2016BeveragesOpen access

Exploring Retro-Nasal Aroma’s Influence on Mouthfeel Perception of Chardonnay Wines

Anthony Sereni, James Osborne, Elizabeth Tomasino

Open full text 11 citations

Abstract

There are many interactions that occur between taste and aroma that may impact perception. The main objective of this study was to ascertain whether the aroma fraction of wine should be considered when investigating relationships between chemical composition and sensory perception of mouthfeel. Chardonnay wines with different mouthfeels were produced by altering the fermentation temperature (15 °C and 21 °C) of the alcoholic and malolactic fermentations (MLF) as well as the timing of MLF and the presence of a non-Saccharomyces yeast during alcoholic fermentation. Napping® and Ultra-flash-profiling were conducted using a panel of white winemakers. Each procedure was conducted twice: once with retro-nasal aroma (+R) and once without retronasal aroma (−R). Napping® results showed that retronasal aroma impacted mouthfeel perception. Ultra-flash profiling of +R and −R displayed similar descriptive terms used. Several terms appear to be related to retronasal aroma as they were used in +R and not in −R. It is unclear if these terms are due to interactions or due to associated learning. These results suggest that for some mouthfeel terms the volatile fraction plays a role and, to establish relationships between chemical composition and mouthfeel perception, it is important to consider both the volatile and nonvolatile wine fractions.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

There are many interactions that occur between taste and aroma that may impact perception. The main objective of this study was to ascertain whether the aroma fraction of wine should be considered when investigating relationships between chemical composition and sensory perception of mouthfeel. Chardonnay wines with different mouthfeels were produced by altering the fermentation temperature (15 °C and 21 °C) of the alcoholic and malolactic fermentations (MLF) as well as the timing of MLF and the presence of a non-Saccharomyces yeast during alcoholic fermentation. Napping® and Ultra-flash-profiling were conducted using a panel of white winemakers. Each procedure was conducted twice: once with retro-nasal aroma (+R) and once without retronasal aroma (−R). Napping® results showed that retronasal aroma impacted mouthfeel perception. Ultra-flash profiling of +R and −R displayed similar descriptive terms used. Several terms appear to be related to retronasal aroma as they were used in +R and not in −R. It is unclear if these terms are due to interactions or due to associated learning. These results suggest that for some mouthfeel terms the volatile fraction plays a role and, to establish relationships between chemical composition and mouthfeel perception, it is important to consider both the volatile and nonvolatile wine fractions.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 11 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

There are many interactions that occur between taste and aroma that may impact perception. The main objective of this study was to ascertain whether the aroma fraction of wine should be considered when investigating relationships between chemical composition and sensory perception of mouthfeel. Chardonnay wines with different mouthfeels were produced by altering the fermentation temperature (15 °C and 21 °C) of the alcoholic and malolactic fermentations (MLF) as well as the timing of MLF and the presence of a non-Saccharomyces yeast during alcoholic fermentation. Napping® and Ultra-flash-profiling were conducted using a panel of white winemakers. Each procedure was conducted twice: once with retro-nasal aroma (+R) and once without retronasal aroma (−R). Napping® results showed that retronasal aroma impacted mouthfeel perception. Ultra-flash profiling of +R and −R displayed similar descriptive terms used. Several terms appear to be related to retronasal aroma as they were used in +R and not in −R. It is unclear if these terms are due to interactions or due to associated learning. These results suggest that for some mouthfeel terms the volatile fraction plays a role and, to establish relationships between chemical composition and mouthfeel perception, it is important to consider both the volatile and nonvolatile wine fractions.

Key concepts: Mouthfeel, Aroma, Aroma of wine, Wine, Food science, Chemistry, Sensory analysis, Perception

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Exploring Retro-Nasal Aroma’s Influence on Mouthfeel Perception of Chardonnay Wines — Research Paper | ScholarLens