Archives for February 2014

To Shampoo, or Not To Shampoo?

It seems like it’s been forever since I’ve written a passion blog post! My last was an investigation of what exactly is in laundry detergent, how it works, and an intro to some of the chemistry behind why it works. In a similar vein, this week I’ll turn the microscope on something each of us uses (hopefully!) every day—shampoo. (Thanks to Sarah for suggesting the topic!) I have to say I’m a big fan of long showers, and sometimes you just don’t want to step out into the cold just yet, but you’re getting a bit bored just standing there. So what do you do? Read the shampoo bottle, of course (…or am I the only one?) The ingredients list is my personal favorite—I always try to pronounce the long, complicated chemicals and compounds, some upwards of 30 letters. But more importantly, I’ve always wondered what each does. What exactly is shampoo, and why does it need so many seemingly complicated ingredients to get some dirt out of my hair? Let’s find out.

Ingredients

Ingredients

Above is a picture of my the ingredients list of my personal shampoo bottle—Suave, to be specific.

 

The first shampoos were similar to typical bar soap, but as it turns out, modern shampoos are actually closely related to the laundry detergent I previously described. That’s not to say that they are identical, but they function on the same premise. They both use surfactants to get rid of dirt and grime, only this time the dirt is on your hair instead of your clothes.

 

Now let’s go through the list.

Water: The base into which all the other ingredients are added: the foundation of the shampoo.

Sodium Laureth Sulfate: A surfactant and foaming agent (it removes dirt and helps create that nice lather). SLES can cause skin irritation.

Sodium Laureth Sulfate

Sodium Laureth Sulfate

Cocamidopropyl Betaine: Another surfactant and foam booster. It’s name sounds like “coconut” because it’s derived from coconut oil.

Cocamidopropyl Betaine

Cocamidopropyl Betaine

Sodium Chloride: Table salt. But what’s it doing in your shampoo? It’s used as a thickening agent.

Fragrance: To make your hair smell fresh and clean (but shampoo manufacturers aren’t required to list the specific chemicals in their “proprietary” fragrances)

Tetrasodium EDTA: Full name: tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (that’s “tetra-sodium eth-ul-lean di-am-mean tetra-aceetic acid” if you want to say it out loud). I actually used this chemical in my chem lab last semester. It’s technical term is a chelating agent. The problem with tap water is that it’s often “hard” (meaning that it has a lot of dissolved minerals). Water hardness depends on where your water comes from—what rocks and minerals it flows through and picks up on its way to your tap. Why is this a problem? Surfactants are attracted to these minerals, so they’ll go after them instead of targeting the dirt on your hair. That’s where tetrasodium EDTA comes in—it grabs on to the minerals allows the surfactants to work on the dirt on your hair instead.

EDTA "Grabbing onto" Mineral (M)

EDTA “Grabbing onto” Mineral (M)

DMDM Hydantoin: A preservative for the shampoo (who knew it shampoo could spoil…) It slowly releases formaldehyde in the shampoo, which prevents microorganisms from growing in it. This is a bit controversial because formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen (in much, much, much higher concentrations that in your shampoo), but it still has some risk.

DMDM Hydantoin

DMDM Hydantoin

Citric Acid: The acid that gives citrus fruits their sharp taste. It’s used in shampoo mainly to lower the pH (make the shampoo more acidic). It turns out that a slightly acidic (pH ~ 5.5) shampoo will make your hair follicles lay flat, making your hair feel smooth and shiny.

Citric Acid

Citric Acid

PPG-9: Here we go with the abbreviations again. Its name is polypropylene glycol, and it’s a chemical that seems to be primarily used in industry as a thickener and stabilizer, but other than that I could not find what it’s used for.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone and Methylisothiazolinone: (meth-ul-chloro-iso-thia-zol-linone) Used in combination (in a dilute form) as a biocide to deter the growth of bacteria and other organisms. In concentrated form, the chemical is so strong that it can burn human tissue. Some studies conclude that it is toxic, but it is not officially classified as known or probably carcinogen.

Methylchloroisothiazolinone

Methylchloroisothiazolinone

Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Leaf Extract: A soothing agent and fragrance. (No, you still can’t eat it.)

 

That’s a lot of ingredients! It can be daunting to figure out what exactly manufacturers mix up to put in your shampoo bottle, and this has lead some people to advocate for the less frequent use (or non use) of shampoos. The rationale is that shampoos strip your hair and scalp of oils, which the body in turn compensates for by producing those oils at an even faster rate—a vicious cycle of shampoo use. If you didn’t use shampoo, your scalp would simply produce less oil. Some choose instead to wash their hair with baking soda, vinegar, or even honey or just warm water.

 

I don’t know about not using shampoo… I think I just wouldn’t feel “clean” if I didn’t use shampoo. But perhaps the projection of regular use of shampoo as a social norm has made us feel compelled to use it every day. What do you think?

 

Sources:

http://www.dow.com/polyglycols/ppgc/na/products/ppgs.htm

http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/cleansing/products/tetrasodium-edta-in-cleansers.htm

http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/08/28/deconstructing-your-haircare-ingredients

http://wikipedia.org

All images from the respective Wikipedia pages of each compound. Used under public domain.

What’s in your laundry detergent?

Continuing my recent theme of investigating the sometimes seemingly unusual ingredients that make up some of the most ordinary products. Last week focused on azodicarbonamide, a chemical used both in commercially baked breads as well as certain types of foamed plastics, such as yoga mats. Previously, we looked at how a typical plastic water bottle is manufactured, its journey from ink-black crude oil to a thin, clear plastic. This week we’ll investigate another product that is made from crude oil: laundry detergent. That’s right—the essential ingredient in many detergents that cleans your clothes is derived from an extremely dirty looking substance.

 

Source: http://www.moneysavingmadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tide.jpg

Source: http://www.moneysavingmadness.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/tide.jpg

 

http://www.commodityonline.com/images/21446208241380876995.jpg

Source: http://www.commodityonline.com/images/21446208241380876995.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are several main ingredients in detergents that help them get your clothes fresh and clean, and each serves a specific purpose. The main obstacle in cleaning your clothes is the type of dirt that needs to be removed. We’re humans, and our skin sweats. Sweat and other dirt and grease found on your clothing, however does not dissolve readily in water and therein lies the biggest problem of all. This means that we can’t just swish our clothes around in water and expect them to come out clean. That’s why we need a detergent with a chemical that will remove the dirt from fabrics.

 

We know that grease won’t dissolve in water—oil and water simply will not mix. We need something that will dissolve oils and dirt. Oils will mix with other oils, but we can’t wash our clothes in oil! We fill our washing machines with regular old water. So we need a chemical that can dissolve dirt and dissolve in water so it can carry all the dirt down the drain. Meet the main ingredient of laundry detergent: a surfactant. This dirt-removing chemical has some pretty neat properties that allow it to get dirt and grime out of our clothes.

 

A surfactant molecule Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Sodium_dodecylbenzenesulfonate.png

A surfactant molecule
Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Sodium_dodecylbenzenesulfonate.png

 

There are many types of surfactants. The one pictured above is called a linear alkylbenzenesulfonate (I can’t pronounce it either…), a type of surfactant commonly used in laundry detergents. The special feature of a surfactant is that is has two distinct “ends”—a head and a tail. Its tail—the long zig-zag chain—is attracted to grease and oils. It’s hydrophobic (meaning that it repels water), but it will bind to the dirt in your clothes. The surfactant’s head, however, is attracted to water (hydrophilic). This is the part with the hexagonal shape in the picture. This is what allows the detergent to dissolve in wash water and carry the dirt away from the clothing (also known as lowering the surface tension of the water).

 

But where do linear alkylbenzenesulfonates come from? Crude oil, of course! Well, actually a chemical called benzene, which is a prominent component of crude oil. Another common place to find benzene: in gasoline (in small quantities). However, with a bit of chemistry, benzene can be transformed into a surfactant. And when combined with other ingredients that make up laundry detergent—such as enzymes that help break down dirt, bleaches that make clothes look brighter, and “antiredeposition agents” that prevent the dirt from going back onto the clothes—it makes for a very effective cleaning agent. Who would have thought?

 

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laundry_detergent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene
http://home.howstuffworks.com/laundry-detergent.htm
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Laundry-Detergent.html#b

What’s in your food?

This week’s passion blog post was inspired by a social media trending topic. Multiple sources are carrying the story that the sandwich shop Subway is eliminating the use of the chemical azodicarbonamide in their breads. The topic was just too hard to pass up—just this past weekend I recorded my “This I Believe” essay, which I wrote about how I bake my own bread. In fact, I even listed the same chemical in my essay to exemplify the unfamiliar, hard to pronounce ingredients that are commonly used in processed breads as further reason for me to bake my own bread. It turns out most news sources are jumping on the fact that azodicarbonamide is also used in the manufacturing of foamed plastics—such as yoga mats.

Ingredient: Azodicarbonamide Source: http://www.studlife.com/files/2013/02/Subway-Bread.jpg

Ingredient: Azodicarbonamide
Source: http://www.studlife.com/files/2013/02/Subway-Bread.jpg

Ingredient: also azodicarbonamide Source: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71cwPmthlJL._SL1500_.jpg

Ingredient: Azodicarbonamide
Source: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/71cwPmthlJL._SL1500_.jpg

 

So today I’m going to further investigate the chemical azodicarbonamide, as well as some other food additives that are used in products other than food.

To start off, azodicarbonamide is indeed approved as a food additive by the US Food and Drug Administration, achieving “generally recognized as safe” status in concentrations below 45 parts per million—that’s 0.0045% by weight. Its use in food is banned in Australia, Europe, and Singapore. It is added to flour as a dough conditioner and strengthener, and it can be found in many brands of commercially produced breads. The ingredient did not become controversial overnight, it seems—while researching the topic I came across all sorts of blog articles about this reportedly dangerous food additive surrounded by attacks on the processed foods industry. It’s hard to figure out which articles are accurate and not just angry venting against artificial foods. I did some research about the chemical itself and some scientific studies conducted to test its safety, and it appears that azodicarbonamide can indeed by harmful in its raw form. Accordingly, the UK does label it as a respiratory irritant, indicating that it can be harmful to workers who inhale the chemical.

Azodicarbonamide Chemical Structure Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azodicarbonamide.png

Azodicarbonamide Chemical Structure
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Azodicarbonamide.png

Azodicarbonamide in its Powdered Form Source: http://pantryparatus.com/media/wysiwyg/All_Images_2013/Other_Peoples_Photos/azodicarbonamide.jpg

Azodicarbonamide in its Powdered Form
Source: http://pantryparatus.com/media/wysiwyg/All_Images_2013/Other_Peoples_Photos/azodicarbonamide.jpg

However, when used in bread, azodicarbonamide doesn’t actually stay in its raw form. When it is combined with flour and water, studies found that “it is rapidly and completely converted into biurea, which is stable under baking conditions” (www.inchemg.org). Biurea has been found to be rapidly eliminated from the body after consumption. Other by products besides biurea need further investigation to determine how much of a threat they pose to humans, but by all studies it seems that azodicarbonamide, at or below the maximum allowed proportion, does not pose as significant of a threat as some news headlines would have you believe.

 

A main non-food use of azodicarbonamide is in the manufacturing of foamed plastics, such as the material yoga mats are made of. It’s important to note that there is a distinction between the chemical that is delivered to bakers and that which is used in plastics manufacturing—as a food product, the quality and purity standards are higher. But in making a yoga mat, azodicarbonamide is what makes the foamy texture. It produces gases when it is heated, and those tiny gas bubbles are trapped in the material, creating a springy, cushioned foam.

 

But azodicarbonamide is just one of many food additives that is used in other ways besides food. Take, for intense titanium dioxide. It is a chemical pigment and whitener that is commonly found in sunscreens because of its ability to block UV rays from the skin. It is also used in cosmetics. But where is titanium dioxide also used? Sometimes in skim milk and low fat cheeses—products that may not be as bright white due to their decreased fat content. Titanium dioxide is used to make them look brighter and more appealing—closer in color and appearance to their full-fat versions. Titanium dioxide is also an airborne irritant, but is otherwise rather chemically nonreactive and harmless.

 

Ingredient: Titanium dioxide Source: http://pics1.ds-static.com/prodimg/214628/300.JPG

Ingredient: Titanium dioxide
Source: http://pics1.ds-static.com/prodimg/214628/300.JPG

(Possible) Ingredient: Titanium dioxide Source: http://images.wisegeek.com/pitcher-of-milk-cream.jpg

(Possible) Ingredient: Titanium dioxide
Source: http://images.wisegeek.com/pitcher-of-milk-cream.jpg

 

I can definitely understand the public reaction to the use of azodicarbonamide in bread products as well as other artificial ingredients in various food products, and I generally believe that simple and natural is usually better in terms of food. My only concern would be that the food industry will find another chemical to use instead—a chemical that no one will notice until someone investigates and petitions bakeries to stop using it. And who knows how long that would take.

Sources:

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/09/11/ingredient-found-cereals-breads-also-found-foamed-plastics-rubber/

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/06/health/subway-bread-chemical/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium_dioxide/

http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/40abcj28.htm

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/09/11/ingredient-found-cereals-breads-also-found-foamed-plastics-rubber/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azodicarbonamide

http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad16.htm#PartNumber:2

Could tighter regulation prevent environmental disasters?

On January 9th of this year, a roughly 1-inch wide hole in a storage tank at a Freedom Industries facility in West Virginia resulted in the release of an estimated 10,000 gallons of the chemical 4-methylcyclohexane methanol (MCHM) into the Elk River. I discussed the nature of the chemical in a previous blog post. The incident left over 300,000 West Virginians without safe drinking water and the area in a state of federal emergency. Further investigations revealed the mired history of Freedom Industries, including a co-founder found guilty of stealing over a million dollars of employee payroll tax withholdings for his personal usage, personal tax fraud, and (no less) selling cocaine. But that’s another article…

 

Similar environmental disasters (in varying levels of severity) have occurred across our country, from the Exxon Valdex oil spill to the more recent Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But how does society react to environmental disasters? What lead to the leakage of MCHM into the Elk River, and could more effective regulatory policies have prevented the entire incident in the first place?

In the case of the Freedom Industries spill, there are many areas of regulation (or lack thereof) that apply. There were many variables at play this incident, which, combined, resulted in the widespread effect of the leakage.

1. The Freedom Industry facility is located on a river—this is to facilitate transport of the chemicals by barge. But not only is the facility located on a river, but it is only a mile and a half upstream from the only intake for the area’s public drinking water supply. I understand that if a chemical facility is going to be on a river, it will be upstream from something. But in such close proximity to a drinking water intake—the only one for the area—you might think further consideration would have been made regarding the relative location of the two. Since they were so close, any chemical spill would flow directly downstream to the intake, perhaps before anyone was even notified.

Pink: Freedom Industries "B": Water Intake

Pink: Freedom Industries
“B”: Water Intake
Source: maps.google.com

But the water company was notified within a few hours after the spill. So of course they closed the water intake to prevent any more of the chemical from entering the water supply? Nope. They instead opted to put a carbon filter on the intake in an effort to prevent the chemical from entering the intake. Since MCHM is a liquid, it is likely that anything water could pass through (i.e. the filter), MCHM could also pass through. In this case, I think that the water authority is also partially to blame for this issue—if the area water supply had been shut off as soon as notification of the spill was received, it is likely that not as many people would have been exposed to the chemical. Sure, the water supply would still be cut off, but not as many people would be in the hospital.

2. Now for Freedom Industries. But first, some background. Storage facilities such as the one owned by Freedom Industries are not federally regulated (although the federal government does set many environmental policies through the Environmental Protection Agency). Instead, the federal government allows states to determine how (or if) they regulate such facilities. West Virginia, however, has a reputation for being friendly to industry—it doesn’t choose to impose aggressive regulatory policies on businesses within the state. It is important to note that Freedom Industries is a distributor of chemical products—manufacturers synthesize the chemicals and send them to companies like Freedom Industries, which carry out end delivery to customers. But West Virginia does not require the inspection of chemical storage tanks such. Residents of a neighborhood near the Freedom Industries site did complain about various odors emanating from the facility, prompting an inspection by the state. However, inspectors apparently failed to notice a crack in a concrete wall designed to contain potential spills from the tanks and prevent them from entering the river. The company did, however, admit that it knew about the crack and set money aside to fix it, but repairs were never started.

Freedom Industries facility, aerial view Source: businessweek.com

Freedom Industries facility, aerial view
Source: businessweek.com

Could tighter regulation have prevented the spill? It would appear that they might. Regularly scheduled inspections of chemical storage facilities could allow problems such as these to be avoided. But inspections must occur more often and yet be detailed enough to reveal potential problems. For state investigators to conduct an inspection on the plant but not discover a crack in a containment wall—a seemingly integral part of a chemical storage facility located on a river. The company maintains that the tank was punctured as a result of a pipe breakage under the tank that froze and expanded upwards into the tank. But the hole in the tank wouldn’t have been an issue if the containment wall was in proper shape—the wall would have done its job and prevented the chemical from entering the river. Furthermore, on the day of the spill, several residents contacted 911 and complained of a licorice smell coming from the plant. EPA inspectors arrived, and they were told by company officials that everything was fine and the facility wasn’t having problems. The inspectors then toured the facility and discovered the leak.

In this case, I believe that slightly tighter regulation on chemical plants such as these could have in part prevented this incident. Private businesses have one goal: to maximize profit. And that is not inherently bad or evil. But for Freedom Industries, seemingly unethical behavior and/or negligence and failure to act on a problem it knew about—the broken wall—is evidence that some (not all) private businesses seek to maximize profit without care for the environment and its citizens. Furthermore, on January 17, following the flood of lawsuits beginning to be filed against Freedom Industries, the company filed for bankruptcy in an effort to decrease their liability for the spill. A week later, the state ordered Freedom Industries to cease operation and dismantle all of its 17 storage tanks at the facility, citing that all of the tanks did not have enough protection against spills. The action came too late for citizens left without drinkable water, but perhaps future regulation reform could prevent similar incidents from occurring.

 

Sources:

http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/181557-who-runs-freedom-industries-west-virginias-chemical-spill-mystery

http://www.npr.org/2014/01/29/268201454/how-industrial-chemical-regulation-failed-west-virginia

Skip to toolbar