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…

Effect of one-year cover crop and arbuscular mycorrhiza inocululation in the microbial soil community of a vineyard

The microbial composition of the soil is an important factor to consider in viticulture, since its influence on the “terroir” and on the organoleptic properties of the wine have been demonstrated. Different agronomic techniques have the potential to modify the composition and functionality of the soil microbial community. Maintaining green covers is known to increase soil microbial diversity. The direct application of inoculum of beneficial microorganisms to the soil has also been used to increase their abundance. However, the environmental conditions of each site seem to have a determining weight in the result of these practices. In this study, we compared the effect on the microbial community of a cover crop with legumes in autumn and the inoculation of grapevines with commercial inoculum bases on Rhizophagus irregularis and Funeliformis mosseae in the previous spring. The study has been carried out in a vineyard in Binissalem, Mallorca, Spain. After applying the treatments, we will analyze the soil microbial communities using the data obtained from Illumina amplification of soil DNA from the 16S and ITS regions to analyze bacteria and fungi community, respectively. In addition, we will record the physicochemical characteristics of the soil at each sampling point. The result showed that agronomic management, in the short term, has less influence than soil characteristics on the composition of the soil microbiome. With these results, we can conclude that in a vineyard, agricultural techniques should focus on improving the characteristics of the soil to improve the biodiversity of the soil microbiota.

Different soil types and relief influence the quality of Merlot grapes in a relatively small area in the Vipava Valley (Slovenia) in relation to the vine water status

Besides location and microclimatic conditions, soil plays an important role in the quality of grapes and wine. Soil properties influence…

Grapevine yield-gap: identification of environmental limitations by soil and climate zoning in Languedoc-Roussillon region (south of France)

Grapevine yield has been historically overlooked, assuming a strong trade-off between grape yield and wine quality. At present, menaced by climate change, many vineyards in Southern France are far from the quality label threshold, becoming grapevine yield-gaps a major subject of concern. Although yield-gaps are well studied in arable crops, we know very little about grapevine yield-gaps. In the present study, we analysed the environmental component of grapevine yield-gaps linked to climate and soil resources in the Languedoc Roussillon. We used SAFRAN data and IGP Pays d’Oc wine yields from 2010 to 2018. We selected climate and soil indicators proving to have a significant effect on average wine yield-gaps at the municipality scale. The most significant factors of grapevine yield were the Soil Available Water Capacity; followed by the Huglin Index and the Climatic Dryness Index. The Days of Frost; the Soil pH; and the Very Hot Days were also significant. Then, we clustered geographical zones presenting similar indicators, facilitating the identification of resources yield-gaps. We discussed the number of zones with the experts of IGP Pays d’Oc label, obtaining 7 zones with similar limitations for grapevine yield. Finally, we analysed the main resources causing yield-gaps and the grapevine varieties planted on each zone. Mapping grapevine resource yield-gaps are the first stage for understanding grapevine yield-gaps at the regional scale.

Grapevine yield estimation in a context of climate change: the GraY model

Grapevine yield is a key indicator to assess the impacts of climate change and the relevance of adaptation strategies in a vineyard landscape. At this scale, a yield model should use a number of parameters and input data in relation to the information available and be able to reproduce vineyard management decisions (e.g. soil and canopy management, irrigation). In this study, we used data from six experimental sites in Southern France (cv. Syrah) to calibrate a model of grapevine yield limited by water constraint (GraY). Each yield component (bud fertility, number of berries per bunch, berry weight) was calculated as a function of the soil water availability simulated by the WaLIS water balance model at critical phenological phases. The model was then evaluated in 10 grapegrowers’ plots, covering a diversity of biophysical and technical contexts (soil type, canopy size, irrigation, cover crop). We identified three critical periods for yield formation: after flowering on the previous year for the number of bunches and berries, around pre-veraison and post-veraison of the same year for mean berry weight. Yields were simulated with a model efficiency (EF) of 0.62 (NRMSE = 0.28). Bud fertility and number of berries per bunch were more accurately simulated (EF = 0.90 and 0.77, NRMSE = 0.06 and 0.10, respectively) than berry weight (EF = -0.31, NRMSE = 0.17). Model efficiency on the on-farm plots reached 0.71 (NRMSE = 0.37) simulating yields from 1 to 8 kg/plant. The GraY model is an original model estimating grapevine yield evolution on the basis of water availability under future climatic conditions.  It allows to evaluate the effects of various adaptation levers such as planting density, cover crop management, fruit/leaf ratio, shading and irrigation, in various production contexts.

The impact of sustainable management regimes on amino acid profiles in grape juice, grape skin flavonoids, and hydroxycinnamic acids

One of the biggest challenges of agriculture today is maintaining food safety and food quality while providing ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation, pest and disease control, ensuring water quality and supply, and climate regulation. Organic farming was shown to promote biodiversity and carbon sequestration, and is therefore seen as one possibility of environmentally friendly production. Consumers expect organically grown crops to be free from chemical pesticides and mineral fertilizers and often presume that the quality of organically grown crops is different or higher compared to conventionally grown crops. Integrated, organic, and biodynamic viticulture were compared in a replicated field trial in Geisenheim, Germany (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Riesling). Amino acid profiles in juice, grape skin flavonoids, and hydroxycinnamic acids were monitored over three consecutive seasons beginning 7 years after conversion to organic and biodynamic viticulture, respectively. In addition, parameters such as soil nutrient status, yield, vigor, canopy temperature, and water stress were monitored to draw conclusions on reasons for the observed changes. Results revealed that the different sustainable management regimes highly differed in their amino acid profiles in juice and also in their skin flavonol content, whereas differences in the flavanol and hydroxycinnamic acid content were less pronounced. It is very likely that differences in nutrient status and yield determined amino acid profiles in juice, although all three systems showed similar amounts of mineralized nitrogen in the soil. Canopy structure and temperature in the bunch zone did not differ among treatments and therefore cannot account for the observed differences in favonols. A different light exposure of the bunches in the respective systems due to differences in vigor together with differences in berry size and a different water status of the vines might rather be responsible for the increase in flavonol content under organic and biodynamic viticulture.