Deodorizing composition for long-acting inhibition of sulfur-nitrogen odor

Abstract

The invention discloses a deodorization composition for long-acting inhibition of sulfur-nitrogen odor and a preparation method thereof. The composition comprises the following components in parts by weight: 1-5 parts of an oxidizing agent, 10-40 parts of an acid neutralizer, 5-20 parts of a pH buffer agent, 80-120 parts of an adsorbent, 5-20 parts of an inclusion agent and 1-2 parts of a bacteriostatic agent. Through cooperation of multiple mechanisms of oxidation, neutralization, adsorption, inclusion and bacteriostasis, efficient and lasting removal of ammonia gas, methyl mercaptan and other composite odors is realized. The composition is in the form of solid powder and is suitable for hygienic products such as paper diapers and pet padding. The preparation method comprises the following steps: crushing and sieving the components in a dry environment, uniformly mixing a small amount of components with the same amount of other components, and gradually mixing the mixture with the rest components in batches until all the components are fully and uniformly mixed. The composition is low in cost, good in stability and high in deodorization rate, and has a good industrial application prospect.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This invention relates to the field of solid deodorizing materials technology, specifically to a composite solid deodorizing composition, its preparation method, and its application. More specifically, it relates to a deodorizing composition particularly suitable for addition to various applications such as diapers, adult incontinence products, pet bedding, and pet cat litter, which, through the synergistic effect of multiple mechanisms, efficiently and persistently eliminates typical malodorous gases, represented by methanethiol and ammonia, produced by excrement such as urine and feces. Background Technology

[0002] With the aging population and the rise of the pet economy, the use of hygiene products such as adult diapers, pet bedding, and cat litter is increasing daily. During use, these products absorb organic matter from excrement (especially urine), which is then decomposed by microorganisms, producing large amounts of unpleasant, foul-smelling gases. Ammonia, primarily produced by the breakdown of urea by urease, has a strong, pungent odor; while sulfides such as methanethiol originate from the metabolism of sulfur-containing amino acids and have extremely low olfactory thresholds, producing a severe putrid odor even in trace amounts. These complex odors not only seriously affect the environment and personal dignity but may also have potential impacts on respiratory health. Therefore, developing a deodorizing material that can efficiently, persistently, and safely eliminate these complex odors has become an urgent technological need in this field.

[0003] Currently, the deodorization technologies applied to the above scenarios mainly include the following categories:

[0004] Adsorption-based deodorization: This method uses porous materials such as activated carbon, zeolite, and silica gel to capture odor molecules through physical adsorption. While effective quickly, this method has limited adsorption capacity, is prone to saturation, and may desorb under varying environmental temperatures and humidity, causing secondary pollution. Its selective adsorption capacity for small-molecule organic compounds such as methanethiol is also limited.

[0005] Masking odor removal: This method masks unpleasant smells by adding strong-smelling substances such as fragrances and plant extracts. It does not actually eliminate odors and may produce a more complex and unpleasant mixed smell; its long-term safety is also questionable.

[0006] Plant-based deodorization primarily utilizes plant-derived ingredients such as tea polyphenols, yucca extract, and eucalyptus oil. These ingredients, including polyphenols and flavonoids, bind to odor molecules or undergo weak chemical reactions to achieve deodorization. Compared to chemically synthesized substances, this method is perceived as safer and more natural by consumers. However, its deodorizing effect is often not significant or long-lasting, and the content of active ingredients is unstable, resulting in higher costs. Large-scale application may face supply and standardization challenges, and there is a potential risk of introducing allergens.

[0007] Chemical neutralization deodorization: This method primarily utilizes acidic substances to neutralize alkaline ammonia gas, converting it into ammonium salts. While effective for ammonia, this method is almost ineffective against neutral sulfur-based odor substances such as methanethiol, resulting in a limited deodorization spectrum.

[0008] Single-oxidation deodorization: This method uses oxidants such as peroxides and permanganates to decompose odor molecules. While effective for organic odors, the reaction is typically violent, short-lived, and unstable, potentially affecting product safety. Furthermore, it is ineffective for treating ammonia.

[0009] Based on the above products, it can be found that existing technologies mostly use a single or two mechanisms of action, which are difficult to efficiently treat ammonia (alkaline, polar small molecules) and methanethiol (neutral, organic small molecules) with very different properties at the same time. They have defects such as narrow deodorization spectrum, low efficiency, poor persistence, or potential safety issues.

[0010] Therefore, there is an urgent need in this field for an innovative solution that can integrate multiple deodorization mechanisms such as adsorption, acid-base neutralization, chemical oxidation, molecular inclusion, and long-lasting antibacterial effect to achieve a broad-spectrum, efficient, long-lasting, and stable deodorization effect. Summary of the Invention

[0011] This invention aims to overcome the shortcomings of existing single-mechanism deodorants, such as incomplete removal of complex odors, low efficiency, and insufficient persistence. It provides a composite solid deodorizing formula that can synergistically, efficiently, and persistently eliminate odors centered on methanethiol and ammonia. This deodorizing formula is inexpensive, safe, and stable, making it particularly suitable for addition to hygiene products such as diapers, adult incontinence products, and pet litter.

[0012] The technical solution adopted in this invention is as follows:

[0013] This invention provides a long-lasting deodorizing composition for suppressing sulfur and nitrogen odors, characterized in that it comprises the following components by weight:

[0014] 1-5 parts of oxidizing agent

[0015] 10-40 parts of acid neutralizer

[0016] 5-20 parts of pH buffer

[0017] 80-120 parts of adsorbent

[0018] 5-20 parts of encapsulation agent

[0019] 1-2 parts of antibacterial agent.

[0020] The oxidant is selected from at least one of persulfate, percarbonate, permanganate, manganese dioxide, or copper sulfate.

[0021] The acid regulator is selected from at least one of citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid or fumaric acid; its function is to neutralize nitrogen compounds and eliminate their pungent odor when they are in the -3 oxidation state by changing the valence of nitrogen.

[0022] The pH buffer is selected from at least one of bicarbonate, dihydrogen phosphate, disodium hydrogen phosphate, or citrate.

[0023] The adsorbent is selected from at least one of zeolite, γ-activated alumina, silica gel or attapulgite; its particle size is 20-40 mesh.

[0024] The inclusion agent is selected from at least one of α-cyclodextrin, γ-cyclodextrin, β-cyclodextrin or calixarene.

[0025] The antibacterial agent is selected from at least one of chlorhexidine acetate, triclosan, benzalkonium chloride, benzalkonium bromide, benzyl chloride, dodecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, dodecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium bromide, and dialcyl dimethyl ammonium chloride.

[0026] The particle size of the aforementioned oxidants, acid regulators, pH buffers, inclusion agents, and antibacterial agents is no greater than 100 mesh.

[0027] In addition, the present invention also provides a method for preparing the above-mentioned composite solid deodorizer, characterized in that: each component is pulverized to a predetermined particle size and sieved under a dry environment, then a small amount of the component is mixed evenly with an equal amount of other components, and then this mixture is gradually and in batches mixed with the remaining components until all components are fully and evenly mixed to obtain a solid mixed powder.

[0028] The beneficial effects of this invention are as follows:

[0029] 1. Synergistic effect of multiple mechanisms for high efficiency and long-lasting effect: Through the synergistic action of five mechanisms, namely oxidation, neutralization, adsorption, inclusion and antibacterial, it can achieve rapid, thorough and long-lasting removal of complex odors such as ammonia and methanethiol, overcoming the limitations of single-mechanism products.

[0030] 2. Stable performance and reliable safety: The unique pH buffer system and equal incremental mixing process ensure the stable performance and uniform dispersion of active ingredients, guaranteeing product consistency and safety of use.

[0031] 3. Low cost and easy application: The raw materials used are readily available and the cost is controllable. The solid powder form is easy to add and has good compatibility with existing absorbent product production lines, showing significant practicality and industrialization potential.

[0032] 4. Measurable effect and objective verification: The deodorization efficiency can be quantitatively evaluated using objective methods such as the detection tube method, providing a reliable basis for product quality control and effect verification. Attached Figure Description

[0033] Figure 1 The optimal particle morphology of examples 1-3;

[0034] Figure 2 The test results of the deodorization effect of methanethiol in the best examples 1-3;

[0035] Figure 3 The test results of the best examples 1-3 on the deodorization effect of ammonia;

[0036] Figure 4 The antibacterial effects of optimal examples 1-3, comparative examples 1-11, comparative example 2-1, and comparative example 3-1. Detailed Implementation

[0037] Example 1. Preparation of the deodorizing composition

[0038] This embodiment provides a long-lasting deodorizing composition for suppressing sulfur and nitrogen odors, comprising the following components by weight:

[0039] The oxidant comprises 1-5 parts, selected from at least one of persulfate, percarbonate, permanganate, manganese dioxide, or copper sulfate. In some test cases, when the oxidant content is less than 1 part, the deodorizing performance is significantly reduced, meaning that insufficient oxidant dosage will affect the overall deodorizing effect of the product. In other test cases, when the oxidant content is greater than 5 parts, it does not significantly improve the deodorizing performance of the product; instead, it leads to instability in the product system due to its share of other components. Preferably, 2-5 parts are selected, and most preferably, 3-5 parts are selected.

[0040] Regarding the range of oxidants that can be selected, in some experimental examples, traditional deodorizing agents such as inorganic peroxides, hypochlorites, and organic peroxides failed to achieve the target deodorization effect. Even relatively better-performing organic peroxides, such as benzoyl peroxide as shown in Comparative Examples 1-5, could not achieve the deodorization level of this invention. However, persulfates, percarbonates, permanganates, manganese dioxide, or copper sulfate, as suggested in this embodiment, all performed superiorly. It is believed that this phenomenon may be due to the fact that specific oxidants in this embodiment can undergo redox reactions with sulfides, eliminating their irritating odor when sulfur is in its -2 oxidation state by changing the oxidation state of sulfur. Although percarbonates as suggested in Comparative Examples 1-6 cannot achieve highly efficient removal of methanethiol, the addition of this component can achieve complete removal of ammonia. Therefore, in some experimental examples, persulfates, percarbonates, permanganates, manganese dioxide, or copper sulfate were used in combination with percarbonates.

[0041] In addition, in other experimental examples, persulfate, percarbonate, permanganate, manganese dioxide or copper sulfate were incorporated into traditional deodorizing product systems, such as systems with citric acid as the active deodorizing ingredient, vitamin C and other stabilizing preservatives, and fragrances and other synergists. It was found that the deodorizing efficiency was less than 50% of that in this example.

[0042] The acid regulator is 10-40 parts, selected from at least one of citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, or fumaric acid. In some test cases, when the acid regulator dosage is less than 10 parts, the deodorizing performance is significantly reduced, meaning that insufficient acid regulator dosage will affect the overall deodorizing effect of the product. In other test cases, when the acid regulator dosage is greater than 40 parts, it does not significantly improve the deodorizing performance of the product; on the contrary, the presence of excessive acid regulator leads to instability of the system, such as hydration and aggregation. Preferably, 20-40 parts are used, and most preferably, 30-40 parts are used.

[0043] Regarding the range of oxidants that can be selected, in some experimental cases, acidic regulators from the traditional deodorant field, such as ferrous sulfate and maleic acid, were used, but none of them could achieve the desired deodorization effect. Studies suggest that citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, or fumaric acid in the system of this embodiment may achieve the deodorization effect by neutralizing nitrogen compounds and changing the valence of nitrogen, thereby eliminating the irritating odor when nitrogen is in the -3 valence state.

[0044] In addition, in other experimental examples, citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid or fumaric acid were incorporated into traditional deodorizing product systems, such as systems with citric acid as the active deodorizing ingredient, vitamin C and other stabilizing preservatives, and fragrances and other synergists. It was found that the deodorizing efficiency was less than 30% of that in this embodiment.

[0045] 5-20 parts of pH buffer, selected from at least one of bicarbonate, dihydrogen phosphate, disodium hydrogen phosphate or citrate;

[0046] 80-120 parts of adsorbent, selected from at least one of zeolite, γ-activated alumina, silica gel or attapulgite, with a particle size of 20-40 mesh;

[0047] In some test cases, when the adsorbent content was less than 80 parts, there were problems such as a significant decrease in deodorization performance and unsatisfactory product appearance. In other words, insufficient adsorbent dosage will affect the overall deodorization effect of the product and limit its application. In other test cases, when the adsorbent content was greater than 120 parts, it did not significantly improve the deodorization performance of the product. On the contrary, the presence of excessive adsorbent led to unsatisfactory system conditions, such as the appearance of loose powder, excessive dust particles, and limited use. An optimal content of 80-100 parts is preferred.

[0048] The inclusion agent consists of 5-20 parts, selected from at least one of α-cyclodextrin, γ-cyclodextrin, β-cyclodextrin, or calixarene.

[0049] In some test cases, when the amount of inclusion agent was less than 5, there was a significant reduction in deodorization performance. In other words, insufficient inclusion agent dosage would affect the overall deodorization effect of the product. In other test cases, when the amount of inclusion agent was greater than 20, it did not significantly improve the deodorization performance of the product. On the contrary, the presence of excessive inclusion agent occupied the share of other beneficial components, resulting in poor product performance.

[0050] The antibacterial agent is 1-2 parts, selected from at least one of chlorhexidine acetate, triclosan, benzalkonium chloride, benzalkonium bromide, benzyl chloride, dodecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, dodecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium bromide, and dialcyl dimethyl ammonium chloride.

[0051] Except for the adsorbent, the particle size of all components is no greater than 100 mesh.

[0052] Each component is pulverized to a predetermined particle size under a dry environment and sieved. Then, a small amount of the component is mixed evenly with an equal amount of other components. This mixture is then gradually and in batches mixed with the remaining components until all components are fully and evenly mixed to obtain a solid mixed powder.

[0053] (1) Optimal selection experiments 1-3:

[0054]

[0055]

[0056]

[0057] (2) Comparative Examples 1-1 to 1-4 (compared with the most preferred Example 1): lacking a certain key deodorizing component

[0058] Comparative Example 1-1 (without oxidizing agent)

[0059]

[0060] Comparative Examples 1-2 (without acid regulators)

[0061]

[0062] Comparative Examples 1-3 (without adsorbent)

[0063]

[0064] Comparative Examples 1-4 (without inclusion agents)

[0065]

[0066] (3) Comparative Examples 1-5 ~ 1-8 (compared with the most preferred example 1): a similar substance replaces a key deodorizing component

[0067] Comparative Examples 1-5 (Oxidizing agent replaced with benzoyl peroxide)

[0068]

[0069] Comparative Examples 1-6 (Oxidizing agent replaced with sodium percarbonate)

[0070]

[0071] Comparative Examples 1-7 (acidity regulator replaced with malic acid)

[0072]

[0073] Comparative Examples 1-8 (Adsorbent replaced with activated carbon)

[0074]

[0075] (4) Comparative Examples 1-9 to 1-10 (compared with the most preferred Example 1): Changes in preparation process

[0076] Comparative Examples 1-10 (normal stirring and mixing):

[0077] All components are added at once and mixed continuously for 10 minutes using conventional mechanical stirring.

[0078] The product particles are relatively large, which may lead to localized aggregation.

[0079] Comparative Examples 1-11 (particle size not standardized):

[0080] In this comparative example, the zeolite raw material was not screened through a 40-mesh sieve, and the other solid components were not processed through a 100-mesh sieve and were directly used for mixing and preparation.

[0081] The product particles are relatively large, which may cause localized aggregation, but this is somewhat alleviated compared to the control ratio 1-9.

[0082] Example 2. Evaluation of the deodorizing ability of methanethiol

[0083] This embodiment describes the preparation of a deodorizing composition based on Example 1. Using a GASTEC (Japan) model 71 methanethiol detection tube, the deodorizing ability of all deodorizing compositions against methanethiol was measured. The deodorizing performance of the optimal examples and comparative examples was evaluated. The methanethiol detection tube test results for optimal examples 1-3 are as follows: Figure 2As shown in Parallel 1. According to the requirements of the Japanese GASTEC detection tube method, when using different extracted gas volumes for measurement, the concentration displayed by the detection tube must be multiplied by the corresponding correction factor to obtain the actual gas concentration. Therefore, the actual concentration of methanethiol should be equal to... Figure 2 The concentration displayed by the methanethiol detection tube is multiplied by a correction factor of 2. The concentrations measured by the methanethiol detection tubes listed in Table 1 are all actual concentration values ​​that have been corrected according to this method.

[0084] Table 1. Analysis of the deodorizing effect of the compositions on methanethiol in each optimal embodiment and comparative example.

[0085]

[0086] Experimental data are shown in Table 1. Through parallel comparisons of the optimal embodiment and multiple comparative examples, the technical contribution and synergistic mechanism of each component in sulfur-based odor elimination are revealed. The following is the results analysis:

[0087] 2.1 Technical Effects of the Preferred Embodiment

[0088] As shown in Table 1, the optimal examples 1-3 all exhibited highly efficient removal capabilities for methanethiol. Among them, optimal example 1 (containing 4 parts of copper sulfate pentahydrate) achieved a deodorization rate of 91.7%, reducing the residual concentration to 9.0 ppm, which was the best among the three. Optimal examples 2 (containing 3 parts of sodium persulfate) and 3 (containing 5 parts of copper sulfate pentahydrate) achieved deodorization rates of 89.6% and 85.3%, respectively. The above data indicate that the composition of the present invention has a stable methanethiol removal efficiency in the range of 85-92%, and the technical effect is reproducible, confirming that the formulation system has reliable broad-spectrum applicability in methanethiol control.

[0089] 2.2 Verification of the indispensability of key components

[0090] To quantify the technical contribution of each component, comparative examples 1-1 to 1-4 are set up, each lacking a single key component:

[0091] (1) The core technical role of oxidants: In Comparative Example 1-1 (without oxidants), the deodorization rate plummeted to 46.3%, with a residual concentration as high as 58.3 ppm. This data proves that oxidants work by changing the valence state of sulfur (S... 2- →The reaction mechanism by which high-valence sulfur eliminates the irritating gas of thiols is the only decisive technical path for the removal of methanethiol, and there is no alternative feasible.

[0092] (2) Synergistic capture function of adsorbent: The deodorization rate of Comparative Examples 1-3 (without adsorbent) decreased to 61.1%, which is 30.6 percentage points lower than that of the optimal example. This confirms that zeolite adsorbents significantly improve the kinetic efficiency of oxidation reaction through physical capture and surface enrichment, and are an indispensable synergistic component of this invention.

[0093] (3) The auxiliary synergistic effect of the inclusion agent: The deodorization rate of Comparative Examples 1-4 (without inclusion agent) was 82.2%, which was 9.5 percentage points lower than that of the optimal example. β-cyclodextrin stabilizes odor molecules and promotes their migration to active sites through molecular inclusion, thus forming an auxiliary synergistic layer.

[0094] (4) The weak effect of acid regulators: The deodorization rate of Comparative Examples 1-2 (without acid regulators) still reached 90.2%, with a decrease of only 1.5%, which confirms that the acid components have no significant direct effect on the elimination of methanethiol, and their function is mainly reflected in the control of ammonia.

[0095] 2.3 Technical Sensitivity Analysis of Substitution with Similar Substances

[0096] Comparative Examples 1-5 to 1-8 examined the substitutability of similar functional components:

[0097] (1) Oxidant substitution: The deodorization rates of comparative examples 1-5 (benzoyl peroxide) and 1-6 (sodium percarbonate) decreased to 73.9% and 70.6%, respectively, which is nearly 20 percentage points lower than that of the copper sulfate system. This result reveals that the differences in redox potential and reaction kinetics of different oxidants significantly affect the thiol conversion efficiency.

[0098] (2) Adsorbent substitution: Comparative Examples 1-8 (activated carbon replacing zeolite) showed that the deodorization rate dropped to 71.5%, indicating that zeolite has better shape-selective adsorption characteristics for methanethiol molecules than activated carbon.

[0099] (3) Replacement of acid regulators: Comparative Examples 1-7 (malic acid replacing tartaric acid) maintained a deodorization rate of 90.5%, confirming that the type of organic acid has no significant effect on the removal of thiols, and the technical solution has tolerance for this component.

[0100] 2.4 Influence of preparation process on technical effect

[0101] Comparative examples 1-9 (ordinary stirring) and 1-10 (unstandardized particle size) show that process optimization can improve the deodorization rate by 3-4 percentage points, but even with conventional processes, the deodorization rate remains stable at over 88%. This result demonstrates that the technical solution of this invention has good robustness to process fluctuations and is feasible for industrial scale-up.

[0102] Example 3. Evaluation of the deodorization effect of ammonia water

[0103] This embodiment describes the preparation of a deodorizing composition based on Example 1. Using a Japanese GASTEC 3La ammonia detection tube, the deodorizing ability of all deodorizing compositions for ammonia was measured. The deodorizing performance of the optimal embodiment and comparative examples was evaluated. The ammonia detection tube test results for optimal examples 1-3 are as follows: Figure 3As shown in parallel 1. The actual concentration of ammonia should be equal to... Figure 3 The concentration displayed by the ammonia detection tube is multiplied by a correction factor of 2.2. The concentrations measured by the ammonia detection tubes listed in Table 2 are all actual concentration values ​​that have been corrected according to this method.

[0104] Table 2. Analysis of the deodorization effect of the compositions on ammonia in each optimal embodiment and comparative example.

[0105]

[0106] Experimental data are shown in Table 2. The results indicate that the elimination mechanism of nitrogen-based odors in this invention differs fundamentally from that of sulfur-based odors, forming a complementary broad-spectrum deodorization system. The following is a result analysis:

[0107] 3.1 Ammonia removal effect of the optimal embodiment

[0108] Optimal Examples 1 and 2 achieved a 99.9% removal rate for ammonia, with a residual concentration of 0.0 ppm, demonstrating complete elimination and excellent reproducibility with a zero standard deviation. Optimal Example 2 achieved a 94.5% deodorization rate with a residual concentration of 6.2 ppm, lower than Examples 1-1 and 1-3, but still maintaining extremely high removal efficiency. These results demonstrate that the formulation system of this invention possesses stable and thorough technical characteristics for the neutralization and capture of ammonia, and that fluctuations in the formulation components within a certain range have a limited impact on the ammonia elimination effect.

[0109] 3.2 Verification of the functional specificity of key components

[0110] The technical contribution of each component to ammonia elimination was clarified through missing component experiments:

[0111] (1) The decisive role of acid regulators: Comparative Examples 1-2 (without acid regulators) showed a deodorization rate of 35.1% and a residual concentration of 73.3 ppm. This data confirms that the acid component eliminates ammonia through acid-base neutralization (NH3 + H⁺ → NH4⁺), which is the only core pathway for odor control. Without this component, the technical solution is basically ineffective against ammonia.

[0112] (2) Synergistic capture function of adsorbent: The deodorization rate of Comparative Examples 1-3 (without adsorbent) decreased to 68.8%, which was 31.1 percentage points lower than that of the optimal example, and the residual concentration was 35.2 ppm. This confirms that zeolite adsorbents significantly improve the neutralization reaction efficiency through physical capture and surface enrichment.

[0113] (3) The auxiliary function of the inclusion agent: The deodorization rate of Comparative Examples 1-4 (without inclusion agent) was 89.6%, which was 10.3 percentage points lower than that of the optimal example, indicating that β-cyclodextrin has a certain stabilizing and enriching effect on ammonia molecules.

[0114] (4) Irrelevantness of oxidant: Comparative Example 1-1 (without oxidant) still maintained a removal rate of 99.9%, proving that the oxidant has no technical contribution to the elimination of ammonia and its existence is specifically designed for sulfur-based odors.

[0115] 3.3 Technical Impact of Substance Substitution on Ammonia Control

[0116] (1) Replacement of acid regulators: Comparative examples 1-7 (malic acid replaced tartaric acid) showed a deodorization rate of 87.3%, a decrease of 12.6 percentage points.

[0117] (2) Adsorbent substitution: Comparative Examples 1-8 (activated carbon instead of zeolite) showed that the deodorization rate was reduced to 78.9%, a decrease of 21 percentage points, which confirms that the shape-selective adsorption capacity of zeolite for ammonia molecules constitutes the technical feature of this invention.

[0118] (3) Oxidant replacement: After replacing the oxidant in Comparative Examples 1-5 and 1-6, the ammonia removal rate remained unchanged, further proving that the oxidant component is independent of the ammonia control technology path.

[0119] 3.4 Ammonia Removal Stability of the Preparation Process

[0120] The process change caused the ammonia deodorization rate to decrease by 2.2-4.4 percentage points (Comparative Examples 1-9: 95.5%, Comparative Examples 1-10: 96.8%), but it still remained above 95%, which proves that the control effect of the present invention on ammonia is less affected by process parameters and that the technical solution is robust.

[0121] Example 4. Antibacterial performance test of the deodorizing composition

[0122] This example refers to the antibacterial test method in E.6.1 of the national standard GB 15979-2024, "Hygienic Requirements for Disposable Sanitary Products," to determine the antibacterial effects of optimal examples 1-3 and comparative examples 1-11, 2-1, and 3-1 against *Escherichia coli*, *Staphylococcus aureus*, and *Candida albicans*. Comparative examples 1-11, 2-1, and 3-1 are control samples obtained by removing the antibacterial agent from optimal examples 1-3.

[0123] Experimental strain number:

[0124] Escherichia coli (ATCC 8739), Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538), Candida albicans (ATCC 10231)

[0125] The experimental antibacterial effect was evaluated according to the antibacterial evaluation criteria in the national standard GB 15979-2024.

[0126] If the antibacterial rate in each test is greater than or equal to 50% and less than 90%, the product has an antibacterial effect; if the antibacterial rate in each test is greater than or equal to 90%, the product has a strong antibacterial effect.

[0127] Table 3 shows the antibacterial effects of optimal examples 1-3, comparative examples 1-11, comparative example 2-1, and comparative example 3-1.

[0128]

[0129] The results of the antibacterial experiment are as follows Figure 4 As shown, the three optimal deodorizing compositions of the present invention exhibit extremely strong inhibitory effects on Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, with antibacterial rates ≥99.99%; they also have a strong inhibitory effect on Candida albicans, with antibacterial rates of 82.85%, 86.73%, and 88.34% in Examples 1-3, respectively.

[0130] In contrast, Comparative Example 1-1 (lacking benzyl chloride), Comparative Example 2-1 (lacking dodecyl dimethyl benzyl chloride), and Comparative Example 3-1 (lacking dodecyl dimethyl benzyl chloride) all showed inhibition rates of less than 2% against the three tested bacterial strains, which differed from the effects of the embodiments of the present invention by more than 50 times, indicating that both are indispensable key antibacterial components.

[0131] The three microorganisms mentioned above are the main sources of metabolic waste products such as urine, producing odorous substances such as methanethiol and ammonia. Experiments have shown that benzyl chloride and dodecyl dimethyl benzyl chloride can effectively inhibit these key strains.

Claims

1. A long-lasting deodorizing composition for suppressing sulfur and nitrogen odors, characterized in that: By weight, it contains the following components: 1-5 parts of oxidizing agent 10-40 parts of acid neutralizer 5-20 parts of pH buffer 80-120 parts of adsorbent 5-20 parts of encapsulation agent 1-2 parts of antibacterial agent.

2. The deodorizing composition for long-lasting suppression of sulfur and nitrogen odors according to claim 1, characterized in that: The oxidant is selected from at least one of persulfate, percarbonate, permanganate, manganese dioxide, or copper sulfate.

3. The deodorizing composition for long-lasting suppression of sulfur and nitrogen odors according to claim 1, characterized in that: The acid regulator is selected from at least one of citric acid, tartaric acid, malic acid, or fumaric acid.

4. The deodorizing composition for long-lasting suppression of sulfur and nitrogen odors according to claim 1, characterized in that: The pH buffer is selected from at least one of bicarbonate, dihydrogen phosphate, disodium hydrogen phosphate, or citrate.

5. The deodorizing composition for long-lasting suppression of sulfur and nitrogen odors according to claim 1, characterized in that: The adsorbent is selected from at least one of zeolite, γ-activated alumina, silica gel, or attapulgite.

6. The deodorizing composition for long-lasting suppression of sulfur and nitrogen odors according to claim 1, characterized in that: The inclusion agent is selected from at least one of α-cyclodextrin, γ-cyclodextrin, β-cyclodextrin or calixarene.

7. The deodorizing composition for long-lasting suppression of sulfur and nitrogen odors according to claim 1, characterized in that: The antibacterial agent is at least one of chlorhexidine acetate, triclosan, benzalkonium chloride, benzalkonium bromide, benzyl chloride, dodecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride, dodecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium bromide, and dialcyl dimethyl ammonium chloride.

8. The deodorizing composition for long-lasting suppression of sulfur and nitrogen odors according to claim 1, characterized in that: The adsorbent has a particle size of 20-40 mesh.

9. The deodorizing composition for long-lasting suppression of sulfur and nitrogen odors according to claim 1, characterized in that: The particle size of the oxidant, acid regulator, pH buffer, inclusion agent, and antibacterial agent is no greater than 100 mesh.

10. A method for preparing a long-lasting deodorizing composition for suppressing sulfur and nitrogen odors according to any one of claims 1-9, characterized in that, Includes the following steps: S1. Crush each component to the predetermined particle size under dry conditions and sieve; S2. Take a small amount of each component and mix them evenly. Then gradually and in batches, mix this mixture with the remaining components until all components are fully and evenly mixed to obtain a solid mixed powder.

Images