Looming Phosphate Shortage!!
- Thread starter jetcone
- Start date
Fascinating!!
LanFax labs results for OZ Powders:
For the powders,
Phosphorus (P)
Phosphorus compounds are used in detergents as "builders", enhancing the detergency action of the more expensive detergents. Complex inorganic phosphates are used to disperse clays and keep them in suspension so they can be washed out of the fabric and then rinsed out. Phosphates also emulsify oily materials and allow their removal from fabrics. Phosphorus is an essential plant nutrient. The units of measure of phosphorus are in milligrams of phosphorus per litre.
The 7.8 g P/wash - green "P" label on packet - is a voluntary standard and has no scientific basis. It certainly does not mean that the detergent has low phosphorus since 7.8 g P/wash equates to 52 mg P/L in a full wash of a front loading washing machine (and 104 mg P/L in an average front loader). The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) impose licence limits on sewage treatment plants of 1.0 mg/L and are working towards a 0.3 mg P/L in effluent discharges. So reducing Phosphorus in areas where municipal effluent is discharged to rivers and creek is a valuable objective. Where the effluent is discharged to land for reuse projects (forestry, pasture production), the phosphorus simply substitutes for phosphorus fertiliser application.
For those who consider phosphorus in detergent "a bad thing", be aware that when phosphorus is replaced by some other active agent (and there must be another active agent or the quality of the detergent diminishes), the effect of this alternative chemical on the environment needs to be as well understood as the effects of phosphorus. In many cases there is no understanding of the impact of this alternative and its use should therefore be avoided. Simply using the statement that "natural is better" may not be the case.
Phosphorus movement through a soil is dependent upon loading rate and soil type. Just because sodium tripolyphosphate is highly soluble does not mean that it will leach through the soil and contaminate groundwater, or runoff to pollute streams. Sandy soils have almost no ability to bind phosphorus and on these soils the use of phosphorus needs to be limited to only what the plants can absorb. On most clay soils, the phosphorus sorption capacity (ability to lock up phosphorus and prevent its movement) is extremely high and where these soils are in our greywater reuse area, the loss of phosphorus can be negligible. It is important that we understand the soils to which we will reuse our greywater.
Be aware, manufacturers may have changed formulations since these analyses were done. If phosphorus levels have changed, it is likely to be reflected in labelling on the packet. Products labelled "NP" have no added phosphorus, and products labelled "P" meet the industry standard (less than 7.8 g/wash).
Please note the spelling of the element phosphorus - anything else is wrong, but a recent search in the NSW law court decisions shows 196 cases in which it is not spelt that way......so much for dotting iiis and crossing tttts, but that does not make the spelling correct!
http://www.lanfaxlabs.com.au/
LanFax labs results for OZ Powders:
For the powders,
Phosphorus (P)
Phosphorus compounds are used in detergents as "builders", enhancing the detergency action of the more expensive detergents. Complex inorganic phosphates are used to disperse clays and keep them in suspension so they can be washed out of the fabric and then rinsed out. Phosphates also emulsify oily materials and allow their removal from fabrics. Phosphorus is an essential plant nutrient. The units of measure of phosphorus are in milligrams of phosphorus per litre.
The 7.8 g P/wash - green "P" label on packet - is a voluntary standard and has no scientific basis. It certainly does not mean that the detergent has low phosphorus since 7.8 g P/wash equates to 52 mg P/L in a full wash of a front loading washing machine (and 104 mg P/L in an average front loader). The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) impose licence limits on sewage treatment plants of 1.0 mg/L and are working towards a 0.3 mg P/L in effluent discharges. So reducing Phosphorus in areas where municipal effluent is discharged to rivers and creek is a valuable objective. Where the effluent is discharged to land for reuse projects (forestry, pasture production), the phosphorus simply substitutes for phosphorus fertiliser application.
For those who consider phosphorus in detergent "a bad thing", be aware that when phosphorus is replaced by some other active agent (and there must be another active agent or the quality of the detergent diminishes), the effect of this alternative chemical on the environment needs to be as well understood as the effects of phosphorus. In many cases there is no understanding of the impact of this alternative and its use should therefore be avoided. Simply using the statement that "natural is better" may not be the case.
Phosphorus movement through a soil is dependent upon loading rate and soil type. Just because sodium tripolyphosphate is highly soluble does not mean that it will leach through the soil and contaminate groundwater, or runoff to pollute streams. Sandy soils have almost no ability to bind phosphorus and on these soils the use of phosphorus needs to be limited to only what the plants can absorb. On most clay soils, the phosphorus sorption capacity (ability to lock up phosphorus and prevent its movement) is extremely high and where these soils are in our greywater reuse area, the loss of phosphorus can be negligible. It is important that we understand the soils to which we will reuse our greywater.
Be aware, manufacturers may have changed formulations since these analyses were done. If phosphorus levels have changed, it is likely to be reflected in labelling on the packet. Products labelled "NP" have no added phosphorus, and products labelled "P" meet the industry standard (less than 7.8 g/wash).
Please note the spelling of the element phosphorus - anything else is wrong, but a recent search in the NSW law court decisions shows 196 cases in which it is not spelt that way......so much for dotting iiis and crossing tttts, but that does not make the spelling correct!
http://www.lanfaxlabs.com.au/
DriveMatic
only has 4 g/wash phosphorus and it does a SUPER job and rinses superb!
Lanfax was addressing the current standard of 7.5g/L and the Australian standard of 1.0 g/L for release into the environment by Sewage Treatment Plants. But lovely DriveMatic is half that figure!
only has 4 g/wash phosphorus and it does a SUPER job and rinses superb!
Lanfax was addressing the current standard of 7.5g/L and the Australian standard of 1.0 g/L for release into the environment by Sewage Treatment Plants. But lovely DriveMatic is half that figure!
Rabid Anti-Front Loaderism rears its ugly head: read on
TO see the chart follow the link and from there go to the laundry WASH section and on the left side of the page click in PHOSPHORUS. You will see the following text and there will be a chart at the bottom showing the PH content of all Australian Detergents. Read the last line about Front Loaders!
Jet-
Lanfax Labs in association with Choice tested 49 powder detergent concentrates in early 2007, resulting in "Wash Only" data for 35 powders in front loaders and 35 powders in top loaders. The report was published in "Choice" in the April edition. The data below extend to dual testing of products where one brand was suitable for both front and top loader. These data are presented independently of "Choice".
Phosphorus in detergents is supposedly based upon an industry standard of 7.8 g phosphorus per wash. The reason for this level is unclear as there is no obvious scientific evident to show this level is safe. Indeed, converting 7.8 g P/wash for a front loader using 75 L per wash, gives a concentration of 104 mg/L. Interesting that many of the sewage treatment works are required to remove phosphorus to less than 1 mg/L, the "acceptable" laundry detergents can produce up to 100 times that concentration in the whole water cycle from a front loader. In an average top loader, the phosphorus concentration would be about half that of the front loader, that is 50 times the discharge concentration from a sewage treatment works. Seems to me that somewhere there is a real problem with understanding the environmental effects of phosphorus, yet very little is being done to limit the phosphorus entering the sewers. Where wastewater is discharged to land, the acceptable phosphorus load is determined by the soil properties and the area of which the wastewater is spread. Because phosphorus is a plant nutrient, its value as a fertiliser can be measured.
From the data below, the wash is the concentration (mg/L) multiplied by the volume of water use in the wash (L) and divided by 1000 to bring milligrams to grams. In the case of these detergents sourced by Choice in early 2007 and analysed by Lanfax Labs, these calculation have been done before the data are graphed.
Phosphorus is a "builder" in the detergent and replacement of phosphorus with a substitute builder may not necessarily improve the environmental outcome of discharging the wastewater to land. Phosphorus is an essential plant and animal nutrient, a non-renewable resource that needs to be considered in light of its disposal. When discharging treated wastewater to rivers (as is typical of many municipal treatment works), the phosphorus has known environmental consequences that may lead to the deterioration of the water body. When the same wastewater is discharged to land application systems, the phosphorus can become a valuable nutrient, reducing the need for chemical fertilisers.
It is NOT fact that Australian natives do not tolerate wastewater because of the phosphorus in the water. The high pH, the sodicity, salinity, or over-irrigation are likely causes of failure in any horticultural scene. There is good evidence from tree plantations irrigated with municipal effluent that many Australian natives thrive with the nutrients in wastewater. Many golf courses are irrigated with municipal wastewater with few effects from the phosphorus, certainly more from the sodium and salinity issues. I certainly have knowledge of golf courses that irrigate municipal wastewater to Australian natives without detriment.
Additional examination of phosphorus and the relationship between product labelling with "NP" (no added phosphorus) and "P" (meets industry guidelines of less than 7.8 g per wash) are covered in PART B research as Lanfax Labs did not have the original packets to determine this labelling. The manufacturers label their products with the declaration that "the product contains no added phosphorus. Levels up to 0.5% may be present". Interesting, 0.5% is equivalent to 5000 parts per million (5000 mg/kg) - a far cry from nearly nothing!!
Interpretation: The shorter the bar, the lower the mass of phosphorus per wash. Note that the products specifically formulated for front loaders are mostly at the top of Figure 105A. That front loaders are being promoted as "environmentally preferable", that may be a false basis for such an assumption.
http://www.lanfaxlabs.com.au/
TO see the chart follow the link and from there go to the laundry WASH section and on the left side of the page click in PHOSPHORUS. You will see the following text and there will be a chart at the bottom showing the PH content of all Australian Detergents. Read the last line about Front Loaders!
Jet-
Lanfax Labs in association with Choice tested 49 powder detergent concentrates in early 2007, resulting in "Wash Only" data for 35 powders in front loaders and 35 powders in top loaders. The report was published in "Choice" in the April edition. The data below extend to dual testing of products where one brand was suitable for both front and top loader. These data are presented independently of "Choice".
Phosphorus in detergents is supposedly based upon an industry standard of 7.8 g phosphorus per wash. The reason for this level is unclear as there is no obvious scientific evident to show this level is safe. Indeed, converting 7.8 g P/wash for a front loader using 75 L per wash, gives a concentration of 104 mg/L. Interesting that many of the sewage treatment works are required to remove phosphorus to less than 1 mg/L, the "acceptable" laundry detergents can produce up to 100 times that concentration in the whole water cycle from a front loader. In an average top loader, the phosphorus concentration would be about half that of the front loader, that is 50 times the discharge concentration from a sewage treatment works. Seems to me that somewhere there is a real problem with understanding the environmental effects of phosphorus, yet very little is being done to limit the phosphorus entering the sewers. Where wastewater is discharged to land, the acceptable phosphorus load is determined by the soil properties and the area of which the wastewater is spread. Because phosphorus is a plant nutrient, its value as a fertiliser can be measured.
From the data below, the wash is the concentration (mg/L) multiplied by the volume of water use in the wash (L) and divided by 1000 to bring milligrams to grams. In the case of these detergents sourced by Choice in early 2007 and analysed by Lanfax Labs, these calculation have been done before the data are graphed.
Phosphorus is a "builder" in the detergent and replacement of phosphorus with a substitute builder may not necessarily improve the environmental outcome of discharging the wastewater to land. Phosphorus is an essential plant and animal nutrient, a non-renewable resource that needs to be considered in light of its disposal. When discharging treated wastewater to rivers (as is typical of many municipal treatment works), the phosphorus has known environmental consequences that may lead to the deterioration of the water body. When the same wastewater is discharged to land application systems, the phosphorus can become a valuable nutrient, reducing the need for chemical fertilisers.
It is NOT fact that Australian natives do not tolerate wastewater because of the phosphorus in the water. The high pH, the sodicity, salinity, or over-irrigation are likely causes of failure in any horticultural scene. There is good evidence from tree plantations irrigated with municipal effluent that many Australian natives thrive with the nutrients in wastewater. Many golf courses are irrigated with municipal wastewater with few effects from the phosphorus, certainly more from the sodium and salinity issues. I certainly have knowledge of golf courses that irrigate municipal wastewater to Australian natives without detriment.
Additional examination of phosphorus and the relationship between product labelling with "NP" (no added phosphorus) and "P" (meets industry guidelines of less than 7.8 g per wash) are covered in PART B research as Lanfax Labs did not have the original packets to determine this labelling. The manufacturers label their products with the declaration that "the product contains no added phosphorus. Levels up to 0.5% may be present". Interesting, 0.5% is equivalent to 5000 parts per million (5000 mg/kg) - a far cry from nearly nothing!!
Interpretation: The shorter the bar, the lower the mass of phosphorus per wash. Note that the products specifically formulated for front loaders are mostly at the top of Figure 105A. That front loaders are being promoted as "environmentally preferable", that may be a false basis for such an assumption.
http://www.lanfaxlabs.com.au/
Here is a comparison
with US Dishwashing powder: PH runs about 3.0 g/wash ( not liter )
I'd have to get the number of liters of wash water in an typical US dishwasher to draw a correct comparison: Any body have that figure handy????
87 million U.S. homes have dishwashers
My current dishwashing detergent is 4.5% phosphorus, which translates to 0.72 grams of phosphorus per tablespoon. My dishwasher at home requires approximately 4 tablespoons of detergent to fill its reservoir. That means I’m adding 2.9 grams of phosphorus to the environment with each load of dishes I do.
If the 87 million dishwashers in the U.S. were filled with the same detergent as mine and were run at the same time, just once, it would equal approximately 338 TONS of phosphorus. That is an awful lot of phosphorus.
How often do you run your dishwasher? I run mine almost every day! The detergent I’m using has the lowest phosphorus content of any I could find at my grocery store. Brands with zero phosphorus content exist, but I’ll have to hunt around to find them. I might even have to purchase my detergent via mail-order. That’s a lot of work to find a phosphorus-free detergent, but after looking at these numbers, it’ll be worth the effort.
Tony Thorpe
Phosphorus Content of Major Dishwashing Detergents
Palmolive Tablets 8.7%
Electra-Sol Tablets 8.7%
Sunlight Tablets 8.7%
Cascade Complete Tablets 8.7%
Spot-Free Powder (Wal-Mart) 7.0%
Electra-Sol Powder 6.1%
All 5.1%
Electra-Sol Gel 4.9%
Sunlight Powder 4.5%
Cascade PureRinse 4.4%
Cascade Complete (liquid) 4.0%
Palmolive Gel 1.6%
with US Dishwashing powder: PH runs about 3.0 g/wash ( not liter )
I'd have to get the number of liters of wash water in an typical US dishwasher to draw a correct comparison: Any body have that figure handy????
87 million U.S. homes have dishwashers
My current dishwashing detergent is 4.5% phosphorus, which translates to 0.72 grams of phosphorus per tablespoon. My dishwasher at home requires approximately 4 tablespoons of detergent to fill its reservoir. That means I’m adding 2.9 grams of phosphorus to the environment with each load of dishes I do.
If the 87 million dishwashers in the U.S. were filled with the same detergent as mine and were run at the same time, just once, it would equal approximately 338 TONS of phosphorus. That is an awful lot of phosphorus.
How often do you run your dishwasher? I run mine almost every day! The detergent I’m using has the lowest phosphorus content of any I could find at my grocery store. Brands with zero phosphorus content exist, but I’ll have to hunt around to find them. I might even have to purchase my detergent via mail-order. That’s a lot of work to find a phosphorus-free detergent, but after looking at these numbers, it’ll be worth the effort.
Tony Thorpe
Phosphorus Content of Major Dishwashing Detergents
Palmolive Tablets 8.7%
Electra-Sol Tablets 8.7%
Sunlight Tablets 8.7%
Cascade Complete Tablets 8.7%
Spot-Free Powder (Wal-Mart) 7.0%
Electra-Sol Powder 6.1%
All 5.1%
Electra-Sol Gel 4.9%
Sunlight Powder 4.5%
Cascade PureRinse 4.4%
Cascade Complete (liquid) 4.0%
Palmolive Gel 1.6%
DriveMatic has the lowest PH
It is less alkaline than all the others!
It is 10.1 PH as opposed to OMO Matic at 10.6 and DUOMATIC at almost 11 PH!
Phosphorus from highest to lowest : OMO at 5 g/L ; DriveMatic 4.5 g/L and DuoMatic at 3.5 g/L
And I think DriveMatic cleans and rinses better than OMO or DUO.
I maybe biased but it appears to me my whites are whiter with OZ powders than US powders.
It is less alkaline than all the others!
It is 10.1 PH as opposed to OMO Matic at 10.6 and DUOMATIC at almost 11 PH!
Phosphorus from highest to lowest : OMO at 5 g/L ; DriveMatic 4.5 g/L and DuoMatic at 3.5 g/L
And I think DriveMatic cleans and rinses better than OMO or DUO.
I maybe biased but it appears to me my whites are whiter with OZ powders than US powders.
Sodium in OZ powders
Sodium salts are used in laundry products because they are relatively inexpensive and always soluble. Sodium will not form complexes with other components of wastewater to form undesirable products. However, sodium in high concentrations can be detrimental to plants and soil. In plants, the sodium disrupts the osmotic balance (balance between cell water and water outside the cell) and plants suffer from "induced drought". The leaves look like they need a good drink, and in extreme cases the edges of the leaves die off or appear 'burnt'. Many plants are sensitive to even low levels of sodium, while others can tolerate reasonable levels. Many more plants are killed by even small levels of sodium than by other compounds (phosphorus or boron). Sodium chloride (common salt) is an excellent weed killer.
When sodium is introduced into soil, the sodium can cause the soil to disperse, that is, the fine clay particles separate and move into suspension in the soil water. Sodium is, therefore, a good dispersing agent and one of the reasons it is used in laundry products. Soil dispersion leads to a loss of a soil's ability to absorb and move water through the soil pores. Permeability is reduced and when irrigation is applied, a reduced volume of water moves from the surface into the soil profile. Many clay soils can be adversely affected by irrigating with water high in sodium. Sandy soils and sandy loams are unlikely to be affected, but the plants may be affected.
Sodium, therefore, can be detrimental to both plants and soils.
Sodium salts are often used as "manufacturing agents" in laundry detergents, that is, they are use to make manufacturing easier and most of these agents are simply "fillers" that don't change the quality of the wash. Some add to the capacity of the builders but are only of benefit in very hard water.
Sodium may be represented in several ways. As concentration, in milligrams of sodium per litre of wash water, the effect of sodium may be extreme. Dilution is often required to reduce the concentration and that can be done by mixing the wash water with the rinse water. If possible, a preferable choice is to discharge the high sodium water to sewer and use only the rinse water. For those homes on septic tanks, the problem is exacerbated because all the wastewater enters the septic tank where there is some dilution. What then becomes important is the calculated load of sodium that may need to be deposited over the garden or lawn. The load, in grams per wash, is presented in graphs 104A and 104B and the frequency analysis (number of products in each range) of the concentration is presented in 104C.
Sodium salts are used in laundry products because they are relatively inexpensive and always soluble. Sodium will not form complexes with other components of wastewater to form undesirable products. However, sodium in high concentrations can be detrimental to plants and soil. In plants, the sodium disrupts the osmotic balance (balance between cell water and water outside the cell) and plants suffer from "induced drought". The leaves look like they need a good drink, and in extreme cases the edges of the leaves die off or appear 'burnt'. Many plants are sensitive to even low levels of sodium, while others can tolerate reasonable levels. Many more plants are killed by even small levels of sodium than by other compounds (phosphorus or boron). Sodium chloride (common salt) is an excellent weed killer.
When sodium is introduced into soil, the sodium can cause the soil to disperse, that is, the fine clay particles separate and move into suspension in the soil water. Sodium is, therefore, a good dispersing agent and one of the reasons it is used in laundry products. Soil dispersion leads to a loss of a soil's ability to absorb and move water through the soil pores. Permeability is reduced and when irrigation is applied, a reduced volume of water moves from the surface into the soil profile. Many clay soils can be adversely affected by irrigating with water high in sodium. Sandy soils and sandy loams are unlikely to be affected, but the plants may be affected.
Sodium, therefore, can be detrimental to both plants and soils.
Sodium salts are often used as "manufacturing agents" in laundry detergents, that is, they are use to make manufacturing easier and most of these agents are simply "fillers" that don't change the quality of the wash. Some add to the capacity of the builders but are only of benefit in very hard water.
Sodium may be represented in several ways. As concentration, in milligrams of sodium per litre of wash water, the effect of sodium may be extreme. Dilution is often required to reduce the concentration and that can be done by mixing the wash water with the rinse water. If possible, a preferable choice is to discharge the high sodium water to sewer and use only the rinse water. For those homes on septic tanks, the problem is exacerbated because all the wastewater enters the septic tank where there is some dilution. What then becomes important is the calculated load of sodium that may need to be deposited over the garden or lawn. The load, in grams per wash, is presented in graphs 104A and 104B and the frequency analysis (number of products in each range) of the concentration is presented in 104C.
Anybody DownUnder try this product yet?
Its supposed to be ZERO PHOSPHATE.
http://www.zerotech.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=33
Its supposed to be ZERO PHOSPHATE.
http://www.zerotech.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=16&Itemid=33
Well, aren't we chatty this morning? ;-)
Many of the vintage detergents I've found that contain phosphates average around 8.7%. Some dishwasher detergents used to have quite high levels of phosphates, but that has steadily come down through the years. Phosphates will be out of U.S. dishwasher detergents by sometime in 2010. It's already in the works - but I'll bet they'll use the sodium compounds that seem to be equally as harmful to the environment to soften the water. Interesting reading for sure, will have to spend more time on this over the weekend.
Many of the vintage detergents I've found that contain phosphates average around 8.7%. Some dishwasher detergents used to have quite high levels of phosphates, but that has steadily come down through the years. Phosphates will be out of U.S. dishwasher detergents by sometime in 2010. It's already in the works - but I'll bet they'll use the sodium compounds that seem to be equally as harmful to the environment to soften the water. Interesting reading for sure, will have to spend more time on this over the weekend.
Atleast SOMEONE READ IT!
Goodmorning Greg!
I had alot of coffee this morning but it still is fascinating reading if you are a real washer person!
That 8.7% figure is that by weight I would guess?
Must call you this weekend to catch up on the news!
cheers
jon
Goodmorning Greg!
I had alot of coffee this morning but it still is fascinating reading if you are a real washer person!
That 8.7% figure is that by weight I would guess?
Must call you this weekend to catch up on the news!
cheers
jon
sudsmaster
Well-known member
Aside from the detergent wars, this news lends some credence to the concept of using tertiary wastewater treatment that recovers phosphate from the municipal waste water stream. This recovered phosphate can then be used for a variety of industrial and agricultural purposes. It seems to make more sense to recycle phosphate than continually mining dwindling natural supplies; the side benefit is that the effluent will be far less likely to support algal blooms. If the tertiary wastewater treatment also reduces typically very high nitrogen levels in the effluent, so much for the better.
maytagbear
Well-known member
Ah, but your idea, sudsmaster-
your idea makes sense, and we cannot have that!
Lawrence/Maytagbear
your idea makes sense, and we cannot have that!
Lawrence/Maytagbear
peterh770
Well-known member
How much phosphate does JonDash contain?
IT'LL have some Peter thats for sure
unless I can find something equivalent that generates the same detergency.
unless I can find something equivalent that generates the same detergency.
Similar threads
