FUNCTIONAL INGREDIENTS Control ■ SAIB ■ TEC ■ Polycitronellol ■
0% -5%
-10% -15%
-20% -25% -30% -35% -40% -45%
1 3 Time on blotter (h)
Figure 3: Reduction of perceived fragrance strength from initial perception for different fragrance enhancers, each at 2% in alcoholic solution
sampling bias, and left in an open space (25°C ± 5°C) for a measured number of hours. Untrained panelists (n=10) evaluated the strength of each blotter on a scale of 0-10, with 10 being strongest, after zero hours, one hour, three hours, and six hours. Panelists were asked to compare each blotter against rating given at zero hours. The data was averaged and the fragrance
strength reduction (%) compared to the control sample was plotted over time. The panelists provided their informed consent to participate prior to the test. Finally, we conducted a directional difference
test with a simple model fragrance composition containing Polycitronellol at different levels (Table 2). The test samples were applied to blotters as before. Untrained panelists (n=12) evaluated one of the test samples against a control sample and were asked to determine which blotter had the stronger fragrance. Any response that did not declare the
Polycitronellol sample as stronger was counted towards the control (i.e., responses of “same strength”, “no odour”, “unsure”, etc.). We tested at zero, one, two, three and six hours after dipping the blotters in the test samples. We calculated the percentage of panelists
who judged the test sample stronger. Prior to the test, the panelists provided their informed consent to participate.
Results and discussion We compared the ability to retain fragrance ingredients among different fixative materials by gas chromatography. To this end, model fragrances were prepared with a top note (Dihydromyrcenol), middle or heart note (Carvone), and base or bottom note (Anthamber). The fixative level was kept at 10% (Table 1).
We measured the amount of top and middle notes remaining after ageing for up to 24 hours. Figure 1 shows the ingredient levels after six hours. After six hours, no Dihydromyrcenol was
www.personalcaremagazine.com 6
Figure 4: Perceived fragrance strength in directional difference test for 2%, 5% and 10% Polycitronellol in the model Eau de toilette as a function of ageing time. A 50% result means that the panelists could not distinguish between the test sample and the control sample (no fixative)
found in the control sample, which did not have a fixative. Some Carvone remained. Polycitronellol retained the most fragrance material for both Dihydromyrcenol and Carvone. Lower levels of Polycitronellol retain less
fragrance (Figure 2). After four hours of ageing, 2% Polycitronellol still retains almost 35% of the Carvone and 17% of the Dihydromyrcenol that was present initially. The base note Anthamber was not present in these tests. In the next set of experiments, we used an
untrained sensory panel to determine if the fragrance retention enabled by the fragrance fixatives was perceptible. Figure 3 shows the reduction in perceived fragrance strength from the initial strength after one, three and six hours. All blotters with model Eau de toilette
alcoholic solutions containing fixatives were perceived as stronger than the control (a solution without fixative) after one hour ageing. However, after longer ageing times, panelists could no longer distinguish between blotters. The samples with Polycitronellol were directionally still stronger even after 6 hours, but this perception was not statistically significant. However, the directional difference test
showed that the panelists could detect the sample with the Polycitronellol with a high degree of confidence (<0.05) for up to three hours ageing for Polycitronellol levels between 2% and 10%. At 10% Polycitronellol, panelists could still distinguish the test sample from the control with a significance level <0.05 (Figure 4). The experimental results prove that
Polycitronellol is effective at retaining Dihydromyrcenol and Carvone in a model fragrance applied to a blotter for at least 6 hours. Other results that we have not shown due to space constraints indicate that Carvone is detectable by gas chromatography after 24 hours ageing in samples with Polycitronellol. The increased fragrance retention is
perceptible by untrained panelists. A level of 10% Polycitronellol in the fragrance is most effective, but lower levels have benefits for shorter ageing times. Polycitronellol
outperformed the other fragrance fixatives tested.
Conclusion Polycitronellol (Citropol F) is an effective fragrance fixative for over six hours after fragrance application. It outperforms the other fragrance fixatives tested. The fragrance is perceptibly stronger with Citropol® F as determined by an untrained sensory panel.
Author acknowledgement The authors would like to thank Dr. Johan Pluyter for improving the manuscript.
PC
References 1. Henry W. Experiments on the quantity of gases absorbed by water, at different temperatures, and under different pressures. Philosophical Transactions. Royal Society. 1803; Vol. 93
2. Walas SM. Phase Equilibria in Chemical Engineering. Reed Publishing. 1985
3. Fragrance Fixatives – The Key To Longer Lasting Fragrances. Alpha Aromatics. 20 February 2023.
https://www.alphaaromatics. com/blog/fragrance-fixatives/
4. Mookherjee BD, Patel SM, Trenkle RW, Wilson RA. A Novel Technology to Study the Emission of Fragrance from the Skin. Perf. Flav. 1998, 23 (1/2), 1-11
5. Saiyasombati P, Kasting GB. Prediction of Fragrance Headspace Concentrations from Physico-Chemical Properties. Perf. Flav. 2004, 29 (7/8), 38-47
6. Holland LAM et al. Fragrance Fixatives and Compositions Comprising Thereof. US Patent Application 2019/0376001 A1 (2019)
7. Saint-Paul A, Perrotta E, Velazques Mendoza JM, Nyakana SKK. World Patent WO 2023/055927 A1 (2023)
8. Foley P. Polycitronellols Reinvent Green, Sensorial Chemistry and Cosmetics. Cosmet. Toil. 2023, 26-29/DM5-DM8
9. MacKenzie M. P2 Science Launches Fragrance Fixative: Citropol® F. Perf. Flav. 10 June 2020
September 2024 PERSONAL CARE
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
1 2 3 Time after application to blotter (h) 6
81 2% ■ 5% ■ 10% ■
% reduction from initial strength
% of panelists stating that the test sample is stronger
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
