Organoleptic Analysis Guidance Final

Organoleptic Analysis
of Herbal Ingredients
Steven Dentali, Ph.D., Managing Editor
March 2013
Prepared by
The American Herbal Products Association
This document is the property of the American Herbal Products Association (AHPA) and is for
AHPA purposes only. Unless given prior approval from AHPA, it shall not be reproduced,
circulated, or quoted, in whole or in part, outside of AHPA, its committees, and its members.
Cite as: American Herbal Products Association. March 2013.
Organoleptic Analysis of Herbal Ingredients. AHPA: Silver Spring, MD.
Organoleptic Analysis of Herbal Ingredients
Table of Contents
Disclaimers......................................................................................................... iii
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ iv
Introduction........................................................................................................v
Conducting Organoleptic Analyses ...................................................................... 1
Characteristics Subject to Organolepsis ................................................................4
Appearance .....................................................................................................5
Fracture (if applicable) .....................................................................................6
Texture............................................................................................................6
Aroma .............................................................................................................8
Flavor/Taste ................................................................................................... 11
Mouthfeel ..................................................................................................... 14
Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 16
Appendix 1: Considerations in Sensory Evaluation ............................................. 19
Appendix 2: The Working Group......................................................................26
The Examinations ..........................................................................................26
The Report ....................................................................................................27
Appendix 3: Organoleptic Analyses...................................................................30
©AHPA, March 2013 ii

Disclaimers
The information presented here is provided for guidance purposes only.
Producers of herbal ingredients and of finished consumer products that contain
herbs are responsible for knowing, understanding, and conforming to all state,
local, and federal laws and regulations that are relevant to their businesses, and
for implementing practices that may go beyond those described here, as needed.
This document does not serve as a substitute for a manufacturer’s or a third-party
testing laboratory’s need to be knowledgeable about the plant materials to be
tested or their need to understand the scientific validity, or lack thereof, of
identification methodologies that may implemented. In addition, it does not
address all of the needs of those who are employing or establishing organoleptic
procedures for the purpose of identity testing.
In preparing this document, every effort was made to provide a general guide
with specific examples so that companies can include organoleptic analyses as
part of their identity testing procedures. This document does not discuss strategies
to validate the results from these qualitative analyses as this field is still
developing. However it does present general considerations and tools to evaluate
botanical materials with regard to appearance, fracture (if applicable) texture,
aroma, flavor/taste, mouthfeel and aftertaste.
©AHPA, March 2013 iii

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgement is given to Staci Eisner of Cortex Scientific Botanicals and Roy
Upton of Planetary Formulas for contributions that formed the basis of the
original draft of this document, and to James Kababick of Flora Research
Laboratories since this document stemmed from his original suggestion and
persistence at the beginning of the process. Thanks are also extended to Amy
Brush of Traditional Medicinals who provided the bibliography (see page 20) of
relevant historical plant texts that have been digitized by Google and are available
for free download, and to David Winston of Herbalist & Alchemist who, with
Matthew Persico of Galen’s Way, updated the aroma, taste, and mouthfeel
sections of the document with more contemporary examples. David did this using
his experience as a teacher and acknowledgement is given to use of his intellectual
property. Recognition is also extended to the working group members: Brian
Bowen of the Tai Sophia Institute, Amy Brush, Matthew Persico, Victor Werbin
and Alyssa Johnson of Vitality Works, and Steven Yeager of Mountain Rose
Herbs, and to the AHPA Botanical Raw Materials and Standards committees.
Special thanks are extended to Maria Giovanni, Ph.D. of California State
University, Chico for Appendix 1 on Considerations in Sensory Testing and
improvements to the document overall.
©AHPA, March 2013 iv

Introduction
The purpose of this document is to provide a practical aid and general guide for
companies implementing organoleptic characterization, with or without
macroscopic descriptors, for the identification of botanical materials though it may
also have application to the identification of other dietary components. Title 21 of
the Federal Code of Regulations, Part 111, Current Good Manufacturing Practice in
Manufacturing, Packaging, Labeling, or Holding Operations for Dietary Supplements (21
CFR 111) requires the establishment of an identity specification for each
component used in the manufacture of a dietary supplement1 and, unless an
exemption is obtained, to “(c)onduct at least one appropriate test or examination
to verify the identity of any component that is a dietary ingredient” before use.2
This rule also identifies the types of tests and analyses that may be used to verify
ingredient identity. Gross organoleptic analysis is among these choices, as is
macroscopic analysis.3, 4 The specific objective of organoleptic analysis procedures
described herein is to affirm a positive material identification of dietary
components, or to reject or question the identification of such components. These
procedures can also be applied to incorporating organoleptic analysis into a
quality control program.
In promulgating the dietary supplement cGMP rule, the Food and Drug
Administration did not provide definitions for the terms “gross organoleptic
analysis” or “macroscopic analysis.” It can be assumed however that the terms
have their normal meanings, and for the purposes of this document these terms
are defined as:
• Gross organoleptic analysis: The use of sensory impressions to examine and

characterize the qualities of a material, such as appearance, aroma and
flavor/taste.
• Macroscopic analysis: The naked eye objective assessment of gross

morphological traits also known as macroscopy. It involves qualifying
1 21 CFR § 111.70(b)(1).
2 21 CFR § 111.75(a)(1)(i).
3 21 CFR § 111.75(h)(2)(i).
4 21 CFR § 111.75(h)(2) lists (i) gross organoleptic analysis, (ii) macroscopic analysis, (iii) microscopic analysis, (iv)
chemical analysis, or (v) other scientifically valid methods.
©AHPA, March 2013 v

and/or quantifying various key botanical anatomical features of the subject

material for evaluation against standards for the species and may include
factors that can be influenced by cutting and other processes. Macroscopic
analysis differs from organoleptic or sensory evaluation in that the analyst
uses tools to measure plant structures and must comprehend botanical
anatomy and related terminology. It differs from microscopic analysis in
that it evaluates gross anatomy rather than histology.
Some experts consider these to be two wholly different systems of analysis while
others classify macroscopic analysis as a subset of gross organoleptic analysis. This
guidance focuses on subjective organoleptic testing supplemented by macroscopic
analysis in describing a material’s appearance characteristics such as particle or
piece size.
Manufacturers have the responsibility to ensure that their identity examinations or
tests are appropriate, scientifically valid methods.5 Organoleptic and macroscopic
analyses are useful and valuable tools for determining the identity of fresh or dry
raw herbal materials and may also have applicability to the various forms that
such materials may present such as powdered extracts, tinctures, etc. When
properly conducted by adequately trained personnel, organoleptic examination is
a scientifically valid method for verifying the identity of many botanical
ingredients. In practical terms this means that organoleptic analysis can in fact
identify botanical ingredients in commerce.
It is anticipated that this guidance may eventually be accompanied by examples of
organoleptic evaluations from classic texts for comparison purposes. It may also
be valuable for individuals or companies to submit their determinations of
organoleptic evaluations for botanical marketplace materials in a shared database
such as AHPA’s Botanical Authentication Wiki.6 The recorded experiences of the
participants of the AHPA working group follow in appendices 2 and 3.
5 21 CFR § 111.75(h)(1).
6 http://www.botanicalauthentication.org/ (accessed March 18, 2013).
©AHPA, March 2013 vi

Conducting Organoleptic Analyses

Expert sensory identification of botanical materials in commerce is based on
extensive training and/or experience with organolepsis of botanical materials.
Publications that may provide potentially useful guidance recommended by the
AHPA working group in the development of this document include committee
publications of the ASTM Technical Committee E18, specifically DS 72 Lexicon for
Sensory Evaluation: Aroma, Flavor, Texture and Appearance, and MNL 26 Sensory
Testing Methods: 2nd Edition.7 Lists of descriptors and sensory features that
describe materials (a lexicon) may also be helpful and are available in various
pharmacopoeia and texts of pharmacognosy such as those referenced in the
bibliography. Additional recommended publications on sensory evaluation are
included there.
The development of basic standard operating procedures (SOPs) for organoleptic
analysis, comparing samples to specifications, and using available references of
organoleptic descriptors are interrelated issues that require individual solutions
within an overall approach to organoleptic analysis. The key steps in organoleptic
analysis are: 1. Judge selection and training, 2. Selection and use of reference
material standards, and 3. Evaluation of botanical materials. The evaluation step
requires the development of methods and considerations for the test environment.
1. Judge selection and training
When testing is done by a small group instead of an individual, relevant concerns
include how to qualify individuals, how the group is calibrated, and what group
calibration means. The AHPA working group decided that a panel in agreement
on what tests are to be conducted and how they are done is sufficient for an in-
house organoleptic program. When a single individual tests materials, their
qualifications and calibration are also of concern; however, these individuals
usually have great familiarity with the materials they are evaluating and are not
influenced by other judges. The evaluator’s experience, training, and self-
assessment of their ability (that is, realizing when their performance may be
compromised) are critical to accurate evaluations. The performance of both group
and individual judges should be periodically determined.
7 http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/COMMITTEE/E18_pubs.htm (accessed March 18, 2013).
©AHPA, March 2013 1

Threshold testing (testing the ability of panelists to detect and identify threshold
level aromas and tastes) is an option to consider. One example of how to do this is
found in the European Pharmacopoeia entry for the evaluation of bitterness
values.8 In this case individual testers are calibrated as to their ability to detect
bitterness, correction factors are applied, and unsuitable testers identified. ASTM
International also has information about threshold testing. Other factors are
important in judge selection and training; some of these are mentioned in
Appendix 1.
2. Selection and use of reference material standards
Reference materials are needed for comparison purposes when setting up
identification tests or examinations. It is often necessary to retain botanical
reference materials and to replace them on a regular basis as needed. Certified
reference materials of authentic articles can serve as standards though their
applicability to potentially acceptable botanical materials may be limited. For
example a botanical voucher of a flower would not be an acceptable match for a
root extract prepared from the same plant.
Another viable way to obtain reference materials may be by establishing in-house
trade reference materials based on commercial samples obtained from the trade.
The identity of trade materials can be confirmed via macroscopy, microscopy,
thin-layer chromatography (TLC), and any other appropriate means. Coupled
with organolepsis, this would constitute an authentication protocol for the in-
house development of trade reference materials. Trade reference materials may
also be useful for determinations of different grades and geographical origins of
botanical materials in commerce if the differences can be recognized,
organoleptically distinguished, and documented.
3. Evaluation of botanical materials
The applicability, or scientific validity, of organoleptic testing, which is an
evaluative and subjective qualitative exercise, depends on how well an evaluation
procedure suits the purpose for which it is intended. (See Appendix 1 for
comments regarding subjective and qualitative.) Organolepsis is most often used
to determine if a specification is met or to confirm the identity of materials. Using
it to identify unknown powdered materials from the universe of all possible
8 European Pharmacopoeia 6.0, 2.8.15 Bitterness Value. Council of Europe, July 2007.

ingredients would be a difficult and often impossible task. Thus, the evaluation
described herein is significantly more limited in scope than the identification of
unknown materials. The context within which botanical materials are evaluated
here is to ensure that what is tested conforms to organoleptic specifications
established for that particular article of commerce, not to identify unknown
materials.
The scientific identification of plant species is a taxonomic exercise; however in
industrial applications, identity tests are done on botanical commodities present in
the marketplace. When implementing identity tests, specifications should be
established that allow minor differences in authentic materials and include a range
of acceptable test results. Specifications must also include a limit to the amount of
impurities found in test material for that material to be considered genuine. The
only relevant test parameters for identity testing are sensitivity (the ability to
detect a botanical in the presence of other materials) and specificity (the ability to
correctly identify non-genuine materials as non-genuine and positively identify
genuine materials as genuine). Between them, specificity is more important than
sensitivity as is explained below. An example of establishing a common
vocabulary and the use of rating scales is provided in Appendix 2.
The choices of results for an industrial organoleptic identification examination are
positive, negative, or unable to determine. The specificity of an identity method is
better if skewed toward erring on the side of creating false negatives and away
from allowing false positive results. A positive identification should occur only
with a high degree of confidence because false positive test results would
misidentify the wrong materials as authentic articles and represent a failure of
method suitability. Any negative (or unable to determine) results can be further
evaluated by other independent means in an attempt to confirm identity such as
macroscopy, microscopy, and TLC to see if the initial negative result is a true or
false negative. An investigation of the validity of a negative result should not be
conducted when there is an obvious defect in the material or it is otherwise
disqualified from receiving a subsequent positive identification result.
The working group volunteers participated in an exercise designed to simulate the
establishment of an organoleptic testing program for botanical materials in a
manufacturing environment. A description of their work and examples of the
results are the subject of appendixes 2 and 3, which should be consulted for useful
information in understanding this guide and its implementation.

Characteristics Subject to Organolepsis

The general organoleptic features discussed here are appearance, fracture, aroma,
flavor/taste, texture, mouthfeel and aftertaste. Each of these is covered in brief
with a list of useful terms and examples to aid in characterizing the various
organoleptic features. Instructional guidelines for aroma, texture, and taste
examinations are followed with suggested classifications and lists of descriptors.
This guidance presents a series of examinations that are best conducted in sequential order:
appearance, fracture (if applicable), aroma, taste, texture, mouthfeel and aftertaste. This
provides the opportunity to disqualify materials with obvious defects prior to subsequent
testing that could expose the evaluators to unnecessary risk. If a material does not have the
correct appearance then care should be taken with any subsequent tests that may be
foregone altogether. For example, there may be no need to taste materials that have
obvious mold growth sufficient to disqualify them as quality genuine articles.

Appearance
Appearance is how the material appears to the naked eye and includes shape, size,
color, surface appearance, and irregularities. Some possible descriptors that can be
used to describe the appearance of a material are below. Fracture, produced by a
separate operation, is briefly discussed later. With respect to color it should be
noted that unambiguous colors may be assigned using Pantone color matching.
However the assignment of a single color for agricultural materials that will reflect
natural color variations batch to batch should be avoided.
Appearance Characterization Terms

Shape Symmetrical Fracture9 Fibrous
Asymmetrical Short
Color (if different from
Size Coarse
unbroken material)
Fine Starchy
Clarity Clear Resinous
Translucent Waxy
Opaque Uneven
Red, orange, yellow,
Color green, blue, purple, Dusty
etc.
Pearlescent, pearly Woody
Shiny, sparkly, glossy Mealy
Dull, matte Smooth
Bright, vibrant Spongy
Pale, light Granular
Tough with projecting
Clear, light
wood fibers
Muddy
Uniform, consistent
Swirled, speckled,
spotted, blotched
9
Used for roots and barks. Terms from Washburn and Blome, Pharmacognosy and Materia Medica. 1927. p 585.

Fracture (if applicable)

Fracture refers to how materials break when forced and the characteristics of that
break or fracture. It is used to describe how woody stems, roots, and barks break,
including the sound of breaking, and the resultant surfaces of the breakable plant
part once broken. The manner in which a botanical material fractures is affected
by the structure of the plant part, its quality, age, and moisture content. The
historical pharmacognosy literature offers a variety of terms to describe botanical
fractures including those in the table below, which lists the primary forms of
fractures encountered with botanical materials. This list is not comprehensive as
many other descriptors are available to describe individual fractures, including
strong, tough, weak, brittle, fibrous, splintery, granular, short, and laminated.
Botanical Fracture Terms
Complete Material breaks cleanly across its entire breadth.
Incomplete Material breaks only part way across its breadth.
Material will not break with typical force but

Tenacious
requires hitting with a hammer.
Flexible Material that bends rather than breaks.
Texture
Texture can be defined as the sensory manifestation of the structure or inner
makeup of products in terms of mechanical properties and tactile feel properties.
Mechanical properties are determined by the reaction of the material to stress. This
can be determined by first biting down on the material. Some dried herbal root
materials are quite hard and appropriate care should be taken to prevent injury
during testing. Hard materials may be held in the mouth until sufficiently
moistened with saliva that they yield to gently pressure, or the hydrated surface
scraped using the teeth. This process, detailed in the section on taste, should allow
further texture characterizations of the examined material.
Mechanical properties are descriptors of the kinesthetic sense of feedback from the
material in the muscles of fingers, jaw, tongue, or lips. Tactile feel properties can
be characterized as geometrical particles and surface characteristics based on
touching the surface of the material with the tongue and oral cavity. This could

include descriptions based on particle size, shape, or orientation and surface

texture, such as smooth or rough. Moisture properties can also be assed via tactile
nerves in the hands, lips, or tongue.
Terms that may help with organoleptic texture characterizations are provided
below.
Texture Characterization Terms

Hard-solids Moist, wet, sticky, tacky, gummy
Dry, brittle, flaky, crumbly, lumpy
Granular, amorphous, porous, agglomerated, crystalline
Fibrous
Sublimating, fuming
Greasy
Irritating
Soft-solids Spongy, rubbery, gummy
Moist, soggy, sticky, tacky
Wet, deliquescent
Sublimating, fuming
Semi-solids Pasty, porous, mushy
Moist, wet, soggy,
sticky, tacky, gelled
Lumpy, gritty, mealy, grainy
Velvety, smooth, creamy
Fluids Thick, viscous
Watery, thin
Greasy, oily, creamy, sticky
Curdled, frothy, fuming

Aroma
For assessing aroma, approximately 5-10 mg (a “pinch”) of the herb is crushed
between thumb and index finger or between the palms of the hands under gentle
pressure. The odor-producing components released in this process are tested by
slow and repeated inhalation of the air over the sample. The hands should be
cleansed with non-scented soap and dried before this examination.
Herbal materials that cannot be adequately assessed in this manner due to being
too hard to be crushed by hand may be ground with a mortar and pestle or other
means if necessary. Care should be taken to avoid contamination with other odors
that could be imparted to the test materials by the means of crushing or
comminution (particle size reduction or pulverization). If in dried form, also smell
the material immediately after opening the sample bag; if in liquid form or if a
specialty product, smell immediately after removing the dropper or lid. This will
indicate the odor of the bulk material and reveal any off odors due to
contamination.
Assign qualitative odor descriptions such as aromatic, fruity, musty, moldy, or
rancid. Reference materials are essential to ensure correct use of the lexicon by
judges in making the evaluations. A direct comparison of the odor with commonly
defined substances is most advisable. “Smells similar to anise, smells similar to
mint,” etc. Assign the intensity or strength of the odor as: 1 (threshold), 2 (mild), 3
(notable), 4 (strong), 5 (extreme).
General examples of categories of aromas with examples are provided below.
Other categories may include yeast, nutty; indifferent, dull, mild, weak; putrid,
fishy, burnt, spoiled, sulfurous, rotten eggs, decomposing, off; or characteristic
aromas such as mint, lemon, ginger, vanilla, and lavender.

Aromatic or Spicy Aromas with Examples

Anise, fennel, sassafras bark, star anise,
Anise type (spicy and fragrant)
tarragon
Camphor type (characteristic Camphor, epazote, eucalyptus, grindelia,

turpentine-like odor) juniper, wormwood, yarrow
Caraway type (aromatic, pleasant

Caraway, coriander, cumin
to many)
Chocolate or cacao bean type Cacao bean butter and hulls, guarana (faint),
(faintly aromatic) coffee (very faint)
Cinnamon type (very spicy or

Cinnamon, canella, cascarilla, coto bark
aromatic, related to clove type)
Cloves, American wild ginger, bayberry

Clove type (very aromatic) leaves, calamus, caraway, cardamom,
coriander, cubeb, ginger, pimento
Maple syrup type (faintly

Fenugreek, slippery elm bark
aromatic, characteristic)
Peppermint, buchu, damiana, horsemint,

Mint type (very aromatic)
pennyroyal, spearmint
Nutmeg type (very aromatic) Nutmeg, cola nut (faint), mace
Oregano type Oregano, marjoram, summer savory, thyme

Fragrant, Pleasant, or Sweet Aromas with Examples

Balsam type Balsam fir, pine bark, poplar buds
Floral type or orange blossom,

Orange blossoms, apple blossoms, iris flowers
rose type (very fragrant, related
(faint), linden flower, rose, tuberose, ylang ylang
to honey type)
Fragrant type (sharp, floral) Basil, calamus, feverfew, lavender, rosemary, sage
Fruit or apple type (very Apples, chamomile, figs, prunes, raisins, and many
fragrant, related to flower type) so-called berries such as strawberry, raspberry, etc.
Lemon balm type Lemon balm, lemon grass, lemon verbena
American storax, benzoin tree, guaiacum resin

Resin type
(very faint), myrrh
Alfalfa, tea, bonset, comfrey, dandelion leaf, oat

Tea/hay or grassy type
straw
Vanilla, deer tongue, sweet grass, vetiver, white or

Vanilla type
yellow sweetclover
Wintergreen type (very

Wintergreen, sweet birch, yellow birch
fragrant, related to flower type)
Foul/Strong Aromas with Examples

Dandelion type (ammonia
Old dandelion, ashwagandha, coral root, poke root
odor)
Garlic type (sulphurous odor) Garlic, asafetida, horseradish, onion
Belladonna leaves, bittersweet, black cohosh

Narcotic type (heavy,
flowers, cannabis, celandine, coral root, gelsemium,
nauseating, and suffocating;
hellebore, henbane, Jimson weed leaves and seeds,
increased by moisture)
lady’s slipper, opium, tobacco, wild lettuce
Rancid type (due to Castor & croton beans (old), Delphinium spp., saw
decomposition of oils and fats) palmetto, ergot and Seneca snakeroot (when old)
Valerian type (age developed) Valerian, black haw, cramp bark, hops (when old)

Other Aromas with Examples

Bean type Astragalus, beans, calabar beans, marshmallow
Bitter type Chicory, dandelion root, gentian
Bitter almond type (aromatic, Bitter almond, apple seeds, peach leaves, quince
somewhat pleasant, marzipan - seeds and other seeds containing hydrocyanic
like) acid, wild cherry bark
Corydalis, dried red root, Jamaica dogwood,

Bland type
hydrangea, oak bark, stoneroot, wild yam
Patchouli type (musk-like, heavy, Patchouli, musk ambrette, sandalwood (faint),

disagreeable to many) sumbul
Seaweed type (briny odor) Bladder wrack, Irish moss, kelp
Very marked in sarsaparilla, noticeable in nearly

Soil type (earthy, faintly musty
all root herbs, rhizomes, tubers and most barks,
odor)
especially when moist.
Flavor/Taste
Strictly speaking, taste is the perception of sweet, sour, salty, bitter and umami via
taste receptors in the mouth, primarily on the tongue. Flavor is the simultaneous
perception of taste and retronasal smell, that is, smell perceived via the mouth.
These phenomena results from the perception of aromatic (volatile) compounds
that are released when food enters the mouth and is masticated. These
compounds travel retronasally through the back of the mouth and up to the
olfactory bulb at the top of the nasal cavity.
For the flavor/taste test, 5-10 mg (a “pinch”) of the powdered herb is placed on
the tongue and moved in the mouth for 10-30 seconds. The sample is then
expectorated and the mouth rinsed with water. This is important for herbs whose
identity is not well known or for potentially poisonous botanicals. Care should be
taken to use clean equipment when powdering the herb so as not to introduce
foreign flavors.
If materials are not powdered, and this is often preferred because powdering
usually increases material degradation, acceptable ways to taste non-powdered

materials should be employed. The usual practice is to place a small quantity of

material in the mouth and to moisten it with saliva. This could be one end of a
root. Initial taste impressions are gathered and the material, once softened through
exposure to saliva, a process that may take several minutes, is chewed just enough
to release more flavor. The partially chewed material is sucked until the flavor
diminishes upon which time it may be chewed more to release more flavor. This
method should be employed when tasting or eating strong tasting roots such as
osha, elecampane, and many others. Assign the intensity or strength of the taste
as: 1 (threshold), 2 (mild), 3 (notable), 4 (strong), 5 (extreme).
SAFETY NOTE: Tasting of materials with unknown or questionable identities
should be done with extreme caution, if at all. Even confirmation of tastes of
assumed known materials can be hazardous if they are adulterated with toxic
materials or are in fact a different toxic material than the assumed identity. This is
especially important when dealing with unknown powders. Botanical materials
cannot be considered to be inherently safe, although few botanical materials are
extremely toxic. Consideration should also be given to the possibility of
contamination by pathogenic microorganisms. Tasting such materials may result
in unsafe exposures.
Basic flavor/taste characterizations with examples are provided below. Some of
these attributes are actually mouthfeel/feeling factors, which are covered next.
Mixed flavors/tastes, such as sweet-acid, sweet-bitter, and sweet-acid-pungent,
are also common.

Flavor/Taste Descriptors with Examples

Artichoke leaf, barberry, black coffee, chicory root,
Bitter
dandelion leaf, gentian, goldenseal, strong tea
Burnt Burnt coffee beans
Characteristic Ginger, lemon, licorice, mint, etc.
Dry Blackberry root bark, oak bark, black tea
Earthy, metallic Echinacea pallida root
Foul, putrid, rancid,

Saw palmetto
stale, spoiled, off
Black walnut hull, elecampane, mugwort,

Fragrant bitter
wormwood
Chia seed, eleuthero, flax seed, Irish moss,

Neutral/Bland marshmallow, psyllium seed, red clover, slippery
elm, and the wood of many roots, stems, and trunks
Nutty, bean Astragalus, maca
Camphor, Echinacea spp., eucalyptus, menthol,

Pungent cold
spilanthes
Black pepper, chili, garlic, ginger, horseradish,

Pungent hot
juniper berry, mustard, onion, prickly ash
Salty Dulse, glasswort, nori, wakame
Soapy Cilantro, horse chestnut, yucca
Amla, bilberry, lemon, elderberry, rhubarb stem,

Sour, acid schisandra (primary flavor), sheep sorrel, tree
peony, vinegar
Codonopsis, fennel seed, goji berry, jujube date,

Sweet, sugary
licorice, logan berry, slippery elm, stevia
Fermented kombu, morels, nutritional yeast, soy

Umami
products, shiitake, sun-dried tomatoes, truffles

Mouthfeel
Other qualities such as sharp, acrid, cooling, heating/burning, astringent, slimy,
irritating, soapy, aromatic/dispersing, etc. may be detected during tasting and
should be recorded. The information below provides additional examples of these
sensations, or “mouthfeel” that can be experienced during tasting of test materials.
In addition to the items in the table, other mouthfeel descriptors may include
crispy, crunchy, crusty; fibrous, stringy; tough, chewy; pasty, gummy; rubbery,
spongy; mealy, coarse, lumpy, gritty, rough; and smooth, velvety, creamy.
Mouthfeel can be defined as the sensations in the mouth that are perceived by the
sense of touch due to the texture of a sample and also sensations that are caused
by special compounds in a sample, such as tannins that cause mouth-drying or
acids that cause salivation. It can be understood in both tactile (determined by
manipulation of the sample with the tongue, the feeling of the surface of the
sample by the tongue and inside the mouth) and kinesthetic (determined by
manipulation of the sample with the teeth) ways. Aftertaste/afterfeel, which are
flavor and feeling factors remaining in the mouth after swallowing/expectoration,
should also be recorded.

Mouthfeel Descriptors with Examples

Chinese processed aconite, Echinacea spp., kava,
Acrid, tingling,
lobelia, processed pinellia, prickly ash, skunk
numbing, irritating
cabbage, spilanthes
Cooling, cold,
Sweet birch, eucalyptus, many mints, wintergreen
refreshing
Bayberry root bark, betelnut palm, blackberry root,

Drying, astringent geranium, green persimmon, oak bark, schisandra,
tea
Black pepper, cayenne pepper, ginger, horseradish,

Hot, burning
prickly ash, yerba mansa
Mucilaginous,
Comfrey, malva, marshmallow, slippery elm bark
slippery, slimy
Oily Flax seed, saw palmetto berry, sesame seed
Sandy, gritty Horsetail, yerba santa (old)
Balm-of-Gilead, balsam, frankincense, grindelia,

Sticky, gummy
myrrh, pine pitch, tolu, yerba santa

Bibliography
Historical References available at http://books.google.com.
Base, D. (1905) Elements of Vegetable Histology, author published, Baltimore, MD
(5.73 MB, 117 pp.)
Culbreth, D.M.R. (1917) A Manual of Materia Medica and Pharmacology 6th ed., Lea &
Febiger, NY (45.7 MB, 1001 pp.)
Fluckiger, F.A. and A. Tschirch translated by F.B. Powder (1887) The Principles
of Pharmacognosy: An Introduction to the Study of the Crud Substances of the
Vegetable Kingdom, William Wood & Co, New York (12.6 MB, 321 pp.)
Hanausek, T.F. (1901) Lehrbuch der Technischen Mikroskopie, Verlag von Ferdinand
Enke, Stuttgart (32.9 MB, 480 pp.)
Hanausek, T.F., A.L. Winton, and K.B. Winton (1907) The Microscopy of Technical
Products, Wily & Sons, NY, (24.8 MB, 471 pp.)
Jelliffe, S.E., (1904) An Introduction to Pharmacognosy, W. B. Saunders & Co., NY

(10.94 MB, 284 pp.)
Johnson, L. (1884) A Manual of the Medical Botany of North America, William Wood
& Co. (19.8 MB, 354 pp.)
Khory, R.N., and N.N. Katrak (1903) Materia Medica of India and Their Therapeutics,
Caxton Works, Bombay (26.2 MB, 809 pp.)
Kraemer, H. (1908) A Text-book of Botany and Pharmacognosy, 3rd ed., J.B. Lippincott
Co., Philadelphia, PA. (42.7 MB, 795 pp.)
Kraemer, H. (1914) Applied and Economic Botany, self-published, Philadelphia (23.5

MB, 822 pp.)
Kraemer, H. (1915) Scientific and Applied Pharmacognosy Intended for the Use of
Students in Pharmacy, as a handbook for Pharmacists, and as a Reference Book for
Food and Drug Analysts and Pharmacologists, self published, Philadelphia (30.1 MB,
882 pp.)
Maisch, J.M (1892) A Manual of Organic Materia Medica, 5th ed., Lea Brothers,
Philadelphia (21.9 MB, 592 pp.)
Mansfield, W. (1916) Histology of Medicinal Plants, Wiley & Sons, NY (9.41 MB, 305
pp.)

Mansfield, W. and E.R. Squibb & Sons (1919) Squibb’s Atlas of the Official Drugs (13.0
MB, 694 pp.)
Moeller, W. and Wintons, A.L. (1905) Mikroscopie der Nahrungs- und Genußmittle
aus dem Pflanzenreiche, Verlag von Julius Springer, Berlin (23.8 MB, 621 pp.)
Rusby, H.H. and S.E. Jelliffe, (1895) Essentials of Vegetable Pharmacognosy, D.O.
Haynes & Co., NY (10.3 MB, 178 pp.)
Sayre, L.E. (1905) A Manual of Organic Materia Medica and Pharmacognosy, 3rd ed., P
Blakiston’s Son & Co. (23.4 MB, 709 pp.)
Schneider, A. (1899) Microscopy and Micro-Technique, Chicago Medical Book Co.

Chicago (4.48MB, 219 pp.)
Schneider, A. (1900) General Vegetable Pharmacognosy, Chicago Medical Book Co.,

Chicago (2.35 MB, 141 pp.)
Schneider, A. (1921) The Microanalysis of Powdered Vegetable Drugs, 2nd ed., P.

Blakiston’s Son & Co., Philadelphia (12.7 MB, 572 pp.)
Schneider, A. (1920) The Microbiology and Microanalysis of Foods, P. Blakiston’s Son

& Co., Philadelphia (7.2 MB, 262 pp.)
Solereder, H. translated by L.A. Bodle, F.E. Fritsch, and revised by D.H. Scott (1908)
Systematic Anatomy of the Dicotyledons: A Handbook for Laboratories of Pure and
Applied Botany, Vol. I, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, London (33.0 MB, 644 pp.)
Solereder, H. translated by L.A. Bodle, F.E. Fritsch, and revised by D.H. Scott (1908)
Systematic Anatomy of the Dicotyledons: A Handbook for Laboratories of Pure and
Applied Botany, Vol. II, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, London (32.6 MB, 1183 pp.)
Wall, O.A. (1917) Handbook of Pharmacognosy, 4th ed, C.V. Mosby Co., St Louis (16.8
MB, 641 pp.)
Wilcox, R.W. (1907) Materia Medica and Pharmacy, 7th ed., P. Blakiston’s Son & Co.,
Philadelphia (22.5 MB, 520 pp.)
Wills, G.S.V. (1878) A Manual of Vegetable Materia Medica, 4th ed., Simkin, Marshall
& Co., London (5.28 MB, 433 pp.)
Winton, A.L., J. Moeller, and K.B. Winton (1916) The Microscopy of Vegetable Foods
with Special Reference to the Detection of Adulturation and the Diagnosis of
Mixtures, Wiley & Sons, NY (23.6 MB, 701 pp.)

Sensory Evaluation References

Lawless, H. and H. Heymann. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and
Practices, 2nd Ed., Springer, New York, NY.
Meilgaard, M., G. Civille and T. Carr, Eds. 2006. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 4th
Ed., CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Stone, H. and J. Sidel. 2004. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 3rd Ed., Academic Press,
Orlando, FL.

Appendix 1: Considerations in Sensory

Evaluation (Written by Maria E. Giovanni, Ph.D.)
The first and most important consideration in sensory evaluation is to establish the
purpose, or reason, for conducting the experiment. The questions requiring sensory
analysis may lead to several sensory evaluations that may be both qualitative and
quantitative, and subjective and objective; these adjectives are not mutually exclusive as
might be expected. Often these questions are combined in the sensory experiments,
resulting in confusing and potentially misleading results.
Subjective: Evaluation based on opinions, personal impression. Because the usual goal
of these tests is to provide an affective response that can be related to actual consumer
experience, factors that may influence the evaluation are controlled only to the extent
that is needed to meet the test objective, which is usually none or minimal control.
Objective: Evaluation based on established criteria using unbiased, impartial criteria.
Factors that may impact the evaluation are highly controlled to minimize experimental
error and variation.
Qualitative: Using non-numerical responses (e.g., words) to describe a stimulus.
Examples:
• Subjective: “The chocolate tastes delicious.”

• Objective: “The texture is crunchy.”
• Objective: “The flavor is like wet grass.”
Quantitative: Using numbers to quantify a response to a stimulus.
Examples:
• Subjective: Rating the liking of a stimulus as a “7”, on a 9 point acceptability

scale, with 1=Do not like at all and 9=Like extremely.
• Objective: Rating the bitterness of a stimulus as “3” on a 10 point intensity scale,
with 0=No bitterness and 10=Extremely bitter.
• Note: Many different scales have been developed for quantitative responses.
Some examples are category scales (which can be labeled with words, numbers
or neither) and visual analogue scales.

Additional Examples:
• Qualitative subjective: “This cookie tastes just like what my grandmother made.”
Using scent to elicit an emotion
• Quantitative subjective: Nine-point hedonic scale.
• Qualitative objective: Using descriptive analysis to develop a lexicon.
• Quantitative objective: Quality evaluations using a scorecard, such as olive oil
and dairy products.
The purpose of sensory evaluation experiments is usually to answer specific questions
about a stimulus, e.g., the quality of a sample, description of its sensory properties, or
assess relative liking of two samples. Sensory evaluation is also used to: 1. Develop and
test the tools used in sensory evaluation such as the scales used and the influence of
testing environment; and, 2. Research the mechanisms of the human sensory systems
(taste, smell, touch, hearing, vision).
The key steps in conducting a sensory evaluation are:
1. Establish the purpose of the test and state the hypotheses.
2. Select the samples. Determine sample preparation and presentation.
3. Prepare the scoresheet (evaluation sheet). A section for open-ended comments
should be included, regardless of the test purpose as judges may note sample or
environmental characteristics that are helpful when interpreting test results. If
the test results are to be statistically analyzed, the type of statistical test should be
established at this step.
4. Prepare the test environment.
5. Select the appropriate judges. Orient the judges and train, if needed, to correctly
complete the evaluation.
6. Conduct the test by preparing the samples and serving the judges.
7. Decode the scoresheet, compile and analyze test results.
A wide variety of factors can influence sensory evaluations and must be either
considered, controlled, or both, depending upon the purpose of the test and the factor
involved. One important consideration when evaluating the smell, taste and texture of
stimuli that are sensed with the oral and nasal cavity is that samples must be evaluated
one at a time; they cannot be evaluated side-by-side because characteristics such as
appearance could be determined and affect the results.

For subjective sensory evaluations, many of the factors should not be controlled because
the experiment is generally conducted in an environment that simulates a “real life”
experience. Two examples demonstrate this principal:
1. Using untrained (naïve) people as judges instead of people who are screened and
trained to evaluate a product.
2. Evaluating the liking of two samples should not be done under red lights unless
the purpose of the test is to evaluate liking based only on flavor and texture, by
eliminating the impact of appearance on the liking of the sample.
For objective evaluations, factors that can influence sensory evaluations should be
controlled as much as possible and these conditions documented as these confounding
factors may contribute significantly to variability in the experiment.
This remainder of this document provides a brief overview of these factors and
recommendations to minimize their impact on variability.
1. Judges/Panelists: The people who are used as responders or instruments to evaluate
the stimuli. May also be called consumers (should only be used for untrained
responders) and subjects (generally used with basic research regarding the function of
the sensory system and medical research).
Recommendations:
• Interest in the project: Judges should be interested enough in the project to make
time to participate in sensory evaluations and be involved during all training and
evaluation sessions. However, they should not have a personal, research,
financial, or other stake in the project. For example, a product developer should
not be a participant in sensory evaluations for a product that s/he has
developed.
• Acuity or sensory sensitivity: Potentials judges should be screened for their
sensitivity to the key aspects of the stimuli to be evaluated. Acuity includes
vision (e.g., color blindness), aroma, taste, and texture (e.g., dentition). Standard
tests exist to determine judge acuity, such as threshold sensitivity tests. A judge’s
previous experience with a product will also impact their ability to evaluate the
product. Judges who have had extensive experience are generally more sensitive
to differences among stimuli than those who have limited experience.

• Health status: Potential judges should be screened for conditions that may
impact their ability to evaluate products, e.g., rhinitis, anosmia (the inability to
perceive aroma), ageusia (loss of taste functions), smoking, medications. Note
that these conditions may not disqualify a potential judge, but the panel leader
should be aware of these conditions. People who are allergic or sensitive to the
stimuli that are to be evaluated should not participate.
• Psychological: Judges must have the ability to understand and perform the task
and to be objective, that is, unbiased, and not be influenced by their hedonic
opinion of the samples. For descriptive analysis, judges should be articulate and
have good group communication skills, willing to disagree with others yet
compromise to reach agreement. The panel leader must also be aware that the
mood of the judges may impact their evaluation, e.g., personal or work stress. A
judge’s previous experience with a product will also impact their ability to
evaluate the product. Judges who have had extensive experience are generally
more sensitive to differences among stimuli than those who have had limited
experience.
• Timing: Sensory evaluations should be conducted when the judges are most
sensitive, which is generally in the morning, before noon. Judges should refrain
from eating or drinking at least 30 minutes prior to the evaluation. Evaluations
should also be timed so that they take place during time frames when no other
events are occurring, such as major holidays and important company meetings.
• Personal hygiene: Judges should maintain good body and oral hygiene and
should not use any scented personal care products prior to the evaluation, such
as perfume, after shave, and scented skin care and hair products.
2. Environment: The physical setting in which the sensory evaluations occur. The
environment can be simple, with several important considerations to minimize
influence on the test results. The purpose of the experiment must be the primary
consideration in establishing the environment.
• Booths: Generally, judges should make independent evaluations and some sort
of booth is used to prevent the evaluations of one judge from influencing another
judge. Booths can be permanent dividers between judges, complete with
computer monitors, ability to adjust lighting, and other amenities. They can also
be as simple as tri-fold display boards. Booth materials should be neutral, odor

free and easy to clean. Judges can also be seated at separate tables or out of view
of other judges. Judges can be trained to ignore the other judges.
• Odors: The environment should be free of extraneous odors. Particular care must
be taken when cooking stimuli that cooking odors do not contaminate the
evaluation area.
• Noise: The environment should be free of noise (unless sound is part of the
research purpose). Judges should not talk with one another unless this is part of
the methodology, e.g., descriptive analysis.
• Air flow: The room should have some capacity for venting air, either through a
central system or a portable air filtration device. The rate of air turnover that is
needed depends upon the volatility of the samples and the capacity of the
physical facility.
• Lighting: The lighting must be uniform for each evaluation with no shadows or
discolorations.
• Surfaces: White surfaces, e.g., table tops, are recommended but not necessary;
however, the surfaces should be as consistent as possible for the surfaces of
tables and booths.
• Other: All precautions should be taken to minimize any other distractions,
including temperature and humidity of the environment, people entering and
leaving the testing area, etc.
3. Stimuli: The samples or products that are evaluated. The stimuli must be presented in
a manner that maximizes the ability to meet the purpose of the experiment as discussed
below.
Recommendations:
• Preparation: The stimuli, if more than one, should be as similar as possible for
any attributes that are not part of the purpose of the experiment. Key factors are
the volume, size, shape, preparation method, and temperature of the stimuli. The
same type of equipment should be used to prepare each sample and temperature
should be recorded, particularly for samples that are served hot or cold.
If the purpose of the experiment is to determine the liking of stimuli then
the samples should be presented in a manner that simulates normal
presentations in which the stimuli would be used or consumed. For example, if
the stimuli are samples of hot tea, the judge (consumer) should be allowed to

steep the tea as long as they prefer and given the option of adding sweetener and
milk.
If the purpose is to objectively evaluate the stimuli, e.g., quality, they
should be presented in such a way that any attributes of interest are maximized
and attributes that are not of interest are minimized. For example, the judges
should not be allowed to touch, smell or taste samples if the objective of the test
is to solely evaluate the appearance of samples. In contrast, if the purpose is to
evaluate the flavor and texture of the stimuli without the influence of the
appearance, then the appearance of the sample should be masked (e.g., colored
lighting, blue cups).
• Sample identification: The identification of the stimuli to the judge depends upon
the test purpose. For subjective evaluations, the brand, flavor, or other
identification of the sample may be relevant if the purpose of the test includes
the impact of such identification on the results.
Generally, stimuli are coded with 3-digit random numbers so that the
evaluation of each sample can be linked to an evaluation scale (on a scoresheet).
Three digit numbers are less likely to bias sample evaluation than letters and one
or two digit numbers. The same number can be used to identify each sample, as
long as the judges make individual evaluations and do not compare their notes,
unless this is part of the test objective, e.g., discussing the stimuli after all judges
have completed their evaluation.
• Presentation: Samples can be presented side by side or monadically, that is one at
a time. The presentation will impact the carry over and contrast effects, discussed
below, and will either allow or prevent judges from changing the evaluation
ratings and comments for previous samples.
• Randomization: Samples should be served to judges in a randomized and
balanced order to randomize the effects of carry over between samples and
contrast effects. Each sample should be presented in each position (e.g., first,
second or third) and relative to the other samples an equal number of times. For
example, when evaluating the sweetness of a product, the first sample tasted will
be perceived as sweet. The sweetness of the first sample will influence the
perceived sweetness of the second sample, and so on. A “warm up” sample of
moderate intensity/quality can minimize these effects, which are especially

important when evaluating smell and taste. These carryover and contrast effects
are not as influential when evaluating appearance and texture.
If samples have very intense odor and/or taste, randomization may not be
appropriate due to adaptation. Adaptation is the ability of the sensory system to
accommodate a strong stimulus by decreasing sensitivity to the stimulus. An
example is eyes adapting to a bright light when entering a well-lit room from a
dark room, or no longer aware of a perfume or scented product when using it.
• Rinse: A rinse is used between samples to minimize carryover and contrast
effects. Drinking water (not distilled) is most often used, however, for stimuli
with certain components (e.g., fatty, bitter, spicy, capsicum), other rinses may be
needed to minimize the previous stimuli’s influence. Taking some time, e.g., 30
seconds to one minute, between samples is recommended as time minimizes the
carryover and contrast effects.
• Carrier: Many samples require the use of a carrier. For example, herbs can be
evaluated fresh or dried, including the flavor, but if the purpose of the test is to
use the herb in a hot application (e.g., tea) it should also be dispersed in water. If
the stimulus is a food product such as a condiment, it may be helpful to use
bread or a cracker to “carry” the sample.

Appendix 2: The Working Group

The Examinations
The AHPA working group met several times via teleconference and conducted
exercises in assigning organoleptic descriptors as a way of implementing the principles
of this guidance. A template was developed and eight herbal materials were chosen and
evaluated. Test samples of the chosen herbs were generously provided and distributed
by Mountain Rose Herbs. The working group did not work from certified reference
materials. It should also be noted that when assessing herb materials for organoleptic
qualifications, different lots of the same herb may have considerable variation in the
values defined. For this reason, when developing standards for quality control,
assessing different lots of the same herb material from different suppliers may be
recommended. For difficult to identify materials, or those known to be subject to
adulteration, testing may be performed on multiple isolated samples as well as a
general pooled sample.
Test samples were organoleptically evaluated prior to each teleconference where
feedback was shared and consensus reached for the various organoleptic characteristics,
with aroma and taste being the primary points of focus. Feedback was provided by
individuals from solo examinations or by two or more cooperating individuals from
Galen’s Way, Mountain Rose Herbs, Traditional Medicinals, and Vitality Works. In one
case, evaluations were obtained as a result from a shared classroom experience at the
Tai Sophia Institute.
Through employing this process the working group realized that the product of their
work would not be a simple compilation of the results of their examinations, but would
include guidance for other groups to use in setting up organoleptic testing and
conducting their own evaluations. One of the reasons for this determination is that the
result of organoleptic testing is most valuable when a small group is calibrated to the
terms that have meaning for them. Indeed, the more intimate the group the more
detailed, specific, and sensitive can be the resulting organoleptic characterizations. This
approach is to be encouraged and is mentioned again in the working group report
section of this document.

Organoleptic characterizations may sometimes employ the term “characteristic” to

define specific assessments, though this term should be reserved for instances where
few if any other descriptors will do. By definition, all material characterizations are
characteristic and specific qualities should be assigned whenever possible. The results
of AHPA’s organoleptic working group assessment of 8 herbs are found in the
attachment to this document. Common botanical names are used and taken from
AHPA’s Herbs of Commerce 2nd Edition (2000) whenever possible.
The Report
Botanical ingredient identification by organoleptic analysis in a manufacturing
environment is a process of recognition (the act of recognizing) previously examined
materials. It is not an objective matching of lists of descriptors with materials, nor is it
license to create descriptions that serve no purpose beyond recording sensory
experience from an individual encounter with a botanical test material. It is not meant
to be prescriptive in the use of terms or techniques. It is a process of developing
familiarity with herbal articles of commerce by creating and using descriptions of
sensory experience that can be employed for identification of new lots of the same
materials.
Organoleptic evaluations characterize sense impressions that include sight, smell, taste
and texture experiences. The terms presented here are nonencompassing as there is no
requirement to pick any specific term unless it accurately describes a particular
experience gained during an individual test. Testers are encouraged to select their own
descriptors if the ones provided here are found to be inadequate. Identification by
organoleptic evaluation can be done by individuals and groups of individuals with
appropriate training and experience. Some considerations with regard to this are
provided in Appendix 1.
A full organoleptic characterization can be quite extensive and may include other sense
evaluations beside aroma and taste. For example, the sound of a root being broken and
its subsequent appearance (its “fracture”) can be a valid organoleptic assessment tool
for whole dried roots. Drawings, such as those found in historical references, and other
images or other representations of the appearance of raw materials, particularly in the
whole “crude” state, may capture important distinguishing features and may be useful
to record subjective features such as color.

The working group discussed that, generally speaking, a smaller group with a common
lexicon can be calibrated more precisely than a larger one. Therefore, in a company’s
practice of botanical ingredient identification, the differentiation of terms and their
application for describing aroma and taste sensory experiences may be more subtle and
complex than the descriptions found in publically available monographs. This is
because a small group of experts can and should be encouraged to create organoleptic
descriptors that are more complex than those that would be agreed upon by a larger
and more diverse group. It should also be noted that while smaller close-knit groups
may come to their own consensus with finely calibrated descriptors when used in the
context of GMP work, these descriptors should be defined so that they are understood
by persons viewing or auditing the work.
Because organolepsis can be a scientifically valid tool in its own right, its use may also
be employed to differentiate different grades of material provided that testers can
reliably do so. Also, if the geographical origin of materials can be determined it may
similarly be possible to differentiate them organoleptically without resorting to
chemical analysis. Materials may also be organoleptically authenticated to
pharmacopoeial identity standards through compliance with pharmacopoeial
monographs such as the American Herbal Pharmacopoeia and Therapeutic Compendium
(AHP), United States Pharmacopeia (USP) Dietary Supplements Compendium, European
Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.), etc.
It is important to recognize that if the identity of material undergoing sensory analysis
is not recognized as conforming to what is expected then no amount of further scientific
testing can constitute a positive identification. In other words, if the results of other
examinations or tests10 appear to confirm the identity of an herbal material, but
organoleptic testing does not, then the material fails its identity test. This can occur
when a sensory evaluation detects characteristics not recorded by other appropriate
scientifically valid methods; such methods may be relatively narrow in scope and fail to
evaluate the material in total. For example, an off taste may not be reflected in chemical
or other tests that may be employed.
The test procedures identified here include appearance, aroma, texture, and taste analyses.
Subjective appearance characteristics and mouthfeel descriptors are also introduced. All these are
10 21 CFR § 111.75(h)(2)(ii-v).

material characteristics that can be evaluated by organoleptic testers as they develop consensus
in the terms and processes they use to organoleptically characterize herbal materials. When doing
so, an indication of the strength of the sense impression for aroma and taste should accompany
the quality characterization for each of those tests. The following scale is one suggestion: 1
(threshold), 2 (mild), 3 (notable), 4 (strong), 5 (extreme). In the majority of cases the strength of
the sense impression would be 2 (mild) or 3 (notable), with 1 (threshold), 4 (strong), and 5
(extreme) less often used. Individual aspects of flavor or aroma may be identified and can
receive different strength assignments.

Appendix 3: Organoleptic Analyses11

Dandelion Root
Common Name dandelion
Latin Name Taraxacum officinale
Plant Part root
Form cut and sift
Supplier Mountain Rose Herbs
Country of Origin USA
Lot # 6031
Texture Crumbly and medium hard
Mottled brown and off-white irregularly shaped pieces from 2 mm to 10 mm

in size. Interior root fragments whitish with light brown to charcoal irregular
Appearance
surfaces. Many tan colored flattish flakes and light green to dark brown leaf
fragments from 1 mm flecks to 2 mm wide and 10 mm long fragments.
Aroma (Strength) Fermented grain (2)
Taste (Strength) Sweet, bitter starchy (1, 2)
Mouthfeel Crunchy, mucilaginous
11 Strength range for aroma and taste: 1 (threshold), 2 (mild), 3 (notable), 4 (strong), 5 (extreme)

Echinacea angustifolia Root
Common Name Echinacea angustifolia
Latin Name Echinacea angustifolia
Plant Part root
Form cut and sift
Country of
USA
Origin
Lot # 5977
Texture Hard, woody
Mottled off-white, gray, and medium to dark brown root pieces.

Appearance
Surface brown, interior gray.
Aroma
Yeasty, metallic, dry wood (2)
(Strength)
Taste (Strength) Bland woody, sharp metallic tingly sensation (1, 4)
Mouthfeel Crunchy tingly, cooling

Echinacea purpurea Root
Common Name Echinacea purpurea
Latin Name Echinacea purpurea
Plant Part root
Form cut and sift
Country of
USA
Origin
Lot # 5937
Texture Woody fibrous
Mottled off-white with purple flecks in very heterogeneous mixture of

fragments of root bark with dark brown outer surface having horizontal
striations. Interior root pieces lighter with some fragments exhibiting
Appearance
sponge-like lattice structure. Irregular fibers throughout. Root chunks up
to about 5 mm in size with most fragments and rootlets thinner and
longer.
Aroma
Sharp, metallic, characteristic (3)
(Strength)
Taste (Strength) Sweet woody, sharp tingly sensation (1, 3)
Mouthfeel Crunchy tingly, cooling

Goldenseal Root and Rhizome
Common Name goldenseal
Latin Name Hydrastis canadensis
Plant Part root and rhizome
Form cut and sift
Country of
USA
Origin
Lot # 9770
Texture Hard
Mottled gold-yellow brown irregular chunks from about 2mm to 10 mm

in size. Irregular surfaces with some striations, raised bumps and pits.
Appearance Root cross sections discernable with lighter radial rays visible in the core
with distinct slightly darker cortex. Old geologic appearance. Few small
rootlets 1 mm wide up to about 3 cm long.
Aroma
Musty, pungent, mustard-like (3)
(Strength)
Taste (Strength) Metallic, bitter (3, 4)
Mouthfeel Dense crunchy

Rosemary Leaf
Common Name rosemary
Latin Name Rosmarinus officinalis
Plant Part leaf
Form whole
Country of
Egypt
Origin
Lot # 4739
Texture Hard, brittle
Sage green slightly curled or straight leaves approximately 1 mm wide

and 2 cm long with a lighter color underside visible between the curled
Appearance
under leaf edges. Also with some light gray stem pieces of a similar size
and shape.
Aroma Aroma is spearmint-like.

(Strength) Aromatic, camphor, minty (3)
Taste is mild bitter at first becoming stronger with minty coolness and
Taste (Strength) characteristic rosemary flavor.
Bitter, astringent, minty (3)
Mouthfeel Crunchy, then flaky and chewy

Shatavari Root
Common Name shatavari
Latin Name Asparagus racemosus
Plant Part root
Form cut and sift
Country of
India
Origin
Lot # 9476
Texture Hard, dry
Longitudinal pieces about ¼ to 1 inch either a pale yellow color being

smooth cylindrical root cores about 2 mm wide or beige root sections 4 to
Appearance
6 mm thick. Many irregular pieces that are portions of broken root mostly
with fibrous cores absent. Some pieces of papery root bark.
Aroma Pleasant slightly yeasty, something from the kitchen, earthy, grain-like.
(Strength) Musty, yeasty, earthy (2)
Root cores practically without taste and fibrous.

Taste (Strength) Root pieces slightly sweet carrot-like.
Bitter, woody, acrid (1)
Mouthfeel Hard and fibrous then chewy and slimy after softening, grain-like

Skullcap Aerial Parts
Common Name skullcap
Latin Name Scutellaria lateriflora
Plant Part aerial
Form cut and sift
Country of
USA
Origin
Lot # 5805
Texture Dry, brittle, flaky
Mostly bright green with lighter green, some yellow, fewer brown with
occasional purple flecks leaf flakes of irregular shapes up to 1 cm in size
Appearance
with shattered stem fragments up to about 1 cm long, and containing
bright blue flower bits.
Aroma Grassy, hay-like, slightly citrus

(Strength) Grassy, alfalfa (2)
Green tea-like, mildly bitter, slightly minty

Taste (Strength)
Bitter (2)
Mouthfeel Dry, crisp and crunchy

Valerian Root
Common Name valerian
Latin Name Valeriana officinalis
Plant Part root
Form cut and sift
Country of
USA
Origin
Lot # 6002
Texture Brittle
Ovoid-cylindrical, tan-yellow to brown chopped rootlets & rhizomes.

Appearance
1-3 mm diameter.
Aroma
Aromatic sweet, musty sour (3)
(Strength)
Taste (Strength) Initially sweet, then lingering bitter pungent (2, 3)
Mouthfeel Crunchy

Organoleptic Analysis Guidance Final

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Organoleptic Analysis Guidance Final

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Organoleptic Analysis

Steven Dentali, Ph.D., Managing Editor

Conducting Organoleptic Analyses ...................................................................... 1

Characteristics Subject to Organolepsis ................................................................4

Fracture (if applicable) .....................................................................................6

Appendix 1: Considerations in Sensory Evaluation ............................................. 19

Appendix 2: The Working Group......................................................................26

The Examinations ..........................................................................................26

The Report ....................................................................................................27

Appendix 3: Organoleptic Analyses...................................................................30

©AHPA, March 2013 ii

©AHPA, March 2013 iii

©AHPA, March 2013 iv

• Gross organoleptic analysis: The use of sensory impressions to examine and

• Macroscopic analysis: The naked eye objective assessment of gross

©AHPA, March 2013 v

and/or quantifying various key botanical anatomical features of the subject

©AHPA, March 2013 vi

Conducting Organoleptic Analyses

7 http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/COMMITTEE/E18_pubs.htm (accessed March 18, 2013).

©AHPA, March 2013 1

©AHPA, March 2013 2

©AHPA, March 2013 3

Characteristics Subject to Organolepsis

©AHPA, March 2013 4

Appearance Characterization Terms

©AHPA, March 2013 5

Fracture (if applicable)

Botanical Fracture Terms

Complete Material breaks cleanly across its entire breadth.

Incomplete Material breaks only part way across its breadth.

Material will not break with typical force but

Flexible Material that bends rather than breaks.

©AHPA, March 2013 6

include descriptions based on particle size, shape, or orientation and surface

Texture Characterization Terms

©AHPA, March 2013 7

©AHPA, March 2013 8

Aromatic or Spicy Aromas with Examples

Camphor type (characteristic Camphor, epazote, eucalyptus, grindelia,

Caraway type (aromatic, pleasant

Cinnamon type (very spicy or

Cloves, American wild ginger, bayberry

Maple syrup type (faintly

Peppermint, buchu, damiana, horsemint,

Nutmeg type (very aromatic) Nutmeg, cola nut (faint), mace

Oregano type Oregano, marjoram, summer savory, thyme

©AHPA, March 2013 9

Fragrant, Pleasant, or Sweet Aromas with Examples

Floral type or orange blossom,

Lemon balm type Lemon balm, lemon grass, lemon verbena

American storax, benzoin tree, guaiacum resin

Alfalfa, tea, bonset, comfrey, dandelion leaf, oat

Vanilla, deer tongue, sweet grass, vetiver, white or

Wintergreen type (very

Foul/Strong Aromas with Examples

Garlic type (sulphurous odor) Garlic, asafetida, horseradish, onion

Belladonna leaves, bittersweet, black cohosh

©AHPA, March 2013 10

Other Aromas with Examples

Bitter type Chicory, dandelion root, gentian

Corydalis, dried red root, Jamaica dogwood,

Patchouli type (musk-like, heavy, Patchouli, musk ambrette, sandalwood (faint),

Seaweed type (briny odor) Bladder wrack, Irish moss, kelp