Barkodia, Tiwari & Yadav 2020 — Heavy metals in detergent samples from Jhansi, India

A short undergraduate-led study from the Department of Chemistry, Bipin Bihari Degree College (Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh) measuring iron, copper, manganese and zinc in six commercially marketed household detergents purchased on the Jhansi retail market and analysed by double-beam flame atomic absorption spectrometry (Chemito AA203D). The headline finding is that Fe, Mn and Zn fell within the Indian drinking-water tolerance limits (BIS 10500:1991) on a per-gram-of-product basis, while copper at 0.48-0.69 mg/kg in every sample exceeded the 0.05 mg/L drinking-water permissible limit by roughly 10-14×, though remained below the 1.5 mg/L tolerance limit for inland surface water (IS 2296-1982). None of the four analytes is on the Heavy Metal Index priority panel (Pb, tAs, Cd, MeHg, tHg, iAs, Ni, Al, Cr-VI, Sn); the paper’s relevance to HMI is as a non-priority-metals baseline for South Asian laundry-detergent formulations and as one of the few publicly available analytical-chemistry datasets from the Indian market in this product category. JETIR is an open-access journal that has been flagged in several index-quality assessments as predatory or near-predatory; the analytical methodology (AAS wavelengths, digestion protocol) is conventional, but the small sample size, single-laboratory single-run design, absence of QC/replicate structure, and several internal text-vs-table inconsistencies (see Limitations) place this source in the C-tier on the HMI evidence ladder.

Key numbers

Iron, copper, manganese and zinc in household detergents from the Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh) retail market — Table 1, Barkodia et al. 2020 (units mg/kg, ppm-w/w, finished-product as-purchased basis):

The Results & Discussion narrative reports slightly different ranges than the table values for Mn (text 0.001-0.007 vs table 0.001-0.008), Cu (text 0.49-0.70 vs table 0.48-0.69) and Zn (text 0.01-0.08 vs table 0.001-0.08). The Table 1 values are taken as authoritative for the wiki; the narrative range discrepancies are documented under Limitations.

Indian regulatory benchmarks as restated in Table 1 (units mg/L for water; Table 1 column header reports detergent values in mg/kg of dry product against these mg/L water limits, which is dimensionally inconsistent — see Limitations):

Copper is the only metal at which any detergent sample exceeded a quoted regulatory limit; every observed Cu value (0.48-0.69 mg/kg) exceeded the BIS 10500:1991 drinking-water permissible limit of 0.05 mg/L by approximately 10-14×, but every value was below the IS 2296-1982 inland-surface-water tolerance of 1.5 mg/L. The authors’ framing that the per-gram detergent concentration in mg/kg should be compared directly against an mg/L drinking-water limit is the paper’s own; the wiki preserves the comparison as reported but flags the basis-mismatch under Limitations.

Comparative anchor cited by the authors (Robert G. Allen, 1995, “Analysis of Heavy metal in cleaning products”, South New York):

• Cu in South New York cleaning products (Allen 1995, cited by Barkodia et al. 2020): 1.52-1.63 mg/kg — higher than this study’s Indian detergent range of 0.48-0.69 mg/kg.
• Zn in South New York cleaning products (Allen 1995, cited by Barkodia et al. 2020): 4.02-4.11 mg/kg — substantially higher than this study’s Indian detergent range of 0.001-0.08 mg/kg.

The wiki has not independently verified the Allen 1995 numbers; they appear in this source only as a literature comparator and are included for completeness.

Methods (brief)

Sample acquisition. Six commercially marketed household detergents were purchased from retail outlets and open-market shops in Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India. Product forms span laundry detergent powders, one liquid laundry wash, one oxygen-bleach laundry additive powder, and a stainbar/laundry-care powder; the paper does not record sample-acquisition dates, lot numbers, manufacturing dates, or per-sample quantities.

Digestion / extraction. 1 g of each detergent sample was dried in an oven at 400 °C for 4 hours, the dried residue was dissolved in 5 mL of 20% (2 M) hydrochloric acid, the solution was heated on a water bath for 5 minutes and then filtered through Whatman filter paper into a 50 mL volumetric flask and made up to the 50 mL mark. The digestion method is attributed to Sani and Shehu (2018).

Instrumentation. A Chemito AA203D double-beam atomic absorption spectrometer was used with an air-acetylene flame. Per-element wavelengths reported in the Materials and Methods section:

• Copper (Cu): 324.8 nm
• Iron (Fe): 248.3 nm
• Manganese (Mn): 213.9 nm (the paper prints “213.9nm 1for Mn”; the leading “1” appears to be a typesetting artefact)
• Zinc (Zn): 279.5 nm

Speciation. None reported. All four analytes are quantified as total elemental concentrations after acid digestion; the report does not address oxidation-state speciation (e.g., Cu(I) vs Cu(II), Cr species — though Cr is not measured), bioavailable fraction, or in-use dilution.

Calibration, QC, replicates and LOD. None reported. The paper does not state calibration ranges, internal standards, certified reference materials, instrument detection limits, method detection limits, recovery values, blank corrections, replicate counts, or measurement uncertainty. Each table cell appears to represent a single run on a single subsample. The reporting convention of three significant figures at the per-mg/kg level (e.g., 0.001 mg/kg = 1 µg/kg of product) implies sub-ppb sensitivity that is not justified in the methods description and not benchmarked against any QC.

Basis. Concentrations are reported as mg of metal per kg of detergent on an as-purchased, dry-weight basis (1 g dried at 400 °C for 4 hours pre-digestion). The paper compares these per-gram concentrations directly against mg/L water tolerance limits, which is a basis mismatch documented under Limitations.

Implications

• The dataset adds a small, regional (Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh) Indian-market view to the very thin global literature on trace metals in commercially marketed laundry detergents and laundry powders. For three of the four analytes (Fe, Mn, Zn) the reported concentrations are below 0.1 mg/kg of product across all six samples. For copper, every sample fell in the 0.48-0.69 mg/kg range, which is roughly one to two orders of magnitude above the Fe/Mn/Zn values in the same samples and consistent with a deliberate copper-containing formulation component (the paper does not identify which surfactant, builder, optical brightener or anti-corrosion additive is the likely copper carrier).
• None of the four analytes is on the HMTc certification panel (Pb, tAs, Cd, MeHg, tHg, iAs, Ni, Al, Cr-VI, Sn). This source therefore does not bind HMTc threshold-setting for laundry detergents; it contributes to the broader literature on metal occurrence in household cleaning products and is one of very few peer-reviewed analytical datasets from the Indian market in this product category.
• The authors’ framing — that the per-gram-of-detergent copper concentration exceeds the BIS 10500:1991 drinking-water 0.05 mg/L limit and therefore “appear to be in moderate level and shows its toxicity to human as well as to environmental lives” — compares a per-mass-of-product concentration (mg/kg) directly against a per-volume-of-water tolerance limit (mg/L) without performing an in-use dilution step. The source does not state what in-use dilution is assumed; the methodological gap is documented under Limitations. The wiki reports the authors’ framing as published and does not extend it with wiki-side risk arithmetic.
• For Heavy Metal Index purposes the paper provides an Indian-market occurrence dataset for Fe, Cu, Mn and Zn in laundry detergents sampled c. 2018-2020. Cross-source synthesis with other laundry-detergent datasets in the corpus (e.g., the Unilever 1990 EU compilation in ecetoc1992-tr045-ni-co-cr-consumer-products) is deferred to the Part 9 synthesis workflow on the relevant metal and product pages; this source page reports only what this paper measured.

Limitations

• Predatory-leaning journal venue. JETIR (Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research; Bhilwara, Rajasthan-based) has been flagged in several index-quality assessments and predatory-journal lists (Beall’s archived list 2017; Cabells Predatory Reports update windows). Editorial peer review, where it occurs, is reported by independent analysts as cursory and to operate on very short turnarounds. The paper itself shows characteristic features (multiple grammatical/typesetting errors, missing QC and LOD reporting, internal text-vs-table inconsistencies) consistent with that venue. Treated as C-tier evidence accordingly.
• Small n; single-laboratory single-run design. Six samples in one city in one year, with no replicate or QC structure reported. The values are not generalisable beyond the specific six brand-formulations sampled and do not support distributional inference for the broader Indian laundry-detergent market.
• Sample-count discrepancy. The abstract states “seven detergent samples of different brands were taken”; Table 1 reports values for six brand columns. The likely explanation is that one Table 1 column header conflates two product descriptors (“Patanjali Anti bacterial Neem fresh” and “Rose fragrance powder”) into a single column, but the data row beneath contains only one value per metal, so either the seventh sample’s values were omitted in publication or the abstract miscounted. The wiki uses n=6 per the table.
• Internal range inconsistencies between text and table. The Results & Discussion narrative reports Mn 0.001-0.007 mg/kg, Cu 0.49-0.70 mg/kg and Zn 0.01-0.08 mg/kg; Table 1 contains values that extend the Mn range to 0.008 mg/kg (Sample 1), the Cu range from 0.48 mg/kg (Sample 1) to 0.69 mg/kg (Sample 2; the 0.70 mg/kg in the text appears to be a rounding of 0.69), and the Zn range down to 0.001 mg/kg (Sample 1). The wiki uses Table 1 as authoritative.
• Basis mismatch in regulatory comparison. Table 1 compares per-mg/kg detergent concentrations directly against mg/L drinking-water and surface-water permissible limits. These bases are not interchangeable: 0.69 mg/kg of copper in a detergent that is used at 1% w/v in wash water produces approximately 7 µg/L of copper in the wash solution, not 690 µg/L. The authors’ “copper exceeds drinking water limit” conclusion derives from this basis error; the wiki reports the comparison as published but does not adopt the implied risk framing.
• No QC, no replicates, no LOD/LOQ. No certified reference material, internal standard, recovery value, blank correction, or detection-limit benchmark is reported. The three-significant-figure reporting at the 0.001 mg/kg level (= 1 µg/kg of product) cannot be substantiated from the method description.
• No oxidation-state speciation. Cu can be in +1 or +2 oxidation state with different bioavailability; the report does not distinguish. Cr is not measured.
• No HMTc-priority analytes measured. Pb, Cd, As, Hg, Ni, Al, Cr-VI, Sn, Sb and U are not measured. The source contributes to non-priority-metals tracking only.
• Brand-by-brand contamination data with brand-name attribution. Table 1 lists brand names alongside per-product values. The wiki strips brand attribution per Part 12 and reports the data as a six-sample distribution with product-form descriptors only.

Provenance

• Source PDF: raw/manual-fetch/Kimi_Agent_Download Corruption Issue/household_papers/01_AP_Countertop_Tile_Floor/JETIR_2020_Heavy_Metals_Detergent_Samples_Jhansi_India.pdf
• SHA-256: 09acc1e52da22d86665e0eb3248f35ed27cc0e21ba22f3d83f373bfa50646371
• File size: 552 KB; 3 numbered article pages (pp. 58-60 of JETIR Vol. 7 Issue 3, March 2020).
• Article identifier: JETIR2003310.
• Journal: Journal of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research (JETIR), ISSN 2349-5162.
• DOI: none assigned (JETIR uses an internal article-ID scheme; no Crossref/DataCite DOI for this article as of access date).
• Publication date: March 2020.
• License: open-access per JETIR’s stated policy at jetir.org; the journal publishes under terms permitting redistribution with attribution. Quality of editorial oversight is independently disputed (see Limitations); the access terms themselves are open.
• Access date: 2026-06-02.
• Acquisition path: included in Kimi Agent Download Corruption Issue (KADC) folder household_papers/01_AP_Countertop_Tile_Floor/. (Folder naming reflects the raw-asset provenance, not topical fit — the paper is a laundry-detergent study filed alongside countertop / tile / floor literature in the KADC batch.)

Wiki pages this source may touch

• copper — small Indian-market dataset (n=6) showing 0.48-0.69 mg/kg Cu in laundry-detergent finished product on a dry, as-purchased basis; consistent in order of magnitude with the Unilever 1990 EU laundry-detergent dataset compiled in ECETOC 1992 for the Ni/Co/Cr panel, though the metals overlap is partial.
• iron — Indian-market Fe in laundry detergents 0.001-0.008 mg/kg (n=6).
• manganese — Indian-market Mn in laundry detergents 0.001-0.008 mg/kg (n=6).
• zinc — Indian-market Zn in laundry detergents 0.001-0.08 mg/kg (n=6).
• laundry-detergents — direct evidence: six Indian retail-market detergent samples (mix of powders, one liquid, one oxygen-bleach additive); Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn measured by flame AAS; no HMTc-panel analyte measured.

Verification notes

• Identity-check results (DOI / raw_handle / cite-key) on 2026-06-02 returned no matching wiki source page; ingested as NEW.
• SHA-256 of the source PDF was recomputed from disk on 2026-06-02 and matches the value recorded above.
• Sample size set to n=6 per Table 1 despite the abstract stating “seven detergent samples”; discrepancy logged under Limitations and surfaced as a paper-internal contradiction. The likely explanation is a merged column header (“Patanjali Anti bacterial Neem fresh / Rose fragrance powder”), but the table row contains only one value per metal in that cell, so the seventh sample’s data is either omitted or merged. The wiki does not attempt to disambiguate further.
• Internal text-vs-table range inconsistencies for Mn, Cu and Zn (documented under Limitations and in the Key numbers second-row “Range as restated” line) were resolved by treating Table 1 as authoritative.
• Brand names appear in Table 1 of the source. Per HMI Part 12 firewall (strict 2026-05-17 reading), brand attribution was stripped and the data are reported as a six-sample distribution with product-form descriptors only. The product-form descriptors retain the analytical-chemistry-relevant information (powder vs liquid; presence of softener, antibacterial agent, oxygen bleach) without naming brands.
• Evidence tier set to C on the basis of: (i) JETIR’s documented index-quality concerns; (ii) n=6, single-city, single-laboratory, single-run design; (iii) absence of QC/replicate/LOD reporting; (iv) the text-vs-table inconsistencies; (v) the basis-mismatch in the regulatory comparison; (vi) none of the four analytes is on the HMTc priority panel. The underlying AAS instrumentation and wavelengths reported are conventional and not in themselves a tier downgrade.
• Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged four brand-derived parenthetical taglines in the Key Numbers per-sample table (“maha shaktishali wash”, “gently clean and softener”, “oxi action”, “plus” formulation) as Part 12 brand-firewall leaks. Verified against PDF Table 1 — these are sub-brand / product-line taglines tied to specific commercial brands (Ghadi, Easy, Vanish, Tide). Stripped all four parentheticals; product-form descriptors alone retain the analytical-chemistry-relevant information.
• Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged Implications bullet 4 (“strengthening confidence that laundry-detergent product matrices are not a meaningful exposure source for the HMTc analytes Pb, Cd or As”) as cross-source synthesis on the source page (Part 9 workflow scope), and internally inconsistent because neither this study nor the cited ECETOC 1992 dataset measures Pb, Cd or As. Verified — the conclusion does not follow from the premises stated. Rewrote the bullet to defer cross-source synthesis to the Part 9 workflow.
• Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged Implications bullet 3 (“would reduce a 0.69 mg/kg per-product copper concentration to roughly 7 µg/L at-skin / at-fabric — comfortably below the 0.05 mg/L drinking-water cap”) as wiki-generated risk arithmetic that goes beyond reporting what the literature supports. Verified — the source mentions a 2.5-3.5% detergent concentration only in the context of fish mortality, not a 1% in-use wash dilution; the 7 µg/L number and the “comfortably below” framing are wiki-side. Rewrote the bullet as a methodological note that the source does not perform the in-use dilution step required to compare the per-product Cu concentration against a per-volume water limit.
• Audit subagent (2026-06-02) flagged metals: [Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn] as missing from the CLAUDE.md Part 14 canonical-abbreviation list and matrices: [laundry-detergent, household-cleaning-product] as not visibly in the taxonomy snapshot. Verified — element-symbol slugs Fe/Cu/Mn/Zn are consistent with the symbol convention used elsewhere in the corpus (e.g., Co, Mo) and CLAUDE.md Part 14 enumerates priority analytes rather than an exhaustive permitted-abbreviation list. The matrices laundry-detergent and household-cleaning-product are both used in ecetoc1992-tr045-ni-co-cr-consumer-products frontmatter, which is precedent in the corpus. Finding rejected as a false positive on the precedent basis; no slug change applied.

Page history

The five most recent substantive edits to this page. The full version history lives in git; when DOI minting comes online (see schema docs), each entry below will also link to a version-pinned DataCite DOI.