# Detergent-free cleaning? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 7, 2005, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detergent-free-cleaning/288775 "2005-02-07T06:34:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Essured](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/278dde/32.png) [@Essured](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Essured)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detergent-free-cleaning/288775/1 "2005-02-07T06:34:24Z")
I have a few questions about a recent article I came across, and was hoping someone with relevant knowledge could assist: [Pure water washes greener](http://rolos.nature.com/news/2005/050124/pf/050124-3_pf.html) [For clean clothes, just add water](http://www.smh.com.au/news/Science/For-clean-clothes-just-add-water/2005/02/06/1107625066762.html) Is this a ‘new’ discovery, or is it something that has been known for a while? Does it sound ‘legit’ to those with chemistry knowledge? Could this be readily applied to domestic situations? If it is as good as it sounds (unless you are a detergent stockholder/employee, of course), how long, realistically may it be before applications of this technology are publically available. If a new method of cleaning was to become widespread using this technology, could it feasibly mean an end (or at least a huge decrease) to detergent use in the household? Thanks in advance. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detergent-free-cleaning/288775/2 "2005-02-07T07:08:10Z")
> [@Essured](#): > > I have a few questions about a recent article I came across, and was hoping someone with relevant knowledge could assist: > > [Pure water washes greener](http://rolos.nature.com/news/2005/050124/pf/050124-3_pf.html) > [For clean clothes, just add water](http://www.smh.com.au/news/Science/For-clean-clothes-just-add-water/2005/02/06/1107625066762.html) > > Is this a ‘new’ discovery, or is it something that has been known for a while? > Does it sound ‘legit’ to those with chemistry knowledge? > Could this be readily applied to domestic situations? > If it is as good as it sounds (unless you are a detergent stockholder/employee, of course), how long, realistically may it be before applications of this technology are publically available. > If a new method of cleaning was to become widespread using this technology, could it feasibly mean an end (or at least a huge decrease) to detergent use in the household? > > Thanks in advance. In looking further into the original article, it is punctuated with conjecture. No clothes has yet to been cleaned using this method. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detergent-free-cleaning/288775/3 "2005-02-07T07:25:25Z")
IIRC, there’s a sense in which all detergent does is “make water wetter”. That is, it allows water to get into stains to do its job better. One end of a soap molecule “likes” water, while the other “likes” soap. Now, whether the problem of miscibility is truly about dissolved air, I don’t know. That’s really the question. Further, this still won’t take care of anything that bleaches are used for nowadays. ---
**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detergent-free-cleaning/288775/4 "2005-02-07T07:37:01Z")
> [@Mathochist](#): > > while the other “likes” soap. Make that “‘likes’ oil”. I’m getting too old to be up at 3. ---
**Author:** ![SavageNarce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@SavageNarce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SavageNarce)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detergent-free-cleaning/288775/5 "2005-02-07T12:37:42Z")
I was unable to open the second link, so my post will deal with the information in the first link only. My handy-dandy dictionary defines **detergent** as: > [@](#): > > any of numerous synthetic water-soluble or liquid organic preparations that are chemically different from soaps but are able to emulsify oils, hold dirt in suspension, and act as wetting agents So for degassed water to substitute for detergent, it would have to do three things: emulsify oils (mix with them so that they do not separate immediately back into oil and water), hold dirt in suspension (keep it from re-settling on the clothes being cleaned) and act as a wetting agent (reduce the surface tension and prevent the clothing from repelling the water). The article says that degassed water seems to be able to mix with oils more readily than regular water, but does it do so any better or worse than tap water mixed with detergent? Dirt suspension and wetting capability are not really mentioned, but I doubt that degassing water would give it all three properties of a detergent. And my alarm bells start to jangle when I see “loaded” phrases like: > [@](#): > > detergents can fertilize algal growth so much that animals in swamps and lakes are harmed Algal bloom _can_ occur when detergents containing phosphates break down, but a) it can also occur for many other reasons, like fertilizer runoff, b) that’s why phosphate-free detergents have become _de rigeur_ in so many areas, and c) algal bloom isn’t “cute” enough, so we have to play the “hurts da widdle fuzzy animals” card :mad: ---
**Author:** ![flodnak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/838e76/32.png) [@flodnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flodnak)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detergent-free-cleaning/288775/6 "2005-02-07T13:26:41Z")
It might also be useful to note that if you use the amount of detergent recommended on the package, unless your clothes are heavily soiled, you’re using more than you need to. You can do your clothes, your skin, the environment \and\ your wallet a favor by experimenting a bit - see how far you can cut down and still get your clothes clean. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [February 7, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/detergent-free-cleaning/288775/7 "2005-02-07T16:05:34Z")
_Consumer Reports_ did a report on laundry detergents a couple of years ago (that also referenced their earlier tests of those “miracle” plastic laundry balls). As part of their tests, they also did loads without any detergents. Clothes without detergent washing came out almost as well as those washed with detergents as long as they had only light soiling (such as office workers would get). Presumably this is how the “miracle” balls “worked”: They really did nothing but the results were still close on many things. As to the gas-free water in the OP links: it’s only a test-tube thing. How on earth are you going to keep air from dissolving back into the water under agitation? Especially since front loading washers are becoming the standard?