FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Marriott | Marriott Bonvoy (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/marriott-marriott-bonvoy-766/)
-   -   Marriott to Eliminate Single-use Toiletry Bottles (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/marriott-marriott-bonvoy/1984883-marriott-eliminate-single-use-toiletry-bottles.html)

cmd320 Nov 14, 19 8:39 am


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 31735705)
And bedsheets, pillows etc. Not to mention, Remote control, glassware, phone, pens...

Sounds like a need for an inflatable hermetic sealed bubble.

Linens are changed after each guest and again, I don't tend to rub the remote control, pen, or phone all over my body. That said, I will usually take a Clorox wipe to the remote and I do not use the glassware from the room. I'll usually keep one from the room service tray or grab a glass or two from the bar.

EuropeanPete Nov 14, 19 8:45 am

This is massively OT, but the skin is actually a highly effective barrier against the outside world. It's literally what it was designed to do :) Short of nerve toxins and the obvious acids, there's not a lot which is going to impact your skin. Orifices in general are a lot more of a concern.

slpybear Nov 14, 19 8:51 am

This thread continues to live on and each page adds to my conviction that I am not very paranoid.

Antarius Nov 14, 19 8:54 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31736195)
Linens are changed after each guest and again, I don't tend to rub the remote control, pen, or phone all over my body. That said, I will usually take a Clorox wipe to the remote and I do not use the glassware from the room. I'll usually keep one from the room service tray or grab a glass or two from the bar.

But you're still making assumptions that the linens were in fact changed between stays perfectly and everything, including sham pillows etc. Are sanitized. As with everything else.

It is certainly possible that someone opens the dispenser and contaminates it. It is also possible that the room service guy has a cold and sneezes on your tray or worse, is disgruntled and contaminates your food! The probability is near zero for all.

Dr. HFH Nov 14, 19 9:03 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31736195)
That said, I will usually take a Clorox wipe to the remote ....

Not a bad idea. I often use the hot towel provided on boarding to wipe down the area surrounding my seat on a flight.


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 31736195)
... and I do not use the glassware from the room. I'll usually keep one from the room service tray or grab a glass or two from the bar.

Why do you think that these are any cleaner?

cmd320 Nov 14, 19 11:31 am


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 31736256)
But you're still making assumptions that the linens were in fact changed between stays perfectly and everything, including sham pillows etc. Are sanitized. As with everything else.

It is certainly possible that someone opens the dispenser and contaminates it. It is also possible that the room service guy has a cold and sneezes on your tray or worse, is disgruntled and contaminates your food! The probability is near zero for all.

Yes, I assume and expect that the linens are changed between stays. Throw pillows no, but I immediately remove those from the bed and toss them in the corner at the start of a stay.

I'll take my chances with the employee wheeling my food around the hotel. Guests in the room behind closed doors are another story.


Originally Posted by Dr. HFH (Post 31736306)
Why do you think that these are any cleaner?

Glassware from the bar/restaurant goes through a dishwasher. I don't know that all glassware from the room does, in fact I believe they're washed by hand many times.

kaizen7 Nov 14, 19 12:11 pm

I would just wash those in room glassware before use.

And for the kettle, just discard first boiled water there.
(obviously if the kettle shows rust marks etc on the heating element I wont use them. Will ask the hotel to provide another one if I desperately need them)

MaxFlyer Nov 14, 19 1:15 pm

I wash out any cups/glasses before use with boiling water from the kettle.

Cathay Dragon 666 Nov 16, 19 10:10 pm

(These are all things I've saw or heard with my own eyes and ears, not simply hearsay)

1) House-Keeping simply "wipe clean" used glass and cups and put them right back into the drawers (at a Sheraton I was staying at)

2) House-Keeping talking to each other saying "don't change the linens and others, we're late, just forget it, the next guest won't know it anyway" (at a Le Meridien I was staying at)

So, I am suspect now.

jrich7970 May 26, 20 4:53 pm

Hate to drag this thread back into the light, but, what do any of you think of the likelihood of the return of individual personal items, given the virus situation?

I have read a few articles, not specifically mentioning any hotel chains, that single-use stuff might come back (assuming they left).

SPN Lifer May 26, 20 5:10 pm

I highly value the pens and notepads. Much more so than the shampoo. They serve as permanent mementos of my travels. Especially the pens.

storewanderer May 26, 20 7:18 pm


Originally Posted by jrich7970 (Post 32405896)
Hate to drag this thread back into the light, but, what do any of you think of the likelihood of the return of individual personal items, given the virus situation?

I have read a few articles, not specifically mentioning any hotel chains, that single-use stuff might come back (assuming they left).

I am sure this would be more "on the surface" if more people were traveling. Maybe by the time more people are traveling again, the virus won't be such a concern so the plastic police can continue to feel as though they have accomplished something with their small single use shampoo ban, despite the fact that their larger thicker plastic containers with a heavy plastic spout actually use more plastic than an equal product storing amount of the little single use containers used.

rylan May 26, 20 7:25 pm

I for one would enjoy to see those bulky and nasty community bottles go away and the individual/travel size ones come back. Maybe the plastic police will be busy going after plastic shopping bags and water bottles again, since those all made a huge resurgence since reusable bags aren't allowed in many stores currently.

Jon Maiman May 27, 20 6:14 am

I would also like to see the individual toiletry bottles come back. The bulk ones are just another surface area prone to mold, viruses, etc. unless cleaned very thoroughly on a regular basis. I have my doubts that housekeeping will clean them properly. I'd be fine with them becoming an item that was handed out at check in upon request to help cut down on waste. It would be easy for the desk to have little kits with shampoo, conditioner, and bars of soap ready to dispense. Just a thought...

--Jon

JackE May 27, 20 6:26 pm


Originally Posted by Jon Maiman (Post 32407018)
I would also like to see the individual toiletry bottles come back. The bulk ones are just another surface area prone to mold, viruses, etc. unless cleaned very thoroughly on a regular basis. I have my doubts that housekeeping will clean them properly. I'd be fine with them becoming an item that was handed out at check in upon request to help cut down on waste. It would be easy for the desk to have little kits with shampoo, conditioner, and bars of soap ready to dispense. Just a thought...

--Jon

The savings on bulk toiletries is a pittance compared to the risk to housekeeping, not to mention the added cost of cleaning those unloved bulk containers.

cmd320 May 27, 20 9:35 pm


Originally Posted by JackE (Post 32408879)
The savings on bulk toiletries is a pittance compared to the risk to housekeeping, not to mention the added cost of cleaning those unloved bulk containers.

The bulk containers were always nothing more than a cost reduction for the company dressed up by marketing as some great environmentally conscious move that some customers lapped up. Now with the increased liability of having them, a property would be stupid to keep them rather than going back to single use.

margarita girl May 28, 20 4:41 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32409221)
The bulk containers were always nothing more than a cost reduction for the company dressed up by marketing as some great environmentally conscious move that some customers lapped up. Now with the increased liability of having them, a property would be stupid to keep them rather than going back to single use.

Many Asian hotels have moved to re-usable glass water bottles. Were those nothing more than a cost reduction too?

speaker May 28, 20 6:49 am

Been a while since I stayed at a Westin, but I miss those leaf-shaped soap bars.
Wouldn’t an actual bar of soap be the ideal compromise between the communal dispensers and the mini shower gel bottles?

I would assume that for mini toiletries, the cost of the container is greater than its contents (Eg. buy a mini tube of toothpaste at the pharmacy; it’s close to the cost of a full-size tube).

Bar soap need minimal packaging. It’s also inherently tamper-proof (you would know in an instant if the soap had been previously used).

As for the shampoo, why not provide conditioning shampoo, halving the volume of plastic mini bottles needed (and reducing cost).

cmd320 May 28, 20 6:56 am


Originally Posted by margarita girl (Post 32409720)
Many Asian hotels have moved to re-usable glass water bottles. Were those nothing more than a cost reduction too?

Yes. A reusable glass bottle will be more economical than buying new plastic bottles over time.

Antarius May 28, 20 9:04 am


Originally Posted by cmd320 (Post 32409221)
The bulk containers were always nothing more than a cost reduction for the company dressed up by marketing as some great environmentally conscious move that some customers lapped up. Now with the increased liability of having them, a property would be stupid to keep them rather than going back to single use.

It must be so easy to see the world in black and white. Filters out 99% of the subtlety that goes on; using larger bottles is both economically beneficial AND environmentally responsible.

I guess I'm part of the stupid crowd that lapped up the change.

kabroui May 28, 20 9:05 am


Originally Posted by JackE (Post 32408879)
The savings on bulk toiletries is a pittance compared to the risk to housekeeping, not to mention the added cost of cleaning those unloved bulk containers.

That's one side of it. The other is that in a lot of cases, they aren't aging well at all. At some of the lower end chains, I think they used fairly dubious quality dispensers to begin with and I've stayed at a few places where they were approaching getting downright gross. Combine that with locations like here in Arizona that have very hard water, housekeeping is going to have their work cut out for them keeping them passable.

carrotjuice May 28, 20 9:09 am

I think the rollout will be delayed. Hotels will have to honour their precontracted supply contracts, thus will need to use up their existing supplies first once people resume their travels post pandemic.

storewanderer May 28, 20 10:08 am


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32410337)
It must be so easy to see the world in black and white. Filters out 99% of the subtlety that goes on; using larger bottles is both economically beneficial AND environmentally responsible.

I guess I'm part of the stupid crowd that lapped up the change.

Then by all means - use the large bottles. The large bottles are thicker plastic and more mass of plastic due to the spout and thicker material of the bottle to begin with. As in, the large plastic bottles are using MORE plastic than the dozens of little small bottles that had the same amount of product used. This is no good for the environment at all. It is economically positive to the hotel though.

Some chains they do not refill these large bottles, with these large bottles,they just swap them out with a new bottle once the bottle is empty (or near empty). So then even more plastic is going into the trash than before. Great for the environment, yes. Just great.

Antarius May 28, 20 10:19 am


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32410566)
Then by all means - use the large bottles. The large bottles are thicker plastic and more mass of plastic due to the spout and thicker material of the bottle to begin with. As in, the large plastic bottles are using MORE plastic than the dozens of little small bottles that had the same amount of product used. This is no good for the environment at all. It is economically positive to the hotel though.

Some chains they do not refill these large bottles, with these large bottles,they just swap them out with a new bottle once the bottle is empty (or near empty). So then even more plastic is going into the trash than before. Great for the environment, yes. Just great.

This is simply not true. If it was more plastic, then why are they cheaper per unit volume?

margarita girl May 28, 20 10:29 am


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32410566)
The large bottles are thicker plastic and more mass of plastic due to the spout and thicker material of the bottle to begin with. As in, the large plastic bottles are using MORE plastic than the dozens of little small bottles that had the same amount of product used. This is no good for the environment at all. It is economically positive to the hotel though.

Source?

SPN Lifer May 28, 20 11:28 am


Originally Posted by speaker (Post 32409958)
As for the shampoo, why not provide conditioning shampoo, halving the volume of plastic mini bottles needed (and reducing cost).

Some people prefer not to have the volume of their hair expanded.


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32410337)
[ U]sing larger bottles is both economically beneficial AND environmentally responsible.

I guess I'm part of the stupid crowd that lapped up the change.

As a life member of the Sierra Club for almost four decades, I think we simply did not anticipate that our solution would become a pandemic disease vector, like cloth shopping bags.

yeunganson May 28, 20 12:56 pm

Use biodegradable single use containers... I wonder if we have the tech to do that.

gengar May 28, 20 1:19 pm


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32410337)
It must be so easy to see the world in black and white. Filters out 99% of the subtlety that goes on; using larger bottles is both economically beneficial AND environmentally responsible.

Dollars and cents are black and white. Dollars and cents don't have subtlety.

I don't have a huge problem with the often-made argument in this thread that the end justifies the means, but it's still a good idea to understand what's actually going on and what's actually motivating the businesses here.

beachfan May 28, 20 1:50 pm


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32410566)
Then by all means - use the large bottles. The large bottles are thicker plastic and more mass of plastic due to the spout and thicker material of the bottle to begin with. As in, the large plastic bottles are using MORE plastic than the dozens of little small bottles that had the same amount of product used. This is no good for the environment at all. It is economically positive to the hotel though.

Some chains they do not refill these large bottles, with these large bottles,they just swap them out with a new bottle once the bottle is empty (or near empty). So then even more plastic is going into the trash than before. Great for the environment, yes. Just great.

I think the fact that surface area goes up by the square of the radius (for a sphere) but the volume goes up as the cube of the radius, the thickness of the bottle is not sufficient to overcome the efficiency of a larger bottle in terms of plastic use.

storewanderer May 28, 20 4:29 pm


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32410605)
This is simply not true. If it was more plastic, then why are they cheaper per unit volume?

They are cheaper because you have a greater efficiency in packaging the product in a larger bottle. Easier to put a big 24 ounce lump into a bottle than do 24 little 1 ounce lumps. Fewer manufacturing "motions." Cheaper manufacturing process. Has nothing to do with the environment at all. One movement to package the single 24 ounce bottle (vs. 24 movements to do the 24 little ones). One label (albeit a bigger label) on a big bottle vs. 24 little labels on 24 little bottles means it is cheaper to do the labeling process.

As for source on weight, save your bottles and weigh them and you will see. All you have to do is take an empty single use shampoo bottle and an empty "bigger" bottle of a plastic item you have in your house (perhaps it is body wash or shampoo) but making sure it is one that is including the spout/dispenser and weigh it and you will see. The weight of the plastic from the bigger 24 ounce plastic bottle with a spout/dispenser is going to be more than 24 times the weight of the little single use bottle that holds 1 ounce of shampoo, due to the greater thickness of the larger bottle as well as the thick plastic spout/dispenser which is not present in the little bottles.

Again this not only has nothing to do with the environment but it actually has the opposite effect on the environment. People have been duped so badly on this.

The contamination risk with these shared dispensers, reusable super thick plastic cups (these- I do think actually help the environment and actually do reduce plastic use after less than a dozen uses but it is disgusting to expect a Starbucks to accept your reusable cup behind their counter), reusable super thick plastic bags sold for 10 cents in stores (another joke that uses 10-20x more plastic than the thin ones but is not used 10 or 20 times so net negative impact to the environment again), is no different now than it was a year ago. The difference now is it is highlighted. The public is scared of Coronavirus and more scared of contamination now. A larger segment of people will be uncomfortable with these shared dispensers because of fears that have risen from this Coronavirus era. There is no positive environmental benefit to these shared hotel dispensers in the first place so what is the point? Cost savings. Nothing more.

I would accept if the hotel had single use clean sanitary shampoo and soap available upon request. Then I could get those and ignore the shared dispensers. But I suspect in Coronavirus era there is a segment of customers who would not want to get near a shower with those shared dispensers even if not using them.

Antarius May 28, 20 4:35 pm


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32411654)
They are cheaper because you have a greater efficiency in packaging the product in a larger bottle. Easier to put a big 24 ounce lump into a bottle than do 24 little 1 ounce lumps. Fewer manufacturing "motions." Cheaper manufacturing process. Has nothing to do with the environment at all. One movement to package the single 24 ounce bottle (vs. 24 movements to do the 24 little ones). One label (albeit a bigger label) on a big bottle vs. 24 little labels on 24 little bottles means it is cheaper to do the labeling process.

As for source on weight, save your bottles and weigh them and you will see. All you have to do is take an empty single use shampoo bottle and an empty "bigger" bottle of a plastic item you have in your house (perhaps it is body wash or shampoo) but making sure it is one that is including the spout/dispenser and weigh it and you will see. The weight of the plastic from the bigger 24 ounce plastic bottle with a spout/dispenser is going to be more than 24 times the weight of the little single use bottle that holds 1 ounce of shampoo, due to the greater thickness of the larger bottle as well as the thick plastic spout/dispenser which is not present in the little bottles.

Again this not only has nothing to do with the environment but it actually has the opposite effect on the environment. People have been duped so badly on this.

The contamination risk with these shared dispensers, reusable super thick plastic cups (these- I do think actually help the environment and actually do reduce plastic use after less than a dozen uses but it is disgusting to expect a Starbucks to accept your reusable cup behind their counter), reusable super thick plastic bags sold for 10 cents in stores (another joke that uses 10-20x more plastic than the thin ones but is not used 10 or 20 times so net negative impact to the environment again), is no different now than it was a year ago. The difference now is it is highlighted. The public is scared of Coronavirus and more scared of contamination now. A larger segment of people will be uncomfortable with these shared dispensers because of fears that have risen from this Coronavirus era. There is no positive environmental benefit to these shared hotel dispensers in the first place so what is the point? Cost savings. Nothing more.

That's not how the math works; Volume to surface area does not scale linearly. You're making assumptions here.

storewanderer May 28, 20 5:09 pm


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32411669)
That's not how the math works; Volume to surface area does not scale linearly. You're making assumptions here.

What you are describing does not account for the additional thickness necessary in the larger bottles in order to hold the greater mass of product without the bottle leaking/cracking.

Weigh the empty bottles. Weight equals total amount of plastic and includes the thickness differences plus the spout/dispenser which is what cause a lot of the extra weight. Waste is measured in weight. These larger bottles that are being replaced and thrown away when empty cause more plastic waste than the little bottles did, if you are measuring the plastic waste in terms of weight.

Oh and the next argument is, well, they refill the large bottles. Actually not true in many cases the large bottles are disposed when empty "for sanitary reasons." No, that is for employee convenience reasons. But if they do refill them what does the product that they refill the large bottles come in? Another plastic bottle... an even bigger thicker one (really, really thick- go to a hotel or restaurant supply house and see)... same story...

CPH-Flyer May 28, 20 6:11 pm


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32411750)
What you are describing does not account for the additional thickness necessary in the larger bottles in order to hold the greater mass of product without the bottle leaking/cracking.

Weigh the empty bottles. Weight equals total amount of plastic and includes the thickness differences plus the spout/dispenser which is what cause a lot of the extra weight. Waste is measured in weight. These larger bottles that are being replaced and thrown away when empty cause more plastic waste than the little bottles did, if you are measuring the plastic waste in terms of weight.

Oh and the next argument is, well, they refill the large bottles. Actually not true in many cases the large bottles are disposed when empty "for sanitary reasons." No, that is for employee convenience reasons. But if they do refill them what does the product that they refill the large bottles come in? Another plastic bottle... an even bigger thicker one (really, really thick- go to a hotel or restaurant supply house and see)... same story...

I just did the test with a 35ml Salvatore Ferragamo body wash from (I believe) the Mandarin in Pudong and a 150 ml hand sanitiser with pump function that I just finished.

Very unscientific, but the Ferragamo bottle came with 0.26g of plastic pr ml whereas the pump bottle came with 0.22g of plastic pr ml. In a 150ml bottle, the pump function is probably weighing relatively much compared to volume, going to 250ml would make the advantage greater. But that's still 18% more plastic per ml in the bottle for the smaller container. And still just one test.

Antarius May 28, 20 7:05 pm


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32411750)
What you are describing does not account for the additional thickness necessary in the larger bottles in order to hold the greater mass of product without the bottle leaking/cracking.

Weigh the empty bottles. Weight equals total amount of plastic and includes the thickness differences plus the spout/dispenser which is what cause a lot of the extra weight. Waste is measured in weight. These larger bottles that are being replaced and thrown away when empty cause more plastic waste than the little bottles did, if you are measuring the plastic waste in terms of weight.

Oh and the next argument is, well, they refill the large bottles. Actually not true in many cases the large bottles are disposed when empty "for sanitary reasons." No, that is for employee convenience reasons. But if they do refill them what does the product that they refill the large bottles come in? Another plastic bottle... an even bigger thicker one (really, really thick- go to a hotel or restaurant supply house and see)... same story...

No, I'm not progressing to next arguments. I'm calling into question the validity of your thickness argument. The math doesn't work.

DenverBrian May 28, 20 9:02 pm


Originally Posted by yeunganson (Post 32411096)
Use biodegradable single use containers... I wonder if we have the tech to do that.

Only paper, I think. Perhaps a highly compressed paper "bottle"?

azepine00 May 28, 20 9:40 pm


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32411654)
As for source on weight, save your bottles and weigh them and you will see. All you have to do is take an empty single use shampoo bottle and an empty "bigger" bottle of a plastic item you have in your house (perhaps it is body wash or shampoo) but making sure it is one that is including the spout/dispenser and weigh it and you will see. The weight of the plastic from the bigger 24 ounce plastic bottle with a spout/dispenser is going to be more than 24 times the weight of the little single use bottle that holds 1 ounce of shampoo, due to the greater thickness of the larger bottle as well as the thick plastic spout/dispenser which is not present in the little bottles.

Again this not only has nothing to do with the environment but it actually has the opposite effect on the environment. People have been duped so badly on this.

.

while I agree that the main driver is cost saving it doesn't take away environmental benefits - larger bottles are easier to recycle and they use less plastic.

For the sake of simplicity
imagine a cube 10x10x10 cm with 1l capacity - total surface area 600 sq cm
imagine 1000 small cubes 1x1x1 of 1 ml capacity - total surface area 6000 sq cm

​​​​10 fold difference of surface area partially offset by thickness. Then you have 1000 small caps vs 1 large pump piece.

Obviously shapes and actual sizes will vary but the trend is the same.

storewanderer May 28, 20 11:12 pm


Originally Posted by azepine00 (Post 32412223)
while I agree that the main driver is cost saving it doesn't take away environmental benefits - larger bottles are easier to recycle and they use less plastic.

For the sake of simplicity
imagine a cube 10x10x10 cm with 1l capacity - total surface area 600 sq cm
imagine 1000 small cubes 1x1x1 of 1 ml capacity - total surface area 6000 sq cm

​​​​10 fold difference of surface area partially offset by thickness. Then you have 1000 small caps vs 1 large pump piece.

Obviously shapes and actual sizes will vary but the trend is the same.

But 1000 1ml Containers do not equal the amount of shampoo in 1 1L container. Shampoo containers are not 1 mL.

Anyway the typical shampoo container is 30 ml.

So your comparison of 1,000 small bottles to a single 1 L bottle is is not really relevant. I am comparing amount of product for amount of product. x small bottles = 1 1 L container. It would be more like 33 small bottles to a single 1 L bottle (compare amount of product to amount of product). Because again those 1 L bottles are not being refilled; they are being replaced when empty (at least, at some of the chains).

So the surface area of the small containers would really be 200 sq cm. So actually the small containers use less surface area than the 1 L bottle which as you note above is 300 sq cm. And as you note above the 1 L bottle is thicker.

This also does not take into account people may be more likely to use more product out of a large dispenser vs. use it more conservatively from the little single use containers (especially users who do not get daily maid service). And if more product is used that means more plastic waste is generated.

How much more plastic waste is getting generated by big body wash bottles replacing the old soap bars? A ton. Again negates any benefit here, for the environment.

Also not sure about easier to recycle. In theory they should be. But I am not so sure in practice. By the time these reusable bottles are used and abused they are going to be in such poor condition with gunk on the sides/edges/bottom/back dried on that they will probably end up straight in the trash since these things need to be free of product/gunk in order to be recycled. Actually could see those dirty bottles causing significant damage and contamination to recycling facility plastics or equipment causing even larger batches of plastic not to be able to be recycled, if these are mixed in there. So again that also hurts the environment more.

As another poster above mentioned if they truly cared about the environment and were truly being "green" they would have gone with compostable single use bottles and it would have been a win-win because you eliminate ALL of the plastic waste plus you keep the product sanitary between guests. But they didn't. Those cost too much. Because this isn't about the environment. This is about cutting costs.

storewanderer May 28, 20 11:15 pm


Originally Posted by Antarius (Post 32411958)
No, I'm not progressing to next arguments. I'm calling into question the validity of your thickness argument. The math doesn't work.

The math works perfectly. Go get the bottles, use the product within the bottles fully, and weigh them empty and you will see for yourself that the big bottles generate a higher weight of plastic waste than the total weight of the number of small bottles that house an equivalent amount of product.

This only hurts the environment.

CPH-Flyer May 29, 20 2:37 am


Originally Posted by storewanderer (Post 32412345)
But 1000 1ml Containers do not equal the amount of shampoo in 1 1L container. Shampoo containers are not 1 mL.

Anyway the typical shampoo container is 30 ml.

So your comparison of 1,000 small bottles to a single 1 L bottle is is not really relevant. I am comparing amount of product for amount of product. x small bottles = 1 1 L container. It would be more like 33 small bottles to a single 1 L bottle (compare amount of product to amount of product). Because again those 1 L bottles are not being refilled; they are being replaced when empty (at least, at some of the chains).

So the surface area of the small containers would really be 200 sq cm. So actually the small containers use less surface area than the 1 L bottle which as you note above is 300 sq cm. And as you note above the 1 L bottle is thicker.

This also does not take into account people may be more likely to use more product out of a large dispenser vs. use it more conservatively from the little single use containers (especially users who do not get daily maid service). And if more product is used that means more plastic waste is generated.

How much more plastic waste is getting generated by big body wash bottles replacing the old soap bars? A ton. Again negates any benefit here, for the environment.

Also not sure about easier to recycle. In theory they should be. But I am not so sure in practice. By the time these reusable bottles are used and abused they are going to be in such poor condition with gunk on the sides/edges/bottom/back dried on that they will probably end up straight in the trash since these things need to be free of product/gunk in order to be recycled. Actually could see those dirty bottles causing significant damage and contamination to recycling facility plastics or equipment causing even larger batches of plastic not to be able to be recycled, if these are mixed in there. So again that also hurts the environment more.

As another poster above mentioned if they truly cared about the environment and were truly being "green" they would have gone with compostable single use bottles and it would have been a win-win because you eliminate ALL of the plastic waste plus you keep the product sanitary between guests. But they didn't. Those cost too much. Because this isn't about the environment. This is about cutting costs.

If we do it by cubes again, just because the math is shorter to write.

33 cubes containing 1 liter combined would need to be in cubes that are approximately 3.2cm on each side. 3.2*3.2*3.2=32.768 cubic cm, or mL. 32.768*33=1,081.344mL or 1.081344L

The surface of one of these cubes are 3.2*3.2*6=61.44 square cm, we have 33 of them 61.44*33=2027.52 square cm. Well over 3 times surface area of the 1L cube. 10*10*6=600 square cm.

Before you ask me to weigh the plastic from a big and a small bottle, I did. 0.22g of plastic pr ml in a 150ml bottle with pump function, and 0,26g of plastic pr ml with a 35ml soap from a hotel. I have some 80ml Aroma Therapy bottles from a JW in use right now. Once they are empty, I'll be happy to weigh them and add the plastic weight pr ml of product here for additional statistics. I don't have any other pump bottles being close to empty right now.

SPN Lifer May 29, 20 7:04 am

What about the health benefits from small, personal-use toiletry containers?

How much is a human life worth?

Have we been Bonv°yed? (!)

​​​​​


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:34 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.