USE OF NEW COMBINATION OF SOLVENTS FOR FRAGRANCES

Abstract

The present invention relates to fragrances compositions. The present invention, more specifically, relates to the use of a blend of 1,3-butanediol and a glycerol ketal derivative for fragrance compositions. The present invention also discloses fragrance compositions using such a blend to provide controlled evaporation profile.

Claims

1. A method for preparing a solvent or carrier in fragrance compositions comprising: blending 1,3-butanediol and at least one glycerol ketal derivative of formula I below: ##STR00004## wherein R.sub.1 and R.sub.2, independently from one another, are selected in the group consisting of: a linear or branched C1-C12 alkyl, a C4-C12 cycloalkyl or an aryl; R.sub.3 is H, a linear or branched alkyl, a cycloalkyl or a C(?O)R.sub.4 group, with R.sub.4 being a linear or branched C1-C4 alkyl or a C5-C6 cycloalkyl; in which a weight ratio of a blend of the glycerol ketal derivative and 1,3-butanediol is at least 1.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein R.sub.1 and R.sub.2, independently from one another, are selected from the group consisting of methyl, ethyl, isopropyl, n-propyl, isobutyl, n-butyl, tert-butyl, n-pentyl, cyclopentyl, cyclohexyl, or phenyl.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein R.sub.3 is H or a C(?O)R.sub.4 group, with R.sub.4 being methyl, ethyl, isopropyl, n-propyl, isobutyl, n-butyl, or tert-butyl.

4. The method according to claim 2, wherein R.sub.1 and R.sub.2 are methyl and R.sub.3 is H.

5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the blend is a mixture of 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-methanol and 1,3-butanediol.

6. The method according to claim 5, wherein the weight ratio between 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-methanol and 1,3-butanediol is from 70:30 to 50:50.

7. The method according to claim 1, further comprising promoting an evaporation performance of fragrance compositions.

8. A fragrance composition comprising a fragrance and a blend of 1,3-butanediol and at least one glycerol ketal derivative of formula I below: ##STR00005## wherein R.sub.1 and R.sub.2, independently from one another, are selected in the group consisting of a linear or branched C.sub.1-C.sub.12 alkyl, a C.sub.4-C.sub.12 cycloalkyl or an aryl; R.sub.3 is H, a linear or branched alkyl, a cycloalkyl or a C(?O)R.sub.4 group, with R.sub.4 being a linear or branched C.sub.1-C.sub.4 alkyl or a C.sub.5-C.sub.6 cycloalkyl, in which a weight ratio of a blend of the glycerol ketal derivative and 1,3-butanediol is at least 1.

9. The composition according to claim 8, comprising from 5 to 90% by weight of the blend based on the total weight of the fragrance composition.

10. The composition of claim 9, comprising from 5 to 40% by weight of the blend based on the total weight of the fragrance composition.

11. The composition of claim 8, wherein R.sub.1 and R.sub.2, independently from one another, are selected from the group consisting of methyl, ethyl, isopropyl, n-propyl, isobutyl, n-butyl, tert-butyl, n-pentyl, cyclopentyl, cyclohexyl, or phenyl.

12. The composition of claim 8, wherein R.sub.3 is H or a C(?O)R.sub.4 group, with R.sub.4 being methyl, ethyl, isopropyl, n-propyl, isobutyl, n-butyl, or tert-butyl.

13. The composition of claim 11, wherein R.sub.1 and R.sub.2 are methyl and R.sub.3 is H.

14. The composition of claim 8, wherein the blend is a mixture of 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-methanol and 1,3-butanediol.

15. The composition of claim 14, wherein the weight ratio between 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-methanol and 1,3-butanediol is from 70:30 to 50:50.

16. The method of claim 7, further comprising promoting the evaporation performance of fragrance compositions from an electrical air care device, a wicking device, or an aromatic candle.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURE

[0063] For a more complete understanding of various embodiments of the described subject matter and its advantages, reference is now made to the following description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, in which:

[0064] FIG. 1 is a comparison evaporation profile between blends A1 to A3 and Ref 1, according to Example 1, measured as the weight loss of the composition during the time.

[0065] FIG. 2 is a comparison evaporation profile between blends B1 to B3 and Ref 2, according to Example 1, measured as the weight loss of the composition during the time.

[0066] FIG. 3 is a comparison evaporation profile between blends C1 and TPM, according to Example 1, measured as the weight loss of the composition during the time.

[0067] FIG. 4 is a qualitative comparison of blends D1 to D4 according to example 2 with a score according to the odor intensity.

[0068] FIG. 5 is a qualitative comparison of blends D1 to D4 according to example 2 with a score according to the odor displeasing level.

EXAMPLES

[0069] The present application is further described by means of the examples, presented below, wherein the abbreviations have the usual meaning in the art.

Methodology to Measure Evaporation Rate and Weight Loss

[0070] 1. Weight the air care device. Write that value down [0071] 2. Prepare the blend of solvent according to the formulation [0072] 3. Put the device recipient that will store the blend formulation on the balance. Tare the balance [0073] 4. Add to the device recipient the amount of blend needed. Write down the weight added. [0074] 5. Tare the balance and weight the whole system. Write that value down [0075] 6. Start the test [0076] 7. Weight the system 1 to 3 times a week, until you achieve 100% of the system evaporation. Write the values down. [0077] 8. Subtract the air care device weight to the whole system weight on each measurement. This will be the amount of blend remaining on the recipient [0078] 9. Subtract the initial weight of the blend formulation to the remaining weight. This will be the weight loss of your system [0079] 10. Calculate the evaporation rate (g/day) by dividing the weight evaporated by the number of days of the test.

Example 1

[0080] Blends of 1,3-butanediol and Augeo Clean Multi (2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-methanol) were prepared by simply mixing the components in a recipient. Augeo Clean Multi (2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolane-4-methanol) is commercially available, sold by Rhodia Brasil S.A.

[0081] Glycol comparative blends were prepared using 2-Methylpentane-2,4-diol commercially available and sold by Rhodia Brasil S.A and 1,3 propanediol commercially available and obtained from Sigma-Aldrich.

[0082] Comparative blends were prepared using commercially-available Dowanol DPMA and Dowanol TPM Glycol Ether sold by DOW in proportions usual for fragrances. These comparative blends are referred as Reference blends.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Blend of solvent tested A1 A2 A3 Ref. 1 B1 B2 B3 Ref. 2 C Ref. 3 Solvent % w/w % w/w % w/w % w/w % w/w % w/w % w/w % w/w % w/w % w/w Augeo Clean 50 50 50 70 70 70 30 Multi 1,3-Butanediol 50 30 70 2-Methylpentane- 50 30 2,4-diol 1,3 propanediol 50 30 Dowanol DPMA 50 80 Dowanol TPM 50 20 100

[0083] Evaporation profile of blends A1 and B1, according to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, have demonstrated controlled evaporation performance according to the ideal time release around 30 days compared to commercial blends Ref. 1 and Ref. 2, respectively.

[0084] Evaporation profiles of blends A2, A3, B2 and B3 demonstrated poor performance of evaporation, according to FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, showing that glycols different from 1,3-Butanediol did not show an ideal time release to the use in compositions of the present invention.

[0085] The blend C has demonstrated performance of evaporation similar to pure Dowanol TPM, which is useless to compositions of the present invention as it has demonstrated such a slow and extended evaporation of the composition.

Example 2

[0086] The blends were submitted to an odor panel test using six participants. The same proportion of solvents were used to evaluate the odor intensity of different blends. All tests were blind, so none of the participants knew which molecules or blends were involved in the test.

[0087] Additionally, participants were asked to compare qualitatively all blends and to give a score according to the odor intensity and displeasing level.

[0088] The preferred blends were prepared according to example 1:

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Blends of solvents D1 D2 D3 D4 Solvent % w/w % w/w % w/w % w/w 1,3-Butanediol 70 50 Augeo Clean Multi 30 50 Dowanol DPMA 70 50 Dowanol TPM 30 50

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Blends odor comparison Odor Intensity Odor displeasing level (more+/less?) (more+/less?) D3 and D4 + + D1 and D2 ? ?

[0089] As shown by Table 3 and FIG. 4 representing the odor intensity from very weak (lowest score) to super strong (highest score), both blends D1 and D2 have demonstrated less intense odor compared to the D3 and D4.

[0090] From the qualitative comparison of blends, FIG. 5 representing the odor displeasing level, from non-unpleasant (lowest score) to super unpleasant (highest score), blends D1 and D2 showed less displeasing odor compared to D3 and D4. Indeed, blend D1 has demonstrated even better results in terms of odor intensity compared to the others.

[0091] Therefore, the blends of the invention demonstrated not only odorless properties but also a constant and appropriate profile of evaporation of fragrances, allowing better sensorial perception of the fragrance in the environment during evaporation of the composition.

[0092] The use of such examples is illustrative only and in no way limits the scope and meaning of the invention or of any exemplified term or phrase used herein. Likewise, the invention is not limited to any particular preferred embodiments described herein. Indeed, many modifications and variations of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art upon reading this specification.

[0093] It is further to be understood that all values are approximate, and are provided for description.