Invesigation of Imposter Perfumes using GCMS
In the Laboratory
Investigation of Imposter Perfumes Using GC–MS
W
Kelly A. Mowery, Daniel E. Blanchard, Stephanie Smith, and Thomas A. Betts*
Department of Physical Sciences, Kutztown University of PA, Kutztown, PA 19530; *betts@kutztown.edu
Fragrances are of keen interest to most students and are the products of an enormous chemical industry (1). In 1999, the global market for perfumes and fragrances was valued at
$19.8 billion (2), with the “knockoff ” perfume industry comprising a significant portion of the entire market (3). At its peak in popularity during the mid-1980s, U.S. consumers spent about $300 million annually on imposter fragrances (4).
Sales of imitation fragrances have since decreased, but market analysts are now seeing a renewed interest in knockoff perfumes as a result of the tightened economy (4). These fragrance imposters rely heavily on mimicking the design and packaging of their corresponding originals, and vary greatly in how well they imitate the scent of the brand-name perfume (3).
Owing to the recent decline in prices for bench-top gas chromatograph–mass spectrometers (GC–MS) and the increased use of GC–MS in industry, several undergraduate laboratory experiments utilizing this technique have recently appeared in the chemical literature. However, many of these experiments focus on the analysis of synthetic reaction products (5–7). Many other GC–MS experiments require that the samples first be isolated (8) or preconcentrated (9, 10). These sample preparation steps limit the quantity of time that students can spend operating the GC–MS during a typical threehour laboratory period. A laboratory experiment using solid-phase microextraction (SPME) GC–MS to investigate various household products was recently reported by Galipo et al. (10). Knupp, Kusch, and Neugebauer effectively used headspace-SPME followed by GC–MS analysis to identify flavor components in a famous European perfume (11).
The experiment
Investigation of Imposter Perfumes Using GC–MS
W
Kelly A. Mowery, Daniel E. Blanchard, Stephanie Smith, and Thomas A. Betts*
Department of Physical Sciences, Kutztown University of PA, Kutztown, PA 19530; *betts@kutztown.edu
Fragrances are of keen interest to most students and are the products of an enormous chemical industry (1). In 1999, the global market for perfumes and fragrances was valued at
$19.8 billion (2), with the “knockoff ” perfume industry comprising a significant portion of the entire market (3). At its peak in popularity during the mid-1980s, U.S. consumers spent about $300 million annually on imposter fragrances (4).
Sales of imitation fragrances have since decreased, but market analysts are now seeing a renewed interest in knockoff perfumes as a result of the tightened economy (4). These fragrance imposters rely heavily on mimicking the design and packaging of their corresponding originals, and vary greatly in how well they imitate the scent of the brand-name perfume (3).
Owing to the recent decline in prices for bench-top gas chromatograph–mass spectrometers (GC–MS) and the increased use of GC–MS in industry, several undergraduate laboratory experiments utilizing this technique have recently appeared in the chemical literature. However, many of these experiments focus on the analysis of synthetic reaction products (5–7). Many other GC–MS experiments require that the samples first be isolated (8) or preconcentrated (9, 10). These sample preparation steps limit the quantity of time that students can spend operating the GC–MS during a typical threehour laboratory period. A laboratory experiment using solid-phase microextraction (SPME) GC–MS to investigate various household products was recently reported by Galipo et al. (10). Knupp, Kusch, and Neugebauer effectively used headspace-SPME followed by GC–MS analysis to identify flavor components in a famous European perfume (11).
The experiment
Cited: 2. Sauer, P. Chem. Market Rep. 2000, 257 (19), FR3–6. 3. Newman, C. Perfume: the Art and Science of Scent; National Geographic Society: Washington, DC, 1998; p 96. 5. Brush, R. C.; Rice, G. W. J. Chem. Educ. 1994, 71, A293– A296. 6. Bishop, R. D., Jr. J. Chem. Educ. 1995, 72, 743–745. 7. Pelter, M. W.; Macudzinski, R. M. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 826–827. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1466–1468. M. J. Chem. Educ. 2000, 77, 1619–1620. J. Chem. Educ. 1999, 76, 245–248. 11. Knupp, G.; Kusch, P.; Neugebauer, M. J. Chem. Educ. 2002, 79, 98–100. 12. Newman, C. Perfume: the Art and Science of Scent; National Geographic Society: Washington, DC, 1998; p 10. 13. Williams, K. R.; Pierce, R. E. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 223– 226. 14. Good Scents Company. http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com (accessed Oct 2003). 15. Acree, T.; Heinrich, A. Flavornet. http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ flavornet/chemsens.html (accessed Oct 2003). 16. Winter, R. A Consumer’s Dictionary of Cosmetic Ingredients, 4th ed.; Crown Trade Paperbacks: New York, 1994. 17. SensoryNet.com Home Page. http://www.fks.com/flavors/ home.asp (accessed Oct 2003). Netherlands, 2001. 19. Sigma Aldrich Catalog of Flavors and Fragrances; Sigma-Aldrich: Milwaukee, WI, 2001.