Issue link: http://winesandvines.uberflip.com/i/438260
p r a c t i c a l w i n e r y & v i n e ya r d J a n U a r y 2 0 1 5 23 W I N E M A K I N G of sourness, sweetness, bitterness and saltiness. In addition, a number of com- ponents have been shown to impart mouthfeel sensations, particularly those associated with "fullness," including glycerol, sugar and ethanol. 18,21 Ethanol (alcohol), along with contribut- ing to sweetness 1 and bitterness, 17 can also elicit tactile sensations, specifically heat/ irritation 13 and astringent-like drying. 4,29 Organic acids can elicit astringent-like sensations 25,27 and polysaccharides medi- ate the perception of astringency inten- sity. 31 Polyphenolic constituents of white wine also elicit astringent sensations, although their concentration is signifi- cantly lower than in red wine. Additionally, hydroxyci n namates, rather than flavonoids, make up the dom- inant species and significant cultivar dif- ferences are found. 15 Thus, white wines also elicit a wide range of taste and mouthfeel sensations, some of which may be qualitatively dif- ferent from those experienced in red wine. In addition, oral sensations such as astringency are clearly dynamic, 24 chang- ing in intensity and perhaps quality while the wine is being evaluated. This time "dimension" for oral sensations is not incorporated in the RWMW. These considerations were the catalyst for the study, which seeks to develop an appropriate and comprehensive vocabu- lary, system of classification and set of reference standards for the oral sensa- tions elicited by white wine. This should help in developing a common under- standing among wine tasters and wine- makers of terms describing mouthfeel and other oral sensations and aid in com- munication of those descriptors. Such a tool may also assist the research community by facilitating a more com- prehensive and systematic evaluation of the effects of viticultural and enological treatments on mouthfeel and related sen- sations elicited by white wine. Materials and methods The sensory panel consisted of 11 indi- viduals (eight females and three males, between ages 24 and 60). All were expe- rienced wine tasters, including wine industry professionals (two winemakers, one sommelier and one wine writer) and senior staff and students from Brock University's Cool Climate Oenology & Viticulture Institute (CCOVI) and were recruited based on their experience, interest and availability. Development of the white wine mouth- feel wheel occurred in 21 one-hour ses- sions in a panel discussion room and sensory evaluation lab at CCOVI. For all sessions, water and fresh bread were provided to cleanse the palate between wine samples, and nose clips were used to assist the panel in focusing on oral sensations and to remove the influence of olfactory cues. Wines were presented in ISO tast- ing glasses and at serving temperatures appropriate for their style, ranging from approximately 7º to 16º C. In the first 11 sessions, the panel evaluated 77 white wines. These were representative of 12 Old and New World wine-producing nations and styles, and further selected to represent as wide a range of oral sen- sations and vintages (11) as possible. Examples included 51 table, 11 sparkling, 9 dessert, 4 fortified and 2 reduced-alcohol wine styles. Sparkling wines included samples produced using méthode classique, méthode champenoise, méthode cuvée close, charmat method, nat- ural fermentation, and Asti techniques. During the first sessions, introductory exercises were conducted using eight aqueous solutions representing common oral sensations, to assist the panel in distinguishing between taste and tactile sensations. Attributes and solutions used were: carbon dioxide (mineral water), 145 Jordan Street • San Rafael, CA 94901 • 415-457-3955 • Fax 457-0304 • www.boswellcompany.com