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…

Reduction of herbaceous aromas by wine lactic acid bacteria mediated degradation of volatile aldehydes

Consumers typically prefer wines with floral and fruity aromas over those presenting green-pepper, vegetal or herbaceous notes. Pyrazines have been identified as causatives for herbaceous notes in wines, especially Bordeaux reds. However, pyrazines are not universally responsible for herbaceousness, and several other wine volatile compounds are known to produce distinct vegetal/herbaceous aromas in wines. Specifically, volatile aldehydes elicit sensations of herbaceousness or grassiness and have been described in wines well above their perception thresholds.

Accumulation of polyphenols in Barbera and Nebbiolo leaves during the vegetative season

Grapevine berries produce thousands of secondary metabolites of diverse chemical nature that have been largely detailed in the past due to their importance for defining wine quality. The wide Vitis vinifera diversity, resulting in thousands of different varieties well detailed in many studies regarding berries, is still not investigated in vegetative organs, leaves in particular. Deepening knowledge related to this aspect could be of great interest for many reasons (for example the possibility of using leaf extract for pharmaceutical, cosmetic and nutrition purposes) but, above all, for understanding the susceptibility of different grapevine varieties to pathogens.

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.

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.

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).