/
Graffiti RemoverResearch and Field Test Report:The Search for Safer Pr Graffiti RemoverResearch and Field Test Report:The Search for Safer Pr

Graffiti RemoverResearch and Field Test Report:The Search for Safer Pr - PDF document

jane-oiler
jane-oiler . @jane-oiler
Follow
392 views
Uploaded On 2015-07-30

Graffiti RemoverResearch and Field Test Report:The Search for Safer Pr - PPT Presentation

Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ID: 97219

Graffiti Remover Research and Field

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "Graffiti RemoverResearch and Field Test ..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Graffiti RemoverResearch and Field Test Report:The Search for Safer ProductsStacey StackThe Center for a New American Dream in cooperation with the City of Portland Office of Sustainable Development Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 3IntroductionProject Process and ScopePhase I: Product Content EvaluationApproach Product Selection Content Evaluation Process Product Ranking Phase II: Product Performance Approach Field Test Product SelectionField Test Parameters Summary of Field Test Results Application Tools Areas for Further Investigation Beyond Graffiti Removal Products le of Figuresable 1: Field TestsÕ ÒBest PerformersÓ Summary Appendix I: Phase I Ñ Products ReviewedAppendix II: Phase I Ñ Product Ranking SummaryAppendix III: Phase I Ñ CNAD Product Ingredient Screening DetailsAppendix IV: Phase II Ñ Graffiti Remover Products Included/Not Included in Field TestsAppendix V: Phase II Ñ Graffiti Remover Field Test Results OutlineAppendix VI: Background Information on Referenced Chemical Hazard ListsAppendix VII: Product Content Evaluation ResourcesAppendix VIII: Field Test Pictures 414 Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 5 This project was conducted in twoproducts and evaluating their environ-mental and human health hazardtesting the less hazardous products andevaluating their performance. Thiseport encompasses the results fromboth phases to formulate lessonslearned and overall conclusions.Not all of the possible graffitiemover products currently on the mar-ket were included in this case study.believe, however, that our reviewepresents a significant cross-section ofof graffiti remover productscurrently available. In addition, this project was limitedto evaluating the performance andpotential end-use hazards of the select-ed products. It was beyond the scopeof this project to conduct a life cycleanalysis of each product; thus, concernsassociated with product/ingredient ori-gin, processing, distribution, and dis-posal were not evaluated.Finally, it is important to acknowl-may not be the best option. Paintingover graffiti, using a dull razor/scraper,or pressure washing by itself may besafer, more environmentally beneficial,and therefore, more appropriate Product SelectionFirst, CNAD inventoried the graffi-ti remover products currently used byCity bureaus and contractors. Second,CNAD conducted internet researchand corresponded with other cities andorganizations to identify potentialÒgreenerÓ graffiti removal products.Eventually, CNAD identified 35 prod-eview (refer to Content Evaluation Processassess the potential hazards ofthe 35 graffiti remover products,CNAD contracted with the Zero WasteAlliance (ZWA), a non-profit organiza-tion specializing in pollution preventionstrategies. ZWA administers the System (CARS), a system that providesare regulated, targeted by state or feder-al agencies, or recognized by other rep-utable organizations as being of concernto human health and safety or to eco-logical health and the global ecosystem.CNAD and ZWA staff entered theinformation collected from the 35product MSDSs into the CARS data-base; this included ingredient name andcomponent percent, chemical abstractservices (CAS) registry number, andother product qualities such as pH,odor, VOC content, and applicationmethod as available. Where an insuffi-cient amount of ingredient compositionwas listed on the MSDS, ZWA contact-ed manufacturers to receive more com-prehensive ingredient information. Phase I: Product Content Evaluation Project Process and Scope The mention of specific company and product names does not constitute endorsement by the City ofPortland, the Center for a New American Dream, or the Zero Waste Alliance.ZWA sought further ingredient information when Òtrade secretÓ was listed on the MSDS and/or when stafffelt that the ingredients/characteristics listed on the MSDS were insufficient to evaluate the potential hazardsof the product. In some cases, ZWA staff were obligated to sign a non-disclosure agreement, thus resultingingredient information could not be listed in this report. APPROACH Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 7 U.S EPAÕs Design for Environmentprogram (DfE), about the hazard char-acteristics of these ingredients. Mr.DiFioreÕs reply indicated that the DfEtechnical group has evaluated thesechemicals and given them a low con-cern rating compared to otherGroup 2Group 2 products contain ingredi-ents with relatively low hazards; noneof the productsÕ ingredients wereflagged as PBTs, carcinogens or repro-ductive toxins. Yet, unlike Group 1,some of the ingredients were flaggedby the Janitorial Products PollutionPrevention Project (JP4) as ingredientsof concern, although none of the ingre-dients found in this group were givenhigher than a ÒUse with Extreme CareÓby JP4. Also, the products in thisgroup do not have any ingredients thatChemical Hazard Score (IRCHS).for furtherinformation on the IRCHS and JP4Group 3The products placed in Group 3are similar to those in Group 2, exceptsome of the ingredients were flaggedby JP4 as ÒAvoid if PossibleÓ and/orhad an IRCHS above 20. Group 4ith Group 4 the hazard level sig-nificantly increases, as we begin to seeproducts with ingredients that areflagged as PBTs and/or reproductivetoxins. We also begin to see aerosol-only products.Some of the ingredi-ents are identified by JP4 as ÒDo NotUse,Ó the most hazardous of JP4 rank- ings. Also in this group are ingredientsGroup 5 (Most Hazardous)Group 5 products are similar toGroup 4 except they all have at leastone ingredient that is flagged as a car-cinogen. Also, they all have at least oneingredient with an IRCHS of 30 orhigher, with the highest at 37.5.Related Findings:DimethylSulfoxideranking phase, ZWA also discoveredthat some of the products containedisolation presents a relatively low haz-ard, but displays other characteristics ofconcern. DMSO has the capability ofpenetrating the skin quickly and deeplywithout damaging the skin, while carry-side effects includes an odd odor, simi-lar to that of garlic, that emanates fromthe userÕs mouth shortly after use, evenif contact is through the skin). Thus, itchemicals in the graffiti remover, in thegraffiti being removed, or the surfacefrom which it is being removed couldbe quickly absorbed in the skin, therebypossibly exposing workers to unforeseenhazards. Due to DMSOÕs properties, noneof the products containing DMSO wereselected for field tests. It is a goodexample of the importance of research-ing ingredients, as some user hazardsare not obvious even with a MSDS in Excerpt from David DiFioreÕs March 11, 2003 email regarding certain solvents evaluated by DfE:ÒThe DfE program has reviewed ethyl lactate, methyl soyate, and the dibasic esters. Our review covers bothenvironmental and human health concerns Ñ based on data when itÕs available or structure-activity analogies,if not. All three of these chemicals have a more positive health and environmental profile than conventionalsolvents Ñ in fact, we gave them each a low concern rating on both counts Ñ health and eco.ÓBy avoiding aerosols, users reduce the amount of product in the air, which reduces human inhalation expo-sure. Also, aerosol products almost always contain more VOCs (volatile organic compounds) than non-aerosols. ( Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 9 one product stood out as being veryeffective. Taginator(ranked in Group2) performed well on brick, unpaintedconcrete, and wood despite the lack ofa pressure washer during testing (asecommended within the productinstructions); with a pressure washer,the product may have performed evenbetter. The only observed drawback tothe product was its very strong smell. surfaces,CNAD did not find a product that wasable to completely remove the graffitiwhile not disturbing the surface paint.and a few other lower-hazard products were successful indulling the graffiti without affecting thesurface too much, making painting overthe graffiti more effective. found that using a ÒscratchlessÓ scrub pad could make a significant differencein product effectiveness on smooth sur-faces. For example, using just a paperor cloth towel with many of the prod-ucts, whether in Group 1, 2, or 3, wassometimes insufficient; but in manysuch cases, using a scrub pad madeemoving the graffiti easier and moreeffective. For rough or porous surfaces,a stiff brush was useful, but not alwaysnecessary, especially when a water rinsetime period needed for effectiveemoval varied significantly by the typeof graffiti and surface. Although someof the productsÕ directions recommend-ed letting the product sit for a period oftime before wiping or rinsing, this wasnot always necessary; yet other times, await period eased removal.le 1:Field TestsÕ ÒBest PerformersÓ Summary*Based on CNAD/ZWA analysis Ñ refer to ÒPhase 1 Results.Ó Group 1 represents the least hazardous, Group 5 the most. A Note on SafetyThis report reveals there are safer,effective graffiti remover products onthat these characteristics are all relative;no matter what the product, graffitiemovers are solvents that are meant tomove paint, and thus warrant usercaution. It is important to follow use,personal protection, storage, and dis-posal guidelines according to the prod-uct MSDS. For most products, person- al safety gear involves using appropriategloves and safety goggles when workingin areas with good ventilation.Otherwise, product use may alsoequire chemical resistant clothing andan appropriate personal respirator (espe-cially when using aerosol products).from where you are spraying, and donot spray in areas or during times whenothers could be inadvertently exposed Product(s) with BestField Test ResultsHazardApplication Tools Smooth,non-porous,ous,unpainted(i.e.brick,concrete)ous,painted (i.e.painted concrete)Enviro-SolutionsStripper & Graffiti Remover Group 1Group 1Group 2ÒscratchlessÓ scrub padater rinse, stiff brush(pressure washer not usedbut recommended)face and age of graffiti (3 min. average wait timeduring field tests). Sometimes no wait time wasequired. On really old or large graffiti sometimesit was often better to just paint over the graffiti.surface and age of graffiti. Average wait timeduring field tests: 15 minutes. Product has astrong smell Ñ recommend using only in well-ventilated areas.No product was completely successful at removing graffiti without also smearing the surface paint - although, some products likdulled the graffiti without disturbing the surface paint too much, which may make painting over the graffiti easier. Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 11 Time ManagementAnother lesson learned involvesbeing creative with time management.Since some of the products were moreeffective if allowed to sit for a few min-utes, being able to maintain productivi-ty involved changing removal approach.For example, when approaching severalareas of graffiti in one block, it wasmore effective to apply the removerproduct to all the graffiti first, and thengo back to the first area applied to startwiping/scrubbing/rinsing off the graf-fiti; this process gave the product timeto sit while working on other areas. Deceptive MarketingDuring the product selection phaseof this project, it was also interesting tolearn how many products are marketedusing words such as Òearth-friendly,Ówere. In addition to potentially violat-ing Federal Trade Commission regula-tions, this demonstrates the importanceof investigating product ingredientsinstead of relying on marketing claims.lists some resources,both online tools and organizationcontacts, that are useful when trying tolook beyond marketing declarations.As mentioned throughout thiseport, there are many areas of graffitimoval this case study did not address. 1. This report only serves as abased graffiti removal products that arecurrently on the market. Yet hopefully,this report gives the reader enoughinsight to feel comfortable trying dif-ferent products, to know what ques-tions to ask, and to know where to findanswers. In particular, lists the ingredients found on MSDSs for the products reviewed in this reportand identifies some of the associated haz-ards; similar ingredients are likely foundin other graffiti remover products. Thus,fy hazards in other graffiti remover prod-ucts not reviewed in this report. Also,lists resources the readercan use for their own evaluation of prod-uct ingredients.project did not attempt a life-cycle analysisof these products; nor did CNAD exten-sively evaluate the VOC (volatile organiccompound) content of these products(which can attribute to ground-levelozone). There are also non-regulatedchemicals, which are not required to belisted on a productÕs MSDS, that may stillpose some hazard; some of these ingredi-our initial emphasis on using MSDSs. Tothis end, more research is needed. 3. Third, this report did not addressother (non-solvent) types of graffitimoval and prevention. Besides paintingover graffiti, there are other methodssuch as coating products that, whenapplied to buildings/structures, aredesigned to make graffiti removal easier.Also, there are numerous preventionimproving lighting, maintaining theappearance of buildings, and creatingcommunity murals that can reduce theneed for graffiti removal. All the above are examples of areasfor further discussion. Even within thescope of this project, as more research iscompiled on the effects of various chemi-cals, the product content evaluation sec-tion of this report may soon become out-dated. Thus, to reiterate previous state-ments, this report provides a groundworkfor graffiti product research, important REASFOR or more information on howFTC regulations apply toÒgreenÓ marketing claims,goto www.ftc.gov and search forÒenvironmental marketingguide.Ó Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 13 Product Trade NameManufacturer listed on MSDSAero-Strip AerosolCertified Labs, Division of NCH Corp.Jelled Graffiti RemoverW.W. Grainger Inc.617BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc.Bio T Graffiti BusterBioChem Systems, Inc.AerosolChemsearch Division of NCH Corp.D-VandalDynacco, Inc.Enviro-SolutionsPaint Stripper & Graffiti Remover #73Enviro-SolutionsGoof OffGraffiti Remover Valspar CorporationGraffiti Towels #1447Interstate Products, Inc.Graffiti-XChampion Chemical CompanyHydroplus504 Graffiti RemoverICI Paints, Devoe CoatingsLift-AwayGraffiti Remover (aka Peel Away Graffiti Free)Dumond Chemicals, Inc.Lift-AwayGraffiti TowelsDumond Chemicals, Inc.�LiftIt CleanerTAP PlasticsMineral Spirits(general commodity Ñ no specific manufacturer)MštsenbšckerÕs Lift Off#3MštsenbšckerÕs Lift OffMštsenbšckerÕs Lift Off#4MštsenbšckerÕs Lift OffMštsenbšckerÕs Lift Off#5MštsenbšckerÕs Lift OffMagic Jell Graffiti Remover (aka GR-GR Graffiti Magic)Interstate Products, Inc.andalism Mark RemoverChase Products Company310 (Spray Grade)Napier Environmental Technologies Inc.400 (Liquid Grade)Napier Environmental Technologies Inc.Graffiti Remover (aka SoyCleanInterwest L.C. (& Soy Environmental Products, Inc.)Graffiti RemoverSOYsolvSuperco Graffiti Buster Superco Specialty Products, CNS IndustriesEquipment Trade Service Company, Inc. (ETS)Equipment Trade Service Company, Inc. (ETS)United 126United LaboratoriesUnited 526United LaboratoriesUnited 826United Laboratories110 VMR Jelled Vandalism Mark RemoverRochester Midland Corporationrite AwayZep Manufacturing CompanyNOTE: This list was not intended to be exhaustive, but serve as a cross-section of the types of graffiti remover products currently available. Also, product names andmanufacturers are listed only for reference purposes as they were marketed at the time of this study; product names, formulations, and manufacturers may change overThe mention of specific company and product names does not constitute endorsement by the City of Portland, the Center for a NewDream, or the Zero Waste Alliance. CA Y KEY PBT KEY Hazard Ranking: Result from ZWA/CNAD ingredient hazard analysisP=Considered persistent by EPA PBT ProfilerCAS: Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number =Considered very persistent by EPA PBT ProfilerJP4: Janitorial Products Pollution Prevention ProductB=Considered bioaccumulative by EPA PBT ProfilerIRCHS: Indiana Relative Chemical Hazard Score =Considered very bioaccumulative by EPA PBT ProfilerPBT: Persistent Bioaccumulative ToxinT=Considered of moderate concern of chronic toxicity to fish by EPA PBT ProfilerCarcinogen: EPA definition: any substance that can cause or aggravate cancer =Considered of high concern of chronic toxicity to fish by EPA PBT ProfilerReproductive Toxin: OSHA definition: Chemicals that affect the reproductive capabilities including chromosomal damage (mutations) and effects on fetuses (teratogenesis).ZWA sought further ingredient information when Òtrade secretÓ was listed on the MSDS and/or when staff felt that the ingredients/characteristics listed on the MSDS wereinsufficient to evaluate the potential hazards of the product. In some cases, ZWA staff were obligated to sign a non-disclosureagreement, thus the resulting ingredient informationcould not be listed in this report.Based on EPA PBT Profiler. The PBT Profiler was designed to help interested parties voluntarily screen chemicals for persistence, bioaccumulation, and aquatic toxicity charac-teristics when no experimental data are available. The PBT Profiler uses a subset of P2 Assessment Framework computer-based tomay persist, bioaccumulate, and be toxic to aquatic life, i.e., PBT chemicals. www.pbtprofiler.netListed under California Proposition 65 as a Chemical Known to the State of California to Cause Cancer, as of June 13, 2003.www.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.htmlListed under California Proposition 65 as a Chemical Known to the State of California to Cause Reproductive Toxicity, as of Junwww.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 15 APPENDIXIII: PHASEI „ CNAD PRODUCTINGREDIENTSCREENINGDETAILS HazardRanking1119-40-0Dimeth g 627-93-0Dimeth p 108-65-0Dimeth Alcohol alkox y 1119-40-0Dimeth g 627-93-0Dimeth p 106-65-0Dimeth 97-64-3Eth 67784-80-9Meth 67-63-0Iso py l alcoholUse Extreme Care14.2Group 2 Use Routine Care13.4 irits18030-30-6Na hthaUse Routine Care12.8 8032-32-4Benzine irits38052-41-3Stoddard Solvent11.6 g ht ) p htha ( Petroleum ) Use Routine Care16.6 1310-58-3Potassium h y droxideUse Extreme Care19.267-64-1AcetoneAvoid if Possible15.967-64-1AcetoneAvoid if Possible15.967-64-1AcetoneAvoid if Possible15.9 Avoid if Possible20.5 y droxideUse Extreme Care19.2 TM¨¨¨¨¨ Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 17 Hazard n-Methyl-2-PyrrolidoneUse Extreme Care7.1X5989-27-5d-LimoneneUse Routine Care7.8T T 9016-45-9Alk p latesAvoid if Possible22.174-98-6Pro 11.9T106-97-8n-Butane13T1119-40-0Dimeth 627-93-0Dimeth p 106-65-0Dimeth n-Methyl-2-PyrrolidoneUse Extreme Care7.1X100-51-6Aromatic AlcoholDo Not Use13141-43-5MonoethanolomineAvoid if Possible17.27732-18-5Water, deionized100-51-6Aromatic AlcoholDo Not Use1325265-71-8Di py lene Gl y 67-68-5Dimethyl Sulfoxide Use Routine Care13.4 y l estersT 67-64-1AcetoneAvoid if Possible15.95989-27-5d-LimoneneUse Routine Care7.8T T Use Routine Care13.468476-85-7L.P.G.Propylene Glycol EtherUse Extreme Care18.51330-20-7X ( X y lol ) Avoid if Possible26.1T123-86-4n-But l AcetateAvoid if Possible18.4T108-88-3TolueneDo Not Use29.1TX64-17-5EthanolUse Extreme Care13.2 Avoid if Possible20.5Use Routine Care9.274-98-6Pro 11.9T75-28-5IsobutaneTn-Methyl-2-pyrrolidoneUse Extreme Care7.1X Avoid if Possible20.5 ) Use Routine Care7.8T 9016-45-9Non p lateAvoid if Possible22.1 Use Extreme Care7.1X628-63-7Am l AcetateAvoid if Possible16.5T624-41-92-Methyl butyl acetateTGroup 4United 126Group 4United 526Group 4Superco Graffiti Bust TMTMTM Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 19 Hazard 108-88-3TolueneDo Not Use29.1TX67-64-1AcetoneAvoid if Possible15.967-56-1Methanol24.767-63-0Iso py l alcoholUse Extreme Care14.2127-18-4Perchloroeth leneDo Not Use37.5PX74-98-6Pro 11.9T106-97-8n-Butane13T71-55-61,1,1-TrichloroethaneDo Not Use36.675-09-2Meth lene Chloride30.1X74-98-6Pro 11.9T106-97-8n-Butane13T75-28-5IsobutaneT67-56-1Methanol24.7127-18-4Tetrachloroeth leneDo Not Use37.5PX108-88-3TolueneDo Not Use29.1TX67-63-0Iso py l alcoholUse Extreme Care14.278-93-3Meth l KetoneDo Not Use27.9 ¨¨ Also listed in an EPA document called the ÒDraft RCRA Waste Minimization List of Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Chemicals,Ó published in November 1998. The EPAhas announced its intention to use this list to focus attention on these chemicals, in order to reduce their presence in hazardous waste by 50 percent by 2005. Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 21 APPENDIXV: PHASEII „ GRAFFITIREMOVERFIELDTESTRESULTSOUTLINE HazardRankingMost Effective onÉ S: concreteOverall a nice product to use. It is a viscous liquid that is wiped onto S: painted concreteProduct is applied via trigger-spray. Worked fairly well on unpainted Most Effective onÉLess Effective onÉ Graffiti Type and Surface TM¨¨ KEY:Graffiti TypeL=lipstick and correctional fluid After completing the product performance testing phase, it was discover�ed that LiftIt is being discontiued by TAP Plastics forunknown reasons. ¥ Most products displayed difficulty removing old (long-standing) spray paint. ¥ As the above table suggests, the field-testing was conducted to test products on the surface and graffiti types it wouldmost likely be used for. Thus, it is not intended to represent types of scenarios a user could possibly encounter.¥ If a graffiti type and/or surface type is not listed, then the product was not tested on the surface or graffiti type. Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 23 California Proposition 65Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November1986. The Proposition was intended by its authors to protect California citizens and the stateÕs drinking water sources fromchemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm, and to inform citizens about exposures to suchchemicals. Proposition 65 requires the governor to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the state to causecancer or reproductive toxicity: www.oehha.org/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.htmlIndiana Relative Chemical Hazard Score (IRCHS)The Indiana Relative Chemical Hazard Score (IRCHS) ranks the hazard potential of chemicals based on a scale from 1-100.For further information on IRCHS, go to www.ecn.purdue.edu/CMTI/IRCHS/.Janitorial Products Pollution Prevention Project (JP4) Chemical Hazard RankingJP4 classifies hazardous ingredients into four groups: Use Routine Care, Use Extreme Care, Avoid if Possible, and Do NotUse. The following further explains these categories. For more information on JP4, go towww.westp2net.org/Janitorial/jp4.htm. Use Routine Care: Some of these ingredients are dangerous, but risks of them getting into the body to do harmare relatively low. For example, several of these ingredients have to be eaten in order for toxic effects to be felt.Others are toxic only at concentrations and quantities that are much higher than occur in janitorial products. Aswith any chemical, assure that workers are fully trained in safe handling and use, and assure that protective glovesand goggles are worn at all times (particularly when handling concentrated solutions). Also take care when dispos-ing of leftover product, wastewaters, and empty containers.Use Extreme Care: These ingredients are dangerous, but may have to be used because safer substitutes are noteadily available. Assure that workers are fully trained in safe handling and use, and assure that protective gloves andgoggles are worn at all times (particularly when handling concentrated solutions). Also take care when disposing ofleftover product, wastewaters, and empty containers. : If at all possible, avoid janitorial products with these ingredients. They pose very high risks tothe janitor using the product, to building occupants, or to the environment. If there are no substitutes available andthe products must be employed, then assure that workers are fully trained in safe handling and use, and assure thatprotective gloves and goggles are worn at all times (particularly when handling concentrated solutions). Use theproduct away from building occupants. Also take care when disposing of leftover product, wastewaters, and empty: Janitorial products with these ingredients should not be used. They pose unacceptable risks to thejanitor using the product, to building occupants, or to the environment. Gloves and goggles may not be enough tofully protect the user from harm. In some instances the ingredients are illegal for janitorial use..S.EPA Design for Environment Program (DfE)The Design for the Environment (DfE) program is one of EPAÕs premier partnership programs, working with individualindustry sectors to compare and improve the performance and human health and environmental risks and costs of existingand alternative products, processes, and practices. For more information on DfE, go to www.epa.gov/opptintr/dfe/..S.EPA PBT ProfilerThe PBT Profiler was designed to help interested parties voluntarily screen chemicals for persistence, bioaccumulation, andaquatic toxicity characteristics when no experimental data are available. The PBT Profiler uses a subset of P2 AssessmentFramework computer-based tools to help identify chemicals that potentially may persist, bioaccumulate, and be toxic toaquatic life, i.e., PBT chemicals: www.pbtprofiler.net. NFORMATIONON Graffiti Remover Research and Field Test Report ¥ 25 APPENDIXVIII: FIELDTESTPICTURES Before and after usingEnviro-SolutionsRemover,letting sit aboutthree minutes,and wipingoff with towel. Before and after usingSOYsolvletting sit forabout three minutes,and Before and after usingTagawayand scrubbing