Next Article in Journal
Indole-2-Carboxamide as an Effective Scaffold for the Design of New TRPV1 Agonists
Next Article in Special Issue
Sensory Evaluation of Effervescent Nutritional Supplements: Identification and Characterisation of Off-Tastes
Previous Article in Journal
An Eight-Membered Ring Molecular Framework Based on Carbazole for the Development of Electroluminescent Materials
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Identification of the Key Aroma Compounds in Condensed Hardwood Smoke

Department of Food Science and Technology, Parker Food Science & Technology Building, The Ohio State University, 2015 Fyffe Rd., Columbus, OH 43210, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2025, 30(3), 720; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30030720
Submission received: 23 November 2024 / Revised: 17 January 2025 / Accepted: 27 January 2025 / Published: 5 February 2025

Abstract

:
The aroma composition of condensed hardwood smoke generated from a mixed hardwood was characterized by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry/olfactometry analysis. Twenty-seven odorants with a flavor dilution value ≥4 were identified and quantified, revealing 19 compounds reported with an odor activity value >1 at a 0.3% dosage level. The odorants with the highest dilution values were 2,3-butanedione (buttery), guaiacol (clove, vanilla), 4-methylguaiacol (toasted, vanilla, ashy), 3-ethylphenol (ashy), 4-methylsyringol (burnt, plastic, clove), and butyric acid (cheesy). Sensory descriptive analysis revealed that the condensed smoke consisted of eight main attributes, namely ashy, burnt–sulfurous, creosote, green–woody, pungent, smoky, spicy–sweet, and woody. No significant differences in the aroma attributes were reported between the condensed smoke and the corresponding recombination model, indicating that the odorants effectively captured the characteristic aroma of the condensed smoke.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The smoking of foods has been in practice for thousands of years to increase their shelf life and enhance the flavor in a wide variety of different products. The functionality of smoke has been attributed to the complex composition of chemical compounds that adsorb and react with food during the smoking process. Conventional smoke is an aerosol that forms from the pyrolysis of wood—usually hardwood [1]. Most pyrolysis occurs between 200 and 500 °C, which is attributed to the thermal degradation temperatures of the main components of hardwoods, specifically cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin [2]. Cellulose and hemicellulose form the majority of organic acids, linear and cyclic ketones, aldehydes, and furans, similar to products formed by heating sugar and starches [3,4,5]. On the other hand, lignin pyrolysis generates primarily phenolic compound derivates [6]. In addition, pyrolysis generates numerous other large organic molecules, including anhydrosugars, oligomers, and hydrocarbons, which comprise the complex tar phase [7,8].
Conventionally, smoke is generated within or near the smokehouse under conditions that pose challenges for consistent application. Consequently, manufacturers more commonly rely on smoke that has been condensed, known as condensed smoke or liquid smoke, which allows for more control and consistency [9,10]. Condensed smoke is frequently used to study smoke’s composition due to the ease of extraction, fractionation, and the addition of analytical standards [1,11].
Condensed smoke has been characterized as containing different chemical classes of compounds. Notably, the phenolic fractions within it exhibit the most pronounced aroma intensity [1]. Phenolic compounds like guaiacol, 4-methylguaiacol, and syringol are recognized as significant contributors to the aroma and flavor of smoke, although other phenolics, such as o-cresol, p-cresol, and 4-ethylguaiacol, have been demonstrated to influence both the intensity and character of the smoke [12]. Further studies on condensed smoke have enabled the identification of over 400 volatile compounds in smoke materials [10,13,14,15]. However, a comprehensive understanding of the specific compounds that contribute to the aroma characteristics of smoke materials remains lacking. The aromas of numerous smoked foods, including pork loin [16], fermented sausages [17], cheese [18], fish [12], and cured pork [19], have been investigated. However, the origin of the aroma compounds cannot be conclusively attributed to the smoke components rather than the food products themselves.
The objective of the present study was to identify the compounds that contribute to condensed hardwood’s smoke aroma. Condensed smoke was obtained from a pilot-scale rapid thermal pyrolysis generator and analyzed by aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA). The identification of aroma-active components in condensed smoke will enhance the understanding of the smoke flavor in finished products.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Identification of Aroma-Active Compounds

A total of thirty-nine odor-active regions were initially detected in the condensed smoke by GC-MS/O analysis, of which twenty-four were selected for further analysis based on a flavor dilution (FD) factor cut-off value of ≥4, which are shown in Table 1. The most frequent odor descriptors were buttery, floral, sweet–smoky, phenolic, and ashy. Subsequent mass spectrometry analysis identified most of the compounds associated with the odor-active region, with their identities confirmed using authentic standards. However, three odor regions were reported to contain co-eluting phenolic isomers. These isomers were not differentiated during GC-MS/O analysis on the DB-5 column due to similar linear retention index (LRI) values and odor characteristics and similar mass fragmentation patterns (Table 1). The phenolic compounds were successfully separated using a DB-WAX column, leading to the identification of three additional compounds and a final total of twenty-seven odorants.
All compounds identified (Table 1) have been previously reported as chemical components of wood smoke. However, in comparison to previous studies that conducted GC-O analysis on smoke or smoked foods [1,9,10,14,15,20,21], the current study revealed ten additional compounds detected as odorants, which included acetol, 2-methyl-2-cyclopentenone, acetoxyacetone, 3-methyl-2(5H)-furanone, 2,6-dimethylphenol, maltol, 2-ethylphenol, 2,5-dimethylphenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 3,4-dimethylphenol, and acetovanillone. Some of these odorant compounds have been reported in other samples, such as caramel [3], toasted rice [4], char-barrel-aged whisky [22], and vanilla [23].
In review, the smoke odorants detected comprised aldehydes, ketones, lactones, acids, and phenolics, which arise from the thermal breakdown of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin [24].
Table 1. Aroma compounds in condensed smoke with flavor dilution factor of ≥4.
Table 1. Aroma compounds in condensed smoke with flavor dilution factor of ≥4.
CompoundAroma DescriptorLRIFlavor Dilution
Factor
Smoke
Concentration
(μg/g ± SD)
Typical
Application
Concentration at 0.3% Dosage
(μg/g) a
Odor Threshold
in Water (μg/g)
Theoretical OAV b
(0.3% Dosage)
DB-5DB-WAX
2,3-Butanedionebuttery595977641377 ± 1304.20 ± 0.390.004 d1050
Acetic acidvinegar65314424273,890 ± 18,513821.7 ± 55.522 f37
Acetolsweet caramel69013153292,776 ± 5559278.4 ± 16.8100 e3
2,3-Pentanedionetoasted, buttery,
caramel
70810558159 ± 180.48 ± 0.050.02 e24
Butyric acidcheesy805166132837 ± 762.52 ± 0.230.05 f50
Furfuralnutty, brothy, caramel83114771631,650 ± 160595.1 ± 4.83 e32
Acetoxyacetonesour, dairy8621466642204 ± 1356.60 ± 0.3920 c<1
2-Methyl-2-cyclopentenonefloral, fruity, medicinal90513948823 ± 622.46 ± 0.194.4 c<1
2-Acetylfuranbuttery, sweet910152316362 ± 291.08 ± 0.0910 f<1
3-Methyl-2(5H)-furanonegreen, woody, soap972175081161 ± 733.48 ± 0.223.1 c1.1
o-Cresolgreen, pine, phenolic1051201241063 ± 743.30 ± 0.220.65 f5
p-Cresolburnt, plastic, clove1072 *209432869 ± 472.61 ± 0.1455 f<1
m-Cresolburnt, plastic, clove1072 *210332466 ± 301.41 ± 0.090.19 f7
Guaiacolclove, vanilla108818801282652 ± 1138.10 ± 0.330.012 d675
2,6-Dimethylphenolburnt, phenolic, ashy110819234119 ± 80.36 ± 0.020.4 g<1
Maltolsweet, cooked sugar11112027321139 ± 823.30 ± 0.252.5 e1.3
2-Ethylphenolashy11342078485 ± 50.26 ± 0.020.3 i<1
2,5-Dimethylphenolsweet burnt11462088432 ± 40.10 ± 0.010.4 g<1
2,4-Dimethylphenolburnt, smoky115420908692 ± 222.07 ± 0.070.5 j4
4-Ethylphenolashy1163 *218732226 ± 170.69 ± 0.050.021 j33
3-Ethylphenolashy1164 *21953276 ± 70.23 ± 0.0200.0017 j134
4-Methylguaiacoltoasted, vanilla, ashy1191 *1977321481 ± 794.50 ± 0.240.021 f214
3,4-Dimethylphenolsweet, ashy1191 *22353259 ± 50.18 ± 0.011.2 g<1
4-Ethylguaiacolsmoky, creosote127720508582 ± 421.74 ± 0.130.05 h35
Syringolashy, smoky13492283411,911 ± 57535.70 ± 1.711.85 f19
4-Methylsyringolwoody, vanilla, ashy14432369643353 ± 7110.20 ± 0.210.22 c46
Acetovanillonesweet, vanilla14872677162248 ± 1486.60 ± 0.451 k7
a—0.3% application rate represents a reasonable usage level in a final application such as brine, soup, or sauce; b—OAV is calculated by dividing the concentration by the odor threshold; c—threshold level was determined experimentally; d—Rychlik et al., 1998 [25]; e—Buttery et al., 1999 [4]; f—Leffingwell and associates [26]; g—Fenaroli 2010 [27]; h—Van Gemert 2011 [28]; i—Pang et al., 2019 [29]; j—Czerny 2008 [30]; k—Marcq and Schieberle 2015 [31]; * co-eluting compounds on DB-5 columns in detected odor-active regions.

2.2. Quantification of Odorants

The concentrations of the twenty-seven odorants ranged from 32 µg/g for 2,5 dimethylphenol to 270,000 μg/g for acetic acid (Table 1). Following acetic acid, the most prevalent compounds were acetol (92,000 µg/g), furfural (31,000 µg/g), and syringol (12,000 µg/g). Considering that the standard dosage of condensed smoke in a finished food product, like soup or brine, is roughly 0.3% w/w [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41], the concentration range at this dosage would fall between 0.0017 and 800 µg/g. The overall compound composition was in general agreement with those reported in smoke food products [10], with the notable exception of higher quantities of low-molecular-weight carbonyl compounds like 2,3-butanedione, 2,3-pentanedione, and 2-methyl-2-cyclopentenone, along with increased levels of phenolics such as acetovanillone. Condensed smoke ingredients typically undergo different processing steps—for example, concentration under a vacuum—which could result in the loss of low-molecular-weight compounds and explain some of the noted differences observed in the chemical composition with prior findings [10]. Furthermore, variations in the wood type utilized or the temperature of the thermal treatment for smoke production would also be expected to influence the smoke composition.

2.3. Formation of Aroma-Active Compounds from Hardwood

Phenolic compounds are formed from the pyrolysis of lignin, which consists of three types of phenylpropane monomer units, guaiacyl, syringol, and hydroxyphenyl [42]. In hardwood, monomer lignin units are primarily connected by β-ether linkages in the para-position to the hydroxyl group, as well as α-ether, β-aryl, and biphenyl linkages [6,43]. In general, ether linkages are the most susceptible to thermal degradation and can form into a variety of side chains, such as the ethyl ketone found in acetovanillone (2248 μg/g) and the alkyl substitutions found in 4-methylguaiacol (1481 μg/g), 4-ethylguaiacol (1277 μg/g), 4-methylsyringol (3353 μg/g), 4-ethylphenol (226 μg/g), and p-cresol (869 μg/g) [6]. Further removal of the side chain results in the formation of guaiacol (2652 μg/g) and syringol (11,911 μg/g) [6].
During pyrolysis, a secondary reaction converts the methoxy groups of guaiacol and syringol into methyl groups through a quinone methide intermediate [6]. This reaction more favorably occurs in the ortho-position and is responsible for the higher abundance of methyl substitutions in the ortho-position found in o-cresol (1063 μg/g), 2,6-dimethylphenol (119 μg/g), and 2,4-dimethylphenol (692 μg/g), as opposed to the meta-position substitutions to form m-cresol (466 μg/g), 3-ethyphenol (76 μg/g), and 2,5-dimethylphenol (32 μg/g).
The formation of carbonyl compounds in condensed smoke is primarily attributed to the carbohydrates present in the cellulose and hemicellulose of wood cell walls. The degradation of carbohydrates is evident through the dominant presence of sugar degradation products, including acetol (92,776 μg/g) and acetoxyacetone (2204 μg/g) [44], as well as acetic (273,890 μg/g) and butyric acid (837 μg/g) [45]. Furthermore, 2,3-butanedione (1377 μg/g) and 2,3-pentanedione (159 μg/g) can be formed through the reaction of sugar degradation products like hydroxypropanone or hydroxybutanone with formaldehyde [46]. Cyclic compounds such as furfural (31,650 μg/g), 2-acetylfuran (362 μg/g), and 3-methyl-2-(5H)-furanone (1161 μg/g), as well as maltol (1139 μg/g) and 2-methyl-2-cyclopentenone (823 μg/g), can be formed from the thermal dehydration of sugars during pyrolysis [44].

2.4. Determination of Odor Thresholds and Calculation of a Theoretical OAV

Odor threshold values are used in combination with compound concentrations to determine the odor activity value (OAV) to estimate odorants’ contributions to the aromas of food products [47]. The odor thresholds in water for the twenty-seven compounds are reported in Table 1; four were experimentally determined, namely 2-methyl-2-cyclopentenone (4.4 μg/g), 3-methyl-2(5H)-furanone (3.1 μg/g), 4-methyl-syringol (0.22 μg/g), and acetovanillone (1.0 μg/g). Based on a typical food application usage level (0.3% w/w), the corresponding concentrations of the twenty-seven odorants were compared with the corresponding threshold values, and this revealed that 2,3-butanedione (buttery), guaiacol (clove, vanilla), 4-methylguaiacol (toasted, vanilla, ashy), and 3-ethylphenol (ashy) had the highest OAVs, followed by 4-methylsyringol (burnt, plastic, clove) and butyric acid (cheesy). Therefore, these compounds were suggested to have a high contribution to the aroma profile of condensed smoke or aqueous smoke flavorings in food products. With the exception of 3-ethylphenol, these compounds are all frequently reported with high OAVs in other foods, including coffee [48,49], cheese [47,50], and meats [16,17]. Among the twenty-seven compounds, eight compounds (2-methyl-2-cyclopentenone, acetoxyacetone, 2-acetylfuran, 2,6-dimethylphenol, 2-ethylphenol, 2,5-dimethylphenol, p-cresol, and 3,4-dimethylphenol) were reported to be below the OAV, suggesting a negligible contribution to the aroma profile.
Interestingly, 3-ethylphenol (ashy) has only been reported once in hardwood smoke [10] or other smoked foods [17]. The low concentration of 3-ethylphenol (76 μg/g), the co-elution with the more abundant compound 4-ethylphenol (226 μg/g) in the DB-5 column, and the nearly identical MS fractionation pattern likely contributed to the low detection frequency in the prior literature [10,17].

2.5. Descriptive Analysis

The sensory descriptive analysis revealed that the condensed smoke consisted of eight main attributes (ashy, burnt–sulfurous, creosote, green–woody, pungent, smoky, spicy–sweet, woody), which are illustrated in Figure 1, along with the comparative analysis of the aroma recombination model. No significant differences were reported in all eight attributes between the samples (α = 0.05), indicating that the condensed smoke was adequately characterized by the 27 compounds included in the recombinant model. Replicates and the panelist by sample interactions were not significant, indicating good reproducibility and attribute concept alignment (Table 2).
The aroma attributes of phenolic compounds are known to be complex. In model smoke systems, the synthetic integration of the odorants has been reported to contribute to new attributes of the overall smoke aroma [51,52]. In the current study, a detailed examination of the odor properties of each compound revealed discernible patterns. Methoxylated phenolic compounds such as guaiacol (clove, vanilla), 4-methylguaiacol (woody, vanilla, ashy), 4-ethylguaiacol (smoky, creosote), syringol (ashy, smoky), and 4-methylsyringol (woody, vanilla, ashy) likely contribute significantly to the smoky character. Alkyl phenols, including 3-ethylphenol (ashy), 4-ethylphenol (ashy), 2,4-dimethylphenol (burnt, smoky), and m-cresol (burnt, plastic, clove), may impart burnt–sulfurous, ashy, and creosote notes. The distinctive green woody and woody aromas can likely be attributed to various compound classes, including 2-methyl-2-cyclopentenone (floral, fruity, medicinal), 3-methyl-2(5H)-furanone (green, woody, soapy), o-cresol (green, pine, phenolic), and 4-methyl-syringol (woody, vanilla, ashy). Similarly, the spicy–sweet aroma likely resulted from a composite mixture of compound classes contributing to the sweet characteristics associated with brown spices and brown sugar, including furfural (nutty, brothy, caramel), 2,3-butanedione (buttery), 2,3-pentanedione (toasted, buttery, caramel), maltol (cooked sugar, sweet), guaiacol (clove, vanilla), and acetovanillone (sweet, vanilla). Furthermore, the pungency of the samples is likely enhanced by acids, particularly acetic acid.
In conclusion, 27 odorants were identified as contributors to the aroma characteristics of condensed hardwood smoke. Gaining a deeper understanding of the smoke flavoring components provides opportunities to improve the quality of smoke-flavored ingredients and products.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Condensed Smoke Samples

A condensed smoke sample was generated by Red Arrow Products (Manitowoc, WI, USA). A mixture of hardwood sawdust was pyrolyzed on a lab-scale rapid thermal pyrolysis smoke generator. The resulting condensed smoke, obtained without additional dilution or processing, was in the form of an aqueous pyrolysis product with a concentration of 70° Brix and a pH of 3.4. Subsequently, the samples were preserved at 4 °C in opaque high-density polyethylene bottles until analysis.

3.2. Chemicals

Compounds 2,3-butanedione, 2,3-pentanedione, hydroxyacetone, 2-methyl-cyclopentenone, acetic acid, 1-acetoxyacetone, 2-furaldehyde (furfural), 2-acetylfuran, butyric acid, 3-methyl-2(5H)-furanone, 2-methoxyphenol (guaiacol), 2,6-dimethylphenol, 2-methoxy-4-methylphenol (creosol), maltol, 2-methylphenol (o-cresol), 2-methoxy-4-ethylphenol, 2-ethylphenol, 2,5-dimethylphenol, 2,4-dimethylphenol, 4-methylphenol (p-cresol), 3-methylphenol (m-cresol), 4-ethylphenol, 3-ethylphenol, 3,4-dimethylphenol, 2,6-dimethoxyphenol (syringol), 3,5-dimethoxytoluene (4-methyl-syringol), acetovanillone, and 2-methyl-3-heptanone were purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA), with purity higher than 99%. Dichloromethane (99.9%) was obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, MA, USA). Alkane ladder (C7–C30) was purchased from Agilent Technologies (Santa Clara, CA, USA).

3.3. Preparation of Condensed Smoke Samples for Chemical Analysis

Condensed smoke (0.250 g) was diluted into 10 mL of dichloromethane and sonicated in a GT sonic (40 KHz, 25 °C, 30 min) until a clear amber-colored solution was formed. This solution was then directly transferred into 2 mL amber glass GC vials and stored at −80 °C until analysis.

3.4. Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry–Olfactometry (GC/MS-O)

Volatile analyses were carried out on an Agilent 6890N gas chromatograph system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) coupled with an Agilent 5973 series mass spectrometer detector (MSD) (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and an olfactometry detection port (ODP 2) (Gerstel, Linthicum Heights, MD, USA). Helium was used as a carrier gas and held at a constant flow of 1.6 mL/min, and the effluent was split 1:1 after the GC column between the MSD and sniffing port using a capillary splitter and two deactivated fused silica columns (1 m × 0.1 mm i.d. for MS and 1 m × 0.15 mm i.d. for ODP). The ODP and MS transfer line heaters were held at 250 °C. One uL of the condensed smoke sample was injected into a 250 °C injector within a 1:10 split ratio. The GC was equipped with a DB-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.25 μm) (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or a DB-WAX column (60 m × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.25 μm) (Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA). For the DB-5 column, the oven temperature program was as follows: the initial oven temperature was set at 40 °C for 2 min and then ramped to 250 °C (4 °C/min) and held for 8 min. For the DB-Wax column, the oven temperature was set at 40 °C for 2 min and then ramped to 180 °C (5 °C/min), ramped to 225 °C (3 °C/min), ramped to 250 °C (10 °C/min), and held for 5 min. Mass spectra were recorded at 70 eV ionization energy. The MS source temperature was set at 280 °C, the mass range was 30–350 amu, and the MS quadrupole temperature was held at 150 °C. The identification of the odor-active compounds was confirmed by comparing the mass fragmentation patterns, linear retention indices (LRI) in the two columns, and odor descriptors with those exhibited by authentic standards. The LRI values for the compounds were calculated from the retention times of n-alkanes from a C6 to C30 mixture as an external reference.

3.5. Aroma Extract Dilution Analysis (AEDA)

The condensed smoke was serially diluted by half-volume in dichloromethane until no further aromas were detected by GC-O to perform the AEDA. Each dilution was subjected to GC-O analysis by four experienced panelists. The panelists were familiarized with the smoke sample aromas and attribute definitions in a preparatory training session. A DB-5 MS column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.25 μm) was used according to the parameters listed in Section 3.4. The FD factors were determined as the last dilution at which at least two assessors were able to detect the odorant in both replicates.

3.6. Quantification of Odor-Active Compounds

The quantification of all odorants with FD ≥ 4 was achieved by a standard addition curve. Condensed smoke was diluted by adding 0.250 g to 10 mL of dichloromethane spiked with authentic standards for each of the analytes, ranging from 1 to 5 times the approximate concentration. The internal standard 2-methyl-3-heptanone (1 μL, 10 mg/L) was added to each sample. Each concentration level was analyzed in triplicate. Samples were held at 4 °C until analysis. One μL of each sample was injected into an Agilent 7890B GC system with Agilent MassHunter Workstation B.07.05 Software (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with a DB-5MS or DB-WAX column using a split/splitless injector set to split 10:1. The inlet temperature was set to 250 °C. Helium gas was used as a carrier with a flow rate of 1.2 mL/min. To accommodate differences in compound concentration ranges and avoid saturation at the detector, the samples were diluted from 1:10 to 1:100 in dichloromethane before injection.
For the DB-5 MS capillary column (60 m × 0.25 mm i.d.; 0.25 μm film thickness, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA), the temperature program was as follows: the initial oven temperature was set at 40 °C and then ramped to 70 °C (3 °C/min), 120 °C (5 °C/min), and 300 °C (10 °C/min) and held for 4 min, and the capillary transfer line to the MSD was set to 300 °C. The DB-WAX capillary column (60 m × 0.25 mm i.d.; 0.25 μm film thickness; Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) temperature program was as follows: the oven temperature was set at 40 °C and then ramped to 180 °C (5 °C/min), 225 °C (3 °C/min), and 250 °C (10 °C/min) and held for 5 min, and the capillary transfer line to the MSD was set to 250 °C.
The MS was operated in MRM mode (Agilent 7010B GC-QQQ). The quadrupole temperatures were set at 150 °C and the source temperature was 250 °C. MRM methods were optimized by the injection of pure standards by the following procedure. Each standard was first analyzed in scan mode (30–350 m/z) to identify precursor ions. Then, each precursor ion was fragmented in the second quadrupole using variable collision energies (5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 eV). Optimal product ions and collision energies were selected based on abundance and selectivity for each standard (Table 3). In the case of 2,3-butanedione, a single-ion monitoring method was used. Compounds were quantified using a 5-point standard addition curve in triplicate (r2 > 0.97), in which the negative of the x-intercept represented the compound concentration in the non-spiked sample.

3.7. Odor Threshold Determination for the Selected Aroma Compounds

Sensory odor threshold values for 2-methyl-2-cyclopentenone, acetoxyacetone, 3-methyl-2-(5H)-furanone, and 4-methyl-syringol were determined experimentally using a forced-choice ascending concentration series method of limits from ASTM E679-19 [53]. Fifteen panelists (ages 22–45, 5 males, 10 females) were recruited from the Ohio State University Department of Food Science and Technology (IRB # 2021E0700). The panelists evaluated a series of triangle tests that contained the compound of interest in water alongside two distilled water blanks. Five mL of each sample or water was presented in 60 mL amber bottles, which were prepared no more than 24 h before the assessments and then stored at 4 °C. Two hours before the analysis, the bottles were placed at room temperature to equilibrate. The compound was presented in ascending order; seven dilutions were assessed for each series. The standards were diluted such that, in the final set, the sample aroma was obvious to all panelists, and the first set was indiscernible. The highest concentrations of the standards were 33 μg/g for 4-methyl-syringol, 100 μg/g for 2-methyl-2(5H)-furanone, 33 μg/g for acetoxyacetone, and 300 μg/g for 2-methyl-2-cyclopentenone. The samples underwent serial dilution by a factor of 3 (1:3, 1:9, 1:27, … 1:2187). The panelists were instructed to smell each sample set, identify the different samples, and comment on any aroma perceived. All samples were evaluated in duplicate over two sessions during the same day.
The best estimate threshold (BET) for each panelist was calculated as the geometric mean of the concentration of the last incorrect set and the subsequent correct set. The overall BET was reported as the geometric mean of all panelists’ individual BETs.

3.8. Sensory Descriptive Analysis

The descriptive analysis was completed by an external panel at Kerry Ingredient (Beloit, WI), with over 1000 h of sensory evaluation experience and over 100 h focused on condensed smoke and smoked products (ages 28–65, 1 male and 6 females). In preparation for the analysis, the panel had previously established a lexicon for smoked products based on the work of Jaffe et al. [54]. This lexicon was then refined during three separate three-hour training sessions to identify the most relevant descriptors (8) for the evaluation of condensed smoke samples (see Table 4). The lexicon was validated via a correlation matrix to ensure no overlap between the attributes in XLSTAT (Addinsoft, Paris, France).
A recombinant model was created by dissolving authentic standards in dichloromethane at the concentrations reported in Table 1. The condensed smoke sample was prepared as described in Section 3.3. Both the condensed smoke and the recombinant samples were diluted to equal concentrations for the sensory evaluation, which was 1:40 of the original condensed smoke.
Twenty uL of each sample was portioned on a paper aroma strip, which was subsequently air-dried for 15 s to remove any residual solvent before placement in a 50 mL amber bottle. Samples were kept in the dark at 4 °C for less than 24 h and then equilibrated at room temperature for 20 min before evaluation. Samples were labeled with three-digit codes and the serving order was randomized. All references were available to the panelists during the evaluation. The panelists rated the intensity of each attribute using a 15-point scale anchored with 1 as “just recognizable” and 15 as “extremely intense”. The samples were evaluated in duplicate over two days. Responses were recorded using EyeQuestion (Logic8 B.V., Elst, The Netherlands).
The panelist performance and data analysis were evaluated using a linear regression model to investigate the three independent variables (samples, panelists, and replicates), as well as interactions for each attribute (sample*panelist, sample*replicate, and panelist*replicate), using the IBM SPSS Statistics program version 28 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA).

Author Contributions

T.V., data curation, investigation, formal analysis, validation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation; E.T., data curation, formal analysis, validation, visualization, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing; D.G.P., conceptualization, data curation, funding acquisition, methodology, formal analysis, project administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualization, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is funded by the Flavor Research and Education Center at the Ohio State University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

Descriptive analysis panel at Kerry Ingredients and Technology. Paola Forero Arcila, Theresa Pham, Brianne Linne, GC-O panelists.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Maga, J.A. The Flavor Chemistry of Wood Smoke. Food Rev. Int. 1987, 3, 139–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Jakab, E. Analytical Techniques as a Tool to Understand the Reaction Mechanism. In Recent Advances in Thermo-Chemical Conversion of Biomass; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 75–108. ISBN 978-0-444-63289-0. [Google Scholar]
  3. Paravisini, L.; Gourrat-Pernin, K.; Gouttefangeas, C.; Moretton, C.; Nigay, H.; Dacremont, C.; Guichard, E. Identification of Compounds Responsible for the Odorant Properties of Aromatic Caramel: Identification of the Odorant Compounds in Aromatic Caramel. Flavour Fragr. J. 2012, 27, 424–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Buttery, R.G.; Orts, W.J.; Takeoka, G.R.; Nam, Y. Volatile Flavor Components of Rice Cakes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 4353–4356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kim, S.P.; Kang, M.Y.; Park, J.C.; Nam, S.H.; Friedman, M. Rice Hull Smoke Extract Inactivates Salmonella Typhimurium in Laboratory Media and Protects Infected Mice against Mortality. J. Food Sci. 2012, 77, M80–M85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kawamoto, H. Lignin Pyrolysis Reactions. J. Wood Sci. 2017, 63, 117–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kawamoto, H.; Murayama, M.; Saka, S. Pyrolysis Behavior of Levoglucosan as an Intermediate in Cellulose Pyrolysis: Polymerization into Polysaccharide as a Key Reaction to Carbonized Product Formation. J. Wood Sci. 2003, 49, 469–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Guillen, M.D.; Ibargoitia, M.L. GC/MS Analysis of Lignin Monomers, Dimers and Trimers in Liquid Smoke Flavourings. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1999, 79, 1889–1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Simon, R.; de la Calle, B.; Palme, S.; Meier, D.; Anklam, E. Composition and Analysis of Liquid Smoke Flavouring Primary Products. J. Sep. Sci. 2005, 28, 871–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Giri, A.; Zelinkova, Z.; Wenzl, T. Experimental Design-Based Isotope-Dilution SPME-GC/MS Method Development for the Analysis of Smoke Flavouring Products. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2017, 34, 2069–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Guillén, M.D.; Ibargoitia, M.L. Influence of the Moisture Content on the Composition of the Liquid Smoke Produced in the Pyrolysis Process of Fagus sylvatica L. Wood. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 4126–4136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cardinal, M.; Cornet, J.; Serot, T.; Baron, R. Effects of the Smoking Process on Odour Characteristics of Smoked Herring (Clupea harengus) and Relationships with Phenolic Compound Content. Food Chem. 2006, 96, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Maga, J.A. Smoke in Food Processing, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1988; ISBN 978-1-315-89754-7. [Google Scholar]
  14. Guillen, M.D.; Manzanos, M.J.; Zabala, L. Study of a Commercial Liquid Smoke Flavoring by Means of Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995, 43, 463–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Montazeri, N.; Oliveira, A.C.M.; Himelbloom, B.H.; Leigh, M.B.; Crapo, C.A. Chemical Characterization of Commercial Liquid Smoke Products. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 1, 102–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Kosowska, M.; Majcher, M.A.; Jeleń, H.H.; Fortuna, T. Key Aroma Compounds in Smoked Cooked Loin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 3683–3690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Söllner, K.; Schieberle, P. Decoding the Key Aroma Compounds of a Hungarian-Type Salami by Molecular Sensory Science Approaches. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 4319–4327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Majcher, M.A.; Jeleń, H.H. Key Odorants of Oscypek, a Traditional Polish Ewe’s Milk Cheese. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 4932–4937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pu, D.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Sun, B.; Ren, F.; Chen, H.; Tang, Y. Characterization of the Key Aroma Compounds in Traditional Hunan Smoke-Cured Pork Leg (Larou, THSL) by Aroma Extract Dilution Analysis (AEDA), Odor Activity Value (OAV), and Sensory Evaluation Experiments. Foods 2020, 9, 413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guillén, M.D.; Ibargoitia, M.L. New Components with Potential Antioxidant and Organoleptic Properties, Detected for the First Time in Liquid Smoke Flavoring Preparations. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 1276–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guillén, M.D.; Manzanos, M.J.; Ibargoitia, M.L. Carbohydrate and Nitrogenated Compounds in Liquid Smoke Flavorings. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 2395–2403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Poisson, L.; Schieberle, P. Characterization of the Key Aroma Compounds in an American Bourbon Whisky by Quantitative Measurements, Aroma Recombination, and Omission Studies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 5820–5826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shigeto, A.; Hachisuka, S.; Kumazawa, K. Characterization of Potent Odorants in Three Different Cultivars (Madagascar, Comoro and Tahiti) of Vanilla Bean by Aroma Extract Dilution Analysis (AEDA). Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2016, 22, 811–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gu, X.; Ma, X.; Li, L.; Liu, C.; Cheng, K.; Li, Z. Pyrolysis of Poplar Wood Sawdust by TG-FTIR and Py-GC/MS. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2013, 102, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rychlik, M.; Schieberle, P.; Grosch, W. Compilation of Odor Thresholds, Odor Qualities and Retention Indices of Key Food Odorants; Deutche Forschungsanstalt für Lebensmittelchemie: Garching, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  26. Leffingwell, J.C.; Leffingwell, D. Available online: http://www.leffingwell.com/odorthre.htm (accessed on 27 January 2025).
  27. Fenaroli, G. Fenaroli’s Handbook of Flavor Ingredients, 6th ed.; Burdock, G.A., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; pp. 2023–2025. [Google Scholar]
  28. Van Gemert, L.J. Flavour thresholds: Compilations of Flavour Threshold Values in Water and Other Media, 2nd ed.; Oliemans Punter & Partner: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  29. Pang, X.; Yu, W.; Cao, C.; Yuan, X.; Qiu, J.; Kong, F.; Wu, J. Comparison of potent odorants in raw and ripened pu-erh tea infusions based on odor activity value calculation and multivariate analysis: Understanding the role of pile fermentation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 13139–13149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Czerny, M.; Christlbauer, M.; Christlbauer, M.; Fischer, A.; Granvogl, M.; Hammer, M.; Hartl, C.; Hernandez, N.M.; Schieberle, P. Re-investigation on odour thresholds of key food aroma compounds and development of an aroma language based on odour qualities of defined aqueous odorant solutions. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2008, 228, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Marcq, P.; Schieberle, P. Characterization of the key aroma compounds in a commercial amontillado sherry wine by means of the sensomics approach. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 4761–4770. [Google Scholar]
  32. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF). Scientific Opinion on Safety of Smoke Flavour—Primary Product–AM 01. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF). Scientific Opinion on the Safety of Smoke Flavour Primary Product Scansmoke R909. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF). Scientific Opinion on Safety of Smoke Flavour Primary Product—TRADISMOKETM A MAX. EFSA J. 2010, 8, 1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF). Scientific Opinion on the Safety of Smoke Flavour Primary Product Zesti Smoke Code 10-2011 Update. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Safety of Smoke Flavour Primary Product—Scansmoke PB 1110. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Safety of Smoke Flavour Primary Product—Scansmoke SEF7525. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Safety of Smoke Flavour Primary Product Smoke Concentrate 809045. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Safety of Smoke Flavour Primary Product—SmokEz C-10. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Safety of Smoke Flavour Primary Product—SmokEz Enviro 23. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Safety of Smoke Flavour Primary Product Unismoke. EFSA J. 2009, 7, 983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rowell, R.; Pettersen, R.; Tshabalala, M. Cell Wall Chemistry. In Handbook of Wood Chemistry and Wood Composites, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; pp. 33–72. ISBN 978-1-4398-5380-1. [Google Scholar]
  43. Adler, E. Lignin Chemistry: Past, Present and Future. Wood Sci. Technol. 1977, 11, 169–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fagerson, I.S. Thermal Degradation of Carbohydrates; a Review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1969, 17, 747–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ginz, M.; Balzer, H.H.; Bradbury, A.G.W.; Maier, H.G. Formation of Aliphatic Acids by Carbohydrate Degradation during Roasting of Coffee. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2000, 211, 404–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Fricke, K.; Schieberle, P. Characterization of the Key Aroma Compounds in a Commercial Milk Chocolate by Application of the Sensomics Approach. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 12086–12095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Grosch, W. Determination of Potent Odourants in Foods by Aroma Extract Dilution Analysis (AEDA) and Calculation of Odour Activity Values (OAVs). Flavour Fragr. J. 1994, 9, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Akiyama, M.; Murakami, K.; Hirano, Y.; Ikeda, M.; Iwatsuki, K.; Wada, A.; Tokuno, K.; Onishi, M.; Iwabuchi, H. Characterization of Headspace Aroma Compounds of Freshly Brewed Arabica Coffees and Studies on a Characteristic Aroma Compound of Ethiopian Coffee. J. Food Sci. 2008, 73, C335–C346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Grosch, W. Flavour of Coffee. A Review. Nahrung 1998, 42, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Curioni, P.M.G.; Bosset, J.O. Key Odorants in Various Cheese Types as Determined by Gas Chromatography-Olfactometry. Int. Dairy J. 2002, 12, 959–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, H.; Chambers, E., IV. Sensory Characteristics of Various Concentrations of Phenolic Compounds Potentially Associated with Smoked Aroma in Foods. Molecules 2018, 23, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Wang, H.; Chambers, E.; Kan, J. Sensory Characteristics of Combinations of Phenolic Compounds Potentially Associated with Smoked Aroma in Foods. Molecules 2018, 23, 1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. E18 Committee. Practice for Determination of Odor and Taste Thresholds By a Forced-Choice Ascending Concentration Series Method of Limits; ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  54. Jaffe, T.R.; Wang, H.; Chambers, E. Determination of a Lexicon for the Sensory Flavor Attributes of Smoked Food Products. J. Sens. Stud. 2017, 32, e12262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Sensory profile of condensed smoke and recombination model (N = 7, in duplicate). No significant differences were found between samples for all attributes (α = 0.05, linear discrimination model with replicate and panelist interactions).
Figure 1. Sensory profile of condensed smoke and recombination model (N = 7, in duplicate). No significant differences were found between samples for all attributes (α = 0.05, linear discrimination model with replicate and panelist interactions).
Molecules 30 00720 g001
Table 2. Panelist main effects and interaction terms.
Table 2. Panelist main effects and interaction terms.
AshyBurnt–SulfurousCreosoteGreen–WoodyPungentSmokySpicy–SweetWoodyOverall
p-valuesSample0.0880.9170.0830.2130.3080.4780.8420.2070.638
Replicate0.6970.0860.0830.9550.2690.6660.4340.2930.336
Sample by Panelist0.6030.8550.0830.4140.2180.7980.2530.9090.506
Panelist by Rep0.1990.3680.7540.9550.8970.8851.0000.2930.958
N = 7 in duplicate. Statistics are based on a linear discrimination model incorporating the sample, the replicate, and the panelist as main effects as well as interactions. Significance was assessed at α = 0.05.
Table 3. Optimized MRM parameters of aroma-active compounds identified in condensed smoke.
Table 3. Optimized MRM parameters of aroma-active compounds identified in condensed smoke.
CompoundPrecursor Ion (m/z)Product Ion (m/z)CE (eV)
QuantifierQualifier
2,3-Butanedione *-8643-
2,3-Pentanedione10057435
Acetol7443-5
2-Methyl-2-cyclopentenone9667535
Acetic acid60454310
Acetoxyacetone8643-5
Furfural96396725
2-Acetylfuran11095395
Butyric acid7355455
3-Methyl-2(5H)-furanone9869415
Guaiacol1241098115
2,6-Dimethylphenol1221077715
4-Methylguaiacol1381239515
Maltol126719725
o-Cresol1081077915
4-Ethylguaiacol15213712215
2-Ethylphenol107777915
2,5-Dimethylphenol1221077715
2,4-Dimethylphenol1221077715
p-Cresol1081077915
m-Cresol1081077915
4-Ethylphenol107777915
3-Ethylphenol107777915
3,4-Dimethylphenol1221077715
Syringol15413911115
4-Methyl-syringol1681531255
Acetovanillone16615112315
* 2,3-Butanedione was quantified in single-ion monitoring (SIM) mode.
Table 4. Aroma attributes with definitions and references used for descriptive analysis of condensed smoke samples.
Table 4. Aroma attributes with definitions and references used for descriptive analysis of condensed smoke samples.
AttributeDefinitionReference
AshyThe aromatics associated with the residual of burnt products and dirty ashtrays.Ghirardelli 100% cocoa
Burnt–sulfurousThe dark, heavy, slightly sharp, and pungent notes of burning, skunk, or rubber or with the charring or burning of food.Starbucks dark roast whole bean coffee, espresso roast, 100% arabica
CreosoteTarry and phenolic aroma associated with smoke and solvents.Medicasp coal tar gel shampoo
Green–woodyThe aromatics associated with green wood, unseasoned wood, young branches, or saplings.Grape stems, red seedless table grapes
PungentA strong, penetrating aroma or flavor resulting in a physically penetrating sensation in the nasal cavity.Nakano rice vinegar
SmokyMellow and well-balanced, hardwood smoke notes.McCormick Grill Mates mesquite seasoning
Spicy–sweetBrown spice or sweet spice; sweet, brown, such as clove, cinnamon, nutmeg, and allspice; baking spices.Tones ground allspice
WoodyWood notes characteristic of bark, pits, seeds, or trees.Great Value chopped walnuts
OverallIntensity of overall aroma from the sample. None
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vazquez, T.; Tello, E.; Peterson, D.G. Identification of the Key Aroma Compounds in Condensed Hardwood Smoke. Molecules 2025, 30, 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30030720

AMA Style

Vazquez T, Tello E, Peterson DG. Identification of the Key Aroma Compounds in Condensed Hardwood Smoke. Molecules. 2025; 30(3):720. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30030720

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vazquez, Timothy, Edisson Tello, and Devin G. Peterson. 2025. "Identification of the Key Aroma Compounds in Condensed Hardwood Smoke" Molecules 30, no. 3: 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30030720

APA Style

Vazquez, T., Tello, E., & Peterson, D. G. (2025). Identification of the Key Aroma Compounds in Condensed Hardwood Smoke. Molecules, 30(3), 720. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30030720

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop