Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 13 of 13
  1. #1
    It's all about the wood
    ListensClosely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    170

    Default KZ85: THe GCMS results

    OK people, here it is:


    https://mega.nz/#!iM4RQSaC!A9dMZYCBs...V7etuu92-n_JAs

    Follow the link to download it securely from my cloud storage.


    I guess I get first go to lay out my view of the results. I'd first like to leave aside the tester's own narrative analysis for a minute; the statement at the bottom of the document.

    Probably best to walk through what you're seeing on the sheet so we're all on the same page as regards the presentation of GCMS results in general.
    So the way GCMS works (roughly) is that a small sample of the product is heated gradually from cold up to a particular high temperature. You can see in the graph, looking at the bottom axis, that this test was done over a period of more than two hours. This gradual heating causes compounds in the sample to be released ( the jargon used in GCMS for this is 'eluted') in order of their volatility. By this method, one effectively separates the constituents of the sample so that they can be analysed separately.
    Looking at the graph from left to right, you can see a number of spikes of various height cropping up at various time intervals during the test. Each of these spikes relates approximately to a chemical compound in the sample. Each of these spikes also corresponds with on the of the results in the list on the right. The height of a spike suggests the volume of the compound released and, by extension, the relative proportion it represents in the test subject. You can see a figure that indicates relative concentration against each identified compound in the list on the right.


    So, first impressions looking at the range of chemicals identified in the list on the right, there are plenty of chemicals identified that occur regularly in agarwood. Most of them are sesquiterpenes, the classic family of chemicals found in agarwood. Some of the results simply state 'Agarwood'. This will be because this is how that particular result is identified in the tester's analytical database (rather than as a specific chemical). It's effectively a short-hand that says "this thing is a 'marker' for agarwood".
    I see no compounds listed that are indicative of other aromatic products and indeed the tester has not named any other specific raw ingredients that have found their way into the product.

    The first controversial thing to note in the results is the identification of a phthalate, di-butyl phthalate to be exact. Now there has been a lot of talk previously regarding the use of phthalates as cutting agents and viscosity enhancers on oud so this might give an immediate cause for concern. But consider the concentration found in the sample. You're talking 0.69% of the released mass. This is not the sort of level that indicates it was added purposefully for the reasons stated above. At this level, it have most likely crept in during manufacture or storage. I have already dicussed this finding with Kyarazen and he proposed a highly plausible explanation for its presence: Those who remember Kyarazen's original blog post about this oil will recall his description of the bottle the oil was found in; a large glass bottle with a large plastic stopper in the top. The material those sort of stoppers are often made from is a synthetic rubber that is made up of a hard plastic infused with (you guessed it) phthalates that act as a softener (plasticizer), rendering the product pliable like rubber. It is entirely likely that, over time, the phthalates leached out of the stopper and into the oil.
    Here are some links for reference:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibutyl_phthalate
    "Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) is a commonly used plasticizer."


    https://www.kyarazen.com/kyarazen-oud-1985/#
    "Trying to contain my excitement, I gingerly tried to get the cap and the protective plug off. It took quite many minutes, the silence and anticipation was not helped by the extremely tight plug on the bottle which I had to twist, turn and pull in a circular fashion bit by bit, hoping that the 27 year old plug does not break."

    It's interesting to have some possible corroboration as to the source of this phthalate. However, this does not change the fact that it's there (albeit in small quantities). Please do bear in mind though that phthalates like this are likely leaching out of the plastic caps and swipers of your 3ml oud bottles into your precious oils right now!

    So finally, what of the tester's comments?

    "The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the very low TIC number, the unusual late-eluting components and the contamination with phthalates"

    I had several email exchanges with the tester over his findings and was left unconvinced that his experience of agarwood extended to anything other than steam/hydro distilled agarwood oils, leaving open the reasonable explanation that this is an extraction using solvents. Personally, I believe that this would account for the observations that the tester made.


    So to my own conclusions:
    • The test proves that the product at least contains a majority proportion of agarwood extract.
    • The test does not show proof or even evidence of a deliberate dilution with another specific compound, extract or raw ingredient.
    • I am personally convinced that it is a more-or-less pure agarwood extract that employed a solvent/CO2-type method.



    ...but that's just me. I'd love to hear other views of these results.

  2. #2

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    So no Labdanum or other chemicals found in any meaningful quantity found... I wasn't around when the oil was discussed in 2015/16, but this is an interesting read and confirms my experience with KZ as a man of integrity.

    Of course, if the oil was not pure, that would not indicate that KZ would have known this, but it is nice to see that his oil was as described. Hope you enjoy the oil LC!

    By the way, what quantity of the KZ85 did you have to send off to the GCMS Lab?
    Last edited by floraopia; 10th November 2017 at 10:43 PM.

  3. #3
    It's all about the wood
    ListensClosely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    170

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    @floraopia
    I'm not sure what integrity has to do with it.
    There were several diverse theories going around at the time; logic dictates that there would have been only two possible interpretations of the situation: Either one person's analysis was correct, or nobody's was correct.

    Part of my motivation to actually go through with testing this product was a strong gut feeling that the results would surprise everyone to some degree. The fact is, KZ85 is a genuinely weird product to look at and to smell, at least when taken from our community's world view of agarwood (which is overwhelmingly the Middle Eastern tradition). I am not at all surprised that it blind-sided many people with substantial experience of 'oud'. KZ85 doesn't conform to the mould.

    I think the most important lesson these results teach us all is that the sphere of agarwood culture and truth is even larger than we all assume and that we should never rest on our laurels when it comes to this fascinating product of nature, whether you're a relative newbie or an undoubted expert in your own agarwood niche.
    This cuts many ways too. Indeed, I recall a recent discussion with a senior family member of one of the most esteemed incense families in Japan. We were discussing the geographic habitats of agarwood and I began to speak of Sri Lanka. He quickly cut me short proclaiming 'there's no jinkoh in Sri lanka!'.... Politeness forbade me to press the matter any further.

    ...so I suggest less of the 'integrity' stuff in this case: A person can have been wrong about this product without the need to question their integrity, nor their expertise in their own field of agarwood.


    As to the sample size required, this wasn't made clear to me when I ordered the service. I ended up sending off the whole vial as I did not want to mess around with decanting it and, potentially, contaminating the sample. I requested the vial be returned to me, which it was. However, tragically, the lid of the vial wasn't screwed back on sufficiently tightly and much of it leaked out on the return trip! I've had to write it off as the true price for discovering 'the truth'.

  4. #4

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    Very interesting. Thanks for sharing with us all. Well, Sri Lankan agarwood is Gyrinops. Unique profile but no way near traditional Aquilaria agarwood on both burning or applying it oil. There's no depth to the Sri Lankan gyrinops. It is acceptable to us but not to masters. I have had experience here myself where the traditional Indian masters consider gyrinops and Meroke oils swamp wood. They would not even put it on their skin for the same reason. However that shouldn't be deterrent to anyone's liking for these oils. Cheers
    Currently wearing: Musk Aoud by Roja Dove

  5. #5

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    So there will be no apology from people who tried their best to ruin KZ's stellar reputation? Mr. Ensar step up

  6. #6
    It's all about the wood
    ListensClosely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    170

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    @outline

    I had a few parties advise me that they didn't think it was a pure agarwood product. However I don't think any of them were 'trying their best to ruin KZ's reputation'. That implies a very serious accusation that you couldn't possibly have evidence for. In any case, why single out one person? Indeed, why publicly demand apologies at all? If someone expresses an opinion in good faith but it turns out to be wrong, I don't think that requires a public apology.

  7. #7

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    Well when you accuse someone of something and then you get hard facts in front of you, if you are wrong and half decent person you owe an apology. Public or private doesn't matter.

    When you spend an hour on your post with insane accusation it is an attack.

  8. #8

  9. #9

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    A very good evening ladies and gentlemen, KZ here, and first and foremost, my sincerest apologies to Listensclosely for not having fulfilled the publication of the GCMS results of the KZ1985 on my website, and when i heard BN resurrected the oudzone I reminded myself that now it is the time and place to write on this, but countless commitments often resulted in constant forgetfulness. in the span of the year, i had irresponsibly forgot to constantly write new articles, and partly because I was writing a book on incense instead.. and in the span of time, i had to help an ailing teahouse, from reviving it to eventually closing it.. and also ending unfortunate collaborations with fellow incense makers because of difference in values etc.. it had always been a fly by night kinda feeling, like batman, for the first 15 hours of the day i would probably be living another life in another distant industry, and in the nights i become an incense maker/culture proponent (leaving only 4-5 hours of sleep daily).

    there's absolutely no need for anyone to apologize to KZ for anything relating to KZ1985. experts are not wrong on their assessment/diagnosis as they can be assessing based on scent notes rather than chemical constituents. it is like how we can smell fruits and flowers in modern ouds, but it doesnt mean they put fruits/flowers inside. everyone has their right to their opinions and scent analysis. any discussion, criticism etc, is constructive to the oudfield and we should be openminded to these. when it comes to scent preference, it is extremely subjective, there are some scents that would be very dear and precious, and some scents to some, whom would never be enjoyable. one man's meat is another's poison.

    analysing the kz1985 on gcms is not easy, as the high resin content and the low volatility of these resins can end up with these high molecular weights not being resolvable at the wrong temp/column usage. the high percentage of certain agarwood markers in the gcms suggests the low chance of it being cut, and the constituents as seen, are very much agarwood compounds, without floral nor other resin contamination.

    on hind sight, mr lee's estate, and his medicinal hall will be closing before christmas this year, and that could be a final end to a brand that had been around in singapore since 1934. i would like to thank everyone on behalf of mr lee, on the love and interest in his products/oils, and at the same time offer an apology to the community on the delay and slowness of how this whole matter had been clarified.

  10. #10
    Basenotes Junkie
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Kuwait
    Posts
    560

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    Quote Originally Posted by kyarazen View Post
    A very good evening ladies and gentlemen, KZ here, and first and foremost, my sincerest apologies to Listensclosely for not having fulfilled the publication of the GCMS results of the KZ1985 on my website, and when i heard BN resurrected the oudzone I reminded myself that now it is the time and place to write on this, but countless commitments often resulted in constant forgetfulness. in the span of the year, i had irresponsibly forgot to constantly write new articles, and partly because I was writing a book on incense instead.. and in the span of time, i had to help an ailing teahouse, from reviving it to eventually closing it.. and also ending unfortunate collaborations with fellow incense makers because of difference in values etc.. it had always been a fly by night kinda feeling, like batman, for the first 15 hours of the day i would probably be living another life in another distant industry, and in the nights i become an incense maker/culture proponent (leaving only 4-5 hours of sleep daily).

    there's absolutely no need for anyone to apologize to KZ for anything relating to KZ1985. experts are not wrong on their assessment/diagnosis as they can be assessing based on scent notes rather than chemical constituents. it is like how we can smell fruits and flowers in modern ouds, but it doesnt mean they put fruits/flowers inside. everyone has their right to their opinions and scent analysis. any discussion, criticism etc, is constructive to the oudfield and we should be openminded to these. when it comes to scent preference, it is extremely subjective, there are some scents that would be very dear and precious, and some scents to some, whom would never be enjoyable. one man's meat is another's poison.

    analysing the kz1985 on gcms is not easy, as the high resin content and the low volatility of these resins can end up with these high molecular weights not being resolvable at the wrong temp/column usage. the high percentage of certain agarwood markers in the gcms suggests the low chance of it being cut, and the constituents as seen, are very much agarwood compounds, without floral nor other resin contamination.

    on hind sight, mr lee's estate, and his medicinal hall will be closing before christmas this year, and that could be a final end to a brand that had been around in singapore since 1934. i would like to thank everyone on behalf of mr lee, on the love and interest in his products/oils, and at the same time offer an apology to the community on the delay and slowness of how this whole matter had been clarified.
    raise the hat Respected Kyarazen & RIP Mr Lee

  11. #11
    It's all about the wood
    ListensClosely's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    170

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    @kyarazen
    A warm welcome back.
    After everything that’s been going on, your post comes as a breath of fresh air. Thank you for showing such a generosity of spirit in the circumstances.
    In some ways I regret how the KZ85 GCMS story has concluded (has it concluded?). To be honest though, I've been unsurprised by how it panned out, which I know betrays a stubborn-mindedness on my part.
    I hope you can remain content with my decision to commission the test, and then to release the results in the way I did: I know I acted in good faith at all times, and ultimately kept my word in terms of publication.
    I think anyone who was going to learn something useful from the results has done so by now. Perhaps though you might agree that there will always be a level of mystery around this product. We’ll probably never know the exact details concerning the extraction method used and this, at least for me, remains a missing fact that could have helped make complete sense of the GCMS results.
    There is also the curious fact that this is inherently a product distinct from the oils that are traded and appreciated in our community: If my understanding is correct, this was an extract produced wholly for medicinal purposes, probably never intended to be used on its own. That is to say that the qualities we look for in an 'oud' were not at the forefront of the manufacturer's (and indeed he client's) mind and this difference of purpose would surely have driven the decisions made for its manufacture away from those taken for an 'oud', or indeed any perfume product. Nonetheless, this product has found its way into our community and we try our best to make sense of it from our own points of reference. Perhaps no wonder then that it created such controversy and divergent opinions.

    To everyone in our community who took a view either way on KZ85, I say let it stand as a reminder that Agarwood is a journey none of us should expect to complete, nor should we assume to have done so, and those who feel they were vindicated this time around, beware complacency and mistaking a 'correct guess made for the wrong reasons' for real insight.
    Personally, I feel I've learnt a great deal from this process, including things I wouldn't have learnt any other way. However in the years to come I hope we look back on ourselves as fools, and so look forward as fools

  12. #12

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    I've been out of the oud game for a while, but been catching up lately by smelling ouds again and reading up on the forum.
    This thread caught my eye as the most interesting topic and frankly I was rather surprised how easily science was dismissed.
    To me it felt like doubts were tidily swept under the rug to maintain the mystery and status of the oil.
    I've never been the greatest fan of the oud, nor have I ever thought it pure,
    but I did invest time reading and re-reading the results and considering all possible answers.

    Below are my doubts regarding KZ85's purity:

    1. The tester says the TIC number was very low, and that indicates that it has been cut with non-volatiles.
    If I gather correctly one would expect the TIC number to be 3-7x higher.
    At 3x lower volatiles I might find it plausible that this is not a distilled essential oil but might be a solvent extraction, a total extraction that is, because an absolute washed from the oleoresin should have a similar TIC number.
    One could also factor oxidation (30y) into the loss of volatiles. The GC shows no volatiles below 218 g/mol molecular mass.
    On the other hand a total solvent extraction from heavily resinated agarwood should be a hard solid...
    So is it an oleoresin from a less resinated wood?
    Also in the original Kyarazen article, he says Mr Lee sent it to be distilled.
    Certain believers are rather conveniently changing the extraction method to suit...
    Next thing we know KZ85 will be hailed as the golden standard for Co2 extraction...

    2. A long time ago I tried to dilute a drop of 1985 in 3-5 drops alcohol, taking cue from my labdanum oleoresin with dilutes at ¨30%
    but it did not dilute, increasing the alcohol by multitudes recently (100x), it diluted, but I've let it settle for over a week and I'm seeing strands of separation occurring.

    3. The tester's second comment mentions unusual late eluting components.
    Looking at 5-benzyloxy-6-methoxy-8-nitroquinoline and 2-[p-methoxybenzyloxy]-6-methoxy-8-amino...
    I've found no instances of them occurring naturally in any essential oil,
    I've only found the nitroquinoline compound being sold by chemical companies.
    What would the purpose of such compounds be? Is it possible they occurred naturally?
    What are they doing in my oud?

    4. Personally, what struck me as highly suspect is the presence of Valerenal at such a high percentage (10%),
    I've never seen the compound detected in any agarwood samples from the available literature.
    It is my understanding Valerenal is a defining marker of Spikenard and Veleriana oils, and of nothing else.

    5. When the oil was first released to the public there was a feeling that it smelt too much of labdanum to be pure agarwood,
    I myself smell this every time as well. Further, the oil also has a strange stickiness to its texture, and it lacks the tenacity and projection of what I expect from pure agarwood.

    6. The tester found Phthalates in the sample.

    7. From what I've seen to date, Aristolene is a marker indicating innoculated oud. I've seen it from various sources, so I believe such a high percentage is probably an indicator that the agarwood source is not wild but innoculated, or possibly cut with another oil with Aristolene as a main compound. Similarly, the presence of steroids in the oil, I believe also points to innoculation.


    One could try and tackle each point with explanations,
    but there are just too many points indicating a less than pure product!
    I tried to consider all possible explanations, tried to sum up all the answers to a congruent whole, but I really couldn't.
    While I was searching these answers someone quite bluntly said to me:
    "Why the need to believe it’s authentic?"
    And that sums it up for me.

    The scientist who did the test, has vast experience with GCMS testing, has great experience regarding essential oils,
    and has experience uncovering fake oils. His conclusion is that it is fake, no doubts.

    Why do we as a community feel the need to believe otherwise?

  13. #13

    Default Re: KZ85: THe GCMS results

    There was reply to this, it just spread across forums,
    in preparation of my own reply to that, and as this is the original thread,
    in case anyone remains interested, see below:

    Kyarazen posted an analysis of the GCMS results here:
    http://www.ouddict.com/posts/31953/

    I have transcribed the images of Kyarazen's analysis.
    I posted a more workable format, to save people the cumbersome task of transcribing from an image.
    I've omitted the grey blocking, and I've additionally highlighted in red the 'unidentified' compounds aside from the 5 compounds Kyarazen marked.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/iwbyh68s9i...lysis.xls?dl=0

    Kyarazen's commentary on the analysis:
    i have attached below my analysis of the GCMS report, with each of the compounds present and its cross-references that validates them to be agarwood constituents.. some of these literature new.. some old. even rozi mohd has also written in his book that gcms of agw remains not fully optimized.. perhaps give the technology and demand a bit more time as most GCMS is still used for stronger volatiles.. and the result of a GCMS is strongly affected by the column used, the temperature, and the solvent used, for example dichloromethane vs acetone gives two different populations and GCMS profiles.

    nevertheless, on the question of aristolene, valerianol, etc, these are quite major agarwood constituents ins ome species, i.e. crassna, malaccensis etc.

    if the aim was to "dilute or cut" an agarwood extract as this is, you will not see high percentages of Eudesmol, Aristolene, Valerianol, Guaic acetate etc. you might see these markers fall down to very low percentages as the cutting agent is increased. but so far, there is no major cutting agent present, and no cistus/labdanum compounds present... if any of these labdanum, benzoin, etc resins are present, it would have been obvious in the GC.

    pthlates etc are commonly known to use to cut oils, but in logical sense.. whom would want to cut an oil by adding 0.7% only to it?! it would be 7%.... 70% even... but not everyone may have the same logical view. btw i found a 1.2% in a famous oil from someone, and to me that was a hotter potato, and i still view that result as a dipstick contamination. a couple of people aware of this also deemed it to be vessel leaching, but when "someone" heard about this.. and contacted me, tried to ask me to generate posts/publicity to "attack" someone's brand/reputation etc, i immediately found this whole matter extremely distasteful. in my current olfactory journey to bring great scents to the world.. never was i interested in the political games people play with each other.. and i would also never want to be used as a "weapon" or a "pawn" in the agendas/games people have.

    i personally flag out five of the components in red as they are not found in scientific literature to be known to be present in agarwood. in my opinion, either undiscovered yet or most probably a cross contamination from the facility especially without much standards/regulation in those days. it was known to be a chinese medicine/herb extraction facility.
    - - - Updated - - -

    @Kyarazen
    Thank you again for providing your own analysis on the results.
    I've been reading through your analysis of the GCMS, cross-checking the studies, and I have to say that doing so has only generated more questions for me.
    In short, I still maintain my belief that 1985 is adulterated. I think there are too many question marks to reconcile and cross-contamination doesnít explain enough of them away for me.
    Iíll go through each doubt, point by point, below.
    But first, I wanted to ask a couple of questions.

    Do you now believe 1985 is an agarwood extract? What kind exactly?
    I ask because people keep implying it is. What I remember regarding this, is your own position in the following two quotes:
    From the original Kyarazen article:
    "Pointing at the bottle, Mr Lee said, it was from 100kg of wood, distilled in 1985, a theoretical yield of at best under 1%."
    And on Basenotes in 2013:
    ''it is definitely not solvent extracted as the solvent extraction process would generally give a hard brittle blob from high quality wood.''
    http://www.basenotes.net/threads/400...art-1)/page267
    Has your thinking or information changed?

    Regarding the question of 1985ís purity, what would it take for you to personally have suspicions?

    Why don't you run a GC test of 1985 yourself? I believe you have the access and opportunity.


    In any case, listed are my doubts regarding KZ85's purity:

    1. The tester says the TIC number was very low, and that indicates that it has been cut with non-volatiles. What do you make of the very low TIC number? I don't believe you expounded on that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyarazen
    if the aim was to "dilute or cut" an agarwood extract as this is, you will not see high percentages of Eudesmol, Aristolene, Valerianol, Guaic acetate etc. you might see these markers fall down to very low percentages as the cutting agent is increased. but so far, there is no major cutting agent present, and no cistus/labdanum compounds present... if any of these labdanum, benzoin, etc resins are present, it would have been obvious in the GC.
    pthlates etc are commonly known to use to cut oils, but in logical sense.. whom would want to cut an oil by adding 0.7% only to it?! it would be 7%.... 70% even... but not everyone may have the same logical view.
    Are phthalates the only way of cutting an oil?
    The percentages are of the distribution of the volatiles, not of their total content within the sample. The point is, that non-volatiles wonít elute. I realise there is no definitive answer regarding any actual dilution level, that would require chemometric testing which hasn't been done. But in the absence of a concrete chemometric value, I can only rely on the testerís evaluation.

    2. Regarding the reference you mentioned for Valerenal:
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10...X/368/1/012023
    There is no Valerenal detected in the study you linked to. Personally Iíve never come across any mention of valerenal in Aquilaria, let alone at such a high percentage of the total volatiles. If you manage to find valerenal in Aquilaria, please link to it.

    3. You mention that you only found 5 unknown components in the results:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kyarazen
    i personally flag out five of the components in red as they are not found in scientific literature to be known to be present in agarwood. in my opinion, either undiscovered yet or most probably a cross contamination from the facility especially without much standards/regulation in those days. it was known to be a chinese medicine/herb extraction facility.
    Personally I think 5 components is a significant number,
    and in truth there are other unidentified components which you marked with grey. When I transcribed your analysis I marked them in red too, as in fairness they are hardly identified components.
    Beyond the number of unknowns though, it is also a matter of their type. Besides obviously being atypical to agarwood, some of these compounds, to me, shouldnít be in the sample, even if we accept unintentional cross-contamination.

    4. Regarding the nitroquinoline compound:
    http://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd8338.pdf
    The compound is found in a methanol extract of Moringa oleifera roots from Nigeria. The peak is at a low 0.4%, and the peak is mixed, i.e shared by another 2 compounds.
    Beside this citation, I've only found the nitroquinoline compound being sold by chemical companies. It seems more likely cross-contamination happened in the Moringa sample, or that it was from the (treated?) Nigerian soil, I still think it highly unlikely it is a plant derived compound.
    Iím finding it hard to construct a scenario in which this ended up in a wild oud oil in such a high percentage by unintentional cross-contamination at a herbal extraction facility.

    5. Regarding the aminoquinoline compound:
    http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...52009000400011
    The only 8-aminoquinoline listed in that study is primaquine, which is not a plant compound.
    In fact, only quinine is plant derived, all the other compounds listed are synthetic analogues.
    Again, I donít understand how cross-contamination could have happened.

    6. Regarding Carissone:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5815143/
    There is no Carissone (11-hydroxy-eudesma-4-en-3-one) listed in the study,
    the closest eudesmane sesquiterpene is 9-hydroxy-eudesma-3,11(13)-diene-12-methyl ester
    which was found as a secondary metabolite in Sinensis that had gone through artificial holing.
    Carissone is typically found as a secondary metabolite in Carissa edulis.

    7.Regarding Cryptomeridiol:
    http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/artic...h#!divAbstract
    The cited research does not say cryptomeridiol is a component of agarwood. Cryptomeridiol here is found in Amanoa oblongifolia, not in agarwood.

    8. Regarding Chenopodiol:
    http://krishikosh.egranth.ac.in/bits...12/1/D-681.pdf
    Chenopidiol was present as a constituent of essential oil from moderately infected Agarwood (Malaccensis), but not present in the highly infected sample.

    9. Regarding Guaiol acetate:
    http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
    Guaiol acetate was found in the extract from eaglewood offcuts vs the oud oil. Again, not high quality wood.

    10. Aristolene:
    From: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44406#f3
    "agarwood sesquiterpenes (e.g. γ-eudesmol, agarospirol, aristolene) were formed only during fermentation of the resinous agarwood chips with Fusarium"
    From: The volatile and semi-volatile constituents of agarwood, the infected heartwood of Aquilaria species: A review.
    Aristolene is found in crassna 9yr plantation trees from Trat.
    Not that it relates to purity, but it catches my interest and the thinking I have is, that aristolene comes from fungal infection, that wild high quality agarwood should have the effect of infection from the natural strain but not ever in a high percentage. The high percentage of aristolene, plus the general makeup of the 1985 oil make it suspect to me. Also, the presence of the sterols in the final oil I believe to be atypical of a natural wild wood. More likely the high percentage of sterols is due to the tree being in continual shock due to inducement.

    11. You realise, of course, you are citing research results from Crassna, Agallocha, Sinensis, Malaccensis, and Gyrinops walla?
    Citing results from methanol extraction, to headspace analysis, to microwave additional extraction?
    Sourced from healthy wood, to offcuts, to artificially innoculated oud?
    Where is the common thread?


    Points 8-10, relate more to my own interest in the actual quality of the feedstock, but still, they do speak to the congruency of 1985ís story.
    It is always possible to explain away a couple of doubtful points, but at what point do the doubts accumulate to the point that no explanation will do? It appears people were more focused on the labdanum aspect, and once the GC result confirmed the fact that it was not a labdanum adulterated/centered oil, all questions ceased. But in truth, questions remain, and I find it very hard to align all the data into a single congruent story. Personally, I think the data speaks volumes, and the conclusion is that 1985 is adulterated. The Ďhowí and Ďwhyí hardly matter.
    At this point, the only thing that could change my mind, would be a definitive (expensive) chemometric analysis of 1985, one that would disprove (doubtful) the findings of original report.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyarazen
    and the result of a GCMS is strongly affected by the column used, the temperature, and the solvent used, for example dichloromethane vs acetone gives two different populations and GCMS profiles.
    For anyone who cares to know, the solvent used was dichloromethane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kyarazen
    with regards to the gcms of the 1985, i thought i would come make a posting again.. albeit a more intellectual one just incase more people get caught up in the spiral and fall into different "camps" with different motives/motivations.
    I couldnít agree more.
    Iíve kept to technical issues and that is all Iím interested in discussing.
    I trust and respect Kyarazen, and can extend the same to Mr. Lee.
    But that doesnít mean I have to accept 1985 as pure.
    In the case of purity, the problem (if you believe in one) would probably go back to the production site.
    In any case, one must accept that we will never know the full story about KZ1985.




Similar Threads

  1. Gcms
    By Javiero in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 5th August 2018, 03:01 PM
  2. Gcms
    By vikramaditya in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 22nd May 2017, 05:36 PM
  3. OUD Swap KZ85 for Oud Sultani
    By gn? in forum Items for Swap
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 3rd May 2016, 11:47 PM
  4. Gcms
    By litworth in forum Fragrance DIY
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 29th December 2014, 12:42 AM

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