Method of instantaneous screening of malodor masking efficiency of fragrance-containing compositions

Abstract

The present invention deals with an instantaneous evaluation method of malodor masking efficiency of fragrance-containing compositions by applying malodor and test fragrance or accord in any geometric shape and size as closely spaced parallel lines or curves on a substrate, using applicator tools, on a substrate, and sniffing the lines or curves. The malodorous and perfumery compositions are applied on the substrate through writing, drawing, imprinting, painting, or the like.

Description

[0001] TITLE OF THE INVENTION

[0002] Method of instantaneous screening of malodor masking efficiency of fragrancecontaining compositions

[0003] FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0004] The present invention relates to a method of instantaneous screening or evaluation of malodor masking efficiency of fragrance- containing compositions.

[0005] BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0006] Fragrances are pleasant scents that also play a crucial role in combating malodors and creating a pleasant atmosphere. Today, fragrances have become an integral part of daily life, enhancing a wide range of products to make them distinctive and uplifting. Beyond creating an enjoyable ambiance, fragrances are extensively used to mask unpleasant and offensive odors effectively.

[0007] Malodors are defined as unpleasant, offensive, or repulsive smells. They can be broadly categorized into personal and environmental malodors. Personal malodors may arise from conditions such as body odor, foot odor, scalp odor, bad breath, gastrointestinal issues, or skin infections. Environmental malodors, on the other hand, are commonly caused by sources such as garbage, spoiled food, sewage, bathroom odors, industrial processes, or agricultural activities. Other sources of malodors include tobacco smoke, pet odors, and more.

[0008] To develop impactful fragrance compositions, evaluating their efficiency in masking malodors is essential. Malodor masking assessment serves as a vital tool for identifying appropriate fragrances or accords that can effectively neutralize undesired odors. The prior art offers a variety of methods for conducting malodor masking evaluations,including the use of glass jars, drums, evaluation chambers, and sniffing pens, among others.

[0009] US 8772354B2 discloses compositions for masking kitchen and bathroom malodors. It also discloses evaluation of the efficiency of the compositions developed for kitchen and bathroom malodor masking. Said evaluation of efficiency of kitchen malodor masking involves the preparation of two distinct malodor samples, placing them in drums, and assessment of efficiency by trained panelists. The first sample consists of a cellulose pad with a malodor level considered just perceptible, referred to as the "10% sample" serves as the control, and the second sample consists of a cellulose pad with ten times the malodor concentration of the 10% sample, representing an unacceptably high malodor level and designated as the "100% sample". In this evaluation, fragrance samples were placed inside separate 200L drums for one hour. Then, the 100% malodor sample was introduced into each drum containing a fragrance sample. Concurrently, the 10% malodor sample was placed in a separate drum without any fragrance, acting as the control. Fragrance efficiency was evaluated after 10 minutes of introducing the malodor samples, by a set of trained panelists. A similar approach was employed for the evaluation of efficiency of bathroom malodor masking. The 10% sample, containing a cellulose pad with a malodor level just perceptible, was again used as the control. The 100% sample, with a malodor concentration ten times higher than the control, was representative of a highly unpleasant odor typically found in bathrooms. These samples were prepared in aerosol form for the evaluation. The evaluation process involved placing the malodor samples in separate 2.5m3cabins for 10 minutes. Fragrance samples were then sprayed for two seconds into cabins containing the 100% malodor sample. No fragrance was applied to the cabin with the 10% malodor sample, which served as the control. The assessment of fragrance efficiency was done by a set of trained panelists immediately after the application of the fragrance samples.W02002051788A1 discloses compositions for masking various types of malodors including axilla malodor, sweat malodor, tobacco smell, and food-related odors such as onion and garlic. It also discloses methods for evaluating the effectiveness of these malodor masking compositions. For the evaluation of axilla malodor masking efficiency, lOOpL of synthetic axilla malodor was applied to cotton pads, followed by 0.4g of an ethanolic solution containing 10% of a test compound. The pads were left to dry for 15 minutes and then assessed by a 10-member panel after three hours. The malodor intensity was rated on a scale of 1-5: Not Detectable (1), Weak (2), Moderate (3), Strong (4), and Overpowering (5). According to a method disclosed for the evaluation of sweat malodor masking efficiency on fabric substrates, five fabric swatches (A-E) were prepared. Swatch A served as the control with no malodor, while lOOpL of synthetic sweat malodor was applied to swatches B-E. Swatch B, untreated with any test solution, acted as the malodor control. Test solutions were sprayed onto swatches C-E, and after 20 minutes of equilibration, the malodor intensity was assessed on a scale of 1-5, using swatch B (rated as 5) as the standard. According to a method disclosed for the evaluation of axilla malodor masking efficiency, lOOpL of axilla malodor was sprayed onto 5cm x 5cm cotton pads, followed by spraying of 0.15g of test material using a pump sprayer. After drying under a fume hood for 15-20 minutes, the treated pads were placed in blind-coded Petri dishes. Sensory evaluations were conducted after three hours of treatment. For the evaluation of tobacco odor, clean hair tresses (5g each) were exposed to cigarette smoke in an odor booth for 10 minutes, followed by a 5-minute equilibration period. Test solutions (0.15g) were sprayed on each tress, both front and back, and the tresses were allowed to dry for 5 minutes. The treated tresses were then placed in labeled Petri dishes and evaluated three hours later. For the evaluation of onion and garlic odor masking, solutions containing 2.5% garlic and 2.5% onion were prepared using 39°C alcohol as the solvent. Cotton towel pads (5cm x 5 cm) were treated with 0.4g of the garlic or onion solution. Test solutions (0.4g) were then sprayed onto the treated pads, which were dried under a fume hood for 15-20 minutes. Controls consisted of pads treated only with garlic or onion solutions,without any test solution. The samples were placed in blind-coded Petri dishes and evaluated after three hours, using the same 1-5 malodor intensity scale.

[0010] US7157411B2 discloses odor neutralizer and a method of neutralizing malodor. It also discloses a method of evaluating sweat malodor masking efficiency. 0.5g of malodor solution was poured drop by drop onto a wad of cotton wool which was placed in a 120ml beaker. 0.05g of the substance to be tested for its odor-neutralizing activity was applied to a second wad of cotton wool in the same beaker. The beaker was sealed with a lid and left to stand overnight. The intensity of the malodor of the standard was given a rating of 8 on a scale ranging from 0 (odorless) to 10 (extremely odorous).

[0011] US20070092476A1 discloses methods, compounds and compositions useful for the prevention or reduction of human malodor, in particular human axillary malodor. It discloses reduction of the formation of malodorous acid cleavage products from odorless fresh sweat thereby reducing axillary malodor in vivo. It also discloses a method for the evaluation of the efficiency of axilla malodor masking by deodorant products consisting of malodor counteracting substances including alpha-N-acyl-L-glutamines or carbamates of L-glutamine which act as inhibitors of the enzyme N-a-acyl-glutamine-aminoacylase that forms unpleasant smelling fatty acids. Four roll-on deodorant formulations were prepared by varying the percentage of alpha-N-(3-methyl-5-phenylpentanoxycarbonyl)-L-glutamine. The deodorants were applied to the axilla of 14 subjects (7 male and 7 female). The tests were repeated three times on three consecutive days. For comparison, the placebo without malodor counteracting substances was applied to one axilla as a control. 3 trained malodor judges rated the malodor intensity in the axilla of each subject after eight hours of each application. The rating of malodor was done according to common practice in the industry using the standard 1-10 scale (1 = little noticed malodor, 2 = slightly noticed malodor, 3 = slight malodor, 4 = slight to moderate, 5 = moderate, 6 = slightly strong, scores 7-10 areusually not detected). The method disclosed in this patent application for the evaluation of the efficiency of the masking of malodor was done by sniffing the axilla of subjects.

[0012] US20170106111A1 discloses malodour counteracting compositions capable of neutralizing malodours of a large variety of origins through chemical reactions. It discloses assessing perceived tobacco malodour intensity through sensorial tests in test booths. The sensorial test was performed in 27m3booths. Tobacco odor sample was sprayed in each booth and was left in the booths for 30 minutes. Then, air freshener samples were sprayed in each booth. The total air freshener amount dosed is controlled by weight. Panelists were asked to score the tobacco odor level on a 0- 10 cm continuous scale whose edges would correspond to the 0 cm = No tobacco odor; and 10 cm = Very strong malodor.

[0013] US20170266334A1 discloses malodor counteracting (MOC) compositions. It also discloses a method for evaluating malodor masking effectiveness in scenarios such as bathroom, tobacco, or kitchen malodors, utilizing Sniffin® Pens. As part of the method, 3g of a raw material solution (solution of perfumery molecules) was combined with 3g of a malodor solution (specific to bathroom, tobacco, or kitchen environments) in a separate beaker. The mixture was thoroughly homogenized, and 4g of the resulting solution was applied to a Sniffin® Pen. The prepared Sniffin® pens were allowed to equilibrate before undergoing sensory evaluation tests. In this method, both fragrance and malodor were mixed together, and the mixture was applied to a Sniffin® pen before the olfactive evaluation. The testing of the raw material in accordance with this patent requires mixing of raw material and malodor composition for each raw material.

[0014] There is considerable prior art providing methods to evaluate malodor masking capabilities of fragrances using glass jar, drum, evaluation booths, and sniffing pens. However, these methods are time consuming, and require trained personnel to accurately assess the masking of malodors with fragrances. Methods such as axillasniffing can make both the evaluators and subjects feel uncomfortable or embarrassed during the process which can impact participation and the quality of feedback, raise hygiene issues such as risk of transmitting infections when in such close contact, or may also provide variability in outcomes due to inconsistencies in test conditions which depend on factors such as sweat production, diet, and personal hygiene practices of the participants. Use of test environment such as booths involve high cost of setup and maintenance as sniffing booths require specialized equipment, controlled environment, and regular calibration, which can be expensive to install and maintain, artificial test conditions as the controlled environment of a booth may not replicate real-life scenarios such as varying humidity, temperature, or physical activity leading to less representative results, potential cross-contamination due to inadequate ventilation or improper cleaning of the booth between tests, inaccurate evaluations due to residual odors as these do not account for dynamic odor release during activities such as sweating or movement, which are crucial for real-world malodor masking efficiency, and also ensuring consistency in sample application, exposure time, and evaluation methods is challenging and critical for generating reliable data. Furthermore, the evaluation protocols are not portable and cannot be carried along. Therefore, there is a strong need for the development of a malodor masking screening or evaluation protocol that can address the challenges associated with existing protocols. Hence, the inventors of the present invention have developed a portable, instantaneous screening method, and an evaluation protocol to evaluate the masking efficiency of fragrance-containing compositions against various malodorous compositions.

[0015] OBJECT OF THE INVENTION

[0016] The primary object of the present invention is to provide a portable screening or evaluation method for malodor masking efficiency of fragrances and compositions thereof.Another object of the present invention is to provide an instantaneous method for the evaluation of malodor masking efficiency of fragrances and compositions thereof to eliminate the requirement of huge equipment, longer equilibration time, and larger work space.

[0017] Yet another object of the present invention is to provide a simplified method for the evaluation of malodor masking efficiency of fragrances and compositions thereof to avoid handling and preparation of malodors during the evaluation by a fragrance evaluator.

[0018] SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0019] The present invention provides a method for evaluating masking efficiency of perfumery compositions against malodors. It comprises creating geometric shapes of various sizes using closely spaced, parallel lines on a substrate through writing, drawing, imprinting, painting, or the like on said substrate. These shapes are formed with two separate compositions, one composition containing a malodor and the other composition containing a fragrance or accord. Evaluators perform an instantaneous sniff test of the substrate to assess and compare the effectiveness of the fragrance in masking the malodor.

[0020] The screening or evaluation method of the present invention enables evaluators to assess fragrances instantly. Its portable design makes it convenient to carry for purposes such as demonstrations, at various locations. Additionally, it minimizes exposure to large amounts of malodors, thereby reducing the risk of contamination during the preparation and application of malodorous compositions.BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0021] The summary of the present invention, as well as the detailed description, are better understood when read in conjunction with the accompanying figures that illustrate one or more possible embodiments of the present invention, of which:

[0022] Fig. 1 shows representative examples of geometric shapes that can be used in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention; and

[0023] Fig. 2 represents geometric shapes used in examples 1-10 of the present invention.

[0024] DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[0025] The summary of the present invention, as well as the detailed description, are better understood when read in conjunction with the accompanying drawings that illustrate one or more possible embodiments of the present invention.

[0026] The following detailed description includes references to the accompanying drawings, which form part of the detailed description. The drawings show illustrations in accordance with example embodiments. These example embodiments are described in enough detail to enable those skilled in the art to practice the present subject matter. However, it may be apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art that the present invention may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures and components have not been described in detail so as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the embodiments. The embodiments can be combined, other embodiments can be utilized, or structural and logical changes can be made without departing from the scope of the invention. The following detailed description is, therefore, not to be taken as a limiting sense. In this document, the terms “a” or “an” are used, as is common in patent documents, to include one or more than one. In this document, the term “or” is used to refer to a non-exclusive “or”, such that “A or B” includes “A but not B”, “B but not A”, and “A and B”, unless otherwise indicated.The present invention provides a method for instantaneous evaluation of the efficiency of fragrance composition in masking malodors. Said method comprises applying a first geometric shape on said substrate with a first composition comprising a malodor using a first applicator tool, applying a second geometric shape on said substrate with a second composition comprising a fragrance using a second applicator tool, the second geometric shape being substantially identical to the first geometric shape and positioned in close proximity to the first geometric shape, and the first applicator tool and second applicator tool being of the same type, wherein said geometric shapes are applied by writing, drawing, imprinting, painting, or the like and are in the form of closely spaced parallel lines or curves as shown in Fig. 1, and sniffing the malodor composition and fragrance composition applied substrate. By instantly sniffing the substrate containing these geometric shapes, evaluators can determine the masking effectiveness of the fragrance composition against the specific malodor.

[0027] According to an aspect of the present invention, the term “malodor” which may also be spelt as “malodour” refers to but not limited to personal and environmental natural or synthetic lab created foul-odorant compositions. Any unpleasant composition has been termed or referred to herein as malodor.

[0028] According to an aspect of the present invention, the term “fragrance”, “accord”, and “perfumery molecule(s)” or “perfumery composition(s)” are used interchangeably, all these terms are defined as one or more pleasant odorant molecules in the presence or absence of solvent(s), diluent(s), home care compositions, personal care compositions, or cosmetic compositions. The perfumery molecule(s) include but are not limited to benzyl acetate, benzyl salicylate, benzyl alcohol, allyl alcohol, amyl vinyl carbinol, abienol, bacdanol, ambroxan, ambretone, allyl cyclohexyl propionate, allyl amyl glycolate, allyl heptoate, citronellol, cedrol, citral, bornafix, cinnamic alcohol, brahmanol, carbinol muguet, manzanate, melonal, dimethyl benzyl carbinol, ethyl linalool, corps eglantine, dartanol, decanol, delphol, isopulegol, dihydro myrcenol, dihydro terpineol, dimethyl octanol, dimyrcetol, ebanol, citronellyl nitrileeugenol,farnesol, geraniol, hexanol, cis-3-hexenol, hydroxyambran, isoamyl alcohol, linalol, linalool, muguesia, methylionone, mugetanol, magantol, madranol, mefrosol, mayol, mysantol, 1-menthol, clonal, ethylvanillin, hedione, 44-methyl guaiacol, norlimbanol, nerolidol, nerol, nonanol, dynascone, pamplefleur, patchouli alcohol, phenoxanol, phenoxyethyl alcohol, peomosa, phenyl ethyl alcohol, phenyl propyl alcohol, phenyl hexanol, lemonile, aldehyde Cl 2, prenol, polysantol, rosalva, rosafen, isobornyl acetate, isononyl acetate, hexyl acetate, methyl hexyl ketone, methyl ionone gamma A, sanjinol, sandranol, santaliff, styrallyl acetate, styralyl alcohol, silvial, dimethyl anthranilate, damascene, P-terpineol, a-terpineol, 4-terpinenol, terranol, tetrahydro muguol, tetrahydro linalool, tetrahydromyrcenol, timberol, thymol, ultravanyl, undecalactone gamma, undecvertol, vertenex, verdox, santol pentenol, veltol plus, or the like.

[0029] The odorant molecules include volatile organic compounds that are responsible for producing odor with the ability to bind to the olfactory receptor in the nose and allow perception of the odor. According to an aspect of the present invention, the odorant molecules can be natural or synthetic fragrance materials, essential oils, or perfumery molecules.

[0030] The terms “diluent” or “solvent” have herein been used interchangeably and refer to odorous or non-odorous ingredients in liquid or solid form.

[0031] According to an aspect of the present invention, the diluent or solvent used in the preparation of the samples in the present invention are selected from but not limited to propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, diethyl phthalate, triethyl citrate, isopropyl myristate, benzyl benzoate, ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, water, glycerol, mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, erythritol, medium-chain triglyceride, paraffin, hexane, cyclohexane, methyl cyclohexane, mineral wax, microcrystalline wax, beeswax, palmwax, soy wax, candelilla wax, carnauba wax, xanthan gum, gellan gum, psyllium gum, alginates gum, carrageenan gum, chitin gum, chitosan gum, or the like.

[0032] According to an aspect of the present invention, the term “applicator tools” refers to any device for writing, drawing, imprinting, painting, or the like, and have been interchangeably used herein. Said applicator tools include devices such as but not limited to pens, pens with cartridges, gels, waxy solids, or the like, pencils, pins, nails, sticks, needles, or imprinting dies. The writing, drawing, imprinting or painting device may be selected from but not limited to a marking pen with ink cartridge, ballpoint pen, fountain pen, roller ball pen, brush pen, dip pen, calligraphy pen, fiber tip pen, gel pen, fine liner pen, glue pen, highlighter pen, parallel pen, wax pencil, wax seal pen, imprinting pens, and imprinting seals and pads filled with fluids, etc. Said devices may be made up of any material including but not limited to plastic, resins, natural and / or synthetic polymers, glass, wood, metal, composites, carbon fibers, silicon, etc.

[0033] According to an aspect of the present invention, the term “substrate” refers to but is not limited to any hard or soft substrate such as but not limited to plastics such as but not limited to polyurethane sheet, HDPE sheet, polypropylene sheet, polyvinyl chloride sheet, or the like, artificial leather, , paper such as but not limited to copying paper, bond paper, filter paper, cardstock, glossy paper, drawing paper, matte paper, newsprint, tissue paper, construction paper, watercolor paper, vellum, tracing paper, parchment paper, butter paper, or the like, cotton pads, textiles, fabrics, glass, and foils such as but not limited to aluminium foil, etc.

[0034] According to an aspect of the present invention, the term “geometric shapes” refers to any regular or irregular shape such as but not limited to circle, semi-circle, oval, ellipse, square, triangle, rhombus, rectangle, parallelogram, trapezoid, kite, star, pentagon, hexagon, heptagon, octagon, nonagon, decagon, polygon, etc.According to an aspect of the present invention, the phrase “home care composition, personal care composition, perfumery, or cosmetic composition” refers to but is not limited to a product selected from a solution, suspension, emulsion, matrix structure, spray, gel, cream, oil, lotion, leave-on product, rinse-off product, shampoo, serum, mist, dye, lipstick, nail paint, deodorant, bath soap, sunscreen, etc.

[0035] The terms “panelist” and “trained panelist” may be interchangeably used herein and refer to individuals trained for screening or evaluating olfactory perceptions, and experienced in evaluating masking of perfumery compositions over malodors or odorant samples.

[0036] Malodor masking evaluation is a crucial step in fragrance selection. According to an aspect of the present invention, evaluation of the efficiency of fragrances in malodor masking comprises writing, drawing, imprinting or painting parallel geometric shapes on a substrate using applicator tools filled with samples of a malodor composition and a fragrance composition, sniffing said substrate, and scoring the malodor intensity by a trained panelist. Said geometric shape may be of any shape, size, length, width, etc.

[0037] According to an aspect of the present invention, the geometric shapes formed as parallel lines or curves by writing, drawing, imprinting or painting devices or applicator tools, are each equal to or more than 0.3 mm in width and 5mm or more in length, and the distance between said parallel lines or curves is in the range of 3mm to 10mm, in order to achieve a better clarity of the efficiency of masking of malodors by fragrancecontaining compositions.

[0038] According to an aspect of the present invention, the malodor and fragrance samples are prepared by diluting malodor and fragrances using 0-99.99% w / w of any suitable solvent, diluent or a home care composition, personal care composition, perfumery, or cosmetic composition. These diluted samples are, for example, filled in a cartridge ofan applicator for writing, drawing, imprinting, painting, or the like, or directly applied using the applicator tool that lacks a cartridge, for example but not limited to a paint brush. Parallel geometric shapes are drawn with said malodor and the fragrance containing samples, and instantaneously sniffed by panelists. The panelists rate the malodor intensity on a scale of 1-5. The malodor intensity of the undiluted malodor, namely, 100% malodor, wherein the odor is overpowering, is considered as a control sample and rated as 5. The malodor intensity rating of samples, considered herein, is as below.

[0039] 1 : Not Detectable

[0040] 2: Weak

[0041] 3: Moderate

[0042] 4: Strong

[0043] 5: Overpowering

[0044] Representative examples of the geometric shapes that can be created for the malodor masking efficiency of the fragrance compositions are provided in Figure 1.

[0045] The present invention is apparent from the embodiments and examples provided herein. It may be noted that the examples provided herein are only representative, and the present invention is not limited to the examples considered for the study.

[0046] EXAMPLES

[0047] Example 1 : Sweat malodor masking evaluation using marker pens filled with fragrance and malodor compositions

[0048] A sweat malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 1 in accordance with Example 2 of US7157411 B2.Table 1.

[0049]

[0050] A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0051] Table 2.

[0052]

[0053] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The malodor composition provided in Table 1 was diluted to 10% in diethyl phthalate, and the fragrance composition provided in Table 2 was dilutedto 25% in diethyl phthalate. Two identical marker pens were taken, and the cartridge of one marker pen was filled with the diluted malodor composition, and the cartridge of the other marker pen was filled with the diluted fragrance composition. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 2A was drawn on a filter paper using the marker pen containing the diluted malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was drawn parallel to the first shape on the same filter paper with the marker pen containing the diluted fragrance composition. Then, the filter paper was sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 10 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 3.

[0054] Table 3.

[0055]

[0056] Example 2. Bathroom malodor masking evaluation using paint pens filled with fragrance and malodor compositions

[0057] A bathroom malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 4 in accordance with example disclosed in US8772354 B2.

[0058] Table 4.

[0059]

[0060] A fragrance composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 5 in accordance with US20170266334 Al.

[0061] Table 5.

[0062]

[0063] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The malodor composition provided in Table 4 was diluted to 0.12% in propylene glycol, and each material of the fragrance composition provided in Table 5 was diluted to 2.5% in propylene glycol and mixed in the ratios provided therein. Two identical paint pens were taken, and one paint pen was filled with the diluted malodor composition, and the other paint pen was filled with the diluted fragrance composition. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 2B was drawn on a filter paper using the paint pen containing the diluted malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was drawn parallel to the first shape on the same filter paper with the paint pen containing the diluted fragrance composition. Then, the filter paper was sniffed, and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 10 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 6.

[0064] Table 6.

[0065]

[0066] Example 3. Kitchen malodor masking evaluation using paint brushes dipped in fragrance and malodor compositionsA kitchen malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 7 in accordance with Example 2 of US8772354 B2.

[0067] A fragrance composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 5 in accordance with US20170266334 Al.

[0068] Table 7.

[0069]

[0070] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The malodor composition provided in Table 7 was diluted to 0.3% in liquid paraffin, and each material of the fragrance composition provided in Table 5 was diluted to 2.5% in liquid paraffin and mixed in the ratios provided therein. Two identical paint brushes were taken, and one paint brush was dipped in the diluted malodor composition, and the other paint brush was dipped in the diluted fragrance composition. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 2C was drawn on a drawing paper using the paint brush dipped in the diluted malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was drawn parallel to the first shape on the same drawing paper with the paint brush dipped in the fragrance composition. Then, the drawing paper was sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 8 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 8.Table 8.

[0071]

[0072] Example 4. Sweat malodor masking evaluation using rollerball pens filled with fragrance and malodor compositions

[0073] A sweat malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 1 in accordance with Example 2 of US7157411 B2.

[0074] A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0075] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The malodor composition provided in Table 1 was diluted to 10% with xanthan gum gel in water, and the fragrance composition provided in Table 2 was diluted to 25% with xanthan gum gel. Two identical rollerball pens were taken and the cartridge of one rollerball pen was filled with the diluted malodor composition, and the cartridge of the other rollerball pen was filled with the diluted fragrance composition. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 2D was drawn on a bond paper using the rollerball pen containing the diluted malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was drawn parallel to the first shape on the same bond paper with the rollerball pen containing the diluted fragrance composition. Then, the bond paper was sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 7 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 9.Table 9.

[0076]

[0077] Example 5. Sweat malodor masking evaluation using bottom screw containers containing cosmetic wax sticks

[0078] A sweat malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 1 in accordance with Example 2 of US7157411 B2.

[0079] A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0080] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The malodor composition provided in Table 1 was diluted to 10% with melted microcrystalline beeswax, and the fragrance composition provided in Table 2 was diluted to 25% with melted microcrystalline beeswax. Two identical bottom screw containers were taken and the cartridge of one bottom screw container was filled with the diluted malodor composition and allowed to solidify, and the cartridge of the bottom screw container was filled with the diluted fragrance composition and allowed to solidify. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 2E was drawn on a parchment paper using wax stick of the bottom screw container containing the diluted malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was drawn parallel to the first shape on the same parchment paper with wax stick of the bottom screw container containing the diluted fragrance composition. Then, the parchment paper was sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 8 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 10.Table 10.

[0081]

[0082] Example 6. Scalp malodor masking evaluation on glossy paper using marker pens filled with fragrance and malodor compositions

[0083] A scalp malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 11 in accordance with Table 1 disclosed in article published in Journal of SCCJ (1994), 28(3), 295-8.

[0084] A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0085] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The malodor composition provided in Table 11 was diluted to 10% in diethyl phthalate, and the fragrance composition provided in Table 2 was diluted to 25% in diethyl phthalate. Two identical marker pens were taken, and the cartridge of one marker pen was filled with the diluted malodor composition and the cartridge of the other marker pen was filled with the diluted fragrance composition. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 2F was drawn on a glossy paper using the marker pen containing the diluted malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was drawn parallel to the first shape on the same glossy paper with the marker pen containing the diluted fragrance composition. Then, the glossy paper was sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 10 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 12.Table 11.

[0086]

[0087]

[0088] Table 12.

[0089]

[0090] Example 7. Scalp malodor masking evaluation using hair mist containing marker pens filled with fragrance and malodor compositions

[0091] A scalp malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 11 in accordance with Table 1 disclosed in article published in Journal of SCCJ (1994), 28(3), 295-8.A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0092] Hair mist used in this example was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 13.

[0093] Table 13.

[0094]

[0095] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The malodor composition provided in Table 11 was diluted to 0.4% with hair mist shown in Table 13 excluding the fragrance ingredient and the formulation was made up to 100% using water. A hair mist comprising the fragrance composition was also prepared with the ingredients presented in Table 13. Two identical marker pens were taken and the cartridge of one marker pen was filled with the diluted malodor composition, and the cartridge of the other marker pen was filled with the diluted fragrance composition. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 2G was drawn on a matte paper using the marker pen containing the diluted malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was drawn parallel to the first shape on the same matte paper with the marker pen containing the diluted fragrance composition. Then, the matte paper was sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 7 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 14.Table 14.

[0096]

[0097] Example 8. Scalp malodor masking evaluation on HDPE sheets using marker pens filled with fragrance and malodor compositions

[0098] A scalp malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 11 in accordance with Table 1 disclosed in article published in Journal of SCCJ (1994), 28(3), 295-8.

[0099] A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0100] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The malodor composition provided in Table 11 was diluted to 10% in diethyl phthalate and fragrance composition provided in Table 2 was diluted to 25% in diethyl phthalate. Two identical marker pens were taken and the cartridge of one marker pen was filled with the diluted malodor composition, and the cartridge of the other marker pen was filled with the diluted fragrance composition. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 2H was drawn on a 5cm x 5cm HDPE sheet using the marker pen containing the diluted malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was drawn parallel to the first shape on the same HDPE sheet with the marker pen containing the diluted fragrance composition. Then, the HDPE sheet was sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 8 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 15.Table 15.

[0101]

[0102] Example 9. Sweat malodor masking evaluation on cotton fabric using self-inking stamp

[0103] A sweat malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 1 in accordance with Example 2 of US7157411 B2.

[0104] A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0105] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The malodor composition provided in Table 1 was diluted to 10% in diethyl phthalate, and the fragrance composition provided in Table 2 was diluted to 25% in diethyl phthalate. Two self-inking stamps were taken and the ink pad of one stamp was filled with the diluted malodor composition, and the ink pad of the other stamp was filled with the diluted fragrance composition. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 21 was imprinted on a 10cm x 10cm cotton fabric using a self-inked stamp containing the diluted malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was imprinted parallel to the first shape on the same cotton fabric with another self-inked stamp containing diluted fragrance composition. Then, the cotton fabric was sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 8 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 16.

[0106] Table 16.

[0107]

[0108] Example 10. Kitchen malodor masking evaluation on bond paper using marker pens filled with fragrance and malodor compositions

[0109] A kitchen malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 7 in accordance with Example 2 of US8772354 B2.

[0110] A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0111] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention. The kitchen malodor composition provided in Table 7 was diluted to 10% in diethyl phthalate and filled in a marker pen. This was considered as the control malodor. Ten times of the malodor concentration of the 10% control sample malodor was filled in another marker pen which is considered as 100% malodor. The fragrance sample “Fresh bloom” provided in Table 2, was filled in yet another marker pen. A geometric shape shown in Fig. 2 J was drawn on a bond paper using the marker pen containing the 100% malodor composition. Then, the same geometric shape was drawn parallel to the first shape on the same bond paper with the marker pen containing the fragrance composition. Then, the bond paper was sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 8 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 17.

[0112] Table 17.

[0113]

[0114] Example 11: Sweat malodor masking evaluation on cotton wool wads containing fragrance and malodor compositions placed in glass beaker, in accordance with the embodiments of Example 2 ofUS7157411 B2

[0115] The malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in 120ml beakers in accordance with the embodiments of Example 2 ofUS7157411 B2.

[0116] A sweat malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 1 in accordance with Example 2 of US7157411 B2.

[0117] A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0118] The malodor composition provided in Table 1 was diluted to 10% in diethyl phthalate, and the fragrance composition provided in Table 2 was diluted to 25% in diethyl phthalate. 0.5g of the diluted “Fresh bloom” fragrance was poured drop by drop onto a wad of cotton wool which was placed in a 120ml beaker, and 0.5g of diluted sweat malodor was poured onto a second wad of cotton wool and placed in the same beaker. The beaker was sealed with a lid and left to stand overnight. Then, the beakers were sniffed and the malodor masking efficiency was evaluated by 10 trained panelists. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 18.

[0119] Table 18.

[0120]

[0121] Example 12. Kitchen malodor masking evaluation on cellulose pads placed in drums, in accordance with the embodiments of Example 2 of US8772354 B2.A kitchen malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 7 in accordance with Example 2 of US8772354 B2.

[0122] A fragrance composition “Fresh bloom” was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 2.

[0123] The kitchen malodor composition provided in Table 7 was diluted to 10% diethyl phthalate and added onto a cellulose pad and placed in a 200L drum (MalodorCOntroi). This was considered as the control malodor sample. Ten times of the malodor concentration of the 10% control sample malodor was added on another cellulose pad which was considered as 100% malodor (Malodorioo%). The fragrance sample “Fresh bloom” provided in Table 2, was applied on a cellulose pad and placed in a 200L drum for 1 hour, and then the cellulose pad having 100% malodor (Malodorioo%) was placed in the same drum. 7 trained panelists sniffed the drums after 10 mins to evaluate the malodor masking efficiency. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by the panelists is presented in Table 19.

[0124] Table 19.

[0125]

[0126] Example 13. Bathroom malodor masking evaluation in cabins, in accordance with the embodiments of Example 2 of US8772354 B2

[0127] A bathroom malodor composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 4 in accordance with US8772354 B2.A fragrance composition was prepared by combining the ingredients provided in Table 5 in accordance with US20170266334 Al . This was formulated into a sprayable aerosol composition.

[0128] 2.5m3cabins were considered for evaluation of the malodor efficiency in this example. The bathroom malodor composition provided in Table 4 was diluted to 0.12% in propylene glycol. Fragrance composition provided in Table 5 was diluted to 2.5% in propylene glycol, and filled in a spray bottle. 0.5g of the diluted bathroom malodor composition was added onto a cellulose pad and placed in a 2.5m3cabin. This was considered as the control malodor sample (MalodorCOntroi). 0.5g of the diluted bathroom malodor composition was added onto another cellulose pad (Malodonoo%) and placed in a 2.5m3cabin for 10 minutes. The diluted fragrance composition was sprayed for two seconds into the second cabin containing malodor. 10 trained panelists immediately sniffed the cabin to evaluate the malodor masking efficiency. The average score of malodor masking evaluated by trained panelists is presented in Table 20.

[0129] Table 20.

[0130]

[0131] Comparative examples:

[0132] Comparative example 1 : Evaluation of sweat malodor masking efficiency considering Example 1 and Example 11 described herein.

[0133] Sweat malodor composition provided in Table 1 and Fresh bloom fragrance provided in Table 2, were considered for the comparative study. Sweat malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in Example 1 using marker pens on a filter paper in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention, while in Example 11, sweat malodor masking efficiency was evaluated on cotton wool wads placed in 120ml glassbeakers in accordance with the embodiments of Example 2 of US7157411 B2. The assessment was found to be similar in both the cases indicating that the evaluation of malodor masking efficiency by the method of the present invention (Example 1) is comparable to that through other methods (Example 11).

[0134] Comparative example 2: Evaluation of bathroom malodor masking efficiency considering Example 2 and Example 13 described herein.

[0135] Bathroom malodor composition provided in Table 4 and fragrance composition provided in Table 5, were considered for the comparative study. Bathroom malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in Example 2 using paint pens on a filter paper in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention, while in Example 13, the malodor masking efficiency evaluation was done using 2.5m3cabins in accordance with the embodiments of Example 2 of US7157411 B2. The assessment was found to be similar in both the cases indicating that the evaluation of malodor masking efficiency by the method of the present invention (Example 2) is comparable to that through other methods (Example 13).

[0136] Comparative example 3 : Evaluation of kitchen malodor masking efficiency considering Example 10 and Example 12 described herein.

[0137] Kitchen malodor composition provided in Table 7 and Fresh bloom fragrance provided in Table 2, were considered for the comparative study. Kitchen malodor masking efficiency was evaluated in Example 10, using marker pens on bond paper in accordance with the embodiments of the present invention, while in Example 12, the kitchen malodor masking efficiency was evaluated on cellulose pads placed in 200L drums in accordance with the embodiments of Example 2 of US8772354 B2.The assessment was found to be similar in both the cases indicating that the evaluation of malodor masking efficiency by the method of the present invention (Example 10) is comparable to that through other methods (Example 12).

[0138] The present invention also provides a kit for instantaneous evaluation of masking efficiency of a fragrance composition against a malodor, comprising a portable substrate, a first applicator tool comprising a first composition comprising a malodor, and a second applicator tool comprising a second composition comprising a fragrance, wherein the first applicator tool and second applicator tool are used to apply a first composition containing malodor, and a second composition containing fragrance, in geometric shapes as closely spaced parallel lines or curves on said portable substrate. The kit is configured for performing evaluation of masking efficiency of a fragrance composition without mixing the malodor and fragrance compositions prior to application on said substrate, or requiring a waiting period for equilibration of the malodor composition and fragrance composition on said substrate.

[0139] According to the various aspects of the present invention, evaluation of the efficiency of fragrances in malodor masking comprises applying closely spaced parallel geometric shapes on a substrate through writing, drawing, imprinting, painting, or the like using applicator tools filled with samples of a malodor composition and a fragrance composition, immediately sniffing said substrate, and scoring the malodor intensity by a trained panelist. Said geometric shapes are identical. This provides for instantaneous evaluation of the efficiency of fragrance composition in masking malodors, while alleviating the disadvantages and potential risks associated with existing methods. The method and kit of the present invention provide for instantaneous screening or evaluation of fragrances against malodors which is very crucial in fragrance industries. It not only allows an evaluator to screen fragrance compositions instantly but also provides an easy means to carry this portable device for suitable demonstration purposes or evaluation, at various locations.The foregoing descriptions of pre-defined embodiments of the present technology have been presented for purposes of illustration and description. They are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the present technology to the precise forms disclosed, and obviously many modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teaching. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the present technology and its practical application, to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilize the present technology and various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. It is understood that various omissions and substitutions of equivalents are contemplated as circumstance may suggest or render expedient, but such are intended to cover the application or implementation without departing from the scope of the claims of the present technology.

[0140] Accordingly, it is to be understood that the embodiments of the invention herein described are merely illustrative of the application of the principles of the invention. Reference herein to details of the illustrated embodiments is not intended to limit the scope of the claims, which themselves recite those features regarded as essential to the invention.

Claims

I / We claim:

1. A method for instantaneous evaluation of masking efficiency of a fragrance composition against a malodor, comprising:providing a substrate;applying a first geometric shape on said substrate with a first composition comprising a malodor using a first applicator tool;applying a second geometric shape on said substrate with a second composition comprising a fragrance using a second applicator tool, the second geometric shape being substantially identical to the first geometric shape and positioned in close proximity to the first geometric shape, and the first applicator tool and second applicator tool being of the same type; andimmediately sniffing said substrate to evaluate the masking efficiency of the fragrance composition against the malodor.

2. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first geometric shape and second geometric shape are formed using closely spaced parallel lines or curves.

3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the distance between said closely spaced parallel lines or curves is in the range of 3 mm to 10 mm.

4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said method is performed without mixing the malodor composition and fragrance composition prior to application on said substrate.

5. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said method is performed without requiring a waiting period for equilibration of the malodor composition and fragrance composition on said substrate.

6. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said first composition and second composition are diluted using 0-99.99% w / w of a solvent, diluent, home care composition, personal care composition, perfumery, or cosmetic composition.

7. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein said home care composition, personal care composition, perfumery, or cosmetic composition is in a product form selected from solution, suspension, emulsion, matrix structure, spray, gel, cream, oil, lotion, leave-on product, rinse-off product, shampoo, serum, mist, dye, lipstick, nail paint, deodorant, bath soap, sunscreen, or the like.

8. The method as claimed in claim 6, wherein said solvent and diluent are selected from a group comprising propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, diethyl phthalate, triethyl citrate, isopropyl myristate, benzyl benzoate, ethyl alcohol, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, water, glycerol, mannitol, sorbitol, xylitol, erythritol, medium-chain triglyceride, paraffin, hexane, cyclohexane, methyl cyclohexane, mineral wax, microcrystalline wax, beeswax, palm wax, soy wax, candelilla wax, carnauba wax, xanthan gum, gellan gum, psyllium gum, alginates gum, carrageenan gum, chitin gum, chitosan gum, or the like.

9. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein application of said first composition and second composition comprises writing, drawing, imprinting, painting, or the like, on the substrate.

10. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein said substrate and applicator tool are portable, enabling the evaluation to be conducted in various locations.

11. A kit for instantaneous evaluation of masking efficiency of a fragrance composition against a malodor, comprising:a portable substrate;a first applicator tool comprising a first composition comprising a malodor; and a second applicator tool comprising a second composition comprising a fragrance.

12. The kit as claimed in claim 11, wherein the first applicator tool and second applicator tool are used to apply a first composition containing malodor, and a second composition containing fragrance, in geometric shapes as closely spaced parallel lines or curves.

13. The kit as claimed in claim 11, wherein the kit is configured for performing an evaluation without mixing the malodor and fragrance compositions prior to application on said substrate.

14. The kit as claimed in claim 11, wherein the kit is configured for performing an evaluation without requiring a waiting period for equilibration of the malodor composition and fragrance composition on said substrate.

Images