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…

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.

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.

Identification of caffeic acid as a major component of Moscatel wine protein sediment

Proteins play a significant role in the colloidal stability and clarity of white wines [1]. However, under conditions of high temperatures during storage or transportation, the proteins themselves can self-aggregate into light-dispersing particles causing the so-called protein haze [2]. Formation of these unattractive precipitates in bottled wine is a common defect of commercial wines, making them unacceptable for sale [3]. Previous studies identified the presence of phenolic compounds in the natural precipitate of white wine [4], contributing to the hypothesis that these compounds could be involved in the mechanism of protein haze formation.

Effect of malolactic fermentation in barrels or stainless steel tanks on wine composition. Influence of the barrel toasting

Ellagitannin, anthocyanin and woody volatile composition of Cabernet Sauvignon wines aged in oak barrels for 12 months was evaluated. Depending on the container where malolactic fermentation (MLF) was carried out, two wine modalities were investigated: wines with MLF carried out in stainless steel tanks and barrel-fermented wines. Three toasting methods (medium toast, MT; medium toast with watering, MTAA; noisette) were considered for ageing of each wine modality. Sensory analyses (triangle and rating tests) were also performed. Two-way ANOVA of the raw experimental data revealed that the toasting method and the container where MLF took place, as well as the interaction between both factors, have a significant influence (p < 0.05) on ellagitannin, anthocyanin and woody volatile profiles of Cabernet Sauvignon wines.

Full automation of oenological fermentations and its application to the processing of must containing high sugar or acetic acid concentrations

Climate change and harvest date decisions have led to the evolution of must quality over the last decades. Increases in must sugar concentrations are among the most obvious consequences, quantitatively. Saccharomyces cerevisiae is a robust and acid tolerant organism. These properties, its sugar to ethanol conversion rate and ethanol tolerance make it the ideal production organism for wine fermentations. Unfortunately, high sugar concentrations may affect S. cerevisiae and lead to growth inhibition or yeast lysis, and cause sluggish or stuck fermentations. Even sublethal conditions cause a hyperosmotic stress response in S. cerevisiae which leads to increased formation of fermentation by-products, including acetic acid, which may exceed legal limits in some wines.