Environmentally Friendly Soap Production Project Department of Chemistry Michigan State University CEM 162 Section 015 March 27, 2017 Abstract The experiment purpose is to create an environmentally friendly soap or detergent that is able to clean oil spills on shores. The experiment’s methods are used to investigate the soaps/detergents properties and their safety on the environment The soaps are made using four different types of oils and fats. They were Vegetable oil, Manteca fat, Olive Oil, and Crisco fat. Two detergents were also made using two different methods in attempt to cleanse the oil spills. The tests were solubility in water, ability in dissolving oil, cleaning ability. Also the project focused on calculated the concentration of H+ and OH- to indicate which soap/detergent is the safest for the environment. The result of the experiments shows the soap made using Manteca fat is the safest and most useful because of it’s pH level was most neutral and cleaning ability comparing to other soaps. The result showed it had normal pH level and was able to dissolve oil effectively. Introduction In 2016, a tanker for shell oil company spilled more than 700 tons of oil in the Golf of Mexico.1 The spill had a huge impact on marine life and birds. The spill killed hundreds of birds on shores by golf of Mexico. Oil spill disasters happen frequently since the 1900s. The problem being investigated is how to clean shores that are covered with oil in the cheapest and most efficient way. Since animals are the species most affected by such disasters, oil cleaning must be animal friendly. The goals of this experiment is to make soaps and detergents using different types of fats to cleans the water from oil and disperse the oil into smaller particles to make the process of natural biodegradation easier.2 The soaps/detergent must be environmental friendly. The soaps/detergent must be cheap. The soaps/detergent must pass the solubility test. The soaps/detergent must present minimum amount of scum. Soaps are used to remove oil because they are known for having a hydrophilic and a hydrophobic part. The hydrophobic part will attach to the oil molecules, since oil is not soluble in water, while hydrophilic part will be in the water. The hydrophilic part will dissolve in water pulling the hydrophobic part that is attached to the oil particles with it.3 The procedures in the experiment that were performed to determine the best soap/detergent used to clean oil spills were the following. First procedure is solubility in water to analyze if the soap/detergent will stay in its form in the water or dissolve. Second procedure is to record the pH level that is contained both in soaps/detergents and their wastewaters to analyze if they are safe for further use in the environment. This procedure was confirmed by calculating the concentration levels of H+/ OH-. Cleaning/ lathering ability tests were performed to know the most efficient soap/detergent in cleaning the shores. Another safety test was performed on the wastewater of soaps/detergents to know if they are safe for environmental use. These tests were chloride ions and sulfate ions contaminates. a flame test used analyze the water is being used with soap to determine if it’s clear of contaminants or not such as Ca2+ and Mg2+. Finally, a cleaning test was performed for the soap that had best qualities in the procedures above to know if it is useful for cleaning shores. Experimental procedures: Part I: synthesis of soaps4 Procedure: 10.0 mL of Vegetable Oil added to 250 ml beaker. While stirring it, 15 mL of 6.0 M Sodium Hydroxide added to the beaker. Then, 1.0 mL of Glycerol added to the same beaker and placed on a hot/stir plate. The solution left on hot plate while stirring bar inside the beaker unitl it became thick and pasty. 50.0 mL of saturated Sodium solution with some ice added to the beaker after 5 minutes after the heater turned off. After the solution mixed it was place filtrated using suction filtration and added to a small bottle to be used as waste water for the soap, while the filtered soap placed in a small plate. The steps repeated using Olive Oil, Manteca Fat, and Crisco Fat. Part II: Detergents synthesis, two Detergents made by two different methods4 Method I: procedure 2.0 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid and 4.0 mL of lauryl alcohol added to 250 mL beaker. After stirring, 10 grams of sodium chloride and 50 mL of water added to the beaker. In a separate beaker that contains 10.0 mL of water, 5.0 mL of 6.0 Sodium Hydroxide added to it. 5 drops of phenolphthalein added to the beaker that contains Sodium Hydroxide solution. The solution left for 10 minutes. Sodium Hydroxide solution slowly added lauryl alcohol solution. The solution added slowly until the pink color faded. This solution added to salt-ice-water bath to break up clumps. The final step was filtrating the solution using vacuum filtration and left to dry for a period of week. Method II: procedure 5.0 mL of Lauryl alcohol added to a 5.0 mL of concentrated sulfuric acid in a 250-mL beaker. In a separate beaker, 3 drops of phenolphthalein added to 10.0 mL of 6.0 M NaOH. The solution stirred until the pink color in the solution disappeared. The solution was filtered and the precipitated sodium lauryl sulfate left to dry for further testing. Part III: properties of laboratory made soaps and detergents tests.4 Step 1: Solubility in Water test Procedure: 1.0g of Vegetable Oil soap added to 40.0 mL of distilled water to 250-mL beaker. Then solution stirred and observation of whatever the soap dissolved or not was recorded. The steps in procedure was repeated to all other soaps and detergents. Step 2: pH levels of both soaps/detergents and wastewaters test. Method I: Procedure The solutions/wastewater that were made in step one touched with litmus papers and the colors appeared on the litmus papers was recorded. Method II: Procedure: 20.0 mL of 0.89 M HCl poured into a burette until the burette reached level of 0.00 mL. The stop clock opened for several seconds to eliminate air bubbles from tip of the burette. 8.0 mL of waste water of vegetable oil soap transferred to an Erlenmeyer flask. 3 drops of phenolphthalein added to the solution in the Erlenmeyer flask and placed under the burette. The burette opened slowly and closed immediately after the pink color of the solution disappeared. The amount of 0.89 M HCl in the burette recorded for further calculations. The steps in this procedure were repeated using all types of soaps and detergents. Step 3: Cleaning Ability test Procedure: 3.0 mL of oil added to each soap solutions were made above in step 1. The quantities of oil droplets dissolved in the solutions were recorded. Part IV: Analyze the reaction wastewaters of the soaps and detergents.4 Step 1: Soaps wastewater for Cl- contaminants test Procedure: 6.0 M HNO3, 1.0 mL of 0.1 M of AgNO3, and 1.0 mL of soap wastewater added to 50 mL beaker. The result recorded based on whatever there was formation of a white precipitate in the solution or not. The steps in this procedure were repeated for all soaps wastewaters. Steps 2: Detergents and soaps wastewater for sulfate ions contaminants test. Procedure 3.0 mL of 6.0 M HCl, 3.0 mL of 0.1 m BaCl2, and 3.0 mL of vegetable oil wastewater solution were added to 50.0 mL beaker. The result recorded based on whatever there was formation of a white precipitate in the solution or not. The steps in this procedure were repeated for all soaps wastewaters. Step 3: Testing the well and pond water samples for possible contaminants4 Procedure: A wooden stick was placed on flame using bunsen burner after the stick was dipped in well water for two minutes. The color that appeared on flame was recorded. The step repeated using pond water. Step 4: Testing the lathering ability in waste waters with soaps and detergents.4 Procedure: 25.0 mL of well water and about one gram of vegetable soap were placed and stirred in a beaker. The amount of bubbles formed in the solutions were recorded. The steps in this procedure were repeated using pond water and all other types of soaps and detergents. Effectiveness of the best soap test.4 Procedure: Two grams of the Manteca soap were placed to 50 mL of water in a beaker. A dirty cloth was placed in the same beaker. The amount of dirt cleaned by the soap was recorded. Results The Properties of soaps are showing in table 16-8 Table 1: Properties of Soaps 6-8 Soap Type pH Level Did it dissolve the oil Vegetables Soap 8 Yes Manteca fat 7 Yes Olive Oil 10 Yes Crisco 9 Yes The Properties of detergents are showing in table 2 Table 2: Properties of detergents Detergent # pH level Did it dissolve the oil Detergent #1 2 No Detergent #2 2 No Result for reaction wastewater for Cl- contaminated are showing in table 3. Table 3: Result for reaction wastewater for Cl- contamination Soap Type White Precipitate formed Vegetable Oil Yes Olive Oil Yes Cisco fat soap Yes Manteca fat soap Yes Result detergents wastewater for sulfate ions contaminants are showing in table 4. Table 4: Detergents wastewater for sulfate ions contaminates. Waste Water White Precipitate formed Detergent #1 Yes Detergent #1 Yes Manteca fat Yes Vegetable oil Yes Cisco fat soap Yes Olive Oil Yes Result for Testing the lathering ability in waste waters with soaps and detergent are showing in table 5 Table 5: Results for lathering ability in these waters Soap Type Bubbles formed Vegetable Soap Yes, few Manteca fat Yes Olive Oil Yes, few Crisco Yes, few Flame test result is showing in table 6.7 Table 6: Flame test Water Type Flame Pond Water No Color appeared Well Water No Color appeared Result for best soap or detergent for cleaning the dirt is showing in table 7 Table 7: Best soap/detergent cleaning ability Soap Type Dirt removed from the cloth Manteca Yes OH- concentration in wastewater result are showing in table 8. 8 Sample calculations: concentration of OH- in the waste water = (concentration of HCl X volume of HCl added) /(volume of wastewater) Table 8: OH- Concentration in wastewater mL of 0.18 mL NaOH mL of 0.89 M HCl used mL of wastewater used Soap Type/detergent type OH- in the waste water of soap/ H+waste water for detergents 0 mL 3.6mL 8.0 mL Vegetable Soap 0.40 M 0 mL 3.5 mL 8.0 mL Manteca soap 0.39 M 0 mL 2.6 mL 8.0 mL Olive Oil 0.29 M 0 mL 7.8mL 8.0 mL Crisco 0.87 M 10.8 mL 0 mL 8.0 mL Detergent 1 0.24 M 47.3 mL 0 mL 6.4 mL Detergent 2 1.33 M Discussion The Properties of soaps results in table 1 indicated all soaps dissolve the oil. This means all soaps are effectives in cleaning the shores, but detergents are not. The soap made by Manteca fat has the lowest pH level among the other soap are made in this experiment, while the other soaps were more basic. pH level higher than 8 mean high concentration of OH- ions which will have negative impact on the environment.10 This is confirmed by the results in table 8 as well. Table 8 calculated OH- concentrations for all soaps and Manteca also had the lowest. Also from table 5 Manteca soap formed the highest amount of bubbles, which mean hydrophilic/hydrophobic parts are most present. The more present hydrophilic/hydrophobic parts the better in cleaning, because oil particles will dissolve easily.3 In the test to clean the dirt from table 7, Manteca soap was able to clean dirt effectively. Table 2 shows the detergents have high level concentration of H+ ions which is dangerous to the environment.10 Table 2 also shows detergents are not efficient in dissolving oil spills. So, they will not be useful for future use. In the test for chloride ions contaminations from table 3 showed all soaps solutions contained chloride ions which is a contaminant. Also, table 4 shows the presence of sulfate ions in all the soap solutions. This is an unexpected result in this experiment because the presence of contaminants is dangerous to the species in water. Sulfate ions are capable in forming concentrated acids which have the ability in forming scum instead of lather which is toxic to the envrioment.11 The same impact is caused by chloride ions. The problem of conducting this experiment is the concentration of Chloride and Sulfate ions are unknown in the soap solutions, so their dangerous level in the environment is uncertain. The result of flame test from table 6 shows negative (no color) result for both pond and well water. The negative results indicate Ca2+ ions are not present in the solution. If they were present, the flame color would be red. Also, no color appeared on both flame tests indicates Mg2+ ions are absent also, otherwise the flame color would be yellow. Negative result for both Ca2+ and Mg2+ indicates both well and pond water is useful to use with soap in cleaning the shores. The presence of Ca2+ or Mg2+ ions in the water are unacceptable, because both of these ions will react with soap. The reaction’s result will be forming of insoluble materials, known as scum, this will be unsafe for species in that environment.1x The interpretation of the results overall is Manteca soap has the lowest negative impact on the environment and useful for further use. Its pH level was lowest among all other soaps, and was capable on forming the most bubbles meaning most effective. The result of Chloride and Sulfate ions in Manteca soap does not support this conclusion because they are contaminants and their concentrations is unknown. Conclusion The results above show the soap made by Manteca fat is the most useful soap, because its fast cleaning ability in removing dirt and dissolving oil spills. Manteca fat soap is the only soap met the goals of the project. The concentration of OH- and H+ was not high neither low of Manteca soap, and their levels were in middle of other soaps were made. This indicate Manteca soap is an environmental friendly soap and its negative impact will not be extreme. The experiment also found all soaps solutions, including Manteca fat solutions, contained Chloride and Sulfate ions. It’s better to calculate the concentrations of these ions before using any of theses soaps in the environment. Reference Oil Tanker Spill Statistics 2016 http://www.itopf.com/knowledge-resources/data-statistics/statistics/ (accessed Mar 2, 2017). How do you clean up an oil spill? https://www.ceoe.udel.edu/oilspill/cleanup.html (accessed Mar 2, 2017). Soap http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/554soap.html (accessed Mar 2, 2017). Ward, J. (2015). Soaps and detergents. https://mynotebook.labarchives.com/ (acceded Feb 28, 2017). Features, V. W. Pond or Lake Water Chemistry http://www.vertexwaterfeatures.com/pond-water-chemistry (accessed Mar 2, 2017). Scott, G. Michigan State University, Michigan, MI. Personal communication, 2017 Pospy, R. Michigan State University, Michigan, MI. Personal communication, 2017 Alnaji, H. Michigan State University, Michigan, MI. Personal communication, 2017 CHLORIDE AND SULFATE http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water-education2/76-chloride-sulfate.htm (accessed Mar 2, 2017). Oram, P. G. M. B. The pH of water http://www.water-research.net/index.php/ph (accessed Mar 27, 2017). Sulfate and water quality http://ky.gov/nrepc/water/ramp/rmso4.htm (accessed Mar 27, 2017). Hard Water http://home.freeuk.com/braybrook/Form_5/Lower_school_notes/hard_water.htm (accessed Mar 27, 2017).