RU2725509C2 - Perfume compositions - Google Patents

Abstract

FIELD: perfume industry.SUBSTANCE: invention relates to a method of producing a perfume composition containing an active candidate component and to a method for determining the degree of stable activity of the active candidate component. Selecting first inactive component in first mixture, wherein the first inactive component is most similar to the odor character with said active candidate component. Selecting second inactive component in said first mixture, wherein second inactive component is most different in nature of odor from said active candidate component. Method comprises obtaining a second mixture, wherein said second mixture is similar to first mixture, except that first inactive component is substituted with isointensive concentration of active candidate component, and the second inactive component is substituted with a known active component from the same odor class as the second inactive component. Intensity of second mixture is estimated, to determine whether the second mixture is significantly more intense than the first mixture. If the second mixture is considerably more intense than the first mixture, then the active candidate component is considered to exhibit stable activity. A perfume composition is obtained which contains said active candidate component by mixing said active candidate component with an odorless solvent.EFFECT: perfume compositions are disclosed.4 cl, 7 dwg, 13 tbl, 12 ex

Description

Application area

This invention relates to perfume compositions with improved organoleptic characteristics, to compositions comprising such perfume compositions, and to methods for producing and using such compositions. The invention includes aromas that are created using materials capable of a synergistic effect when mixed.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Odor is detected through the olfactory receptors, which are located in neurons in the olfactory epithelium in the nasal cavity. Signals from these neurons pass into the glomeruli in the olfactory bulb and into the higher brain center for additional interpretation. Each receptor neuron expresses the olfactory receptor of any one class, while neurons of the olfactory receptor of this one type are distributed over the olfactory epithelium. The output fibers from these scattered neurons converge together on one glomerulus in the olfactory bulb. Thus, signals from olfactory neurons encoding similar molecular properties / fragments with similar informational odor contents will converge on the same glomeruli in the olfactory bulb. One odorous molecule usually excites more than one class of olfactory neuron, and the excitation mechanism is reproducible and characteristic of this molecule.

In this process, elements of the odorous substance molecule are first fragmented and detected by odor receptors. Then, similar elements of different odor molecules strengthen each other at different odor receptors and at the level of the olfactory bulb. Subsequently, all of them are again combined into a single whole to provide a perception of smell, which can be as simple as the perception of one single object. Thus, many odor molecules emanating from a single flower can excite many neurons whose signals are recombined to provide a single olfactory sensation, which the observer can recognize as typical for a given particular flower. Another flower may emit many of the same materials, but differences in levels and composition will be combined again in such a way as to give a different sensory perception, which can be recognized as coming from another flower.

This combinatorial approach was proposed earlier, but the processes associated with it are still far from detailed understanding. Complex combinatorial mechanisms have repeatedly been the subject of research on the sense of smell. The purpose of the first studies of odor mixtures was to outline and classify sensory phenomena when odors are mixed and to develop terms to describe the observed changes in the total intensity. These studies were limited to two-component mixtures, due to the complexity of the phenomena involved.

Obtaining results at the biological level has proved to be just as difficult. It was observed that single olfactory neurons simultaneously combined several chemical signals. However, the researchers emphasize that the interactions that take place between the components are complex and predicting the reactions of olfactory neurons based on the reactions of their components is not an easy task. They found that events that occurred in the neurons of the receptors themselves, without taking into account the later events on the olfactory bulb, can be associated with changes in the perceived odor, for example, due to the fact that one of the odorous substances dominates or even masks the effect of another odorous substance . Natural odor causes a multi-chemical integration on the neuron of the olfactory receptor, which may be equivalent to a change in their odor coding properties so that these properties can play an important role in the overall perception process.

Thus, the tasks to be solved by researchers studying odors are becoming more clear, while the complexity and non-linearity of the observed phenomena make it difficult to develop even objective classification.

In nature, a sense of smell usually occurs under the influence of a complex mixture of odor molecules, and this mixture is perceived as one single object of perception. This state of affairs can be observed in animals and insects, in which olfactory signals can control vital behavior. For example, a mole can identify a flower emitting more than 60 materials, of which 9 are detected by the olfactory system. It has been shown that they behave as a single object of perception and are able to control the behavior associated with nutrition in flowers. Coding is organized through a set of glomerular code units, which are believed to combine the various features of molecular stimulants into a single object of perception (through a yet unknown mechanism).

In studies of the human body, the exact result of perceiving such a mixture of odors was variable and unpredictable, despite the regular observation of some broad categories of reactions.

The convergent nature of the processes occurring in the higher brain centers for processing olfactory information clearly means that mixtures of odors are not always simple combinations of their components. At the same time, people can often perceive a complex mixture of odors as a whole, and are also able to decompose the perceived signal into sensory subunits. For example, when mixing unpleasant odors and aromas it is often possible to separate perceptions in such a way as to evaluate the relative contribution of each type of odor to the overall odor. Thus, a paradox arises: a mixture can be perceived as a single experience of perception, and this experience itself can be subdivided after introspection.

The result of introspection may not reflect the relative intensities of the stimuli of the components or even the nature of their smell. Nevertheless, this process can be sufficiently reproducible, so much so that it can be used to develop new useful products, for example, deodorant flavors.

In such masking scenarios, usually one odor is used to reduce the perception of a second, less desirable odor. This is a common practice in which ways have been developed to optimize the process. By comparison, examples of synergistic interactions between odors are extremely rare.

In a composite study based on results obtained using 520 two-component mixtures, the most likely result of mixing odors above a threshold value was the fact that the total intensity of the mixture was lower than the sum of the intensities of the components and lower than the intensity that could be expected from automatic addition based on the law Stevens. The dependence of the increase in the intensity of a particular material on its concentration is usually expressed by a logarithmic function (Stevens law), so the first of these conclusions is not unexpected, but the second conclusion is more paradoxical. It also turned out that one of the two components contributed to a decrease in the intensity of the other component to a greater extent than in the opposite case. It also turned out that the addition of a third, fourth or fifth iso-intensive component did not increase the overall intensity. This indicated the presence of strong compression mechanisms.

As noted above, synergistic effects are rare. Where they were identified, they were attributed to “synthetic phenomena”, which meant that when these two components were mixed, a new, different odor quality was created. Sometimes the smell was perceived when mixing odorous substances at subthreshold levels, but these observations could not be logically explained. It was concluded that for any study of these effects, it would be necessary to measure both the intensity and the nature of the odor at the same time.

Synergy refers to a higher level of sensory exposure than would be expected based on the effects of unmixed components. One example is the addition of a sub-threshold amount of one odorous substance, causing a small but measurable increase in the perceived intensity of another odor (drink) or perceived sweetness of sucrose in an excess threshold amount. It was believed that the addition of one material in a small amount can sometimes lead to a significant increase in the intensity of the aroma or flavor properties. However, these examples can be regarded as unambiguous examples of synergy only if the subthreshold stimuli themselves are odorless. Given the statistical nature of the threshold value (for example, the level at which 50% of subjects can detect its presence, and therefore, 50% of subjects cannot), the added quantities of materials for many subjects can be superthreshold.

Given these kinds of problems, synergy was first clearly and unequivocally demonstrated when people detect odors. Maple lactone mixed with volatile carboxylic acids, acetic acid and butyric acid were used as materials. As a rule, at the threshold level of detection of two-component mixtures, the threshold concentration of an individual component is lower than the threshold level of odor of a component taken separately; this phenomenon is called agonism.

Researchers continued their research on three-component mixtures, but did not get a clear result. They came to the conclusion that the rules for the interaction of mixtures are such that each mixture must be considered individually and empirically.

In another study of superthreshold levels, two-component mixtures of fruit and woody odors were studied using orthonasal and retronasal stimulation. The intensity of the fruit component in the mixtures may increase or decrease depending on the level of the wood component. Synergy was reported from the results of EEG measurements, in which an increased amplitude of the N1 peak was detected for some mixtures. For other mixtures perceived retro-nasally, an EEG scan showed increased P2 amplitudes. These results may be evidence of the simultaneous existence of both sensory and cognitive processes in the perception of odor.

The study of alkyl sulfides and thiols allowed us to conclude that a mixture of similar materials with a similar chemical structure can be characterized by an averaging effect over all components.

Bicomponent mixtures of L-carvone (mint-caraway smell) and eugenol (spicy clove smell) were introduced as a physical mixture into one nostril and the results were compared with an experiment in which each odorous substance was introduced into different nostrils (dichoric mixing). Physiological and EEG reactions were recorded. Dichorionic mixtures were perceived as stronger than physical mixtures. The nature of the perceived odor between the two methods of assessment also varied. EEG reactions for dichoric mixtures showed differences for the P1 and N1 peaks (a more pronounced sensory effect). Together, all these results show that significant interactions occur between the left and right hemispheres in the higher brain centers (or at least after the glomeruli) and that the peripheral level is also one of the centers of significant interaction.

In a later publication it was shown that the quality (nature) of the mixture is not tied to any particular component, which indicates that the mixture of smells is perceived more or less synthetically as one single object of perception. In this study, the smell and its pleasantness to the mixture were essentially intermediate values between the values for each of the individual components.

WO2002049600, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety, describes perfume compositions with specific components that facilitate a transition to a relaxed, calm state.

An object of the present invention is to solve at least some of the problems described above. In particular, the identification of groups of odor ingredients that can be used to create synergistic compositions of odors or perfume compositions and to obtain the resulting perfume compositions based on them.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to aromas created using materials configured to give a synergistic effect when mixed in odor mixtures or aromatic mixtures. The invention further includes products formed by the introduction of such aromas.

In one aspect of the invention, a method for producing a perfume composition by incorporating materials that, when replacing a component with a similar odor pattern in any of the multicomponent examples described herein, provides an increase in intensity for these new blends compared to a similar use of the described unstable ingredient.

Brief Description of the Drawings

In FIG. 1 is a graph showing an approximation of a threshold value.

In FIG. 2 is a histogram of standardized intensity indicators for Examples 1-12.

In FIG. 3 is a histogram of averaged intensity indicators for Examples A-F.

In FIG. 4 is a histogram of averaged intensity indicators for G-O examples.

In FIG. 5 is a histogram of odd odor groups.

In FIG. 6 is a histogram of even odor groups.

In FIG. 7 is a graph of averaged intensity of aroma samples.

Detailed description

It was unexpectedly discovered that specific combinations of ingredients can be used to create synergistic effects when the sensory effects of the ingredients in the mixture or the mixture as a whole are stronger than would be expected based on the effects of unmixed components. Additionally, the present invention relates to compositions that include synergistic effects, as well as to methods of using such compositions to achieve the desired reactions in users, such as humans.

Those ingredients that stand out more strongly in the mixture than expected are called “persistent” materials in this document, and, without being limited by theory, some components of perfumes are more resistant than others. The present invention identifies these persistent odor components, including methods for identifying such persistent odor components and determining their threshold levels, and further describes methods for practically meaningfully combining them with other perfume components. Persistent materials can also combine their smell with the smell of other ingredients to create a new and different smell in the mix.

In a first aspect of the invention, the perfume composition comprises components from certain groups. The groups described below are called group 1A, group 1B and 1C. Perfume compositions of the present invention may include one or more components from one, two or all three groups 1A, 1B and 1C.

The first component (group 1A) is selected from the group consisting of acetylsedren, synthetic camphor powder, cedar oil, cineol, cinnamaldehyde (10), cistus resinoid, citral dimethyl acetal, Cosmone musk, Cyclal C, beta-damaskon (10), delta Damascone (10), Ebanol (10), Ethyl vanillin (10), Eugenol, Galbanone (10), Gamma-undecalactone, Heliotrope, Hexylcinnamic aldehyde, Iso E Super, Alpha-Isomethylionone, Mayol, Methyl Chavicol, Methyl Cinnamate, Ethyl-2-methylbutyrate , Silvanone, Silvial, alpha-terpineol, allylhexanoate, Labienoxime (10), anisealdehyde (10), black pepper oil, Polysantol (10), Habanolide, dihydroevgenol, Melonal, Violettyne (10), methylbenzoate, raspberry ketone and their Group 1A includes components that are active or persistent components in the perfume compositions of the present invention.

For the purposes of this specification, when a single component includes the mark “(10)”, this means a 10% solution of the material in a solvent, preferably odorless, including, by way of example, dipropylene glycol.

The second component (group 1B) is selected from the group consisting of alkyl alcohols, phenylalkyl alcohols, terpene hydrocarbons, or mixtures thereof. The components of group 1B can be added as part of natural oils. The components of group 1B are described herein as “promoters”.

Specific examples of the components of group 1B include linalool, orange terpenes, phenylpropyl alcohol, phenylethyl alcohol, alpha terpineol, Mayol, Mefrosol, citronellol, tetrahydroheraniol, tetrahydrolinalool, geraniol; and mixtures thereof. It was found that the components of group 1B further enhance the synergistic effect of the components of group 1A.

The third component (group 1C) can be selected from the group consisting of aldehyde C12 (10), anethole, Ambermax (10), isobornyl acetate, Calone 1951 (10), coumarin, cumin aldehyde (10), ginger oil, synthetic extract of oak moss, patchouli oil, Undecavertol, vetiver oil; and mixtures thereof. Materials from Group 1C can also be added as part of natural oils. Materials from group 1C are optional in the composition.

As noted above, one or more components of one, two, or three groups may be used in the present invention. One or more components from group 1A are contained in the composition in amounts from about 20% to about 80% of the mass. composition or from about 30% to about 80% of the mass. composition, or from about 40% to about 80% of the mass. composition, or from about 50% to about 80% of the mass. composition, or from about 30% to about 60%, or from about 50% to about 60% of the mass. composition. The number of individual components from group 1A may be one, two, three, four, or more than four. In the presence of one or more components from group 1B are contained in the composition in an amount of from about 5% to about 50% of the mass. composition or from about 15% to about 50% of the mass. composition, or from about 25% to about 50% of the mass. composition, or from about 15% to about 25%, or from about 10% to about 20% of the mass. composition. The number of individual components from group 1B, if included in the composition, may be one, two, three, four, or more than four. In the presence of a component from group 1C is present in the composition in amounts up to about 35% of the composition or from about 18% of the mass. or less composition. The number of individual components from group 1C, if included in the composition, may be one, two, three, four, or more than four.

Thus, one aspect of the present invention includes a combination of the above groups 1A, 1B and 1C.

A second aspect of the present invention includes materials whose use in the composition is limited, or materials that are excluded. In the present invention, there are two groups of such materials: group 2A and group 2B.

Group 2A includes allyl cyclohexyl propionate, Bangalol, Bourgeonal, blackcurrant flavors (Cassis base), ethyl methyl phenyl glycidate, ethylene brasilate, Florosa, Herboxane, cis-3-hexenylmethyl carbonate, Jasmatone, Lemonile, Lilial, methylanthranylate phenylate, methylthenylate phenylate, methylthenylate phenylate, methylthenylate phenyl, trahyl acetate, methyl Ultravanil, ylang-ylang oils and mixtures thereof.

Group 2B includes isononyl acetate, linalyl acetate and mixtures thereof.

If there are materials in group 2A or group 2B are independently present in the composition in an amount of not more than about 1.0% of the mass. composition and more preferably not more than about 0.6% of the mass. composition (in addition to being present as a component of natural oil). Thus, when applied, regardless of the presence in the natural oil, materials of group 2A can be contained in an amount from zero percent to about 1.0% or to about 0.6% of the mass. perfume composition. Similarly, when applied, regardless of the presence in the natural oil, materials of group 2B may be contained in an amount from zero percent to about 1.0% or up to about 0.6% of the mass. perfume composition.

The total concentration of additives of materials not related to essential oils from groups 2A and 2B is less than 2% of the mass. the entire perfume composition and more preferably less than about 1% of the mass. the entire perfume composition. In some embodiments, the perfume compositions of the present invention do not contain any materials from group 2A, and in some embodiments, the perfume compositions of the present invention do not contain any materials from group 2B.

All percentages are relative to the total weight of materials in the perfume composition (in addition to additives in the composition of natural essential oil), the total percentage in essential oil or similar substance (when this substance is the specified ingredient) and relative to 10 times the actual concentration of pure material when the name of the substance is followed by the mark “(10)”, as, for example, for aldehyde C12 (10). When a material appears in two or more groups, its contribution should be considered as divided between groups (eg, Mayol, alpha-terpineol); for example, in a ratio of 50: 50 between two groups.

It has been unexpectedly discovered that specific combinations of ingredients can be used to create synergistic compositions of odors or perfume compositions. Without limitation by theory, some components of the perfume composition turned out to be more persistent than others. A persistent component of the odor is that component that is more pronounced throughout the composition than would otherwise be expected, based on the odor properties of an individual material. The present invention identifies persistent odor components that are more easily identified in mixtures and whose odor pattern becomes an explicit component of the overall odor pattern of the mixture. Another advantage of the present invention is that the presence of resistant materials can lead to a new and different odor in the mixture. The present invention is very useful in the sense that it provides a stronger, or more complex, or unique flavor, without requiring the addition of more ingredients to the composition. For example, a persistent component may provide a higher perceived intensity, despite the use of a smaller amount of this persistent component in a perfume composition.

When odor mixtures are created from equal proportions of iso-intensive ingredients, mixtures containing significant proportions of “persistent materials” are often associated with a higher perceived intensity than mixtures where they are absent.

The contribution of the odor character from the second group of materials, that is, “unstable materials”, decreases when mixed with more resistant materials. In some compositions, these unstable materials may be completely masked. Therefore, the amounts in compositions of unstable materials, for example, those listed in Groups 2A and 2B, if used at all, should be limited to the levels described above. Persistent components, for example from group 1A, should be present in significantly higher amounts than components from group 2A and / or from group 2B.

Thus, the aforementioned aspect of the invention includes perfume compositions comprising one or more components selected from at least one of groups 1A, 1B and 1C, in combination with a component from one or more groups 2A and 2B.

The third group of materials is usually present when the perception of persistent materials and / or mixtures containing them is enhanced, but usually by themselves they do not show such a noticeable contribution to the olfactory sensation. These are the promoters of group 1B. Most of the promoters of group 1B are alcohols, which are usually used for mixing materials. Unexpectedly, it was found that the materials of group 1B contribute to enhancing the contribution of resistant material to the perfume composition. Group 1B promoters increase the intensity of the persistent component (s). The promoters of group 1B will increase the intensity of the material (s) of group 1A without noticeable perception of the smell of the promoter of group 1B. The promoters of group 1B are optionally included in the flavors of the present invention.

The threshold concentration of the odor component is the minimum concentration at which this smell is perceived. Such properties can be demonstrated by mixtures in which all components are present as equal-intensity stimuli in equal parts at threshold concentrations. The threshold concentration can be considered as a standard level for creating iso-intensive concentrations that can be relatively uniquely identified for all materials. If the iso-intensive components of the mixture did not interact with each other, each material would be perceived equally. If the smells of any materials have become more noticeable and / or intense, it is believed that their smell has intensified due to the presence of other materials. Thus, the formation of mixtures with iso-intensive materials is an effective way to identify the conditions and amplification mechanism within the mixture or for the mixture as a whole. At threshold levels of perception of the odor component, such an amplification is easier to identify.

An effective solvent for the preparation of liquid-phase samples with a threshold concentration is dipropylene glycol (DPG). The concentration of perfume material in such compositions, as a rule, is so small that the physical effects between materials at a threshold concentration will be very weak, and the main effects will be sensory in nature.

The present invention includes perfume compositions that include components that are always perceived in mixtures with intensities corresponding to a concentration that exceeds a threshold value, while in fact their concentration remains at a threshold level. Thus, the odor intensity of one or more components in accordance with the present invention increases, although the actual amount of one or more components corresponds to a threshold concentration level.

It should be noted that it is possible to increase the intensity of a certain aspect of the character of the smell using well-known additives, but the present invention goes beyond the simple application of the well-known additives described herein. Well-known additives include adding materials with the same odor aspect to achieve a stronger odor. For example, you can combine materials at or below a threshold concentration such that in combination they create an odor that exceeds the threshold level of perception. This can be achieved by combining only those materials, each of which partially or completely acts on the same receptor (s). Such groups of materials can typically be identified by the fact that they have similar odors or general aspects of odor. For example, combining subthreshold amounts of various materials smelling of a rose can result in a superthreshold mixture with the smell of a rose. However, this alone is not the mechanism of the present invention. Persistent odor components in the compositions of the present invention create enhancement effects and give advantages in odor intensity. This can be achieved without the simultaneous presence of other materials with common odor characteristics. Of course, the present invention does not exclude their use with such materials. The approach of mixing materials having only similar odor characteristics is described as an example above to emphasize the difference from the alternative approach to “apparent enhancement”, which is based on the effects of introducing well-known additives.

In addition to the persistent odor components used in the present invention, a second component can also be added. The added second components themselves may not play such a noticeable olfactory role in the overall odor profile of the mixture. They may not be perceived as the most intense components, but they do not significantly dilute or reduce the intensity characteristics of mixtures containing resistant materials. Surprisingly, it has been found that a combination of persistent odor components with a second component results in a mixture with improved beneficial characteristics (for example, with a higher perceived intensity of the mixture with a persistent odor component).

Fragrance compositions or perfume compositions of the present invention can be used in a variety of products. As used herein, the term “product” refers to products including the perfume compositions described above, and includes consumer products, drugs, and the like. Such products can take many forms, including powders, bars, sticks, tablets, creams, mousses, gels, lotions, liquids, sprays and sheets. The amount of perfume composition in such products may be in the range from 0.05% of the mass. (as, for example, in creams for skin with a faint odor) up to 30% of the mass. (as, for example, in compositions with a refined aroma). The inclusion of a perfume composition in products of these types is known, and existing methods may be used to incorporate the aromas of the present invention. Various methods for incorporating perfume compositions into a product include mixing the perfume composition directly into the product or onto the product; another method is to absorb the perfume composition onto a carrier material and then mix the aroma plus carrier mixture into the product.

To provide a more concise description, some of the quantitative expressions given herein are not specified using the term “about”. It is understood that, regardless of whether the term “about” is used explicitly or not, it is assumed that each numerical value given in this document refers to the actual given value, and it is also assumed that it refers to approximation to such a given value, which can be reasonably estimated by a person skilled in the art, including approximations related to the conditions of the experiment and / or measurement for such a given value.

The present invention includes perfume compositions and products including such perfume compositions, as well as methods of using such perfume compositions and products. Methods of use include providing a person with a perfume composition or product in accordance with the description given herein and providing a person with the opportunity to smell the resulting odor to achieve the desired effect. The desired effect may include, for example, providing the user (eg, a person) with emotional benefits, cognitive benefits and / or improved interaction with other forms of perception.

The present invention also includes a method for evaluating certain aromas / odors and determining a threshold concentration for aroma or odor, which can be used to determine the advantages of the invention. This assessment can subsequently be used to obtain a perfume composition (or a product comprising a perfume composition) with a desired threshold amount of a desired aroma. Thus, a method is provided for determining a threshold amount of aroma and preparing a perfume composition using evaluation results. The method may also include the formation of a product with a perfume composition.

In the examples and description below, the method involves the use of a solvent. The solvent used in the examples is dipropylene glycol, sometimes referred to herein as “DPG”, although other solvents with a slight odor or odorless can be used.

In these examples, the threshold level in the DPS of each ingredient was first determined, and then each ingredient was included at that level in the aroma. In addition, flavors were created containing in one case all the ingredients in an amount of about 0.3 threshold value, and in the other case, all the ingredients in an amount of 0.1 threshold concentration. For clarity, the experiments described below were carried out using a 10 ml aliquot of the aroma placed in 125 ml brown glass vessels.

Threshold Measurement

One of the acceptable methods for determining the threshold for detection and / or recognition of each odor ingredient from a liquid solution is obtained using the limit method (described in ASTM Manual on Sensory Testing Methods, STP 434 (1968), American Soc for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103, USA, the contents of which are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. An initial experiment was carried out to determine the approximate threshold level. The prepared series of concentrated samples was diluted until the odor of aroma ceased to be perceived. Subsequently, each expert was provided with an increasing series of concentrations of the perfume ingredient in dipropylene glycol, starting from a value below the threshold level, after which each expert gave a conclusion about the presence or absence of the specified odor quality in each sample.The series lasted until the conclusion changed (from “absent” to “present”). over than 15 ratings were grouped and analyzed to interpolate the concentration from the series at which the target odor would be detected (and / or recognized) in 50% of the estimates.

It was assumed that the dependence between the probability of detection and log ₁₀ on the concentrations has a sigmoidal shape; to predict a 50% probability of detection for each ingredient, the curve of greatest fit was obtained, corresponding to the function:

,

,

where y is the probability of detection in percent, x is log ₁₀ of the concentration in percent of the ingredient in dipropylene glycol, k is the constant that determines the slope of the sigmoid function, and threshold is the concentration value at the inflection point of the sigmoid curve (and, therefore, the concentration with a detection probability of 50% )

The k and threshold values were approximated and subsequently adjusted using the solution search add-in in the Microsoft XL 2007 application so as to minimize the mean square error (RMSE) between the observed and predicted points. The obtained RMSE values for all the curves of the highest compliance turned out to be below 10% and were found to be acceptable. In FIG. 1 shows an approximate threshold for one sample of a perfume ingredient.

Odor Intensity Measurement Evaluation

To assess the intensity of the samples, a group of experts is involved, including men and women. In this study, the age of the experts ranged from 25 to 65 years. They were selected for evaluation based on their ability to correctly rank the odor intensities of a series of dilutions (in DPG) of perfume ingredients. The standard perfume ingredient used in the evaluation of odor was benzyl acetate, obtained as a series of dilutions listed in the table below. Each dilution was assigned an odor intensity indicator. Similarly, other materials can be used.

Intensity indicator Benzyl acetate in DPG Odor Description 0 0% No smell 1 0.005% Minor 2 0.016% Weak 3 0.05% Certain 4 0.10% Middle five 0.23% Moderately strong 6 0.67% Strong 7 2.3% Intensive 8 5.1% Very intense

Standard dilutions were provided during the evaluations, as described above, which were provided as a reference to assist experts in performing the evaluations.

The examples given were obtained as described herein. The examples consisted of dilutions in DPG of mixtures of materials at their individual threshold concentrations or at concentrations above threshold levels. In the general case, about 10 g of each solution was placed in a 125 ml closed vessel and allowed to equilibrate for at least 2 hours at room temperature. During the evaluations, the experts removed the lid and tasted the smell of the contents. The contents of the vessels were evaluated in random order. Experts rated each sample on a scale from 0 to 8, where a rating of 0 corresponded to no odor and a rating of 8 to a very intense odor. After that, at least 15 ratings were obtained for each sample.

In cases where the evaluation of the sample is carried out in several sessions and / or by different subjects, it is possible to simplify the comparison of samples with each other by normalizing the results for each sample for sessions and experts. This is possible, for example, when each expert is offered too many samples and he cannot reliably evaluate them all in one session. The data for examples 1-12 were analyzed in exactly the same manner as described below.

_{(эксперт, сеанс)}), а также рассчитывали стандартное отклонение выборки для одного и того же набора баллов (s_{(эксперт, сеанс)}). На основе этих статистических данных каждую из точек данных эксперта конвертировали в стандартизованную оценку, т. е. i-й балл от каждого эксперта (x_i) пересчитывали в (x_std,i), как описано ниже:The experts were presented part of the samples in several sessions in order to reduce fatigue and scatter of estimates due to the large number of samples. The scores of each expert were standardized as follows: for each expert, the average value was calculated for all individual points set per session (

_{(expert, session)} ), and we also calculated the standard deviation of the sample for the same set of points (s _{(expert, session)} ). Based on these statistics, each of the expert data points was converted into a standardized score, i.e., the i-th score from each expert (x _i ) was converted to (x _{std, i} ), as described below:

.

.

_std).The data were further analyzed using analysis of variance. Subsequently, for each sample, the average value was calculated for all standardized scores from all experts (

_std ).

Examples were obtained using the various flavor ingredients listed in Table A. All examples of the mixtures were volumetric mixtures obtained by adding a small known amount of each mother liquor (in DPG) to the vial and diluting to the required amount with additional pure DPG. Ideal mother liquors were prepared as follows: 20 μl of each ingredient mother liquor was further diluted to achieve a total solution volume of 20 ml to obtain a solution of all ingredients with an estimated threshold concentration of each ingredient.

Stock solutions were prepared as weight mixtures through a series of dilution steps: for example, 0.50 g to 9.50 g of DPG was added to prepare a 0.0005% ingredient solution to give a 5% solution with a total weight of 10.00 g; then 0.15 g of this solution was diluted in 14.85 g of DPG to obtain a 0.05% solution with a total weight of 15 g; then this second solution was diluted with the same dilution factor by adding 0.15 g of a 0.05% solution to 14.85 g of DPG to obtain 15 g of a 0.0005% solution.

Stock solutions of the mixture were stored in a refrigerator in containers with very little residual free space above the solution (to minimize the loss of volatiles).

Each example was obtained by adding the target amount of each mother liquor to the vial and adjusting the total weight to 20.0 g. Then each mixture was stirred and left to balance. Each of them was used unchanged and was additionally diluted with a coefficient of 3/10 and 1/10 to obtain subthreshold mixtures. Thus, each mixture was obtained in 3 concentrations: (1) with each component at a threshold concentration, (2) with each component at a 0.3 threshold concentration, and (3) with each component at a 0.1 threshold concentration.

TABLE A

Flavor name Chemical name and name of other special components 9-DECENOL-1-OL 9-decen-1-ol ACETHYLCEDRENE 1 - [(3R, 3aR, 7R, 8aS) -2,3,4,7,8,8a-Hexahydro-3,6,8,8a-tetramethyl-1H-3a, 7-methanoazulen-5-yl] ethanone ALDEHYDE C12 Dodecanal ALLYL CYCLOGEXYL PROPIONATE Prop-2-enyl-3-cyclohexylpropanoate ALLYLHEXANOATE Prop-2-en-1-ylhexanoate AMBERMAX 2H-2,44a-methanonaphthalene-8-ethanol AMBROX DL Dodecahydro-3a, 6,6,9a-tetramethylnaphtho- (2,1-b) furan ANETOL (E) -4-Methoxy-1-propenylbenzene Anise aldehyde 4-methoxybenzaldehyde AURANTION Methyl-2 - [(7-hydroxy-3,7-dimethyloctylidene) amino] benzoate, = pure aurantiol (Aurantil Pure) Bangalol 2-Ethyl-4- (2,2,3-trimethyl-1-cyclopent-3-enyl) but-2-en-1-ol, (Z) - and (E) -isomers BENZALDEHYDE Benzaldehyde Benzyl acetate Benzyl acetate Bourgeonal p-tert-butyldihydrocinnamaldehyde CALONE 1951 3- (1,3-Benzodioxol-5-yl) -2-methylpropanal SYNTHETIC CAMPHOR POWDER 1,7,7-Trimethylbicyclo (2.2.1) heptan-2-one Cashmeran 1,1,2,3,3-pentamethyl-2,5,6,7-tetrahydroinden-4-one CEDAR OIL CINEOL 1,3,3-Trimethyl-2-oxabicyclo (2.2.2) octane BROWN ALDEHYDE 3-phenylprop-2-enal CIS-3-HEXENOL (Z) -Hex-3-en-1-ol CIS-3-HEXENYLMETHYL CARBONATE Carboxylic acid, 3-hexenylmethyl ether, (Z) - LADANICIAN RESINOID OIL (Cistus Labdnaum) CITRAL DIMETHYL ACETAL 1,1-Dimethoxy-3,7-dimethyl-2,6-octadiene CITRONELLOL 3,7-Dimethyl-6-octen-1-ol CITRONELLYLACETATE 3,7-Dimethyl-6-octene-1-yl acetate MUSCUS COSMONE (5Z) -3-methylcyclotetradec-5-en-1-one COUMARIN 2H-1-benzopyran-2-one CUMIN ALDEHYDE 4-propan-2-yl-benzaldehyde CYCLAL C 2,4-Dimethyl-3-cyclohexene-1-carbaldehyde Cyclamenaldehyde 2-methyl-3-isopropylphenylpropionaldehyde BETA DAMASCON (E) -1- (2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexenyl) but-2-en-1-one DELTA DAMASCON 1- (2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohex-3-enyl) but-2-en-1-one GAMMA DECALACTONE 5-hexylfuran-2 (3H) -one Dihydroevgenol 2-methoxy-4-propylphenol Dihydromyrcenol 2,6-Dimethyl-7-octen-2-ol Dimethylbenzylcarbinylacetate (2-Methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-yl) acetate, [or ... benzene ethanol, a, a-dimethyl-, acetate] EBANOL (E) -3-Methyl-5- (2,2,3-trimethyl-1-cyclopent-3-enyl) pent-4-en-2-ol Ethyl 2-Methyl Butyrate Ethyl 2-methylbutanoate Ethyl Methyl Phenyl Glycidate Ethyl Methyl Phenyl Glycidate = EMPG Ethylsafranate Ethyl 2,6,6-trimethylcyclohexa-1,3-diene-1-carboxylate Ethyl vanillin 2-ethoxy-4-formylphenol EVGENOL 1-Hydroxy-2-methoxy-4- (2-propenyl) benzene Florosa Tetrahydro-4-methyl-2- (2-methylpropyl) -2H-pyran-4-ol Galbanone 1- (5,5-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexenyl) pent-4-en-1-one GERANIOL (2E) -3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadiene-1-ol OIL OF HERANIUM GINGER OIL Habanolide (12E) -Oxacyclohexadec-12-en-2-one, HELIOTROPIN 1,3-benzodioxol-5-carbaldehyde HERBOXANE 2-Butyl-4,4,6-trimethyl-1,3-dioxane HEXILORIC ALDEHYDE 2- (Phenylmethylene) octanal INDOL 1H-Indole, = pure indole (Indole Pure) BETA ION 4- (2,6,6-Trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-yl) -3-buten-2-one ALPHA IRON 4- (2,5,6,6-tetramethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl) -3-buten-2-one ISOBORINE ACETATE (1,7,7-Trimethyl-6-bicyclo [2.2.1] heptanyl) acetate Isobutylquinoline 2- (2-Methylpropyl) Quinoline ISO E SUPER 1- (2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-1,3,4,5,6,7-hexahydronaphthalen-2-yl) ethanone. Isononyl acetate 3,5,5-trimethylhexyl acetate Jasmatone 2-hexylcyclopentan-1-one LABIENOXIME 2,4,4,7-Tetramethyl-6,8-nonadiene-3-onoxime Lemonile 3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-nonadienitrile Lilial 3- (4-tert-butylphenyl) butanal LINALOOL 3,7-Dimethyllocta-1,6-dien-3-ol LINALILACETATE 3,7-Dimethyl-1,6-octadiene-3-yl acetate Tangerine Aldehyde (E) -Dodeca-2-enal MANZANATE Ethyl 2-methylpentanoate Mayol 4- (1-Methylethyl) cyclohexanemethanol MEFROSOL 3-methyl-5-phenylpentan-1-ol MELONAL 2,6-Dimethyl-5-heptenal Methylanthranilate Methyl 2-aminobenzoate Methylbenzoate Methyl benzoate METHLHAVIKOL para-allilanizole Methylcinnamate Methyl 3-phenylprop-2-enoate METYLDIANTILIS 2-Ethoxy-4- (methoxymethyl) phenol METHYLDIGIDROJASMONATE, = hedion Cyclopentanoacetic acid 3-oxo-2-pentyl-, methyl ester ALPHA-ISOMETHYLIONONE 3-Buten-2-one, 3-methyl-4- (2,6,6-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-yl) METHYL LAITONE 8-Methyl-1-oxaspiro (4.5) decan-2-one Methylnaphthyl ketone 1- (2-Naphthalenyl) ethanone METHYLPAMPLEMUSS 1,1-Dimethoxy-2,2,5-trimethyl-4-hexene METHYL TUBERATE 4-methyl-5-pentyloxolan-2-one GAMMA NONALACTONE Dihydro-5-pentyl-2 (3H) -furanone MUSCLE OIL SYNTHETIC EXTRACT OF OAK MOSS ORANGE TERPENES (terpenes of orange oil) ORTOLAT 2-tert-butylcyclohexyl acetate = OTBCHA METHYL ETHER 1-methoxy-4-methylbenzene PACHULI OIL BLACK PEPPER OIL PARAGUAY PETITGRINE Phenylacetic Acid 2-phenylacetic acid Phenylacetate 1-Phenylethyl acetate, = washed acetate Phenylethyl alcohol Benzene ethanol Phenylethylphenylacetate 2-phenylethyl-2-phenylacetate PHENYL PROPYL ALCOHOL 3-phenylpropan-1-ol POLYSANTOL (E) -3,3-Dimethyl-5- (2,2,3-trimethyl-3-cyclopenten-1-yl) -4-penten-2-ol PTBCHA p-tert-butylcyclohexyl acetate Raspberry KETONE 4- (4-hydroxyphenyl) butan-2-one ROSENOXIDE 4-methyl-2- (2-methylprop-1-enyl) oxane SAFRALEINE 2,3,3-Trimethyl-2H-inden-1-one SILVANONE SUPRA Cyclohexadecanolide + Cyclopentadecanone SILVIAL 2-Methyl-3- [4- (2-methylpropyl) phenyl] propanal ALPHA-TERPINEOL Alpha, alpha, 4-trimethyl-3-cyclohexene-1-methanol TETRAHYDROGERANIOL 3,7-Dimethyloctan-1-ol TETRAHYDROLINALOOL TRACEOLID 3,7-Dimethyloctan-3-ol 1- (1,1,2,6-Tetramethyl-3-propan-2-yl-2,3-dihydroinden-5-yl) ethanone ULTRAVANIL 2-ethoxy-4-methylphenol GAMMA-UNDECALACTONE 5-heptyldihydro-2 (3H) -furanone UNDECAVERTOL 4-methyl-3-decen-5-ol VETIVER OIL VIOLETTYNE 1,3-undecadien-5-in OIL YLANG-YLANG

Examples 1-6. Flavor Blends

TABLE 1

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Benzyl acetate 0.0066% 0.0066% Cashmeran 0.0026% Cedar 1a Π 0.0127% 0.0127% Cineol 1a Π 0.00002% Cis-3-hexenol 0,0007% 0,0007% Cistus Labdnaum Resinoid Oil 1a Π 0.0038% Citral Dimethyl Acetal 1a Π 0.0307% 0.0307% Citronellol 1b 0.0031% 0.0031% 0.0031% Cyclal c 1a Π 0,0003% Damascus Delta (10%) 1a Π 0.0025% Dihydromyrceneol 0.0010% Ebanol (10%) 1a Π 0.0074% 0.0074% Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate 0.00002% Ethylsafranate 0.0022% 0.0022% Eugenol 1a Π 0.0010% Geranium oil 0,0003% Linalool 1b 0.0032% 0.0032% Manzanate 0.000003% 0.000003% Methylhavicol 1a Π 0.0022% 0.0022% Methyl cinnamate 1a Π 0.0069% 0.0069% Methyldiantyls 0.0030% 0.0030% Nutmeg oil 0.0016% 0.0016% Phenylethyl alcohol 1b 0.0022% Alpha terpineol 1a Π 0.0205% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (58.32%) 2 (52.64%) 2 (95.41%) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (14.14%) 2 (23.08%) 0 (0.00%) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 3 (27.53%) 1 (24.28%) 2 (4.59%)

Examples 1-6. Mixtures of flavors in accordance with the invention

TABLE 1 (continued)

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Example 4 Example 5 Example 6 Benzyl acetate 0.0066% Cashmeran 0.0026% 0.0026% Cedar 1a Π 0.0127% Cineol 1a Π 0.00002% 0.00002% Cis-3-hexenol 0,0007% Cistus Labdnaum Resinoid Oil 1a Π 0.0038% 0.0038% Citral Dimethyl Acetal 1a Π 0.0307% Citronellol 1b 0.0031% Cyclal c 1a Π 0,0003% 0,0003% Damascus Delta (10%) 1a Π 0.0025% 0.0025% Dihydromyrceneol 0.0010% 0.0010% Ebanol (10%) 1a Π 0.0074% Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate 0.00002% 0.00002% Ethylsafranate 0.0022% Eugenol 1a Π 0.0010% 0.0010% Geranium oil 0,0003% 0,0003% Linalool 1b 0.0032% 0.0032% Manzanate 0.000003% 0.000003% Methylhavicol 1a Π 0.0022% Methyl cinnamate 1a Π 0.0069% 0.0069% Methyldiantyls 0.0030% Nutmeg oil 0.0016% Phenylethyl alcohol 1b 0.0022% 0.0016% Alpha terpineol 1a Π 0.0205% 0.0205% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (45.34%) 2 (30.54%) 3 (97.17%) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (38.63%) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (4.29%) 1 (30.83%) 2 (2.83%)

EXAMPLE 1. To 19.74 ml of DPG was added 141.5 μl of a solution of cis-3-hexenol at a concentration of 0.10% in DPG, 50.7 μl of a solution of cedar oil at a concentration of 5.00% in DPG, 6.1 μl of a solution methyldiantylis at a concentration of 9.93% in DPG, 44.6 μl of a solution of ethylsafranate at a concentration of 1.00% in DPG and 18.4 μl of a solution of citronellol at a concentration of 3.34% in DPG and stirred.

EXAMPLE 2. To 19.91 ml of DPG were added 18.4 μl of a solution of linalool at a concentration of 3.50% in DPG, 15.1 μl of a solution of Ebanol at a concentration of 0.98% in DPG, 18.9 μl of a solution of methylcinnamate at a concentration of 7, 32% in DPG, 18.9 μl of a solution of benzyl acetate at a concentration of 7.01% in DPG and 18.4 μl of a solution of citronellol at a concentration of 3.34% in DPG and mixed.

EXAMPLE 3. To 19.77 ml of DPG were added 189.3 μl of a solution of citral dimethyl acetal at a concentration of 3.25% in DPG, 8.9 μl of a solution of methylchavicol at a concentration of 5.00% in DPG, 20 μl of a solution of nutmeg oil at a concentration of 1, 50% in DPG and 6.9 μl of a solution of manzanate at a concentration of 0.01% in DPG and mixed.

EXAMPLE 4. To 19.67 ml of DPG was added 195.5 μl of a solution of alpha-terpineol at a concentration of 2.10% in DPG, 18.2 μl of a solution of dihydromyrrhenol at a concentration of 1.15% in DPG, 19.5 μl of a solution of eugenol at a concentration 1.00% in DPG, 6.9 μl of a solution of ethyl 2-methylbutyrate at a concentration of 0.05% in DPG and 88.7 μl of a solution of phenylethyl alcohol at a concentration of 0.50% in DPG and mixed.

EXAMPLE 5. To 19.95 ml of DPG was added 18.4 μl of a solution of linalool at a concentration of 3.50% in DPG, 8.9 μl of a solution of cineole at a concentration of 0.04% in DPG, 9.9 μl of a solution of Cashmeran at a concentration of 5, 21% in DPG and 9.2 μl of a solution of delta-damascone at a concentration of 0.55% in DPG and mixed.

EXAMPLE 6. To 19.83 ml of DPG was added 5 μl of a solution of Cyclal C at a concentration of 1.01% in DPG, 15.1 μl of a solution of oil of cinnamon resinoid (Cistus Labdnaum) at a concentration of 4.99% in DPG, 13.8 μl of a solution methyl cinnamate at a concentration of 10.00% in DPG, 6.9 μl of a solution of manzanate at a concentration of 0.01% in DPG and 126.2 μl of a solution of geranium oil at a concentration of 0.05% in DPG and mixed.

Examples 7-12. Fragrances that do not comply with the selection rules for the invention

TABLE 2

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Example 7 Example 8 Example 9 Allylcyclohexyl Propionate 2a 0.0087% 0.0087% Camphor 1a Π 0.0016% Cis-3-hexenylmethyl carbonate 2a 0.00010% 0.0001% Coumarin 1c 0,00039% 0,00039% Cyclamenaldehyde 0.00010% 0.0001% Ethyl methyl phenyl glycidate 2a 0.0011% 0.0011% Ethyl vanillin (10%) 1a Π 0.0248% Florosa 2a 0.00012% 0.0001% Geranium oil 0,00032% Indole 0.00017% 0,0002% Isobornyl acetate 1c 0.0055% Isononyl acetate 2b 0.0126% 0.0126% 0.0126% Linalyl acetate 2b 0.0109% Mefrosol 1b 0.0051% 0.0051% Methyldihydrohasmonate 0.0020% Methyl laitone 2a 0.00003% 0.00003% Para-cresyl methyl ester 0.00012% 0.00012% Patchouli 0,00053% 0,00053% Phenylethylphenyl acetate 2a 0.0075% 0.0075% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (19.08%) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (1.44%) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (7.96%) 1 (32.28%) 3 (93.53%) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (90.01%) 1 (46.82%) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (2.03%) 1 (0.38%) 1 (6.47%)

Examples 7-12. Fragrances that do not comply with the selection rules for the invention

TABLE 2 (continued)

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Example 10 Example 11 Example 12 Allylcyclohexylpropionate 2a 0.0087% 0.0087% Camphor 1a Π 0.0016% 0.0016% Cis-3-hexenylmethyl carbonate 2a 0.00010% Coumarin 1c 0,00039% Cyclamenaldehyde 0.00010% Ethyl methyl phenyl glycidate 2a 0.0011% Ethyl vanillin (10%) 1a Π 0.0248% 0.0248% 0.0248% Florosa 2a 0.00012% 0.0001% Geranium oil 0,00032% 0,00032% Indole 0.00017% Isobornyl acetate 1c 0.0055% 0.0055% Isononyl acetate 2b 0.0126% 0.0126% Linalyl acetate 2b 0.0109% 0.01085% Mefrosol 1b 0.0051% Methyldihydrohasmonate 0.0020% 0.0020% Methyl laitone 2a 0.00003% 0.00003% Para-cresyl methyl ester 0.00012% Patchouli 0,00053% Phenylethylphenyl acetate 2a 0.0075% 0.0075% 0.0075% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (14.23%) 1 (43.31%) 1 (65.43%) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (14.52%) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (67.51%) 1 (15.17%) 2 (20.05%) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (40.97%) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (18.26%) 1 (0.55%)

EXAMPLE 7. To 19.87 ml of DPG was added 10 μl of a solution of para-cresyl methyl ester at a concentration of 0.02% in DPG, 19.2 μl of a solution of isononyl acetate at a concentration of 13.11% in DPG, 20 μl of a solution of Methyl Laitone at a concentration of 0 , 0010% in DPG, 18.2 μl of a solution of ethyl methyl phenyl glycidate at a concentration of 1.20% in DPG and 66.3 μl of a solution of indole at a concentration of 0.05% in DPG and mixed.

EXAMPLE 8. To 19.82 ml of DPG was added 17 μl of a solution of cyclamenaldehyde at a concentration of 0.12% in DPG, 19.2 μl of a solution of isononyl acetate at a concentration of 13.11% in DPG, 18.2 μl of a solution of coumarin at a concentration of 0.42% in DPG, 18.3 μl of a solution of allylcyclohexyl propionate at a concentration of 9.49% in DPG and 103 μl of a solution of Mefrosol at a concentration of 1.00% in DPG and mixed.

EXAMPLE 9. To 19.63 ml of DPG was added 17.8 μl of Florosa solution at a concentration of 0.00012% in DPG, 141.5 μl of a solution of cis-3-hexenylmethyl carbonate at a concentration of 0.00071% in DPG, 19.4 μl of an oil solution patchouli at a concentration of 0.00053% in DPG and 186.9 μl of a solution of phenylethylphenyl acetate at a concentration of 0.0075% in DPG and mixed.

EXAMPLE 10. To 19.93 ml of DPG was added 17.1 μl of a solution of Galbanone at a concentration of 1.02% in DPG, 17.1 μl of a solution of vetiver oil at a concentration of 2.48% in DPG, 19.5 μl of a solution of eugenol at a concentration of 1 , 00% in DPG and 17.7 μl of a solution of methylanthranilate at a concentration of 1.21% in DPG and mixed.

EXAMPLE 11. To 19.63 ml of DPG was added 183.3 μl of a solution of linalyl acetate at a concentration of 0.011% in DPG, 19.2 μl of a solution of isononyl acetate at a concentration of 0.013% in DPG, 18.5 μl of a solution of ethylvaniline at a concentration of 0.0025% in DPG , 18.3 μl of a solution of allylcyclohexyl propionate at a concentration of 0.0087% in DPG and 126.2 μl of a solution of geranium oil at a concentration of 0.00032% in DPG and mixed.

EXAMPLE 12. To 19.91 ml of DPG was added 17.8 μl of a Florosa solution at a concentration of 0.14% in DPG, 22 μl of a solution of isobornyl acetate at a concentration of 5.00% in DPG, 18.5 μl of a solution of ethyl vanillin at a concentration of 2.68% in DPG and 29.7 μl of a solution of phenylethylphenyl acetate at a concentration of 5.04% in DPG and stirred.

The range of odors applicable in accordance with the invention is extremely wide and is not limited to any particular segment. The description of the odors of the perfume compositions shown in Table 3 below shows non-limiting examples of the spectrum of types of odors applicable in accordance with the invention. The intensity data are presented in table 4.

TABLE 3 Example Odor Description 1 Citrus, spicy, green smell 2 Balsamic, floral 3 Spicy, sweet, fruity 4 Fruit sweet five Thick, fruity 6 Fruity, green smell 7 Floral, fruity 8 Oriental sweet nine Floral, bold ten Spicy, fruity eleven Floral 12 Flower (lilac)

TABLE 4

Example Concentration of ingredients Average standard intensity Standard deviation standard deviation Etc. 1 Threshold value 2.20 0.31 Threshold value 0.3 0.95 0.43 Threshold value * 0.01 -0.59 0.38 Etc. 2 Threshold value 1.45 0.71 Threshold value * 0.3 0.23 0.23 Threshold value * 0.1 -0.53 0.42 Etc. 3 Threshold value 1.81 0.59 Threshold value * 0.3 0.08 0.22 Threshold value * 0.1 -0.54 0.16 Etc. 4 Threshold value 1.29 0.91 Threshold value * 0.3 0.51 1.00 Threshold value * 0.1 -0.52 0.61 Etc. five Threshold value 1.85 1.34 Threshold value * 0.3 0.68 1.10 Threshold value * 0.1 -0.40 0.51 Etc. 6 Threshold value 1.92 0.38 Threshold value * 0.3 0.39 0.30 Threshold value * 0.1 -0.59 0.42 Etc. 7 Threshold value 0.32 0.60 Threshold value * 0.3 -0.57 0.50 Threshold value * 0.1 -1.11 0.47 Etc. 8 Threshold value 0.09 0.55 Threshold value * 0.3 -0.54 0.16 Threshold value * 0.1 -1.02 0.20 Etc. nine Threshold value 0.51 0.30 Threshold value * 0.3 -0.59 0.47 Threshold value * 0.1 -0.88 0.19 Etc. ten Threshold value 0.27 0.52 Threshold value * 0.3 -0.35 0.45 Threshold value * 0.1 -0.98 0.37 Etc. eleven Threshold value 0.08 0.71 Threshold value * 0.3 -0.97 0.29 Threshold value * 0.1 -1.37 0.38 Etc. 12 Threshold value 0.19 1.21 Threshold value * 0.3 -0.57 0.61 Threshold value * 0.1 -1.00 0.48

The data set was subjected to two-way analysis of variance (two-way ANOVA): two selected qualitative prognostic factors were named “example”, according to the evaluated samples, and “concentration”, according to the three concentrations of the samples; threshold value, 0.3 × threshold value and 0.1 × threshold value.

Analysis of variance showed that the two-factor model showed significant agreement for the data (F = 23.440, df = 13, p <0.05, R ² = 0.706) with a confidence level of 95%. An analysis using the sum of squares method of the 1st type showed significant contributions to the data variability of both the “example” factor (F = 9,703, df = 11, p <0,05), and the “concentration” factor (F = 98,993, df = 2 , p <0.05), since such significant differences between the samples were noticeable at concentrations close to the threshold. The statistical data for the selection of the model are presented in tables 5 and 6.

TABLE 5

Analysis of variance Source Df Sum of squares Least square method F Pr> F Model 13 120,089 9,238 23,440 <0.0001 Mistake 130 51,233 0.394 Corrected Amount 143 171,321 Model calculations Y = Mean (Y)

TABLE 6

Type I square sum analysis Source Df Sum of squares Least square method F Pr> F Example eleven 42,063 3,824 9,703 <0.0001 Concentration 2 78,025 39,013 98,993 <0.0001

In FIG. 2 shows mean values and 95% confidence intervals for standardized example ratings; it should be noted that in examples 1-6, the estimate is obviously> 0, while the average ratings in examples 7-12 have negative values.

Sample analysis performed using the Duncan posterior test showed significant differences between the examples of the present invention (examples 1-6) and comparative examples 7-12. In table 7 there is no difference in the average values between the elements of the group having the same letters, while there are significant differences between the average values for samples from different groups (critical level p = 0.05). It turned out that none of the samples belonged to both groups A and B. Therefore, we can say that examples 1-6 significantly exceed comparative examples 7-12.

TABLE 7

Example Rms
(standard intensity) Standard error Groups 1 0.851 0.181 A 2 0.381 0.181 A 3 0.452 0.181 A 4 0.424 0.181 A five 0.709 0.181 A 6 0.573 0.181 A 7 -0.454 0.181 B 8 -0.492 0.181 B nine -0.320 0.181 B ten -0.351 0.181 B eleven -0.751 0.181 B 12 -0.458 0.181 B

A-O Examples

In a number of additional AO examples, the intensity of each mixture was evaluated by subjects in a separate experiment on a unipolar rating scale (description of rating scales and their application can be found in ASTM Manual on Sensory Testing Methods, STP 434 (1968), see, in particular, page 19 -22, American Soc for Testing Materials, Philadelphia, Pa. 19103, USA, the entire contents of which are incorporated herein by reference). On this scale, “absence of intensity” was rated as 0, and other intensities were evaluated according to the criteria described above. Perfume compositions were prepared in accordance with the general procedures described above for Examples 1-12. The weight percentages of each ingredient in the compositions are shown in tables 8-13. 10 ml of each aroma solution was placed in a 125 ml brown glass jar and left to balance. Subjects analyzed the contents of the vessel and numerically evaluated the perceived odor intensity. The procedure was repeated in 3 sessions until 15 ratings.

Examples A-O illustrate the advantages of the present invention: a mixture of the present invention, presented at a threshold concentration, will have a stronger odor than a similar mixture in which materials that are less active or inactive in accordance with the present invention are used. In the examples, less active or inactive components are designated as “inactive”. The components that are part of the present invention are designated as “persistent / active”. In addition, the combination of materials of group 1a and materials of group 1b (or similar alkyl alcohols), all of which are present at a threshold concentration, enhances sensory perception of intensity. Average or average scores of Examples A-O are shown in FIG. 3 and 4. Black bars indicate the 95% confidence interval.

TABLE 8

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Mixture A Mixture B Methyl benzoate 1a Π 0.00607% 0.00597% 0.00599% Tetrahydrolinalool 1b 0,00020% 0,00020% 0,00020% Violettyne 1a Π 0.00193% 0.00192% 0.00192% Polysantol 1a Π 0,00092% 0,00092% 0,00091% Beta ionone 0,00090% 0,00089% 0,00089% Dihydroevgenol 1a Π 0,00096% 0,00096% 0,00097% Gamma decalactone 0,00036% 0,00036% 0,00036% Allylhexanoate 1a Π 0.00235% 0.00236% 0.00234% Tetrahydroheraniol 1b 0.01087% 0.01075% Phenylethyl alcohol 1b 0.00222% 0.00221% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) five (89.33%) five (45.72%) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (1.47%) 3 (49.59%) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (9.19%) 2 (4.69%)

TABLE 9

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Mixture C Mixture D Methyl benzoate 1a Π 0.00607% 0.00605% 0.00594% Violettyne 1a Π 0.00193% 0.00193% 0.00189% Isobutylquinoline 0,00065% 0,00065% 0,00064% Ambrox DL 0.00156% 0.00156% 0.00155% Alpha iron 0,00082% 0,00082% 0,00082% Dihydroevgenol 1a Π 0,00096% 0,00096% 0,00094% Aurantiol 0.00009% 0.00009% 0.00009% Labienoxime 1a Π 0,00025% 0,00025% 0,00025% Tetrahydroheraniol 1b 0.01087% 0.01064% Linalool 1b 0.00322% 0.00321% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 4 (74.60%) 4 (34.74%) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (53.32%) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 4 (25.40%) 4 (11.94%)

TABLE 10

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Mixture E Mixture F Florosa 2a 0.00012% 0.00012% 0.00012% Calone 1951 1c 0,00048% 0,00047% 0,00048% Petitgrain 0.00106% 0.00107% 0.00106% Black pepper oil 1a Π 0,00082% 0,00086% 0,00081% Dihydroevgenol 1a Π 0,00096% 0,00096% 0,00095% Allylhexanoate 1a Π 0.00235% 0.00235% 0.00240% Labienoxime 1a Π 0,00025% 0,00025% 0,00025% Phenylethyl alcohol 1b 0.00222% 0.00221% Geraniol 1b 0,00051% 0,00051% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 4 (72.60%) 4 (50.20%) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (30.91%) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (7.78%) 1 (5.41%) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (2.05%) 1 (1.40%) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (17.57%) 1 (12.08%)

TABLE 11

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Mixture G Mixture H Mixture I Mandarin Aldehyde 0.01172% 0.11696% Methyl benzoate 1a Π 0.00607% 0.06071% 0.06055% Tetrahydrolinalool 1b 0,00020% 0.00200% 0.00201% 0.00202% Isobutylquinoline 0,00065% 0.00662% Anisaldehyde 1a Π 0.00010% 0,00096% 0,00097% Ambrox DL 0.00156% 0.01557% 0.01559% 0.01561% Musk Cosmone 1a Π 0,00075% 0.00767% Habanolide 1a Π 0.00407% 0.04067% 0.04114% Phenylacetic acid 0.00543% 0.05419% 0.05424% 0.05424% Gamma decalactone 0,00036% 0.00361% 0.00365% 0.00359% 9-decen-1-ol 1b 0.00432% 0.04321% Labienoxime 1a Π 0,00025% 0.00247% 0.00247% Tetrahydroheraniol 1b 0.01087% 0.10849% Citronellol 1b 0.00307% 0.03070% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (3.07%) 3 (58.13%) 3 (32.88%) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (18.10%) 0 (1.12%) 2 (44.16%) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 3 (78.83%) 3 (40.75%) 3 (22.97%)

TABLE 12

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Mixture J Mixture K Mixture L Benzaldehyde 0,00064% 0,00064% Methyl benzoate 1a Π 0.00607% 0.00607% 0.00607% Tetrahydrolinalool 1b 0,00020% 0,00020% 0,00020% 0,00020% Silvial 1a Π 0.00359% 0.00359% 0.00359% 0.00359% PTBCHA 0.00303% 0.00303% Black pepper oil 1a Π 0,00082% 0,00082% 0,00082% Beta ionone 0,00090% 0,00090% Habanolide 1a Π 0.00407% 0.00407% 0.00407% Aurantiol 0.00009% 0.00009% 0.00009% 0.00009% Allylhexanoate 1a Π 0.00235% 0.00235% 0.00235% 0.00235% Citronell acetate 0.00289% 0.00289% Tetrahydroheraniol 1b 0.01087% 0.01087% 0.01087% Phenylethyl alcohol 1b 0.00222% 0.00222% Citronellol 1b 0.00307% 0.00307% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (43.39%) 3 (60.22%) 3 (50.67%) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 0 (1.47%) 1 (39.45%) 3 (49.05%) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 4 (55.14%) 1 (0.33%) 1 (0.28%)

TABLE 13

Material Group Persistent / active Estimated Threshold Mixture M Mixture N Mixture O Florosa 2a 0.00012% 0.00012% Citral Dimethyl Acetal 1a Π 0.03075% 0.03055% 0.03054% Calone 1951 1c 0,00048% 0,00048% 0,00048% 0,00048% Isobornyl acetate 1c 0.00550% 0.00552% Cineol 1a Π 0.00002% 0.00002% 0.00002% Ambermax 1c 0,00026% 0,00026% 0,00026% 0,00026% Coumarin 1c 0,00039% 0,00039% 0,00039% 0,00039% Nutmeg oil 0.00158% 0.00160% 0.00158% 0.00159% Allylcyclohexyl Propionate 2a 0.00868% 0.00870% Delta damaskon 1a Π 0,00025% 0,00025% 0,00025% Mefrosol 1b 0.00513% 0.00512% Hexylcinnamic Aldehyde 1a Π 0.01650% 0.01637% 0.01643% Citronellol 1b 0.00307% 0.00306% Alpha terpineol 1a and 1b Π 0.02051% 0.02050% Total 1a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 3 (0.00%) 3 (78.21%) Total 1b: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (23.08%) 1 (8.34%) Total 1c: amount (% in aromatic oil) 2 (29.96%) 2 (2.26%) 2 (1.52%) Total 2a: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (39.76%) Total 2b: amount (% in aromatic oil) Total others: amount (% in aromatic oil) 1 (7.20%) 1 (97.74%) 2 (11.93%)

Fragrances created in accordance with the present invention exhibit higher odor intensities, and in some aspects, significantly higher odor intensities than comparative aromas using the test method described above. For demonstration purposes, we ensured that the aromas did not contain materials whose main odor was also found in other materials in the aroma. This effectively minimized (or eliminated) the additive effects caused by the fact that two similar odors at a threshold or near threshold concentration excite the same receptors and, thus, lead to a suprathreshold level of activity at this receptor. Thus, the flavors of the invention exhibit a higher intensity due to the synergistic interaction between the ingredients. It was traditionally believed that such phenomena are rare. The present invention allows reliably and reproducibly to obtain a composition of aromas having internal synergy. The present invention provides a method for producing such aroma compositions, and further these aromas themselves encompass a wide range of odors and provide benefits. Aroma is often one of the most expensive components of consumer products, so any such widely applicable way to increase the intensity provides an advantage for the developer of the composition.

Fast durability test

In another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method for determining whether a new material is durable, which method is simple and relatively fast. Other methods include numerous evaluations of many component mixtures in a balanced experimental configuration, but it may be preferable if a test could be developed in which new material could be added to a standard mixture, and there would be a high probability that the resistance property of the test material will become apparent. This is the purpose of this alternative quick check method for determining durability. This method will be referred to as the “quick test”.

The approach taken is to create two mixtures in which all ingredients are unstable and present at a threshold concentration. There is also a minimal match in the odor pattern between the ingredients in each mixture. These ingredients can then be replaced with test materials. Resistant materials are partly determined by the tendency to increase the intensity of mixtures containing them. New ingredients can be classified by measuring the perceived changes in intensity that occur when known, unstable materials are replaced.

If the intensity of the mixture were significantly increased due to the replacement of the inactive component with new test material, a synergistic interaction would be formed and the test material would exhibit the “persistent” activity described herein.

The composition of the test mixtures

Mixtures of inactive materials have been developed using the same odor classes discussed above. The odor spectrum was divided into ten broad classes of odor. These include: floral, aldehyde, citrus / fresh, green / watery smell, herbal, woody / amber, powdery / musky, spicy, light fruity, heavy fruity. These descriptors are regularly used in perfumery and are well understood by those who practice in this field. They were assigned to two mixtures in such a way that one mixture contains groups of odors: aldehyde, green / watery smell, woody / amber, spicy and heavy fruity; another blend contains citrus / fresh, herbal, powdery / musky, light fruity and floral. The new test material should replace one of the inactive materials in the corresponding test mixture, preferably replacing the inactive, most similar in smell to the test material.

The inventors have found that a quick test is most effective when two active materials are present in a mixture. The present approach regularly achieves a significant increase in intensity compared to a combination without the presence of active materials.

Brief description of the quick test procedure

The preferred quick test procedure is given below.

It is preferable to use a test mixture in which one of the inactive materials has already been replaced by the active. Therefore, for use with each mixture of inactive materials, two “standard” active materials were selected. The standard active material is the material that will be included in the test mixture along with the test material, both of which are present at a threshold concentration. As a result of two substitutions, a mixture with a much higher intensity should be obtained than the initial mixture without the presence of active materials. Two “standard” active materials have different smells and fall into different odor classes. They are listed below in the experimental section.

The present invention includes a method for identifying and selecting new active materials, whereby the candidate material provides increased intensity (more than one unit on the standard scale described here or equal to it) when it is replaced by an inactive material in one of the two test mixtures described for this purpose, with or without a second inactive material replaced by a known active material. Preferred active and inactive materials are described in the specification. The invention includes the production of a perfume composition using substituted inactive material or inactive materials.

At the first stage of the test, it is determined which class the test material belongs to, and a mixture of inactive materials with the most similar class is selected. Unknown material replaces unstable material from the same group of odors. This mixture is used as the basis for further research. Then you should choose unstable material, which is considered the most different from the unknown by smell. This unstable material is replaced by a persistent one from the same class of odors. Examples of persistent materials for each odor class are given in the text above.

Given the desired result of determining the benefits of substitution and the ultimate goal of obtaining a composition with a suitable stable component, the invention includes a quick test method. The method can be used to identify and select new active materials, whereby the candidate material provides increased intensity (for example, more than one unit on the standard scale described here or equal to it) when it is replaced by an inactive material in one of the two test mixtures described with this purpose. It can be made with a second inactive material, replaced with a known active material, or without it. Preferred active and inactive materials are described above.

The method may include the following processes. First, the user identifies and examines each of the inactive components in two test mixtures. In step 1, the inactive component that is most similar in smell to the candidate material is selected. This identified component is called the “most similar” inactive component. He will determine which of the two test mixtures will be used in the next stages. The next stage (stage 2) is to determine which inactive material in the test mixture selected in stage 1 is most different from the candidate material. Identification of the most excellent inactive material is optional, however, it is preferable to identify this component so as to maximize the difference. The identified “most excellent” material will be replaced with a known active material from the same odor class.

In the third stage, the composition of the selected test mixture is changed, replacing at least one and preferably both of the two inactive materials (the most similar inactive and the most excellent inactive) identified in stages 1 and 2 above. For example, the most similar inactive material (identified in stage 1) can be removed and replaced by the iso-intense concentration of the candidate material, and the most excellent material can be removed and replaced by the iso-intense concentration of the known active material identified in stage 2. Examples of suitable concentrations for the active materials are described. higher. Using the method described above, you can find the threshold concentration of the candidate material.

In the fourth step, the intensity of the new mixture obtained in step 3 can be estimated using the preferred method described in the following paragraph. If the new mixture is significantly more intense than the initial test mixture of inactive materials (for example, the intensity is one unit or more), then it is considered that the candidate material showed persistent activity. This conclusion can be used to develop a perfume composition comprising a candidate material. Therefore, it may be useful to apply the present method to develop a modified perfume composition in which at least one component has been replaced, for example, the active component is replaced by an inactive component or vice versa.

Assessment of persistent activity. The intensity of the new mixture with the inclusion of the new test material and the standard active material should be evaluated in comparison with the intensity of the corresponding mixture of five inactive materials. It is preferable to use the intensity scale used in the experimental section below. This is an organoleptic scale in which the organoleptic rating is illustrated by standard concentrations of benzyl acetate in dipropylene glycol. If the new mixture is much more intense than the mixture of inactive materials (for example, more than 1 unit on this scale), then we can assume that the new test material exhibits "persistent" activity. You can then prepare a composition comprising a resistant material.

The compositions of two test mixtures and two standard active materials to be used with each mixture are given in the experimental section.

Experimental Section 1. Rapid Test for Persistent Ingredients

Sample Preparation

All samples and standard solutions consisted of dilutions in DPG. 10 g of each solution was placed in a closed vessel with a volume of 100 ml and left to bring into equilibrium for at least 2 hours at room temperature. During the assessments, the experts removed the lid, tasted the smell of the contents and returned the lid to its place.

The experts were presented part of the samples in several sessions in order to reduce fatigue and scatter of estimates due to the large number of samples. The order of presentation of the samples was from the expected lowest intensity to the expected highest intensity in order to minimize transfer from intense samples. Initial mixtures were first presented, and then all other test mixtures were randomized.

Assessment Procedure

To assess the intensity of the samples, a group of experts was involved, including men and women aged 25 to 65 years. They were selected for evaluation based on their ability to correctly rank the odor intensities of a series of dilutions (in dipropylene glycol, DPG) of perfume ingredients.

Intensity measurements were compared with standard concentrations of benzyl acetate. Before the evaluation sessions, a group of experts was presented with benzyl acetate prepared in a series of dilutions in DPG, as indicated in the table below. Each dilution is assigned an odor intensity indicator.

i. Standardized dilutions of benzyl acetate in DPG with appropriate ratings

Intensity indicator Benzyl acetate in DPG Odor Description 0 0% No smell 1 0.005% Minor 2 0.016% Weak 3 0.05% Certain 4 0.10% Middle five 0.23% Moderately strong 6 0.67% Strong 7 2.3% Intensive 8 5.1% Very intense

Standard dilutions were provided during the evaluations, as described above, which were provided as a reference to assist experts in performing the evaluations.

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.

When developing these samples for each of the groups of odors, one inactive ingredient was chosen: 1, aldehyde; 2, citrus / fresh; 3, the smell of green / watery; 4, herbal; 5, woody / amber; 6, powdery / musky; 7, spicy; 8, heavy fruit; 9, light fruit; 10, floral. These materials were then used to prepare two 5-component mixtures that formed the starting sample in each set.

Samples of kit 1 were made only from odd odor groups; set 2 samples were made only from even odor groups. This precaution ensured that all samples were made from ingredients selected from non-contiguous odor groups, and thus minimized any overlap in the odor pattern between the inactive components in each mixture. All ingredients were included with an estimated threshold concentration in DPG using the method described above.

Each set consisted of 5 samples:

(a) an initial mixture consisting of 5 known inactive ingredients, each of which is selected from different non-adjacent groups of odors;

(b) a variant of the base mixture prepared with one inactive ingredient substituted with a known active ingredient from the same odor group, resulting in a mixture of 4 inactive ingredients and 1 active material (for example, mixture 1b contains the active material from group 7, 7act, see the table on the back);

(c) this second mixture “b” formed the basis of the third mixture (c), in which the second inactive ingredient was replaced with a known active ingredient, resulting in a mixture of 3 inactive and 2 active ingredients (for example, mixture 1c contains the active material from groups 7 and 9, 7act and 9act, see table on back);

(d) and (e) two subsequent mixtures (d) and (e), each of which contains 3 inactive and 2 active ingredients, obtained using mixture “c” as a starting point. In these mixtures, one of the two active ingredients of mixture “c” was replaced with an alternative known active ingredient from the same odor group.

The new active materials used in mixtures (d) and (e) provide training test materials to demonstrate the usefulness (or lack thereof) of the testing methodology.

The obtained 10 samples are described in the table below.

ii. The composition of the samples of set 1 and set 2

Set 1: a group of odd odors at a threshold concentration Set 2: even odor group at threshold concentration Sample Format Test Number Odor group Ingredient Test Number Odor group Ingredient Type A mixture; base mix; without active materials 1A 1 Aldehyde c12 2A 2 Linalyl acetate 3 Calone 4 Isononyl acetate five Ebanol 6 Methyl laitone 7 Methyldiantyls 8 gamma nonalacton nine Phenoxyethyl isobutyrate ten Jasmatone Mixture type B; 4 inactive; 1 active 1B 1 Aldehyde c12 2B 2 Linalyl acetate 3 Calone 4 Isononyl acetate five Ebanol 6 Methyl laitone 7act Dihydroevgenol 8act damascus nine Phenoxyethyl isobutyrate ten Jasmatone Mixture type C; 3 inactive; 2 active 1 Aldehyde c12 2act Citral Dimethyl Acetal 3 Calone 4 Isononyl acetate five Ebanol 6 Methyl laitone 7act Dihydroevgenol 8act damascus 9act Ethylsafranate ten Jasmatone Type of mixture D; 2 active; first substitution 1D 1 Aldehyde c12 2D 2act ' Petitgrain 3 Calone 4 Isononyl acetate five Ebanol 6 Methyl laitone 7act ' Eugenol 8act damascus 9act Ethylsafranate ten Jasmatone Type of mixture E; 2 active; second substitution 1E 1 Aldehyde c12 2E 2act Citral Dimethyl Acetal 3 Calone 4 Isononyl acetate five Ebanol 6 Methyl laitone 7act Dihydroevgenol 8act ' Raspberry ketone 9act ' Labienoxime ten Jasmatone

Organoleptic analysis

All of the above mixtures were evaluated by perceived intensity relative to the benzyl acetate intensity scale. Average intensities were recorded and compared to assess whether inclusion of the test material and known active materials resulted in a significant increase in perceived intensity compared to the corresponding 5-component mixture of inactive materials.

Data analysis

The average rate of intensity, n = 15.

iii. Averages table: set 1 (odd odor groups)

Sample 1a 1b 1c 1d 1e Description Odd, no active materials Odd, 1 active material: dihydroevgenol Odd, 2 active materials: dihydroevgenol and ethylsafranate Odd, 2 active materials, 1 subst., Eugenol Odd, 2 active materials, 1 substitute., Labienoxime Average intensity 0.83 1.40 1.83 3.07 3.30 Stand. off 0.52 0.60 0.70 0.86 1,11

iv. Averages table: set 1 (odd odor groups)

Sample 2a 2b 2c 2d 2e Description Chet, without active materials Chet, 1 active material: citral dimethylacetal Chet, 2 active materials: citral dimethyl acetal and δ-damaskon Chet, 2 active materials, 1 subst., Petitgrain oil Chet, 2 active materials, 1 subst., Raspberry ketone Average intensity 1.37 2.47 3.37 3.23 3.90 Stand. off 0.77 0.92 0.83 0.94 0.76

Intensity estimates for each sample set were introduced as a dependent variable of two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In each analysis, the same two factors were present: 1) “observation” with 15 levels corresponding to each set of expert group ratings, and 2) “sampling” with 5 levels corresponding to samples a-c in the corresponding set of mixture samples.

In FIG. Figure 5 shows a graph of the average intensities for the mixtures in set 1. In this figure, the bands marked with different letters (for example, A, B or AB and C, but not A and AB) are significantly different. It was found that the ANOVA model significantly predicts a change in the data set (F = 13.4, df (model) = 18, p <0.01). Type I SS analysis reveals significant main effects for observation and sampling factors, revealing relevant but consistent differences between samples, as well as between the use of the scale by individual members of the expert group.

v. Analysis of the sum of squares of type I (set 1)

Source Df Sum of squares Least square method F Pr> F Observation 4 68,087 17,022 45,362 <0.0001 Sample fourteen 22,587 1,613 4,299 <0.0001

A posteriori multiple comparisons revealed significant differences between samples at three levels (samples that do not belong to the same group in the far right column differ significantly, p <0.05).

vi. Analysis using the Duncan posterior test (set 1)

Category Rms Standard error Lower bound (95%) Upper bound (95%) Groups 1e: 2 active materials, 1 subst., Labienoxime 3,300 0.158 2,983 3,617 A 1d: 2 active materials, 1 subst., Eugenol 3,067 0.158 2,750 3,384 A 1c: 2 active 1,833 0.158 1,516 2,150 B 1b: 1 active 1,400 0.158 1,083 1,717 B 1a: no active materials 0.833 0.158 0.516 1,150 C

Conclusion ANOVA (kit 1): Labienoxime and eugenol are active, i.e., persistent, as defined above.

ANOVA set 2 (even groups)

In FIG. Figure 6 shows a graph of average intensities for the mixtures in set 2. In this figure, bands marked with different letters (for example, A, B or AB and C, but not A and AB) are significantly different. It was found that the ANOVA model significantly predicts a change in the data set (F = 13.4, df (model) = 18, p <0.01). An analysis of SS type I (on the back) reveals significant main effects for the observation and sampling factors, revealing the corresponding but consistent differences between the observers and the samples.

vii. Type I square sum analysis (set 2)

Source Df Sum of squares Least square method F Pr> F Observation 4 68,087 17,022 45,362 <0.0001 Sample fourteen 22,587 1,613 4,299 <0.0001

Posterior multiple comparisons (Duncan's method) revealed significant differences between samples at four levels (samples that do not belong to the same group in the far right column differ significantly, p <0.05).

viii. Duncan Posterior Analysis (Set 2)

Category Rms Standard error Lower bound (95%) Upper bound (95%) Groups 2e: 2 active materials, 1 subst., Raspberry ketone 3,900 0.196 3,508 4,292 A 2c: 2 active 3,367 0.196 2,975 3,759 A B 2d: 2 active materials, 1 subst., Petitgrain oil 3,233 0.196 2,841 3,625 B 2b: 1 active 2,467 0.196 2,075 2,859 C 2a: no active materials 1,367 0.196 0.975 1,759 D

Conclusion (ANOVA kit 2) : raspberry ketone and petitgrain oil are active, i.e. persistent, as defined above.

Based on the results of both ANOVA analyzes, the principle is shown: in the presence of two active ingredients, the resulting mixture is much stronger than the original mixture. It is shown that two-active mixtures, respectively, are significantly more intense than the initial mixture.

In accordance with the present invention, an unknown material can be tested for resistance characteristics by substituting together with the known active material in a mixture with other unstable materials of various odor types at a threshold concentration of all materials present. If substitutions lead to a significant increase in odor intensity by more than one unit on the standard benzyl acetate scale compared to a mixture of 5 inactive materials, then the unknown material can be called resistant material in accordance with the above definition.

Aroma Compositions

The method described above can be used to test not only ingredients, but also aromas. By aroma is meant a balanced mixture of materials that demonstrates the uniform, multifaceted nature of the smell. There are several mixtures of odorous substances that are used as individual ingredients, for example, natural oils; they share a common theme in the character of odors, although they consist of individual ingredients that span a range of different odor patterns. Commercially available aromas also often have a distinct smell theme, as they can be associated with the “aroma genealogy” and can be discussed with respect to the history and practice from which they developed. It is customary to discuss aroma in such terms as “sweet”, “floral”, “fruit”; or “fresh,” “spicy,” “musky,” and so on. The aromas are much more complex, and the smells have a larger middle note, but the smell patterns, as a rule, are also built with a certain level of uniformity. If an aroma has too many facets of an odor of equal importance, the straightforwardness that the consumer appreciates in the aroma will be lost. Thus, when using a fragrance as an ingredient in a fragrance, questions will arise.

Commercially appropriate flavors tend to exhibit reasonable uniformity between the nature of the odor just above the threshold and the smell at higher concentrations. As a result, you can consider them as if they were an ingredient, such as an essential oil, and see if they can act as a resistant material or not.

The aroma is perceived not as a complex combination of dozens of ingredients, but as a single smell with different faces. Short-term exposure is sufficient to obtain sufficient information about the nature of the smell, so that the subject can make acceptable comparisons between aromas some time after the first perception. The initial impact can be supplemented by a deeper analysis and introspection of a perceived nature in order to decompose the general phenomenon into possible organoleptic components. This process is akin to the perception of purple, followed by an assessment of the relative levels of red and blue of which it is composed. The ability to disassemble color analytically in no way diminishes the ability to perceive the mixture as a single object of perception.

Fragrance Behavior: Measuring Fragrance

Persistent materials can be identified using the procedures described above. This procedure is useful in that it uses materials included in the mixture at their threshold concentration. The resulting aromas themselves can be evaluated using their threshold concentration, as would be done for the essential oil ingredient. Therefore, aromas can be included in test mixtures at a threshold concentration.

Any problems associated with the detection of minor components with a lower concentration than that of the main olfactory aroma note can be minimized by using a series of descending concentrations to measure the threshold. For example, a test subject starts at a concentration above a threshold and evaluates successive dilutions until the nature of the perfume product can no longer be detected. The last concentration at which the target character of the smell was perceived was recorded as a threshold for this assessment. The subject should take care not to get used to the smell: take short breaths with your nose (2 seconds should be enough) and frequent respite. The subject can confirm the threshold value by repeating the process for several samples close to the threshold value. Then, the generalized threshold value is calculated as the concentration at which a 50% detection probability is reached. Perfumes diluted to a generalized threshold value were then used in the test for new active materials in relation to other flavor ingredients.

This method in this case was similar to that described above for testing new ingredients.

Experimental Section 2

Assessment Procedure

The expert group is similar to that described in experimental section 1. It evaluated samples only by intensity, based on the same 8-point scale and using standard dilutions of benzyl acetate as a reference.

Sample Preparation

Samples consisted of 10 ml of a mixture solution, presented in 100 ml amber powder jars closed with a lid and balanced for 2+ hours, as described in experimental section 1.

Experimental samples

Four experimental samples were made; t, u, v and w, which consisted of the following components:

(t) the initial mixture (t), consisting of 5 known inactive ingredients, each of which was selected from different non-adjacent groups of odors;

(u) variant (u) of the initial mixture prepared with one inactive ingredient substituted with a known active ingredient (delta damascone) from the same odor group, resulting in a mixture of 4 inactive ingredients and 1 active;

(v) and (w) mixture u formed the basis of the third (v) and fourth (w) mixtures, in which the second inactive ingredient was replaced by one of two models of aromas: model 5, an aesthetically pleasing combination with a predominantly powdery-sweet character, enhanced by notes of greenery , and model R1, developed on the basis of model 5 and adapted to comply with the rules for the preparation of synergistic aromas, as described above.

The obtained 4 samples are described below in table ix.

ix. Compositions of mixtures t, u, v and w

Mixture sample Odor group Ingredient Concentration t 2 Linalyl acetate 0.01086% 4 Isononyl acetate 0.01259% 6 Methyl laitone 0.00003% 8 gamma nonalacton 0,00056% ten Jasmatone 0.00116% u 2 Linalyl acetate 0.01085% 4 Isononyl acetate 0.01261% 6 Methyl laitone 0.00003% 8act damascus 0,00025% ten Jasmatone 0.00116% v 2 Linalyl acetate 0.01084% 4 Isononyl acetate 0.01260% 6-m5 Model 5 0.01001% 8act damascus 0,00025% ten Jasmatone 0.00119% w 2 Linalyl acetate 0.01080% 4 Isononyl acetate 0.01258% 6-mr R1 model 0.00875% 8act damascus 0,00026% ten Jasmatone 0.00115%

Organoleptic results

A one-way intragroup ANOVA analysis was performed according to data. In FIG. Figure 7 shows a graph of average intensities for mixtures of t, u, v, and x with error bars representing a 95% confidence interval of the mean. A significant main effect (F = 23.95, df = 3, p <0.05) showed that the change between the average values of the samples was significantly different. A posteriori comparisons of average values by the Duncan method showed that all average values of the sample intensity were significantly different from each other (p <0.05). Mixture w (made according to model R1) was the most effective sample and significantly stronger than mixture v (made from model 5, a variant of the same aroma).

x. Duncan Posterior Analysis

Sample Quadratic Standard error Lower bound (95%) Upper bound (95%) Groups w 3,100 0.182 2,736 3,464 A v 2,567 0.182 2,203 2,930 B u 1,933 0.182 1,570 2,297 C t 1,033 0.182 0.670 1,397 D

Discussion and conclusion

This experiment shows that mixture w is significantly more intense than all other mixtures, and 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 aroma according to model R1 included in the mixture is significantly lower than the concentration of model 5 (in mixture v). Two fragrance models have the same smells and ingredients; however, the R1 model has been adapted to comply with the rules of the persistent fragrance described above. The organoleptic results are consistent with the R1 model, which behaves as a persistent ingredient. Thus, the aroma corresponding to the description above, as shown, is a persistent aroma in accordance with the above definition.

The flavors that took part in this test, as if they were separate ingredients, showed different levels of resistance, which led to a significant increase in overall intensity. If these aromas were essential oils, they would be identified as persistent and unstable ingredients. We can assume that as aromas they have similar properties to persistent ingredients and that, based on their effectiveness in this test, the existence of persistent and unstable aromas was revealed. This is useful for creating flavors that are acceptable and suitable for the intended purpose.

Despite the fact that the invention is described above with reference to specific options for its implementation, it is obvious that many changes, modifications and variations are permissible without departing from the essence of the invention described herein. Thus, it is implied that it covers all such changes, modifications and variations that are consistent with the nature and wide scope of the attached claims.

Claims (13)

1. A method of producing a perfume composition comprising an active candidate component, comprising the steps of: a) the first inactive component in the first mixture is selected, the first inactive component being the most similar in smell to the indicated active candidate component; b) a second inactive component in said first mixture is selected, wherein the second inactive component is most different in smell from said active candidate component; c) a second mixture is obtained, said second mixture being the same as the first mixture, except that the first inactive component is replaced by an iso-intense concentration of the active candidate component and the second inactive component is replaced by a known active component from the same odor class as the second inactive component; d) evaluate the intensity of the second mixture to determine whether the second mixture is significantly more intense than the first mixture, while if the second mixture is significantly more intense than the first mixture, it is considered that the active component candidate has shown persistent activity; and e) a perfume composition comprising the indicated active candidate component is prepared by mixing the specified active candidate component with an odorless solvent. 2. The method of claim 1, wherein said second mixture has an intensity that is at least one unit of intensity indicator greater than the first mixture. 3. A method for determining the degree of persistent activity of the active component of the candidate, including the stage at which: a) the first inactive component in the first mixture is selected, the first inactive component being the most similar in smell to the indicated active candidate component; b) a second inactive component in said first mixture is selected, wherein the second inactive component is most different in smell from said active candidate component; c) a second mixture is obtained, said second mixture being the same as the first mixture, except that the first inactive component is replaced by an iso-intense concentration of the active candidate component and the second inactive component is replaced by a known active component from the same odor class as the second inactive component; d) evaluate the intensity of the second mixture to determine whether the second mixture is significantly more intense than the first mixture, and if the second mixture is significantly more intense than the first mixture, then the active candidate component is considered to have persistent activity. 4. The method of claim 3, wherein said second mixture has an intensity that is at least one unit of intensity indicator greater than the first mixture.

Images