Field of the invention
[0001] The present invention relates to a composition and a method for treating substrates,
such as fabrics; particularly for improved stain removal and better cleaning upon
the subsequent wash and also for reduced re-deposition of dirt.
Background of the invention
[0002] Fabric stains run the gamut from food spills to household substances and can be of
different types; mainly aqueous, oily, particulate and bleachable. Stains are something
that people try to avoid, yet they are unavoidable. Nonetheless, people still prefer
to wear clothes with lesser stains or no stains at all. In fact, people prefer to
avoid stains not just on clothes but in general in kitchens, bathrooms and also on
various household surfaces.
[0003] Consequently, improved stain removal is one of the constant goals of the detergent
industry. There is always an interest to improve the detergency effect, especially
on fabric stains. Fabric stains such as particulate stains, especially mud or clay
containing iron oxides, aqueous/ bleachable stains such as tea stains or oily stains
such as motor oil stains, grease are difficult to remove during main wash. Even if
such stains are removed during the wash process, re-deposition of the removed dirt
onto the fabric is hard to avoid.
[0004] JP09/137378A discloses an antibacterial softener composition comprising a cationic bactericide,
a salt of an α-olefinsulfonic acid having 20 or more carbon atoms and/or a salt of
a dialkylsulfosuccinic acid where the alkyl group has 16 or more carbon atoms, a wax
component and optionally a metal chelating agent for better antibacterial property
and texture. However,
JP09/137378A has not been found to provide improved stain removal or better cleaning upon the
subsequent wash and reduced re-deposition of dirt.
[0005] US 2003/0073597 disclose a liquid fabric softener composition comprising anionic and cationic surfactants
and optionally amphoteric and/or non-ionic surfactants. But said composition does
not provide improved stain removal on the subsequent wash or improved cleaning benefits
or reduced re-deposition of dirt.
[0006] EP 0 388 389 A2 relates to detergent compositions containing hydroxamic acid and their derivates
to assist in the removal of stains from fabrics.
EP 1 279 724 A1 relates to liquid softener compositions suitable for treatment of clothes and fabrics.
[0007] Laundry compositions have been disclosed in applications
WO2010/ 069957,
WO2011/ 151170 and
WO2011/154225 (all by Unilever). These documents disclose laundry compositions comprising hydroxamate and a surfactant
system of anionic and non-ionic surfactants. Similarly,
WO2012/062566 (by Unilever) discloses laundry compositions comprising hydroxamate and a surfactant system of
two different types of anionic surfactants. However, these documents have not been
found to provide improved aqueous/bleachable, oily and particulate stain removal or
better cleaning upon the subsequent wash. Also, the need to reduce or even avoid the
re-deposition of removed stains onto the fabric is still desired.
[0008] Our co-pending application
EP12160157, describes a composition and a method for treating substrates, such as fabrics; particularly
to make the substrate stain repellent and easier to clean upon the subsequent wash;
and describing that that improved perfume delivery and stain repellence is obtained
in compositions comprising a fatty acid, a water soluble salt of aluminium and a non-ionic
polymer having a specific HLB value. However it is a long felt need to reduce or even
avoid the re-deposition of removed stains onto the fabric.
[0009] It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide improved aqueous/bleachable,
oily or particulate stain removal.
[0010] It is a further object of the present invention to provide improved cleaning upon
subsequent wash.
[0011] It is yet another object of the invention to reduce re-deposition of dirt.
[0012] It is still another object of the invention to provide a composition that provides
fabric softness.
[0013] It is still another object of the invention to provide a composition that provides
improved perfume delivery to the fabric.
[0014] It is still another object of the present invention to provide a stable composition;
especially a composition that does not phase separate.
[0015] Surprisingly, it has been found that improved aqueous, oily or particulate stain
removal and reduced re-deposition of dirt can be achieved by depositing a surfactant
complex of an anionic and a cationic surfactant, a non-ionic polymer and a chelating
agent onto the fabric.
Summary of the invention
[0016] Accordingly, in a first aspect, the present invention provides an aqueous composition
for treating a substrate, said composition comprising 2-22 % by weight of a surfactant
complex, selected from cationic and anionic surfactants, wherein the cationic to anionic
surfactant weight ratio is in the range of 1:1 and 6:1; 0.5- 10% by weight of a non-ionic
polymer having a molecular weight of less than 50ku and a HLB value in the range of
12.5 and 18 and; 1-7% by weight of a chelating agent, selected from hydroxamates of
the formula R- CO - NH - OM wherein, R is an alkyl, aryl or alkylaryl group having
6-20 carbon atoms; and M is hydrogen or an alkali metal.
[0017] In a second aspect the present invention provides a method for treating a substrate
comprising the steps in sequence of preparing a 0.05- 1 % by weight solution of the
composition according to claims 1 to 8 in water, rinsing the substrate in the prepared
solution, and drying the substrate.
[0018] In a third aspect the present invention provides a method for preparing the composition
of the invention comprising the steps in sequence of dispersing the anionic surfactant
in a mixture of water and non-ionic polymer, mixing the cationic surfactant into the
non-ionic polymer and anionic surfactant mixture, adding the chelating agent to the
mixture; and optionally adding a perfume.
[0019] In a fourth aspect the present invention provides a bottled rinse conditioner agent
comprising the composition according to the invention in a 250 ml to 5 L bottle.
[0020] For the avoidance of doubt, the improved cleaning upon the subsequent wash benefit
is also referred to as next time cleaning benefit.
[0021] These and other aspects, features and advantages will become apparent to those of
ordinary skill in the art from a reading of the following detailed description and
the appended claims. For the avoidance of doubt, any feature of one aspect of the
present invention may be utilised in any other aspect of the invention. The word "comprising"
is intended to mean "including" but not necessarily "consisting of" or "composed of."
In other words, the listed steps or options need not be exhaustive. It is noted that
the examples given in the description below are intended to clarify the invention
and are not intended to limit the invention to those examples per se. Similarly, all
percentages are weight/weight percentages unless otherwise indicated. Except in the
operating and comparative examples, or where otherwise explicitly indicated, all numbers
in this description indicating amounts of material or conditions of reaction, physical
properties of materials and/or use are to be understood as modified by the word "about".
Numerical ranges expressed in the format "from x to y" are understood to include x
and y. When for a specific feature multiple preferred ranges are described in the
format "from x to y", it is understood that all ranges combining the different endpoints
are also contemplated.
Detailed description of the invention
[0022] The present invention provides an aqueous composition for treating a substrate, comprising
a surfactant complex selected from cationic and anionic surfactants; a non-ionic polymer
and; a chelating agent, selected from hydroxamates of the formula R- CO - NH - OM.
The balance of the composition is made up to 100% by weight with water.
Surfactant complex
[0023] The surfactant complex of the present invention is a detersive surfactant system
comprising surfactants selected from cationic and anionic surfactants. The cationic
and anionic surfactants are present in a ratio such that the cationic : anionic surfactant
weight ratio is from 1:1 to 6:1, preferably from 2:1 to 6:1.
[0024] Cationic surfactants are included in the composition for rendering softness to the
fabric. The cationic surfactant used herein may be a quaternary ammonium salt of the
general formula: R
1R
2R
3R
4N
+X
-, wherein
N is nitrogen;
R1 is C8-C22 alkyl, alkenyl, alkyl/alkenylamidopropyl, alkoxyalkenylethyl, alkyl/alkenyl(poly)alkoxyalkyl,
C1-C4 alkyl C8-C20 alkanoate or alkenoate group, or a C2-C4 alkyl bis [C8-C20 (alkanoate or alkenoate)] group.
R2 is C1-C22 alkyl group, C2-C22 alkenyl group, C8-C22 alkyl/alkenylamidopropyl, alkyl/alkenyl(poly)alkoxyalkyl, alkanoylethyl or alkenoylethyl
group or a group of the formula -A-(OA)n-OH, C1-C4 alkyl C8-C20 alkanoate or alkenoate group, or a C2-C4 alkyl bis [C8-C20 (alkanoate or alkenoate)] group.
R3 and R4 are C1 -C4-alkyl or hydroxyalkyl group, C2-C21 alkenyl group or a group of the formula -A-(OA)n-OH;
A is - C2H4 - and/or - C3H6 -;
n is a number from 0 to 20;
O is oxygen;
H is hydrogen; and
[0025] X is an anion such as chloride, bromide, iodide, nitrate, sulphate or a methyl or
ethyl sulfate.
[0026] The preferred cationic surfactants of the present invention are esterquats in which
partially hardened triethanolamine ester quats are most preferred.
[0027] Non-limiting examples of the cationic surfactants that can be used according to the
present invention include methyl bis[ethyl (tallowate)]-2-hydroxyethyl ammonium methyl
sulphate; methyl bis[ethyl (palmate)]-2-hydroxyethyl ammonium methyl sulphate, ditallow
dimethyl ammonium chloride; ditallow dimethyl ammonium methyl sulfate; dihexadecyl
dimethyl ammonium chloride; di (hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethyl ammonium chloride;
dioctadecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride; dieicosyl dimethyl ammonium chloride; didocosyl
dimethyl ammonium chloride; di (hydrogenated tallow) dimethyl ammonium methyl sulfate;
dihexadecyl diethyl ammonium chloride; di(coconut alkyl) dimethyl ammonium chloride.
[0028] Most preferred examples of the cationic surfactants that can used according to the
present invention include Methyl bis[ethyl (tallowate)]-2-hydroxyethyl ammonium methyl
sulphate, Methyl bis[ethyl (palmate)]-2-hydroxyethyl ammonium methyl sulphate.
[0029] Anionic surfactants are included in the composition for primary cleaning action.
Any non-soap anionic surfactant known in the art for use in laundry detergents may
be used herein.
[0030] Preferred anionic surfactants are water-soluble salts, particularly alkali metal,
ammonium and alkylolammonium salts of organic sulphur reaction products having in
their molecular structure an alkyl group containing from about 10 to 20 carbon atoms
and a sulphonic acid or sulphuric acid ester group.
[0031] Non-limiting examples of the anionic surfactants include any of the common anionic
surfactants such as linear or modified, e. g., branched, alkylbenzene sulphonates,
alkylpoly(ethoxylates), alkyl sulphates, methyl ester sulphonates, or mixtures thereof.
[0032] In the composition of the present invention, the surfactant complex may be present
in a concentration of 2 -22%, preferably not more than 20%, more preferably not more
than 15% but preferably not less than 3% by weight of the total composition.
[0033] For the best stability of the compositions, and to obtain compositions that do not
phase separate, the concentration of the surfactant complex is preferably between
3- 20 % by weight of the total composition.
[0034] Without wishing to be bound by a theory, it is thought that the coulombic interaction
of the positively charged quaternary ammonium ion of the cationic surfactant and the
negative charge on the sulfate/sulfonate group of the anionic surfactant leads to
formation of a complex adduct.
Non-ionic polymer
[0035] The composition according to the invention comprises a non-ionic polymer. Non-ionic
polymers typically comprise of hydrophilic and lipophilic parts. To define the hydrophilic
to lipophilic balance, the HLB value of a polymer is widely used in the art.
[0036] The polymer is used to stabilise the composition and aid in the deposition of the
composition onto the fabric.
[0037] The composition comprises 0.5 - 10% by weight of the non-ionic polymer, preferably
at least 1%, more preferably at least 3% by weight, but typically less than 8% by
weight of the composition. For the best stability the concentration is preferably
at least 1%. For the best stability and cleaning performance the polymer is preferably
present in a concentration of from 1 to 10% by weight, more preferably from 1 to 8%
by weight of the composition.
[0039] For the purpose of the present invention, compositions providing excellent perfume
delivery to and extended perfume release from the fabric are obtained when the HLB
value is in the range from 12.5 to 18.
[0040] The best mud cleaning properties are obtained when the HLB value is between 14 and
17, preferably between 15 and 16.
[0041] For the best stability of the compositions, and to obtain compositions that do not
phase separate, the HLB is preferably between 14 and 17.
[0042] The non-ionic polymer of the invention is preferably selected from homopolymers and
copolymers of alkylene oxides, including ethylene oxide and propylene oxide and co-polymers
thereof, polypropylene glycols and polyvinyl alcohols, having an HLB value in the
range from 12.5 to 18.
[0043] Ethylene oxide/Propylene oxide block co-polymer and polyvinyl alcohols are the most
preferred.
[0044] To get the best stability and cleaning of the composition, it is preferred that poly
vinyl alcohol polymers (PVA), when used, is in a concentration of 1-10% by weight
of the composition and have a degree of hydrolysation of at least 75(%), preferably
at least 80%, or even at least 85%, but preferably less than 95%. A degree of hydrolysation
between 85-91%, or even 87-89% is the most preferred. The molecular mass of the PVA
is less than 50ku, preferably between 10ku and 50ku, and most preferably in the range
of 12ku and 25ku. For the avoidance of doubt, "u" is the SI atomic mass unit, also
known as amu, Dalton, D or Da.
[0045] Ethylene oxide/Propylene oxide block co-polymers (commercially available as Pluronic,
ex BASF) used in the present invention have a molecular mass of less than 50 ku, preferably
between 2.5ku and 25ku, and a PPG block of between 5 and 30%, more preferably 10-25%,
or even between 15 and 20% by weight of the polymer.
[0046] To get the best stability and cleaning of the composition, it is preferred that Ethylene
oxide/Propylene oxide block co-polymers, when used, is in a concentration of 2-10%
by weight of the composition and is a triblock co-polymer.
[0047] It is found that when a non-ionic polymer of more than 50 ku is used, the composition
phase separates resulting in inferior cleaning, especially of particulate stains.
Chelating agent
[0048] To further enhance the next time cleaning benefit and reduce the re-deposition of
the stains onto the fabric, the composition further comprises a chelating agent,
[0049] The chelating agent of the present invention is selected from hydroxamates of the
formula:
R-CO-NH-OM
where, R is an alkyl, aryl or alkylaryl group having 6-20 carbon atoms; and M is hydrogen
or an alkali metal.
[0050] In the above formula, R is preferably hexyl, octyl, decyl, dodecyl, 2-ethylhexyl,
oleyl, eicosyl, phenyl, naphthyl or hexylphenyl; and M is lithium, sodium, potassium,
rubidium or caesium.
[0051] Without wishing to be bound by theory, it is believed that the hydroxamate deposited
onto the fabric acts by binding to the metal ions that are present in the stains thereby
preventing the contact of the stains with the fabric and facilitating easy removal
and suspension of the metal ions, such as iron ions from the fabric into the wash
liquor and thus reducing re-deposition of dirt onto the fabric.
[0052] The composition comprises 1-7% by weight of the chelating agent, preferably at least
2%, more preferably at least 3% by weight, but typically not more than 6%, more preferably
not more than 5% by weight of the composition.
[0053] For the best stability of the compositions, and to obtain compositions that do not
phase separate, the concentration of the chelating agent is preferably between 1-
6 % by weight of the total composition.
Further optional polymers
[0054] For the best cleaning performance upon the subsequent wash, especially for improved
cleaning of soils and stains it is preferred that the composition further comprises
a further polymer.
[0055] It is found that the addition of methyl cellulose improves the removal of soils and
stains upon the next wash. The most preferred is methyl cellulose having a methoxy
substitution of between 27.5-31.5% by weight of the methyl cellulose and preferably
has a degree of substitution (D.S., average number of substituent groups attached
to the ring hydroxyls) between 1.5 and 1.9. It is preferred that a 2% solution of
the methyl cellulose in water has a viscosity of between 2000 and 6000 mPa.s (at 20°C,
measured in a Brookfield viscometer). The composition preferably comprises between
0.1 and 2% by weight of the composition of the methyl cellulose.
Water
[0056] The composition of the present invention is an aqueous composition comprising water.
The composition is preferably made upto 100 percent by adding water.
Optional ingredients
[0057] The composition typically comprises a perfume, typically between 0.1 and 10% of the
total composition, preferably between 0.1 and 5%, or even between 0.3 and 3% of the
composition.
[0058] The composition may further comprise softening agents as commonly used in fabric
softening compositions, antimicrobial agents, silicone oils and co-solvents like 2-phenoxyethanol
(commercially available as ex Dow Chemicals as Dowanol EP-trademark) to improve stability
and dispersibility.
[0059] In addition, the formulation may optionally contain certain non-ionic surfactants.
Any type of non-ionic surfactants may be used. In general, the non-ionic surfactants
may be chosen from the surfactants described in
'Surface Active Agents' Vol. 1, by Schwartz & Perry, Interscience 1949,
Vol. 2 by Schwartz, Perry &Berch, Interscience 1958, in the
current edition of 'McCutcheon's Emulsifiers and Detergents' published by Mnufacturing
Confectioners Company or in
'Tenside- Taschenbuch', H.Stache, 2nd Edn., Carl Hauser Verlag, 1981.
Process for treating a fabric
[0060] In another aspect the invention provides a method for treating a substrate comprising
the steps of preparing a 0.05 - 1% by weight solution of the composition of the invention
in water, rinsing the substrate in the prepared solution, and drying the substrate.
[0061] The solution is preferably 0.1 - 0.5% by weight of the composition in water.
[0062] The solution as dosed to a commercially available front load - horizontal axis -
washing machine is typically between 25 and 100 ml of the composition into 12-15 L
of rinse water. For top load - vertical axis - washing machines the dosage is typically
50-150 ml to 50-60 L of rinse water.
Process for preparing the composition
[0063] In another aspect the invention provides a method for preparing the compositions
according to the invention comprising the steps in sequence of dispersing the anionic
surfactant in a mixture of water and non-ionic polymer, mixing the cationic surfactant
into the non-ionic polymer and anionic surfactant mixture in a mixer at 4000 rpm for
5-10 minutes at 30 °C, adding a chelating agent to the mixture and mixing at 4000
rpm for 5 minutes, and optionally adding a perfume and mixing at 4000 rpm for 2-3
minutes at 30 °C.
[0064] Further ingredients according to the invention may be added subsequently.
Product Format
[0065] The product is typically packed in a bottle, preferably a plastic bottle at volumes
of between 250 ml and 5 L, more preferably between 250 ml and 1.5 L. Common supermarket
size bottles are 250 ml, 500 ml, 750ml, 1 L and 1.5 L. The bottles may optionally
have a measuring cup attached, or a measuring scale indicator in the cap, to enable
the consumer to dose the right amount into the rinse conditioner compartment of the
washing machine.
[0066] Also considered in the context of the present invention for the purpose of direct
application, such as direct application onto a fabric article or a household surface,
is a product format in the form of a bottle with a trigger spray dispenser comprising
the composition according to the invention. Trigger spray dispenser bottles typically
have a volume of between 250 ml and 1.5 L. Common volumes include 400 ml, 500 ml,
750 ml, and 1 L.
[0067] Larger containers for industrial scale use are also included the scope of this invention.
Examples
[0068] The invention will now be illustrated by means of the following non limiting examples.
Materials
[0069]
| Cationic surfactant: |
Methyl bis[ethyl (tallowate)]-2-hydroxyethyl ammonium methyl sulphate - Stepantex®VT 90( ex Stepan, CAS No. 157905-74-3) |
| Anionic surfactant : |
NaLAS: Prepared by neutralizing LAS acid (96%, LABSA RHODACAL SSA/R) with 40% Sodium
carbonate (ex Merck, India) solution and the final pH was set to 10. This mixture
was used for all the experiments. |
| |
SLES: Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulphate (EO2, EO3 |
| Non-ionic polymer : |
PVA: Polyvinyl alcohol- wt average MW - 13-250ku, 87-89% hydrolyzed (ex Sigma Aldrich) |
| |
Pluronic F108, F65, P62, P64 (ex BASF) |
| |
EO5 (ex Galaxy Surfactants Ltd.) |
| |
PEG:Polyethylene glycol (ex Merck India) |
| |
PEI:Poly(ethyleneimine) (ex Sigma-Aldrich) |
| Anionic Polymers : |
PAA: Polyacrylic acid PAA (sodium salt) (ex Sigma Aldrich) |
| |
SCMC: Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (ex Sigma-Aldrich) |
| |
Sodium alginate (ex Sigma-Aldrich) |
| Methyl cellulose : |
Methyl cellulose - 4000 cp, 2% H2O @ 20 °C (ex Sigma-Aldrich) |
| Chelating agents: |
Hydroxamate: C12 hydroxamate (sodium salt) (RK 858, Axis House, Australia) |
| |
EDTA: Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt dehydrate (ex Sigma-Aldrich, 99.0-101.0%,
CAS-No. 6381-92-6) |
| |
Ethylene glycol tetra acetic acid: Ethylene glycol-bis(β-aminoethyl ether)-N,N,N',N'-tetraacetic
acid |
| |
tetrasodium salt (ex Sigma Aldrich, CAS-No. 13368-13-3) |
| |
Citric acid: Sodium citrate dehydrate (ex Sigma Aldrich, CAS-No. 6132-04-3) |
| |
PAA : Poly(acrylic acid) - average Mw ∼ 1800 (ex Sigma Aldrich, CAS-No. 9003-01-4) |
| |
Diethylene triamine penta acetic acid: Diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid pentasodium
salt solution (ex Sigma Aldrich, CAS-No. 140-01-2) |
| |
Nitrilotriacetic acid: Nitrilotriacetic acid trisodium salt (ex Sigma Aldrich, CAS-No.
5064-31-3) |
Preparing the compositions
[0070] First, the anionic surfactant was dispersed in a water and non-ionic polymer mixture.
To this mixture, cationic surfactant was added and mixed well in a mixer at 4000 rpm
for 5-10 minutes at 30°C. Following which, a chelating agent was added to the mixture
and mixed at 4000 rpm for 5 minutes, and perfume was added and mixed at 4000 rpm for
2-3 minutes at 30°C. Further ingredients as used in some of the examples were added
subsequently.
Fabric treatment protocol
[0071] All the treatment processes in the examples were carried out in a 5 kg front loader
washing machine (IFB, MODEL: SENATOR DX, 5 kg) with 6°fH water. 10 of each cotton,
poly-cotton and polyester 10x10 cm
2 swatches were used for treatment. 3.5 kg of fabrics which comprised of a mix of cotton,
poly-cotton and polyester shirts were used as ballast material. The fabric swatches
were stapled into one of the ballast shirts. 30 grams of Surf Excel Matic - Front
Load (ex Hindustan Unilever Ltd, India) was used for the main-wash and it was dispensed
through the detergent compartment of the machine. In a typical process, 35 mL of the
test formulation as described in the examples, was used for fabric surface treatment
and was dispensed through the fabric conditioner compartment of the machine during
the third (=final) rinse. After the completion of the full cycle (comprising of wash
step, and 3 rinse steps and centrifuging), the swatches were removed and then dried
in a drier and ironed.
Staining Protocol
[0072] Red mud soiling: To 1 L de-ionized water 5 g of red mud (sieved, < 150 microns) was
added and sonicated in a sonication bath for 2 hrs. 0.2 ml of this slurry was dropped
onto the fabric which was placed at an inclined plane of 45°. The fabrics were allowed
to dry over- night.
[0073] Tea stain soiling: Two tea bags were dipped in 150ml hot milk to make tea. 0.2 ml
of this tea was dropped onto the fabric which was placed at an inclined plane of 45°.
The fabrics were allowed to dry over-night.
[0074] Dirty Motor oil (DMO) stain soiling: 50 ml of motor oil was mixed with 50 ml of engine
oil to obtain the stain. 0.2 ml of the stain was dropped onto the fabric which was
placed at an inclined plane of 45°. The fabrics were allowed to dry over-night.
Washing Protocol
[0075] The soiled 10x10 cm
2 swatches were stapled onto one of the ballast shirts (as described in the fabric
treatment protocol). Total wash load was 3.5kg comprising of the soiled swatches and
the ballast shirts. Washing was done with 30 grams Surf Excel Matic Front Load (ex
Hindustan Unilever Ltd, India) at 6°fH. Cotton, poly-cotton and polyester swatches,
both treated and untreated, were used for each study. A typical wash cycle comprised
of wash and two rinses along with spin. After washing was completed, the swatches
were removed and then dried in the drier.
Evaluation of fabrics
[0076] The extent of stain removal was compared against the control (untreated) fabrics
on a one to one basis for each stain type. A score "+" was given in cases where the
stains on the treated fabrics appeared lighter than that on the untreated fabrics.
Similarly, a score "-" was given in cases where the stains on the treated fabrics
appeared darker than that on the untreated fabrics. In all the cases, the evaluation
was done by trained panellists.
Reflectance measurement:
[0077] The reflectance of the fabric was measured at ΔR460 (values at 460 nanometer, UV
excluded) using a Macbeth 7000 color eye reflectometer. A SAV aperture and SAV lens
were used for the measurement. Reflectance measured of the fabrics (control and experimental)
were recorded each time before and after washing. The extent of stain removal for
any given set was evaluated from the difference in their reflectance values before
and after washing, as shown below:

where, Control refers to untreated fabrics

where, Experimental refers to fabrics treated with the said formulations.
[0078] Extent of stain removal (W.r.t untreated) Δ(ΔR)= ΔR(Experimental)- ΔR(Control). For
each set of experiments, three replicates of each fabric type were used. The average
Δ(ΔR) values were calculated and compared. The higher the average Δ(ΔR) values, the
better is the cleaning efficacy.
Evaluation of Perfume Performance
[0079] 50X50 cm
2 polyester swatches were used for the perfume evaluation study. 5 swatches were treated
with each of the test formulation, as described in the examples, in a manner already
described. 35 mL of test formulation was used for treatment. As a control, 40g Comfort
® (Blue variant, India) was used. After 2 hours of treatment and drying, the perfume
impact of the treated swatches was compared against the control (in this case Comfort
treated) on a one to one basis for each set. A score "+" was given in cases where
the perfume impact on the treated fabrics appeared greater than that on the control
fabrics. Similarly, a score "-" was given in cases where the perfume impact on the
treated fabrics appeared lesser than that on the control fabrics. In all the cases,
the evaluation was done by trained persons.
Evaluation of Softness Benefits
[0080] 100X100 cm
2 terry-towel swatches were used for the softness evaluation study. 5 such swatches
were treated with each of the test formulation, as described in the examples, in a
manner already described. 35ml of test formulation was used for treatment. After 2
hours of treatment and drying, the softness impact of the treated swatches was compared
against the control (in this case Comfort
®) on a one to one basis for each set. A score "+" was given in cases where the softness
impact on the treated fabrics appeared greater than that on the control fabrics. Similarly,
a score "-" was given in cases where the softness impact on the treated fabrics appeared
lesser than that on the control fabrics. In all the cases, the evaluation was done
by trained persons.
Example 1: Effect of cationic to anionic surfactant ratio
[0081] In this example, different ratios of cationic to anionic surfactant are compared.
Ex1 to Ex4 are example compositions according to the present invention which are compared
to Comp A and B (Comparative examples) having a cationic to anionic surfactant ratio
outside the scope of the present invention.
| Set |
Cationic surfactant wt% |
Anionic surfactant wt% |
Cationic to Anionic ratio |
Non-ionic polymer (PVA) wt% |
Hydroxamate wt% |
| Comp A |
8.8 |
1.3 |
7 |
3 |
1 |
| Ex 1 |
8.6 |
1.4 |
6 |
3 |
1 |
| Ex 2 |
8.0 |
2.0 |
4 |
3 |
1 |
| Ex 3 |
6.7 |
3.3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
| Ex 4 |
5.0 |
5.0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
| Comp B |
3.3 |
6.7 |
0.5 |
3 |
1 |
The balance is water.
[0082] The results for stability, softness, perfume delivery and DMO and mud cleaning are
tabulated below.
| Set |
Stability |
Softness |
Perfume |
Cleaning_D MO |
Cleaning_M ud |
| Comp A |
No |
+ |
+ |
- |
= |
| Ex 1 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 2 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 3 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 4 |
Yes |
= |
+ |
= |
+ |
| Comp B |
Yes |
- |
+ |
= |
+ |
[0083] The table above indicates that the results obtained for a cationic to anionic ratio
of 1:1 to 6:1 are good. The best results on stability, softness, perfume delivery,
DMO and mud cleaning are obtained with a cationic to anionic ratio of 2:1 to 6:1.
Example 2: Effect of concentration of the surfactant complex
[0084] In this example, different concentrations of the surfactant complex in accordance
with the invention (Ex 5 to Ex 8) are compared with a comparative composition (Comp
C) having the surfactant complex in a concentration beyond the claimed range.
| Set |
Cationic surfactant wt% |
Anionic surfactant wt% |
Cationic to Anionic ratio |
Surfactant complex wt% |
Non-ionic polymer (PVA) wt% |
Hydroxamate wt% |
| Ex 5 |
16.5 |
5.5 |
3 |
22 |
3 |
1 |
| Ex 6 |
15 |
5 |
3 |
20 |
3 |
1 |
| Ex 7 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
8 |
3 |
1 |
| Ex 8 |
2.25 |
0.75 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
| Comp C |
0.6 |
0.2 |
3 |
0.8 |
3 |
1 |
The balance is water.
[0085] The results for stability, softness, perfume delivery and DMO and mud cleaning are
given in the table below.
| Set |
Stability |
Perfume |
Softness |
Cleaning_ DMO |
Cleaning_M ud |
| Ex 5 |
No |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 6 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 7 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 8 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Comp C |
Yes |
- |
- |
- |
- |
[0086] The above table shows that good results are obtained for Ex5 to Ex8 having a surfactant
complex concentration within the scope of the present invention when compared to Comp
C having the surfactant complex in a concentration of less than 2%. Best results on
stability are obtained with a surfactant concentration of between 3 and 20% by weight.
Example 3: Effect of concentration of the non-ionic polymer
[0087] In this example, different concentrations of non-ionic polymer in accordance with
the invention are compared with comparative compositions having non-ionic polymer
in a concentration outside the claimed range. Experiments were conducted with two
non-ionic polymers.
1. The effect of different concentrations of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA).
Table 1
| Set |
Cationic surfactant wt% |
Anionic surfactant wt% |
Cationic to Anionic ratio |
Surfactant complex wt% |
Non-ionic polymer (PVA)wt% |
Hydroxamate wt% |
| Ex 9 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
0.8 |
1 |
| Ex 10 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
1 |
1 |
| Ex 11 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
5 |
1 |
| Ex 12 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
8 |
1 |
| Comp D |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
12 |
1 |
The balance is water.
The results for stability, softness, perfume delivery and DMO and mud cleaning are
tabulated below.
| Set |
Stability |
Perfume |
Softness |
Cleaning_DMO |
Cleaning_Mud |
| Ex 9 |
No |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 10 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 11 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 12 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Comp D |
Yes |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
It is inferred from the above table that the results obtained for Ex9 to Ex12 having
PVA concentration within the scope of the present invention are superior when compared
to Comp D having PVA in a concentration of more than 10% by weight. Best results for
both stability and cleaning are obtained when the polymer is present in a concentration
of between 1 and 10% by weight.
2. The effect of different concentrations of pluronic (PL).
Table 2
| Set |
Cationic surfactant wt% |
Anionic surfactant wt% |
Cationic to Anionic ratio |
Surfactant complex wt% |
Non-ionic polymer (PL)wt% |
Hydroxamate wt% |
| Ex 13 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
1 |
1 |
| Ex 14 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
3 |
1 |
| Ex 15 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
5 |
1 |
| Ex 16 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
8 |
1 |
| Comp E |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
12 |
1 |
The balance is water.
[0088] The results for stability, softness, perfume delivery and DMO and mud cleaning are
given in the table below.
| Set |
Stability |
Perfume |
Softness |
Cleaning_DM O |
Cleaning_Mud |
| Ex 13 |
No |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 14 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 15 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 16 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Comp E |
Yes |
+ |
- |
+ |
- |
[0089] It is inferred from the above table that the results obtained for Ex13 to Ex16 having
a PL concentration within the scope of the present invention are superior when compared
to Comp E having PL in a concentration outside the claimed range. Best results for
both stability and cleaning are obtained with a polymer concentration of 2-10% by
weight.
Example 4: Effect of concentration of hydroxamate
[0090] This example demonstrates the effect of different concentrations of hydroxamate in
the compositions according to the present invention (Ex17 to Ex20) against a comparative
composition (Comp F) having hydroxamate in a concentration outside the claimed range.
| Set |
Cationic surfactant wt% |
Anionic surfactant wt% |
Cationic to Anionic ratio |
Surfactant complex wt% |
Non-ionic polymer (PVA) wt% |
Hydroxamate wt% |
| Comp F |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
3 |
0.6 |
| Ex 17 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
3 |
1 |
| Ex 18 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
3 |
3 |
| Ex 19 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
3 |
5 |
| Ex 20 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
7.2 |
3 |
7 |
The balance is water.
[0091] The results for stability, softness, perfume delivery and DMO and mud cleaning are
tabulated below.
| Set |
Stability |
Perfume |
Softness |
Cleaning_DMO |
Cleaning_Mud |
| Comp F |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
- |
| Ex 17 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 18 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 19 |
Yes |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
| Ex 20 |
No |
+ |
+ |
+ |
+ |
[0092] It is inferred from the above table that the results obtained for Ex17 to Ex20 having
an hydroxamate concentration within the scope of the present invention are good when
compared to Comp F having hydroxamate in a concentration outside the claimed range.
Best results for both stability and cleaning are obtained with 1-6% of hydroxamate.
Example 5: Effect of the HLB value of the polymer
[0093] In this example, polymers of the invention having an HLB value within the scope of
the present invention (Ex21 and Ex22) are compared to polymers having an HLB value
outside the scope of the present invention (Comp G to Comp N).
| Set |
Cationic surfactant wt% |
Anionic surfactant wt% |
Cationic to Anionic ratio |
Hydroxamat wt% |
Polymer type |
Polymer (HLB) |
Polymer wt% |
Stability |
| Ex 21 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
PVA |
15.5-16.2* |
3-5 |
Yes |
| Ex 22 |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
Pluronic |
16.5* |
3-5 |
Yes |
| Comp G |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
EO5 |
10.5* |
3-5 |
No |
| Comp |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
Methyl |
10-12# |
3-5 |
No |
| H |
|
|
|
|
cellulose |
|
|
|
| Compl |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
PEG |
|
3-5 |
No |
| Comp J |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
PAA |
|
3-5 |
No |
| Comp K |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
NaLAS |
|
3-5 |
No |
| Comp L |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
SCMC |
>20# |
3-5 |
No |
| Comp M |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
PEI |
|
3-5 |
No |
| Comp N |
6 |
1.2 |
5 |
1 |
Aliginat e |
|
3-5 |
No |
* HLB was calculated by Griffin's method.
# HLB was calculated by Group Calculation method. |
[0094] The table above shows that stability is obtained only with compositions comprising
non-ionic polymers having an HLB value within the scope of the invention (Ex21 and
Ex22).
Example 6: Effect of molecular weight of the polymer
[0095] Example 17 was repeated with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) polymer having different molecular
weights.
[0096] The compositions below contained 1.2% anionic surfactant, 6% cationic surfactant,
and 1% hydroxamate. The concentration, molecular weight, HLB and degree of hydrolysis
of the polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) polymers are given below. The balance is water.
| Set |
Mol. wt. (Mw) |
Degree of Hydrolysis (%) |
PVA (HLB) |
Non-ionic polymer (PVA) wt% |
Stability |
Mud cleaning |
| Comp O |
89ku-98ku |
99 |
19.61 |
3 |
No |
Not measured |
| Comp P |
146ku-186ku |
99 |
19.61 |
3 |
No |
Not measured |
| Comp Q |
85ku-124ku |
99 |
19.61 |
3 |
No |
Not measured |
| Comp R |
31ku-50ku |
98-99 |
19.23 |
3 |
No |
Not measured |
| Comp S |
85ku-124ku |
96 |
18.49 |
3 |
No |
Not measured |
| Comp T |
85ku-124ku |
87-89 |
16.11 |
3 |
Yes |
Inferior |
| Ex 23 |
13ku-23ku |
87-89 |
15.48 |
3 |
Yes |
Superior |
[0097] It is inferred from the above table that superior mud cleaning is obtained only when
the compositions comprise a non-ionic polymer having a molecular weight within the
scope of the invention (Ex23).
Example 7: Effect of each component of the composition on various attributes of the composition
[0098] In this example, the compositions according to the invention (Ex24 and Ex25) are
compared to comparative example compositions (Comp U, V, W and X), where the comparative
example compositions are devoid of at least one component of the composition.
[0099] The compositions in the following table were compared with each other to demonstrate
the results on cleaning properties on various stains, stability and perfume delivery.
The compositions were prepared by the method as described above.
| Ingredients (wt %) |
Base Formulation (BF) |
BF + Hydroxamate |
BF + PVA |
BF + PVA + Hydroxamate |
BF + PL |
BF + PL + Hydroxamate |
| Comp U |
Comp V |
Comp W |
Ex 24 |
Comp X |
Ex 25 |
| Anionic surfactant |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
| Cationic surfactant |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
| Non-ionic polymer (PVA) |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
| Non-ionic polymer (PL) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
| Hydroxam ate |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
| Water |
92.8 |
91.8 |
89.8 |
88.8 |
89.8 |
88.8 |
| Total |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
[0100] The results for stability and perfume delivery are tabulated below.
| Set |
Stability |
Perfume delivery |
| Comp U |
No |
+ |
| Comp V |
No |
+ |
| Comp W |
Yes |
+ |
| Ex 24 |
Yes |
+ |
| Comp X |
Yes |
+ |
| Ex 25 |
Yes |
+ |
[0101] The table above indicates that stability and perfume delivery is good for Comp W
and Comp X (compositions without hydroxamate) as well, apart from the example compositions
of the present invention (EX 24 and Ex 25). However, it may be noted from the below
tables that the comparative compositions without hydroxamate (Comp W and Comp X) are
inferior in DMO, tea stain and mud stain cleaning when compared to the example compositions
of the present invention(EX 24 and Ex 25).
[0102] The result for Dirty motor oil (DMO) cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=± 0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Comp U |
0.2 |
4.7 |
5.1 |
| Comp V |
0.8 |
5.0 |
5.5 |
| Comp W |
2.1 |
10.2 |
8.7 |
| Ex 24 |
2.3 |
11.2 |
9.1 |
| Comp X |
1.5 |
8.3 |
6.5 |
| Ex 25 |
1.8 |
9.1 |
6.8 |
[0103] It is deduced from the above table that example compositions of the present invention
are superior in DMO cleaning when compared to comparative compositions having base
formulation comprising anionic and cationic surfactants alone (Comp U), comparative
compositions having base formulation and hydroxamate (Comp V) and comparative compositions
having base formulation and PVA or PL (Comp W and Comp X).
[0104] The result for tea stain cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=± 0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Comp U |
0.5 |
3.6 |
2.2 |
| Comp V |
1.0 |
4.2 |
2.6 |
| Comp W |
1.4 |
9.5 |
6.1 |
| Ex 24 |
4.2 |
9.7 |
7 |
| CompX |
1.2 |
6.7 |
1.6 |
| Ex 25 |
2 |
6.8 |
2 |
[0105] The table above shows that the compositions according to the invention perform better
on cotton, polycotton and polyester than any of the combinations with one of the components
missing.
[0106] The result for mud stain cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=± 0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Comp U |
0.1 |
0.5 |
0.3 |
| Comp V |
2.4 |
3.1 |
3.8 |
| Comp W |
0.1 |
0.3 |
-0.8 |
| Ex 24 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
4.8 |
| Comp X |
2.1 |
3.4 |
3.7 |
| Ex 25 |
5.9 |
6.3 |
7.3 |
[0107] The table shows that the compositions according to the invention perform better on
cotton, polycotton and polyester than any of the combinations with one of the components
missing.
Example 8: Effect of hydroxamate on the cleaning performance of the composition
[0108] This example demonstrates the cleaning performance of the composition comprising
hydroxamate as the chelating agent in comparison to compositions comprising other
chelating agents. Experiments were carried out separately with compositions having
PVA as the non-ionic polymer and compositions having PL as the non-ionic polymer.
1. PVA based compositions
[0109] The compositions in the following table were compared with each other to demonstrate
the performance of the composition on mud stain cleaning. The compositions were prepared
by the method as described above.
[0110] 0.051 moles of each of the chelating agents were used below.
| Ingredients (wt %) |
Chelating agents |
| Hydroxamate |
EDTA |
Citric Acid |
Low MW PAA (1.8K) |
Ethylene glycol tetraacetic acid |
Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid |
Nitrilotriacetic acid |
| |
Ex 26 |
Comp Y1 |
Comp Y2 |
Comp Y3 |
Comp Y4 |
Comp Y5 |
Comp Y6 |
| Anionic surfact ant |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
| Cationi c surfact ant |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
| Non-ionic polyme r (PVA) |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
| Chelati ng agent |
1 |
1.91 |
1.51 |
2 |
2.4 |
2.58 |
1.32 |
| Water |
88.8 |
87.89 |
88.29 |
87.8 |
87.4 |
87.22 |
88.48 |
Result for mud cleaning is tabulated below.
[0111]
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=± 0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Ex 26 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
4.8 |
| Comp Y1 |
-2 |
-2.5 |
-3.2 |
| Comp Y2 |
1.5 |
1.9 |
1.2 |
| Comp Y3 |
1.1 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
| Comp Y4 |
1.6 |
2.1 |
1.5 |
| Comp Y5 |
1.7 |
2.3 |
1.5 |
| Comp Y6 |
1 |
1.1 |
0.5 |
[0112] The table above shows that the composition according to the invention (Ex 26) performs
better on cotton, polycotton and polyester than any of the comparative compositions
with a different chelating agent.
2. PL based compositions
[0113] The compositions in the following table were compared with each other to demonstrate
the performance of the composition on mud stain cleaning. The compositions were prepared
by the method as described above.
[0114] 0.051 moles of each of the chelating agents were used below.
| Ingredients (wt %) |
Chelating agents |
| C-12 Hydroxamate(Na-salt) |
EDTA (Na salt) |
Citric Acid (Na salt) |
Low MW PAA (1.8K) |
Ethylene glycol tetraacetic acid (Na salt) |
Diethyle netriami ne pentaacetic acid (Na salt) |
Nitrilotriacetic acid (Na salt) |
| Ex 27 |
Comp Y7 |
Comp Y8 |
Comp Y9 |
Comp Y10 |
Comp Y11 |
Comp Y12 |
| Anionic surfact ant |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
| Cationi c surfact ant |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
| Non-ionic polyme r (PL) |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
| Chelati ng agent |
1 |
1.91 |
1.51 |
2 |
2.4 |
2.58 |
1.32 |
| Water |
88.8 |
87.89 |
88.29 |
87.8 |
87.4 |
87.22 |
88.48 |
Result for mud cleaning is tabulated below.
[0115]
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=± 0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Ex 27 |
5.9 |
6.3 |
7.3 |
| Comp Y7 |
1 |
1.5 |
2.1 |
| Comp Y8 |
3.1 |
3.7 |
4.3 |
| Comp Y9 |
3.1 |
4.3 |
4.5 |
| Comp Y10 |
3.3 |
4.1 |
4.5 |
| Comp Y11 |
3.7 |
4.3 |
4.5 |
| Comp Y12 |
3.0 |
3.9 |
4.1 |
[0116] The table above shows that the composition according to the invention (Ex 27) performs
better on cotton, polycotton and polyester than any of the comparative compositions
with a different chelating agent.
Example 9: Effect of the addition of additional polymers on various attributes of the composition
[0117] In this example is illustrated the additional effect of methyl cellulose in the composition
of the present invention.
[0118] The compositions in the following table were compared with each other to demonstrate
the results on cleaning properties on various stains, stability and perfume delivery.
The compositions were prepared by the method as described above.
| Ingredients (wt %) |
Base Formulation(B F) + PVA |
BF + PVA + Hydroxamate |
BF+ PVA + MC |
BF+ PVA + MC +Hydroxamate |
BF + PL |
BF + PL + Hydroxamate |
BF + PL + MC |
BF + PL + MC +Hydroxamate |
| Comp W |
Ex 24 |
Comp W1 |
Ex 24A |
Comp X |
Ex 25 |
Comp X1 |
Ex 25A |
| Anionic surfact ant |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
| Cationi c surfact ant |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
| PVA |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| MC |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
| PL |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
| Hydrox amate |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
| Water |
89.8 |
88.8 |
89.8 |
88.8 |
89.8 |
88.8 |
89.8 |
88.8 |
| Total |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
[0119] The results for stability and perfume delivery are tabulated below.
| Set |
Stability |
Perfume delivery |
| Comp W |
Yes |
+ |
| Ex 24 |
Yes |
+ |
| Comp W1 |
Yes |
+ |
| Ex 24A |
Yes |
+ |
| Comp X |
Yes |
+ |
| Ex 25 |
Yes |
+ |
| Comp X1 |
Yes |
+ |
| Ex 25A |
Yes |
+ |
[0120] The table above indicates that stability and perfume delivery is good for the comparative
examples as well, apart from the example compositions of the present invention. However,
it may be noted from the below tables that the comparative compositions are inferior
in DMO, tea stain and mud stain cleaning when compared to the example compositions
of the present invention.
[0121] The result for DMO cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=±0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Comp W |
2.1 |
10.2 |
8.7 |
| Ex 24 |
2.3 |
11.2 |
9.1 |
| Comp W1 |
5.5 |
14.2 |
12.3 |
| Ex 24A |
6.1 |
14.3 |
12.5 |
| Comp X |
1.5 |
8.3 |
6.5 |
| Ex 25 |
1.8 |
9.1 |
6.8 |
| Comp X1 |
2.9 |
10.8 |
9.1 |
| Ex 25A |
3.2 |
11.5 |
9.5 |
[0122] The table above shows that better results for DMO cleaning on cotton, polycotton
and polyester are obtained when methyl cellulose is added to the composition of the
present invention (Ex 24A and Ex 25A) when compared to the composition without methyl
cellulose (Ex 24 and Ex 25).
[0123] The result for tea stain cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=±0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Comp W |
1.4 |
9.5 |
6.1 |
| Ex 24 |
4.2 |
9.7 |
7 |
| Comp W1 |
2.4 |
10.4 |
6.8 |
| Ex 24A |
4.8 |
11.2 |
7.1 |
| Comp X |
1.2 |
6.7 |
1.6 |
| Ex 25 |
2 |
6.8 |
2 |
| Comp X1 |
2 |
7.1 |
2.1 |
| Ex 25A |
3.1 |
7.8 |
2.5 |
[0124] The table above shows that better results for tea stain cleaning on cotton, polycotton
and polyester are obtained when methyl cellulose is added to the composition of the
present invention (Ex 24A and Ex 25A) when compared to the composition without methyl
cellulose (Ex 24 and Ex 25).
[0125] The result for mud stain cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=±0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Comp W |
0.1 |
0.3 |
-0.8 |
| Ex 24 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
4.8 |
| Comp W1 |
-0.4 |
-1 |
-3.8 |
| Ex 24A |
4.1 |
4.8 |
2.9 |
| Comp X |
2.1 |
3.4 |
3.7 |
| Ex 25 |
5.9 |
6.8 |
7.3 |
| Comp X1 |
0.6 |
0.2 |
-1.2 |
| Ex 25A |
6.4 |
6.1 |
4.8 |
[0126] The table above shows that better results for mud stain cleaning on cotton, polycotton
and polyester are obtained when the optional methyl cellulose is added to the composition
of the present invention (Ex 24A and Ex 25A) when compared to the composition without
methyl cellulose (Ex 24 and Ex 25).
Example 10: Effect of the combination of surfactants in the surfactant complex
[0127] In this example, the surfactant complex of the present invention comprising cationic
and anionic surfactants (Ex 24) is compared to surfactant complexes with anionic and
non-ionic surfactants (Comp Z2) and surfactant complexes with two anionic surfactants
(Comp Z1).
[0128] The compositions in the following table were compared with each other to demonstrate
the results on cleaning properties on various stains, stability and perfume delivery.
The compositions were prepared by the method as described above.
| Ingredients (wt %) |
Surfactant complex |
| |
Anionic+ Cationic |
Anionic+ Anionic |
Anionic + Non-ionic |
| |
Ex 24 |
Comp Z1 |
Comp Z2 |
| Anionic surfactant (NaLAS) |
1.2 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
| Cationic surfactant (Stepantex®) |
6 |
0 |
0 |
| Anionic surfactant (SLES) |
0 |
6 |
0 |
| Non-ionic polymer (EO5) |
0 |
0 |
6 |
| Non-ionic polymer (PVA) |
3 |
3 |
3 |
| Water |
88.8 |
88.8 |
88.8 |
| Total |
100 |
100 |
100 |
[0129] The results for stability and perfume delivery are tabulated below.
| Set |
Stability |
Perfume delivery |
| Ex 24 |
Yes |
+ |
| Comp Z1 |
No |
- |
| Comp Z2 |
No |
- |
[0130] The above table indicates that comparative compositions having surfactant complexes
outside the scope of the present invention do not have stability and perfume delivery.
[0131] The result for DMO cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=±0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Ex 24 |
2.3 |
11.2 |
9.1 |
| Comp Z1 |
0.5 |
1.7 |
2.2 |
| Comp Z2 |
1 |
2.1 |
2.5 |
[0132] The table above shows that the composition according to the invention (Ex 24) has
a predominantly better DMO cleaning property on cotton, polycotton and polyester than
the comparative compositions having surfactant complexes outside the scope of the
present invention.
[0133] The result for tea stain cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=±0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Ex 24 |
4.2 |
9.7 |
7 |
| Comp Z1 |
1.1 |
4.3 |
2.3 |
| Comp Z2 |
0.9 |
4.5 |
3.0 |
[0134] The table above shows that the composition according to the invention (Ex 24) has
a significantly superior tea stain cleaning property on cotton, polycotton and polyester
than the comparative compositions having surfactant complexes outside the scope of
the present invention.
[0135] The result for mud stain cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=±0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Ex 24 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
4.8 |
| Comp Z1 |
1.1 |
2.1 |
1.4 |
| Comp Z2 |
1.2 |
2.1 |
1.8 |
[0136] The table above shows that the composition according to the invention (Ex 24) has
a superior mud stain cleaning on cotton, polycotton and polyester than the comparative
compositions having surfactant complexes outside the scope of the present invention.
Example 11: Comparison of the composition of the present invention with commercially available
fabric conditioner
[0137] In this example, the example composition of the present invention (Ex 24) is compared
with the commercially available fabric conditioner Comfort
®(Comp Z3) and Comfort
® + hydroxamate (Comp Z4) (compositions given in the below table) to demonstrate the
results on cleaning properties on various stains, stability and perfume delivery.
| Ingredients (wt %) |
Comp Z3 |
Comp Z4 |
| Comfort® |
100 |
99 |
| Hydroxamate |
0 |
1 |
| Total |
100 |
100 |
[0138] The results for stability and perfume delivery are tabulated below.
| Set |
Stability |
Perfume delivery |
| Ex 24 |
Yes |
+ |
| Comp Z3 |
Yes |
+ |
| Comp Z4 |
No |
+ |
[0139] It is inferred from the above table that comparative composition comprising Comfort
® mixed with hydroxamate (Comp Z4) is not a stable composition.
[0140] The result for DMO cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=±0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Ex 24 |
2.3 |
11.2 |
9.1 |
| Comp Z3 |
-1.8 |
-1.5 |
-2.3 |
| Comp Z4 |
-1.1 |
-1.5 |
-2.5 |
[0141] The above table shows that the composition according to the present invention (Ex
24) performs best for DMO cleaning on cotton, polycotton and polyester.
[0142] The result for tea stain cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=±0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Ex 24 |
4.2 |
9.7 |
7 |
| Comp Z3 |
-0.5 |
0.4 |
0.3 |
| Comp Z4 |
0.1 |
1.8 |
1.4 |
[0143] The above table shows that the composition according to the present invention (Ex
24) performs best for tea stain cleaning on cotton, polycotton as well as polyester.
[0144] The result for mud stain cleaning is given in the table below.
| Set |
Average Δ(ΔR) (error=±0.5) |
| Cotton |
Polycotton |
Polyester |
| Ex 24 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
4.8 |
| Comp Z3 |
-1.1 |
-0.5 |
-1.3 |
| Comp Z4 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
0.6 |
[0145] The above table shows that the composition according to the present invention (Ex
24) performs best for mud stain cleaning on cotton, polycotton as well as polyester.