THE SENSE OF SMELL IN FOOD QUALITY AND

SENSORY EVALUATION

HARRY LAWLESS

N . Y . State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Cornell University
Ithaca, N Y 14583

Accepted for Publication September 27, 1990

ABSTRACT

The sense of smell is the major contributing sensory system in the perception
of food aromas and volatile flavors. Illustrations of the importance of olfactory
sensations can be found in the literature on product quality defects and in the
importance of aroma andJavor characteristics in driving consumer acceptability
of foods. Assessing olfactory-mediated characteristics of flavors is challenging,
however, for a number of reasons. There are wide individual difSerences in
olfactory acuity, as suggested by the existence of spec#c anosmias. Panelists
are often strongly influenced by the immediate context in which samples are
judged. Developing a useful consensual language to describe smells in sensory
analyses can also be difjicult. In spite of these challenges, the human sense of
smell is the ultimate discriminator offood aroma andflavor quality; instrumental
analyses are a poor substitute. Even in cases in which chemical components of
food ftavors have been identzjied, these must be cross-referenced against human
sensitivities in order to estimate their sensory impact.

INTRODUCTION

This paper emphasizes the importance of the sense of smell in food quality
and sensory evaluation. The paper is divided into three main parts. The first
section discusses a general framework for thinking about food quality, and
attempts to define quality in several ways. The second section illustrates the
contributions of the sense of smell to food quality through aromas and volatile
flavors. The third section emphasizes the need to cross-reference instrumental
analysis of volatile aroma and flavor with human data on the potency or sensory
impact of those compounds and discusses some concerns in the sensory and
instrumental analysis of aroma and flavor, including the phenomenon of specific

Journal of Food Quality 14 (1991) 33-60. All Rights Reserved.

0 Copyright 1991 by Food & Nutrition Press, Inc., Trurnbull, Connecticut. 33
34 HARRY LAWLESS

anosmia, contextual effects and difficulties in verbal description of olfactory

experiences. Finally, the discussion closes with a plea for quality in sensory
testing itself, and illustrates one of the pitfalls in performing sensory tests in a
semi-professional or haphazard manner.

DEFINITIONS OF QUALITY

Quality can be thought of as synonymous with the perception of value. Food

has value if it is nutritious, safe and appealing to the senses, including the
digestive senses that determine our feelings of fullness or satiety. Focussing on
just the question of sensory quality, there are at least four contrasting meanings
for quality in current use. From a commercial perspective, quality is sometimes
correlated with price and also with marketplace performance. However, neither
of these superficial correlates is entirely satisfying. A smart shopper will rec-
ognize price-to-value ratio in products, showing that people can easily disentangle
quality from price. In terms of marketplace performance, there are many popular
products and brands that are run-of-the-mill quality, but because of good pricing,
consistency, family traditions, etc., have large and stable market shares. Yet
these products are often not recognized by connoisseurs as being of high quality,
compared to more expensive products of that particular type. Thus a second and
more traditional approach to quality is the constellation of sensory attributes
recognized by an expert or connoisseur as being good. This definition is also
somewhat unsatisfactory, since the products that appeal to gourmets, wine con-
noisseurs, drinkers of imported beers, etc. are different from those preferred by
the vast majority of the consuming public. Thus the taste preferences of the
educated palate are not necessarily telling us what is better, since what one likes
is a matter of opinion. Such opinions do serve to illustrate how people’s tastes
differ as a function of experience, exposure or education.
A third definition of quality is freedom from defects. This practical approach
has high utility in the quality control of commodities, or products in which a
standard, reliable sensory experience is a necessity to consumers. In some cat-
egories of dairy products, especially fluid milk, a uniform system for defect
identification and quality grading has been widely accepted (Bodyfelt et al. 1988).
Such systems, however, encounter difficulties when they are applied to new
product development. For example, standard systems for ice cream grading are
difficult to apply to new variations such as frozen yogurt or goat’s milk ice
cream. In the case of cheese, it is difficult to apply a defect-oriented cheddar
grading system to a low fat or low sodium product. One person’s defect may in
fact be another person’s marketing bonanza. Finally, standard defect schemes
may not anticipate all of the important flavor and texture changes that are found
with new engineered or fabricated foods. In recognition of these difficulties in
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 35

applying standard defect grading schemes, the Journal of Dairy Science has
warned researchers that such systems may be inappropriate for basic research
purposes (Hammond et al. 1986). Yet another problem with this approach is
that two products may both be free from defects, yet differ in quality. While
defects are certainly important, consideration of only obvious negatives may
omit a great deal of important variation.
A fourth approach is to equate quality with consumer acceptance. Products
that people like and prefer are high in quality. This criterion is readily actionable
and applicable to new product development. A process or formula can be op-
timized based on consumer acceptance ratings (Williams 1988) or on maximizing
the proportion of consumers who find the product acceptable (Lagrange and
Norback 1987). This approach also avoids a limitation of defect-grading schemes
in that a range of defect-free products can be differentiated. However, it is not
without its pitfalls. Like the market-driven definitions of what makes a good
product, there are many successful products of only moderate quality that find
large followings of loyal consumers. When given sufficient exposure to higher
quality products, however, many consumers will upgrade their tastes and come
to prefer products more in line with what a connoisseur would prefer. Thus
consumer tastes are both dynamic (across time) and segmented (across people).
“Airline food” finds a wide audience of mildly accepting (if sometimes unen-
thusiastic) consumers and little outright rejection. However, there is common
acknowledgement that a strategy aimed at a least-common-denominator sort of
market does not tend to yield much interesting, tasty food. Similarly, estate-
bottled Bordeaux wines are often better than jug wine blends made in stainless
steel tank farms, but appreciating the quality difference may take some degree
of experience.

THE ROLE OF OLFACTION IN SENSORY QUALITY

Retronasal Smell and Flavor

Olfaction plays a larger role in the appreciation of food flavor than is commonly
thought. On the basis of anatomy, the neural systems participating in the per-
ception of flavor can be conceptualized as shown in Fig. 1. First, a division can
be made into sensations arising from the oral and nasal cavities, which are called
taste and smell, respectively. Note that the trigeminal nerves, also responsible
for tactile sensations, thermal sensations and pain, are sensitive to chemical
stimulation. These nerves contribute to taste and smell in a variety of food flavors
such as the tingle of carbon dioxide in soft drinks, the bum from chili pepper,
the bite of horseradish and so on. A common misbelief arises in that many
volatile (gaseous) flavor materials in the mouth are actually smelled, but this is
usually misinterpreted by untrained tasters as a gustatory sensation. Airborne
36 HARRY LAWLESS

[ FLAVOR ]
/ \
( TASTE 3
NASAL SENSATIONS

/ \ / \
CHEMICAL GUSTATION OLFACTION
PROPER PROPER CHEMICAL
IRRITATION IRRITATION
Trigeminal sensations from Trigeminal
sensations, e.g. sweet, sour, salty volatiles, sniffed sensations, e.g.
pepper heat bitter, umami? or in the mouth carbon dioxide

“FLAVOR” “AROMA“

volatiles perceived volatiles perceived

as from the mouth, from snitling
sometimes mistaken through the
for tastes

FIG. 1 . A DIVISION OF THE FLAVOR SENSES, BASED ON ANATOMICAL

CONSIDERATIONS

flavor molecules in the mouth pass back up through the nasopharynx and into
the nose from the reverse direction from when they are sniffed, i.e. from the
opposite direction that sniffed aromas enter the front of the nose. The brain is
poor at localizing these sensations, and since the mouth has both taste and tactile
sensations from food present, olfactory sensations are readily (but mistakenly)
referred there (Murphy and Cain 1980). Thus a lemon does not, strictly speaking,
“taste” like a lemon-it tastes primarily sour and a bit bitter and sweet. The
characteristic lemon flavors themselves arise from volatile flavor materials,
largely terpene compounds like citral, which pass up through the back of the
mouth and into the nose via these retronasal passages.
From this process of retronasal stimulation, it is obvious that the vast majority
of food flavors are sensed by the olfactory, rather than the gustatory neural
systems. Gustation itself is limited to sensations such as sweet, sour, salty, bitter
and umami. The taste of monosodium glutamate combined with S’ribosides gives
rise to a characteristic flavor principle in many oriental cuisines (soy sauce is
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 31

one example) called umami, which is considered by some to be a fifth basic

taste (O’Mahony and Ishii 1986). All other sensations, with the exception of the
tingle, bum and bite from trigeminal irritants, are olfactory. The contribution
of these sensations is easily demonstrated by pinching the nose shut while chew-
ing some food or sipping a beverage (Murphy and Cain 1980). Most of the flavor
is unavailable to the olfactory sense due to the fact that pinching the nose
somehow prohibits retronasal smell. When the nose is unpinched, the eddies
and currents that carry volatile flavors from mouth to nose can now move, and
a clear smell sensation will develop.
The sense of smell in humans is often referred to as a primitive or vestigial
sense. This is a terribly mistaken notion, as consideration of the range of flavors
and aromas that people can experience should suggest. There is no apparent limit
to the number of smells that can be discriminated and perhaps even identified
by humans, provided that people are given familiarization or training (Desor and
Beauchamp 1974; Cain 1979). The sense of smell is an exquisitely sensitive
detector of some volatile organic compounds. Many flavor materials such as
mercaptans and pyrazines are perceivable in concentrations of parts-per-billion,
which rivals or exceeds the detection sensitivities of instrumental methods of
analysis (ASTM 1978). The sensitivity and discriminative power of smell is
achieved through its unique anatomical design. Only a small portion (perhaps
2%) of the airborne material entering the nose ever reaches the vicinity of the
olfactory receptors, which are located in a pair of postage stamp sized patches
located high in the nasal passages. Olfaction achieves its sensitivity through
features that facilitate amplification. For example, the total surface area of re-
ceptors exposed to stimulus molecules is greatly enhanced by the fact that receptor
cells terminate in hairlike cilia, which project into the watery mucus layer cov-
ering the olfactory epithelium. The estimated surface area on all these cilia,
which contain the olfactory receptor sites, increases the exposed surface by a
factor of several hundred times over the flat surface of the epithelium itself.
Several million of these receptor cells send projections into bundles or glomeruli
in the olfactory bulb, and the convergence of receptor processes onto the next
layer of nerve cells is at a factor of about 1,000to 1, providing another opportunity
to amplify weak signals. In this respect the olfactory sense is like a great funnel,
a sophisticated collection and amplification device for sensing and interpreting
highly dilute chemical information.

Quality and Product Defects

The literature on dairy product defects is replete with examples in which aroma
or volatile flavor problems detract from product quality. Table 1 shows some of
the major defects of fluid milk that are listed on standard dairy judging contest
evaluation ballots (Bodyfelt et al. 1988). A majority of the defects are recognized
38 HARRY LAWLESS

TABLE I .
EXAMPLES OF DAIRY QUALITY DEFECTS: FLUID MILK

Olfactory (volatile) Taste

Acid Acid
Barny Bitter
Cooked Salty
cowy
Feed Tarfile
Fermented/fruity
Foreign Astringent
Garlicionion
Malty Other
Light Oxidized
Metallic Oxidized Flat
Rancid Lacks Freshness
Unclean

Source: Bodyfelt, F. W., Tobias, J. and Trout, G. M. The Sensorv Evaluation ofDairy Prod-
ucts, Van NostrandiAVI, 1988.

through their volatile flavor characteristics and sometimes by their aroma if they
are sufficiently pronounced. Examples include metallic-catalyzed oxidation fla-
vors, which are caused by aldehydes, enals and di-enals that impart cardboardy,
painty and tallowy sensations (Shipe 1980). Light-catalyzed oxidation is similar,
except that methional (from Strecker degradation of methionine) may impart a
“burnt-haidburnt-feathers” sensation at some early stages of photoxidation.
Various transmitted odors from feed and silage can crop up in milk, including
garlic-type odors in some parts of the country from wild garlic present in Spring
pasturage. Hydrolysis of milk fat can give rise to a type of rancidity characterized
by soapy or cheesy flavors from short-chain free fatty acids. Various microbial
conditions give rise to fruity or fermented flavors, including a malty aroma
induced by contamination by Streptococcus lactis v. maltigenes, which produces
isobutyraldehyde and isovaleraldehyde. Thus the nose is a primary key to the
correct identification of such off-flavors which have been a major focus of dairy
judge training and student judging competitions for decades.
Training in the recognition of fluid milk defects traditionally forms the back-
bone of dairy judging expertise, since many of the fluid milk defects also show
up in other dairy products. Table 2 shows defects for cheddar cheese. Once
again, there are a wide range of volatile flavor and aroma defects, some of which
parallel the problem flavors in fluid milk. A variety of texture defects are also
common problems in cheesemaking, but they receive only half the weight of
flavor defects in arriving at the overall grading score in judging contests (Bodyfelt
et al. 1988). This presumably recognizes that consumers consider flavor defects
like sulfide odor to be somewhat more serious than texture defects such as pasty
or crumbly cheese.
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 39

TABLE 2.
EXAMPLES OF DAIRY QUALITY DEFECTS: CHEDDAR CHEESE

O[factory (volatile) Taste

Acid Acid
Feed Bitter
Fermentedifmity
Garlidonion Texture
Heated
Moldy Corky
Rancid Crumbly
Sulfide Curdy
Unclean Gassy
Whey Taint Mealy
Yeasty Open
Pasty
Short
Weak
(Note: Flavor weighted 10 points, texture weighted 5 )
Source: Bodyfelt, F. W , Tobias, J. and Trout, G. M. The Sensory Evaluation ojDairy Prod-
ucts, Van NostrandiAVI, 1988.

While the literature on dairy product quality has a long history of the analysis
of chemical and sensory manifestations of flavor defects, defect-oriented quality
schemes have many practical problems. One issue concerns the complexity of
attributes such as oxidized. Using the term oxidized is a classification concerning
root causes more than a description of sensory perceptions and it encompasses
a range of flavor experiences. Through chemical analysis of oxidized milk fat,
the major chemical products and their sensory qualities have been identified.
Table 3 shows a number of flavors arising from individual chemicals (mostly
complex aldehydes) that are products of milk fat oxidation (Kinsella 1969; Bad-
ings 1970). At this level, there is little or no simple pr singular “oxidized”
characteristic-somehow this hodgepodge of flavor materials blends into a flavor
complex that is recognizable to the dairy judge. Table 3 also shows that samples
that fall within the oxidized category of defects can take on different sensory
properties depending upon the distinct chemical profile that is produced, the age
of the material, and so on. Characteristics range from cardboard-like in low
levels or early stages of milk fat oxidation to painty, tallowy and even fishy
flavors as oxidation progresses. These same problems are seen by workers con-
cerned with warmed-over flavor in meat, which is a useful sensory term to some,
but an untidy collection of several different flavor notes to other workers in this
area (Johnson and Civille 1986; Lyon 1987). Since warmed-over flavor is also
a result of lipid oxidation, it is not surprising that it share some of the same
flavor characteristics with oxidized milk. A third potential problem in the defect-
oriented schemes is that they describe sensory properties in terms of root causes,
rather than describing sensations per se. This requires an additional inferential
40 HARRY LAWLESS

TABLE 3.
EXAMPLE OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM-OXIDIZED LIPID FLAVORS

Associative terms from oxidized milk fat, considering individual compounds:’

Oxidized Grassy
Cardboard Beany
Tallowy Metallic
Oily Mushroom
Painty Cucumber
Fishy Nutmeg
Creamy
Fruity

Associative terms from “Warmed-over-flavor” in beef?

Cardboard
Oxidized
Rancid
Painty
Fishy

Sources: (1) Kinsella, J. E., Patton, S. and Dirnick, P. S. Thejavorpotential ofmilkfat. A

review of its chemical nature and biochemical origin. J. Am. Oil Chem. SOC.44, 449-454
(1967). (2) Johnson, P. B. and Civille, G. V. A standardized lexicon of meat WOF descriptors.
J. Sens. Stud. I , 99-104, (1986).

process on the part of panelists, who have enough work to do simply assigning
numbers to reflect the perceived strength of different components of a complex
flavor. While such inferences are useful information to plant personnel in quality
control situations, they may be more appropriately assigned to the professional
judgment of the panel leader or manager who interprets the panel data (see Shipe
1990 for a contrasting opinion). Some descriptive systems for other commodities
have avoided these inferential categories and gone to associative terms which
are taught and standardized by physical reference standards. For example, on
the wine aroma wheel (Noble et al. 1987) there is no term for botrytis character
(a result of the noble rot). Presumably, evidence of botrytis would appear as a
combination of apricot, honey and perhaps moldy notes. However, panelists
themselves are not asked to infer whether a wine was botrytised, only to describe
and quantify the flavor or aroma notes they experience. See Rainey (1986) for
a discussion of the utility of physical reference standards in descriptive analysis.

Modeling Acceptance
Turning to consumer acceptance as an indicator of quality, the objective
description of simple odor notes and their intensities by a trained panel can
connect very naturally to consumer acceptance data. This most often takes for
form of a general linear model, where consumer acceptance is predicted as a
function of a group of simple sensory attributes. Multiple regression is commonly
applied to such data, although this general type of model is inherent in response
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 41

surface methods and various other multivariate techniques such as factor analysis
or principal components. Table 4 shows a set of equations in which consumer
acceptance is modeled as a function of underlying sensory characteristics. These
characteristics are weighted depending upon each one’s influence on overall
acceptance, with defects having negative weighting coefficients. The model can
be expanded to more complex polynomials. For example, flavor notes which
are generally pleasant, but which can be unpleasant at very high levels (i.e.,
you can have too much of a good thing, like sweetness), require a small but
negatively weighted quadratic term to reverse a rising function as intensity in-
creases (Moskowitz 1983). A second common elaboration is to allow for inter-
actions. For example, sugar-to-acid ratio and its sensory correlate of sweetness-
to-soumess is important in many fruit products, especially beverages such as
wine. Consumer acceptance falls off steeply when these attributes are not in
balance. Finally, for those who desire to build models in terms of physical
variables such as ingredients (so many pounds of sugar, etc.j, sensory attributes
can be related to physical ingredients such as sucrose content, by mathematical
relationships such as a power function. However, product formulators should be
wary of modeling directly from ingredients to consumer acceptance. There are
many interactions among food ingredients, some of which are present in the
brain of the perceiver, rather than the chemistry of the product (Lawless 1986).
Mixing ingredients together can produce unexpected results, the most common
of which are masking or suppressive, inhibitory phenomena. Therefore it is
essential to interpolate a set of sensory specifications of product flavors by a
trained descriptive analysis panel between the stage of ingredient formulation
and the mathematics of optimizing consumer acceptance.

TABLE 4.
AN ACCEPTANCE MODEL

Acceptance = k, (S,) + k,(S,) + . . . k,(S,) (simple linear model)

+ k,,(S, * S,) . . . (with interaction terms)
+ k,,, (S,Ia . . . (higher order polynomial)
where S, = perceived intensify of
attribute n
Intensity can also be predicted by equa-
tions such as
S, = K, (Ubn
Where b is the characteristic of the
power function exponent
and I is the stimulus intensify in
physical units (e.g. molarity)
42 HARRY LAWLESS

CONCERNS IN THE EVALUATION OF AROMA

AND FLAVOR

There are four themes in this discussion. The first idea asserts that the human
judge is absolutely necessary in the assessment of the sensory quality of foods.
Instruments alone will not suffice, and this is especially true of olfactory attri-
butes. The next three themes point out ways in which gathering perceptual data
from humans encounters difficulties. The second issue concerns the fact that
judges differ with regard to their olfactory abilities. This presents a certain
biological limitation on the sensitivity of the sensory panel as an analytical
instrument and also the degree to which the sensors can be calibrated or trained
to agree. The third theme is that human observers act like measuring instruments
that tend to recalibrate themselves on the basis of extraneous noise factors like
stimulus context, and this is poorly understood but potentially important in
olfactory judgments. The fourth issue is the perennial problem of attaching good
verbal descriptors to smell sensations.

Instrumental-Sensory Relations
Since the invention of gas chromatography in the early 1950’s, chemists have
often sniffed the separated components of effluents from the exit ports of chro-
matographs. Thus the human nose, at least on an informal basis, was an early
detection device. Currently a host of chromatographic or separatory methods are
available to the flavor chemist which when coupled with fingerprinting techniques
such as mass spectrometry, can be used to identify the numerous flavorous
compounds occurring in a natural material. Such information has a variety of
important uses. Once the contributing flavor compounds have been identified,
quality and consistency of a natural product can be assessed using instrumental
means. Differences among cultivars or geographical regions can be explored on
the basis of their chemical profiles. Finally, synthesis of the natural flavor can
be attempted if the contributing compounds are known. The key is to know
which flavor compounds have an influence on the overall aroma or flavor quality
as perceived by the human nose.
At first glance, knowing the concentrations in which flavor and aroma com-
pounds are produced in a natural product would seem to be the key. However,
concentration itself is a poor predictor of human reaction, when thresholds for
a variety of compounds are compared. A threshold, of course, represents the
minimum concentration of compound which elicits some statistically reliable
reaction from people, usually when 50% of the individuals in the test panel will
detect the presence of an odor. There are orders of magnitude in the differences
between the olfactory system’s sensitivity to various similar compounds, for
example, ethyl acetate at about 0.5 parts per thousand in air and ethyl mercaptan
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 43

at about 0.5 parts per billion (ASTM 1978). In order to assess a compound's
importance in a complex flavor then, it is necessary to make some comparison
to a measure of the sensory impact of the odor on the human smelling apparatus.
Thresholds are one example of such measures.
One technique, which combines the instrumental separation of complex natural
product flavors with assessment of human reactions is CHARM analysis (Acree
et al. 1984). In this procedure, a human observer is seated near the exit port of
a gas chromatograph whose effluents are embedded in a constantly flowing
cooled, humidified stream of purified air. The observer must react to the onset
and cessation of a perceived odor. Multiple runs are conducted at increasing
trinary (factors of three) dilutions of the natural product, until a point is reached
at which no response is elicited at any retention time. Obviously, the greater the
number of dilutions at which a product is detected, the greater its potential impact
in the natural product, i.e. at its naturally occurring concentration. Conversely,
compounds which are undetected or only detected at one or two levels, will
often have no or little odor impact. A major advantage of this procedure is that
human reactions can be cross referenced with retention times on other calibrated
GC runs of the same natural material using a flame ionization detector. When
coupled with techniques such as mass spectrometry, the identity of the detected
compound can be determined as well as an estimate of its concentration.
Obviously, there are a few limitations and pitfalls to this separatory approach.
One limitation is that observing a compound in isolation may not predict how
the human nose will react to a complex mixture of a given substance with the
other compounds present in a natural product. The human sense of smell is an
excellent pattern recognition device. In its usual mode of operation, the nose is
not analytical, but synthetic-the sense of smell takes a complex mixture and
tends to form a unitary perceptual impression from diverse inputs. For example,
a lemon oil extract contains perhaps hundreds of different aroma compounds,
but the nose somehow synthesizes the stimulation pattern into the recognition
of a lemon smell. While observers can be trained to pay attention to individual
odor notes in a complex mixture, this is somewhat unnatural and requires great
concentration. Although a GC-sniffing technique like CHARM can be used to
identify the potential participants in the overall aroma or flavor, it says little
about how the components interact or contribute to the complex pattern of
perceived smells that one recognizes as apricots or peanut aroma, for example.
When present in mixtures, there are both masking and synergistic interactions
that may take place. Masking or inhibition among odor signals is quite common
and well-documented (Cain 1975). This may be one way the brain protects itself
from an overload of information. Synergistic interactions are not so well under-
stood, but there are some hints that several sub-threshold compounds might act
to stimulate the olfactory sense when present together (Day et al. 1963). It is
reasonable to think that an olfactory receptor cell with multiple receptor sites
44 HARRY LAWLESS

for odorant binding, which is only semi-specifically tuned to respond to a range

of chemical compounds, might ‘‘see” three different compounds present in a
mixture, all of which are below their individual thresholds, and produce a sum-
mated response to the combined influence of all three.
These concerns aside, the CHARM technique provides simple illustrations
that the olfactory system responds differently to various compounds, and that
the concentration of compound alone is a poor predictor of human response.
Figure 2 shows CHARM responses and the flame ionization detector response
to volatile compounds in orange juice (Marin et at. in press). Bear in mind that
the CHARM responses are a kind of reciprocal threshold or odor unit-the higher
the peak, the greater the number of dilution steps at which the smeller responded.
Several discrepancies are noteworthy. First, the two labeled peaks illustrate that

W 1021
cn \
z
0
a
v)
W
a
-
n
u.

W
3
-I
a
> *0°1

-
0
=t-I
d
-
leal
n
600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
RETENTION INDEX
FIG. 2. FLAME IONIZATION DETECTOR RESPONSE (UPPER TRACE) TO
COMPONENTS OF ORANGE JUICE
Peak 1021 is limonene and peak 1083 is linalool. CHARM response chromatogram (lower trace)
to the same juice. Peak height in the CHARM chromatogram is proportional to the number of
dilutions at which the observer noticed a smell at that retention time. From Marin et al. (in press),
by permission.
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 45

it is possible to have a large FID response, but little human reaction and con-
versely a large human reaction, but little or no instrumental detection. This is
even more apparent in the retention times following peak 1083. There are major
odor components present in this zone, to which the instrumental detector is
nearly insensitive. Such a series of CHARM peaks can not be dismissed as
simply noise in the system since they require multiple responses from observers
at those same retention times across many dilutions in order to construct CHARM
peaks of those magnitudes. It should not surprise us that olfaction could be more
sensitive detector than instrumental analyses, given its design features that permit
the amplification of weak signals, as discussed above.
Such techniques also hold great promise for the eventual synthesis of natural
product flavors. Recently, a research group at the Western Regional Laboratories,
USDA-ARS, has used similar techniques to identify the important compounds
in tomato volatiles and even to construct a reasonable approximation of tomato
paste aroma (Buttery et af. 1989; Buttery, personal communication). Using GC
as a separatory method, with human observers smelling the effluents, they were
able to cross-reference sniffing responses with aroma thresholds and identify the
potential contributing compounds to tomato paste aroma. The compounds were
re-constituted into a mixture in concentrations that were indicated by their con-
centrations in the starting materials itself. A mixture of dimethyl sulfide, beta
damascenone, 3-methyl butanal, 1-nitro-2-phenylethane, eugenol, methional and
3-methylbutyric acid was judged by an experienced panel to be a good example
of tomato paste aroma.

Individual Differences in Odor Responsiveness

Examination of the relationship of sensory and instrumental measures illus-
trates the need to consider human responsiveness, i.e., the tuning or reactivity
of the human chemosensory apparatus, in analyses of flavor and aroma materials.
However, there are a number of concerns in human testing, and often what seems
like a minor procedural detail can yield very different sensory-analytical results.
Threshold testing is a classic example. Depending upon the method of testing,
measured thresholds can vary over orders of magnitude (ASTM 1978). A major
problem in sensory testing, and one that is poorly understood, concerns differ-
ences among individuals. No two people come equipped with the same sensory
apparati and even the most rigorous training regimen may not be able to fully
standardize a group of panelists’ responses. One sometimes dramatic contributing
factor to individual differences in smell sensitivity are the conditions called
specific anosmias. A specific anosmia is an insensitivity to a group of chemically
related compounds that is found in a person of otherwise normal olfactory acuity.
If a person’s threshold is two standard deviations or higher above those of the
normally sensitive population, they may be classified as anosmic (Amoore et al.
46 HARRY LAWLESS

1968). When plotting thresholds for a compounds known to exemplify a specific

anosmia in a population of individuals, the frequency distribution is bimodal,
much like the sensitive and insensitive groups for the bitter response to phenyl-
thiocarbamide (Lawless 1980).
Table 5 shows some of the well-documented specific anosmias (Wysocki and
Labows 1984). The documentation of an anosmia as carried out by Amoore
(1977) proceeds in two steps, classification of sensitive and insensitive population
groups, and then investigation of closely related chemical compounds (e.g.,
homologous series) as a kind of bioassay to see which compounds then give the
greatest separation of the two population groups. Amoore theorized that the best-
separating compound represented a primary odor type, which could reflect a
receptor type that may be missing among anosmic individuals. The presence of
specific anosmia appears to be a genetically controlled characteristic, which
further supports a simple physiological mechanism such as the presence or ab-
sence of a receptor site protein as an underlying mechanism. For example,
thresholds for androstenone show a high positive correlation among identical
twins, and shows a positive correlation in only about half of fraternal twin pairs
(Wysocki and Beauchamp 1984). However, the expression of anosmia is some-
what more complicated than the simple result with twins would suggest and

TABLE 5 .
DOCUMENTED SPECIFIC ANOSMIAS

Compound Frequency Odor Ouality

androstenone 50% urinous

4-chloroaniline 41% (mixed)

isobutyraldeh yde 36% malty

1,8- cineole 33% camphoraceous

1 - pyrroline 16% spermous

pentadecalatone 31% musky

trimethyl amine 6% fishy

isovalenc acid 3% sweaty

L- carvone _- minty

Source: Wysocki, C. and Labows. J. Individual differences in odor perception.

& Flavor&, 1984,9,21 - 26.
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 47

active research on the underlying anatomical and physiological mechanisms is

in progress.
The influence of specific anosmia on the perception of food flavor and aroma
is unknown, but there are tantalizing suggestions that it should play an important
part in explaining some of the variance among sensory panelists. In dairy prod-
ucts, for example, two common defects which are present on many judging
ballots are malty flavors and hydrolytic rancidity. As noted above, malty flavors
arise in fluid milk from contamination with Streptococcus lactis v. maltigenes,
and impart a characteristic malty or “Grapenuts” flavor through production of
isobutyraldehyde and isovaleraldehyde. Note that the frequency of occurrence
of the specific anosmia to isobutyraldehyde is estimated at 36% (Amoore et a/.
1976). Amoore suggested that this specific anosmia should influence the per-
formance of panelists concerned with quality control of dairy products, but this
suggestion has received little or no followup. A second dairy defect, and one
that is more common, is the production of short-chain free fatty acids through
hydrolytic degradation of milk lipids. The low molecular weight fatty acids are
also important in many cheese flavors, in which they are usually desireable
characteristics when present in the accepted concentrations and expected profiles
(i.e., combinations). There is a well-known specific anosmia to isovaleric acid,
which has a sweaty-cheese aroma (Amoore ef al. 1968). Whether this olfactory
deficit affects a panelist’s sensitivity at picking out rancid flavor defects, or
affects consumers’ perceptions of cheese flavor is unknown. In a recent survey
of human sensitivity to branched chain free fatty acids, Brennand et al. (1989)
noted that “Some judges were unable to identify the correct samples in the pairs
at even the highest concentration provided . . . Further, panelists who were
sensitive to most fatty acids found some fatty acids very difficult to perceive.”
(pp. 109, 114). They went on to note that this supported Amoore’s observations
of specific anosmia to isovaleric (3-methylbutanoic) acid. While they presented
no quantitative data on the frequency or severity of this effect, it suggests that
the specific anosmia to branched-chain free fatty acids may be more common
than previously cited, in that Brennand e f al. used only 95 judges, but Amoore’s
work estimated a frequency of only about 2-3% for this deficit.
Anosmia to a component of some meat flavors. androstenone, is estimated to
be as frequent as 50% (Wysocki and Labows 1984). Androstenone (Sa-androst-
16-en-3one) is important in flavor perception since it imparts the boar taint or
sex odor to the fatty tissue of sexually mature (uncastrated) male swine. It has
been described as sweaty or urine-like, and is generally very unpleasant to people
who are able to perceive it. USDA regulations allow meat with slight boar taint
to be used in comminuted sausages, but carcasses with strong odors must be
condemned. Thus, Thompson and Pearson (1977) pointed out that the ability of
meat inspectors and packing house personnel to detect androstenone is important
from commercial and regulatory perspectives.
48 HARRY LAWLESS

Almost everyone who has been trained in a descriptive analysis panel, a quality
grading system or flavor profile technique has encountered one or two attributes
which are difficult to learn or at least difficult to discern at first. While there are
many factors which impede the correct identification of odors and volatile flavor
(Cain 1979), specific anosmia may be a contributing factor. It is possible that
each panelist comes equipped with a different mosaic of specific odor acuities
and gaps, and that this imposes a limitation on the degree of panelist consensus
that can ever be achieved. Marin (1989) recently studied the reactions of different
ages and sexes to a series of fruity esters and minty compounds through CHARM
analysis, and saw evidence of wide variation in reactivity to common odor
compounds. In spite of the fact that people have some modest ability to describe
and discuss their odor experiences, Marin’s data suggest that we may each exist
in different “odor worlds.” This topic deserves further attention on the part of
sensory evaluation professionals who are involved in the selection and training
of sensory panels. It is also possible that some self-selection may be involved
in that people who are aware of some olfactory deficit may not volunteer for
panels in the first place. Similarly, meat technologists who have experienced
difficulty in smelling boar taint might be reluctant to volunteer for training as
quality inspectors. One major unanswered question concerns the inter-correlation
of specific anosmias, as well as relationships to a person’s acuity for other smells.
A recent study of androstenone sensitivity found a correlation with another
complex ketone, pemenone, as well as an unexpected negative correlation to
odor responses to the floral odor of phenylethanol (O’Connell et al. 1989).
In addition to a need for further research on the underlying biological mech-
anisms of anosmia, questions about the functional significance of individual
differences in olfactory acuity remain unanswered. Functional significance con-
cerns not only issues in panel selection, training and consensus, but the percep-
tions of consumers of complex food flavors in naturally occurring aroma and
flavor mixtures. There is a major gap between our understanding of anosmia in
the laboratory, e.g. through the study of olfactory thresholds in single pure
compounds, and the understanding of anosmia in environmentally encountered
flavors and smells. The study of perception of odor mixtures among anosmic
and normal individuals would help to bridge this gap. Odor compounds interact
in mixtures, most commonly to produce counteraction or partial masking of one
another (Cain 1975; Lawless 19861, suggesting that to an anosmic person, the
compound to which they are insensitive would not mask or counteract other
flavors. These other flavors might then be more intense than they smell to an
osmic (normal) person. Analogous work with phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) tasters
and nontasters in bitter-sweet taste mixtures shows this effect (Lawless 1979).
Tasters of PTC experience partial masking or suppression of sucrose sweetness
in bitter-sweet sucrose PTC mixtures. Nontasters, on the other hand, experience
no such masking.. Sucrose is just as sweet to them as if there were no bitter
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 49

substance present, which is effectively the case in the sense of what their receptors
are telling their gustatory brain. The study of effects of anosmia on odor mixtures
and complex food aromas may yield analogous interactions.

Context Effects
Context effects are ubiquitous in human perception, and olfaction is no ex-
ception. It is a common tendency for observers to consider the impact of a
stimulus in view of the frame of reference in which it appears. Context effects
are seen easily in cases of contrast. An unusual 40 degree (F) day in January
may seem quite mild, but 40 F is quite cool in contrast to the heat of August.
A normally salted soup may seem quite salty if evaluated in the same session
with low-sodium formulas, but only modestly salty if tasted in the context of
heavily salted alternatives (Lawless 1983). Figure 3 shows classical visual il-
lusions in which a figure is made to appear larger or smaller depending upon
the features which accompany it. These contextual or contrast effects have a
kind of automatic, thoughtless insistence, they seem to occur without the influ-
ence of any conscious process, as if they were hard-wired mechanisms built into
the way the brain interprets sensory messages.
Do context effects appear in evaluation of odor quality? While evaluating
potential reference standards for use in descriptive panel training, the author
noticed an apparent shift in the odor character of a terpene compound, dihydro-
myrcenol. This compound has an odor which is primarily similar to lime. How-
ever, in addition to its citrus character, it has a somewhat pine-like or woody
aspect to many people. When smelled in the context of many reference standards
with pine or woody character, it was perceived by panelist-trainees to be almost
wholly citrus in character. However, when evaluated with a battery of citrus-
smelling materials, the same panelists described it as too woody or pine-like to
include in the reference materials for citrus items. Figure 4 illustrates this shift
quantitatively. Twenty university staff and students, who were otherwise naive
and uninvolved in olfactory evaluations, smelled dihydromyrcenol under two
conditions on different days: In one session following a group of five other citrus
compounds, and in another session following a group of very woody-smelling
materials (pine, cedar, sandalwood, etc.). Dihydromyrcenol was rated on a single
bipolar scale from very citrus to very woody in character. A dramatic shift is
evident in the data, with dihydromyrcenol changing from a primarily citrus
quality in the woody setting to a woody character in the citrus context. This
effect has been replicated under a variety of conditions and with other aroma
materials (Lawless Unpublished ).
One possible explanation for this contextual shift invokes a mechanism of
adaptation. Under conditions of constant stimulation, sensory systems will de-
crease their responsiveness. People are at first aware of a characteristic “house
50 HARRY LAWLESS

B
0
00 0
000

FIG. 3. COMMON VISUAL ILLUSIONS THAT ILLUSTRATE THE EFFECT OF CONTEXT

ON PERCEPTION, IN THESE CASES FOR APPARENT SIZE.
A, dumbell version of the Miiller-Lyer illusion. B, Ebbinhaus-Titchener illusion.
C. Ponzo illusion.

odor” when visiting a neighbor or friend, but after a few minutes this generally
fades from consciousness. Adaptation is an especially potent effect in olfaction,
one that often interferes with the performance of sensory panelists in extended
sessions. It also underscores the need for a clean and odor-free testing environ-
ment in which to evaluate samples. As noted above, odors in mixtures tend to
have inhibitory or suppressive effects, as if the brain was only able to process
a limited volume of olfactory signals. Such inhibition or odor counteraction is
put to good use in the design of fragrances for air fresheners. However, when
one component of an odor mixture is adapted, i.e. perceptually “removed”
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 51

DIHYDROMY RCENOL
RATED ON BIPOLAR SCALE

MOSTLY CITRUS
;
4 1 1

CITRUS WOODY

CONTEXT

FIG. 4. MEAN RATINGS OF DIHYDROMYRCENOL ( + 1 STANDARD ERROR)

FOLLOWING FIVE CITRUS-SMELLING FRAGRANCES (LEFT BAR) OR FIVE WOODY
SMELLING FRAGRANCES (RIGHT BAR)

although still physically present, the other component may be released from its
partially inhibited status and increase in perceived intensity. Figure 5 shows the
inhibition and release effect for mixtures of vanillin and cinnamaldehyde. In
vapor-phase mixtures, the cinnamon and vanilla notes are less intense than when
the compounds are presented alone. However, after adaptation reduces the impact
of one of the two notes, the other rebounds to about the level it would be perceived
at if it had been presented alone. Such a process could play a part in the contextual
shift seen with dihydromyrcenol, providing dihydromyrcenol can be viewed as
52 HARRY LAWLESS

RELEASE EFFECTS IN OLFACTION

CONDITION

FIG. 5 . MEAN RATINGS OF VANILLIN, CINNAMALDEHYDE AND MIXTURES AFTER

VARIOUS ADAPTATION CONDITIONS
The mixture is rated lower in vanilla character than vanillin and lower in cinnamon character than
cinnamaldehyde. After adoptation to cinnamaldehyde, the cinnamon character of the mixture de-
creases and vanilla character increases. After adaptation to vanillin, the cinnamon character increases.
Replotted from Lawless (1986).

a two-note “mixture.” Whether subjects perceive dihydromyrcenol as if it were

a two-note mixture, or whether it is perceived as a unitary whole which is merely
changing in quality is unclear at this time. The shift effect is very robust, and
is seen whether subjects are asked to make independent ratings of citrus character
and woody character, i.e. on two separate scales as if there were two separately
perceived notes, or if subjects are asked to rate the odor on a single bipolar
scale. Whatever the causes and mechanisms of this effect, it illustrates a con-
textual flexibility in smell perception that is potentially important in the evaluation
of food quality.

The Challenge of Terminology Development

A third challenge in the assessment of olfactory perceptions is a language
problem. There is no a priori set of primaries for the world of odors that is
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 53

applicable to all products or that has been agreed upon by the scientific com-
munity. There is much less consensus than in vision, in which a set of three (or
four) visual attributes can be used to describe all color. The sense of taste is
qualitatively simpler than olfaction, with general categories like sweet, sour,
salty and bitter, and perhaps umami, covering most gustatory experiences. 01-
faction, on the other hand, is more complex. First, there is a tremendous qual-
itative range of aromas and volatile flavors that are perceived. Given no universal
system of primaries, and combined with the fact that there is no well-understood
physical continuum along which odors can be ordered (analogous to wavelength
of visible light in color perception), the only recourse is to define odor experiences
by pointing to objects from which smells emanate. For example, we say that
something smells ‘‘like a lemon. Such an approach necessitates understanding
”

and communication through common experiences. If my culture has no lemons

and I am unexperienced with that smell, I will be unable to use a “lemon”
attribute on a sensory ballot.
The difficulties in talking about flavors and aromas are illustrated well in the
language of wine experts, who may be very experienced in the variety of flavors
that can occur in wine, but who generally share no common formal training. An
example of two “experts” describing the same wine follows. Expert 1: “Hints
of banana and grapefruit, initially rather sweet in the mouth but finishes with a
bit of bite-leaves an impression of tartness. Tastes a bit like honeydew melon,
mixed with a hint of banana, slight citrus, grapefruit, astringency.” Expert 2:
“Somewhat pungent, flowery or weedy. Aroma distinctive but not “off.” Rather
like pine needles or pine bark. Full texture in mouth but fruit is rather vague,
immediately falls off palate and leaves weak astringency. The taste disappoints
after the nose. Very short finish-poor balance.” It is difficult to believe that
these two people were describing the same product. Such discrepancy may arise
from variations in the stimulus,(no two bottles are quite the same,)or even specific
anosmias or other variation in their personal olfactory acuities. However, naming
odors is not an easy task. Connecting olfactory experience with consistent verbal
labels is often difficult, even with highly familiar everyday odors (Cain 1979).
Performing a sensory-analytical task and fractionating a complex wine aroma
into its parts is even more difficult. When we combine these problems with the
fact that wine experts rarely undergo the same training to develop a consensual
vocabulary, such discrepancies become less surprising.
Descriptive analysis techniques attempt to overcome this problem of stan-
dardization of terminology through training with physical reference standards
(Rainey 1986). During training, an experienced panel leader can clarify mean-
ings, help eliminate redundancies during terminology development and help
resolve apparent conflicts (Meilgaard et al. 1987). For example, a panel leader
may recognize that one panelist describing an aroma as “maraschino cherry”
and another as “almond” and a third as “marzipan” may all be talking about
54 HARRY LAWLESS

a common underlying flavor note, that of benzaldehyde. Subsequently, benzal-

dehyde may be brought to a later training session as demonstration material, to
see if the three different opinions can be brought into harmony.
Another issue in terminology development concerns how general or specific
a term should be. As noted above, a term like “oxidized” subsumes a variety
of flavor experiences. Oxidized has been favored in dairy work because of its
usefulness in pointing at origins of quality problems. An hierarchical approach
to flavor description is able to subsume both general terms like oxidized and
more specific associational descriptors like cardboard, painty and fishy. The
hierarchical approach sets up terms on layers of generality (vs. specificity). Figure
6 shows a section from the wine aroma wheel (Noble et al. 1987). The general
term “chemical” subsumes several categories, including pungent, papery, sulfur
and petroleum. The sulfur category subsumes a number of somewhat similar
aroma notes. Whether such a system is possible for dairy flavors is as yet untried,
but it would avoid arguments about whether oxidized or cardboardy is a more
useful term. They simply stand in the relation of a supersetlsubset hierarchy.
An hierarchical arrangement serves another purpose. Sometimes panelists are
unable to use a very specific term, such as naming a specific fruity smell in a
wine, e.g. black currants. However, a panelist may know that the aroma is
definitely fruity, and perhaps even that it is berry-like. Allowing the use of more
general terms takes advantage of the partial or semi-specific information available
to the panelist, without forcing him or her to use more specific terms that are
only partially applicable.
In summary, the development of useful terminology is often taken for granted.
However, its importance can not be stressed too highly, since the terms on the
ballot direct the judges’ attention to specific attributes of the product and may
direct attention away from otherwise significant characteristics which may have
been omitted. Furthermore, the choice of attributes determines which variables
will be available for predictive regression against consumer acceptance. At the
present time, qualitative group discussions similar to focus groups in marketing
research are widely used for terminology development. Panelists are introduced
to representative samples, and develop a common vocabulary based on their
experience and what they encounter in the samples. There is ample opportunity
for the systematic comparison of different methods for terminology development.
Criteria for good or useful terms (attribute scales) are straightforward. Terms
should (1) be applicable, i.e., should describe a note present in the samples,(2)
should differentiate among samples, (3) be easily learned by panelists, (4)achieve
good interpanelist agreement, ( 5 ) have a physical reference standard or set of
reference materials available for training and calibration of the panel, (6) be
related to consumer acceptance,and (7) be correlated with instrumental measures,
if possible.
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE O F SMELL 55

FIG. 6 . A SECTION OF THE WINE AROMA WHEEL (NOBLE et a / . 1987) SHOWING

FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD-TIER TERMS
The second-tier terms, other, petroleum, pungent and papery also subsume more specific third-tier
terms which are not shown.

Quality in Sensory Testing

In order to insure product quality, sensory analysts must strive to conduct
rigorous scientific tests, not haphazard analyses driven largely by time and cost
limitations or dictated by laboratory tradition without any supporting rationale.
In analytical sensory tests (as opposed to consumer-oriented tests), environmental
control, sample preparation, blind coding and other testing characteristics work
to minimize the error variance inherent in human judgments. If we stop to
56 HARRY LAWLESS

consider a t-statistic, the simplest parametric test for differences between sam-
ples, there are two and sometimes three parameters under the control of the
sensory analyst. A t-statistic takes the following general form, although its exact
numerical form depends upon whether samples are related (dependent) or in-
dependent groups of observers:

Difference between sample means

t =
standard deviation / (sample size)”’

The numerator of the t statistic is the observed difference between means. This
is generally not controlled, but rather assessed in the test. However, a good
sensory professional can “train” their clients to send only sets of samples for
testing when the client suspects there may be differences. When the differences
are clearly not perceivable, the test is unnecessary. Conversely, when the dif-
ferences are plainly obvious, a sensory test may also not be needed. Sensory
tests are used most effectively when they reduce some uncertainty in managerial
decision-making. If there’s no uncertainty, there’s no need for the test. Unfor-
tunately, many commercial practices dictate that tests are scheduled on a routine
basis, with little or no negotiation between sensory analyst and client about the
potential impact of the information that is to be provided. Another characteristic
of the t-statistic is the “N” or sample size. Since this divides the standard
deviation in the denominator, the larger the N, the larger the t-value and the
more likely we are to reject the null hypothesis. Thus the sensory analyst who
wishes to perform a sensitive test can use a large number of panelists or many
replicates, to minimize the standard error of the mean. This is a good strategy,
but only up to a point. If the internal panel tests yield significant differences
that the consumer doesn’t notice or doesn’t care about, the test is moot.
The third variable in a t-statistic is the standard deviation, the pure error
inherent in the measurement process, in the samples themselves and in the human
observers. Sensory testing is a difficult technology simply because there are so
many potential sources of variance which feed into this error term. However,
many of these sources can be controlled or influenced by the person conducting
the test, and this is where laboratory rigor will aid in improving test sensitivity.
Blind coding, independent judgments, minimization of distractions, counterbal-
anced or randomized orders of presentation and other environmental and testing
details are critical. Regarding the human factor, screening, orienting, motivating
and training the panel if necessary are trademarks of quality in sensory testing
programs.
The influence of several seemingly minor changes in testing procedures was
illustrated in a study of the detection of boar taint aroma by panelists and their
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 57

degree of correlation with instrumental measures of androstenone content (Thorn-

son and Pearson 1977). In that study, two panels assessed the boar taint in the
same set of samples which were then analyzed by gas chromatography/mass
spectrometry. In the first sensory assay, 3 to 5 packing house personnel evaluated
boar taint on a 0-6 category scale and a consensus value was used for comparison
to instrumental measures. In the second sensory assay, samples were evaluated
by a three member laboratory panel who had been screened for sensitivity to
androstenone, using a 0-9 scale. Data were averaged before correlation with
instrumental measures. The correlation of instrumental assessments with the
packing house panel’s data was .27, which was not significantly different from
zero. The correlation of the lab panel, on the other hand, was .47, which was
statistically significant. Such results have several implications. One important
issue concerns whether the investigators would have concluded “no relationship
exists” if they had run only the first panel. Statistical significance is a poor but
widely used criterion for whether an important effect has been observed (Carver
1978; Rosenthal 1987). Such discrepant results, which are sometimes seen in
sensory data when different panels or methods are changed, suggest a great deal
of caution in using statistical significance as the sole criterion for decision making.
A second issue concerns what procedural variables might have caused the chang-
ing results in the two types of analyses. There were obvious differences in the
degree of control over the testing environment and sample preparation. However,
there were four small changes in sensory methodology which may have favored
the sensitivity of the lab test. Packing house tests had three to five observers,
suggesting some inter-individual variance may have been added from test to test.
The lab panel, while small, was stable-the same three people participated each
time. Second, the lab panel was screened, i.e., of known sensitivity. Third, a
slightly larger category scale was used by the lab panel, which tends to give
more latitude in responses and less opportunity for range restriction that might
degrade correlational measures. Finally, an averaging procedure was used instead
of consensus. A consensus procedure is prone to uneven weighting of the opinions
of dominant panelists. This was a distinct possibility in that a USDA inspector
and “plant supervisory personnel” participated in the packing house assessments,
suggesting a potential influence of social or professional status. An averaging
process, on the other hand, assures equal weighting to all panelist’s ratings.
Taken one at a time, each of these changes seems minor. Under cost and time
constraints, many workers would be willing to cut corners and make a such
small changes. However, the cumulative effect on the signal-to-noise ratio in
sensory testing can be dramatic. Quality in testing can be equated with sensitivity,
which implies minimization extraneous sources of variance. This approach has
a hidden benefit, in that achieving an acceptable level of test sensitivity can be
achieved with fewer panelists or replicates, i.e., less testing and therefore less
testing cost.
58 HARRY LAWLESS

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Paper presented February 5 , 1990 at the Annual Meeting of the Southern

Association of Agricultural Scientists, Little Rock, AR.

REFERENCES
ACREE, T. E., BARNARD, J . and CUNNINGHAM, D. G. 1984. A procedure
for the sensory analysis of gas chromatographic effluents. Food Chem. 14,
273-286.
AMOORE, J. E. 1977. Specific anosmia and the concept of primary odors.
Chem. Senses 2 , 267-281.
AMOORE, J. E., FORRESTER, L. J . and PELOSI, P. 1976. Specific anosmia
to isobutryraldehyde: The malty primary odor. Chem. Senses Flav. 2, 17-25.
AMOORE, J. E., VENSTROM, D. and DAVIS, A. R. 1968. Measurement of
specific anosmia. Percep. Mot. Skills 26, 143-164.
ASTM. 1978. Compilation of Odor and Taste Threshold Values Data. American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.
BADINGS, H. T. 1970. Aroma compounds from butter with cold-storage defects
and from autoxidized fatty acids. Neth. Milk Dairy J . 2 4 , 61-256.
BODYFELT, F. W., TOBIAS, J. and TROUT, G . M. 1988. The Sensory
Evaluation of Dairy Products (2nd Edition). Van Nostrand ReinholdIAVI,
New York.
BRENNAND, C. P., HA, J. K. and LINDSAY, R. C. 1989. Aroma properties
and thresholds of some branched-chain and other minor volatile fatty acids
occurring in milkfat and meat lipids. J . Sensory Stud. 4, 105-120.
BUTTERY, R. G . 1989. Personal communication.
BUTTERY, R. G . , TERANISHI, R., FLATH, R. A. and LING, L. C. 1989.
Fresh tomato volatiles. In Flavor Chemistry, ACS Symposium Series 388,
(R. G. Buttery and R. Teranishi;eds.) pp. 213-222, American Chemical
Society, Washington, DC.
CAIN, W. S. 1975. Odor intensity: Mixtures and masking. Chem. Senses Flav.
1 , 339-352.
CAIN, W. S. 1979. To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science
203, 467-470.
CARVER, R. P. 1978. The case against statistical significance testing. Harvard
Educ. Rev. 48, 378-399.
DAY, E. A., LILLARD, D. A., and MONTGOMERY, M. W . 1963. Autox-
idation of milk lipids. 111. Effect on flavor of the additive interactions of
carbonyl compounds at subthreshold concentrations. J. Dairy Sci. 4 6 , 291-
294.
 FOOD QUALITY AND THE SENSE OF SMELL 59

DESOR, J . A. and BEAUCHAMP, G. K. 1974. The human capacity to transmit

olfactory information. Percep. Psychophys. 16, 55 1-556.
HAMMOND, E. DUNKLEY, W., BODYFELT, F., LARMOND, E. and
LINDSAY, R. 1986. Report of the committee on sensory data to the journal
management committee of the American Dairy Science Association. J. Dairy
Sci. 69, 298.
JOHNSON, P. B . and CIVILLE, G. V. 1986. A standardized lexicon of meat
WOF descriptors. J . Sensory Stud. I, 99-104.
KINSELLA, J. E. 1969. The flavour chemistry of milk lipids. Chem. Indust.,
11 Jan. 1989, 36-42.
LAGRANGE, V. and NORBACK, J. P. 1987. Product optimization and the
acceptor set size. J . Sensory Stud. 2, 119-136.
LAWLESS, H. T. 1979. Evidence for neural inhibition in bittersweet taste
mixtures. J. Comp. Physiol. Psych. 93, 538-547.
LAWLESS, H. T. 1980. A comparison of different methods for assessing sen-
sitivity to the taste of phenylthiocarbamide (PTC). Chem. Senses 5 , 247-256.
LAWLESS, H. T. 1983. Contextual effects in category ratings. J . Testing Eval.
11, 346-349.
LAWLESS, H. T. 1986. Sensory interactions in mixtures. J. Sensory Stud. I ,
259-274.
LAWLESS, H. T. 1987. An olfactory analogy to release from mixture suppres-
sion in taste. Bull. Psychon. SOC.25, 266-268.
LAWLESS, H. T. A context-dependent shift in perceived odor quality. Unpub-
lished observations.
LYON, B. G . 1987. Development of chicken flavor descriptive attribute terms
aided by multivariate statistical procedures. J. Sensory Stud. 2, 55-67.
MARIN, A. B. 1989. Evaluating Odor Perception by Charm and Sensory Anal-
ysis. Doctoral dissertation, Cornell University.
MARIN, A. B., ACREE, T. E., HOTCHKISS, J. and NAGY, S . in press.
Interaction between limonene and odor active volatiies from orange juice by
packaging materials. J . Ag. Food Chem.
MEILGAARD, M., CIVILLE, G . V. and CARR, B. T. 1987. Sensory Eval-
uation Techniques, Vol. 11, pp. 1-23. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
MOSKOWITZ, H. R. 1983. Product Testing and Sensory Evaluation of Foods.
pp. 368-437. Food and Nutrition Press, Trumbull, Conn.
MURPHY, C. and CAIN, W. S . 1980. Taste and olfaction: Independence vs.
interaction. Physiol. Behav. 2 4 , 601-605.
NOBLE, A. C., ARNOLD, R. A,, BUECHSENSTEIN, J . , LEACH, E. J.,
SCHMIDT, J . O., and STERN, P. M. 1987. Modification of a standardized
system of wine aroma terminology. A. J. Enol. Vitic. 38, 143-146.
O’CONNELL, R. J., STEVENS, D. A., AKERS, R. P., COPPOLA, D. M.
60 HARRY LAWLESS

and GRANT, A. J. 1989. Individual differences in the quantitative and qual-

itative responses of human subjects to various odors. Chem. Senses 14,
293-302.
O’MAHONY, M. and ISHII, R. 1986. Umami taste concept: implications for
the dogma of four basic tastes. In Umami: A Basic Taste, (Y. Kawamura and
M . R. Kare, eds.), pp. 75-93, Marcel Dekker, New York.
RAINEY, B. A. 1986. Importance of reference standards in training panelists.
J . Sensory Stud. I , 149-154.
ROSENTHAL, R. 1987. Judgment Studies: Design, Analysis and Meta-analysis.
pp. 179-207, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (U.K.).
SHIPE, W. F. 1980. Analysis and control of milk flavor. In The Analysis and
Control of Less Desirable Flavors in Foods and Beverages ( G . Charalambous,
ed.). pp. 201-239, Academic Press, New York.
SHIPE, W. F. 1990. Comments about sensory education, objectives and ter-
minology. Sensory Forum 47, 5-6.
THOMPSON, R. H . and PEARSON, A. M. 1977. Quantitative determination
of 5 Androst- 16-en-3-one by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and its
relationship to sex odor intensity of pork. J. Agric. Food Chem. 25, 1241-
1245.
WILLIAMS, A. A. 1988. Procedures and problems in optimizing sensory and
attitudinal characteristics in foods and beverages. In Food Acceptability
(D.M.H. Thomson, ed.) pp. 297-309, Elsevier Applied Science Publishers,
Barking, Essex, England.
WYSOCKI, C. J. and BEAUCHAMP, G. K. 1984. Ability to smell androstenone
is genetically determined. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 81, 4899-4902.
WYSOCKI, C. J. and LABOWS, J. 1984. Individual differences in odor per-
ception. Perfum. Flavorist 9 , 21-26.