Physiology& Behavior, Vol. 47, pp. 617-623. Pergamon Press plc, 1990. Printed in the U.S.A. 0031-9384/90 $3.

0031-9384/90 $3.00 + .00

Temporal Effectiveness of Mouth-Rinsing

on Capsaicin Mouth-Burn

CHRISTINA WU NASRAWI AND ROSE MARIE PANGBORN 1

Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA 95616

R e c e i v e d 19 D e c e m b e r 1988

NASRAWI, C. W. AND R. M. PANGBORN. Temporaleffectivenessof mouth-rinsing on capsaicinmouth-burn. PHYSIOL BEHAV

47(4) 617-623, 1990.--Oral rinsing with different solutions significantly reduced mouth-burn of capsaicin solutions in both eaters and
noneaters of chili peppers. Cold solutions (5C) were more effective in reduction of mouth-burn than solutions at 20C. Sucrose
solutions (10%) at 20C and whole milk at 5C were equally effective while 5% ethanol was no more effective in mouth-burn reduction
than water at 20(2. Reduction of mouth-burn by sucrose was not dose dependent. Noneaters of chili peppers experienced a slightly
greater reduction of mouth-burn from sucrose solutions than eaters. Oral rinsing with sweetened milk containing 0 and 10% fat, of
varying globule size, resulted in similar degree of mouth-burn reduction. The first (control) sample was rated higher in intensity than
subsequent ones, suggesting desensitization, which appears to be due to the interaction of stimulation of chemo-, mechano-, thermo-
and gustatory receptors.

Capsaicin Mouth-burn Temporal Sucrose Milk

CAPSAICIN is the principal component in chili peppers which
causes irritation. Mouth-bum is due to the 3-methoxy-4-hydroxy-
benzyl residue in the capsaicin molecule; the hydroxy group at C-4
of the aromatic ring must be present for perception of both
pungency and pain (12,13). Capsaicin interacts with substance P
specific nerve fibers and causes desensitization of nociceptors and
warm receptors via depletion of substance P (14). Apparently,
cold, tactile and mechanoreceptors are not directly affected by
capsaicin.
While the metabolic and pharmacological effects of capsaicin
have been studied extensively, it is only recently that the orosen-
sory aspects of the compound have been addressed (1, 3, 5-7, 10,
l l ) . For example, Sizer and Harris (10) noted that the threshold
for capsaicin mouth-burn was suppressed by sucrose but not by
NaC1 or citric acid. Subsequently, Stevens and Lawless (11)
reported that mouth-burn induced by capsaicin and piperine was
enhanced by quinine-HC1, reduced by sucrose and citric acid, and
unaffected by NaC1. Cowart (1) found that perceived intensity of
" b a s i c " tastes generally was unaffected by oral irritation from
capsaicin. Lawless et al. (7), however, reported a significant
effect of capsaicin on taste intensity. The discrepancy between
these two findings remains unresolved. Capsaicin produced a
significant enhancement of perceived oral warmth, and depressed
perception of the coolness of cold solutions, suggesting an
apparent interrelation between thermo- and mechanoreceptors
(3,10). Consumers of chili peppers perceived less oral irritation
than those who rarely ate the spice (1,7).
The present study was undertaken to quantify the temporal
effectiveness of mouth-rinsing with solutions varying in sucrose,
fat level and temperature, on mouth-burn from capsaicin, among
eaters and noneaters of chili peppers. Since capsaicin is highly
soluble in fats and in ethanol, but not in water, it was predicted
that oral rinsing with the former solutions would be more effective
than with water.
METHOD
Sample Preparation
Reagents included synthetic capsaicin (ICN Biomedicals, Inc.,
Plainview, NY), citric acid monohydrate, and 95% ethanol (Fisher
Scientific, Fair Lawn, NJ), sodium chloride (Mallinckrodt, St.
Louis, MO), xanthan gum (Kelco Co., San Diego, CA), and
commercial sucrose (C and H Sugar Co., Concord, CA). One
gram of capsaicin (vanillyl nonanamide) was placed in 20 g of
polysorbate 80 and heated on low heat until dissolved (2). The
mixture was transferred to a 100-ml volumetric flask, diluted to
100 ml with distilled water and stored at 7C. The stock solution
was further diluted to the final concentration of 3 ppm with
distilled water.
Milk samples included skim milk, whole milk, half and half,
and heavy whipping cream (Crystal Dairy Inc., Sacramento, CA)
containing, 0, 3.5, 10.5 and 36% milk-fat, respectively. An
unhomogenized milk (10% milk-fat) sweetened with 10% sucrose
was prepared by first dissolving sucrose in skim milk, then adding
heavy whipping cream (36% milk-fat) followed by gentle mixing.
Subject Selection
Subjects were unpaid volunteers between the ages of 22 and 45

IRequests for reprints should be sent to Diane Melbourne at the above address.

617
618 NASRAWI AND PANGBORN

80

70
~< ,5C WATER
6O /~A ~ A 20CWATER

t-
B

E
rn
3
0

i.
0 I At l i t i i i i i i I [ i i
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Expectorate
Time (see)

FIG. 1. Average time-intensity responses to solutions of 3 ppm capsaicin alone, and to capsaicin followed
by oral rinsing with distilled water at 5 and 20C. ( N = 2 2 subjects x 2 reps.)

years, selected on the basis of availability and interest. Subjects
were trained in the use of a computerized time-intensity (T-I)
module, and corresponding test procedures (8,9).
Consumption Questionnaire
A modified questionnaire (7) was utilized to determine whether
subjects were eaters or noneaters of chili peppers. Question one
determined the frequency of ingesting foods containing chili
pepper, i.e., Mexican, Indian, Chinese, etc. (1 =once a year or
less, up to 7 =more than once a day). The second and third
questions determined preference for chili pepper flavor, and the
perceived intensity of burn, respectively. Both of these questions

11111

90
CAP~I~tdCS~I
~'c w A ~
8O SKMMLK
WH. MLK
7O

6O

8O

4O

3O

20-

I0-

0 A' ' t i i t i r i r t i i
80 120 1(10 200 240 280

FIG. 2. Average time-intensity responses to solutions of 3 ppm capsaicin alone, and to capsalcin
followed by oral rinsing with distilled water, skim milk and whole milk at 5C. (N = 22 subjects 2
reps.)
CAPSAICIN MOUTH-BURN 619

80

CAPSNCIN

, / o sue,.osE
6O

u) 50
t-
_e
r-

E 40
::3
rn
-

o 3O
=i

20

10

0 ~ I I I
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
Expectorate
Time (sec)

FIG. 3. Average time-intensity responses to solutions of 3 ppm capsaicin alone, and to capsaicin followed by oral
rinsing with distilled water, 10% sucrose, or 5% ethanol at 20C. (N---22 subjects 2 reps.)

utilized a 10-cm line scale anchored from "dislike extremely" to
"like extremely." Questions 4, 5, and 6 determined whether
subjects preferred foods containing chili peppers over "bland
foods." Using a 5 point scale (1 =strongly disagree, to 5 =
strongly agree), question 4 determined if subjects thought chili
peppers made selected foods taste better. Question 5 established if
subjects found many foods to taste bland without chili pepper, and
question 6 determined if subjects found it difficult to appreciate the
flavors of foods that contain hot spices. Question 7 (1 = none, to
5 = extremely hot), measured the intensity of mouth-burn subjects
actually prefer from chili peppers.
Eleven subjects were classified as eaters and eleven as noneat-
ers of chili peppers and capsaicin-containing foods, based on their
responses to this questionnaire. Subjects who scored below the 50
percentile of the total possible score for questions (l) frequency of
consumption of capsaicin products, (3) degree of liking of mouth-
burn, and (7) intensity of mouth-burn preferred were classified as
noneaters. For those on the 50th percentile, the score on question
5 (without hot spices, foods taste bland), was used as a deciding
factor.
EXPERIMENT 1
Stimulus: 5 ml of 3 ppm capsaicin in distilled water
Rinses: Six 20-ml samples, in randomized order
1. Distilled water at 20C
2. Distilled water at 5C
3, 10% sucrose (w/w) at 20C
4. 5% ethanol (v/v) at 20C
5, Whole milk (3.5% fat) at 5C
6, Nonfat milk (0% fat) at 5C
Procedure
Twenty-two subjects (16 females, 6 males) completed thirteen
15-min sessions. First, subjects rinsed their mouths three times
with 20 ml of distilled water. Then, 5 ml of 3 ppm capsaicin was
placed into the mouth for 15 sec, and expectorated. Mouth-burn
intensity was rated continuously by moving a joy stick in a slot
along a scale anchored from " n o n e " to "extreme," from the
moment the sample was placed in the mouth, during expectoration
at 15 sec, and on for a total of 5 min. A computerized time-
intensity (T-I) system (4) recorded and relayed digitized data from
the joy stick module to a Zenith Microcomputer. A 5-min rest
ensued during which subjects rinsed their mouths with additional
distilled water. Subjects again rinsed their mouths three times with
20 ml distilled water, placed a 5-ml sample of 3 ppm capsaicin into
their mouths for 15 sec, and expectorated. Immediately after
expectoration of the capsaicin sample, a 20-ml rinse sample (10%
sucrose, 5% ethanol, whole milk, nonfat milk, or distilled water at
5C or 20C) was placed in the mouth for 15 sec and expectorated.
Mouth-burn intensity was rated continuously from the time the
capsaicin solution was placed into the mouth, through expectora-
tion, until extinction. Extinction was defined as the time (sec)
when perceived bum returned to baseline, or when subject could
no longer perceive burn.
EXPERIMENT 2
Stimuli: 5 ml of 3 ppm capsaicin in distilled water
Rinses: Six 20-ml samples, in randomized order
1.5% sucrose (w/w) at 20C
2. 10% sucrose (w/w) at 20C
3. 20% sucrose (w/w) at 20C
4. Skim milk plus 10% sucrose at 5C
5. Unhomogenized milk, 10% fat, plus 10% sucrose at 5C
6. Homogenized milk, 10% fat, plus 10% sucrose at 5C
Procedure
Nineteen subjects (13 females, 6 males) completed six 15-min
620 NASRAWI AND PANGBORN

NO~F.A'r~s ~'rwl8
(14-11XI 70 (X-IIXm
TO
8. C.
KI- m -- OAmP~N
..... WA1Nm
.......... 80
.......... tin iIJ(
40-

40-

, , , , , ,
i 0 0 40 Io 11o NIO It~ ~o I~

~TER8
lIN- 11X~ d, w

b. i ,o
;q)

IO

80- m

40- 40

IO- in

I10- m

10- 1o

0 , , , , 0 / i i , , ,
o 40 IiO 11o IIo ~ ~ alO
~)

ABOVE AND FACING PAGE

FIG. 4. Average time-intensity responses of 11 eaters and 11 noneaters of chili peppers. (a, b) Oral rinsing with distilled water at 5 and 20C. (c, d) Oral
rinsing with distilled water, whole milk and skim milk at 5C. (e, f) Oral rinsing with distilled water, 10% sucrose and 5% ethanol at 20C.

sessions with the sucrose rinses and the remaining 17 (11 females,
6 males) completed an additional six sessions with the milk rinses.
As in Experiment I, subjects rated the control sample and
rested for 5 min. During the rest, the time to maximum mouth-
burn intensity was determined for each subject, using the Lotus
1-2-3 ~ worksheet. The rinse protocol was customized for each
subject by changing the data collection program to provide an
additional signal, corresponding to each subjects's previous max-
imum mouth-burn intensity. Subjects were instructed to place the
rinse sample in the mouth at the signal representing their individ-
ualized time of previous maximum burn, and to record responses
as described for Experiment 1.
Data Analysis
Analyses of variance (ANOVA) were carried out on the SAS
package (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, version 4.10). Split-plot
designs were used for conservative evaluation of the level of
statistical significance between eaters and noneaters and the
interaction between groups and treatments. In addition, three-way
ANOVA was applied to data within each group. In all ANOVAs,
subjects were considered to be fixed. Fisher's least significant
difference (LSD) test at p<0.05 was utilized for comparing
means.
From the T-I response curves, values for maximum intensity
(MAX), time to maximum intensity (TTM), and total intensity
perceived (TIP, calculated as total area under the curve) were
obtained. Relative mouth-burn reduction (RMR) was calculated as
the numeric ratio between TIP of the sample followed by the rinse
sample and TIP of the control sample (without rinse). The smaller
the RMR for a particular rinse, the more effective it was in
reducing mouth-burn. RMR values were used to normalize the
large difference in numeric values obtained for individual subjects.
Also, it was easier to conceptualize values ranging between zero
and 1.5 compared to the actual data, which ranged from one
hundred into the thousands.
RESULTS
Experiment 1
Figure 1 shows the temporal response of the efficacy of mouth-
burn reduction by oral rinsing with water at 5C and 20C. Cold
water was more effective in reducing mouth-burn (<0.05) than
tepid water. Reduction of mouth-bum was most noticeable during
the 15 sec following the introduction of a rinse solution, but
mouth-burn returned quickly after expectoration of the rinse
solution (a rebound phenomenon). This temporary reduction of
mouth-burn was observed with all the rinses, except sucrose
solutions. Figure 2 demonstrates that skim and whole milks were
CAPSAICIN MOUTH-BURN 621

NONEATERS equally effective in reducing mouth-burn, with less of a postrinse

70
(N. 11X2) rebound than water. Whole milk reduced mouth-burn slightly
e. more than skim milk.
-- P.~PINCN
IO- Ethanol was no more effective than 20C water in reduction of
mouth-burn (Fig. 3). However, 10% sucrose reduced mouth-bum
m o r e ( p < 0 . 0 5 ) than tepid water or 5% ethanol. There w a s no
significant difference between sucrose, skim milk and whole milk
in reduction of mouth-burn.
Perception o f m o u t h - b u r n b e t w e e n 11 eaters and 11 noneaters
ta- of chili peppers, after various oral rinses did not differ at p<0.05.
As noted in Fig. 4a-f, the postrinsing rebound phenomena was
generally greater for noneaters, while the rate of decay of irritation
after rinsing was faster for eaters.
to Since the rinse sample was provided immediately after expec-
toration of the capsaicin at 15 sec, MAX and TTM are confounded

i within that time. Subjects were not given sufficient time for
mouth-burn to fully reach maximum intensity, hence the modifi-
cation in rinsing time for Experiment 2.
(N. t l x = )

f" I " Experiment 2

7O-
TIP w a s obtained a n d n o r m a l i z e d to R M R to r e m o v e the
10
variation between subjects' usage of the T-I scale. RMR was used
as the indicator of mouth-burn reduction by the various rinses.
in_ A l t h o u g h similar r e s p o n s e s were obtained across concentrations,
the three sucrose solutions were significantly more effective
40- (p<0.05) than water in reducing mouth-burn (Fig. 5). For all
rinses, noneaters perceived a greater reduction of mouth-burn from
II0-
sucrose solutions than eaters but the differences were not signifi-
10- cant. As shown in Fig. 6, oral rinsing with sweetened milk greatly
reduced mouth-burn, regardless of fat content or globule size
(homogenized vs. unhomogenized). No significant difference in
m o u t h - b u r n reduction w a s f o u n d b e t w e e n eaters a n d noneaters o f
o i , , i r l , , r l , , I ,
chili peppers.
~ )

FIG. 4. Continued.

70

5% SUCROSE
[] 10% S U C R O S E
5O

Z
LU
I-- 40
Z
Z
rr

n~ 3O
I

0
20

10

0 i i
A ,o 120 160 200 240 280
Expectorate
TIME (See)

FIG. 5. Average time-intensity responses to solutions of 3 ppm capsaicin alone, and to capsaicin
followed by oral rinsing with distilled water and solutions of 5%, 10%, and 20% sucrose at 20C.
(N = 19 subjects 2 reps.)
622
70
60
50
Z
W
I--
_z
Z
n,"
3O
"1-
I-
o
2o
10
I I I I I I
I 40 80
Expectorate
FIG. 6. Average time-intensity responses to solutions of 3 ppm capsaicin alone, and to capsaicin followed by
oral rinsing with homogenized, unhomogenized, and skim milk sweetened with 10% sucrose. (N= 17 subjects
2 reps.)
DISCUSSION
The initial suppression of mouth-burn when the rinse solution
was held in the mouth and the return of mouth-burn soon after
expectoration, suggest an interaction of thermo-, mechano-, and
chemoreceptors. The efficacy of cold temperatures in reduction of
mouth-bum demonstrates the inhibitory role of thermal C~ fibers
on capsaicin sensitive C2 fibers. The removal of the irritant by
rinsing with hydrophobic solutions and those with a high-fat
partition coefficient did not result in complete suppression of oral
irritation. The capsaicin may be so tightly bound to the receptors
that it is not completely washed away even though soluble in the
rinse.
Capsaicin is an extremely hydrophobic substance which dis-
solves readily in ethanol. If binding of capsaicin to the chemore-
ceptors is a control step of mouth-burn perception, rinsing with 5%
ethanol should remove the capsaicin molecule from the receptor
sites, and therefore relieve irritation. The present results showed
that ethanol was no more effective than tepid water in reduction of
mouth-burn. It is recognized that capsaicin probably binds non-
specifically all over the oral cavity, rather than to a specific
receptor site. The results suggest, however, that the lipid-solvating
power of the oral milieu may have a more complex function than
mere removal of capsaicin from binding sites.
The substance P neurotoxic effect of capsaicin has been
reported extensively. It is possible that capsaicin alters the
morphology of the C 2 chemoreceptors or causes hyperpolarization
of the nerve fiber, after the initial binding. Thus, removal of
capsaicin by ethanol does not reverse the morphological change,
or a certain amount of time is required for the nerve fiber to
repolarize.
At high concentrations ethanol is an irritant, elicits a bitter
taste, and prolonged exposure causes analgesia to touch and
cooling (5). Although slightly bitter, it is unlikely that 5% ethanol
held in the mouth for 15 sec would cause paralysis of nerve fibers.
NASRAWI AND PANGBORN
CAPSAICIN
--A- UNHOMO
/% HOMO
I I I I I I I I
120 160 200 240 280
TIME (Sec)
Stevens and Lawless (11) reported that the bitter taste of quinine-
HCI enhanced mouth-burn. The reduction of capsaicin mouth-bum
by ethanol, in the present study, was probably due to its cooling
and tactile qualities.
Although not different statistically, whole milk was more
effective than skim milk in reducing mouth-bum, which indicates
that fat may play a role in perception of mouth-bum. However,
increasing the level of fat and the size of the fat globule
(Experiment 2) did not significantly reduce mouth-bum. It is
important to note that the milk samples were served cold (5C) and
sweetened (Experiment 2) which had been shown previously to
attenuate mouth-burn.
Sizer and Harris (10) reported that threshold values for capsai-
cin decreased with increased solution temperature, while de-
creased temperature masked mouth-burn. The authors suggested
that solution temperature may increase or decrease the inter- and
intramolecular bonding of capsaicin molecules, and therefore may
influence the availability of capsaicin for interaction with the
surface of the oral cavity. In addition, the perceived thermal
hotness with temperature increase, can be an added irritant.
Green (3) reported that capsaicin enhanced thermal warmth but
attenuated cold perception. This agreed with Sizer and Harris (10)
who observed that exposure to water (36C) after stimulation with
capsaicin produced an initial suppression, but burn intensity
returned soon after. This oral cooling effect of solution while held
in the mouth was also observed for capsaicin by Stevens and
Lawless (11).
The customized time procedure in Experiment 2, allowed
subjects to perceive maximum mouth-burn intensity beyond the
expectoration point, before rinse solutions were introduced. None-
theless, the first capsaicin (control) sample was rated consistently
higher than subsequent ones, despite a 10-rain lapse between
samples. This suggests an acute desensitization effect due to
saturation of the C 2 receptors or temporary depletion of substance
P. Acute desensitization, unlike chronic desensitization, which
CAPSAICIN MOUTH-BURN
describes a permanent state of insensitivity, tends to increase the
threshold, causes delays in onset of perception, or results in a
slower increase in mouth-burn intensity from subsequent samples.
Sucrose effectively reduced mouth-burn in both experiments.
Sweet stimuli are transmitted via the chorda tympani nerve to the
facial nerve and the sensory cortex. It is unlikely, therefore, that
sucrose competes with capsaicin for the same receptor at the
peripheral level.
Reduction of mouth-burn with increasing concentrations of
sucrose cannot be attributed to viscosity, as suggested previously
(10). Furthermore, sucrose is a gustatory, not a trigeminal stimu-
lus. Also, other gustatory stimuli such as salty and sour did not
elicit the same effect as sucrose (8,9). Consistent reduction of
mouth-bum by sucrose could be related to one or more of the
following phenomena: 1) sucrose competitively inhibits binding of
capsaicin to chemoreceptors, 2) sucrose causes the secretion of
protein-rich saliva which forms a protective coating, 3) sweet
gustatory stimulation inhibits oral irritation by inhibition of sub-
stance P release at the receptor site, 4) sucrose stimulates the
'pleasure center' in the CNS, 5) sucrose stimulates the release of
endogenous opiates, 6) sucrose causes distraction thus diffusing
the irritative sensation at lower CNS (limbic, thalamus) or higher
CNS (sensory cortex), and/or 7) the context effect of sweetness--
makes one feel 'good.'
Unlike results by Cowart (1) and Lawless et al. (7), the present
study found that eaters and noneaters did not differ in their
responses to the rinse solutions. This unexpected discrepancy
could be attributed to wide individual variation within studies
and/or to methodological differences across studies. Cross-mo-
dality normalization via use of tones or salt solutions might have
been a more sensitive measure of these differences. In the present
experiments, however, eaters did not find cold water and sucrose
to be as effective in mouth-burn reduction as noneaters. This
suggests that the thermal and gustatory receptors, and possibly
also nerve fibers of eaters, may have been altered or damaged from
frequent exposure to capsaicin. Therefore, the ability of eaters to
perceive gustatory and irritative stimuli may depend on the
turnover rate or the rate of tissue repair of receptors and nerve
REFERENCES
1. Cowart, B. J. Oral chemical irritation: does it reduce perceived taste
intensity? Chem. Senses 12:467-479; 1987.
2. Gillette, M. H.; Appel, C. E.; Lego, M. C. A new method for sensory
evaluation of red pepper heat. J. Food Sci. 49:1028-1033; 1984.
3. Green, B. G. Sensory interactions between capsaicin and temperature
in the oral cavity. Chem. Senses 11:371-382; 1986.
4. Guinard, J-X.; Pangborn, R. M.; Shoemaker, C. F. Computerized
procedure for time-intensity sensory measurements. A research note.
J. Food Sci. 50(2):543-544, 546; 1985.
5. HeUekant, G. Action and interaction of ethyl alcohol and some other
substances on the receptors of the tongue. In: Hayashi, T., ed.
Olfaction and taste 2. Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium (Tokyo). Oxford: Pergamon Press; 1967:470--473.
6. Lawless, H. Oral chemical irritation: Psychophysical properties.
Chem. Senses 9:143-155; 1984.
7. Lawless, H.; Rozin, P.; Shenker, J. Effects of oral capsaicin on
gustatory, olfactory and irritant sensations and flavor identification in
humans who regularly or rarely consume chili pepper. Chem. Senses
10:579-589; 1985.
8. Nasrawi, C. N. Oral sensory responses and salivation induced by the
623
fibers.
Recognizing the relatively small numbers of subjects tested
herein, the main conclusion is that, at the levels tested, sucrose
and cool temperatures were more effective than fat in reducing the
mouth-bum of capsaicin. Furthermore, 1) There was an acute
desensitization of mouth-bum where the first stimulus is more
intense than subsequent ones; 2) There was an interaction of
chemo- and thermoreceptors when cold solutions relieved oral
irritation; 3) There was an interaction of chemo- and mechanore-
ception when capsaicin held in the mouth was perceived to be less
irritating than after expectoration; 4) Removal of capsaicin by
rinsing with hydrophobic solvents or increasing the. partition
coefficient into the solvent did not remove oral irritation; 5) The
inhibitory effect of thermo- and gustatory receptors on mouth-burn
was negatively influenced by consumption of chili peppers, thus
capsaicin may be toxic to both myelinated and unmyelinated nerve
fibers; and 6) Peripheral control of capsaicin irritation plays an
important role both during the acute and chronic stages and the
major control is probably at a higher level via behavioral (context
effect) or physiological mechanisms (opiates).
Further studies are needed with different sweet compounds to
determine if the masking effect is specific to sucrose or to the
sweet taste in general. Research on acute and chronic desensitiza-
tion should be undertaken to better understand the mechanism
underlying the perception of oral irritation at the receptor level.
One approach may be to assess subjects' consumption of chili
pepper, both in quantity and frequency of ingestion on a daily
basis by recording food intakes. Another approach may be to
provide chili pepper sample to eaters on a daily basis while
requiring the noneaters to abstain from any foods containing chili
pepper for at least 10 days prior to the testing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Appreciation is extended to the twenty-seven subjects who endured the
test solutions. We thank Mr. Dan Watts for modifying the T-I data
collection program and Dr. Alfred Heusner for his advice on graphics and
data illustrations. We also gratefully acknowledge the assistance in
preparation of the manuscript of Prof. Ann C. Noble.
irritation of capsaicin. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California,
Davis. 1988:76-96.
9. Nasrawi, C. N.; Pangborn, R. M. The influence of tastants on oral
irritation by capsaicin. J. Sensory Stud., in press; 1990.
10. Sizer, F.; Harris, N. The influence of common food additives and
temperature on threshold perception of capsaicin. Chem. Senses
10:279-286; 1985.
11. Stevens, D. A.; Lawless, H. T. Putting out the fire: effects of tastants
on oral chemical irritation. Percept. Psychophysiol. 39:346-350;
1986.
12. Szolcsanyi, J.; Jancso-Gabor, A. Analysis of the role of warmth
detectors by means of capsaicin under different conditions. In:
Temperature regulation and drug action. Basel: Karger; 1975:331-
338.
13. Szolcsanyi, J. On the specificity of pain-producing and sensory
neuron-blocking effects of capsaicin, Proc. 2nd Congress Hungarian
Pharm. Soc. Budapest: Akademia Kiado; 1976:167-172.
14. Szolcsanyi, J. A pharmacological approach to elucidation of the role
of different nerve fibres and receptor endings in mediation of pain. J.
Physiol. (Paris) 77:251-259; 1977.