daniedb Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 So, I'm convinced that it's, overall, a myth. I agree that sustaining very high temps for a long period of time can certainly burn off the fragrance after a time, but I can't believe that adding FO at anything under 200* would be detrimental in any real way to the fragrance density. I did some searching to try and find any facts that determine the validity of the argument one way or another, but I'm coming up empty handed. I'm thinking of doing some factual experimenting. Here's my proposal - four identical amounts of wax and fragrance. Each added at a different temperature: 200, 180, 150 and 120. Allow to cool to an identical temperature, then reweigh.If the fragrance "burns off", wouldn't it be reflected in the amount of fragrance oil? In other words, isn't "burn off" the evaporation of the fragrance oil itself, and not just the burning out of the fragrance in the oil. If so, wouldn't this experiment give us a good idea about the validity of the burn off argument?And last question: who has a micro scale, LOL?! Mine only measures to .1 oz and 5 g, so I don't know if the results would be as accurate as would be helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaisyFairy Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 I never really thought about it in those terms.. ie.. in terms of weight. but that makes sense.. I mean if the fragrance is actually burning off it should affect the weight. The only thing I can see that might be a snag is that it is not actually burning it off but degrading the scent and therefore causes the scent throw to not be as strong. This sounds like a wonderful experiment! Hope you post the results I will be very interested to see what the outcome is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 You know. I notice it the burn off after I have poured too high. I mean it is not a BAD difference, but there is a difference in my wax. I used to add @ 145, then I got to the point where I was always in a hurry, and added right away around 175, and recently I started adddin again @ 145, and alot of people have mentioned my candles being "Stronger". I think to some people these seem like "myths" (like the curing), but I honestly think it is the wax. That is why I hate when some people say curing is just a myth. Well maybe thier wax doesn't need to be cured. That is not to say that ALL waxes act the same. Anyway, in your particular wax you may not notice the difference, but I sure do in mine!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 If the fragrance "burns off", wouldn't it be reflected in the amount of fragrance oil? In other words, isn't "burn off" the evaporation of the fragrance oil itself, and not just the burning out of the fragrance in the oil. If so, wouldn't this experiment give us a good idea about the validity of the burn off argument?And last question: who has a micro scale, LOL?! Mine only measures to .1 oz and 5 g, so I don't know if the results would be as accurate as would be helpful.Oh I wanted to add. If the weight thing were true, then when the tarts burn shouldn't the wax burn completely away? Just because the "scent" burns off does not mean that there is a major weight difference. The scent "adheres" to the cutters in the FO, and does not actually weigh anything. It is the scent that burns off, not the oil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topofmurrayhill Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 Oh I wanted to add. If the weight thing were true, then when the tarts burn shouldn't the wax burn completely away? Just because the "scent" burns off does not mean that there is a major weight difference. The scent "adheres" to the cutters in the FO, and does not actually weigh anything. It is the scent that burns off, not the oil.I think you're suggesting the FO is mostly a non-volatile carrier and the fragrance components are a negligible percentage by weight, but I think good FO is mostly fragrance components with varying degrees of volatility. Given long enough at a particular temperature most of it will evaporate or boil off. Since there's a significant percentage of FO, there should be a noticeable weight change. The question is, how quickly does it happen?I'm sure it's going to vary a lot with the FO. They're all made of different stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess Posted February 15, 2006 Share Posted February 15, 2006 The "Actual" scent in FO comes from EO. There is like 2 drops of EO p/p or something like that. So how is it that 2 drops is going to weigh a noticiable amount? I think you are confusing the actual scent maker (the EO) with the fragrance components (the cutters such as DPG). So even though the actual "oil" does not burn noticably off in the above experiment, it is not uncommon that the actual "scent" that we smell does. EO is extremely sensitive, so this would be another reason why this would make sense. Try getting a few drops of EO and and heating it up to 175-180 for a few minutes. That bad boy will lose fragrance pretty fast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topofmurrayhill Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 The "Actual" scent in FO comes from EO. There is like 2 drops of EO p/p or something like that. So how is it that 2 drops is going to weigh a noticiable amount? I think you are confusing the actual scent maker (the EO) with the fragrance components (the cutters such as DPG). So even though the actual "oil" does not burn noticably off in the above experiment, it is not uncommon that the actual "scent" that we smell does. EO is extremely sensitive, so this would be another reason why this would make sense. Try getting a few drops of EO and and heating it up to 175-180 for a few minutes. That bad boy will lose fragrance pretty fast.What I mean by fragrance components is the stuff that actually smells. That is mostly synthetic fragrance compounds, though some FOs incorporate essential oils as well. What I am saying is that those substances actually do make up the bulk of the FO. It's not mostly carrier or filler, and I don't think DPG is used at all unless the fragrance truly is diluted by the supplier, which is rare. I don't think the manufacturers use it at all.It's actually kind of obvious that FOs aren't mostly carrier because of their different properties depending on what substances are used to formulate the fragrance. The compatibility with wax, flash point and whatnot varies all over the map. Do polarity testing for gel and you will see that most of the FO will totally separate at room temperature for certain fragrances. That stuff isn't carrier oil or it would be soluble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geekrunner Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I may be speaking from a position of ignorance on this, but it seems to me someone passed along the "conventional wisdom" that if someone had a candle warmer/tart warmer/unwicked candle, and the scent throwing capabilities dissipated, that one could not add any more FO to the wax and make it bind, since the scent would be gone but the oil would remain, and the wax could only hold so much oil, no matter if it helpd scent or not.Sorry for the run-on sentence geek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniedb Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 Re: the tart thing - if you weigh a tart before you melt it, then you burn it until the scent has been totally dissipated, I would be shocked if it didn't weigh much less, not just because of the wax evaporation, but because of the FO burn off. I have a tart burner in which I keep some wax and add a squirt of FO to it when it's no longer fragrant. That's an interesting idea, Geek. Are you saying it was a sales ploy to get the person to buy new tarts instead of just adding FO to the old wax?And I agree with TOMH about the FO composition. It's not just EOs and then a bunch of carrier/filler oils - there are a great deal of synthetics that provide the fragrance. Of course most, if not all, of them have a few drops of EO, but the actual fragrance also comes from a great deal of benzene thises and hexane thats that make up the vast majority of the fragrance.Tess makes a good point about getting the EO in a FO to that temp, but I wonder if, since it's incorporated into a much greater amount of synthetics, if it changes its composition when binding with those components, and is therefore less likely to evaporate, and in general, becomes more stable as it is incorporated with more stable components. That is what I'm trying to figure out, if a consistent weight would point to a negligible amount of fragrance being burned off, or if the fragrance can burn off without affecting the weight.And please know that I'm the FIRST in this discussion to admit that I could be utterly, horrendously and completely mistaken. Burnoff may be a very real thing that happens all the time, and affects candles in a very real way. Just because I think it's a myth doesn't make it so. I absolutely know that I may go on to prove myself wrong, if I can figure out an experiment generally agreed on as reliable. I just want an answer...and I can't find anything but the claim that high temps burn off FO. Nothing to back it up, no proof or studies cited. Like the "paraffin is going to kill you and your children until the nth generation" argument...just a bunch of claims that have nothing solid backing them.Anyhoo. I'll call IFT and see if someone there can give me more information about the composition and how temperature affects it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topofmurrayhill Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 We have 2 different questions here.daniedb's proposed experiment is really about the practical effect of pouring procedures and whether fragrance burns off enough to matter in the normal course of pouring a candle. In other words, do you really have to worry about the temperature of the wax or a few minutes more or less on the heat. I think it's a neat idea to test it, though I'm concerned that the results might be hard to measure. My suspicion is the same as daniedb's that the amount of burn off is very small regardless of what you do.The other question is basically whether FOs are made mostly of volatile fragrance components or mostly non-volatile carrier. That one should be easy enough to test. I'll design a little experiment and report back later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topofmurrayhill Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 In the test tube on the left we have 2 grams of mineral oil, dyed blue. On the right, 1 gram of mineral oil plus 1 gram of fragrance oil, dyed red. The oven is preheated to 200 degrees according to the thermostat (the exact temp isn't important as long as it's the same for the 2 samples). We want to see how much weight decrease there is in the the tube on the right, if any. They are going in!I'm not really sure how long to leave them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geekrunner Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Re: the tart thing - if you weigh a tart before you melt it, then you burn it until the scent has been totally dissipated, I would be shocked if it didn't weigh much less, not just because of the wax evaporation, but because of the FO burn off. I have a tart burner in which I keep some wax and add a squirt of FO to it when it's no longer fragrant. That's an interesting idea, Geek. Are you saying it was a sales ploy to get the person to buy new tarts instead of just adding FO to the old wax?Actually, it was just someting I think I read here on a thread in my early lurking days, perhaps someone trying to reuse scrap wax.geek Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Okay so what is the question here? Top your experiment is not really "fragrance" burn off, but "oil" evaporation. Is Danie wondering if the "oil" burns off or the "smell". Fragrance as in smell does not have mass or density. The oil does. I have tested this theory as stated above. The reduction of "smell" is not something you can visually test. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Oh and Geek I do think that was a marketing ploy. Although I have never added oil to used tarts, Ido not see why it couldn't work. I have used old wax scraps melted them, and added FO just for the heck of it. No problems besides a smoking sooting mass lol.OH and Top, nice pillars, I see you just HAD to throw them in the pic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topofmurrayhill Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Okay so what is the question here? Top your experiment is not really "fragrance" burn off, but "oil" evaporation. Is Danie wondering if the "oil" burns off or the "smell". Fragrance as in smell does not have mass or density. The oil does. I have tested this theory as stated above. The reduction of "smell" is not something you can visually test.Smell is a molecule that travels through the air and reaches your olfactory receptors. If you smell it, it has mass. One container has oil. The other has oil and FO. When it stops emitting scent, the mass should be less. The one with just mineral oil should be the same.To me, this is a test of the obvious. If the majority of FO wasn't fragrance compounds (as opposed to a teeny fraction of it as you suggest), they wouldn't differ so much in compatibility, flash point and density. There would be no reason for vanilla to sink to the bottom of your pot. There would be no reason that any FO should not be gel compatible. The reason all FOs are so different is that they are made of different things to produce various scents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tess Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 To me, this is a test of the obvious. If the majority of FO wasn't fragrance compounds (as opposed to a teeny fraction of it as you suggest), they wouldn't differ so much in compatibility, flash point and density. There would be no reason for vanilla to sink to the bottom of your pot. There would be no reason that any FO should not be gel compatible. The reason all FOs are so different is that they are made of different things to produce various scents.Again this is due to the EO itself. Not all EO's are alike and have the same "density". You should go to your grocer and buy a few different EO's. You will find that some of them are heavier than others (Much like FO's). So of course the difference will be noticeable in the FO. I think you are also forgetting how sensitive EO's are. Some may react differently to the "synthetics". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna4909 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 I have actually seen (and smelled) a scent burn off, so I know it can happen. However, this was with soap, and I never checked the flashpoint of the FO. I can't even remember which scent is was, as the soap has no smell to it.*lol* Not much help, am I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniedb Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 donna - the first (and only, so far) batch of CP soap I made, I used Rosemary Hydrosol as part of my water percentage. When I added the lye, and it started heating up, you could smell that puppy a mile away - it burned right off...and it was obvious. I know that burn off is a reality, but I just don't know if brief temperatures under 200* can cause it to happen, as opposed to the longer and higher temps that lye water reaches. That's a good point you make, that is *can* occur - I should have clarified...it is a fact that it *can* burn off, but I just don't believe that it happens when you add FO to wax at 200. Again, I've been wrong a time or two in my life, so it could happen again. And yes...I guess this is a two-pronged pondering. 1. Does a significant amount of the actual weight of the FO burn off when adding FO to wax at 200, and 2. What does the change (or absence of change) of weight of the combination indicate? Can scent burn off if the weight of the FO doesn't change?I guess my proposed experiment has created more questions than answers, LOL! I'm really enjoying all the different points of view and different facts that everyone is bringing to the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topofmurrayhill Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Candlemakers don't get much of a glimpse into the inner workings of the fragrance industry. It's one of those things that's more complicated than people suspect and a bit of a mystery to us. So we pick up info here and there and piece it together in different ways to arrive at some different points of view. Personally my thinking is in line with daniedb, but everyone may have some aspect of the truth.It was harder to complete that experiment than I thought. I had decided to leave the materials at high temperature until the container with the FO stopped throwing scent, but after many hours it still smelled.The weight of the blue mineral oil container was unchanged after about 8 hours, indicating that any change in the other container was evaporation only of the FO. The weight change of the FO/mineral oil mixture was .2 grams, meaning about 20% of the FO evaporated. It would have been interesting to see how much would have evaporated if it wasn't mixed with mineral oil, but the flash point was only 162F, which wasn't compatible with the experimental procedure (poof!). I think 20% evaporation in 8 hours at over 200 degrees indicates that it might be hard to measure the quantities in daniedb's proposed experiment. Even though that would involve a more easily measurable amount of FO, I figure the evaporation would be very minimal. The FO would be far more diluted in the wax (about 6% versus my 50%), the surface area versus volume would be far lower (mine was just 2 grams of mixture spread in a thin layer at the bottom of a votive cup), the temperature would be lower and the time would be far shorter.The way I would evaluate the scent right now is that the throw is more muted and the top notes seem to be missing. I think those come from the most volatile substances in the mixture, which are the ones that boil off first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniedb Posted February 16, 2006 Author Share Posted February 16, 2006 Interesting results, thanks for sharing them. If I may impose a purely quantitative conclusion, which I disclaim as totally accurate, due to many underlying factors, not the least of which is the unknown of the arc of the rate of the evap, I come up with a very simplistic equation:8 hour of 200+ temp = 20% burnoffand using that rate as the most that can burn off, so we will use that as our benchmark, although the evap rate will by lower at lower temps (another assumption, but logical) therefore....30 minutes of 130-200 temps using the above equation is = 2.5% burn off which is .025 ounces if you use 1 ounce of FO, which, IMHO, is fairly negligible. Perhaps enough to make those who are particularly concerned about burn off to add an extra .5 ounces or so, but nothing that I'm going to lose any sleep over.Again, I understand this is a highly simplified conclusion, based solely on one experiment with a number of unknowns...but enough that I think I'll quit worrying about screwing up my candles if I add FO close to 200.Thanks again, TOMH - very helpful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topofmurrayhill Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 1 hour of 200+ temp = 20% burnoffActually I got 20% in 8 hours under adverse conditions, so wouldn't that probably be a wild overestimate?BTW I encourage you to run some of your questions past an IFT techie if you are able. In particular, perhaps, what proportion of good quallity candle-formulated FO is typically fragrance compounds versus carrier or filler. Also maybe what proportion of that is highly volatile and prone to burn off.In my little experiment, for instance, we really don't know how much fragrance we lost. It could be a little less than 20% or pretty close to 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna4909 Posted February 16, 2006 Share Posted February 16, 2006 Daniedb - with my soap, it was CPHP. The soap was in the crockpot, but the crockpot had been turned off for a while. I poured the FO onto the soap, and it just came right back up in a cloud of steam.The soap was probably around 200 degrees or less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daniedb Posted February 17, 2006 Author Share Posted February 17, 2006 Whoops, I did mean 8 hours - I based the simple calc on that number, I'll have to edit it. donna - interesting point...are you sure that the FO was completely burned off in that moment, or could it have evaporated during gel? I'm not very familiar with anything but CP, so I don't know the reactions that happen in CPHP, I'm sorry! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Ok, I have minimal experience as a chandler, but a lot with B&B.Like Donna I have seen fo instantly vaporize in soap also flavor oils in lip balm.My thought is if you had significant burn off in wax, aside from the vapor cloud, wouldn't there be minute bubbles as the fo deep in the wax vaporized?Although most would not be visible in opaque wax, I would think some should show up in containers on the glass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceCarvesWax Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 My idea is that FO does have mass and my thinking is the "smell" should have almost the same mass and the more you smell it (burnoff) the less mass you are going to have. No matter if its a small % or not I would rather let my customers get that extra boost of smell than it make me high just sitting there on my warmer plate. I had a "tart" warmer on the table at christmas and it would just hold my one ounce "tart" and almost go over the top edge of the warmer. After 3+ days of being melted there was a noticable drop of the liquid level from the top edge of the warmer. Bruce Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.