4.3 Article

Wine matrix composition affects temporal aroma release as measured by proton transfer reaction - time-of-flight - mass spectrometry

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ajgw.12155

关键词

artificial mouth; PTR-ToF-MS; temporal aroma release; wine matrix

资金

  1. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [AGL2012-04172-C02-01]
  2. Consolider Ingenio (Fun-C-Food) Project [CSD2007-063]
  3. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
  4. European Social Fund
  5. Regional Council for Burgundy
  6. Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (European Union)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the composition of the non-volatile wine matrix on the temporal aroma release profile using an artificial mouth device coupled online to a proton transfer reaction - time-of-flight - mass spectrometer (PTR-ToF-MS). Methods and Results: Five wines, white, sparkling, young red, aged red and sweet wines, were lyophilised, de-aromatised and reconstituted to equal ethanol concentration and spiked with eight target aroma compounds and human saliva. Aroma release was monitored in real time by using an artificial mouth coupled to a PTR-ToF-MS. Matrix composition had a considerable influence on the temporal aroma release parameters [maximum intensity: I-max and area under the curve (AUC)] in the first 30 s of aroma monitoring. In general, red wines showed the highest aroma release, sweet wines the lowest. Conclusions: The physicochemical characteristics of the aroma compounds and the wine matrix composition play a significant role on the temporal aroma release from wines. The formation of complexes between wine polyphenols and saliva glycoproteins appears to change wine polarity favoring the release of hydrophobic aroma compounds. Significance of the Study: This study has highlighted the importance of considering the wine non-volatile composition as a necessary parameter to understand wine aroma perception during the dynamics of wine intake.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据