A laundry ball or washing ball is a product promoted as a substitute for laundry detergent. Producers of laundry balls often make pseudoscientific claims about how these balls work and exaggerate the extent of their benefits.
Washing with laundry balls is as effective or less effective than washing without detergent. The effect can largely be attributed to the mechanical effect of the ball or to using hot water instead of cold water.
Laundry balls come in several shapes: disks, spheres, eggs and doughnuts. Some contain ceramic pieces, magnetic material, or coloured liquid claimed to be "activated water", none of which have been demonstrated to improve effectiveness. Some balls can be refilled with pellets of detergent or other ingredients.
Although laundry balls are marketed as economical, environmentally friendly alternatives that can reduce water and energy consumption, they have not been demonstrated to be more effective than washing without detergent.
The laundry ball could break open during washing, and the ceramic pieces inside it could damage the machinery of the washing machine.
Claimed mechanisms of action
Manufacturers rarely agree on why their laundry balls work, which suggests that these claims are just made up by each individual manufacturer. Some claims are not backed by science, while others are an exaggeration of benefits. Balls that contain detergents may offer more cleaning power than water alone because their ingredients are comparable to normal washing powder, but in smaller quantities. It is claimed that conventional washing powder manufacturers recommend using more powder than is necessary, and that these powders contain unnecessary fillers or fragrances. Given that Americans tend to use excessive amounts of laundry detergent, using a ball and less laundry detergent could result in cleaner clothing.
The effect of the laundry balls may be explained by simple mechanical action and by the usage of hotter water. Some manufacturers claim that their products reduce energy consumption, but their pamphlets recommend using hot water. Hot water will clean some types of spots better than cold water, leading some people to conclude that the balls worked. The mechanical action of the laundry balls can help clean some types of spots, but a golf ball will achieve the same effect for much less money.
Some manufacturers claim that the components inside their balls emit far infrared rays, which are claimed to reduce the surface tension of water and facilitate washing. The claim of emitting infrared is not false, as almost all materials emit "far infrared waves" at room temperature, in other words, heat radiation. It is also true that heating reduces the surface tension of water, but the effect of the radiation emitted by the balls is negligible compared to the radiation emitted by the internal walls of the washing machine or by the water, especially if the water is hot.
Magnetic water softeners claim that their magnetic fields can help remove scale from the washing machine and pipes, and prevent new limescale from adhering. Some companies claim to remove hardness ions from hard water, or to precipitate the molecules in the water so they won't "stick" to the pipes, or to reduce the surface tension of water. The claims are dubious, the scientific basis is unclear, the working mechanism is vaguely defined and understudied, and high-quality studies report negative results. The reputation of these products is further damaged by the pseudoscientific explanations that promoters keep putting forward.
Changes to water structure
Some magnetic products claim that they "change the molecular structure of water", a pseudoscientific claim with no real scientific basis. There is no such thing as "magnetized water". Water is not paramagnetic, so its water molecules do not align in the presence of a magnetic field. Water is weakly diamagnetic (so it is repelled by magnets), but only to an extent so small that it is undetectable to most instruments.
Some balls are refillable with small pellets of detergent which are sold only by the manufacturer of the ball. Critics question whether the amount and type of detergent released by these balls is sufficient to generate significant cleaning effects.
In 1997, Trade-Net sold a laundry ball product (the Blue Laundry Ball) in various states. Trade-Net claimed that the blue liquid inside their balls was structured water "that emits a negative charge through the walls of the container into your laundry water". "This causes the water molecule cluster to disassociate, allowing much smaller individual water molecules to penetrate into the innermost part of the fabric." Dennis Barnum, a professor of inorganic chemistry at Portland State University, said that the liquid was just water with a blue dye and couldn't possibly have the effect claimed by the manufacturer. Barnum also said that the claims were "gibberish" and used scientific terms in ways that sounded educated to the layman but didn't make any real sense. The Oregonian tested the balls and found they washed marginally better than hot water with no detergent, and worse than using detergent.
After complaints, Trade-Net's claims were investigated by consumer protection departments in Utah, Oregon and Florida, amongst others, and the company was prohibited from making certain claims, including that "such product cleans as well as conventional laundry detergent". Trade-Net offered a 'new' laundry ball product after this, but were forced to pay fines, including $190,000 to Oregon's Department of Justice, $10,000 to Utah and then in April 1999, $155,000 to the states of New York, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma and the FTC. The company disappeared shortly thereafter. The Federal Trade Commission has levied fines against other companies for similar fraudulent claims. However, other companies kept selling similar products over the Internet.
The judge ruling against Trade-Net, issued in April 1999, said the manufacturers failed to substantiate their claims and hadn't informed consumers about reports showing that the claims were incorrect.
The US Federal Trade Commission published in 1999 about laundry balls, rings and discs: "Tests show that these gadgets do little more than clean out your wallet. At best, they’re marginally better than washing clothes in hot water alone, and not as effective as washing them with laundry detergent. At worst, the products are completely useless."
In 2000 the magazine Good Housekeeping tested several laundry balls sold in the US and concluded that "these gizmos do little more than clean out your wallet".
In 2009 the Spanish consumer organization OCU made a study of ecobolas (a type of laundry ball marketed in Spain). It compared the efficacy of the laundry ball, normal detergent, and no detergent at all. It concluded that laundry balls were no better than using just water, and it recommended that consumers simply use a minimum amount of detergent.
In November 2011, the Hong Kong Consumer Council published a report on the effect of using washing liquid, washing powder and washing balls. The former two were shown to be effective in removing stains, while the washing balls were not more effective than plain water.
Some organizations recommending against their use are Consumers Union, International Fabricare Institute (now called Drycleaning and Laundry Institute), Maytag, Soap and Detergent Association, and Spanish OCU.
In February 2011 the Spanish National Institute of Consume (Instituto Nacional del Consumo INC) ordered 14 manufacturers to cease their deceiving advertisement after testing the wash balls and concluding that they are as effective, or even less effective, than washing with water alone.
In August 2012 the Portuguese Consumer Rights Council requested a ban on the washing balls because none of the advantages advertised were proven in tests.
The Australian consumer advocacy group Choice Australia gave a "Shonky Award" to Nanosmart Laundry Balls in October 2015, stating that they "don't work" and that they should be renamed "Nano-not-so-smart" after testing the balls against plain water and finding they had no effect and that their scientific claims were simply untrue. Choice Australia states that they will refer the product to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for investigation over Nanosmart's misleading claims.
By making very vague claims, marketers can continue to sell laundry balls without running afoul of consumer protection laws that require veracity in advertisement.
During the initial marketing boom, balls were manufactured for other market niches, like washing cars.
- Adams, Cecil (1997-07-25). "Do laundry balls really work?". The Straight Dope. p. 1. Retrieved 2008-02-25.
- Michael Shermer (January 2004), "Bunkum! Broad-mindedness is a virtue when investigating extraordinary claims, but often they turn out to be pure bunk (Skeptic column)", Scientific American, p. 36
- Roahn H. Wynar, "Laundry Balls", in Michael Shermer, Pat Linse (ed.), The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, ABC-CLIO, pp. 130–131
- Dorothy Stein (1997-10-27). "Laundry Balls". Faculty of Food, Clothing and Hospitality Management at Manchester Metropolitan University. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
- Sanidad frena el timo de la 'ecobola'. El Instituto Nacional de Consumo requiere a 14 fabricantes que acaben con la publicidad engañosa de estos productos, Público, Ainhoa Iriberri, 5 February 2011, Spanish. "The Instituto Nacional del Consumo (INC) has required the manufacturers of laundry balls (...) (also called ecoballs) to cease their deceiving publicity (...) The requirement has been issued after the making (...) of a study on 14 brands of ecoballs, made to find out the most obvious: if it's true that they are effective to wash clothes. The results of the work offer no doubts: the laundry balls do clean, yes, but the same or even less than water."
- "Ecobola: como lavar con agua", Compra Maestra (in Spanish), OCU Organización de Consumidores y Usuarios (340), September 2009,
[translation] In conclusion, the results of the Ecobola are far from those obtained with detergent. We can well attribute its "washing efficacy" to the mechanical action of the washing machine and to the temperature of the washing water... with which using this product is practically the same as washing only with water. (...) The advice of the OCU: if you want to spend less money and reduce residues, choose one of the detergents recommended in our last analysis and experiment until finding the minimal dosis that gives you good results.
- See, for example: Marketers of Laundry Detergent Substitutes Charged with Making False and Unsubstantiated Claims Agree to Settlements with FTC and Eleven States and Dallas Marketers of Laundry Detergent Substitute Charged with Making False and Unsubstantiated Claims Agree to Settlement with FTC and Six States, Federal Trade Commission
- "Ecoegg - Home - The Environmentally Friendly Laundry Solution". ecoegg.
- Cheryl Mendelson (2005), Laundry: the home comforts book of caring for clothes and linens (illustrated ed.), Simon and Schuster, pp. 82, 83, ISBN 978-0-7432-7145-5
- "More on green washing..." grownupgreen. 2006-11-17. Archived from the original on 2007-06-23. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
- "EcoBalls – Are they for real? | Ramblings of a Geek". Jeremy Johnstone. 2008-05-11. Retrieved 2010-07-09.
- FTC Consumer Alert (1 April 1999), Wash Daze: Laundry Gadgets Won't Lighten the Load
- Stephen Lower. "Magnetic water treatment pseudoscience". Chem1.com. Retrieved 2011-01-03.
- Byron, Ellen (2010-01-25). "The Great American Soap Overdose". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-04-26.
- Stephen Lower, Magnetized water: pseudoscientific snake oil, Chem1.com, retrieved 2011-12-19
- AP (1997-05-11), "'Miracle' Clothes-Washing Device Investigated", The Columbian, archived from the original on 2016-03-04
- "Marketers of Laundry Detergent Substitutes Charged with Making False and Unsubstantiated Claims Agree to Settlements with FTC and Eleven States". Federal Trade Commission. April 22, 1999.
- See for example: "Dallas Marketers of Laundry Detergent Substitute Charged with Making False and Unsubstantiated Claims Agree to Settlement with FTC and Six States". Federal Trade Commission. July 1, 1999.
- "More Dirt on Laundry Gadgets.(Brief Article)", Good Housekeeping, 2000-01-01, archived from the original on 2014-06-11(registration required)
- AP (1999-03-22), "Laundry Balls Outlawed", Skeptic, archived from the original on 2014-06-11 (require registration)
- AP (1999-04-25), "Government Says Laundry Ball Businesses Deceptive", The Columbian, archived from the original on 2014-06-11 (registration required)
- "Biowashball: senza detersivo, e si vede – Altroconsumo". Altroconsumo.it. Retrieved 2013-03-30.
- "Cleaning Power of Washing Balls No Better Than Plain Water – Choice # 421 (November 15, 2011)". Hong Kong Consumer Council. 2011-11-15. Archived from the original on 2011-11-28. Retrieved 2016-08-23.
- DECO exige retirada do mercado das "ecobolas", Diário de Notícias
- "Shonkys 2015 – Nanosmart Cleaning Balls". Choice Australia. 2015-10-07. Retrieved 2015-10-07.
- Do laundry balls really work?, July 25, 1997, The Straight Dope
- The ABI Laundry Ball and The Laundry Solution and The Laundry Clean Disk & about twenty others just like them!, entry in The Skeptic's Dictionary
- Laundry Discs Aired on Market Place, November 17, 1998, CBC News, Marketplace program on scams section.