IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Study of the grape glycosidic aroma precursors by crossing SPE-GC/MS, SPME-GC/MS and LC/QTOF methods

Study of the grape glycosidic aroma precursors by crossing SPE-GC/MS, SPME-GC/MS and LC/QTOF methods

Abstract

Depending on the variety, grapes contain several chemical classes of aromatic compounds (i.e., terpenols, norisoprenoids, benzenoids) mainly stored as glycosides in berry skin. These secondary metabolites are the aromatic precursors fraction of grape which is liberated in wine during fermentation. Knowledge of their profile is often required to estimate the aromatic potential transferable to the wine and for chemotaxonomic aims (Nasi et al., 2008; Ferreira and Lopez, 2019).

In general, the methods used to study glycosidic aroma profile involve sample extraction and concentration by passage of large volumes of must or grape extract through a SPE cartridge (the stationary phases commonly used are 1-10 g of C18 or polystyrene-divinylbenzene), then the methanolic fraction eluted containing the glycoside compounds is carried to dryness, resolubilized using a citrate pH 5 buffer, and an enzymatic hydrolysis is carried out overnight to liberate the aglycones which are then analyzed by GC/MS. Main advantage of SPE is until 1000-fold concentration of sample which allows to detect also compounds present at low level but which can play important role in determining the organoleptic characteristics of wine. Usually, the selectivity of SPE towards the compounds studied is low, so performing quantitation by expressing the compounds as mg internal standard/kg grape provides accuracy acceptable for the aim of the study. On the other hand, SPE is laborious, needs long time and is hardly applicable in quality control laboratories. SPME is faster but the selectivity of fiber towards the analytes is often very different and to perform acceptable quantitative analysis it is essential the calculation of calibration curves. Unfortunately, just few standards of the grape aroma compounds are commercially available (Panighel et al., 2014).

In this study SPE-GC/MS and SPME-GC/MS methods are compared by performing analysis of a set of model standard solutions and grape must samples. The use of several internal standards allows to estimate recoveries of the analytes and calculation of corrective coefficients between the two methods. To have also information free of enzymatic artifacts, GC/MS results are crossed with profile of glycosidic aroma precursors determined by LC/QTOF analysis (Flamini et al., 2014).

The study is finalized to develop a quick SPME-GC/MS method which provides exhaustive and reliable qualitative and semi-quantitative information on the grape glycosidic aroma precursors

References

Nasi A., Ferranti P., Amato S., Chianese L. (2008). Food Chem. 110: 762-768
Ferreira V., Lopez R. (2019). Biomolecules 9(12): 818- doi:10.3390/biom9120818
Panighel A., Flamini R. (2014). Molecules 19: 21291-21309 doi:10.3390/molecules191221291
Flamini R., De Rosso M., Panighel A., Dalla Vedova A., De Marchi F., Bavaresco L. (2014). J. Mass Spec. 49(12): 1214-1222 doi:10.1002/jms.34411214

DOI:

Publication date: June 23, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Article

Authors

Panighel Annarita¹, Fugaro Michele², Mazzei Raffaele Antonio², De Rosso Mirko¹, De Marchi Fabiola¹ and Flamini Riccardo¹

¹Council for Agricultural Research and Economics – Viticulture & Oenology (CREA-VE)
²Dipartimento dell’Ispettorato centrale della tutela della qualità e repressione frodi dei prodotti agroalimentari – ICQRF NORD-EST

Contact the author

Keywords

Glycosides, grape, aroma, mass spectrometry

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Ecophysiological performance of Vitis rootstocks under water stress

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.

A predictive model of spatial Eca variability in the vineyard to support the monitoring of plant status

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

How distinctive are single vineyard Gewürztraminer musts and wines from Alto Adige (Italy) based on untargeted analysis, sensory profiling, and chemometric elaboration?

Vitis vinifera L. ‘Gewürztraminer’ is a historical grape variety of Alto Adige (Südtirol), Italy, which is widely grown in the area of Tramin an der Weinstraße, but is also grown globally. It produces highly aromatic wines that are strongly influenced by the terroir of the vineyard sites where they are grown. This study looked at musts and young wines from ‘Gewürztraminer’ grapes harvested in seven distinct vineyards near Tramin and then processed at Cantina di Termeno, minimizing winemaking protocol variability. Samples were profiled using bidimensional gas chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography coupled to electrochemical detection, and near-IR spectrometry. The data were subjected to Principle Component Analysis and Hierarchical Clustering Analysis. Sensory discriminant testing was undertaken using the sorting method with a semi-trained panel, and the data were processed using Multidimensional Scaling. Seven must/wine pairs could be distinguished based on their untargeted volatilome profiles and on sensory evaluation. As expected, there were greater differences in the volatile compounds between the wines than between the musts. The wines from vineyards 4 and 5 were nonetheless quite homogenous in terms of chemical and sensory analyses, as were the wines from vineyards 1 and 3. For the phenolic profile, differences were noted between the musts and wines of vineyards 2, 3, and 4, but the musts from vineyards 5 and 7 were similar. Sensory analysis showed the wines from vineyards 6 and 7 to be distinct from the rest. These results reinforce that the composition of ‘Gewürztraminer’ musts and wines is strongly determined by vineyard site, even in a small geographic area with high variability of the terroir (soil and microclimate), and that these differences are apparent in the flavours and aromas of the finished wines. Further confirmation would require a larger sample of wines, preferably from several vintages.

Amino nitrogen content in grapes: the impact of crop limitation

As an essential element for grapevine development and yield, nitrogen is also involved in the winemaking process and largely affects wine composition. Grape must amino nitrogen deficiency affects the alcoholic fermentation kinetics and alters the development of wine aroma precursors. It is therefore essential to control and optimize nitrogen use efficiency by the plant to guarantee suitable grape nitrogen composition at harvest. Understanding the impact of environmental conditions and cultural practices on the plant nitrogen metabolism would allow us to better orientate our technical choices with the objective of quality and sustainability (less inputs, higher efficiency). This trial focuses on the impact of crop limitation – that is a common practice in European viticulture – on nitrogen distribution in the plant and particularly on grape nitrogen composition. A wide gradient of crop load was set up in a homogeneous plot of Chasselas (Vitis vinifera) in the experimental vineyard of Agroscope, Switzerland. Dry weight and nitrogen dynamics were monitored in the roots, trunk, canopy and grapes, during two consecutive years, using a 15N-labeling method. Grape amino nitrogen content was assessed in both years, at veraison and at harvest. The close relationship between fruits and roots in the maintenance of plant nitrogen balance was highlighted. Interestingly, grape nitrogen concentration remained unchanged regardless of crop load to the detriment of the growth and nitrogen content of the roots. Meanwhile, the size and the nitrogen concentration of the canopy were not affected. Leaf gas exchange rates were reduced in response to lower yield conditions, reducing carbon and nitrogen assimilation and increasing intrinsic water use efficiency. The must amino nitrogen profiles could be discriminated as a function of crop load. These findings demonstrate the impact of plant balance on grape nitrogen composition and contribute to the improvement of predictive models and sustainable cultural practices in perennial crops.

Deconstructing the soil component of terroir: from controversy to consensus

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors.
The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect.
Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses.
This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.