INFLUENCE OF THE NONVOLATILE FRACTION ON THE

SENSORY PERCEPTION OF 40% (V/V) ETHANOL-CONTAINING

FRENCH GRAPE BRANDIES
G. FICHES
1,2
, I. DELERIS
2,3,4
, A. SAINT-EVE
2,3
, S. PASSOT
2,3
, P. BRUNERIE
1
and I. SOUCHON
2,3
1
Pernod Ricard Research Center, 120 Avenue Marchal Foch, F-94015 Crteil, France
2
INRA, UMR782 Gnie et Microbiologie des Procds Alimentaires (GMPA), 1 Avenue Lucien Bretignires, F-78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France
3
AgroParisTech, UMR782 Gnie et Microbiologie des Procds Alimentaires (GMPA), 1 Avenue Lucien Bretignires, F-78850 Thiverval-Grignon,
France
4
Corresponding author.
TEL: 33-(0)1-30-81-54-39;
FAX: 33-(0)1-30-81-55-97;
EMAIL: isabelle.deleris@grignon.inra.fr
Accepted for Publication January 7, 2014
doi:10.1111/joss.12081
ABSTRACT
Several studies performed on wines have shown that nonvolatile and
matrix components can have an impact on sensory perception through physico-
chemical and/or sensory interactions. In distilled spirits and as for many other
food products, relationships between these components and the sensory percep-
tion are still misunderstood. In the present study, we investigated the impact
of nonvolatile components on the sensory perception of two 40% (v/v)
ethanol-containing French grape brandies with different compositions and
sensory qualities. For this purpose, a reconstitution strategy involving freeze-
drying was developed to test the contributions of nonvolatile components to the
sensory perception of brandies. The studied products contained different levels
of nonvolatile components, and corresponding to extremes values of the non-
volatile components concentration range usually found in French grape bran-
dies. Sensory results highlighted no signicant sensory difference between the
two reconstituted brandies. To validate results, sensory evaluations were also per-
formed on model beverages and revealed that sugar and phenols at contents of
between 525 g/L and 2001,000 mg/L, respectively, did not have an impact on
sensory perception. It could therefore be hypothesized that physicochemical and
sensory mechanisms involving ethanol, which is present in very large amounts
in distilled beverages, can inuence physicochemical interactions and sensory
perception, and reduce the impact of nonvolatile components on nal sensory
perception.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
This study reafrmed the importance of aromatic perception to the global
sensory image of brandies: perception differences between French grape brandies
seemed to be mainly due to differences in their volatile composition. This com-
position depends on aroma compound formation and selection steps in the
global production process of the product, such as fermentation and distillation.
Product characteristics, especially their 40% v/v ethanol content, can modify
sensory perception and possibly hide the effects of some nonvolatile compo-
nents. The latter are known to highly contribute to the sensory prole of
alcoholic drinks with lower ethanol content such as wine. This study also
highlighted an interesting strategy to test the role of each sensory component
on overall sensory perception and to draw conclusions about the perception
complexity of beverages such as brandies.
bs_bs_banner
Journal of Sensory Studies ISSN 0887-8250
56 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 5663 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, real efforts have been made by professionals
in the wine spirits sector to better understand and control
the sensory perception of alcoholic beverages. Although
several factors can inuence consumer choices and
preferences, avor is known to be an essential parameter to
meet consumer expectations (Moskowitz 1995). The avor
of alcoholic beverages is determined, on the one hand, by
their composition in volatile compounds, which are respon-
sible for odor and aroma perceptions and, on the other
hand, by nonvolatile compounds that induce taste and tri-
geminal sensations (Rapp and Mandery 1986; Voilley and
Lubbers 1998).
In distilled beverages, most compounds responsible for
avor are volatile, and the aromatic richness and complex-
ity, the main guarantee of quality, is closely linked to the
production process (Nyknen and Nyknen 1991; Meillon
et al. 2010). It is also generally accepted that the nonvolatile
components contribute to the construction of the overall
sensory prole through aroma, taste and mouthfeel sensa-
tions, as was shown in wine by Vidal et al. (2004) or in
lemon-lime beverages by Leksrisompong et al. (2012). Non-
volatile or matrix components (such as ethanol, present in
large amounts in distilled beverages) can be involved in
physicochemical interactions, modifying the release behav-
iors of aroma compounds by changing their physicoche-
mical properties. These modications contribute to the
construction of the nal sensory perception (Tsachaki et al.
2005; Maatelli et al. 2010; Mitropoulou et al. 2011). More-
over, sensory interactions between all the sensory modalities
of perception can also have an impact on perception.
Although the presence of tastearoma interactions in
beverages has been shown in several studies, only a few have
focused on interactions between avor and trigeminal sen-
sations, which can be notably increased at high ethanol
levels (Delwiche 2004).
According to our knowledge, no study has yet focused on
the impact of the nonvolatile fractions on the perception of
high ethanol-containing beverages such as brandies, in
which nonvolatile component concentrations can range
around several tens of g/L (Picque et al. 2006). Different
solutions can be used to better investigate the possible
mechanisms at the root of the construction of sensory per-
ception and to determine the relative contributions of vola-
tile and nonvolatile fractions on perceptions. One solution
consists in the use of separation and reconstitution tech-
niques to isolate nonvolatile and volatile fractions and
obtain recombined beverages. It allows the evaluation of the
impact of each sensory component (Senz-Navajas et al.
2012). The use of nose clips is not necessary with this strat-
egy and perceptions remain as close as possible to real
consumption conditions. Another methodology, using a
delivery container, was developed by Hollis and Halpern
(2012) to better evaluate the smell perception in wines,
without being disturbed by taste interactions.
The present study aims at better understanding the effect
of nonvolatile components on the sensory perception of
French grape brandies. For this purpose, brandies with dif-
ferent extracts, mainly composed of polyphenols and sugar,
were freeze-dried, and the same volatile fraction was
added to form reconstituted brandies. The aromatic
and mouthfeel contributions of volatile and nonvolatile
fractions to the overall perception of brandies were investi-
gated using sensory discrimination tests. Model products
were also developed by adding commercial sugar and poly-
phenols in wider variation ranges than those found in dry
extracts of commercial products, to the same volatile frac-
tion previously used. Sensory discrimination tests were
again used to investigate the effect of the composition of the
nonvolatile fraction on the overall perception of brandies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Products
Brandies. Two commercial French grape brandies (Euro-
pean Union regulation N110/2008), B1 and B2, were used.
Brandies were matured in oak barrels, and the aging time of
B2 brandy was three times longer than that of B1 brandy.
They were made from grape and their nal ethanol content
was 40% in volume. The products were provided by the
industrial partner, who checked for their conformity.
Volatile Fractions. The volatile fractions of B1 and B2
brandies, referred to as VFB1 and VFB2, respectively, were
provided by the projects industrial partner. They are
mainly composed of water, ethanol (40% v/v) and aroma
compounds (containing several hundred molecules; Ferrari
et al. 2004). Table 1 indicates the main volatile components
measured in gas chromatographyame ionization detector
for the two volatile fractions VFB1 and VFB2 (see Physico-
chemical analyses section for method specications). The
alcohol by volume of 40% (v/v) was controlled by the
industrial partner. Small amounts of nonvolatile compo-
nents, mainly polyphenols and sugar, were also present and
experimentally quantied with appropriated methods
(see Physicochemical analyses section; Table 2).
Nonvolatile Fractions. Recovering the Nonvolatile
Fraction of Commercial Brandies. The nonvolatile frac-
tions of the two commercial brandies were obtained after
two steps. Brandies were concentrated ve times with
a speed vacuum (Jouan RC 10.22 TT, Thermo Fisher
Scientic, Waltham, MA): 50 mL of brandy were placed in
G. FICHES ET AL. IMPACT OF BRANDY NONVOLATILE COMPOSITION ON SENSORY PERCEPTION
57 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 5663 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
vacuum test tubes for 13 h under controlled conditions
(temperature: 30C; pressure: 200 hPa). This rst stage
aimed at evaporating the majority of the volatile fraction in
order to limit material loss during subsequent freeze-drying
(due to ethanol evaporation). Brandy concentrates were
then placed in 5 mL aluminum cups to be freeze-dried
(Telstar, Barcelona, Spain): samples were frozen at 50C,
primary drying (sublimation) lasted 20 h at a temperature
of 20C and a pressure of 10 Pa, and secondary drying
(desorption) was set to 10 h at 25C with a minimum pres-
sure of 20 hPa. Powders recovered from B1 and B2 products
after freeze-drying were stored under vacuum conditions
at ambient temperature until product reconstitution (12
weeks, depending on the sensory session schedule).
Formulation of the Nonvolatile Fraction of Model
Brandies. The nonvolatile fraction of model brandies con-
sisted in polyphenols (commercial enological tannin
powder) and sugar (saccharose syrup). The enological
tannin powder was provided by the industrial partner sup-
plier and was obtain from French oak after natural drying
and freeze-drying (Ref: oenotan selection; Distillerie Michel
Boinaud, Angeac, France). They were the same ingredients
that were used to manufacture the commercial brandies and
were provided by the industrial partner.
Product Reconstitution
Brandy Reconstitution. The two powders of the non-
volatile fraction were rehydrated 72 h before the beginning
of the sensory tests with the volatile fraction VFB1 to form
reconstituted brandies, RB1 and RB2. Volatile fraction VFB1
was preferred to volatile fraction VFB2 to rehydrate non-
volatile fractions as the amount of remaining nonvolatile
components was lower (some traces of nonvolatile com-
pounds could still be observed in volatile fractions due to
their production process). The volume of volatile fraction
VFB1 that was added to the powders corresponded to the
volume evaporated during concentration and freeze-drying
steps. Reconstituted brandies RB1 and RB2 have thus the
same volatile fraction but different nonvolatile fractions
(from initial products B1 and B2). Reconstituted brandies
TABLE 1. PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS
Volatile components (mg/L) VFB1 VFB2
Acetaldehyde 41.71 71.32
Methyl acetate 11.31 22.07
Ethyl acetate 153.26 247.31
Acetal 20.27 40.20
Methanol 126.57 130.90
1-Propanol 128.09 148.57
Isobutanol 485.42 499.21
1-Butanol 2.06 2.47
2-Methylbutanol 231.89 260.57
3-Methylbutanol 916.73 1,139.28
1-Pentanol 0.00 0.00
1-Hexanol 6.63 9.53
2-Phenylethanol 7.22 13.51
Ethyl butyrate <0 1.25
Isoamyl acetate 1.85 1.18
Ethyl caproate 4.67 6.08
Ethyl lactate 45.29 49.07
Ethyl caprylate 8.62 14.82
Ethyl caprate 6.09 12.65
2-Phenylethyl acetate <0 <0
Ethyl laurate 2.05 4.16
Furfural 10.09 45.08
Compositions (mg/L) in major volatile components of volatile fractions
VFB1 and VFB2 determined by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
(GC-MS) and gas chromatography-ame ionization detector (GC-FID).
TABLE 2. PRODUCT CHARACTERISTICS
Code
Dry extract
(g/L)
Sugar content
(g/L)
Total phenol
content (mg/L) pH
B1 7.7 0.1 7.3 0.1 219 20 3.6 0.1
B2 12.1 0.1 11.4 0.1 434 31 3.4 0.1
VFB1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 204 18
VFB2 1.8 0.1 1.3 0.1 362 29
RB1 7.5 0.1 7.0 0.1 410 45 3.5 0.1
RB2 11.8 0.1 11.1 0.1 626 41 3.5 0.1
MB1 5.1 0.1 5.0 0.1 209 25 3.5 0.1
MB2 6.0 0.1 5.0 0.1 1,029 43 3.5 0.1
MB3 25.0 0.1 25.0 0.1 205 13 3.5 0.1
MB4 26.0 0.1 25.0 0.1 1,005 32 3.5 0.1
Dry extracts (g/L), sugar content (g/L) and total phenol content (mg/L) obtained by International
Organization of Vine and Wine method, high-performance liquid chromatography and Folin
Ciocalteu test, respectively, of commercial brandies B1 and B2, volatile fractions VFB1 and VFB2,
reconstituted brandies RB1 and RB2 derived from the reconstitution of dry extracts of commercial
brandies and model brandies MB1, MB2, MB3 and MB4. pH of commercial (B1 and B2) and
reconstituted (RB1 and RB2) brandies.
IMPACT OF BRANDY NONVOLATILE COMPOSITION ON SENSORY PERCEPTION G. FICHES ET AL.
58 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 5663 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
were maintained at ambient temperature (20C) until tests
were performed (consumption conditions).
Formulation of Model Brandies. Polyphenols and
sugar were added to volatile fraction VFB1 according to a
complete experimental design. Two levels of sugar and
polyphenols were tested: 525 g/L and 2001,000 mg/L,
respectively, corresponding to the maximum authorized
range for these beverages. Nonvolatile component concen-
trations were adjusted according to traces of nonvolatile
components already present in volatile fraction VFB1: for
model brandies MB1 and MB3 (low polyphenol levels), no
addition of polyphenol was required as they already contain
a sufcient amount. The composition of the four model
brandies, labeled from MB1 to MB4, was controlled
(Table 2). The formulation of model brandies made it
possible to test the effects of wider ranges of sugar and poly-
phenol contents compared with values usually found in
commercial French grape brandies (European Union regu-
lation N110/2008).
Physicochemical Analyses
The FolinCiocalteu test was used to control nonvolatile
phenolic compound contents according to the ofcial Inter-
national Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) practices
(OIV-MA-AS2-10).
Sugar concentrations were controlled by high-
performance liquid chromatography (Waters, Milford, MA;
510 pump, Waters 710 autosampler injector; Waters 2414
refractometer detector) according to the ofcial OIV
method (OIV-MA-BS-11). The experimental conditions
were as follow: Bio-Rad (Hercules, CA) 300 7.8 mm HPX-
87H aminex column equipped with Bio-Rad 30 4.6 mm
87H Aminex micro-guard; Waters oven, temperature of
35C; 0.6 mL/min H
2
SO
4
0.1N ow.
The determination of major volatile components was
performed using the ofcial OIV protocol (OIV-MA-BS-
14), by gas chromatography (6890A Agilent, Santa Clara,
CA, equipped with an Agilent CP-Wax 57CB
50 m 250 m 0.2 m column and a ame ionization
detector). The experimental conditions were constant
hydrogen ow rate of 1 mL/min; Spit 1/30, 1 L injection at
230C; detector at 230C. The oven program lasted 63.5 min:
40C during 5 min, 4090C at 4C/min, 90150C at 6C/min,
150210C at 10C/min, 210C for 30 min.
pH was controlled using an electronic pH meter (Seven
Easy, Mettler Toledo, Greifensee, Switzerland) according to
the ofcial OIV method (OIV-MA-BS-13).
Dry extracts were also determined according to the OIV
method (OIV-MA-BS-09).
Five replications were performed for each instrumental
measurement.
Sensory Evaluation
Panel. The panel was composed of 24 volunteer panelists
(8 men/14 women company employees) trained to
perform alcoholic product evaluations. They were asked not
to drink, eat, smoke or do anything that could affect sensory
performances at least 1 h before the beginning of the test.
An agreement was signed by all of the panelists, and even
though products were systematically spat out, an alcohol
control test was performed 1 h after the end of the sessions
for security reasons.
Triangle Tests. Experimental Design. To study the
impact of nonvolatile components on sensory perception,
10 triangle tests (ISO 4120-1) were performed (Table 3).
Only one triangle test was performed during a session to
avoid training or warm-up effects. The objective of the
rst test was to evaluate if commercial brandies B1 and B2
were perceived differently or not. Panelists had to identify
the own sample both orthonasally and retronasally in
order to take all perceptions (odor, taste, aroma in mouth
TABLE 3. DESCRIPTION OF TRIANGLE TESTS PERFORMED IN THE STUDY
Test
number Product 1 Product 2 Evaluation protocol Studied perceptions
1 B1 B2 By nose and mouth Global (orthonasal and retronasal aroma, taste and trigeminal sensations)
2 VFB1 VFB2 By nose and mouth Global (orthonasal and retronasal aroma, taste and trigeminal sensations)
3 VFB1 VFB2 Only by nose Orthonasal
4 RB1 RB2 By nose and mouth Global (orthonasal and retronasal aroma, taste and trigeminal sensations)
5 RB1 RB2 Only by nose Orthonasal
6 MB1 MB3 By nose and mouth Global (orthonasal and retronasal aroma, taste and trigeminal sensations)
7 MB2 MB4 By nose and mouth Global (orthonasal and retronasal aroma, taste and trigeminal sensations)
8 MB1 MB2 By nose and mouth Global (orthonasal and retronasal aroma, taste and trigeminal sensations)
9 MB3 MB4 By nose and mouth Global (orthonasal and retronasal aroma, taste and trigeminal sensations)
10 MB1 MB4 By nose and mouth Global (orthonasal and retronasal aroma, taste and trigeminal sensations)
Product identication refers to Table 2.
G. FICHES ET AL. IMPACT OF BRANDY NONVOLATILE COMPOSITION ON SENSORY PERCEPTION
59 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 5663 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
and trigeminal) into account. The objectives of the second
and third tests were to determine if the volatile fractions
VFB1 and VFB2 from commercial brandies B1 and B2
were perceived differently. For these tests, panelists evalu-
ated the global difference between samples after product
introduction into the mouth (test 2) or only focused on
orthonasal aromatic perception (test 3). The comparison
between tests 1 and 2 aimed at assessing the impact of the
volatile fraction on product discrimination. The compari-
son between tests 2 and 3 made it possible to determine
the importance of the odor by smelling in comparison
with the global sensory perception for the discrimination
between the two volatile fractions VFB1 and VFB2. In test
4, panelists evaluated the global differences between recon-
stituted products RB1 and RB2 after sample introduction
into the mouth. As volatile fractions were the same
between samples, this test made it possible to deter-
mine the global impact of nonvolatile constituents on
perceptions. Test 5 only focused on orthonasal aromatic
perception and aimed at determining the existence and the
nature of possible interactions (physicochemical or
sensory) and their impact on perceptions. The comparison
between tests 4 and 5 allowed the determination of the
inuence of taste and trigeminal sensations on the percep-
tion of sensory differences between brandies. Tests 610
concerned model brandies and enabled to test the effects
of different concentrations in sugar and in polyphenols on
the global sensory perception. These additional tests were
used to evaluate the effect of wider concentration ranges of
nonvolatile components on sensory perception, in com-
parison with the concentrations usually found in commer-
cial brandies. Tests 6 and 7 focused on the sugar effect for
the two different levels of polyphenols previously dened.
Tests 8 and 9 concerned the polyphenol effect for the two
different levels of sugar previously dened. And test 10
compared the two extreme model brandies.
Protocol. Twenty-ve milliliters of products was served 1 h
before the beginning of the sensory session in 210 mL black
INAO glasses (INAO: french national institute for origin
and quality), used to mask color differences between prod-
ucts. Three coded samples were presented to panelists, two
of which were identical and one was different. For security
and comfort reasons, all the products were spat out. The
tasting protocol was free (no instruction was given concern-
ing the quantity of product to put in the mouth, the shaking
of glasses, the time to keep products in the mouth, etc.),
except that panelists had to put products in the mouth in
the dened order. Product orders were randomized between
panelists to avoid position effects. At the end of the test,
panelists were free to make comments on the nature of the
differences. Comments were only considered if panelists
found the correct answer during the triangle task.
Data Handling and Statistical Analysis. For physico-
chemical data, mean values and standard deviation evalu-
ated on the ve replicates were calculated. KruskalWallis
tests and SteelDwassCritchlowFligner pairwise proce-
dure were conducted with XLStat software (Addinsoft,
Paris, France) to determine if physicochemical data were
signicantly different between products. For sensory data,
subject answers were collected on computer workstations
equipped with Tastel software (ABT-Informatique, Paris,
France). The binominal law was used to determine the criti-
cal number of correct answers. As the panel was composed
of 24 panelists, the triangle test table indicates that 13
correct answers were needed to reject the null hypothesis
with a P value of 0.05, 15 correct answers with a P value
of 0.01 and 16 correct answers with a P value of 0.001
(Roessler et al. 1978).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Product Composition and Characterization
The nonvolatile fractions of commercial brandies B1 and B2
were mainly composed of nonvolatile phenolic compounds
and sugars as their dry extract approximately corresponded
to the sum of sugar and nonvolatile phenolic compound
contents (Table 2). Results were in agreement with compo-
sition data found in the literature: depending on spirit types
and characteristics, the amounts of nonvolatile compounds
(which constituted the dry extract), mainly polysaccharides,
caramel and polyphenols, can vary from 1 g/L in whiskies to
up to 15 g/L in brandies (Nyknen and Nyknen 1991;
Picque et al. 2006).
Product B2 contained larger amounts of sugar and phe-
nolic compounds than product B1, which was in agreement
with its longer aging time. Results in Table 2 also indicated
that the nonvolatile compositions of reconstituted brandies
RB1 and RB2 were not signicantly different from the ones
of commercial brandies B1 and B2, respectively, as the loss
in dry extract remained lower than 5%. The nonvolatile
phenolic compound contents of reconstituted brandies RB1
and RB2 were 1.81.5 times higher than the ones of original
brandies B1 and B2, respectively, probably due to the addi-
tion of the volatile fraction VFB1. Although the dry extract
of the volatile fraction VFB1 was very low compared with
brandy B1, its total phenol content was not negligible
(Table 2). The pH of brandies B1 and RB1 was not signi-
cantly different (3.6 0.1 and 3.5 0.1, respectively;
Table 2), as well as for brandies B2 and RB2 (3.4 0.1 and
3.5 0.1, respectively; Table 2). In conclusion, reconstituted
brandies RB1 and RB2 had similar properties in compari-
son with real products B1 and B2 in terms of pH and
nonvolatile composition. Concerning model brandies, pH
IMPACT OF BRANDY NONVOLATILE COMPOSITION ON SENSORY PERCEPTION G. FICHES ET AL.
60 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 5663 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
values of products MB1 to MB4 (3.5 0.1; Table 2) were
not signicantly different from those of commercial
products.
Effect of the Volatile and Nonvolatile
Fractions of Brandies on Sensory Perception
The results of triangle tests are summarized in Table 4.
Brandies B1 and B2 were evaluated as signicantly different
from each other (21 correct answers out of 24). Additional
comments made by panelists who perceived correct differ-
ences only focused on differences in aromatic perception:
alcohol, solvent and fruity notes were especially used to
characterize the young brandy B1. These sensory notes are
known to be very common in young brandies and can be
associated with defects if they are too intense. Their percep-
tions generally decrease during the maturation process
(Nyknen and Nyknen 1991; Guichard et al. 2003; Ferrari
et al. 2004).
The volatile fractions VFB1 and VFB2, volatile and non-
volatile compositions of which is being described in
Tables 1 and 2, respectively, were also signicantly perceived
as being very different (test 221 correct answers out of 24).
The comparison between tests 1 and 2 indicated that the
absence of nonvolatile components did not have an impact
on perception differences between the two brandies as both
tests were signicant. In addition, the odor seemed to play a
very important role on the perception of sensory differ-
ences, as conrmed in the following test.
The very signicant score (20 correct answers out of 24)
obtained during test 3, for which panelists evaluated volatile
fractions VFB1 and VFB2 by the orthonasal pathway alone,
conrmed that odor perception was product dependent.
This can be explained by a specic composition in aroma
compounds for each brandy, as gured in Table 1. Because
tests 2 and 3 had similar results, it was concluded that
sample odor plays a major role on the perception of sensory
differences between the different volatile fractions VFB1 and
VFB2. Their compositions, which mainly included volatile
components (Table 1), induced signicant differences in
sensory perception. Differences between results from tests 2
and 3 were not sufcient enough to assume the existence of
sensory interaction between remaining nonvolatile compo-
nents and volatile components in VFB1 or VFB2, which
were already highlighted in wine (Senz-Navajas et al.
2012). Tests 410 were used to better understand the impact
of the nonvolatile composition on the sensory perception of
French grape brandies.
Finally, triangle tests 4 and 5 revealed that no signicant
difference was observed between reconstituted brandies
RB1 and RB2, regardless of the evaluation protocol used (9
and 8 correct answers, respectively, out 24). This means that
the difference in nonvolatile composition in the tested range
did not have an impact on odor and in-mouth perceptions
for brandies, probably because physicochemical or sensory
interactions between volatile and nonvolatile fractions
were not high enough to induce differences in aromatic
perception.
To further increase the understanding of the sensory per-
ception of brandies, model products (MB1 to MB4) were
used to test a wider range of nonvolatile concentrations,
even larger than the ones of commercial brandies. The
results of triangle tests 610 conrmed that nonvolatile
compounds had no impact on the sensory perception of
brandies, even at extended ranges. For example, no signi-
cant result was obtained (4 correct answers out of 24) in test
10, during which products with extreme levels of polyphe-
nols (200 versus 1,000 mg/L) and sugar (5 versus 25 g/L)
were tasted (Table 4). These results were not expected on
the basis of data available in the literature, notably in the
case of wines (Senz-Navajas et al. 2012). One hypothesis
focuses on the high ethanol content of brandies, which can
modify aroma compound volatilities and release behavior,
as well as their sensory perception (Goldner et al. 2009).
Concerning physicochemical interactions, most studies
demonstrated the retention effect of ethanol for the major-
ity of aroma compounds (Conner et al. 1998; Le Berre et al.
2007; Goldner et al. 2009). For example, Aths et al. (2004)
showed that increasing the ethanol concentration from 0 to
20% v/v led to a 60% decrease in the volatility of ethyl
hexanoate and isoamyl alcohol, two compounds frequently
found in brandies. More broadly, Aths et al. (2008) showed
that the air/product partition coefcient of 13 aroma com-
pounds commonly found in brandies was decreased by
several orders of magnitude when the ethanol concentra-
tion in solution was increased from 10 to 90% v/v. In the
present study, due to the 40% v/v ethanol content of bran-
dies, the difference in nonvolatile composition might not be
high enough, compared with aroma retention phenomena
TABLE 4. NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS, TEST SIGNIFICANCE AND
P VALUE OBTAINED BY TRIANGLE TESTS
Test number
Number of
correct answers Signicance P value
1 21/24 S <0.001
2 21/24 S <0.001
3 20/24 S <0.001
4 9/24 NS 0.406
5 8/24 NS 0.576
6 5/24 NS 0.941
7 6/24 NS 0.862
8 6/24 NS 0.862
9 6/24 NS 0.862
10 4/24 NS 0.980
Test numbers are dened in Table 3.
NS, not signicant; S, signicant.
G. FICHES ET AL. IMPACT OF BRANDY NONVOLATILE COMPOSITION ON SENSORY PERCEPTION
61 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 5663 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
due to ethanol, to induce differences in the sensory percep-
tion of the two brandies. From a sensory point of view, gus-
tatory, olfactory and trigeminal systems can all be involved
in the perception of ethanol, leading to possible sensory
interactions between trigeminal and other sensations
(Jackson 2009). Le Berre et al. (2007) showed that the addi-
tion of ethanol to aqueous solutions suppressed the sensory
interaction between oak and fruity smells. It was also high-
lighted that ethanol can disturb the sensory perception of
red wine by enhancing some sensations, especially those
perceived on the palate (King et al. 2013), and by masking
others such as fruity aromas (Goldner et al. 2009). Wilson
et al. (1973) reported that, for ethanol concentrations
greater than 21% v/v, an uncomfortable burning sensation
was observed in the mouth. However, the number of studies
focusing on the effect of the warm and burning tastes of
ethanol on the sensory perception of alcoholic beverages
remains limited and often concerns beverages with ethanol
contents ranging between 11 and 13.5% v/v.
CONCLUSION
The present results reafrmed the difculty in studying the
perception of distilled beverages and, more generally, high
ethanol-containing beverages. If nonvolatile components
seemed to be very important to explain wine perceptions, it
is probably not the case for French grape brandies. Indeed,
no signicant sensory differences were observed between
products containing sugar and phenols at contents of
between 525 g/L and 2001,000 mg/L, respectively. The
wide variation ranges tested allow to conclude on the
absence of signicant effect of the nonvolatile composition
on the sensory perception of French grape brandies. In
order to further increase the understanding of relationships
between distilled beverage composition (especially aroma
compounds whose main role has been reafrmed in this
study) and their sensory perception, it is essential to take
product specicity into account, and notably the high
ethanol content. As a consequence, the use of instrumental
characterization alone to determine product quality in
relation to its aromatic complexity does not necessarily
represent sensory reality as differences in composition do
not systematically lead to differences in perception.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Gail Wagman for her precious help in
revising the English.
REFERENCES
ATHS, V., PEA Y LILLO, M., BERNARD, C.,
PEREZ-CORREA, R. and SOUCHON, I. 2004. Comparison
of experimental methods for measuring innite dilution
volatilities of aroma compounds in water/ethanol mixtures.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 52, 20212027.
ATHS, V., PARICAUD, P., ELLAITE, M., SOUCHON, I. and
FRST, W. 2008. Vapourliquid equilibria of aroma
compounds in hydroalcoholic solutions: Measurements with a
recirculation method and modelling with the NRTL and
COSMO-SAC approaches. Fluid Phase Equilib. 265, 139154.
CONNER, J.M., BIRKMYRE, L., PATERSON, A. and
PIGGOTT, J.R. 1998. Headspace concentrations of ethyl esters
at different alcoholic strengths. J. Sci. Food Agric. 77, 121126.
DELWICHE, J. 2004. The impact of perceptual interactions on
perceived avor. Food Qual. Prefer. 15, 137146.
FERRARI, G., LABLANQUIE, O., CANTAGREL, R.,
LEDAUPHIN, J., PAYOT, T., FOURNIER, N. and
GUICHARD, E. 2004. Determination of key odorant
compounds in freshly distilled cognac using GC-O, GC-MS,
and sensory evaluation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52, 56705676.
GOLDNER, M.C., ZAMORA, M.C., DI LEO LIRA, P.,
GIANNINOTO, H. and BANDONI, A. 2009. Effect of ethanol
level in the perception of aroma attributes and the detection
of volatile compounds in red wine. J. Sensory Studies 24,
243257.
GUICHARD, H., LEMESLE, S., LEDAUPHIN, J., BARILLIER, D.
and PICOCHE, B. 2003. Chemical and sensorial aroma
characterization of freshly distilled Calvados. 1. Evaluation of
quality and defects on the basis of key odorant by
olfactometry and sensory analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51,
424432.
HOLLIS, F.H. and HALPERN, B.P. 2012. Assessment of
low-density polyethylene squeeze bottles in delivering wine
vapor-phase stimuli: A preliminary study. J. Sensory Studies
27, 314323.
JACKSON, R.S. 2009. Olfactory sensations. In Wine Tasting: A
Professional Handbook Elsevier Press, 2nd Ed., pp. 55128,
Academic Press, Ontario, Canada.
KING, E.S., DUNN, R.L. and HEYMANN, H. 2013. The
inuence of alcohol on the sensory perception of red wines.
Food Qual. Prefer. 28, 235243.
LE BERRE, E., ATANASOVA, B., LANGLOIS, D., ETIEVANT, P.
and THOMAS-DANGUIN, T. 2007. Impact of ethanol on the
perception of wine odorant mixtures. Food Qual. Prefer. 18,
901908.
LEKSRISOMPONG, P.P., LOPETCHARAT, K., GUTHRIE, B.
and DRAKE, M.A. 2012. Descriptive analysis of carbonated
regular and diet lemon-lime beverages. J. Sensory Studies 27,
247263.
MAATELLI, M., PIGGOTT, J.R. and PATERSON, A. 2010.
Structure of ethanol-water systems and its consequences
for avour. In Worldwild Distilled Spirits Conference,
New Horizons: Energy, Environment and Enlightenment
(P.S. Hughes, ed.) pp. 235242, Nottingham University Press,
Nottingham, U.K.
MEILLON, S., VIALA, D., MEDEL, M., URBANO, C.,
GUILLOT, G. and SCHLICH, P. 2010. Impact of partial
IMPACT OF BRANDY NONVOLATILE COMPOSITION ON SENSORY PERCEPTION G. FICHES ET AL.
62 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 5663 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
alcohol reduction in Syrah wine on perceived complexity and
temporality of sensations and link with preference. Food
Qual. Prefer. 21, 732740.
MITROPOULOU, A., HATZIDIMITRIOU, E. and
PARASKEVOPOULOU, A. 2011. Aroma release of a model
wine solution as inuenced by the presence of non volatile
components. Effect of commercial tannin extracts,
polysaccharides and articial saliva. Food Res. Int. 44,
15611570.
MOSKOWITZ, H.R. 1995. Food quality: Conceptual and
sensory aspects. Food Qual. Prefer. 6, 157162.
NYKNEN, L. and NYKNEN, I. 1991. Distilled beverages. In
Volatile Compounds in Foods and Beverages (H. Maarse, ed.)
pp. 547580, Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, NY.
PICQUE, D., LIEBEN, P., CORRIEU, G., CANTAGREL, R.,
LABLANQUIE, O. and SNAKKERS, G. 2006. Discrimination
of cognacs and other distilled drinks by mid-infrared
spectroscopy. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54, 52205226.
RAPP, A. and MANDERY, H. 1986. Wine aroma. Experientia
42, 873884.
ROESSLER, E.B., PANGBORN, R.M., SIDEL, J.L. and STONE,
H. 1978. Expanded statistical tables for estimating signicance
in paired-preference, duo-trio and triangle tests. J. Food Sci.
43, 940943.
SENZ-NAVAJAS, M.P., CAMPO, E., AVIZCURI, J.M.,
VALENTIN, D., FERNNDEZ-ZURBANO, P. and
FERREIRA, V. 2012. Contribution of non-volatile and aroma
fractions to in-mouth sensory properties of red wines: Wine
reconstitution strategies and sensory sorting task. Anal. Chim.
Acta 732, 6472.
TSACHAKI, M., LINFORTH, R.S.T. and TAYLOR, A. 2005.
Dynamic headspace analysis of the release of volatile organic
compounds from ethanolic systems by direct APCI-MS.
J. Agric. Food Chem. 53, 83288833.
VIDAL, S., COURCOUX, P., FRANCIS, L., KWIATKOWSKI, M.,
GAWEL, R., WILLIAMS, P., WATERS, E. and CHEYNIER, V.
2004. Use of an experimental design approach for evaluation
of key wine components on mouth-feel perception. Food
Qual. Prefer. 15, 209217.
VOILLEY, A. and LUBBERS, S. 1998. Flavor-matrix interactions
in wine. In ACS Symposium Series, Vol. 714 (A.L. Waterhouse
and S.E. Ebeler, eds.) pp. 217229, American Chemical
Society, Washington, DC.
WILSON, C.W.M., OBRIEN, C. and MACAIRT, J.G. 1973. The
effect of metronidazole on the human taste threshold to
alcohol. Br. J. Addict. 68, 99110.
G. FICHES ET AL. IMPACT OF BRANDY NONVOLATILE COMPOSITION ON SENSORY PERCEPTION
63 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 5663 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.