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…

Impact of drought stress on concentration and composition of wine proteins in Riesling

Protein haze in white wines is a major technological and economic problem of the wine industry. Field tests were carried out in steep slope vineyards planted with Riesling grapes over 3 dry growing seasons to study the effect of drought stress on the concentration of proteins in the resulting wines. Plots suffering from drought stress were compared with surrounding drip irrigated plots. Riesling grapes were processed into wines by conventional procedures. Protein amounts of the isolated wine colloids of the stressed samples were always higher than those of the watered samples(mean watered 13.8 ± 0.44, mean stressed 17.4 ± 0.40 g 100 g-1). As a consequence, higher bentonite doses were needed to achieve protein haze stability of the drought stressed treatments.

South Africa’s top 10 Sauvignon blanc wines. How do the chemical and sensory profiles compare?

FNB Top 10 Sauvignon Blanc competition, presented by the Sauvignon Blanc Interest Group of South Africa and sponsored by First National Bank, is the country’s foremost platform for producers of this cultivar to showcase and benchmark their wines. Wines entered in the competition originated from all over the winegrowing regions of the country and the winning wines showed good representation of quality South African Sauvignon blanc wines. The ten selected wines were subjected to various chemical analyses including volatile thiol and methoxypyrazine determination, while the sensory profile of each wine was determined using projective mapping.

Effect of intra‐vineyard ripeness variation on the efficiency of commercial enzymes on berry cell wall deconstruction under winemaking conditions

Intra-vineyard variation grape berry ripening occurs within bunches, between bunches on the same vine and between vines. Although it is assumed that such variation also occurs at the grape berry cell wall level, no study to data has investigated in any depth. Here we have used a intra-vineyard panel design to investigate pooled bunches from six vines (per panel) in the context of a winemaking scenario. The dissected vineyard was harvested by separate panels, where each panel was then subjected to a standard winemaking procedure with or without the addition of three different enzyme preparations for maceration.

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.

Use of glutathione under different grape processing and winemaking conditions and its impact on the formation of sulfide off-flavors, colour, and sensory characteristics of Riesling, Sauvignon blanc, and Chardonnay

The use of glutathione (GSH) in winemaking has been legitimated recently, according to OIV resolutions OENO 445-2015 and OENO 446-2015 a maximum dose of 20 mg/L is now allowed to use in must and wine. Several studies have proven the benefits of GSH, predominantly in Sauvignon blanc. Thus, oxidative coloration of must and wine is limited, aroma compounds such as volatile thiols are preserved, and the development of ageing flavors such as sotolon and 2-aminoacetophenone is impeded. The protective effect may be explained by the high affinity of GSH to bind o-quinones which are formed during phenolic oxidation and which are known to initiate browning and other oxidative changes. Some researchers have proposed the hydroxycinnamic acid to GSH ratio (HGR) as an indicator of oxidation susceptibility of must and could show that lower ratios yielded lighter musts.