What’s Making That Smell? The Chemistry Behind Common Scents

The Science of Smell

Of the five senses, scientists understand the least about smell. We recognize scents when small airborne molecules stimulate receptors in the back of our nose, which then send signals to our brain. Humans have about 500 different types of receptors, each one specific to a different scent molecule (“How the nose decodes complex odors”, 2020).

But what makes some molecules have scents? Well, the molecules must be able to travel through the air to the back of the nose, so they have to be volatile. Volatility is how easily the molecule evaporates at room temperature. The more a molecule evaporates into the air, the more likely it is that it reaches the receptors in the back of our nose. Even then, there must be a receptor for that specific molecule for it to be recognized (Gang, 2005).

The whole process seems simple enough, but most scents are a combination of tens to hundreds of different scent molecules. The smell of chocolate and cocoa products, for example, is made of over 600 scent molecules (Counet et al., 2002). Scientists still don’t fully understand how more complicated scents work, (Gottfried & Wilson, 2011) but most have been found to be made of just a few major compounds, such as the southern magnolia flower. Its scent comes from a mixture of 14 different molecules, but two, beta-caryophyllene and beta-cedrene, are the main compounds (Garg & Kumar, 1999).

Beta-caryophyllene
Beta-cedrene

Many common scents can be traced back to specific molecules. Even small changes in a molecule can cause large changes in its scent. Check out a few familiar scents below!

Common Scent Molecules

6-Acetyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydropyridine gives popcorn and baked goods their typical smell. A slight change creates 2-Acetyl-1-pyrroline, which is the main component of rice’s smell (Dhrubo, 2015).

6-Acetyl-2,3,4,5-tetrahydropyridine
2-Acetyl-1-pyrroline

4-Anisaldehyde is used a lot in the fragrance industry. It has a very strong sweet floral scent and is very similar to vanillin. Vanillin, as you may have guessed, is the main component of vanilla’s scent. Natural vanilla extract is made of hundreds of different molecules, but synthetic vanilla scent is usually just pure vanillin (Dhrubo, 2015).

4-Anisaldehyde
Vanillin

Benzaldehyde has an almond-like odor and is very useful in the fragrance industry because of its simple structure (Dhrubo, 2015).

Benzaldehyde

Cinnamaldehyde makes up for around 90% of the scent of cinnamon (Dhrubo, 2015).

Cinnamaldehyde

Natural honey is an extremely complicated scent, made up of 187 volatile compounds, and varies based on its nectar source (Mahmoud et al., 2024). Phenylacetaldehyde is the main component of honey’s scent, but methyl phenylacetate is used for a synthetic honey scent because of its strength. It only takes a little bit of methyl phenylacetate to make a perfume or candle honey-scented (Dhrubo, 2015).

Phenylacetaldehyde
Methyl Phenylacetate

Even fresh cut grass has its own molecule. (Z)-3-hexenal is one of the molecules released when grass is damaged, and is what gives it that freshly mowed lawn smell (Dhrubo, 2015).

(Z)-3-Hexenal

If you want to learn more about fun molecules, the American Chemical Society (ACS) has been publishing a “Molecule of the Week” since 2001. This past week’s molecule was myristicin, which is a primary component of many spices such as nutmeg, dill, parsley, and anise. Interestingly, its structure is very similar to that of amphetamines and can cause hallucinations if ingested in high doses (much higher than used for cooking). On their website, they have an archive of over one thousand molecules, complete with properties, history, and fun facts! Click here to check it out.

 

How the nose decodes complex odors. (May 12, 2020). National Institute of Health. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-nose-decodes-complex-odors

Gang, D. (June 2005). Evolution of Flavors and Scents. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 56, 301-325. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.arplant.56.032604.144128

Gottfried, J., Wilson, D. (2011). Neurobiology of Sensation and Reward. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92786/

Counet, C., Callemien, D., Ouwerx, C., Collin, S., (March 15, 2002). Use of Gas Chromatography−Olfactometry To Identify Key Odorant Compounds in Dark Chocolate. Comparison of Samples before and after Conching. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50(8), 2385–2391. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf0114177

Garg, S., Kumar, S., (1999). Volatile constituents from the flowers of Magnolia grandiflora L. from Lucknow, India. Journal of Essential Oil Research 11(5),, 633-634. https://aromadb.cimapbioinfo.in/web_essentialoil_details.php?id=CRESOL159

Mahmoud, M., Kilic-Buyukkurt, O., Aboul Fotouh, M., Selli, S. (October 2024). Aroma active compounds of honey: Analysis with GC-MS, GC-O, and molecular sensory techniques. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 134(106545). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889157524005799#:~:text=Compounds%20such%20as%20phenylacetic%20acid,the%20distinctive%20smell%20of%20honey.

Dhrubo, J. S. (2015) Esters, Terpenes And Flavours: Make The Mood Cheers by Three Musketeers!. World Journal of Pharmaceutical Medicine, 4(8), 1-40. https://wjpr.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/article_issue/1438667348.pdf

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.