Phero products and chemical analysis

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Anyone ever take some of the phero products and have them investigated? How would someone go about doing something like that?

I am wondering only because I would love to find out exactly how much -none is in APC and other products..

Isn\'t there some way a civilian can have such things put under chemical analysis?

Thanks

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Most likely, no. To do analysis on these things, you need a lab set up to look for these compds. Even taking an existing lab, and using the right techniques, would be a LOT of cash. Finally, chemical analysis is inheriently dirty (solvents to dispose of) and there usually is a health organization that monitors the labs (more charges.) It would be at minimium a couple of hundred bucks (doubtful) and could go much higher than that.

If there was a research lab, they might do it, but they usually ignore the public. Most of the time the public makes obsurd demands on the analysis.

[PHP 87]

Lab report for APC from PI\'s web site: http://www.primalinstinct.net/apc.gif (\"http://www.primalinstinct.net/apc.gif\")

[**DONOTDELETE**]

http://www.primalinstinct.net/compare.html (\"http://www.primalinstinct.net/compare.html\")

Interesting, I just checked out the other comparisons. None of the results are reported as an exact quantity except for Primal Instinct (0.0495%). Now, I see that Realm and APC were reported at less than 0.005%, not 0.005%. In fact, in the Beaches report, a 0.01% detection threshold is mentioned! Perhaps, we shouldn\'t differentiate any of the results that reported less than 0.01%. I\'ve been skeptical of the results from the beginning because of the 0.005% report for Realm, which should contain zero.

[Teak]

Those were the reports that the makers or distributors of Hi-Octane +2 (by Michael Vie/M.C. Marble, Co.), were supposedly suggesting are either fake (ie no such lab exists) or they aren\'t as independent as indicated on the website. Basically they were questioning the validity of the reports and suggesting their product contained more -none than what those reports stated. How true that is I don\'t know. Could of been just a sales tactic on the part of the makers/distrubutors of Hi-Octane +2. They\'ve never stated how much of -none and -nol are in their products and Bruce (via smell alone) feels Hi-Octane +2 has very little pheromone content compared to other products (especially PI). You can see the whole of Bruce\'s post here (\"http://hit-central.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=001260\").

Anyone have any details on Petro Laboratories Inc.? I\'d assume it must have be registered somewhere, maybe even have a website? Hmm, might have found some info at least:

http://virtualoffice.ic.gc.ca/CES/e/on/es40963e.htm (\"http://virtualoffice.ic.gc.ca/CES/e/on/es40963e.htm\")
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=\"1\" face=\"Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif\">quote:</font><HR>
Petro Laboratories Inc.
140 Advance Blvd., Unit #8
Brampton, Ontario
L6T 4J4

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contact: James Szeto, Chief Chemist
Tel: (905)458-0989
Fax: (905)458-1559
e-mail: petrolb@ipoline.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPANY OVERVIEW:
Petro Laboratories is a full range analytical and consulting organization specialized in the quality analysis of chemical & petrochemical products: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

James Szeto is the Chief Chemist who approved those reports, which were done by Z.H. (whoever they are).

[ April 08, 2002: Message edited by: Teak ]

[Teak]

Attractionoil/pheromoneoil are claiming their Androstenone Pheromone Concentrate (APC) contains 0.05% Androstenone, not 0.005% as stated by the above lab report. I emailed them just incase it was a typo. But they comfirmed the 0.05% value and say they have a certificate of analysis from an independent lab to prove it.

[oscar]

Teak,

A couple of things I found interesting from the links and info posted above:

The lab reports on that Primal Instinct site are the exact same lab reports on Stone Labs\' \"comparison of products\" page on THEIR retail site. I wonder who stole them from whom. (Not really. I remember seeing them on Stone\'s site first.)

What\'s kind of funny is, here\'s someone selling Primal Instinct (don\'t think it\'s actually the manufacturer), which supposedly contains a GUARANTEED 5mg. of Androstenone, but they present an assay that states an A-None concentration of .0495% , which would yield only 4.95mg. of A-None per 10mL. bottle. So which is right? The lab report or the guarantee?

Also, I checked out that Attractionoil site. They call their stuff Androstenone Pheromone Oil Concentrate on the first page, but refer to it as Andostenone Pheromone Concentrate, and even APC elsewhere. I DON\'T think this is the same APC that we\'re used to dealing with.

Besides selling the stuff in 1.41mL. sample size tubes with various fragrances, (which seems rather strange to me), they also sell a one ounce bottle of (supposed) .05% A-None \"APC\" for fifty bucks! This seems quite generous, selling something as concentrated as PI, for twenty bucks LESS than PI, in a bottle thats THREE TIMES THE SIZE of PI.
15 milligrams of Androstenone for $50 ?
Why do I think that this is doo-doo? images/icons/crazy.gif

I looked at their chemical analysis, and while there were loads of impressive solvents and what-not listed, I didn\'t see that .05% concentration number come up. Did I miss it?

I\'ve always been wary of concentration claims listed on what I consider to be \"suspicious\" sites. They are often mis-stated. There\'s a BIG (tenfold) difference between concentrations of .05% and .005% .

To some people a zero means nothing. images/icons/wink.gif

Oscar images/icons/cool.gif

[Teak]

AFAIK, they buy APC in bulk directly from IPD (whoerver they are), rather than buying 1oz bottles. Whether that would make a difference I\'m unsure. Guess they could be confusing the mg/ml value with the % of content, as that is 0.05 and 0.005 respectively according to the love-scent product table. I don\'t think the lab report on their site is the certificate they were refering to, as you point out, no mention of content per se, more just to prove the purity of the -none they use. Certainly I got a quick reply from them when I queried it, so could be an honest mistake. More than can be said when I contacted M.C. Marble...still haven\'t heard back from them about the concentrations of -none and -nol in their Hi-Octane +2.

But yeah seems PI according to that lab report are rounding up -none content for marketing purposes or maybe it\'s within error margin of the labs testing.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

i see all the talk about different sites on pheros but how do we know what we are getting if testing it would be so hard..im in for the fun i get some hits so i keep chasing it..i think this is the most reliable site for Pheros anyway as they are the only site that actually have a forum so we can share some interesting conversations and help each other with some mixes..well we do need a chat room bruce any thoughts on that...keep the deals coming Bruce

[**DONOTDELETE**]

It is a marketing vs. engineering problem.

They guaranteed 5 mg (one significant digit). If you round 4.95 mg to one significant digit, you get 5. Even rounding it to two digits gives you 5.0. We are talking one percent difference!

I suspect the problem is with the lab\'s report, although I\'ve been out of the lab for many years. Can we really measure organics to 3 digits (or one percent) these days?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Measuring organics is very precise now days. Ever since Love Canal, the EPA has driven the GC into an incredible analytical tool. Accually, the German govt and the Japanese govt really pushed it over the top. Both Govts are very concerned about the pesticide/rouge carcinogen levels. By using SPME you can get ng-fg measurements easily (as always, detection of compounds depends a lot on the cmpd itself. Organics tend to be a lot easier to detect (lots of carbon and hydrogen to burn,)) and the detectors (FID) will accurately spit out the data. In something like the level of pheros in an oil, if there is a set of standards (cmpds and amounts,) it is a very quick, easy, and accurate procedure.

Just on a side note, GC-MS will give you what molecule is there, but is not good quanitatively. The FID will tell you nothing about the molecule that is being burned up, but will give you excellent quanitative results about how much was burned.