terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 VOLATILE COMPOSITION OF WINES USING A GC/TOFMS: HS-SPME VS MICRO LLE AS SAMPLE PREPARATION METHODOLOGY

VOLATILE COMPOSITION OF WINES USING A GC/TOFMS: HS-SPME VS MICRO LLE AS SAMPLE PREPARATION METHODOLOGY

Abstract

Wine aroma analysis can be done by sensorial or instrumental analysis, the latter involving several methodologies based on olfactometric detection, electronic noses or gas chromatography. Gas Chromato-graphy has been widely used for the study of the volatile composition of wines and depending on the detection system coupled to the chromatographic system, quantification and identification of individual compounds can be achieved.

Prior to the chromatography, a sample preparation step is almost always required, but unfortunately there is no extraction procedure that can aid in the detection of the wide range of volatile compounds that exists in a wine sample. Wine volatile profile is characterized to have thousands of compounds with varying chemical properties, like molecular weight, structure, polarity and molecular structures. Moreover, they exist in a wide range of concentration, which, sometimes implies that a pre-concentration step is also required, if the ones existing in very low concentrations are of interest. As far as sample preparation methods for the analysis of wine aroma concerns, one can found thousands of bibliographic references, but the most used ones are probably the liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) and the solid-phase microextraction (SPME). Extensive reviews on the different sample preparation methods that has been used for wine analysis, along with each one advantages and drawbacks, has already received researcher’s attention (Costa Freitas et al, 2012)

In light of the above, this work intents to discuss the use of two different sample preparation methods to quantify and identify volatile compounds in wines.

Two sample preparation methods were compared: a micro liquid-liquid extraction with 500mL of dichloromethane (based on Vilanova et al, 2010) and a HS-SPME (based on Pereira et al 2021). Chromatographic method was the same for both sample preparation method.

The number of compounds identified by HS-SPME was higher than the ones identified by micro-LLE. 26 compounds were identified in wines by both sample preparation methods. Since the majority of com-pounds identified by each sample preparation methodologies are different, choose to do one or another, or even both, should be taken into consideration when the goal is to go deep on volatile composition of wines.

 

1. M. Costa Freitas; M. D. R. Gomes da Silva; M. J. Cabrita (2012) “Sampling and sample preparation techniques for the determination of volatile components in grape juice, wine and alcoholic beverages” In Comprehensive Sampling and Sample Preparation. Volume 4, Pawliszyn J., Mondello L., Dugo P. Eds; Elsevier, Academic Press: Oxford, UK, pp 27–41, 2012. ISBN: 9780123813732
2. Singleton, V. e Rossi, J. (1965) Colorimetry of Total Phenolic Compounds with Phosphomolybdic-Phosphotungstic Acid Reagents. American Journal of Enology and Viticultura, 16, 144-158.
3. Mar Vilanova, Zlatina Genisheva, Antón Masa, José Maria Oliveira (2010). Correlation between volatile composition and sensory properties in Spanish Albariño wines. Microchemical Journal, 95, 240-246.
4. Pereira, C., Mendes, D., Dias, T., Garcia, R., da Silva, M. and Cabrita, M., 2021. Revealing the yeast modulation potential on amino acid composition and volatile profile of Arinto white wines by a combined chromatographic-based approach. Journal of Chromatography A, 1641, p.461991.

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Nuno Martins¹, Maria João Cabrita1,2 Raquel Garcia1,2

1. MED—Mediterranean Institute for Agriculture, Environment and Development & CHANGE—Global Change and Sustainabi-lity Institute, Universidade de Évora, Pólo da Mitra, Ap. 94, 7006-554 Évora, Portugal
2. Departamento de Fitotecnia, Escola de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade de Évora, Pólo da Mitra, Ap. 94, 7006-554 Évora, Portugal

Contact the author*

Keywords

red wine, volatiles, sample preparation, GC/TOFMS

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

WINE WITHOUT ADDED SO₂: OXYGEN IMPACT AND EVOLUTION ON THE POLYPHENOLIC COMPOSITION DURING RED WINE AGING

SO₂ play a major role in the stability and wine during storage. Nowadays, the reduction of chemical input during red winemaking and especially the removing SO₂ is a growing expectation from the consumers. Winemaking without SO₂ is a big challenge for the winemakers since the lack of SO₂ affects directly the wine chemical evolution such as the phenolic compounds as well as its microbiological stability.

UNTARGETED METABOLOMICS ANALYSES TO IDENTIFY A NEW SWEET COMPOUND RELEASED DURING POST-FERMENTATION MACERATION OF WINE

The gustatory balance of dry wines is centered on three flavors, sourness, bitterness and sweetness. Even if certain compounds were already identified as contributing to sweetness, some taste modifications remain largely unexplained1,2. Some empirical observations combined with sensory analyzes have shown that an increase of wine sweetness occurs during post-fermentation maceration³. This step is a key stage of red winemaking during which the juice is left in contact with the marc, that contains the solid parts of the grape (seeds, skins and sometimes stems). This work aimed to identify a new taste-active compound that contributes to this gain of sweetness.

EUGENOL AS QUALITY MARKER OF WINES AND SPIRITS FROM HYBRID VINES: IMPACT OF DIFFERENT WINEMAKING AND DISTILLATION PROCESSES

Eugenol, widely spread in various plants notably cloves, basil and bay, was identified too in wines from hybrid grapes without contact with oak wood. This aromatic molecule presents a strong spicy note of clove and also antifongic properties. Eugenol was described as an endogenous compound of Baco blanc, from the grapes to the spirits of Armagnac area. Moreover, this compound is a chemical marker of Baco blanc products quality.
Influences of harvest time and different winemaking processes (settling, use of enzymatic preparations, lees content and stock time before distillation) on Baco blanc wine eugenol contents were explored using a two-levels full factorial Design of Experiments (DoEs).

UNEXPECTED PRODUCTION OF DMS POTENTIAL DURING ALCOOLIC FERMENTATION FROM MODEL CHAMPAGNE-LIKE MUSTS

The overall quality of aged wines is in part due to the development of complex aromas over a long period (1.) The apparition of this aromatic complexity depends on multiple chemical reactions that include the liberation of odorous compounds from non-odorous precursors. One example of this phenomenon is found in dimethyl sulphide (DMS) which, with its characteristic odor truffle, is a known contributor to the bouquet of premium aged wine bouquet (1). DMS supposedly accumulates during the ten first years of ageing thanks to the hydrolysis of its precursor dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSp.) DMSp is a possible secondary by-product from the degradation of S-methylmethionine (SMM), an amino acid iden- tified in grapes (2), which can be metabolized by yeast during alcoholic fermentation.

IMPACT OF MANNOPROTEIN N-GLYCOSYL PHOSPHORYLATION AND BRANCHING ON WINE POLYPHENOL INTERACTIONS WITH YEAST CELL WALLS

Yeast cell walls (CWs) may adsorb wine components with a significant impact on wine quality. When dealing with red wines, this adsorption is mainly related to physicochemical interactions between wine polyphenols and cell wall mannoproteins. However, mannoproteins are a heterogeneous family of complex peptidoglycans including long and highly branched N-linked oligosaccharides and short linear O-linked oligosaccharides, resulting in a huge structural diversity.