## 3 Results and Discussion
### Odor Activity Values  
As mentioned above, OAVs are defined as the ratio of the concentration of an odorant in a sample to the odor threshold of that odorant, and these give an indication of the relative importance of an individual odorant to the overall aroma. The OAVs were determined for the seven quantified aroma compounds (see Table 2) using experimentally determined thresholds of the individual aroma compounds in 45%vol. ethanolic solutions (Table 3), with the exception of linalool for which a published literature value was used [20].  
Among the selected aroma compounds quantified, the _flowery_ smelling linalool had the highest OAV and thereby contributed most to the overall aroma in both gins. Further, with an OAV of 1189 in Kini, this compound was more pronounced than in Gspusi (OAV 39), although its FD factor was identical in both gins (with the highest value of FD \(\geq\)2048; see Table 1), indicating its overall dominant contribution. The _eucalyptus-like_ 1,8-cineole had the second highest OAV in Kini (OAV 12), but was not prominent in Gspusi (OAV \(<\)1), followed by the _earthy_, _metallic_, _grainium-like_ smelling myrcene at OAV 8 in Kini, but this was more dominant in Gspusi, at OAV 27. This observation is reflected in the AEDA data, whereby 1,8-cineole exhibited a higher FD factor in Kini (FD 32 vs FD 4 in Gspusi), and conversely, myrcene was higher in Gspusi (FD 1024 vs FD 512 in Kini). The _anise-like trans_-anethole exhibited OAVs of 7 and 2 in Kini and Gspusi, respectively, indicating its higher contribution to the overall aroma of the former compared to that of the latter; again, the AEDA data reflect this observation, with respective FD factors of \(\geq\)2048 and 512 for Kini and Gspusi. OAVs of the other compounds ranged from \(<\)1 to 3 in the two gins, reflecting varying minor contributions to the aroma. Although these OAVs provide indications of the contributions of individual odorants to the overall aroma of a sample, the significance of their impact on the odor profile cannot be inferred from these data, but rather require additional recombination and omission experiments [40]. Using the latter approach it has been shown that odor qualities of a less intense aroma compound can be entirely suppressed in the presence of a more intense odorant [34], thereby highlighting the complexity of odor interactions and how these affect perception.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compound**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**OT\({}_{\text{D}}\) [ug/L 45\% Ethanol]**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**OAV**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & **Range** & **Mean** & **Kini** & **Gspusi** \\ \hline myrcene & 77–479 & 101 & 8 & 27 \\ limonene & 647–10113 & 2804 1  & 1 & 3 \\
1,8-cineole & 37–35795 & 635 & 12 & \(<\)1 \\ nonanal & 81–1263 & 254 & 2 & \(<\)1 \\ linalool & - & 24 [20]2  & 1189 & 39 \\ estragole & 837–13082 & 2841 & 1 & \(<\)1 \\ _trans_-anethole & 189–7392 & 748 & 7 & 2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Odor detection thresholds (OT\({}_{\text{D}}\)) of seven selected aroma compounds as determined experimentally in 45%vol. ethanolic solutions, as well as the associated odor activity values (OAVs) calculated based on the concentrations of the individual compounds in the gins.