Retronasal Olfaction Test Methods: A Systematic Review

Aroma determination in alcoholic beverages: Green MS-based sample preparation approaches

Aroma determination in alcoholic beverages has become a hot research topic due to the ongoing effort to obtain quality products, especially in a globalized market. Consumer satisfaction is mainly achieved by balancing several aroma compounds, which are mixtures of numerous volatile molecules enclosed in challenging matrices. Thus, sample preparation strategies for quality control and product development are required. They involve several steps including copious amounts of hazardous solvents or time-consuming procedures. This is bucking the trend of the ever-increasing pressure to reduce the environmental impact of analytical chemistry processes. Hence, the evolution of sample preparation procedures has directed towards miniaturized techniques to decrease or avoid the use of hazardous solvents and integrating sampling, extraction, and enrichment of the targeted analytes in fewer steps. Mass spectrometry coupled to gas or liquid chromatography is particularly well suited to address the complexity of these matrices. This review surveys advancements of green miniaturized techniques coupled to mass spectrometry applied on all categories of odor-active molecules in the most consumed alcoholic beverages: beer, wine, and spirits. The targeted literature consider progresses over the past 20 years.

A practical test for retronasal odor identification based on aromatized tablets

BACKGROUND

Olfactory perceptions elicited by odors originating from within the body (retronasal olfaction) play a crucial role in well-being and are often disrupted in various medical conditions. However, the assessment of retronasal olfaction in research and the clinical practice is impeded by the lack of commercially available tests and limited standardization of existing testing materials.

NEW METHOD

The novel ThreeT retronasal odor identification test employs 20 flavored tablets that deliver a standardized amount of odorous stimuli. The items represent common food- and non-food-related odors.

RESULTS

The ThreeT test effectively distinguishes patients with olfactory dysfunction from healthy controls, achieving a specificity of 86% and sensitivity of 73%. Its scores remain stable for up to 3 months (r=.79).

COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD

ThreeT test exhibits a strong correlation with "Tasteless powders" measure of retronasal olfaction (r=.78) and classifies people into healthy and patient groups with similar accuracy. Test-retest stability of ThreeT is slightly higher than the stability of "Tasteless powders" (r=.79 vs r=.74).

CONCLUSIONS

ThreeT is suitable for integration into scientific research and clinical practice to monitor retronasal odor identification abilities.

Liu D, A. Müller C, A. Stuck B, Welge-Lüssen A, Hähner A. Olfactory Dysfunction: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Disorders of the sense of smell have received greater attention because of the frequency with which they occur as a symptom of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Olfactory dysfunction can lead to profound reduction in quality of life and may arise from many different causes.

METHODS

A selective literature review was conducted with consideration of the current version of the guideline issued by the Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany.

RESULTS

The cornerstones of diagnosis are the relevant medical history and psychophysical testing of olfactory function using standardized validated tests. Modern treatment strategies are oriented on the cause of the dysfunction. While treatment of the underlying inflammation takes precedence in patients with sinunasal dysosmia, olfactory training is the primary treatment option for other forms of the disorder. The prognosis is determined not only by the cause of the olfactory dysfunction and the patient's age, but also by the olfactory performance as measured at the time of diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Options for the treatment of olfactory dysfunction are available but limited, depending on the cause. It is therefore important to carry out a detailed diagnostic work-up and keep the patient informed of the expected course and prognosis.

Investigations and Outcomes for Olfactory Disorders

Purpose of Review

To provide a detailed overview of the investigations and core outcome measures for olfactory disorders.

Recent Findings

Olfactory disorders can have a detrimental impact to the quality of life of patients. There are a wide range of causes of olfactory loss including sinonasal conditions, idiopathic, post-head trauma or infection. This review highlights the key investigations and reasoning for their use to clinically assess and research patients with olfactory disorders. In addition, this review outlines the core outcome measures for olfaction that will help inform future research in olfactory disorders.

Summary

A systematic approach with history taking and examination particularly with nasal endoscopy can determine the cause of the olfactory disorder in most cases. Specific olfactory disorder questionnaires can demonstrate the impact on quality of life, while psychophysical testing can objectively assess and monitor olfaction over time. Olfactory-evoked potentials and functional MRI are reserved for research, whereas CT and MRI imaging are used depending on history and examination. A core outcome set for olfaction has been developed that will help standardise the outcome measures used in olfaction and olfactory disorders research.

Psychophysical Testing in Chemosensory Disorders

Purpose of Review

To provide an overview of psychophysical testing in olfaction and gustation.

Recent Findings

Subjective patient report correlates poorly with objective assessment of olfaction and gustation. It is therefore important that clinicians and researchers perform psychophysical testing during chemosensory assessment. There are several validated psychophysical tests of olfaction and gustation, with ongoing developments accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. These tests have been culturally and linguistically adapted globally. Screening tests have been developed with careful consideration to distinguish normosmics from those with olfactory dysfunction.

Summary

Validated chemosensory tools are available for use by the clinician to support screening, diagnosis, or monitoring. There are promising advances in self-assessment and screening that provide avenues for the development of a standardised pathway for identification and formal assessment of patients with smell and taste disorders.

Current Perspectives on Food Oral Processing

Food oral processing (FOP) is a fast-emerging research area in the food science discipline. Since its first introduction about a decade ago, a large amount of literature has been published in this area, forming new frontiers and leading to new research opportunities. This review aims to summarize FOP research progress from current perspectives. Food texture, food flavor (aroma and taste), bolus swallowing, and eating behavior are covered in this review. The discussion of each topic is organized into three parts: a short background introduction, reflections on current research findings and achievements, and future directions and implications on food design. Physical, physiological, and psychological principles are the main concerns of discussion for each topic. The last part of the review shares views on the research challenges and outlooks of future FOP research. It is hoped that the review not only helps readers comprehend what has been achieved in the past decade but also, more importantly, identify where the knowledge gaps are and in which direction the FOP research will go.

Danish Validation of a Retronasal Olfactory Powder Test and Development of a Novel Quick Retronasal Olfactory Test

Introduction  Quality of life is closely linked to retronasal olfactory function. Familiarity with odors vary, so tests need validation. Testing can be time-consuming, so a quick test and a thorough test are needed for clinical and research settings.

Objectives  The objectives of this study were to validate the original retronasal powder olfactory test in a Danish population and to develop a novel quick retronasal test for easy application.

Methods  Ninety-seven participants were included in the study, 59 healthy controls and 38 patients with olfactory impairment. The retronasal test was modified by substituting unfamiliar odors and descriptors and validated with a criterion of correct identification rate of 50% in the original test and 90% in the quick test. Items with over 90% correct identification rate in the modified original test were included in the quick test, resulting in a 10-item test.

Results  The modified retronasal olfactory test achieved good test characteristics, with a 10th percentile cut-off value of 13: sensitivity was 88.9%, specificity 83.0%, positive predictive value 78%, negative predictive value 91.7%, and the receiver operating characteristics area under the curve (ROC-AUC) was 0.86. The quick test achieved acceptable test characteristics, with a 10th percentile cut-off value of 8.2: sensitivity was 72.2%, specificity 90.6%, positive predictive value 83.9%, negative predictive value was 82.8%, and ROC-AUC 0.81.

Conclusion  Validation of both tests demonstrated satisfactory accuracy. We recommend the quick test for screening purposes, and the modified original version for a thorough evaluation. The tests are easily implemented as they are easy to understand and very affordable.

Intranasal vaccine: Factors to consider in research and development

Most existing vaccines for human use are administered by needle-based injection. Administering vaccines needle-free intranasally has numerous advantages over by needle-based injection, but there are only a few intranasal vaccines that are currently approved for human use, and all of them are live attenuated influenza virus vaccines. Clearly, there are immunological as well as non-immunological challenges that prevent vaccine developers from choosing the intranasal route of administration. We reviewed current approved intranasal vaccines and pipelines and described the target of intranasal vaccines, i.e. nose and lymphoid tissues in the nasal cavity. We then analyzed factors unique to intranasal vaccines that need to be considered when researching and developing new intranasal vaccines. We concluded that while the choice of vaccine formulations, mucoadhesives, mucosal and epithelial permeation enhancers, and ligands that target M-cells are important, safe and effective intranasal mucosal vaccine adjuvants are needed to successfully develop an intranasal vaccine that is not based on live-attenuated viruses or bacteria. Moreover, more effective intranasal vaccine application devices that can efficiently target a vaccine to lymphoid tissues in the nasal cavity as well as preclinical animal models that can better predict intranasal vaccine performance in clinical trials are needed to increase the success rate of intranasal vaccines in clinical trials.

q-Powders: a quick test for screening retronasal olfactory disorders with tasteless powders

Purpose

To investigate the clinical utility of q-Powders—a retronasal identification screening test.

Methods

A total of 156 subjects (92 females, mean age: 54.5 years ± 17.3 years) completed a 3-item q-Powders retronasal identification test and a 16-items Sniffin’ Sticks orthonasal identification test. We analyzed whether the q-Powders test could differentiate between subjects with normosmia and subjects with an olfactory disorder.

Results

Our data indicated that subjects with an olfactory disorder scored lower in the q-Powders test than subjects with normosmia. The analyses revealed q-Powders test sensitivity of 84% and a test specificity of 64.9% with a score of 2 points taken as a cutoff for olfactory disorders.

Conclusion

The 3-item q-Powders retronasal test may be used for screening purposes in clinical research.

Level of evidence

4

Validation study of a novel approach for assessment of retronasal olfactory function with combination of odor thresholds and identification

Purpose

The present study aimed to establish a test battery for the clinical assessment of retronasal odor thresholds and retronasal odor identification.

Study design

Prospective case–control series.

Methods

Sixty participants (36 women, 24 men, mean age 37.6 ± 19.4 years) were enrolled in this study; 36 were healthy controls and 24 were patients with olfactory dysfunction. Orthonasal olfactory function was assessed with the “Sniffin’ Sticks” test battery. Retronasal olfaction was assessed with oral odorant delivery using special containers for threshold function, and with oral tasteless powders for odor identification.

Results

Retronasal and orthonasal olfaction were significantly correlated for threshold scores, identification score, and the sum of threshold and identification score (TI score). Validity analyses showed that the retronasal TI score was able to discriminate between healthy controls and patients with olfactory dysfunction.

Conclusions

Normosmic participants can be distinctly differentiated from patients with olfactory dysfunction using a valid test battery comprised of retronasal threshold and identification tests. Based on the current findings, we advocate a TI score of 16 as a cut-off between patients and controls. Therefore, TI scores of 17 and above would indicate retronasal normosmia.

Determination of Retronasal Olfactory Threshold Values

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The aim of this study was to generate normative data of retronasal olfactory threshold values for normosmic and hyposmic individuals and to test the validity of that data by determining the discriminative power for normosmic/hyposmic differentiation.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective, descriptive and methodological study.

METHODS

The orthonasal olfactory function of 20 normosmic and 20 hyposmic cases was evaluated using the Sniffin' Sticks Olfactory test. Sniffin' Sticks odor threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification values and threshold discrimination identification (TDI) scores were recorded. A 13-item test battery previously prepared in our Rhinology Laboratory for retronasal olfactory threshold test that consisted of concentrated solutions prepared from 2:1 diluted 99% phenylethyl alcohol (PEA) and water was used. Each concentration was evaluated with water control, and if not answered correctly, the same process was continued by moving to a higher concentration series. Four consecutive correct answers were determined as the patient's retronasal olfactory threshold.

RESULTS

A strong correlation was found between Sniffin' Sticks TDI scores and retronasal odor threshold values in the normosmic group (P < .001, r:0.67). A very strong correlation was found between Sniffin' Sticks TDI scores and retronasal olfactory threshold values in the hyposmic group (P < .001, r:0.81). Furthermore, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that the sensitivity and the specificity of normosmic/hyposmic differentiation of retronasal olfactory threshold test was 95% and 100%, respectively. The diagnostic cutoff value was 8.5.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the retronasal olfactory test, a psychophysical odor test performed using an orally presented stimulus, can be used to differentiate normosmic and hyposmic cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 Laryngoscope, 131:1608-1614, 2021.

The use of freeze-dried retronasal stimuli to assess olfactory function

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a test of olfactory perception that uses freeze-dried stimuli developed to rapidly release aromas capable of migrating to the olfactory mucosa retronasally.

DESIGN

Validation study.

SETTING

Psychology and Chemistry Departments.

PARTICIPANTS

First, 15 participants provided data for psychometric functions. Second, 70 participants made perceptual judgments of retronasal stimuli. Inclusion criterion included informed consent and a satisfactory Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation result.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

First, psychometric functions were generated for two types of freeze-dried stimuli (coffee and orange) using the Single-Interval Adjustment Matrix method. Second, participants provided ratings of pleasantness, intensity, and familiarity and performed a standardised identification test using seven retronasally presented aromas alongside the previously validated Sniffin' Sticks orthonasal olfactory test.

RESULTS

Psychometric functions indicated a dose-response relationship between aroma concentration and probability of detection. Test-retest reliability of the retronasal stimuli was acceptable (r₇₀  = 0.72, P < 0.001), and identification scores were not dependent on testing method (ie, retronasal vs Sniffin' Sticks). Stimuli delivered using the Sniffin' Sticks test were rated more pleasant than their retronasal counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

Freeze-dried retronasal stimuli offer an easy-to-use and rapid means to test olfaction function and are arguably well suited for clinical practice, but require further development and trialing prior to the adoption in the clinical context.