Abstract:
The invention is directed to the use of a composition comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof and taste-masking additives, as an oral anti-odor preparation. The invention further provides anti-odor toothpaste, mouthwash, candies and other anti-odor preparations for oral use.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
         [0001]    The present invention is concerned with compositions containing higher alcohols, particularly those having chain length C9 and greater, and their formulation for use as antimicrobial and anti-odor agents, particularly for oral use.  
         BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION  
         [0002]    Bacterial products and activity are implicated in many oral diseases, such as periodontal disease and caries, as well as in the production of unpleasant odors in the mouth. Because of the multitude of bacterial species found in the oral cavity, there is a need for effective non-specific anti-microbial agents, with a broad spectrum of activity. Such agents may be incorporated into a number of different preparations, including: mouthwashes, mouthsprays, toothpastes and other dentifrices, chewing gum, candies and related products.  
           [0003]    For many years, short-chain alkyl alcohols such as ethanol and 2-propanol have been used clinically and domestically as surface-active anti-microbial agents. In addition, there have been a few reports that describe inhibitory effects of individual higher alcohols (chain length up to C16) on the growth of certain bacteria (particularly gram positive species), bacterial spores and fungi [see Kato &amp; Shibasaki,  Bokin Bobai.  8: 325 (1980); Gershon &amp; Shanks,  J. Pharm. Sci.  69: 381 (1980); Yasuda-Yasaki et al.,  Spores  7: 113 (1978)]. In addition, JP 62-230712 (assigned to Nichibai Boeki KK) discloses the use of higher alcohols in the management of dental caries, a condition in which the gram positive bacteria Streptococcus mutants is believed to play a major pathogenic role.  
           [0004]    The current invention concerns higher alcohols (C8-C14), used singly or in combinations, and presented in a vehicle consisting either of a lower alcohol or a multiphase oil-aqueous preparation, which are highly effective as antimicrobial agents against a very broad spectrum of bacteria and yeasts. The invention also provides the formulation and use of these higher alcohols as anti-odor agents. While the mechanism of the anti-odor effect is not precisely known, it may be related to a shift in microbial populations at the treatment site. It would appear that it is particularly the gram negative resident species of the oral cavity that are implicated in the production of bad breath. The hitherto unreported highly efficient inhibition of these species by the higher alcohols is thus one of the key features of this invention.  
           [0005]    In addition, the present invention also provides a unique two-phase solvent system for the sustained delivery of the anti-odor or anti-microbial alcohols at their site of action, particularly in the oral cavity.  
           [0006]    The higher alcohols have not previously been used as the primary components of anti-odor products for oral use. This may be, in part, because of their characteristic, strong, citrus-like odors and flavors. In the present invention, however, it has been surprisingly found that low concentrations of the higher alcohols have a pleasant flavor and odor. Thus, when used at low concentrations, the higher alcohols, in addition to their primary antimicrobial and anti-odor effects, also confer positive organoleptic properties on oral anti-odor agents containing said higher alcohols. In another aspect of the invention, the abovementioned problematic strong odors and flavors contributed by the higher alcohols when used at higher concentrations is overcome by the use of novel combinations of taste-masking additives.  
           [0007]    It is a primary purpose of this invention to provide the use of compositions containing higher alcohols as oral anti-odor preparations.  
           [0008]    It is another purpose of this invention to provide oral anti-odor compositions containing higher alcohols together with taste-masking additives.  
           [0009]    It is yet another purpose of this invention to provide the aforementioned oral anti-odor compositions in a variety of forms including mouthwash, toothpaste and candies.  
           [0010]    It is a further purpose of this invention to provide an antimicrobial composition comprising a higher alcohol together with a lower alcohol.  
           [0011]    It is a further purpose of this invention to provide an antimicrobial composition comprising a higher alcohol together with a multi-phase oil-aqueous vehicle.  
           [0012]    Other objects and advantages of the invention will become apparent as the description proceeds.  
         SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
         [0013]    It has now been surprisingly found, and this is an object of the invention, that the higher alkyl alcohols are highly effective as oral anti-odor agents, displaying an unexpectedly high level of activity against gram negative bacteria, which have been reported to be the main causative agents in the development of bad breath. This stands in sharp contrast with what has been disclosed in the prior art, where the higher alcohols are described as possessing antibacterial effects primarily on gram positive organisms.  
           [0014]    The invention is primarily directed to the use of a composition comprising a higher alcohol together with taste-masking additives, as an oral anti-odor preparation. Particularly, the invention is directed to the use of a composition comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof and taste-masking additives, as an oral anti-odor preparation.  
           [0015]    According to one preferred embodiment of the invention, the higher alcohol is 1-nonanol. According to another preferred embodiment, the higher alcohol used 1-decanol. In another preferred embodiment, the higher alcohol is 1-undecanol.  
           [0016]    Although any suitable taste-masking additives may be used in conjunction with the above-mentioned higher alcohols, preferred taste-masking additives include nerol, citral and peppermint oil, or mixtures thereof.  
           [0017]    In another aspect, the invention is directed to an anti-odor toothpaste comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, together with one or more taste-masking additives.  
           [0018]    According to one preferred embodiment of the invention, the higher alcohol is 1-nonanol. According to another preferred embodiment, the higher alcohol used 1-decanol. In another preferred embodiment, the higher alcohol is 1-undecanol.  
           [0019]    Although any suitable taste-masking additives may be used in conjunction with the above-mentioned higher alcohols, preferred taste-masking additives include nerol, citral and peppermint oil, or mixtures thereof.  
           [0020]    In a further aspect, the invention is directed to an anti-odor candy comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, together with one or more taste-masking additives.  
           [0021]    The above-mentioned anti-odor candy may be in the form of any of the commonly found types of confection. According to one preferred embodiment, the anti-odor candy is a chocolate candy. In another preferred embodiment the anti-odor candy is in the form of a chewable candy. In a further preferred embodiment, the anti-odor candy is in the form of chewing gum.  
           [0022]    In some instances, it is desirable to provide the active compositions of the invention in sequestered form, so that they are delivered to the appropriate site in the oral cavity, and at the desired time. Illustrative examples of suitable sequestration methods include, e.g., microencapsulation, dispersion in a solid matrix, etc. Many such methods are known in the art, and will be apparent to the skilled person.  
           [0023]    One such example is a dragé-covered chewing gum, which incorporates the active composition of the invention in the gum itself. Typically, the dragé will not comprise the composition of the invention, which will be liberated in to the oral cavity by the chewing action.  
           [0024]    In another preferred embodiment, the anti-odor candy of the invention is a slowly dissolving product.  
           [0025]    While the slowly dissolving candy may take many forms, in a preferred embodiment, it is a pastille. According to another preferred embodiment, the slowly dissolving product is a hard candy.  
           [0026]    All of the abovementioned anti-odor candies may comprise any of the aforementioned higher alcohols. According to a preferred embodiment, however, the higher alcohol is 1-nonanol. According to another preferred embodiment, the higher alcohol is 1-decanol. In a further preferred embodiment, the higher alcohol is 1-undecanol. Although each of the above-mentioned anti-odor candies may contain any suitable taste-masking additives, in a preferred embodiment, the taste-masking additives comprise nerol, citral and peppermint oil.  
           [0027]    In another aspect, the invention is directed to an anti-odor mouthwash comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, together with taste-masking additives. According to one preferred embodiment of the invention, the higher alcohol is 1-nonanol. According to another preferred embodiment, the higher alcohol used 1-decanol. In another preferred embodiment, the higher alcohol is 1-undecanol.  
           [0028]    Although the anti-odor mouthwash may contain any suitable taste-masking additives, preferred taste-masking additives include nerol, citral and peppermint oil or mixtures thereof.  
           [0029]    The invention also encompasses an anti-odor mouthspray comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, together with taste-masking additives.  
           [0030]    In a further aspect, the invention is directed to an anti-odor cigarette, comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof.  
           [0031]    The invention further makes provision for a toothpick that is coated or impregnated with a composition comprising a higher alcohol selected from among 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, together with taste-masking additives.  
           [0032]    In a further aspect, the invention is directed to a dental floss yarn that is coated or impregnated with a composition comprising a higher alcohol selected from among 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, together with taste-masking additives.  
           [0033]    An antimicrobial composition comprising an antimicrobially-effective amount of a higher alcohol selected from among 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof in a lower alcohol or multi-phase oil-aqueous vehicle.  
           [0034]    While there is no clear-cut definition of a “lower alcohol”, alcohols containing up to 4 carbon atoms (C1-C4) are normally termed “lower alcohols”, and alcohols containing 8 carbon atoms (C8) or more are regarded as “higher alcohols”, and this is the terminology adopted herein.  
           [0035]    In another aspect, the invention is directed to the use of a higher alcohol selected from among 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, as an anti-odor or anti-microbial agent.  
           [0036]    According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the higher alcohol is incorporated into a two-phase aqueous-oil system. In one aspect of the invention, this two-phase mixture is to be used in a pump-spray for reducing breath odor.  
           [0037]    In another aspect, the invention is directed to the use of the above-mentioned higher alcohols or their mixtures as wound cleansing agents.  
           [0038]    The invention also provides the use of these higher alcohols or mixtures thereof for the removal or prevention of odors. In a preferred embodiment, the invention provides for the removal or prevention of odors, when said odors are present in the oral cavity.  
           [0039]    In a further aspect, the invention is directed to a synergistic anti-microbial composition comprising a lower alcohol and, as an additive, a higher alcohol selected from among 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof. Lower alcohols are typically selected from among ethanol, methanol and 2-propanol. Preferred synergistic amounts of the higher alcohol are typically—but not imitatively—in the range of about 0.004% to 0.5%.  
           [0040]    In a preferred embodiment, the composition contains ethanol as the lower alcohol.  
           [0041]    While the above-mentioned synergistic anti-microbial composition may be provided in many forms, for many intended uses, according to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the composition is an anti-odor oral anti-microbial composition. According to another preferred embodiment, the synergistic anti-microbial composition is a wound-cleansing preparation, wherein the higher alcohol is dissolved in a lower alcohol medium.  
           [0042]    In a further aspect, the invention is directed to a method for killing microorganisms, which comprises bringing the microorganisms to be killed into contact with a composition comprising an antimicrobially-effective amount of a higher alcohol selected from among 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, dissolved in a lower alcohol medium. Preferably, the concentration of the higher alcohol is about 0.004% to 0.5%.  
           [0043]    According to a preferred embodiment of the invention, the lower alcohol is selected from among ethanol, methanol and 2-propanol, or their mixtures. In a particularly preferred embodiment, the lower alcohol is ethanol.  
           [0044]    The invention further encompasses a method for increasing the anti-microbial activity of a lower alcohol, or of a mixture of two or more lower alcohols, comprising adding to said lower alcohol or mixture of lower alcohols, a synergistic amount of a higher alcohol, wherein the higher alcohol is selected from among 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof.  
           [0045]    In addition, the invention is further directed to the use of a composition comprising a higher alcohol selected from among 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof in a lower alcohol or multi-phase oil-aqueous vehicle, for the manufacture of an antimicrobial composition.  
           [0046]    The invention is further directed to the use of a composition comprising a lower alcohol, and as an additive, a higher alcohol selected from among 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, for the manufacture of a syngergistic antimicrobial composition.  
           [0047]    The invention also provides the use of a composition comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof for inhibiting or destroying oral gram positive and gram negative bacteria.  
           [0048]    In another aspect, the invention relates to an anti-odor composition adapted be brought into contact with the oro-pharynx and posterior portion of the oral cavity, comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, together with one or more taste-masking additives.  
           [0049]    The invention further provides an anti-odor paste adapted to be applied to the tongue and to the teeth, comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol, or mixtures thereof, together with one or more taste-masking additives.  
           [0050]    The invention also provides an anti-odor paste adapted to be supplied to the teeth and to be gargled, comprising a higher alcohol selected from 1-nonanol, 1-decanol and 1-undecanol or mixtures thereof, together with one or more taste-masking additives.  
           [0051]    All the above and other characteristics and advantages of the invention will be further understood from the following illustrative and non-limitative examples of preferred embodiments thereof.  
         DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS  
         [0052]    For purposes of clarity and as an aid in the understanding of the invention, as disclosed and claimed herein, the following terms and abbreviations are defined below:  
           [0053]    Synergistic amounts—refers to a small percentage of a higher alcohol which substantially improves the antimicrobial activity of the lower alcohol to which it is added.  
           [0054]    Additive amounts—indicates amounts not exceeding 5% of the total volume.  
           [0055]    Cn alcohols—indicates alkanols, where n is the number of carbon atoms. 
       
    
    
     EXAMPLES  
       [0056]    The following compositions and preparations were used in the examples given hereinbelow:  
                                             1. “Breathanol”                                    nerol   1 part           citral   1 part           1-nonanol   1 part           peppermint oil   2 parts                      
 
         [0057]    [0057]                                             2. Decarboxylase Medium                                    peptone    0.5%           yeast extract    0.3%           dextrose    0.1%           bromocresol purple   0.07%                        
       Example 1  
     Inhibition of In Vitro Odor Formation by Toothpaste Containing Breathanol  
       [0058]    A series of test tubes were prepared, each containing:  
         [0059]    a) 200 μl of freshly-taken morning saliva;  
         [0060]    b) 10-1000 μl of a Breathanol-containing toothpaste that was diluted 1:5 with decarboxylase medium (concentration of Breathanol in the toothpaste before dilution is 1%), and  
         [0061]    c) decarboxylase medium, to bring the final volume of the mixture up to 5 ml.  
         [0062]    The tubes were incubated at 370 C for three days. Following incubation, the odor was determined by a panel of odor judges, using the following semi-quantitative scale  
         [0063]    0=no odor  
         [0064]    1=very slight odor  
         [0065]    2=weak but noticeable odor  
         [0066]    3=medium odor  
         [0067]    4=foul odor  
         [0068]    5=extremely foul odor  
         [0069]    The results (Table I) show that a reduction in odor formation is seen with all dilutions of the Breathanol-containing toothpaste (compared with no-toothpaste control), and that this anti-odor effect is dose related.  
                                                                                   TABLE I                           Volume of               diluted   1-nonanol       toothpaste   concentration   ODOR SCORES            (μl)   ppm   % w/w   Judge 1   Judge 2   Judge 3   Mean                    10   0.8   0.00008   3   4   1.25   2.75       25   2   0.0002   2   3   1.5   2.17       50   4   0.0004   2   2.5   0.5   1.67       125   10   0.001   1   1   1   1       250   20   0.002   0.5   1   0   0.5       500   40   0.004   0   1   0.75   0.58       750   60   0.006   0   1   1   0.67       1000   80   0.008   0   0   0.5   0.17       Control   0   0   4   4.5   4   4.17                  
 
       Example 2  
     Clinical Study of Inhibition of Odor Formation by Mouthwash Containing Breathanol  
       [0070]    The ability of Breathanol to reduce odor was tested in the following clinical study. Subjects (N=51; mean age 24.5 years) were recruited from among those who had previously volunteered for similar studies. Subjects were remunerated for their time. The criteria for exclusion from the study were: taking antibiotics within one month prior to the study, smokers, partial or complete denture wearers. Participants were asked to refrain from eating or drinking 2 hours prior to measurements. Initially, subjects were tested for malodor-related parameters (as described further). They were then given the mouthwash (17 ml; active, containing 1% Breathanol, or placebo), and were asked to swish and gargle twice for 30 seconds with a one minute interval. They were reexamined 1.5 and 3 hours following use.  
         [0071]    Subjects were assessed for oral malodor-related parameters, including (i) whole mouth odor as measured by three independent judges on a scale of 0-5; (ii) tongue dorsum posterior odor using the spoon test; and (iii) volatile sulphide levels using the model 1170 sulphide monitor (Interscan Corp., Chatsworth Calif.).  
         [0072]    All measurements were made prior to rinsing (time zero), and at 1.5 and 3 hours post-rinsing. Results were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and, when necessary, analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) with time zero as covariate.  
         [0073]    Measurements:  
         [0074]    Organoleptic Measurements.  
         [0075]    Organoleptic measurements were carried out throughout the study by one experienced and two inexperienced judges whose scores have been compared to other judge&#39;s scores and measurement techniques in previous studies.  
         [0076]    Organoleptic measurements were made, based on the whole mouth expirate, as well as odor assessment from the posterior of the tongue dorsum. For whole mouth malodor, following a three hour fast, subjects were instructed to exhale briefly through the mouth, at a distance of ca. 10 cm from the nose of the judge. For assessment of the tongue posterior dorsum, a sample was obtained by mild scraping with a plastic spoon. After 5 seconds, the odor judges and the subjects themselves smelled the odor at a distance of ca. 5 cm from the spoon. Results of the two malodor assessments were rated on a semi-integer scale of-5 to 5 as follows:  
                                       −5   extremely pleasant odor       −4   very pleasant odor       −3   moderately pleasant odor       −2   slight, but noticeable pleasant odor       −1   barely noticeable pleasant odor       0   no appreciable odor       1   barely noticeable unpleasant odor       2   slight, but clearly noticeable unpleasant odor       3   moderate unpleasant odor       4   strong unpleasant odor       5   extremely foul odor                  
 
         [0077]    Volatile Sulphur Compounds (VSC)  
         [0078]    VSC of intraoral headspace was measured using the Interscan 1170 monitor. Quantitative measurement of volatile sulphides were carried out using the Interscan 1170 monitor (Interscan Corporation, Chatsworth, Calif.), 1 ppm full-scale deflection. Volunteers were asked to refrain from talking for 5 minutes prior to measurement. The monitor was zeroed on ambient air, and measurement performed by inserting a disposable ¼″ plastic straw approximately 4 cm into the oral cavity. The volunteer was asked to breathe through his/her nose during measurement. Results were recorded as peak ppb sulphide equivalents.  
         [0079]    Microbial Counts  
         [0080]    Unstimulated whole saliva was collected and diluted in saline. Plating was performed on blood agar. Plates were incubated aerobically at 37° C. for 24 hours.  
         [0081]    Statistical Evaluations  
         [0082]    Comparison between the various rounds of the study was carried out using ANOVA or ANCOVA. Treatment effects were compared using the t-test with the Bonferroni correction.  
         [0083]    Results and Discussion:  
         [0084]    Organoleptic assessments of whole mouth odor made by the three judges are summarized in Table II. In all cases, much larger reductions were observed in the scores of the experimental, as compared with control, subject groups. In the case of the experienced judge, the decrease in the scores of the active mouthwash group was highly significant as compared with placebo scores (p&lt;0.0005, ANCOVA).  
         [0085]    Similar results were obtained for odor deriving from the back of the tongue, and are shown in Table III.  
                           TABLE II                           Baseline   90 Minutes   180 Minutes                   Experimental   1.9 +/− 0.9    1.2 +/− 1.07    1.0 +/− 1.23 a         group:       experienced       judge       Control group:    1.68 +/− 1.079   1.64 +/− 0.98   1.692 +/− 0.991       experienced       judge       Experimental      2.14 /− 0.698   1.660 +/− 0.770   1.540 +/− 0.780       group: mean       for three       judges       Control group:    1.71 +/− 0.714   1.583 +/− 0.775   1.577 +/− 0.799       mean for three       judges                          
 
         [0086]    [0086]                           TABLE III                           Baseline   90 Minutes   180 Minutes                   Experimental   2.400 +/− 0.707   1.958 +/− 0.834   1.593 +/− 0.649       group: mean       for 3 judges       Control group:   2.455 +/− 0.656   2.071 +/− 0.488   1.917 +/− 0.552       mean for 3       judges       Experimental   1.740 +/− 1.347   1.750 +/− 1.445   2.240 +/− 1.091       group: self       assessment       Control group:   2.269 +/− 1.505   2.577 +/− 1.172   2.846 +/− 1.384       self assessment                    
         [0087]    Statistical Significance:  
                                       Judged results:   experimental group significantly different from control           group (p = 0.0135; t-test);       Self assessment:   experimental group significantly different from control           group (p = 0.0304; t-test).                  
 
         [0088]    The results of the sulphide assay and of the microbial count measurements are shown in Table IV. The results for the sulphide assay demonstrate that for the experimental group, there was a significant decrease in salivary sulphide content at the 180 minute time point (p=0.0001; ANOVA). Similarly, the microbial count on blood agar was significantly reduced by the treatment at the 180 minute time point (p=0.0493; ANOVA).  
                           TABLE IV                       Tested                   Parameter   Baseline   90 minutes   180 minutes                   Sulphide   5.151 +/− 0.234   4.915 +/− 0.095   4.825 +/− 0.087       levels -       Experimental       Sulphide   5.060 +/− 0.245   5.043 +/− 0.205   4.971 +/− 0.276       levels -       Control       Microbial   7.001 +/− 0.926   5.996 +/− 0.919   6.804 +/− 1.203       counts -       Experimental       Microbial   6.231 +/− 0.827   6.184 +/− 0.825   6.771 +/− 0.873       counts -       Control                  
 
       Example 3  
     Inhibition of In Vitro Odor Formation  
       [0089]    A series of test tubes were prepared, each containing 5 ml of decarboxylase medium (0.5% peptone, 0.3% yeast extract, 0.1% dextrose and 0.02% bromocresol purple). To each tube was added 200 μl of freshly-taken morning saliva, and then 10-50 μl of a 1% solution of a higher alcohol dissolved in 70% ethanol or 100% ethanol, as indicated. The tubes were incubated at 370 C for three days. Following incubation, the odor was determined by a panel of odor judges, using the following semi-quantitative scale  
         [0090]    0=no odor  
         [0091]    1=very slight odor  
         [0092]    2=weak but noticeable odor  
         [0093]    3=medium odor  
         [0094]    4=foul odor  
         [0095]    5=extremely foul odor  
         [0096]    The higher alcohols tested were alkanols of chain length C8, C9, C10, C11, C12, C14, C16 and C18. The C8 to C12 alcohols were prepared as 1% solutions in 70% ethanol, and the C14 to C18 alcohols were prepared as 1% solutions in 100% ethanol. Absence of alcoholic additives, 70% ethanol alone, cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) and chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) were used as controls for the effect of the higher alcohols.  
         [0097]    The results show that C9, C10 and C11 all cause inhibition of odor formation. The other alcohols tested are without effect in this model. The results are summarized in Table V below.  
                                     TABLE V                           Odor Score (Judge 1)   Odor Score (Judge 2)                                Control (no inhibitor)   5   5        1% C8 50 μl   4   4        1% C8 40 μl   4   3        1% C8 30 μl   3   3        1% C8 20 μl   3   3        1% C8 10 μl   4   3        1% C9 50 μl   0   0        1% C9 40 μl   0   0        1% C9 30 μl   0   0        1% C9 20 μl   4   4        1% C9 10 μl   4   4        1% C10 50 μl   0   0        1% C10 40 μl   0   0        1% C10 30 μl   0   0        1% C10 20 μl   0   0        1% C10 10 μl   4   4        1% C11 50 μl   0   0        1% C11 40 μl   0   0        1% C11 30 μl   0   0        1% C11 20 μl   0   0.5        1% C11 10 μl   5   5        1% C12 50 μl   2   3.5        1% C12 40 μl   2   3        1% C12 30 μl   3   3        1% C12 20 μl   4   4        1% C12 10 μl   5   5        1% C14 50 μl   4   4        1% C14 40 μl   5   5        1% C14 30 μl   5   5        1% C14 20 μl   5   5        1% C14 10 μl   5   5        1% C16 50 μl   4   4        1% C16 40 μl   5   5        1% C16 30 μl   5   5        1% C16 20 μl   5   5        1% C16 10 μl   5   5        1% C18 50 μl   3.5   4        1% C18 40 μl   4   4        1% C18 30 μl   5   5        1% C18 20 μl   5   5        1% C18 10 μl   5   5       70% ethanol 200 μl   4   4.5       70% ethanol 100 μl   5   4.5        1% CPC 20 μl   0   0        1% CPC 10 μl   2   2.5        1% CPC 5 μl   4   4        1% CHX 40 μl   0   0        1% CHX 30 μl   0   0        1% CHX 20 μl   0   0        1% CHX 10 μl   2   1        1% CHX 5 μl   4   4.5                  
 
       Example 4  
     In Vitro Specific Antibacterial Activity  
       [0098]    The higher alcohols were tested for antimicrobial activity against Gram positive bacteria ( Streptococcus mutans ), Gram negative bacteria (Pseudomonas spp.,  Escherichia coli, E. faecalis ) and the yeast  Candida albicans . C8, C9, C10, C11 and C12 alcohols were prepared as 1%, 0.1% and 0.05% (C9 only) solutions in 70% ethanol. The C14, C16 and C18 alcohols were prepared as 1% solutions in 100% ethanol.  
         [0099]    Five microliters of the higher alcohol solutions were placed on the surface of a rich (Brain-heart infusion) agar plate immediately after seeding with a mono-specific bacterial or yeast culture. The plates were incubated for 24-48 hours, and, following further microbial proliferation, the diameters of the zones of growth inhibition were measured (results expressed in centimeters).  
         [0100]    The C9, C10, C11, C12 and C14 alcohols all inhibit microbial growth, the C9 alcohol having the widest spectrum of activity. The C16 and C18 alcohols cause moderate inhibition of  E. coli  (but not of  S. mutans ). C8 causes only partial inhibition of the yeast  C. albicans , as evidenced by an opaque inhibition zone on the agar plate. These results are summarized in Table VI.  
                                                                 TABLE VI                                     Pseudomonas       C.           E.                   aeruginosa       albicans       E. coli       faecalis       S. mutans                                        1% C8   0.5   0.7+− 2     0.4+−   +−   −         1% C9   0.6   0.9   1.0   0.9   0.9         1% C10   0.8   0.8   0.7   0.8+−   0.8+−         1% C11   0.7   0.8   0.7   0.9+−   0.7+−         1% C12   +−   0.8+−   0.6+−   0.7   0.6+−         1% C14   n.d. 1     n.d.   0.9   n.d.   1.0         1% C16   n.d.   n.d.   0.7   n.d.   +−         1% C18   n.d.   n.d.   0.8   n.d.   +−       0.1% C8   n.d.   n.d.   0.5+−   −   n.d.       0.1% C9   0.7   0.8   1.0   0.7   0.9       0.1% C10   0.8   0.7   0.8   0.9   n.d.       0.1% C11   0.4   0.7   0.7   1.0   n.d.       0.1% C12   +−   0.6   0.6   1.0+   n.d.       0.05% C9   0.7   0.9+−   n.d.   n.d.   0.7 +−        100% Ethanol   n.d.   n.d.   1.0   n.d.   +−         70% Ethanol   +−   n.d.   0.4+−   −   −                                  
 
         [0101]    In a further set of experiments, the effect of solvent type on the antimicrobial activity of the C9 alcohol was investigated. The following solvents were used to prepare 1% solutions of the C9 alcohol: water, 100% methanol, 100% glycerol, 100% 2-propanol, 70% ethanol. These solutions were tested for antimicrobial activity towards three microorganisms ( M. lysodeikticus, S. mutans  and  Corynebacterium xerosis ) using the same assay as described above.  
         [0102]    The results (summarized in Table VII) show that when dissolved in water, C9 is almost devoid of activity. The solutions made in the lower alcohols, however, are highly active.  
                           TABLE VII                             M. lysodeikticus       S. mutans       C. xerosis                      1% C9 in water   —   —   0.4+−        1% C9 in 100% methanol   0.9   0.9   0.4       100% methanol   0.5+−   0.6+−   0.7        1% C9 in glycerol   +−   —   0.4+−       100% glycerol   —   —   0.2        1% C9 in 2-propanol   1.3   1.3   1.0       2-propanol   1.1   0.9   0.8        1% C9 in 70% ethanol   0.7   0.8   0.9        70% ethanol   +−   —   0.5+−                  
 
         [0103]    The relationship of the concentration of the C9 alcohol to its antimicrobial activity was also investigated. A series of solutions of the C9 alcohol was prepared in 70% ethanol, with concentrations ranging from 0% (ethanol control) to 10%. These solutions were tested in the assay described above for their ability to inhibit the growth of the bacteria  M. lysodeikticus  and  S. mutans.    
         [0104]    The results are summarized in Table VIII, below. The antimicrobial activity of the C9 alcohol demonstrates only a weak concentration dependency. Over the range of concentrations tested, the greatest antibacterial activity was seen with C9 alcohol concentrations of 3% and greater. However, concentrations as low as 0.1-0.2% are still highly active, causing more than 75% of the maximal effect.  
                               TABLE VIII                                   Higher Alcohol                   Concentration     M. lysodeikticus       S. mutans                              10% C9   0.9   1.0             5% C9   0.9   0.9             4% C9   0.9   1.0             3% C9   0.9   0.9             2% C9   0.9   0.8             1% C9   0.7   0.7           0.5% C9   0.7   0.9           0.3% C9   0.7   0.8           0.2% C9   0.9   0.9+−           0.1% C9   0.7   0.8+−             0% C9   —   —                      
 
       Example 5  
     Retentiveness of 1-nonanol in the Oral Cavity  
       [0105]    1-nonanol was incorporated into a 2-phase (oil:aqueous) formulation having the following composition:  
                                                       sorbitol     20%           sodium saccharin    0.05%           sodium benzoate    0.1%           sorbic acid    0.1%           vegetable oil     15%           Breathanol    0.5%           water   64.25%                      
 
         [0106]    About 400 microliters of the above composition was introduced into the mouth of a volunteer subject, using a pump spray. The composition was deposited at two sites: close to the tongue and at the entrance to the oro-pharynx. At regular intervals, the subject reported whether he could still detect the characteristic flavor of 1-nonanol. This flavor was still detected more than half-hour following administration of the spray. This indicates that 1-nonanol exhibits a high degree of retentiveness in the oral cavity, and thus is suitable for use on oral anti-odor and antimicrobial applications. The preparation was also deemed to be an effective anti-odor agent.  
       Formulations  
       [0107]    [0107]                                                           Formulation 1       Toothpaste I                    % (w/w)                            MIX A:               Sodium alginate   1           Calcium carbonate   38           Aerosil 2000 silica (Degusse)   1.6           Glycerin (86%)   25           Mineral oil DAB 10   0.5           Sodium saccharin (Bayer)   0.10           Sodium monofluorophosphate   0.76           (Phoskadent NA 211, Benckiser)           1% Breathanol ™   0.02-2.5           MIX B:           Sodium lauryl sulfate   1.5           Nipagin M preservative (Nipa)   0.1           Water   to 100%                        
         [0108]    Preparation:  
         [0109]    1. The sodium alginate is added to the glycerin and allowed to swell.  
         [0110]    2. The sodium lauryl sulfate is dissolved in approximately 5 parts water.  
         [0111]    3. All the remaining ingredients are added.  
         [0112]    4. The preparation is homogenized under vacuum.  
         [0113]    To fully exploit the invention, the toothpaste should be brought into contact with the posterior region of the mouth by brushing the tongue, as well as with the teeth and gingivae, or alternatively by gargling.  
                                                           Formulation 2       Toothpaste II                    % (w/w)                            Keitrol (Kelco) Xanthan gum   0.8           Glycerin (86%)   25           Sorbitol (70%)   15           Sident 12DS Silica (Degusse)   21           Syloblanc 34 Silica (Grece)   1           Titanium dioxide   1           Sodium fluoride   0.22           Sodium saccharin   0.1           Breathanol ™ 1%   0.02-2.5           Sodium Lauryl sulfate   2           Preservative   0.1           Water   to 100%                      
 
         [0114]    Preparation:  
         [0115]    1. Swell the xanthan gum in the sorbitol and glycerin.  
         [0116]    2. Add all other ingredients  
         [0117]    3. Homogenize under vacuum.  
         [0118]    To fully exploit the invention, the toothpaste should be brought into contact with the posterior region of the mouth by brushing the tongue, as well as with the teeth and gingivae, or alternatively by gargling.  
                                                           Formulation 3       Sugarless chewing gum                    % (w/w)                            Gum base (Jagum T)   30           Sorbitol (70%)   14           Glycerin   1           Sorbit powder   40           Palatinit   9.8           Mannitol   3           Xylitol   2           Aspartame   0.1           Acesulfam K   0.1           Breathanol ™ 1%   0.02-2.5                      
 
         [0119]    [0119]                                                           Formulation 4       Hard candy                    % (w/w)                            Saccharose   57           Glucose syrup   29           Breathanol ™ 1%   0.02-2.5           Water   to 100%                        
         [0120]    Preparation:  
         [0121]    1. Dissolve the saccharose in the water at 110° C.  
         [0122]    2. Add the glucose syrup and heat to 140° C.  
         [0123]    3. Add the Breathanol™ and citric acid.  
         [0124]    4. Pour into moulds at 130-135° C.  
                                                           Formulation 5       Soft candy                    % (w/w)                            Sucrose/refined batch I   35           Spray-sour whey powder   1.1           Water   10.5           Glucose syrup (38-40 DE)   42           Hard fat D 700 S (SP 34-36° C.)   4.0           Lecithin   0.1           Fudge mass   5.8           Gelatin (e.g., 230 Bloom)   0.3           Water (for swelling the gelatin)   1.1           Breathanol ™ 1%   0.02-2.5           Water   to 100%                      
 
         [0125]    Preparation:  
         [0126]    1. Dissolve Sucrose and Whey powder in water and boil until clear  
         [0127]    2. At about 115° C. add glucose syrup and hard fat plus Lecithin and mix well  
         [0128]    3. Boil the mass at 122° C.  
         [0129]    4. Cool to about 90° C. and then add fudge and well dissolved gelatin (at temperatures of more than 90° C. the gelatin may be damaged)  
         [0130]    Disperse the breathanol well into the mass.  
         [0131]    5. Cool the mass on a precooled cooling table, allow equilibration of temperature, and then stretch until the desired consistency is reached, shape into desired form.  
                                                           Formulation 6       Two-phase mouth-spray/mouthwash                    % (w/w)                            70% sorbitol   10           Sodium benzoate   0.1           Sodium saccharine   0.05           Breathanol   0.02-2.5           Mint oil   0.2           Vegetable oil   15.0           Water   to 100%                      
 
         [0132]    To fully exploit the invention, the mouthwash should be gargled.  
                                                           Formulation 7       Single-phase mouth-spray/mouthwash                    % (w/w)                            70% Sorbitol   10           Sodium benzoate   0.1           Sodium saccharine   0.05           Breathanol   0.02-2.5           Mint oil   0.2           Ethanol   6           Tagat RH40 (Tzifroni)   2           Water   to 100%                      
 
         [0133]    To fully exploit the invention, the mouthwash should be gargled.  
                                                           Formulation 8       Mouth drops                    % (w/w)                            CMC   3           70% Sorbitol   10           Sodium benzoate   0.1           Sodium saccharine   0.05           Creamogen MZ (H&amp;R)   0.2           Ethanol   20           Tagat RH40 (Tzifroni)   2.1           Breathanol   0.2-2.5           Mint oil   0.2           Water   to 100%                      
 
         [0134]    In addition to liquid and semi-solid products (such as e.g., candies), the compositions of the invention can be used to coat or impregnate inert materials, such as toothpicks, dental floss and the like. Furthermore, the compositions of the invention can be administered in gaseous form, e.g., they can be evaporated from cigarettes.  
         [0135]    All the above description of preferred embodiments have been provided for the purpose of illustration and are not intended to limit the invention in any way. Many modifications can be made to the compositions and methods, without exceeding the scope of the invention.