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…

INVESTIGATION OF MALIC ACID METABOLIC PATHWAYS DURING ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION USING GC-MS, LC-MS, AND NMR DERIVED 13C-LABELED DATA

Malic acid has a strong impact on wine pH and the contribution of fermenting yeasts to modulate its concentration has been intensively investigated in the past. Recent advances in yeast genetics have shed light on the unexpected property of some strains to produce large amounts of malic acid (“acidic strains”) while most of the wine starters consume it during the alcoholic fermentation. Being a key metabolite of the central carbohydrate metabolism, malic acid participates to TCA and glyoxylate cycles as well as neoglucogenesis. Although present at important concentrations in grape juice, the metabolic fate of malic acid has been poorly investigated.

ACIDIC AND DEMALIC SACCHAROMYCES CEREVISIAE STRAINS FOR MANAGING PROBLEMS OF ACIDITY DURING THE ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION

In a recent study several genes controlling the acidification properties of the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been identified by a QTL approach [1]. Many of these genes showed allelic variations that affect the metabolism of malic acid and the pH homeostasis during the alcoholic fermentation. Such alleles have been used for driving genetic selection of new S. cerevisiae starters that may conversely acidify or deacidify the wine by producing or consuming large amount of malic acid [2]. This particular feature drastically modulates the final pH of wine with difference of 0.5 units between the two groups.

ANTIOXIDANT CAPACITY OF INACTIVATED NON-SACCHAROMYCES YEASTS

The importance of the non-Saccharomyces yeasts (NSY) in winemaking has been extensively reviewed in the past for their aromatic or bioprotective capacity while, recently their antioxidant/antiradical potential has emerged under winemaking conditions. In the literature the antioxidant potential of NSY was solely explored through their capacity to improve glutathione (GSH) content during alcoholic fermen- tation [1], while more and more studies pointed out the activity of the non-glutathione soluble fraction released by yeasts [2].

EFFECT OF OXIDATION ON LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT PHENOLIC FRACTION, SALIVARY PROTEINS PRECIPITATION AND ASTRINGENCY SUBQUALITIES OF RED WINES

Changes in the low molecular weight phenolic fraction, obtained by liquid-liquid microextraction technique, were studied after controlled oxidation of two typologies of Sangiovese wines (Brunello di Montalcino and Chianti Classico) belonging to two vintages (2017 and 2018). The fractions were characterized by LC-MS and quantified by HPLC. The most abundant extracted compounds were the phenolic acids. The effect of oxidation, vintage, and wine typology was stated by a three-ways ANOVA. Gallic and syringic acids significantly increased after oxidation while (–)-epicatechin decreased the most.

PHENOLICS DYNAMICS OF BERRIES FROM VITIS VINIFERA CV SYRAH GRAFTED ON TWO CONTRASTING ROOTSTOCKS UNDER COMBINED SALINITY AND WATER STRESSORS AND ITS EFFECT ON WINE QUALITY

Wine regions are getting warmer as average temperatures continue raising affecting grape growth, berry composition and wine production. Berry quality was evaluated in plants of Vitis vinifera cv Syrah grafted on two rootstocks, Paulsen (PL1103) and SO4, and grown under two salinity concentrations (LS:0.7dS/m and HS:2.5dSm-1) in combination with two irrigation regimes (HW:133% and CW:100%), being the seasonal water application 483mm (control, 100%). Spectrophotometer measurements from berry skin during veraison and harvest stages and from “young” wine samples, were indicative of the stressors effect and the mediation of the rootstocks. At veraison (i) total phenolics content were high under LSHW (0.7dSm-1 and high water conditions) for SO4 and PL1103.