Code of Conduct
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts
    195

    Default Giving woods diffusivity

    Hey All, long time no talk.

    I have been working on a woody based perfume for a while now-- woods can be tricky when they're the main show of a perfume. I've got the smell just about where I want it. I just want to give the wood molecules a boost in volume and diffusivity. Any general suggestions?

    Currently playing around with various synthetic musks with this goal in mind.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
    Cheers, Happy Perfuming!
    Will

  2. #2

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    That's tricky, you would be needing something like a middle note, perhaps even a top note wood modifier. Usually elements like muguet, white flowers, or traces of ozones can give wood its transparency and lift, or a trace of one of the quinolines might help. There's no one right answer tbh, Coniferan Pure itself is a pretty diffusive wood material, it does have a fruity edge though.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    You may want to explore the woody Amber-musks, like Iso E Super, and possibly Kephalis.
    They are more diffusive than woody, but they definitely do have a woody nuance to them.

    Piconia has the smell of an arboreal forest, and is very diffusive, but might not be what you had in mind when you were thinking of woody.
    It's sort of a yellow-green color pine smell mixed with the heartwood of a Douglas Fir.


    If you desire something more on the violet side, there's koavone.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Quote Originally Posted by parker25mv View Post
    You may want to explore the woody Amber-musks, like Iso E Super, and possibly Kephalis.
    They are more diffusive than woody, but they definitely do have a woody nuance to them.

    Piconia has the smell of an arboreal forest, and is very diffusive, but might not be what you had in mind when you were thinking of woody.
    It's sort of a yellow-green color pine smell mixed with the heartwood of a Douglas Fir.


    If you desire something more on the violet side, there's koavone.
    Musks don't really increase diffusion unless he uses Helvetolide, I'd assume he already has Iso E Super or knows about it, and Kephalis is not even that diffusing, maybe in trace I don't know. It's more rich than it is diffusive and would change the scent too much.
    Last edited by chyprefresh; 5th April 2020 at 08:27 PM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    I'm going to have to confirm that Coniferan Pure is probably your best answer, if you can handle a slight pear note. Helvetolide for the musk, because you can do no wrong with it, both in tandem with a muguet like Lyral will definitely open up the woods and add transparency, diffusion, and softness.

  6. #6
    Basenotes Junkie Bkkorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Los Angeles, Ca
    Posts
    826

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    iso e super with very very small traces of C-12 MNA might do something....

  7. #7

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Quote Originally Posted by Bkkorn View Post
    iso e super with very very small traces of C-12 MNA might do something....
    I second this idea. C-12 MNA would work great. You could also add Vertenex, which is a somewhat woody top note. I would also give some Methyl Ionone a try. Personally I find it quite diffusive.

  8. #8
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts
    195

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Thanks for the suggestions all, but none of these ideas are new to me. I'm already using sylvamber, higher in the g isomer than iso e or timbersilk. Aldehyde c-12 nma is diffusive on its own but doesn't really do much for the deep wood notes. I'll consider coniferan pure but not really the angle I'm going with for my woods Accord. Neither is koavone. Appreciate the feedback nonetheless

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
    Cheers, Happy Perfuming!
    Will

  9. #9

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Well I am going to stick my foot in it on this one. Immediate disclaimer, I'm not speaking authoritatively in any way on the perfuming aspects. However, the physical chemistry part is clear enough and so that part of it is being said "authoritatively."

    Now it doesn't matter, in in art, whether words are used in a literally correct way or not, so long as they are useful. But if they're used in a factually (when taking literally) incorrect sense then confusion could result.

    Diffusion of a molecule is determined only by the molecular weight, molecular volume, temperature, and the medium it is diffusing through. It does not occur that of two molecules of similar molecular weight and volume that one will diffuse anything but similarly to each other, actually in exact relation to these differences.

    However, in perfumery whether a material is called diffusive or not appears to have nothing to do with molecular weight and volume. If it doesn't, then what is going on is not actually diffusion.

    Secondly, diffusion is really slow. I mean REALLY slow. It is a process of random walk of the molecules -- by chance this way, then some other way, etc, with half these ways being at least somewhat backwards and all of them being microscopic -- and will not get the fragrance molecules to cross many feet or meters of air in the periods of time during which people talk about "diffusivity."

    That's another reason why what is going on is not diffusion.

    How do aroma materials get from point A to point B in the shorter time frames that they do? Convection -- movement of air. Which will carry along molecules in the exact same way and rates.

    Yet we do perceive that some things seem to carry faster and more than others.

    My own explanation for this is different materials having different perception curves. For one material, the odor intensity might be some desired, pleasant intensity at such and such a level, but when that's cut in half it seems notably weak, and perhaps if cut to a 10th or something it seems to actually disappear. Another material may have a completely different curve where it still seems about the same at such reduction, and is even quite perceivable when cut by 100 times.

    Is that the cause of being "diffusive?"

    The thing is, that does nothing towards making other molecules seem more "diffusive."

    To me it's a property of individual materials whether they seem to stay fairly localized to the area where they are applied, or whether they seem to quickly and readily fill an area with their scent (from convection.)

    Is there a way regardless that an added material might make other materials seem to have become more "diffused"?

    Yes, if the material somehow enhances the nose's sensitivity to that material. Personally I think that is how Iso-E Super (moreso) and ambergris type materials (more subtly) get this effect.

  10. #10
    Basenotes Junkie
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saint Augustine
    Posts
    804

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Bill Roberts I love it when you teach , just nothing like someone really knowing their stuff!! But please , a lot of the time it it goes sailing over my head! Today is one of those times.
    So if I open a bottle of cardamom or put some on a blottter, and then do the same for rose, I think you are saying that they both hit my brain at the same time but I will perceive the one with the easiest perception threshold.
    Now I have read that we perceive rose even if it is trace in solution , but cardamom oil hits me the minute I open the bottle. They both last long on the strip, so I am so confused...

  11. #11

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Quote Originally Posted by benjwi02 View Post
    Thanks for the suggestions all, but none of these ideas are new to me. I'm already using sylvamber, higher in the g isomer than iso e or timbersilk. Aldehyde c-12 nma is diffusive on its own but doesn't really do much for the deep wood notes. I'll consider coniferan pure but not really the angle I'm going with for my woods Accord. Neither is koavone. Appreciate the feedback nonetheless

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
    There are so many posts with similar titles to this on the forum. Unfortunately, all deserve the only general answer you can give: there are no single materials which you can add to a given accord to make it more diffusive (or stronger, or more substantive, etc). Creating diffusive, long lasting, protective fragrances (or accords) requires you select the appropriate materials -- with this explicit goal in mind -- from the beginning. If you do not do this, then, no matter how hard you try, nothing you add to your accord will accomplish this for you.

    Also, if you need advice on a specific accord, it always helps to post the materials and quantities you are using. Otherwise, again, you can only receive generic feedback.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Jolio, I am sorry for being unclear! I think I did not spend the time I usually do concerning myself with that and instead sort of just went on and on.

    I haven't compared rose and cardamom that way, though I would tend to agree I believe I pick up traces of rose quite easily but I don't think I do for cardamom (but I have used it only fairly little so with no direct comparison, I can't say with confidence.)

    Let's for discussion say that that is true.

    In that case, while the nose is close to a spot where the fragrance is applied and there are goodly amounts of rose and cardamom, all is well for both. They are both at a good strength.

    But a distance, the rose might be still easily picked up but the cardamom not.

    Not because of molecules actually diffusing faster or more with the rose, but because the nose keeps on being sensitive to small amounts for the rose while not so much for the cardamom.
    Last edited by Bill Roberts; 6th April 2020 at 06:11 PM.

  13. #13
    Basenotes Junkie
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Saint Augustine
    Posts
    804

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Thanks for answering Bill Roberts! And I am a little dense right now because I am in denial and more discussion is necessary to break down my denial! So there are some chemicals that are lighter , and float easier? There aren’t some chemicals that take longer to float at all?i thought bigger molecules were heavier etc. I thought smelling in dilution made it easier to perceive because not so dense.l have never taken any atmospheric chemistry, and certainly not as how it pertains to sensory input - I wouldn’t know where to look that kind of thing up. So any clarification would appreciated

  14. #14

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Air movements transport fragrance molecules, rather than fragrance molecules working themselves great distances in the air. And when a volume of air -- perhaps small -- moves, it takes all the fragrance molecules with it rather than taking some kinds but leaving others behind.

    All fragrance molecules are extremely, extremely small and size is not an issue to their being carried by air movement.

    But some, on being spread over a large volume and thereby greatly diluted, smell much weaker after the dilution or even seem to disappear, while others (say Javanol) still have much of their effect even after dilution. This is from the nose's response rather than more Javanol actually being in the air at distance.

  15. #15
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts
    195

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Roberts View Post
    Well I am going to stick my foot in it on this one. Immediate disclaimer, I'm not speaking authoritatively in any way on the perfuming aspects. However, the physical chemistry part is clear enough and so that part of it is being said "authoritatively."

    Now it doesn't matter, in in art, whether words are used in a literally correct way or not, so long as they are useful. But if they're used in a factually (when taking literally) incorrect sense then confusion could result.

    Diffusion of a molecule is determined only by the molecular weight, molecular volume, temperature, and the medium it is diffusing through. It does not occur that of two molecules of similar molecular weight and volume that one will diffuse anything but similarly to each other, actually in exact relation to these differences.

    However, in perfumery whether a material is called diffusive or not appears to have nothing to do with molecular weight and volume. If it doesn't, then what is going on is not actually diffusion.

    Secondly, diffusion is really slow. I mean REALLY slow. It is a process of random walk of the molecules -- by chance this way, then some other way, etc, with half these ways being at least somewhat backwards and all of them being microscopic -- and will not get the fragrance molecules to cross many feet or meters of air in the periods of time during which people talk about "diffusivity."

    That's another reason why what is going on is not diffusion.

    How do aroma materials get from point A to point B in the shorter time frames that they do? Convection -- movement of air. Which will carry along molecules in the exact same way and rates.

    Yet we do perceive that some things seem to carry faster and more than others.

    My own explanation for this is different materials having different perception curves. For one material, the odor intensity might be some desired, pleasant intensity at such and such a level, but when that's cut in half it seems notably weak, and perhaps if cut to a 10th or something it seems to actually disappear. Another material may have a completely different curve where it still seems about the same at such reduction, and is even quite perceivable when cut by 100 times.

    Is that the cause of being "diffusive?"

    The thing is, that does nothing towards making other molecules seem more "diffusive."

    To me it's a property of individual materials whether they seem to stay fairly localized to the area where they are applied, or whether they seem to quickly and readily fill an area with their scent (from convection.)

    Is there a way regardless that an added material might make other materials seem to have become more "diffused"?

    Yes, if the material somehow enhances the nose's sensitivity to that material. Personally I think that is how Iso-E Super (moreso) and ambergris type materials (more subtly) get this effect.
    Sorry Bill, I did not mean to imply that I knew what diffusion was in a literal sense. I do not have any p chem knowledge(yet), I'm finishing up organic right now. All I meant for the term "diffusive" was: to give a general volume and lift to the smell.

    When posting this thread, I was just looking to hear some general thoughts off the top of the head that might help. I was not looking for anything too in depth, just some light brainstorming.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
    Cheers, Happy Perfuming!
    Will

  16. #16
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    St. Paul, MN
    Posts
    195

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Quote Originally Posted by fragrantregard View Post
    There are so many posts with similar titles to this on the forum. Unfortunately, all deserve the only general answer you can give: there are no single materials which you can add to a given accord to make it more diffusive (or stronger, or more substantive, etc). Creating diffusive, long lasting, protective fragrances (or accords) requires you select the appropriate materials -- with this explicit goal in mind -- from the beginning. If you do not do this, then, no matter how hard you try, nothing you add to your accord will accomplish this for you.

    Also, if you need advice on a specific accord, it always helps to post the materials and quantities you are using. Otherwise, again, you can only receive generic feedback.
    I understand that there isn't one magic molecule or oil etc. I was just looking for people to throw out their ideas off the top of their head to see if it leads to any ingredients to consider. Sort of like light conversation and material consideration rather than trying to find the be-all and end-all of ingredients.

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
    Cheers, Happy Perfuming!
    Will

  17. #17

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Checkout alpha-pinene, it gives diffusion to woody, piney and even heavy fruity bouquets, also a touch of fresh air aspect. A trace of Gardenol can also lift things up a lot with a fizzy aspect, but it will have to be added very conservatively and carefully and is technically a chypre top note modifier. I'm just throwing blanket ideas out there, considering we don't have your formula.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Quote Originally Posted by benjwi02 View Post
    Thanks for the suggestions all, but none of these ideas are new to me. I'm already using sylvamber, higher in the g isomer than iso e or timbersilk. Aldehyde c-12 nma is diffusive on its own but doesn't really do much for the deep wood notes. I'll consider coniferan pure but not really the angle I'm going with for my woods Accord. Neither is koavone. Appreciate the feedback nonetheless

    Sent from my ONEPLUS A5010 using Tapatalk
    Try Ambrofix.

  19. #19
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    182

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    I was about to say the same thing. Blast your ambroxan up to 9% and give it a week (or more!) to macerate before making up your mind. The extra time is worth it.

    Also Texas cedarwood works well in this scenario. Cedarwood, Vertofix, Ambrofix, Sylvamber, Cedramber, Veramoss, Olibanum, yum!

  20. #20

    Default Re: Giving woods diffusivity

    Cedramber and vertofix are good diffusives in middle notes. For base notes the best are javanol and vetiverol.




Similar Threads

  1. Regreted giving away
    By sjg3839 in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 26th January 2013, 06:33 PM
  2. Almost giving up on Creed
    By barclaydetolly in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 115
    Last Post: 25th January 2012, 05:18 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17th October 2010, 07:07 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