{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03762755102040816, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008290816326530613, 'mean_word_length': 5.326612903225806, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Identification of chemicals, possibly originating from misuse of refillable PET bottles, responsible for consumer complaints about off-odours in water and soft drinks

Mineral water and soft drinks with a perceptible off-odour were analysed to identify contaminants originating from previous misuse of the refillable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle. Consumers detected the off-odour after opening the bottle and duly returned it with the remaining content to the producers. The contaminants in question had thus been undetected by the in-line detection devices (so-called ‘sniffers’) that are supposed to reject misused bottles. GC-MS analysis was carried out on the headspace of 31 returned products and their corresponding reference products, and chromatograms were compared to find the possible off-odour compounds. Substances believed to be responsible for the organoleptic change were 2-methoxynaphthalene (10 bottles), dimethyl disulfide (4), anethole (3), petroleum products (4), ethanol with isoamyl alcohol (1) and a series of ethers (1). The mouldy/musty odour (5 bottles) was caused by trichloroanisole in one instance. In some cases, the origins of the off-odours are believed to be previous consumer misuse of food products (liquorice-flavoured alcohol, home-made alcohol containing fusel oil) or non-food products (cleaning products, petroleum products, oral moist snuff and others). The results also apply to 1.5-litre recyclable PET bottles, since the nature and extent of consumer misuse can be expected to be similar for the two bottle types.