1. Project Quarter Final Review May 21, 2010 Bill Ouellette Daniela Fritter David Scheuing Diane Mellett Elizabeth Crane Erika Szekeres Jagath Kadurugamuwa Mobley Kayla Carpenter Rui Zhang Steve Bromberg

4. Quarter Options All options require additional development Next Step Option Discovery to determine potential microefficacy, Continue Tietex development CHG + SDC + Tietex Optimize CHG formulation, Continue Tietex development CHG + Tietex Continue Tietex refinement, commercial development Baldy + Tietex Address Consumer/Micro hurdles Baldy + MTS/PGI or Ahlstrom

5. Substrate Progress Bill Ouellette

12. Quarter Consumer Testing CLT (MR D0926) Purpose : screening study to determine types of low basis weight substrates that had potential to replace current Limitations : no in-home use—ratings based primarily on look/feel of substrate Results : Lower basis weight substrates that were perceived as more durable or having higher texture/scrubbability scored close to Torino Qualitatives Rnd 1 (MR 20112) Purpose : use in-home testing with sensitive panelists to see where lower basis weight substrates had advantages/disadvantages vs Torino Limitations : qualitative Results : Some substrates had unique features that could provide advantages vs current, but issues with stiffness led to lower perceived thickness Qualitatives Rmd 2 (MR 20475) Purpose: use in-home testing with sensitive panelists to see whether improved versions of round 1 substrates have moved the needle Limitations: qualitative Results: have moved the needle somewhat on perceived thickness, but substrates were still perceived as thinner than Torino and need some further optimization. There is still optimization work to be done before any of the substrates could replace Torino/Whistler. However, I am confident that some, if not ALL, of the tested substrates could achieve that status within a six to eighteen month time frame. 4 15 4 3 Samples Improved

16. Baldy Formulation Characteristics - Starting Point Summarized Citrate/EDTA & PnP/IPA = Work in same “hydrophobic direction” vs. APG Filming/streaking/spreading confounded with citrate/EDTA adjustment Lotion release confounded with PnP/IPA Quat efficacy affected by pH (higher is better), hence citrate/EDTA “buffers” Quat loss to pulp decreases [quat]/[APG] and decreases efficacy

18. General Formulation Principles + Substrate Changes + Lotion/Substrate Interactions = Lotion Iterations Select / Adjust Surfactant(s ) Minimize [surfactant ], pH Adjust, check phase & chemical stability Compatible with Ag+ ions or Mixed Micelles with CHG Lotion – Substrate Interactions Torino benchmark (blended) Tietex iterations Handfeel Method Development Stickiness, Glide, Appearance – Single & Paired Consumer Release Profile Method Dev. Effect of [surfactant] & [solvents] Use conditions – folds, sidedness, etc. Carrier Test Release Profile Team Handfeel Screens Performance Filming/Streaking Mirror/Tile Soil Removal Scrub Tests Learnings on surfactant type, level Antimicrobial Efficacy Screening (Peg test) CHG systems - Effects of- [CHG], Non-ideal mixed micelles Hydrophilic/Hydrophobic Syndetics Pyrrolidone SDC systems Effects of- [SDC], [Chelant] Iterative Adjustment of Surfactant Package Lotion-Substrate Interactions – System Limitations Release of antimicrobial actives from blended substrates Effects of emollients

19. CHG-Only Options That Leverage All Lotion/Substrate Interaction Learnings CHG 1 (Catanionic/Arginine) CHG 2, octyl pyrrolidone CHG 3, APP “Linker” Total VOC = 0.167%, pH=9.5 0.15% Fragrance Lemon fragrance 0.017% pH adjuster MEA 0.010% L-arginine 0.012% Anionic surfactant (-) Coco fatty acid 0.17% C12 Amine oxide 0.12% Nonionic Surfactant (0) C4-C8 Alkyl polypentoside 0.50% Disinfectant (+) CHG 99.02% water %active Material Role Material Octyl pyrrolidone 0.15% Fragrance Lemon fragrance 0.017% pH adjuster MEA 0.057% Wetting Agent 0.06% C12 Amine oxide 0.24% Nonionic Surfactant (0) C4-C8 Alkyl polypentoside 0.50% Disinfectant (+) CHG 99.02% water %active Material Role Material 0.15% Fragrance Lemon fragrance 0.017% pH adjuster MEA 0.06% C12 Amine oxide 0.24% Nonionic Surfactant (0) C4-C8 Alkyl polypentoside 0.50% Disinfectant (+) CHG 99.02% Water %active Material Role Material

22. Learnings from Handfeel Evaluations – CHG Systems CHG Formulation 1, 2 and 3 vs. Benchmark lotion CDW on Tietex Summary of results B = Benchmark = CDW – Tietex Handfeel = function of [Hydrophobicity of surfactant package (-), pH (neutral +), solvent MEA (-), phase transition during drying (-)] CHG 1 and 2: 50% panel do not see any difference. The other 50% notices that CHG 1 is foamier, wetter and stickier than benchmark; CHG 2 leaves less residue on hand than benchmark; stickier when dry CHG 3: 70% panel do not see difference in immediate residue on hand and residue after dry. The rest of panel B is sticker, leaves more residue. Lower CHG level: B is stickier Emollient: Cromollient SCE Salinity scan: a hydrophobic oil Phase compatibility with CHG formulation  okay But harmful to micro efficacy  No compelling reason to add Cromollient Implications for Lotion Formulation Need a balance between surfactant hydrophobicity, pH, etc. Careful with emollient / moisturizer

23. Learnings from Handfeel Evaluations – CHG Systems Cromollient SCE (emollient) – Performance does not justify use Detrimental to antimicrobial efficacy of CHG – despite claims (Croda) and low use level

24. Carrier Test Lotion Release Profiles – CHG Systems Hydrophobicity of surfactant package / surfactant Conc. are the keys to lotion release. CHG on Blended Substrates – loading ratio = 4.3 CHG alone does not exhibit surfactant properties Addition of surfactant / polymer to CHG produces crescent lotion release of similar lotion release Lotion release is indifferent to surfactant species and pH Wide range of CHG/ surfactant blends give similar profiles Slight effect of surfactant blend hydrophobicity can’t be used to practically increase last 5 slides CHG on Synthetic Substrates – loading ratio = 5.31 Increasing loading ratio: Total lotion release α loading ratio significantly increases release on first / second slides helps lotion release on last 5 slides

26. Cleaning Performance Learnings - CHG CDW – Tietex performs eigher parity or superior to CDW –Torino on all soils. The web texture on the cleaning side of Tietex enhances cleaning performance of CDW, especially on KG LL  Communicate with consumer Lotion’s determining factor: Surfactant package  Hydrophobic excel hydrophilic ones Significance of cleaning vs. micro vs. filming and streaking ? CHG formulas vs. CDW – Torino: CHG formulas vs. CDW – Tietex: CDW – Tietex performs eigher parity or superior to CDW –Torino on all soils. The web texture on the cleaning side of Tietex enhances cleaning performance of CDW, especially on KG LL  Communicate with consumer Lotion’s determining factor: Surfactant package  Hydrophobic excel hydrophilic ones Significance of cleaning vs. micro vs. filming and streaking ? CHG formulas vs. CDW – Torino: CHG formulas vs. CDW – Tietex: CHG 3 CHG 2 CHG 1 KGLL ASTM BSLL GPS LL vs. Torino CHG 3 CHG 2 CHG 1 KGLL ASTM BSLL GPS LL vs. Tietex

29. SDC Options That Leverage All Lotion/Substrate Interaction Learnings SDC - 4 Total VOC = 0.45%, pH=8.5 SDC - 5 SDC - 6 Total VOC = 1.12%, pH=10.5 Total VOC = 1.12%, pH=10.5 0.15% Fragrance Lemon fragrance to balance DI water 0.97% Chelating agent MEA 0.30% Surfactant C 12 Amine Oxide 30ppm silver Disinfectant SDC % active Material Role Material 0.15% Fragrance Lemon fragrance to balance DI water 0.97% Chelating agent MEA 0.12% Surfactant C 12 Amine Oxide 30ppm silver Disinfectant SDC % active Material Role Material 0.15% Fragrance Lemon fragrance to balance DI water 0.3% Chelating agent MEA 0.12% Surfactant C 12 Amine Oxide 30ppm silver Disinfectant SDC % active Material Role Material

34. Overall optimization grid for AmmonyxLO / MEA system Increase improves parameter Decrease improves parameter Optimization lever 5-30 ppm No effect No effect SDC 0.3-0.5 wt% No effect ? No effect MEA 0.12-0.3 wt% No effect ? C 12 Amine Oxide Range to Explore Filming streaking Hands feel Lotion Release Micro efficacy Ag + stability Fragrance Solub. Component

37. Samples used for micro tests 0.96% MEA 0.96% MEA 0.96% MEA Chelant 10.5 9.38 10.5 pH 2% Glucopon 425N 30ppm silver SDC-3 2% C 12 Amine Oxide 90ppm silver SDC-2 30ppm silver Biocide 2% C 12 Amine Oxide SDC-1 Surfactant Name

38. Performance of CHG lotions vs. benchmarks Vs. CDW – Torino Vs. CDW – Tietex Formulation costs What do the multiple boxes mean? Different bugs in different tests? CHG 3 CHG 2 CHG 1 Cleaning Filming / streaking / smearing Micro-efficacy CHG 3 CHG 2 CHG 1 Handfeel Clean ing Filming / streaking / smearing Micro-efficacy Gold > benchmark Green = benchmark Yellow < benchmark Red << benchmark 10.21 10.44 11.74 12.88 Total, $/100lb CHG 74% APP 13% Fragrance 11% 3.75 6.46 (10%+) CHG 3 CHG 72% APP 13% Fragrance 10% 3.75 6.69 (14%+) CHG 2 CHG 76% Fragrance 11% APP 7% 5.40 6.34 (8%+) CHG 1 APG 28% PnP 25% IPA 17% 7.00 5.88 CDW Major contributor Compounding fee, $/100lb Raw material cost, $/100lb Formula

39. Lotion Release Project Quarter Daniela Fritter May 2010

53. Microefficacy The Approach

56. Method Review: Zones Zone 1 Zone 3 Zone 2 Zone 1: poor performer, low variability Zone 2: moderate performer, high variability Zone 3: good performer, low variability Zones defined through statistical evaluation Provide relative performance at a single contact time Does not address delivery…drying…mechanical

57. Method Review: Time Study See how actives/formulas perform at different time points: Kinetics Does this formula have efficacy at any time point? Does not provide contact time for external tests

60. Microefficacy The Results

62. SDC troubleshooting Performed multiple in house micro efficacy assessments. Compiled all SDC historical data and performed a root cause analysis Next steps: Perform external testing Inconsistent results from test to test with benchmark. Unable to determine if test performed as expected. Issue identified as variability across Baldy recipes depending on formulator. Next steps: Work solely with SAP Baldy recipe. For future testing ensure benchmark is always made as per SAP and can be made reproducibly. Baldy/Benchmark performance Large variability depending on Staph origin, maintenance and age. Other actives (Baldy, Axen 30) do not display same level of sensitivity to these factors Next steps identified: Re-evaluate micro efficacy using fresh ATCC Staph, examine the effect of media and Staph growth on micro efficacy, build knowledge around SDC-Staph interaction/mechanism. Staph source and growth SDC containing Axen 30 replicated its strong external performance internally. Proof that some SDC formulations can be screened with peg Axen 30 performance In house SDC formulation performs well against Pseudomonas-lets see if this replicated externally. Pseudomonas efficacy Different neutralizers did alter micro efficacy but overall had a limited effect. Neutralization Compositions are stable, fresh samples did not improve micro efficacy Sample stability No difference in efficacy if samples stored in Nalgene or glass Sample storage

63. External Lotion Testing - SDC SDC vs. Staph-poor performer SDC vs. Pseudo-strong performer SDC efficacious against Rhinovirus SDC stronger Trich performer relative to Baldy Biggest hurdle SDC formulations is Staph. Peg predicted external results 2.17 2.07 1.07 Rep #2 2.18 1.17 0.09 Rep #1 >3 >3 >3 6/30 4/30 7/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 30ppm SDC, 0.96% MEA, 2% Glucopon 425N 2.31 1.26 1.04 Rep #2 2.39 2.18 1.17 Rep #1 >3 >3 >3 4/30 2/30 12/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 90ppm SDC, 0.96% MEA, 2% Amine oxide 2.44 1.13 0.02 Rep #2 2.21 1.01 -0.04 Rep #1 >3 >3 >3 2/30 11/30 9/30 30/30 30/30 30/30 30ppm SDC, 0.96% MEA, 2% amine oxide 1.21 1.09 1.04 Rep #2 1.15 1.26 1.12 Rep #1 >2.5 >2.5 >2.5 3/30 5/30 10/30 4/30 8/30 22/30 Baldy SAP 3 min 2 min 1 min 3 min 2 min 1 min 3 min 2 min 1 min 3 min 2 min 1 min Trichophyton Log reduction Rhinovirus Log Reduction Pseudomonas Staph

69. External Lotion Testing- CHG Staph Pseudo Rhinovirus Log10 Reduction Trichophyton Log10 Reduction CHG vs. Bacteria – strong performer CHG vs. Trich – poor performer. Biggest hurdle CHG-1&3 weaker performers vs. Baldy 1.19 0.96 -0.06 Rep #2 1.1 0.96 0.18 Rep #1 1.75 1.45 1.45 6/30 4/30 9/30 2/30 6/30 7/30 CHG-3 1.26 0.94 0.04 Rep #2 1.27 0.77 0.05 Rep #1 2.13 1.75 1.75 2/30 5/30 7/30 0/30 2/30 7/30 CHG-2 1.24 1.12 1.06 Rep #2 1.27 1 0.98 Rep #1 1.75 1.75 1.75 5/30 5/30 11/30 4/30 5/30 27/30 CHG-1 1.21 1.09 1.04 Rep #2 1.15 1.26 1.12 Rep #1 >2.5 >2.5 >2.5 3/30 5/30 10/30 4/30 8/30 22/30 Baldy SAP 3 min 2 min 1 min 3 min 2 min 1 min 3 min 2 min 1 min 3 min 2 min 1 min

70. Squozate data- CHG Against Staph , have some optimized CHG-Tietex squozates with improved performance over Baldy-Torino, and even Baldy-Tietex 46.15 Tietex CHG-3 15.94 Tietex CHG-2 13.44 Tietex CHG-1 28.13 Tietex Baldy 100.00 Torino Baldy % Positive Substrate Lotion Squozate of:

85. Lotion IP #1- New Case Open for Future Wipes Art (and extends Green Works art) Existing CLX art (US 6,841,527) – Covers quats, PHMB, CHG with certain solvents/ salts for quat release (covers Baldy) Quarter output on CHG = “Natural Disinfecting Cleaners” – 680.16D – filed 3/4/2010 Composition of matter claim structure builds from “Consisting essentially of …” to “Comprising .. “ (successful in other GW art) Disclaims certain polymers, iodine, sugar and aromatic alcohols, Ag , Zn, Cu, phenoxyethanol, triclosan, PCMX combinations with CHG. CIP of US 7,608,573 & US 7,629,305 = “Syndetics” art for GW Laundry Detergent Teaches – Wipes lotions, sprays with CHG (best aesthetics) or Quats as actives Dual use hand/surface sanitizer formulations!

86. Lotion IP #2 – Open Case on SDC Extends Opportunities for Future Wipes Art (not connected to GreenWorks cases) – Publication Expected June, 2010 “ Natural Silver Disinfectant Compositions” 680.48 - filed 12/8/2008 Composition of matter covering Ag+ ions with complexing agents such as MEA, MSG, EDTA. (All claims “comprising”) with pH >6. Teaches - Wipes lotions and sprays. Natural “solvents” optional. Cleaning compositions with surfactants such as amine oxide, APG, alkoxylated amine, sarcosinate, betaines, SLS, MES, and others. Combinations with essential oils. Synergies of chelating agents for chloride tolerance of formulations. Seeks to avoid Pure Bioscience art with pH restrictions, but teaches use of SDC. Disclaims Ag “nanoparticles”, “colloidal Ag”, combinations of Ag+ ions with other “non-natural” germicides like quats, biguanides, etc.

87. Where are we? F/S Cleaning Hand Feel Microefficacy CHG + Tietex… Baldy + Tietex

89. Appendix

92. Substrate NPD Minimal cost Fulfill mfg / converting / other supply chain requirements Be able to hold lotion that could be radically different in terms of viscosity and other properties Appealing visual and touch Improve micro efficacy consistency Fulfill all safety requirements Maintain overall perception with 100% synthetic or 100% natural, equal to blended CDW Minimize visible residue Be able to “carry” additives that could add weight to substrate Carry lotion Add “weight” using less material Deliver cleaning efficacy Quarter Responsibilities (Traditional + New) Traditional Responsibilities

93. Lotion DRS Feels good to touch on CDW Fulfill all safety requirements Supply supplemental benefits such as moisturizing Minimize visible residue Be able to “carry” additives that could add weight to substrate Carry active & fragrance Add “weight” to substrate Deliver cleaning efficacy Quarter Responsibilities (Traditional + New) Traditional Responsibilities

94. Active Jag Robust antimicrobial efficacy– passes more consistently Robust antimicrobial efficacy– passes more consistently Sensitive to microbial resistance issues Release high concentrations of active in a biologically functional form Does not impact aesthetics OR impacts favorably Does not impact aesthetics Enhanced safety (eye, skin) Must be safe enough Kills microorganisms within 4 minutes Quarter Responsibilities (Traditional + New) Traditional Responsibilities

102. Effect of substrate on lotion release profile more pronounced upturn in curve at lower saturation capacity  smaller region 1 / substrate less able to hold lotion externally Basis Max Weight Loading (gsm) Ratio 45 7.6x 30 10.4x 35 9.6x 33 9.7x 35 16.0x 28 10.6x