Autoria: NICOLLI, K. P.; BIASOTO, A. C. T.; SOUZA-SILVA, E. A.; GUERRA, C. C.; SANTOS, H. P. dos; WELKE, J. E.; ZINI, C. A.

Resumo: For the first time, the in fluence of different vine management was evaluated in relation to volatile profile and sensory perception through GC × GC/TOFMS, QDA, GC-FID, GC/MS, and GC-O. GC × GC/TOFMS analyses and QDA have shown that a larger spacing between vine rows (2 rather than 1 m), attachment of shoots upwards, and irrigation did not result in wine improvement. Conversely, wines elaborated with grapes from a vine with a lower bud load (20 per plant; sample M1) stood out among the other procedures, rendering the most promising wine aroma. GC × GC/TOFMS allowed identification of 220 compounds including 26 aroma active compounds also distinguished by GC-O. Among them, eight volatiles were important to differentiate M1 from other wines, and five out of those eight compounds could only be correctly identified and quantified after separation in second dimension. Higher levels of three volatiles may explain the relation of M1 wine with red and dry fruits.

Ano de publicação: 2018

Tipo de publicação: Artigo de periódico

Unidade: Embrapa Uva e Vinho

Palavras-chave: Chromatography analyses, GC-O, HS-SPME-GC × GC/TOFM, HS-SPME-GC ×GC/TOFMS, QDA, Uva, Vine management, Wine aroma