CA1331550C - Ultra mild skin cleansing composition - Google Patents

Abstract

ULTRA MILD SKIN CLEANSING COMPOSITION

ABSTRACT
Disclosed is an ultra mild skin cleansing composition comprising: mild synthetic surfactants, moisturizers, polymeric skin feel and mildness aids and selected levels of soap. An ultra mild skin cleansing bar is provided which is clinically milder on the skin than water.

Description

339~
f~ .

ULTRA MILD SKIN CLEANSING COMPOSITION
Leonard E . Small Paul H. Garrison, Jr.
William M. Winkler 5Sharon A. Sear1an Alyce J. Papa TECHM I CAL Fl Ei_D
-This invention relates to mild skin cleansing compositions.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
10This invention relates to mild skin cleansers. More par~
ticularly, this invention relates to skin cleansers comprising synthetic surfactants, moisturizers, polymeric skin feel and mildness aids and soap.
The cleansing of skin with surface-ætive cteansing prepa-15rations has become a focus of gr~eat interest. Many people wash and scrub their skin with various surface-active preparations several times a day. Ideal skin cleansers shou!d cleanse the skin gently, causing little or no irritatk~n, without defatting and over-drying the skin or leaving it taut after frequent routine use.
20Most lathering soaps, liquids and bars included, fail in this respect .
Synthetic detergent bars, frequently referred to as "syndet bars," are well known and are becoming increasingly popular.
However, widespread replacement of soap bars by syndet bars 25has not so far been possible for a variety of reasons, primarily the poor physical characteristics of syndet bars as compared to soap bars, e.g., smear or bar messiness and lather quality.
Certain synthetic surfactants are particularly mild. How-ever, a major drawback of most mlld synthetic ~surfactant systems 30when formulated for skin cleansing is poor lal'her performance, when compared to the highest bar soap standards (bars which are rich in coconut soap and superfatted), On the other side, the use of known high sudsing anionic sur1Factants with lather boost-ers can yield acceptable lather volume. Unfortunately, however, 35the highest sudsing anionic surfactants are, in fact, poor in clinical skin mildness. Surfactants that are among the mildest.
such as sodium lauryl glyceryl ether sulfonate, (AGS), are , .

~ 33 ~ 550 marginal in lather. It will be appreciated that these two factors make the surfactant selection, the lather ancl the sl<in feel benefit formulation process, a delicate balancing act.
Similarly, optimization of bar firmness also requires a deli-5 cate balancing act with respect to maintalining acceptable latherand mildness, although as a single variable, bar firmness is accomplished through a fairly straightforward process with adjust-ments to levels of fillers, binders, etc., such as free fatty acids.
- It is known that moisturizers provide skin conditioning benefits. For example, it is known that glycerin andlor free fatty acids are added to bars or liquid cleansing products for skin benefits.
Likewise, polymeric skin feel aids are known to those knowl-edgeable in the art for providing unique tactile charackeristics to both the lather and the skin during rinsing.
For background, examples of liquid cleans7ng cornpositions are disclosed in the following references. U.S. Pat. No.
4,438,211, Stiros, issued July 6, 1982, discloses liquid skin cleanser with 2.3% to 3% AGS, the polymer JR-400 and small amounts of free fatty acid plus a fatty acid alkylolamide as lather boosting agents. Compositions containing the surfactants AGS
and sarcosinate are not disclosed . Also, U . S . Pat. No.
4,491,539, James J. Hoskins and Aclriaan Kessler, issued Jan. 1, 1g85, discloses liquid cleansing products comprising about 5% to 30% of surfactant, about 0.1 % to about 1.0% of guar material, about 0.15% to about 1.0% of nonionic carboxyvinyl polymer, and water, Exemplary compositions containing mild surfactants in - general and, specTfically, the surfactants AGS and sarcosinate are not dlsclosed. Another background reference is British Pat. No.

2,103,236A, Colgate, Feb. 16, 1984, which discloses a liquid detergent containing guar gum, a ternary surfactant mixture including betaine. AGS is not used. Also, British Pat. No.
2,114,994A, L'Oreal, Sept. 1, 1983, discloses a cleansing product based on acylisethionates and cationic polymers.
U.S. Pat. No. 2,894,912, Geitz, issued July 14, 1959, for "Isethionate Detergent Bar," disclos~2s a detergent bar consisting essentially of from 30-70~ of water-soluble alkali metal detergent ;

salts of esters of isethionic acid with mixed aliphatic fatty acids having from 6 to 18 carbon atoms and an iodine value of less than 20, of which mixed acids at least 75% have from 12 to 18 carbon atoms and up to 25% have from 6 to 10 carbon atoms, from 2-10%
of at least one water-soluble suds-boosting detergent salt selected from the group consisting of alkali metal and oryanic amin~e higher aliphatic fatty alcohol sulfates, alkyl aryl sulfonates, and higher aliphatic fatty acid taurides, from about 14 to about 996 water, from about 2 . 5% to about 25~ of water-soluble higher fatty acid 10 soap, and from 10-40% of at least one higher fatty acid having from about 12 to about 25 carbon atoms as a binder and plasti~
cizer, said bar having a pH within the range from 6 to 8, meas-ured as a 10~ aqueous solution of the bar compositTon at 35C.
This patent does not teach the use of polymeric skin feel aicls nor 15 the use of other mild synthetics.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,234,464, Morshauser, issued Nov. 18, 1980, for "Detergent Bar Composition and Binder Therefor," discloses a detergent bar in Example 6 which comprises: 45% sodium cocoyl isethionate, 5% alkyl amide, 37.5% stearic acid, 5.04 hydrogenated 20 tallow glycerides, and 1% "Pol~ner JR *. i~iiDrshauser teaches that his detergent bars can contain up to 5% soap "without substalntial detriment. " This patent also teaches the use of up to 1 . 5%
cationic polymer.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,012,341, Orshitzer et al., issued Mar. 15, 25 1977, for a "Unique All Synthetic Detergent Shampoo Bar," dis-c,oses a bar comprising a mixture of anionic and nonionic deiter-gents. Examples 2 and 4 use 1% JR-400 in bars primarily based on sodium lauryl sulfate, which is an unacceptable surfactant for the present invention.
U.S. Pat. No. 3,761,418, Parran, Jr., issued Sept. 25, 1973, for "Detergent Compositions Containing Particle Deposition Enhancing Agents, " discloses detergent compositions including a bar which contains 1% JR-400. However, the main surfactant Ts alkyl sulfate, which is unacceptable for the mild skin cleanser of 35 the present invention.
Thus, in view of the above, it will be appreciated that rather strin~ent requirements for skin cleansers limit the choice * Trad~ark , ~ .
., ; .. , ~ :

~,~" ~

1331S50 ~::

of surface-active agents and final formulations represent some degree of compromise. Mildness is often obtained at the expense of effective cleansing and lathering. Conversely, mildness may be sacrificed for either preferred lathering characteristics, bar 5 firmness, product stability, or all of these.
_BJECTS OF THE INVENTION
This invention represents a skin cleansing composition which provides ultra skin mildness, excellent lather and bar firmness.
Therefore, one object of this invention is the development of skin 10 cleansing compositions which exhibit superior skin mildness and moisturization while maintaining acceptable lather and bar prop-erties.
Another object of the present invention is the development of skin cleansers having skin feel and mildness benefits.
Other objects will become apparent from the detailed descrip-tTon below.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRA~JINGS
Fig. 1 shows a static diffusion cell diagram.
Figs. 2-5 show comparative clinical mildness results of various cleansing compositions. Fig. 6 shows lather volume as a function of selected soap levels.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
This invention is an ultra mild skin cleansing composition comprising: mild synthetic surfactants, moisturi7ers, polymeric sktn feel and skin mildness aids and soap. An ultra mild skin cleansing bar is provided which is clinically milder on the skin than water. Thus, the present invention offers 3 remarkable combination of desirable properties to skin cleansing formulations.
The invention provides a mild, effective skin cleansing compo-sition having superior moisturization and skin mildness and skin feel benefits. The composition leaves the skin feeling moist, soft and smooth after washing. A preferred cleansing product is a toilet bar having 20-709~ mild surfactant, 10-40% moisturizer, 0.1-5% polymeric skin feel and mildness aid and 5.5-25% soap.
DETAILE[) DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
:
The invention relates to an ultra mild skin cleansing compo-;~ sition with superior moisturization, excellent skin feel benefits ` ' '. , . ~ - :

. - . .... ..

~3~15,`~

and lather performance. This mild cleansing composition is be-lieved to provide superior moisturization, iess skin irritation and facial tautness than commercially available toilet soap bars, syn-thetic toilet bars or other known surfactant based specialty skin cleansing products such as liquids and creams. Ultra mild liquids and creams can be made by diluting the mild cleansing compo-sitions disclosed herein with 20-70% water. The composition of thi~ invention leaves the skin feeling soft and smooth after washing and is also clinically milder than washing with water alone. The percentages herein are on a total composition weight basis unless ~therwise specified.
A preferred composition contains: 10-40% moisturizer, e.g., free fatty acids; 40-70% of mild surfactants, e.g., alkyl glyceryl ether sulfonate lAGS) plus a co-surfactant selected from anionic alkyoyl (acyl) sarcosinates; 0.1-496 polymeric skin feel and skin mildness aids selected from cationic polymers including guar gums, cellulosic resins; homopolymers and copolymers of dimethyl-diallylammonium chlorids and nonionic guar gums, and soap at a level of 5.5-20~.
The Surfactant A mild surfactant as defined herein includes those which have a Relative Skin Barrier Penetration Value as defined here-inbelow of as close to zero as possible up to about 75. The mild synthetic sulrfactant is present in the composition at a level of 20-70%, preferably 40-70~ and more preferably 50-65%. Also the synthetlc surfactant and soap have ratios of 2 :1 to 12 :1, pref-erably 4:1 to 10:1 and more preferably 6:1 to 9:1.
Preferred mild anionic and amphoteric surfactants used in this invention include suitable alkyl glyceryl ether sulfonate ~AGS), anionic acyl sarcosinates, methyl acyl taurates, N-acyl glutamates, alkyl glucosides, acyl isethionates, alkyl sulfosuccin-ate, alkyl phosphate esters, ethoxylated alkyl phosphate esters, trideceth sulfates, methyl glucose esters, protein condensates, mixtures of ethoxylated alkyl sulfates and alkyl amine oxides, betaines, sultaines, and mixtures thereof. Included in the sur-factants are the alkyl ether sulfates with 1 to 12 ethoxy groups, e~pecially ammonium and sodium lauryl ether sulfates. Alkyl chains for these surfactants are C8-C22, preferably C10-Cl8.

.,. . i ~ .

A preferred primary mild surfactant is sodium coco glyceryl ether sulfonate which is mild and relatively nonirritating to the skin. This has been demonstrated in in vitro nonclin;cal mildness testing. While desirable to incorporate into a skln cleanser for 5 its mildness properties, this coco AGS alone does not provide optimum lather creaminess. A sodium 90110 coconut/tallow alkyl AGS distribution is preferred for creaminess. Salts other than the sodium salt such as TEA-, ammonium- and K-AGS and chain length distributions other than 90/10 coconut/tallow are usable at 10 moderate levels. Aiso, some soap is added to improve lather volume and speed of lathering. Certain secondary co-surfactants used in combination with AGS can also provide a creamier and more stable lather. These secondary surfactants must also be intrinsically mild. One secondary surfactant that has been found 15 to be especially desirable is sodium lauroyl sarcosTnate ltrade ark "Ha~osyl L", made by H~shire Ch~T~cal!.
The amphoteric betaines and sultaines carl be used as the sole surfactant, but are more preferred as a co-surfactant.
Nonionics cannot be used as the sole surfactant in this product 20 because of their low foaming ability; however, they can be incor-porated as a co-surfactant.
In Vitro Skin Barrier Penetration Test I ntroduction _ _ _ The skin barrier penetration test (see test apparatus in 25 Fig. 1 ) is used to screen mild surfactants from nonmild sur-factants. In this test the milder the surfactant, the lesser the skin barrler 4 is destroyed. Skin barrier destruction is measured by the relatTve amount of radio-labeled water (3H-H20) which passes from the test solution 3 through the skin epidermis 5 into 30 the distilled water contained in the diffusate chamber 6. (This test is also described by T. J. Franz in the J. Invest. Derm., 64, pp. 1 90-1 95, 1 975, ) Test A~paratus The skin barrier penetration test utilizes a static diffusion 35 cell 1 diagrammed in Fig. 1. When studying surfactants which are not soluble at room temperature, water-jacketed cell tops (not :

.
, '~

-7_ - l33l550 shown) are used to hold the test solution 3 reservoir 2 at a different tempera~ure than the d,ffusate chamber 6.
Human ckin epidermis 5 is placed on the flat ~rea of the diffusate chamber 6 and the diffusate chamber 6- is filled with distilled water 11 for collecticn of the transported radio-labeled water. The diffusate chamber 6 is surrounded by a water jacket 12. Temperature control is provided by circulating water bath (outflow 8 and inflow 9) pumped from a water bath at a predeter-mined temperature. When applicable, a jacketed top is connected 10 to a second circulatorltemperature bath. The diffusate chamber 6 is typically rnaintained at 25C. An O-ring joint clamp secures the test so~ution reservoir 2, sandwiching the skin epidermis 5 in between it and the diffusate chamber 6.
This test uses cells which have a diffusion area of 0.20 cm2.
15 The diffusate chamber 6 holds approximately 5 ml. The bottom of the chamber 6 is flattened to allow spinning of a small magnetic stirring bar 10 The bars 10 are spun by a series of permanent magnets attached to individual electric motors. The motors turn at 300 rprn. ~-The test solution reservoir 2 holds approximately 1 ml of test solution 3. During testing the tops of reservoir 2 are sealed with Parafllm to inhibit evaporation and prevent spillage.
Skln Epidermis Preparation Prior to testing, the skin epidermis is separated from the 25 whole skln, The whole skin is thawed to room temperature and adipose tlssue (cellular fat) is removed by surgical scalpel to the adipose-dermal Junction, This "defatted" skin is immersed in 60C water for 80 seconds. This heat treatment makes possible the separation of the epldermis from the dermis at their junction.
30 The epldermis Is placed on a sheet of aluminum foll and rinsed wlth hexane for 5 seconds to remove excess fat globules still ~ ~ -clinging to the surface. It is then sprayed with distiiled water for 5 seconds to wash away the hexane. The epidermis sample is wrapped in "Saran ~rap'~) plac~l in an alunin~n pouch, and 35 frozen in a standard freezer until needed.

iB
.. ~

.~I."~ q - .~

~33~550 ~

Test Procedure The following discussion describes a typical skin barrier penetration test. There are 30 cells per test, 5 replicates per treatment. This permits testing of 5 surfactant solutions plus a 5 water control. Due to large variability in percutaneous transport isite to site and individual to individual), the water control is a mandatory reference point for each experiment.
Dose test solutions are prepared on a weight/weight basis on an analytical (+ .0001 9) balance. Since each static diffusion 10cell 1 is dosed with 500~1, a minimum of 3 ml of each test solu-tion 3 should be prepared lS doses + standard). Each solution is spiked with 3H-H20 to an approximate activity of 1.8~,Ci/ml dosing solution. This insures a sufficient level of 3H transport for the sampling interval (2 hours).
15During sample collection, the entire volume of the diffusate chamber 6 is emptied through the sampling port 7, rinsed, and refilled with fresh distilled water 11. Samples are collected at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 24 hours after initial dosing. The sample plus rinse is emptied into a scintillation vial, brought to 7 rnl total volume 20 and analyzed by liquid scintillation counting.
Standards are included for each sample. One hundred microliters (in duplicate? are placed in a scintillation vial and brought to 7 ml total volume with distilled water. The counts per minute (cpm) for diffusate samples are converted to equivalent mg 25 water using the relation mg water cpm sample X mg water standard vial cpm standard The "water flux" is computed as a total sum penetrant using standard programs on a Tektronix 4052A computer. It is impor-30 tant to realize that this "water flux" is a mg water equivalent ofthe H flux. It does not represent a net water flux, since water is diffusing in both directions in this experiment. The relative flux (vs. water control) is an indication of barrier integrity.
Skin Barrier Penetration Test Values for AGS and cocoyl 35 isethionate are given in Table 1. Water and sodium dodecylsulfate - ("SDS") are the mild and harsh controls, respectively. The test 133~550 :~

g results are expressed in terms of the ts)tal amount of water pene-trating through the skin in 24 hours. These amounts have also been converted to a relative scale lsee Table 1 ) with water set to zero, SDS to 100, and AGS and isethionate interpolated in 5 between.

Skin Barrier Penetration Total mg Water Relative Penetrating Skin Barrier the Skin Penetration Treatme~it in 24 Hours Value Water Control 12.0 + 3.6 0 196 AGSa 22.8 + 7.9 9 1% Cocoyl Isethionate 60.3 + 17.7 40 196 SDSb - Reference 131.7 + 68.0 100 a AGS is sodium coco AGS
b SDS is sodium dodecylsulfate A mild surfactant as defined herein includes those which have a Relative Skin Barrier Penetration Value of as close to zero as possible. Most mild surfactants have Values of from about 7 to about 75, preferably 50 or less, and more preferably 40 or less.
Surfactants which have Relative Skin Barrier Penetration Values of greater than 75 can be used along with the mild surfactant at low levels in the compositions of this invention, so long as their use does not significantly change the clinical skin mildness of the total skin cleansing composition.
Moisturizers/ Emollients Moisturizers are included to provide the skin conditioning benefits and to improve the mildness of the product. The selec-tion of the levels and types of moisturizers to be incorporated into the product is made without adversely affecting the stability of the product or its in-use characteristics, thereby delivering good moisturization and lather.

The term "moisturizer" is often used within the cosmetic industry without very exact definition. The term is sometimes used as synonymous with emollient, and is then meant to describe a material which imparts a smooth and soft feeling to the skin surface.
There are two ways of reducing water loss from ~he stratum corneum. One is to deposit on the surface of the skin an occlu-sive layer which reduces the rate of evaporation . The second method is to add nonocclusive hygroscopic substances to the stratum corneum which will retain water, and make this water available to the stratum corneum to alter its physical properties and produce a cosmetically desirable effect~ Nonocclusive mois-turizers also function by improving the lubricity of the skin.
Both occlusive and nonocclusive moisturizers can work in the present invention. Some examples of moisturizers are long chain fatty acids, liquid water-soluble polyols, glycerin, propylene glycol, sorbitoi, polyethylene glycol, ethox~lated/propoxylated ethers of methyl glucose (e.g., methyl gluceth-20) and ethoxy-lated/propoxylated ethers of lanolin alcohol (e.g., "So1ulan-75"*).
The moisturizers useful in the present invention are used at a level of 10% to 40% by weight of the composition. The preferred and more preferred levels of moisturizers are, respectively, 10%
to 30~ and 12% to 25%. The preferred moisturizers are the coco and tallow fatty acids. Some other preferred moisturizers are the nonocclusive liquid water-soluble polyols and the essential amino acid compounds found naturally in the skin. The most preferred moisturizer is a mixture of stearic and lauric acTds having a ratio of from 2 :1 to 1 :1. These moisturizers also aid in solid bar integrity at said levels. The moisturizer, at these levels, provides superior moisturization. In the composition of this invention the high level of moisturizer with soap can also provide an enhanced lather and mildness.
The moisturizer to soap ratios are preferably 1:1 to 7:1 and, more preferably, 1:1 to 4 * Trad~nark ' ' -.

"~ ~ "~ "~

1 1 - 1 3 3 ~ 5 5 0 Other preferred nonocclusive moisturizers are compounds found to be naturally occurring in the stratum corneum of the skin, such as sodium pyrrolidone carboxylic acid, lactic acid, urea, L-proline, guanidine and pyrrolidone. Examples of other nonocclusive moisturizers include hexadecyl, myristyl, isodecyl or isopropyl esters of adipic, lactic, oleic, stearic, isostearic, my-ristic or linoleic acids, as well as many of their corresponding alcohol esters (sodium isostearoyl-2-lactylate, sodium capryl lactylate), hydrolyzed protein and other collagen-derived pro-teins, aloe vera gel and acetamide MEA, Some occlusive moisturizers include petrolatum, mTneral oil, beeswax, silicones, lanolin and oil-soluble lanolin derivatives, -saturated and unsaturated fatty alcohols such as behenyl alcohol, squalene and squalane, and various animal and vegetable oils such as almond oil, peanut oil, wheat germ oil, linseed oil, jojoba oil, oil of apricot pits, walnuts, palm nuts, pistachio nuts, sesame seeds, rapeseed, cade oil, corn oil, peach pit oil, poppyseed oil, pine oil, castor oil, soybean oil, avocado oil, safflower oil, coco-nut oil, hazelnut oil, olive oil, grape seed oil and sunflower seed Ojl. , Other examples of both types of moisturizers are disclosed in "Emollients -- A Critical Evaluation," bY J. Mausner, Cosmetics Toiletries, May 1981.
The Polymeric Skin i-eel and Skin Mildness Aids The polymeric skin feel and mildness aids useful in the present Invention are the cationic, anionic, amphoteric, and the nonionic polymers used in the cosmetic field. Reduced skin irrttation benefits as measured by patch testing of cationic and nonionic types of polymers are set out in "Polymer JR for Skin Care" Bulletin, by Union Carbide, 1977. The cationics are pre-ferred over the others because they provide better skin feel --benefits. Examples of the cationic polymers and the nonionic polymers useful in the present invention are set out below. -The amount of polymeric skin feel and mildness aids found useful in the composition of the present invention is from abnut 0.01% to about 5%, preferably from about 0.3% to about 496. In .''. G.

t331550 ,, bar compositions wieh less than 5 . 5~ soap, the polymer is used at a level of 2% to 5~, preferably 3% or more. The soap to polymer presence in the composition of this invention preferably has a stoichiometrir ratios of about 1: l to l 4 :1, preferai~iy 4 :1 to 10 :1 5 on a charge basis.
In order to achieve superior skin mildness and moisturization for this composition, it was discovered that a combination of moisturizer (10-40% in the composition~ and a selected polymeric ingredient, e.g., "Po1yrner JR-400"*, made by Union r~rh,de C~rpo-l 0 ration, is required.
Other types of high molecular weight polymeric skin feeland skin mildness aids, such as nonionic guar gums, "Merquats"*
100 and 550, made by Merck ~ COO~ Inc; JAGUAR C-14-S made by Stein Hall; "Mi.rapol A15"* ~ade by Miran~l Ct!s~lLcal Co~ar.Sy~ ' Inc.; and "Ga1actasso1 811"*, made by Hellkel, Inc.; plus othsers~ are usable. The polymer also provides enhanced creamy lather bene-fits.
The nonionic polymers found to be useful include the noni-onic polysaccharides, e.g., nonionic hydroxypropyl guar gums, 20 offered by Celanese Water Soluble Polymers, a Division of Cela-nese Corp. A ~eferred nonionic hydroxypropyl guar gum ma-terial is JAGUAR~Y HP-60 having molar substitution of about 0.6.
Another class of useful nonionics is the cellulosic nonionic poly-mers, e.g., HEC and CMC.
The cationic polymers employed in thTs invention also provide a desirable silky, soft, smooth in-use feeling. The preferred level for this invention is 0 .1-5~ of the composition . Whi le not being bound to any theory, it is believed that cationic polymers chemlcally interact with the anionTc surfactants te.9., AGS and 30 sarcosinates) to form complexes which may enhance the mildness to skin characteristics of the aiready mild surfactants. Also, there is reason to believe that the positively charged cationic polymers can bind with negatively charged sites on the skin to provide a soft skin feel after use. Not to be bound by any ~ -35 theory, It is believed that the greater the charge density of the cationic polymer, the more effective it is for skin feel benefits.

* T$`ads~~ k (ea~S ~

. ~ ~ .

~331550 Other suitable cationic polymers are copolymers of dimethyl-aminoethylmethacrylate and acrylamide and copolymers of dimethyl-diallylammonium chloride and acrylamide in which the ratio of the cationic to neutral monomer units has been selected_ to give a co-5 polymer having a cationic charge. Yet other suitable types ofcationic polymers are the cationic starches, e.g., "sta~;" 300 and 400 made by Staley, Inc.
A more complete list of cationic polymers useful in the present invention is described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,438,095, to Grollier/Allec, issued Mar. 20, 1984. Sc~ne of the m~re preferred cationics are listed in Col. 3, section 2; Col. 5, section 8; (:!ol. 8, section 10; and Col. 9, lines 10-15 of the Gr~llier/Allec patent. ,-1 5 Soaps Soaps are included in the compositions of this invention for improved lather, particularly under heavy soil loads. It is also surprising that the soap as used in the compositions of this invention provide clinical benefits for less skin dryness at levels Up to 25% and less skin irritation (erythema) at levels up to 15%.
Soaps can be used at levels of 5.5 25%, preferably 6-15%, and most preferably at a level of 6-8%. The soaps are preferably made in situ via adding a base, e.g., NaOH, to convert free fatty acids in the composition mix. A minor amount of soap, about 0.1-0.5% as shown in Tables 2, 3 and 5, is present as a by-product of the synthetlc surfactant. See the process for making an ultra mild bar set out below.
The preferred ultra mild skin cleansing composition is a bar compr~sing: 20-50% mild synthetic surfactant; 10-40% moisturizer;
0.1-~% polymeric skin feel aTd, and 5.5-25% soap; wherein the synthetic surfactant and soap has a ratio of from 2:1 to 12:1; the moisturizer to soap has a ratio of from 1:1 to 7:1; and the soap to polymer has a stoichiometric ratio of from about 1: 1 to about 14:1 on a charye basis. Preferably the synthetic to soap ratio is 4:1 to 10:1, and more preferably 6:1 to 9:1. The preferred moisturizer to soap ratio is from 2 :1 to 4 :1 . The preferred soap to polymer stoichiometric ratio is from 4:1 to 10:1.

The soap is preferably made in situ from free fatty acids and a base selected from magnesium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide, preferably sodium hydroxide and triethanolamine. Th preferred soap level is 6-15% of the composition, particularly in ultra Inild skin cleansing compositions which contain from 10-30%
fatty acids. Particularly preferred fatty acids are mixtures of stearic and lauric acids having a ratio of from 2:1 to 1:1.
Optionals The usual optionals can be used in the composition of the present invention.
Perfumes may be used in formulating the skin cleansing products, generally at a level of about 0.1% to about 1.5% of the composition. Colorants, and also fillers such as talc and clay, may also be used. Preservatives, e.g., EDTA, generally at a level of less than 1% of the composition, may be incorporated in the cleansing products to prevent microbiological growth. Anti-bacterials can also be incorporated, usually at levels up to 1.5 Process for Making the Ultra Mild Toilet Bar In order to make the product, an analysis of the surfactant paste is needed. To illustrate the process, an AGS paste with the followTng nominal analysis will be used.
Cationic Titration for SO3 = 48.5% AGS
NaCI = 1.5%
Moisture = 43%
After the composition of the AGS paste is determined, the crutcher mix is calculated using the AGS/sarcosinate ratio of 4:1, 55% moisture in the crutcher mix and about 3.5~ NaCI in the final bar .
Crutchin~
Assuming 200 Ib (90. 8 Kg) crutcher mix and the above AGS
~ analysis.
;~ 1. Heat crutcher mix to 200F ~93C) by adjusting steam and water valves.
2. Add 83.7 Ibs. (38 Kg) of AGS paste.
35 3. Turn on agitator and recirculation pump.

~ ' .
-.
, ' ~ .
4, When the AtiS temperature is 130F (54C) add 12.0 Ibs. (5.45 Kg) of stearic acid.
5 . When the crutcher mix temperature is back up to 1 30F
(54C) add 2.18 tbs. (9919~ of 50% NaOH~

6. Add 2-3 gal. (7.6-11.4 liters) of hot water (160-180F, 71-82C) as needed to thin the crutcher mix to obtain good mixing.

7. Allow the crutcher contents to mix for about 20 minutes and maintaTn the temperature at 130-140F (54-60C).
10 8. Add 10.15 Ibs. (4.61 Kg) of "~osyl I~95"* C12 sar sinate.
9. Add 2-3 gal. (7.6-11.4 liters) of hot water as needed for good mixing.
19. Maintain 140F ~60C).
1511. In a suitable container, slurry 2.71 Ibs. (1.23 Kg) of 3R-4Q0 in hot water.
12. Add the JR-400 slurry to the crutcher; add more hot water as needed to get to 55% H2O in the crutcher.
13. Add 8.0 Ibs. (3.63 Kg) of lauric acid.
2014. Add 0.22 Ibs. t101 g) of TiO2.
15. Add 1.16 Ibs. (527 9) of NaCI.
16. Mix for at least 20 min. and bring the crutcher mix temperature up to 175F (79C).
Drying The crutcher mix is dried on a atmospheric drum dryer.
The optimum operating conditons are 3-4 rpm, 80 psi and approxi-mately 310F (154C). The nip of the drums are set to give a fairly thtn flake. The nip is increased to give thicker flake and to allow the higher mois~ure in the flake. Typical moisture for 30 the flake is 2-3~. The three ways to regulate the moisture, in the order of preference, are (1 ) opening or closing the drum gap; (2) increasing or decreasing the drum speed; and (3) increasing or decreasing the steam pressure.
;~ Amalgamating The flakes are weighed and mixed in a batch amalgamator to obtain a uniform flake sample for moisture analysis. Once the :
:
* Trad~nark :
~SS~

~31~5~

percent water is known, water and perfume are added to bring the flakes up to final target formula. About ~ extra water is added to allow for losses during processing. The sticky, per-fumed flakes are transferred to the mill hopper.
5 Millin6 The 3-roll soap mills are set up with the first roll at 100F
(38C) and the other 2 rolls at about 70F (21C). The soap is - passed through the mills several times and forms sticky flakes.
These flakes are put into a sealed plastic bag and placed in the 100F (38C) constant temperature room overnight. The flakes are milled one final time prior to plodding.
Plodding and Stamping The plodder is set up with the barrel temperature at ambient to cold and the nose temperature at 120-130F (49-54C). The ideal plodder is a dual stage plodder that allows use of a vacuum of about 15-25 in. Hg. The plugs should be cut in 5" sections and stamped with a cold die block and stamp using a die liquor such as alcohol.
CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF ULTRA MILD TOILET BAR
The clinical test procedure used to evaluate several toilet bar formulations for skin mildness is given below.
Clinical Mildness Arm Wash Test Procedure (2 Washes Per Day for Two Weeks for 23 Washes) The washings were performed by technical personnel. Each panelist was assigned a set of two test products for washings.
These bars were all kept under technical personnel control in plastic dishes. The test procedure is: .
1. Wet the anterior portion (inside~ of the forearm of the - panelist with 90-100F (32-38C:) water (6-8 grains hardness~ from the elbow to the wrist.
2. Pick up and wet the bar.
3. Rub bar from wrist area up to the elbow and back down again in approximately 1 second. Repeat rubbing 5 more up-down cycles for a total of 6 cycles in 5 seconds.
35 4. Put bar aside and rub area in the same manner with the hand for 10 additional seconds (approximately 10 additional up-down cycles).

.;, 5. Rinse forearm thoroughly with tap water. Pat dry with clean paper towels.
6. Repeat procedure on other arm.
For Panelists on Water Treatment 5 1. Wet the anterior portion (inside) of the forearm with 90-100F (32-38C) water (6-ô grains hardness) from the elbow to the wrist.
2. Rub hand (up and down) on arm for 15 seconds.
3. Rinse forearm thoroughly with tap water. Pat dry with clean paper towels.
Test Product Formulations The formulations of the products tested clinically are given k~
in the Tables. The molar equivalents of only Example F are given in Table 3 to illustrate the stoichiometric ratios of several key ingredients. The moles of polymer are based on the average molecular weight of monomer containing one positive charge.
, Test Product Formulations :
Examples: A C F G
Ingredients5% JR-400 0.5% JR-400 396 JR-4001.5% JR-400 . .. . .
NaAGS 36.0 36.0 48.14 48.74 NaC12 Sarcoslnate 9.5 9.5 11.07 11.21 Stearic Acid 24.5 24.5 9.58 10.22 25Lauric Acid - - 6.39 6.81 JR-400 5.0 0.5 3.08 1.56 Dextrin 8.7 14.2 Unsulfonated Alcohol 3.9 3.9 1.24 1.26 30Na Laurate 0.4 0.4 0.49 0.50 Na Soap (60 / 40 T / C ) - - 7.69 7.79 NaCI 3.4 3.4 3.29 4.03 Na2S4 1.6 1.6 1.24 1.26 35TiO2 0.5 0.5 0.26 0.26 Perfume 0. S 0.5 1. û3 1.04 Water 6.0 S .0 6.43 5.26 . ~

- 18- ~ 331550 Example H (mildn~ss results are shown in Fig. 3 as Curve H) is substantially the same formulation as Example G, except that the formulation contained no JR-400 polymer. Examples E
and IC are 50/50 tallowlcoconut super fatted bar soap. ~-S Example D is "Dove'~ (a commercially available bar~ which does not contain polymeric skin feel and polymeric skin mildness aids. -Molar Equivalents of Example F with 3% JR-400 -Ingredient m Moles!100 9 Bar - -Sodium Soap (60/40) 27.7 Sociium AGS 116.0 Unsulfonated Alcohol15.8 -~
Stearic Acid 32.8 Sodium Lauryl Sarcosinate 36.7 Sodium Laurate 2.1 Lauric Acid 31.1 Polymer JR-400 4.3 .
20 Note from Table 3 that the stoichiometric ratio of soap ( 27 . 7 ) to polymer (4.3) is about 7:1. It will be appreciated that the total synthetic surfactant to soap weight ratio in Example F reported in Table 2 Is about 7.5:1, and the total moisturizer to soap ratio is about 2:1.
ClinTcal Test Skin Grading Scales The forearm skin grading scales reported herein are set out below.
Forearm Gradins~Scale Skin Dryness 0 Perfece skin. --1.0 Patches of checking andlor slight powderiness and occasional patches of small scales may be seen. Distribution generalizeci.
2.0 Generalized slight powderiness. Early cracking or occasional small lifting scales may be present.

~ 33 1 550 3.0 Generalized moderage powderiness andlor moderate cracking and lifting scales. -4.0 Generalized heavy powderiness and/or heavy cracking and lifting scales.
5.0 Generalized high cracking and lifting scales.
Eczematous change may be present. Powderiness may be present but not prominent. May see bleeding crack.
6.0 Ceneralized severe cracking. Eczematous change may be present. Bleeding cracks may be present.
Scales large, may be beginning to disappear.

Forearm Grading Scales Skin Erythema Skin Smoothness 15 0 No redness 0 Very high smoothness/slick 1 . 0 Barely detec~ible redness 1 . 0 Extreme smoothness 2.0 Slight redness 2.0 Substantial smoothness 3.0 Moderate redness 3.0 Moderate smoothness 4.0 Heavy or substantial redness 4.0 Slight smoothness 20 5.0 Severe redness 5.0 Barely detectible smoothness 6.0 Extreme redness 6.0 No smoothness The term "generalized" as used herein means that more than 50%
of the surface area of the forearm exhibits the attribute. Whole ~
25 unit skin grades reflect generalized condition. Half units are ~ -used to represent intermediate condTtions.
Clinical Test Results The clinical mildness test results expressed in terms of skin grades for dryness, erythema, and smoothness are shown below ;~
30 in Table 4 and the skin dryness grades are plotted vs. time in Fig. 3. Skin dryness grades from a second clinical test are shown in a similar fashion in Fig. 2. Water treatment results are shown as curves B and I in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively. Curves D and J are the results of DOVER (a commercially available bar).

, Two Week Clinical Results Skin Grades Example Dryness Erythema Smoothness F 1.16 H-K 1.04 J,K 2.76 H
G 1.25 J,K 1.07 J,K 2.75 H 1.37 F,J,K 1.19 K 2.58 F,l,K
1.44 F,K 1.23 K 2.81 H
J 1.55 F,G,K 1.28 F,G,K 2.72 K
K 2.17 F,K 1.75 F-J 2.87 I,J

In Table 4 the visual skin grades for dryness, erythema and tactile grades for srnoothness are all assigned from a six point scale (0-6), the lower the grade the better the skin mildness.
15 Letter codes indicate statistically significant ( a= 0.05) differ-ences. Also see Figs. 2 and 3 for a graphic report of these data .
These data show that the toilet skin cleansing bars of this invention (Examples A, G and F) result in the desired mild skin 20 cleansing action with improved skin feel and moisturization bene-fits. Note that Example A listed in Table 2 is as mild as "B"
water (see Fig. 2). It will be appreciated that bars F and G are actual Iy mi Ider than water ( I ) as shown in Table 4 and Fig . 3 .
It will also be appreciated that the toilet skin cleansing bars A, G
25 and F of the present invention are not only mild but also have excellent bar smear and lather performance.
It will be appreciated that the addition of selected levels of soap surprisingly provide improved skin mildness. Examples L-P
set out in Table 5 show the selected levels. The effect of vary-30 ing amounts of soap in this invention on clinical skin condition isdemonstrated in Table 6. The skin dryness and skin erythema grades are respectively plotted in Figs. 4 and 5 vs. soap level.
The overall conclusion from these data is that selected levels of soap surprisingly provide additional clinical mildness benefit for 35 reduced skin dryness and erythema and enhanced skin smooth-ness. The reduced skin dryness benefit shown in Fig. 4 is ~\

maximum at the 7-20% soap level, whereas the reduced erythema shown in Fig. 5 (and smoothness benefit in Table 6) is maximum at about the 7% soap level.

Test Product Formulations Test Product L M N O P
I ng redients Na AGS 43.15 43.15 33.15 16.00 9.1S
10 NaC12 Sarcosinate10.80 10.80 8.30 - 2.30 Stearic Acid16.00 11.50 11.84 12.89 12.73 Lauric Acid10.67 7.67 7.89 8 59 8.49 JR-400 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15 Unsulfonated Alcohol 0.83 0. 83 0. 64 0.31 9.18 Na Laurate 0.48 0.48 0. 37 - 0.10 Na Soap - 7.50 20.05 45.û1 49.99 NaCI 4.04 4.04 4.04 4.00 4.03 20 Na2SO4 1.20 1.20 0,92 0.44 0.25 TiO2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 -Perfume 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Water 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 Miscellaneous 0,08 0.08 0.06 - 0.02 -~

Two Week Clinical Results Skin Grades Test 30 Product % Soap Dryness Erythema Smoothness L - 2,11 1.78 1.79 M 7.50 1.89 1.64 1.66 N 20.05 1.91 1.80 1.76 O 45.01 2.15 1.75 1.73 P 49.99 2.09 1. 79 1.73 22 ' 1 33 1 550 Laboratory Assessment of Bar Performance The following test procedures are used to evaluate the critical bar performance attributes of lather volume and bar firmness during use.
Bar Soap Firmness Test The bar soap firmness test measures two quantitative param-eters of bar firmness after sitting in a wet soap dish for 16 hours: 11 ) depth of bar surface softening and (2) amount of bar messiness by weight percent of initial bar weight.
1 0 Equipment The following equipment is used:
1. "Alatho~"* rectangular plastic soap dishes (U. S. Pat. No.
2,842,178) with low ridges.
2. Precision Scientific Co. penetrometer with ball shaft, 300 -gram weight.
3. Analytical weight balance.
4. Scraper or spatula for removing gelatinous layer. `
5. Paper towels.
Procedure The following procedure is used: -1. Test bar(s~ are weighed to establish an initial dry weight data point.
2. If desired, initial dry bar hardness/softness may be deter~
mined by penetrometer with cone shaft and 200 gram weight for penetratlon measurement.
3. Barts) are placed centrally on soap dishes containing 5 ml.
of distilled water at room temperature. Rock the dish to break water tension.
4. Store overnight (approximately 18 hoursl in standard room condltions of temperature and humidity (80F/80~ RH).
S. Next morning, remove bar(s) with a careful vertical lift and invert for testing.
6. Run ball penetrometer reading on the gelatinous surface, generally three readings in a triangular design; record the average mm depth reading of gelatinous layer. The shaft ~-ball is cleaned with a tissue after each reading.

* Trad~[ark ., ~` ~331559 7. Bar(s) are then carefully scraped to remove the gelatinous layer down to the solid surface. Do not use enough force to remove any of the solid surface area. Slight remaining gelatinous soap may be wiped from bar with paper towels until surface appears firm and somewhat dry.

8. Bar(s) are then allowed to openly dry out on bench surface for no more than one hour.

9. Bar(s) are then weighed to determine the dif~erence from the initial dry untested weight. The weight difference divided by the original weight is calculated into % weight loss or %
gelatinous smear weight. Data is recorded.

10. Comparison of any given series of data points obtained will illustrate a formula characteristic that may tend to relate to poorer smear or "messiness" attribute. Averaging of his~
torical data on control type formulas (such as an existing National brand formula) can be used to establish a bench~
mark for comparison. . ~; -Bar Soap Handwash Lather Volume Test -.
l he handwash lather test is used to provide in-use lather 20 volume measurements for the lather performance of skin cleansing bars. The test measures both the ultimate lather volume gener-ated and the volume which is generated after a very short lather-ing period lto reflect lathering ease). The lather volumes are generated under both soil-loaded and nonloaded conditions.
Synthetic soi l is used for the soi l-loaded lather volume test reported herein. Its formula and procedure for making it are set out below.

- 24 - ; 1 33 1 550 Synthetic Soil Ingredients Wt. %
"Hyfac 430"(tra~nark) 1. 87 _ -Lauric Acidb 1.42 "Neo-fat 141'C (trad0ark) 5.68 '~fat" 16d (trad~ark)11.16 "Neo fat"l8e (trad~nark) 5.40 "Neo fat 90-~4"f (trad~nark) 9.81 10 "Industrene 226"g (trademark) 1.26 Paraffin Wax 7.30 Squalaneh 3 . 70 Lanolin Anhydrous 19.40 Coconut Oil 3.30 15 Tallow 29.70 100. 00% ~ ' :~. '; ,' ' a Emery Industries, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio b Emery Industries, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio i~
c Armour Industrial Chemical Co., Chicago, Illinois d Armour Industrial Chemical Co., Chicago, Illinois e Armour Industrial Chemical Co., Chicago, Illinois f Armour Industrial Chemical Co., Chicago, Illinois 9 Humko Products, Memphis, Tennessee h Robeco Chemicals, Inc., New York, New York Procedure 1. Heat above materials together stirring continuously between 160-1 75F .
2. Mix 25 parts of above formula with 25 parts of a 5% to 80% -~
tallowl20% coconut soap solution and 50 parts of distilled water at 150F.
3. Cool mixture to room temperature while stirring constantly.
4. Store in covered glass container.
Equipment The following equipment is used:

~ .

-1. Water source and sink with temperature control. The water source should be mediurn hardness (6-9 grain/gallon) ~or most testing, although water of lower and higher hardness -can be used for special purposes.
2. Synthetic soil (see Table 9)O ~ ~
3. Paper towels. ~ ~-4. Test bars.
5. Control bars (I.e., usually marketed brands such as CAMAYR or the bar of Example D).
Procedure ~
The following procedure is used: - -1. Set temperature at 95-100F. -2. Rub 0.22 cc of soil on hands (if doing soil-loaded test).
3. Wet hands.
15 4. Rotate bar 3 times in both hands.
5. Add a little water, rub both hands 5 times.
6. Rotate hands 3 times (without soap), grade for flash volume.
7. Rotate 7 more times, grade for ultimate volume.
8. Collect lather and deposite on sink top.
20 9. Compare volume with standard bar target volume and assign g rade .

Grading Scale Non-Soil Loaded Soil-Loaded 10 - Very much higher than target 9 - Higher than target 8 - Target volume* Very much higher than target 'A~ 30 7 - Lower than target Higher than target 6 - Very much lower than Target volume*
target 5 - Unacceptably lower than Slightly lower than target target 4 - Unacceptably lower than Lower than target target ~,, .

Gradin~a Scale- Continued .

Non-Soil Loaded Soil-Loaded .
3 - Unacceptably lower thanVery much lower target 52 - Unacceptably lower thanUnacceptably low -target * Based on 50 ~allow/50 coconut - 7% free fatty acid bar.

Bar Formulations NaC12 ~ -Sarco- Free Fatty Acid --Na AGS sinate Stearic Lauric Soap JR-400 15 Example Wt.% Wt.% Wt.% Wt.96 Wt.% Wt.%
1 42 9.0 18 - - 0.5 2 43 10.8 15 10 - 3.0 3 43 11.4 10 6.8 7.0 3.0 5 Dove Bar Firmness and Hand Lather Pene- Smear Wt. Hand Lather 25trometer % of Ultimate Volume Flash Volume Example mm Bar Wt. w/o Soil Soil w/o Soil Soil 2.9 8.7 8 3 8 2.5 2 2.6 6.5 8 2.5 8 2.5 3 2.3 7.2 8 5 8 4 4 1.1 3.2 8 6.5 8 6.5 1.8 5.0 8 3 8 3 .~ . , The resul~s listed in Tables 7 and 8 show the importance of utilizing the preferred ratio of stearic to lauric fatty acids to 3 5 achieve an acceptable level of firmness and the importance of utilizing soap to achieve an acceptable soil-loaded lather ~:~
:~ .
~ .

- 27 - i 1 3 3 1 5 5 0 ~ -performance. The acceptable levels of bar firmness are expressed as a penet~ ometer vaiue of equal to or less than 2, 7 and smear weight of equal to or less than 7.5. The acceptable levels of hand lather are: ultimate volume, without soil equal to or greater than 7.5; with soil, equal to or greater than 4. Flash volume acceptable levels are: without soil, equal to or greater than 7.5;
with soil, equal to or greater than 4.
Example 1 described a sodium AGS bar formula with accept~
able mildness but with poor lather and firmness performance.
Example 2 demonstrates the advantage of using a 3:2 ratio of stearic:lauric fatty acids. Example 3 demonstrates the benefit of neutralizing the fatty acids in situ forming 7~ soap to boost the soi l-loaded lather .
Example 4 is a 50/50 tallowlcoconut superfatted soap bar which demonstrates very acceptable bar firmness and lather properties. Example 5 is the same as Example D which shows acceptable firmness and lather properties.
Bar Soap Blender Lather Volume Method Purpose .
This quantitative blender lather volume method is used to aor~le~ nt hand lathering evaluations of different soap formu-lations.
Equipment 1. Specially designed 500 ml graduate cylinder adapted with blender impeller.
2- "Wbring Blender"* Base Nb. 7011-31BL92 with high/lcw speed -~
switch .
3- "V æiac"* Voltage Regulator Procedure 30 l. Dissolve 5% by weight of the bar material to be evaluated in distilled water by heating to 150F (65.7C).
2. Add 10 mls of soap solution to 90 mls of water both at 38C
in a 100 ml graduate.
3. Immediately pour resultant 0.5% solution into blender graduate.
, . , * Trade~ark '~

~ 3 3 1 5 5 0 4. Set blender to run at about 4700 rpm's (high speed) and blend soiution for fifteen seconds.
5. After blending read lather height on cylinder.
6. Replicate a minimum of three times and average.
The effect of varying the amoùnt of soap in Example L (by converting free fatty acid to soap with NaOH ) on lather volume (using the blender method) is shown in Fig. 6. This curve demonstrates that lather volume is increased by the selected levels of soap in the formulation.
Thus, it has been demonstrated that an ultra mild skin cleansing composition can be made with selected mi Id synthetic surfactants; selected moisturizers; polymeric skin feel and mild~
ness aids; and selected levels of soap.

WHAT IS CLAIMED IS: ~;

Claims (38)

1. An ultra mild skin cleansing composition comprising:
A. 20-70% mild synthetic surfactant;
B. 10-40% moisturizer;
C. 0.1-5% polymeric skin feel aid, and D. 5.5-25% soap;
wherein said synthetic surfactant has a Relative Skin Barrier Penetration Value of from as close to zero as possible up to about 75; and wherein said synthetic surfactant and said soap have a ratio of from 2:1 to 12:1: and wherein said moisturizer to soap have a ratio of from i :1 to 7 :1;
and wherein said soap to polymer have a stoichiometric ratio of from about 1:1 to about 14:1 on a charge basis.

2. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said synthetic to soap ratio is 4:1 to 10:1.

3. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said synthetic to soap ratio is 6:1 to 9:1.

4. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said moisturizer to soap ratio is from 1:1 to 4:1.

5. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said soap to polymer stoichiometric ratio is from 4:1 to 10:1.

6. The ultra skin skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said mild surfactant is selected from the group consisting of:
alkyl glyceryl ether sulfonate (AGS) anionic acyl sarcosinates;
methyl acyl taurates;
N-acyl glutamates;
alkyl glucosides;
acyl isethionates;
alkyl sulfosuccinate;
alkyl phosphate ester;
alkyl ether sulfate;
ethoxylated alkyl phosphate esters;
trideceth sulfate;
methyl glucose esters;
protein condensates;
mixtures of ethoxylated alkyl sulfates and alkyl amine oxides;
betaines;
sultaines; and mixtures thereof.

7. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said mild surfactant is an AGS/sarcosinate mix having ratio of 1:1 to 5:1.

8. The ultra mild skin cleansing compositon of Claim 3 wherein said AGS/sarcosinate has a ratio of 2:1 to 4:1.

9. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said concentrate also contains a co-surfactant selected from the group consisting of nonionic, amphoteric betaine or amphoteric sultaine, and wherein the mild surfactant and the co-surfactant have a ratio of 1:1 to 5:1.

10. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim t wherein said composition is a toilet bar which contains from 5,5-20% soap and wherein said soap is made in situ from free fatty acids and a base selected from KOH, Mg(OH)2, NaOH and triethanolamine.

11. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 10 wherein said soap is 6-15% of said composition; and wherein said composition contains from 10-30% fatty acids; and wherein said base is selected from NaOH and triethanolamine.

12. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 11 wherein said fatty acids are stearic and lauric having a ratio of from 4:1 to 1:1.

13. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 12 wherein said moisturizer is a mixture of stearic and lauric acids having a ratio of from 2 :1 to l:l and is present in said composition at a level of from 15-20%.

14. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein the moisturizer is selected from the group of:
1. water-soluble liquid polyols;
2. essential amino acid compounds found naturally occur-ring in the stratum corneum of the skin; and 3. water-soluble nonpolyol nonocclusives and mixtures thereof.

15. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said moisturizer is selected from the group consisting of said amino acid compounds and said liquid polyols.

16. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein the moisturizer Is selected from the group consisting of glycerin, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, sorbitol, polyethylene glycol and propylene glycol ethers of methyl glucose, polyethylene glycol and propylene glycol ethers of lanolin alcohol, sodium pyrrolidone carboxylic acid, lactic acid, L-proline, and mixtures thereof.

17. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said moisturizer is a mixture of coco and tallow fatty acids.

18. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein the moisturizer is selected from the group consisting of petro-latum, mineral oil, beeswax, silicones, lanolin and oil-soluble lanolin derivatives, saturated and unsaturated fatty alcohols such as behenyl alcohol, squalene and squalane, and animal and vegetable oils selected from the group consisting of almond oil, peanut oil, wheat germ oil, linseed oil, jojoba oil, oil of apricot pits, walnuts, palm nuts, pistachio nuts, sesame seeds, rapseed, cade oil corn oil, peach pit oil, poppyseed oil, pine oil, castor oil, soybean oil, avocado oil, safflower oil, coconut oil, hazelnut oil, olive oil, grape seed oil, sunflower seed oil and mixtures thereof.

19. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said moisturizer is present at a level of 10-30% of said composition and said moisturizer to soap ratio is from 2:1 to 4:1.

20. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said moisturizer is present at a level of 10-30% of said compo-sition,

21. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said polymer is a cationic polymer.

22. The composition of Claim 1 wherein said polymer is selected from cationic and nonionic cellulosic resins.

23. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said polymer is selected from the group consisting of cationic and nonionic polysaccharides: cationic and nonionic homopolymers and copolymers derived from acrylic and/or methacrylic acid; cationic copolymers of dimethyldiallylammonium chloride and acrylic acid;
cationic homopolymers of dimethyldiallylammonium chloride; cationic polyalkylene and ethoxypolyalkylene imines, and mixtures thereof.

24. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 16 wherein said polymer is a cationic guar gum.

25. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said polymer is present at 0.3-4% by weight; and said moisturizer is free fatty acids is present at 10-30% by weight of said composition .

26. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said mild synthetic surfactant is present at a level of 40-70% of said composition, and wherein said mild synthetic surfactant has a Relative Skin Barrier Penetration Value of from about 7 to about 75 .

27. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein said mild synthetic surfactant is present at a level of 50-65% of said composition and wherein said synthetic surfactant has a Relative Skin Barrier Penetration Value of less than 50.

28. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 1 wherein A. said mild surfactant is present at 40-70%;
B. said moisturizer at 10-35%;
C. said polymer at 1.5-4%; and D. said soap at 6-1596.

29. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 27 wherein said composition is à toilet bar which contains from 6-8% soap, 12-25% moisturizer, and 2-5% polymeric skin feel aid.

30. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 29 wherein Component A is selected from the group consisting of mild sur-factants:
alkyl glyceryl ether sulfonate (AGS);
anionic acyl sarcosinates;
methyl acyl taurates;
N-acyl glutamates;
alkyl glucosides;
acyl isethionates;
alkyl sulfosuccinate;
alkyl phosphate esters;
alkyl ether sulfates;
ethoxylated alkyl phosphate esters;
trideceth sulfate;
methyl glucose esters;
protein condensates;
mixtures of ethoxylated alkyl sulfates and alkyl amine oxides;
betaines;
sultaines; and mixtures thereof.

31. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 29 wherein said mild surfactant is an AGS/sarcosinate mix having ratio of 1:1 to 5:1.

32. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of Claim 3 wherein said AGS/sarcosinate has a ratio of 2:1 to 4:1.

33. me ultra mild skin cleansing composition of claims 1, 3 or 4 wherein said composition is a toilet bar and wherein said bar has a firmness penetrometer value of 2.7 or less and a smear weight of 7.5 or less.

34. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of claim 5, 8 or 10 wherein said composition is a toilet bar and wherein said bar has a firmness penetrometer value of 2.7 or less and a smear weight value of 7.5 or less.

35. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of claim 13, 20 or 25 wherein said composition is a toilet bar and wherein said bar has a firmness penetrometer value of 2.7 or less and a smear weight value of 7.5 or less.

36. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of claim 27 or 28 wherein said composition is a toilet bar and wherein said bar has a firmness penetrometer value of 2.7 or less and a smear weight value of 7.5 or less.

37. The ultra mild skin cleansing composition of claim 29 wherein said composition is a toilet bar and wherein said bar has a firmness penetrometer value of 2.7 or less and a smear weight value of 7.5 or less.

38. A mild skin cleansing toilet bar by weight consisting of:
about 49% sodium alkyl glyceryl ether sulfonate, about 11% sodium C12 sarcosinate, about 10% stearic acid, about 7% lauric acid, about 1% unsulfonated alcohol, about 0.5% sodium laurate, about 8% sodium soap, about 4%
sodium chloride, about 1% sodium sulfate, about 1%
perfume, less than about 0.5% TiO2 and about 5% water.