Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Agriculture in China

ISSN 1673-7334

ISSN 1673-744X(Online)

CN 11-5729/S

Front Agric Chin    2011, Vol. 5 Issue (4) : 529-533    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11703-011-1128-9
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Quality evaluation of mixed brewed perries based on PCA and sensory evaluation
Yanhui WANG1, Yuan LIU2, Yuxing ZHANG3(), Zhanyang XU4
1. College of Life Science, Agricultural University of Hebei, Baoding 071001, China; 2. College of Graduate, Agricultural University of Hebei, Baoding 071001, China; 3. College of Horticulture, Agricultural University of Hebei, Baoding 071001, China; 4. College of Food Science and Technology, Agricultural University of Hebei, Baoding 071001, China
 Download: PDF(141 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

In order to improve the sensory quality of Yali perry and choose fruits specially suitable for mixed fermentation with Yali pear, 11 kinds of fruits were selected and contrasted, including hawthorn, kiwifruit, Kyoho grape, Brown plum, Fuji apple, Nanguo pear, Dongzao jujube, Mopan persimmon, Korla pear, and Chi pear. These fruits were mixed separately with Yali pear, thus turning out 64 different types of mixed perries. The assessment on products was made based on the physiochemical indexes, aroma components via gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), and comparison between the qualities of the mixed perries via sensory evaluation and principal component analysis (PCA). Based on the PCA on the physiochemical indexes of 39 mixed perries and aroma components of 7 mixed perries, the models aiming at evaluating perry flavor and aroma quality were established, which were compatible with those of sensory evaluation; based on the sensory evaluation and PCA, hawthorn, plum, grape, and apple were suitable specially for mixing brewing, among which the hawthorn-Yali perry in the proportion of 25:100 and plum-Yali perry in the proportion of 40:100 scored the highest. The results will be helpful to the development of perry industry.

Keywords Yali pear      perry      sensory evaluation      GC-MS analysis      principal component analysis     
Corresponding Author(s): ZHANG Yuxing,Email:zhyx@hebau.edu.cn   
Issue Date: 05 December 2011
 Cite this article:   
Yanhui WANG,Yuan LIU,Yuxing ZHANG, et al. Quality evaluation of mixed brewed perries based on PCA and sensory evaluation[J]. Front Agric Chin, 2011, 5(4): 529-533.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fag/EN/10.1007/s11703-011-1128-9
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fag/EN/Y2011/V5/I4/529
TermsGrading standardScoreRank
Color (20)Clear, crystal, cheerful18-20A
Clear, crystal, colored typically for fruit wine15-17B
Clear, inclusion undetected, not so cheerfully colored12-14C
Turbid, no luster, uncheerful<12D
Aroma (30)Fruity, wine aroma strongly fragrant and coordinated26-30A
Fruity, fragrant, and still coordinated22-25B
Less fruity, probably with other smells, not appealing18-21C
Undesirable smell, disgusting<18D
Taste (40)Rich, strong, coordinated, and cheerful36-40A
Coordinated, pure, and cheerful30-35B
Either plain, bitter, sour, or astringent, unappealing25-29C
Peculiar smell, disgusting<24D
Typicality (10)Typical, unique, and excellent9-10A
Typical and unique8B
Typical, no so elegant7C
Nothing typical<6D
Tab.1  Grading standards for fruit wine sensory evaluation
Fruit characteristicsTreatment groupFruitAcid content (g/100 g)Polyphenol content (g/100 g)Soluble solids contentSugar content (g/100 g)
CKYali pear0.09±0.010.02±0.00310.211.69±0.24
Both acid and polyphenol contents three times higher than those of CK1Hawthorn3.27±0.080.77±0.0620.816.4±0.76
2Kiwifruit1.35±0.040.19±0.0216.49.23±0.79
3Kyoho grape0.49±0.030.11±0.00415.616.2±2.75
4Brown plum0.33±0.0150.13±0.0114.021.7±1.92
Acid content three times higher than that of CK5Nanguo pear0.37±0.010.05±0.00118.613.9±0.10
6Fuji apple0.29±0.020.05±0.00415.113.33±0.05
Polyphenol content three times higher than that of CK7Dong jujube0.21±0.060.38±0.1223.816.0±0.98
8Mopan persimmon0.07±0.010.19±0.0120.013.6±0.13
With strong aroma9Xuehua pear0.05±0.010.03±0.0114.013.05±0.13
10Chi pear0.13±0.010.03±0.0114.011.14±0.03
11Korla pear0.08±0.010.02±0.0119.311.04±0.51
Tab.2  Basic physical and chemical indexes of fruit
Fig.1  The comprehensive sensory evaluation grade of perries. Legend means the ratio of fruit to pear juice. CK is Yali perry. 1-11 are hawthorn-Yali perry, kiwifruit-Yali perry, grape-Yali perry, plum-Yali perry, Nanguo pear-Yali perry, apple-Yali perry, jujube-Yali perry, persimmon-Yali perry, Xuehua pear-Yali perry, Chi pear-Yali perry, and Korla pear-Yali perry, respectively.
Fig.2  Tasting quality grade based on PCA model and sensory evaluation model. 1 is CK, Yali perry. 2-9 are hawthorn-Yali perry, 10-17 are grape-Yali perry, 18-25 are plum-Yali perry, 26-33 are apple-Yali perry, 34-36 are Chi pear-Yali perry, and 37-39 are Korla pear-Yali perry. In every group, the proportions increase in turn.
Perry typesAlcohols (%)Esters (%)Acids (%)Others (%)PCA gradeSensory evaluation of perry aroma
40:100 plum-Yali perry1.7096.840.9341.03B
40:100 grape-Yali perry2.3497.030.3141.04B
40:100 apple-Yali perry4.1681.5814.2532.83C
Yali pear34.6561.7512.78B
25:100 hawthorn-Yali perry64.4730.7412.5B
15:100 hawthorn-Yali perry72.1425.860.0117.67C
35:100 hawthorn-Yali perry76.3620.6521.6C
Tab.3  Aroma analysis of GC-MS and sensory evaluation model
1 García M, Aleixandre M, Gutiérrez J, Horrillo M C (2006). Electronic nose for wine discrimination. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemica , 113(2): 911–916
doi: 10.1016/j.snb.2005.03.078
2 Gu G X (1996). Wine Technology. China Light Industry Press , 449 (in Chinese)
3 Heymann H, Noble A C (1989). Comparison of canonical variate and principal component analyses of wine descriptive analysis data. Journal of Food Science , 54(5): 1355–1358
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1989.tb05991.x
4 Josie L Landon , Karen Weller, James F Harbertson (2008). Chemical and sensory evaluation of astringency in Washington state red wines. Am J Enol Vitic , (59)2:153–158
5 Legin A. Rudnitskaya A, Lvova L, Vlasov Yu, Natale C, Amico A (2003). Evaluation of Italian wine by the electronic tongue: recognition, quantitative analysis and correlation with human sensory perception. Analytica Chimica Acta , 484(1): 33–44
doi: 10.1016/S0003-2670(03)00301-5
6 Li J M, Li H (1996). Studies on wine grape maturity and wine quality in different ecological zones. Acta Agriculturae Boreali-Occidentalis Sinica , 5(4): 71–74 (in Chinese)
7 Li J, Nie J Y, Li H F, Xu G F, Wang X D, Wu Y L, Wang Z X (2008). On determination conditions for total polyphenols in fruits and its derived products by folin-phenol methods. Journal of Fruit Science : 126–131 (in Chinese)
8 Lozano J, Santos J P, Horrillo M C (2005). Classification of white wine aromas with an electronic nose. Talanta , 67(3): 610–616
doi: 10.1016/j.talanta.2005.03.015 pmid:18970214
9 McGourty G T, Butzke C E (1998). Feasibility of producing pear wine: pears produce premium sparkling wine. Calif Agric , 52(6): 31–36
doi: 10.3733/ca.v052n06p31
10 Nel A P (2011). The influence of different winemaking techniques on the extraction of grape tannins. Dissertation for the Master Degree. Stellenbosch University , 67–69
11 Niu G C, Zhu D, Wang J, Fan Z J, Li Z J (2009). Screening and molecular identification of superior yeasts for hippophae rhamnoides l. wine. Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology , 9(6): 60–65 (in Chinese)
12 Patel S, Shibamoto T (2003). Flavor compounds in wines produced from chardonnay grapes fermented with fruit juices. Food Sci Technol Res , 9(1): 84–86
doi: 10.3136/fstr.9.84
13 Pinheiro C, Rodrigues C M, Sch?fer T, Crespo J G (2002). Monitoring the aroma production during wine-must fermentation with an electronic nose. Biotechnology and Bioengineering , 77(6): 632–640 11807758
doi: 10.1002/bit.10141
14 Radeka S, Herjavec S, Per?uri? O, Luki? I, Sladonja B (2008). Effect of different maceration treatments on free and bound varietal aroma compounds in wine of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Malvazija istarska bijela. Food Technol Biotechnol , 46(1): 86–92
15 Ronald S Jackson (2008). Wine Science, Third Edition. Academic Press , 424
16 Vidal S, Francis L, Noble A, Kwiatkowski M, Cheynier V, Waters E (2004). Taste and mouth-feel properties of different types of tannin-like polyphenolic compounds and anthocyanins in wine. Anal Chim Acta , 513(1): 57–65
doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2003.10.017
17 Villamor R R, Harbertson J F, Ross C F (2009). Influence of tannin concentration, storage temperature, and time on chemical and sensory properties of cabernet sauvignon and merlot wines. Am J Enol Vitic , 60(4): 442–449
18 Yue T L, Peng B Z, Yuan Y H, Gao Z P, Zhang H, Zhao Z H (2007). Modeling of aroma quality evaluation of cider based on principal component analysis. Transactions of the CSAE , 23(6): 223–227 (in Chinese)
19 Zhang M, Xu Q, Duan C, Qu W, Wu Y (2007). Comparative study of aromatic compounds in young red wines from cabernet sauvignon, cabernet franc, and cabernet gernischet varieties in China. J Food Sci , 72(5): C248–C252
doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00357.x pmid:17995710
20 Zhang Y L, Dong X P, Liu Y L (2010). Analysis of polyphenol and anthocyanin composition in dry red wines of Cabernet Sauvignon grown in three regions. Sino-Overseas Grapevine & Wine , 11: 12–15 (in Chinese)
[1] Guiqin LI, Jing QI, Yuxing ZHANG, Zhihua GAO, Dongqian XU, Huixuan LI, Chenmin HUO. Construction and transformation for the antisense expression vector of the polyphenol oxidase gene in Yali pear[J]. Front Agric Chin, 2011, 5(1): 40-44.
[2] Yongbo WANG, Yuxing ZHANG, Jianghong ZHANG, . Effects of salicylic acid on the behavior of Yali pear infected by Alternaria kikuchiana Tanaka[J]. Front. Agric. China, 2010, 4(1): 79-83.
[3] LI Zhikun, WANG Xingfen, ZHANG Yan, ZHANG Guiyin, WU Liqiang, CHI Jina, Zhiying MA. Assessment of genetic diversity in glandless cotton germplasm resources by using agronomic traits and molecular markers[J]. Front. Agric. China, 2008, 2(3): 245-252.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed