Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping® procedure: Case of ten wines from Loire valley

In the wine industry, characterisation is usually performed by wine professionals. However, the methods classically used in sensory analysis appear to be little adapted to this type of jury: winemakers are not unavailable per se but often not suitable as sensory panellists for extended studies by researchers. A method called Napping® was developed recently. This method seems to be more relevant to the wine profession because of its spontaneous aspect and its flexibility. However, Napping® itself does not characterise the products and has to be completed with a descriptive method. The aim of this study was to compare three methods to complete a wine Napping®: a conventional profile, taken as reference, and two simplified profiles (ultra-flash profile, UFP, and free profile, FP). Data were treated by hierarchical multiple factor analysis. Results show that all methods underlined the same main characteristics. The data collection from UFP is partly arbitrary, but this method is the least time-consuming and easily provided wine characterisations. It appeared here to be a good complement to Napping® and to be well adapted to wine professionals when a rough description is expected.

[1]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Inter-laboratory comparison of sensory profiles: methodology and results , 2001 .

[2]  D. Mottram,et al.  An evaluation of the aroma characteristics of malted barley by free-choice profiling , 1993 .

[3]  A. Lehrer.  Talking About Wine. , 1975 .

[4]  H. Byron.  Equipment , 1972, Recommendations on Harmonized Europe-wide Technical Requirements for Inland Navigation Vessels.

[5]  Hildegarde Heymann,et al.  A COMPARISON OF FREE CHOICE PROFILING AND MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING OF VANILLA SAMPLES , 1994 .

[6]  J. Gower.  Generalized procrustes analysis , 1975 .

[7]  Jérôme Pagès.  Analyse factorielle multiple et analyse procustéenne , 2005 .

[8]  El Mostafa Qannari,et al.  Comparing Generalized Procrustes Analysis and STATIS , 1998 .

[9]  R. Singleton,et al.  Sensory Evaluation by Quantitative Descriptive Analysis , 2008 .

[10]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley , 2005 .

[11]  Jérôme Pagès,et al.  Hierarchical Multiple Factor Analysis: application to the comparison of sensory profiles , 2003 .

[12]  H. Schifferstein.  Cognitive factors affecting taste intensity judgments , 1996 .

[13]  J. Pagès,et al.  Eléments de comparaison entre l'Analyse Factorielle Multiple et la méthode STATIS , 1996 .

[14]  J. Delarue,et al.  Sensory mapping using Flash profile. Comparison with a conventional descriptive method for the evaluation of the flavour of fruit dairy products , 2004 .

[15]  Frédérique Jourjon,et al.  Comparaison d'échelles de notation utilisées lors de l'évaluation sensorielle de vins , 2005 .

[16]  Robert Sabatier,et al.  The ACT (STATIS method) , 1994 .

[17]  Anthony A. Williams,et al.  The use of free-choice profiling for the evaluation of commercial ports , 1984 .

[18]  Miguelina Guirao,et al.  PERFORMANCE COMPARISON BETWEEN TRAINED ASSESSORS AND WINE EXPERTS USING SPECIFIC SENSORY ATTRIBUTES , 2004 .

[19]  Victoire Dairou,et al.  A Comparison of 14 Jams Characterized by Conventional Profile and a Quick Original Method, the Flash Profile , 2002 .

[20]  Hildegarde Heymann,et al.  MULTIDIMENSIONAL SORTING, SIMILARITY SCALING AND FREE‐CHOICE PROFILING OF GRAPE JELLIES , 2002 .

[21]  El Mostafa Qannari,et al.  Defining the underlying sensory dimensions , 2000 .

[22]  D. Dubourdieu,et al.  Wine Descriptive Language Supports Cognitive Specificity of Chemical Senses , 2001, Brain and Language.

[23]  J. Pagès,et al.  Recueil direct de distances sensorielles : application à l'évaluation de dix vins blancs du Val-de-Loire , 2003 .