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…

A combination of biotechnology tools and coopers elements for an alternative the addition of SO2 at the end of the malolactic fermentation in red wines or at the “mutage” for the “liquoreux” wines

In red wines the post-MLF SO2 addition is an essential event. It is also the case for the “mutage” during the elaboration of the “liquoreux”. At these moments SO2 plays an antimicrobial action and an antioxidant effect. But at current pH of wines, ensuring a powerful molecular SO2 has become very difficult. Recent work on Brettanomyces strains have also shown that some strains are resistant up to 1.2 mg / L of molecular SO2. It’s also the case of the some Saccharomuces or Zygosaccharomyces strains suitable to re-ferment “liquoreux” wines after the “mutage”.

Removal of Fumonisin B1 and B2 from red wine using polymeric substances

The Ability of PVPP (Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone), PVP-DEGMA-TAIC (copolimerization of N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidinone with ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and triallyl isocyanurate) and PAEGDMA
(poly(acrylamide-co-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate)) polymers was tested as removal agents for Fumonisin B1 (FB1) and Fumonisin B2 (FB2) from model solutions and red wine. The polymers removal capacity was checked at three different resident times (2, 8 and 24 hours of contact time between the polymer and the sample), showing no differences in the percentage of FB1 and FB2 removal. Then, different polymer concentrations (1, 5 and 10 mg mL-1) were tested in model solution with and without phenolics (i.e. gallic acid and 4-methylcatechol).

Glutathione content evolution during spontaneous alcoholic fermentations of Sangiovese grapes

Glutathione is a tripeptide (γ-Glu-Cys-Gly), which can occur in grapes, in must and in wine prevalently in the reduced form as well as in the oxidized form as glutathione disulfide. The importance of the reduced form of glutathione lies in its antioxidant activity. In must, it limits browning by reducing o-quinones produced by polyphenol oxidase activity on hydroxycinnamic acids; in wine, it exerts a protective effect on various aromatic compounds. Glutathione concentration in wine is lower than in grape juice and variable as it depends on several factors, ranging from the native content of grapes to winemaking technique.

Impact of varying ethanol and carbonation levels on the odor threshold of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphtalene (petrol off-flavor) and role of berry size and Riesling clones

1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphtelene (TDN) evokes the odor of “petrol” in wine, especially in the variety Riesling. Increasing UV-radiation due to climate change intensifies formation of carotenoids in the berry skins and an increase of TDN-precursors1. Exploring new viticultural and oenological strategies to limit TDN formation in the future requires precise knowledge of TDN thresholds in different matrices. Thresholds reported in the literature vary substantially between 2 µg/L up to 20 µg/L2,3,4 due to the use of different methods. As Riesling grapes are used for very different wine styles such as dry, sweet or sparkling wines, it is essential to study the impact of varying ethanol and carbonation levels.

Field-grown Sauvignon Blanc berries react to increased exposure by controlling antioxidant homeostasis and displaying UV acclimation responses that are influenced by the level of ambient light

Leaf removal in the bunch zone is a common viticultural practice with several objectives, yet it has been difficult to conclusively link the physiological mechanism(s) and metabolic berry impact to this widely practiced treatment. We used a field-omics approach1 in a Sauvignon blanc high altitude model vineyard, showing that the early leaf removal in the bunch zone caused quantifiable and stable responses (over years) in the microclimate where the main perturbation was increased exposure. We provide an explanation for how leaf removal leads to the shifts in grape metabolites typically linked to this treatment and confirm anecdotal evidence and previous reports that leaf removal treatment at an early stage of berry development affects “quality-associated” metabolites (monoterpenes and norisoprenoids).