# FO or EO?



## bobbie.johnson (Mar 4, 2013)

So Im trying to decide if all the amazing possibilities when it comes to FO are worth having synthetics in my soap. Can anyone summarize the benefits of using FO compared to EO or reverse? Or what made you decide to use FOs? Or how can you get great fragrance without using fragrance oil? It seems like the soaponification process dulls most smells and dulls colors as well. 

Sorry lots of questions today...
Snow day here so that means Soap Day!!!

Bobbie


----------



## lizflowers42 (Mar 4, 2013)

EO's will add additional benefits from the type of plant you are using.  FO's on the other hand provide a great scent, and can be much cheaper than EO's.


----------



## Genny (Mar 4, 2013)

Here's a pretty good article about Fo's vs Eo's.   http://www.pioneerthinking.com/health/aromatherapy/lc_eos.html

It's pretty long, but a good read & when I first began looking at whether to use fo's or eo's, it was very helpful in my decision to use both and to research eo's more so I wouldn't harm anyone.


----------



## AlchemyandAshes (Mar 4, 2013)

I would say that EOs require much more research and knowledge before use, where as FOs can be easily obtained and come with usage ratios in place specifically for soapmaking. FOs tend to be cheaper, stronger and longer lasting than some EOs (like citrus).

However, I prefer EOs for their Aromatherapy properties and (hopefully) skin benefits, and because they are naturally derived. Also, FOs tend to give me headaches where most EOs do not. I try to avoid synthetics when possible. I don't think all synthetics are harmful...but I just like to stick to as close to natural as I can without making myself crazy..or CRAZIER than I already am.  :crazy:


----------



## nebetmiw (Mar 4, 2013)

I am an herblist and use EO's alot for many things.  But I only use FO's in my soap. Reason is the benifits in EO are just not there after being soapified.  Now there are FO/EO combo scents, WSP has a few of them so you do not need to make the choice.  

Most of the time FO's are skin safer.  Certain ones are not and when it comes to buying either FO' or EO's the company you buy from should list + and - and if it is soap safe or not.

FO's are generaly cheaper than EO's.  Most FO's do have some EO in them but it is not a great amount.  EO's will vary alot in price do to how the base material is taken from plant.  Some EO's are very high priced from rarity of the source they come from i.e. sandelwood.  Or like rose EO it takes a vast amount to make a little EO.  And yes, quality will cost in either EO or FO.  If it seems too good to be true it probably is.


----------



## Cindiq4u (Mar 5, 2013)

Wow good point Nebetmiw, I never thought of EO's loosing their benefits during the process. Great point!
I've struggled with the EO and FO matter since I started back up again. 
I know that some EO processes can be not eco friendly ( from what I've heard, of course)..
Thank you for sharing..


----------



## AlchemyandAshes (Mar 5, 2013)

nebetmiw said:


> I am an herblist and use EO's alot for many things.  But I only use FO's in my soap. Reason is the benifits in EO are just not there after being soapified.



Can you site a source for this information?


----------



## My Mountain Soaps (Mar 6, 2013)

AlchemyandAshes said:


> Can you site a source for this information?



yes, please do, i would be interested in learning about this, as i have had nothing but great results from my soaps with EO's? thank you!:smile:


----------



## judymoody (Mar 6, 2013)

I do not have the depth of formal training that Shawnee has but I have done a lot of reading on my own.  That said, my impression is that the jury is still out on how much of the therapeutic properties survive saponification.  To be prudent, I keep my use rates relatively low as if nothing is lost.  And I avoid oils like wintergreen and sweet birch which are potentially very dangerous in relatively low concentrations.  Additionally, spicy EOs like cinnamon and clove are potentially skin irritants, including in soap, unless used at very small %

There are many, many threads on this subject so if you do a search on FO vs EO you are likely to find a lot of information here.

Pros and cons in my experience, briefly:

FO pros:

Made in a lab so product is consistent across batches and tested for skin safety
Can get scents that are not found in EO form - foody and fruit scents, for example.
Can get scents that are prohibitively expensive/endangered/extinct - sandalwood, rosewood, rose, musk, etc.
Can be stronger and longer-lasting than some EOs.

Cons: 

allergies or reactions in some end users.  
Some make me feel a bit ill (honey FOs in particular).  
Prejudice against artificial scents.
More likely to morph in contact with lye than EO.

EOs:

Pros: 

Scent quality.  This is subjective, but I prefer the smell of EOs.
They are derived from natural sources.
There "may" be therapeutic effects in soap.  There are therapeutic effects in leave on products.
Most do not cause seizing or ricing in soap.  Some exceptions: spicey EOs (cinnamon leaf, clove, black pepper) or florals (ylang)

Cons:

EOs involve large quantities of plant matter to make.  There can be environmental degradation consequences in their manufacture.
There is more limited variety than with FOs.

I would like to conclude that it is a misperception that FO is always cheaper than EO.  You can find many EOs for 20-25 dollars per pound.  You can also find FOs for over $50 per pound.  If you want sandalwood or rose otto EO, sure that will be hideously expensive.  But within the $20-50/lb range, I find a lot to choose from - mints, herbs, woods, spices, citruses.  My splurges are patchouli, cardamom, and fresh ginger and as I use them in blends, the upcharge is not too bad.

I do use some FO but typically single notes for blending that are impossible/too expensive to get in EO form - vanilla, coffee, sandalwood, rose, jasmine, amber, coconut, etc.  

Hope this helps!


----------



## DeeAnna (Mar 6, 2013)

"...the benifits in EO are just not there after being soapified..."

I'm not quite sure I agree with this statement, but there is some truth that saponification does change the chemical makeup of some EOs. Kevin Dunn was interviewed by Robert Tisserand about this. Some quotes:

"...An essential oil with a low boiling point may suffer loss in a MP or HP soap, and this information may be found in the MSDS for
the oil. Look to ensure that the temperature of an MP or HP soap is lower than the boiling points of your essential oils when
they are added...."

"...Essential oils are complex mixtures of dozens of chemical compounds. A given essential oil may contain some compounds
that react with alkali, and others that do not. Lavender oil, for example, contains about 42% linalool (which does not react) and 22% linalyl acetate (which does). In
fact, when linalyl acetate reacts with alkali, one of the products is linalool. Thus the scent of a CP soap made with lavender oil will smell less of linalyl acetate and more of linalool than the original EO. The only way to predict which essential oils will react with alkali is to examine the list of components and note which of them are reactive. Such compounds generally consist of esters, phenols, and acids. There is a practical way, however, for a soapmaker to evaluate essential oil reactivity. Add a few drops of essential oil to 1 mL of the lye solution used for soapmaking (typically 25%-50% NaOH). Sometimes a reaction will be visible and sometimes not. In either case, wait a day or two and then compare the scent of the alkaline EO to that of the original. In some cases, there will be no difference in scent. In those cases where the scent changes, the alkaline scent might not be bad, just different from the original...."

Source: http://roberttisserand.com/2011/06/essential-oils-in-soap-interview-with-kevin-dunn/

--DeeAnna


----------



## AlchemyandAshes (Mar 6, 2013)

DeeAnna said:


> "...the benifits in EO are just not there after being soapified..."
> 
> I'm not quite sure I agree with this statement, but there is some truth that saponification does change the chemical makeup of some EOs. Kevin Dunn was interviewed by Robert Tisserand about this.
> 
> ...



I was just about to post this link! :clap:

There haven't truly been any studies on this particular topic that I am aware of, which is why I asked that nebetmiw site their source of information. I would be interested in reading a true scientific study, and not anecdotal evidence. I have my own theories and experiences, but would not state them as fact.


----------



## nebetmiw (Mar 6, 2013)

AlchemyandAshes said:


> Can you site a source for this information?




I will have to find it as it is copyrighted material.  It is stated in one of my studies for the course I took and I have seen it elsewhere for making hot oils.


----------



## AlchemyandAshes (Mar 6, 2013)

nebetmiw said:


> I will have to find it as it is copyrighted material.  It is stated in one of my studies for the course I took and I have seen it elsewhere for making hot oils.



I'm not sure that copyright matters...just siting "X book" or "X website link" shouldn't be an issue. Even a quote, as long as proper credit is given, wouldn't be copyright infringement.
By the way - What are "hot oils"?


----------



## Koshka (Mar 6, 2013)

Genny, thank you for this article. It has many great points!



Genny said:


> Here's a pretty good article about Fo's vs Eo's.   http://www.pioneerthinking.com/health/aromatherapy/lc_eos.html
> 
> It's pretty long, but a good read & when I first began looking at whether to use fo's or eo's, it was very helpful in my decision to use both and to research eo's more so I wouldn't harm anyone.


----------



## nebetmiw (Mar 6, 2013)

In this case copywritten is a bit different.  Do to it is private published course work and coming from over seas.  I have to asked and wait on reply.  

This is not uncommon in the herbal world as many authors write their own courses.


----------



## danahuff (Mar 6, 2013)

nebetmiw said:


> In this case copywritten is a bit different.  Do to it is private published course work and coming from over seas.  I have to asked and wait on reply.
> 
> This is not uncommon in the herbal world as many authors write their own courses.



 It is true that unpublished work is trickier to cite. I know, for instance, that you cannot use unpublished work and claim fair use.


----------



## AlchemyandAshes (Mar 6, 2013)

danahuff said:


> It is true that unpublished work is trickier to cite. I know, for instance, that you cannot use unpublished work and claim fair use.



I'm not asking nebetmiw to post copy written material, only to cite where the information was obtained.

For example: "I read in (Saponifier magazine, issue #, written by X) that EOs do not survive saponification."

Just stating where the info came from would not be copyright infringement, though I understand posting entire paragraphs or excerpts of course materials may be.

When I hear new information, I like to consider the source to determine how valid it is. There's plenty of debate on this topic...but I've never come across a study (besides the Robert Tisserand-Kevin Dunn interview posted above) that specifically dealt with saponification and EOs...just lots of theory and conjecture. 

I find it strange that you never hear people say that EOs lose their negative effects (like skin irritation, photo sensitivity,etc) during saponification...only that the benefits do not survive. I would assume either could be true, but without testing, there's no sure answer. If the chemicals responsible for the scent survive, I would think it is possible that other constituents survive. I would love if an independent study could be done on this particular subject.

Also, if you're selling "Just Soap", the only thing to be concerned with EOs is if the SCENT survives (if you are already aware of any contraindications), and not any of the medical benefits. We can't sell "aromatherapy" treatments, because then the soap would fall in the drug category and require testing and registration, if my understanding of the FDA labeling laws is correct.


----------



## danahuff (Mar 6, 2013)

AlchemyandAshes said:


> I'm not asking nebetmiw to post copy written material, only to cite where the information was obtained.



That is different—you are right. On the other hand, our chances of reading it would be small.

A true scientific study would be interesting to see.


----------



## Genny (Mar 6, 2013)

AlchemyandAshes said:


> I find it strange that you never hear people say that EOs lose their negative effects (like skin irritation, photo sensitivity,etc) during saponification...only that the benefits do not survive. I would assume either could be true, but without testing, there's no sure answer. If the chemicals responsible for the scent survive, I would think it is possible that other constituents survive. I would love if an independent study could be done on this particular subject.



Good point.  The possible skin irritation is definitely there after saponification. 

Another reason that if you're going to use EO's in your products, you really need to research each one you plan on using.


P.S.  I just saw a post somewhere else from a fellow soap maker who said they only use EO's because they're safe for everyone and not toxic. :Kitten Love:


----------



## AlchemyandAshes (Mar 6, 2013)

Genny said:


> P.S.  I just saw a post somewhere else from a fellow soap maker who said they only use EO's because they're safe for everyone and not toxic. :Kitten Love:



They probably also think that if its "natural" it is automatically "safe".
They've  obviously never heard of Belladonna. 
Natural? Yes! Deadly? Yes! :Kitten Love:

I've heard people say you can't be allergic to EOs because they're "natural". There's SOMEONE allergic to EVERYTHING.
Young Living is particularly found of spouting nonsense about how no one has negative reactions to their EOs. :x


----------



## Genny (Mar 6, 2013)

AlchemyandAshes said:


> I've heard people say you can't be allergic to EOs because they're "natural".



I've heard that one, too.  Seriously crazy.  I wonder how those people explain why a huge part of our population has allergies to poison ivy, pollen or other plants or animals?


----------



## Moonshea Botanicals (Mar 6, 2013)

I had a doctor tell me that I could not be allergic to Atropine, a medicine derived from Belladonna. He got snotty with me when I explained that I don't remember having the reaction, cause  1. I was a 3 year old & 2. I was waking up from eye surgery. My mom tells me that I looked like I had a bad sunburn. My face & hands swelled up badly.
Recently I have been having reactions to raw tomatoes & potatoes, you guessed it, cousins to Belladonna.


----------



## AlchemyandAshes (Mar 6, 2013)

Moonshea Botanicals said:


> I had a doctor tell me that I could not be allergic to Atropine, a medicine derived from Belladonna. <snip> Recently I have been having reactions to raw tomatoes & potatoes, you guessed it, cousins to Belladonna.



What about Eggplant? I have a problem with unpeeled Eggplant, but not Tomatoes or Potatoes. All in the Nightshade family...


----------



## Moonshea Botanicals (Mar 6, 2013)

AlchemyandAshes said:


> What about Eggplant? I have a problem with unpeeled Eggplant, but not Tomatoes or Potatoes. All in the Nightshade family...



I haven't been around any raw eggplant, but I not taking any chances. The funny thing is I have no problems eating all of these cooked. Strange huh.


----------



## nebetmiw (Mar 7, 2013)

I am allergic to pine pollen.  But it is only from one type of pine.  I also have cold weather allergies.  I take alot of Claritine during the winter months when real cold weather sets in.  I always get headaches if I do not take it and my nose and eyes go.  Then again I grew up in the subtropics till I was 40.


----------



## Marilyna (Mar 9, 2013)

I like the simplicity and economy of FOs.  But I don't focus on natural or luxury soaps.


----------

