J. soc. cos. CHEM.

15, 285-295 (1964)

METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF PRODUCTS

DESIGNED FOR ORAL ODOR CONTROL

By WILLIAM ilk. CURBYand VINCENT F. LISANTI*

PresentedSeptember
24-25, 1963, Seminar,Boston,Mass.

ABSTRAGT

The limitations of the Fair and 'Wells osmoscope instrument are

discussed in relation to the physiology and the biophysics of oilaction
and the specific and general cases of the Weber-Fechner law. A simple
dilution procedure having linear response characteristics and not
subject to the range limitation of the Fair and Wells osmoscope is
presented, and the results obtained from each technique are com-
pared. Recent advances in physical and physico-chemical tech-
niques for evaluation of specific compounds in gas and vapor mix-
tures have caused them to be considered as methods of choice for the
objective analysis of odors. Of the several techniques in develop-
ment, those utilizing gas chromatography, infrared densitometry and
visual light microdensitometry are discussed and their advantages
and limitations considered. Included in these discussions is the
evaluation of two new techniques to aid in the determination of
the chemical nature of odor producing gases and vapors. One of
these is designed to determine the approximate molecular weight
of gases in the human breath, while the other is applicable to clinical
evaluation of some of the included solvent soluble I•ases.

INTRODUCTION

It is intendedin this paperto considermethodsfor appraisalof odor.

the instrumentationnecessarywill be consideredonly as required for the
understanding of the methods. The evolutionof knowledgeabout princi-
plesinvolvedin the operationof naturalsystemsfollowsa pattern. Sub-
jectiveinformationis firstobtained,and theoriesare developedrelativeto
the operationof the system. Thesetheoriesare usuallysufficientto sepa-
rate the relatedphysicaland chemicalchangesin the systeminto those
whichinitiate changesand thosewhichare the resultsof the changes;in
the caseof physiological functions,into the stimuli and the responses.
* I. S. R., SiasResearchLaboratories,BrooksHospital,Brookline,Mass.02146
285
286 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS

When it is possibleto controlthe intensityof the stimulusand alsomea-

surethe resultingmagnitudeof the response, sufficientinformationbecomes
availableto determinehow the apparatusof the systemoperates. If this
informationis combinedwith that obtainedfrom grossand microscopic
dissectionof the organ complex,one is usually able to developa model
whichcanbestudiedin thelaboratory. It isat thisstagein theprocess
of
evolutionof knowledgethat the responses
normallyexpectedfrom a given
stimuluscan be predicted. We can then prescribecorrectivemeasuresto
return the systemto normal, or we can controla systemaway from normal
if that is our desire. Becauseit has been possibleto measurethe stimuli
and the responses, we havean understanding of the workingsof the systems
in the bodywhichdetectlight, sound,pressure,
heat,and, to a lesserdegree,
solid and liquid chemicals.
The advancementof our knowledgeof the operation of the sys-
tem in the body for the detection of chemicalsin the form of gases
and vapors has been limited. We have not been able to monitor
the responsesin the olfactory apparatus directly. The complexity
of the olfactorysystemtogetherwith its proximity to the brain havelimited
our ability to envisiona modelof the system. The numberand rangesof
concentrationof the stimulants is so great that it has been impossibleto
determinethe operationof the systemthrough a knowledgeof its limits.
We are facedwith a rather uniqueproblem. We have too many stimuli to
deal with, too much sensitivityin the organ,too wide an operatingrange,
and too little objectiveoutput data to make any analysisof the processof
oilaction. We havebeenrequiredto makeappraisalsof odorsin the intact
system,i.e., throughthe judgmentsof personstrained to distinguishpar-
ticular odor signalsin odor noisebackgroundsthat are at times in ratios of
less than unity.
Two alternative approachesto the detection of odors have been
of value in the appraisalof their type and intensity. Theseare: objective
methodsand dynamic analytical methods. Within the past ten years,
objective methodsfor the qualitative (and to a more limited extent,
quantitative) evaluationof chemicalsin gasesand vaporshave developed
rapidly. The applicability of these techniquesto the detectionof type
and magnitudeof oral odorwill be discussed later. The secondapproach
resultsfrom the study of the dynamicsof the physiologyof sensationin the
body. When it is not possibleto utilize the methodof evaluation,of prin-
ciplesof operationof a body function as outlined earlier, a study of the
dynamicsof the systemin operationcan be undertaken. While it is not
possibleto obtain exactamountsfrom a subjectivestudy, it is possibleto
obtain reliable information from the first derivativesof thesevalues,i.e.,
whilewe cannotknowfrom a humanjudgmentan exactvalueof a particular
response, we can obtain accurateinformationabout the rate of changein
the responseas judged by the subject. This is becausethe body utilizes
 EVALUATION OF ORAL ODOR 287

themethodof comparison
of changes
in the amountratherthanthe quanti-
ficationof exact amounts,which is the mechanismusedby all but a few
of our most recently developedinstruments. It is this form of combined
ratio and rate detection that makes it possibleto selectsmall stimulant
signalsfrom a backgroundof severalstimulantsof highintensitystriking
the organsimultaneously
(the signalto noiseratio of lessthan unity men-
tioned above).
In the case of oilaction, this is important for the survival of the
organism. It is equallyessentialfor a workerto detectthe odorof smoke
in a laboratory heavily laden with odor of an organic solvent as it is
for the deer in a thick pine forestto detect the faint odor of an enemy
throughthe pine scent. This highly developeddifferentialsensingdevice
enablesus to senseminute quantitiesof chemicalstimulants. We have no
mechanismby whichwe can shut off the sensationof odorswhich are not
pleasingto us, and this in fact is anotherprotective deviceof nature to
causeus to leave an area of danger. The olfactorysystemoperateson a
dif[k:rentialsystemso that, while we are not sparedthe unpleasantness of
detectingan odor which is objectionableto us, we becomeadaptedto it if
we must remainin its environmentfor extendedperiods. As we shallsee,
the olfactorysystemis mostsensitiveto the first appearance of an odoror
to odorspresentedintermittently for short periodsof time. Any odor
generatorwhich producesodorsin small amountsand in an intermittent
mannerwill behighlyefficientfromthestandpointof the amountof product
(stimulant) used to obtain the greatestresponsein the olfactory sensors.
This fact has its implications,for example,in the economicsof perfume
sales. If one wishesto dispersethe scent of an expensiveperfume in a
displayatomizer,the perfumeshouldbe ejectedin extremelysmallamounts
with sufficientintervalsbetweenthe ejectionsto allow for almostcomplete
theoreticaldispersalof the odor throughoutthe area of sale.
The oral cavity is one of the bestexamplesof a highly efficientnatural
odorgenerator,onein whichamountof stimulantchemicalis smallwith re-
spectto the olfactoryresponse.The oral cavity generatesodors,someof
whichwesenseaspleasantandothersof whichwecategorizeasdefinitelyun-
pleasant. It is the efficiencyof the oral cavity as an odor generator,to-
getherwith its frequentproximityto another'solfactorydetectionapparatus
in our presentcrowdedsociety,whichwouldmakeeachawareof objection-
able oral odorsunlesssomeform of restraint had been placed upon the
generationof odorswithin the oral cavity.

SUBJECTIVE
METHODS

In orderto developproductswhichreducethe detectabilityof oral odors,

it is necessary
to measurethem. The humannoseis still the mostversatile
detectoravailableto us in the presentstateof our odordetectingart. We
:288 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS

Figure 1.--A form of the Fair and Wells osmoscope presentlyin use for the evaluation
of odorsfrom the oral cavity. The subjectcloseshis lips over the plastic mouthpieceat
the end of the instrumentto the left as shown. The evaluator placesinto his nostrilsthe
nose-pieces seenat the right of the photo. Air exhaledby the subjectthroughthe osmo-
scopeis mixedwith roomair enteringthroughthesidearm in the bodyof the instrument.

must be able to detect not only the odorsfrom many oral cavities but also
the comparative intensities. Any method used must be rapid because
many of the odor producingagentsreact with other substancesor decom-
poseovershortperiods. One of the mostsuccessful toolsfor determining
the intensity of an oral odor has been the Fair and Wells osmoscope(1).
This device dilutes an odor from a source with a known amount of air to
deliver continuouslycontrolledratios of odor-bearinggas to admixed air,
as shownin Fig. 1. In its presentform this instrumentcan be set in seven
differentratios. The sensitivityof the devicemay be seenin Fig. 2. The
equationfor thegraphshownisin theform:
g---x •, [1]
where

x = the seriesdilution factor,

g = the externalsignalstrength,and
n = the value of the osmoscope reading.
Usually, holesare boredin the internal tube of the osmoscope so that x
has a value of 2. g is given as the reciprocalof the parts per million of
stimulantin the total gasemittedfrom the osmoscope if the amountof the
 EVALUATION OF ORAL ODOR 289

stimulant is known; or, in relative units if the amount of the stimulant or

mixtureof stimulantsis unknown. For purposes of this paper,the form
of the relationshipof g to Fair and Wellsosmoscope readingsis sufficient
for the discussion.It can be seenin Fig. 2 that very slightchangesin the
amount of g for low values of g will
causea largechangein the osmoscope
readingsin the range of settingsof 1
through 3. As g increases,its effect
upon the changein osmoscope read-
ingsis lessalthoughthe osmoscopeis
very sensitive to small amounts of
stimulant. A problem arisesin the
caseof odorsof high intensity: A
I
I0
I
20
I
30
I
40
I
50
I
60
I
70 readingof 6 on the osmoscope may be
Excitation Stimulus (Odor) g just slightly above6 or muchgreater.
Figure 2.--ResponseCharacter- The lengthof the osmoscope couldbe
istics of the Fair and Wells Osmo-
extended to make more settings pos-
scope showing the relationship
between the osmoscopesettings sible. The device will now become
and the intensity of the external unwieldy,but if it canbe usedfor clin-
excitation stimulus.
ical testing it might be a goodcom-
II-
promise. Alternately the hole sizes
could be changedto alter the value
of x. Since the output from the
Fair and Wells osmoscope is coupled
into a nonlineardetector (the human
nose),the sensitivity of the detector
0 i i I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I
must, nevertheless,be analyzed be-
2 4 6 8 I0 12 14 16 18 fore it can be determined whether
Excitation Stimulus g
either of the approacheswill be
Figure &--Graphic display of the helpful. The human nose responds
Weber-Fechner law showing the log-
arithmic relationshipbetweenthe excita- to an excitation stimulus in a rela-
tion stimulusand the minimumpercepti-
tionship in which the subjective
ble difference in sensation. From Howell
(2). sensationvaries as the log of the
appliedstimulusintensity. This re-
lationship,first reported by Weber and later elaborated by Fechner,
is known as the Weber-Fechner law of sensation (2). Stated in a
generalrelationshipit may be brokeninto severalforms. Two of' these
forms are of interestin the study of the osmoscope.These are:

h o:Ag, [2]
g
where

h = intensityof the sensation(subjective)and

290 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS

g = external signalstrength,
and for a differential sensation,

hx- h•= logg-•,

g•
[3]
where subscriptsdenotea particular responseto particular intensity of a
given stimulant. Figure 3 showsgraphicrepresentation of the equations
[2] and [3]. The greatestchangein sensationresultsfrom the smallest
changein the excitationwheng is smallest. As g increases, the changein
sensation becomes smaller.
Both the detectorand the osmoscope are most sensitivewhen the value
of g is small--both becomelesssensitiveas g increases.Therefore,the
sensitivityis not increasedmuch by increasingthe numberof settingson
the osmoscope to recordhighervaluesof g. For thissamereason,onewill
not gainmuchby increasingthe valueof n.
What about an increasein the value of x ? By assuminga given value of
g and increasing it, the differencebetweenh for the initial valueof g, and
h for the new value of g will becomelessand lessas the value of g becomes
larger (equation3). This meansthat an increasein x reducesthe ability
of the detectorto sensechangesin g, whichnow becomeslargerat a greater
rate.

If one constructsan osmoscope

in which x or n is increased,a further
phenomenon will becomeapparent. Odorswhichweredetectableonly at
settingsof 4 and $ now all registeras 6. That is, odorswhichwere pre-
viouslyreportedasweakerodorsseemto becomestrongerwhenit is known
by the designof the instrumentthat the odor-producing
mixture is even
more dilute than before. The reasonfor this, which followsfrom an ex-
tensionof the Weber-Fechnerlaw, involves the secondderivative of the
excitation signal strength. For purposesof this presentation,it will be
stated simply without explanation. The rate of changeof the changeof
intensityof g is proportionalto the sensationh. By increasing the mixing
hole sizein the osmoscope, the abruptnessof the presentationof the odor
is increased,therebyallowingthe noseto sensesmalleramountsof the odor.
Since we cannot alter the output characteristicsof the osmoscopeand
detectorcomplex,we mustreduceg beforewe presentit to the osmoscope.
Simply stated the odor-containing gas mustbe dilutedwith air beforeintro-
ducingit intotheosmoscope.
At a very low value of g, the changesof rate of presentationof g become
small. Thus, if we make a seriesdilution of the oral odor gas with air
before the mix enters the osmoscope,we are able to cancel the second
derivativeof g by recordingthe dilution for eachindividualtestedat which
his osmoscope readingbecomes1. In practice,this is not feasiblebecause
 EVALUATION OF ORAL ODOR 291

of the numberof dilution vesselsneeded,and becomessuspectbecauseof

the possibilityof reaction or decompositionof the odor substancebefore
it is assayed. Applying our knowledgeof the sensitivityfunction and the
rate limitationsof our detectorsystem,it becomespossibleto designan
odor monitoringsystemwhich can be used for the clinical evaluation of
productsdesignedto reducethe sensationof objectionableoral odors. This
systemhasno upperlimit sinceit canbe designedto make the secondderiv-
ative of g becomezero.
Figure 4 showsthe devicein its simplestform. In operation, the test
subject exhalesthrough his mouth into the stem of the unit while the
plungeris pulledback. The trainedodor analyzernext placesa stop at a

o•Odor Collecting
ChQmber Plunger

•/"*--•SQmpling Cup MovQble

Stop•--•-
RemovQbleMouthpiece

Figure 4.--Incremental odor dilution devicefor usewith the methoddescribedin this paper.
The movable stop is shownset in the X = 10 position.

predeterminedpoint on the plungerand pushesthe plungerin at a constant

rate (in a morecomplexembodimentof the device,this pushingat a con-
stant rate canbe accomplished mechanically),while he makesshortshallow
inhalationsof the gas emitted from the stem into the samplingcup. As
soonas the odoris detected,the deviceis aimedaway from the testeruntil
the gas has been expelled,except for that volume which is not released
from the test cylinder becauseof the plungerstop. The tester then puts
the device into a clean air environmentand pulls out the plunger fully.
The procedureis repeateduntil the odor is just undetectable. By taking
the numberof times the dilution procedurehad to be repeatedminus one
and enteringa table (Table I) under the listing for the particular setting

TABLE I--PERcENT OF O•)OR CONTAINING G.•s LEFT AFTER THE nth DILUTION
For Stop Settings(X) from 10 units3 to 90 units3in a 100unit3 Odor CollectingChamberand
Dilution Cycles (n) from 0 to 5
n = x = 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

i 100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81
0.1 0.8 2.7 3.2 12.5 21.6 34.3 51.2 72.9
0.01 0.016 0.81 2.56 6.25 12.9 24.0 41.0 65.6
5 0.001 0.003 0.24 1.02 3.13 7.80 16.8 32.8 59.0

For dilution cyclesgreater than n = 5 the followingform is used: (X/100) '• X 100 = per
centof odorcontaininggasremainingafter the nth dilutioncycle.
292 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS

of the plungerstop,the testercanrecordthe ratio of the volumeof air to the

volumeof odorwhichcouldjust be detected. It is possibleby the useof a
sequentially-removed seriesof stopsto obtain a linear reductionin the
amountof odor containinggas. It is alsopossiblethroughthe useof non-
return valves and odor and moistureabsorbingcartridgesto make an odor
measuringdevicein which the odor containinggas is diluted with auto-
maticallycleanedanddriedair. A gasreservoirmay alsobeusedto supply
the diluent gasif, for example,an inert gasrather than air is desired.
Preliminarytestshave shownthat the entire dilution seriescan be made
rapidlyenoughto minimizethe possibilityof decomposition or inactivation
of the odor containingsubstance.

OBJECTIVEMETHODS

We will now turn to devicesutilizing absolutevalue detectors. Recent

advancesin physicaland physico-chemical techniquesfor the evaluationof
specific
gasesin gasandvapormixtureshavemadepossible
the designand
fabricationof instrumentswhichmeasureamountsof specificgases,vapors
or familiesof gasesand vapors. Two generalgas detectionmethodsare
being used in the objective evaluation of odor producingcompounds.
Theseare gaschromatography and infraredspectroscopy
of gases. Some
specific
gaseous
substances
suchasammoniaandsulfuror halogen-contain-
ing compoundscan be analyzedby meansof chemicaltechniques,
while
others,suchas hydrogen,oxygen,and carbonmonoxideand dioxide,can
be evaluatedusingspecialelectrodes;but theseare of limited value in the
analysisof oral odor. Vaporscontainingodorouscompounds which are
the decarboxylation or oxidationproductsof proteinscan be analyzedby
spectrophotometric methods. These methodsare of generalassistance,
especiallyin laboratorystudiesof odorscausedby decomposed proteinin
saliva. Methods using electricallyor chemicallychargedsurfacesaside
from thoseemployedin gaschromatography have not beenof usein the
evaluation of oral odors.

Gas Chromatography
From related work in this field it has beendeterminedthat many of the
odorgasesfrom the oral cavity are of low molecularweight. Low molec-
ular weightgasesto be studiedcan be frozenusingliquid nitrogenor, in
specialcases,liquidhelium. Liquifiedgasescanbe heatedwhilehydrogen
is slowlyflushedover the sample. Each gaswill vaporizeat its boiling
temperatureandbecome mixedin the flowinghydrogenstream. Through
a controlledincreasein temperature,thesegasescan be flowedseparately
into a flamedetectorfor analysis. They can alsobe sampledby a human
 EVALUATION OF ORAL ODOR 293

noseso that boilingcharacteristics of objectionablegaseswill be recorded

from the flame (or ion detector)output and their objectionabilitynotedon
the properrecording. Through the useof secondarytraps it is possibleto
concentrateparticulargasesfor further analysis. This techniquerequires
absolutetemperaturecontrol throughoutthe range from the liquid tem-
peratureof the gasoutsidethe trap up to 20øC. Becauseof the extensive
temperaturemonitoringand controlsystemneeded,the method has never
been usefulbeyondthe preliminary collectionof a few odors. If one has
someidea of the chemicalconfigurationof the gasin question,it is possible
to capturethe gasinto a materialwhichwill selectivelyabsorbor adsorbit.
This capturingchemicalis placedin a tubular columnthroughwhich the
gas is directed. Thesecolumnscan then be heatedslowlywhile flushing
hydrogenor in somecasesinert gasesthroughthem. Characteristicpeaks
will be recordedby ion or flame detectorsfor particular temperatures,and
thesecan be comparedwith peaksfor known chemicalswhich have been
capturedby the column. Columnsare availablefor the analysisof polar
compounds,somehydrocarbons,nonpolarmaterials of up to six carbons,
somelow boilingpoint hydrocarbons, somebloodvolatiles,someprimary
phenolsandcresols, a fewsteroids,somefatty acidconfigurations andsome
other specificgases. More columnsare becomingavailableweekly. Until
more comprehensiveatlasesof the characteristiccolumn capabilitiesare
available,the useof columnchrornatographic analysisfor the study of oral
odorproducingcompounds will belimited.

Infrared Detection
The energyof light of wavelengthsfrom 1-8 u is not sufficientto break
chemicalbonds. It is sufficientto stretchand bend bondsso that changes
due to the absorptionof energyin chemicalcompoundsmay be detected
and recorded. Becauseatlases are available for the interpretation of
characteristicbond mobilizationenergies,the use of infrared gas analysis
techniques offersmorepromisein the studyof oralodors. The equipment
and techniquesare availablebut expensive. The resultsobtainedrequire
interpretationby experiencedpersonnel. Theseinterpretationsrequirethe
availabilityof considerabledata and confirmatorychemistry,thusrender-
ing themunsuitablefor clinicalevaluationprograms.
Two techniqueshave beendevelopedin our laboratory which may offer
somedata for the generalfield of oral odor analysis. The first of these
requiresthe useof an infraredgasdetectionapparatus. The methodmay
beusedfor approximatingthe molecularweightof compounds of particular
interestbecause of theirodorproducingproperties. Air is exhaledthrough
the mouth into a cell. This cell is attached to a tube filled with inert gas
which hasan infrareddetectorat its other end (as shownin Fig. 5). Both
the cell and the tube are pressurizedto the samepressurewith inert gas.
294 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS

By useof a magnet,a portiscarefullyopenedbetweenthecellandthetube,

and the time taken for a particulargasto diffusethroughthe tube to the
detectoris recorded. By referenceto calibrationgraphscomparingdiffu-
sion timeswith infrared detectoroutputsfor known substances,
it is pos-
sible to estimate the various molecularweights of gasesfrom the oral
cavity, togetherwith informationuponsomeof their chemicalconfigura-
tion.
A secondmethod,one which is more applicableto clinicalevaluation,
hasbeendeveloped for salivasamples. Infraredcellswhicharecapableof
withstandingdissolvingby water are expensive. They further require
completecleaningbetweensamples.This haslimitedthe useof the in-

C•• Sampleand
Pressure
Inlet

%•_•e
Balance
Inlet
IInfrare
d
Cell
'Jl•. Diffusion
Tube ,•oi Detecto
r
• Movable
Seal l- I
Odor Sampling Port

Figure 5.--Schematiclayout of apparatusfor the

study of the diffusionrates of odorcontaininggasmix-
tures. The odorsamplingport isusedto extractsamples
of gasesfor odor analysisafter their diffusioncharac-
teristics have been established.

fraredanalysisof saliva,evenin laboratorystudies. We havedeveloped

infraredcellswhich are disposableusing0.5 ml. Teflon ©* FEP-fiuoro-
carbonfilmfor thewindowsandholdingthelayersof Teflonapartby useof
shims. This plasticis transparentthroughoutthe 1-Surangeand is in-
expensive
enoughto bethrownawayafteruse. For clinicalanalysis,
cells
made of cardboardwith Teflon windowscouldbe preparedin advanceand
rapidlyanalyzeddirectlyafterthedonationby a testsubject. It hasbeen
possiblewith thesecellsto identifysomedissolved gasesin saliva. The
sametechniques couldbe usedfor the analysisof oral odorgasesdissolved
in oneof severalorganicsolventssinceTeflonis inert to mostorganicsol-
vents and oils.

Micro-Densilometry
By passingvisible and ultraviolet light throughpressurized quartz
cuvettescontaininggasesdissolvedin appropriatesolvents,it is possible
to recordsomeabsorptionactivity. However,the stabilityof gasesfrom
humanbreathexhaledthroughthe oral cavity and bubbledinto solvents
other than water must be questioned.The method is suggested here
 EVALUATION OF ORAL ODOR :295

becauseit appearsto have somelimited usefulness

in the analysisof odor
bearinggasesand becausegoodstablehigh sensitivitydensitometryequip-
ment is becomingavailable.

SUMMARY

For the presentand near future our bestdetectorfor the sensingof oral
odor is the human nose. Quantificationof the intensity of the odor pro-
ducinggasesrequiresa tool for controllingthe amountof odorgasin a gas
mixture. The Fair and Wells osmoscope is of value in the clinicalevalua-
tion of substances which are beingtestedfor their odorcontrollingability
as long as the odor level is small. Strongodorscannotbe testedwith the
Fair and Wells osmoscope becauseof the physiologyand biophysicsof
olfaction. A dilution method is recommendedfor the odor analysis be-
causeit is not limited in its range of operation. Objective methodsare
available for laboratory analysisof gases. However, these are of only
limited value in the study of odorsgeneratedin the oral cavity. When
more data becomeavailable throughthe use of gas chromatographic,in-
frared and microspectrophotometric techniques,their applicabilityto oral
odoranalysisshouldincrease.
(ReceivedSeptember25, 1963)
REFERENCES

(1) G. M. Fair andW. F. Wells. U.S. PatentNo. 2,136,844(1938).

(2) W. H. Howell, In W. H. Howell, Textboo}o/_Physfofofy,
13th Ed. W.B. SaundersCo.,
Philadelphia,1936.

* Teflon
FEPis thetrademark
fora fluorinated
copolymer
ofethylene
andpropylene
E. I. du Pont de Nemoursand Co., Inc.
296 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS

SOCIETY
OF COSMETIC
CHEMISTS
JOURNAL
ADVERTISING
TAKESYOUR
MESSAGE
STRAIGHT
TO THE
CHEMISTS
OFTHE
COSMETIC
INDUSTRY

For information address:

EditorialAssistant

Society
ofCosmetic
Chemists
2758 Pine Hill Drive

Birmingham,
Michigan
48008