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…

Colour assessment of port wines using colorimetric and spectrophotometric methods

Colour is an important quality parameter in wines and is the result of a complex mixture of pigments
(including anthocyanins and their derivatives, quinones, xanthyllium compounds, etc.). Red wine colour changes over time as pigments react between themselves and with other wine macromolecules
(particularly polyphenols). During wine tasting, colour is normally assessed on the outer rim of the wine profile in a tilted glass, since most wines are too opaque to be analysed in the middle of the glass. Therefore, depending on the depth of observation considered, the perception of wine colour can be different.

Update knowledge about the presence of condensed tannins in grapes and their contributions to astringency perception

Condensed tannin is a principle group of polyphenol compounds derived from grape, greatly contributing to the bioactivity and the sensory perception of wine. Condensed tannins present as a heterogeneous mixture in nature involving various degrees of both polymerization and galloylation. Even though multiple attempts focusing on fractionation of grape condensed tannins by solid-phase have been conducted over the past decades, few individual tannins have been purified and identified. Hence, our knowledge on grape and wine condensed tannin moleculars has to be limited at the several known monomeric, dimeric and trimeric proanthocyanidins

Effect of ageing with Specific Inactivated Dry Yeasts on the volatile composition of Sauvignon Blanc and Carménère wines

Úbeda-Aguilera, C a, b, Peña-Neira, A.b Del Barrio-Galán, R.b, c a Biomedical Sciences Institute, Science Faculty, Universidad Autónoma de Chile, Chile. b Department of Agro-Industry and Enology, Faculty of Agronomical Sciences, University of Chile, Post Office Box 1004, Santa Rosa 11315, La Pintana, Santiago, Chile c Lallemand Inc. Chile y Compañía Limitada, Rosario Norte 407, piso 6, Las Condes, Santiago, Chile The wine is a complex matrix made up of several compounds which can interact among themselves throughout the wine ageing process, thereby modifying their sensorial characteristics. It is well known that during ageing of wines on lees, polysaccharides (mainly mannoproteins) can be released and can interact with the aromatic fraction modifying its volatility.

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).

Comparative proteomic analysis of wines made from Botrytis cinerea infected and healthy grapes reveal interesting parallels to the gushing phenomenon in sparkling wine

In addition to aroma compounds also protein composition strongly influences the quality of wines. Proteins of wine derive mainly from the plant Vitis vinifera and may be influenced by abiotic stress as well as fermentation conditions or fining. Additionally, fungal infections can affect the protein content as well by introducing fungal proteins or affecting grape protein composition. An infection of the vine with the plant pathogenic fungus Botrytis (B.) cinerea was shown to cause a degradation of proteins in the resulting wine. Moreover, it influences the foaming properties in sparkling wine.