Talk:Odor

Picture

Picture of the moth does not show an obvious image of a smelling receptor This picture is difficult to comprihend. Can it be updated or changed?

This article is badly in need of revision. I'm going to bed, but if someone comes across this... This article sucks.

You mean it stinks? ;)

Hey, I came to this page while trying to find out about robots that can smell. Can anyone help me with this? I think it is still very much a research topic, and a fairly obscure research topic at that.

You can read this book Odour detection by robots

---

--Publunch 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bomb detectors do that, but doggies can detect some things better than machines. -Barry- 16:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re words for a bad smell: The word "pong" is never used, in my experience. Ever.

Not really explained that well here, or at all. Why can't we smell certain things? Why are they odourless? Is it because they well, can't be smelt, or because we havnt got a receptor in our nose that can detect them?

The picture of the moth is ridiculous. Obviously, what we need is a picture of a smell. Thank you.

58.109.14.99 12:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You are looking for electronic noses for "robots that smell". As for the page it does need some revision. particulariily with regards to adding dynamic olfactometry. Which i may do if i can get some time. Also more information on the use of modelling and percentiles to assess odour impacts.

Density of an odor

I think it would be a useful asset to this page to include whether an odor is more or less dense than air, and whether it rises, like smoke does. Neoballmon II 11:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the chemical responsible for the odor. Some are less dense than air, some more dense. For any particular chemical you should be able to look up the density in tables of chemical data. Wjousts 21:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Odor Measurement

"While no generally acceptable method for measuring odor exists, measurement of different aspects of odor can be attempted through a number of quantitative methods".

This is partly not true. The EU has put a standard froward to measure odour concentration, which is incorporated in the following European standard CEN EN 13725:2003, Air quality - Determination of odor concentration by dynamic olfactometry and is expressed in European Odour Units (ouE/m³).

The procedure for measuring odor concentration is as followed:

To establish the odour concentration, an olfactometer is used which employs a panel of human noses as sensors. In the olfactometry testing procedure, a diluted odorous mixture and an odour-free gas (as a reference) are presented separately from sniffing ports to a group of panellists. In comparing the gases emitted from each port, the panellists are asked to report the presence of odour together with a confidence level such as guessing, inkling, or certainty. The gas-diluting ratio is then decreased by a factor of two (i.e. chemical concentration is increased by a factor of two). The panellists are asked to repeat their judgement. This continues for a number of dilution levels. The responses of the panellists over a range of dilution settings are used to calculate the concentration of the odour in terms of European Odour Units (ouE/m³). The main panel calibration gas used is Butan-1-ol. which at a certain diluting gives 1 ouE/m³. Scubafish 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please edit the article directly if something is wrong or missing (or for any other reason that comes to mind) - it's a wiki :-) Cacycle 19:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to have a consensus a this is only treu for the EU. I do not know how they do it in the rest of the world.Scubafish 09:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I started to edit the section, in part using the text from Scubafish above. I hope I could help a bit, but much remains to be done, especially in the bottom part of the section.--Janstr (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Do odors have pitch?

I'm not generally prone to synesthesia, but my reaction as a child on encountering the smells of butane, pentane, hexane, and heptane was to arrange them in a series, with the shorter molecules having smells of higher "pitch" than the longer ones. Perhaps generally the sharp, pungent, biting odors get classified as "high-pitched" and the greasy, bitter, garlicky odors are "lower-pitched", though the definition of terms is a problem. Alkanes without smell such as methane and waxes can even be divided into "ultrasonic" and "infrasonic" categories. The classification of an odor may also reflect how quickly it diffuses through the air. For instance, the smell of a skunk to me consists of two separate odors, one of which spreads over long distances and seems very pleasant and floral, which I count as high-pitched, and the other one of which lingers near the source (within a 5-10 meter radius, but also remaining even a week afterward) and has an unpleasant garlic-like smell which I count as low pitched. If I begin to smell a skunk while driving down the road the smell is very pleasant, but if a skunk sprays outside a closed window, even the first detectable trace of the odor is unpleasant and garlicky.

I understand of course that there are a limited number of odorant receptors - but the eye can construct an entire rainbow system of color (with an aberration at purple) from only three photoreceptors. So it does not seem improbable that a few odorant receptors can set up a conceptual axis that can classify many compounds according to their general size, and with a hundred one might establish a vast number of independent dimensions of perception. As a general question: as we read that different smells have strong or weak ----y qualities, do these reflect genuine continua of perception, and are some of these continua more consistent or important than others? More specifically, does the distinction between different lengths of alkanes have a specific name among those working in the flavor industry? 70.15.116.59 18:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Aroma

Could we entitle the article "Aroma" rather than "Odor" as, when I saw odor written in the article Cosmetics, I thought to myself: What on earth is odor??? Wikipedia is too much American biased and we must follow the example of the article Fixed-Wing Aircraft and be completely neutral in relation to spellings. Bonzostar (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As a Canadian, we tend to spell it "odour", but Wikipedia policy is to leave words in the original spelling. However, if "odour" is equivalently confusing, then perhaps a neutral word change to "aroma" may be appropriate. Is Odor/Odour not used where you come from? (EhJJ)^TALK 00:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, only got back to checking this article again a year later. lol.

We use "odour" here in Ireland but I am just suggesting a neutral title like "aroma". The language is English and in England, they say "odour". However, the Americans wouldn't be happy with that. Bonzostar (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

but AROMA is different than ODOR aroma is more of a scent that arises from odors-aka volatized chemicals —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abilkay (talk • contribs) 11:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sloppy language

It says in the article:

The perception of an odor effect is a two-step process. First, there is the physiological part; the sense of the stimulus by receptors in the nose. After that, the psychological part follows. The stimuli are processed by the region of the human brain which is responsible for smelling.

No! Psychological processes arise from physiological functions of cells and dendrites, axons, synapses (see neuron doctrine and cable theory), so this distinction does not make any sense. A distinction, possibly meant, could be molecular recognition (aka chemical sensing in receptors) and neuronal processing. Another possible distinctions could be early (epithelium, olfactory bulb) and further processing (mainly periform cortex and limbic system). Ben ^T/_C 14:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to paste the entire article here, but one more thing from the same paragraph:

The stimuli are processed by the region of the human brain which is responsible for smelling. Because of this, an objective and analytical measure of odor is impossible.

What??? No, this is not the reason. There are two basic reasons it is difficult to measure odors. One is that the intrinsic dimensionalities of odors are unclear, i.e. receptor molecular ranges are under investigation and consensus is probably there are many more dimensions to odors than to other senses (see e.g. odotope theory). Second, odor perception highly subjective, it is first a function of experience among other factors given later in the paragraph. Ben What??? you mean legislation is wrong, in most states and in most countries of the world, it states in their laws "the odor must be at one odor unit (1 ou) at the boundary"

^T/_C 14:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a wiki - be bold and improve the article! :-) Cacycle (talk) 16:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Is that why it's called wikipedia? ;) Seriously, no time. Ben ^T/_C 16:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Recording odors

Will we be able to record odors in the future, like we can do now with sounds and images? 207.69.139.138 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We already can. See Micro-encapsulation. This discussion is inappropriate, as it does not serve to help the article. Belasted (talk) 01:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I doubt that was what the original poster had in mind.Wjousts (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

"primarily by the food and cosmetic industry"

What the hell is that supposed to mean? I'm pretty sure 'scent' has been used by an extremely wide range of people working outside of food and perfume advertising... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.4.5 (talk) 02:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh ... it doesn't say the word is used only by the food and cosmetic industry. It just says that's the term they use for a pleasant smell. Calm down. Anyone can use the term if they decide to do so. Ward3001 (talk) 02:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The definition of Pheremones doesn't make evolutionary sense. If the pheremone is used 'deliberately' for communication, who is the agent of this deliberation? Evolution itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.93.130 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The word deliberately doesn't make sense. I think what the original editor might have been trying to get at was that pheromones can be actively released by an animal for a particular purpose (attract a mate, warn others, etc) rather than their passive odor which may serve no purpose for the animal. Wjousts (talk) 12:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Odor vs Scent

In the US, "odor" almost always refers to a stench whereas a pleasant smell is usually called a scent or aroma. 24.4.252.230 (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

6 Legislative provisions associated with odors

This whole section is so badly translated from German, it has little to no value for the average reader. As a matter of fact, even someone who is scientifically trained in olfaction would probably think it's gibberish. Am thinking about nominating this section for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AirCombat (talk • contribs) 19:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Odour particle size

This article contains nothing on odour particle sizes. This is a serious omission for any intelligent discussion on physical and physiological behaviors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoinedUpBusiness (talk • contribs) 09:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Particle size? Do you mean the size of aroma molecules? Wjousts (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That'd be interesting if there's a source. What is the smallest molecule or lightest atom that can be identified by humans or animals? Methane might be among the lighter ones. Some pheronomes or spice aromas might be quite large.   Will Beback  talk  08:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, (pure) methane is odorless. I don't have a reference handy, but the size range is fairly narrow because molecules with M.W > 500 (IIRC) or so tend not to be very volatile. The lower limit is probably not too important. The lightest molecule I can think of off-hand is maybe hydrogen sulfide (smells like rotten eggs), which is often found with sources of methane leading people to think that methane has an odor. Wjousts (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction.   Will Beback  talk  20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

References

The reference Spengler 2000, p.483 links to a university library website login. It is not useful. You do not see the reference. A journal website would be better.

The reference Oracle Education Foundation (25 Aug. 2010). Your Sense of Smell - The Senses. ThinkQuest Library is popular science and does not give sufficient background (for example a reference to a study).

Ben ^T/_C 13:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference for these categories would be Amoore. Ben ^T/_C 10:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Is odor a gas?

Are odors gases? If so, how would that explain the smell of say, apples, or wood which are solid. 4.238.7.203 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Odors are gasses. The gas that you smell from, say apples or wood, are gasses created either by decay or oxidation. Achowat (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory information

<<Odors are also commonly called scents, which can refer to both pleasant and unpleasant odors. The terms fragrance, scent, and aroma are used primarily by the food and cosmetic industry to describe a pleasant odor, and are sometimes used to refer to perfumes.>>

Those two sentences contradict. The first says that scent can be used for both pleasant and unpleasant odors, and the second says that scent is only used for pleasant odors. As such I removed the first sentence. 4.238.7.203 (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you removed far more than just the listed sentence.[1] Was that a mistake?   Will Beback  talk  20:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I restored the earlier version, then removed "scent" from the list of terms used primarily by the food and cosmetic industry. This, I believe, resolves the contradiction. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Odor → Smell – A smell is by far the most common way of refer to this in English. odor often refers to only bad smells. Also with smell, there's no spelling issues. Voortle (talk) 00:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; the word "smell" alone is ambiguous and often refers to the sense of smell. We need a unique title for this article and "odor" is the best unambiguous fit. Powers ^T 02:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Simply a link to the olfaction article above the article about smells would do. Something like, "this articles is about smells, for the sense, see olfaction". Voortle (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

    That would work if you made a case that this was the primary topic for the word "smell", but I'm not convinced. Powers ^T 15:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Powers, the primarity of smells over the sense of smell is not shown. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons: "smell" may refer to the sense of smell. "Odor" is the best available title.   Will Beback  talk  20:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
• How about Scent or Scents? the claim above that scents are only pleasant has a problem with the scent of skunk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
  • How is that better than "odor"?   Will Beback  talk  01:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
    • It is both positive and negative; and Scents avoids the ambiguity with the sense of smell, if that's a real problem. (We are calling that article by the high-faluting Olfaction nowadays.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • So is "odor". Reading the definitions at Merriam Webster, both seem to have positive and negative connotations.[2][3] I don't object to "scent" strongly, but I don't see it as a significant improvement either.   Will Beback  talk  02:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
      • OED's relevant definitions:
      • Scent: "In wider sense: Distinctive odour. Now almost exclusively applied to agreeable odours, e.g. those of flowers."
      • Odour: "The property of a substance that is perceptible by the sense of smell; (in early use) spec. a sweet or pleasing scent; (now, freq.) an unpleasant smell."
      • Unfortunately, neither seems totally neutral.   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Foetid

In the articles Asparagus and Lactuca serriola, the link Foetid redirects to Odor - but the word "foetid" is nowhere mentioned in Odor. It should be, and it should be mentioned in boldface in the lead -- I think.--Nø (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fetid is used as an adjective rather than a noun. You might refer to "a stink", but not "a fetid". Instead you'd say "a fetid odor/smell/stink" Wjousts (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but somehow this should be in the article (or Foetid shouldn'r redirect to it).--Nø (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Non-Germane Text/Section removed from article

I removed the following section from the article as it has no apparent connection to the subject. Cgingold (talk) 00:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

==Adsorption as separating process== [[Adsorption]] is a thermodynamic separation process, which is characterized by the removal of [[molecule]]s out of a fluid phase at a solid surface. Molecules of a gaseous or fluid mixture are selectively taken up by a solid with a porous interface surface. The solid matter is called the '''adsorbant''', the adsorbed fluid is called the '''adsorbate'''. There are two types of adsorption, [[physisorption]] and [[chemisorption]]. The type of force driving the adsorption process is different between the two. ===Physisorption=== {{Main|Physisorption}} A special type of adsorption is physisorption. The difference between physisorption and chemisorption is that the adsorbed molecule is tied up with the substrate by physical forces, defined here as forces which do not cause chemical bonds. Such interactions are mostly unfocused in contrast to [[chemical bonds]]. "Van-Der-Waals" – forces are a special type of such physical forces. These forces are characterized by electrostatic interactions between induced, fluctuating dipoles. To be more specific you have to call those forces "London's Dispersal forces." A so-called dipole moment occurs because of [[Statistical fluctuations|fluctuations]] in the distribution of [[electrons]] around individual atoms. The temporary mean value of this force is however zero. Even though it’s only a mere transient [[dipole]] moment, this moment can cause a nonparallel dipole moment in an adjacent molecule. Operating forces of this nature are in inverse proportion to the sixth power of the distance between those molecules. These forces occur in almost every chemical system, but are relatively weak. Physisorption is an exothermic and reversible reaction. Obviously stronger strengths accrue through the interaction between [[solid]] dipoles at polar surfaces or reflexive loadings, appearing in electric conductive surfaces. Such interactions could be defined as a chemisorption because of their strength. ===Chemisorption=== {{Main|Chemisorption}} In many reactions, physisorption is a pre-cursor to chemisorption. Compared to physisorption, chemisorption is not [[reversible reaction|reversible]] and requires a larger activation [[energy]]. Usually the bond energy is about 800 kJ/mol. For physisorption the bond energy is only about 80 kJ/mol. A monomolecular layer could be maximally adsorbed. Strong bonds between the adsorbative molecules and the substrate could lead to the point that their intermolecular bonds partly or completely detach. In such a case you have to call this a dissociation. Those molecules are in a highly reactive state. This is the basis of [[heterogeneous catalysis]]. The substrate is then called catalytic converter. The differences between Chemisorption and Physisorption extends beyond an increased activation energy. An important criteria for chemisorption is the chemical mutation of the absorbent. Thereby it is possible that you have to deal with a chemisorption in a few combinations with a relatively low bond energy, for example 80 kJ/mol, as a physisorption could be another combination with a bond energy even by 100 kJ/mol. The interaction with different adsorbative molecules is very different. The surface could be taken by substances, which point out a very high bond energy with the substrate, and as a consequence of this the wanted reaction is impossible. Because of that feature those substances are called catalytic converter venom. Heat is released during that process too. ===Loading of the adsorbate=== During the [[adsorption]] of a molecule, energy — the [[heat of adsorption]] — is released. This energy is the difference of the [[enthalpy]] of the [[adsorbate]] in the fluid or gaseous phase and the its corresponding enthalpy on the surface of the adsorbant. With an increase of adsorbate loading on the surface of the adsorbant, the bond energy decreases in the area of the monomolecular covering. For higher loading, this value approaches zero. This implies that there is a limit for the loading of an adsorbate. (The procedure of reversing that process is called ''desorption''). Adsorption as a separating process is a challenging process, in the case of finding the eligible adsorbates, which could link as multilateral as possible.

Link with sanitation issues?

Odor is a huge topic for people working in sanitation... I am surprised that this article makes no mention of any of these terms: sanitation, toilet, feces, excreta, urine. If I get around to it in the coming days/weeks, I will make some cross references, I think that's important, particularly for developing countries. EvM-Susana (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Odor → smells – The word "odor" refers to a bad smell. "smell" is the more general word. But since there is the sense of smell, it should be at the plural. RightGot (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. If anything, I think "smell" has a more negative connotation than odor. The current title is fine and the proposed title potentially creates addition confusion with the existing article at smell. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – The proposed title is less clear than the current one. This article is about what one smells, rather than about the sense of smell itself. RGloucester — ☎ 03:07, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:PLURAL/WP:VERB no reason to use a plural, no reason to use a verb form, this is not about the sense of olfaction (smell), so a highly confused title suggestion, since smell is a disambiguation page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Odor is much better as a page title than "smells". I don't follow the original reasoning for a change. Some people use the word "malodor" to differentiate bad odor from good odor. So as far as I know, odor is in fact neutral (although for many people it is automatically "bad smell". Would love to see more work done to improve this article by the way, e.g. the linkage to sanitation issues (feces, wastewater treatment) is so far still totally missing. EvMsmile (talk) 02:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Smell is a highly visible page and if we move this page there we are likely to see increased levels of vandalism. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subject of interest

Our group is interested in adding a section to this page in terms of female preferences for scents and how they change across their cycle.

EmPhillips (talk)

Hi, there, welcome to Wikipedia! I am not too sure if this really fits so well on the odor page, though. Perhaps just a sentence or two and then link to another page where it's dealt with in more detail? Would some of it fit on the page about menstruation perhaps? And do you have good, reliable references for it? EvMsmile (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Subject of Interest

Looking at the effect of perfume/aftershave on attractiveness from an evolutionary perspective. Here are a few of the papers I've been reading so far!

Lenochova, P., Vohnoutova, P., Roberts, S. C., Oberzaucher, E., Grammer, K., Havlicek, J. (2012). Psychology of Fragrance Use: Perception of Individual Odor and Perfume Blends Reveals a Mechanism for Idiosyncratic Effects on Fragrance Choice. PLoS One, 7, (3), 1 – 10.

Milinski, M., Wedekind, C. (2001) Evidence for MHC-correlated perfume preferences in humans. Behavioural Ecology, 12, (2), 140-149.

Baron, A. (1981). Olfaction and Human Social Behavior Effects of a Pleasant Scent on Attraction and Social Perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, (4), 611 – 616.

Behan, J. M., MacMaster, A. P., Kerring, K. D., Tuck, K. M. (1996). Insight into how skin changes perfume. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 18, 237 – 246.

Graham, J. A., Jouhar, A. J. (1980). Cosmetics considered in the context of physical attractiveness: A Review. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2, 17 – 101.

Winman, A. (2004). Do perfume additives termed human pheromones warrant being termed pheromones? Psychology and Behaviour, 82, (4), 697 – 701.

McCoy, N. L., Pitino, L. (2003). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behaviour in young women. Psychology and Behaviour, 75, (3), 367 – 365.

Cutler, W. B., Friedmann, E., McCoy, N. L. (1998). Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behaviour in men. Archives of Sexual Behaviour, 27, (1), 1 – 13.

Any help you could offer would be hugely appreciated! :)

Robotsbackspaceraomeow (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Subject of Interest

I am trying to compile a bibliography of sources for potential edits to this page. Currently I am finding sources to do with odour preferences for men and women, the impact of MHC on odour preferences, and how changes in the menstrual cycle affect odour preference. Any advice on these or further sources would be greatly appreciated!

1) Body odours and body odour preferences

2) Human pheromones and sexual attraction

3) MHC-correlated mate choice in humans: A review

Tinaballerina02 (talk) 00:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Subject of Interest

I am currently looking at references for men and women's preferences of odor and if women's preferences change across the cycle. Here are a few references that I have been looking at so far: 1) Glidersleeve, K., Haselton, M. G., & Fales, M. R. (2014). Do women’s mate preferences change across the ovulatory cycle? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140.5, 1205-1259.

2) Thornhill, R., Gangastad, S. W., Miller, R., Scheyd, G., McCollongh, J. K., & Franklin, M. (2003). Major histocompatibility complex geens, symmetry, and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behavioural Ecology, 14.5, 668-678.

3) Gangestad, S. W., Simpson, J. A., Cousins, A. J., Garver- Apgar, C. E., & Christensen, P. N. (2004). Women’s preferences for male behavioural displays change across the menstrual cycle. Psychological Science, 15.3, 203-207.

4) Penn, D. J. (2002). The scent of genetic compatibility: Sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology, 108.1, 1-21.

5) Havlicek, J., Roberts, C. S, & Flegr, J. (2005). Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of mistral cycle and relationship status. Biology Letters, 3.1, DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2005.0332.

6) Garver- Aprgar, C. E., Gangestad, S. W. & Thornhill, R. (2008). Hormonal correlates of women’s mid-cycle preference for the scent of symmetry. Evolution and Human Behaviour, 29.4, 223-232.

7) Thornhill, R., & Gangestad, S. W. (1999). The scent of symmetry: A human sex pheromone that signals fitness? Evolution and Human Behaviour, 20.3, 175-201.

EmPhillips (talk) 11:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer review - behavioral cues

i think this section is very informative as to the behavioral cues of body odor. I think when talking about womens preverence for men with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genotypes and odor different from themselves especially during ovulation is very a very interesting point on womens behavioral cues. Maybe add something about mens behavioral cues in relation to body odor. A study found that ovulation may not be visible to men as a cue and that men could use ovulation–linked odours in their mate selection. A suggested article to refer to is "Female body odour is a potential cue to ovulation" Maybe provide explanation on why this is an effective means for meting selection and how exactly odor is a cue for mate selection

Aditi bhansali (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Further to this peer review, I have edited a small section on pheromones to include a hyperlink for the word 'Pheromones' and to explain that they are chemicals as opposed to just odors, as well as putting the subheader 'Perfume and Sexual Attractiveness in bold'. Otherwise it is a very good section. Ahhthewitch (talk)

Pheromones are chemical compounds (such as odors) that are used to elicit social responses, and are sometimes called "airborne hormones". A female moth may release a pheromone that can entice a male moth that is several kilometers downwind, demonstrating the important use which pheromones serve in sexual communication. Honeybee queens constantly release pheromones that regulate the activity of the hive. Workers can release such smells to call other bees into an appropriate cavity when a swarm moves into new quarters, or to "sound" an alarm when the hive is threatened.

Perfume and Sexual Attractiveness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahhthewitch (talk • contribs) 20:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review: MHC and Odour Preferences

Although a good summary of MHC, being informative and interesting, I think there are some parts that could be expanded further:

First of all you should explain how body odour might actually provide MHS information – what is it in the smell we find attractive. You should also explain the part on being reminded more of current of prior partners: Are they smelling their own partners or past partners? For a lay-reader you might want to give a brief description of what a haplotype is and what the study on married couples meant. Additionally you might want to give some information regarding how oral contraceptives might mitigate or reverse the odour preferences.

I've also done some copy-editing to give this section more flow. Psuncl (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We are developing an article on Human Mating Preferences, your article on Odour would be a great addition for us to mention. Thanks! Psuncl (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2016 (UTC)