香气是描述和评价葡萄酒质量的重要标准。目前使用的葡萄酒香气描述词均是基于西方文化的香气词汇库，然而在其他文化背景的使用过程中会遇到各种困难。本研究的目的是用中国的语言文化方式更新法国“酒鼻子”这一被广泛应用的葡萄酒香气描述词库。本研究首先对150名未经训练的中国葡萄酒消费者进行了问卷调查，筛选出54种“酒鼻子”中他们不熟悉的葡萄酒香气描述词。然后，由22名未经训练的消费者组成的品尝小组进行描述性感官分析，以识别陌生描述符对应酒鼻子的可能替代本土词汇，并使用香气参照物来验证本土和非本土香气描述符之间的相似性假设。最终得出结论，有3个不熟悉的描述符由于与修改后的属性相似而被保留，4个香气描述符没有找到合适的替代词汇。在新的葡萄酒香气轮中，13个描述符被中国本土香气描述词汇所取代。据我们所知，本研究首次提出了由7个种类、16个子类的53个描述词组成的中国本土葡萄酒香气描述词轮。
 
Chinese localization of wine aroma descriptors
 Xi Lv^1,2, Linsheng Wei^1,2, Laichao Xu^1,2, Junxiang Zhang^1,2, Yanping Chen³, Wen MA^1,2*
 
1School of Food & Wine, Ningxia University, Yinchuan, Ningxia 750021, China
²Wine institution of Ningxia region, Yinchuan, Ningxia 750021, China
³Department of Food Science & Technology, School of Agriculture & Biology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China
*Corresponding author: mawen@nxu.edu.cn 

 

Abstract

Aroma is an important criterion in describing and evaluating wine. The aroma descriptor system currently used in wine analysis is based on Western culture; thus, other cultures are often inhibited from using this system to enhance their enjoyment of wine. The objective of the present study is to update this widely applied system to facilitate Chinese participation. The 54 wine aroma descriptors included in the original Le Nez du Vin Master Kit were updated according to a survey of 150 untrained Chinese wine consumers that revealed unfamiliar aromas. Descriptive sensory analysis was then performed by a panel of 22 untrained wine tasters to identify hypothesized equivalents of the remote lexicons. New aroma reference standards were presented to verify the hypothesized equivalents between local and non-local terms based on the similarity test. According to the results, three unfamiliar descriptors remained owing to their similarity to the revised attributes, and no suitable substitutions were found for four aromas. In the new system, 13 terms are replaced by Chinese local aroma attributes. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to present a Chinese-localized a wine aroma wheel consisting of 7 categories, 16 sub-categories, and 53 descriptors.
Keywords: Wine, Aroma descriptor, Chinese, aroma wheel
 

Introduction

The aroma profile is one of the most important organoleptic properties used to evaluate wine quality and style. The chemistry of wine aroma includes diversified compounds such as higher alcohols, terpenoids, esters, fatty acids, and aldehydes that are affected by various factors related to grape variety, terroir, wine fermentation procedures, and aging process (Peynaud and Blouin, 2013; Waterhouse et al., 2016). Wine aroma descriptors are widely used to describe the complexity and diversification of wines in wine tasting note and scientific studies. Descriptive sensory analysis, a method for discrimination and qualitative measurement, has been used extensively in the sensory evaluation of food and beverage products such as chocolate, potatoes, wine, rum, and beer (De Pelsmaeker et al., 2019; Parker, 2017; Sharma et al., 2020). Using descriptive analysis method, each product exhibits unique qualitative aspects such as aroma, appearance, flavor, texture, aftertaste, and sound upon consumption (Murray et al., 2001).
Aroma description is a challenge for the wine industry because the terms used to describe a particular wine can vary among consumers. Thus, standardized terms, definitions, and references for a product can result in more effective comprehension and discussion of the differences among products within a particular category (Lawless and Civille, 2013). Accordingly, a significant amount of effort has been applied to standardize such terms, which has facilitated communications among oenologists, sommeliers, and wine consumers. In 1981, Jean Lenoir developed a library of aromas used for wine taster training in olfactory perception and aroma description. Known as Le Nez du Vin Master Kit, this aroma set contained 54 concentrated flavor essences categorized in six groups including fruity, floral, vegetal, spicy, animal, and bakery (J. Lenoir, 1981). This set of wine aroma kits has been very popular in Chinese wine education system until now. In 1984, the Sensory Evaluation Subcommittee of the Technical Projects Committee of the American Society for Enology and Viticulture (ASEV) developed a list of standardized wine terminology (Noble et al., 1984). Shortly thereafter, the list was updated, and a new evaluation tool known as the wine aroma wheel was developed on the basis of reference compositions. In this system the 54 aromas included in the original master kit were categorized as 12 first tiers, 20 second tiers, and 94 third tiers (Noble et al., 1987).
Although wine aroma descriptors have been extensively developed, the standard description system in current usage still reflects Western culture. Some researchers have discussed that the regional differences in language may differ in food description (Andani et al., 2010; Corsi et al., 2017; Tu et al., 2010). However, many Chinese consumers face challenges in evaluating wine aromas based on the present lexicons owing to their lack of familiarity with some Western flowers, fruits, spices, and herbs. Such comsumers are thus unable to relate a standard reference aroma to a particular product, which results in impatience and frustration during the wine evaluation process. Therefore, wine aroma descriptors need to be adapted to local environment and language and applicable to all consumers. The present study, which focuses on Chinese wine consumers, introduces an updated wine aroma wheel that uses localized terms to enable their use of a standard system. In particular, the original 54 descriptors and references of Le Nez du Vin were updated on the basis of a survey conducted to target the unfamiliar aroma lexicons. On the basis of the results candidates for substitution terms were collected, and wine aroma lexicon references were established. Finally, the new system was evaluated by comparing the results of tests using the unfamiliar wine aroma terms and references with those newly applied. This study is the first trial to establish a Chinese localized wine aroma glossary, which will improve communication of wine aroma characteristics among Chinese wine tasters, involving oenologists, sommeliers and consumers. Moreover, it is hoped that the results will increase the enthusiasm of Chinese consumers by enhancing their understanding and appreciation of wine.

 

Materials and methods

1. Experiment 1: Questionnaire applied to identify nonlocal terminology

For the survey, 150 untrained native Chinese participants including 57 males and 93 females between the ages of 18 and 30 years were recruited. All participants were unfamiliar with wine nuances, and none had experienced foreign travel. In the questionnaire, the participants were asked to select one or more unfamiliar wine aroma descriptors of the 54 original terms in Le Nez du Vin (J. R. R. Lenoir, 2006), which included fruity aromas such as lemon, grapefruit, orange, pineapple, banana, lychee, melon, muscat, apple, pear, quince, strawberry, raspberry, red currant, black currant, blueberry, blackberry, cherry, apricot, peach, almond, prune, and walnut; floral aromas such as hawthorn, acacia, linden, honey, rose, and violet; vegetal aromas such as green pepper, mushroom, truffle, yeast, cedar, pine, licorice, black currant bud, cut hay, and thyme; spicy aromas such as vanilla, cinnamon, clove, pepper, and saffron; animal aromas such as leather, musk, and butter; and bakery aromas such as toasted bread, toasted almonds, toasted hazelnut, caramel, coffee, dark chocolate, and smoked.

2. Experiment 2: Collection of Chinese-equivalent terms and references

22 panelists from Food & Wine school of Ningxia University were recruited in this project. Each panelist had over 10 h of general descriptive analysis training and more than 200 h of wine tasting experience. Using Le Nez du Vin wine aroma kit as a reference (J. R. R. Lenoir, 2006), the tasting panel including 11 males and 11 females were asked to identify 20 standards having unfamiliar aromas (according to survey results of experiment 1). All participants were native Chinese from the Ningxia (8), Hunan (4), Hebei (4), Henan (3), Jiangsu (2), and Gansu (1) regions of China. The panelists were asked to sniff the aromas deemed unfamiliar, and each was asked to record as many hypothesized Chinese-equivalent aroma descriptors as possible according to their smell experienced in daily life. Substitutions of one to one descriptor or one to more descriptors were acceptable. If no suitable aroma was identified to replace the target term, “None” was specified on the questionnaire. Expressions with the same or similar meaning and redundant terms were eliminated by five well-trained panelists. Only terms which were unambiguous, non-redundant and non-hedonic were included in a list of preliminary descriptive terms (n =42) (Larssen et al., 2018). According to the results of the hypothesized equivalent terms, the newly selected aroma reference standards were obtained from supermarkets, online markets, pharmacies, and florist shops.

3. Experiment 3: Verification of hypothesized equivalents between local and nonlocal terms

A substitution test based on similarity test （Bi, 2005） was administered to the 22 panelists mentioned in section 2. The 20 aromas originally identified as unrecognizable in experiment 1 and proposed local reference in experiment 2 were used to verify the hypothesized equivalents. The reference standards were stored in opaque containers covered by aluminum foil (Fig. S1). The panelists were required to sniff each of the 20 unrecognizable aromas “le nez du vin” kits and the hypothesized equivalent references. Afterward, they rated the similarity of the local reference with the targeted kits on a five-point scale ranging from not similar (=1) to very similar (=5). A value of zero was attributed to terms that were not considered to be replaced. Finally, the proportion of the frequency count, with similarity values more than zero, and the average similarity value were analyzed.

4. Statistical analysis of data

The list of substitution terms in experiment 1 was limited based on how frequent the terms were chosen as unfamiliar lexicons (> 30%), in order to target the most remote terminologies. In experiment 3, attributes with frequency counts less than 70% or similarity values less than 1.5 were eliminated. If the difference in similarity value between the highest value and the candidate value was greater than 0.75, the candidate with the lower value was removed. The remaining hypothesized equivalent terms replaced the target unfamiliar terms. The results of the survey and the similarity test were analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2010. The word cloud was visualized using R version 3.6.3. 

Results

1. Experiment 1: Questionnaire applied to identify nonlocal terminology

The Chinese untrained wine consumers were not familiar with many of the aroma lexicons in Le Nez du Vin Master Kit (Fig. 1). As a result, 20 terms with the lowest familiarity were screened-out. These include black currant bud with an unfamiliar frequency of 134, quince at 130, linden at 124, thyme at 99, saffron at 96, raspberry at 93, black currant at 89, cedar at 87, red currant at 86, hawthorn at 84, musk at 79, clove at 76, grape at 75, blueberry at 74, truffle at 73, toasted hazelnut at 70, violet at 63, cut hay at 59, blackberry at 58, and grapefruit at 45. Each of these terms appeared more than 44 times, in the questionnaire results, accounting for at least 30% of the total survey responses. The most remote lexicons were black currant bud and quince, with frequency counts of 89.3% and 86.67%, respectively. The aroma attribute “black currant bud” was usually used without reference even in France. Hence, it was not surprising to find that it was the most unfamiliar wine aroma descriptor. Furthermore, most of the unfamiliar terms were from fruity, floral, and vegetal categories. From the spicy, animal, and bakery categories, saffron, clove, toasted hazelnut, and musk were remote to the participants, at frequency counts of 64.00%, 50.67%, 46.67%, and 52.67%, respectively.

2. Experiment 2: Collection of Chinese-equivalent terms and references

The substitution terms were collected in experiment 2 after the first sniff test was performed. Substitution lexicons of one to one or one to more were acceptable. The frequencies of all local aroma candidates were analyzed using word cloud diagrams (Fig. 2). No substitution aromas were identified for black currant bud, clove, violet, or saffron, as indicated by the “None” responses by most of the panelists (n > 5) and no other lexicon can achieve an agreement (n>3). This result implied that the panelists did not experience such aromas in their daily lives. Blueberry, cedar, and toasted hazelnut were not changed because most of the frequency substitution terms (n > 5) were similar to the original lexicons. For the 13 remaining descriptors including quince, linden, thyme, raspberry, black currant, red currant, hawthorn, musk, muscat, truffle, cut hay, blackberry, and grapefruit, the proposed substitution reference standards were prepared for the second sniff test.
Aroma reference standards were created on the basis of the substitute aroma terms collected. Some of the proposed terms referred to a category of aromas rather than that of a particular object such as mushroom, Chinese herbal medicine, pepper, and perfume. Such aromas were subdivided into more easily recognized aromas. For example, different types of mushrooms such as Pleurotus ostreatus, Agrocybe aegerita, Flammulina velutipes, and Lentinus edodes (Berk.) singer were obtained from a Chinese market. Diverse types of pepper common in Chinese daily life were also obtained, including black pepper, white pepper, and Sichuan pepper. Chinese herbal medicines were subdivided into Agastache rugosa (Fisch. et Mey.) O. Ktze., Dalbergia odorifera T. Chen, Radix Dolomiaeae, and Cyperus rotundus L. Because an excessive number of perfume types was included, the term “perfume” was removed. Hence, the following aroma candidate substitutes for the 13 original descriptors were selected: quince: green apple, lychee, strawberry, peach, and apple pear; linden: lilac, lavender, and Sophora japonica Linn.; thyme: white pepper, black pepper, Sichuan pepper, fengyoujing, and safflower oil; raspberry: blueberry; hawthorn: dry almond and toasted almond; black currant: Chuanbei loquat paste, cough syrup, and hawthorn cake; red currant: Chuanbei loquat paste, cough syrup, and kiwi; musk: cat fur, dog hair, dog feces, and cat feces; muscat: washing powder and papaya; truffle: P. ostreatus, A. aegerita, F. velutipes; and L. edodes (Berk.) Sing.; cut hay: A. rugosa (Fisch. et Mey.) O. Ktze., D. odorifera T. Chen, R. Dolomiaeae, and C. rotundus L.; blackberry: lily and rose; and grapefruit: orange, lemon, and pomelo. It provides photographs of these 42 substitute aroma candidates, which are listed in English and in Chinese Pinyin.

3. Experiment 3: Verification of hypothesized equivalents between local and nonlocal terms

To verify that correct replacements were selected, the 13 targeted Le Nez du Vin aromas are presented along with their substitution aroma references. The similarity between the targeted attributes and the substitution candidates was evaluated by applying the similarity test and based on both the frequency count and the average similarity value. The frequency counts of safflower oil, fengyoujing, toasted almond, L. edodes (Berk.) sing., and rose were not more than 70%; thus they were eliminated first. The similarity values of cat feces, dog fur, dog feces, and F. velutipes were not more than 1.5; accordingly, they were also removed from the substitution list.
Specifically, among the alternatives to quince flavor, the aroma of green apple was cited most often, with a similarity value of 2.45. The similarity values of lychee, strawberry, peach, and apple pear to quince were 1.95, 1.91, 1.91, and 1.86, respectively. Linden was replaced by lilac, lavender, and S. japonica Linn., with similarity values of 2.05, 1.73, and 1.64, respectively. To replace thyme, the black pepper, white pepper, and Sichuan pepper all had 100% frequency counts and high average similarity values ≥2.5. Because the term “pepper” was included in the original list of aroma descriptors, and more than 97% of Chinese consumers easily identified this aroma in the first survey experiment, thyme was replaced by pepper. Raspberry was recognized by seven panelists as blueberry in experiment 2. In the verification, both blueberry powder and blueberry jam had high frequency counts >80% and an average similarity value of 2.5. Therefore, raspberry were replaced by blueberry. Hawthorn is a flower variety not well known by Chinese consumers. A high average similarity value of 3.2 was observed with almond, which negated the need for additional substitution candidates. Black currant was replaced by Chuanbei loquat paste, cough syrup, and hawthorn cake, with average similarity values of 2.36, 2.16, and 1.68, respectively. Both Chuanbei loquat paste and cough syrup are popular ingredients in Chinese patent medicine, and the sweet yet acidic flavor of hawthorn is popular in Chinese snacks. The flavors of Chuanbei loquat paste and cough syrup are similar to the aroma of red currant. Kiwi was eliminated owing to its large difference in similarity value (0.81). Cat fur was the only replacement candidate for musk. Both washing powder and papaya took the place of muscat aroma. Although truffle was a remote term for Chinese consumers, its aroma is strongly similar to that of Chinese common mushroom such as P. ostreatus and A. aegerita. Because the similarity value difference between P. ostreatus and A. aegerita was 0.95, and thus greater than 0.75, P. ostreatus was the unique replacement aroma term for truffle. All four types of Chinese medicine collected, including A. rugosa (Fisch. et Mey.) O. Ktze., D. odorifera T. Chen, R. Dolomiaeae, and C. rotundus L. have aromas similar to that of cut hay. Lily was the only substituted aroma for blackberry. Orange, lemon, and pomelo, with similarity values of 3.23, 3.14, and 2.66, respectively, took the place of grapefruit.
Ultimately, 18 descriptors were removed from the original aroma wheel (Fig. 3A). An updated aroma wheel was then developed that consisted of seven primary tier terms, 16 second-tier terms, and 53 third-tier terms (Fig. 3B). The 53 Chinese-localized aroma descriptors according to their categories were fruity aromas: lemon, pomelo, orange, pineapple, banana, lychee, melon, papaya, apple, pear, green apple, apple pear, strawberry, blueberry, cherry, apricot, peach, almond, prune, and walnut; floral aromas: S. japonica Linn., lilac, lavender, honey, rose, and lily; vegetal aromas: green pepper, mushroom, P. ostreatus, yeast, cedar, pine, licorice, A. rugosa (Fisch. et Mey.) O. Ktze., D. odorifera T. Chen, R. Dolomiaeae, C. rotundus L., cough syrup, and Chuanbei loquat paste; spicy aromas: vanilla, cinnamon, and pepper; animal aromas: leather, cat fur, and butter; bakery aromas: toasted bread, toasted almond, toasted hazelnut, caramel, coffee, dark chocolate, and smoked; and chemical aroma: washing powder.
 

Discussion

The novelty of this investigation is the updating of traditional wine aroma descriptors according to Chinese culture. Three main results were obtained in this research. First, 20 wine aroma descriptors included in Le Nez du Vin were unfamiliar to Chinese participants, resulting in a frequency count of at least 30%. This finding is consistent with the results in the literature (Lockshin et al., 2017). In the currently used system for wine aroma description, a large discrepancy is present between familiar aromas in Chinese and Western cultures. This can be attributed to differences in natural environments, represented by fruity, floral, and vegetal aromas; living habits, represented by vegetal and animal aromas; and cuisine, represented by spicy and bakery aromas. Second, as a result of the sniff test based on the Le Nez du Vin kit, 42 hypothesized local equivalent terms replacing the 20 targeted lexicons were collected and used as reference standards. In previous research (Corsi et al., 2017), 37 hypothesized equivalent pairs were derived from an earlier study (Cho Lee, 2011) on the basis of wine tasting experiences rather than experimental data. Because China covers a large geographical area, nuances are present in living environments and culture among the diverse regions. The aforementioned earlier study (Cho Lee, 2011) is based mainly on Hong Kong and the entire Asian continent and does not focus on mainland China. Third, the present study is the first to develop a localized Chinese wine aroma wheel including 53 aroma attributes in seven categories, which is applicable to the diverse styles, ages, and origins of wines. Thirty-six of these terms were derived from the original Le Nez du Vin aroma attributes that were considered to be acceptable to the Chinese participants of the study, and thirteen equivalent terms were replaced with thirty-one local lexicons. Unfortunately, four of the original descriptors, including black currant bud, clove, violet, and saffron, were unable to be replaced owing to their high unfamiliarity values. It can be speculated that these aromas are composed of various chemical compounds unique to Western culture, which created challenges in finding substitutions familiar to the Chinese participants. However, regrouping aroma compounds during wine tasting by Chinese consumers can be used to enhance and could lead to the identification of additional local equivalent descriptors.
It should be noted that this study had several limitations. First, the aromas perceived by the participants could vary according differences in age, region of residence, or living environment. Therefore, more detailed classification of survey participants is needed. For example, older females might be more familiar with kitchen spices and Chinese medicines than younger participants. Moreover, consumers from different regions of China described wine aromas based on their local fruits and floral lexicons. Second, because this study used the aromas of Le Nez du Vin as reference standards rather than those of actual materials. The smell of aroma kits made by flavour essence may be unstable and degrade readily. Third, the present study did not validate the localized aroma terminologies in wines. Since wine aroma characteristics may diversify according to grape varieties, wine styles, ages and original regions, preparation of wine samples should be carefully considered.
In summary, the results of this investigation showed that 20 wine aroma descriptors used in the currently system were unfamiliar to Chinese consumers with a frequency count greater than 30%. Accordingly, a Chinese-localized wine aroma wheel consisting of 53 revised terms was created. Of the original terms, three were retained, including blueberry, cedar, and toasted hazelnut, and thirteen were replaced by one or more equivalent local descriptors. Specifically, quince was replaced by green apple, lychee, strawberry, peach, and apple pear; linden was substituted by lilac, lavender, and S. japonica Linn.; thyme was equivalent to pepper and fengyoujing; raspberry was replaced by blueberry; hawthorn was replaced by almond; black currant was replaced by Chuanbei loquat paste, cough syrup, and hawthorn cake; red currant was substituted by Chuanbei loquat paste and cough syrup; musk was replaced by cat fur; muscat was replaced by washing powder and papaya; truffle was replaced by P. ostreatus; cut hay was replaced by A. rugosa (Fisch. et Mey.) O. Ktze., D. odorifera T. Chen, R. Dolomiaeae, and C. rotundus L.; blackberry was replaced by lily; and grapefruit was replaced by orange, lemon, and pomelo. No suitable local descriptors were found to replace the remaining four original attributes including black currant bud, clove, violet, and saffron. This study revealed the existed aroma descriptors that confused Chinese during wine training. Proposed substitutions may help the oenologists and consumers in different language background know each other better during communications. Furthermore, this investigation may offer Chinese more references to describe the wine aroma according to their own aroma recognition environment
 
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Gang Jin and Lv Xi: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing-Original Draft, Formal analysis; Linsheng Wei and Laichao Xu: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation; Junxiang Zhang and Yanping Chen: Writing - Review & Editing; Wen MA: Conceptualization, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Writing - Review & Editing.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thanks the panelists of Ningxia SA tasting panel. Financial assistant is provided by National Natural Science of China (31801533) and Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region Key Research and Development Program (2021BEF02014).
 

References

Andani, Z., Jaeger, S. R, Wakeling, I. N, & Macfie, H. J. J. o. F. S. (2010). Mealiness in apples: Towards a multilingual consumer vocabulary. Journal of Food Science, 66(6), 872–879. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2001.tb15189.x
Bi, J. (2005). Similarity testing in sensory and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 16(2): 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.03.003
Cho Lee, J. (2011). Mastering wine for the Asian palate. Hong Kong: Asset Publishing and Research Ltd. 
Corsi, A. M, Cohen, J., Lockshin, L., & Williamson, P. (2017). Testing lexical equivalences for wine flavours in emerging markets: Do hawthorns taste like blackberries? Food Quality and Preference, 62, 296–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.03.011
De Pelsmaeker, S., De Clercq, G., Gellynck, X., & Schouteten, J. J. (2019). Development of a sensory wheel and lexicon for chocolate. Food Research International, 116, 1183–1191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.09.063
Lawless, L. J. R, & Civille, G. V. (2013). Developing lexicons: A review. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28(4), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12050
Larssen, W. E., E. Monteleone and M. Hersleth (2018). Sensory description of marine oils through development of a sensory wheel and vocabulary. Food Research International 106: 45-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.12.045
Lenoir, J. (1981). Le nez du Vin. Paris.
Lenoir, J. R. R. (2006). Le nez du Vin. Paris, France: Jean Lenoir.
Lockshin, L., Corsi, A. M, Cohen, J., Lee, R., & Williamson, P. (2017). West versus East: Measuring the development of Chinese wine preferences. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.014
Murray, J., Delahunty, C., & Baxter, I. (2001). Descriptive sensory analysis: Past, present and future. Food Research International, 34(6), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0963-9969(01)00070-9
Noble, A. C, Arnold, R., Masuda, B. M, Pecore, S., Schmidt, J., & Stern, P. (1984). Progress towards a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 35(2), 107–109.
Noble, A. C, Arnold, R. A, Buechsenstein, J., Leach, E. J, Schmidt, J. O, & Stern, P. M. (1987). Modification of a standardized system of wine aroma terminology. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 38(2), 143–146.
Parker, D. (2017). Sensory evaluation of beer. In Handbook of brewing. CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351228336-26 
Peynaud, É., & Blouin, J. (2013). Le Goût du Vin. Dunod Paris, France.
Sharma, C., Chambers, E., Jayanty, S. S, Sathuvalli Rajakalyan, V., Holm, D. G, & Talavera, M. (2020). Development of a lexicon to describe the sensory characteristics of a wide variety of potato cultivars. Journal of Sensory Studies, 35(4), e12577. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12577
Tu, V. P, Valentin, D., Husson, F., & Dacremont, C. J. F. Q. (2010). Cultural differences in food description and preference: Contrasting Vietnamese and French panellists on soy yogurts. Food Quality and Preference, 21(6), 602–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.009
Waterhouse, A. L, Sacks, G. L, & Jeffery, D. W. (2016). Understanding wine chemistry. John Wiley & Sons.
 
 

 
Fig. 1. Unfamiliar frequency of aroma attributes included in the survey. The values in brackets represent the frequency counts.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Fig. 2. Word cloud of substituted candidates.

 
 
 
 

Fig. 3. (A) Original wine aroma wheel based on Le Nez du Vin;(B) updated Chinese-localized wine aroma wheel.