OK people, here it is:
https://mega.nz/#!iM4RQSaC!A9dMZYCBs...V7etuu92-n_JAs
Follow the link to download it securely from my cloud storage.
I guess I get first go to lay out my view of the results. I'd first like to leave aside the tester's own narrative analysis for a minute; the statement at the bottom of the document.
Probably best to walk through what you're seeing on the sheet so we're all on the same page as regards the presentation of GCMS results in general.
So the way GCMS works (roughly) is that a small sample of the product is heated gradually from cold up to a particular high temperature. You can see in the graph, looking at the bottom axis, that this test was done over a period of more than two hours. This gradual heating causes compounds in the sample to be released ( the jargon used in GCMS for this is 'eluted') in order of their volatility. By this method, one effectively separates the constituents of the sample so that they can be analysed separately.
Looking at the graph from left to right, you can see a number of spikes of various height cropping up at various time intervals during the test. Each of these spikes relates approximately to a chemical compound in the sample. Each of these spikes also corresponds with on the of the results in the list on the right. The height of a spike suggests the volume of the compound released and, by extension, the relative proportion it represents in the test subject. You can see a figure that indicates relative concentration against each identified compound in the list on the right.
So, first impressions looking at the range of chemicals identified in the list on the right, there are plenty of chemicals identified that occur regularly in agarwood. Most of them are sesquiterpenes, the classic family of chemicals found in agarwood. Some of the results simply state 'Agarwood'. This will be because this is how that particular result is identified in the tester's analytical database (rather than as a specific chemical). It's effectively a short-hand that says "this thing is a 'marker' for agarwood".
I see no compounds listed that are indicative of other aromatic products and indeed the tester has not named any other specific raw ingredients that have found their way into the product.
The first controversial thing to note in the results is the identification of a phthalate, di-butyl phthalate to be exact. Now there has been a lot of talk previously regarding the use of phthalates as cutting agents and viscosity enhancers on oud so this might give an immediate cause for concern. But consider the concentration found in the sample. You're talking 0.69% of the released mass. This is not the sort of level that indicates it was added purposefully for the reasons stated above. At this level, it have most likely crept in during manufacture or storage. I have already dicussed this finding with Kyarazen and he proposed a highly plausible explanation for its presence: Those who remember Kyarazen's original blog post about this oil will recall his description of the bottle the oil was found in; a large glass bottle with a large plastic stopper in the top. The material those sort of stoppers are often made from is a synthetic rubber that is made up of a hard plastic infused with (you guessed it) phthalates that act as a softener (plasticizer), rendering the product pliable like rubber. It is entirely likely that, over time, the phthalates leached out of the stopper and into the oil.
Here are some links for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibutyl_phthalate
"Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) is a commonly used plasticizer."
https://www.kyarazen.com/kyarazen-oud-1985/#
"Trying to contain my excitement, I gingerly tried to get the cap and the protective plug off. It took quite many minutes, the silence and anticipation was not helped by the extremely tight plug on the bottle which I had to twist, turn and pull in a circular fashion bit by bit, hoping that the 27 year old plug does not break."
It's interesting to have some possible corroboration as to the source of this phthalate. However, this does not change the fact that it's there (albeit in small quantities). Please do bear in mind though that phthalates like this are likely leaching out of the plastic caps and swipers of your 3ml oud bottles into your precious oils right now!
So finally, what of the tester's comments?
"The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the very low TIC number, the unusual late-eluting components and the contamination with phthalates"
I had several email exchanges with the tester over his findings and was left unconvinced that his experience of agarwood extended to anything other than steam/hydro distilled agarwood oils, leaving open the reasonable explanation that this is an extraction using solvents. Personally, I believe that this would account for the observations that the tester made.
So to my own conclusions:
...but that's just me. I'd love to hear other views of these results.
https://mega.nz/#!iM4RQSaC!A9dMZYCBs...V7etuu92-n_JAs
Follow the link to download it securely from my cloud storage.
I guess I get first go to lay out my view of the results. I'd first like to leave aside the tester's own narrative analysis for a minute; the statement at the bottom of the document.
Probably best to walk through what you're seeing on the sheet so we're all on the same page as regards the presentation of GCMS results in general.
So the way GCMS works (roughly) is that a small sample of the product is heated gradually from cold up to a particular high temperature. You can see in the graph, looking at the bottom axis, that this test was done over a period of more than two hours. This gradual heating causes compounds in the sample to be released ( the jargon used in GCMS for this is 'eluted') in order of their volatility. By this method, one effectively separates the constituents of the sample so that they can be analysed separately.
Looking at the graph from left to right, you can see a number of spikes of various height cropping up at various time intervals during the test. Each of these spikes relates approximately to a chemical compound in the sample. Each of these spikes also corresponds with on the of the results in the list on the right. The height of a spike suggests the volume of the compound released and, by extension, the relative proportion it represents in the test subject. You can see a figure that indicates relative concentration against each identified compound in the list on the right.
So, first impressions looking at the range of chemicals identified in the list on the right, there are plenty of chemicals identified that occur regularly in agarwood. Most of them are sesquiterpenes, the classic family of chemicals found in agarwood. Some of the results simply state 'Agarwood'. This will be because this is how that particular result is identified in the tester's analytical database (rather than as a specific chemical). It's effectively a short-hand that says "this thing is a 'marker' for agarwood".
I see no compounds listed that are indicative of other aromatic products and indeed the tester has not named any other specific raw ingredients that have found their way into the product.
The first controversial thing to note in the results is the identification of a phthalate, di-butyl phthalate to be exact. Now there has been a lot of talk previously regarding the use of phthalates as cutting agents and viscosity enhancers on oud so this might give an immediate cause for concern. But consider the concentration found in the sample. You're talking 0.69% of the released mass. This is not the sort of level that indicates it was added purposefully for the reasons stated above. At this level, it have most likely crept in during manufacture or storage. I have already dicussed this finding with Kyarazen and he proposed a highly plausible explanation for its presence: Those who remember Kyarazen's original blog post about this oil will recall his description of the bottle the oil was found in; a large glass bottle with a large plastic stopper in the top. The material those sort of stoppers are often made from is a synthetic rubber that is made up of a hard plastic infused with (you guessed it) phthalates that act as a softener (plasticizer), rendering the product pliable like rubber. It is entirely likely that, over time, the phthalates leached out of the stopper and into the oil.
Here are some links for reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dibutyl_phthalate
"Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) is a commonly used plasticizer."
https://www.kyarazen.com/kyarazen-oud-1985/#
"Trying to contain my excitement, I gingerly tried to get the cap and the protective plug off. It took quite many minutes, the silence and anticipation was not helped by the extremely tight plug on the bottle which I had to twist, turn and pull in a circular fashion bit by bit, hoping that the 27 year old plug does not break."
It's interesting to have some possible corroboration as to the source of this phthalate. However, this does not change the fact that it's there (albeit in small quantities). Please do bear in mind though that phthalates like this are likely leaching out of the plastic caps and swipers of your 3ml oud bottles into your precious oils right now!
So finally, what of the tester's comments?
"The sample did contain some authentic agarwood essential oil but the sample was also cut with a significant amount of non-volatile material as evidenced by the very low TIC number, the unusual late-eluting components and the contamination with phthalates"
I had several email exchanges with the tester over his findings and was left unconvinced that his experience of agarwood extended to anything other than steam/hydro distilled agarwood oils, leaving open the reasonable explanation that this is an extraction using solvents. Personally, I believe that this would account for the observations that the tester made.
So to my own conclusions:
- The test proves that the product at least contains a majority proportion of agarwood extract.
- The test does not show proof or even evidence of a deliberate dilution with another specific compound, extract or raw ingredient.
- I am personally convinced that it is a more-or-less pure agarwood extract that employed a solvent/CO2-type method.
...but that's just me. I'd love to hear other views of these results.
