Augmented taste of wine by artificial climate room
Influence of temperature and humidity on taste evaluation
Toshiharu Igarashi

Tatsuya Minagawa

Yoichi Ochiai

University of Tsukuba
igarashi.toshiharu@
digitalnature.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp

University of Tsukuba
mina.tatsu@
digitalnature.slis.tsukuba.ac.jp

University of Tsukuba
Pixie Dust Technologies, Inc.
wizard@slis.tsukuba.ac.jp







Figure 1: (a) ; Outside of artificial climatic room. (b) ; Inside of artificial climatic room. (c) ; Control panel of artificial climaticroom.

ABSTRACTCCS CONCEPTS

In previous research, there is a augmenting device limited taste
influences due to limited contact with utensils. However, in thesituation such as enjoying wine while talking with other people
and matching cheese with wine, the solution that limits human behaviors must not have been acceptable. So, we focused on changing
the temperature and humidity when drinking wine.
To study the influence of temperature and humidity on the ingredients and subjective taste of wine, we conducted wine tasting
experiments with 16 subjects using an artificial climate room. For
the environmental settings, three conditions, i.e., a room temperature of 14◦ C and humidity of 35%, 17◦ C and 40% humidity, and26◦ C and 40% humidity, were evaluated. In one of the two wines
used in the experiment, significant differences in [Color intensity],[Smell development] and [Body] were detected among conditions(p < 0.05). We further investigated changes in the components ofthe two wines at different temperature conditions (14◦ C, 17◦ C,
23◦ C, and 26◦ C). Malic acid, protocatechuic acid, gallic acid, andepicatechin were related to temperature in the former wine only.
In conclusion, we confirmed that we can change the taste evaluation of wine by adjusting temperature and humidity using theartificial climate room, without attaching the device to human beings themselves. This suggests the possibility to serve wine in amore optimal environment if we can identify the type of wine andperson’s preference.

• Human-centered computing; • Human computer interaction (HCI); • Empirical studies in HCI;

AH2019, March 11–12, 2019, Reims, France© 2019 Association for Computing Machinery.
This is the author’s version of the work. It is posted here for your personal use.
Not for redistribution. The definitive Version of Record was published in Augmented
Human International Conference 2019 (AH2019), March 11–12, 2019, Reims, France,
https://doi.org/10.1145/3311823.3311871.

KEYWORDS
Human-centered computing; Empirical studies in HCI; Augmented
taste ; Taste of wine; Artificial climate room
ACM Reference Format:
Toshiharu Igarashi, Tatsuya Minagawa, and Yoichi Ochiai. 2019. Augmented
taste of wine by artificial climate room: Influence of temperature and humidity on taste evaluation. In Augmented Human International Conference 2019
(AH2019), March 11–12, 2019, Reims, France, Jennifer B. Sartor, Theo D’Hondt,
and Wolfgang De Meuter (Eds.). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 4, 8 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3311823.3311871

1

INTRODUCTION”Wine is one of the most civilized things in the world and one of
the most natural things of the world that has been brought to thegreatest perfection, and it offers a greater range for enjoyment andappreciation than, possibly, any other purely sensory thing.” Ernest
Miller Hemingway, an American journalist, novelist, and drinker,
stated in ”Death in the Afternoon.” Perfection is also dependent on
the situation, so we try making it variable by technology.
Recently, in addition to enjoying the taste of wine, it is becoming
possible to adjust environmental parameters by AR and VR. Sensory
quality is influenced not only by taste but also by a variety offactors, such as olfaction, hearing, vision, and temperature andhumidity. Overall quality is based on a combination of these sensory
properties [1]. In this context, studies of various foods based on
olfaction, hearing, and visual parameters have been performed [26], but few studies have evaluated the effect of the temperature

AH2019, March 11–12, 2019, Reims, France

Toshiharu Igarashi, Tatsuya Minagawa, and Yoichi Ochiai

Table 1: Suitable temperature difference for drinking wine. From the left, sparkling, white , noble rot and red wine.
Author’s name
H.Woschek
G.Troost
H.Scharfenberg
H.Johnson

Sparkling wine
8 - 10◦ C
6◦ C
10◦ C (Dry champagne)

White wine
8 - 10◦ C
10 - 11◦ C

and humidity when consuming particular foods. Additionally, in an
augmented taste study by Ranasinghe et al.[7], a device was limited
taste influences due to limited contact with utensils. However, when
considering the augmented taste of wine, the limitation may not
be effective or practical. In various situations, such as enjoying
wine while talking with other people and matching cheese to wine,
solutions that limit human behaviors are not acceptable.
Accordingly, we focused on changing the environment duringconsumption, rather than a solution involving a physical limitation.
In past research, sufficient experiments have not been conducted
to evaluate the effects of environmental factors and, in particular,
to determine how temperature and/or humidity are related to taste
perception in humans. For this reason, we used an artificial climate
room in which temperature and humidity can be adjusted, anddetermined how these environmental parameters affect the perception of wine as evaluated by subjects. In addition, we investigatedchanges in the composition of wine due to temperature changes
and analyzed these changes in combination with the results of theexperiment using human subjects.

2 RELATED WORKS
2.1 Correlation between temperature and taste
Previous research has indicated that the surrounding environmentis strongly related to taste [8-10]. Wine is no exception; it is important to choose the best environment for drinking in order to
optimize taste. We know that the taste of wine changes dependingon the temperature of the wine. In addition, there is a correlation
between changes in taste and components of wine (Table 1). As forthe optimal temperature for drinking each type of wine, Woschek
stated that white wine is best at 8 - 10◦ C, red is best at 14 - 16◦ C, andblush is best at 18◦ C [11]. Troost reported optimal temperaturesof 10 - 11◦ C for normal white, 13 - 15◦ C for noble wine, 16 - 18◦ C
for red, 15 - 16◦ C for powerful Burgundy, and 18 - 19◦ C for heavy
Bordeaux wines. The optimal range for effervescent wine is 8 - 10◦ C[12]. In addition, Scharfenberg stated that Muscadet Sur Lee andchampagne are optimal at 6◦ C and Beaujolais Nouveau is optimal
at 10◦ C [13]. Johnson reported that the optimal temperature forvery sweet white sparkling wine is 5◦ C, that for dry Champagne
is 10◦ C, that for Burgundy and aged Rhone are 18◦ C, and that foraged Bordeaux is 16◦ C [14].
These results are also supported by research by Watanabe et al.,
who reported that the most important taste components of wine are
the major organic acids (tartaric acid, malic acid, citric acid, acetic
acid, lactic acid, succinic acid, and gluconic acid), minerals, glycerin,
and sugars based on the results of a factor analysis [15]. According
to this report, drinking at a cold temperature, with a lower limit of
5 - 6◦ C, is appropriate for wines containing abundant malic acid,

Noble rot wine
13 - 15◦ C

Red wine
16 - 18◦ C
16 - 18◦ C
10◦ C (Beaujolais Nouveau)
16 - 18◦ C

tartaric acid, citric acid, acetic acid, and carbonic acid (gas). Wines
with large quantities of warm acidic organic acids, such as lactic
acid, gluconic acid, and succinic acid, are considered appropriate
for drinking at a warm temperature with an upper limit of 18 19◦ C. The suitable temperature for drinking intermediate wines
containing a cold acid and a tropical organic acid in a tastelessmanner is about 12◦ C, but those containing a lot of tannins are
optimal for drinking at higher temperatures.

2.2

Correlation between humidity and taste

As mentioned above, while there are many studies of the drinking
temperature of wine, little is known about the effects of humidity
when drinking wine. According to Takemura et al., the olfactory
threshold tends to increase as the humidity increases, even considering variation due to individual differences [16]. Additionally,odorous substances are volatile and extremely small amounts areperceived owing to the extremely low threshold. Some somatosensory sensations, such as pungent and carbonated stimuli, have beenreported to modify chemical sensations, such as taste and olfaction[17]. The fragrance of wine changes at each of the four steps ofgrapes, alcohol fermentation, malo-lactic fermentation, and aging[18]. Volatile components, such as ethyl acetate, ethyl lactate, diethyl succinate, γ -butyrolactone, and higher alcohols, have beenfound to affect aroma characteristics [19]. Generally, for different
humidity levels, the amount of wine that is vaporized differs andtherefore the perceived smell differs, which is thought to affect thesense of taste.

3 USER STUDY
3.1 Method
To quantitatively investigate the influence of temperature and humidity on the taste of wine, we used an artificial climate room.
3.1.1 Subjects. Sixteen individuals (7 men and 9 women) of 20 50 years old (M = 39.38, SD = 9.82) were recruited from an external
subject recruitment service on the condition that wine drinking is
habitual (about 1 day per a week). All subjects confirmed that they
have no gustatory abnormality by self reporting.
3.1.2 Artificial Climate Room. An artificial climate room that regulates the parameters of room temperature and humidity was prepared (Fig.1). In the artificial climate room, the temperature can be
set with an error of ±0.5◦ C from a minimum of -20◦ C to a maximum of 50◦ C, and the humidity can be set with an error of ± 3%
from a minimum of 30% to a maximum of 80%. The size of the room
was 6500 mm (width) x 3600 mm (length) x 2800 mm (height). In
the artificial climate room, changes of 5◦ C and 10% humidity perhour can be obtained when the room is empty.

Augmented taste of wine by artificial climate room

AH2019, March 11–12, 2019, Reims, France

Table 2: Detailed information on selected wine 1 and 2 about type, production place, producer, year, variety.

Type
Production place
ProducerYear
Variety

Wine 1
CROIX DE BEAUCAILLOU 2011
Red
France >Bordeaux >Saint-Julien
CH. DUCRU BEAUCAILLOU
2011
Cabernet Sauvignon 80%, Merlot 20%

3.1.3 Wine samples. Two types of wine were used, CROIX DEBEAUCAILLOU 2011 (hereinafter referred to as wine 1) and BLAGNY
1 ER CRU LA PIECE SOUS LE BOIS 2014 (hereinafter referred toas wine 2). Since we know that visual information, i.e., the colorof wine, influences the evaluation of taste, the color of both wine
was unified as red. Additionally, the production area was the same,i.e., France; however, it was divided between Bordeaux and Burgundy regions. In addition, varieties were 80% Cabernet Sauvignon
and 20% Merlot (wine 1) and 100% Pinot Noir (wine 2). The main
information for the two wines is listed in Table 2.
3.1.4 Test methods. The subjects drank the two wines in threeenvironments with different temperatures and humidities and responded to a questionnaire. The three environmental settings were
14◦ C and 35% humidity, 17◦ C and 40% humidity, and 26◦ C and
40% humidity. A room temperature of 26◦ C with 40% humidity
matches the general indoor environment in Japan. A lower temperature of 14◦ C was adopted, as suggested by Woschek, and 17◦ C was
adopted as the average of the temperatures (16◦ C to 18◦ C) proposedby Troost and Johnson. Regarding humidity, 35% for 14◦ C and 40%
for 17◦ C were selected to determine whether a slight change has asignificant effect.
3.1.5 Tasting rule. After describing the experimental conditions,
we described tasting rules to the subjects. We adopted the tasting
rules of WSET (The Wine Spirit Education Trust). WSET founded
in 1969 is a global organisation which arranges courses and exams
in the field of wine and spirits education. They were asked to sample 2 glasses (one glass for each kind of wine) in each of the threeenvironmental settings for 20 minutes and to respond to a selfwritten questionnaire. The subjects asked to drink a glass of watereach time after evaluating the color, scent, taste, and overall quality
according to the sensory evaluation, preference test, and tasting
rules for the scoring method. Questionnaire items were based on
the WSET Diploma Examination [20]. The wine was served withbrand labels removed and a serving was 30 mL; since 2 kinds ofwine were tasted in 3 environments, 6 total wines and 180 mL wereconsumed. The wine glasses and wine were kept in accordance withthe temperature of the room, and they were checked by thermography before tasting by subjects. The entry and exit of a large numberof people may temporarily change the environmental conditions;accordingly, 16 subjects were divided into 4 groups for the tests.

3.2

Results

The results obtained for the two types of wine are summarizedin figure 2. When comparing wine of the same type, significant
differences according to the environmental setting were tested

Wine 2BLAGNY 1ER CRU LA PIECE SOUS LE BOIS 2014
Red
France >Burgundy >Braunie
MATROT
2014
Pinot Noir 100%
(14◦ C and 35% humidity, 17◦ C and 40% humidity, and 26◦ C and 40%
humidity). To compare mean values among settings, t-tests wereused. A two-sided p-value of 0.05 or less indicated a significant
difference.
3.2.1 Wine 1. With respect to [Color intensity], a significant difference was detected in the comparison between 14◦ C with 35%
humidity and 26◦ C with 40% humidity (t = 0.028 , p < 0.05). With respect to [Smell development], a significant difference was detectedin the comparison between 14◦ C with 35% humidity and 26◦ C with
40% humidity (t = 0.034, p < 0.05).
With respect to [Body], significant differences were detectedin the comparison between 17◦ C with 40% humidity and 26◦ C
with 40% humidity and in the comparison between 14◦ C with 35%
humidity and 26◦ C with 40% humidity (t = 0.008, t = 0.008 , p <0.05).
3.2.2 Wine 2. For wine 2, in the comparisons between 14◦ C with
35% humidity 35% and 17◦ C with 40% humidity, between17◦ C with
40% humidity and 26◦ C with 40% humidity, and between 14◦ C
with 35% humidity and 26◦ C with 40% humidity, no statisticallysignificant differences were detected for any of the evaluation items.

4 EVALUATION ON INGREDIENTS OF WINE
4.1 Methods
To investigate the changes in the composition of wine due to temperature changes, we examined the compositions of the two kindsof wine at 14◦ C, 17◦ C, 23◦ C, and 26◦ C.
4.1.1 Wine selection. Regarding the wine, we selected two types,
Croix de Beaucaillou 2011 and Blagny 1er Cru Le Piece sous le Bois
2014.
4.1.2 Detection components. Selected ion monitoring (SIM) in negative mode was adopted for detection, referring to the methodsof Yan Cui et al. (2012) [21]. The components were succinic acid,malic acid, p-HBA (p-hydroxybenzoic acid) protocatech ALD (protocatechaldehyde), tartaric acid, gensitic acid, protocatechuic acid,vanillic acid, gallic acid, caffeic acid, citric acid, ferulic acid, syringic acid, p-coumaric acid, epicatechin, quercetin, myricetin, luteolin, and resveratrol. In addition, when examining the changes incomponents at each temperature, testing was performed for eachcomponent for a total of 18 tests, and it is possible for values tochange between tests. Therefore, reagents were used to analyze
the 18 different components simultaneously. Therefore, the resultof the component analysis were not evaluated based on absolutevalues but on relative values, setting the initial value to 100%.

AH2019, March 11–12, 2019, Reims, France

Toshiharu Igarashi, Tatsuya Minagawa, and Yoichi Ochiai

29 6

29 6
%

F %

%

B

%

F
F

4 3 9AB

4 3 9A

F %

%

9 A6

9A

B

9A

B

9 A6

F
F

0 6

F

%

0 6

56C6

F

F
F

59A9
4959A

4959A

F

%
%

F
F

%

F
%

9

F %

9
F

13

13

%

F

%

F
F %

F
F
F %

4 8

%

F

F

F

F

F %

F %

5

4 8

%
%

F
F

F %

5

F

F %

F

F
F

%

9 9 8

F

F

F
%

B3 9A

F
F

%

7

F %

6359 6

F

F

F %

%

6C6

F %

F

F
%

F
F

%

F %

%

F

F %

F

%

9A

3C B

%

F
F %

%

F %

%

9 A6

%

9A
F

%

F

F %

9 A6

F

F %

%

F %

9 9 8

%

F %

%

0 66A 6

0 66A 6

9 A6

F

6 A

59A9

0 6

0 6

F %

9A

F %

F %

B3 9A

%

F
F

F

6359 6

F

F

9A
0 6

9 A6
6 A

0 6

56C6

F

F %

F

F %

3C B

%

F %

F %

7

F
F

%

F %

6C6

%

F
F

Figure 2: Result list of user study. As for [Colour intensity][Smell development][Body], significant differences were foundonly in wine 1, and no significant difference was found in wine 2.

Augmented taste of wine by artificial climate room

AH2019, March 11–12, 2019, Reims, France

Table 3: The changes in the ingredients of wine 1. Procedures from a to j correspond to Figure 3.

Wine 1
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j

14◦ C at opening17◦ C from 14◦ C
14◦ C from 17◦ C
23◦ C from 17◦ C
17◦ C from 23◦ C
14◦ C from 17◦ C
26◦ C from 23◦ C
23◦ C from 26◦ C
17◦ C from 23◦ C
14◦ C from 17◦ C

Succinic
acid

Malic
acid

100%
104%
107%
107%
110%
103%
107%
104%
109%
113%

100%
108%
108%
107%
114%
109%
110%
108%
105%
109%

p-HBA
& protocatech
ALD
100%
112%
101%
99%
100%
96%
103%
89%
92%
92%

Tartaric
acid
100%
102%
99%
100%
103%
98%
99%
100%
100%
104%

Protocatechuic
acid
100%
104%
100%
105%
102%
103%
102%
102%
98%
99%

Gallicacid

Caffeic
acid

Citricacid

Ferulicacid

p-coumaricacid

Epicatechin

Quercetin

Myricetin

100%
107%
105%
102%
97%
106%
95%
103%
103%
103%

100%
124%
103%
110%
80%
85%
77%
95%
74%
81%

100%
105%
121%
120%
134%
126%
129%
129%
132%
128%

100%
102%
92%
105%
95%
83%
93%
83%
73%
76%

100%
103%
109%
109%
103%
108%
110%
95%
78%
84%

100%
96%
96%
99%
181%
175%
180%
91%
163%
168%

100%
107%
109%
112%
108%
108%
101%
101%
100%
109%

100%
98%
96%
102%
97%
97%
98%
93%
90%
94%

Table 4: The changes in the ingredients of wine 2. Procedures from a to j correspond to Figure 3.

Wine 2
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j

14◦ C at opening17◦ C from 14◦ C
14◦ C from 17◦ C
23◦ C from 17◦ C
17◦ C from 23◦ C
14◦ C from 17◦ C
26◦ C from 23◦ C
23◦ C from 26◦ C
17◦ C from 23◦ C
14◦ C from 17◦ C

Succinic
acid

Malic
acid

100%
102%
102%
103%
102%
103%
103%
96%
105%
103%

100%
78%
101%
103%
100%
79%
80%
74%
77%
96%

p-HBA
& protocatech
ALD
100%
93%
96%
90%
95%
83%
89%
79%
76%
77%

Tartaric
acid
100%
115%
115%
119%
115%
117%
117%
112%
114%
113%

Protocatechuic
acid
100%
102%
110%
97%
107%
95%
101%
98%
93%
99%

Gallicacid

Caffeic
acid

Citricacid

Ferulicacid

p-coumaricacid

Epicatechin

Quercetin

Myricetin

100%
97%
106%
92%
102%
88%
100%
93%
83%
96%

100%
88%
77%
87%
84%
73%
93%
77%
74%
68%

100%
98%
102%
102%
104%
98%
104%
105%
108%
127%

100%
94%
85%
90%
51%
84%
86%
60%
62%
58%

100%
99%
104%
102%
101%
94%
101%
72%
77%
71%

100%
103%
107%
103%
105%
187%
101%
169%
178%
178%

100%
104%
108%
106%
108%
107%
105%
105%
105%
102%

100%
103%
97%
95%
99%
100%
99%
98%
99%
93%

changing the temperature to 23◦ C (d). We conducted a component
survey for wine at 23◦ C from the cold state of 17◦ C (e) or 14◦ C(f) in a wine cellar. Next, the wine at 23◦ C was slowly heated inan electric furnace to 26◦ C, and the ingredients were examined at
26◦ C (g). We conducted component investigation in the state ofcooling from 26◦ C to 23◦ C (h), 17◦ C (i), and 14◦ C (j). In either case,the potential for unintended changes in the components due to asudden temperature change was considered and the temperaturefluctuated over periods of 30 minutes.

Figure 3: Inspection procedures of the wine from 14 ◦ C to 26◦ C. From a to J correspond to Table 3 and 4.

4.1.3 Inspection procedures. The temperature of the wine was firstchanged to 14◦ C using a wine cellar (Fig. 3). In this state, the wine
was opened and a component survey was conducted (a). Next, theingredients were surveyed at 17◦ C in a wine cellar (b). A wine glass
was prepared and wine at 17◦ C was added. It was cooled again to14◦ C in a wine cellar, and the ingredients were investigated again(c). The wine at 17◦ C was subjected to component investigation by

4.1.4 Detection device. The equipment was a UPLC-TQD manufactured by Waters Corporation (Milford, MA, USA), and the separation column was a BEH C18 (2.1 mm x 50 mm) manufactured by
Waters Corporation. The temperature was 40◦ C and the flow rate
was 0.4 mL/min. Ionization mode was ESI-negative. Depending on
the equipment, according to Yan Cui et al. (2012), drying gas wasused for the cone gas and nebulizing gas, and desolvation gas was
used.

4.2

Results

The changes in the components of each wine are shown in Table 3
and 4. The ingredients of wine 1 and 2 from a to j were obtainedAH2019, March 11–12, 2019, Reims, France

Toshiharu Igarashi, Tatsuya Minagawa, and Yoichi Ochiai

Relative detection value

Relative detection value

1.12
1.05

0.95

0.85

1.04

0.96

0.88

0.75
14

18

22

14

26

18

Temperature
Wine 1Wine 226

Wine 1Wine 2

18

22

2.1

Relative detection value

1.08

Relative detection value

22

Temperature

1.04

1

1.7

1.3

0.9

0.96
14

18

22

26

Temperature
Wine 1Wine 2

14

26

Temperature
Wine 1Wine 2

Figure 4: Comparative chart of component transition in heating of wines 1 and 2.
Correlations for only wine 1 were observed for malic acid, protocatechuic acid, gallic acid and epicatechin.
(Figure 4). Gensitic acid, vanillic acid, syringic acid, luteolin, andresveratrol could not be measured owing to the limitation of analyzing 18 different components at the same time.
To analyze the influence of the temperature of the wine components, a regression analysis was performed using temperature as anindependent variable and each component that could be measured
as a dependent variable. Regarding the interpretation of the regression analysis, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were obtained forcontinuous variables; coefficients of 0.4 to 0.7 indicated a correlationand coefficients of 0.7 indicated a strong correlation.

4.2.1 Changes in the components of wine 1 and 2 during the entire
heating and cooling process. First, we verified each component bysimple warming and cooling to determine whether or not a simple
linear regression can be fitted. Protocatechuic acid (R = 0.419 forwine 1, R = 0.168 for wine 2) and gallic acid (R = 0.504 for wine
1, R = 0.078 for wine 2) exhibited correlations with temperature
specifically for wine 1. For wine 2, no correlation was found for anyof the ingredients, so there were no common correlations found inboth wines 1 and 2.

4.2.2 Changes in components of wines 1 and 2 during heating. As
described in figure 4, it is difficult to assume a simple linear correlation during the entire heating and cooling process. Therefore,
each component was evaluated to determine whether or not linear
regression fitted the data for the warming of each wine.
Correlations for both wines were observed for succinic acid (R= 0.941 for wine 1, R = 0.948 for wine 2), tartaric acid (R = 0.494
for wine 1, R = 0.796 for wine 2), caffeic acid (R = 0.558 for wine 1,
R = 0.420 for wine 2), citric acid (R = 0.995 for wine 1, R = 0.837
for wine 2) and p-coumaric acid (R = 0.987 for wine 1, R = 0.638 forwine 2).
Correlations for wine 1 were observed for malic acid (R = 0.736
for wine 1, R = 0.226 for wine 2), protocatechuic acid (R = 0.452
for wine 1, R = 0.227 for wine 2), gallic acid (R = 0.567 for wine 1,
R = 0.235 for wine 2), and epicatechin (R = 0.731 for wine 1, R =0.327 for wine 2).
Conversely, p-HBA protocatech ALD (R = 0.232 for wine 1, R
= 0.927 for wine 2), quercetin (R = 0.241 for wine 1, R = 0.862 forwine 2), and myricetin (R = 0.052 for wine 1, R = 0.566 for wine 2)
were correlated only for wine 2 and not for wine 1.

Augmented taste of wine by artificial climate room

5

DISCUSSION

We examined the influence of temperature and humidity on thequality characteristics of wine based on wine component analyses
and subjective evaluations.

5.1

Subjects

Subjects included 7 men and 9 women. Fifteen of the subjects had
no smoking habits, and only one male had a daily smoking habit.
Despite a study indicating that smoking habits influence taste [22],there was no significant difference for any item in a comparison
between the average value for the smoking individual and the other15 subjects.

5.2

Experimental differences and results of thecomponent evaluation

According to Analysis 3-3, wine 1 (Croix de Beaucaillou 2011) wascomprehensively evaluated (with respect to color, scent, sourness,
sweetness, body, flavor, bitterness and astringency, and aftertaste).
The [Flavor development] is an index in which 1 indicates young
and 7 indicates overripe/peak. In an environment with a room
temperature of 14◦ C and a humidity of 35%, the average value as
evaluated by the subjects was 4.0, with a standard deviation of
1.254. At 26◦ C and 40% humidity, the average value was 4.813 witha standard deviation of 0.655. These results indicated that in for thematuration degree of wine 1, the environmental settings of 14◦ C
and 35% humidity were appropriate, and somewhat over-ripe/peakqualities are detected at 26◦ C and 40% humidity.
For [Body], a score of 1 indicates light and 7 indicates full. At
14◦ C and 35% humidity, the average value reported by subjects was
3.687, with a standard deviation of 1.493. At 26◦ C and 40% humidity,
the average value was 4.0 and the standard deviation was 1.211.
These findings suggest that the [Body] of wine 1 is appropriate at
17◦ C and 40% humidity, and it is somewhat dense at 26◦ C and 40%
humidity.

5.3

Components affecting the subjective taste
evaluation and characteristics

These data were analyzed along with the results of Analysis 4-3.
Malic acid (R = 0.736 for wine 1, R = 0.226 for wine 2), protocatechuic acid (R = 0.452 for wine 1, R = 0.227 for wine 2), gallic acid
(R = 0.567 for wine 1, R = 0.235 for wine 2), epicatechin (R = 0.731
for wine 1 and R = 0.327 for wine 2) only exhibited correlations
for wine 1. Therefore, it is thought that [Flavor development] and[Body] are influenced by malic acid, protocatechuic acid, gallic acid,and/or epicatechin.
Malic acid, protocatechuic acid, gallic acid, and epicatechin tend
to increase from their initial values by heating. Malic acid is acomponent that confers acidity to wine, and both gallic acid andepicatechin are known to be astringent and have a bitter taste. Since
protocatechuic acid is a metabolite of antioxidant polyphenols,
which contributes to astringency and bitter taste, it is considered
to be involved in the maintenance of the original taste of wine.
Regarding the [Flavor development], it is known that as ripening
proceeds, acidity and bitterness are typically lost and the texture
becomes mellow. As ripening progresses, malic acid, which provides

AH2019, March 11–12, 2019, Reims, Francea sharp acidity, becomes esterified and becomes monomethyl ester,
conferring a soft sour taste. Although the malic acid level tended toincrease with increasing temperature, it is not possible to directly
explain the taste, and an experiment to determine the absolute
quantities is necessary.
[Body] is a technical term that expresses the depth of taste. Although it is not defined by concrete numerical values, the alcohol
degree, astringency, and bitter taste are regarded as related criteria.
Therefore, it is highly likely that the evaluation of [Body] tended
to increase as gallic acid and epicatechin increased.

6

LIMITATION

6.0.1 Study subjects. The 16 subjects in this study were in the habitof drinking wine about once a week. Therefore, based on the small
sample size, the statistically significant results cannot necessarily
be extended to the entire Japanese population. In addition, although
the condition for recruiting subjects was "a person who drinks wine
about once a week," the quantity of wine ingested at one time was
not specified. Although we cannot evaluate whether there is bias
in wine consumption or not, it is possible that this affected thesubjective evaluation. Furthermore, in the evaluation of wine, theperformance of random subjects may be partially inferior to thatof wine experts (sommelier).
6.0.2 Type of wine. Both of the two kinds of wine used in theexperiment are red. However, in the evaluation of subjects, there
was a difference in the evaluation on A and B [color] is statisticallysignificant for each of the three setting environments (room temperature 14 ◦ C. humidity 35%, room temperature 17 ◦ C. humidity 40%,room temperature 26 ◦ C. humidity 40%). This shows the possibility
that two wines were distinguished by coloring before drinking.
When conducting the same experiment, it is desirable to exclude
disturbance conditions such as using the same brightness wine. In
addition, it may be possible that influence may have been given
as to what state the wine was kept. This will be an independent
variable as the winery is different. Furthermore, both wine quality(price) is about 100 dollars goods. The higher the quality, the more
likely it is that the temperature difference will come up.

7

CONCLUSION

We examined the influence of temperature and humidity on thesubjective properties of wine from two viewpoints: a subjective
evaluation using an artificial climate room and a component surveyof wine.
Based on subject evaluations, significant differences were detected in [Color intensity], [Flavor development], and [Body] forwine 1 (CROIX DE BEAUCAILLOU 2011). Statistically significant
differences were not detected for any evaluation item for wine 2(BLAGNY 1 ER CRU LA PIECE SOUS LE BOIS 2014).
We also conducted a survey of the changes in the composition of
the two wines with respect to changes in temperature. Malic acid,protocatechuic acid, gallic acid, and epicatechin were correlatedwith temperature for wine 1 but not for wine 2. With respect tothe degree of ripening, malic acid gives a sharp acidity during
ripening and is esterified to yield monomethyl ester, giving a softacidity, so that sourness and bitterness are reduced and the texture
becomes mellow. In the results of 4-3, the malic acid level tended toAH2019, March 11–12, 2019, Reims, France
increase with increasing temperature, as malic acid and malic acidmonomethyl ester are detected as the same species. With respect to[Body], there was likely an increasing trend with increases in gallic
acid and epicatechin. However, it is necessary to evaluate the extent
to which the ingredients contribute to the [Flavor development]and [Body], including analyses of their absolute values. In thisexperiment, we were able to identify the components that may beaffected, and further experiments are needed to verify the effectsof each individual component.
These results confirmed that not only the ingredients of wine
but also the subjective evaluation of taste change simultaneously
by adjusting the temperature. This shows that if we can specify thetype of wine and a person’s preference, we can adjust the taste byadjusting the temperature and humidity. In the future, it is thoughtthat it will be possible to set up a small artificial climate room orsimilar device in restaurants to further enhance the taste of wine
and food, and this research provides an important basis for such
advances.
In conclusion, we confirmed that we can change the taste evaluation of wine by adjusting temperature and humidity using theartificial climate room, without attaching the device to human beings themselves. This suggests the possibility to serve wine in amore optimal environment if we can identify the type of wine andperson’s preference.

8

FUTURE WORKTo examine changes in components at each temperature, 18 total tests are needed. Considering the potential for changes in thecomponent between tests, the 18 components were analyzed at thesame time. Therefore, the investigation results were not presented
as absolute values but as relative values, setting the initial value
to 100%. The extent to which the ingredients, such as malic acid,protocatechuic acid, gallic acid, epicatechin, and others, contribute
to [Flavor development] and [Body] must also be evaluated in analyses of absolute values. In this experiment, we were able to identify
the components that may be affected, and future experiments areneeded to verify the effects of each component.
In this experiment, three environmental settings (14◦ C and 35%
humidity, 17◦ C and 40% humidity, and 26◦ C and 40% humidity)
were used for the evaluations by subjects. In these comparative
tests, there was no major difference in items in both wines 1 and 2
between a humidity of 15% at 14◦ C and a room temperature of 17◦ C
with a humidity of 40%. Since it is not possible to verify whether
differences are due to room temperature or humidity, we believethat it is necessary to conduct similar experiments using a wider
range of temperatures and humidities.
Furthermore, although the visual conditions in the artificial climate room did not differ, so that the conditions were not too complicated, a prior study has shown that taste evaluations differ depending on visual information [23-24]. It is a future task to determine theinfluence of visual properties in combination with environmental
conditions, such as temperature and humidity.
Finally, our experiments consider a static individual who tastes
wine. However, we did not conduct experiments in which wine wasserved at an appropriate temperature to neutralize the unpleasantfeeling of a steamy or uncomfortable situation. It is not difficult for

Toshiharu Igarashi, Tatsuya Minagawa, and Yoichi Ochiai
us to imagine that such differences in comfort will influence theresults. Also, we consider another experiment for medical purpose,e.g. eating disorders. These should be verified in future experiments.

REFERENCES[1] Lipscomb, Keri and Rieck, James and Dawson, Paul, “Effect of temperature on theintensity of basic tastes: sweet, salty and sour, ” Journal of Food Research.,vol.5,
no.4, 2016.
[2] Nakamura, Hiromi and Miyashita, Homei, “Augmented gustation using electricity,” Proceedings of the 2nd augmented human international conference, pp.34, ACM,
2011.
[3] Narumi, Takuji and Nishizaka, Shinya and Kajinami, Takashi and Tanikawa, Tomohiro and Hirose, Michitaka, “Augmented reality flavors: gustatory display
based on edible marker and cross-modal interaction, ” Proceedings of the SIGCHI
conference on human factors in computing systems, pp.93-102, ACM, 2011.
[4] Suzuki, Chie and Narumi, Takuji and Tanikawa, Tomohiro and Hirose, Michitaka, “Affecting tumbler: affecting our flavor perception with thermal feedback,” Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment
Technology, pp.19, ACM, 2014.
[5] Aruga, Yukika and Koike, Takafumi, “Taste change of soup by the recreating ofsourness and saltiness using the electrical stimulation, ” Proceedings of the 6th
Augmented Human International Conference, pp.191-192, ACM, 2015.
[6] Hirose, Masaharu and Iwazaki, Karin and Nojiri, Kozue and Takeda, Minato andSugiura, Yuta and Inami, Masahiko, “Gravitamine spice: a system that changes
the perception of eating through virtual weight sensation, ” Proceedings of the
6th Augmented Human International Conference, pp.34-40, ACM, 2015.
[7] Nimesha Ranasinghe, David Tolley, Thi Ngoc TramNguyen, LiangkunYan, BarryChew, Ellen, YiLuenDo, “Augmented Flavours: Modulation of Flavour Experiences Through Electric Taste Augmentation,” Food Research International, vol.3,
no.1, 2018.
[8] Spence, Charles and Velasco, Carlos and Knoeferle, Klemens, “A large sample
study on the influence of the multisensory environment on the wine drinking
experience,” Flavour., vol.3, no.1, BioMed Central, 2014.
[9] Barry Smith, “Complexities of flavor,” Nature online, vol.486, no.S6, 2012.
[10] Kamiyama Shin, Suzaki Nami, Tayama Mai, Sone Hideyuki, “Effect of olfaction
on the sensitivity of bitter taste,” The Bulletin of Society for Human Life Studies,vol.8, pp.73-79, 2017.
[11] H.G. Woschek, “Alles uber Wein in Frage und Antwort,” moderne Verlag,
Munchen, pp.45-78, 1972.
[12] Gerhard Troost, “Technologie des Weines,” Verlag Eugen Ulmer, 1988.
[13] Horst Scharfenberg, “Das praktische Buch vom Wein,” BLV Buchverlag GmbH
Co., 1989.
[14] Hugh Johnson, “How to Enjoy your Wine ; Understanding, Storing, Serving,” Int.
J. Comput. Mitchell Beazley, 1985.
[15] Masazumi Watanabe and Takashi Shinohara and Yoshimi Shimazu and Shimizu
Junichi, “Relationship between ingredients and quality of German wine,” Japan
Forgery Conference, vol.75, no.9, pp.756-760, 1980.
[16] Akihisa Takemura, “Fundamental study on experimental method for odor evaluation based on olfaction sense,” 2010.
[17] Michio Komai and Takashi Inoue and Kazumi Osada, “Receptor mechanism ofirritant substances via the trigeminal nerve of the oral cavity / nasal cavity,” Journalof odor and fragrance, vol.37, no.6, pp.408-416, 2006.
[18] Takashi Shinohara, “Aroma of wine and characteristic of producing country,”
Chemistry and biology, vol.22, no.3, pp.174-177, May 1984.
[19] Takashi Shinohara and Masazumi Watanabe, “Factor analysis of major volatilecomponents of wine,” Japan Forgery Conference, vol.77, no.9, pp.619-622, May
1982.
[20] Wine and Spirit Education Trust, “WSET Level 3 Award in Wines,” Online available, https://www.wsetglobal.com/media/4953/level-3-award-in-winesspecification.pdf.
[21] Cui, Yan and Li, Qing and Liu, Zhenzhen and Geng, Lulu and Zhao, Xu and Chen,
Xiaohui and Bi, Kaishun, “Simultaneous determination of 20 components in red
wine by LC-MS: Application to variations of red wine components in decanting,”
Journal of separation science, vol.35, no.21, pp.2884-2891, Wiley Online Library,
2012.
[22] Vennemann, Mechtild M and Hummel, Thomas and Berger, Klaus, “The association between smoking and smell and taste impairment in the general population,”
Journal of neurology, vol.255, no.8, pp.1121-1126, Springer, 2008.
[23] Narumi, Takuji and Sato, Munehiko and Tanikawa, Tomohiro and Hirose, Michitaka, “Evaluating cross-sensory perception of superimposing virtual color onto
real drink: toward realization of pseudo-gustatory displays,” Proceedings of the
1st Augmented Human International Conference, pp.18, ACM, 2010.
[24] Lin, Ying-Li and Chou, Tsai-Yi and Lieo, Yu-Cheng and Huang, Yu-Cheng and Han,
Ping-Hsuan, “TransFork: using olfactory device for augmented tasting experience
with video see-through head-mounted display,” Proceedings of the 24th ACM
Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology, pp.58, ACM, 2018.