Skip to main content
. 2025 Nov 19;15(53):45359–45375. doi: 10.1039/d5ra06959a

Table 3. Comparison of the predominant technological pathways for odor impression prediction.

Technology Mass spectrometry (MS)75 Electronic nose (E-nose)76 Structure–odor relationship (SOR)77
Principle Measurement of mass-to-charge ratio of ionized molecules Pattern recognition of global response from a sensor array Computational modeling linking molecular structure to perceptual odor
Key advantages High sensitivity & accuracy; unambiguous compound identification Rapid, portable, real-time operation; cost-effective No physical sample needed; predicts odor of novel molecules
Major limitations Expensive, non-portable; requires skilled operation; poor real-time capability Lower sensitivity/selectivity vs. MS; susceptible to environmental interference Limited accuracy for complex mixtures; primarily theoretical
Suitable applications Laboratory-based analysis; flavoromics; biomarker discovery Food safety; environmental monitoring; medical diagnostics; quality control Fragrance design; theoretical research; drug discovery
Cost & complexity High Low to medium Low