Indian Journal of Chemical Technology
Vol. 19, March 2012, pp. 149-151
Note
Carboxymethyl cellulose versus
microcrystalline cellulose in the
manufacturing of liquid detergents
Charu Agarwal1*, Ambuj Ilindra1 &Vijay Karadbhajne2
1 ion-exchange chromatography for purification of
Department of Pulp and Paper Technology, 2Department of Oil
Technology, Laxminarayan Institute of Technology, Nagpur 440
033, India
Received 1 June 2011; accepted 7 February 2012
In the present study, microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) has
been used as a substitute for carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) in
the manufacturing of liquid detergents with the aim to bring out a
product comparable between the two derivatives of cellulose in
terms of thickening property and cost economics. Liquid detergent
samples are prepared in the laboratory as per standard formulation
with different amounts of MCC and CMC. MCC is found to be
superior to CMC, both as a thickening agent and in its cost
effectiveness.
Keywords: Carboxymethyl cellulose, Cost economics,
Liquid detergent, Microcrystalline cellulose,
Thickener
When the first liquid detergents were introduced, it
consisted of only 5 - 20% anionic surfactant dissolved
in water1. They became popular as they gave a better
performance than the available soap and detergent
powder, especially when used for dish washing and for
laundering delicate fabrics like silk, wool and
synthetic fabrics. These products have now evolved
into more sophisticated products containing builders
and auxiliary speciality chemical ingredients.
The liquid detergents conventionally use thickeners
such as carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), which is a
synthetic chemical that keeps all the other ingredients
together and prevents their separation into two phases.
Microcrystalline cellulose (MCC), which is closely
associated with the pulp and paper industry, is a novel
concept in the manufacturing of liquid detergents. It
can be used both as a thickening agent2 and as an anti-
redeposition agent.
Anti-redeposition agents are used to prevent fine
soil particles from reattaching to the product being
_____________
*Corresponding author.
E-mail: charu.agarwal3@gmail.com
cleaned. CMC is used for this purpose3. It is
synthesized by the alkali - catalyzed reaction of
cellulose with chloro - acetic acid4. It is often used in
detergents and cosmetic industry as a thickening agent
and emulsion stabilizer, cation - exchange resin in
proteins, in ice packs to form a eutectic mixture
resulting in a lower freezing point and therefore more
cooling capacity than ice.
MCC is purified, partially depolymerized cellulose
which is prepared by treating alpha - cellulose,
obtained as a pulp from cellulosic or lingo - cellulosic
materials, with mineral acids. It is a fine, white or
almost white, odorless and free flowing crystalline
powder, insoluble in water with chemical formula of
(C6H10O5)n. MCC has wide applications, in
pharmaceutical industry as catalyst, in cosmetics and
detergents as thickener and in food industry as
stabilizer, fat replacer and texturing agent. It is used
extensively in reduced-fat salad dressings, numerous
dairy products including cheese, frozen desserts and
whipped toppings, and bakery products. It may also
act as emulsifier, anticaking agent or dispersing agent5.
In the present study, MCC has been used as a
substitute for CMC in the manufacturing of liquid
detergents with the aim to bring out a product
comparable between the two derivatives of cellulose
in terms of thickening property and cost economics.
Experimental Procedure
The ingredients used in the formulation of liquid
detergents were acid slurry, α - olefin sulphonate
(AOS), sodium lauryl ether sulphate (SLES), sodium
lauryl sulphate (SLS), urea, sorbitol, ethylene diamine
tetra acetic acid (EDTA), sodium sulphate and water
with either CMC or MCC.
All the ingredients were weighed in the required
amounts (Table 1) on a % weight basis as per the
standard formulation and kept separately. A
homogeneous white paste was formed by mixing
AOS, SLES and SLS in half the portion of water
required for the formulation of the detergent. The
remaining ingredients i.e. acid slurry, urea, sorbitol,
EDTA, sodium sulphate and CMC or MCC were
added to the remaining part of water, one by one with
proper stirring to form a solution. Then, the white
150 INDIAN J. CHEM. TECHNOL., MARCH 2012

paste was added slowly to this solution with moderate
stirring. After complete addition, stirring was stopped
and the resultant sample was allowed to settle in the
lower compartment of the refrigerator. The next day,
it was taken out and filtered at room temperature6.
The actual % solids of raw materials were acid slurry
80, α - olefin sulphonate 70, sorbitol 70 and SLES 70.
Eight such liquid detergent samples were prepared
by varying the amount of MCC or CMC as given in
Table 1. The samples were analyzed for various
parameters like viscosity (by Ford Cup No. 4
method)7, % solids and consistency (Table 2). Finally,
the cost of the detergent samples against the standard
formulation was calculated (Table 3).
Results and Discussion
Both CMC and MCC are the derivatives of
cellulose, their structures are shown in Fig. 1. In
laundry detergents, CMC is used as a soil suspension
polymer designed to deposit onto cotton and other

Table 1—Liquid detergent formulations

Samples Ingredients, % by weight
Acid slurry AOS SLES SLS Urea Sorbitol EDTA Sodium Water CMC MCC
sulphate
Standard 7 7 5 5 5 3 0.5 8 59.5 - -
formulation
Formulations based on MCC
LD1 7 7 5 5 5 3 0.5 8 57.5 - 2
LD2 7 7 5 5 5 3 0.5 8 55.5 - 4
LD3 7 7 5 5 5 3 0.5 8 53.5 - 6
LD4 7 7 5 5 5 3 0.5 8 51.5 - 8
Formulations based on CMC
LD5 7 7 5 5 5 3 0.5 8 57.5 2 -
LD6 7 7 5 5 5 3 0.5 8 55.5 4 -
LD7 7 7 5 5 5 3 0.5 8 53.5 6 -
LD8 7 7 5 5 5 3 0.5 8 51.5 8 -
LD – Liquid detergent , AOS – α - Olefin sulphonate, SLES – Sodium lauryl ether sulphate, SLS – Sodium lauryl sulphate, EDTA –
Ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid, CMC – Carboxymethyl cellulose, and MCC – Microcrystalline cellulose .
Table 2—Analysis of liquid detergent properties
Samples Viscosity by Ford Cup No. 4, s % Solids Consistency
Initially After 3 After 2 After 4 After 6
weeks months months months
Standard 80 90 93 101 105 36.2 Thick and
formulation transparent
Formulations based on MCC
LD1 120 125 130 136 143 37.8 Thick and
transparent
LD2 132 139 144 150 155 39.6 Thick and
transparent
LD3 140 150 156 163 174 41.7 Thick and
transparent
LD4 148 162 166 175 180 42.0 Thick and
transparent
Formulations based on CMC
LD5 100 110 115 121 131 37.2 Thick and
transparent
LD6 110 125 130 139 140 39.9 Thick and
transparent
LD7 127 135 140 148 Sample turned turbid with 42.5 Turbid
some clots.
LD8 139 145 150 158 Sample turned turbid with 42.9 Turbid
some clots.
 NOTE
Fig.1—MCC and CMC derivatives of cellulose
Table 3—Cost comparison between MCC and CMC based liquid
detergent formulations
Samples Cost
Rs. / kg
Standard formulation 35
Formulations based on MCC
LD1 35.20
LD2 35.40
LD3 35.60
LD4 35.80
Formulations based on CMC
LD5 36.20
LD6 37.40
LD7 38.60
LD8 39.80
cellulosic fabrics creating a negatively charged barrier
to soils in the wash solution. The mechanism of anti -
redeposition action of CMC shows that CMC has
preferential attraction towards cellulose over normal
dirt particles8. Although, the mechanism of action of
MCC is similar to that of CMC, the use of MCC in
liquid detergents is a novel concept.
Table 1 gives the composition of the liquid detergent
formulations. In all, 8 formulations were prepared. Of
these, 4 were based on MCC as a thickener (LD1 to
LD4) and the other 4 (LD5 to LD8) were based on
CMC as a thickener. For formulations based on
CMC/MCC, the amount of CMC or MCC was varied
from 2 to 8 on weight %. The amount of the other
ingredients was kept constant as in the standard
formulation9.
Table 2 shows the viscosity values of the liquid
detergent formulations observed initially and after 3
weeks, 2 months, 4 months and 6 months. It is found
that the viscosity increases with the passage of time.
The increase becomes more predominant as the amount
of thickener used in the detergent is increased. The %
solids varies from 37.8 to 42.0 for formulations based
on MCC and similarly, they vary from 37.2 to 42.9 for
formulations based on CMC with the increase in
percentage of both MCC and CMC respectively. It is
observed that for the same content of CMC and MCC,
151
the viscosity after some weeks is found to be higher for
formulations based on MCC, compared to formulations
based on CMC. Also it is observed that, as the
percentage of both MCC and CMC is increased, CMC
based formulations show turbidity with its 6% (LD7)
and 8% (LD8) samples on prolonged storage for 6
months and the solution appears no longer transparent. It
shows separation and therefore, no viscosity could be
determined. On the other hand, MCC based
formulations, even with higher percentage of MCC, not
only show good viscosity, but there is no sign of
turbidity. Three replicates of each standard formulation
have been prepared and their properties are studied. The
results shown in Table 2 are found to be reproducible.
Table 3 gives the cost data for the liquid detergent
formulations based on MCC and CMC as well as the
standard formulation. The cost of detergent varies
directly with the amount of MCC or CMC used.
The cost of standard formulation is found to be Rs.
35/kg and the cost of CMC is about six times that of
MCC. On this basis, the costs of the eight formulations
(LD1 to LD8) were calculated. It is observed that for
the same % of CMC and MCC used, the cost of liquid
detergent with MCC is appreciably lower than that
with CMC. The cost benefit is proportional to the
amount of MCC used.
Conclusion
MCC is found to be better than CMC as a thickening
agent in liquid detergents as it gives good results even
after a long storage. Further, liquid detergents using
MCC are found to be more economical than those
using CMC.
References
1 Parshuram K S, Soaps and Detergents, 2nd edn (Tata McGraw
Hills Publication), 2004, 187-190.
2 Ilindra A & Dhake J D, A novel value added product from
cellulosic waste, IPPTA, 19 (3) (2007) 149-152.
3 Smulders E, Rybinski W, Sung E, Rähse W, Steber J, Wiebel W
& Nordskog A, Laundry detergents, in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia
of Industrial Chemistry (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany),
2002, 30.
4 Palo Z, Polymeric additives for high performing detergents,
Technomic Publication, USA, 3 (1995) 43-44.
5 Augsburger L & Shangraw R, Microcrystalline Cellulose, US
Pat 6 228 213 (to University of Nebraska), 2001.
6 Othmer K, in Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (John
Wiley & Sons Inc., New York), 1982, 765-780.
7 Hui Y H, in Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products, 6th edn
(John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York), 2005, 98-101.
8 Kaustubh M & Gogte B B, Novel detergents formulations based
on malenized rice bran oil, Soap, Detergent Toiletries Rev, 38(4)
(2007) 25-31.
9Bhasin P & Gogte B B, Novel surfactants based on rice bran
oil and aloe vera, Chem Product Finder, 26 (2) (2007) 59-61