KR102643754B1 - Fragrance composition - Google Patents

Abstract

selecting a first inactive ingredient in the first mixture that has odor characteristics most similar to the candidate active ingredient; selecting a second inactive ingredient in the first mixture that has the least similar odor characteristics to the candidate active ingredient; preparing a second mixture wherein the first inactive ingredient is replaced with an iso-intense concentration of a candidate active ingredient and the second inactive ingredient is replaced with a known active ingredient from the same odor class as the second inactive ingredient; and then selecting a candidate active ingredient for preparing the composition if the odor of the second mixture is significantly more intense than the odor of the first mixture, in which case the candidate active ingredient is considered to exhibit resilient activity. By means of the above steps, a perfume composition comprising ingredients with synergistic odor properties is prepared.

Description

Fragrance composition

The present invention relates to perfume compositions with enhanced sensory performance, compositions comprising such perfume compositions, and methods of making and using such compositions. The present invention includes fragrances produced using materials capable of synergistic blending.

Odor detection is achieved through olfactory receptors located on neurons within the olfactory epithelium of the nasal cavity. Signals from these neurons are transmitted to the glomeruli of the olfactory bulb and to higher centers of the brain for further interpretation. Each receptor neuron expresses a single class of olfactory receptors, and that single type of olfactory receptor neuron is distributed across the olfactory epithelium. Output fibers from these scattered neurons converge together in a single glomerulus of the olfactory bulb. Therefore, signals from olfactory neurons encoding similar molecular features/moieties carrying the same olfactory information content will tend to converge on the same glomeruli of the olfactory bulb. A single odorant molecule will generally excite more than one class of olfactory neurons, and the pattern of excitation will be reproducible and characteristic of that molecule.

In this process, the characteristics of the odorant molecule are first segmented and detected by odor receptors. Subsequently, similar features of different odor molecules reinforce each other in different odor receptors and at the level of the olfactory bulb. The whole is then reintegrated to provide the perception of odor, which can be as simple as a single percept. In this way, multiple odor molecules from a single flower can excite multiple neurons, and the signals are recombined to produce a single olfactory experience, which the observer can recognize as representative of a particular flower. Different flowers may emit many of the same substances, but differences in level and composition can be reintegrated to produce different sensory perceptions that can be perceived as coming from different flowers.

Although this combinatorial approach has been proposed previously, the detailed processes involved are not yet understood. The complexity of combinatorial mechanisms has been a recurring feature of olfactory research. Early studies of odor mixtures attempted to chart and classify the sensory phenomena when odors were mixed and developed a term to describe the observed changes in terms of the total intensity observed. These studies were limited to binary mixtures due to the complexity of the phenomena involved.

Progress has proven equally tricky at the biological level. A single olfactory neuron has been observed to integrate several chemical signals simultaneously. However, the researchers emphasize that complex interactions occur between the components and that the responses of olfactory neurons cannot be simply predicted from the responses of the components. Researchers have determined that events in the receptor neurons themselves may be responsible for the contribution of later events in the olfactory bulb, for example because one odorant dominates another or even masks the effects of another odorant. It was found that it could be associated with changes in perceived odor. Natural odors induce multi-chemical integration in olfactory receptor neurons, which may equate to changes in their odor coding properties, thus playing a major role in the perceptual process as a whole.

Thus, the problems underlying the challenge for researchers seeking to understand smells are becoming clearer, but the complexity and nonlinearity of the observed phenomena makes even reliable classification difficult.

In fact, odor experiences result from complex mixtures of odor molecules, and these mixtures are typically perceived as a single perceptual element. This situation can be observed in animals and insects where olfactory signals can trigger significant behavior. For example, moths can identify flowers that emit more than 60 substances, nine of which are detected by the olfactory system. They have been shown to behave as single perceptual elements that can trigger flower-foraging behavior. Encoding is structured through a population of glomerular coding units, which are thought to combine (via as yet unknown mechanisms) different features of molecular stimuli into a single perceptual unit.

In human studies, the detailed results of such odor mixing have been variable and unpredictable, but some broad categories of responses are regularly observed.

The convergent nature of the processes taking place in the higher centers of olfactory processing necessarily means that odor mixtures are not always simple combinations of their components. This means that while humans can often perceive complex odor mixtures as a single whole, they can also decompose the experience into sensory sub-units. For example, when odors and aromas are mixed, it is often possible to compartmentalize the experience so that the relative contribution of each odor type to the overall odor can be determined. Thus, a paradox exists in that a mixture can be perceived as a single perceptual experience, while the experience can be subdivided upon introspection.

The results of tolerance may not reflect the relative strength of the component stimulus, or even its odor characteristics. Nonetheless, the process is sufficiently reproducible that it could be used to design new products that deliver useful benefits, such as deodorant fragrances.

In such masking scenarios, it is common to use one odor to reduce the perception of a second, less desirable odor. This is common practice, and pathways have been developed to optimize this process. In comparison, examples of synergistic interactions between odors are extremely rare.

In a compilation study based on results from 520 two-component mixtures, the most likely result of odor mixing at suprathreshold levels is that the total intensity of the mixture is less than the sum of the component intensities, and the automatic -It was smaller than expected from auto-addition. The strength of a single substance tends to increase as a logarithmic function of its concentration (Stevens' law), so while the first of these findings is not unexpected, the second is more surprising. It has also been found that one of the two components reduces the strength of the other more than the other way around. It was also found that adding a third, fourth, or fifth iso-intense component did not lead to any increase in overall strength. This indicated a powerful compression mechanism at work.

As mentioned above, synergistic effects have been found to be quite rare. When discovered, the synergistic effect was thought to be related to the 'synthesis phenomenon', in which when mixing two ingredients a new, different odor quality is created. Although a slight odor was perceived when mixing subthreshold levels of odorants, it was not possible to rationalize the observation. It was concluded that any study of these effects would need to measure both intensity and odor characteristics simultaneously.

Synergism has been described as a higher level of sensory impact than would be expected based on the impacts of the unmixed ingredients. One example is adding a subthreshold amount of one odorant, causing a small but measurable increase in the perceived intensity of another (beverage) odor or the perceived sweetness of sucrose above the threshold. It has been thought that the addition of small amounts of one substance can sometimes lead to a significant increase in the intensity of an aroma or flavor. However, if the subthreshold stimulus does not have an odor per se, these examples may not be considered definitive examples of synergism. Given the statistical nature of the threshold scale (e.g., 50% of subjects can detect its presence, and therefore 50% of subjects cannot detect it), it is likely that the added substance will exceed the threshold for a large number of subjects. would.

With such issues in mind, the first clear and unambiguous demonstration of synergy in human odor detection is presented. This material was maple lactone mixed with volatile carboxylic acids, acetic acid and butyric acid. In general, at detection thresholds for binary mixtures, the threshold concentration of the individual components tended to be lower than the threshold of the odorous component alone, a phenomenon referred to as agonism.

The researchers extended their work to three-component mixtures, but no universal themes emerged. The researchers concluded that the rules for mixture interaction are that each mixture should be treated individually and empirically.

In another suprathreshold study, binary mixtures of fruity and woody odors were examined using ortho-nasal and retro-nasal stimulation. The fruity odor intensity could be increased or decreased in the mixture depending on the level of the woody odor component. Synergy was reported based on EEG measurements, where expanded N1 peak amplitudes were seen in some mixtures. Other mixtures odorized in the retronasal region showed increased P2 amplitude during EEG scans. These results may be evidence of both sensory and cognitive processes operating simultaneously during odor perception.

Studies of alkyl sulfides and thiols have led to the conclusion that mixtures of such substances with similar chemical structures can be characterized by the average effect on all components.

A two-component mixture of L-carvone (caraway odor) and eugenol (clove odor) was administered as a physical mixture in one nostril, and in contrast, each odorant was administered individually in a separate nostril. Provided (dichorhinic mixture). Psychophysical and EEG responses were recorded. Dychronic mixtures were perceived as more powerful than physical mixtures. Perceived odor characteristics also differed between the two assessment methods. EEG responses to dichoronic mixtures showed differences for the P1 peak and N1 peak (more sensory). Taken together, all results show that significant left-right hemisphere interactions occur in higher centers of the brain (or at least, post-glomeruli) and that peripheral levels are also sites of significant interactions.

In later publications, it was shown that mixture qualities (characteristics) are not tied to any particular single component, indicating a rather synthetic perception of the odor mixture as a single perceptual object. In this study, the odor and pleasantness of the mixture were generally intermediate between the odor and pleasantness of each individual component.

International Patent Publication No. WO2002049600, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, discloses a perfume composition with specific ingredients to promote a relaxed mood state.

The present invention seeks to address at least some of the problems described above. Specifically, it is sought to identify a group of odor components that can be used to create a synergistic odor or perfume composition and the perfume composition resulting therefrom.

The present invention relates to fragrances produced using substances capable of synergistic blending in odor or flavor mixtures. The present invention further includes products formed by including such fragrances.

In one aspect of the invention, when substituting components of similar odor characteristics in any of the multi-component examples described herein, the strength of these new mixtures is relative to the similar use of the non-resilient components disclosed. There may be a method of preparing a perfume composition by including substances that provide enhancement.

1 is a graph showing approximation of threshold values.
Figure 2 is a bar graph showing the normalized intensity scores of Examples 1 to 12.
Figure 3 is a bar graph showing the average intensity scores for Examples A through F.
Figure 4 is a bar graph showing the average intensity scores for Examples G-O.
Figure 5 is a bar graph showing odd numbered odor groups.
Figure 6 is a bar graph showing even numbered odor groups.
Figure 7 is a graph showing average sample intensity of air freshener.

The present invention has surprisingly revealed that, using certain combinations of ingredients, the sensory effects of the ingredients within the mixture, or of the mixture as a whole, can produce a synergistic effect that is greater than would be expected based on the effects of the unmixed ingredients. . Additionally, the present invention relates to compositions comprising synergistic effects as well as methods of using such compositions to achieve a desired response in a user, for example a human.

Those components that are more prominent in the mixture than expected are referred to herein as 'elastic' materials, and without wishing to be bound by theory, certain components of the perfume composition have been found to be more elastic than other components. The present invention further outlines how such resilient odor components can be identified and how they can be advantageously combined with other perfume components, including methods for identifying and determining threshold levels for such resilient odor components. Elastic materials can also combine their odors with other components present to create new and different odor characteristics in the mixture.

In a first aspect of the invention the perfume composition comprises ingredients from specific groups. The groups described below are referred to as Group 1A, Group 1B, and Group 1C. The perfume compositions of the present invention may include one or more ingredients from one, two or all three of Group 1A, Group 1B, and Group 1C.

The first component (group 1A) is acetyl cedrene, synthetic camphor powder, cedarwood oil, cineole, cinnamic aldehyde (10), cistus labdanum, citral dimethyl acetal, cosmone. (Cosmone), Cyclal C, Beta Damascone (10), Delta Damascone (10), Ebanol (10), Ethyl Vanillin (10), Eugenol, Galbanone (10) ), gamma undecalactone, heliotropin, hexyl cinnamic acid aldehyde, iso E Super, alpha iso methyl ionone, Mayol, methyl carvicol, methyl cinnamate, methyl ethyl 2 butyrate, Silva Silvanone, Silvial, alpha terpineol, allyl hexanoate, Labienoxime (10), anisic acid aldehyde (10), black pepper oil, polysanthol ( Polysantol (10), Habanolide, dihydroeugenol, Melonal, Violetyne (10), methyl benzoate, raspberry ketone, and mixtures thereof. selected from the group. Group 1A includes ingredients that are active or elastic ingredients in the perfume compositions of the present invention.

Throughout this specification, when an individual component includes "(10)", this means a 10% solution of the named substance in a solvent, preferably an odorless solvent comprising, for example, dipropylene glycol.

The second component (Group 1B) is selected from the group consisting of alkyl alcohols, phenyl alkylalcohols, terpene hydrocarbons or mixtures thereof. The ingredients of group 1B can be added as part of the natural oil. Components of Group 1B are described herein as “promoters.”

Specific examples of ingredients in group 1B include linalol, orange terpene, phenyl propyl alcohol, phenyl ethyl alcohol, alpha terpineol, mayol, meprosol, citronellol, tetrahydrogenaniol, tetrahydrolinalol, geraniol. all; and mixtures thereof. The ingredients of Group 1B were found to further enhance the synergistic effect of the ingredients of Group 1A.

The third component (group 1C) is aldehyde C12 (10), anethole, Ambermax (10), isobornyl acetate, Calone 1951 (10), coumarin, cumic acid aldehyde (10), ginger. (Ginger) oil, synthetic Oakmoss (Oakmoss), Patchouli (Patchouli) oil, undecavertol (undecavertol), Vetiver oil; and mixtures thereof. Substances from group 1C can also be added as part of natural oils. Materials from group 1C are optional in the composition.

As mentioned above, one or more components from one, two or three groups may be used in the present invention. One or more ingredients from Group 1A may comprise from about 20% to about 80% by weight of the composition, or from about 30% to about 80% by weight of the composition, or from about 40% to about 80% by weight of the composition, or from about 20% to about 80% by weight of the composition. It is present in the composition in an amount of from 50% to about 80% by weight, or from about 30% to about 60% by weight of the composition, or from about 50% to about 60% by weight of the composition. The number of individual components from Group 1A may be 1, 2, 3, 4 or more than 4. When present, one or more components from Group 1B comprise from about 5% to about 50% by weight of the composition, or from about 15% to about 50% by weight of the composition, or from about 25% to about 50% by weight of the composition, or from about 15% to about 25% by weight of the composition, or from about 10% to about 20% by weight of the composition. When included in a composition, the number of individual ingredients from Group 1B may be 1, 2, 3, 4 or more than 4. Components from Group 1C, if present, are present in the composition in an amount of up to about 35% of the composition or up to about 18% by weight of the composition. When included in a composition, the number of individual ingredients from Group 1C may be 1, 2, 3, 4 or more than 4.

Accordingly, one aspect of the invention includes combinations of Group 1A, Group 1B, and Group 1C described above.

A second aspect of the invention includes substances whose use in the composition is restricted or excluded. There are two groups of these materials in the present invention: Group 2A and Group 2B.

Group 2A contains allyl cyclohexyl propionate, Bangalol, Bourgeonal, Cassis base, ethyl methyl phenyl glycidate, ethylene brassylate, Florosa, huboxane ( Herboxane), cis 3 hexenyl methyl carbonate, Jasmatone, Lemonile, Lilial, Methyl Anthranilate, Methyl Laitone, Phenyl Ethyl Phenylacetate, Rose Rose oxide, Styrallyl acetate, Traseolide, Ultravanil, Ylang oil and mixtures thereof. Group 2B includes isononyl acetate, linalyl acetate, and mixtures thereof.

When present, the substances of Group 2A or Group 2B are independently present in the composition (other than as a component of the natural oil) in up to about 1.0% by weight of the composition, and more preferably in up to about 0.6% by weight of the composition. Accordingly, the substances of Group 2A, when used independently of their presence in the natural oil, may be present in an amount from 0% to about 1.0% or up to about 0.6% by weight of the perfume composition. Similarly, the substances of Group 2B, when used independently of their presence in the natural oil, may be present in an amount from 0% to about 1.0% or up to about 0.6% by weight of the perfume composition.

The total concentration of non-essential oil additions of materials from Group 2A and Group 2B comprises less than 2% by weight of the total perfume composition, and more preferably less than about 1% by weight of the total perfume composition. In some embodiments, the perfume composition of the present invention is free of any materials from Group 2A; In some embodiments, the perfume composition of the present invention is free of any materials from Group 2B.

All percentages are based on the total weight of the substances in the perfume composition (other than those added as part of the natural essential oil), the total percentage of essential oils or analogues (if named ingredients), and (10), as in the case of aldehyde C12 (10). In subsequent cases, it is based on 10 times the actual concentration of the pure substance. If a substance appears in more than one group, its contribution should be considered to be split between the groups, e.g. 50:50 between the two groups (e.g. mayol, alpha terpineol).

The present invention has surprisingly discovered that specific combinations of ingredients can be used to create synergistic odor or perfume compositions. Without wishing to be bound by theory, it has been found that certain components of the perfume composition are more resilient than other components. A resilient odor component is one that provides the overall composition with characteristics in excess of what would otherwise be expected to be provided based on the odor properties of the single substance. The present invention identifies more readily identifiable elastic odor components in a mixture, whose odor signature becomes a distinct component of the odor signature of the mixture as a whole. Another advantage of the invention is that new and different odor characteristics can be created in the mixture due to the presence of elastic substances. The present invention is very useful in that it achieves the provision of stronger, more complex or more unique flavors without the need to add more ingredients to the composition. For example, springy components can provide higher perceived strength while using less of such springy components in the perfume composition.

When odor mixtures are created from equal proportions of equal intensity components, mixtures containing a significant proportion of 'elastic substances' are often associated with a higher perceived intensity than mixtures in which they are absent.

The odor characteristic contribution of the second group of materials, the 'non-elastic materials', is reduced when mixed with more elastic materials. In a given composition, both of these non-elastic materials can be shielded. Therefore, in the composition, the amount of non-elastic materials such as those listed in Group 2A and Group 2B, at least when used, should be limited to the levels described above. Elastic components such as those in Group 1A should be present in significantly higher amounts than those in Group 2A and/or Group 2B.

Accordingly, the above-described aspect of the invention includes a perfume composition comprising one or more ingredients selected from at least one of Group 1A, Group 1B and Group 1C together with one or more ingredients from Group 2A and Group 2B.

A third group of substances tend to be present when elastic substances and/or mixtures containing them are augmented, but generally do not demonstrate such a pronounced olfactory contribution on their own. It is a group 1B promoter. Many Group 1B accelerators are alcohols, which are common blending substances. The present invention has surprisingly found that group 1B materials promote the contribution of elastic materials in perfume compositions. Group 1B accelerators increase the strength of the elastic component(s). Group 1B accelerators will increase the strength of the Group 1A material(s) without making the odor of the Group 1B accelerator noticeable. Group 1B accelerators are optionally included in the perfumes of the present invention.

The threshold concentration of an odor component is the minimum concentration at which the odor is perceived. These actions can be demonstrated in mixtures where all components are divided equally and present at a threshold concentration as an isointense stimulus. Threshold concentrations can be regarded as standard levels for producing isointense concentrations that can be identified with relative unambiguity for all substances. If no interaction occurs between the isointense components of a mixture, each substance will be perceived as identical. If some substances become more olfactory prominent and/or more intense, their odor is judged to be enhanced by the presence of other substances. Therefore, forming mixtures of isostrength materials provides a useful approach to identify when and how strengthening can occur within a mixture or for the mixture as a whole. At threshold levels of perception of odor components, such enhancement is more easily identified.

A useful solvent for preparing liquid samples at threshold concentrations is dipropylene glycol (dpg). The concentration of the perfume substances in such compositions will usually be so low that the physical effects between the substances at the threshold are very small and the main effect is sensory.

The present invention includes perfume compositions comprising ingredients that are consistently perceived in a mixture at an intensity exceeding the threshold while the concentration is maintained at the threshold concentration level. Accordingly, although the actual amount of one or more ingredients is at a threshold concentration level, the intensity of the odor of one or more ingredients is increased through the present invention.

It is noted that although it is possible to increase the intensity of certain aspects of an odor characteristic by using trivial additions, the present invention goes beyond the simple use of trivial additions as described herein. Minor additions involve adding substances of the same odor profile to achieve a greater odor. For example, by combining substances below the threshold concentration, it is possible to produce an odor in the combination that exceeds the threshold perception level. This can be achieved by combining only substances that each act partially or fully on the same receptor(s). Such groups of substances will usually be identifiable by having similar odors or sharing odor patterns. For example, subthreshold amounts of different rose scent substances can be combined to produce a suprathreshold mixture with a rose odor. However, this is not the only mechanism of the present invention. The elastic odor component in the compositions of the present invention creates enhanced effectiveness and odor intensity benefits. This can be achieved without the simultaneous presence of other substances that share odor characteristics. Of course, the present invention does not exclude such use with such materials. In order to distinguish alternative approaches to 'apparent enhancement' based on minor additive effects, the approach of blending substances with only similar odor characteristics is described above as an example.

In addition to the elastic odor component used in the present invention, a second component may be added. The added second component material may not, on its own, play such a prominent olfactory role in the overall odor profile of the mixture. The second component material may not be perceived as one of the strongest components, but it does not significantly dilute or degrade the strength performance of the mixture containing the elastic material. Surprisingly, it has been found that the combination of a resilient odor component and a second component produces a mixture that is useful and has enhanced performance (e.g., higher perceived intensity of the mixture with the resilient odor component).

The fragrance or fragrance composition according to the present invention can be used in various products. As used herein, the term “product” shall refer to a product comprising the fragrance composition described above, including consumer products, medical products, and the like. Such products can take a variety of forms, including powders, bars, sticks, tablets, creams, mousses, gels, lotions, liquids, sprays, and sheets. The amount of fragrance composition in such products may range from 0.05% by weight (e.g., as in a low-odor skin cream) to 30% by weight (e.g., as in a luxury fragrance). Incorporation of fragrance compositions into these types of products is known, and existing techniques may be used to incorporate fragrances for the present invention. Among the various methods of incorporating a fragrance composition into a product include mixing the fragrance composition directly into or on the product, but another possibility is to allow the fragrance composition to be absorbed into the carrier material and then mix the fragrance + carrier mixture into the product.

In order to provide a more concise description, some of the quantitative expressions given herein are not modified by the term “about.” Whether or not the term "about" is explicitly used, all quantities given herein are intended to refer to actual given values and include approximations due to experimental and/or measurement conditions to such given values, as used in the art. It is understood that it is intended to refer to an approximation to a given value that can be reasonably estimated based on ordinary skill.

The present invention includes perfume compositions and products comprising such perfume compositions, as well as methods of using such perfume compositions and products. Methods of use include providing a perfume composition or product as described herein to a human, and allowing the human to smell the resulting odor to achieve the desired effect. Desired effects may include, for example, providing a user (e.g., a human) with an emotional benefit, a cognitive benefit, and/or an improved interaction with other modes of perception.

The invention also includes methods for evaluating a given fragrance/odor and determining a threshold concentration for a fragrance or flavor that can be used to determine the benefits of the invention. The evaluation can then be used to create a perfume composition (or a product comprising the perfume composition) having the desired threshold amount of the desired perfume. Accordingly, a method is provided for determining a threshold amount of a fragrance and using the evaluation results to prepare a fragrance composition. The method may further include forming a product with the perfume composition.

In the examples and description below, this method involves the use of a solvent. In the examples the solvent is dipropylene glycol, sometimes referred to herein as dpg, but other low odor or non-odor solvents may be used.

In these examples, the threshold value in dpg for each ingredient was first determined and then each ingredient was incorporated into the fragrance at that level. Flavors were created such that all ingredients were present at approximately 0.3 times the threshold concentration, and the other set was created such that all ingredients were present at approximately 0.1 times the threshold concentration. For illustration purposes, the following experiment was performed using a 10 ml aliquot of fragrance in a 125 ml brown glass bottle.

Threshold measurement

One suitable method for determining the detection and/or recognition threshold of each odorant from a liquid solution is described in the ASTM 'Manual on Sensory Testing Methods', STP 434 (1968, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety). ), American Soc for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103, USA]) is derived from the Method of Limits. Initial experiments were performed to determine approximate threshold levels. A concentration series of samples was prepared and diluted until the perfume odor was indistinguishable. A series of increasing concentrations of the fragrance ingredient in dipropylene glycol, starting below the threshold level, were then presented to each evaluator, who then judged whether the designated odor quality was present or absent in each sample. The series continued until the judgment changed (from 'non-existent' to 'existing'). Data from more than 15 assessments were pooled and analyzed to interpolate a set of concentrations at which the target odor was detected (and/or recognized) in 50% of the assessments.

The relationship between detection rate and log10 concentration was assumed to be sigmoid; Therefore, to predict a 50% detection rate for each component, a fit line was derived using the following function:

.

.

where y is the percent detection rate, x is the log ₁₀ of the percent concentration of the component in dipropylene glycol, k is a constant that determines the slope of the sigmoid function, and threshold Therefore, the concentration at 50% detection rate).

The values for k and threshold are estimated and then fitted using the solver add-in module in Microsoft XL 2007 to obtain the root mean square error (RMSE) between the observed and predicted points. Minimized. The RMSE obtained for all fitting lines was less than 10%, which was considered acceptable. Figure 1 shows approximation of threshold values for one sample fragrance ingredient.

Evaluation of Odor Intensity Measurements

Teams of male and female raters are used to assess sample strength. In this study, the evaluators were 25 to 65 years old. Raters were selected for evaluation based on their ability to accurately classify the odor intensity of serial dilutions (in dpg) of fragrance ingredients. The standard perfume ingredient used in the odor evaluation sessions was benzyl acetate prepared in a series of dilutions listed in the table below. Each dilution was associated with an odor intensity score. Other substances can be used in a similar way.

The above standard dilutions were present during the evaluation and were provided for reference to assist the evaluator in the evaluation.

The examples tested were prepared as described herein. Examples consisted of dilutions in dpg of mixtures of substances above individual threshold concentrations. Typically, approximately 10 g of each solution was placed in a 125 ml capped bottle and allowed to equilibrate for at least 2 hours at room temperature. The evaluation was performed by the evaluator removing the lid and smelling the contents. Bottles were evaluated in random order. The evaluator assigned a score from 0 to 8 to each sample, with 0 corresponding to no odor and 8 indicating a very strong odor. Afterwards, at least 15 evaluations were performed for each sample.

When the evaluation of a sample is performed over several sessions and/or by different subjects, it is possible to facilitate comparisons between samples by normalizing the results for each sample across sessions and raters. This may occur, for example, when too many samples are available to the evaluator to reliably evaluate in one session. The data for Examples 1-12 were analyzed in this manner, as described below.

To reduce assessment fatigue and inconsistency associated with multiple samples, raters were provided with a subset of samples in a series of sessions. Each rater's scores were normalized as follows: for each _rater , calculate the mean _{( ,session)} ) was calculated. Using these statistics, each of the rater's data points was converted to a standardized score, i.e., the ith score (x _i ) for each rater was recalculated as (x _std,i ) as follows:

.

.

)을 각각의 샘플에 대해 계산하였다.Data were further analyzed using analysis of variance. Then, the average of all standardized scores for all raters (

) was calculated for each sample.

Examples were prepared using various fragrance ingredients listed in Table A. All example mixtures were prepared volumetrically by adding a known small amount of each stock solution (in dpg) to a vial and diluting to the required volume using additional clean dpg. The ideal stock solution was one that delivered a solution of all components to the estimated threshold concentration of each component when 20 μL of each component stock solution was further diluted to a total of 20 mL of solution.

Stock solutions were prepared gravimetrically in a series of dilution steps: for example, to make a 0.0005% solution of an ingredient, 0.50 g was added to 9.50 g of dpg to produce a total of 10.00 g of 5% solution. do; 0.15 g of this solution was then diluted in 14.85 g of dpg, resulting in a total of 15 g of 0.05% solution; This second solution was then diluted with the same dilution factor by adding 0.15 g of 0.05% solution to 14.85 g of dpg to produce 15 g of 0.0005% solution.

The mixture stock was stored in the refrigerator in a container with little residual headspace above the solution (minimizing loss of volatiles).

Each example was prepared by adding a target amount of each stock solution to a vial for a total of 20.0 g. Each mixture was then stirred and allowed to equilibrate. Each was used as is and further diluted by factors of 3/10 and 1/10 to produce subthreshold mixtures. In this way, each mixture was prepared at three concentrations: (1) with each component at a threshold concentration, (2) with each component at 0.3 times the threshold concentration, and (3) with each component at 0.3 times the threshold concentration. Having it at 0.1 times the threshold concentration.

[Table A]

[Table 1]

Example 1: 141.5 μL of a 0.10% solution of cis-3-hexenol in dpg, 50.7 μL of a 5.00% solution of cedarwood oil in dpg, 6.1 μL of a 9.93% solution of methyl dianthilis in dpg, 1.00% ethyl in dpg 44.6 μL of safranate solution and 18.4 μL of 3.34% citronellol solution in dpg were added to 19.74 mL of dpg and mixed.

Example 2: 18.4 μL of a 3.50% solution of linalol in dpg, 15.1 μL of a 0.98% solution of Evanol in dpg, 18.9 μL of a 7.32% solution of methyl cinnamate in dpg, 18.9 μL of a 7.01% solution of benzyl acetate in dpg, and 18.4 μL of a 3.34% citronellol solution in dpg was added to 19.91 mL of dpg and mixed.

Example 3: 189.3 μL of a 3.25% solution of citral dimethyl acetal in dpg, 8.9 μL of a 5.00% solution of methyl carbicol in dpg, 20 μL of a 1.50% solution of nutmeg oil in dpg, and 0.01% solution of manzanate in dpg. 6.9 μL was added to 19.77 mL dpg and mixed.

Example 4: 195.5 μL of a 2.10% solution of terpineol alpha in dpg, 18.2 μL of a 1.15% solution of dihydromyrcenol in dpg, 19.5 μL of a 1.00% eugenol solution in dpg, 0.05% ethyl methyl-2 in dpg -6.9 μL of butyrate solution and 88.7 μL of 0.50% phenyl ethyl alcohol solution in dpg were added to 19.67 mL of dpg and mixed.

Example 5: 18.4 μL of a 3.50% linalol solution in dpg, 8.9 μL of a 0.04% cineole solution in dpg, 9.9 μL of a 5.21% Cashmeran solution in dpg, and 9.2 μL of a 0.55% Damascon Delta solution in dpg. was added to 19.95 mL of dpg and mixed.

Example 6: 5 μL of 1.01% cyclal C solution in dpg, 15.1 μL of 4.99% cistus labdanum oil solution in dpg, 13.8 μL of 10.00% methyl cinnamate solution in dpg, 0.01% manzanate solution in dpg 6.9 μL, and 126.2 μL of a 0.05% geranium oil solution in dpg were added to 19.83 mL of dpg and mixed.

[Table 2]

Example 7: 10 μL of a 0.02% solution of para-cresyl methyl ether in dpg, 19.2 μL of a 13.11% solution of isononyl acetate in dpg, 20 μL of a 0.0010% solution of methyl lytone in dpg, 1.20% ethyl in dpg 18.2 μL of methyl phenyl glycidate solution and 66.3 μL of 0.05% indole solution in dpg were added to 19.87 mL of dpg and mixed.

Example 8: 17 μL of a 0.12% solution of cyclamen aldehyde in dpg, 19.2 μL of a 13.11% solution of isononyl acetate in dpg, 18.2 μL of a 0.42% solution of coumarin in dpg, 9.49% solution of allyl cyclohexyl propionate in dpg 18.3 μL, and 103 μL of a 1.00% solution of meprosol in dpg were added to 19.82 mL of dpg and mixed.

Example 9: 17.8 μL of a 0.00012% florosa solution in dpg, 141.5 μL of a 0.00071% cis-3-hexenyl methyl carbonate solution in dpg, 19.4 μL of a 0.00053% patchouli oil solution in dpg, and 0.0075 in dpg 186.9 μL of % phenyl ethyl phenyl acetate solution was added to 19.63 mL of dpg and mixed.

Example 10: 17.1 μL of a 1.02% solution of galbanone in dpg, 17.1 μL of a 2.48% solution of vetiver oil in dpg, 19.5 μL of a 1.00% solution of eugenol in dpg, and 17.7 μL of a 1.21% solution of methyl anthranilate in dpg. was added to 19.93 mL of dpg and mixed.

Example 11: 183.3 μL of a 0.011% linalyl acetate solution in dpg, 19.2 μL of a 0.013% isononyl acetate solution in dpg, 18.5 μL of a 0.0025% ethyl vanillin solution in dpg, 0.0087% allyl cyclohexyl propio in dpg 18.3 μL of the nate solution and 126.2 μL of a 0.00032% geranium oil solution in dpg were added to 19.63 mL of dpg and mixed.

Example 12: 17.8 μL of a 0.14% solution of Florosa in dpg, 22 μL of a 5.00% solution of isobornyl acetate in dpg, 18.5 μL of a 2.68% solution of ethyl vanillin in dpg, 29.7 μL of a 5.04% solution of phenyl ethyl phenyl acetate in dpg. μL was added to 19.91 mL of dpg and mixed.

The range of odors available in the present invention is extremely broad and is not limited to any specific section. The odor descriptions of the perfume compositions in Table 3 below represent a non-limiting example of the breadth of odor types available in accordance with the present invention. The strength results are shown in Table 4.

[Table 3]

[Table 4]

A two-way ANOVA was performed on the data set: two qualitative predictors selected: “Example”, corresponding to the sample evaluated, and “Concentration”, corresponding to three sample intensities: threshold, 0.3×threshold, and 0.1×threshold. It was named.

ANOVA determined that the two-factor model had a significant fit to the data (F = 23.440, df = 13, p < 0.05, R ² = 0.706) at the 95% confidence level. Type 1 Sum of Squares analysis showed that both the example (F = 9.703, df = 11, p < 0.05) and concentration (F = 98.993, df = 2, p < 0.05) factors were consistent with data variability. It was proven to significantly contribute to , and therefore significant differences could be demonstrated between samples near the threshold concentration. Model fit statistics are shown in Tables 5 and 6.

[Table 5]

[Table 6]

Figure 2 shows means and 95% confidence intervals for standardized scores for examples; Note that Examples 1-6 appear to reliably score above 0, while Examples 7-12 have negative means.

Post-hoc Duncan analysis of the samples demonstrates significant differences between the examples according to the invention (Examples 1 to 6) and Comparative Examples 7 to 12. In Table 7, there is no difference in means between members of groups with the same letter, while there is a significant difference between the means of samples from different groups (critical p = 0.05). There were no samples found to belong to both Group A and Group B. Therefore, it can be said that Examples 1 to 6 significantly exceed Comparative Examples 7 to 12.

[Table 7]

Examples A to O

In a series of further examples, Examples A-O, the strength of each mixture was rated by subjects in separate experiments using a unipolar rating scale (rating scale and its use For a description, see the ASTM 'Manual on Sensory Testing Methods', STP 434 (1968), see in particular pp 19-22, American Soc for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103, USA, incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. ]). On this scale, 'no intensity' was scored as 0 and other intensities were scored as previously described. Fragrance compositions were prepared according to the general procedures described above for Examples 1-12. The weight percent of each component in the composition is shown in Tables 8 through 13. 10 ml of each flavor solution was placed in a 125 ml brown glass bottle and allowed to equilibrate. Subjects evaluated the contents of the bottle and scored the perceived odor intensity. This procedure was repeated over 3 sessions until 15 assessments were made.

Examples A to O illustrate the advantage of the invention that mixtures according to the invention, when provided at threshold concentrations, will smell more strongly than similar mixtures using less active or inactive substances according to the invention. do. In embodiments, less active or inactive ingredients are indicated as “inactive.” Ingredients that are part of the present invention are indicated as “elastic or active”. Additionally, a combination of Group 1a and Group 1b substances (or similar alkyl alcohols), all present at threshold concentrations, can deliver a sensory boost in their intensity. The average scores for Examples A through O are shown in Figures 3 and 4. Black bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

[Table 8]

[Table 9]

[Table 10]

[Table 11]

[Table 12]

[Table 13]

The perfume produced according to the present invention, using the test method described above, exhibited a higher odor intensity than the comparative perfume; In some instances, significantly higher odor intensities were observed. For validation purposes, care was taken to ensure that the fragrance did not contain substances that shared key odor characteristics with other substances in the fragrance. This effectively minimized (or eliminated) the additive effect caused by two similar odors at or near threshold, which excite the same receptor and thus result in suprathreshold activity levels at that receptor. Accordingly, the perfume of the present invention appears to have a higher intensity resulting from synergistic interactions between the ingredients. Traditionally, such phenomena have been understood to be rare. The present invention allows the formulation of fragrances with internal synergistic actions in a reliable and repeatable manner. The present invention provides a method of formulating such fragrances, and the fragrances themselves also provide benefits by covering a wide odor range. Since fragrances are often one of the more expensive ingredients in consumer products, any such widely applicable increase in strength is valuable to formulators.

Quick Test for Resilience

In another aspect of the invention, there is a method for determining whether a new material exhibits elasticity, which method is simple and relatively quick to perform. In other methods, the balanced experimental design involves multiple evaluations of multiple mixtures of components, but it is desirable if a new substance can be added to the standard mixture and a test can be designed that is likely to demonstrate the elastic properties of the test substance. You can. This is the purpose of this alternative rapid test method to determine elasticity. As used below, this method will be referred to as a “rapid test”.

The approach used is to create two mixtures in which all components are inelastic and are present at a threshold concentration. There is also minimal odor characteristic overlap between the ingredients in each. These components can then be replaced with test substances. Elastic materials are defined in part by their tendency to increase the strength of mixtures containing them. New ingredients can be classified by measuring the perceived strength change that occurs when a known inelastic material is replaced.

If the strength of the mixture is significantly increased by substitution of an inactive ingredient with a new test substance, a synergistic interaction has probably been introduced and the test substance exhibits 'elastic' activity, as that term is used herein.

Composition of test mixture

A mixture of inactives was designed using the same odor classes discussed above. The odor spectrum was subdivided into 10 broad odor classes. The following exist: Floral, Aldehydic, Citrus/fresh, Green/watery, Herbal, Woody/amber. ), powdery/musk, spicy, fruity-light, fruity-heavy. These descriptors are commonly used in the fragrance industry and are well understood by those skilled in the art. They are assigned to two mixtures, one mixture containing odor groups: aldehydic, grassy/watery, woody/amber, spicy, and strong fruity; Other blends include citrusy/fresh, herbal, powdery/musky, slightly fruity, and floral. The new test substance should replace one of the inert substances in the appropriate test mixture, preferably the inert substance whose odor characteristics are most similar to the test substance.

The inventors have found that the rapid test works most effectively when two active agents are present in the mixture. This approach usually achieves significant strength increases compared to mixtures without activator present.

Summary of Rapid Test Procedures

The preferred rapid test procedure is summarized below.

It has proven advisable to use test mixtures in which one of the inactive substances has already been replaced by an active agent. Accordingly, two 'standard' active agents were designated for use with each mixture of inactive agents. The standard active agent is a substance that will be included in the test mixture along with the test substance, both at threshold concentrations. Together these two substitutions produce a mixture with significantly higher strength than the original mixture without the activator present. The two 'standard' actives have different odors and belong to different odor classes. They are listed below in the experimental section.

The present invention provides that a candidate substance (herein Methods for identifying and selecting new active agents that deliver increased strength (by more than 1 unit on the standard scale described in ). Preferred activators and deactivators are described herein. The present invention involves preparing a perfume composition using a substituted inert material, or inert materials.

The first step in the test is to identify the class to which the test substance belongs and to select a mixture of inerts from the most similar class. An unknown substance will replace an inelastic substance from the same odor group. This mixture will be used as a basis for further investigation. Next, the inelastic material judged to have the most different odor from the unknown material must be selected. This non-elastic material will be replaced by an elastic material from the same odor class. Examples of resilient materials of each odor class are given above.

In view of the desired outcome of determining the benefits of substitution, and with the end goal of preparing compositions with suitable elastic components, the present invention includes rapid testing methods. The method is such that the candidate material exhibits an enhanced strength (e.g., 1 unit or more on the standard scale described herein) when the candidate material replaces an inert material in one of two test mixtures described for this purpose. It can be used to identify and select new active agents that deliver. This can be done with or without the second inactive material being substituted with a known activator. Preferred activators and deactivators are described above.

The method may include the following processes. First, the user identifies and considers each of the inactive ingredients in the two test mixtures. In Step 1, the inactive ingredient whose odor characteristics are most similar to the candidate is selected. These identified ingredients are known as “closest” deactivators. This will confirm which of the two test mixtures will be used in the following steps. The next step (step 2) is to identify which inert substances in the test mixture selected in step 1 are most different from the candidate. Identification of the most different inert substances is optional, but it is desirable to identify these components to maximize the difference. The “most different” substance identified will be replaced with a known active from the same odor class.

The third step is to reformulate the selected test mixture, replacing at least one, and preferably both, of the two inactive agents (the most similar and the most different) identified in steps 1 and 2 above. Reformulate by doing. For example, the most similar inactive agent (identified from Step 1) could be removed and replaced with a candidate substance at an isointense concentration, and the most dissimilar substance could be removed and replaced with a known activator at an isointense concentration from Step 2. You can. Examples of suitable concentrations for active agents are described above. The threshold concentration of a candidate substance can be determined using the method described above.

In Step 4, the strength of the fresh mixture from Step 3 can be evaluated using the preferred method described in the paragraph below. If the new mixture is significantly more intense (e.g., at least 1 unit greater in intensity) than the original test mixture of inactivators, the candidate is considered to have exhibited elastic activity. These conclusions can be used to develop perfume compositions containing candidate substances. Accordingly, using the methods of the present invention, it may be useful to develop modified perfume compositions in which at least one ingredient is substituted, for example, an active ingredient replaces an inactive ingredient or vice versa.

Evaluation of 'elastic' activity: The strength of the new mixture containing the new test substance and the standard active agent should be evaluated against the strength of the relevant mixture of five inert substances. It is preferred to use the intensity scale used in the experimental section below. This is a sensory scale that represents the sensory score by standard concentration of benzyl acetate in dipropylene glycol. If the new mixture is significantly more intense (e.g. by more than 1 unit using this scale) than the blend of inactive agents, the new test substance may be considered to exhibit 'elastic' activity. A composition comprising an elastic material can then be prepared.

Formulations of two test mixtures, and two standard actives to be used in conjunction with each other, are provided in the experimental section.

Experimental Section 1: Rapid Testing of Elastic Components

sample manufacturing

All samples and reference solutions consisted of dilutions in dpg. 10 g of each solution was placed in a 100 ml capped bottle and allowed to equilibrate for at least 2 hours at room temperature. The evaluation was performed by removing the lid, smelling the contents, and replacing the lid.

To reduce assessment fatigue and inconsistency associated with multiple samples, raters were provided with a subset of samples in a series of sessions. The order of sample presentation was from least presumed intensity to highest presumed intensity to minimize carry-over from intense samples. The reference mixture was presented first, and all other test mixtures were presented randomly thereafter.

Evaluation Procedure

A team of male and female raters aged 25 to 65 years was used to assess sample strength. Raters were selected for evaluation based on their ability to accurately classify the odor intensity of a series of dilutions of the fragrance ingredients (dipropylene glycol, dpg).

Strength measurements were benchmarked against standard concentrations of benzyl acetate. Prior to the evaluation session, benzyl acetate prepared in serial dilutions in dpg as listed in the table below was presented to the panellist. Each dilution is associated with an odor intensity score.

i: Normalized dilution of benzyl acetate in dpg, with the corresponding scores below:

The above standard dilutions were present during the evaluation and were provided for reference to assist the evaluator in the evaluation.

Experimental samples:

Two sets of experimental mixtures were prepared and evaluated: Set 1: 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e; and set 2: 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d and 2e.

In the development of these samples, one inactive ingredient was selected for each odor group: 1, aldehyde odor; 2, citrus/fresh scent; 3, grassy, watery scent 4, herbal scent; 5, woody amber scent; 6, powdery musk scent; 7, spicy aroma; 8, strong fruity scent; 9, weak fruity scent; 10, floral scent. These materials were then used to prepare two five-component mixtures, which formed reference samples in each set.

Set 1 samples were prepared from only odd numbered odor groups; Set 2 samples were prepared from only even numbered odor groups. This measure ensured that all samples were prepared from ingredients selected from non-adjacent odor groups and thus minimized any overlap of odor characteristics between the inert ingredients in each mixture. Using the method described above, all components were included at their estimated threshold concentrations in dpg.

Each set consisted of 5 samples:

(a) A reference mixture prepared solely from five known inert ingredients, each selected from a different non-adjacent odor group.

(b) a modification of the reference mixture prepared by substituting one inactive ingredient with a known active ingredient from the same odor group to produce a mixture of four inactive ingredients and one active substance (e.g., mixture 1b is Contains active substances from group 7, 7act in the table).

(c) This second "b" mixture formed the basis of the third mixture (c), wherein the second inactive ingredient was replaced by a known active ingredient to produce a mixture of three inactive ingredients and two active ingredients. (e.g. mixture 1c contains active substances from groups 7 and 9, 7act and 9act in the table below).

(d) and (e) Using mixture “c” as a starting point, two subsequent mixtures (d) and (e) containing three inactive ingredients and two active ingredients, respectively, were prepared. In these mixtures, one of the two active ingredients from “c” was replaced by an alternative known active ingredient from the same odor group.

(d) Mixtures and (e) new active agents used in mixtures provide dummy test substances to demonstrate the usefulness (or non-usefulness) of the test methodology.

The ten samples generated are described in the table below.

ii: Formulation of Set 1 Samples and Set 2 Samples

sensory analysis

All of the above mixtures were rated for perceived strength, with reference to the benzyl acetate-anchored strength scale. The average intensity was recorded and compared to assess whether inclusion of the test substance and known active agent resulted in a significant increase in perceived intensity compared to the corresponding five-component mixture of inactive agents.

data analysis

Average intensity score, n = 15:

iii: Table of means: Set 1 (odd numbered odor groups)

iv: Average table: Set 1 (odd numbered odor groups)

The intensity score for each sample set was entered as the dependent variable in a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Each analysis had the same two factors: 1) “Observation” with 15 levels, corresponding to each set of panelist ratings, and 2) corresponding to samples a through c in the corresponding set of sample mixtures. A “sample” with 5 levels.

Figure 5 shows an average plot of intensity for mixtures in Set 1. In these figures, bars labeled with different letters (e.g., A, B or AB versus C rather than A versus AB) are significantly different. The ANOVA model was found to significantly predict variation in the data set (F = 13.4, df(model) = 18, p < 0.01). Type I SS analyzes revealed significant main effects for the observed and sample factors, indicating adequate but consistent differences between samples as well as individual panelists' scale use.

v: Type I sum of squares analysis (set 1)

Post-hoc multiple comparisons show significant differences between samples at three levels (samples that do not share the same group in the rightmost column are significantly different, p < 0.05):

vi: Post hoc Duncan analysis (set 1)

Conclusions ANOVA (Set 1) : Labienoxime and Eugenol are active, i.e. resilient, within the definitions described above.

ANOVA, set 2 (even-numbered groups):

Figure 6 shows an average plot of intensity for mixtures in Set 2. In these figures, bars labeled with different letters (e.g., A, B or AB versus C rather than A versus AB) are significantly different. The ANOVA model was found to significantly predict variation in the data set (F = 13.4, df(model) = 18, p < 0.01). Type I SS analysis (below) reveals significant main effects for the observation and sample factors, indicating adequate but consistent differences between observers and samples.

vii: Type I sum of squares analysis (set 2)

Post hoc multiple comparisons (Duncan method) indicate significant differences between samples at four levels (samples that do not share the same group in the rightmost column are significantly different, p < 0.05):

viii: Post hoc Duncan analysis (set 2)

Conclusion (ANOVA Set 2) : Both raspberry ketone and petitgrain oil are active, i.e. resilient, within the definitions described above.

Based on the results of both ANOVAs, the principle is proven that when two active ingredients are present, the resulting mixture is significantly stronger than the reference mixture. The two-activator mixture proves to be consistently significantly more intense than the reference mixture.

The present invention allows unknown substances to be tested for elastic properties by substitution with other non-elastic substances of different odor characteristics, together with known active agents in the mixture, where all substances are present at a threshold concentration. If the substitution results in a significant increase in odor intensity by more than 1 unit on the standard benzyl acetate scale compared to a mixture of five inert substances, the unknown substance may be designated as an elastic substance by the definition set forth above.

Fragrance formulation

The methods described above can be used to test fragrances as well as ingredients. “Fragrance” means a balanced blend of substances that, when multifaceted, exhibit homogeneous odor characteristics. There are several odorant mixtures used as single ingredients, such as natural oils; Although they are composed of individual components that cover a range of different odor characteristics, they have a combined odor characteristic theme. Additionally, commercial perfumes often have a clear odor theme to the extent that they can be placed in a 'genealogy of perfumes' and discussed in relation to the history and practices from which they have developed. Sweet, floral, fruity scents; Alternatively, it would not be unusual to discuss fragrances in terms of fresh scents, spicy scents, musk scents, etc. Fragrances are more complex and odors have greater body, but odor characteristics also tend to build to a certain level of uniformity. If a fragrance has too many equally salient odor aspects, it will lose directness, which is the consumer value in the fragrance. Therefore, the question is what will happen if the fragrance is treated as a fragrance ingredient.

Commercially relevant fragrances tend to exhibit reasonable uniformity between the odor characteristics just above the threshold and those at higher concentrations. As a result, we can treat them as if they were essential oil-like ingredients and know whether they act as elastic substances or not.

Fragrance is not perceived as a complex combination of dozens of ingredients, but as a single odor with various aspects. A brief exposure is sufficient for the subject to obtain sufficient information about the odor characteristics to enable useful comparisons between scents at some point after initial perception. Initial exposure can be augmented by more in-depth experimentation and introspection of perceived features to decompose the overall event into its potential sensory components. This process is similar to perceiving the color violet and then assessing the relative levels of red and blue that make it up. The inability to dissect color analytically reduces the ability to perceive a blend as a single perceptual object.

Fragrance Behavior: Measurement of Elasticity of Fragrances

Elastic materials can be identified using the procedures outlined above. Such procedures are useful in that they use the substances in the mixture at their threshold concentrations. As is done for essential oil components, the resulting fragrance itself can be evaluated using its threshold concentration. Accordingly, the fragrance may be included at a threshold concentration in the test mixture.

Any problems associated with detecting trace components at concentrations lower than those of the perfume's main olfactory notes can be minimized by measuring the threshold using a descending concentration series. For example, the test subject starts at a concentration that exceeds the threshold and evaluates successive dilutions until flavor characteristics are no longer detectable. The last concentration at which the target odor characteristic was perceived is recorded as the threshold for such evaluation. Subjects should be careful not to become accustomed to the smell, using short sniffs (sufficiently 2 seconds) and taking frequent breaks. The subject can confirm the threshold by repeating the process on a few samples close to the threshold. The consensus threshold is then calculated as the concentration at which a 50% detection rate is achieved. The perfume diluted to the consensus threshold was then used for 'testing of new actives' with respect to other perfume ingredients.

This method was similar to that used above to test new ingredients.

Experiment Section 2

Evaluation Procedure

The panel was the same as in Experimental Section 1, and samples were evaluated for strength only, based on the same 8-point scale and using standard dilutions of benzyl acetate for reference.

sample manufacturing

Samples consisted of 10 mL of mixture solution provided in 100 mL amber powder bottles, capped and allowed to equilibrate for 2+ hours, as described in Experimental Section 1.

experimental sample

Four experimental samples were prepared: t, u, v and w, consisting of:

(t) A reference mixture prepared solely from five known inert ingredients, each selected from a different non-adjacent odor group.

(u) Variation (u) of the reference mixture was prepared by substituting one inactive ingredient with a known active ingredient (Delta Damascon) from the same odor group, resulting in a mixture of four inactive ingredients and one active ingredient.

Mixtures (v) and (w) (u) formed the basis of the third mixture (v) and fourth mixture (w), wherein the second inactive ingredient was replaced by one of the following two model perfumes: Model 5, an aesthetically pleasing accord with primarily powdery-sweet scent characteristics, augmented by Designed to do so, model R1.

The four samples produced are described in Table ix below.

ix: Formulations of mixtures t, u, v and w.

sensory results

A one-way, within-subject ANOVA was performed on the data. Figure 7 shows a plot of averages of intensities for mixtures t, u, v and x, with error bars representing 95% confidence intervals for the means. A significant main effect (F = 23.95, df = 3, p < 0.05) indicated that the variation between sample means was significantly different. Post hoc mean comparison by the Duncan method indicated that all sample intensity means were significantly different from each other (p < 0.05). Mixture w (prepared from model R1) was the best performing sample and was significantly stronger than mixture v (prepared from model 5, a variant of the same flavor).

x: Post hoc Duncan analysis

Discussion and Conclusion

This experiment shows that mixture w is significantly more intense than all other mixtures, more than 1 unit more intense than mixture u and 2 units more intense than mixture t. This is despite the fact that the concentration of Model R1 fragrance included in the mixture is significantly lower than that of Model 5 (in mixture v). Although the two model fragrances share a similar odor and ingredient framework; Model R1 was adjusted to fall within the rules of the elastic flavor description above. The sensory results are consistent with model R1 behaving as an elastic component. Accordingly, perfumes falling within the above description appear to be flexible perfumes within the above definition.

As if they were single ingredients, the flavors included in this test exhibited different levels of elasticity, which led to a significant increase in overall strength. If these fragrances were essential oils, they would have been identified as elastic and non-elastic components. As fragrances, they can be considered to share similar properties as elastic ingredients, and based on their performance in these tests, the existence of flexible and non-elastic perfumes can be considered confirmed. This is useful in forming a flavor that is acceptable and suitable for the intended purpose.

Although the present invention has been described above with reference to specific embodiments thereof, it will be apparent that many changes, modifications and variations may be made without departing from the concept of the invention disclosed herein. Accordingly, this invention is intended to cover all such changes, modifications and variations that fall within the spirit and broad scope of the appended claims.

Claims (5)

A method of preparing a composition comprising a candidate active ingredient, comprising:
a. selecting a first inactive ingredient in the first mixture, wherein the first inactive ingredient has an odor characteristic most similar to the candidate active ingredient;
b. selecting a second inactive ingredient in the first mixture, wherein the second inactive ingredient has an odor characteristic that is most different from the candidate active ingredient;
c. Preparing a second mixture, wherein the first inactive ingredient is replaced with an iso-intense concentration of the candidate active ingredient and the second inactive ingredient is the same as the second inactive ingredient. Said step, identical to said first mixture, except replaced by a known active from the odor class;
d. Evaluating the intensity of the second mixture to determine whether the second mixture is significantly more intense than the first mixture, wherein if the second mixture is significantly more intense than the first mixture, then the candidate active ingredient is The steps above are considered to demonstrate resilient activity; and
e. Preparing a perfume composition containing the candidate active ingredient
Method, including. The method of claim 1, wherein the second mixture has a strength score that is at least 1 unit greater than the first mixture. A method for determining the elastic activity level of a candidate active ingredient, comprising:
a. selecting a first inactive ingredient in the first mixture, wherein the first inactive ingredient has an odor characteristic most similar to the candidate active ingredient;
b. selecting a second inactive ingredient in the first mixture, wherein the second inactive ingredient has an odor characteristic that is most different from the candidate active ingredient;
c. Preparing a second mixture, wherein the first inactive ingredient is replaced with an isointense concentration of the candidate active ingredient and the second inactive ingredient is a known odor class from the same odor class as the second inactive ingredient. The steps above are the same as the first mixture, except that the activator is replaced with: and
d. Evaluating the intensity of the second mixture to determine whether the second mixture is significantly more intense than the first mixture, wherein if the second mixture is significantly more intense than the first mixture, then the candidate active ingredient is The above steps are considered to have demonstrated elastic activity.
Method, including. 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the second mixture has a strength score that is at least 1 unit greater than the first mixture. The method of claim 1 or 3, wherein the candidate active ingredient and the known active agent are acetyl cedrene, synthetic camphor powder, cedarwood oil, cineole, cinnamic acid aldehyde, and cistus labdanum, respectively. ), Citral Dimethyl Acetal, Cosmone, Cyclal C, Beta Damascone, Delta Damascone, Ebanol, Ethyl Vanillin, Eugenol, Galbanone, Gamma Undecalac Tone, heliotropin, hexyl cinnamic acid aldehyde, iso E Super, alpha iso methyl ionone, Mayol, methyl carbicol, methyl cinnamate, methyl ethyl 2 butyrate, Silvanone, Silvial, Alpha Terpineol, Allyl Hexanoate, Labienoxime, Anisic Acid Aldehyde, Black Pepper Oil, Polysantol, Habanolide, Die Group 1A consisting of Hydroeugenol, Melonal, Violetyne, Methyl Benzoate, Raspberry Ketone, and mixtures thereof; Group 1B consisting of alkyl alcohols, phenyl alkyl alcohols, terpene hydrocarbons or mixtures thereof; and aldehydes C12, anethole, Ambermax, isobornyl acetate, Calone 1951, coumarin, cumic acid aldehyde, ginger oil, synthetic oakmoss, patchouli oil, undehyde. A method selected from group 1C consisting of undecavertol, vetiver oil, and mixtures thereof.

Images