LIQUID DETERGENT COMPOSITION

Abstract

A detergent composition having a) from about 10% to about 60%, by weight of the composition, of a surfactant system wherein said surfactant system comprises: i) at least 35%, by weight of the surfactant system, of nonionic surfactant and ii) from 5% to about 20%, by weight of the surfactant system, of amine oxide.

Claims

1. A liquid detergent composition comprising: a) from about 10% to about 60%, by weight of the composition, of a surfactant system wherein said surfactant system comprises: i) at least 35%, by weight of the surfactant system, of nonionic surfactant; ii) from 5% to about 20%, by weight of the surfactant system, of amine oxide; b) fatty acid; and c) from about 35% to about 80%, by weight of the composition, of water; and where the fatty acid to amine oxide weight ratio is from 2 to 4.

2. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, wherein the composition does not comprise a silicone suds suppressor.

3. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, wherein the surfactant system does not comprise silicone suds suppressor.

4. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, wherein from about 0.1% to about 100% of the carbon content of the nonionic surfactant, the amine oxide, or combinations thereof are derived from renewable sources.

5. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, wherein the surfactant system further comprises an additional surfactant selected from anionic surfactants, cationic surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants, and mixtures thereof.

6. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1 wherein the composition comprises from about 15% to about 50%, by weight of the composition, of the surfactant system.

7. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, wherein the composition comprises from about 15% to about 35%, by weight of the composition, of the surfactant system.

8. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises from about 0.1% to about 10.0%, by weight of the composition, of a laundry adjunct selected from enzymes, enzymes stabilizers, optical brighteners, hydrotropes, perfume, soil suspending polymers and/or soil release polymers, fabric care benefits, pH adjusting agents, dye transfer inhibiting agents, preservatives, hueing dyes, nonfabric substantive dyes, encapsulated actives, and mixtures thereof.

9. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises perfume microcapsules.

10. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, wherein the composition further comprises a hueing dye.

11. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, further comprising an anionic surfactant comprising a first anionic surfactant, wherein said first anionic surfactant consists essentially of a mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I and surfactants of Formula II: ##STR00005## wherein from about 50% to about 100% by weight of the first anionic surfactant are isomers having m+n=11; wherein from about 25% to about 50% of the mixture of surfactant isomers of Formula I have n=0; wherein from about 0.001% to about 25% by weight of the first surfactant are surfactants of Formula II; and wherein X is a hydrophilic moiety.

12. The liquid detergent composition of claim 1, further comprising an anionic surfactant comprising an alkyl benzene sulfonate.

Description

COMPARATIVE EXAMPLES

[0203]

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Best in Best in Class Class nil-AES Economical Commercial Commercial Commercial Inventive Composition Composition Composition Composition wt% C25 EO2.5 S 6.0% 0.0% 6.6% 0.0% Active C12/14 AS 0.0% 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% C11.8 LAS 10.1% 0.0% 1.6% 7.5% NI C25 EO9 6.9% 7.3% 0.0% 13.4% C12/14 AO 0.0% 2.3% 0.0% 2.1% Ethoxylated 1.1% 1.9% 0.0% 1.2% propoxylated polyethyleneimine Ethoxylated 1.7% 1.7% 0.0% 2.8% polyethyleneimine C12/18 Fatty 0.3% 3.6% 0.0% 4.2% Acid Silicone Suds 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Suppressor Fatty Acid to Amine N/A 1.6 N/A 2.0 Oxide (FA:AO) Ratio Grease Burnt Butter 46.3 40.5 35.4 44.0 Data Stain (SRI) Cooked Beef 28.2 28.9 23.3 27.9 Stain Suds Water 9.8 gal 12.1 gal 10.1 gal 9.4 gal Data Cycle Time 68 mins 87 mins 70 mins 69 mins

[0204] As shown in Table 1, it has been surprisingly found that one can achieve comparable cleaning, cycle time, and water usage to a best in class, AES-containing detergent formulation while reducing the number of components in the formulation such as, for example, suds suppressor. Further, as shown above in Table 1, the inventive composition exhibits better cleaning than an economical formulation. Last, as will be shown in the following tables 2-5, it has been surprisingly found that by having a fatty acid to amine oxide ratio of between about 2 to 4, one can control sudsing in a manner that reduces water usage levels and cycle time. This is shown when comparing the Inventive Composition, which has a FA:AO ratio of 2.0 to the best in class nil-AES composition which has a FA:AO ratio of 1.6. The Tier 1 formulation with a ratio of 1.6 utilizes almost 3 more gallons of water, or about 30% more water and increases cycle time by almost 25%.

[0205] Tables 1-5 utilize burnt butter stain and cooked beef stain. Burnt butter stain and cooked beef stain are hydrophilic grease stains recognized as difficult to remove from textiles. These are used as technical benchmarks to identify best in class detergents that have the strongest technical performance on removing grease stains. In addition, consumer acceptance of a laundry detergent's performance correlates with how well it performs on hydrophilic grease stain removal.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Comparative Comparative Comparative Comparative Inventive Comparative C E F I Composition G wt % C25 EO2.5 S 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Active C12/14 AS 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C11.8 LAS 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% NI C25 EO9 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% 13.4% C12/14 AO 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% 2.1% Ethoxylated 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% propoxylated polyethyleneimine Ethoxylated 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% polyethyleneimine C12/18 Fatty Acid 0.5% 1.1% 2.1% 3.2% 4.2% 8.4% Silicone Suds 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Suppressor FA:AO Ratio 0.25 0.50 1.0 1.5 2.0 4.0 Grease Burnt Butter Stain 45.8 45.5 45.0 44.4 44.0 41.7 Data Cooked Beef Stain 29.7 29.4 28.9 28.4 27.9 25.8 (SRI) Suds Water 13.4 gal Suds Lock Suds Lock 12.0 gal 9.4 gal 9.0 gal Data (Method Machine Machine Fail Fail) Fail Cycle Time 151 mins 191 mins 69 mins 67 mins (Method (Method Fail) Fail)

[0206] As shown in Table 2, it has been surprisingly found that one can create a formulation that does not contain silicone suds suppressors and that exhibits best in class comparable cleaning, cycle time, and water usage by controlling the FA:AO ratio. As shown in Table 2, which keeps the Amine Oxide level constant at 2.1% active, at ratios of 1.5 and below, the machine enters suds lock or fails the test method described below and must significantly increase the cycle time and/or the amount of water needed to complete the cycle. Without being bound by theory, it is believed that the increase in cycle time is due to the suds sensor in the machine. Essentially, the machine waits for the suds to dissipate and/or will further dilute the formulation to reduce the suds level in the machine. As shown in Table 2, at a ratio of 1.5 or less, either the machine fails or the cycle time is 2 times, to over 2.5 times the cycle time at ratios from about 2 to 4. To a consumer, this means that by using a formulation that has a FA:AO ratio of 2, they can run two loads or more in the time it takes to run a load using a formulation that has a FA:AO ratio of 1.5.

[0207] Further, as shown below in Table 3, it has been surprisingly found that the ratio relationship holds regardless of the level of Amine Oxide used in the formulation.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Comparative Comparative Comparative B D J % C25 EO2.5 S 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Active C12/14 AS 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C11.8 LAS 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% NI C25 EO9 11.3% 11.3% 11.3% C12/14 AO 4.2% 4.2% 4.2% Ethoxylated propoxylated 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% polyethyleneimine Ethoxylated polyethyleneimine 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% C12/18 Fatty Acid 1.1% 2.1% 8.4% Silicone Suds Suppressor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FA:AO Ratio 0.25 0.50 2.0 Grease Burnt Butter Stain 50.6 50.0 46.9 Data Cooked Beef Stain 33.4 32.9 30.0 (SRI) Suds Water Suds Lock Suds Lock 9.6 gal Data Cycle Time Machine Fail Machine Fail 66 mins

[0208] Table 3 above utilizes double the active level of Amine Oxide (4.2%) as is demonstrated in Table 2 (2.1%), however, as shown above, the same effect is found wherein the FA:AO ratio drives water level and cycle time of the machine. As previously stated, it has been surprisingly found that having a FA:AO ratio of between about 2 and 4 or at least greater than about 2 is a key driver in controlling suds in the absence of known suds suppressors such as silicone suds suppressors.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Comparative Inventive Comparative H Composition J wt% Active C25 EO2.5 S 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C12/14 AS 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% C11.8 LAS 7.5% 7.5% 7.5% NI C25 EO9 15.5% 13.4% 11.3% C12/14 AO 0.0% 2.1% 4.2% Ethoxylated propoxylated polyethyleneimine 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% Ethoxylated polyethyleneimine 2.8% 2.8% 2.8% C12/18 Fatty Acid 4.2% 4.2% 8.4% Silicone Suds Suppressor 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% FA:AO Ratio N/A 2.0 2.0 Grease Data (SRI) Burnt Butter Stain 38.8 44.0 46.9 Cooked Beef Stain 23.8 27.9 30.0 Suds Data Water 9.9 gal 9.4 gal 9.6 gal Cycle Time 68 mins 69 mins 66 mins

[0209] As shown in Table 4, it has further been surprisingly found that the level of Amine Oxide and cleaning efficacy does not exhibit a linear relationship. Instead, as one doubles the level of Amine Oxide from 2.1% to 4.2%, there is no statistically significant increase in cleaning efficacy as shown by the SRI data for Burnt Butter and Cooked Beef. This is in contrast between the over 10% increase in SRI scores when moving from 0% Amine Oxide to 2.1% Amine Oxide. As such, there is a diminishing return in the use of higher Amine Oxide levels.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5a Inventive Composition A C B E D C AO (wt %) 2.1% 4.2% 2.1% 4.2% 2.1% 4.2% 2.1% FA (wt %) 4.2% 0.0 0.5% 1.1% 1.1% 2.1% 2.1% FA:AO 2.0 0.0 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 1.0 Ratio Burnt 44.0 51.0 45.8 50.6 45.5 50.0 45.0 Butter Cooked 27.9 34.0 29.7 33.4 29.4 32.9 28.9 Beef Water 9.4 gal Suds Lock 13.4 Suds Lock Suds Lock Suds Lock Suds Lock Machine gal Machine Machine Machine Machine Cycle 69 mins Fail 151 Fail Fail Fail Fail Time mins

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 5b Inventive Composition I H G J AO (wt%) 2.1% 2.1% 0.0% 2.1% 4.2% FA (wt%) 4.2% 3.2% 4.2% 8.4% 8.4% FA:AO 2.0 1.5 N/A 4.0 2.0 Ratio Burnt 44.0 44.4 38.8 41.7 46.9 Butter Cooked 27.9 28.4 23.8 25.8 30.0 Beef Water 9.4 gal 12.0 gal 9.9 gal 9.0 gal 9.6 gal Cycle 69 mins 191 mins 68 mins 67 mins 66 mins Time

[0210] As shown above in Table 5a-5b, it has further been found that there is an optimal level of Fatty Acid of greater than 3%, such as, for example between 3% and 10%, between 3.5% and 8.5%, or between 4% and 6%. This level is required to maintain the previously discussed FA:AO ratio of about 2 or greater. As shown above in Table 5a, Fatty Acid levels of less than 3% result in suds locks or machine failures or significantly extended cycle times and additional wash water. As shown in Table 5b, Fatty Acid levels above 3% result in successful cycle times and wash water usage. It is noted that composition I which is at 3.2% Fatty Acid failed the method test for cycle time but passed for water usage whereas all samples under 3% Fatty Acid either had a suds lock or failed for both cycle time and water usage rendering them consumer undesirable for both measures. Further, as shown above, the addition of Fatty Acid without Amine Oxide (Comparative example H) leads to a loss of cleaning efficacy when compared to formulating Amine Oxide at a level of at least 1.5%.

Test Methods:

Suds Data/Method Details:

[0211] High Efficiency (HE) washing machines use less water for washing and rinsing than traditional washing machines. With less water, detergents without proper suds control can cause HE washing machines to add additional cycle time (cycle extension), extra water (additional rinses), or completely shut off, termed a suds lock, as a way prevent excessive suds from causing damage to the washer, or leftover suds residue at the end of the cycle. The addition of either excessive cycle times (greater than 90 minutes) and/or additional wash water (greater than 12 gallons) is considered a method fail, as described below.

[0212] To evaluate a detergent's sudsing risk in HE washing machines, a General Electric GFWS1700 front loading washing machine was used as a consumer relevant HE washing machine with a dynamic suds response, where a combination of cycle time, rinses, and suds lock was used as a response to excessive suds. There are a range of suds responses across washing machine manufacturers due to differences in suds response algorithms in machine programming. This machine was chosen as consumer relevant based on its ability to be reactive and discriminating (dynamic range of water and cycle time) towards sudsing risk of different laundry detergents. Some HE washing machines do not cause a suds response and leave the consumer with suds residue at the end of the cycle, while others are over-reactive, adding water and cycle time even when using detergents with proper suds control.

[0213] Using this washing machine, cycle time, water volume, and suds lock (machine fail) were recorded when testing detergents and compared versus baseline control of a cycle performed without any detergent. Colors/Normal cycle (70 F. wash/60 F. rinse), soft water (0 grains per gallon), and a load size of 8-8.5 pounds of polycotton textile ballast was used across all suds testing cycles. Under these conditions, 9-12 gallons of total water, and less than 90 minutes of total cycle time were considered passing testing results, as seen when the cycle was performed without any detergent or with a detergent with proper suds control. Any values outside of these are considered a washing machine response to excessive suds caused by a detergent without proper suds control, including and up to a suds lock (machine fail), where the machine stops running to prevent damage to the washing machine.

Stain Removal Method:

[0214] Technical stain swatches of CW120 cotton containing Burnt Butter Stain and Cooked Beef Stain were purchased from Accurate Product Development Co., Inc (Cincinnati, OH). The swatches were washed in a Whirlpool front loader High Efficiency washing machine (standard 19 liter wash cycle), using 7 grains per gallon water hardness and washed at 77 degrees Fahrenheit. The total amount of liquid detergent used in the tests was 45 grams.

[0215] Image analysis was used to compare each stain to an unstained fabric control. Software converted images taken into standard colorimetric values and compared these to standards based on the commonly used Macbeth Color Rendition Chart, assigning each stain a colorimetric value (Stain Level). Eight replicates of each stain were prepared. Stain removal from the swatches was measured as follows:

[00001]$\mathrm{Stain}\mathrm{Removal}\mathrm{Index}\left(\mathrm{SRI}\right)=\frac{E_{\mathrm{initial}}-E_{\mathrm{washed}}}{E_{\mathrm{initial}}}100$ [0216] E.sub.initial=Stain level before washing [0217] E.sub.washed=Stain level after washing

[0218] The dimensions and values disclosed herein are not to be understood as being strictly limited to the exact numerical values recited. Instead, unless otherwise specified, each such dimension is intended to mean both the recited value and a functionally equivalent range surrounding that value. For example, a dimension disclosed as 40 mm is intended to mean about 40 mm.

[0219] Every document cited herein, including any cross referenced or related patent or application, is hereby incorporated herein by reference in its entirety unless expressly excluded or otherwise limited. The citation of any document is not an admission that it is prior art with respect to any invention disclosed or claimed herein or that it alone, or in any combination with any other reference or references, teaches, suggests or discloses any such invention. Further, to the extent that any meaning or definition of a term in this document conflicts with any meaning or definition of the same term in a document incorporated by reference, the meaning or definition assigned to that term in this document shall govern.

[0220] While particular embodiments of the present invention have been illustrated and described, it would be obvious to those skilled in the art that various other changes and modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention. It is therefore intended to cover in the appended claims all such changes and modifications that are within the scope of this invention.