Talk:Sodium laureth sulfate

Why is there no history section?

As far as I understand, this is one of the most important novel chemicals of the past hundred years. Seems like there should be a story here. Is it naturally derived? Some momentary locus on the path of ?northern european? organic chemistry research? It's prevalent in almost all supermarket household chemistry aisle products, from toothpaste to dishwasher tablets to laundry detergent, yet this page is only 8,000 bytes?> 203.221.126.154 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Bias

"Consumers may continue to use and enjoy their cosmetic and personal care products with confidence." This line sounds like something out of a commercial. I'm having trouble trusting the information on this page because of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.81.212.119 (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Agreed - I don't think the article suffers if this sentence is removed, so I've removed it. In fact upon further searching this:
The safety of SLS has not been questioned by the European Commission, nor its expert advisory committee (the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products, or SCCP), nor by any of the member states...Sodium laureth sulphate (SLES) is also is used in many cosmetic products for its surfactant properties. This widely used cleansing agent is perfectly safe for use on the skin; it is therefore not surprising that other industries would choose to use this safe, effective and biodegradable cleanser too.
is directly plagarised from the CPTA website, so I've removed it.
Alphamatrix (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Structure

you need a labeled diagram od Sodium Laureth Sulfate's chemical structure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.87.202 (talk) 00:37, August 21, 2002 (UTC)

chemical structure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.223.144.161 (talk) 06:57, December 30, 2004 (UTC)

Here you go. –Mysid (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Carcinogen Rumour

I removed the Carcinogenic section, this was just a marketing trick.

• I added back a Carcinogen? section because the rumor that SLS/SLES are carcinogenic is very widespread and I'm guessing that a large percentage of the people that look up this page are doing so to see if there is any truth to the rumor. Sapoguapo 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• I reworded the "Carcinogen?" section because it meandered around the point, failing to actually make it.GreatMizuti 11:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It can't be a rumour when SLS/SLES contains 1,4-dioxane. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers 1,4-dioxane to be a probable carcinogen. The reference proves this. When it is a probable carcinogen it was NEVER a rumour in the first place. --MotherAmy 01:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple concerns regarding the validity of the sources in this section:

1. "Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association (CTFA) and the American Cancer Society have stated that the common belief that SLES is a carcinogen is an urban legend, a view confirmed by toxicology research by the OSHA, NTP, and IARC.[6]" This links to an article by CTFA (which has now changed their name to the Personal Care Products Center. There is no link to the reported research by the OSHA, NTP or IARC.

2. "While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration encourages manufacturers to remove this contaminant, it is not currently required by federal law.[9]" This links to an FDA publication from 1992, and this link doesn't even mention the substance of discussion.

Proper references must be produced! Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

the same Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association that spent over $600,000 on lobbyists trying to prevent the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005. Seems they have a history of trying to cover up things. hmmm I agree it needs to be changed to a more verifiable source. Tremello22 (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed speculative totally unsupported sentence regarding carcinogenicity as non-encyclopaedic. Loose talk without a shred of verified evidence has no place in this scientific article. Trevor H. (UK) 23:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor H. (talk • contribs)

new to wiki

hi, I was just searching for the critical micelle concentration for sodium lauryl sulfate and I wanted to add it to chemical info. on the side bar. Not sure how to do that, so if anyone wants to add it:

the cmc is 0.008 M

reference: this paper http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/70002014/ABSTRACT

Link to Cold Sores

There have been studies that show a link between Cold Sores and the use of Sodium laureth sulfate (SLS) in toothpaste. Doing a Google search pulls up a lot of anecdotal evidence and commercial websites selling SLS free toothpaste but no direct links to any such study. The best I could find was this personal website where he refers to a study and is NOT trying to sell anything.

Any suggestions as to how to proceed? I have attempted to contact the dentist to see if he can supply more information about the study. Unfortunately there is not Contact page so i had to resort to doing a WHOIS on his domain name.

I have found references to studies in Aphthous ulcer

Thomas Paine 18:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A cold sore is not a canker sore. 99.163.51.172 (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ulcers and SLS vs SLES

The section on ulcers mentions "sodium laureth sulfate" and gives the abbreviation "SLS", while earlier in the article "sodium laureth sulfate" is given as an alternative name for "sodium lauryl ether sulfate" or "SLES", while "SLS" is given as the abbreviation for "sodium lauryl sulfate". I believe something needs to be changed in the ulcer part of the article. For what it's worth, I'm no expert, but I believe "SLS" is the correct part, as I think "sodium lauryl sulfate" is what's found in most toothpastes, not "sodium laureth sulfate". -ReverendTed 22:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

CAS number

Deleted the preceding zeroes in the CAS number, because of them crossfire couldn't find the substance and SciFinder finds no exact matches. I don't know why the zeroes were there in the first place, couldn't find them in any of the inbox references I checked. Montargo (talk) 09:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. the structure is wrong, the alkyl tail isn't long enough. You can deduce this by comparing the structure with the molecular formula or by considering that the term lauryl or dodecyl indicates a twelve carbon framework independent of the ether part of the structure. I am unfamiliar with the process of editing existing structures in wikipedia, so I ask if someone with more experience could mend this problem. I am actually unfamiliar with editing texts too but this was fairly easy to comprehend.

Word Choice Seems Biased

The last line of the Toxicology... "U.S. Food and Drug Administration encourages manufacturers to remove this contaminant..." seems a little biased. At the very least, the word choice "contaminant" is incorrect as this chemical is added purposely and for utility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.249.253 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 23 October 2008

No that's not right. It's not added purposely. Rather it's a by-product from the process which converts sodium lauryl sulphate into sodium laureth sulphate. Donama (talk) 05:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Known irritant

I'm removing this paragraph:

While SLS is a known irritant, some evidence and research suggest that SLES can also cause irritation after extended exposure.

Unfortunately I don't have access to the full text of these articles and abstracts are mising for several of them as well, but

(a) the first two refs seem to be about patients who already had a skin problem and who would likely have a skin reaction to sugar water as well.

(b) Such a paragraph in an article about a widely used and approved compound of body care products sets off my "bullshit alarm". I suspect that this is a one-in-a-million case of a patient who is sensitive to this compound. Such a prominent mentioning gives the unfair impression that the average person has to worry about SLS and therefore does not belong there. It might be mentioned further down in the article with some explanation of the context, though.

Han-Kwang (t) 12:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Jargon Nonsense....

Tells us all about what it is for, what it can be found in (product types), what it can be used for, what it does or not cause (cancer), even gives the full string of atoms to make a piece. What on earth it is or is made of is still a mystery. Is it an animal? Is it a liquid? Is it synthetic? Not very helpful outside a science lab, jargon and nonsense to any normal person. Even a particle accelerator can be explained in one easy sentence. It's an A with a B a C and they make it go... Petrol for instance... it's the steam off the oil. etc.. etc.. nothing to understand in this article only complexity then controversy in that order. ~ R.T.G 20:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to your addition, but I am puzzled by your "Is it an animal?" question. It is a detergent, which isn't really jargon.

I suspect the reason the method for industrial manufacture didn't appear in the lead until now is because it is not reasonable to do that for most substances: most substances have several important methods of preparation (or indeed, occur in nature.) Therefore it is natural for an editor to start with what it is used for, and its chemical formula.

However the article is only in its early stages and there is a lot to do yet. As you rightly point out, no-one has yet added the physical properties, even to say that it is a liquid at room temperature: the original contribution was clearly interested in hazards.

It is up to the rest of us to turn it into a useful article for the general audience, so I applaud you for contributing.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is late at least to reply to this but, aside from making hexagonal pictures and nice little formulaic equation symbols, the most sought after knowledge in these chemical articles is "what is it then?". People able to describe the substance as a diagram or an equation are only to well able to say, both, what it is possibly and what it is most likely derived from. Is it an animal? I am a vegan. Chemical ingredients, in the most common foods childrens sweets and all, are a nightmare of insectoid and reptilian butchery. If it's not sucked out of a cows bones it's usually dried out of a fishes guts and if you think thats wild and unusual, don't drink Guinness or eat Skittles. In what material gain we receive from this society, we tip the scale at lacking some things, see lac ~ R.T.G 04:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong structure?

Shouldn't there be 12 carbons in the chain instead of 11? --kupirijo (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. there is one carbon atom missing. --FK1954 (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with a correct one, and marked the incorrect one for deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --FK1954 (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Manufacture of Sodium Laureth Sulfate

In the first paragraph, the article contradicts the primary source on this point. The article gives the chemical components from which the chemical Sodium LAURETH Sulfate is derived. But it does so by citing a primary source which describes the chemical components for Sodium LAURYL Sulfate. As the top line of this article points out, these are not the same chemical and not to be confused.

Not to cloud the issue, but the primary source is unreliable. It says Sodium LAURYL Sulfate is manufactured by mixing "sulfuric acid, monododecyl ester, and sodium salt together". But the phrase "sulfuric acid, monododecyl ester, sodium salt" is simply a synonym for Sodium LAURYL Sulfate, not a list of ingredients. (The article Sodium lauryl sulfate has got this right.)

The author of the primary source evidently misunderstood the synonym to be a list of ingredients and is therefore not to be relied upon.

Sodium LAURETH Sulfate is actually made by ethoxylating Sodium LAURYL Sulfate, as stated in Sodium lauryl sulfate.

Submitted for your consideration,

MetaEd (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"Sodium LAURETH Sulfate is actually made by ethoxylating Sodium LAURYL Sulfate" - no, nobody does. First, lauryl alcohol ist reacted with ethylene oxide, then sulfonated, then converted to the sodium salt. If you'd make sodium laureth sulfate from sodium lauryl sulfate, you first would have to cleave the compound into lauryl alcohol and sodium sulfate, then ethoxylate the alcohol. This doesnt't make sense, as you see... --FK1954 (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. Can you correct the error in the page. --MotherAmy 03:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the chemical synthesis described in the article is not reasonable, so I have removed it. If I can find a reliable source for the preparation described above (which is quite plausible), I'll add it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've now added it to the "chemical structure" section. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Bias industry website

There is bias industry website in SLES. If the industry website is allowed to stay I can add a consumer website. --MotherAmy 17:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why dioxane being discussed here?

Sodium laureth sulfate is a component of many products. Each of these products has many components. Many of these components have associated risks or hazards. So it is impractical to discuss each of these allied compounds in this article. These other components are more suitably discussed within their own articles or one could discuss them within a more overarching articles on formulation cosmetic formulation. So I removed the extended commentary on dioxane, not because I am pro- or against the stuff, but because the article is otherwise subject to a huge amount of tangential information. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It is found in SLES which makes it directly related to the topic. --MotherAmy 17:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:OR, To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented. --MotherAmy 18:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, you have an agenda and a bias, and probably dont understand the chemistry. Too bad, oh well.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you ignored that OR allowes material directly related to the topic. SLES does contain 1,4-Dioxane. --MotherAmy 18:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wha? They are two separate compounds? Is dioxane an impurity in SLES or what.--Smokefoot (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

1,4-Dioxane is found in SLES. Too bad you are confused. --MotherAmy 18:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

[1][2] These articles will help you understand that SLES is contaminated with 1,4-Dioxane. --MotherAmy 18:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me for barging in here, but why exactly does an article on SLS have a lengthy discussion of 1,4-dioxane? This article is about SLS, which is a distinct substance from 1,4-dioxane. Granted, many products that contain SLS may also contain 1,4-dioxane, but that doesn't make them the same thing. That SLS-containing products may be contaminated with 1,4-dioxane is something worth mentioning, but the way the article is currently written gives undue weight to it. The toxicity of 1,4-dioxane ought to be discussed in the article on 1,4-dioxane instead. I would say that a sentence or two about 1,4-dioxane contamination ought to be enough for the purposes of this article. If you must, wikilink it to an article devoted to the topic of 1,4-dioxane contamination of SLS-based products. The weight given to 1,4-dioxane in this article on SLS is teetering on the edge of POV-pushing.—Tetracube (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to edit on this article a few weeks ago, but my edits were all reverted by MotherAmy, who apparently feels strongly about the role of dioxane impurities in some products derived from sodium laureth sulfate. MotherAmy projects some sense of ownership (see WP:soapbox) of the article, despite apparent inability to edit on a serious technical level, choosing instead to cite blogs and pop magazines. In my view, the occurrence of dioxane as an impurity merits mention. It would be helpful if efforts were made toward achieving consensus. The current article seems relatively balanced, but I am open to discussion.--Smokefoot (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever MotherAmy's intentions are, this article isn't about 1,4-dioxane, but about sodium laureth sulfate. I've deleted most of the unnecessary discussion about 1,4-dioxane, leaving in a few sentences to the effect that some SLS products may be contaminated with it---the wikilink should be good enough to point any interested reader at the 1,4-dioxane article, which is where most of this material belongs. I am of the opinion that this is the most reasonable stance here. (I was tempted to delete all 1,4-dioxane stuff outright, but since people seem to feel so strongly about it, I left the above mentions of it. I think this is a reasonable compromise.)—Tetracube (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of this information was in the article as of last year. The spelling is 1,4-Dioxane not 1,4-dioxane. 1,4-Dioxane is a contaminant of SLES. --MotherAmy 04:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Short lede

The lede is too short. --MotherAmy 18:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried to restore the lede again. --MotherAmy 04:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The lede was expanded per WP:LS. --MotherAmy 03:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Differences between Sodium Laureth Sulfate and Sodium Lauryl Sulfate?

I've been wondering for a quite a while what the difference between sodium laurETH sulfate and sodium laurYL sulfate are. The Wikipedia articles for both seem quite similar. Could someone explain the differences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.170.17 (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a good question, and here is a partial answer. Both are derived from lauryl alcohol (C₁₂H₂₅OH)

• In sodium laurYL sulfate the OH group is converted to a sulfate ester to give C₁₂H₂₅OSO₃^-.
• In sodium laurETH sulfate, the lauryl alcohol is first ethoxylated (hence the ETH) to give :C₁₂H₂₅O(C₂H₄)_nOH (n apparently is usually about 5, so it is a mixture of similar compounds), and then the sulfate is attached to give C₁₂H₂₅O(C₂H₄)_nOSO₃^-. So it is a long sucker. Both are detergents, and I think that the ETH variety are better detergent owing to their superior ability to help greasy molecules dissolve in water. --Smokefoot (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Use in hair products

This stuff is in most shampoos. As I have got older I notice that most shampoos make my hair a frizzy mess. Using a cleaner without SLS stops this. For example, soap. Just sayin'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wythy (talk • contribs) 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)