Automotive Aerosol Cleaning Products: Low-VOC, Low Toxicity Alternatives
Prepared by:
Katy Wolf and Mike Morris
Institute for Research and Technical Assistance
Prepared for:
Cal/EPA鈥檚 Department of Toxic Substances Control and
City of Santa Monica
November 2006
DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored and paid for by the California
Environmental Protection Agency鈥檚 (Cal/EPA鈥檚) Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) and the City of Santa Monica. The opinions, findings, conclusions and
recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of
the sponsors. Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey and should
not be interpreted as conveying Cal/EPA, DTSC or the City of Santa Monica approval,
endorsement or recommendation. DTSC, the City of Santa Monica, their officers,
employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warranty, expressed or implied, and
assume no legal liability for the information in this report. The sponsors have not
approved or disapproved this report nor have the sponsors passed upon the accuracy or
adequacy of the information contained herein.
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The analysis in this report benefited considerably from the efforts of many persons within
and outside the Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA). We would
particularly like to acknowledge the valuable contributions made by Robert Ludwig from
DTSC and Gary Welling from the City of Santa Monica. We are especially grateful to
Dr. Julia Quint from the Department of Health Services Hazard Evaluation System &
Information Service for her work in evaluating the toxicity of the materials. We would
also like to give special thanks to Kyzen for packaging the alternative aerosol cleaners for
testing. We are very thankful to the ten auto repair facilities that tested the safer
alternatives. Finally, we are indebted to Amy Blume of IRTA for her assistance in
preparing the document.
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates emissions of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) from automotive cleaning products amounted to about 9.5 tons per
day in 2003. Many of the chemicals used in these cleaners are also classified as Toxic
Air Contaminants. The cleaners are used by auto repair shops, car washes, detailers and
consumers for brake cleaning, general purpose degreasing, carburetor and fuel injection
system cleaning and engine degreasing. CARB recently adopted a regulation to reduce
the allowed VOC content limit of the cleaners from about 45% to 10%. This action
would reduce VOC emissions by about seven tons per day and would reduce exposure of
the workers and community members to toxic chemicals in California.
The Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA), a nonprofit organization,
conducted a project sponsored by Cal/EPA鈥檚 Department of Toxic Substances Control
and the City of Santa Monica to identify, develop, test and demonstrate alternative low-
VOC, safer alternatives for brake cleaning, general purpose degreasing and carburetor
and fuel injection system cleaning in ten auto repair facilities. The facilities used the
alternatives for an extended period and, in some cases, used them or converted to them
permanently. During the project, IRTA built on earlier project results (CARB, 2004;
HESIS, 2004) and also developed or demonstrated new alternatives. The alternatives that
were tested are shown in Table E-1.
Table E-1
Low-VOC, Low Toxicity Alternatives Tested During the Project
Alternative Description Development Time-Frame
Acetone Cleaner #1 Acetone Based Aerosol for Brake This Project
Cleaning/General Purpose Degreasing
Acetone Cleaner #1 Acetone Based Aerosol for Brake This Project
Cleaning/General Purpose Degreasing
Soy/Acetone Cleaner Soy/Acetone Aerosol for Carburetor CARB/HESIS
and Fuel Injection System Cleaning Project
Water-Based Cleaner Water-Based Aerosol for Brake CARB/HESIS
Cleanin/General Purpose Degreasing Project
Acetone Cannister Acetone Based Cleaners in a Portable This Project
Spray Cleaning System
Water-Based Cleaners Water-Based Brake Cleaning Systems CARB/HESIS
Project
Spray Bottles Water-Based Cleaners Used for This Project
All Cleaning Applications
iii
IRTA developed the first two acetone based aerosol cleaners for this project. Acetone is
not classified as a VOC and it is lower in toxicity than most other organic solvents. The
soy/acetone cleaner was tested in two earlier projects; soy has very low VOC content
and, like acetone, is low in toxicity. The water-based aerosol cleaner was successfully
tested in two earlier projects. Vendors have developed cannister systems that rely on
acetone formulations and these were tested during this project. Water-based brake
cleaning systems with different water-based cleaners were tested during this project and
were also tested in an earlier demonstration and conversion project. Spray bottles
containing water-based cleaners were tested during this project. All of the aerosol
alternatives tested during the project had a VOC content of 10% or less and all of the
non-aerosol alternatives had a VOC content of 25 grams per liter or less.
The facilities participating in the project tested the alternative aerosol and brake cleaning
system cleaners for at least a three month period and the cannister system for at least a
one month period. IRTA conducted cost analysis and comparison of the alternative
aerosol and non-aerosol technologies. The results indicate that use of the alternatives by
auto repair facilities is lower or comparable in cost to the use of the high VOC solvent
aerosol cleaners used today.
The results of the testing indicated that the alternative aerosol and non-aerosol
technologies are acceptable as alternatives to the high VOC aerosol cleaners based on
input from the test facilities and IRTA鈥檚 analysis. The facilities were able to operate
productively with these technologies for an extended period of time. This indicates that
the lower VOC, lower toxicity alternatives can be used by the auto repair industry in
California.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Disclaimer ................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................ii
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................vii
List of Tables .......................................................................................................................viii
I. Introduction and Background ......................................................................................... 1
Previous Related Work ................................................................................................... 2
Project Alternatives Strategy .......................................................................................... 3
Structure of Document .................................................................................................... 3
II. Safer Alternative Aerosol and Non-Aerosol Technologies ........................................... 4
Description of Cleaning Applications ............................................................................ 6
General Purpose Degreasing........................................................................................ 6
Brake Cleaning............................................................................................................. 6
Carburetor and Fuel Injection System Cleaning ....................................................... 10
Regulations that Affect Aerosol and Non-Aerosol Cleaning....................................... 11
Alternative Aerosol and Non-Aerosol Products........................................................... 11
Alternative Aerosol Cleaners..................................................................................... 12
Alternative Non-Aerosol Cleaners ............................................................................ 13
Summary of Alternative Products ............................................................................. 15
III. Field Testing Performance and Cost Analysis ............................................................. 16
Testing Description and Results ................................................................................... 16
Evaluation of Alternative Systems ............................................................................... 18
Cost Analysis and Comparison..................................................................................... 20
Cannister System........................................................................................................ 20
v
Water-Based Brake Cleaning Equipment.................................................................. 21
Low-VOC Aerosol Cleaners...................................................................................... 23
IV. Summary and Conclusions............................................................................................ 26
V. References ..................................................................................................................... 28
Appendix A
Material Safety Data Sheets and Product Sheets for
Aerosol and Non-Aerosol Products...................................................................................... 29
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Detailer Degreasing Engine............................................................................. 4
Figure 2-2: Detailer Applying Water-Based Cleaner with High Pressure Wand ............. 5
Figure 2-3: Detailer Degreasing Undercarriage of Vehicle............................................... 5
Figure 2-4: Technician Performing General Purpose Degreasing..................................... 6
Figure 2-5: Vehicle with Drum Brakes .............................................................................. 7
Figure 2-6: Closer View of Drum Brake Assembly .......................................................... 7
Figure 2-7: Telescoping Brake Cleaning System .............................................................. 8
Figure 2-8: Parts/Brake Cleaning System .......................................................................... 9
Figure 2-9: Brake Cleaning System on Wheeled Stand .................................................... 9
Figure 2-10: Carburetor Cleaned with Low-VOC Cleaners.............................................. 10
Figure 2-11: Brake Cleaning System Tested by Dealership.............................................. 14
Figure 2-12: Cannister System Tested at Dealerships ....................................................... 14
Figure 2-13: Cannister System with Hose Attached.......................................................... 15
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table E-1: Low-VOC, Low Toxicity Alternatives Tested During the Project ...............iii
Table 1-1: Emissions and VOC Limits for Automotive Consumer Products.................. 1
Table 2-1: Alternative Low-VOC Cleaning Methods.................................................... 15
Table 3-1: Products Tested in Each Facility................................................................... 19
Table 3-2: Annualized Cost Comparison for
Aerosol Cleaners and Cannister System ....................................................... 21
Table 3-3: Annualized Cost Comparison for
Dealership for Brake Cleaning Systems ....................................................... 22
Table 3-4: Annualized Cost Comparison for
Auto Repair Shop for Brake Cleaning System ............................................. 22
Table 3-5: Raw Materials Costs for Aerosol Cleaners................................................... 23
viii
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that about 4.5 million aerosol
spray cans and spray bottles of automotive cleaning products are sold in California each
year. In 2003, emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from these products
were estimated at about 9.5 tons per day. Historically, chlorinated solvents were
extensively used in automotive aerosol cleaning products. In 2000, CARB adopted an
Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) that prohibited the production for sale or
distribution of automotive products containing chlorinated solvents that are classified as
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) after June 30, 2001. The ATCM prohibited the use of
such products after December 31, 2002.
When the ban on chlorinated solvents became effective, suppliers began formulating with
VOC solvents, some of which are also classified as TACs. These include toluene,
xylene, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), methanol and hexane. CARB was concerned about
the possible increase in VOC and toxic solvent emissions and the agency regulated the
VOC content of the cleaners.
Table 1-1 summarizes the VOC emissions from four categories of automotive aerosol
cleaning in 2003, the most recent year for which the data were collected. The emissions
from each category of cleaning are presented in tons per day (tpd). The table also shows
the VOC limits that became effective in 2004 and the future VOC limits for the
categories. CARB recently adopted a regulation to reduce the VOC content for all
categories of cleaning to 10%. This would result in a VOC reduction from automotive
aerosol cleaning of 7.02 tpd (CARB, 2006).
Table 1-1
Emissions and VOC Limits for Automotive Consumer Products
Automotive Aerosol VOC Emissions VOC Limits (Wt.%)
Cleaning Category (tpd) 2003 12/31/2004 12/31/2008 12/31/2010
Brake Cleaners 4.84 45 - 10
Carburetor or Fuel-Injection 2.61 45 - 10
Intake Cleaners
Engine Degreasers 1.05 35 10 -
General Purpose Degreasers 0.98 50 - 10
Total 9.48
The four categories of aerosol automotive cleaning products are used by auto repair
facilities, car washes, detailers and do-it-yourself mechanics at home. Brake cleaners are
used to remove dust, oil, grease and brake fluid from brake assemblies during repair or
replacement. Carburetor cleaners are used to remove dirt, fuel deposits, oil and grease
from carburetors, chokes, throttle body valves or other linkages in a fuel injection system.
Engine degreasers are used to remove grease, oil and dirt from the external surfaces of
engines. General purpose degreasers are used to remove dirt, oil or grease from parts of
various types, generally when a repair is being made.
The Institute for Research and Technical Assistance (IRTA) is a nonprofit organization
established in 1989. IRTA assists companies and whole industries in adopting safer
alternatives in a variety of applications including cleaning, dry cleaning, paint stripping,
adhesives and coatings. IRTA runs and operates the Pollution Prevention Center, a loose
affiliation of a large electric utility and several federal, state and local government
agencies that are concerned with air, wastewater, hazardous waste and worker exposure.
Cal/EPA鈥檚 Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the City of Santa
Monica contracted with IRTA to identify, develop, test and demonstrate alternative low-
VOC, low toxicity aerosol automotive cleaning products and non-aerosol cleaners with
auto repair facilities. The project involved converting the facilities to the safer
alternatives for a three month period to determine if they would be acceptable
alternatives.
PREVIOUS RELATED WORK
Over the last decade or so, IRTA conducted four projects that are related to the current
project. First, U.S. EPA sponsored a project to identify, develop and test water-based
cleaners as alternatives to solvent cleaners in auto repair facilities (EPA, 1997). The
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) later regulated the VOC
content of these cleaners and the action resulted in a reduction in VOC emissions from
the category of about 18 tons per day.
Second, U.S. EPA sponsored a project to identify, evaluate and implement water-based
cleaning alternatives for brake cleaning (EPA, 1999). The project involved converting
seven facilities to water-based cleaning equipment and formulations that were shown to
be effective and lower in cost than solvent aerosol products.
Third, CARB sponsored a project designed to identify, develop, test and demonstrate
alternative low-VOC aerosol automotive cleaners for brake cleaning, carburetor and fuel
injection system cleaning, engine degreasing and general purpose degreasing (CARB,
2004). Fourth, the California Department of Health Services Hazard Evaluation System
& Information Service (HESIS) sponsored a project with the same aim to reduce worker
exposure to toxic solvents in auto repair facilities (HESIS, 2004). IRTA worked with
auto repair facilities, a car wash, automotive detailers and consumers to test and
demonstrate the alternatives. Based on the results of these projects, CARB is currently
proposing to reduce the VOC content of the aerosol automotive cleaners from about 45%
to 10%.
2
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES STRATEGY
During this project, IRTA worked with 10 auto repair facilities in the southern California
area. IRTA identified and developed alternatives for brake cleaning, carburetor and fuel
injection system cleaning and general purpose degreasing. IRTA did not further test
alternatives for engine degreasing since engine degreasing is not generally performed by
auto repair facilities. IRTA used some of the same alternatives developed in the earlier
projects and developed and tested some new alternatives for the remaining cleaning
applications with the auto repair facilities.
STRUCTURE OF DOCUMENT
Section II of this document discusses the cleaning activities performed in auto repair
facilities. It also presents information on the regulations that apply to these cleaning
activities. Finally, it describes the alternative aerosol and non-aerosol low-VOC, low
toxicity materials that can be used in place of the high solvent content aerosols used
widely today. Section III focuses on the field testing and the results of the field tests. It
also includes a cost analysis and comparison. Section IV summarizes the results of the
project. Finally, Section V presents the references.
3
II. SAFER ALTERNATIVE AEROSOL AND NON-AEROSOL
TECHNOLOGIES
During the field testing, IRTA relied on both aerosol and non-aerosol cleaning methods.
Some of the aerosol cleaning products that were tested and used by the facilities were
developed in the earlier CARB and HESIS projects. Some of the non-aerosol
technologies were used in IRTA鈥檚 earlier U.S. EPA brake cleaning project. Some of the
aerosol and non-aerosol products tested were new technologies. In this project, IRTA
focused on technologies suitable for use in three of the four applications where aerosol
cleaning products are used. These include:
鈥? brake cleaning;
鈥? general purpose degreasing; and
鈥? carburetor and fuel injection system cleaning.
As indicated by this list, IRTA did not focus on engine degreasing during this project.
Auto repair facilities do not use engine degreasers. In addition, water-based cleaning
alternatives for engine degreasing are widely available and perform effectively. Car
washes and detailers generally use bulk water-based cleaners and apply them with a high
pressure wand. Three views of a detailer applying an engine degreaser with a wand are
shown in Figures 2-1, 2-2 and 2-3. In the earlier CARB and HESIS projects, IRTA
packaged several water-based cleaners in aerosols and these cleaners all performed well
when tested for engine degreasing with car washes, detailers and consumers. Consumers
could use water-based aerosol cleaning products or any kind of water-based cleaners in
spray bottles for engine degreasing. Since low-VOC, low toxicity water-based products
are effective in this application, IRTA and DTSC did not believe that further
demonstrating alternatives in this application was warranted.
Figure 2-1. Detailer Degreasing Engine
4
Figure 2-2. Detailer Applying Water-Based Cleaner with High Pressure Wand.
Figure 2-3. Detailer Degreasing Undercarriage of Vehicle
5
DESCRIPTION OF CLEANING APPLICATIONS
Many auto repair facilities purchase two types of aerosol cleaners. One of these cleaners
is a fast evaporating carburetor cleaner and the other is a brake cleaner or general purpose
degreaser. The shops perform their brake cleaning and general purpose degreasing with
the same cleaner. Some technicians and shops have a preference for a particular cleaner
and others purchase the cleaner that is lowest in cost. The applications are discussed in
more detail below.
General Purpose Degreasing
General purpose degreasing is performed when a part needs to be replaced or repaired.
Technicians often spray the part with an aerosol cleaner to remove any dirt, grease or oil
so they can examine the part and replace or repair it as necessary. Figure 2-4 shows a
technician performing general purpose degreasing.
Figure 2-4. Technician Performing General Purpose Degreasing.
Brake Cleaning
Older vehicles manufactured in the 1980s and before have drum brakes on both the front
and the back. Before about 1995, vehicles were manufactured with disc brakes on the
front and drum brakes on the back. In the last 10 years, vehicles have been manufactured
with disc brakes on both the front and the back. Figure 2-5 shows a picture of a vehicle
with the tire removed and the drum brakes exposed. Figure 2-6 shows a closer view of
the drum brake assembly.
6
Figure 2-5. Vehicle with Drum Brakes.
Figure 2-6. Closer View of Drum Brake Assembly.
7
Drum brakes are cleaned when the technician repairs or replaces parts like brake pads or
brake cylinders. The major contaminant that is removed is dust. When technicians
inspect or adjust the brakes, they often do not clean them. Disc brakes include a caliper,
which is the brake mechanism, and a rotor, which is the steel disc. Technicians clean the
caliper when a repair is necessary. Contaminants can include dust and, if there is a leaky
seal, brake fluid. The rotor is always cleaned. Some technicians remove the rotor and
clean it with soap and water in a sink. If the rotor needs to be machined, the technician
cleans the particulate contaminants before reinstalling it. Other technicians use a brake
cleaner to remove dust, oil or fingerprints. When the rotor is replaced, it is packed in a
corrosion inhibitor and technicians also clean this material when they install the new
rotor.
In southern California, many auto repair shops use water and/or water-based cleaners in
small brake cleaning equipment. Pictures of three different types of brake cleaning
systems are shown in Figures 2-7, 2-8 and 2-9. In general, these systems are on wheels
so they can be moved easily under a car to do a brake job. They have a small reservoir
containing the water-based cleaner. The cleaner is pumped to a sink area with a brush
which is used to wet down the dust and clean the brakes. One of the brake cleaning
systems, shown in Figure 2-9, is mounted on a wheeled stand.
Figure 2-7. Telescoping Brake Cleaning System.
8
Figure 2-8. Parts/Brake Cleaning System.
Figure 2-9. Brake Cleaning System on Wheeled Stand.
9
Some of the shops that use water-based brake cleaning systems do not use solvent aerosol
brake cleaners at all and others use solvent aerosol brake cleaners to augment the water-
based systems. Both disc brakes and drum brakes can be cleaned with these water-based
brake cleaning systems. Most of the time, estimated at 90% by auto repair technicians,
only dust or fingerprints are removed during a brake job. The remaining 10% of the
time, oil or grease needs to be removed during a brake job.
Carburetor and Fuel Injection System Cleaning
Many auto repair facilities use cleaners to flush the fuel system. Some facilities use a
blend of high VOC solvents provided with a dispenser system that can be hooked up to
the fuel injection system. This cleaner is flushed through the system with the engine
running. As a consequence, the ingredients in the cleaner are combusted and the VOC
solvents are not emitted. Other facilities use an additive that is poured into the fuel tank.
This material is not a solvent and it is not emitted; again, it is combusted when the fuel is
burned. IRTA did not investigate alternatives to these types of products.
As mentioned above, most auto repair facilities purchase a carburetor cleaner which they
consider faster evaporating. Most new automobiles sold today have fuel injection
systems rather than carburetors. Some older cars on the road still have carburetors. A
picture of a carburetor cleaned with some of the low-VOC cleaners is shown in Figure 2-
10. Most of the carburetor cleaner used today is used for cleaning throttle body valves.
Figure 2-10. Carburetor Cleaned with Low-VOC Cleaners.
10
REGULATIONS THAT AFFECT AEROSOL AND NON-AEROSOL CLEANING
The VOC limit for automotive aerosol cleaners in brake cleaning, carburetor and fuel
injection system cleaning and general purpose degreasing is currently set at 45% in
CARB鈥檚 consumer product regulations. The current VOC limit for engine degreasing is
35%. CARB recently adopted a regulation to reduce the VOC limit to 10% for engine
degreasing in 2008 and the other three categories in 2010.. An interim VOC limit of 20%
for brake cleaning, carburetor and fuel injection system cleaning and general purpose
degreasing will become effective in 2008.
SCAQMD has a regulation that affects the use of aerosol products used in auto repair
facilities. SCAQMD Rule 1171 鈥淪olvent Cleaning Operations,鈥? specifies that a facility
may use 160 fluid ounces or less of VOC containing aerosol products per day. Assuming
that each aerosol can contains about one pound of product, this means that facilities can
use about 10 cans per day of VOC containing aerosols. If the facility uses more than 10
cans per day, the additional cans above 10 must have a VOC content of no more than 25
grams per liter. This translate roughly into 2.5% VOC.
The SCAQMD also regulates the VOC content of non-aerosol cleaners used in auto
repair facilities. The VOC limit for general repair and maintenance cleaning, which is
the type of cleaning performed by auto repair facilities, is 25 grams per liter. This
translates roughly into 2.5% VOC. Other air districts in California have adopted or are
adopting similar regulations.
According to the regulations, facilities that do not use aerosol products must use cleaners
with a VOC content of about 2.5% in the South Coast Basin and other air districts in
California where there are repair and maintenance cleaning limits. Facilities located
outside the SCAQMD jurisdiction must use aerosol cleaners with a 45% VOC limit or
lower. Inside the SCAQMD jurisdiction, facilities that use aerosol products can use
about 10 cans of cleaners with a VOC content of 45%; if the facility uses more than 10
cans per day, the additional cleaners must have a VOC content of about 2.5%.
ALTERNATIVE AEROSOL AND NON-AEROSOL PRODUCTS
One of the aims of this project was to test alternative aerosol cleaners that are low in
VOC content and low in toxicity. IRTA developed alternative aerosol cleaners that had a
VOC content of no more than 10% for testing in this project; some of the cleaners had an
even lower VOC content. IRTA also tested a commercial aerosol cleaner with low-VOC
content. Another aim of the project was to test non-aerosol products that are low in VOC
content and low in toxicity. The alternatives that were tested during the project are
described for the three applications of focus below.
11
Alternative Aerosol Cleaners
In the earlier CARB and HESIS projects, some of the personnel in the auto repair
facilities expressed concern about using water-based products for throttle body valve
cleaning. They did not want to introduce water into the fuel system. As a consequence,
IRTA developed three cleaners for testing that were blends of acetone and soy. Acetone
is exempt from VOC regulations and is lower in toxicity than most other organic
solvents. According to HESIS, soy based cleaners are also low in toxicity. Two of the
cleaners developed in the earlier projects performed well and IRTA decided to test one of
them over the longer term with the auto repair facilities during this project. The cleaner
is a combination of about 25% soy and 75% acetone with a carbon dioxide propellant.
The VOC content of this cleaner is no more than 0.6%. A Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) for this product, called Kyzen Aerosol Degreaser #1, is shown in Appendix A.
IRTA also developed two additional fast evaporating aerosol products during the current
project that are based on acetone. Acetone is not classified as a VOC and, according to
HESIS, is lower in toxicity than almost all other organic solvents. These products could
be used for carburetor and fuel injection system cleaning, general purpose degreasing or
brake cleaning. One of these is a blend of about 10% mineral spirits and 90% acetone
with a carbon dioxide propellant. An MSDS for this product, Kyzen Aerosol Degreaser
#3, is shown in Appendix A. The VOC content of this product is about 10%. The other
cleaner is a blend of about 2.5% of a glycol ether and 97.5% acetone with a carbon
dioxide propellant. An MSDS for this product, Kyzen Aerosol Degreaser #2, is shown in
Appendix A. The VOC content of this product is about 2.5%.
In the earlier CARB and HESIS projects, IRTA worked with several water-based cleaner
suppliers to develop and package aerosol products based on water-based cleaners that
could be used for general purpose degreasing and brake cleaning. There are a variety of
water-based cleaners on the market today that have been designed as non-foaming.
These cleaners are used in spray equipment in industrial cleaning applications. Nearly all
water-based cleaners foam when they are put in an aerosol can. The mixture of air with
the cleaner causes foaming even if the cleaner has been designed not to foam. This posed
a technical problem but suppliers did provide a few non- and low-foaming water-based
cleaners that were tested in the CARB/HESIS projects.
One of the water-based cleaners that performed well in the earlier testing was selected for
additional testing in the current project. An MSDS for this product, Kyzen Aerosol
Degreaser 11, is shown in Appendix A. All of the water-based aerosol products use
hydrocarbon propellants. Carbon dioxide, although it is a very good high pressure
propellant, cannot be used easily with water-based cleaners. The propellant and the
water-based cleaner form carbonic acid and the can may corrode. The VOC content of
the Kyzen degreaser is about 10% and the contribution of the VOC is from the
propellant.
12
Five of the facilities that participated in the project are dealerships. Dealerships,
depending on how many technicians they have, may use more than 10 cans per day of
aerosol cleaning products. If they do use more than 10 cans per day, they are subject to
the SCAQMD regulations. Rather than monitoring the daily use of the high VOC
cleaner, some dealerships are exclusively using cleaners a very low VOC content, less
than 25 grams per liter or about 2.5%. As a consequence, the suppliers are offering the
dealerships very low VOC content aerosols containing acetone and a carbon dioxide
propellant or acetone with a very small amount of VOC solvent and a carbon dioxide
propellant. IRTA evaluated the use of these low-VOC products during the project. An
MSDS for Granitize AR-2 14oz/AR-14 6oz Brake Cleaner & Parts Cleaner, one cleaner
that probably meets the 45% VOC CARB limit, is shown in Appendix A. An MSDS for
Granitize Brake & Parts Cleaner 1171 Rule, a cleaner that may meet the 25 grams per
liter VOC limit, , is also shown in Appendix A.
Alternative Non-Aerosol Cleaners
Three different non-aerosol cleaning systems were tested during the project. The first
system is a water-based cleaner in a spray bottle. One of the participating facilities did
not want to use aerosol cans at all. Instead, the technicians used a water-based parts
cleaning formulation in spray bottles for all of their cleaning. The VOC content of this
cleaner is less than 25 grams per liter, the SCAQMD rule limit for general repair and
maintenance cleaners. Other facilities have also decided not to use aerosol products at
all.
The second system is a water-based brake cleaning system. A few facilities that
participated in the project decided to use this type of system for most or all of their brake
cleaning. A picture of one a brake cleaning system used by one of the participating
facilities is shown in Figure 2-11. MSDSs for two different water-based brake cleaners
used in the systems tested during the project are shown in Appendix A. The cleaners are
called Mirachem 500 and PWF-10. Generally, the concentration of the water-based
cleaners used in the brake cleaning systems ranges from about 10% to 20%. The VOC
content of these cleaners, after dilution is lower than 25 grams per liter, the SCAQMD
rule limit for repair and maintenance cleaning.
The third system is a cannister delivery method. An example of a cannister system tested
during this project is shown in Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-13. IRTA tested the cannister
system with three dealerships. The cannister system uses a carbon dioxide propellant and
the cleaner must have a VOC content of 25 grams per liter or less to comply with the
SCAQMD regulation limit. The systems IRTA tested all used an acetone cleaner. A
product sheet for the cleaner offered by MX Factor, MX2803, is shown in Appendix A.
IRTA wanted to test the systems as an alternative to aerosol cleaners since they have the
potential to work more effectively because of the higher pressure possible in a cannister
system.
13
Figure 2-11. Brake Cleaning System Tested by Dealership.
Figure 2-12. Cannister System Tested at Dealerships.
14
Figure 2-13. Cannister System with Hose Attached
Summary of Alternative Products
Table 2-1 summarizes the different types of aerosol and non-aerosol systems cleaning
methods during the project. The VOC content of the aerosol products is shown in
percent since they are subject to the CARB regulation. The VOC content of the non-
aerosol products is shown in grams per liter since SCAQMD and other air districts
regulate these materials.
Table 2-1
Alternative Low-VOC Cleaning Methods
Alternative Method Description Approximate
VOC Content
Carburetor/Fuel Injection Soy/Acetone Aerosol 0.6%
System Cleaner
Brake Cleaner/General Water-Based Aerosol 10%
Purpose Degreaser
Brake Cleaner/General Mineral Spirits/Acetone Aerosol 10%
Purpose Degreaser
Brake Cleaner/General Glycol Ether/Acetone Aerosol 2.5%
Purpose Degreaser
Spray Bottles Water-Based Cleaner Non-Aerosol <25 grams per liter
Brake Cleaning Systems Water-Based Cleaner Non-Aerosol <25 grams per liter
Cannister Systems Acetone and Acetone Blends Non-Aerosol <25 grams per liter
15
III. FIELD TESTING PERFORMANCE AND COST ANALYSIS
IRTA tested the alternative cleaners and technologies with 10 auto repair facilities in
southern California. The facilities that participated in the testing included:
鈥? a city yard that maintains city vehicles;
鈥? two service stations that perform repairs;
鈥? two small privately owned general automotive repair facilities;
鈥? a Mercedes dealership;
鈥? a Lexus dealership;
鈥? an Audi dealership;
鈥? a Honda dealership; and
鈥? a VW dealership.
IRTA deliberately recruited dealerships for the project since they were likely to use more
than 10 cans per day of aerosol cleaners. This means they would have to comply with the
SCAQMD regulation which is more stringent than the CARB regulation. Such facilities
were more likely to be interested in testing and adopting low-VOC alternatives.
TESTING DESCRIPTION AND RESULTS
The purpose of the test program was to have each facility use the alternative aerosols
and/or non-aerosol technologies for at least three months. The types of systems that were
tested varied, depending on the facility. IRTA discussed different approaches with all of
the facilities and allowed them to choose the path they preferred. The low-VOC Granitize
aerosol product was used by three facilities permanently and IRTA got feedback from the
technicians on this product. Kyzen, the company that developed the water-based aerosol
cleaner that did not foam and performed well, packaged this cleaner and the other solvent
aerosol products for IRTA to test with some facilities. The cannister system was used by
three facilities for one month and by one facility permanently. Some of the facilities,
notably two of the larger dealerships, had one team of several technicians test the
alternatives for the test period. One of the larger dealerships had all the technicians test
the alternative products for the three month test period.
The city yard decided they would not test alternative low-VOC aerosols since they did
not want to use aerosols at all. IRTA provided this facility with two different water-
based cleaners that the technicians tested in spray bottles. After the preliminary testing,
the facility decided they preferred the water-based cleaner they were already using in
their parts cleaner. This was the cleaner the facility used for the three month testing
period and is using permanently.
16
One of the service stations was already using a water-based brake cleaning system and
the shop wanted to use that system and aerosols. The technicians were routinely using
high VOC 45% aerosol cleaners. IRTA provided the shop with all of the different
aerosol cleaning products so they could decide which ones they wanted to test for the
three month period. The technicians selected the soy/acetone carburetor and fuel
injection system cleaners and the glycol ether/acetone blend for the three month testing
period.
The other service station wanted to try a water-based brake cleaning system and IRTA
provided them with a unit; this service station also tested alternative aerosols but relied
heavily on the brake cleaning unit for cleaning brakes and for general purpose
degreasing. The shop was routinely using the high VOC 45% aerosol products and the
alternative aerosol the facility preferred for the three month testing was the mineral
spirits/acetone blend. The facility also tested the soy/acetone blend for throttle body
valve cleaning.
IRTA tested a water-based brake cleaning system at one of the small general automotive
repair facilities which was routinely using the high VOC 45% aerosols. The shop did not
like the system and preferred to use aerosols. IRTA provided this facility with the
soy/acetone carburetor and fuel injection system aerosol cleaner, the water-based aerosol
cleaner and both the glycol ether/acetone and mineral spirits/acetone aerosol cleaners for
preliminary testing. For the three month test period, the facility opted to test the water-
based aerosol cleaner and the mineral spirits/acetone aerosol cleaner.
At the second general automotive repair facility, the technicians were routinely using the
high VOC 45% aerosols. IRTA provided the technicians with a water-based brake
cleaning system, the carburetor and fuel injection system aerosol cleaner and the glycol
ether/acetone blend for the three month testing period. Two of the technicians used the
water-based brake cleaning system exclusively and the other technician used the two
aerosol cleaners.
At the Mercedes dealership, the technicians were using the low-VOC Granitize aerosol
products because of the SCAQMD 160 fluid ounces VOC regulation. The facility
wanted to try the water-based brake cleaning systems. IRTA provided two different
water-based cleaners and the facility preferred one of them which was tested for the three
month period. IRTA also provided all of the aerosol cleaners for preliminary testing and
the facility elected to test the soy/acetone carburetor and fuel injection system aerosol
cleaner and the glycol ether/acetone blend for the three month period. This facility also
tested and decided to continue using the cannister system containing acetone
permanently.
The Lexus facility wanted to test only aerosol products. They were using the low-VOC
Granitize aerosol cleaning product exclusively to comply with the SCAQMD regulation.
IRTA provided the facility with the soy/acetone carburetor and fuel injection system
aerosol cleaner and the mineral spirits/acetone cleaner for the testing period.
17
The Audi facility wanted to use only aerosol products. IRTA conducted preliminary
testing of all of the aerosol cleaners and also tested the cannister system containing
acetone. The company was routinely using high VOC aerosols with a 45% VOC content.
The technicians did not think any of the alternative cleaners performed well. The shop
tested the cannister system for a one month period.
The Honda dealership was routinely using high VOC aerosols with a 45% VOC content.
IRTA tested the water-based aerosol cleaner, the soy/acetone carburetor and fuel
injection system aerosol cleaner and both the glycol ether/acetone and the mineral
spirits/acetone aerosol cleaners. For the longer term testing, the facility tested the
soy/acetone and the mineral spirits/acetone aerosols. The shop also tested the acetone
cannister system and thought it worked well for brake cleaning.
The VW dealership, like the Lexus dealership, was routinely using the low-VOC
Granitize product to comply with the SCAQMD regulations. The facility tested the
water-based aerosol, the soy/acetone aerosol for throttle body valve cleaning and the
glycol ether/acetone blend for the three month test period.
Table 3-1 summarizes the products that were tested by each facility during the project.
All of the products were tested for a three month period except the cannister systems
which were tested for one month.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS
The facilities or teams at facilities that participated in the project used or tested
alternative low-VOC, safer aerosol and non-aerosol cleaners for three months or one
month in the case of the cannister product. Because these alternatives had very low VOC
content, this demonstrates that auto repair shops can operate their businesses without
using high VOC aerosol cleaners.
During the project, IRTA staff observed that the younger technicians were more willing
than the older technicians to use the water-based products. Some of the younger
technicians liked the water-based brake cleaning systems and stopped using aerosol
products after they adopted them. In the earlier CARB and HESIS projects, the younger
technicians and consumers who performed engine degreasing preferred the water-based
products. The older technicians and consumers insisted that, if the cleaner did not smell
bad, it would not work well. In the earlier and current projects, the younger technicians
were more willing than the older technicians to use the water-based aerosol cleaners for
brake cleaning and general purpose degreasing.
IRTA also observed that technicians at the large dealerships liked the alternative low-
VOC aerosol products IRTA provided for brake cleaning and general purpose degreasing
as well as or better than the low-VOC Granitize products they were using routinely. The
products formulated by IRTA were based on acetone but had small amounts of VOC
solvents in them and the companies, because of the SCAQMD regulation, were using
very low-VOC products. In contrast, the technicians at smaller facilities were routinely
18
using 45% VOC content aerosol cleaners and they did not think the alternatives IRTA
provided them performed as well.
Table 3-1
Products Tested in Each Facility
Facility Products Tested
City Yard Water-Based Cleaner in Spray Bottles
Service Station #1 Water-Based Brake Cleaning System
Soy/Acetone Aerosol
Glycol Ether/Acetone Aerosol
Service Station #2 Water-Based Brake Cleaning System
Soy/Acetone Aerosol
Mineral Spirits/Acetone Aerosol
General Automotive Shop #1 Water-Based Aerosol
Mineral Spirits/Acetone Aerosol
General Automotive Shop #2 Water-Based Brake Cleaning System
Soy/Acetone Aerosol
Glycol Ether/Acetone Aerosol
Mercedes Dealership Granitize Low-VOC Aerosol
Water-Based Brake Cleaning System
Soy/Acetone Aerosol
Glycol Ether/Acetone Aerosol
Cannister System
Lexus Dealership Granitize Low-VOC Aerosol
Soy/Acetone Aerosol
Mineral Spirits/Acetone Aerosol
Audi Dealership Cannister System
Honda Dealership Soy/Acetone Aerosol
Mineral Spirits/Acetone Aerosol
Cannister System
VW Dealership Granitize Low-VOC Aerosol
Water-Based Aerosol
Soy/Acetone Aerosol
Glycol Ether/Acetone Aerosol
19
A related observation is that once the facilities became used to using very low-VOC
cleaners, they adjusted to it and accepted it. Because of a SCAQMD regulation that
became effective in 1999, nearly all auto repair facilities in the South Coast Basin
converted from mineral spirits to water-based parts cleaners to comply with the lower
VOC limits. Before the regulation was adopted, the industry indicated that water-based
cleaners could not clean and there would be negative technical and financial
consequences for their operation if the regulation were passed. At the beginning of this
project, IRTA asked the technicians how they liked the water-based parts cleaners and
the technicians seemed puzzled at the question. They had been using the water-based
parts cleaners for six years and most of them did not even remember that they had once
used mineral spirits. This is a strong indication that, when change is first suggested, it
garners strong resistance but that once the change is adopted, the technicians adjust to it
and accept it as the status quo.
COST ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
IRTA analyzed and compared the cost of using the high VOC aerosol cleaners with the
cost of using the low-VOC aerosol and non-aerosol technologies. The analysis involved
examining the cost for a few different types of auto repair facilities of using the
alternative non-aerosol technologies. For the alternative aerosol technologies, the raw
materials cost was compared with the raw materials cost of a high VOC aerosol. The
cost for each of the alternative technologies is presented below.
Cannister System
IRTA analyzed the cost of using the cannister system in place of aerosol cleaners for two
different types of facilities. The first facility type is a large dealership and is based on
one of the facilities that participated in the project.
The dealership uses 65 cases or 780 cans of aerosol cleaners per month. The cost of the
aerosol cans is $1.80 each. On this basis, the annual cost of using the aerosol cleaners is
$16,848. Assuming each can contains one pound of product, the dealership uses 9,360
pounds of cleaner per year.
The alternative cannister system holds 20 pounds of cleaner and is propelled by carbon
dioxide. The dealership converted to the cannister systems several months ago. They
used 39 of the systems throughout the facility in a six week period. The supplier changes
out the tanks after six weeks and the cost is $27 per unit. The annual cost of using the
cannister systems amounts to $9,126. The amount of cleaner used by the dealership with
the cannisters is 6,760 pounds per year. This is 28% lower than the amount of cleaner
used with the aerosol cans.
20
One of the small general auto repair facilities that participated in the project uses one
case per week of brake cleaner and pays $1.75 per can. The annual cost of using the
brake cleaner is $1,092. The facility also uses one case of carburetor cleaner every two
weeks at a cost of $1.80 per can. The annual cost of using the carburetor cleaner is $562.
The total cost to the small facility of using the aerosol cans is $1,654 annually. The
amount of cleaner used by the shop each year is 936 pounds assuming that each can
contains a pound of product.
Even though the dealership uses 28% less cleaner with the cannister system, to be
conservative, it will be assumed that the small shop uses the same amount of product in
the cannister system as in the aerosol cans. Since the cannister systems contain 20
pounds of product, the shop would need about 46.8 cannisters per year. At a cost of $27
per unit, the annual cost amounts to $1,264.
Table 3-2 shows the cost comparison for the two facilities. The cost to the dealership for
cleaning with the cannister systems is 46% lower than the cost of cleaning with the
aerosol cans. The cost of cleaning with the cannister system for the general auto repair
shop is 24% less than the cost of cleaning with the aerosol cans.
Table 3-2
Annualized Cost Comparison for Aerosol Cleaners and Cannister System
Facility Type Cost of Aerosol Cleaners Cost of Cannister System
Dealership $16,848 $9,126
General Auto Repair Shop $1,654 $1,264
Water-Based Brake Cleaning Equipment
One of the dealerships that participated in the project has 50 technicians that represent 10
teams of five technicians each. The facility uses a total of 65 cases per month or 780
cases per year of aerosol cleaners. Two-thirds of the aerosol cleaners or 520 cases per
year are used for brake cleaning. The cost of the aerosol brake cleaner is $1.80 per can.
On this basis, the cost of purchasing brake cleaner aerosols is $11,232 annually.
For the analysis, it was assumed that each team would require one water-based brake
cleaning system so the dealership would have to purchase 10 units. These units range in
cost from about $500 to $1,500. Assuming the cost of each unit is $1,000, the capital
cost of the 10 units is $10,000. Assuming a cost of capital of four percent and a 10 year
useful life for the equipment, the annualized cost of the 10 units is $1,040. Each of the
brake cleaning systems holds eight to ten gallons of cleaner. They are used with about
one gallon of cleaner concentrate and the remainder is water. A company services the
units which involves cleaning them out and refilling them with cleaner concentrate and
water and disposing of the spent cleaner as hazardous waste. Most dealerships require
21
the servicing on an eight to 12 week schedule and the cost of the servicing is $150.
Assuming the dealership requires a ten week service for the 10 units, the annual cost of
servicing the brake cleaning systems amounts to $7,800. The total cost of using the
brake cleaning systems is $8,840.
Table 3-3 shows the annualized cost comparison for the dealership. The cost of using the
brake cleaning systems is 21% lower than the cost of using the aerosol cleaners.
Table 3-3
Annualized Cost Comparison for Dealership for Brake Cleaning Systems
Aerosol Cleaners Brake Cleaning Systems
Annualized Equipment Cost - $1,040
Cleaner Cost $11,232 -
Servicing Cost - $7,800
Total Cost $11,232 $8,840
One of the small general auto repair facilities that participated in the project adopted a
water-based brake cleaning system. The shop owner purchases 36 cases of brake cleaner
per year and pays $1.50 per can. The cost of using the aerosol cleaners is $648 per year.
The shop adopted the water-based brake cleaning system and the cost of the unit is about
$1,000. Assuming a cost of capital of four percent and a 10 year useful life for the
equipment, the annualized cost of the unit is $104. This shop has the unit serviced every
four months at a cost of $150 per service. The annual cost of the servicing is $450. The
total annual cost of using the brake cleaning unit is $554.
The cost comparison for the small auto repair shop is shown in Table 3-4. The cost of
using the brake cleaning system is 15% lower than the cost of using the aerosol brake
cleaners.
Table 3-4
Annualized Cost Comparison for Auto Repair Shop for Brake Cleaning System
Aerosol Cleaners Brake Cleaning System
Annualized Equipment Cost - $104
Cleaner Cost $648 -
Servicing Cost - $450
Total Cost $648 $554
22
Low-VOC Aerosol Cleaners
The prices of the alternative aerosol cleaners that were developed and tested during the
project are not known because the products are not yet commercialized. IRTA analyzed
and compared the raw materials costs of the high and low-VOC products to determine a
price for the alternatives. Table 3-5 shows the raw materials cost for the high VOC
Granitize aerosol cleaner and some of the alternative low-VOC aerosol products that
were tested.
Table 3-5
Raw Materials Costs for Aerosol Cleaners
Product Description Raw Materials Cost
(cents per pound)
Granitize High VOC Acetone/Toluene/Methanol 55
Granitize Low-VOC Acetone/Heptane 52
Alternative Brake Cleaner #1 Acetone/Mineral Spirits 52
Alternative Brake Cleaner #2 Acetone/Glycol Ether 52
Kyzen Degreaser 11 Water-Based Cleaner 54
Alternative Carburetor Cleaner Acetone/Soy 61
The MSDS for the Granitize high VOC product indicates that the VOC content of the
product is <50%. IRTA assumed the product contained 45% by weight VOC since it was
very likely developed to comply with the CARB 45% VOC limit. IRTA assumed the
product contained 55% acetone, 40% toluene and 5% methanol. Toluene and methanol
are VOCs whereas acetone is not.
The MSDS for the Granitize low-VOC product indicates that the VOC content of the
product is < 50 grams per liter. IRTA assumed the product contained 2.5% by weight
VOC since it was very likely developed to comply with the SCAQMD 25 gram per liter
VOC limit. IRTA assumed the product contained 97.5% acetone and 2.5% heptane.
Again, acetone is exempt from VOC regulations whereas heptane is classified as a VOC.
For the two alternative aerosols, Brake Cleaner #1 is composed of 90% acetone and 10%
mineral spirits. Mineral spirits is classified as a VOC so this blend has a VOC content of
10%. Brake Cleaner #2 is composed of 97.5% acetone and 2.5% glycol ether. Since the
glycol ether is classified as a VOC, the VOC content of this product is 2.5%.
IRTA obtained prices for the blends from a chemical supplier. IRTA assumed the
packagers would purchase the materials in bulk form. The prices in Table 3-5 represent
the raw materials prices for the Granitize products and the two brake cleaners. IRTA
obtained the raw materials prices of the Kyzen product and the soy/acetone carburetor
cleaner from information collected during the earlier projects (CARB, 2004; HESIS,
2004). In the earlier work, the price for the Kyzen product was estimated at 35 to 45
23
cents per pound and the price of the soy/acetone blend was estimated at 40 to 50 cents
per pound. These were 2003 prices. Since then, the price of chemicals has increased
significantly because of the higher cost of oil. One supplier estimates that chemical
prices have climbed about 35% since 2003. Incorporating this assumption and adopting
the midpoint of the price range, the raw materials price for the Kyzen water-based
cleaner is 54 cents per pound and the raw materials price for the soy/acetone blend is 61
cents per pound.
IRTA obtained the costs of packaging aerosol cans from packagers. The cost of
packaging 10,000 16 ounce cans including the propellant amounts to 89 cents per can.
The cost of packaging 100,000 cans including the propellant amounts to 79 cents per can.
The cost is lower as the number of cans packaged increases, as expected. If the products
tested here were commercialized, they would probably be packaged in very large
quantities. The price of 79 cents per can was assumed for the analysis.
The price for both the high and low-VOC Granitize brake cleaning products is $1.80 per
can according to the auto repair facilities that participated in the project. The raw
materials price in Table 3-5 for the high VOC Granitize product is 55 cents. Assuming
the packaging cost is 79 cents per can and that each can contains one pound of product,
the markup by the manufacturer is 46 cents or about 26% of the total product price. The
raw materials price in Table 3-5 for the low-VOC Granitize product is 52 cents per
pound. Again, assuming the packaging cost is 79 cents per can and that the can contains
one pound of product, the markup by the manufacturer is 49 cents or about 27% of the
total product price. The raw materials price of the low-VOC blend is lower than the raw
materials price for the high VOC blend but the price charged for the cans is the same.
The price of the two alternative low-VOC brake cleaners in Table 3-5 is the same as the
price of the low-VOC Granitize product. This indicates that the markup, which represents
the profit, is higher for the low-VOC products. The two low-VOC alternative brake
cleaning products could be priced at $1.80 per can like the low-VOC Granitize product
and the profit would be acceptable.
The raw materials price for the Kyzen Degreaser 11 product is 54 cents per pound which
is comparable to the 55 cents per pound raw materials price for the high VOC Granitize
product. This product could be priced at about $1.80 per can and the supplier would
make an acceptable profit.
Some of the project participants purchase a Granitize product that is a carburetor cleaner.
The price the facilities pay for this product is $2 per can, higher than the price of the
Granitize brake cleaning products. The raw materials price of the soy/acetone blend,
which is used for carburetor cleaning, is 61 cents per pound. This is 7 cents per pound
higher than the Granitize high VOC brake cleaning blend and 9 cents per pound higher
than the Granitize low-VOC brake cleaning blend. The supplier of the alternative
soy/acetone cleaner could make a profit of 60 cents per can if the cans were priced at $2
per can. This is higher than the profit per can for the brake cleaning products of 46 to 49
cents per can.
24
This analysis using raw materials costs indicates that the supplier of the low-VOC
alternative aerosols for brake cleaning and carburetor cleaning could price their products
at or below the current market price for the higher VOC products. This indicates that the
prices of the alternatives would be comparable or lower than the prices of the high VOC
products.
25
IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Most of the auto repair facilities in California are using relatively high VOC content
aerosol cleaners for brake cleaning, general purpose degreasing, carburetor and fuel
injection system cleaning and engine degreasing. CARB estimates that the VOC
emissions from these products amount to about 9.5 tons per day. CARB recently adopted
a regulation that reduces the VOC content from about 45% to 10%; this would result in a
reduction in VOC emissions statewide of approximately seven tons per day.
IRTA conducted a project sponsored by DTSC and the City of Santa Monica to test
alternative low-VOC alternatives to the high VOC content aerosol products. The purpose
of the project was to investigate and demonstrate alternative low-VOC, low toxicity
alternative aerosol and non-aerosol technologies for one to three months. During the
project, IRTA worked with 10 auto repair facilities that included large dealerships, small
general automotive repair facilities, service stations that performed repairs and a city
yard.
The alternatives that were tested included:
鈥? two acetone based brake cleaners and general purpose degreasers;
鈥? one commercial acetone based brake cleaner and general purpose degreaser;
鈥? one water-based brake cleaner and general purpose degreaser;
鈥? one soy/acetone carburetor and fuel injection system cleaner;
鈥? a water-based cleaner used in spray bottles;
鈥? water-based brake cleaning systems; and
鈥? acetone based cannister systems.
IRTA conducted preliminary testing with the participating facilities and the facilities
selected the alternative low-VOC, low toxicity alternatives they wanted to test. One
facility tested and converted permanently to spray bottles containing a water-based
cleaner. Three facilities tested the acetone based cannister system for a one month period
and one converted to it permanently. Three facilities tested the water-based brake
cleaning systems for several months and all converted to them permanently. Three
facilities were using the commercial acetone low-VOC aerosol cleaner when IRTA began
the project. Eight of the facilities tested one or more of IRTA鈥檚 alternative aerosol
products for a three month period.
IRTA conducted a cost analysis and comparison as part of the project. Based on this
analysis, the cost of using the water-based brake cleaning systems is lower than the cost
of using high VOC aerosols for both general automotive repair facilities and dealerships.
The cost of using cannister systems is also lower than the cost of using high VOC
aerosols for the two types of facilities. Based on the raw materials cost of the high VOC
and alternative aerosol cleaners, the cost of using the low-VOC aerosols is lower than or
comparable to the cost of using the high VOC aerosols.
26
During the project, the participating facilities either used the low-VOC, low toxicity
alternatives for an extended period, used them routinely or converted to them. This
indicates that the safer products perform effectively enough to substitute for the high
VOC aerosol products. IRTA observed that the younger technicians were more willing
to test and adopt the alternatives than older technicians. IRTA also observed that
technicians that were already using low-VOC products required by an SCAQMD
regulation thought the alternative technologies performed well. Technicians in facilities
that were using high VOC aerosol cleaners did not rate the alternative cleaners as well in
terms of performance but were acceptable. The results of the project indicate that auto
repair facilities in California can convert to low-VOC, low toxicity alternatives and
maintain their operations.
27
V. REFERENCES
鈥淧roposed Amendments to the California Consumer Products Regulation and the Aerosol
Coatings Regulation,鈥? California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources
Board, Release Date: September 29, 2006. (CARB, 2006)
鈥淪afer Alternatives to Solvent Aerosol Automotive Cleaning Products,鈥? Institute for
Research and Technical Assistance, prepared for the California Department of Health
Services Hazard Evaluation System & Information Service, December 2004. (HESIS,
2004)
鈥淎lternatives to Automotive Consumer Products that use Volatile Organic (VOC)
Compounds (VOC) and/or Chlorinated Organic Compound Solvents,鈥? Institute for
Research and Technical Assistance, prepared for the California Air Resources Board,
December 2004. (CARB, 2004)
鈥淏rake Cleaning in Auto Repair Facilities: The Conversion to Water,鈥? Institute for
Research and Technical Assistance, prepared for U.S. EPA, September 1999. (EPA,
1999)
鈥淧arts Cleaning in Auto Repair Facilities: The Conversion to Water,鈥? prepared under
U.S. EPA鈥檚 Environmental Justice Pollution Prevention Program, published by
Cal/EPA鈥檚 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Doc. No. 613, April 1997. (EPA,
1997)
28
Appendix A
Material Safety Data Sheets and Product Sheets for
Aerosol and Non-Aerosol Products
29
Kyzen Aerosol Degreaser #1 (Soy/Acetone Carburetor and Fuel Injection System
Cleaner)
30
31
32
Kyzen Aerosol Degreaser #3 (Mineral Spirits/Acetone Brake Cleaner)
33
34
35
Kyzen Aerosol Degreaser #2 (Glycol Ether/Acetone Brake Cleaner)
36
37
38
Cyber Solv (Water-Based Brake Cleaner)
39
40
41
42
Granitize High VOC Cleaner
43
44
45
46
47
Granitize Low-VOC Cleaner
48
49
50
51
52
Mirachem 500
53
54
55
56
57
PWF-10
58
59
60
61
MX Factor MX2803
62
63
|