The client challenge
Fragrance aerosol performance is often described in sensory language. A product may feel lighter, cleaner, or longer lasting to a user, but those descriptions can be hard to defend when a commercial buyer asks why one aerosol should replace another.1
The client believed its pressurized fragrance aerosol produced a finer spray and stayed airborne longer than several tested consumer air freshener competitors. That mattered because the product was being sold into hospitality, office, lobby, and other commercial spaces where scent experience can shape customer impression.1
The product team did not need another side-by-side smelling exercise. It needed a data package that could explain spray behavior in a way buyers, sales teams, and technical reviewers could understand. ARE Labs framed the work around two questions: how fine the spray was at release, and how long smaller airborne particles and droplets persisted in a controlled chamber.1
The ARE Labs partnership
ARE Labs used laser diffraction particle size distribution testing to compare the client product with three tested competitors. The first phase measured D10, D50, D90, and D[4,3] values, giving the client a compact way to compare spray behavior without asking buyers to interpret a full particle-size curve.1,2
D50 shows the particle size below which 50% of the aerosol plume volume falls. D[4,3], also called volume mean diameter, summarizes the volume-weighted mean particle size. ISO 13320 provides public standards context for laser diffraction particle size analysis in systems that include sprays and aerosols.1,2
A second phase measured airborne persistence in a controlled chamber. ARE Labs monitored particles and droplets in the 5.6-560 nm range using fast mobility particle sizing, so the client could compare the initial aerosol burst and the way the aerosol population changed after release.1
| Product role | D[4,3] volume mean diameter | D50 |
|---|---|---|
| Client fragrance aerosol product | 31.49 um | 28.49 um |
| Competitor A | 75.03 um | 69.72 um |
| Competitor B | 77.91 um | 69.26 um |
| Competitor C | 89.77 um | 80.64 um |
The measured difference
The data showed a clear particle-size separation. The client product had a D[4,3] volume mean diameter of 31.49 um. The tested competitors measured 75.03 um, 77.91 um, and 89.77 um, making each competitor more than twice the client value on that metric.1
Source: anonymized ARE Labs comparative aerosol testing report summary.
- Product and competitor names are anonymized.
- Values are reported in micrometers from the source article summary.
The median spray size showed the same pattern. The client product measured 28.49 um for D50, while the tested competitors ranged from 69.26 um to 80.64 um. That gave the sales team a simple, repeatable way to explain the difference: under the test conditions, the client product produced a much finer aerosol.1
| Product role | Starting chamber concentration |
|---|---|
| Client fragrance aerosol product | 1.62E+05 particles/cm3 |
| Competitor nearest in starting concentration | 6.71E+03 particles/cm3 |
| Competitor lower-concentration result | 4.46E+02 particles/cm3 |
| Competitor lower-concentration result | 2.93E+02 particles/cm3 |
The article uses starting concentration values only and does not recreate the full time curve.
The chamber-retention results supported the same performance narrative. In the 5.6-560 nm measurement range, the client product produced a starting chamber concentration of 1.62E+05 particles/cm3. The next-highest competitor started at 6.71E+03 particles/cm3, while the other two competitors measured 4.46E+02 and 2.93E+02 particles/cm3.1
From lab report to buyer conversation
Before testing, the sales story depended heavily on describing how the product smelled and felt in a room. After testing, the client could point to measured differences in particle size distribution and airborne persistence under controlled conditions.1
That changed the conversation without turning the report into a sensory preference study. The evidence did not claim that every person would prefer the scent or that every room would behave the same way. It showed that the product behaved differently as an aerosol, which was the performance question the buyer needed to understand.1
The report also helped keep the commercial claim disciplined. Instead of implying a universal fragrance outcome, the client could describe the measured conditions, the comparison set, and the specific aerosol metrics that supported the sales message. That made the evidence useful without stretching it beyond the test design.1
- The product dispersed more finely than the tested alternatives.1
- The tested nanoscale aerosol population started higher for the client product.1
- The client could present third-party aerosol data instead of relying only on preference language.1
Client-reported business impact
The client reports that the ARE Labs data helped support new sales into hospitality and commercial business accounts. The outcome was not based on a new fragrance note, package refresh, or advertising line alone. It came from being able to show that the product behaved differently in the air.1
For the brand, the study converted a difficult-to-explain performance claim into sales-ready evidence. For buyers, it made the comparison easier to evaluate. For the sales team, it created a shared reference point that could travel beyond a live demonstration or subjective product trial.1
What aerosol product teams can learn
Comparative aerosol testing is useful when a product claim depends on spray behavior after actuation. That can apply to fragrance aerosols, air fresheners, disinfectant sprays, personal-care sprays, cleaners, and other pressurized consumer aerosols.1
The key is matching the method to the claim. If the claim is about spray fineness, particle size distribution testing may be the right starting point. If the claim is about persistence, settling, or airborne concentration, chamber-based aerosol testing may be needed. If the claim is about safety or exposure, the test design may need additional measurements and a different interpretation boundary.1,2
Summary
In summary, the client needed a way to explain fragrance aerosol performance with measured evidence rather than preference language alone. ARE Labs supported the work by connecting particle size distribution, chamber-retention testing, anonymized competitor comparison, and careful claim boundaries into a sales-ready success story.1