This paper discusses detergents as a part of total pollution of water supplies.

The point is made that within this context detergents are a minor part of the problem. Nonetheless, efforts should be made to eliminate detergent residues, or to keep them at levels so low that they are not a nuisance. Proposals are offered for action.

DETERGENTS AND WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT

F. J. Coughlin

SA OAP and water" are essential for the maintenance of the high standards of cleanliness and sanitation which are common in the United States. In everyday conversation, the phrase "soap and water" has come to mean more than what it says literally. Today, it would ordinarily include detergents which in the past two decades have taken over many of the cleaning jobs previously done by soap. Detergents do things not possible with ordinary soap and the benefits of their use in our environment
are great. On the other hand, the hue and cry about detergents in waste waters and water supplies, motivated, very likely, by the misconception that all foams observed in rivers are caused by synthetic detergent residues and by a general concern about pollution, misses the real total pollution target. Some have even gone so far as to demand a ban on detergents. While technical people who have studied the matter recognize that the fears which have caused the hue and cry are unrealistic, the increasing intensity of interest signals the need for constructive action. What should be done? The detergent industry is being commended for its conversion to products which will disappear more readily in waste treatment operations and in surface waters.
760

However, to appraise this complex matter it is important (1) to define the problems that have existed and to evaluate any disadvantages that have resulted from the use of household and industrial synthetic detergents for washing and cleaning purposes and (2) to determine the best solutions for any real problems. In addition, there is a need to communicate the technical facts to those who express unwarranted concern. The hue and cry about detergents, which exaggerates their part in total pollution, encourages unnecessary and inefficient splintering of more basic programs for water pollution control. Action should be based on sound knowledge already acquired and on the way. What do we know about "spent" detergent products which have finished their cleaning job and have gone "down the drain?" What is the nature and magnitude of present or future problems? This discussion attempts (1) to differentiate between real and imaginary problems, (2) to supply data bearing on the problems which do exist, and (3) to indicate what can be expected from the detergent industry's changeover. In doing so it draws heavily from "Components of Household Synthetic Detergents in Water and Sewage," a comprehensive ORSANCO (Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission)
VOL. 55, NO. 5. A.J.P.H.

DETERGENTS AND WATER

report,1 and adds new data and more information. Current Appraisals In the past few years, a number of experts have made careful technical appraisals of the detergent situation.2-14 From these evaluations, it is clear that there is a growing recognition:
a. that detergent residues are only a minor part of the gross pollution problem, b. that trace levels of detergent residues when found in drinking water are, almost without exception, insignificant, c. that drinking waters containing present or foreseeable levels of detergent residues present no health hazard, d. that there is no crisis created by the trace residues of detergents found in sewage and household wastes, and e. that the detergent industry is doing its share toward cleaning up the nation's water supplies by changing to products which are more readily destroyed in waste disposal processes and in streams.

Detergents and Water Supplies Detergent Definitions-The word "detergent" can be a semantic booby trap and it is important that the intended meaning be made clear. In this discussion, the word "detergent" is used in its popular sense as an abbreviation for "synthetic detergents." Household synthetic detergents are -the collection of brands which are available as various packaged products on grocery shelves in such forms as granules, liquids, and the like. "Household syndet" or "syndet" are synonyms. Industrial synthetic detergents represent a relatively small part of the combined household industrial market estimated at less than 10 per cent. Synthetic detergents were introduced into the market in the middle 1930's and, largely since World War II, they have
grown to the point where they represent about 90 per cent of the total combined soap and household synthetic detergent washing products. Detergent Components-The principal
MAY. 1965

components of a household synthetic are: (a) the surface-active agents, and (b) the complex phosphate builders. The minor detergent components such as perfumes, whiteners, anticaking agents are present in the complete detergent products in very small quantities to begin with, and after dilution and breakdown in waste water cannot affect sewage plant or septic tank operation. The levels of phosphate builders and the minor detergent components follow the same pattern as that of ABS described later. The phosphate content of surface waters as determined up to now is, in general, less than 1 ppm P205, and is only partly attributable to household synthetic detergents. Other sources include land drainage and the other components of normal domestic sewage. The role of phosphates in algal growth is being studied as algae is an important problem in some areas, but quantitative answers are not as yet available. There is no question from the toxicological viewpoint about the safety of traces of complex phosphates from detergents which- find their way into drinking water. These materials have been accepted by the FDA for use in foods, and phosphates related to those used in detergents are common water treatment chemicals. Surface-active agents, or surfactants, as they are sometimes called for short, are the most important component of the product. They are organic substances which at usage concentrations significantly lower the surface tension of water. Soap is a surfactant. The surfaceactive agent which has been the workhorse of the detergent industry and which, in 1963, represented about 70 per cent by weight of all surfactants used in household synthetic detergents, is an important member of the alkyl benzene sulfonate family and has been called "ABS" for short. Specifically, the alkyl group is a branched hydrocarbon
761

chain predominantly C-12 in length, composed of the tetraisomers of propylene. The alkyl benzene is called alkylate and because the alkyl group is branched, it is a branched-chain alkylate. The alkylate is sulfonated to produce the ABS. Polypropylene ABS earned its dominant position because it gives effective cleaning power to finished detergent products and is economical. It has inherent sudsing properties which are superior and, as is the case with many good cleaning materials including soap, this inherent characteristic cannot be changed without destroying the cleaning agent any more than the taste of table salt could be destroyed without destroying the salt itself. ABS and soap are "anionic" surfaceactive agents and there are many more members in this branch of the surfactant family. Another branch of the family is made up of "nonionic" surfactants which in general are inherently low-sudsers. These are a relatively small part of the total surfactants used for washing and cleaning purposes-less than 10 per cent, and are so different in their characteristics that they are unsuitable for use as direct replacements for ABS and other anionic surfactants in synthetic detergent formulations. The ABS share of the market for all surfactants in use continues to be so large that other surfactants, including nonionics, have not become important enough to warrant more than preliminary studies. Information on other surfactants used in household and industrial detergents is available.1'13'14'54 Biodegradability-The ease with which a surfactant is degraded or destroyed by biochemical means is called "biodegradability." Branched-chain ABS is resistant to rapid and complete microbial destruction and detergents in which it is present are frequently and colloquially called "hard" detergents. Conversely, those detergents that contain
762

surfactants that are easily degraded are called "soft" detergents. Biodegradation depends on (a) the presence of microbes such as bacteria and (b) suitable conditions for the microbes to thrive. For example, in sterile water, no biodegradation occurs of even "completely" biodegradable materials. Further information on biodegradability and its measurement is available from the American Oil Chemist Society "Symposium-Biodegradable De-

tergents."57
Detergent Industry Conversion to More Readily Biodegradable Detergents The detergent industry, including the manufacturers of (a) finished household synthetic detergents and (b) industrial products and the suppliers of the raw materials, is doing its share of the job of cleaning up the nation's water supplies by converting to the production of more readily biodegradable detergents for US consumption, and is well ahead of schedule. In fact, the industry has moved up its target date from the original goal of year-end 1965 and now expects by midyear 1965 to replace the "hard" ABS used in its cleaning and washing products by a new more readily biodegradable surfactant. This new surfactant is derived from a straight-chain or linear alkylate which when sulfonated becomes "Linear Alkylate Sulfonate" or "LAS." This is a voluntary conversion and involves over 400 million pounds of surfactant. The new materials are going into present products without any change in the standards of performance
or economy and there should be no need to replace established brands to which the consumer has been accustomed. By avoiding changes in its brands solely for reasons of biodegradability the detergent industry will avoid upsetting the habits of consumer usage and thus the conversion should proceed
VOL. 55. NO. 5, A.J.P.H.

DETERGENTS AND WATER

without creating confusion in water pollution abatement programs. It is likely that there never has been such a large cooperative industry effort for the public good which had to overcome the restraints of antitrust considerations and competitive forces, both of which add difficulties to cooperative future planning for the public good and bring complications to an already complex situation.

Fate of Washing Products and Surfactants

The relatively small part played by detergents in the total water pollution problem and how this part will diminish to almost nothing when ABS is eliminated is readily seen by following the passage of the surface-active component, after the detergent has finished its cleaning job, through disposal systems and into water supplies which the residues might reach. Analytical Methods for ABS-In order to study the fate of detergent surfactant residues, it was necessary to develop analytical procedures sensitive enough to measure the trace quantities present in waste waters and water supplies. The methylene blue analytical method is that most commonly used at the present time for the determination of typical ABS levels found at various stages of waste water reclamation.1"25'26'6' It depends on the formation of a chloroform-soluble blue-colored salt when the methylene blue dye reacts with ABS, and this reaction is frequently affected by naturally occurring or other interferences, which more often than not yield results higher than the true ABS level. For this reason, methylene blue results are frequenty referred to as "apparent ABS" to distinguish them from more definitive data which might be obtained with the infrared procedure. While the infrared procedure25'26 would
MAY. 1965

be the method of choice when accurate ABS values are needed, it is not used on a routine basis because it requires special equipment, large samples, and is time-consuming. The practice of reporting ABS as "Methylene Blue Active Substance" (MBAS) is growing and should be encouraged because this language obviously is more precise than the present practices of reporting methylene blue data as "ABS" or as "apparent ABS." Generally, methylene blue results are adequate, as for example when great accuracy is not needed, or when values are low, which is frequently the case. Even with positive interferences present, when the MBAS is below 0.5 ppm, and particularly when it is less than 0.3 ppm, it is seldom necessary or worth while to verify results by infrared data. Need to Differentiate Between "ABS" and "LAS"-With the industry conversion from ABS to LAS imminent, it becomes necessary to keep in mind that colorimetric methods such as the methylene blue procedure will not distinguish between "ABS" and "LAS." Further, as indicated above, when naturally occurring positive interferences are present, which is normally the case, such interferences will affect the analytical results obtained by such methods. Thus, it becomes even more important to describe as accurately as possible the meaning of results determined by colorimetric procedures. For example, as more and more LAS replaces ABS, it will be inaccurate to report methylene blue results as "ABS" or even "apparent ABS"; persons not aware of the full significance of such reporting would likely assume that the former "hard" ABS was present when actually it was not. At the same time it would also be inaccurate, and could be misleading. to report such results as "LAS" or "apparent LAS," because by not taking into account the impact of positive interferences this practice would
763

Table I-MBAS Levels in Waters and Waste

ppm MBAS

Wash water from household

use of syndets
Raw municipal sewage

usual range

200 to 1,000

usual range occasional value

usual r'ange occasional values

2 to 1 to 6 to

10 15 ppm
5 8

Effluent from activated sludge sewage treatment plant

River water Important US streams

rarely above
rarely above

0.5
0.1

Ground water Municipal deep wells Individual shallow wells in highly populated areas Served by septic tanks and cesspools

usual range usual range occasional value single isolated value

O to

5 ppm

Drinking water from municipal water treatment plants

*

0 to 0.05 ppm 0.5 ppm 5.0 ppm*

From recycled sewage effluent.

imply that LAS was present when it might be absent. Thus, the importance of reporting colorimetric results as "MBAS," with suitable technical explanation of what might actually be present, is emphasized. Parenthetically, it should be pointed out that infrared analytical technics which are specific for ABS and LAS are available,25'26'82 but these are research tools rather than methods for ordinary use. Generally, the simple colorimetric procedures will be the methods of choice, and their limitations must be recognized and properly reported. ABS Levels in Water and WastesTable 1 summarizes the ABS levels (reported as "MBAS") which may be encountered in the various stages of dilution and treatment of household wastes. When wash waters and Wastes which contain synthetic detergents, either household or industrial, go down the drain, the individual brands lose their
764

identity. Based on data from the household use of products, wash water after use will contain approximately 0.1 per cent to 0.5 per cent of finished detergent product.27 This is 1,000 ppm to 5,000 ppm, respectively, and is equivalent to 200 ppm to 1,000 ppm of either ABS, LAS, or other surfactant. Sewered Areas-When ABS goes down the drain into the sewer it gets diluted by other wastes, 100 times or so, so that raw sewage contains typically about 10 ppm ABS.1'3'14,28 The raw sewage from the biggest part of our population goes to treatment plants whose effluent is discharged into streams.17 In typical activated sludge sewage treatment plants, the breakdown of ABS probably averages around 50 per cent. Dilution and normal breakdown will ordinarily bring the ABS to about 5 ppm in activated sludge sewage treatment plant effluent.1'3,14-16,28,29,38 Some raw sewage is still dumped into streams, but this undesirable practice
VOL. 55, NO. 5, A.J.P.H.

DETERGENTS AND WATER

is becoming obsolete. Its speedy elimination will be a marked contribution to clean water. When raw sewage or sewage plant effluent is dumped into a stream, the stream will act to destroy organic matter by microbial action to the extent of its capacity. When river water, like the Ohio for example, is charged with 20 ppm ABS as much as 75 per cent will be degraded in a period of 30 days or so."'1416,38,56 River water, especially in larger streams, seldom goes above 0.5 ppm ABS."556 Unsewered Areas-In areas where there are no sewers, wastes may go down the drain to individual cesspools or septic tanks. Septic tanks are more effective than cesspools, but by themselves are still notoriously poor treatment devices. For example, in some parts of Suffolk County, N. Y., which: (a) are served almost entirely by cesspools, (b) are highly populated, and (c) have shallow ground water tables and sandy soil, the cesspool effluent frequently may discharge directly, or pass for only a short distance through the sandy soil into the ground water. If the cesspool effluent pollutes the ground water to a point where the methylene blue active substance reaches a level of above one-half part per million, well water will show an incipient tendency to foam.'8 If well water foams more voluminously, it contains (a) either more ABS, (b) other foaming agents, or (c) both. Pollution of on-lot wells by cesspool and septic tank effluent represents a real problem wherever it occurs. Without minimizing the problem, some approximations can be made to estimate its magnitude.
1. The segment of the total population now using cesspools or septic tanks, while significant, is much smaller than the sewered popu-

plants19 or by large numbers of individual on-lot wells which are free of ABS or which contain only trace levels of ABS which are not objectionable.

The best long pull solution to ground water pollution, from a public health viewpoint-even though difficult-is the installation of community services.20 Sewers obviously would protect valuable ground water supplies, and water treatment plants could produce potable water if the raw water was unsuitable for drinking purposes without treatment. An unpleasant but important fact which may sometimes be overlooked is that the traces of ABS which may find their way into drinking water almost always come from sewage. While ABS per se is not a desirable additive for water, some water pollution control people recognize the indisputable fact that ABS is an index of pollution of sewage origin and that the foaming tendencies of ABS are a warning of other potentially more serious pollu-

tion.18,21-24 ABS Residues Only a Part of the Total Pollution-The levels of ABS reported in Table 1 reveal the likelihood that detergents are only a part of the gross pollution problem. Probably the best basis for a judgment of the magnitude of the part which detergents play
is a comparison of the amount of detergent residues with total organic matter present. Bunch, Barth, and Ettinger33 have shown that ABS by a colorimetric method makes up approximately 10 per cent of the soluble organics in the effluent from secondary treatment in municipal plants. These data are supported by evidence obtained in analyzing river water by the infrared method' and by the data from PHS National Water Quality Network of over 100 sta-

lation.38 2. The number of people served by wells containing objectionable amounts of ABS is small in relation to the great majority of people whose drinking water is potable. This potable drinking water is supplied by community
MAY, 1965

tions.3437 The belief that detergents are a major part of the pollution problem and that pollution would be substantially eliminated or reduced to a tolerable level
765

if detergents alone could be removed is not uncommon, and it may be due to the fact that the part which detergent residues play has been unrealistically exaggerated in some technical articles and in newspaper and magazine stories. To base a water pollution abatement program on this erroneous assumption would divert attention from the central issue, concentrate on a minor factor, and thus would materially hinder the progress being made in cleaning up the nation's water supplies. ABS Concentration versus BehaviorTable 1 shows that the concentrations of ABS used for washing purposes can be over a 1,000 times greater than the traces of ABS which are found in drinking waters, some ground waters, and in some surface waters, and can be over 100 times greater than the concentrations found in raw sewage. These concentration differences produce tremendous differences in behavior. For example, 1 ppm ABS produces almost no reduction of surface tension; and 10 ppm has a much smaller surface tension lowering effect than 100 ppm or more. This accounts in part for the fact that concentrations of 10 ppm ABS or lower (a) do not possess cleaning action and (b) do not produce the quantity and character of suds action obtained with higher usage concentrations. Drinking Water - Drinking water from community treatment plants, such as are provided to over 140,000,000 people in our total population,19 have been the basis for two studies.30'31 The first was made in 1959 by a Soap and Detergent Association technical committee and the second by the Public Health Service in 1960. In the first study, the ABS content by the methylene blue method of the drinking water of 32 US cities, which represent one-eighth of the population of the country, was measured in three seasons of the year, with the average of the 96
766

samples being 0.024 ppm "apparent ABS." The maximum was 0.14 ppm and 98 per cent of the samples did not exceed 0.1 ppm (one-tenth of a part per million). In the second study, the ABS (MBAS) content of the drinking water of 165 cities was determined, with the average being 0.054 ppm, the maximum 0.64 ppm. Only two samples exceeded 0.3 ppm and 88 per cent of the samples (146) did not exceed 0.1 ppm. ABS in well-water supplies will ordinarily range from 0 to 2.6 ppm.18 One exception to the low levels of ABS usually found in municipal drinking water has been reported. In this case, during about six months of severe drought the normal surface water supply disappeared. Of necessity, the impounded, highly purified sewage treatment plant effluent became the raw water supply. During this period, the ABS level built up gradually to 5 ppm without any ill effects being observed by the many local, state and federal public health people who were in close touch the entire time.32 This is an extremely unusual circumstance which sets a maximum for ABS in drinking water from municipal treatment plants which probably will never be reached again. In summary, while a level of 5 ppm ABS might be encountered as an unusually rare circumstance on a temporary basis, ABS levels in drinking water are almost always below 0.5 ppm which is the "recommended limit" of the "PHS Drinking Water Standard, 1962,''18 and are usually well under 0.1 ppm.
Foreseeable Levels of ABS in Drinking Water The fear has been expressed that detergent residues would generally build up in our raw and potable water supplies to troublesome levels. This concern, which is encountered less freVOL. 55, NO. 5. A.J.P.H.

DETERGENTS AND WATER

quently in recent months than a few years ago, is unfounded for the following reasons:
1. If the total annual production of ABS in the US were dissolved and distributed uniformly in the total annual runoff of all streams in the country, the ABS concentration would be approximately 0.2 ppm. This was calculated by Woodward, et al., of the PHS5 taking ABS production as something in excess of 500,000,000 pounds and the runoff of all streams at about 1,150 billion gallons per day. While the average figure will not apply to many specific cases, it puts some dimension into the picture. If it is assumed that 50 per cent of the ABS is destroyed by biological degradation, the resulting average ABS level would be approximately 0.1 ppm. Assuming no change in the total runoff of all streams, the consumption of ABS would have to increase two and one-half times to 1.250,000,000 pounds (from 500,000,000 pounds) to bring the average ABS content of all our surface waters up to the limit of 0.5 ppm ABS of the "PHS Drinking Water Standard, 1962." 2. The ABS content of major streams of the country is less than 0.2 ppm. Data (a) from the PHS National Water Quality Network,34-37 (b) from the ten-year program of monitoring the Ohio below Cincinnati (after the river receives Cincinnati's sewvage treatment plant effluent), and (c) from spot checks of the Mississippi at New Orleans support the conclusion that detergent residues are not building up to troublesome levels. The Ohio monitoring data through March, 1959, have been published39 and data from March, 1959, to the present are consistent wvith the data already published. The MBAS of the Mississippi is lower than the level at Cincinnati and it also indicates no build-up.40 3. The new more readily biodegradable detergents which are coming into increasing use will disappear wherever conditions are right for suitable biochemical action and will work importantly to prevent build-up.

Safety of Drinking Water Containing

ABS Conclusions-Even with the maximum levels of ABS found in drinking water, it is safe to conclude from the toxicological evidence on hand that the present levels of ABS in drinking water are not harmful to human beings, that there are no signs of any cumulative ill effects, and that the factors of safety
MAY, 1965

provided by the research data are many times more than adequate. Data-The scientific evidence from which these conclusions are drawn comes from numerous research studies.41-52 The Chanute experience also contributes.32 These studies, conducted with technics that are approved and recommended by the main body of science, have been made to determine the biological effects of ABS. For example, in tests over the life span of the rat, using concentrations as high as 5,000 ppm in the diet, and in two-year studies in dogs, as well as in some clinical observations among human beings, ABS has been shown to have no physiological effects. In some of the tests, the ABS intake was many times that possible from drinking water containing the highest known ABS content. PHS Drinking Water StandardSome of these studies were evaluated by the Advisory Committee for the PHS Drinking Water Standards and its expert Task Force on Toxicology.'8 The Surgeon General, with help from several expert committees, recommends a limit of 0.5 ppm ABS which "should not be exceeded whenever more suitable supplies are or can be available at reasonable cost. . . ." This limit was set principally for esthetic, rather than health reasons in that 0.5 ppm ABS or less in drinking water does not foam. The standards also recognize that there is a clear difference between toxic materials and ". . . substances such as chlorides and detergents that are not directly injurious to health but might be objectionable and cause people to use other sources of supply that may not be properly protected."53 From the safety viewpoint, the standards note that the 0.5 ppm ABS limit has a factor of safety of the order of 15,000. This is confirmation that ABS levels in normal drinking water could be many times higher than they are
767

without being harmful. In other words, if safety considerations had been the sole criterion the ABS limit could have been set many times higher. In May, 1963, after evaluating information available since the standard was promulgated, three Public Health Service experts5 recommended no changes.

Benefits of Industry Conversion As has been pointed out, LAS will work importantly to prevent surfactant residues from building up to intolerable levels in drinking waters. Why will this occur, and what other benefits can be expected ? Obviously, the advent of LAS will result in lower surfactant residue levels wherever microbes are present. Research in depth using numerous technics for measuring biodegradability patterned after what happens in treatment plants and surface streams has established the fact that LAS is a marked improvement over ABS.57 More recently these research results have been verified on a field scale.5859 In present sewage treatment plants in which biochemical processes are operatingin rivers-and in good septic tank-tile field installations, the new materials will disappear much more readily than today's ABS. In sewage plants which incorporate new treatment methods designed to obtain maximum purification, the new LAS material should make complete reduction feasible. Raw surface waters at the intake of water treatment plants, therefore, will contain, compared with present ABS levels, smaller traces of, or no, LAS. The reduction of MBAS in raw waters cannot be dramatic in view of the fact that the present ABS levels in streams of any size, in general, seldom exceed 0.5 ppm, and the change will merely be a reduction from a fraction of a part per million to a smaller fraction. Nevertheless, it will be a real effect, im768

portant, because the per cent reduction will be large, and because the lowered residual LAS level will become an even smaller part of the total organic matter present. Two specific situations where a quantitative appraisal of such benefits may be possible are at Peoria, Ill., and in Southern California. Peoria for recharge purposes now uses the Illinois River whenever it is necessary to do so to maintain the level of its ground water supply.55 56 This is done intermittently but only when the level of MBAS in the river is under 0.5 ppm. Even though the Illinois River receives all of the effluent from Chicago's sewage treatment plants, its ABS level has been below 0.5 ppm a large enough portion of the time to cause no practical hardship. More readily degradable LAS should result in a reduction of the actual surfactant content in the Illinois River and permit Peoria to use it for recharge purposes more frequently, should future depletion of ground water reserves make it necessary to do so. The second example involves situations in Southern California where sewage plant effluent would be more economical for recharge than Colorado River water.14 The more readily biodegradable LAS should make it easier for sewage treatment and water reclamation plants to reduce the surfactant in their effluent so that it is suitable for recharge purposes. While the reclamation of waste water for irrigation and for recreational uses, including the creation of fishing lakes, is not hampered by the residues of ABS, LAS levels should be considerably lower, permitting even wider use of reclaimed waste water and possibly eliminating all restrictions which might be caused by detergentsurfactant residues.'4'60 Probably the most important benefit from the more readily degradable LAS will derive from future situations where populations continue to grow and water
VOL. 55, NO. 5. A.J.P.H.

DETERGENTS AND WATER

supplies remain about constant, with reuse of water the logical answer to increasing water needs. The more treatable LAS should prevent detergents from becoming a future intolerable problem and thus should make an important contribution to the total water pollution abatement program. Foaming: Rivers and Treatment Plants-How will the more readily biodegradable straight-chain LAS affect the foaming in sewage treatment plants and the foaming on rivers? Logically, the amount and incidence of foaming will be lowered due to the fact that the more readily degradable LAS will leave smaller residues. On the other hand, foaming will be reduced only to the extent that the hard ABS caused or contributed to the foam in the first place. It is apparent that foams will continue to occur whenever natural surfactants, or surfactants from sources other than detergents, are present in sufficient concentrations. Such foams occurred in sewage treatment plants and on rivers before the advent of detergents and foams on rivers continue to occur even though the ABS measured by methylene blue is so low that it would not support the foam by itself. In other words, more biodegradable straightchain LAS cannot prevent foams on rivers which are caused by nondetergent natural foaming agents. In considering sewage treatment plant foams, there are two reasons why it could be unduly optimistic to expect a marked reduction due to the more readily degradable LAS. (1) Sewage, both raw and treated, contains a multitude of surfactants and foaming agents of nondetergent origin which could prod-uce foams by themselves. Proteinaceous materials and their degradation products are good examples. (2) The process by which bacteria ordinarily decompose organic matter, including more readily degradable LAS, is not instantaneous. In other words, it takes time
MAY, 1965

for the degradation process to take place and during this interval any detergent residues present may contribute to the foaming tendencies of the wastes being processed. Ground Water-What will the effect of the new LAS be in those areas where cesspool or septic tank effluents have contaminated individual on-lot private wells? Obviously the extent of the reduction will depend on the effectiveness of the microbial system. Generally, where ground water problems exist, individual treatment systems are so ineffective that at best they only partially remove extremely degradable materials. This is largely attributable to the fact that because of the shallow ground water tables the effluent ordinarily will discharge directly into or within a short distance of the ground water, and the bacteria in the effluent have little opportunity to accomplish their mission. Thus, when conditions are extremely unfavorable for bacterial action the new more readily degradable materials or other organic matter have little or no opportunity to decompose, and it is too much to expect them to do so. On the other hand, the new more readily degradable materials are a step in the right direction because, where conditions are favorable, as can be the case in good septic tank-tile field installations, they will disappear more readily.

Concl usion
Summary

This discussion points out:

1. that detergent residues are a minor part of the total or gross pollution; 2. that in drinking water, the levels of detergent residues measured as ABS are almost always below the limit set in the PHS Drinking Water Standards; 3. that detergent residues are unlikely to build up to troublesome levels in the foreseeable future in our raw and potable water

supplies; 4. that there is a wealth of evidence to assure us that ABS is not a public health problem.
769

Continued Emphasis Needed on Water Pollution Abatement

There is little disagreement that continuing progress in water pollution control and abatement will need emphasis on:
1. The detergent industry's conversion to more readily biodegradable products in order to eliminate detergent residues or at least to keep them at levels so low that they are not even an esthetic nuisance. 2. Construction of more sewage plant capacity to serve the requirements of our increasing population. 3. The development and application of new and better treatment methods, now being actively studied by the PHS and others. 4. The development of community sewers and services for those localities whose ground water is or may be polluted by cesspool and septic tank wastes. For such localities to rest their hopes solely on biodegradable detergents is not realistic. 5. Adequate coordination of the above four aspects of a program. While each of these could proceed separately, good coordination will assure that the greatest dividends will accrue. 6. The establishment of good communications between the industries, the government officials, the legislators, the sanitary engineers, the academic people, the lay groups, and others involved in abating pollution. Such communication is needed to arrive at the most effective water pollution program.

Any farsighted water pollution control program will not overlook the benefits which detergents contribute to cleanliness and sanitation. Soap and water, detergents and water, surfactants and water combine to give us the highest standards of cleanliness and sanitation that exist in the world, on a personal basis, for our clothes, our dishes, our homes, the places where we work, and our environment generally.
REFERENCES
1. Detergent Subcommittee of ORSANCO's Chemical

Industry Advisory Committee. Components of Household Synthetic Detergents in Water and Sewage. J. Am. Water Works A. 55,3 :369-402 (Mar.), 1963. 2. Klassen, C. W. Progress Report, State Sanitary Water Board. Proc. Illinois Association of Sanitary Districts, 1962, pp. 66-72. 3. Berry, A. E. The Synthetic Detergent Problem in Waste Disposal. Canadian Municipal Utilities Sewerage Manual and Directory, 1963, pp. 37-45, 145.

4. Haney, Paul D. Synthetic Detergent Problems and Progress. Presented at Missouri Section, AWWA (Apr. 1), 1963. 5. Woodward, R. L.; Stokinger, H. D.; and Birmingham, D. J. Health Effects of Detergents in Water. Arch. Environ. Health 8:584-588 (Apr.), 1964. 6. Weinberger, L. W. Statement on Detergents and Water Pollution. Hearing of the Jones Committee, Washington, D. C. (June 10), 1963. 7. Wise, Edwvard. Detergents, A Source of Pollution and What Is Being Done. Hearing of the Jones Committee, Washington, D. C. (June 10), 1963. 8. Meier, E. Bruce. Significance of Detergents and Commercial Fertilizers in Water Resources. J. Am. Water Works A. 55,7:930-936 (July), 1963. 9. McGauhey, P. H. The Significance of ABS. 1963 Conference, California Water Pollution Control Association (Apr. 26), 1963. 10. Van Lare, Frank E., and Cohn, Morris M. 1963 Progress Report of the Temporary State Commission on Water Resources Planning, State of New York. Legislative Document No. 40, 1963. 11. British Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents. Sixth Progress Report. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1963. . Seventh Progress Report. London, Eng12. land: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1964. 13. C&E News Staff. Biodegradability of Detergents-A Story About Surfactants. C&E News (Mar. 18), 1963, p. 102. 14. California Water Quality Control Board, Department of Public Health Detergent Report. A Study of Detergents in California (Jan.), 1965. 15. McGauhey, P. H., and Klein, S. A. The Removal of ABS by Sewage Treatment. Sew. and Indust. Wastes 31:877-899, 1959. . The Removal of ABS from Sewage. 16. Pub. Works 92,5:101-104, 1961. 17. Staff Report to the Committee on Public Works, U. S. Senate. A Study of Pollution-Water. Committee Print (June), 1963. 18. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards. (Rev. 1962). PHS Publ. No. 956, Washington, D. C. 19. Wolman, Abel, and Bosch, Herbert H. US Water Supply Lessons Applicable to Developing Countries. J. Am. Water Works A. 55,8:946-956 (Aug.), 1963. 20. Wolman, Abel. Sterilization of Water. J.A.M.A. 176,11:167 (June 17), 1961. 21. Nichols, M. S., and Koepp, E. Synthetic Detergents as a Criterion of Wisconsin Ground Water Pollution. J. Am. Water Works A. 53:303-306 (Mar.), 1961. 22. Woodward, F. L.; Kilpatrick, F. J.; and Johnson, P. B. Experiences with Ground Water Contamination in Unsewered Areas in Minnesota. A.J.P.H. 51,8: 1130-1136 (Aug.), 1961. 23. Abbott, D. C. A Rapid Test for Anionic Detergents in Drinking Water. Analyst 88,1044:240-242 (Mar.), 1963. 24. Bendixen, T. W. Will Public Health Standards Fit Rural Water Supplies? Agricultural Engin. 44,7: 366-367 (July), 1963. 25. Task Group Report. Determination of Synthetic Detergent Content of Raw Water Supplies. J. Am. Water Works A. 50:1343 (Oct.), 1958. 26. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Waste Water. New York, N. Y.: APHA, AWWA, and WPCF (Ilth ed.), 1960, pp. 246-251. 27. Suskind, R. R., and Whitehouse, H. S. The Housevife and Her Exposure to Washing Products. A.MI.A. Arch. Dermat. 88,2:130-134 (Aug.), 1963. 28. Keefer, C. E. Improvements and Operation at Baltimore's Back River Sewage Works. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 33:1 (Jan.), 1961. 29. Rubin, Eliezer, and Everett, Richard. Sewage Plant Effluents Contaminant Removal by Foaming. Indust. & Engin. Chem. 55:10 (Oct.), 1963. 30. Committee Report. ABS in Drinking Water in the United States. J. Am. Water Works A. 53:3 (Mar.), 1961.

770

VOL. 55, NO. 5. A.J.P.H.

DETERGENTS AND WATER

31. Taylor, F. B. Effectiveness of Water Utility Quality Control Practices. Ibid. 55:10 (Oct.), 1962. 32. Metzler, D. F.; Culp, R. L.; Stoltenberg, H. A.; Woodwvard, R. L.; Walton, G.; Chang, S. L.; Clarke, N. A.; Palmer, C. M.; and Middleton, F. M. Emergency Use of Reclaimed Water for Potable Supply at Chanute, Kans. Ibid. 50,8:1021 (Aug.), 1958. 33. Barth, E. F.; Bunch, R. L.; and Ettinger, M. B. Organic Materials in Secondary Effluents. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 33 :122-126 (Feb.), 1961. 34. National Water Quality Network. Public Health Service. Publ. No. 663. Washington, D. C. (1959 ed.). 35. Ibid. Washington, D. C. (1960 ed.). 36. Ibid. Washington, D. C. (1961 ed.). 37. Ibid. Washington, D. C. (1962 ed.). 38. Woodward, R. L. Synthetic Detergents-Effects on Natural Resources-National Picture. At the Round Table Conference on Synthetic Detergents, State of California Resources Agency, Santa Ana River Basin Regional Water Pollution Control Board and California Manufacturers Association, Ontario, Calif. (June 6), 1962. 39. Weaver, P. J., and Coughlin, F. J. Monitoring the Ohio River for Synthetic Detergent Content. J. Am. Water Works A. 52,5:607 (May), 1960. 40. Sharman, S. H. Analyses of Mississippi River Water Samples. California Research Corporation, Richmond, Calif. Unpublished private communication (Oct. 10). 1963. 41. Committee Report. ABS and the Safety of Water Supplies. J. Am. Water Works A. 52 :786-790, 1960. This review lists 27 references. 42. Freeman, S.; Burrill, M. W.; Li, T. W.; and Ivy, A. C. The Enzyme Inhibitory Action of an Alkyl Aryl Sulfonate and Studies on Its Toxicity When Ingested by Rats, Dogs, and Humans. Gastroenterology 4:332-343, 1945. 43. Fitzhugh, 0. G., and Nelson, A. A. Chronic Oral Toxicities of Surface Active Agents. J. Am. Pharm. A. (scientific ed.), 37 :29-32, 1948. 44. Food Protection Committee. The Relation of Surface Activity to the Safety of Surfactants in Foods. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council Publ. No. 463. Washington, D. C., 1956. 45. Tusing, T. W.; Paynter, 0. E.; and Opdyke, D. L. Chronic Toxicity of Sodium Alkylbenzene Sulfonate by Food and Water Administration to Rats. Toxicol. & Appl. Pharmacol. 2:464-473 (July), 1960. 46. Paynter, 0. E., and Wier, R. J. Chronic Toxicity of Santomerse No. 3 from Olefin (Dodecyl Benzene Sodium Sulfonate). Ibid. 2:641-648, 1960. 47. Snyder, F. H.; Opdyke, D. L.; Griffith, J. F.; Rubenkoenig, H. L.; Tusing, T. W.; and Paynter, 0. E. Toxicological Studies on Household Synthetic Detergents. I. Systemic Effects. II. Effects on Skin and Eyes. Ibid. 6:133-146, 1964. Saffiotti, U.; Shubik, P.; and Opdyke, D. L. Carcinogenesis Tests on Alkylbenzenes and Alkylbenzene Sulfonates. Ibid. 4:763-769, 1962. Snyder, F. H.; Opdyke, D. L.; and Rubenkoenig, H. L. Toxicologic Studies on Brighteners. Ibid. 5:176-183, 1963. Tusing, T. W.; Paynter, 0. E.; Opdyke, D. L.; and Snyder, F. H. Toxicologic Studies on Sodium Lauryl Glyceryl Ether Sulfonate and Sodium Lauryl Trioxyethylene Sulfate. Ibid. 4:402-409, 1962. Dasher, G. F. Surface Activity of Naturally Occurring Emulsifiers. Science 116:660-663, 1952. Bornmann, G., and Loeser, A. The Chronic Effect of Dodecyl Benzene Sulfonate-A Contribution to the 'Detergent and Water' Problem. Ztschr. Lebensm.Untersuch. u. Forsch. 118,1:51-52, 1962. Hopkins, 0. C., and Gullans, 0. New USPHS Standards. J. Am. Water Works A. 52:1161-1168 (Sept.), 1960. Task Group Report. Characteristic and Effects of Synthetic Detergents. Ibid. 46:751 (Aug.), 1954. Vogel, 0. W., and Harmeson, R. H. ABS in the Peoria Domestic Water Supply. Ibid. 54,7:803-810 (July), 1962. Hurwvitz, E.; Beaudoin, R. E.; Lothian, T.; and Sniegowski, M. Assimilation of ABS by an Activated Sludge Treatment Plant-Waterway System. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 32:111, 1960. American Oil Chemists Society. Symposium-Biodegradable Detergents. J. Am. Oil Chemists Soc. Part I. 41,11:732-755 (Nov.), 1964; Part II. 42,12:799-830 (Dec.), 1964. Renn, Charles E.; Kline, William A.; and Orgel, Gerald. Destruction of Linear Alkylate Sulfonates in Biological Waste Treatment by Field Test. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 36,7:864-879 (July), 1964. Hanna, G. P.; Weaver, P. J.; Sheets, W. D.; and Gerhold, R. M. A Field Study of LAS Biodegradation. Water & Sew. Works. Part I. III,11:478-485 (Nov.), 1964; Part II. 111,12:518-524 (Dec.), 1964. Merrell, John, and Stoyer, Ray. Reclaimed Sewage Becomes a Community Asset. (Santee Recreation Study Project, San Diego, Calif.), The American City 79:97-101 (Apr.), 1964. Longwell, J., and Maniece, W. D. Determination of Anionic Detergents in Sewage, Sewage Effluents and River Waters. Analyst 80:167, 1955. Frazee, C. D., and Crisler, R. 0. Infrared Determination of Alkyl Branching in Detergent ABS. J. Am. Oil Chemists Soc. 334-335 (Apr.), 1964.

48.

49.
50.

51. 52.

53.

54. 55.
56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.
62.

Mr. Coughlin is associate director, Product Development Division, Procter & Gamble Company, Ivorydale Technical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio. This paper was presented before a Joint Session of the Conference of Municipal Public Health Engineers, the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, the National Association of Sanitarians, and the Engineering and Sanitation Section of the American Public Health Association at the Ninety-First Annual Meeting in Kansas City, Mo., November 12, 1963. (The paper was updated somewhat, since it was originally presented.)

MAY. 1965

771