Cargando…

Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels

Astringency is often difficult to evaluate accurately in wine because of its complexity. This accuracy can improve through training sessions, but it can be time-consuming and expensive. A way to reduce these costs can be the use of wine experts, who are known to be reliable evaluators. Therefore, th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mihnea, Mihaela, Aleixandre-Tudó, José Luis, Kidd, Martin, du Toit, Wessel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352104/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30577639
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods8010003
_version_ 1783390751073239040
author Mihnea, Mihaela
Aleixandre-Tudó, José Luis
Kidd, Martin
du Toit, Wessel
author_facet Mihnea, Mihaela
Aleixandre-Tudó, José Luis
Kidd, Martin
du Toit, Wessel
author_sort Mihnea, Mihaela
collection PubMed
description Astringency is often difficult to evaluate accurately in wine because of its complexity. This accuracy can improve through training sessions, but it can be time-consuming and expensive. A way to reduce these costs can be the use of wine experts, who are known to be reliable evaluators. Therefore, the aim of this work was to compare the sensory results and the panel performance obtained using trained panelists versus wine experts (winemakers). Judges evaluated twelve red wines for in-mouth basic perception (sweet, sour, bitter, astringent, and burning sensation) following the same tasting protocol and with the samples being presented in two different tasting modalities. Panels’ performance and relationship between the chemical composition and the sensory perception were investigated. Both panels showed similar consistency and repeatability, and they were able to accurately measure the astringency of the wines. However, the significant correlations between sensory scores and chemical composition varied with the panel and the tasting modality. From our results, we could see that winemakers tended to discriminate better between the samples when the differences were very small.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6352104
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63521042019-02-01 Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels Mihnea, Mihaela Aleixandre-Tudó, José Luis Kidd, Martin du Toit, Wessel Foods Article Astringency is often difficult to evaluate accurately in wine because of its complexity. This accuracy can improve through training sessions, but it can be time-consuming and expensive. A way to reduce these costs can be the use of wine experts, who are known to be reliable evaluators. Therefore, the aim of this work was to compare the sensory results and the panel performance obtained using trained panelists versus wine experts (winemakers). Judges evaluated twelve red wines for in-mouth basic perception (sweet, sour, bitter, astringent, and burning sensation) following the same tasting protocol and with the samples being presented in two different tasting modalities. Panels’ performance and relationship between the chemical composition and the sensory perception were investigated. Both panels showed similar consistency and repeatability, and they were able to accurately measure the astringency of the wines. However, the significant correlations between sensory scores and chemical composition varied with the panel and the tasting modality. From our results, we could see that winemakers tended to discriminate better between the samples when the differences were very small. MDPI 2018-12-21 /pmc/articles/PMC6352104/ /pubmed/30577639 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods8010003 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Mihnea, Mihaela
Aleixandre-Tudó, José Luis
Kidd, Martin
du Toit, Wessel
Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels
title Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels
title_full Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels
title_fullStr Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels
title_full_unstemmed Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels
title_short Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels
title_sort basic in-mouth attribute evaluation: a comparison of two panels
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6352104/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30577639
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods8010003
work_keys_str_mv AT mihneamihaela basicinmouthattributeevaluationacomparisonoftwopanels
AT aleixandretudojoseluis basicinmouthattributeevaluationacomparisonoftwopanels
AT kiddmartin basicinmouthattributeevaluationacomparisonoftwopanels
AT dutoitwessel basicinmouthattributeevaluationacomparisonoftwopanels