{"id":31754,"date":"2022-10-21T00:01:48","date_gmt":"2022-10-21T04:01:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=31754"},"modified":"2022-10-30T20:29:46","modified_gmt":"2022-10-31T00:29:46","slug":"while-allowing-indoor-pesticide-spray-for-covid-epa-seeks-advice-on-improving-indoor-air-quality","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2022\/10\/while-allowing-indoor-pesticide-spray-for-covid-epa-seeks-advice-on-improving-indoor-air-quality\/","title":{"rendered":"While Allowing Indoor Pesticide Spray for Covid, EPA Seeks Advice on Improving Indoor Air Quality"},"content":{"rendered":"\r\n

(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, October 21, 2022) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just made two announcements<\/a>, related to the quest for improved indoor air quality in buildings, that address mitigation of disease transmission \u2014 and that of COVID-19, in particular. Related to enactment of the National COVID-19 Preparedness Plan<\/a>, EPA issued guidance on the efficacy of antimicrobial products used on surfaces<\/a>, and registered a new pesticide product<\/a> the agency says can be used against influenza and corona viruses (some of the latter cause COVID-19 infections). In addition, EPA opened a 60-day public comment period<\/a> \u201cto solicit information and recommendations from a broad array of individuals and organizations with knowledge and expertise relating to the built environment and health, indoor air quality, epidemiology, disease transmission, social sciences and other disciplines.\u201d Beyond Pesticides cannot help but note the irony of an intention to improve air quality that EPA couples with registration of a new, airborne pesticide for indoor use.<\/p>\r\n

EPA expands on its RFI<\/a> (Request for Information) related to indoor air quality, saying that it is \u201cseeking input from a diverse array of stakeholders . . . about actions, strategies, tools and approaches that support ventilation, filtration and air cleaning improvements, and other actions that would promote sustained improvements in indoor air quality in the nation’s building stock to help mitigate disease transmission.\u201d<\/p>\r\n

EPA provided interim guidance in 2020 on products that look to claim residual efficacy (ability to continue killing pathogens beyond immediate application). The new guidance identifies<\/a> three categories of such products: (1) residual disinfectants, (2) antimicrobial surface coatings and films, and (3) fixed\/solid surfaces, such as copper, or other impregnated materials. The \u201cresiduals\u201d are fairly standard disinfectants that generally show efficacy for up to 24 hours after application; the other two categories represent newer approaches for which EPA now requires a \u201cstewardship plan\u201d in order to gain (conditional) registration. In addition, the agency has issued guidance on new antimicrobial testing methods and standard procedures<\/a> for evaluation of efficacy of disinfectants on hard surfaces again specific viruses and bacteria.<\/p>\r\n

EPA\u2019s October 6 registration announcement<\/a> asserts that the newly registered pesticide, Lysol Air Sanitizer spray, is the first registered antimicrobial product that can kill both viruses and bacteria. EPA explains the utility of the new product<\/a>: \u201cWhen users spray the aerosol product in a closed, unoccupied room in accordance with the label use-directions, Lysol Air Sanitizer can kill bacteria and viruses in the air.\u201d The product will reportedly kill 99.9% of airborne viruses when all doors, windows, air vents, and air returns in the room are closed, the product is sprayed for 30 seconds, and the room left empty and closed up for 12 minutes. Product instruction do note that there is \u201cno residual effect after room is reopened.\u201d Given that last proviso, the practicality of such a product may be somewhat limited, but Inside Energy and Environment<\/em> opines<\/a> that it \u201cmay pave the way for other types of registered pesticides that kill airborne viruses and bacteria.\u201d EPA has a history of registering fumigants, such as sulfuryl fluoride, and indoor sprays that leave residues in closed spaces and structural voids in the indoor environment, despite claims that ventilation clears the poison. In terms of efficacy, airborne viruses are being constantly introduced and reintroduced in public spaces, such as stores, schools, restaurants, and public spaces. So, in this public context, a sanitizer application to an indoor space only protects against the target virus as long as the building is not used by the public.<\/p>\r\n

The active ingredient in Lysol Air Sanitizer spray is dipropylene glycol<\/a> (DPG), an ingredient used in some cosmetics. The Environmental Working Group\u2019s Skin Deep database<\/a> considers it a generally low-risk compound, but has limited data available on the chemical; the web page also indicates that health risks can be greater if DPG is used in an inhalable form, which the Lysol product obviously deploys. EPA’s review<\/a>\u00a0finds low acute inhalation toxicity of DPG, but that assessment is based on studies of mostly acute, not chronic or subchronic inhalation.<\/p>\r\n

The agency announcement adds<\/a> that EPA \u201cconducted a robust risk assessment on exposure from both household and commercial use. When used following label directions, this product poses no unreasonable adverse risks to human health or the environment.\u201d This may be true for some people, but Beyond Pesticides emphasizes two points:<\/p>\r\n