Ecover come clean on their laundry bleach

November 22nd, 2006

Now, Ecover is a brand close to my heart. No one is making them use recycled cardboard in their packaging, or avoid the use of persistent chemicals like chlorine, they just do. It’s what they’re all about. But science, my friends, has made me a stony man, and all bad science is fair game. There’s no favouritism to be found here.

Dear Ecover,
I recently purchased a box of your laundry bleach in my local supermarket. According to the ingredients, Ecover chlorine-free natural oxygen bleach contains:

“100 % percarbonate, which is composed of salt, limestone and oxygenated water.”

I was surprised to find, however, there was no water in the box (oxygenated or not), as it is entirely a dry powder. Then it dawned upon me - by “oxygenated water” (H20 & 02), do you actually mean “hydrogen peroxide” (H202)? If so, why is it not labelled as such on the pack?

Also, if the ingredients of Ecover chlorine-free natural oxygen bleach are indeed regular sodium percarbonate, how does my £1.37, 400g box of “Ecover chlorine free natural oxygen bleach” differ from the 1kg bag of soda crystals I picked up two aisles earlier for 51p?

Finally, I would be indebted to you if you could settle a long-standing argument between me and my girlfriend. Does Ecover rhyme with “Dover” or “lover”?

Your answers are much appreciated,
Frank Swain

Dear Frank
Thank you for your e.mail. We have now received a response from our factory as follows:
“Sodium percarbonate, or sodium carbonate hydrogen peroxide hydrate, is produced by the reaction of sodium carbonate with hydrogen peroxide, which can be done via dry, spray and wet processes. In the dry process aqueous hydrogen peroxide is sprayed on solid carbonate, the reaction of which yield percarbonate. The same can and is quite commonly done in a fluid bed (allowing the addition of coating materials such as silicate for protecting the granula against heavy metal migration along with free moisture). Solutions of sodium carbonate and peroxide are sprayed into a drying chamber where water is evaporated. In the wet process percarbonate is obtained by crystallisation possibly in combination with salting out.
So the 51p carbonate or soda is the starting point from which to manufacture percarbonate, but is by no means the same. Furthermore hydrogen peroxide need not be mentioned on the label, since it’s an integral part of the percarbonate. Finally “dry” looking powders can contain up to 50% of water. In the case of percarbonate 100 gram of dry looking percarbonate granules actually contain 32.5 % hydrogenperoxide.”
Finally, to settle your argument - the first part of Ecover - Eco is pronounced nearer to Dover although the second part of the word should sound like in the French “vert” - although I will say we have heard many different ways as to how this should be pronounced!!!
We hope this answers your query. If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us again.
Kind regards
Jan Lambell
Ecover UK Limited

Aha, so Ecover think they can bamboozle me with science, eh? They underestimate my grasp of first-year chemistry, access to Wikipedia and the how obvious their diversionary tactics are. They’re right about the water, though.

Dear Jan,

Thank you very much for your reply. It was very informative, and I enjoyed learning about the production process behind sodium percarbonate.

However, I feel that you have misunderstood my question. I wanted to know why it is you chose to refer to the hydrogen peroxide in your product as “oxygenated water”, which is a different substance with entirely different properties.

Also, sodium percarbonate is an addition compound, i.e. the two chemicals combine but do not form a new chemical with new properties. Therefore, I am confused as to why, instead of referring to the constituents of percarbonate as calcium carbonate and hydrogen peroxide, you refer to the products used further up the process chain.
Surely by this logic, you could refer to Ecover chlorine free natural oxygen bleach as being comprised of hydrogen, oxygen, sodium, calcium and carbon.

Also, I should note that the “soda crystals” I referred to are the common name for percarbonate. Sodium carbonate without added hydrogen peroxide is known as soda ash, and is an entirely different product.

Thanks for clearing up the pronunciation of Ecover, I look forward to hearing from you again,

Regards,
Frank

Aha! Science bamboozle right back at you, Ecover! This is a classic case of the old “don’t mention the chemicals” ploy. And steak is made of grass. I’m sympathetic to a brand’s sensitivity to customers’ aversion to anything remotely “chemical sounding” – wait, no, I’m not. I expect them to take some responsibility to teach people that chemicals are chemicals, whatever you call them.

Dear Frank
Herewith further response from our factory:
“Your are correct - the term oxygenated water is confusing and so is the use of calcium carbonate on the label. We regularly review our packaging and your comments will be taken into consideration when we next re-print our packaging.
With regard to soda - soda and soda crystals are both sodium carbonate (either anhydrous or hydrated) and do not contain any bleach. Soda ash is the same as anhydrous soda. The soda ash from around Frank’s corner does not contain any bleach (thus the price difference). An easy way to check the difference is to add Ecover bleach in a glass of wine (tea will probably also do) and compare to what happens with soda crystals (ie nothing).”
Kind regards
Jan Lambell
Ecover UK Limited

Dear Jan,

Thank you for your email. I stand corrected on the soda crystals – they are indeed sodium carbonate and not sodium percarbonate. Thank you also for proposing a great home experiment!
I’m glad that you will take my comments into consideration – I would hate to think that Ecover were deliberately avoiding the use of chemical names on their ingredients in order to give their product a “natural” gloss.
Thank you for your fine scientific explanations,
Frank

Well obviously I was a little embarrassed after that, and I expected nothing to come from the stock “we’ll be reviewing your comments” platitudes. Besides, I didn’t have much more of a point to make: Jan has agreed the packaging is misleading, and I’ve been corrected. I did get an ace home experiment out of it – I wasn’t being facetious, I really do dig home experiments (yes, I actually performed the experiment prior to my last letter). So it was a great surprise to receive this email some time later.

Hi Frank,
Thank you for your email concerning our laundry bleach. We have decided to change our ingredients declaration as our lab agreed it was misleading. I have attached the new label for your information.
Thanks again for your feedback.
Kind regards
Alastair

Righteous!

Entry Filed under: The Letters

Permanent Link  |    |    |    |    |