JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE 134 (GC–MS) system was confi gured with a Cooled Injection System (CIS 4) PTV-type inlet, thermal desorption unit (TDU), and multipurpose sampler with 10 μl ATEX syringe. ANALYSIS CONDITIONS: TDU: Splitless, 40°C, 720 °C/min, 230°C (5 min) PTV: Solvent vent (70 ml/min) splitless -120°C, 12°C/s, 270°C (3 min) Column: 60 m DB-624 (Agilent J&W), di = 0.25 mm df = 1.4 μm Pneumatics: He, constant fl ow (1.0 ml/min) Oven: 40°C, 5°C/min, 230°C (17 min) MSD: Full scan, 20–550 amu SAMPLE PREPARATION An area of 18 cm2 of the inside arm was washed with 3.3 mg/cm2 of a shower gel formu- lation and rinsed with tap water for 30 s and dried. Subsequently, the area of the arm was exposed to the twister bar for 15 min (Figure 1). This step was repeated at intervals of 1 h for a total time of 2 h. After extraction the twister bar was removed and placed into a clean glass thermal desorption tube for GC–MS analysis. GC–MS ANALYSIS All samples were run in triplicate, areas of the peaks selected in the GC–MS chromato- graphs were manually integrated and average areas obtained from the three runs were graphically represented. SOLID PHASE MICROEXTRACTION FIBERS VERSUS TWISTER BAR Twister bar presents a larger surface area than the fi ber, increasing the sensitivity of the twister bar by over 1000 times with respect to the fi bers. They are also much easier to handle, especially when you have to complete the sampling over an extended period of time. Figure 1. (A) Sampling, (B) analysis, and (C) fi ber versus twister bar.

IMPROVE FRAGRANCE BLOOM, RELEASE, AND RETENTION 135 Test formulations containing either encapsulated fragrance or neat fragrance or a mixture of both neat and encapsulated fragrance is shown in Table I. The primary objective was to confi rm that encapsulated fragrance oils provided an increase in odor perception over time compared to the neat fragrance control formulation 2. Formulation procedure: 1. In main beaker combine ingredients in Phase A one at a time, in order, mixing to uniformity before adding the next 2. Add sodium hydroxide of Phase B to main beaker slowly, with mixing, measure pH, adjust to ~6.4 3. Add cocamidopropyl betaine of Phase C to main beaker with mixing, mix until uniform 4. Add ingredients of Phase D to main beaker, one at a time, in order with mixing, waiting for uniformity before adding the next 5. Add ingredients of Phase E to the main beaker and slowly mix until uniform. Measure fi nal pH and adjust to pH ~6.5 as appropriate RESULTS Based on the results presented in Figure 2, it appears initially that formulation 3, con- taining 20% of the encapsulated fragrance and 80% neat fragrance, gives a higher GC count. After 1 h we also see not only the 20% encapsulate/80%neat fragrance formulation with a higher count, but also that formulation 4 with 50% encapsulate/50% neat fra- grance has an even higher GC count. Results of these instrumental experiments will be confi rmed through expert evaluation. Table I INCI Name Formulation 1 Formulation 2 Formulation 3 Formulation 4 Phase A Water 31.01 30.01 29.55 28.87 Glycerin 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 Disodium EDTA 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 Acatylate copolymer (and) water (30%) 6.67 6.67 6.67 6.67 Sodium laureth sulfate (25%) 48.00 48.00 48.00 48.00 Phase B Sodium hydroxide (10% aq) 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 Phase C Cocamidopropyl betaine (35%) 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 Phase D Sodium chloride 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 Sodium hydoxymethyglycinate (and) water 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Phenoxyethanol (and) caprylyl glycol 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Phase E Fragrance 0.00 1.00 0.80 0.50 Encapsulate EN C-623 (30.5%) 0.00 0.00 0.66 1.64 Styrene/VP copolymer 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Final pH 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 Level fragrance: encapsulate (active) 0%/0% 1.00%/0.00% 0.80%/0.20% 0.50%/0.5% INCI: International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients EDTA: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid.