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…

Bentonite fining in cold wines: prediction tests, reduced efficiency and possibilities to avoid additional fining treatments

Bentonite fining is widely used to prevent protein haze in white wines. Most wineries use laboratory-scale fining trials to define the appropriate amount of bentonite to be used in the cellar. Those pre-tests need to mimic as much as possible the industrial scale fining procedure to determine the exact amount of bentonite necessary for protein stability. Nevertheless it is frequent that, after fining with the recommended amount of bentonite, wines appear still unstable and need an additional fining treatment. It remains a major challenge to understand why the same wine, fined with the same dosage of the same bentonite, achieves stability in the lab, but not in the cellar.

Prediction of the production kinetics of the main fermentative aromas in alcoholic fermentation

Fermentative aromas (especially esters and higher alcohols) highly impact the organoleptic profile of young and white wines. The production of these volatile compounds depends mainly on temperature and Yeast Available Nitrogen (YAN) content in the must. Available dynamic models predict the main reaction
(bioconversion of sugar into ethanol and CO2 production) but none of them considers the production kinetics of fermentative aroma compounds during the process of fermentation. We determined the production kinetics of the main esters and higher alcohols for different values of initial YAN content and temperature, using an innovative online monitoring Gas Chromatography device.

Light-struck taste in white wine: enological approach for its prevention

Light-struck taste is a defect prevalent in white wines bottled in clear glass light-exposed for a considerable amount of time leading to a loss of color and appearance of sulfur-like odors. The reaction involves riboflavin (RF), a highly photosensitive compound that undergoes to intermolecular photoreduction by the uptake of two electron equivalents from an external donor, the methionine. The reaction includes different steps forming methional which is extremely unstable and decomposes to methane thiol and acrolein. The reaction of two molecules of methane thiol yields dimethyl disulfide. Methane thiol is highly volatile, has a low perception threshold (2 to 10 µg/L in wine) and confers aroma-like rotten eggs or cabbage.

Effect of non-Saccharomyces yeast and lactic acid bacteria on selected sensory attributes and polyphenols of Syrah wines

Consumers predominantly use visual, aromatic and texture cues as quality/preference indicators to describe olfactory sensations. In this study, the effect of micro-organism in wine production was investigated using analytical and sensory techniques to achieve relevant analytical characterisation. Selected anthocyanins, flavan-3-ols, flavonols and phenolic acids were quantified in Syrah wines using RP-HPLC-DAD. Standard oenological parameters were also measured. Syrah grape must was fermented with various combinations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) and non-Saccharomyces (Metschnikowia pulcherrima or Hanseniaspora uvarum) yeasts, which was followed by sequential inoculation of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (Oenococcus oeni or Lactobacillus plantarum).

New molecular evidence of wine yeast-bacteria interaction unraveled by untargeted metabolomic profiling

Bacterial malolactic fermentation (MLF) has a considerable impact on wine quality. The yeast strain used for primary fermentation can consistently stimulate (MLF+ phenotype) or inhibit (MLF- phenotype) malolactic bacteria and the MLF process as a function of numerous winemaking practices, but the molecular evidence behind still remains a mystery. In this study, such evidence was elucidated by the direct comparison of extracellular metabolic profiles of MLF+ and MLF- yeast phenotypes. Untargeted metabolomics combining ultrahigh-resolution FT-ICR-MS analysis, powerful machine learning methods and a comprehensive wine metabolite database, discovered around 800 putative biomarkers and 2500 unknown masses involved in phenotypic distinction.