Impact of Laundry Detergents on Environment-A Review

Full text

- 149 -
© 2014 by ARAHE Journal of ARAHE, Vol. 21(4), 2014
INTRODUCTION
“Sustainable Development is a development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs”- World Com-
mission on Environment and Development (Brundtland
Commission, 1987). Sustainable development is built on
three inter-related pillars: environmental protection, social
development and economic growth. In simple terms, sus-
tainable development ensures that today’s actions will not
harm tomorrow’s generations.
Washing textiles and garments is one of the most wide-
spread and vital tasks in every household today. Soaps, de-
tergents and maintenance products play a vital role in en-
suring cleanliness and hygiene-in people’s homes and in
public places like schools and hospitals, hotels and restau-
rants. They are also responsible for preserving and restor-
ing clothes appearance and provide people with an over-
all sense of well-being. They are essential to the health and
quality of life, and are, therefore, integral to social devel-
opment, one of the three pillars of sustainable development.
Laundry detergent is used in millions of households around
the world to remove soil and stains from fabrics. These
chemicals, allow water to penetrate and wet the garment
thoroughly so that the soil is more accessible and easily re-
moved, thus making the class of chemicals almost an indis-
pensable part of every domestic laundry in the modern world.
Address for correspondence: Nidhi Gupta, Research Scholar,
Department of Fabric and Apparel Science, Lady Irwin College,
University of Delhi, Sikandra Road, New Delhi-110 001, India
Tel : +91-9871873782
E-mail: nidhi.3aug@gmail.com, seemasekhri@gmail.com
Impact of Laundry Detergents on Environment-A Review
Nidhi Gupta, Seema Sekhri1
Research Scholar, Associate Professor1, Department of Fabric and Apparel Science, Lady Irwin College,
University of Delhi, Sikandra Road, New Delhi, India
ABSTRACT
L
aundry detergents are a part of daily life. They play a vital role in ensuring cleanliness and hygiene. In ancient
times, clothes were cleaned using water and botanical products. However, with the rapid advancement in
technology and improvement in standards of living, the demand and consumption of laundry detergents
increased and they have gradually replaced the traditional use of plant species for cleaning of textiles and
clothing. The primary aim of this review was to study the impact of modern laundry detergents on the environment
due to their increased production and consumption. This was done by studying the various research studies on
laundry detergents in scientific journal papers, environmental standards for laundry detergents of various countries
and other published scientific reports on the subject using qualitative content analysis. It is concluded that
technological advancements in the formulations of soaps and detergents, although leading to improvement in
clothes cleaning, are causing an adverse effect on environment and health. The discharge of the laundry deter-
gents and/or their prepared solution pose a significant threat to the environment in terms of wastewater loading,
subsequent treatment, resource consumption and disposal of packaging materials. While not widely disseminated,
the results outlined in these studies provide valuable information for development of laundry detergents based
on economic and environmental considerations using various botanical resources. The results of the most
important studies and reports are used to illuminate important new directions for future research into development
of systems and technology to produce green laundry detergents for household purposes. (J ARAHE 21
(
4
)
:149-
158 , 2014)
KEY WORDS
: Detergents, eco-friendly, environment, laundry, sustainable
≪Research Note≫

150 / J ARAHE 21(4) : 149-158, 2014
In ancient societies, people cleaned their clothes by beat-
ing the wet textiles on rocks near a stream. The water dis-
solved the hydrophilic (‘water-loving’) stains composed of
sugar, salt, and certain dyes and the mechanical agitation
facilitated the removal of solid soil. This was a good prac-
tice and practiced even today in some parts of developing
countries. However, oily soil is hard to remove in this way,
since fatty substances do not dissolve in pure water and re-
main attached to the fabric. Mother Nature allowed man to
solve this problem by providing saponins, soap-like sub-
stances which are found in chestnuts, in the leaves and seeds
of Saponaria officinalis (Soapwort), in the bark of Quilla-
ja saponaria (South American soap tree), and in the fruits
of Acacia auriculiformis (Budavari, 1989; Mahato et al.,
1992). These compounds produce a rich lather when dis-
persed in water. While these natural detergents were prob-
ably the first cleaning agents ever used in fabric washing,
the oldest substance manufactured for removal of oily stains
is soap, the sodium salt of a long chain carboxylic acid.
Until the end of the nineteenth century, a soap bar was
the only product available for laundry. In areas where wash-
ing was conducted at elevated temperatures, it was soon
discovered that soap flakes dissolve more readily as parti-
cles are smaller than a solid bar. Consumers, therefore, shaved
the bars and dissolved the shavings in hot water. From an
ecological point of view, soaps stand up to modern demands:
they are made from renewable sources and are readily bio-
degraded, not polluting rivers. However, due to the prob-
lem of precipitation of soaps in hard water and to overcome
post-World War-I shortages in key ingredients then used
for soap (animal fat and vegetable oils), the first commer-
cial detergents were produced for household use just after
World War II in Germany (www.hul.co.in).
Towards the end of the first half of the twentieth centu-
ry, synthetic surfactants replaced soap in the developed
countries. Laundry products in bar form, however, were
still the major detergent in developing countries where
manual washing predominates. In 1950s, when laundry
was done predominantly with laundry soap bars and was
a chore that everyone hated, Surf was launched, as the first
synthetic detergent powder in India (www.hul.co.in). By
the mid-1990s, the industry had become extremely com-
petitive with many international as well as local manufac-
turers entering the sector. The primary method available to
manufacturers to gain market share was the introduction
of new or reformulated products. Manufacturers competed
primarily on performance, and cost (Chynoweth, 1993). In
time, laundry powders were joined by liquid laundry de-
tergents in which the active ingredients were pre dissolved,
thus offering users even greater convenience.
Today, almost every urban Indian household uses some
brand of laundry detergent in large quantity every day. In
fact, of all the household chemicals, the consumption of
detergents and other laundry reagents make up the greatest
volume (Janardhan, 2008). Detergents are also perhaps the
most advertised products on television today. Today, the
detergent market in India is a highly competitive one where
a myriad brands vie with each other to get the customers’
attention. Each brand claims to clean whiter and brighter,
boasting of technologically dubious terms such as ‘power
of enzymes’, ‘lime’, ‘power - pearls’, ‘safe for hands’, ‘nat-
ural fragrance’ etc. It is expected that the demand for syn-
thetic detergents will continue to grow and this in turn will
induce growth in the industry. Factors contributing to this
demand include the rapid population growth, greater aware-
ness, increased urbanization and expected growth in in-
comes.
However, extensive use of these chemicals is leading to
an increasing number of health and environmental prob-
lems worldwide. Indeed, their consumption accounts for
the vast majority of their environmental ‘footprint’ (A.I.
S.E., 2001). The discharge of the laundry detergents and/or
their prepared solution present a significant burden on our
environment in terms of wastewater loading, subsequent
treatment, resource consumption and disposal of packaging
materials (Hong Kong Green Label Scheme, 2010).
PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY
OF THE REVIEW
The purpose of this literature review is to categorize and
briefly summarize the various research studies and techni-
cal reports produced on the subject of the post-environmen-
tal effect of laundry detergents for household purposes. Fur-
thermore, the results of the most important studies and re-
ports are used to illuminate important new directions for fu-
ture research into development of systems and technology
to produce green laundry detergents for household purposes.
Any successful review of literature needs boundaries in
order to clearly mark out where the examination of litera-
ture ends. In setting these boundaries, some worthy mate-
rials will always lie just beyond the point of consideration.
The benefit of having a clearly marked boundary, howev-
er, is to direct future exploration in a clear direction (Hus-

Gupta & Sekhri: Laundry Detergents and Environment / 151
tvedt, 2011). This review examines relevant research stud-
ies published in scientific journal papers, environmental
standards for laundry detergents of various countries and
other published scientific reports on the subject using qual-
itative content analysis. Examples of selected research lit-
erature include scientific studies such as life cycle assess-
ment studies conducted on laundry detergents, environmen-
tal evaluation of specific constituents of laundry detergents
such as surfactants and builders. Other included reports are
based on environmental evaluation and proposed environ-
mental standards for laundry detergents in various coun-
tries across the globe. Of all the reports available to the au-
thor, only 38 reports (references) were selected for this re-
view because they presented research or implications of
enough importance to help guide future research. An attempt
has been made to include only the relevant and most recent
research for the purpose of review. Almost all of the reports
considered in this paper are available in digital format and
were easily accessible. The small minority of reports that
were not yet converted to digital format were available from
other sources.
IMPACT OF LAUNDRY DETERGENTS
ON THE ENVIRONMENT
The consumption of laundry care products is ubiquitous
and has been the subject of environmental study for the last
several decades (GS-48, 2012). Every stage in the life cy-
cle will to some extent have an impact on the environment
such as the consumption of energy, emissions to water, air
and generation of waste. To evaluate the environmental im-
pact of laundry detergents, various, life cycle assessment
(LCA) studies have been conducted on these products. ISO
standard series 14040 (ISO, 1996) defines LCA as the “com-
pilation and evaluation of the inputs, outputs, and poten-
tial environmental impacts of a product system throughout
its life cycle” (UNEP, 2005). The functional unit of the LCAs
is typically one wash cycle. Fig. 1 depicts the life cycle stag-
es of these products.
The LCAs consider environmental indicators like pri-
mary energy consumption, total solid waste, water con-
sumption, aquatic eco toxicity, eutrophication, acidifica-
tion, human toxicity, photochemical oxidant formation,
depletion of the ozone layer and climate change potential.
Several LCAs for laundry detergents have been published
by the industry. Such studies have found out that the use
phase of the life cycle is the dominant source of environ-
mental damage from these products (Fig. 2). An LCA study
conducted by Procter & Gamble found that 80% of ener-
gy use occur during the use phase, mainly for heating of
the water (Saouter and Van Hoof, 2002). The International
Association for Soaps, Detergents and Maintenance Prod-
ucts (A.I.S.E.) also found that the use phase of laundry de-
tergents (controlled by consumers) accounts for 70% of
total energy use, 90% of air emissions, and 60% of solid
waste through LCA (A.I.S.E., 2003).
The result of the studies indicates that use and disposal
stages are the highest contributors to energy consumption,
water emissions and solid waste production in a life cycle
perspective (A.I.S.E., 2001; Van Hoof et al., 2003). Water
emissions are dominant in the disposal stage and primar-
ily relate to contributions to biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and metal emis-
sions (alkali metals: Na and Ca). More than 99% of metal
Energy,
raw materials
Emissions to the
environment
Output
Input
Processing of
raw materials
Detergent
formulation and
packaging
Distribution
retailers &
consumers
Use Disposal
Fig. 1. The Life cycle stages of a la-
undry detergent Source: Nordic
Ecolabelling, 2012.

152 / J ARAHE 21(4) : 149-158, 2014
emissions occur during the disposal stage (A.I.S.E., 2001).
Contributions to aquatic toxicity and eutrophication of laun-
dry detergents are primarily driven by organic water borne
emissions not removed during waste water treatment (Van
Hoof et al., 2003). Solid waste is produced mainly in the
use stage followed by the ingredient.
Thus, it is evident that the major environmental impacts
associated with laundry detergents in a life cycle perspec-
tive are related to:
• The energy used for heating of the washing water in the
use stage and
• The emissions to the environment (water) after use.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DUE
TO PRODUCT AFTER USE
After washing clothes in households, the wash water is
discharged into the sewage treatment system or directly to
the environment, e.g. via a septic tank, for example in ru-
ral areas. The potential impact of such releases depends
upon the inherent chemical properties, and the amount that
is used for washing and ultimately discharged into the en-
vironment. Down drain disposal from laundering primar-
ily relate to contributions to biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD) and metal emis-
sions (A.I.S.E., 2001). Properties such as biodegradabili-
ty, bioaccumulation potential and toxicity in aquatic envi-
ronments are key factors when assessing the environmental
impact of the products. Even though at least 90% of the BOD
is removed during wastewater treatment, a considerable
part of detergent chemicals are discharged to the environ-
ment due to the volume of laundry detergents used and con-
sidering that lot of households are not connected to the STP’s
(sewage treatment plants). Thus, if ingredients are not bio-
degradable or toxic, they can build up in sewage treatment
systems and surface and ground waters to levels that can
impact fish and aquatic life. Even if not present in toxic lev-
els, surfactants can interfere with sewage treatment plant
processes and create objectionable foaming in streams
(Nordic Ecolabelling, 2012). The major part of the metals
discharged from laundry detergents is sodium (Saouter et
al., 2004). This is not surprising since considerable amounts
of sodium is contained in laundry detergents (e.g. as sodi-
um sulphate, soaps). Solid waste in the form of sludge is also
generated from wastewater treatment upon use of laundry
detergents (Nordic Ecolabelling, 2012).
Dosing the laundry detergent correctly, can be looked
upon as a sustainable way of doing laundry, however, re-
ducing the amount of chemicals per wash is not in itself an
environmental improvement unless the properties of the
ingredients are also taken into account.
IMPACT OF INGREDIENTS
The main ingredients used in laundry detergents and stain
removing products are surfactants, builders, and bleach-
ing agents. The detergent industry has two major environ-
mental issues, namely: the lack of biodegradability of cer-
tain synthetic surfactants and the eutrophication of rivers
and lakes due to excess phosphate. Eutrophication is the
process by which a body of water acquires a high concen-
tration of nutrients, such as phosphates. These typically pro-
mote excessive growth of algae. As the algae die and de-
compose, high levels of organic matter and the decomposing
organisms deplete the water of available oxygen, causing
the death of other organisms, such as fish (Art, 1993).
Surfactants are surface-active substances used in all de-
tergents. Surfactants are used in high concentrations in laun-
dry detergents and are the key ingredients contributing to
the overall aquatic toxicity, when these products are used
and released ‘down the drain’ (Van Hoof et al., 2003). A
surfactant to be environmentally friendly should be read-
ily biodegradable both under aerobic and anaerobic con-
ditions.
Developed in the early 1940s, branched alkyl chain tet-
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
(%)
Disposal
Use
Packaging
Transport
Manufacturing
Ingredients
Energy Water emissions Solid waste
Fig. 2. Life cycle analysis of a generic European laundry de-
tergent (A.I.S.E. 2001)(Normalised on a per wash basis).

Gupta & Sekhri: Laundry Detergents and Environment / 153
ra propylene benzene sulfonates (TPS) represented the first
generation of alkylbenzene sulfonates designed to replace
soaps in detergents. Due to the poor biodegradability pro-
file of TPS, problems surfaced quickly in the form of se-
vere foaming in municipal wastewater treatment plants
and the rivers downstream (Saouter et al., 2001). They
were replaced by linear alkyl benzene sulfonates (LAS)
such as sodium dodecybenzene sulfonate and sodium xy-
lenesulfonate, which are readily biodegradable. The LAS
surfactant being anionic in nature gets sequestered and be
precipitated from the wash solution by divalent cations un-
der high water hardness conditions, reducing the cleaning
power of the detergent. The use of low levels of alkyl eth-
oxy ether sulfate (AES) surfactant in a surfactant system
substantially reduces the tendency of the anionic surfactant
to precipitation under high wash-water hardness (as cited
in Yangxin, ZHAO and Bayly, 2008). Sanderson et al. (2006)
studied the risk caused by AES, and LAS in river water and
sediments, and it was concluded that AES, and LAS re-
sulted in low aquatic risk. Alpha olefin sulfonate (AOS),
which is one of the anionic surfactants that is fast gaining
acceptability in detergents due to its superior performance
characteristics and enhanced biodegradability, may play a
function similar to AES.
Another class of surfactants used for detergency action
is non-ionic surfactants. They are not sensitive to hard wa-
ter since no precipitation occurs in the presence of divalent
ions. Furthermore, non- ionic surfactants can be used to de-
terge animal fibers such as silk and wool, to avoid the ion-
ic adsorption of surfactant on the amino groups in the fi-
bers since electrostatic force does not work for non ionic
surfactants. The non-ionic surfactants are represented most-
ly by linear alcohol ethoxylates, with the alcohols being
derived from either petrochemical raw materials or natu-
ral resources. Alcohol ethoxylate (AE), alkylphenol ethox-
ylates (APEO) or alkylphenol derivatives (APD) are used
in high volumes, particularly in detergent compositions for
over forty years (Yangxin, ZHAO and Bayly, 2008). They
meet the primary biodegradability, but the metabolic prod-
ucts resulting from the degradation process do not readily
degrade further and may have undesirable side effects on
aquatic life (Motson, 1999). Biodegradation releases al-
kylphenols which can disrupt hormones in fish (Nordic
Ecolabelling, 2012). Some degradation products have been
declared by the EU to be endocrine disrupting (e.g. nonyl-
phenol) and harmful to health. Both substances are explic-
itly excluded by most of the Eco label regulations for de-
tergents across the globe (Gupta and Sekhri, 2014).
Builders/chelating agents are used to trap minerals in the
water and soils that might interfere with the functioning of
the surfactants and help buffer the wash to enhance the func-
tioning of the surfactants (Nordic Ecolabelling, 2012). Of
the builders commonly used in laundry detergents, there
are two categories: Phosphates and EDTA (ethylene dichlo-
ride tetra acetic acid) versus everything else. Historically,
builders contained inorganic Sodium Tri-Poly Phosphate
(STPP). Phosphates, although very effective builders, can
create significant impacts during extraction and have been
singled out mainly because of their contribution to eutrophi-
cation of bodies of water after disposal. EDTA is a petro-
chemical compound made using a suspected carcinogen,
ethylene dichloride. It is not readily biodegradable and it
can re-mobilize heavy metals from sediments and soils lead-
ing to contamination of surface and ground waters. The aer-
obic and anaerobic biodegradability of EDTA is further-
more limited. Alternative to EDTA was DTPA (diethylene
triamine penta acetic acid) and NTA (nitrilo triacetic acid).
However, DTPA is also found to have similar properties like
EDTA and therefore its use has also been restricted (Nordic
Ecolabelling, 2012). The use of NTA as a builder in wash-
ing and dishwashing detergents leads to exposure levels
that are more than 105 times below toxicity risk levels, and
does not cause skin or eye irritation (Yangxin, ZHAO and
Bayly, 2008). However, the potential environmental effects
of NTA as a household detergent builder are heavy metal
mobilization and toxicity to aquatic organisms. Due to the
highly toxic chemicals used at the NTA producing stage,
stringent safety requirements are needed (Brouwer and
Terpstra, 1995). NTA is banned or its use is restricted in
countries such as the USA and Switzerland, which is attrib-
uted to its increased transmission of heavy metals (Yangx-
in, ZHAO, and Bayly, 2008). NTA is now also officially
classified as carcinogenic to humans (IARC, 1999) and is
thus excluded in majority of standards and regulations for
household laundry detergents across the globe. The use of
phosphates, EDTA, DTPA and NTA are not authorized in
detergents eligible for the European Union Eco-label. Most
of the other builders now being used, such as sodium car-
bonate, sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), sodium silicate
(made from sodium carbonate and sand), and sodium citrate
(used as a food additive) and Zeolites pose fairly mild envi-
ronmental impacts in extraction, processing, use, and dis-
posal.
Bleaching agents help in the removal and decolouring of

154 / J ARAHE 21(4) : 149-158, 2014
stains. In some cases oxidative bleach can also provide an
antibacterial function. The materials used for bleaching in-
clude percarbonates and perborates, peroxides, peracids,
and hypochlorite. Chlorine based bleach generally has un-
wanted health and environmental properties. Since reac-
tive chlorine compounds react with organic substances, or-
ganic chlorine compounds can form in the waste water sys-
tem. These may be toxic, persistent and bioaccumulable.
Reactive chlorine compounds include hypochlorites, chlo-
rine gas, chloramines and chlorine dioxide (Nordic Ecola-
belling, 2012). Oxygen based bleach decompose complete-
ly in sewers and sewage treatment works. HERA (Human
and Environmental Risk Assessment) risk assessments for
the major substances sodium perborate, sodium percarbon-
ate and hydrogen peroxide confirm no risk to the environ-
ment (Sustainable Cleaning, 2008).
Optical brighteners-Optical brightening agents (OBAs),
fluorescent brightening agents (FBAs) or fluorescent whit-
ening agents (FWAs) are chemicals that absorb light in the
ultraviolet and violet region (usually 340-370 nm) of the
electromagnetic spectrum, and re-emit light in the blue re-
gion (typically 420-470 nm). These additives are often used
(from 0.05-0.15% in the product) to enhance the appear-
ance of the fabric, causing a perceived “whitening” effect,
making materials look less yellow by increasing the over-
all amount of blue light reflected (GS-48, 2012). Optical
brighteners are not readily biodegradable. They get ab-
sorbed to the sludge in the water treatment plants, which is
not wanted, since there is a wish to keep the sludge as free
from chemicals as possible. The remainder degrades in the
aquatic environment, notably by photo degradation fol-
lowed by biodegradation of the initial breakdown prod-
ucts. They are water soluble so will not bio accumulate. En-
vironmental monitoring studies and HERA risk assessments
show no risk for the environment (Sustainable Cleaning,
2008). However, since these chemicals are not required to
a great extent in household, as compared to the industrial
use; their use in detergents for domestic laundry pose an ex-
tra burden on the environment in terms of waste water treat-
ment. The use of these agents have been restricted under the
Eco labelling scheme in Nordic countries, New Zealand,
Australia, Canada and Singapore.
Fragrances are cosmetic ingredients which are added to
give the laundry a pleasant smell and/or to mask (possible)
unpleasant smell. Fragrance is one of the most frequent causes
of contact allergy, although the overall prevalence of fra-
grance allergy is relatively low-a German study has shown
that approximately 4% of the adult population is suffering
from fragrance allergy (Videncenter for Allergi, 2010). Ni-
tromusks and polycyclic musks used as fragrance gener-
ally have unwanted health and environmental properties
and is prohibited by IFRA (International Fragrance Asso-
ciation). Most fragrance formulations are furthermore clas-
sified as hazardous for the aquatic environment (Nordic
Ecolabelling, 2012).
Colouring agents are added to many raw materials to dis-
guise a dull colour/signal a specific effect. These substanc-
es do not contribute to the performance of the product. Many
colouring agents are not readily biodegradable and will thus
be regulated through the general environmental require-
ments on toxicity and biodegradability. It is recommended
that colouring agents used should not be bio accumulative.
Colouring agents used in food are not considered envi-
ronmentally hazardous. Colouring agents that are not bio
accumulative are not absorbed by the food chain and their
environmental hazard is therefore limited.
IMPACT OF PACKAGING
All types of packaging, if not recycled, deplete solid
waste disposal capacity, whether disposal is by landfill or
incineration. Releases of dioxins from incineration of PVC
and heavy metal additives from incineration of all packag-
ing are the most significant potential health and environ-
mental impacts (Davis et al., 1992).
Research has shown that reducing the packaging th-
rough concentrating or compacting the product reduces the
environmental impacts from packaging, and thus the prod-
uct (Cole, 1994). These products reduce the amount of de-
tergent per wash load (e.g., 50% less) and thus require less
packaging to deliver the same number of washes (Saouter
et al., 2002). Also, the use of recycled packaging (e.g., plas-
tic/HDPE) reduces the impact from packaging, though mar-
ginally in comparison to the effect from concentrating/com-
pacting (Kuta et al., 1995). As a result, compact and super-
compact formulations should be the trend in the market to
minimize the impact on the environment arising out of pack-
aging of these products.
IMPACT OF LAUNDRY
DETERGENTS ON HEALTH
In addition to the environmental impact of laundry de-
tergents both the manufacture and use of the products may

Gupta & Sekhri: Laundry Detergents and Environment / 155
also impact the health. Health is critical for the consumers.
Exposure to laundry chemicals may occur during and after
use. The physical contact with the detergent during use is
rather limited. However, after washing, some of the ingo-
ing chemicals may be left in the clothes. Some chemicals
like fragrances and fabric softeners are designed and incor-
porated in the formulation to stay or leave traces on the clo-
thes. Other chemicals may stay on the clothes after washing
due to insufficient rinsing in the wash process and/or poor
solubility. Depending on their inherent properties, chemi-
cals left in the textiles after washing may give rise to aller-
gy and skin irritation (Nordic Ecolabelling, 2012).
AN ECO-FRIENDLY DETERGENT-
RESUMING TO TRADITIONAL
SOCIETY AND BOTANICAL RESOURCES
An environmentally superior detergent is one that uses
environment friendly ingredients. Traditional societies have
always developed and followed eco-friendly and sustain-
able lifestyles. They were smart to explore the local botan-
ical sources and their benefits for various purposes. The
using of plant parts as soaps and detergents is an age old
practice in India. Prior to the development of chemical de-
tergents, people used seeds, straws, ash etc. for bathing and
washing. Use of plant species as soaps and detergents can
save money on one hand and will be safe on the environ-
ment and health on the other. One of the very popular tra-
ditional alternatives to detergents is reetha (soapnut), which
is known for its washing properties and is used in a num-
ber of shampoo preparations as well all across the globe.
Mehta and Bhatt (2007) have found that rural communi-
ties in hilly areas of Uttranchal, India have used various plant
species for making soaps and detergents, where access to
market is not possible. Many of these identified species like
Grewia optica (Bhimal), Agave spp. (Ramban), Zea mays
(Maize) and Sapindus mukurossi (Reetha) have great po-
tential to act as a eco- friendly substitute to modern chem-
ical based detergents, if added with value or processing know
how of raw materials to the user. Rawat and Kharwal (2010),
also documented the use of eco-friendly herbal liquid de-
tergent prepared using dried maize (Zea mays) stems in an-
cient India in the Shivalik regions of Himachal Pradesh. Sa-
rin and Uppal (1941) measured the detergent efficiency of
Sapindus mukurossi (soapnut/reetha) powder with a view
to its utilization in the textile industry. The results indicat-
ed soap nut powder to be as effective a washing agent as soap.
However, the soapnut powder performs well at higher tem-
perature and detergency increases with increase in temper-
ature. Thus, use of such products at high temperature to sat-
isfactory clean the textile will lead to increase energy con-
sumption. In that case, it is more likely that using regular
detergent, but at low temperature and at full capacity of the
machine is the environmentally preferable alternative. Sim-
ilar conclusions were made by a study done in 2010 by Lai-
tala and Kjeldsberg who studied the cleaning effect of al-
ternative laundry products viz. Soap nuts, laundry balls, wa-
shing pellets, laundry magnets, water and regular detergent.
The results of the study indicated that the cleaning effect
of the four alternative laundry products were equal to that
of water alone. Conventional compact detergent showed a
significantly better cleaning effect on all tested soil types.
This means that consumers that wash only slightly stained
textiles could be satisfied with the washing result either
without detergent, with an alternative laundry product, or
with a reduced amount of regular detergent, thereby, re-
ducing the impact of detergents on the environment.
Another way of minmizing the environmental impact of
detergents is the development of surfactants used in deter-
gents based exclusively on natural products like use of car-
bohydrate and vegetable oils. Methyl ester sulfonate (MES)
has been produced largely or entirely from renewable, non-
petroleum raw materials and applied to detergents and clean-
ing products by companies such as Lion Corporation, Ste-
pan and Malaysian Palm Oil Board (Maurad et al., 2006).
Dhakite et al. (2010), also investigated the potential use of
polymers based on maize starch and sorbitol to be used as
eco-friendly substitute for petroleum based surfactants in
detergent formulations. The results indicated excellent de-
tergency characteristics and foaming height comparable to
commercial samples. The process was found to be easy,
controllable and safe compared to the production of acid
slurry and thus can be produced by small scale entrepre-
neurs in-house with a small investment.
Hreczuch (2001) has examined the possible use of eth-
oxylation product of low-erucic rapeseed oil acid methyl
esters as a non-ionic surfactant. They are easy to formulate
into attractive liquid detergents with high cleaning perfor-
mance and show a more favourable eco-toxicological pro-
file compared with fatty alcohol ethoxylates (Renkin et al.,
2005). Kharkate et al. in 2005 synthesized an alkyd resin
polymeric surfactant based on soybean oil and rosin. This
polymeric surfactant is suitable for liquid detergent formu-
lation in association with sodium lauryl sulfate and can be

156 / J ARAHE 21(4) : 149-158, 2014
used as a substitute of LAS. The prepared compositions of
liquid detergents have equivalent detergency performance
compared with the commercial ones, but are more econom-
ic and eco-friendly.
As far as the use of builder is concerned, the problem of
replacement of STPP builder is being solved. Recently, Ame-
rican Agricultural Research Service scientists and Folia Inc.
have developed a new, environmentally friendly co-build-
er from corn. They have combined citric acid and sorbitol
and heated them to form biodegradable polyesters. Because
critic acid and sorbitol are derived mainly from corn starch,
both compounds are plentiful, renewable, and inexpensive
resources. Although more new bio-based polyester is need-
ed to obtain the same builder activity as polyacrylic acid,
they have the advantage of natural degradation after use.
Folia now seeks commercial-scale production capabilities
of at least 1000 pounds of the bio-based polyester co-build-
er per hour (Suszkiw, 2007). It is hopeful that the use of
this co-builder will impose the lowest chemical load upon
the environment. Other alternative could be the use of Ze-
olites and Sodium citrate. Sodium citrate has been used in
some commercial P-free (phosphate free) detergents. Al-
though it is fully biodegradable and leaves no trace in the
environment, its cost is high and its sequestering power is
mediocre (Yangxin, ZHAO, and Bayly, 2008).
CONSENSUS
Concern for the environment is a major driver of the pres-
ent day technological developments. Development in the
formulations of soaps and detergents, although leading to
improvement in clothes cleaning however, these techno-
logical advancements are causing an adverse effect on the
environment and health. From various life cycle assessment
(LCA) studies on laundry detergents and research work on
quality of waste-water from laundry, it has been concluded
that ordinary household detergents, especially those com-
prising long-lasting synthetic organic detergents and phos-
phate builders, have had detrimental effects on surface wa-
ter. The surface-active organic compounds which are not
readily decomposed after discharge from the sink, wash tub
or washing machine, may find their way into natural streams,
creeks, rivers and lakes posing threat to the aquatic life and
the environment as a whole. These products also pose a po-
tential threat to health and humans. Therefore, it is imper-
ative that in the future, the development of the surfactants,
builders and other essential ingredients used in detergent
compositions should be based on economic and environ-
mental considerations. The compositions should include the
use of environmentally sustainable ingredients derived from
inexpensive, renewable resources rather than synthetic or
petroleum derived compounds. The formulation should also
be free from non-essential additives like synthetic perfumes,
artificial colour and brightening agents and should have min-
imal packaging to ensure a cleaner environment.
Laundry detergent industry needs to responsibly address
concerns and ensure that in future laundry detergents are
safe for consumers, those involuntarily exposed and the
environment. There is an opportunity, to revive the tradi-
tional method of laundering based on botanical techniques.
However, to be successful in the present scenario, these
green laundry detergents must be modified for use in west-
ernized equipment, such as automated washing machines,
and must be convenient to store, use, and handle.
REFERENCES
A.I.S.E. (20 01). The Life-cycle assessment of European clothes
laundering. Report 2: LCA of compact fabric washing pow-
der & main wash process. A.I.S.E. LCA taskforce.
A.I.S.E. (2003). Final report on the implementation of the A.I.S.E.
code of good environmental practice for household laundry
detergents in Europe. January 2003. Retrieved on August 8,
2013 from htt p://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/
les/reports/nal_aise_en.pdf.
Art, H. W. (1993). A dictionar y of ecology and environmental sci-
ence (1st e d.): New York, New York, Henry Holt and Com-
pany, 196.
Brouwer, N. M., & Terpstra, P. M. J. (1995). Ecological and tox-
icological proper ties of nitrilo tr i acetic acid (NTA) as a de-
tergent builder, Tenside Surfactants Detergents, 32, 225-228.
Brundtland Commission. (1987). Our com mon future. World Com-
mission on Environment and Development (WCED), 43. Ox-
ford University Press.
Budavari, S. (Ed.). (1989). The Merck index (11th ed.), Merck &
Co.: Rahway. 1328.
Chynoweth, E. (1993). Cleaning up with novel detergent k now-
ho w. Chemical Week. October 1993.
Cole, H. (1994). Super-clean and super-green: The environmen-
tal case for concentrated liquid laundry detergents. Washing-
ton, DC.
Davis, A. G., Dickey, P., Duxbury, D., Grifth, B., Oakley, B., &
Cornell, K. (1992). Household cleaners: Environmental eval-
uation and proposed standards for general purpose house-
hold cleaners. University of Tennessee, Centre for Clean Prod-
ucts and Clean Technologies. July, 1992. Retrieved on Februa-
ry 20, 2014 from http://isse.utk.edu/ccp/pubs/pdfs/Household
Cleaners-wogsandapps.pdf
Dhakite, A. P., Gogte, B. B., & Phate, B. W. (2010). Eco-friend ly
green polymers based on maize starch and sorbitol for pow-
der detergent. International Journal of Chemical Technology

Gupta & Sekhri: Laundry Detergents and Environment / 157
Research, 2(4), 1975-1979. Retrieved on February 20, 2014
from http://s ph i n xsai.co m /O ct_ dec _ 2010 _vol2_n o.4/che m-
Tech_vol2_no.4_1_pdf/CT=19%20(1975-1979).pdf
Gupta, N., & Sekhri, S. (2014). A comparative evaluation of en-
vironmental regulations for laundry detergents. Oral presen-
tation at the Inter national Conference On Emerging Trends
In Traditional & Technical Textiles (ICET T 2014). Organized
by Dr. B. R. Ambedker National Institute of Technology, Ja-
landhar, Punjab, India, held on 11th & 12th April, 2014 in Ja-
landhar, Punjab, India.
GS-48. (2012). Background infor mation on the proposed Green
Seal
TM
Standard for laundr y care products. 16 March, 2012.
Green Seal, Inc., 1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Ste 872, Wash-
ington, DC USA 20036-5525. Retrieved on November 12, 2013
from http://www.greenseal.org/Portals/0/Documents/Stan-
dards/GS-48%20Std%20Dev/GS- 48_Background_Infor-
mation_Laundry_Care_Products.pdf
Hong Kong Green Label Scheme-Product environmental crite-
ria for laundry detergents (GL-003-001). (2010). Revision 2,
22 March 2010. Retrieved on September 9, 2013 from htt p://
www.greencouncil.org/hkgls/GL003001_ver2.pdf.
Hreczuch, W. (20 01). Ethoxylated rapeseed oil acid methyl esters
as new ingredients for detergent formulation, Te n side S u r-
factants Detergents, 38, 72-79.
Hustvedt, G. (2011). Review of laundr y energy efciency studies
conducted by the US Department of Energy, International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 35, 228-236.
IARC 1999: IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogen-
ic risks to humans. (1999). WHO International Agency for Re-
search on Cancer, 73. Lyon, France 1999. Retrieved on Sep-
tember 9, 2013 from http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Mono-
graphs/vol71/mono71.pdf
Janardhanan K. R. (2008). Soaps and detergents, Vigyan Prasar,
Department of Science and Technology, Government of In-
dia. Retrieved on September 9, 2013 from www.vigyanprasar.
gov.in/.../soaps%20and%20detergents.pdf
Kharkate, S. K., Karadbhajne, V. Y., & Gogte, B. B. (2005). Some
resin based eco-friendly liquid detergents, Some resin based
eco-friendly liquid detergents, Journal of Scientic and In-
dustrial Research, 64, 752-755. Retrieved on September 9, 2013
from http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream /123456789/5286/1/
JSIR%20 64(10)%20 752-755.pdf
Kuta, C. C., Koch, D. G., Hildebrandt, C. C., & Janzen, D. C. (1995).
Improvement of products and packaging through use of life
cycle analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 14,
185-198. Retrieved on December 9, 2013 from http://ac.el s-
cdn.com/092134499500016C/1-s2.0-092134499500016C-
main.pdf?_tid=ad4fb4a0-dfe3-11e3-9be5-00000aab0f26&a
cdnat=1400565651_3c72d87d42dc730940fd88d4b15ec509
Laitala, K., & Kjeldsberg, M. (2012). Cleaning effect of alterna-
tive laundry products. A comparison of soap nuts, laundry
balls, washing pellets, laundry magnets, water and regular
detergent. Household and Personal Care Today, 7(4), 53-56.
Retrieved on December 15, 2013 from
Mahato, S. B., Pal, B. C., & Nandy, A. K. (1992). Tetrahedron, 48,
6717.
Maurad, Z. A., Ghazali, R., Siwayanan, P., Ismail, Z., & Ahmad,
S. (2006). Alpha-sulfonated methyl ester as an active ingre-
dient in palm-based powder detergents. Journal of Surfactants
and Detergents, 9, 161-167. Retrieved on February 15, 2014
from http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/612/art%253A
10.1007%252Fs11743-006-0386-7.pdf?auth66=1400736005
_1f55086c322fa1cee47255f35cbb604f&ext=.pdf
Mehta, R. S., & Bhatt, K. C. (2007). Traditional soap and deter-
gent yielding plants of Uttranchal. Indian Journal of Tradi-
tional Knowledge, 6(2), 279-284. Retrieved on September 9,
2013 from http://nopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/
920/1/IJTK%206%282%29%20%282007%29 %20279-284.
pdf
Motson, H. R. (1999). Non-ionic surfactants: Achieving the bal-
ance between performance and environmental properties.
Industrial Applications of Surfactants IV. The Royal Society
of Chemistry, Cambridge (1999).
Nordic Ecolabelling. (2012). Eco-labelled laundry detergents and
stain removers, Criteria Version 7.2, Background document,
6 October 2012. Retrieved on September 9, 2013 from http://
www.svanen.se/Templates/Criteria/CriteriaGetFile.aspx?
leID=149345001.
Rawat, D. S. & Kharwal, A. D. (2010). Indigenous traditional meth-
od for making liquid detergent “Chhoa” from Zea mays Linn.
in Shivalik Hills (Himachal Pradesh), India. Ethnobotanical
Leaets, 14, 5-7. Retrieved on March 14, 2014 from http://op -
ensiuc.lib.siu.edu /cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context =
ebl
Renkin, M., Fleurackers, S., Szwach, I., & Hreczuch, W. (2005).
Rapeseed methyl ester ethoxylates: A new class of surfactants
of environmental commercial interest. Tenside Surfactants
Detergents, 42, 280-287.
Sanderson, H., Dyer, S. D., Price, B. B., Nielsen, A. M., Van Com-
pernille, R., Selby, M., Stanton, K., Evens, A., Ciarlo, M., &
Sedlak, R. (2006). Occurrence and weight-of-evidence risk
assessment of alkyl sulfates, alkyl ethoxysulfates, and linear
alkylbenzene sulfonates (LAS) in river water and sediments.
Science of the Total Environment, 368, 695-712. Retrieved on
March 20, 2014 from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S004896970600
3378/1-s2.0 -S0048969706003378-main.pdf?_tid=e258c262-
dfdf-11e3-8f4f- 00000aab0f27&acdnat=1400564022_56e3
cc537c88c 06 a5336b333b9ebc31f
Saouter, E., Pittinger, C., & Feijtel, T. (2001). Aquatic environmen-
tal impact of detergents: From simple to more sophisticated
models. Ecotoxicolog y and Environmental Safety, 50, 153 -159.
Retrieved on August 20, 2013 from http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0
147651301920846/1-s2.0-S0147651301920846-main.pdf?_
tid=d7c60ed4-dfe1-11e3-8d10-00000aab0f6b&acdnat=140
0564863_292789a17611ae52ec070e3be8efd287
Saouter, E., & Van Hoof, G. (2002). A database for the life cycle as-
sessment of Procter & Gamble laundry detergents. Interna-
tional Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 7(2), 103-114. Retriev-
ed on August 20, 2013 from htt p://download.springer.com/
static/pdf/175/art%253A10.1007%252FBF02978854.pdf?aut
h66 =1394251981_2 ee cd17d203ed5372fa39a2c1e5e48f4&e
xt=.pdf
Saouter, E., Van Hoof G., Feijetel, T., & Owens, J. W. (2002). The
effect of compact formulations on the environmental prole
of norther n European granular laundry detergents: Part II
Life cycle assessment. International Journal of Life Cycle As-

158 / J ARAHE 21(4) : 149-158, 2014
sessment, 7(1), 27-28. Retrieved on August 20, 2013 from http://
download.springer.com/static/pdf/366/art%253A10.1007%
252 FB F0 297 890 7.p df ?a ut h6 6 =139 4252 04 9_f 74 6c c31e1d f b e
8aeb45845870 21c22a &ext =.pdf
Saouter, E., Van Hoof, G., & White, P. (2004). Chapter 7: Life Cy-
cle Assessment: A novel approach to the environmental pro-
le of detergent consumer products. Handbook of Detergents/
Part B: Environmental Impact. Surfactant Science Series Vol.
121. CRC Press 2004.
Sarin , L. J., & Uppal, Y. M. (1941). Detergent value of soap nut
powd er. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, 33(5), 666-
668. Retrieved on December 15, 2013 from http://pubs.acs.
org/doi/pdf/10.1021/i e50377a0 28
Sustainable Cleaning: A guide for users of professional cleaning
products. (2008). Revision 2.0, April 2008. British Cleaning
Council, PO Box 1328, Kidderninster, DY11 5ZJ. Retrieved
on Februar y 20, 2014 from http://www.bacsnet.org/uploads/
attachment/403/sustainable-cleaning.pdf
Suszkiw, J. (2007). Corn: A new ingredient for detergents? Agri-
cultural Research magazine, 55, 9. Retrieved on March 20,
2014 f rom ht t p://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/apr07/corn
040 7. p d f
UNEP: Life cycle Approaches-The road from analysis to prac-
tice. UNEP/SETAC Life cycle initiative (2005). Retrieved on
January 15, 2014 from http://www.unep.fr/shared/publica-
tions/pdf/DTIx0594xPA-Road.pdf.
Van Hoof, G., Schowanek, D., & Feijtel, T. C. J. (2003). Compar-
ative life-cycle assessment of laundry detergent formulations
in the UK. Part 1: Environmental ngerprint of ve detergent
formulations in 2001. Tenside Surfactants Detergents, 40, 266-
275.
Videncenter for Allergi 2010: Perfume allergi. Retrieved on Jan-
uary 15, 2014 from http://www.videncenterforallergi.dk/re-
search-perfume.html
Yangxin, Y., Zhao, J., & Bayly, A. E. (2008). Development of sur-
factants and builders in detergent formulations. Chinese Jour-
nal of Chemical Engineering, 16(4), 517-527. Retrieved on Feb-
ruary 25, 2014 from http://www.chemeng.tsinghua.edu.cn/
scholars/yuyx/papers/Yu%20Detergent%20Review1.pdf