4.5 Article

Evolution of polyphenols in red wines from Vitis vinifera L. during aging in the bottle -: I.: Anthocyanins and pyranoanthocyanins

期刊

EUROPEAN FOOD RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 220, 期 5-6, 页码 607-614

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-004-1108-x

关键词

red wine; aging in the bottle; anthocyanins; pyranoanthocyanins; disappearance kinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The evolution of anthocyanins and pyranoanthocyanins (as measured by high-performance liquid chromatography) in young red wines from Vitis vinifera L. cv Tempranillo, Graciano and Cabernet Sauvignon (vintage 2000) from Navarra (Spain) was studied during 26 months of aging in the bottle. For the anthocyanin pigments of grape origin, a progressive decrease in their concentration, corresponding to first-order kinetics, was observed during this period. Independently of the anthocyanin structure studied, grape anthocyanins in Tempranillo wine presented twofold slower kinetics than those in Graciano and Cabernet Sauvignon wines, which exhibited a very similar disappearance rate. Acylated anthocyanins presented a slightly higher disappearance rate than the nonacylated ones, indicating the possible hydrolysis of the former into the latter forms. However, no distinction was observed in the kinetics of the different anthocyanidin forms (delphinidins, petunidins, peonidins and malvidins). These results indicate that during aging under nonoxidative conditions (bottle), the chemical reactivity of grape anthocyanins in wine is influenced by the grape variety, a factor that imposes over the stability associated with the chemical structure of each anthocyanin form. In relation to the evolution of pyranoanthocyanins, anthocyanin-pyruvic acid adducts presented a similar or lower disappearance rate than their corresponding anthocyanin precursors during the first months of aging in the bottle, while anthocyanin-vinylphenol and anthocyanin-vinylflavanol adducts did not exhibit significant variations during the whole period studied.

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

4.5
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