A SYNERGISTIC PERFUMING COMPOSITION

Abstract

The present invention relates to the field of perfumery and more precisely it concerns a perfuming composition, and the consumer articles associated therewith, showing an improved impact of fragrance intensity and/or modulating fragrance character. The perfuming composition of matter comprises a -thio carbonyl profragrance derivative and specific perfuming terpenes derivatives.

Claims

1. A perfuming composition comprising: a) at least one -thio carbonyl profragrance derivative of formula
PSR wherein the wavy line indicates the location of the bond between said P and the sulfur atom; P represents a group of the formulae (P-1) to (P-9), in the form of any one of their isomers: ##STR00002## in which formulae the wavy lines have the meaning indicated above and the dotted lines represent a single or double bond, and R.sup.9 being a hydrogen atom or a methyl group; and R represents a linear or branched alkyl group having from 8 to 15 carbon atoms, optionally comprising a carboxylic functional group which is not directly linked to the sulphur atom; and b) at least one perfume ingredient selected among: acyclic mono-terpenes derivatives; and/or musk compounds; said components a) and b) being present in a w/w (weight to weight) ratio a)/b) comprised between 1/1 and 1/4500.

2. A perfuming composition according to claim 1, characterized in that said perfume ingredient b) is selected amongst acyclic mono-terpenes derivatives.

3. The perfuming composition according to claim 1, wherein said -thio carbonyl profragrance derivative of formula (I) is a derivative wherein P is a group of the formulae (P-1), (P-2), (P-5) or (P-6).

4. The perfuming composition according to claim 1, wherein said -thio carbonyl profragrance derivative of formula (I) is 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)butan-1-one or 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)butan-1-one or 4-(dodecylthio)-4-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)butan-2-one, or a mixture thereof.

5. The perfuming composition according to claim 1, wherein said acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivatives is: geraniol, nerol, citronellol, dihydrolinalool, linalool, ethyl linalool, myrcenol, dihidro myrcenol; citral, 3-Me-citral, citronellal, geranial, hydroxycitronellal; citronellyl acetate, linalyl acetate, geranyl acetate, linalyl propionate, neryl acetate, linalyl caproate, geranyl tiglate; linalyl methyl ether; citronellyl nitrile; a stereoisomer of any of the foregoing compounds; or a mixture of any of the foregoing compounds.

6. A perfuming composition according to claim 5, characterized in that said acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivatives is: citronellol, dihydrolinalool, linalool; 3-Me-citral, citronellal; citronellyl acetate, linalyl acetate; citronellyl nitrile; a stereoisomer of any of the foregoing compounds; or a mixture of any of the foregoing compounds.

7. The perfuming composition according to claim 1, wherein said musk compound is: (1S, 1R)-2-[1-(3,3-dimethyl-1-cyclohexyl)ethoxycarbonyl]methyl propanoate, (1S, 1R)-2-[1-(3,3-dimethyl-1-cyclohexyl)ethoxy]-2-methylpropyl propanoate, 2-[1-(3,3-dimethylcyclohexyl)ethoxy]-2-methylpropyl cyclopropanecarboxylate, 2-[(3,5-dimethyl-3-hexen-2-yl)oxy]-2-methylpropyl cyclopropanecarboxylate, 1-[(1R)-3,3-dimethylcyclohexyl]ethyl propanedioate; or 1-oxa-12-cyclohexadecen-2-one, oxacyclohexadecan-2-one, 1,4-dioxacycloheptadecane-5,17-dione, 3-methyl-(4/5)-cyclopentadecenone, muscone, (Z)-4-cyclopentadecen-1-one, 9-cycloheptadecen-1-one and/or 1,3,4,6,7,8-hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethyl-cyclopenta-[G]isochromene.

8. The perfuming composition according to claim 1, further comprising, one or more optional components of other perfuming ingredients of: methyl 2-(3-oxo-2-pentylcyclopentyl)acetate, (+)-methyl (1R)-cis-3-oxo-2-pentyl-1-cyclopentaneacetate, benzyl salicylate, tetrahydro-2-isobutyl-4-methyl-4(2H)-pyranol, 3-benzodioxole-5-propionaldehyde; coumarine, and/or 1-(octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetrame-2-naphthalenyl)-1-ethanone; a stereoisomer of any of the foregoing compounds; or a mixture of any of the foregoing compounds.

9. The perfuming composition according to claim 8, wherein said optional components can be present in a w/w ratio of (optional components)/b) comprised between 0 and 4.

10. A perfuming composition comprising: i) as perfuming ingredient, the perfuming composition of claim 1; ii) at least one ingredient selected from the group consisting of a perfumery carrier and a perfumery base; and iii) optionally at least one perfumery adjuvant.

11. A method to boost, enhance, modulate, improve or increase the odor properties of a perfuming composition or of a perfumed consumer product, which method comprises adding to said composition or consumer product an effective amount of the perfuming composition of claim 1.

12. A perfuming consumer product having a total amount of surfactant below 20% w/w, the percentage being relative to the weight of the perfuming consumer product formulation, comprising, as a perfuming ingredient, the perfuming composition of claim 1.

13. A perfuming consumer product according to claim 12, characterized in that the total amount of surfactant is below 6% w/w.

14. The perfuming consumer product according to claim 12, wherein said perfuming consumer product is a perfume, a deodorant or antiperspirant or a cosmetic composition.

15. A perfuming consumer product according to claim 14, characterized in that said perfuming consumer product is a fine perfume, eau de toilette, eau de perfume, cologne, body splash, after shave lotion or body spray, body mist.

Description

EXAMPLE 1

Preparation of a Perfuming Composition of Matter According to the Invention

[0064] 1) Binary Compositions [0065] Various perfuming composition were made by admixing various ingredients as per description herein below:

[0066] A) Formula without Component a) (Control): [0067] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0068] 19.420% Demineralized water [0069] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material [0070] wherein the perfumery raw material is each time an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative: Linalyl Acetate (A.1), Citral (A.2), Citronellol (A.3), Hydroxycitronellal (A.5), Geranyl Acetate (A.6), Linalol (A.8), Citronellyl Acetate (A.9), Citronellal (A.11), Citronellyl Nitrle (A.12), Methylcitral (A.13), Dihydrolinalol (A.14), or a musk: Romandolide (A.15), Helvetolide (A.16), Exaltolide (A.17), Astrotone (A.18), Habanolide (A.19).

[0071] B) Formula with Component a) (Haloscent D): ratio a)/b)=1/4.44 [0072] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0073] 18.970% Demineralized water [0074] 0.225% Component a) [0075] 0.225% Triethanol amine [0076] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material * [0077] wherein the perfumery raw material is each time either [0078] an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative: Linalyl Acetate (A.1.i), Citral (A.2.i), Citronellol (A.3.i), Hydroxycitronellal (A.5.i), Geranyl Acetate (A.6.i), Linalol (A.8.i), Citronellyl Acetate (A.9.i), Citronellal (A.11.i), Citronellyl Nitrle (A.12.i), Methylcitral (A.13.i), Dihydrolinalol (A.14.i) or [0079] a musk: Romandolide (A.15.i), Helvetolide (A.16.i), Exaltolide (A.17.i)

[0080] C) Formula with Delta Damascone: [0081] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0082] 18.970% Demineralized water [0083] 0.225% Delta Damascone [0084] 0.225% Triethanol amine [0085] 1,000% Perfumery Raw Material * [0086] wherein the perfumery raw material is each time an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative: Linalyl Acetate (A.1.c), Citral (A.2.c), Citronellol (A.3.c)

[0087] D) Formula with Component a) (Haloscent I): ratio a)/b)=1/4.44 [0088] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0089] 18.970% Demineralized water [0090] 0.225% Component a) [0091] 0.225% Triethanol amine [0092] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material * [0093] wherein the perfumery raw material is each time either: [0094] an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative: Citral (D.1.i), Citronellal (D.2.i), Citronellyl Nitrle (D.3.i), Methylcitral (D.4.i), Dihydrolinalol (D.5.i), or [0095] a musk: Romandolide (D.6.i), Helvetolide (D.7.i), Exaltolide (D.8.i), Astrotone (D.9.i), Habanolide (D.10.i)

[0096] 2) Ternary Compositions [0097] Various perfuming composition were made by admixing various ingredients as per description herein below:

[0098] E) Formula without Haloscent D or Haloscent (ControlBinary Combination) [0099] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0100] 18.420% Demineralized water [0101] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material * [0102] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material * [0103] wherein each time one perfumery raw material is an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative and the other perfumery raw material is either a musk, or another acyclic mono-terpene, or an optional ingredient: Romandolide+Citronellol (E.1), Romandolide+Linalyl Acetate (E.2), Paradisone+Linalyl acetate (E.3), Helvetolide+Linalyl Acetate (E.6), Helvetolide+Citronellol (E.7), Exaltolide+Linalyl Acetate (E.8), Geraniol+Linalyl Acetate (E.9), Hedione+Linalyl Acetate (E.10), Hedione+Citronellol (E.11), Salicylate de Benzyle+Linalyl Acetate (E.12)

[0104] F) Formula with Component a) (Haloscent D): [0105] Ratio a)/b)=1/4.44 [0106] Ratio b)/ratio optional components)=1/1 [0107] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0108] 17.970% Demineralized water [0109] 0.225% Component a) [0110] 0.225% Triethanol amine [0111] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material * [0112] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material * [0113] wherein each time one perfumery raw material is an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative and the other perfumery raw material is either a musk, or another acyclic mono-terpene, or an optional ingredient: Romandolide+Citronellol (E.1.i), Romandolide+Linalyl Acetate (E.2.i), Paradisone+Linalyl acetate (E.3.i), Helvetolide+Linalyl Acetate (E.6.i), Helvetolide+Citronellol (E.7.i), Exaltolide+Linalyl Acetate (E.8.i), Geraniol+Linalyl Acetate (E.9.i), Hedione+Linalyl Acetate (E.10.i), Hedione+Citronellol (E.11.i), Benzyl salicylate+Linalyl Acetate (E.12.i)

[0114] G) Formula without Component Haloscent I (Control) [0115] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0116] 19.320% Demineralized water [0117] 0.100% Perfumery Raw Material* [0118] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material* [0119] Wherein each time one perfumery raw material is respectively an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative (0.1%) and the other perfumery raw material is a musk (1%): Citronellol+Romandolide (G.1), Methylcitral+Helvetolide (G.2).

[0120] H) Formula with Component a) Haloscent I [0121] Ratio a)/b)=1/4.44 [0122] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0123] 18.970% Demineralized water [0124] 0.225% Haloscent I [0125] 0.225% TEA [0126] 0.100% Perfumery Raw Material* [0127] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material* [0128] Wherein each time one perfumery raw material is respectively an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative (0.1%) and the other perfumery raw material is a musk (1%): Citronellol+Romandolilde (G.1.i), Methylcitral+Helvetolide (G.2.i).

[0129] I) Formula without Components a) Haloscent D and Haloscent I (Control) [0130] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0131] 19.420% Demineralized water [0132] 1.000% Perfumery Raw Material * [0133] Wherein each time the perfumery raw material is either an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative, or a musk: Citral (I.1), Citronellol (I.2), Astrotone (I.3), Exaltolide (I.4), Romandolide (I.5), Helvetolide (I.6)

[0134] J) Formula with to Components a) Haloscent D and Haloscent I [0135] Ratio a)/b)=1/2.22 [0136] 79.580% Ethanol 96 [0137] 18.520% Demineralized water [0138] 0.225% Haloscent D [0139] 0.225% Haloscent I [0140] 0.450% TEA [0141] 1,000% Perfumery Raw Material * [0142] Wherein each time the perfumery raw material is either an acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative, or a musk: Citral (I.1.i), Citronellol (I.2.i), Astrotone (I.3.i), Exaltolide (I.4.i), Romandolide (I.5.i), Helvetolide (I.6.i)

[0143] Olfactive Evaluation of the Invention's Composition of Matter:

[0144] The tests were carried out using a standard protocol to obtain directional guidance on the strength of the odor. An aliquot (40 l) of composition was deposited on a glass surface at 32 C., and after different time intervals, according to the examples below, 8 to 10 panelists (trained to evaluate fragrance intensity) were asked to blindly evaluate fragrance intensity of the samples on a 7 point categorical scale (1=No odour to 7=Extremely strong odour).

[0145] The results then analyzed according to a balanced design (Latin square). The data of the 8 to 10 panelists are averaged and conclusions are drawn based on difference in scores by pairs of products and the level of agreement between the panelists.

[0146] There were three possible outputs:

[0147] 1No Difference between the two products: The difference in average scores between the two products was lower than 0.5 and/or the assessors were not in agreement in their evaluation;

[0148] 2Directional tendency for a difference between the two products: There was a difference in average scores between the two products of at least 0.5 and there was a good agreement between the assessors (i.e.: between 60 to 70% of panelists agreeing that one sample is more intense than another and no more than 15% of panelists saying the inverse)

[0149] 3Strong tendency for a difference between the two products: There was a difference in average scores between the two products of at least 0.5 and there was a strong agreement between the assessors (i.e.: 70% of panelists or more agreeing that one sample is more intense than another)

[0150] The following average odor intensities at different evaluation times are reported in the following Tables:

TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Linalyl Acetate vs (Linalyl Acetate + Haloscent D*) Evaluation point A.1 A.1.i Result 15 minutes 1.7 2.9 A.1 << A.1.i *= 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)butan-1-one; origin: Firmenich SA

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 (Linalyl Acetate) vs (Linalyl Acetate + Delta Damascone) Evaluation point (A.1) (A.1.c) Result 15 minutes 1.7 1.9 (A.1) = (A.1.c)

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 (Citral) vs (Citral + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.2 A.2.i Result 15 minutes 4.7 5.8 A.2 << A.2.i 30 minutes 3.6 3.9 A.2 = A.2.i

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 (Citronellol) vs (Citronellol + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.3 A.3.i Result 15 minutes 4.2 5.0 A.3 << A.3.i 30 minutes 4.4 5.0 A.3 < A.3.i 45 minutes 3.2 3.7 A.3 = A.3.i

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 (Hydroxycitronellal) vs (Hydroxycitronellal + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.5 A.5.i Result 15 minutes 3.1 3.8 A.5 = A.5.i 2 hours 1.5 2.2 A.5 << A.5.i 3 hours 2.1 1.9 A.5 = A.5.i

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 (Geranyl Acetate) vs (Geranyl Acetate + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.6 A.6.i Result 15 minutes 4.3 4.3 A.6 = A.6.i 2 hours 3.2 3.3 A.6 = A.6.i 3 hours 1.9 2.7 A.6 << A.6.i

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 (Linalol) vs (Linalol + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.8 A.8.i Result 15 minutes 3.0 4.4 A.8 << A.8.i

TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 (Citronellyl Nitrile) vs. (Citronellyl Nitrile + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.9 A.9.i Result 15 minutes 4.6 4.4 A.9 = A.9.i 2 hours 1.5 2.7 A.9 << 9.i 3 hours 1.5 2.7 A.9 << A.9.i

TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 (Citronellal) vs (Citronellal + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.11 A.11.i Result 15 minutes 3.3 4.8 A.11 << A.11.i 2 hours 1.9 2.1 A.11 = A.11.i 3 hours 2.0 2.1 A.11 = A.11.i

TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 (Citronellyl Nitrile) vs (Citronellyl Nitrile + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.12 A.12.i Result 15 minutes 2.6 2.8 A.12 = A.12.i 2 hours 2.4 3.0 A.12 << A.12.i 3 hours 2.1 2.3 A.12 = A.12.i

TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 (Methylcitral) vs (Methylcitral + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.13 A.13.i Result 15 minutes 2.3 3.3 A.13 << A.13.i 2 hours 2.2 2.6 A.13 = A.13.i 3 hours 1.0 1.7 A.13 = A.13.i

TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 (Dihydrolinalol) vs (Dihydrolinalol + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.14 A.14.1 Result 15 minutes 2.7 3.5 A.14 < A.14.1

TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 (Romandolide) vs (Romandolide + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.15 A.15.i Result 15 minutes 2.5 2.9 A.15 = A.15.i 2 hours 2.7 3.8 A.15 << A.15.i 3 hours 2.4 3.8 A.15 << A.15.i

TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 (Helvetolide) vs (Helvetolide + Haloscent D) Evaluation point A.16 A.16.i Result 15 minutes 3.4 4.0 A.16 << A.16.i 2 hours 2.3 2.7 A.16 = A.16.i 3 hours 2.2 3.2 A.16 << A.16.i

TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 (Exaltolide) vs (Exaltolide + Haloscent D Evaluation point A.17 A.17.i Result 15 minutes 3.0 4.1 A.17 << A.17.i 2 hours 2.5 3.4 A.17 << A.17.i 3 hours 2.0 2.9 A.17 << A.17.i

TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 16 (Citral) vs (Citral + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.2 D.1.i Result 15 minutes 3.7 4.5 A.2 << D.1.i 2 hours 2.1 3.4 A.2 << D.1.i 3 hours 1.8 2.9 A.2 << D.1.i

TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 17 (Citronellal) vs. (Citronellal + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.11 D.2.i Result 15 minutes 3.3 4.2 A.11 << D.2.i 2 hours 2.6 3.1 A.11 = D.2.i 3 hours 1.8 2.1 A.11 = D.2.i

TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 18 (Citronellyl Nitrle) vs. (Citronellyl Nitrle + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.12 D.3.i Result 15 minutes 3.2 3.4 A.12 = D.3.i 2 hours 1.9 3.8 A.12 << D.3.i 3 hours 1.3 2.4 A.12 << D.3.i

TABLE-US-00019 TABLE 19 (Methylcitral) vs (Methylcitral + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.13 D.4.i Result 15 minutes 2.3 3.3 A.13 << D.4.i 2 hours 2.2 2.6 A.13 = D.4.i 3 hours 1.0 1.7 A.13 = D.4.i

TABLE-US-00020 TABLE 20 (Dihydrolinalol) vs (Dihydrolinalol + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.14 D.5.i Result 15 minutes 2.4 4.3 A.14 << D.5.i 2 hours 1.7 1.7 A.14 = D.5.i 3 hours 1.6 2.1 A.14 < D.5.i

TABLE-US-00021 TABLE 21 (Romandolide) vs (Romandolide + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.15 D.6.i Result 15 minutes 3.1 4.5 A.15 << D.6.i 2 hours 3.4 4.6 A.15 << D.6.i 3 hours 3.0 4.7 A.15 << D.6.i

TABLE-US-00022 TABLE 22 (Helvetolide) vs. (Helvetolide + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.16 D.7.i Result 15 minutes 3.9 3.9 A.16 = D.7.i 2 hours 2.6 3.9 A.16 << D.7.i 3 hours 3.2 3.9 A.16 < D.7.i

TABLE-US-00023 TABLE 23 (Exaltolide) vs Exaltolide + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.17 D.8.i Result 15 minutes 3.4 4.3 A.17 << D.8.i 2 hours 3.4 4.5 A.17 << D.8.i 3 hours 2.7 3.9 A.17 << D.8.i

TABLE-US-00024 TABLE 24 (Astrotone) vs (Astrotone + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.18 D.9.i Result 15 minutes 2.7 4.1 A.18 << D.9.i 2 hours 2.6 3.8 A.18 << D.9.i 3 hours 3.0 4.0 A.18 << D.9.i

TABLE-US-00025 TABLE 25 (Habanolide) vs (Habanolide + Haloscent I) Evaluation point A.19 D.10.i Result 15 minutes 3.4 4.5 A.19 << D.10.i 2 hours 3.8 3.5 A.19 = D.10.i 3 hours 3.2 4.0 A.19 << D.10.i

TABLE-US-00026 TABLE 26 (Romandolide + Citronelol) vs (Romandolide + Citronelol + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.1 E.1.i Result 15 minutes 5.5 5.5 E.1 = E.1.i 2 hours 2.3 3.3 E.1 << E.1.i 3 hours 1.6 2.4 E.1 << E.1.i

TABLE-US-00027 TABLE 27 (Romandolide + linalyl acetate) vs (Romandolide + Linalyl Acetate + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.2 E.2.i Result 15 minutes 3.1 3.9 E.2 = E.2.i 45 minutes 1.9 3.1 E.2 << E.2.i 2 hours 2.1 2.4 E.2 = E.2.i 3 hours 2.1 2.7 E.2 = E.2.i

TABLE-US-00028 TABLE 28 (Paradisone + Linalyl Acetate) vs (Paradisone + Linalyl Acetate + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.3 E.3.i Result 15 minutes 4.3 3.8 E.3 = E.3.i 2 hours 2.5 3.1 E.3 = E.3.i 3 hours 2.6 3.4 E.3 << E.3.i

TABLE-US-00029 TABLE 29 (Helvetolide.sup.1) + Linalyl Acetate) vs (Helvetolide + Linalyl Acetate + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.6 E.6.i Result 15 minutes 3.3 4.5 E.6 << E.6.i 45 minutes 2.8 3.5 E.6 << E.6.i 2 hours 1.8 2.7 E.6 << E.6.i 3 hours 2.7 3.0 E.6 = E.6.i

TABLE-US-00030 TABLE 30 (Helvetolide + Citronellol) vs (Helvetolide + Citronellol + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.7 E.7.i Result 15 minutes 5.3 5.2 E.7 = E.7.i 45 minutes 2.3 4.3 E.7 << E.7.i 2 hours 2.2 3.3 E.7 << E.7.i 3 hours 1.4 1.8 E.7 = E.7.i

TABLE-US-00031 TABLE 31 (Exaltolide.sup.2) + Linalyl Acetate) vs (Exaltolide + Linalyl Acetate + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.8 E.8.i Result 15 minutes 4.0 4.4 E.8 = E.8.i 45 minutes 2.2 2.9 E.8 << E.8.i 2 hours 2.6 3.2 E.8 << E.8.i 3 hours 2.1 3.1 E.8 << E.8.i 1) pentadecanolide; origin: Firmenich SA

TABLE-US-00032 TABLE 32 (Geraniol + Linalyl Acetate) vs (Geranionl + Linalyl Acetate + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.9 E.9.i Result 15 minutes 4.4 4.5 E.9 = E.9.i 2 hours 2.9 4.3 E.9 << E9.i 3 hours 2.6 3.6 E.9 << E.9.i

TABLE-US-00033 TABLE 33 (Hedione.sup.1) + Linalyl Acetate) vs (Hedione + Linalyl Acetate + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.10 E.10.i Result 15 minutes 3.3 4.4 E.10 << E.10.i 30 minutes 3.4 4.2 E.10 << E.10.i 45 minutes 2.0 3.2 E.10 << E.10.i .sup.1see Example 2

TABLE-US-00034 TABLE 34 (Hedione + Citronellol) vs E = (Hedione + Citronellol + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.11 E.11.i Result 15 minutes 5.4 5.5 E.11 = E.11.i 45 minutes 3.3 2.8 E.11 > E.11.i 2 hours 2.2 2.9 E.11 < E.11.i 3 hours 2.2 3.2 E.11 << E.11.i

TABLE-US-00035 TABLE 35 (Salicylate de Benzyle + Linalyl Acetate) vs (Benzyl salicylate + Linalyl Acetate + Haloscent D) Evaluation point E.12 E.12.i Result 15 minutes 4.2 3.6 E.12 = E.12.i 2 hours 2.6 2.3 E.12 = E.12.i 3 hours 2.6 3.2 E.12 << E.12.i

TABLE-US-00036 TABLE 36 (Citronellol + Romandolilde) vs (Citronellol + Romandolilde + Haloscent I) Evaluation point G.1. G.1.i Result 15 minutes 5.0 4.7 G.1 = G.1.i 2 hours 3.5 4.1 G.1 = G.1.i 3 hours 2.9 3.6 G.1 << G.1.i

TABLE-US-00037 TABLE 37 (Methylcitral + Helvetolide) vs Methylcitral + Helvetolide + Haloscent I) Evaluation point G.2 G.2.i Result 15 minutes 5.0 5.3 G.2 = G.2.i 2 hours 4.2 4.3 G.2 = G.2.i 3 hours 2.7 3.9 G.2 << G.2.i

TABLE-US-00038 TABLE 38 (Citral) vs (Citral + Haloscent D + Haloscent I) Evaluation point I.1 I.1.i Result 15 minutes 3.7 4.3 I.1 << I.1.i 2 hours 2.7 3.4 I.1 << I.1.i 3 hours 1.7 2.5 I.1 << I.1.i

TABLE-US-00039 TABLE 39 (Citronellol) vs (Citronellol + Haloscent D + Haloscent I) Evaluation point I.2 I.2.i Result 15 minutes 4.5 5.2 I.2 << I.2.i 2 hours 3.1 4.0 I.2 << I.2.i 3 hours 2.5 4.0 I.2 << I.2.i

TABLE-US-00040 TABLE 40 (Astrotone) vs (Astrotone + Haloscent D + Haloscent I) Evaluation point I.3 I.3.i Result 15 minutes 3.5 4.7 I.3 << I.3.i 2 hours 3.0 4.3 I.3 << I.3.i 3 hours 2.8 3.7 I.3 << I.3.i

TABLE-US-00041 TABLE 41 (Exaltolide) vs (Exaltolide + Haloscent D + Haloscent I) Evaluation point I.4 I.4.i Result 15 minutes 3.1 4.1 I.4 << I.4.i 2 hours 2.8 4.2 I.4 << I.4.i 3 hours 2.5 3.6 I.4 << I.4.i

TABLE-US-00042 TABLE 42 (Romandolide ) vs (Romandolide + Haloscent D + Haloscent I) Evaluation point I.5 I.5.i Result 15 minutes 3.2 4.5 I.5 << I.5.i 2 hours 3.2 4.5 I.5 << I.5.i 3 hours 2.2 3.4 I.5 << I.5.i

TABLE-US-00043 TABLE 43 (Helvetolide) vs Helvetolide + Haloscent D + Haloscent I) Evaluation point I.6 I.6.i Result 15 minutes 3.1 4.3 I.6 << I.6.i 2 hours 3.4 4.1 I.6 << I.6.i 3 hours 2.8 3.8 I.6 << I.6.i

TABLE-US-00044 TABLE 44 (Hedione) vs (Hedione + Haloscent D + Haloscent I) Evaluation point I.7 I.7.i Result 15 minutes 2.3 3.6 I.7 << I.7.i 2 hours 2.3 4.0 I.7 << I.7.i 3 hours 1.8 3.0 I.7 << I.7.i

TABLE-US-00045 TABLE 45 (tetrahydro-2-isobutyl-4-methyl-4(2H)-pyranol) vs (tetrahydro-2-isobutyl-4-methyl-4(2H)-pyranol + Haloscent D + Haloscent I) Evaluation point I.9 I.9.i Result 15 minutes 2.9 3.9 I.9 << I.9.i 2 hours 2.6 2.6 I.9 = I.9.i 3 hours 2.7 2.0 I.9 = I.9.i

[0151] It can be seen that each time the invention's composition of matter perform better that the single acyclic perfuming mono-terpenes derivative with either a musk, or another acyclilc perfuming mono-terpenes derivatives or an optional ingredient. When instead of the component a) is used a similar compound (i.e. the corresponding perfumery raw material) the effect is not observed anymore.

EXAMPLE 2

Preparation of Perfuming Composition According to the Invention

[0152] a) A compounded perfume A.1) for preparing an eau de toilette was prepared by admixing the following ingredients:

TABLE-US-00046 Ingredient % w/w Linalyl acetate 20.83 Bergamot oil.sup.1) 8.33 Lemon oil.sup.2) 4.17 Corolle.sup.3) 3.33 Dipropyleneglycol 29.67 1% BHT.sup.4) 1.00 Hedione.sup.5) 20.83 Lavender oil.sup.6) 4.34 Crystal Moss 0.42 Muscenone.sup.7) Delta 0.75 Muscenone.sup.7) Dextro 0.08 Patchouli oil 1.67 Romandolide.sup.8) 4.17 Clary sauge oil.sup.9) 0.42 100.00 .sup.1)Contains 62 w/w % of compounds b) .sup.2)Contains 6.6 w/w % of compounds b) .sup.3)Compounded perfumery bases, contains 60 w/w % of compounds b); origin: Firmenich .sup.4)2,6-di-tert-butyl-4methylphenol 1% in Dipropyleneglycol .sup.5)Methyl dihydrojasmonate; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.6)Contains 66 w/w % of compounds b) .sup.7)3-Methyl-5-cyclopentadecen-1-one; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.8)(1S,1'R)-[1-(3,3-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexyl)ethoxycarbonyl]methyl propanoate; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.9)Contains 3.4 w/w % of compounds b)

[0153] A second compounded perfume A.2) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 2.25% of DIPG line with 2.25% of 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)butan-1-one.

[0154] Said perfume A.2) was thus characterized by an a)/b) ratio of 1/16 and an optional component)/b) ratio of 1/1.7.

[0155] Each of said A.1), A.2), was then diluted (eau de cologne) at 10% w/w into a mixture ethanol/water (79.6% w/w Ethanol and 10.42% w/w Demineralized water), to provide respectively the eau de cologne A.c.1) and A.c.2). 20 l of said eau de cologne were then assessed according to the same panel protocol as described in Examples 1, and the results are reported in the following table.

TABLE-US-00047 TABLE 1 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application: Evaluation point A.c.1) A.c.2) Result 15 minutes 4.6 5.3 A.c.1) < A.c.2) 2 hours 3.5 3.8 A.c.1) = A.c.2) 3 hours 2.4 3.0 A.c.1) << A.c.2) 5 hours 3.2 3.2 A.c.1) = A.c.2)

[0156] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a significant improvement at least between 15 min to 3 hours from application.

[0157] The same Eau de toilette samples of Eau Frache A.1) and A.2) were assessed through a Quantitative Descriptive Analysis methodology (QDA). QDA is used to describe and quantify fragrance characteristics and provides a descriptive evaluation using a consensual vocabulary and a linear line scale. 8 to 12 Panelists are screened and trained for complex sensory tasks. This methodology is based on iterative process to generate language terms, where attributes are derived entirely from the panelists. Attributes are then defined, and reference materials are utilized in the evaluations. Three complete replications per panelist per sample are done. QDA utilizes a 10 cm semi-structured line intensity scale which is converted to numerical values from 0-10.

TABLE-US-00048 TABLE 1a QDA odor intensity of each attribute after a given time from application: Descriptive 2 h 4 h 6 h attributes A.1) A.2) A.1) A.2) A.1) A.2) Bergamot 3.60 2.90 2.70 3.70 3.10 3.40 Lemon 2.00 0.90 0.80 2.10 1.40 2.20 Lychee 2.40 2.30 1.80 2.60 2.30 2.60 Peony 2.80 1.60 1.40 2.50 2.40 2.80

[0158] There is a significative difference when the delta in means of scores is 0.8. Lemon note is perceived significantly more intense with Haloscent D after 2 hours evaporation. In the mid times (4 h), citrucy notes (Lemon & Bergamot), fruity notes (Lychee) and floral notes (Peony) were also more intense in Eau Frache with Haloscent D compared to Eau Frache without Haloscent D. [0159] b) A compounded perfume B.1) for preparing an eau de toilette was prepared by admixing the following ingredients:

TABLE-US-00049 Ingredient % w/w Linalyl Acetate 19.23 Aldehyde C11 Lenique 0.38 Bergamot oil.sup.1) 3.85 Corolle.sup.2) 7.69 Dipropyleneglycol 18.23 1% BHT.sup.3) 1.00 Gardenia oil 0.38 Habanolide.sup.4) 3.85 Hedione.sup.5) 30.00 Hedione.sup.6) HC 3.85 Iso E.sup.7) Super 3.77 Jasmin oil 1.92 Muscenone.sup.8) Delta 0.38 Muscenone.sup.8) Dextro 0.08 Neroli oil.sup.9) 1.54 Rose oil 3.85 100.00 .sup.1)Contains 62 w/w % of compounds b) .sup.2)Compounded perfumery bases, contains 60 w/w % of compounds b); origin: Firmenich .sup.3)2,6-di-tert-butyl-4methylphenol 1% in Dipropyleneglycol .sup.4)pentadecenolide; origin:: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.5)Methyl dihydrojasmonate; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.6)Methyl dihydrojasmonate high cis; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.7)1-(octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphtalenyl)-1-ethanone; origin: International Flavors & Fragrances, USA .sup.8)3-Methyl-5-cyclopentadecen-1-one; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.9)Contains 40 w/w % of compounds b)

[0160] A second compounded perfume B.2) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 2.25% of DIPG line with 2.25% of 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)butan-1-one.

[0161] Said perfume B.2) was thus characterized by an a)/b) ratio of 1/13.8 and an optional component)/b) ratio of 1.2/1.

[0162] A third compounded perfume B.3) was obtained by admixing the same ingredients but replacing 0.225% of DIPG line with 0.225% of 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)butan-1-one.

[0163] A fourth compounded perfume B.4) was obtained by admixing the same ingredients but replacing 0.225% of DIPG line with 0.225% of 4-(dodecylthio)-4-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)butan-2-one (Haloscent I)

[0164] Each of said B.1), B.2), B.3), B.4) was then diluted (eau de cologne) at 10% w/w into a mixture ethanol/water (79.6% w/w Ethanol and 10.42% w/w Demineralized water), to provide respectively the eau de cologne B.c.1), B.c.2), B.c.3) and B.c.4). 20 l of said eau de cologne were then assessed according to the same panel protocol as described in Examples 1, and the results are reported in the following tables:

TABLE-US-00050 TABLE 2 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application: Evaluation point B.c.1) B.c.2) Result 15 minutes 5.1 4.8 B.c.1) = B.c.2) 2 hours 3.2 3.7 B.c.1) = B.c.2) 3 hours 3.1 3.7 B.c.1) < B.c.2) 5 hours 2.6 3.5 B.c.1) << B.c.2)

[0165] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a significant improvement at least between 3 to 5 hours from application.

TABLE-US-00051 TABLE 3 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application: Evaluation point B.c.1) B.c.3) Result 15 minutes 5.1 4.9 B.c.1) = B.c.3) 2 hours 4.1 4.1 B.c.1) = B.c.3) 4 hours 3.0 3.2 B.c.1) = B.c.3) 8 hours 2.6 3.2 B.c.1) < B.c.3)

[0166] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a directional improvement from 4 to 8 hours from application.

TABLE-US-00052 TABLE 4 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application Evaluation point B.c.1) B.c.4) Result 15 minutes 5.0 5.2 B.c.1) = B.c.4) 2 hours 3.7 4.1 B.c.1) = B.c.4) 4 hours 3.4 4.3 B.c.1) << B.c.4) 8 hours 2.9 3.9 B.c.1) << B.c.4) [0167] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a significant improvement between 4 to 8 hours from application [0168] c) A compounded perfume C.1) for preparing an eau de toilette was prepared by admixing the following ingredients:

TABLE-US-00053 Ingredient % w/w Linalyl Acetate 25.00 Bergamot oil.sup.1) 10.00 Lemon oil.sup.2) 5.00 Corolle.sup.3) 4.00 Dipropyleneglycol 24.00 1% BHT.sup.4) 1.00 Hedione.sup.5) 25.00 Muscenone.sup.6)Delta 0.90 Muscenone.sup.6) Dextro 0.10 Romandolide.sup.7) 5.00 100.00 .sup.1)Contains 62 w/w % of compounds b) .sup.2)Contains 6.6 w/w % of compounds b) .sup.3)Compounded perfumery bases, contains 60 w/w % of compounds b); origin: Firmenich .sup.4)2,6-di-tert-butyl-4methylphenol 1% in Dipropyleneglycol .sup.5)Methyl dihydrojasmonate; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.6)3-Methyl-5-cyclopentadecen-1-one; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.7)(1S,1R)-[1-(3,3-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexyl)ethoxycarbonyl]methyl propanoate; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland

[0169] A second compounded perfume C.2) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 2.25% of DIPG line with 2.25% of 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)butan-1-one.

[0170] Said perfume C.2) was thus characterized by an a)/b) ratio of 1/17.7 and an optional component)/b) ratio of 1/1.6.

[0171] A third compounded perfume C.3) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 0.83% of DIPG line with 0.83% of delta damascone.

[0172] A fourth compounded perfume C.4) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 2.25% of DIPG line with 2.25% of 4-(dodecylthio)-4-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)butan-2-one (Haloscent I)

[0173] Each of said C.1), C.2), C.3), C.4) was then diluted (eau de cologne) at 10% w/w into a mixture ethanol/water (79.6% w/w Ethanol and 10.42% w/w Demineralized water), to provide respectively the eau de cologne C.c.1), C.c.2) C.c.3) and C.c.4). 20 l of said eau de cologne were the assessed according to the same panel protocol as described in Examples 1, and the results are reported in the following table.

TABLE-US-00054 TABLE 5 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application: Evaluation point C.c.1) C.c.2) C.c.3) Result 15 minutes 5.1 5.3 4.9 C.c.1) = C.c.3) = C.c.2) 2 hours 2.6 3.4 2.9 C.c.1) = C.c.3) << C.c.2) 4 hours 2.5 3.0 2.5 C.c.1) = C.c.3) << C.c.2) 8 hours 2.3 3.2 1.8 C.c.1) = C.c.3) << C.c.2)

[0174] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a significant improvement at least between 2 to 8 hours from application. When instead of the component a) is used a similar compound (i.e. the corresponding perfumery raw material) the effect is not observed anymore.

TABLE-US-00055 TABLE 6 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application: Evaluation point C.c.1) C.c.4) Result 15 minutes 4.3 4.4 C.c.1) = C.c.4) 2 hours 2.7 3.7 C.c.1 << C.c.4) 4 hours 3.1 3.5 C.c.1) = C.c.4)

[0175] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a significant improvement at least at 2 hours from application.

[0176] The same Eau de toilette samples of BQ Cologne C.1) and C.2) were assessed through a Quantitative Descriptive Analysis methodology (QDA) as described in example a) above.

TABLE-US-00056 TABLE 5a odor intensity of each attribute after a given time from application: Descriptive 15 min 2 h 4 h 8 h attributes C.1) C.2) C.1) C.2) C.1) C.2) C.1) C.2) citrus 3.6 3.4 2.3 3.1 2.4 2.8 1.7 2.0 woody 2.4 2.9 2.4 3.2 2.5 2.8 1.9 3.0 musk 3.1 3.7 2.6 2.9 3.1 3.3 2.3 3.2

[0177] After 15 mins from application, C.2 in the Eau de toilette had a directional improvement on intensity over C.1 on the musk attribute. After 2 hours, C.2 showed a significant improvement over C.1 on the intensity of the citrus attribute. After 8 hours, C.2 showed a significant improvement over C.1 on both the woody and musk attributes.

[0178] It is evident from above that the addition of Haloscent D to the control not only impacts a significant improvement in overall intensity of the mixture but that it is capable of modulating top (citrus) and bottom notes (woody, musk) of the fragrance. [0179] d) A compounded perfume D.1) for preparing an eau de toilette was prepared by admixing the following ingredients:

TABLE-US-00057 Ingredient % w/w Benzyle Acetate 0.32 Linalyl Acetate 21.56 Aldehyde C 10 0.11 Aldehyde C 8 0.11 Levo Carvone 0.11 Citral 3.23 Lemon Oil.sup.1) 25.00 Citronellol 0.11 Dipropyleneglycol 0.90 Pear Oil 0.54 1% BHT.sup.2) 1.00 Galbanolene 0.11 Iso E.sup.3) Super 5.39 Lavander Oil.sup.4) 0.65 Limonene.sup.5) 21.35 Linalol 7.76 Methyle Methylanthranilate 0.32 Petitgrain 4.31 Romandolide.sup.6) 5.39 3-methyl-5-(2,2,3-trimethyl-3- 1.62 cyclopenten-1-yl)-2-pentanol Tarragol 0.11 100.00 .sup.1)Contains 6.6 w/w % of compounds b) .sup.2)2,6-di-tert-butyl-4methylphenol 1% in Dipropyleneglycol .sup.3)1-(octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphtalenyl)-1-ethanone; origin: International Flavors & Fragrances, USA .sup.4)Contains 66 w/w % of compounds b) .sup.5)Contains 0.30 w/w % of compounds b) .sup.6)(1S,1R)-[1-(3,3-Dimethyl-1-cyclohexyl)ethoxycarbonyl]methyl propanoate; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland

[0180] A second compounded perfume D.2) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 2.25% of DIPG line with 2.25% of 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)butan-1-one.

[0181] Said perfume D.2) was thus characterized by an a)/b) ratio of 1/18 and an optional component)/b) ratio of 1/7.5.

[0182] A third compounded perfume D.3) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 0.83% of DIPG line with 0.83% of delta damascone.

[0183] A fourth compounded perfume D.4) was obtained by admixing the same ingredients but replacing 2.25% of DIPG with 2.25% of delta damascone.

[0184] Each of said D.1), D.2), D.3), D.4) was then diluted (eau de cologne) at 10% w/w into a mixture ethanol/water (79.6% w/w Ethanol and 10.42% w/w Demineralized water), to provide respectively the eau de cologne D.d.1), D.d.2), D.d.3) and D.d.4.). 20 l of said eau de cologne were then assessed according to the same panel protocol as described in Examples 1, and the results are reported in the following table.

TABLE-US-00058 TABLE 7 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application: Evaluation point D.d.1) D.d.2) D.d.3) D.d.4) Result 15 minutes 4.1 4.6 4.0 4.1 D.d.1) = D.d.3) = D.d.4) << D.d.2) 1 hour 3.4 3.8 3.3 3.3 D.d.1) = D.d.3) = D.d.4) << D.d.2) 4 hours 1.5 1.9 1.5 0.9 D.d.1) = D.d.3) = D.d.4) < D.d.2)

[0185] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a significant improvement at least between 0 to 4 hours from application. When instead of the component a) is used a similar compound (i.e. the corresponding perfumery raw material) the effect is not observed anymore. [0186] e) A compounded perfume E.1) for preparing an eau de toilette was prepared by admixing the following ingredients:

TABLE-US-00059 Ingredient % w/w Rose oil 2.94 Orchid oil 4.71 Gardenia oil 0.29 Chantilly.sup.4) 4.11 Corolle.sup.3) 5.88 Linalyl Acetate 17.65 Aldehyde C11 0.003 Bergamot oil 2.94 Maltol 0.03 DIPG 16.06 BHT 0.07 Habanolide 2.94 Iso E.sup.2) Super 8.77 Jasmin oil 1.47 Muscenone Delta 0.29 Muscenone Dextro 0.059 Hedione 23.53 Neroli oil 0.012 Patchouli oil 0.59 Clearwood.sup.1) 0.59 Benzyl Salicylate 5.88 Vainilline 1.77 100 .sup.1)Terpenic fraction of Patchouli oil; origin: Firmenich SA, Geneva, Switzerland .sup.2)1-(octahydro-2,3,8,8-tetramethyl-2-naphtalenyl)-1-ethanone; origin: International Flavors & Fragrances, USA .sup.3)Compounded perfumery bases, contains 60 w/w % of compounds b); origin: Firmenich .sup.4)Compounded perfumery bases; origin: Firmenich

[0187] A second compounded perfume E.2) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 2.25% of DIPG line with 2.25% of 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)butan-1-one. ratio a/b=1/11.7; ratio optional/b=1.45/1.

[0188] A third compounded perfume E.3) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 2.25% of DIPG line with 2.25% of 4-(dodecylthio)-4-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)butan-2-one (Haloscent I). ratio a/b=1/11.7; ratio optional/b=1.45/1.

[0189] A fourth compounded perfume E.4) was obtained by admixing the same ingredient but replacing 4.50% of DIPG line with 2.25% of 3-(dodecylthio)-1-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-3-en-1-yl)butan-1-one and 2.25% of 4-(dodecylthio)-4-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-2-en-1-yl)butan-2-one (Haloscent I).

[0190] Each of said E.1), E.2), E.3), E.4) was then diluted (eau de cologne) at 10% w/w into a mixture ethanol/water (79.6% w/w Ethanol and 10.42% w/w Demineralized water), to provide respectively the eau de cologne E.e.1), E.e.2), E.e.3) and E.e.4.). 20 l of said eau de cologne were then assessed according to the same panel protocol as described in Examples 1, and the results are reported in the following tables:

TABLE-US-00060 TABLE 8 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application: Evaluation point E.e.1) E.e.2) Result 15 minutes 6.8 5.7 E.e.1) = E.e.2) 2 hours 4.8 5.1 E.e.1) = E.e.2) 4 hours 4.7 4.8 E.e.1) = E.e.2) 8 hours 3.4 4.2 E.e.1) << E.e.2)

[0191] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a significant improvement at least at 8 hours from application

TABLE-US-00061 TABLE 9 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application: Evaluation point E.e.1) E.e.3) Result 15 minutes 4.5 5.5 E.e.1) << E.e.3) 2 hours 4.0 4.9 E.e.1) << E.e.3) 4 hours 4.2 3.7 E.e.1) = E.e.3) 8 hours 4.0 3.7 E.e.1) = E.e.3)

[0192] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a significant improvement at least between 15 minutes and 2 hours from application.

TABLE-US-00062 TABLE 10 odor intensity of the composition after a given time from application Evaluation point E.e.1) E.e.4) Result 15 minutes 4.7 4.5 E.e.1) = E.e.4) 2 hours 4.1 4.8 E.e.1) = E.e.4) 4 hours 3.9 4.2 E.e.1) << E.e.4) 8 hours 3.5 4.0 E.e.1) = E.e.4)

[0193] As can be seen, the invention perfuming composition showed a significant improvement at least 4 hours from application.

[0194] The same Eau de toilette samples of E.1) and E.2) were assessed through a Quantitative Descriptive Analysis methodology (QDA) as described in example a) above.

TABLE-US-00063 TABLE 11 odor intensity of each attribute after a given time from application: Descriptive 15 min 2 h 4 h 8 h attributes E.1) E.2) E.1) E.2) E.1) E.2) E.1) E.2) Floral 5.0 5.3 3.4 4.4 4.2 4.1 3.0 3.6 Musk 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.5

[0195] After 2 hours, E.2 showed a significant improvement over E.1 on the intensity of the floral attribute. After 8 hours, E.2 showed a significant improvement over E.1 on the floral attribute, and a directional improvement on the intensity of the musk attribute. It is evident from above that the addition of Haloscent D to the control not only impacts a significant improvement in overall intensity of the mixture but that it is capable of lit modulating notes (floral, musk) of the fragrance.