4.7 Article

Volatile terpenoids, norisoprenoids and benzenoids as markers of fine scale vineyard segmentation for Corvina grapes and wines

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 125, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108507

关键词

Single vineyard; Cru; Volatile compound; Terpenes; Norisoprenoids; Benzenoids

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the diversity existing at the very small scale of single vineyard parcels in volatile composition of grapes and wines from a single estate in the Valpolicella wine region has been studied. Corvina grapes from eight contiguous vineyards were used for the study and vinified with the same protocol. The compounds analyzed by GC-MS were representative of the terpenoid, norisoprenoid and benzenoid chemical families. Free and bound compounds analysis showed that differences between parcels were relatively small on grapes samples, whereas after fermentation larger differences between wine samples were highlighted. Multivariate statistical analysis of wine volatiles highlighted the existence of similarities between wine volatile profiles, which reflected to a good extent the geographical location of the corresponding vineyard parcels. The main drivers of this diversity were the monoterpene alcohols linalool, alpha-terpineol, linalool oxide; the benzenoids vanillin, ethyl vanillate and methyl vanillate; and the norisoprenoid beta-damascenone. Wine from one vineyard parcel was not correctly classified, possibly due to the influence of the peculiar training system applied to this parcel. With aging the vineyard parcel geographical diversity was still reflected by the chemical diversity of wines, even if the separation was less fine. As many reactions occurred, some drivers of the diversity were changed after aging. They were benzenoids: ethyl vanillate, methyl vanillate and vanillin; the norisoprenoid 3-oxo-alpha-ionol; the terpenes linalool oxide, linalool, p-methane-1,8-diol, alpha-terpineol, and the precursors of nerol, geraniol, linalool.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据