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
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.
. Quality evaluation of mixed brewed perries based on PCA and sensory evaluation[J]. Frontiers of Agriculture in China, 2011, 5(4): 529-533.
Yanhui WANG, Yuan LIU, Yuxing ZHANG, Zhanyang XU. Quality evaluation of mixed brewed perries based on PCA and sensory evaluation. Front Agric Chin, 2011, 5(4): 529-533.
Clear, inclusion undetected, not so cheerfully colored
12-14
C
Turbid, no luster, uncheerful
<12
D
Aroma (30)
Fruity, wine aroma strongly fragrant and coordinated
26-30
A
Fruity, fragrant, and still coordinated
22-25
B
Less fruity, probably with other smells, not appealing
18-21
C
Undesirable smell, disgusting
<18
D
Taste (40)
Rich, strong, coordinated, and cheerful
36-40
A
Coordinated, pure, and cheerful
30-35
B
Either plain, bitter, sour, or astringent, unappealing
25-29
C
Peculiar smell, disgusting
<24
D
Typicality (10)
Typical, unique, and excellent
9-10
A
Typical and unique
8
B
Typical, no so elegant
7
C
Nothing typical
<6
D
Tab.1
Fruit characteristics
Treatment group
Fruit
Acid content (g/100 g)
Polyphenol content (g/100 g)
Soluble solids content
Sugar content (g/100 g)
CK
Yali pear
0.09±0.01
0.02±0.003
10.2
11.69±0.24
Both acid and polyphenol contents three times higher than those of CK
1
Hawthorn
3.27±0.08
0.77±0.06
20.8
16.4±0.76
2
Kiwifruit
1.35±0.04
0.19±0.02
16.4
9.23±0.79
3
Kyoho grape
0.49±0.03
0.11±0.004
15.6
16.2±2.75
4
Brown plum
0.33±0.015
0.13±0.01
14.0
21.7±1.92
Acid content three times higher than that of CK
5
Nanguo pear
0.37±0.01
0.05±0.001
18.6
13.9±0.10
6
Fuji apple
0.29±0.02
0.05±0.004
15.1
13.33±0.05
Polyphenol content three times higher than that of CK
7
Dong jujube
0.21±0.06
0.38±0.12
23.8
16.0±0.98
8
Mopan persimmon
0.07±0.01
0.19±0.01
20.0
13.6±0.13
With strong aroma
9
Xuehua pear
0.05±0.01
0.03±0.01
14.0
13.05±0.13
10
Chi pear
0.13±0.01
0.03±0.01
14.0
11.14±0.03
11
Korla pear
0.08±0.01
0.02±0.01
19.3
11.04±0.51
Tab.2
Fig.1
Fig.2
Perry types
Alcohols (%)
Esters (%)
Acids (%)
Others (%)
PCA grade
Sensory evaluation of perry aroma
40:100 plum-Yali perry
1.70
96.84
–
0.93
41.03
B
40:100 grape-Yali perry
2.34
97.03
0.31
–
41.04
B
40:100 apple-Yali perry
4.16
81.58
–
14.25
32.83
C
Yali pear
34.65
61.75
–
–
12.78
B
25:100 hawthorn-Yali perry
64.47
30.74
–
–
12.5
B
15:100 hawthorn-Yali perry
72.14
25.86
0.01
–
17.67
C
35:100 hawthorn-Yali perry
76.36
20.65
–
–
21.6
C
Tab.3
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)
