Archives of Toxicology

, Volume 83, Issue 1, pp 23–35 | Cite as

The safety of synthetic zeolites used in detergents

Regulatory Toxicology

Abstract

Synthetic zeolites are replacing phosphates as builders in laundry detergents; workers and consumers may, therefore, increasingly be exposed to these materials and it is important to assess their safety. This article puts mechanistic, toxicological and exposure data into context for a safety assessment. Zeolites are hygroscopic compounds with ion-exchanging properties. They may partially decompose under acidic conditions such as in the stomach releasing sodium ions, silicic acid and aluminum salts. The intact molecule is not bioavailable after oral intake or exposure through the dermal and inhalational routes. Under current conditions of manufacture and use, no systemic toxicity is to be expected from neither the intact molecule nor the degradation products; a significant effect on the bioavailability of other compounds is not likely. Zeolites may cause local irritation. It is, therefore, important to minimise occupational exposure. The co-operation of detergent manufacturers with the manufacturers of washing machines is necessary to find the right balance between environmental aspects such as energy and water savings and the occurrence of detergent residues on textiles due to insufficient rinsing.

Keywords

Synthetic zeolites Laundry detergents Builders Safety Exposure 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the members of EUZEPA (European Zeolites Producers Association).

References

  1. A.I.S.E. (2000) Association Internationale de la Savonnerie, de la Détergence et des Produits d’Entretien, Industrial and Institutional Sector. Environmental dossier on professional laundryGoogle Scholar
  2. A.I.S.E. (2002) Association Internationale de la Savonnerie, de la Détergence et des Produits d’Entretien, Industrial and Institutional Sector. Habits & Use Table for Western EuropeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bajpai D, Tyagi VK (2007) Laundry detergents: an overview. J Oleo Sci 56:327–340PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Benke GM, Osborn TW (1979) Urinary silicon excretion by rats following oral administration of silicon compounds. Food Cosmet Toxicol 17:123–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BfR (2005) Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung [Federal Institute for Risk Assessment]. Ärztliche Mitteilungen bei Vergiftungen 2005. Dokumentations- und Bewertungsstelle für Vergiftungen des BfR. ISBN 3-938163-17-8Google Scholar
  6. BfR (2007) Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung [Federal Institute for Risk Assessment]. Introduction to the problems surrounding garment textiles. BfR Information No. 018/2007, 1 June 2007Google Scholar
  7. Budavari S (1989) The Merck index. An encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals, 11th edn. Rahway, NJGoogle Scholar
  8. Carr SW, Gore B, Anderson MW (1997) 29Si27Al and 1H solid-state NMR study of the surface of zeolite MAP. Chem Mater 9:1927–1932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cefali EA, Nolan JC, McConnell WR, Walters DL (1995) Pharmacokinetic study of zeolite a, sodium aluminosilicate, magnesium silicate, and aluminium hydroxide in dogs. Pharm Res 12:270–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cefali EA, Nolan JC, McConnell WR, Walters DL (1996) Bioavailability of silicon and aluminium from zeolite a in dogs. Int J Pharm 127:147–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. CIR (2003) Cosmetic Ingredient Review. Final report on the safety assessment of aluminum silicate, calcium silicate, magnesium aluminum silicate, magnesium silicate, magnesium trisilicate, sodium magnesium silicate, zirconium silicate, attapulgite, bentonite, Fuller’s Earth, hectorite, kaolin, lithium magnesium silicate, lithium magnesium sodium silicate, montmorillonite, pyrophyllite, and zeolite. Int J Toxicol 22 (Suppl 1):37–102Google Scholar
  12. Cook TE, Cilley WA, Savitsky AC, Wiers BH (1982) Zeolite A hydrolysis and degradation. Environ Sci Technol 16:344–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CSTEE (2003) Opinion of the scientific committee on toxicity, ecotoxicity and the environment (CSTEE) on the environmental impact (reduction in eutrophication) that would result from banning sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) in household detergents. Adopted by the CSTEE during the 40th plenary meeting of 12–13 November 2003. http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_risk/committees/sct/documents/out202_en.pdf. Cited 06 Feb 2008
  14. EFSA (2004) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on additives and products or substances used in animal feed on the request from the Commission on the use of synthetic sodium aluminium silicate (zeolite) for the reduction of risk of milk fever in dairy cows. The EFSA Journal 160:1–11Google Scholar
  15. EFSA (2007) Scientific opinion of the panel on additives and products or substances used in animal feed on the safety of zeolite as a feed additive for dairy cows. The EFSA Journal 523:1–11Google Scholar
  16. EC (2003) European Commission. Technical guidance documents on risk assessment in support of commission directive 93/67/EEC on risk assesment for new notified substances; commission regulation (EC) no 1488/94 on risk assesment for existing substances; directive 98/8/EC of the European parliament and of the council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the marketGoogle Scholar
  17. Fach E, Waldman WJ, Williams M et al (2002) Analysis of the biological and chemical reactivity of zeolite-based aluminosilicate fibers and particulates. Environ Health Perspect 110:1087–1096PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO/WHO (2006) Summary and conclusions of the sixty-seventh meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), Rome, 20–29 June 2006. JECFA 67/SC. http://www.who.int/ipcs/food/jecfa/summaries/summary67.pdf. Cited 06 Feb 2008
  19. Fubini B, Mollo L (1995) Role of iron in the reactivity of mineral fibers. Toxicol Lett 82/83:951–960CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fubini B, Mollo L, Giamello E (1995) Free radical generation at the solid/liquid interface in iron containing minerals. Free Rad Res 23:593–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gloxhuber C, Potokar M, Pittermann W et al (1983) Zeolite A—a phosphate substitute for detergents: toxicological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol 21:209–220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gudmundsson A, Löndahl J, Bohgard M (2007) Methodology for identifying particle sources in indoor environments. J Environ Monit 9:831–838PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. HERA (2004) Human & Environmental Risk Assessment on ingredients of European household cleaning products. Zeolite A (represented by CAS Number 1344-00-9 (Sodium aluminium silicate) and by CAS Number 1318-02-1 (Zeolites). Version 3.0, January 2004, by A.I.S.E. & CEFIC. http://www.heraproject.com/files/8-F-04-%20HERA%20Zeolite%20full%20V3%20web%20wd.pdf. Cited 06 Feb 2008
  24. IARC (1997) International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks of chemicals to humans vol 68. Silica, some silicates, coal dust and para-aramid fibrils. Lyon, FranceGoogle Scholar
  25. IUPAC (1979) International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Definitive chemical nomenclature and formulation of compositions of synthetic and natural zeolites. Pure Appl Chem 51:1091–1100Google Scholar
  26. IUPAC (2001) International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. Risk Assessment for Occupational Exposure to Chemicals. A review of current methodology (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl Chem 73: 993–1031Google Scholar
  27. Kerr G (1989) Synthetic Zeolites. Scientific American, July 1989: 82–87Google Scholar
  28. Maltoni C, Minardi F (1988) First available results of long-term carcinogenicity bioassay on detergency zeolites (MS 4A and MS 5A). Ann NY Acad Sci 534:978–985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Matthies W, Löhr A, Ippen H (1990) Bedeutung von Rückständen von Textilwaschmitteln aus dermatotoxickologischer Sicht. Dermatosen 38:184–189 [in German]Google Scholar
  30. Newsam JM (1986) The zeolite cage structure. Science 231:1093–1099PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nolen GA, Dierkman TA (1983) Test for aluminosilicate teratogenicity in rats. Food Chem Toxicol 21:697PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NTIS (1973) National Technical Information Service, USA. Compound report: FDA 71–45. Prepared for FDA, US Dept of Commerce, Springfield, VA, PB-223-810Google Scholar
  33. NTIS (1979) National Technical Information Service, USA. Compound report: F76- 001, sodium aluminum silicate. Prepared for FDA, US Dept of Commerce, Springfield, VA, PB89- 193650Google Scholar
  34. OECD (2006) Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. SIDS Programme. Documents on the category “crystalline, non-fibrous zeolites”, presented at the 23rd SIDS Initial Assessment Meeting (SIAM), October 2006 in Jeju, KoreaGoogle Scholar
  35. Prandi L, Bodoardo S, Penazzi N, Fubini B (2001) Redox state and mobility of iron at the asbestos surface: a voltammetric approach. J Mater Chem 11:1495–1501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Prival MJ, Simmon VF, Mortelmans KE (1991) Bacterial mutagenicity testing of 49 food ingredients gives very few positive results. Mutat Res 260:321–329PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Prud’homme de Lodder LCH, Bremmer HJ, van Engelen JGM (2006) Cleaning Products Fact Sheet. RIVM report 320104003/2006. http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/320104003.pdf. Cited 06 Feb 2008
  38. Rodriguez C, Calvin G, Lally C, Lachapelle JM (1994) Skin effects associated with wearing fabrics washed with commercial laundry detergents. J Cutan Ocular Toxicol 13:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. RPA (2006) Risk Policy Analysis. Non-surfactant organic ingredients and zeolite-based detergents. Final report prepared for the European Commission. June 2006Google Scholar
  40. Sainio EL (1996) Detergent residues in textiles. J Consumer Stud Home Econom 20:83–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Smulders E, Rähse W, von Rybinski W et al (2003) Toxicology. In: Smulders E (ed) Laundry detergents. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Thilsing-Hansen T, Jørgensen RJ (2001) Hot topic: prevention of parturient paresis and subclinical hypocalcemia in dairy cows by zeolite A administration in the dry period. J Dairy Sci 84:691–693PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van de Plassche EJ et al (1998) Moret Ernst & Young Management Consultants (Second Draft). Rep. No. 601503 013, Nov. 1–64. Cited in: A.I.S.E.-HERA LAS Risk Assessment, July 2002Google Scholar
  44. Wagner JC, Skidmore JW, Hill RJ, Griffiths DM (1985) Erionite exposure and mesotheliomas in rats. Br J Cancer 51:727–730PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Weegels MF (1997) Exposure to chemicals in consumer product use. Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  46. Wenninger JA, Canterbery RC, McEwen Jr GN (2000) International cosmetic ingredient dictionary and handbook, 8th edn, vols 1–3Google Scholar
  47. Zeiger E, Anderson B, Haworth S et al (1987) Salmonella mutagenicity tests: III. Results from the testing of 255 chemicals. Environ Mutagenesis 9:1–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CATS Consultants GmbH, Toxicology and Preclinical AffairsGräfelfingGermany

Personalised recommendations