yuigteoag uc stemdu feauto nta fwa- of instead evaluation of medium the as juice orange the using By (Margar matrix, water a of as instead (pumpout) juice being orange are deodorized juice using orange by in measured important be to thresh- found study, compounds ongoing of an In olds 1991). 1977, (Cole- Shaw products 1970; Shaw citrus and and man citrus in compounds flavor analyzing of States. United for 86 intake be to capita estimated per was the contrast, In 1999). mous e aiaitk f10ad110 and 150 of intake capita per a os19) nteUie tts eotdana oue s of use volumes annual reported States, α United the 150 In 1999). and mous 310 of intake estimated capita an per yielding Industry, Flavor the of Inter- the Organization by national reported as respectively, kg, 1100 and kg 2220 were rope vol- Annual foods. of in umes importance their hence industry, used flavor widely the are by compounds These 2005). Ma- others 2004; others and and hattanatawee Lopez 1990; Poll and and Larsen Buttery 1990; 1987; 1989, Buttery others and Teranishi 1986; others and (Cun- ningham thresholds low-odor have they because foods fruit-based and They 2002). areusuallyconsideredasimportantflavorcontributorsinmanyfruit Rouseff and (Winterhalter carotenoids of products tion for ute erdcinwtotpriso sprohibited is permission without reproduction Further works government US original to claim No author [email protected] to inquiries (E-mail: Direct Plotto 33811-1293. USA FL Danisco Lakeland, with Road, is Kidron Barnes 3919 Author Laboratory, Inc., 33881. Products FL Subtropical Haven, Winter and NW, S, Citrus Ave. A.R.S., 600 – U.S.D.A. with are Good- ner and Plotto Authors 4/2/06. Accepted 12/12/05, Submitted 20050734 MS A P A. for Observed Anosmia Specific JFS o:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00047.x doi: C and - 06Isiueo odTcnlgssVl 1 r ,2006 5, Nr. 71, Vol. Technologists Food of Institute 2006 h SACtu n utoia aoaoyhsaln history long a has Laboratory Subtropical and Citrus USDA The BTAT ntecneto esrn hehlso rnefao opud nadooie rnejiema- juice orange deodorized a perceive in not compounds could flavor panelists of orange 50% of that thresholds found was measuring it of trix, context the In ABSTRACT: ae sn h aepnlss ifrne ewe oprevr n eciesof perceivers and nonperceivers between Differences panelists. same the using water for differences such no were There perceive not could who Panelists respectively. For perceivers. than for thresholds retronasal and Orthonasal ie ihrfroto n ernsltrsod o oprevr,rsetvl.Hwvr for However, respectively. nonperceivers, for thresholds retronasal and ortho- for higher times osc ifrne eefudwe esrdi ae.Tesm aeit ol ecasfe s“ecies or “perceivers” as classified be could panelists same The water. in measured when when “nonperceivers” found were differences such no firm a on for found was aeit hntecmon a etdi water. in tested was compound the when panelists ieyfudi lnsadpatpout,a hyaedegrada- are they as products, plant and plants in found widely lpha-and LOTTO Keywords: β α inn n18 ee70k n 5 g epciey with respectively, kg, 550 and kg 770 were 1989 in -ionone β α and - :SnoyadNtiieQaiiso Food of Qualities Nutritive and Sensory S: inn and -ionone ..B K.W. , Inn:Sgiiac o lvrResearch Flavor for Significance -Ionone: β β inn and -ionone inn sda lvrn gnsi h 90 nEu- in 1970s the in agents flavoring as used -ionone β β ARNES inn;a ihtefrtpnl hr een ifrne nsniiiyto sensitivity in differences no were there panel, first the with as -ionone; dmseoe rnejie rhnsl ernsl threshold retronasal, orthonasal, juice, orange -damascenone, μ ´ aadohr 02 ltoadohr 2004). others and Plotto 2002; others and ıa e a nErp n 5 and Europe in day per g β Introduction β dmseoetrsod nwtr rae ifrnebtenprevr n nonperceivers and perceivers between difference greater A water. in thresholds -damascenone , dmseoe h aiswr 9 n 9 ie ihrfroto n ernslthresholds, retronasal and ortho- for higher times 390 and 690 were ratios the -damascenone, β AND β inn a etdi edrzdoag uc ri ae.Adfeetpnlwsue ocon- to used was panel different A water. in or juice orange deodorized in tested was -ionone dmseoeaenor-isoprenoids are -damascenone ..G K.L. μ ). μ e a,rsetvl (Anony- respectively day, per g e a,rsetvl (Anony- respectively day, per g OODNER α inn,acntttoa smrof isomer constitutional a -ionone, μ β β e a nthe in day per g -damascenone inn ee epciey 8 n 9 ie ihrfrnonperceivers for higher times 490 and 985 respectively, were, -ionone β inn eeohriego ecieso otcmonstested. compounds most of perceivers good otherwise were -ionone β rvosyotie noag uc,a ela ya additional an by as well as juice, were panel. orange data which in for subjects obtained same previously the using by measured with were ter comparison for tested also water. was in distributions bimodal threshold damascenone perdt ecoe o5 Bemradohr 2003). others and (Bremmer 5% nondetection to of closer rate be actual to the appeared al- and anosmic, retested partially recently be was to it thought though is population the of 75% to 11% which for (5-androst-16-en-3-one), androstenone specific of that known is most anosmia the of One of 1988). groups was others two and between (Stevens time differences panelists threshold over as large thresholds as individual be to oth- of found and variability (Lawless Also, measurements 1995). of ers reproducibility of lack confirmed to always not due was distribu- anosmia bimodal specific levels, some threshold have of tion to observed were compounds many 3,4,5,6,6- and 1969), (Amoore pentamethyl-hept-3-en-2-one(Sulmontandothers2002).Although xylol musk 2002), Schmidt and glutaraldehyde (Cain 1969), (Amoore geraniol 1976), others and was (Amoore tested population tested. the population of the 30% partiallyanosmictoacompound,wasreportedforisobutyraldehyde least of at to 4% where found least anosmia, were at Specific 40 by which anosmia among specific compounds present 62 of list (1969) a Amoore published communications, personal or of literature results, experimental compiling one-hundredth From 1971). about (Amoore by population much average compounds are the odors specific most to for smell sensitive of less sense good a have generally who panelists. other the that as found well was perceive it not could context, panelists that of In 50% gained. solute the is with perception compounds sensory volatile on of interactions on the information of Also, effect the purposes. for industry control flavor quality and citrus or the water, standardization by or used air directly in be than can realistic values more and be to deemed are thresholds ter, inn or -ionone hssuywsudrae ocnimthe confirm to undertaken was study This individuals when used is anosmia specific, or partial, term The β dmseoea ela h te panelists. other the as well as -damascenone β inn.Al3cmonswr eetdin retested were compounds 3 All -ionone. β Inn,btnot but -Ionone, — ORA FFO SCIENCE FOOD OF JOURNAL β inn ee40 n 4600 and 4900 were -ionone β β dmseoebetween -damascenone inn or -ionone β inn.Trsod nwa- in Thresholds -ionone. β -damascenone, β β dmseoeas -damascenone inn and -ionone α -Ionone S 401 β -

S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food - C β ◦ www.ift.org Cto12 ◦ C for tests in water. Each ◦ -ionone in water: 0.006 to 3480 Cto14 ◦ β -ionone in water and pumpout, and β Results -damascenone, respectively. The ranges β URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at -ionone (Figure 1; Table 3). The test was repeated 6 mo -ionone, and α α -ionone in both pumpout and water. For the remainder of -Damascenone thresholds for panel B ranged from 0.0007 α β -damascenone in pumpout but not in water, while it is nor- or panel A, individualfrom orthonasal 0.11 to 2532 thresholds ppb, 0.94 to in 52.67ppb, and0.001 water to 1.25ppb ranged for β The 3-alternative forced choice (3-AFC) test was used for thresh- A closer look at the mean thresholds reveals that thresholds were The best estimate criterion was used to calculate individual -ionone, old determination (ASTM Designation: E-679, 1997). In this method, the 3-AFC consists of 3sample. samples: Panelists were 2 presented with are a tray controls of and 15ing cups, 1 correspond- to is five the 3-AFCs with spiked 5preceding spiking levels; by each a level factor differed from oftested the in 3 ascending (X/81, order (most X/27, diluted X/9,All first) cups X/3, and were from and labeled left with X) to a right. and randomizedin which 3-digit were the number. spiked The sample order appeared for each leveland was balanced randomized among subjects. Panelists were firstcap instructed the to un- cups near their nose,in smell, each and set choose of the 3 spikedwere sample cups. instructed If to they guess could (forcedsamples choice). not and Panelists perceive then again a tasted difference, were the they probability asked of to randomly choose choosing theWhen spiked the they sample. correct could The sample perceive was theelists were spiked 1 asked sample in to with write 3. certainty, anthe pan- additional odor or comment taste. on Sample the temperature quality at serving of was 10 β ionone in pumpout for panel A (Table1), while there wasference no for such dif- 985- and 490-fold higher for nonperceivers than for perceivers for thresholds: the threshold for each individual at each panel was anterpolated in- value calculated by taking thethe geometric last mean concentration between missed and theThe first panelists’ concentration individual detected. best estimate threshold (BET)ometric mean was of the all ge- the sessiontion) thresholds, threshold and was the obtained group by (popula- a geometricBETs mean for of each the compound. individual Beta-Ionone F Threshold determination panel was repeated 4 times, andwere adjusted concentrations until of threshold spiked was samples identified for all panelists. for tests in pumpout to reproduce consumerchilled conditions orange of juice, drinking and it was 12 for were 1.08 to 16570 ppb, 18.6the to same compounds 289 in ppb, pumpout. and For 0.012vidual the to same retronasal 4235 compounds, thresholds indi- ppb ranged for from8.44 0.05 ppb, and to 0.001 to 1462 1.25 ppb, ppb in 0.31 water,to and to from 42 0.82 ppb, and to 0.012 2655 ppb, to 6 152 ppb insisted pumpout. of For panel experts B, which not con- aswider used to ranges performing were the observed requiredppb, task, for and even 0.006 to 2413tively. ppb orthonasally and retronasally, respec- to 0.508 ppb orthonasally and fromFigure1showsthefrequencydistributionofallmeasuredorthonasal 0.003 to 0.487 ppb retronasally. thresholds of panel A fortributions all appear panel bimodal for sessions compounded. The dis- mal for the discussion, panelists under the right-bell-shape and curve left-hand are side defined of as the respectively. “perceivers” and “nonperceivers,” - - ´ e % β β 55 AM + − - and β -ionone, 3 new panelists C to allow the compound α ◦ -damascenone, and 9 ppm Vol. 71, Nr. 5, 2006 β e... -ionone were from the — β Brix. Analytical composition of the -ionon - and ◦ α β -ionone was purchased from Sigma- 0.1 β Cup Company, Urbana, Ill., U.S.A.). Control ± -damascenone and -Damascenone was found to be pure at 99 β β Materials and Methods -ionone. - and β α C to equilibrate temperature with the control until ◦ -ionone, 1.5 and 5 ppm for C for up to 5 d. One liter of juice was spiked with the ◦ (noon). Panel B were experts who were used to perform- α PM JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE 99% pure by GC-MS. Olfactory purity was verified by GCO: Cto12 ◦ C overnight. Spiked samples were prepared right before the > ◦ Nineteen to 22 volunteers participated in the sensory panels. Fresh reconstituted juice was prepared from frozen pumpout and Deodorized orange juice concentrate (termed “pumpout” by the When tested in water, compounds were initially diluted in Food grade 402 -ionone isomers, respectively, and were insignificant at the con- and 500 ppm for panel, and placed on theat serving 10 trays with the blanks in a cooler ing sensory evaluation tasks, but notgender this distribution specific of method. panel Age B and was similar to that of panel A. y. The panels took place in individual booths, usually from 10:00 were included in the laterconsisted panels, of while 50% 2 male and had 50% withdrawn.approximately female, 30% Panel age of A ranging each group 26 26 to to 55 35 y, y, 36 with to 45 y, and 46 to Panel A consisted of panelistsfor who over have 2 y. performed Most the panelistsa participated same in 6-mo task all interval tests; between since the thereionone, tests was and in 1 y pumpout for and in water for stored at 4 industry) from Valencia orangesmanufacturer. was The provided pumpout by was a reconstitutedorange to juice Florida single-strength with juice purifiedConn., drinking water U.S.A.) (Deer to Park, 11.8 Greenwich, served. ethanol. Ethanol concentration inples was the adjusted blanks to (notsolution. the Therefore, level spiked) blank required sam- samples to were get15 ppm prepared the for with compound ethanol into at S to 12:00 Taste panels Sample preparation Specific anosmia for Materials samples were prepared on the day before theat panel and 4 maintained aroma compounds at the highestpanel (X), concentration and used refrigerated overnight in at 4 the taste pumpout was reported previouslysensory quality (Plotto of and reconstituted pumpout others wasof 2004). assessed by 4 The a group experiencedslightly panelists tangy. In and addition, insignificant was odorsa were pumpout described perceived extract from analyzed as by gas bland,etry chromatography and (GCO). olfactom- sweet, When water (Deer Park,the Greenwich, Conn., medium U.S.A.) was of evaluation,Auburndale, ethanol Fla., 200 U.S.A.) proof wassolution. (Florida used Distillers, to take the compounds into α centrations tested. by GCO. Aldrich, Flavors and Fragrances (Milwaukee,damascenone was Wis., provided U.S.A.), by and a flavorwere company. All 3 compounds the only impurities found in to equilibrate with the juice (Shaw, unpublished data).sive Four succes- 3-fold dilutions (X/3, X/9, X/27,mediately X/81) before tasting. were then Fifteen milliliters prepared im- ofand orange spiked) juice were (control poured into 29.5 mL plastic (polystyrene) souffl cups and capped (Solo

S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food leye Pot n tes20) n ses[nulse data]), [unpublished esters and 2004), others and (Plotto aldehydes RsadEmi drse r cielnsat links active are addresses E-mail and URLs observed not therefore was 1995), for and others (Stevens and time Lawless 1988; over others compounds other Panelist for 1). reported (Table variability, perceivers than larger 4900-fold over threshold having a nonperceivers with nonperceivers, and but found perceivers were 3, differences between except Larger water. panelists was same evaluation of the medium and the method same the using later for anosmia Specific etd(bu 0a h time compounds the at most 30 for (about tested perceivers good pan- as since classified test otherwise this elists, in confirmed was 1991) 1971, specific (Amoore of anosmia definition the Also, confirmed. was “nonperceivers” and β inn,adcasfcto fpnlssbten“perceivers” between panelists of classification and -ionone, β inn a etd nldn terpenes, including tested, was -ionone β inn . . . -ionone www.ift.org ol o ml rtaste or smell not could sdawdrvcblr,icuigpatc hmcl ut,and musty, chemical, plastic, including vocabulary, wider nonperceivers hand, a other the used floral On 2). or (Table berry-like, soapy and or perfumey fruity and mostly chose, they descriptors the in certain of a at Perceivers flavor level. the identify concentration could they if experience, personal on 50%. about was between nonperceivers distribution and the perceivers water), A, B, (panel panel panel water; A, each perceivers panel In pumpout; 1). between (Table difference observed wider was even nonperceivers and An task. briefly panel, the second for a using trained by repeated was protocol test the tion, aeit npnlAwr euse ogv ecitr based descriptor, a give to requested were A panel in Panelists o.7,N.5 2006 5, Nr. 71, Vol. n 2aeidctdblweach accordingly. below 6, compound, indicated 1, are steps 12 for and pumpout or water in Concentrations steps. concentration nearest the to rounded averaged), (not 4 trials of ascending results are Data juice (pumpout). orange deodorized in and measured water A panel for thresholds β iue1--Feunydsrbto of β distribution --- Frequency 1 Figure dmseoeorthonasal -damascenone -ionone, β inn.T ute ofr hsobserva- this confirm further To -ionone. — ORA FFO SCIENCE FOOD OF JOURNAL α β inn,and -ionone, inn eemr consistent more were -ionone S 403

S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food www.ift.org a b d -damascenone c β -ionone tested β -damascenone thresholds -ionone in water are given β β -ionone tested in deodorized β Discussion URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at -damascenone also added an astringent mouth- β -ionone were closer to the value published by Larsen α -Damascenone imparted mostly fruity notes to pumpout β eta-ionone partial anosmia was reported byan Amoore informal (1969) test in where 1 panelist out of 12 was anosmic to the Published orthonasal thresholds for as described by perceivers,vocabulary but to nonpeceivers describe had the a pumpout(Table5). more In spiked water, limited with feel (Table 5). Nonperceivers did not mentiontested in any water. descriptor when compound in air. Buttery andtheir others panel (1997) to also begiven partially reported for 25% anosmic, the anosmic of but subjects. no threshold values were in Table 1 forers comparison 1990), and 0.03 were ppb 0.007 (ButteryPoll and ppb 1990), others and (Buttery 1997), 23 ppb 0.5 and (Tandon ppb and oth- olds others (Larsen published 2000). by and Buttery’sgroup The can lower be thresh- attributed to highlypanelists, trained which are selected for their sensitivity and reproducibility, and the mode of presenting the samples directlying to the squeeze nostril bottles by us- (Guadagni and others1971). 1963; The higher Buttery threshold publishedby and Larsen others and Poll may beto due sample presentation with higher dilutionmaking steps the at test 1:10, less therefore sensitive, butfound it in is our still study. We comparable chose to in our thewas study found value a to dilution be factor the of best 3, compromisetrations as to that it cover the might range be of perceived concen- value by all found panelists. by The Tandon and much andtheir higher panel others comprised (2000) both sensitive would and indicate non-sensitivethe that subjects, value as of 23 ppb isour closer study to the (Table mean 1). of The allany standard panelists study deviations (18 (Buttery ppb) and were others in not 1990, provided 1997;therefore, Tandon in no and others firm 2000); inference can bethe drawn panels as in to respect the to composition subjects’ of in sensitivity. Orthonasal water thresholds for old studies, panelists areall selected panelists for was sensitivity. considered If (Table thewould 4), average be of about 10values. times higher in our study than for published B - β -ionone, and it β -ionone is less fre- -ionone in terms of α α -ionone followed a nor- g/L), log standard deviations (in parenthesis), and descriptors for α -ionone where panelists μ β - than for Vol. 71, Nr. 5, 2006 -ionone threshold is about g/L) and log standard deviations (in parenthesis) for e... α α μ — -ionone, -ionone (Table3 compared with β β Perceivers (P) Nonperceivers (NP) Ratio NP/P -ionone and -damascenone in pumpout tended β -ionon β β (P) (NP) Ratio NP/P means in water Perceivers Nonperceivers All panelists Published -ionone, the latter has additionally a licorice-type α -ionone. However, unlike (0.59) (0.51)(0.52) perfumey (0.52) (0.55) (0.34) musty, cleaner, plastic (0.36) (0.46) chemical β JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE -damascenone, and thresholds for nonperceivers were 692 β -ionone and When tested in pumpout, about 50% of panelists could not per- As illustrated in Figure 1, thresholds for β 404 Buttery and others (1990). Buttery and others (1997). Tandon and others (2000). Larsen and Poll (1990). orange juice (pumpout) or water, by two separate panels, and published values for comparison to be panelists older thanhave 45 higher y, thresholds which for tended—but other not compoundsour always—to tested ongoing in pumpout study. in When thethe test medium was of repeated evaluation, the byceivers threshold using and differences water between nonperceivers as per- was reducedthonasal to and 16- retronasal thresholds, and respectively 52-foldthreshold (Table for ratios 4). or- were Similar observedferences for between perceivers panel and B, nonperceivers where wereThreshold only threshold values 11-fold. dif- in waterpublished for values, perceivers were which in implies agreement that with in most published thresh- ceive and 387 times higherretronasally,respectively than (Table4). The those ratios between for nonperceiver perceivers,and orthonasally perceiver and thresholds weretude within as the for sameotherwise order sensitive to of flavor compounds magni- were classifiedceivers, as the nonper- nonperceivers for by panel A in deodorized orange juice (pumpout) or water S Table 2 Identification --- thresholds ( Medium ofevaluation Ortho- Retro- nasalPumpout nasal 16.5 8.89 floral, berries, soapy Descriptors nasal 2250 nasal 2410 Ortho- floral, Retro- fruity, sweet, soapy perfumey, 136 Descriptors 271 nasal nasal Ortho- Retro- Water 0.521 0.461 floral, grape, sweet, soapy perfumey 1780 1080 floral, fruity, soapy, herbal, plastic 3420 2340 Beta-Damascenone Alpha-Ionone (Panel B)a b c (0.62)d (0.56)cleaning agent. This confirmsa that different some experience nonperceivers than can perceivers from have smelling or (0.55) tasting (0.59) (0.79) (0.75) 23 Medium ofevaluationPumpout Ortho-(Panel nasal A)Water Retro-(Panel A) 2.67Water nasal (0.37) Ortho- (0.16) 0.168 1.92 nasal (0.30) Retro- 0.135 (0.28) 0.104 nasal Ortho- (0.64) 2630 0.0579 Retro- (0.42) nasal (0.48) 823 941 1310 Ortho- 0.35) nasal 474 Retro- 605 985 nasal Ortho- 4900 9710 nasal 490 Retro- 4560 10400 nasal 72.2 18.0 (1.61) nasal 8.82 39.0 (1.94) (1.42) 8.78 4.39 (1.90) 0.007 0.5 0.03 Specific anosmia for Table 1 Detection --- thresholds ( ionone. quently cited as having a flavor impact orIn being important for our foods. study with panel A in water, mal distribution, in both pumpoutold and is water. Because higher its than thresh- for its isomer 20 times higher than for its isomer Table 1—“perceivers”). Although panelists gave similar descriptors to note. The difference between distribution of panelists perception levels mayceptor indicate that protein the might re- be different for might vary more between individuals for the latter.

S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food ecpino od containing foods of perception flavor study, our in subjects nonsensitive and thresh- sensitive of between olds differences the considering Therefore, flavor. significantly food contribute that to to deemed is compound that threshold, than higher its is aroma: food a or in compound flavor given a food of concentration to the when widely contributing are compounds identify thresholds to where used research, flavor in have would impact This significant 1). Table averaged, panelists all (see 100-fold by old thresh- the of raise would average nonperceivers, and the perceivers thresholds, thresholds, all published with agreement in somewhat p;19) epciey(al 4). (Table respectively 1993), (0.0012 ppb; Grosch and Guth and 1989) ppb; (0.002 others and Buttery by o druis(oaih ftertoo ocnrto on nthe for in concentration) found threshold concentration the of to ratio food the of resulting (logarithm The units 1990). odor 1989, log others and (Buttery ppb 0.007 odor threshold, its than higher 200-fold over was respectively, ppb 2 and 4 paste, perceivers. than nonperceivers htsuy hehl auswr o,adhneteoo ntwas unit odor the hence and low, were values threshold in study, thresholds that generated panelists trained highly and sensitive since relativeimportanceofthatcompoundintomatoproducts.However, strong the indicating respectively, tomato, fresh and paste tomato in eimof Medium eimo rh-Rto rh-Rto rh-Retro- Ortho- nasal nasal Descriptors Retro- 387 Ortho- descriptors no nasal 240 nasal --- musty tobacco, floral, 418 --- 153 Descriptors perfumey honey, sweet, floral, fruity, prune molasses, sweet, fruity, 0.00495 grape, at links active are addresses E-mail and URLs 0.0113 1.081 nasal 0.638 Water Retro- nasal Pumpout Ortho- evaluation of Medium water or (pumpout) juice orange deodorized in A panel by tested ( thresholds --- Identification 5 Table (0.77) (0.99) (0.79) 0.00075 (1.45) 0.002 nasal (0.78) 1.95 0.00642 (1.65) 0.0114 nasal 0.0148 4.43 Retro- 0.0237 10.5 nasal 387 52.0 Ortho- 10.7 nasal 692 15.6 (0.54) Retro- 0.0149 (0.75) nasal thresh- for retronasal olds and (0.55) Ortho- 1987) orthonasal 0.131 perceivers’ ppb; finally, (0.4 And Buttery 3). (0.37) and nasal Teranishi (Table 61.0 by 0.4 than 0.0382 1990) ppb; Retro- (5 (0.58) Poll and (0.31) 0.130 Ortho- 0.00142 nasal 195 (0.75) licorice sweet, violet), (rose, floral (0.29) d 0.00252 0.00358 c Retro- (0.56) b nasal (0.77) floral, cherry, a 5.67 berries, 0.159 0.00834 sweet, fruity, (0.47) B) Ortho- (Panel Water nasal (0.89) A) (Panel Retronasal 0.282 Retro- 35.7 Water Orthonasal 10.6 A) (Panel nasal Pumpout Ortho- evaluation comparison 95.6 for values of published 1.64 Medium and panels, separate two Descriptors by water, or (pumpout) juice orange ( odorized thresholds 15.3 --- Detection 4 Table 3.78 b Retronasal a 43.3 Orthonasal Water Retronasal Pumpout Orthonasal evaluation ( thresholds identification and --- Detection 3 Table for anosmia Specific comparison for hof(1978). Ohloff uhadGoc (1993). Grosch and Guth (1995). others and Semmelroch (1990). others and Buttery (1990). Poll and Larsen (1987). Buttery and Teranishi For o example, For α inn etdb ae ndooie rnejie(upu)o ae,adpbihdvle nwtrfor water in values published and water, or (pumpout) juice orange deodorized in A panel by tested -ionone β inn,wietrsod nwtrfrteprevr were perceivers the for water in thresholds while -ionone, β dmseoewr nareetwt ulse values published with agreement in were -damascenone 04)(.5 pl ad,tbco oe 15)(.2 sweet (0.72) (1.50) (taste) astringent honey tobacco, candy, apple (0.59) (0.85) (0.40) (0.47) β inn ocnrto nfehtmt n tomato and tomato fresh in concentration -ionone eeto hehlsIetfiaintrsod Published thresholds Identification thresholds Detection 03)(.2 03)(.6 op,patc efmy candy perfumey, plastic, soapy, (0.36) (0.33) (0.22) (0.35) 04)(.4 03)(.3 op,prue,cherry perfumey, soapy, (0.53) (0.32) (0.34) (0.47) ecies()Nnecies(P ai PPAlpnlssmasPbihdi water in Published means panelists All NP/P Ratio (NP) Nonperceivers (P) Perceivers β inn . . . -ionone β inn a eqiedfeetto different quite be may -ionone www.ift.org ecies()Nnecies(P ai NP/P Ratio (NP) Nonperceivers (P) Perceivers μ /)adlgsadr eitos(nprnhss for parenthesis) (in deviations standard log and g/L) μ β inn ee25ad2.8 and 2.5 were -ionone /) o tnaddvain i aetei) n ecitr for descriptors and parenthesis), (in deviations standard log g/L), μ /) o tnaddvain i aetei) n descriptors and parenthesis), (in deviations standard log g/L), n l hs ecitr eegnrtdb eciesi ae A panel in perceivers by generated were 1998), descriptors others these and all (Rychlik and “prune” juice,” “grape “tobacco,” like,” 1). above (Table well values is thresholds 1990), Poll any and (Larsen ppb 2320 to its 550 where of concentration, aroma, perception raspberry to the contributes also changed Beta-ionone homogenate ionone. tomato the in pounds between and Baldwin interactions 2000; 2004), others others and (Tandon panels both In and 2004). (Baldwin others homogenate tomato of sweetness the increased it 2004), and others and (Baldwin taste “bitter” and aroma, “floral” and “tropi- cal” or de- 2000), generated others perfumey and (Tandon it “sweet” and and homogenate, “floral” of tomato floral, scriptors into of spiked comments When to 2). (Table addition in perceivers, the orange to pumpout, spiked juice When 2005). others analyzed and juice (Mahattanatawee orange GCO in by compounds “floral” the of 22% contribute selection. sensory panelists to attention and be pay methodology must and data one flavor that food interpreting shows in values careful threshold published of range large where (2000) others and and Tandon by study the In high. utr n tes(99 ntecluaino h drui,in- unit, odor the of of contribution calculation low the the by in dicating published (1989) ppb 4 others of and concentration Buttery volatile using by negative be hehl a 3pb h o drui of unit odor log the ppb, 23 was threshold eadmseoei eeal ecie s“we, “honey- “sweet,” as described generally is Beta-damascenone to found was It violet. of odor characteristic a has Beta-ionone o.7,N.5 2006 5, Nr. 71, Vol. β inn eeae brylk”dsrpo among descriptor “berry-like” a generated -ionone — ORA FFO SCIENCE FOOD OF JOURNAL β β dmseoetse nde- in tested -damascenone inn otmt rm.This aroma. tomato to -ionone β inn n ovltl com- nonvolatile and -ionone β inn a on to found was -ionone a 5 β b -damascenone a b β -ionone 0.001 0.009 S 405 β d c -

S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food www.ift.org -damascenone, β Mill.) as affected by the ¨ ur Lebensmittelchemie der Lycopersicon esculentum URLs and E-mail addresses are active links at ¨ unchen. p 63. ¨ oster EP. 2002. Selection of odorants for memory tests on the ¨ at M ¨ ur Lebensmittelchemie and Institut f ıa CA, Goodner KL, Goodrich R, Baldwin EA. 2004. Odour and flavour ´ ıa CA, Goodner KL, Goodrich RM, Baldwin EA. 2002. Detection and identifica- ´ basisoffamiliarity,perceivedcomplexity,pleasantness,similarityandidentification. Chem Senses 27:307–17. compounds in fresh tomatoesmedium of ( evaluation. Postharvest Biol Technol 20:261–8. aroma research. In: Martens M, Dalenand GA, technology. Russwurm New Jr York: Wiley. H, p editors. 513–27. Flavour science tion. In: Winterhalter P, Rouseff RL, editors. Carotenoid-derived aromaWashington, compounds. DC: ACS Symposium Series 802. p 1–17. in roasted coffee by stable isotope dilution assays. Flavour Fragrance Jand 10:1–7. technology Vol. 1. Westport, Conn: Avi Publishing Co. p 427–62. ages. New York: Marcel Dekker. p 305–27. 13:643–53. thresholds for key aroma components in anhydes. orange Flavour juice Fragrance matrix: J terpenes 19:491–8. and alde- ities and retentionForschungsanstalt indices f of key food odorants. Garching, Germany: Deutsche Technischen Universit tion for key flavor115:53–4. components in an orange juice matrix. Proc FlaFlavorist State 3:11–22. Hort Soc a potent norisoprenoid aromacessors’ and compound, Subtropical in Technology Conference, October orange 21,IFAS. 2004. juice. Abstract. Lake Fifty-fifth Alfred, FL: Citrus Pro- impact of norisoprenoids in orange juice. J Agric Food Chem 53:393–7. their concentration on perception of tomato descriptors. J Food Sci 69(8):S310–8. anosmia. Chem Senses 28:423–32. volatile components of tomato. J Agric Food Chem 19:524–9. and sensory studies. In: Teranishi R, Buttery RG, Shahiditrends F, editors. and Flavor chemistry: developments. Washington, D.C.: ACS Symposium Series. p 213–22. on tomato paste volatiles. J Agric Food Chem 38:336–40. Agric Food Chem 45:837–43. Emergence of sensitivity and specific anosmia. Chem Senses 27:425–33. Agric Food Chem 19:520–3. apple volatiles. Food Chem 19:137–47. of the aroma of Grenachedetermination, rose and wines: sensory aroma reconstitution extract studies. dilution J analysis, Agric quantitative Food Chem 50:4048–54. models and omission. Chem Senses 26:533–45. pounds associated with food flavours. J Sci Food Agric 14:761–5. of green tea. In:studies. Schreier Carol P, Stream, IL: Winterhalter Allured P, Publishing. p editors. 401–7. Progress in flavourraspberries. Z precursor Lebensm Unters Forsch 191:129–31. l-carvone and cineole and correlations with suprathresholdSenses intensity 20:9–17. ratings. Chem fumer Flavorist 16(1):1–19. ties of volatile compounds released from mild acid hydrolysatessors of odourless extracted precur- from Tempranillo andolfactometry. Grenache Food grapes Chem using 88:95–103. gas chromatography- Tandon KS, Baldwin EA, Shewfelt RL. 2000. Aroma perception of individual volatile Teranishi R, Buttery RG. 1987. The significance of low threshold odor compounds in Winterhalter P, Rouseff RL. 2002. Carotenoid-derived aroma compounds: an introduc- Semmelroch P, Laskawy G, Blank I, Grosch W. 1995. Determination of potent odorants Shaw PE. 1977. Essential oils. In: Nagy S, Shaw PE, Veldhuis MK, editors. CitrusShaw science PE. 1991. Fruits II. In: Maarse H, editor. Volatile compounds in foodsStevens and JC, bever- Cain WS, Burke RJ. 1988. Variability of olfactorySulmont thresholds. C, Chem Issanchou S, Senses K Rychlik M, Schieberle P, Grosch W. 1998. Compilation of odor thresholds, odor qual- Ohloff G. 1978. Importance of minor components in flavors and fragrances. Perfumer Plotto A, Margar Mahattanatawee K, Rouseff RL, Valim FM, Naim M.Margar 2005. Identification and aroma Baldwin EA, Goodner KL, Plotto A, Pritchett K, Einstein M. 2004. Effect ofBremmer volatiles EA, and Mainland JD, Khan R, Sobel N. 2003.Buttery The RG, prevalence Seifert of RM, androstenone Guadagni DG, Ling LC. 1971.Buttery RG, Characterization Teranishi R, of Flath additional RA, Ling LC. 1989. Fresh tomato volatiles. Composition Buttery RG, Teranishi R, Ling LC, Turnbaugh JG. 1990. Quantitative and sensory studies Buttery RG, Ling LC, Stern DJ. 1997. Studies on popcornCain aroma WS, and Schmidt flavor volatiles. R. J 2002. Sensory detection ofColeman glutaraldehyde RL, in Shaw drinking PE. water 1970. – Analysis of ValenciaCunningham orange DG, Acree essence TA, and Barnard aroma J, oils. Butts J RM, BraellFerreira PA. V, 1986. Ortin Charm N, analysis Escudero of A, Lopez R, Cacho J. 2002.GroschW.2001.Evaluationofthekeyodorantsoffoodsbydilutionexperiments,aroma Chemical characterization Guadagni DG, Buttery RG, Okano S. 1963. OdourGuth H, thresholds Grosch W. of 1993. some Furanoid fatty organic acids as com- precursors of a key aroma compound Larsen M, Poll L. 1990. Odour thresholds ofLawless HT, some Corrigan-Thomas important CJ, Johnston aroma M. compounds 1995. Variation in in odor thresholds for Leffingwell JC, Leffingwell D. 1991. GRAS flavor chemicals detectionLopez thresholds. R, Per- Ezpeleta E, Sanchez I, Cacho J, Ferreira V. 2004. Analysis of the aroma intensi- Mahattanatawee K, Rouseff RL, Goodner KL. 2004. Determination of g/L μ g/L in or- μ -damascenone was β -damascenone, which β Vol. 71, Nr. 5, 2006 e... -damascenone as an “aroma — β -damascenone in pumpout gave β -damascenone. The differences be- β -ionon -damascenone is not a character im- β β References -damascenone contributed a fruity flavor rather than β JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE Odor thresholds are of great practical value to flavorists: pub- Olfaction and taste III. New York: Rockefeller University Press. p 158–71. sensory physiology Vol 4, pt 1. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. p 245–56. taste in health and disease. New York: Raven Press. p 655–64. primary odor. Chem Senses Flavour 2(1):17–25. related food substances. WHO Food Additives Series 42:335–52. tion E. Determination ofconcentration odor series and method of taste limits. thresholds Philadelphia: ASTM. by p a 679–91. forced-choice ascending 406 -ionone shows that if nonperceivers’ thresholds were used to re- -damascenone was tested in pumpout (Table 4) may indicate that -damascenone in pumpout were older than 45 y; this corresponds -damascenone would smell (orthonasal) and taste (by retronasal additional information on volatile-matrix interaction, the response to that stimulus being processed at the cognition level in that case. lished thresholds are used as a reference when thetion relative of contribu- a compound needs to be known,examples as mentioned in above, the tomato but alsofrom a when known, usually a natural flavor1991). source The specific (Leffingwell needs anosmia and found to Leffingwell in 50%β be of the re-created panelists tested for construct a flavor, the resulting flavorobjectionable would to be distorted, perceivers. possibly Therefore, greatwhen using care published should thresholds be byobtain used verifying them. the methodology to tween low and high thresholds for enhancer.”Thefactthatabimodaldistributionwasfoundonlywhen β because of the sweet background alreadyhalf of present the panelists in could the not differentiate pumpout, the compound odorthe from background. In fact, as noted earlier, most of “nonperceivers”β for to the findings that loss ofity sensitivity to with age discriminate includes odors loss (Leffingwell ofthe abil- and bimodal distribution Leffingwell was 1991). not Since foundtested when in water, and thresholds for “perceivers”fold were lower only than 10- for to “nonperceivers,” it 50- is concludedtalk that about specific one anosmia cannot for had the second highestfrom odor a model mixture activity reconstituting Grenache value wine, the intensity by of the aroma GCO, model was was only omitted slightly decreasedand (Grosch 2001; others Ferreira 2002), indicating pact compound, but probably contributes a sweet background note. Ferreira and others (2002) qualified S Amoore JE. 1969. A plan to identify most of the primary odors. In: Pfaff-Mann C,Amoore editor. JE. 1971. Olfactory genetics and anosmia.Amoore In: JE. 1991. Beidler Specific L, anosmias. editor. In: Handbook Getchell TV,Amoore JE, and Forrester LJ, others, Pelosi P. 1976. editors. Specific anosmia Smell to isobutyraldehyde: the and malty Anonymous. 1999. Safety evaluation of certain food additives. Ionones and structurally [ASTM] American Society for Testing and Materials. 1997. Standard Practice Designa- Specific anosmia for (Table5). Beta-damascenone contributed to 19% of the “floral” com- pounds in orange juice analyzed by GCO (Mahattanatawee anders oth- 2005). Its concentration ranged from 0.122 to 0.281 ange juice not from concentrate, and asin high reconstituted as 0.145 orange to juice 0.690 and from others concentrate 2004). (Mahattanatawee These concentrationsβ suggest that perceivers of olfaction) the compound when drinkingpumpout, orange juice. However, in floral, as found in water (Table 5) orand in others air by 2005). GCO (Mahattanatawee In another study, when

S: Sensory & Nutritive Qualities of Food