powdernose

Oud Sprite
By the way, dearest Peter, I am thinking on this point, if that oil smelt labdanum to majority of wearers, putting aside that report, being an ordinary wearer, I would have definitely drifted away from that oil. After all, we don't ask for GCMS report to be attached with the package.

Second, if it were not Kyarazen, you know, most probably, we would have mutilated the vendor. The way Ajmal, ASAQ and many more are criticized, WITHOUT HAVING ANY GCMS REPORT. I think most of time, only nose is that says it is low grade wood or a synthetic oil.

Just noticed this,
there are definitely double standards applied across the oud market.
That being said, I'm not a fan of the big Arabian houses' model.
 

powdernose

Oud Sprite
@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 doesn’t explain enough of them away for me.
I’ll 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/400989-Agarwood-oil-thread-(Part-1)/page267
Has your thinking or information changed?

Regarding the question of 1985’s 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.
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 won’t 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 tester’s evaluation.

2. Regarding the reference you mentioned for Valerenal:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/368/1/012023
There is no Valerenal detected in the study you linked to. Personally I’ve 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:
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, shouldn’t 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.
I’m 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?script=sci_arttext&pid=s0001-37652009000400011
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 don’t 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/articlelanding/1988/np/np9880500497/unauth#!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/bitstream/1/5810011412/1/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/download?doi=10.1.1.878.1836&rep=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 1985’s 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 ‘how’ and ‘why’ 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.

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.

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 couldn’t agree more.
I’ve kept to technical issues and that is all I’m interested in discussing.
I trust and respect Kyarazen, and can extend the same to Mr. Lee.
But that doesn’t 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.
 

powdernose

Oud Sprite
As it has been mentioned that the forum could use being reanimated with meaningful and fruitful discussions,
I think starting to randomly GCMS a couple of oud oils would help in meaningful advancements in oud knowledge and information.
If any of the vendors out there is willing to start rolling the ball by running a test of the odd oil in 2019, that would be great.
Otherwise if there are non-vendors out there willing to lay some cash down and create an oud community coalition/club that would help start working in that direction,
please speak up.
 

Ouddict

Ouddict Co-Founder & Tech Support
As it has been mentioned that the forum could use being reanimated with meaningful and fruitful discussions,
I think starting to randomly GCMS a couple of oud oils would help in meaningful advancements in oud knowledge and information.
If any of the vendors out there is willing to start rolling the ball by running a test of the odd oil in 2019, that would be great.
Otherwise if there are non-vendors out there willing to lay some cash down and create an oud community coalition/club that would help start working in that direction,
please speak up.

I hope someone can respond and take this up. I can give you the www.artisanaloudguild.org domain if you want and you can do it under that banner if you want. Entirely up to you.
 

Martin

Oud Novice
Does anyone know what the range of cost for GCMC from a reliable lab and minimum amout of oil needed?
 

powdernose

Oud Sprite
Does anyone know what the range of cost for GCMC from a reliable lab and minimum amout of oil needed?

200-300$
Enough to run the test which is not much but is more about being able to transfer enough into the recipient vial without trouble. If you deliver in the correct glassware insert 0.2ml would be fine.
 

Ouddict

Ouddict Co-Founder & Tech Support
200-300$
Enough to run the test which is not much but is more about being able to transfer enough into the recipient vial without trouble. If you deliver in the correct glassware insert 0.2ml would be fine.

That’s only for a graph. To interpret that graph against established baseline signatures (if they exist) costs a lot more and this is the only “issue” I see with this exercise. Namely that there will be some ambiguity due to differing interpretations. However, I think the exercise is well worth doing and if it’s successful and well-established, we may in fact ended up with the largest Agarwood signature reference library in the world. Definitely a great project.
 

akhan1237

Just Arrived
Hi guys, so I’m new into this forum.


Can anyone please give me advise regarding an Oud Oil I purchased.. I’m currently based in the UK and I’m planning on making my own scent and will be using Oud as a base note. I’ve recently purchased an Oud Oil sample of 2ml, a GC Analysis has also been sent to me by the supplier to check the quality of the product.


I've sent the report through to my perfumer and he picked up on an ingredient called vetiveryl acetate and 3-phenyl butanal which from his knowledge are not usually seen in oud.


Maybe there is acetate in real ouds that’s he’s not come across?


Also an ingredient called Nootkatone that appears at 10%


The supplier said Nootkaone is used to give the oil a fresh sweet smell as they focus on aqualira crassna which is a species native to Cambodia. Can the high 10% be worrying??


Lastly the company only used a university GCMS machine rather than the one at a fragrance compan, maybe this could account for the unknowns and the double nootkatone??


Maybe you guys can help me in identifying if this oil is genuine or not.




Thanks

Aki

091203D6-A5FE-45B5-A4FD-1A05A295BEEC.jpeg
 

Martin

Oud Novice
A bimonthly GCMC testing could be funded by a bimonthly raffle with a decent bottle of oud from an Ouddict vendor as the prize. The vendors could rotate according to a randomly drawn schedule and drop ship the prize to the winner. For example, 99 numbered chances could be sold for $10 each. The oil or oils offered as a prize should then have a value of about $500.00 (or more) to attract raffle participants. Each raffle would provide about 500.00 toward a CGMC testing fund if all the numbers were sold. It would be important for the prize oil to be desirable and have a value of 500.00 or more. Of course this would involve some administrative time which could be shared. Transparency should not be an issue. Just a thought to get the ball rolling. The offered prize oil could also be the oil that is the subject of the test. Possible goodwill and exposure for Ouddict vendors.
 

akhan1237

Just Arrived
Hi guys, so I’m new into this forum.

@RisingPhoenix
@powedernose
@al shareef


Can anyone please give me advise regarding an Oud Oil I purchased.. I’m currently based in the UK and I’m planning on making my own scent and will be using Oud as a base note. I’ve recently purchased an Oud Oil sample of 2ml, a GC Analysis has also been sent to me by the supplier to check the quality of the product.


I've sent the report through to my perfumer and he picked up on an ingredient called vetiveryl acetate and 3-phenyl butanal which from his knowledge are not usually seen in oud.


Maybe there is acetate in real ouds that’s he’s not come across?


Also an ingredient called Nootkatone that appears at 10%


The supplier said Nootkaone is used to give the oil a fresh sweet smell as they focus on aqualira crassna which is a species native to Cambodia. Can the high 10% be worrying??


Lastly the company only used a university GCMS machine rather than the one at a fragrance compan, maybe this could account for the unknowns and the double nootkatone??


Maybe you guys can help me in identifying if this oil is genuine or not.

3EA06972-0C1A-4888-A6CB-BC3B2920E7C2.jpeg


Thanks

Aki
 

powdernose

Oud Sprite
Hi,

I've sent the report through to my perfumer and he picked up on an ingredient called vetiveryl acetate and 3-phenyl butanal which from his knowledge are not usually seen in oud.

Your perfumer is correct. On the plus side those peaks barely surpass 1%,
and if you are worried about the testing body, misidentification is not beyond possibility.


Also an ingredient called Nootkatone that appears at 10%

There are two such entries, but you'll note they have different CAS numbers, it is not a duplicate identification,
both are normal in agarwood, but it does make you wonder about the accuracy of the lab regarding IDs.


The supplier said Nootkaone is used to give the oil a fresh sweet smell

What do you mean 'used'?
I hope that is just a linguistic misuse. I'd clarify that point.

Lastly the company only used a university GCMS machine rather than the one at a fragrance compan, maybe this could account for the unknowns and the double nootkatone??

Yes it could.
There are a couple of big peaks that are unknown, that is a bit of a question mark. You could always test it yourself with a more dependable lab, shall we say.

For the most part though, all the rest are definitely agarwood components and seem okay.
What does it smell like?
Looks interesting on paper.
I don't think I've ever seen such a huge peak of spathulenol. Either highly interesting, or slightly questionable.

cheers
 

powdernose

Oud Sprite
A bimonthly GCMC testing could be funded by a bimonthly raffle with a decent bottle of oud from an Ouddict vendor as the prize. The vendors could rotate according to a randomly drawn schedule and drop ship the prize to the winner. For example, 99 numbered chances could be sold for $10 each. The oil or oils offered as a prize should then have a value of about $500.00 (or more) to attract raffle participants. Each raffle would provide about 500.00 toward a CGMC testing fund if all the numbers were sold. It would be important for the prize oil to be desirable and have a value of 500.00 or more. Of course this would involve some administrative time which could be shared. Transparency should not be an issue. Just a thought to get the ball rolling. The offered prize oil could also be the oil that is the subject of the test. Possible goodwill and exposure for Ouddict vendors.

Could work,
would probably need scaling down.
 

RisingPhoenix

Resident Artisan
Hi guys, so I’m new into this forum.

@RisingPhoenix
@powedernose
@al shareef


Can anyone please give me advise regarding an Oud Oil I purchased.. I’m currently based in the UK and I’m planning on making my own scent and will be using Oud as a base note. I’ve recently purchased an Oud Oil sample of 2ml, a GC Analysis has also been sent to me by the supplier to check the quality of the product.


I've sent the report through to my perfumer and he picked up on an ingredient called vetiveryl acetate and 3-phenyl butanal which from his knowledge are not usually seen in oud.


Maybe there is acetate in real ouds that’s he’s not come across?


Also an ingredient called Nootkatone that appears at 10%


The supplier said Nootkaone is used to give the oil a fresh sweet smell as they focus on aqualira crassna which is a species native to Cambodia. Can the high 10% be worrying??


Lastly the company only used a university GCMS machine rather than the one at a fragrance compan, maybe this could account for the unknowns and the double nootkatone??


Maybe you guys can help me in identifying if this oil is genuine or not.

View attachment 8287

Thanks

Aki


There are many challenges with GCMS. As you mentioned - this was run by University. Usually the testing lab has a database and part of how the accuracy of a test is gaged is that the computer runs against other tests. If they’ve never tested an Oud oil before - it’s likely to get a bit of an inaccurate reading / interpretation.

Another challenge - you can send the same oil off to 10 different labs and get different findings, because of what I just mentioned above. Different peaks may be named differently. Some may nomenclature as natural - others as synthetic - even though it’s the same oil.

It’s why when testing particular oils you need to be sent to a lab that has a lot of experience testing that kind of an oil, due to the size of the database and the familiarity of the material with the interpreter of the findings. It’s why when testing particular oils you need to be sent to a lab that has a lot of experience testing that kind of an oil, due to the size of the database and the familiarity of the material with the interpreter of the findings

I know it’s not a straight answer-but I think it might clarify some of the previous response just above.
 

Mr.P

oud<3er
I can confirm what JK says here. The lab has to have access to a relevant reference library (set of accepted values for known substances against which to compare samples). I am under the impression that these reference libraries are very specialized, expensive, and laboratories tend to invest in those most related to what they are used to investigating. It sure how accurate this is.

I was speaking with a chemistry professor about this recently... he specialized in GCMS analysis and did all the tests for the geology department he worked in. He said that most identifications are only tentative due to slight random differences from run to run and ambiguity of interpreting the peaks... positive identification of specific molecules requires simultaneously or nearly simultaneously running a purified specimen of the candidate molecule along with the mixture you are trying to analyze. I don’t know if this is true for industry standards but apparently it is for academic research.

No wonder this get pricey...
 

Martin

Oud Novice
Where are the labs with experience with essential oils like oud located and what is the pricing range and sample size required?
 
Top