ARTICLE pubs.acs.org/JAFC
Quality and Aromatic Sensory Descriptors (Mainly Fresh and Dry Fruit Character) of Spanish Red Wines can be Predicted from their Aroma-Active Chemical Composition Felipe San-Juan, Vicente Ferreira, Juan Cacho, and Ana Escudero* Laboratory for Aroma Analysis and Enology, Aragon Institute of Engineering Research (I3A), Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain ABSTRACT: A satisfactory model explaining quality could be built in a set of 25 high quality Spanish red wines, by aroma-active chemical composition. The quality of the wines was positively correlated with the wine content in fruity esters, acids, enolones, and wood derived compounds, and negatively with phenylacetaldehyde, acetic acid, methional, and 4-ethylphenol. Wine fruitiness was demonstrated to be positively related not only to the wine content on fruity esters and enolones, but to wine volatile fatty acids. Fruitiness is strongly suppressed by 4-ethylphenol, acetic acid, phenylacetaldehyde, and methional, this involved in the perception of dry-fruit notes. Sensory effects were more intense in the presence of β-damascenone and β-ionone. A satisfactory model explaining animal notes could be built. Finally, the vegetal character of this set of wines could be related to the combined effect of dimethylsulfide (DMS), 1-hexanol, and methanethiol. KEYWORDS: wine, aroma, model, quality, fruit, animal, vegetables, sensory, interaction
’ INTRODUCTION Quality with reference to wine is a subjective term and difficult to define. The concept of wine quality has changed over time and varies from one viticultural region to another. Nevertheless, a number of studies have attempted to decode the different factors influencing quality.1,2 One of the most important intrinsic elements is aroma. At present, one of the essential characteristics for a quality wine is to have an intense aroma. High value is also given to the complexity of the aroma, that is, to the perceived presence of diverse aromatic notes, with none being clearly dominant. Many studies 35 have been carried out to determine the volatile compounds responsible for the most important aromatic nuances of each wine. In some cases, a single compound is capable of transmitting its own aroma, such as linalool in Moscatel wines or 4-ethylphenol in the Brett character of wine.6 In others, the situation is more complex and various molecules influence and interact in the perception of a particular note, as has been observed with fruity aromas.7 Different types of sensory interactions between different aromatic compounds have been described.810 Various methodological approaches have been used in the studies. Some work 1114 used statistical tools such as PCA (Principal Components Analysis) or PLSR (Partial Least Squares Regression) to develop models and study relationships between the analytical data of specific volatile compounds and sensory perception. In other studies, that relationship was determined through sensory experiments.7,15 Few cases have combined the two methods, that is, have demonstrated by sensory means what mathematical models obtained from quantitative data expressed. This has been done in the study of white wines,16 which are less complex than red wines. Despite all of these studies, there is still much to be known about the role played by the different volatile compounds present in wine, and how their interactions stimulate the perception of the different notes. r 2011 American Chemical Society
The objective of the present work is to attempt to explain the overall quality and the principal aromatic notes perceived in extra-premium quality red wines by means of quantitative data. More specifically, the study endeavored to determine which volatile chemical compounds had a greater measure of influence, both negatively and positively, on the quality, and which ones were the causes of the different perceived aromatic notes. To this end, the mathematical models developed were tested by means of sensory experiments.
’ MATERIAL AND METHODS Reagents and Standards. Solvents. Dichloromethane and methanol of SupraSolv quality, pentane of UniSolv quality and ethanol of LiChrosolv quality were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Water was purified in a Milli-Q system from Millipore (Bedford, MA). Resins. Lichrolut EN resins and polypropylene cartridges were supplied by Merck (Darmstadt, Germany). Standards. The chemical standards were supplied by Sigma (St. Louis, MO), Aldrich (Gillingham, U.K.), Fluka (Buchs, Switzerland), Lancaster (Strasbourg, France), PolyScience (Niles, IL), Alfa Aesar (Ward Hill, MA), Chem Service (West Chester, PA), BDH Prolabo (Linars del Valles, Spain), and Firmenich (Geneva, Switzerland), as indicated in Table 1. Purity of chemical standards is over 95% in all cases, most of them are over 99%. Reagents. Sodium chloride, l-tartaric acid, ammonium sulfate and NaHCO3 were supplied by Panreac (Barcelona, Spain). Received: December 17, 2010 Accepted: May 31, 2011 Revised: May 31, 2011 Published: May 31, 2011 7916
dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf1048657 | J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 7916–7924
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
ARTICLE
Table 1. Suppliers; Method of Analysis Used for Quantification of Each Compound; Odor Thresholds; Maximum, Minimum and Median Values of Concentration Found in Set of 25 Wines (All Data Are Expressed As Micrograms Per Liter); Quotient between Maximum Odor Activity Value (OAV) and Minimum OAV (Differentiation Ability); Correlation Coefficients (R) of Linear Regression between Odor Activity Values of Each Compound (OAV) and Qualitya method of analysisb
supplier
maxc
mind
mede
odor threshold f OAV max/OAV min f
Rg
carbonyl compounds β-damascenone
Firmenich
20
10.5
