Composition

Abstract

A composition comprises a source of oxygen and a polyurethane for use in a treatment operation in cleaning a fabric material.

Claims

1. A method of cleaning a fabric material, the method comprising the step of: applying to the fabric material a composition comprising a source of oxygen and a polyurethane, wherein the polyurethane comprises polyoxyalkylene groups and ionic groups, wherein the ionic groups are selected from alkali carboxvlate groups, ammonium carboxvlate groups, sulfonate groups and ammonium groups, which are present in an amount of 0.1 to 15 milliequivalents of ammonium, sulfonium, carboxylate, and/or sulfonate groups per 100 g of polyurethane.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of polyurethane present in the composition is from 0.1 to 10% wt.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the composition is applied to the fabric material as a pre-treatment composition in a laundry/fabric washing operation.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein the composition is applied to stains present on the fabric, prior to a subsequent laundry/fabric washing operation.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein the composition comprises 0.01-10% wt. of polyurethane, and up to about 13% wt. of the source of oxygen.

6. The method of claim 5, wherein the composition comprises 1-12% wt. of the source of oxygen.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein the composition comprises 2-11% wt. of the source of oxygen.

8. The method of claim 7, wherein the composition comprises 3-10% wt. of the source of oxygen.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the composition comprises 4-9% wt. of the source of oxygen.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein the source of oxygen is a composition comprising oxygen bleach andor a peroxygen bleaching active.

11. The method of claim 4, wherein the composition comprises 0.05- 5 wt % of the polyurethane.

12. The method of claim 11, wherein the composition comprises 0.08-3 wt % of the polyurethane.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the composition comprises 0.1%-0.8 wt % of the polyurethane.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein the polyurethane comprises terminal polyalkylene oxide chains with an ethylene oxide unit content of 0.5-10 wt. %, relative to the polyurethane.

15. The method of claim 1, wherein the polyurethane is a polyether-based sulfite-blocked oligourethane.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the polyurethane is a sodium hydrogensulphite adduct of an ethylene oxide/propylene oxide copolymer reacted with a diisocyanate.

17. The method of claim 16, wherein the diisocyanate is hexamethylene diisocyanate.

18. A method of cleaning a fabric material, the method comprising the step of: applying to the fabric material a composition comprising a source of oxygen and a polyurethane, wherein the polyurethane is a polyether-based sulfite-blocked oligourethane.

19. The method of claim 18, wherein the polyurethane is a sodium hydrogensulphite adduct of an ethylene oxide/propylene oxide copolymer reacted with a diisocyanate.

Description

EXAMPLES

Example 1

(1) A formulation in accordance with the invention was prepared as below. (product A)

(2) TABLE-US-00001 Description % as active Water to 100 NaOH 50% 1.000 Sulphonic Acid 6.400 Surfactant - Non Ionic 12.750 HEDP-Phosphonate 0.120 H2O2 50% 8.000 Antioxidant 0.025 Perfume 0.500 optical brightener 0.100 anionic polyurethane 0.525 Dye 0.00037 perlizer 0.300 Opacifier 0.030

(3) A comparative formulation was prepared as below. (Product B)

(4) TABLE-US-00002 Description % as active Water to 100 NaOH 50% 1.000 Sulphonic Acid 6.600 Surfactant - Non Ionic 14.000 HEDP-Phosphonate 0.120 H2O2 50% 8.000 Antioxidant 0.025 Perfume 0.500 optical brightener 0.100 Poliquat 0.135 Silicon 0.050 Dye 0.00037 Perlizer 0.300 Opacifier 0.030

(5) A reference formulation was prepared as below. (Product C)

(6) TABLE-US-00003 Description % as active Water to 100 NaOH 50% 1.000 Sulphonic Acid 6.600 Surfactant - Non Ionic 14.150 HEDP-Phosphonate 0.120 H2O2 50% 8.000 Antioxidant 0.025 Perfume 0.200 Dye 0.0008

(7) These formulae were tested as below:

(8) TABLE-US-00004 Ref Product Dosage (g/wash) 1 Laundry detergent powder (PCB and TAED 80 + containing) + 2 ml on each stain Product A 2 Laundry detergent powder (PCB and TAED 80 + containing) + 2 ml on each stain Product B 3 Laundry detergent powder (PCB and TAED 80 + containing) + 2 ml on each stain Product C

(9) The washing conditions used tap water at 25? F. hardness, 40? C. washing under a deep cleaning program in a front-loading European washing machine, using 3.5 kg of new and clean cotton ballast, with four replications. Final drying in a tumble drier and ironing of technical swatches. Instrumental evaluation was performed via spectrophotometer (Y value), where mean and standard deviation of 8 measurements (2 measurements each swatch) were calculated. Evaluation of statistical differences was calculated with the t-test (two sided case, 95% statistical certainty) according to ISO 2854 (1976, page 14 Table C).

(10) The laundry additive was dosed directly on each stain (2 ml), left for 10 minutes; the stain was rubbed and put through the standard wash cycle described above.

(11) The following results were obtained

(12) TABLE-US-00005 Product A Product B Product C butter (equest) 28.3 27.9 27.8 mustard (CFT) 79.9 75.9 75.6 make up (empa) 85.6 71.7 82.2 hamburger grease (white cot.- 87.3 77.7 87.4 equest) olive oil (equest) 88.3 76.9 88.3 skin grease (wfk) 75.4 53.3 74.8 dirty motor oil (wfk) 74.4 50.5 73.2 motor oil (wfk) 79.7 54.7 76.6 soy sauce (wfk) 88.5 83.1 87.8 salad dressing (cft) 77.3 51.6 76.7 potato starch (cft) 64.8 60.4 65 rice starch (cft) 74.3 65 70.9 chocolate bar (equest) 86.6 76.6 84.4 carrot baby food (equest) 83.2 73 83.3 blueberry juice (cft) 79.9 76.3 78.8 grass (empa) 73 69.5 70.7 red wine (equest) 78.7 67.7 78.9 tomato puree (equest) 76.3 70.8 78.2 tea (wfk) 84.5 75.2 81.4 coffee (wfk) 82.5 77.3 81.6 curry (wfk) 85.2 81 84

(13) The results show that the composition of the invention achieves better performance compared to the reference additive on: butter, mustard, make up, motor oil, soy sauce, rice starch, chocolate bar, blueberry juice, grass, tea, curry.

(14) The comparison composition doesn't achieve any better performance while achieves worse performance compared to the reference additive on: make up, hamburger grease, olive oil, skin grease, dirty motor oil, motor oil, soy sauce, salad dressing, potato starch, rice starch, chocolate bar, carrot baby food, blueberry juice, red wine, tomato puree, tea, coffee, curry.

(15) A key benefit that has been observed is when the composition/method of the invention is used in a pre-treatment operation (in particular when compared to the same formulation containing standard softening agents such as polyquat and silicone), delivering better stain removal performance. Polyquat and silicone actives are filming on the stains making them harder to be removed.

Example 2

(16) A formulation in accordance with the invention was prepared as below. (product A)

(17) TABLE-US-00006 Description % as active LAS 6.400 Nonionics 12.950 H.sub.2O.sub.2 9.000 Antioxidant 0.025 HEDP-Phosphonate 0.200 Dye 0.00037 Fragrance 0.500 optical brightener 0.100 Opacifier 0.030 anionic polyurethane 0.650 Perlizer 0.300 Water 69.845

(18) A comparative formulation was prepared as below. (Product B)

(19) TABLE-US-00007 Description % as active LAS 6.600 Nonionics 12.850 H.sub.2O.sub.2 8.000 Antioxidant 0.025 HEDP-Phosphonate 0.200 Dye 0.0008 Fragrance 0.200 optical brightener Opacifier anionic polyurethane Perlizer Water 72.124

(20) These formulae were tested as below:

(21) TABLE-US-00008 Ref Product Dosage (g/wash) 1 Laundry detergent powder (DAZ) 68 + 0 ml 2 Laundry detergent powder (DAZ) + 68 + 120 ml Product A 3 Laundry detergent powder (DAZ) + 68 + 120 ml Product A

(22) The washing conditions used tap water at 28? F. hardness, 40? C. washing under a deep cleaning program in a front-loading European washing machine (Bosch 20162), using 3.5 kg of new and clean cotton ballast, with four replications. Final drying in a tumble drier and ironing of technical swatches. Instrumental evaluation was performed via spectrophotometer (Y value), where mean and standard deviation of 8 measurements (2 measurements each swatch) were calculated. Evaluation of statistical differences was calculated with the t-test (two sided case, 95% statistical certainty) according to ISO 2854 (1976, page 14 Table C).

(23) The following results were obtained

(24) TABLE-US-00009 Stains: Product A Product B Product C Enzymatic blood (Equest) 80.9 88.5 88.1 cocoa drink 64.8 70.6 63.7 salad dressing/pigment 63.5 66.0 65.0 potato starch/colorant 67.2 69.8 68.9 rice starch/colorant 75.2 77.3 77.1 chocolate 63.7 71.0 69.4 blood (empa) 85.0 82.0 80.3 chocolate pudding 87.0 88.4 87.5 Bleach red wine 77.1 87.3 86.2 tomato puree 72.9 76.4 75.4 blueberry juice 72.7 83.0 82.3 blackberry juice 54.1 69.8 69.4 grass (empa) 66.4 73.0 72.5 coffee 76.7 83.4 82.3 tea 64.3 78.9 78.2 curry 77.8 79.7 78.7 grass (CFT) 77.6 80.8 80.3 Detergency/ cooked beef fat 84.7 88.1 87.5 greasy olive oil (blue cotton) 27.1 27.6 27.8 butter (blue cotton) 25.9 26.4 26.2 mustard 72.1 73.1 71.9 make up (empa) 70.5 72.1 71.9 skin grease pigment 54.6 57.8 58.6 dirty motor oil 45.0 46.7 46.2 motor oil/pigment 50.8 55.7 55.2 spaghetti sauce with 59.3 60.8 59.1 meat soy sauce 85.7 86.8 86.4

(25) The results show that the composition of the invention achieves better performance compared to the reference additive on: cocoa, potato starch, chocolate, blueberry juice, coffee, curry, grass, spaghetti sauce with meat, soy sauce.