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…

Interest and impact of PVP/PVI (Polyvinylpyrrolidone/ Polyvinylimidazole) on winemaking and final quality of wines

Céline Sparrow a, Christophe Morge a, a SOFRALAB SAS, 79, av. A.A. Thévenet – CS 11031 – 51530 Magenta, France Consumers’ health and security force authorities to limit, in wine as in others food industry products, the concentration in « dangerous » molecules. Therefore the legal limit in heavy metals keeps on decreasing. As per proof EU regulation just decrease the stain concentration in wine from 0,2 to 0,15 mg/l. Certain changes , such as sodium arsenite treatment in vines, disappearance of brass in wineries to the benefit of stainless steel, limit even more the concentration of heavy metals in wines. But the use of copper derivates in vines treatments is difficult to replace. In the case of wine and its elaboration, the problem is even more complex. Indeed, regulation forces the wine producers to control the concentration of certain heavy metals in final wines.

The effect of Nitrogen and Sulphur foliar applications in hot climates

ine nitrogen deficiency can negatively influence the aroma profile and ageing potential of white wines. Canopy management can alter vine microclimate, affect the nitrogen availability and influence the response of leaf senescence. Increasing the nitrogen availability to vines can increase the Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen (YAN) levels in harvested fruit and wine. Studies show that foliar nitrogen and sulphur applications at véraison, on low YAN Sauvignon blanc grapes have an effect on the level of amino acids (Jreij et al. 2009) and on S-containing compounds such as glutathione and thiols (Lacroux et al. 2008), which in turn can influence the formation of major volatiles and the aroma profile of the wine.

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.

The commercial yeast strain as a significant source of variance for tyrosol and hydroxytyrosol in white wine

Tyrosol (TYR) and hydroxytyrosol (HYT) are bioactive phenols present in olive oil and wine, basic elements of the Mediterranean diet. TYR is reported in the literature for its interesting antioxidant, cardioprotective and anti-inflammatory properties. In wine, its concentration can reach values as high as about 40 mg/L
[Pour Nikfardjam et al. 2007] but, more frequently, this phenol – derived from yeast metabolism of tyrosine during fermentation – is present at lower levels, generally higher in red wines compared to whites. HYT was measured for the first time by Di Tommaso et al. [1998] in Italian wines – with maximum values of 4.20 mg/L and 1.92 mg/L for red and white wines, respectively – while definitely lower concentrations have been found later in Greek samples.

The role of tomato juice serum in malolactic fermentation in wine

Introduction: Malolactic fermentation (MLF) is a common process in winemaking to reduce wine acidity, maintain microbial stability and modify wine aroma. However, successful MLF is often hampered by their sluggish or stuck activity of malolactic bacteria (MLB) which may be caused by nutrient deficiency, especially when MLB are inoculated after alcoholic fermentation (Alexandre et al., 2004; Lerm et al., 2010). Identification and characterization of essential nutrients and growth factors for MLB allows for production of highly efficient nutrient supplements for MLF.