SENSORY EVALUATION OF WINE AROMA: SHOULD COLOR-DRIVEN DESCRIPTORS BE USED?

Volatile compounds play a significant role on the organoleptic properties defining wines quality. This particular role was exploited in several studies with the aim to differentiate wines from a more or less extensive production area, according to their sensory profile [1], as well as their chemical composition [2,3] (Di Paola-Naranjo et al., 2011; Kustos et al., 2020). Indeed, since aroma compounds development in grapes depends primarily on the environmental conditions of the vines and grapes (soil and climate), it is conceivable that these parameters craft the aromatic signature of the wine produced, in relation to its origin (Van Leeuwen et al., 2020). In this work, a general study on the aromatic and sensorial profile of wines produced in five sub-regions of the Corbières denomination, a renowned red grape varieties viticultural region in South France, was reported.

The interactions between geographical and biotic factors, along with the winemaking process, influence the composition and sensorial characteristics of wine¹. In addition to the primary end products of alcoholic fermentation, many secondary metabolites contribute to wine flavor and aroma and their production depends predominantly on the yeast strain carrying out the fermentation. Commercially available strains of S. cerevisiae help improve the reproducibility and predictability of wine quality. However, most commercial wine strains available on the market have been isolated from Europe, are genetically similar, and may not be the ideal strain to reflect the terroir of Canadian vineyards².

Wine aroma analysis can be done by sensorial or instrumental analysis, the latter involving several me-thodologies based on olfactometric detection, electronic noses or gas chromatography. Gas Chromatography has been widely used for the study of the volatile composition of wines and depending on the detection system coupled to the chromatographic system, quantification and identification of individual compounds can be achieved.

Smoke impacts on wines are becoming a worldwide problem; the size and severity of wildfires increasing due to influences from changing climates.¹ For over a century, wines have been known to have a unique issue of absorbing chemical compounds derived from wildfire smoke wherein the flavor of the subsequent wine becomes ashy, rubbery, campfire-like, and smoky.² The economic impacts of a smoke-impacted wine can last for years depending on the grape varietal, costing Oregon and Washington states in the United States over a billion dollars from the 2020 wildfires, as an example.³ While years of research have indicated elevated concentrations of smoke-related compounds, such as guaiacol and syringol, in wines after smoke events, unfortunately, replicating the sensory experience using smoke-associated phenols has not had much success.⁴

Mannoproteins (MPs) are proteoglycans from the outmost layer of yeast cell walls released into wine during alcoholic fermentation and ageing on lees processes. The use of commercial preparations of mannoproteins as additives to improve wine stability with regards to the crystallization of tartaric salts and to prevent protein haze in the case of white and rosé wines is authorized by the OIV.
Regarding red wines and polyphenols, mannoproteins are described as able to improve their colloidal stability and modulate the astringent effect of condensed tannins. The latter interact with salivary proteins forming insoluble aggregates that cause a loss of lubrication in the mouth and promote a drying and puckering sensation. However, neither the interaction mechanisms involved in mannoproteins capacity to impact astringency nor the structure-function relationships related to this property are fully understood.