Your Very Weird, Very Personal Sense of Smell

Posted on February 26, 2015 by komodojo58

http://nautil.us/blog/your-very-weird-very-personal-sense-of-smell

We’re used to the idea that some among us are colorblind, perceiving the world differently because of a quirk in their genetics. And it’s well-known that teenagers and young adults can hear high-pitched sounds that their elders cannot, an ability that’s been exploited by manufacturers of The Mosquito, an anti-loitering device that annoys youth into leaving.

But perhaps because the effects are harder to compare easily, or perhaps because we have such a hard time talking about them, we tend to overlook some rather peculiar differences in our senses of smell. When people get a whiff of a molecule called androstenone, they may say it smells like sandalwood, or vanilla—or they might say it has a sickening, urine-like tang. Or they might think it entirely odorless. There are around a dozen known chemicals that provoke this kind of disagreement, scientists think. Much of the reason this happens, at least with androstenone, is genetic: There are two different flavors (so to speak) of the gene for the receptor that the molecule binds to in the smell sensors in our noses. Depending on what version you have, among some other factors we don’t yet understand, you’ll perceive something pleasant, something nasty, or very little at all.

Pork producers currently castrate male pigs to eliminate androstenone and other chemicals that give their meat a certain urine-y je ne sais quoi.

There’s a large body of research surrounding androstenone. It was one of the six scents on a scratch-and-sniff panel in a 1987 issue of National Geographic that presented the magazine’s Smell Survey, which had readers send in descriptions of what they smelled when they scratched, and a little information about themselves. (That study suggested that 30 percent of humans can’t smell androstenone, a number that has since been revised to two percent as scientists discovered that you can train people to detect it.) One large 2012 study collected reactions from nearly 400 New York residents of terrific diversity and suggested that respondents’ ethnic backgrounds, probably reflecting genetics, correlated with their responses to androstenone. The molecule has been found in human urine and sweat, the meat of uncastrated male pigs, and, curiously, celery. In pigs it functions as a pheromone, getting females in the mood for mating (it’s the active ingredient in a piggy aphrodisiac called BoarMate); in humans its biological role, if any, isn’t yet clear.

undefined — This graph shows how different age, sex, and race described the smell of androstenone.BMC Neuroscience/Leslie Vosshall et al.

In the past few years the chemical, long a biological curiosity, has zoomed to economic importance. Pork producers currently castrate male pigs to avoid the problem of androstenone and other chemicals from giving their meat a certain urine-y je ne sais quoi. But a European Union ban, enacted for animal welfare reasons and due to take effect in 2018, will keep pork producers from continuing the practice. Study after study has attempted to answer a very important (to pork farmers) question: How many people, exactly, will notice or care? That is, what percentage of the pig-eating population has the biological makeup that makes androstenone repugnant?

Unlike color blindness—which, for instance, can get you disqualified from being a fighter pilot—this kind of sensory variation does not tend to get to put on the spot in our culture. But to read these studies is to be reminded that individual human experience is ultimately private. We are all feeling the world through a wall peppered with tiny holes, whose shape and size are defined by complicated interactions of genetics and experience. We’re sensory islands, each unique, and though we may forget it most of the time, it’s with a sense of wonder that we rediscover it in something as mundane as wondering if pork chops have a faint odor of pee about them.

Posted in Biology, Bizarre | Tagged androstenone, genetic, smell | Leave a comment

Eye lens and nose cells for smelling have same origin

Posted on February 26, 2015 by komodojo58

(http://phys.org/news103451117.html)

A team of researchers at Umeå University in Sweden have discovered a unique mechanism by which the same signal molecule determines the formation of the both the lens of the eye and the olfactory cells of the nose.

Smell and sight are two sensory systems that are crucial to our ability to perceive the world around us. The ability to sense smells is established by the development of the olfactory mucous membrane. The ability to see is similarly dependent on the formation of the lens in the eyes.Both the mucous membrane for smelling and the lens develop early in the fetal stage, but it has not been known until now precisely what signals govern their formation. A research team at Umeå University can now show that the same signal molecule regulates the formation of both the olfactory cells and the lens cells.

The findings show moreover that cells exposed to the signal for short periods become olfactory cells, while long periods of exposure give rise to lens cells. Otherwise it is a common mechanism for differing concentrations of a signal molecule to lead to different cell types.

This discovery, that differences in the length of exposure but not the concentration of the same signal determine the formation of two fundamentally different sensory organs, is of key importance to our understanding of how different types of cells are formed during the fetal period.

The findings have been published in the journal Developmental Cell.

Citation: M Sjödal, T Edlund, L Gunhaga: Time of Exposure to BMP Signals Plays a Key Role in the Specification of the Olfactory and Lens Placodes Ex Vivo, Developmental Cell, Volume 13, 141-149, 2007.

Source: Swedish Research Council

Posted in Biology, Bizarre, Perfumery | Tagged cells, smell | Leave a comment

The Difference Between Natural And Artificial Flavors

Posted on June 21, 2014 by komodojo58

http://knowledgenuts.com/2014/01/01/the-difference-between-natural-and-artificial-flavors/

By Gregory Myers on Wednesday, January 1, 2014

In A Nutshell

For a flavor to be considered natural it has to meet only two criteria: It needs to be in the food only for the purpose of flavor, and it must be derived from a natural source such as a plant or animal. An artificial flavor is basically anything that doesn’t meet those criteria. However, the chemicals are often the same ones found in nature and simply aren’t derived using a “natural” process. This can also allow a flavorist to choose only the chemicals needed for flavor and leave out anything toxic that might have been in the natural product.

The Whole Bushel

Natural flavors are believed by many to be better for you, but this is not necessarily always the case. The truth is that a natural flavor can be almost anything as long as the circumstances of how it was derived fit the right criteria. The FDA defines natural flavor as basically anything that can be derived from a plant or animal product or really through any natural method, solvent, etc. This sounds safe until you realize the implications. If the ingredient was derived in any way from nature and it has no nutritional value, they can simply hide it under the blanket of “natural flavors.” Of course, this means your food could have something nasty like beaver juice in it without you knowing about it. And worse yet, some naturally derived flavors really aren’t particularly good for you. “Natural” doesn’t always mean “safe.”

Artificial flavors, on the other hand, are basically anything that isn’t a natural flavor. That is admittedly not a very helpful definition, but the basic idea is that artificial flavors are made by combining various chemicals in a lab until the appropriate flavor combination is hit upon. There are people who actually do this stuff for a living and they are called “flavorists,” although we think “mad food scientist” might be a better title. However, what they do isn’t as evil as some people think.

Flavorists figure out what chemicals make up the flavor of certain delicious foods and then use those same chemicals to make their artificial flavor. In some cases this means the flavoring process can actually be better for you. You see, the natural foods they are trying to mimic often have many different chemicals, some of which aren’t necessarily good for you. When making an artificial flavor, they can use only the chemicals they need for the flavor itself and avoid the rest. And these chemicals are often no different from ones found in natural sources. The difference lies solely in the fact that they are created synthetically as opposed to being derived directly from a natural source.

Show Me The Proof

US Food and Drug Administration: Code of Federal Regulations Title 21
Scientific American: What is the difference between artificial and natural flavors?
Washington Post: What’s Natural?

Posted in Flavoring | Tagged Flavoring | Leave a comment

How Many Smells You Can Sniff? Study Says More Than Trillion

Posted on March 20, 2014 by komodojo58

http://www.thealmagest.com/how-many-smells-you-can-sniff-study-says-more-than-trillion/11487

By Laura Kowalsky, March 21st, 2014

In a new study researchers say human beings can sniff more than a trillion different smells. Earlier it was said only about 10,000 different odors.

Based on the extrapolation of findings in laboratory experiments, the scientists conclude we can differentiate almost infinite number of smells.

In the lab experiments volunteers sniffed a large collection of smell mixtures and the study is published in the Science journal.

Head of the Laboratory of Neurogenetics and Behaviour at Rockefeller University in New York, Leslie Vosshall, said the best part of the new study is that it has revised the present idea that we are terrible smellers.

Similar to the sounds and sights, human beings are also accosted with several smells such as body odor, perfume, beer, rose blossom, cut grass, spoiled milk, rotten egg, fresh popcorn, burning wood, dog breath, pine, orange peel, grilled meat, ammonia, exhaust fumes, cinnamon, excrement, skunk spray and cookies.

Until now the dimensions of sense of smell was a mystery though in several research it has been said human beings can distinguish colors in several million different types and about 340,000 audio tones.

Since 1920 we had only known that human beings can discern just about 10,000 odors. However, this fact was based on faulty assumptions, said researchers.

In the new research 26 men and women participated from various ethnic and racial groups and aged between 20 and 40 years.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Genetics can determine why we smell certain odors differently, studies find

Posted on January 18, 2014 by komodojo58

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/genetics-can-determine-why-we-smell-certain-odors-differently-studies-find/2013/08/01/46318ba8-f9f8-11e2-8752-b41d7ed1f685_story.html?tid=socialss2

By Meeri Kim, Published: August 1 E-mail the writer

The next time you argue with a friend about the whiff of cilantro in your stir-fry that he finds disgusting, blame his genes.All of us inhabit our own flavor world that is highly dependent on our genetic blueprint for being able to smell certain odors, according to two studies a New Zealand research group published online Thursday in the journal Current Biology.

The perception of flavor while eating includes what your taste buds can detect — sweet, salty, bitter, sour and umami (often called savory) — but they play a meek supporting role to your sense of smell.

That sensory experiences of food differ from person to person has always been known anecdotally. Think of strong, hoppy beer or black coffee that some find revoltingly bitter but others can drink like water. But the researchers wanted to know how much of that variability is genetically hard-wired.

They had 187 people smell 10 different compounds, taking note of who could smell them at a certain concentration level and who couldn’t. They sequenced each person’s DNA, scanning their genomes to pick out parts that could possibly explain the variations in smell sensitivity.

Out of 10 scents tested, four had a strong genetic basis — malt, apple, blue cheese and violet. They were also independent of one another, so even if you have a super-nose for blue cheese, you might fall short when it comes to smelling violets.

One study found a single gene changelinked to the floral scent found in violets.The other study more generally hunted down spots within the genome connected to three additional food-related smells.

Odors typically consist of molecular building blocks called aroma compounds. For example, while blue cheese gives off a whole bouquet of aromas, 2-heptanone is the chemical that really “gives blue cheese its blue cheesiness,” said lead researcher Richard Newcomb of the New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research.

The roof of our nasal cavity has a patch of millions of special neurons, each one covered with olfactory receptors that bind to odor molecules that travel through the air. But each neuron has a single type of odor receptor, meaning it can detect only smells that have the right structure.

For comparison, color vision only has three types of receptors, each corresponding to different range of the color spectrum; our nose has 400 types, each with a matching olfactory receptor gene within our DNA. Any variation in those genes will affect our sense of smell.

Since humans can detect 10,000 odors, and each one can be dialed up or down depending on that person’s genetic makeup, smelling is a highly personalized experience.

“When people sit around and share a bottle of wine, they often describe it quite differently,” Newcomb said.

Wines make up some of the most complex flavors out there, he said, and a single wine can give off hundreds, if not thousands, of distinct aromas.

Sometimes, your sensitivity can even completely change the notes of a scent. Newcomb and his colleagues found that the violet compound smelled “fragrant” and “floral” to those with a heightened sense, whereas less sensitive individuals described it as unpleasantly “sour” and “acidic.”

Our genes are coded with similar likes and dislikes for cilantro.

“Some people get a floral note from it, whereas others get a real soapy sensation,” Newcomb said.

Joel Mainland, a neuroscientist at the Monell Chemical Senses Center who was not involved in the studies, suspects the culprit is a bad-smelling chemical within the hundreds of molecules of cilantro that some super smellers can detect — the cilantro haters — but others cannot.

Mainland called the pair of studies “an advance in the field” and sees applications for the food and flavor industry.

“We can give [companies] a feel for the percentages of their target market that will be able to smell a given flavor by extrapolating out to all humans on the planet,” Newcomb said.

Newcomb and his colleagues were careful to control for any olfactory “noise in the system” caused by mood, pregnancy or time of day.

Pregnancy can cause hypersensitivity to the point of disgust, and some believe overwhelming odors can even explain morning sickness. Being in a bad mood dulls our sense of smell for reasons unknown, he said, so data from gloomy subjects were left out. Even time of day has an effect; our nose works best before lunchtime, probably ramping up because of hunger.

Posted in Perfumery | Leave a comment

Luxury Perfume Makers Create Stink over Europe Allergy Laws

Posted on March 5, 2013 by komodojo58

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/16/15941682-luxury-perfume-makers-create-stink-over-europe-allergy-laws?lite

By Reuters

PARIS – Luxury perfume brands fear the European Union is about to introduce measures that could cripple the $25 billion global industry in the name of protecting consumers against allergies.

New laws could severely curb or ban natural ingredients used in vintage best-sellers and put some perfume makers out of business.

But Brussels’ proposed legislation – a draft will be unveiled early next year – is also causing a stir for another reason. It sheds light on the best-kept secret in the trade: many big brands have been tweaking their formulas for years.

“It is a taboo in the industry. People are scared to say anything about it,” says Fflur Roberts, head of luxury goods at market research company Euromonitor.

Until now, changes to perfume formulas have come as a result of increasingly severe restrictions imposed by the industry’s self-regulatory body, the International Fragrance Association (IFRA), though ingredient shortages or cost-cutting have also played a part.

A new Europe-wide law would force even more severe tweaks.

The brands most affected will be those which have been in the perfume industry for more than half a century, such as Dior, Chanel and Guerlain. All those fragrances use many natural ingredients and were created before scientists started looking into perfumes’ potential health hazards. Chanel’s No.5, one of the world’s best-selling perfumes and named after its creator’s fifth trial, was created in 1921.

Chanel declined to comment to Reuters on whether it has ever changed the formula of its world-famous perfume, as did Guerlain, Dior and luxury brand Hermes, which all make high-end perfumes using natural ingredients.

Most luxury perfume names do not want to disclose the fact that they have had to make tweaks to their scents for fear they could lose customers or damage their carefully nurtured luxury brand.

If new, even stricter rules are adopted, hundreds of perfumes would have to be reformulated with synthetic allergen-free contents. That, many in the industry fear, could threaten their business.

“If this law goes ahead I am finished, as my perfumes are all filled with these ingredients,” said Frederic Malle, who owns high-end perfume company Editions de Parfums Frederic Malle. The impact on luxury perfume brands as a whole would, he said, be “like an atomic explosion and we would not have the means to rebuild ourselves.”

Most fine perfumes are composed of a mix of natural ingredients and synthetic molecules. Perfumes are made up of a concentrate that is diluted with alcohol, usually from beetroots.

Paulo Whitaker / Reuters

An employee creates a fragrance in a laboratory in Granja Viana, 25 miles south of Sao Paulo in this August 2, 2012 file photo.

Since its creation in 1973, the IFRA, which is financed by scent makers such as Givaudan, New York-listed International Flavors & Fragrances, and Germany’s Symrise, has restricted natural ingredients for a range of health reasons, from worries about allergic reactions to cancer concerns.

Many traditional essences that perfume creators consider core to their craft have been blacklisted in recent decades. Birch tar oil was removed from Guerlain’s Shalimar several decades ago because it was thought to be a cancer risk. Clove oil and rose oil, which contain a component called eugenol, and lavender, which contains linalool, may only be used in limited quantities in case of allergies.

An estimated 5 million to 15 million people, or 1 to 3 percent of the EU population, who are allergic or potentially allergic to natural ingredients contained in fine perfumes, according to a report published in July by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), an advisory body for the European Commission.

Europe is not the only region to look more closely at the impact of fragrance. Earlier this year Republican lawmaker Michele Peckham from New Hampshire proposed a bill in the state House to ban state employees who have contact with members of the public from wearing strong fragrances.

The bill did not pass, but other lawmakers are considering reintroducing similar legislation. Meanwhile the city of Portland in Oregon has asked public workers and citizens visiting and using public spaces to limit their use of scented products.

Some hospitals in the U.S. have also introduced bans on using perfumes.

The SCCS, whose recommendations Reuters was first to report in October, recommended that 12 substances used in hundreds of perfumes on the market today be limited to 0.01 percent of the finished product, a level perfume makers say is unworkable. The SCCS has proposed a total ban on tree moss and oakmoss, which scientists say are strong allergens.

If the recommendations are enforced by the European Commission, IFRA estimates some 9,000 perfume formulas would have to be changed.

Patrick Saint-Yves, president of the French Society of Perfume Creators (SFP), is furious about the recommendation.

“I simply find that there is a huge contradiction,” Saint-Yves says. “We encourage the use of many essential oils such as lavender in aromatherapy for massages, but we want to ban it in perfumes. Shops continue to sell alcohol and cigarettes which do much more harm.”

Part of the problem is the secrecy surrounding perfumes. Most perfume brands are reluctant to label their products. Unlike artists and writers, perfume creators have no intellectual property rights to the fragrances they compose for big brands, and so perfume brands fight hard to keep their formulas hidden.

LVMH, which owns Dior and Guerlain, and Chanel are lobbying Brussels to protect their perfumes, many of which were created decades ago.

“It is essential to preserve Europe’s olfactory cultural heritage,” LVMH told Reuters in an emailed statement.

Givaudan and L’Oreal declined to comment for this Reuters report.

Ignoring the recommendations altogether would be difficult. The European Consumer Group (BEUC) has welcomed the SCCS’s report as a “thorough and evidence-based study” that is a starting point for the decisions ahead.

Posted in Perfumery | Leave a comment

Your Perfume May Soon Be Produced by Bacteria

Posted on March 5, 2013 by komodojo58

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/07/bacteria-producing-aromas/
BY TANYA LEWIS
07.19.12 2:10 PM

The next time you savor the sweet flavor of vanilla ice cream or the fresh orange scent of a hand soap, you may have bacteria to thank. Fragrance companies are now looking to lab-engineered bacteria and yeast to produce fragrances normally derived from plants, reports Chemical & Engineering News. The story is an interesting look at how the somewhat secretive fragrance industry is evolving.

For centuries, humans have worked to harness good smells. Bottling a scent required painstakingly extracting plant oils from crops often grown in far-flung countries. The commercial fragrance market, which is responsible for the scents in everything from food and drinks to cleaning products and perfume, relies on a steady supply of these oils. But a natural disaster or corrupt government practice can easily dry up a source.

In 2010, there was a shortage of patchouli oil, a fragrance used in incense and personal and home care products. Rainy weather in Indonesia caused a poor harvest of the shrub that produces the oil, and volcanic eruptions and earthquakes exacerbated supply problems.

Now, using microbes to manufacture these scents is becoming a sweeter possibility. Bitter orange, grapefruit, rose and sandalwood are some of the hardest oils to obtain naturally. Thanks to advances in biotechnology, some of these scents can now be made in a petri dish. Biotech firms like Allylix, Isobionics and Evolva are genetically engineering bacteria and yeast that can produce plant oils by fermenting sugars. The companies claim they can make virtually any plant-derived molecule, it’s just a matter of scaling up production.

Some of the first products being outsourced to microbes are the citrus molecules valencene (found in the peel of Valencia oranges) and nootkatone (found in grapefruit peel), commonly used in fruit-flavored drinks and perfumes. And there’s no need to go to Tahiti for vanilla: Vanillin scent, which is already produced synthetically, can also be made by microbial fermentation. Soon, we could be living in a world of microbe-made smells.

Compared to producing scents by chemical synthesis, microbial manufacture could be more eco-friendly, and still be labelled natural. And your nose will never know the difference.

Posted in Bizarre, Perfumery | Leave a comment

Eucalypt Reveals Smelly Secret

Posted on March 5, 2013 by komodojo58

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/03/05/3701485.htm?site=science&topic=latest
Tuesday, 5 March 2013

Dani Cooper
ABC Science

Leave this alone: A eucalytpus tree can alter the genetic composition of its leaves (iStockphoto)
Biologists have uncovered a yellowbox eucalyptus tree that is able to change the smell of its leaves from one side of the tree to the other to protect itself against predation.

The finding, published in the online journal BMC Plant Biology, answers a 20-year-old mystery surrounding a eucalyptus tree in a sheep paddock at Yeoval, New South Wales.

The tree at the centre of the study was almost totally defoliated by insects in 1990, but one branch was left completely untouched.

Lead author Amanda Padovan, a doctoral student at the Australian National University’s Research School of Biology, says their study shows the yellowbox Eucalyptus melliodora is able to control which leaves are attacked by predators by alterations in its genes.

Padovan says the tree, which is estimated to be 75 years old, has developed this ability known as “genetic mosaicism” as a survival mechanism.

“If an insect outbreak occurs then a part of the plant won’t be eaten and therefore it will still be able to grow and reproduce,” she says.

‘Cocktail of oils’

The research team collected leaves from both sides of the tree and through gene sequencing found there were 10 genes that contained differences between the leaves from each side.

Padovan says one of the main defences the eucalyptus uses against predation is its distinctive smell, which is the result of a “cocktail of terpene oils”, including monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes, and formylated phloroglucinol compounds or FPCs that make animals nauseous.

The gene sequencing revealed leaves that were predation-resistant had five fewer monoterpenes and nine fewer sesquiterpenes than the leaves that were “tastier”.

However the concentration of FPCs and the remaining monoterpenes was far higher.

As a result, says Padovan, the leaves on the part of the tree that was not eaten had a strong eucalyptus smell whereas the leaves that were attractive to the insects had a stronger florally smell.

Padovan says it appears the impact on vertebrates such as koalas is similar as feeding experiments in the laboratory show koalas reject the same leaves as the insects.

She says although they have searched the area nearby they have only found one yellowbox tree like this, however she suspects the trait “is more common than we know”.

“Trees can’t get up and walk away from unfavourable conditions and so we believe this genetic mosaicism is a way for trees to survive changing conditions throughout their life,” she says.

“We believe all trees have the ability in that they can acquire mutations in their stem cells, however we believe the mutation must be favourable – in this case the mutation lead to resistance against feeding ¬- to allow an entire branch to develop.”

Padovan is now using gene sequencing on an ironbark eucalyptus Eucalyptus sideroxylon to see if it has similar mosaic properties.

Posted in In The Garden, Perfumery, Soap-Making, Under the Tree | Leave a comment

Jo Lasky Interview by Saponifier Magazine (12/12)

Posted on February 9, 2013 by komodojo58

Advice for Creating a Scentsational Line

Scent: it means so much to each one of us, although we don’t always realize it. We know we like to use a nice variety in our creations, whether candle, soap, or cosmetics, but we don’t always realize how primal scent is and how it evokes emotion and alters mood. We find scent important to our customers or friends and family, as well. A particular scent will bring back a long-forgotten memory, remind us of departed or loved ones far away, or simply make us happy. Because of this, our scent choices will help us as we sell or give gifts. It is indeed essential in our industry, since most report that consumers are most interested in scent. Therefore, it behooves us to learn as much about scent as we can.

To help us understand the science and psychology of scent, I turned to Jo Lasky. She describes herself as a non-professional perfumer, but has taught many in using scent. Jo is owner of Gardens of Panjora and resides in Santa Clarita, California. She has a long history in self-study of not only perfumery, but in teaching bath and body to others, making her an ideal teacher for us.

Jo describes her interest in scent since she was a little girl watching her mother prepare for formal affairs they attended as her father was an officer in the Air Force. Her final touch was Joy perfume, but Jo was attracted by all of the bottles she found on her mother’s dresser. In fact, Jo describes what happened next: “One night, after my parents had left, I went into their room and decided to “play” with the perfumes. Not being content with just smelling and applying, I decided to mix and blend. The colors were fun, the scents changed, and when my mom came home so did the color of my bottom. Joy and Emeraude may look pretty in their bottles but mix them and add in a little Tabu and results were a costly mistake I have never forgotten.”

Despite her rocky beginning, Jo’s parents encouraged her interest and she continued her experimentation by infusing natural substances such as grass, flowers and herbs. By her own admission, Jo’s experiments were “horrid,” but didn’t deter her from continuing her self-study, including her observation of scent trends in perfumes, colognes and splashes that followed societal changes.

As time passed and Jo’s children grew up, Jo found herself caring for her aging parents, which caused her to return to her natural roots, looking for essential oils and herbs for assistance. This led to study and classes in soap, lotions and other products and later, perfumery Yahoo groups. She, with others, began a class, which led to another, more advanced class, and furthered Jo’s knowledge. Since then, Jo has continue to not only hone her craft, but also to teach others.

What happens in the body when humans smell an aroma?

“First off the ability to smell is very primal, it is the Olfactory Receptor Neuron (ORN) that functions as sensory cells to pick up and detect all the different odors around us. These are like translators from the “scent” to the brain so that each scent can be identified. When the ORN is stimulated it sends a message to the olfactory bulb, which is the part of the brain that processes the odor information.

What we do know is that the sense of smell is direct into the brain, and does not filter through the hepatic membrane like our other senses do; it is considered to be a primal sense. Smell is also associated with taste and can have a profound effect on emotional responses. Scents are used to increase spending, calm individuals, prompt a particular response. Shopping malls and casinos have long since been pumping scents into the air to promote spending; car dealers have a “new car scent” that can give new life even to an old car. And of course there is the world of aromatherapy where scent is being used in medicinal applications too.

Perhaps this is why when we get a whiff of a certain food it may take us back to a find memory of simple days of youth, a day spent baking with Grandma. Perhaps there is a smell that is tied to an emotional experience and instantly the individual is taken back to a less pleasant experience. These responses happen instantly and are visible in not only emotional responses but can also be seen in physical response, slumped shoulders, facial expression, verbal response, etc. These responses are personal and tied to individual responses based upon an experience that is also tied to sensory information. Most people do not connect their feelings with the odors they smell or that this is sensory imaging is happening to them at the time. It is only when they are exposed to a particular scent that the feelings return, triggered by an odor response that was learned at the time of the experience.

This is an area that is not very well understood but it is gaining in research potential. Sadly the current state of the world and the need to understand and overcome emotional and physiological responses to tragedy is the driving force behind this research. In time this may lead to a better understand of this sense and our ability to predict a response to scent.”

Why do some find certain scents appealing while others find them intolerable?

Jo wasn’t able to comment on the scientific explanation, if one exists, but she did offer her opinion based on her experience. At the beginning, Jo found herself limited by her personal desire and willingness to try new scents. As she trained her nose by trying scents and recording observations, she found an emotional response to scent that guided her likes and dislikes. This caused Jo to believe that our experiences with scents very often guide our preferences, as well. Patchouli to someone negatively influenced by the 60’s uses may cause one to dislike the scent. Lemon cleaning products might affect us in a positive manner, causing us to prefer lemon because it smells clean. While Jo deliberately retrained her brain to accept scents she previously disliked, most of the public does not and thus the aroma impressions remain. This may explain why some of us react positively to a scent while others react quite negatively to the same scent.

What is the difference between essential oils and fragrance oils?

Where essential oil are concerned, Jo explains that scents derived from natural materials such as leaves and twigs, are referred to as essential oils. In truth, they can be extracted in several different ways, and each type has its own name. Nevertheless, for purposes of simplicity, we will use the term, “essential oil” for any extracted oil. Jo tells us, “In one respect, essential oils are nature’s fragrance oils, they are all built using multiple components or constituents.” Jo goes on to explain, “Extraction of essential oils from botanical materials has also led to new scents and also the ability to isolate a particular constituent. Some of these extractions are used to make fragrance oils too. They are called isolates and can not only create a fragrance but can also be used to adulterate or to create ‘nature identical’ essential oils. These fractional distillations are also used to make consistent scents for scent related industries. Lavender 40/42 is a prime example; it does not matter where it is purchased it will always smell the same because while it is natural, it is taken apart and put back together to create a consistent scent associated with lavender.”

Fragrance oils, on the other hand, are created with constituents that may or may not be found in nature. Creating scents was initially taken on by those wishing to cover offensive odors, as well as the human need to create something new and lasting. They are developed as “. . . fantasy notes, those that we seek but can’t reproduce or those that our mind wishes to create,” describes Jo. For example, many of us are quite satisfied with a scent that reminds us of a fresh, juicy pineapple, even though it is made up of isolates that do not involve real pineapples.

Where soap, candles and body products, and so on are concerned, what is your opinion of whether or not we should use essential oils or fragrance oils and when?

“Each are tools to me, they are components and should be well thought out in advance. Safety is my first concern, knowing what is safe to use and in what amounts is my focus when I am formulating. Cost comes in second I see no purpose in using an expensive essential oil in something that is going to damage the sensitive nature and constituents of a particular essential oil. Marketing is also a factor so if a new scent is sought by a customer then I’m more inclined to find that scent and use it, be it an essential oil or fragrance oil,” notes Jo.

She goes on to state that as a rule, essential oils are not tested for safety and therefore, adulteration is common. To test an oil’s purity, a gas chromatograph is necessary, but most suppliers do not do the testing, so adulteration goes undetected. On the other hand, Jo explains regarding fragrance oils, “They have to undergo standards, they have to use safe levels of constituents, their testing has to meet international standards and some are very strict. So to me they are a safer, if not easier to use, product. This testing not only includes skin safety but it also has to meet ecological standards. Just like the nitro musk that never really breaks down and has since been banned, today’s new fragrances have to prove that they cause less harm to the environment. As formulators we should be aware that when it goes into a soap and the soap goes into the shower the fragrance then washes down the drain and into our water supply and then into the ground.”

Jo cautions that other factors are important to consider, as well. What product will the oil be used in? An expensive oil, for instance, might better be saved for a leave-on product than a “use and rinse” type of product. The same is true, she advises, for an oil with healing or aromatherapy properties. “A realistic assessment of the product and a perceived outcome should be leading the choice. If we make a great soap, use good oils and butters, spend time and money to make it and then find the EO fades or reacts with something else, we have not only wasted the essential oil but perhaps the entire batch of soap.”

Market expectations are equally important considerations. If products created with essential oils don’t appeal to your customers, then they do no good. Keeping in mind what actually sells cannot be ignored.

The top ten list of best-selling scents for 2012 is as follows: Readers voted these scents as their best sellers. Whether the scent is E.O. or F.O. is not noted.

Vanilla
Lavender
Lemon
Berry (this includes blackberry, strawberry, and so on)
Mint (all)
Honey
Rose
Oatmeal
Patchouli
10. Apple

What is it about these scents that they appeal so much to the public?

“Comfort, identity perhaps familiarity, and cost, would be my guess. I would also guess that the best sellers are also fragrance oils and not naturals, with perhaps the exception of patchouli and some of the mints. Vanilla and rose are not essential oils; they are absolutes and are extremely expensive. Many people have limited contact with the naturals and their scent memory is far more likely to be associated with the fragrance than the natural material. Lavender has too many different species and is subject to a change of scent depending on location and growing conditions so most lavender is either a modified natural or fragrance oil.

Berry notes are all fragrance, as are the honey, oatmeal, apple, and even lemon. The berry notes do not come from nature. They do not extract so they have to be lab created. The honey does not extract either but becomes a fantasy note so that it can become a sage honey or an orange blossom honey. The underlying note of honey is associated, but the actual scent can vary. All of these scents can be associated with comfort. Apple pie and hot oatmeal on a cold winter day provide us with comfort and a sense of well-being. Lemon is bright and sunny and happy and can evoke those memories with only a whiff. All of these fragrances are known to us, we do not have to reach too far back into our minds to know what they smell like and for the most part the scents are consistent, therefore comforting.”

For the first time since the inception of our survey, lavender was not number one, where it was previously on top by a huge margin. Are you finding lavender to be becoming less popular than it had been in the last several years?

I still have my clients that only want lavender. They want specific lavender and they swear that what I have is the lavender they “used to get.” It’s lavender 40/42 so it is the same as say, a Yankee candle, but to them it is different, more natural and they know it is “really an essential oil.” I have, however, seen a lot more people attracted to “foody” scents in recent years. This would include vanilla but also sugar notes which also use vanilla in the composition.

Perhaps lavender has not been pushed as much as vanilla in marketing; perhaps (with) the state of our economy, the loss of jobs, the need to find comfort has driven this change. While lavender is calming, it is not as comforting to most people as is vanilla. Also, I think that society is becoming more accepting, if not expecting, to smell new scents and while lavender is limited in its application, vanilla has a wider range of applications and uses.

Are fragrances as trendy as fashions, or less so?

We probably remember old favorites from our youth, and possibly scents our parents and grandparents used. If we look for those same scents today, we may or may not find them.

“Absolutely!” Jo exclaims. “Scents change every season just like fashion, but they also come back as predictably.” Popularity of scent families changes and so does packaging, but they cycle in out of fashion.

What advice do you have to offer soap/candle/b&b makers who are putting together an appealing scent line?

“First off, know that it is going to change,” Jo says. “What may sell today may not sell tomorrow. Do testing, lots of testing. Make sure what you like is what not determining what you offer. Expand your taste and choices to cover a broad market. Purchase from a reputable supplier but don’t tie yourself or your products to only one supplier. Things happen and that signature scent may not be available tomorrow. Test, test, test… pay attention to storage of fragrance and product and treat it with respect. Get to know your fragrance so you can build compatible fragrances within the line of products. Offer a wide selection but look at doing seasonal offerings to keep your cost in line. Know going in that self-restraint is going to be a key part in keeping your bottom line in check, we are all addicted.”

It’s likely that we will carry certain staple scents all of the time, but in order to meet market demand, we are wise to pay attention to widely popular scents and adapt them to our lines. “If you’re smart, you’ll let the big sellers like Glade do the research and marketing for you and just jump on their band wagon. Look at the new laundry soap or hand soap offerings. This is what your clients are going to look for; it’s what they are seeing on TV, but they are going to demand and expect a better quality from you.”

Where testing is concerned, Jo instructs us to order many samples of a particular scent we’re considering, and to keep notes. Initially, record your emotional reaction—what feeling the scent evokes. Later, depending upon the product or products you want to use the scent in, you’ll take notes on each aspect of the scent’s performance until you finally arrive at a decision about which fragrance to settle on. In the end, you’ll save money over buying several large bottles of a particular scent because the first one didn’t meet your needs.

In building a line, Jo states that we would be smart to include all of the fragrance families—woody, herbaceous, floral, citrus, mint, foods, and so on, not forgetting those for men. Furthermore, colors and packaging is an essential consideration, not only for visual appeal, but for the protection of your product.

To create a line of products where one product can build upon another requires a thorough knowledge of your scents. You can then teach your customers, Jo says. “Individually any of these can smell great but layered and you have a more complex scale of fragrance that performs in product and still offers your client what they want to smell.” This makes your products more appealing and potentially increases sales.

Finally, if after you follow all of Jo’s advice, “. . . and you still find yourself with more fragrance than you could ever possibly use… you hide the fragrance and receipts and when found say ‘Oh, I’ve had that for so long.’ You have no idea why you bought that particular fragrance but you are sure that you just had to have it… well this and more may be an indication of a more serious problem… fragrance addiction. Yep, it exists and to date there is no known cure.” I might add that if you think that chat groups will help you with your addiction, you are incredibly mistaken since by and large, they have the same problem you do!

Realistically, however, Jo urges us to use the many resources we have today. “Magazines like the Saponifier give us an educational and fun way to examine things we might not consider otherwise. All of these things are ready and available; it’s all a journey so you might as well enjoy the process.”

I agree!

Posted in Perfumery, Soap-Making | Leave a comment

The perfumers’ skills are not to be sniffed at

Posted on February 7, 2013 by komodojo58

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9842391/The-perfumers-skills-are-not-to-be-sniffed-at.html

By Vicki Woods

7:38PM GMT 01 Feb 2013

Ambergris may not have the most fragrant of origins, but it’s vital for the noblest of noses

Ambergris was a low note (leathery, mossy), but it was mostly used by 19th- and 20th-century perfumers as a stabiliser, to fix their scents and ensure that the notes would hold Photo: Alamy

Enough with the circumlocutions, please. It is not “whale vomit” that one man and his dog discovered on the beach at Morecambe. Ambergris is not vomited up, it is excreted, stinking, via the usual channel, whereupon it floats in the seawater until it is as nicely brined as your Christmas gammon. And after that it begins to smell perfectly inoffensive. A whiff of sea-lettuce or samphire, overlaid by fragrance of rock pool after an afternoon’s sunshine and grounded by base notes (that’s how perfumers would put it) of your child’s leather sandal.

How very delicate we are, to be sure. A nice professor of marine conservation from the University of York tried not to upset listeners over their breakfasts with allusions to mammalian faecal matter. But when he told John Humphrys where ambergris actually comes from, he said, “It’s always pooped, rather than vomited,” and Humph’s shudder was audible. “Ach! So everybody’s going to walk down their beaches now, looking for this stuff?”

I don’t know where Humphrys has been all his life, but some of us have been combing beaches for any old stuff since we were small children in ruched bathers with frills round the leg openings. Morecambe Bay was the very first beach I combed, at three years old, and I continued on fabulously white, soft, Mediterranean beaches at Tripoli, Homs and Benghazi until the Army flew us back to Blighty.

I had very little chance of finding any ambergris on my frequent beachcombs, I now realise, having seen pictures, because I looked for heaps of gold, rather than lumps of grey. It was my mother who told me that ambergris was very expensive (“more precious than gold,” she said) and that it was used to make perfume (including hers, Je Reviens, by Worth). From my five-year-old’s memory, my ma smelled of vanilla ice cream and lilies of the valley, not what perfumers call “amber notes”, but there we are.

Perfumers are called noses; they call themselves noses and they talk about their friends who are noses. The two jolliest noses I ever met are Jacques Polge, the nose at Chanel (who created Égoïste and Coco, but whose own favourite perfume is Chanel No 19, which he didn’t create) and Jean-Claude Ellena, who has created perfumes for Hermès and other brands.

They both dress in white coats like lab technicians (or they did when I met them, Polge last century and Ellena five years ago), perhaps in order to prove their seriousness inside what seems (to most businessmen in this country) a larky, limp-wristed kind of a métier that only a girl could love. Yet perfumery is one of the richest retail businesses there is, globally. And male noses far outnumber female ones (apart from Chanel herself, I can only think of Annick Goutal).

Noses have to first learn and then remember the smells of a thousand different smelly things that traditionally were arranged on an “organ” – a vast circular cupboard, with teentsy shelves holding small bottles of tincture. And as with a church organ, the arrangement was top notes on one tier, middle notes on another, low notes on a third.

Ambergris was a low note (leathery, mossy), but it was mostly used by 19th- and 20th-century perfumers as a stabiliser, to fix their scents and ensure that the notes would hold. I have no idea how that worked, chemically, and there’s little need to find out, since ambergris is not used in high-end perfumery these days. The physical organ is replaced by a laptop crammed with mathematical symbols. Jean-Claude Ellena only keeps his bottles of tincture to tickle the nostrils of thick people who can’t read a chemical formula. Sometimes it’s the real extract of a plant, or flower calyx. Sometimes it’s a collection of “molecules” which he mixes up. Wafting a narrow paper slip under your nose he asks, what you can smell? Me: Chocolate, horrible, cheap milk chocolate. He adds another slip of paper to make it “more French”. Me: Phew, that’s Valrhona. A third slip of paper turns the smell to Coca-Cola. I wish one man and his dog a lot of luck with their precious ambergris.

Posted in Perfumery | Leave a comment

The Nose Knows

Your Very Weird, Very Personal Sense of Smell

Eye lens and nose cells for smelling have same origin