Soaps have long been manufactured from fats by conversion of triglyceride components of fats into fatty acid salts, followed by the formation of these soaps'into various product forms such as bars, liquids, gels etc. However, fatty acid soaps have various shortcomings such as depression of lather in hard water, formation of lime soap curd, cracking and embrittlement of the bars, poor sensory properties, harshness on the skin and other problems.

There have been several approaches to solve these problems.

GB 931,731 discloses the use of non-ionic surfactants such as ethoxylated and propoxylated alkanol amides in soap bars to prevent lime soap formation during use in hard water.

Fatty alcohol ethoxylates in soap bars (such as e. g.

W09317088 or EP363215) have been known to reduce lime soap formation, and hence prevents soap residue on skin. This results in improved mildness and product properties such as lathering, reduced mush etc.

Straight or branched fatty acid ethoxylates (such as in e. g.

JP59179599, JP05117138 or JP07179322) are known to impart superior detergency against heavy chains, make-up and are known to generate good foam and have conditioning effect on hair and skin. These disclose liquid formulations containing straight or branched fatty acid ethoxylates with

a degree of ethoxylation greater than 7 and incorporation levels of 10-60% by weight.

Conventionally perfumes are incorporated into soap formulations to mask the soap base odour and provide a sensory attribute. The perfume impact of soaps reduces on storage, and as a result only a part of the initial perfume added at the time of manufacture is perceived by the end user.

We have now found that surprisingly using certain branched chain nonionic surfactants at very low levels in a soap formulation gives improved perfume impact even after prolonged storage of the formulation under various environmental conditions. It also gives enhanced benefit with respect to performance, and sensory properties even under hard water conditions.

It is the basic objective of the present invention to provide a detergent composition with enhanced perfume impact on storage along with improved sensory and in-use properties.

Another object of the present invention is to provide detergent composition with superior sensory and in-use properties which would be simple to manufacture, and will be cost-effective.

Thus according to the present invention there is provided a detergent composition comprising of: i. 40 to 85% soap ii. 0.1-10% branched chain non-ionic surfactant and iii. other conventional ingredients.

According to a preferred aspect of the invention there is provided a detergent composition comprising of: i. 40 to 85% soap ii. 0.1-10% branched chain fatty acid ethoxylate and iii. other conventional ingredients.

According to a more preferred aspect of the invention there is provided a detergent composition comprising of: i. 40 to 85% soap ii 0. 1-10% branched chain fatty acid ethoxylate with EO not greater than 7 and iii. other conventional ingredients.

In the above detergent composition of the invention soap varies from 40 to 85% by weight and it essentially comprises of C8-C14 fatty acids soaps in an amount of up to 50% by weight, and preferably up to 25% by weight. The balance soap is selected from palmitic, stearic, oleic and linoleic fatty acids such that the Iodine Value of the final soap composition varies from 0-60, preferably in the range of 30- 50.

Non-ionic surfactants used in the composition of the invention is preferably selected from branched chain fatty acid ethoxylates with a general formula RCOO (CH2CH2O) nH, where n varies from 1 to 7. The preferred fatty acid is isostearic acid, and the preferred level of ethoxylation in the range 3-5. The non-ionic surfactant is incorporated in the final soap composition at 0.1-10% by weight and preferably from 1-5% by weight.

Optional ingredients such as polycarboxylic acid, alkylsulphate ethoxylates, super fatting agent such as fatty acids, and moisturising agents such as glycerine to improve the performance may be incorporated. Other conventional ingredients for e. g. fillers, perfumes, opacifiers, preservatives, antimicrobial agents, as required are added to the formulation.

Any polycarboxylic acids in the composition are generally aliphatic and branched or straight chained. The polycarboxylic acid is preferably a C2-C12 dicarboxylic acid and more preferably a C2 to C8 dicarboxylic acid.

The superfatting may be provided in the composition of the invention either by the addition of a superfatting agent such as a triglyceride of fatty acids of C6-C18 carbon atoms or by the addition of fatty acids of C6-C18 type.

Superfatting can also be achieved by addition of polycarboxylic acids or mineral acids to soap.

Fillers may be incorporated at 0-40% and selected from hydrated magnesium silicate, hydrated aluminium silicate or any other suitable material.

Perfumes can be used in formulating the product at a level of from 0.1 to 3% of the composition.

The invention will now be described with reference to the following non-limiting examples.

EXAMPLES: Different soap compositions under Examples 1 and 2 (Controls) and Examples 3 and 4 (in accordance with the invention) detailed in Table 1 were prepared as toilet soap bars as described hereunder: Table 1 Composition (% wt.) Example Example Example Example 1 2 3 4 Soap 55.0 55.0 55.0 55.0 Isostearicacid-2. 0-- Isostearic acid EO 3--2. 0- Isostearic acid EO 5---2.0 Fillers 29.0 29.0 29.0 29.0 Perfume 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Minor ingredients 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 to 100% with water Method of manufacture followed: 480 kg of neat soap was taken in the holding tank and spray dried into noodles of moisture content of about 14%, which was then taken in a conventional sigma mixer. The other specific ingredients mentioned for the different Examples were added during mixing to obtain the specific formulation.

Other minor ingredients and water was added and mixed, milled and plodded into bars and stamped subsequently.

Lather/Rate of wear index: Lather of the soap bar was determined both in soft water (4 deg. French hardness) and hard water (24 deg. French hardness) by a panel of five members. The soap bar was rotated in the palm 20 times approx. with a little water and

the lather generated was poured into a measuring jar to determine the quantity in millilitres. An average of 15 such measurements were reported as the final value of lather. Rate of wear was determined by a panel of five members who used the personal wash bar with 10 rubs a day for four days. At the end of four days, each tablet was washed free of the mush and was weighed to determine the final weight and the difference between the initial and final weights is reported as % wear.

Lather/rate of wear (ROW) index which is determined using the above mentioned information on lather volume and rate of wear is an indicator of the user value perception, wherein a lower number would mean that the lather generated per unit rate of wear is low, and the consumer has to use more quantity of soap per bath. The data presented in Table 2 shows that this lather/ROW index has improved after incorporation of isostearic acid with 3 or 5 EO and is superior to the Control and that with unbranched isostearic acid.

Table 2 Lather/Rate of wear Example Example Example Example 1 2 3 4 Soft water 2940 3556 4000 3684 Hard water 3046 3545 3891 3623 Improvement in in-use properties: In-use properties such as lather volume, rate of wear and sensory properties such as after wash feel, in-use feel and lather characteristics and perfume impact on storage were analyzed using control bars, and those according to the

invention, which contained 2% by weight of branched isostearic acid with 3EO (Table 3).

Table 3 Composition (% wt.) Example 5 Example 6 l Soap 82.0 80.0 Isostearic acid 3EO 0. 0 2.0 Perfume 1. 5 1.5 Minoringredients 2. 0 2.0 Water To 100 To 100 i Rate of wear: Rate of wear was determined by a panel of five members who used the personal wash bar with 10 rubs a day for four days.

At the end of four days, each tablet was washed free of the mush, and was weighed to determine the final weight and the difference between the initial and final weights is reported as % wear.

Lather: Lather of the soap bar was determined both in soft water (4 deg. French hardness) and hard water (24 deg. French hardness) by a panel of five members. The soap bar was rotated in the palm 20 times approx. with a little water, and the lather generated was poured into a measuring jar to determine the quantity in millilitres. An average of 15 such measurements were reported as the final value of lather.

Feel: The feel assessment was carried out by an internal panel to evaluate the lather, in-use feel and post wash feel qualitatively, and expressed quantitatively on a scale of 1 -5. The soap bar was wetted and applied on the forearm by the panelist, and observed for performance with respect to the above mentioned parameters.

Perfume impact: Perfume impact was assessed by a panel of expert perfumers on a scale of 1-10. This was done initially and after a period of storage up to 24 weeks.

Table 4 Attribute Example 5 Example 6 | Tablet wear (g) 20 16 %wear 27% 16% Lather volume (ml) 396 405 Mushvolume 1. 83 1.25 Feel: Lathercreaminess 3. 42 3.71 In-usefeel: _ Draggy-slippery 3. 3 3.5 Post wash feel: Slimy-squeaky 3.35 3.29 Dry-Moist 3.25 3.36 Perfume: Initial Impact 7.0 7.0 Impact after 24 weeks 4. 5 5.0 The data presented in Table 4 shows that the formulation according to the invention shows that the % wear and mush volume is reduced whereas the lather volume is increased and the lather generated is creamier and that the in-use and after wash feel is superior. The impact of the perfume gradually reduces due to storage but in the formulation prepared according to the invention even after storage the perfume impact is maintained significantly superior.