T.R. Michels'

Trinity Mountain Outdoors Magazine TM

News, Articles and Information for the Serious Outdoorsman

TM

 

Special Edition

 

Scent Lok & Science / Activated Carbon Suit Facts

&

The Scent Lok Lawsuit(s)

 

 

Photo of Scent Lok Fabric

Scent Lok fabric scanned on 12/6/06

Do you really think this works?

The above photograph is an enlargement of a piece of Scent Lok fabric purchased in 2006; about 6.25 inches square. The tiny black dots on the fabric are the carbon particles. You can clearly see that the powdered activated carbon particles (PAC) are not much wider than one of the threads of the fabric, and there doesn't appear to be more than 25% of the fabric covered with powdered activated carbon.

Odors must come into physical contact with the activated carbon before they are "bound" or "adsorbed" to the activated carbon by "electrostatic" or other forces. All odors, including human perspiration odors, will take the "path of least resistance" if they can - meaning that they will go around the activated carbon and exit the suit through the large spaces between the small flecks of activated carbon if they can - and they can!

This means that many of the scents and/or odors on the inside of a suit made of this material can exit the suit without coming into contact with any activated carbon - they just go around the carbon. And deer, elk, bear and other animals will smell those odors!

 Let me ask this question: "If there was only a 30% coverage of a fabric - that was supposed to stop toxic chemicals or poisons - from getting through the fabric - so that the person wearing the fabric would not get sick or die - and the effectiveness of the fabric relied on 50% coverage or more - would you leave the safety of your child to this fabric?

This is not a life-threatening situation by any means - but if it was the situation - and you knew the facts- you would probably file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.

 

Want to file a complaint, because you believe Scent Lok suits can't work as claimed or advertised?

Anyone who wants to make a complaint about Scent Lok to the Federal Trade Commission can do so at this address: https://rn.ftc.gov/pls/dod/wsolcq$.startup?Z_ORG_CODE=PU01.

 

Eliminator carbon cloth scanned on 4/04/08.

Compare this piece of Eliminator fabric (that the manufacturer states must be replaced on a regular basis, because it cannot be reactivated) designed to be used in hunting facemasks - to Scent Lok fabric. Both scanned photos are at 100% magnification. You can see that this fabric is almost completely impregnated with activated carbon particles; as opposed to the widely scattered particles on the Scent Lok fabric. If this fabric cannot be reactivated after 1-10 uses, then how can Scent Lok be reactivated after the same number of uses?

Do activated carbon suits keep deer from detecting hunters? Our research says

NO

Can activated carbon suits be "re-activated" in a household dryer? Our research says

NO

 

Scent Lok / Activated Carbon Poll

 

You can join the poll on whether you think activated carbon clothing works or not, as the manufacturers claim, by adding your vote at the end of this article:
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_113902.asp

Of 588 votes on the Scent Lok Poll on May 9, 2008 - 71% said they didn't believe activated carbon clothing worked.

 

If you would check in here regularly, you would have seen it here first, 'cause we published it first.

 

 May 9, 2008, Final Rejection Notice of Patent mailed to Scent Lok

This is a photocopy of the PDF file of the Notice sent to Scent Lok on May 5, 2008.

 

If I understand this correctly Claims 1-8, 10, 34-39 and 41-93 are completely rejected by the Patent Office; and Claims 9, 11-33 and 40 have been cancelled by the Patent Office. I don't think Scent Lok applied for more than 93 patents, whish means they have none left.

If I understand this correctly it means that Scent Lok's patents are either cancelled or completely rejected, because the ideas in the Scent Lok patent application were covered by another (previous) Patent. You cannot - I repeat - you cannot patent an idea, process or invention - that has already been patented. You can read the entire 40-page PDF file . You will need to use a PDF Reader - like Adobe Reader.

If Scent Lok's past history is of any worth (they have asked for several re-examinations and appeals) - I suspect they will try to appeal this latest decision - one more time. But, if everything goes according to the law, 6 months from May 5, 2008, the Patents will be completely rejected.

If you had not thought about it, Scent Lok's repeated attempts to keep their invalid patent alive, has cost the Patent Office a lot of time and money. Do you know who pays the Patent Office's bills? - we do, through our taxes.

Somebody tell Scent Lok to quit- they are costing us money.

 

NEW Lawsuit filed against Scent Lok - for Fraud - in Illinois

I just heard about this one - it looks like other hunters are mad too! Check out the Court Filing

here.

You can read the entire complaint

. What is particularly interesting is Section G & Section H, which specify why and how ALS/Scent Lok defrauded its customers. (I've said this for a long time - right here on this web site. T.R.)

 

 

Lawsuit filed against Scent Lok for Fraud

Suit says clothes don't pass smell test (9/17/07)

By Doug Smith, Minneapolis Star Tribune
Four Minnesotans claim that a company that makes scent-disguising clothing has duped hunters out of millions of dollars by selling them a product that doesn't work.

Read this entire article and see how T.R. Michels is quoted in it. - Type "Scent Lok" in the search box.

(9/17/07) Other activated carbon companies not listed in this lawsuit are Robinson Laboratories/Scent Shield, Browning, Gore and Whitewater.

I am not involved in this case. I cannot be involved in the case - because I never bought a set of activated carbon clothing.

As of September 18, 2007, I did not know who these people or their lawyers are. I later found one of the plaintiffs in the phone book, and spoke to him by phone. He is a police officer in a Minneapolis suburb.

The reason for the law suit was stated as "Diversity-Fraud", which may imply that these companies either knowingly made false advertising claims about activated carbon clothing, or they knew that the clothing could not and did not perform as those companies claimed.

Prior to 9/19/2007 you could view this case by going to http://www.justia.com and clicking on the "District Courts' Civil Case" link in the second box on the right side, then typing in "Cabela's" in the "Name" category.

 

If enough people join this lawsuit - we can force these companies to stop including activated carbon in otherwise good products - which will bring the price of those products down.

If you bought an activated carbon product (clothing, boots, blinds etc.) from any company, and feel you were misled, misinformed or lied to - about if and how activated carbon works, contact the link to the lawyers below. Anyone - anywhere - can now be included in this lawsuit.

The address of the lawyers is:

http://www.heinsmills.com/scent-lok.html
"Heins Mills & Olson P.L.C. is a national law firm that represents businesses and consumers in complex cases involving anti-competitive agreements and fraudulently marketed or labeled products.
The consumer protection attorneys at Heins Mills & Olson are investigating consumer complaints involving odor-eliminating clothing manufacturered by A.L.S Enterprises, Inc. (a.k.a. "Scent-Lok"), Cabela's Inc., Gander Mountain Co., Bass Pro Shops, Inc., and Browning Arms Co.
Consumers have alleged that these companies defrauded the public by misrepresenting the efficacy of their products and the ability to regenerate the odor-eliminating properties of their products.
Submit Your Complaint
If you believe that your odor-eliminating clothing has failed to perform as advertised, please click here (info@heinsmills.com) to contact an attorney at Heins Mills & Olson experienced in consumer cases. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case.
About Heins Mills & Olson
The consumer protection attorneys at Heins Mills & Olson P.L.C. are nationally recognized for their prosecution of complex class action lawsuits. Learn more about our law firm."

Read the

42 page complaint with the MN District Court. It is in a PDF file.

 

 

Scent Lok stalls the MN lawsuit

1/04/08 I have it on good authority that Scent Lok has asked for an extension of the planned deposition of a former Scent Lok employee by the Plaintiff's Attorneys. I also have it on good authority that Scent Lok wants information from this former employee concerning any and all correspondence (face to face conversations, phone conversations, FAX's, e-mails, letters) that he has had with: 1. The lawyer(s) involved with the either the Patent re-examination and subsequent denial of the patent, or the lawyer(s) involved in the current lawsuit. 2. The Plaintiffs in the current lawsuit. 3. One of the manufacturers of activated carbon suits, that is not named in the lawsuit.

As far as I know this former Scent Lok employee has never had any contact with any of the lawyers, he does not know and has never talked to any of the plaintiffs, and he has never spoken to the other manufacturer. How do I know this?. Because this former Scent Lok employee had to sign a non-disclosure and non-compete document when he left Scent Lok. He is forbidden, under penalty of law, to disclose anything he knows about Scent Lok and it's products - and he knows a lot. What Scent Lok is doing is trying to stall the law suit and they are "fishing for evidence" so that they dont' loose the lawsuit.

Here is a bit of speculation on my part. Because it is safe to assume that if Scent Lok believes it could win this case, so that the negative publicity about their products would go away, because the negative publicity is probably resulting in lost sales, then Scent Lok would want to go to court as quickly as possible, so their sales would increase. But, Scent Lok is Staling the lawsuit, just as they have stalled the Patent Reexamination up until now.

The only conclusion I can come to is that Scent Lok wants to drag this out as long as possible, so that the truth does not come out.

Scent Lok stalls the Deposition

2/27/2008 I understand that there were 13 attorneys in attendance for the scheduled deposition (mentioned above) of a former Scent Lok employee. But, about 20 minutes before the deposition – Scent Lok was granted an order to stop the lawsuit.

Scent Lok Lawsuit – Dropped & Filed Again

1/20/08 The lawyers who brought the Class Action Lawsuit against Scent Lok had to drop the original lawsuit, because the judge ruled it was not specific enough in what each of the Defendant’s (manufacturers/sellers) of activated carbon hunting clothing did. The lawyers subsequently re-filed the lawsuit, explaining what each of the Defendants did; whether they were licensed by Scent Lok, used Scent Lok fabric to manufacture clothing, used or manufactured activated carbon clothing other than that which is manufactured by Scent Lok, sold activated carbon clothing, or any and all of those. The lawsuit continues.

My conclusion is that Scent Lok wants to drag out this lawsuit as long as they can – so they can continue to sell clothing to uneducated hunters.

Cabela's Joins the Fray

3/6/2008 My source informs me that Cabela's has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. This motion is supposed to be heard in the US District Court in St. Paul, Minnesosta, on April 22, 2008.

My conclusion is that Cabela's has to get involved - if it does not want to be implicated or found liable in this case.

False Information about this

1/3/2008 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? Answer: Yes, they tested Scent Lok. Or generic activated carbon??? There is a difference.

Answer: False. Generic coconut activated carbon is the same as Scent Lok activated carbon, they add nothing to it. And yes, they tested Scent Lok fabric.

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.

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.

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 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.

 

Scent Lok Patent - Rejected by the Patent Office

On 9/13/07 the United States Patent Office posted a "Final Rejection Mailed" notice on their web site for Patent # 90007331, which WAS the "double patented" application of Scent Lok for activated carbon clothing for use while hunting. It is illegal to patent something that has already been patented.

What does this "Patent rejection" mean for those companies who have been paying royalties to Scent Lok, or for those companies who have an agreement with Scent Lok, or for those companies who have been bankrupted by Scent Lok for infringing on the now rejected patent application of Scent Lok? It may mean that Scent Lok's demand for royalties for the past 16 years was never enforceable.

The consequences now - who knows? Maybe new technology, with lower clothing prices, for you hunters.

You can find this Patent rejection at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html and click on View "Public PAIR". On the next page check the "Application Number" circle, and then type 90007331 in the "*Enter Number" box. You can then click the "Image File Wrapper" and "Transaction History" tabs at the top of the page to view more information.

2/27/2008 I understand that Scent Lok has field an appeal to the Patent Rejection. My conclusion is that they want to drag this process out as long as possible – so they can continue to gather license fees form as many manufacturers as the can.

 

 

New for 2007

This is the only authorized site for autographed copies of T.R. Michels'

Whitetail Addicts Manual.

Order your autographed copy for $17.95.

 

 Get your e-mail copy of The Complete Whitetail Addict's Manual, by T.R. Michels, for $40.00.  It contains both the Whitetail Addict's Manual, Part 1 (with information not found in the Whitetail Addicts Manual above) and the Whitetail Addict's Manual Part, 2. Just about everything you need to know about deer and deer hunting.

 

 

Want to reduce odors while you hunt? Here is what you can do.

Hint: Don’t rely on Scent Lok

It is bacteria on the skin that produces the odor associated with human perspiration. What scent elimination products and clothing are trying to do is eliminate at least that smell. Obviously the best way to do that is to eliminate the bacteria; and bacteria needs moisture to grow. So - to reduce human perspiration body odor:

1. Use antibacterial soaps and shampoo, (that don't smell) every time - before you hunt.

2. Use an antibacterial spray, gel or lotion that will kill re-growth bacteria (it will only take an hour or more for bacteria to grow and start to smell), on your clothing, and/or on you body (in areas where it is most likely to grow [which are areas that contain moisture]) such as your armpits, butt, groin and head, and beard (if you have one). This includes Scent Killer (by Wildlife Research), Sport Wash and N O Dor (by Atsko/Sno-Seal), Scent Shield (by Robinson Laboratories)

3. Use an unscented antibacterial deodorant (to reduce any odors you do produce later on - after bacterial re-growth).

4. Wear moisture wicking underwear, such as polypropelene, Under Amror etc. To keep body moisture to a minimum (so bacterial growth is slowed down)

5. Wear clothing with antibacterials, such as triclosan, mycosan or silver, to kill re-growth bacteria (while you hunt). Clothing designed to kill bacteria, using mycosan, triclosan or silver, needs to be worn against the skin. This includes Contain, X-Scent and Eliminator.

6.You can make your clothes smell like the local surroundings by putting your clothes in a container, and throwing in leaves, needles or dirt form the area.

7. Do not wear your hunting clothes, boots, gloves or hat until you get out of your vehicle, or to the gas station or restaurant before you hunt, you may pick up scents that will spook the deer.

Clothing such as No-Trace and Eliminator (which both use cyclodextrin), can reduce odors all day long, and all you have to do is rinse it (no soap) in cool water to reactivate it. You can wear these clothes against your skin or not, but, if you wear a shirt, pants and hat of it - there is no need to buy an expensive jacket of it (unless the only jacket you have already smells).


 Information About How Activated Carbon Can (not) Work (8/12/07)

A chemist who works in the activated carbon industry, specifically in the manufacture of activated carbon for use in clothing, stated in an e-mail on June 28, 2007:

"As regards reactivation - it is true that carbon can only be reactivated industrially by high temperatures and/or low pressures. Activated carbon can be partially regenerated by driving off the adsorbed species with heat. However, one tends to require temperatures which are close to or exceed the boiling point of the adsorbed species. For example to regenerate some activity for carbon tetrachloride - temperatures of the order of 100 to 120 F or higher would be required for a significant removal. For removing butyric acid - a compound produced by bacterial action on sweat – temperatures nearer to 200 F would be needed, certainly beyond most dryers (and most clothes!)."
In other words, the odor or scent of bacterial action on human perspiration (butyric acid), which Scent Lok claims can be desorbed from activated carbon by "re-activating" it, cannot be removed from activated carbon clothing by using a household dryer (which normally does not reach temperatures higher that 165 degrees F).
 
More Information

After watching the FOX Television investigative report on Scent Lok - one chemist who worked with activated carbon responded with this:

"One thing that I caught on the DVD was the scene with the sponge. If I heard correctly, she stated that carbon like a sponge could hold many times its weight. At best carbon can only hold about half its weight."

I think that clears up a lot. If the amount of activated carbon in a Scent Lok suit is less than 4-5 ounces, it means that the suit can only hold 2-2.5 ounces of perspiration and perspiration odor. I'm sure most of us sweat 2.5 ounces in a few hours, and we have to add in all of the other odors collected. So, the suit probably lasts only a few hours. But most hunters wear it all day; which means they have to recharge it every day.

 

NEW UNDER HANDED TACTICS by SCENT LOK

I was informed on May 2, 2007, that in their recent Patent re-exam, Scent Lok accuses me of trying to get them to bribe me to not post, talk about or write about my proof that their product cannot work as they claim. The truth of the matter is that I did try to get them to bribe me, in either an e-mail or a signed letter, so that I would have proof of their willingness to bribe me, so I could expose their tactics to the public. I never intended to accept a bribe from them.

I came up with the idea of trying to get them to bribe me after Mike Andrews (of Scent Lok) made the following statement to me: "We look forward to having you as one of our biggest supporters in the future." I took that as an offer to compensate me if I would no longer comment on my beliefs about how their product could not work as they claim.

Here is what I e-mailed Scent Lok on May 2, 2007

Scent Lok:

I understand that your company has accused me of trying to get you to bribe me in your latest patent re-exam. The truth of the matter is, is that I wanted to see if you would offer to bribe me (in an e-mail), so I could expose it to the public. What I wanted to do was show people how far your company would go to shut me up.
Obviously someone at Scent Lok correctly figured out that my belief in the fact that your product does not work (and my Christian morals) would not allow me to accept a bribe from you to keep me quiet about the fact that I do not believe your product works; and therefore Scent Lok did not attempt to bribe me.
So, my ruse failed. And you know what - I will pay for a voice stress test on myself to show that I am telling the truth in this matter. Can you say the same?
If you do not have any reference to me removed from that patent re-exam immediately I will be forced to seek legal recourse.
I have kept a record of this, and will be forwarding a copy to the Patent and Trademark Office.
I know for a fact that you are required by law to bring my explanation of this matter to the attention of the Patent and Trademark Office. If I do not receive a notification from the Patent and Trademark Office, of your notification to them of my explanation of your twisting my intent in this matter, I will contact them myself. I just got off the phone with Mr. Andy Kashnicow (sp?), and he told me who to contact and what to do.
This is all going on my web site, and it is being e-mailed to every editor I have in my database, so they will all know about your tactics.
In your current re-exam you failed to tell the Patent Office that the following quote is on my web site. It clearly states that I would not accept a bribe; you must notify the Patent Office of this too.
T.R. Michels

 

In the earlier response to me Mike Andrews stated:

"We look forward to having you as one of our biggest supporters in the future."

My response:

Scent Lok - you don't have enough money to buy me off, or to keep me from writing the truth about your product. My integrity and reputation as a Christian, and as an outdoor writer, author and seminar speaker - is on the line.

(end quote)

 

Scent Lok:  
If I do not receive an e-mail from you by May 10th, I will contact the Patent and Trademark Office about this matter. And I will have at least on US Legislator behind me when I do it.
I also intend to contact Trish Van Pilsum at FOX news about this, she is a friend of mine.
May Yahweh bless you according to your deeds,
T.R. Michels

 

Some of the questions that come to mind are: "Why is my recanting of my previous testimony so important to Scent Lok? And what does my testimony, and the recanting of my testimony, have to do with any patent application?

The answer to the second question is simple: My recanting of my testimony has no business being in a patent application, because it has nothing to do with whether or not the idea has been previously patented or not, or whether Scent Lok's idea should be granted a patent or not; unless, the patent examiner has reservations as to whether Scent Lok's claims about their product are valid or not, and whether or not Scent Lok's clothing works to really eliminate human (and all other) odors, or not!

If the patent examiner has reservations about Scent Lok clothing, it could explain why my recanting of my testimony is so important to Scent Lok.

 

Scent Lok refuses to participate in a discussion

As of March 1, 2007, Scent Lok has not responded to my request to answer questions about how thick the carbon layer is in their current product; how their product can be reactivated when the carbon reactivation industry says it can't be done; and why they use misspelled/misquoted chemical terms (in relation to chemical processes) to promote their product, when those process have nothing to do with the reactivation of their product.

And they have not seen fit to join us for a truthful discussion on our forum - as to whether or not their product can work as they claim.

 

Do Activated Carbon Hunting Suits (such as Scent Lok) Work?

Have hunters and the hunting industry been duped?

By T.R. Michels

Over the last few years several questions have arisen as to whether or not activated carbon clothing suits work as advertised to keep hunters from being detected by deer (that might smell the odors given off by humans, or any unnatural odors associated with the humans while they are hunting). The questions asked include: Is there enough activated carbon in the scent-elimination suits for them to work as the manufacturers claim they do? How long will activated carbon continue to work? Can the suits be re-activated as the manufacturers claim they can be? Are activated carbon suits adversely affected by humidity?

Activated carbon is used as a filter medium because it has an affinity to "volatile organic compounds". When humans perspire they emit volatile organic compounds and other chemicals, such as hydrogen sulfides, which can be trapped by activated carbon. The manufacturers of activated carbon scent-control suits claim their clothing works because the activated carbon (which is glued to or impregnated into the fabric of the clothing) blocks the release of human odors, or "traps" the odors by a chemical bonding process called "adsorption".

Adsorption occurs when activated carbon grabs and holds other compounds, including gases, scents and odors, at the molecular level. The amount of odor that an activated carbon filter medium holds is determined both by the amount of activated carbon in the entire medium and by how thick the layer of activated carbon on the fabric is. In the case of a scent-elimination suit, the carbon layer is very thin, which means there is very little activated carbon in the suit. In fact, the scent elimination suits are so thin that they hold relatively small amounts of activated carbon, and the activated carbon is so widely spaced in some suits that the suits allow air and odors to go through the suit without coming into contact with and being trapped by the small amounts of carbon in the suit.

One of the problems with trapping odors by adsorption is that adsorption continuously occurs, unless the activated carbon is kept in an airtight unscented bag from the moment it is first activated. Since activated carbon will eventually become full of odors, it cannot work any great length of time. If activated carbon clothing is not put into a sealed bag the moment it is activated, and kept that way until it is used for hunting, it will have adsorbed numerous odors. Depending on how thick the layer of activated carbon is in the suit, it may not work to stop human odors the very first time it is used.

In an attempt to bring some legitimacy to their products, the manufacturers of scent-control clothing have acknowledged this to some extent. Many manufacturers recommend that the clothing should be immediately washed, and then "re-activated" by placing the suits in a clothes dryer as soon as they are purchased. However, many activated carbon experts and chemists have questioned the claims by these manufactures, that activated carbon can "totally eliminate all human odors", and that the activated carbon in the clothing can be reactivated, several times with no loss of carbon in the clothing, or in the adsorbtion (of odor) capability of the activated carbon in the clothing, when the clothing is placed in a clothes dryer with temperatures lower than 200 degrees Fahrenheit. The maximum temperature of most household clothes dryers is less than 165 degrees F.

 

My research about activated carbon, as is used by the manufacturers of activated carbon clothing used for the purpose of reducing human and other odors while hunting, suggests that the claims of Scent Lok and the other manufacturers are highly exaggerated and mis-leading, and may in fact be false.

 

Is there enough activated carbon in a Scent Lok Suit to Work?

The Columbus Industries Patent Application # 5,678,247 states:

The layer of odor absorbing material (activated carbon) should be at least 1/8 inches thick to provide sufficient activated carbon and very importantly provide a higher residence time of the human scent within the odor absorbing layer to achieve greater odor adsorbing efficiency. It is more preferred to employ a thickness of about 1/4 inches for the odor absorbing sheet layer.

I personally separated the layers of a Scent Lok in August of 2006, to determine how much activated carbon was in the suit. I first noticed that there was not enough activated carbon to cover the entire surface of the fabric, which meant that odors could go through the suit without ever coming into contact with the activated carbon; making the suit ineffective.

The layer of activated carbon in the Scent Lok was less than 1/8 inch, probably more like 1/50 of an inch. But, in its patent, the above company states that there needs to be at least 1/8 inch of activated carbon, and "it is more preferred to employ a thickness of about 1/4 inches" of activated carbon to provide sufficient "odor adsorbing efficiency".

This Patent, which may be for the material Scent Lok uses in its clothing, states, in this US Government document, that there is not enough activated carbon in Scent Lok suits, to work!

What Odors does Activated Carbon Attract; The Truth about Reactivation

(May 1, 2007)

To find out how activated carbon works I recently spoke to a Ph D, who actually works for a company that manufactures activated carbon. He says that the little amount of carbon in most of the suits out there is not enough to eliminate 100% of the human perspiration odors given off by any hunter within the first 10 minutes of wearing the suit; because, if you look at the layer of carbon in the suits, it does not cover the entire area of the fabric. About 60% of the odors can escape from some of those suits, which means that you will be smelled by game animals if they are downwind of you.

This Ph D works for a company that manufactures activated carbon for use in clothing. He gains nothing by saying that many of the claims of scent control companies are false, misleading etc. In fact he may be losing future sales to those companies. The only thing he gains is self-respect - for telling the truth.

He says that if a hunter wants activated carbon suits to be effective on a regular basis, the hunter needs to buy disposable suits, because the majority of the suits on the market cannot be reactivated to the point where they will reduce even "most" of the odors a human produces for more than one or two times of using them for 4-6 hours on a hunt.

He also states that, because activated carbon does not "attract" (as in magnetic attraction or "suck in odors" due to some unnamed process), any odors inside the suit, that can exit the suit, without coming into physical contact with the activated carbon (which most of the odors can do, because of the numerous areas of the suits that are not completely covered by carbon), will go around the carbon, exit the suit, and alarm game animals. This has been proven in the undisputed facts of Shivik's dog study. And deer have about the same if not more olfactory receptors in their nose than dogs do, so they probably can smell at least as well as, if not better than, dogs.

The whole "regeneration" of the activated carbon in respect to human perspiration thing - is misunderstood. According to the Ph D, activated carbon is not selective in what it holds on to - meaning that every odor that physically comes in contact with the minute amount of carbon in one of these suits may be stuck to the surface of the carbon - as long as there is room for it.

And, therein lies the problem. Due to the minute amount of carbon in these suits, it is very likely that the minute surface area of the carbon can be filled up with odors, scents, vapors, molecules etc.from perspiration, smoke, gasoline, household odors, odors of leaves, dirt, decomposing animals, plants, etc, (as in any odor that is in the air anywhere you wear the suit), and it will probably fill up within the first few hours that you wear it.

So, after 1-2 hours, the suit no longer works to contain, stop or reduce human perspiration odors (no matter which of the several compounds that make up human odors you are talking about), because it is filled up with odors, from any source.

The Ph D tells me that he does not know of any activated carbon that can be reactivated (up to 90%) as some manufacturers claim, because some of the carbon itself is lost in reactivation, and some of the odors will not be "dislodged" from the carbon, because the molecules are just too long and complex to be dislodged at temperatures below 200 degrees.

He also states that dislodging of any odor, compound etc, on the surface of activated carbon is achieved when the "boiling point" of that odor or compound is reached in a "steam-environment", as in wet clothing being placed in a household dryer. Many odors (including some of the compounds in human perspiration) have boiling points above 200 degrees, which means a household dryer has to be hotter than 200 degrees to reactivated most of the compounds on the carbon. Most household dryers do not get hotter than 200 degrees, because it is not safe.

The Ph D states that the 90% regeneration rate claimed by some manufacturers is high, because it applies only to some of the compounds of human perspiration. And then there are all of the other odors the carbon comes in contact when you wear it. He states that regeneration is more likely in the range of 70%. An article on reactivation at Virginia Tech states it can be reactivated (at the right temperatures) up to 70%.

And, here is the big thing. The regeneration factor (let's say 80%) is the "original adsorbtion capability" of the carbon, meaning the ability to reactivate the carbon - the first time you put it in the dryer. So, only 80 percent of the carbon can be reactivated, and now you only have 80 percent left to capture odors. The next time you throw your suit in the dryer, you can only regenerate 80% of the 80% capacity left; which is 64 percent.

And the second time you use it - it fills up with odors faster than it did the first time, because it has less adsorbtion capacity.

The next time you put it in the dryer it will only reactivate to 51%, and now only 49% of your odors could (possibly) be trapped. The next time you put it in the dryer it is down to 40%, then 32%, then 25% and by about the 8th-10th time you put it in the dryer, it is useless.

But, if you don't put it in the dryer after every 4 -6 hours of use, it is useless anyhow, because it is full of all kinds of odors. And the deer will smell you if you use it before reactivating it.

So, you have to reactivate it. But, each time you reactivate it - it is less effective, and by the 10th time you reactivate or use it, it cannot work.

Those who believe they can work, because they can - for a while, should buy another activated carbon suit - every year.

If you who are wearing an activated carbon suit or clothing - that is over 4 months old, or has been through the dryer 8 times and you are still having good success with it - it is not because of the activated carbon in the suit - because the activated carbon has long since ceased to capture, eliminate, reduce or lock in any odors that you give off.

Your success is not due to the activated carbon in the clothing - it is because you are good hunters, you understand how the animals detect you by sight, sound and scent, and you take precautions to avoid being detected.

 

Do activated carbon suits fool the nose?

3/1/07

Scent Lok has claimed that their suits remove enough human perspiration odors from a person wearing their suits that deer cannot smell a person wearing their suits. They have also claimed that deer smell better than dogs.

Research shows that deer have up to 297 million olfactory receptors in the nose, plus a vomeronasal organ (that detects scents/odors) in the room of their mouth. Dogs have up to 220 million olfactory receptors in the nose, plus a vomeronasal organ. Humans have up to 5 million olfactory receptors in the nose, but no vomeronasal organ.

If the number of olfactory receptors in the nose of an animal is any indication of its ability to detect scents, then deer have a better sense of smell than dogs, and could have detected the humans wearing activated carbon suits in the Shivik study.

In a test with search dogs, by JA Shivik, Ph.D., forty-two people were hidden from Colorado search and rescue dogs. Twenty-one of the people wore activated carbon suits; twenty-one did not. The dogs found all twenty-one people who didn't wear activated carbon suits, and twenty of the people who wore activated carbon suits. There was no noticeable difference in the time it took the dogs to find the humans. It took the dogs 2.7 minutes to detect the humans who were not wearing activated carbon suits, and 3.4 minutes to find the humans who were wearing activated carbon suits.

Shivik's report states, "That the dogs detected humans wearing the suit indicates that the system failed to prevent detection of human odors." Since deer have a sense of smell equal to if not better than dogs, it is safe to assume that deer would have detected the humans too.

The report adds, "The suits are probably not worth the cost to researchers or managers who want to approach canids undetected." They probably aren't worth $150 to $300 to hunters either, if they can't keep deer from detecting the hunters. You can view this article at this address http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ws/nwrc/is/annpub2002.html, by scrolling down to report number "02-93 Shivik" and downloading the PDF file.

 

3/1/07

Scent Lok has questioned whether the Shivik dog study was "scientific" or met "scientific standards". In response to that question Bruce Kimball with APHIS at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center states:

Subject: RE: Deer scent
From: Bruce.A.Kimball@aphis.usda.gov
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 14:28:50 -0700
My "feelings" are not pertinent. The bottom line is that, like all research at the National Wildlife Research Center, Dr. Shivik's study was approved at every level before he initiated the study. Further, his research findings were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Thus, his findings would absolutely be considered scientific.
A well-designed field study to assess the impact of carbon clothing on deer/hunter interactions would take a couple of years, several technicians, and at least $250,000 to conduct. If you are interested in funding such a study, I would be happy to discuss potential designs in detail.
Cheers
Bruce

I'll bet Scent Lok won't fund or participate in such a study.

 

3/1/07

Here is a response from noted white-tailed deer biologist and outdoor writer Dr. Karl Miller on the subject of the Shivik dog study:

Subject: Re: Deer and dogs smelling ability

In a way, it's difficult to compare a study on a dog's ability to locate scent, and a deer's ability- however, there likely are some important similarities. We know that dogs can be trained to do some amazing things with their noses - finding bombs and drugs, tracking fugitives, etc. If we could train a deer to do this, could they do equally well? I don't think there is any way to determine this.
I am not at all surprised that the dogs in the Shivik study were able to determine the human scent. I would have been surprised if the dogs were unable to detect it! Although I don't know how effective carbon clothing is at reducing potential odors, even if they were 99.99999% effective, the dogs probably could still find some scent.
Could deer do the same - perhaps. They may be a little more (or less) effective in identifying or detecting the scent, but unless scent is essentially eliminated there may still be enough there to detect. Personally, I do not think that there is any way that carbon suits can eliminate odors, but perhaps they can be effective at odor reduction (I do not have the experience to comment on this).
 
The military also uses activated carbon clothing, commonly referred to as Chemical Warfare Suits, but they are limited-use, disposable garments, not intended for multiple use, because, according to the paper The War Next Time: Countering Rogue States and Terrorists Armed with Chemical and Biological Weapons, the new JS-LIST suits worn by the armed services "provide 45 days of wear versus 22 days for the BDOs."

These chemical warfare suits have several times more activated carbon in them than the suits currently being offered for hunting purposes; and they only last for 45 days!

This document can be viewed on-line at , or just type the words "JSList suits" in the search box on Google to read the above quote.

An interesting comment in the document states, "In addition they can be washed up to six times without losing protective qualities."

This suggests that clothing made with activated carbon becomes less effective every time it is washed. It also suggests that after six washings, the Chemical Warfare Suits, which are made to US Government specifications, and have more activated carbon in them than the activated carbon suits worn by hunters, are ineffective after six washings!

And yet - the loss of activated carbon due to washing, and the eventual ineffectiveness of the suits due to washing, is not clearly stated by the manufacturers of the activated carbon scent-elimination suits in any of their literature, or on their web sites. Note the reference to heavy perspiration in the following article, which will be talked about later.

In a further effort to determine whether or not a Scent Lok suit could significantly adsorb human odors, a piece of one of their suits was sent to Purification Process in Great Britain; which found that there wasn't enough activated carbon in the suit to even test.  

 

How Does Washing Affect Activated Carbon?

In 2005, the Scent Lok web site at http://www.scentlok.com stated:

"When and how to wash: During warm weather when only a T-shirt is being worn as an undergarment and heavy perspiration is occurring, it is advised to wash your suit periodically. During cool weather when heavier undergarments or layers are worn, there is no need to wash the suit. Washing does not have anything to do with reactivation, but does get rid of unwanted body oils (caused by perspiration), blood, and dirt. Washing a Scent-Lok suit can be done 1-4 times per season without fear of losing carbon from the suit. The permanent ClimaFlex treatment, that is on all Scent-Lok branded suits made during and after 2001, aids in the extraction of unwanted body oils in high perspiration areas when washed. Use only non-scented liquid clothes wash or preferably carbon wash. Once a garment is washed per label instructions it should be put in the dryer on a no heat setting until dry. Once the garment is dry, follow the reactivation instructions. ClimaFlex treatment is also a wicking agent, which adds to the overall comfort of the suit during warm weather."

Note: This article has since been removed from the web site. (Probably due to my comments on it.)

The comments in the US Government document mentioned above suggest that it is likely that the actions of both household washers and dryers may result in the loss of some of the activated carbon in the scent-elimination clothing worn by hunters.

Can Activated Carbon Suits be Re-activated as Manufacturers Claim?

Scent-Lok, one of the largest producers and the only licensor of activated carbon suits, states that their suits can be re-charged by placing them in the clothes dryer for 20 to 30 minutes to re-activate the carbon.

In 2005 the Scent Lok web site stated:

"How are odors released?

It is common knowledge that heat makes molecules move more rapidly. Reactivation is only obtained by using a clothes dryer. Reactivation is achieved by placing the suit in a dryer for twenty to thirty minutes on a medium to high heat setting or according to the label instructions. The heat from the clothes dryer creates what is scientifically known as Brownian molecular motion, which causes the scent molecules to move rapidly. This movement breaks the molecules free from the surfaces of the activated carbon particles and interior pores of the carbon, and allows them to eventually exit out of the dryer vent."

Note: This article has since been removed from the site. Pay attention to the words "Brownian molecular motion".

The use of the scientific term Brownian molecular motion on the Scent-Lok web site appears to add some credibility to their claims about activated carbon. There is no such term as "Brownian molecular motion". There is however a term known as Brownian motion, about which this web site states, "Brownian motion (or Brownian movement) can be defined as the random movement of microscopic particles suspended in a fluid."

Brownian motion has nothing to do with the re-activation or desorbtion of activated carbon, because the term is only used in reference to "particles suspended in a fluid"- not to the motion or activity of gaseous odor molecules released by activated carbon that is subjected to heat in a clothes dryer.

Activated Carbon Re-activation Facts

In defense of the statements that their suits can be re-activated Scent Lok maintains that the word "reactivation" is a loosely used term. In reality "reactivation", as it applies to activated carbon, means that the adsorption capability of the carbon has been totally and completely re-activated. Scent Lok has stated that the garments aren't "totally reactivated" after they are first washed and put in the dryer, but that they are partially "regenerated" or "desorbed". Supposedly this partial regeneration is enough to allow the clothing to again adsorb more odors. While some desorption or "regeneration" can occur when activated carbon is exposed to temperatures lower than 750 to 1200 degrees F, there is a point when the temperature is too low to "reactivate" activated carbon.

In order to completely re-activate activated carbon, processes referred to as "Drying", "Desorbtion", "Pyrolysis" and "Gasification" are used. To completely re-activate an activated carbon suit saturated with human perspiration it has to be heated to about 800 C or 1472 F. And it would have to be done in a controlled atmosphere with low oxygen concentration to reduce the possibility of combustion. This is clearly stated in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Engineering and Design, Adsorption Design Guide, Design Guide No. DG1110-1-2, which can be viewed on the internet.

At 500 degrees F the suit will be nothing but carbon. Even if desorbtion was possible most household clothes dryers do not reach temperatures over 200 F, which is not high enough to release the trapped odors in the scent-elimination suits. It is highly unlikely that activated carbon suits for hunting use can be recharged, with the result that the suits will eventually become full of odors, to the point where the charcoal will no longer trap odors.

Following is an article on the "reactivation" of activated carbon from the Civil Engineering Department of Virginia Technical University

at http://www.ce.vt.edu/program_areas/environmental/teach/wtprimer/carbon/sketcarb.html. It was not written to refute the claims of the activated carbon hunting suit industry, but rather to explain how activated carbon works, and how it can, or in the case of the powdered carbon used to manufacture cannot be reactivated at temperatures under 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
The "spent" carbon, as it is called, is removed and sent for re-activation treatment. This is done primarily with granular activated carbon because PAC (powdered activated carbon) particles are too small to be effectively re-activated. This process allows for recovery of approximately 70% of the original carbon. This number also allows for any physically lost in the shipment process. The re-activated carbon is then mixed with a portion of new carbon for higher effectiveness and is then returned to its place in the plant process (Clark, 1989).
Reactivation Process Specifics
Desorption,
100-649 degrees C, volatile materials driven off
Gasification
, 649-1038 degrees C, vapors and residues from previous stages driven out of pores

One hundred degrees Celsius is equal to 212 degrees Fahrenheit. This is the extreme low temperature during which "partial desorption" of odors and gases may occur. However, as stated above, most household clothes dryers produce less than 150 degrees Fahrenheit; which suggests that the activated carbon suits sold to hunters cannot even be "partially regenerated or desorbed".

 

The following quote is from the NORIT Activated Carbon web site

at http://www.norit-ac.com/newsevents.asp?newsId=106. Note that it is about activated carbon used for air; not only water.
NORIT's reactivation service is a cost-effective and environmentally sound solution. 'The recent implementation of the EU Landfill Directive in the UK is further boosting interest in thermal reactivation of exhausted GAC,' comments Mark Currier, NORIT UK Sales Manager. During thermal reactivation, the exhausted granular activated carbon (GAC) is heat treated in dedicated kilns at temperatures exceeding 900 C. Adsorbed organic compounds are cracked and oxidized. Following reactivation, the GAC's adsorptive properties are restored to a level comparable to that of virgin GAC. As a result, the GAC can be reused in the same or a similar application.
Exhausted carbon: green and amber;
The relevant EU regulation categorises exhausted GAC as either green (used in water purification and food production) or amber (used in the treatment of gas/air or wastewater). NORIT reactivates green and amber GAC in completely separate systems, precluding the risk of cross contamination.

The above quote shows that activated carbon for air is reactivated (de-sorbed) at temperatures above 900 degrees C. Again, no hunter has access to such a dryer, and if he did, it would incinerate his suit.

 

The following quote is from the CPL Carbon Link web site

at http://www.activated-carbon.com/5-1.html.
Reactivation restores the activated carbon to a state where it is virtually identical to the properties of the virgin pre-cursor. This is done by undergoing the process of activation a second time rather than simply displacing adsorbed organic material by processing at high temperature.
The organic compounds removed from the spent adsorbent are passed through a sophisticated multi-stage treatment system ensuring the reactivation system does not cause pollution while undertaking a recycling operation.

The above quote states that "reactivation" to the state of the virgin precursor occurs after high temperature has been used to "desorb" the carbon, and then it has to be reactivated "a second time".

It appears that "reactivation" (which is the term used by Scent Lok) is even more difficult than desorbtion. And it is unlikely any hunter has access to a facility to reactivate their suit; or the money to do it.

 

The following quote is from the Inist web site

at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16558801
Bench-scale experiments investigated the effect of electrolyte mixing on the effectiveness of an electrochemical reactor for the reactivation of granular activated carbon (GAC). Two different GACs (F-400 and WV-B) were loaded with phenol via batch adsorption tests, then electrochemically reactivated and finally reloaded with phenol. Reactivation was conducted in a recirculating flow reactor with a 0.1 M NaCl solution as the electrolyte. Cathodic reactivation was more efficient than the anodic reactivation and increasing the degree of electrolyte mixing decreased the cathodic reactivation efficiencies, while there was no significant change in the anodic reactivation efficiencies. Higher degrees of electrolyte mixing decreased the local pH at the cathode and consequently reduced the desorption driving force and therefore reduced the reactivation efficiency. The electrolyte mixing lowered the cell voltage. However, this advantage was overshadowed by the increased energy consumption required for the electrolyte pumping, the reduction of the oxidation rate of phenol, and a 20% reduction in the reactivation efficiencies. Thus, electrolyte mixing of the electrolyte is not recommended in the electrochemical reactivation of GAC.

Note that this method includes "electrochemical reactivation", which no hunter I know of has access to.

 

The following quote is from the Cameron Carbon web site

at http://www.cameroncarbon.com/spent_carbon.html
Cameron Carbon offers spent activated carbon reactivation (recycling) services at a fully permitted reactivation facility. Spent carbon is recycled in specially designed high temperature furnaces that can restore the carbon's pore structure to new or near new quality. The organics that are vaporized from the spent carbon are fully destroyed downstream of the furnace by an air pollution control system. Certification of VOC (volatile organic compounds) destruction can be provided upon request.

The above quote states that "reactivation" (the word Scent Lok uses) occurs when activated carbon is placed in "specially designed high temperature furnaces", and ONLY THEN is it restored to new or nearly new quality. No hunter I know of has access to such a facility.

 

The following quote is from the CMCC-AC web site

at http://www.cmcc-ac.co.jp/english/product/catalog1.html
Activated carbon that has dropped its adsorbing capability can be recovered in its performance by the reactivation process and can be used in the adsorption process again. When activated carbon adsorbs impurities, a balanced relationship of adsorption is established among the adsorbate (i.e. substance adsorbed by activated carbon), activated carbon, and medium (i.e. substance surrounding the adsorbate and activated carbon such as water or gas).
Reactivating means that this balanced relationship of adsorption is changed and adsorbate is separated from activated carbon. Depending on the reaction mechanism, there are 6 types of reactivation; decompression reactivation, heating and leaving reactivation, chemical reactivation, solvent reactivation, substitutive reactivation, and oxidation and decomposition reactivation.

I don't know of any hunter who has access to 5 of the reactivation types, and we have already established that even partial reactivation, or "desorbption" (odors as it is called) of human perspiration, must occur at temperatures over 212 degrees F.

 

The following quote is from the Siemens web site at

http://www.usfilter.com/en/Corporate/Technologies/activated_carbon_regeneration_technologies?OverrideChannel=%2Fchannels%2Fen%2Fcorporate%2F
Our carbon reactivation facilities processes RCRA hazardous and non-hazardous liquid and vapor phase spent carbons. After inspection and acceptance, the spent carbon is heated to 1600°F to ensure proper reactivation. The cooled reactivated carbon is identified by lot numbers. Each carbon lot is sampled and analyzed in accordance with Westates' QA/QC program. This process assures you receive the highest quality reactivated carbon. The entire process is computer controlled and monitored, ensuring the facility meets or exceeds federal and state regulatory requirements for air and water discharges. A "Certificate of Reactivation" can be issued for each shipment of recycled carbon. This certifies that the spent carbon has been recycled in a manner that meets or exceeds all applicable RCRA and Benzene NESHAP regulations.

I don't know of any hunter who has a 1600 degree dryer.

 

I personally spoke to a Chemist at 3M here in St. Paul, MN. He told me that due to the length of the human perspiration odor it would be impossible to desorb it from activated carbon at temperatures below 500 degress F. At this temperature the suit would be incinerated.

LINKS

Trinity Mountain Outdoor Products Catalog

T.R. Michels' Guide Service / Hunting Trips

Whitetail / Turkey / Elk / Waterfowl Hunting & Guide School

T.R.'s Hunting Tips & Articles

 

 

 

 

 

Christian Witness / Articles

 

Advertising Pages / Links to Other Websites

 

 

 Whitetail Information

Whitetail Rut Dates Chart

Whitetail Activity Graphs

Whitetail Communication / Calls

Whitetail Articles

Whitetail Management

Whitetail Hunting Tips

 

Turkey Information

Peak Turkey Gobbling Dates Chart

Turkey Gobbling Graphs

Turkey Articles

Turkey Hunting Tips

 

Elk Information

Peak Elk Bugling Dates

Elk Activity Graphs

Elk Communication / Calls

Elk Hunting Tips

 

Waterfowl Information

Duck & Goose Articles

Duck & Goose Hunting Tips

 

Other Information

State / Provincial Wildlife Offices & Information

 

NOAA's National Weather Service

Sunrise & Sunset

 

Sport Show Listings

For More information on Activated Carbon Facts

check all of the other comments

(Click the star (*) to go to the article)

Do activated carbon suits fool the nose? *

3/10/7

*

3/1/07

*

3/1/07

*

How Does Washing Affect Activated Carbon? *

Can Activated Carbon Suits be Re-activated as Manufacturers Claim? *

Activated Carbon Re-activation Facts *

Examples of Scent Lok's false use of terms and/or processes for the originally implied chemical adsorbtion of their suits: *

3/1/07

*

Reactivation of Activated Carbon - The Real Science *

Are Activated Carbon Suits Adversely Affected by Humidity? *

Do hunters have other options? *

Do anti-bacterial or anti-microbial type clothing suits work? *

Scent Lok Licensing Agreements *

Is the Scent-Lok patent valid? *

3/2/07

*

Can Scent Lok Legally Sue Other Manufacturers? *

The Questions Hunters Should be Asking *

Questionable Statements by Scent Lok *

3/1/07

*

Scent Lok's Steps to Success *

Scent Lok E-mails to T.R. Michels *

3/1/07

*

Scent Lok Under Fire Update: The Scam Continues *

E-mails from other Activated Carbon Experts *

The T.R. Michels / Scent Lok Testimony Controversy *

Dissatisfied Scent Lok Customers *

 

Introduction

I have always been curious. I enjoy studying, learning, and researching. As a Christian I have always looked for "the truth".

In my search for "the truth" have I researched white-tailed deer between 1994 and 2003; wild turkeys between 1999 and 2002; North American elk between 2000 and 2003. I have written several research papers, and presented them to such notable biologists as Dr. Larry Marchinton, Dr, Karl Miller, Dr. James Ozoga, Dr. Ben Koerth, Dr. James Kroll, Dr. Valerius Geist, Dr. Kent Kammermeyer, Dr. James Earl Kennemer, Dr. Lovett Williams III and Dr. Richard Kimmel.

These papers and studies include.

North American Elk

Michels, T.R., Bugling Activity of North American Elk, 2001. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Communicative Sounds of North American Elk, 2002. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Rut Activity of North American Elk in Relation to Lunar Factors, 2003. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Scent Marking Activity of North American Elk; Scraping, 2002. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

White-tailed Deer

Michels, T.R., Changes in Yearly Scrape Activity of White-tailed Deer due to Harvest of Dominant Bucks, 1999, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Chronology of Scrape Activity of White-tailed Deer; and Rut Phase Terminology, 1999, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Effects of Hunting Pressure on Daily Movement and Scrape Activity of White-tailed Deer, 1999, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Fall Movement Variations Between Sexes and Social Classes of White-tailed Deer, 1998, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Scrape Activity of White-tailed Deer, 1994, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Scrape Activity of White-tailed Deer, 1997, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Scrape Activity of White-tailed Deer, 1998, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Scrape Activity of White-tailed Deer, 1999, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Scrape Activity of White-tailed Deer in Relation to Lunar Factors, 1999, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Scrape Activity of Migratory White-tailed Deer in Southeastern Minnesota, 1999, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., White-tailed Deer Activity in Relation to Lunar Factors; Daily, Monthly & Yearly Breeding Activity, 1998, Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., White-tailed Deer Activity in Relation to Fall Meteorological Conditions in Southeastern Minnesota, Trinity Mountain Publishing, 1998.

Wild Turkeys

Michels, T.R., Daily and Seasonal Social Interactions of Wild Turkeys in Southeastern Minnesota; Part 1. Seasonal Activity. 1999. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Daily and Seasonal Social Interactions of Wild Turkeys in Southeastern Minnesota; Part 2. Daily Activity. 1999. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Daily and Seasonal Social Interactions of Wild Turkeys in Southeastern Minnesota; Part 3. Vocalizations and Other Communicative Sounds. 1999. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Daily and Seasonal Social Interactions of Wild Turkeys in Southeastern Minnesota; Part 4. Social Status and Breeding Strategies. 1999. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Effects of Meteorological Conditions on Wild Turkey Behavior in Southeastern Minnesota. 1999. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Michels, T.R., Wild Turkey Activity in Relation to Lunar Factors. 2001. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

Lunar Periodicity

Michels, T.R., Lunar Periodicity of White-tailed Deer and Wild Turkeys. 2001. Trinity Mountain Publishing.

 

After reading my deer research papers, noted deer researcher Dr. Larry Marchinton wrote a letter to me that stated "Very interesting, keep me posted." Turkey researcher Dr. Dick Kimmel wrote "You should be (you already are) a turkey researcher." Deer, elk and moose researcher Dr. Valerius Geist, who had recently re-edited the Biology and Behavior chapter of the book The Ecology and Management of North American Elk said, "If you had sent those papers to me six months ago it would have changed the book."

Since 1989, when I first began writing hunting articles, I have been interested in getting to "the truth of the matter" of some of the more widely publicized myths about hunting, animal biology and behavior, and some of the claims of the manufacturers of hunting products. My studies, research and questions about several topics and products have been the impetus for several people, including several well respected and well-known wildlife biologists, to conduct further research studies to get to the truth of the matter on at least two subjects that I can remember.

1. Deer Are Color Blind: After reading and hearing that deer see only in black and white for several years, and then reading a research paper by Dr. Jay Neitz, on the vision capabilities of pigs, I contacted Jay, spoke to him at length, and then put him in touch with deer researcher Dr. Larry Marchinton at the University of Georgia, who I had been talking to for several years. With my suggestion they got together to find out how deer see, and came to the conclusion that deer can see some colors, especially the UV light in florescent orange required to be worn by many gun hunters. It was concluded that deer are red-green color blind, but do see the colors blue and yellow, plus light in the Ultra-Violet range.

2. Peak Breeding Dates of White-tailed Deer are Affected by the Phase of the Moon: After reading and hearing the hypothesis put forth by people like LaRouche, Dr.'s James Kroll and Ben Koerth, Jeff Murray and Charles Alsheimer, about how peak breeding of white-tailed deer was influenced by or correlated with the phases of the moon, I got hold of the research paper findings of a group of deer biologists in Minnesota, including Dr. Al Berner, who had done a research study between 1980 and 1987 to find out when peak breeding of White-tailed deer occurred in Minnesota - before the "peak white-tailed deer breeding / moon phase" hypothesis ever came out.

I sent the results of that study to Dr. Karl Miller at the University of Georgia, with the suggestion that he or someone else there conduct a study to find out if there was any validity to the hypothesis. After putting Karl in touch with Al Berner here in Minnesota, he got hold of several other studies on the conception dates of over 2,500 white-tailed deer does, in 10 states, from Florida to Maine and from Minnesota to Texas. They found that there was no correlation between the peak conception dates of white-tailed deer and any moon phase, and came to the conclusion that the phase of the moon does not affect peak breeding dates of white-tailed deer. See Peak Rut Dates Chart & Moon Phase Hypothesis page.

3. All, or Most, White-tailed Deer Does are bred during Peak Breeding (Peak Rut). The studies on Peak Breeding Dates of White-tailed Deer mentioned above showed that normally only 20-30 percent of all the does in an area get bred during Peak Breeding or Peak Rut. Breeding in most areas continues for 45-120 days. See the Peak Rut Dates Chart & Moon Phase Hypothesis page.

4. White-tailed Deer does use a "Doe Estrus" or "Doe-in-Heat" vocalization call when they are in estrus. After reading about the "doe-in-heat" call talked about by several outdoor writers, speakers and deer call manufacturers, I read the research studies of such deer researchers as Dr. Larry Marchinton and others, and found no mention of white-tailed deer does performing or using an "estrus call" for the purpose of breeding. See the Whitetail Communication page

5. There are only two "Gobbling Peaks" during the turkey breeding-season. Because most turkey research has been done between late March and late May, most research studies record only one peak in gobbling activity. Since my four-year turkey research project began as early as March 1 and ended as late as mid June, I discovered that there are often three, and up to four turkey gobbling peaks during the spring. See the Turkey Activity Graphs page.

6. Tom Turkeys "Drum" during the breeding season. On April 14, 2000, I had the opportunity to observe two domestic penned tom turkeys, and to solve the mystery of how the "spit" and the "drum" were produced. Luckily the two domestic birds were extremely tame and allowed me to get close enough to hear both the spit and the drum as close as six inches away. As I sat near the toms I could hear them inhaling and exhaling deeply, and noted that when the spit was performed the bird opened its mouth and expelled air. The spit is the sound of the tom exhaling after it has inhaled several times. The spit was often followed by the drum, which was a low volume, deep pitched humming sound. See the Turkey Communication page.

As I watched one of the toms I noticed that its body, especially the tail, vibrated when the drum was produced. When I put my hand on the bird's body I found that the chest (not the lungs) was inflated, suggesting that the birds have large air sacs beneath the skin of the chest region. This area was warm to the touch and I could feel it vibrate when the drum was produced. As a result of this I believe that the drum is produced by movement of the air within the sacs of the bird's chest. Because the drum may be produced in the same way as the "booming" of a Prairie Chicken (by the movement of air in air sacks), the drum of a turkey may eventually have to be renamed the "boom."

 Turkeys belong to the Phasianidae family, many of which (sage-grouse, prairie chicken, sharp-tailed grouse, blue grouse) have air sacks in their neck or chest region. The "fat pad" or "breast sponge" of a tom turkey is actually an air sack.

7. There is more than one Bugling Peak during the elk breeding-season. After hearing from several well known elk hunters (such as Dwight Schuh and Larry Jones) that Peak Elk Bugling occurred during both early to mid September and late September to early October, I researched the bugling activity of a herd of over 300 bull elk from 2000-2004. My studies showed that there were often two and as many as four Bugling Peaks during the elk breeding season. See the Elk Activity Graphs page.

8. Cow elk perform a "Cow Estrus" call during the elk-breeding season. During my studies I witnessed over 20 cow elk get bred. None of the cows made any sound from 20 minutes before to 20 minutes after breeding. No cow estrus call is noted in any scientific research or literature on elk vocalizations or elk communication.

Because the cows are often in a herd with a bull there is no need for the cows to advertise they are in estrus thought the use of vocal communication. To determine if the cows are in estrus the bull regularly walks through the herd, checking the beds where the cows had been laying down, and checking the cows themselves. My research paper, Communicative Sounds of North American Elk, was presented at the Deer Symposium in Sou Chou, China, in 2000. See the Elk Communication page.

9. Activated Carbon used in Hunting Suits can Eliminate Human Perspiration Odors and other Odors that are Unnatural to White-tailed Deer (or that may otherwise Alarm White-tailed Deer). After wearing activated carbon clothing sent to me by Scent Lok for several years, and after being told by Scent Lok owner Greg Sesselman that because of the number or hours I researched deer each year (90-150 days, up to 600 hours per year) that I would need a new suit every year (which I semi-regularly received), I decided to do some research on how activated carbon for use with airborne scents works, how it can be "re-activated" to the point where (after all of the space in the activated carbon is occupied or used up) it can be used again.

I have spent literally hundreds of hours on the Internet reading articles about:

1. How activated carbon can work,

2. Why activated carbon cannot work in some situations,

3. How PAC (particle activated carbon, which is used in every activated hunting suit I have seen) cannot be easily re-activated,

4. How there is probably not enough activated carbon in those suits, at a high enough concentration across the surface of the fabric, to stop odors from escaping the suits without coming into contact with the activated carbon,

5. How activated carbon will not work when the humidity level between the hunter's body and the suit exceeds 50%, because the surface of the activated carbon is covered with liquid, and airborne scents cannot come into contact with the activated carbon,

6. How research and industry papers show that activated carbon cannot be partially "re-activated" or "stripped" at temperatures below 212 degrees F, which is the boiling point of perspiration laden water, because "stripping" occurs at the boiling point of whatever it is you want to remove from the activated carbon. .

7. How activated carbon cannot be totally "re-activated" at temperatures below 1,200 degrees F.

As an outdoor writer, seminar speaker, author, and designer and innovator of hunting products, I believe I have a responsibility to find out the truth about some subjects, and reveal those truths to the hunting public. As a Christian I believe I have a responsibility to tell the hunting public when I believe they are being misled, deceived or scammed.

I believe hunters and the hunting industry have been duped by the manufacturers of activated hunting clothing, especially by the original innovators of activated carbon hunting suits, namely Scent Lok, because they have gained the most; and they stand to lose the most if the facts are known.

 

To read about deer, turkey, duck, goose or elk biology and behavior, and to learn tips, techniques and tactics for hunting those species log on to Trinity Mountain Outdoors Magazine.

If you have questions log on to the "T.R.'s Tips" Talk Forum / Message Board - and fire away. 

T.R. Michels

Examples of Scent Lok's false use of terms and/or processes for the originally implied chemical adsorbtion of their suits:

In 2006 the Scent Lok site (http://www.seattlefabrics.com/scent-lok_science.htm http://www.seattlefabrics.com/scent-lok_science.htm) stated:

"The bonding process
In the Scent-Lok products the odor adsorbing linings are designed so that the human odors, gases, and moisture pass through the fabrics, make contact with the activated carbon, and are then expelled as "filtered" air. Once through the suit the air no longer contains human odor. The scientific name for this molecular attraction to carbon is called the VanderWaal's bond."

Conclusion: Here, by the use of the use of the words "molecular attraction" they clearly imply that the "adsorbtion" they were originally talking about was chemical adsorbtion, not physical adsorbtion.

 

In 2006 the Scent Lok site stated:

"How are odors released?

It is common knowledge that heat makes molecules move more rapidly. Reactivation is only obtained by using a clothes dryer. Reactivation is achieved by placing the suit in a dryer for twenty to thirty minutes on a medium to high heat setting or according to the label instructions. The heat from the clothes dryer creates what is scientifically known as Brownian molecular motion, which causes the scent molecules to move rapidly. This movement breaks the molecules free from the surfaces of the activated carbon particles and interior pores of the carbon, and allow them to eventually exit out of the dryer vent."

Conclusion: Here Scent Lok implies that the bond between human perspiration and other odors is "molecular". By the use of the words "molecules" and "molecular motion" they imply that they were originally talking about was chemical adsorbtion, not physical adsorbtion.

There is no such term as "Brownian molecular motion", because it does not apply to "molecules". The correct term is "Brownian motion", and it does not appear to apply to the release of odors from activated carbon. The web page at www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion defines Brownian motion as:

Brownian motion
(named in honor of the botanist Robert Brown) is either the random movement of particles suspended in a fluid or the mathematical model used to describe such random movements, often called a Wiener process.

Conclusion: This term relates to particles suspended in water, it has nothing to do with the release of odors from activated carbon in a household dryer.

 

In 2006 the Scent Lok site (http://www.seattlefabrics.com/scent-lok_science.htm http://www.seattlefabrics.com/scent-lok_science.htm) stated:

"The bonding process
In the Scent-Lok products the odor adsorbing linings are designed so that the human odors, gases, and moisture pass through the fabrics, make contact with the activated carbon, and are then expelled as "filtered" air. Once through the suit the air no longer contains human odor. The scientific name for this molecular attraction to carbon is called the VanderWaal's bond."

There is no such term as "VanderWaals bond". The correct term is "van der Waals forces" (note the spelling and term differences).

The web site at http://www.biochem.northwestern.edu/holmgren/Glossary/Definitions/Def-V/Van_der_Waals_force.html defines van der Waals as:

"Van der Waals dispersion force. AKA: London force, dispersion force

The weakest of the imtermolecular forces. Present on all particles and increasing strength with increasing size. Results from the fact that a preponderance of electrons can end up on one side of an atom. The dispersion force which in fact is an induced dipole - induced dipole interaction depends on the polarisability of the interacting molecules and is inversely proportional to the sixth power of separation. In the case of e.g. two CH4 molecules at a separation of 3Å, the dispersion interaction energy is of the order of -1.1 Kcal/mole."

The web page at http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae206.cfm states:

"Question: Could you explain van der Waals' forces to me, and their role in why energy is needed to vaporize water?

Answer: It is important to remember that van der Waals' forces are forces that exist between molecules of the sam substance. They are quite different from the forces that make up the molecule. For example, a water molecule is made up of hydrogen and oxygen, which are bonded together by the sharing of electrons. These electrostatic forces that keep a molecule intact are existent in covalent and ionic bonding but they are NOT van der Waals' forces.
Van der Waals' forces are the forces that exist between the millions of separate water molecules, and not between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in the case of water."

Conclusion: Van der Waals has nothing to do with the "filtering" of air through activated carbon in a Scent Lok suit by means of physical adsorbtion. (which is how Scent Lok now claims human perspiration and other odors are eliminated/controlled/reduced by the powdered activated carbon in their suits.)

 

The use of this term in previous advertising and marketing by Scent Lok shows that they were implying that the human perspiration adsorbed by the activated carbon in their suits was by "chemical adsorbtion".

However, in early 2007 Scent Lok began to claim their suits work by "physical adsorbtion", not "chemical adsorbtion".

Either Scent Lok intended to deceive the hunting public in their previous advertising and marketing, or they are now covering their tracks because they previously misled the hunting public.

 

3/1/07

Using the new term "physical adsorbtion" Scent Lok now claims that they can regenerate the powdered activated carbon in their suits by a process known as "stripping", during which steam heating of activated carbon can, and does, remove some of the odors sorbed by activated carbon.

However, the term "stripping" is primarily used in respect to the removal of gold from activated carbon by heating it to remove gold from activated carbon.

The web site at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7056948.html states:

"Loaded carbon must be desorbed in order to recover the gold absorbed.
The web site at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7056948.html states.
"There are several methods that use caustic soda or alcohol working temperatures between 70 to 140 oC. Caustic soda has the advantage of low cost and reduces the time required for desorbing the gold.
A typical stripping solution contains 20-25% by weight of ethylene or propylene glycol and 2% by weight of caustic soda. Sodium cyanide is sometimes added to the solution, but is frequently unnecessary. The solution is heated about 190 oF and pumped through the carbon stripping vessel ..."

Conclusion: The term "stripping" has nothing to do with the removal or human perspiration and other odors from activated carbon, especially at the temperatures that can be achieved in a household dryer.

 

Scent Lok also used the term "mechanical entrapment" in its description of how perspiration odors were removed from air and "trapped" or sorbed to activated carbon.

The web page at http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:jO813Cb4J9cJ:goldbook.c60.kiev.ua/M03800.pdf+mechanical+entrapment&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us describes "mechanical entrapment" as:

"1. The process of random incorporation of comparatively small quantities of other phases (e.g. water, dust, particles, etc.) in the bulk of a precipitate during its formation.
2. The deliberate capture of small quantities of such phases by the deliberate addition of solids to a liquid phase. (The term inclusion is not recommended).
O.B. 85
IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology
2nd Edition (1997)"

Conclusion:

The term "mechanical entrapment" has nothing to do with the sorbing of human perspiration odors by activated carbon.

 

I've also questioned whether or not the activated carbon in a Scent Lok suit can be re-activated in a household dryer as Scent Lok claims?

In response to my questions about activated carbon Dr. Mellor, Technical Director of Purification Products Limited in Great Britain, which manufactures activated carbon stated:  

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. 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 ..."

Conclusion: Human perspiration odors will go around the extremely small amount of activated carbon in a Scent Lok suit if they can, which they can easily do in a Scent Lok suit as we can see by examining the photo of their fabric.  

Q. In your experience can powdered activated carbon, such as is used in may of these suits, be reactivated or de-adsorbed, or de-adosrbed, 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: This statement makes it clear that activated carbon that is full of human perspiration and other odors cannot be re-activated or de-sorbed of those odors in a household dryer at temperatures between 150 and 180 degrees F. This suggests that Scent Lok's statements that their suits can be re-activated or re-generated - is false or misleading.

 

In its efforts to support its claims Scent Lok has questioned whether or not the Shivik dog study, studying the effectiveness of activated carbon to sorb odors, was "scientific". In response to that question Bruce A Kimball of APHIS USDA center stated:

"... The bottom line is that, like all research at the National Wildlife Research Center, Dr. Shivik's study was approved at every level before he initiated the study. Further, his research findings were published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Thus, his findings would absolutely be considered scientific. ..."

Dr. Karl Miller, well known and respected deer biologist at the University of Georgia responded to whether or not he thought deer could smell as well as deer responded with:

"In a way, it's difficult to compare a study on a dog's ability to locate scent, and a deer's ability- however, there likely are some important similarities. We know that dogs can be trained to do some amazing things with their noses - finding bombs and drugs, tracking fugitives, etc. If we could train a deer to do this, could they do equally well? I don't think there is any way determine this.
I am not at all surprised that the dogs in the Shivik study were able to determine the human scent. I would have been surprised if the dogs were unable to detect it! Although I don't know how effective carbon clothing is at reducing potential odors, even if they were 99.99999% effective, the dogs probably could still find some scent. Could deer do the same - perhaps.
They may be a little more (or less) effective in identifying or detecting the scent, but unless scent is essentially eliminated there may still be enough there to detect. Personally, I do not think that there is any way that carbon suits can eliminate odors, but perhaps they can be effective at odor reduction (I do not have the experience to comment on this)."

A comparison of the number of olfactory receptors in the noses of deer, dogs and humans shows that deer have up to 297 million olfactory receptors in their nose, plus a vomeronasal organ. Dogs have up to 220 million olfactory receptors in the nose, plus a vomeronasal organ. Humans have up to 5 million olfactory receptors in the nose, no vomeronasal organ.

Conclusion: If the number of receptors in the nose of an animal is any indication of how well it can smell odors, including human perspiration odors, then deer can smell as well as, and possibly better than dogs.

 

I have asked Scent Lok several times to supply me with a complete copy of the testing of the activated carbon on the fabric used in the manufacture of their suits. I have also asked what other products they used as a "control" (6 oz. poly/cotton twill, 100% nylon, wool etc.) in that testing - in order to determine the effectiveness of their product in relation to the effectiveness of other fabrics and suits, but they have refused to supply me with this information, in spite of their repeated offers to do so.

I have repeatedly asked Scent Lok to tell me the thickness (in inches) of the layer of activated carbon in their suits.

In the response to that question Greg Sesselman wrote (please note my responses to Mr. Sesselman's vague answers to this question):

"RE: Is there enough carbon on the fabric or is the distribution sufficient? Our experts have helped us determine that one gram of carbon is more than sufficient to filter the entire human odor produced for a long, long time if you could direct it through it. Understand that our distribution is tens to hundreds of grams of carbon per square yard of fabric. (Which is it tens - or hundreds of grams? Hunters would like to know. TR) The carbon is a finer distribution (Meaning less thick than it was before? TR). The gaps between the carbon particles are much less than it ever was before. (Meaning the gaps were too wide before? TR) And that carbon particle is more adsorptive than ever before (Please explain how it can be more adsorbtive than before. TR). Hence our suits are more adsorptive than ever before even better than the suit that you had (unqualified/unverified, TR) positive field results with in the past."

Greg Sesselman has refused to respond to my questions about his fantastic claims and vague answers to those questions.

 

Predictions:

I predict that, as a result of my in depth, to the point questions, Scent Lok will come out with a new "re-worded" Scent Lok Science booklet, which they previously had on the internet, but which, due to the questions of other people and myself, on several internet talk forums and web pages, mysteriously disappeared from their web site late last year.

I suspect that, in the near future, Scent Lok will come up with new "altered, false, incorrect or misleading terms or processes" in their advertising, marketing, patent applications and their Scent Lok Science booklet, to describe how their product removes human perspiration or other odors from the air between a hunter's bodies and their suits, and how those odors can be removed from the activated carbon in those suits by a household dryer at 150-180 degrees F, because they can no longer defend the previous claims of the amount of sorbtion and de-sorbtion in their suits.

The use of activated carbon to eliminate human odors for the purpose of hunting, by
Scent Lok and its licensees is the biggest scam or fraud ever presented, marketed and sold to hunters.

My Predictions proved true

 

Reactivation of Activated Carbon - The Real Science

Note: To set the stage for the following explanation of how the (powdered) activated carbon in a Scent Lok cannot be "reactivated" as Scent Lok representatives claim it can be, we must first define what the terms "reactivation", "desorbtion", "gasification", "volatile materials", "vapors" and "human perspiration odor" mean.

Reactivation

As shown by the above article "reactivation" of activated carbon involves four different processes (drying, desorbtion, pyrolysis, gasification); not just "desorbtion" as it appears Scent Lok refers to when it says that their product can be "reactivated" in a household dryer (which generally produce maximum temperatures between 150 and 180 degrees F.

Gasification

The web site at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/organics/Conversion/Gasification/ states:

Gasification is a process that uses heat, pressure, and steam to convert materials directly into a gas composed primarily of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
Gasification technologies differ in many aspects but rely on four key engineering factors:
Gasification reactor atmosphere (level of oxygen or air content).
Reactor design.
Internal and external heating.
Operating temperature.
Typical raw materials used in gasification are coal, petroleum-based materials, and organic materials. The feedstock is prepared and fed, in either dry or slurried form, into a sealed reactor chamber called a gasifier. The feedstock is subjected to high heat, pressure, and either an oxygen-rich or oxygen-starved environment within the gasifier. Most commercial gasification technologies do not use oxygen. All require an energy source to generate heat and begin processing.
There are three primary products from gasification:
Hydrocarbon gases (also called syngas).
Hydrocarbon liquids (oils).
Char (carbon black and ash).

It is during this "gasification" process that "vapors" (some of the compounds of human perspiration odors) are "driven out of the pores" of activated carbon.

Volatile Materials

The United States EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) web site at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html states:

Organic Gases (Volatile Organic Compounds - VOCs)
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted as gases from certain solids or liquids. VOCs include a variety of chemicals, some of which may have short- and long-term adverse health effects. Concentrations of many VOCs are consistently higher indoors (up to ten times higher) than outdoors. VOCs are emitted by a wide array of products numbering in the thousands. Examples include: paints and lacquers, paint strippers, cleaning supplies, pesticides, building materials and furnishings, office equipment such as copiers and printers, correction fluids and carbonless copy paper, graphics and craft materials including glues and adhesives, permanent markers, and photographic solutions.
Organic chemicals are widely used as ingredients in household products. Paints, varnishes, and wax all contain organic solvents, as do many cleaning, disinfecting, cosmetic, degreasing, and hobby products. Fuels are made up of organic chemicals. All of these products can release organic compounds while you are using them, and, to some degree, when they are stored.
EPA's Total Exposure Assessment Methodology (TEAM) studies found levels of about a dozen common organic pollutants to be 2 to 5 times higher inside homes than outside, regardless of whether the homes were located in rural or highly industrial areas. Additional TEAM studies indicate that while people are using products containing organic chemicals, they can expose themselves and others to very high pollutant levels, and elevated concentrations can persist in the air long after the activity is completed.

Volatiles, are substances that can be "desorbed", which may include some components of "human perspiration odor"; but, not but not all of them can be "desorbed".

Vapor

Wikepedia defines vapor as:

Vapor or vapour (see spelling differences) is some matter in gaseous state, while being normally a solid or liquid at room temperature.
Although vapor and gas are frequently (incorrectly) used interchangeably, vapor refers to a gas phase in a state of equilibrium with identical matter in a liquid or solid state below its boiling point, or at least capable of forming solid or liquid at the temperature of the vapor. The term gas refers to a compressible fluid phase, as in common usage. Fixed gases are gases for which no liquid or solid can form at the temperature of the gas (such as air at ). A liquid or solid does not have to boil to release a vapor. The atmospheric boiling point of a liquid is the temperature at which the vapor pressure is equal to one atmosphere (unit). See the entry on vapor pressure for more information on this topic.
The vapor pressure is the equilibrium pressure from a liquid (or solid) at a specific temperature. The vapor pressure of a liquid or solid (pure or a mixture) is not affected by the pressure in contact with the liquid or solid.

Odor

Wikepedia defines odor (as in human perspiration odor) as:

An odor or odour (see spelling differences) is a chemical dissolved in air, generally at a very low concentration, which we perceive by the sense of olfaction. Odors are also called smells, which can refer to both pleasant and unpleasant odors. In contrast, stench and stink are used specifically to describe an unpleasant odor. The terms fragrance, scent, or aroma are used primarily by the food and cosmetic industry to describe a pleasant odor, and is sometimes used to refer to perfumes.

Human perspiration odor is a gas or vapor, which contains substances such as uric acid, leucine, valine and lactic acid, that may partially be "driven out of (the) pores" of activated carbon during the "desorbtion" stage of reactivation of activated carbon.

Conclusions: The above article states that "desorption" (which Scent Lok refers to as "re-activation") of GAC (granulated activated carbon) occurs between 100-649 degrees C (above 212 degrees F). This is when volatile materials (those solids that easily turn into gas) are driven off. This clearly is not how any form of activated carbon can be reactivated, because human perspiration odor is not solely a "volatile organic compound".

The article goes on to state that "gasification" (using temeratures between 649-1038 degrees C) of "vapors" and residues (airborne gases and scents such as some of the compounds of human perspiration odor) from the previous stages of the "reactivation process" are "driven out of pores" of granulated activated carbon.

The article clearly shows that the minimal amount of activated carbon (which does not even cover the entire surface of the fabric used in a Scent Lok suit), cannot be reactivated (when it comes to human perspiration odors) in a household dryer, because household dryers rarely produce temperatures in excess of 150-180 degrees. It clearly states that vapors (human perspiration odors) are not driven off (desorbed or re-activated from activate carbon) until activated carbon is raised to 649 C (1200 degrees F). Very few hunters have access to such a dryer.

This information suggests that Scent Lok may be engaged in false if not deceptive advertising. In fact "re-activation" is the basis for Scent Lok's claim that their suits are effective because they can be "reactivated" and can therefore be used for an indefinite period of time; which research shows cannot be done.  

The Following article is from the NORIT Activated Carbon web site. Note that it is about activated carbon used for air; not only water.

(begin quote)

NORIT’s reactivation service is a cost-effective and environmentally sound solution. 'The recent implementation of the EU Landfill Directive in the UK is further boosting interest in thermal reactivation of exhausted GAC,' comments Mark Currier, NORIT UK Sales Manager. During thermal reactivation, the exhausted granular activated carbon (GAC) is heat treated in dedicated kilns at temperatures exceeding 900 C. Adsorbed organic compounds are cracked and oxidised. Following reactivation, the GAC's adsorptive properties are restored to a level comparable to that of virgin GAC. As a result, the GAC can be reused in the same or a similar application.

Exhausted carbon: green and amber;
The relevant EU regulation categorises exhausted GAC as either green (used in water purification and food production) or amber (used in the treatment of gas/air or wastewater). NORIT reactivates green and amber GAC in completely separate systems, precluding the risk of cross contamination.
(end quote)

The above article shows that activated carbon for air is reactivated (de-sorbed) at temperatures above 900 degrees C. Again, no hunter has access to such a dryer, and if he did, it would incinerate his suit.

 

The following quote is from the CPL Carbon Link web site at http://www.activated-carbon.com/5-1.html

(begin quote)

Reactivation restores the activated carbon to a state where it is virtually identical to the properties of the virgin pre-cursor. This is done by undergoing the process of activation a second time rather than simply displacing adsorbed organic material by processing at high temperature. The organic compounds removed from the spent adsorbent are passed through a sophisticated multi-stage treatment system ensuring the reactivation system does not cause pollution while undertaking a recycling operation.

(end quote)

The above article states that "reactivation" to the state of the virgin precursor occurs after both high temperature has been used to "desorb" the carbon, and then it has to be reactivated "a second time". It appears that "reactivation" (which is the term used by Scent Lok) is even more difficult than desorbtion. And it is unlikely any hunter has access to a facility to reactivate their suit; or the money to do it.

 

The following quote is from the Chemviron Carbon web site at http://www.chemvironcarbon.com/cci/introcci.htmhttp://www.chemvironcarbon.com/cci/introcci.htm

(begin quote)

Activated Carbon Cloth (ACC) was originally developed by the British Ministry of Defence for use in chemical warfare suits. Since the early 1970’s Charcoal Cloth International (CCI) a subsidiary of Chemviron Carbon has been developing and manufacturing ACC under the ZORFLEX® brand name for a wide range of demanding markets.

(end quote)

The above article shows that activated carbon cloth (used in hunting suits) was used for a variety of purposes as early as the 1970's, which shows that the use or application of activated carbon began much earlier than the non-patent of Scent Lok for the same use or application in the early 1990's. Their patent is invalid; as it stands, they had no right to sue anyone, threaten to sue anyone, require royalties from anyone, or stop anyone from selling activated carbon suits.

 

The following article is from the Inist web site at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16558801

(begin quote)

Bench-scale experiments investigated the effect of electrolyte mixing on the effectiveness of an electrochemical reactor for the reactivation of granular activated carbon (GAC). Two different GACs (F-400 and WV-B) were loaded with phenol via batch adsorption tests, then electrochemically reactivated and finally reloaded with phenol. Reactivation was conducted in a recirculating flow reactor with a 0.1 M NaCl solution as the electrolyte. Cathodic reactivation was more efficient than the anodic reactivation and increasing the degree of electrolyte mixing decreased the cathodic reactivation efficiencies, while there was no significant change in the anodic reactivation efficiencies. Higher degrees of electrolyte mixing decreased the local pH at the cathode and consequently reduced the desorption driving force and therefore reduced the reactivation efficiency. The electrolyte mixing lowered the cell voltage. However, this advantage was overshadowed by the increased energy consumption required for the electrolyte pumping, the reduction of the oxidation rate of phenol, and a 20% reduction in the reactivation efficiencies. Thus, electrolyte mixing of the electrolyte is not recommended in the electrochemical reactivation of GAC.

(end quote)

Note that this method includes "electrochemical reactivation", which no hunter I know of has access to.

 

The following article is from the Cameron carbon web site at http://www.cameroncarbon.com/spent_carbon.html

(begin quote)

Cameron Carbon offers spent activated carbon reactivation (recycling) services at a fully permitted reactivation facility. Spent carbon is recycled in specially designed high temperature furnaces that can restore the carbon's pore structure to new or near new quality. The organics that are vaporized from the spent carbon are fully destroyed downstream of the furnace by an air pollution control system. Certification of VOC (volatile organic compounds) destruction can be provided upon request.

(end)

The above article states that "reactivation" (the word Scent Lok uses) occurs when activated carbon is placed in "specially designed high temperature furnaces", and ONLY THEN is it restored to new or nearly new quality. NO hunter I know of has access to such a facility.

 

The following article is from the CMCC-AC web site at http://www.cmcc-ac.co.jp/english/product/catalog1.html

(begin quote)

Activated carbon that has dropped its adsorbing capability can be recovered in its performa