Sodium Laureth Sulfate-What do you think? - Page 2

[Spastica]

I'm starting to like this Robert guy...


Rock on, Robert. Rock on.

[maxwill129]

Originally Posted by Spastica

I'm starting to like this Robert guy...


Rock on, Robert. Rock on.

Gina, you crack me up! By the way, how have you been doing?

[maxwill129]

naking

robert, so basically sls and sles can irritate, but so can other ingrediants? just because something doesn't have sls and sles in it, doesn't make it better?

And what about the post that Nora wrote on SLS and SLES being really bad for your immune system? What do you make of that (I believe she has a link to where she got the info)?

[Spastica]

Shannon - rough, rough year. I still miss Paul like hell and wish he'd just come back home. I had surgery in July and a week later, my grandfather died. My mom is in India *again* (just arrived yesterday), since now, my grandmother is dying too.

As an aside to this surfactant conversation - detergents were created to work with most water types and not leave a film like soap does. It also provides a (usually) lower pH solution than homemade soap does - for this reason, you can wash your hands with liquid detergent soap and it won't crack your hands like bar homemade soap did in the past. That being said, newer brands of homemade/natural soaps have superfatting ingredients to counteract the high pH.

Secondly - compared to other countries and this is not a surprise, Americans aren't exactly frugal with their commodities and manufacturers will bank on this fact too. Not only this, manufacturers have to cover their bases to make sure we use up product so that we will buy more AND make sure we use enough product so that it's a one size fits all solution. For example, a detergent company will have to test their product and make sure that they won't get phone calls from Lurlene in Mississippi saying that her husband is a mechanic and a farmer (and by the way, the company may know that part of Mississippi has really really hard water) and the little bit of detergent that the company recommended on the bottle isn't getting her husband's greasy clothing clean. So Lurlene complains and thinks she can sue the company.

Anyway - for reasons like that, companies will put a standard recommended detergent measurement on the instructions (most of which, people ignore and they dump even more in because it just feels right) so that it will clean everybody's clothes in all homes and there will be no problems. Nevermind that the detergent use may be too much for one particular home, it just washes away, goes down the drain and you'll have to purchase more later anyway. That being said, in other countries, people use much less product and it still gets their items/dishes/clothing/etc clean. They even dilute products or use less to stretch it out, not only for cost-effectiveness reasons, but you just plain not need to use so much.

Most people use way too much liquid fabric detergent granted....but what about toothpaste? The big swirl of pretty looking toothpaste looks wonderful in advertising photography, but that quantity is WAY too much for people. Your brush is a certain size to accommodate your mouth and to reach more teeth - but there is no need to cover your entire brush with toothpaste. You need enough toothpaste to cover half or less the size of your toothbrush head. But think about what kind of ugly photo that would make in an advertisement...some schmear of toothpaste on a sad little brush and we're expected to think that little amount would create sparkly white healthy teeth. It doesn't gel (pun intended) well, does it? But in all seriousness, we need less product and it works well. Most people don't have super grimy, grease-caked, tar-laden clothing. You don't need to look like a rabid dog with a mouth full of foam to get your mouth clean (I'm actually starting to notice this with my own toothpaste and am now using less - I can still use less and it gets the job done, no compromise on breath either). You don't have to be able to make shampoo mohawks with a lot of shampoo foam to know that the shampoo is getting your hair clean - you can use much less and still get your hair clean - you just don't get the satisfying amount of suds that makes you think your hair is getting clean (or enough suds that let you make a shampoo-mohawk).

So, in summary, detergents are a practical solution, but just know that manufacturers have to provide measurements that they know would suit the general population without problems AND they have to go through a reasonable quantity so they can sell product. An example of this is my dad's rust removal product. It's environmentally friendly and it's reusable. What does that mean for the consumer? GREAT - we can use it over and over again and save money, and wow it's great for the environment. The pickle for my dad? We aren't making much money on it because it's such a damn good product, people don't need to reorder it much and we're not getting much money coming into the house (much to my mom's dismay). Sure the product gets great awards and such, but my mom is having to scrimp and forego a lot of stuff most people who are close to retirement should not (or don't want to).

For those people who absolutely need to use alternatives, great. You may have health issues and sensitivities. This can apply to both commercial made and natural products. Honestly, I can use too much honey on my face and I will get a rash. Why? Because I'm allergic to ragweed and honey is made from pollen and people who have ragweed allergies can be allergic to honey too. But if I use a little bit, my face will still get clean and I won't get a rash. Does that mean honey is evil because it gives me a rash? No. And I won't tell other people not to use it because if I use too much it gives me a rash. Whatever works for your family, your health, your needs, make a good judgement and use things in moderation. And as mentioned before, even natural product companies are out there to make money - sometimes they rely on public preconceived notions and fears (and bad information/widely perceived misconceptions) to make their money as well, make no mistake and think they're saints

[maxwill129]

First of all, . I'm sorry you're having such a sh***y year. I hope that things will get better for you!!!

Also, I appreciate your post. Why? Because sometimes I feel like I'm judged for not being "crunchy" enough. I really do believe that there are evil chemicals out there. I really do want what's best for my family. BUT I totally agree that there are a TON of natural companies that are money hungry. I think that's why I love it here. I can get people's ideas and opinions, get the research they've done, but then go and research it myself (and have a place to start so I'm not just starting from scratch, which is hard to do with 3 under 5).

I also believe, though, that mommy instinct comes into play. I've learned that when my mommy radar goes off, to listen to it, whether it's telling me to stop feeding my kids something specific, stop using a specific product, etc. I'm not followed my instincts one too many times, and my kids have paid the price for it! And I agree with what you said, Gina. Everyone needs to make decisions for THEIR families, not anyone elses!

[velcromom]

If bar soaps were labeled by the same conventions as SLS & SLES, you'd see ingredients like:
sodium laurate
sodium myristate
sodium palmitate
sodium stearate
sodium oleate

True, but don't let that scare you away from your favorite handmade or natural soap, because those are just fancy words that mean the bar soap was created by saponifying certain fatty acids. Each of those indicates soap made from a different fatty acid such as is found in coconut oil (sodium myristate), palm oil (sodium palmitate), tallow (sodium stearate) or olive oil (sodium oleate). Each has its own quality that it brings to the soap. Many oils are a combination of fatty acids, and if the labeling requirements were stricter you would indeed see these words present on the wrapper - but instead, you see "coconut oil, olive oil, castor oil, etc" and you understand that it means those were ingredients the soap was created with. The other words are the chemical name for WHAT was created. It's all really just soap.

Liquid soap is created with potassium hydroxide as the catalyst for saponification, so instead of the word "sodium" you would see the word "Potassium", but it's the same deal: it's the chemical name for what has been created in the soapmaking process. A big fancy way of saying...
Soap!

Sort of like the difference between telling people, "Oh, I only wash my body with the metallic salt of a fatty acid!" and "Oh, I wash with soap". Same thing, different words.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by maxwill129

robert, so basically sls and sles can irritate, but so can other ingrediants? just because something doesn't have sls and sles in it, doesn't make it better?

It's all a matter of comparison. And sometimes the ranking of irritancy can differ depending how it's tested. My favorite example is alpha olefin sulfonate, which is usually considered relatively high in irritancy, but in one test ranked as the least irritating among several common shampoo/"soap"/etc. surfactants.

Alkyl sulfates such as sodium lauryl sulfate are irritating, sure, but less so by practically any test than alkylbenzene sulfonates such as sodium dodecyl benzene sulfonate (SDBS). Ivory Liquid Gentle White Detergent (now Ivory Dishwashing Liquid) was one of the late ones among major brands to replace its SDBS by SLES -- first partially, then fully. This was to catch up to the reputation they'd tried to stake out for mildness, which they weren't really fulfilling compared to other brands.

Staying with that brand, in the 1970s they brought out Liquid Ivory Soap. At a time when liquid hand "soaps" were being pushed in a major way, they advertised theirs as the only major brand that was actually made of soap, which was supposed to be milder than the other surfactants used by other brands. Then in the 1980s they replaced the soap with a formula based on SLES & SLS, saying the new "soap" (soon de-opacified and renamed Ivory Skin-Cleansing Liqui-Gel) was less drying than what they'd had before. Depending on how it was tested, maybe yes, maybe no, but I suspect that most people would indeed find the soapless version milder.

But don't get the idea alkylbenzene sulfonates are the most irritating of that kind; the chemically related alkylaryl sulfonates, rarely used now, were said to be even more irritating.

But there are many surfactants that are much less irritating than SLES.

And what about the post that Nora wrote on SLS and SLES being really bad for your immune system? What do you make of that (I believe she has a link to where she got the info)?

Known to biochemists as SDS (sodium dodecyl sulfate, or if you're reading a certain journal, NaDodSO4), SLS is widely used experimentally as a protein denaturant. If it had profound biologic effects at low concentrations (the kind of concentrations one would expect in the human body from tiny residues of the stuff on washed dishes, say), I think we'd've known that by now, because it would be messing up experiments in which such residues of SDS/SLS would commonly be around. (For example, you might dialyze SDS out of a sample, but not care if one ten-thousandth of its original concentration was still there.)

Would I expect SDS applied in experimental concentrations to white blood cells to mess up their function? Of course. But I'd expect the same to be true of practically anything that you might use for a similar functioning product instead of SDS. So this is crying "wolf". And my doll Wolfie doesn't appreciate being disturbed like that.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by maxwill129

And what about the post that Nora wrote on SLS and SLES being really bad for your immune system? What do you make of that (I believe she has a link to where she got the info)?

Now I looked at the link, and that company, Green Ridge Herbals, looks like they're "full of it". On their front page they advertise, "Our products are...100% sulfate free." I looked at their bath crystals (bath salts) ingredients -- yeah, just as I figured, Epsom salt, magnesium sulfate.

Just yesterday I followed a banner ad from this board to a baby toiletries co. that also advertised "no sulfates", and also had a sulfate compound (a zwitterionic surfactant) among their products' ingredients.

I don't know what's so terrible about sulfates anyway, but at least don't contradict yourselves, guys! Reminds me of a shampoo sample I got in the mail once that said it contained nucleic acids and no phosphates. (Nucleic acids are phosphates.)

I suspect Green Ridge would tell you SLS & SLES would make your head explode if they thought they could sell you more of their soap on that basis.

Robert

[Spastica]

So green with chemistry sometimes... anyway at the risk of sounding like an idiot -- perhaps the sulfates that are supposedly harmful are different in chemical composition that is just in epsom salt? So the sulfate in the name is misleading? Kind of like how chlorine gas is not great for you, but sodium chloride (plain table salt) is not. So perhaps in that case it may be a true statement on their products?

Just thinking out loud. Feel free to blast me with some science. I love it when guys talk geeky to me.

BTW - I agree about the FUD (Fear-Uncertainty-Doubt) factor in marketing, and it saddens me to see it with natural products and conventional chemical products alike (the new Chlorox commercials are PISSING ME OFF...). I try to avoid it when I do marketing work.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Spastica

So green with chemistry sometimes... anyway at the risk of sounding like an idiot -- perhaps the sulfates that are supposedly harmful are different in chemical composition that is just in epsom salt? So the sulfate in the name is misleading? Kind of like how chlorine gas is not great for you, but sodium chloride (plain table salt) is not. So perhaps in that case it may be a true statement on their products?

Possibly they refer to a narrow class of sulfates that they don't have, but they're just being confusing & misleading. In the case of the baby products, they can't mean they have no organic sulfates, or no surfactant sulfates, because they have something-onium methosulfate. In the case of Green Ridge, they can't mean they have no inorganic sulfates.

But there's nothing I can think of that makes sulfates per se undesirable. Among other things, they keep the bones in our joints from rubbing together. I can think of very toxic sulfur-oxygen compounds too, including some cancer chemotherapeutics & chemical weapons.

(the new Clorox commercials are PISSING ME OFF...).

What do they say?

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

I thought about where I should take the course of explanations from here, and thought in order for you to understand this, I'll have to explain that, but in order for you to understand that, I'll have to explain the other, and soon in my head it was a whole course on surfactants starting with "p-chem" (physical chemistry), and no way even a sucker for holding court like me is going to post that here! Maybe some day I'll work one up for my WWW site. Meanwhile I need a real job.

So for now I'll just give as an example of surfactant selection how I came up with my US pat. 5,336,446 foam formula. Carol's children were water lovers (that's water, not washing -- she still had to remind them to use soap for other than their amusement), and as a WAHM she took advantage by stationing herself where she could do work and cast glances at them in the bathtub. This resulted in lengthy soaks, and they also loved bath foams. However, the oldest of them, Gwen, was limited in the ability of her vulva, vagina, and/or urethra to tolerate the suds, and the amount and duration of foams that she and her bro & sis really wanted required too much of the common bubble bath preps for her to soak in without a painful aftermath. Inspired by a Beverly Cleary story, they also developed a taste for play with shaving cream (cheaper by volume than the toothpaste used in the story), but when they piled some up in the bathtub and Gwen sat in it, she almost instantly got a sore, rashy crotch.

So...how to satisfy these children with lots of wet foam, preferably thick stuff like shaving cream, that they could play in for hours at a time without Gwen's suffering painful urination or needing A & D ointment? First I looked at the materials they'd been using. The soap in shaving cream usually includes a considerable excess of fatty acid, especially stearic, to make the lather creamy & lasting, which has the side effect of making it milder than most soaps. However, for reasons I can only guess at, at that time it was common for shaving creams to include a pinch of SLS (SDS), as was the case with theirs. I have some evidence that mixtures of soap & SLS are more irritating than either soap or SLS alone. This is frequently the case with surfactants -- increasing or decreasing the irritancy of each other -- and they're usually used in combination, so it may be misleading to try to evaluate preparations on the basis of individual ingredients. It was possible that the propellant hydrocarbon gas(es) in the shaving cream bothered Gwen's pudenda too, but because the bubble bath pointed to a problem with surfactants, that's where I focused.

(Quite a while later to isolate whether Gwen had a problem with soap, we had her bubble-bathe with increasing amounts of Ivory Snow -- which at that time was still soap powder -- and did not reproduce the shaving cream problem. However, by then she may have outgrown her urogenital sensitivity, as some children do. Other women actually grow into the problem, tolerating sudsy preps until or into their teens and then finding their genitals revolt. Anyway, I do not recommend soap powder, flakes, or liquid soap as bath foam, because on most people's skin it's more irritating than are most soapless formulas, for the same amount of foam.)

Meanwhile their bubble baths were from liquid preps with common formulas such as sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLES, probably laureth-3 sulfate) plus as a foam stabilizer either an alkanolamide (IIRC lauric diethanolamide -- lauramide DEA) or the polymer hydroxyethyl cellulose (as used in Sesame St.'s liquid). The ether sulfate makes bigger bubbles (the size of the individual bubbles in the foam), is more soluble (and hence easier to work with in making a liquid) than, and does better with water "hardness" than the unethoxylated SLS, as well as being milder (as discussed previously). However, by itself its bubbles don't last long unless you use an awful lot, hence the use of foam stabilizers. Lauramide DEA is very effective at preserving bubbles, but is irritating (especially in terms of eye sting, which Gwen's little sister had complained of) and feels sticky unless you rinse well. Hydroxyethyl cellulose is non-irritating but still sticky and less effective and has more use in bubble blowing solutions. But both foam stabilizers tend to make dry foams that pile up high with bubbles that are big but fragile, rather than the creamy squishy lathery foam that soap makes. I also found that the dryness of their foams increases sting when the foams touch eyes.

I set out to find the mildest surfactants I could use to make a foam that was voluminous enough and would last while children played with it. There was no guarantee that mildness as shown by the usual tests would equal nonirritancy in someone with the special problem of susceptibility to chemical vulvovaginitis or urethritis, but it seemed like a good starting point.

Some products such as Sesame St. liquid and Calgon's Muppet series of children's bubble baths were using mixtures of the milder anionic surfactant disodium lauryl ether-3 sulfosuccinate mono-ester (SLESS) with SLES, as had been found to foam almost as much as the SLES while being nearly as mild as the SLESS alone. Meanwhile many other products were exploiting the finding that mixtures of various anionic surfactants (especially SLES) with zwitterionic surfactants, especially betaines, and most especially alkamidopropyl betaines such as cocamidopropyl betaine, were less irritating than either the anionic surfactants or the betaine surfactants alone. That's good because the betaines (which are foamy by themselves) also stabilize foams -- not quite as effectively as nonionic foam stabilizing surfactants such as the alkanolamides previously mentioned or amine oxides, but almost as well if you use a lot.

So I thought, why not combine a sulfosuccinate mono-ester with a betaine surfactant? I used the foamiest betaine, lauramidopropyl betaine (LMB/LMAB), and found that unethoxylated lauryl sulfosuccinates when mixed with it made smaller-bubble, creamier, wetter foam than did the laureth-3 sulfosuccinate. (The same effect is seen with SLS vs. SLESS, but less pronounced.) I wound up working with diammonium lauryl sulfosuccinate (NLSS/ALSS) solution rather than disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate (SLSS) powder because it's easier to work with liquids, and without ethoxylation the diammonium salt is much more soluble than the disodium salt. (Again, the same effect but less pronounced is seen with alkyl & ether sulfates.) The betaine solution had the side benefit of being strongly enough pH buffered to stabilize the NLSS against chemical breakdown, saving me the trouble of making a buffer. However, the mixture's foam wasn't very long lasting, and although that was fine for the 3 YO's att'n span, the older kids wanted suds they could play with for hours.

So I added a little of the harsher but bubblier SLES, and the suds became more voluminous and much longer lasting, and the kids loved it, and Gwen didn't get hurt. I found I could also use a larger amount of the milder SLESS instead of the SLES and got the same effect. As a side benefit, I found that the wetter foam didn't sting eyes, even though NLSS & SLSS are rated higher in eye irritancy than is SLESS, which makes a drier, bigger-bubble foam.

Then friends encouraged me to try to make something more of this than just a favor to Carol, and I sought more people with the sore-genitals-from-surfactants problem. I soon learned that some needed the SLES-free version to tolerate it, so now it's a mixture of NLSS, LMAB, and SLESS. Without sticky nonionic foam stabilizers (which admittedly could make the bubbles last a little longer still), you don't feel like you need a shower afterward, and indeed it makes skin nice & soft. An even more skin softening mixture results when instead of LMAB alone I use a mixture of that and palmitamidopropyl betaine (cetamidopropyl betaine), the same way soap makers will mix different fats & oils; the foam is more cottony and the skin feel afterward is extra soft. (Using palmitamidopropyl as the only betaine lessens the foaming.) You can also wash skin or hair with these liquids, and it tends to make hair come out nice.

But are even the best of these mixtures perfect? No way! They don't make foams as fast as common SLES-based formulas, although they will make as much foam eventually if you splash them enough. Kids love splashing it, but adults seem to prefer making foam by just letting water run fast, and they may think of swishing the water hard with their hands & arms for 15 seconds as extra work instead of extra fun. Is their foam as thick as shaving cream? No, though it does approach the consistency of soap lather. Do they defat the skin of people with skin so dry they can't tolerate soap or always need bath oil? Sure; I don't think there's any way to make suds that don't take away some grease, and if your skin is really deficient in oil, you're out of luck there -- although you may be able to tolerate it if you re-grease yourself afterward with lotion or whatnot. But then do they clean as well as soap? Judging by my armpits back when I was stinkier, I think not quite, although it was adequate to wash dishes with. (Oh, and good luck trying to get clean just from foamy bath water with no additional lather on a washcloth; if plain water doesn't do it, a little bit of bubble bath in a tubful of water won't either. So it's not like the kids are going to get out of using soap with this or any other bath foam.) Is it absolute proof against urinary or genital irritation? When the liquid was tested as a peri-vaginal wash in the shower, my most sensitive subject (pregnant, and even when she wasn't pregnant she got sore if ordinary soap even so much as rinsed down into her crotch) did report a mild burning sensation (although none after using it as bath foam). I also found a male subject who, after several daily baths with it, had some painful urination, though he could use it with much greater frequency and to produce more foam than he could tolerate from common bubble baths, which he had to reserve for occasional use. I'd like to have him test it vs. California Baby, but I can't afford to buy him enough, because he'd probably have to use half a bottle of that expensive stuff to get the amount of foam he likes.

Whew. Guess I wound up writing a college lecture anyway, but I hope this gives you some idea of the comparisons involved in evaluating surfactant-based products. Now if only I could make some $ with this.

Robert

[Woodland]

I quit using toothpastes that contain SLS because I would get really bad canker sores. Once I switched I didnt have any more cankers! thank goodness, I used to get them all the time!! I have only found JASON brand and burts bees that dont contain it.

[meisterfrau]

Originally Posted by Lisa Lubner

SLS is harsh stuff. I used to suffer from chronic canker sores until I switched to an SLS free toothpaste. They have completely gone away since I switched, and the difference was immediate.

Exactly this. I always got the sores, but for some reason MUCH worse after DD was born. I actually missed work at least once because the pain was so bad I couldn't talk. I switched to an SLS free toothpaste and the problem is gone. I get one here and there once in a great while, but not the disintegrating mouth thing I was getting before.

[maxwill129]

Robert, thanks for the info! I'm intrigued by all of this!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by meisterfrau

Exactly this. I always got the sores, but for some reason MUCH worse after DD was born. I actually missed work at least once because the pain was so bad I couldn't talk. I switched to an SLS free toothpaste and the problem is gone. I get one here and there once in a great while, but not the disintegrating mouth thing I was getting before.

How are you with toothpastes containing sodium lauroyl sarcosinate?

IIRC Gardol was sodium dodecyl sulfate and GL-7 was sodium lauroyl sarcosinate. Both anionic surfactants were found in the 1950s to inhibit the action of the bacterial enzyme that digests sucrose (cane & beet sugar), on which basis they were promoted as preventing tooth decay, although I don't think there was ever clinical evidence showing they work that way in practice. (Lately somebody's been promoting brushing teeth with soap.) The sarcosinate is much milder but a lot more expensive.

Robert

[meisterfrau]

Hmm. I have no idea! I first read about the connection between SLS and canker sores on a message board for people who get canker sores. I was looking for causes and treatments. A lot of people there swore by the SLS-free toothpaste, so I tried one of the brands they recommended there and it worked for me.

[Robert Goodman]

IMO toothpaste (or any dentifrice) is in most cases a nothing anyway. If it really has an active ingredient -- flouride, or nitrate for sensitive teeth -- OK then, but I'm not convinced other stuff -- baking soda, salt, surfactants, chalk -- whether formulated into a toothpaste or powder or just applied DIY style, does anything good. Mostly it's just a way of putting into one's mouth a taste that's different from that of food, and aside from the kiddie fruit flavored ones (which are foodlike) I find those tastes unpleasant to hold in my mouth for long enough to brush with. That's why I'm a bit amused at the current fad of brushing teeth with Ivory soap -- it's just another surfactant like GL-7 or Gardol, but even more unpleasant tasting!

BTW, sodium N-lauroyl sarcosinate, mentioned in this thread, and its cocoyl analog are surfactants that are among those much milder by most measures than SLS, but its foaming characteristics are very different, making a very compact foam resembling that of soap lather, being able to stay foamy even when mixed with a good deal of oil, and increasing its latheriness in the presence of calcium. In biochemistry sodium N-lauroyl sarcosinate (Sarkosyl is a brand) is used instead of SDS (SLS) in the presence of cesium, because unlike SLS it remains soluble in the presence of cesium. I've heard it's not as prone to causing canker sores either.

Robert

[AngelBee]

: