4.7 Article

Comparative study of aroma profile and phenolic content of Montepulciano monovarietal red wines from the Marches and Abruzzo regions of Italy using HS-SPME-GC-MS and HPLC-MS

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 132, Issue 3, Pages 1592-1599

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.11.108

Keywords

Wine aroma; Phenolic compounds; HS-SPME-GC-MS; HPLC-MS; Montepulciano wine

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Montepulciano is one of the most famous and important red-berried grapes of Italy. This article presents and discusses a comparative study of aroma profile and phenolic content of the Montepulciano wine from the Marches and the Abruzzo regions. The volatile composition of wines was determined by using headspace solid phase microextraction (HS-SPME) coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The PDMS fibre was chosen. The dominating esters in Montepulciano wines were ethyl hexanoate, ethyl decanoate, and ethyl octanoate, whereas phenyl ethanol and 3-methyl-1-butanol were dominating alcohols. Phenolic compounds, namely gallic acid, p-coumaric acid, trans-ferulic acid, caffeic acid, trans-resveratrol, (+)-catechin and (-)-epicatechin, were examined using HPLC-MS with direct injection of wine samples. The total phenolic content of the analysed wines was in the range of 30.4-61.9 mg l(-1) The presence of high amounts of esters seems to characterise the volatiles of Montepulciano wines from the Marches, whereas a high level of alcohols was found in Montepulciano wines from Abruzzo. Moreover, multivariate chemometric techniques, such as cluster analysis and principal component analysis, supported this thesis. Headspace solid phase microextraction and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry were used to analyse 20 commercial wine samples (Montepulciano monovarietal red wines) from the Marches (10 samples) and Abruzzo (10 samples). (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available