Access to this full-text is provided by Frontiers.
Content available from Frontiers in Psychology
This content is subject to copyright.
Frontiers in Psychology 01 frontiersin.org
Odor perception of
aromatherapy essential oils with
dierent chemical types:
Influence of gender and two
cultural characteristics
Jie Chen
1,2, Nan Zhang
1,2*, Shichun Pei
1,2 and Lei Yao
1,2*
1 School of Design, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China, 2 Aromatic Plant R&D Center,
Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
Olfactory perception, and especially aective responses of odors, is highly
flexible, but some mechanisms involved in this flexibility remain to beelucidated.
This study investigated the odor perceptions of several essential oils used in
aromatherapy with emotion regulation functions among college students. The
influences of people’s characteristics including gender, hometown region,
and fragrance usage habit on odor perception were further discussed. Odor
perception of nine essential oils, which can bedivided into the ester-alcohol
type (e.g., lavender oil) and terpene type (e.g., lemon oil) were evaluated
under three odor concentrations. The results indicated that chemical type,
but not concentration, significantly influenced the odor perception and there
was no interaction between the two factors in this study. The arousal and
emotional perception scores of odors with terpene-type oil were significantly
higher than odors with ester-alcohol type. In terms of people’s characteristics,
participants from the southern Yangtze river gave a higher familiarity rating
to almost all of these odors. The habits of fragrance usage also significantly
influenced some of the odors’ subjective intensity and emotional perception
ratings. However, there were no significant gender dierences in most of the
odor perceptions. In addition, familiarity and pleasantness were positively
correlated, and emotional perception and subjective intensity also showed a
weak correlation. These results suggested that users’ cultural characteristics
could beconsidered to beimportant factors that aect the essential oil’s odor
perception in aromatherapy.
KEYWORDS
odor perception, aective responses, aromatherapy essential oils, characteristics,
region, fragrance usage habits
Introduction
Olfactory perception is known to behighly exible and is related to the age, gender,
cultural background of the perceiver, the environment in which the odor is perceived or
the characteristics of the odorant itself like its chemical composition or its concentration.
e olfactory (Delplanque etal., 2008) environments inuence people’s emotions and the
TYPE Original Research
PUBLISHED 10 November 2022
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
OPEN ACCESS
EDITED BY
Per Møller,
University of Copenhagen,
Denmark
REVIEWED BY
Monique A. Smeets,
Utrecht University,
Netherlands
Ilja Croijmans,
Radboud University,
Netherlands
Paul Alan Arkin Alvarado Garcia,
Cesar Vallejo University, Peru
*CORRESPONDENCE
Nan Zhang
fxzwzhangnan@sjtu.edu.cn
Lei Yao
yaolei@sjtu.edu.cn
SPECIALTY SECTION
This article was submitted
to Emotion Science,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
RECEIVED 20 July 2022
ACCEPTED 25 October 2022
PUBLISHED 10 November 2022
CITATION
Chen J, Zhang N, Pei S and Yao L (2022)
Odor perception of aromatherapy essential
oils with dierent chemical types: Influence
of gender and two cultural characteristics.
Front. Psychol. 13:998612.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
COPYRIGHT
© 2022 Chen, Zhang, Pei and Yao. This is
an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (CC BY). The use,
distribution or reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original
author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are
credited and that the original publication in
this journal is cited, in accordance with
accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted
which does not comply with these terms.
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 02 frontiersin.org
connection between olfaction and emotion is particularly close.
In the olfactory process, odor molecules enter the nasal cavity and
attach to the cilia of olfactory receptors in the olfactory epithelium
(Mackay-Sim etal., 2006). en the guanine nucleotide-binding
protein (G-protein) coupled receptors are activated and electrical
signals are generated. Electrical signals are then transmitted to the
brain via the olfactory bulb and higher olfactory cortex by
olfactory sensory neurons (Sell, 2006; Angelucci etal., 2014).
ese electrical signals further aect the limbic system, which is
closely related to emotion regulation (Laurent and Gilles, 2002).
erefore, essential oils, perfumes and incenses have been used
for self-adornment, and modication of the living environment
since ancient times.
In recent years, essential oils have been increasingly used to
improve people’s olfactory environment for their naturalness and
possible ecacy in improving mood. A study of older adults
found that aer inhaling drops of 1.5% lavender oils for 30 nights,
statistically signicant improvement occurred in the scores of
depression, anxiety, and stress-scale (Ebrahimi et al., 2021).
Inhalation of bergamot oil was also found to reduce the salivary
alpha-amylase level and scores on the state–trait anxiety
inventory (Watanabe et al., 2015). However, aromachology
research has found that odor subjective perception was relevant
to the possible impact of odor (Herz, 2009). For example, the
degree of odor pleasantness would aect the emotional changes
of the subjects (Villemure et al., 2003; Burnett etal., 2004).
Essential oils are composed of various volatile chemical
components, which are mainly classied as terpenes, esters,
alcohols, etc. e constituent dierences lead to the aroma type
dierences. Meanwhile, due to individual dierences, people have
dierent perceptions of odors, which may inuence the potential
eects of those functional odors.
Many factors can aect odor sensory evaluation. In terms of
the odor itself, both type and concentration are important. Odor
classication relies mainly on the classication of objects as
odorant sources (Dubois, 2000), such as oral odor, fruit odor,
peppermint odor, etc. Ba etal. (Ba and Kang, 2019) found that the
mean scores of olfactory comfort and odor familiarity for food
odors were higher than those for plant odors, and both elevated
with increased concentration. However, the scores of the
subjective intensity of dierent odors at three concentrations did
not dier signicantly in this study. Odors can also beclassied
according to their chemical composition. As weall know, most of
the odors in the environment are made up of various monomeric
compounds, with terpenes, esters, and alcohols being the main
categories. Of the ten most common single compounds in oral
odor identied so far, ve are terpenes (limonene, etc.), three are
alcohols (linalool, etc.), and one is an ester (methyl salicylate;
Knudsen et al., 2006). e terpene-type odors and the ester-
alcohol type odors also play an important role in food odors,
which seem to comprise a category of particular importance to
humans. A study on the odorant hedonic value of 23 monomeric
compounds found that isoamyl acetate and geraniol had higher
pleasantness and familiarity scores than limonene, while limonene
had a relatively low score of subjective intensity among all
compounds (Chalencon etal., 2022).
e odor information like verbal labels also inuences people’s
judgment of odors (Sorokowska etal., 2015a), negative labels had
no eect on intensity ratings but would aect the subject’s
preference for the odors (Zellner etal., 2014). Some studies have
conrmed the existence of the halo eect of natural ingredient
claims (Apaolaza etal., 2014). In addition, the pleasantness ratings
of odors were found to bemodulated by the knowledge of their
identity due to prior experience and this relationship might
be more evident in unpleasant odors (Martinec Novakova
etal., 2015).
In terms of individual dierences, biological makeup, personal
experience, and the environment have also been shown to
inuence odor sensory evaluation (Majid etal., 2017). ere is
tremendous variation within and between populations in olfactory
receptor genes. Some specic genes may belinked to the olfactory
ability associated with particular odors (Li et al., 2022). In
addition, gender is an important determinant of the ability to
identify odors (Bontempi et al., 2021). Women are oen
considered to have better olfactory abilities than men (Larsson
etal., 2003; Greenberg etal., 2013) and they are generally more
attentive to odors (Ferdenzi etal., 2008). However, it has also been
suggested that the superiority of women in odor detection ability
may beonly for specic odors. For example, riel etal. found
only the odor thresholds of trimethylamine were signicantly
aected by gender, while all other odor thresholds were not
aected (Van riel etal., 2008). Some studies have even shown
that men are better at detecting specic odors (Olsson and Laska,
2010). Personal experiences such as age, mere exposure to odors
(Schriever et al., 2014), etc. were also associated with odor
identication abilities. Most studies show that human olfactory
function peaks in adulthood and declines with age (Sorokowska
etal., 2015b). It was discovered that seniors had the same ability
to identify unpleasant odors, whereas the identication of pleasant
odors was decreased among seniors when compared to young
adults (Joussain etal., 2013). In addition to the factors mentioned
above, there appear to bevariances in odor perception among
people in dierent environments, as environmental dierences
bring with them a range of dierences in climate, vegetation
conditions, dietary habits, and culture. Factors such as ethnic
background (Ayabe-Kanamura etal., 1998; Sorokowska et al.,
2015c) were also associated with odor identication abilities. But
ethnicity did not seem to inuence the evaluation of odor intensity
or the distribution of mood responses. A study comparing the
ability of subjects from Japan and the Netherlands to detect
m-xylene odors reported a 10-fold dierence in chemical
identication between the groups (Hoshika etal., 1993). Jin etal.
found that Caucasian participants preferred cinnamaldehyde
more than East Asian participants (Jin etal., 2018). At present, the
research objects of related research mainly focus on food odor or
monomeric compound odor, and there is relatively little research
on the sensory evaluation of functional odor combined with
chemical types.
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 03 frontiersin.org
erefore, the aims of this study were: (1) to understand the
aective responses of essential oil odors with healthy function at
dierent concentrations, (2) to understand the inuence of
participants’ characteristics on odor sensory evaluation, and (3)
to understand the correlation between the odor evaluation
indexes. According to the chemical constituent and function, six
essential oil odors which were commonly used in the mainstream
aromatherapy market for anxiolytic or antidepressant treatment
and their compound odors were used in this study, and young
healthy adults with dierent gender, regional culture, and living
habits were selected to evaluate the odor subjective indexes.
Materials and methods
Participants
A priori power analysis was selected from the F test family in
G*Power 3.1.7 soware (Heinrich Heine, Universität Düsseldorf)
for sample size estimation. e eect size was assumed to be0.25,
α err prob. to 0.01, and power (1- β err prob) to 0.95, and the total
sample required was estimated to be at least 28. Fiy healthy
students (25 females and 25 males) including 40% undergraduates,
56% postgraduates, and 4% doctoral students, with an average age
of 22 (SD = 2.6; Min = 18; Max = 29), with self-reported normal
olfaction, no mental illness, no rhinitis or other olfactory disorders
and not pregnant, were recruited for the experiment. e study
was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki on
Biomedical Research involving human subjects and approved by
the Research and Ethics Oces of the Shanghai Jiao Tong
University (NO.H2022015I). All participants were recruited from
Shanghai Jiao Tong University through networking contacts. e
privacy rights of participants always beobserved.
Odor preparation
Nine essential oils were used for the preparation of the odor
samples, including six essential oils [lavender oil (Lavandula
angustifolia, LVO), clary sage oil (Salvia sclarea, CSO), bergamot
oil (Citrus × bergamia, BGO), lemon oil (Citrus × limon, LMO),
rosemary oil (Rosmarinus ocinalis, RMO), copaiba oil (Copaifera
ocinalis, CPO)], and three blend essential oils. e essential oils
used in this study were sourced from the Aromatic Plant Research
and Development Centre at Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
Blended oil-I (blended-I) was prepared from the six essential oils
mentioned above according to the volume ratio of 1:1:1:1:1:1;
blended oil-II (blended-II) was composed of LMO, RMO, and
CPO according to the volume ratio of 1:1:1; blended oil-III
(blended-III) was composed of LVO, CSO, and BGO according to
the volume ratio of 1:1:1. ese essential oils have been selected
based on both chemical constituents and ecacy. Firstly, the main
constituents of LVO, CSO, and BGO are esters and alcohols; the
main constituents of LMO, RMO, and CPO are terpenes. Secondly,
the selected oils have a range of bioactive properties (e.g.,
antibacterial (Wang etal., 2012; Ojeda-Sana etal., 2013; Ontas
etal., 2016), anti-inammatory (Lucca etal., 2018; Pandur etal.,
2021), etc.), and also have been proved to alleviate emotional
disorders (Yoshizawa etal., 2015; Samadi etal., 2021), so they have
a broad application prospect.
An aromatherapy machine that using air pressurized
atomization technology was used to atomize the essential oil into
the 500 ml olfactory bottle to prepare the odor sample for
evaluation. e odor samples were set to low, medium, and high
intensity groups, in which the essential oils were atomized into the
bottle for 3, 15, and 75 s, respectively. According to the
measurement results, at low concentration, the essential oil
content in the olfactory bottle is 0.33–0.43 mg, and the gas mass
concentration is 0.66–0.86 g/m3; at the medium concentration, the
essential oil content in the olfactory bottle is 1.72–2.15 mg, and the
gas mass concentration is 3.54–4.30 g/m
3
; at high concentration,
the essential oil content in the olfactory bottle is 8.25–10.70 mg
and the gas mass concentration is 16.50–21.40 g/m
3
. e ratio of
essential oil content at low, medium, and high concentrations is
about 1:5:25. An additional olfactory bottle without any odorant
was added to the selection as a control.
Chemical constituent analysis
e chemical constituents of essential oils were analyzed by
gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS, Agilent
7890B-5977A). A DB-WAX column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm)
was utilized as a stationary phase. e GC conditions were as
follows: helium was utilized as a mobile phase (1 ml/min); the
splitting ratio was 30:1; the injector temperatures were held at
260°C; the oven temperature was programmed from 50°C to
120°C at 4°C/min, then held isothermally for 10 min and nally
raised to 220°C at 2°C/min. e MS conditions were as follows:
mass spectra were recorded with ionization energy of 70 eV and
ion source temperature of 230°C.
e identication of the oil constituents was made by
matching their recorded mass spectra with those stored in the
NIST 14 mass spectral library of the GC–MS data system (Milman
and Zhurkovich, 2016; Zhou etal., 2022).
Questionnaire design
During the test, a questionnaire was used to investigate
subjects ‘evaluation of odor, with ve evaluation indicators of odor
perception: pleasantness, familiarity, subjective intensity,
emotional arousal and emotional perception, as shown in Figure1.
A pleasantness scale of −10 to 10 levels represents the pleasantness
caused by odor from “very unpleasant” to “very pleasant.” A
familiarity scale of −10 to 10 levels represents the pleasantness
caused by odor from “very unfamiliar” to “very familiar.” For the
subjective intensity, scores of 1–6, respectively, represent “no
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 04 frontiersin.org
odor,” “almost imperceptible odor,” “slightly perceptible odor,”
“easily perceptible odor,” “strong odor,” and “very strong odor.” An
emotional perception scale of −10 to 10 levels represents the
emotional perception caused by odor from “very relaxed” to “very
energetic.” An arousal scale of −10 to 10 levels represents the
arousal caused by odor from very weak to very strong. Among
them, pleasantness and arousal are thought of as two independent
dimensions of emotions (Russell, 1980; Feldman Barrett and
Russell, 1998). Pleasantness reects the pleasant-unpleasant
properties of emotional stimuli, whereas emotional arousal
reects the degree of emotions evoked by the odor, and emotional
perception reects the attribute categories of emotions evoked by
the odor.
Experimental procedure
e experiments were performed with the subjects sitting
position in an air-conditioned (temperature 23 ± 2°C) room. e
test room was well ventilated, no perfume, smoking, or other
factors aected the results.
Participants need to evaluate three groups of odors in order:
low, medium, and high. Each odor group consisted of a total of 10
inhalation bottles including six essential oil odor samples, three
blended essential oil odor samples, and one blank odor sample.
e interval between each group trial was at least 10 min. To avoid
the inuence of olfactory sequence on odor evaluation, the
olfactory sequences varied between the groups and the olfactory
sequences would change again aer every ten participants
completed the experiment. Each odor sample was newly prepared
for dierent subjects. Participants were instructed to remove the
screw cap from each sample in turn, sni odor 1 cm away from the
opening of the bottle for 2–3 s, then immediately tighten the cap
and ll in the questionnaire to do the odor evaluation. ey could
re-sni the samples if they wished. e sning interval for each
of the two odor samples was 60 s. When the participants nished
evaluating a set of odor samples, they needed to leave the test
room for 20 min for a rest, while the room was ventilated
for 20 min.
Statistical method
IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 was used to establish a database with all
results. All scale data are reported as means ± standard error of the
mean (SEM). Two-factor repeated analyses of variance (ANOVAs)
were run to analyze the eects of odor type and concentration on the
sensory evaluation, and a post hoc Bonferroni test was used. At low,
middle, and high concentrations, two-factor mixed analyses of
variance (ANOVAs) were used to further analyze whether the
correlation between odor sensory evaluation and type was inuenced
by gender, regional culture, or fragrance usage habits. Pearson’s
correlation coecients were used to assess relationships between ve
evaluation indexes of odor perception: pleasantness, familiarity,
emotional perception, arousal, and subjective intensity.
Results
Participants’ characteristics
Basic information about participants’ age, hometown, and
fragrance usage habits was collected and kept strictly condential
(Table 1). Based on the geographical location of the participants’
hometowns, the participants were divided into two categories:
southern Yangtze (n = 25, hometowns located south of the Yangtze
River in China) and northern Yangtze (n = 25, hometowns located
north of the Yangtze River in China). In terms of fragrance usage
habits, 24 participants selected “yes” to the question of whether they
had fragrance usage habits, and they all use fragrance products
(including essential oils, perfumes, scented candles, reed diusers,
etc.) more than 2–3 times a month. e 24 participants were divided
FIGURE1
Contents of the questionnaire and specific evaluation index scores. The corresponding score range was shown in parentheses.
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 05 frontiersin.org
into groups with fragrance usage habits, while the other 26
participants were divided into groups without fragrance usage habits.
Chemical constituents of essential oils
e analysis of the essential oil constituents was carried out by
GC–MS with the peak area normalization method to clarify the
relative content of each component (Figure 2). e main
constituents of each essential oil were listed in Table2 and a more
detailed chemical constituent table can be found in
Supplementary Tables S1–S9.
Nine essential oils could beclassied into three types. One
includes LVO, CSO, BGO, and blended-III, of which esters and
alcohols were the main constituents. In LVO, esters accounted for
41.92%, alcohols 39.38%, and terpenes 14.99%. In CSO, esters
accounted for 57.69%, alcohols 37.86%, and terpenes 2.28%. In
BGO, esters accounted for 40.55%, alcohols 22.84%, and terpenes
35.45%. In blended-III, esters accounted for 31.52% and alcohols
46.4%. Linalool and linalyl acetate were the representative
constituents of these essential oils. e second includes LMO,
RMO, CPO, and blended-II, of which terpenes were the main
constituents. e terpenes in LMO accounted for 95.78%, the
highest content of which was limonene (62.37%); the terpenes in
RMO accounted for 55.33%, the highest content of which was
α-pinene (26.81%); the terpenes in CPO accounted for 99.60%,
the highest content of which was caryophyllene (55.93%); and the
main constituents in blended-II were also terpenes (84.07%), the
higher content of which was limonene (20.41%) and caryophyllene
(19.47%). e third group includes blended-I with a more average
percentage of the three compounds, with 21.00% of esters, 19.23%
of alcohols, and 55.65% of terpenoids.
Eect of odor type and concentration on
odor sensory evaluation
e main eect of odor types on odor sensory evaluation was
signicant (all p<0.05), while the main eect of concentration
was not (all p>0.05). e interactive eects of odor types and
TABLE1 Basic information of participants.
Basic information Number
Gender Male 25
Female 25
Hometowns Southern Yangtze 25
Northern Yangtze 25
Fragrance usage habits Ye s 24
No 26
FIGURE2
Distribution characteristics of compound types in dierent odors.
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 06 frontiersin.org
TABLE2 The essential oil used in the study and their main constituents.
Essential oil Chemical type Main constituents
Lavender oil Ester + Alcohol-type Linalyl acetate (33.59%), Linalool (31.76%)
Clary sage oil Ester + Alcohol-type Linalyl acetate (50.46%), Linalool (26.20%), α-Terpineol (7.02%)
Bergamot oil Ester + Alcohol-type Linalyl acetate (40.55%), Limonene (33.31%), Linalool (20.88%)
Lemon oil Terpene-type Limonene (62.37%), β-Pinene (14.40%), γ-Terpinene (11.20%)
Rosemary oil Terpene-type α-Pinene (26.81%), Eucalyptol (25.99%), Camphene (7.88%), Camphor (6.11%)
Copaiba oil Terpene-type Caryophyllene (55.93%), α-Copaene (10.41%), trans-α-Bergamotene (6.81%), Humulene (5.459%)
Blended oil-I Blended type Linalyl acetate (19.33%), Limonene (17.39%), Caryophyllene (11.95%), Linalool (11.23%), Pinene (7.36%)
Blended oil-II Terpene-type Limonene (20.41%), Caryophyllene (19.67%), α-Pinene (12.24%), Eucalyptol (8.09%)
Blended oil-III Ester + Alcohol-type Linalyl acetate (41.43%), Linalool (25.81%), Limonene (12.10%)
Terpene-type, the main constituents of essential oil were terpene; Ester + Alcohol-type, the main constituents of essential oil were ester and alcohol. Blended type, the main constituents of
essential oil were balanced. Main constituents: chemical constituents with a relative percent age over 5% in oil.
TABLE3 The significance of the indicators under main eect and interaction.
Source Pleasantness Familiarity Subjective intensity Emotional arousal Emotional
perception
Odor type 0.000*0.000*0.000*0.000*0.000*
Concentration 0.694 0.898 0.155 0.605 0.086
Odor type×Concentration 0.207 0.101 0.321 0.458 0.504
*represents signicant dierence (p < 0.05).
intensity on pleasantness, familiarity, subjective intensity,
emotional arousal, and emotional perception were not statistically
signicant (all p>0.05; Table3).
As the concentration increased, the mean scores of odor
pleasantness and familiarity decreased, and the mean score of
emotional perception increased, indicating that the perception of
odors shied to exciting energized. e mean score of arousal and
subjective intensity also showed an increasing shi. However,
those changes did not reach statistical signicance, and none of
the main eects of the concentration factors on odor sensory
evaluation were statistically signicant (Table3). It was worth
mentioning that the subjective intensity scores of the blank group
were signicantly lower than those of the experimental groups at
all three concentrations (all p < 0.001). e detailed gure can
befound in Supplementary Figure S1.
Average scores of odor sensory evaluation and further post hoc
comparison results between the nine odors were shown in Table4.
In terms of odor pleasantness, the scores of dierent essential oil
odors varied signicantly [F (8, 392) = 18.407, p < 0.001]. LMO
odor scored the highest, followed by odors of CPO, blended-II,
BGO, RMO, blended-I, blended-III, and LVO. CSO odor scored
lower than all other odors (all p < 0.05). Signicant dierences in
familiarity were observed across odor samples [F (8, 392) =13.249,
p < 0.001]. e familiarity score of LMO odor was signicantly
higher than those of other essential oils (all p < 0.001), while the
familiarity score of LVO was the lowest.
e type of oil odor also inuenced participants’ judgments of
odor intensity [F (8, 392) =9.746, p < 0.001]. CPO and blended-II
odors were perceived as the least concentrated odors (both
p<0.05), while participants rated the highest odor intensity for the
CSO odor. e emotional perception varied with the type of
essential oil odor [F (8, 392) =2.490, p < 0.05]. Among them, LMO
odor was rated as the most stimulating odor, only blended-II odor
and CPO scored negatively, with their emotional perception being
more inclined to calm and relax. In terms of arousal, LMO odor
scored signicantly higher than other oil odors (all p < 0.001),
while blended-II odor scored lowest.
When the main constituent of the odors was considered
instead of the specic type, the results were shown in Table5. e
analysis suggested that the terpene-type odors brought more
energetic perception (p < 0.01) and higher emotional arousal
(p < 0.001) than the other two odors. However, there was no
signicant dierence in odor pleasantness, familiarity, and
subjective intensity among the three.
According to the Pearson correlation analysis results (Table6),
there was a positive correlation between familiarity and
pleasantness (r = 0.531, p < 0.001). e higher the familiarity with
the odor, the more popular it will be. In addition, there was a
weaker positive correlation between emotional perception and
subjective intensity (r = 0.328, p < 0.001). e analysis did not
reveal any signicant correlations between arousal and other
subjective rating indicators.
Eect of participants’ characteristics on
odor sensory evaluation
Influence of gender
e analysis results were shown in Table7 and further post hoc
comparison results were displayed in Figure3. e interaction of
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 07 frontiersin.org
TABLE4 Sensory evaluation of dierent oil odor.
Essential oil odor Pleasantness Familiarity Subjective intensity Emotional arousal Emotional
perception
Blended-I 1.24±0.43c2.86±0.55b4.69±0.10ab 2.79±0.36bc 0.41±0.42bc
Blended-II 2.01±0.42bc 2.76±0.47b4.35±0.10c2.35±0.36c−0.17±0.43c
Blended-III 1.15±0.47c2.54±0.53b4.72±0.11ab 2.90±0.35bc 0.56±0.47bc
LVO 0.86±0.44cd 1.71±0.56b4.75±0.09ab 2.53±0.45bc 0.29±0.43bc
CSO 0.35±0.50d2.27±0.54bc 4.80±0.08a3.07±0.41b0.79±0.39b
BGO 1.84±0.48bc 2.83±0.51b4.57±0.10b3.23±0.34b0.53±0.45b
LMO 5.31±0.43a5.79±0.46a4.57±0.10b5.28±0.37a2.19±0.54a
RMO 1.30±0.47c2.82±0.55b4.68±0.11ab 3.20±0.50b1.03±0.44ab
CPO 2.31±0.39b2.99±0.55b4.36±0.09c2.73±0.37bc −0.09±0.42c
Mean ratings (±standard error of the mean, n = 50) of dierent odors at three concentrations on pleasantness, familiarity, subjective intensity, emotional arousal, and emotional
perception. Values followed by dierent or same lowercase letters indicate signicant dierences (p < 0.05) or no signicant dierence (p > 0.05) between groups. Data were analyzed by
main eects analysis with two-way repeated ANOVAs, a post hoc Bonferroni test was used.
TABLE5 Sensory evaluation of dierent odor types.
Odor type Pleasantness Familiarity Subjective intensity Emotional arousal Emotional
perception
Blended type 1.95±0.48a2.86±0.55a4.69±0.10a2.79±0.36b0.41±0.42b
Ester+Alcohol-type 1.30±0.45a2.54±0.53a4.75±0.09a2.52±0.45b0.29±0.43b
Terpene-type 1.14±0.40a2.76±0.47a4.57±0.10a5.28±0.37a2.19±0.54a
Mean ratings (± standard error of the mean, n = 50) of dierent odor types at three concentrations on pleasantness, familiarity, subjective intensity, emotional arousal, and emotional
perception. Values followed by dierent or same lowercase letters indicate signicant dierences (p < 0.05) or no signicant dierence (p> 0.05) between groups. Data were analyzed by
main eects analysis with two-way repeated ANOVAs, a post hoc Bonferroni test was used.
TABLE6 Correlation between sensory evaluation indexes.
PCCS Pleasantness Familiarity Subjective intensity Emotional arousal Emotional
perception
Pleasantness 10.531*** −0.267*** 0.217*** −0.190***
Familiarity 0.531*** 1−0.007 0.290*** −0.900***
Subjective intensity −0.267*** −0.007 1 0.211*** 0.328***
Emotional arousal 0.217*** 0.290*** 0.211*** 1 0.190***
Emotional perception −0.190*** −0.090*** 0.328*** 0.190*** 1
Pearson’s correlation coecients (PCCS) were used to assess relationships between ve evaluation indicators. ***p<0.001 represents that the condence level of the results was more
than 99.9%.
TABLE7 The significance of the indicators under main eect and interaction of gender and type.
Odor
concentration
Source Pleasantness Familiarity Subjective
intensity
Emotional
arousal
Emotional
perception
Low Odor type 0.000*0.000*0.006*0.000*0.080*
Gender 0.160 0.408 0.727 0.431 0.851
Odor typ e × Gender 0.871 0.331 0.411 0.052 0.210
Middle Odor type 0.000*0.000*0.000*0.000*0.024*
Gender 0.412 0.680 0.852 0.088 0.692
Odor typ e × Gender 0.655 0.221 0.739 0.193 0.476
High Odor type 0.000*0.000*0.222 0.001*0.014*
Gender 0.095 0.595 1.000 0.450 0.531
Odor typ e × Gender 0.074 0.582 0.055 0.612 0.487
Data represents the value of p, * signicant dierence at 0.05 level.
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 08 frontiersin.org
gender and types had no signicant eect on the odor sensory
evaluation at three concentrations, respectively. At low
concentrations, females scored higher than males on pleasantness
for all odors [F (1, 48) =2.041, p>0.05] and the mean pleasantness
scores of females were all positive at three concentrations while
the male participants scored negatively for LVO and CSO odor at
high concentrations. In addition, the females scored higher than
males on average at three concentrations on odor familiarity [Low:
F (1, 48) =0.697, Mid: F (1, 48) =0.173, High: F (1, 48) =0.286, all
p>0.05] and arousal [Low: F (1, 48) =0.632, Mid: F (1, 48) =3.038,
High: F (1, 48) =0.580, all p>0.05], and scored lower in emotional
perception[F (1, 48) =0.036, Mid: F (1, 48) =0.158, High: F (1, 48)
=0.398, all p>0.05], indicating that their emotional perception was
more inclined to calm and relax. However, those dierences did
not reach statistical signicance and the main eect of gender was
not signicant on odor sensory evaluation.
Further post hoc comparisons showed that at medium
concentrations, the familiarity (6.76 ± 0.58 vs. 4.44 ± 0.88, p < 0.05)
and arousal (6.24 ± 0.51 vs. 4.12 ± 0.68, p < 0.05) scores of LMO in
female were signicantly higher than those in male, and signicant
dierences in arousal were also observed in blended-I (3.44 ± 0.58
vs. 1.68 ± 0.64, p < 0.05) and blended-II (3.36 ± 0.62 vs. 1.12 ± 0.75,
p < 0.05). At high concentration, females scored signicantly
higher for pleasantness of LVO (2.71 ± 0.68 vs. −0.80 ± 0.72,
p < 0.001) and BGO (3.92 ± 0.66 vs. 1.48 ± 0.72, p < 0.05) than
males, and females were more familiar with LMO (7.08 ± 0.60 vs.
4.96 ± 0.60, p < 0.05).
Influence of regional culture
e analysis results were shown in Table 8 and the average
ratings were obtained and further post hoc comparisons results were
displayed in Figure4. Similar to gender, the interaction between
regional culture and type had no signicant eect on odor sensory
evaluation. e dierences caused by regional culture were mainly
reected in odor familiarity. Participants’ ratings of odor familiarity
varied signicantly between regions at three concentrations [Low: F
(1, 48) = 4.791, Mid: F (1, 48) =6.198, High: F (1, 48) = 4.613, all
p < 0.05], with participants from the southern Yangtze giving higher
rating (Low:1.92 ± 0.69 vs. 0.69 ± 0.30, Mid: 4.06 ± 0.59 vs. 4.00 ± 0.59,
High: 3.79 ± 0.58 vs. 2.01 ± 0.59, all p < 0.05). Signicant dierences
in familiarity were observed in LVO, RMO, CPO, blended-II, and
blended-III, with the familiarity scores of CPO in participants from
the southern Yangtze were all signicantly higher than in participants
from the northern Yangtze at three concentrations (Low:5.62 ± 0.50
vs. 1.60 ± 1.18, Mid: 3.60 ± 0.68 vs. 1.00 ± 1.00, High: 4.52 ± 0.50 vs.
1.56 ± 1.01, all p < 0.05).
In terms of odor pleasantness, subjective intensity, emotional
perception, and arousal, the average scores at three concentrations
of participants from the southern Yangtze were all higher than those
from the northern Yangtze. e signicant dierences in arousal
between the two groups were observed in LVO (2.80 ± 0.78 vs.
0.40 ± 0.78, p < 0.05), blended-II (3.40 ± 0.65 vs. 1.08 ± 0.72, p < 0.05),
and CPO (3.76 ± 0.59 vs. 0.92 ± 0.84, p < 0.01) at low, medium, and
high concentrations, respectively. However, the main eects of these
factors were not signicant on odor sensory evaluation.
FIGURE3
Sensory evaluation of odor between male and female. Mean ratings (n = 25) on pleasantness, familiarity, subjective intensity, emotional arousal, and
emotional perception at low (L), mid-range (M), and high (H) concentrations between male and female. M: male, F: female. The asterisk indicates
that the odor evaluation results of the two groups show significant dierences. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. Data were analyzed by main eects
analysis with two-way mixed ANOVAs, a post hoc Bonferroni test was used.
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 09 frontiersin.org
Influence of fragrance usage habits
e inuence of fragrance usage habits on odor sensory
evaluation was shown in Table9 and the average ratings were
obtained and further post hoc comparisons results were displayed
in Figure5. e main eects of fragrance usage habits on odor
sensory evaluation were not signicant at low and middle
concentrations. At high concentrations, the interaction of
fragrance usage habits and type had a signicant eect on
emotional perception [F (8, 384) =5.335, p<0.001] and subjective
intensity [F (8, 384) =3.277, p<0.01].
Further simple eects analysis revealed that participants
with fragrance usage habits believed that the emotional
perception caused by LVO odor, BGO odor, and blended-II odor
was more inclined to calm and relax (all p < 0.05), while t hose
without fragrance usage habits were the opposite. But the
contrary dierence was shown between the two groups for RMO
odor, participants with fragrance usage habits perceived that the
emotional perception was more inclined to encourage
(2.83 ± 0.92 vs. 0.00 ± 0.75, p < 0.01). In terms of subjective
intensity, participants with fragrance usage habits scored
signicantly higher for RMO odor (5.13 ± 0.19 vs. 4.35 ± 0.18,
p < 0.01). In terms of odor pleasantness and familiarity, the
average scores at three concentrations of participants with
fragrance usage habits were all higher than participants without
fragrance usage habits but those dierences did not reach
statistical signicance.
TABLE8 The significance of the indicators under main eect and interaction of region and type.
Odor
concentration Source Pleasantness Familiarity Subjective
intensity
Emotional
arousal
Emotional
perception
Low Odor type 0.019*0.000*0.006 *0.000*0.058
Region 0.615 0.034*0.292 0.186 0.315
Odor typ e × Region 0.407 0.338 0.170 0.543 0.835
Middle Odor type 0.000*0.000*0.000*0.000*0.025*
Region 0.791 0.016*0.350 0.262 0.165
Odor typ e × Region 0.377 0.278 0.941 0.209 0.780
High Odor type 0.000*0.000*0.322 0.000*0.015*
Region 0.176 0.037*0.682 0.152 0.312
Odor typ e × Region 0.321 0.314 0.411 0.064 0.98
Data represents the value of p, * signicant dierence at 0.05 level.
FIGURE4
Eect of regional culture on sensory evaluation of odor. Mean ratings (n = 25) at three concentrations on pleasantness, familiarity, subjective
intensity, emotional arousal, and emotional perception at low (L), mid-range (M), and high (H) concentration of the participants from the northern
Yangtze and the southern Yangtze. N: participants from the northern Yangtze, S: participants from the southern Yangtze. The asterisk indicates
that the odor evaluation results of the two groups show significant dierences. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. Data were analyzed by main eects analysis
with two-way mixed ANOVAs, a post hoc Bonferroni test was used.
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 10 frontiersin.org
e results of the correlation analysis showed that there was
no signicant correlation between the three factors of gender,
region, and fragrance use habits, and a more detailed table can
befound in Supplementary Table S10.
Discussion
In this study, according to the constituent and function, nine
essential oil odors with health function were selected for the
sensory evaluation experiment at low, medium, and high
concentrations, respectively. e evaluation indexes included
pleasantness, familiarity, emotional perception, arousal, and
subjective intensity. e eects of odor types, concentration, and
their interactions were explored. Gender, hometown (regional
culture), and fragrance habits factors were chosen to better
understand how participants’ characteristics might impact the
responses to odors.
e results showed that the odor type signicantly aected
the evaluation results, while concentration did not, and there
was no interaction between the two factors. Essential oils are
composed of various small molecular volatile chemical
TABLE9 The significances of the indicators under main eect and interaction of habits and type.
Odor
concentration Source Pleasantness Familiarity Subjective
intensity
Emotional
arousal
Emotional
perception
Low Odor type 0.000*0.000*0.015*0.000*0.083
Fragrance usage habits 0.136 0.325 0.434 0.732 0.623
Odor type × Fragrance usage habits 0.419 0.686 0.229 0.302 0.497
Middle Odor type 0.000*0.000*0.000*0.000*0.018*
Fragrance usage habits 0.101 0.221 0.924 0.506 0.991
Odor type × Fragrance usage habits 0.386 0.245 0.120 0.497 0.127
High Odor type 0.000*0.000*0.250 0.000*0.002*
Fragrance usage habits 0.701 0.339 0.569 0.714 0.610
Odor type × Fragrance usage habits 0.747 0.453 0.001 *0.126 0.000*
Data represents the value of p, * signicant dierence at 0.05 level.
FIGURE5
Eect of fragrance usage habits on sensory evaluation of odor. Mean ratings (n = 24–26) at three concentrations on pleasantness, familiarity,
subjective intensity, emotional arousal, emotional perception and at low (L), mid-range (M), and high (H) concentration of the participants without
fragrance usage habits and the participants with fragrance usage habits. N: participants without fragrance usage habits, Y: participants with
fragrance usage habits. The asterisk indicates that the odor evaluation results of the two groups show significant dierences. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.
Data were analyzed by two-way mixed ANOVAs, a post hoc Bonferroni test was used.
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 11 frontiersin.org
components, which also dier in sensory evaluation. A study on
the odorant hedonic value of 23 monomeric compounds found
that isoamyl acetate and geraniol had higher preference and
familiarity scores than limonene, while limonene had a relatively
low score of subjective intensity among all compounds
(Chalencon et al., 2022). e results of the present study
suggested that the terpene-type odors brought more inspiring
perception and higher emotional arousal than the other two
odors. e nding is consistent with prior literature that shows
an eect of emotional perception triggered by chemical
composition dierences (Kaneda etal., 2011). One study found
that strawberry odor had a relaxing eect, while lemon odor had
a stimulating eect. is dierence may also berelated to the
chemical composition, since the compositions of strawberry
odor are mainly esters and alcohols while that of lemon odor is
dominated by terpenes (Baccarani etal., 2021b). However, LMO,
CPO, and blended-II were all terpene-type odors. LMO odor
received the highest ratings for emotional perception and
arousal, while CPO odor and blended-II odor received the
lowest ratings with negative values, which showed a more
calming and relaxing perception. It indicates that oil odors with
similar major constituents may dier signicantly in their taste,
ingredient type was not the primary predictor of odor
sensory evaluation.
In this experiment, odor concentration did not signicantly
aect the odor sensory evaluation. While the concentration
increased, the participants’ subjective intensity remained between
the levels of “easily perceptible odor” and “strong odor.” e
subjective intensity scores of the blank group were signicantly
lower than those of the experimental groups at all three
concentrations, indicating that the participants without olfactory
training were able to correctly discriminate between the presence
or absence of odors, but not well enough to discriminate the
changes in odor concentration. It was noteworthy that there were
signicant dierences in subjective intensities between the
dierent odors, with the highest subjective intensity score for CSO
odor and the lowest subjective intensity score for the CPO odor
and blended II odor, which may berelated to the nasal pungency
of the dierent odors. One previous study showed that pungency
contributed to overall aroma intensity (Jin etal., 2018), which was
also reected by the highest subjective intensity score for CSO
odor in this experiment. However, in another study, the subjective
intensity scores of dierent odors were very close (Ba and Kang,
2019). is inconsistency of results might becaused by dierent
odor types and experimental tasks design.
People’s characteristics inuenced odor sensory evaluation to
some extent. Gender dierences in the ability to detect,
discriminate, and identify odors are still a matter of debate.
Previous studies have shown that females possess higher olfactory
sensitivity than males and there were signicant gender dierences
for the hedonic estimate (uerauf etal., 2009; Greenberg etal.,
2013). However, in the present study, signicant dierences were
observed only in some oil odor such as LMO, the main eect of
gender was not signicant on odor sensory evaluation, which is in
agreement with past studies (Van riel etal., 2008; Nováková
etal., 2014), and there was no interaction between the gender
and type.
China’s Yangtze River is known as the mother river of the
Chinese nation, which ows from west to east to debouch into the
East China Sea. It has served as an important link between nature
and people. e results of this study showed that the dierences
in odor sensory evaluation between participants from the
southern Yangtze and the northern Yangtze were mainly reected
in familiarity. At three concentrations, participants from the
southern Yangtze were more familiar with the odor than
participants from the northern Yangtze. ese dierences
presumably reected vegetation dierences caused by climates.
e climate in the region south of the Yangtze River is dominated
by a subtropical monsoon climate with ample light and heat
resources, which is suitable for the growth of lavender, rosemary,
bergamot, and lemon. Both lemon and bergamot are cold-
intolerant and rarely cultivated in the northern Yangtze, which is
presumably related to the dierence between the two groups in
odor sensory evaluation.
Fragrance usage habits also inuenced people’s odor
evaluation. People with fragrance usage habits showed a higher
level of pleasantness and familiarity with essential oil odors than
those without fragrance usage habits, but those dierences did not
reach statistical signicance. is may berelated to the dierence
in odor between essential oils and perfumes. Previous studies
reported that exposure to relatively high concentrations of
chemicals aected sensitivity to that particular odorant (Zibrowski
and Robertson, 2006; Sorokowska etal., 2013), but our study
showed that the fragrance usage habits did not signicantly aect
subjective intensity. It may be related to the concentration
dierence. In daily life, people perceive a relatively lower
concentration of fragrance indoors compared to the chemicals. In
addition, at high concentrations, participants with fragrance usage
habits perceived the emotional perception associated with LVO
odor, BGO odor, and blended-II odor as more calming and
relaxing, while the perception associated with RMO odor was
more motivating and inspiring, but those without fragrance usage
habit were the opposite. ose dierences may berelated to the
prior experience of participants with fragrance usage habits. Once
participants identied the type of odor, their emotional perception
of the odor may have been potentially inuenced by pre-existing
understanding. e ndings in this study are helpful to the eld
of aromatherapy for more personalized treatments can
beperformed. In addition to considering the possible ecacy of
essential oil odor, factors such as chemical type, gender,
hometown, and fragrance usage habits should be taken into
comprehensive consideration in the selection of oil odor, which
may improve people’s experience in aromatherapy and better help
people improve their mood.
Subjective odor perception is oen investigated with the help
of several dimensions, such as pleasantness, familiarity, intensity,
emotional perception, and arousal. Studies have demonstrated
that these dimensions are not independent, especially between
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 12 frontiersin.org
familiarity and pleasantness. Studies have generally found that the
more familiar an odor, the more pleasant it is judged (Knaapila
etal., 2017). However, it had also been suggested that the relation
between pleasantness and familiarity was specic to pleasant
odors (Delplanque etal. 2008). In this study, the mean pleasantness
scores for all odors were positive and those odors could
beconsidered not to beunpleasant odors. And the correlation
analysis revealed that there was a positive correlation between
familiarity and pleasantness, which agrees with the univariate
analyses. In addition, there was a weaker positive correlation
between emotional perception and subjective intensity, implying
that the odor properties of inspiring were associated with higher
subjective intensity, in line with the previous ndings (Baccarani
etal., 2021a).
However, this study has potential limitations. Many studies
have shown that age aects odor perception. In this experiment,
the odor sensory evaluation test was conducted for young
adults, so it is unclear whether age will aect the oil odor
evaluation results. Age factor can be added as a variable in
future research. On the other hand, the odor sensory evaluations
were obtained based on participants’ short-term sning in this
experiment. Although participants were allowed to sni
repeatedly if they wished, it is still unclear whether the
evaluation changed aer long-term sning. A comparison
between short-term sensory evaluation and long-term sensory
evaluation could bediscussed in future studies. Meanwhile, the
sample size of this study was limited, which may aect the
statistical signicance of the results.
Conclusion
Essential oils are widely used as functional fragrances to
improve people’s olfactory environment and regulate emotions. In
this study, nine oil odors were selected based on chemical
composition and function. e eects of odor conditions,
participants’ characteristics on odor sensory evaluation, and the
interactions between dierent evaluation indexes
were investigated.
Chemical type, but not the concentration, signicantly
inuenced the evaluation. ere was no interaction between the
two factors. e terpene-type odors brought more inspiring
perception and higher emotional arousal than the ester+alcohol-
type odors and the blended odors, but signicant dierences also
existed between odors with the same main constituent, indicating
that constituent type was not the primary predictor of odor
sensory evaluation.
Signicant geographical dierences for odor familiarity
existed, with participants from the southern Yangtze scoring
signicantly higher than participants from the northern Yangtze.
Fragrance usage habits signicantly inuenced the subjective
intensity and emotional perception ratings of some odors. ere
was no signicant gender dierence in odor sensory evaluation;
In addition, familiarity and pleasantness were positively correlated,
and emotional perception and subjective intensity also showed a
weak correlation.
Data availability statement
e original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can
bedirected to the corresponding authors.
Ethics statement
e studies involving human participants were reviewed and
approved by the Research and Ethics Oces of the Shanghai Jiao
Tong University. e patients/participants provided their written
informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
JC: methodology, investigation, project administration, formal
analysis, and writing original dra. NZ: investigation, formal
analysis, project administration, supervision, and funding
acquisition. SP: investigation and formal analysis. LY:
conceptualization, supervision and funding acquisition. All authors
contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
is work was supported by the National Key Research and
Development Program of China (grant number:
2019YFA0706200), Shanghai Sailing Program (grant number:
20YF1421700), and National Natural Science Foundation of
China (grant number: 52078291).
Acknowledgments
Authors deeply thank volunteers for their participation
and cooperation.
Conflict of interest
e authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or nancial relationships that could be
construed as a potential conict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those
of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 13 frontiersin.org
aliated organizations, or those of the publisher,
the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be
evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its
manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the
publisher.
Supplementary material
e Supplementary material for this article can befound online
at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612/
full#supplementary-material
References
Angelucci, F., Silva, V., Dal Pizzol, C., Spir, L., Praes, C., and Maibach, H. (2014).
Physiological eect of olfactory stimuli inhalation in humans: an overview. Int. J.
Cosmet. Sci. 36, 117–123. doi: 10.1111/ics.12096
Apaolaza, V., Hartmann, P., López, C., Barrutia, J. M., and Echebarria, C. (2014).
Natural ingredients claim’s halo eect on hedonic sensory experiences of perfumes.
Food Qual. Prefer. 36, 81–86. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.03.004
Ayabe-Kanamura, S., Schicker, I., Laska, M., Hudson, R., Distel, H., Kobayakawa, T.,
et al. (1998). Dierences in perception of everyday odors: a Japanese-German cross-
cultural study. Chem. Senses 23, 31–38. doi: 10.1093/chemse/23.1.31
Ba, M., and Kang, J. (2019). A laboratory study of the sound-odour interaction in
urban environments. Build. Environ. 147, 314–326. doi: 10.1016/j.
buildenv.2018.10.019
Baccarani, A., Brand, G., Dacremont, C., Valentin, D., and Brochard, R. (2021a).
e inuence of stimulus concentration and odor intensity on relaxing and
stimulating perceived properties of odors. Food Qual. Prefer. 87:104030. doi:
10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104030
Baccarani, A., Grondin, S., Laamme, V., and Brochard, R. (2021b). Relaxing and
stimulating eects of odors on time perception and their modulation by expectancy.
Atten. Percept. Psychophys. 83, 448–462. doi: 10.3758/s13414-020-02182-0
Bontempi, C., Jacquot, L., and Brand, G. (2021). Sex dierences in odor hedonic
perception: an overview. Front. Neurosci. 15:764520. doi: 10.3389/fnins.2021.764520
Burnett, K. M., Solterbeck, L. A., and Strapp, C. M. (2004). Scent and mood state
following an anxiety-provoking task. Psychol. Rep. 95, 707–722. doi: 10.2466/
pr0.95.2.707-722
Chalencon, L., evenet, M., Noury, N., Bensa, M., and Mandairon, N. (2022).
Identication of new behavioral parameters to assess odorant hedonic value in
humans: a naturalistic approach. J. Neurosci. Methods 366:109422. doi: 10.1016/j.
jneumeth.2021.109422
Delplanque, S., Grandjean, D., Chrea, C., Aymard, L., Cayeux, I., Le Calve, B., et al.
(2008). Emotional processing of odors: evidence for a nonlinear relation between
pleasantness and familiarity evaluations. Chem. Senses 33, 469–479. doi: 10.1093/
chemse/bjn014
Dubois, D. (2000). Categories as acts of meaning: the case of categories in
olfaction and audition. Cogn. Sci. Q. 1, 35–68.
Ebrahimi, H., Mardani, A., Basirinezhad, M. H., Hamidzadeh, A., and
Eskandari, F. (2021). e eects of lavender and chamomile essential oil inhalation
aromatherapy on depression, anxiety and stress in older community-dwelling
people: a randomized controlled trial. Explore (NY) 18, 272–278. doi: 10.1016/j.
explore.2020.12.012
Feldman Barrett, L., and Russell, J. A. (1998). Independence and bipolarity in the
structure of current aect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 967–984. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.74.4.967
Ferdenzi, C., Coureaud, G., Camos, V., and Schaal, B. (2008). Human awareness
and uses of odor cues in everyday life: results from a questionnaire study in children.
Int. J. Behav. Dev. 32, 422–431. doi: 10.1177/0165025408093661
Greenberg, M. I., Curtis, J. A., and Vearrier, D. (2013). e perception of odor is
not a surrogate marker for chemical exposure: a review of factors inuencing human
odor perception. Clin. Toxicol. 51, 70–76. doi: 10.3109/15563650.2013.767908
Herz, R. S. (2009). Aromatherapy facts and ctions: a scientic analysis of
olfactory eects on mood, physiology and behavior. Int. J. Neurosci. 119, 263–290.
doi: 10.1080/00207450802333953
Hoshika, Y., Imamura, T., Muto, G., Van Gemert, L. J., Don, J. A., and Walpot, J. I.
(1993). International comparison of odor threshold values of several odorants in
Japan and in the Netherlands. Environ. Res. 61, 78–83. doi: 10.1006/enrs.1993.1051
Jin, L., Haviland-Jones, J., Simon, J. E., and Tepper, B. J. (2018). Inuence of aroma
intensity and nasal pungency on the ‘mood signature’ of common aroma compounds
in a mixed ethnic population. Food Qual. Prefer. 65, 164–174. doi: 10.1016/j.
foodqual.2017.10.017
Joussain, P., evenet, M., Rouby, C., and Bensa, M. (2013). Eect of aging on
hedonic appreciation of pleasant and unpleasant odors. PLoS One 8:e61376. doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0061376
Kaneda, H., Kojima, H., and Watari, J. (2011). Novel psychological and
neurophysiological signicance of beer aromas. Part I: measurement of changes in
human emotions during the smelling of hop and ester aromas using a measurement
system for brainwaves. J. Am. Soc. Brew. Chem. 69, 67–74. doi: 10.1094/
ASBCJ-2011-0328-01
Knaapila, A., Laaksonen, O., Virtanen, M., Yang, B., Lagstrom, H., and Sandell, M.
(2017). Pleasantness, familiarity, and identication of spice odors are interrelated
and enhanced by consumption of herbs and food neophilia. Appetite 109, 190–200.
doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.025
Knudsen, J. T., Eriksson, R., Gershenzon, J., and Ståhl, B. (2006). Diversity and
distribution of oral scent. Bot . Re v. 72, 1–120. doi: 10.1663/0006-8101(2006)72[1:DA
DOFS]2.0.CO;2
Larsson, M., Lövdén, M., and Nilsson, L.-G. (2003). Sex dierences in recollective
experience for olfactory and verbal information. Acta Psychol. 112, 89–103. doi:
10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00092-6
Laurent & Gilles (2002). Olfactory network dynamics and the coding of
multidimensional signals. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 3, 884–895. doi: 10.1038/nrn964
Li, B., Kamarck, M. L., Peng, Q., Lim, F.-L., Keller, A., Smeets, M. A., et al. (2022).
From musk to body odor: decoding olfaction through genetic variation. PLoS Genet.
18:e1009564. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009564
Lucca, L. G., De Matos, S. P., Kreutz, T., Teixeira, H. F., Veiga, V. F. Jr., De
Araujo, B. V., et al. (2018). Anti-inammatory eect from a hydrogel containing
Nanoemulsied copaiba oil (Copaifera multijuga Hayne). AAPS PharmSciTech 19,
522–530. doi: 10.1208/s12249-017-0862-6
Mackay-Sim, A., Royet, J.-P., and Universitybrisbane, G. 2006. e olfactory
system. Cambridge University Press Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Majid, A., Speed, L., Croijmans, I., and Arshamian, A. (2017). What makes a
better smeller? Perception 46, 406–430. doi: 10.1177/0301006616688224
Martinec Novakova, L., Plotena, D., Rober ts, S. C., and Havlicek, J. (2015). Positive
relationship between odor identication and aective responses of negatively
valenced odors. Front. Psychol. 6:607. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00607
Milman, B. L., and Zhurkovich, I. K. (2016). Mass spectral libraries: a statistical
review of the visible use. TrAC Trends Anal. Chem. 80, 636–640. doi: 10.1016/j.
trac.2016.04.024
Nováková, L., Varella Valentova, J., and Havlíček, J. (2014). Engagement in olfaction-
related activities is associated with the ability of odor identication and odor awareness.
Chemosens. Percept. 7, 56–67. doi: 10.1007/s12078-014-9167-2
Ojeda-Sana, A. M., Van Baren, C. M., Elechosa, M. A., Juarez, M. A., and
Moreno, S. (2013). New insights into antibacterial and antioxidant activities of
rosemary essential oils and their main components. Food Control 31, 189–195. doi:
10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.09.022
Olsson, P., and Laska, M. (2010). Human male superiority in olfactory sensitivity
to the sperm attractant odorant bourgeonal. Chem. Senses 35, 427–432. doi: 10.1093/
chemse/bjq030
Ontas, C., Baba, E., Kaplaner, E., Kucukaydin, S., Ozturk, M., and Ercan, M. D.
(2016). Antibacterial activity of Citrus Limon Peel essential oil and Argania spinosa
oil against sh pathogenic bacteria. Kaas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi
22, 741–749. doi: 10.9775/kvfd.2016.15311
Pandur, E., Balatinácz, A., Micalizzi, G., Mondello, L., Horváth, A., Sipos, K., et al.
(2021). Anti-inammatory eect of lavender (Lavandula angustifolia mill.) essential
oil prepared during dierent plant phenophases on THP-1 macrophages. BMC
Complement. Med. er. 21, 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12906-021-03461-5
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of aect. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 39,
1161–1178. doi: 10.1037/h0077714
Samadi, Z., Jannati, Y., Hamidia, A., Mohammadpour, R . A., and Hes amzadeh, A.
(2021). e eect of aromatherapy with lavender essential oil on sleep quality in
patients with major depression. J. Nurs. Midwifery Sci. 8, 67–73. doi: 10.4103/jnms.
Jnms_26_20
Schriever, V. A., Lehmann, S., Prange, J., and Hummel, T. (2014). Preventing
olfactory deterioration: olfactory training may beof help in older people. J. Am.
Geriatr. Soc. 62, 384–386. doi: 10.1111/jgs.12669
Chen et al. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.998612
Frontiers in Psychology 14 frontiersin.org
Sell, C. S. 2006. e Chemistry of Fragrances: From Perfumer to Consumer,
London, UnitedKingdom: Royal Society of Chemistry.
Sorokowska, A., Albrecht, E., and Hummel, T. (2015a). Reading rst or smelling
rst? Eects of presentation order on odor identication. Atten. Percept. Psychophys.
77, 731–736. doi: 10.3758/s13414-014-0811-3
Sorokowska, A., Schriever, V. A., Gudziol, V., Hummel, C., Hähner, A., Iannilli, E.,
et al. (2015b). Changes of olfactory abilities in relation to age: odor identication in
more than 1400 people aged 4 to 80 years. Eur. Arch. Otorhinolaryngol. 272,
1937–1944. doi: 10.1007/s00405-014-3263-4
Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., and Frackowiak, T. (2015c). Determinants of
human olfactory performance: a cross-cultural study. Sci. Total Environ. 506,
196–200. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.11.027
Sorokowska, A., Sorokowski, P., Hummel, T., and Huanca, T. (2013). Olfaction
and environment: Tsimane’of Bolivian rainforest have lower threshold of odor
detection than industrialized German people. PLoS One 8:e69203. doi: 10.1371/
journal.pone.0069203
uerauf, N., Reulbach, U., Lunkenheimer, J., Lunkenheimer, B.,
Spannenberger, R., Gossler, A., et al. (2009). Emotional reactivity to odors: olfactory
sensitivity and the span of emotional evaluation separate the genders. Neurosci. Lett.
456, 74–79. doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2009.03.096
Van riel, C., Kiesswetter, E., Schäper, M., Juran, S. A., Blaszkewicz, M., and
Kleinbeck, S. (2008). Odor annoyance of environmental chemicals: sensory and
cognitive inuences. J. Toxic. Environ. Health A 71, 776–785. doi: 10.1080/
15287390801985596
Villemure, C., Slotnick, B. M., and Bushnell, M. C. (2003). Eects of odors on pain
perception: deciphering the roles of emotion and attention. Pain 106, 101–108. doi:
10.1016/S0304-3959(03)00297-5
Wang, W., Li, N., Luo, M., Zu, Y. G., and Eerth, T. (2012). Antibacterial activity
and anticancer activity of Rosmarinus ocinalis L. essential oil compared to that of
its Main components. Molecules 17, 2704–2713. doi: 10.3390/molecules17032704
Watanabe, E., Kuchta, K., Kimura, M., Rauwald, H. W., Kamei, T., and Imanishi, J.
(2015). Eects of bergamot (Citrus bergamia (Risso) Wright & Arn.) essential oil
aromatherapy on mood states, parasympathetic nervous system activity, and salivary
cortisol levels in 41 healthy females. Complementary Medicine Research 22, 43–49.
doi: 10.1159/000380989
Yoshizawa, T., Tani, Y., Yamaguchi, T., and Sawa, M. (2015). Eects of inhaled the
Cyperi rhizoma and Perillae herba essential oil on emotional states, autonomic
nervous system and salivary biomarker. Health 07, 533–541. doi: 10.4236/
health.2015.75063
Zellner, D. A., Hoer, K., and Feldman, J. (2014). Labels aect both liking and
preference: the better the stimuli, the bigger the preference. Atten. Percept.
Psychophys. 76, 2189–2192. doi: 10.3758/s13414-014-0768-2
Zhou, Y., He, L., Zhang, N., Ma, L., and Yao, L. (2022). Photoprotective eect of
Artemisia sieversiana Ehrhart essential oil against UVB-induced Photoaging in
mice. Photochem. Photobiol. 98, 958–968. doi: 10.1111/php.13561
Zibrowski, E. M., and Robertson, J. M. (2006). Olfactory sensitivity in medical
laboratory workers occupationally exposed to organic solvent mixtures. Occup. Med.
56, 51–54. doi: 10.1093/occmed/kqi190
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.