Original research articles

Aromatic complexity in Verdicchio wines: a case study

Abstract

Aim: Verdicchio is a white wine grape variety that has been cultivated for hundreds of years in the Marche region of central Italy. Verdicchio is used to produce all kinds of dry, sweet and sparkling wines, some of which can be aged for ten or more years. This study aimed to extend knowledge of the volatile profile of Verdicchio wines and the recognition and detection of odorous molecules. We considered wines produced in multiple vintages from some of the best Cru from the Marche region, in the Castelli di Jesi Classico area.
Methods and results: Two data sets were considered: a vertical collection that included wines from different vintages, same variety, different production areas vinified by the same winery and a horizontal collection of wines from the 2016 harvest, considering different production areas, harvest times and clones produced by the same winery. Samples were analysed with GC×GC-ToF-MS, GC-MS-MS and GC-O. Comprehensive profiling with more than 1000 compounds allowed the wines produced in different areas to be separated. By GC-O analysis 48 main odorants were found. This survey led to the identification of 3-methyl-2,4-nonanedione (3-MND) that impart an anise note and an interesting content in methyl salicylate as a possible key odorant characteristic in Verdicchio.
Conclusion: The volatile profile of different Verdicchio wines from the best production areas was investigated in detail. This work confirms that it is possible to obtain wines with very different characteristics from this variety of grapes, producing premium wines with a distinctive pattern of volatiles, reproducible across several vintages and variable depending on the different location of the vineyard and winemaking techniques. Young wines are characterised by fruity, thiolic notes, while wines aged for longer are distinguished by their norisoprenoids content and by anise and balsamic notes, which can be attributed to the presence of 3-MND and to methyl salicylate released by precursors. With a derivatisation GC-MS-MS method it was possible to quantify 3-MND in the range of 10–50 ng L−1. With the use of GC-O, 48 potentially odour-active compounds were found for this wine. Analysis of the compounds after hydrolysis confirmed that a high amount of methyl salicylate characterised this variety. Methyl salicylate has a balsamic note from wintergreen oil that is often perceived in aged Verdicchio tasting.

Introduction

The aroma of a wine is influenced by the action of several different compounds on the sensory organs. These compounds are produced through metabolic pathways during the ripening and harvesting of grapes and during the fermentation and storage of wine (Rapp and Mandery, 1986; Rapp and Versini, 1995). Of these factors, it is well known that the grape varieties gives characteristic aromas. This varietal aroma allows the classification and even the labelling of wines, so it is important to know the typical aromatic pattern of a wine variety in order to ensure its quality (Marais, 1983).

Verdicchio is a white grape variety grown almost exclusively in the Marche region in central Italy. Genetic analysis has shown a very close relationship between Verdicchio, “Trebbiano di Soave” and “Trebbiano di Lugana or Turbiana” (Costacurta et al., 2003). The genetic origin of Verdicchio and therefore of Trebbiano di Soave, is however still being debated. One hypothesis, based on the documented 15th century migration of farmers from the province of Verona in northern Italy to the Marche, partially depopulated by the plague, is now the most accredited. The settlers are thought to have brought their vines with them and thus it is surmised that they originally came from the Veneto region. In a recent work (Ghidoni et al., 2010) it was reported that the three varieties are genetically identical, at least as far as the analysed part of the genome is concerned, but they could be traced to three different biotypes of the same variety, in relation to phenotypical traits related to the environment. Indeed, the length of the separation would appear to justify some olfactory differences between Trebbiano di Soave and Verdicchio, over and beyond the demonstrated genetic identity (Vantini et al., 2003). Verdicchio is not characterised by a large quantity of terpenes. Indeed, in analysis carried out in the past, a very low content of the main monoterpenes was observed. The floral terpene note could derive from the Ho-terpendiol I (about 20 μg L-1), also present in bound forms, which could then be released over time (Nicolini et al., 2003). What was instead observed was the presence of a characterising compound, methyl salicylate, which in this variety can reach 45 μg L-1 in free forms and more than 500 μg L-1 in bound forms, as reported for Trebbiano di Soave and Verdicchio (Versini et al., 2005). When added to wine, it is described as providing a floral note, slightly balsamic, tending to cinnamon-chestnut honey (Bauer et al., 2008). A study involving Trebbiano di Lugana wines (genetically similar to Trebbiano di Soave and Verdicchio) highlighted that the grapes also contain the precursors of sulphured aromatic compounds, in particular 3-mercaptohexanol and 3-mercapto hexyl acetate, which could impart tropical and citrus fruit scents to the wines (Mattivi et al., 2012). During the tasting of this wine, notes of anise/fennel are sometimes perceived and even balsamic scents in aged wines. One of the objectives of this work was to understand which compounds could contribute to these descriptors. For this reason we used gas chromatography–olfactometry (GC-O), a powerful tool for the study of chemical compounds responsible for wine aroma (van Ruth, 2001).

Materials and methods

1. Wine samples

1.1. Sample set 1 (vertical collection)

For the preliminary survey, four types of wines were obtained using Verdicchio grapes grown in different areas but in the same Italian region (Marche) and produced by Fazi Battaglia winery. A sample of 24 Verdicchio wines from different vintages – 11 Massaccio (2002–2015), eight San Sisto (2001–2015), three Titulus (2013–2015) and three Le Moie (2008–2015) – were analysed with SPME and GC×GC-ToF-MS. Massaccio is obtained from the highest and most south-facing areas, San Sisto derives from colder areas with clayish soil, Le Moie is obtained in vineyards closer to the sea on sandy soils and Titulus is produced with grapes grown in the 300 hectares of estate-vineyards, subdivided into 12 distinct vineyards with different exposure.

1.2. Sample set 2 (horizontal collection, 2016 harvest)

Wines from each of the three different areas (Massaccio, San Sisto and Le Moie) were analysed. In addition, in the case of San Sisto, wines produced from three different harvesting data were produced: early harvest (H1) on 23 September, normal harvest (H2) after 1 week and late harvest on 5 October (H3). Furthermore, for Massaccio, five experimental wines were produced with three different clones (VCR-3, VL-50, R-2) and from separate harvest of vines of high and low vigour. All the wines were obtained following a strictly controlled protocol. The grapes were harvested manually and subjected to cold maceration at 10°C for 3 h in reductive conditions, then pressed at 0.2 bar. The obtained juices were inoculated with selected yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Zymaflore X5 Laffort). Fermentation was performed under a controlled temperature gradient, starting at 12 °C and gradually increasing up to 19°C at the end of fermentation. After fermentation, two “batonnages” per week were performed. The wines stayed 7 months on the lees and no malolactic fermentation was done.

Two additional wines were produced with modified winemaking techniques: one with skin contact and the other, known as “Arkezia”, was designed produce a sweet wine using grapes infected with noble rot.

The volume of the experimental wines was 6 hl for the three clones and 2.3 hl for Arkezia. All other thesis were produced at real scale, i.e. ≥ 40 hl.

Three different bottles of each of the 2016 wines were extracted with the solid phase extraction (SPE) technique and both free and bound (after enzymatic hydrolysis) forms were analysed. The most volatile compounds were analysed with the SPME technique, 3-methyl-2,4-nonanedione (3-MND) was quantified with SPME after derivatisation and the SPE extract was used for GC-O analysis.

2. Solid phase extraction (SPE ENV+) procedure

50 mL of wine were extracted with SPE using ENV+ cartridges, 1 g (Biotage, Sweden). The cartridge was pre-conditioned with 15 mL of methanol followed by 20 mL of water. The aqueous extract was loaded onto the cartridge, which was then washed with 15 mL of water. The free aromatic compounds were eluted from the cartridge with 30 mL of dichloromethane and the bound aromatic compounds (i.e. glycosides) with 30 mL of methanol. The free volatiles were collected in a 100-mL flask and 60 mL of pentane was added, followed by the addition of anhydrous Na2SO4 to remove water. Subsequently, prior to analysis the whole fraction was carefully concentrated up to 200 μL using a Vigreux column. Methanol was eliminated under vacuum and the residue solubilised in 5 mL of a citrate buffer pH 5, while the glycosidically bound fraction was hydrolysed with 400 L of a commercial glycosidase rich enzyme (70 mg mL−1 Rapidase AR 2000 DSM) at 40°C for 12 h. The mixture with the aglycons was eluted through an ENV+ 1 g cartridge previously activated with 5 mL of methanol and 10 mL of milliQ water and the free compounds were collected with 10 mL of dichloromethane. The relative amount of each volatile was expressed as g/L of n-heptanol.

3. Solid phase microextraction (SPME) for 3-methyl-2,4-nonanedione (3-MND) determination after PFBHA (O-(2,3,4,5,6-Pentafluorobenzyl)hydroxylamine) derivatisation

5 mL of wine were put in a 20 mL headspace vial with 20 L of IS (4-methyl-3-penten-2one d11 10 g L-1) and 400 uL of a o-(2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorobenzyl)hydroxylamine (PFBHA) water solution (20 g L−1) was added to the vial. The method was adapted from Moreira et al. (2013) and Saison et al. (2009) The PFBHA solution was prepared daily in ultrapure water at 20 g L−1. The IS was prepared in ethanol at 1 g L−1 and further diluted at 10 µg L−1 The vials were equilibrated for 20 min at room temperature, after that a 65m PDMS/DVB was inserted into the headspace for 40 min at 50°C. Standard solutions were prepared in ethanol at 1 g L−1 and stored at 4°C. For the calibration curves, seven different concentrations of 3-MND, from 10 ng L−1 to 400 ng L−1, were spiked in a white wine.

4. Solid phase microextraction (SPME) and GC-MS-MS method for 3-MND quantification

GC analysis was performed on a Trace GC Ultra gas chromatograph coupled with an XLS Tandem mass spectrometer. The system was equipped with a Pal autosampler (CTC Analytics AG, Zwingen, Switzerland). GC separation was performed on a 30 m VF Wax column with an internal diameter of 0.25 mm and a film thickness of 0.25 m (Agilent). Supelco (Bellafonte, USA) PDMS/DVB 65 m fibre was exposed in the sample for 40 min at 50°C and then desorbed into the GC liner, set at 250°C in splitless/surge mode for 3 min. The temperature programme was 80°C held for 4 min after injection, 8°C/min up to 220°C, held for 1 min and 15°C/min up to 270°C, held for 5 min. Helium was used as the carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 1.2 mL min−1. The mass spectrometer was operated in electron impact (EI) ionisation mode at 70 eV. The filament current was 50 A. The temperature of the transfer line was 250°C and argon (99.9998% purity) was used as the collision gas, with collision cell pressure of 1.5 mTorr. Data acquisition and analysis were performed using the Xcalibur Workstation software supplied by the manufacturer. In order to determine the retention time and the characteristic mass fragments of 3-MND, full scan analysis (m/z 40–300) was performed. The retention times were 29.62 and 29.91 min for monosubstituted 3-MND and RT 35.83 and 36.39 and 36.81 for disubstituted 3-MND. For quantitative analysis, we selected the transitions m/z 168>71 (10 eV) for monosubstituded 3-MND and m/z 363>181 (10 eV) for disubstituted 3-MND. In addition, the transitions m/z 267>86 (10 eV) and 307>181 (10 eV) were also used as qualifiers for mono and disubstituted 3-MND, respectively. For the internal standard the transition m/z 122>74 and m/z 122> 78 (10 eV) were used. For quantification, the chosen transitions were monitored in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode and the peak area ratios of 3-MND to 4-methyl-3-penten-2one d11 (internal standard) were calculated on the basis of the compound concentration.

Quantification was performed using the internal standard (IS) method. For the calibration curves, seven different concentrations of 3-MND from 10 ng L−1 to 400 ng L−1 were spiked in a white wine. The repeatability of the method was checked by running 10 samples spiked with two different concentrations (20 ng L−1 and 100 ng L−1) and the cv% was <13%.

5. Solid phase microextraction (SPME) and two-dimensional (GC×GC) gas chromatography with time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOF-MS)

1.5 g of sodium chloride was added to a 20 mL headspace vial, followed by 1 mL of wine spiked with 50 µL of 2-octanol as internal standards (1 mg L−1). Quality control (QC) samples consisting of equal proportions of each sample were taken at the beginning of the run (n=5) and then after every tenth sample. GC×GC-TOF-MS analysis of wines was performed using a gas chromatograph (GC) Agilent 6890N (Agilent Technologies), coupled with a LECO Pegasus IV time-of-flight mass spectrometer (TOF-MS) (Leco Corporation, St. Joseph, MI, USA) equipped with a Gerstel MPS autosampler (Gerstel GmbH & Co. KG). Samples were incubated for 5 min at 35°C and volatiles were extracted with a DVB/CAR/PDMS coating of 50/30 μm and 2-cm long SPME fibre (Supelco Sigma-Aldrich, Milan, Italy) for 20 min, desorbed for 3 min at 250°C in splitless mode. The fibre was reconditioned between each sample for 7 min at 270°C. Helium was used as a carrier gas at a flow of 1.2 mL min−1. The GC oven was equipped with a VF Wax ms 30 m × 0.25 mm column with 0.25 μm film thickness (Agilent Technologies) for the first dimension (1D) and a Rxi 17 Sil MS 1.5 m × 0.15 mm column with 0.15 μm film thickness (Restek, Bellefonte, PA, USA) for the second dimension (2D). Oven temperature was held at 40°C for 3 min and ramped at the rate of 6°C/min to 250°C, where it was held for 5 min before returning to the initial conditions. The secondary oven temperature was held at 5°C above the temperature of the primary oven throughout the chromatographic run. The modulator was offset by +15°C in relation to the secondary oven and modulation time was 7 s. The ion source temperature was set at 230°C and electron ionisation at 70 eV. Spectra were collected in a mass range of m/z 40–350 with an acquisition rate of 200 spectra/s and acquisition delay of 120 s.

6. Gaschromatograpy-olfactometry and mass spectrometry (GC-O-MS)

1 L of SPE extract was analysed with a Trace GC Ultra chromatograph, coupled with a ISQ QD single quad mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Milan, Italy), equipped with a splitless injector maintained at 250°C; the split vent was opened 0.5 min post injection. Compounds were analysed with a VF Wax (Agilent J&W, Folsom, CA, USA) column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., 0.25 μm film thickness) in scan mode. The carrier gas was helium. The oven temperature was programmed to rise from 50°C to 250°C at 2.5°C/min and then be kept at 250°C for 10 min. To assess the olfactory potential of the extracts, the column was connected to a GC-O port Olfactory Port (GL Sciences Tokyo, Japan) maintained at 220°C. The effluent was diluted with a large volume of air (20 mL min−1) prehumidified with an aqueous solution. For aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA), the concentrated fraction was diluted stepwise (1:3) with pentane:dichloromethane (2:1) to obtain dilutions 1:9, 1:27, 1:81, 1:243. Complete aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA) was performed by five trained panellists. Sniffing of dilutions was continued until no odorant could be detected by GC-MS-O. Each odorant was thus assigned a flavour dilution factor (FD factor) representing the last dilution in which the odorant was still detectable. The analysis was repeated in duplicate by each assessor.

7. Volatile compounds identification

Volatile compounds identification was achieved by comparing retention times and mass spectra with those of pure standards when available and with mass spectra from NIST05 and Wiley libraries. Linear retention indices (relative to n-alkanes C10 to C28) were calculated and compared to those from literature.

8. Statistical data elaboration

Data from 1D-GC-MS and GC×GC-TOF-MS analyses were processed using multivariate techniques. PLS-DA and heatmaps were generated using MetaboAnalyst v. 3.0 (http://www.metaboanalyst.ca), created at the University of Alberta, Canada (Xia et al., 2015).

9. Sensory test

In order to understand the contribution of 3-MND to the Verdicchio aroma, the standard was added to a “neutral” Verdicchio (3-MND not detectable). The concentrations tested were 10 ng L−1, 25 ng L−1, 50 ng L−1, 100 ng L−1 and 500 ng L−1. A blank wine, without additions, was also included in the tasting.

Results and discussion

The initial exploration was carried out using four different types of Verdicchio wines (Massaccio, San Sisto, Le Moie and Titulus) by analysing a series of vintages and using SPME with GC×GC-ToF-MS. Two-dimensional analysis made it possible to find many compounds characterising the different types of Verdicchio. Indeed, it is possible to notice clear separation in the PLS-DA (partial least squares discriminant analysis) plot (Figure 1). As shown in the graph, the first component can separate types of Titulus, especially old vintages, from other wines and San Sisto, Massaccio and Le Moie are separated by the second component.

Figure 1. Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) scatterplot of Verdicchio wines from grapes grown in different areas. Eleven vintages of Massaccio (2002–2015), eight vintages of San Sisto (2001–2015), three vintages of Titulus (2013–2015) and three vintages of Le Moie (2008–2015).

The score scatter each point represents the vintages (each vintage with three technical replicates).

The volatile compounds determining this separation were whisky lactone, 5-methylfurfural, 2-furancarboxaldehyde, 2,4,5-trimethyl-1,3-dioxolane, benzofuran and 2-methylthiophene for the San Sisto samples. The first three compounds derive from the use of wood, while dioxolane is a compound correlated with ageing. Le Moie wines were characterised by a higher content of norisorenoids such as -damascenone and safranal. Titulus wines were richer in other norisoprenoids, such as TDN and also in some sesquiterpenes such as alpha calacorene and monoterpenes such as alpha-terpineol and alpha terpinolene. Wines from the Massaccio areas were the richest in benzenacetaldehyde and linalool. San Sisto and Massaccio were also the richest in 4-methyl 1-pentanol and 2-acetyl furanone. It is also possible to observe that the typical trend of TDN increases over the years in Massaccio wines (Figure 2). This compound can derive from different precursors linked to sugar molecules and is formed by hydrolysis during ageing (Versini et al., 2001; Winterhalter and Schreier, 1994; Winterhalter, 1991); pH, temperature and presence of oxygen are important parameters in the formation and degradation of TND (Silva Ferreira et al., 2004).

Figure 2. Increase of TDN (g/L) content during ageing in 11 vintages of Verdicchio wines produced in the Massaccio area, 2002–2015.

After analysing the vertical collection of old vintages as a survey study, a horizontal collection of Verdicchio wines produced in 2016 were analysed in depth. In this case, several different tests were carried out in order to understand the volatile profile of this variety. Results from SPE and SPME analyses are shown in Tables 1 and 2. As the data refer to a single vintage, no definitive conclusions can be drawn, although the wines from Massaccio, San Sisto and Le Moie areas were again distinguishable (Figure 3, heatmap free). Le Moie wine was distinguished by a higher content of hexyl acetate, octanoic and decanoic ethyl ester and the corresponding acids, by the highest amount of Ho-terpendiol I and of 3-methyl-2,4-nonanedione. Le Moie was also the area richest in the bound form. Massaccio was higher in norisoprenoids such as TDN and its precursor riesling acetale, methyl salicylate, homofuraneol and 2-(H)-pyran-2,6(3H)-dione. Some of these compounds will be also discussed in the GC-O section. Samples from San Sisto H1 were the richest in benzyl alcohol, methionol, 2-methyltetrahydrothiophen-3-one and 4-vinylguaiacol. It was also clear that the amount of terpenes increased from San Sisto H1 to San Sisto H3. The latter was indeed the richest in terpenoids such as linalool, citronellol, limonene and alpha-terpineol, both in the free and in the bound forms (Figure 4) and in -damascenone. TDN, vitispirane and riesling acetale reached their maximum in the H2 harvest data and then decreased slightly in H3; the same trend was reported in previous studies (Coelho et al., 2007).

The most vigorous vines resulted in a wine with a higher content of C6 compounds such as 1-hexanol, trans and cis 3-hexenol, trans 2-hexenol and hexyl acetate, while C13 norisoprenoids, especially TDN, were higher in the wine from less vigorous vines. This is in accordance with the literature (Kwasniewski et al., 2010), where an increase in solar radiation leads to an increase of its precursor carotenoids.

The wines from different clones differed in the content of thiols (data not reported in this paper) and also in the content of methyl salicylate. Late harvested Arkezia, obtained from grapes with noble rot and a withering stage, was characterised by the presence of marker compounds for Botrytis infection, such as benzaldehyde, acetic acid, furfural and terpinen-4-ol. (Fedrizzi et al., 2011)

However, it will be necessary to confirm these preliminary observations made for the 2016 vintage by considering other vintages.

To better understand the sensorial impact of some compounds in Verdicchio aroma, SPE extracts from the three different areas were injected into GC-O and sniffed by six expert panellists: 48 main odorants were found in the SPE extract (Table 3). What is perceived in the glass is a mixture of odour and taste molecules, which may combine to act in a suppressive or additive manner, or synergistically (Frijters and Schifferstein, 1994). In GC-O, by contrast, the odorants are delivered to the olfactory epithelia as single entities, which simplifies the recognition task. Aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA) was used to determine the relative odour potency of compounds present in the sample extract.

Figure 3. Hierarchical clustering analysis performed using volatile aroma compound profiles of 2016 wines produced from grapes from three areas (Le Moie, Massaccio, San Sisto) and three harvest data (San Sisto) (Ward algorithm and Euclidean distance analysis using MetaboAnalyst v. 3.0).

The heatmap was generated using 70 compounds. The rows in the heatmap represent compounds and the columns indicate samples. The colours of the heatmap cells indicate the abundance of compounds across different samples. The colour gradient, ranging from dark blue through white to dark red, represents low, middle and high abundance of a compound.

Figure 4. Hierarchical clustering analysis performed using volatile aroma compound profiles of 2016 wines produced from grapes from three areas (Le Moie, Massaccio, San Sisto) and three harvest data (San Sisto) (Ward algorithm and Euclidean distance analysis using MetaboAnalyst v. 3.0).

The heatmap was generated using 30 most significant bound compounds after enzymatic hydrolysis (the highest Fisher ratios). The rows in the heatmap represent compounds and the columns indicate samples. The colours of the heatmap cells indicate the abundance of compounds across different samples. The colour gradient, ranging from dark blue through white to dark red, represents low, middle and high abundance of a compound.

Table 1. Concentration (means ± standard deviations) in g/L except * in mg/L as equivalent of n-heptanol of free volatile compounds in 2016 Verdicchio wines.


Free aroma compounds

OPT°

RI exp

RI lit

 

 

Harvest date

 

 

Vigour

Clones

Vinification

Areas

le Moie

Massaccio

San Sisto H1

San Sisto H2

San Sisto H3

Low vigour

High vigour

VCR3

VL50

R2

Late harvest

Skin maceration

ethyl butanoate*

0,02

1030

1030

0.32 ± 0.02

0.37 ± 0.02

0.35 ± 0.02

0.5 ± 0.02

0.31 ± 0.01

0.3 ± 0.01

0.3 ± 0.01

0.33 ± 0.02

0.35 ± 0.02

0.29 ± 0.01

0.19 ± 0.01

0.35 ± 0.02

1-propanol, 2-methyl*

40

1087

1060

2.95 ± 0.1

3.56 ± 0.12

5.03 ± 0.18

2.79 ± 0.1

3.12 ± 0.11

3.02 ± 0.11

2.38 ± 0.08

3.86 ± 0.14

3.48 ± 0.12

5.19 ± 0.18

8.1 ± 0.28

4.97 ± 0.17

1-butanol, 3-methyl-, acetate*

0,03

1122

1120

1.81 ± 0.07

1.64 ± 0.06

1.1 ± 0.04

2.63 ± 0.1

1.88 ± 0.07

2.79 ± 0.11

3.54 ± 0.13

2.31 ± 0.09

2.64 ± 0.1

2.55 ± 0.1

0.82 ± 0.03

1.41 ± 0.05

1-butanol*

150

1135

1130

0.25 ± 0.01

0.21 ± 0.01

0.64 ± 0.02

0.72 ± 0.03

0.59 ± 0.02

0.59 ± 0.02

0.49 ± 0.02

0.21 ± 0.01

0.19 ± 0.01

0.2 ± 0.01

0.16 ± 0.01

0.65 ± 0.02

limonene

10

1197

1199

16.9 ± 0.59

3.75 ± 0.13

2.74 ± 0.1

2.3 ± 0.08

2.09 ± 0.07

0.97 ± 0.03

1.58 ± 0.06

31.79 ± 1.11

22.26 ± 0.78

3.65 ± 0.13

4.51 ± 0.16

1.7 ± 0.06

1-butanol, 3-methyl-*

30

1205

1221

77.4 ± 3.48

92.9 ± 4.18

80.6 ± 3.63

66.6 ± 2.99

88.1 ± 3.97

94.7 ± 4.26

86.6 ± 3.9

95.5 ± 4.3

103.9 ± 4.68

110.1 ± 4.95

97.1 ± 4.37

92.6 ± 4.17

ethyl hexanoate*

0,014

1234

1236

1.14 ± 0.05

1.31 ± 0.05

1.25 ± 0.05

1.84 ± 0.08

1.08 ± 0.04

0.9 ± 0.04

0.96 ± 0.04

1.09 ± 0.04

1.23 ± 0.05

1.08 ± 0.04

0.55 ± 0.02

1.01 ± 0.04

hexyl acetate*

1,5

1270

1272

0.14 ± 0.004

0.12 ± 0.004

0.08 ± 0.003

0.21 ± 0.01

0.16 ± 0.01

0.18 ± 0.01

0.25 ± 0.01

0.14 ± 0.005

0.18 ± 0.01

0.21 ± 0.01

0.01 ± 0.001

0.08 ± 0.003

acetoin

150000

1279

1268

9.81 ± 0.38

27.21 ± 1.06

10.41 ± 0.41

24.73 ± 0.96

29.35 ± 1.14

70.82 ± 2.76

88.28 ± 3.44

39.15 ± 1.53

19.97 ± 0.78

9.23 ± 0.36

16.28 ± 0.63

7.65 ± 0.3

4-methyl-1-pentanol

 

1312

1328

20.9 ± 0.75

37.21 ± 1.34

31.34 ± 1.13

26.65 ± 0.96

44.37 ± 1.6

43.98 ± 1.58

42.79 ± 1.54

35.48 ± 1.28

49.38 ± 1.78

37.4 ± 1.35

24.57 ± 0.88

29.65 ± 1.07

3-methyl-1-pentanol

830

1324

1341

53.1 ± 1.91

97.37 ± 3.51

85.02 ± 3.06

92.07 ± 3.31

104.69 ± 3.77

94.98 ± 3.42

87.87 ± 3.16

99.05 ± 3.57

111.71 ± 4.02

85.21 ± 3.07

61.59 ± 2.22

79.1 ± 2.85

ethyl lactate*

154

1340

1326

3.98 ± 0.16

3.03 ± 0.12

4.18 ± 0.17

3.21 ± 0.13

1.6 ± 0.07

1.02 ± 0.04

0.95 ± 0.04

2.32 ± 0.1

2.87 ± 0.12

3.04 ± 0.12

1.98 ± 0.08

3.36 ± 0.14

n-hexanol*

8

1354

1356

1.36 ± 0.05

1.28 ± 0.05

1.45 ± 0.06

1.24 ± 0.05

1.58 ± 0.06

1.05 ± 0.04

1.16 ± 0.05

1.51 ± 0.06

1.57 ± 0.06

1.86 ± 0.07

0.45 ± 0.02

1.75 ± 0.07

trans-3-hexenol

400

1363

1361

50.7 ± 1.87

67.3 ± 2.49

103.2 ± 3.82

97.1 ± 3.59

80.8 ± 2.99

63.1 ± 2.34

65.5 ± 2.42

71.1 ± 2.63

67.1 ± 2.48

67.3 ± 2.49

14.3 ± 0.53

73.0 ± 2.7

3-ethoxy-1-propanol*

0,1

1371

1389

0.57 ± 0.02

0.56 ± 0.02

0.48 ± 0.01

0.61 ± 0.02

0.25 ± 0.01

0.17 ± 0.01

0.16 ± 0

0.55 ± 0.02

0.45 ± 0.01

0.58 ± 0.02

0.09 ± 0

0.74 ± 0.02

cis-3-hexenol

 

1386

1379

45.5 ± 1.64

31.93 ± 1.15

35.62 ± 1.28

33.69 ± 1.21

23.39 ± 0.84

39.95 ± 1.44

53.19 ± 1.91

58.71 ± 2.11

53.03 ± 1.91

86.18 ± 3.1

12.41 ± 0.45

116.1 ± 4.18

trans-2-hexen-1-ol

 

1407

1410

8.98 ± 0.31

10.55 ± 0.37

22.0 ± 0.77

10.37 ± 0.36

9.29 ± 0.33

6.56 ± 0.23

10.05 ± 0.35

11.12 ± 0.39

12.58 ± 0.44

12.58 ± 0.44

12.5 ± 0.44

10.27 ± 0.36

ethyl octanoate*

0,02

1437

1435

1.87 ± 0.08

1.67 ± 0.08

1.55 ± 0.07

2.29 ± 0.1

1.59 ± 0.07

1.32 ± 0.06

1.32 ± 0.06

1.41 ± 0.06

1.54 ± 0.07

1.47 ± 0.07

0.63 ± 0.03

1.18 ± 0.05

acetic acid*

200

1453

1430

0.25 ± 0.01

0.4 ± 0.02

0.29 ± 0.01

0.33 ± 0.01

0.55 ± 0.02

0.21 ± 0.01

0.13 ± 0.01

0.67 ± 0.03

0.61 ± 0.02

0.81 ± 0.03

1.14 ± 0.04

0.39 ± 0.02

2-ethyl-1-hexanol

 

1491

1485

38.2 ± 1.14

39.59 ± 1.19

41.95 ± 1.26

57.28 ± 1.72

63.66 ± 1.91

58.8 ± 1.76

51.53 ± 1.55

43.47 ± 1.3

31.08 ± 0.93

33.26 ± 1

36.65 ± 1.1

67.01 ± 2.01

benzaldehyde

1508

1506

1508

15.9 ± 0.51

9.7 ± 0.31

29.18 ± 0.93

25.47 ± 0.82

19.06 ± 0.61

9.6 ± 0.31

9.63 ± 0.31

14.73 ± 0.47

11.13 ± 0.36

11.31 ± 0.36

40.56 ± 1.3

13.28 ± 0.42

ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate*

 

1511

1499

0.22 ± 0.01

0.31 ± 0.01

0.42 ± 0.02

0.47 ± 0.02

0.46 ± 0.02

0.43 ± 0.02

0.41 ± 0.02

0.28 ± 0.01

0.31 ± 0.01

0.3 ± 0.01

0.18 ± 0.01

0.53 ± 0.02

2-methyltetrahydrothiophen-3-one

 

1514

1538

16.1 ± 0.52

18.06 ± 0.58

27.74 ± 0.89

27.26 ± 0.87

23.75 ± 0.76

35.48 ± 1.14

38.48 ± 1.23

13.96 ± 0.45

18.33 ± 0.59

17.67 ± 0.57

11.9 ± 0.38

11.73 ± 0.38

2,3-butanediol meso*

100

1530

1525

1.39 ± 0.04

2.46 ± 0.07

1.37 ± 0.04

1.76 ± 0.05

2.54 ± 0.08

1.51 ± 0.05

2.01 ± 0.06

2.57 ± 0.08

2.49 ± 0.07

2.81 ± 0.08

3.05 ± 0.09

1.41 ± 0.04

propanoic acid

 

1540

1546

56.1 ± 2.58

63.79 ± 2.93

70.63 ± 3.25

71.68 ± 3.3

75.6 ± 3.48

82.79 ± 3.81

64.79 ± 2.98

95.41 ± 4.39

73.97 ± 3.4

78.33 ± 3.6

88.64 ± 4.08

69.07 ± 3.18

linalool

25

1551

1542

11.8 ± 0.59

7.37 ± 0.37

10.7 ± 0.53

12.09 ± 0.6

56.37 ± 2.81

14.37 ± 0.72

16.19 ± 0.81

7.29 ± 0.36

7.65 ± 0.38

8.17 ± 0.41

5.1 ± 0.25

33.14 ± 1.65

1-octanol

 

1554

1552

17.5 ± 0.53

20.03 ± 0.6

25.93 ± 0.78

13 ± 0.39

13.58 ± 0.41

10.62 ± 0.32

9.54 ± 0.29

17.2 ± 0.52

11.35 ± 0.34

13.61 ± 0.41

15.14 ± 0.45

23.56 ± 0.71

propanoic acid 2-methyl- *

 

1567

1583

0.36 ± 0.01

0.46 ± 0.02

0.51 ± 0.02

0.44 ± 0.02

0.71 ± 0.03

0.44 ± 0.02

0.37 ± 0.01

0.94 ± 0.03

0.52 ± 0.02

0.62 ± 0.02

1.53 ± 0.06

0.49 ± 0.02

cis-4-hydroxymethyl-2-methyl-1,3-dioxolane

 

1602

1623

2.14 ± 0.07

4.75 ± 0.15

1.91 ± 0.06

3.14 ± 0.1

8.31 ± 0.27

10.17 ± 0.33

8.5 ± 0.27

12.15 ± 0.39

3.62 ± 0.12

3.3 ± 0.11

24.85 ± 0.8

2.59 ± 0.08

butirrolattone*

35

1611

1650

0.33 ± 0.01

0.4 ± 0.02

0.43 ± 0.02

0.27 ± 0.01

0.29 ± 0.01

0.16 ± 0.01

0.14 ± 0.01

0.44 ± 0.02

0.48 ± 0.02

0.32 ± 0.01

0.56 ± 0.02

0.39 ± 0.02

butyric acid*

0,17

1623

1600

0.97 ± 0.04

1.11 ± 0.04

1.11 ± 0.04

1.34 ± 0.05

1.03 ± 0.04

0.76 ± 0.03

0.83 ± 0.03

1.13 ± 0.04

1.01 ± 0.04

0.9 ± 0.04

0.66 ± 0.03

1.03 ± 0.04

phenylacetaldehyde

 

1626

1612

4.72 ± 0.15

3.58 ± 0.11

3.66 ± 0.12

3.16 ± 0.1

4.27 ± 0.14

3.43 ± 0.11

3.96 ± 0.13

4.65 ± 0.15

4.55 ± 0.15

4.8 ± 0.15

44.69 ± 1.43

4 ± 0.13

ethyl decanoate*

 

1641

1637

1.39 ± 0.05

1.23 ± 0.04

0.87 ± 0.03

1.81 ± 0.06

1.26 ± 0.04

1.45 ± 0.05

1.17 ± 0.04

1.28 ± 0.04

1.33 ± 0.04

1.16 ± 0.04

0.64 ± 0.02

0.96 ± 0.03

butanoic acid, 3-methyl- *

0,03

1667

1642

0.54 ± 0.03

0.69 ± 0.04

0.74 ± 0.04

0.58 ± 0.03

0.75 ± 0.04

0.73 ± 0.04

0.69 ± 0.04

0.85 ± 0.05

0.64 ± 0.04

0.78 ± 0.04

1.08 ± 0.06

0.95 ± 0.05

diethyl succinate*

6

1672

1667

1.96 ± 0.06

4.37 ± 0.14

3.29 ± 0.11

3.16 ± 0.1

4.06 ± 0.13

3.47 ± 0.11

3.46 ± 0.11

3.2 ± 0.1

2.87 ± 0.09

2.37 ± 0.08

3.21 ± 0.1

2.5 ± 0.08

-terpineol

 

1686

1684

10.3 ± 0.36

7.92 ± 0.28

6.36 ± 0.22

5.07 ± 0.18

19.9 ± 0.7

6.62 ± 0.23

6.72 ± 0.24

9.13 ± 0.32

8.47 ± 0.3

10.44 ± 0.37

4.47 ± 0.16

18.62 ± 0.65

3-methylthiopropanol*

1

1705

1725

0.45 ± 0.01

0.68 ± 0.02

0.86 ± 0.03

0.47 ± 0.01

0.92 ± 0.03

1.16 ± 0.03

1.11 ± 0.03

0.51 ± 0.02

0.56 ± 0.02

0.66 ± 0.02

1.31 ± 0.04

1.04 ± 0.03

naphtalene

 

1715

1728

9 ± 0.23

29.52 ± 0.74

4.65 ± 0.12

4.63 ± 0.12

4.94 ± 0.12

3.94 ± 0.1

4.65 ± 0.12

29.36 ± 0.73

24.88 ± 0.62

28.48 ± 0.71

24.69 ± 0.62

5.25 ± 0.13

1,3-propylene diacetate (t.i.)*

 

1730

-

0.61 ± 0.02

0.74 ± 0.02

0.6 ± 0.02

0.77 ± 0.02

0.92 ± 0.03

0.98 ± 0.03

1.11 ± 0.03

0.68 ± 0.02

0.52 ± 0.02

0.77 ± 0.02

0.76 ± 0.02

0.89 ± 0.03

α-cumyl alcohol

 

1750

1779

24.2 ± 0.7

24.36 ± 0.71

66.48 ± 1.93

76.54 ± 2.22

75.76 ± 2.2

71.3 ± 2.07

74.63 ± 2.16

26.82 ± 0.78

25.47 ± 0.74

24.24 ± 0.7

25.48 ± 0.74

71.83 ± 2.08

methyl salicylate

50

1754

1759

30.5 ± 1.13

44.79 ± 1.66

41.73 ± 1.54

35.28 ± 1.31

33.51 ± 1.24

26.51 ± 0.98

25.34 ± 0.94

37.91 ± 1.4

24.9 ± 0.92

21.12 ± 0.78

19.16 ± 0.71

23.21 ± 0.86

methyl-4-hydroxybutanoate

 

1758

-

3.14 ± 0.08

5.44 ± 0.14

3.33 ± 0.08

4.44 ± 0.11

6.04 ± 0.15

4.33 ± 0.11

3.85 ± 0.1

11 ± 0.28

6.36 ± 0.16

6.35 ± 0.16

42.69 ± 1.07

15.37 ± 0.38

ethyl 4-hydroxybutanoate*

 

1799

1827

1.16 ± 0.03

2.88 ± 0.08

1.75 ± 0.05

2 ± 0.06

2.9 ± 0.08

1.66 ± 0.05

1.3 ± 0.04

7.07 ± 0.21

4.03 ± 0.12

3.25 ± 0.09

10.53 ± 0.31

3.77 ± 0.11

2-phenylethyl acetate*

0,25

1802

1803

0.2 ± 0.01

0.25 ± 0.01

0.12 ± 0.01

0.37 ± 0.01

0.32 ± 0.01

0.71 ± 0.02

0.83 ± 0.02

0.39 ± 0.01

0.43 ± 0.01

0.43 ± 0.01

0.18 ± 0.01

0.14 ± 0

4-(methylthio)-1-butanol

 

1833

1812

8.21 ± 0.26

7.93 ± 0.25

11.87 ± 0.38

12.16 ± 0.39

11.98 ± 0.38

8.97 ± 0.29

8.62 ± 0.28

6.81 ± 0.22

6.41 ± 0.21

6.69 ± 0.21

4.47 ± 0.14

12.51 ± 0.4

hexanoic acid*

0,42

1840

1830

4.41 ± 0.2

4.64 ± 0.21

2.82 ± 0.13

3.16 ± 0.15

2.55 ± 0.12

1.95 ± 0.09

2.48 ± 0.11

3.02 ± 0.14

3.59 ± 0.17

3.98 ± 0.18

1.87 ± 0.09

2.27 ± 0.1

N-(3-methylbutyl)acetamide*

 

1855

1855

0.12 ± 0.004

0.02 ± 0.001

0.04 ± 0.001

0.03 ± 0.001

0.29 ± 0.01

0.01 ± 0.001

0.01 ± 0.001

0.04 ± 0.002

0.03 ± 0.001

0.04 ± 0.001

2.11 ± 0.07

0.35 ± 0.01

benzyl alcohol*

 

1863

1876

0.16 ± 0.01

0.31 ± 0.02

0.4 ± 0.02

0.19 ± 0.01

0.25 ± 0.01

0.28 ± 0.02

0.28 ± 0.02

0.23 ± 0.01

0.15 ± 0.01

0.16 ± 0.01

0.04 ± 0

0.48 ± 0.03

2-phenylethanol*

50

1895

1893

24.1 ± 0.92

33.26 ± 1.26

24.15 ± 0.92

19.31 ± 0.73

34.58 ± 1.31

35.05 ± 1.33

38.9 ± 1.48

37.03 ± 1.41

39.96 ± 1.52

43.35 ± 1.65

52.9 ± 2.01

28.07 ± 1.07

Ho-terpendiol 1

 

1943

1957

27.61 ± 0.97

8.61 ± 0.3

10.86 ± 0.38

13.4 ± 0.47

152.14 ± 5.32

11.22 ± 0.39

11.03 ± 0.39

10.82 ± 0.38

9.57 ± 0.33

7.03 ± 0.25

18.84 ± 0.66

49.57 ± 1.73

trans-2-hexenoic_acid

 

1960

1971

29.39 ± 0.65

38.16 ± 0.84

33.5 ± 0.74

28.51 ± 0.63

42.92 ± 0.94

45.43 ± 1

46.45 ± 1.02

80.17 ± 1.76

53.91 ± 1.19

78.05 ± 1.72

10 ± 0.22

105.09 ± 2.31

2-(H)-pyran-2,6(3H)-dione (t.i.) *

 

1979

-

0.56 ± 0.02

0.92 ± 0.03

0.89 ± 0.03

0.97 ± 0.03

1.12 ± 0.04

1 ± 0.04

0.93 ± 0.03

1 ± 0.04

0.81 ± 0.03

0.85 ± 0.03

0.36 ± 0.01

0.77 ± 0.03

pantolactone

 

2013

2033

56.6 ± 1.87

45.61 ± 1.51

78.56 ± 2.59

55.41 ± 1.83

53.02 ± 1.75

40.41 ± 1.33

45.76 ± 1.51

77.44 ± 2.56

55.93 ± 1.85

79.05 ± 2.61

88.98 ± 2.94

85.13 ± 2.81

diethyl malate*

 

2029

2070

2.02 ± 0.07

2.51 ± 0.09

3.14 ± 0.11

2.19 ± 0.07

1.13 ± 0.04

1.08 ± 0.04

1.12 ± 0.04

1.37 ± 0.05

1.8 ± 0.06

1.69 ± 0.06

1.19 ± 0.04

1.82 ± 0.06

octanoic acid*

0,5

2053

2043

7.78 ± 0.3

6.84 ± 0.27

6.29 ± 0.25

8.07 ± 0.31

5.01 ± 0.2

4.57 ± 0.18

5.25 ± 0.2

4.9 ± 0.19

6.33 ± 0.25

6.07 ± 0.24

2.12 ± 0.08

4.5 ± 0.18

homofuraneol

40

2075

2090

11.7 ± 0.42

14.6 ± 0.53

7.23 ± 0.26

20.24 ± 0.73

48.22 ± 1.74

76.67 ± 2.76

28.96 ± 1.04

92.52 ± 3.33

40.59 ± 1.46

21.94 ± 0.79

33.86 ± 1.22

8.69 ± 0.31

unknown m/z 114 *

 

2094

-

0.26 ± 0.01

0.26 ± 0.01

0.27 ± 0.01

0.23 ± 0.01

0.32 ± 0.01

0.3 ± 0.01

0.29 ± 0.01

0.44 ± 0.01

0.33 ± 0.01

0.44 ± 0.01

0.23 ± 0.01

0.28 ± 0.01

diethyl 2-hydroxy-3-methylsuccinate

 

2137

-

49.6 ± 1.49

83.9 ± 2.52

128 ± 3.84

63.8 ± 1.91

114.4 ± 3.43

83.1 ± 2.49

129.7 ± 3.89

97.3 ± 2.92

69 ± 2.07

89.2 ± 2.68

92.7 ± 2.78

250.3 ± 7.51

4-vinylguaiacol

 

2175

2175

66.4 ± 2.12

78.5 ± 2.51

108 ± 3.46

160.6 ± 5.14

278.4 ± 8.91

162.8 ± 5.21

148.9 ± 4.76

95.2 ± 3.05

140.5 ± 4.5

95.9 ± 3.07

142.5 ± 4.56

113.7 ± 3.64

carboethoxy-γ-butyrolactone*

 

2211

2241

0.67 ± 0.04

0.99 ± 0.06

1.36 ± 0.08

1 ± 0.06

1.11 ± 0.07

0.88 ± 0.05

1.02 ± 0.06

0.58 ± 0.04

0.74 ± 0.05

0.77 ± 0.05

0.51 ± 0.03

1.1 ± 0.07

decanoic acid*

1

2269

2257

3.88 ± 0.12

3 ± 0.09

2.36 ± 0.07

3.72 ± 0.11

2.18 ± 0.07

2.71 ± 0.08

3.03 ± 0.09

2.45 ± 0.07

2.95 ± 0.09

2.74 ± 0.08

1.21 ± 0.04

2.11 ± 0.06

succinic acid monoethylester

 

2267

2256

50.5 ± 1.52

35.38 ± 1.06

32.39 ± 0.97

48.41 ± 1.45

30.81 ± 0.92

40 ± 1.2

39.82 ± 1.19

31.51 ± 0.95

38.94 ± 1.17

33.58 ± 1.01

15.68 ± 0.47

29.9 ± 0.9

4-methyl-5-(β-hydroxyethyl)thiazole *

 

2285

2300

0.2 ± 0.001

0.16 ± 0.001

0.21 ± 0.001

0.22 ± 0.01

0.28 ± 0.01

0.15 ± 0

0.22 ± 0.01

0.54 ± 0.01

0.13 ± 0

0.38 ± 0.01

0.09 ± 0.001

0.06 ± 0.001

ethyl hydrogen succinate*

 

2373

2367

18.9 ± 0.57

41.36 ± 1.24

37.52 ± 1.13

27.02 ± 0.81

37.68 ± 1.13

34.26 ± 1.03

33.73 ± 1.01

41.64 ± 1.25

41.62 ± 1.25

31.7 ± 0.95

40.16 ± 1.2

26.66 ± 0.8

dodecanoic acid*

 

2472

2465

0.31 ± 0.01

0.35 ± 0.01

0.25 ± 0.01

0.5 ± 0.02

0.33 ± 0.01

0.5 ± 0.02

0.5 ± 0.02

0.27 ± 0.01

0.24 ± 0.01

0.27 ± 0.01

0.15 ± 0.01

0.23 ± 0.01

benzeneacetic acid

2500

2539

2534

41.5 ± 0.95

30.62 ± 0.7

36.48 ± 0.84

30.58 ± 0.7

100.1 ± 2.3

30.84 ± 0.71

32.97 ± 0.76

36.72 ± 0.84

31.34 ± 0.72

57.85 ± 1.33

233.01 ± 5.36

112.17 ± 2.58

acetovanillon*

 

2607

2626

0.11 ± 0.001

0.09 ± 0.001

0.11 ± 0.001

0.12 ± 0.001

0.13 ± 0.001

0.14 ± 0.001

0.14 ± 0.001

0.12 ± 0.001

0.1 ± 0.001

0.1 ± 0.001

0.19 ± 0.001

0.22 ± 0.01

tyrosol*

 

2990

2985

2.92 ± 0.07

4.89 ± 0.12

4.26 ± 0.11

4.56 ± 0.11

8.8 ± 0.22

9.98 ± 0.25

9.65 ± 0.24

6.33 ± 0.16

5.07 ± 0.13

6.66 ± 0.17

6.96 ± 0.17

4.62 ± 0.12

C13-norisoprenoids SPME

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-damascenone

0,05

1801

1820

4.86 ± 0.002

3.08 ± 0.003

1.57 ± 0.001

2.8 ± 0.003

3.3 ± 0.001

5.24 ± 0.002

5.28 ± 0.003

3.37 ± 0.001

3.18 ± 0.002

3.57 ± 0.001

3.32 ± 0.003

2.62 ± 0.001

VTP (sum of isomers)

800

1524

1514

2.45 ± 0.1

2.93 ± 0.11

3.93 ± 0.15

2.87 ± 0.11

0.5 ± 0.02

2.82 ± 0.11

2.5 ± 0.1

2.26 ± 0.09

2.37 ± 0.09

1.82 ± 0.07

3.74 ± 0.15

3.6 ± 0.14

riesling acetale

 

1656

1638

2.5 ± 0.11

2.68 ± 0.11

2.51 ± 0.11

2.51 ± 0.11

2.56 ± 0.11

2.96 ± 0.12

2.87 ± 0.12

2.66 ± 0.11

2.6 ± 0.11

2.74 ± 0.12

2.3 ± 0.1

2.46 ± 0.1

TDN

2

1739

1743

1.06 ± 0.04

3.3 ± 0.13

1.45 ± 0.06

2.15 ± 0.09

1.52 ± 0.06

3.98 ± 0.16

3.1 ± 0.12

3.37 ± 0.13

1.82 ± 0.07

2.63 ± 0.11

1.33 ± 0.05

3.14 ± 0.13

SPME with derivatization

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3-methyl-2,4-nonanedione (ng/L)

0,016

1732

1723

77 ± 10.01

16 ± 2.08

67 ± 8.71

35 ± 4.55

68 ± 8.84

24 ± 3.12

28 ± 3.64

30 ± 3.9

29 ± 3.77

38 ± 4.94

60 ± 7.8

54 ± 7.02

Three different areas (Le Moie, Massaccio, San Sisto), three harvest times (San Sisto H1, H2, H3), low and high vigour, three different clones and two different vinifications (late harvest and whitering process, skin maceration) RI exp and lit on polar column.

Table 2. Concentration (means ± standard deviations) and odour thresholds (OPT) in g/L except * in mg/L as equivalent of n-heptanol of bound compounds in 2016 Verdicchio wines.


Bound aroma compounds

RI exp

RI lit

le Moie

Harvest date

Vigour

Clones

Vinification

Areas

Massaccio

San Sisto H1

San Sisto H2

San Sisto H3

Low vigour

High vigour

VCR3

VL50

R2

Late harvest

Skin maceration

n-hexanol

1354

1356

54.7 ± 9.4

44 ± 7.5

39.3 ± 6.7

44.7 ± 7.6

59.5 ± 10.2

34.2 ± 5.8

30.9 ± 5.3

33.2 ± 5.7

38.5 ± 6.6

28.3 ± 4.8

285.5 ± 48.8

73.2 ± 12.5

n-octanol*

1554

1552

0.47 ± 0.03

0.56 ± 0.03

0.27 ± 0.02

0.49 ± 0.03

0.4 ± 0.02

0.41 ± 0.02

0.43 ± 0.03

0.49 ± 0.03

0.53 ± 0.03

0.65 ± 0.04

0.45 ± 0.03

0.24 ± 0.01

trans-linalool oxide furan

1444

1429

3.13 ± 0.38

1.8 ± 0.22

1.85 ± 0.22

2.02 ± 0.24

8.4 ± 1.01

2.34 ± 0.28

2.38 ± 0.29

2.46 ± 0.3

2.39 ± 0.29

2.3 ± 0.28

3.83 ± 0.46

6.85 ± 0.82

cis-linalool oxide furan

1463

1454

3.97 ± 0.46

3.04 ± 0.35

3.02 ± 0.35

3.33 ± 0.39

4.33 ± 0.5

3.85 ± 0.45

3.95 ± 0.46

3.94 ± 0.46

4.35 ± 0.5

3.93 ± 0.46

4.28 ± 0.5

5.74 ± 0.67

linalool

1546

1545

1.11 ± 0.16

0.46 ± 0.06

0.31 ± 0.04

0.67 ± 0.09

7.62 ± 1.07

0.76 ± 0.11

0.84 ± 0.12

0.6 ± 0.08

0.47 ± 0.07

0.45 ± 0.06

0.74 ± 0.1

4.26 ± 0.6

tricyclo octane (t.i.)

1679

-

0.54 ± 0.04

0.32 ± 0.02

0.25 ± 0.02

0.41 ± 0.03

0.61 ± 0.04

0.6 ± 0.04

0.51 ± 0.04

0.7 ± 0.05

0.57 ± 0.04

0.5 ± 0.04

1.53 ± 0.11

1.36 ± 0.1

-terpineol

1686

1698

6.04 ± 0.79

5.48 ± 0.71

6.07 ± 0.79

6.38 ± 0.83

8.38 ± 1.09

7.41 ± 0.96

8.23 ± 1.07

8.7 ± 1.13

7.34 ± 0.95

8.82 ± 1.15

7.48 ± 0.97

21.85 ± 2.84

trans-linalool oxide pyran

1727

1716

7.31 ± 1.02

6.01 ± 0.84

6.11 ± 0.86

8.41 ± 1.18

12.72 ± 1.78

8.18 ± 1.15

9.22 ± 1.29

6.83 ± 0.96

7.9 ± 1.11

7.31 ± 1.02

10.57 ± 1.48

11.84 ± 1.66

cis-linalool oxide pyran

1755

1781

5.04 ± 0.66

3.93 ± 0.51

3.98 ± 0.52

5.15 ± 0.67

4.97 ± 0.65

2.87 ± 0.37

3.6 ± 0.47

3.62 ± 0.47

4.12 ± 0.54

4.16 ± 0.54

3.69 ± 0.48

3.43 ± 0.45

citronellol

1762

1772

1.89 ± 0.17

1.68 ± 0.15

2.87 ± 0.26

3.75 ± 0.34

2.6 ± 0.23

2.3 ± 0.21

4.99 ± 0.45

1.28 ± 0.12

0.89 ± 0.08

2.71 ± 0.24

1.89 ± 0.17

2.82 ± 0.25

nerol

1790

1819

4.5 ± 0.5

4.37 ± 0.48

4.58 ± 0.5

4.91 ± 0.54

17.82 ± 1.96

5.96 ± 0.66

5.56 ± 0.61

5.38 ± 0.59

4.47 ± 0.49

4.74 ± 0.52

4.42 ± 0.49

10.63 ± 1.17

geraniol

1847

1831

12.97 ± 1.56

9.75 ± 1.17

10.31 ± 1.24

12.05 ± 1.45

37.13 ± 4.46

11.88 ± 1.43

12.39 ± 1.49

10.57 ± 1.27

10.46 ± 1.26

10.75 ± 1.29

8.8 ± 1.06

25.07 ± 3.01

exo-2-hydroxycineole

1849

1861

19.66 ± 2.56

19.3 ± 2.51

21.39 ± 2.78

24.8 ± 3.22

21.07 ± 2.74

23.03 ± 2.99

25.52 ± 3.32

22.2 ± 2.89

22.85 ± 2.97

24.43 ± 3.18

37.87 ± 4.92

50.07 ± 6.51

HO-terpendiol I

1943

1957

7.66 ± 0.46

8.51 ± 0.51

6.47 ± 0.39

8.92 ± 0.54

7.81 ± 0.47

8.14 ± 0.49

8.52 ± 0.51

8.26 ± 0.5

8.86 ± 0.53

10.06 ± 0.6

7.02 ± 0.42

5.02 ± 0.3

trans-8-hydroxylinalool

2264

2277

35.95 ± 3.24

36.16 ± 3.25

39.18 ± 3.53

49.07 ± 4.42

81.57 ± 7.34

57.1 ± 5.14

65.36 ± 5.88

41.81 ± 3.76

50.07 ± 4.51

46.42 ± 4.18

62.85 ± 5.66

82.47 ± 7.42

7-OH geraniol (t.i.)

2299

-

18.86 ± 1.32

16.15 ± 1.13

63.77 ± 4.46

68.83 ± 4.82

78.97 ± 5.53

71.89 ± 5.03

61.96 ± 4.34

15.75 ± 1.1

16.83 ± 1.18

17.45 ± 1.22

17.18 ± 1.2

81.43 ± 5.7

cis-8-hydroxylinalool

2302

2315

51.37 ± 4.11

14.53 ± 1.16

12.99 ± 1.04

15.75 ± 1.26

26.09 ± 2.09

12.88 ± 1.03

14.68 ± 1.17

16.5 ± 1.32

18.93 ± 1.51

15.41 ± 1.23

28.54 ± 2.28

30.12 ± 2.41

trans-geranic acid

2301

2289

6.77 ± 0.81

6.35 ± 0.76

8.42 ± 1.01

7.32 ± 0.88

26.25 ± 3.15

10.48 ± 1.26

8.69 ± 1.04

7.38 ± 0.89

8.72 ± 1.05

8.4 ± 1.01

5.97 ± 0.72

31.12 ± 3.73

myrtenol (t.i.)

2500

-

171.4 ± 11.31

136.6 ± 9.02

173.1 ± 11.42

197 ± 13

176.1 ± 11.62

161.1 ± 10.63

170.3 ± 11.24

142.7 ± 9.42

159.2 ± 10.51

187.5 ± 12.38

272.5 ± 17.99

353.1 ± 23.3

3-hydroxy--damascone

2512

2558

32.26 ± 3.87

31.77 ± 3.81

21.97 ± 2.64

27.24 ± 3.27

31.75 ± 3.81

33.84 ± 4.06

35.37 ± 4.24

23.08 ± 2.77

24.44 ± 2.93

28.36 ± 3.4

26.25 ± 3.15

38.76 ± 4.65

3-oxo--ionone

2603

2582

67 ± 7.37

52.56 ± 5.78

55.31 ± 6.08

62.52 ± 6.88

79.17 ± 8.71

102.37 ± 11.26

90.43 ± 9.95

85.87 ± 9.45

73.09 ± 8.04

91.79 ± 10.1

116.1 ± 12.77

150.4 ± 16.54

dihydro--ionone (t.i.)

2642

-

17.69 ± 1.77

11.89 ± 1.19

13.64 ± 1.36

13.17 ± 1.32

17.43 ± 1.74

19.75 ± 1.98

16.59 ± 1.66

16.29 ± 1.63

15.19 ± 1.52

16.67 ± 1.67

22.35 ± 2.24

45.4 ± 4.54

3-hydroxy-5,6-epoxy--ionone (t.i.)

2696

-

6.26 ± 0.43

5.64 ± 0.39

3.21 ± 0.22

4.31 ± 0.3

11.31 ± 0.78

29.28 ± 2.02

26.15 ± 1.8

44.99 ± 3.1

13.17 ± 0.91

25.59 ± 1.77

11.17 ± 0.77

141.1 ± 9.74

3-hydroxy-7,8-dihydro--ionol

2739

2722

23.52 ± 2.12

21.18 ± 1.91

22.26 ± 2

24.2 ± 2.18

27.05 ± 2.43

27.76 ± 2.5

25.49 ± 2.29

21.46 ± 1.93

24.45 ± 2.2

27.93 ± 2.51

38.65 ± 3.48

40.4 ± 3.64

4-oxo--isodamascol (t.i.)

2856

-

13.87 ± 0.94

11.42 ± 0.78

10.96 ± 0.75

12.93 ± 0.88

14.77 ± 1

13.25 ± 0.9

12.18 ± 0.83

9.01 ± 0.61

12.04 ± 0.82

16.24 ± 1.1

29.86 ± 2.03

20.89 ± 1.42

benzenoids

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

benzyl alcohol*

1863

1876

1.29 ± 0.11

0.98 ± 0.09

0.88 ± 0.08

2.15 ± 0.19

1.33 ± 0.12

1.3 ± 0.12

0.85 ± 0.08

1.34 ± 0.12

1.18 ± 0.11

1.1 ± 0.1

1.08 ± 0.1

1.19 ± 0.11

phenylethanol*

1895

1893

0.24 ± 0.02

0.22 ± 0.02

0.21 ± 0.02

0.25 ± 0.02

0.32 ± 0.03

0.29 ± 0.03

0.3 ± 0.03

0.25 ± 0.02

0.26 ± 0.02

0.3 ± 0.03

0.49 ± 0.04

0.43 ± 0.04

2-methoxy benzyl alcohol

2138

2082

7.65 ± 0.92

6.62 ± 0.79

7.95 ± 0.95

8.87 ± 1.06

7.96 ± 0.96

9.61 ± 1.15

9.9 ± 1.19

6.63 ± 0.8

7.53 ± 0.9

8.7 ± 1.04

9.66 ± 1.16

10.37 ± 1.24

α-cumyl alcohol

1750

1779

4.96 ± 0.3

5.11 ± 0.31

15.94 ± 0.96

15.58 ± 0.93

12.86 ± 0.77

17.47 ± 1.05

18.03 ± 1.08

4.35 ± 0.26

5.6 ± 0.34

5.6 ± 0.34

4.38 ± 0.26

15.2 ± 0.91

vanillic alcohol

2778

2787

16.05 ± 1.28

9.29 ± 0.74

10.88 ± 0.87

7.97 ± 0.64

8.65 ± 0.69

11.12 ± 0.89

10.4 ± 0.83

8.94 ± 0.72

14.71 ± 1.18

15.64 ± 1.25

21.32 ± 1.71

17.93 ± 1.43

methyl salicylate*

1754

1759

0.47 ± 0.04

0.33 ± 0.03

0.34 ± 0.03

0.49 ± 0.04

0.41 ± 0.04

0.27 ± 0.02

0.24 ± 0.02

0.29 ± 0.03

0.39 ± 0.04

0.35 ± 0.03

0.25 ± 0.02

0.21 ± 0.02

Three different areas (Le Moie, Massaccio, San Sisto), three harvest time (San Sisto H1, H2, H3), low and high vigour, three different clones and two different vinifications (late harvest and whitering process, skin maceration) volatile compounds in 2016 Verdicchio wines

Aroma compounds with a higher FD value (>3) likely contributed considerably to overall Verdicchio wine aroma. In particular, we observed that the most important compounds in terms of sensorial impact were ethyl 2-methylpropanoate, with notes of apple fruit, ethyl hexanoate with a bilberry-fruity note, -damascenone with a baked apple note, furaneol and homofuraneol with a cotton candy scent, vanillin with a characteristic sweet pastry note, phenylacetic acid associated with honey-withered flower, one unknown compound with a toasted almond smell, isovaleric acid with a cheese odour, -ionone with a violet note and methional and methionol with a boiled potato odour. In some wines, a passion fruit/tropical note was also found at the retention index very close to 3-mercapto-hexanol. Moreover, in all samples a liquorice note was present, probably associated with the compound pantolactone, together with a clove/spice note given by 4-vinylguaiacol and a clear celery/vegetal scent, probably due to sotolone.

Furthermore, we focused our attention on the anise note noticeable in some vintages of Verdicchio. GC-O analysis made it possible to find the area where the six expert panellists sensed this note. In the literature, the compounds that can contribute to this note are trans and cis anethole, estragol (Zeller and Rychlik, 2007), ethyl hexanoate (San-Juan et al., 2010), R carvone (Pinar et al., 2017) and 3-methyl-2,4 nonanedione (Pons et al., 2008). Except for ethyl hexanoate, which is eluted early, all the other compounds showed an RI on a polar column between 1687 and 1800. Analysis of the pure standards led to identification of the 3-methyl-2,4 nonanedione (3-MND) compound responsible for the anise note. Other researchers have reported an anise-like note in the same area that has been tentatively identified (Martí et al., 2003; Peťka et al., 2006). This compound was found in wine by French researchers (Pons et al., 2008); it was related to the plum note in prematurely aged red wines and was also correlated with a loss of fruitiness (Pons et al., 2013). 3-MND is an intriguing compound that has recently emerged as the most potent known agonist for the human receptor OR1A1, with a submicromolar half-maximal effective concentration (Geithe et al., 2017). These results further emphasise the controversial role of this compound, whose presence at variable concentrations has previously been described as reminiscent of mint, anise, fruit kernels and prunes (Pons et al., 2008) and has been associated with prematurely aged wines, oxidised soybean oil (Kao et al., 1998) and freshly brewed green tea (Guth and Grosch, 1993). The odour description of this compound in wine model solution is strong, depending on its concentration, as reported by Pons et al. (2008). When the concentration is 100 ng L−1 it is perceived as minty, while at around 1 g L−1 it recalls anise, kernel and prune and at 10 g L−1 the perception is of anise.

In order to understand the contribution of this compound to the Verdicchio aroma, 3-MND was added to a “neutral” Verdicchio (3-MND not detectable). The tasting was carried out by ten trained people (eight males, two females), who determined that the fruity note was masked only by the addition of 500 ng L−1 of 3-MND, as the anise note predominated in this wine. The samples preferred by the panellists were those with a 3-MND concentration of between 25 and 50 ng L−1. No oxidative note was detected in any sample. In Verdicchio wines 3-MND instead seems capable of imparting a positive and characteristic note.

Table 3. Odoriferous zones perceived by GC-AEDA.


RI waxexp

RI lit

FD

Descriptor

Impact compound

CAS

1006

958

243

Apple

ethyl 2-methylpropanoate

97-62-1

1016

938

27

Kiwi

ethyl propanoate

105-37-3

1035

1041

81

Bilberry

ethyl 3-methylbutanoate

108-64-5

1024

1110

81

Banana

isoamyl acetate

123-92-2

1094

-

81

Toasted almonds

unknown

-

1080

1033

9

Apple/pineapple

ethyl butanoate

105-54-4

1201

1118

3

Herbaceous

isobutanol

78-83-1

1229

-

3

Balsamic

unknown

-

1179

1174

27

Harsh, stale

isoamyl alcohol

123-51-3

1225

1232

243

Bilberry/fruity

ethyl hexanoate

106-32-1

1264

1269

9

Fruity

hexyl acetate

142-92-7

1304

1302

27

Mushroom

1-octen-3-one

4312-99-6

1348

1345

3

Yeasty-creamy

unknown

-

1376

1328

3

Fruity

unknown

-

1437

1434

27

Fruity/apple

ethyl octanoate

106-32-1

1443

1454

27

Boiled potato

methional

3268-49-3

1466

1447

3

Vinegar

acetic acid

79-09-4

1523

1532

9

Fruity

ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate

5405-41-4

1586

1570

27

Cheese, dog

isobutyric acid

503-74-2

1624

1635

3

Creamy, oily

ethyl furoate (t.i.)

614-99-3

1646

1620

27

Cheese

butyric acid

107-92-6

1634

1637

3

Fruity/sweaty

ethyl decanoate

110-38-3

1686

1671

81

Taleggio cheese

isovaleric acid

503-74-2

1730

1730

27

Boiled potato

3-methylthio-1-propanol

505-10-2

1732

1747

3

Aniseed

3-methyl-2,4-nonanedione

113486-29-6

1740

1730

9

Not defined

methyl salicylate

119-36-8

1739

1743

9

Gasoline

TDN

30364-38-6

1815

1838

243

Baked apple

-damascenone

23726-93-4

1815

1810

9

Flowery/rose

phenethyl acetate/ethyl-4-hydroxybutanoate

103-45-7

1845

1875

3

Tropical/unpleasant

1-hexanol, 3-mercapto

51755-83-0

1864

1855

3

Pungent/chemical

hexanoic acid

142-62

1881

1875

9

Floral

benzenmethanol

100-51-6

1919

1909

243

Rose

2-phenylethanol

60-12-8

1962

1951

3

Sweet/green

unknown

-

1956

1939

81

Coconut

whiskey lactone I

39212-23-2

1960

1920

81

Violet

-ionone

14901-07-6

2003

-

27

Licorice/vegetal

2H-pyran-2,6(3H)-dione (t.i.)

5926-95-4

2045

2047

243

Cotton candy

furaneol

3658-77-3

2050

2025

9

Acetic/bad

octanoic acid

124-07-2

2093

2080

243

Cotton candy

homofuraneol

27538-09-6

2044

-

9

Mushroom

unknown

-

2098

2123

27

Peach/sweet

-decalactone

706-14-9

2137

2168

9

Smoke-roast

ethyl 5-oxotetrahydro-2-furancarboxylate (t.i.)

1126-51-8

2196

2186

27

Leather/weiss beer

4-vinylguaiacol

7786-61-0

2200

2202

243

Celery like/sweet

sotolone

5579-78-2

2559

2556

243

Pastries, white chocolate

vanillin

121-33-5

2571

2555

27

Withered flower/honey

phenylacetic acid

103-82-2

2631

2640

27

Wood /clove

acetovanillone

498-02-2

Each GC-O analysis was performed by six experienced judges, FD mean of three judges.

Unfortunately, a well-perceived smell on the nose (olfactometry) is frequently not detected by chemical detectors (FID or MS). This is the case of some sulphur compounds and some carbonyl compounds, such as 3-MND. In such cases, it is necessary to use specific tests for the quantification of trace compounds. In order to quantify these compounds in our samples we used a derivatisation method with headspace solid phase microextraction using GC- tandem mass spectrometry. The derivatisation reagent PFBHA reacts with the carbonyl group formed oximes, which showed relatively specific mass spectra and high sensitivity. This method has been extensively employed to identify and quantify aroma components in several matrices, including wine (Flamini et al., 2005) and beverages (López-Vázquez et al., 2012; Saison et al., 2009). Our method was modified from that of Moreira et al. (2013) and Saison et al. (2009), where the determination of carbonyl compounds in beer was reported. Table 1 shows the content of 3-MND in our samples.

As Verdicchio is not an aromatic grape, one of the special characteristics of this variety that has been shown in previous studies (Versini et al., 2005) is the presence of a large amount of methyl salicylate. Methyl salicylate was found in V. riparia grapes (Schreier and Paroschy, 1980), in V. vinifera sp. (Cabaroglu et al., 1997) and in the Frontenac interspecific hybrid (Mansfield et al., 2011). The sensory impact of this compound in wine is not altogether clear. In the literature it is described as having an odour of wintergreen, mint and a fresh green character (Mansfield et al., 2011). We found that in the free forms the concentration was in the range 25–40 g L−1, while in the bound forms, after hydrolysis, a higher concentration of up to 0.5 mg L−1 was found (Table 2). As the olfactory threshold of this compound is 50–100 g L−1, it is possible that in some Verdicchio wines the balsamic note of methyl salicylate contributes to the fresh/anise scent. It is well known that wine odours are complex mixtures of many volatile chemicals, present in different concentrations. These chemicals can interact synergistically or additionally in the mixtures according to unpredictable rules and are the basis of the overall odour sensation (Brattoli et al., 2013). A recent study (Parker et al., 2017) proposed the sensory role of monoterpene glycosides during tasting through retronasal perception of odorant aglycones released in-mouth. For this reason, studies are underway to quantify the precursors of methyl salicylate in wines, hence the total quantity, not only that deriving from hydrolysis of glycosylated compounds. In the literature it has been suggested that it can be bound as methyl salicylate 2-O--D-glucoside or as methyl salicylate 2-O- -D-xylopyranosyl(1–6)–D-glucopyranoside (primeveroside), although nine different glycosides have been reported in plants to date (Mao et al., 2014).

Conclusion

This work confirms that it is possible to obtain wines with very different characteristics from this variety of grapes, producing premium wines with a distinctive pattern of volatiles, reproducible across several vintages and variable depending on the different location of the vineyard and winemaking techniques. Young wines are characterised by fruity, thiolic notes, while wines aged for longer are distinguished by their norisoprenoid content and by balsamic, anise and liquorice notes, which can be attributed to methyl salicylate released by precursors and the presence of 3-MND and pantolactone. With a new derivatisation and GC-MS-MS method it was possible to quantify 3-MND in the range10–50 ng L−1. With the use of GC-O, 48 sensorially important compounds were found for this wine. Analysis of the compounds after hydrolysis confirmed that a high amount of methyl salicylate characterised this variety. Methyl salicylate has a balsamic note from wintergreen oil that is often perceived in Verdicchio tasting. In-depth studies are underway to understand which precursors are present in grapes and whether they are in any way dependent on agro-climatic variables.

Funding

This study was supported by Fazi Battaglia winery.

References

  • Bauer K., Garbe D. and Surburg H., 2008. Common Fragrance and Flavor Materials: Preparation, Properties and Uses. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK.
  • Brattoli M., Cisternino E., Dambruoso, P.R., de Gennaro G., Giungato P., Mazzone A., … Tutino M., 2013. Gas Chromatography Analysis with Olfactometric Detection (GC-O) as a Useful Methodology for Chemical Characterization of Odorous Compounds. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 13(12), 16759–16800. doi:10.3390/s131216759
  • Cabaroglu T., Canbas A., Baumes R., Bayonove C., Lepoutre J.P. and Günata Z., 1997. Aroma composition of a white wine of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Emir as affected by skin contact. Journal of Food Science, 62(4), 680–683. doi:10.1111/j.1365–2621.1997.tb15434.x
  • Coelho E., Rocha S.M., Barros A.S., Delgadillo I. and Coimbra M.A., 2007. Screening of variety- and pre-fermentation-related volatile compounds during ripening of white grapes to define their evolution profile. Analytica Chimica Acta, 597(2), 257–264. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2007.07.010
  • Costacurta A., Calò A. and Crespan M., 2003. The varietal identification and characterisation work of the ‘Istituto Sperimentale per la Viticoltura’ in the past fifteen years. Acta Horticulturae, 603, 261–273.
  • Fedrizzi B., Tosi E., Simonato B., Finato F., Cipriani M., Caramia G. and Zapparoli G., 2011. Changes in wine aroma composition according to botrytized berry percentage: A preliminary study on Amarone wine. Food Technology and Biotechnology, 49(4), 529–535.
  • Flamini R., Vedova A.D., Panighel A., Perchiazzi N. and Ongarato S., 2005. Monitoring of the principal carbonyl compounds involved in malolactic fermentation of wine by solid-phase microextraction and positive ion chemical ionization GC/MS analysis. Journal of Mass Spectrometry, 40(12), 1558–1564. doi:10.1002/jms.928
  • Frijters J.E.R. and Schifferstein H.N.J., 1994. Perceptual interactions in mixtures containing bitter tasting substances. Physiology & Behavior, 56(6), 1243–1249. doi:10.1016/0031–9384(94)90372–7
  • Geithe C., Noe F., Kreissl J. and Krautwurst D., 2017. The Broadly Tuned Odorant Receptor OR1A1 is Highly Selective for 3-Methyl-2,4-nonanedione, a Key Food Odorant in Aged Wines, Tea and Other Foods. Chemical Senses, 42(3), 181–193. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjw117
  • Ghidoni F., Emanuelli F., Moreira Maia F., Imazio S., Scienza A. and Grando M.S., 2010. Variazioni del genotipo molecolare in Verdicchio, Trebbiano di Soave e Trebbiano di Lugana. ITALUS HORTUS, 17(3 suppl.), 373–380.
  • Guth H. and Grosch W., 1993. Identification of potent odourants in static headspace samples of green and black tea powders on the basis of aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA). Flavour and Fragrance Journal, 8(4), 173–178. doi:10.1002/ffj.2730080402
  • Kao J.-W., Wu X., Hammond E.G. and White P.J., 1998. The impact of furanoid fatty acids and 3-methylnonane-2,4-dione on the flavor of oxidized soybean oil. JAOCS, Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 75(7), 831–835. doi:10.1007/s11746–998–0233–2
  • Kwasniewski M.T., Vanden Heuvel J.E., Pan, B.S. and Sacks G.L., 2010. Timing of Cluster Light Environment Manipulation during Grape Development Affects C13 Norisoprenoid and Carotenoid Concentrations in Riesling. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58(11), 6841–6849. doi:10.1021/jf904555p
  • López-Vázquez C., Orriols I., Perelló M.-C. and De R., 2012. Determination of aldehydes as pentafluorobenzyl derivatives in grape pomace distillates by HS-SPME-GC/MS. Food Chemistry, 130(4), 1127–1133. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.07.140
  • Mansfield A.K., Schirle-Keller J.-P. and Reineccius G.A., 2011. Identification of Odor-Impact Compounds in Red Table Wines Produced from Frontenac Grapes. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, ajev.2011.10067. doi:10.5344/ajev.2011.10067
  • Mao P., Liu Z., Xie M., Jiang R., Liu W., Wang X., Meng S. and She G., 2014. Naturally Occurring Methyl Salicylate Glycosides. Mini Reviews in Medicinal Chemistry, 14(1), 56–63.
  • Marais J., 1983. Terpenes in the Aroma of Grapes and Wines: A Review. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 4(2), 49–58. doi:10.21548/4–2-2370
  • Martí M.P., Mestres M., Sala C., Busto O. and Guasch J., 2003. Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography Olfactometry Analysis of Successively Diluted Samples. A New Approach of the Aroma Extract Dilution Analysis Applied to the Characterization of Wine Aroma. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51(27), 7861–7865. doi:10.1021/jf0345604
  • Mattivi F., Fedrizzi B., Zenato A., Tiefenthaler P., Tempesta S., Perenzoni D., … and Vrhovsek U., 2012. Development of reliable analytical tools for evaluating the influence of reductive winemaking on the quality of Lugana wines. Analytica Chimica Acta, 732, 194–202. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2011.11.051
  • Moreira N., Meireles S., Brandão T. and De P., 2013. Optimization of the HS-SPME-GC-IT/MS method using a central composite design for volatile carbonyl compounds determination in beers. Talanta, 117, 523–531. doi:10.1016/j.talanta.2013.09.027
  • Nicolini G., Versini G., Moser S., Carlin S. and Malossini U., 2003. Aroma characteristics of wines from the cultivar ‘Manzoni bianco’ (‘White Riesling’ x ’Pinot blanc’). Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg Rebe Und Wein, Obstbau Und Früchteverwertung, 53(7–8), 251–257.
  • Parker M., Black C.A., Barker A., Pearson W., Hayasaka Y. and Francis I.L., 2017. The contribution of wine-derived monoterpene glycosides to retronasal odour during tasting. Food Chemistry, 232, 413–424. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.03.163
  • Peťka J., Ferreira V., González-Viñas M.A. and Cacho J., 2006. Sensory and chemical characterization of the aroma of a white wine made with Devín grapes. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54(3), 909–915. doi:10.1021/jf0518397Büttner A., Lopez Pinar A., Rauhut D. and Ruehl E., 2017. Effects of bunch rot (Botrytis cinerea) and powdery mildew (Erysiphe necator) fungal diseases on wine aroma. Frontiers in Chemistry, 5(MAR). doi:10.3389/fchem.2017.00020
  • Pons A., Lavigne V., Darriet P. and Dubourdieu D., 2013. Role of 3-methyl-2,4-nonanedione in the flavor of aged red wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61(30), 7373–7380. doi:10.1021/jf400348h
  • Pons A., Lavigne V., Eric F., Darriet P. and Dubourdieu D., 2008. Identification of volatile compounds responsible for prune aroma in prematurely aged red wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 56(13), 5285–5290. doi:10.1021/jf073513z
  • Rapp A. and Mandery H., 1986. Wine aroma. Experientia, 42(8), 873–884. doi:10.1007/BF01941764
  • Rapp A. and Versini G., 1995. Influence of nitrogen compounds in grapes on aroma compounds of wines. In G. Charalambous (Ed.), Developments in Food Science, pp. 1659–1694. doi:10.1016/S0167–4501(06)80257–8
  • Saison D., De Schutter D.P., Delvaux F. and Delvaux F.R., 2009. Determination of carbonyl compounds in beer by derivatisation and headspace solid-phase microextraction in combination with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Journal of Chromatography A, 1216(26), 5061–5068. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2009.04.077
  • San-Juan F., Pet’ka J., Cacho J., Ferreira V. and Escudero A., 2010. Producing headspace extracts for the gas chromatography-olfactometric evaluation of wine aroma. Food Chemistry, 123(1), 188–195. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.03.129
  • Schreier P. and Paroschy J.H., 1980. Volatile components of wild grapes, Vitis riparia, M. Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology Journal, 13(3), 118–121. doi:10.1016/S0315–5463(80)73349–7
  • Silva Ferreira A.C. and Guedes de Pinho P., 2004. Nor-isoprenoids profile during port wine ageing—influence of some technological parameters. Analytica Chimica Acta, 513(1), 169–176. doi:10.1016/j.aca.2003.12.027
  • van Ruth S.M., 2001. Methods for gas chromatography-olfactometry: A review. Biomolecular Engineering, 17(4–5), 121–128. doi:10.1016/S1389–0344(01)00070–3
  • Vantini F., Tacconi G., Gastaldelli M., Govoni C., Tosi E., Malacrinò P., Bassi R. and Cattivelli L., 2003. Biodiversity of grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.) grown in the province of Verona. Vitis, 42(1), 35–38.
  • Versini G., Carlin S., Dalla Serra A., Nicolini,G. and Rapp A. 2001. Formation of 1,1,6-Trimethyl-1,2-Dihydronaphthalene and Other Norisoprenoids in Wine: Considerations on the Kinetics. In ACS Symposium Series: Vol. 802. Carotenoid-Derived Aroma Compounds (Vol. 802, pp. 285–299.
  • Versini G., Moser S. and Carlin S., 2005. Methyl salicylate as a remarkable almost bound compound in some renowned Italian varietal wines. In Vino Analytica Scientia: analytical chemistry for wine, brandy and spirits, Montpellier, France: 224.
  • Winterhalter P. and Schreier P., 1994. C13-norisoprenoid glycosides in plant tissues: An overview on their occurrence, composition and role as flavour precursors. Flavour and Fragrance Journal, 9(6), 281–287.
  • Winterhalter P., 1991. 1,1,6-Trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene (TDN) formation in wine. 1. Studies on the hydrolysis of 2,6,10,10-tetramethyl-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-6-ene-2,8-diol rationalizing the origin of TDN and related C13 norisoprenoids in Riesling wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 39(10), 1825–1829. doi:10.1021/jf00010a027
  • Xia J., Sinelnikov, I.V., Han B. and Wishart D.S., 2015. MetaboAnalyst 3.0—making metabolomics more meaningful. Nucleic Acids Research, 43(W1), W251–W257. doi:10.1093/nar/gkv380
  • Zeller A. and Rychlik M., 2007. Impact of estragole and other odorants on the flavour of anise and tarragon. Flavour and Fragrance Journal, 22(2), 105–113. doi:10.1002/ffj.1765

Authors


Silvia Carlin

Affiliation : Department of Food Quality and Nutrition, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Via E. Mach, 1 38010 S. Michele all’Adige, Italy and Department of Agricultural, Food, Environmental and Animal Sciences, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy
Country : Italy


Urska Vrhovsek

Affiliation : Department of Food Quality and Nutrition, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Via E. Mach, 1 38010 S. Michele all’Adige, Italy
Country : Italy


Andrea Lonardi

Affiliation : Fazi Battaglia Winery, Via Roma 117, Castelplanio Ancona, Italy
Country : Italy


Lorenzo Landi

Affiliation : Fazi Battaglia Winery, Via Roma 117, Castelplanio, Ancona, Italy
Country : Italy


Fulvio Mattivi

Affiliation : Department of Food Quality and Nutrition, Research and Innovation Centre, Fondazione Edmund Mach, Via E. Mach, 1 38010 S. Michele all’Adige, Italy and Centre for Agriculture, Food and the Environment (C3A), University of Trento, San Michele all’ Adige, Italy
Country : Italy

fulvio.mattivi@fmach.it

Attachments

No supporting information for this article

Article statistics

Views: 444

Downloads

PDF: 33

XML: 6

Citations

PlumX