Flavors Fluctuate with Temperature

Chilling or heating bitter, sour, sweet and astringent solutions changed their flavor intensity in different ways. Sophie Bushwick reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Does an ice-cold drink actually taste better than the same beverage at room temperature? Depends on what its taste is: a new study finds that the intensity of some flavors varies with temperature. The work is in the journal Chemosensory Perception. [Martha R. Bajec, Gary J. Pickering and Nancy DeCourville, "Influence of Stimulus Temperature on Orosensory Perception and Variation with Taste Phenotype"]

Researchers took solutions that tasted bitter, sour, sweet, or astringent—a flavor found in legumes and raw produce that creates a dry, puckering feel in the mouth. They either chilled the solutions to 5 degrees Celsius, the recommended temperature for keeping food cool…or heated the solutions to 35 degrees Celsius, a couple degrees below human body temperature. Volunteers then rated the tastes.

Both sour and astringent solutions tasted stronger at warm temperatures, and the intensity lasted longer than it did with chilled drinks. Bitter flavors came through best when chilled. And temperature had no effect on perception of sweetness.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For most people, temperature can enhance flavors. But for some, dubbed thermal tasters, temperature alone can be a flavor. Heating or cooling parts of the tongue creates the sensation of taste without food—a finding that’s hard to swallow.

—Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe