ActivatedCarbonScienceMisleading

Since 2004, Scent-Lok Technologies has been engaged in a lengthy Reexamination process before the US Patent Office regarding one of its five US patents relating to odor adsorbing hunting products and practices. On March 29, 2010, the U.S. Patent Office's Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences issued its long-awaited decision confirming the patentability of 40 of the 68 claims at issue. Specifically, the Board ruled, among other things, that Scent-Lok Technologies had proven that its hunting products and processes integrating activated charcoal were not obvious modifications of the known products and practices. This decision validates Scent-Lok Technologies' longstanding assertions of the patentability of many of its innovations. As we take the time to celebrate this important victory, we want to thank our loyal customers, licensees, suppliers and retailers for their support through this long and arduous process.

Editor's note: Once again Scent Lok has misled hunters (on its website), by stating that many of their innovation are patentable. While this statement is true, it does not explain that the initial Patents # 1-4, 5-8, 10, 34-37, 38, 39, 41, 45, 61 and 64 which were for odor control clothing, are no longer patented by Scent Lok, which is what many hunting clothing manufacturers were hoping for. This leaves the door open for those manufacturers to produce and sell clothing designed to reduce odors for hunters - who deserve the right to have those options made available to them - not to be confined to just one type of odor reduction clothing - as Scent Lok wishes.

According to this, only the later patents, #46-60, 62-63, 71-76, 77-81 and 82-93 remain in tact.

5/14/2010

Misleading Terms used by Scent Lok

Does This Really Work?

Img 34

The above photo is a scan of a 6.5 x 6.5 inch piece of Scent Lok fabric, saved at 72dpi. The black flecks are the powdered activated carbon on the fabric, they are about the same width as the threads in the fabric.

You can see that the activated carbon probably covers less than 25% of the fabric surface, which would allow any scents on the inside of the suit to exit the suit without coming into contact with the activated carbon, with the results that those scents can exit the suit and the hunter can be unequivocally detected by whitetails.

How can this possibly work to keep all human perspiration odor from escaping the suit?

Another question is, "is every square centimeter of the fabric of a Scent Lok suit covered with activated carbon, so that every odor within the suit has to go through the activated carbon, or is there room between the activated carbon particles to allow odors to exit the suit without going through the activated carbon".

If there is room for odors to exit the suit without going through activated carbon it brings into question Scent Lok's guarantee that their suit will stop those odors, so that the wearer is not detected by a deer when he is hunting.

If Scent Lok's statement is untrue, every hunter who purchased a Scent Lok suit deserves to get their money back, because they have been defrauded, of their hard-earned money.

Do we hunters want to use products that research suggests can't work?

Do we want companies to keep other companies (that offer products that compete with

their products) from offering their products by taking them to court, or suggesting they will take them to court, especially when those products don't infringe on a patent that may or may not be valid?

Or, do we want several companies competing with each other to provide us with the latest, newest technology and products?

Misleading Comments by Scent Lok

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

Physical Adsorbtion

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 C. 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 of 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 a 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 (unfounded) 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!!!

Page 3 - More Misleading Terms & False Statements used by Scent-Lok