HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Perrin, L. Articles by Pagès, J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Perrin, L. Articles by Pagès, J. Agricola Articles by Perrin, L. Articles by Pagès, J.

Comparison of Conventional Profiling by a Trained Tasting Panel and Free Profiling by Wine Professionals

¹ UMT Vinitera, Laboratoire GRAPPE, Ecole Supérieure d’Agriculture, 55 rue Rabelais, BP 30748, 49 007 Angers, France; ² Interloire, 73 rue Plantagenet, 49 100 Angers, France; and ³ Laboratoire de mathématiques appliquées, Agrocampus Rennes/IRMAR, 65 rue de Saint Brieuc CS 84215, 35 042 Rennes, France.

^* Corresponding authors (email: perrin.l{at}hotmail.fr)

In the wine industry, wine is often characterized by professional tasters. Methods commonly used in sensory analysis, or "conventional profiling," require intensive, experiment-specific training and thus cannot be applied by a panel of untrained tasters, even if they are wine professionals. More spontaneous methods such as free profiling do not require time-intensive training sessions. This study compares wine characterizations obtained through free profiling by wine professionals with conventional profiling by a panel of trained judges. Data were analyzed by multiple factor analysis. Representations provided by the two methods are broadly similar, but reveal some disparities. Free profiling may be a good compromise to obtain meaningful results from untrained but knowledgeable wine professionals.

Key words: sensory analysis, free profiling, conventional profiling, wine experts