GET THE APP

Physicochemical and Sensory Evaluation of Non-alcoholic Wine-like
Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences

Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences
Open Access

ISSN: 2155-9600

Research Article - (2012) Volume 2, Issue 1

Physicochemical and Sensory Evaluation of Non-alcoholic Wine-like Beverages Prepared from Selected Grape Cultivars

Charmila C Ratnasooriya, HP Vasantha Rupasinghe* and Nancy L Pitts
Department of Environmental Sciences, Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Truro, NS, Canada, E-mail: vrupasinghe@nsac.ca
*Corresponding Author: HP Vasantha Rupasinghe, Department of Environmental Sciences, Nova Scotia Agricultural College, PO Box 550, Truro, Nova Scotia, Canada, Tel: 1-902-893-6623, Fax: 1-902-893-1404

Abstract

The heat treatment of holding grape mash at 60°C for 30 minutes allowed recovery of a higher concentration of specific phenolic compounds into juice without giving caramelized flavours and odours. Physicochemical and sensory properties of four grape juice blends prepared from three selected grape cultivars, ‘Castel 19637’, ‘Lucie Kulman’, ‘Sovereign Coronation’ and water were evaluated on the selection for a non-alcoholic wine-like beverage. A descriptive sensory study was conducted using 18 trained panelists to assess the color, sweetness, astringency, viscosity and overall acceptability of the beverages. Overall, considering the sensory attributes, concentration of bioactive phenolics, antioxidant capacity measured by ferric reducing antioxidant capacity, and moderate sugar content, the blend of ‘Castel 19637’: water (3:2, v:v) was found to have more potential to be used in developing a wine-like functional beverage. ‘Castel 19637’, which was originally developed as a red wine grape cultivar, can be recommended as a suitable grape cultivar for developing a functional beverage.

Introduction

In North America the market for functional beverages such as enhanced water, a non-caloric source of vitamins and minerals, increased by 73% from 2002 to 2007 [1]. A market survey revealed that sixty percent of consumers who purchased functional beverages chose them in part for the presence of antioxidants [1]. Phenolics are physiologically active compounds with antioxidant properties which are abundant in fruits and vegetables and could provide significant beneficial health effects [2]. Phenolics possess the ability to prevent various diseases associated with oxidative stress, including cancers, cardiovascular and neurodegenerative diseases [2,3].

Grapes are one of the fruits that contain the highest content of phenolic compounds [4]. In the preparation of grape juice, grapes are pressed first into a mash. Heat application to the grape mash was reported to be an effective pre-treatment for recovering more anthocyanins and stilbenes in the juice than direct pressing without a heat pretreatment [5]. Fuleki and Ricardo-Da-Silva [6] reported that flavan-3-ols concentrations of juices prepared from the wine grape cultivars ‘Baco noir’ and ‘Marechal Foch’ increased when the respective mashes were heated at 60°C for 60 minutes before pressing. However, the impact of this heat treatment on the sensory qualities of the juice was not reported in the above study. The pressing had more of a positive effect on the final concentration of flavan-3-ols in the juice than did the cultivar effect [6]. However, grape flavor is more likely to be adversely impacted by heat processing than the pigments and phenolics of grapes [7,8].

This study sought to develop a non-alcoholic wine-like beverage from grape juice blends. The objective was to prepare blends that were ‘wine-like’ in appearance, with an accompanying astringency and tartness similar to grape wine and having high antioxidant content. The effectiveness of a heat pre-treatment on the bioactive content, physicochemical, and quality of grape juice was examined. In addition, several grape juice blends from selected grape cultivars were prepared and analyzed for bioactive concentration, antioxidant capacity, and sensory properties.

Materials and Methods

Plant materials and chemicals

‘Castel 19637’ was obtained from the John Warner Farm of Kentville, NS, Canada while ‘Lucie Kuhlman’ and ‘Sovereign Coronation’ were obtained from Stonehill Fruit and Juice Company, Kingston, NS, Canada. From each cultivar, twenty kilograms of fruits at commercial maturity level were harvested in between late September and early October, 2009 and used in juice preparation. The ‘Sovereign Coronation’ grapes were used in the optimization of the heating treatment of grape mash. A commercial grape juice product that was purchased from the local market was used for the comparison purposes.

The liquid chromatography standards of sugars and organic acids were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Ltd. (Oakville, ON, Canada). The phenolic standards were purchased as follows: malvidin-3-O-glucoside (M3G) from Chromatographic Specialities Inc. (Brockville, ON, Canada); petunidin-3-O-glucoside (P3G) and delphinidin- 3-O-glucoside (D3G) from Polyphenols Laboratories (Sandnes, Norway); cyanidin-3-O-glucoside (C3G) from Extrasynthese (GenayCedex, France); catechin, epicatechin, epigallocatechin, epigallocatechingallate, epicatechingallate, quercetin (Q) quercetin- 3-O-glucoside (Q3Glu), resveratrol and resveratrol glucoside from ChromaDexInc (Santha Ana, CA, USA); quercetin-3-O-rhamnoside (Q3R) and quercetin-3-O-galactoside (Q3Gal) from Indofine Chemical Company (Hillsborough, NJ, USA).

Heat treatment of grape mash

Grapes were detached from the stems, washed and drained. A sample of 150 g was cut into slices (2-4 mm) (Vegetable chopper Model EHC 650, Black & Decker Corp, Towson, ML, USA) and heated in a convection oven. Temperature-time treatments used were: i) 60°C; 30 min, ii) 60°C; 60 min, iii) 85°C; 30 min; iv) 85°C; 60 min. Immediately after heating, the grape juice was recovered by the use of a stainless steel fruit squeezer (Norpro Inc., Everette, WA, USA); the juice was then filtered through four layers of cheese cloth. The filtered juice was subjected to physiochemical, bioactive concentrations and antioxidant capacity analysis in order to determine the optimum heat pre-treatment.

Preparation of the grape juice blends

Previous evaluation of physicochemical characteristics (titratable acidity, total soluble solids, and concentration of phenolics) of the juice and fresh fruits of ten Nova Scotia grown grape cultivars showed that ‘Castel 19637’, ‘Lucie Kuhlman’ and ‘Sovereign Coronation’ had bioactive phenolic compositions that showed promise for use in functional beverage formulation [9]. Grapes from these cultivars were subjected to the heating regime previously found to yield the highest bioactive content in the resultant juice (65°C; 30 minutes). Using a wine pressing ratchet (Musca Wine Pressing and Supplies Limited, Ottawa, ON), 20 kg of sliced, heat-treated grapes was pressed. The juice was filtered and pasteurized using a batch pasteurization method (72°C; holding time of 1.5 minutes). The juice samples were hot-filled into sterilized containers and stored (4°C) for less than ten days before use for further analysis.

Based on the results of preliminary investigations, four grape juice blends were prepared by mixing grape juice of three cultivars and potable water according to the proportions as mentioned below:

Blend A: ‘Castel 19637’: water (3:2, v:v);

Blend B: ‘Castel 19637’: ‘Sovereign Coronation’: water (2:1:0.5, v:v:v);

Blend C: ‘Castel 19637’: ‘Lucie Kuhlman’: water (2:1:1, v:v:v); and

Blend D: ‘Castel 19637’: ‘Lucie Kuhlman’: ‘Sovereign Coronation’: water (2:1:1:0.25, v:v:v).

Physicochemical characteristics of grape juice blends

Total soluble solids (TSS, °Brix) were measured using a bench model refractometer (Model 300016, Sper Scientific Ltd, Scottsdale, AZ, USA). Titratable acidity was measured using a semi automatedtitrator (DMP 785, Metrohm Ltd, Herisau, Switzerland). The titration involved the use of 0.1 M NaOH as the titrant to the pH 8.2 end point. The titratable acidity was expressed as % Titratable Acidity (TA), expressed in terms of tartaric acid, the predominant acid in grapes [10]. Colour of the beverages was determined by using a reflectance colorimeter (Model CR-300, Minolta Camera Co. Ltd, Osaka, Japan) and reported as L*, a*, and b* values [11]. All of the above parameters were determined in both heat treated juices and grape juice blends. The common sugars in grape juice (sucrose, glucose, and fructose) were analyzed by ion exchange chromatography using an HPLC system (Model Beckman Gold, Beckman Coulter Inc., Fullerton, CA, USA) equipped with a Aminex HPX-87P column (300 mm × 7.8 mm, 5 μm; 30˚C) (Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., Hercules, CA, USA), a Carbo-P guard column (Bio-Rad Laboratories Inc., Hercules, CA, USA), and a refractive index (RI) detector (Waters 2414, Waters Corp., Milford, MA, USA). The stationary phase of nanopure water (0.6 mL/min) was run with total run time of 30 minutes. The retention time for sucrose, glucose and fructose were 13.1, 15.4, and 22.2 minutes, respectively. The concentrations of standards which were used were: 0-30 mg/mL of sucrose; 0-20 mg/mL of glucose and 0-16 mg/mL of fructose.

Organic acids analysis was performed using the method of Soyer et al. [12]. A HPLC system (Model Beckman Gold, Beckman Coulter Inc., Fullerton, CA, USA) equipped with a Synergi Hydro-RP (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 4μm) column (Phenomenex Inc., Torrance, CA, USA) and a C-18 guard column (Phenomenex Inc., Torrance, CA, USA), that were held at 30˚C were used in the analysis. The mobile phase was 0.01 M H2SO4 at pH 2.5 with a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min and the total run time of 30 minutes. The retention times for tartaric, malic and citric acids were 6.10, 7.50, and 13.10 minutes, respectively. The linear range of standards were 0-6.03 mg/mL, 0-9.18 mg/mL, and 0-1.01 mg/ mL for tartaric, malic and citric acids, respectively. All the analyses were done in triplicate.

Concentrations of phenolics and antioxidant capacity

The phenolic content of the heated mash and the juice blends was evaluated in terms of the major phenolic sub-classes (flavonols, flavan-3-ols, anthocyanins, and stilbenes). Major phenolics present were identified and quantified using HPLC-ESI-MS/MS as described by Rupasinghe et al. [13].

The ferric reducing antioxidant power assay (FRAP), a measure of antioxidant capacity, was performed using an established method [14] with modifications as described by Rupasinghe et al. [13]. Pigments were determined as total anthocyanin concentration by the pH– differential method (AOAC method 2005.02). Results were expressed as mg of malvidin-3-O-glucoside equivalents per liter of juice. All the analyses were done in triplicate.

Sensory evaluation of juice blends

For the sensory analysis component of this work, a sample of convenience consisting of student and staff members of the campus was used. Potential panelists were screened for their ability to detect sweetness, sourness, astringency, and texture [15]. A group of 18 panelists (8 male and 10 female; ranging in age from 19-50 years) had the requisite sensory acuity. Panelists were further trained to rate sweetness, sourness, astringency, and viscosity on unstructured scales using the reference points suggested by Meilgaard et al. [15]. The method of Poste et al. [16] was used for rating viscosity. The ‘wine-like color’ was categorized by both hue and intensity by having panelists look through a 6 cm depth of liquid held against a white background. A reference sample of a red wine (Merlot, Donini Collection, Milano, Italy) was used.

Descriptive sensory analysis of the experimental juice blends and the commercial grape juice were performed by the trained panelists. A 15 cm unstructured scale, ranging from ‘not’ to ‘very’ was used for each of the attributes identified above. Samples were assigned three digit codes, and presented to panelists in a balanced, randomized manner. Panelists were asked to evaluate color first, followed by astringency, sourness, sweetness, and then viscosity. The sensory data from the descriptive testing was subjected to analysis of variance, blocked by panelist. The assumption of normal distribution was confirmed as described by Montgomery [17]. For the ANOVA, the general linear model (GLM) procedure of SAS 9.1 was used. The Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at a level of p≤ 0.05 was used to detect significant differences between means.

Results and Discussion

Effect of heat-treatment of grape mash on phenolics of juice

In general, heat treatment of grape mash increased the TSS and the TA of the resultant juice relative to the juice extracted from an unheated control (Table 1). The extent and duration of the heat treatment was directly proportional to increases in TSS, and to a lesser extent to an increase in TA. In spite of these differences in TSS and TA, there was no difference in TSS/TA ratio among the different heat treatments (Table 1). The heat treatment prior to juice extraction also resulted in increased concentration of total anthocyanins (Table 1). The most extensive heat treatment (85°C, 30 min) exhibited a 26- fold increase in total anthocyanins present in the juice relative to the unheated control (p=0.0001). Quantification of individual classes of phenolics showed that heating the mash at 65°C, 30 min or 85°C, 15 min resulted in greater concentrations of total flavan-3-ols, flavonols, and stilbene being extracted into the juice compared to the unheated control (Figure 1).

nutrition-food-sciences-heat-treatments

Figure 1: Effect of heat treatments of grape mash on total quantified flavan-3-ols, flavonols and stilbenes (A), and total quantified anthocyanins (B) concentrations of juices prepared from ‘Sovereign Coronation’ grapes. (n=3).

Grape Mash Treatment TSS (ºBrix) TA1 (%) TSS/TA ratio Instrumental Colour Total anthocyanin concentration2 (mg M3GE/L) FRAP3
(g TE/L)
L* a* b*
Control4 16.1c 0.60c 26.6 42.3a 24.4bc 25.6a 9.1d 0.15c
65 °C-15 min 17.1b 0.68bc 25.5 28.6b     33.0a 18.5b 28.4c 0.30c
65 °C-30 min 17.5b 0.74b 23.7 23.7c 29.2ab 12.4c 57.5b 1.62b
85 °C-15 min 17.5b 0.79ab 22.4 23.5c 27.8ab 11.7c 67.2b 1.66b
85 °C-30 min 18.9a 0.89a 21.7 21.4c     20.8c 6.3d 235.6a 4.05a
P-value5 0.0001 0.0023 0.0668 0.0001 0.0059 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001
TSS, Total soluble solids
1TA, Percentage titratable acidity (g tartaric acid equivalence/100 mL)
2Total anthocyanin content measured using pH differential method (M3GE, malvidin-3-O-glucoside equivalence)
3FRAP, Ferric reducing capacity of plasma, g TE/L, g Trolox equivalence per L
4Control consisted of juice obtained by pressing grapes without subjecting to the heat treatment of grape mash
5Means (n=3) followed by different letters (a-d) within the same column represent significant differences according to Duncan’s Multiple Range test (p<0.05)

Table 1: The effect of heat treatment of grape mash on physicochemical parameters of the recovered juice.

Of the temperature-time pre-treatments examined in this study, heating the grape mash to 65°C for 30 minutes before pressing resulted in an organoleptically acceptable juice with significantly higher levels of total flavan-3-ols, flavonols, and stilbenes. Although juice obtained after the heat treatment at 85°C for 30 min contained a higher concentration of the phenolic compounds examined, preliminary studies indicated that the organoleptic quality of this juice was unacceptable due to extremely sour and caramelized flavor (data not present). Similarly, Morris et al. [18] reported that higher extraction temperatures of 85°C and 99°C yielded grape juice of more intense color than that extracted at 60°C. In addition, juice extracted at high temperatures has been shown to have a greater tendency to turn brown during storage [18]. Taking into consideration both sensory, phenolics and antioxidant capacity, the heat treatment of 65°C and 30 min was selected and used in the preparation of juice for blends and the sensory test.

Physicochemical properties of grape juice blends

In the four juice blends, TSS ranged from 13.3 to 18.2 while TA ranged from 0.75 to 1.15. The variation in TSS/TA was from 15.3 to 17.7 (Table 2). Compared to the other blends, Blend A (Castel 19637’: water; 3:2, v:v) possessed the lowest amounts of total quantified sugar, TSS and TA (Table 2). However, Blend A possessed the highest TSS/TA ratio. There was no significant difference in total quantified anthocyanin content among the blends; the commercial juice possessed a significantly lower concentration of anthocyanin (Table 2). Blend C possessed lower L* value than the Blend B, which means that the colour intensity of Blend C was higher than that of Blend B (Table 2).

Grape juice beverages TSS (ºBrix) Total quantified sugar1
(mg/mL)
TA2
(%)
Total quantified acid3
(mg/L)
TSS/TA Total quantified anthocyanin4 (mg M3GE/L) Instrumental Colour
L* a* b*
Blend A5 13.3e 110c 0.75d 19.7bc 17.7 b 24.8a 15.7bc 10.7a 6.8ab
Blend B6 17.1b 130b 1.12a 21.1ab 15.3d 24.2a 16.0ab 8.77b 7.2a
Blend C7 18.2a 150a 1.15a 18.4c 15.8d 24.5a 15.3c 9.42b 5.9c
Blend D8 16.6c 148a 0.99b 21.7c 16.7c 24.9a 15.5bc 7.64c 6.0bc
Commercial grape juice 16.3d 130b 0.81c 16.1d 20.3a 5.4b 16.40a 8.77b 6.7ab
P-value9 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0118 0.0043 0.0035
TSS, Total soluble solids
1Sum of the concentrations of glucose and fructose quantified by HPLC.
2TA, Percentage titratable acidity (g tartaric acid equivalence/100 mL)
3Sum of the concentrations of tartaric, malic and citric acids quantified by HPLC.
4 Total anthocyanin concentration measured using pH differential method (M3GE, malvidin-3-O-glucoside equivalence)
5Blend A: ‘Castel 19637’ : water (3:2; v:v)
6Blend B: ‘Castel 19637’: ‘Sovereign Coronation’ : water (2:1:0.5; v:v:v)
7Blend C: ‘Castel 19637’: ‘Lucie Kuhlman’: water (2:1:1; v:v:v)
8Blend D: ‘Castel 19637’: ‘Lucie Kuhlman’: ‘Sovereign Coronation’: water (2:1:1:0.25; v:v:v)
9ANOVA P–values showing the effect of juice products on the considered variables
Means (n=3) followed by different letters (a-d) within the same column represent significant differences according to Duncan’s Multiple Range test (p<0.05).

Table 2: Physicochemical characteristics of grape juice blends and a commercial product.

When considering the concentrations of phenolic sub-classes, all four blends studied had similar concentrations of quantified flavonols, flavan-3-ols and anthocyanins and all had significantly higher levels of flavonols and flavan-3-ols than that of the commercial grape juice (Table 3). The antioxidant capacity, as measured using the FRAP assay, was higher in Blend C than in the Blend B but similar to that in Blend A and D.

Grape juice beverages Total quantified flavonols (mg/L)1 Total quantified flavan-3-ols (mg/L)2 Total quantifiedanthocyanins (mg/L)3 Total quantified flavonoids (mg/L)4 FRAP5
(g TE/L)
Blend A6 0.25b 0.10b 18.20a 18.6a 2.44bc
Blend B7 0.26b 0.13b 17.88a 18.3a 2.25c
Blend C8 0.26b 0.14b 18.06a 18.3a 2.54b
Blend D9 0.28b 0.20b 17.45a 17.9a 2.39bc
Commercial grape juice 1.86a 1.10a 6.96b 9.9b 5.15a
P-value10 <0.0023 <0.0006 0.004 0.0015 <0.001
1Sum of the concentrations of Q-3-O-glucoside and Q-3-O-galactoside
2Sum of the concentrations of cathechin, epicathechin and epigallocatechin
3Sum of the concentrations of malvidin-3-Oglucoside, delphinidin-3-O-glucoside, petudin-3-Oglucoside and cyanidin-3-O-glucoside.
4Sum of the concentrations of total quantified flavonols, total quantified flavan-3-ols and total quantified anthocyanins.
5FRAP, Ferric reducing capacity of plasma, g TE/L, g Trolox equivalence per L
6Blend A: ‘Castel 19637’ : water (3:2; v:v)
7Blend B: ‘Castel 19637’:‘Sovereign Coronation’: water (2:1:0.5; v:v:v)
8Blend C: ‘Castel 19637’: Lucie Kuhlman’: water (2:1:1; v:v:v)
9Blend D: ‘Castel 19637’: Lucie Kuhlman’: ‘Sovereign Coronation’: water (2:1:1:0.25; v:v:v)
10ANOVA P–values showing the effect of juice products on the considered variables
Means (n=3) followed by different letters (a-c) within the same column represent significant differences according to Duncan’s Multiple Range test (p<0.05)

Table 3: Concentration of selected bioactive phenolics and antioxidant capacity of grape juice blends.

Sensory attributes of grape juice blends

The responses of the panelists in the descriptive analysis of the five juice samples are presented in Table 4. There was no significant difference in panelists’ responses for hue and colour intensity of the four blends. The panelists could not distinguish the colour difference between Blend C and Blend B that was apparent based on the instrumental lightness (L*) values (Table 2). Sensory scores for the sweetness of blends ranged from 6.7-8.2 on a scale of 15 (Table 4). Blends A and B were given significantly lower scores for sweetness than the commercial juice by the panelists, suggesting that it was more wine-like in this attribute. According to the panelists, Blend A exhibited significantly lower sourness than in Blend B (Table 4). The results were verified by chemical analysis; TA of Blend A was lower than that of in the Blend B. The perception of astringency in Blend D was significantly higher than that of Blend A (Table 4). Phenolic compounds, especially flavan-3-ol polymers, as well as organic acids, contribute to the astringency of wine [19]. In the present study, only monomers of flavan-3-ol were quantified and there was no variation observed in the flavan-3-ols concentrations of four blends. When rated for overall organoleptic acceptability, no significant difference was found between the blends (Table 4).

Grape Juice beverages Sensory attribute1
Colour Sweetness Sourness Astringency Viscosity Overall acceptability
Hue Intensity
Blend A2 11.0 11.4 6.7c 8.1b 7.7b 4.0 8.6
Blend B3 11.0 11.3 7.3bc 9.7a 8.9ab 3.9 7.7
Blend C4 11.2 11.9 8.1ab 8.6ab 8.6ab 3.6 8.8
Blend D5 11.4 11.3 8.2ab 8.7ab 9.2a 3.8 8.0
Commercial grape juice 11.6 10.9 9.1a 5.2c 5.4c 3.3 8.4
P-value6 0.7676 0.3397 0.0072 0.0001 0.0001 0.6811 0.7405
1Descriptive panel evaluation of attributes on 15 cm scale.
2Blend A: ‘Castel19637’: water (3:2; v:v)
3Blend B: ‘Castel19637’: ‘Sovereign Coronation’ : water (2:1:0.5; v:v:v)
4Blend C: ‘Castel19637’: ‘Lucie Kuhlman’: water (2:1:1; v:v:v)
5Blend D: ‘Castel19637’: ‘Lucie Kuhlman’: ‘Sovereign Coronation’: water (2:1:1:0.25; v:v:v)
6ANOVA P–values showing the effect of juice products on the considered variables
Means (n=18) followed by different letters (a-c) within the same column represent significant differences according to Duncan’s Multiple Range test (p<0.05).

Table 4: Descriptive sensory analysis of grape juice beverages by trained panelists.

Conclusions

Heating grape mash at 65°C for 30 min before pressing increased the concentrations of anthocyanins, flavan-3-ols, flavonols and stilbenes by over 6-fold in juice when compared to the unheated control. Four grape juice blends were prepared in an attempt to identify a non-alcoholic, wine like, bioactive phenolics-rich beverage with acceptable sensory attributes. Overall, considering sensory, bioactive phenolics and antioxidant capacity, and moderate sugar content, the blend of ‘Castel 19637’: water (3:2, v:v) was found to have more potential to be used in developing a wine-like functional beverage. The ‘Castel 19637’ was originally developed and established as a red wine grape cultivar in Nova Scotia; however, the results indicate that this cultivar is also suitable for non-alcoholic grape juice manufacturing. This study also suggest that recovery of bioactive phenolics from grape pomace can be achieved by a simple, less expensive and environmental friendly technique such as heat treatment of pomace followed by press. Dehydration of juice by spray drying or other technique could result in development of food and nutraceutical ingredients.

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the Atlantic Innovation Funds (AIF) Program of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA) and Grand Pre Wines Ltd, Grand Pre, NS, Canada.

References

  1. Mintel (2007) Functional beverages-US August. Market research report of Mintel International Group Ltd, US.
  2. Fraga CG, Galleano M, Verstraeten SV, Oteiza PI (2010) Basic biochemical mechanisms behind the health benefits of polyphenols. Mol Aspects Med 31:435-445.
  3. Soundararajan R, Wishart AD, Rupasinghe HPV, Arcellana-Panlilio M, Nelson CM, et al.(2008) Quercetin-3-glucoside protects neuroblastoma (SH-SY5Y) cells in vitro against oxidative damage by inducing SREBP-2 mediated cholesterol biosynthesis. J BiolChem 283: 2231-2245.
  4. Shahidi F, Naczk M (2004) Phenolic compounds in fruits and vegetables. In Phenolicsin food and nutaceuticals. CRC Press, NY, 144-151.
  5. Leblanc MR, Johnson CE, Wilson PW (2008) Influence of pressing method on juice stilbene content in Muscadine and Bunch grapes. J Food Sci 73: 58-62.
  6. Fuleki T, Ricardo-Da-Silva JM (2003) Effects of cultivar and processing method on the contents of catechins and procyanidins in grape juice. J Agri Food Chem51: 640-646.
  7. Huckleberry JM, Morris JR, James C, Marx D, Rathburn IM (1990) Evaluation of wine grapes for suitability in juice production. J Food Qual 13: 71-84.
  8. Threlfall RT, Morris JR, Howard LR, Brownmiller CR, Walker TL (2005) Pressing effects on yield, quality and nutraceutical  content of juice, seeds and skins from Black Beauty and Sunbelt grapes. J Food Sci 70: 167-171.
  9. Ratnasooriya C, Rupasinghe HPV, Jamieson A (2010) Juice quality and polyphenol concentration of fresh fruits and pomace of selected Nov Scotia-grown grape cultivars. Can J Plant Sc 90: 193-205.
  10. Sadler GD, Murphy PA (1999) pH and titratable acidity. In: Nelson, S.S. (Edn), Food analysis. Aspen Publishers, NY, pp. 207-225.
  11. Rupasinghe HPV, Boulter-Bitzer J, Ahn T, Odumeru JA (2006). Vanillin inhibits pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms in vitro and aerobic microbial growth in fresh-cut apples. Food Res Internat 39: 575-580.
  12. Soyer Y, Koca N, Karadeniz F (2003) Organic acid profile of Turkish white grape and grape juice. J Food Comp Anal 16: 629-636.
  13. Rupasinghe HPV, Wang L, Huber GM, Pitts NL (2008) Effect of baking on dietary fiber and phenolics of muffins incorporated with apple skin powder. Food Chem107: 1217-1224.
  14. Benzie IFF, Strain JJ (1996) The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measurement of "antioxidant power": The FRAP assay. Analytical Biochem239: 70-76.
  15. Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr B (1991) Sensory evaluation techniques. (2ndEdn), Boca Raton, Florida, 135-197.
  16. Poste LM, Mackie DA, Butler G, Larmond E (1991) Laboratory methods for sensory analysis of food. Research Branch Agriculture Canada Publication, 19-22.
  17. Montgomery DC (2005) Design and analysis of experiments. (5thEdn), Wiley, NY, USA, 76-86.
  18. Morris JR, Sistrunk WA, Junek J, Sims CA (1986) Effects of fruit maturity juice storage and juice extraction temperature on juice quality of Concord grape juice. J AmerSocHortSci111: 742-746.
  19. Peleg H, Gacon K, Schlich P, Noble AC (1999) Bitterness and astringency of flavan-3-ol monomers, dimers and trimers. J Agric Food Chem 79: 1123-1128.
  20. Lee J, Durst RW, Wrolstad RE (2005) Determination of Total Monomeric Anthocyanin Pigment Content of Fruit Juices, Beverages, Natural Colorants, and Wines by the pH Differential Method: Collaborative Study. J AOAC Int 88: 1269-1278.
  21. Izumi K (1992) Reaction of nitrite with ascorbic acid or ascorbic acid-2- derivatives. J Food Sci 57: 1066-1067.
  22. Monach C, Scalbert A, Morand C, Remesy C, Jimenze L (2004) Polyphenols: food sources and bioavailability. Amer J Clinical Nutr 5: 727-747.
  23. Varela P, Gambaro A (2006) Sensory descriptive analysis of Uruguayan tannant wine: correlation to quality assessment. J Sensory Studies 21: 203-217.
Citation: Ratnasooriya CC, Vasantha Rupasinghe HP, Pitts NL (2012) Physicochemical and Sensory Evaluation of Non-alcoholic Wine-like Beverages Prepared from Selected Grape Cultivars. J Nutr Food Sci 2:119.

Copyright: © 2012 Ratnasooriya CC, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Top