Upload
hoangxuyen
View
224
Download
4
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FINAL VERSION
LADECO: Laundry Detergents Eco-labelling
Service Offer Subject: Revision of the EU Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents
Proposal reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
LEITAT Technological Center
c/ de la Innovació,2
08225 – Terrassa (Barcelona)
SPAIN
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-2-
INDEX
CONTENTS:
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 5
2. SUMMARY REPORT ON WASHING HABITS ........................................................................... 6
2.1. EUROPEAN MARKET ...................................................................................................... 6
2.2. OBJECTIVE ..................................................................................................................... 7
2.3.- FACTORS TO BE ASSESSED ............................................................................................ 7
a) Washing frequency: ...................................................................................................... 8
b) Pre-wash: ..................................................................................................................... 9
c) Washing temperature (ºC): ......................................................................................... 10
d) Water consumption: ................................................................................................... 13
e) Laundry product categories: ....................................................................................... 15
f) Dosages (g/wash): ....................................................................................................... 17
g) Food habits: ................................................................................................................ 18
h) Changes in the composition of textiles and fibres: ...................................................... 21
2.4. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 24
3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS REPORT ...................................................................................... 25
3.1. OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................... 25
3.2. DESCRIPTION OF WORK .............................................................................................. 25
a) Evaluation of A.I.S.E. minimum protocol for comparative laundry detergent
testing: ........................................................................................................................... 26
b) Evaluation of EU Ecolabel laundry detergent performance test: ........................... 27
c) Comparative analysis of both methods: ................................................................... 28
3.3. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 30
4. REPORT ON PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS .................................................. 31
4.1. OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................... 31
4.2. APPROACH TO THE NEW PERFORMANCE TEST PROTOCOL ......................................... 32
a) Products .............................................................................................................. 32
- Definition of “laundry detergent” ....................................................................... 32
- Classification of laundry detergents .................................................................... 32
- Reference detergent ........................................................................................... 33
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-3-
- Definition of “stain removers” ............................................................................ 33
- Classification of “stain removers” ...................................................................... 33
b) Input conditions ................................................................................................... 34
- Water quality ..................................................................................................... 34
- Water temperature ............................................................................................ 34
- Amount of water in the washing cycle ................................................................ 35
- Load pre-treatment ............................................................................................ 36
- Wash program ................................................................................................... 37
- Laundry detergent dosage .................................................................................. 37
- Stain removers dosage ....................................................................................... 38
- Stains ................................................................................................................. 38
- Ballast load ........................................................................................................ 39
- Number of cycles ................................................................................................ 39
- Fabrics ............................................................................................................... 40
- Dyes ................................................................................................................... 41
- Dry and iron conditions ...................................................................................... 41
c) Tests ........................................................................................................................ 42
- A.I.S.E. minimum protocol .................................................................................. 42
- EU Ecolabel performance laundry detergents ..................................................... 42
d) Characteristics of equipment ............................................................................... 43
- Washing machine............................................................................................... 44
- Reflectance measurement instrument ................................................................ 44
- Laundering device for Dye Transfer Inhibition ..................................................... 45
e) Measurements..................................................................................................... 45
4.3. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................. 47
5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 51
6. STAKEHOLDERS LIST ........................................................................................................... 52
6.1. OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................... 52
6.2. ORGANISATIONS ......................................................................................................... 52
a) European Testing Institutes................................................................................. 52
b) Laundry Detergents Producers ............................................................................ 54
c) Ecolabel License Holders ......................................................................................... 55
d) Associations and corporate agents...................................................................... 57
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-4-
ANNEX 1 ................................................................................................................................. 60
a) Heavy Duty Reference Detergent .............................................................................. 60
b) Low Duty Reference Detergent ...................................................................................... 61
ANNEX 2 ................................................................................................................................. 62
a) A.I.S.E. minimum performance test: .......................................................................... 62
b) EU Ecolabel performance test .................................................................................... 62
ANNEX 3 ................................................................................................................................. 63
ANNEX 4 ................................................................................................................................. 64
ANNEX 5 ................................................................................................................................. 65
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-5-
1. INTRODUCTION
Performance Testing is the most usual and common way to assess product quality and
product competitiveness in the Laundry & Home Care markets.
There are, at least, two main methods currently used to assess the effectiveness of a
laundry detergent:
- A.I.S.E. minimum protocol for comparative laundry detergent testing
- EU Ecolabel laundry detergents performance test
The A.I.S.E. minimum protocol is nowadays frequently used to make comparative
statements among detergents in disputed marketing claims. Additionally, this protocol is also
extensively used by reputed European labs to deliver benchmark studies for consumer
associations.
Both methods (the A.I.S.E. protocol and the EU Ecolabel washing method) pursue the
same objective: be an objective basis to compare stain removal efficiency against relevant,
market-driven products. However, the existing differences between them are significant in
some key factors. A rational mix of advantages from both with additional, updated
considerations would lead to a clearly improved testing method proposal.
A revision of the different pros and cons from both methods, as well as the integration
of recent product developments in the field of washing detergency suggest the need to
provide an updated protocol that takes advantages of all the relevant and recent
developments maximizing the already existing pros and minimizing the current cons.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-6-
2. SUMMARY REPORT ON WASHING HABITS
2.1. EUROPEAN MARKET
According to the A.I.S.E. (Association Internationale de la Savonnerie, de la Detergence
et des Produits d´Entretien) Annual Review 2008 “Towards a sustainable cleaning: A.I.S.E.
highlights from 2008”, the overall total household value in Europe (EU 27 + Norway and
Switzerland) for 2008 is estimated to have reached € 29,1 billion in 2008 (€ 28,7 billion in 2007)
and shows a growth approximately 1,4%:
% Household products
49%
16%
14%
13%
5% 3%Fabric washing
Hard Surface Cleaners
Dish Cleaning
Maintenance products
Soaps
Bleaches
Graph 1: Household products used in Europe (%)
Fabric Washing accounts for almost half this size of the total value, including
household laundry washing products such as heavy & low duty detergents, fabric conditioners,
laundry aids and care.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-7-
2.2. OBJECTIVE
The specific objective of this deliverable is, as previously defined, to review the current
situation within the European Union regarding different consumer habits, such as: wash
frequency, new product categories, dosages, pre-wash frequencies, washing temperatures,
etc.…
Gathering information on consumer habits at European level is a very important factor
not to be neglected, since the cultural frame fixes certain parameters in the washing process
that may be relevant later, in the product use phase. The aim of this review is to adjust the real
problems linked to different consumer habits in order to adapt them if feasible to the new
Ecolabel performance criteria.
Due to the logical limitations linked to confidentiality, the information provided here
has been extracted from easily accessible sources, mainly provided by the Industry itself in
several open communications.
2.3.- FACTORS TO BE ASSESSED
There are several crucial factors during the washing process. Some of these factors
have been changing along time due to the influence of changing consumer habits. The
relevance of these changes needs to be assessed in order to fix the new performance criteria.
Some of these factors are:
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-8-
a) Washing frequency1:
The next table shows a growing trend in the frequency of laundry washes in
Europe.
Year Wash / week
2002 4,38
2004 4,50
2009 6,00
Table 1: Washing frequency in Europe
The average number of washloads per week in European households has
increased steadily along the recent years. Which reasons lay behind this effect are still to be
clearly identified and balanced but there is a clear trend linked to an increased consumption.
Wash frequency (2002 to 2009)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
2002 2004 2009
Year
wa
sh /
we
ek
Graphic 2: Wash frequency in Europe (2002 to 2009)
1Sources: Institut für Landtechnik (Sektion Haushaltstechnik) and Science in the box (www.scienceinthebox.com)
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-9-
b) Pre-wash2:
The next table shows a decrease trend in the pre-wash in Europe.
Year %
2002 12,2
2004 7,5
Table 2: Pre-wash in Europe
On the other hand, a clear trend showing a decrease in the habit of pre-
washing (most probably linked to the increased awareness of European consumers on saving
of chemicals and energy) is clearly stated.. Most producers of laundry products also do not
promote pre-washing in their recommendation to consumers, but concentrated or more active
products leading to reduced laundry washing times.
% pre-wash in Europe (2002 to 2004)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2002 2004
%
Graphic 3: Pre-wash in Europe
2 Source: Institut für Landtechnik (Sektion Haushaltstechnik) and Science in the box (www.scienceinthebox.com)
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-10-
c) Washing temperature (ºC)3:
Between 1996 and 2001, the average washing temperature decreased 6,4% in
Europe (from 48 ºC to 46 ºC). The next table shows a further decrease of washing
temperatures in Europe between 2002 and 2009:
2002 2004 2009
Temperature (ºC) % Temperature (ºC) % Temperature (ºC) %
30 37,8 30 26,0 30 54,0
40 34,4 40 28,0 40 35,0
50 4,6 60 31,0 60 11,0
60 18,2 90 6,0
90 5,0
Table 3: Washing temperatures in Europe
Graphic 4: Wash temperatures in Europe
3 Source: Cleanright, A.I.S.E. (www.cleanright.eu ) and Science in the box (www.scienceinthebox.com)
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-11-
A clear decrease of the average washing temperature in laundry washing has a
crucial influence in the whole washing process. Previous Life Cycle Analysis studies of Laundry
Detergents have shown that, by far, the most relevant step in energy consumption is strictly
linked to the product use phase4: washing itself. Therefore, a substantial reduction of average
washing temperatures leads to substantial savings directly, and shapes significant changes in
the product formulations.
Energy consumption during washing and drying has a significant contribution
to the overall impacts. As most of the energy consumed during washing is used to warm water,
reducing the temperature of washing could provide significant benefits. Washing at 40ºC
instead of 60ºC saves 40% energy, and 60ºC compared to 90ºC saves 40%5.
The next graphic6 shows a further decrease of energy consumption in Europe
between 1997 and 2005. Considering a base level in 1992 of 0,30 kWh/kg, saving has been
37% of energy consumption per loading:
Graphic 5:Washing machines. Energy consumption in Europe
4 Life Cycle Analysis Laundry Detergents A.I.S.E Internal report 5 Market Transformation Programme, (2007) Briefing note BNW05: Assumptions underlying the energy projections for domestic washing machines 6 “Washing machines development”, Prof. Dr. Rainer Stamminger
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-12-
The next graphic6 shows evolution of energy efficiency class in washing
machines between 1997 and 2005.
Graphic 6: Washing machines. Energy efficiency class in Europe
The next graphic6 shows the evolution of washing performance class in
washing machines between 1997 and 2005.
Graphic 7: Washing machines. Washing performance class in Europe
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-13-
Drying has also a significant contribution to the overall impacts. Next graphic6
shows evolution of drying efficiency class in washing machines between 1997 and 2005.
Graphic 8: Washing machines .Drying efficiency class in Europe
d) Water consumption:
Clothes cleaning is a source of various environmental impacts, linked to the
consumption of water, energy and detergent.
Depending on the model of washing machine, for each washing, 100 liters of
water are consumed. The average consumption is calculated for a normal cotton program. But
the consumption of water and energy vary from one program to another. For example, there
are differences between normal cotton programs at 90ºC and synthetic programs at 40ºC
(between 20 and 50 liters of water consumption7), depending on the model of washing
machine.
Differences in axis washing machine are one parameter to take into account
for the water consumption. Vertical axis consumption is, generally, greater than 0,39 kWh/kg
and water consumption around 20 L/kg. Horizontal axis, which dominates the European
7 http://www.miliarium.com/Monografias/Sequia/Consumo_Agua.htm
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-14-
market, use 0,19 kWh/kg and 8 L/kg. Its efficiency has been improved significantly over the last
13 years through technical improvements8.
Figure 1. Horizontal axis washing machine Figure 2. Vertical axis washing machine
The next graphic6 shows the evolution of average-water consumption in L in
washing machines between 1997 and 2005.
Graphic 9: Washing machines. Average-water consumption in L in Europe
8 “Reducing the environmental impact of clothes clearing”, December 2009, DEFRA
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-15-
The next graphic6 shows the evolution of average-water consumption per kg in
washing machines between 1997 and 2005. The graphic shows a decrease on water
consumption per kg of 31%.An improvement of 0,28l/kg per year is also due to higher
capacities of washing machines.
Graphic 10: Washing machines. Average-water consumption per kg in Europe
e) Laundry product categories9:
The diversity of marketed products addressed to be used during a washing
process has increased along the recent years. As well as the diversity, the balance between
clearly differentiated product types has also changed substantially. The following data indicate
show this trend:
Product Category %
Normal powder 47,0
Compact powder 9,2
Tablets 12,8
Liquid 28,6
Liquid tabs 2,4
Table 4: Types of detergents used in Europe in 2002
9 Source: A.I.S.E. Annual Review (www.aise.eu/downloads/AISE_AR2008FINAL.pdf) and Science in the box (www.scienceinthebox.com)
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-16-
Types of detergents used (2002)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Normal
powder
Compact
powder
Tablets Liquid Liquid tabs
%
Graphic11: Types of detergents used in Europe in 2002
·In 2008:
Graphic 12: Types of detergents used in Europe in 2008
·Black line: Total Europe
·Blue line: Western Europe
·Yellow line: Eastern Europe
·Orange line: Southern Europe
·Green line: UK / Ireland
·Dark blue line: Scandinavia
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-17-
The comparison between both pictures shows a clear trend in the use of liquid laundry
products, while solid laundry products either stagnate or achieve lower consumption rates.
The increased use of liquid detergents has a strong impact in the consumption of
certain differentiated raw materials, reduced washing temperatures and average dosages.
f) Dosages (g/wash)10:
Year g/wash
Prior 1998 150
1998 135
2000 121
2002 110
Table 5: Dosage (g/wash) used in Europe in 2002
Dosage g/wash
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Prior to 1998 1998 2000 2002
g /
wa
sh
Graphic 13: Dosage (g/wash) used in Europe
10 Source: A.I.S.E.Annual Review (www.aise.eu/downloads/AISE_AR2008FINAL.pdf)
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-18-
The clear trend towards a reduction of the average dosage of laundry
detergents is the outcome of several reasons:
- Increased relevance of concentrated products in the market
- Increased consumer awareness at European level on savings of energy
and chemicals
- Increased relevance of liquid products in the market
- Industry campaigns promoting reduction of chemicals and packages,
and lower washing temperatures.
g) Food habits:
The European Union is subject to food habits changes. This process is slow
because of persistent regional and cultural differences. Consumers have different food habits,
moreover, consumers are better educated and informed and they demand a larger variety of
food products of higher quality.
Pro
po
sal
Re
fere
nce
: E
NV
.G.1
/SE
R/2
00
9/0
09
3rl
Fin
a l
Ve
rsio
n
-19
-
Th
e n
ext
tab
le (
tab
le 6
) sh
ow
s th
e fo
od
exp
end
itu
re s
tru
ctu
re in
EU
co
un
trie
s. T
en f
oo
d c
ateg
ori
es a
re c
on
sid
ered
:
Co
un
trie
s B
read
& c
erea
ls
(%)
Mea
t
(%)
Fish
(%)
Milk
, ch
eese
& e
ggs
(%)
Oils
& f
ats
(%)
Fru
it &
veg
etab
les
(%)
Po
tato
es
(%)
Suga
r
(%)
Co
ffee
, tea
& c
oco
a
(%)
Oth
er
(%)
Au
stri
a
Bel
giu
m
Den
mar
k
Fin
lan
d
Fran
ce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Irel
and
Ital
y
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Net
her
lan
ds
No
rway
Po
rtu
gal
Spai
n
Swed
en
G. B
rita
in
17,0
0
16,5
0
16,5
2
15,6
7
15,6
0
17,3
4
11,3
0
16,0
0
17,7
9
15,3
0
19,0
0
11,2
0
15,3
0
13,4
2
16,2
0
17,3
5
26,8
0
27,9
0
23,3
1
20,0
0
34,3
0
28,5
5
30,0
0
26,0
0
28,0
4
32,3
0
22,5
0
24,0
0
29,7
0
30,2
4
23,2
0
25,8
0
2,60
6,30
6,15
3,72
4,70
2,43
6,10
3,00
7,58
4,20
2,43
6,80
15,5
0
13,3
2
5,20
5,14
16,2
0
12,4
0
14,3
3
18,1
2
14,6
0
15,0
3
16,3
0
15,0
0
16,4
5
13,4
0
16,2
7
19,5
0
11,9
0
14,1
3
17,4
0
14,6
5
4,10
2,90
3,29
2,95
2,60
3,72
6,20
3,00
5,94
3,50
2,65
2,90
5,70
4,27
3,90
2,63
14,5
0
14,6
0
14,5
4
15,8
6
16,1
0
14,4
9
18,3
0
13,0
0
12,3
3
15,5
0
15,7
1
14,4
0
13,4
0
16,9
2
9,90
20,1
7
1,20
2,50
2,68
2,90
1,70
2,01
2,20
4,00
4,11
1,70
2,25
3,30
4,00
1,89
3,80
2,30
1,30
0,50
0,62
1,37
0,60
0,84
1,20
1,00
1,07
0,60
0,74
0,90
1,30
0,73
0,80
1,26
4,00
2,60
4,39
4,21
2,20
0,14
1,60
2,00
3,22
2,70
4,30
3,40
1,40
1,59
4,50
2,96
12,3
0
13,8
0
14,1
7
15,2
0
7,60
15,4
5
6,70
17,0
0
3,45
10,8
0
14,0
0
13,6
0
1,80
3,49
15,1
0
7,71
Ave
rage
15
,70
27
,00
5,
90
15,3
7
3,70
15
,00
2,
70
0,93
2,
86
10,7
0
Ta
ble
6: F
ood
exp
end
itu
re in
EU
Cou
ntri
es1
1
1
1 É
cono
mie
s et
Soc
iété
s, S
érie
“Sy
stèm
es a
gro
alim
enta
ires
”, A
G, n
º24,
10-
11/2
000,
p. 3
9-48
Pro
po
sal
Re
fere
nce
: E
NV
.G.1
/SE
R/2
00
9/0
09
3rl
Fin
a l
Ve
rsio
n
-20
-
To f
ind
sim
ilari
ties
an
d d
iffe
ren
ces
acro
ss E
U c
ou
ntr
ies
a cl
ust
er a
nal
ysis
hav
e b
een
do
ne
(tab
le 7
12)
usi
ng
the
info
rmat
ion
sh
ow
n in
tab
le 1
.
Clu
ster
s C
ou
ntr
ies
Bre
ad &
ce
real
s (%
)
Mea
t (%
) Fi
sh
(%)
Milk
, ch
eese
&
eggs
(%
)
Oils
&
fats
(%
)
Fru
it &
ve
geta
ble
s (%
)
Po
tato
es
(%)
Suga
r (%
)
Co
ffee
, tea
&
coco
a (%
)
Oth
er
(%)
1
Au
stri
a G
. Bri
tain
N
eth
erla
nd
s
17,8
0
25,0
0
3,40
15
,70
3,
10
16,8
0
1,90
1,
10
3,70
11
,30
2
Fin
dla
nd
15,7
0
20,0
0
3,70
18
,10
2,
90
15,8
0
2,90
1,
40
4,20
15
,20
3
Bel
giu
m
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Fran
ce
Ger
man
y
16,2
0
24,2
0
4,80
15
,60
3,
40
12,5
0
3,50
0,
80
3,60
15
,40
4
Den
mar
k Ir
elan
d Sw
eden
16,2
0
24,2
0
4,80
15
,60
3,
40
12,5
0
3,50
0,
80
3,60
15
,40
5
Gre
ece
Spai
n
12,3
0
30,1
0
9,70
15
,20
5,
20
17,6
0
2,00
0,
90
1,60
5,
10
6
No
rway
11,2
0
24,0
0
6,80
19
,50
2,
90
14,4
0
3,30
0,
90
3,40
13
,60
7
Ital
y P
ort
uga
l
16,5
0
28,9
0
11,5
0
14,2
0
5,80
12
,80
4,
00
1,20
2,
30
2,60
Ta
ble
7: F
ood
exp
end
itu
re s
tru
ctu
re in
EU
- c
lust
ers
1
2 É
cono
mie
s et
Soc
iété
s, S
érie
“Sy
stèm
es a
gro
alim
enta
ires
”, A
G, n
º24,
10-
11/2
000,
p. 3
9-48
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-21-
Differences and similarities in consumer habits in EU are shown in the previous
tables.
The countries have been grouped according to their similarities, but between
different groups there are important differences in food habits.
h) Changes in the composition of textiles and fibres13:
During thousands of years, the textile market in Europe has developed with
the use of natural fibres. But during the last century, natural fibres have been replaced by
artificial and synthetic ones.
Since 1910, new families of artificial and synthetic textiles fibres are produced
with better mechanical and insulating properties. They are successful in the textile sector
because new functionalities like bactericidal, fire retardant, antistatic, etc, are incorporated.
Along the last decades, new textiles with high functionalities and new
properties have been developed. These are the textiles for technical use (TT). Technical textiles
are developed from synthetic fibres with improved properties. These fibres have higher
mechanical and thermal resistance. They are used in numerous applications like individual
protective equipment, intelligent textiles, impermeable, anti-bacterial, eco-textiles, etc.
Consumption of fibres for textiles for technical use (TT) has increased 11%
from 1980 to 27% in 1995.
Lately, textile finishing is a matter of great interest in order to get new
properties on textiles like anti-odour, anti-microbial, anti-mosquito, self-cleaning, easy-
cleaning, UV-protection, etc. These finishing are made through several technologies: as
coating, impregnation, padding or exhaustion. A current trend focuses on environmental-
friendly finishing on textiles.
Nowadays, a new era for natural bio-fibres has emerged with some interesting
properties like biodegradable behaviour or natural antimicrobial activity.
13 EURATEX (European Apparel and Textiles Organisation), Annual report, Activities of the year 2008. Vogler-Ludwig, Kart; Valente Ana Claudia; “Skills scenarios for the textiles, wearing apparent and Eláter products sector in the European Union”
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-22-
Related to consumer trends, in principle, consumer orientation appears to be
related to cultural attitudes. Clothing styles are determined by social status, business
conventions and historical traditions. The observation, therefore, is that consumers differ quite
strongly among Member States in EU regarding their fashion orientation, quality preferences
or price sensitivity. In parallel, fashion trends are spreading world-wide with the help of press
media and the internet. The use of “fashion scouts” indicates that these trends are created on
the streets rather than in design studios and confirms that the control of TCL producers and
retailers regarding fashion trends remains limited.
Consumer research points to substantial changes of consumer orientation in
clothing markets (Perotti- Reille 2008):
- Consumers are individualising; consumption detaches from basic needs,
becomes more hedonistic and has a strong emotional component.
- Consumers are professionalizing; they are better informed about products and
markets and develop their optimal purchasing strategies on this basis.
- Consumers want to be participatory; they want to interact with producers,
retailers and service providers on the type of products offered, quality, and
design. They want to be co-inventors.
- Consumers claim for social and ecological responsibility; the use of child-
labour, poor environmental conditions or bad product quality rapidly lead to a
boycott of certain brands or producers. This may even be extended to certain
regions or nations.
This leads to an increasing fragmentation of markets which calls for a change
in production regimes (overcoming mass production principles) and differentiated distribution
channels. The immaterial value of products is becoming important.
Real consumer behaviour, however, seems to be different: consumer prices for
wearing apparel are declining continuously, imports of mass-products from low-cost countries
are rising, and the big retail chains who offer low-price products are the winners in clothing
markets. Approaches to mass-customisation have more or less failed in the past and
individualised production only survived in highprice niches. Consumers are obviously very
price-sensitive and easily abandon their aspirations if they are not free. As UK research reveals,
a clear move in consumer behaviour is heading towards “a culture of cheap, disposable
fashion” (Allwood 2006).
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-23-
This does not indicate a fundamental change of consumer behaviour in the
near future. Consumer preferences appear to be stable as far as the principle orientation of
consumer behaviour is concerned, but they are variable regarding fashion styles. While
colours, cuts and fabrics are changing unpredictably, the principle consumer orientation and
behaviour will not change fundamentally.
This is also reflected in the continuous decline of the share of TCL consumption
in total consumer expenditures. Between 2000 and 2005 the share of clothing consumption in
total consumer expenditures declined from 5.2% to 4.7% (Table 8). This is 1/10th within five
years. The reduction was particularly strong in Slovakia and Ireland, but can be discerned in
almost all EU countries. In Sweden and the UK the share stagnated, and expanded in Denmark,
Finland, Estonia, and Lithuania.
Table 8: Private consumption and prices (EU27)
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-24-
2.4. CONCLUSIONS
Certain key factors in the washing process at European level have experienced relevant
changes following specific, consolidated trends along time. These trends shape a differentiated
washing process linked to differentiated consumer habits. Some of the most relevant changes
are:
- Increased average number of wash loads per week (clothes are washed
more often, some fibers used are more easily washed, in some cases
users have occupations in contact with less dirt, etc…)
- Reduction of pre-washing habits
- Increased use of liquid laundry products
- Reduction of washing temperatures. Liquid detergents allow obtain
good washing results at lower temperatures.
- Reduction of average product dosages
- Water consumption per wash load
- Changes in food habits
- Changes in the composition of textiles and fibres
Other sources of information indicate that other, non neglectable factors influencing
the laundry washing process are:
- Washing machines manufacturers offer shorter additional cycles.
- In order to obtain the classification on energy efficiency (A, A+, A++…),
manufacturers design machines that wash at lower temperatures.
- Increased use of laundry boosters.
- Increased use of laundry aids, especially on specific stains.
- Etc…
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-25-
All these changes and trends need to be carefully balanced in a working group in order
to reshape the method to assess product performance in the new Ecolabel criteria reflecting
them properly.
3. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS REPORT
3.1. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this task is reviewing the existing EU Ecolabel laundry detergents
performance test and A.I.S.E. minimum protocol for comparative laundry detergent testing in
order to determine the advantages and shortcomings of each one to take into consideration
for the future development of an alternative performance test.
The conclusions obtained in this task will be pooled with the stakeholders in order to shape a
new Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents.
3.2. DESCRIPTION OF WORK
A preliminary comparison of both methods will take the following topics into account:
- Efficiency aspects: analysis of costs, analysis of time required, analysis of the
completeness in relation with time and costs parameters…
- Quality aspects: statistical significance, accuracy of the tests, relevance of the
parameters considered, detail of instructions for the execution of the test…
- Validity respect to the state of the art: detergents types, additives, assay
conditions, laboratory equipments, number of cycles and parameters…
- Environmental sustainability: dosage of detergent, water and energy
employed for performing the test…
- Test execution time
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-26-
From this assessment, and taking into account the “Summary on washing habits”, we
propose an initial proposal of “Ecolabel laundry detergent performance test”, which will be
evaluated and discussed with the stakeholders to get a final proposal to performance test for
laundry detergents.
a) Evaluation of A.I.S.E. minimum protocol for comparative laundry detergent testing:
Please find below a pros & cons assessment
1. Shortcomings of the A.I.S.E. protocol
- Differences between types of stains and fabrics do not necessarily correlate
with the laundry detergent type to be tested.
- Fabric damage is not taken into consideration.
- No specific washing machine types are indicated: lack of reproducibility is a
real risk.
- No specific water hardness: no low or high water hardness scenarios are
taking into account.
- The indicated equipment to measure colour transfer inhibition may be too
specific to be replaced.
- No drying conditions are specified.
2. Pros of the A.I.S.E. protocol
- A wide range of products are covered: Universal detergent, specific detergent
and additives for laundry care.
- The test conditions (wash temperature, program…) can be adapted to the
needs of each country, according to the behaviour and consumer habits in
each area.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-27-
- The method allows varying the dosage in the washings if it is necessary.
- A wide range of stains are covered in this method.
- The simple size can be changed if necessary.
- Easy to find the set stains.
- “Natural” stains and “Standard” stains are covered in the set stains.
- For dye transfer essays, there are a wide range of colours for the donator
fabric.
- Whiteness measure covers a large number of habitual fabrics in textile
market –cotton, cotton/polyester, polyester, polyamide-.
b) Evaluation of EU Ecolabel laundry detergent performance test:
Please find below a pros & cons assessment:
1. Shortcomings of the EU Ecolabel washing method
- Washing additives are not taken into account, while the A.I.S.E. protocol
foresees how to integrate them.
- The defined reference detergent has become less and less significant in the
present market reality of washing powders (formulation ingredients and total
cost).
- The defined reference detergent is not adequate enough as a benchmark for
liquid detergents applying for the EU Ecolabel.
- The washing temperature does not take other, country-specific consumer
habits into account from different regions.
- Whiteness determination is based only on cotton garments; other fabrics are
not taken into consideration.
- Limited availability of standard stains to be tested (only EMPA and WFK).
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-28-
- In the dye transfer essays, the number of colours for the donator fabric is
very limited.
- Water hardness does not take the wide distribution among countries and
regions into account.
- Low number of stains for the comparisons (9 vs. 14)
- Gaps vs. premium leading brands
- High energy consumption linked to high rpm’s in centrifugation.
2. Pros of the EU Ecolabel washing method
- Previous Ecolabel washing method is reproducible and repeatable: the
method define the characteristics of the equipment to use and the conditions
of the essay (temperature, water hardness, rpm,…)
- The set stains cover a wide range of substrate fabrics.
- Easy to find the set stains.
- A large number of results are obtained with this method: It’s a reliable
method.
- Previous Ecolabel method takes into account the possible damage to the
fibre that a detergent can produce.
c) Comparative analysis of both methods:
The comparison of both methods is a good starting point to develop a proposal for a
new Ecolabel performance test. Beginning with the analysis for each method, we will make the
comparison of both tests, from which to make the first approach of the new test. The next
table shows the comparison of both methods (pros and cons):
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-29-
Methods
Parameters
A.I.S.E. EU Ecolabel
Pros Cons Pros Cons
Types products
Wide range (universal
detergents, specific
detergents, additives)
Low range of
products
Water hardness Less defined Defined Limited approach
Test conditions
(product dosage,
temperature…)
Adaptable to each
country/habits Not adaptable
Reference
detergent Not defined
Become less and less
significant
Not adequate for
liquid detergents
Characteristics
of equipment Not defined Defined
Dry conditions Not defined Defined
Stains
Wide range
Variable size
Easy to find
Natural and std
Wide range
Easy to find
Limited available
Low number of stains
comparison
Fabrics Wide range
(whiteness)
Not necessarily
correlate with the
product
Low range
(whiteness)
Not necessarily
correlate with the
product
Dye transfer Wide range
Easy to find Easy to find Few colours
Essays Fabric damage not
covered
Fabric damage
covered
Execution time Moderate Elevated
Table9. Comparative analysis of both methods
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-30-
As the table shows, there are several aspects to take into account in order to assess
each method. This is a good starting point in any review of previous methods in laundry
detergents performance tests.
3.3. CONCLUSIONS
The table 9 shows the most important pros and cons of the A.I.S.E. performance test
and the previous EU Ecolabel method for laundry detergents. From this “Comparative analysis
report” and the “Summary report on washing habits”, an initial proposal of the new EU
Ecolabel performance test will be made.
There are several differences –types of products, water hardness, reference detergent,
number of stains, number of fabrics, number of dye transfer fabrics, number of different
essays, adaptability, execution time…- and few similar parameters between both methods –
easy to find material, good statistics…-. Each variable will be evaluated with the stakeholders in
the meetings, but at least the following factors must be integrated in the definition of
technical specifications to be agreed upon the working group prior to the washing tests:
- Washing machine. Definition of the technical characteristics and, if possible, define
specific available options in the market meeting the defined requirements.
- Washing program.
- Washing temperature.
- Water hardness.
- Number of cycles required to obtain significant statistical results.
- Characteristics and amount of the needed washing load (composition and
necessary pre-treatment) .
- Detergent dosage.
- Reference product(s).
- Drying of fabrics and/or stains, defining certain conditions (tumble drying,
humidity, light…).
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-31-
- Laundry products to be tested.
- Ironing of fabrics and/or stains, defining, if needed, a specific temperature and
steam profile.
Regarding stain removal efficacy, a review of the currently used sets of stains based on
the previously identified relevant consumer habits will be needed.
The dye transfer inhibition measurements will be restricted to Colour Care Laundry
Products and will focus on how to avoid dye donation to white fabrics along the washing cycle.
As in previous cases, the experimental conditions should take the following factors into
account:
- Temperature.
- Dye donators.
- Dye acceptors.
- Lab Equipment (to be specified and technically characterized)
The next step is the definition of the new performance test. All the inputs proposed by
stakeholders will be considered in order to develop the final version of the new Ecolabel
performance test.
4. REPORT ON PRELIMINARY DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS
4.1. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this task is to suggest a wide range of parameters for the new
performance test to be discussed with the involved stakeholders in the Working Group. The
conclusions of the “Comparative Analysis Report” and “Summary Report on Consumer Habits”
will be taken as a preliminary basis in order to define the range of parameters to be brought
into discussion.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-32-
4.2. APPROACH TO THE NEW PERFORMANCE TEST PROTOCOL
In order to achieve the objective of this task, the following issues will be assessed:
- Products
- Input conditions
- Tests
- Quality assurance
a) Products
- Definition of “laundry detergent”
The “laundry detergents” in the discussion of the Working Group will be all
types of laundry detergents in their different forms -liquid, powder, tablets, etc...- used for
washing fabrics in washing machines.
- Classification of laundry detergents
The classification of laundry detergents in relation to the specific aim of
each product is:
o Heavy duty detergent (HDD): “universal” approach
o Low duty detergent (LDD): “delicate fabrics” approach
o Colour Safe Detergent (CSD): “coloured fabrics” approach
Any of these 3 types can be offered to consumers in different forms, and
also as concentrated or non concentrated products. All of them may refer to different
benchmarks to fulfill different consumer expectations. At least, the basic following split should
be assessed:
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-33-
Proposal of classification for Laundry Detergents
Nature
Type
Powder Liquid
HDD X X
LDD X X
CSD X X
Table 10. Proposal of classification for Laundry Detergents
- Reference detergent
The need of reference detergent formulations will be discussed. It is one
crucial factor in the whole test, since the market drivers and products change along time, and a
realistic benchmark is a must.
Annex 1 shows the previous formulation of a reference detergent in the
EU Ecolabel scheme.
- Definition of “stain removers”
Products that are used as stain removers for clothing, for soaking, as a
wash enhancer or for pre-washes or other equivalent functions.
- Classification of “stain removers”
As in the case of laundry detergents, it may also be necessary here to take
the liquid or powder nature of the laundry products into account
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-34-
b) Input conditions
The following set of parameters needs to be precisely defined in the new
performance test:
- Water quality
The effectiveness of a laundry detergent depends on the water hardness
degree. To obtain higher effectiveness in detergency, low water hardness levels are needed.
Specific ingredients in the detergent formulations (builders and co-builders) play this specific
role: reduction of water hardness.
The EU Ecolabel performance test specifies the water hardness degree in
the test as (2,5 ± 0,2) mmol/L calculated as CaCO3 or (14 ± 0,5)ºdH. The A.I.S.E. minimum
protocol does not specify a water hardness degree and leaves this decision depending on the
region of Europe where the product will be marketed. However, the variations of water
hardness in Europe are extremely wide. In order to get comparable results and assure the
necessary robustness of the method, a water hardness degree is needed.
. The water hardness degree for the new test can be kept as (2,5 ± 0,2)
mmol/L calculated as CaCO3.
- Water temperature
As in the previous case, water temperature has an important effect on the
effectiveness of a laundry detergent. To obtain higher effectiveness, higher temperatures help.
However, new generations of detergents based on activators and more active ingredients
along the last decades have proved to deliver comparable performance results at lower
temperatures.
The EU Ecolabel performance test fixes the water temperature in the test
at 40ºC for all types of detergents (heavy duty, colour safe and low duty) and programs. On the
other hand, the A.I.S.E. minimum protocol does not specify a washing temperature, leaving it
open and dependent on the country, the local washing habits and the type of detergent; 40ºC
is recommended for a Heavy Duty Detergent.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-35-
In order to get comparable results, a washing temperature value will be
necessarily defined. The following criteria
o Washing habits.
o Region of Europe.
o Type of detergent.
o Wash program.
may be taken into consideration in order to fix the washing temperature in the test.
A proper definition of the washing temperature may depend on the type
of detergent used for the test:
Heavy Duty Detergent Colour Safe Detergent Low Duty Detergent
Powder 30ºC 30ºC 30ºC
Liquid 30ºC 30ºC 30ºC
Table 11. Proposal of water temperature.
If there is a specific product especial for cold water, the temperature of
the essay may be changed.
- Amount of water in the washing cycle
Differences in the amount of water along the washing process can also
influence the effectiveness of a laundry detergent. Each model of washing machine needs a
specific amount of water depending on the washing program steps (washing, rising or
spinning). As in previous cases, it is also necessary in this case to provide either values or
criteria in order to obtain comparable results.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-36-
- Load pre-treatment
In both methods pre-treatment is recommended, but with some relevant
differences:
A.I.S.E. Ecolabel
Load (kg) 3 4
Number of washes 3 3
Temperature (ºC) 60 95
Program Cotton program Cotton program, without pre-wash and
with water plus.
Detergent Standard detergent Standard detergent
Table 12. Pre-treatment for each method
The previous table shows the differences among both methods.
A pre-treatment of the ballast load is necessary in order to get the same
starting in all the essays. Pre-treatment is recommended for the new EU Ecolabel performance
test for laundry detergents and laundry additives. The proposal for this aim is the following:
New Proposal
Load (kg) 4,5
Number of washes 3
Temperature (ºC) 60
Program Cotton program
Detergent Standard detergent
Table 13. Pre-treatment. New proposal
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-37-
- Wash program
The selection of the wash program is related to the type of detergent to
check. Both methods (A.I.S.E. minimum protocol performance test and EU Ecolabel
performance test, define a cotton normal wash to be used for Heavy Duty Detergents (HDD)
and Colour Safe Detergent (CSD). The option Delicate wash is recommended for a Low Duty
Detergent (LDD).
Heavy Duty Detergent Colour Safe Detergent Low Duty Detergent
Powder
Cotton program
1200rpm
Cotton program
1200rpm
Delicate program
600rpms
Liquid
Cotton program
1200rpm
Cotton program
1200rpm
Delicate program
600rpms
Table 14. Wash programs
o Stain removers
Since stain removers are usually combined with Heavy Duty
Detergents, the wash program to be chosen will be cotton normal wash. The same approach is
chosen for the new EU Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents and stain removers.
- Laundry detergent dosage
The detergent dosage is the recommended product dosage as
indicated by the detergent producer or distributor for “normally soiled” textiles, in both
methods. The approach for the new EU Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents and
stain removers is medium soil/ medium hard water recommendation for HDD and CSD
products and light soil/ medium hard water recommendation for LDD products.
Unit: g/wash for powder and ml/wash for liquid.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-38-
- Stain removers dosage
As in the previous case, the stain removers dosage is the
recommended product dosage as indicated by the detergent producer or distributor for
“normally soiled” textiles in both methods. The same approach is chosen for the new EU
Ecolabel performance test for laundry detergents and stain removers.
- Stains
o Stains set
In order to assess the performance of a laundry detergent, a
representative set of stains must be defined. This stains set must be composed of
representative stains, commonly found in Europe.
The A.I.S.E. minimum protocol and the EU Ecolabel performance
test define different stains sets. A.I.S.E., in its recommendation, takes 14 different stains into
account, being the same for all types of laundry detergents, while the EU Ecolabel fixes only 9
stains, being the stains in this case dependent on the type of laundry detergent. All stains are
commercially available.
Annex 2 shows the different stains set for each method.
o Soil
The aim of the soil in the test is to assess the anti-redeposition
capacity of the laundry detergent. It must be representative of the kind (pigments, fat,
proteins, hardness…) and amount of soiling usually being present in a “normally” soiled wash
load. Soil will be added in every wash. The needed soil is standardized and commercially
available.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-39-
- Ballast load
The purpose of the ballast load is to simulate the total weight of a
domestic washing process. The type of fabrics (cotton, polyamide…) and total weight (kg) is
defined by the type of wash (normal wash, delicate wash…).
The A.I.S.E. minimum protocol fixes a general composition for all types of
washing, while the total weight is defined by the type of wash. The EU Ecolabel performance
test fixes a composition and a total weight depending on the type of washing process.
The next table shows the recommendation for the ballast load:
Heavy Duty Detergent Colour Safe Detergent Low Duty Detergent
Powder Cotton Cotton Polyamide
Liquid Cotton Cotton Polyamide
Table 15. Wash loads
- Number of cycles
The chosen number of cycles has an impact on:
o The statistical significance of the obtained results
o The execution time
o Cost of the test (material, water, energy…)
Both methods (A.I.S.E. minimum protocol and EU Ecolabel performance
test) fix a different number of cycles taking the type of detergent to asses into account.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-40-
The next table shows the recommendation for number of cycles:
Test Number of cycles
Stain Removal Efficacy 6
Whiteness degree 15
Colour Maintenance 15
Dye Transfer inhibition 3
Table 16. Number of cycles
- Fabrics
Fabrics, in the performance tests, are used to assess the whiteness degree.
Each method uses different fabrics and compositions. In Europe, there are four main types of
fabrics14: Cotton, synthetic, wool and silk.
o A.I.S.E. minimum protocol performance test
Four different fabrics are used: cotton, cotton/polyester, polyester
and polyamide, for all types of detergents.
o EU Ecolabel performance test
Only one type of fabric is defined: cotton, for all types of products.
Standard fabrics are used in a different test too: Dye transfer inhibition. In
this case, two different fabrics are recommended: cotton (100%) and polyamide (100%) as
acceptors of dye.
Heavy Duty
Detergent
Colour Safe
Detergent
Low Duty
Detergent
Whiteness degree Cotton Cotton Cotton and
Polyester/cotton
Dye Transfer
Inhibition (acceptor) - Cotton
Polyamide and cotton
( if colour care is claimed)
Table 17.Type of fabrics
14 Source: Procter & Gamble
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-41-
- Dyes
Dyes are used in the executon of the Dye Transfer InhibitionTest.
A.I.S.E. EU Ecolabel New Proposal
Direct black 22
Direct orange 39
Direct Red 83.1
Acid blue 113
C.I. direct blue 71
C.I. reactive brown 7
C.I. sulphur blue 19
C.I. acid blue 113
Direct black 22
Direct orange 39
Direct Red 83.1
Acid blue 113
Table 18.Dyes
- Dry and iron conditions
In order to facilitate the data measurement, fabrics and stains should be
dried and iron after each washing.
o Dry conditions: the following parameters must be taken into
account:
� Light
� Humidity
� Air drying or not
� Dry temperature
o Iron conditions:
� Temperature
� Steam
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-42-
A.I.S.E. EU Ecolabel New Proposal
Dry No tumbling - No tumbling
Iron - 2 points (150ºC)without
steam
Flattering: 2 points (150ºC)without
steam
Table 19.Dry & iron conditions
In the table above, the conditions for each method (A.I.S.E., EU Ecolabel
and New proposal performance test) are shown
c) Tests
There are some differences in the type of tests to execute:
- A.I.S.E. minimum protocol
o Stain removal efficacy
o Whiteness degree
o Dye transfer inhibition
o Colour maintenance (for colour safe detergent)
- EU Ecolabel performance laundry detergents
o Stain removal efficacy
o Whiteness degree
o Dye transfer inhibition
o Physical fibre damage
o Chemical fibre damage
Regarding stain removal efficacy, and as stated above, it is mandatory to define a
new stains set (see annex 3) as well as the characteristics of the lab equipment (washing
machine, spectrophotometer…) for data measurement.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-43-
Information on whiteness degree is necessary to assess the degree of fabric
greying. The characteristics of the lab equipment and the types of fabrics will also be defined
as part of the new test.
The dye transfer inhibition is a specific test for Colour Safe Detergents. In this case,
the parameters of the test (temperature, dye donators and dye acceptors) and the
characteristics of lab equipment will be defined.
The colour maintenance test is a specific test for Colour Safe Detergents as in the
previous case. The objective of this test is to ensure the maintenance of the original colour in
fabrics after wash. The annex number 4 shows the table of the monitor set.
The aim of the physical fibre damage test is to asses the fabric resistance against
potentially aggressive ingredients.
The aim of the chemical fibre damage test is to assess the potential chemical
attack on fibre structures.
In both cases, physical and chemical testing on fibre damage, International
Standards are used.
It will be necessary to evaluate the number of recordings in order to get reliable
results. For the new performance test, the proposed tests are the following ones:
o Stain removal efficacy
o Whiteness degree
o Dye transfer inhibition: only for CSD*
o Colour maintenance: only for CSD*
*and HDD/ LDD if colour care is claimed
d) Characteristics of equipment
The characteristics of the lab equipment (washing machine, reflectance
measurement instrument and laundering device for Dye Transfer Inhibition test) will be
defined. The chosen equipments must be representative in the European market.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-44-
- Washing machine
The washing machine type must be electronically programmable, with a
wide range of programs (normal, delicate, short program, pre-treatment or not,
centrifugation…) and for different types of fabrics (cotton, synthetics, wool, silk…). The wash
temperature must be programmable too.
The washing machine will be used to wash the set of stains and the fabrics
(essays: stain removal efficacy, whiteness degree and fibre damage)
- Reflectance measurement instrument
This instrument must deliver measurement of the total reflectance over
the wavelength of visual filtering the UV part of the incoming spectrum by a filter. In this case,
the Y-value is determined taking different parameters into account:
o Measuring geometry: d / 8º.
o D65 / 10 observer.
o With UV filter (420nm cut off)15.
o Measuring diameter: minimum 20mm, but bigger is better.
o Without gloss
o Calibration: With white tiles and black trap. The measurements
shall be carried out at the least 8 hours after calibration.
The reflectance measurement instrument will be used to measure the
stains set, washing fabrics and dye transfer (tests: stain removal efficacy, whiteness degree,
dye transfer inhibition and colour maintenance).
15
The UV filter must, in any case, be adapted if 420nm is outweighed by the optical brightener.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-45-
- Laundering device for Dye Transfer Inhibition
The laundering device will be used to assess Dye Transfer Inhibition of
Colour Safe Detergents. The main characteristics in this case are:
o Bath temperature, thermostatically controlled to keep the
temperature of the test solution stable.
o Routable shaft with supports
o Supports:
� Material
� Diameter (cm)
� Height (cm)
� Capacity (ml)
o Frequency of rotation (rpm/min)
e) Measurements
Types of detergents: Heavy duty detergent, low duty detergent and colour
safe detergent.
Tests: Stain removal efficacy, whiteness degree, dye transfer inhibition and
colour maintenance.
Evaluation: It will be also necessary define the evaluation (how the
stains/fibres will be taken).
For each soil monitor at least two measurements are needed.
Standard deviation can be calculated from the total number of measurements. Since this is a
comparative test, the results will be compared. The product under test is classified as good if
the obtained results are comparable or better than the ones provided by the reference
detergent.
Whiteness degree requires four measurements for each fabric.
As in the stain removal efficacy, it is a comparative test, and the results will be compared. The
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-46-
product under test is classified as good if the obtained results are comparable or better than
the ones provided by the reference detergent.
Dye transfer inhibition and colour maintenance (for Colour
Safe Detergents and HDD/LDD if colour care is claimed), four measurements for each fabric
will be recorded. As in the previous cases, it is also a comparative test, and the results will be
compared. The product under test is classified as good if the obtained results are comparable
or better than the ones provided by the reference detergent.
Pro
po
sal
Re
fere
nce
: E
NV
.G.1
/SE
R/2
00
9/0
09
3rl
Fin
a l
Ve
rsio
n
-47
-
4.3
. C
ON
CLU
SIO
NS
Fin
al t
est
pro
toco
l16
PA
RA
ME
TE
RS
A.I
.S.E
.
MIN
IMU
M P
RO
TO
CO
L
EU
EC
OLA
BE
L
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E T
ES
T
NE
W P
RO
PO
SA
L W
HY
?
Re
fere
nce
de
terg
en
t N
on
e P
revi
ou
s fo
rmu
lati
on
N
ew f
orm
ula
tio
n C
urr
ent
refe
ren
ce
det
erge
nt
is o
bso
lete
Wa
ter
qu
ali
ty
Dep
end
ing
on
th
e
cou
ntr
y/re
gio
n
2,5
mm
ol/
L C
aCO
3 o
r (1
4 ±
0,5)
ºd
H
2,5
mm
ol/
L C
aCO
3 o
r (1
4 ±
0,5)
ºd
H
Med
ium
har
dn
ess,
go
od
aver
age
Wa
ter
tem
pe
ratu
re
Dep
end
ing
on
th
e
cou
ntr
y/re
gio
n
For
HD
D /
CSD
: 40ºC
For
LDD
: 20º
C
30ºC
(lo
wer
tem
per
atu
re if
nec
essa
ry)
Ove
rall
ener
gy r
edu
ced
Vo
lum
e o
f w
ate
r N
ot
spec
ific
N
ot
spec
ific
R
eco
mm
end
atio
n c
on
tro
l
alo
ng
was
hin
g p
roce
ss
Imp
rove
men
t o
f ac
cura
cy
Loa
d p
re-t
rea
tme
nt
3 w
ash
es, 6
0ºC
, no
rmal
co
tto
n
3 w
ash
es, 9
5ºC
, no
rmal
cott
on
3 w
ash
es, 6
0ºC
, no
rmal
cott
on
60
ºC r
equ
ires
less
en
ergy
Ta
ble
20
.Pro
posa
l
16
Rev
ised
EU
Eco
labe
l Per
form
ance
Tes
t for
Lau
ndry
Det
erge
nts
Pro
po
sal
Re
fere
nce
: E
NV
.G.1
/SE
R/2
00
9/0
09
3rl
Fin
a l
Ve
rsio
n
-48
-
PA
RA
ME
TE
RS
A.I
.S.E
.
MIN
IMU
M P
RO
TO
CO
L
EU
EC
OLA
BE
L
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E T
ES
T
NE
W P
RO
PO
SA
L W
HY
?
Co
lou
r m
ain
ten
an
ce
Def
ined
mo
nit
or
set
- D
efin
ed m
on
ito
r se
t (A
ISE)
(an
nex
4)
Co
lou
r ca
re im
po
rtan
t
Wa
sh p
rog
ram
For
HD
D /
CSD
: Co
tto
n
For
LDD
: Del
icat
e
For
HD
D /
CSD
: Co
tto
n
For
LDD
: Del
icat
e
For
HD
D/C
SD: C
ott
on
For
LDD
: Del
icat
e
Bo
th m
eth
od
s ag
ree
Do
sag
e
Pro
du
cer
reco
mm
end
atio
n
Pro
du
cer
reco
mm
end
atio
n
Pro
du
cer
reco
mm
end
atio
n
Bo
th m
eth
od
s ag
ree
Se
t st
ain
s 14
dif
fere
nt
stai
ns
9 d
iffe
ren
t st
ain
s N
ew s
et o
f st
ain
s (1
4)(A
ISE)
(an
nex
3)
14 d
iffe
ren
t st
ain
s co
ver
a
wid
er s
pec
tru
m
Sta
in s
et
size
(
12x1
2)cm
/ (
5x5)
cm
(12x
12)c
m
(12x
12)c
m /
(5x
5)cm
Ea
sin
ess
in d
ata
mea
sure
men
ts
So
il
SBL2
004
(4u
nit
s/w
ash
) SB
L ‘c
lass
ic’ (
2 u
nit
s/w
ash
)
HD
D/C
SD: 4
un
its/
was
h
stai
n r
emo
val
wh
iten
ess
d.
LDD
: 2u
nit
s/w
ash
It is
th
e co
rrec
t so
il fo
r
4,5k
g to
tal l
oad
.
Ba
lla
st L
oa
d
Co
tto
n
For
HD
D /
CSD
: co
tto
n
For
LDD
: po
lyes
ter
For
HD
D /
CSD
: co
tto
n
For
LDD
: po
lyes
ter
LDD
is u
sed
fo
r d
elic
ate
fib
res
(ex.
Pol
yam
ide)
Pro
po
sal
Re
fere
nce
: E
NV
.G.1
/SE
R/2
00
9/0
09
3rl
Fin
a l
Ve
rsio
n
-49
-
PA
RA
ME
TE
RS
A.I
.S.E
.
MIN
IMU
M P
RO
TO
CO
L
EU
EC
OLA
BE
L
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E T
ES
T
NE
W P
RO
PO
SA
L W
HY
?
Nu
mb
er
of
cycl
es
6 cy
cles
min
imu
m (
all e
ssay
s /
all d
eter
gen
ts)
For
HD
D/C
SD: 2
5cyc
les
For
LDD
: 15
cyc
les
Stai
n r
emo
val:
6 cy
cles
Wh
iten
ess
deg
ree
& C
olo
ur
Mai
nte
nan
ce: 1
5cy
cles
DTI
: 3 c
ycle
s
A m
inim
um
nu
mb
er o
f
cycl
es is
nec
essa
ry,
Fa
bri
cs (
Wh
ite
ne
ss d
eg
ree
)
Co
tto
n
Co
tto
n/P
oly
este
r
Po
lyes
ter
Po
lyam
ide
Co
tto
n
Co
tto
n
Each
typ
e o
f d
eter
gen
t fo
r
each
typ
e o
f fa
bri
cs
Fa
bri
cs (
DT
I)
Co
tto
n a
nd
po
lyam
ide
Co
tto
n a
nd
po
lyam
ide
Co
tto
n a
nd
po
lyam
ide
Bo
th m
eth
od
s ag
ree
Dy
es
Dir
ect
bla
ck 2
2
Dir
ect
ora
nge
39
Dir
ect
Red
83.
1
Aci
d b
lue
113
C.I.
dir
ect
blu
e 71
C.I.
rea
ctiv
e b
row
n 7
C.I.
su
lph
ur
blu
e 19
C.I.
aci
d b
lue
113
Dir
ect
bla
ck 2
2
Dir
ect
ora
nge
39
Dir
ect
Red
83.
1
Aci
d b
lue
113
Wid
e sp
ectr
um
of
colo
urs
Pro
po
sal
Re
fere
nce
: E
NV
.G.1
/SE
R/2
00
9/0
09
3rl
Fin
a l
Ve
rsio
n
-50
-
PA
RA
ME
TE
RS
A
.I.S
.E.
MIN
IMU
M P
RO
TO
CO
L
EU
EC
OLA
BE
L
PE
RF
OR
MA
NC
E T
ES
T
NE
W P
RO
PO
SA
L W
HY
?
Dry
& I
ron
co
nd
itio
ns
Dry
ing:
no
tu
mb
ling
Iro
nin
g: -
Dry
ing:
-
Iro
nin
g: 2
po
ints
(15
0ºC
)
wit
ho
ut
stea
m
Dry
ing:
no
tu
mb
ling
Flat
teri
ng:
2 p
oin
ts (
150
ºC)
wit
ho
ut
stea
m
Sim
plif
icat
ion
Te
sts
Stai
n r
emo
val
Wh
iten
ess
deg
ree
Dye
tra
nsf
er in
hib
itio
n
Co
lou
r M
ain
ten
ance
Stai
n r
emo
val
Wh
iten
ess
deg
ree
Dye
tra
nsf
er in
hib
itio
n
Ph
ysic
al d
amag
e
Ch
emic
al d
amag
e
Stai
n r
emo
val
Wh
iten
ess
deg
ree
Dye
tra
nsf
er in
hib
itio
n
Co
lou
r M
ain
ten
ance
Bas
ic T
esti
ng
Ch
ara
cte
rist
ics
of
eq
uip
me
nt
Wa
shin
g
ma
chin
e
Rep
rese
nta
tive
fo
r lo
cal
mar
ket
Rec
om
men
dat
ion
: Mie
le
Rec
om
men
dat
ion
: Mie
le
Stan
dar
ized
tec
hn
ical
cara
cter
isti
cs
Re
fle
cta
nce
me
asu
rem
en
t
Ch
arac
teri
stic
s d
efin
ed a
bo
ve.
No
t sp
ecif
ic e
qu
ipm
ent
Dat
aco
lor
500
o 6
00
(ch
arac
teri
stic
s d
efin
ed
abo
ve)
Dat
aco
lor
500
o 6
00
(ch
arac
teri
stic
s d
efin
ed
abo
ve)
Rel
iabl
e an
d r
epet
itiv
e
resu
lts
Lau
nd
eri
ng
de
vic
e (
DT
I)
Lin
ites
t Li
nit
est
Lin
ites
t B
oth
met
ho
ds
agre
e
5. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
1. The Laundry detergents market is a fast changing environment where innovations
are integrated at a very quick rate. Changes in products (new product categories, new product
deliveries), claims, dosages, temperatures, fabrics, etc…. is permanent. Therefore, a close
monitoring of these changes is highly recommended as well as a frequent revision of the
conditions of the testing protocols in order to adapt the conditions accordingly.
2. Removal of stains is the most important element in the consumer expectations
towards Laundry detergents. As a result of it, the definition of stains to be removed in a test
protocol is key. Since changes in consumer habits do happen also frequently (food habits,
clothing, etc….), a frequent revision of the relevant stains to be included in the testing
protocols is highly encouraged.
3. New washing methods are being introduced in the Consumer Goods market: water-
free stain removal equipments, washing machines with in-situ bleach generation, washing
machines with automatic dosages, etc…. A close monitoring of these trends is absolutely
necessary in order to adapt, enlarge or modify the testing protocols accordingly.
4. Eco-friendly ingredients in Laundry detergent formulations are gaining weight. The
experience up to now with them do not necessarily penalize the achieved stain removal
performance of these Laundry detergents. Therefore, a future revision of allowed ingredients
in the EU Ecolabel does not need to be compensated with lowered expectations in stain
removal performance.
5. Liquid Laundry detergents have gained market share along the last years
significantly, while powder detergents have decreased their presence. This modification of the
overall picture leads to a different scenario in consumer expectations : color care and fiber
care (secondary efficiency) claims gain importance. A close monitoring of these consumer
expectations is recommended in order to adapt the testing protocols and evaluate the
secondary efficiency properly.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-52-
6. The increased presence of laundry additives, laundry boosters and laundry aids in
households makes the periodical review of the corresponding testing protocols more
necessary. Their contribution to the global detergency performance has increased significantly
along the years.
6. STAKEHOLDERS LIST
6.1. OBJECTIVE
To reach the objective of this project, it is necessary the collaboration of different
experts. For this proposal, different European organisations and industry have been invited
with the aim of discussing the new EU Ecolabel performance test.
6.2. ORGANISATIONS
The next list shows the different European organisations (European Testing Institutes,
Laundry Detergents Producers, Ecolabel License Holders and Associations and Corporate
Agents) present in the meetings.
a) European Testing Institutes
a) CTTN-IREN Institute de recherche sur l´entretien et le nettoyage
Web: www.cttn-iren.com
Contact: Nicolas Raguin
E-mail: [email protected]
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-53-
2. Hohenstein Textile Testing Institute
Web: www.hohenstein.de
Contact: Ursula Scholz
E-mail: [email protected]
3. WFK Forschungsinstitut für Reinigungstechnologie
Web: www.wfk.de
Contact: Anke Ophüls / Thomas Hilger
E-mail: [email protected]
4. EMPA Materials Science & Technology
Web: www.empa.ch
Contact: Felix Frey
E-mail: [email protected]
5. SGS CTS
Web: www.sgs.com
Contact: Nathalie Richarte
E-mail: [email protected]
6. SATRA Technology Centre
Web: www.satra.co.uk
Contact: Christine Ohren-Bird / Ann Chivers
E-mail: [email protected]
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-54-
7. CHELAB SRL
Web: www.chelab.it
Contact: Dr.ssa Tiziana Rea / Dr. Andrea Boscolo
E-mail: [email protected]
8. APPLUS-LGAI TECHNOLOGICAL CENTER
Web: www.applus.com
Contact: Fabio Amiconi
E-mail: [email protected]
9. SOHIT (Domestic and Institutional Technology Research Foundation)
Web: www.sohit.nl
Contact: Inge van Kessel
E-mail: [email protected]
10. INTEXTER (Institut d’investigació I cooperació industrial)
Web: www.upc.edu/intexter
Contact: Dr. F. X. Carrión Fité
E-mail: [email protected]
b) Laundry Detergents Producers
A.I.S.E.
i) Henkel KgaA
Web: www.henkel.com
Contact: Dr. Dieter Nickel
E-mail: [email protected]
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-55-
ii) P&G Brussels Innovation Center
Web: www.eu.pg.com
Contact: Rainer Lodewick
E-mail: [email protected]
iii) Unilever
Web: www.unilever.com
Contact: Gerard C.A. Luijkx
E-mail: [email protected]
iv) Reckitt Benckiser
Web: www.reckittbenckiser.com
Contact: Luca Spadoni
E-mail: [email protected]
v) McBride
Web: www.mcbride.co.uk
Contact: Olivier Chevalier
E-mail: [email protected]
c) Ecolabel License Holders
a) DANLIND AS
Web: www.danlind.dk
Contact: Henrik Moeller
E-mail: [email protected]
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-56-
2. FOSFA INC.
Web: web.fosfa.cz
Contact: Radek Martak
E-mail: [email protected]
3. ISPRA (2nd meeting)
Web: ec.europa.eu/dgs/jrc/index.cfm
Contact: Stefania Minestrini / Angelo Polidori
E-mail: [email protected]
4. NOVAMEX
Web: www.novamex.fr
Contact: Janine Berguido / Giles Olivier / Géraldine Sejourne
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
5. Werner & Mertz
Web: www.werner-mertz.de
Contact: Ralf Haak
E-mail: [email protected]
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-57-
d) Associations and corporate agents
a) EC (European Commission)
Web: www.ec.europa.eu
Contact: Rugile Balzekaite
E-mail: [email protected]
2. A.I.S.E.
Web: www.aise.eu
Contact: Sandra Almeida Dworak / Valérie Séjourné
E-mail: [email protected]
3. MTS (2nd meeting)
Web: www.mts.com
Contact: Dieter Sedlak
E-mail: [email protected]
4. Direcció General de Qualitat Ambiental (Generalitat de Catalunya)
Web: www.gencat.cat
Contact: Anna Esteve / Santi Balague
E-mail: [email protected]
5. ACCIÓ
Web: www.accio.es
Contact: Olga Roig
E-mail: [email protected]
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-58-
6. AFNOR
Web: www.afnor.org
Contact: Patricia Proia / Pierre Lebon
E-mail: [email protected]
7. ADELMA
Web: www.adelma.es / www.linasa.es
Contact: Miguel Ángel Martínez Blanco
E-mail: [email protected]
8. UEAPME (European Union of small and medium Enterprises)
Web: www.ueapme.com / www.chimicahts.it
Contact: Carlo Gittoi
E-mail: [email protected]
9. Novozymes A/S
Web: www.novozymes.com
Contact: Martin Gudmand
E-mail: [email protected]
10. Plastics Europe
Web: www.plscticseurope.org
Contact: Dirk Van Hessche
E-mail: [email protected]
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-59-
11. B.A.S.F.
Web: www.basf.com
Contact: Dr. Torsten Wieprecht / Claudia Esper
E-mail: [email protected]
12. THERMPHOS
Web: www.thermphos.com
Contact: Yves Boland
E-mail: [email protected]
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-60-
ANNEX 1
PREVIOUS FORMULATION:
a) Heavy Duty Reference Detergent
INGREDIENTS %
Basic Powder
Linear sodium alkyl benzene sulfonate
Ethoxylated fatty alcohol C12-14 (7 EO)
Sodium soap (tallow soap)
Foam inhibitor concentrate, 12 % silicon on inorganic carrier)
Sodium aluminium silicate zeolite 4 A (80 % active substance)
Sodium carbonate
Sodium salt of a copolymer from acrylic and maleic acid (granules)
Sodium silicate (SiO2:Na2O = 3,3:1)
Carboxymethylcellulose
Phosphonate (25% active acid)
Optical whitener for cotton (stilbene type)
Sodium sulphate
Protease (Savinase 8,0)
Bleach
Sodium perborate tetrahydrate (SPB4)
Additive
Tetraacetylethylenediamine (TAED)
8,8
4,7
3,2
3,9
28,3
11,6
2,4
3,0
1,2
2,8
0,2
6,5
0,4
20,0
3,0
Table 21. Reference detergent formulation
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-61-
b) Low Duty Reference Detergent
INGREDIENTS %
Fatty alcohol ethoxylate (EO = 7)
Low foaming fatty alcohol ethoxylate (ethylenoxide/higher alkylene oxide-co-polymer)
Sodium dodecyl sulfonate
Modified polycarboxylate (suitable for liquid detergents)
Ethanol
Water add 100 %
35
15
7,5
15
5
Table 22. Reference detergent formulation for LDD
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-62-
ANNEX 2
SET STAINS:
a) A.I.S.E. minimum performance test:
- Tea
- Coffee
- Make up
- Motor oil
- Fruit Juice
- Chocolate
- Grass
- Grass & Mud
- Napolina Tomato Puree
- Blood
- Red wine
- Hamburguer grease
- French's Squeeze Yellow Mustard
- Hipp Carrot baby food
All stains are fixed on cotton fabrics
b) EU Ecolabel performance test
Heavy Duty Detergent Colour Safe Detergent Low Duty Detergent
Pigment/Sebum (CO)
Mineral oil/black ink (CO)
Vegetable oil/milk/ink (CO)
Used motor oil (CO)
Red wine (CO)
Tomato ketchup (CO)
Grass (CO)
Pre-aged egg yolk (CO)
Milk cacao (CO)
Pigment/Sebum (CO)
Mineral oil/black ink (CO)
Vegetable oil/milk/ink (CO)
Used motor oil (CO/PE)
Red wine (CO/PE)
Tomato ketchup (CO/PE)
Pre-aged egg yolk (CO)
Milk cacao (CO)
Grass (CO)
Pigment/Sebum (WO)
Vegetable oil/milk/ink (CO)
Make up (SI)
Tea (CO/PE)
Red wine (CO/PE or CO)
Tomato ketchup (CO/PE)
Pre-aged egg yolk (CO/PE)
Milk cacao (CO)
Grass (CO)
Table 23. Ecolabel set of stains
CO: on cotton
CO/PE: on cotton/polyester 35/65
WO: on wool
SI: on silk
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-63-
ANNEX 3
NEW SET OF STAINS PROPOSAL: Same set of stains than A.I.S.E. minimum protocol
Stains Standard Stains Hand-made stains
(Warwick Equest4)
Stain classes
(Consumer denomination / chemical
nature)
Tea EMPA1 167 WFK2 10J CFT3 BC3 Drink Bleachable
Coffee WFK 10K CFT BC2 Drink Bleachable
Red wine EMPA 114 WFK 10LIU CFT CS103 WE5RWWKC Drink Bleachable
Fruit juice CFT CS15 Drink Bleachable
Tomato Puree WE5TPWKC Food Bleachable
Carrot baby food WE5IACBFWKC Food Bleachable,
enzymatic
French Squeezy Mustard WE5FSMWKC Food Bleachable,
enzymatic
Chocolate EMPA 160 WFK 10Z CFT CS44 Food Enzymatic
Grass EMPA 164 CFT CS08 General Soil Bleachable,
enzymatic
Grass/Mud WE5GMWKC General Soil
Bleachable,
enzymatic,
particulate
Blood EMPA 111 WFK 10PBU WE5DASBWKC General Soil Enzymatic
Unused motor oil EMPA 106 WFK 10M CFT C01 Grease, oil Greasy,
particulate
Frying fat
(hamburger grease)
WE5HBGBKC
(blue knitted cotton) Grease, oil
Greasy,
enzymatic
Make up EMPA 143/2 WFK 10MU CFT CS17 Grease, oil Greasy,
particulate
Table 24.AISE Set of Stains
1http://www.empa.ch 2http://www.testgewebe.de
3http://www.cftbv.nl/index1024.htm
4http://www.warwickequest.com
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-64-
ANNEX 4
MONITOR DYE SET PROPOSED:
Fabric number of A.I.S.E.
(14) Monitor set
Fabric number of A.I.S.E.
(40) Dye set Dye class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
AISE 1
AISE 3
AISE 5
AISE 8
AISE 16
AISE 20
AISE 21
AISE 22
AISE 24
AISE 26
AISE 27
AISE 29
AISE 33
AISE 39
Sulphur black
Vat green
Vat blue
Direct yellow + cationic after-
treatment (Tinofix ECO)
Reactive Red
Reactive black (pale shade)
Reactive black (heavy shade)
Reactive orange
Reactive blue
Reactive violet
Reactive trichromatic combination
Reactive trichromatic combination
Disperse Navy + heat set
Acid red + syntan
Table 25. Monitor dyes set for AISE and new proposal
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-65-
ANNEX 5
Following there is a list of the standards that will be adopted and accomplished related to the
service and the result that will be supplied:
a) Generic standard:
o ISO 2267:1986 (UNE 55826:1985). Surface active agents. Evaluation of
certain effects of laundering. Methods of preparation and use of unsoiled cotton control cloth.
o ISO 4312:1989 (UNE 55827:1992). Surface active agents. Evaluation of
certain effects of laundering. Methods of analysis and test for unsoiled cotton cloth.
o ISO 4319:1977 (UNE 55800:1985). Surface active agents. Detergents
for washing fabrics. Guide for comparative testing of performance.
o DIN 53919-1 Standard, 1980-05. Test cotton fabrics for laundering
process control; requirements.
o DIN 53919-2 Standard, 1980-05. Test cotton fabrics for laundering
process control; test of laundering with control stripes.
b) Soil and stain removal, degree of whiteness and colour
o Test:
� EN ISO 105-C06:1997. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
C06: Colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering (ISO 105-C06:1994).
� EN ISO 105-C06:1997/AC:2009. Textiles - Tests for colour
fastness - Part C06: Colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering (ISO 105-
C06:1994/Cor 1:2002).
o Evaluation:
� EN ISO 105-J01:1999. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
J01: General principles for measurement of surface colour (ISO 105-J01:1997).
� EN ISO 105-J02:1999. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
J02: Instrumental assessment of relative whiteness (ISO 105-J02:1997, including Technical
Corrigendum 1:1998).
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-66-
� EN ISO 105-J03:2009. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
J03: Calculation of colour differences (ISO 105-J03:2009).
� EN ISO 105-A01:1995. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A01: General principles of testing (ISO 105-A01:1994).
� EN 20105-A02:1994. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A02: Grey scale for assessing change in colour (ISO 105-A02:1993).
� EN ISO 105-A05:1997. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A05: Instrumental assessment of change in colour for determination of grey scale rating (ISO
105-A05:1996, including Technical Corrigendum 1:1997).
� EN ISO 105-A06:1997. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A06: Instrumental determination of 1/1 standard depth of colour (ISO 105-A06:1995).
� EN ISO 105-A08:2002. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A08: Vocabulary used in colour measurement (ISO 105-A08:2001).
c) Dye transfer
o Test:
� EN ISO 105-C06:1997. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
C06: Colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering (ISO 105-C06:1994).
� EN ISO 105-C06:1997/AC:2009. Textiles - Tests for colour
fastness - Part C06: Colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering (ISO 105-
C06:1994/Cor 1:2002).
o Evaluation:
� EN ISO 105-J01:1999. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
J01: General principles for measurement of surface colour (ISO 105-J01:1997).
� EN ISO 105-J02:1999. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
J02: Instrumental assessment of relative whiteness (ISO 105-J02:1997, including Technical
Corrigendum 1:1998).
� EN ISO 105-J03:2009. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
J03: Calculation of colour differences (ISO 105-J03:2009).
� EN ISO 105-A01:1995 Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A01: General principles of testing (ISO 105-A01:1994).
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-67-
� EN 20105-A03:1994. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A03: Grey scale for assessing staining (ISO 105-A03:1993).
� EN ISO 105-A04:1999. Textiles - Test for colour fastness - Part
A04: Method for the instrumental assessment of the degree of staining of adjacent fabrics (ISO
105-A04:1989).
� EN ISO 105-A05:1997. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A05: Instrumental assessment of change in colour for determination of grey scale rating (ISO
105-A05:1996, including Technical Corrigendum 1:1997).
� EN ISO 105-A06:1997. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A06: Instrumental determination of 1/1 standard depth of colour (ISO 105-A06:1995).
� EN ISO 105-A08:2002. Textiles - Tests for colour fastness - Part
A08: Vocabulary used in colour measurement (ISO 105-A08:2001).
d) Fabric damage:
o Physical:
� EN ISO 13934-1:1999. Textiles - Tensile properties of fabrics -
Part 1: Determination of maximum force and elongation at maximum force using the strip
method (ISO 13934-1:1999).
� EN ISO 13938-1:1999. Textiles - Bursting properties of fabrics -
Part 1: Hydraulic method for determination of bursting strength and bursting distension (ISO
13938-1:1999).
� EN ISO 13938-2:1999. Textiles - Bursting properties of fabrics -
Part 2: Pneumatic method for determination of bursting strength and bursting distension (ISO
13938-2:1999).
o Chemical:
� ISO 5351:2004. Pulps -- Determination of limiting viscosity
number in cupri-ethylenediamine (CED) solution.
� DIN 54270-1 Standard, 1976-09. Testing of textiles;
determination of the limit-viscosity of celluloses, principles.
� DIN 54270-2 Standard, 1977-08. Testing of textiles;
determination of the limit-viscosity of celluloses, Cuen-procedure.
Proposal Reference: ENV.G.1/SER/2009/0093rl
Fina lVersion
-68-
� DIN 54270-3 Standard, 1977-08. Testing of textiles;
determination of the limit-viscosity of celluloses, EWNNmod(NaCl)-procedure.
� NF G06-037. Textiles. Cellulose. Determination of limiting
viscosity number and determination of the average viscosimetric degree of polymerization.
e) Fabric incrustations:
o Organic:
� ISO 4312:1989 – Point 6. Surface active agents -- Evaluation of
certain effects of laundering -- Methods of analysis and test for unsoiled cotton control cloth.
� BS 8459:2005. - Determination of extractable matter in
textiles. Method
� DIN 54278-1 Standard, 1995-10. Testing of textiles - Coatings
and attendant materials - Part 1: Determination of materials soluble in organic solvents.
o Inorganic:
� ISO 4312:1989 – Point 7. Surface active agents -- Evaluation of
certain effects of laundering -- Methods of analysis and test for unsoiled cotton control cloth.
� DIN 53919-2 Standard, 1980-05. Test cotton fabrics for
laundering process control; test of laundering with control stripes.