Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Throughout the past year, several internet discussions have raised questions concerning the science and capabilities of Scent-Lok activated carbon technology. To help answer the questions raised by some participants and hunters, we have enlisted the help of several highly qualified experts in the field of textile research, human odor research and the sciences related to activated carbon. These experts represent some of the most qualified and respected universities and research facilities in the world.

We asked these experts to evaluate our test methods, results, and to answer the challenges to our product claims based on scientific facts and principles. We captured the results and testimony of our independent research team and have prepared a video program, “Inside: The Facts Behind Scent-Lok Technology”, for review by interested customers and hunters.

In addition to the support of these experts, we continue to offer our Scent-Lok field effective guarantee. Our guarantee reinforces our commitment to our products and our customers. We warrant not only garment construction but also field results for a period of three years.

We invite you to watch our presentation at www.ScentLokScience.com. In addition you can receive a copy of “Inside: The Facts Behind Scent-Lok Technology.” To order your copy, contact Scent-Lok at 800-315-5799 or e-mail us at [email protected]"

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

:D

Man I have pile of work to do

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Make sure you have a good internet connection and the latest version of Flash installed on your computers berfore trying to watch this video. It's a big one. ;)

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Email sent....It's about time, because there's been a mounting aggression against it.....I used it for one season, and sold it. I simply didn't see any difference at all, and I followed the instructions to the LETTER....and I still hunted the wind....I'll be interested in reading that, I can't view the video......Have I mentioned how much I HATE dial up?? [:@][:@]

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

I will check it out............because I gave you my word a long time ago that I would.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Just on the surface I see nothing different here. Scent Lok "HIRED"... "HIRED"(you know they paid them) to come up with a video showing their stuff works. They haven't changed the product... just the PR team. LOL I got too much to do also.LOL[8D]

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Once you get past the "intro" part it gets into the Science and answering a lot of the questions that have been brought up on this very forum. IMO if you've questioned their products, had any doubts, or taken part in any of the umpteen million threads across any of the hunting boards on the subject, it's worth a watch.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

I just sent you an e-mail requesting a copy. Thanks in advance!

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

well...i know for a fact that all the "scent lok or blocker haters" will still say they "paid them" but there science looks very valid to me.....

my only question would be why EMA's? My understanding is that most human body odors are much larger molecules then the ones comeing from the methyl-ethyl-amines so that may cause there results to change some, but

there results and tests look very good and want to thank Scent Lok for putting this on the web for us hunters to view...

the first Phd (the older man- if forgot his name) is 100% in the fact that the interactions are vanderwals forces, or brownian movement type that holds it to the carbon---thus it can be broken (in the drier) easy....

just my opinion on this

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Thanks for everybody taking the time to watch the presentation. Atlasman...I did notice the van der Waal misspelling and we will get that fixed.

If there are questions and comments, feel free to let us know. [email protected] and our 800-315-5799 number will get the responses you may be looking for.

Again, thanks for challenging us to bring you the facts, and look to hear your comments.

~Nick

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Good Info! Thanks for posting the video.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

If it will make you feel any better. You can pay the labs to do the testing.

C'mon, who do you think is going to pay them ? they hired them. Or do you trust myth busters for your scientific information? I want to see their PhD's.

I don't see how anyone could ask for any more scientific proof.
And did you hear the second scientist say it does not take as high a temperature to remove ORGANIC (human) molecules as it does chemical molecules from carbon. Hence, the household dryer temps. being effective at removing trapped human scent.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

I don't know if you are trying to be funny but I can ASSURE you that ANYTIME a company (big or small) is paying the bills it is considered a SERIOUS bias against the results.

I am part of the peer review process for major journals including JAMA........and when I see someone dismiss this sort of thing as meaningless it makes it crystal clear that you know nothing about the scientific process...........so you probably shouldn't poke fun at others for something you have no knowledge of yourself and are just being a parrot for a company you sell product for.

Just wanted to point that out.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Atlas,
Point well taken.
But seriously, who else is going to pay to have the test done except the company that is being questioned?
I've heard it said that Scent-Lok should not commission the testing?
If not, then who?
By the way, I don't work for SL. I do sell the product, as well asmost otherarchery manufacturer's.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

What I know for sure is science can prove, or disprove pretty much anything it wants......I don't wish to get into a religious war, and won't, but take evolution/creation.......They can both "prove" their points....Shoot, time travel is possible, in theory.....So, I guess the REAL "proof" is if it works, honestly. Now, there's a problem w/ that as well, because if someone wants to believe something works, it WILL, and vice versa....

I bought a scentlok suit 2 seasons ago, and used it......I wanted nothing more than to believe that it works......I'm not going to say it doesn't do at least a little of what it is said to, because again, I can't prove or disprove it.....But what I know FOR SURE is that I didn't see any more or less deer that season than any other. Now, it stands to reason if it worked as advertised, I would have seen more, right? I mean, I hunt the wind, all that good stuff, but deer are deer and we can't always predict when and where they will come from. I had more deer down wind of me last season than I care to admit, and TO MY KNOWLEDGE I was never winded...That's not saying a deer out of sight didn't bust me w/out my knowing, but I had quite a few of them directly down wind and never alerted, not even a little bit....In fact, I shot 2 of them, one at a mere 12 yards, from the ground.....I was NOT wearing scent lok.....

I emailed asking for a copy, and I am going to view it earnestly, with an open mind.....But after last season, it's gonna be pretty darn difficult to convince me to spend that kind of money.......

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

That is besides the point..........I was simply trying to tell you that poking fun at someone else for not knowing science is inappropriate when you have no clue yourself. That's all I was saying.


Again you fail to comprehend the importance of independent testing. If you don't think that paying the bills can not influence the results then you are very mistaken................not saying that happened here, just that it must be considered.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Nick,

I watched your video and first of all I have to say that I was really disappointed in it's infomercial feeling and appearence. I understand that this is being used to sell product but I have to be honest when I tell you that cheesey video was a lot more Ron Popeil then it was science......but like I said Ron sells a lot of goods and I realize that is what you want to do as well. I wouldn't have gone in that direction if I was trying to show a serious legit science presentation. Just an honest opinion.

Couple of questions

Were Anderson and Eichorn paid for their participation in your video?

Why does Anderson reference Brownian motion when it does not apply?

Was the lab hood a horizontal or vertical flow model?

Why was the fact that one of your samples actually showed MORE adsorption after the dryer not addressed?

Why wasn't the amount of carbon in the suits addressed?

Was Intertek labs fined for falsifying results?

Why did you use EMA's?


I have only watched the infomercial..........I will check the documents tomorrow.

Thanks

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Atlas,
What I know about testing is not in question here. However, I feel you needt to know I majored in Mech. Engineering @ Gannon University. I spent countless hours in chem. & physics labs. But my background and knowledge of testing is not the question. Please, don't question my intelligence. Nuff said.

You have chossen not to believe what you watched. That's quite alright.
Manufacturer's know that they cannot convince everyone. I asked you a couple threads ago if you have ever tried SL. You have not.
Before you say that this product does not work I think you need to run your own field tests. You and I make assumptions ona product based on initial information.Our impressions are based on many factors. I've tried products that weren't worth a tinkers dam, but I made my own evaluation beforeIcondemmed it.
Make your own evaluation...try it out. If you still feel it doesn't work, send it back.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Nice site and Great Product, Scent-Lok G. Keep up the great work. I don't need some-one elses science or thoughts. I use your products and see them work first-hand. All the nay-sayers on the board or elsewhere will not convince me other-wise. My science happens in the field and your products have proved themselves time and time again!

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Myth Busters.....That right there may be an idea;)

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

You are the one who made fun of someone else for their ignorance of the subject and then clearly demonstrated similar ignorance yourself. That's all I was pointing out.


I never did.


Where did you get that from??.......as I have said nothing of the sort.



I never understood this logic..........especially because you never treat the opposite end of this equation with the same respect.........when someone does use it and says it did nothing you blame the hunter and never the product..........Not only that I'm a reasonably intelligent man myself and I don't need to try to jam a square peg into a round hole to know it doesn't fit.

Anyways...........we can discuss SL all day every day but we should probably leave this thread for SLG Designer out of respect for the effort to put this together and the willingness to bring it here.

Any issues with content should probably be addressed towards him or this thread will be in the toilet in no time.

Agreed?

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

"Making Friends on the Internet -101" ... the professor speaks!

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

How old are you 10??

This from a guy who wrote a book just to tell a one sided whiney story about a deer he killed illegally :eek:

Grow up.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

OK, I watched this whole thing. As someone said, science can inject a test to obtain desired results. Yes it may work "SOME" but in view of the fact these suits don't have a solid wall of carbon, they're mostly little dots between layers with open spaces between. My problem with their test, and they had to do it this way, is they used a very pure, very volitile substance to obtain their results. The things that were not involved that would be in day to day use that contaminate suits and make them loose their effectiveness. What are these things, NON-Volitile substances given off by the body. Fatty acids(the real stink in body odors)and body oils. They are not volitile enough to be purged from the carbon in any dryer. You'd have to almost catch the fabric on fire to purge fatty acids. They only used one substance and he himself said it's great for testing as it's a very volitile gas. That's why they can get such magical reactivation. Throw in other non-volitile substance, and oil base odor gases, come in contact with bacon cooking or something like that. You aren't going to purge these things with a dryer. They're non volitile, you can't get them out of the carbon, so with each used it would become less effective. Hunt on a couple hot summer or early fall days with high temps, it gets more.

So yes, we've known about carbon for decades. We use it in the drycleaning industry. Carbon holds a lot of junk. We try to purge the carbon in filters of drycleaning fluid to reduce hazardous waste. We'd strip them live steam forced through the filters from inside to out for hours. We would reduce the amount of drycleaning fluid about 50 percent by weight. Each filter contained POUNDS of carbon, not a few grams found in a scent lok type garment. There, I'm done, professor Davidmil is finished. Imonitored months of solvent recovery test from carbon filters at IFI(International Fabricare Institute) Thechemical company I worked for had an affliation with DARCO brand activated carbon.(the worlds best) Maybe if you put on a nice newsuit like these people in the opening video do every month or so you'd be alright. But for the general public, buying a $200 suit every year or so get's expensive. And another bone, scent lok in boots. Give me a break. That's blown the second time you wear them and sweat. I'm not putting a pair of $200 Danner boots in a dryer.

One other point......gases take the path of least resistance just like everything else including us. To assure the carbon works in filtration etc, it is forced through a sealed filter under pressure from the outside in. Much like your oil filter in yourcar works. First the filtered solvents are forced through a paper membrane to filter out solids, then through 2 inches of packed activated carbon. This is usually done with pumps running 20-40 pounds of pressure, not just air waving or the surface. You have an opening in the garment a lot of stink gets out just like it does between the dots of carbon. In drycleaning you also usually had a separate bank of all carbon filters that were packed from top to bottom with nothing but carbon. You needed that as a dye remover boost. And folks, these filters aren't small and depending on the solvent flow required you used any number of them. I've seen machines with 42 filters on them and each filter about the size of a mid size waste basket.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

i got a better site for everyone to look at, but i dont wanna start anything...lol

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Which one??...............PM me if you don't want to post it here.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Don't be afraid to share.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Nick,

I have started to look at a few of your documents and I have to tell you my immediate first impression of those.............I find it disturbing that you chose to list complete references with no guide or map for the "average" joe to go by.

I do this kind of thing day in and day out in my career so no problem.........but what percentage of average hunters do you suppose #1 will even take the time to read hundreds of pages of studies they have little or no idea what are saying?? Judging by the video it is clear that you are banking on guys just sitting through that (even that is a stretch due to it's length and level of interest).

This has always been a source of my distaste for this type of marketing............throwing a ton of data at people and banking on the fact that they are either not gonna understand it or simply not care enough to sift through it.

I am being as nice about this as I can but it really irritates me when I see a lack of knowledge targeted and exploited by anyone. I think you know as well as I and everyone else reading this that the average hunter is most likely gonna be in way over his head trying to analyze all that data properly and objectively.

The site is just not friendly to those without an elevated knowledge of science...........and it seems like you were shooting for the stereotypical Snickers commercial hunter to be overwhelmed and be left with no other option then to trust your word because they don't know what half the fancy words you threw at them even mean.

Again.........just a first impression. If you honestly believed that the average hunter would sit through that 1/2 hour video and then read hundreds of pages of documents some of which deal with upper level science and chemistry and be able to understand and follow right along then I take everything I said back.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Look at me, I lost 100 pounds on the Scentlok diet!;)

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

In your reference about human volatiles it states that......

"Body fluids, contain in addition to the volatiles of interest, a mixture of inorganic compounds, high boiling organic compounds, polysacharides, proteins, nucleic acids and so on. Although some investigators have successfully employed direct injection of body fluids for GC analysis it is advantageous to first remove the volatiles from the matrix in which they are found."


This goes back to my original question as to why only the volatile EMA's were used (I already know why ;)) instead of all the normal components of human sweat and odor??


The following is a excerpt from

Curran AM. Rabin SI. Prada PA. Furton KG. Comparison of the volatile organic compounds present in human odor using SPME-GC/MS.[see comment]. [Comparative Study. Journal Article] Journal of Chemical Ecology. 31(7):1607-19, 2005 Jul.

in which the authors examine the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present in human odor by using headspace solid phase microextraction gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for the extraction, separation, and analysis of the collected samples. Volatile organic compounds present in the headspace above axillary sweat samples collected from different individuals showed the presence of various types of compounds including organic fatty acids, ketones, aldehydes, esters, and alcohols.

Here is an example of what they found..............why are your tests done with substances that are not consistent with normal human excretions?


Aldehydes
2-Furancarboxaldehyde
(E)-2-Nonenala,b,c
Benzaldehydec,d,e,f
Decanalb,d,g,h,i
Hexanala,b,c,f,h,j,k
Heptanalb,c,d,e,f,j,k
Nonanalb,d,e,g,h,j
Octanala,b,d,g,h
Tetradecanal
Undecanalc,h

Carboxylic acids
Dodecanoic acidc,d,e,h,l
Tetradecanoic acidd,h,i

Ketones
6,10-Dimethyl-5,9-Undecadien-2-onec,d
6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-oneb,c,d,e,g

Alcohols
2-Furanmethanold
Benzyl Alcoholc,d,m
Phenolc,d,l,m

Aliphatic/aromatic
α-Pinenef
Dodecaneb,j
Heptadecanec,d
Hexadecaned,g
Naphthalenea
Nonanec,d,j
Nonane, 1-chloro-d,e
Tetradecaned,g
Toluenec,d,e,f
Tridecane
Undecaneb,j,k

Esters
7-Hexadecenoic acid–methyl esterm
Acetic acid-phenylmethyl ester
Cyclopentanetridecanoic acid–methyl ester
Decanoic acid–methyl ester
Dodecanoic acid, 10-methyl-, methyl ester
Dodecanoic acid–methyl ester
Furancarboxylic acid–methyl ester
Hexadecanoic acid–methyl esterd
Hexanedioic acid–dimethyl esterd
Hexanoic acid–methyl ester
Methyl 9-methyltetradecanoate
Nonanoic acid–methyl esterd
Octanoic acid–methyl ester
Pentadecanoic acid–methyl ester
Propanedioic acid–dimethyl ester
Tetradecanoic acid–methyl ester
Tridecanoic acid–methyl esterd
Undecanoic acid–methyl ester

Amines/amides
Pyridined,e

aComponent of residual armpit odor (Munk et al., 2000).
bComponent of human body odor (Haze et al., 2001).
cComponent of human odor (Curran et al., 2005).
dComponent in human skin emanation (Bernier et al., 2000).
eComponent of skin emanations (Bernier et al., 2002).
fVolatile component of blood (Deng et al., 2004).
gVolatile component of the skin (Ostrovskaya et al., 2002).
hComponent of skin emanations (Bernier et al., 1999).
iComponent of fingerprint residue (Asano et al., 2002).
jComponent of human breath (Philips, 1997).
kComponent of human breath (Philips et al., 1999).
lComponent of armpit odor (Zeng et al., 1991).
mComponent of armpit odor (Zeng et al., 1996).
nComponent of fingerprint residue (Ramotowski, 2001).

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Nick,

I would go and edit your physical vs. Chemical adsorption document because it has numerous spelling errors.

You are gonna take a pounding from some of your more vocal critics for elementary spelling errors presented in "high science" documents.


Just a heads up ;)

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Atlas:

I JUST read an article (yesterday) where your buddy Eberhart (sp?) recommends wearing the carbon/SL suits. He touts wearing them to check game cams and ANY time you're in a deer's haunts (which he ALSO recommends doing on a VERY limited basis).

Just thought you'd enjoy that tidbit.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

So GMMAT, what you're saying is another has been added to the "ProStaff". LOL And Atlas, you're just about as bad as the test you're finding fault with. You loose the masses in the overload of useless facts. LOL Put simply, non volitile does NOT vaporize under heat(ie fatty acids) and they stay behind in carbon. Contamination progressive deterioration(I made this one up) LOL

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

So??..........What does that have to do with the topic?

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

MY question was directed at the "masses"...........if it was I would never have worded it that way.

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

It would appear that way, David.

Like I've said in MANY posts, though....."I" trust a select few to help me better understand the things in hunting I don't know or understand (which is a VAST array of subject matter!). I guess I could dispel EVERYONE who doesn't fall into the way of thinking I've chosen.....but at some point....I 've learned I HAVE to trust SOMEBODY.I don't know everything.

Who's endorsement would it take to make some realize that it's "A" tool to be added to the arsenal? Eberhart (sp?)? Chuck Adams? Eichler? The "mythbusters" guys???....lol

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Hey, don't worry about spelling. Heck, I left out a key word in my post above..... NOT!! LOL

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Atlasman:

I just added what I did.....because I know you said you enjoyed the writings of this author. I only thought you'd like to know what HE thought of the subject matter.....which is why I wrote what I did in the next post (addressing David's thoughts).

RE: Scent-Lok Science Site
 

Fair enough............my SOMEBODY is science.


None of the above..........."endorsements" mean nothing to me.