Lewkowska 2015

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and
Technology
ISSN: 1064-3389 (Print) 1547-6537 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/best20
Use of Sensory Analysis Methods to Evaluate the

Odor of Food and Outside Air
Paulina Lewkowska, Tomasz Dymerski & Jacek NamieśNik
To cite this article: Paulina Lewkowska, Tomasz Dymerski & Jacek NamieśNik (2015) Use of
Sensory Analysis Methods to Evaluate the Odor of Food and Outside Air, Critical Reviews in
Environmental Science and Technology, 45:20, 2208-2244, DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2015.1010429
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2015.1010429
Accepted author version posted online: 10

Feb 2015.
Published online: 10 Feb 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 298
View related articles
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=best20
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 45:2208–2244, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1064-3389 print / 1547-6537 online
DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2015.1010429
Use of Sensory Analysis Methods to Evaluate

the Odor of Food and Outside Air
PAULINA LEWKOWSKA, TOMASZ DYMERSKI,

and JACEK NAMIEŚNIK
Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Chemistry, Gdansk University of Technology,
Gdansk, Poland
Sensory analysis is applied in many areas of daily life. It is used to

carry out the sensory evaluation of foodstuffs or other products and
to evaluate the properties of odors present in the environment. The
authors attempt to summarize the knowledge on the classification
and application of sensory analysis methods to evaluate the odor
nuisance of air, which allows the identification of sensory impres-
sions and determination of their intensity levels. This article also
presents a short history of sensory analysis and describes the chemo-
metric techniques used for data processing. The main attention is
focused on detailed description and comparison of sensory analysis
methods: differential methods, scaling methods, differential settings
methods, and descriptive analysis methods.
KEY WORDS: sensory analysis, odor nuisance, differential meth-

ods, scaling methods, differential settings methods, descriptive
analysis methods, chemometry
1. INTRODUCTION
A man has been using senses to evaluate food and odors present in the
environment for several thousand years. Using senses of sight, taste, smell
and touch, he or she is able to determine whether the sensory properties of
the tested food product are advantageous or disadvantageous and whether
Address correspondence to Paulina Lewkowska, Department of Analytical Chemistry,

Faculty of Chemistry, Gdansk University of Technology, ul. Narutowicza 11/12, 80–233
Gdansk, Poland. E-mail: kolasinska.paulina@wp.pl
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at
www.tandfonline.com/best.
2208
Sensory Analysis Methods 2209
there are any unpleasant odors in the surrounding environment indicative of

hazardous substances in the human environment that may affect his or her
mental and physical condition (Ruan and Zeng, 2004).
For many years, there has been an increased interest in the possibility
of using the results of sensory analysis to evaluate the anthropogenic impact.
The increased anthropogenic impact resulting from different areas of human
activity and the tendency to meet the demand for various consumer goods are
the causes of odorants entering the atmosphere in ever increasing amounts.
Air pollution may also be related to odor nuisance, which is the cause of the
increasing number of complaints about air quality. Therefore, it is necessary
to use appropriate analytical procedures to ensure the possibility of sensory
evaluation in order to control emissions of pollutants (Stone et al., 2012).
A method of sensory analysis is used in many areas of daily life. It is used
to carry out sensory evaluation of food and daily use products (e.g., cosmetics
or chemicals). It is also used to evaluate the properties of substances present
in the environment, causing unpleasant odors from the sources, such as:
municipal landfills (Chemel et al., 2012), sewage treatment plants (Agus
et al., 2012), animal husbandry (Zhang et al., 2010), and industrial plants
(Capelli et al., 2011).
1.1 Definition of Sensory Analysis

A sensory analysis involves the development and use of different tools to
measure and evaluate the quality characteristics of the test sample using one
or more senses, in compliance with the relevant conditions and requirements
regarding a person carrying out the analysis and using the methods appropri-
ate to the task assigned (Kemp et al., 2009). This definition has met with the
approval of, inter alia, the experts from the American Institute of Food Tech-
nology and the American Society for Testing and Materials. Information from
the external environment and the interior of the body is received through the
senses. The organs of smell and taste can be regarded as chemical senses,
since the interaction between chemical compounds and chemoreceptors is
the first step in the process of receiving olfactory stimuli through the senses
(Berglund et al., 1999; Lawless and Heymann, 2010).
1.2 Short History of Sensory Analysis

A sensory analysis is one of the main tools for measuring human response to
stimuli from the surrounding environment. The first food tests using methods
of sensory analysis were carried out in 1944 by the U.S. military laboratory.
Thirteen years later, Prof. Tilgner (1957)—a specialist in sensory analysis from
Gdansk University of Technology—published the book “Analiza organolep-
tyczna żywności” [Organoleptic food analysis]. In 1977, the experts from the
International Organization for Standardization developed ISO 5492 standard
2210 P. Kolasińska et al.
that includes vocabulary for sensory analysis (Clark et al., 2009; Kośmider
and Krajewska, 2007). Figure 1 shows the most important events related to
the establishment and development of sensory analysis.
1.3 Laws of Psychophysics

The Weber–Fechner law and Stevens law describe the relationship between
the physical magnitude of a stimulus and its perceived intensity. Weber and
Fechner (1834) suggested that the signals from the external environment are
processed in the central nervous system, regardless of their type (Drosler,
2000). They also demonstrated that there is a correlation between a change
in a biological response and a slightly noticeable change in the stimulus. The
Weber-Fechner law gave rise to a new field of science—psychophysics—and
was used to address the issues related to the human perception of stimuli
(light, sound, taste, smell, heat; Sun et al., 2012; Dehaene, 2003). This kind
of relationship can be described by the following equation:
B
R = C ln ,
Bo
where R – intensity of sensation, C – proportionality factor, B – power of
the stimulus causing the sensation of intensity (R), and Bo – threshold of
stimulus, below which it is not perceived at all.
In the case of olfactory sensations, the currently applicable Weber-
Fechner law is expressed in the following form:

I = kW−F · log S − kWl log(SSPWW = k(S − seofolfac,
where I – intensity of sensation, kW-F – Weber-Fechner’s proportionality

factor, S – odorant concentration in the air causing the sensation of intensity
I, and SPWW – olfactory perception threshold (Lawless, 2013; Masin et al.,
2009).
About a century later, Stevens (1961) carried out research to prove the
proposed thesis that a ratio of two subjective sensations is equal to the ratio
of the stimuli force. The assessor of the two stimuli determines the proportion
of sensory impressions. As a result of the research by Stevens, a power law
equation was developed. Regarding the evaluation of olfactory sensations,
Stevens’ law takes the following form (Stevens, 1961):
I = kS · S n,
where I – intensity of sensation, ks – proportionality factor (the so-called

Stevens’ exponent), S – odorant concentration in the air causing the sensation
of intensity I, and n – empirical constant.
FIGURE 1. Milestones in the development of sensory analysis (Clark et al., 2009; Kośmider
and Krajewska, 2007; Drosler, 2000).
FIGURE 2. Molecular shapes corresponding to primary odors according to Amoore’s theory:

(a) camphor, (b) mint, (c) musky, (d) ether, (e) floral, (f) pungent, (g) putrid.
2. SENSE OF SMELL
Human senses are an important source of information that is constantly enter-

ing the brain from the external environment and the body interior. Although
a person receives the greatest amount of information through the organs of
sight and hearing, the organs of smell and taste are no less important for the
purpose. In contrast to the sense of taste, sight, and hearing, a mechanism
behind the sense of smell has remained unknown for a long time.
2.1 Theory of Olfaction

Over the years, numerous theories have been developed on how to iden-
tify and detect chemical stimuli using the olfactory organ. The first of such
theories was formulated by Amoore (1952). It is known as a “stereochem-
ical theory of olfaction.” Based on the research results, Amoore postulated
that there is a correlation between the chemical structure of molecules and
the olfactory sensation evoked by such molecules. According to his theory,
odors can be divided into seven primary classes: mint, floral, pungent, putrid,
camphor, musk, and ether.
Perceived olfactory sensation can be described using the concept of
“lock and key,” which states that only a molecule with the correct shape can
fit into the odor receptor (Amoore, 1952). Figure 2 shows the basic types
of olfactory structures of chemical compounds according to the theory of
Amoore.
However, after a certain time, Amoore observed that his hypothesis does
not always give correct results (there are odor compounds, which are not
consistent with the hypothesis; Amoore, 1963a, 1963b). In addition, Amoore’s
theory was undermined by Moncrieff (1967). According to Moncrieff, the
weight of compound causing an olfactory sensation, that is perceived by the
sense of smell, should not exceed 300 Da (Moncrieff, 1967).
In 1961, a few years after the publication of the “stereochemical theory
of olfaction,” Wright formulated a “theory of vibration.” According to Wright,
the smell of a chemical compound is determined by the frequencies of

vibration of its molecules. These may be distinguished using the olfactory
receptors, which are sensitive to molecular vibrations caused by the presence
of various kinds of functional groups in chemical compounds (Wright, 1961).
“The vibration theory” was further elaborated by Turin (1996). The scientist
stated that a characteristic odor of the compound is not related to the shape of
odor molecules, but to the presence of specific vibrations. Turin presented
a detailed biological mechanism for transmission of molecular vibrations
(Turin, 1996–2002). He provided evidence for his hypothesis by publishing
the results of tests on enantiomers of carvone. Each of the enantiomers
differed in terms of its frequency of molecular vibrations and odor (Keller
and Vosshall, 2004; Solomon, 2006).
In 1968, Rosenberg and his research team developed a “piezo theory.”
The hypothesis states that the current carriers, which are generated in the
nasal mucus as a result of the reaction between the odorous substance and
vitamin A from the pigment of olfactory cells, have the effect of causing
the current flow, which stimulates the olfactory neurons. Current intensity
depends on the number of current carriers (Rosenberg, 1962).
The results of the tests using genetic engineering techniques carried out
by American physicians, Axel and Buck (1991), were used to determine the
method for recognition of odors and memorization of odors by the human
brain. The researchers have found evidence that one olfactory receptor al-
lows for the recognition of many odorous substances. In 2004, they were
awarded a Nobel Prize in medicine, and the results of their research served
as a basis for the theory on the sense of smell. It is estimated that a person
is able to detect more than 10,000 odors. Odorous substances, which are
also called odorants, are the substances stimulating the human olfactory sys-
tem, necessary for odor perception. Odorous substances, that are similar in
chemical structure, may cause different olfactory sensations (Buck and Axel,
1991).
2.2 Sense of Smell

It is now known that the olfactory receptors are located in the smaller part
of nasal mucosa. The olfactory epithelium, also called the olfactory area, is
located within the upper part of the nasal turbinate, the upper part of the
nasal septum and the nasal cavity ceiling. It is located in the human nose,
occupying an area of 1–3 cm3, and is filled with a yellow or brown discharge.
Figure 3 shows the location of olfactory area in the human skull.
The olfactory epithelium is built of the following three cell types: neu-
rosensory cells, basal cells, and sertoli cells.
A neurosensory cell is a bipolar cell. On the one hand, it is made up
of a dendrite (i.e., an extension made of hair follicle), which is directed
toward the surface of the olfactory epithelium (Kemp et al., 2009). On the
FIGURE 3. Cross-section of the human skull showing the position of olfactory area: (a) nasal
concha, (b) olfactory area of the cerebral cortex, (c) olfactory bulb, (d) olfactory cells, (e)
olfactory area, (f) cribriform plate.
other hand, it has been fitted with an axon conducting impulses from the
cell body to the brain. Neurosensory cells are olfactory cells, which con-
duct nerve impulses and function as chemoreceptors. They are considered
to be the only nerve cells of the human body that allow direct reception
of information from the external environment. Sertoli cells and basal cells
serve as an anchor for receptor cells. Moreover, Sertoli cells function as an
isolation layer aimed at separating individual receptor cells from one an-
other. New receptor cells may be formed out of basal cells (Clark et al.,
2009).
In the olfactory bulb, the axons of receptor cells combine with mi-
tral cells, which form an olfactory glomerulus. Mitral cells are classified as
second-order neurons on the so-called olfactory tract, with axons located
near the olfactory triangle and the anterior perforated substance. Then,
they combine with the third-order sensory neurons located in the rhinen-
cephalon structures. In the rhinencephalon, any information gathered is
processed. The result of this process is a human ability to perceive ol-
factory sensations (Scott et al., 1980). The process of transfer and conver-
sion of chemical data into the olfactory sensation is shown schematically in
Figure 4.
FIGURE 4. Process of reception of stimuli using the sense of smell.
3. MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES USED FOR SENSORY ANALYSIS
Psychophysical tests are useful tools in sensory analysis. These tests allow
research on the functions of the brain and the mind, and the person carrying
out the test must identify a sensory impression, determine its intensity or sort
the samples according to the intensity of the stimulus.
Sensory analysis methods can be categorized in four basic groups: dif-
ferential (i.e., differential tests), threshold setting, scaling, and descriptive
analysis (profiling method).
Figure 5 provides information on how to classify the measurement meth-
ods used in sensory analysis.
3.1 Differential Methods

Differential tests include the qualitative evaluation of samples by the team
of assessors. The test samples may cause olfactory sensations. Differential
methods can be classified in the following ways according to the test em-
ployed: paired comparison test, triangle test, duo-trio test, “two-out-of-five”
test, and “A” – “not A.”
Characteristic data, which may be used to describe differential methods,
are summarized in Table 1.
The paired comparison, triangle, and duo-trio tests are considered the
most simple and commonly used methods of investigation of sensory dif-
ferences. The tests, where the test sample is compared to the reference
sample, are recognized as forced-choice methods. The team of assessors
should be composed of a sufficient number of experts with the knowledge
2216
TABLE 1. Characteristics of differential tests
Number of the
Type of test Description of the method assessors Application Principle of the method
Paired comparison involves the evaluation by the - 7 or more experts, - determining the sensory If a null hypothesis is used:
test assessors of sensory attributes of - 20 or more selected difference no difference between the two
one or more samples, arranged in assessors, between the samples and samples: PA = PB = 1/2;
a
pairs, in a specific or random order, - 30 or more assessors the direction of the If an alternative hypothesis is
and the determination of a sensory difference a used:
difference between the test samples PA = PB a
and the direction of this differencea
Triangle test involves the evaluation of sensory - 6 or more experts, - determining small If a null hypothesis is used:
attributes of three samples by the - 15 or more selected sensory inability to distinguish between
assessors, where the two first assessors, differences between the products:
samples have the same value, and - 25 or more selected samples, Po = 1/3;
the third – different value of the assessorsb evaluation of test samples If an alternative hypothesis is
tested sensory attribute, and the with used:
identification of the sampleb a limited number of Po > 1/3 with a significance
team of the assessors, level of 5%b
- selection and
training of the assessorsb
Duo-trio test involves the evaluation by the - 20 or more selected - determining the sensory If a null hypothesis is used:
assessors of sensory attributes of assessorsc differences between inability to distinguish between
the reference sample and the other the test sample and the the products:
two samples and the identification reference samplec Po = 1/2;
of the sample showing a high If an alternative hypothesis is
similarity to the reference samplec used:
Po > 12 with a significance level
of 5%c
“Two-out-of-five” test involves the evaluation by the - 10 or more selected - evaluation of the If a null hypothesis is used:
assessors of sensory attributes of assessorsd samples involving a Po = 1/10;
five samples, two of which fall small number of the If an alternative hypothesis is
within one category of samples, assessorsd used:
and three of which fall within the Po > 1/10d
other category of samples, as well
as the classification of the test
samples according to their typed
“A” – “not A” involves the training of the team of - 20 selected assessors, - evaluating the samples If a null hypothesis is used:
test assessors in the detection of - 30 selected assessorse that differ in no sensory difference between
sensory attributes of the samples appearance, allowing the test samples
marked “A”e for a specific taste If an alternative hypothesis is
sensation or a used:
follow-up taste PA = PB e
sensatione
aEN ISO 5495 (2005). bEN ISO 4120 (2004).cEN ISO 10399 (2004). dISO 6658 (2005). eISO 8588 (1987).
2217
FIGURE 5. Measurement techniques used for sensory analysis.
and experience in sensory analysis, or of a sufficient number of assessors

not being experts in this field (International Organization for Sandardiza-
tion [ISO], 2007). Table 2 shows the advantages and disadvantages of using
differential methods.
In the case where two samples are tested using a paired comparison
method, the samples are assessed by the assessors under the same measure-
ment conditions. The order, in which samples are to be assessed for each
pair, is determined in the assessment card. The assessor is required to indi-
cate the sample showing a higher intensity of the tested sensory attribute.
After the experimental research is carried out, a level of statistical signifi-
cance for each sample is determined, based on the comparison of results
for the expected value with the one-sided or two-sided test (ISO, 2005b;
Calle-Alonso and Perez, 2013). In the case of using a triangle test, the team
of assessors will assess the set of three samples in a simultaneous manner or
in a predetermined order. The first two samples show an identical value of
the analyzed sensory attribute for the adopted level of significance, while the
third sample differs statistically significantly from the other two (ISO, 2004a).
If the samples are evaluated simultaneously, they will be analyzed under
the same measurement conditions. The assessor is required to indicate the
sample showing a different value of the tested sensory attribute than that of
the other two samples. Both the paired comparison test and the triangle test
are regarded as forced-choice methods (Iwasaki, 2012). If a sensory differ-
ence between the tested samples is not perceived, the assessor is required
to indicate the sample with a higher intensity of the tested sensory attribute.
This sample is selected on a random basis, which must be documented in
TABLE 2. Advantages and disadvantages of differential and scaling methods
Test Advantages Disadvantages
Differential methods
Paired comparison - easy to implement, - the number of the required paired
test - short duration of the test, comparisons increases with an
- low sensory fatigue a,b increase in the number of samples
being compared, and as a result, it
becomes almost impossible to
implement the test,
- requires a team of assessors
composed of a large number of
people a,b
Triangle test - short duration of the test, - only two samples (test and control
- immediate data analysis, samples),
- test is understandable by - lack of guidance on how the test
assessors and commonly samples differ from one another,
usedb,c - uneconomical in the case of
evaluating large numbers of
samples,
- requires a team of assessors
consisting of a relatively large
number of peopleb,c
Duo-trio test - short duration of the test, - requires a team of assessors
- no need for having prior consisting of a large number of
knowledge, in which the peopleb,d
attribute in the test
sample may changeb,d
“Two-out-of-five” test - higher likelihood of - high sensory fatigue,
selecting the right sample - low efficiency of the team of
in comparison with the assessorsb
b
triangle test
“A” – “not A” test - higher likelihood of - high sensory fatigue,
selecting the right sample - requires a team of assessors
in comparison with the consisting of a relatively large
pair comparison test and number of persons,
the triangle testb,e - breaks of sufficient duration
(2–5 minutes) between the sample
evaluations must be ensuredb,e
Scaling methods
Sequencing test - easy to implement, - low ability to differentiate between
- short duration of the test, the samples b
- fast, clear interpretation of
results in terms of their
statistical significance,
- requires a relatively low
number of samples,
- requires a team of
assessors consisting of a
small number of peopleb
(Continued on next page)
TABLE 2. Advantages and disadvantages of differential and scaling methods (Continued)
Test Advantages Disadvantages
Estimation test - easy to implement, - the samples must be evaluated in

- requires the training of the an appropriate order b
team of assessors to a
small extent,
- freedom of expression for
the team of the assessors,
- evaluation of the samples
based on a specific ratio
scale,
- more accurate than the
sequencing method,
Classification method - sample evaluation based - requires prior definition of verbal
on specific verbal categories for evaluation of
categories, samplesb
Scoring method - sample evaluation based - requires the proper definition of
on a specific numerical each quality level,
scale, - a team of assessors must be
- requires a team of provided with training aimed at
assessors consisting of a clarification of the definition of
small number of peopleb each attributeb
Grading method - analysis of results is fast - requires the selection of attributes,
and and easy to carry outb scale definition for each of the
attributes and definition of grades,
- the requirement for equal-interval
properties must be metb
aEN ISO 5495 (2005). bISO 6658 (2005). cEN ISO 4120 (2004). dAngulo et al. (2007). eISO 8588 (1987).
the assessment card (Radovich et al., 2004). In the case of a duo-trio test,
one of the three samples is designated as a reference sample and evaluated
first (ISO, 2004b). The next step in the process of testing using this method
is to carry out an analysis of the two other samples. The sample with a high
similarity of the tested sensory attribute to the reference sample is selected
for further testing (Angulo et al., 2007). In the case of “two-out-of-five” test,
the task of the assessor is to classify the samples according to their type.
This method can be used, if a small number of assessors is available. In the
case of this method, samples are evaluated in a random order (ISO, 2005a).
When using the “A - not A test,” the set of test samples consists of the sam-
ples labeled “A” and the samples, which differ from “A” samples in terms
of selected sensory attribute (ISO, 1987). They are labeled as the samples of
“not A” type. The task of the assessors is to identify the samples labeled with
“A.” During a series of measurements, it is necessary to ensure appropriate
FIGURE 6. Procedure for the application of differential method: (A) paired, (B) triangle, (C)
“two-out-of-five,” (D) duo-trio, (E) “A” – “not A.”
time intervals between the subsequent sample evaluations (Lee et al., 2007a;
Lee et al., 2007b). The process stages for differential methods are shown
schematically in Figure 6.
3.2 Methods for Determining Thresholds

For sensory analysis, the following two methods for determining thresholds
are used: method for determination of difference thresholds, and method for
determination of perception and recognition thresholds.
The method for determining difference thresholds involves the evalua-
tion by the assessors of the test samples and the standard sample. The task
of the assessors is to identify the samples, which meet the sensory criterion.
Such samples may be identified by determining the minimum concentrations
of analytes, below which a change in intensity or hedonic quality of the odor
cannot be perceived.
In the case of the method for determining perception thresholds or
recognition thresholds, the assessors identify the samples, where the relevant
sensory attribute is perceptible, recognizable or has a higher intensity than
those of the other samples, and the samples, where the relevant sensory
attribute varies during the test. These tests allow for the application of forced
or nonforced choice methods. In the case of the forced-choice method, the
assessors may not provide the answer: “I don’t feel any difference in smell,”
whereas in the case of the non–forced-choice method, they are allowed to

answer in this way. The number of forced responses is included in the final
calculation (Kośmider et al., 2012).
3.3 Scaling Methods

Scaling methods may be used to determine the order or magnitude of the
sensory differences between the test samples. Table 2shows the advantages
and disadvantages of using scaling methods. These methods can be classi-
fied into five categories: sequencing, estimation, classification, scoring, and
graduation.
Table 3 provides a summary of the information specific to these meth-
ods.
Sequencing methods involve the simultaneous evaluation of the set
consisting of at least three samples, and the subsequent sequencing of such
samples in an ascending order of intensity or graduation of specific sensory
attributes (ISO, 2006). When using the method of estimation, the assessor
assigns a numerical value to the reference sample, on the basis of which an
intensity assessment is made of the test samples on a ratio scale. This method
is more accurate than the sequencing method, because in the former case,
only the magnitude of the attribute is subject to evaluation. A classification
method involves the presentation of the defined classes to the assessors,
followed by the ordering of the test samples according to categories. This
method is used to evaluate defects in the product tested (ISO, 2005). When
using the scoring method, the task of the team of assessors is to arrange the
test samples based on a specific numerical scale (i.e., the proportion, interval
scale, or the combination of the two). The selection of numbers using the
scale of proportion is made using numerical proportions that correspond
to the proportions determined for the perceived sensory impressions. This
allows for the identification of similarities between the two test samples in
terms of intensity of olfactory sensations. An interval scale is a scale used to
determine the number of units that one sensory impression is more or less
intensive than the other. The person conducting the research is required to
select one of two methods for the assignment of scores to the samples: the
assignment of the scale value for the test sample (i.e., the assessor selects
a term from the scale of terms) and the score determined by the person
conducting the test for the test sample.
When using the method of graduation, the team of assessors is required
to order the test samples based on the proportion, interval or ordinal scales.
The use of this method must be preceded by explaining the significance of
each level of the scale. The use of this method is subject to fulfillment of
the equal-interval condition. This means that the results for the evaluation of
test samples must be consistent with the values on the scales of proportion
or with the interval ranges on the scales. In order to meet this condition, the
TABLE 3. Characteristics of scaling methods∗
Type of method Description of the method Number of the assessors Application Principle of the method
Sequencing involves the evaluation of a set of - 2 or more experts, - preliminary test in order to For rank-order test:
samples by the team of assessors, - 5 or more selected develop plans for a more determining the degree of
and the sequencing of such assessors, accurate evaluation of differentiation of samples or the
samples in a specific order, in an - 10 or more selected samples; order of samples in a sequencea,b
ascending order of intensity or assessors (100 or more in - selection of products;
graduation of specific sensory the consumer test)a,b - consumer test to determine
attributesa,b the order of selection of
the samples;
- providing training to the
assessorsa,b
Estimation involves the use of the scales (e.g., - 1 or more experts, - evaluation of intensity of For one sample:
graphic scales, descriptive scales or - 5 or more selected the tested attribute or use of a chi-square test (χ 2) to
the combination of the two) assessors, attributes compare the distributions of
understandable for all assessors, - 20 or more selected - assessment of the degree several types of sensory attributes
and the assignment of scores on a assessorsa of preferencea over different classes (for null and
scale to each test samplea alternative hypotheses)
For at least two samples: use of a
nonparametric comparison method
for the distributions of variables for
sensory attributesa
Scoring involves the use of the scales (e.g., - 1 or more experts, - evaluation of intensity of For one sample:
proportion scale, interval scale or - 5 or more selected the tested sensory presentation of the analysis results in
the combination of the two) assessors, attribute or several the form of an arithmetic mean or
understandable for all assessors - 20 or more selected attributesa median, taking into account the
and the sorting of the test samples assessorsa standard deviation,
based on a numerical scale, or For two samples:
through the assignment of scores Student’s t test
to test samples by the person In the case of at least three samples:
carrying out the testa variance analysisa
2223
2224
TABLE 3. Characteristics of scaling methods∗ (Continued)
Type of method Description of the method Number of the assessors Application Principle of the method
Classification involves the definition of verbal - 3 or more experts, - evaluation of defects in the For the chi-square test ( χ 2):
categories in a way understandable - 3 or more assessorsa product testeda comparison of distributions of
to assessors, and the sorting of test variables for several types of
samples according to these sensory attributes over different
categoriesa classes (for null and alternative
hypotheses)a
Graduation involves the use of the scales (e.g., - depends on the application - determining the scale If the chi-square test ( χ 2) is used:
ordinal scale, proportion or of grading procedurec degrees by selecting the comparison of the distributions of
interval scale) understandable for sensory attributes to be several types of sensory attributes
all assessors, and the storing of test tested, definition of the over different classes (for null and
samples according to one or more scale and severity of the alternative hypotheses)c
scales, subject to the condition of relevant attributec
equal intervalsc
aISO 6658 (2005). bISO 8587 (2006). cISO 4121 (2003).
FIGURE 7. Procedure for the application of scaling method: (A) sequencing, (B) estimation,
(C) scoring, (D) classification, (E) graduation.
test samples are compared against the reference sample. This allows for the
determination of intensity levels or the definition of verbal expressions, as
well as the assignment to the test samples of scores or verbal expressions
with an assigned score. The use of ordinal scale involves the ordering of the
test samples according to the severity of the tested attribute (ISO, 2003). The
process stages for scaling methods are shown schematically in Figure 7.
3.4 Descriptive Analysis Methods

A descriptive analysis is one of the most advanced techniques used in sen-
sory analysis. This method involves the use of descriptive terms to evaluate
sensory attributes, their intensity and changes over time. The analysis is
based on the hypothesis concerning the complexity of sensory attributes,
such as palatability, texture, or smell, which can be differentiated between,
identified and measured in terms of intensity (Murray et al., 2001). A descrip-
tive analysis is used in the case, where there is a need for precise definition
of a single or several sensory attributes. This allows for the determination of
a sensory difference between the test samples. The method of descriptive
sensory evaluation has changed over the years. Currently, the most advanced
method of descriptive analysis is the so-called profiling method (Delholm,
2012).
The requirements for the application of descriptive analysis mostly relate
to the selection and training of the team of assessors and team leader. The
team leader must be a nonjudgmental person capable of motivating the

assessors and resolving any conflicts between the team members. He or she
is responsible for the training of a group of assessors, testing process and
the selection of persons with the required sensory sensitivity and the ability
to distinguish between the sensory attributes of the test samples (Chapman
et al., 2001). Assessors must also meet the following requirements: availability
during the research, good team-working skills, and ability to verbally express
the perceived sensory impressions.
Following the appointment of a team of assessors, the team leader
determines its efficiency and repeatability in terms of proper differentiation
of the test samples, monitors the data analysis and prepares a report on the
test performed (Kemp et al., 2009; Clark et al., 2009).
Table 4 provides a summary of the information specific to the selected
methods of descriptive analysis.
A quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) is one of the most commonly
used methods of descriptive analysis. This method basically involves the
creation of a list of descriptive terms in order to assess the sensory attributes
of test samples. The team of assessors is responsible for the development
of a shared and unambiguous method for defining the sensory impressions.
The task of the team leader is to resolve any conflicts between the members
of the team of assessors. The training of the assessor team is provided on
an individual basis. The team leader decides on whether to continue the
training of the selected individuals in describing the perceived attributes of
the test samples. The test samples are evaluated individually or jointly. It
is recommended that an analysis for the test sample is repeated at least
twice. Requirements for the preparation of samples for analysis and the
requirements for the ordering of these samples for evaluation purposes are
standardized. Total duration of the training and the test should not exceed
two weeks (Hootman, 1992).
4. USE OF CHEMOMETRICS IN SENSORY ANALYSIS
Chemometric techniques are used to process data obtained as a result of

sensory analysis. Chemometrics is a field of science, in which the mathe-
matical and statistical methods are used to interpret the measurement data.
Input data are presented in table form, where a table row corresponds to a
specific sample. Sample properties are shown in the columns of the table.
Chemometric methods, in contrast to most conventional statistical methods,
first and foremost, allow for multivariate data analysis (Einax et al., 1997). In-
formation on the application of chemometric techniques in sensory analysis
is shown schematically in Figure 8.
TABLE 4. Differences between the different methods of descriptive analysis
Number of the Requirements for

Type of method assessors Team leader the premises Duration of training/test
Quantitative profiling >4 person selected from - quiet room, free Duration of the training:
among the traineesa,d from odors, every day for 6 months
- room fitted with a test: 15 min/samplea,d
round table
QDA 8–15 expert in sensory analysis, - adequately lit Total duration of the
charged with the task of training room, training and the test:
team coordination and free from odors, 2 weeks
conflict resolutiona,b,c,d - room fitted with Duration of the test:
sensory cabins 8–10 hr, 5 min/samplea,b,c,d
for testing
purposesa,b,c,d
SPECTRUM profiling 12–15 expert in sensory analysis - room fitted with Total duration of the
method or member of the team of sensory cabins for training and the test:
assessors, trained to be a testing purposes, 3–4 months (60–80 hr)
team leadera,c,d - round table to Duration of the training:
hold a 5–15 min/samplea,c,d
discussiona,c,d
Texture profiling 6–10 expert in sensory analysis, - quiet room, Total duration of the
charged with the task of adequately lit, training and the test:
holding discussions on free from odors, 4–6 months (90–100 hr)
the results obtained by - round table for Duration of the test:
the team of the the discussion 5–15 min/samplea,c,d
assessorsa,c,d and evaluationa,c,d
a Delholm (2012). bChapman et al. (2001). cMurray et al. (2001). dHootman (1992).
2227
FIGURE 8. Diagram showing the main applications of chemometric techniques.
Mathematical methods are frequently used in a chemometric analysis.

These methods are based on the mathematical model showing the relation-
ship between the dependent variable “y” and a set of explanatory variables
“x.” Mathematical modeling can be divided into two types: where there is a
large number of explanatory variables (at least tens of them) and the value of
these variables may not be projected by the person carrying out the analysis,
and where there is a small number of explanatory variables (typically fewer
than 10) and the values of these variables can be determined by the person
carrying out the analysis (Mazerski, 2000).
Chemometrics is used in the analysis of similarities to identify the sim-
ilarities or differences between the test samples and their attributes (Wold,
1995). The analysis of similarities is based on the assumption that the samples
with a high similarity of attributes should be close to one another in a multi-
dimensional space. If there are any subsets of samples or attributes showing
a high similarity to, and differing statistically significantly from, other sub-
sets, the classification of samples or attributes is allowed (Wold and Sjostrom,
1998).
Where a visual analysis is performed, chemometric methods may only
be applied to the process of data processing, which is dependent on a few
or several measurement variables. A visual analysis involves the definition
of mutual relationships between the variables and their positioning in a
multidimensional space, or the development of the diagrams showing the
relationships between these variables or samples described by these vari-
ables. In the case of visual analysis, it is not possible to control the accuracy
of calculations, but only to provide graphical representation of data (Murphy

et al., 2012).
In summary, the use of chemometric methods for environmental mon-
itoring may lead to a reduced amount of pollutants discharged into the
environment, which is important for environmental protection (Feng et al.,
1998; Bermejo–Barrera et al., 2001; Papadima et al., 1999; Ribeiro et al.,
2011).
5. USE OF SENSORY ANALYSIS
Sensory analysis methods are used in many areas of human activity, in which
sensory attributes play an important role in the evaluation of test samples.
They are used for environmental monitoring (e.g., to assess the degree of
air and water pollution). These methods are also used to test the quality of
food products, check their freshness and ripeness, as well as to classify and
verify the authenticity and validity term of these products. Sensory analysis
methods are primarily used in the following sectors: chemical (Kośmider
et al., 1999), cosmetic (Gilbert et al., 2012), pharmaceutical (Kirsch et al.,
2012), veterinary (Briley et al., 2012), and perfumery (Savary et al., 2013).
The remainder of this study describes in more detail the analysis of liter-
ature data in relation to air quality tests and the analysis of literature data in
relation to food. We decided to discuss this specific application of environ-
mental monitoring and food analysis since they are areas in which sensory
analysis methods are most commonly used. Table 5 provides a summary of
the literature data on the possible applications of sensory analysis methods
in the field of air quality tests.
5.1 Food
Interest in using of sensory analysis to evaluate food products increases,
along with the expansion of the processed food and consumer products
industries. Sensory analysis methods are used to test the quality of food
products (Anyango et al., 2011; Fiore et al., 2013) and check their freshness
(Bouteille et al., 2013) and ripeness (Stanley et al., 2013). These methods
are also used to classify and verify the authenticity of food products (Sipos
et al., 2012), as well as to differentiate profiles fragrance products tested
(González-Álvarez et al., 2014; Jaeger et al., 2014). Sensory analysis is often
used as the validity term of these products (Ligno et al., 2014) and to evaluate
eating difficulty (Haakawa et al., 2014).
Sensory analysis methods may also be used in food analysis, and namely
the assessment of nonalcoholic beverages (Rey-Salgueiro et al., 2013; Cheong
et al., 2012; Katsuno et al., 2014), alcohols (Lawrence et al., 2013; Curko et al.,
2014; Simonato et al., 2013; Falcao et al., 2012), meat products (Gomes et al.,
TABLE 5. Use of sensory analysis for air quality tests
Type of area Application Technique Analytes Place of use Lit.
2230
Municipal waste landfill Monitoring of the Dynamic olfactometry hydrogen sulfide, acetone, Istanbul, Turkey (Saral et al., 2009)
concentration of odors acrylonitrile, butane, carbon
emitted by municipal disulfide, carbon tetrachloride,
waste landfills pentane, carbon disulphide,
chloroform, methyl mercaptan,
ethyl mercaptan, ethyl benzene,
ethyl benzene, dimethyl
sulphide, ethanol, m-xylene,
trichlorethylene, methyl ethyl
ketone, propane, hexane,
tetrachlorethylene, methyl
isobutyl ketone,
dichloromethanol, isopropanol
Dynamic olfactometry, limonene, p-xylene, Wallonia, Belgium (Romain et al., 2008)
team evaluating the odor m-xylene, decane, toluene,
through the sense of 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene,
smell (sniffing team ethylbenzene
campaigns)
GC-MS combined with undecane, dodecane, Saragossaa, (Félix et al., 2013)
the olfactometry tridecane, pentadecane, Spain
analysis hexadecane, heptadecane,
(GC-O) octadecane,
eicosane, cyclododecane,
dodecene, octanal,
tetradecene, hexadecene,
octadecene, nonanal,
decanal, nona-2,4-dienal
furfural, α-pinene,
5-metylofurfural,
5-hydroxymethylfurfural,
benzaldehyde,
3-izopropylobenzaldehyd,
2-ethylhexanal, piperonal,
vanillin, styrene, ethyl,
octan-1-ol, acetophenone,
phenol, benzophenone,
p-xylene, naphthalene,
estragole, α-pinene,
β-pinene, limonene,
α-terpineol, pentanoic
acid, hexanoic acid,
heptanoic acid
Municipal wastewater Monitoring of the GC-O coupled with FPA butyl mercaptan, hexanal, ethyl Berkeley, USA (Agus et al., 2012)
treatment plant concentration of odors benzene,
emitted by municipal 2-pyrrolidone, γ -butyrolactone,
wastewater treatment vanillin,
plants 2-methyloizoborneol,
1-methylnaphthalene,
2,3-dichloroaniline,
2,4,6-trichloroanisole,
decanoic acid, geosmin,
γ -valerolactone,
2,6-dichlorophenol,
5-hydroxyaniline
m-xylene
Industry Monitoring of the Threshold olfactometry formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, Ansan City, Korea (Kim & Park, 2008)
concentration of odors (yes/no method) acrolein, acetone, propanal,
emitted by industrial benzaldehyde, hydrogen
chimneys sulfide, methanethiol, dimethyl
sulfide, carbon disulfide,
dimethyl disulfide, benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene,
m-xylene, p-xylene, o-xylene,
styrene, ammonia,
bromobenzene,
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene,
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene,
p-isopropylotoluene,
n-butylbenzene, trimethylamine
Monitoring of the Olfactometry, hydrogen sulfide, methyl Taiwan, China (Mao et al, 2012)
concentration of odors descriptive analysis mercaptam,
emitted by the tanks, in carbon disulfide, dimethyl sulfide,
which the processes of dimethyl disulfide
oxidation and nitrification
are carried out, and by
sedimentation tanks
Monitoring of the Olfactometry dimethyl sulfide, diethyl sulfide, Police, Poland (Kośmider et al., 1999)
concentration of odors ethyl methyl sulfide, dimethyl
emitted by phosphorus disulfide, methyl isopropyl
plants sulfide, butanethiol, methyl
isopropyl sulfide, m-xylene,
3-pentanotiol, isopropanodiol,
hydrogen sulfide, toluene,
decane, pentane, hexane,
heptane, octane, isobutane,
butane, nonane
2231
2232
TABLE 5. Use of sensory analysis for air quality tests (Continued)
Monitoring of the Static olfactometry cytopentasiloxane, propanediol, Le Havre (Savary et al., 2013)
concentration of odors cyclohexasiloxane, cedex,
emitted by perfume pentaerythrityl France
industry tetraethylhexanoate,
dipentaerythrityl
pentaisononanoate, propanediol
dicaprylate
Monitoring of the Static olfactometry, propanal, pent-1-en-3-one, Illertissen, Germany (Serfert et al., 2010)
concentration of odors descriptive analysis hexanal,
emitted by fish plants hepta-2,4-dienal, pent-1-en-3-ol,
hex-3-en-1-ol, nona-2,6-dienal
Livestock breeding Monitoring of the GC-MS combined with the acetic acid, propanoic acid, Kansas, USA (Blanes-Vidal et al., 2012)
concentration of the odors olfactometry analysis 2-methylpropanoic acid, butyric
from cattle breeding, pigs (GC-O) acid
3-methylbutanoic acid, pentanoic
acid, phenol,
4-methylphenol, 4-ethylphenol,
indole, ammonia, 3-methyl
indole, trimethylamine
2014; Brannan, 2009; Leick et al., 2012), honey (Silvano et al., 2014), virgin
oil (Dinnella et al., 2012), vegetables and fruits (Mavromatis et al., 2012; Du
et al., 2010; Gunness et al., 2009; Lignou et al., 2014), spices (Eggink et al.,
2012), or dairy products (Ranadheera et al., 2012; Navarro da Silva et al.,
2013).
5.2 Municipal Waste Landfill

Municipal waste landfills are a major source of unpleasant odors, causing
odor nuisance to the discontent of the people. Emission of unpleasant odors
may be caused by the presence of primary gases in the waste or by the
biological decomposition of waste (Chemel et al., 2012). Airborne odor com-
pounds may stimulate the olfactory receptors. They may also cause unpleas-
ant olfactory sensations and, for this reason, are called odorants (PN EN
13725, 2007). A smell caused by the emissions of odors into the environ-
ment depends on the composition of gas mixture. The composition of this
mixture depends on the type of waste deposited and the stage of decom-
position processes (Gallego et al., 2014). The release of these substances in
landfills into the atmosphere may lead to a deterioration in health and living
conditions.
Methods of sensory analysis are used to identify the point sources of
odor emissions at municipal waste sites (Fang et al., 2012; Ranzato et al.,
2012) and to determine odorous substances causing unpleasant odors in ar-
eas located near the landfill (Capelli et al., 2008; Nicolas et al., 2006). They
also allow the determination of whether the maximum allowable concentra-
tion level for odorous substances (cod ) [ou/m3] in the air has been exceeded
(Saral et al., 2009), and the determination of the effect of odor emissions on
health and quality of life of the society (Heaney et al., 2011). Measurements
are carried out in the field, within the reach of odor sources, using field olfac-
tometers (Ranzato et al., 2012; Swayne, 2010), or in the laboratory, where the
team of assessors analyses the collected air samples, using static or dynamic
olfactometers (Capelli et al., 2008). Air pollution is also measured using the
sensory techniques coupled with chromatographic techniques. An example
of this is a coupling of gas chromatography with olfactometry (GC-O), which
allows for the identification of volatile organic compounds emitted from the
landfill (Félix et al., 2013).
5.3 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant

Methods of sensory analysis are often used to determine the degree of odor
nuisance in the vicinity of the municipal wastewater treatment plant, which
is the cause of numerous complaints from the local community. The most
unpleasant odors are emitted in the locations where cleaning processes are
carried out in an atmosphere with high and low oxygen content and dur-
ing the treatment of sewage sludge at high temperature and high humidity.
These conditions can contribute to the emission of the mixture having an
unpleasant odor, consisting of the following chemical compounds: ammo-
nia, aliphatic amines, aldehydes and ketones, carboxylic acids, organic, and
inorganic sulfide (Stuetz and Frechen, 2007). As in the case of odor emissions
from municipal landfills, the formation of odors in the wastewater treatment
plant is caused by the decomposition of organic matter and may lead to a
deterioration in life quality, and may even adversely affect the health condi-
tion of the inhabitants of the affected areas (Gostelow et al., 2001; Aatamila
et al., 2011).
Sensory analysis methods are also used to identify odorous substances
from municipal wastewater treatment plants (Agus et al., 2012). They are
used also to determine the concentrations of airborne compounds generat-
ing odors (Rajbansi et al., 2013; Littarru, 2007) and to determine the maxi-
mum permissible level concentrations of odorous substances on the premises
(Stellacci et al., 2010). The methods that are most frequently used to identify
odorous substances and determine the concentrations of compounds that
cause unpleasant sensory impressions are the olfactometry methods (Ra-
jbansi et al., 2013; Littarru, 2007; Stellacci et al., 2010; Micone and Guy, 2007;
Baltrenas et al., 2013). Dynamic olfactometry (van Harreveld and Heeres,
1995; Hangartner et al., 1989) is used to determine the level of odor emis-
sions from the plants for purification of sediments (Uggetti et al., 2011). For
the identification of air pollutants, such as the compounds emitted from mu-
nicipal wastewater treatment plants, odor profiling methods may be used
(Burlingame, 2009), as well as the combined techniques of gas chromatog-
raphy, olfactometry, and profiling method (GC-O-FPA; Agus et al., 2012).
5.4 Industrial Plants

Over the past decades, the emission of unpleasant odors from industrial ar-
eas into the environment has been recognized as being one of the major
negative impact of human activity. Over time, the number of complaints re-
lating to the so-called odor nuisance, which is created by the inhabitants of
the affected areas, has been increasing systematically (Capelli et al., 2011).
This is mostly the case, when several industrial plants are located in a small
area, in close vicinity to inhabited areas (Capelli et al., 2011; Kim and Park,
2008). Unpleasant olfactory sensations depend on the chemical composition
of gas mixtures that cause such sensations. They may be composed of tens
or even hundreds of chemical compounds in various emission sources re-
sulting from human activity. The concentrations of these compounds may
vary over time and may depend on weather conditions (Kabir and Kim,
2010; Nicolas et al., 2010). The components of gas mixture, that are most
frequently determined, are the reduced sulfur compounds (RSC), and other
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia (Kośmider et al., 1999;

Mao et al., 2012; Serfert et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2013). Many of these com-
pounds, which occur at very low concentrations, may adversely affect the
health of the population. Accordingly, it has become increasingly important
to identify the sources of odor emission and to determine their environmen-
tal impact. For this purpose, an environmental impact assessment of odors
is carried out and appropriate measures are taken to reduce the emission of
odors (Lee et al., 2013).
For several industrial plants located in a relatively small area, methods
of sensory analysis are used to identify the sources of emissions of odorous
substances. This allows for the identification of the plant responsible for the
greatest odor nuisance and for the implementation of the procedures used
to reduce the amount of odorous substances released into the environment.
For this purpose, olfactometry methods (Capelli et al., 2011; Kim and Park,
2008; Mao et al., 2012) and public opinion research (Baltrenas et al., 2013;
Kabir and Kim, 2010) are used. When using the method of dynamic olfac-
tometry, it is possible to determine the level of concentrations of odorous
substances and the factor of odor emissions (Capelli et al., 2011). Using the
methods of sensory analysis, it is also possible to determine the relation-
ship between the concentration of the odorous substance and the weather
conditions characteristic of the season (Mao et al., 2012; Sironi et al., 2010).
Methods of sensory analysis allow for the monitoring of the concentrations
of odorous substances emitted from the tanks, where the processes of ox-
idation and nitrification are carried out, and from the sedimentation tanks
with the odorous substances from phosphoric plants, perfume and fishing
plants (Kośmider et al., 1999; Savary et al., 2013; Mao et al., 2012; Serfert
et al., 2010).
5.5 Animal Farms

Odor emissions from animal farms and agricultural holdings, as in the case
of the emissions of unpleasant odors from industrial areas, were considered
to be an equally important social problem (Parker et al., 2013). One of the
causes of the emission of harmful odorous substances from the immediate
vicinity of inhabited areas is the inadequate insulation of farm facilities. The
gas mixture, which causes unpleasant olfactory sensations, is primarily made
up of VOCs within a wide range of molecular weight (e.g., acids, alcohols,
phenols, aldehydes and ketones, indoles, nitrogen, and sulfur compounds;
Zhang et al., 2010; Ni et al., 2012). As a result of the numerous complaints
from the inhabitants of the areas located in the vicinity of animal husbandry,
there is an increased demand for controlling the emission of odors into the
environment, the identification of their sources of origin and the determina-
tion of the content of these compounds.
Sensory analysis methods may be used to assess the emissions of odors

from the livestock and agricultural land. For the identification of point sources
of odor nuisance, the following methods can be used: olfactometry, gas
chromatography coupled with olfactometry detection (GC-O), and multidi-
mensional gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry technique
olfactometry procedure (GC x GC-TOFMS / O) (Zhang et al., 2010). On the
other hand, a dynamic olfactometry method allows the specification of odor
emission factor (Capelli et al., 2009), while GC-O is also used to identify the
key odorous substances of the odor mixture (Trabue et al., 2011). Public
opinion research is used to determine the impact of odors on the human
mental and physical condition (Blanes-Vidal et al., 2012).
6. SUMMARY
A sensory analysis is one of the key tools to improve the quality of food
products and many other daily use products (e.g., cosmetics, household
products). It may also be important for the study of environmental pollution
(mainly of water and air pollution). The increased anthropogenic impact
is the cause of the increasing number of complaints from the community
relating to the odor nuisance caused by the emission of odors into the envi-
ronment. Sensory analysis methods are used to verify the complaints of the
inhabitants of the affected areas and in a situation, where the applications are
processed relating to the construction of new industrial plants or other forms
of business activity, which may have adverse environmental impacts. These
methods also allow for the identification of odor nuisance sources located
in the vicinity of residential areas. Measures taken to identify and prevent
these sources may lead to improved health and living conditions of the in-
habitants of these areas. Therefore, it is important to carry out an assessment
of the environmental impact of the plants concerned and to determine the
concentrations of odorous substances released into the atmosphere. Sensory
analysis methods are used to determine the odor emission factor and the re-
lationship between the concentration of odorous substances and the weather
conditions.
The article attempts to summarize the knowledge on the classification
and application of sensory analysis methods, which allow the identifica-
tion of sensory impressions and determination of their intensity levels. We
also describe the chemometric techniques used for the processing of data
obtained using the sensory analysis. Despite the fact that sensory analysis
methods have been used since the beginning of the 19th century, we believe
that in the near future these methods will continue to be used frequently to
assess the quality of food products and daily use products and to identify
the sources of environmental pollution causing the odor nuisance.
REFERENCES
Aatamila, M., Verkasalo, P., Korhonen, M. J., Suominen, A. L., Hirvonen, M. R., Viluk-
sela, M., and Nevalainen, A. (2011). Odor annoyance and physical symptoms
among residents living near waste treatment centres. Environmental Research,
111, 164–170.
Agus, E., Zhang, L., and Sedlak, D. L. (2012). A framework for identifying charac-
teristic odor compounds in municipal wastewater effluent. Water Research, 46,
5970–5980.
Amoore, J. E. (1952). The stereochemical specificities of human olfactory receptors.
Perfumery and Essential Oil Record, 43, 321–323.
Amoore, J. E. (1963). Stereochemical theory of olfaction. Nature, 198,
271–272.
Angulo, O., Lee, H. S., and O’Mahony, M. (2007). Sensory difference tests: Overdis-
persion and warm-up. Food Quality and Preference, 18, 190–195.
Anyango, J. O., de Kock, H. L., and Taylor, J. R. N. (2011). Evaluation of the functional
quality of cowpea-fortified traditional African sorghum foods using instrumental
and descriptive sensory analysis. Food Science and Technology, 44, 2126–2133.
Baltrenas, P., Andrulevicius, L., and Zuokaite, E. (2013). Application of Dynamic
Olfactometry to determine odor concentrations in ambient air. Polish Journal of
Environmental Studies, 22, 331–336.
Berglund, B., Bluyssen, P., Clausen, G., Garriga-Trillo, A., Gunnarsen, L., Knoppel,
H., Lindvall, T., MacLeod, P., Molhave, L., and Winneke, G. (1999). Sensory
evaluation of indoor air quality (Report No. 20). Luxembourg: European Com-
mission, Joint Research Centre – Environment Institute.
Bermejo–Barrera, P., Moreda-Pineiro, A., and Bermejo-Barrera, A. (2001).
Sample pre-treatment methods for the trace elements determination
in seafood products by atomic absorption spectrometry. Talanta, 57,
969–984.
Blanes-Vidal, V., Suh, H., Nadimi, E. S., Lofstrom, P., Ellermann, T., Andersen, H.
V., and Schwartz, J. (2012). Residential exposure to outdoor air pollution from
livestock operations and perceived annoyance among citizens. Environment
International, 40, 44–50.
Bouteille, R., Cordelle, S., Laval, C., Tournier, C., Lecanu, B., This, H., and
Schlich, P. (2013). Sensory exploration of the freshness sensation in plain
yoghurts and yoghurt-like products. Food Quality and Preference, 30,
282–292.
Brannan, R. G. (2009). Effect of grape seed extract on descriptive sensory analysis
of ground chicken during refrigerated storage. Meat Science, 81, 589–595.
Briley, J. D., Williams, M. D., Freire, M., Griffith, E. H., and Lascelles, B. D. X. (2014).
Feasibility and repeatability of cold and mechanical quantitative sensory testing
in normal dogs. Veterinary Journal, 199, 245–250.
Buck, L., and Axel, R. (1991). A novel multigene family may encode odorant recep-
tors: A molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell, 65, 175–187.
Burlingame, G. A. (2009). A practical framework using odor survey data to prioritize
nuisance odors. Water Science and Technology, 59, 595–602.
Calle-Alonso, F., and Perez, C. J. (2013). A statistical agreement-based approach for

difference testing. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28, 358–369.
Capelli, L., Sironi, S., Del Rosso, R., and Centola, P. (2009). Predicting odor emissions
from wastewater treatment plants by means of odor emission factors. Water
research, 43, 1977–1985.
Capelli, L., Sironi, S., Del Rosso, R., Centola, P., and Grande, M. (2008). A com-
parative and critical evaluation of odor assessment methods on a landfill site.
Atmospheric Environment, 42, 7050–7058.
Capelli, L., Sironi, S., Del Rosso, R., Céntola, P., Rossi, A., and Austeri, C. (2011).
Olfactometric approach for the evaluation of citizens’ exposure to industrial
emissions in the city of Terni, Italy. Science of the Total Environment, 409,
595–603.
Chapman, K. W., Lawless, H. T., and Boor, K. J. (2001). Quantitative descriptive
analysis and principal component analysis for sensory characterization of ultra-
pasteurized milk. Journal of Dairy Science, 84, 12–20.
Chemel, C., Riesenmey, C., Batton-Hubert, M., and Vaillant, H. (2012). Odor-impact
assessment around a landfill site from weather-type classification, complaint
inventory and numerical simulation. Journal of Environmental Management,
93, 85–94.
Cheong, M. W., Liu, S. Q., Zhou, W., Curran, P., and Yu, B. (2012). Chemical
composition and sensory profile of pomelo (Citrus grandis (L.) Osbeck) juice.
Food Chemistry, 135, 2505–2513.
Clark, S., Costello, M., Drake, M., and Bodyfelt, F. (2009). The sensory evaluation of
dairy products. New York: Springer.
Curko, N., Kovacevic-Ganic, K., Gracin, L., Dapic, M., Jourdes, M., and Teissedre,
P. L. (2014). Characterization of seed and skin polyphenolic extracts of two red
grape cultivars grown in Croatia and their sensory perception in a wine model
medium. Food Chemistry, 145, 15–22.
Dehaene, S. (2003). The neural basis of the Weber–Fechner law: a logarithmic mental
number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 145–147.
Delholm, C. (2012). Descriptive sensory evaluations: Comparison and applicability
of novel rapid methodologies. Frederiksberg, Denmark: SL Grafik.
Dinnella, C., Masi, C., Zoboli, G., and Monteleone, E. (2012). Sensory functionality
of extra-virgin olive oil in vegetable foods assessed by temporal dominance of
sensations and descriptive analysis. Food Quality and Preference, 26, 141–150.
Drosler, J. (2000). An n-dimensional Weber Law and the Corresponding Fechner
Law. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 44, 330–335.
Du, X. F., Kurnianta, A., McDaniel, M., Finn, C. E., and Qian, M. C. (2010). Flavour
profiling of ‘Marion’ and thornless blackberries by instrumental and sensory
analysis. Food Chemistry, 121, 1080–1088.
Einax, J. W., Geiß, S., and Zwanziger, H. W. (1997). Chemometrics in environmental
analysis. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.
Eggink, P. M., Maliepaard, C., Tikunov, Y., Haanstra, J. P. W., Bovy, A. G., and Visser,
R. G. F. (2012). A taste of sweet pepper: Volatile and non-volatile chemical
composition of fresh sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum) in relation to sensory
evaluation of taste. Food Chemistry, 132, 301–310.
EN 13725:2003. Air quality - Determination of odour concentration by dynamic

olfactometry. Organisation: European Commitee for Standarisation.
Falcao, L. D., Lytra, G., Darriet, P., and Barbe, J. C. (2012). Identification of ethyl 2-
hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate in red wines, a compound involved in blackberry
aroma. Food Chemistry, 132, 230–236.
Fang, J. J., Yang, N., Cen, D. Y., Shao, L. M., and He, P. J. (2012). Odor compounds
from different sources of landfill: Characterization and source identification.
Waste Management, 32, 1401–1410.
Félix, J. S., Domeńo, C., and Nerı́n, C. (2013). Characterization of wood plastic
composites made from landfill-derived plastic and sawdust: Volatile compounds
and olfactometric analysis. Waste Management, 33, 645–655.
Feng, H., Cochran, J., Lwiza, H., Brownawell, B., and Hirschberg, D. (1998). Dis-
tribution of heavy metal and PCB contaminants in the sediments of an urban
estuary: The Hudson River. Marine Environmental Research, 45, 69–88.
Fiore, A., Di Monaco, R., Cavella, S., Visconti, A., Karneili, O., Bernhardt, S.,
and Fogliano, V. (2013). Chemical profile and sensory properties of dif-
ferent foods cooked by a new radiofrequency oven. Food Chemistry, 139,
515–520.
Gallego, E., Perales, J. F., Roca, F. J., and Guardino, X. (2014). Surface emission
determination of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from a closed industrial
waste landfill using a self-designed static flux chamber. Science of the Total
Environment, 470–471, 587–599.
Gilbert, L., Savary, G., Grisel, M., and Picard, C. (2012). Predicting sensory texture
properties of cosmetic emulsions by physical measurements. Chemometric and
Inteligent Laboratory Systems, 124, 21–31.
Gomes, C. L., Pflanzer, S. B., Cruz, A. G., deFelı́cio, P. E., and Bolin, H. M. A. (2014).
Sensory descriptive profiling and consumer preferences of beef strip loin steaks.
Food Research International, 59, 76–84.
González-Álvarez, M., Noguerol-Pato, R., González-Barreiro, C., Cancho-Grande, B.,
and Simal-Gándara, J. (2014). Sensory description of sweet wines obtained by
the winemaking procedures of raisining, botrytisation and fortification. Food
Chemistry, 145, 1021–1030.
Gostelow, P., Parsons, S. A., and Stuetz, R. M. (2001). Odor measurements for sewage
treatment works. Water Research, 35, 579–597.
Gunness, P., Kravchuk, O., Nottingham, S. M., D’Arcy, B. R., and Gidley, M. J. (2009).
Sensory analysis of individual strawberry fruit and comparison with instrumental
analysis. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 52, 164–172.
Haakawa, F., Kazami, Y., Ishihara, S., Nakao, S., Nakauma, M., Funami, T.,
Nishinari, K., and Kohyama, K. (2014), Characterization of eating diffi-
culty by sensory evaluation of hydrocolloid gels. Food Hydrocolloids, 38,
95–103.
Hangartner, M. (1989). Improved recommendations on olfactometric measurements.
Environmental Technology Letters, 10, 231–236.
Heaney, C. D., Wing, S., Campbell, R. L., Caldwell, D., Hopkins, B., Richardson, D.,
and Yeatts, K. (2011). Relation between malodor, ambient hydrogen sulfide,
and health in a community bordering a landfill. Environmental Research, 111,
847–852.
Hootman, R. C. (Ed.). (1992). Manual on descriptive analysis testing for sensory

evaluation. Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
International Organization for Standardization. (1987). ISO 8588:1987. Sensory anal-
ysis – methodology – “A” – “not A.”
ysis – methodology – evaluation of food products by method using scales.
International Organization for Standardization. (2004a). EN ISO 4120:2004. Sensory
analysis – methodology – triangular test.
International Organization for Standardization. (2004b). EN ISO 10399:2004. Sensory
analysis – methodology – duo-trio test.
International Organization for Standardization. (2005a). ISO 6658:2005. Sensory anal-
ysis – methodology – general guidance.
International Organization for Standardization. (2005b). EN ISO 5495:2005. Sensory
analysis – methodology – paired comparison test.
ysis – methodology – ranking.
International Organization for Standardization. (2008). EN ISO 5492:2008. Sensory
analysis – vocabulary.
Iwasaki, Y. (2012, July). The history of odor measurement in Japan and triangle odor
bag method. Annual Meeting of Odor Research and Engineering Association,
Tokyo, Japan.
Jaeger, S. R., Reinbach, H. C., Roigard, C. M., McRae, J. F., Pineau, B., Chheang, S.
L., Beresford, M. K., Rouse, S. A., Jin, D., Paisley, A. G., Jia, Y., and Newcomb,
R. D. (2014). Sensory characterisation of food and beverage stimuli containing
β-ionone and differences between individuals by genotype for rs6591536. Food
Research International, 62, 205–214.
Kabir, E., and Kim, K. H. (2010). An on-line analysis of 7 odorous volatile organic
compounds in the ambient air surrounding a large industrial complex. Atmo-
spheric Environment, 44, 3492–3502.
Katsuno, T., Kasuga, H., Kusano, Y., Yaguchi, Y., Tomomura, M., Cui, J., Yang,
Z., Baldermann, S., Nakamura, Y., Ohnishi, T., Mase, N., and Watanabe, N.
(2014). Characterisation of odorant compounds and their biochemical formation
in green tea with a low temperature storage process. Food Chemistry, 148,
388–395.
Keller, A., and Vosshall, L. (2004). A psychophysical test of the vibration theory of
olfaction. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 337–338.
Kemp, S. E., Hollowood, T., and Hort, J. (2009). Sensory evaluation: A practical
handbook. Chichester, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kim, K. H., and Park, S. Y. (2008). A comparative analysis of malodor samples
between direct (olfactometry) and indirect (instrumental) methods. Atmospheric
Environment, 42, 5061–5070.
Kirsch, F., Beauchamp, J., and Buettner, A. (2012). Time-dependent aroma changes
in breast milk after oral intake of a pharmacological preparation containing
1,8-cineole. Clinical Nutrition, 31, 682–692.
Kośmider, J., Cichocki, K., Zamelczyk-Pajewska, M., and Wyszyński, B. (1999).
Odory z produkcji kwasu fosforowego. Ochrona powietrza, 33, 225–228.
Kośmider, J., and Krajewska, B. (2007). Determining temporary odor concentration

under field conditions – comparison of methods. Polish Journal of Environmen-
tal Studies, 16, 215–225.
Kośmider, J., Mazur-Chrzanowska, B., and Wyszyński, B. (2012). Odory. Warsaw,
Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Lawless, H. T. (2013). Quantitative sensory analysis: Psychophysics, models and
intelligent design. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lawless, H. T., and Heymann, H. (2003). Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and
practices. New York: Springer.
Lawrence, G., Symoneaux, R., Maitre, I., Brossaud, F., Maestrojuan, M., and Mehi-
nagic, E. (2013). Using the free comments method for sensory characterization
of Cabernet Franc wines: Comparison with classical profiling in a professional
context. Food Quality and Preference, 30, 145–155.
Lee, H. D., Jeon, S. B., Choi, W. J., Lee, S. S., Lee, M. H., and Oh, H. J. (2013). A novel
assessment of odor sources using instrumental analysis combined with resident
monitoring records for an industrial area in Korea. Atmospheric Environment,
74, 277–290.
Lee, H. S., van Hout, D., and Hautus, M. J. (2007). Comparison of performance
in the A–Not A, 2-AFC, and same–different tests for the flavor discrimination
of margarines: The effect of cognitive decision strategies. Food Quality and
Preference, 18, 920–928.
Lee, H. S., van Hout, D., and O’Mahony, M. (2007). Sensory difference tests for mar-
garine: A comparison of R-Indices derived from ranking and A-Not A methods
considering response bias and cognitive strategies. Food Quality and Preference,
18, 675–680.
Leick, C. M., Behrends, J. M., Solaiman, S. G., Broadway, P. R., Min, B. R., Mikel,
W. B., Williams, J. B., and Schilling, M. W. (2012). Sensory properties and
instrumental texture analysis of chevon patties from intact male Boer and Kiko
goats harvested at four endpoints. Meat Science, 91, 215–222.
Lignou, S., Parke, J. K., Baxter, C., and Mottram, D. S. (2014). Sensory and instrumen-
tal analysis of medium and long shelf-life Charentais cantaloupe melons (Cu-
cumis melo L.) harvested at different maturities. Food Chemistry, 148, 218–229.
Littarru, P. (2007). Environmental odors assessment from waste treatment plants: Dy-
namic olfactometry in combination with sensorial analysers “electronic noses.”
Waste Management, 27, 302–309.
Mao, I. F., Chen, M. R., Wang, L., Chen, M. L., Lai, S. C., and Tsai, C. J. (2012). Method
development for determining the malodor source and pollution in industrial
park. Science of the Total Environment, 437, 270–275.
Masin, S. C., Zudini, V., and Antonelli, M. (2009). Early alternative derivations of
Fechner’s law. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 45, 56–65.
Mavromatis, A. G., Arvanitoyannis, I. S., Chatzitheodorou, V., Kaltsa, A., Patsiaoura,
I., Nakas, C. T. (2012). A comparative study among landraces of Phaseolus
vulgaris L. and P. coccineus L. based on molecular, physicochemical and sensory
analysis for authenticity purposes. Scientia Horticulturae, 144, 10–18.
Mazerski, J. (2000). Podstawy chemometrii. Gdansk, Poland: Wydawnictwo Politech-
niki Gdańskiej.
Micone, P. G., and Guy, C. (2007). Odor quantification by a sensor array: An appli-
cation to landfill gas odors from two different municipal waste treatment works.
Sensors and Actuators B, 120, 628–637.
Moncrieff, R. W. (1967). The chemical senses. St. Paul, England: Leonard Hill Book
Co.
Murphy, K. R., Wenig, P., Parcsi, G., Skov, T., and Stuetz, R. M. (2012). Characterizing
odorous emissions using new software for identifying peaks in chemometric
models of gas chromatography–mass spectrometry datasets. Chemometric and
Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 118, 41–50.
Murray, J. M., Delahunty, C. M., and Baxter, I. A. (2001). Descriptive sensory analysis:
past, present and future. Food Research International, 34, 461–471.
Navarro da Silva, A., de Cássia dos Santos Navarro da Silva, R., Marques Ferreira,
M. A., Ranadheera, C. S., Evans, C. A., Adams, M. C., and Baines, S. K. (2012).
Probiotic viability and physico-chemical and sensory properties of plain and
stirred fruit yogurts made from goat’s milk. Food Chemistry, 135, 1411–1418.
Ni, J. Q., Robarge, W. P., Xiao, C., and Heber, A. J. (2012). Volatile organic com-
pounds at swine facilities: A critical review. Chemosphere, 89, 769–788.
Nicolas, J., Cors, M., Romain, A. C., and Delva, J. (2010). Identification of odor sources
in an industrial park from resident diaries statistics. Atmospheric Environment,
44, 1623–1631.
Nicolas, J., Craffe, F., and Romain, A. C. (2006). Estimation of odor emission rate
from landfill areas using the sniffing team method. Waste Management, 26,
1259–1269.
Papadima, S. N., Arvanitoyannis, I., Bloukas, J. G., and Fournitzis, G. C. (1999).
Chemometric model for describing Greek traditional sausages. Meat Science,
51, 271–277.
Parker, D. B., Gilley, J., Woodbury, B., Kim, K. H., Galvin, G., Bartelt-Hunt, S. L., Li,
X., and Snow, D. D. (2013). Odorous VOC emission following land application
of swine manure slurry. Atmospheric Environment, 66, 91–100.
Radovich, T. J. K., Kleinhenz, M. D., Delwiche, J. F., and Liggett, R. E. (2004). Triangle
tests indicate that irrigation timing affects fresh cabbage sensory quality. Food
Quality and Preference, 15, 471–476.
Rajbansi, B., Sarkar, U., and Hobbs, S. E. (2013). Hazardous odor markers from
sewage wastewater: A step toward simultaneous assessment, dearomatiza-
tion and removal. Journal of the Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers, 45,
1549–1557.
Ranzato, L., Barausse, A., Mantovani, A., Pittarello, A., Benzo, M., and Palmeri, L.
(2012). A comparison of methods for the assessment of odor impacts on air
quality: Field inspection (VDI 3940) and the air dispersion model CALPUFF.
Atmospheric Environment, 61, 570–579, 2012.
Rey-Salgueiro, L., Gosálbez-Garcı́a, A., Pérez-Lamela, C., Simal-Gándara, J., and
Falqué-López, E. (2013). Training of panellists for the sensory control of bot-
tled natural mineral water in connection with water chemical properties. Food
Chemistry, 141, 625–636.
Ribeiro, J. S., Ferreira, M. M. C., and Salva, T. J. G. (2011). Chemometric models for
the quantitative descriptive sensory analysis of Arabica coffee beverages using
near infrared spectroscopy. Talanta, 83, 1352–1358.
Rodrigues Minim, V. P., de Melo Teixeira da Costa, T., and Perez, R. (2013). Per-
formance of hedonic scales in sensory acceptability of strawberry yogurt. Food
Quality and Preference, 30, 9–21.
Romain, A. C., Delva, J., and Nicolas, J. (2008). Complementary approaches to
measure environmental odors emitted by landfill areas. Sensors and Actuators
B, 131, 18–23.
Romain, A. C., Nicolas, J., Cobut, P., Delva, J., Nicks, B., and Philippe, F. X. (2013).
Continuous odor measurement from fattening pig units. Atmospheric Environ-
ment, 77, 935–942.
Rosenberg, B. (1962). Electrical conductivity of proteins. Nature, 193, 364–365.
Ruan, D., and Zeng, X. (Eds.). (2004). Intelligent sensory evaluation: Methodologies
and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Saral, A., Demir, S., and Yıldız, E. (2009). Assessment of odorous VOCs released
from a main MSW landfill site in Istanbul-Turkey via a modelling approach.
Journal of hazardous Materials, 168, 338–345.
Savary, G., Grisel, M., and Picard, C. (2013). Impact of emollients on the spreading
properties of cosmetic products: A combined sensory and instrumental charac-
terization. Colloids and Surfaces B, 102, 371–378.
Scott, J., McBride, R., and Schneider, S. (1980). The organization of projections from
the olfactory bulb to the piriform cortex and olfactory tubercle in the rat. Journal
of Comparative Neurology, 194, 519–534.
Serfert, Y., Drusch, S., and Schwarz, K. (2010). Sensory odor profiling and lipid
oxidation status of fish oil and microencapsulated fish oil. Food Chemistry, 12,
968–975.
Silvano, M. F., Varela, M. S., Palacio, M. A., Ruffinengo, S., and Yamul, D. K. (2014).
Physicochemical parameters and sensory properties of honeys from Buenos
Aires region. Food Chemistry, 152, 500–507.
Simonato, B., Mainente, F., Selvatico, E., Violoni, M., and Pasini, G. (2013). Assess-
ment of the fining efficiency of zeins extracted from commercial corn gluten
and sensory analysis of the treated wine. Food Science and Technology, 54,
549–556.
Sipos, L., Kovacs, Z., Sagi-Kiss, V., Csiki, T., Kokai, Z., Fekete, A., and Heberger, K.
(2012). Discrimination of mineral waters by electronic tongue, sensory evalua-
tion and chemical analysis. Food Chemistry, 135, 2947–2953.
Sironi, S., Capelli, L., Centola, P., Del Rosso, R., and Pierucci, S. (2010), Odor impact
assessment by means of dynamic olfactometry, dispersion modelling and social
participation. Atmospheric Environment, 44, 354–360.
Solomon, M. (2006). History of science: On smell and scientific practice. Science,
313, 763–764.
Stanley, J., Prakash, R., Marshall, R., and Schröder, R. (2013). Effect of harvest maturity
and cold storage on correlations between fruit properties during ripening of
apricot (Prunus armeniaca). Postharvest Biology and Technology, 82, 39–50.
Stellacci, P., Liberti, L., Notarnicola, M., and Haas, C. N. (2010). Hygienic sustainability
of site location of wastewater treatment plants. A case study. I. Estimating odor
emission impact. Desalination, 253, 51–56.
Stevens, S. S. (1961). To honor Fechner and repeal his law. Science, 133, 80–86.
Stone, H., Bleibaum, R. N., and Thomas, H. A. (2012). Sensory evaluation practices
(4th ed.). London: Academic Press.
Stuetz, R., and Frechen, F. B. (2007). Odors in wastewater treatment, measurement,
modelling and control. London: IWA.
Sun, J. Z., Wang, G. I., Goyal, V. K., Varshney, L. R. (2012). A framework for Bayesian
optimality of psychophysical laws. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 56,
495–501.
Swayne, D. A., Yang, W., Voinov, A. A., Rizzoli, A., and Filatova, T. (2010, July).
Modelling for environment’s sake. Fifth Biennal Conference of The International
Environmenta Modelling and Software Society, Ottawa, Canada.
Trabue, S., Scoggin, K., McConnell, L., Maghirang, R., Razote, E., Hatfield, J. (2011).
Identifying and tracking key odorants from cattle feedlots. Atmospheric Envi-
ronment, 45, 4243–4251.
Turin, L. (1996). A spectroscopic mechanism for primary olfactory reception. Chem-
ical Senses, 21, 773–791.
Turin, L. (2002). A method for the calculation of odor character from molecular
structure. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 216, 367–398.
Uggetti, E., Ferrer, I., Molist, J., and Garcı́a, J. (2011). Technical, economic and
environmental assessment of sludge treatment wetlands. Water Research, 45,
573–582.
van Harreveld, A. P., and Heeres, P. (1995). Quality control and optimization of
dynamic olfactometry using n-Butanol as a standard reference odorant. Staub-
Reinhaltung der Luft, 55, 45–50.
Veramendi, M., Herencia, P., and Ares, G. (2013), Perfume odor categorization: to
what extent trained assessors and consumers agree? Journal of Sensory Studies,
28, 76–89.
Wold, S. (1995). Chemometrics; what do we mean with it, and what do we want
from it? Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 30, 109–115.
Wold, S., and Sjostrom, M. (1998). Chemometrics, present and future success. Chemo-
metric and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 44, 3–14.
Wright, R. H. (1961). Odor and molecular vibration. Nature, 190, 1101–1102.
Zhang, S., Cai, L., Koziel, J. A., Hoff, S. J., Schmidt, D. R., Clanton, C. J., Jacobson, L.
D., Parker, D. B., and Heber, A. J. (2010). Field air sampling and simultaneous
chemical and sensory analysis of livestock odorants with sorbent tubes and
GC–MS/olfactometry. Sensors and Actuators B, 146, 427–432.

Lewkowska 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lewkowska 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and

ISSN: 1064-3389 (Print) 1547-6537 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/best20

Use of Sensory Analysis Methods to Evaluate the

Paulina Lewkowska, Tomasz Dymerski & Jacek NamieśNik

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2015.1010429

Accepted author version posted online: 10

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 298

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Use of Sensory Analysis Methods to Evaluate

PAULINA LEWKOWSKA, TOMASZ DYMERSKI,

Sensory analysis is applied in many areas of daily life. It is used to

KEY WORDS: sensory analysis, odor nuisance, differential meth-

Address correspondence to Paulina Lewkowska, Department of Analytical Chemistry,

there are any unpleasant odors in the surrounding environment indicative of

1.1 Definition of Sensory Analysis

1.2 Short History of Sensory Analysis

1.3 Laws of Psychophysics

where I – intensity of sensation, kW-F – Weber-Fechner’s proportionality

where I – intensity of sensation, ks – proportionality factor (the so-called

FIGURE 2. Molecular shapes corresponding to primary odors according to Amoore’s theory:

Human senses are an important source of information that is constantly enter-

2.1 Theory of Olfaction

the smell of a chemical compound is determined by the frequencies of

2.2 Sense of Smell

FIGURE 4. Process of reception of stimuli using the sense of smell.

3. MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES USED FOR SENSORY ANALYSIS

3.1 Differential Methods

FIGURE 5. Measurement techniques used for sensory analysis.

and experience in sensory analysis, or of a sufficient number of assessors

TABLE 2. Advantages and disadvantages of differential and scaling methods

Test Advantages Disadvantages

TABLE 2. Advantages and disadvantages of differential and scaling methods (Continued)

Test Advantages Disadvantages

Estimation test - easy to implement, - the samples must be evaluated in

3.2 Methods for Determining Thresholds

whereas in the case of the non–forced-choice method, they are allowed to

3.3 Scaling Methods

3.4 Descriptive Analysis Methods

team leader must be a nonjudgmental person capable of motivating the

4. USE OF CHEMOMETRICS IN SENSORY ANALYSIS

Chemometric techniques are used to process data obtained as a result of

Number of the Requirements for

FIGURE 8. Diagram showing the main applications of chemometric techniques.

Mathematical methods are frequently used in a chemometric analysis.

of calculations, but only to provide graphical representation of data (Murphy

5. USE OF SENSORY ANALYSIS

5.2 Municipal Waste Landfill

5.3 Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant

5.4 Industrial Plants

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ammonia (Kośmider et al., 1999;

5.5 Animal Farms

Sensory analysis methods may be used to assess the emissions of odors

Calle-Alonso, F., and Perez, C. J. (2013). A statistical agreement-based approach for

EN 13725:2003. Air quality - Determination of odour concentration by dynamic

Hootman, R. C. (Ed.). (1992). Manual on descriptive analysis testing for sensory

Kośmider, J., and Krajewska, B. (2007). Determining temporary odor concentration

You might also like