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…

Towards multi-purpose valorisation of polyphenols from grape pomace: Pressurized liquid extraction coupled to purification by membrane processes

Grape by-products (including skins, seeds, stems and vine shoots) are rich in health promoting polyphenols. Their extraction from winery waste and their following purification are of special interest to produce extracts with high added value compounds. Meanwhile, the growing concern over environmental problems associated with economic constraints, require the development of environmentally sustainable extraction technologies. The extraction using semi-continuous subcritical water, as a natural solvent at high temperature and high pressure a technology is promising “green” technology that is environmentally friendly, energy efficient and improve the extraction process in plant tissues.

Correlations between sensory characteristics and colloidal content in dry white wines

Must clarification is an important step occurring just after grape extraction in the elaboration of white wine, consisting in a solid-liquid separation. Traditionally, low must turbidity, around 50-150 NTU, is generally reached in white winemaking in order to prevent reductive aromas and facilitating alcoholic fermentation. Alternatively, a higher turbidity (300 NTU or above) can be sought for reasons such as a better expression of grapes identity (terroir), or for getting a must matrix that could supposedly lead to wines having greater ageing potential.

IBMP-Polypenol interactions: Impact on volatility and sensory perception in model wine solution

3-Isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine (IBMP) is one of the key molecules in wine aroma with a bell pepper aroma and a very low threshold in wine, 1-6 ng/L for white wine and 10-16 ng/L in red wine1. The differences in these thresholds are likely due to IBMP-non volatile matrix interactions. It has indeed been shown that polyphenols may influence the volatility of flavor compounds2. In the present study, we focus on IBMP-polyphenols interactions in relation to volatility and sensory perception in model wine solution. Methods: 1. GC-MS Static Headspace Analysis: Samples were analyzed by Static headspace analysis with an Agilent 7890A gas chromatograph coupled to HP 5975C mass spectrometry detector (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

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).

Impact of non-fruity compounds on red wines fruity aromatic expression: the role of higher alcohols

A part, at least, of the fruity aroma of red wines is the consequence of perceptive interactions between various aromatic compounds, particularly ethyl esters and acetates, which may contribute to the perception of fruity aromas, specifically thanks to synergistic effects.1,2 The question of the indirect impact of non-fruity compounds on this particular aromatic expression has not yet been widely investigated. Among these compounds higher alcohols (HA) represent the main group, from a quantitative standpoint, of volatiles in many alcoholic beverages. Moreover, some bibliographic data suggested their contribution to the aromatic complexity by either increasing or masking flavors of wine, depending of their concentrations.