Characterizing the chemical and sensory profiles of traditional American meads. Issue 3 (2nd February 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Senn, Kaylie; Cantu, Annegret; Heymann, Hildegarde
• Is Part Of: Journal of food science. Volume 86:Issue 3(2021)
• Page Start: 1048
• Page End: 1057
• Publication Date: 2021-02-02
• Subjects: Mead -- Sensory Analysis -- Flavor chemistry; Food -- Periodicals; Food -- Research -- Periodicals; Food -- Periodicals; Research -- Periodicals; Levensmiddelen; Voeding; 664
• DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.15607
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0022-1147

Abstract

Abstract : Abstract: The compositional and sensorial profiles of traditional American meads were determined using standard enological, volatile, and descriptive analyses. Forty‐one commercial meads produced by 35 meaderies across 20 states were selected to encompass a broad product range. The meads were analyzed for ethanol content, residual sugar, pH, titratable acidity, acetic acid, and free and total sulfur dioxide. Forty‐three volatile compounds (alcohols, esters, acids, terpenes, aldehydes, aromatic hydrocarbons, etc.) were tentatively identified using a nontargeted HS‐SPME‐GC‐MS method. Ethyl octanoate, phenylethyl alcohol, ethyl decanoate, and ethyl acetate were the most relatively abundant volatile compounds across the sample set. A trained panel ( n = 11) evaluated each mead using descriptive analysis and the chemical and sensory analyses were compared. Acidity, sweetness, and cloying and viscous mouthfeel sensations, and alcoholic heat were the most influential sensory attributes and were driven by titratable acidity, residual sugar, and ethanol content, respectively. Ethyl octanoate and ethyl decanoate were correlated with manure aroma, phenylethyl alcohol with yeast and green aromas, and ethyl acetate with citrus, solvent, and green olive aromas. This research further elucidates the empirical relationship between the chemical composition and sensory profiles of commercial meads. Practical Application: This work provides the mead industry with further understanding of the compositional drivers of the sensory profiles of commercial meads and demonstrates product categories (dry, semi‐sweet, sweet) do not necessarily indicate compositional or sensory attributes.