See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/285686920

Proposal for a standardized set of sensory terms for pisco, a young muscat wine
distillate

Article  in  American Journal of Enology and Viticulture · January 2004

CITATIONS READS

13 226

3 authors, including:

Eduardo Agosin
Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
180 PUBLICATIONS   3,972 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bioflavours View project

PhD Thesis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eduardo Agosin on 08 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

104 – Bordeu et al.

Research Note
Proposal for a Standardized Set of Sensory Terms for
Pisco, a Young Muscat Wine Distillate

Edmundo Bordeu,1* Gonzalo Formas,1 and Eduardo Agosin2

Abstract: The predominantly muscat aroma of pisco, a young distillate produced in northern Chile and Peru,
distinguishes it from other young spirits. Standardized terminology is necessary, however, to describe differences
among the wide range of piscos. This is the first proposal for a standardized set of descriptive terminology for
this type of product. A panel of trained specialists established the proposed terminology, which is displayed in a
wheel format and in a list of corresponding standards.
Key words: distillates, pisco, sensory evaluation

Product-specific descriptor sets have been developed
for various beverages and aid communication within the re-
spective industries. The use of wheel formats has helped to
attain greater consistency in sensorial study. With quanti-
tative descriptive analysis, a minimum number of terms
should provide a maximum amount of information to profile
the product (Caldeira et al. 1999). Useful sets of descriptors
have been developed for tequila (Benn and Peppard 1996),
beer (Meilgaard et al. 1979), whisky (Shortreed et al. 1979),
wine aroma (Noble et al. 1984, 1987), and wine mouthfeel
(Gawel et al. 2000).
Pisco, a wine-based spirit, is the only distillate produced
in significant quantities in Chile. Production of pisco is
governed by one of the country’s first denominations of
origin, which restricts approved vineyards to several water-
shed valleys in the northern Chile. In 2000, vineyard area for
pisco was limited to10,187 ha, which yielded 38,000,000 li-
ters. Local regulations also stipulate the varieties of grape
that may be grown for pisco.
The distinctive aroma of pisco comes from the monoter-
pene compounds of Muscat varieties and, to a lesser extent,
from the short aging process. Nevertheless, other grapes
are grown for pisco, such as Pedro Jimenez in Chile and
Quebranta in Peru, although these grapes contribute little
to aroma. The sensory terminology developed for other dis-
tillates, such as whisky or cognac, is inappropriate for pisco
because of its singular aromatic characteristics and youth.
1Department of Pomology and Enology, School of Agriculture; 2Department of Chemical and Bioprocess
Engineering, School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Casilla 306 Correo 22,
Santiago, Chile.
*Corresponding author [Fax 56-2-5534130; email: ebordeu@puc.cl]
Acknowledgments: This work was funded by FONDEF 97-I1013 and Capel Distillery, Vicuña, Chile. The
authors also wish to thank Alex Crawford and Marcial Peña y Lillo for their valuable discussion.
Manuscript submitted January 2003; revised September 2003
Copyright © 2004 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture. All rights reserved.
Determining a set of specific terms should improve com-
munications among enologists, distillers, and quality-con-
trol professionals and should help achieve consensus in
how best to describe pisco aromas. This work states the
methods used to arrive at the final list of descriptors and
their respective standards, the formulas for preparing the
standards, and presents the terms selected.
Materials and Methods
A comprehensive list of descriptors was developed that
included terms previously proposed for whisky (Shortreed
et al. 1979), beer (Meilgaard et al. 1979), and wine (Noble et
al. 1987). The initial list included all possible terms associ-
ated with pisco. Terms were sorted into three groups with a
view to presenting descriptors in a three-tier wheel.
A group of 18 enologists, technicians, and pisco distill-
ers assessed the full list. Respondents ranked each term
from unsuitable to essential and were instructed to add any
other terms that may had been overlooked. Following their
work, the preliminary list was cut from 152 descriptors to
109. The next step involved constituting a 12-member panel
of enologists to establish a definitive list and to assess
standards to define each term. A total of 11 tasting sessions
were required to evaluate the use of individual terms to de-
scribe a range of 31 commercial piscos available in Santiago
and samples at various stages of distillation.
The standards developed and their associated references
are listed in Table 1. The majority of the standards were
obtained by steeping or suspending the respective com-
pound in a 40% ethanol solution, although certain prepara-
tions, such as rancid oils, were not mixed in alcohol. Most
standards were stable and could be stored at room tempera-
ture; others, such as those for boiled corn and burnt char-
coal, required in situ preparation.

104
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 55:1 (2004)
 Standardized Sensory Terms for Pisco – 105

Table 1 Standards developed for the pisco sensory wheel.

Tier
Composition Shelf life
Primary Secondary Tertiary (prepared in 200 mL 40% ethanol)
Spicy Spices Clove 3 cloves, chopped and soaked Indefinite
Aniseed 2 drops aniseed essence, Gourmet 5 months
Vegetative Grass Cut grass 2 drops cis-3-hexen-1-ol, Sigma 3 months
Hay 2 g soaked hay 1 month
Boiled vegetables Corn 25 mL cooked sweet corn juice 1 month
Artichoke 30 mL cooked artichoke juice 1 month
Floral Floral Rose 2 drops 2-phenylethanol, Sigma 5 months
Jasmine 10 soaked jasmine flowers 1 month
Fruity Terpenic Geraniol 15 drops gerianol, Sigma Indefinite
Linalool 2 drops linalool, Sigma Indefinite
Esters Artificial fruit 100 mL artificial fruit juice, Yupi Indefinite
Banana 50 g liquefied and filtered banana 1 month
Fruit Apple 20 mL apple juice, Watts Indefinite
Pear 15 mL pear liquer, Williams Christ Indefinite
Citrus 5 drops ß-citronellol, Sigma Indefinite
Peach 15 mL Vodka & Peach, Artic Indefinite
Apricot 20 mL apricot liqueur, J.Fehrenberg Indefinite
Dried fruit Raisins 30 re-hydrated sultanas Indefinite
Prunes 3 re-hydrated prunes Indefinite
Sweet smells Honey 5 g honey 4 months
Vanilla 1 drop vanilla essence, H & R 5 months
Caramel Toffee 12 mL liquid caramel, Kraft Indefinite
Brown sugar 50 g cooked brown sugar Indefinite
Wood Oak 10 chips French oak, World Cooperage Indefinite
Toasted cask Charcoal 1 piece burnt charcoal a 1 week
Toast Small bits of toast 2 weeks
Oily smells Nutty Walnuts 5 walnuts, ground and soaked 4 months
Almond 8 drops almond essence, Gourmet 5 months
Moldy Mold 13 drops essence of mold, Le nez du Vin Indefinite
Old barrels 10 g cut oak tannins, Partoeno Indefinite
Earthy Moist earth 7 drops damp earth essence, Le nez du Vin Indefinite
Taste senses Sweet na b
Sour na
Bitter na
Mouthfeel Sharp Burning na
Parching na
Smooth Mouthcoat na
Chemical Aggressive Sulfur 3 drops 5% sulfur dioxide solution, Merck 5 months
Ethanol 200 mL 40% ethanol, Merck 5 months
Heads 200 mL pisco headsa Indefinite
Vinegar Ethyl acetate 2 drops ethyl acetate, Fisher Scientific 4 months
Acetic acid 2 drops acetic acid, Merck Indefinite
Plastic Burnt plastic a 2 weeks
Soap 5 g clothes soap bar Indefinite
Amylic Isoamylic 4 drops isoamylic alcohol, Sigma 3 months
Feints 200 mL pisco feints a Indefinite
Oxidized Acetaldehyde 10 drops acetaldehyde, Fluka 6 weeks
Rancid 100 mL rancid cooking oila Indefinite
a Standards not prepared with ethanol.
b
na: not applicable.

Terms the panel adopted were organized radially by simi-
larity over three tiers of a wheel, with general terms grouped
in the inner ring, leading to more specific attributes in the
outer ring. Positive characteristics of pisco were positioned
on the right side of the wheel while negative aromas were
positioned on the left. There was no rigid limit, however.
Finally, consumers, technicians, and distillers from the
pisco industry evaluated the effectiveness of the finished
wheel.
Results and Discussion
The pisco wheel, displaying its final descriptor set, is
shown in Figure 1. Terms are laid out in a similar fashion to
the wheels for wine (Noble et al. 1987) and whisky (Shortreed
et al. 1979). As with the whisky wheel, the pisco wheel incor-
porates descriptors for mouthfeel and primary taste. Subjec-
tive terms, such as balanced, round, and young, were not in-
cluded, as they could not be defined rigorously.

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 55:1 (2004)

106 – Bordeu et al.

Figure 1 Pisco aroma and mouthfeel wheel, displaying its 48 outer-ring descriptors.

The 20 descriptors identified most frequently by the Table 2 Frequency of use of the most relevant sensory
trained panel of enologists are shown in Table 2. The descriptors for pisco.
panel’s experience with commercially available products as
well as with piscos at different stages of distillation re- Descriptor Frequency (%) Descriptor Frequency (%)
vealed the importance of Muscat-associated terms such as Vanilla 54.7 Banana 30.0
Burning 49.5 Apple 29.5
raisin, linalool, and honey. Descriptors linked to recent use
Raisins 42.6 Pear 29.5
of cask aging (vanilla, charcoal, and oak) were also preva- Linalool 41.1 Parched 28.4
lent in the 11 tasting sessions. Charcoal 37.4 Rose 27.9
Prunes 36.3 Almond 26.8
The majority of the standards proposed are widely avail- Caramel 32.1 Rancid 26.8
able products or materials or are chemical compounds that Ethanol 31.1 Peach 25.8
can be obtained from specialist outlets. These standards Honey 30.5 Mouthcoat 25.8
have more in common with those proposed for wine (Noble Sweet 30.5 Artichoke 25.3

Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 55:1 (2004)


et al. 1987) than with the specific chemical compounds pro-
posed for beer (Meilgaard et al. 1979) or tequila (Benn and
Peppard 1996).
The panel evaluated different concentrations of each
standard proposed. While some compounds were well re-
ceived irrespective of strength, others, such as acetalde-
hyde, were not perceived as characteristic of pisco at high
concentrations. The standards presented are those obtained
for the final version, at concentrations strong enough to be
identified by all panelists.
Ideally, first- and second-tier terms should orient tasters
to terms in the outer ring and so describe more precisely the
profile of different piscos. The number of terms in the outer
ring (48) is almost half that proposed for wine (Noble et al.
1984) and much less than the 133 descriptors proposed for
aged spirits (Benn and Peppard 1996). The panel found it
unnecessary to include any further terms in the wheel.
The proposed terminology should gradually establish
consistency and industry consensus regarding desirable
and undesirable attributes in pisco. It will not, however, de-
fine the perfect product. The terminology proposed here is
aimed at young spirits and so should apply equally to Peru-
vian pisco or Bolivian singani and perhaps to certain other
spirits and young distillates such as grappa. The terms de-
veloped in this study are currently being used to correlate
Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 55:1 (2004)
View publication stats
Standardized Sensory Terms for Pisco – 107
the chemical composition of different piscos with their sen-
sory attributes.
Literature Cited
Benn, S., and T. Peppard. 1996. Characterization of tequila flavor
by instrumental and sensory analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 44:557-
566.
Caldeira, I., S. Canas, S. Costa, E. Carvalho, and A.P. Belchior. 1999.
Development of a tasting panel for aged spirits and selecting sen-
sorial descriptors. Ciencia Téc. Vitiv. 14(1):21-30.
Gawel, R., A. Oberholster, and I.L. Francis. 2000. A mouth-feel
wheel: Terminology for communicating the mouth-feel character-
istics of red wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 6:203-207.
Meilgaard, M.C., C.E. Dalgliesh, and J.F. Clapperton. 1979. Progress
towards an international system of beer flavor terminology. Am.
Soc. Brew. Chem. 37:42-52.
Noble, A.C., R.A. Arnold, B.M. Masuda, S.D. Pecore, J.O. Schmidt,
and P.M. Stern. 1984. Progress towards a standardized system of
wine aroma terminology. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 35:107-109.
Noble, A.C., R.A. Arnold, J. Buechsenstein, E.J. Leach, J.O. Schmidt,
and P.M. Stern. 1987. Modification of a standardized system of
wine aroma terminology. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 38:143-146.
Shortreed, G.W., P. Richards, J.S. Swan, and S. Burtles. 1979. The
flavor terminology of Scotch whisky. Brewers Guardian. Nov. 58-
62.