International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2013, 35, 321–328
12028
Review Article
Methodology for assessing the performance of urine absorbing aids
in controlling malodour release
S. Sironi, L. Capelli, L. Dentoni and R. Del Rosso
Politecnico di Milano, Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering ‘Giulio Natta’, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133, Milano,
Italy
Received 28 June 2012, Accepted 08 December 2012
Keywords: hedonic tone, odour concentration, panel test, sensorial analysis, urine malodour
Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the possibility of comparing
the performance of different absorbent aids in terms of odour control
by discussing a suitable methodology for product evaluation. To
overcome the problems of low test reproducibility owing to biological
urine variability, the first step of the work consisted of the identifica-
tion and the production of artificial urine having a constant and sta-
ble composition over time, moreover preventing sensorial assessors
from any risk of biological contamination. Sensorial measurements
were performed to optimize the similarity between artificial and bio-
logical urine, especially as far as the composition of the volatile com-
ponent and therefore of the odour properties are concerned. The
assessment of absorbent articles performance to control urine mal-
odour includes both the concentration and the hedonic tone of the
odour released by the article itself loaded with synthetic urine. Anal-
yses were run on different products, which can be grouped into two
different classes: absorbing aids with or without odour control tech-
nology (OCT) respectively. Results show that, despite of the presence
or absence of OCT on absorbing products, their odour concentra-
tions are almost identical, being comprised between 10 000 and
12 000 ouE m 3. For this reason, it is evident that odour concentra-
tion is not suitable as the sole parameter for comparison of different
absorbing products. Instead, the hedonic odour tone (odour pleasant-
ness/unpleasantness) relevant to the different product typologies
(that is products with and without OCT) should be used as an
additional discriminating factor for this kind of comparative tests.

sume
Re
population suffering from incontinence. In a survey conducted on
Le but de cette
etude est d’
etudier la possibilit
e de comparer la per-
formance des diff
erentes aides absorbants en termes de contr^ ole des
odeurs, en d
ecrivant une m
ethodologie appropri
ee pour l’
evaluation
des produits. Afin de surmonter les problemes de la faible reproduc-
tibilit
e du test en raison de la variabilit
e biologique des urines, la
premiere
etape du travail a consist
e en l’identification et la produc-
tion d’urine artificielle, ayant une composition constante et stable
dans le temps, et par ailleurs permettant a pr
evenir les
evaluateurs
Correspondence: Selena Sironi, Politecnico di Milano, Department of
Chemistry, Materials and Chemical Engineering ‘Giulio Natta’, Piazza
Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milano, Italy. Tel.: +390223993292;
fax: +390223993291; e-mail: selena.sironi@polimi.it
© 2012 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Soci
et
e Francßaise de Cosm
etologie
doi: 10.1111/ics.
sensoriels de tout risque de contamination biologique. Des mesures
sensorielles ont
et
e r
ealis
ees afin d’optimiser la similitude entre
l’urine artificielle et biologique, en particulier en ce qui concerne
la composition du composant volatil et donc des propri
et
es odoran-
tes. L’
evaluation de la performance des articles absorbant pour
contr^oler les mauvaises odeurs d’urine comprend a  la fois la
concentration et la tonalit
e h
edonique de l’odeur d
egag
ee par l’arti-
cle lui-m^eme charg
e d’urine synth
etique. Les analyses ont
et
e
effectu
ees sur des produits diff
erents, qui peuvent ^etre regroup
es en
deux cat
egories diff
erentes: des absorbants avec ou sans la technol-
ogie de contr^ ole des odeurs (OCT), respectivement. Les r
esultats
montrent qu’en d
epit de la pr
esence ou de l’absence de la OCT sur
les produits absorbants, les concentrations d’odeurs sont presque
identiques,
etant comprises entre 10 000 et 12 000 ouE m 3.
Pour cette raison, il est
evident que la concentration d’odeur ne
convient pas comme seul parametre pour comparer des diff
erents
produits absorbants. Au lieu de cela, le ton h
edonique des odeurs
(odeur agr
eable/desagr
eable?) pertinents aux diff
erentes typologies
de produits (i.e. produits ‘avec et sans OCT) devrait ^etre utilis
e com-
me un facteur suppl
ementaire de discrimination pour ce genre de
tests comparatifs.
Introduction
As the adult ages, the risk of urinary incontinence increases with
significant impact on the physical and emotional health of the
patient. Risk factors include advancing age, female gender and it is
thus an important clinical and social problem in the elderly today,
expected to grow further. There are varying reports of the female
2400 people, a prevalence of urinary incontinence of 48.4% is
reported [1]. Malodour reduction is one of the most important fac-
tors as the perception of urine malodour from the worn absorbent
product by users or others has a significant impact on self-esteem
and social interaction and might represent an additional psycho-
logical burden to the incontinence itself. Odour control is one of
the top unmet needs of the Adult Care Category; 94% of people
suffering from incontinence are looking for a specific product that
controls the malodour. To confirm the importance of the benefit,
Odour control remains the 1° top claim of the new launches
observed in 2011 equal to the 44% [2–8]. Absorbent articles are
being developed to help managing urine loss and also decreasing
the social impact. Many types of urine absorbent products are
321
Assessment of Urine Absorbing Aids to Odour control S. Sironi et al.

available on the market. They can have different shape, material, Materials and methods
technology or design. The International Standard ISO 15
621:2011 [9] reports how to evaluate different urine absorbing Analysis methodology
products. This International Standard supplies general guidelines
Odour concentration measurement:Dynamic olfactometry allows to
on evaluation of urine-absorbing aids, lists the most important fac-
determine the odour concentration (cod) of an odorous air sample,
tors for users and caregivers of absorbent incontinent products,
which is expressed in European odour units per cubic metre (ouE
gives guidance for how these factors can be evaluated, and finally
m 3), and represents the number of dilutions with neutral air that
gives an overview of testing methodologies and interpretation of
are necessary to bring the odorous sample to its odour detection
test results.
threshold concentration[11].
International Standard ISO 15 621:2011 specifies that a possible
The olfactometric method is based on the identification of the
way of evaluating malodour reduction is to use sensory analysis
so-called ‘odour detection threshold’, i.e. of the threshold at which
methods, as described in the International Standard ISO
an odour is perceived by 50% of the assessors (panel).
6658:1985 [10]. This Standard is a general introduction to the
To bring a sample to this threshold, a suitable dilution device
methodology of sensory analysis for odour evaluation. However, it
must be used, which allows to dilute the gas sample according to
does not specify the parameters to be assessed for odour character-
given ratios with neutral air, i.e. with air made odour- and humid-
ization and neither it refers to specific standards relevant to odour
ity-free by filtration through active carbon and silica gel. This
assessment. This study describes an approach to define the parame-
dilution device is called ‘olfactometer’.
ters to be considered to evaluate the odour released from different
Odour concentration measurements are carried out in a specific
urine absorbing products using an objective sensorial evaluation
room, called ‘olfactometric chamber’, at the Department of Chemis-
executed by expert sniffers.
try, Materials and Chemical Engineering ‘Giulio Natta’ at the Po-
Sensorial evaluations can be of different types and can be classi-
litecnico di Milano. The olfactometric chamber is specifically
fied into:
equipped and meets the requirements of the EN 13 725:2003. The
-Concentration measurements [11]; atmosphere inside the olfactometric chamber is controlled to mini-
-Intensity measurements [12]; mize the risk that undesired external factors may affect the mea-
-Hedonic tone measurements [13]. surement. Odours coming from the equipment and other materials
are eliminated and the room is ventilatedr to keep the environment
The assessment of absorbent articles performance to control
odour-free. The ventilation air is filtered through active carbon
urine malodour includes both the concentration and the hedonic
before introduction into the olfactometric chamber to be deodor-
tone of the odour released by the article itself loaded with syn-
ized. A minimum of 20 air exchanges/hour are guaranteed inside
thetic urine. Intensity measurements were not considered,
the olfactometric chamber. An olfactometer Ecoma Mod. TO8
because odour intensity is proved to be correlated to the concen-
equipped with four odour sniffing ports controlled by a PC was
tration by different relations, such as the Weber Fechner law or
used as a dilution device (Fig. 1).
the Steven law [14].
The measurement sessions start with a high dilution rate, as to
As mentioned above, International Standards (ISO
keep the first sample presentations below the odour threshold con-
15 621:2011 and ISO 6658:1985) do not include specific proce-
centration. The assessors smell the gas from a sniffing port and at
dures to perform odour assessment nor indications about the
each presentation, they shall indicate if they perceive an odour
panel selection. As panel selection is a crucial aspect of sensorial
analysis, it was executed according to the requirements of
another standard for the regulation of sensorial analyses, i.e. the
European Norm EN 13 725 [11, 15]. This European Standard
refers to the measurement of odour concentration of pure sub-
stances, defined mixtures and undefined mixtures of gaseous
odorants in air or nitrogen, using dynamic olfactometry with a
panel of human assessors being the sensor. The unit of measure-
ment is the European odour unit per cubic metre: ouE m 3. The
odour concentration is measured by determining the dilution fac-
tor required to reach the detection threshold. The odour concen-
tration at the detection threshold is by definition one ouE m 3.
The odour concentration is then expressed in terms of multiples
of the detection threshold.
Hedonic tone measurements were carried out according to the
German Guideline VDI 3882- part 2 [13], which specifies the
methodology to be used to evaluate the odour pleasantness or
unpleasantness.
The data presented in this study are averaged from a set of anal-
yses run on a large number of products, which can be grouped into
two different classes: absorbent aids with or without odour control
system respectively.
The proposed methodology may effectively be applied for the
comparison of single commercial products both for pair or multiple
evaluations. Figure 1 The olfactometer ECOMA TO8

© 2012 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Soci
et
e Francßaise de Cosm
etologie

322 International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 35, 321–328
Assessment of Urine Absorbing Aids to Odour control
(‘yes/no’ method). After each round, the concentration of the sam-
ple is increased by reducing the dilution ratio. A button shall be
pressed as soon as the sample odour is detected. The assessors are
not asked to recognize or to describe the perceived odour, but just
to indicate the moment at which they perceive a difference from
neutral air. In some cases (at least 20%), reference air is presented
instead of the sample (blanks), as to keep the assessors’ concentra-
tion high. The measurement finishes when all the panel members
have answered ‘yes’ correctly for at least two consecutive times.
Hedonic tone measurement: The hedonic tone (H.T.) describes the
pleasantness/unpleasantness of an odour sample on a 9-point scale,
ranging from 4 (extremely unpleasant) to +4 (extremely pleasant)
[13].
Hedonic tone measurements are performed using the same dilu-
tion apparatus used for the determination of the odour concentra-
tion, i.e. the olfactometer.
The range of concentrations that has to be presented to the
panel members comprises six dilution steps, which differ by a factor
of two, the lowest dilution step corresponding to the sample odour
threshold concentration. For this reason, it is mandatory to know a
sample odour concentration before evaluating its hedonic tone.
In the case of low odorant concentrations, a smaller number of
dilution steps may be presented[13]. If necessary, the test may be
confined to the undiluted test gas. The presentation of odour stim-
uli is done at random. Adaptation effects must, moreover, be mini-
mized by ensuring that an above-threshold odour stimulus is not
presented for longer than 15 s, with an allowance of an additional
decision time of 5 s. The minimum break between two different
stimuli should be at least 1 m. To check possible contamination of
the olfactometer or to minimize possible guessing tendencies on the
part of the panel members, the presentations are interspersed with
blank samples (neutral air samples).
A series of measurements must not commence either with a
blank sample or with a maximum stimulus.
For every sample presentation at the different dilution steps, the
panel members shall evaluate the hedonic tone of the perceived concen-
tration in accordance with the above-mentioned 9-point scale (Fig. 2).
Extremely
+4
pleasant
+3
+2
+1
Neither pleasant
0
nor unpleasant
–1
–2
–3
Extremely
–4
unpleasant
Figure 2 Scale for the hedonic odour tone evaluation [13]
© 2012 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Soci
et
e Francßaise de Cosm
etologie
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 35, 321–328
S. Sironi et al.
Panel selection: For odour concentration measurements, the panel
members are selected by means of specific sensitivity tests, in con-
formity with the criteria of the EN 13 725 [11]. According to the
norm, the panel sensitivity must be tested towards a reference
odorant (n-butanol) as to choose a panel representative of the pop-
ulation average sensitivity. The following requirements must be
satisfied: the sensitivity towards n-butanol must be included within
a given range; the standard deviation with respect to the reference
value must not exceed a given value and no errors on ‘blanks’
shall be committed. According to the EN 13 725, assessors having
an odour threshold to n-butanol between 20 ppb and 80 ppb can
be accepted as examiners. At our Laboratory, as a higher quality
criterion, a narrower range is adopted, thus selecting as panel
members, only people having an odour threshold to n-butanol
comprised between 30 ppb and 60 ppb.
For hedonic tone measurements, the panel member’s sensitivity
(level of individual odour threshold) should not be a criterion for
panel selection, as it is the case for the determination of odour con-
centration. The procedure for panel selection described in the Ger-
man VDI, which was adopted by our Laboratory, provides to test
the assessors using specific reference odorants.
The odorants employed for panel selection are vanillin (1 g to
200 ml dipropylene glycol) and guaiacol (1 ll to 200 ml distilled
water), representing a pleasant and an unpleasant odour respec-
tively. More in detail, panel screening is done by offering each
panel member reference odorants in bottled and asking him or her
to evaluate them according to the above-mentioned scale (Fig. 2),
and the mean value of the results obtained from the entire panel
must lie within a given range, i.e. between +1.9 and +2.9 for van-
illin (pleasant) and 0.8 and 2.0 for guaiacol (unpleasant)) [13].
Measurement sessions: For the odour concentration evaluation,
three consecutive measures for each sample have to be performed,
with a minimum of four panellists for each measure, as a mini-
mum of 12 individual detection thresholds are necessary to obtain
the odour concentration of each analysed sample [11]. The geo-
metric mean of these 12 individual detection thresholds is calcu-
lated at the end of each test session. If one of the values obtained
by one panellist is too far from the geometrical mean (according to
EN 13 725, the ratio between an individual threshold estimate and
the geometrical mean of all individual threshold estimates in a
measurement should be between +5 and 5), the data from that
panellist are excluded, and the geometric mean is recalculated
using only the remaining measures [11].
For hedonic tone evaluation, the panel has to consist of at least
15 persons on account of the interindividual differences which may
occur [13]. The hedonic odour tone is expressed as the arithmetic
mean of the hedonic odour tone values evaluated by each of the
15 panel members at the six different concentrations, thus repre-
senting the average of 90 assessments. This procedure is not
reported in the above-mentioned German guideline, which limits
the presentation of the hedonic tone measurements to a graphical
representation of the panel responses with a statistical evaluation
of their dispersion. We considered this procedure not to be suitable
for comparing the odour pleasantness/unpleasantness released from
different products, whereby the use of an averaged value, supported
by suitable statistical analysis, is more significant.
All statistical analyses were conduced applying the Z-test
method, considering a confidence interval of 95%. In general, the
Z-test compares two groups of values (A and B) to determine if
there is a significant difference between them [16]. The Null
Hypothesis considered is that the difference between A and B is not
323
Assessment of Urine Absorbing Aids to Odour control
significant, whereas the Alternative Hypothesis is that the two
mean values are significantly different. Using data of each group of
values, the variances are calculated. Successively, relevant ‘z’ value
is calculated. The obtained ‘z’ value is compared with the critical
‘z’ value relevant to the confidence interval chosen (95%) to estab-
lish if the Null Hypothesis has to be rejected or not. If the Null
Hypothesis has to be rejected, the Alternative Hypothesis is proved
and the two mean values (A and B) are significantly different.
Moreover, the uncertainty related with the averaged data was
calculated considering a confidence interval of 95%. Calculated
uncertainties are reported on graphs as error bars.
Synthetic urine
Biological urine is proved to have extremely variable composition
[17–21]. Urine composition may be affected by several different fac-
tors, such as the studied subject (sex, age), its diet and health con-
ditions (e.g. infections or other pathologies), and the hour of the
day (typically, the first morning urine is the most concentrated,
then concentration decreases during the day).
Such variability is in contrast with the requirement of reproduc-
ibility of the tests for the sensorial evaluation of the products to be
tested. This requirement can be fulfilled by the use of a reproduc-
ible synthetic urine-like fluid having a constant and stable composi-
tion over time. For this reason, the first step of the work consisted
of the identification and the production of artificial urine, which,
besides being stable, shall also be similar to real urine from the
point of view of olfactory perception.
The identification of a synthetic urine-like fluid to be used for
the tests is also necessary to prevent the sensorial assessors (panel)
from any risk of biological contamination.
The preparation of artificial urine was based on a wide biblio-
graphical research focused on the scientific studies describing the
volatile and odorous substances contained in biological urine [22–
24]. The recipe of artificial urine was thus identified as a mixture
of volatile compounds to be added to a solution of water and salts.
Moreover, microbiological activity occurring in the biological
fluid was simulated by addition of an enzyme (urease) to the
mixture.
The enzyme is added to the liquid solution just before the pad
loading, so that the enzymatic reaction starts as soon as the prod-
ucts are filled with the artificial urine.
Sensorial measurements were performed to optimize the similar-
ity between artificial and biological urine, especially as far as the
odour properties are concerned.
The dosage of the single substances is therefore a crucial aspect
associated with the preparation of artificial urine for sensorial
odour testing. The artificial urine used for this study was prepared
as to be comparable, from the point of view of the emitted odour
(quality and quantity), to biological urine after 24 h ageing. This
time interval was chosen as it may reasonably represent the
worst-case scenario for the final disposal of an absorbent pad.
Tests for the comparison of synthetic urine vs. biological urine
The comparison of synthetic vs. biological urine was based on sen-
sorial measurements of both odour concentration and hedonic
tone.
Biological urine was collected from 20 healthy individuals, aged in
a range between 50 and 90 years, over a 24-h period. Samples were
combined from each person over a 24-h collection and analysed indi-
© 2012 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Soci
et
e Francßaise de Cosm
etologie
324
S. Sironi et al.
vidually. This procedure aimed to obtain a reasonable representation
of inter- and intra-individuals variability of urine composition.
The samples to be analysed were prepared by storing a known
quantity of fluid into special sampling bags at a fixed temperature.
In more detail, 200 ml of fluid was used for each sample, and
stored at a temperature of 37°C, this being the body temperature.
The sampling bags are in Nalophane, with a Teflon inlet tube and
a volume of about 6 litres (Fig. 3).
The olfactometric evaluations were run on the gaseous phase
above the liquid (headspace).
The analyses for the determination of both the odour concentra-
tion and the hedonic tone were repeated at different time intervals
after sample preparation, to account for the variability of urine
over time. The first test was performed at 15 min after sample
preparation, then at 6 h and finally at 24 h.
These time intervals were chosen as to account for three differ-
ent moments of the use of urine absorbing products: urination
(time ‘0’, 15 min was left as to allow the realization of equilibrium
conditions between liquid and gas phase), change (6 h wearing)
and final disposal (24 h).
Tests for the comparison of different urine absorbing products
As previously explained, the sensorial tests for the comparison of
different urine are performed using synthetic urine.
The absorbent articles are prepared flat on the bench and loaded
with an amount of synthetic urine that is representative of the
average loading of urine that can be present in urine absorbent
products of a specified size. For instance, for products used for light
incontinence, usual loading is below 30 mL of urine, for products
specific for severe incontinence, it is common that the users load
for each product is around 300 mL.
The chosen amount of synthetic urine is loaded in the centre of
each product sample. Each sample is then positioned into a sam-
pling bag in Nalophane and in contact with 6 L of neutral air.
Also in this case, it is important to fix suitable storage conditions,
i.e. time and temperature, to simulate the conditions of use of the
products to be tested.
For this reason, a storage temperature representative of the body
temperature (37°C) was chosen, and a storage time in a range
between 4 and 8 h, which is estimated to be the average usage
time of the products.
Figure 3 Sampling bags
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 35, 321–328
Assessment of Urine Absorbing Aids to Odour control
After storage, the bags are wrapped into additional black bags to
prevent prejudice against the products and proceed to the olfacto-
metric analyses for the evaluation of both the odour concentration
and the hedonic tone [11, 13].
Also in this case, the tests were repeated on three different sam-
ples prepared in triplicate and stored for three different times:
15 min, 6 h and 24 h after sample preparation, for the same
reasons discussed above.
Results and discussion
Comparison of synthetic urine vs. biological urine
As previously mentioned, both odour concentration measure-
ments and hedonic tone measurements were performed for the
comparison of the samples of biological and synthetic urine
respectively.
Figure 4 shows the results of the odour concentration determi-
nations performed in accordance with the European Standard EN
13 725.
The numbers in abscissa indicate the time after sample prepara-
tion at which the sensorial analysis was run, whereby ‘0’ stands
for the first test, which was run 15 min after sample preparation,
as to leave a minimum time to allow the realization of equilibrium
conditions between the liquid and the gas phase at the chosen tem-
perature (37°C). The ordinate reports the odour concentration
values in ouE m 3.
The results shown in Figure 4 allow formulating some interest-
ing considerations. The odour concentration of synthetic urine is
almost constant over time, with values ranging from about
40 000 ouE m 3 to 60 000 ouE m 3. In contrast, the odour con-
centration of biological urine increases with time, from an initial
value of about 10 000 ouE m 3 to a final value of about
40 000 ouE m 3, this increase being attributable to the microbio-
logical ageing processes occurring in biological urine.
Synthetic and biological urine are proven to have comparable
odour concentrations at 24 h after sample preparation. Synthetic
urine is representative of 24-h aged biological urine, thus repre-
senting the worst-case scenario of an absorbent pad at the
moment of its final disposal, which may occur up to 24 h after
wearing (especially as far as the use in hospitals or rest homes is
considered).
Odour Concentration - Biological urine vs Synthetic urine
100 000
Biological
90 000
80 000
70 000
cod (ouE m–3)
60 000
50 000
49 000
40 000
30 000
20 000
10 000
0
0 6
Figure 4 Results of the odour concentration determinations on biological and synthetic urine
© 2012 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Soci
et
e Francßaise de Cosm
etologie
International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 35, 321–328
S. Sironi et al.
One important advantage of synthetic urine is that the fact of
using a fluid with a stable odour concentration over time makes
olfactometric tests more reproducible.
Figure 5 reports the results of the hedonic odour tone measure-
ments run, in analogy with the odour concentration measure-
ments, at 15 min, 6 h and 24 h after sample preparation
respectively. In this case, the ordinate reports the hedonic tone
(H.T.) values in a scale from 4 (extremely unpleasant) to +4
(extremely pleasant), as indicated by the German VDI [13].
As previously explained, each reported hedonic odour tone value
represents the arithmetic mean of the single values evaluated by
the 15 panel members at six different concentrations, thus repre-
senting the average of 90 assessments.
The results obtained show synthetic and biological urine to have
very similar hedonic odour tones, except for the test run shortly
after sample preparation (15 min). As previously discussed for the
odour concentration, for olfactometric evaluations on urine absorb-
ing aids, it is important for the synthetic urine to be representative
of the biological urine aged 24 h, which is the time interval for the
pad final disposal.
The combination of odour concentration and hedonic odour tone
measurements thus proved the identified synthetic urine to be suit-
able for the setup of olfactometric evaluations for the comparison
of different pads.
Olfactometric tests on urine absorbing aids
Odour concentration measurements: Odour concentration analyses
were run on different products, which can be grouped into two dif-
ferent classes: absorbing aids with or without odour control tech-
nology (OCT) respectively.
Figure 6 shows the results of the odour concentration measure-
ments on the tested product typologies at the different time inter-
vals after sample preparation.
Some considerations can be extrapolated from these results. Even
though for several other applications, the comparison of odour con-
centrations is the best way for the comparative evaluation of odour
control systems, this is not sufficient in this case. The results show
that, despite of the presence or absence of OCT on absorbing prod-
ucts, their odour concentrations do not present significant varia-
tions, thus showing almost identical values in all the different tests
(10 000–12 000 ouE m 3). It can be observed that the odour con-
Synthetic
58 000
41 000
12 18 24
Time (h)
325
Assessment of Urine Absorbing Aids to Odour control S. Sironi et al.

Hedonic Tone - Biological urine vs Synthetic urine

4
Biological Synthetic
3

H.T. 1

–1 –1.1

–2.1 –2.2
–2
–2.2 –2.2
–3 –2.6

–4
0 6 12 18 24
Time (h)

Figure 5 Results of the hedonic odour tone determinations on biological and synthetic urine

Odour concentration - Synthetic urine on different urine absorbing

products
30 000
NO OCT With OCT
25 000

20 000
cod (ouE m–3)

15 000
12 000 12 000
10 000
10 000 12 000
11 000
9500

5000

0
0 6 12 18 24
Time (h)

Figure 6 Results of the odour concentration determinations on absorbing products with and without OCT respectively

centration values measured in the samples containing the absorb-
ing pads loaded with urine are much lower than the odour concen-
trations of urine alone (10 000 ouE m 3 vs. 40 000 ouE m 3),
thus indicating that the presence of the absorbing pad already pro-
duces a reduction of the emitted odour.
Still, given the similarity of the odour concentrations relevant to
the different product typologies, it is evident that the sole odour
concentration is not a suitable parameter for the comparison of dif-
ferent absorbing products.
However, even though the odour concentration is not directly
affected by the OCT, a modification of the odour quality in the pres-
ence of the OCT may be noticed. For this reason, hedonic odour
tone measurements seem to be more appropriate for product com-
parison.
Hedonic tone measurements: Figure 7 shows the results of the
hedonic odour tone measurements on the tested product typologies
at the different times.
Unlike for odour concentration, the hedonic tone values relevant
to the different product typologies (with and without OCT) are sig-
nificantly different.
Hedonic tone values relevant to products without OCT range
from 1.9 to 1.3, thus indicating the presence of an unpleasant
odour (malodour) over the whole-product life cycle. These values
are still higher than those of urine alone (below 2), indicating
that also odour pleasantness is slightly improved by the sole pres-
ence of the absorbing material.
Instead, hedonic tone values of products with OCT are much
higher, i.e. close to neutrality (zero value representing a neither
pleasant nor unpleasant odour), ranging from 1.2 at 15 min
from sample preparation to +0.2 at 24 h. The increase in the hedo-
nic tone values is owing to the time required by the OCT to exploit
its odour control action.
These results show the hedonic tone measurement suitability for
discriminating the effectiveness of the different products tested in
reducing urine malodour.
Conclusions
This paper proposes an effective test methodology to evaluate the
efficacy of different absorbent products in reducing urine malodour.

© 2012 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Soci
et
e Francßaise de Cosm
etologie

326 International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 35, 321–328
Assessment of Urine Absorbing Aids to Odour control S. Sironi et al.

Hedonic Tone - Synthetic urine on different urine absorbing

products
4
NO OCT With OCT
3

1
0.2
H.T.

0
–0.4
–1
–1.2
–1.6 –1.3
–2
–1.9
–3

–4
0 6 12 18 24
Time (h)

Figure 7 Results of the hedonic odour tone determinations on absorbing products with and without OCT respectively

To make sensorial tests reproducible and free from any biological
risk for expert sniffers, preliminary studies were conducted to iden-
tify an artificial urine-like fluid with odour properties (odour con-
centration and hedonic tone) similar to those of biological urine.
The proposed method provides the evaluation of both odour con-
centration and hedonic tone to discriminate between different
absorbing products. The similarity of the odour concentrations rele-
vant to the different product typologies (with and without odour con-
trol system) proves the sole odour concentration not to be a suitable
parameter for the comparison of different absorbing products.
On the contrary, hedonic odour tone (odour pleasantness/
unpleasantness) turned out to be more suitable for this pur-
pose, allowing to effectively discriminate different absorbing
products.
Acknowledgement
The study was carried out at and founded by the Olfactometric
Laboratory of Department of Chemistry, Materials and Chemical
Engineering ‘Giulio Natta’, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.

References
1. Roberts, R.O., Jacobsen, S.J., Reilly, W.T.,
Pemberton, J.H., Lieber, M.M. and Talley, N.J.
Prevalence of combined fecal and urinary
incontinence: A community-based study.
J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 47, 837–41 (1999).
2. Chartier-Kastler, E., Ballanger, P., Petit, et al.
Randomized, crossover study evaluating
patient preference and the impact on quality
of life of urisheaths vs absorbent products in
incontinent men. BJU Int. 108, 241–7
(2011).
3. Erekson, E.A., Meyer, S.A., Melick, C. and
McLennan, M.T. Incontinence pads: recom-
mending the best product-based wetback
performance and price. Int. Urogynecol. J.
19, 1411–4 (2008).
4. Fader, M., Cottenden, A., Getliffe, K., et al.
Absorbent products for urinary/faecal inconti-
nence: a comparative evaluation of key prod-
uct designs. Health Technol Assess (Winch
Eng). 12, iii–iv, ix–185(2008).
5. Finkelstein, M.M. Medical conditions, medi-
cations, and urinary incontinence. Can Fam
Phys. 48, 96–101 (2002).
6. Getliffe, K., Fader, M., Cottenden, A., Jamie-
son, K. and Green, N. Absorbent products
for incontinence: ‘treatment effects’ and
impact on quality of life. J. Clin. Nurs. 16,
1936–45 (2007).
7. Grandstaff, M. and Lyons, D. Impact of a
continence training program on patient
safety and quality. Rehabil Nurs. 37, 180–4
(2012).
8. Charalambous, S. and Trantafylidis, A.
Impact of urinary incontinence on quality
of life. Pelviperineology. 28, 51–3 (2009).
9. ISO 15621:2011. Urine- absorbing aids- Gen-
eral guidelines on Evaluation. International
Standard. International Organization of
standardization, Switzerland (2011).
10. ISO 6658:1985. Sensory analysis- Methodol-
ogy- General guidance. International Standard.
International Organization of standardiza-
tion, Switzerland (1985).
11. Comitee for European Normalization. Air
quality - Determination of Odour Concentration
by Dynamic Olfactometry. European Standard
EN 13725:2003 (E), ICS 13.040.99. Brus-
sels, Belgium (2003).
12. Technical Division Environmental Quality -
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. Determination of
Hedonic Odour Tone. VDI 3882- Part 1. Verein
Deutscher Ingenieure e. V. VDI Guidelines
Department, Dusseldorf, Germany (2008).
13. Technical Division Environmental Quality -
Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. Determination of
Hedonic Odour Tone. VDI 3882- Part 2. Verein
Deutscher Ingenieure e. V. VDI Guidelines
Department, Dusseldorf, Germany (2008).
14. Zhang, Q., Feddes, J.J.R., Edeogu, I.K. and
Zhou, X.J. Correlation between odour inten-
sity assessed by human assessors and odour
concentration measured with olfactometers.
Can Biosyst Eng. 44, 6.27–6.32 (2002).
15. Maxeiner, B., Ennen, J., Rutzel-Grunberg, S.,
Traupe, B., Wittern, K.P., Schmucker, R.
et al. Design and application of a screening
and training protocol for odour testers in
the field of personal care products. Int J
Cosmetic Sci. 31, 193–9 (2009).
16. Myers, J.L. and Well, A.D. Research Design &
Statistical Analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., New Jersey (2003).
17. Bartley, G.B., Hilty, M.D., Andreson, B.D.,
Clairmont, A.C. and Maschke, S.P. ‘Maple-
syrup’ urine odor due to fenugreek
ingestion. New Engl J Med. 305, 467 (1981).
18. Brooks, T. and Keevil, C.W. A simple artificial
urine for the growth of urinary pathogens.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 24, 203–6 (1997).
19. Korman, S.H., Cohen, E. and Preminger, A.
Pseudo-maple syrup urine disease due to

© 2012 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Soci
et
e Francßaise de Cosm
etologie

International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 35, 321–328 327
Assessment of Urine Absorbing Aids to Odour control S. Sironi et al.

maternal prenatal ingestion of fenugreek. J.
Paediatr. Child Health 37, 403–4 (2001).
20. Podebrad, F., Heil, M., Reichert, S., Mosandl,
A., Sewell, A.C. and Bohles, H. 4,5-dimethyl-
3-hydroxy-2 5H -furanone (sotolone) - The
odour of maple syrup urine disease. J. Inherit.
Metab. Dis. 22, 107–14 (1999).
21. Zhang, A.Q., Mitchell, S.C., Ayesh, R. and
Smith, R.L. Determination of trimethyl-
amine and related aliphatic-amines in
human urine by headspace gas-chromatog-
raphy. J Chromatogr-Biomed. 584, 141–5
(1992).
22. Mills, G.A. and Walker, V. Headspace solid-
phase microextraction profiling of volatile
compounds in urine: Application to meta-
bolic investigations. J. Chromatogr. B 753,
259–68 (2001).
23. Perring, K.D., Behan, M.J., Griffin, S. and Vela,
M. Malodour Compositions. UK Patent PCT/
GB2007/001172. World International Prop-
erty Organisation (2007).
24. Tyan, Y.-C., Yang, M.-H., et al. MALDI-TOF
MS sample preparation by using alkanethio-
late self-assembled monolayers: A prelimin-
ary application for protein sample analysis.
Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 262, 67–72 (2007).

© 2012 Society of Cosmetic Scientists and the Soci
et
e Francßaise de Cosm
etologie

328 International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 35, 321–328