# Chemical and Sensory Evaluation of Silicone and
## 3 Experimental Section
### Analysis Methods
#### 3.3.10 Sensory Analysis  
Wines from treatments that displayed a reduction in MP concentrations were included, along with 'control' and 'control spiked' wines, in a descriptive analysis. The analysis was performed after seven training sessions by a panel of 8 judges (ages 20-45, 2 males, and 6 females) recruited from students and staff at the Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute (CCOVI). Research Ethics clearance was granted by the Research Ethics Office (File No. 13-028) at Brock University. Wines (30 mL) were presented in clear ISO glasses at room temperature, covered with Petri dish lids and labeled A-E for the training sessions. Bottles were opened one hour prior to evaluation and checked for possible faults (i.e., oxidation or cork taint). In the first two training sessions the judges were presented with all the wines and were asked to generate lists of descriptors for both aroma and taste modalities. From the descriptors generated an abbreviated list was created with the approval of all judges by eliminating redundant, repetitive or overlapping terms. The final descriptor list consisted of: red fruit, dark fruit, dried fruit, green pepper, green beans, spice, herbal, olives, dusty/dirty, leather/earthy/barnyard, candy/medicinal and peanuts for aroma evaluation and red fruit, dark fruit, green/vegetal, spice, bring, leather/earthy, grassy green and candy for flavor evaluation. For basic tastes and in-mouth sensations; sourness, bitterness, heat and astringency were rated. Sweetness was not evaluated because judges did not distinguish sweetness differences between wines during the initial two training sessions.  
Following the initial two training sessions a further five were undertaken. Judges were presented with aroma standards for all aroma descriptors. Most of the standards were prepared using a Wine Awakenings(r) Kit (Picksen International, Port Colborne, ON, Canada) by mixing the Merlot base wine with various aroma standards, as presented in Table 4. The judges were trained to rate all descriptors in a uniform manner, using 15 cm scales anchored with the terms _Absent_ and _Very High_, on paper ballots. After five training sessions the ability of the judges to evaluate the wines as a panel was considered satisfactory. The wines were formally evaluated in the Sensory Laboratory at CCOVI, under controlled room temperature and humidity conditions. Data collection was performed using a computerized system equipped with Compusense(r) (Compusense Inc., Guelph, ON, Canada) software. Each judge was seated in an individual booth and recorded all evaluations using the Compusense(r) software system. Judges were presented with the seven wines included in the trial using a complete randomized block design, and each wine was labeled with a 3 digit identifier code. The wines were presented for each data collection session in two flights of four and three wines respectively. The judges were instructed to evaluate the wines in the order presented. There were two min forced breaks between each wine and a 15-min break between flights. Judges were instructed to cleanse their palates as needed with distilled water and plain unsalted crackers (President's Choice(r) Soda Crackers). All wines were evaluated in triplicate, and only one evaluation session was performed per day.