Without being a scientist myself, it can be difficult to wade through the criteria that make up an EcoLogo standard. However, by carefully reading through the relevant documentation I can get a general sense of how a standard works, the compromises that are necessarily made, and the ultimate benefits of implementation.

For example, there is currently a draft standard under review for corrosion inhibitors in closed water systems. Corrosion inhibitors are pretty self-explanatory. They prevent corrosion to maintain the efficiency and prolong the life of a water system. (Closed systems are generally used for heating water or pumping out air conditioning in apartments and offices.)

In reading through the draft standard it becomes pretty clear that most existing corrosion inhibitors leave a lot to be desired from an environmental standpoint. Given the realities of the solutions available today – the large majority of which are fairly toxic to aquatic life – how does a program like EcoLogo decide what constitutes a reasonable and achievable standard?

The answer is EcoLogo chooses the best of what is available and uses that as a starting point. Some corrosion inhibitors produce less organic nitrogen and ammonia. They are favored in the EcoLogo draft standard. On the other hand, nearly all corrosion inhibitors include boron, which makes it impractical to disallow use of the chemical in EcoLogo’s standard criteria. (Maybe in a future review?)

Got any of your own thoughts on corrosion inhibitors? (Don’t be shy. You know you were just talking about this at the dinner table last week…) One of the nice things about the EcoLogo program is that it is entirely transparent and draft standards are open to public comment. Tell us your thoughts here, or better yet, send comments to the contact information listed in the published draft standard.

Posted by Mari in Environmental standards