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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

How much is a human life worth?

Have we been Bonv°yed? (!)

​​​​​

This is poetic waxing with no scientific basis. Shared dispensers have been in airline lounge showers for decades. People aren't dying because of them.

What about the health benefits of single use showers? I mean, were sharing the same shower head, tiles etc. Maybe Marriott should tear out the bathroom after each guest?

Point is, we share lots of things as part of staying in a hotel. Why are we honing in on soap dispensers as a problem alone?

​​​

You're just putting your fingers in your ears and repeating what you said the first time. The math doesn't work -see the last few posts. The example test case doesn't work either.

​​​​​​Please offer up some proof.

I like smaller containers. They are more convenient and feel more hygienic. I like it when hotels have smaller containers. I like it less when hotels have large containers to be shared between guests. This is a big enough deal for me to sway my decisions between hotels. Environmentalists can call me selfish for caring less about the global warming but that's just the way I (and my wallet) feels when it comes to plastic containers.

"It's the pandemic, stupid!“
 

This is hyperbolic waxing with no scientific basis, that studiously ignores the core issue.

Because there is a pandemic?

Because soap dispensers are a multi-use touchpoint and uniquely difficult to clean?

For the same reason that breakfast buffet lines have been truncated, curtailed, or bagged?

Closing one's eyes to the changed circumstances does not make them go away. As Bill Clinton might have said, "It's the pandemic, stupid!“

And you have scientific evidence that soap dispensers transmit COVID-19 more than any other surface in the room? Or just making assumptions to fit a narrative?

And this differs from shower curtains, sink taps, lamp switches, TV remotes, irons etc. how?