|WikiProject Health and fitness||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:|
Using the term POTASH
The article on soap should be careful with using the term potash. According to Wikipedia, originally this word referred to potassium carbonate. Later, the term potash was "abused" by the industry which may use it now to refer to potassium chloride. It still cannot be used to refer to potassium hydroxide, the proper reference is caustic potash.
Now, not being a soap expert, I am not sure if potassium carbonate can be used in soap-making. The article suggests that earlier methods used wood ashes. This material typically contains potassium carbonate, not hydroxide. However, I am not sure if modern industry may occasionally use carbonate instead of hydroxide. Presumably, the saponification reaction with such a substitution will not be vigorous enough.
|Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7|
It seems to be a well known fact on the web that soap manufacturers extract the glycerin during the process and make their "soaps" from detergents, etc. Can this be documented anywhere and it is a standard practice? If so does this not make commercial soaps and handmade soaps differ chemically and would not be the same end product?
--Soapforgoodnesssake 16:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Of course the differ chemically. They aren't the same thing at all, they just happen to be substitutes and people tend to be sloppy with wordchoice. --Belg4mit 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Pop soap culture
I moved the following from the Purification and finishing section of the article:
While I get the reference (making soap out of liposuction medical waste, as in the film), I don't really see the relevance to the current encyclopedia article on soap. Maybe it could be rephrased, moved to a section like "Soap in popular culture", or moved to saponification? Saucepan 18:42, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
The article says that a disadvantage of soap and why it is not used to day is that it dries out the skin. This is true of commercial soap which has been stipped of its natural glycerine, but hand-made soap contains glycerine which softens and moisturises the skin. [[User:Whiskers|whiskers (talk)]] 18:35, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The article could use a lot of work, and the "dubious fact" may be a bit dubious, but not for the reason given above. It is not clear that glycerine in soap has the stated benefits or lacks that disadvantage. -- firstname.lastname@example.org , 12/18/04
Another dubious fact
H3nryH3nry 20:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)Can you tell me if this is a real, unreal or dubious fact?
There is a phrase 'as ugly as homemade soap'.
If it is real, can it go somewhere on the page?
I can't say if it is "real" but I do have a pop culture citation for you.
The Andy Griffith Show Season 4 "Ernest T Bass Joins the Army" ( early in the episode, first 5 minutes ).
What is Castile soap, exactly? Is it the same as what the French call savon de Marseille? David.Monniaux 17:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Oui, the french savon de Marseille is based on Castile soap, which was based on the famous and older Aleppo soap, which is based on a recipe that has been used by the Mesopotamians for over 4000 years. All these *Traditional Soaps* are based on olive oil and soda ash! Aleppo Soap has not only olive oil, in addition is has Laurel oil (15% bay leaf extract).188.8.131.52 (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The "Mount Sapo" hoax
Pliny the Elder, in Historia Naturalis 28:51, writes:
- Prodest et sapo, Galliarum hoc inventum rutilandis capillis. Fit ex sebo et cinere, optimus fagino et caprino, duobus modis, spissus ac liquidus, uterque apud Germanos maiore in usu viris quam feminis.
- You also have soap (sapo), an invention of the Gauls for making their hair shiny. It is made from tallow and ashes, the best from beechwood ash and goat fat, and exists in two forms, solid and liquid; both are used more by men than women among the Germans.
This is the first mention of soap in Latin literature. The tale about "Mount Sapo" is implausible for a number of reasons; there was no such place, the ancient Roman legend which this claims to relate to appears in no ancient Roman author that I can determine, and the Romans did not sacrifice the edible parts of animals such as the fat. I believe that "Mount Sapo" is a hoax, and it may be a hoax that started here. Smerdis of Tlön 14:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm the one that added the reference to the Mount Sapo legend- []. I also cited my source. Stop overreacting. --Brunnock 17:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody know what soap makers in the medieval times wore?
Someone needs to deal with the propaganda against "commercial soap" listed in "disadvantages". I don't have the time now.
I dont know if you are interested, but "soap" derives from Ancient Greek σάπων, sapon, a Gallic invention (hair-dye) adopted by the Germans acc. to Plin.HN28.191, if you wish to include the etymology section. Kassios
- A bit late of a reply, but: no it doesnt. Soap comes directly from the Germanic word. It did not go from Germanic through Greek and then back into English again, which would be pretty silly. Soap Talk/Contributions 20:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
What about Body Wash and moisterizors? How are those compared to just soap and liquid detergents? 184.108.40.206 16:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Since most soap is made out of tallow to get that hard feel, i decided to start buying kirks castile soap. But one problem, it falls apart easily when wet. So i got a idea which turned out to be a communistic eco-saver friendly invention. I put the remaining clumps of the bar soap in a used hand wash soap bottle. I noticed something neat immediately, one squirt was able to lather my whole body, a quarter bar of soap turned out to be worth 3 or 4 bars alltogether!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asfd666 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sodium Laureth Sulfate
Should some clarification be made about sodium laureth sulfate being a disadvantage of soap? Many people will interpret the cons of soap as a comparison to (non-soap) detergents. Sodium laureth sulfate is in fact a non-soap detergent. The article should bring out this distinction more, that non-soap detergents are chemically irritating to the skin, whereas soap may dry out the skin, but is usually not irritating itself in pure form.
IMO mention needs making of SLS in many soap products. Especially with numerous craft businesses selling their products as 'SLS-Free'. Soap is only likely dry the skin if excess glycerine is removed during manafacture as is often the case in large scale production. However SLS can be an irritant and has been attributed to some medical conditions in a minority of people. Boddison (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
still doesnt define
what, by definition is soap. i mean what ingredient makes "real" soap soap and a detergent bar nor soap?
the article doesn strongly define this and since many people are told not to use soap i think this would be useful information
when i asked my doctor whether someone should avoid soaps or all detergents if they are told they are sensitive to soap she didnt know the answer.
needless to say i wasnt impressed because many detergent washes such as sanex are soap free but could still cause a problem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
Real soap is made by combining fatty acids with an alkali (most soapers use vegetable or animal fats and sodium hydroxide). A chemical reaction starts, the alkali combines with the fatty acids, and create soap molecules.
What I have discovered in my years of making soap, is that most people react to detergents, ie, SLS, or the fragrances or colorants in soap, but not the soap itself. Most fats used to make soap are edible fats, ie, olive oil, soybean oil, beef fat (tallow). Few people have a reaction to those.
Can it expire? What are the consequences? Let this be the first page that is easily found and has an answer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Soap does not 'expire' in the sense that food products expire. However they do lose moisture to the air causing the soap to dry up and in extreme cases crack. Soap with a high glycerine content can suffer from physical distortion (usually curving) and shrinkage. Other effects of storage are loss of colour and fragrance. Commercial milled soap is less prone to degradation with storage. I'm not sure how relevant this is for inclusion in the article. Boddison (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the article should be changed where it says hot process soapmaking involves heating the mixture to "taste", this gives the impression that someone should either taste hot fat or lye, neither of which seems a good idea. 22.214.171.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC). This used, in fomrer times, to be normal practise in soapmaking.126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Combining with the Soap Article
I agree, no need to have a whole article about making soap. Spartyboy40 20:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Agree! --BBird 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Soap substitutes (plants) advantages for the developing world
In the article, it should be mentioned that for the developing world, soap plants as Sapindus, Soapwort, ...) may help to alleviate poverty as growing these plants is way cheaper than buying commercial soap. As hygiene is very important amongst the poor in the developing world (as the space in which they live mostly contains allot of bacteria, ..., trough poor sanitation and sewage, ...), increasing the availability of soap substitutes would make sure they get sick less, decreasing mortality, health expenditures, ...
- But are they really cheaper? And are they really that effective? Haplolology Talk/Contributions 13:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My sister made me some cookies, but they tasted really soapy. Is it dangerous to eat food with soap in it? --The burning bush 22:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Dangerous? I don't know, but I do know that eating soap can give you a case of diarrhea. I heard about someone doing this to some guys over in Iraq and they US Soldiers got busted bad....they considered it terriorism because the victums were out of commision a few days. Soap irritates the colon, which is why it is also used in enemas.
Holy Linkbloat, Batman!
I removed the mind-numbing explosion of links to soap-making sites. This has gotten completely and utterly out of hand. I added one link to a site that seems to contain a variety of information about soap-making as a nod to the above removals. If anyone feels there is a better *single site* that acts as a good *single representative gateway* for soapmaking information, then feel free to modify this entry. Dxco 03:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi I just wanted to know what is soaps chemical class?
please post it if you know...
Redirecting soaps -> Soap opera
Since "soap" is the plural of "soap", and "soaps" is often used to refer to "soap operas", I am redirecting soaps to soap opera. --Henry W. Schmitt 19:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've never experienced sticky hands after using Soap. Thats one reason to use soap, removes stickiness. Maybe you are using a bad brand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
maybe you don't rinse your hand enough after wanshing them with soap, but maybe also you use a soar not intented to be used in humen skin, like bar soaps, which are used to wash clothes end generally have a very high pH, and thus attack your skin, saponifying your skin cells afe you rinse your hands, may you try to use a soap intented do skin use. also you can have contamined your soap with something that soaps don't dissolve, like some resins(like pinus resin), try to use a clean bar of soap, over a clean sink. Porcofederal (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
seems like there should be something here about the popular deodorant subcategory of soap, and what typically is added to create that kind of soap. Any experts here on that topic? I don't know enough to start it. But I'm surprised to not see something on Wikipedia about it... maybe other soap subtypes could have a small mention in a section on specialized uses of soap? - Owlmonkey (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The Saponified Corpses in Sicily
This is a commonly pointed-to example of incorruptibility. However, the bodies are not remaining in the same state as they were at death, like most incorruptibles; but instead they are turning into inhuman-looking piles of soap. It's probably just a matter of it being really moist down there. If this means anything it means that saponification and incorruptibility aren't the same thing. Soap Talk/Contributions 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted some edits that claim the earliest use of soap. My reason is not merely that they were unverified (if 5,000 years ago why not more) and they assumed this was the first usage, but more importantly that this was not about soap which is the subject of the article. Soap is a fatty acid salt and is usually made by reacting fat with alakli. There are plenty of natural products with a "soapy" feel or that were and are used in washing which are not soaps. saponins being one such example. Early use of natural washing agents has no place in this article really. Some verified information about early soap usage would (on the other hand) be very interesting. Francis Davey (talk) 13:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
The earliest known use of a natural soap-like substance was the powder of the Reeta (Sapindus) nut, which was used by Indians since antiquity. Hindus in India were obliged to bathe at least once a day, every morning, in accordance with Ayurveda. Evidence of manufactured soap use are Babylonian clay cylinders dating from 2800 BC containing a soap-like substance. A formula for soap consisting of water, alkali and cassia oil was written on a Babylonian clay tablet around 2200 BC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- The reason why that does not belong in this article is that the active detergent in soap nuts is a saponin. It is not a fatty acid salt. The early history of the soap nut really has nothing to do with this article. There is a second problem which is that there is no citation for "earliest known use". That (to me) seems unlikely since the earliest histories are non-Indian (they are in fact Sumerian) and it is in the nature of soaps and other detergents that they are very unlikely to survive in archeology so one is almost entirely reliant on historical records. This is of some interest to me because I am researching a history of soap and the early part is most difficult. Francis Davey (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I also ought to add that one of the reasons your edits are unpopular is that you are deleting material that was in the article (the reference to the Babylonian usage) which is tantamount to vandalism. Don't do it. Francis Davey (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea why you should think I am motivated by nationalism. Perhaps you would care to explain why. You appear not to be willing to discuss this matter, or to be advised on how properly to behave as a wikipedia citizen. Deleting existing material to put your own unrelated material into an article is bad form, whether or not what you do put in is correct. Refusing to discuss the substance of a dispute is also rather poor. It is also good policy to sign your comments (read the link concerning Wikipedia:Signatures) that I pointed to above. I still hope that, with practice, you will become a useful contributor to wikipedia, but you do have to understand the way that things work here. Please discuss here why you think your material is relevant to this page and what your source is for the information that you are putting in. It may be that (assuming you do have references) early use of the Sapindus tree in India is of interest, but not as far as I can see in Soap. Maybe an article on this history of hygiene or perhaps detergents? Francis Davey (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
A while ago, I included info on soap substitutes (eg soapwort, ...). This was important for greywater treatment, as it provided info on how one can can use water and a ecological ingredient in order to clean himself, clothing, dishes, ... without polluting the water too much (which then requires treatment). Please re-include or make a seperate article "soap-substitutes" and link from soap-article. Please re-include info as it is important in the intrest of development work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to start your own article Soap substitutes and link to it from other pages -- it could useful be in the See Also section of this page. Cleaning of clothes with saponins may be an interesting subject, worthy of note somewhere, but obviously not here. Make sure its not original research though. Francis Davey (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Detergent has a section you could expand. Depending on contents your information may also fit into surfacant. You could add a section called something like "ecological impact" or "environmental criticism" here, including the information what makes soap bad as compared to soap substitutes. Then link to the section you added to one of the other pages. (title#section is how you link to a section of an article) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- Good question. There doesn't appear to be such a word. I've removed the "such as" completely, not really necessary. If anyone can come up with a definition, or a better explanation, feel free to re-add. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
another dubious fact
offenbach soap reference
In the image of the Azul y Branco soap a little over halfway down the page, the caption mentions "offenbach soap." It is nowhere else in the article. This reference either needs to be removed or related to something in the narrative. Zlama (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)zlama
The "finishing" section stated the soap is passed through a metal detector prior to brand stamping and packing. I would suggest elaborating on that, if that's is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
- I dont know. This article really needs help. I do know that some manufacturers put metal into soap since it apparently helps scrape off dirt (in fact it says that again 2 paragraphs later), but it is a very small amount. Perhaps the metal detectors are just to screen out bars that have too much. —Soap— 15:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
the presence of metal particles of silver make complete sense, but titanium particles does not, mainly because the substance used in cosmetic industry to make things more white is nanoscopis titanium dioxide and not titanium metal. use of titanium metal seems to be very unlikely Porcofederal (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree on the titanium particles not making sense; a quick read of titanium's wikipedia page describes none of these supposed "bactericidal" properties. In addition, the "added benefit" sentence reads like an advert. Bumpgrrl (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some mention of the advent of antibacterial soaps, and the health community's recommendation to avoid them in daily handwashing? o0drogue0o 12:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by O0drogue0o (talk • contribs)
Fragrance and purity
To lower raw material costs, manufacturers of soap often obtain (sometimes previously edible) oils and fats that have become rancid (oxidized) or have absorbed unintended chemicals. Often some of this rancid and/or foul smelling material remains after saponification. This foul smell is then disguised by the addition of so called perfumes of "pleasant" fragrance. Thus as a general rule, a non fragranced soap has to be of high quality/purity, and conversely a highly fragranced soap is often made from the dregs of the production run, or a run using too much rancid raw material. Also as a general rule and counter intuitively, non fragranced soaps are cheaper although the raw material costs are higher. This was conveyed to me by an engineer who worked at an extremely large soap and detergent manufacturing plant where I would sometimes sub contract and hence could verify the accuracy.Ecstatist (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the only reference to liquid soap is a picture and a link to soap dispenser. Liquid soap isn't some novelty product we can disregard, we need more info! Who invented it and when? How is it made? Are there any chemical differences from regular soap? considering how much info there are on "hard" soap, it's almost embarrassing. --Wolf of Thor (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I also think there should be some information on liquid soap, especially that I've read some medical literature that recommends it under some circumstances to avoid repeated contact with hard soap surfaces and limit pathogen exposition. Other interesting information would be on the use of shamopoo-like polymers in some forms of liquid soap (some of them potentially carcinogenic), or the requirements for liquid soap to remain bacteriostatic... 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Many soaps are described as "milled" on the packaging. In particular some soaps are touted as "triple-milled" with the implication that this confers some superiority. Frankly I have no clue even what "milling" of soap means. I think it would be useful and appropriate for this article to mention this common term, and define it and either describe the benefit of it, or if it is a meaningless marketing term, note that.--Ericjs (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I wrote too soon, and just realized that the article does describe milling briefly, as running the soap through a roller mill. (Sorry I'd searched on "milled" and failed to find the word "milling") However it still does not really say what the benefit of this is, and whether claims with regard to particular milling might have any significance.--Ericjs (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Having googled some, I see some descriptions of milling the resemble what the article describes, involving rollers. However I've also see milling (or "french milling"...perhaps there is more than one soap-making process that goes by the name "milling"?) described as a second heating step, such as here: http://silverfirsfarm.wordpress.com/2010/04/03/what-is-milled-soap/ --Ericjs (talk) 05:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
This article does not appear on the disambiguation page
- I moved your comment to the bottom of the page, so all comments are in chronological order, I hope you don't mind. To answer your concern, this article is on the disambiguation page, it's at the very top in the first sentence "Soap is a surfactant cleaning compound, used for personal or minor cleaning." I can see how it would be easy to miss, but the page does follow the manual of style so I'm not sure what changes could be made to make it clearer. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Data on the market soap; consumption/familiy.region etc. ?
Dust accumulation on fabrics?
There's currently a section in the article titled "Accumulation of dust on fabrics" underneath the section "Mechanism of cleansing soaps"... I don't see what bearing it has on the rest of the article. I might have missed something, but I don't think I did. Anyone else in favor of removing it? ShadowPhox (talk) 14:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)