The client challenge
Fragrance aerosol performance is often described in sensory terms. A spray may feel lighter, cleaner, or longer lasting, but those impressions are hard to defend when a commercial buyer asks why one product should replace another.1
The client believed its pressurized fragrance aerosol produced a finer spray and remained airborne longer than several tested consumer air freshener competitors. This mattered because the product was being sold into hospitality venues, offices, lobbies, and other commercial spaces where scent experience can influence customer impressions.1
The product team did not need another side-by-side smelling exercise. It needed a data package that buyers, sales teams, and technical reviewers could use to understand the spray's behavior. ARE Labs focused the study on two questions: How fine was the aerosol at release? How long did its smaller airborne particles and droplets persist in a controlled chamber? Together, those questions gave the study a practical structure for explaining the comparison.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], giving the client a concise way to compare spray behavior without requiring buyers to interpret a full particle-size curve.1,2
D50 is the particle size below which 50% of the aerosol plume volume falls. D[4,3], also called volume mean diameter, describes 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
In the second phase, ARE Labs measured airborne persistence in a controlled chamber. Fast mobility particle sizing monitored particles and droplets in the 5.6-560 nm range, allowing the client to compare the initial aerosol burst and how 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 particle size data showed a clear separation. The client product had a D[4,3] volume mean diameter of 31.49 um, compared with 75.03 um, 77.91 um, and 89.77 um for the three tested competitors. Each competitor's value was more than twice the client's on this 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 D50 results followed the same pattern. The client product measured 28.49 um, while the tested competitors ranged from 69.26 um to 80.64 um. That gave the sales team a simple, consistent explanation: 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. Within 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 remaining two measured 4.46E+02 and 2.93E+02 particles/cm3.1
From lab report to buyer conversation
Before the study, the sales story depended largely 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 treating the aerosol measurements as a sensory preference study. The evidence did not suggest that every person would prefer the scent or that the product would behave the same way in every room. It showed a measurable difference in aerosol behavior under controlled conditions, which was the performance question the buyer needed to understand.1
The report also helped keep the commercial claim within the limits of the study. Rather than implying a universal fragrance outcome, the client could identify the tested conditions, comparison set, and specific aerosol metrics behind the sales message. The evidence remained useful without extending beyond what the test design supported.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. Rather than relying on a new fragrance note, package refresh, or advertising line alone, the team could show buyers measured differences in how the product behaved in the air.1
For the brand, the study turned a difficult-to-explain performance claim into sales-ready evidence. It gave buyers a clearer comparison to evaluate and gave the sales team a shared reference point it could use beyond a live demonstration or subjective product trial.1
What aerosol product teams can learn
Comparative aerosol testing can be useful when a product claim depends on spray behavior after actuation. Relevant products include fragrance aerosols, air fresheners, disinfectant sprays, personal-care sprays, cleaners, and other pressurized consumer aerosols.1
The method needs to match the claim. Particle size distribution testing may be the right starting point for spray fineness. Claims involving persistence, settling, or airborne concentration may require chamber-based aerosol testing. If safety or exposure is the concern, the study may need additional measurements and different limits on interpretation.1,2
Summary
The client needed to explain fragrance aerosol performance with measured evidence rather than preference language alone. ARE Labs combined particle size distribution testing, chamber-retention measurements, an anonymized competitor comparison, and careful claim boundaries into an evidence package the sales team could use.1