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…

Metabolomic profile of red non-V. vinifera genotypes

Vitis vinifera L. is the most widely cultivated Vitis species which includes numerous cultivars. Owing to their superior quality of grapes, these cultivars were long considered the only suitable for the production of fine wines. However, the lack of resistance genes in V. vinifera against major grapevine pathogens, requires for its cultivation frequent spraying with large amount of fungicides. Thus, the search for alternative and more sustainable methods to control the grapevine pathogens have brought the breeders to focus their attention on other Vitis species. In fact, wild Vitis genotypes present multiple resistance traits against pathogens, such as powdery mildew, downy mildew and phylloxera.

Merging fast sensory profiling with non-targeted GC-MS analysis for multifactorial experimental wine making

Wine aroma is influenced by several viticultural and oenological factors. In this study we used experimental wine making in a full factorial design to determine the impact of grapevine age, must turbidity, and yeast strain on the aroma of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling wines. A recently developed, non-targeted SPME-GC-MS fingerprinting approach for wine volatiles was used. This approach includes the segmentation and mathematical transformation of chromatograms in combination with Parallel Factor Analysis (PARAFAC) and subsequent deconvolution of important chromatogram segments.

Ethyl esters interact with the major wine Thaumatin Like Protein VVTL1

The interactions among aromatic compounds and proteins is an important issue for the quality of foods and beverages. In wine, the loss of flavor after vinification is associated to bentonite treatment and this effect can be the result of the removal of aroma compounds which are bound wine proteins. This phenomenon was recently demonstrated for long chain fatty acids and their ethyl esters (1). Since these latter compounds are spectroscopically silent, their association with proteins is not easy to measure.

Metabolomics of grape polyphenols as a consequence of post-harvest drying: on-plant dehydration vs warehouse withering

A method of suspect screening analysis to study grape metabolomics, was developed [1]. By performing ultra-high performance liquid chromatography (UHPLC) – high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) analysis of the grape extract, averaging 320-450 putative grape compounds are identified which include mainly polyphenols. Identification of metabolites is performed by a new HRMS-database of putative grape and wine compounds expressly constructed (GrapeMetabolomics) which currently includes around 1,100 entries.

How do different oak treatment affect the sensory composition of Chenin blanc wines over time?

Wooden barrels have been the preferred method for oak maturation for wines, but the use of alternative oak products, such as staves and oak chips have increased in South Africa due to lower production costs. This study investigated the effect of different oak products used during fermentation and ageing on the sensory profile, degree of liking and perceived quality of a South African Chenin blanc wine. The different wine treatments included an unoaked tank control wine, wines matured in 5th fill barrels, wines matured in new barrels from three different cooperages, and wines matured in 5th fill barrels with stave inserts from two different cooperages.