InNetweYogrkrSatatteed

Pest

ManageSomdiuemnLaturyl

Sulfate

Profile
Cornell

Cooperative

Extension

Program

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile
Active Ingredient Eligible for Minimum Risk Pesticide Use
Brian P. Baker and Jennifer A. Grant New York State Integrated Pest Management, Cornell University, Geneva NY

Label Display Name: Sodium lauryl sulfate Active Components: Sodium lauryl sulfate CAS Registry #: 151-21-3 U.S. EPA PC Code: 079011 CA DPR Chem Code: 907

Other Names: Sulfuric acid -mono-dodecyl ester sodium salt (1:1); sodium dodecyl sulfate; SDS; SLS; Dodecyl alcohol, hydrogen sulfate, sodium salt; Irium; Akyposol SDS; Duponol PC; Stepanol ME; Aquarex methyl; Dodecyl sodium sulfate; Gardinol; Hexamol; Melanol; Lauryl sulfate, sodium salt
Other Codes: BRN: 3599286; Gmelin: 117722; SMILES: [Na+].CCCCCCCCCCCCOS([O-])(=O)=O

Summary: Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is an anionic surfactant commonly used in detergents and cleaning products. While widely used in pesticide formulations as a surfactant and dispersant, SLS is usually an inert ingredient or used in combination with other active ingredients, most of which are ineligible for use in minimum-risk pesticides. SLS has some antimicrobial activity but is more often a synergist used with other antimicrobial active ingredients. When currently required label instructions on products containing SLS are followed, the EPA did not find any unreasonable adverse effects to the U.S. population.

Pesticidal Uses: Commonly used as an adjuvant or synergist with antimicrobials and insecticides, with some activity.

Formulations and Combinations: Commonly used as a surfactant and emulsifier in many formulated products. As of this writing, it is listed as an active ingredient in one registered pesticide product. May be used as a virucide with citric acid and malic acid.

Basic Manufacturers: Alfa Chemical, Akzo Nobel, BASF, Croda, Dow, DuPont, Evonik, Galaxy Surfactants, Godrej, Guangzhou Xingyi Chemical, Huntsman, Kao, Nease, Oxiteno, Rhodia, Spectrum, Southern Chemical and Textiles (SCT); Stepan, Sinolight, Unger Surfactants, Zhejiang Zanyu, and Zibo Jujin; Technology Co., Ltd., Kao Corporation, Godrej Industries Ltd., Trading Co., Ltd. and Oxiteno.

This document profiles an active ingredient currently eligible for exemption from pesticide registration when used in a Minimum Risk Pesticide in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) section 25b. The profile was developed by the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program at Cornell University, for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The authors are solely responsible for its content. The Overview Document contains more information on the scope of the profiles, the purpose of each section, and the methods used to prepare them. Mention of specific uses are for informational purposes only, and are not to be construed as recommendations. Brand name products are referred to for identification purposes only, and are not endorsements.
Page 1 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile
Safety Overview: In its last registration review, conducted in 2010, EPA did not find any unreasonable adverse effects to the U.S. population in general, and to infants and children in particular, or to non-target organisms, from the use of registered products containing lauryl sulfate salts when currently required label instructions are followed. In that same final decision, the EPA stated that “currently registered uses of lauryl sulfate salts will have ‘no effect’ on any federally listed, threatened or endangered species nor will such use destroy or adversely modify any designated critical habitat of such species” and that no new risk assessments were needed (Harrigan-Farrelly 2010).
Background
Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is a surfactant and emulsifier that is primarily used as a wetting agent and detergent (Merck 2015). It is an alkyl sulfate salt (EMBL 2015), generally prepared by the sulfation of lauryl alcohol followed by neutralization with sodium carbonate (Merck 2015). SLS is classified as an anionic surfactant alkyl sulfate detergent, and is one of the most studied and widely used surfactants (Tadros 2000). It has two moieties. One is a 12-carbon chain that is non-polar and lipophilic (fat soluble), and structurally similar to lauric acid. The other part of the molecule is a polar and hydrophilic (water soluble) negatively charged sulfate ion. The sodium ion increases the ability to go into aqueous solution over that of lauryl sulfate (Tadros 2000). Even though both have the same solubility at equilibrium, SLS reaches equilibrium more quickly. The combination of water solubility and fat solubility enables SLS to change the surface tension in a water-based liquid and disperse suspended fats and oils (Tadros 2000).
SLS is a surfactant and emulsifier that is primarily used as a wetting agent and detergent (Merck 2015). The textile industry is a heavy user, using SLS to clean and prepare fabric for dying. It is used in separation of proteins and lipids by electrophoresis (ChemNetBase 2015). SLS is a common ingredient in many household and personal care products, such as dishwashing and laundry detergents, toothpastes and shampoos.
Chemical and Physical Properties
The molecular structure of SLS is presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 Sodium Lauryl Sulfate molecular structure
Source: (EMBL 2015)
Page 2 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile

The physical and chemical properties of SLS are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Physical and Chemical Properties of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

Property
Molecular Formula: Molecular Weight: Percent Composition:
Physical state at 25°C/1 Atm. Color Odor Density/Specific Gravity Melting point Boiling point Solubility Vapor pressure pH
Octonol/Water (Kow) coefficient Viscosity
Miscibility Flammability Storage stability Corrosion characteristics Air half life Soil half life Water half life Persistence

Characteristic/Value

Source

C12H25NaO4S 288.38

(Merck 2015) (Merck 2015)

C: 49.98%; H: 8.74%; Na: 7.97%; O:22.19%; S: 11.12%

(Royal Society of Chemistry 2015)

Crystals or flakes

(Merck 2015; ChemNetBase 2015)

White or Cream

(Merck 2015)

Faint odor of fatty substances

(Merck 2015)

0.6 g/cm3

(Harrigan-Farrelly 2010)

204°-207°C

(Merck 2015)

588°C

(EPI 2012)

1 g/10 ml water

(Merck 2015)

1.1 x 10-12 mm Hg at 25°C

(Harrigan-Farrelly 2010)

Neutral to alkali (8.5-11.0 in a 1% aqueous solution)

(Merck 2015; Stepan 2014)

1.6 (UNEP 2015)

Not determined but expected to be close (Harrigan-Farrelly 2010) to the viscosity of water

Not found

Does not contain combustible liquids

(Harrigan-Farrelly 2010)

Stable beyond one year

(Harrigan-Farrelly 2010)

Not found

0.7 hr

(EPI 2012)

77.5 hrs

(EPI 2012)

19.8 hrs

(EPI 2012)

595 hrs

(EPI 2012)

SLS lowers the surface tension of water (Merck 2015). When heated to decomposition, it releases toxic sulfur oxides (US NLM 2016). Lauryl sulfate was compared with SLS in carrying out catalytic reactions on complex chemical structures. Both increased the rate of reaction, an effect that was decreased in the presence of various alcohols. SLS consistently had a higher degree of dissociation than lauryl sulfate (Bravo et al. 1992).
Human Health Information
SLS is considered moderately toxic, with a probable oral lethal dose for humans estimated to be 5005,000 mg/kg, between 1 oz and 1 pint (or 1 lb) for 70 kg (150 lb) person (Gosselin et al. 1976). Human exposure to SLS via dentifrices has been linked to ulceration of oral tissues—recurrent aphthous stomatitis—in some dental patients (Shim et al. 2012).

Page 3 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile

Contact dermatitis symptoms have been linked to SLS exposure in humans. Out of 330 patients incidentally exposed to SLS, 53 or about 16% reacted adversely. Most could be considered minor irritations, but 6.4%—a little over one in 15—had allergic reactions diagnosed as true erythemato-papular allergic reactions or eruptive rashes (Blondeel et al. 1978). Other reported reactions included hair loss, difficulty in breathing, and rashes.

Acute Toxicity
The acute toxicity of SLS is summarized in Table 2.

Study
Acute oral toxicity Acute dermal toxicity
Acute inhalation Acute eye irritation Acute dermal irritation Skin sensitization

Table 2 Acute Toxicity of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

Results
Rat LD50: 1,288 mg/kg Rabbit: LD50 = 600 mg/kg Guinea pig: LD50 > 1,200 mg/kg Not found
Rabbit: Moderately irritating
Not found
Not found

Source
(Merck 2015) (UNEP 2015)
(Griffith et al. 1980)

The EPA concluded that given the use patterns of SLSs in registered pesticides, dermal and inhalation risks were not expected (Harrigan-Farrelly 2010).

Sub-chronic Toxicity
The sub-chronic toxicity of SLS is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 Sub-chronic Toxicity of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

Study
Repeated Dose 28-day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents 90 day oral toxicity in rodents
90 day oral toxicity in non-rodents
90 Day dermal toxicity 90 Day inhalation toxicity Reproduction/development toxicity screening test Combined repeated dose toxicity with reproduction/development toxicity screening test Prenatal developmental toxicity study
Reproduction and fertility effects

Results
Rat: NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 300/600 mg/kg/day Rat: NOAEL = 100 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 500 mg/kg/day Dog: NOAEL = 400 mg/kg/day LOAEL = 800 mg/kg/day Not found Not found Mice: NOAEL develop. = 300 mg/kg/day LOAEL develop. = 600 mg /kg/day Not found

Source
(HSDB 2015) (HSDB 2015) (HSDB 2015)
(HSDB 2015)

Mice: NOAEL develop. = 300 mg/kg/day LOAEL develop. = 600 mg /kg/day
Mice: NOAEL reprod. = 1,000 mg /kg/day LOAEL reprod. = could not be established.

(HSDB 2015) (HSDB 2015)

Page 4 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile

Chronic Toxicity
The chronic toxicity of SLS is summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 Chronic Toxicity of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

Study
Chronic toxicity Carcinogenicity Combined chronic toxicity & carcinogenicity

Negative Negative Negative

Results

Source
(HSDB 2015) (HSDB 2015) (HSDB 2015)

Human Health Incidents
Between 1948 and 2010, EPA had one reported human incident directly linked to exposure to SLS as a pesticide active ingredient (Harrigan-Farrelly 2010). Symptoms included blisters on the face and nose that remained for 3.5 weeks after exposure. The National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC) received 11 reported human health incidents involving SLS between April 1, 1996 and March 30, 2016 (NPIC 2016). All incidents involved SLS and additional active ingredients. None were in New York State.

Environmental Effects Information
Effects on Non-target Organisms
The effects of SLS on non-target organisms are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Effects of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate on Non-target Organisms

Study
Avian Oral, Tier I Non-target plant studies Non-target insect studies Aquatic vertebrates
Aquatic invertebrates

Results

Source

Not found

Not found

Not found

Oncorhynchus mykiss (Rainbow Trout) LC50 24 hr = 58,100 µg/l
LC50 48 hr = 41,200 µg/l LC50 96 hr = 24,900 µg/l
Daphnia magna: LC50 = 1,800 µg/l

(HSDB 2015) (HSDB 2015)

As a surfactant, SLS is highly toxic to aquatic species when released in water (Singer and Tjeerdema 1992; Cserháti et al. 2002). However, SLS was shown to be an effective repellent that discouraged carp (Cyprinus carpio)—a desirable fish for human consumption—from exposure to several more toxic and less repellent pesticides (Ishida and Kobayashi 1995). While this did not negate the fact that SLS itself was toxic to carp, and the synergy between the SLS and pesticides was not analyzed, the authors concluded that SLS would protect fish from more toxic pesticides.

Page 5 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile
Exposure of the model free-living soil nematode Caenorhabditis elegans to a 0.01% SLS solution shortened their lifespan to one day, compared with 20 to 28 days for the control group (Kurauchi et al. 2009).
NPIC received 7 reported animal incidents involving SLS between April 1, 1996 and March 30, 2016 (NPIC 2016). All involved active ingredients in addition to SLS. None were in New York State. Two exempt pet shampoo incidents were reported to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ Animal Poison Control Center (APCC) between 2006 and 2008. Both incidents involved an exempt-from-registration, plant-derived flea shampoo with 7.5% SLS. The formulation also contained the 25(b)-eligible active ingredients peppermint oil, clove oil, cedarwood oil, cinnamon oil, and rosemary oil. One incident included skin erythema, vomiting, diarrhea, lethargy, edema, ataxia, seizures and renal failure in a 3-year-old dog, and resulted in euthanasia 6 days after appropriate use. The other incident involved a 13-year-old cat that was euthanized 72 hours after appropriate use (Genovese, et al. 2012).
Environmental Fate, Ecological Exposure, and Environmental Expression
Because of releases from everyday household use of detergent and shampoos, and releases from industrial processing such as textile manufacturing, SLS is commonly found in wastewater and effluent. Given that it is the most common surfactant found in sewage treatment systems, SLS’s biodegradability and the impact it has on the biodegradation of other substances has been extensively studied (Singer and Tjeerdema 1992; Rebello et al. 2014). A review of the literature shows a consensus that SLS is rapidly biodegradable in the environment (Singer and Tjeerdema 1992) and readily biodegradable under laboratory conditions (Sanchez Leal et al. 1991). However, the conditions under which it would be readily biodegradable in the environment are subject to a number of factors such as temperature, sunlight, pH, aeration, and biological activity (Sanchez Leal et al. 1991; Marchesi et al. 1991; Rebello et al. 2014).
Moreover, SLS and other surfactants can impede the biodegradation of readily biodegradable substances in the environment, particularly starches (Feitkenhauer and Meyer 2002). Because of its widespread use and well-understood degradation properties, it is used as a benchmark for the comparison of the biodegradability of other surfactants (Gathergood et al. 2006).
Environmental Incidents
An extensive review of the environmental impacts of SLS has been published (Singer and Tjeerdema 1992). It covered environmental fate, pharmacological properties, exposure, toxicokinetics and metabolism, cytotoxicity, phytotoxicity, and insect, aquatic, mammalian, and avian toxicities. NPIC received four reports of incidents not classified as human health or animal related between April 1, 1996 and March 30, 2016 (NPIC 2016).
Efficacy
Over a thousand published journal articles were found that examined the efficacy of SLS as a surfactant, dispersant and synergist with other pesticide formulation ingredients. However, there are relatively few that look at SLS’s pesticidal properties by itself in isolation from other active ingredients. Most of these studies involve registered insecticides, herbicides and fungicides that are not exempt from the requirement of registration; their primary mode of action is assumed to come not from SLS, but from the other active ingredients in most cases. SLS is exceptional among minimum risk pesticides in this regard, and that is why a different approach was taken with respect to summarizing its efficacy. Studies that involved
Page 6 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile
EPA registered pesticides with SLS as an inert ingredient or synergist and not the primary active ingredient were not included in the efficacy review.
Insecticidal and Acaricidal Activity
SLS can be used to control immature mosquitos. Mosquito pupae were found to be more susceptible to surfactants—including SLS—than the larvae. The LC50 of SLS to Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus pupae was 78ppm; the LC90 was 96ppm (Piper and Maxwell 1971). The authors concluded that lowering water surface tension surfactants, such as SLS, results in oxygen deprivation and suffocation. SLS was found to increase the efficacy and reduce the effective dose when combined with various essential oils, such as cinnamon oil, citronella oil, cedar oil, clove oil, garlic oil, lemongrass oil, linseed oil, rosemary oil, soybean oil, thyme oil, and peppermint oil. As such, its effect can be considered synergistic.
The time it took an aerosol of corn mint oil to kill German cockroaches (Blattella germanica) was reduced from 76 seconds to 39 seconds at a 4% corn mint oil solution when 1% SLS was added. For a 10% solution of SLS, the kill time went from 30 to 21 seconds (Zobitne and Gehret 2003). With American cockroaches (Blattella americana), the effect was more dramatic. Corn mint oil was completely ineffective by itself at even a 10% aerosol solution. However, 4% corn mint oil and 1% SLS resulted in a kill time of 45 seconds and 10% corn mint oil and 1% SLS had a kill time of 38 seconds. The patent explicitly mentions that the intent is to formulate a minimum-risk pesticide that EPA exempts from registration.
SLS can also be formulated using its crystalline solid needle form in aqueous solution and applied to building cracks and crevices for the control of crawling insects, particularly cockroaches (Herrera and Barcay 2012). The needle form resulted in over 90% mortality of cockroaches (species not named) with 1% and 6% concentrations sprayed into jars. The mortality rate caused by the needle form of SLS was significantly higher than for the substance’s powder or liquid forms.
Two 25(b) minimum-risk products formulated with SLS and essential oils caused over 90% mortality of bed bugs (Cimex lectularius) (Singh et al. 2014). One was EcoRaider (Reneotech), a formulation consisting of 2% SLS, 1% geraniol and 1% cedar oil applied at a rate of 4.07 mg/cm2 (1 gal/1000 feet2). EcoRaider caused mortality that was not significantly different from Temprid SC that contains the active ingredients imidacloprid (21%) and ß-cyfluthrin (10.5%) (Singh et al. 2014). The second was Bed Bug Patrol (Nature’s Innovation), consisting of 1.3% SLS, combined with 0.03% clove oil and 1% peppermint oil. It also caused over 90% bed bug mortality.
SLS (0.35%) combined with eugenol (0.52%), peppermint (0.15%) and citronella oil (0.06%) applied at the ready-to-use (RTU) label rate in a 25(b) exempt commercial formulation called Bug Assassin caused 80% mortality of two-spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae) (Cloyd et al. 2009). However, it was not the most effective product tested. Bug Assassin was not effective against the sweet potato whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) (Cloyd et al. 2009).
Antimicrobial Activity
In conducting its reregistration evaluation of SLS—along with the related substances ammonium lauryl sulfate, magnesium lauryl sulfate, and triethanolamine lauryl sulfate—the EPA concluded that these lauryl sulfate salts had ‘no independent pesticidal activity’ when included in antimicrobial products, and thus are properly classified as inert ingredients in those products (US EPA 1993).
Page 7 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile
Prior and subsequent to that conclusion, the EPA recognized SLS as effective as a synergist in combination with other active ingredients. A combination of 10% citric acid, 5% malic acid, and 2% SLS impregnated in a facial tissue effectively deactivated human rhinovirus in a contact time of 1 minute (Guse 1983). A subsequent study showed that even with a reduced dose of 3.2% citric acid, with 1.6% malic acid and 0.5%, SLS showed sufficient efficacy to reduce not only rhinovirus, but also parainfluenza and herpes simplex viruses as well (Guse 1986). Tissues impregnated with 7.53% citric acid and 2.02% SLS demonstrated sufficient efficacy to support a claim of controlling Rhinovirus 2 (Whyte 2004). That determination followed a previous review of another formulation that showed efficacy but was insufficient to support a public health claim as an EPA registered pesticide (Mitchell 2002).
In addition to the data submitted to the EPA, there are several studies that explored the antimicrobial activity of SLS. Cantaloupes washed with a commercial detergent that contained 0.2-0.5% SLS and phosphoric acid adjusting the formulation to a pH of 2 had a significantly reduced total endogenous microbial load (Sapers et al. 2001). SLS at concentrations of 0.25% and 0.5% inhibited but did not eliminate Listeria monocytogenes (Johnson 2006). When combined with methanobactin against that organism, SLS had a significant synergistic effect in reducing surviving target organisms.
However, the antimicrobial activity of SLS is limited. Salmonella spp. and Shigella spp. cultured in agar and treated with a 0.1% solution of SLS survived at both 22° and 40°C (Raiden et al. 2003). SLS in a 1% solution was ineffective in inhibiting Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 on both lettuce and poultry (Zhao et al. 2009). While SLS can increase efficacy of acidic antimicrobials like citric and phosphoric acids, it can also inhibit efficacy of other antimicrobials. For example, formulated products of SLS combined with acriflavine are ineffective against Staphylocooccus aureus (Valko and DuBois 1944).
Herbicidal Activity
SLS is claimed to have a mode of action similar to herbicidal soaps (Vento 2004). However, a search of the literature found no specific information regarding SLS’s mode of action (ICF Consulting 2006). No efficacy data specific to SLS acting alone as an herbicide was found in preparing this profile. Formulated 25(b) exempt insecticides that contained SLS and essential oils were noted to be phytotoxic in insecticide trials (Cloyd et al. 2009). One, Sharpshooter, consisted of clove oil and SLS, while the other, Bug Assassin, contained eugenol, peppermint and citronella oil in addition to SLS. Two minimum-risk insecticide formulations exempt from registration and containing SLS have been shown to be phytotoxic (Cloyd et al. 2009). However, each contains other ingredients known to be phytotoxic: clove oil in Sharpshooter and eugenol in Bug Assassin (Tworkoski 2002).
Standards and Regulations
EPA Requirements
SLS is exempt from the requirement of a tolerance as both an inert and an active ingredient in antimicrobial formulations for use on food-contact surface sanitizing solutions. Ready-to-use formulations are limited to an end-use concentration not to exceed 350 ppm [40 CFR 180.940(a)]. The formulation needs to be used in accordance with good manufacturing practices, provided that the substance is applied on a semi-permanent or permanent food-contact surface other than food packaging with adequate draining before contact with food. The same limitation applies to the use of SLS in dairy processing [40 CFR 180.940(b)]. Food processing equipment and utensils may also be cleaned with SLS without any limitation to the concentration [40 CFR 180.940(c)].
Page 8 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile
FDA Requirements
According to the FDA, SLS may be safely used as a food additive for human consumption [21 CFR 172.822]. However, when SLS is used in food it is subject to specific restrictions. Food grade specifications require SLS to be a mixture of sodium alkyl sulfates consisting chiefly of SLS with a minimum content of 90 percent sodium alkyl sulfates [21 CFR 172.822(a)].
Food uses of SLS considered GRAS by FDA are limited to: as an emulsifier in egg whites at 1,000 ppm for solids and 125 ppm for frozen or liquid [21 CFR 172.822(b)(1)]; as a whipping agent for gelatin in marshmallows up to 0.5% by weight of the gelatin [21 CFR 172.822(b)(2)]; as a surfactant in fumaric acid in beverages and fruit drinks not to exceed 25 ppm in the final product [21 CFR 172.822(b)(3)]; and as a wetting agent in crude vegetable oils and animal fats at a level not to exceed 10 parts per million in the partition of high and low melting fractions followed by alkali neutralization and deodorization [21 CFR 172.822(b)(4)].
Finally, SLS must be properly labeled with adequate use directions to provide a final product that complies with the limitations described above [21 CFR 172.822(c)].
Other Regulatory Requirements
SLS was petitioned for use in organic production in 2004 (Vento 2004). The National Organic Standards Board determined that SLS was synthetic and did not recommend it to the National Organic Program for inclusion on the National List (NOSB 2006). Because it is synthetic and does not appear on the National List of allowed synthetic substances allowed for crop production [7 CFR 205.601] SLS is therefore prohibited for use in organic production [7 CFR 205.105(a)].
Literature Cited
Blondeel, Arlette, Jacques Oleffe, and Georges Achten. 1978. “Contact Allergy in 330 Dermatological Patients.” Contact Dermatitis 4 (5): 270–276.
Bravo, Carlos, J Ramon Leis, and M Elena Pena. 1992. “Effect of Alcohols on Catalysis by Dodecyl Sulfate Micelles.” The Journal of Physical Chemistry 96 (4): 1957–1961.
ChemNetBase. 2015. “Combined Chemical Dictionary.” Combined Chemical Dictionary. 2015. http://dnp. chemnetbase.com.
Cloyd, Raymond A., Cindy L. Galle, Stephen R. Keith, Nanette A. Kalscheur, and Kenneth E. Kemp. 2009. “Effect of Commercially Available Plant-Derived Essential Oil Products on Arthropod Pests.” Journal of Economic Entomology 102 (Copyright (C) 2015 U.S. National Library of Medicine.): 1567–79.
Cserháti, Tibor, Esther Forgács, and Gyula Oros. 2002. “Biological Activity and Environmental Impact of Anionic Surfactants.” Environment International 28 (5): 337–348.
EMBL. 2015. “Chemical Entities of Biological Interest.” 2015. http://www.ebi.ac.uk/.
EPI. 2012. “Estimation Programs Interface (EPI) Suite (V4.11).” Washington, DC: US EPA Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
Page 9 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile
Feitkenhauer, H., and U. Meyer. 2002. “Anaerobic Digestion of Alcohol Sulfate (Anionic Surfactant) Rich Wastewater – Batch Experiments. Part II: Influence of the Hydrophobic Chain Length.” Bioresource Technology 82 (2): 123–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00174-2.
Gathergood, Nicholas, Peter J Scammells, and M Teresa Garcia. 2006. “Biodegradable Ionic Liquids Part III. The First Readily Biodegradable Ionic Liquids.” Green Chemistry 8 (2): 156–160.
Genovese, Allison G, Mary Kay McLean, and Safdar A Khan. 2012. “Adverse Reactions from Essential Oil-Containing Natural Flea Products Exempted from Environmental Protection Agency Regulations in Dogs and Cats.” Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 22 (4): 470–475. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-4431.2012.00780.x.
Gosselin, RE, HC Hodge, RP Smith, and MN Gleason. 1976. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products: Acute Poisoning. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
Griffith, John F, Gerald A Nixon, Robert D Bruce, Paul J Reer, and Elmer A Bannan. 1980. “Dose-Response Studies with Chemical Irritants in the Albino Rabbit Eye as a Basis for Selecting Optimum Testing Conditions for Predicting Hazard to the Human Eye.” Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 55 (3): 501–513.
Guse, Dennis G. 1983. “Technical Support Section Efficacy Review: Impregnated Virucidal Facial Tissue.” Washington, DC: US EPA. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/ cleared-reviews/reviews/021801/021801-051101-079011-1983-05-02a.pdf.
———. 1986. “Kleenex Avert Virucidal Facial Tissue Amendment.” Washington, DC: US EPA. http://www. epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-021801_15-Jul-86_a.pdf.
Harrigan-Farrelly, J. 2010. “Lauryl Sulfate Salts Final Registration Review Decision.” Docket HQOPP-2009-0727-0007. US EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances. http:// www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?documentId=EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0727-0004&disposition=attachment&contentType=pdf.
Herrera, K., and S.J. Barcay. 2012. Solid form sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) pesticide composition. US Patent Office 8,110,608, issued February 7, 2012. https://www.google.com/patents/US8110608.
HSDB. 2015. “National Library of Medicine Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB).” 2015. http://toxnet. nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/hsdb.htm.
ICF Consulting. 2006. “Sodium Lauryl Sulfate—Crops.” Technical Review. Washington, DC: USDA National Organic Program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/S%20Lauryl%20report.pdf.
Ishida, Yoshinari, and Hiroshi Kobayashi. 1995. “Avoidance Behavior of Carp to Pesticides and Decrease of the Avoidance Threshold by Addition of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate.” Fisheries Science 61 (3): 441–446.
Johnson, Clinton Lewis. 2006. “Methanobactin: A Potential Novel Biopreservative for Use against the Foodborne Pathogen Listeria monocytogenes.” PhD, Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Kurauchi, Masaru, Hisashi Morise, and Toshihiko. Eki. 2009. “Using the Nematode Caenorhabditis Elegans Daf-16 Mutant to Assess the Lifespan Toxicity of Prolonged Exposure to Ecotoxic Agents.” Journal of Health Science 55 (Copyright (C) 2015 American Chemical Society (ACS). All Rights Reserved.): 796–804. https://doi.org/10.1248/jhs.55.796.
Page 10 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile
Marchesi, JR, NJ Russell, GF White, and WA House. 1991. “Effects of Surfactant Adsorption and Biodegradability on the Distribution of Bacteria between Sediments and Water in a Freshwater Microcosm.” Applied and Environmental Microbiology 57 (9): 2507–2513.
Merck. 2015. The Merck Index Online. Cambridge, UK : Royal Society of Chemistry,.
Mitchell, Emily. 2002. “Efficacy Review for EPA Reg. No.: 9402-RN, “Kleenex Brand Anti-Viral Tissue #2.” MRID. Washington, DC: US EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Efficacy and Science Support Branch. http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC021801_18-Nov-02_001.pdf.
NOSB. 2006. “Sodium Lauryl Sulfate—Crops.” Formal Recommendation by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to the National Organic Program (NOP). Washington, DC: USDA National Organic Standards Board. http://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/S%20Lauryl%20recommendation.pdf.
NPIC. 2016. “NPIC Special Report: 25(b) Incidents.” Corvallis, OR: National Pesticide Informatiom Center.
Piper, WD, and KE Maxwell. 1971. “Mode of Action of Surfactants on Mosquito Pupae.” Journal of Economic Entomology 64 (3): 601–606.
Raiden, Renee M, Joemel M Quicho, Coryell J Maxfield, Susan S Sumner, Joseph D Eifert, and Merle D Pierson. 2003. “Survivability of Salmonella and Shigella Spp. in Sodium Lauryl Sulfate and Tween 80 at 22 and 40° C.” Journal of Food Protection 66 (8): 1462–1464.
Rebello, Sharrel, Aju K Asok, Sathish Mundayoor, and MS Jisha. 2014. “Surfactants: Toxicity, Remediation and Green Surfactants.” Environmental Chemistry Letters 12 (2): 275–287.
Royal Society of Chemistry. 2015. “Chemspider.” 2015. http://www.chemspider.com/.
Sanchez Leal, J., J. J. Gonzalez, F. Comelles, E. Campos, and T. Ciganda. 1991. “Biodegradability and Toxicity of Anionic Surfactants.” Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica 19 (Copyright (C) 2015 American Chemical Society (ACS). All Rights Reserved.): 703–9.
Sapers, GM, RL Miller, V Pilizota, and AM Mattrazzo. 2001. “Antimicrobial Treatments for Minimally Processed Cantaloupe Melon.” Journal of Food Science 66 (2): 345–351.
Shim, YJ, J-H Choi, H-J Ahn, and J-S Kwon. 2012. “Effect of Sodium Lauryl Sulfate on Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.” Oral Diseases 18 (7): 655–660.
Singer, MM, and RS Tjeerdema. 1992. “Fate and Effects of the Surfactant Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate.” Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 133: 95–149.
Singh, Narinderpal, Changlu Wang, and Richard Cooper. 2014. “Potential of Essential Oil-Based Pesticides and Detergents for Bed Bug Control.” Journal of Economic Entomology 107 (6): 2163–2170.
Stepan. 2014. “Stepanol ME Dry Safety Data Sheet.” MSDS 0615. Northfield, IL: Stepan Company. http:// www.stepan.com/msds/00046500.pdf.
Tadros, Tharwat. 2000. “Surfactants.” In Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471238961.1921180612251414.a01.pub3.
Page 11 of 12

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Profile
Tworkoski, Thomas. 2002. “Herbicide Effects of Essential Oils.” Weed Science 50: 425–431. UNEP. 2015. “Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate.” SIDS Initial Assessment Profile. Geneva, CH. http://www.chem.
unep.ch/irptc/sids/OECDSIDS/151213.htm. US EPA. 1993. “Lauryl Sulfate Salts.” RED Facts EPA-738-F-93-009. US EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/factsheets/4061fact.pdf. US NLM. 2016. “Pubchem: Open Chemistry Database.” 2016. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. Valko, EI, and AS DuBois. 1944. “The Antibacterial Action of Surface Active Cations.” Journal of Bacteriology
47 (1): 15. Vento, Richard A. 2004. “Petition for Inclusion on the National List of a Substance to Be Used in Organic
Production.” National List Petition. Orange, VA: St Gabriel Laboratories. http://www.ams.usda.gov/ sites/default/files/media/S%20Lauryl.pdf. Whyte, Nancy. 2004. “Efficacy Review for EPA Reg. No. 9402-10, Kleenex Anti-Viral Tissue.” MRID 456875401. Washington, DC: US EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. http://www. epa.gov/opp00001/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-021801_12-Dec-04_a.pdf. Zhao, Tong, Ping Zhao, and Michael P Doyle. 2009. “Inactivation of Salmonella and Escherichia coli O157: H7 on Lettuce and Poultry Skin by Combinations of Levulinic Acid and Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate.” Journal of Food Protection 72 (5): 928–936. Zobitne, K.A., and M.J. Gehret. 2003. Insecticidal compositions and method of controlling insect pests using same. US Patent Office 6,548,085, issued April 2003. https://www.google.com/patents/ US6548085.
Page 12 of 12