Although aroma has emerged as a critical factor in consumer-perceived quality of Cannabis sativa L., the standardized tools for describing the aromatic diversity of unburnt Cannabis inflorescence are lacking. A joint study conducted by researchers at Oregon State University (Corvallis, Oregon) and Dow Neurobiology (Portland, Oregon) generated and evaluated a descriptive aroma lexicon for intact Cannabis inflorescence consisting of 25 terms with defined reference standards, with gas chromatography (GC) playing an important part in date compilation and evaluation. A paper based on this study was published in PLOS One (1).

While Cannabis has been used as a food, fiber, and medicinal commodity for millennia (2), the Controlled Substances Act passed in 1970 criminalized the production and possession of the plant in the United States, restricting the ability of researchers to analyze the plant (3). As a result, the development of a comprehensive understanding of its defining characteristics, as has been achieved with hops, coffee, winegrapes, and other agricultural commodities, has been limited (4). A critical knowledge gap, therefore, exists in the establishment of a consensus on physical and chemical features which influence Cannabis inflorescence quality. While previous studies have found that consumers differentiate type I Cannabis products based on perceived quality, differences between “low-,” “mid-“and “high-grade” Cannabis remains largely undefined (5). It is this gap which inspired the research team to prepare this lexicon (1).

A human panel evaluated 91 samples using a Check-All-That-Apply method. Multivariate analyses demonstrated the lexicon’s ability to differentiate samples based on orthonasal aroma. Type I and III Cannabis exhibited overlapping sensory profiles, though type I (high THC, low CBD) was more frequently described as skunky, musty, and animalic, whereas type III (low THC, high CBD) had higher frequencies of citrus, fruity, and candy-like aromas. Terpene profiling revealed clear chemical clusters, but terpene profiles alone poorly predicted sensory character. Terpinolene was the only compound consistently associated with sensory descriptors, specifically citrus and chemical. In type III samples, 43 volatile sulfur compounds were detected via GC with a pulsed flame photometric detector, including dimethyl sulfide, methional, and dimethyl trisulfide, while others were tentatively identified or novel. However, neither terpene nor volatile sulfur compound profiles strongly predicted sensory perception. The researchers state that these findings emphasize the limitations of chemical composition as a proxy for aroma quality (1).

This work establishes a foundation for future analysis to build upon by providing an initial list of descriptors and an associated sensory method, the researchers wrote. Future research, in their opinion, should incorporate a slightly modified lexicon; as an example, rather than describing samples as herbal or woody terms such as culinary herbs, camphorous, grassy, pine, or sandalwood descriptors could be used, as the work to come will requires a larger inflorescence sample size, especially for the definition of associations between volatile aromatics and aroma descriptors. The expansion of the lexicon as more terms can be evaluated and validated should therefore be explored. Additionally, the inclusion of consumer hedonic data would deepen the awareness of aroma-driven quality perceptions and consumer liking. Furthermore, agronomic and post-harvest variables, such as farm origin, harvest maturity, drying methods, storage, and trimming style, deserve additional study through both sensory and chemical perspectives. Finally, as the lexicon is further expanded and built upon with a more globally representative sample set, the team imagines that the elements present will evolve into a source which is more expansive and representative of the wide array of Cannabis aromas. Insights such as these, they believe, will assist in breeding efforts as well as optimize production methods directed at the enrichment of the aromatic and experiential quality of Cannabis products (1).

Read More on Cannabis Analysis:

Avenues of Circumvention and Issues with Cannabis Products: Δ8-THC, THCA Flower, and Forensics Analysis

Comprehensive Two-Dimensional LC and HRMS Offer Insights into Cannabis Phenolics and Rare Flavoalkaloids

Profiling Terpenoids in Cannabis with GC×GC-MS

References

1. Isaacson, S. E.; Wilson-Poe, A. R.; Ye, T. et al. Beyond Potency: A Proposed Lexicon for Sensory Differentiation of Cannabis sativa L. Aroma. PLoS One 2025, 20 (10), e0335125. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0335125
2. Laaboudi, F. Z.; Rejdali, M.; Amhamdi, H. et al. In the Weeds: A Comprehensive Review of Cannabis; its Chemical Complexity, Biosynthesis, and Healing Abilities. Toxicol. Rep. 2024, 13, 101685. DOI: 10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101685
3. Mikos, R. A.; Kam, C. D. Has the “M” Word Been Framed? Marijuana, Cannabis, and Public Opinion. PLoS One 2019, 14 (10), e0224289. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224289
4. Chouvy, P. A. Why the Concept of Terroir Matters for Drug Cannabis Production. GeoJournal 2022, 88 (1), 89–106. DOI: 10.1007/s10708-022-10591-x
5. Shi, Y.; Cao, Y.; Shang, C. et al. The Impacts of Potency, Warning Messages, and Price on Preferences for Cannabis flower products. Int. J. Drug Policy 2019, 74, 1-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2019.07.037