BACKGROUND DOCUMENT - Final Version - Europa · BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FINAL VERSION LADECO: Laundry Detergents Eco-labelling Service Offer Subject: Revision of the EU …

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

FINAL VERSION

LADECO: Laundry Detergents Eco-labelling

Service Offer Subject: Revision of the EU Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents

Proposal reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl

LEITAT Technological Center

c/ de la Innovació,2

08225 – Terrassa (Barcelona)

SPAIN

Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl

Fina lVersion

-2-

INDEX

CONTENTS:

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5

2. SUMMARY REPORT ON WASHING HABITS ........................................................................... 6

2.1. EUROPEAN MARKET ...................................................................................................... 6

2.2. OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................................... 7

2.3.- FACTORS TO BE ASSESSED ............................................................................................ 7

a) Washing frequency: ...................................................................................................... 8

b) Pre-wash: ..................................................................................................................... 9

c) Washing temperature (ºC): ......................................................................................... 10

d) Water consumption: ................................................................................................... 13

e) Laundry product categories: ....................................................................................... 15

f) Dosages (g/wash): ....................................................................................................... 17

g) Food habits: ................................................................................................................ 18

h) Changes in the composition of textiles and fibres: ...................................................... 21

2.4. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 24

3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS REPORT ...................................................................................... 25

3.1. OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................... 25

3.2. DESCRIPTION OF WORK .............................................................................................. 25

a) Evaluation of A.I.S.E. minimum protocol for comparative laundry detergent

testing: ........................................................................................................................... 26

b) Evaluation of EU Ecolabel laundry detergent performance test: ........................... 27

c) Comparative analysis of both methods: ................................................................... 28

3.3. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 30

4. REPORT ON PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS .................................................. 31

4.1. OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................... 31

4.2. APPROACH TO THE NEW PERFORMANCE TEST PROTOCOL ......................................... 32

a) Products .............................................................................................................. 32

- Definition of “laundry detergent” ....................................................................... 32

- Classification of laundry detergents .................................................................... 32

- Reference detergent ........................................................................................... 33


Fina lVersion

-3-

- Definition of “stain removers” ............................................................................ 33

- Classification of “stain removers” ...................................................................... 33

b) Input conditions ................................................................................................... 34

- Water quality ..................................................................................................... 34

- Water temperature ............................................................................................ 34

- Amount of water in the washing cycle ................................................................ 35

- Load pre-treatment ............................................................................................ 36

- Wash program ................................................................................................... 37

- Laundry detergent dosage .................................................................................. 37

- Stain removers dosage ....................................................................................... 38

- Stains ................................................................................................................. 38

- Ballast load ........................................................................................................ 39

- Number of cycles ................................................................................................ 39

- Fabrics ............................................................................................................... 40

- Dyes ................................................................................................................... 41

- Dry and iron conditions ...................................................................................... 41

c) Tests ........................................................................................................................ 42

- A.I.S.E. minimum protocol .................................................................................. 42

- EU Ecolabel performance laundry detergents ..................................................... 42

d) Characteristics of equipment ............................................................................... 43

- Washing machine............................................................................................... 44

- Reflectance measurement instrument ................................................................ 44

- Laundering device for Dye Transfer Inhibition ..................................................... 45

e) Measurements..................................................................................................... 45

4.3. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 47

5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 51

6. STAKEHOLDERS LIST ........................................................................................................... 52

6.1. OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................... 52

6.2. ORGANISATIONS ......................................................................................................... 52

a) European Testing Institutes................................................................................. 52

b) Laundry Detergents Producers ............................................................................ 54

c) Ecolabel License Holders ......................................................................................... 55

d) Associations and corporate agents...................................................................... 57


Fina lVersion

-4-

ANNEX 1 ................................................................................................................................. 60

a) Heavy Duty Reference Detergent .............................................................................. 60

b) Low Duty Reference Detergent ...................................................................................... 61

ANNEX 2 ................................................................................................................................. 62

a) A.I.S.E. minimum performance test: .......................................................................... 62

b) EU Ecolabel performance test .................................................................................... 62

ANNEX 3 ................................................................................................................................. 63

ANNEX 4 ................................................................................................................................. 64

ANNEX 5 ................................................................................................................................. 65


Fina lVersion

-5-

1. INTRODUCTION

Performance Testing is the most usual and common way to assess product quality and

product competitiveness in the Laundry & Home Care markets.

There are, at least, two main methods currently used to assess the effectiveness of a

laundry detergent:

- A.I.S.E. minimum protocol for comparative laundry detergent testing

- EU Ecolabel laundry detergents performance test

The A.I.S.E. minimum protocol is nowadays frequently used to make comparative

statements among detergents in disputed marketing claims. Additionally, this protocol is also

extensively used by reputed European labs to deliver benchmark studies for consumer

associations.

Both methods (the A.I.S.E. protocol and the EU Ecolabel washing method) pursue the

same objective: be an objective basis to compare stain removal efficiency against relevant,

market-driven products. However, the existing differences between them are significant in

some key factors. A rational mix of advantages from both with additional, updated

considerations would lead to a clearly improved testing method proposal.

A revision of the different pros and cons from both methods, as well as the integration

of recent product developments in the field of washing detergency suggest the need to

provide an updated protocol that takes advantages of all the relevant and recent

developments maximizing the already existing pros and minimizing the current cons.


Fina lVersion

-6-

2. SUMMARY REPORT ON WASHING HABITS

2.1. EUROPEAN MARKET

According to the A.I.S.E. (Association Internationale de la Savonnerie, de la Detergence

et des Produits d´Entretien) Annual Review 2008 “Towards a sustainable cleaning: A.I.S.E.

highlights from 2008”, the overall total household value in Europe (EU 27 + Norway and

Switzerland) for 2008 is estimated to have reached € 29,1 billion in 2008 (€ 28,7 billion in 2007)

and shows a growth approximately 1,4%:

% Household products

49%

16%

14%

13%

5% 3%Fabric washing

Hard Surface Cleaners

Dish Cleaning

Maintenance products

Soaps

Bleaches

Graph 1: Household products used in Europe (%)

Fabric Washing accounts for almost half this size of the total value, including

household laundry washing products such as heavy & low duty detergents, fabric conditioners,

laundry aids and care.


Fina lVersion

-7-

2.2. OBJECTIVE

The specific objective of this deliverable is, as previously defined, to review the current

situation within the European Union regarding different consumer habits, such as: wash

frequency, new product categories, dosages, pre-wash frequencies, washing temperatures,

etc.…

Gathering information on consumer habits at European level is a very important factor

not to be neglected, since the cultural frame fixes certain parameters in the washing process

that may be relevant later, in the product use phase. The aim of this review is to adjust the real

problems linked to different consumer habits in order to adapt them if feasible to the new

Ecolabel performance criteria.

Due to the logical limitations linked to confidentiality, the information provided here

has been extracted from easily accessible sources, mainly provided by the Industry itself in

several open communications.

2.3.- FACTORS TO BE ASSESSED

There are several crucial factors during the washing process. Some of these factors

have been changing along time due to the influence of changing consumer habits. The

relevance of these changes needs to be assessed in order to fix the new performance criteria.

Some of these factors are:


Fina lVersion

-8-

a) Washing frequency1:

The next table shows a growing trend in the frequency of laundry washes in

Europe.

Year Wash / week

2002 4,38

2004 4,50

2009 6,00

Table 1: Washing frequency in Europe

The average number of washloads per week in European households has

increased steadily along the recent years. Which reasons lay behind this effect are still to be

clearly identified and balanced but there is a clear trend linked to an increased consumption.

Wash frequency (2002 to 2009)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2002 2004 2009

Year

wa

sh /

we

ek

Graphic 2: Wash frequency in Europe (2002 to 2009)

1Sources: Institut für Landtechnik (Sektion Haushaltstechnik) and Science in the box (www.scienceinthebox.com)


Fina lVersion

-9-

b) Pre-wash2:

The next table shows a decrease trend in the pre-wash in Europe.

Year %

2002 12,2

2004 7,5

Table 2: Pre-wash in Europe

On the other hand, a clear trend showing a decrease in the habit of pre-

washing (most probably linked to the increased awareness of European consumers on saving

of chemicals and energy) is clearly stated.. Most producers of laundry products also do not

promote pre-washing in their recommendation to consumers, but concentrated or more active

products leading to reduced laundry washing times.

% pre-wash in Europe (2002 to 2004)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2002 2004

%

Graphic 3: Pre-wash in Europe

2 Source: Institut für Landtechnik (Sektion Haushaltstechnik) and Science in the box (www.scienceinthebox.com)


Fina lVersion

-10-

c) Washing temperature (ºC)3:

Between 1996 and 2001, the average washing temperature decreased 6,4% in

Europe (from 48 ºC to 46 ºC). The next table shows a further decrease of washing

temperatures in Europe between 2002 and 2009:

2002 2004 2009

Temperature (ºC) % Temperature (ºC) % Temperature (ºC) %

30 37,8 30 26,0 30 54,0

40 34,4 40 28,0 40 35,0

50 4,6 60 31,0 60 11,0

60 18,2 90 6,0

90 5,0

Table 3: Washing temperatures in Europe

Graphic 4: Wash temperatures in Europe

3 Source: Cleanright, A.I.S.E. (www.cleanright.eu ) and Science in the box (www.scienceinthebox.com)


Fina lVersion

-11-

A clear decrease of the average washing temperature in laundry washing has a

crucial influence in the whole washing process. Previous Life Cycle Analysis studies of Laundry

Detergents have shown that, by far, the most relevant step in energy consumption is strictly

linked to the product use phase4: washing itself. Therefore, a substantial reduction of average

washing temperatures leads to substantial savings directly, and shapes significant changes in

the product formulations.

Energy consumption during washing and drying has a significant contribution

to the overall impacts. As most of the energy consumed during washing is used to warm water,

reducing the temperature of washing could provide significant benefits. Washing at 40ºC

instead of 60ºC saves 40% energy, and 60ºC compared to 90ºC saves 40%5.

The next graphic6 shows a further decrease of energy consumption in Europe

between 1997 and 2005. Considering a base level in 1992 of 0,30 kWh/kg, saving has been

37% of energy consumption per loading:

Graphic 5:Washing machines. Energy consumption in Europe

4 Life Cycle Analysis Laundry Detergents A.I.S.E Internal report 5 Market Transformation Programme, (2007) Briefing note BNW05: Assumptions underlying the energy projections for domestic washing machines 6 “Washing machines development”, Prof. Dr. Rainer Stamminger


Fina lVersion

-12-

The next graphic6 shows evolution of energy efficiency class in washing

machines between 1997 and 2005.

Graphic 6: Washing machines. Energy efficiency class in Europe

The next graphic6 shows the evolution of washing performance class in

washing machines between 1997 and 2005.

Graphic 7: Washing machines. Washing performance class in Europe


Fina lVersion

-13-

Drying has also a significant contribution to the overall impacts. Next graphic6

shows evolution of drying efficiency class in washing machines between 1997 and 2005.

Graphic 8: Washing machines .Drying efficiency class in Europe

d) Water consumption:

Clothes cleaning is a source of various environmental impacts, linked to the

consumption of water, energy and detergent.

Depending on the model of washing machine, for each washing, 100 liters of

water are consumed. The average consumption is calculated for a normal cotton program. But

the consumption of water and energy vary from one program to another. For example, there

are differences between normal cotton programs at 90ºC and synthetic programs at 40ºC

(between 20 and 50 liters of water consumption7), depending on the model of washing

machine.

Differences in axis washing machine are one parameter to take into account

for the water consumption. Vertical axis consumption is, generally, greater than 0,39 kWh/kg

and water consumption around 20 L/kg. Horizontal axis, which dominates the European

7 http://www.miliarium.com/Monografias/Sequia/Consumo_Agua.htm


Fina lVersion

-14-

market, use 0,19 kWh/kg and 8 L/kg. Its efficiency has been improved significantly over the last

13 years through technical improvements8.

Figure 1. Horizontal axis washing machine Figure 2. Vertical axis washing machine

The next graphic6 shows the evolution of average-water consumption in L in

washing machines between 1997 and 2005.

Graphic 9: Washing machines. Average-water consumption in L in Europe

8 “Reducing the environmental impact of clothes clearing”, December 2009, DEFRA


Fina lVersion

-15-

The next graphic6 shows the evolution of average-water consumption per kg in

washing machines between 1997 and 2005. The graphic shows a decrease on water

consumption per kg of 31%.An improvement of 0,28l/kg per year is also due to higher

capacities of washing machines.

Graphic 10: Washing machines. Average-water consumption per kg in Europe

e) Laundry product categories9:

The diversity of marketed products addressed to be used during a washing

process has increased along the recent years. As well as the diversity, the balance between

clearly differentiated product types has also changed substantially. The following data indicate

show this trend:

Product Category %

Normal powder 47,0

Compact powder 9,2

Tablets 12,8

Liquid 28,6

Liquid tabs 2,4

Table 4: Types of detergents used in Europe in 2002

9 Source: A.I.S.E. Annual Review (www.aise.eu/downloads/AISE_AR2008FINAL.pdf) and Science in the box (www.scienceinthebox.com)


Fina lVersion

-16-

Types of detergents used (2002)

0

10

20

30

40

50

Normal

powder

Compact

powder

Tablets Liquid Liquid tabs

%

Graphic11: Types of detergents used in Europe in 2002

·In 2008:

Graphic 12: Types of detergents used in Europe in 2008

·Black line: Total Europe

·Blue line: Western Europe

·Yellow line: Eastern Europe

·Orange line: Southern Europe

·Green line: UK / Ireland

·Dark blue line: Scandinavia


Fina lVersion

-17-

The comparison between both pictures shows a clear trend in the use of liquid laundry

products, while solid laundry products either stagnate or achieve lower consumption rates.

The increased use of liquid detergents has a strong impact in the consumption of

certain differentiated raw materials, reduced washing temperatures and average dosages.

f) Dosages (g/wash)10:

Year g/wash

Prior 1998 150

1998 135

2000 121

2002 110

Table 5: Dosage (g/wash) used in Europe in 2002

Dosage g/wash

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Prior to 1998 1998 2000 2002

g /

wa

sh

Graphic 13: Dosage (g/wash) used in Europe

10 Source: A.I.S.E.Annual Review (www.aise.eu/downloads/AISE_AR2008FINAL.pdf)


Fina lVersion

-18-

The clear trend towards a reduction of the average dosage of laundry

detergents is the outcome of several reasons:

- Increased relevance of concentrated products in the market

- Increased consumer awareness at European level on savings of energy

and chemicals

- Increased relevance of liquid products in the market

- Industry campaigns promoting reduction of chemicals and packages,

and lower washing temperatures.

g) Food habits:

The European Union is subject to food habits changes. This process is slow

because of persistent regional and cultural differences. Consumers have different food habits,

moreover, consumers are better educated and informed and they demand a larger variety of

food products of higher quality.

Pro

po

sal

Re

fere

nce

: E

NV

.G.1

/SE

R/2

00

9/0

09

3rl

Fin

a l

Ve

rsio

n

-19

-

Th

e n

ext

tab

le (

tab

le 6

) sh

ow

s th

e fo

od

exp

end

itu

re s

tru

ctu

re in

EU

co

un

trie

s. T

en f

oo

d c

ateg

ori

es a

re c

on

sid

ered

:

Co

un

trie

s B

read

& c

erea

ls

(%)

Mea

t

(%)

Fish

(%)

Milk

, ch

eese

& e

ggs

(%)

Oils

& f

ats

(%)

Fru

it &

veg

etab

les

(%)

Po

tato

es

(%)

Suga

r

(%)

Co

ffee

, tea

& c

oco

a

(%)

Oth

er

(%)

Au

stri

a

Bel

giu

m

Den

mar

k

Fin

lan

d

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

Gre

ece

Irel

and

Ital

y

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Net

her

lan

ds

No

rway

Po

rtu

gal

Spai

n

Swed

en

G. B

rita

in

17,0

0

16,5

0

16,5

2

15,6

7

15,6

0

17,3

4

11,3

0

16,0

0

17,7

9

15,3

0

19,0

0

11,2

0

15,3

0

13,4

2

16,2

0

17,3

5

26,8

0

27,9

0

23,3

1

20,0

0

34,3

0

28,5

5

30,0

0

26,0

0

28,0

4

32,3

0

22,5

0

24,0

0

29,7

0

30,2

4

23,2

0

25,8

0

2,60

6,30

6,15

3,72

4,70

2,43

6,10

3,00

7,58

4,20

2,43

6,80

15,5

0

13,3

2

5,20

5,14

16,2

0

12,4

0

14,3

3

18,1

2

14,6

0

15,0

3

16,3

0

15,0

0

16,4

5

13,4

0

16,2

7

19,5

0

11,9

0

14,1

3

17,4

0

14,6

5

4,10

2,90

3,29

2,95

2,60

3,72

6,20

3,00

5,94

3,50

2,65

2,90

5,70

4,27

3,90

2,63

14,5

0

14,6

0

14,5

4

15,8

6

16,1

0

14,4

9

18,3

0

13,0

0

12,3

3

15,5

0

15,7

1

14,4

0

13,4

0

16,9

2

9,90

20,1

7

1,20

2,50

2,68

2,90

1,70

2,01

2,20

4,00

4,11

1,70

2,25

3,30

4,00

1,89

3,80

2,30

1,30

0,50

0,62

1,37

0,60

0,84

1,20

1,00

1,07

0,60

0,74

0,90

1,30

0,73

0,80

1,26

4,00

2,60

4,39

4,21

2,20

0,14

1,60

2,00

3,22

2,70

4,30

3,40

1,40

1,59

4,50

2,96

12,3

0

13,8

0

14,1

7

15,2

0

7,60

15,4

5

6,70

17,0

0

3,45

10,8

0

14,0

0

13,6

0

1,80

3,49

15,1

0

7,71

Ave

rage

15

,70

27

,00

5,

90

15,3

7

3,70

15

,00

2,

70

0,93

2,

86

10,7

0

Ta

ble

6: F

ood

exp

end

itu

re in

EU

Cou

ntri

es1

1

1

1 É

cono

mie

s et

Soc

iété

s, S

érie

“Sy

stèm

es a

gro

alim

enta

ires

”, A

G, n

º24,

10-

11/2

000,

p. 3

9-48

Pro

po

sal

Re

fere

nce

: E

NV

.G.1

/SE

R/2

00

9/0

09

3rl

Fin

a l

Ve

rsio

n

-20

-

To f

ind

sim

ilari

ties

an

d d

iffe

ren

ces

acro

ss E

U c

ou

ntr

ies

a cl

ust

er a

nal

ysis

hav

e b

een

do

ne

(tab

le 7

12)

usi

ng

the

info

rmat

ion

sh

ow

n in

tab

le 1

.

Clu

ster

s C

ou

ntr

ies

Bre

ad &

ce

real

s (%

)

Mea

t (%

) Fi

sh

(%)

Milk

, ch

eese

&

eggs

(%

)

Oils

&

fats

(%

)

Fru

it &

ve

geta

ble

s (%

)

Po

tato

es

(%)

Suga

r (%

)

Co

ffee

, tea

&

coco

a (%

)

Oth

er

(%)

1

Au

stri

a G

. Bri

tain

N

eth

erla

nd

s

17,8

0

25,0

0

3,40

15

,70

3,

10

16,8

0

1,90

1,

10

3,70

11

,30

2

Fin

dla

nd

15,7

0

20,0

0

3,70

18

,10

2,

90

15,8

0

2,90

1,

40

4,20

15

,20

3

Bel

giu

m

Luxe

mb

ou

rg

Fran

ce

Ger

man

y

16,2

0

24,2

0

4,80

15

,60

3,

40

12,5

0

3,50

0,

80

3,60

15

,40

4

Den

mar

k Ir

elan

d Sw

eden

16,2

0

24,2

0

4,80

15

,60

3,

40

12,5

0

3,50

0,

80

3,60

15

,40

5

Gre

ece

Spai

n

12,3

0

30,1

0

9,70

15

,20

5,

20

17,6

0

2,00

0,

90

1,60

5,

10

6

No

rway

11,2

0

24,0

0

6,80

19

,50

2,

90

14,4

0

3,30

0,

90

3,40

13

,60

7

Ital

y P

ort

uga

l

16,5

0

28,9

0

11,5

0

14,2

0

5,80

12

,80

4,

00

1,20

2,

30

2,60

Ta

ble

7: F

ood

exp

end

itu

re s

tru

ctu

re in

EU

- c

lust

ers

1

2 É

cono

mie

s et

Soc

iété

s, S

érie

“Sy

stèm

es a

gro

alim

enta

ires

”, A

G, n

º24,

10-

11/2

000,

p. 3

9-48


Fina lVersion

-21-

Differences and similarities in consumer habits in EU are shown in the previous

tables.

The countries have been grouped according to their similarities, but between

different groups there are important differences in food habits.

h) Changes in the composition of textiles and fibres13:

During thousands of years, the textile market in Europe has developed with

the use of natural fibres. But during the last century, natural fibres have been replaced by

artificial and synthetic ones.

Since 1910, new families of artificial and synthetic textiles fibres are produced

with better mechanical and insulating properties. They are successful in the textile sector

because new functionalities like bactericidal, fire retardant, antistatic, etc, are incorporated.

Along the last decades, new textiles with high functionalities and new

properties have been developed. These are the textiles for technical use (TT). Technical textiles

are developed from synthetic fibres with improved properties. These fibres have higher

mechanical and thermal resistance. They are used in numerous applications like individual

protective equipment, intelligent textiles, impermeable, anti-bacterial, eco-textiles, etc.

Consumption of fibres for textiles for technical use (TT) has increased 11%

from 1980 to 27% in 1995.

Lately, textile finishing is a matter of great interest in order to get new

properties on textiles like anti-odour, anti-microbial, anti-mosquito, self-cleaning, easy-

cleaning, UV-protection, etc. These finishing are made through several technologies: as

coating, impregnation, padding or exhaustion. A current trend focuses on environmental-

friendly finishing on textiles.

Nowadays, a new era for natural bio-fibres has emerged with some interesting

properties like biodegradable behaviour or natural antimicrobial activity.

13 EURATEX (European Apparel and Textiles Organisation), Annual report, Activities of the year 2008. Vogler-Ludwig, Kart; Valente Ana Claudia; “Skills scenarios for the textiles, wearing apparent and Eláter products sector in the European Union”


Fina lVersion

-22-

Related to consumer trends, in principle, consumer orientation appears to be

related to cultural attitudes. Clothing styles are determined by social status, business

conventions and historical traditions. The observation, therefore, is that consumers differ quite

strongly among Member States in EU regarding their fashion orientation, quality preferences

or price sensitivity. In parallel, fashion trends are spreading world-wide with the help of press

media and the internet. The use of “fashion scouts” indicates that these trends are created on

the streets rather than in design studios and confirms that the control of TCL producers and

retailers regarding fashion trends remains limited.

Consumer research points to substantial changes of consumer orientation in

clothing markets (Perotti- Reille 2008):

- Consumers are individualising; consumption detaches from basic needs,

becomes more hedonistic and has a strong emotional component.

- Consumers are professionalizing; they are better informed about products and

markets and develop their optimal purchasing strategies on this basis.

- Consumers want to be participatory; they want to interact with producers,

retailers and service providers on the type of products offered, quality, and

design. They want to be co-inventors.

- Consumers claim for social and ecological responsibility; the use of child-

labour, poor environmental conditions or bad product quality rapidly lead to a

boycott of certain brands or producers. This may even be extended to certain

regions or nations.

This leads to an increasing fragmentation of markets which calls for a change

in production regimes (overcoming mass production principles) and differentiated distribution

channels. The immaterial value of products is becoming important.

Real consumer behaviour, however, seems to be different: consumer prices for

wearing apparel are declining continuously, imports of mass-products from low-cost countries

are rising, and the big retail chains who offer low-price products are the winners in clothing

markets. Approaches to mass-customisation have more or less failed in the past and

individualised production only survived in highprice niches. Consumers are obviously very

price-sensitive and easily abandon their aspirations if they are not free. As UK research reveals,

a clear move in consumer behaviour is heading towards “a culture of cheap, disposable

fashion” (Allwood 2006).


Fina lVersion

-23-

This does not indicate a fundamental change of consumer behaviour in the

near future. Consumer preferences appear to be stable as far as the principle orientation of

consumer behaviour is concerned, but they are variable regarding fashion styles. While

colours, cuts and fabrics are changing unpredictably, the principle consumer orientation and

behaviour will not change fundamentally.

This is also reflected in the continuous decline of the share of TCL consumption

in total consumer expenditures. Between 2000 and 2005 the share of clothing consumption in

total consumer expenditures declined from 5.2% to 4.7% (Table 8). This is 1/10th within five

years. The reduction was particularly strong in Slovakia and Ireland, but can be discerned in

almost all EU countries. In Sweden and the UK the share stagnated, and expanded in Denmark,

Finland, Estonia, and Lithuania.

Table 8: Private consumption and prices (EU27)


Fina lVersion

-24-

2.4. CONCLUSIONS

Certain key factors in the washing process at European level have experienced relevant

changes following specific, consolidated trends along time. These trends shape a differentiated

washing process linked to differentiated consumer habits. Some of the most relevant changes

are:

- Increased average number of wash loads per week (clothes are washed

more often, some fibers used are more easily washed, in some cases

users have occupations in contact with less dirt, etc…)

- Reduction of pre-washing habits

- Increased use of liquid laundry products

- Reduction of washing temperatures. Liquid detergents allow obtain

good washing results at lower temperatures.

- Reduction of average product dosages

- Water consumption per wash load

- Changes in food habits

- Changes in the composition of textiles and fibres

Other sources of information indicate that other, non neglectable factors influencing

the laundry washing process are:

- Washing machines manufacturers offer shorter additional cycles.

- In order to obtain the classification on energy efficiency (A, A+, A++…),

manufacturers design machines that wash at lower temperatures.

- Increased use of laundry boosters.

- Increased use of laundry aids, especially on specific stains.

- Etc…


Fina lVersion

-25-

All these changes and trends need to be carefully balanced in a working group in order

to reshape the method to assess product performance in the new Ecolabel criteria reflecting

them properly.

3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS REPORT

3.1. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this task is reviewing the existing EU Ecolabel laundry detergents

performance test and A.I.S.E. minimum protocol for comparative laundry detergent testing in

order to determine the advantages and shortcomings of each one to take into consideration

for the future development of an alternative performance test.

The conclusions obtained in this task will be pooled with the stakeholders in order to shape a

new Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents.

3.2. DESCRIPTION OF WORK

A preliminary comparison of both methods will take the following topics into account:

- Efficiency aspects: analysis of costs, analysis of time required, analysis of the

completeness in relation with time and costs parameters…

- Quality aspects: statistical significance, accuracy of the tests, relevance of the

parameters considered, detail of instructions for the execution of the test…

- Validity respect to the state of the art: detergents types, additives, assay

conditions, laboratory equipments, number of cycles and parameters…

- Environmental sustainability: dosage of detergent, water and energy

employed for performing the test…

- Test execution time


Fina lVersion

-26-

From this assessment, and taking into account the “Summary on washing habits”, we

propose an initial proposal of “Ecolabel laundry detergent performance test”, which will be

evaluated and discussed with the stakeholders to get a final proposal to performance test for

laundry detergents.

a) Evaluation of A.I.S.E. minimum protocol for comparative laundry detergent testing:

Please find below a pros & cons assessment

1. Shortcomings of the A.I.S.E. protocol

- Differences between types of stains and fabrics do not necessarily correlate

with the laundry detergent type to be tested.

- Fabric damage is not taken into consideration.

- No specific washing machine types are indicated: lack of reproducibility is a

real risk.

- No specific water hardness: no low or high water hardness scenarios are

taking into account.

- The indicated equipment to measure colour transfer inhibition may be too

specific to be replaced.

- No drying conditions are specified.

2. Pros of the A.I.S.E. protocol

- A wide range of products are covered: Universal detergent, specific detergent

and additives for laundry care.

- The test conditions (wash temperature, program…) can be adapted to the

needs of each country, according to the behaviour and consumer habits in

each area.


Fina lVersion

-27-

- The method allows varying the dosage in the washings if it is necessary.

- A wide range of stains are covered in this method.

- The simple size can be changed if necessary.

- Easy to find the set stains.

- “Natural” stains and “Standard” stains are covered in the set stains.

- For dye transfer essays, there are a wide range of colours for the donator

fabric.

- Whiteness measure covers a large number of habitual fabrics in textile

market –cotton, cotton/polyester, polyester, polyamide-.

b) Evaluation of EU Ecolabel laundry detergent performance test:

Please find below a pros & cons assessment:

1. Shortcomings of the EU Ecolabel washing method

- Washing additives are not taken into account, while the A.I.S.E. protocol

foresees how to integrate them.

- The defined reference detergent has become less and less significant in the

present market reality of washing powders (formulation ingredients and total

cost).

- The defined reference detergent is not adequate enough as a benchmark for

liquid detergents applying for the EU Ecolabel.

- The washing temperature does not take other, country-specific consumer

habits into account from different regions.

- Whiteness determination is based only on cotton garments; other fabrics are

not taken into consideration.

- Limited availability of standard stains to be tested (only EMPA and WFK).


Fina lVersion

-28-

- In the dye transfer essays, the number of colours for the donator fabric is

very limited.

- Water hardness does not take the wide distribution among countries and

regions into account.

- Low number of stains for the comparisons (9 vs. 14)

- Gaps vs. premium leading brands

- High energy consumption linked to high rpm’s in centrifugation.

2. Pros of the EU Ecolabel washing method

- Previous Ecolabel washing method is reproducible and repeatable: the

method define the characteristics of the equipment to use and the conditions

of the essay (temperature, water hardness, rpm,…)

- The set stains cover a wide range of substrate fabrics.

- Easy to find the set stains.

- A large number of results are obtained with this method: It’s a reliable

method.

- Previous Ecolabel method takes into account the possible damage to the

fibre that a detergent can produce.

c) Comparative analysis of both methods:

The comparison of both methods is a good starting point to develop a proposal for a

new Ecolabel performance test. Beginning with the analysis for each method, we will make the

comparison of both tests, from which to make the first approach of the new test. The next

table shows the comparison of both methods (pros and cons):


Fina lVersion

-29-

Methods

Parameters

A.I.S.E. EU Ecolabel

Pros Cons Pros Cons

Types products

Wide range (universal

detergents, specific

detergents, additives)

Low range of

products

Water hardness Less defined Defined Limited approach

Test conditions

(product dosage,

temperature…)

Adaptable to each

country/habits Not adaptable

Reference

detergent Not defined

Become less and less

significant

Not adequate for

liquid detergents

Characteristics

of equipment Not defined Defined

Dry conditions Not defined Defined

Stains

Wide range

Variable size

Easy to find

Natural and std

Wide range

Easy to find

Limited available

Low number of stains

comparison

Fabrics Wide range

(whiteness)

Not necessarily

correlate with the

product

Low range

(whiteness)

Not necessarily

correlate with the

product

Dye transfer Wide range

Easy to find Easy to find Few colours

Essays Fabric damage not

covered

Fabric damage

covered

Execution time Moderate Elevated

Table9. Comparative analysis of both methods


Fina lVersion

-30-

As the table shows, there are several aspects to take into account in order to assess

each method. This is a good starting point in any review of previous methods in laundry

detergents performance tests.

3.3. CONCLUSIONS

The table 9 shows the most important pros and cons of the A.I.S.E. performance test

and the previous EU Ecolabel method for laundry detergents. From this “Comparative analysis

report” and the “Summary report on washing habits”, an initial proposal of the new EU

Ecolabel performance test will be made.

There are several differences –types of products, water hardness, reference detergent,

number of stains, number of fabrics, number of dye transfer fabrics, number of different

essays, adaptability, execution time…- and few similar parameters between both methods –

easy to find material, good statistics…-. Each variable will be evaluated with the stakeholders in

the meetings, but at least the following factors must be integrated in the definition of

technical specifications to be agreed upon the working group prior to the washing tests:

- Washing machine. Definition of the technical characteristics and, if possible, define

specific available options in the market meeting the defined requirements.

- Washing program.

- Washing temperature.

- Water hardness.

- Number of cycles required to obtain significant statistical results.

- Characteristics and amount of the needed washing load (composition and

necessary pre-treatment) .

- Detergent dosage.

- Reference product(s).

- Drying of fabrics and/or stains, defining certain conditions (tumble drying,

humidity, light…).


Fina lVersion

-31-

- Laundry products to be tested.

- Ironing of fabrics and/or stains, defining, if needed, a specific temperature and

steam profile.

Regarding stain removal efficacy, a review of the currently used sets of stains based on

the previously identified relevant consumer habits will be needed.

The dye transfer inhibition measurements will be restricted to Colour Care Laundry

Products and will focus on how to avoid dye donation to white fabrics along the washing cycle.

As in previous cases, the experimental conditions should take the following factors into

account:

- Temperature.

- Dye donators.

- Dye acceptors.

- Lab Equipment (to be specified and technically characterized)

The next step is the definition of the new performance test. All the inputs proposed by

stakeholders will be considered in order to develop the final version of the new Ecolabel

performance test.

4. REPORT ON PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS

4.1. OBJECTIVE

The objective of this task is to suggest a wide range of parameters for the new

performance test to be discussed with the involved stakeholders in the Working Group. The

conclusions of the “Comparative Analysis Report” and “Summary Report on Consumer Habits”

will be taken as a preliminary basis in order to define the range of parameters to be brought

into discussion.


Fina lVersion

-32-

4.2. APPROACH TO THE NEW PERFORMANCE TEST PROTOCOL

In order to achieve the objective of this task, the following issues will be assessed:

- Products

- Input conditions

- Tests

- Quality assurance

a) Products

- Definition of “laundry detergent”

The “laundry detergents” in the discussion of the Working Group will be all

types of laundry detergents in their different forms -liquid, powder, tablets, etc...- used for

washing fabrics in washing machines.

- Classification of laundry detergents

The classification of laundry detergents in relation to the specific aim of

each product is:

o Heavy duty detergent (HDD): “universal” approach

o Low duty detergent (LDD): “delicate fabrics” approach

o Colour Safe Detergent (CSD): “coloured fabrics” approach

Any of these 3 types can be offered to consumers in different forms, and

also as concentrated or non concentrated products. All of them may refer to different

benchmarks to fulfill different consumer expectations. At least, the basic following split should

be assessed:


Fina lVersion

-33-

Proposal of classification for Laundry Detergents

Nature

Type

Powder Liquid

HDD X X

LDD X X

CSD X X

Table 10. Proposal of classification for Laundry Detergents

- Reference detergent

The need of reference detergent formulations will be discussed. It is one

crucial factor in the whole test, since the market drivers and products change along time, and a

realistic benchmark is a must.

Annex 1 shows the previous formulation of a reference detergent in the

EU Ecolabel scheme.

- Definition of “stain removers”

Products that are used as stain removers for clothing, for soaking, as a

wash enhancer or for pre-washes or other equivalent functions.

- Classification of “stain removers”

As in the case of laundry detergents, it may also be necessary here to take

the liquid or powder nature of the laundry products into account


Fina lVersion

-34-

b) Input conditions

The following set of parameters needs to be precisely defined in the new

performance test:

- Water quality

The effectiveness of a laundry detergent depends on the water hardness

degree. To obtain higher effectiveness in detergency, low water hardness levels are needed.

Specific ingredients in the detergent formulations (builders and co-builders) play this specific

role: reduction of water hardness.

The EU Ecolabel performance test specifies the water hardness degree in

the test as (2,5 ± 0,2) mmol/L calculated as CaCO3 or (14 ± 0,5)ºdH. The A.I.S.E. minimum

protocol does not specify a water hardness degree and leaves this decision depending on the

region of Europe where the product will be marketed. However, the variations of water

hardness in Europe are extremely wide. In order to get comparable results and assure the

necessary robustness of the method, a water hardness degree is needed.

. The water hardness degree for the new test can be kept as (2,5 ± 0,2)

mmol/L calculated as CaCO3.

- Water temperature

As in the previous case, water temperature has an important effect on the

effectiveness of a laundry detergent. To obtain higher effectiveness, higher temperatures help.

However, new generations of detergents based on activators and more active ingredients

along the last decades have proved to deliver comparable performance results at lower

temperatures.

The EU Ecolabel performance test fixes the water temperature in the test

at 40ºC for all types of detergents (heavy duty, colour safe and low duty) and programs. On the

other hand, the A.I.S.E. minimum protocol does not specify a washing temperature, leaving it

open and dependent on the country, the local washing habits and the type of detergent; 40ºC

is recommended for a Heavy Duty Detergent.


Fina lVersion

-35-

In order to get comparable results, a washing temperature value will be

necessarily defined. The following criteria

o Washing habits.

o Region of Europe.

o Type of detergent.

o Wash program.

may be taken into consideration in order to fix the washing temperature in the test.

A proper definition of the washing temperature may depend on the type

of detergent used for the test:

Heavy Duty Detergent Colour Safe Detergent Low Duty Detergent

Powder 30ºC 30ºC 30ºC

Liquid 30ºC 30ºC 30ºC

Table 11. Proposal of water temperature.

If there is a specific product especial for cold water, the temperature of

the essay may be changed.

- Amount of water in the washing cycle

Differences in the amount of water along the washing process can also

influence the effectiveness of a laundry detergent. Each model of washing machine needs a

specific amount of water depending on the washing program steps (washing, rising or

spinning). As in previous cases, it is also necessary in this case to provide either values or

criteria in order to obtain comparable results.


Fina lVersion

-36-

- Load pre-treatment

In both methods pre-treatment is recommended, but with some relevant

differences:

A.I.S.E. Ecolabel

Load (kg) 3 4

Number of washes 3 3

Temperature (ºC) 60 95

Program Cotton program Cotton program, without pre-wash and

with water plus.

Detergent Standard detergent Standard detergent

Table 12. Pre-treatment for each method

The previous table shows the differences among both methods.

A pre-treatment of the ballast load is necessary in order to get the same

starting in all the essays. Pre-treatment is recommended for the new EU Ecolabel performance

test for laundry detergents and laundry additives. The proposal for this aim is the following:

New Proposal

Load (kg) 4,5

Number of washes 3

Temperature (ºC) 60

Program Cotton program

Detergent Standard detergent

Table 13. Pre-treatment. New proposal


Fina lVersion

-37-

- Wash program

The selection of the wash program is related to the type of detergent to

check. Both methods (A.I.S.E. minimum protocol performance test and EU Ecolabel

performance test, define a cotton normal wash to be used for Heavy Duty Detergents (HDD)

and Colour Safe Detergent (CSD). The option Delicate wash is recommended for a Low Duty

Detergent (LDD).


Powder

Cotton program

1200rpm

Cotton program

1200rpm

Delicate program

600rpms

Liquid

Cotton program

1200rpm

Cotton program

1200rpm

Delicate program

600rpms

Table 14. Wash programs

o Stain removers

Since stain removers are usually combined with Heavy Duty

Detergents, the wash program to be chosen will be cotton normal wash. The same approach is

chosen for the new EU Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents and stain removers.

- Laundry detergent dosage

The detergent dosage is the recommended product dosage as

indicated by the detergent producer or distributor for “normally soiled” textiles, in both

methods. The approach for the new EU Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents and

stain removers is medium soil/ medium hard water recommendation for HDD and CSD

products and light soil/ medium hard water recommendation for LDD products.

Unit: g/wash for powder and ml/wash for liquid.


Fina lVersion

-38-

- Stain removers dosage

As in the previous case, the stain removers dosage is the

recommended product dosage as indicated by the detergent producer or distributor for

“normally soiled” textiles in both methods. The same approach is chosen for the new EU

Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents and stain removers.

- Stains

o Stains set

In order to assess the performance of a laundry detergent, a

representative set of stains must be defined. This stains set must be composed of

representative stains, commonly found in Europe.

The A.I.S.E. minimum protocol and the EU Ecolabel performance

test define different stains sets. A.I.S.E., in its recommendation, takes 14 different stains into

account, being the same for all types of laundry detergents, while the EU Ecolabel fixes only 9

stains, being the stains in this case dependent on the type of laundry detergent. All stains are

commercially available.

Annex 2 shows the different stains set for each method.

o Soil

The aim of the soil in the test is to assess the anti-redeposition

capacity of the laundry detergent. It must be representative of the kind (pigments, fat,

proteins, hardness…) and amount of soiling usually being present in a “normally” soiled wash

load. Soil will be added in every wash. The needed soil is standardized and commercially

available.


Fina lVersion

-39-

- Ballast load

The purpose of the ballast load is to simulate the total weight of a

domestic washing process. The type of fabrics (cotton, polyamide…) and total weight (kg) is

defined by the type of wash (normal wash, delicate wash…).

The A.I.S.E. minimum protocol fixes a general composition for all types of

washing, while the total weight is defined by the type of wash. The EU Ecolabel performance

test fixes a composition and a total weight depending on the type of washing process.

The next table shows the recommendation for the ballast load:


Powder Cotton Cotton Polyamide

Liquid Cotton Cotton Polyamide

Table 15. Wash loads

- Number of cycles

The chosen number of cycles has an impact on:

o The statistical significance of the obtained results

o The execution time

o Cost of the test (material, water, energy…)

Both methods (A.I.S.E. minimum protocol and EU Ecolabel performance

test) fix a different number of cycles taking the type of detergent to asses into account.


Fina lVersion

-40-

The next table shows the recommendation for number of cycles:

Test Number of cycles

Stain Removal Efficacy 6

Whiteness degree 15

Colour Maintenance 15

Dye Transfer inhibition 3

Table 16. Number of cycles

- Fabrics

Fabrics, in the performance tests, are used to assess the whiteness degree.

Each method uses different fabrics and compositions. In Europe, there are four main types of

fabrics14: Cotton, synthetic, wool and silk.

o A.I.S.E. minimum protocol performance test

Four different fabrics are used: cotton, cotton/polyester, polyester

and polyamide, for all types of detergents.

o EU Ecolabel performance test

Only one type of fabric is defined: cotton, for all types of products.

Standard fabrics are used in a different test too: Dye transfer inhibition. In

this case, two different fabrics are recommended: cotton (100%) and polyamide (100%) as

acceptors of dye.

Heavy Duty

Detergent

Colour Safe

Detergent

Low Duty

Detergent

Whiteness degree Cotton Cotton Cotton and

Polyester/cotton

Dye Transfer

Inhibition (acceptor) - Cotton

Polyamide and cotton

( if colour care is claimed)

Table 17.Type of fabrics

14 Source: Procter & Gamble


Fina lVersion

-41-

- Dyes

Dyes are used in the executon of the Dye Transfer InhibitionTest.

A.I.S.E. EU Ecolabel New Proposal

Direct black 22

Direct orange 39

Direct Red 83.1

Acid blue 113

C.I. direct blue 71

C.I. reactive brown 7

C.I. sulphur blue 19

C.I. acid blue 113

Direct black 22

Direct orange 39

Direct Red 83.1

Acid blue 113

Table 18.Dyes

- Dry and iron conditions

In order to facilitate the data measurement, fabrics and stains should be

dried and iron after each washing.

o Dry conditions: the following parameters must be taken into

account:

� Light

� Humidity

� Air drying or not

� Dry temperature

o Iron conditions:

� Temperature

� Steam


Fina lVersion

-42-

A.I.S.E. EU Ecolabel New Proposal

Dry No tumbling - No tumbling

Iron - 2 points (150ºC)without

steam

Flattering: 2 points (150ºC)without

steam

Table 19.Dry & iron conditions

In the table above, the conditions for each method (A.I.S.E., EU Ecolabel

and New proposal performance test) are shown

c) Tests

There are some differences in the type of tests to execute:

- A.I.S.E. minimum protocol

o Stain removal efficacy

o Whiteness degree

o Dye transfer inhibition

o Colour maintenance (for colour safe detergent)

- EU Ecolabel performance laundry detergents


o Whiteness degree

o Dye transfer inhibition

o Physical fibre damage

o Chemical fibre damage

Regarding stain removal efficacy, and as stated above, it is mandatory to define a

new stains set (see annex 3) as well as the characteristics of the lab equipment (washing

machine, spectrophotometer…) for data measurement.


Fina lVersion

-43-

Information on whiteness degree is necessary to assess the degree of fabric

greying. The characteristics of the lab equipment and the types of fabrics will also be defined

as part of the new test.

The dye transfer inhibition is a specific test for Colour Safe Detergents. In this case,

the parameters of the test (temperature, dye donators and dye acceptors) and the

characteristics of lab equipment will be defined.

The colour maintenance test is a specific test for Colour Safe Detergents as in the

previous case. The objective of this test is to ensure the maintenance of the original colour in

fabrics after wash. The annex number 4 shows the table of the monitor set.

The aim of the physical fibre damage test is to asses the fabric resistance against

potentially aggressive ingredients.

The aim of the chemical fibre damage test is to assess the potential chemical

attack on fibre structures.

In both cases, physical and chemical testing on fibre damage, International

Standards are used.

It will be necessary to evaluate the number of recordings in order to get reliable

results. For the new performance test, the proposed tests are the following ones:


o Whiteness degree

o Dye transfer inhibition: only for CSD*

o Colour maintenance: only for CSD*

*and HDD/ LDD if colour care is claimed

d) Characteristics of equipment

The characteristics of the lab equipment (washing machine, reflectance

measurement instrument and laundering device for Dye Transfer Inhibition test) will be

defined. The chosen equipments must be representative in the European market.


Fina lVersion

-44-

- Washing machine

The washing machine type must be electronically programmable, with a

wide range of programs (normal, delicate, short program, pre-treatment or not,

centrifugation…) and for different types of fabrics (cotton, synthetics, wool, silk…). The wash

temperature must be programmable too.

The washing machine will be used to wash the set of stains and the fabrics

(essays: stain removal efficacy, whiteness degree and fibre damage)

- Reflectance measurement instrument

This instrument must deliver measurement of the total reflectance over

the wavelength of visual filtering the UV part of the incoming spectrum by a filter. In this case,

the Y-value is determined taking different parameters into account:

o Measuring geometry: d / 8º.

o D65 / 10 observer.

o With UV filter (420nm cut off)15.

o Measuring diameter: minimum 20mm, but bigger is better.

o Without gloss

o Calibration: With white tiles and black trap. The measurements

shall be carried out at the least 8 hours after calibration.

The reflectance measurement instrument will be used to measure the

stains set, washing fabrics and dye transfer (tests: stain removal efficacy, whiteness degree,

dye transfer inhibition and colour maintenance).

15

The UV filter must, in any case, be adapted if 420nm is outweighed by the optical brightener.


Fina lVersion

-45-

- Laundering device for Dye Transfer Inhibition

The laundering device will be used to assess Dye Transfer Inhibition of

Colour Safe Detergents. The main characteristics in this case are:

o Bath temperature, thermostatically controlled to keep the

temperature of the test solution stable.

o Routable shaft with supports

o Supports:

� Material

� Diameter (cm)

� Height (cm)

� Capacity (ml)

o Frequency of rotation (rpm/min)

e) Measurements

Types of detergents: Heavy duty detergent, low duty detergent and colour

safe detergent.

Tests: Stain removal efficacy, whiteness degree, dye transfer inhibition and

colour maintenance.

Evaluation: It will be also necessary define the evaluation (how the

stains/fibres will be taken).

For each soil monitor at least two measurements are needed.

Standard deviation can be calculated from the total number of measurements. Since this is a

comparative test, the results will be compared. The product under test is classified as good if

the obtained results are comparable or better than the ones provided by the reference

detergent.

Whiteness degree requires four measurements for each fabric.

As in the stain removal efficacy, it is a comparative test, and the results will be compared. The


Fina lVersion

-46-

product under test is classified as good if the obtained results are comparable or better than

the ones provided by the reference detergent.

Dye transfer inhibition and colour maintenance (for Colour

Safe Detergents and HDD/LDD if colour care is claimed), four measurements for each fabric

will be recorded. As in the previous cases, it is also a comparative test, and the results will be

compared. The product under test is classified as good if the obtained results are comparable

or better than the ones provided by the reference detergent.

Pro

po

sal

Re

fere

nce

: E

NV

.G.1

/SE

R/2

00

9/0

09

3rl

Fin

a l

Ve

rsio

n

-47

-

4.3

. C

ON

CLU

SIO

NS

Fin

al t

est

pro

toco

l16

PA

RA

ME

TE

RS

A.I

.S.E

.

MIN

IMU

M P

RO

TO

CO

L

EU

EC

OLA

BE

L

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E T

ES

T

NE

W P

RO

PO

SA

L W

HY

?

Re

fere

nce

de

terg

en

t N

on

e P

revi

ou

s fo

rmu

lati

on

N

ew f

orm

ula

tio

n C

urr

ent

refe

ren

ce

det

erge

nt

is o

bso

lete

Wa

ter

qu

ali

ty

Dep

end

ing

on

th

e

cou

ntr

y/re

gio

n

2,5

mm

ol/

L C

aCO

3 o

r (1

4 ±

0,5)

ºd

H

2,5

mm

ol/

L C

aCO

3 o

r (1

4 ±

0,5)

ºd

H

Med

ium

har

dn

ess,

go

od

aver

age

Wa

ter

tem

pe

ratu

re

Dep

end

ing

on

th

e

cou

ntr

y/re

gio

n

For

HD

D /

CSD

: 40ºC

For

LDD

: 20º

C

30ºC

(lo

wer

tem

per

atu

re if

nec

essa

ry)

Ove

rall

ener

gy r

edu

ced

Vo

lum

e o

f w

ate

r N

ot

spec

ific

N

ot

spec

ific

R

eco

mm

end

atio

n c

on

tro

l

alo

ng

was

hin

g p

roce

ss

Imp

rove

men

t o

f ac

cura

cy

Loa

d p

re-t

rea

tme

nt

3 w

ash

es, 6

0ºC

, no

rmal

co

tto

n

3 w

ash

es, 9

5ºC

, no

rmal

cott

on

3 w

ash

es, 6

0ºC

, no

rmal

cott

on

60

ºC r

equ

ires

less

en

ergy

Ta

ble

20

.Pro

posa

l

16

Rev

ised

EU

Eco

labe

l Per

form

ance

Tes

t for

Lau

ndry

Det

erge

nts

Pro

po

sal

Re

fere

nce

: E

NV

.G.1

/SE

R/2

00

9/0

09

3rl

Fin

a l

Ve

rsio

n

-48

-

PA

RA

ME

TE

RS

A.I

.S.E

.

MIN

IMU

M P

RO

TO

CO

L

EU

EC

OLA

BE

L

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E T

ES

T

NE

W P

RO

PO

SA

L W

HY

?

Co

lou

r m

ain

ten

an

ce

Def

ined

mo

nit

or

set

- D

efin

ed m

on

ito

r se

t (A

ISE)

(an

nex

4)

Co

lou

r ca

re im

po

rtan

t

Wa

sh p

rog

ram

For

HD

D /

CSD

: Co

tto

n

For

LDD

: Del

icat

e

For

HD

D /

CSD

: Co

tto

n

For

LDD

: Del

icat

e

For

HD

D/C

SD: C

ott

on

For

LDD

: Del

icat

e

Bo

th m

eth

od

s ag

ree

Do

sag

e

Pro

du

cer

reco

mm

end

atio

n

Pro

du

cer

reco

mm

end

atio

n

Pro

du

cer

reco

mm

end

atio

n

Bo

th m

eth

od

s ag

ree

Se

t st

ain

s 14

dif

fere

nt

stai

ns

9 d

iffe

ren

t st

ain

s N

ew s

et o

f st

ain

s (1

4)(A

ISE)

(an

nex

3)

14 d

iffe

ren

t st

ain

s co

ver

a

wid

er s

pec

tru

m

Sta

in s

et

size

(

12x1

2)cm

/ (

5x5)

cm

(12x

12)c

m

(12x

12)c

m /

(5x

5)cm

Ea

sin

ess

in d

ata

mea

sure

men

ts

So

il

SBL2

004

(4u

nit

s/w

ash

) SB

L ‘c

lass

ic’ (

2 u

nit

s/w

ash

)

HD

D/C

SD: 4

un

its/

was

h

stai

n r

emo

val

wh

iten

ess

d.

LDD

: 2u

nit

s/w

ash

It is

th

e co

rrec

t so

il fo

r

4,5k

g to

tal l

oad

.

Ba

lla

st L

oa

d

Co

tto

n

For

HD

D /

CSD

: co

tto

n

For

LDD

: po

lyes

ter

For

HD

D /

CSD

: co

tto

n

For

LDD

: po

lyes

ter

LDD

is u

sed

fo

r d

elic

ate

fib

res

(ex.

Pol

yam

ide)

Pro

po

sal

Re

fere

nce

: E

NV

.G.1

/SE

R/2

00

9/0

09

3rl

Fin

a l

Ve

rsio

n

-49

-

PA

RA

ME

TE

RS

A.I

.S.E

.

MIN

IMU

M P

RO

TO

CO

L

EU

EC

OLA

BE

L

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E T

ES

T

NE

W P

RO

PO

SA

L W

HY

?

Nu

mb

er

of

cycl

es

6 cy

cles

min

imu

m (

all e

ssay

s /

all d

eter

gen

ts)

For

HD

D/C

SD: 2

5cyc

les

For

LDD

: 15

cyc

les

Stai

n r

emo

val:

6 cy

cles

Wh

iten

ess

deg

ree

& C

olo

ur

Mai

nte

nan

ce: 1

5cy

cles

DTI

: 3 c

ycle

s

A m

inim

um

nu

mb

er o

f

cycl

es is

nec

essa

ry,

Fa

bri

cs (

Wh

ite

ne

ss d

eg

ree

)

Co

tto

n

Co

tto

n/P

oly

este

r

Po

lyes

ter

Po

lyam

ide

Co

tto

n

Co

tto

n

Each

typ

e o

f d

eter

gen

t fo

r

each

typ

e o

f fa

bri

cs

Fa

bri

cs (

DT

I)

Co

tto

n a

nd

po

lyam

ide

Co

tto

n a

nd

po

lyam

ide

Co

tto

n a

nd

po

lyam

ide

Bo

th m

eth

od

s ag

ree

Dy

es

Dir

ect

bla

ck 2

2

Dir

ect

ora

nge

39

Dir

ect

Red

83.

1

Aci

d b

lue

113

C.I.

dir

ect

blu

e 71

C.I.

rea

ctiv

e b

row

n 7

C.I.

su

lph

ur

blu

e 19

C.I.

aci

d b

lue

113

Dir

ect

bla

ck 2

2

Dir

ect

ora

nge

39

Dir

ect

Red

83.

1

Aci

d b

lue

113

Wid

e sp

ectr

um

of

colo

urs

Pro

po

sal

Re

fere

nce

: E

NV

.G.1

/SE

R/2

00

9/0

09

3rl

Fin

a l

Ve

rsio

n

-50

-

PA

RA

ME

TE

RS

A

.I.S

.E.

MIN

IMU

M P

RO

TO

CO

L

EU

EC

OLA

BE

L

PE

RF

OR

MA

NC

E T

ES

T

NE

W P

RO

PO

SA

L W

HY

?

Dry

& I

ron

co

nd

itio

ns

Dry

ing:

no

tu

mb

ling

Iro

nin

g: -

Dry

ing:

-

Iro

nin

g: 2

po

ints

(15

0ºC

)

wit

ho

ut

stea

m

Dry

ing:

no

tu

mb

ling

Flat

teri

ng:

2 p

oin

ts (

150

ºC)

wit

ho

ut

stea

m

Sim

plif

icat

ion

Te

sts

Stai

n r

emo

val

Wh

iten

ess

deg

ree

Dye

tra

nsf

er in

hib

itio

n

Co

lou

r M

ain

ten

ance

Stai

n r

emo

val

Wh

iten

ess

deg

ree

Dye

tra

nsf

er in

hib

itio

n

Ph

ysic

al d

amag

e

Ch

emic

al d

amag

e

Stai

n r

emo

val

Wh

iten

ess

deg

ree

Dye

tra

nsf

er in

hib

itio

n

Co

lou

r M

ain

ten

ance

Bas

ic T

esti

ng

Ch

ara

cte

rist

ics

of

eq

uip

me

nt

Wa

shin

g

ma

chin

e

Rep

rese

nta

tive

fo

r lo

cal

mar

ket

Rec

om

men

dat

ion

: Mie

le

Rec

om

men

dat

ion

: Mie

le

Stan

dar

ized

tec

hn

ical

cara

cter

isti

cs

Re

fle

cta

nce

me

asu

rem

en

t

Ch

arac

teri

stic

s d

efin

ed a

bo

ve.

No

t sp

ecif

ic e

qu

ipm

ent

Dat

aco

lor

500

o 6

00

(ch

arac

teri

stic

s d

efin

ed

abo

ve)

Dat

aco

lor

500

o 6

00

(ch

arac

teri

stic

s d

efin

ed

abo

ve)

Rel

iabl

e an

d r

epet

itiv

e

resu

lts

Lau

nd

eri

ng

de

vic

e (

DT

I)

Lin

ites

t Li

nit

est

Lin

ites

t B

oth

met

ho

ds

agre

e

5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

1. The Laundry detergents market is a fast changing environment where innovations

are integrated at a very quick rate. Changes in products (new product categories, new product

deliveries), claims, dosages, temperatures, fabrics, etc…. is permanent. Therefore, a close

monitoring of these changes is highly recommended as well as a frequent revision of the

conditions of the testing protocols in order to adapt the conditions accordingly.

2. Removal of stains is the most important element in the consumer expectations

towards Laundry detergents. As a result of it, the definition of stains to be removed in a test

protocol is key. Since changes in consumer habits do happen also frequently (food habits,

clothing, etc….), a frequent revision of the relevant stains to be included in the testing

protocols is highly encouraged.

3. New washing methods are being introduced in the Consumer Goods market: water-

free stain removal equipments, washing machines with in-situ bleach generation, washing

machines with automatic dosages, etc…. A close monitoring of these trends is absolutely

necessary in order to adapt, enlarge or modify the testing protocols accordingly.

4. Eco-friendly ingredients in Laundry detergent formulations are gaining weight. The

experience up to now with them do not necessarily penalize the achieved stain removal

performance of these Laundry detergents. Therefore, a future revision of allowed ingredients

in the EU Ecolabel does not need to be compensated with lowered expectations in stain

removal performance.

5. Liquid Laundry detergents have gained market share along the last years

significantly, while powder detergents have decreased their presence. This modification of the

overall picture leads to a different scenario in consumer expectations : color care and fiber

care (secondary efficiency) claims gain importance. A close monitoring of these consumer

expectations is recommended in order to adapt the testing protocols and evaluate the

secondary efficiency properly.


Fina lVersion

-52-

6. The increased presence of laundry additives, laundry boosters and laundry aids in

households makes the periodical review of the corresponding testing protocols more

necessary. Their contribution to the global detergency performance has increased significantly

along the years.

6. STAKEHOLDERS LIST

6.1. OBJECTIVE

To reach the objective of this project, it is necessary the collaboration of different

experts. For this proposal, different European organisations and industry have been invited

with the aim of discussing the new EU Ecolabel performance test.

6.2. ORGANISATIONS

The next list shows the different European organisations (European Testing Institutes,

Laundry Detergents Producers, Ecolabel License Holders and Associations and Corporate

Agents) present in the meetings.

a) European Testing Institutes

a) CTTN-IREN Institute de recherche sur l´entretien et le nettoyage

Web: www.cttn-iren.com

Contact: Nicolas Raguin

E-mail: [email protected]


Fina lVersion

-53-

2. Hohenstein Textile Testing Institute

Web: www.hohenstein.de

Contact: Ursula Scholz


3. WFK Forschungsinstitut für Reinigungstechnologie

Web: www.wfk.de

Contact: Anke Ophüls / Thomas Hilger


4. EMPA Materials Science & Technology

Web: www.empa.ch

Contact: Felix Frey


5. SGS CTS

Web: www.sgs.com

Contact: Nathalie Richarte


6. SATRA Technology Centre

Web: www.satra.co.uk

Contact: Christine Ohren-Bird / Ann Chivers


[email protected]


Fina lVersion

-54-

7. CHELAB SRL

Web: www.chelab.it

Contact: Dr.ssa Tiziana Rea / Dr. Andrea Boscolo


[email protected]

8. APPLUS-LGAI TECHNOLOGICAL CENTER

Web: www.applus.com

Contact: Fabio Amiconi


9. SOHIT (Domestic and Institutional Technology Research Foundation)

Web: www.sohit.nl

Contact: Inge van Kessel


10. INTEXTER (Institut d’investigació I cooperació industrial)

Web: www.upc.edu/intexter

Contact: Dr. F. X. Carrión Fité


b) Laundry Detergents Producers

A.I.S.E.

i) Henkel KgaA

Web: www.henkel.com

Contact: Dr. Dieter Nickel



Fina lVersion

-55-

ii) P&G Brussels Innovation Center

Web: www.eu.pg.com

Contact: Rainer Lodewick


iii) Unilever

Web: www.unilever.com

Contact: Gerard C.A. Luijkx


iv) Reckitt Benckiser

Web: www.reckittbenckiser.com

Contact: Luca Spadoni


v) McBride

Web: www.mcbride.co.uk

Contact: Olivier Chevalier


c) Ecolabel License Holders

a) DANLIND AS

Web: www.danlind.dk

Contact: Henrik Moeller



Fina lVersion

-56-

2. FOSFA INC.

Web: web.fosfa.cz

Contact: Radek Martak


3. ISPRA (2nd meeting)

Web: ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm

Contact: Stefania Minestrini / Angelo Polidori


[email protected]

4. NOVAMEX

Web: www.novamex.fr

Contact: Janine Berguido / Giles Olivier / Géraldine Sejourne




5. Werner & Mertz

Web: www.werner-mertz.de

Contact: Ralf Haak



Fina lVersion

-57-

d) Associations and corporate agents

a) EC (European Commission)

Web: www.ec.europa.eu

Contact: Rugile Balzekaite


2. A.I.S.E.

Web: www.aise.eu

Contact: Sandra Almeida Dworak / Valérie Séjourné


[email protected]

3. MTS (2nd meeting)

Web: www.mts.com

Contact: Dieter Sedlak


4. Direcció General de Qualitat Ambiental (Generalitat de Catalunya)

Web: www.gencat.cat

Contact: Anna Esteve / Santi Balague


[email protected]

5. ACCIÓ

Web: www.accio.es

Contact: Olga Roig



Fina lVersion

-58-

6. AFNOR

Web: www.afnor.org

Contact: Patricia Proia / Pierre Lebon


[email protected]

7. ADELMA

Web: www.adelma.es / www.linasa.es

Contact: Miguel Ángel Martínez Blanco


8. UEAPME (European Union of small and medium Enterprises)

Web: www.ueapme.com / www.chimicahts.it

Contact: Carlo Gittoi


9. Novozymes A/S

Web: www.novozymes.com

Contact: Martin Gudmand


10. Plastics Europe

Web: www.plscticseurope.org

Contact: Dirk Van Hessche



Fina lVersion

-59-

11. B.A.S.F.

Web: www.basf.com

Contact: Dr. Torsten Wieprecht / Claudia Esper


[email protected]

12. THERMPHOS

Web: www.thermphos.com

Contact: Yves Boland



Fina lVersion

-60-

ANNEX 1

PREVIOUS FORMULATION:

a) Heavy Duty Reference Detergent

INGREDIENTS %

Basic Powder

Linear sodium alkyl benzene sulfonate

Ethoxylated fatty alcohol C12-14 (7 EO)

Sodium soap (tallow soap)

Foam inhibitor concentrate, 12 % silicon on inorganic carrier)

Sodium aluminium silicate zeolite 4 A (80 % active substance)

Sodium carbonate

Sodium salt of a copolymer from acrylic and maleic acid (granules)

Sodium silicate (SiO2:Na2O = 3,3:1)

Carboxymethylcellulose

Phosphonate (25% active acid)

Optical whitener for cotton (stilbene type)

Sodium sulphate

Protease (Savinase 8,0)

Bleach

Sodium perborate tetrahydrate (SPB4)

Additive

Tetraacetylethylenediamine (TAED)

8,8

4,7

3,2

3,9

28,3

11,6

2,4

3,0

1,2

2,8

0,2

6,5

0,4

20,0

3,0

Table 21. Reference detergent formulation


Fina lVersion

-61-

b) Low Duty Reference Detergent

INGREDIENTS %

Fatty alcohol ethoxylate (EO = 7)

Low foaming fatty alcohol ethoxylate (ethylenoxide/higher alkylene oxide-co-polymer)

Sodium dodecyl sulfonate

Modified polycarboxylate (suitable for liquid detergents)

Ethanol

Water add 100 %

35

15

7,5

15

5

Table 22. Reference detergent formulation for LDD


Fina lVersion

-62-

ANNEX 2

SET STAINS:

a) A.I.S.E. minimum performance test:

- Tea

- Coffee

- Make up

- Motor oil

- Fruit Juice

- Chocolate

- Grass

- Grass & Mud

- Napolina Tomato Puree

- Blood

- Red wine

- Hamburguer grease

- French's Squeeze Yellow Mustard

- Hipp Carrot baby food

All stains are fixed on cotton fabrics

b) EU Ecolabel performance test


Pigment/Sebum (CO)

Mineral oil/black ink (CO)

Vegetable oil/milk/ink (CO)

Used motor oil (CO)

Red wine (CO)

Tomato ketchup (CO)

Grass (CO)

Pre-aged egg yolk (CO)

Milk cacao (CO)

Pigment/Sebum (CO)

Mineral oil/black ink (CO)


Used motor oil (CO/PE)

Red wine (CO/PE)

Tomato ketchup (CO/PE)

Pre-aged egg yolk (CO)

Milk cacao (CO)

Grass (CO)

Pigment/Sebum (WO)


Make up (SI)

Tea (CO/PE)

Red wine (CO/PE or CO)

Tomato ketchup (CO/PE)

Pre-aged egg yolk (CO/PE)

Milk cacao (CO)

Grass (CO)

Table 23. Ecolabel set of stains

CO: on cotton

CO/PE: on cotton/polyester 35/65

WO: on wool

SI: on silk


Fina lVersion

-63-

ANNEX 3

NEW SET OF STAINS PROPOSAL: Same set of stains than A.I.S.E. minimum protocol

Stains Standard Stains Hand-made stains

(Warwick Equest4)

Stain classes

(Consumer denomination / chemical

nature)

Tea EMPA1 167 WFK2 10J CFT3 BC3 Drink Bleachable

Coffee WFK 10K CFT BC2 Drink Bleachable

Red wine EMPA 114 WFK 10LIU CFT CS103 WE5RWWKC Drink Bleachable

Fruit juice CFT CS15 Drink Bleachable

Tomato Puree WE5TPWKC Food Bleachable

Carrot baby food WE5IACBFWKC Food Bleachable,

enzymatic

French Squeezy Mustard WE5FSMWKC Food Bleachable,

enzymatic

Chocolate EMPA 160 WFK 10Z CFT CS44 Food Enzymatic

Grass EMPA 164 CFT CS08 General Soil Bleachable,

enzymatic

Grass/Mud WE5GMWKC General Soil

Bleachable,

enzymatic,

particulate

Blood EMPA 111 WFK 10PBU WE5DASBWKC General Soil Enzymatic

Unused motor oil EMPA 106 WFK 10M CFT C01 Grease, oil Greasy,

particulate

Frying fat

(hamburger grease)

WE5HBGBKC

(blue knitted cotton) Grease, oil

Greasy,

enzymatic

Make up EMPA 143/2 WFK 10MU CFT CS17 Grease, oil Greasy,

particulate

Table 24.AISE Set of Stains

1http://www.empa.ch 2http://www.testgewebe.de

3http://www.cftbv.nl/index1024.htm

4http://www.warwickequest.com


Fina lVersion

-64-

ANNEX 4

MONITOR DYE SET PROPOSED:

Fabric number of A.I.S.E.

(14) Monitor set

Fabric number of A.I.S.E.

(40) Dye set Dye class

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

AISE 1

AISE 3

AISE 5

AISE 8

AISE 16

AISE 20

AISE 21

AISE 22

AISE 24

AISE 26

AISE 27

AISE 29

AISE 33

AISE 39

Sulphur black

Vat green

Vat blue

Direct yellow + cationic after-

treatment (Tinofix ECO)

Reactive Red

Reactive black (pale shade)

Reactive black (heavy shade)

Reactive orange

Reactive blue

Reactive violet

Reactive trichromatic combination

Reactive trichromatic combination

Disperse Navy + heat set

Acid red + syntan

Table 25. Monitor dyes set for AISE and new proposal


Fina lVersion

-65-

ANNEX 5

Following there is a list of the standards that will be adopted and accomplished related to the

service and the result that will be supplied:

a) Generic standard:

o ISO 2267:1986 (UNE 55826:1985). Surface active agents. Evaluation of

certain effects of laundering. Methods of preparation and use of unsoiled cotton control cloth.

o ISO 4312:1989 (UNE 55827:1992). Surface active agents. Evaluation of

certain effects of laundering. Methods of analysis and test for unsoiled cotton cloth.

o ISO 4319:1977 (UNE 55800:1985). Surface active agents. Detergents

for washing fabrics. Guide for comparative testing of performance.

o DIN 53919-1 Standard, 1980-05. Test cotton fabrics for laundering

process control; requirements.

o DIN 53919-2 Standard, 1980-05. Test cotton fabrics for laundering

process control; test of laundering with control stripes.

b) Soil and stain removal, degree of whiteness and colour

o Test:

� EN ISO 105-C06:1997. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part

C06: Colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering (ISO 105-C06:1994).

� EN ISO 105-C06:1997/AC:2009. Textiles - Tests for colour

fastness - Part C06: Colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering (ISO 105-

C06:1994/Cor 1:2002).

o Evaluation:

� EN ISO 105-J01:1999. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part

J01: General principles for measurement of surface colour (ISO 105-J01:1997).


J02: Instrumental assessment of relative whiteness (ISO 105-J02:1997, including Technical

Corrigendum 1:1998).


Fina lVersion

-66-


J03: Calculation of colour differences (ISO 105-J03:2009).

� EN ISO 105-A01:1995. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part

A01: General principles of testing (ISO 105-A01:1994).

� EN 20105-A02:1994. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part

A02: Grey scale for assessing change in colour (ISO 105-A02:1993).


A05: Instrumental assessment of change in colour for determination of grey scale rating (ISO

105-A05:1996, including Technical Corrigendum 1:1997).


A06: Instrumental determination of 1/1 standard depth of colour (ISO 105-A06:1995).


A08: Vocabulary used in colour measurement (ISO 105-A08:2001).

c) Dye transfer

o Test:

� EN ISO 105-C06:1997. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part

C06: Colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering (ISO 105-C06:1994).

� EN ISO 105-C06:1997/AC:2009. Textiles - Tests for colour

fastness - Part C06: Colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering (ISO 105-

C06:1994/Cor 1:2002).

o Evaluation:


J01: General principles for measurement of surface colour (ISO 105-J01:1997).


J02: Instrumental assessment of relative whiteness (ISO 105-J02:1997, including Technical

Corrigendum 1:1998).


J03: Calculation of colour differences (ISO 105-J03:2009).

� EN ISO 105-A01:1995 Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part

A01: General principles of testing (ISO 105-A01:1994).


Fina lVersion

-67-

� EN 20105-A03:1994. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part

A03: Grey scale for assessing staining (ISO 105-A03:1993).

� EN ISO 105-A04:1999. Textiles - Test for colour fastness - Part

A04: Method for the instrumental assessment of the degree of staining of adjacent fabrics (ISO

105-A04:1989).


A05: Instrumental assessment of change in colour for determination of grey scale rating (ISO

105-A05:1996, including Technical Corrigendum 1:1997).


A06: Instrumental determination of 1/1 standard depth of colour (ISO 105-A06:1995).


A08: Vocabulary used in colour measurement (ISO 105-A08:2001).

d) Fabric damage:

o Physical:

� EN ISO 13934-1:1999. Textiles - Tensile properties of fabrics -

Part 1: Determination of maximum force and elongation at maximum force using the strip

method (ISO 13934-1:1999).

� EN ISO 13938-1:1999. Textiles - Bursting properties of fabrics -

Part 1: Hydraulic method for determination of bursting strength and bursting distension (ISO

13938-1:1999).

� EN ISO 13938-2:1999. Textiles - Bursting properties of fabrics -

Part 2: Pneumatic method for determination of bursting strength and bursting distension (ISO

13938-2:1999).

o Chemical:

� ISO 5351:2004. Pulps -- Determination of limiting viscosity

number in cupri-ethylenediamine (CED) solution.

� DIN 54270-1 Standard, 1976-09. Testing of textiles;

determination of the limit-viscosity of celluloses, principles.


determination of the limit-viscosity of celluloses, Cuen-procedure.


Fina lVersion

-68-


determination of the limit-viscosity of celluloses, EWNNmod(NaCl)-procedure.

� NF G06-037. Textiles. Cellulose. Determination of limiting

viscosity number and determination of the average viscosimetric degree of polymerization.

e) Fabric incrustations:

o Organic:

� ISO 4312:1989 – Point 6. Surface active agents -- Evaluation of

certain effects of laundering -- Methods of analysis and test for unsoiled cotton control cloth.

� BS 8459:2005. - Determination of extractable matter in

textiles. Method

� DIN 54278-1 Standard, 1995-10. Testing of textiles - Coatings

and attendant materials - Part 1: Determination of materials soluble in organic solvents.

o Inorganic:

� ISO 4312:1989 – Point 7. Surface active agents -- Evaluation of

certain effects of laundering -- Methods of analysis and test for unsoiled cotton control cloth.

� DIN 53919-2 Standard, 1980-05. Test cotton fabrics for

laundering process control; test of laundering with control stripes.

Documents

BACKGROUND DOCUMENT - Final Version - Europa · BACKGROUND DOCUMENT FINAL VERSION LADECO: Laundry Detergents Eco-labelling Service Offer Subject: Revision of the EU …