Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “PERFUME”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 91 records · Page 5Linked to original sources
PubMed2000

Sulphur-containing "perfumes" attract flower-visiting bats.

We tested the attractiveness of individual scent compounds of bat-pollinated flowers to their pollinators, small flower-visiting bats of the genus Glossophaga (Phyllostomidae). Twenty compounds belonging to four different chemical substance classes were tested, both in the laboratory and in the field. In the laboratory, the bats (Glossophaga soricina) approached odour sources spontaneously and without preceding experience. Without ever receiving any reward they preferred the scent of a sulphur-containing compound, dimethyl disulphide, to several other odour components emitted by bat-pollinated flowers, and to scentless controls. In the field, at La Selva station in the tropical lowland rain forest of Costa Rica, G. commissarisi were attracted by two sulphur-containing compounds, dimethyl disulphide and 2,4-dithiapentane, to visit artificial flowers filled with sugar water. Thus, in nectarivorous bats the sense of smell obviously plays an important role in searching for and localising food sources, and even single components of the scent bouquets of bat-pollinated flowers are attractive. The preference for sulphur-containing odours seems to be innate.

Animals↗
PubMed1984

High-performance liquid chromatographic-fluorometric determination of cinnamaldehyde in perfume, cologne and toilet water.

A high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC)-fluorometric method is described for the determination of trans-cinnamaldehyde in fragrances. The fragrance is added to isooctane and extracted with an aqueous solution of the sodium salt of 6-aminocaproic acid to isolate the aldehyde fraction. After dilution with water, an aliquot of the extract is added to a solution of 1,2-diaminonaphthalene monosulfate in dilute formic acid. The fluorescent derivative of cinnamaldehyde, 2-styrylnaphth[1,2-d]imidazole, is prepared by incubating and then cooling the solution and adding pyridine. Aliquots of the fluorophore solution are analyzed on a reversed-phase C18 HPLC column by using a buffered tetrahydrofuran-water eluent. Cinnamaldehyde is quantitated by comparing fluorescence emission intensity with that of a standard. Recoveries from samples of various commercial fragrances, spiked with cinnamaldehyde at the 0.01, 0.05 and 0.1% levels, ranged from 94 to 112% with a mean of 103% and a standard deviation of 5.3. The limit of detection is approximately 1 ng.

Acrolein↗
PubMed1981

Perfume allergy.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Humans↗
PubMed1985

Perfume dermatitis.

The most common reaction to fragrance materials seen by practicing dermatologists is allergic contact dermatitis. Photodermatitis is occasionally seen, as is contact urticaria, irritation, and depigmentation. Fragrances are the leading cause of allergic contact dermatitis due to cosmetics. The fragrance mixture can cause false-positive reactions; therefore, it is more desirable to test with a separate series of fragrance materials.

1-Propanol↗
PubMed2005

Patch testing with a new fragrance mix detects additional patients sensitive to perfumes and missed by the current fragrance mix.

The currently used 8% fragrance mix (FM I) does not identify all patients with a positive history of adverse reactions to fragrances. A new FM II with 6 frequently used chemicals was evaluated in 1701 consecutive patients patch tested in 6 dermatological centres in Europe. FM II was tested in 3 concentrations - 28% FM II contained 5% hydroxyisohexyl 3-cyclohexene carboxaldehyde (Lyral), 2% citral, 5% farnesol, 5% coumarin, 1% citronellol and 10%alpha-hexyl-cinnamic aldehyde; in 14% FM II, the single constituents' concentration was lowered to 50% and in 2.8% FM II to 10%. Each patient was classified regarding a history of adverse reactions to fragrances: certain, probable, questionable, none. Positive reactions to FM I occurred in 6.5% of the patients. Positive reactions to FM II were dose-dependent and increased from 1.3% (2.8% FM II), through 2.9% (14% FM II) to 4.1% (28% FM II). Reactions classified as doubtful or irritant varied considerably between the 6 centres, with a mean value of 7.2% for FM I and means ranging from 1.8% to 10.6% for FM II. 8.7% of the tested patients had a certain fragrance history. Of these, 25.2% were positive to FM I; reactivity to FM II was again dose-dependent and ranged from 8.1% to 17.6% in this subgroup. Comparing 2 groups of history - certain and none - values for sensitivity and specificity were calculated: sensitivity: FM I, 25.2%; 2.8% FM II, 8.1%; 14% FM II, 13.5%; 28% FM II, 17.6%; specificity: FM I, 96.5%; 2.8% FM II, 99.5%; 14% FM II, 98.8%; 28% FM II, 98.1%. 31/70 patients (44.3%) positive to 28% FM II were negative to FM I, with 14% FM II this proportion being 16/50 (32%). In the group of patients with a certain history, a total of 7 patients were found reacting to FM II only. Conversely, in the group of patients without any fragrance history, there were significantly more positive reactions to FM I than to any concentration of FM II. In conclusion, the new FM II detects additional patients sensitive to fragrances missed by FM I; the number of false-positive reactions is lower with FM II than with FM I. Considering sensitivity, specificity and the frequency of doubtful reactions, the medium concentration, 14% FM II, seems to be the most appropriate diagnostic screening tool.

Acrolein↗