This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sodium laureth sulfate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
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)
"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)
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)
I removed the Carcinogenic section, this was just a marketing trick.
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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
I'm removing this paragraph:
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)
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)
Shouldn't there be 12 carbons in the chain instead of 11? -- kupirijo ( talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Sodium laureth sulfate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
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)
"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)
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)
I removed the Carcinogenic section, this was just a marketing trick.
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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.
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
I'm removing this paragraph:
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)
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)
Shouldn't there be 12 carbons in the chain instead of 11? -- kupirijo ( talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)