Transcript White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel

Overview of the Red and White
Wine Mouthfeel Wheels
Anita Oberholster
Introduction
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tastes and tactile sensations
Matrix influence on bitterness + astringency
Phenol composition
Sensory properties of phenolics
Development of red wine mouthfeel wheel
Use of RMFW
Development of white wine mouthfeel wheel
Astringency Perception
• Astringency described as “roughing”, “drying”
and “puckering”
• Tactile sensation
• Mechanism of astringency
– Phenols bind with saliva proteins and precipitate
– Stripping the mouth of lubrication “drying”
– Texture effect of astringency could be due to
precipitated complexes or those in solution
• Astringency is dynamic process
– Changes during ingestion and expectoration
Oberholster (2008)
Influences on Astringency + Bitterness
• Ethanol %
– Decrease astringency perception
– Increase bitterness perception
• Sugar content
– Decrease bitterness
– No influence on astringency, but more difficult to
perceive
Gawel (1998) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 4, p. 74-94
Influences on Astringency + Bitterness
• Other wine compounds such as organic acid
have astringent sub-qualities themselves
– Also contribute by lowering pH,  phenolprotein interactions
• Polysaccharides and proteins
– Binds with tannins, reduce astringency
Gawel (1998) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 4, p. 74-94
McRae and Kennedy (2011) Molecules 16, p. 2348-2364
Variation within Tasters
• Effect of variation in salivary flow rate on
time-intensity scaling of bitterness and
astringency
– Low-flow; perceive max intensity later, more
intense, persistence longer
Oberholster (2008)
Astringency as a taste
• Average time-intensity curves for astringency in wine
upon three successive ingestions: left 20s between
ingestions; right 40s between ingestions. Sample
uptake and swallowing are indicated by a star and
arrow, respectively
Guinard et. al., 1986
Phenolics: Main Contributors to
Astringency and Bitterness
• Main phenols (flavonoids) in red wine
– Anthocyanins responsible for red color
– Flavan-3-ols (ex. catechin, epicatechin)
• Oligomers and polymers of flavan-3-ols, so called
proanthocyanidins (PA) or condensed tannins Fig 1
Anthocyanin
Figure 1: Proanthocyanidins
Extension units
Terminal unit
Background – phenols in wine
• Extraction during wine making
– Anthocyanins from skins
• Early during fermentation (3-5 days)
– Seed PA (mDP ~ 10), higher % galloylation
– Skin PA (mDP ~ 30), also contain
(epi)gallocatechin units
• Increase extraction
with temp, % EtOH
Sensory Properties of Flavanols
• Monomers more
bitter than
astringent
• Ratio of astringency
to bitterness  with 
mDP
Gawel et al. (1998) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res.(6) 74
Polymeric Phenols and Astringency
• Sensory properties of proanthocyanidins (PA)
– Main contributors to bitterness and astringency
– Ratio of astringency to bitterness increase with
mDP
• During wine maturation and ageing
– Anthocyanins and PA polymerise with each other
by different mechanisms
– Influenced by grape composition, presence of
wood (hydrolyzable) tannins
Gawel et al. (1998) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res.(6) 74; Vidal et al. (2003) J. Sci . Food Agric. (83) 564
Wine pigments
Flavanyl-vinyl-pyranoanthocyanin
Direct condensation
Mateus et al., (2003) J. Agric. Food Chem. 51: 1919-1923; Reynolds (2010) Managing wine quality.
Sensory properties of polymerization
products
• How does polymerization reactions/products
formed during wine aging influence
Mouthfeel?
• Characterization of polymeric pigments
– Comparing the polymeric pigment profile of 6
month old and 5 year old Syrah wine from the
same vineyard
•  conc. of polymeric pigments, methylmethine and
vinyl-linked pigments
• mDP of wine 4  10
– Development of the Mouthfeel wheel
Oberholster (2008)
Developing the Mouthfeel wheel
• Panel of 14 tasters tasted 72 wines over 6
week period to derive a vocabulary
– 6 months to 33 year old red wines (mean 4 yrs)
– Mostly Australian Shiraz, Cab. Sauv. Pinot noir,
Grenach
• Another 75 red wines tasted to derive
Mouthfeel terms not astringent-like
– Influence Mouthfeel
• Investigate standards
– Taste standards for astringency not practical
Gawel , Oberholster, Francis (2000) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res.(6) 203-207
Standards for Mouthfeel
• Taste standards
– Commercial tannins and other
• Complex profiles
• Tiring, influence subsequent perceptions
• Carry-over effects
– Touch standards
• Cutaneous sensations similar to those experienced in
the mouth
– Terms not represented by physical standards –
well defined
Gawel , Oberholster, Francis (2000) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res.(6) 203-207
Mouthfeel wheel
Gawel , Oberholster, Francis (2000) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res.(6) 203-207
Mouthfeel Wheel Astringency
Gawel , Oberholster, Francis (2000) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res.(6) 203-207
Touch Standards Representing Tactile
Sensations
Descriptor
Touch standard
Talc
Johnson baby powder
Satin
Satin cloth
Plaster
Gypsum powder
Chamois
Moistened chamois
Silk
High grade silk cloth
Velvet
Velvet felt in direction of the nap
Suede
Medium suede leather
Furry
Short velour cloth
Fine emery paper
1000 grade emery paper
Corduroy
Medium cord cloth
Abrasive
600 grade sandpaper
Hessian
Carpet backing
Touch Standards Representing Tactile
Sensations
Silk
Satin Soft Suede
(Chamois)
Sandpaper
1000 grade
Suede Velvet
Fur
(Furry)
Corduroy
Burlap (Hessian)
Sandpaper
600 grade (Abrasive)
Supplementary Definitions for
Astringency Terms
Non-astringent Mouthfeel Terms
Gawel , Oberholster, Francis (2000) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res.(6) 203-207
Using the Mouthfeel Wheel (MFW)
• Vidal (2003, 2004) fractionated tannins from
grape material – evaluate with MFW
– Larger tannin more astringent and drying than
smaller tannin
– Seed tannin more astringent (coarse, drying) than
skin tannin of equivalent size
– Indicate  ‘Coarseness’ and ‘dryness’ of
astringency increase with galloylation
– Methylmethine-bridged flavanols more bitter
than similar tannins
Vidal et al. (2003) J. Sci . Food Agric. (83) 564
Vidal et al. (2004) Food Qual. Pref. 15, 209-217.
Using the Mouthfeel Wheel (MFW)
• Anthocyanins have no taste or tactile effect
(Singleton and Trousdale, 1992)
• Anthocyanins  perceived astringency and
“fullness” of model wine (Vidal et al., 2004b)
• Anthocyanins – more pure – no significant
contribution to Mouthfeel (Vidal et al., 2004a)
• How do you explain differences between
white wine and red wine?
Singleton and Trousdale (1992) AJEV 43, 63-70
Vidal et al. (2004a) Food Qual. Pref. 15, 209-217
Vidat et al. (2004b) Food Chem. 85, 519-525
Using the Mouthfeel Wheel (MFW)
• How do you explain changes in Mouthfeel
observed during aging?
– Could polymerization reactions explain changes in
Mouthfeel observed?
– Increase mDP proanthocyanidins  astringency
– Formation of polymeric pigments?
Oberholster et al, (2009) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. (15) 59-69
Singleton and Trousdale (1992) AJEV 43, 63-70
Vidal et al. (2004a) Food Qual. Pref. 15, 209-217
Vidat et al. (2004b) Food Chem. 85, 519-525
Mouthfeel of different white wine
treatments
W
WA
White free White free
run juice
run juice +
anth
WS
White free
run juice +
white skins
+ seeds
Oberholster et al, (2009) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. (15) 59-69
WSA
White free
run juice +
white skins
and seeds +
anth
WRS
White free
run juice +
red skins
and seeds
RS
Red wine
Mouthfeel Wheel
Fine grain (Talcum powder)
Medium grain (Bentonite)
Coarse grain (Celite S45
filter aid)
Oberholster et al, (2009) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. (15) 59-69
Mouthfeel of different white
wine treatments
•
•
•
W: white free run juice
WA: white free run juice + anth
WS: white free run juice + white skins and
seeds
Oberholster, et al.,(2009) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. (15) 59-69
•
•
•
WSA: white free run juice + white skins and seeds +
anth
WRS: white free run juice + red skins and seeds
RS: red wine
Conclusion – RW-MFW
• Using the MFW – small differences in phenol
content could be related to Mouthfeel
differences
– Anth increases astringency related terms, mainly
fine grain sub-attributes
• But MFW is difficult to use – needs extensive
training
• Doubt wine consumers will be able to use this
wheel to communicate in meaningful way
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
• White wine elicit wide range of taste and
mouthfeel sensations
• Pickering et al. (2008) evaluated 136 wines
– Table, sparkling, dessert and fortified white
wines
– Using hierarchical wheel structure
– Developed definitions and reference standards
• Tool to aid training and communication
between wine professionals
– Help define influence of viticultural and
enological variable on white wine quality
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
• Some major difference between the white
and red mouthfeel wheel
– Contains taste parameters
– Avoided terms related to flavor even though
observed retro-nasally
– Inclusion of “time dimension” in the wheel
– Descriptors are ordered clockwise starting at 12’
noon in approx order of perception and intensity
perceived
• RMFW has no intensity levels build in
Pickering and DeMiglio (2008) J. Wine Res. 19 (1) p. 51-67
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
• EtOH %
– Elicit tactile sensations
• Heat/irritation
• Astringent-like drying
• EtOH enhance lubricity of oral cavity – reducing the
perception of roughness
• Glycerol
– Could contribute to perceived viscosity, reducing
roughness, decreasing astringency
• Polysaccharides can also potentially
contribute in similar way as glycerol
Gawel et al. (2007) Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 13, p. 38-45
Pickering and DeMiglio (2008) J. Wine Res. 19 (1) p. 51-67
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
• Discrete sensations
⁻ Used RMFW as reference
so some similar terms
⁻ Diffr groupings of sensations
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
• Discrete sensations
⁻ Surface smoothness terms have levels
associated
⁻ Satin, silk and chamois are different levels
of smoothness
⁻ Particulate terms are grouped
under surface smoothness
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
• Integrated sensations
⁻ These product are associated
with sparkling wines
⁻ Seems body and weight
related
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
• Integrated sensations
⁻ These product are associated
with sparkling wines
⁻ Seems body and weight
related
Integrated sensations
White Wine Mouthfeel Wheel
• Usefulness of WMFW is still unknown
• Due to different WMFW and RMFW concepts
– Using both wheels will be confusing
– Too many complex or integrated terms which is
not well defined
– Both wheels can be adapted for personal use
– Simplified and clarified further
Thank you
• Funding (GWRDC)
• Mouthfeel panel
Elizabeth Waters
Graham Jones
Patrick Iland
Leigh Francis
Richard Gawel
Karen Block
Linda Bisson
Lucy Joseph
Kay Bogart
Touch Standards Representing Tactile
Sensations
Satin
Soft Suede
(Chamois)
Silk
Suede
Velvet Sandpaper
1000 grade
Fur
(Furry)
Corduroy
Sandpaper Burlap (Hessian)
600 grade (Abrasive)
Mouthfeel Standards and Definitions
Satin
Soft Suede
(Chamois)
Silk
Sandpaper
Suede Velvet1000 grade Fur
(Furry)
Burlap (Hessian)
Sandpaper(Abrasive)
Corduroy