IL143321A - Formulation, composition and method for repelling insects - Google Patents

Description

ο>ριη η»ητί> f>\? ¾» v¾>->.n ,nnfc>»i¾i Formulation, composition and method for repelling insects Sano Bruno's Enterprises Ltd., tt"ya owm C. 131147 FORMULATIONS, COMPOSITIONS AND METHOD FOR REPELLING INSECTS FIELD OF THE INVENTION The present invention is generally in the field of insects repellence and particularly refers to a formulation and method for repelling insects from soft surfaces.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION Dust mites are microscopic (up to 0.3 mm) animals related to ticks and spiders and live in bedding, upholstered furniture, and carpets carrying most of the house dust. The particles seen floating in a shaft of sunlight include dead dust mites and their waste -products. These waste products which are proteins, provoke allergic reactions (e.g. nose allergy) including asthma.

Dust mites depend on moisture in the house for survival. These mites are known to thrive in summer and die in winter, however, in warm, humid houses, they will continue to thrive even in the coldest months.

There are different approaches for controlling dust mites, including inter alia, use of dust proof bedding covers and furniture, frequent vacuum and wiping of surfaces, removal of furry articles (toys, carpets etc), reduction of house humidity, installation of air filters and application of mite killing chemicals.

With regards to mite killing chemicals, most of the insect repellents reported in the literature relates tertiary amides and of these the one regarded as the most effective all-purpose insect repellent is N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide, often referred to by the abbreviation DEET.

US Patent No. 5,015,665 describes the use of a different insect repelling agent, the N-alkyl neoalkanmides which was described as being effective for repelling insects from different types of surfaces, including soft surfaces (e.g. carpets, upholstery, bedding etc.,).

Herbal repellents are also known. These include, inter alia, Bergamot, Citrus (oranges, lemon, grapefruit etc.), Southernwood (Artemisia Abrotanum, more suitable as a pesticide),' Tansy, Cedar, Citronella, Geranium, Lavender, Pennyroyal, Pettigraine, Pine, Spearmint and Thyme. . Herbal pesticides work either as a repellent, repugnant to the pest or as a poison to the pest. The quantities of herbs required for repellence of pests are very small and thus in using them there is no of toxicity to human. Nevertheless, at times, allergies develop as a result of using herbs for repelling pests.

The present invention aims for the providence of a new non-toxic insect repelling formulation to be used preferably on soft surfaces such as carpets and upholstery.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The present invention is based on the surprising finding that applying a commercially available cleaning agent mixed with the formulation of the invention was effective in repelling insects, particularly dust mites, from soft surfaces as defined hereinafter, such as cotton cloths and carpets.

Insect, in the context of the present invention include any type of pest typically thriving in beddings, carpets, laundry and upholstered furniture etc. Such insects include, fleas, bugs, etc., and particularly dust mites.

Therefore, by a first of its aspects, the present invention provides a formulation for repelling insects from soft surfaces, the formulation comprising one or more fragrance ingredients dissolved in diethylphtalate (DEP), wherein said DEP is in an amount from between 35% to 55% of the total formulation volume.

The term "repelling" used herein refers to a repelling effect per se, as well as to resistance, and at times, toxic effect on insects.

The term "sofl surface" as used herein denotes any surface containing fibers and include, inter alia, carpets and rugs, wallpapers, shelf papers, carpet padding, beddings, and upholstered furniture.

The present invention also provides an insect repelling detergent composition comprising a detergent as defined hereinafter in combination with a formulation comprising one or more fragrance ingredients dissolved in diethylphtalate (DEP), wherein said DEP is in an amount from between 35% to 55% of the total formulation volume.

Yet, according to a further aspect the present invention provides a method for repelling insects from a soft surface, the method comprising applying to sajd surface an effective amount of a formulation comprising one or more fragrance ingredients dissolved in diethylphtalate (DEP), wherein said DEP is in an amount from between 35% to 55% of the total formulation volume or an effective amount of an insect repelling detergent composition comprising a detergent in combination with said formulation, thereby obtaining a dual effect on the surface, i.e. cleaning the surface while repelling therefrom insects.

The term "effective amount' used herein refers to an amount of the formulation of the invention which is sufficient to repel insects from a soft surface. In particular, the amount is such that it may provide the surface with resistance to insects typically drawn to such surfaces, may cause insects already embedded within the surface fibers to withdraw therefrom or, at times, be toxic to said insects.

The repellent effect may be due to the insect's reluctant to come in contact with the repellent formulation and also in some measure due to the repellent effect of the vapor from the repelling formulation.

The term ''applying" includes various forms of applications onto the soft surface (or into the interior or other portions thereof), including pasting, dusting, rubbing, wiping, pouring, depositing, spraying, and any other mechanism. The repellent applied will be in such quantity and/or concentration that it will be effective in repelling insects or a particular type of insect, so that such insect(s) will stay away from the treated location.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION The present invention provides a formulation, a detergent composition (at times, referred to herein as "Composition A") and method all for repelling insects, particularly, dust mites, from carpets, rugs, upholstered furniture and other fiber containing items typically present in houses.

The formulation of the present invention comprises one or more of a fragrance ingredient dissolved in diethylphtalate (DEP), wherein the DEP is in an amount from 35% to 55% of the total formulation volume.

As will be evident from the following description of the specific examples, the insect repelling formulation of the present invention possess various significant beneficial features. For example, it contains components non-toxic to mammals and therefore is not hazardous to human, particularly to children and pets that might come into contact with them. They are pleasantly aromatic due to the fragrance ingredients content which is also cost-effective as it eliminate the need to add other expensive perfumes typically added to such products and the like. Further, the repelling effect is long lasting with experiments having shown the formulation to be effective to repel dust mites for at least 7 days after application.

The fragrance ingredients contained in the formulation of the present invention may be either natural or synthetic substances, however, are preferably substances derived from natural materials such as herbs. Preferably, the fragrance ingredients include dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzyacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β -naphthylmethylketon, jasmal (4-Amyl tetrahydro pyranol acetate), hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and HHCB (l,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl-cyclopenta-y-2-benzopyran).

The fragrance ingredients are mixed with a solvent. While it is sufficient to use only DEP, it is preferable to combine this solvent with at least one additional solvent, such as dipropyleneglycol, isopropylalcohol and butyl glycol ethanol.

According to one embodiment of the invention, the insect repelling formulation comprises a mixture of fragrance ingredients consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzylacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and HHCB the mixture dissolved in DEP.

According to yet another embodiment of the invention, the insect repelling formulation comprises a mixture of fragrance ingredients consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzylacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and HHCB, the mixture dissolved in DEP and dipropyleneglycol.

One preferred formulation according to the invention is that consisting of the following percentages of the components of the formulation: dimetol (1-5%), citrus oil (10-15%), linalool (1-5%), benzylacetate (1-5%), citronellol (5-10%), linalyl acetate (1-5%), β-naphthylmethylketon (1-5%), jasmal (1-5%), hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (5-10%), HHCB (1-5%), DEP (40%-45%) and dipropyleneglycol (1-5%).

The insect repellent formulation of the invention may be combined with other ingredients and can be applied onto the soft surface in diverse ways. However, among the most useful products which can incorporate the insect repellent formulation of the invention are surfactant compositions, from which the formulation of the invention operates in several ways to counter insect contamination of the cleaned surface. They remove any earlier contamination, remove stains and soils on which the insects might feed and which could attract them and leave behind the insect repelling formulation.

The primary component of the present detergent compositions, other than the insect repelling formulation will be an organic synthetic or non-synthetic anionic, cationic, nonionic, zwitterionic, amphoteric or ampholytic surfactant preferably that having a cleaning function, i.e. a detergent.

Detergent materials may include soaps, such as sodium and/or potassium higher (Cio-is) fatty acid soaps, or a synthetic organic detergent or a mixture of two or more detergent within one or more of such classifications. Description of many such detergents are found in the text Surface Active Agents and Detergents Vol. II pages 25-138 by Schwatz, Perry and Berch, (1958) by Interscience Publishers Inc. or in Detergents and Emulsifiers, by McCutcheon, published in 1973, both publications being incorporated herein by reference.

The anionic detergents employed may be any such suitable detergent (or soap) but normally will be salts of alkali metals, such as sodium or potassium or ammonium or lower alkanolammonium salts, e.g. triethanolamine salts. The anionic detergent may be a sulfate, sulfonate, sulfosuccinate, phosphate or phosphonate or salt of other suitable acid. The anionic detergent will include a lipophilic group, which will normally have from 10 to 18 carbon atoms, preferably in linear higher alkyl arrangement, but other lipophilic groups may be present instead, such as branched chain alkyl benzene. In some cases the anionic detergent may include poly-lower alkoxy groups, as in ethoxylated higher fatty alcohol sulfates, e.g., triethoxylated lauryl alcohol sulfate. Normally, the number of ethoxy groups in such detergents will be in the range of 1 to 30, preferably 1 to 10.

Examples of suitable anionic detergents include fatty alcohol sulfates and higher fatty alcohol sulfonates, such as sodium tridecyl sulfonate; sodium linear alkyl benzene sulfonates, e.g., sodium linear tridecyl benzene sulfonate; olefin sulfonates; and paraffin sulfonates.

Suitable non-ionic detergents will normally be condensation products of lipophilic compounds or moieties and lower alkylene oxides or polyalkoxy moieties. Alkyl phenols such as octyl and nonyl phenols may also be used.

The present invention thus provides, according to a second aspect thereof an insect repelling detergent composition comprising a detergent as defined hereinabove in combination with the insect repelling formulation of the invention.

The composition of the present invention may, in addition, comprise builders (e.g. foam builders) and stabilizers. The builders are typically used to improve the detergency of the synthetic organic detergent (or soap). The builders used may be inorganic or organic, water soluble or water insoluble. Water soluble inorganic salts include, inter alia, polyphosphates, e.g. sodium tripolyphosphate; carbonates, e.g. sodium carbonate; bicarbonates, e.g. sodium bicarbonate; borates, e.g. borax; and silicates, e.g. sodium silicate. Water insoluble inorganic builders include, inter alia, zeolites, e.g. hydrated Zeolite 4A; and water soluble organic builders include, inter alia, citrates, gluconates, NTA nad polyacetal caboxylates.

Various adjuvants may be present in the detergent composition of the present invention to improve various characteristics of such products. Thus, for example, bentonite may be employed as a fabric softener, perfumes and colorants may be added for their aesthetic effects, soil anti-re-deposition agents may be employed, such as sodium carboxymethyl cellulose and acrylic polymers and solvents or co-solvents may be present, as in liquid compositions. Other adjuvants include fluorescent brightners, anti-static agents, antibacterial agents, fungicides, foaming agents, anti-foams, flow promoters, suspending agents, antioxidants, anti-gelling agents, soil release promoting agents and enzymes.

Brittling agents may also be used to make the surfactant residues crystalline, non-tacking and easy to vacuum. Resins copolymers are generally used for this purpose.

The insect repelling formulation of the invention either alone or formulated as a detergent composition may be applied onto the soft surface in various ways. It may be in a liquid, gel, paste, aerosol form, or any other suitable form as known to those versed in the art of processing soaps and detergents. However, the insect repelling formulation of the invention is preferably in a liquid form and the detergent composition containing it is preferably mixed with a propellant and introduced into a pressurized propellant for application as a foam or shampoo.

Thus, the invention also provides a method for repelling insects from a soft surface comprising applying to said surface an effective amount of the insect repelling formulations or the insect repelling detergent compositions of the invention.

According to one embodiment, the formulations and compositions of the invention may be sprayed onto the soft surface and then left to dry, preferably in the open air after which the soft surface is optionally vacuumed or firmly shaken to remove undesired residues (e.g. soil, dust etc.). For obtaining an aerosol formulation, the formulations of the invention may be combined with a propellant (typically forming 5% to 15% of the total formulation). Any suitable propellant may be used, including, inter alia, C2-4 saturated aliphatic hydrocarbons and C1-2 halogenated hydrocarbons, e.g. propane, butane, isobutane, trichloromonofluoromethan, dichlorodifluoromethan, trichlorotrifluoroethan and dichlorotetrafluoroethane.

The insect repelling formulation is preferably applied in an amount to effectively repel insects from the soft surface. Generally, the amount of the formulation will be from 30 gr formulation per square meter surface to 200 gr formulation per square meter and preferably 60 gr to 180 gr formulation per square meter surface. The formulation or composition are applied and preferably worked into the soft surface with a brush, sponge or the like.

GENERAL In the following description use will be made, at times, with a variety of terms, and the meaning of such terms as they should be construed in accordance with the invention is as follows: Dust - dust particles containing food material to which dust mites are drawn; Carpet - felt carpet, maximum 4 cm high having fiber density which allows the passage therebetween of the mites.

Cloth - a thick cotton cloth, through which the mites cannot pass.

Culture medium - the medium on which the mites are grown before transferring them onto the soft surface.

Soft Surface - a piece of cloth or carpet onto which dust mites are placed in order to examine their behavior in the presence of different test materials.

Dust mites- the common dust mites Dermatophgoides pteronyssinus were used as the model mites in the following specific examples. The mites were cultured on a medium containing dust particles formed from dry and grind dog food (the "food medium").

Test materials - three types of detergent compositions are tested as insect repelling agents. These are (1) carpet and upholstery cleaning shampoo manufactured by Sano [Sano, Israel, Bar code No. 287102] mixed with the insect repelling formulation of the invention comprising the following ingredients: Fragrance ingredient Dimetol 1-5% Citrus oil 10- 15% Linalool 1-5% Benzylacetate 1-5% Citronellol 5-10% Linalyl acetate 1-5% β-naphthylmethylketon 1-5% Jasmal 1-5% Hexyl cinnamic aldehyde 5- 10% HNCB 1-5% Solvents Diethyl phtalate (DEP) 40-45% Dipropyleneglycol 1-5% This mixture was obtained by drawing out the content of the commercial cleaning agent from its container and mixing the content with the repelling formulation. The composition above is referred to in the following examples as "Composition A". This mixture, containing the shampoo and insect repelling formulation was then introduced into a pressurized propellant for application thereof on the surfaces by spraying; (2) Carpet and upholstery cleaning foam manufactured by Chimgat [Chimgat, Israel, Bar code No. 388547], referred to herein as ''Composition B" which was also introduced into a pressurized propellant; (3) DET diluted with 25% alcohol; and (4) Control which is an untreated surface.

Treatment conditions - all experiments were conducted in a closed room at a temperature of about between 24°C and 26°C and with 80% humidity which are optimal for growing dust mites.

Soft surfaces were sprayed with each of the test materials (30-45gr X m2), which were then mechanically worked into and between the fibers of the soft surface. After drying the surfaces (2-3 hours), they were firmly shaken for removing therefrom any free particles.

Mites were removed from their culture medium by the use of a tiny, aluminum made teaspoon, held with forceps for counting with a microscope, by which a fixed number of mites were placed onto the desired surface.

Each of the dust containing surfaces were then placed at the center of a plastic dish (10 cm diameter, also referred to herein as a "test dish"), having the sides thereof lubricated to prevent the mites from escaping the dish). The step of Introducing mites onto a surface is referred to herein as the "infection step ".

At times, only few mites were placed onto the surface medium. This was achieved by the use of a pin typically used in entomological research. Accordingly, a gentle touch on a single mite with the pin enables coupling of a single mite onto the pin and onto the desired surface.

In the following experiment, the term % of mites refers to the percentage from the total number of mites relocated in the specific infection. The average value from several repeating tests in presented in the following results (rounded to multiplicity of 5).

RESULTS EXAMPLE I A. Tendency to disperse vs. tendency to stay in a permanent location A thin layer of dust containing mites (100-150) was placed onto a piece of carpet (3 cm X 3 cm) and the latter was placed in a dispensable plastic dish (8 cm diameter), the sides of which were lubricated in order to prevent the mites from escaping the growing area. Food material was placed on the bottom of the dish, at its periphery. During the observation period (total of 8 weeks) food material was not added onto the carpet.

Once a week, the behavior of the mites was observed, including examining the amount of mites which transferred from the carpet towards the periphery of the dish where the food material was placed.

During the eight weeks of observation, mites including mite eggs were observed between the dust particles and beneath the carpet. Few mites were observed on the carpet in the areas where no dust was applied.

In addition, during the four first weeks of observation, no mites were observed in the area where the food material was placed although only a few centimeters were separating between the point of infection and the periphery of the dish. After 5-6 weeks from infection, mites were also found at the area of the food material and at the bottom of the dish. This experiment was repeated four times, each time showing the same behavior.

B. Hairy surfaces vs. smooth surfaces A piece of cloth (2 cm X 2 cm) carrying about 20 mites (without dust material) was placed at the center of a transparent plastic dish (10 cm in diameter).

Twelve hours later, the number of mites at different locations on the dish was counted.

The experiment was repeated six time and the average percentage of mites at different locations on the dish was calculated. The results show that -25% of the mites placed on the cloth stayed on the cloth, -30% were found beneath the cloth, -45% were found between the fibers forming the margins of the cloth while, only -1% was found on the surface of the plastic dish.

C. Treatment with commercially available carpet shampoos Three hours before infection with mites of a piece of carpet (7 cm X 7 cm on a plastic dish) the carpet was treated with either Composition A or, Composition B (5 mg/cm2). As a control, an untreated surface was usedand after 12 hours the number of mites at different locations on the dish was counted.

Table 1 summarized the results obtained from four repeats of the experiment. As indicated, three locations were examined after the 12 hours: at the treated area, between and beneath the dust particles (referred to in Table 1 as treated area"); at the untreated area, between the carpet fibers and on top of the carpet (referred to in Table 1 as the "untreated area"); between the plastic dish and the carpet (referred to in Table 1 as the "plastic surface").

Table 1 Agent Treated area Untreated area Plastic surface Composition A 10 20 20 Composition B 40 10 0 Control 50 5 0 It should be noted that the repelling activity was effective even 12 hours post infection as after this period of time about 50% of the mites were still repelled from the surface.

EXAMPLE II A. Treatment of surfaces carrying dust mites Dust containing about 20 mites was placed at the center of several cloths (3 cm X 3 cm in size) each placed in a test dish. The center of each cloth (where the mites were placed) was tfren applied with Composition A, Composition B or with the control (untreated surface). In addition, the surface beneath the dust was treated with each of the test materials. The compositions applied were in the form of a foam, which, after application liquefy and thereby seep into the surface.

Twelve hours post infection the number of mites at different locations on the test dish was determined. Table 2 summarizes the results of 3 repeats of the experiment, presented as the percentage of mites at the different locations from the total amount of mites first placed into the dish.

In particular, four areas of the dish were examined: (1) on and between the dust particles (referred to in Table 2 as the "dust area"); (2) at the treated area between the cloth fibers, however, beneath the dust, referred to in Table 2 as the "inter fiber area"); (3) at the margins of the cloth (between the fibers) which was untreated (referred to in Table 2 as the "peripheral area"); and (4) on the plastic dish onto which the cloth was placed (referred to in Table 2 as the "dish area").

Table 2 - Effect of the different compositions B. Mite repelling effect of a 'recently-treated' surface The effect on dust mites of pre-treatment of a carpet with the insect repelling detergent composition of the invention was examined. Accordingly, 1 hour after treatment of a piece of carpet with Composition A, the treated carpet placed in a plastic dish was transfected with dust containing mites. The effect of the insect repelling detergent composition of the invention (Composition A) was compared to three additional cases (l) with a Control which is an untreated surface, (2) by application of Diethyl toluamide (DET), (3) by application of Composition B.

Three hours after infection with the mites, the number of mites at different locations on the dish was determined.

With the Control agent most of the mites were found alive between the carpet fibers, below the dust while with DET most of the mites were found dead at the location where they were placed during infection of the carpet. Nevertheless, when using Composition A or Composition B most of the mites were found very alive on the dust particles.

C. Mite repelling effect of a pre-treated and dry surface The effect on dust mites of pre-treatment of a surface with the insect repelling detergent composition of the invention was further examined, wherein pieces of soft surfaces (3 cm ) were treated with defined amounts of a composition. The surfaces were then transfected with dust containing mites placed at the center of each surface and after defined time points the behavior of the mites was examined. The soft surfaces were dried and placed in a plastic test dish before infection.

Twelve hours post infection, the number of mites at different locations in the test dish was determined (percentage from the total amount of mites initially transferred to the test dish) Tables 3A-3I summarize the results obtained (average of three repeats) at different time periods post-treatment of the pieces of cloth. The following locations were specifically examined: (1) between the food material and on the soft surface below the food (referred to in Tables 3A-3I as the "food area"); (2) on the soft surface at the area which did not contain food (referred to in Tables 3A-3I as "foodless area"; (3) between the fibers in the margins of the soft surface (referred to in Tables 3A-3I as the "peripheral area"); (4) below the soft surface (referred to in Tables 3 A-3I as the "under surface area"); and (5) on the plastic dish where the surface was placed (referred to as the "dish area").

In particular, Table 3A shows the results obtained with treatment of the cloth, 5 hours before infection (1 cm in its center) with different agents (50mg), including Composition A or Composition B or with a control (untreated surface).

Table 3A Agent Food area Foodless Margins Under Dish area area area surface area Composition A 0 20 20 20 35 Composition B 40 30 20 5 0 Control 70 5 10 5 0 Table 3B shows the results obtained with treatment of the cloth, 72 hours before infection, (1 cm2 in its center) with the different agents (50 mg).

Table 3B Table 3C shows the results obtained with treatment of the entire cloth, _ 2 hours before infection, with the different agents (2 mg/cm cloth) and also with DET.

Table 3C *: injured mites Table 3D shows the results obtained with treatment of the entire cloth, 4 2 hours before infection, with the different agents (4mg/cm cloth).

Table 3D Table 3E shows the results obtained with treatment of the entire cloth, 1 days before infection, with the different agents (4 mg/cm ).

Table 3D Table 3F shows the results obtained with treatment of the entire cloth, 2 ays before infection, with the different agents (4mg/cm ).

Table 3F Agent Food area Foodless Margins Under surface Dish area area area area Composition A 90 0 5 5 0 Composition B 85 0 5 5 0 Control 90 0 5 5 0 Table 3G shows the results obtained with treatment of the entire cloth, 3. before infection, with the different agents (8mg/cm 2 days, ).

Table 3G Table 3H shows the results obtained with treatment of the entire cloth, 1 2 Hays before infection, with the different agents (Rmg/cm ).

Table 3H In addition, the effect of the insect repelling detergent composition of the invention on carpets was examined. The following Tables 4A-4C summarize the results obtained (average of four repeats) at different time periods post-treatment of a pieces of carpet. The results are presented as the percentage from the total amount of mites transferred to the test dish.

Three different locations were examined: (1) between the food material and on the soft surface below the food (referred to in Tables 4A-4C as the ''treated food area"); (2) on and within the carpet, in the untreated area (referred to in Tables 4A- 4C as "untreated area"; and (5) on the test dish where the carpet was placed (referred to in Tables 4A-4C as the "dish area").

Table 4A shows the results obtained with treatment of the carpet, 1 hour before infection, (1 cm in its center) with different agents (lQmg), including the insect repelling detergent composition of the invention (composition A), cleaning agent by Chimgat (Composition B), DET or the control (untreated surface).

Table 4A Table 4B shows the results obtained with treatment of the carpet, 3 hours before infection, (1 cm in its center of the ) with different agents (5_mg), including Composition A, Composition B, DET or the control (untreated surface).

Table 4B Yet further, the effect of treatment 3 days before infection was also evaluated. Table 4C shows the results obtained with treatment of the carpet, 1 days before infection, (1 cm" in its center of the ) with different agents (5 mg), including Composition A, Composition B, DET or the control (untreated surface).

Table 4C D. Mite repellence from locations adjacent to treated areas A piece of cloth (2 X 4 cm) was divided into two sections, "treated section" an "untreated section". At the center of the so-called treated section, one of the following agents was applied (4.5 mg/cm2): Composition A, Composition B or the control (untreated surface). At the center of each of the two section of the cloth about 20 mites were placed and then the cloth was placed into a plastic dish, the sides of which were lubricated to prevent mites from escaping the dish.

The results (average of four repeats) are presented in the following Tables 5A-5C). Three different locations were examined: (1) between the food material and on the cloth below the food at the treated section (referred to in Tables 5A-5C as the "treated section"); (2) on and within the cloth, in the untreated section (referred to in Tables 5A-5C as "untreated section"; and (5) on the test dish where the carpet was placed (referred to in Tables 5A-5C as the "dish area") In particular, Table 5A presents results obtained when infection was performed 4 hours after treatment.

Table 5A In addition, the effect of treatment λ days and 7 days before infection was examined. Tables 5B-5C, respectively summarize the results obtained (4 repeats).

Table 5B Table 5C DISCUSSION All the experiments were conducted under strict conditions, keeping the optimal climate conditions as defined hereinbefore. Under these conditions the mites are continuously active (except for the static stage before their dropping off).

The different stages of the mites (including eggs) was visible between and beneath the dust/food material.

Under conditions unsuitable for growing mites (e.g. dryness) the tendency of the mites to penetrate into the interior levels of the surface (which are poor in food) and to reduce their activity was significantly observed. Under these conditions when placed on flat surfaces, mites tend to bundle themselves and become inactive.

All tests were performed while observing optimal climate conditions. Under these conditions, the dust-mites are constantly active (save for the stationary stage before hatching) - It is possible to see the various levels (including the eggs) above, between and beneath the dust/food particles.

When there are unsuitable conditions (for example: dryness), the dust-mites tend to penetrate deeper stratum (weaker in food) and reduce their activity. With regard to dust that is found on smooth surfaces (such as breeding paraphernalia), the dust-mites, under dry conditions, tend to assemble into non-active congested clusters.

Throughout the examination, direct counts of the quantity of live dust-mites that were found on surfaces treated with solutions were performed, usually 12 hours following infection. The use of a stereo-microscope, whereby a piece of the medium that was being examined, was placed on a transparent phial with lubricated sides to prevent the dust-mites from passing, was put on a slightly heated surface (by light below), which enabled collecting the majority of dust-mites that were infected.

Based upon what is noted in the professional literature, the comparative portion found in the counts of the total amount of dust-mites that underwent various testing ranged from lower percentages, in cases in which the dust-mites were absorbed by a vacuum cleaner to much larger percentages in which the dust-mites were collected by heating/drying and sticking them on sticky tape techniques (as well as other techniques). The method that we used enabled collection of the majority of the dust-mites that dispersed from each infection thereof, which in itself enables more accurate results.

The tests were carried out on pieces of material that were 3 cm in size, since carrying out experiments on larger pieces of carpet caused a relative decline in the amount of dust-mites that were collected (~ 50% of the dust-mites in an earlier experiment upon pieces of carpet that were 7cm in size).

Less dust-mites were collected when pieces of carpet were examined (60%-90%) as opposed to examining -pieces of cloth (in which 90%- 100% were usually collected).

In cases in which the dust-mites were strongly repelled from the treated surface, most of them were found on the plastic dish surface, on which the treated surface was placed. It should be noted that dust-mites which tried to stay clear of the area in which a repellent agent was placed, did so gradually - they were not observed "dropping" from the treated surface to the dish. Due to their size, moving from one place to another inevitably caused direct contact. When pieces of cloth or carpet were placed on a smooth surface, in practice, there are only a few contact spots that enable the dust-mites to pass. Under such circumstances, the dust-mites that tried to stay clear of where the repellent agent was placed (the agent should not be of extreme character, as distinguished from heat that causes dryness and may be fatal to the dust-mites), and which were not successful in locating passage ways, "dug" into the fibers at the edge of the surface and reduced their activity for some time.

The comparative portion of the dust-mites found in different locations (within the treated surfaces) from the total amount of dust-mites that were dispersed in every infection is presented, since expressing the comparative portion of the dust-mites found in the different locations from the total amount of the dust-mites that were found, may lead to diversity of the results.

Example IA teaches that under suitable climate conditions, the dust-mites clearly tend to remain in a permanent spot insofar as there is sufficient food. A congestion of 100-150 dust-mites over an area of approximately lsq.cm of quite a low carpet does not cause them to disperse - infecting suitable food at a distance of only several centimeters occurred only after approximately 5 weeks.

It should be emphasized that when the dust-mites stayed clear of unpleasant conditions, they were capable of moving vigorously and covering an area of several centimeters in just one minute.

Example IB teaches that -the dust-mites tendency to "dig" in the fibers of the surface and reduce their activity occur also under conditions in which there is a lack of food. Only a continuous lack of food caused the dust-mites to abandon the suitable surface such as cloth or carpet, and search for food on smooth surfaces.

Example IIA teaches that treating the surface which contained dust-mites, in a manner that ensures direct contact between the dust-mites and the formulation or compositions (that examined and those which served as comparative), did not cause them substantial harm. Contact between the food particles and each one of the compositions caused the former to be unsuitable for nourishment by the dust-mites, even after 12 hours.

Example IIB teaches that under optimal circumstances, the dust-mites tend to usually linger among the carpet/cloth fibers beneath the dust particles and stay clear of the exposed area. The examined cleaning composition, insofar as they had not dried up following the treatment, repel the dust-mites and prevented them from nearing the preferred area, therefore forcing them to remain on the dust particles while accelerating their search for a more appropriate place (less exposed).

Example IIC shows exposure of dust-mites to pieces of surfaces that were previously treated which resulted in considerable repulsion of the mites that led them to stay clear of the dust/food concentrations upon the treated surface, and moreover, move to places with a less appropriate "substratum" (such as the plastic dish).

When the treatment was carried out using a relatively small amount of 7 composition (40gr/m") the repulsion lasted approximately 3 days (7 days following the treatment there was no repulsion whatsoever).

When the treatment was carried out, using double the quantity of the solution (80gr/ m ), there was complete repulsion lasting for approximately 3 days. Partial repulsion was observed even after 7 days following the treatment.

The comparative compositions (composition B and the control) only caused repulsion (several hours) immediately following application thereof - under circumstances in which the composition had not yet completely dried up.

This Example also shows that exposure of the dust-mites to pieces of carpet that were previously treated with the test materials (5mg/ m ) caused repulsion of the dust-mites for several days (considerable repulsion during the first few hours expressed by abandoning the surface, partial repulsion 3 days later).

One hour after treatment with the comparative compositions, the dust-mites remained in the dust and avoided lingering among the treated surface fibers. 3 hours later, the repulsion was weak (expressed by only some staying clear of the food) and did not cause them to abandon the surface.

In addition, it was shown that the dust-mites stayed clear of the food that was placed on the surface 4 hours before infection, with each one of the compositions (45gr/m ), and settled themselves nearby (approximately 1cm away) wherein there was suitable food. Three days after the treatment the repellent remained on the surface that was treated with the examined composition, as opposed to the lack of repulsion from the surface that was treated with the comparative compositions. Seven days following the treatment there was hardly any repellent left.

It should be observed that the rate of dispersion from a carpet that was placed on the floor and from furniture upholstery in a place of residence was much slower in comparison to the conditions under which the experiments took place (small pieces of cloth/carpet that were exposed to accelerated ventilation), a fact that would cause the activity (repelling the dust-mites) to last much longer.

CONCLUSION The composition of the invention is non-toxic to dust-mites. Applying the composition (or the comparative compositions) to a surface that contained dust-mites did not cause them substantial harm - upon stopping their activities for several minutes, they returned to their regular activities and stayed clear of the parts that were treated (as well as from the food that came in contact with the different compositions).

When the treatment with composition A was carried out on a suitable surface, a short distance (more than 1 cm) away from the cluster of dust-mites in the dust, there was no substantial repulsion.

When the dust-mites came in contact with the surface that was treated shortly before with the comparative compositions (composition B or control (untreated surface)), repulsion was observed before the compositions completely dried in. Several hours after the application thereof there was no repulsion of the dust-mites from the treated surface.

Dust-mites are clearly repelled by the cloth or carpet that was previously treated with composition A of the present invention even if the composition dried in. The dust-mites tried to stay clear of the treated surface and even move to places that were less suitable (such as a smooth plastic surface).

The repulsion lasted for a number of days following the treatment: 2 approximately 3 days when the composition was applied with a dose of 40mg/m and approximately 7 days with a dose of 80gr/ m .

In view of the above, it may be concluded that the examined product i.e. the fomiulation or composition of the present invention applied to furniture upholstery and carpets, repels house dust-mites. Suitable application of the formulation or composition of the present invention may repel the dust-mites for a period lasting over 10 days, and constant use of the formulation or composition may prevent the development of a source of dust-mites on treated surfaces from occurring.

Claims (32)

29 143321/2 CLAIMS:

1. A formulation for repelling dust mite from a soft surface comprising one or more fragrance ingredients in combination with diethylphtalate (DEP), wherein said DEP is in an amount from between 35% to 55% of the total formulation volume.

2. The formulation of Claim 1, wherein said fragrance ingredients are either natural or synthetic substances.

3. The formulation of Claim 1 or 2, wherein said fragrance ingredients are selected from the group consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzyacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde l,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl-cyclopenta-y-2benzopyran (HHCB).

4. The formulation of Claim 1, comprising at least one additional solvent.

5. The formulation of Claim 2, wherein said additional solvent is selected from the group consisting of dipropyleneglycol, isopropylalcohol and butyl glycol ethanol.

6. The formulation of Claim 4, comprising a mixture of fragrance ingredients selected from the group consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzylacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and HHCB all dissolved in a DEP.

7. The formulation of Claim 5, comprising a mixture of fragrance ingredients selected from the group consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzylacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and HHCB all dissolved in a mixture of DEP and dipropyleneglycol.

8. The formulation of Claim 7, comprising dimetol (1-5%), citrus oil (10-15%), linalool (1-5%), benzylacetate (1-5%), citronellol (5-10%), linalyl acetate (1-5%), β-naphthylmethylketon (1-5%), jasmal (1-5%), hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (5-10%), HHCB (1-5%), DEP (40%-45%) and dipropyleneglycol (1-5%).

9. The formulation of any one of the preceding Claims further comprising one or more surfactants.

10. The formulation of Claim 9, wherein said surfactant is an organic synthetic or non-synthetic anionic, cationic, nonionic, zwitterionic or ampholytic surfactant. 0131 1471X29-02 30 143321/2

11. A dust mite repelling detergent composition comprising a formulation of one or more fragrance ingredients in combination with diethylphtalate (DEP), wherein said DEP is in an amount from between 35% to 55% of the total formulation volume and at least one organic synthetic or non-synthetic anionic, cationic, nonionic, zwitterionic or ampholytic detergent.

12. The composition of Claim 11, wherein said fragrance ingredients are either natural or synthetic substances.

13. The composition of Claim 11 or 12, wherein said fragrance ingredients are selected from the group consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzyacetate, ctronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde HHCB.

14. The composition of Claim 11, wherein said formulation comprises at least one additional solvent.

15. The composition of Claim 14, wherein said additional solvent is dipropyleneglycol or isopropylalcohol.

16. The composition of Claim 13, comprising a mixture of fragrance ingredients selected from the group consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzylacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and HHCB all dissolved in a DEP.

17. The composition of Claim 15, comprising a mixture of fragrance ingredients selected from the group consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzylacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and HHCB all dissolved in a mixture of DEP and dipropyleneglycol.

18. The composition of Claim 17, comprising dimetol (1-5%), citrus oil (10-15%), linalool (1-5%), benzylacetate (1-5%), citronellol (5-10%), linalyl acetate (1-5%), β-naphthylmethylketon (1-5%), jasmal (1-5%), hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (5-10%), HHCB (1-5%), DEP (40%-45%) and dipropyleneglycol (1-5%).

19. The composition of any one of Claims 11-18, comprising foam builders, stabilizers and/or adjuvants. 0131 1471X29-02 31 143321/2

20. The composition of any one of the preceding claims in a liquid, gel, paste, foam forming or aerosol form.

21. A method for repelling dust mite from a soft surface comprising applying to said surface an effective amount of a formulation comprising one or more fragrance ingredients in combination with diethylphtalate (DEP), wherein said DEP is in an amount from between 35% to 55% of the total composition volume.

22. The method of Claim 21, wherein said fragrance ingredients within the formulation are either natural or synthetic substances.

23. The method of Claim 22, wherein said fragrance ingredients are selected from the group consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzyacetate, ctronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde HHCB.

24. The method of Claim 21, wherein said formulation comprises at least one additional solvent.

25. The method of Claim 24, wherein said additional solvent is selected from the group consisting of dipropyleneglycol, isopropylalcohol and butyl glycol ethanol.

26. The method of Claim 21, wherein a mixture of fragrance ingredients selected from the group consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzylacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and HHCB all dissolved in a DEP is a applied onto a soft surface for repelling dust mites from said surface.

27. The method of Claim 25, wherein a mixture of fragrance ingredients selected from the group consisting of dimetol, citrus oil, linalool, benzylacetate, citronellol, linalyl acetate, β-naphthylmethylketon, jasmal, hexyl cinnamic aldehyde and HHCB all dissolved in a mixture of DEP and dipropyleneglycol is applied onto a soft surface for repelling dust mites from said surface.

28. The method of Claim 21, wherein said formulation comprises dimetol (1-5%), citrus oil (10-15%), linalool (1-5%), benzylacetate (1-5%), citronellol (5-10%), linalyl acetate (1-5%), β-naphthylmethylketon (1-5%), jasmal (1-5%), hexyl cinnamic aldehyde (5-10%), HHCB (1-5%), DEP (40%-45%) and dipropyleneglycol (1-5%) is applied onto said soft surface. 0131 1471X29-02 32 143321/2

29. The method of any one of Claims 15-22, further providing a cleaning effect on said soft surface, wherein the formulation applied onto said soft surface is combined with at least a detergent before said application.

30. The method of any one of Claims 21-29, wherein said formulation, either alone or in combination with said detergent is applied onto said surface in an amount to effectively repel dust mites from the soft surface, the amount being from about 30 gr formulation per square meter surface to about 200 gr formulation per square meter.

31. The method of Claim 30, wherein the amount of formulation applied onto said surface is from about 60 gr to about 180 gr formulation per square meter surface.

32. The method of any one of Claims 21-31, wherein after application, said formulation is worked into the soft surface. For the Applicant REI HOLD COHN AND PARTNERS 013 1 1471X29-02