<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<article xml:lang="en" dtd-version="1.1" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://www.niso.org/standards/z39-96/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xmlns="http://jats.nlm.nih.gov" xmlns:ali="http://www.niso.org/schemas/ali/1.0/" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
<front><journal-meta>
<journal-id>OENO One</journal-id>
<issn>2494-1271</issn>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<title-group>
<article-title xml:lang="en">Relationships between wine quality and substances exceeding the odour threshold produced by Hanseniaspora</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="dc:creator">
<name><surname>Caridi</surname>
<given-names>Andrea</given-names></name>
<email>acaridi@unirc.it</email>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="dc:contributor">
<name><surname>Marco</surname>
<given-names></given-names></name>
</contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="dc:contributor">
<name><surname>Poiana</surname>
<given-names></given-names></name>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib>
<contrib contrib-type="dc:contributor">
<name><surname>Poiana</surname>
<given-names>Marco</given-names></name>
<email>mpoiana@unirc.it</email>
<xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0"><sup>0</sup></xref></contrib>
</contrib-group><aff id="aff0"><sup>0</sup>Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Department of Agriculture, Via Feo di Vito, 89122 Reggio Calabria, Italy</aff><aff id="aff1"><sup>1</sup>Mediterranea University of Reggio Calabria, Department of Agriculture, Via Feo di Vito, 89122 Reggio Calabria, Italy</aff><pub-date date-type="created">
<day>4</day>
<month>4</month>
<year>2026</year>
</pub-date>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>Copyright © 1970 Andrea Caridi, null Marco, null Poiana, Marco Poiana</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>1970</copyright-year>
<copyright-holder>Andrea Caridi, null Marco, null Poiana, Marco Poiana</copyright-holder>
<license>
<license-p></license-p>
</license>
</permissions>
<abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Several recent studies propose the use of yeasts from the Hanseniaspora genus in winemaking. In this paper, the negative and positive wine components due to the activity of these yeasts are listed and critically analysed. Only the substances produced in amounts exceeding their odour threshold are considered. This review highlights the relationships between the use of Hanseniaspora strains in winemaking and the quality of the wines so obtained. First of all, the acetic acid concentration in grape wines is very important; legal limits for its content in wine vary by country and wine type. A moderate production of ethyl acetate positively contributes to the sensory quality of the wines. Isobutanol is related to an unpleasant aroma. Acetoin, 1-hexanol, decanoic acid, octanoic acid, and hexanoic acid: the less, the better. Isoamyl alcohol may positively contribute to the complexity of the aroma of wines. 2-Phenylethanol contributes to fine rose notes in wine aroma. 2-Phenylethyl acetate is a compound that imparts flowery, rosy, and honey-like fragrances with fruity undertones to wines. Isoamyl acetate is one of the esters most markedly contributing to the aroma profile of white wines. Ethyl hexanoate is responsible for tropical fruity attributes. Hexyl acetate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl butyrate, β-citronellol, linalool, ethyl octanoate, β-damascenone: the more, the merrier.</p></abstract>
<kwd-group>
<kwd>&lt;i&gt;Hanseniaspora&lt;/i&gt;</kwd>
<kwd>odour</kwd>
<kwd>threshold</kwd>
<kwd>wine</kwd>
<kwd>quality</kwd>
<kwd>Hanseniaspora</kwd>
<kwd>odour threshold</kwd>
<kwd>wine quality</kwd>
</kwd-group>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<sec id="h0-introduction"><title>Introduction</title>
<p>The single most important factor in winemaking is the sensory quality of the final product (Plata <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003). Even if the grape wine flavour cannot be totally predicted, its volatile profile is dominated by the components exceeding their odour thresholds. This is true both for positive and negative effects, depending on the aromatic profile of each component. Consequently, it is important that the positive components are over their odour thresholds and that the negative components are under their odour thresholds. Recently, many strains of the genus <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were proposed as starter and/or adjunct cultures for grape wine production; however, the concentration of the crucial volatile components was not always reported. Furthermore, it is important to note that the pure cultures of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> are always unable to finish the fermentation, resulting in unfermented sugar in the grape wines. Considering this, several methodologies are listed below to study the fermentative activity of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> strains in grape juices.</p>
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item><p>Fermentations were carried out for a period of 12 days (Valera <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021). Fermentation kinetics were controlled as CO<sub>2</sub> liberated by daily weighing. After 12 days of fermentation, samples were analysed, and residual sugars were quantified.</p>
</list-item><list-item><p>Fermentations were carried out for a period of 14 days (Andorrà <italic>et</italic> <italic> al.,</italic> 2010). Sugar consumption was monitored daily; fermentations were considered to be finished when the level of reducing sugars was below 2 g L<sup>–1</sup>. However, the pure <italic>H. uvarum</italic> culture did not finish the fermentation (20 g L<sup>–1</sup> of residual glucose).</p>
</list-item><list-item><p>Fermentations were carried out for a period of 18 days (Testa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021). The alcoholic fermentation was monitored considering the variation of reducing sugars and ethanol content.</p>
</list-item><list-item><p>Fermentations were carried out for a period of 20 days (del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2025). Fermentation was monitored daily measuring the decrease in density, which indicated the correct progress of the alcoholic fermentation until its completion.</p>
</list-item><list-item><p>Fermentations were carried out for a maximum period of 30 days (Cordero-Bueso <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013). When sugar content was lower than 2 g L<sup>–1</sup> or after 30 days of fermentation.</p>
</list-item><list-item><p>Fermentations were carried out to dryness for a maximum period of 180 days (du Plessis <italic>et al.</italic>, 2017). The final wine chemical analyses were carried out when the wines showed residual sugar &lt; 4 g L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
</list-item><list-item><p>Fermentations were carried out without indicating the days of fermentation (de Benedictis <italic>et al.</italic>, 2011). The kinetics of the fermentations were monitored by evaluating daily the loss of weight due to the production of CO<sub>2</sub>; when the CO<sub>2</sub> evolution stopped (<italic>i.e.</italic>, at constant weight), the samples were directly analysed or stored at –20 °C.</p>
</list-item><p>A quick review about negative and positive components related to <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> activity in grape wines will now be carried out, reporting, in decreasing order of odour threshold, the components exceeding their odour threshold. Only the values that were higher than those produced by the control have been reported, <italic>i.e.</italic>, spontaneous fermentation or fermentation using selected strains of <italic>Saccharomyces cerevisiae</italic>.</p>
</list><sec id="h0-1--negative-components-off-flavours"><title>1. Negative components/off-flavours</title>
<sec id="h0-1-1--acetic-acid"><title>1.1. Acetic acid</title>
<p>Several authors have tested yeasts of the genus <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> in winemaking, but they have not reported the concentration of acetic acid in the produced wines (Bagheri <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018; Hu <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018; Olivera <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024). Since, in our opinion, this parameter is essential for the use of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> in winemaking, the results of these papers have not been taken into consideration in this article. The aromatic descriptor of this compound is “vinegar”, its odour threshold is 700 mg L<sup>–1</sup>, and the presence of acetic acid at levels above the perception threshold is undesirable (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023).</p>
<p>The following papers reported acetic acid contents, <italic>i.e.</italic>, volatile acidity, exceeding the odour threshold, thereby negatively affecting the sensory quality of the wine; all the other papers described in this article obtained, using <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic>, wines with acetic acid content below 700 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Andorrà <italic>et al.</italic>, 2010 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Macabeo</italic> must sterilised by the addition of 250 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with: a) 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HuB10 contained 37,500 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 9 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HuB10 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23 contained 1580 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6 </sup>cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23) contained 490 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> NRRL-Y1613 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 1230 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. nectarophila</italic> GYBC-283 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 1100 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> GYBC-284 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 940 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 840 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Cordero-Bueso <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Malvar</italic> grape must filter-sterilised inoculated with 10<sup>6 </sup>cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> CLI 921 contained 900 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic>) contained 140 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>de Benedictis <italic>et al.</italic>, 2011 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C from <italic>Negroamaro</italic> grape must clarified by centrifugation, sterilised by membrane filtration, and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of: a) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8797 contained 780 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8799 contained 740 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8801 contained 750 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; d) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8802 contained 730 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; e) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8807 contained 810 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; f) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8810 contained 880 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; g) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8811 contained 950 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; h) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8813 contained 940 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; i) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> CBS314 contained 1220 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CM) contained 550 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>du Plessis <italic>et al.</italic>, 2017 – Synthetic wine produced at 22 °C from chemically defined grape juice, filter-sterilised and inoculated with: a) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> H2 contained 720 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> H3 contained 840 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> H10 contained 880 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> S3) contained 290 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Filippousi <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024 – Grape wine produced at 16 °C from <italic>Sideritis</italic> grape must unfiltered, added with potassium metabisulfite to get total sulfur dioxide of 30 ppm and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> L1 and, after eight hours, with 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> W7 contained 770 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> W7) contained 640 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Valera <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Chardonnay</italic> grape must, treated with 200 mg L<sup>–1</sup> dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> AWRI1280, contained 910 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ALG804) contained 450 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Icewine produced at 16 °C from <italic>Vidal blanc</italic> grape juice, added with sulfur dioxide (80 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> CVE-HV11 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45 contained 1660 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45) contained 1640 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: the acetic acid concentration in grape wines is very important. Legal limits for acetic acid content in wine vary by country and wine type. Sensory detection often starts around 0.6–0.9 g L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-1-2--ethyl-acetate"><title>1.2. Ethyl acetate</title>
<p>Ethyl acetate is the most abundant ester in wine (Plata <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003); its odour threshold is 7.5 mg L<sup>–1</sup> and it can be described as “apple, fruity” (Lai <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023). At low levels, it confers aromatic complexity to the wine, giving it a “fruity” aroma (Godoy <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020); instead, according to Viana <italic>et al.</italic> (2008), ethyl acetate in wine can impart spoilage character at levels of 150–200 mg L<sup>–1</sup>. Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce ethyl acetate over these levels, thereby negatively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> DSM2768 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 558.07 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. meyeri</italic> NRRL-Y27513 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 332.86 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> NRRL-Y1625 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 318.93 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; d) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. nectarophila</italic> GYBC-283 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 312.98 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; e) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> GYBC-284 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 291.07 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; f) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> NRRL-Y1613 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 151.6 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 115.8 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Cordero-Bueso <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 874.4 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 39.5 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>de Benedictis <italic>et al.</italic>, 2011 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C from <italic>Negroamaro</italic> grape must clarified by centrifugation, sterilised by membrane filtration, and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of: a) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8801 contained 151.7 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8807 contained 150.6 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CM) contained 14.3 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Filippousi <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 585.87 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 170.04 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 18–20 °C from <italic>Chardonnay</italic> grape must, added with sulfur dioxide (15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> Hv205 and, in sequential inoculation at 30 % of the alcoholic fermentation, with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> LVCB contained 184 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> LVCB) contained 142 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2022 – Grape wine produced from <italic>Sauvignon blanc</italic> grape must added with sulfur dioxide (30 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) in the form of potassium metabisulfite and 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine (52 ng L<sup>–1</sup>), and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> H11_G1_2, kept at 20 °C for 5 days, transferred to 16 °C and inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Lalvin EC1118™, contained 248.15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Lalvin EC1118™) contained 74.99 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: a moderate production of <bold>e</bold>thyl acetate positively contributes to the wines’ sensory quality.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-1-3--acetoin--i-e---3-hydroxybutan-2-one-"><title>1.3. Acetoin (<italic>i.e.</italic>, 3-hydroxybutan-2-one)</title>
<p>Acetoin affects the wine bouquet; its odour threshold is 150 mg L<sup>–1</sup> and it is described as being “creamy, butter, fat” (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023). One strain of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> was reported to produce acetoin exceeding the odour threshold, so negatively contributing to the wines’ sensory quality.</p>
<p>Cordero-Bueso <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 189.2 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 6.9 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: acetoin – the less, the better.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-1-4--isobutanol--i-e---2-methyl-1-propanol-or-isobutyl-alcohol-"><title>1.4. Isobutanol (<italic>i.e.</italic>, 2-methyl-1-propanol or isobutyl alcohol)</title>
<p>At least four different descriptors, all with the odour threshold of 40 mg L<sup>–1</sup>, were reported: “fusel, alcohol” (Guth, 1997), “wine, solvent, bitter” (Testa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021), “fusel oil, chemical” (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023), and “solvent, chemical alcoholic, malt notes, wineosity notes” (Tarko &amp; Duda, 2024). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce isobutanol levels exceeding the odour threshold, thereby negatively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Andorrà <italic>et al.</italic>, 2010 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Macabeo</italic> must sterilised by the addition of 250 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with 9 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HuB10 and 10<sup>5</sup> cell  ml<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23 contained 55.39 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23) contained 24.51 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> GYBC-284 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 190.04 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. meyeri</italic> NRRL-Y27513 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 161.05 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. nectarophila</italic> GYBC-283 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 150.83 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; d) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> NRRL-Y1625 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 149.54 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 141.8 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>de Benedictis <italic>et al.</italic>, 2011 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C from <italic>Negroamaro</italic> grape must clarified by centrifugation, sterilised by membrane filtration, and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of: a) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8799 contained 54.2 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) <italic>H. uvarum</italic> 8801 contained 53.9 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CM) contained 12.1 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2025 – Grape wine produced at 18 °C from <italic>Albillo Mayor </italic>grape must, added with sulfur dioxide at a dose of 4 g hL<sup>–1</sup> in the form of potassium metabisulfite, and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A contained 42.52 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CTPL14) contained 34.04 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Domizio <italic>et al.</italic>, 2011 – Grape wine produced by inoculating commercial white grape juice with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> Ha32 and 10<sup>7</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118 contained 83.15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118) contained 69.55 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (trial 1).</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from <italic>Granoir</italic> grape must, added with sulfur dioxide (60 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>Yun268 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae </italic>RV002 contained 130.47 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> RV002) contained 121.644 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Pietrafesa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 26 °C from <italic>Merlot</italic> grape must sterilised by filtration and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> H2 and 10<sup>3</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> S3 contained 47.96 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> S3) contained 44.58 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Testa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 18 °C from <italic>Fiano</italic> grape must cold clarified at 0 °C for 48 h, added with potassium metabisulfite (50 mg L<sup>–1</sup>), inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> H. guilliermondii</italic> BF1 and, after two days, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> 404 contained 61.2 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> 404) contained 43.3 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Icewine produced at 16 °C from <italic>Vidal blanc</italic> grape juice, added with sulfur dioxide (80 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> CVE-HV11 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45 contained 83.821 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45) contained 55.944 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: isobutanol has an unpleasant aroma (Mestre <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-1-5--1-hexanol"><title>1.5. 1-Hexanol</title>
<p>At least two descriptors were reported: “green, grass” (Guth, 1997) and “herbaceous, grass, woody” (Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004); the odour threshold is 1.1 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce 1-hexanol exceeding the odour threshold, so negatively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> GYBC-284 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 1431.11 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 1411.9 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021a – Grape wine produced in stainless steel barrels at 18 °C using a mixture of 50 % <italic>Tempranillo</italic> and 50 % <italic>Albillo Mayor</italic> grapes; the grape must, containing 15.05 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of total sulfur dioxide, was inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A and contained 4.17 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin 3C) contained 4.46 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2025 – Grape wine produced at 18 °C from <italic>Albillo Mayor </italic>grape must, added with sulfur dioxide at a dose of 4 g hL<sup>–1</sup> in the form of potassium metabisulfite, and inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A contained 4.06 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of hexanol, b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> A56 contained 3.89 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of hexanol; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CTPL14) contained 4.42 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of hexanol.</p>
<p>Filippousi <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 66.84 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 49.9 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Luan <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C from <italic>Cabernet-Sauvignon</italic> must added with sulfur dioxide (60 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> CVE-Ho11 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> BDX contained 2.21 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> BDX) contained 1.82 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Yan <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C from <italic>French Colombard</italic> grape must pasteurised and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> 71-97 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> var. <italic>bayanus</italic> EC1118 contained 1.19 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> var. <italic>bayanus</italic> EC1118) contained 0.77 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary:1-hexanol – the less, the better.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-1-6--decanoic-acid--i-e---capric-acid-"><title>1.6. Decanoic acid (<italic>i.e.</italic>, capric acid)</title>
<p>At least two descriptors were reported: “fatty, unpleasant” (Guth, 1997) and “rancid, fatty” (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023); its odour threshold is 1.0 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023). At least three strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce decanoic acid exceeding the odour threshold, thereby negatively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024a – Grape wine produced using a mixture of 50 % <italic>Glera</italic> and 50 % <italic>Gewurztraminer</italic> grapes, added with sulfur dioxide (15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> Fermivin VINEAE and, after 48 hours, with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB contained 1.955 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB) contained 0.726 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Guzzon <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024 – Sparkling wine produced at 20 °C using, in the secondary bottle fermentation, a mixed culture at a ratio of 1:1 made with <italic>H. uvarum</italic> NCYC 2380 and <italic>S. cerevisiae </italic>DV10; sparkling wines after bottle-fermentation from: a) <italic>Lambrusco Sorbara</italic> grapes contained 10.114 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> DV10) contained 10.085 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) <italic>Lambrusco Marani</italic> grapes contained 8.074 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> DV10) contained 8.014 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Medina <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C inoculating <italic>Chardonnay</italic> must, added with 30 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of sulfur dioxide, with 5 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> 02/5AF and, after six days, 2 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ALG 804 contained 4.607 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 2 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ALG 804) contained 3.796 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: <bold>d</bold>ecanoic acid – the less, the better.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-1-7--octanoic-acid--i-e---caprylic-acid-"><title>1.7. Octanoic acid (<italic>i.e.</italic>, caprylic acid)</title>
<p>Octanoic acid is related to an unpleasant aroma that is described as “rancid, harsh, cheese, fatty acid” (Guth, 1997) and “sweet, cheese” (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023); its odour threshold is 0.5 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023). At least two strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce octanoic acid exceeding the odour threshold, thereby negatively affecting the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from <italic>Granoir</italic> grape must, added with sulfur dioxide (60 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>Yun268 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae </italic>RV002 contained 1.178 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> RV002) contained 0.919 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C in pilot-scale vinification, inoculating 90 L of <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 20 g hL<sup>–1 </sup>of potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>ITEM8795 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920, contained 4.716 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920) contained 3.922 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: <bold>o</bold>ctanoic acid – the less, the better.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-1-8--hexanoic-acid--i-e---caproic-acid-"><title>1.8. Hexanoic acid (<italic>i.e.</italic>, caproic acid)</title>
<p>At least three different descriptors were reported: “cheese, rancid, fatty” (Guth, 1997), “sweet, acid rancid” (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023), and “cheese, fatty, baked potato” (Lai <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023); its odour threshold is 0.42 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023). At least three strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce hexanoic acid exceeding the odour threshold, thereby negatively affecting the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Domizio <italic>et al.</italic>, 2011 – Grape wine produced by inoculating commercial white grape juice with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> Ha32 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118 contained 0.72 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118) contained 0.70 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from <italic>Granoir</italic> grape must, added with sulfur dioxide (60 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>Yun268 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae </italic>RV002 contained 1.709 mg L<sup>–1</sup> – the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> RV002) contained 1.323 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C in pilot-scale vinification, inoculating 90 L of <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 20 g hL<sup>–1 </sup>of potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>ITEM8795 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920, contained 2.366 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920) contained 2.159 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: <bold>h</bold>exanoic acid – the less, the better.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="h2-2--positive-components"><title>2. Positive components</title>
<sec id="h0-2-1--isoamyl-alcohol--i-e---3-methyl-1-butanol-"><title>2.1. Isoamyl alcohol (<italic>i.e.</italic>, 3-methyl-1-butanol)</title>
<p>At least three groups of descriptors were reported, all with an odour threshold of 30 mg L<sup>–1</sup>: “banana, cheese, sweet” (Guth, 1997; Sanoppa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019), “alcoholic, fermented, whiskey” (Bartowsky &amp; Pretorius, 2009; Lu <italic>et al.</italic>, 2015), and “banana, fruity, sweet” (Chen <italic>et al.</italic>, 2015). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce isoamyl alcohol exceeding the odour threshold, thereby positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Andorrà <italic>et al.</italic>, 2010 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Macabeo</italic> must sterilised by the addition of 250 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with 9 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HuB10 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23 contained 202.95 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23) contained 167.52 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021a – Grape wine produced in oak barrels at 18 °C using a mixture of 50 % <italic>Tempranillo</italic> and 50 % <italic>Albillo Mayor</italic> grapes; the grape must, containing 15.05 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of total sulfur dioxide, was inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A and contained 108.64 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin 3C) contained 125.4 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2025 – Grape wine produced at 18 °C from <italic>Albillo Mayor </italic>grape must, added with sulfur dioxide at a dose of 4 g hL<sup>–1</sup> in the form of potassium metabisulfite, and inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A contained 133.92 mg L<sup>–1</sup>, b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> A56 contained 119.16 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CTPL14) contained 137.81 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Domizio <italic>et al.</italic>, 2011 – Grape wine produced inoculating commercial white grape juice with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> Ha32 and 10<sup>7</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118 contained 127.95 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118) contained 113.21 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (trial 1); b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> Ha32 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118 contained 114.28 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118) contained 108.42 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (trial 2).</p>
<p>Luan <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 249.74 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 207.50 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Pietrafesa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 240.74 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 222.62 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Testa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 72.1 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the 3-methyl-1-butanol was not detected in the control.</p>
<p>Yan <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 105.81 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 64.34 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: isoamyl alcohol may contribute positively to the complexity of the wine aromas<bold>.</bold></p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-2--2-phenylethanol--i-e---2-phenyl-ethyl-alcohol-"><title>2.2. 2-Phenylethanol (<italic>i.e.</italic>, 2-Phenyl ethyl alcohol)</title>
<p>At least four different descriptors were reported: “flowery, pollen, perfumed” (Guth, 1997), “floral, roses” (Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016), “honey, rose, spicy” (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023), and “floral, roses” (Lai <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023); its odour threshold is 14 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce 2-phenylethanol at levels exceeding the odour threshold, thereby positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Andorrà <italic>et al.</italic>, 2010 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Macabeo</italic> must sterilised by the addition of 250 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with 9 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HuB10 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23 contained 42.72 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23) contained 30.63 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. occidentalis</italic> GYBC-211 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 59.4 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> GYBC-284 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 48.52 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 44.34 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Capozzi <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C, inoculating <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 100 mg L<sup>–1</sup> potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> ITEM 8795 and 10<sup>4</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM 17292, contained 17.96 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM 17292) contained 14.91 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2025 – Grape wine produced at 18 °C from <italic>Albillo Mayor </italic>grape must, added with sulfur dioxide at a dose of 4 g hL<sup>–1</sup> in the form of potassium metabisulfite, and inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A contained 25.02 mg L<sup>–1</sup>, b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> A56 contained 21.45 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CTPL14) contained 9.66 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024a – Grape wine produced using a mixture of 50 % <italic>Glera</italic> and 50 % <italic>Gewurztraminer</italic> grapes, added with sulfur dioxide (15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> Fermivin VINEAE and, after 200 hours, with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB contained 14.03 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB) contained 13.62 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Guzzon <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024 – Sparkling wine produced at 20 °C using, in the secondary bottle fermentation, a mixed culture at a ratio of 1:1 made with <italic>H. uvarum</italic> NCYC 2380 and <italic>S. cerevisiae </italic>DV10; sparkling wines after bottle-fermentation from: a) <italic>Lambrusco Sorbara</italic> grapes contained 21.047 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> DV10) contained 19.891 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) <italic>Lambrusco Marani</italic> grapes contained 12.186 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> DV10) contained 10.199 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from <italic>Granoir</italic> grape must, added with sulfur dioxide (60 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>Yun268 and, after 24 hours, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae </italic>RV171 contained 45.48 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> RV171) contained 44.94 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Luan <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 61.3 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 51.2 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Testa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 160.1 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 92 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Yan <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 26.72 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 16.08 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2022 – Grape wine produced at 16–17 °C from <italic>Petit Manseng</italic> must added with sulfur dioxide (60 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with <italic>H. vineae</italic> CVE-HV6 and, after four days, with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> D254 contained 28.05 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> D254) contained 19.08 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: 2-phenylethanol contributes fine rose notes to the wine aroma (Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>,<bold> </bold>2016).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-3--hexyl-acetate"><title>2.3. Hexyl acetate</title>
<p>The aromatic descriptors of this compound are “apple, cherry, pear, floral”; its odour threshold is 0.67 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004). At least two strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce hexyl acetate exceeding the odour threshold, so positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Andorrà <italic>et al.</italic>, 2010 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Macabeo</italic> must sterilised by the addition of 250 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with 9 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HuB10 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23 contained 23.22 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23) contained 6.81 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Lai <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C from <italic>Kyoho</italic> must filtered and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> H. uvarum</italic> Pi235 and 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> Gr112 contained 8.34 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> Gr112) contained 2.13 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: hexyl acetate – the more, the merrier.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-4--2-phenylethyl-acetate--i-e---2-phenethyl-acetate-"><title>2.4. 2-Phenylethyl acetate (<italic>i.e.</italic>, 2-phenethyl acetate)</title>
<p>The aromatic descriptor of this compound is “fruity, honey, floral”; the odour threshold is 0.25 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce 2-phenylethyl acetate at levels exceeding the odour threshold, thereby positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Andorrà <italic>et al.</italic>, 2010 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Macabeo</italic> must sterilised by the addition of 250 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with 9 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HuB10 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23 contained 4.23 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23) contained 2.99 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> NRRL-Y1613 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 1.24 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> NRRL-Y1625 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 1.18 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> GYBC-284 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.68 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; d) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. meyeri</italic> NRRL-Y27513 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.49 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; e) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> DSM2768 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.47 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; f) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. nectarophila</italic> GYBC-283 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup> 1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.27 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 0.203 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021a – Grape wine produced in stainless steel barrels at 18 °C using a mixture of 50 % <italic>Tempranillo</italic> and 50 % <italic>Albillo Mayor</italic> grapes; the grape must, containing 15.05 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of total sulfur dioxide, was inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A and contained 15.38 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin 3C) contained 9.28 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2025 – Grape wine produced at 18 °C from <italic>Albillo Mayor </italic>grape must, added with sulfur dioxide at a dose of 4 g hL<sup>–1</sup> in the form of potassium metabisulfite, and inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A contained 8.91 mg L<sup>–1</sup>, b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> A56 contained 7.78 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CTPL14) contained 7.44 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Escott <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021 – Grape wine produced from <italic>Tempranillo</italic> grapes inoculated with 1.3 × 10<sup>8</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> HV and, after eight days of fermentation, with 6 × 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> 7VA contained 6.6 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>8</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> 7VA) contained 5.1 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Filippousi <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 78.29 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 29.71 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 3.19 mg L<sup>–1</sup> – the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> LVCB) contained 0.19 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024a – Grape wine produced using a mixture of 50 % <italic>Glera</italic> and 50 % <italic>Gewurztraminer</italic> grapes, added with sulfur dioxide (15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> Fermivin VINEAE and, after 24 hours, with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB contained 4.64 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB) contained 0.385 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024b – Grape wine produced from <italic>Glera</italic> grape must, added with sulfur dioxide (15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) as potassium metabisulfite, inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> (98 % of <italic>H. vineae</italic> Fermivin VINEAE and 2 % of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB) contained 7.6 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB) contained 0.12 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Lai <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 2.66 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 1.71 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Medina <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013 – Grape wine produced as previously contained 4.341 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 0.425 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C in pilot-scale vinification, inoculating 90 L of <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 20 g hL<sup>–1 </sup>of potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>ITEM8795 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920, contained 0.696 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920) contained 0.517 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Valera <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Chardonnay</italic> grape must, treated with 200 mg L<sup>–1</sup> dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> 025, contained 10.524 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ALG804) contained 0.116 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Yan <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 2.75 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 0.29 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Icewine produced at 16 °C from <italic>Vidal blanc</italic> grape juice, added with sulfur dioxide (80 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> CVE-HV11 and, after two days, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45 contained 8.342 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45) contained 2.591 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2022 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 1.55 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 0.20 mg L<sup> 1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: 2-phenylethyl acetate is a compound responsible for imparting flowery, rosy, and honey-like fragrances with fruity undertones to wines (Filippousi <italic>et al.</italic>,<bold> </bold>2024).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-5--ethyl-decanoate--i-e---ethyl-caprate-"><title>2.5. Ethyl decanoate (<italic>i.e.</italic>, ethyl caprate)</title>
<p>At least four different descriptors were reported: “fruity, fatty, pleasant” (Guth, 1997), “sweet, fruity” (Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016), “floral” (Mestre <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019), and “fruity” (Tarko &amp; Duda, 2024); its odour threshold is 0.2 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (Ferreira <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce ethyl decanoate exceeding the odour threshold, thereby positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. nectarophila</italic> GYBC-283 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.666 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> DSM2768 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.576 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> NRRL-Y1625 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.525 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 0.468 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Capozzi <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C, inoculating <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 100 mg L<sup>–1</sup> potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> ITEM 8795 and 10<sup>4</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM 17293 contained 1.88 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM 17293) contained 0.95 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024a – Grape wine produced using a mixture of 50 % <italic>Glera</italic> and 50 % <italic>Gewurztraminer</italic> grapes, added with sulfur dioxide (15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> Fermivin VINEAE and, after 48 hours, with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB contained 0.511 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB) contained 0.16 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2022 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 0.570 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 0.457 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Medina <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013 – Grape wine produced as previously contained 0.685 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 0.56 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Mestre <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C from <italic>Malbec</italic> grape must added with 50 ppm of free sulfur dioxide and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>BHu9 and, after two days, with 2 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> BSc114 contained 1.14 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 2 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> BSc114) contained 0.59 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C in pilot-scale vinification, inoculating 90 L of <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 20 g hL<sup>–1 </sup>of potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>ITEM8795 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920, contained 0.252 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920) contained 0.188 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: <bold>e</bold>thyl decanoate – the more, the merrier.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-6--isoamyl-acetate--i-e---3-methylbutyl-acetate-"><title>2.6. Isoamyl acetate (<italic>i.e.</italic>, 3-methylbutyl acetate)</title>
<p>The aromatic descriptor of this compound is “banana, fruity, sweet”, the odour threshold is 0.16 mg L<sup>–1</sup> (Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce isoamyl acetate exceeding the odour threshold, so positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Andorrà <italic>et al.</italic>, 2010 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Macabeo</italic> must sterilised by the addition of 250 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with 9 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>—1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HuB10 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23 contained 0.7 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23) contained 0.25 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> NRRL-Y1625 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 3.788 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. meyeri</italic> NRRL-Y27513 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 2.731 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> DSM2768 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 2.523 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; d) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. nectarophila</italic> GYBC-283 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 2.12 mg L<sup>–1</sup> – the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 1.089 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Capozzi <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019 – Grape wine produced at 25 °C inoculating <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 100 mg L<sup>–1</sup> potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> ITEM 8795 and 10<sup>4</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM 17292 contained 4.11 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM 17292) contained 3.77 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; grape wine produced at 25 °C inoculating <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 100 mg L<sup>–1</sup> potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> ITEM 8795 and 10<sup>4</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM 17293 contained 3.11 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM 17293) contained 2.11 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2025 – Grape wine produced at 18 °C from <italic>Albillo Mayor </italic>grape must, added with sulfur dioxide at a dose of 4 g hL<sup>–1</sup> in the form of potassium metabisulfite, and inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A contained 3.33 mg L<sup>–1</sup>, b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> A56 contained 16.10 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CTPL14) contained 2.70 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Domizio <italic>et al.</italic>, 2011 – Grape wine produced by inoculating commercial white grape juice with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> Ha32 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118 contained 0.28 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> EC1118) contained 0.21 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Escott <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 2.3 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 2 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024b – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 1.02 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 0.72 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Lai <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 0.73 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 0.27 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2022 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 7.922 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 4.695 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024 – Grape wine produced at 14–16 °C using <italic>Sauvignon blanc</italic> grape must, added with 1 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>3</sub> (calculated as 60 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of sulfur dioxide), inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HU4487 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> VL3 contained 1.503 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> VL3) contained 1.361 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Medina <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013 – Grape wine produced as previously contained 0.948 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 0.871 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Mestre <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 3.21 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 2.89 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C in industrial vinification, inoculating 7 tons of <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 20 g hL<sup>–1 </sup>of potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>ITEM8795 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920, contained 2.597 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920) contained 0.312 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Icewine produced at 16 °C from <italic>Vidal blanc</italic> grape juice, added with sulfur dioxide (80 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> CVE-HV11 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup> 1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45 contained 1.129 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45) contained 0.964 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2022 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 2.044 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 1.709 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: isoamyl acetate is one of the esters most markedly contributing to the aroma profile of white wines (Plata <italic>et al.</italic>, 2003).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-7--ethyl-butyrate--i-e---ethyl-butanoate-"><title>2.7. Ethyl butyrate (<italic>i.e.</italic>, ethyl butanoate)</title>
<p>For ethyl butyrate, at least two different descriptors, both with the odour threshold of 0.02 mg L<sup>–1</sup>, were reported: “fruity” (Guth, 1997; Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016) and “strawberry, apple” (Peng <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013; Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce ethyl butyrate exceeding the odour threshold, so positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> NRRL-Y1625 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.312 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> DSM2768 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.272 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. meyeri</italic> NRRL-Y27513 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.248 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; d) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. nectarophila</italic> GYBC-283 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.241 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; e) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> NRRL-Y1613 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.227 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 0.222 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2025 – Grape wine produced at 18 °C from <italic>Albillo Mayor </italic>grape must, added with sulfur dioxide at a dose of 4 g hL<sup>–1</sup> in the form of potassium metabisulfite, and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> T02/5A contained 4.03 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CTPL14) contained 1.73 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Filippousi <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 22.84 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 19.15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from <italic>Granoir</italic> grape must, added with sulfur dioxide (60 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>Yun268 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae </italic>RV002 contained 0.233 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> RV002) contained 0.204 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C in pilot-scale vinification inoculating 90 L of <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 20 g hL<sup>–1 </sup>of potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>ITEM8795 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920 contained 0.425 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920) contained 0.425 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920) contained 0.386 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2022 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 0.125 mg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 0.119 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: <bold>e</bold>thyl butyrate – the more<bold>,</bold> the merrier.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-8----citronellol"><title>2.8. β-Citronellol</title>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic> (2021b) highlight the high impact of <italic>H. vineae</italic> on the formation of fruity and floral terpenes as β-citronellol. At least two different descriptors were reported: “green lemon” (Guth, 1997) and “citric” (del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021b); its odour threshold is 18 µg L<sup>–1</sup> (Čuš &amp; Jenko, 2013). At least three strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce β-citronellol exceeding the odour threshold, so positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> GYBC-284 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 38 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 27 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021b – Grape wine produced at 18 °C from<italic> Albillo Mayor</italic> grape must, inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> followed sequentially by 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin 3C, contained 103 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin 3C) contained 24 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Icewine produced at 16 °C from <italic>Vidal blanc</italic> grape juice, added with sulfur dioxide (80 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> CVE-HV11 and, after two days, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45 contained 25.6 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45) contained 20.2 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: β-citronellol – the more, the merrier.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-9--linalool"><title>2.9. Linalool</title>
<p>At least four different descriptors were reported: “citrus, floral, sweet, grape-like” (Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004), “floral, lemon” (del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021b), “Muscat, flowery, fruit” (Testa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021), and “floral, citrus” (Lai <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023); its odour threshold is 15 µg L<sup>–1</sup> (Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce linalool exceeding the odour threshold, thereby positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> GYBC-284 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 73.91 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> NRRL-Y1625 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 72.93 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> DSM2768 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 72.5 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 72.43 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>del Fresno <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021b – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 70 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 18 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024a – Grape wine produced using a mixture of 50 % <italic>Glera</italic> and 50 % <italic>Gewurztraminer</italic> grapes, added with sulfur dioxide (15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> Fermivin VINEAE and, after 100 hours, with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB contained 104 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB) contained 99 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Testa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 112 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 82 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Testa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021 – Grape wine produced at 23-24 °C from <italic>Aglianico</italic> grape must added with potassium metabisulfite (70 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> H. uvarum</italic> AS27 contained 69.3 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> FE) contained 23.2 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Icewine produced at 16 °C from <italic>Vidal blanc</italic> grape juice, added with sulfur dioxide (80 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> CVE-HV11 and, after four days, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45 contained 47.2 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45) contained 42 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: linalool<bold> – </bold>the more, the merrier.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-10--ethyl-hexanoate--i-e---ethyl-caproate-"><title>2.10. Ethyl hexanoate (<italic>i.e.</italic>, ethyl caproate)</title>
<p>At least three very similar descriptors were reported: “fruity, apple” (Mestre <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019), “pineapple, fruity” (Lai <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023), and “fruity/anise” (Tarko &amp; Duda, 2024); its odour threshold is 14 µg L<sup>–1</sup> (Ferreira <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce ethyl hexanoate exceeding the odour threshold, thereby positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Andorrà <italic>et al.</italic>, 2010 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C from <italic>Macabeo</italic> must sterilised by the addition of 250 mg L<sup>–1</sup> of dimethyldicarbonate and inoculated with 9 × 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> HuB10 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23 contained 220 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of<italic> S. cerevisiae</italic> QA23) contained 30 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> NRRL-Y1625 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 92 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> DSM2768 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 77 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 76 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from <italic>Granoir</italic> grape must, added with sulfur dioxide (60 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>Yun268 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae </italic>RV002 contained 396 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> RV002) contained 296 mg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2022 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 968 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 942 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Mestre <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 600 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 200 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C in pilot-scale vinification, inoculating 90 L of <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 20 g hL<sup>–1 </sup>of potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>ITEM8795 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920, contained 561 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920) contained 510 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: <bold>e</bold>thyl hexanoate is responsible for tropical fruity attributes.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-11--ethyl-octanoate--i-e---ethyl-caprylate-"><title>2.11. Ethyl octanoate (<italic>i.e.</italic>, ethyl caprylate)</title>
<p>At least two very similar descriptors were reported: “pineapple, pear” (Mestre <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019) and “fruity/fresh” (Tarko &amp; Duda, 2024); its odour threshold is 5 µg L<sup>–1</sup> (Ferreira <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> were reported to produce ethyl octanoate exceeding the odour threshold, thereby positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. nectarophila</italic> GYBC-283 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 541 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 494 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Lai <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 1860 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 1580 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from <italic>Granoir</italic> grape must, added with sulfur dioxide (60 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>Yun268 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae </italic>RV002 contained 380 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> RV002) contained 261 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Li <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 59.2 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 57.8 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Mestre <italic>et al.</italic>, 2019 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 872 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 369 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Tristezza <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016 – Grape wine produced at 20 °C in industrial vinification, inoculating 7 tons of <italic>Negroamaro</italic> must, added with 20 g hL<sup>–1 </sup>of potassium metabisulfite, with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum </italic>ITEM8795 and 10<sup>5</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920, contained 661 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> ITEM6920) contained 476 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: <bold>e</bold>thyl octanoate – the more, the merrier.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="h3-2-12----damascenone"><title>2.12. β-Damascenone</title>
<p>For β-damascenone, at least two different descriptors have been reported: “honey” (Tarko &amp; Duda, 2024) and “sweet, exotic flowers, stewed” (Pineau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2007); its odour threshold is 0.05 µg L<sup>–1</sup> (Guth, 1997; Langen <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016). Some strains of <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> have been reported to produce β-damascenone exceeding the odour threshold, thereby positively contributing to the sensory quality of the wine.</p>
<p>Badura <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023 – Grape wine produced at 22 °C from pasteurised <italic>Gewürztraminer</italic> grape must inoculated with: a) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. osmophila</italic> NRRL-Y1613 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.7 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; b) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. opuntiae</italic> GYBC-284 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.69 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; c) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. occidentalis</italic> GYBC-211 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.64 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; d) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. nectarophila</italic> GYBC-283 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.61 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; e) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. guilliermondii</italic> NRRL-Y1625 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.56 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; f) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. uvarum</italic> DSM2768 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.55 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; g) 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. meyeri</italic> NRRL-Y27513 and 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG contained 0.53 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Uvaferm CEG) contained 0.46 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Gallo <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024a – Grape wine produced using a mixture of 50 % <italic>Glera</italic> and 50 % <italic>Gewurztraminer</italic> grapes, added with sulfur dioxide (15 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> Fermivin VINEAE and, after 68 hours, with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB contained 2.13 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 5 × 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> Fermivin LVCB) contained 1.43 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Yan <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 8.38 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 8.11 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018 – Icewine produced at 16 °C from <italic>Vidal blanc</italic> grape juice, added with sulfur dioxide (80 mg L<sup>–1</sup>) and inoculated with 10<sup>7</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>H. vineae</italic> CVE-HV11 and, after two days, with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45 contained 101.7 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control (inoculated with 10<sup>6</sup> cells mL<sup>–1</sup> of <italic>S. cerevisiae</italic> CVE-SC45) contained 48.1 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Zhang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2022 – Grape wine produced as previously reported contained 11.51 µg L<sup>–1</sup>; the control contained 9.87 µg L<sup>–1</sup>.</p>
<p>Final commentary: β-damascenone – the more, the merrier.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="h1-concluding-remarks"><title>Concluding remarks</title>
<p>Among the many recent reviews (Padilla <italic>et al.</italic>, 2016; Varela, 2016; Martin <italic>et al.</italic>, 2018; Morata <italic>et al.</italic>, 2020; Tufariello <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021; van Wyk <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024; Wang <italic>et al.</italic>, 2024) exploring the contribution of yeast to wine aroma, this minireview highlights the relationship between the application <italic>Hanseniaspora</italic> yeasts in winemaking and the quality of the wine by considering the odour thresholds of the produced compounds (Figure 1).</p>
<p><fig><caption><title>Figure 1. Graphical abstract image.</title>
</caption><graphic xlink:href="media/image1.png" /></fig></p>
<p />
<table-wrap orientation="portrait" position="float"><caption><title>Table 1. Negative wine components reported in decreasing order of odour threshold.</title>
</caption><table><tbody><tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Component</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Aromatic descriptors</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Odour threshold</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Reference</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Acetic acid</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Vinegar</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>700 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Ethyl acetate</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Spoilage character</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>150–200 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Viana <italic>et al.</italic>, 2008</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Acetoin</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Butter, creamy, fat</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>150 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Isobutanol</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Bitter, chemical alcoholic, fusel oil, malt notes, nail polish, solvent, wineosity notes</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>40 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Guth, 1997; Testa <italic>et al.</italic>, 2021; Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023; Tarko &amp; Duda, 2024</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>1-Hexanol</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Grass, green, herbaceous, woody</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>1.1 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Decanoic acid</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Fatty, rancid, unpleasant</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>1 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Octanoic acid</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Cheese, fatty acid, harsh, rancid, sweet</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>0.5 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Hexanoic acid</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Acid rancid, baked potato, cheese, fatty, rancid, sweet</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>0.42 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</table-wrap><p />
<table-wrap orientation="portrait" position="float"><caption><title>Table 2. Positive wine components reported in decreasing order of odour threshold.</title>
</caption><table><tbody><tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Component</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Aromatic descriptors</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Odour threshold</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Reference</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Isoamyl alcohol</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Alcoholic, banana, cheese, fermented, fruity, sweet, whiskey</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>30 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Guth, 1997; Bartowsky &amp; Pretorius, 2009; Chen <italic>et al.</italic>, 2015</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>2-Phenylethanol</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Floral, flowery, honey, perfumed, pollen, roses, spicy</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>14 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Hexyl acetate</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Apple, cherry, floral, pear</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>0.67 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>2-Phenylethyl acetate</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Floral, fruity, honey</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>0.25 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Carrau <italic>et al.</italic>, 2023</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Ethyl decanoate</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Fatty, floral, fruity, pleasant, sweet</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>0.2 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Ferreira <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Isoamyl acetate</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Banana, fruity, sweet</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>0.16 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Ethyl butyrate</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Apple, fruity, strawberry</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>0.02 mg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Guth, 1997; Peng <italic>et al.</italic>, 2013</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>β-Citronellol</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Citric, green lemon</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>18 µg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Čuš &amp; Jenko, 2013</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Linalool</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Citrus, floral, flowery, fruit, grape-like, lemon, Muscat, sweet</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>15 µg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Peinado <italic>et al.</italic>, 2004</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Ethyl hexanoate</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Anise, apple, fruity, pineapple</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>14 µg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Ferreira <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>Ethyl octanoate</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Fruity/fresh, pear, pineapple</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>5 µg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Ferreira <italic>et al.</italic>, 2000</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>	<td valign="middle"><p>β-Damascenone</p>
</td>
	<td><p>Exotic flowers, honey, stewed, sweet</p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>0.05 µg L<sup>–1</sup></p>
</td>
	<td valign="middle"><p>Guth, 1997</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
</table-wrap><p />
</sec>
<sec id="h1-acknowledgements"><title>Acknowledgements</title>
<p>The authors have nothing to report.</p>
</sec>
</body>
<back>
<fn-group /><ref-list><ref id="ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Andorrà</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Berradre</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rozès</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mas</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Guillamón</surname><given-names>J. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Esteve-Zarzoso</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><year>2010</year><article-title>Effect of pure and mixed cultures of the main wine yeast species on grape must fermentations</article-title><source>European Food Research and Technology</source><page-range>231</page-range><edition>215−224.</edition><comment>215−224</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-010-1272-0">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-010-1272-0</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Badura</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Kiene</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Brezina</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fritsch</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Semmler</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rauhut</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Pretorius</surname><given-names>I. S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Von Wallbrunn</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Van Wyk</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><year>2023</year><article-title>Aroma profiles of Vitis vinifera L</article-title><source>cv. Gewürztraminer must fermented with co-cultures of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and seven Hanseniaspora spp.. Fermentation</source><volume>9</volume><page-range>109</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9020109">https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9020109</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Bagheri</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zambelli</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Vigentini</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bauer</surname><given-names>F. F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Setati</surname><given-names>M. E.</given-names></name><year>2018</year><article-title>Investigating the effect of selected non-Saccharomyces species on wine ecosystem function and major volatiles</article-title><source>Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology</source><volume>6</volume><page-range>169</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2018.00169">https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2018.00169</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Bartowsky</surname><given-names>E. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Pretorius</surname><given-names>I. S.</given-names></name><year>2009</year><article-title>Chapter 11</article-title><source>Microbial formation and modification of flavor and off-flavor compounds in wine. Pg. 209-231. In: König</source><volume>H., Unden, G., &amp; Fröhlich, J. - Biology of microorganisms on grapes, in must and in wine. Pp. 209-231. Edited by Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany. https://doi</volume><comment>org/10.1007/978-3-540-85463-0</comment></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Capozzi</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Berbegal</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tufariello</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Grieco</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Spano</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Grieco</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><year>2019</year><article-title>Impact of co-inoculation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Hanseniaspora uvarum and Oenococcus oeni autochthonous strains in controlled multi starter grape must fermentations LWT - Food Science and Technology, 109, 241–249</article-title><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.04.045">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.04.045</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dellacassa</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Boido</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Medina</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Valera</surname><given-names>M. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fariña</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Perez</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Alvarez-Valin</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Balestrazzi</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><year>2023</year><article-title>Biology and physiology of Hanseniaspora vineae: metabolic diversity and increase flavour complexity for food fermentation</article-title><source>FEMS Yeast Research</source><page-range>23</page-range><edition>1−18.</edition><comment>1−18</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1093/femsyr/foad010">https://doi.org/10.1093/femsyr/foad010</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Vong</surname><given-names>W. C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>S.-Q.</given-names></name><year>2015</year><article-title>Effects of branched-chain amino acid addition on chemical constituents in lychee wine fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae</article-title><source>International Journal of Food Science and Technology</source><volume>50</volume><page-range>2519–2528</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12919">https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12919</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Cordero-Bueso</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Esteve-Zarzoso</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cabellos</surname><given-names>J. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gil-Díaz</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Arroyo</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><year>2013</year><article-title>Biotechnological potential of non-Saccharomyces yeasts isolated during spontaneous fermentations of Malvar (Vitis vinifera cv. L.)</article-title><source>European Food Research and Technology</source><page-range>236</page-range><edition>193−207.</edition><comment>193−207</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-012-1874-9">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-012-1874-9</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Čuš</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jenko</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><year>2013</year><article-title>The influence of yeast strains on the composition and sensory quality of Gewürztraminer wine</article-title><source>Food Technology and Biotechnology</source><volume>51</volume><issue>4</issue><page-range>547–553</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/169441">https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/169441</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>De Benedictis</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bleve</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Grieco</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tristezza</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tufariello</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Grieco</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><year>2011</year><article-title>An optimized procedure for the enological selection of non-Saccharomyces starter cultures</article-title><source>Antonie van Leeuwenhoek</source><volume>99</volume><page-range>189–200</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-010-9475-8">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-010-9475-8</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Del Fresno</surname><given-names>J. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Escott</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Loira</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cuerda</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneider</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bañuelos</surname><given-names>M. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>González</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Suárez-Lepe</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Morata</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><year>2021b</year><article-title>The impact of Hanseniaspora vineae fermentation and ageing on lees on the terpenic aromatic profile of white wines of the Albillo variety</article-title><source>International Journal of Molecular Sciences</source><volume>22</volume><page-range>2195</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22042195">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22042195</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Del Fresno</surname><given-names>J. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Loira</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Escott</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>González</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cuerda R</surname><given-names /></name><name><surname>Morata</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><year>2021a</year><article-title>Application of Hanseniaspora vineae yeast in the production of rosé wines from a blend of Tempranillo and Albillo grapes</article-title><source>Fermentation</source><volume>7</volume><comment>1−15</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7030141">https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7030141</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Del Fresno</surname><given-names>J. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rodríguez</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Soler</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Escott</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Palomero</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Rafael Cuerda</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Morata</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><year>2025</year><article-title>Use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts to modulate oenological parameters in Albillo Mayor white wines</article-title><source>European Food Research and Technology</source><volume>251</volume><page-range>3619–3631</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-025-04851-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-025-04851-6</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Domizio</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Romani</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lencioni</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Comitini</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gobbi</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mannazzu</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ciani</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><year>2011</year><article-title>Outlining a future for non-Saccharomyces yeasts: Selection of putative spoilage wine strains to be used in association with Saccharomyces cerevisiae for grape juice fermentation</article-title><source>International Journal of Food Microbiology</source><volume>147</volume><page-range>170–180</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.03.020">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.03.020</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Du Plessis</surname><given-names>H. W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Du Toit</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hoff</surname><given-names>J. W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hart</surname><given-names>R. S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ndimba</surname><given-names>B. K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jolly</surname><given-names>N. P.</given-names></name><year>2017</year><article-title>Characterisation of non-Saccharomyces yeasts using different methodologies and evaluation of their compatibility with malolactic fermentation</article-title><source>South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture</source><page-range>38</page-range><issue>1</issue><edition>46−63.</edition><comment>46−63</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.21548/38-1-819">https://doi.org/10.21548/38-1-819</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Escott</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>López</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Loira</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>González</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bañuelos</surname><given-names>M. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tesfaye</surname><given-names>W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Suárez-Lepe</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Morata</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><year>2021</year><article-title>Improvement of must fermentation from late harvest cv</article-title><source>Tempranillo grapes treated with pulsed light. Foods</source><volume>10</volume><page-range>1416</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061416">https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061416</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Ferreira</surname><given-names>V</given-names></name><name><surname>López</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cacho</surname><given-names>J. F.</given-names></name><year>2000</year><article-title>Quantitative determination of the odorants of young red wines from different grape varieties</article-title><source>Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture</source><page-range>80</page-range><edition>1659−1667.</edition><comment>1659−1667</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0010(20000901)80:11">https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0010(20000901)80:11</ext-link><publisher-name>&lt;1659::AID-JSFA693&gt;3.0.CO;2-6</publisher-name></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Filippousi</surname><given-names>M.-E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chalvantzi</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mallouchos</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Marmaras</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Banilas</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Nisiotou</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><year>2024</year><article-title>The use of Hanseniaspora opuntiae to improve ‘Sideritis’ wine quality, a late-ripening Greek grape variety</article-title><source>Foods</source><volume>13</volume><page-range>1061</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13071061">https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13071061</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Gallo</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Larcher</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cappello</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Paolini</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Moser</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneider</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Nardin</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Roman</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><year>2023</year><article-title>Insights into the grape must composition effect on Hanseniaspora vineae performance and metabolic aroma compounds in Chardonnay base wine for sparkling wine production</article-title><source>Journal of Food Composition and Analysis</source><volume>123</volume><page-range>105514</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105514">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2023.105514</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Gallo</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Roman</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Paolini</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cappello</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Castello</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schiavon</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Guzzon</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneider</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Larcher</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><year>2024b</year><article-title>The co‑inoculation ratio of Hanseniaspora vineae‑to‑Saccharomyces cerevisiae correlates with aroma metabolic features in wine</article-title><source>European Food Research and Technology</source><volume>250</volume><page-range>2907–2919</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-024-04588-8">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-024-04588-8</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Gallo</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Roman</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Paolini</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cappello</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Guzzon</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneider</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Larcher</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><year>2024a</year><article-title>Aroma features of Hanseniaspora vineae Hv205 wines in sequential and co-inoculation strategies</article-title><source>Fermentation</source><volume>10</volume><page-range>191</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10040191">https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10040191</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Godoy</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Acuña-Fontecilla</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Catrileo</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><year>2020</year><article-title>4</article-title><source>Formation of aromatic and flavor compounds in wine: a perspective of positive and negative contributions of non-Saccharomyces yeasts. In: Chemistry and biochemistry of winemaking, wine stabilization and aging. Edited by: Cosme, F., Nunes, F. M., Filipe-Ribeiro, L. IntechOpen</source><comment>pp. 23</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92562">https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92562</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Guth</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><year>1997</year><article-title>Quantitation and sensory studies of character impact odorants of different white wine varieties</article-title><source>Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry</source><page-range>45</page-range><edition>3027−3032.</edition><comment>3027−3032</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/JF970280A">https://doi.org/10.1021/JF970280A</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Guzzon</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Paolini</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Malacarne</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Roman</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Naselli</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Francesca</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Larcher</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><year>2024</year><article-title>Use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in the prise de mousse of Lambrusco</article-title><source>Microbial evolution through alcoholic fermentation and effect on wine volatile profile. OENO One</source><volume>58</volume><issue>3</issue><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2024.58.3.7884">https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2024.58.3.7884</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Hu</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jin</surname><given-names>G-J</given-names></name><name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>Y-H</given-names></name><name><surname>Tao</surname><given-names>Y-S</given-names></name><year>2018</year><article-title>Wine aroma response to different participation of selected Hanseniaspora uvarum in mixed fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae</article-title><source>Food Research International</source><page-range>108</page-range><edition>119−127.</edition><comment>119−127</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.03.037">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.03.037</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Lai</surname><given-names>Y.-T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chen</surname><given-names>C.-H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lo</surname><given-names>Y.-C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hsieh</surname><given-names>C.-W.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hsu</surname><given-names>F.-C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cheng</surname><given-names>K.-C.</given-names></name><year>2023</year><article-title>Application of aroma‑producing yeasts and ageing technology in Kyoho‑fortified wine</article-title><source>European Food Research and Technology</source><page-range>249</page-range><edition>2849−2860.</edition><comment>2849−2860</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-023-04332-8">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-023-04332-8</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Langen</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wegmann-Herr P</surname><given-names /></name><name><surname>Schmarr H</surname><given-names /></name><name><surname>G</surname><given-names /></name><year>2016</year><article-title>Quantitative determination of α-ionone, β-ionone, and β-damascenone and enantio-differentiation of α-ionone in wine for authenticity control using multidimensional gas chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection</article-title><publisher-name>Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 408</publisher-name><page-range>6483–6496</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-016-9767-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00216-016-9767-6</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>J.-C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wilkinson</surname><given-names>K. L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ford</surname><given-names>C. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Jiranek</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><year>2022</year><article-title>Effect of non-Saccharomyces yeast strains on 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine concentration and aroma properties in Sauvignon Blanc wines during fermentation</article-title><source>Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research</source><page-range>28</page-range><edition>607−620.</edition><comment>607−620</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12563">https://doi.org/10.1111/ajgw.12563</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yuan</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Chu</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yu</surname><given-names>Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Cai</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yang</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><year>2024</year><article-title>The impact of simultaneous inoculation with Torulaspora delbrueckii and Hanseniaspora uvarum combined with Saccharomyces cerevisiae on chemical and sensory quality of Sauvignon Blanc wines</article-title><source>Frontiers in Microbiology</source><volume>15</volume><page-range>1413650</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1413650">https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1413650</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Li</surname><given-names>Y.-Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Hu</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Xu</surname><given-names>Y.-H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mei</surname><given-names>W.-C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tao</surname><given-names>Y.-S.</given-names></name><year>2020</year><article-title>Biomass suppression of Hanseniaspora uvarum by killer Saccharomyces cerevisiae highly increased fruity esters in mixed culture fermentation</article-title><source>LWT−Food Science and Technology</source><volume>132</volume><page-range>109839</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109839">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109839</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Lu</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lee</surname><given-names>P.-R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>S.-Q.</given-names></name><year>2015</year><article-title>Effects of cofermentation and sequential inoculation of Saccharomyces bayanus and Torulaspora delbruckii on durian wine composition</article-title><source>International Journal of Food Science and Technology</source><volume>50</volume><page-range>2653–2663</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12937">https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.12937</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Luan</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>B.-Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Duan</surname><given-names>C.-Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yan</surname><given-names>G.-L.</given-names></name><year>2018</year><article-title>Effects of different pre-fermentation cold maceration time on aroma compounds of Saccharomyces cerevisiae co-fermentation with Hanseniaspora opuntiae or Pichia kudriavzevii</article-title><source>LWT−Food Science and Technology</source><volume>92</volume><comment>177−186</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.02.004">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.02.004</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Martin</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Valera</surname><given-names>M. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Medina</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Boido</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><year>2018</year><article-title>Oenological impact of the Hanseniaspora/Kloeckera yeast genus on wines - A review</article-title><source>Fermentation</source><volume>4</volume><page-range>76</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/fermentation4030076">https://doi.org/doi:10.3390/fermentation4030076</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Medina</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Boido</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fariña</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gioia</surname><given-names>O.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gomez</surname><given-names>M. E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Barquet</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gaggero</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dellacassa</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><year>2013</year><article-title>Increased flavour diversity of Chardonnay wines by spontaneous fermentation and co-fermentation with Hanseniaspora vineae</article-title><source>Food Chemistry</source><volume>141</volume><page-range>2513–2521</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.056">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.04.056</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Mestre</surname><given-names>M. V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Maturano</surname><given-names>Y. P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gallardo</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Combina</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mercado</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Toro</surname><given-names>M. E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Vazquez</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dellacassa</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><year>2019</year><article-title>Impact on sensory and aromatic profile of low ethanol Malbec wines fermented by sequential culture of Hanseniaspora uvarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae native yeasts</article-title><source>Fermentation</source><volume>5</volume><page-range>65</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation5030065">https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation5030065</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Morata</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Escott</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bañuelos</surname><given-names>M. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Loira</surname><given-names>I.</given-names></name><name><surname>Del Fresno</surname><given-names>J. M.</given-names></name><name><surname>González</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Suárez-Lepe</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name><year>2020</year><article-title>Contribution of non-Saccharomyces yeasts to wine freshness</article-title><source>A review. Biomolecules</source><volume>10</volume><page-range>34</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/biom10010034">https://doi.org/10.3390/biom10010034</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Olivera</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Valera</surname><given-names>M. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Boido</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Schneider</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dellacassa</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><year>2024</year><article-title>Mixed cultures of Hanseniaspora vineae and Saccharomyces cerevisiae: nutrient effects on growth, fermentation, and wine aroma profile</article-title><source>American Journal of Enology and Viticulture</source><volume>75</volume><issue>2</issue><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2024.24025">https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2024.24025</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Padilla</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gil</surname><given-names>J. V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Manzanares</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><year>2016</year><article-title>Past and future of non-Saccharomyces yeasts: from spoilage microorganisms to biotechnological tools for improving wine aroma complexity</article-title><source>Frontiers in Microbiology</source><volume>7</volume><page-range>411</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00411">https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00411</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Peinado</surname><given-names>R. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Moreno</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bueno</surname><given-names>J. E</given-names></name><name><surname>Moreno</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mauricio</surname><given-names>J. C.</given-names></name><year>2004</year><article-title>Comparative study of aromatic compounds in two young white wines subjected to pre-fermentative cryomaceration</article-title><source>Food Chemistry</source><volume>84</volume><issue>4</issue><comment>585−590</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(03)00282-6">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(03)00282-6</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Peng</surname><given-names>C. T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wen</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tao</surname><given-names>Y. S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lan</surname><given-names>Y. Y.</given-names></name><year>2013</year><article-title>Modulating the formation of Meili wine aroma by prefermentative freezing process</article-title><source>Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry</source><volume>61</volume><page-range>1542–1553</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jf3043874">https://doi.org/10.1021/jf3043874</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Pietrafesa</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Capece</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Pietrafesa</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Bely</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Romano</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><year>2020</year><article-title>Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Hanseniaspora uvarum mixed starter cultures: influence of microbial/physical interactions on wine characteristics</article-title><source>Yeast</source><volume>37</volume><page-range>609–621</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/yea.3506">https://doi.org/10.1002/yea.3506</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Pineau</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Barbe J</surname><given-names /></name><name><surname>C</surname><given-names /></name><name><surname>Van Leeuwen</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dubourdieu</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><year>2007</year><article-title>Which impact for β-damascenone on red wines aroma?</article-title><source>Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry</source><page-range>55</page-range><issue>10</issue><edition>4103−4108.</edition><comment>4103−4108</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/jf070120r">https://doi.org/10.1021/jf070120r</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Plata</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Millán</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mauricio</surname><given-names>J. C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ortega</surname><given-names>J. M.</given-names></name><year>2003</year><article-title>Formation of ethyl acetate and isoamyl acetate by various species of wine yeasts</article-title><source>Food Microbiology</source><volume>20</volume><comment>217−224</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-0020(02)00101-6">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0740-0020(02)00101-6</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Sanoppa</surname><given-names>K.</given-names></name><name><surname>Huang</surname><given-names>T.-C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wu</surname><given-names>M.-C.</given-names></name><year>2019</year><article-title>Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in association with Torulaspora delbrueckii on the aroma and amino acids in longan wines</article-title><source>Food Science &amp; Nutrition</source><volume>7</volume><page-range>2817–2826</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1076">https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.1076</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Tarko</surname><given-names>T.</given-names></name><name><surname>Duda</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><year>2024</year><article-title>Volatilomics of fruit wines</article-title><source>Molecules</source><volume>29</volume><page-range>2457</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29112457">https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules29112457</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Testa</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Coppola</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lombardi</surname><given-names>S. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Iorizzo</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Letizia</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Di Renzo</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Succi</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tremonte</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><year>2021</year><article-title>Influence of Hanseniaspora uvarum AS27 on chemical and sensory characteristics of Aglianico wine</article-title><source>Processes</source><volume>9</volume><page-range>326</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9020326">https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9020326</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Testa</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Lombardi</surname><given-names>S. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Iorizzo</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Letizia</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Di Martino</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Di Renzo</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Strollo</surname><given-names>D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tremonte</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Pannella</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Ianiro</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Sorrentino</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Succi</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Coppola</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><year>2020</year><article-title>Use of strain Hanseniaspora guilliermondii BF1 for winemaking process of white grapes Vitis vinifera cv Fiano</article-title><source>European Food Research and Technology</source><page-range>246</page-range><edition>549−561.</edition><comment>549−561</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-019-03424-8">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-019-03424-8</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Tristezza</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tufariello</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Capozzi</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Spano</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Mita</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Grieco</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><year>2016</year><article-title>The oenological potential of Hanseniaspora uvarum in simultaneous and sequential co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae for industrial wine production</article-title><source>Frontiers in Microbiology</source><volume>7</volume><page-range>670</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00670">https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00670</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Tufariello</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Fragasso</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><name><surname>Pico</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Panighel</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name><name><surname>Castellarin</surname><given-names>S. D.</given-names></name><name><surname>Flamini</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name><name><surname>Grieco</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><year>2021</year><article-title>Influence of non-Saccharomyces on wine chemistry: a focus on aroma-related compounds</article-title><source>Molecules</source><volume>26</volume><page-range>644</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26030644">https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26030644</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Valera</surname><given-names>M. J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Olivera</surname><given-names>V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Boido</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Dellacassa</surname><given-names>E.</given-names></name><name><surname>Carrau</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><year>2021</year><article-title>Wine aroma characterization of the two main fermentation yeast species of the apiculate genus Hanseniaspora</article-title><source>Fermentation</source><volume>7</volume><page-range>162</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7030162">https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7030162</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Van Wyk</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name><name><surname>Badura</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Von Wallbrunn</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Pretorius</surname><given-names>I. S.</given-names></name><year>2024</year><article-title>Exploring future applications of the apiculate yeast Hanseniaspora, Critical Reviews in Biotechnology, 44, 100−119</article-title><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2022.2136565">https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2022.2136565</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Varela</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><year>2016</year><article-title>The impact of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in the production of alcoholic beverages</article-title><source>Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology</source><volume>100</volume><comment>9861−9874</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7941-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-7941-6</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Viana</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Gil</surname><given-names>J. V.</given-names></name><name><surname>Genovés</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Vallés</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name><name><surname>Manzanares</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><year>2008</year><article-title>Rational selection of non-Saccharomyces wine yeasts for mixed starters based on ester formation and enological traits</article-title><source>Food Microbiology</source><volume>25</volume><comment>778– 785</comment><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2008.04.015">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2008.04.015</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>F.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhao</surname><given-names>P.</given-names></name><name><surname>Du</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhai</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Guo</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>X.</given-names></name><year>2024</year><article-title>Advancements and challenges for brewing aroma-enhancement fruit wines: microbial metabolizing and brewing techniques</article-title><source>Food Chemistry</source><volume>456</volume><page-range>139981</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.139981">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.139981</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Yan</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Joseph</surname><given-names>L.</given-names></name><name><surname>Waterhouse</surname><given-names>A. L.</given-names></name><year>2020</year><article-title>Effects of initial oxygenation on chemical and aromatic composition of wine in mixed starters of Hanseniaspora vineae and Saccharomyces cerevisiae</article-title><source>Food Microbiology</source><volume>90</volume><page-range>103460</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2020.103460">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2020.103460</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name><name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>H.</given-names></name><name><surname>Xue</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name><name><surname>Tang</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Duan</surname><given-names>C.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yan</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name><year>2022</year><article-title>Use of Torulaspora delbrueckii and Hanseniaspora vineae co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae to improve aroma profiles and safety quality of Petit Manseng wines</article-title><source>LWT−Food Science and Technology</source><volume>161</volume><page-range>113360</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113360">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113360</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
<ref id="ref57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation><name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>B.-Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Shen</surname><given-names>J.-Y.</given-names></name><name><surname>Duan</surname><given-names>C.-Q.</given-names></name><name><surname>Yan</surname><given-names>G.-L.</given-names></name><year>2018</year><article-title>Use of indigenous Hanseniaspora vineae and Metschnikowia pulcherrima co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae to improve the aroma diversity of Vidal Blanc Icewine</article-title><source>Frontiers in Microbiology</source><volume>9</volume><page-range>2303</page-range><ext-link ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02303">https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02303</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref>
</ref-list></back>
</article>