ActivatedCarbonScienceOtherEmails

E-mails from Other Activated Carbon Experts & Hunters to T.R.

We tried to contact several of Scent Lok's "experts", which Scent Lok refused to supply me contact information for. Here is what occurred.

Dr. Eichorn: E-mail address no good.

Dr. Tonnelli: Refused to speak to us on the advice of his or Scent Lok's lawyers.

Dr. Thompson: No response.

I also contacted other sources about activated carbon.

Here is the response from the Mad Scientist web site on the internet;

Greetings! The question you submitted to MadSci Network on Fri Feb 16 10:32:30 2007 -- can powdered activated carbon, about 1/32 inch in size, be reacitvated, has been answered. We will include a copy of the answer below, or you may visit our site by going to: http://www.madsci.org/posts/1172240733.Eg.q.html

We thank you for your support. -John Link, MadSci Network Your question was answered by: Werner Sieber Research Scientist, Hi Mr. Michels, Question 1. Can powdered activated carbon, about 1/32 inch in size, be reacitvated.

As confirmed by the following link (http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Biotech- Environ/Adsorb/adsorb.htm)

Carbon can indeed be reactivated by "roasting", by which the authors obviously mean: heating in air. This burns off adsorbed volatile substances, but also part of the carbon. An alternative would be to heat the carbon at very low pressure ("vacuum"), or in flowing nitrogen, so that the impurities would be evaporated instead of burned. Question 2. Will powdered activated carbon adsorb all (as in every last bit) of human perspiration odor between a person's body and an activated carbon suit, so that the person cannot be detected by a deer? As to your second question, if taken literally, the answer is "No": Not all of the odor will be adsorbed. Adsorption is always an equilibrium process, so that a small part of your volatiles would remain in the air around the active carbon. Whether this small concentration is sufficient for a deer to pick up, depends on a lot of factors. Another limitation is the saturation of the adsorbent: the active surface only offers space to a limited amount of volatiles (a few weight percent based on the weight of the carbon). Once the pores are filled, the adsorption comes to an end. The capacity again depends on the type of volatiles: carbon is good for non-polar molecules. Many components of sweat (fatty acids, esters) are moderately polar. Tests would be necessary. Best regards Werner Sieber

MadSci Network http://www.madsci.org/ webadmin@madsci.org

Conclusion: Since the fatty acids and esters in human perspiration odor are polar, they are not easily adsorbed by activated carbon, and thus can be smelled by deer.

Here is the response from Dr. Mellor, of Purification Processes in England, which supplies activated carbon on fabrics.

Q. As an expert in activated carbon I would like to ask you if you have examined the minute amount of activated carbon in some of the suits worn by hunters?

Mellor response: In virtually all cases more is better - more activated carbon of the same physical form and activity on a material with the same physical parameter will adsorb more odours."

Q: If you have examined these suits, do you believe they can stop "all" human and other unnatural odors (to deer) from escaping the suits, or can some of the odors go through the parts of the material that are not covered by activated carbon, allowing deer or other animals to smell human or other odors?

Mellor Response: "If one is being strictly literal - then no filter can be 100% efficient - nothing is that good or efficient. ... carbon doesn't like amines or organic sulfur compounds or even water for that matter (all of which are in human perspiration odors, TR). If 'air' passes through a part of a garment with no carbon, then the odours carried by that 'air' will not be adsorbed - water running through a colander doesn't just avoid the holes just because some 'scientist' says it does ..."

Q: In your experience can powdered activated carbon, such as is used in may of these suits, be reactivated or de-adsorbed, or de-abosrbed, of "all" (every last bit) of the human perspiration odor in them at 150-180 degrees F., or will some of the odors remain?

Mellor response: Heating of carbon containing fabric in a domestic dryer will not remove all of the adsorbed components and never can. To stand a chance of removing an appreciable proportion of the odours adsorbed on a suit would require approaching the boiling point of the odour. For example; laboratory tests using a very low molecular weight (and therefore low boiling point) organic compound can show 90% regeneration after heating for an hour at 230 F. ... To stand of chance of removing 'all' adsorbed species (from activated carbon) would require 60F and 10^-4 Torr vacuum (about a 7millionth of atmospheric pressure!) for several hours.

Conclusion: Most hunters cannot regenerate their suit, because they do not have access to processes that can re-activate a suit full of odors.

1/3/2008

False Information about My Involvement with Scent-Lok

I received an e-mail from an a-apparent Scent Lok supporter, who stated he was on several hunting talk forums. He asked me several questions, which I felt obliged to answer, because much of the assumptions/statements in his questions were wrong. Here is part of his second e-mail to me with my answers.

T.R.M.,

Q: Are you saying that YOUR chemists tested Actual samples of SL or not? Or generic activated carbon??? There is a difference.

Answer: Yes, they tested Scent Lok. Your assumption is false. Generic coconut activated carbon is the same as Scent Lok activated carbon, they add nothing to it.

Q: I used SL years ago when the carbon would come out of the fabric after it went through the dryer. Is that piece of material (the photo here) "new" or is it an older piece of material?

Answer: It is new fabric, as of 2006.

Q: Is this a piece of SL material from the time when you were on SL's pro staff 10 years ago.(yes, I remember)

Answer: False. I was never on Scent Lok's pro staff, and they will tell you the same thing. It is a new piece of fabric.

Q: Tear apart a new piece and show the pic on your site.

Answer: I have torn apart a piece of fabric (picture shown here), why don't you tear your suit apart, and see for yourself? If it is so great, tearing the corner of a sleeve won't hurt it.

Q: It seems to me that the picture has been circulated on the web for several YEARS.

Answer: False. As far as I know it is only on my site, but it may have been copied. I did not create that page until October of 2006, which is when I scanned the piece of fabric that I ripped apart at the MN Game Fair in August of 2006. The photo went on my site on December 12, 2006, the day I scanned it.

Q: So far you haven't convinced me of anything. You should have your chemists test an actual piece of Scent-Lok. A head to head test by the "experts".

Answer: 1. Basically you are calling me a liar, which I am not. I don't care if you believe me. But, you should believe all of the information put out there by carbon reactivation companies on the internet, which I have cited on my page. 2. Scent Lok fabric has been tested, but, for obvious reasons, the results will not be revealed until the trial. I suspect the lawyer's don't want to tip their hand.

Q: I'm not so sure the lawsuit will turn out the way you say. I'm on several forums and the 5 gentlemen who are suing are "less than credible" according to some folks that know of a couple of them. That is only here-say, to be fair. What do you know of them? Are they "upstanding citizen's"? Jobs? Criminal Record? History of Suing?

Answer: False. One of them is a police officer, who is an avid bowhunter, who has used Scent Lok and does not believe in it. I did contact him by phone. I don't know about the others, and I don't think he knows the others.

Q: I see the testing SL has done...and you can't provide a test on an actual piece of Scent-Lok to refute their claims. What am I to believe as a consumer?

Answer: I can't provide the test, because I don't have it, but I know the guy that had the test done, and I believe him; because he is providing it to the lawyers. I have no reason to believe Scent Lok - all they have done is personally attack me, and refuse to provide me with their testing, or provide it to any chemist, or to publish their fantastic new "scent elimination" product findings to any scientific review; which is what any reputable firm or individual would do. I guarantee you their method of testing will not hold up under independent scientific review - which suggests their findings and advertising claims will not hold up - which will then be deemed "false advertising".

It seems to me that either you have a lot of your facts wrong, or you believe false statements of other people. You might think about providing the truth to the people on those forums. So, feel free to copy my responses to any forum you want.

October 2006:

E-mail received

I enjoyed your quote on the carbon Scent Loc clothing. Another down side to the clothing is if you are hunting in an area that you know is loaded with poison ivy, oak or sumac, you have no choice but to wash your suit practically every time you go out, which obviously shortens its life. My suit has a zip out carbon liner, which helps this, because you can remove it before washing the outer layer, and also replace it after it completely wears out. But, replacement carbon liners are costly, too. I purchased the suit last year (Scent Blocker 3D Brand) and was winded a few times on days when the air was crisp and the deer were headed directly into the wind.

This year, I am wearing the anti-microbial fabrics under the same carbon suit, bathing in descenting soap, taking the descenting tablets now available, and chewing the descenting gum. So far, so good. I've seen many more deer much closer than last year and they haven't spooked (yet). But, I was always skeptical of the carbon suits and your quote confirmed my suspicions.

Take care, God bless you, too, and good luck hunting.

Mark Lucas

November 7, 2006:

This is a post from the "T.R.'s Tips" Talk Forum

I ditched my Scent-Lok suit the other day after reading your article. I have always been suspect of it's effectiveness after it's first few uses. I think the following short story is proof in the pudding so to speak.

I ventured out to my stand for an afternoon hunt on Saturday, Nov 4th, 2006 for the first time without my Scent-Lok suit. Now I am pretty anal about keeping clean and scent free and I always keep the wind in my favor. But on this day a little something funny happened.

Not much more than 30 minutes had gone by since I setup my stand in a new location in my preferred hunting area when a small 4 pt buck emerged from the swamp making his way towards a known doe feeding area. I let him pass as I am only after the big boys. So during the course of the next hour I grunt a few times to catch the attention of any unseen passing buck. I catch movement to my right and it appears to be two does, an adult and a yearling. they must have heard me and decided to come check things out. Well...they decided to check EVERY single thing out in and around my stand site....

I was in deer prison for over an hour. They wouldn't leave...they were even sniffing the base of the tree I was in...looking straight up right at me....and they never once spooked. I finally had to shoot an arrow at their feet to get them to move off because it was a half hour after sunset...I couldn't see anything through the peep site and I was cold and hungry LOL. They just wouldn't leave. I even threw a pack of gum at them first in trying to get them out of the area.

I think the Scent-Lok suits are good for the first couple of uses but that's it. Is that cost effective? Maybe it is for someone who can afford multiple suits or if you are going on a paid trophy hunt where it's a once in a lifetime hunt ... but for the average Joe ... a little common sense and logic should be enough.

Anyhow, I just wanted to let you know that you are dead on in your assessment T.R.

Good work as usual

December 1, 2006:

E-mail received

I just read your article "Scent Lok Under Fire" at Huntonly.com. I really appreciate your dedication to providing the hunting public with the fine print. I am a dedicated bow hunter. This year I purchased a new Scent Lok suit before the season started. I have been busted by more deer this year than ever before. I am a very detail orientated person and I followed the "reactivating" instruction. I am very meticulous when it comes to scent control and I think this suit gave me a false sense of confidence. I was beginning to become very skeptical about the Scent Lok product and your information has added to that feeling. Please keep me informed or on a mailing list concerning your pursuit of this fleecing.

Thank you, Greg Lynch

Scent Lok Refuses to Remover My Testimony

I asked Scent Lok several times to remove my testimony from their website, but they refused, until I wrote a letter to the Patent Office, telling them that I had rescinded my testimony, which Scent Lok was now using in the Patent Application. They have also done the same thing to Myles Keller, who, in his upcoming deposition, will clearly explain that he no longer believes in the product.

In Response to my request to Scent-Lok I received this e-mail

T.R.

That's interesting - I was involved with a lot of e-mail exchanges with the folks at No Trace, and had even started doing some writing for them. Then they disappeared, without explanation.

E-mail From T.R. Michels

Rick Greminger (former owner of No Trace) and I became friends over the phone, and I was going to help him market the products, along with a friend of mine who eventually wanted to buy them out. Scent Lok bankrupted Rick and No-Trace, because of the patents they supposedly had, but which we did not find out until later, were never valid. Meanwhile Rick lost his house, his business, his, next Job with Fox Rich, and his wife. All because Scent Lok threatened to enforce a patent they knew was no good, and even if it was good, did not cover NO Trace, because it contained no carbon. No Trace should have been allowed to manufacture and sell, but court motions, and hearings, with lawyer fees, broke their back.

Another friend of mine, the owner of contain, lost $50,000 in sales in one year, and has never recovered. He too is out of business.

And the owner of Eliminator (a close friend), even though he has a product that does not use carbon, and does have a product that actually stops many odors, proven by several fields tests, is afraid to manufacture, because he is afraid Scent Lok will bankrupt him. Plus, they wanted a 40% royalty if he sold any activated carbon suits.

Scent Lok is currently keeping many manufacturers, with new technology, and better products, from being on the market and being available to the hunters, simply by threatening to take them to court, and bankrupt them. So, if we can once and for all establish that their patents are invalid, which they currently are, the hunting public will have access to better, or efficient scent reduction clothing. But, Scent Lok will try to keep anyone from selling competing products.

E-mail to T.R. Michels:

T.R.

What truly matters in life is standing on principle...which it appears you have done and continue to do.

If the large magazines want to stay silent...it only speaks to their true motivations...and Scent-Lok's money will run out sooner or later for them...

As a fellow Christian I can state that God will correct what needs to be corrected....and I would hope that as you send this out to fellow Outdoor Writers and Sportsmen...that if they have any principles themeselves...they will stand with you...as I will!

I have felt for years that products that claim to eliminate scent are a waste of money...

Stand strong and know that others like me are supportive of you and what you are doing...as I believe that you are helping many people not to waste their money...believing in products that are all sizzle and don't
deliver! Sometimes...the old fashioned way is the best way!

Eph. 6:10-11
Matt. 5:11-12

E-mail to T.R. Michels:

hi T.R., - I have been following the Scent Loc debate and have read your research with much interest and agreement.

E-mail to T.R. Michels:

Three hearty cheers for speaking up loud and clear about Scent Lok and--by extension--the generally absurd claims made by the marketers of these products.

7/2/2009

The following is from a chemist within the clothing industry. I have put the lawyers in contact with this person, who may shed some new, and "unwanted, yet informative", light on the subject. This person contacted me "out of the blue", because he too, believes the hunting public is being misled.

T.R.

I can shed some light on this subject because I am very, very close to it. The founders of one of the leading activated carbon brands are good friends; even though I believe their product mis-leads the public a lot based on hard data I have on file.

Remember even Dr. Schols used activated carbon. There is a lot of "twisted" facts about what odor is. Smell from sweat is caused by bacteria and fungi. Perfume, cat dong, smelly garbish is a type of odor that is great for activated carbon; thus trash bags use it; as does the DoD for absorbing chemical agents, but even the DoD has an SOP for DECON procedures because no suit is full proof.

The only way to gage a fabric or piece of apparel is to test in the labs using globally accepted test methods like AATCC 100; or various ASTM Test Methods. You should take a new ScentLok shirt and have it tested using AATCC 100. I could probably arrange an independent lab for a quick peak if you want to consider a test on your own.

Send me your number and we can chat.

TR, the field of hygiene, cosmetic claims, antimicrobials, activated carbon etc. is very complicated. If a company is making "cosmetic claims" than that falls under the http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm074201.htm

As an example a company like Cocona which used coconuts (activated carbon too) uses a claim of "absorbs odor" on all of their literature. I personally have a hard time with this because the odor they are referring to in active wear is bacteria or fungi; yet they refer to OAV in their literature which is stuff like perfumes and garbage. Activated carbon can not kills bugs; period. The theory is the pore size of the "activated carbon" will fill up with the bugs and "store them" which is bunk because if only 30% of the fabric has activated carbon there are two problems with Cocona: (1) How does the fabric work if only 30% is in the constriction? And (2) activated carbon can not kill bugs because is has no way to disrupt the DNA or RNA of the microbes so please understand how does the product absorb all the bugs and other OAV scents in the air with only 30% constriction and work? Do you follow this logic?

In my opinion companies like Scentlok and Cocona are playing games and the EPA should nail them because they do not have EPA registered products (links below for EPA claims) to make antimicrobial claims because they play games with the wording and cross the line between "cosmetic and antimicrobial" and play a legal game.

A cosmetic claim is very tricky because the cosmetic industry plays games all the time with beauty products that claim to reduce all wrinkles; to making you look younger. In the case of Scentlok is it simple. Show me the data. If the company has no AATCC 100 or 147 data or any ASTM data to support killing bugs than it is "cosmetic" and if cosmetic I am willing to bet they have no data to show human odor caused by bugs and the death of these bugs on fabric substrates tested under lab conditions.

You also have the debate of "regenerating" the carbon which is at much higher temperature than a normal dryer and again we are back to how much carbon is in the over all fabric substrate to even work? Much smoke and mirror in my professional opinion.

If the claims are antimicrobial than they fall under http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/contacts.htm

In summary, many of the anti-microbial textile products available in the market involve applying an organic compound to the textile in the final stages of production. These organic compounds typically target specific microbes - a limited range of bacteria, fungi, or viruses. Like other medicines that carry expiration dates, they tend to oxidize and denature in time and easily wash off fabrics, usually in the first washing. To overcome this problem, some manufacturers add the organic compound to the slurry of a synthetic fiber. However, this process of burying the organic compound inside the synthetic threads typically causes the compound to lose much of its efficacy as the process renders most of the compound unavailable to do its job. Eventually, it too will denature. Amicor is an example of an anti-microbial product in which the active compound is introduced into an acrylic fiber in the slurry stage. This is common in the field of anti-microbial textiles, however, the Amicor product leaves questions regarding it's overall performance.

You must keep in mind everything in nature to include humans have an odor. A pig smells like a pig; deer a deer and we humans all have throw off different odors depending on our own unique biology.

Bugs all reproduce differently. Some micro-organisms will re-produce every 6 hours while others at 20 hours. With regards to a fabric substrate it is a matter of construction.

A question often arises regarding exposure time. Does the microbe need to be in contact with a copper or silver ion for 4, 18, 24 hours to be effective against the microbe?

In general microbes, both bacteria and fungi, have different mechanisms to deal with metals, including copper or silver. Copper molecules are needed to an extent by microbes as well. Thus, when a microbe is exposed to copper, including a copper ion, it uses the amount of copper that it needs and then tries to get rid of the rest (by chaperons, pumps, etc.). Copper or silver ions may also cause reversible damage when they are in low concentrations, for example to DNA molecules. This damage is reversible because microbes (but not viruses) have mechanism of DNA repair and thus they can repair the damage and survive. However, when there is a constant exposure to new copper ions or molecules, the capacity of the microbe to deal with them is exhausted and damage starts to occur, up to the extent where the microbe is irreversibly damaged and killed.

Thus, it is basically a matter of dosage and equilibrium between the capacity of the microbe to deal with the copper (or silver) and the amount of copper interacting with the microbe, and how fast the microbe is killed.

The higher the concentration of copper or silver to which the microbes are exposed to, the faster the kill effect will be achieved.

If the concentration of the copper is too low (like only 20% of the over all fabric or in the case of activated carbon with a 30% construction) , the microbes can cope with it and generate new neutralizing proteins to deal with the new incoming copper molecules, or even repair the damage caused by the copper.

So it is a matter of threshold. If you have a high enough concentration of ions, you will see kill within very short periods of time, e.g. 30 minutes.

However, when you reduce the level of copper, longer exposure is needed since the accumulative copper uptake by the microbes and copper damage to the microbes is slower. When we do not see damage in 4 hours, we may see damage in 24 hours, since the bacteria are still constantly exposed to copper, although to relative low levels, but enough to kill them eventually, or reduce their capacity to reproduce.

For example, let us imagine a microbe that is exposed to a Copper sheet fabric with 5% copper fibers for 10 minutes before it is transmitted by hand contact to another fabric where there is no copper. This microbe will probably not be killed, as the exposure time and copper content was relatively short/low and the microbe was able to cope with it. In the new fabric after getting rid of the excess copper and repairing possible damage caused to it, the microbe may be able to proliferate. If the concentration of copper in the initial sheet was high enough it may be that that particular microbe during those 10 minutes of exposure was so badly damaged and overwhelmed by the copper ions that it will not survive even when removed to another fabric.

This is why I advocate all the time to try and put as much copper (or silver) into the fibers, and as much copper fibers into the final product. This is the sole reason products must be reviewed in construction and a complete understanding must be attained at all times for each final product style.

This is also measured and tested using AATCC Test Method 100 by taking fabrics and finished clothing articles and testing them with various microbes and wash cycles up to say 50 times. You measure the log reduction of microbes against all samples and get a base line to determine how effective the product will be when it is on a consumer. Nothing is 100%.

In the case of deer hunting and scent: It would make sense to me that combinations of both would offer maximum advantage. When I say combinations; I mean using metals (like copper and silver), not activated carbon in combination with a spray. Keep in mind there is no scientific data to support this theory when using combinations.

1/3/2010

Mr. Michels, I only wished I had read your article earlier. I purchased several articles of clothing from Cabelas that contain Scent-lok and was frequently "winded" this season. At first, I blamed everything else but the clothing; I didn't spray my climbing stand, my gun, my bow, my day pack. All clothing was stored in airtight containers before and after the hunt and "re-activated" accordingly. After reading your website, I realized the only thing I did wrong was purchasing Scent-lok products.

More hunters need to know about this.

Sincerely, Joe Harris

10/9/2009

I wanted to email you and thank you for providing the information you have regarding Scent Lok and taking a stand for what is right.

I learned a lot this morning by reading your website. I found you while looking for information on my New Mexico Elk hunt next week and ended up reading probably every page of your site!

The Scent Lok stuff had me hooked!

Again, thanks for the information on Scent Lok. If it wasn't for you, none of this info might have ever came to light and it looks like a lot of people have been hurt

--Aaron Cooper

Page 6 - Scent-Lok Patent Status and Lawsuit Updates