FRAGRANCE COMPOSITION

Abstract

The present invention is a fragrance composition containing, (A) a fragrance compound, and (B) a compound represented by the following formula 1,

##STR00001##

wherein R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 each represent a hydrocarbon group, R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 having 17 or more carbons in total, A.sup.1O and A.sup.2O each represent an alkyleneoxy group with 2 or more and 4 or less carbons, with A.sup.1 and A.sup.2 being alkylene groups, x1 and x2 represent average numbers of added moles of A.sup.1O and A.sup.2O, respectively, and each represent a number of 0 or more and 10 or less, and M is a cation.

Claims

1. A fragrance composition, comprising: component (A); a fragrance compound: and component (B): a compound represented by formula 1: ##STR00004## wherein R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 each represent a hydrocarbon group, R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 having 17 or more carbons in total, A.sup.1O and A.sup.2O each represent an alkyleneoxy group with 2 or more and 4 or less carbons, with A.sup.1 and A.sup.2 being alkylene groups, x1 and x2 represent average numbers of added moles of A.sup.1O and A.sup.2O, respectively, and each represent a number of 0 or more and 10 or less, and M is a cation.

2. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein the component (A) has a LogP of 1 or more and 7 or less.

3. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 in the formula 1 each represent a branched-chain hydrocarbon group having a main chain and a side chain, the side chain having 3 or 4 carbons.

4. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein the component (B) is a di(2-propylheptyl)sulfosuccinate.

5. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein a proportion of the component (A) relative to 100 parts by mass of the component (B) is 10 parts by mass or more and 100 parts by mass or less.

6. A method for imparting a scent comprising treating an object with the fragrance composition according to claim 1.

7. The method for imparting a scent according to claim 6, wherein the fragrance composition is a dispersion liquid or a solubilization liquid obtained by dispersing or solubilizing the component (A) in water in the presence of the component (B).

8. The method for imparting a scent according to claim 6, wherein the object is treated with a treatment liquid obtained by mixing the components (A) and (B) with water having a hardness of 1? DH or more and 30? DH or less.

9. The method for imparting a scent according to claim 6, wherein the object is one or more selected from the group consisting of a fiber other than hair, skin, hair, and a hard article.

10. A method for improving scent retaining performance comprising imparting a scent to an object with component (A) in the presence of component (B), wherein: component (A) is a fragrance compound; and component (B) is a compound represented by formula 1: ##STR00005## wherein R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 each represent a hydrocarbon group, R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 having 17 or more carbons in total, A.sup.1O and A.sup.2O each represent an alkyleneoxy group with 2 or more and 4 or less carbons, with A.sup.1 and A.sup.2 being alkylene groups, x1 and x2 represent average numbers of added moles of A.sup.1O and A.sup.2O, respectively, and each represent a number of 0 or more and 10 or less, and M is a cation.

11. The method for improving scent retaining performance according to claim 10, comprising imparting the scent in the presence of water having a hardness of 1? DH or more and 30? DH or less.

12. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein the component (A) is one or more selected from the group consisting of a hydrocarbon, an alcohol, a phenol, an aldehyde, a ketone, an acetal, an ether, an ester, a carbonate, a lactone, an oxime, a nitrile, a Schiff base, an amide, a nitrogen-containing compound, a sulfur-containing compound, a natural essential oil, and a natural extract.

13. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein the component (A) is one or more selected from the group consisting of an alcohol, a phenol, an aldehyde, and an ether.

14. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein the component (A) is one or more selected from the group consisting of phenethyl alcohol, eugenol, hexyl cinnamaldehyde, and estragole.

15. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein a total carbon number of R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 in the formula 1 is 17 or more and 30 or less.

16. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein R.sup.1 and R.sup.2 in the formula 1 each represent a branched-chain alkyl group selected from a branched-chain decyl group and a branched-chain dodecyl group.

17. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, comprising the component (A) in an amount of 0.1 mass % or more and 2 mass % or less.

18. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, comprising the component (B) in an amount of 2 mass % or more and 7 mass % or less.

19. The fragrance composition according to claim 1, wherein the fragrance composition comprises a surfactant other than the component (B), and a proportion of the component (B) in all surfactants is 80 mass % or more.

20. The method for imparting a scent according to claim 6, wherein a proportion of the component (A) relative to 100 parts by mass of the component (B) in the fragrance composition is 10 parts by mass or more and 100 parts by mass or less.

Description

EXAMPLES

Example 1 and Comparative Example 1

(1) Pretreatment of Towel for Evaluation

[0103] Towels from which starching agents and impurities had been removed in advance by performing the following treatment were used as towels for evaluations.

[0104] Using a fully automatic washing machine (model number NA-F60PB3 manufactured by Panasonic Corporation), a series of laundering processes (water amount 50 L, washing for 10 minutes->water-saving rinsing twice->dewatering for 9 minutes) was repeated three times on 24 commercially available cotton towels (TW 220 manufactured by Yoshikawa Towel Co., Ltd., white) or chemical fiber towels (YUI, gray/brown, polyester 85%/nylon 15%) by adding 52.22 g of a 10% diluted liquid of a nonionic surfactant (EMULGEN 108 manufactured by Kao Corporation) as a detergent and using tap water in Wakayama City as water. Subsequently, the series of laundering processes was repeated twice with water alone. After that, the towels were naturally dried by leaving them alone at a room temperature (25? C.) for 24 hours.

(2) Method for Treating Towel

[0105] After a treatment liquid was prepared by putting a predetermined amount of ion exchange water (bath ratio 20 kg/kg-towel) into a portable washing machine (model number NA-35 manufactured in the name of National), adding an aqueous calcium chloride solution (equivalent to 4000? DH) such that the treatment liquid had a hardness shown in Table 1, adding a 5 mass % aqueous dispersion liquid of a fragrance composition shown in Table 1 under stirring such that the concentration of component (B) was the treatment concentration (% o.w.f.) shown in Table 1 and stirring them for 1 minute, two towels (a total of about 140 g) pretreated in the above (1) were put thereinto and treated for 3 minutes under stirring. After that, the towels were dewatered for 2 minutes in a dewatering tub of a twin tub washing machine (model number VH-52G (H) manufactured by TOSHIBA CORPORATION) and dried in a room at 23? C./45% RH. Note that the treatment liquid prepared here is also a fragrance composition.

(3) Evaluation of Scent Retaining Performance

(3-1) Evaluation 1 (Scent Retaining Performance by Paired Evaluation)

[0106] On the towels treated in (2), scent retaining performance 8 hours and 24 hours after dewatering was evaluated by four panelists specializing in scents. The four panelists each compared towels of an example and a comparative example of the same test group at the same elapsed time after dewatering, and when there was a difference in scent strength, gave 3 points to the stronger one and 1 point to the weaker one, and when the scent strength was the same, gave 2 points to each one to determine a total point of evaluation scores by the four. The evaluation results are shown in Table 1.

(3-2) Evaluation 2 (Scent Retaining Performance by Point-Addition Evaluation)

[0107] On the towels treated in (2), scent retaining performance 4 hours and 24 hours after dewatering was evaluated by four panelists specializing in scents in accordance with the evaluation criteria below.

[0108] Evaluation scores by the four panelists on each towel of the same test group after the same time had elapsed were totaled. At that time, they were permitted to give an evaluation score to one decimal place referring to the evaluation criteria below. A total evaluation score 24 hours later divided by a total evaluation score 4 hours later was given as a degree of scent retention 24 hours after dewatering with respect to 4 hours after dewatering (indicated as degree of scent retention A.sub.(24/4) in the table). The evaluation results are shown in Table 1.

(Evaluation Criteria)

[0109] 0: scentless [0110] 1: barely sensible scent (sensing threshold) [0111] 2: scent is weak, but one can recognize what odor it is (recognition threshold) [0112] 3: easily sensible scent [0113] 4: strong scent [0114] 5: very strong scent

[0115] Note that the larger a score is, the stronger a scent is and the higher a scent retaining performance effect is.

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Test group Ia Test group Ib Test group Ic Comparative Comparative Comparative Example example Example example Example example 1-1 1-1 1-2 1-2 1-3 1-3 Fragrance Mass (A) Phenylethyl alcohol 1 1 composition ratio (LogP 1.10) Eugenol 1 1 (LogP 2.73) Estragole 1 1 (LogP 3.47) ?-hexylcinnamaldehyde (LogP 4.82) (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-propylheptyl) sulfosuccinate (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Treatment Object to be treated Cotton towel Cotton towel Cotton towel condition Bath ratio 20 20 20 Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 4 4 4 Treatment concentration [% o.w.f.] 0.3 0.3 0.3 Scent Evaluation 1 8 hours after 10 6 11 5 10 6 retaining dewatering performance 24 hours after 10 6 11 5 10 6 dewatering Evaluation 2 Degree of scent 0.44 0.33 0.49 0.42 0.60 0.43 retention A.sub.(24/4) Test group Id Test group Ie Test group If Comparative Comparative Comparative Example example Example example Example example 1-4 1-4 1-5 1-5 1-6 1-6 Fragrance Mass (A) Phenylethyl alcohol composition ratio (LogP 1.10) Eugenol 1 1 1 1 (LogP 2.73) Estragole (LogP 3.47) ?-hexylcinnamaldehyde 1 1 (LogP 4.82) (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-propylheptyl) sulfosuccinate (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Treatment Object to be treated Cotton towel Cotton towel Chemical fiber towel condition Bath ratio 20 20 20 Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 4 20 4 Treatment concentration [% o.w.f.] 0.3 0.3 0.3 Scent Evaluation 1 8 hours after 10 6 11 5 10 6 retaining dewatering performance 24 hours after 11 5 10 6 10 6 dewatering Evaluation 2 Degree of scent 0.86 0.79 0.42 0.40 0.52 0.41 retention A.sub.(24/4)

[0116] In each test group in Table 1, higher scent retaining performance was exhibited 8 hours and 24 hours after dewatering when using a fragrance composition of an example than when using a fragrance composition of a comparative example as shown in Evaluation 1.

[0117] Further, in each test group in Table 1, a fragrance composition of an example has a higher value of a degree of scent retention A.sub.(24/4) than a comparative example as shown in Evaluation 2, and is thus found to have a higher effect of maintaining scent retaining performance over time.

[0118] While it was confirmed that component (A) alone was not dissolved or difficult to dissolve in water, component (A) was solubilized when used in combination with component (B) of an example or component (B) of a comparative example. Further, component (A) is considered to have been adsorbed to fibers as the fibers were imparted a scent by treating the fibers with the fragrance composition in the above manner. Further, component (B) is considered to be higher in the effect of delivering component (A) than component (B) as higher scent retaining performance was attained when using component (B) than when using component (B).

[0119] Thus, component (B) carries component (A) to an object such as fibers or the like more effectively to allow the function and effect of component (A) to be exhibited on the object.

Example 2 and Comparative Example 2

(1) Pretreatment of Evaluation Fabric

[0120] Fabrics from which starching agents and impurities had been removed in advance by performing the following treatment were used as fabrics for evaluations.

[0121] Using a fully automatic washing machine (model number NA-F60PB3 manufactured by Panasonic Corporation), a series of laundering processes (water amount 45 L, washing for 10 minutes->water-saving rinsing twice->dewatering for 9 minutes) was repeated twice on 1.8 kg of a knitted cotton fabric (knitted cotton fabric manufactured by SHIKISENSHA CO., LTD. described as cotton fabric in Table 2) or a polyester jersey fabric (manufactured by Senshoku Shizai Kabushiki Kaisha Tanigashira Shoten and described as chemical fiber fabric in Table 2) by adding 45 g of a 10% diluted liquid of a nonionic surfactant (EMULGEN 108 manufactured by Kao Corporation) as a detergent and using tap water in Wakayama City as water. Subsequently, the series of laundering processes was repeated three times with water alone. After that, the fabrics were naturally dried by leaving them alone at a room temperature (25? C.) for 24 hours and all cut into a square of 6 cm?6 cm to obtain test fabrics.

(2) Method for Treating Test Fabric

[0122] A 5 mass % aqueous dispersion liquid of a fragrance composition shown in Table 2 was diluted with an aqueous calcium chloride solution (equivalent to 4? DH) such that the concentration of component (B) was the concentration shown in Table 2 to obtain a treatment liquid. The treatment liquid was added dropwise to a test fabric treated in (1) at the mass ratio in Table 2, and the fabric was dried in a room at 23? C./35% RH.

(3) Evaluation of Scent Retaining Performance

(3-1) Evaluation 1 (Scent Retaining Performance by Paired Evaluation)

[0123] On the test fabric treated in (2), scent retaining performance 6 hours and 24 hours after dropwise addition of the treatment liquid was evaluated by four panelists specializing in scents. The four panelists each compared test fabrics of an example and a comparative example of the same test group after the same time had elapsed, and when there was a difference in scent strength, gave 3 points to the stronger one and 1 point to the weaker one, and when the scent strength was the same, gave 2 points to each one to determine a total point of evaluation scores by the four. The evaluation results are shown in Table 2.

(3-2) Evaluation 2 (Scent Retaining Performance by Point-Addition Evaluation)

[0124] On the test fabric treated in (2), scent retaining performance 6 hours and 24 hours after dropwise addition of the treatment liquid was evaluated by four panelists specializing in scents in accordance with the evaluation criteria below. Evaluation scores by the four panelists on each test fabric of the same test group after the same time had elapsed were totaled. At that time, they were permitted to give an evaluation score to one decimal place referring to the evaluation criteria below. A total evaluation score 24 hours later divided by a total evaluation score 6 hours later was given as a degree of scent retention 24 hours after dropwise addition with respect to 6 hours after dropwise addition (indicated as degree of scent retention B.sub.(24/6) in the table). The evaluation results are shown in Table 2.

(Evaluation Criteria)

[0125] 0: scentless [0126] 1: barely sensible scent (sensing threshold) [0127] 2: scent is weak, but one can recognize what odor it is (recognition threshold) [0128] 3: easily sensible scent [0129] 4: strong scent [0130] 5: very strong scent

[0131] Note that the larger a score is, the stronger a scent is and the higher a scent retaining performance effect is.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Test group IIa Test group IIb Test group IIc Comparative Comparative Comparative Example example Example example Example example 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-2 2-3 2-3 Fragrance Mass (A) Phenylethyl alcohol 2 2 composition ratio (LogP 1.10) Eugenol 2 2 (LogP 2.73) ?-hexylcinnamaldehyde 2 2 (LogP 4.82) (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-propylheptyl) sulfosuccinate (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Treatment Object to be treated Cotton fabric Cotton fabric Cotton fabric condition [6 cm ? 6 cm] [6 cm ? 6 cm] [6 cm ? 6 cm] Concentration of component (B) 2000 2000 2000 in treatment liquid [ppm] Mass of treatment liquid/ 1/1 1/1 1/1 mass of test fabric [mass ratio] Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 4 4 4 Scent Evaluation 1 6 hours after dropwise 11 5 9 7 10 6 retaining addition of treatment performance liquid 24 hours after dropwise 11 5 11 5 9 7 addition of treatment liquid Evaluation 2 Degree of scent 0.91 0.83 0.74 0.68 0.92 0.89 retention B.sub.(24/6) Test group IId Test group IIe Test group IIf Comparative Comparative Comparative Example example Example example Example example 2-4 2-4 2-5 2-5 2-6 2-6 Fragrance Mass (A) Phenylethyl alcohol 2 2 composition ratio (LogP 1.10) Eugenol 2 2 (LogP 2.73) ?-hexylcinnamaldehyde 2 2 (LogP 4.82) (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-propylheptyl) sulfosuccinate (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Treatment Object to be treated Chemical fiber fabric Chemical fiber fabric Chemical fiber fabric condition [6 cm ? 6 cm] [6 cm ? 6 cm] [6 cm ? 6 cm] Concentration of component (B) 2000 2000 2000 in treatment liquid [ppm] Mass of treatment liquid/ 1/1 1/1 1/1 mass of test fabric [mass ratio] Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 4 4 4 Scent Evaluation 1 6 hours after dropwise 10 6 10 6 11 5 retaining addition of treatment performance liquid 24 hours after dropwise 10 6 11 5 9 7 addition of treatment liquid Evaluation 2 Degree of scent 0.63 0.57 0.72 0.65 0.74 0.73 retention B.sub.(24/6)

[0132] In Table 2, a fragrance composition of an example attains more excellent results than a comparative example in both evaluations 1 and 2, and an example is thus found to exhibit higher scent retaining performance also in the treatment method for Table 2 different from that for Table 1.

Example 3 and Comparative Example 3

(3) Test Method

[0133] A 5 mass % aqueous dispersion liquid of a fragrance composition shown in Table 3 was diluted with an aqueous calcium chloride solution (equivalent to 4? DH) such that the concentration of component (B) was the concentration shown in Table 3 to obtain a liquid for evaluations. 80 ml of the liquid for evaluations was placed in a standardized bottle No. 11 (5-130-07 by AS ONE Corporation), and a paper towel (super absorbent kitchen towel Elleair of 12 cm?12 cm) was rolled up and placed standing in the bottle containing this liquid for evaluations. At that time, the kitchen towel was placed such that a lower portion thereof was immersed in the liquid and an upper portion thereof was exposed from a liquid surface. After that, it was left alone in a room at 23? C./35% RH.

(2) Evaluation of Scent Retaining Performance

(2-1) Evaluation 1 (Scent Retaining Performance by Paired Evaluation)

[0134] On the liquid for evaluations in (1), scent retaining performance 24 hours and 72 hours after leaving alone was evaluated by three panelists specializing in scents. The three panelists each compared test solutions of an example and a comparative example of the same test group after the same time had elapsed, and when there was a difference in scent strength, gave 3 points to the stronger one and 1 point to the weaker one, and when the scent strength was the same, gave 2 points to each one to determine a total point of evaluation scores by the three. The evaluation results are shown in Table 3.

(2-2) Evaluation 2 (Scent Retaining Performance by Point-Addition Evaluation)

[0135] On the liquid for evaluations in (1), scent retaining performance 24 hours and 72 hours after leaving alone was evaluated by three panelists specializing in scents in accordance with the evaluation criteria below. Evaluation scores by the three panelists on each test solution of the same test group after the same time had elapsed were totaled. At that time, they were permitted to give an evaluation score to one decimal place referring to the evaluation criteria below. A total evaluation score 72 hours later divided by a total evaluation score 24 hours later was given as a degree of scent retention 72 hours after leaving alone with respect to 24 hours after leaving alone (indicated as degree of scent retention C.sub.(72/24) in the table). The evaluation results are shown in Table 3.

(Evaluation Criteria)

[0136] 0: scentless [0137] 1: barely sensible scent (sensing threshold) [0138] 2: scent is weak, but one can recognize what odor it is (recognition threshold) [0139] 3: easily sensible scent [0140] 4: strong scent [0141] 5: very strong scent

[0142] Note that the larger a score is, the stronger a scent is and the higher a scent retaining performance effect is.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Test group IIIa Test group IIIb Test group IIIc Comparative Comparative Comparative Example example Example example Example example 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-3 3-3 Fragrance Mass (A) Phenylethyl alcohol 2 2 composition ratio (LogP 1.10) Eugenol 2 2 (LogP 2.73) ?-hexylcinnamaldehyde 2 2 (LogP 4.82) (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-propylheptyl) sulfosuccinate (B) Sodium 5 5 5 di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Treatment Concentration of component (B) 200 200 200 condition in treatment liquid [ppm] Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 4 4 4 Scent Evaluation 1 24 hours later 8 4 8 4 9 3 retaining 72 hours later 8 4 7 5 9 3 performance Evaluation 2 Degree of scent 0.57 0.53 0.77 0.73 0.50 0.45 retention C.sub.(72/24)

[0143] In Table 3, a fragrance composition of an example attains more excellent results than a comparative example in both evaluations 1 and 2, and an example is thus found to exhibit higher scent retaining performance also in a usage form considering spatial volatilization of a fragrance composition such as a standing-type air refreshing agent.

[0144] Note that the following components were used as the components shown in Tables 1 to 3. [0145] Phenylethyl alcohol (model number 168-00893 manufactured by FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, active component more than 98.0%) [0146] Eugenol (model number 057-03935 manufactured by FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, active component more than 95.0%) [0147] Estragole (model number A29208-25G manufactured by Sigma-Aldrich, active component 98.0%) [0148] ?-hexylcinnamaldehyde (model number 088-04605 manufactured by FUJIFILM Wako Pure Chemical Corporation, active component more than 97.0%) [0149] Sodium di(2-propylheptyl) sulfosuccinate [0150] Sodium di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate

[0151] Even if a di(2-butyloctyl) sulfosuccinate, a dodecyl/2-butyloctyl-sulfosuccinate, an octyl/cetyl-sulfosuccinate or a dodecyl/3-nonenyl-sulfocuccinate is used as component (B) in a fragrance composition in Tables 1 to 3 instead of component (B) in the tables, the effect of the present invention can be obtained in the same manner.

Example 4 and Comparative Example 4

[0152] Scent retaining performance evaluation 1 (scent retaining performance by paired evaluation) was performed in the same manner as in example 1 and comparative example 1, provided that fragrance compositions and treatment conditions were as in Table 4. The evaluation results are shown in Table 4.

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Test group IVa Test group IVb Comparative Comparative Example example Example example 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-2 Fragrance Mass (A) Phenylethyl alcohol 1 1 composition ratio (LogP 1.10) Eugenol 1 1 (LogP 2.73) (B) Sodium 5 5 di(2-butyloctyl) sulfosuccinate (B) Sodium 5 5 di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Treatment Object to be treated Cotton towel Cotton towel condition Bath ratio 20 20 Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 4 20 Treatment concentration [% o.w.f.] 0.3 0.3 Scent retaining 8 hours after 10 6 10 6 performance dewatering evaluation 24 hours after 9 7 9 7 dewatering

Example 5 and Comparative Example 5

[0153] Scent retaining performance evaluation 2 (scent retaining performance by point-addition evaluation) was performed in the same manner as in example 1 and comparative example 1, provided that fragrance compositions and treatment conditions were as in Table 5 and dewatering in the method for treating towel in (2) was carried out by using a dewatering tub of a twin tub washing machine (model number PS-55AS2 manufactured by Hitachi, Ltd.). The evaluation results are shown in Table 5.

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Test group V Comparative Example Example example 5-1 5-2 5-1 Fragrance Mass (A) Eugenol (LogP 2.73) 1 1 1 composition ratio (B) Sodium di(2-propylheptyl)sulfosuccinate 5 Sodium di(2-butyloctyl)sulfosuccinate 5 (B) Sodium di(2-ethylhexyl)sulfosuccinate 5 Treatment Object to be treated Cotton towel condition Bath ratio 20 Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 20 Treatment concentration [% o.w.f.] 0.3 Scent retaining Degree of scent retention A.sub.(24/4) 0.59 0.55 0.40 performance evaluation

Example 6 and Comparative Example 6

[0154] Scent retaining performance evaluation 1 (scent retaining performance by paired evaluation) was performed in the same manner as in example 2 and comparative example 2, provided that fragrance compositions and treatment conditions were as in Table 6. The evaluation results are shown in Table 6.

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Test group VIa Test group VIb Comparative Comparative Example example Example example 6-1 6-1 6-2 6-2 Fragrance Mass (A) Phenylethyl alcohol 2 2 composition ratio (LogP 1.10) Eugenol 2 2 (LogP 2.73) (B) Sodium 5 5 di(2-butyloctyl) sulfosuccinate (B) Sodium 5 5 di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Treatment Object to be treated Cotton fabric Cotton fabric condition [6 cm ? 6 cm] [6 cm ? 6 cm] Concentration of component (B) 2000 2000 in treatment liquid [ppm] Mass of treatment liquid/ 1/1 1/1 mass of test fabric [mass ratio] Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 4 20 Scent retaining 6 hours after 11 5 10 6 performance dropwise addition evaluation of treatment liquid 24 hours after 11 5 9 7 dropwise addition of treatment liquid

Example 7 and Comparative Example 7

[0155] Scent retaining performance evaluation 2 (scent retaining performance by point-addition evaluation) was performed in the same manner as in example 2 and comparative example 2, provided that fragrance compositions and treatment conditions were as in Table 7. The evaluation results are shown in Table 7.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Test group VII Comparative Example Example example 7-1 7-2 7-1 Fragrance Mass (A) Eugenol (LogP 2.73) 2 2 2 composition ratio (B) Sodium 5 di(2-propylheptyl) sulfosuccinate Sodium 5 di(2-butyloctyl) sulfosuccinate (B) Sodium 5 di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Treatment Object to be treated Cotton fabric condition [6 cm ? 6 cm] Concentration of component (B) 2000 in treatment liquid [ppm] Mass of treatment liquid/ 1/1 mass of test fabric [mass ratio] Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 20 Scent retaining Degree of scent 0.70 0.65 0.59 performance retention B.sub.(24/6) evaluation

Example 8 and Comparative Example 8

[0156] Scent retaining performance evaluation 1 (scent retaining performance by paired evaluation) was performed in the same manner as in example 3 and comparative example 3, provided that fragrance compositions and treatment conditions were as in Table 8. The evaluation results are shown in Table 8.

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Test group VIIIa Test group VIIIb Comparative Comparative Example example Example example 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-2 Fragrance Mass (A) Phenylethyl alcohol 2 2 composition ratio (LogP 1.10) ?-hexylcinnamaldehyde 2 2 (LogP 4.82) (B) Sodium 5 5 di(2-butyloctyl) sulfosuccinate (B) Sodium 5 5 di(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Treatment Concentration of component (B) 200 200 condition in treatment liquid [ppm] Hardness of treatment liquid [?DH] 4 4 Scent retaining 24 hours later 7 5 7 5 performance 72 hours later 8 4 9 3 evaluation