Fuzzy logic

Fuzzy logic

Most advertisements project detergents as the ultimate dirt beaters. While detergents are facilitators, most cleaning action is actually done by water, the liquid solvent that not only dissolves dirt, but also provides a medium to suspend and carry it away from the surface. The transition from traditional natural cleaners such as clay, soapnut, ash, tamarind and even goat droppings to soap and detergents has been a game of manipulating chemistry.

Enter chemistry
Given time, water will clean and remove just about every type of dirt be it organic or inorganic. But time is the constraint and that's where detergents get in. They quicken the process of removing the dirt by tinkering with the properties of water and dirt.

Primarily, detergents break down surface tension, allowing water to quickly wet the cloth that's soaked in it. Modern detergents use surfactants to do the main cleaning job. Surfactants make water wetter, loosen, emulsify, hold dirt in suspension till rinsing and provide alkalinity to remove acidic dirt. They also produce foam to make it easier to scrub.

But modern detergents contain many more things than surfactants and are designed to deliver many more services than cleaning. They contain builders to soften hard water, fillers that make the detergent free flowing, bleaching agents and optical brighteners to make clothes white and bright, enzymes to break down biological stains such as blood, colouring agents to improve the appearance and fragrances to make the washed clothes smell nice.

Products in the west have features such as fabric softeners and anti-microbial elements to destroy pathogens. With these add-ons, detergents now arrive as a total consumer package. But this perceptible shift from a cleaning-specific role to additional feel-good and smell-good role has come at a heavy environmental price.

Lethal input
From Quick Wash to Stain Champion and Power Pearls to Spring Fresh, Indian consumers can access a dazzling range of specialised products. The detergents use different formulations. The special effects in most detergents nowadays are made possible by a host of chemicals. But little is known about all the constituents of detergents in the Indian market. What is known is that detergents contain 8 per cent to 18 per cent of surfactants and the most commonly used surfactant is Linear Alkyl Benzene (lab) -- a moderately biodegradable and toxic chemical.

Builder chemistry changed significantly with the ban on phosphates in many European countries and the subsequent emergence of the zeolite lobby. Today, in most parts of Europe, phosphate-free detergents rule the market. But in Asia, this trend is yet to catch on and markets are still open to both categories of detergents with several Indian detergent brands using phosphate-based builders. Hariharan, secretary general, Indian Soaps and Toiletries Manufacturers' Association, opines, "Zeolite is yet to come to India in a big way. Yet you cannot say phosphate is dominant since the huge unorganised segment does not use phosphate builders." According to Ravi Khanna, department of surfactants and detergents, Harcourt Butler Technological Institute, Kanpur, "Sodium tripoly phosphate (stpp) content in Surf Excel Automatic is 10 per cent." But not everyone uses phosphates: Nirma has sodium carbonate while Henkel is zeolite-based.

But what else Indian detergents contain is anybody's guess. For instance, bleach contains hydrogen peroxide, tetra acetyl ethylene diamine and manganese. Fabric softeners contain quaternary ammonium compounds, fragrances come with aromatic hydrocarbons. Add bluing agents, anti re-deposition agents, organic sequesterers and what you have is a full load of chemicals in each wash. The environmental and health impact of these ingredients are not known to even regulators because they have never cared to regulate them.
But the innovations keep rolling in, with new content in each reformulation. Unilever has patented a technology that promotes lower detergent use and better fabric cleaning, while its Indian face, Hindustan Lever Ltd ( hll) brought in silicon-based anti foaming agents in its new quick wash detergent that supposedly consumes less water.

Other Indian companies are also viewing water scarcity as an opportunity to introduce products that ostensibly need less water. But in this business, most innovation is still driven by price. Environmental pollution is still not on the agenda, leave alone a priority. 12jav.net12jav.net

Read Full Coverage

Toxic foam

To grab market share by providing that little 'extra' has led to extensive collaborative research between detergent makers and speciality chemical companies. New chemicals are synthesised and added to detergents, without evaluating their safety. Broadly, synthetic detergents are known to be corrosive, toxic, slow to biodegrade and contribute to the growing levels of eutrophication in waterbodies.

The major debate surrounding detergents is linked to the use of phosphates as builders. Phosphates were linked with eutrophication and in Europe and the us zeolite has largely replaced phosphates. But debate still continues about the relative safety of phosphate vs zeolite. In India, experts are divided. Khanna dismisses the phosphate argument. "In our waterbodies, eutrophication is due to domestic sewage and phosphatic fertilisers, not detergents." Brij Gopal, School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi disagrees, "It's unfair to compare fertilisers with detergents, since detergents reach the water cycle immediately." Says Clive Southey (author, Detergents and the Environment: the Canadian and the Indian Experience), "The sharply rising frequency of detergent use in India demands a timely response from the government and industry."

But says Khanna, "Phosphate-free powder uses sodium bicarbonate and common salt, which lead to higher total dissolved solids in wastewater. Gopal agrees it's time to look beyond the phosphate debate and at other dangers. "There are much more complex chemicals used these days. The biological impact of some enzymes can be extremely high."

Insidious detergents
D etergent laden effluent harms closed waterbodies, persistent toxins may inhibit microbial activity thereby causing even biodegradble chemicals like surfactants to bio-accumulate. Virendra Misra, Indian Toxicological Research Centre, Lucknow, proved the effects of mercury chloride (in wastewater) on the retardation of biodegradation of labs. A study by Procter & Gamble in uk from 1998-2001 showed besides surfactants, fragrances contribute most to aquatic toxicity.

India faces two major challenges; first, the growing detergent use and second, inadequate sewage treatment facilities. In contrast to the west where most phosphorus from sewage is recovered during wastewater treatment, in India inefficient treatment facilities means that whatever phosphates are released from washing directly reach the waterbodies. So more the detergents, greater the pollution load in India's waterbodies.

Given this scenario, the jump in India's per capita detergent consumption is worrying. India's total detergent consumption is as much as that of the eu or the us. Environmentalists feel regulation and transparency is the key issue here. Industry should be made to reveal ingredients and possible toxic effects. Mandatory regulatory standards should be fixed. Misra suggests detergent life cycle analysis, evaluating environmental impact at each stage: from manufacturing to use and disposal. 12jav.net12jav.net

Read Full Coverage

Slippery biz

Why do companies that submit to regulations abroad have a free for all in India? For a start, because it's simply not mandatory for them to do so. India has no regulation to control pollution from detergent use. Southey points out, "Because India does not have specific legislation or regulation to control the amount of phosphorus in laundry detergents, there has been no reduction even on a voluntary basis by the detergent industry."

The Bureau of Indian Standards (bis), in consultation with the industry, formulated standards for household laundry detergent powders (is 4955:2001). So a bis standard exists, but as this is voluntary, neither the big players like hll, p&g, Henko, Nirma nor even the smaller brands such as Fena or Ghadi have gone in for the same.

Even the bis label is basic, compared to the comprehensive and obligatory European Union Regulations on detergents. European regulation makes it mandatory for manufacturers to clearly state detergent content. The Unilever website that displays content for products sold in the eu is not obliged to do so in India.

As for dosage, the Indian brands do not deal with specificity. Most provide dosage information in terms of 'scoop', other mention random amounts, but none define the amount of clothes that can be washed with a specified dose. So confused consumers make their own choices. Gopal cautions, "Overdosing would be harmful since chemical concentration in wash water would be more." But neither the industry nor the government seems to be worried. The other problem is even the standard set by bis is really a product quality standard, not one that looks at environmental impact. Shockingly, it sets only a minimum target for levels of ingredients rather than stipulate maximum limits for a higher environmental standard of compliance. For instance, the concentration by mass of stpp is prescribed at a minimum of 9.5 per cent for grade 1 detergents. So is the case for total phosphates. This essentially allows the manufacturers to increase the concentration to any extent as per their requirements. Even the test for biodegradability (is 13933:1995) is not specific for various categories of surfactants. In any case, the bis norms are not foolproof. The standard for household laundry detergent powders describes detergents as "free flowing powder, free from unpleasant odour, possessing good lathering and cleaning properties." By these yardsticks, 'quick wash of hll', with its low foaming capacity, may not be a 'detergent'.

Indian citizen: exposed
Unilever product, Via, and p&g brands Ariel and Ajax have opted for Sweden's Swan Ecolabel, a voluntary eco-labelling programme. But these companies are reluctant to adopt Eco Mark, India's voluntary eco-labelling scheme introduced in 1991 which included detergents as well. Making manufacturers and importers reduce detergent impact remains a non-starter as "none of the detergents sold in India have an eco mark label", rues M Q Ansari, senior scientist, Central Pollution Control Board. Perhaps because, to get it, detergents had to be safe and sustainable besides being phosphate free and manufacturers had to disclose critical ingredients.

Why should toxins banned in other countries be allowed to enter India? Gopal argues, "Mandatory disclosure of ingredients should be the beginning of environmental regulations in India. The government should at least keep track of the entry of new chemicals and ensure that they are non toxic." Like Europe, which has reduced the per capita detergent consumption, India should also devise a way to reduce consumption. In Europe, to reduce consumption manufacturers have introduced tablet detergents which ensure precise doses as well as lower consumption. Dealing with eutrophication also demands efficient wastewater collection and treatment systems that can reduce nutrient loadings. Southey suggests, " As a matter of urgency the central government should develop a compatible and coordinated programme in concern with state governments to effectively control introduction of toxic materials." Ansari however, feels the drive to go for such standards can only come from consumer pressure. In other words, from us. 12jav.net12jav.net

Read Full Coverage

Wash out

Detergents, their environment concerns and the regulations to control them have evolved side by side in the developed world. Detergents were developed during the Second World War. They became popular in the late 1950s and the first regulation to control their environmental impact was enacted in 1961 in Germany. So what's there in detergents that harms the environment? Detergents are not easily biodegradable; more so the detergents of the 1950s. Their use led to high levels of foams in some European rivers and this triggered the first set of regulations in Europe to control the types of surfactants (or surface active agents) used in the detergents. This regulation pushed the detergent industry to replace the poorly biodegradable complex-chain surfactants with linear-chain surfactants. Then came the phosphates. Phosphates are used in detergents as builders to soften the water so that less surfactants are required for doing the cleaning. But phosphates also cause eutrophication in waterbodies (nutrient enrichment promoting excessive aquatic plant growth whose decomposition later reduces the dissoved oxygen level in the waterbodies necessary for the survival of fish and other aquatic organisms). The eutrophication of the Great Lakes in the us and Canada in the 1970s, pressurised governments into introducing regulations on phosphate content in detergents. The us and Canada signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (glwqa) in 1972.

glwqa built in specific schedules for control and reduction of phosphorous loading. It identified municipal sewage as the main source of phosphorous. It found most of the phosphorous content came from detergents and human waste. Among the secondary sources were industrial wastes and agricultural runoff, including fertilisers and animal wastes. The primary recommendation was to reduce phosphorous content in detergents and thereby reduce the total quantities of phosphorous based detergents discharged into the Great Lakes system. glwqa agreed to reduce phosphorous to 2.2 per cent of detergent weight or phosphate compounds to 5 per cent by weight. Under a November 1987 amendment, this was cut to 0.5 per cent. By the 1990s, phosphate was totally eliminated in some us states. The industry tried to challenge this legislation in court over several years but could not overturn it. Several other countries followed this path (see table : Global controls).

In recent years, regulation of detergent industry has moved towards regulating the toxicity of various constituents of detergents. In this regard, the 2004 European Detergent Regulation Number 48/2004 is the most comprehensive. This regulation introduced the concept of ultimate biodegradability of surfactants, which is achieved when surfactants are broken down by microorganisms in the presence of oxygen, resulting in the formation of carbon dioxide, water and mineral salts. It also fixed limits and emphasised potential toxicity of persistent metabolites from detergents. The regulation forced the detergent industry to disclose information about the various constituents of its products and label the recommended dose required for cleaning. For instance, surfactants, bleaching agents (both oxygen and chlorine based), zeolites, enzymes, disinfectants, optical brighteners, perfumes, preservative agents and other allergic fragrances should be listed.

Faced with tough regulations and consumer pressure, European detergent manufacturers under the banner of "Code of Good Environmental Practice" presented in 1998, a framework for a self-imposed obligation aimed at achieving a saving of five per cent of energy per wash; a reduction of 10 per cent of detergents per capita; 10 per cent packaging and 10 per cent reduction in poorly degradable organic ingredients per capita by 2002. As a consequence, in the eu consumption levels of detergents have decreased from 10 kg per capita per year in 1996 to 9.16 kg in 2001. This means the per capita consumption per wash decreased by almost 30 grammes over the same period.

So regulations have worked in reducing the environmental impact of detergents in the developed countries. Why hasn't India thought of similar regulations?

Read Full Coverage

Dirty linen

12jav.net12jav.net