4.6 Article

Comparative study of aromatic compounds in young red wine from Cabarnet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, and Cabernet Gernischet varieties in China

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 72, Issue 5, Pages C248-C252

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00357.x

Keywords

aromatic components; Cabernet Franc; Cabernet Gernischet; Cabernet Sauvignon; headspace/solid-phase microextraction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aromatic composition and key odorants of young red wines produced from Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, and Cabernet Gernischet wines were compared and the reasons for the difference in their aromatic compounds were discussed. Forty-three odorants were detected in Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc wines compared to 50 in Cabernet Gernischet wine. Quantitatively, acids formed the most abundant group in the aromatic components of the 3 wines, followed by alcohols and esters. Compared to Cabernet Sauvignon and Cabernet Franc wines, the profiles of alcohols and esters for Cabernet Gernischet wine were more diverse. Monoterpenes, namely, 4-terpinenol, citronellol, and nerol, were found solely in Cabernet Gernischet wine. Only 10 compounds, namely, ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, isoamyl acetate, ethyl butyrate, ss-damascenone, ethyl decanoate, isoamyl alcohol, acetic acid, octanoic acid, and phenylethyl acetate, were always present in the 3 wines at concentrations higher than their threshold values. However, ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, and isoamyl acetate were found to jointly contribute to 97%, 98.9%, and 99% of the global aroma of Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, and Cabernet Gernischet wines, respectively. This result showed that the aroma indistinguishableness of the 3 wines was mainly due to the dominance of the fruity notes exerted by the ethylesters and, to a lesser extent, to the contribution of varietal aromatic compounds to the global aroma of the wines.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available