Table II Continued α-Cadinene 16.10 – – – – – 0.11 0.03 1.15 α-Cadinol 16.22 0.60 – 0.39 0.71 – 0.33 0.65 1.37 Nerolidol 16.56 – – – – – 0.07 0.47 0.80 Amyl salicylate 16.98 – – – – – – – – Hexyl benzoate 17.06 – – – – – – 0.10 – Ethyl palmitate 17.75 – – 0.61 – – 1.16 – – Benzyl benzoate 18.87 – – – 0.07 – 0.17 1.63 3.21 Palmitic acid 19.41 5.37 – 0.73 8.28 13.61 – 0.99 – Ethyl oleate 19.86 – – 3.98 – – 7.42 – – Palmitinic acid 20.25 – – – – 1.17 – – – Benzyl salicylate 20.93 – – – – – – 0.68 0.91 Methyl palmitate 21.37 – – – – – 0.23 0.68 6.60 Geranyl linalool 22.46 – – – – – – 2.75 5.24 β-Sitosterol 23.10 – – 9.87 – – – – – Stigmasterol 23.13 – 8.33 – – – – – – Z-Linoleic acid methyl ester 23.24 – – – – – 0.17 – – Methyl oleate 23.33 – – – – – 1.06 – – Methyl stearate 23.71 - – – – – – 2.40 5.27 Ethyl linoleate 24.15 – – – – – 0.74 – – Linoleic acid 24.27 – – 0.46 – 0.07 – – – Chorophenylmaleimide 24.54 0.67 – – – – – – – Ethyl sterate 24.65 – – – – – 0.31 – – 1,3-Dimethyl-4-azaphenanthrene 26.40 0.56 – – – – – – – Spongesterol 25.87 – 1.10 – – – – – – Compound RT Sample A B C D E F G H AROMA PROFILES AND PREFERENCES OF JASMINUM SAMBAC L. FLOWERS 489

JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 490 Table III Major Aroma Compounds of J. sambac Absolute Grown at Different Geography Country % Benzyl acetate Indole α-Farnesene Z-3-Hexenyl benzoate Linalool Methyl anthranilate Reference Thailand 0.7 – 6.7 7.4 0.4 1.4 – Philippines 2.0 1.0–2.0 15.0–20.0 2.0 15.0–20.0 5.0 14 Indonesia 3.0 0.1 10.0–15.0 5.0 20.0–30.0 3.0 14 China 8.0 1.5 10.0 10.0 20.0 6.0 14 Egypt 14.2 13.4 13.1 9.4 6.3 4.7 15 in the absolute of Thai jasmine was far lesser than that in the Egyptian one, similar to those of benzyl acetate, α-farnesene, linalool, and methyl anthranilate. In contrary, Z-3- hexenyl benzoate was found to be higher, when compared with that noted in the Philip- pines and Indonesian jasmine absolute. Although Thai jasmine absolute contained less characteristic jasmine aroma as mentioned earlier, the quantities of benzyl acetate, indole, linalool, and methyl anthranilate were high in the absolute de pomades and extraits (Ta- ble II). The preference test comparing the samples with fresh jasmine fl ower was further conducted. Odor quality and difference in the extraits, including the absolute, were compared with fresh jasmine, as shown in Table IV. Sample H was excluded from this test because of its pungent and unpleasant dry jasmine odor. Similarly, all of the absolute de pomades were excluded due to the presence of solvent and poor aroma profi les. Sample F, which was the extrait obtained from spermaceti wax and olive oil base system, showed the best quality with the least difference as compared to fresh jasmine. On the other hand, Sample G showed the lowest quality with the greatest difference from fresh jasmine. Furthermore, odor quality of the absolute was signifi cantly different from those of the extraits ( p 0.05) however, odor quality of the extraits was not signifi cantly different ( p 0.05). Comparative preference toward the extraits in different genders was evaluated, and it was found that both the genders’ preference was not different (Table V). However, dissimilar preferences was observed among different ages. Sample F presented a signifi cant prefer- ence ( p = 0.01), which was higher than Samples E (p = 0.02) and D (p = 0.56). Although Sample F exhibited better quality over other extraits, its differences from fresh jasmine was not signifi cantly different from other extraits (Table V). Table IV Odor Quality and Difference Compared with Fresh Jasmine Sample Preference Quality Difference D 1.69 ± 0.57 2.65 ± 0.74 E 1.93 ± 0.42 2.13 ± 0.75 F 2.13 ± 0.56 1.94 ± 0.75 G 1.00 ± 0.00 4.47 ± 0.52