Next Article in Journal
Potential of the Probiotic Lactobacillus Plantarum ATCC 14917 Strain to Produce Functional Fermented Pomegranate Juice
Next Article in Special Issue
Advances in the Dereplication of Aroma Precursors from Grape Juice by Pretreatment with Lead Acetate and Combined HILIC- and RP-HPLC Methods
Previous Article in Journal
Oxalate Contents of Raw, Boiled, Wok-Fried and Pesto and Juice Made from Fat Hen (Chenopodium album) Leaves
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Commercial Oenotannin and Mannoprotein Products on the Chemical and Sensory Properties of Shiraz Wines Made from Sequentially Harvested Fruit
Article Menu
Issue 1 (January) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle

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

Department of Viticulture and Oenology, Stellenbosch University, ZA-7600 Stellenbosch, South Africa
RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Agrifood and Bioscience, P.O. Box 5401, SE-402 29 Gothenburg, Sweden
Department of Statistics and Actuarial Sciences, Stellenbosch University, ZA-7600 Stellenbosch, South Africa
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 15 November 2018 / Revised: 10 December 2018 / Accepted: 19 December 2018 / Published: 21 December 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Wine Composition and Quality Analysis)
PDF [1670 KB, uploaded 15 January 2019]
  |     |  


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. View Full-Text
Keywords: astringency; comparison; red wine; trained panel; winemakers astringency; comparison; red wine; trained panel; winemakers

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Supplementary material


Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Mihnea, M.; Aleixandre-Tudó, J.L.; Kidd, M.; du Toit, W. Basic In-Mouth Attribute Evaluation: A Comparison of Two Panels. Foods 2019, 8, 3.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Foods EISSN 2304-8158 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top