Comparison with Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of Menthol Cigarettes between Expert and Consumer Panel

  • 발행 : 2006.06.01

초록

Threshold limit value (TLV) test between expert and consumer panel was conducted about absolute, recognition and difference threshold respectively. And we tried to suggest appropriate and minimum acceptable menthol concentration level by consumer panel. Determination of threshold value was based on ASTM E 679-79 method by forced-choice ascending concentration series. In addition, a semi-ascending paired difference method was referred to conduct test. The group threshold value was determined as the value of geometric mean individual threshold. The smokers were dividend by two groups, trained and consumer panel. Trained panel was selected according to sensitivity to menthol discrimination. Consumer panel wasrecruited in proportion as population ratios including female smokers. They were all over twenty years old volunteers and summed up thirty four persons. In terms of sensor evaluation, overall difference test with seven-category scale by both trained and consumer panelists were done. On judging correct or incorrect answer, two by three cut-off levels applied to. Every test was conducted with two sessions, before smoking and during smoking period. And, only two samples served each paneI per test with regard to sensory fatigue and reliable results. All tests were replicated, and in total 32 times per panelist. In conclusion, the recognition threshold about consumer and expert panel was 358 ppm/cig. and 276 ppm/cig. in separately. Besides, absolute and difference thresholds were obtained also. And, we conduct difference threshold test with two different ways, upward and downward. And, The results of each method were 246, 195 ppm/cig., 1414, 1336 ppm/cig. and 1047, 972 ppm/cig.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. ASTM. (1991a) Standard practice for determination of odor and taste threshold by a forced-choice method of limits. E-679-79. In Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 15.07. p. 34-39. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia
  2. Baek, S., Jeh, B.K., Kim, D.Y., Lee, J.I. and Kwag, D.K., (2003) Chemicals with Menthol Cooling and Fresh Effect. KOSTAS 25(2) 160-166
  3. B&W documents (1982) An improved method to determine subliminal level of menthol on tobacco. B&W Tobacco Corporation Research Department Standard Method of Analysis
  4. Guadagni, D.G., Okano, S., Buttery, R.G., and Burr, H.K. (1966) Correlation of sensory and gas-lipid chromatographic measurement of apple volatiles. Food Technol. 30: 518
  5. Harry T. Lawless, and Hildegarde Heymann (1999) Sensory Evaluation of Food. Principles and Practices. p. 173-207
  6. Kwag, J.J., Lee, C.G., Lee, J.G., Chang, H.J. and Lee, Y.T. (2003) Pyrolitic Behavior of l-Menthol, KOSTAS 25(2): 103-110
  7. Meilgaard, M.C. (1975) Flavor Chemistry of Beer. Part. 1. Flavor interaction between principal volatiles. Tech. Q. Master Brew. Assoc. Am. v.12 p. 107-117
  8. Morten Meilgaard, D. Sc., Gail Vance Civille, B.S., and B. Thomas Carr, M.S. (1999) Sensory Evaluation Techniques. 3rd edition. p, 123-132. CRC press
  9. Park, J.Y., Yang, K.G. and Yoo, K.K, (1979) A study on the effect of menthol added to the filter. KOSTAS v.1, n.2: 149-151
  10. PM documents (1978) Acceptable limits for menthol in air. Philip Morris Inter-office correspondence
  11. RJR documents (1968) Pilot Study_Salem with various menthol levels. RJR marketing research department
  12. RJR documents (1989) The effect of caffeine, ethanol, and sucrose on temporal perception of menthol
  13. Rhee, M.S., Lim, H.B., Cho, S.H., Kim, S.H. and Park, Y.S. (1989) Studies on the f ${\ell}$-menthol delivery in mentholated cigarette smoke. KOSTAS 11(1): 87-92
  14. Yang, K.G. and Cho, S.H. (1984) A study on the fixation of menthol by clinoptilolites, KOSTAS 6(2): 117-129