104 Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 14, 104–115,

14, 104–115, 2008

Aroma properties of young Spanish monovarietal white wines:

a study using sorting task, list of terms and frequency
of citation
E. CAMPO1,2, B.V. DO2, V. FERREIRA1 and D. VALENTIN2
1
Laboratory for Flavor Analysis and Enology, Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of
Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
2
UMR CSG 5170 CNRS INRA UB, CESG, 15 Rue Hugues Picardet, 21000 Dijon, France
Corresponding author:Vicente Ferreira, fax +34 976 761292, email vferre@unizar.es

Abstract
Background and Aims: Little is known about the distinguishing role of variety on the sensory space of
commercial white monovarietal Spanish wines. The major aims of the present research were to define the
sensory space of these wines and to assess the actual influence of grape variety by means of a two-step
sensory methodology.
Methods and Results: Similarity between wines was first studied by a sorting task followed by
multidimensional scaling analysis. Then, sensory descriptive analysis (DA) based on citation frequencies
was performed on individual products. Descriptive data were analysed by correspondence analysis and
hierarchical cluster analysis. Verdejo and Sauvignon Blanc were the only varietals similarly perceived and
described by the panel, being tropical fruit as their major descriptor. No clear grouping on the basis of
grape variety was observed for the rest of the products, which were clustered into three different groups.
The first group contained wines with fruity (white fruit), spicy and floral properties, but the two
others contained wines defined with untypical and unfavourable descriptors (vegetal, leather, animal,
undergrowth).
Conclusions: Sorting task coupled with DA based on citation frequencies is a suitable tool to classify
samples and finely describe wine aroma. Leaving aside Verdejo and Sauvignon Blanc, grape variety is not
a major factor in defining the aroma properties of Spanish commercial wines; some of which develop
some unfavourable descriptors.
Significance of the Study: The role of neutral varietals to increase the diversity of the sensory space of
wines should be revisited.

Keywords: citation frequency, descriptive analysis, sorting task, Spanish varietal, wine

Introduction commercial wines prepared at relatively small scale. One

During the last decade, professionals from different
Spanish ‘denominations of origin’ have carried out exten-
sive work on retrieving native white grape varieties for
producing distinctive wines. Such varieties are mainly
employed for the elaboration of young 100% varietals,
which rarely undergo barrel ageing. Grape variety is, sup-
posedly, a major factor determining the final character
and quality in these kinds of products, which explains the
interest of scientists to characterise such varietals from a
sensory point of view.
Compared with foreign varietals, especially Chardon-
nay and Sauvignon Blanc, little data are available with
regard to the aroma properties of traditional Spanish
young white wines. Most of the published work has
focused on wines originating from a single and well-
delimited cultivar location using sometimes non-
doi: 10.1111/j.1755-0238.2008.00010.x
© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
of the first studies was carried out in the mid-1990s by De
la Presa-Owens and Noble (1995), who evaluated the
aroma properties of wines from Macabeo, Parellada and
Xarello from the Penedès region. Later, Gutierrez Afonso
et al. (1998) described wines from Verdejo, Listán Blanco
and Gual, originating from the Canary Islands. More
recently, Vilanova and Vilarino (2006) have presented a
series of studies concerning wines from Albariño and
Godello (Vilanova 2006), both of them exclusively located
in the Galician region. In all these studies, the samples
were analysed by descriptive analysis (DA), and data were
processed by principal component analysis. However, and
to the best of our knowledge, no comparative study
dealing with the aromatic sensory profiles of a wide range
of Spanish commercial young white varietals (from native
or foreign origin grapes) has been published to date.
Campo et al.
There are several relevant considerations about the
role of variety in the Spanish wine market, some of which
are also common to many other winemaking regions. The
first one is that the Spanish wine industry is fragmented
into many relatively small winemaking regions, some of
which share varietals but largely differ in climate and in
viticultural and enological practices. A second issue is the
lack of experience and tradition in the production and
marketing of monovarietal white wines, as most of them
were sold as blends in the past. A third, but also very
important, consideration is that most of the Spanish vari-
etals are non-floral and rather neutral. All these factors
acting concurrently may help in explaining why there is
no commonly accepted definition of what are the charac-
teristic attributes of most of these varietals. In fact, even
the sensory space of common Spanish white wines is not
well defined, which means that the diversity of sensory
nuances is not really well known, nor of course is it
possible to assess the contribution of variety to such
sensory diversity. As a result, it is not possible to make a
rational prospect about the role that variety could play in
the future, which seriously hinders the effectiveness of any
research and development plan undertake to increase the
‘personality’ and specificity of the aroma of white wines.
From this point of view, it is crucial to know the
sensory space of monovarietal Spanish white wines, to
assess the unifying and distinguishing role of variety on
such space and to verify whether there is some other
parameter exerting a major influence on the sensory
space. The present research intended to address some of
the above issues. The specific goals were to know whether
commercial young wines of average quality made with
the same varietal can be identified and classified as
members of the same group; to evaluate the degree of
difference existing between wines made with different
varietals; and finally, to evaluate, in depth, the aroma
properties that better characterise such wines.
Classical evaluation of wine aroma consists of estab-
lishing sensory profiles by means of DA, as evidenced by
the abundant scientific literature existing to this respect
(Guinard and Cliff 1987, Heymann and Noble 1987,
Noble and Shannon 1987, De la Presa-Owens and Noble
1995, Gutierrez Afonso et al. 1998, Falque et al. 2004).
According to this methodology, a relatively low number
of aroma terms (between 5 and 16) are quantified using
an intensity rating scale by a panel of specifically trained
subjects. The two most frequent problems associated with
this methodology are the different interpretation that
subjects make of terms and the difficulty in the use of
intensity scales (Lawless 1999). These problems are partly
solved after thorough training, but such process can be
time consuming and difficult when the samples being
measured are heterogeneous and do not show specific
and easily identifiable descriptors. In this case, a large
number of descriptors, many of which can be very diffi-
cult to evaluate in many of the samples, have to be
defined and used, which makes the work extremely com-
plicated. Reducing the number of descriptors makes the
task easier, but reduces the accuracy of the analysis.
Indeed, this is the case of wine aroma evaluation, as it has
© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines 105
been recently pointed out by Koussissi et al. (2007).
These authors have noted that, in general, most sensory
panels describing wine with classical sensory methodol-
ogy have difficulties with aroma terms and that the use of
large lists of aroma descriptors does not guarantee a good
discrimination between samples. In the present work, a
two-step methodology is proposed as an alternative to
classical DA. The methodology includes a free sorting
task, followed by a DA based on citation frequencies.
Such methodology has been recently applied to wine
(Piombino et al. 2004, Parr et al. 2007), although in both
cases, the type of samples and the goals of the study were
quite specific (looking for berry fruit notes or for typical-
ity), while here, the methodology will be used as a
general screening technique.
The sorting procedure explores the similarity/
dissimilarity among a set of products. Subjects are asked to
examine a set of samples and to group them according to
a similar property (odour, flavour, colour, shape, etc.).
Generally, subjects are also asked to briefly characterise
the groups once they have been established. This task is
‘especially well adapted for the evaluation of food prod-
ucts as it is rapid and produces little fatigue and boredom’
(Bijmot and Wedel 1993). It permits the examination of
large sets of products in a single session and has been
already applied to study the aroma properties of a variety
of foods (Lawless et al. 1995, Saint-Eve et al. 2004, Cartier
et al. 2006) and beverages (Falahee and MacRae 1997,
Chollet and Valentin 2000, 2001, Piombino et al. 2004,
Ballester et al. 2005, Pages 2005). For example, Piombino
et al. (2004) reported that a sorting task followed by
multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis was an efficient
way of exploring the flavour similarities among 22 red
wines. The sorting procedure leads to a better understand-
ing of the similarities between products and provides
meaningful information regarding holistic perception of
samples. However, as it generates only group data, an
additional step is necessary to evaluate in greater depth
the sensory characteristics of the individual samples.
Such evaluation can be carried out with the frequency
of citation method, which has been previously applied to
evaluate wine odour attributes (McCloskey et al. 1996, Le
Fur et al. 2003, Piombino et al. 2004). In this technique,
subjects have to simply select the most pertinent odour
attributes from a list containing a relatively high number
of terms. Although this procedure is not exempt from
problems related to the use of descriptors in a consensual
way, it avoids the use of intensity scales and makes it
possible to obtain quite detailed descriptions of the prod-
ucts. We sought to establish whether this technique,
when used in conjunction with a sorting task, would
allow the determination of the real effect exerted by the
grape variety on the aroma properties of a selection of
commercial Spanish white wines.
Materials and methods
Panel
A total of 36 people were recruited on the basis of their
interest and their availability for approximately 10
106 Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 14, 104–115, 2008

Table 1. Grape variety, origin, brand and code of the studied wines.

Grape varieties Origin Brand Code

Albariño Rías Baixas Alargo Albala

Albariño Rías Baixas Lusco Alblus
Albariño Rías Baixas Estación Enológica Ablest
Chardonnay Cariñena Care Chacar
Chardonnay Costes del Segre Raimat Charai
Chardonnay Somontano Enate Chaena
Godello Valdeorras Estación Enológica Godest
Godello Valdeorras Gaba do Xil Godsil
Godello Valdeorras Guitián Godgui
Macabeo Calatayud Viña Aldaba Macald
Macabeo (Viura) Rioja Sierra Cantabria Macsie
Macabeo Rioja El Coto Maccot
Sauvignon Blanc Rueda Marqués de Riscal Saumar
Sauvignon Blanc Rueda Sanz Sausan
Verdejo Rueda Marqués de Riscal Vermar
Verdejo Rueda Naia Vernai
Verdejo Rueda Villa Narcisa Vernar
Treixadura, Torrontés Ribeiro Gran Solbeira Tresol
Treixadura Ribeiro Villa Mein Tremei
Treixadura Ribeiro Estación Enológica Treest
Xarello Penedés Albert i Noya Xarain
Xarello Penedés Anna Vallformosa Xarann
Palomino Fina Cádiz Antonio Barbadillo Palbar

weeks (two 1-h sessions per week). A 1-h selection
session was devoted to choose the best panellists suited to
performing descriptive tasks. Screening tests included the
identification of ten common odours (grapefruit, apple,
coconut, rose, orange blossom, honeysuckle, geranium,
asparagus and pepper) and free odour description of a
white and a red wine. Those candidates showing sensory
deficiencies to identify basic odours or a manifest inability
to verbal description were not selected to participate in
the study. The final panel of 32 judges (14 women, 18
men, median age 32 years) consisted of students and staff
of the University of Burgundy. They were habitual or
occasional consumers of white wines (several times a
month) and were not paid for their participation.
Wines
Twenty-three commercial monovarietal young white
wines made from different grape varieties produced in
different Spanish regions were studied (see Table 1). In all
cases, fermentation and maturation were carried out in
stainless steel tanks without contact with wood. Wines
were all non-sparkling from the 2004 vintage and with
less than 2 g/L of residual sugar. Three different wines
from each grape variety were included in the study,
except in the case of Xarello (two samples), Sauvignon
Blanc (two samples) and Palomino Fino (one sample) for
which only reduced numbers of commercial monovari-
etals were available. The selection of samples was made as
a random survey from commercial wines belonging to the
medium quality range (between 4 and 12 Euros/bottle).
All the bottles were sealed with natural cork stoppers.
The wines were stored in a climate-controlled, dark
cellar maintained at 13°C. Four bottles of each wine were
available for this study. Wine bottles were opened 30 min
prior to test sessions. After wines were verified free of
cork taint by the panel leader, 20 mL samples were
poured at room temperature (around 19°C) into dark
INAO-approved wineglasses labelled with random three-
digit codes and covered by plastic Petri dishes to allow the
volatiles to equilibrate in the headspace. The sessions took
place in a ventilated and air-conditioned tasting room.
Because we were interested only in the aroma profile of
wines and that previous works (Aubry et al. 1999, Ball-
ester et al. 2005, Lillo et al. 2005) showed a good corre-
lation between orthonasal and retronasal evaluation of
wine aromas, the study was limited to an orthonasal
evaluation. This had the advantage of reducing judge
fatigue as well as alcohol consumption.
Sorting task
Procedure. Each panellist participated individually in one
45-min session. First, the panellists were required to smell
each of the 23 wines once in the proposed order. After-
ward, they could smell the samples as many times as they
wanted and in any order. The panellists were asked to sort
the wines into groups on the basis of odour similarity.
No other instruction was given, except that they were
© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Campo et al.
allowed to form as many groups as they wanted, and to
put as many wines as they wished in each group. After
the completion of the task, the panellists were asked to
provide a few words to describe each of the groups they
had formed. The panellists were not informed about the
nature of the samples.
Statistical analysis: MDS and hierarchical cluster analy-
sis (HCA). Sorting data were first explored by MDS
analysis. For each possible pair of wines, the number of
times that two wines were sorted into the same group
was first counted across all subjects. The resulting
co-occurrence matrix was submitted to an MDS analysis
in order to derive a spatial representation of wines (Schiff-
man 1976). A non-parametric scaling algorithm was used
(alternating least-square scaling). This procedure seeks
iteratively a solution preserving the rank-order of the
perceived similarities between products. The quality of fit
is measured by the stress value, which is the sum of the
squares of differences between observed dissimilarities
and distances in the final configuration. Finally, coordi-
nates of samples in the MDS configuration were submit-
ted to HCA with the Ward criteria to aid the interpretation
of groupings of wines in the MDS charts. All the analyses
were performed with the software SAS/STAT version 6.0
(SAS Institute Inc., Cary, New York, USA).
Descriptive task
Procedure. Panel training. The panellists received des-
criptive sensory training in eight 1-h sessions over a
period of 2 weeks. They were provided with an initial list
of 108 terms. The list was elaborated by compiling terms
from other lists employed in the description of wines from
different varieties and geographical origins (Noble et al.
1987, Peynaud and Blouin 1999, Aznar et al. 2003, Le
Fur et al. 2003, Valentin et al. 2003, Piombino et al.
2004). Terms were arranged in the list by odour families:
fruity, floral, spices, vegetal, burnt, undergrowth and
others. The fruit family was subdivided into three catego-
ries ranging from general to specific terms (e.g. fruity,
white fruits and pear). The other families were not sub-
divided in categories.
During training, different reference standards repre-
sentative of aroma terms were presented. Commercially
available standards were taken from Sentosphère (Paris,
France), ‘Le Nez du Vin’ (Jean Lenoir, Provence, France)
and Firmenich (Geneva, Switzerland). The standards not
commercially available were prepared with natural prod-
ucts. The sensory properties of the former were stable
during the whole period of the study. The latter were
prepared at the beginning of each day in order to guar-
antee good aroma quality.
The training period was composed of two phases:
general and specific training. Each of the five sessions of
general training was divided into two parts. In the first
part (20 min), the panellists became familiar with the
specific vocabulary of the list and smelled different stan-
dard aromatic references. In the second part, the panel-
lists had to evaluate four different wines and to describe
© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines 107
their odour properties with the aid of the list. The session
ended by a discussion during which the panel leader
highlighted the terms most frequently cited to describe
each wine. The wines selected for this training phase
presented intense and easily recognisable odour proper-
ties and included young and barrel-aged red and white
wines of diverse grape varieties and origins. During the
training, the panellists modified the initial list of terms by
eliminating those terms they considered irrelevant,
ambiguous or redundant and by adding additional
attributes they considered pertinent. At the end of the
general training, the list included 101 terms.
The specific training consisted of three 1-h familiari-
sation sessions in which panellists described a total of 15
young white wines of similar characteristics (grape
variety and origin) as those of the study. The responses
were compiled for all 15 wines, and those terms cited by
less than 15% of the panel were eliminated from the list.
The final list included a total of 73 terms, together with
their corresponding odour reference standards, which is
presented in Table 2.
Wine evaluation. The 46 samples (23 wines ¥ two repeti-
tions) were divided into two blocks of 12 wines and two
blocks of 11 wines with approximately the same propor-
tion of varietals in each. Within a block, the samples
were presented simultaneously according to the William
Latin-square arrangement (FIZZ Biosystems, Couternon,
France) in order to reduce biases related to the order,
carry-over or expectation effects (MacFie et al. 1989).
Each member of the panel took part in four 1-h sessions
over 2 weeks, assessing one block per session. A 10-min
break was enforced in the middle of each session to limit
panellist fatigue. The panellists were asked to smell the
odour of wines and then to allocate to each wine a
maximum of six odour terms from the list of 73 terms. A
different bottle of wine was employed in each replication.
The panellists were not informed about the nature of the
wines to evaluate.
Data analysis. Individual panellists’ performance. To as-
sess the individual performance, an average reproducibil-
ity index (Ri) was calculated for each of the panellists:
Ri = Σ [ 2 × descom (desrep1 + desrep2 )] n
where descom is the number of common terms given by the
judge in the two replicates of a wine, desrep1 and desrep2 are
the number of terms given by the judge in the first and
second repetitions, respectively, and n is the number of
wines.
Terms citation frequency (Cf). All 73 terms were ranked
according to their Cf percentage to identify the most rele-
vant terms of each wine. Only terms cited by a minimum
of five judges (15% of the panel) in, at least, one wine/re-
petition were considered for subsequent statistical analy-
ses. A chi-square (c2) analysis performed on the average Cf
(two repetitions) of each term in the 23 wines was carried
out in order to identify the most discriminant terms.
108 Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 14, 104–115, 2008

Table 2. List of terms used for descriptive measures and odour reference standards presented
during the training period.

Term Odour reference (source/brand) Quantity or concentration

Fruity
White fruits
Quince Quince jelly (Bon Maman) 1 teaspoon†
Pear Solution (Firmenich) 400 mg/L‡
Apple Solution (Firmenich) 400 mg/L‡
Yellow fruits
Apricot Solution (Firmenich) 500 mg/L‡
Peach Solution (Firmenich) 500 mg/L‡
Melon Solution (Firmenich) 400 mg/L‡
Citrus fruits
Bergamot Solution (Firmenich) 500 mg/L‡
Lemon Lemon natural aroma (Vahiné) Diluted 1/3‡
Orange Orange juice (Granini) Diluted 1/3‡
Grapefruit Solution (Firmenich) 300 mg/L‡
Red fruits
Cherry N° 15 (Le Nez du Vin)
Strawberry N° 24 (Le Nez du Vin)
Raspberry Solution (Firmenich) 200 mg/L‡
Redcurrant Redcurrant jelly (Bon Maman) 1 teaspoon†
Black fruits
Blackcurrant N° 14 (Le Nez du Vin)
Blackberry Blackberry yogurt (Yoplait) 1 teaspoon†
Plum N° 7 (Le Nez du Vin)
Dry fruits
Date Dry date 1 unit†
Fig Dry fig 1 unit†
Prune Prune 1 unit†
Exotic fruits
Banana Solution (Firmenich) 200 mg/L‡
Kiwi Kiwi juice (Caraïbos) Diluted 1/3‡
Pineapple Solution (Firmenich) 200 mg/L‡‡
Passion fruit Passion fruit juice (Caraïbos) Diluted 1/3‡
Lychee Solution (Firmenich) 300 mg/L‡
Mango Solution (Firmenich) 300 mg/L‡
Crystallised fruit Crystallised fruit (Vahiné) 2 units†
Muscat Rivesaltes muscat 5 mL†
Stone fruit Solution (Firmenich) 5000 mg/L‡
Floral
Acacia N° 2 (Le Nez du Vin)
Lime N° 50 (Le Nez du Vin)
Orange blossom Solution (Firmenich) 100 mg/L‡
Jasmine Solution (Firmenich) 100 mg/L‡
Lilac Solution (Firmenich) 200 mg/L‡
Violet Solution (Firmenich) 5000 mg/L‡
Chamomile Chamomile (Lipton) 1 tea sachet in 200 mL water
Rose Solution (Firmenich) 300 mg/L‡
Honeysuckle Solution (Firmenich) 100 mg/L‡
Geranium Geranium petals 4 units†
Honey Honey (Carrefour) 2 mL†

© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

Campo et al. Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines 109

Table 2. Continued

Term Odour reference (source/brand) Quantity or concentration

Spicy
Fennel Fennel grains Five grains†
Liquorice Liquorice Stick (2 ¥ 1 cm)†
Clove Clove grains (Amora) 2 units†
Vanilla Vanilla extract (Vahiné) 1 mL†
Nutmeg Nutmeg (Amora) 1 teaspoon†
Black pepper Black pepper grains (Amora) 2 units†
Burnt
Smoky Standard (Sentosphère) §
Caramel Liquid caramel (Vahiné) 1 mL†
Toasted bread Standard (Sentosphère) §
Silex Flint 1 unit†
Vegetal
Vegetables
Artichoke Juice of artichoke in conserve 1 mL (diluted 1/10)†
(Carrefour)
Asparagus Juice of asparagus in conserve 1 mL (diluted 1/10)†
(Carrefour)
Cauliflower Juice of cauliflower in conserve 1 mL (diluted 1/10)†
(Carrefour)
Green beans Juice of green beans in conserve 1 mL (diluted 1/10)†
(Carrefour)
Olives Olive juice 10 mL (diluted 1/3)†
Bay leaf Bay leaf One chopped leaf†
Herbaceous Standard (Firmenich) 1 mL†
Animal
Musk Standard (Sentosphère) §
Cat urine Standard (Sentosphère) §
Wet dog Wet dog hair One lock†
Leather Standard (Sentosphère) §
Undergrowth
Mushroom Standard (Sentosphère) §
Humus Humus 10 g†
Earthy Earth 10 g†
Others
Lactic Solution (Firmenich) 1 mL†
Biscuit Standard (Sentosphère) §
Cider Cider (Carrefour) Diluted 1/3‡
Cooked meat Fumet (Viandox-Maggi) Two drops‡
Iode Solution (Firmenich) 1 mL†
Baking powder Solution (Firmenich) 1 mL†
Mouldy Solution (Firmenich) 1 mL†
Oak Oak essence 1 mL†
Ink Liquid Ink (Inoxcrom) 1 mL†

Descriptor, reference (chemical or natural) and employed quantities.

† Contained in a glass amber flask of 125 mL.
‡ Glass amber flask (60 mL) containing an absorbent paper support (5 ¥ 11 cm) impregnated with 10 mL of the odourant solution.
1 Solution (Firmenich): concentration is expressed in relation to the concentration of the commercial solution. The solvent employed
was mineral oil from Sigma (St. Louis, Pennsylvania, USA).
2 Natural product: diluted with purified water (Milli-Q, Millipore, Massachusetts, USA).
§ Standard Sentosphère directly placed in a glass amber flask of 125 mL.

© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

110 Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 14, 104–115, 2008

Correspondence analysis (CA) and HCA. Data were the sorting task showed that two different wines were
explored by CA. CA requires that data are organised into sorted in the same group a maximum of 17 times, which
a contingency table, the goal of CA being to transform corresponds to 52% of the panel (Verdejo Naia and
such a table into a graphical display. The resulting CA Verdejo Marqués de Riscal). On the contrary, several
map can then be interpreted using HCA. HCA makes it wines were never sorted together by any of the panellists,
possible to check the spatial arrangement of CA data and for example, Godello Gaba do Xil and Macabeo Coto, or
refine the interpretation of the map by identifying the Treixadura Villa Mein and Treixadura Gran Solbeira.
wines that belong to the same cluster (Lebart 1994). The resulting three-dimensional MDS chart (figure
A first contingency table, in which rows were the not shown) gave a stress value of 0.16, which indicated
wines (two replicates) and columns were the terms, was an acceptable representation of the original data. The
submitted to CA to explore the global reproducibility of examination of the MDS chart did not suggest a varietal
the panel. A second contingency table, containing the origin clustering as most of the wines were scattered over
average Cf of terms given by the most reproducible judges the map. These observations were corroborated by the
(according to the Ri value), was then constructed to study clusters yielded by the HCA (Figure 1). Four stable groups
the relationship between wines and terms. HCA with the emerge from the sorting task. Within the first cluster, all
Ward criteria was applied to the factorial coordinates of the Verdejo and Sauvignon Blanc wines appear clearly
the wines in the space defined by CA. The clusters iden- differentiated. No pattern seems to have emerged in the
tified by truncating the tree diagram were consolidated by second and third clusters as each comprised wines from
aggregation around mobile centres. The terms that best different varieties. The fourth cluster included the three
characterised each of the clusters were identified by using wines from Albariño, as well as a Chardonnay, a Treixa-
the test-value parameter (Morineau 1984). The test value dura and a Xarello. In Figure 1, each cluster has been
corresponds to a statistical criterion akin to a standardised labelled by a few generic descriptors, which roughly rep-
variable (zero mean and unit variance). Significance is resent the most usual terms given by the panellists. The
obtained when the absolute test value is ⱖ1.96, which first cluster was mainly described by ‘fruity’, and more
corresponds to an error threshold of 5%. By ranking the precisely, by ‘exotic fruits’. The second cluster was
terms according to their test values, it is possible to labelled by terms like ‘animal’ and ‘undergrowth’ as well
quickly characterise each of the clusters (Morineau as by terms with a hedonic connotation such as ‘unpleas-
1984). All analyses were performed with SPAD software ant’ or ‘bad odour’. Finally, the third and fourth clusters
(version 5.5, CISIA-CERESTA, Montreuil, France). were defined by non-specific terms such as ‘fruity’ or
‘floral’.
Results
Sorting task Descriptive test
The number of wine groups formed by the panellists
varied from 4 to 13 (median = 7). The maximum number Discriminant terms. The most discriminant terms,
of wines per group was nine, while groups constituted by according to the c2 criterion, are presented in Table 3.
a single wine were 21. The similarity matrix derived from Data in the table reveal that three different fruity families
Semi-partial R-squared

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Figure 1. Composition of the
clusters derived from the
fruity, exotic fruits animal, undergrowth, fruity, floral fruity, floral sorting task (clusters were
“unpleasant”, “bad odour”
selected on the basis of the
first large change in levels).
saumar

maccot
macald

sausan

chaena
macsie
godest
godgui
vermar

xarann
chacar

parbar
vernar

tremei
charai

xarain
vernai

albest

alblus
godsil

albala

treest
tresol

© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.

Campo et al. Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines 111

Table 3. Most discriminant terms according to chi-square (white, citrus and exotic fruits) varied significantly among
(c2) analysis. the wines. On the contrary, no specific floral term, with
the single exception of honey, was used in a discriminant
Descriptor P Significance way.

White fruits 0.057 * Panel reproducibility. The overall panel reproducibility

Citrus fruits 0.042 ** was explored using the projection of wine replicates on
Exotic fruits 0.000 **** the two-dimensional CA map (Figure 2). As can be seen
Pineapple 0.001 *** in the figure, most of the wine replicates are close to each
Passion fruit 0.000 **** other on the map. Taking into account that a different
Mango 0.000 **** bottle was used for each repetition, it can be said that,
Honey 0.098 * globally, the panel was reproducible when describing
Smoky 0.009 **** wines. Concerning individual reproducibility, the
Vegetables 0.037 ** maximum value of the Ri index (which varies from 0 to 1)
was 0.51, which corresponds to 51% of common terms
Cauliflower 0.052 *
between the two replicates for a subject. The minimum
Undergrowth 0.000 ****
value was 0.17 (median = 0.32). The responses from the
Mushroom 0.000 ****
subjects showing an Ri < 0.2 were left out from the study
Animal 0.000 **** so that the final CA map was run over the responses of a
Leather 0.090 * total of 28 panellists.
Wet dog 0.015 **
Mouldy 0.025 ** CA and hierarchical clustering. The projection of wines
and terms (average of two repetitions) into a bidimen-
* P < 0.1. sional CA map (60% inertia) can be seen in Figure 3.
** P < 0.05.
The interpretation of the dimensions of the CA map
*** P < 0.01.
**** P < 0.001. was established by statistical indicators measuring the

Figure 2. Projection of wine replicates on the two-dimensional correspondence analysis map.

© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
112 Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines
Figure 3. Projection of descriptors and samples in the correspondence analysis map (dimensions 1 and 2). Generic terms are written in
capital letters, and specific terms are in plain text.
contributions of each term to the inertia on such dimen-
sions. Only those attributes showing a contribution
higher than the average contribution were considered.
The first dimension, explaining 45% of the total variance,
reveals an aromatic opposition that could be summarised
by ‘unpleasant’ (e.g. cauliflower, mushroom or wet dog)
versus ‘fruity/floral’ terms. The second dimension,
explaining 15% of the total variance, opposes the ‘exotic
fruit’ attributes (mango, passion fruit) to the ‘sweet
spices’ such as cinnamon or liquorices.
The tree diagram resulting from the HCA (figure not
shown) revealed that three partition options, from ten
possible, were the most appropriate from a statistical
point of view, the number of clusters in each of these
partitions being, respectively, three, two and four. Even if
this option (three clusters) was the most natural partition
of the tree diagram, we chose the partition containing a
total of four clusters as it permitted to obtain more precise
descriptions of wines belonging to each of the groups. The
first and second clusters (C1 and C2) were constituted,
respectively, by four (Chardonnay Raimat, Albariño
Alargo, Treixadura Gran Solbeira and Treixadura
Estación) and three wines (Palomino Fino, Macabeo Coto
and Godello Guitian). Eleven wines were placed in the
third cluster (C3) including varietals from Xarello,
Godello, Macabeo, Chardonnay, Treixadura and
Albariño. Finally, the fourth cluster (C4) was formed by
the two wines from Sauvignon Blanc and the three wines
of Verdejo.
To examine precisely which terms contribute most to
the building of the clusters, we employed the test values
associated with each cluster. Table 4 lists the terms that
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 14, 104–115, 2008
showed statistically significant test values for each of the
clusters, ranked in decreasing order. These terms are
those that better define the aromatic properties of wines
appearing in each of the four groups. As can be seen, most
of the terms are specific to each cluster and only some
terms from the vegetal or animal families (vegetables,
green beans and leather) are shared by C1 and C2.
However, while C1 is richer in terms from the burnt
family (smoky, caramel, toasted bread), C2 is richer in
terms from the undergrowth (mushroom), animal (wet
dog) and vegetal (cauliflower, green beans, asparagus and
artichoke) families. C3 was mainly characterised by terms
from the spicy and floral families. Finally, C4 was mainly
defined by attributes such as passion fruit, mango and
blackcurrant.
For each cluster, the wine closest to the centre of
gravity was identified as the most typical exemplar of this
cluster. These were Albariño Alargo (C1), Palomino Fino
(C2), Albariño Lusco (C3) and Sauvignon Marqués de
Riscal (C4). The individual profiles of these wines are
presented in Table 5. In light of the terms hierarchy
obtained for those wines, the list of attributes employed
seems to be very appropriate, as it has led to detailed
descriptions of wines. Furthermore, the list of terms used
in this study seems to be particularly efficient when
describing wines with diverse fruity nuances. For
example, both Macabeo Albada and Verdejo Naia wines
showed high values for the fruity term (78 and 83%,
respectively). However, while the former was richer in
white fruits (44%; 27% pear), the latter was extremely
rich in exotic fruits (61%; 42% passion fruit), which
indicates two sensory profiles radically different.
© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Campo et al. Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines 113

Table 4. Terms showing statistically significant test value (ⱖ1.96) and contributing most to the building of each cluster.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Descriptor Test value Descriptor Test value Descriptor Test value Descriptor Test value

Smoky 3.99 Mushroom 6.09 Spicy 3.03 Passion fruit 8.24

Burnt 3.53 Undergrowth 5.45 Floral 2.99 Exotic fruits 7.20
Vegetal 3.20 Animal 4.49 White fruits 2.82 Mango 6.38
Animal 3.04 Mouldy 3.78 Liquorice 2.80 Citrus fruits 2.60
Vegetables 2.99 Cauliflower 3.73 Cinnamon 2.53 Blackcurrant 2.58
Caramel 2.92 Wet dog 3.71 Orange blossom 2.20 Yellow fruits 2.58
Bay leaf 2.35 Vegetables 3.67 Apricot 2.09 Fruity 2.07
Leather 2.32 Vegetal 3.39 Pear 2.06
Green beans 2.14 Humus 3.39
Oak 2.09 Green beans 3.07
Toasty bread 1.96 Leather 2.92
Asparagus 2.90
Earthy 2.68
Artichoke 2.06

Table 5. Sensory profiles (% of citation frequency) of wines that better represent the characteristics of each cluster.

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4

Descriptor Albariño Descriptor Palomino Descriptor Albariño Descriptor Sauvignon
Alargo Barbadillo Lusco Marqués

Fruity 53 Vegetal 55 Fruity 69 Fruity 83

Vegetal 52 Animal 47 Floral 49 Exotic fruits 47
Burnt 45 Fruity 34 Spicy 30 Citrus fruit 33
Smoky 31 Undergrowth 33 Citrus 28 Floral 33
Animal 31 Vegetables 31 Vegetables 28 Passion fruit 28
Spicy 30 Burnt 28 White fruits 25 White fruits 27
Dried fruits 27 Mushroom 27 Burnt 20 Vegetal 27
Floral 27 Floral 22 Dried fruits 19 Black fruits 22
Vegetables 27 Caramel 19 Rose 19 Spicy 19
Caramel 17 Wet dog 19 Exotic fruits 17 Yellow fruits 17
Oak 16 Mouldy 19 Yellow fruits 16 Blackberry 17
Leather 16 Leather 17 Quince 14 Burnt 17
Prune 11 Dried fruits 16 Cider 14 Mango 16
Bay leaf 11 Cauliflower 16 Red fruits 13 Dried fruits 14
Undergrowth 11 Grass 16 Black fruits 13 Quince 13
Earth 16 Prune 13 Pineapple 13
Nuts 11 Peach 11 Pear 11

Discussion defining the aroma characteristics of Spanish varietals.

The first aim of the present study was to know if the
subjects were able to group together, on the basis of their
aroma characteristics, wines made with the same variety.
The mapping that results from the sorting task makes it
possible to rapidly evaluate the odour similarities per-
ceived by the panel. In our study, no classification based
on varieties was observed excepting Verdejo, Sauvignon
Blanc and, to a lesser extent, Albariño. This clearly means
that, at present, grape variety is not the major factor
© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
This does not mean that the varietals lack specificity, but
that at present, such specificity is blurred by other factors
with a stronger influence on the aroma profile, such
as those related to geographical origin and to different
viticultural and enological practices.
In agreement with the sorting task, the descriptive
task shows that varietals from Verdejo and Sauvignon
Blanc are similar from an aromatic point of view. To our
knowledge, there are no reports describing the similarities
114 Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines
existing between these two varietals, a fact probably
because of the scarce number of studies dealing with
Verdejo wine aroma characteristics (Gutierrez Afonso
et al. 1998, Lopez et al. 2003, Campo et al. 2005) A recent
study carried out by Campo et al. (2005) pointed out that
Verdejo wines were rich in tropical fruit notes mainly
because of the presence of high levels of the powerful
aromatic thiol 3-mercaptohexylacetate, as seen in Sauvi-
gnon Blanc wines (Tominaga et al. 1996).
The second aim of this work was to evaluate the
degree of diversity potentially introduced by the variety
of grape. Within the limited scope of this study, only
wines from Verdejo and Sauvignon Blanc were found to
have a well delimited and specific sensory space, while
the remaining varietals share a common area of the
sensory space. Interestingly, there is no single sample
showing distinctive and positive attributes. This suggests
that there is, in fact, a little diversity in aroma nuances
among average quality young wines. This result is sur-
prising in the case of Chardonnay, as recent studies have
shown the typicality associated with wines produced
from this grape (Ballester et al. 2005). These same
authors have, however, also indicated that not all the
wines from Chardonnay are actually good examples of
the so-called ‘Chardonnay wine concept’.
The third goal of the present work was to evaluate the
odour characteristics of this set of wines. The results
confirm that only the wines made with Verdejo and Sau-
vignon Blanc have specific terms, such as exotic and
citrus fruits. The majority of wines clustered in cluster 3
(Table 5) share several common attributes such as fruity,
floral and spicy.
An unexpected result of the present work was the
presence of three wines with relatively unpleasant
nuances (cluster 2) and of another four with some
attributes belonging to the burnt and animal families
(cluster 1), far from the general idea of young white
wines without barrel ageing. In these cases, the four
bottles of each wine showed similar characteristics,
which indicates that such a problem cannot be associated
with the sampling of a single deficient bottle. An inter-
esting observation is that such flavours were not associ-
ated to the most common wine faults such as cork taint
or oxidation. The presence of such aroma nuances is
probably masking the existence of other positive aroma
features of these samples, which clearly constitutes an
additional factor for blurring the role of variety. The
existence of these ‘problematic’ samples is particularly
important, because the consumer will experience a
‘deception’ as the aromatic properties of the samples are
far from those expected. To illustrate this argument with
a real example, the aroma profile of one of the studied
wines, Chardonnay Raimat, given by a Spanish
commonly visited wine guide web site (http://
elmundovino.elmundo.es), was described as ‘floral,
fruity and aromatic herbs’. This profile is the opposite of
the descriptions given by our panel (see Figure 3 and
Table 4). Identifying the chemicals responsible for these
unexpected terms and finding the causes leading to their
formation should be a priority.
Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research 14, 104–115, 2008
In parallel with the sensory characterisation of wines,
an additional scope of the present paper was to evaluate
the suitability of the proposed strategy to study wine
aroma. The final list of terms is deemed appropriate as it
allows fine descriptions of the products to be established.
Less cited terms were those of the ‘animal’ (musk and cat
urine), ‘red fruit’ (cherry, strawberry, raspberry and red-
currant) and ‘spicy’ families (fennel, clove and nutmeg).
It is worth mentioning that up to six terms of the ‘floral’
category, a well-known descriptor for white varietals,
were below the 15% citation threshold, which indicates
that the number of floral terms of the list was in fact
excessive for young white wine description. The sorting
task followed by MDS proved to be a successful qualita-
tive instrument, allowing us to explore the holistic per-
ceptions of the samples. Then, DA based on citation
frequencies followed by CA and HCA (test values) made
it possible to successfully delimit the sensory spaces
where the different wines were pooled. Both sensory
methodologies are based on substantially different prin-
ciples but lead to similar conclusions, thus indicating a
good performance of the panellists to discriminate among
wines.
It is important to bear in mind that any method based
on frequencies needs a larger number of people than
classic DA. However, this kind of approach presents a
clear advantage with respect to classic DA. As panellists
follow a general training, the trained panel is ready to
evaluate quite different wine types with only two or three
additional specific training sessions. This permits time
saving compared with classical DA, which require com-
plete training each time different wine types are evalu-
ated. Concerning data analysis, it has been shown that,
even if the subjects do not rate perceived intensities, it is
possible to establish a hierarchy of the terms that best
define individual products (frequency citation percent-
age) or clustered wines (test values). A hierarchy of
the most discriminant terms is also possible when using
chi-square values.
Acknowledgements
This work has been funded by the Spanish government,
projects AGL2004-06060 and AGL2007-65139/ALI. The
authors thank the people who kindly participated in this
study.
References
Aubry, V., Schlich, P., Issanchou, S. and Etievant, P. (1999) Com-
parison of wine discrimination with orthonasal and retronasal
profilings. Application to Burgundy Pinot Noir wines. Food
Quality And Preference 10, 253–259.
Aznar, M., Lopez, R., Cacho, J. and Ferreira, V. (2003) Prediction
of aged red wine aroma properties from aroma chemical compo-
sition. Partial least squares regression models. Journal of Agricul-
tural and Food Chemistry 51, 2700–2707.
Ballester, J., Dacremont, C., Le Fur, Y. and Etievant, P. (2005) The
role of olfaction in the elaboration and use of the Chardonnay
wine concept. Food Quality and Preference 16, 351–359.
Bijmot, T.H.A. and Wedel, M. (1993) An investigation into multi-
dimensional scaling: Task effects on similarity data and solutions
of MAXSCAL. Doctoral Thesis, Institute of Economic Research,
University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Campo et al.
Campo, E., Ferreira, V., Escudero, A. and Cacho, J. (2005) Pre-
diction of the wine sensory properties related to grape variety
from dynamic-headspace gas chromatography-olfactometry data.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 53, 5682–5690.
Cartier, R., Rytz, A., Lecomte, A., Poblete, F., Krystlik, J., Belin, E.
and Martin, N. (2006) Sorting procedure as an alternative to
quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map.
Food Quality and Preference 17, 562–571.
Chollet, S. and Valentin, D. (2000) Le degré d’expertise a-t-il une
influence sur la perception olfactive? Quelques éléments de
réponse dans le domaine du vin. Année Psycologique 100, 11–
36.
Chollet, S. and Valentin, D. (2001) Impact of training on beer
flavor perception and description: Are trained and untrained sub-
jects really different? Journal of Sensory Studies 16, 601–618.
De la Presa-Owens, C. and Noble, A.C. (1995) Descriptive analysis
of three white wine varieties from Penedès. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 46, 5–9.
Falahee, M. and MacRae, A.W. (1997) Perceptual variation among
drinking waters: The reliability of sorting and ranking data for
multidimensional scaling. Food Quality and Preference 8, 389–
394.
Falque, E., Ferreira, A.C., Hogg, T. and Guedes-Pinho, P. (2004)
Determination of aromatic descriptors of Touriga Nacional wines
by sensory descriptive analysis. Flavour and Fragrance Journal 19,
298–302.
Guinard, J.X. and Cliff, M. (1987) Descriptive analysis of Pinot noir
wines from Carneros, Napa and Sonoma. American Journal of
Enology and Viticulture 38, 211–215.
Gutierrez Afonso, V.L., Darias, J., Armas, R., Medina, M.R. and
Diaz, E. (1998) Descriptive analysis of three white wine varieties
cultivated in the Canary Islands. American Journal of Enology
and Viticulture 49, 440–443.
Heymann, H. and Noble, A.C. (1987) Descriptive analysis of com-
mercial Cabernet-Sauvignon wines from California. American
Journal of Enology and Viticulture 38, 41–44.
Koussissi, E., Paterson, A. and Piggott, J.R. (2007) Sensory profil-
ing of aroma in Greek dry red wines using rank-rating and
modanic scoring related to headspace composition. European
Food Research and Technology 225, 749–756.
Lawless, H.T. (1999) Descriptive analysis of complex odours:
Reality, model or illusion? Food Quality and Preference 10, 325–
332.
Lawless, H.T., Sheng, N. and Knoops, S. (1995) Multidimensional
scaling of sorting data applied to cheese perception. Food Quality
and Preference 6, 91–98.
Le Fur, Y., Mercurio, V., Moio, L., Blanquet, J. and Meunier, J.M.
(2003) A new approach to examine the relationships between
sensory and gas chromatography-olfactometry data using gener-
alized procruster analysis applied to six French Chardonnay
wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51, 443–452.
Lebart, L. (1994) Complementary use of correspondence analysis
and cluster analysis. In: Complementary use of correspondence
analysis in the social sciences: Recent developments and applica-
tions. Eds. M. Greenacre and J. Blasius (Academic Press: London,
San Diego) pp. 162–178.
Lillo, M.P.Y., Latrille, E., Casaubon, G., Agosin, E., Bordeu, E. and
Martin, N. (2005) Comparison between odour and aroma profiles
of Chilean Pisco spirit. Food Quality and Preference 16, 59–70.
Lopez, R., Ortin, N., Perez-Trujillo, J.P., Cacho, J. and Ferreira, V.
(2003) Impact odourants of different young white wines from the
© 2008 Australian Society of Viticulture and Oenology Inc.
Varietal aroma properties of Spanish white wines 115
Canary Islands. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51,
3419–3425.
MacFie, H.J., Bratchell, N., Grennhoff, K. and Vallis, L.V. (1989)
Designs to balance the effects of order of presentation and first-
order carry-over effects in hall test. Journal of Sensory Studies 4,
129–148.
McCloskey, L.P., Sylvan, M. and Arrhenius, S.P. (1996) Descriptive
analysis for wine quality experts determining appellations by
Chardonnay wine aroma. Journal of Sensory Studies 11, 49–67.
Morineau, A. (1984) Note sur la caractérisation statistique d’une
classe par les valeurs-test. In: Bulletin technique du centre
international de statistique et d’informatique appliquées. (Saint-
Mandé France) pp. 20–27.
Noble, A.C. and Shannon, M. (1987) Profiling Zinfandel wines by
sensory and chemical analyses. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 38, 1–5.
Noble, A.C., Arnold, R.A., Buechsenstein, J., Leach, E.J., Schmidt,
J.O. and Stern, P.M. (1987) Modification of a standardized
system of wine aroma terminology. American Journal of Enology
and Viticulture 38, 143–146.
Pages, J. (2005) Collection and analysis of perceived product inter-
distances using multiple factor analysis: Application to the study
of 10 white wines from the Loire Valley. Food Quality and Pref-
erence 16, 642–649.
Parr, W.V., Green, J.A., Geoffrey White, K. and Sherlock, R.R.
(2007) The distinctive flavour of New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc:
Sensory characterisation by wine professionals. Food Quality and
Preference 18, 849–861.
Peynaud, E. and Blouin, J. (1999) Découvrir le goût du vin
(Dunod: Paris).
Piombino, P., Nicklaus, S., le Fur, Y., Moio, L. and Le Quéré, J.L.
(2004) Selection of products presenting given flavor characteris-
tics: An application to wine. American Journal of Enology and
Viticulture 55, 27–34.
Saint-Eve, A., Kora, E.P. and Martin, N. (2004) Impact of the
olfactory quality and chemical complexity of the flavouring agent
on the texture of low fat stirred yogurts assessed by three different
sensory methodologies. Food Quality and Preference 15, 655–
668.
Schiffman, S. (1976) Multidimensional scaling, a useful tool to
measure flavor. Cereal Foods World 21, 64–68.
Tominaga, T., Darriet, P. and Dubourdieu, D. (1996) Identification
of 3-mercaptohexyl acetate in Sauvignon wine, a powerful aro-
matic compound exhibiting box-tree odour. Vitis 35, 207–210.
Valentin, D., Chollet, S. and Abdi, H. (2003) Les mots du vin:
experts et novices diffèrent-ils quand ils décrivent des vins?
Corpus 2, 183–200.
Vilanova, M. (2006) Sensory descriptive analysis and consumer
acceptability of Godello wines from Valdeorras Apellation Origen
Controlee (Northwest Spain). Journal of Sensory Studies 21,
362–372.
Vilanova, M. and Vilarino, F. (2006) Influence of geographic origin
on aromatic descriptors of Spanish Albarino wine. Flavour and
Fragrance Journal 21, 373–378.
Manuscript received: 28 September 2007
Revised manuscript received: 25 March 2008
Accepted: 30 March 2008