The present invention relates to litter for use by domestic animals. For example, such litter is typically employed by pet owners to absorb urine and collect feces.
Many people enjoy the company of one or more domestic pets. Litter boxes are typically provided for the use of such animals in the collection of urine and feces. Such a litter box is typically filled with an absorbent granular material (e.g., sand and/or clay), which aids in collecting the bodily wastes produced by pets. Some existing litter products provide “clumping” capability, by which the litter particles clump together when wetted (e.g., by urine). Sodium bentonite clay is often used in such clumping litter products. While clumping characteristics allow a user to easily remove used clumped litter portions, leaving adjacent unused litter product in the litter box for future use, existing clumping litters also tend to form clump geometries that often extend deep into the litter box, often adhering to the bottom of the litter box, making it difficult to remove such clumps.
Another problem with existing sodium bentonite clay litters is the inability to effectively control malodors. Clay has very poor odor-control qualities, and inevitably waste build-up leads to severe malodor production.
Another difficulty with existing litter products is a tendency for litter to generate dust while the litter is being poured or otherwise handled. The smallest particles (i.e. fines) produce dust that can be a significant dissatisfier to the consumer when pouring or scooping it the litter.
It would be an advancement in the art to provide litter products that were specifically configured to provide clumping, but where the clumps formed were less likely to adhere to the litter box. It would be a further advancement if the formation of clumps were more efficient (e.g., reducing clump weight for a given weight of water or urine dosed on the litter, resulting in increased consumer usage provided for a given weight of litter). It would also be advantageous if this could be achieved while reducing dusting characteristics, without requiring use of a synthetic de-dusting agent, such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), lignosulfate or mineral oil, while also providing superior odor control.
Applicant has surprisingly found that improved dusting characteristics, and more efficient use of the litter during clumping (e.g., reduced clump depth and decreased clump weight when wetted with a given volume of urine, water or other liquid) can be achieved by adjusting the mesh size of particles included within the litter product. For example, a typical litter product includes litter particles with mesh size ranging from 8 mesh down to 40 mesh or from 12 mesh down to 40 mesh. By way of example, particles that will pass through 8 mesh are sized 2.36 mm (2360 μm) or less, while particles that will not pass through a 40 mesh are sized larger than 0.425 mm (425 μm). Such a particle size distribution is routinely referred to within the art as 8/40. Similarly, a 12/40 particle size distribution refers to a particle size distribution including particles with sizes ranging from larger than 0.425 mm (425 μm) up to 1.7 mm (1700 μm).
Applicant has discovered that by adjusting the particle size distribution to 16/50 (0.3 mm (300 μm) to 1.18 mm (1180 μm)), significant improvements are obtained in reducing dusting, in achieving increased absorbency for more efficient clumping, and in significantly reducing the clump depth and/or clump width at the bottom of the clump (where sticking to the litter box may occur). More efficient clumping means that the consumer is able to get longer usage from a given weight of litter (as clumps formed by dosing the litter with a given volume of liquid weigh less). Reduced clump depth and reduced clump width at the bottom of the clump reduces the risk that the clump formed will stick to the bottom of the litter box.
The present litter products may exhibit excellent, low dusting characteristics without inclusion of a de-dusting agent, such as PTFE, lignosulfonate or mineral oil.
It is surprising that increasing the smaller particle or so-called fines content in a litter product (e.g., by moving the small particle cut-off from 40 mesh to 50 mesh) would somehow result in decreased dusting, although such a result is shown by the data provided herein.
One embodiment according to the present invention is directed to an animal litter comprising composite particles, including powdered sodium bentonite and powdered activated carbon (“PAC”), agglomerated together, where the animal litter ranges in size from 0.3 mm or 300 μm (50 mesh) to 1.18 mm or 1180 μm (16 mesh).
Another embodiment according to the present invention is directed to an animal litter comprising composite particles, including powdered sodium bentonite and powdered activated carbon (“PAC”), dry blended with granular sodium bentonite, where the animal litter ranges in size from 0.3 mm or 300 μm (50 mesh) to 1.18 mm or 1180 μm (16 mesh).
Another embodiment according to the present invention is directed to an animal litter comprising composite particles, including powdered sodium bentonite and powdered activated carbon (“PAC”), where the animal litter ranges in size from 0.3 mm or 300 μm (50 mesh) to 1.18 mm or 1180 μm (16 mesh), and the litter is void of a de-dusting agent.
Another embodiment according to the present invention is directed to an animal litter comprising a blend of granular clay material and composite particles and the composite particles include powdered sodium bentonite and powdered activated carbon agglomerated together into the composite particles. The animal litter ranges in size from 300 μm to 1180 μm (16 to 50 mesh) and the composite particles are present in the blend in an amount of about 30% by weight or more and the granular clay material is present in an amount of about 70% by weight of the blend. The blend exhibits an absorbency that is at least about 40% greater than a litter product having a particle size distribution of 8/40 mesh (425 μm to 2360 μm).
Further features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art in view of the detailed description of preferred embodiments below.
To further clarify the above and other advantages and features of the present invention, a more particular description of the invention will be rendered by reference to specific embodiments thereof which are illustrated in the drawings located in the specification. It is appreciated that these drawings depict only typical embodiments of the invention and are therefore not to be considered limiting of its scope. The invention will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings.
Before describing the present invention in detail, it is to be understood that this invention is not limited to particularly exemplified systems or process parameters that may, of course, vary. It is also to be understood that the terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments of the invention only, and is not intended to limit the scope of the invention in any manner.
All publications, patents and patent applications cited herein, whether supra or infra, are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety to the same extent as if each individual publication, patent or patent application was specifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference.
The term “comprising,” which is synonymous with “including,” “containing,” or “characterized by,” is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.
The term “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention.
The term “consisting of” as used herein, excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim.
It must be noted that, as used in this specification and the appended claims, the singular forms “a”, “an” and “the” include plural referents unless the content clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, reference to a “filler” includes one, two or more such fillers.
Unless otherwise stated, all percentages, ratios, parts, and amounts used and described herein are by weight.
Numbers, percentages, ratios, or other values stated herein may include that value, and also other values that are about or approximately the stated value, as would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, all values herein are understood to be modified by the term “about”. A stated value should therefore be interpreted broadly enough to encompass values that are at least close enough to the stated value to perform a desired function or achieve a desired result, and/or values that round to the stated value. The stated values include at least the variation to be expected in a typical manufacturing process, and may include values that are within 10%, within 5%, within 1%, etc. of a stated value.
Some ranges may be disclosed herein. Additional ranges may be defined between any values disclosed herein as being exemplary of a particular parameter. All such ranges are contemplated and within the scope of the present disclosure.
In the application, effective amounts are generally those amounts listed as the ranges or levels of ingredients in the descriptions, which follow hereto. Unless otherwise stated, amounts listed in percentage (“%'s”) are in weight percent (based on 100% active) of any composition.
The phrase “free of”, “void of” or similar phrases if used herein means that the composition or article comprises 0% of the stated component, that is, the component has not been intentionally added. However, it will be appreciated that such components may incidentally form thereafter, under some circumstances, or such component may be incidentally present, e.g., as an incidental contaminant.
The phrase “substantially free of”, “substantially void of” or similar phrases as used herein means that the composition or article preferably comprises 0% of the stated component, although it will be appreciated that very small concentrations may possibly be present, e.g., through incidental formation, contamination, or even by intentional addition. Such components may be present, if at all, in amounts of less than 1%, less than 0.5%, less than 0.25%, less than 0.1%, less than 0.05%, less than 0.01%, less than 0.005%, less than 0.001%, or less than 0.0001%. In some embodiments, the compositions or articles described herein may be free or substantially free from any specific components not mentioned within this specification.
Particle size ranges and distributions as described herein are determined by typical screening methods known to those of skill in the art.
Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains. Although a number of methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice of the present invention, the preferred materials and methods are described herein.
The present invention relates to litter products, including composite absorbent particles that comprise powdered sodium bentonite and powdered activated carbon “PAC”, where the particles of the litter composition are screened to exhibit particular size characteristics, which have been found by Applicant to provide for more efficient clumping (i.e., use less litter mass when forming a clump), reduced clump depth and/or clump width at a bottom of the clump (reducing risk of the formed clump adhering to the bottom of the litter box), and/or reduced dusting characteristics. In particular, Applicant has surprisingly found that by adjusting the lower cut-off threshold for particle size so as to accommodate smaller particles than are typically included (e.g., using a lower limit of 50 mesh (300 μm) rather than 40 mesh (425 μm)), particularly when coupled with narrowing the upper cut-off threshold for particle size (excluding the relatively larger particles typically included in a litter product), e.g., using an upper limit of 16 mesh (1180 μm) rather than 8 mesh (2360 μm) or 12 mesh (1700 μm), that these benefits can be achieved.
It is particularly surprising that significant reductions in dust generation are achieved when pouring the novel litter compared to a conventional litter product that includes a de-dusting agent, such as PTFE or mineral oil. Accordingly, a de-dusting agent is not required in the present litter composition to achieve the reduction in dust generation.
For example, the litter products described herein may exhibit reductions in dust levels (e.g., in a gravimetric dust test, or a visual dust test) of 40% or more, or 50% or more, as compared to existing litter products, without inclusion of a de-dusting agent. Similarly, the litter products may exhibit reductions in clump depth (i.e., penetration depth of the liquid in a litter) of 40% or more, or 50% or more, reductions in clump width at the bottom of the clump of 25% or more, or 35% or more, and reductions in clump weight of 40% or more, or 50% or more, as compared to existing litter products. All of such can be achieved by simply adjusting the particle size characteristics of the litter particles included in the litter.
Such litter products have been shown to exhibit more efficient clumping characteristics (e.g., shallower clump depth and lower clump weight), allowing the given amount of litter (e.g., 20 lb or 25 lb container) to be used for a longer period of time, which reduces the frequency that a pet owner must replace the litter within a litter box, how often they are required to repurchase new litter, and reducing the amount of litter that ends up in waste streams.
a. Composite Particles
A composite particle is a discrete particle formed by the agglomeration of smaller component particles. By way of example, components that may be included in such composite particles include, but are not limited to, powdered sodium bentonite, PAC and optional powdered fillers.
Composite particles can be formed using a high shear or other agglomeration process including, but not limited to, a pin mixer, a pelletizer, an extruder or the like where the agglomeration process is used to form the discrete composite particles. A pin mixer is a pin-type, high speed, conditioning and micro-pelletizing device that converts small particles (i.e., powders) into larger, discrete agglomerates (“composite particles”) through the action of high speed and the addition of a binder, which can be a simple binder such as water.
Such agglomeration processes and the composite particles they produce are described in Applicant's U.S. Pat. No. 9,283,540, herein incorporated by reference in its entirety. Such processes are also described in Applicant's U.S. Pat. No. 10,383,308, also incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
All components used in forming the composite particles typically are of initially very small particle sizes, so as to be accurately described as powders. They are smaller than “granular” materials that may be dry blended with the composite particles. Particles this small contribute to dusting and/or tracking problems. Inclusion of the powdered components within the composite particle provides the individual components without inclusion as separate and discrete very small particles dry blended in the litter composition.
The composite particles contain (relative to each other) approximately the same level of the various components used to form such particles. Furthermore, such composite particles typically do not include a core and shell structure, but a relatively homogenous distribution of the powder components from which the composite particle is formed.
The composite particles are larger than their constituent components and have particle sizes ranging from about 300 μm (0.3 mm) to about 1180 μm (1.18 mm) (i.e., 16/50 mesh).
i. Powdered Sodium Bentonite
The composite particles can include powdered sodium bentonite. The powdered sodium bentonite has particle sizes as described herein, which are significantly smaller than granular sodium bentonite. Inclusion of the powdered sodium bentonite within the composite particle aids in binding and clumping of the litter composition. The powdered sodium bentonite used to form the composite particles have particle sizes of less than 40 mesh (0.4 mm) (400 μm).
ii. Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC)
The composite particles can include a powdered activated carbon (PAC) component. Powdered activated carbon is a fine black powder made from wood or other carbon-containing materials (e.g., coconut, coal, etc.) that have been exposed to high temperatures in a reduced or oxygen free environment and treated, or activated, to increase the material's surface area by heating in the presence of an oxidizing gas or other chemicals. The result is a highly porous fine powder with particle sizes as described herein, which material is capable of absorbing odor causing volatile compounds.
The inclusion of PAC or a similar odor control agent in the composite particle increases the odor control properties of the present litter compositions. For example, PAC particles used in forming such composite particles have a particle size ranging from about 40 μm to about 150 μm. Inclusion of the PAC within the composite particle provides excellent odor control properties, without inclusion of separate and discrete very small particles dry blended in the litter composition. For this reason, the present litter compositions include higher amounts of PAC than is typically included in litter compositions, such as greater than 1% of the litter composition. Normally, such a high PAC content would be wasteful because the loose small particles can segregate. In the present embodiments, the high PAC content works in tandem with greater absorbency and increased efficiency to provide longer lasting litter with superior odor control. By providing a substantially uniform composition from one composite particle to the next, the odor control efficacy of the carbon is not sacrificed because the distribution of the PAC within the composite particles is maximized and surface area is increased. PAC content is greater than 1%, greater than 1% to about 3%, and greater than 1% to about 5%, by weight of the composite particles or by weight of the litter composition as a whole. The PAC used to form the composite particles have particle sizes of about 40 μm to about 150 μm (0.04 mm to 0.15 mm).
iii. Powdered Fillers
The composite particles can optionally include a powdered filler material. Such a powdered filler is typically a non-absorbent material that is more readily available than sodium bentonite clay and replaces a portion of the more expensive or scarce clay. Examples of filler materials include, but are not limited to inorganic, mineral materials such as limestone, dolomite, calcite, calcium carbonates, sand, shale, gravel, and slate. The powdered filler used to form the composite particles have particle sizes of less than 40 mesh (0.4 mm) (400 μm). Powdered filler content is about 20% to about 50% by weight of the composite particles.
b. Granular Sodium Bentonite
Granular sodium bentonite is characterized by larger particle sizes than powdered sodium bentonite. Sodium bentonite clay is either (a) mined, crushed and sieved or (b) processed by methods known in the industry to achieve a suitable particle size (e.g., a 16/50 particle size distribution). Sodium bentonite expands when wet, absorbing as much as several times its dry mass in water and known in the industry as a “swelling” clay. Sodium bentonite panicles exhibit gel-like qualities when wet that promote clumping of the sodium bentonite particles when liquid (such as urine) is applied. Hence, its application in animal litters. The granular sodium bentonite may be dry blended with the composite particles. Within such a blend, random and relatively consistent particle distribution of discrete particles of the two or more types exist throughout the mixture. The granular sodium bentonite particles are the same size as the composite particles. Accordingly, the granular sodium bentonite has particle sizes ranging from about 300 μm (0.3 mm) to about 1180 μm (1.18 mm) (i.e., 16/50 mesh).
c. Dry Blends Including the Composite Particles
The composite particles could be dry blended with other granular materials, such as granular sodium bentonite, to form the litter product in any desired weight ratio. By way of example, a blending ratio of composite particles to sodium bentonite may range from about 10:1 to about 1:10, from about 5:1 to about 1:5, from about 3:1 to about 1:3, or from about 2:1 to about 1:2. In an embodiment, blending may be at about a 50/50 mix (i.e., 1:1 weight ratio). In another embodiment, blending may be at about a 30/70 mix (i.e., 1:3 weight ratio). In yet another embodiment, blending may be at about a 70/30 mix (i.e., 3:1 weight ratio). Stated another way, blending of the granular material with the composite particles may be such that either component may be present from about 20% to about 80% by weight, from about 30% to about 70% by weight, from about 40% to about 60% by weight and from about 50% to 50% by weight.
d. Particle Size Distribution and Low Dusting Characteristics
A particle size distribution of 16/50 has been found to work particularly well, and inclusion of particles larger than 16 mesh (e.g., 8 to 14 mesh) may result in increased fines generation as the larger particles are believed to rub against one another, generating fines (dust) through attrition. Without being bound by theory, it is theorized that by excluding such larger particles, less attrition occurs between the particles, and less dusty fines are present in the final product, e.g., after shipping to a retailer or consumer. Exclusion of the larger particle sizes may be at least partially responsible for the reduced dust generation exhibited by the present litter compositions, e.g., as compared to a litter having a particle size distribution of 12/40 or 8/40.
The same may be said for a slight change to the bottom end cut-off. For example, at least some of the benefits described herein may be obtained at a lower end cut-off of, for example, 50 mesh (300 μm), rather than 40 mesh (425 μm). That said, with such a lower cut-off, one would expect increased dust generation as compared to a 40 mesh cut-off. The fact that lower dusting is achieved by including smaller particles or fines is surprising. Smaller particles are lighter and more likely to become airborne, which contribute to dust generation.
In an embodiment, the litter composition may be free or substantially free of fine particles that would pass through a size 100 mesh (e.g., 0.150 mm or 150 μm sieve opening). For example, as manufactured, or after shipping to a retailer or consumer, the composition may not include more than about 10%, more than about 5%, more than about 4%, more than about 3%, more than about 2.5%, more than about 2%, more than about 1.5%, or more than about 1% of such fines. The presence of such fines can lead to increased dust and poor tracking characteristics. For example, such light-weight fines adhere to the cat's or other pet's fur when in the litter box, and are “tracked out” or carried out on the pet, as it leaves the litter box. Such adhered fines then fall off the pet, e.g., onto the floors, carpets, walls, furniture and the like surrounding the litter box. Such tracking is undesirable. In addition, such fines contribute to dust generation when pouring such a litter product. While some amount of fines smaller than the lower end cut-off (e.g., 50 mesh) may eventually form due to attrition of larger particles, the present litter products have been found to provide for excellent low dusting characteristics, even without inclusion of a de-dusting agent, such as PTFE, lignosulfonate or mineral oil.
By way of example, the litter product may generate no more than about 25 g, no more than about 20 g, no more than about 15 g, or no more than about 10 g of dust in a gravimetric dust measurement, with a 850 cc litter sample.
Mesh sizes and particle sizes will be familiar to those of skill in the art. Various mesh size characteristics are shown below in Table 1.
While particle size distributions of 8/40 or 12/40 have been routinely selected in the art, Applicant has found there are significant benefits associated with selecting 16/50, in terms of significantly reduced dust generation, and increased absorbency, so as to provide reduced clump depth, improved clump geometry (i.e., reduced clump width at the bottom of the clump), and overall more efficient use of the litter in clumping. These results are further enhanced when at least a portion of the litter is comprised of engineered, composite particles.
e. Clumping Characteristics
By way of example, the litter product may exhibit a clump depth of no more than about 2 cm, no more than about 1.5 cm, no more than about 1.25 cm, or no more than about 1 cm (e.g., 0.5 cm to 1 cm) when dosed with 10 g of water.
By way of example, the litter product may exhibit a clump weight of no more than about 30 g, or no more than about 30 g, or no more than about 25 g or no more than about 20 g (e.g., 20 to 30 g) when dosed with 10 g of water, including the water weight. When including just the litter weight, the clump weight of litter in the clump may be no more than about 20 g, no more than about 15 g, or no more than about 10 g (e.g., 10 g to 20 g) when dosed with 10 g of water, excluding the water weight.
Stated another way, the present litter product may exhibit an absorbency that is higher than a comparable litter composition, having a standard particle size distribution (e.g., 8/40 mesh, or 12/40 mesh). For example, the litter product may exhibit an absorbency that is at least 30%, at least 40%, at least 45%, at least 50%, at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80%, at least 90%, or at least 100% higher than an otherwise comparable litter product having a 8/40 (or 12/40) mesh particle size distribution. A doubling of absorption corresponds to a reduction in clump weight of about 50%. The experimental results below show clump weight reductions of greater than 50%, such that it will be apparent that absorbency of the present litter composition can be increased 100% or more, as compared to litter compositions having more typical particle size distributions.
a. Gravimetric Dust Measurement
The gravimetric dust measurement test measures the tendency of a litter product to generate dust during a consistent pouring from a specific height and duration. Two 850 cc samples of each litter product to be tested were weighed out. Filter paper of a standardized measurement (e.g., 9″×4″) was provided, and its initial weight recorded. The gravimetric dust measurement unit consists of an enclosure which is fitted with a drop funnel and slide gate assembly used to drop the litter into a vessel in the enclosure. An external fan is used to pull air, with the dust from the enclosure though filter paper holder assembly. The filter paper was placed into the sample holder on the gravimetric dust measurement unit, and the litter product to be tested was poured into the cone at the top of the gravimetric dust measurement unit. The vacuum fan of the gravimetric dust unit was activated, and after 5 seconds, the lever under the cone was opened, allowing the litter in the cone to fall. The vacuum was allowed to run for 30 seconds after the lever was opened (35 seconds total). After shutting off the vacuum fan, the sample holder was opened, and the filter paper removed. The filter paper including dust captured therein is reweighed. The difference between the initial weight and the final weight (in mg) is the amount of dust generated for the 850 cc sample.
Three different litter samples were tested, each with multiple repetitions. The results for the gravimetric dust measurement are shown in
b. Clump Depth and Clump Weight Measurements
Three litter samples were tested, each with multiple reps. The results for the clump depth measurement are shown in
The weight of the clumps is shown in
Compositional characteristics of the tested litter products were as shown below in Table 3.
The composite particles in Example 2 were substantially identical to those in Example 1. The difference in litter products being that in Example 2, those composite particles were mixed with granular sodium bentonite at a 1:1 weight ratio. In both Example 1 and Example 2, odor control of the litter product was found to be comparable or improved, compared to the comparative example “control”, and far superior to that of a litter product consisting of granular sodium bentonite.
By way of further example, absorbency using cat urine, gravimetric dust measurement, and a visual dust measurement were conducted for an additional exemplary litter composition (Example 3) having 16/50 particle size distribution, as compared to a conventional commercially available 8/40 particle size distribution litter product. The results are shown in Table 4A below.
For the absorbency test, a programmable peristaltic pump is used to dispense 35 mL (nominally 36 g) of synthetic cat urine on the litter. Prior to each test, the peristaltic pump is calibrated and the actual mass of dispensed urine is recorded. This may vary between about 35 and 40 g. The urine is allowed to absorb into the litter and the clump is allowed to strengthen such that it may be removed in one piece. This absorption and strengthening typically takes between 3 and 5 seconds. The mass of the wet clump is then measured. The dry mass of litter used is calculated by subtracting the known mass of urine dispensed. Further calculation may be then be conducted to calculate the specific absorbency of a litter defined as grams of urine absorbed per gram of litter. The gravimetric and visual dust measurements were conducted as described herein. The compositional characteristics for Example 3 and the comparative example in Table 4A are shown below, in Table 4B.
30%
The Example 3 litter is comprised of approximately 30-50% engineered composite particles, with the balance being granular sodium bentonite particles. The comparative example is comprised of approximately 15-25% engineered composite particles, with the balance including granular sodium bentonite particles. Even though Example 3 includes a de-dusting agent, other examples included herein illustrate that such is not required to still achieve significantly improved low dusting characteristics, as compared to conventional litter products.
The visual dust level was evaluated as follows. A high speed black and white camera was used to capture images of litter being dropped into a litter box. Image analysis was used to assess the level of dust in each frame. The litter was riffle split to ensure representative sampling. Two 64 oz samples were portioned out by volume. Samples were loaded into an automated hopper above a light box. Once the measurement program was started, the hopper was opened, allowing litter to fall into the view of the camera below. The camera recorded data for 60 seconds. The numerical result as reported in Table 4A was generated by taking the mean value of dust as measured by the brightness on a scale of 0 to 255 of each captured pixel in the output image. Litter dust is substantially lighter than the black background of the light box, and it is possible to measure very small quantities of dust. The analysis frame is chosen manually such that it is the first frame in which a falling stream of litter is no longer captured by the camera. This represents a state of maximum airborne dust while removing measurement error from falling macroscopic litter particles.
Average particle size for the comparative control product (with a particle size distribution of 8/40) was 1009 μm (1.009 mm), while average particle size for example 3 (with a particle size distribution of 16/50) was 635 μm, so that the average particle size for example 3 (16/50) was 59% smaller than the 8/40 comparative example. As described herein, the significantly smaller average particle size of the present lifter products provides significantly improved absorbency and significantly reduced dust levels.
The other interesting and surprising result shown in the data of
In order to better understand the dusting characteristics of the present litter products characterized by the 16/50 particle size distribution as compared to a conventional 8/40 particle size distribution, another gravimetric dust measurement was conducted, but in which both litter compositions were intentionally dosed with 2.5 wt % sodium bentonite clay dust particles (200 mesh, 75 μm), to see how such addition of dust fines would affect the gravimetric dust measurement. An initial baseline gravimetric dust measurement was first obtained (e.g., using the same methodology described herein), after which both litter products were dosed with the 2.5 wt % of 200 mesh (75 μm) dust particles. After thorough mixing of the dust dosage into the litter products, the litter products were retested for gravimetric dust. The results are shown in Table 6.
As compared to the comparative example, Example 3 exhibited a 52% lower increase in measured gravimetric dust despite having the same amount of dust spiked into the product. While perhaps not completely understood, the use of the smaller particle litter (16/50 distribution compared to 8/40 distribution) results in significantly better suppression of existing dust. While perhaps not completely understood, the use of the smaller particle litter (16/50 distribution compared to 8/40 distribution) results in significantly better suppression of existing dust. The use of such smaller particles is somehow able to act as a very effective de-dusting agent, without addition of traditional de-dusting agents, such as PTFE, lignosulfonate or mineral oils.
The clumping shape characteristics of the 8/40 comparative example and the 16/50 example 4 litter product were also evaluated.
The clump shape difference between the two litter products is significant, where the clump of
For clumps such as those seen in
Many litter products add an oil (e.g., mineral oil or the like), in an effort to reduce formation of such clumps that would strongly bond to the bottom of the litter box. The present litter products are able to minimize or reduce such bonding to the bottom of the litter box without the need for any such oil or other bond weakening agents, by adjusting the particle size distribution of the litter particles as described herein (e.g., specifically by ensuring that the litter has a particle size distribution of 16/50, rather than 8/40).
By way of example, analysis of the bonding surface area at the bottom of clumps such as those shown in
Without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention, one of ordinary skill can make various changes and modifications to the invention to adapt it to various usages and conditions. As such, these changes and modifications are properly and intended to be, within the full range of equivalence of the following claims.
This application claims the benefit of and priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 62/944,504 filed Dec. 6, 2019, which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
29783 | Harris | Aug 1860 | A |
33983 | Cauhaupe | Dec 1861 | A |
3029783 | Sawyer, Jr. et al. | Apr 1962 | A |
3059615 | Kuceski et al. | Oct 1962 | A |
3776188 | Komakine | Dec 1973 | A |
3789797 | Brewer | Feb 1974 | A |
3821346 | Batley, Jr. | Jun 1974 | A |
3892846 | Wortham | Jul 1975 | A |
3898324 | Komakine | Aug 1975 | A |
3921581 | Brewer | Nov 1975 | A |
3993584 | Owen et al. | Nov 1976 | A |
4059545 | Corbett et al. | Nov 1977 | A |
4085704 | Frazier | Apr 1978 | A |
4187803 | Valenta | Feb 1980 | A |
4256728 | Nishino et al. | Mar 1981 | A |
4263873 | Christianson | Apr 1981 | A |
4275684 | Kramer et al. | Jun 1981 | A |
4306516 | Currey | Dec 1981 | A |
4355593 | Stapley | Oct 1982 | A |
4407231 | Colborn et al. | Oct 1983 | A |
4437429 | Goldstein et al. | Mar 1984 | A |
4506628 | Stockel | Mar 1985 | A |
4517308 | Ehlenz et al. | May 1985 | A |
4560527 | Harke et al. | Dec 1985 | A |
4565794 | de Buda | Jan 1986 | A |
4568453 | Lowe, Jr. | Feb 1986 | A |
4591581 | Crampton et al. | May 1986 | A |
4607594 | Thacker | Aug 1986 | A |
4621011 | Fleischer et al. | Nov 1986 | A |
4638763 | Greenberg | Jan 1987 | A |
4640225 | Yananton | Feb 1987 | A |
4641605 | Gordon | Feb 1987 | A |
4657881 | Crampton et al. | Apr 1987 | A |
4664843 | Burba, III et al. | May 1987 | A |
4671208 | Smith | Jun 1987 | A |
4677086 | McCue et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4704989 | Rosenfeld | Nov 1987 | A |
4721059 | Lowe et al. | Jan 1988 | A |
4756273 | Yananton | Jul 1988 | A |
4793837 | Pontius | Dec 1988 | A |
4824810 | Lang et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4837020 | Mise et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
4844010 | Ducharme et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
4866023 | Ritter et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4869204 | Yananton | Sep 1989 | A |
4881490 | Ducharme et al. | Nov 1989 | A |
4914066 | Woodrum | Apr 1990 | A |
4920090 | Ritter et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
4949672 | Ratcliff et al. | Aug 1990 | A |
5005115 | Hughes | Mar 1991 | A |
5005520 | Michael | Apr 1991 | A |
5013335 | Marcus | May 1991 | A |
5014650 | Sowle et al. | May 1991 | A |
5018482 | Stanislowski et al. | May 1991 | A |
5019254 | Abrevaya et al. | May 1991 | A |
5032549 | Lang et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5062383 | Nelson | Nov 1991 | A |
5079201 | Chu et al. | Jan 1992 | A |
5094189 | Aylen et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5094190 | Ratcliff et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5100600 | Keller et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5101771 | Goss | Apr 1992 | A |
5109805 | Baldry et al. | May 1992 | A |
5129365 | Hughes | Jul 1992 | A |
5135743 | Stanislowski et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5143023 | Kuhns | Sep 1992 | A |
5146877 | Jaffee et al. | Sep 1992 | A |
5152250 | Loeb | Oct 1992 | A |
5176107 | Buschur | Jan 1993 | A |
5176108 | Jenkins et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5176879 | White et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5183010 | Raymond et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5183655 | Stanislowski et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5188064 | House | Feb 1993 | A |
5193489 | Hardin | Mar 1993 | A |
5196473 | Valenta et al. | Mar 1993 | A |
5204310 | Tolles et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5206207 | Tolles | Apr 1993 | A |
5207830 | Cowan et al. | May 1993 | A |
5210112 | Shimoda et al. | May 1993 | A |
5230305 | House | Jul 1993 | A |
5232627 | Burba, III et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5238470 | Tolles et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5250491 | Yan | Oct 1993 | A |
5276000 | Matthews et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5279259 | Rice et al. | Jan 1994 | A |
5295456 | Lawson | Mar 1994 | A |
5303676 | Lawson | Apr 1994 | A |
5304527 | Dimitri | Apr 1994 | A |
5317990 | Hughes | Jun 1994 | A |
5318953 | Hughes | Jun 1994 | A |
5320066 | Gunter | Jun 1994 | A |
5325816 | Pattengill et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5329880 | Pattengill et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5339769 | Toth et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5345787 | Piltingsrud | Sep 1994 | A |
5359961 | Goss et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5361719 | Kiebke | Nov 1994 | A |
5386803 | Hughes | Feb 1995 | A |
5389325 | Bookbinder et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5407442 | Karapasha | Apr 1995 | A |
5421291 | Lawson et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5450817 | Hahn et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5452684 | Elazier-Davis et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5458091 | Pattengill et al. | Oct 1995 | A |
5469809 | Coleman | Nov 1995 | A |
5480584 | Urano et al. | Jan 1996 | A |
5503111 | Hughes | Apr 1996 | A |
5529022 | Nelson | Jun 1996 | A |
5538932 | Yan et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5542374 | Palmer, Jr. | Aug 1996 | A |
5566642 | Ochi | Oct 1996 | A |
5577463 | Elazier-Davis et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5579722 | Yamamoto et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5609123 | Luke et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5634431 | Reddy et al. | Jun 1997 | A |
5638770 | Peleties | Jun 1997 | A |
5647300 | Tucker | Jul 1997 | A |
5648306 | Hahn et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5655480 | Steckel | Aug 1997 | A |
5664523 | Ochi et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5680830 | Kawaguchi et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5691270 | Miller | Nov 1997 | A |
5735232 | Lang et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5736481 | Miller | Apr 1998 | A |
5736485 | Miller | Apr 1998 | A |
5740761 | Lee et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5743213 | Fujiura | Apr 1998 | A |
5762023 | Carter | Jun 1998 | A |
5775259 | Tucker | Jul 1998 | A |
5806462 | Parr | Sep 1998 | A |
5826543 | Raymond et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5836263 | Goss et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5860391 | Maxwell et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5863858 | Miller et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5901661 | Pattengill et al. | May 1999 | A |
5927049 | Simard | Jul 1999 | A |
5944704 | Guarracino et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5970915 | Schlueter et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5975019 | Goss et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5992351 | Jenkins | Nov 1999 | A |
6015547 | Yum | Jan 2000 | A |
6019063 | Haubensak et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6025319 | Surutzidis et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6030565 | Golan | Feb 2000 | A |
6039004 | Goss et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6080908 | Guarracino et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6089189 | Goss et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6089190 | Jaffee et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6101978 | Steckel | Aug 2000 | A |
6194065 | Golan | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6206947 | Evan et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6216634 | Kent et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6220206 | Sottillo et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6260511 | Hsu | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6276300 | Lewis, II et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6287550 | Trinh et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6294118 | Huber et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6308658 | Steckel | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6319342 | Riddell | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6354243 | Lewis, II et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6371050 | Mochizuki | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6405677 | McPherson et al. | Jun 2002 | B2 |
6405678 | Ikegami et al. | Jun 2002 | B2 |
6426325 | Dente et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6472343 | McCrae et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6499984 | Ghebre-Sellassie et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6543385 | Raymond | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6578521 | Raymond et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6740406 | Hu et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6860234 | Raymond et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6962129 | Lawson | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7429421 | Greene et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7665418 | Bracilovic | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7856946 | Burckbucher, Jr. | Dec 2010 | B2 |
8156896 | Wadams et al. | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8273676 | Falcone et al. | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8584617 | Greene et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8720375 | Miller et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8722031 | Lawson et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8733288 | Winkleman et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8881681 | Zhang | Nov 2014 | B2 |
8904963 | Dixon et al. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
9010273 | Adamy et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9072276 | Pechera et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9119374 | Bracilovic et al. | Sep 2015 | B2 |
9283540 | Fritter et al. | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9398754 | Zhang et al. | Jul 2016 | B2 |
9986714 | Huck et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10383308 | Nga et al. | Aug 2019 | B2 |
20010018308 | Quick et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010049514 | Dodge, II et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020000207 | Ikegami | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020007800 | Ochi et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020014209 | Bloomer | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020054919 | Hochwalt et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020117117 | Raymond et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020153311 | Farquhar Davidson | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020183201 | Barnwell et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030051673 | Raymond et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030072733 | McGee et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030131799 | Wong et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030148100 | Greene et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20050005869 | Fritter | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20060042553 | Venezio | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20110185977 | Dixon et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20120260860 | Drief et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20120318205 | Kuras et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130239901 | Pechera et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130266657 | Trajkovska | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130269623 | Lawson | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130305997 | Miller | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20150181831 | Huck et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20180064059 | Brown et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20190297835 | Cortner et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190320612 | Nga et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20200329661 | Li | Oct 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2546538 | Nov 2007 | CA |
2955705 | Jan 2022 | CA |
0573303 | Dec 1993 | EP |
716806 | Jun 1996 | EP |
0823206 | Feb 1998 | EP |
0885557 | Dec 1998 | EP |
0579764 | Aug 1999 | EP |
0612533 | Nov 1999 | EP |
0759323 | Jul 2001 | EP |
1346634 | Sep 2003 | EP |
S62-239932 | Oct 1987 | JP |
04287626 | Oct 1992 | JP |
6-14669 | Jan 1994 | JP |
06343362 | Dec 1994 | JP |
07-041202 | Aug 1996 | JP |
10-262482 | Oct 1998 | JP |
WO 9009099 | Aug 1990 | WO |
WO 9602129 | Feb 1996 | WO |
WO 9812291 | Mar 1998 | WO |
WO 9827261 | Jun 1998 | WO |
WO 9933335 | Jul 1999 | WO |
WO 9940776 | Aug 1999 | WO |
WO 9945764 | Sep 1999 | WO |
WO 0037020 | Jun 2000 | WO |
WO 0119177 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 02056673 | Jul 2002 | WO |
WO 02060496 | Aug 2002 | WO |
WO 03032719 | Apr 2003 | WO |
WO 03065796 | Aug 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Extended European Search Report received for EP Patent Application No. 21175668.9, dated Dec. 3, 2021, 6 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20210169037 A1 | Jun 2021 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62944504 | Dec 2019 | US |