What does it take to convert paper and cardboard into a sturdy and absorbent wiper that, in its second life, cleans offices, kitchens, restrooms, and everything in between? Travel the recycling path to learn what it takes to accomplish this feat. Collection and sorting The first step is to collect the recyclables. This happens in communities nationwide through curbside recycling programs or at municipal drop-off sites. Once collected, the mixed recyclables are delivered to a materials recovery facility. There, workers sort the paper from plastic, glass, metal, and other items. To accomplish this, recyclables are placed on conveyor belts, where workers remove nonrecyclables, dangerous items (such as needles), and “tanglers” (plastic bags and hoses) that can jam machines. The recycling facilities use various mechanical sorting methods. For example, screens separate items by size and shape. Light paper rises to the top of the pile, while heavier glass and containers fall to the bottom. Magnets pull steel cans off the belt. Air blows lighter plastics and paper up. Lasers identify and separate different types of plastics, and eddy currents push metal items (like aluminum and copper) off the belt into a separate chute. The facilities also use automated machines equipped with sensors and artificial intelligence to separate different grades of paper. Newspaper, cardboard, office paper, and mixed paper are compressed and baled together in large cubes. Paper mills purchase the bales and implement the next steps. Paper processing At a paper mill, bales are broken down and fed into industrial shredders, which cut the paper into fibers. Large, tank-like machines called hydrapulpers mix fiber fragments with water and chemicals to create a slurry, known as pulp. During this stage, contaminants like staples and plastic are removed. Next, the pulp goes through a wash cycle using air bubbles and water. Bubbles lift ink particles from the pulp, and water-based washing systems remove impurities like glue and other contaminants to ensure a higher quality of recycled paper product. The clean pulp is spread over a mesh screen to rain out water. Next, the wet pulp goes through a series of rollers and heated cylinders to dry it and squeeze out any remaining water. Then the pulp fibers are pressed together to create a bond. To make double re-creped (DRC) wipers, disposable cleaning tools with a cloth-like feel, a proprietary technology blends recycled fibers with raw, virgin fibers. This process enhances the strength, bulk, absorbency, softness, and appearance of paper-based wipers. The process mixes in a synthetic latex resin to bind the fibers and create a double re-crepe cellulose base, which gives DRC wipers double the strength of ordinary paper towels when wet. Finishing the product Finally, it’s time to convert the dry web of fibers into a finished sheet. DRC wipers are made from industrial-sized mill rolls which are converted into wipes, wipers, and paper towels. The final DRC product is a high-quality wiper that is made with 40% recycled fibers. The next time you throw out paper, consider recycling it instead. Paper recycling is an essential part of sustainable waste management that reduces deforestation, decreases landfill waste, and uses less energy than manufacturing new paper. The limited effort it takes to put paper in a recycling bin will give it a second life. RECYCLING 101 Do your building residents need guidance regarding which paper trash is recyclable? Refer to the tips below: Paper Only recycle clean and dry paper. Recyclable paper includes paper bags, office paper, newspaper, magazines, and junk mail. In general, don’t recycle store receipts on shiny paper, glittery or shiny wrapping paper or greeting cards, or envelopes with plastic windows. (Or check with your local recycler.) Cardboard Shipping boxes, cereal boxes, paperboard packaging, toilet paper rolls, shoe boxes, and tissue boxes are all recyclable. Some padded envelopes that use shredded newsprint can be recycled, while others with plastic or bubble wrap can’t. Look for a How2Recycle label on the envelope to be sure. Banished from recycling bins Throw these items in the garbage: Pizza boxes that are greasy, cheesy, or stained with sauce. (You can tear off the clean parts of pizza boxes and place them in recycling.) Used napkins and food packaging with grease or food residue. Laminated or wax-coated paper (sticky notes, waxed boxes, and laminated papers). Bubble wrap, Styrofoam, and packing peanuts. Wet paper or cardboard (it’s harder to process and may not be accepted). Don’t put recycling in plastic bags, as they can get tangled in recycling machinery. Don’t “wishcycle,” by putting nonrecyclable items in the bin, hoping they’ll get recycled. When in doubt, throw it out.
When Doug Hoffman, the executive director of the National Organization of Remediators & Microbial Inspectors (NORMI) talks about air quality, he doesn't start with products. He starts with science, and the limits of how people evaluate that science. Hoffman, who has spent decades working in air purification and indoor environmental quality, opened a recent roundtable discussion aboard the Carnival Horizon, the venue of a Restoration Journeys and NORMI Caribbean cruise, by pointing out a frustration shared by a growing number of medical professionals: the gap between clinical study results and real-world performance. "Clinical studies will tell you one thing about how something might work in a specific setting, like an air purifier in an eight-by-eight box," Hoffman said. "But that doesn't tell you anything about how it will work in the actual environment in somebody's house." That distinction between controlled clinical testing and real-world field studies is at the heart of what Hoffman said a medical board he works with is now focusing on—evaluating whether technologies work based on case studies and field results rather than laboratory conditions alone. Only five technologies Despite the sprawling variety of air purifiers on the market, Hoffman said every single one of them uses some combination of just five technologies: filters, ionizers, ozone generators, ultraviolet light, and ultraviolet light with a target plate—the last of which is known as photocatalytic oxidation, or PCO. "If you know what those five technologies are, it doesn't matter what the air purifier is," he said. "You know exactly what it does. You know the pros and cons." The deeper organizing principle behind those five technologies, Hoffman said, is the distinction between passive and active approaches. Passive technologies, primarily filters, work by pulling contaminants toward the solution. You must get the pollution to the filter. If air doesn't reach it, it doesn't get cleaned. Active technologies, like ozone, do the opposite. They push the solution out to the pollution. The problem with filters Filters are a good starting point, Hoffman said, but they come with real limitations. The first is simply the challenge of getting contaminants to them. Research from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has found that only about 26% of the air in any given environment reaches the filter. The rest circulates without ever getting cleaned. "You think about the filter on your air conditioner," he said. "You turn your air conditioning system off. It's not filtering the air." Even when air reaches a filter, the filter only captures particles larger than a certain size. HEPA filters, which are marketed as trapping 99.9% of contaminants, capture 99.9% of particles above 0.3 microns of the air that reaches them. Smaller particles pass through until enough buildup narrows the gaps. And there is the Brownian Motion, which also helps the filter to trap smaller particles. As the Brownian Motion filter gets increasingly efficient, concern grows for a clogged filter that could burn up the motor. It’s best to replace the Brownian Motion filter long before it gets highly efficient, but this seems counter-intuitive. The best solution, Hoffman said, is to combine filtration with proactive distribution, using ducted airflow to move all the air actively and constantly through the environment rather than waiting for contaminants to drift toward a single return. Ionization: clumping the invisible The second technology, ionization, works by electrically charging the particles in the air so they aggregate, clumping together until they're either heavy enough to drop out of the breathing zone or large enough for a filter to capture them. The most effective form for immediate ionization, Hoffman said, is needlepoint ionization, a highly charged element that sends a negative charge across passing air, reversing the polarity of positively charged particles so they attract each other and aggregate. "Instead of dealing with 0.3-micron or smaller submicron particles, those particles are getting bigger—2.0, 2.5," he said. "As you continuously produce ionization, even at lower levels, the larger those particles get." Combined with filtration, he said, ionization creates a significant double effect: particles that would have slipped through a filter on their own are now large enough to get caught. Add ozone to that mix, a third technology, and you've got a system that doesn't just capture airborne contaminants but actively destroys bacteria and mold before they reach the filter at all. "Air quality issues are multifaceted, so you need a multi-strategic solution," Hoffman said. "By adding three technologies, now you've got something multi-strategic." Ozone: powerful but scalable Ozone has a complicated reputation, Hoffman said, explaining that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) current limit for ozone is 0.05 parts per million. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA's) threshold is 0.10. Humans typically start smelling ozone at around 0.02 parts per million, and, as Hoffman noted, the beach smell most people find pleasant and clean usually falls somewhere between 0.10 and 0.15. "Some say ozone will kill you," he said. "The reality is the length of time you're exposed to it and your personal sensitivity to it are bigger problems than the actual level." Chemically, ozone (O3) is an unstable molecule. When it encounters other compounds like formaldehyde, it donates its extra oxygen atom, altering the target molecule's structure. With enough exposure, it oxidizes the contaminant and breaks it down into basic components. With pathogens, the mechanism is different but equally effective: Ozone disrupts the RNA and DNA of bacteria and mold, stopping reproduction. Hoffman described swab testing that demonstrates the effect: Swab a surface, send it to a lab, document what's growing, then run ozone in the room for 12 to 24 hours, and swab the same area again. After treatment, nothing grows. "It's pretty amazing what ozone can do and how powerful it can be," he said. "It's just that too much of it, uncontrolled, is the problem." The solution is scalability. The small corona discharge ozone generator he demonstrated, rated for up to about 900 square feet, has a dial that lets users adjust output. The goal is maintaining a
Commercial facilities are increasingly turning to green cleaning products. From education and healthcare settings to offices and entertainment venues, the people maintaining these facilities are working to meet health, safety, and sustainability expectations and advance broader environmental and wellness goals through the use of green cleaning solutions. The 2024 Clean Index, CloroxPro’s 3rd Annual Industry Survey, found that two in three cleaning professionals report using eco-conscious products, and 60% of survey respondents indicated that their facility has set a business goal to increase the use of green products. When implemented effectively, green cleaning programs support worker health and well-being while improving operational efficiency. However, navigating green cleaning choices can be confusing. Countless claims, labels, and certifications can make it difficult to distinguish between products. Uncertainties about performance, cost, and ease of use persist. These perceptions can create hesitation among both decision makers and front-line staff, even as green products become more common. Three common myths keep arising about green cleaning products. Counteracting these myths with practical, experience-based facts can help commercial facilities focus on what truly drives effective and sustainable cleaning programs. Myth #1: Green cleaning products don’t perform as well Fact: Cleaning performance depends more on proper use than on whether a product is labeled green. A common concern among facility managers and cleaning staff is that green cleaning products may not deliver the same results as conventional options, especially in demanding environments such as healthcare facilities, schools, and high-traffic commercial spaces. This concern is often heightened when discussing antimicrobial products that sanitize and/or disinfect, where performance and appropriate use are critical. It is important to distinguish between cleaning and antimicrobial products. Cleaning products remove dirt and organic matter from surfaces, while antimicrobials, such as sanitizers and disinfectants, destroy or suppress the growth of harmful microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi on inanimate objects and surfaces. Antimicrobial products are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and meet specific data and efficacy requirements, whether marketed as green or not. Some antimicrobial products carry the EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) designation, which requires products to meet specific DfE criteria for effects on human health and the environment. In practice, performance challenges with cleaning or antimicrobial products are more often linked to product use rather than the products themselves. Improper use, such as not allowing the product to remain in contact with the surface for the recommended time, and overuse, such as applying more than necessary, can affect outcomes regardless of formulation. Many issues attributed to green products reflect process gaps rather than limitations in product performance. Facilities that achieve consistent results focus on fundamentals: clear instructions, standardized products, and ongoing training. When products are used as directed and supported by consistent processes, they can perform effectively in everyday operations. Myth #2: Green cleaning products are always more expensive Fact: Total cost is driven by how products are managed and used, not just the purchase price. A common assumption in commercial facilities is that green cleaning products are more expensive and harder to justify within tight operating budgets. This perception often focuses on upfront cost per unit, without accounting for the broader operational impacts of how cleaning programs are designed and managed. In practice, total cost is influenced by factors such as product standardization, dilution accuracy, and consistency of use. Guidance from various organizations, including New York State’s Office of General Services (OGS), highlights that using fewer products and those with clear instructions can reduce waste, minimize overuse, and support more predictable spending. Standardization combined with the use of green cleaning products can also affect workforce safety and risk management. Simplifying chemical handling and application may help reduce injuries to custodial staff and associated workers’ compensation claims. In addition, programs designed to minimize unnecessary chemical exposure can contribute to healthier indoor environments, potentially reducing sick days and absenteeism. Research from the San Francisco Department of the Environment found that certified green products for commercial applications are often offered as concentrates, with pricing comparable to conventional equivalents. To support more accurate cost comparisons, OGS offers a cleaning product cost calculator that converts the cost of concentrated cleaning products into a breakdown of the cost per gallon when diluted, recognizing that purchase price alone may not reflect real-world use costs. When all these factors are considered, green cleaning products are often cost-competitive within commercial facility operations. Myth #3: Green cleaning products are harder to train with and evaluate Fact: Simplified product selection, standardization, and clear guidance make green cleaning easy to implement. Custodial staff often cite training and product evaluation as concerns when facilities consider green cleaning products, particularly in environments with high turnover or limited time for onboarding. Some managers worry that green products introduce added complexity or require specialized expertise. In reality, training challenges arise less from green products and more from product variety and unclear procedures. Facilities that reduce the number of products for routine tasks and standardize procedures typically find that training becomes simpler and more effective. Clear labeling, consistent application methods, and hands-on instruction support successful adoption. Facilities do not need to be chemistry experts to evaluate products. Third-party certification programs such as EPA’s Safer Choice and DfE, Green Seal, and UL Solution’s ECOLOGO provide frameworks for identifying products that meet established criteria for human health and environmental considerations. These programs help facilities streamline product selection, reducing the time and expertise required to assess product claims. By using standardized products with recognized certifications and committing to consistent training, facilities can more smoothly integrate green cleaning products into routine operations. Drivers of success Across commercial facilities, successful green cleaning programs share a focus on people, processes, and consistency. Product standardization is a critical starting point. Facilities that limit the number of products for routine tasks simplify training and reduce complexity for front-line staff. At the same time, successful programs incorporate periodic reviews of product portfolios to account for innovations in sustainability and efficacy, allowing facilities to balance standardization with continuous improvement. Training and proper use are equally
Technological advancements enable firms to anticipate service failures and apologize to consumers more effectively than ever, according to a recent report in the Journal of Consumer Research. However, apologies might not always be the best policy. Researchers conducted five experiments, including a large-scale field experiment, which demonstrated that apologies backfire when consumers are not aware of the failure. Apologies decrease consumer satisfaction, trust, recommendation intentions, and repeat patronage behavior, the researchers found, because apologies increase awareness that a failure occurred. Furthermore, apologies backfire for both mild and severe failures when room to increase awareness of the failure is available. Additionally, apologies backfire over notifications about a service failure. Although both apologies and notifications increase awareness of the aspect of the service experience that was a failure, apologies uniquely increase awareness that this constituted a failure. Beyond increasing awareness, apologies backfire by decreasing perceived service quality and competence. However, apologies also increase perceived warmth and honesty, the researchers found. Consequently, apologizing can be beneficial when consumers are already aware of a failure because apologies are less likely to backfire and more likely to enhance positive perceptions of the firm. The researchers believe these findings challenge the conventional wisdom that apologies are always the best policy when something goes wrong and provide insight into when to apologize.
Last month, lawmakers in the Pennsylvania House approved a bill seeking to raise the state's minimum wage gradually. The bill would raise the wage from US$7.25 per hour to $11 per hour by the beginning of 2027. The minimum wage would then increase to $13 per hour in 2028 and would eventually rise to $15 per hour in 2029, with cost-of-living adjustments to follow. The bill now moves to the Pennsylvania Senate for consideration. Meanwhile, this month, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a bill that will increase the state's minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2028. The state’s current minimum wage of $12.77 per hour, which took effect Jan. 1, will rise to $13.75 per hour on Jan. 1, 2027, and then to $15 per hour on Jan. 1, 2028. Beginning in 2029, the wage will be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the consumer price index. However, also this month in Louisiana, two bills seeking to raise the minimum wage did not make it out of committee. Louisiana’s minimum wage mirrors the federal level, which remains at $7.25. Additionally, last year, Tennessee proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $20 an hour, but the bill failed in a House subcommittee in February. That same month, a Kansas lawmaker pushed a bill to increase the state’s minimum wage to $16 an hour, but the legislation has failed to gain traction. The minimum wage in Kansas also matches the federal minimum wage rate of $7.25 an hour. On the other hand, in March a New York City proposal called for raising the minimum wage to $30 an hour for large businesses by 2030 and to $29 an hour for small businesses by 2031. The legislation, under consideration by the City Council, would nearly double the citywide minimum wage—which increased to $17 in January. The proposed minimum wage law would affect more than 1 million workers, according to a 2023 report. If passed, New York City would have the highest minimum wage in the country, surpassing cities such as Denver, which currently has a minimum wage of $18.81 per hour; Washington, D.C., with a minimum wage of $17.95; and Flagstaff, Arizona, where the minimum wage is $17.85, Nation’s Restaurant News reported. California hospitality workers also earn $20 an hour following 2023 legislation that raised the minimum wage for fast-food workers. As CMM previously reported, earlier this year a proposed plan by Maryland lawmakers could raise the minimum wage to $25 by 2030, up from $15. Additionally, in West Virginia, lawmakers introduced legislation to raise the state’s minimum wage to $11 per hour by Jan. 1, 2027, a significant increase from the current $8.75 per hour. In February, Wisconsin lawmakers also proposed to raise the state’s minimum wage to $15 per hour with a scheduled path to reach $20 per hour by 2030. Wisconsin’s minimum wage currently matches the federal minimum wage. Earlier this year, CMM also reported that bills were introduced in Missouri and Nebraska that would lower the minimum wage for minors. Looking to the future, on June 16, Oklahoma residents will vote on whether to raise the state minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2029.
A widely used antiseptic to clean hospital patients' skin can remain on surfaces for hours, creating breeding grounds for bacteria to become tolerant or gain resistance to chemicals that usually kill them, according to a study published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. In the study, researchers tracked bacteria with tolerance to chlorhexidine, a chemical applied to patients' skins before surgery or catheter insertion. They searched for these bacteria in an Illinois medical center’s intensive care unit (ICU), according to Life Science Plus. Researchers swabbed 219 samples from bedrails, nurse call buttons, door sills, keyboards, light switches, and sink drains in six locations around the ICU in 2018. The rooms were clean, but the researchers isolated about 1,400 bacteria, and 36% showed some tolerance to chlorhexidine. In the lab, researchers applied chlorhexidine to common materials, such as plastic, metal, and laminate, and tracked how long the antiseptic lingered on surfaces, including after cleaning with water and other chemical cleaners. They found that even after cleaning, traces of the antiseptic persisted on surfaces for at least 24 hours. These lingering traces weren't strong enough to kill bacteria. But in these microenvironments, bacteria that carry genes helping them survive the chemical's effects thrive. These tolerant bacteria outcompete those lacking tolerance genes and grow more abundantly. The worst-case scenario is that bacteria become so used to fighting off a chemical and so good at it that they become resistant to its effects. The researchers found chlorhexidine-tolerant bacteria throughout the hospital rooms, even though the antiseptic was applied only to patients' skin. The sink was a hotspot for these bacteria. Swabs also showed tolerant strains on door sills, suggesting they traveled through the air and settled there. Some of the antiseptic-resistant bacteria carried a plasmid — a small DNA loop that can be transferred between bacteria — that not only helped them tolerate chlorhexidine but could also help them resist antibiotics, such as carbapenems. This type of gene transfer is a well-known way that bacteria gain resistance to antimicrobials, and it can take place between bacteria of totally different species. Still, chlorhexidine is highly effective at killing germs. The bacteria in the study could survive only at very low concentrations of the chemical, far below levels used to clean patients' skin. However, the researchers agreed that the world should be more cautious in using antiseptics. Further studies should examine whether these effects occur in other settings, such as homes or veterinary clinics, to better understand how antiseptic residues affect bacteria, the researchers said.
Last year, global employee perceptions of the job market improved, according to Gallup, following a decline the previous year. The 2026 State of the Global Workplace report finds that in 2025, job market perceptions improved globally by one percentage point from the previous year to 52%. The 2025 increase in job market optimism came entirely from nonremote-capable, fully on-site workers, while optimism dropped for fully remote and remote-capable, fully on-site workers. However, job market optimism fell sharply last year in the United States and Canada. The United States/Canada region is now second-to-last in regional job market rankings. Since 2019, this region has fallen 23 points, from 70% to 47%. U.S. business media reported on a “no hire, no fire” job climate for most of 2025, Gallup said. More recent revisions to official jobs numbers also found that the U.S. added only 181,000 jobs last year, down from the 1.5 million the year before. When employees feel they have a choice in their work, Gallup found they are nearly 50% more likely to say it’s a good time to find a job. This belief holds across every region of the world. As technologies like artificial intelligence reshape the world of work, upskilling will likely be an essential part of employee hope for the future.