# Cleaner Processes for Making Laundry Soap from Vegetable Oils and an Essential Oil
## 3 Results and Discussion
### The Ability to Clean Fatty Dirt
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Saponification Type**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Soap Code *} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Color Staining After Washing at the**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**CMC ***} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & & **Temperature of: *** & & \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **60 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **95 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & **100 \({}^{\circ}\)C** & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Cold saponification} & CS1 & 4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & FAIL \\  & CS2 & 3–4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & FAIL \\  & CS3 & 4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & PASS \\  & CS4 & 4 & 4–5 & 5 & PASS \\  & CM & 4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & FAIL \\  & CC & 4 & 4 & 4–5 & FAIL \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Hot saponification} & HS1 & 4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & PASS \\  & HS2 & 4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & PASS \\  & HS3 & 4 & 4 & 4–5 & PASS \\  & HS4 & 4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & PASS \\  & HM & 4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & FAIL \\ \cline{1-1}  & HC & 3–4 & 4 & 4–5 & FAIL \\ \cline{1-1}  & CDA & 3–4 & 3–4 & 3–4 & FAIL \\ \cline{1-1}  & CDB & 4 & 4 & 4 & FAIL \\ \cline{1-1}  & CCh & 4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & FAIL \\ \cline{1-1}  & CP & 4 & 4–5 & 4–5 & FAIL \\ \cline{1-1}  & CF & 3–4 & 4 & 4 & FAIL \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Soap code used to wash the cotton sample; ** color staining (according to AATICC 130-2000 [86] compared to white sample) after washing at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 95 \({}^{\circ}\)C or 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C; *** decision of CMC color difference (compared to the white sample before dirt).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Color staining values and decision of CMC color difference (compared to white, before dirt). Figure 8: Hs values after washing cotton samples at different temperatures. Hs (Hidden Stain/Stain Visibility after Washing) has the lowest values when washing is performed at 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C (Figure 8). The soaps containing Thyme essential oil have the best dirt removal capabilities by recording the values Hs = 1.07% for CS4 and 1.54 for HS4. The lack of essential oil (in CS1 and HS1) determines the attainment of higher Hs values (2.38% in the case of CS1 and 2.12% in the case of HS1). Washing at 95 \({}^{\circ}\)C leads to values very close to those obtained at 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C but slightly larger. If the washing temperature is even lower (60 \({}^{\circ}\)C), the Hs values vary between 4.56 and 6.76% in the case of cold-manufactured soaps and between 4.38 and 6.79% in the case of hot-manufactured soaps. It is known that the smaller the SAD values, the higher the cleaning capacity of the soap. When washing of the cotton samples is carried out at 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C, the SAD washed values in the case of cold-formulated soaps decrease with the addition of the essential oil as follows: 0.02297 for CS1, 0.02103 for CS2, 0.013255 for CS3 and 0.009419 for CS4 (Figure 9). The soaps formulated by hot saponification are more efficient, leading to lower SAD values: 0.019652 for HS1, 0.016087 for HS2, 0.018717 for HS3 and 0.013853 for HS3. It is found that the essential oil included in the soap increases its ability to clean the fatty dirt. Washing at 95 \({}^{\circ}\)C leads to slightly higher values, but extremely close to those obtained at 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C washing. Of all the tested soaps, the best cleaning capacities are shown by the CS4 and HS4 soaps when washing is performed at about 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C, because the PC values are of 92.16 and 88.47%, respectively (Figure 10). In all tests (Hs, SAD and PC), the addition of essential oil leads to a greater removal of the engine oil with which the samples were intentionally stained. Soaps containing Thyme essential oil are the most effective. Figure 10: Percentage cleanability of soaps. Figure 9: SAD values after washing cotton samples at different temperatures.