MALODOR COUNTERACTING COMPOSITIONS AND METHOD FOR THEIR USE

Abstract

The invention relates to a malodor counteractancy or counteracting (MOC) method that resorts to the use of specific malodor counteracting (MOC) mixtures of fragrance ingredients. More particularly, the invention relates to new MOC compositions capable of neutralizing or masking in an efficient manner malodors of a large variety of such as body or as malodors, kitchen malodors, toilet and bathroom malodors, and tobacco malodor. The novel MOC compositions of the invention contain at least one nitrite material in combination with another fragrance material and can be used in any finished consumer products such as air fresheners, kitchen or toilet/bathroom cleaning or freshening products, textile treatment products and products for application on the human skin or hair, or on animal fur, litter containers or cages.

Claims

1.-20. (canceled)

21. A malodor counteracting (MOC) composition, comprising: a. citronellyl nitrile; and b. a compound selected from the group consisting e (E)-1-(4,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one, γ-Damascone, and α-Damascone, wherein the ratio of the citronellyl nitrile to the compound between 85% w/w:15% and 15%:85% w/w, wherein the MOC composition produces an observed reduction in perception of bathroom maldodor in a sensory test, and wherein the observed reduction in perception of bathroom malodor for the MPC composition is greater than a sum of observed reductions in perception of bathroom malodor in a sensory test observed for (1) citronellyl nitrile and (2) the compound at the same amounts used in the MOC composition.

22. The composition of claim 21, wherein the composition reduces the perception of a malodor selected from the group consisting of: bathroom, tobacco, and kitchen malodor.

23. The composition of claim 21, wherein the MOC composition comprises citronellyl nitrile and (E)-1-(4,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one.

24. The composition of claim 21, wherein the MOC composition comprises citronellyl nitrile and γ-Damascone.

25. The composition of claim 21, wherein the MOC composition comprises citronellyl nitrile and α-Damascone.

26. A consumer article or product comprising the MOC composition according to claim 1, together with a consumer product base.

27. The consumer article or product according to claim 26, in the form of a solid or liquid detergent or fabric softener, a bleach, a perfume, a cologne or after-shave lotion, a perfumed soap, a shower or bath salt, mousse, oil or gel, a hygiene product, a hair care product such as shampoo, spray or conditioner, a deodorant or antiperspirant, an air freshener or a cosmetic preparation, a fabric refresher, an ironing water, a paper or non-woven substrate or a wipe.

28. A perfuming composition comprising: a. between 0.1 to 50% by weight of a malodor counteracting (MOC) composition, comprising: i. citronellyl nitrile; and ii. a compound selected from the group consisting of: (E)-1-(4,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one, γ-Damascone, and α-Damascone, wherein the ratio of the citronellyl nitrile to the compound is between 85% w/w:15% and 15%:85% w/w, wherein the MOC composition produces an observed reduction in perception of bathroom maldodor in a sensory test, and wherein the observed reduction in perception of bathroom malodor for the MPC composition is greater than a sum of observed reductions in perception of bathroom malodor in a sensory test observed for (1) citronellyl nitrile and (2) the compound at the same amounts used in the MOC composition; and b. a perfuming co-ingredient, a solvent or a adjuvant of current use in perfumery.

29. The perfuming composition of claim 26, wherein the MOC composition constitutes 4.5 to 50% by weight of the perfuming composition.

30. The perfuming composition of claim 28, wherein the MOC composition comprises citronellyl nitrile and (E)-1-(4,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one.

31. The perfuming composition of claim 28, wherein the MOC composition comprises citronellyl nitrile and γ-Damascone.

32. The perfuming composition of claim 28, wherein the MOC composition comprises citronellyl nitrile and α-Damascone.

33. A consumer article or product comprising the perfuming composition according to claim 28, together with a consumer product base.

34. The consumer article or product according to claim 33, in the form of a solid or liquid detergent or fabric softener, a bleach, a perfume, a cologne or after-shave lotion, a perfumed soap, a shower or bath salt, mousse, oil or gel, a hygiene product, a hair care product such as shampoo, spray or conditioner, a deodorant or antiperspirant, an air freshener or a cosmetic preparation, a fabric refresher, an ironing water, a paper or non woven substrate or a wipe.

Description

DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0060] FIG. 1A to D show the % malodor reduction effectiveness of the MOC compositions A to D of the invention, described in Examples 1 to 4, against bathroom malodors.

[0061] FIG. 2A to D show the % malodor reduction effectiveness of the MOC compositions E to H of the invention, described in Examples 5 to 8, against tobacco malodor.

[0062] FIG. 3A and B show the % malodor reduction effectiveness of the MOC compositions I and J of the invention, described in Examples 9 and 10, against kitchen malodor.

[0063] FIG. 4A to C compares the experimental and the theoretical % malodor reduction of bathroom malodor achieved by different MOC compositions comprising diverse proportions of each of the two components of three different pairs of compounds from Groups 1 and 2.

[0064] FIG. 5 summarizes the results of the evaluation of the six MOC compositions of the invention described in Example 12 against bathroom malodor and shows that the malodor counteracting activity of the MOC compositions comprising a compound (I) having a ring double bond in position alpha relative to the substituent group R.sup.1 perform consistently better than those comprising a compound (I) wherein the double bond in the ring lies in position beta relative to R.sup.1.

[0065] FIG. 6 represents the malodor counteracting activity of each Group (I) raw material compound of formula (I) used on its own against bathroom malodor, as described in Example 12.

[0066] FIGS. 7A and B show the ability of a laundry product containing a perfuming composition comprising as MOC composition of the invention to reduce body malodor. The results are presented for two different concentrations of the MOC composition, i.e. 4.5% and 9.5% by weight, relative to the total weight of the perfuming composition.

SPECIFIC EMBODIMENTS OF THE INVENTION

[0067] The invention will now be described in further detail by way of the following Examples.

EXAMPLES 1 TO 10

[0068] Malodor Counteracting (MOC) Compositions and their use to Reduce Perception of Malodor

A. Malodor Counteracting Effect of Individual Raw Materials—General Conditions of Evaluation

[0069] A variety of raw materials from Groups (I) and (II) according to the invention were tested, using current sensory analysis methods, for their ability to reduce the perception of malodor of the bathroom, tobacco or kitchen type.

i) Malodor Compositions

[0070] The typical malodor compositions used in these evaluations were composed of the materials indicated hereafter:

TABLE-US-00001 Bathroom malodor* Ingredient % w/w Dipropylene glycol 62.82 Thioglycolic acid 21.18 n-Caproic acid 6.00 n-Methylmorpholine 6.00 4-Methylphenyl 3-methylbutanoate 2.18 Skatole 0.91 2-Naphthalenethiol 0.91 Total 100.00 *U.S. General Services Administration Federal Supply Service Interim Specification, FA 200-5

[0071] Tobacco Malodor** [0072] The tobacco malodor was prepared by extraction of cigarette's ash and smoked stub. The ash and smoked stub of each cigarette was collected in a glass jar. For each cigarette smoked, 10 ml of ethanol were added. The mixture was stirred in a turbula mixer for 8 hours and then filtered. The filtrate was used as the tobacco malodor. [0073] **origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland

TABLE-US-00002 Kitchen malodor* Ingredient % w/w Diacetyl 3.85 Pyridine 3.85 Allyl sulfide 9.23 Methyl sulfide 40.00 Heptaldehyde 3.85 Paraldehyde 1.90 Propionic acid 36.92 Acetic acid, glacial 0.40 Total 100.00 *U.S. General Services Administration Federal Supply Service Interim Specification, FA 200-3 [0074] In the following description, the test concentration of the specific malodor sample used in each case was always selected so as to provide a perceived malodor intensity, when evaluated in Sniffin® Pens as described below, that was approximately of the order of 4 to 5 units in the scale described under (ii) below. [0075] The three types of malodor samples that were perceived as having about 4.5 malodor intensity were are as follows: [0076] Bathroom malodor—1% in propylene glycol [0077] Tobacco malodor—30% in propylene glycol [0078] Kitchen malodor—0.3% in propylene glycol.

ii) Sample Preparation

[0079] Each raw material to be evaluated for MOC effect against one of the malodor compositions was diluted at 10% by weight in propylene glycol. The typical bathroom malodor sample was diluted at 2% by weight in propylene glycol, the tobacco malodor was diluted at 60% by weight in propylene glycol and the kitchen malodor was diluted at 0.6% by weight in propylene glycol. [0080] 3 G of each raw material solution as above and 3 g of the bathroom, tobacco or kitchen malodor solution, were then mixed together in a separate beaker. Once fully homogenized, 4 g of the resulting raw material/malodor solution were applied to a Sniffin Pen (Sniffin® Pens are commercially available from Heinrich Burghart GmbH). The Sniffin Pens thus obtained were left to equilibrate before the sensory evaluation test.
iii) MOC Effect Against Bathroom Malodor [0081] Each sensory test comprised the following samples: [0082] 2 Blind negative controls with bathroom malodor only @ 1% [0083] Blind positive control with a given MOC raw material @ 5% [0084] 4 Blind test samples with 5% of a given test raw material and 1% of bathroom malodor. [0085] The samples were evaluated by a panel of at least 20 trained panelists. By “trained panelists” we mean here individuals that had previously been screened for olfactive acuity and were experienced in rating the perfume intensity of air freshener products. Moreover, the panelists were prior acquainted with the malodor sample before carrying out the evaluations of the raw material samples counteracting effect. [0086] The samples were presented to the panelists in Sniffin Pens. Each Sniffin Pen was labeled with a randomly generated 3 digit code. Sniffin Pens were presented to the panelist according to a Latin square design order. These are presentation methods in which the samples are presented in a balanced manner, each product being presented the same number of times in every position, and every possible pair is represented the same number of times (see Multivariate analysis of data in sensory science, edited by T. Naes, E. Risvik, Norwegian Food Research Institute, Oslovein, Norway, 1996, Elsevier, E.A. Hunter, Chapter 2). [0087] After smelling the malodor reference sample first to familiarize themselves with the malodor, the panelists were asked to rate the malodor intensity and the total odor intensity of each sample, based on a linear 1-7 scale (1=no odor-7=extremely strong odor) as shown here below:

##STR00006## [0088] The data generated from the panel's evaluations was statistically analyzed in each case using variance analysis (ANOVA, α=0.05) and least significance difference (LSD, α=0.05). [0089] A typical example of the results is shown in Table 1 for bathroom malodor counteracting effect of four generic test raw materials (RM).

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 1 Bathroom malodor counteracting by raw materials RM 1-4 Sample Description Sample (w/w % of ingredients Malodor Overall Odor No. relative to total sample weight) Intensity Intensity 1 RM 1 (5%) + Bathroom Malodor x.sub.1 y.sub.1 FA 200-5 (1%) 2 RM 2(5%) + Bathroom Malodor x.sub.2 y.sub.2 FA 200-5 (1%) 3 RM 3(5%) + Bathroom Malodor x.sub.3 y.sub.3 FA 200-5 (1%) 4 RM 4(5%) + Bathroom Malodor x.sub.4 y.sub.4 FA 200-5 (1%) 5 Bathroom Malodor FA 200-5 (1%) x.sub.5 y.sub.5 6 Bathroom Malodor FA 200-5 (1%) x.sub.6 y.sub.6 7 RM* (5%) x.sub.7 y.sub.7 *Raw material n, n being an integer from 1 to 4 [0090] The results of the evaluation of the malodor samples 5 and 6 allow the calculation of a malodor total odor mean value using the equation:

x.sub.mal=(x.sub.5+x.sub.6)/2. [0091] This x.sub.mal value is then used to calculate the % of malodor reduction, or malodor counterancy effect MOC, of each individual raw material RM 1 to 4, according to the following equation:

% MO reduction.sub.n=100*(1−(x.sub.n−1)/(x.sub.mal−1)) [0092] n being an integer of 1 to 4 designating the specific raw material in question in each evaluation test. [0093] The above example is typical for all MOC evaluation tests carried out with individual malodor counteracting raw materials against the three types of malodor samples, bathroom, tobacco and kitchen malodors.

B. Malodor Counteracting Effect of the MOC Compositions According to the Invention—General Conditions of Evaluation

i) Sample Preparation

[0094] Each of the two raw materials to be admixed to provide a MOC composition according to the invention was diluted at 10% by weight in propylene glycol. The typical bathroom malodor sample was diluted at 2% by weight in propylene glycol, the tobacco malodor was diluted at 60% by weight in propylene glycol and the kitchen malodor was diluted at 0.6% by weight in propylene glycol. [0095] 1.5 G of each of the two raw material solutions obtained were admixed to provide the MOC composition solution which was added to 3 g of the bathroom, tobacco or kitchen malodor solution in a separate beaker. Once fully homogenized, 4 g of the resulting MOC composition solution/malodor solution were applied to a Sniffin Pen (Sniffin Pens are commercially available from Heinrich Burghart GmbH). The Sniffin Pens thus obtained were left to equilibrate before the sensory evaluation test.

ii) Effect of the MOC Compositions Against Malodor

[0096] The samples as prepared above were evaluated in a manner similar to that described under A., using the same methods, for malodor counteracting effect against the same typical malodor samples. The results of the evaluations for a specific MOC composition thus provide a generic Table 2, as follows, for each MOC composition.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 2 Bathroom malodor counteracting by MOC compositions Sample Description Overall Sample (w/w % of ingredients relative Malodor Odor No. to total sample weight) Intensity Intensity 8 MOC Composition 1 (5%) + Bathroom X.sub.8 Y.sub.8 Malodor FA 200-5 (1%) 9 MOC Composition 2 (5%) + Bathroom X.sub.9 Y.sub.9 Malodor FA 200-5 (1%) 10 MOC Composition 3 (5%) + Bathroom X.sub.10 Y.sub.10 Malodor FA 200-5 (1%) 11 MOC Composition 4 (5%) + Bathroom X.sub.11 Y.sub.11 Malodor FA 200-5 (1%) 12 Bathroom Malodor FA 200-5 (1%) X.sub.12 Y.sub.12 13 Bathroom Malodor FA 200-5 (1%) X.sub.13 Y.sub.13 14 MOC composition*(5%) X.sub.14 Y.sub.14 *MOC composition n, n being an integer from 8 to 11 [0097] The results of the evaluation of the malodor samples 12 and 13 allow the calculation of a malodor total odor mean value using the equation:

x.sub.mal=(x.sub.12+x.sub.13)/2. [0098] This x.sub.mal value is then used to calculate the % of malodor reduction of each MOC composition, according to the following equation:

% MO reduction.sub.n=100*(1−(x.sub.n−1)/(x.sub.mal−1)) [0099] being an integer of 8 to 11, designating the specific MOC composition in question in each evaluation test. [0100] A theoretical malodor reduction value for each MOC composition, against each malodor type, is also calculated as the arithmetic average of the % malodor reduction values obtained as in A. for the two raw materials that are combined in each MOC composition of the invention. [0101] For example, if MOC composition 1 in Table 2 is a 50:50 mixture of raw materials RM 1 and RM 2 of Table 1, then the theoretical % malodor reduction value for MOC composition 1 against bathroom malodor is equal to (x.sub.1+x.sub.2)/2, x.sub.1 and x.sub.2 being the same values as in Table 1. If this theoretical value is below the experimental Table 2 X.sub.8 value obtained with this MOC composition 1 against bathroom malodor, then the combination of raw materials RM 1 and RM 2 provides an unexpected synergic effect against bathroom malodor. [0102] The above example is typical for all MOC compositions evaluation tests carried out against the three types of malodor samples bathroom, tobacco and kitchen malodors.
C. MOC Compositions According to the Invention and their use to Counteract Malodor

i) Effect Against Bathroom Malodor—Examples 1 to 4

[0103] A variety of MOC compositions A to D were prepared by admixing the corresponding raw materials indicated in Table 3, in a range of relative proportions varying from 1:99 to 99:1 of each of the raw materials indicated.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 3 MOC compositions and their components MOC Composition Raw Material A* Raw Material B* A Nitrile described in Violette BC.sup.1) U.S. Pat. No. 6,180,814 B Citronellyl nitrile Koumalactone.sup.2) C Citronellyl nitrile γ-Methylionone D 2-Propyl-1-heptanenitrile α-Damascone .sup.1)β-Ionone .sup.2)perhydro-3,6-dimethyl-benzo[b]furan-2-one [0104] FIG. 1A to D show the % malodor reduction effectiveness of the MOC compositions A to D against bathroom malodors.

ii) Effect Against Tobacco Malodor—Examples 5 to 8

[0105] A variety of MOC compositions E to H were prepared by admixing the corresponding raw materials indicated in Table 4, in a range of relative proportions varying from 1:99 to 99:1 of each of the raw materials indicated.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 4 MOC compositions and their components MOC Composition Raw Material A* Raw Material B* E Citronellyl Nitrile 1-(4,66-trimethyl-1,3- cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2- buten-1-one F Citronellyl Nitrile 1-(2,66-trimethyl-1(2)- cyclohexen-1-yl)-1,6- heptadien-3-one G Citronellyl Nitrile δ-Damascone H Citronellyl Nitrile γ-Methylionone *Origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland [0106] FIG. 2A to D show the % malodor reduction effectiveness of the MOC compositions E to H against tobacco malodor.
iii) Effect Against Kitchen Malodor—Examples 9 and 10 [0107] MOC compositions I and J were prepared by admixing the corresponding raw materials indicated in Table 5, in a range of relative proportions varying from 1:99 to 99:1 of each of the raw materials indicated.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 5 MOC compositions and their components MOC Composition Raw Material A* Raw Material B* I Citronellyl Nitrile δ-Damascone J Citronellyl Nitrile γ-Methylionone *Origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland [0108] FIGS. 3A and B show the % malodor reduction effectiveness of the MOC compositions I and J against kitchen malodor. [0109] The results presented in FIGS. 1, 2 and 3 dearly show that the MOC compositions of the invention are surprisingly effective at counteracting bathroom, tobacco and kitchen malodor, all the compositions A to J having consistently performed above the theoretical effect that one might have expected if each pair had the effects simply added up once the materials were combined. [0110] Moreover, a very large sample of other pairs of perfumery raw materials were tested without such a result being observed. In fact in many cases, a negative influence could be seen when two such materials were combined in a similar manner as exemplified above. This was especially the case when two perfumery raw materials carrying a lateral R.sup.1 substituent group in the formula (I) type compounds derived from a carboxylic acid, such as a ketone or aldehyde group, were admixed amongst themselves.

EXAMPLE 11

[0111] The ability of the preferred MOC compositions K to M from Table 6 below to mask the synthetic bathroom malodor exposed above has been tested with the compounds of Groups 1 and 2 mixed in different proportions.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 6 MOC compositions and their components MOC Composition Raw Material A* Raw Material B* K Citronellyl nitrile Safrascenone.sup.1) L Citronellyl nitrile γ-Damascone M Citronellyl nitrile α-Damascone *Origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.1)(E)-1-(4,6,6-trimethyl-1,3-cyclohexadien-1-yl)-2-buten-1-one

[0112] As in Examples 1 to 10 above, the malodor reduction observed during, the sensory tests is compared to the theoretical malodor reduction that can be expected for each different ratio. The results are shown in FIG. 4A to C. The theoretical curve (dotted line) is obtained by tracing a straight line between the values of malodor reduction obtained experimentally for each of the raw materials alone.

[0113] The samples have been prepared in the same way as for the previous examples, except for the respective amounts of the two MOC ingredients, as represented in the figure. The sensory and statistical analyses have also been performed as described above. These experimental results are summarized in the graphs of FIG. 4 (continuous line).

[0114] A synergy is observed when the percentage of malodor reduction of the experimental curve is higher than the theoretical percentage. The three graphs of FIG. 4 show that, for each pair of compounds from Groups (I) and (II), certain proportions are particularly effective to mask the bathroom malodor.

[0115] The compositions corresponding to the latter proportions are particularly advantageous and the invention therefore relates namely to the following preferred compositions: [0116] a) a MOC composition of safrascenone and citronellyl nitrile, in relative proportions comprised between 1:99 and 70:30 w/w respectively; [0117] b) a MOC composition of γ-damascone and citronellyl nitrile, in relative proportions comprised between 1:99 and 50:50 w/w respectively; [0118] c) MOC composition of δ-damascone and citronellyl nitrile, in relative proportions comprised between 1:99 and 99:1 w/w respectively.

EXAMPLE 12

[0119] Malodor Counteracting (MOC) Compositions Comprising a Compound of Formula (I) as the Group (I) Component and their use to Reduce Perception of Malodor

[0120] A variety of MOC compositions according to the invention were prepared by admixing a given nitrile compound as the Group (II) component with a compound of formula (I) having a double bond in position alpha or beta relative to the functional substituent R.sup.1.

[0121] Thus, the following compounds of formula (I) were admixed with the nitriles indicated in Table 7 here below, in a relative proportion of 50:50, to prepare six MOC compositions according to the invention that presented a particularly useful effectiveness against bathroom malodor.

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 7 Compound of formula (I)* Nitrile* α-Ionone Nitrile described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,180,814 β-Ionone Nitrile described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,180,814 α-Methylionone Citronellyl nitrile β-Methylionone Citronellyl nitrile α-Damascone 2-Propyl-1-heptanitrile β-Damascone 2-Propyl-1-heptanitrile *Origin: Firmeinch SA, Geneva, Switzerland

[0122] The methods used were identical to those described in the general method section of Examples 1 to 10. FIG. 5 summarizes the results of the evaluation of the six MOC compositions grouped by the type of structure of the compounds (I) and shows that the malodor counteracting activity of the MOC compositions comprising a compound (I) having a ring double bond in position alpha relative to the substituent R.sup.1 performed consistently better than those comprising a compound (I) wherein the double bond in the ring is in position beta.

[0123] When comparing with the results, represented in FIG. 6, obtained with each corresponding raw material compound (I) used on its own and tested in identical concentration against the bathroom malodor, most of the MOC compositions of the invention again showed an improved reduction of the perceived malodor, relative to the individual raw material of formula (I).

EXAMPLE 13

[0124] Performance of a Perfuming Composition Comprising a MOC Composition of the Invention in Terms of Body Malodor Masking onto Washed Fabrics.

[0125] The ability of a perfuming composition according to the invention to mask body malodor, more specifically sweat malodor, was tested in a laundry product. Two different perfuming compositions, containing respectively 4.5% and 9.5% by weight of the MOC composition relative to the total weight of a same perfume were prepared. The formula of the MOC composition used is provided m Table 8 below. Each of the perfuming compositions above was added to a laundry product base in an amount of 0.4% by weigh, relative to the total weight of the laundry product, to prepare two laundry products according to the invention. The formula of the MOC composition used in the present example is provided in Table 8 below.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 8 Formula of the MOC composition Ingredient Quantity 4-undecanolide 60.61 Citronellyl nitrile 3.03 δ-damascone 1.52 8-methyl-α-ionone + 10- 22.72 mehyl-α-ionone Neobutenone alpha 3.03 (E)-4-(2,6,6)-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen- 9.09 1-yl)-3-butene-2-one Total 100.00

[0126] Eighteen swatches of polyester Lycra® were washed together with a ballast so as to obtain a total wash load of 2.5 kg. The latter were washed in a front load European washing machine at 40° C., without pre-wash, using 4 rinse cycles and 100 g of liquid detergent. The washed load was then line-dried during 24 hours under controlled conditions (22° C.-60% relative humidity).

[0127] Different test samples were prepared by washing the swatches with the laundry product containing the perfuming composition comprising either 4.5% or 9.5% by weight of the MOC composition. The samples were washed, dried and then sprayed with 0.33 g of the sweat malodor composition, one hour before the sensory evaluation. One negative control was prepared by washing the swatch with the laundry product without any perfuming composition and by spraying it with the body malodor composition. Finally, two positive controls were prepared by washing swatches with the laundry products containing the perfuming composition either with 4.5% or with 9.5% by weight of the MOC composition, no body malodor composition being applied.

[0128] The sensory analysis was performed with a panel of trained panelists. They were asked to rate the overall odor intensity, the perfume intensity and the malodor intensity of each sample and control, on a linear 0-10 scale. The results of this sensory analysis were then analysed statistically. The final results are summarized in the charts of FIGS. 7A and B.

[0129] FIG. 7B shows that a slight malodor reduction is already observed with the perfuming composition comprising 4.5% by weight of the MOC composition. FIG. 7A shows that when the perfuming composition comprises a higher amount of the MOC composition of the invention (9.5% by weight), a significant reduction of the malodor is achieved.

[0130] According to the invention, there can be used any perfume composition to which the MOC mixtures are added to provide similar effects. In the present example, we used a perfume having a top note with green, apple, aldehydic and pine connotations, completed by violet, rose medium notes and a sandalwood, plum, musk character as the bottom note.