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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mihaela Mihnea, José Luis Aleixandre-Tudó, Martin Kidd, Wessel du Toit
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2018-12-01
Series:Foods
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/8/1/3
id doaj-f917611d56d74023aa633b454b756d0d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f917611d56d74023aa633b454b756d0d2020-11-25T00:21:26ZengMDPI AGFoods2304-81582018-12-0181310.3390/foods8010003foods8010003Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two PanelsMihaela Mihnea0José Luis Aleixandre-Tudó1Martin Kidd2Wessel du Toit3Department of Viticulture and Oenology, Stellenbosch University, ZA-7600 Stellenbosch, South AfricaDepartment of Viticulture and Oenology, Stellenbosch University, ZA-7600 Stellenbosch, South AfricaDepartment of Statistics and Actuarial Sciences, Stellenbosch University, ZA-7600 Stellenbosch, South AfricaDepartment of Viticulture and Oenology, Stellenbosch University, ZA-7600 Stellenbosch, South AfricaAstringency 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.http://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/8/1/3astringencycomparisonred winetrained panelwinemakers
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mihaela Mihnea
José Luis Aleixandre-Tudó
Martin Kidd
Wessel du Toit
spellingShingle Mihaela Mihnea
José Luis Aleixandre-Tudó
Martin Kidd
Wessel du Toit
Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels
Foods
astringency
comparison
red wine
trained panel
winemakers
author_facet Mihaela Mihnea
José Luis Aleixandre-Tudó
Martin Kidd
Wessel du Toit
author_sort Mihaela Mihnea
title Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels
title_short 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_sort basic in-mouth attribute evaluation: a comparison of two panels
publisher MDPI AG
series Foods
issn 2304-8158
publishDate 2018-12-01
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.
topic astringency
comparison
red wine
trained panel
winemakers
url http://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/8/1/3
work_keys_str_mv AT mihaelamihnea basicinmouthattributeevaluationacomparisonoftwopanels
AT joseluisaleixandretudo basicinmouthattributeevaluationacomparisonoftwopanels
AT martinkidd basicinmouthattributeevaluationacomparisonoftwopanels
AT wesseldutoit basicinmouthattributeevaluationacomparisonoftwopanels
_version_ 1725362744744476672