BIODEGRADABLE CLEANING COMPOSITION

Abstract

The present invention is directed to biodegradable cleaning compositions, in particular hard surface cleaning compositions, and their use. The compositions according to the invention comprise one or more biosurfactants(s), one or more sorbitan ester(s) and one or more further surfactant(s), which is/are neither a biosurfactant nor a sorbitan ester.

Claims

1-14. (canceled)

15. A composition comprising: A) a mixture of surfactants A1, A2 and A3; B) optionally water; wherein: the mixture of surfactants comprises: A1) one or more biosurfactants(s); A2) one or more sorbitan ester (s); A3) one or more further surfactant(s) different from surfactants A1) and A2); and the sorbitan esters used as components A2) are characterized by an HLB value below or equal to 11; the weight ratio of the sum of all biosurfactants A1) to the sum of all sorbitan esters A2) is in a range of from 0.01 to 1.2; the pH value of the cleaning composition is in the range of from 3 to 10.

16. The composition of claim 15, wherein: the weight ratio of the sum of all biosurfactants A1) to the sum of all surfactants A3) is in a range of from 0.01 to 1; and/or the weight ratio of the sum of all surfactants A3) to the sum of all sorbitan esters A2) is between 0.5 and 10.

17. The composition of claim 15, wherein the fraction of component A (comprising a mixture of components A1, A2 and A3) is from 0.1 to 100% by weight of the overall composition.

18. The composition of claim 15, wherein the biosurfactant(s) A1) is/are selected from the group consisting of: rhamnolipids; sophorolipids; glucoselipids; celluloselipids; trehaloselipids; mannosylerythritol lipid; and mixtures thereof.

19. The composition of claim 18, wherein the biosurfactant(s) A1) comprise a mixture of at least one biosurfactant A1a) in the acid form and at least one biosurfactant A1l) in lactone form wherein the weight ratio of the sum of all biosurfactants A1a) to the sum of all biosurfactants A1l) is in the range of from 10 to 95.

20. The composition of claim 15, wherein the sorbitan ester(s) A2) is/are selected from the group consisting of: sorbitan isostearate; sorbitan laurate; sorbitan monostearate; sorbitan oleate; sorbitan sesquioleate; sorbitan stearate and sucrose cocoate; sorbitan sesquicaprylate; sorbitan sesquioctanoate; sorbitan trioleate; PEG-40 sorbitan peroleate; and mixtures thereof.

21. The composition of claim 15, wherein the further surfactant(s) A3) is/are selected from the group consisting of: alcohol ethoxylates; alkyl phenol alkoxylates; alkyl glucosides; alkyl polyglucosides; soap; linear alkyl benzene sulfonates (LAS); alkyl sodium sulfate; polyoxyethylenealkyl sulfate; alpha olefin sulfonates; internal olefin sulfonates; aryl sulfonic acid salts; alkyl sulfonic acid salts; alkylaryl sulfonic acid salts; alkyl sulfosuccinates; sodium isethionate; alkyl alkoxy carboxylates; alkyl phosphate; alkyl betaines; alkyl amido betaines; amine oxides; alkyl glycerol ethers; and mixtures thereof.

22. The composition of claim 15, further comprising at least one buffer C), selected from the group consisting of: citrate salts; alkali metal salts of carbonates; hydrogen carbonate; silicate; metasilicate; boric acid; and phosphate.

23. The composition of claim 15, further comprising at least one organic solvent D.

24. The composition of claim 23, wherein the organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of: propylene glycol; dipropylene glycol; ethylene glycol; alcohols; isopropanol; diols; glycol ethers; glycerol; phenylethyl alcohol and/or ethanol; limonene; and mixtures thereof.

25. The composition of claim 15, wherein the composition is free from preservatives according to INCI.

26. The composition of claim 15, wherein said composition is biodegradable.

27. The composition of claim 15, wherein the fatty acid content is below 2% by weight.

28. The composition of claim 15, wherein the fatty acid content is below 0.5% by weight.

29. The composition of claim 15, wherein the composition is a hard surface cleaning composition, kitchen cleaning composition, heavy oil cleaning composition, offshore tank and vessel cleaning composition, or cleaning composition for an application related to onshore and offshore drilling, production and storage of crude oil.

30. The composition of claim 15, wherein: the sorbitan esters used as components A2) are characterized by an HLB value below or equal to 10; the weight ratio of the sum of all biosurfactants A1) to the sum of all sorbitan esters A2) is in a range of from 0.15 to 0.9; the pH value of the cleaning composition is in the range of 5 to 8.

31. The composition of claim 15, wherein: the sorbitan esters used as components A2) are characterized by an HLB value of from 4 to 10; the weight ratio of the sum of all biosurfactants A1) to the sum of all sorbitan esters A2) is in a range of from 0.2 to 0.8; the pH value of the cleaning composition is in the range of from 6.5 to 7.5.

32. The composition of claim 15, wherein: the weight ratio of the sum of all biosurfactants A1) to the sum of all surfactants A3) is in a range of from 0.15 to 0.4; and/or the weight ratio of the sum of all surfactants A3) to the sum of all sorbitan esters A2) is between 1 and 3.5.

33. The composition of claim 15, wherein the fraction of component A (comprising a mixture of components A1, A2 and A3) is from 1% to 3% by weight of the overall composition.

34. A method of cleaning a hard surface, heavy oil, offshore tanks and vessels, or places related to drilling, production and storage of crude oil, comprising applying the composition of claim 15.

Description

EXAMPLES

[0066] Unless stated otherwise, all concentrations in the application examples are given in percent by weight. Customary formulation methods known to the person skilled in the art were used to prepare the compositions.

General Description of the Experimental Methods

[0067] Test Apparatus

[0068] Multi-channel peristaltic pump flow system as shown in FIG. 1 were used for testing the cleaning efficiency.

[0069] In the apparatus according to FIG. 1, aqueous detergent formulations are pumped by the peristaltic pump into pump channel tubes. The detergent flows through one of the channels and flush down the surface of the substrate. The substrate is pre-coated with a layer of soil that mimics the dirt/stains/oils usually encountered in a cleaning application. The removal of the soil by the detergent indicates the cleaning efficacy of the said detergent. The removal of the soil is evaluated by visual observation of the whiteness of the substrate after cleaning on a 0-100 scale.

[0070] Test Soils and Substrates

[0071] Two types of soils were tested. Soil A is petro-type soil, soil B is food-type soil.

[0072] Composition Soil A: Petro Soil

[0073] Soil type A is a mixture of

TABLE-US-00002 Aged Motor Oil: 78% Black Charm Clay: 15.6% Carbon Black: 1.6% Linoleic Acid: 4.8%

[0074] Composition Soil B: Food Soil (Kitchen Soil)

TABLE-US-00003 Crisco Shortening: 44.5% Flour 30.0% Carbon Black 0.5% Stearic Acid 10.0% Powdered Egg 15.0%

[0075] Substrate Type:

[0076] Two types of substrates were used for testing. The first type is metal; the second type is laminate kitchen top.

[0077] Raw Materials Used

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 1 List of raw materials used: INCI name: Trade name: Short Cut Biosurfactant A1: Sophorolipid biosurfactant REWOFERM SL 446, Evonik SL 446 Industries AG (Acid/Lactone ratio 60:40) Sophorolipid biosurfactant REWOFERM SL ONE, Evonik SL ONE Industries AG (Acid/Lactone ratio 60:40) Sophorolipid biosurfactant SL 18 from Ecover (Acid/Lactone SL 18 ratio 70:30) Sophorolipid biosurfactant SL Acid from Evonik Industries AG SL Acid (Pure acid form) Sorbitan Ester A2: Sorbitan sesquioctanoate (HLB~10) TEGOTENS SD 100, Evonik TT SD 100 Industries AG Sorbitan oleate (HLB 4.3) Tego SMO V, Evonik Industries SMO V AG Polysorbate 20 (HLB = 16.7) Tego SML 20, Evonik Industries Tego SML 20 AG Surfactants A3: Cocamidopropyl betaine TEGO Betain C 60, Evonik TB C 60 Industries AG, Alcohol ethoxylate TEGOTENS EC 11, Evonik TT EC 11 Industries AG Alkyl polyglucoside Glucopon 425 N, BASF SE 425N Sodium lauryl ethersulfate Texapon N 70, BASF SE N 70 Buffer C: Trisodium citrate Product number W302600, TSC Sigma-Aldrich Trisodium Trilon M, BASF SE MGDA methylglycinediacetate

Example 1

[0078] The cleaning performance of a composition according to the invention, comprising a sophorolipid (surfactant A1)+a sorbitan ester (surfactant A2)+an alcohol ethoxylate (surfactant A3), was tested in comparison to a composition comprising only a sophorolipid (surfactant A1)+an alcohol ethoxylate (surfactant A3) respectively to a composition comprising only the sophorolipid (surfactant A1). The pH value of all compositions was 7.

[0079] Test were conducted using petro-soil A on a metal surface. The formulation of the compositions are shown in Table 2.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 2 Components Weight percentage % Example 1 A1) SL 446 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Water 98 Comparison Example 1 A1) SL 446 0.40 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Water 98 Comparison Example 2 A1) SL 446 1 C) TSC 1 B) Water 98

[0080] As shown in FIG. 2, Comparison Examples 1 and 2 showed poor cleaning performance while in Example 1 good cleaning performances was observed. Since the composition of all three Examples only differ in the contents of the surfactants A1, A2 and A3, and all test were conducted under identical conditions, it could be demonstrated, that removing the sorbitan esters A2 in the formulation leads to a significant decrease in cleaning performance. There is a synergistic effect of all three surfactants, wherein the sorbitan ester works as a hydrophobic surfactant or lipophilic linker and enhances cleaning of oily soil while the surfactants A1 and A3 contribute to the cleaning performance, too, but in addition ensure sufficient solubility of the mixture in water. Even the binary mixture in Comparison Example 1 seems to be too hydrophilic, and lacks the power to emulsify and solubilize heavy oily soil.

Example 2

[0081] The cleaning performance of a composition according to the invention, comprising a sophorolipid (surfactant A1)+a sorbitan ester (surfactant A2)+an alcohol ethoxylate (surfactant A3), was tested with petro-soil A on a metal surface in comparison to three commercial products/Reference Cleaners 1 to 3). [0082] Reference Cleaner 1: Ecover all purpose cleaner [0083] Reference Cleaner 2: Method dish wash, [0084] Reference Cleaner 3: Method all purpose cleaner.

[0085] The Reference Cleaners were tested as received without further dilution. The reference cleaner 1 and 2 had a pH value of 7, and the reference cleaner 3 had a pH value of 11.5.

[0086] The formulation of the composition of Example 2 is shown in Table 3.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 3 Components Weight percentage % Example 2 A1) SL 446 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Water 98 pH 7

[0087] The cleaning performance at 1-4 min as measured with the peristaltic pump flow system were shown in FIG. 3 (#1=Reference Cleaner 1; #2=Reference Cleaner 2; #3=Reference Cleaner 3; #4=Example 2). The whiteness after cleaning was rated on a 0-100 scale. It can be seen, that the cleaning composition of the present invention showed the best cleaning performance.

Example 3

[0088] The cleaning performance of a composition according to the invention, comprising a sophorolipid (surfactant A1)+a sorbitan ester (surfactant A2)+an alkyl polyglucoside (surfactant A3), was tested with food-soil B on a laminate surface.

[0089] The formulation with the composition in Table 4 was prepared. The formulation contains 1% surfactant actives as cleaning agent (sum A1, A2 and A3) and 1% trisodium citrate.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 4 Components Weight percentage % Example 3 A1) SL 446 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) 425N 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Water 98 pH 7

[0090] The prepared formulation of Example 3 was tested using the multichannel peristatic pump flow system shown in FIG. 1, with Soil B food-type soil, and laminate kitchen top substrate. The cleaning performance of inventive formulation was compared against a commercial home care cleaner with high pH value (Reference Cleaner 4):

[0091] Reference Cleaner 4: Cleaner Rewoquat CQ 100 G with pH 10

[0092] The cleaner of Example 3 at pH 7 shows comparable performance to the commercial high pH Reference Cleaners 3 and 4.

Example 4

[0093] Example 3 was repeated with a different biosurfactants A1.

[0094] The formulation with the composition in Table 5 were prepared. In this example, SL ONE instead of SL 446 as in Example 3 was used as Surfactant A1. SL ONE is a bleached version of SL 446. The composition and acid/lactone ratio of SL ONE is the same as SL 446. The formulation contained 1% surfactant actives as cleaning agent. The concentration of trisodium citrate was tested at 1% and 0.2%, the water hardness was tested at deionized water and tap water.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 5 Components Weight percentage % Example 4a A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) 425N 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Deionized Water 98 pH 7 Example 4b A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) 425N 0.60 C) TSC 0.2 B) Deionized Water 98.8 pH 7 Example 4c A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) 425N 0.60 C) TSC 0.2 B) Tap Water 98.8 pH 7

[0095] The prepared formulations were tested using the multichannel peristatic pump flow system (FIG. 1), with Soil B food-type soil, and laminate kitchen top substrate. As shown in FIG. 4, all inventive Cleaners of Examples 4a to 4c at pH 7 show good cleaning performances.

[0096] Even though the cleaning compositions of Examples 4a to 4c have a neutral pH value, the whiteness after cleaning achieved with the inventive cleaners was comparable to that of above described commercial Reference Cleaner 4 which is strong alkaline, i.e. has a pH value of 10.

[0097] In addition, it could be shown that good cleaning can be obtained under different concentrations of trisodium citrate and for different water hardness. This indicates that it is practically suitable to combine this surfactant blends with different concentrations of chelating agents, and good cleaning can be achieved regardless of varying water hardness.

Example 5

[0098] Example 4 was repeated with a different surfactant A3.

[0099] The formulation with the compositions in Table 6 were prepared. Again, the formulation contained 1% surfactant actives as cleaning agent. The concentration of trisodium citrate was tested at 1% and 0.2%, the water hardness was tested at deionized water and tap water.

[0100] The prepared formulations were tested using the multichannel peristatic pump flow system (FIG. 1), with Soil B food-type soil, and laminate kitchen top substrate.

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 6 Components Weight percentage % Example 5a A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Deionized Water 98 pH 7 Example 5b A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 0.2 B) Deionized Water 98.8 pH 7 Example 5c A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 0.2 B) Tap Water 98.8 pH 7

[0101] As shown in FIG. 5, the inventive compositions of Examples 5 a to c, having a pH value of 7, showed good cleaning performance. Thus, different concentrations of component c) and different water grades with different hardness values can be used in the compositions of the present invention.

Example 6

[0102] Example 5 was repeated with a different sorbitan ester A2.

[0103] The formulations with the composition in Table 7 were prepared. In this example, sorbitan ester SMO V was used instead of TT SD 100 as in Example 5. The formulation contained 1% surfactant actives as cleaning agent. The concentration of trisodium citrate was tested at 1% and 0.2%, the water hardness was tested at deionized water and tap water.

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 7 Components Weight percentage % Example 6a A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) SMO V 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Deionized Water 98 pH 7 Example 6b A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) SMO V 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 0.2 B) Deionized Water 98.8 pH 7 Example 6c A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) SMO V 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 0.2 B) Tap Water 98.8 pH 7

[0104] The prepared formulations were tested using the multichannel peristatic pump flow system (FIG. 1), with Soil B food-type soil, and laminate kitchen top substrate.

[0105] The compositions according to Example 6a to c) at pH 7 showed good cleaning performance. The whiteness after cleaning was comparable to that of the commercial Reference Cleaners 1 and 3. For cleaners 1 and 3, however 1.2 wt. % of surfactants had to be used while in Examples 6 a to c only 1 wt. % surfactant was used, which is a 20% reduction of the active ingredient.

[0106] Further benefit of the formulation according to the present invention over Reference Cleaners 1 and 3 are: [0107] Reference cleaner 1 is a pH 7 cleaner but it contains ethanol as solvent to obtain good cleaning performance. The inventive formulation as shown in Table 6 is also formulated at pH 7 and does not contain any volatile organic solvent. [0108] In Examples 6a to c, good cleaning is obtained under different concentrations of trisodium citrate and water hardness, indicating it is practically suitable to combine this surfactant blends with different concentrations of chelating agents, and good cleaning can be achieved regardless of varying water hardness.

Example 7

[0109] The cleaning performance of a composition according to the invention, comprising a sophorolipid (surfactant A1)+a sorbitan ester (surfactant A2)+an alcohol ethoxylates (surfactant A3), was tested in comparison to a composition according to WO 2016/050439 comprising only a sophorolipid (surfactant A1)+a betaine (surfactant A3). The pH value of all compositions was 7.

[0110] Petro-soil A on a metal surface was used for testing. The formulation of the compositions are shown in Table 8.

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 8 Components Weight percentage % Example 7 A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) TB C 60 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Water 98 Comparison Example 3 according to WO 2016/050439 A1) SL 18 1.5 A3) N 70 7.0 A3) TB C 60 1.5 B) Water 90

[0111] The prepared formulation according to Example 7 was tested using the multichannel peristatic pump flow system (FIG. 1). The results were compared to Comparison Example 3. Even though in Comparison Example 3 a concentrated detergent, i.e. 10% active content, was used, it was found, that the diluted inventive cleaning agent showed much better cleaning properties. The cleaning agent of WO2016/050439 did not perform well.

Example 8

[0112] Example 5 was repeated with a different surfactant A3.

[0113] The formulations with the composition in Table 9 were prepared. In this Example sodium lauryl ether sulfate (3 mol EO) was used as surfactant A3. The formulation contained 1% surfactant actives as cleaning agent. The concentration of trisodium citrate was tested at 1% and 0.2%, the water hardness was tested at deionized water and tap water.

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 9 Components Weight percentage % Example 8a A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) sodium lauryl ether sulfate (3 mol EO) 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Deionized Water 98 pH 7 Example 8b A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) sodium lauryl ether sulfate (3 mol EO) 0.60 C) TSC 0.2 B) Deionized Water 98.8 pH 7 Example 6c A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) sodium lauryl ether sulfate (3 mol EO) 0.60 C) TSC 0.2 B) Tap Water 98.8 pH 7

[0114] The prepared formulations were tested using the multichannel peristatic pump flow system (FIG. 1), with Soil B food-type soil, and laminate kitchen top substrate.

[0115] The Compositions according to Example 8a to c) showed good cleaning performance, as the whiteness after cleaning shows.

[0116] In Examples 8a to c, good cleaning is obtained under different concentrations of trisodium citrate and water hardness, indicating it is practically suitable to combine this surfactant blends with different concentrations of chelating agents, and good cleaning can be achieved regardless of varying water hardness.

Example 9

[0117] This example demonstrates the effects of using different ratios of surfactants A1 to A2 and A3.

[0118] The cleaning performance of a composition according to the invention comprising a sophorolipid (surfactant A1)+a sorbitan ester (surfactant A2)+a further surfactant (surfactant A3) was tested with petro soil A on a metal surface.

[0119] The formulations with the composition in Table 10 were prepared. For cleaning tests the formulations of Table 10 were diluted with water to an active ingredients content of 1%. Sodium citrate was added to adjust the pH value of the test solutions to a pH value of 7.

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 10 Components Weight percentage % Example 9a A1) SL 446 4 A2) TT SD 100 10 A3) TT EC 11 20 D) Propylene glycol 4 B) Water 62 Example 9b A1) SL 446 8 A2) TT SD 100 10 A3) TT EC 11 20 D) Propylene glycol 8 B) Water 54 Example 9c A1) SL 446 2.4 A2) TT SD 100 10 A3) TT EC 11 20 A3) TB C 60 2 D) Propylene glycol 4 B) Water 61.6

[0120] Stability tests of the concentrated solutions were very positive. Also, the diluted compositions showed good aqueous stability. Example 9b, with the highest concentration of sophorolipids showed the best aqueous stability.

[0121] Example 9c with good stability but with the lowest ratio of surfactant A1 to A3 showed the best wetting performance of the metal surface.

[0122] The ratio of surfactant A3 to A2 was comparable in Examples 9a to 9c.

[0123] Examples 9a to c show, that the ratios of components A1 to A3 and the overall contents of components A1, A2 and A3 can be varied in the ranges claimed in the dependent and independent claims of the present invention. Depending on the requirements of the intended application, e.g. aqueous stability and cleaning performance, a man skilled in the art can fine-tune the compositions.

Example 10

[0124] In this example the effects of using a biosurfactants in its pure acid form or in a mix of acid and lactone form are demonstrated.

[0125] In Example 10 a sophorolipid without lactone form at pH 7 was compared to a sophorolipid containing 60% acid and 40% lactone at pH 7.

[0126] The formulations with the composition in Table 11 were prepared.

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 11 Components Weight percentage % Example 10a A1) SL Acid (pure acid form) 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Water 98 pH 7 Example 10b A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) TT SD 100 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1 B) Water 98 pH 7

[0127] As shown in FIG. 6, cleaning tests revealed, that at pH 7, a sophorolipid with a lactone fraction (Example 10b) showed better cleaning performance than sophorolipids without lactone fraction as used in Example 10a.

[0128] These results show that at mild pH conditions sophorolipids with lactone fraction are beneficial compared to those without lactone fraction.

Example 11

[0129] In Example 11 several comparison test were conducted, wherein [0130] Non inventive hydrophilic sorbitan esters were used (comparative example 4) [0131] Non inventive ratios of A1 to A2 were used were used (Comparative Examples 5 and 6) [0132] Non inventive ratios of A1 to A2 as well as non inventive hydrophilic sorbitan esters were used (Comparative Examples 7 and 8)

[0133] In detail:

Comparison Example 4

[0134] Example 5a was repeated with a non inventive hydrophilic sorbitan ester A2 (Example 5a with HLB10; Comparison Example 4 with HLB 16.7)

Comparison Examples 5 and 6

[0135] Example 5a was repeated with non inventive ratios of A1 to A2

Comparison Example 7 and 8

[0136] Example 5a was repeated with a hydrophilic, non inventive sorbitan ester A2 (Example 5a with HLB10; Comparison Examples 6 and 7 with HLB 16.7). In addition, non inventive ratios of A1 to A2 were used.

[0137] The formulations with the composition in Table 12 were prepared.

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 12 Components Weight percentage % Comparative Example 4 A1) SL ONE 0.12 A2) Tego SML 20 0.28 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1.0 B) Deionized Water 98 pH 7 Comparative Example 5 A1) SL ONE 0.22 A2) TT SD 100 0.18 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1.0 B) Deionized Water 98 pH 7 Comparative Example 6 A1) SL ONE 0.30 A2) TT SD 100 0.10 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1.0 B) Tap Water 98 pH 7 Comparative Example 7 A1) SL ONE 0.22 A2) Tego SML 20 0.18 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1.0 B) Tap Water 98 pH 7 Comparative Example 8 A1) SL ONE 0.30 A2) Tego SML 20 0.10 A3) TT EC 11 0.60 C) TSC 1.0 B) Tap Water 98 pH 7

[0138] As can be seen in FIGS. 5 and 7, the inventive formulation with a hydrophobic sorbitan ester as well as with a low ratio of biosurfactant A1 to sorbitan ester A2 show the best cleaning performances. The worst cleaning performance was found in comparative examples 7 and 8 wherein a hydrophilic sorbitan ester and a high ratio of biosurfactant A1 to sorbitan ester A2 was used. If only a hydrophilic sorbitan ester (comparative example 4) was used or if only the ratio of biosurfactant A1 to sorbitan ester A2 was higher than claimed in the present invention (Comparative Example 5 and 6) the cleaning performance was worse than in Example 5a but not as worse as in Comparative Examples 7 and 8. This shows the synergistic effect of using a sorbitane ester with and HLB value according to the present invention and simultaneously using a ratio of biosurfactant A1 to sorbitan ester A2 according to the invention.

Example 12

[0139] A test of a cleaning composition according to the invention with a very low surfactant content was done in Example 12a while in Example 12b a cleaning composition with a very high surfactant content was tested. The composition in Table 13 were prepared.

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 13 Components Weight percentage % Example 12a A1) SL ONE 0.012 A2) TT SD 100 0.028 A3) TT EC 11 0.060 C) TSC 1.0 B) Tap Water 98.9 pH 7 Example 12b A1) SL ONE 1.2 A2) TT SD 100 2.8 A3) TT EC 11 6.0 C) TSC 1.0 B) Tap Water 89 pH 7

[0140] As shown in FIG. 7 the inventive cleaning compositions show very good cleaning performances with very high as well as with very low contents of surfactants.