4.7 Article

Evaluation of Key Odorants in Sauvignon Blanc Wines Using Three Different Methodologies

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 60, Issue 25, Pages 6293-6302

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf300914n

Keywords

Sauvignon blanc; odor activity value; aroma extract dilution analysis; aroma reconstitution

Funding

  1. New Zealand Foundation for Research Science and Technology [UOAX0404]
  2. New Zealand Winegrowers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In this study three different approaches were employed to identify key odorants in Sauvignon blanc wines. First, the concentrations of the odorants were compared to their respective aroma detection thresholds. The resulting odor activity values (OAV) were transformed into a normalized and weighted measure that allows the aroma profiles of different wines to be compared and the contribution of a single aroma in a complex mixture to be evaluated. Based on their OAV, 3-mercaptohexanol and 3-mercaptohexyl acetate were the two most important aroma compounds in many Marlborough Sauvignon blanc wines. Due to limitations with the OAV approach, the study was extended to include aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA), which revealed that beta-damascenone, together with the varietal thiols, esters, and higher alcohols, are key odorants in Sauvignon blanc wines. The final approach undertaken was aroma reconstitution and omission tests using a deodorized wine base and the creation of a model Marlborough Sauvignon blanc. Single compounds and groups of compounds were omitted from the model to study their impact on the sensory properties of the model wine. Reconstitution and omission confirmed that varietal thiols, esters, terpenes, and beta-damascenone are all important contributors to Sauvignon blanc aroma. The methoxypyrazines showed an important but relatively low impact in all three of the approaches undertaken in this study.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available