fbpx
Wikipedia

Soap substitute

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. ()
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Soap substitute"news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
(May 2020) ()
The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
Find sources: "Soap substitute"news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR
(February 2020) ()
()

Traditionally, soap has been made from animal or plant derived fats and has been used by humans for cleaning purposes for several thousand years. Soap is not harmful to human health but, like any natural or unnatural surfactant, it does have the potential to cause environmental harm by forming a surface film that impedes the diffusion of oxygen into the water if it is added to an aquatic environment faster than it can biodegrade.

Many washing agents today, from laundry and dish detergents to body wash and shampoos, are technically not soap, but synthetic detergents. They also often contain compounds that have been found to be harmful to human and wildlife health as well as to the environment. In this context, “Soap Substitutes” refers to cleansing products that significantly reduce or eliminate some or all of the components that have the potential to cause human or environmental harm. Throughout the last 100 years many changes have been made to the formulas of cleansing agents for these purposes, but the process of developing effective substitute detergent formulations that are completely harmless to humans and the environment is ongoing.

This article outlines some of the problems and concerns about synthetic surfactant based cleaning products since their popularization in the early 20th century as well as how these issues have been addressed, both technologically and legislatively.[citation needed]

Contents

Petroleum derived synthetic detergents became popular in the United States during World War 2 due to shortages of animal and plant derived fats and because they worked better when cleaning with hard water (water with a high concentration of dissolved minerals) than traditional soap. By the 1950s synthetic detergents were more commonly used than traditional soap in the United States. Many of the first synthetic detergents were made from compounds that contained branched carbon chains, which persist in the environment for far longer than their linear counterparts. Consequently, this led to the buildup of these foamy surfactants in water treatment plants as well as the formation of large flotillas of foam in waterways. Public pressure led the US and Europe to ban the use of alkyl benzene sulphonate (ABS) and other branched chain surfactants in 1965.

This sparked great interest in the development of synthetic detergents that biodegrade into environmentally friendly byproducts. Such interest has led to the development of the linear carbon chain compounds commonly used today, such as sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate/ sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLS/SLES). While these surfactants are still derived from petroleum, a nonrenewable resource, and have been shown to cause mild to moderate irritation of skin, they biodegrade significantly faster, and this has led to a drastic reduction in surfactant pollution of waterways. While the environmental friendliness of the biodegration byproducts of the surfactants most commonly used today varies, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) monitors and regulates claims made by companies about the environmental friendliness and potential toxicity of the biodegration byproducts of their cleansing products.

There have been continued efforts to develop surfactants that are milder to humans and pose less risk to the environment. An emerging substitute for synthetic petroleum derived surfactants such as SDS are Alkyl polyglycosides (APGs). They are derived from plant based substances such as palm oil or wheat and exposure of APGs to skin and eyes is considerably safer than their petroleum derived counterparts. Studies have shown APG use, even in large quantities, pose no measurable environmental risk, while others report that more research is needed to confirm the true environmental impact of APGs. Although the use of APG surfactants currently have some disadvantages, such as the relatively high cost of production and uncertainties about the potential environmental impact of large scale use, further research into the development of APG surfactants shows a promising path to the creation of a naturally derived, non-toxic and environmentally friendly substitute for petroleum derived surfactants that is inexpensive, equally effective, and mass producible.

Another environmental issue with synthetic detergents is the addition of phosphates to these cleaning products. Phosphates are added to detergent as tripolyphosphate or as sodium/potassium phosphate. Phosphates interact with other ions in solution, like Calcium and Magnesium, to improve the washing ability of the detergent, especially when washing with hard water. Phosphates have also been shown to aid in killing germs when used in washing. However, most wastewater treatment processes generally remove only a small fraction of the phosphate in the water, and subsequently large quantities are released into waterways.

When large quantities of phosphates accumulate in waterways, it causes a bloom in algae and a subsequent lack of oxygen in the water, which severely damages the aquatic ecosystem. This process is called “eutrophication”. In 1959 detergents contained 7-12% phosphate by weight, by 1969 this increased to 15-17% by weight. It is believed that during its peak use in the 1970s, half of all phosphates released by human activity was from detergents.

Newfound knowledge of eutrophication from scientific research in the 1940s and 1950s along with the occurrence of massive algal blooms during the 1960s-1970s in waterways like Lake Erie led to significant public concern about the increasing pollution in lakes and rivers (6,12). People believed phosphates from detergents to be a major cause. This led to a demand for methods of removal of phosphate from wastewater during the treatment. The first processes designed to remove phosphates from municipal wastewater (for environmental purposes) were implemented in the 1960s.

During this time, two main processes were used; phosphates were removed from the wastewater by either chemical precipitation or through biological mechanisms. Further investment and research into phosphate removal methods led to the development of the modern multiphase biological reactor for removal of phosphorus-containing compounds. Despite the technological advances made in phosphate removal processes, most were designed for use in large water treatment facilities that have advanced monitoring capabilities and expert operating technicians on site. As of 1999, only 7% of municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the United States have the tertiary treatment processes needed to remove greater than 20% of the phosphate from affluent wastewater. Even today, there remains a lack of technologies for phosphate removal in the smaller water treatment facilities found in non-urban areas.

By the early 1970s there was also significant public pressure on the United States government to ban phosphates in detergent cleansing products and congressional hearings on the topic were held. Detergent manufacturers explored the use of other compounds as a potential substitute for phosphates such as nitrile-tri-acetic acid (NTA), gluconic acid, citric acid, and polyelectrolytes. Ultimately, effective detergent formulations using citric acid and polyelectrolytes were developed and in some cases even sold; but they were not a comparable substitute to phosphate containing detergent formulations, either economically or in cleaning ability. While these hearings did not result in any direct regulation of the phosphate content of detergent by the federal government, they were part of the many hearings that led to the Clean Water Act of 1972.

Major soap manufactures resisted an outright ban on phosphates, and in 1970 voluntarily agreed to lower phosphate concentrations in detergents to 8.7%. Although the US federal government has made no legislation banning phosphates in laundry detergent, between 1971 and 1990, most US states independently banned or strictly limited it. In 1994, the Soap and Detergent Association (today known as the American Cleaning Institute (ACI)), a coalition representing most major detergent manufactures, voluntarily agreed to ban phosphates in consumer laundry detergents. Notably, this ban did not include dish detergents. Procter and Gamble, a detergent industry giant and ACI member, did not remove phosphates from all of their brands of laundry detergent (Tide, Ariel, Ace, and Bounty) until 2016.

By 2010, many US states and municipalities also enacted regulations on the use of phosphates in dishwashing detergent. At that time, The American Cleaning Institute announced a voluntary ban on the use of phosphates in all dish detergents. Despite this, Procter & Gamble’s sustainability reports only report the complete removal of phosphates from its Fairy and Dreft brand dish detergent; and these changes were not enacted until 2017.

The European Union took a different path than the United States. They banned the use of phosphates in consumer laundry and dish detergents in 2014 and 2017 respectively. Like the regulations enacted by many US states, these laws did not apply to the use of phosphates in commercial products.

Although there are a number of exceptions to the laws and bans that allow phosphate use in detergent products and it is not entirely clear of the degree in which detergent manufacturers complied with their voluntary bans, there has been a significant reduction in phosphate use in detergent products. Today, formulations with zeolites, polycarboxylates, citric acid, and sodium bicarbonate are among the most effective and popular substitutes for phosphates in detergent cleaning products. This, along with improved water treatment processes, has greatly contributed to a significant reduction in the amount of phosphate from detergent in waterways. These efforts have resulted in an overall reduction of the phosphate concentration in US waterways and some of the ecosystems most effected by eutrophication, such as Lake Erie, to show drastic improvement.

There are also opponents to eliminating phosphates in detergent. There are widespread claims that no effective substitute for phosphate has been developed, as many people report that when washing with phosphate free dish detergents, the dishes are left with a white film or spots on them. Opponents to bans of phosphate in dish detergents argue that efforts should be focused on developing an effective method of removal during the treatment process, not banning the product itself; which is both useful and unrivaled by any substitute. Additionally, there are arguments that phosphate is not the primary cause of eutrophication in coastal waters, and therefore phosphorus should not be regulated in these regions. This argument is based upon reports that the nitrogen content of coastal waters is limited (nitrogen is required for algal growth), therefore, reduction in phosphate use would have little effect on the amount of algae that can grow in these coastal areas.

There have been more recent efforts to increase the environmental sustainability of laundry and dish detergents via the addition of enzymes that break down dirt and grease. Adding enzymes significantly reduces the amount of detergent needed to wash, and subsequently reduces the amount of surfactant being put into waterways. Enzymes that have been designed to work at lower temperatures can also significantly reduce the amount of energy needed to wash clothes. For example, when using a top-load washer, switching from using “hot/warm” or “warm/warm” cycle to a “cold/cold” cycle uses 15 times and 11.6 times less energy, respectively. This technology has already been implemented by companies like Tide, in its Cold Water Clean Laundry Detergent.

Automatic dishwashing detergent is poisonous if swallowed. Formaldehyde, while not intentionally added, has also been found in some detergent cleansing products. Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), exposure to formaldehyde at low levels from inhalation increases one’s risk of cancer and the EPA classifies formaldehyde as a B1 probable carcinogen.

There has also been recent concern about potential environmental and health risks associated with an antimicrobial agent called Triclosan. Triclosan is found in so many consumer products that it is believed that 75% of all Americans have been exposed to it. While research on the health and environmental risks of Triclosan are far from complete, studies have shown it is dermally absorbed and retained in the body and it has also been shown to disrupt biological processes. Investigations of the chemical properties of Triclosan have revealed it has the potential to accumulate and persist in the environment. In 2016, the FDA banned the marketing of Triclosan, along with several other antimicrobial agents, in antibacterial detergent products because “manufactures did not demonstrate that the ingredients are both safe for long-term daily use and more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections”. In the US, Triclosan is still used in toothpaste, mouthwash, hand sanitizer, and surgical soaps. In 2017, the European Union banned Triclosan from all personal hygiene products.

Even though the fragrances in scented cleaning products have been shown to release volatile and potentially harmful compounds into the air, fragrance ingredients are not required to be listed by manufactures. Artificial fragrances can cause sensitivity, allergies, and rashes and some of these chemicals are known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors.

There are still many compounds that are potentially damaging to human and environmental health found in many detergent cleaning products; and just because a product is labeled as “green” does not mean it is safe. If people are concerned about being exposed to harmful compounds through detergent products, it is best to do their own research on how to decide which product is best for them using a reliable source, such as the EPA’s “Safer Choice” program, which provides consumers with safety information of products like dish, laundry, and hand detergents.

There are many small companies that offer soaps claimed to be made the traditional way (from all natural fats and contain no harmful additives, such as Rocky Mountain Soap Co. and Dr. Squatch Soap Co). There are also companies that claim to sell all natural and additive free laundry soaps, but many of these soaps still contain an additive called borax, which has been shown to cause irritation to skin, eyes, and lungs as well as reproductive and kidney damage if swallowed or inhaled.

Additionally, one can ensure their soap is all natural and contains no potentially harmful additives by making their own soap at home. There are many resources for instructions on making soap at home, and the only required ingredients are plant or animal fat, water, and lye (sodium hydroxide). It is also noteworthy that there are many homemade products that are highly efficient at cleaning, such as hot water, vinegar, baking soda, lemon juice, salt, coffee powder, ascorbic acid, and grapefruit extract.

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(February 2020) ()

  1. "How do detergents and soaps work?". Explain that Stuff. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  2. Kogawa, Ana Carolina; Cernic, Beatriz Gamberini; do Couto, Leandro Giovanni Domingos; Salgado, Hérida Regina Nunes (2017). "Synthetic detergents: 100 years of history". Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal. 25 (6): 934–938. doi:10.1016/j.jsps.2017.02.006. PMC5605839. PMID 28951681.
  3. Nutrition, Center for Food Safety and Applied (2020-02-04). "Frequently Asked Questions on Soap". FDA.
  4. Warne, M.St.J.; Schifko, A.D. (October 1999). "Toxicity of Laundry Detergent Components to a Freshwater Cladoceran and Their Contribution to Detergent Toxicity". Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 44 (2): 196–206. doi:10.1006/eesa.1999.1824. PMID 10571467.
  5. Panico, A; Serio, F; Bagordo, F; Grassi, T; Idolo, A; DE Giorgi, M; Guido, M; Congedo, M; DE Donno, A (March 2019). "Skin safety and health prevention: an overview of chemicals in cosmetic products". Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene. 60 (1): E50–E57. doi:10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2019.60.1.1080. PMC6477564. PMID 31041411.
  6. "HISTORICAL PERSPECITVE OF THE PHOSPHATE DETERGENT CONFLICT". www.intractableconflict.org. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  7. "soap and detergent". Britannica Kids. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  8. "7 Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate". Journal of the American College of Toxicology. 2 (7): 127–181. 5 September 2016. doi:10.3109/10915818309142005.
  9. US EPA, OCSPP (2015-04-29). "Criteria for Biodegradability Claims on Products Registered under FIFRA". US EPA. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  10. Pantelic, Ivana; Cuckovic, Bojana (2014). "Alkyl Polyglucosides: An emerging class of sugar surfactants". Alkyl Polyglucosides. pp. 1–19. doi:10.1533/9781908818775.1. ISBN 978-1-907568-65-7.
  11. Lokesh, K.; West, C.; Kuylenstierna, J.; Fan, J.; Budarin, V.; Priecel, P.; Lopez-Sanchez, J. A.; Clark, J. (2017). "Environmental impact assessment of wheat straw based alkyl polyglucosides produced using novel chemical approaches". Green Chemistry. 19 (18): 4380–4395. doi:10.1039/C7GC01719G.
  12. "Download Limit Exceeded". citeseerx.ist.psu.edu. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  13. Litke, David. “Review of Phosphorus Control Measures in the United States and Their Effects on Water Quality .” U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 1999, pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri994007/pdf/wri99-4007.pdf
  14. Bunce, Joshua T.; Ndam, Edmond; Ofiteru, Irina D.; Moore, Andrew; Graham, David W. (22 February 2018). "A Review of Phosphorus Removal Technologies and Their Applicability to Small-Scale Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems". Frontiers in Environmental Science. 6. doi:10.3389/fenvs.2018.00008.
  15. "EU Commission to restrict detergent phosphates". Focus on Surfactants. 2007 (7): 2. July 2007. doi:10.1016/s1351-4210(07)70227-5.
  16. Schwartz Davis, Anthony Eleanor (1974). "The Development of Phosphate-Free Heavy Duty Detergents". Environmental Protection agency EPA. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  17. "Slow and Steady Won this Clean Water Race". Clean Water Action. 2010-06-29. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  18. 1. Procter & Gamble. P&G 2014 Sustainability Report Executive Summary. 2015, assets.ctfassets.net/oggad6svuzkv/4YCSy3zemAgC8wqaqKIkMO/5821a7c0bccc236c21138565d87c21f9/2014_Sustainability_Report_Executive_Summary.pdf.
  19. "ISSA STATE PHOSPHATE SURVEY"(PDF). ISSA. 2015.
  20. Johnson, Lisa; Powell, Frona (2015-01-01). Environmental Law. Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-1-305-46492-6.
  21. Procter & Gamble. P&G 2016 Citizenship Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. 2016, assets.ctfassets.net/oggad6svuzkv/61QS8RWs0gSsOm6Ia8g2SI/3b65f627ab7ae725dd6d5d4cce9f89fd/2016_Citizenship_Report_Executive_Summary.pdf.
  22. Procter & Gamble. 2017 P&G Citizenship Report. 2018, downloads.ctfassets.net/oggad6svuzkv/325tJmPxGEWQOgc6eGskKy/b69cb86ada52cfe97e468daadf20b741/2017_Full_Citizenship_Report.pdf.
  23. "Press corner". European Commission - European Commission. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  24. "Detergents shift to greener builders". Focus on Surfactants. 2009 (3): 4. March 2009. doi:10.1016/s1351-4210(09)70082-4.
  25. "Phosphorus and Water". www.usgs.gov. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  26. 1. Bejankiwar, Raj, et al. “Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority | Scientific Findings and Policy Recommendations to Reduce Nutrient Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms.” Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority- Draft Summary Report, 2013, legacyfiles.ijc.org/tinymce/uploaded/Draft%20LEEP-Aug29Final.pdf.
  27. Folsom, James, and Lloyd Oliver. Economic Analysis of Phosphate Control: Detergent Phosphate Limitations vs. Wastewater Treatment . Glassman-Oliver, 1980, www.aciscience.org/docs/Economic%20Analysis%20Phosphate%20Control.pdf.
  28. "Dishes Still Dirty? Blame Phosphate-Free Detergent". NPR.org. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  29. "The use of enzymes in detergents". www1.lsbu.ac.uk. Retrieved2020-05-01.
  30. Petkewich, Rachel (December 2005). "Cold-water laundry detergent is a hot idea". Environmental Science & Technology. 39 (23): 478A. Bibcode:2005EnST...39..478P. doi:10.1021/es0534194.
  31. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pesky Pests and Household Hazards. 2014, www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/lesson2_handout.pdf.
  32. The American Cancer Society medical and editorial content team. “Formaldehyde.” American Cancer Society, 2014, www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/formaldehyde.html.
  33. Formaldehyde. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 June 2019, www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/formaldehyde/.
  34. Formaldehyde-Hazards Report. Environmental Protection Agency EPA, 2000, www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/formaldehyde.pdf.
  35. Dhillon, Gurpreet; Kaur, Surinder; Pulicharla, Rama; Brar, Satinder; Cledón, Maximiliano; Verma, Mausam; Surampalli, Rao (22 May 2015). "Triclosan: Current Status, Occurrence, Environmental Risks and Bioaccumulation Potential". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 12 (5): 5657–5684. doi:10.3390/ijerph120505657. PMC4454990. PMID 26006133.
  36. Weatherly, Lisa M.; Gosse, Julie A. (2017). "Triclosan Exposure, Transformation, and Human Health Effects". Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews. 20 (8): 447–469. doi:10.1080/10937404.2017.1399306. PMC6126357. PMID 29182464.
  37. Commissioner, Office of the. “FDA Issues Final Rule on Safety and Effectiveness of Antibacterial Soaps.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 2016, www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-final-rule-safety-and-effectiveness-antibacterial-soaps.
  38. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION. “COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2016/110 of 27 January 2016 Not Approving Triclosan as an Existing Active Substance for Use in Biocidal Products for Product.” Official Journal of the European Union, 2016, eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016D0110&from=EN.
  39. Steinemann, Anne (18 January 2018). "Fragranced consumer products: sources of emissions, exposures, and health effects in the UK". Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health. 11 (3): 253–258. doi:10.1007/s11869-018-0550-z. hdl:11343/283036.
  40. Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. “Cosmetics Labeling ‘Trade Secret’ Ingredients.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA, 2018, www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-labeling/trade-secret-ingredients.
  41. Dodson, Robin E.; Nishioka, Marcia; Standley, Laurel J.; Perovich, Laura J.; Brody, Julia Green; Rudel, Ruthann A. (2012). "Endocrine Disruptors and Asthma-Associated Chemicals in Consumer Products". Environmental Health Perspectives. 120 (7): 935–943. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104052. PMC3404651. PMID 22398195.
  42. American Lung Association. “Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals.” American Lung Association, 2020, www.lung.org/clean-air/at-home/indoor-air-pollutants/cleaning-supplies-household-chem.
  43. “Safer Choice.” EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, 21 Feb. 2020, www.epa.gov/saferchoice.
  44. "Soaps". www.fs.fed.us. Retrieved2021-08-28.

Soap substitute
Soap substitute Language Watch Edit This article has multiple issues Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page Learn how and when to remove these template messages This article needs additional citations for verification Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed Find sources Soap substitute news newspapers books scholar JSTOR May 2020 Learn how and when to remove this template message The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia s general notability guideline Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention If notability cannot be shown the article is likely to be merged redirected or deleted Find sources Soap substitute news newspapers books scholar JSTOR February 2020 Learn how and when to remove this template message Learn how and when to remove this template message Traditionally soap has been made from animal or plant derived fats and has been used by humans for cleaning purposes for several thousand years 1 Soap is not harmful to human health but like any natural or unnatural surfactant it does have the potential to cause environmental harm by forming a surface film that impedes the diffusion of oxygen into the water if it is added to an aquatic environment faster than it can biodegrade 2 Many washing agents today from laundry and dish detergents to body wash and shampoos are technically not soap but synthetic detergents 3 They also often contain compounds that have been found to be harmful to human and wildlife health as well as to the environment 2 4 5 In this context Soap Substitutes refers to cleansing products that significantly reduce or eliminate some or all of the components that have the potential to cause human or environmental harm Throughout the last 100 years many changes have been made to the formulas of cleansing agents for these purposes but the process of developing effective substitute detergent formulations that are completely harmless to humans and the environment is ongoing This article outlines some of the problems and concerns about synthetic surfactant based cleaning products since their popularization in the early 20th century as well as how these issues have been addressed both technologically and legislatively citation needed Contents 1 Synthetic Surfactants 2 Phosphates in Detergent Products 3 Enzyme Additives 4 Hazardous Additives 5 Informed Choices 6 Soap substitute plants 7 See also 8 ReferencesSynthetic Surfactants EditPetroleum derived synthetic detergents became popular in the United States during World War 2 due to shortages of animal and plant derived fats and because they worked better when cleaning with hard water water with a high concentration of dissolved minerals than traditional soap 6 By the 1950s synthetic detergents were more commonly used than traditional soap in the United States 7 Many of the first synthetic detergents were made from compounds that contained branched carbon chains which persist in the environment for far longer than their linear counterparts 6 Consequently this led to the buildup of these foamy surfactants in water treatment plants as well as the formation of large flotillas of foam in waterways 6 Public pressure led the US and Europe to ban the use of alkyl benzene sulphonate ABS and other branched chain surfactants in 1965 6 This sparked great interest in the development of synthetic detergents that biodegrade into environmentally friendly byproducts Such interest has led to the development of the linear carbon chain compounds commonly used today such as sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate sodium lauryl ether sulfate SLS SLES 6 While these surfactants are still derived from petroleum a nonrenewable resource and have been shown to cause mild to moderate irritation of skin they biodegrade significantly faster and this has led to a drastic reduction in surfactant pollution of waterways 6 8 While the environmental friendliness of the biodegration byproducts of the surfactants most commonly used today varies the United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA monitors and regulates claims made by companies about the environmental friendliness and potential toxicity of the biodegration byproducts of their cleansing products 6 9 There have been continued efforts to develop surfactants that are milder to humans and pose less risk to the environment An emerging substitute for synthetic petroleum derived surfactants such as SDS are Alkyl polyglycosides APGs 10 11 They are derived from plant based substances such as palm oil or wheat and exposure of APGs to skin and eyes is considerably safer than their petroleum derived counterparts 10 11 Studies have shown APG use even in large quantities pose no measurable environmental risk while others report that more research is needed to confirm the true environmental impact of APGs 11 Although the use of APG surfactants currently have some disadvantages such as the relatively high cost of production and uncertainties about the potential environmental impact of large scale use further research into the development of APG surfactants shows a promising path to the creation of a naturally derived non toxic and environmentally friendly substitute for petroleum derived surfactants that is inexpensive equally effective and mass producible 10 11 Phosphates in Detergent Products EditAnother environmental issue with synthetic detergents is the addition of phosphates to these cleaning products Phosphates are added to detergent as tripolyphosphate or as sodium potassium phosphate 2 6 Phosphates interact with other ions in solution like Calcium and Magnesium to improve the washing ability of the detergent especially when washing with hard water 2 Phosphates have also been shown to aid in killing germs when used in washing 6 However most wastewater treatment processes generally remove only a small fraction of the phosphate in the water and subsequently large quantities are released into waterways 6 When large quantities of phosphates accumulate in waterways it causes a bloom in algae and a subsequent lack of oxygen in the water which severely damages the aquatic ecosystem This process is called eutrophication 2 6 In 1959 detergents contained 7 12 phosphate by weight by 1969 this increased to 15 17 by weight 6 It is believed that during its peak use in the 1970s half of all phosphates released by human activity was from detergents 6 Newfound knowledge of eutrophication from scientific research in the 1940s and 1950s along with the occurrence of massive algal blooms during the 1960s 1970s in waterways like Lake Erie led to significant public concern about the increasing pollution in lakes and rivers 6 12 6 12 People believed phosphates from detergents to be a major cause 6 This led to a demand for methods of removal of phosphate from wastewater during the treatment 6 12 The first processes designed to remove phosphates from municipal wastewater for environmental purposes were implemented in the 1960s 12 During this time two main processes were used phosphates were removed from the wastewater by either chemical precipitation or through biological mechanisms 12 Further investment and research into phosphate removal methods led to the development of the modern multiphase biological reactor for removal of phosphorus containing compounds 12 13 Despite the technological advances made in phosphate removal processes most were designed for use in large water treatment facilities that have advanced monitoring capabilities and expert operating technicians on site 13 As of 1999 only 7 of municipal wastewater treatment facilities in the United States have the tertiary treatment processes needed to remove greater than 20 of the phosphate from affluent wastewater 13 Even today there remains a lack of technologies for phosphate removal in the smaller water treatment facilities found in non urban areas 14 By the early 1970s there was also significant public pressure on the United States government to ban phosphates in detergent cleansing products and congressional hearings on the topic were held 15 Detergent manufacturers explored the use of other compounds as a potential substitute for phosphates such as nitrile tri acetic acid NTA gluconic acid citric acid and polyelectrolytes 15 Ultimately effective detergent formulations using citric acid and polyelectrolytes were developed and in some cases even sold but they were not a comparable substitute to phosphate containing detergent formulations either economically or in cleaning ability 15 16 While these hearings did not result in any direct regulation of the phosphate content of detergent by the federal government they were part of the many hearings that led to the Clean Water Act of 1972 15 17 Major soap manufactures resisted an outright ban on phosphates and in 1970 voluntarily agreed to lower phosphate concentrations in detergents to 8 7 6 Although the US federal government has made no legislation banning phosphates in laundry detergent between 1971 and 1990 most US states independently banned or strictly limited it 13 In 1994 the Soap and Detergent Association today known as the American Cleaning Institute ACI a coalition representing most major detergent manufactures voluntarily agreed to ban phosphates in consumer laundry detergents 13 Notably this ban did not include dish detergents 13 Procter and Gamble a detergent industry giant and ACI member did not remove phosphates from all of their brands of laundry detergent Tide Ariel Ace and Bounty until 2016 18 By 2010 many US states and municipalities also enacted regulations on the use of phosphates in dishwashing detergent 19 At that time The American Cleaning Institute announced a voluntary ban on the use of phosphates in all dish detergents 20 Despite this Procter amp Gamble s sustainability reports only report the complete removal of phosphates from its Fairy and Dreft brand dish detergent and these changes were not enacted until 2017 21 22 The European Union took a different path than the United States They banned the use of phosphates in consumer laundry and dish detergents in 2014 and 2017 respectively 23 Like the regulations enacted by many US states these laws did not apply to the use of phosphates in commercial products 23 Although there are a number of exceptions to the laws and bans that allow phosphate use in detergent products 19 and it is not entirely clear of the degree in which detergent manufacturers complied with their voluntary bans there has been a significant reduction in phosphate use in detergent products 13 Today formulations with zeolites polycarboxylates citric acid and sodium bicarbonate are among the most effective and popular substitutes for phosphates in detergent cleaning products 24 This along with improved water treatment processes has greatly contributed to a significant reduction in the amount of phosphate from detergent in waterways These efforts have resulted in an overall reduction of the phosphate concentration in US waterways and some of the ecosystems most effected by eutrophication such as Lake Erie to show drastic improvement 13 25 26 There are also opponents to eliminating phosphates in detergent 6 27 28 There are widespread claims that no effective substitute for phosphate has been developed as many people report that when washing with phosphate free dish detergents the dishes are left with a white film or spots on them 28 Opponents to bans of phosphate in dish detergents argue that efforts should be focused on developing an effective method of removal during the treatment process not banning the product itself which is both useful and unrivaled by any substitute Additionally there are arguments that phosphate is not the primary cause of eutrophication in coastal waters and therefore phosphorus should not be regulated in these regions This argument is based upon reports that the nitrogen content of coastal waters is limited nitrogen is required for algal growth therefore reduction in phosphate use would have little effect on the amount of algae that can grow in these coastal areas 6 Enzyme Additives EditThere have been more recent efforts to increase the environmental sustainability of laundry and dish detergents via the addition of enzymes that break down dirt and grease Adding enzymes significantly reduces the amount of detergent needed to wash and subsequently reduces the amount of surfactant being put into waterways 1 Enzymes that have been designed to work at lower temperatures can also significantly reduce the amount of energy needed to wash clothes 1 29 For example when using a top load washer switching from using hot warm or warm warm cycle to a cold cold cycle uses 15 times and 11 6 times less energy respectively This technology has already been implemented by companies like Tide in its Cold Water Clean Laundry Detergent 30 Hazardous Additives EditAutomatic dishwashing detergent is poisonous if swallowed 31 Formaldehyde while not intentionally added has also been found in some detergent cleansing products 32 Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CDC exposure to formaldehyde at low levels from inhalation increases one s risk of cancer and the EPA classifies formaldehyde as a B1 probable carcinogen 33 34 There has also been recent concern about potential environmental and health risks associated with an antimicrobial agent called Triclosan 35 Triclosan is found in so many consumer products that it is believed that 75 of all Americans have been exposed to it 36 While research on the health and environmental risks of Triclosan are far from complete studies have shown it is dermally absorbed and retained in the body and it has also been shown to disrupt biological processes 36 Investigations of the chemical properties of Triclosan have revealed it has the potential to accumulate and persist in the environment 35 In 2016 the FDA banned the marketing of Triclosan along with several other antimicrobial agents in antibacterial detergent products because manufactures did not demonstrate that the ingredients are both safe for long term daily use and more effective than plain soap and water in preventing illness and the spread of certain infections 37 In the US Triclosan is still used in toothpaste mouthwash hand sanitizer and surgical soaps 36 In 2017 the European Union banned Triclosan from all personal hygiene products 38 Even though the fragrances in scented cleaning products have been shown to release volatile and potentially harmful compounds into the air fragrance ingredients are not required to be listed by manufactures 39 40 Artificial fragrances can cause sensitivity allergies and rashes and some of these chemicals are known carcinogens and endocrine disruptors 41 Informed Choices EditThere are still many compounds that are potentially damaging to human and environmental health found in many detergent cleaning products and just because a product is labeled as green does not mean it is safe 42 If people are concerned about being exposed to harmful compounds through detergent products it is best to do their own research on how to decide which product is best for them using a reliable source such as the EPA s Safer Choice program which provides consumers with safety information of products like dish laundry and hand detergents 42 43 There are many small companies that offer soaps claimed to be made the traditional way from all natural fats and contain no harmful additives such as Rocky Mountain Soap Co and Dr Squatch Soap Co There are also companies that claim to sell all natural and additive free laundry soaps but many of these soaps still contain an additive called borax which has been shown to cause irritation to skin eyes and lungs as well as reproductive and kidney damage if swallowed or inhaled Additionally one can ensure their soap is all natural and contains no potentially harmful additives by making their own soap at home There are many resources for instructions on making soap at home and the only required ingredients are plant or animal fat water and lye sodium hydroxide It is also noteworthy that there are many homemade products that are highly efficient at cleaning such as hot water vinegar baking soda lemon juice salt coffee powder ascorbic acid and grapefruit extract 2 Soap substitute plants EditThis section does not cite any sources Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources Unsourced material may be challenged and removed February 2020 Learn how and when to remove this template message The soap plant group amole root soap plant root soaproot bulb Guaiac leaves Papaya leaves Quillaia bark Red campion root and leaves Atriplex root Sapindus fruit Passiflora foetida Alphitonia excelsa Soap pod fruit various acacias Mojave yucca root Red Quinoa Soapwort root Our Lord s Candle root Wild gourd fruit Cucurbita foetidissima Coralberry plant Yucca plant 44 See also EditGreen cleaning Vegan soapReferences Edit a b c How do detergents and soaps work Explain that Stuff Retrieved 2020 05 01 a b c d e f Kogawa Ana Carolina Cernic Beatriz Gamberini do Couto Leandro Giovanni Domingos Salgado Herida Regina Nunes 2017 Synthetic detergents 100 years of history Saudi Pharmaceutical Journal 25 6 934 938 doi 10 1016 j jsps 2017 02 006 PMC 5605839 PMID 28951681 Nutrition Center for Food Safety and Applied 2020 02 04 Frequently Asked Questions on Soap FDA Warne M St J Schifko A D October 1999 Toxicity of Laundry Detergent Components to a Freshwater Cladoceran and Their Contribution to Detergent Toxicity Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 44 2 196 206 doi 10 1006 eesa 1999 1824 PMID 10571467 Panico A Serio F Bagordo F Grassi T Idolo A DE Giorgi M Guido M Congedo M DE Donno A March 2019 Skin safety and health prevention an overview of chemicals in cosmetic products Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene 60 1 E50 E57 doi 10 15167 2421 4248 jpmh2019 60 1 1080 PMC 6477564 PMID 31041411 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s HISTORICAL PERSPECITVE OF THE PHOSPHATE DETERGENT CONFLICT www intractableconflict org Retrieved 2020 05 01 soap and detergent Britannica Kids Retrieved 2020 05 01 7 Final Report on the Safety Assessment of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate Journal of the American College of Toxicology 2 7 127 181 5 September 2016 doi 10 3109 10915818309142005 US EPA OCSPP 2015 04 29 Criteria for Biodegradability Claims on Products Registered under FIFRA US EPA Retrieved 2020 05 01 a b c Pantelic Ivana Cuckovic Bojana 2014 Alkyl Polyglucosides An emerging class of sugar surfactants Alkyl Polyglucosides pp 1 19 doi 10 1533 9781908818775 1 ISBN 978 1 907568 65 7 a b c d Lokesh K West C Kuylenstierna J Fan J Budarin V Priecel P Lopez Sanchez J A Clark J 2017 Environmental impact assessment of wheat straw based alkyl polyglucosides produced using novel chemical approaches Green Chemistry 19 18 4380 4395 doi 10 1039 C7GC01719G a b c d e Download Limit Exceeded citeseerx ist psu edu Retrieved 2020 05 01 a b c d e f g h Litke David Review of Phosphorus Control Measures in the United States and Their Effects on Water Quality U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water Resources Investigations Report U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1999 pubs usgs gov wri wri994007 pdf wri99 4007 pdf Bunce Joshua T Ndam Edmond Ofiteru Irina D Moore Andrew Graham David W 22 February 2018 A Review of Phosphorus Removal Technologies and Their Applicability to Small Scale Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems Frontiers in Environmental Science 6 doi 10 3389 fenvs 2018 00008 a b c d EU Commission to restrict detergent phosphates Focus on Surfactants 2007 7 2 July 2007 doi 10 1016 s1351 4210 07 70227 5 Schwartz Davis Anthony Eleanor 1974 The Development of Phosphate Free Heavy Duty Detergents Environmental Protection agency EPA Retrieved 2020 05 01 Slow and Steady Won this Clean Water Race Clean Water Action 2010 06 29 Retrieved 2020 05 01 1 Procter amp Gamble P amp G 2014 Sustainability Report Executive Summary 2015 assets ctfassets net oggad6svuzkv 4YCSy3zemAgC8wqaqKIkMO 5821a7c0bccc236c21138565d87c21f9 2014 Sustainability Report Executive Summary pdf a b ISSA STATE PHOSPHATE SURVEY PDF ISSA 2015 Johnson Lisa Powell Frona 2015 01 01 Environmental Law Cengage Learning ISBN 978 1 305 46492 6 Procter amp Gamble P amp G 2016 Citizenship Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2016 assets ctfassets net oggad6svuzkv 61QS8RWs0gSsOm6Ia8g2SI 3b65f627ab7ae725dd6d5d4cce9f89fd 2016 Citizenship Report Executive Summary pdf Procter amp Gamble 2017 P amp G Citizenship Report 2018 downloads ctfassets net oggad6svuzkv 325tJmPxGEWQOgc6eGskKy b69cb86ada52cfe97e468daadf20b741 2017 Full Citizenship Report pdf a b Press corner European Commission European Commission Retrieved 2020 05 01 Detergents shift to greener builders Focus on Surfactants 2009 3 4 March 2009 doi 10 1016 s1351 4210 09 70082 4 Phosphorus and Water www usgs gov Retrieved 2020 05 01 1 Bejankiwar Raj et al Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority Scientific Findings and Policy Recommendations to Reduce Nutrient Loadings and Harmful Algal Blooms Lake Erie Ecosystem Priority Draft Summary Report 2013 legacyfiles ijc org tinymce uploaded Draft 20LEEP Aug29Final pdf Folsom James and Lloyd Oliver Economic Analysis of Phosphate Control Detergent Phosphate Limitations vs Wastewater Treatment Glassman Oliver 1980 www aciscience org docs Economic 20Analysis 20Phosphate 20Control pdf a b Dishes Still Dirty Blame Phosphate Free Detergent NPR org Retrieved 2020 05 01 The use of enzymes in detergents www1 lsbu ac uk Retrieved 2020 05 01 Petkewich Rachel December 2005 Cold water laundry detergent is a hot idea Environmental Science amp Technology 39 23 478A Bibcode 2005EnST 39 478P doi 10 1021 es0534194 Environmental Protection Agency EPA Pesky Pests and Household Hazards 2014 www epa gov sites production files 2014 06 documents lesson2 handout pdf The American Cancer Society medical and editorial content team Formaldehyde American Cancer Society 2014 www cancer org cancer cancer causes formaldehyde html Formaldehyde Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 21 June 2019 www cdc gov niosh topics formaldehyde Formaldehyde Hazards Report Environmental Protection Agency EPA 2000 www epa gov sites production files 2016 09 documents formaldehyde pdf a b Dhillon Gurpreet Kaur Surinder Pulicharla Rama Brar Satinder Cledon Maximiliano Verma Mausam Surampalli Rao 22 May 2015 Triclosan Current Status Occurrence Environmental Risks and Bioaccumulation Potential International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12 5 5657 5684 doi 10 3390 ijerph120505657 PMC 4454990 PMID 26006133 a b c Weatherly Lisa M Gosse Julie A 2017 Triclosan Exposure Transformation and Human Health Effects Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B Critical Reviews 20 8 447 469 doi 10 1080 10937404 2017 1399306 PMC 6126357 PMID 29182464 Commissioner Office of the FDA Issues Final Rule on Safety and Effectiveness of Antibacterial Soaps U S Food and Drug Administration FDA 2016 www fda gov news events press announcements fda issues final rule safety and effectiveness antibacterial soaps THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION EU 2016 110 of 27 January 2016 Not Approving Triclosan as an Existing Active Substance for Use in Biocidal Products for Product Official Journal of the European Union 2016 eur lex europa eu legal content EN TXT PDF uri CELEX 32016D0110 amp from EN Steinemann Anne 18 January 2018 Fragranced consumer products sources of emissions exposures and health effects in the UK Air Quality Atmosphere amp Health 11 3 253 258 doi 10 1007 s11869 018 0550 z hdl 11343 283036 Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Cosmetics Labeling Trade Secret Ingredients U S Food and Drug Administration FDA 2018 www fda gov cosmetics cosmetics labeling trade secret ingredients Dodson Robin E Nishioka Marcia Standley Laurel J Perovich Laura J Brody Julia Green Rudel Ruthann A 2012 Endocrine Disruptors and Asthma Associated Chemicals in Consumer Products Environmental Health Perspectives 120 7 935 943 doi 10 1289 ehp 1104052 PMC 3404651 PMID 22398195 a b American Lung Association Cleaning Supplies and Household Chemicals American Lung Association 2020 www lung org clean air at home indoor air pollutants cleaning supplies household chem Safer Choice EPA Environmental Protection Agency 21 Feb 2020 www epa gov saferchoice Soaps www fs fed us Retrieved 2021 08 28 Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Soap substitute amp oldid 1045349563, wikipedia, wiki, book,

books

, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.