IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Interpreting wine aroma: from aroma volatiles to the aromatic perception

Interpreting wine aroma: from aroma volatiles to the aromatic perception

Abstract

Wine contains so many odorants that all its olfaction-related perceptions are, inevitably, the result of the interaction between many odorants. This natural complexity makes that the study of wine aroma has to deal not only with the quantitative determination of a large group of odorants, but has also to understand the basic principles determining the interactions between odorants. The basic mechanisms of odour interactions are not well known and seem to be very complex, but taking as base classical studies did by psychophysicists in the last 50 years, some outcomes of flavour chemistry, and some basic elements of the theory of perception, it has been recently possible to propose a systematic classification of odour interactions into four different categories: competitive, cooperative, destructive and creative. 
Competitive interactions take place when two or more non-blending odours are simultaneously perceived. The perceived intensity of any of them decreases as the odour intensities of other of the components is increased. Cooperative interactions take place when many odorants are present at subthreshold levels and are particularly relevant when similar odorants are present at whatever odour intensities. In these last cases, these interactions lead to the formation of odour vectors, which are groups of odorants of similar aroma acting concertedly and translating to the final product a specific aroma feature.  Destructive interactions take place when one of the odours present in the mixture is able to deconfigure the odour perception of the others, bringing about a decrease in the odour intensity before the deconfiguring odour is perceived. Most wine off-odours belong into this category. Creative interactions are configurational processes and take place when a new odour emerges out of the mixture of odorants. In milder cases, the addition of one odorant boosts the intensity of the others present in the mixture.
With these elements at hand, it is possible to propose a systematic to understand the chemical bases of wine aroma perceptions. Overall, around 80 aroma molecules, seem to be able to explain the different positive aroma nuances of all wines. The major wine volatile components, all of them by-products of alcoholic fermentation, form “the wine aroma buffer”, which is a mixture with vinous aroma and a strong deconfigurational power induced by the destructive interactions elicited by ethanol, isoamyl and isobutyl alcohols and acetic acid. Then, wine odorants are further classified into 35 different aroma vectors, broadly classified into 10 different odour categories. Some creative interactions, leading to relevant wine odours, such as pineapple, strawberry candy, black fruits or raisins have been also identified and will be discussed.

DOI:

Publication date: June 23, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Article

Authors

Vicente Ferreira¹

¹Laboratory for Aroma Analysis and Enology (LAAE)

Contact the author

Keywords

wine aroma, flavor, odorant, perceptual interaction

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Analysis of Cabernet Sauvignon and Aglianico winegrape (V. vinifera L.) responses to different pedo-climatic environments in southern Italy

Water deficit is one of the most important effects of climate change able to affect agricultural sectors. In general, it determines a reduction in biomass production, and for some plants, as in the case of grapevine, it can endorse fruit quality. The monitoring and management of plant water stress in the vineyard

Revealing the Barossa zone sub-divisions through sensory and chemical analysis of Shiraz wine

The Barossa zone is arguably one of the most well-recognised wine producing regions in Australia and internationally; known mainly for the production of its distinct Shiraz wines. However, within the broad Barossa geographical delimitation, a variation in terroir can be perceived and is expressed as sensorial and chemical profile differences between wines. This study aimed to explore the sub-division classification across the Barossa region using chemical and sensory measurements. Shiraz grapes from 4 different vintages and different vineyards across the Barossa (2018, n = 69; 2019, n = 72; 2020, n = 79; 2021, n = 64) were harvested and made using a standardised small lot winemaking procedure. The analysis involved a sensory descriptive analysis with a highly trained panel and chemical measurement including basic chemistry (e.g. pH, TA, alcohol content, total SO2), phenolic composition, volatile compounds, metals, proline, and polysaccharides. The datasets were combined and analysed through an unsupervised, clustering analysis. Firstly, each vintage was considered separately to investigate any vintage to vintage variation. The datasets were then combined and analysed as a whole. The number of sub-divisions based on the measurements were identified and characterised with their sensory and chemical profile and some consistencies were seen between the vintages. Preliminary analysis of the sensory results showed that in most vintages, two major groups could be identified characterised with one group showing a fruit-forward profile and another displaying savoury and cooked vegetables characters. The exploration of distinct profiles arising from the Barossa wine producing region will provide producers with valuable information about the regional potential of their wine assisting with tools to increase their target market and reputation. This study will also provide a robust and comprehensive basis to determine the distinctive terroir characteristics which exist within the Barossa wine producing region.

Genotypic variability in root architectural traits and putative implications for water uptake in grafted grapevine

Root system architecture (RSA) is important for soil exploration and edaphic resources acquisition by the plant, and thus contributes largely to its productivity and adaptation to environmental stresses, particularly soil water deficit. In grafted grapevine, while the degree of drought tolerance induced by the rootstock has been well documented in the vineyard, information about the underlying physiological processes, particularly at the root level, is scarce, due to the inherent difficulties in observing large root systems in situ. The objectives of this study were to determine genetic differences in the root architectural traits and their relationships to water uptake in two Vitis rootstocks genotypes (RGM, 140Ru) differing in their adaptation to drought. Young rootstocks grafted upon the Riesling variety were transplanted into cylindrical tubes and in 2D rhizotrons under two conditions, well watered and moderate water stress. Root traits were analyzed by digital imaging and the amount of transpired water was measured gravimetrically twice a week. Root phenotyping after 30 days reveal substantial variation in RSA traits between genotypes despite similar total root mass; the drought-tolerant 140Ru showed higher root length density in the deep layer, while the drought-sensitive RGM was characterised by shallow-angled root system development with more basal roots and a larger proportion of fine roots in the upper half of the tube. Water deficit affected canopy size and shoot mass to a greater extent than root development and architectural-related traits for both 140Ru and RGM, suggesting vertical distribution of roots was controlled by genotype rather than plasticity to soil water regime. The deeper root system of 140Ru as compared to RGM correlated with greater daily water uptake and sustained stomata opening under water-limited conditions but had little effect on above-ground growth. Our results highlight that grapevine rootstocks have constitutively distinct RSA phenotypes and that, in the context of climate change, those that develop an extensive root network at depth may provide a desirable advantage to the plant in coping with reduced water resources.

A blueprint for managing vine physiological balance at different spatial and temporal scales in Champagne

In Champagne, the vine adaptation to different climatic and technical changes during these last 20 years can be seen through physiological balance disruptions. These disruptions emphasize the general grapevine decline. Since the 2000s, among other nitrogen stress indicators, the must nitrogen has been decreasing. The combination of restricted mineral fertilizers and herbicide use, the growing variability of spring rainfall, the increasing thermal stress as well as the soil type heterogeneity are only a few underlying factors that trigger loss of physiological balance in the vineyards. It is important to weigh and quantify the impact of these factors on the vine. In order to do so, the Comité Champagne uses two key-tools: networking and modelization. The use of quantitative and harmonized ecophysiological indicators is necessary, especially in large spatial scales such as the Champagne appellation. A working group with different professional structures of Champagne has been launched by the Comité Champagne in order to create a common ecophysiology protocol and thus monitor the vine physiology, yearly, around 100 plots, with various cultural practices and types of soil. The use of crop modelling to follow the vine physiological balance within different pedoclimatic conditions enables to understand the present balance but also predict the possible disruptions to come in future climatic scenarios. The physiological references created each year through the working group, benefit the calibration of the STICS model used in Champagne. In return, the model delivers ecophysiology indicators, on a daily scale and can be used on very different types of soils. This study will present the bottom-up method used to give accurate information on the impacts of soil, climate and cultural practices on vine physiology.

Delaying irrigation initiation linearly reduces yield with little impact on maturity in Pinot noir

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.