Aroma release of a model wine solution as influenced by the presence of non-volatile components. Effect of commercial tannin extracts, polysaccharides and artificial saliva
“…Although static headspace conditions do not mimic the dynamic conditions during drinking or eating, this technique has been largely used to study aroma interactions with food matrix components to determine their effect on aroma release. 23,39,47,57 Even so, different authors have shown that this is a reliable approach to investigate partitioning in more controlled and simple conditions, which allows us to envisage this subtle phenomena with importance on aroma release that otherwise might be underestimated by using dynamic HS methods. 23,41 In this work, the aroma release behavior of a mixture of 45 volatile compounds characteristic of the wine aroma profile and with very different physicochemical characteristics (Table 1) was evaluated in the presence and absence of human and artificial saliva by using a previously validated static HS-SPME approach (see Table 1 in Supporting Information).…”
The aim of this work was to determine the role of saliva in wine aroma release by using static and dynamic headspace conditions. In the latter conditions, two different sampling points (t = 0 and t = 10 min) corresponding with oral (25.5 °C) and postoral phases (36 °C) were monitored. Both methodologies were applied to reconstituted dearomatized white and red wines with different nonvolatile wine matrix compositions and a synthetic wine (without matrix effect). All of the wines had the same ethanol concentration and were spiked with a mixture of 45 aroma compounds covering a wide range of physicochemical characteristics at typical wine concentrations. Two types of saliva (human and artificial) or control samples (water) were added to the wines. The adequacy of the two headspace methodologies for the purposes of the study (repeatability, linear ranges, determination coefficients, etc.) was previously determined. After application of different chemometric analysis (ANOVA, LSD, PCA), results showed a significant effect of saliva on aroma release dependent on saliva type (differences between artificial and human) and on wine matrix using static headspace conditions. Red wines were more affected than white and synthetic wines by saliva, specifically human saliva, which provoked a reduction in aroma release for most of the assayed aroma compounds independent of their chemical structure. The application of dynamic headspace conditions using a saliva bioreactor at the two different sampling points (t = 0 and t = 10 min) showed a lesser but significant effect of saliva than matrix composition and a high influence of temperature (oral and postoral phases) on aroma release.
“…Although static headspace conditions do not mimic the dynamic conditions during drinking or eating, this technique has been largely used to study aroma interactions with food matrix components to determine their effect on aroma release. 23,39,47,57 Even so, different authors have shown that this is a reliable approach to investigate partitioning in more controlled and simple conditions, which allows us to envisage this subtle phenomena with importance on aroma release that otherwise might be underestimated by using dynamic HS methods. 23,41 In this work, the aroma release behavior of a mixture of 45 volatile compounds characteristic of the wine aroma profile and with very different physicochemical characteristics (Table 1) was evaluated in the presence and absence of human and artificial saliva by using a previously validated static HS-SPME approach (see Table 1 in Supporting Information).…”
The aim of this work was to determine the role of saliva in wine aroma release by using static and dynamic headspace conditions. In the latter conditions, two different sampling points (t = 0 and t = 10 min) corresponding with oral (25.5 °C) and postoral phases (36 °C) were monitored. Both methodologies were applied to reconstituted dearomatized white and red wines with different nonvolatile wine matrix compositions and a synthetic wine (without matrix effect). All of the wines had the same ethanol concentration and were spiked with a mixture of 45 aroma compounds covering a wide range of physicochemical characteristics at typical wine concentrations. Two types of saliva (human and artificial) or control samples (water) were added to the wines. The adequacy of the two headspace methodologies for the purposes of the study (repeatability, linear ranges, determination coefficients, etc.) was previously determined. After application of different chemometric analysis (ANOVA, LSD, PCA), results showed a significant effect of saliva on aroma release dependent on saliva type (differences between artificial and human) and on wine matrix using static headspace conditions. Red wines were more affected than white and synthetic wines by saliva, specifically human saliva, which provoked a reduction in aroma release for most of the assayed aroma compounds independent of their chemical structure. The application of dynamic headspace conditions using a saliva bioreactor at the two different sampling points (t = 0 and t = 10 min) showed a lesser but significant effect of saliva than matrix composition and a high influence of temperature (oral and postoral phases) on aroma release.
“…The authors found that addition of tannin (0-5 g/L) resulted in increased volatility of limonene and a slight increase in benzaldehyde volatility but had no effect on isoamyl acetate and ethylhexanoate. However, in a recent study, the addition of increasing concentrations of natural tannin extract (1-10 g/L) from grape skin in model wine (with 0.3 g tartaric acid in 10% v/v ethanol/water mixture) increased the volatility of the ester isoamyl acetate and other hydrophilic compounds, including 2-methyl-1-butanol, diethyl succinate, and phenylethyl alcohol (Mitropoulou, Hatzidimitriou, & Paraskevopoulou, 2011). Lund, Nicolau, Gardner, and Kilmartin (2009) conducted sensory difference tests (R-index methodology) to evaluate the effect of polyphenols on the perception of key odorants found in New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc wines.…”
“…The accuracy of the SPME-GC-MS method is affected by matrix effect, which is mainly due to compounds in the sample matrix, such as sugars, organic acids, amino acids, phenolic compounds, proteins, and inorganic ions (Mitropoulou et al 2011). Some researchers have found an effective solution, namely matrix-matched calibration curve, to minimize matrix effect in wine volatile determination (Antalick et al 2010;Burin et al 2013).…”
A solid-phase microextraction followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method was developed to determine the volatile compounds in Shanxi aged vinegar. The optimal extraction conditions were: 50°C for 20 min with a PDMS/DVB fiber. This analytical method was validated and showed satisfactory repeatability (0.5 %
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.