy problems have disappeared. I really recommend this approach. Cheap
chemicals are a disaster for ones health.

Microfibres are cool, but I've seen inconclusive evidence they might shed
asbesto-like particles. So I'm waiting for better testing.

~~~
outlace
Per the hygiene hypothesis, I wonder if your allergies got better because
you’re exposing yourself to more (generally harmless) microorganisms and hence
challenging your immune system more. Since I’m sure lactic acid doesn’t
sterilize as well as some strong bleach or other chemical.

~~~
kpil
The idea that allergies somehow are caused by our sterile lifestyle is
suspicious at best. It's might just be an appeal to nature - "all natural
ingredients" fallacy.

I claim that an individual has _never_ before - in the history of mankind -
been exposed to so many and different microorganisms as we are now.

Comparing my daughter to my granddad, born 99 years before her, she probably
meets as many "new" people per week - if not day, as he did in a whole year
when growing up in a reasonably average community not far from a large city.

Me and my wife works in large organisations, and it's representatives are
visiting or are visited by hundreds of people from around the world - every
week, as do many - most in fact - of the other parents in her school of about
1000 students.

I have lunch in a canteen where approximately 3000 people eat every day, and
we all are slopping around in the food warmers and salad bar sharing the
utensils and pawing the bread with our halfheartedly washed hands.

On the way to our offices and schools we commute with thousands and thousands
of people, all sniffling and coughing it seems.

The interconnectedness of it all is just - mind boggling. We are never more
than 2 steps away from someone that were on the other side of the world,
yesterday. Hopefully not in an Ebola zone.

A hypothetical "natural" state, where you sleep in a stack of hay with your
pigs, and meet one "outsider" twice a a year doesn't seem to tax the immune
system even a fraction of what we have to deal with today. Even it's a lot of
microorganisms, it's yours (and the pigs) - unless some pigeons shit in your
haystack/bed.

~~~
fulafel
The body of scientific evidence supporting the hygiene hypothesis is pretty
strong.

------
forgotmypw
Our bodies are 4-billion-year-old spaghetti code that gets added to every time
it runs. They have been evolving all this time for exposure to a very
particular range of chemicals. Every time you introduce a new chemical into
the mix that has only been in our environment for less than 100 years, you are
testing your body's ability to deal with them for the first time.

~~~
nsgi
So avoid all drugs that have been around for less than 100 years?

~~~
forgotmypw
I would say, use them sparingly.

Be aware that the mechanisms behind most modern drugs are mostly theories.

Respect the law of unintended consequences.

Listen to your body carefully, give it rest when it wants, and trust your body
to do its own healing.

When your life is in danger, consider medical professionals.

------
refurb
As a former chemist, call me suspicious of these findings.

Can cleaners be an irritant to the lungs? Of course. Inhaling a lot of things
can be an irritant.

Most cleaners that consumers use are surfactants sometimes mixed with
alkylbenzonium disinfectants (in very low concentration). Even cleaners that
are ammonia based aren't harmful.

Now on the professional side, I could believe there is risk. Some of those
chemicals are very harsh.

~~~
sizzle
Why do you believe ammonia/chemical based cleaners are not harmful when
inhaled from normal day to day use?

I say that as someone who majored in human bio and can only imagine that
inhaling these chemicals will have adverse effects on your health.

~~~
refurb
Ammonia is such a strong irritant you'd never be able to inhale enough
(willingly) to cause systemic toxicity.

We also have a lot of info around the effects of ammonia. The body is very
good at eliminating it. Heck, doctor's use ammonium chloride to acidify a
patients urine.

Could you inhale enough to irritate your lungs? Sure. But it's not going to
cancer or something.

~~~
st26
_Could you inhale enough to irritate your lungs? Sure. But it 's not going to
cancer or something._

I think we're assuming here that it's something like asbestos lung cancer.
Asbestos is not a poison, just an irritant. Presumably nobody is getting
poisoned here; chronic irritation is triggering problems.

~~~
refurb
Asbestos is more than an irritant. The toxicity and resulting cancer is due to
the small particle size and the iron atoms in the asbestos that catalyze the
formation of reactive oxygen species that damage the cell and can cause
mutations.

I guess my point is that there is no mechanism by which ammonia could cause
something like this. It's a simple molecule that pretty much causes irritation
due to it's alkaline properties.

~~~
nonbel
If you believe cancer is due to the accumulation of mutations, and the
ammonia/whatever is killing cells (thus increasing the turnover), then it will
increase the chances of cancer simply because there are more divisions in the
tissue.

This follows pretty simply from the idea that cancer is caused by accumulating
mutations (which you seem to believe), so why do you say "no mechanism"?

~~~
refurb
The reason is because ammonia has been around a long time, lots of studies of
that its effect on biological systems have been done and it naturally occurs
in human blood albeit at low concentrations.

Your point about higher turnover of cells aligns with the idea of more cell
division and thus higher chance of mutation. However, just because a chemical
causes irritation doesn't mean it increases cell turnover.

Also, turnover alone doesn't necessarily drive mutations and scientists don't
really know why. Retinol A, rapidly increase skin cell turnover and is used to
treat acne, but I've never heard of a mutation risk associated with it.

~~~
nonbel
> "Retinol A, rapidly increase skin cell turnover but I've never heard of a
> mutation risk associated with it."

Interesting, do you have a source you like for this? This would indicate major
problems with that model.

------
WiseWeasel
In a past life as a lab tech for sterile environments, we used Spor-klenz,
mostly a diluted combination of glacial acetic acid (pure distilled vinegar)
and sodium hypochlorite (concentrated bleach), to kill statistically
approaching anything on a surface you need sterilized. Upon application, they
form chlorine gas, notorious as a chemical warfare agent in WWI. It must be
used in a ventilated area, and with a respirator for any kind of prolonged
exposure. Use of this combination of chemicals in an unventilated area without
protective gear is sternly cautioned, as it will quickly cause lasting injury
to your lungs.

It's not uncommon for commercial cleaning products to contain these
ingredients, as well as other potentially hazardous combinations of chemicals,
and there isn't enough awareness of the very serious consequences to their
misuse.

------
benbreen
I vividly remember my first summer job, working at a grocery store deli when I
was in high school. My job was basically to spray down surfaces with some kind
of industrial version of Windex. Within a week I had developed a scratchy
cough, and after two weeks I had completely lost my voice! I was in the
privileged position of being able to quit the job and go on to college, but if
I'd kept working with those chemicals for years I don't doubt there'd have
been lasting damage.

Does anyone know specifically what cleaning chemicals the study is talking
about though? Always annoyed by the absence of what seems like basic
information in reports like this.

~~~
exodust
I agree it's annoying the study doesn't mention any chemicals or ingredients
in particular.

Also the claim that all we need is "water and a cloth" is rubbish. You will
just spread the bacteria around from one place to another with water and a
cloth only.

I recently started using an organic "food safe" spray in the kitchen for
general surfaces and chopping boards. Smells nice very natural, all natural
ingredients and stops nasty things living on the wooden cutting board. Water
and a cloth would do nothing, you need to make it an unfriendly place for
bacteria, but safe for cutting up food.

------
nck4222
For anyone else looking for mentions of specific products, the original paper
doesn't mention any. It just categorized people in to non-cleaners, cleaners
at home, and professional cleaners.

Both the professional cleaners and at home cleaners were impacted.

~~~
stevenwoo
They were relying on surveys of memory but they indicated spraying only once a
week versus any other method was correlated with issues.

------
mc32
On a related note, dentists dying of mysterious lung disease[1] likely from
improper respiratory protection while exposed to breathing hazards.

[1][https://www.thetalkingdemocrat.com/2018/03/us-dentists-
are-d...](https://www.thetalkingdemocrat.com/2018/03/us-dentists-are-dying-of-
mysterious-lung-disease/)

------
derefr
How much of this is to do with the fact that these cleaners are being put into
the air as vapor through a diffuser (the spray-bottle's nozzle); and how much
has to do with the fact that these chemicals are volatiles that will evaporate
off of the surfaces they're on and then travel into the lungs as a gas?

That is, if I wore a dust mask while I cleaned—or if I sprayed the cleaner
directly into a cloth pressed against the bottle, then rubbed the cloth
against the surface—would that help? It'd reduce cleanser vaporization, I'd
think, but not do much to help with avoiding evaporated cleanser gas.

~~~
exodust
You might have a point, particularly considering the action of cleaning
involves leaning forward and bending down into the area you just sprayed as
you begin scrubbing, further exposing yourself to the misty air and fumes. I
thought about this last time I cleaned shower with fan on... I figured the fan
was drawing the fumes up towards me as I cleaned shower, so now I don't use
fan and just try to finish the job quickly! I think there's a lot to be said
for using a mask when cleaning, even if just for a slightly reduced exposure.

------
crobertsbmw
I’m willing to bet there are some “dreaded third variables” that have crept
into the study. Also being able to find the effect on women but not men leads
me to believe there might be some P-hacking going on.

------
anonoholic
The original headline says "cleaning products", which is what the study
covers, but the article lede says "cleaning sprays", which is what the
headline here has been edited to suggest.

Much discussion on Reddit a couple of weeks ago when this study was originally
published:
[https://www.reddit.com/search?q=cleaning+products+lung](https://www.reddit.com/search?q=cleaning+products+lung)

~~~
nonbel
I don't think these results necessarily relate to cleaning products either.
They just asked people how much they cleaned in a survey:

>' _Based on the entrance questions (wording
at[http://www.ecrhs.org](http://www.ecrhs.org) ), participants were
categorised as “not cleaning”, “cleaning at home” and “occupational cleaning”.
Participants responding “yes” to at least one module entrance question,
answered a questionnaire concerning use of cleaning agents (sprays, other
cleaning agents); defining the exposure categories “not cleaning”, “≥1
cleaning spray ≥1/week”, and “≥1 other cleaning product ≥1/week”._'

[http://www.thoracic.org/about/newsroom/press-
releases/resour...](http://www.thoracic.org/about/newsroom/press-
releases/resources/women-cleaners-lung-function.pdf)

------
nonbel
> _" The scientists found that the amount of air breathed out by their
> participants decreased more in women who regularly cleaned.

The study did not find any harmful effects comparable to those seen in women
in the men they studied._"

Then:

>" _While the results appear dramatic, the researchers speculated chemicals in
cleaning products irritate the fragile mucous membranes lining the lungs,
which over time leads to lasting damage and “remodelling” of the airways._ "

[http://www.thoracic.org/about/newsroom/press-
releases/resour...](http://www.thoracic.org/about/newsroom/press-
releases/resources/women-cleaners-lung-function.pdf)

------
ben509
I assume "comparable" means "similar" in this sense.

But there's nothing about lung cancer, which makes the impact on lung health
not remotely similar to a pack a day cigarette habit.

~~~
code_duck
Smoking diminishes lung function in many ways other than eventual risk of
cancer. Not every smoker gets cancer, by far, but every one has their lung
function decreased.

------
xerxe-sans-s
This supports previous research that indicates there's a connection between
asthma and cleaning products, particularly in occupational cleaners.

I don't see any reference to study on particular cleaning solutions, exposure
times, or any particularly reliable control. I'll continue working under the
assumption that long term exposure to any chemical can be associated with an
increased health risk - until a more detailed study is done there's really no
actionable conclusion here.

------
fitzroy
I use vinegar for light cleaning and dusting, and rubbing alcohol for almost
all other household cleaning now. Isopropyl alcohol is basically magic — it
sterilizes and completely evaporates with no lingering residue or fragrances.
And a steam mop for the floor.

~~~
txcwpalpha
In case someone reads your comment and takes it to heart: isopropyl alcohol is
_not_ as magic as you're making it sound. It is a disinfectant but isopropyl
alcohol does _not_ sterilize. Some bacteria and spores are not killed by
isopropyl alcohol, and depending on the surface you are cleaning, it can be
ineffective at even disinfecting.

>Alcohols are not recommended for sterilizing medical and surgical materials
principally because they lack sporicidal action and they cannot penetrate
protein-rich materials. Fatal postoperative wound infections with Clostridium
have occurred when alcohols were used to sterilize surgical instruments
contaminated with bacterial spores. [1]

It's probably fine for most household uses, but it does _not_ sterilize like
you said it does, and if you're trying to clean something that you know is
contaminated by disease-causing bacteria (eg cleaning the bathroom after
someone has had the stomach flu) or someone immuno-suppressed lives in your
house, you probably should reach for something stronger.

Isopropyl alcohol also, like you mentioned, evaporates quickly. You mention
this as a benefit, but fast evaporation also means that you are likely
inhaling a lot of alcohol particles as you clean, which is not good for your
lung health either.

1:
[https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection...](https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/disinfection/disinfection-
methods/chemical.html)

~~~
JohnJamesRambo
Alcohol kills most things very well. I'm a scientist that handles lots of
nasty things like MRSA and gram negative organisms that have killed their
human hosts and we spray our gloves with 70% ethanol and spray down our
biosafety hoods with it as do almost all labs in the world.

This is all moot probably because homes don't need disinfection (hygiene
hypothesis implies you probably need the opposite) but alcohol will certainly
kill most things. It would be extremely rare for you to need to kill exotic
things like bacterial spores that need nuclear options like autoclaving to
kill.

~~~
txcwpalpha
As you're a scientist, I'd defer to your expertise, but I will mention that
the situations where alcohol falls short are with spores and when cleaning
certain materials. AFAIK, MRSA does not form spores, and so alcohol would work
well for disinfecting it. Your gloves and hoods are also probably made of a
material that is effectively cleaned by alcohol.

On the other hand, C. difficile (a bacteria responsible for diahrea/stomach
flu) does produce spores which are not killed by alcohol cleaners. Similarly,
viruses like norovirus (also responsible for "stomach flu") are not
effectively disinfected by alcohol, which is why I mentioned that if you're
trying to clean up after a bout of stomach flu, you might want to reach for
something stronger (like a bleach based cleaner).

~~~
st26
C. diff is pretty much only killed by bleach, and not something most people
deal with frequently, or you know, ever. These seem like rather special cases
to be bringing up.

~~~
txcwpalpha
What? C. diff is one of the most common disease-causing bacterias [1]. Other
examples like norovirus or C. perfringens (another spore-forming bacteria
responsible for stomach flu) are also among the most common [2]. They aren't
special cases at all.

1: [https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0225-clostridium-
di...](https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2015/p0225-clostridium-
difficile.html)

2:
[https://www.foodsafety.gov/poisoning/causes/bacteriaviruses/...](https://www.foodsafety.gov/poisoning/causes/bacteriaviruses/index.html)

~~~
st26
Huh, I had always heard C. diff was a pretty common presence but very rarely
symptomatic.

------
kevindqc
This is why I never clean.

~~~
DoreenMichele
The only winning move is to just not let dirt happen to begin with.

~~~
red75prime
Or not to be obsessed with perfect cleanliness.

~~~
DoreenMichele
There is an element of that to my life in a _pick your battles_ kind of way.

------
ineedasername
Something is odd here. From the study itself, the observed declines in lung
function were only observed in females, not males. This was among respondents
that identified as occupational cleaners too, so you can't just attribute that
difference to "gender roles". Also, for women, the rate of decline was the
same for occupational cleaners (it was their job) vs home cleaners (they
cleaned their own home).

Nothing good comes from breathing cleaning spray, and this research references
other pieces to suppprt that claim, but it seems possible that this research
is honing in on some other common factor besides cleaning exposure, else
degree of exposure is negligible in the outcomes and male biochemistry renders
men immune to this effect.

------
trendia
I switched to vinegar-based cleaning solution. High dose inhalation of acetic
acid seems to induce an acute reaction in mice without long-term effect, so
I'm hoping that chronic low dose inhalation won't have an effect in humans
either.

~~~
akman
considering some people ingest vinegar for blood sugar regulation, seems like
a safe way to go

~~~
sokoloff
I could imagine that inhaling into lungs might have a different impact from
swallowing into the digestive tract. People doing blood sugar regulation are
drinking, not snorting, vinegar, right?

~~~
jazoom
Yes, it's very different when a child swallows an M&M to when a child inhales
an M&M.

------
MrBuddyCasino
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16404551](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16404551)

------
m0llusk
The amount used and technique for spraying probably matter. A careful cleaner
may use only a very small amount as needed while some seem to think it is
necessary to slather everything with concentrated soaps that leave a strong
smell. We are still just coming to terms with aerosols as high powered forced
air hand dryers have shown, and those were intended to minimize spread of
contaminants.

------
jaggederest
Soapcalc and make your own soap:
[http://soapcalc.net/calc/soapcalcwp.asp](http://soapcalc.net/calc/soapcalcwp.asp)

This is what I do. I have a nice batch of coconut/castor/olive/cocoa soap
curing under the sink. It's literally just water, vegetable oils, and some
sodium hydroxide.

------
mirimir
Just about all bathroom and window cleaners cause shortness of breath for me.
Maybe it's because I smoked tobacco for so many years. So I use diluted
vinegar on windows, and baking soda plus dish detergent on surfaces. And
diluted citric acid for lime, because it's faster than acetic acid.

------
Symbiote
I don't like the idea of paying someone else to clean my filth, but I don't
clean often enough myself.

So I get really lazy, and soak a sponge in phosphoric acid[1] then rub it
gently on the glass around the shower. Leave for 2 minutes, and the limescale
in gone! It's much easier than any "real" cleaning product, and the phosphoric
acid is the equivalent of about $1.50 for a litre.

But I don't know if it's bad for me. I wear gloves.

[1] "pH 1.0" and "contains phosphoric acid" is all the label says.

~~~
stevenwoo
Where do you get phosphoric acid? The strongest conventionally available stuff
is Limeaway and CLR and those are not strong enough for heavy calcium
deposits. The strongest home stuff appears to be toilet bowl cleaners with
diluted hydrochloric acid or hydrochloric acid for chlorinating pools.

~~~
Symbiote
It's from any supermarket in Denmark. This shows the whole shelf [1], which
also has an acetic acid solution, ammonia solution, and sodium/potassium
hydroxide for cleaning drains. And "cleaning benzene", whatever that's for.
Most of the bottles are branded "BORUP", except the phosphoric acid, which is
"KALK VÆK".

I found a safety information sheet [2], which says the phosphoric acid
solution contains 5-15% phosphoric acid. That's stronger than Limeaway. If I
pour it on limescale deposits I can hear it fizz.

The from-a-supermarket strong toilet bowl cleaner here (probably applies to
most of the EU) contains "9% w/w -- 94 g/L HCl"

[1] [https://shop.rema1000.dk/husholdning/rengoring-og-kemisk-
tek...](https://shop.rema1000.dk/husholdning/rengoring-og-kemisk-teknisk)

[2] [http://rema1000.dk/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/Kalk-V%C3%A6k-...](http://rema1000.dk/wp-
content/uploads/2015/06/Kalk-V%C3%A6k-Kaffe-1-L_DK_v2-0-1.0.pdf)

------
rubyfan
Was anyone able to spot which cleaning sprays were problematic?

~~~
stevenwoo
They only speculate about lung irritants like bleach and ammonia that are
common in cleaning sprays.

------
hi41
I find it very hard to remove soap scum from bathtub if I don't use cleaning
sprays. Can someone please suggest a better way.

------
hckern3ws
I wonder how long it will take before the tort lawyers can sniff this.

------
lewis500
This is why I switched from cleaning spray to chewing tobacco.

------
purplezooey
But it doesn't say which cleaners were tested. For example perhaps Simple
Green is not at the same level as Formula 409.

~~~
JonathonW
The study [1] wasn't testing specific cleaners; it was a long-term study
following people who use varying amounts of cleaning products in day-to-day
use (those who don't clean, those who clean on a regular basis at home, and
those who clean as an occupation).

[1] Full text: [http://www.thoracic.org/about/newsroom/press-
releases/resour...](http://www.thoracic.org/about/newsroom/press-
releases/resources/women-cleaners-lung-function.pdf)

------
RandomInteger4
Makes sense in the case of bleach, which when combined with the ammonia
containing body ingredients shed off in the shower, reacts to produce
chloramine, which hydrolyzes to produce hypochlorous acid, which is a strong
oxidizing agent, and I assume said hydrolysis takes place in the lungs,
meaning ample exposure to free radicals, which I assume can lead to cancer if
inhaled often enough.

------
sizzle
I use a 3m facemask with 2 p100 bio air filters when cleaning specifically to
avoid these chemicals.

------
scythe
Unfortunate that all sprays are combined. One reason for the rather large sex
effect might be the choice of different products by men and women. If I had to
guess, bleach sprays are going to be the most damaging, but that's a guess.

------
IshKebab
This headline is just a lie. They're as bad for "lung health" _if cigarettes
didn 't cause lung cancer!_

(Lung health is measured by lung capacity by them)

------
truculation
Presumably better to twist nozzle to _jet_ spray rather than _mist_ spray?

~~~
WiseWeasel
I would think better to pour onto a container, soak a sponge, and apply.

~~~
truculation
Or squirt directly into/onto the damp sponge/cloth.

------
chmaynard
Believing a report in a general news publication that attempts to summarize
the conclusion of a study that hasn't been replicated anywhere can lead to an
increase in stupidity. Caveat emptor. Also, all headlines are clickbait. Get
over it.

~~~
wil421
Agreed. I saw an article on the front page last week about how standing desks
causes more issues than sitting. The sample size was one office with 20
people.

