# Why Storm Drains Matter....Pt.2



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

In Part 1 I tracked the route of my surface water drains approx 1200m from my home to the local river and wildlife. It was great to see so many comments and discussion, and there was one recurring question which can be summed up as "...but does a little wash solution really matter?". Thats a great question and I dont know the answer but do want to suggest you read this:

Practical Fish Toxicity Report 2007 

This is a pretty detailed scientific study conducted in 2007 to examine the impact of car wash solution on fish. It was carried out at Puget Sound in N America where there are rivers that are used by wild salmon to spawn each year. Its pretty heavy going in places, and the scientists amongst you will like that, but for the benefit for of the rest of us I thought I would highlight a few elements in this thread as well 

*What did they test?*

They collected wash water from drains at a charity carwash event, and made up some shampoo solution of their own (using a widely available unnamed car shampoo), and ran 2 tests to study the impact on juvenile Rainbow Trout. It is called a 'practical' test as the wash solutions were prepared in a way to represent the actual runoff water that would be expected to enter the storm drains.

*What did they find?*


A concentration of 1.6ppm (parts per million) is enough to kill 50% of a population of juvenille Rainbow Trout (_page 7_)
The 'real' run-off water was more toxic, and killed 100% of fish in their study at the concentrations they tested (higher than 1.6ppm), but its not known exactly why, as the other elements in the real run-off were not examined eg petrochemical residues etc. (_page 7_)

*Their Conclusions*

The next step was a hypothetical calculation to determine possible implications for the Puget Sound area where the study was done. The assumptions used are stated in the report (_Page 9)_.

The calculations showed that pollution from car washing activities in the local community could easily reach the 1.6ppm concentrations that would be fatal to 50% of the trout sample. Depending on the water flow assumptions, some concentrations might be less than that, but the typical surfactants known to be in many shampoos would still likely affect the remaining fish, through damage to gills, mucus membranes etc and make them more vulnerable to other contaminants and disease etc. (_page 9_)

In relation to the specific situation tested for Puget Sound, the scientists that authored the report made a final conclusion (_Page 10_)

_"A case can be made that during this pivotal time of the year driveway car washing effluent that reaches streams
via storm drains is a real detriment to salmon survival"​_
*My Personal Conclusions...*

I dont live in Puget Sound and i dont have any rivers that have spawning salmon in them (that I'm aware of ) and I dont suppose many of you do either. There are many unknowns identified in the report and some assumptions obviously made in the hyperthetical calculations - I dont really know if those are totally accurate my local town either 

BUT, as this is the only study I have found on this issue, and I havent see any that contradict what has been found, by a thoroughly conducted, independent laboratory, I think the results should be taken seriously.

So my PERSONAL conclusions (and yours may differ )

Car wash solution that enters my drains has a real risk of harming fish and wildlife in my local rivers
It really only takes amazingly small amounts to have an impact
Using harsh cleaners like wheel cleaners, T&G removers etc that leave deposits on my driveway that are washed into my drains, creates a much higher risk of doing harm
I dont want to be responsible for risking causing this issue, when there are alternatives available that massively reduce the chances of this happening

Dont take my word for it, read the report at the link above. Many of you highlighted much bigger ways that people have an impact on the environment, like commercial companies using huge quantities of TFRs etc, and that is all true, but that is no reason to look at what YOU do and the impact YOU have on your local environment.

I look forward to some constructive debate on this. What are your thoughts?

Damon


----------



## mazda3_daveg (Jul 17, 2008)

It's really great to see someone taking interest in this and presenting their findings in an easy to read way.

I live in the sticks so any chemicals I use soak straight into the ground. To be totally honest I don't really think about this that much.

I mean, what with all the plane exhaust fumes and industrial waste being produced what effect is little old me having washing my car? Surely I am less wastefull than the drive thru machine at the local garage?

With the information you have shown, I need to start looking more closely at how damaging this hobby is. On my own I can't have much impact but as a community our combined efforts can.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

thanks Dave :thumb:

the local garage car wash is covered by strict laws and already has to recycle water or dispose of it in a very controlled way so its treated etc. Thats also the reasons they have big screens etc so that overspray etc doesnt spread beyond the areas that drain into their specific drains. I'm sure some dont meet the regs, as with everything, but they should have less impact really.

Everyone can make a little difference - the biggest problem is that people think they dont matter. Just not true, like individual recycling etc, every little helps IMHO 

Lets say that as a keen Dw member you wash your car most weekends, perhaps 40 times a year. Most of us use fairly large buckets with 15L of water in, and a rinse bucket with perhaps 5L of water in that starts off clean but it filthy at the end. So that's 20L per wash (excluding foaming etc) and thats 800L of waste water per person per car per year. I have 2 main cars and a garage queen, so that might be 2000L+ per year before you even consider the *50-100L of foam and rinse water per wash*. It soon adds up massively and all ends up somewhere :doublesho


----------



## Multipla Mick (Feb 5, 2006)

These two threads have been a bit of an eye opener. I confess that when valeting it was in the back of our minds, but we didn't do anything about it, and carried on as we were. Now, I've got a storm drain right outside the house, so all my run off goes straight in there, and I've been emptying the dregs of my two buckets into it too  So the buckets will be going down the sink from now on, and I'm going to get some ONR... not only will it stop loads of stuff going down the wrong drain, but being on a meter it'll save water over using my hose, and will make life a lot easier - no more messing about dragging tangled hoses all over the damn place. Helping the environment, saving money and time... got to be a winner! (if for slightly selfish reasons perhaps )
The other thing is, if people washing their cars showed a bit more care and self regulation, then we might avoid some possible knee jerk legislation in the future, banning the cleaning of cars on private premises altogether or something daft. Trouble there being we on here are a tiny minority, reaching the average Sunday washer who doesn't know his ar5e from his Autoglym would be a lot harder. But being careful and using the right products isn't any great hardship by the look of it. The mobile pros are the ones that may have to invest in recovery mats and so on, which will pose a few problems for them.
Also, we need to know which products that claim to be environmentally friendly, really are, and which ones make claims in that direction without really fulfilling them. A sticky of known good products would be useful perhaps? Maybe I've missed a lot of info regarding that as I tend to flit about too much on here, so apologies if I have.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

Multipla Mick said:


> These two threads have been a bit of an eye opener. I confess that when valeting it was in the back of our minds, but we didn't do anything about it, and carried on as we were. Now, I've got a storm drain right outside the house, so all my run off goes straight in there, and I've been emptying the dregs of my two buckets into it too  So the buckets will be going down the sink from now on, and I'm going to get some ONR... not only will it stop loads of stuff going down the wrong drain, but being on a meter it'll save water over using my hose, and will make life a lot easier - no more messing about dragging tangled hoses all over the damn place. Helping the environment, saving money and time... got to be a winner! (if for slightly selfish reasons perhaps )
> The other thing is, if people washing their cars showed a bit more care and self regulation, then we might avoid some possible knee jerk legislation in the future, banning the cleaning of cars on private premises altogether or something daft. Trouble there being we on here are a tiny minority, reaching the average Sunday washer who doesn't know his ar5e from his Autoglym would be a lot harder. But being careful and using the right products isn't any great hardship by the look of it. The mobile pros are the ones that may have to invest in recovery mats and so on, which will pose a few problems for them.
> *Also, we need to know which products that claim to be environmentally friendly, really are, and which ones make claims in that direction without really fulfilling them*. A sticky of known good products would be useful perhaps? Maybe I've missed a lot of info regarding that as I tend to flit about too much on here, so apologies if I have.


Mick - you make some excellent points :thumb: :thumb:

I have not really tried any of the so-called environmentally friendly products, but has a few samples of stuff sitting here and more on the way. It should be fun to try and find out the answers to which are any good and which are actually environmentally friendly  That is one BIG issue though, as short of some hi-tech analysis I dont really see how we'll ever know 

I have used ONR a good bit the last year, and now have it as my exclusive shampoo - its the real deal, but has a little bit of a learning curve. Autopia and You Tube are the best places to learn about it, and I plan a little write up on here about it soon as well. One issue people see is that it makes wash media 'look' dirtier than a normal shampoo. I have found it is also best suited to certain wash media - I dont think its great with a wool mitt, but is much better with a MF product or better still a sponge like the Zym ones or my (in)famous grout sponges :lol: Very much personal preference though 

Look forward to hearing more about your experiences


----------



## Shug (Jul 13, 2007)

Bigpikle said:


> I have used ONR a good bit the last year, and now have it as my exclusive shampoo - its the real deal, but has a little bit of a learning curve.


I've been wondering about that one, because I could get a bucket to my car, but not a hose. I have wondered what chemicals they load into it to make it what it is tho.


----------



## HairyG (Jun 13, 2008)

I have read both parts of this post with great interest as I am old enough to remember when the River Avon from Pershore down to Tewkesbury could be covered in deep foam that formed at every weir and then blew everywere.

It's much better now but we all have to work to keep it that way.

I know the waste from my own driveway goes into a soakaway on my own land, but the local soil is very sandy and any toxins probably leach downhill. 

I would always prefer to use environmentally friendly products but I just don't know how to identify them.

I'm strictly amateur, only looking after our own cars, but it would be difficult if I was stopped from using my own driveway to wash our cars so anything that this forum can do to raise awareness and hopefully forestall draconian measures (this Gov' doesn't know any other kind) has my full support.


----------



## reparebrise (Jan 19, 2009)

We use ONR for about 30% of the cars that come into our shops, and I have had many conversations with Dr. G of Optimum, and here is the short version of why it works.

First, it contains powerfull sufractants(hard on dirt easy on you, no fear). These surfactants emulsify the dirt, Think of them as a police SWAT team, they surround the dirt, and break it down, while protecting the innocent by standers(paint work).

Second ONR acts as a water softener, this is important for a few reasons, first any hard water deposits are taken out of suspension in the water, second any large dirt molecules are also taken out, these all find there way quickly to the bottom of the bucket. You will notice that your wash media looks filthy, and the water gets dirty fast, no need to fear, the particles that can strike fear into you clear-coat have settled into the bottom of your wash pail.

The polymers in ONR act to protect the paint by creating lubrication, these polymers also work on static electricity principales to repel the dirt from the cars surface.

With ONR more is not better, be sure to follow the instructions. As for wash media foam is by far the best media, and in an ideal world the Lake Country red Ulti-Mitt has shown itself to be the best alternative.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

Shug said:


> I've been wondering about that one, because I could get a bucket to my car, but not a hose. I have wondered what chemicals they load into it to make it what it is tho.


perfect solution - on those occasions when the car is really caked with debris, then a quick water-only jetwash at the garage will get that off, and be perfectly fine for ONR or maybe a waterless wash 



HairyG said:


> I have read both parts of this post with great interest as I am old enough to remember when the River Avon from Pershore down to Tewkesbury could be covered in deep foam that formed at every weir and then blew everywere.
> 
> It's much better now but we all have to work to keep it that way.
> 
> ...


me neither. Right now I think less water use and less pollution is a HUGE step. I am ditching nasty solvents and anything that has a symbol like these on it










hopefully in this forum we can find more friendly products that do just as good a job.

Things like Bilt Hamber's water based degreaser, Surfex HD, seem like likely candidates for many jobs where solvents might have been the original choice. Its probably THE best product I have in the garage and dirt cheap too  There must be many more we can discover, as well as smarter techniques :thumb:


----------



## ayrshireteggy (Dec 13, 2006)

I've decided that I should be more environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, I have just recently purchased a gallon of snow foam. As a proud Scot, I'm too mean to throw away something that I have paid for - so I thought it was best to finish off the snow foam and then make a fresh start.....










Seriously though, these threads have made me think twice about what products I should be using. :thumb:


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

^^ :lol:

how to clean a multi-storey carpark :lol:


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab (Apr 11, 2008)

Damon hi,

Thanks for posting the report:thumb:. In the EU five different directives dating back to the 1970s already ensures that detergents used here are biodegradable to a large extent. And From 8th October 2005 a new Regulation introduced stricter testing methods for the biodegradability of detergent surfactants - where testing of the *ultimate* rather than the primary biodegradability became required. Foaming rivers were largely attributed I recall by alkyl benzene sulphonates which are neither rapidly or completely biodegradable. 

This legislation is important and welcome because, If one feels that doing one’s bit meant using a bucket and disposing of the washing water down the sewer, or washing MF towels after a waterless wash and putting them in a washing machine, it ought to be known that the more persistent surfactants are not fully broken down at sewerage treatment works. In effect you’re passing the problem along the line. The sludge produced at sewerage treatment works may most often be destined to be spread on fields where these same surfactants can leach back into the environment, same applies in costal regions where sewerage treatment waste is piped to sea.

Now in Europe we can feel that we’re moving in the right direction. Manufacturers of detergents are forced to use materials that have, in most cases, been proved to be tested to meet both primary and ultimate biodegradability requirements. 

I noticed with some amazement that the detergent used in the test was unidentified – simply described as surfactant. The publishers referred to other products made by the same manufacturer and used those SDS sheets to establish types of surfactant that that maker uses. And in the event that some, or all of those named surfactants were in the test mixture fatalities would be expected as the first named surfactant, purely from memory is toxic to fish.

I would urge anyone who is interested in this subject to contact our own Environment Agency and ask them about the rise or fall of the aquatic population in their own local rivers over say the last 15 years and ask what if anything is causing a prob. Whilst you’re doing this if they can send me a case of Signal Crayfish I would be obliged as this American blighter is causing decimation in our streams and they taste great – I understand!


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

Pete - thanks for all this, and more learning :thumb:

I have spoken with the EA and am waiting to speak with my local EO. The main reason was about PPG13 though, but I will also pick his brains on this as well 

PPG13 already prohibits any run-off from car washing (by professionals) to enter any surface drains. Part of the reason I have taken an interest in all this has been because i started to try and find out more about what PPG13 says, and why it exists. There is no getting away from the fact that the law already exists for anyone cleaning cars for money, and if we follow the usual path of adopting European, US or Scandinavian environmental legislation, then it may well become an issue for anyone cleaning their own vehicles as well - I think that's a very real likelihood in the next few years 

I have also been struggling with the whole concept of 'biodegradable' products. I have done a lot of searching and reading to try and understand if these products are really safe, and if using a product like Surfex that is biodegradable means I am being responsible. The only thing I have found is that there seems to be NO definition of 'biodegradable' as it relates to labelling products. All I have found is a general definition that says it means something can be broken down by enzymes in living organisms. That's not helpful, as it makes no reference to how long that might take, whether 6 months or 200 years, and also makes no reference to the fact that in some cases the constituent products may actually be far more harmful when broken down, than the original product ever was! Anything you can help with on this?

I was also slightly surprised the shampoo went unnamed, but can imagine the potential legal action that might follow if that were to happen  I can understand the MSDS issue though, as having read through quite a few of these recently, it is often a fairly futile exercise if your aim is to understand what might be in the product. Other than obvious signs from handling/disposal details, there's no real way to tell. At least they clearly stated the assumptions made and their subsequent interpretation.

Thanks for chipping in on all this. Its certainly a hugely complex and contentious area. BTW, can you make us an ONR type cleaner please with the usual BH outstanding quality and value


----------



## hibberd (Jul 5, 2006)

"These surfactants emulsify the dirt..."
I am a little confused here as emulsions are two liquids suspended in each other. Dirt in the context I understand it is a solid.

"first any hard water deposits are taken out of suspension in the water" 

Hard water is water with dissolved salts etc. what are they trying to claim with hard water deposits..if its a desposit its already out of the water, thats what a deposit is.

Please I am not trying to be pedantic, I amtrying to understand as an engineer what the various parties are saying so I can try to know how to address it.


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab (Apr 11, 2008)

Damon

Have a search for The Fraunhofer Institute and their surfactant reports


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

hibberd said:


> "These surfactants emulsify the dirt..."
> I am a little confused here as emulsions are two liquids suspended in each other. Dirt in the context I understand it is a solid.
> 
> "first any hard water deposits are taken out of suspension in the water"
> ...


its beyond my understanding, but here is a quote from the creator ONR, taken from a question about dilution rates on his forum here:

_"The polymers in No Rinse have reactive groups that bond and trap dirt particles making the dirt particles virtually non-abrasive. They also bond to oily particles and emulsify them into water. The latter is equivalent to the cleaning action from soaps which also work by emulsifying oil particles into water. However, with soap there is no interaction with dirt. This is why adding No Rinse to a regular wash also helps protect the paint from dirt particles.

The No Rinse polymers also bond to all automotive surfaces and create a slick surface and act as a barrier to protect paint from marring. That is something that soap will not provide since surfactants in soaps have no affinity for painted or other automotive surfaces.

When you use 1 oz. of No Rinse in 1 or 2 gallons of water for your wash at the molecular level this provides hundreds of billions of polymer molecules to do what was said above. Additional product will not be necessary except if you are using tap water that contains high levels of minerals such as calcium hydroxide or silicates. In these cases some of the polymers will bond to these minerals and take them out of solution therefore more product might be necessary to compensate for this effect. This is another reason why adding No Rinse to a regular car wash soap improves the results when using tap water."​_
I can also say that I have emailed him directly from his site in the past and he has been very helpful and replied personally :thumb: Might be worth a try?


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> Damon
> 
> Have a search for The Fraunhofer Institute and their surfactant reports


this what you mean?

actually, this is a discussion of that report. Need to look harder....


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

...so, from my limited knowledge in this area, and the above report, we want to use detergent surfactants that have particularly good aerobic biodegradability so they can be broken down in the water treatment processes?

Now, how do we find that out must be my next question....

Am I on the right track here?


----------



## bidderman1969 (Oct 20, 2006)

good stuff

personaly i dont think any storm drains should go into waterways without being treated. should be down to councils/highways agencies/water companies to have some sort of filtration on each storm drain outlet


----------



## DCB (Jan 18, 2009)

some good info on the two threads!! and a good read!!


----------



## caledonia (Sep 13, 2008)

Bigpikle said:


> ...so, from my limited knowledge in this area, and the above report, we want to use detergent surfactants that have particularly good aerobic biodegradability so they can be broken down in the water treatment processes?
> 
> Now, how do we find that out must be my next question....
> 
> Am I on the right track here?


Form again my little knowledge on the above mentioned processes. Proteins and plant extracts will fall into this category. Basically any living matter that rots. I have seen a few product where plant extracts are used for cleaning. But with out further investigation I cant comment on them further.

I guess it would be simpler to explain the process in which these products are broken down.

As the material breaks down it produces Ammonia or Ammonium depended on the PH. Normally in Gas form. Ammonia normally is extremely soluble by water and is readily diluted. I will not go into the difference that PH can make to the toxicity of ammonia at present.

Now as the ammonia increases a bacteria called Nitrosomonas multiplies and starts to feed on this ammonia. primarily by soil-living bacteria and other nitrifying bacteria. But like everything else there is a by product produced. Nitrite is this by product although is is slightly less toxic that the previous it is still deadly to aquatic life.

The next step in the Nitrogen process is another bacteria called Nitrobacter, yet again it converts the nitrite to something that can be used by man, Nitrate. Where it is not a problem in Scotland I do understand it can be an issue in England. As it can case extreme algae blooms in water. This process can be see in nature in the summer months. Green still water is cased by this Nitrogen cycle present in nature. But like any other plant it needs oxygen through photosynthesis and the sunny. Buy due to the production on carbon dioxide in the water aquatic life is affected too.

The Nitrogen cycle can be take a step further but this require a slower flow rate and is not a quick process. Where the first to processes require oxygen rich water the later does not. But require the opposite. IE anaerobic. The waste materials pass through a chamber that is starved of oxygen at a very slow rate. The Nitrate is then converted to Nitrogen. Which can then be released into the atmosphere safety.

These bacteria are very delicate and certain chemicals can kill these completely. This is where there are big concerns regarding disposal of these chemicals and by products.


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab (Apr 11, 2008)

Bigpikle said:


> ...so, from my limited knowledge in this area, and the above report, we want to use detergent surfactants that have particularly good aerobic biodegradability so they can be broken down in the water treatment processes?
> 
> Now, how do we find that out must be my next question....
> 
> Am I on the right track here?


Damon make sure you're buying an EU member product, they should all except in very unusual circumstances, be made to meet the ultimated biodegrdablity standard which is that the surfactant is TOTALLY used by micro-organisms in the presence of oxygen (aerobic conditons) resulting in breakdown to CO2 H20 and mineral salts.


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

thats very interesting Pete, given the vast majority of the known detailing brands are made in the US and imported.... I guess yours and Dodo, with a few of the sub-brands are all made here though 

so if I went to a manufacturer and asked them to make me some car shampoo, then they would automatically make sure it met the ultimate biodegradability standard?


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Bigpikle said:


> BTW, can you make us an ONR type cleaner please with the usual BH outstanding quality and value


If it can be done, I'm sure he would, but by the time Pete is happy to sell it we would be too old to use it:lol:


----------



## swiftshine (Apr 17, 2008)

Bilt-Hamber Lab said:


> Damon make sure you're buying an EU member product, they should all except in very unusual circumstances, be made to meet the ultimated biodegrdablity standard which is that the surfactant is TOTALLY used by micro-organisms in the presence of oxygen (aerobic conditons) resulting in breakdown to CO2 H20 and mineral salts.


So we are better using an EU member state product then? They should all be pretty safe environmentally then?

Not that I need much of an excuse to choose BH or DDJ over either of the Z's


----------



## Bigpikle (May 21, 2007)

swiftshine said:


> If it can be done, I'm sure he would, but by the time Pete is happy to sell it we would be too old to use it:lol:


:lol:

but you know it would be good though


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab (Apr 11, 2008)

Bigpikle said:


> thats very interesting Pete, given the vast majority of the known detailing brands are made in the US and imported.... I guess yours and Dodo, with a few of the sub-brands are all made here though
> 
> so if I went to a manufacturer and asked them to make me some car shampoo, then they would automatically make sure it met the ultimate biodegradability standard?


The surfactants that they blend should all have been tested.


----------



## Bilt-Hamber Lab (Apr 11, 2008)

swiftshine said:


> If it can be done, I'm sure he would, but by the time Pete is happy to sell it we would be too old to use it:lol:


Don't you start! :lol:


----------

