Show simple item record

dc.contributorVirginia Techen_US
dc.contributor.authorGardner, D. M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorZoecklein, B. W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMallikarjunan, K.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-07-10T13:56:41Z
dc.date.available2014-07-10T13:56:41Z
dc.date.issued2011-03-01
dc.identifier.citationGardner, D. M.; Zoecklein, B. W.; Mallikarjunan, K., "Electronic Nose Analysis of Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) Grape and Wine Volatile Differences during Cold Soak and Postfermentation," Am. J. Enol. Vitic March 2011 vol. 62 no. 1 81-90. DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2010.09117
dc.identifier.issn0002-9254
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/49438
dc.description.abstractCold soak is a prefermentation maceration process at cold temperatures, traditionally used to enhance red wine color. This study monitored changes in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon volatiles using a commercial conducting polymer electronic nose (ENose) during a five-day cold soak and postfermentation. Principal component analysis (PCA) of juice volatiles detected by the ENose during cold soak showed PCI accounted for 95.7% of the variation. Various volatile associations were made with specific ENose sensors. In comparison, PCA of must chemistries had 52.4% of the variation accounted for by PCI. The PCA of wine volatiles detected by GC-MS showed PCI accounted for 97.1% of the variation between control and cold soak treatment, where control wine volatiles were associated with several ethyl esters, while cold soak wine volatiles were associated with diethyl succinate, isovaleric acid, benzyl alcohol, 3-methyl butanol, cis-3-hexenol, gamma-nonalactone, benzaldehyde, 2-methyl propanol, phenethyl acetate, 1-octanol, beta-damascenone, terpinene-4-ol, gamma-butyrolactone, ethyl acetate, hexanoic acid, citronellol, phenethyl alcohol, and n-butanol. Comparatively, PCI accounted for 100% of the total variance when using the ENose to measure volatile composition. Sensory evaluation did not demonstrate significant differences in aroma between control and cold soak wines. This study demonstrates differences in volatile chemistry between control and cold soak wines, as well as the ability to use a conducting polymer ENose as a simple tool for analysis of volatiles.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Society for Enology and Viticulture
dc.subjectElectronic nosesen_US
dc.subjectCold soaken_US
dc.subjectCabernet sauvignonen_US
dc.subjectAromaen_US
dc.subjectVolatilesen_US
dc.subjectGlycosidesen_US
dc.subjectRed winesen_US
dc.subjectAromaen_US
dc.subjectTemperatureen_US
dc.subjectFlavoren_US
dc.subjectDiscriminationen_US
dc.subjectFermentationen_US
dc.subjectHydrolysisen_US
dc.subjectChardonnayen_US
dc.subjectExtractionen_US
dc.subjectGlycosidesen_US
dc.subjectBiotechnology & applied microbiologyen_US
dc.subjectFood science & technologyen_US
dc.subjectHorticultureen_US
dc.titleElectronic Nose Analysis of Cabernet Sauvignon (Vitis vinifera L.) Grape and Wine Volatile Differences during Cold Soak and Postfermentationen_US
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden_US
dc.identifier.urlhttp://www.ajevonline.org/content/62/1/81.full
dc.date.accessed2014-07-09
dc.title.serialAmerican Journal of Enology and Viticulture
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2010.09117
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record