Indoor Air 2008, 17-22 August 2008, Copenhagen, Denmark - Paper ID: 501

Influence of low aircraft cabin pressure on taste and odor perception

Florian Mayer*, Andrea Burdack-Freitag, Klaus Breuer and Andreas Holm

Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, Valley, Germany

*
Corresponding email: florian.mayer@ibp.fraunhofer.de

SUMMARY
From practical experience aircraft caterers know of and consider reduced taste and odor
perception during flights. The meal served has to be more spicy compared to food prepared
for normal conditions on ground. The pressure influence on aroma perception was
systematically investigated in a simulated aircraft cabin environment with all environmental
parameters being controlled and adjusted to normal flight conditions, including pressure
(p = 760 hPa). At these conditions individual taste and odor thresholds of some natural and
common aroma and taste compounds used by food and flavor industry of 15 experienced test
subjects were determined. Experiments were performed as triangular and paired comparison
test according to guidelines in food law. A tasting of some white and red wines followed to
study the influence on complex perception. Tests were repeated with the same panel the
following day at the same conditions at normal pressure (ca. 950 hPa). Perception and
recognition thresholds of the subjects at both pressure levels were significantly different.
Furthermore, aroma descriptions and intensity ratings during wine tasting differed depending
on pressure. The grade of difference was also dependent on the type of wine.

KEYWORDS
Cabin pressure, Taste, Odor, Perception, Threshold

INTRODUCTION
Experiences from space flight indicate a reduction of odor and taste perceptions (Olabi et al.,
2002). Differences in gravity cause a move of body fluids from lower extremities to upper
body parts. As a consequence plasma volume and thirst decrease. Besides, reduced barometric
pressure causes a lower air flow through the nasal mucosa diminishing the transport of
odorants to the smell receptors. The result is a decline in odor perception similar to colds and
allergies with swollen mucosa reducing the airflow. Astronauts often complain about the lack
of taste in meals due to a taste perception without (retro-) nasal smell perception. Coffee, e.
g., is rejected because it is only perceived as bitter; the flavor experience through the nose is
very much limited. Reduced odor perception can be explained but also taste perception is
affected which is more difficult to explain, differing results on the influence of gravity or the
reduced air pressure are reported. Experiments in mountains at altitudes above 3500 m and
decompression chambers indicate an increase in taste thresholds. Sweet and salty dishes seem
to be favored because their perceptions are reduced while bitter and sour perceptions seem not
to be affected. A correlation between taste and (retronasal) odor perception is very likely.
Because of the reduced odor and taste perception at high altitudes / low pressures meals for
astronauts are intensively aromatized and spiced (more salt, more sugar). This is also true for
meals served on board aircraft. Findings have been gained empirically, are contradictive and
have hardly been verified. The influence of low pressure on sensory perception and
correlations of odor and taste perception have not yet been investigated systematically. The
question was whether at reduced pressure conditions as on board an aircraft a reduction in
odor and taste perception can be verified and whether there are interdependencies.
METHODS
Experiments to investigate the effect of low pressure in an aircraft cabin at cruising altitude
on odor and taste perception of passengers were performed in a simulated aircraft cabin
environment, the Fraunhofer Flight Test Facility (FTF). It consists of an original front
segment of a two aisle wide body aircraft (Airbus A310-200) situated in a huge low-pressure
chamber. The interior of the aircraft was maintained to give subjects a realistic impression of
flying while the main environmental parameters can be varied and controlled: air pressure,
relative humidity, air and fuselage temperature, ventilation rate, noise and vibration, lighting,
etc. 15 subjects each, male and female, experienced the “flight” conditions detailed in
Table 1.

Table 1. Climatic conditions during sensory experiments

Parameter Test 1 2 3 4
Date dd/mm/yy 15/05/07 16/05/07 25/09/07 26/09/07
“Cruise“ time 9:36 – 12:53 9:36 – 12:53 9:32 – 12:10 9:32 – 12:06
Temperature [°C] 22.9 23.0 23.0 23.0
Relative humidity [%] 10.1 10.2 11.3 10.7
Pressure [hPa] 754.0 937.6 755.8 936.0
Fresh air supply [m³/h] 1672 1672 1672 1672

753 hPa is the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) minimum requirement for aircraft
cabin pressure and represents the barometric pressure at an altitude of 8000 ft. 940 hPa +/- is
the typical barometric pressure at our institute at 680 m a.s.l., certainly depending on the
weather as well. The typical climb situation, the pressure change respectively, can be
simulated realistically within 15min (Figure 1).
1100

1000
[mbar]
[hPa]

900

800

700
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
[min]

Figure 1. Comparison of FTF pressurization (bold line) to real flight measurements (thin
lines).

Outdoor and recirculation air was cleaned by interchangeable HEPA filter systems. An
additional activated charcoal filter in the outdoor air supply prevented odors potentially
originating outside the facility from entering the cabin air system. Sound and vibrations were
simulated with loudspeakers and shakers underneath each seat to give the passengers inside
the aircraft a most realistic impression of the cabin environment.

After boarding subjects experienced “take-off”. At “cruising” altitude, after 20 min., noise
was turned off to exclude the influence of that stressor on taste and odor perception. Subjects
adapted to the climatic conditions, especially pressure and humidity, for another 20 min.
before experiments started. Subjects had average odor and taste perception (earlier
participation in sensory tests), were acquainted with odorants and odor quality descriptions
and had experience with wine tasting. On the first day experiments were performed at low
pressure and on the next day at normal pressure at same conditions (see Table 1).

Determinations of odor and taste thresholds were performed following the official collection
of test methods according to §64 of the German food and feeding stuff code BVL L 00.90-7:
1996-02, BVL L 00.90-8: 1999-11 and BVL L 00.90-9: 1999-11 at normal pressure
conditions on ground and at reduced pressure conditions as they can exist in an aircraft cabin
at cruising altitude.

As reference compounds food grade odorants ethyl butanoate, γ-octalactone, hexanal,

methoxy benzene (anisole) and tastants L-leucine, D-fructose, mono sodium glutamate
(MSG), sodium chloride were used. Compounds were dissolved in tasteless drinking water
suitable for the preparation of baby food.

For threshold determinations odorants were presented in triangular tests to distinguish the
odorant containing water in increasing concentrations from two blanks containing only water.
Lowest odorant concentration was ca. 6-fold below the expected threshold and was increased
by a factor of five by each concentration step up to a factor of 100 above the expected
threshold. Tastants were presented in a one-sided paired test to distinguish the tastant
containing water in increasing concentrations from pure water. Lowest tastant concentration
was ca. one third below the expected threshold and was increased by a factor of two by each
concentration step up to a factor of 5 above the expected threshold. The odor and taste quality,
respectively, was to be described.

To see the influence of pressure on the interdependency of odor and taste perception a wine
tasting was performed comparing three different white and three different red wine varieties
(test 1 and 2) and a highly rated white and red wine selected for aircraft service with a cheap
(below 4 € in a supermarket) white and red wine of the same type (test 3 and 4). Odor and
taste descriptors, intensity ratings on a seven point scale from “0” not perceptible to “3”
strongly perceptible in increments of 0.5 as well as a preference rating had to be given.

White wine varieties: Riesling (dry), Chardonnay (semi-dry), late harvest Riesling (sweet).
Red wine varieties: Cabernet-Sauvignon (dry), Cabernet Dorio (hybrid of Cabernet
Sauvignon and Dornfelder, dry), Schwarzriesling (Pinot Meunier, Miller’s Burgundy, semi-
dry). All six wines were from the Palatinate region around Neustadt/Weinstraße, Germany.
Highly rated white wine: late harvest Riesling 2006 (dry), Nahe region
Supermarket white wine: Riesling Classic 2006 (dry), Mosel region
Highly rated red wine: Bordeaux, Grand Cru, 2001, Haut-Médoc region
Supermarket red wine: Bordeaux Supérieur, 2005, Haut Benauge region

RESULTS

Influence of low aircraft cabin pressure on odor thresholds

The influence of low pressure on odor detection and recognition thresholds of initially four
odorants, ethyl butanoate, γ-octalactone, hexanal, methoxy benzene (anisole), was
determined. Results are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Detection and recognition threshold as well as odor quality descriptors of four
selected odorants at normal ground pressure and reduced aircraft cabin pressure
Odorant ethyl butanoate γ-octalactone hexanal anisole
Pressure normal low normal low normal low normal low
Detection 0.5 4.9 12.0 15.6 61.5 98.0 152.5 197.5
threshold [µg/L H2O]
Recognition 3.0 8.4 17.9 22.2 73.0 98.0 177.5 210.0
threshold [µg/L H2O]
Odor quality fruity, fruity, coconut, coconut, apple, grassy, sweet, sweet,
descriptors fresh, tropical, fruity, fruity, green, green, fruity, fruity,
lemon sweet sweet sweet floral sweet floral berry

At low pressure the detection and recognition thresholds of the four odorants are higher. Ethyl
butanoate has a three to ten times higher odor threshold at low aircraft cabin pressure
compared to at normal pressure, hexanal has a 50% higher threshold at low pressure, the
thresholds for γ-octalactone and anisol are only slightly higher. This means that at low
pressure for the same (nasal) odor perception a higher concentration of an odorant is needed
or the same concentration of an odorant e. g. in food is perceived weaker at aircraft cabin
pressure. Apart from the lactone odor qualities are perceived less fresh and more heavy
instead.

Influence of low aircraft cabin pressure on taste thresholds

The influence of low pressure on taste detection and recognition thresholds of initially four
tastants, L-leucine, D-fructose, mono sodium glutamate (MSG), sodium chloride, was
determined. Results are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Detection and recognition threshold as well as taste quality descriptors of four
selected tastants at normal ground pressure and reduced aircraft cabin pressure
Tastant L-leucine D-fructose mono sodium sodium chloride
glutamate
Pressure normal low normal low normal low normal low
Detection 5.5 4.8 13.9 25.4 0.16 0.19 0.27 0.43
threshold [g/L H2O]
Recognition 5.5 6.1 18.8 29.2 0.18 0.26 0.38 0.54
threshold [g/L H2O]
Taste quality bitter, bitter, sweet sweet umami, umami, salty salty,
descriptors intense astringent, salty, salty mild,
sweet sweet- musty
sour

Taste thresholds for L-leucine are not influenced by low pressure but it is perceived less bitter
and causes an astringent mouth feeling. For the other three tastants the thresholds are higher at
low pressure compared to at normal pressure, for mono sodium glutamate only slightly
higher, for D-fructose and sodium chloride (salt) they are distinctly increased to almost twice
the level at normal pressure. This means equally spiced foods are perceived less intense at low
aircraft cabin pressure compared to ground pressure. For the same taste perception the tastant
concentration has to be increased. There is no difference in taste quality perception of fructose
but mono sodium glutamate and sodium chloride are perceived milder and less complex.
Influence of low aircraft cabin pressure on combined odor and taste perception
By separate determination of odor and taste thresholds at two pressure levels the influence on
only one sense could be seen. To investigate the interdependency of odor and taste perception
a more complex food was chosen – wine. In a first test three different white and red wine
varieties were compared at two pressure levels. The three white wines were a dry Riesling, a
semi-dry Chardonnay and a sweet late harvest Riesling, the red wines were a dry Cabernet-
Sauvignon, a dry Cabernet Dorio (hybrid of Cabernet Sauvignon and Dornfelder) and a semi-
dry Schwarzriesling (Pinot Meunier, Miller’s Burgundy) all six from the Palatinate region
around Neustadt/Weinstraße in Germany. Odor descriptions, intensity and preference ranking
for the three white and three red wines are shown in Tables 4 and 5.

Table 4. Comparison of sensory evaluation of three different white wine varieties at normal
ground pressure and reduced aircraft cabin pressure
Wine Riesling Chardonnay Late harvest Riesling
Pressure normal low normal low normal low
Odor citrus, citrus, citrus citrus citrus, citrus
apricot spirit peach
Retronasal citrus, citrus almond, woody, peach citrus,
odor apple, currant, musty, peach
apricot citrus spirit
Taste sour sour sour astringent sweet, sour sweet, mild
Intensity 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0
Preference 2 2 3 3 1 1
[1=most liked]

At low pressure the white wines were described to have more spirit and musty odor notes, the
Chardonnay developed a woody odor and was perceived astringent. The complexity with
other fruity odor impressions perceptible at normal pressure was lost and only citrus notes
remained. The intensity slightly increased. The general preference of the sweet late harvest
Riesling over the dry Riesling and Chardonnay did not change with pressure.

Table 5. Comparison of sensory evaluation of three different red wine varieties at normal
ground pressure and reduced aircraft cabin pressure
Wine Schwarzriesling Cabernet Dorio Cabernet Sauvignon
Pressure normal low normal low normal low
Odor berry, berry, berry berry, berry, berry,
currant, currant dry plum currant, currant,
cherry woody cherry, vanilla
vanilla,
cocoa
Retronasal berry, berry, berry, berry berry, berry,
odor currant, woody, currant currant, currant
woody licorice cherry,
vanilla,
cocoa
Taste sour sour, sour sweet, astringent sweet
astringent mild
Intensity 1.7 1.8 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Preference 3 3 2 2 1 1
[1=most liked]
Also the red wines lost some of their complexity when tasted at reduced pressure but not as
much as the white wines. A slight increase in intensity was perceived as well. The low
pressure did also not influence the preference ranking of the different red wine varieties.

In a second test a highly rated white and red wine selected for aircraft service was compared
to a white and red wine of the same type sold for less than 4 € at a supermarket. The question
was whether wine descriptions and preference rating would change between ground and
altitude pressure conditions. Results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Comparison of sensory evaluation of a highly rated white and red wine selected for
aircraft service and a cheap white and red wine of the same type from the
supermarket at normal and low pressure
Wine Riesling cheap Riesling Bordeaux cheap Bordeaux
Pressure normal low normal low normal low normal low
Odor citrus, citrus, citrus, lime, berry, berry, berry, berry,
lime apricot peach lemon- currant, currant, currant, currant
grass, cherry woody cherry
peach
Retronasal odor citrus, citrus, peach, peach, berry, berry, berry, berry,
lime spirit lemon- lemon- currant currant, currant, cherry,
grass grass woody cherry woody
Taste sour, sour, sour, sour, astringent sour, sweet, sour,
astringent bitter sweet, sweet, bitter sour, astringent
mild mild
Intensity 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.7 2.4 2.3 2.3 1.9
Preference 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 2
[1=most liked]

The highly rated Riesling developed a spirit note at low pressure and was also perceived as
bitter. The intensity slightly increased. The cheap Riesling surprisingly retained its
complexity and was preferred over the expensive Riesling at both pressure conditions. The
two red wines are more stable in their odor complexity. At low pressure woody notes come
through. Whereas at normal pressure the milder cheap Bordeaux is preferred over the highly
rated more astringent Bordeaux, at low pressure the cheap Bordeaux looses some of its
intensity and the expensive Bordeaux remains more stable which makes the highly rated
Bordeaux the more preferred wine.

DISCUSSION
Investigations on the influence of pressure on odor and taste perception performed confirm
previous existing observations of aircraft passengers and airline caterers that for a similar
odor and taste experience on board an aircraft more spice is necessary. Empirical findings
could be verified by a systematic approach determining the changes in odor and taste
thresholds with selected odorants and tastants as well as complex flavor perceptions on wine
depending on pressure. Results show that odor thresholds increase at low pressure depending
on the compound, fruity smelling esters are perceived much less intense since their threshold
seems to be much higher at reduced pressure. For other compounds looked at so far, a lactone,
a saturated aldehyde, an ether odor thresholds also increase but to a smaller extent than for the
ester. With regard to tastants especially the perception of sweet and salty tasting compounds
decreases with pressure. At low pressure they are perceived less intense, their taste thresholds
increase by a factor of ca. 1.5 compared to normal ground pressure. Consequently at reduced
aircraft cabin pressure passengers prefer dishes that are spiced more sweet and more salty.
Wine tasting experiments at normal ground level pressure and low aircraft cabin pressure
indicate that (a) individual preferences for a certain type or variety of wine is hardly
influenced by pressure and (b) at reduced pressure heavy, full-bodied wines are preferred over
light wines. Light white wines were perceived more intense but also less complex,
unbalanced, with some fruity notes missing and some unpleasant notes strengthened which
might be due to an increased evaporation of alcohol and of high volatile odorants at low
pressure leaving a bland unbalanced odor behind. Heavy wines in contrast were more stable
in odor and taste perception at reduced pressure.

Results encourage airline caterers in their policy serving more spiced food and heavy wines
on board aircraft. The degree of “over seasoning” aircraft food depends on the odor and taste
perception intended. Wines selected for aircraft service must remain their flavor complexity at
reduced pressure. This is more likely with heavy, full-bodied wines, confirming observations
from airline sommeliers (Del Monego, 2006).

CONCLUSIONS
Results verify experiences of aircraft passengers and high altitude mountaineers preferring
more spiced food at low pressure and of airline caterers already using more salt and sugar
when preparing airline food compared to what they would use for a meal to be served on
ground. Investigations also confirmed that on board an aircraft light wines should not be
served but high quality full-bodied wines instead.

For further verification of an odor and taste threshold increase at low pressure compared to
normal ground pressure additional tests are planned with other odorants with other functional
groups e. g. acids, alcohols, double bonds. Since a sour tastant has not been investigated yet,
the taste threshold of citric acid will have to be determined as well as other sweet or bitter
tastants like sucrose or caffeine. Capsaicin as pain originator responsible for hot and spicy
perception in the mouth is also of interest. To see the combined influence of pressure on odor
and taste perception more wines as well as other beverages (e. g. tomato juice) or whole meals
with a different spice level should also be investigated in the future.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We gratefully thank Mrs. A. Morper and Mr. M. Reiner for technical assistance during the
experiments. We thank Mr. H. B. Pötters, Föching, Germany for providing the different wine
varieties from Palatinate, Neustadt/Weinstraße for tests 1 and 2 and we thank Mr. Markus Del
Monego for advice regarding selection of wines for tests 3 and 4.

REFERENCES
Amtliche Sammlung von Untersuchungsverfahren nach §64 LFGB (official collection of test
methods according to §64 of the German food and feeding stuff code) L 00.90-7: Sensory
analysis – Methodology – Triangle test. 1996-02. Bundesamt für Verbraucherschutz und
Lebensmittelsicherheit (Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL),
Braunschweig, Berlin.
Amtliche Sammlung von Untersuchungsverfahren nach §64 LFGB (official collection of test
methods according to §64 of the German food and feeding stuff code) L 00.90-8: Sensory
analysis – Methodology – Paired comparison test. 1999-11. Bundesamt für
Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (Federal Office of Consumer Protection
and Food Safety, BVL), Braunschweig, Berlin.
Amtliche Sammlung von Untersuchungsverfahren nach §64 LFGB (official collection of test
methods according to §64 of the German food and feeding stuff code) L 00.90-9:
Determination of sensitivity of taste by sensory analysis. 1999-11. Bundesamt für
Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (Federal Office of Consumer Protection
and Food Safety, BVL), Braunschweig, Berlin.
Del Monego M. 2006. Weinwolken. In: Lufthansa Exclusive, 11/06, 120-125, in German.
Olabi A.A., Lawless H.T., Hunter J.B., Levitsky D.A. and Halpern P.B. 2002. The effect of
microgravity and space flight on the chemical senses. Journal of food science, 67(2), 468-
478.
Rychlik M., Schieberle P. and Grosch W. 1998. Compilation of Odor Thresholds, Odor
Qualities and Retention Indices of Key Food Odorants“. Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für
Lebensmittelchemie and Institut für Lebensmittelchemie der Technischen Universität
München, Garching, Germany.
van Gemert L. J. 2003. Odour Thresholds – Compilations of odour threshold values in air,
water and other media. Oliemans Punter & Partners BV, The Netherlands.