Next Article in Journal
Preparation of a Breadfruit Flour Bar
Next Article in Special Issue
Volatile Composition of Essential Oils from Different Aromatic Herbs Grown in Mediterranean Regions of Spain
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Turmeric Powder Adulterated with Metanil Yellow Using FT-Raman and FT-IR Spectroscopy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Changes in Volatile and Non-Volatile Flavor Chemicals of “Valencia” Orange Juice over the Harvest Seasons
Article Menu

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Foods 2016, 5(2), 35;

Effects of Matrix Composition on Detection Threshold Estimates for Methyl Anthranilate and 2-Aminoacetophenone

Sensory Evaluation Center, College of Agricultural Sciences, the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 USA
Department of Food Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, the Pennslyvania State University, University Park, PA 16802 USA
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Angel A. Carbonell-Barrachina
Received: 17 February 2016 / Revised: 30 April 2016 / Accepted: 11 May 2016 / Published: 17 May 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Flavour Volatiles of Foods)
Full-Text   |   PDF [924 KB, uploaded 17 May 2016]   |  


Conceptually, a detection threshold represents the lowest concentration at which an individual or a group of individuals can reliably perceive a given stimulus, with a commonly used operational definition of 50% performance above chance. Estimated detection thresholds (DTs), however, are often reported in the literature with little attention given to the matrix in which the stimuli were evaluated. Here, we highlight the influence of matrix effects on DTs for two odor-active compounds commonly found in Vitis Labrusca wines. Differences in orthonasal DTs for methyl anthranilate (MA) and 2-aminoacetophenone (2AAP) in water, a model wine system, and wine were demonstrated using a within-subject design and forced choice (i.e., criterion free) psychophysical methods. Six sample triads, each containing two blanks and one spiked sample, were presented to participants with the instructions to choose the “different” sample, and this was repeated in different matrices (water, model wine, and wine). The estimated DTs for both compounds were significantly lower in water versus the model wine system and wine. This finding recapitulates the strong need to carefully consider the nature of the delivery matrix when determining and comparing threshold estimates across studies. Additionally, data from prior reports have suggested DTs for MA and 2AAP may differ by two orders of magnitude in spite of their structural similarity. We failed to confirm this difference here: although 2AAP thresholds were somewhat lower than MA thresholds, differences were much smaller than what had been suggested previously. This, again, emphasizes the need to make comparisons within the same individuals, using appropriate methods with sufficient numbers of participants. View Full-Text
Keywords: detection threshold; matrix effects; orthonasal olfaction; wine aroma; ascending forced-choice detection threshold; matrix effects; orthonasal olfaction; wine aroma; ascending forced-choice

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material


Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Perry, D.M.; Hayes, J.E. Effects of Matrix Composition on Detection Threshold Estimates for Methyl Anthranilate and 2-Aminoacetophenone. Foods 2016, 5, 35.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Foods EISSN 2304-8158 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top