Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Novel contribution to the study of mouth-feel properties in wines

Novel contribution to the study of mouth-feel properties in wines

Abstract

In general, there is a well-established lexicon related to wine aroma and taste properties; however mouth-feel-related vocabulary usually includes heterogeneous, multimodal and personalized terms. Gawel et al.
(2000) published a wheel related to mouthfeel properties of red wine. However, its use in scientific publications has been limited. The authors accepted that the approach had certain limitations as it included redundant and terms with hedonic tone and some others were absent. It is of high interest to generate a mouth-feel lexicon and finding the chemical compound or group of compounds responsible for such properties in red wine. In the present work a chemical fractionation method has been developed. Six odorless wine fractions containing groups of compounds with different sensory and chemical properties were isolated. Eighteen fractions (6 fractions x 3 wines) were firstly classified in groups attending to their in-mouth similarities and groups were described (labelled sorting task) by a panel of experts. This task allowed identifying 14 fractions with different in-mouth properties. These odorless fractions were further submitted to a task of vocabulary generation (repertory grid). Terms generated in both sorting task and repertory grid were combined to form categories through a triangulation process. The final list of 23 terms (4 related to taste and 18 to mouth-feel) was employed for the sensory characterization of the 14 fractions by Rate-all-that-apply method with 30 wine experts. ANOVA analyses calculated on the 23 attributes showed significant effects for 20 of them, which confirmed the discrimination ability of the terms and sensory differences among fractions. Further PCA analysis followed by cluster analysis showed 5 groups of fractions with different in-mouth properties: cluster 1 (5 fractions) characterized with terms: sweet, watery, silky, fleshy, oily and greasy; cluster 2 (4 fractions): burning, hot and bitter; cluster 3 (3 fractions): dry, coarse and granular; cluster 4 (1 fraction): dusty and 5 (1 fraction) bitter, sour, puckering, persistent and sharp.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Article

Authors

Purificación Fernández-Zurba*, Dominique Valentin, Jose Avizcuri, Maria Pilar Saenz-Navaja, Vicente Ferreira

*Universidad de La Rioja

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Evaluation of colloidal stability in white and rosé wines investing Dynamic Light Scattering technology

Proteins constitute one of the three main components of grape juice and white wine, phenolic compounds and polysaccharides being the others. A specific group of the total grape-derived proteins resists degradation or adsorption during the winemaking process and remains in finished wine if not removed by the commonplace commercial practice of bentonite fining. While bentonite is effective in removing the problematic proteins, it is claimed to adversely affect the quality of the treated wine under certain conditions, through the removal of colour, flavor and texture compounds. A number of studies have indicated that different protein fractions require distinct bentonite concentrations for protein removal and consequent heat stabilization.

Contribution of Piperitone to the mint nuances perceived in the aging bouquet of red Bordeaux wines

During the tasting of a fine, old wine, the aromas generated in the glass are intertwined in an intimate, complex manner, expressing the fragrance of the aging bouquet. This aging bouquet, which develops during bottle storage through a complex transformation process, may result in a broad palette of nuances. Among these, undergrowth, truffle, toasted, spicy, licorice, fresh red- and black-berry fruit and mint descriptors were recently identified as features of its olfactory representation for red Bordeaux wines. Although a targeted chemical approach focusing on volatile sulfur compounds revealed the role played by dimethyl sulfide, 2-furanmethanethiol, and 3-sulfanylhexanol as molecular markers of the typicality of the wine aging bouquet of red Bordeaux wines, its chemical transcription has only partially been elucidated.

Accumulation of polyphenols in Barbera and Nebbiolo leaves during the vegetative season

Grapevine berries produce thousands of secondary metabolites of diverse chemical nature that have been largely detailed in the past due to their importance for defining wine quality. The wide Vitis vinifera diversity, resulting in thousands of different varieties well detailed in many studies regarding berries, is still not investigated in vegetative organs, leaves in particular. Deepening knowledge related to this aspect could be of great interest for many reasons (for example the possibility of using leaf extract for pharmaceutical, cosmetic and nutrition purposes) but, above all, for understanding the susceptibility of different grapevine varieties to pathogens.

Use of chitosan as a secondary antioxidant in juices and wines

Chitosan is a polysaccharide produced from the deacetylation of chitin extracted from crustaceous and fungi. In winemaking chitosan is mainly used in the clarification of grape juice and wine, stabilization of white wines, removal of metals and to prevent wine spoilage by undesired microorganisms. The addition of chitosan to model wine systems was able to retard browning, reduce levels of metallic ions (Fe and Cu) and to protect varietal thiols due to its antiradical activity1. The present experiment was planned in order to evaluate the use of chitosan as a secondary antioxidant at three different stages of Sauvignon blanc fermentation and winemaking. Sauvignon blanc juices from three different locations were obtained at a commercial winery in Marlborough, New Zealand. One lots of grapes was collected from a receival bin and pressed into juice with a water-bag press, and a further juice sample was collected from a commercial pressing operation. Chitosan (1 g/L, low molecular weight, 75 – 85% deacetylated) was added to the juice after pressing, after cold settling, after fermentation, or at all these stages. Controls without any chitosan additions were also prepared.

Impact of non-fruity compounds on red wines fruity aromatic expression: the role of higher alcohols

A part, at least, of the fruity aroma of red wines is the consequence of perceptive interactions between various aromatic compounds, particularly ethyl esters and acetates, which may contribute to the perception of fruity aromas, specifically thanks to synergistic effects.1,2 The question of the indirect impact of non-fruity compounds on this particular aromatic expression has not yet been widely investigated. Among these compounds higher alcohols (HA) represent the main group, from a quantitative standpoint, of volatiles in many alcoholic beverages. Moreover, some bibliographic data suggested their contribution to the aromatic complexity by either increasing or masking flavors of wine, depending of their concentrations.