Market Survey

Detergents: A bucket-full of Dirty wAter even if you buy the most expensive detergent brand in india, chances are you will not get as much value for money as you would expect. no brand can qualify to be a ‘grade 1’ detergent in india. they clean well alright but they also exert a heavy burden on the environment as detergents have high phosphate content—an ingredient that is being excluded from detergents the world over because of the water pollution it causes.

Detergents are perhaps the most advertised products on television today with an estimated market worth of Rs 8800 crore. Almost every urban Indian household

uses some brand of laundry detergent or the other, whether of the premium variety for washing machines, or the cheapest detergents, known as the ‘janta’ variety. Consumer VOICE tested 13 brands and variants belonging to all the three categories of detergents and rated them not just according to their washing per-formances but also according to how environ-ment-friendly they were, and how much value for money they gave.

One of the main findings of our labora-tory tests is that no detergent brand quali-fies to be in the ‘Grade 1’, if we go by the requirements of the standards laid down by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), the national standards-setting body. The most expensive detergent brands cost up to Rs 160 for a kilogram, and that they should still fall short of qualifying for the 1st grade, comes as a surprise.

The environment-friendliness of deter-gents is an aspect on which there are no clear answers as of yet. No detergent brand has opted for the Indian ecolabel (known as the Ecomark) to have its environment-friendli-ness certified.

If we consider the very important parameter of how well detergents wash dirt or clean stains, then the test findings reveal that the costliest de-tergents do not always have to be the best clean-

Market Survey

ers. Among the top-three brands in the ‘detergency’ test, two are from the ‘sub-premium’ category (‘Ariel Fresh & Clean’ and ‘Henko Stain Champi-on Oxygen Power’), establishing that a consumer can easily match cost- efficiency with product performance if one knows exactly the quality- index of the product. The ‘detergency’ test establishes how well detergents can remove dirt from soiled fabrics.

All in all, if consumers are look-ing for a detergent that gives the best value for money, our test findings would recommend ‘Tide Jasmine & Rose’ (Rs 25.50 for 500g) and ‘Super Nirma Blue’ (Rs 29 for 500g), as they

are fairly cheap compared to other brands and are also competitive in terms of their cleaning efficacy, that is closer to the requirements of na-

tional standards.

Dirt removal scoreHow well detergents clean is

measured by the ‘detergency’ test (results shown in percentage). Consumer VOICE tested this by ana-lysing how much of soil could deter-gents remove from clothes. Indian standards specify that Grade 1 de-tergents should have a minimum de-tergency percentage of 65 per cent, Grade 2 should have 55 per cent, and Grade 3 should have 45 per cent.

1. We found that the regular cat-egory (falling in Grade 2) brand—Ariel Fresh Clean—has the highest detergency percentage of 69 per cent, making its performance better than that of even premium (Grade 1) brands.

2. Two of the three premium cat-egory brands fell short of making the 65 per cent minimum detergency mark. Henko Stain Champion Matic and Ariel Ultramatic (both washing machine detergents) had 50.24 and 63.95 per cent detergency.

3. All other brands match upto the minimum detergency percentage required according to their particu-lar categories (i.e. regular brands or Grade 2 have 55 per cent minimum detergency and Grade 3 brands have at least 45 per cent detergency).

‘Active ingredients’: detergents don’t meet standards

Detergents have certain ingredi-ents (known as ‘active ingredients’)

Key Findings1. Brands Ariel Fresh Clean (69 per cent), Surf Excel Automatic (66.17 per cent), and

Henko Stain Champion Oxygen Power (65.67 per cent) give the top performances in terms of cleaning (detergency test). On the other hand, Henko Stain Champion Matic gives the least impressive performance in the detergency test (50.24 per cent).

2. The costliest (premium) brands do not qualify to be called ‘Grade 1’ as they do not meet quality and performance requirements as prescribed in national standards.

3. Indian detergents are not environment-friendly. Surf Excel is especially damaging to the environment as it has the highest quantity of phosphates and STTP.

4. The Indian standards have defined three quality grades for detergents. No brand declares its grade on the label.

Visual Appeal and MoistureThe visual appeal of detergents Laundry detergents are essentially in powder form but they too have their own visual

appeal in terms of colours and granules. The most appealing detergents are Ariel Ultramat-ic and Henko Stain Champion Matic with their white colour granules that are interspersed with blue and red granules.

Nirma Washing Powder, on the other hand, clearly looks least fashionable with its yellow colour that looks least un-interesting to the eye.

Moisture content The national standards do not prescribe any maximum limit for moisture content in de-

tergents, but it is well-known that the presence of moisture leads to the detergent powder turning lumpy. The brand with the highest moisture content is Nirma Washing Powder. It has 9.92 per cent of moisture.

Table I

Ranking of Different Categories of Brands Brand/category Price per 500 g Rank

Premium Rs 67.50 to Rs 80 Ariel Ultramatic Rs 67.50 1Surf Excel Automatic Rs 80 2Henko Stain Champion Matic Rs 77.5 3Sub-premium/Regular brands Rs 25.5 to Rs 60Ariel Fresh Clean Rs 55 1Surf Excel Quick Wash Rs 60 2Surf Excel Blue Rs 42 3Super Nirma Blue Rs 29 4Henko Stain Champion Oxygen Power Rs 44.5 5Tide Jasmine & Rose Rs 25.5 6Rin Advanced Rs 25.5 7Janta Rs 11.11 to Rs 11.75 per 500 g Fena Ultra Rs 11.75 1Wheel Lemon Fresh Rs 11.50 2Nirma Washing Powder Rs 11.11 3

Market Survey

which are responsible for ensur-ing the cleaning performance of detergents. National standards have specified different minimum active ingredient levels for the three grades of detergents, i.e. 19 per cent for Grade 1, 16 per cent for Grade 2, and 10 per cent for Grade 3.

In the premium category, it is only Ariel Ultramatic that meas-ures up to the level specified by national standards for active in-gredients. The other two brands, Henko Stain Champion Matic and Surf Excel Automatic, have far lower levels of active ingre-dients at 9.4 per cent and 9 per cent, respectively.

The rest of the eleven brands, with the exception of Nirma wash-ing powder, met the standard’s requirements.

ingredients that damage ecology

Laundry detergents have long been associated with environ-mental degradation and pollution of water bodies. The fact that they have phosphates and sodium tri-polyphoshpate (STTP), which are used to soften hard water for better washing, makes them en-vironmentally unviable. In many countries around the world, phosphates have been banned as a detergent ingredient. India has no such regulations as yet. While the use of phosphates is not per-mitted (instead it requires use of alternate eco-friendly materi-als in sufficient quantity ensur-ing similar performance as that formulated with phosphates) in the Indian Standard for House-hold Laundry Detergent Powders under the Scheme for Eco-Mark in the country but at present no manufacturer has opted for it.

Indian standards require de-tergents to have a certain mini-mum quantity of phosphates as an ingredient (11 per cent for Grade 1 and 7 per cent for

Tabl

e II

Com

para

tive

Per

form

ance

of D

eter

gent

Pow

ders

Para

met

ers

Prem

ium

Bra

nds

Sub-

Prem

ium

& R

egul

ar B

rand

s Ja

nta

Bran

ds

Wt.

Ar

iel

Surf

He

nko

Ar

iel

Surf

Su

rf

Supe

r He

nko

Ti

de

Rin

Fe

na

Whe

el

Nirm

a

(p

er

Ultr

amat

ic

Exce

l St

. Fr

esh

Ex

cel

Exce

l Ni

rma

St

. Ja

smin

e A

dvan

ced

Ultr

a Le

mon

W

ashi

ng

ce

nt)

Au

tom

atic

Ch

ampi

on

Clea

n Qu

ick

Bl

ue

Blue

Ch

ampi

on

& R

ose

Fres

h Po

wde

r

M

atic

Was

h

Ox

ygen

Po

wer

MRP

, Rs/W

eight

, gm

s —

13

5/10

00

80/5

00

155/

1000

11

0/10

00

60/5

00

63/7

50

58/10

00

89/10

00

51/10

00

51/10

00

20/8

50

22/9

50

20/9

00Un

it pr

ice p

er 5

00 g

ms (

2007

) —

67

.5

80

77.5

55

60

42

29

44

.5

25.5

25

.5

11.7

5 11

.5

11.11

Pack

ing

3 3

2 3

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 1.

5 1.

5 1

Mar

king

7

4 3

3.5

4 3

3 3.

5 2.

5 4

3.5

2.5

2.5

2.5

Phys

ical p

rope

rties

* 5

5 4.

5 5

4.5

4.5

4 3.

5 4

4.5

4 3

3 2

Net w

eight

, gm

s 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

2 2

0.7

pH

3 2.

32

2.32

2.

24

2.32

2.

5 2.

4 2

2.16

2.

16

2.08

2.

16

2.16

2.

08M

oist

ure,

%

3 2.

1 1.

98

1.94

2.

38

2.17

2.

11

1.74

2.

11

2.47

2.

5 2.

05

2.17

0.

7Ac

tive

Ingr

edien

t, %

10

9.

5 5.

2 5.

29

8.22

8.

49

8.22

7.

08

8.75

7.

18

7.31

6.

06

5.92

5.

05To

tal p

hosp

hate

as

P2O5

%

10

9.37

9.

29

7.42

7.

56

7.7

7.39

6.

03

4.08

3.

04

2.03

1.

5 1.

51

1.5

STPP

, %

10

8.97

9.

76

9.27

8.

69

7.82

9.

39

7.45

1.

5 1.

5 1.

85

1.3

1.5

1.3

Activ

e al

kalin

ity, %

10

9.

38

7.18

9.

25

9.46

9.

92

9.95

7.

33

9.22

9.

73

8.8

9.67

9.

95

7.42

% D

eter

genc

y 30

26

.37

27.7

18

.14

29.4

26

.37

24

25.3

3 27

.4

27.0

3 23

.32

22.3

6 20

.81

19.6

2As

h bu

ilt u

p, %

7

5.95

6.

09

5.91

6.

51

5.98

6.

44

6.65

6.

54

6.65

6.

65

3.5

4.09

3.

46To

tal

100

87.9

6 81

.02

72.9

6 87

.04

82.4

5 80

.9

74.6

1 72

.26

72.2

6 66

.04

57.6

57

.11

47.3

3

Grad

ing:

91-

100

Exce

llent

, 71-

90 V

ery

Good

, 51-

70 G

ood,

31-

50 A

vera

ge, <

30 P

oor

*Phy

sical

pro

perti

es in

clude

frag

ranc

e, fre

e-flo

win

g, fr

ee fr

om a

ny u

nplea

sant

odo

ur a

nd a

ccep

tabi

lity

of d

eter

gent

pow

der.

Note

: The

cat

egor

isatio

n of

det

erge

nts i

nto

‘pre

miu

m’,

‘sub

prem

ium

/regu

lar’,

and

‘jan

ta’ c

ateg

ories

was

don

e ba

sed

on th

e pr

ices o

f the

bra

nds a

nd re

com

men

datio

ns o

f usa

ge m

ade

by th

e m

anuf

actu

rers

Market Survey

The Phosphate-Detergent ConflictPhosphates are an important constituent of detergents as they help soften hard water

and suspend dirt in water thus improving the detergent’s washing performance. STTP and other phosphates also help stabilise the alkalinity of the water, thereby increasing the ac-tion of the surfactants in the detergent. Surfactants keep the dirt dissolved in the water and prevent it from penetrating back into the clothes.

The problem with detergents is that they can have poisonous effects in all types of aquatic life if they are present in sufficient quantities, and this includes the biodegradable detergents. When we wash clothes, the detergent-loaded wastewater run-off makes its ways to lakes and rivers. All detergents destroy the external mucus layers that protect the fish from bacteria and parasites; plus they can cause severe damage to the gills. Most fish will die when detergent concentrations approach 15 parts per million (ppm). Detergent concentrations as low as 5 ppm will kill fish eggs. Surfactant detergents are implicated in decreasing the breeding ability of aquatic organisms.

Detergents also add another problem for aquatic life by lowering the surface tension of the water. Organic chemicals such as pesticides and phenols are then much more easily absorbed by the fish. A detergent concentration of only 2 ppm can cause fish to absorb double the amount of chemicals they would normally absorb, although that concentration itself is not high enough to affect fish directly.

The phosphate-problem first came in the limelight when the Great Lakes region of United States of America and Canada were on the verge of disappearing because of ex-cess phosphates in the lakes’ water, which were a run-off from domestic and industrial waste. In the 1970s, it was clear in the United States that about 60 per cent of the phosphorus in wastewater came from detergents and detergent-manufacturers volun-tarily decided to reduce the level of phosphates in their detergents. Many US states, the European Union, Canada, and Japan have limited or banned the use of phosphates in laundry detergents. Now, some US states are considering banning phosphates in dishwasher detergents as well. Washington state has banned the sale of household detergents with more than 0.5 per cent phosphorous; the law went into effect in some areas on July 1, 2008, and will take hold statewide two years later. Several other states have introduced similar legislation.

How We TestedThe laboratory testing of 13 brands of detergents was done according to the pro-

cedures prescribed in the national standard IS 4955:2001. In addition to the standard requirements, parameters like pH and moisture content were also considered. The testing was done in an independent laboratory. The brands were divided in three categories ac-cording to their price: ‘premium,’ ‘sub-premium’ and ‘janta.’ Care was taken that no cross-comparisons were made across the categories for overall ranking purposes.

Surf Excel’s case. Ariel Ultramatic (18.20 per cent) and Surf Excel Au-tomatic (17.95 per cent) also have more than necessary quantities of phosphates.

In contrast, the cheaper janta brands are far more environment-friendly. Phosphate presence is not a problem with them as Wheel, Fena and Nirma have less than 1 per cent phosphates.

The same trend can be noticed with the STTP content as well. Surf Excel Quick Wash is high not only in phosphates but also in STTP content at 31.70 per cent. The more expensive brands of premium and regular category are guilty of loading their detergents with STTP content, whereas the cheaper detergents can be termed environment-friendly as they are low both on phosphates and STTP.

Detergents: how skin-friendly are they?

The alkalinity of a detergent de-termines how friendly or harsh it is going to be to the skin. The higher the alkalinity (pH), the more the dan-ger that the detergent will be rough on hands and will also erode the fabric of the clothes being washed. Detergents are rarely acidic as high acidic content will mean that deter-gents will react with metals and ‘eat away’ the metallic parts of washing machines.

All the 13 brands tested by Consumer VOICE had high alka-linity (pH value)—above the value of 10.

Courtesy: December 2008 issue of Consumer VOICE magazine

Grade 2 detergents), but our test findings show that brands like Surf Excel Quick Wash have far too

much phosphate in them. In fact, phosphates make 23.4 per cent of the total mass of the detergent in