The relationship between chemical concentration and odor activity value explains the inconsistency in making a comprehensive surrogate scent training tool representative of illicit drugs

dc.contributor.author Rice, Somchai
dc.contributor.author Rice, Somchai
dc.contributor.author Koziel, Jacek
dc.contributor.author Koziel, Jacek
dc.contributor.department Food Science and Human Nutrition
dc.contributor.department Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering
dc.contributor.department Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering
dc.contributor.department Transportation
dc.date 2018-03-22T11:34:18.000
dc.date.accessioned 2020-06-29T22:43:31Z
dc.date.available 2020-06-29T22:43:31Z
dc.date.copyright Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 UTC 2015
dc.date.issued 2015-12-01
dc.description.abstract <p>This report highlights the importance of an individual chemical's odor impact in the olfactory identification of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin. There are small amounts of highly odorous compounds present in headspace of these drugs, with very low odor detection thresholds, that are more likely responsible for contributing to the overall odor of these drugs. Previous reports of the most abundant compounds in headspace can mislead researchers when dealing with whole odor of these drugs. Surrogate scent formulations, therefore, must match the odor impact of key compounds and not just the chemical abundance of compounds. The objective of this study was to compare odorous volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from illicit drug samples of marijuana, cocaine, and heroin to surrogate smell formulations using simultaneous sensory (via human olfaction) and chemical analyses. Use of solid phase microextraction (SPME) allowed VOCs in drug headspace to be extracted and pre-concentrated on site, and analyzed by multidimensional gas chromatography–mass spectrometry–olfactometry (MDGC–MS-O). Use of MDGC–MS-O allowed for further separation of odorous compounds and simultaneous detection by the human nose of the separate odor parts that make up the total aroma of these drugs. The compounds most abundant in headspace were not the most odor impactful when ranked by odor activity values (OAVs) (defined as ratio of concentration to odor detection threshold, ODT). There were no apparent correlations between concentrations and OAVs. A 1 g marijuana surrogate lacked in odor active acids, aldehydes, ethers, hydrocarbons, N-containing, and S-containing VOCs and was overabundant in odor active alcohols and aromatics compared with real marijuana. A 1 g cocaine surrogate was overabundant in odor active alcohols, aldehydes, aromatics, esters, ethers, halogenates, hydrocarbons, ketones and N-containing compounds compared with real. A 1 g heroin surrogate should contain less odor active acids, alcohols, aromatics, esters, ketones, and N-containing compounds. Drug quantity, age and adulterants can affect VOC emissions and their odor impact. The concept of odor activity value, then, is useful to researchers without access to more sophisticated instrumentation. Odor activity values can be calculated from published odor detection thresholds. More research is warranted to expand the database, and determine odor detection thresholds for compounds of interest. Additional information could be obtained from establishing ODTs of key odorants for canines.</p>
dc.description.comments <p>This is a manuscript of an article published as Rice, Somchai, and Jacek A. Koziel. "The relationship between chemical concentration and odor activity value explains the inconsistency in making a comprehensive surrogate scent training tool representative of illicit drugs." <em>Forensic Science International</em> 257 (2015): 257-270. DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.08.027" target="_blank">10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.08.027</a>. Posted with permission.</p>
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf
dc.identifier archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/896/
dc.identifier.articleid 2175
dc.identifier.contextkey 11814872
dc.identifier.s3bucket isulib-bepress-aws-west
dc.identifier.submissionpath abe_eng_pubs/896
dc.identifier.uri https://dr.lib.iastate.edu/handle/20.500.12876/1708
dc.language.iso en
dc.source.bitstream archive/lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/896/2015_Koziel_RelationshipChemical.pdf|||Sat Jan 15 02:19:32 UTC 2022
dc.source.uri 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.08.027
dc.subject.disciplines Agriculture
dc.subject.disciplines Biochemical and Biomolecular Engineering
dc.subject.disciplines Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering
dc.subject.disciplines Toxicology
dc.subject.keywords Marijuana
dc.subject.keywords Cocaine
dc.subject.keywords Heroin
dc.subject.keywords Olfactometry
dc.subject.keywords SPME-GC–MS
dc.subject.keywords Surrogate
dc.title The relationship between chemical concentration and odor activity value explains the inconsistency in making a comprehensive surrogate scent training tool representative of illicit drugs
dc.type article
dc.type.genre article
dspace.entity.type Publication
relation.isAuthorOfPublication eb03eaff-d2b6-4179-8be0-8640067529cd
relation.isAuthorOfPublication 76fc5589-51f8-4f3c-885c-e25d8037d641
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 4b6428c6-1fda-4a40-b375-456d49d2fb80
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 933e9c94-323c-4da9-9e8e-861692825f91
relation.isOrgUnitOfPublication 8eb24241-0d92-4baf-ae75-08f716d30801
File
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Name:
2015_Koziel_RelationshipChemical.pdf
Size:
1.4 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Collections