Comparison of three sensory methods for use with the Napping® procedure: Case of ten wines from Loire valley

In the wine industry, characterisation is usually performed by wine professionals. However, the methods classically used in sensory analysis appear to be little adapted to this type of jury: winemakers are not unavailable per se but often not suitable as sensory panellists for extended studies by researchers. A method called Napping® was developed recently. This method seems to be more relevant to the wine profession because of its spontaneous aspect and its flexibility. However, Napping® itself does not characterise the products and has to be completed with a descriptive method. The aim of this study was to compare three methods to complete a wine Napping®: a conventional profile, taken as reference, and two simplified profiles (ultra-flash profile, UFP, and free profile, FP). Data were treated by hierarchical multiple factor analysis. Results show that all methods underlined the same main characteristics. The data collection from UFP is partly arbitrary, but this method is the least time-consuming and easily provided wine characterisations. It appeared here to be a good complement to Napping® and to be well adapted to wine professionals when a rough description is expected.