Journal article published in Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, volume 22, pp. 3328–3365.

Authors: Maria Alessandra Paissoni, Giulia Motta, Simone Giacosa, Luca Rolle, Vincenzo Gerbi and Susana Río Segade.

Abstract

Astringency and more generally mouthfeel perception are relevant to the overall quality of the wine. However, their origin and description are still uncertain and are constantly updating. Additionally, the terminology related to mouthfeel properties is expansive and extremely diversified, characterized by common traditional terms as well as novel recently adopted descriptors. In this context, this review evaluated the mention frequency of astringent subqualities and other mouthfeel attributes in the scientific literature of the last decades (2000–August 17, 2022). One hundred and twenty-five scientific publications have been selected and classified based on wine typology, aim, and instrumental–sensorial methods adopted. Dry resulted as the most frequent astringent subquality (10% for red wines, 8.6% for white wines), while body—and related terms—is a common mouthfeel sensation for different wine types, although its concept is still vague. Alongside, promising analytical and instrumental techniques investigating and simulating the in-mouth properties are discussed in detail, such as rheology for the viscosity and tribology for the lubrication loss, as well as the different approaches for the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the interaction between salivary proteins and astringency markers. A focus on the phenolic compounds involved in the tactile perception was conducted, with tannins being the compounds conventionally found responsible for astringency. Nevertheless, other non-tannic polyphenolic classes (i.e., flavonols, phenolic acids, anthocyanins, anthocyanin-derivative pigments) as well as chemical–physical factors and the wine matrix (i.e., polysaccharides, mannoproteins, ethanol, glycerol, and pH) can also contribute to the wine in-mouth sensory profile. An overview of mouthfeel perception, factors involved, and its vocabulary is useful for enologists and consumers.

Key words astringency subqualities, body concept, in-mouth perception, mouthfeel wheel, sensory analysis, tannin–protein interaction, tribology, wine

BibTeX entry: click to show

@article{
	2318_1909890,
	url = {https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1909890},
	author = {Paissoni, Maria Alessandra and Motta, Giulia and Giacosa, Simone and Rolle, Luca and Gerbi, Vincenzo and Río Segade, Susana},
	title = {Mouthfeel subqualities in wines: A current insight on sensory descriptors and physical–chemical markers},
	year = {2023},
	journal = {Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety},
	volume = {22},
	abstract = {Astringency and more generally mouthfeel perception are relevant to the overall quality of the wine. However, their origin and description are still uncertain and are constantly updating. Additionally, the terminology related to mouthfeel properties is expansive and extremely diversified, characterized by common traditional terms as well as novel recently adopted descriptors. In this context, this review evaluated the mention frequency of astringent subqualities and other mouthfeel attributes in the scientific literature of the last decades (2000–August 17, 2022). One hundred and twenty-five scientific publications have been selected and classified based on wine typology, aim, and instrumental–sensorial methods adopted. Dry resulted as the most frequent astringent subquality (10\% for red wines, 8.6\% for white wines), while body—and related terms—is a common mouthfeel sensation for different wine types, although its concept is still vague. Alongside, promising analytical and instrumental techniques investigating and simulating the in-mouth properties are discussed in detail, such as rheology for the viscosity and tribology for the lubrication loss, as well as the different approaches for the quantitative and qualitative evaluation of the interaction between salivary proteins and astringency markers. A focus on the phenolic compounds involved in the tactile perception was conducted, with tannins being the compounds conventionally found responsible for astringency. Nevertheless, other non-tannic polyphenolic classes (i.e., flavonols, phenolic acids, anthocyanins, anthocyanin-derivative pigments) as well as chemical–physical factors and the wine matrix (i.e., polysaccharides, mannoproteins, ethanol, glycerol, and pH) can also contribute to the wine in-mouth sensory profile. An overview of mouthfeel perception, factors involved, and its vocabulary is useful for enologists and consumers.},
	keywords = {astringency subqualities, body concept, in-mouth perception, mouthfeel wheel, sensory analysis, tannin–protein interaction, tribology, wine},
	doi = {10.1111/1541-4337.13184},
	pages = {3328--3365}
}

Publication availability