Code of Conduct
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 60 of 91
  1. #1

    Default Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    I think I might be able to get a (vintage) perfume similar to the flower I'm after -
    anyone has any experience with PA's GC? How reliable is it? How do you
    quantify the reliability of GC's results anyhow, especially of perfumes, as I know
    plants tend to vary in contents quite considerably..

  2. #2

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    PA's GC's are rudimentary in their results. she may *suggest* some essential oils, but will not estimate their percentages. This is just a rough GC, that tells you all of the contents by individual constituent, and that's it. Not something that I actually recommend hoping to use to render a Vintage scent containing a lot of naturals.

    I'd hate to have her GC my scents, no one would get very much out if because of all the naturals.
    Last edited by pkiler; 15th February 2014 at 05:43 AM.
    Paul Kiler
    PK Perfumes
    http://www.PKPERFUMES.com
    Gold Medal for "Best Aroma"; Los Angeles Artisan Fragrance Salon

  3. #3

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Hmm.. I was kind of hoping that perfume is made mainly of synthetics.. Maybe I'll
    just be able to tell by the scent if it is.. I'm doing this to get some ideas to making this
    scent with chems thats aren't naturally occuring..
    Though I did get closer to the scent than I ever got (so far).. Till I added too much
    indolene
    I watcher Perfumer's World video on GC/MS, but it isn't clear to me how the use
    of naturals masks the constituends (unless there are many different molecules arriving
    at the MS at the same time..).

  4. #4

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Ho!
    When did the excessive use of chemicals instead of naturals start? That perfume is from
    the begining of the 80's..

  5. #5

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    When you order this kind of analysis you have to know what to expect. You will get some useful information, but you will not get the exact formula of your perfume.

    As Paul said above, the analysis tells you all of the contents by individual constituent with acceptable precision. For aromachemicals, this is it, kind of. For naturals, you have to deduce the grouping of these components into the right natural eo´s or absolutes. Linda sometimes includes some hints about this in the analysis, but not much more can be done with this tool.

    The next step with naturals is to investigate which components go into which naturals and in what proportion, Kind of a puzzle. The Good Scents´ website is a good place to start, for each ingredient you can find a list of the naturals that contain it, and the range of proportions. You have to do a bit of guessing, but with patience and a bit of luck you can get pretty close to what you look for.

    By the way Linda, of Perfumer´s Apprentice, has done some of these analysis for me. I am happy with her service. Her prices are very good compared to alternative providers, and the results have been definitely useful to me. Even with perfumes containing lots of naturals, the analysis can save you a lot of time and guesswork.
    Last edited by Javiero; 18th February 2014 at 10:19 AM.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Thanks!
    That's pretty much what I expected - I don't need a formula, just clues of where to look so
    I can build an accord (or two ) of my own. Good to know that PA is indeed a viable option..

  7. #7
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    I have a question regarding GC/MS and perfume chemistry that has burning a hole in my head for a while:

    If we blend a bunch of EO's together (only EO's) to form a perfume and let it age and go through all of it's chemical processes and then GC it, is it possible to have/find resulting byproducts from the chemical processes, between only "naturals", that are chemicals not as of yet found in nature? In other words, can two or more "natural" products create byproducts that are only synthesized or not found in nature through chemical reactions that occur in the aging process?
    Last edited by JEBeasley; 17th February 2014 at 09:59 PM.
    Justin E. Beasley

  8. #8

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Hmm.. Maybe you can find a few chemicals like that and figure out how they're formed in the lab.. That should give a clue if it's possible..

  9. #9

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by JEBeasley View Post
    I have a question regarding GC/MS and perfume chemistry that has burning a hole in my head for a while:

    If we blend a bunch of EO's together (only EO's) to form a perfume and let it age and go through all of it's chemical processes and then GC it, is it possible to have/find resulting byproducts from the chemical processes, between only "naturals", that are chemicals not as of yet found in nature? In other words, can two or more "natural" products create byproducts that are only synthesized or not found in nature through chemical reactions that occur in the aging process?
    It's theoretically possible, if there are present in your mix of Essential Oils chemicals that will react with each other. For example, free acids and alcohols will produce traces of esters. Free alcohols and aldehydes may produce acetals. It is possible, but probably not very likely; and if they are produced there will only be trace amounts. The idea, when ageing a finished perfume, is not to have much chemistry going on; the idea is to thoroughly mix the various ingredients to produce a smooth finished product. When mixing your concentrated fragrance with alcohol (which should be left for weeks if not months), there is a much greater chance of chemical reactions occurring. Primarily the formation of acetals.

  10. #10
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    It's theoretically possible, if there are present in your mix of Essential Oils chemicals that will react with each other. For example, free acids and alcohols will produce traces of esters. Free alcohols and aldehydes may produce acetals. It is possible, but probably not very likely; and if they are produced there will only be trace amounts. The idea, when ageing a finished perfume, is not to have much chemistry going on; the idea is to thoroughly mix the various ingredients to produce a smooth finished product. When mixing your concentrated fragrance with alcohol (which should be left for weeks if not months), there is a much greater chance of chemical reactions occurring. Primarily the formation of acetals.
    Thanks David, that was what I was thinking was the case but I wasn't sure. It seems possible and if it is actually the case then it would completely nullify all but the most "religious" arguments in favor of 100% EO formulations.
    Justin E. Beasley

  11. #11

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Not sure what you mean Justin. You take a plant, extract its Essential Oil, and mix it with other Essential Oils. What happens afterwards is irrelevant, surely. The moment you expose an Essential Oil to the atmosphere it is going to start changing its composition; chemicals are going to start oxidising, some quicker than others. Indeed, the moment you pick the part of the plant you are interested in, you are going to change the chemical composition; you have changed its environment.

    I have never understood the arguments put forward for 100.0% natural formulae.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by JEBeasley View Post
    It seems possible and if it is actually the case then it would completely nullify all but the most "religious" arguments in favor of 100% EO formulations.
    what do you mean nullify, not following that, are you suggesting a new compound forms that is not found in nature?

  13. #13
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by luigi_g View Post
    what do you mean nullify, not following that, are you suggesting a new compound forms that is not found in nature?
    Well, I'm not saying that a new compound does form, I was asking IF it does. What I meant by that statement you quoted is that: IF novel compounds are formed that are not normally found in nature then it defeats any argument against using synthetic molecules, does it not? If, during the aging process of an all natural perfume, novel chemicals are formed that are not normally found in nature then the ONLY reason for rejecting aroma chemicals in favor of essential oils is due to a belief in essential oil "spirit" or some other religious concept. Technically speaking, even if there are no novel chemicals created by natural reactions within natural perfumes the act of blending different EO's to form a novel EO combination (perfume) unto itself is an act of creating an EO that does not exist in nature...
    Last edited by JEBeasley; 18th February 2014 at 05:49 PM.
    Justin E. Beasley

  14. #14

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Please see my comment No. 11

  15. #15
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    Please see my comment No. 11
    Oh, that posted while I was writing my last comment.

    Sorry to take this off topic but the question seemed relevant to GC/MS data... I also don't know how to broach the subject without creating a "third rail" dedicated post that then becomes a veritable shit-storm of a thread.

    I feel the same way David, I don't understand the position of %100 natural either but I always question my own assertions when new questions arise or new information is presented.
    Justin E. Beasley

  16. #16

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    It depends on what you define as being natural. For some reason, many people seem to think that anything that humans make isn't natural. What about the tools that birds and apes fashion, aren't they natural? The tools and materials that we make are no different, they're just further down the line in terms of cultural evolution. You could argue that we've created new substances, whereas the birds and apes have merely changed the shape of a substance. However, you could say that we too have merely changed the shape, by altering the molecular structure. Every organism does that anyhow, within their cells.
    Last edited by Pears; 18th February 2014 at 10:59 PM.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pears View Post
    It depends on what you define as being natural. For some reason, many people seem to think that anything that human's make isn't natural. What about the tools that birds and apes fashion, aren't they natural? The tools and materials that we make are no different, they're just further down the line in terms of cultural evolution. You could argue that we've created new substances, whereas the birds and apes have merely changed the shape of a substance. However, you could say that we too have merely changed the shape, by altering the molecular structure. Every organism does that anyhow, within their cells.
    Man made tools or altering invasions by humans have the power to destroy nature. This is unnatural.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    So do asteroids, does that make them unnatural? We could discuss the semantics all night so perhaps we can agree that the term has come to represent anything which isn't man-made, even if that's a contradiction in another sense.
    Last edited by Pears; 18th February 2014 at 08:01 PM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Ho no.. Are we really going there again? Maybe we should call Anya and Adam then..

    And BTW, I wont the bid for that perfume! HA!

  20. #20
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nizan View Post
    Ho no.. Are we really going there again? Maybe we should call Anya and Adam then..
    And BTW, I wont the bid for that perfume! HA!
    Don't threaten me with a good time!
    Congrats on winning the perfume, I didn't realize you were bidding on the vintage perfume you mentioned. What is the perfume called?
    Justin E. Beasley

  21. #21

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by JEBeasley View Post
    Don't threaten me with a good time!
    justin,
    i think this would be a good time,
    maybe i should get you in contact with the senoir chemist over here in racine at scjohnson.com, you know the old
    company that makes johnson wax, well they have a huge all natural line, i bet he would be in stiches with some of the
    these questions

  22. #22

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    As long as we are going off topic, I have a "burning" question as well, which I hope David and other chemists can answer. Why, exactly, do we need to age perfumes after they are formulated and diluted in ethanol to "be left for weeks if not months" as David says above? In his answer above he postulates this is most likely for thorough mixing rather than for the subtle and small chemical reactions that subsequently may occur in the mix.

    I was a chemist in my youth about 40 years ago and I remember some laboratory lessons on mixing. If I recall correctly, and you can work this out with math and physics, mixing happens pretty fast. i.e. the first shake mixes something like 90%. The second shake takes you up to 99% the third 99.9% and so on, so that by the time something has been shaken ten or more times, it's very thoroughly mixed. If you put a mixture on a magnetic stirring plate and leave it for an hour, your compounds are SUPER well mixed. So after that, what does a month of sitting do? We've all read over and over again how a perfume formulation matures over time, and you must let your perfumes sit, but why?

    Justin's original "burning" question postulated that some chemical changes are taking place. I suppose this is possible, but as David says: this would be on a very minute scale. He called them "traces". Maybe not even detectable on a GC/MS. So how can these traces offer so much of a change in the organoleptics of a fragrance? As a chemist I remember that there are such things as hydrogen bonding, and possibly so-called "molecular complexes" that may form. Do you think that it may be something like this?

    Presumably people in the fragrance industry have studied the subject of aging perfumes at great depth since they are selling products that often may stay on shelves for months, if not years, so they must already know how their products will behave (i.e. mature) over time. So can anybody shed light on this burning question? Bottom line: this business of aging a perfume seems like a bit of black magic and that is why it's troubling. One would like to understand the magic. Most magic is not magic at all if you know the trick behind it. So what's the explanation of this aging trick?

  23. #23

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Good question, bshell. I too would like to hear a definitive answer to your question. I'd suspect that you're right in thinking that hydrogen bonding, or the weaker dipole-dipole and van der Waals forces are partly responsible.
    Last edited by Pears; 19th February 2014 at 12:48 AM.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Sorry, I'm not capable of answering the "WHY WAIT?" question chemically.

    But I'll relate a story of my failure that illustrates the need to wait.

    I recently reformulated my Zaffran Perfume. It was one of very first, (4-5 Years ago), and had materials in it's formula that I now know were faked, and of course I've gotten a LOT more materials in that time span. I wanted to redo it with newer and cleaner lineage materials, plus give it the twist that I originally wanted to give it, but didn't have the right materials then to do so.

    I did a very good job at my new reformula. I waited one month. Smelled great. Job was done. I bottled and sent out samples. Then now six weeks or s later, I put it on and wore it to enjoy it. WHAT!!!??? My dosage of Tabanon had decided to run al allo out Coup d'tat, and take over the whole perfume, from about 15 minutes out to about 6-7 hours, the Tabanon was all I could smell in that time period.

    I had even sent out my samples to Luca Turin. (Who LOVED several others, fantastically...)

    But I had not waited long enough before I bottled and sent it out and made a fool of myself.

    The Moral? Let it age. Give it two months. Sometimes it even needs six months.

    There's a Reason for the Season.

    PK
    Paul Kiler
    PK Perfumes
    http://www.PKPERFUMES.com
    Gold Medal for "Best Aroma"; Los Angeles Artisan Fragrance Salon

  25. #25

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by bshell View Post
    As long as we are going off topic, I have a "burning" question as well, which I hope David and other chemists can answer. Why, exactly, do we need to age perfumes after they are formulated and diluted in ethanol to "be left for weeks if not months" as David says above? In his answer above he postulates this is most likely for thorough mixing rather than for the subtle and small chemical reactions that subsequently may occur in the mix.

    I was a chemist in my youth about 40 years ago and I remember some laboratory lessons on mixing. If I recall correctly, and you can work this out with math and physics, mixing happens pretty fast. i.e. the first shake mixes something like 90%. The second shake takes you up to 99% the third 99.9% and so on, so that by the time something has been shaken ten or more times, it's very thoroughly mixed. If you put a mixture on a magnetic stirring plate and leave it for an hour, your compounds are SUPER well mixed. So after that, what does a month of sitting do? We've all read over and over again how a perfume formulation matures over time, and you must let your perfumes sit, but why?

    Justin's original "burning" question postulated that some chemical changes are taking place. I suppose this is possible, but as David says: this would be on a very minute scale. He called them "traces". Maybe not even detectable on a GC/MS. So how can these traces offer so much of a change in the organoleptics of a fragrance? As a chemist I remember that there are such things as hydrogen bonding, and possibly so-called "molecular complexes" that may form. Do you think that it may be something like this?

    Presumably people in the fragrance industry have studied the subject of aging perfumes at great depth since they are selling products that often may stay on shelves for months, if not years, so they must already know how their products will behave (i.e. mature) over time. So can anybody shed light on this burning question? Bottom line: this business of aging a perfume seems like a bit of black magic and that is why it's troubling. One would like to understand the magic. Most magic is not magic at all if you know the trick behind it. So what's the explanation of this aging trick?
    I have no idea why it happens; it just does. The only chemistry involved that I know of is the formation of Acetals (between aldehydes and the ethanol). Indeed it is almost possible to calculate the age of a fragrance by the amount of Lilial or Lyral acetal present in a sample. The ageing process is also true for newly distilled oils. Freshly distilled Clove Bud oil smells vile; leave it is a drum for a month of so and it will smell like Clove Bud oil. The first place I worked had a research lab in the same building and the chemists there would often bring us samples to evaluate. They could not understand that we could not judge a freshly distilled sample, but wanted to wait for a week or so.

    I have no idea why this should be so, I only know it is.

  26. #26

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Graphite View Post
    Man made tools or altering invasions by humans have the power to destroy nature. This is unnatural.
    By what definition? Wearing clothes then is unnatural. Farming, is then unnatural. Building a house is then unnatural.

  27. #27
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    By what definition? Wearing clothes then is unnatural. Farming, is then unnatural. Building a house is then unnatural.
    Philosophically speaking it could be argued that everything in the known and unknown universe is natural, including "synthetic" materials, thoughts, etc.
    Justin E. Beasley

  28. #28

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    bshell -

    Bottom line: this business of aging a perfume seems like a bit of black magic and that is why it's troubling.
    I would have agreed if perfume making was a science.. Alas, it's an art. I was just thinking a few days ago that what is going on in those flasks is practically alchemy.. Not sure if science is interested in figuring out what's going on there.. Might even make homeopathy seem less bogus..

    Justin -
    Don't threaten me with a good time!
    Congrats on winning the perfume, I didn't realize you were bidding on the vintage perfume you mentioned. What is the perfume called?
    It's always a good time for me when Adam goes into those places.. He's so tactless, it's radical!
    I would make you guess, but I could just tell you - Jovan Night Blooming Jasmine (surprising considering my latest posts, huh?)

  29. #29

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    By what definition? Wearing clothes then is unnatural. Farming, is then unnatural. Building a house is then unnatural.
    I am not interested in discussing definitions of the word „natural”. My point was that there is a huge difference not only in the consequences between tools made by animals to fit nature and tools made by humans to overcome nature.
    I had no perfumery concepts in mind when replying to Pears' post.

  30. #30

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Graphite View Post
    I am not interested in discussing definitions of the word „natural”. My point was that there is a huge difference not only in the consequences between tools made by animals to fit nature and tools made by humans to overcome nature.
    I had no perfumery concepts in mind when replying to Pears' post.
    What is the difference? Other than that humans are so much better at it. You seem, like Humpty Dumpty, to mean whatever you want whenever you use a word.

  31. #31
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    What is the difference? Other than that humans are so much better at it. You seem, like Humpty Dumpty, to mean whatever you want whenever you use a word.
    Graphite, I'm not jumping to bite anyone on this (namely you), I just enjoy philosophical conversations and I don't mind contradictory ideas or paradox. That said

    David, I think that is really the issue with regards to the term "natural" to begin with, isn't it. It's a moving target that can be described in any way one sees fit. Ultimately it's left up to ones personal judgement, with a little help from regulatory bodies who formally define it. In reality, I don't think there is any such thing as natural, everything is natural. There are just things that are more or less bad or good for us and or the environment. I think most people want the word natural to imply that something is good for us but therein lie the problem as I see it because not everything that is indigenous to the earth is healthy or good and not everything that is newly introduced to the earth is bad.
    Justin E. Beasley

  32. #32

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Good point Justin. As always with such discussions it is wise to define one's terms.

  33. #33

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by JEBeasley View Post
    ...What I meant by that statement you quoted is that: IF novel compounds are formed that are not normally found in nature then it defeats any argument against using synthetic molecules, does it not? If, during the aging process of an all natural perfume, novel chemicals are formed that are not normally found in nature then the ONLY reason for rejecting aroma chemicals in favor of essential oils is due to a belief in essential oil "spirit" or some other religious concept. Technically speaking, even if there are no novel chemicals created by natural reactions within natural perfumes the act of blending different EO's to form a novel EO combination (perfume) unto itself is an act of creating an EO that does not exist in nature...
    First, and this is just a thoughtful guess, I doubt new compounds are often formed, just relatively speaking, as random chance would have had those things happen already with the mixing of two things commonly found in nature, especially given that a species' chemicals are mostly not unique to that species, but are found in many other species.

    Secondly, and I'm probably not telling you anything being an Oregonian (home of nature lovers), the reason that nature lovers prefer natural substances has little to do with religion. I'm historically a naturals guy, and have never heard or considered that as the argument. Chemistry minded, synthetic perfume people tend to characterize it as a bunch of pathetic "mumbo jumbo" and "religious dogma", and I believe that is unfair, if not a tad insulting to nature lovers. Nature appreciators are not clueless idiots. There is a lot to where they are coming from, and this is the biggest understatement anyone could make.

    Mankind and botanicals have developed a complex and intimate set of relationships with one another, over the millenia. These relations tend to be healthy and mutually life affirming, due to the nature of evolution. If there were ten chemicals in corn, it would obviously be safer to eat those ten chemicals, in their natural ratios, than ten random chemicals from a chem lab, in random ratios. These kind of findings would be scientifically verifiable ad infinitum.

    Nature has an inherent wisdom, which takes many lifetimes to discover; and humans have an inherent relationship with nature, being part of it. Obviously, ecosystems are meticulously and brilliantly organized, and this is another gross understatement.

    Although I agree with the chemistry minded folks here in preferring to use both naturals and synthetics, I still like to recognize the good things about nature, and I am sure that makes me a better perfumer than I'd otherwise be. I think the industry is definitely biased against nature, as that is the whole direction all the financial incentives push it. Look at the price of a drum of cedramber, compared to any essential oil. IFRA is pretty much an anti-nature organization, as allergies are almost exclusively their focus, whereas they systematically neglect the more insidious dangers of synthetic chemicals, since the financial incentives come from giant chemical corporations. People also want to justify their work in an industry that increasingly deemphasizes nature for profit reasons.

    I like to appreciate the value of synthetic fragrance materials, no question. But I also like to appreciate the unique value of nature. And a lifetime of books could be written on that topic, to say the least.

    It's not primarily the "spirit" that nature lovers value. That spiritual discussion is an interesting diversion and enhancement to life, perhaps, for different reasons.

    But rather, what is primarily valued are the patterns and organizational Gestalts nature has evolved over millions of years. These ecologic patterns are not worthless, and should be respected in order to preserve the quality of life humans have forever enjoyed. A whole is greater than the sum of parts, and it is remarkable that people forget this, and then turn around and act as if nature lovers are ignorant on top of that.

    I grew to appreciate the chemistry minded position, and am still growing very deliberately in that way. But I hope they can can also see the other side. Both sides have their valid points, in my opinion.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 21st February 2014 at 08:21 PM.

  34. #34

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    So beautifully put!

  35. #35
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrSmellThis View Post
    Secondly, and I'm probably not telling you anything being an Oregonian (home of nature lovers), the reason that nature lovers prefer natural substances has little to do with religion. I'm historically a naturals guy, and have never heard or considered that as the argument. Chemistry minded, synthetic perfume people tend to characterize it as a bunch of pathetic "mumbo jumbo" and "religious dogma", and I believe that is unfair, if not a tad insulting to nature lovers. Nature appreciators are not clueless idiots. There is a lot to where they are coming from, and this is the biggest understatement anyone could make.

    Mankind and botanicals have developed a complex and intimate set of relationships with one another, over the millenia. These relations tend to be healthy and mutually life affirming, due to the nature of evolution. If there were ten chemicals in corn, it would obviously be safer to eat those ten chemicals, in their natural ratios, than ten random chemicals from a chem lab, in random ratios. These kind of findings would be scientifically verifiable ad infinitum.

    Nature has an inherent wisdom, which takes many lifetimes to discover; and humans have an inherent relationship with nature, being part of it. Obviously, ecosystems are meticulously and brilliantly organized, and this is another gross understatement.

    Although I agree with the chemistry minded folks here in preferring to use both naturals and synthetics, I still like to recognize the good things about nature, and I am sure that makes me a better perfumer than I'd otherwise be. I think the industry is definitely biased against nature, as that is the whole direction all the financial incentives push it. Look at the price of a drum of cedramber, compared to any essential oil. IFRA is pretty much an anti-nature organization, as allergies are almost exclusively their focus, whereas they systematically neglect the more insidious dangers of synthetic chemicals, since the financial incentives come from giant chemical corporations. People also want to justify their work in an industry that increasingly deemphasizes nature for profit reasons.

    I like to appreciate the value of synthetic fragrance materials, no question. But I also like to appreciate the unique value of nature. And a lifetime of books could be written on that topic, to say the least.

    It's not primarily the "spirit" that nature lovers value. That spiritual discussion is an interesting diversion and enhancement to life, perhaps, for different reasons.

    But rather, what is primarily valued are the patterns and organizational Gestalts nature has evolved over millions of years. These ecologic patterns are not worthless, and should be respected in order to preserve the quality of life humans have forever enjoyed. A whole is greater than the sum of parts, and it is remarkable that people forget this, and then turn around and act as if nature lovers are ignorant on top of that.

    I grew to appreciate the chemistry minded position, and am still growing very deliberately in that way. But I hope they can can also see the other side. Both sides have their valid points, in my opinion.
    Yes, very well stated and I couldn't agree more. I am one of those nature loving peoples who votes with his wallet. However, that said, I also know that many people of this mindset will not admit that there might be a religious component or religious aspect to their beliefs and there often is but they like to think of themselves as free thinkers and "outside of the box" so what they believe they would not dare consider as religion and yet many (dare I say most) of the people I call peers do not accept new information about "natural" things unless it comes from "certain" sources that are cult-like leaders within the field, science be damned . My wife was an insider in the natural health care industry for many years and I have spent a lifetime exploring alternative religions, metaphysics, spirituality, medicine, you name it. Together we have seen the ins and outs of much of the "natural" lifestyle and while I embrace the healthy aspects of it myself there is certainly a very unhealthy aspect to it as well. Call me jaded but perhaps I've just seen too much. I'm also not saying there is no validity or worthwhile aspect to the natural lifestyle, as I stated previously I am still very much engaged but I think too many people walk into it with their eyes closed thinking that it's a warm and safe environment when in fact there are just as many pitfalls that need to be addressed as any way of life, this includes the religious component of which I speak. When I say "religion" in this context I am not speaking of a formal tradition but more in terms of a the way it is approached and practice with religious fervor, blind belief and rose colored glasses. I think that when I speak of these things people aren't accustomed to hearing criticism and so it is taken as negativity or as a personal affront, this is not my intent.
    Last edited by JEBeasley; 21st February 2014 at 09:07 PM.
    Justin E. Beasley

  36. #36

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by JEBeasley View Post
    I couldn't agree more and I am one of those nature loving peoples who votes with his wallet. However, that said, I also know that many people of this mindset will not admit that there might be a religious component or mindset to their beliefs and there often is but they like to think of themselves as free thinkers and "outside of the box" so what they believe they would not dare consider as religion and yet many (dare I say most) of the people I call peers do not accept new information about "natural" things unless it comes from "certain" sources that are cult-like leaders within the field, science be damned . My wife was an insider in the natural health care industry for many years and I have spent a lifetime exploring alternative religions, metaphysics, spirituality, medicine, you name it. Together we have seen the ins and outs of much of the "natural" lifestyle and while I embrace the healthy aspects of it myself there is certainly a very unhealthy aspect to it as well. Call me jaded but perhaps I've just seen too much.
    JEB, I'm pretty confident we have a lot in common in all those ways, as I feel I know where you have come from, being so familiar with that culture in Oregon over recent decades. I've seen every possible natural health and new age movement as well, as Portland has been a world center for it. I've been very intimately involved in all kinds of natural health studies and relationships with every kind of practitioner, as well as every kind of alternative philosophy. When I quit going to New Renaissance bookstore, it was because I had been exposed to all their books so much, nothing was new any more. Ha ha.

    Like you, I have come out of the other side of it, and have put all of it in perspective. I also have a conventional scientific, academic and intellectual background on top of that, and can hold my own in those circles too.

    If I was talking to you privately with a bunch of Oregonians, I'd tilt the discussion differently than speaking generically to an international audience, however. The jaded part disappears for me. I can do that because my conventional intellectual/scientific background allowed me to be skeptical the whole time, which protected me somewhat from the "jading". I never completely bought in to any movement (but did come close). Now I just try to file everything in the place it belongs, so to speak. If I need to defend some new age idea in front of a room full of scientists, I can do that to some extent, if appropriate.

    Are there a lot of idiots in the alternative/natural/new age/healing movements? Of course, just like everywhere else. But a lot of it is valid, too. You just have to avoid the idiot version! Ha ha. You have to translate the nugget of rationality out of it for a general audience, which is what I often try to do. Then we grumble among one another about all the BS, which is plentiful.

    Thanks for the reply! Go Ducks/Beavers/Blazers/Timbers!
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 21st February 2014 at 09:22 PM.

  37. #37

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Seems we are getting back into the Naturals vs. Synthetics argument again. For me the argument is spurious , quite unnecessary. In Perfumery there is a place for both, and that should be an end to it.. I have no intention of getting involved in the New Age philosophy (philosophies), nor am I going to start thinking that "Nature" is sentient; I don't believe that for one instant.

    To say that men and plants have an equal and mutually beneficial relationship is, at best, naive. Mankind has exploited plants, and animals, for millennia. There is no mutual benefit. But there, I said I wouldn't get involved in that argument; and I have!!

  38. #38
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    Seems we are getting back into the Naturals vs. Synthetics argument again. For me the argument is spurious , quite unnecessary. In Perfumery there is a place for both, and that should be an end to it.. I have no intention of getting involved in the New Age philosophy (philosophies), nor am I going to start thinking that "Nature" is sentient; I don't believe that for one instant.

    To say that men and plants have an equal and mutually beneficial relationship is, at best, naive. Mankind has exploited plants, and animals, for millennia. There is no mutual benefit. But there, I said I wouldn't get involved in that argument; and I have!!
    C'mon David, now don't you feel a just little bit better having said that? Get it off your chest, Hahahaha.

    I don't think there was any specific mention of plants being "sentient", merely that plants and humans evolved together in a form of symbiosis. "The Botany of Desire" is an interesting book and documentary, one I think is worth a watch. Corn, tobacco, apples... would they have evolved in the way that they did without human intervention? We don't know.... Would we have evolved they way we did without those things? Who knows... however, I find them interesting questions worth exploring or even considering for a moment because I don't necessarily have any absolute proof against such a theory either.
    Last edited by JEBeasley; 22nd February 2014 at 11:37 AM.
    Justin E. Beasley

  39. #39

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    For simplicity's sake, I refer to extracts of flora and fauna as "naturals" and man-made chemicals as "synthetics", but like you I don't take the definitions too seriously. I prefer to use naturals in most cases but I'll make use of synthetics if needs be. I don't think that anyone's view is ever completely correct, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. It's better to try to find the common ground when possible and work together. However, perhaps sometimes you need to oppose eachother, before you can appreciate that it's better to work together.
    Last edited by Pears; 22nd February 2014 at 01:03 PM.

  40. #40

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Are aromachems easier to blend, at least for simple accords? With the exception of hedione
    and benzyl salicylate, which seem to have huge "non-linear" effects..
    (Easier = easier to anticipate, less change in maturation, etc,..)

  41. #41
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pears View Post
    For simplicity's sake, I refer to extracts of flora and fauna as "naturals" and man-made chemicals as "synthetics", but like you I don't take the definitions too seriously. I prefer to use naturals in most cases but I'll make use of synthetics if needs be. I don't think that anyone's view is ever completely correct, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. It's better to try to find the common ground when possible and work together. However, perhaps sometimes you need to oppose eachother, before you can appreciate that it's better to work together.
    I see the beauty in all materials man made or otherwise... I have no conflict with any of that and I'm not debating suitability or dominance. I just like discussing philosophical concepts and the "nature" concept to me is an interesting and very debatable topic. For me it's about arriving at understanding vs trying to change anyones mind or force my point of view, I'm completely open to discussion and have utmost respect for anyone willing to put their ideas up for scrutiny or discussion. I sometimes get hot headed but I don't take anything personally that is clearly not meant as a personal attack and even then I'm pretty good, most of the time, at letting go of personal attacks and not retaliating.
    Justin E. Beasley

  42. #42

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Justin, I wasn't talking about your stance in particular. I think that we all find ourselves on one side of the fence at times and forget that the opposite side has equal validity. Sometime you'll read of people, who either through divine intervention, or brain damage, come to see both sides of the fence. I'm also a philosopher but I've come to realise that while we're heavily engaged in thought, we're never at peace. We were born to think but through the conditioning that we received at school, we have become over-thinkers. It can be a real strain. Certain eastern schools of philosophy can help to redress the balance in that regard but so can anything that encourages you to get in the zone, like sports, the arts, etc.

  43. #43

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Seems like perfumery is a pretty heady art

  44. #44
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pears View Post
    Justin, I wasn't talking about your stance in particular. I think that we all find ourselves on one side of the fence at times and forget that the opposite side has equal validity. Sometime you'll read of people, who either through divine intervention, or brain damage, come to see both sides of the fence. I'm also a philosopher but I've come to realise that while we're heavily engaged in thought, we're never at peace. We were born to think but through the conditioning that we received at school, we have become over-thinkers. It can be a real strain. Certain eastern schools of philosophy can help to redress the balance in that regard but so can anything that encourages you to get in the zone, like sports, the arts, etc.
    Many good points Pears.
    Justin E. Beasley

  45. #45
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nizan View Post
    Seems like perfumery is a pretty heady art
    I imagine more so for some than it is for others...
    Justin E. Beasley

  46. #46

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by JEBeasley View Post
    C'mon David, now don't you feel a just little bit better having said that? Get it off your chest, Hahahaha.

    I don't think there was any specific mention of plants being "sentient", merely that plants and humans evolved together in a form of symbiosis. "The Botany of Desire" is an interesting book and documentary, one I think is worth a watch. Corn, tobacco, apples... would they have evolved in the way that they did without human intervention? We don't know.... Would we have evolved they way we did without those things? Who knows... however, I find them interesting questions worth exploring or even considering for a moment because I don't necessarily have any absolute proof against such a theory either.
    When I read that "Nature has an inherent wisdom" I take that to mean that Nature is sentient; I profoundly disagree. Humans have exploited plants, there is no symbiosis about it. Jut as we have exploited animals, and the minerals that make up the earth. Of course modern apples, corn etc. would not have existed without the intervention of man; and so what?

  47. #47

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nizan View Post
    Are aromachems easier to blend, at least for simple accords? With the exception of hedione
    and benzyl salicylate, which seem to have huge "non-linear" effects..
    (Easier = easier to anticipate, less change in maturation, etc,..)
    I think so. Aroma chemicals are single notes (usually) and so their performance may easily be followed. You can easily measure the strength, and longevity of an aroma chemical; also you can easily see the effect that a single aroma chemical has. Essential Oils are mixtures of (up to) hundreds of different chemicals, each behaving in its own way, each evaporating at different rates; much harder to follow the effect of an oil. In my opinion.

  48. #48

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    I think so. Aroma chemicals are single notes (usually) and so their performance may easily be followed. You can easily measure the strength, and longevity of an aroma chemical; also you can easily see the effect that a single aroma chemical has. Essential Oils are mixtures of (up to) hundreds of different chemicals, each behaving in its own way, each evaporating at different rates; much harder to follow the effect of an oil. In my opinion.
    After asking this I realized there were some strange phenomena in maturation, where some
    chemical became very strong (Paul mentioned something like this).. Could this happen with
    mixes which are entirely made of chemicals (I mean, about a dozen chemicals, not 200..)?
    Though I guess as a rule, things should be more simple with chemicals..

  49. #49
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    When I read that "Nature has an inherent wisdom" I take that to mean that Nature is sentient; I profoundly disagree. Humans have exploited plants, there is no symbiosis about it. Jut as we have exploited animals, and the minerals that make up the earth. Of course modern apples, corn etc. would not have existed without the intervention of man; and so what?
    I can see where one might take issue with that statement and I don't necessarily disagree with you David. To be honest I don't believe in the concept of sentience in nature but I believe that there is a symbiosis in the sense that we depend on the earths systems of plants and animals and microbes and weather patterns for our well being and some of those plants have greatly benefited from our relationship with them, I don't think there is any doubt that we benefit from them. While we do manipulate those things it is debatable that the manipulations we have done are ALWAYS good for us or for our environment and in fact there is some evidence to the contrary. Most of the manipulations we have done to these things are superficial and for good reason. Great harm can be done in thinking that we already know enough, to change these systems in certain ways without a level of caution. Do we have to be scared of science? Should we stop manipulating nature? No, to the contrary, but I think that sometimes people with monetary agendas use technology, science, media and political influence to push the envelope in ways that advance peoples bank accounts with complete disregard for what is good for humanity and the rest of us in general. This has become the norm rather than the exception.

    Can you say that we don't benefit from these plants and that every aspect of that plant that we do benefit from is of our own doing? No, we evolved along with these plants, we do manipulate them because they are useful and provide benefit but the REALLY useful aspects of those plants is NOT of our doing and we do not, as of yet, understand how some parts of these things benefit us. Regardless of how much we have manipulated the plant the fact remains that most of that plant and most of the plants benefit was not of our doing, we did not create the plant, we just manipulated certain aspects of the plant. The plant thrives because we find it useful and manipulate it to be beneficial in certain ways but the plant provides just as much use to us without our manipulations and we have manipulated it because we found it useful. So, perhaps symbiosis was the wrong word to use, maybe I should have said “we have a complex and not well understood relationship with plants, microbes and other animals that comprise our earths system which in turn benefits us in ways that we do not fully understand”…

    Science acknowledges that 60-70% of our digestive processes are dependent on beneficial bacteria (my wife learned this in pharmacy school) and yet we do everything we can to eliminate ALL bacteria in our living environment, why? We absolutely do benefit from certain bacteria, this mindset of all bacteria being bad because it’s stinky or ugly, or whatever, is harming us and doing real damage to our health and our environment. Do we benefit from certain bacteria? Yes. Does it benefit from us? Yes. Is this a symbiosis? Yes. Should we manipulate these bacteria? I don’t know but we should be really careful how we do this. Plants benefit from bacteria too and we derive benefit from the plant. Do we understand how this plant/human/bacteria relationship works? Not really… These are complex processes and they are processes that we don’t completely understand yet. A couple of years ago I spoke with a virologist at a cooperative children's center, we had a conversation about beneficial bacteria. He told me that modern science is just now discovering HOW important bacteria are to our living systems, “this is an emerging and growing field of study in industry and academic settings” he tells me. The concept of beneficial bacteria has been touted and promoted, anecdotally, as an important element of human health by the "natural" community for decades (at least) yet we have waged active wars on all bacteria for decades and still do, despite what science is currently saying.

    Is it prudent to believe that we know enough about the systems of human biology and of the environment, that keeps the human race alive? Do we know enough to change the genetics of our food? Is it smart to destroy natural biodiversity? Is it good to kill all bacteria and supplement those things with man made replacements or take more drugs to counter the health problems that are occurring as a result? Do we really know enough to manipulate our environment in irreversible ways? These questions are difficult and complicated, we would be cavalier, at best, to ignore them or think we have then answered completely. Is there an inherent wisdom in nature? I don’t think there is true “wisdom” in the way that we define wisdom from a human-centric, intellectual, viewpoint but I think there is a lack of wisdom in humans who don’t respect the complex relationship we have with nature and who believe that they know enough to replace our living systems with man made systems entirely. While it has not always been ideal our indigenous biome has provided a working and self sustaining system by which to grow and thrive, to say that this is absolutely NOT a symbiosis or to say that this system is of poor design might be a bit presumptuous from my viewpoint because if we stand back and look at the big picture we don't really know enough to say.
    Last edited by JEBeasley; 23rd February 2014 at 10:18 PM.
    Justin E. Beasley

  50. #50

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Justin, your reply (No. 49) above is unfortunately too long to comment upon in great detail. I agree with some of the points you make, disagree with others.

  51. #51
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    727

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    Justin, your reply (No. 49) above is unfortunately too long to comment upon in great detail. I agree with some of the points you make, disagree with others.
    No big deal, thanks for commenting anyway. Back to perfuming
    Justin E. Beasley

  52. #52

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruskin View Post
    I have no intention of getting involved in the New Age philosophy (philosophies), nor am I going to start thinking that "Nature" is sentient; I don't believe that for one instant.

    To say that men and plants have an equal and mutually beneficial relationship is, at best, naive. Mankind has exploited plants, and animals, for millennia. There is no mutual benefit. But there, I said I wouldn't get involved in that argument; and I have!!
    Ha ha. Would you prefer to take the whole thing back? You wouldn't be the David we all know and love if you hadn't redressed me for my comments. It is in part the fact that you and I are different philosophically that makes me absorb everything I can from your posts, because I needed to grow more toward your perspective as regards perfuming, and I will continue to as long as you keep posting. Were you more like me I wouldn't appreciate you as much, and due to my great respect for you, please feel free to discipline any of my loose thoughts as you see fit! You're still one of my very few favorite posters and a good guy; and I don't see that changing.

    Having said all that, I didn't say nature was sentinent (in human terms), but appreciate your angle which helps me clarify that. You were nonetheless correct to call me out for being unclear.

    "Wisdom" referred to the way the organization of nature appears to humans, as if it was wisdom. In humans, it's consciousness, and literally everything we know is via consciousness. But there are some similarities to consciousness in the rest of nature (even sentinence, in that nature has an ability to self correct, which logically implies something akin to "self" awareness of the necessary data for self correction), but the patterns and "self-oriented behavior" (e.g., self correction) of nature transcends the consciousness of its members (e.g., us), and we do not know the nature of that systematic organization. The "wisdom" of nature has to do at least with adaptveness (and also homeostasis, in the immediate moment, despite larger forces of change), and with the countless interactions of different aspects or elements of nature toward the apparent end of adaptiveness vis a vis its host planet. These phenomena are pretty much beyond dispute as solid science, the countless ways in which the different aspects of nature work together, and any kind of study of ecosystems and biology will cover this. You would have to reject the whole concept of "ecosystems" per se to reject what I'm talking about here. There is no need for me to defend what is common scientific knowledge. But it would not be difficult to go there.

    As part of a natural ecosystem, humans naturally do exist in symbiotic relation with other elements of nature. This is true of any two elements of nature, and such is the nature of an ecosystem, which will tend toward continued existence, at least.

    For example, we pick fruit from a tree, and by eating the fruit we spread the seeds around the ecosystem enabling the tree to reproduce. As a result of helping the species of tree, we eat better. That is nothing if not symbiosis. Conversely, to the extent we are not symbiotic with nature we will join the ranks of failed species, and be replaced by a more adaptive species, just as biology predicts. If we kill off trees, we will have hell to pay, and the same goes with our oceans and atmosphere.

    But we are part of nature, and we originally fit in, in countless ways. This is another long discussion, but we are not different from any other mammal, animal or plant. What would flowers be without bees? We are so much fertilizer, at least. Nature is symbiotic, and there are thousands of examples, which I will start detailing if you should require me to. That is the accepted baseline for our understanding, throughout the natural sciences. We are not different from the rest of nature, or separate from it, despite our (maladaptive) arrogance as humans. Earth Nature will, thankfully, from its survival "perspective", kill us before we kill it (as we're not going to blow up the whole planet), precisely because of its special kind of "wisdom".

    So "wisdom" was indeed a metaphor, but an apt and informative one, in my opinion. Nature has something akin to consciousness; in that it's meticulous organization easily makes sense; and tends toward "making some kind of sense", just like human consciousness; as nature appears to humans. As the study of human consciousness, psychology is literally the study of sense making. But the "sense" of nature, biology teaches us, relates fundamentally to discernable biological law, specifically adaptation.

    But it is obviously not literally human consciousness, but its own thing that we cannot know directly, except via its effects. I'm not saying it's personhood, because the sensable organization of nature obviously transcends personhood, which is nonetheless part of it. Whatever it is in nature that transcends and subsumes personal consciousness -- whatever that is, is whatever it is. To pretend to define it, to trace its limits, would be to deny its essential transcendence, which is one of the few things we can say about it. So using metaphor is the best it gets.

    We have only begun significantly destroying the environment very, very recently, historically speaking, as of the industrial age. It is an aspect of contemporary Western culture, to a significant extent. Native American culture is quite different, and was very caught up in respecting and maintaining the balance of nature. Many other cultures have been that way as well. Western culture is much more caught up in setting ourselves up as separate from, opposed to, and superior to nature, which is really a philosophical artifact of Western religion.. We are perhaps turning into the maladaptive exception, that proves the adaptation rule of modern Darwinistic biology. Our decisions to milk nature for immediate selfish pleasure and infinite greed are not without negative consequence via nature, and already the world economy (notice the instructive similarity between that word and "eco-system") suffers from diminished natural resources per capita as compared to the historically recent past. To the extent we are kind to nature, it can in turn be kind to us, and nurture us, as it is so amazingly good at, under normal, healthy conditions.

    Sorry for the long post, but I had a lot of ground to cover to make the case I had to make.
    Last edited by DrSmellThis; 25th February 2014 at 06:23 AM.

  53. #53

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Dr S, once again your post is far too long for me to comment on it in any great detail, but I agree with pretty well all of it; although I would possibly use some different terminology.

    One point only (well maybe two). Man is the only animal that can control his environment as completely as he does, which is why the same species is found just about everywhere on the planet.

    Secondly (I said possibly two!). Man has been "destroying the environment" (I prefer to use the term "Change") ever since the very first humanoid, dug the very first hole in the ground. I agree with you that our rapacious exploitation of the planet will, ultimately damage ourselves, but I do not think of it has destroying the environment; the environment is being changed, it is our environment that is being destroyed. There is a difference.

    I wish I could continue this fascinating topic with you and Justin; maybe shorter posts with just a point or two in each.

    And there really is no need for the buttering up, although it is most enjoyable.

  54. #54

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Apologize for staying on topic, but I was wondering if isomers (such as eugenol and isoeugenol)
    can be told apart when doing GC/MS..

  55. #55

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nizan View Post
    Apologize for staying on topic, but I was wondering if isomers (such as eugenol and isoeugenol)
    can be told apart when doing GC/MS..
    Yes they can. Structural isomers will usually have different retention times. You need specialised equipment to distinguish between optical isomers, although I believe this can be done.

  56. #56

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Generally speaking yes. You will often see the different isomers of Iso E Super separated in a GC. A GC can be tweaked to achieve a specific separation by varying the stationary and mobile phases and changing the flow rate of the mobile phase or the temperature gradient. Co-eluting peaks (ingredients) can also be detected. So yes but it depends on the conditions of operation of the GC.

  57. #57

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Hmm.. I was asking because GC's of the same plants showed 5% of eugenol and no isoeugenol,
    and the opposite in another GC..

  58. #58

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    One possibility is that there is a difference in the plants due to different sources of origin the other is that the component has been misidentified due to instrument or operator error, particularly if they elute very close together. A GC of a complex system such as an essential oil is not an absolute both qualitatively and quantitatively.

  59. #59

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    Thanks
    I guess I'll try both.
    It's weird that given such different compositions of EO's, we can usually identify the plant..
    (For cestrum - most GC's of the oils didn't show phenyl acetaldehyde, linalool nor benzyl
    acetate, yet some did, and it seems that they're pretty necessary for the scent)..

  60. #60

    Default Re: Anyone has experience with Perfumer's Apprentice GC?

    I think that's because we don't use GC to identify plants. A given genus and species of plant will always produce a variation in composition of odour components. A GC will only give you a piece of the puzzle whether its a GC of a perfume or an essential oil. I don't think it will ever give you a reproducible formula.

Similar Threads

  1. Pure Iso E Super® from The Perfumer's Apprentice
    By md1grwl in forum General Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 28th December 2013, 10:43 PM
  2. Something wrong at Perfumer's Apprentice?
    By rubegon in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2nd November 2011, 06:29 AM
  3. Aromachemicals from Apprentice
    By woodenpalette in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 1st February 2009, 11:21 PM
  4. Perfumer's apprentice Beginner's Aromachemical Kit
    By Concord in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 18th August 2008, 09:36 PM
  5. New Perfumery Kits at Perfumer's Apprentice
    By joxer96 in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 17th January 2008, 11:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000