Table 5.
Correlation between condensed tannins and astringency in spine wines.
| A | Monomer structure content |
C | D | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECG-ext | EGC-ext | C-ext | EC-ext | ECG-term | C-term | EC-term | mDP | B | |||||
| A | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Monomer structure content | ECG-ext | −0.07 | 1 | ||||||||||
| EGC-ext | 0.904** | −0.168 | 1 | ||||||||||
| C-ext | 0.539* | −0.444 | 0.508* | 1 | |||||||||
| EC-ext | −0.094 | −0.214 | 0.019 | −0.386 | 1 | ||||||||
| ECG-term | −0.504* | −0.106 | −0.379 | 0.063 | −0.135 | 1 | |||||||
| C-term | 0.423 | −0.363 | 0.39 | 0.338 | −0.259 | −0.08 | 1 | ||||||
| EC-term | −0.108 | −0.500* | −0.148 | 0.329 | −0.417 | −0.119 | −0.075 | 1 | |||||
| mDP | 0.039 | 0.716** | 0.014 | −0.442 | 0.427 | −0.246 | −0.476* | −0.692** | 1 | ||||
| B | 0.953** | −0.063 | 0.898** | 0.539* | −0.153 | −0.442 | 0.500* | −0.134 | −0.023 | 1 | |||
| C | 0.928** | −0.006 | 0.925** | 0.486* | −0.142 | −0.449 | 0.415 | −0.142 | 0.044 | 0.937** | 1 | ||
| D | 0.855** | −0.008 | 0.825** | 0.384 | −0.128 | −0.408 | 0.590** | −0.249 | 0.046 | 0.900** | 0.879** | 1 | |
* * was significantly correlated at the level of 0.01 and * was significantly correlated at the level of 0.05.
ECG = (−)-epicatechin-3-O-gallate, EGC = (−)-epigallocatechin, C = (+)-catechin, EC = (−)-epicatechin, Ext = extension unit, Term = terminal unit. A = total tannins of phenolic substances; B = quantitative analysis of condensed tannin concentration; C = relative astringency value; D = astringency sensory evaluation value.