1

Synthesis and Environmental Impact of Soap and Detergents Minyoung Kim Chemistry 102 Laboratory, Section 32 Instructor: Chris Underwood February 26, 2007

Abstract This lab report describes the experiment in which the differences between soaps made out of fat and oil and detergents are tested and compared to determine which of the soaps and detergents is the most environmentalfriendly and the most cleaning. Through froth, cleaning and solubility tests and titrations, the olive oil soap was determined to be what people in the mountain region should use. It is the most soluble soap in water out of all that were tested, and it also had the best cleaning ability.

My signature indicates that this document represents my own work. Outside of shared data, the information, thoughts, and ideas are my own except as indicated in the references.

______________________________________________

Introduction This laboratory project was to develop a safer and milder soap making process that is more environment-friendly. The government has charged the group to be sent to a remote mountain region where people still use traditional lye soaps. The soap was identified as a possible source of pollution. Not only did the soap cause the development of rashes on the local residents skins, but it also varied a lot in quality; the soap would form some sort of scum instead of lathering. Before beginning the experiment, vegetable oils and olive oil were expected to create more environmental friendly soaps than the solid fats; because both olive and vegetable oils are known to be better than the solid fats, Crisco and lard, to human body. Also, in Korean butcher shops, used vegetable oils are brought in to be made into soaps which could be used for dish or laundry washing purpose. Soaps made out of used oils tend not to lather much, but their cleaning ability is as great as the regular chemically made soaps. Although, used-oil soaps also hold some problems; they do not dissolve into water as well as the regular soaps do, but they dissolve better than the used oils. Thus, for the environment, it is better to turn used-oil into soaps and use them rather than just discarding used-oil. The laboratory group will create four different types of soaps out of Crisco, Lard, Olive Oil, and Vegetable Oil with detergents to conduct solubility tests and titration.

Results Table 1: Soap Froth Test 1 2 3 4 Most to Least Froth Crisco Lard Olive Oil Vegetable Oil

Table 2: Soap Cleaning Test 1 2 3 4 Best to Worst Olive Oil Vegetable Oil Lard Crisco

Table 3: pH Test Soaps Detergents Pond Water Basic Acidic Basic

Table 4: Solubility Test for Detergent #1 Acetone Slightly Soluble Ethanol Soluble Toulene Slightly Soluble 1M Hydrochloric acid Not soluble 6M Sodium Hydroxide Not soluble Water Slightly Soluble Table 5: Solubility Test for Detergent #2 Acetone Ethanol Toulene 1M Hydrochloric acid 6M Sodium Hydroxide Water Table 6: Solubility Test for Soaps Slightly Soluble Soluble Slightly Soluble Not soluble Not soluble Slightly Soluble

Soap Solvent Acetone Ethanol Toulene Water

Olive Oil Not Soluble Not Soluble Slightly Soluble Slightly Soluble

Vegetable Oil Crisco Not Soluble Not Soluble Not Soluble Not Soluble Not Soluble Not Soluble Slightly Soluble Not Soluble

Lard Not Soluble Not Soluble Not Soluble Not Soluble

Table 7: Solubility Test for Fats Fat Solvent Acetone Ethanol Toulene Water Olive Oil Soluble Not Soluble Soluble Not Soluble Vegetable Oil Crisco Not Soluble Not Soluble Soluble Not Soluble Soluble Slightly Soluble Not Soluble Not Soluble Lard Not Soluble Slightly Soluble Not Soluble Not Soluble

Table 8: Anion/Cation Test Present ion in the sample water Chloride Calcium Indication White precipitate Red flame

Graph 1: Titration of Lard

L a rd
12

10

R un 1

pH

R un 2 R un 3

0 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 9 1 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 18 1 19 1 2 01 2 11 221 231 241 F lu id V o lu m e(m L )

Run 1: 0.64mL Run 2: 0.97mL Run 3: 0.2mL Average: 0.60mL S: 0.39 M1*V1 = M2 *V2 M1 = (M2*V2)/V1 M1 = {(1)(0.6)}/(2) M1 = 0.3M

Graph 2: Titration of Olive Oil

O live O il
14

12

10

8 pH

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

0 1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71 78 85 92 99 106113120127134141148155162169176183190197204211218 F luid V olum e (m L)

Run 1: 0.62mL Run 2: 2.19mL Run 3: 1.84mL Average: 1.55mL S: .82 M1*V1 = M2 *V2 M1 = (M2*V2)/V1 M1 = {(1)(1.55)}/(2) M1 = 0.775M

Graph 3: Titration of Vegetable Oil

Veggie Oil
14

12

10

8 pH

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

0 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191 201 211 221 231 241 251 261 271 281 291 301 Fluid Volume (mL)

Run 1: 0.96mL Run 2: 1.07mL Run 3: 0.71mL Average: 0.91mL S: 0.18 M1*V1 = M2*V2 M1 = (M2*V2)/V1 M1 = {(1)(0.91)}/(2) M1 = 0.455M

Graph 4: Titration of Crisco

Crisco
14

12

10

8 pH

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3

0 1 12 23 34 45 56 67 78 89 100 111 122 133 144 155 166 177 188 199 210 221 232 243 254 265 276 287 298 309 320 Fluid Volume(mL)

Run 1: 0.45mL Run 2: 0.13mL Run 3: 0.16mL Average: 0.25mL S: 0.18 M1*V1 = M2*V2 M1 = (M2*V2)/V1 M1 = {(1)(0.25)}/(2) M1 = 0.125M

10

Graph 5: Titration of Pond Water

Titration of Pond Water

14

12

10

8 pH

pH vs Fluid Volume, Pond water 1 Run 1 pH vs Fluid Volume, Pond Water 2 Run 2 pH vs Fluid Volume, Pond Water 3 Run 3

0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58 61 64 67 70 73 Fluid Volume (mL)

Run 1: 0.30mL Run 2: 0.31mL Run 3: 0.13mL Average: 0.25mL S: 0.089 M1*V1 = M2 *V2 M1 = (M2*V2)/V1 M1 = {(1)(.25)}/(2) M1 = 0.125M

11

Discussion The tested fats were Crisco, Lard, Olive Oil, and Vegetable Oil. To compare the difference between solid fats and liquid fats, the tested fats solid vs. liquid ration was 1:1. Also, detergents were made to be compared with soaps made out of fats mentioned above. As Table 1 shows, the solid fats produced more froth when shook. Table 2 shows that oil fats generally cleaned better than solid fats. Solubility on detergents #1 and #2 were tested the same (Table 4, 5). pH tests (Table 3) indicated that both detergents and pond water were acidic while soaps were tested to be basic. By conducting solubility tests on soaps and fats, presented in Table 6, 7, it was clear that the properties of fats were changed after going under the soap making synthesis. As Table 6 and 7 shows, most fats were more soluble in the given solvents than after they were turned into soaps. While conducting titration, a mistake was made; instead of adding 2mL of the soap waste water to 198mL of water, whole beaker of waste water was titrated. The mistake caused the titration to take much longer time than it should have. Other groups waste water had to be used instead, which created the inconsistency of titration graphs 1 and 2. However, as the standard deviations of each fat soap titration data (Graph 1, 2, 3, 4) shows, each results were relatively close to each other. Also, each graph holds a similarity with other graphs in its general shapes. 3 titrations of pond water created the best result in consistency, giving only standard deviation of 0.089. Pond water was identified to have calcium chloride in it by the cation and anion tests. Not all the possible anion test was conducted due to lack of time. Anion test for chloride reacted to give white precipitate indicating the presence of chloride ion in the pond water. Also, when put in the flame of a Bunsen burner, the water sample gave a red flame indicating the presence of calcium ion in it (Table 8). Calcium in water makes the water hard, which makes it harder

12

for soaps to lather in water. On the other hand, detergents lather whether it is in hard or soft water. Hard water could be softened by putting lime in the water or running water over an ion exchange resin (Helmenstine). Detergents produced very harsh and dangerous exothermic reactions while being created compared to the soaps. No harsh or dangerous reactions were observed during the soap production. Also, it was proved that the soaps were more environmentally friendly than the detergents, because: They were soluble in water; Soaps are basic; when mixed with pond water, it neutralizes; If detergents were mixed with pond water, the mixture would become more acidic and harmful to human skin. According to the data, Crisco had the lowest concentration (Graph 4), its cleaning ability was the worst of the four (Table 2) and was not as soluble in different solvents as shown in Table 6, although it shoed the best lathering performance (Table 1). Thus, Crisco soap could not be chosen to be the best soap. Lard was the next lowest in concentration (Table 1). Also, it was one of the worst cleaning soaps (Table 2) and was not soluble in water (Table 6). It was a competition between vegetable oil and olive oil. Olive oil lathered and cleaned better than vegetable oil (Table 1, 2), and its concentration was higher than that of vegetable oil (Graph 2, 3). Lastly, the solubility was compared and olive oil soap had better solubility than vegetable oil soap, which was tested to be insoluble in all 4 of the given solvents (Table 6). Thus, hypothesis was proven; soaps were better than detergents, and oil fat soaps were better than the solid fat soaps. Conclusion According to the results from conducted solubility, froth, cleaning, and solubility tests, it was determined that Olive Oil soaps should be used instead of traditional lye soaps; the Olive Oil soap cleaned the best, was

13

relatively well lathering, was the most soluble in water, and had the highest concentration rate out of all four types of soaps created. Also, it was tested to be basic which would neutralize the pond water when used; possibly protecting the remote mountain region peoples skin from rashes. The remote mountain region people should not only use olive oil to cook, but also use the left over or used olive oils to create better soaps for them to use. If the people are worried that the soap might not perform well because it does not lather well, they should know that it is the soap malfunctioning; it is because of the hard water with calcium they have in their area. Experimental Synthesis of the Soap The group mixed 10g of fat(Crisco or Lard) or 10mL of oil(Olive oil or Vegetable Oil) with 15mL of 6M sodium hydroxide with care, added a small amount of glycerol and stirred the mixture with a glass rod. They brought up the solution to boil on heat for about 15-20 minutes until the solution became homogenous and thick paste. Then, they added 50mL of saturated sodium chloride solution and some ice to the cooled paste. With a glass rod, the group mixed them vigorously so it would be easier to filter the slurry. After mixing, they used the suction filtration to filter the soap with two 5mL portions of cold water. They saved the waste water in a beaker and left the soap to air dry a week. Synthesis of the Detergent

14

A member of the group added 5mL of lauryl alcohol to 5mL of conc sulfuric acid in a beaker with a great care while another member added 3 drops of phenolphthalein to a beaker of 10mL 6M NaOH.

Then, they slowly combined two solutions together stirring constantly until the pink solution turned clear. They stirred the mixture for few more minutes on an ice bath They filtered the solution to get the precipitated sodium lauryl sulfate and dried the precipitate. They repeated the activity one more time to create a second solution.

Solubility Tests The group prepared a little bit of acetone, ethanol, toulene, 1M hydrochloric acid, 6M sodium hydroxide and water in separate test tubes. To see the solubility of each soap and detergents they had created, they took small amounts of dried soap (or detergents) and mixed it with prepared liquids. They covered the test tubes with cover films and shook them to see the solubility of each solvent. Titration Using a Power Link interface, the group could record the difference in pH as the fluid volume increased. They had to set the drop counter above the hotplate/stirrer and mount a burette 1cm above the rectangular hole in the drop counter. Then, the drop counter was connected to the Power Link interface. Calibration

15

To calibrate, they put water into the burette, set a waste beaker underneath the drop counter, and opened up to flush any air bubbles there were.

After dispensing few mL of water, they closed the burette and refilled it with more water. After the set up was complete, they opened Data Studio in their computer to start calibration while noticing their starting volume in the burette.

They slowly opened the burette to avoid any liquid surges and collected about 10mL of water in the waste beaker before noticing the final volume to stop the flow of drops.

Using Data Studio, they read data from the sensor and the calibration was complete. Titration

A group member put 1M Hydrochloric Acid into the burette and flushed any air bubbles there were while the other member put a magnetic stirrer into a mixture of their soap waste water from the week before and water. They used 2mL of soap waste water to mix with water bringing the total volume of the solution to 200mL.

They put their titrant beaker on the hotplate/stirrer and turn the stirrer onto medium speed. Once the stirrer was set, they inserted the pH probe into one of the round holes in the drop counter making sure that the sensor of the pH probe is fully immersed in the solution and connected the sensor to Power Link interface.

Then, they opened Data Studio to graph the pH vs. Fluid Volume of the titration and started their titration.

16

On the graph, from the point where the base turns to acid, they waited until the graph flattened out and stop the flow of acid to finish their titration.

Anion/ Cation Test Anion Test Chloride o A group member placed 1mL of the water sample in a test tube and added 1mL of 6 M HNO3 and 1mL of AgNO3 solution. The formation of a white precipitate (AgCl) indicated the presence of chloride ion in the tested sample. Cation Test A group member put a clean nichrome wire in the flame of a Bunsen burner to clean it. Then, the wire was dipped into the water sample. Dipped nichrome wire was put back into the flame to observe the color in the flame, indicating the presence of a certain cation in the water sample. The group member referred to the table below (Cooper) to find what the color present means. Flame Coloration Element Barium Calcium Potassium Sodium Strontium Lithium Copper Color Pale Green Red Pale Violet Brght Yellow Crimson Red Carmine Red Blue-Green Intensity Low Medium Low High Medium Medium Medium

17

Magnesium References

None

None

Cooper. Melanie M., Cooperative Chemistry Laboratories, McGraw-Hill New York, NY, 2003, p 60-62. Drop Counter Setup and Calibration. Melanie Cooper. Video images, 2006. <http://people.clemson.edu/~terry/Site/Podcast/B895F694 -C0B2-4B9D-9D40-F1A98E59523D.html>. Power Link Introduction. Melanie Cooper. Video images, 2006. <http://people.clemson.edu/~terry/Site/Podcast/D5C0F522629B-4E14-8E28-E4922F0D182E.htm>. Synthesis and Environmental Impact of Soap and Detergents. General Chemistry Laboratory Homepage. 2005. Clemson University. 22 Jan. 2007 <http://chemed.clemson.edu/genchem /labs.htm>. Titration Using Probes Voice. Melanie Cooper. Video images, 2006. <http://people.clemson.edu/~terry/Site/Podcast/35089BF7-9EF44C5C-BFF0-AC67F93866F8.html>.