Laundry detergent enzymes & skin irritation

[launderess]

"majority of US powders don't have oxygen bleach in like Ariel does. "

P&G has had a lock on patented activated oxygen bleaching systems going back to Oxydol & Biz. That technology was transferred to Tide with Bleach and remained in only TOL offerings from P&G until rather recently. Gain and a few other P&G powdered detergents finally got some or part of same. Later P&G came out with various Tide "boosters" such as pods, and in wash stain release powders.

Because P&G has the lock on NBOS activator patent, few if any other laundry detergents bothered trying to come up with their own.

That being said Ecover, Bi-o-kleen, Sears, Amway and other powdered detergents sold in USA do have oxygen bleach (usually sodium percarbonate, but some still use sodium perborate IIRC.

Of course Tide is being challenged now by Henkel's Persil "megaperls" sold in the North American market, and it contains a pretty advanced oxygen bleaching system.

Reason for American detergents not including oxygen bleach is simple; housewives here and anyone else doing laundry (commercial and professional included) nearly universally chose chlorine for bleaching over oxygen based systems. There is no sense putting oxygen bleach in a detergent if you know consumers are going to use chlorine; the two will simply cancel each other out.

The other reason is time and heat. Hydrogen peroxide based bleaches work best with moderate to high water temperatures (100F to > 140F) and long contact time. This varies by which type is used (liquid hydrogen peroxide, sodium perborate or sodium percarbonate), but still.

Sodium percarbonate will bleach in cooler water temps, but really needs increased contact time to be truly effective. H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide liquid), and sodium perborate will also bleach in cooler water, but require a much longer contact time. This is why the original activated oxygen bleach "detergent" (Biz) was marketed as a pre-soak. The long contact time gave enzymes and bleaching action better results.

When P&G began using NBOS activated oxygen bleach and perfected that system Tide With Bleach and what followed were able to deliver good to excellent results in the short wash times found with American top loaders, dilute (high) water levels (compared to front loaders), and often cooler water temps (tap hot being 120F to 140F, but not sustained by an onboard heating system).

 

[iheartmaytag]

Thank you Laundress

Your knowledge amazes me.

 

[earthling177]

Steve (Gyrafoam) asked:
"BTW, does anyone know what the difference was between Regular All and Fluffy All, back in the day?
Fluffy All came in a red and white box as opposed to the blue box normally associated with All detergent."

Steve, apparently Condensed All was the first formula introduced, and then, who knows why, some people couldn't deal with the fact it was concentrated and/or Monsanto decided to see what happened if they introduced the same detergent but in the standard concentration the other detergents were sold. At least at some point, like in the advertising linked, they called it "Extra Fluffy".

Another story I've heard over 25 years ago, told by people in advertising, is that All did not sell very well at first, because they were selling it in small containers to emphasize the concentration and impart how much less room it took etc. Apparently most people only saw a smaller box for a similar price other detergents went for and didn't buy it. So, when they introduced the bigger containers, some people who did not read instructions used the same amount they were used to, and then All started selling really well because it was cleaning better and rinsing better than the competition. Then again, please take the story with a grain of salt, it was told to us by people in advertising to highlight how important Public Relations and Advertising were. ;-)

Cheers,
   -- Paulo.

http://fultonhistory.com/Newspaper ...chester NY Democrat Chronicle 1955 - 0444.pdf

 

[launderess]

All things considered

If extraction is done between cycles you don't need that many rinses.

When wash isn't extracted, wrung, or whatever after the main wash soils and chemicals carry over into the first rinse. This will continue to happen as subsequent rinses "dilute" that residue.

However if the laundry is extracted after wash and before each rinse said residues are squeezed and or otherwise removed from wash. Thus there is less to carry over for subsequent rinsing.

My Oko-Lavamat has two rinse programmes for "Normal Cottons/Linens"; regular and sensitive.

The normal rinse is four rinses with an option to add an extra rinse, but with spins after the wash and after each rinse. These spins are somewhat violent as the ones between third, fourth and perhaps fifth rev up to very high rpms.

If sensitive is chosen the washer will rinse two or three times (forget which) then spin. A spin follows each subsequent rinse including those violent speeds for the last few. My guess is this programme mimics rinsing of old in that lots of water is used to dilute as much residue out of the wash, then strong spins send it down the drain.

In the days of wringers if hot or boiling water was used (and if often was), washing could not be sent through the mangle at once; the heat would harm the rubber rollers. So wash was moved through the first and perhaps second rinses of hot water (if using soap for washing), before cool then cold rinse; then things were mangled.

Early commercial washing machines which were just that; washers as they didn't extract; did several changes of water usually at hot or very, then more still in cold, then laundry was finally extracted. If wash was extracted while still being hot it would lead to deeply set in creases that would take ages to iron out, if at all.

Here is wash program from an old hospital laundry, think it was for linens:

(1) Five-minute cold rinse;
(2) 10-minute soak in hot suds;
(3) 10-minute soak in hot suds;
(4) 10-minute soak in hot suds, with bleach;
(5) five hot rinses with live steam;
(6) six cold rinses, and a germicide solution is used in the third cold rinse; (7) water is extracted

Washer was just that, with things moved to an extractor for spin drying. As you can see it is a very water intensive program.
[this post was last edited: 3/12/2017-07:39]

 

[rolls_rapide]

Extraction between cycles

I agree with that. A decent machine should have good spin efficiency, not only on the final spin, but between the rinses too.

Typically, UK Hoover machines used to have a constant slow spin between rinses. In 1993, that changed for a spell, with the introduction of the Hoover New Wave machines. They featured the all new Dynamic Spin Rinse, which had four staged-spins between each rinse interspersed with tumbling, each progressively faster than the last - say for example: 500rpm, 800rpm, 1000rpm, 1300rpm. If balance couldn't be achieved, the fastest spins might not be reached. As the drum decelerated, water was introduced from the front into the drum, allowing an effect similar to the Hoovermatic twin tub spin-a-rinse.(We had better programmes on the washing machine than we did on television!).

As I type this, my new Panasonic is busy rinsing. On the Cottons 40 degC programme, there is a gentle spin after the main wash. The first rinse then takes in water, and the machine progresses to distribution speed (similar to the detergent-mixing phase on the wash cycle). I presume this is to dilute and clear suds. The jet recirculation spray is periodically switched on for short intervals with normal tumbling. The spin between the rinses is stepped, but at lower speeds. No tumbling occurs between steps. Rinses two and three, are normal tumbles with recirculation jets.

Comparing this machine to the previous machine: the new Panasonic washes and rinses more effectively - because of the horizontal drum and the recirculation pump.

The old Panasonic had a tilted drum which meant wash water gathered towards the back of the tub - fine for smaller loads, but it meant large loads took some time for water to penetrate. Factor in also that the drum lifters/shower-paddles were only two-thirds of the depth of the drum, meant water only sprinkled onto the rearmost third of the drum depth. There was a fresh water spray jet at the front of the tub, but it wasn't terribly effective at doing much, other than dampening the load. I will give it its due though: the old Panasonic was efficient at getting the load balanced for spinning - probably due to the tilt causing laundry to fall to the back wall of the drum.

An earlier Zanussi had a tilted drum and recirculation jet, and was quite effective at soaking the wash load and rinsing. Spin balancing was also good (thanks to its tilted drum).

 

[gyrafoam]

Leave it to Laundress----

who found this old advertisement that pretty much explained the differences between All detergents.

https://books.google.com/books?id=L...DSAhXENSYKHR9zDvwQ6AEIPTAF#v=onepage&q&f=true

My mother used Fluffy All well into the 1960's however, I don't know when they stopped making it and then she switched to regular All. It had a great fragrance and didnt oversuds the '56 Unimatic.

Thanks Laundress!!!! I knew she would know.

The All detergent I came to love was the Dishwashing Powder. With Florida's hard water it sure did a great job. And then they took it off of the market! Go Figya.

 

[liberatordeluxe]

@Chestermike Is the Aries you say that rinses well the powder or liquid version? I am using up a big box of Dan and have to say the cleaning is poor and it foams too much so won't buy again.

 

[aquacycle]

Mike, correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that the biological/enzyme hysteria also stems from staff at the Lever Bros factory reacting badly to exposure to high levels of different enzymes - respiratory problems, skin complaints etc. The press got hold of it and made a big song and dance over it, but as we know exposure to certain products in a factory is very different to what actually ends up in detergents in the home.

Paul C remembers this as his Dad was working there at the time IIRC.

 

[chestermikeuk]

Enzymes

Chris that happened and was also press reported, but was not the cause / catalyst for the Housewives of the UK reacting to their loss of beloved Persil non bio of old...am well aware that Pauls dad worked there, its well documented here !!!

 

[chestermikeuk]

Ariel

Hello Ben, the Ariel powder currently sold has less foaming than of old, I can also say the same of Persil...havnt used Daz for years, a big change from when it was the premium "Hot Wash" powder for bluey whitest whites ha ha...

 

[optima]

DAZ

Daz was & still is the best Washing Powder by far.

 

[jamiel]

The major difference between condensed All and fluffy All was that fluffy All was spray-dried (like P&G's products)...at this point it was still a Monsanto product (i.e. not a lot of retail experience there unlike P&G/Lever/Colgate).

 

[aquacycle]

Well Mike, I guess ultimately people just don't like change!

As for Daz being the best powder, I beg to differ - I was never overly impressed with it's cleaning abilities. Sure, it's packed full of bleaching agents but only 1 enzyme and a lower concentration of surfactants than TOL Ariel & Persil (hence the cheaper price). Fine for whites, not so great at actually shifting dirt.

 

[michael]

My pennys worth...

I have used bio persil for years, and recently bought a pack of non bio..the original Persil automatic...I was taken back to 1976, when we got our first automatic, a Hoover keymatic deluxe and the wonder of how white our wash was and bright our colours were!..it really does whiten better than the bio, but these days I use persil small and mighty colour or surf black for anything other than whites!And if there are tough stains ie tea towels..a scoop of vanish platinum and a soak in my Miele sorts that out... Persil non bio rules in our house and smells fresh and clean!