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…

The challenge of quality in sulphur dioxide free wines: natural polyphenol alternatives

Sulphur dioxide (SO2) seems indispensable in winemaking because of its properties. However, a current increasing concern about its allergies effects in food product has addressed the international research efforts on its replacement. This supposes a sufficient knowledge of its properties and conditions of use. Several studies compared SO2 properties against new alternatives that are supposed to overcome SO2 disadvantages. Firstly, the state of art on SO2 wine replacements is revised, and secondly, the last promising results using natural enriched polyphenol extracts are shown.

Extraction of polyphenols from grape marc by supercritical fluid extraction (SFE) and evaluation of their ‘bioavailability’ as dietary supplements

In the winemaking process, several compounds that remain in the grape skins and seeds after the fermentation stage are bioactive-compounds (substances with potential beneficial effects on health) that can be extracted in order to recovery valuable substances with a high commercial value for the cosmetic, food (nutraceuticals) and pharmaceutical industries. The skins contain significant amounts of bioactive substances such as tannins (16-27%) and other polyphenolic compounds (2-6.5%) in particular, catechins, anthocyanins, proanthocyanins, quercetin , ellagic acid and resveratrol.

Application of high power ultrasounds during red wine vinification

Wine color is one of the main organoleptic characteristics influencing its quality. It is of especial interest in red vinifications due to the economic resources that wineries have to invest for the extraction of the phenolic compounds responsible of wine color, compounds that are mainly located inside the skin cell vacuoles. Moreover, these phenolic compounds not only influence color but also other organoleptic properties such as body, mouthfeel, astringency and flavour. The transference of phenolic compounds from grapes to must during vinification is closely related with the type of grapes and the winemaking technique.

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.

The impact of different yeasts and harvest time on the wine quality of Beihong and Beimei (<I>V. vinifera x V. amurensis</I>)

Beihong and Beimei are two wine cultivars from ‘Muscat Hamberg’ (V. vinifera L.) and wild V. amurensis Rupr., which were released in China in 2008. Here,two enology practices were reported. Firstly, the impact of different yeasts including D254, GRE, K1, D21 and BDX on dry wine quality of Beihong and Beimei was investigated. For Beihong, among wines fermented by all yeasts, residual sugar content was the lowest, total anthocyanin and resveratrol contents were the highest in the wine by D254. However, the wine by D254 had lower titrable acid than those by the other yeasts except BDX.