Henkel and Questions Arising from Their "History of Persil"

I was curious to see what detergent makers themselves have to say publicly about the surfactants they use in their formulations.  Of course, the "green" makers will point out they use renewable plant-based sources for their cleaning agents.  The advantage of course, is these sources can be produced by man by adding more agricultural land, presumably from existing non-agricultural land, wilderness land...not such a good idea, from where I stand.  They make little or no claim about these surfactants being safer for you or the environment.  Again call them and ask, "Can I mix your detergent into my goldfish bowl, will my goldfish survive?" 
To check what the companies had to say, I clicked the homepages of a few. 

Let me just copy for your perusal what I found on the Henkel Homepage.   I did not get permission from Henkel to copy their info, I don't know if I'm breaking any copyright laws or not.   Since Henkel puts it out into the public domain and I've acknowledged the ownership, I don't think so.  So, here it is.
 (By googling "Henkel", and clicking on their Persil" brand laundry detergent (best selling brand in Germany, according to the site), you should see the points listed below, under "history".  For the sake of brevity, I've not copied all of it, and condensed a few down to mostly the points that raises questions.)

From Henkel Homepage, Persil  "History"

• 1959 - "Persil 59" Introduced.  Synthetic anionic surfactants, a foam intensifier and a fresh fragrance were the new ingredients of the best Persil ever
• 1965 - Introduction of new drum washing machines necessitates a new formula to control foaming.  New ingredients included sodium phosphate, biodegradable surfactants, non-ionic surfactants
• 1986 - Persil phosphate-free,  Progress for the Environment - as early as the 1950's Henkel was conducting experiments to research the biodegradability of surfactants.  In 1966 the research project "phosphate substitute" was launched.  Because surfactants which release the soil from the laundry, and phosphates, which soften the water pollute surface waters.  The researchers succeeded in developing surfactants with better and better biodegradability.  And for phosphates, they found a substitute substance: "Zeolite A" (Sasil) for which a patent was filed in 1973.
• 1987 - Persil Liquid - The alternative to Powder - Once again, Henkel expanded its Persil range.  This time with a product - Persil liquid - which was to revolutionize an already existing niche market.   Its especially high surfactant content made the liquid laundry a very powerful stain remover, even at low temperatures of up to 60 degrees....(?)
• 1999 - Persil Sensitive - For people with sensitive skin.  To cater specifically for people with sensitive skin and those who suffer allergies, Henkel joined forces with the German Allergy and AsthmaAssociation to develop a product that not only delivers the accustomed washing performance but is also highly skin compatible. 
• 2004 - Persil Sensitive with Natural Soap - Henkel now offers Persil Sensitive with Natural Soap.  It delivers full washing performance, is highly skin compatible and also gives the laundry a mild   fragrance.  The fragrance was developed and successfully tested in collaboration with the German Allergy and Asthma Association.

Here are the questions I have for Henkel beginning from their entry from 1986:

• 1.  Why did it take 20 years to introduce a phosphate-free laundry detergent?  Water pollution problems associated with too much phosphates in the world waterways began surfacing as early as the late 1950's and by 1986, most of the waterways were already on their way to recovering from phosphate-related problems, at least in the US.   Why so long?
• 2.  Also from your 1986 entry, you write, "As early as the 1950's, Henkel was researching the biodegradability of surfactants"  Obviously you suspected some problems with surfactants very early, otherwise, why spend the money?   Besides "polluting surface waters"  what other problems did you see?  Were these concerns made public?  Well, others were doing it for you, perhaps you thought it not necessary.
• 3.  Introduction of Persil Liquid and its "especially high surfactant content".   So, had Henkel solved the problem of surfactants to the degree that the surfactant used in this formulation was safe and could be increased without any additional damage to the environment or your consumers?  Again, could this liquid be added to the water with my goldfish and would my goldfish survive? 
• 4.  Concerning your "Persil Sensitive" developed in 1999, why did you join forces with the German Allergy and Asthma Association?   Does Henkel recognize the condition of "sensitive skin" is associated with other health issues?  What specifically was changed in this formula that made it less of a irritant for people with sensitive skin?   Wasn't it mostly a "milder surfactant?
• 5.  Five years later you came out with a "Persil Sensitive With Natural Soap".   Why, didn't your prior formulation work?    Since this is "natural soap", the surfactant must have changed from your earlier  "For Sensitive Skin" formulation.  Also, since natural soap will leave a grimy film, and has little or no ability to keep the dirt and grim suspended in the water from re-depositing on the clothes,you must have other ingredients to take care of these problems.   Do these ingredients include another surfactant? 

While Henkel wished to show how they have helped to improve their products, it mainly raises my suspicion that all big laundry detergent makers know the dangers of surfactants and that they have known about these problems since the 1950's and have only "tweaked" out minor changes, changes enough not to be held legally accountable to say the current surfactants are "biodegradable".  Not enough to to be better for our health to any significant degree, not enough to save aquatic species.  Don't you think it's about time that consumers at least ask, "How can a company continue to sell a household laundry cleaner for 60 years that they knew contained such a damaging ingredient? "   Don't these companies have no shame?

Surfactants' Trail of Damage - Supporting Testimony

Rather than just give you my thoughts and opinions, it might be more convincing if I could begin gathering the testimony of other concerned people, organizations and companies.   I'll start with the two below.

Excerpted From: http://lenntech.com/aquatic/detergents.htm

"Detergents are very widely used in both industrial and domestic premises like soaps and detergents to wash vehicles.  The major entry point into water is via sewage works into surface water.  They are also used in pesticide formulations and for dispersing oil spills at sea.  The degradation of alkylphenol polyethoxylates (non-ionic) can lead to the formation of alkylphenols (particularly nonyphenols), which act as endocrine disruptors. 


What occurs if detergents show up in fresh waters?
Detergents can have poisonous effects in all types of aquatic life if they are present in sufficient quantities, and this includes the biodegradable detergents.  All detergents destroy the external mucus layers that protect the fish from bacteria and parasites, plus they can cause severe damage to the gills.  Most fish will die when detergent concentrations approach 15 parts per million. * Detergent concentrations as low as 5ppm will kill fish eggs.   Surfactant detergents are implicated in decreasing the breeding ability of aquatic organisms.
Detergents also add another problem for aquatic life by lowering the surface tension of the water.  Organic chemicals such as pesticides and phenols are then much more easily absorbed by the fish.  A detergent concentration of only 2 ppm can cause fish to absorb double the amount of chemicals they would normally absorb, although that concentration itself is not high enough to affect fish directly.


"The potential for acute aquatic toxic effects due to the release of secondary or tertiary sewage effluents containing the breakdown products of laundry detergents may frequently be low.  However untreated or primary treated effluents containing detergents may pose a problem.  Chronic and/or sub-lethal effects that were not examined in this study may also pose a problem." 

* (What happens when you put the manufacturer's recommended dose of detergent into your washer?  If your washer uses 10 gallons of water per cycle and your're using 30 grams of detergent, the surfactants in that water would be app. 400 ppm, or over 25 times the lethal dosage for most fish)

Article found on Surfrider Foundation, Europe Blog Page  http://blog.surfrider.eu/2010/10/27/non-degraded-surfactants-danger/?lang=en

In 1999, researchers at the National Research Institute (INRA)* confirmed the toxicity of non-degraded surfactants originating from detergents found in sea water.  INRA concluded that surfactants are phytotoxic compounds and present a very real environmental problem for which a solution needs to be found in the near future.  This was 10 years ago, and a solution is yet to be found.

Zero Response to INRA'S Warning

This warning call was voiced several years ago but since then there hasn't been a sound.  This, despite mounting evidence of the adverse impact detergents in the environment have.  What products are we talking about here?  Simply those from laundry, disinfectants, soaps and shampoos, drain and toilet cleaners, in short all those products used on a a daily basis around the world.  Discharged directly into the ocean via the stormwater or wastewater system, these petroleum based products poison plankton, marine fauna and flora, as well as coastal vegetation scoured by ocean spray loaded with surfactants, the compounds responsible for product toxicity.  The levels in our environment have reached a degree of toxicity that they present a risk to sources of potable water.

Human and Environmental Impacts

The process of growth inhibition and cellular division affects algae as well as the animals that feed on them.  By coming into contact with plankton, the bio-active detergent molecules contaminate the food web.  Effects on population health, results from researchers indicate that changes to the endocrine system are affected by surfactants.  The seriousness of the effects caused by contaminated ocean spray has become apparent in terrestrial flora, causing irreversible damage widely  supported by studies conducted by IFREMER.*


Author:  Aude Briau, translated by Dan McDonald
INRA = French National Institute for Agricultural Research (&Environment)
IFREMER = French Research Insititute for Exploration of the Sea

Eco-Friendly Detergents - Surfactant "Lights"

Eco-Friendly Detergents Not So Eco-Friendly

Over the past 20 years numerous laundry detergent brands claiming to be "environmentally friendly" have sprung up.   Thanks to a list provided by a site called "Pinstripes and Polkadots", we can do a quick check of reported ingredients in these brands.   Every eco-friendly brand contains surfactants, a couple lists "soap" but remember, soap is a surfactant.   Therefore, these are not safe for your health or for the health of the environment.   Here's a quick check of brands and surfactants listed:

Company/Product Name                         Surfactant Listed
    Allen's Naturally                          cleaning agents that are naturally derived
    Bi-O-Kleen                                 Surfactants from coconuts
                                                        Linear ethoxilates from coconuts
    Earth Friendly (Baby)                  Vegetable & Coconut based soap
    Ecos                                            Plant Based surfactants
    Ecover                                         non-ionic, anionic surfactants
    Method                                       blend of naturally derived and biodegradable surfactants
    Mountain Green                           vegetable-based cleaning agents
    Mrs Meyer's                                anionic surfactants derived from plant sources
    Nature Clean                               polyglycoside (from corn starch and palm kernel oil)
    Oxy Prime                                   "mild" surfactant
    Planet                                           Coconut oil based cleaner,
                                                        ethoxylated alcohol amine oxide (surfactant?)
    Seventh Generation                       A combination of naturally derived cleaning agents
    Shaklee                                        Anionic and/or nonionic cleaning agents
    Trader Joe's Cleanliness....            vegetable and coconut derived surfactants

I've attempted to list all the brands that are marketed as being environmentally friendly or better for us in terms of safety when compared to national brands.   I know I missed a few, not intentionally, just hurrying to get this done.  Whatever brand I may have missed, I will assure you it contains a surfactant. 

Let's examine their claims about giving you a better, more environmentally better product.  In terms of using renewable resources and getting rid of fragrances and other artificial chemical additives, they are probably right.
In terms of running their operations and business in a ecologically responsible way, they may be right.
In terms of reduction of wasteful practices, perhaps.
So what these companies claim, is not wrong, they just aren't giving us the whole story.  The fact is the majority of people who work for these companies truly believe they are acting very responsibly and bringing a product to market that is better than what the big makers are offering in terms of the health of their consumers and health of the environment.   I do not include the chemistry experts or the top executives in this category however.

The Truth about "Milder", "Biodegradable" Plant-Based Surfactants

Why am I being so harsh?  The chemist who make up the formulas and the executives who gives the go ahead all know about the damaging effects of surfactants and I also believe the majority of them know they can make a safer product.   However, just like the major brands, these brands are putting profit ahead of what's good for you, what's good for the water and life in the water.
"But they are using "milder", natural surfactants derived from renewable palm, coconut and other plant based oils, this surely must be better?"   It is better only in the sense that these are renewable resources.   You can grow another palm tree, you can't wait for the next oil field to form.  Remember though, to have enough palm oil to meet the world demand, you need to clear natural wilderness areas to raise the crop.   This is not good for either us or the wilderness and the animals that make their home in that wilderness.
Another question we all must ask ourselves, can't there be better usage for the palm oil derivative being used to make detergents, say like for food purposes?  I don't know the answer to this.  It may be the same as propylene, the derivative of crude oil that goes into the making of much of the laundry surfactants employed today.  Propylene was basically a throw away derivative of refined crude - worthless, until the German's during WWII, through the magic of chemistry, turned this waste product into a cheap detergent that could take the place of the animal fats they were running short of.    Its easy to see how detergent makers turned to this new surfactant and easy to see how surfactants came to be the only cleaning agent used in cleaning products immediately after WWII.  Initially, raw material costs must have been next to nothing.  Imagine you could pick up the stuff for free and turn it into a product that you could sell.   How do you calculate gross profit margins on that?   So,which derivative of palm or coconut oil is actually used for renewable and biodegradable laundry surfactants, I can't say.    Perhaps that derivative can only be used for producing surfactants and nothing else.  We need to ask the surfactant maker.
Another reason to question the safety of plant based surfactants can be found on P&G's homepage. P&G claims plant-based and crude-oil based surfactant are both the same in terms of effectiveness and safety.  Are they saying this because crude-based surfactants are cheaper or because when you run the two different oils through all the processes at the manufacturing plant, the end result is the same, I don't know. 
As for claims of "easily biodegrades", this really has to be checked carefully.   When they say it biodegrades quickly, what does this mean?   Hours, days, weeks or months?   Also in what weather conditions...some surfactants will biodegrade quickly in water during the summer when it's hot, but will not biodegrade at all in cold winter water.   Are they talking about initial biodegradation or ultimate biodegradation?  Also while most surfactants do biodegrade in the presence of air and oxygen (aerobic conditions), does it biodegrade when air is unavailable like in the sludge of waste water treatment plants (anaerobic conditions)?   You may be interested to know that this phenomenon is just beginning to be studied in Europe, don't know what's happening in the US.  It could be surfactants that were considered readily biodegradable before, may not have the same rating under stricter standards. 
Perhaps a few  makers of "eco-friendly" detergents are using surfactants that are genuinely biodegradable - a surfactant that when it is released into the environment immediate begins to break down into carbon dioxide and other natural chemicals and has little negative impact.  But I don't know who that may be.  If such a product existed, I would think they would rush that data to the consumer, something I don't see happening.   Instead, they use words like "mild", or "quick to biodegrade", or some other phrase that implies their surfactants are safe when in actuality it isn't.  How do you check for yourself if this is true?  If you happen to be using a eco-friendly detergent now, call or e-mail the maker and ask if its OK to put their recommended dosage for washing  (in the same ratio to the water)  into your goldfish bowl? Would your goldfish live or die?    Here's a bet, call and ask....betcha you won't find any one of these ecologically minded companies who will tell you its OK, your goldfish is perfectly safe.   If it's not safe for your goldfish, its not safe for the fish in your local pond or river.  It's not safe for the tadpole, water bugs, and worms in the ground around that pond.  It's not safe for you and your family.  

One last word concerning biodegradability.   If you are putting the same substance into the same pond day after day and if it hasn't completely gone away in 24 hours, does biodegradability really make that much difference to the ultimate sustainability of a species?    Doing laundry is nearly a daily chore, meaning we are pouring the same substances down the sink every day, the same amount of surfactants reaching the pond on a daily basis.   The creatures living in that pond are exposed to the same amount of toxins.  It seems to me it's just a matter of time - they die quickly if a toxin is less biodegradable, they die less slow if the toxin biodegrades more quickly, in the end however, that species will ultimately disappear.   I suppose biodegradability may give certain species a chance to adapt.   But really, is anyone out there so in love with today's detergents that would say to the fish, "Hey, you fish, adapt or die!"
 I don't think there is a surfactant produced today that can biodegrade completely in 24 hours or less, at least not ones that can be used economically for laundry detergent.  One study I saw, I think it was for LAS, was labeled by one EPA study as "quickly biodegradable".   It turns out under the best of conditions, it started biodegrading in about 3 days and took anywhere from 10 days to a month to get down to undetectable levels.   In cold winter months, however, researchers couldn't find any signs of biodegradation at all.   So when you see "Biodegradable" on a label, don't assume you are buying a product that is safer for the ecology or yourself.   After all you will be wearing it soon since it is in your recently laundered clothes. 

Remember when cigarette makers began marketing brands like Marlboro "Lights", cigarettes that they claimed to be safer?   It turns out "Light" cigarettes did more harm and caused more deadly lung cancers than regular cigarettes.    (go to u-tube, search Prof. Channing Robertson's Lec. 23 for a fascinating personal history of the cigarette lawsuits)  When "Lights" came out, doctors began seeing "deep lung" cancers, something they never saw before.   Why?  Smokers took deeper drags in an attempt to get the same nicotine hit they got from their old brands.   Well, I'm wondering if marketing campaigns run by the eco-friendly detergent makers are not so dissimilar - getting people to believe they are using a product that is better for themselves and the ecology when in reality, they are not.
Who's worse, the national brands who make little or no claim to the safety of their detergents (except for  product lines they label mild, gentle or for babies) or eco-friendly makers who say they are safer?

Until these companies eliminate the use of surfactant-class chemicals in their formulations, the argument of whether they produce a safer product or not centers only on trivialities and not worth the effort.

Surfactants - Leading Cause of Atopic Dermatitis

The Current State and Orthodoxy of Atopic Dermatitis

To clarify what atopic dermatitis is, the numbers of people it effects and current thinking on the condition, here's an excerpt From the American Family Physician dated September , 1999
entitled Atopic Dermatitis: A Review of Diagnosis and Treatment

"Atopic dermatitis is a common, potentially debilitating condition that can compromise quality of life.  Its most frequent symptom is pruritus (itching).  Attempts to relieve the itch by scratching simply worsen the rash, leading to a vicious circle.  Treatment should be  directed at limiting itching, repairing the skin and decreasing inflammation when necessary.  Lubricants, antihistamines and topical corticosteroids are the mainstays of therapy.  When required, oral corticosteroids can be used.  If pruritus does not respond to treatment, other diagnoses, such as bacterial overgrowth or viral inventions, should be considered. "

"Atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammation of the skin that occurs in persons of all ages but is more common in children.  The condition is characterized by intense pruritus and a course marked by exacerbation and remissions.   Atopic dermatitis has been reported to affect 10% of children in the United States alone it is estimated that more than $364 million per year is spent on the treatment of childhood atopic dermatitis.    Although the symptoms of atopic dermatitis resolve by adolescence in 50% of affected children, the condition can persist into adulthood.  Poor prognostic features include a family history of the condition, early disseminated infantile disease, female gender and coexisting allergic rhinitis and asthma." 

What did we learn from the above?  That doctors really don't know the cause, that they don't have a cure, that it is often misdiagnosed, that powerful drugs (corticosteroids, steroids?  - isn't that the stuff that got all those baseball players in trouble?) are often prescribed, not to cure but to lessen the itching.  The article is from 10 years ago but the majority of dermatologists today still believe the above.   As far as the annual cost of treating atopic dermatitis, $364 million (even for treatment of children only) was greatly understated.  In a handout put out by The National Institute of Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Disease last year, they estimated direct cost of total (not just kids) atopic dermatitis (doctor and hospital costs) treatment was estimated to be around $3 billion and this was just 25% of total costs.  Indirect costs, (filling prescriptions, etc.) accounted for 75% of the cost so that's another $9 billion or a total of $12 billion.   This too greatly understates the true cost of atopic dermatitis when considering the lost time at work by people who suffer from this condition.  It is a problem, especially when you consider atopic dermatitis is only a symptom of something gone wrong in the body.  Atopic dermatitis is often accompanied by other physical problems such as allergies and asthma.  What is the cost when you throw in these physical ailments?   

Don't get confused by the myriad of information you see on the Web.  Here's one from MedicineNet.com. which is better than most of the kinds of descriptions you run into in the popular press.
"Multiple factors can trigger or worsen atopic dermatitis, including dry skin, seasonal allergies, exposure to harsh soaps and detergents, new skin products or creams and cold weather."   OK, not wrong but two things to question about this statement.  1.)  What causes "dry skin" and 2). the word "harsh" to describe soaps and detergents.  Again, dry skin is caused by surfactants, in most instances.  Moving on, the word "harsh" needs to be questioned because this implies there are alternative choices that are available.   Perhaps there are products containing "less harsh"surfactants that may relieve the symptoms for some for a period of time, may even delay the onset of the symptoms for others but in the end, if the product contains a surfactant, the chances are you or somewhere down your generational line, one of the offsprings of your offspring, will eventually get atopic dermatitis.  Either that or your body will learn to adapt.   In addition, you can find testimonies by doctors saying only about one out of 100 cases of atopic dermatitis is related to the soap products that are used.    This just doesn't correspond to what we know.

The above information is either outdated or just plain wrong as you can see on a web page titled, Skin Therapy Letter (Cutaneous Cleansers) -  "Written for dermatologists by dermatologists" in the section subtitle "Effectiveness/Recent Findings" published in 2003.  You will find the following:

"Surfactants cause the majority of adverse skin reactions and disrupt or disturb the moisture skin barrier as surface debris and microorganisms are removed.  Anionic/sodium containing surfactants such as sodium lauryl sulphate, sodium tallowate and sodium stearate have been shown to disrupt lipids in the moisture skin barrier, as well as increase the PH of the Skin by as much as 2-3 units.  Disruption and depletion of barrier lipids and an increased skin PH leads to compromised skin barrier leaving the skin in a negative physiologic state with an increased sensitivity to potential irritants.
Other surfactant types, i.e. amphoteric (cocamidopropl betaine) and nonionic (propylene glycol) have been shown to cause a range of skin and sensory irritations." 

Japanese Doctor Cures all 651 Atopic Dermatitis Patients 

So the above is in agreement with a very comprehensive study done with atopic dermatitis patients.   A dermatologist in Japan, a Dr. Yoshinari Isobe treated  651 Japanese atopic dermatitis sufferers and within two years, cured them all.  How?  By telling them to avoid all surfactants.  They were not allowed to use any soaps, shampoos and avoid all surfactant-containing personal care products and bathe using lukewarm water only.  The severity of atopic dermatitis ranged from relatively minor to severe in both female and male patients, and ages of the patients ranged from infants to the very elderly.  The time from initial consultation to cure ran from a few weeks to two years.  80% of the cases were cured within 500 days.  The remaining 20% took longer due to exposure to oil, cement, special dyeing chemicals or resins in their work.   Others that took longer suffered from "sick-house syndrome", those spending much of their time in a living environment which included excessive amounts of polyester and polyurethane chemical fibers.  Dr. Isobe writes, "I have concluded that the continuous daily usage of detergents such as shampoo, rinse and body soap lies at the bottom of this chronic problem".   
In this study, Dr. Isobe makes some interesting observations:
1. The real breakout of atopic dermatitis began in the mid 1970's with growth in Japanese income and increased use of shampoos, conditioners and body soaps. 
2.  People who are not accustomed to using surfactant based soaps, like the Tibetans, Mongolians and Eskimos have had no incidences of this illness.  (Really?)
3.  Symptoms of atopic dermatitis has in recent years been detected in household pets, mainly dogs, that are kept indoors and washed with surfactants by their owners. 

While both the "Skin Therapy Letter" Web page and Dr. Isobe seem to agree on the major cause of atopic dermatitis, I think the "Skin Therapy Letter" advice on using safer surfactants to wash is bad and wonder where these dermatologists get their information - from sales representatives of expensive soap formulas, perhaps.


"Liquid facial cleansers are the most effective and beneficial cleansers for sensitive and compromised skin.  Their formulations are complex, utilizing a combination of surfactants, moisturizers, binders and preservatives to form a product that will cause the fewest problems and the greatest benefits.  A well-designed liquid facial cleanser will use nonionic and silicone surfactants....."   

Does the above sound right to you?   Use a soap that has even more chemicals in it to cure the problem caused by chemicals?   Anytime a sales pitch starts with "Well its complex...."  I get the feeling they are saying don't worry about it, let the experts figure it out for you.   And usually if you let someone else do your thinking you end up putting yourself in a bigger mess.  The conclusion is a definite red flag:

"Although liquid facial cleansers are formulated to be less irritating to the skin, some of its components may disrupt the skin barrier or cause contact sensitivities."    I've heard enough, no thanks.  I'm pretty sure Dr. Isobe would not recommend replacing one surfactant with another.

Dr. Isobe is attempting to get his study printed by a major medical or science journal in English.  He also has a book out in Japanese that may one day be available in English.

Exposure to Surfactants from the Clothes you Wear

Unfortunately for my purposes,  which again is to get laundry detergent makers to stop using surfactants, Dr. Isobe did not write about the effects of the surfactants that remain on your clothes after washing.   As long as you wash with detergents containing surfactants you will always be exposing your body to the surfactants that stays on your clothes.   Even after 2 rinses, studies have shown as much as 30% of the surfactant is still stuck to your clothes.   According to the inventor of the surfactant-free detergent, even after switching to the healthier stuff, it would take approximately 5 washes in the surfactant-free formula to get all the accumulated surfactants out.    While most toxicity research on surfactants warn, can be absorbed through the skin, I think you might be better off health-wise to think, all surfactants are absorbed into the skin, no matter how minute.
As all drug companies and some ex-smoker's realize, a drug patch treated with the right conductor chemical is a great way to release drugs into your blood stream, it's quick and releases the drugs at a constant rate.  The nitroglycerin in the tablet placed under the tongue of a person in the initial stages of a heart attack will reach that person's heart in 13 seconds.    Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) a surfactant still found in many shampoo formulas is a great conductor of drugs through the skin barrier.   Its been found to be in the bloodstream as quick as 3 seconds after application.  In consideration of recent findings in surfactant research, the danger of dermal toxicity posed by surfactants remaining on your clothes is real and must be taken seriously.  A chemical compound that can penetrate the skin barrier and mutate your genes shouldn't be found in the fabric of your jeans.

While people suffering from atopic dermatitis has probably existed from the time man began using soap (Sumerians are credited for making the first soaps around 2,500 BC),  the epidemic really started from around 50 years ago and the incidences of people suffering from this skin illness continues to increase throughout the developed world.    The cleaning and personal care industry must reduce their use of surfactants and it is up to consumers to instruct them to do so.   Without hearing from you, nothing will change except the numbers of people undergoing treatment for atopic dermatitis.

Video Watch List, Gripe With Big Detergent

Before getting into surfactants and detergents, here are some must see videos that are easily accessible on the net - two from U-Tube and two from TED.
From U-TUBE:
1.  Arithmetic, Population & Energy,  A Lecture by Dr. Albert A Bartlett, Physicist, University of Colorado, Boulder, subtitled, "The Most Important Video You'll ever See"  very easy, useful math that everyone needs to know
2. "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See"  WonderingMinds42 (3 million views)
It doesn't matter if you believe global warming is man made or not.  The logic dictates only one choice - take every action you can to stop it
From  TED:
3.  Sylvia Earle's "Ted Wish" (more on this below)
4.  Ray Anderson's - "The Business Logic of Sustainability"  - (more below)

Whether you're an environmentalist or not, you will finds these talks enlightening.   They are related and I think by somehow combining the thoughts and solutions of these four people, the world might get a little closer to slowing down or even averting the cataclysmic environmental disasters looming before us.
Perhaps you're already familiar with TED but if not, this site offers a couple of hundred  20 minute presentations on  the latest from Technology, Education and Design , where the acronym comes from.  Other talks are offed as well, including many on the environment.   Start with Sylvia Earle's Ted Wish  (TED Link).    Her message is both shocking and inspiring.   Two things I found jaw-dropping were: 1).  Over the last 50 years, 90% of big fish in the ocean have disappeared (no mention of surfactants, after all she only had 20 minutes, commercial fishing is the main culprit here), and 2.) and the time frame to save the ocean is only about the next 10, maybe 20 years.  If we don't save the ocean, the Earth may one day look like Mars.   It was inspiring because she is able to speak with passion about her passion, the ocean.  Inspiring also to see that one person can make a difference, she was able to achieve her TED wish and is getting the word out to you and me. She also has a suggestion on how we can save the ocean, and it is worth hearing.  Sylvia's talk is just one among many on marine ecology which go beyond just being informative, it was eye opening and enlightening.     

Ray Anderson is the founder and now chairman of Interface, a producer of carpet tiles and other flooring products.   He is described in TED's introduction as  "The Greenest CEO in America" and noted for his efforts to make his corporation environmentally-neutral by 2020.   It is remarkable that a "captain of industry" would state that someday people like himself, might find themselves in jail, in jail for their roles as "plunderers of the Earth", an Earth that may become uninhabitable if we all don't join NOW in the effort to make it better.   His main point is corporations are mainly to blame for the precarious state of today's environment, and  business and industry is the only entity big enough to get us out of this mess.  He may be right but will the corporate leaders get the message in time?

Gripe with Big Detergent

Which brings me back to my gripe against today's laundry detergent makers.   Surfactants in laundry detergents have been poisoning our waters and contaminating our bodies for the last 60 years.  Studies after studies has confirmed this.  Yet, for 50 years, detergent makers have insisted that surfactants are necessary to make an effective laundry cleaner, they are not that bad, and, there was no alternative.   Regulators and the public bought into this propaganda, and today, we are seeing the consequence of having released millions of tons of surfactants into our waterways year after year for 60 years, waters filled with toxins killing and mutating fish and other water species.   Surfactant chemists have known from the very beginning the danger of the substance, but 60 years ago, who cared?  Who could have forecast the growth of its use, the magnitude of damage?   If anyone could have, it would have been big detergent.

The Toxicity of LAS Has been known for 50 Years

Looking more at surfactants over the last couple of days,  I found out this:   LAS has been used in laundry formulations  since the late 50's, early 60's.  I  was under the mistaken impression that LAS was a relatively newer, somewhat less damaging surfactant.  It turns out it's not. Nearly from the very start of LAS's inclusion as a laundry detergent surfactant, scientists began finding that LAS indeed is very harmful; deadly for water-living species.   Studies like "Biological Effects of Surface Active Agents on Marine Animals" done in 1971, quotes articles done on the subject from the mid 60's.   These studies are very clear on the effects of surfactants like LAS.  When LAS is put into water at concentrations ranging from 1 ppm to 100ppm, crustaceans, bivalves and fish(es) all died.   The most sensitive were the crustaceans' whose "first reaction to the surfactants is increased activity (avoidance reaction of mobile species), followed successively by inactivity, immobilization and death."  This was also true for the bivalves and fish they studied, although at little higher concentrations.
Now, when these studies were first put out, who really paid that much attention to this stuff ?   Not me, but you know the product development people working at big detergent makers knew about these studies, surfactant chemists must have read through the reports, and science reporters wrote enough about detergents that at least allowed most of us to hear about the inherent dangers of laundry detergents and other household cleaners. It's clear now that while we heard, we really didn't pay much attention, it is the second biggest selling surfactant for laundry detergents in the US, an holds closer to a 20% share in both Europe and Japan.

 Could Alcohol Ester Sulfonates Be Worse than LAS?

In my last blog, I pointed out that according to a reputable research firm's report done this year (You can buy it for $4,300), the most used surfactant for laundry detergents in the US is alcohol ester sulfonates, which again holds about a 30% share.   Take a look at the summary of one toxicity study:
"Sulfonate esters of lower alcohols possess the capacity to react with DNA and cause mutagenic events, which in turn may be cancer inducing.   Consequently, the control of residues of such substances in products that may be ingested by man (in food or pharmaceuticals) is of importance to both pharmaceutical producers and to the regulatory agencies."

"Alcohol ester sulfonates" and  "sulfonate esters of lower alcohols" has got to be the same, right?  Now, if you shouldn't ingest it, should you be washing your clothes in it, letting it permeate into your underwear, underwear that is touching your skin for long stretches at a time?   Remember, one of the main attractions of surfactants for chemists is this substance's ability to penetrate surfaces, including your skin.  

But before we sue the detergent makers, let me quote the rest of the summary, which really confuses the issue for me.

  "The study definitively demonstrates that sulfonate esters cannot form even at trace level if any acid present is neutralized with even the slightest excess of base.  A key conclusion from this work is that the high level of regulatory concern over the potential presence of sulfonate esters in API sulfonate salts is largely unwarranted and the sulfonate salts should not be shunned by innovator pharmaceutical firms as a potential API form.   Other key findings are that (1) an extreme set of conditions are needed to promote sulfonate ester formation, requiring both sulfonic acid and alcohol to be present in high concentrations with little or no water present; (2) sulfonate ester formation rates are exclusively dependent upon concentrations of sulfonate anion and protonated alcohol present in solution; and (3) acids that are weaker than sulfonic acids (including phosphoric acid) are ineffective in protonating alcohol to catalyze measurable sulfonate ester even when a high concentration of sulfonate anion is present and water is absent. " 
There's a bit more in this summary but I think you probably have the same question I have:   "What is the conclusion?  Is my detergent safe or not?"  If you think you know, please submit your comments. 
The article was written by Mr. Andrew Teasdale, AstraZeneca, R&D
Publication Date (Web): Mar. 10, 2010
Copyright    2010 American chemical Society

Googling "alcohol ester sulfonates" really doesn't produce that many hits.   I couldn't even find safety data on this compound.   Strange.


60 Years and Detergent Makers Still Haven't Developed Anything Safer!?

What is disheartening about all this is people responsible for making and selling these products did little or nothing to improve the safety of the stuff they sell.  We are basically using the same cleaning agents (surfactants) LAS, AE and EO as 50 years ago.  A few surfactants have been restricted and banned, surfactants like ABS (this was blamed, along with phosphates for helping to create all that foam and scum back in the 1960's, and more recently as either an environmental estrogen or a substance that raises environmental estrogen).   For nearly 50 years, detergent formulators have known that the surfactants used in their products kill fish and just about everything else living in water.   And, while detergent makers and regulators were generally perceived to be hard at work attempting to fix the problem, the reality was very little effort was put into finding a safer surfactant.  And, I suspect that's why we're starting to see mutations like inter-sexed fish throughout US waterways.      
We are left wondering why nothing much has changed.   The following are three suppositions:

1.  Everyone really believed the surfactants in use were unavoidable and necessary
2.  The makers need to maximize profits, they have to keep their raw material costs down
     (although I have no access to price lists, the literature I read suggests these surfactants
      are all very cheap, the cheapest way to make a detergent)
3.  The quiet, satisfied consumer, not knowing or caring about detergent safety issues

I would say the first is simply not true so we're left with 2 and 3 - detergent makers desire to keep costs down (justified by keeping prices low for consumers), and consumer lethargy - "it gets my clothes clean, that's all I need to know."

The first guess is inconceivable to me for the following:  Detergent makers all know about truly natural compounds like guar that can be used in formulations.   These makers will say they don't use it because it doesn't match the cleaning power of surfactants and consumers will not buy it.   Well, how do they know if they don't give us the choice?  They should at least try and put a safer product on the market and see.  My bet is it will be bought by the informed consumer.  Second reason is, if a small water research company in Japan can come up with what looks to be a much safer solution to get our clothes clean, why couldn't the detergent companies with their much larger R&D budgets, come up with something?   I just can't resist pointing out here P&G's R&D budget for last year;  $2 billion. (As a side note, this number is dwarfed by their advertisement expenditures, a staggering $8.5 billion.  They are number 1 in the world in this.  No. 2 spends somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 billion)  Granted, P&G sells a lot of different kinds of products that add up to $78 billion in total sales and R&D is done in many different areas.   But, laundry detergent sales account for somewhere between 10 and 20% of their total.  I would think they could have easily earmarked $100 million or so, in an effort to find a safer detergent formula, one that could at least cut back on the amount of surfactants found in their products.  Remember, P&G has spent huge sums on R&D for the last 40 years and should have been able to come up with something.  They haven't and furthermore, aren't liquid detergents much more popular these days than powdered detergents?   Aren't more surfactants found in liquid detergent formulas than in powdered detergent, perhaps by a factor of two?   Boy, instead of trying to decrease their reliance on surfactants, it seems they are increasing it.  Who created the demand for liquid detergents?   Are liquid detergents really that much more convenient than powders?  They've been spending big money on research for the last 50 years and we're still using essentially the same surfactants as 50 years ago and, per wash, more of it.   What's really going on in the research and development department of these companies? While you and I assume they are trying to find better products, including products that are safer for us consumers, it seems they are much more interested in researching products that will add to their bottom line.   Every one realizes company have to make money, but they must do so in a socially and environmentally responsible way, don't sell harmful products.  P&G's reliance on damaging surfactants in their laundry formulations needs to be challenged.   Last year, P&G along with other big detergent makers were sued by Earthjustice on the behalf of a coalition comprised of the Sierra Club, New York Lung Association, and Women for the Earth (along with a few other groups).   The purpose of the suit was to force P&G and other detergent makers to provide ingredient lists for their cleaning products, including laundry detergent.  This is the first challenge.   It will be interesting to see how the court rules.

Looking over P&G's latest annual report and the message by the CEO, I didn't find a whole lot on the company's stand on environmental issues.  There is something on "sustainability" in there, but "Sustainable for who?" might be a good question to ask at their next shareholder's meeting.  They definitely haven't heard Ray Anderson's message or if they have, is choosing to ignore it.  To put it mildly, this is all pretty upsetting and makes one question why we don't hear much about this but I guess you have to believe spending $8.5 billion in ads can get you a lot of good will.  Wasn't P&G ranked at number 6 on the list of America's Most Respected companies?

Surfactants in the Environment

"Come on!  I've been using the same laundry detergent for 30 years without a second thought and I've had no problems.   I don't have time for this."    Well, THINK AGAIN!

If you're old enough to remember the water pollution problem of the 60's and you think detergent makers fixed the problem, think again.   Water pollution today, and not just from detergents but pharmaceutics, agriculture, etc, etc, makes the dirty water and dead fish of the past feel like child's play.
While waterways look much cleaner and don't give off the awful smell of decay today, micro-sized particles of much more potent chemicals contained by them may very well be having a much more devastating effect on our health and the health of wildlife.   I'll list three examples of what I mean.

1.  From a video made by Cornell University  - A presentation on the dangers of detergent surfactants and how they are suspected in their role in the rise of breast cancer in women. 

 "What goes down the drain?  Laundry detergent, dish soaps, shampoo - all that stuff.    All those chemicals in the products you use don't just go away.   They go through sewage treatment plants but even though sewage is treated these chemicals can still end up in soil, in rivers, in lakes - end up in wildlife and some of these chemicals may end up in your water supply.  Have you ever stopped to think what kind of chemicals are in those cleaning products?  Surfactants, used to get the dirt out.  Surfactants that go down the drain and breakdown into environmental estrogen.   Chemicals like nonyphenol and octylphenol, chemicals that can get into the environment.    And scientists know these environmental estrogens can harm wildlife - they know they make male fish develop more like female fish.   And they're concerned that exposure to these chemicals can also increase women's risk of developing breast cancer.   Because environmental estrogens can make breast cancer cells grow and divide and 75% of all breast tumors need estrogen to grow.   So all the environmental estrogen that wash down the drain, from cleaning products and personal care products get into the environment and can add up and put you at risk for breast cancer, can put other women at risk for breast cancer."  Dump and Drain

2. The appearance of intersex fish throughout the US, is frightening.  Male fish that are developing female characteristics, including ovaries.  What is the extent of this problem?  One researcher says 80% to 100% (which is it? 80 or 100?) of the black bass studied in the Shenandoah River have been found to be inter sexed.  In the Potomac, in which the Shenandoah flows, about 60%.    Two obvious reason why this should be of concern, 1).  If fish become all female, how can fish reproduce? and   2.) It gives us an idea of how polluted the water actually is throughout the US.   Researchers believe the reason this mutation is taking place is due to endocrine disruptors that are released into the water through discharges from waste water treatment plants,  farms, ranches and water that flows directly into rivers after it rains.   The list of possible endocrine disruptors includes surfactants.  One such list can be found at:  http://www.catabariverkeeper.org/endocrine-disruptors--in-the-catawba-river .

3. From Australia, an interview with Dr. Taylor, an expert on frogs.
 "Frogs are the highest form of life that lay naked eggs in water, as a result, any pollutant in the water will have an impact on the egg and tadpoles.  Because we use so many insecticides, herbicides,  heavy metals...we are destroying the environment and frogs are the creature that is telling us this in a very clear fashion."   "What kills frogs are what are called surfactants, essentially soap products.  Because of this frogs are not able to breathe through their skin and they die."  Interview with Prof. Mike Taylor
A study done by a team of Italian researchers done on tadpoles backs Dr. Taylor's claims.    A short summary of this can be seen by googling  "surfactants and tadpoles".   

The above is just a small sampling of problems that surfactants have been identified as being a major culprit.   What is hoped is you begin to realize that detergents, other cleaning products and personal care products are nowhere near as benign as the products being pushed in commercials and ads, in fact quite the opposite.

With hundreds of different kinds of surfactants on the market today and all their usage, the above does in no way condemn the use of surfactants altogether.  Indeed, there are perhaps many usages for surfactants that are beneficial for mankind.   However, not  in the formulation of a household product that is used worldwide to the extent that it is - not in laundry formulation.  

Living in a world where children need to know about "endocrine disruptors" and "environmental estrogens" really doesn't seem very attractive.  Can't name all the mistakes mankind has made throughout history but one that was made 60 years ago, putting surfactants into laundry formulations was one.    It's time to recognize this mistake and correct it.

The Surfactant Market - A $25 Billion a Year Global Industry


The overuse of surfactants, especially in the formulas of laundry detergents, is literally choking our planet and damaging the health of many living species, including us.    Most of us are aware that detergents are toxic to some extent or another, we've known this for the past 50 or 60 years yet there has been very little, if any significant progress made by detergent makers to bring to market a demonstrably safer product.  What is surprising in all this is, it seems when it comes to the danger of laundry detergents, the average consumer has remained relatively silent.  It is as if it is an unquestionable truth that detergents are dangerous by nature and nothing can be done.
Nearly all consumers accept the fact that laundry detergents are inherently dangerous, that in order to do what they are designed to do - get clothes clean - detergents must contain toxic chemicals.   We know the toddler who swallows a mouthful of detergent will need to be rushed to the hospital to prevent serious injury or even death.  We know water containing recommended dosages of detergent will kill fish, and, we know we have to run at least two rinse cycles in order to get enough of the chemicals (surfactants) out of our clothes for them to be worn safely.  For most consumers, this has become second nature, the common sense of doing the wash and an accepted price to pay for clean clothes.  


Admittedly, for the 99% of us who don't suffer from surfactant-related allergies,  there is a sense of sinful pleasure in crawling under freshly laundered linens.   Clean is nice, but to be excessively so can do more harm than good.   Today, if you don't know what's in your cleaning and personal care products, and you are not attempting to limit your exposure to these chemicals, you are not just hurting yourself.  By adding more dangerous substances into the environment than you should, you are exposing your neighbor (and the frogs and fish that live in your local pond) to even greater amounts of toxins.   This could, perhaps should,  be considered the chemical exposure equivalent to  "second hand smoke".   In my view, exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke is benign when compared to the danger present in exposure to toxic chemicals.  Any damage caused by second hand tobacco smoke is limited to the unfortunate few surrounding a particular smoker.   One can always move to another table or leave the restaurant to get away from the offender.  In the case of chemical toxins in the environment however, damage is not just local and not just to mankind, it is worldwide and encompasses all living species, especially those dwelling in water.  We can't walk away from this source of pollution,  it is everywhere,  even in our ocean.   One report estimates the amount of oil that reach the ocean is "enough to cover the entire surface, a few molecules thick, every two weeks".    Global Warming: The Solution   The author of this article could not estimate the amount of man made surfactants that reaches the oceans but a fair guess is it equals that of oil, perhaps much more.  The scale of damage being done today by the overuse of surfactants is unimaginable and if the world is to survive, the business of "doing laundry as usual", has got to stop.


Surfactants are not necessary to get clothes clean, Help Stop Their Inclusion in Detergent Formulas


Is it true that surfactants need to be used in order to make an effective laundry detergent?    The answer is no.   If one could get away from conventional wisdom and accepted practices of the detergent industry, one could come out with a surfactant-less formula that would clean laundry as well as today's surfactant-containing detergents, I know because I use such a product.  This product was not developed by a detergent maker, it was developed by a water research company.   With the exception of this one product however,  all  laundry detergents today contain surfactants, including green brands.  The detergent I use was developed in Japan.  It will clean my clothes as well as any national brand and will not kill fish.  A strong background in science is not necessary to know the significance of this, common sense allows most of us to understand that the detergent that doesn't kill  fish is safer than the one that does.  If it's safer for fish, the chances are its safer for other living organisms, including us.   So, why don't the big makers introduce this product or something similar to their customers?   Don't know for sure but here are four guesses.


1. The difficulty in overcoming conventional wisdom.   There is nearly 100% agreement among detergent chemists that it is impossible to come up with an effective laundry detergent without using one kind of surfactant or another.   The surfactant is the active cleaning agent in detergent.   In fact, the wording you find on some detergent packages, "cleaning agent" is another somewhat less noxious term for surfactant.   If you have any expertise in this area, you too believe surfactants are necessary.  If you've barely paid attention to surfactants and don't know if this is true or not, try to find a a friend with some knowledge in the area and ask.   The betting is, you won't find one person claiming an effective, commercially viable detergent can be made without using a surfactant.  "The surfactant is the detergent, stop asking such idiotic questions" is a likely reply.  This could be one reason detergent makers haven't come out with a surfactant-free detergent, they aren't looking for one because they are convinced it can't be done.
2.  The reluctance to give up on an idea and to move on.   Surfactant and detergent makers have been trying to find a safe surfactant for the past 60 years.   There has been a tremendous amount of man hours invested in this effort.  But the inherent qualities chemists look for in a surfactant  (the compound's ability to mix chemicals of variant surface tensions i.e. the ability of the chemical to mix water with oil for example, and the ability of the chemical to penetrate surfaces, including your skin, while safe in the lab, makes the substance inherently dangerous out in the real world.    A safe surfactant has yet to be discovered and by the very nature of the substance, it's a good bet a safe surfactant for detergents will never be found. 
3.  The dilemma of marketing a surfactant-free detergent.   If you were the CEO at a big detergent company, how would or could you market this product?   Are you going to tell the world the surfactant-free product is safer than the other brands we sell?   Wouldn't you be concerned about questions concerning the safety of those other brands?    Would a board of directors, at any company, risk the reputation of their current best sellers by introducing a brand-new untested brand?   Would the board of directors vote for a product that risked a whiplash from the consuming public - a consuming public that has been buying  surfactant-containing products for the past 50 years?    No reason to risk a tobacco industry-like scandal, the cost may be more than even the biggest laundry detergent could bear.  Although detergent formulas are under increasing scrutiny from government regulators, environmental and consumer groups, the producers of these formulas can not change their stance on the relative safety of today's surfactants.   To say, we're sorry, we made a mistake at this stage, 60 years after introducing surfactants into the home, would only damage the company's reputation.  While CEO's are undoubtedly sincere in their desire to make their products safer, their only recourse is pray that someone comes up with a miracle surfactant, an unlikely prospect for the reason already stated.　If you're the CEO, could you make the right choice at the risk of losing your job or even worse, bankruptcy?   "This is real life people, I'm not getting paid to play superman in the movies!"
4.  The formulation of the surfactant-free detergent is too simple,  not enough profit in it.    The surfactant -free detergent I know has only 6 ingredients, all are well-known, in abundant supplies, easily accessible and cheap.   Without a variety of impossible-to-pronounce chemicals in their formulations, it would become more difficult to differentiate one product from another and impossible to justify keeping their multi-million dollar research labs.   If one company begins marketing this detergent, competitors could easily duplicate the formula, or so they think.   Competition would mean lower prices and lower profits.  In addition, this product could create problems for other lines of axillary laundry products like softeners, bleaches and whitening agents.  If consumers actually begin to make safety and the environment the top priority in their selection of a laundry detergent, surely they would stop buying laundry softeners,  bleaching agents and laundry fresheners as they contain hazardous ingredients as well.  It's almost a no-win, all loss situation for current laundry makers.  If they produced the surfactant-free formula and nobody bought it, they would be out their initial investment.  But even worse than this, if customers bought the product, the company would likely lose sales in all other in-house brands plus lose revenues from other laundry-related products.  In this context, it is not difficult to understand why big laundry makers are not going to be selling anything labelled surfactant-free.


By continuing to ignore the wasteful and harmful way we do laundry, we continue to add to the Earth's burdens.  


Collective Laundering, a few numbers:
   In the US:
   Number of wash loads:                           40,000,000,000/yr   (40 billion)
   Barrels of surfactants 
   dumped down the drain:                            4,000,000/yr (168 mil. gallons)
   Gallons of Fresh Water Used
    for laundry and discarded:                      1.2 trillion gallons/yr (conservative)
   Amount of Household CO2
    produced from Laundering:                    15 billion lbs./yr  (conservative)
  
   Global Market
   Worldwide surfactant market:                $25 billion/yr
   Value of Surfactants for
    Laundry Detergents:                             $12-12.5  billion/yr (rough guess)
   Laundry Detergent Market:                  $40-50 billion/yr


Concerning the above,  2 Critical Points:


1.  4 million barrels of oil (crude and plant-based surfactants) poured collectively into our washers and dumped down the drain.  This is essentially equivalent to the estimated 4.1 million barrels that spilled into the Gulf of Mexico  after the BP oil rig blow out.   Americans pour down the sink the same amount, each and every year, a chemical compound which is arguably more damaging than even crude oil.   The teaspoon or two of surfactant you put into every wash, collectively adds up to an ecological disaster.    And we shouldn't be comforted or fooled by claims that surfactants are effectively captured by waste water treatment plants and the little that is not treated, biodegrades quickly.  If so, explain how detergent surfactants found in the ocean got there?   
2.  The consensus is we are on the verge of a global fresh water shortage crisis, so why are we still required to rinse our clothes twice?  Assuming we use an average of 10 gallons for each of the three wash cycles (1 wash, 2 rinses), we could save conservatively 400 billion gallons of fresh water a year by simply cutting our rinse cycle from 2 to 1.   How much is 400 billion?   Enough to meet the water needs of 10 million people for a year.  This is in the US alone.   What's the number worldwide?  In a time when water is expected to become the new oil, this is a great waste of a precious natural resource.  
A surfactant-free detergent would require only one rinse because the reason you need to rinse twice is the difficulty of trying to get rid of the sticky surfactant in your clothing.  (Even if you rinse twice however, an estimated 30% of the surfactant is still left on your clothing and your linens, a great source of dermal toxicity.  Every time you put on clothing, minute traces of surfactant is seeping into your body through your skin, not good.)


While surfactants are found in all cleaning products and nearly all personal care products, almost half of total surfactant use is for laundry detergents, therefore attempting to decrease the use of surfactants in laundry soaps is a very big first step.  If we can reduce the use of surfactants in laundry detergents, the chances are we will find ways to reduce the amount of surfactants used in other cleaning products such as dish washing detergents, shampoos, body soaps, window cleaners and so on.  


Consumers must re-evaluate their priorities when selecting a laundry detergent.  If you don't already, learn to ignore the ads that attempt to lure you into buying the latest new detergent with images of the perfect clean and the aroma of a fresh spring breeze, developed for you in the labs of companies whose only concern is bringing you good products, at least that's the image conveyed.   It is just an image, and pure manipulation by people who are very experienced in the art of persuasion  There is a reason daytime TV dramas have long been known as "soaps".   Doing laundry has serious consequences to our health and the environment and the consumer's first priority in selecting their detergent must be;  find the product that can do the job with the least amount of harmful chemicals. 


Questions concerning surfactants and human health
   Number of people suffering from surfactant-based allergies?
   Number of people suffering from surfactant-based asthma?
   Number of people suffering brain, nerve and/or liver damage due
   to exposure to surfactants?
   How much has surfactants and rise in environmental estrogen
   increased the rate of women with breast cancer?
   How do surfactants interact with human DNA?


Since the introduction of synthetic chemicals in laundry detergent formulations from the 1940's, laundry detergents have always been problematic.  ( Historical Prospective on The Phosphate Detergent Conflict ) Consumers have been conditioned to believe harsh chemicals were unavoidable if you expected to get clothes clean.   Consumers need to be made aware that a safer alternative is now available that will change the perception of what constitutes a good laundry detergent.  We can make an effective, safer, surfactant-free detergent which consumers must embrace in order to at least slow the release of harmful surfactants and give our planet, our oceans, a better chance to fight back. 

Ironic, isn't it?   The products that are suppose to help keep us clean are actually contaminating our bodies and polluting our environment.  How dumb is that?   

Morphing to help save Earth,
Morphomon