Is Green Works Really Environmentally Friendly? Author(s) Redacted
Abstract: We have all heard about products that claim to be environmentally friendly. Many will just believe the claims of the manufacturers, but our group wanted to know the truth. Being environmentally friendly means that whatever product is claiming to be environmentally friendly is better for plants. If something is not good for plants, it then becomes no longer beneficial for the environment because plants make up the environment. They take in all of the toxins of the atmosphere and produce oxygen making their survival crucial to ours. This statement alone is why the ‘go green’ phase has been so big recently and will continue to be in our future. The fast plant experiment was conducted to test the hypothesis is Green Works window cleaner more of an environmentally friendly cleaning product than regular Clorox window cleaner. This hypothesis was an interesting topic to experiment on because if Green Works was found to be less beneficial to the plants, it would prove that it is in fact not environmentally friendly, and disprove the claims of the manufacturer. We tested the wellness of the plants by growth, mortality rate, seed count and weight. According to our hypothesis, the plants treated with regular Clorox window cleaner would be wilted and have a high mortality rate because the toxins in the cleaner are bad for the environment. The plant group treated with Green Works would be tall, have a high seed count, and low mortality rate. They would be seemingly unaffected because since the claims are for environmentally friendliness, the plants should do just fine around being exposed to it.
Introduction: Cleaning products are a big offender of advertising environmentally friendly products. Green Works, the newest line of window cleaners from Clorox claims “their product is made with plant and mineral based cleaning ingredients and it comes from biodegradable ingredients that are naturally derived.”(Clorox, 2011)i If this claim is true plants would be less effected being treated with Green Works than regular Clorox window cleaner because their cleaner comes from plants and if it released into the environment, it would biodegrade. Our hypothesis: Is Green Works more environmentally friendly than regular Clorox window cleaner? To test this, we would watch to see which plants were better off in means of seed count, mortality rate and height. If the plants grew taller and produced more seeds, it would make the plant better off because they would be healthier than other plants that were shorter or had less seeds. When a plant produces ample amount of seeds, it means they are healthy enough to reproduce and are in an environment in which their offspring could grow as well. (Reece, 2011) ii The treatment of the plants included spraying a set amount of product on the roots of the plant rather than the leaves of the plant. It was done in this fashion to make sure our hypothesis was proven in the correct manner. If the plants absorbed the window cleaners from the roots, the results would be clearer than if they were just sprayed on the leaves. The roots are where all the minerals are absorbed and if the plant did well while having the chemical inside them, rather than on them, it makes results clearer. From the data collected, we inferred that Green Works is in fact an environmentally friendly product. The plants treated with Green Works grew taller, had more seeds, and had a lower mortality rate.
Materials and Methods: Our group followed the instructions given to us in the Wisconsin Fast Plant Growing Instructions. (Wisconsin Fast Plant, 2011) iii The thing that we did differently was we added a step. One of our plant groups were treated with Clorox window cleaner and one of our plant groups was treated with Green Works window cleaner. The products were sprayed at the base of the plants to ensure clear results in our data. Results: Clorox: Section
Height
Weight
Section
Height
Weight
A1
9.75 in
0.29 g
B1
4.67 in
0.08 g
A2
8 in
0.12 g
B2
10.2 in
0.468 g
A3
3.67 in
0.11 g
B3
7.6 in
0.65 g
A4
DECEASED
-
B4
DECEASED
-
A5
2.5 in
0.68 g
B5
4.5 in
0.22 g
A6
3 in
0.05 g
B6
DECEASED
-
A7
2.5 in
0.03 g
B7
3.75 in
0.09 g
A8
DECEASED
-
B8
DECEASED
-
Green Works: Section
Height
Weight
Section
Height
Weight
C1
6 in
0.34 g
D1
7.67 in
0.3 g
C2
7.6 in
0.31 g
D2
5 in
0.19 g
C3
9.5 in
0.71 g
D3
11.2 in
0.23 g
C4
8.6 in
0.40 g
D4
13 in
0.75 g
C5
DECEASED
-
D5
17 in
2.34 g
C6
6.5 in
1.27 g
D6
7.5 in
0.68 g
C7
DECEASED
-
D7
6.5 in
0.25 g
C8
5 in
0.97 g
D8
DECEASED
-
A T-test is determined by comparing the means of each group. The mean height for the plants treated with Clorox was 3.76 inches. The mean height for the plants treated with Green Works was 6.94 inches. This shows that the plants treated with Green Works did in fact grow taller. The mean weight for plants treated with Clorox was 0.17 g where the mean weight of plants treated with Green Works was 0.54 g. This means that on average the plants treated with Green Works were heavier meaning they had more seeds and more leaves. Both showed a statistical difference and thus proving our hypothesis that plants treated with Green Works would be healthier and better off. Discussion: The plants were observed almost every day; this is what was noticed: Day 10/28/11 First day of plants being treated:
Section A received 0.01mL dosage of Clorox. Section B received 0.02mL dosage of Clorox. Section C received 0.02mL dosage of Green Works. Section D received 0.01mL dosage of Green Works. Day 10/28/11 Analysis: No apparent change in plants and the first treatment showed little to no change. All groups are growing as according to the control. Day 11/1/11 Analysis: Plants continue to grow normally, reaching nearly an inch in measurement. Control supports nearly the majority of the plants shown and divisions seven and eight seem to have a hard time keeping up with the other groups. 11/2/11 Analysis: Same pace at growth. The plants have reached about an inch long, and the highest plant, B1 and C1, seem to be at about 1.2 inches long. Section two seems to be growing at a much faster pace and section three seems to be slacking the most. Section three lost 2 plants so far in A7 and B8. It is inconclusive to say that it was the cause of the bleach. 11/3/11 Analysis: Section one subject A7 deceased. Section two, C5, is still in low stage of development. Section two, subject D7 has died. 11/5/11 Analysis: A7 deceased, C5 deceased, D7- C8 are developing at a slow stage and seem very unhealthy. Plants are beginning to show a yellow coloring in the Clorox section within their leaves. Some plants such as those in section three of A and B are showing rotting spots across
their leaves and stems. So far, the groups that are looking decent groups on the Green Works section. 11/7/11 Analysis: Plants germinated spuds and flowering has occurred. The time has come to pollinate plants. Leaves fully developed and no plants deceased since the last death. 11/8-11/11 Analysis: Sections one and two, A-D are growing the fastest. Five to six plants still in development and seven and eight have significant stunt of growth. The positioning of the light makes it difficult for section three to get any water and the plants dry up sufficiently. Plants on the Green Works side are beginning to have the same problems as the Clorox sign, showing little difference in growth, production, and mortality as well as health. During this time, acceleration of information is necessary to determine is any the variance of the plants groups. 11/10-15/11 Analysis: Leaves are losing color on the Clorox side more than Green Works side. Only two pods on the bleach. Pollination is still undergoing its process, and change seems to be little. Both sides are not looking as healthy as the control subjects. Note, the treatments were consistent, and there is no possibility of cross contamination between the individuals.
Conclusion: The Green Works proved to be better for the plants, resulting in being better for the environment. Overall, the plants treated with the Green Works were taller and weighed more than the plants treated with Clorox. For future experiments it is suggested that a little bit more of Clorox gets used because we may have failed to use a reasonable amount. Our mistake was
assuming the Clorox was so bad for the plants we didn’t put enough and that could be a contributing factor to why most of them died, and for the ones that survived. Our hypothesis was confirmed and Green Works is in fact environmentally friendly.
References: (i) “Green Works: Our Name Says it All.” 2011. http://www.greenworkscleaners.com/about-us/.
(ii) Reece, Jane B., Lisa A. Urry, Michael L. Cain, Steven A. Wasserman, Peter V. Minorsky, and Robert B. Jackson. “Campbell Biology.” Pearson Benjamin Cummings. 2011, 2008, 2005.
(iii) Wisconsin Fast Plants Growing Instructions. North Caroline: Carolina Biological Supply Company, 2001
