RIM BLOCK WITH IMPROVED SCENT PERFORMANCE

Abstract

Suggested is a rim block with improved scent performance, comprising or consisting of: (a) a solid rim block base, (b) at least one non-encapsulated perfume oil, and (c) at least one perfume oil same or different from component (b) encapsulated in a maltodextrin matrix.

Claims

1. A rim block with improved scent performance, comprising (a) a solid rim block base, (b) at least one non-encapsulated perfume oil, and (c) at least one perfume oil same or different from component (b) and encapsulated in a maltodextrin matrix.

2. The rim block of claim 1, wherein said solid rim block base comprises (a1) at least one surfactant; (a2) at least one solvent; and optionally (a3) at least one builder; (a4) at least one salt; and (a5) at least one auxiliary agent.

3. The rim block base of claim 2, wherein said surfactant is selected from the group consisting of an anionic surfactant, a non-ionic surfactant, and mixtures thereof.

4. The rim block base of claim 3, wherein said anionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of oxo alkyl sulfates, alkyl ether sulfates, alkyl benzene sulfonates, soaps, and mixtures thereof.

5. The rim block base of claim 3, wherein said non-ionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of alkyl polyglycol ethers, alkyl polyglycosides, carboxylic acid amides, and mixtures thereof.

6. The rim block base of claim 2, wherein said solvent is selected from the group consisting of water, polyols, mineral oils and mixtures thereof.

7. The rim block base of claim 2, wherein said builder is selected from the group consisting of zeolites, layered silicates, amorphous silicates, phosphates, organic acids, polymers, hydrocarbons, lactones, and mixtures thereof.

8. The rim block base of claim 2, wherein said salt is selected from the group consisting of alkali or alkaline earth sulfates, alkali or alkaline earth carbonates, alkali or alkaline earth and chlorides, and mixtures thereof.

9. The rim block base of claim 2, wherein said auxiliary agent is selected from the group consisting of bleaching agents, gelling agents, polymeric dispersing agents, foam inhibitors, disinfectants, odour absorbers, colors, pigments, and mixtures thereof.

10. The rim block base of claim 1, comprising (a1) about 35 to about 87 wt.-% surfactant, (a2) about 1 to about 45 wt.-% solvent; (a3) 0 to about 46 wt.-% builder; (a4) 0 to about 60 wt.-% salt; and (a5) 0 to about 10 wt.-% auxiliary agent, on condition that all amounts add to 100 wt.-%.

11. The rim block of claim 1, wherein said encapsulated fragrance (component c) is obtained from a melt of maltodextrin, polysaccharides and fragrances by fluidized-bed agglomeration.

12. The rim block of claim 10, wherein said encapsulated fragrance (component c) shows an average particle size of about 0.3 to about 2 mm and/or a fragrance loading of about 10 to about 40 wt.-%.

13. The rim block of claim 1, comprising (a) about 75 to about 98 wt.-% of a solid rim block base, (b) about 2 to about 5 wt.-% of at least one non-encapsulated perfume oil, and (c) about 0.5 to about 15 wt.-% of at least one perfume oil different from component (b) and encapsulated in a maltodextrin matrix (calculated on the capsule), on condition that all amounts add to 100 wt.-%.

14. A method for preparing a rim block with improved scent performance, comprising the following steps: (i) providing a solid rim block base; (ii) providing at least one non-encapsulated perfume oil; (iii) providing at least one perfume oil the same as or different from component (b) and encapsulated in a maltodextrin matrix; (iv) blending the components; and (v) subjecting the blend to a tablet pressing, molding or extrusion operation.

15. (canceled)

Description

EXAMPLES

Examples 1 to 5

Determination of Loading and Particle Size

[0130] In a first attempt, several different fragranced maltodextrin pearls with the same fragrance were mixed into a rim block formulation showing the following composition:

TABLE-US-00001 44.5 wt.-% C.sub.10-C.sub.14 alkyl benzene sulfonate powder 50.5 wt.-% sodium sulfate  5.0 wt.-% maltodextrin pearls of different sizes and different loadings fragranced with lime flavor.

[0131] The rim blocks were prepared with a tablet press. The compositions were evaluated in the wet and dry state in order to decide, which pearls perform best. For this purpose the rim blocks were put in separate plastic cans and the intensity of their fragrance was evaluated by nine panelists in dry and wet state on a scale of 1 (low) to 9 (high). The results are shown in Table 1:

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 1 Loading and particle size Particle size Loading Intensity Intensity Example [mm] (wt.-%) (dry) (wet) 1 0.3 20 4.33 5.89 2 0.6 20 3.11 7.11 3 0.9 20 3.22 7.44 4 1.5 4 5.11 5.89 5 1.5 4 3.89 6.50

[0132] The pearls according to Examples 4 and 5 have a very low loading and therefore perform worse compared to the high loaded pearls according to Examples 1-3. Too small particles seem to release portions of their perfume oil in the dry state, because of their very big surface. Bigger pearls performed much better.

Example 6, Comparative Example C1

Performance of spiked Rim Blocks

[0133] In the following, rim blocks were prepared, containing different perfume oils and fragrances maltodextrin pearls with a diameter of 0.9 mm and loaded with 20 wt.-% lime flavor. The compositions are provided in Table 2:

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 2 Compositions of rim blocks with and without fragranced maltodextrin pearls Comparative Components Example 6 Example C1 C.sub.10/14 alkyl benzene sulfonate 41.0 45.0 sodium sulfate 45.0 51.0 titanium dioxide 0.5 0.5 C.sub.12/14 fatty alcohol + 7PO 1.5 1.5 maltodextrin pearls loaded with 10.0 — pomelo or ginger flavor perfume oil 2.0 2.0

[0134] In a triangle test, 24 panelists tried to distinguish between wet and dry samples in a jar of brown glass. In each experiment, only one fragrance was used, namely: [0135] Free oil=Violet Spa (fruity floral) AND encapsulated fragrance=pomelo resulted in a strong scent switch. [0136] Free oil=Aquafresh (aromatic citric) AND encapsulated fragrance=pomelo resulted in a weak scent switch, Aquafresh was too strong. [0137] Free oil=Pink Bloom (floral cherry blossom) AND encapsulated fragrance=ginger resulted in a good, short scent switch. [0138] Free oil=Nature Pine (green herbaceous) AND encapsulated fragrance=ginger resulted in a strong scent switch, but unpleasant combination. [0139] The triangle test was performed with Free oil=Violet Spa (fruity floral) AND encapsulated fragrance=pomelo resulted in a strong scent switch.

[0140] 87.5% of the panelists could smell a difference, which proves a highly significant difference between the fragrances of the rim blocks. When both samples had dried, several hours later, they were submitted once more to a triangle test. Now, only 36.4% of the panelists found out the dissimilar sample, which is the statistic share, suggesting no difference between the fragrances emitted by the samples. After one of the rim blocks was made moisty for a second time, 81.8% of the panelists could recognize it. This shows again a highly significant fragrance difference.

[0141] In a first sensory test, five samples [0142] 1 dry one-component formulation perfumed with the free perfume oil—dry: free oil (violet) and encapsulated fragrance (pomelo) [0143] 2 moisty two-component formulation—free oil (violet) and encapsulated fragrance (pomelo) [0144] 3 dry one-component formulation perfumed with perfume oil—Moisty two-component formulation with no free perfume oil (violet) and encapsulated fragrance (pomelo). [0145] 4 dry two-component formulation—Moisty one component formulation with free oil (violet) and without encapsulated fragrance (pomelo). [0146] 5 moisty one component formulation with free oil (pomelo) and without encapsulated fragrance.
were placed in closed cabins, invisible to a panel of 11 untrained people, who were asked to describe the fragrance. Their descriptions were rated according to their accuracy from 0 (inaccurate description of the scent switch effect) to 3 (description perfectly matches both perfume oil.fwdarw.accurate description of the scent switch effect). In this test, the scent switch effect attained an average value of 1.67. The results are shown in Table 3.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 3 Results panel test Panellist No. Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 1 2 3 4 2 4 2 3 5 4 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 3 2 3 5 0 4 5 0 2 6 3 4 4 4.5 4.5 7 0 2 4 3 4 8 5 5 7 6 3 9 2 3 8 5 6 10 1 7 5 3 5 11 2 2 5 3 3 Average 2.1 3.7 4.8 3.2 4.0 Deviation 1.58 1.56 1.47 1.63 1.15 Variance 2.49 2.42 2.16 2.67 1.32 Number 11 11 11 11 11