Human olfactory detection of packaged cannabis

Gilbert, Avery N.; DiVerdi, J. A.

doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2019.10.007

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Seven subjects (12.7%) had taken part in previous studies ( Gilbert and DiVerdi, 2018 , 2019 ). The sample size of the present study (n = 55) is in keeping with the entirety of the Cannabis sensory evaluation literature: 62 ( Gilbert and DiVerdi, 2018 ), 52 ( Gilbert and DiVerdi, 2019 ), 21 ( Gilbert and DiVerdi, 2020 ), and 10 ( Doty et al, 2004 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recruitment criteria for this study were similar to those used in previous work on Cannabis aroma ( Gilbert and DiVerdi, 2018 , 2019 , 2020 ) and are based on those used in routine consumer sensory evaluation to ensure, short of formal clinical assessment of each prospective panelist, that results are not skewed by permanent or temporary smell impairment including age-related decline.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Human olfactory discrimination of genetic variation within Cannabis strains

Schwabe

Naibauer²,

McGlaughlin³

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cannabis sativa L. is grown and marketed under a large number of named strains. Strains are often associated with phenotypic traits of interest to consumers, such as aroma and cannabinoid content. Yet genetic inconsistencies have been noted within named strains. We asked whether genetically inconsistent samples of a commercial strain also display inconsistent aroma profiles. We genotyped 32 samples using variable microsatellite regions to determine a consensus strain genotype and identify genetic outliers (if any) for four strains. Results were used to select 15 samples for olfactory testing. A genetic outlier sample was available for all but one strain. Aroma profiles were obtained by 55 sniff panelists using quantitative sensory evaluation of 40 odor descriptors. Within a strain, aroma descriptor frequencies for the genetic outlier were frequently at odds with those of the consensus samples. It appears that within-strain genetic differences are associated with differences in aroma profile. Because these differences were perceptible to untrained panelists, they may also be noticed by retail consumers. Our results could help the cannabis industry achieve better control of product consistency.

show abstract