Introduction

Sangiovese is one of the most widespread grape cultivars in Italy. It is grown throughout the country and accounts for around 11 % of grapes planted in Italian vineyards, and its popularity is increasing worldwide (ISTAT, 2010). Sangiovese is the base grape variety of Tuscan wines, including seven Denomination of Controlled and Guaranteed Origin wines (DOCG), and several Denomination of Controlled Origin (DOC) or Typical Geographical Indication (IGT) wines. The percentage of Sangiovese in these wines varies from a minimum of 50 % to a maximum of 100 %: Carmignano (50 %), Chianti (70-100 %), Nobile di Montepulciano (70 %), Chianti Classico (80-100 %), Morellino di Scansano (85 %), Montecucco (90 %), and Brunello di Montalcino (100 %). Tuscan wines have gained renown and appreciation in Italy and abroad as a result of marketing strategies aimed at the exploitation of Sangiovese (Gallenti and Cosmina, 2001). The genotype Sangiovese is highly plastic and highly responsive to the environment (Egger et al., 1996; Bandinelli et al. 2001; Bertuccioli et al., 2001; Giannetti et al., 2001), and in the delimited areas of Tuscany provinces it can express varietal potential in relation to a specific terroir (Brancadoro et al., 2006) through wines with peculiar sensory characteristics. Owing to Sangiovese’s ability to take on the characteristics of the region, the climate and those imparted by the winemaker, wines made from this grape widely vary in taste and mouthfeel.

Astringency is one of the characteristics that mainly affect the sensory perception of red wine, and includes a wide range of sensations: drying, dynamic, harsh, unripe, particulate, surface smoothness, and complex (Gawel et al. 2001). Thirty-three different subqualities are used to describe the complex perception of astringency, due to a perceptual phenomenon involving tactile sensations, tastes and mouthfeel (Chen and Engelen, 2012). Red wine is also a complex matrix in which both basic components (pH, ethanol, sugars, polysaccharides; Lawless et al., 1994; De Miglio and Pickering, 2008; Rinaldi et al., 2012) and the occurrence of different amounts and typologies of proanthocyanidins (Vidal et al., 2003) and flavonols (Hufnagel and Hofmann, 2008) can influence astringency. This may all explain why astringency is not easy to discern and requires experts or specially trained panels. In addition, the recognition and familiarization with subqualities are difficult tasks to master. Recently, a sensory method has been designed that combines the check-all-that-apply (CATA) question and training in astringency subqualities with touch-standards, which is used to investigate the astringency characteristics of red wines aged with enological tannins, including Sangiovese wine (Rinaldi and Moio, 2018). However, fewer studies have been carried out on the sensory characteristics of Sangiovese wines from Tuscany. Descriptive sensorial analysis revealed that the Sangiovese wines aged with different barrel aging techniques were described as either fruity, woody or spicy (Arfelli et al., 2011): oak barrel aging led to vanilla, toasted, and spicy notes, and the chestnut barrel aging characteristics were more fruity (Castellari et al., 2001). Wood descriptors have been considered the main sensory attributes that determined the experts’ appreciation of the Sangiovese wine aroma quality. In the same manner, the Sangiovese wines preferred by consumers were those with the most intense wood and vanilla attributes (Torri et al., 2013). However, an overall sensory evaluation has not yet made of the astringency subqualities of Tuscan Sangiovese wines from different denominations.

In this study, we evaluated the sensory characteristics of 16 Sangiovese wines produced in the Tuscany region from four denominations: Chianti DOCG (CH), Chianti Classico DOCG (CC), Morellino di Scansano DOCG (MS), and Toscana IGT (TS). The astringency subqualities, the taste, odor, and aroma profile of wines were evaluated by a trained and expert panel. The polyphenolic content and some volatile odor active compounds of the wines were also analyzed. The drivers of liking according to the mouthfeel of Sangiovese wines were also found. The wine sensory evaluations were repeated after 20 months of bottle aging to assess the evolution of the flavor.

Materials and methods

Results

The astringency subqualities of Tuscan Sangiovese wines

The astringency subqualities according to Sangiovese percentage (%)

An evaluation of the astringency subqualities of Tuscan Sangiovese wines was made for the first time using a sensory method that combined the training for astringency subqualities and the CATA question (Rinaldi and Moio, 2018). Vintage had no significant effect on the perception of astringency subqualities (p > 0.05), but the percentage of Sangiovese did. Independent from vintage, the percentage of Sangiovese influenced the perception of astringency. Citation frequencies of the 16 subqualities included in the CATA question were organized in a contingency table and correspondence analysis (CA) was applied to visualize the relationships between astringency subqualities and wines categorized for Sangiovese percentage (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The astringency subqualities according to Sangiovese percentage (%).

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

Correspondence analysis performed on the average citation frequencies of the astringency subqualities included in the check-all-that-apply question and grouped for Sangiovese percentage (%).

The first and second dimensions of the CA explained 82.47 % of total inertia and allowed a clear separation between the wines made up with 90 % and 100 %, from 80 % and 85 % of Sangiovese grapes. The first dimension (F1 = 59.99 %) comprised the projected wines with 100 % and 90 % of Sangiovese. Wines made with 100 % of Sangiovese were considered by the judges to be hard, aggressive, pucker, and persistent, revealing that these sensations are long-lasting in the mouth. The 90 % Sangiovese wines were mainly characterized by the terms dry and green (astringent and acid). On the opposite dimensions of the CA the wines made with 85 % and 80 % of Sangiovese had different positive subqualities. The terms mouthcoat and silk highly characterized the wines with 85 % Sangiovese, while full-body and rich were associated with 80 % Sangiovese. The astringency characteristics revealed the tannins as silk, soft, mouthcoat and satin in 85 % Sangiovese wines, while velvet tannins and full-body sensations plus a richness in aroma highly represented the 80 % Sangiovese wines.

The astringency subqualities according to Sangiovese denomination

In order to identify the astringency subqualities that may characterize each denomination (CH, CC, TS, MS), the chi-squared test (α = 0.05; p < 0.001) was applied to the contingency table of the average citation frequency of wine astringency subqualities. In Figure 2, the adjusted Pearson residuals (aPr) revealed the main associations (aPr > ±1) between the astringency subqualities and Sangiovese wines of each denomination, which represented the possible combination observed significantly more (or less) than expected (*significant when aPr > ǀcritical valueǀ at p < 0.05).

Figure 2. The astringency subqualities according to Sangiovese denomination.

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

The main astringency subqualities of each Sangiovese denomination expressed as adjusted Pearson residuals obtained from the chi-squared test (*significant at p < 0.05). CH, Chianti; CC, Chianti Classico; MS, Morellino di Scansano; TS, Toscana.

The Chianti (CH) wine can be significantly (p < 0.05) associated with satin and velvet subqualities and negatively with soft, and tends to be full-bodied and not dry. In the same way, Chianti Classico (CC) wine can be positively associated with silk and negatively with aggressive terms, and a tendency to be not satin and corduroy was observed. The astringency of Toscana wines (TS) was mainly characterized by the negative terms aggressive, pucker, and dry, and was not associated with positive terms like soft, satin and full-body. The Morellino di Scansano (MS) wine, instead, was significantly associated with satin, soft and full-bodied, and negatively with hard (astringent and bitter) and pucker.

During tasting of Sangiovese wines, judges were asked to express their personal liking related to the mouthfeel sensations perceived. Drivers of liking were identified using Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the standardized CA residuals and liking scores, indicating that subqualities such as mouthcoat (0.74, p = 0.001), soft (0.69, p = 0.003), and rich (0.62, p = 0.011) positively influenced the liking of Tuscan Sangiovese wines, while the sensation of corduroy (-0.72, p = 0.002) was negatively correlated, and adversely affected appreciation. This means that a Sangiovese wine with a balanced astringency characterized by a soft and mouthcoating tannin and with a high richness in aroma compounds was highly appreciated by the panelists. The different mouthfeel sensations that a red wine can elicit during tasting (Gawel et al., 2001) can widely vary depending on several factors, including wine matrix (Demiglio and Pickering, 2008; Laguna et al., 2017) and polyphenols (Gonzalo-Diago et al., 2013), and those involving perception of aroma compounds (Ferrer-Gallego et al., 2014) and tastes (Brannan et al., 2001).

Sensory differences of Tuscan Sangiovese wines by denomination

The overall sensory analysis of Sangiovese wines, including astringency intensity, taste, aroma and odor characteristics was also performed by the trained expert jury. In order to reveal if volatile compounds can contribute to in-mouth sensory characteristics of Tuscan Sangiovese wines, MFA was performed to consider six groups of sensory variables: “astringency” (astringency intensity); “tastes” (sweet, acid, bitter, sapid); “aroma” (floralAR, fruityAR, spicyAR, herbaceousAR, balsamicAR, woodyAR); “odor” (floralOD, fruityOD, spicyOD, herbaceousOD, balsamicOD, woodyOD); the continuous variable “volatiles”; and the categorical variable “denomination” (CC, CH, TS, MS). Considering these data, multivariate statistics made it possible to categorize wines according to designation as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Sensory differences of Tuscan Sangiovese wines by denomination.

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

Representation of the correlation circle, the individual factor map, and the group representation variables on the first two dimensions of the multiple factor analysis performed on sensory data (astringency, taste, odor, aroma), and the volatile compounds of Tuscan Sangiovese wines grouped for designation (CH, Chianti; CC, Chianti Classico; MS, Morellino di Scansano; TS, Toscana).

In Figure 3, the correlation circle showed the relationships between variables, and the correlation between variable and the dimensions; the individual factor map revealed the Sangiovese wines grouped for denomination; and the group representation revealed the correlation between group of variables. In the first dimension (Dim1) (p < 0.05) the variables herbaceous OD, floralOD, herbaceousAR, bitter and astringent were positively projected, correlated with TS wines. Sapid and fruityAR were negatively correlated with Dim1, on which the MS category was projected. The second dimension (Dim2) was positively correlated with balsamicOD, 3MH, and woodyAR, which characterized CC wines, while spicyAR and woodyOD characterized the CH denomination. The variable “designation” was highly correlated with the “volatiles” one, projected on Dim2. According to this, wines differed mainly for volatile compounds. It was possible to assign sensory properties to the different categories by MFA. Chianti Classico (CC) was highly characterized by the varietal thiol 3MH and by the ethyl-2 methylbutanoate ester, by a balsamic (pot herbs) odor, woody and floral aroma and basically a sweet taste. Toscana (TS) was astringent and highly bitter in accordance with the higher values of BSA-rt and flavans, nevertheless this category resulted in a tasting characterized by a herbaceous, floral aroma and by a floral odor, as also indicated by the higher concentrations of ethyl decanoate and 2-phenylethanol. Chianti (CH) showed a woody odor with cherry (ethyl propanoate) and green apple (ethyl hexanoate) notes. The aroma of CH was mainly spicy. The Morellino di Scansano (MS) was characterized mostly by the ethyl 2-methylpropanote (strawberry), fruity and spicy in odor, and fruity and balsamic in aroma, sapid in taste. “Volatiles” was the variable that better differentiated Sangiovese wines, accounting for 49 % of total variance. The floral odor, which was due to the high content in 2-phenylethanol, seemed to differentiate the Toscana wines from the others Sangiovese designations. In addition, the thiolic compound 3MH was able to discriminate CC and CS, which resulted mainly in fruity aroma compounds. However, due to the limited number of analyzed wines, further studies are necessary to evaluate the incidence of these compounds on the fruity and floral aroma of Sangiovese wines.

Effect of bottle aging on Sangiovese wine perception

The sensory perception of the same Tuscan wines was carried out after 20 months of bottle aging by evaluating the odor, aroma, taste, astringency intensity, and subqualities (RATA). Only the variables significantly correlated (p < 0.05) were loaded in PCA, together with “denomination” (CC, CH, TS, MS) as supplementary variable, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Effect of bottle aging on Sangiovese wine perception.

Save View full size Expand inline Collapse inline

Principal component analysis (PCA) on significant sensory attributes of Tuscan Sangiovese wines after 20 months of bottle aging. Intensity of astringency, astringency subqualities (dry, adhesive, corduroy, hard, pucker, rich, soft, velvet), odor (-OD) and aroma (-AR) (fruity-, floral-, spicy-, balsamic-, woody-, oxidized-) tastes (acid, bitter) were the active variables, and denomination (Chianti DOCG, CH; Chianti Classico DOCG, CC; Morellino di Scansano DOCG, MS; Toscana IGT, TS) was the supplementary variable.

The two dimensions explained the 55.59 % total variance, which allowed for the categorization of the four denominations. CH and CC were grouped together and mainly differentiated from the others for soft, velvet and rich tannins, with floral, fruity, balsamic and spicy odors and woody aroma. TS wines were highly astringent, characterized by dry and adhesive subqualities, bitter (hard) and with a woody odor. The MS category changed considerably during bottle aging, losing the fruitiness and pleasant aromas which in turn were replaced by odor defects due to oxidation, also associated with an increase in bitterness and pucker sensations.

Discussion

Sangiovese represents with its denominations and styles the best-known and high-quality Italian wine in the world. Tuscan Sangiovese wines are often a blend with other red grape varieties of the region, and these can vary according to the production disciplinary of denomination. Very little is known about the sensory characteristics of Sangiovese wines from different denominations and made with different percentages of this grape cultivar. The percentage of Sangiovese had a significant effect on the perception of astringency subqualities of Tuscan wines. Wines obtained with 100 % of Sangiovese grapes were astringent and bitter (hard), aggressive and pucker, but it is also true that this wine typology requires a long aging period and time to fully develop. Conversely, the blend versions of Sangiovese (80-85 %) represented a perfect combination of soft tannins, aroma richness and full-body sensations. Likewise, the most significant drivers of liking for Tuscan Sangiovese wines were related to soft, rich, and mouthcoating tannins, highly appreciated by the expert judges. Wines that are full-bodied and more intense in flavor were highly appreciated by consumers (Niimi et al., 2017).

For the chemical composition, the occurrence of the varietal thiol 3MH enhanced the complexity of the CC Sangiovese flavor. These wines were particularly intense at odor with balsamic notes and a woody aroma. The Chianti (CH) showed a spicy aroma, and significantly differed from the Chianti Classico (CC). In the Toscana denomination, the percentage of Sangiovese can vary from 70 to 100 %; in this study the wines that were all 100 % Sangiovese resulted in the most astringent and bitter, with a herbaceous aroma and a floral odor, highly correlated with ethyl decanoate and 2-phenylethanol compounds. The Morellino di Scansano (MS) was characterized by a high sapidity, and fruity aroma.

However, after around two years of bottle aging the sensory profile greatly differed, especially for MS that lost the fruity character to an odor defect due to oxidation, associated with a bitter taste and a puckering sensation. It is likely that MS wines represent a typology of wine which should be drunk within two or three years of production. CC and CH became very similar at tasting, revealing a complex odor and interesting astringency subqualities; however TS remained highly astringent meaning that for 100 % Sangiovese wines, additional years of aging are required.

Conclusions

A detailed evaluation of the astringency subqualities of commercial Sangiovese wines was made here for the first time. Wines showed different subqualities according to the percentages of Sangiovese and denomination, which were associated with peculiar sensory characteristics. In particular, the occurrence of 3MH varietal thiol highly characterized the Chianti Classico. These results resolve an important query on the difference between Chianti and Chianti Classico, which are two distinct and separate DOCGs, with two different sets of production regulations, production zones and consortiums for the protection of the product. The volatile compounds variable could discriminate the wines with a chemical age of around one to three years according to denomination. After 20 months of bottle aging, the sensory characteristics of Sangiovese wines evolved so that CC and CH highly expressed their aromatic potential in a similar manner, while MS turned to oxidation, and TS was the less involved in the sensory modifications. Considering the aging effect, the astringency subqualities were more able to discriminate wines with a chemical age of three to five years than other variables. Further studies on Sangiovese will be carried out to better investigate the sensory characteristics of one of the best-known and high-quality Italian wine in the world.

References

• Antalick G., Perello MC. and de Revel G., 2010. Development, validation and application of a specific method for the quantitative determination of wine esters by headspace-solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Food Chemistry, 121(4), 1236-1245. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.01.011
• Arfelli G., Sartini E., Corzani C. and Fabiani A., 2011. Chips, lees, and micro-oxygenation: influence on some flavors and sensory profile of a bottled red Sangiovese wine. European Food Research and Technology, 233(1), 1-10. doi:10.1007/s00217-011-1480-2
• Bertuccioli M., Ferrari S., Siliani A. and Zini S., 2001. Il ruolo del Sangiovese per la produzione di vini di qualità. Atti Simposio Internazionale “Il Sangiovese”. Firenze, Ed. ARSIA, 364-372.
• Bouchilloux P., Darriet P., Henry R., Lavigne-Cruège V. and Dubourdieu D., 1998. Identification of volatile and powerful odorous thiols in Bordeaux red wine varieties. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 46(8), 3095-3099. doi:10.1021/jf971027d
• Brancadoro L., Toninato L., Failla O., Mariani L., Scienza A., 2006. Influenza di diversi pedoclimi toscani sulle risposte produttive e qualitative del Sangiovese. Atti Simposio Internazionale “Il Sangiovese, identità e peculiarità di un vitigno tipico e internazionale”. Firenze, Ed. ARSIA, 353-360.
• Brannan G.D., Setser C.S. and Kemp K.E., 2001. Interaction of astringency and taste characteristics. Journal of Sensory Studies, 16(2), 179-197. doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00295.x
• Castellari M., Piermattei B., Arfelli G. and Amati A., 2001. Influence of aging conditions on the quality of red Sangiovese wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 49(8), 3672-3676. doi:10.1021/jf010101w
• Chen J. and Engelen L., 2012. Food oral processing: fundamentals of eating and sensory perception. John Wiley & Sons. doi:10.1002/9781444360943
• De Miglio P. and Pickering G.J., 2008. The influence of ethanol and pH on the taste and mouthfeel sensations elicited by red wine. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 6(3-4), 143-150.
• Di Stefano R. and Guidoni S., 1989. “La determinazione dei polifenoli totali nei mosti e nei vini”, Vignevini, 16, 47-52.
• Egger E., Greco G., Storchi P. and Grillo S., 1996. First results of the research on the ecology of the Sangiovese variety in the province of Arezzo. Acta Horticoltura, 427, 295-302. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.1996.427.34
• Ferrer-Gallego R., Hernández-Hierro J.M., Rivas-Gonzalo J.C. and Escribano-Bailón M.T., 2014. Sensory evaluation of bitterness and astringency sub-qualities of wine phenolic compounds: synergistic effect and modulation by aromas. Food Research International, 62, 1100-1107. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2014.05.049
• Gallenti G. and Cosmina M., 2001. L’analisi sensoriale e la valorizzazione qualitativa del prodotto vitivinicolo: problematiche teoriche e verifiche empiriche. Atti Simposio Internazionale “Il Sangiovese”, Firenze, Ed. ARSIA, 67-78.
• Gawel R., Iland P.G. and Francis IL., 2001. Characterizing the astringency of red wine: a case study. Food Quality and Preference, 12(1), 83-94. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(00)00033-1
• Giannetti F., Faviere V., Bucelli P. and Piracci A., 2001. Caratteri enologici di Sangiovese in quattro diverse zone della Toscana. Atti Simposio Internazionale “Il Sangiovese”, Firenze, Ed. ARSIA, 379-384.
• Glories Y., 1984. La couleur des vins rouges. 1° e 2° partie. Connaissance de la Vigne et du Vin, 18, 253-271. doi:10.20870/oeno-one.1984.18.4.1744
• Gonzalo-Diago A., Dizy M. and Fernández-Zurbano P., 2013. Taste and mouthfeel properties of red wines proanthocyanidins and their relation to the chemical composition. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61(37), 8861-8870. doi:10.1021/jf401041q
• Harbertson J.F, Picciotto E.A. and Adams D.O., 2003. Measurement of polymeric pigments in grape berry extract sand wines using a protein precipitation assay combined with bisulfite bleaching. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 54(4), 301-306
• Hufnagel J.C. and Hofmann T., 2008. Orosensory-directed identification of astringent mouthfeel and bitter-tasting compounds in red wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56(4), 1376-1386. doi:10.1021/jf073031n
• ISTAT, 2010. http://www.inumeridelvino.it/2013/07/i-vitigni-italiani-la-base-ampelografica-secondo-il-censimento-istat-2010.html
• Laguna L., Bartolomé B. and Moreno-Arribas M.V., 2017. Mouthfeel perception of wine: Oral physiology, components and instrumental characterization. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 59, 49-59. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2016.10.011
• Lawless H.T., Corrigan C.J. and Lee C.B., 1994. Interactions of astringent substances. Chemical Senses, 19, 141-154. doi:10.1093/chemse/19.2.141
• Lê S., Josse J. and Husson F., 2008. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(1), pp. 1-18. doi:10.18637/jss.v025.i01
• Niimi J., Danner L., Li L., Bossan H. and Bastian S.E., 2017. Wine consumers' subjective responses to wine mouthfeel and understanding of wine body. Food Research International, 99 (1), 115-122. doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2017.05.015
• OIV, 2007. Compendium of International Methods of Wine and Must Analysis. Paris: Office International de la Vigne et du Vin.
• Rinaldi A. and Moio L., 2018. Effect of enological tannin addition on astringency subqualities and phenolic content of red wines. Journal of Sensory Studies, 33(3), e12325. doi:10.1111/joss.12325
• Rinaldi A., Gambuti A. and Moio L., 2012. Precipitation of salivary proteins after the interaction with wine: the effect of ethanol, pH, fructose, and mannoproteins. Journal of Food Science, 77(4), C485-C490. doi:10.1111/j.1750-3841.2012.02639.x
• Tominaga T., Murat M.L. and Dubourdieu D., 1998. Development of a method for analyzing the volatile thiols involved in the characteristic aroma of wines made from Vitis vinifera L. cv. Sauvignon blanc. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 46(3), 1044-1048. doi:10.1021/jf970782o
• Torri L., Dinnella C., Recchia A., Naes T., Tuorila H. and Monteleone E., 2013. Projective mapping for interpreting wine aroma differences as perceived by naïve and experienced assessors. Food Quality and Preference, 29(1), 6-15. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.01.006
• Vidal S., Francis I.L., Guyot S., Mamet N., Kwiatkowski M., Gawel R., Cheynier V. and Waters E., 2003. The mouth-feel properties of grape and apple proanthocyanidins in a wine-like medium. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 83, 564-573. doi:10.1002/jsfa.1394