Investigating the effects of two volatile phenols on aroma perception of four red wine cultivars using Projective Mapping

Abstract

Perception of aroma compounds in wine is the result of complex phenomena, in which the compounds, their concentrations, the matrix, and their interactions play a role. In order to evaluate the impact of compounds and matrices on red wine aroma perception, a two‐part study was conducted. First, the work evaluated Projective Mapping (PM) and Descriptive Analysis (DA) in assessing olfactory interactions in a large (n = 18) set of red wine samples. Both methods generated a rich and comparable set of descriptors (21 and 28 for DA and PM, respectively), indicating that the rapid method was fit for purpose. Subsequently, PM was used to test the olfactory effects of 4‐ethyl phenol (4‐EP) and o‐cresol in four red cultivars by a trained panel of twelve judges. There were marked similarities in the impact of these compounds in all cultivars regarding aspects such as loss of fruitiness. However, important differences in the sensory profiles of similarly spiked samples were also observed, highlighting the importance of matrix effects. Practical Applications The results confirm that work related to wine matrices can be carried out with a trained panel using PM rather than DA. This finding suggests that limiting aspects of DA (e.g., the large number of samples generated through experimental design) can be addressed through careful choice of evaluation method, while taking into account the fine balance between gain and loss of relevant information. The study furthermore emphasizes the need to carefully consider the composition of the matrix when determining and comparing olfactory perceptual interactions in wine, and when evaluating the effects of treatments on wine aroma.

Projective mapping as a versatile sensory profiling tool: A review of recent studies on different food products

“…This comparison was discussed above in Section 3.1. Overall, PM can create product spaces that are similar to trained panels; however, trained panelists can identify small differences between the samples (Daute et al, 2021; McKay et al, 2021; Perrin et al, 2008). PM can be also used to create a lexicon of attributes that can be investigated by a trained panel (Dehlholm et al, 2012) or reduce the number of products included in the trained panel (Kemp et al, 2018).…”

“…PM can reveal the overall product differences or it can be used in conjunction with other methods to determine which attributes are most important (Jervis & Drake, 2014). As such PM has also been paired with a wide variety of different sensory methodologies including trained panels (McKay, Bauer, Panzeri, & Buica, 2021), intensity ratings (Wilson, Brand, du Toit, & Buica, 2019), check‐all‐that‐apply (Hayward & McSweeney, 2020) and PM has been conducted based on hedonic product evaluation (Kim, Kim, & Chung, 2019). Furthermore, PM has been adapted to use to evaluate the nonsensory factors that may affect sensory and hedonic perception of items (Saldaña et al, 2020).…”

Novel Insight into the Formation of Odour—Active Compounds in Sea Buckthorn Wine and Distilled Liquor Based on GC–MS and E–Nose Analysis

“…Lukša et al [ 34 ] used Hanseniaspora uvarum yeast fermentation to produce sea buckthorn wine, and phenylethanol accounted for 3.6% of the overall aroma, indicating that phenylethanol is a stable flavour component in sea buckthorn wine. 4–Ethylphenol is usually present in rum and whiskey, and can be used as an essence in the preparation of wine and liquor [ 35 , 36 ]. Nonanal imparts a citrus fragrance (OAV 8.795) and contributes to the overall flavour of many wines [ 23 ].…”