Critical review maps extraction and analytical techniques for food aroma compound analysis
A new review in Food Research International synthesises decades of extraction and gas chromatography methods used to identify aroma-active compounds in food, offering food scientists a practical decision framework for selecting techniques according to matrix complexity, volatility and sustainability goals.
Food scientists working on flavour characterisation now have access to a consolidated comparative framework covering extraction and analytical techniques for aroma compounds, following publication of a review in Food Research International. The paper, led by Leina El Hosry of Notre Dame University–Louaize in Lebanon, screened 140 published studies from 2017 to 2025 to build what the authors describe as “a comparative framework and a matrix-based method selection guide for food aroma analysis.”
Implications for food manufacturing and quality control
For the food and beverage industry, the review’s practical value lies in its decision-tree approach, which links analytical objectives, analyte properties and matrix composition to appropriate workflows. This has direct relevance for quality control laboratories, flavour houses and product developers seeking to select cost-effective, fit-for-purpose methods rather than defaulting to a single established technique.
The authors note that “no single extraction technique can be considered universal for food aroma analysis,” a finding with clear consequences for laboratories standardising protocols across varied product ranges such as dairy, beverages, confectionery and fermented foods. The review also flags a growing regulatory and commercial push towards greener solvents, which manufacturers auditing their analytical supply chains for sustainability credentials will find pertinent.
Extraction methods compared across the value chain
The review works through conventional solvent-based methods including liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and its miniaturised variants such as dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction (DLLME), alongside solid-liquid approaches like Soxhlet extraction, maceration, hydrodistillation and steam distillation. It also covers headspace-based techniques – static and dynamic headspace, solid-phase microextraction (SPME) and stir-bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) – plus high-vacuum and supercritical methods such as solvent-assisted flavour evaporation (SAFE) and supercritical fluid extraction (SFE).
The authors observe that headspace approaches, “especially HS-SPME, D-HS and SBSE, are widely used because they are solvent-free or low-solvent, relatively rapid, and well suited to volatile profiling in fruits, dairy products, beverages, and fermented foods.” However, they caution that “their selectivity depends strongly on fibre, trap or coating chemistry, which may bias the recovered aroma profile” – a technical detail with direct bearing on method validation in commercial laboratories.
Solvent-based techniques retain relevance for complex matrices. SAFE is highlighted as “especially valuable for preserving thermolabile odorants,” whereas simultaneous distillation-extraction (SDE) “may provide efficient extraction but can induce thermal artifacts,” underscoring the trade-off between extraction efficiency and compound integrity that underpins method selection in practice.
Analytical platforms and the sensomics approach
Beyond extraction, the review examines gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O), comprehensive two-dimensional GC (GC×GC) and high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) using QTOF and Orbitrap analysers. The authors stress that instrumental abundance alone is an unreliable indicator of sensory importance, noting that “instrumental abundance alone does not necessarily reflect sensory relevance.”
Odour activity values (OAVs) and aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA) are presented as screening tools rather than definitive proof of aroma contribution. Recombination and omission experiments are described as “crucial validation steps,” with recombination tests assessing “whether a mixture of selected odorants can reproduce the aroma of the original food,” while omission tests identify “which compounds are indispensable for specific sensory notes.”
Green extraction gains ground
A dedicated section addresses sustainability, covering deep eutectic solvents, natural deep eutectic solvents, ionic liquids, pressurised hot water extraction and microwave- or ultrasound-assisted techniques. The authors report that these energy-efficient methods “can reduce extraction time, solvent consumption, energy demand and carbon emissions compared with conventional hydrodistillation or solvent extraction, while maintaining or improving essential oil yield and chemical quality.” This is a significant consideration for manufacturers under pressure to reduce reliance on hazardous solvents such as dichloromethane.
Outlook for artificial intelligence in flavour science
Looking ahead, the review anticipates greater integration of machine learning and artificial intelligence into aroma research, citing applications in predicting aroma partitioning in dairy matrices, flavoromics-based sensory quality prediction, and AI-assisted electronic nose systems for beer and coffee quality control. The authors conclude that “continued innovation in both extraction and analytical methodologies will have a significant impact on the food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic sectors, providing both improved product quality and new opportunities for tailored flavour design.”
For laboratories looking at an expanding toolkit of extraction and analytical options, the review’s central message is one of matched selection rather than universal adoption – a principle likely to shape method development across the sector as sustainability and sensory accuracy become joint priorities.
Reference
El Hosry, L., Lteif, S., Nehme, A., et al. (2026). Advances in extraction and analytical techniques for food aroma compounds: A critical review of methods, challenges, and future directions. Food Research International, 243, 120366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2026.120366
