Vol.

79, 1973] 495

DERIVATION OF A PROFILE METHOD FOR SENSORY

ANALYSIS OF BEER FLAVOUR

By J. F. Clapperton
(Brewing Industry Research Foundation, Nutfield, Redhill, Surrey)

Received 29/A June, 1973

Flavour assessment ultimately depends on sensory methods of analysis.

Profile methods are considered to offer the best current solution to the problem
of describing, and as far as possible quantifying, beer flavour. The sensory
characteristics of flavour must be identified and described systematically and
objectively, without prejudice due to preferences. A flavour 'vocabulary' is
needed which is applicable to all types of beer. This involves selection of
significant terms which have the same meaning for different people. Any
system universally applicable to all types of beer must necessarily be complex,
but such a "universal" system is essential for research. It also provides a
"dictionary" from which terms can be selected for simpler profiles for quality
control of particular products. The steps in the development of a profile
system are described. Development has depended and will continue to depend
on the collaboration of a large number of individuals and groups of people
within the industry. Profile systems cannot be static but must continuously
evolve.

Key words: aroma, beer, flavour, method,
tasting
Introduction
There is an extensive literature on beer
flavour and a vast amount of information on
the chemical constituents of beer and how
these are affected by raw materials and
processing. Unfortunately, much of this
information is disjointed and there is a lack
of unifying principles or other means of
relating the various separate pieces of infor
mation.
Recent studies2.8-25.26.28 of the flavours of
food products have shown the important
advantages of sensory analysis for evaluating
both overall flavours and the individual
flavours of particular chemical constituents.
This is the most logical approach, since there
is no way of simulating instrumentally the
complex sensing mechanism of the human
palate and nose.
It is essential that in discussing flavour
people should speak a common language in
which the same word means the same thing to
different people. Only then can the market
ing, production, and research and develop
ment functions communicate in a meaningful
way. We therefore set out to develop a
vocabulary of flavour terms which permits
the characterization of all the different
sensory components of beer flavour.
The first widely-applied empirical system
for evaluating complex flavours was the
Arthur D. Little flavour profile method*.
This employs 4-6 trained and experienced
tasters using predetermined intensity scales
to score the independently recognizable
aroma and flavour notes according to type
and order of perception. Agreement on the
notes present, and the scoring of their
intensities, is reached by discussion amongst
the tasters under the direction of a panel
leader. Wren27 has demonstrated the poten
tial value of this method to the brewing
industry as a means of quality control, but
has, at the same time, indicated the limita
tions of a quality control format to the
broader field of research and development.
Flavour descriptions so devised will obviously
be product-orientated and the aroma/flavour
notes recognized will be appropriate only to
a limited range of beers with similar or closely
related flavours. Moreover it is possible, and
496 clapperton: flavour profiles of beer Q. Inst. Brew.

indeed likely, that different panels in dif different groups of people to describe the
ferent places will formulate different descrip odours of single chemical compounds. De
tions of the flavour of the same beer. scriptions of the aroma of diacetyl9, for
Another profile method of describing beer example, are shown in Table I. In experiment
flavour is the Siebel system17, in which a I subjects described the odour of the com
directed-response type of test-sheet is used pound spontaneously. The figures in brackets
throughout. Assessment of beer flavour by refer to the number of persons (n) who
instrumental methods of analysis and in responded clearly to the odour stimulus over
terms of particular chemical constituents has the total number of subjects (N). The
been discussed by many authors3-6-10'11-1*-18'18' figures opposite specified qualities show the
18,19,21,22,23,24
number of times they were used per hundred
Aroma and taste are inextricably involved clear responses. In experiment II, £ and I
in total flavour response. Aroma, detected refer to subjects who were "experienced" or
either directly or by a retronasal effect while "inexperienced" in smelling chemicals. They
the food or beverage is being swallowed, is rated the extent to which each of 44 pre
particularly important in sensing differences. selected odour qualities was perceived, using
People's responses to odour stimuli, however, a scale of intensity from (Hi, (0 = absent;
are governed by factors which are largely 5 = present in extreme degree). The decimal
psychological and depend on past experiences figures refer to the average scores and the
and learning. Consequently these responses figures in brackets to the proportion of
cannot be predicted with the same degree of respondents in each group who found the
precision as, say, responses to light or sound particular quality present, irrespective of the
waves of specified frequencies. magnitude of the rating. Essentially the
There have been several attempts to classify same qualities were recognized when the
odours, in an attempt to rationalize the odour was described either spontaneously or
sensory experiences they produce. Harper by directed response. The presence of a
et a/.8*9 have collated the terminology used by reference list in the latter case heightened the
frequency of recognition of appropriate
qualities. It is noteworthy, however, that no
TABLE I single quality was recognized by all subjects in
Descriptions of the Odour of Diacetyl either group, and indeed in the whole study
(0-02% v/v in dinonyl phthalate)* there were only 17 examples out of nearly 600
Experiment I (n/N = 53/60)
quality/stimulus interactions in which there
Vinegar 25
was complete agreement on the presence of
Sickly 21 any single quality8. In relation to profile
Sour 9 methods of analysis, it will be apparent from
Acid 8
these results that different groups of 4-6
Rancid 8
Oily 8
people from either group E or I might by
consensus opinion state that different quali
Experiment I r ties were present and at different levels of
E intensity. Clearly, descriptions of moie
Oily, fatty 1-9 (10/15)
complex aromas and flavours could become
Sickly 1-7 (10/15)
Rancid 1-3 ( 9/15)
increasingly divergent despite consistently
Sour, acid, vinegar 11 ( 8/15) good agreement within any single group.
Sharp, pungent acid 1-1 ( 7/15) In deriving a descriptive analysis which
means the same thing to most people, it is
I
Heavy 2-3 (12/20) first necessary to make reference to all of the
Sicklyf 1-8 (11/20) qualities which might reasonably be needed
Sour, acid, vinegar 1-7 (12/20) to define the flavour fully. Secondly, assess
Sharp, pungent, acidf 1-6 (9/20)
ments must be obtained from sufficient people
Oily, fatty 1-4 ( 9/20)
Rancid 1-4 ( 9/20) to ensure that all of the important qualities
Sweet 11 (10/20) are recognized8. These two points are
Putrid, foul, decayed 11 ( 9/20) particularly important in deriving qualities to
Warm 1-1 ( 8/20) be presented in a reference list, if a directed-
* from Harper et at., reference 9. response test is to be used. The 44 qualities
t high variance in scoring. referred to in the work on odour dassifica-
Vol. 79, 1973] clapperton: flavour profiles of beer
tion, discussed above, were derived from an
initial list of 300 descriptive terms, the final
selection being made on the basis of an
assessment of 69 terms by more than 400
people8. The list of 44 descriptive terms has
been used as the basis of a profile method of
analysis to characterize the odours of a
number of chemical compounds9-13, and, with
slight modification, to study, for example, the
contribution of certain constituents of a fruit
juice to the aroma18-28.
A profile method suitable for brewing
research should ideally encompass the widest
possible range of beer flavours. This paper
describes the derivation of a profile method of
sensory analysis, based on an analysis of a
comprehensive collection of descriptive terms
which might conceivably be used to describe
any aspect of beer flavour.
Results and Discussion
The collection of descriptive terms listed as
an Appendix was compiled from the literature
on beer flavour and from the responses of a
large number of people to questions during
taste tests. A selection of general odour
qualities9 was also included. Members of
staff were given the complete list and asked
497
to indicate which of these terms they would
use to describe any aspect of beer flavour they
had ever encountered. They were also asked
to explain in their own words the meaning of
terms which they had indicated. It was thus
possible to gauge the relative significance of
terms and the meaning each conveyed.
Forty respondents were used in this phase of
the work.
From the results of the questionnaire,
qualities listed in Table II were selected to
form an initial vocabulary for a profile format.
Descriptive terms selected were those clearly
understood by at least one-fifth of the
respondents. Descriptive terms which were
recognized the requisite number of times, but
which were not clearly understood, were
omitted, provided that the various meanings
given were covered adequately by qualities
which were already included in the format.
Where a number of descriptive terms were
found to be synonymous, the term which was
recognized most frequently was included.
Specific esters and fruits were all combined as
fruity, estery. Likewise, sulphurous, sulphuric
and related notes were included under the
single term sulphury. Other qualities which
had a common association of meaning were

TABLE II
Selected Flavour Qualities Forming the Vocabulary or the Initial Flavour Profile Format
(sec text)

A B

CO, tingle Hop oil

Bicarbonate, soda Butterscotch, diacetyl
Sweet Phenolic, TCP
Fruity, estery Earthy
Fragrant Nutty
Sickly Sulphury
Heavy Cabbagy, cooked vegetables
Light Musty
Pungent Stale, cardboard
Spicy Catty
Warming Soapy, fatty, oily

C D

Grainy, green, grassy Bitter

Acidic Yeasty
Metallic Malty
Harsh Viscous
Sour Smooth, creamy
Salty Watery
Meaty Strong ale, high alcohol
Mouth coating Freshly fermented
Mouth puckering Mature, old ale
Dry After-taste (bitter)
Burnt, smoky After-taste (other)
498 clapperton: flavour profiles of beer [J. Inst. Brew.

also grouped. The terms, butterscotch,
pungent, soda and TCP, although not included
in the original list, emerged strongly from
respondents' descriptions of other qualities
(TCP is a well-known proprietary chloro-
phenolic antiseptic). The term freshly
fermented was included to cover a number of
descriptions of raw, green and yotmg, which
if considered in this context as a single
descriptive term, would have been signi
ficantly recognized. It was decided initially
to include only two categories of afterpalate;
aftertaste (bitter) and aftertaste (other).
In presenting the descriptive terms in the
four groups A, B, C and D in the format, an
attempt was made wherever possible to
include in the same group qualities which
might be considered together, either as
related descriptions of certain flavour effects
or, alternatively, as opposites. In this way
people might best be able to familiarize
themselves with the test form by committing
sections of it more or less to memory.
People using any form of the basic system for
the first time frequently commented that the
qualities which they wished to express were
difficult to locate on the profile sheet. With a
little practice, however, this difficulty was
soon overcome. The order of presentation
may therefore be justified although there are
undoubtedly several other forms of presenta-
tion which would have been equally accept
able. Four different arrangements of the four
groups ABCD were used in each session of the
panel to minimize presentational bias towards
any single group of qualities8.
Subjects were not given any detailed in
structions on how the form should be used.
They were told, however, to consider each
quality but to mark only those which were
applicable to the test sample. The magnitude
of intensity of appropriate qualities either as
an aroma or flavour effect was rated on a 6
point scale (1 = slight; 2 = noticeable; 3 =
marked; 4 = strong; 5 = extreme. A rating
of 0 = absent was not used).
The system was used to obtain descriptions
of the aroma and flavour of several chemical
compounds and preparations relevant to
beer flavour (these are the nucleus of a
flavour "Library" which is being developed),
and also of a number of different experi
mental and commercial beers. The results
were promising and showed that the system
was versatile and potentially capable of
rationalizing people's descriptions of complex
aromas and flavours.
Table III shows differences in the descrip
tions of two experimental beers which were
each evaluated by two groups of people on
two separate occasions. Knowledge of the
nature of the difference in flavour gives much

TABLE III
Examples of Analyses Using the First Profile Format

Beer A Bcei B
Quality averages scoresf and (frequency of recognition)

Test 1 Test 2 Test 1 Test 2

CO, tingle 0-0 (0/15) 0-5 (5/141 1-1 (8/15) 0-8 (6/14)
sweet 0-0 (5/14) 0-9 (0/15) 0-9 (7/14)
fruity, estery 10 (7/15) 0-8 (4/14) 0-0 (5/15) 0-9 (7/14)
earthy 0-6 (4/14)
nutty 0-5 (4/15) 0-5 (4/14)
sulphury 0-7 (4/14) 0-4 (4/14)
cabbagy, cooked vegetables 0-5 (4/15) 00 (4/14)
grainy 00 (4/14)
metallic 0-4 (4/15)
sour 0-4 (5/14)
mouth coating 07 (5/15) 0-5 (4/14)
dry 00 (5/14) 0-0 (4/14)
burnt, smoky 08 (4/15) 1-3 (8/14) 0-4 (4/14)
bitter* 1-3 (0/15) 1-4 (9/14) 1-5 (9/15) 1-0 (10/14)
malty 00 (4/15) 0-7 (5/14)
viscous 04 (4/15)
smooth, creamy 0-7 (4/15)
after-taste (bitter) 1-0 (9/15) 0-9 (7/14) 1-5 (10/15) 1-0 (10/14)
after-taste (other) 0-7 (0/14) 0-7 (4/15) 0-4 (4/14)

• The analytical bitterness of both beers was 24 EBU

f Qualities recognized as either an aroma or flavour note by panels of cither 14 or 15 assessors.
Vol. 79, 1973] clapperton: flavour profiles of beer
more useful information than the simple
result of a triangular taste-test by which the
beers were differentiated at the level of **
statistical significance (i.e. the likelihood of the
result having occurred by chance was less
than 1 in 100). Beer A was from an unboiled
wort80; B was the control. Recognition of the
qualities, malty, nutty and cabbagy, cooked
vegetables in A agreed with certain descrip
tions of the odour of dimethyl sulphide and of
the aroma and flavour effects resulting from
the addition of this compound to beer. The
presence of perhaps similar flavour qualities
has been recognized in studies elsewhere7.
In Table III scores are recorded for
qualities which were recognized by four or
more people. An alternative treatment of the
results is to multiply the total score by the
number of times the quality is recognized.
This emphasizes agreement amongst the
panel rather than high scores by individuals.
For example, a total score of 6 by 6 people
would be rated more highly (6 x 6) than a
total score of 10 by only two people (10 x 2).
This treatment was useful in the initial stages
of the work, since inexperienced subjects tend
to rate qualities more highly than experienced
subjects, probably because the latter have a
TABLE IV
Second Flavour Profile Format
Aroma Flavour
A B
Lively
Dull
Sweet
Sickly
Caramel
Fruity, estery
Fragrant
Heavy
Light
Spicy
Nutty
Warming
Strong Ale
C D
Smooth
Harsh
Grainy
Grassy
Acidic
Metallic
Salty
Mouth coating
Mouth puckering
Dry
Burnt, smoky
499
much wider frame of reference. It is appro
priate to bear this in mind when new panels
are being trained or if very unusual flavours,
e.g. from infecting organisms, are encountered.
We now use a panel of eight people and record
the total scores for qualities recognized by
three or more people85. A permanent record
is kept of all scores by individuals. Since it is
difficult to ensure that the same people will
always be available for taste testing, panels of
8 are chosen from a group of 16 people who
regularly use the profile system to evaluate the
flavours of various beers.
The use of the initial format served the
additional purpose of revealing those people
who were evidently most suitable for this type
of work. It is felt that the derivation of a
suitable and systematic vocabulary of descrip
tive terms and maintenance of people's
interest and involvement are at least as
important for attainment of a satisfactory
level of performance as rigorous training of
individuals to recognize specific aroma and
flavour qualities.
In the light of experience with the first
format, improvements were made to give a
second format, shown in Table IV. Certain
of the changes between this and the first
Aroma Flavour
Phenolic
Butterscotch, diacetyl
Earthy
Cabbagy, cooked vegetables
Dimethyl sulphide
Musty
Stale, cardboard
Soapy, fatty
Sulphury, H,S, mercaptan
Yeasty
Body
Malty, worty
Viscous, thick
Freshly fermented
Watery
Bitter
Hoppy
Catty
Aftertaste (bitter)
Aftertaste (other)
500 clapperton: flavour profiles of beer [J. Inst. Brew.

format were suggested by visitors to the
Foundation or by other members of the
Industry and others by panel members who
found the first lacking in some respects or
had experienced confusion amongst certain of
the descriptive terms.
In the second format, impressions of aroma
and flavour were entered separately to the
left and right of each group of qualities.
Bicarbonate soda, pungent and mealy had
seldom been used to describe beer flavours
and were omitted; likewise oily which tended
to be confused with viscous; and green, which
to many people meant immature. Sour
tended to be used ambiguously meaning
either sour-citrus or sour as in sour milk and
was therefore omitted also.
Of the qualities now presented in group A,
it was felt that lively and dull would together
be more discriminating than the single term

TABLE V
Recognition of the Aroma and Flavour Qualities of the Same Two Beers by 10 Different
Panels in 8 Different Locations

Beer 1 Quality Beer 2

Aroma flavour Aroma Flavour

XX xxxxxx Lively xxxxx

XX Dull X xxxx

xxxxx xxxxxxxxxx Sweet xxxxx xxxxxxxxx

XX xxxxxx Sickly XXX XXX

X X Caramel XXX

xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx Fruity, estery xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx

XX X Fragrant
X xxxxx Heavy X
Light XXX

Spicy
X Nutty
XXX Warming
XX Strong Ale
Phenolic
X X Butterscotch, diacetyl X X

X Earthy
XXX XX Cabbagy, cooked vcg.
XX XX Dimethyl sulphide X

X X Musty XX

X X Stale, cardboard xxxx xxxx

X X Soapy, fatty X

xxxxxx XX Sulphury, H,S, mercaptan XX

xxxxx Yeasty X

X xxxxxx Smooth X xxxxxxx

X xxxxxx Harsh XXX xxxxxxxx

XX XX Grainy X XX

X Grassy
XXX Acidic xxxxxxxx

XX Metallic XXX

XX Salty X

xxxxxxx Mouth coating xxxxx

xxxx Mouth puckering XXX

Dry xxxxxx

XX XXX Burnt, smoky

xxxxxxxx Body xxxxxxxx

XX xxxxx Malty, worty xxxxxx xxxx

XXX Viscous, thick

Freshly fermented
Watery xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxx Bitter xxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx Hoppy XX xxxx

xxxxxx X Catty XXX

xxxxxxxxxx Aftertaste (bitter) xxxxxxxxx

xxxx Aftertaste (other) XXX

Each x represents recognition by one panel, i.e. at least 3 out of 7 or 8 members of the panel concerned
recognized the relevant quality. Qualities recognized by 3 or more panels in general showed good agreement
between panels in detailed scores. In addition, the average scores for all 10 panels were close to the individual
scores of the 2 trained and experienced panels.
 Vol. 79, 1973] clapperton: flavour profiles of beer
CO2 tingle. Caramel was included. High
alcohol was adequately covered by warming
and was no longer used to qualify strong ale.
In group B, TCP no longer qualified phenolic;
dimethyl sulphide was included; and sulphury
was qualified by HaS, mercaptan. In group C
smooth was no longer qualified by creamy; and
grainy and grassy were separated. Body
was included in group D to cover the import
ant quality of flavour fullness. Malty was
qualified by worty to prevent confusion
between the single term and grainy. The use
of thick to qualify viscous indicated the
meaning of this term more clearly. Hoppy
was used instead of hop oil (formerly in group
B).
The second format was used to evaluate the
flavours of experimental and commercial
beers on a more rigorous basis. Not only the
ability of panels to differentiate flavours but
also the reproducibility of the descriptions
were most encouraging. One important
application of the second format was its use
in a collaborative study of the flavours of two
beers by 10 different groups of people from a
number of companies within the Industry.
The beers were evaluated at the Foundation
by two panels selected from the 16 people
who used the method regularly, and also by
eight other panels at seven different breweries.
The latter groups had little or no previous
experience of this particular method of
flavour profile analysis, though some had
experience of other profile procedures. The
evaluations were completed within a period
of 21 days, during which time the stock of
beers (in bottle) was kept at 0-3°C.
Results are shown in Table V. It can be
seen that there is generally good agreement
on the recognition of the various qualities in
each beer. There was some variability in the
scoring of the intensities of the qualities by
the different panels, but this is not surprising
considering that most of the panelists were
using this method for the first time. It is
important that a brewing research organiza
tion should have a uniform and meaningful
method of communicating to others its
findings on beer flavour. The results of the
collaborative study show that it should be
possible to meet this criterion.
The collaborative study also provided
further comment on the meaning and
appropriateness of the descriptive qualities.
On the basis of the various opinions expressed,
further changes were made in formulating the
501
third and present version of the profile
format. There was no uniform agreement on
which terms were confusing, and should
therefore either be redefined or omitted, or on
what other terms might be included. Indeed,
certain of the changes which were decided
upon contradicted some of these made earlier
between formats 1 and 2. This indicates
once more the divergence of opinion on
flavour descriptions amongst smaller groups
of people and stresses the importance of
obtaining as wide a consultation as possible.
The third and present format is shown in
Table VI. Details of changes in vocabulary
from the second format and explanation of
some of the reasons for making them are as
follows: In group A liveliness (C0t tingle) is
now used instead of lively. Dull was not
clearly understood and has been omitted.
Likewise heavy and light have been omitted.
Fruity (citrus) has been separated from
estery. High gravityfullness is used instead of
strong ale, indicating the extra fullness of
flavour typical of high gravity beers irrespec
tive of type. In group B, the single terms
diacetyl, sulphury, and cardboard are used.
Cabbagy is qualified by vegetable water instead
of cooked vegetables. Dough-like has been
included. As stated earlier, sulphury covers
a number of different flavour and aroma
notes. When sulphury notes are recognized
a more exact description of the aroma/
flavour impression generally emerges from the
panel discussion afterwards. In group C,
smooth mouth/eel is used to describe the
meaning of this term more clearly. Harsh was
considered to be adequately covered by
other qualities and has been omitted. Acidic
is qualified by (sharp). Sour has been in
cluded. Astringent is used instead of mouth
puckering. Drying is used instead of dry
indicating the physiological effect of certain
compounds in stopping the flow of saliva in
the mouth. Particulate (dusty) has been
included. In group D, body and watery are
qualified by full and thin respectively.
Malty and worty have been separated, like
wise burnt and smoky.
Further descriptions of afterpalate have
been included. Four arrangements of the four
groups ABCD are still used, with the section
on afterpalates in the same place in all four
forms. Qualities which are not relevant to
aroma are blocked out on the aroma side of
the form. Finally, a section has been
included in which panelists are able to
502 clapperton: flavour profiles of beer [J. Inst. Brew.
TABLE VI
Third Flavour Profile Format

Aroma Flavour Aroma Flavour

A B
Liveliness (COa tingle) Diacetyl
Sweet Earthy
Sickly Musty
Toffee-like Cabbagy, vegetable water
Fruity (citrus) Dimethyl sulphide
Estcry Sulphury
Fragrant Cardboard
Spicy Soapy, fatty
Nutty Phenolic
Wanning Yeasty
High-gravity fullness Dough-like

C D
Smooth mouthfcel Body (full)
Viscous, thick Watery (thin)
Acidic, (sharp) Malty
Sour Worty
Salty Grainy
Metallic Grassy
Mouth coating Bitter
Astringent Hoppy
Drying Catty
Participate (dusty) Burnt
Smoky

Afterpalate

Bitter Sweet
Metallic Toffee-like
Astringent Sulphury
Yeasty (yeast bite) Fruity
Burnt Estery
Hoppy

Other comments Try to relate these to terms already listed

express other comments. It is stressed, on which individual scores are recorded by

however, that every attempt should be made
to relate these to qualities which are already
listed.
During the past seven months in which
either format 2 or format 3 has been in
regular use, the flavours of more than two
hundred beers have been evaluated. These
were experimental and commercial beers
including ales, lagers, and stouts. In no case
has it been necessary to repeat an analysis
because of failure of the panel to describe the
flavour. A start has been made on indexing
the flavours of specified types of beer, to
provide patterns of flavour qualities against
which the corresponding patterns, observed
in experimental beers, may be compared.
For this purpose total scores are transferred
to punched cards from the sheet (Table VII)
the panel leader at the time of the test.
Ranges of scores are assigned to the following
categories.
1 = total scores of 3-6
2 = total scores of 7-10
3 = total scores of 11-14
4 = total scores of 15-18
5 = total scores of 19 and above.
Descriptions of the flavours of three beers
summarized in this way are depicted in Fig. 1.
The numbers along the top row in each card
refer to qualities listed in the test-sheet
(Table VI), numbering from the first quality
(1) in group A to the last (43) in group D.
Qualities which have been significantly
recognized {i.e. by at least 3 out of 8 panelists)
are punched, and the appropriate scores
entered according to aroma, flavour and
 Vol. 79, 1973] CLAPPERTON: FLAVOUR PROFILES OF BEER 603

Beer 1. Lager Beer Tasted 10-05-73

3 4 G 8 0
• 12 13 14
• » • 18 19 20 21 22
» 24
• 26 27 28
• • 31 32 • 34 3G 36 37 38 • • 41 42 43

■"In olft Oft

2 2 2 "31 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 7 7
Aroma 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Oft

Oft
Oft
CO
Oft Oft Oft
Ofto ftol | Oft o Oft
oft Ojft
S 5 S S G S G G S G
7 G 5 S G 9 G G 6 G S G
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
e
• • 1 1 1 1
• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Flavour 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
UL 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
• 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

& s B 0 B S G B S G S G 9 S G S & & 9 G b|"b 9 G 5 G G 9 &|g 9 S B B B S 9 S G S 5 9 B G S

'1'
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
• 1 1 1 1 1

After-
palate 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 |3
=> 3 3
3 3 3 3
ili 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3^3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

G 9 S 5 S S G S 5 G GjG 5|S S 9 s s sjs 5 G S 5 5 0 9 G 5|9 5 5 S 9 S 5 5 G • G S G 5 G &

Beer 2. Repeat of Beer 1 by a different panel on a different day (2105-73)

12 13 14 • • • 18 ID 2C 21 22 • 24 • 26 27 ssl* • 31 32 # 34 35 36 37 38 • • 41 42 43

1
• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Aroma 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 IF 3 3 3 3
• 3 3 3 3 3 3 J! 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

G & 5 s G G G G 9 S 9 s G 9 G G 9 9 S S S 9 9 S G 3 B s G S 5 "g* G 5 G S S 5 S G 9 9 G B G
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
• 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Flavour 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 i3 3 3 3 3 3 ■>
3 3
3J 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 e 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

& 0 G 9 G S & G G B S S G G S S G B G G 5 6 G 9 S S G If s B 9 9 0 9 5 G G 9 S 6 & S 9 5 S

After- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
palate 3 3 3 IT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 17 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Olft

Oft Oft
olft

S Is" G S 9 9 G G G G G 9 G IT 5
O|ft oft B S B B G S

Beer 3. Pale Ale Tasted 24-04-73

• • 3 • s • 7 8 9 10 • 12 13 14 IS 16 17 ia 19 2C 21 22 • 24 • 20 27 • • • 31 33 • 34 35 30 37 38 • 4( 41 • 43
• • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •
1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 • 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Aroma 3 3 3 3 3 • 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3

s S s s B B s s S B e 0 6 G S G S 0 5 0 S S 5 S S S 5 G B S G s S S S S S B S 5 G & S & 6
1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

• • 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 • 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 • 2 2 2

Flavour 7] 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 is 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
s S S s 5 S 5 S 5 S s S S S 5 S 5 5 5 3 S B S G S 5 S •
■2J S 0 G G 5 S S S S S 5 S S 6 S 5
1 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
After- 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 fT 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
palate
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 • 4 4 4 4 4 4
s S S [Tf S S S 6 5 S s s S G 5 5 B s 5 & S B 6 G 3 S 9 S 5 s 0 5 G S G 5 B B B S S S S S

Fig. 1. Flavour profiles of three samples of beer

(for details see text).

afterpalate. Beers 1 and 2 were the same examined. It will be seen that the profiles of
lager beer tasted on different days by beers 1 and 2 are closely similar, whereas
different groups of experienced panelists. beer 3 is clearly different. The consistency of
Beer 3 was a pale ale of approximately the profiles of the same beer determined on
same original gravity (~1048). The panelists different occasions has been verified many
had no prior knowledge of the beers being times and makes us feel that a meaningful
604 clapperton: flavour profiles of beer [J. Inst. Brew.

vocabulary of descriptive terms has been
selected.
Studies of factors which affect flavour
stability have also been initiated. These
have emphasized the value of the profile
method as a means of evaluating flavours in
as near absolute terms as the present state of
the art permits. It has thus been possible to
monitor changes in flavour with time and to
record the gradual divergence of the flavours
of test beers from the appropriate controls,
While commercial breweries might wish to
obtain detailed descriptive analyses of beers
which have altered markedly in flavour
during storage, a simpler system is desirable
for routine quality control. For this purpose
characteristics relevant to any particular
brand of beer could be selected from the
complete format.
Further changes in the present profile
system may well prove desirable when, as is
hoped, the breadth of collaboration and the

TABLE VII
Example of Form Used by Panel Leader to Record Results of Profile Analysis

Aroma Scores Flavour Scores

Assessors Initials Assessors Initials

S Quality Ref S
No*

2 2 1 1 6 Liveliness 1 11 2 3 2 1 1 2

2 1 1 4 Sweet 2 0 I 1 3 4

3 Sickly 3 2 3

2 1 Toffee-like 4 1 2

2 1 Fruity 5

1 3 2 2 8 Estery 6 3

2 1 2 3 2 10 Fragrant 7 2 4

Spicy 8 1

Nutty 9

2 Warming 10 0 2 3 1

1 H. G. fullness 11 10 1 1 3 1 4

Diacetyl 12

Earthy 13

Musty 14

2 2 3 7 Cabbagy v.w. 15 6 2 2 2

2 2 1 6 DMS 16

2 2 1 1 2 8 Sulphury 17 8 2 2 3 1

2 Cardboard 18

Soapy, fatty 19

1 Phenolic 20 2

Yeasty 21

Dough-like 22

— — — — — — — — X Smooth 23 6 2 1 1 2
Vol. 79, 1973] clapperton: flavour profiles of beer 505

— — — — — — — X Viscous, thick 24 2

1 Acidic (sharp) 26 6 2 1 3

Sour 26 2

— — — — — — — — X Salty 27

1 Metallic 28 2

— — — — — — — — X Mouth coating 29 0 3 3 2 1

— — — — — — — — X Astringent 30 5 1 1 3

— — — — — — — — X Drying 31 2 2

Participate 32

— — — — — — — X Body 33 14 3 2 1 2 3 3
—

— — — — — — — X Watery 34

2 Malty 35 2

1 Worty 36 2

1 Grainy 37

Grassy 38

— — — — — — — — X Bitter 30 18 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 2

2 2 3 2 1 10 Hoppy 40 9 1 2 2 3 1

1 Catty 41 1

2 Burnt 42 3
—

Smoky 43

Aftbrpalate Scores
Assessors Initials

Quality Ref 2
No

Bitter 39 10 1 3 3 2 3 2 3 2
* Ref. No.
Metallic 28 2
Reference number used
Astringent 30 6 1 2 1 2
in punched card system
illustrated in Fig. 1.
Yeasty 21

Burnt 42 2 3

Sweet 2 2

Toffee-like 4 2

Sulphury 17

Fruity 5

Estery 0

Hoppy 40 2 2 1
506 clapperton: flavour profiles of beer [J. Inst. Brew.
exchange of information is extended. How 10. Harrison, G. A. F., Journal of the Institute of
ever, the system in its present form provides a Brewing, 1970, 76, 480.

useful basis for flavour evaluation. The
study so far has dealt mainly with descrip
tions of beer flavour by scientific staff or
brewery staff, including marketing and non
technical staff. Descriptive terminology used
by the public at large is another, but equally
relevant, field of enquiry. In addition, there
remains the problem of correlating sensory
11. Haukeli. A. D., Jacobscn, T. & Lie, S..
Technical Quarterly, Master Brewers' Associa
tion of America, 1973, 10 (1), 47.
12. Land, D. G., Proceedings of the Nutritional
Society. 1970, 29 (2), 309.
13. Land, D. G., Harper, R. & Griffiths, N. M.,
The Flavour Industry, 1970, 842.
14. Lawrence, W. C, Wallerstein Laboratories Com
munications, 1964, 27, 123.

and instrumental data, and of relating both to
raw material and process variations.
Acknowledgements.—This work has relied
heavily on the free discussion of flavour
descriptions amongst a great many people.
The cooperation of all concerned both in the
Industry and at the Brewing Industry
Research Foundation is gratefully acknow
ledged. The author is particularly apprecia
tive of the attention and continued interest of
all those who have assisted regularly with the
sensory evaluations.
References
1. Bcngtsson, K., Wallerslein Laboratories Com
munications. 19S3, 16, 231.
2. Biggers, R. E., Hilton, J. J. & Gianturco,
M. A., Journal of Chromatographic Science,
I960, 7. 453.
3. Bishop, L. R., Journal of the Institute
Brewing. 1071, 77. 380.
4. Caul, J. F., Advances in Food Research. 1967,7,
5. Guadagni, D. G. & Miers, J. C, Food Technology
1969, 23. 37S.
6. Engan, S. & Aubert, O., Proceedings of the
European Brewing Convention, Estoril, 1971,
407.
7. Hall, R. D. & Flicker, R., Proceedings of the 9th
Convention of the Australian Institute of
Brewing, 1900, 45.
8. Harper, R., Land, D. G., Griffiths, N. M. &
Bate-Smith, E. C, British Journal of Psycho
logy. 1008, 59, 231.
9. Harper, R., Bate-Smith, E. C, Land, D. G. &
Griffiths, N. M., Perfumery and Essential Oil
Record, 1968, 59. 22.
15. Mcilgaard, M., Elizondo, A. & MacKinncy, A.,
Walterstein Laboratories Communications,
1971. 34, 95.
16. Meilgaard, M., Elizondo, A. & Moya, E.,
Technical Quarterly, Master Brewers' Associa
tion of America, 1970. 7, 143.
17. Olshausen, I. J., Technical Quarterly, Master
Brewers' Association of America, 1969, 6 (4),
233.
18. Palamand, S. R. & Hardwick, W. A., Technical
Quarterly, Master Brewers' Association of
America. 1969.6 (2), 117.
19. Palamand, S. R., Markl, K. S. & Hardwick.
W. A., Proceedings of the American Society of
Brewing Chemists, 1971, 211.
20. Rennie, H., Journal of the Institute of Brewing,
1972, 78, 162.
21. Rosculet, G., Brewers Digest, 1070, 45 (4), 64.
22. Rosculet, G. & Rickard, M., Proceedings of the
American Society of Brewing Chemists, 1068,
203.
of 23. Suomalaincn, H., Journal of the Institute of
Brewing, 1971. 77, 164.
24. Suomalainen, H. & Ronkaincn, P., Technical
Quarterly, Master Brewers' Association of
America, 1968,5 (2). 110.
25. von Sydow, E., Andersson. J., Anjou, K.,
Karlsson, G., Land, D. G. & Griffiths, N. M.,
Lebensmittel IVissenschaft und Technologic,
1970,3. 11.
26. von Sydow, E., Food Technology, 1971, 25, 40.
27. Wren, J. J., Journal of the Institute of Brewing,
1972, 78, 09.
28. Young, L. L., Bargmann, R. E. & Powers, J. J.,
Journal of Food Science. 1970, 35 (3), 219.

APPENDIX

The following list of terms which have been used to describe beer flavour was compiled
from the literature and from the results of taste tests. A number of general odour qualities8
(marked*) are included. Italics denote terms selected by more than one fifth of the respondents
in the questionnaire study (see text). Assessors found many terms to be ambiguous or unclear.
Currently recommended terms are given in the accompanying paper, and a thesaurus is
being assembled.

acetaldehyde acidic* aged

acetic acid acrid almond*
acetoin after-bite anaesthetic*
Vol. 79, 1973] clapperton: flavour profiles of beer 507

animal depressed aroma late bitter

antiseptic diacetyl lemony
apple-blossoms dimethyl sulphide light
apple-like dirty-taste light struck
aromatic* drains like ammonia*
astringent after-taste dry* like blackcurrant leaves
dry throat like blood*
baked potatoes dull like custard
balsamic* dusty taste like domestic solvent*
banana like raw meat*
bicarbonate earthy* like unripe fruit
bitter effervescent lingering bitterness
bitter after-taste estery
bitter aloes ethereal malty
bitter end etherish* mature
black treacle mealy
bland faecal* meaty*
bonfire fatty* medicinal
bread crust fishy* mellow
bread dough flavourful mercaptan
bread-like foreign metallic*
brisk foul* milk
brothy fragrant* mineral oil
burnt* fruity (citrus)* minty*
burnt butter fruity {other) moth balls*
burnt cheese full mouldy*
burnt grain full-bodied mousey
burnt malt full drinking mouth coating
burnt sugar fusely mouth puckering
buttery mushroom-like
butyric acid garlic* musk*
gassy musty*
cabbagy goaty
camphor* grainy nutty
candy greasy
caramel green* oily*
carbolic'* greenhouse odour old hops
carbonation old pale ale
cardboard harsh old port
catty harsh grain onion*
celery-like heavy* out of blend
cellar like herbal* over cooked vegetables
characterless high alcohol oxidized
cheese-like higldy sour
chemical* honey pear-like
clean hop pharmaceutical
coconut-like hop fragrance phenolic
cooked hop oil pineapple-like
cool* hot wort aroma
CO2 tingle hyacinth quick bitter
creamy hydrogen sulphide
crushed green leaves* rancid
cucumber inky raw
cut grass*' intense raw apple skin
iso-amyl acetate raw vegetables
decayed* iso-butyraldehyde resinous*
608 clapperton: flavour profiles of beer [J. Inst. Brew

rhubarb like stale toffee

rounded stale meat tongue burning
roses starchy tooth sharpening
rotten egg straw-like
rough after taste strawberry-like unblended
rubbery strong ale unclean
rum-like sulphide undistinguished
sulphitic unfermented
salty sulphur dioxide
scorched stdphurous* vanilla*'
sharp sunslruck vinegar*
sickly* suppressed aroma vinous
sickly sweet sweaty* viscous
skunky sweet*
smoky* warming*
smooth tangy watery
soapy* tart wet grain
soft thick texture wet newspaper
something missing thin wine-like
sour* throat catching woody*
sour grain throaty worty
sour milk toasted yeasty
spicy* tinny young