Encapsulated fragrance chemicals stink

Posted on Jan 08, 2009 by Susie Collins in Blog, Media/Videos, Products, Susie Collins

In order to enhance the effectiveness of fragrance in products like dryer sheets and other laundry products, encapsulation technologies are used to enhance delivery and duration of the scent.

Above is a video describing exactly how people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity feel about dryer sheets.

And now there is even more to hate about Bounce. An invention called Encapsulated Fragrance Chemicals is being used in a new version of Bounce dryer sheets. The ads show a woman in a subway car having scent beads, or encapsulated fragrance chemicals, released from her clothing after being bumped into by other people. Eeeeeeww.

Here’s an excerpt of the patent for Encapsulated Fragrance Chemicals. I especially love the line, “Fragrance chemicals are used in numerous products to enhance the consumer’s enjoyment of a product.”

USPTO Application #: 20060287205

Title: Encapsulated fragrance chemicals

Abstract: A polymeric encapsulated fragrance is disclosed which is suitable for use in personal care and cleaning products. In a preferred embodiment of the invention the fragrance is encapsulated by a first polymer material to form a fragrance encapsulated polymer, the polymer encapsulated shell is then coated with a cationic polymer, preferably a cationic starch and guar.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

[0002] The present invention relates to fragrance materials that are encapsulated with a polymeric material, the encapsulated fragrance materials are further coated with a cationic polymer material. The encapsulated fragrance materials are well suited for rinse-off applications associated with personal care and cleaning products.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

[0003] Fragrance chemicals are used in numerous products to enhance the consumer’s enjoyment of a product. Fragrance chemicals are added to consumer products such as laundry detergents, fabric softeners, soaps, detergents, personal care products, such as shampoos, body washes, deodorants and the like, as well as numerous other products.

[0004] In order to enhance the effectiveness of the fragrance materials for the user, various technologies have been employed to enhance the delivery of the fragrance materials at the desired time. One widely used technology is encapsulation of the fragrance material in a protective coating. Frequently the protective coating is a polymeric material. The polymeric material is used to protect the fragrance material from evaporation, reaction, oxidation or otherwise dissipating prior to use. A brief overview of polymeric encapsulated fragrance materials is disclosed in the following U.S. patents: U.S. Pat. No. 4,081,384 discloses a softener or anti-stat core coated by a polycondensate suitable for use in a fabric conditioner; U.S. Pat. No. 5,112,688 discloses selected fragrance materials having the proper volatility to be coated by coacervation with micro particles in a wall that can be activated for use in fabric conditioning; U.S. Pat. No. 5,145,842 discloses a solid core of a fatty alcohol, ester, or other solid plus a fragrance coated by an aminoplast shell; and U.S. Pat. No. 6,248,703 discloses various agents including fragrance in an aminoplast shell that is included in an extruded bar soap.

[0005] While encapsulation of fragrance in a polymeric shell can help prevent fragrance degradation and loss, it is often not sufficient to significantly improve fragrance performance in consumer products. Therefore, methods of aiding the deposition of encapsulated fragrances have been disclosed. U.S. Pat. No. 4,234,627 discloses a liquid fragrance coated with an aminoplast shell further coated by a water insoluble meltable cationic coating in order to improve the deposition of capsules from fabric conditioners. U.S. Pat. No. 6,194,375 discloses the use of hydrolyzed polyvinyl alcohol to aid deposition of fragrance-polymer particles from wash products. U.S. Pat. No. 6,329,057 discloses use of materials having free hydroxy groups or pendant cationic groups to aid in the deposition of fragranced solid particles from consumer products.

[0006] Despite these and many other disclosures there is an ongoing need for the improved delivery of fragrance materials for various rinse-off products that provide improved performance.

[...]

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

[...]

[0019] In order to provide the highest fragrance impact from the fragrance encapsulated capsules deposited on the various substrates referenced above, it is preferred that materials with a high odor-activity be used. Materials with high odor-activity can be detected by sensory receptors at low concentrations in air, thus providing high fragrance perception from low levels of deposited capsules.

Link to full patent.

Thanks, Linda!

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Tags: Chemicals, Children's Health, Fragrance, Health, Home, MCS, Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, Perfume, Products, Stink, Toxic, Video

9 Responses to “Encapsulated fragrance chemicals stink”

linda

08. Jan, 2009

Here’s the Bounce website…

http://www.bouncesheets.com/en_CA/products/awakenings/detail.jsp

So, improved freshness actually means more chemicals… which they DON’T mention (because they don’t have to). All they mention are the natural SOUNDING qualities.

Anne Steinemann’s (UW, Seattle) research has determined many harmful chemicals are found in dryer sheets and scented laundry products, including:

FORMALDEHYDE
ACETALDEHYDE
ACETONE
BENZYL ACETATE
3-CARENE
1,8-CINEOLE
DECANAL
2,4-DIMETHYL-3-CYCLOHEXENE-1-CARBOXALDEHYDE
ETHANOL
d-LIMONENE
LINALOOL
METHYL BENZOATE
a-PINENE
ß-PINENE
PRENYL ACETATE
cis-ROSE OXIDE

some of which have warnings like these:

“Causes central nervous system disorders.”
“Harmful by ingestion, inhalation or skin absorption.”

So thanks (NOT) Bounce, and anyone else using encapsulation, for spreading the poison even more… sheesh…
And we’re worried about our enemies trying to poison us?

Reply to this comment
Ruth

09. Jan, 2009

Yes, my sentiments exactly! Why worry about enemies from other countries doing us in….for the USA it is an “inside job!!!” This is something that is going to become more clear to the public as time goes on….in the meantime, how many more people have to become sick with MCS or other conditions related to toxic chemicals in our every day products, before more is done to stop it????

Reply to this comment
Meg

09. Jan, 2009

That is……. horrible. Pretty much all that needs to be said. Or all there is time to say before you pass out from your neighbor saying hi!

As an animal lover, I also can not help but think about all the poor pets that have to live with people who use these things. I read “new” research all the time about how the rising number of an all manor of diseases in pets, rarely seen before, are likely caused by concentrations of these chemicals. And don’t even get me started on what it does to the ever sensitive birds. They are supposed to be able to live to over a hundred, so why aren’t people wondering when their bird dies of “old age organ failings” at 12 or 20?

Reply to this comment
Meg

09. Jan, 2009

I just went to their website, using the link Linda provided. They ask you whether you would like to fill out a survey after leaving the site. Although they ask waaaayyyy to many questions, and many are hilarious (in a very, very freaky way) they do give you an opportunity to give you their opinion on their products. Obviously, they are not going to have a “complete turn around” after hearing from people like us, but I think letting them know is worth something anyway, if only just making me feel like I have done something today!

Reply to this comment
Ruth

09. Jan, 2009

I think if we let the companies know that we are spilling the beans to everyone we know, about how toxic their products really are, they may take a second thought on it….worth a try, hey? It has worked with TV sponsors in the past.

Reply to this comment
Self-righteous

09. Jan, 2009

Thanks for all you do to increase awareness and add to our hope for a better, cleaner future. I’ve said for years that global warming is not our biggest worry — we won’t be able to reproduce in just a few generations at the rate we’re going, so as far as I’m concerned get a Hummer and go crazy.

I’m starting a campaign called “Clean Doesn’t have a Smell”. I don’t have an exact plan but perhaps just saying that a few times to your family, friends, co-workers, etc. might have some small effect.

Again, thanks.

And voting with your $$ is one way to get a company’s attention. Tell P&G and SCJohnson that you will not support them. BTW, did you know that these companies make safer products for the European Common Market in order to meet the stricter guidelines? Disgusting.

Reply to this comment
Ruth

09. Jan, 2009

No, I didn’t know that these companies are making alternative products…that is a good point to make when you contact them! I knew that Walmarts was not sending any more plastic baby bottles to the Canadians that contain Bisphenol A., and they’ve agreed to stop selling them in this country…don’t know if they’ve stopped yet.

Reply to this comment
Leslie

09. Jan, 2009

man, the scent and chemical technology just keeps on getting more abstract and gross… why on earth would we need our clothes to have special technology Bounce in it, to keep on outgassing all day long, all week long- who knows what this type of science really does. It’s just another terrible unregulated fragrance invention causing people chronic illness from chem exposure.
That video was really good!!!!

Reply to this comment
Susie Collins

09. Jan, 2009

The power of the pocketbook! I love that you guys are looking at the research and contacting the companies that are selling these toxic chemicals for the “consumer’s enjoyment.” Kudos!

Self-righteous, please keep us posted on your Clean Doesn’t Have a Smell campaign so that we can support you in your efforts. Your blog is great!

Reply to this comment