Active volatiles of cabernet sauvignon wine from Changli County

doi:10.4236/health.2009.13029

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Vol.1, No.3, 176-182 (2009)

doi:10.4236/health.2009.13028

SciRes

Health

Active volatiles of cabernet sauvignon wine from Changli

County

Yong-Sheng Tao, Hua Li*

College of Enology, Northwest A & F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China; Corresponding author: lihuawine@nwsuaf.edu.cn

Received 6 September 2009; revised 27 September 2009; accepted 28 September 2009.

ABSTRACT

This study investigated the contribution of vola-

tile compounds to the overall aroma of Cabernet

Sauvignon wines from Changli County (China).

Wine samples were collected from vintages from

2000 to 2005. Volatile compounds were ex-

tracted by PDMS solid-phase micro-extraction fi-

bers and identified by Gas Chromatography-Ma-

ss Spectrometry (GC-MS). A total of 65 volatile

compounds were identified and quantified, in-

cluding higher alcohols, ethyl and acetate esters,

and fatty acids. According to their odor active

values (OA-Vs), 21 volatile compounds were con-

sidered to be the powerful impact odorants of

Cabernet Sauvignon wines from Changli. Odor

descriptions of impact volatiles suggested Cab-

ernet Sauvignon red wines from Changli County

as having a complex aroma, which included not

only pleasant floral and fruity odors, but also

cheese, clove flavors, and grassy and smoky

aromas.

Keywords: Cabernet Sauvignon; Red wine; Aroma

compounds; OAV; GC-MS

1. INTRODUCTION

Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Ger-

nischet are known as “the Three Pearls” of wine grapes in

China, often used by Chinese wineries to produce pre-

mium quality red wines. In contrast to Cabernet Franc and

Cabernet Gernischet, Cabernet Sauvignon can be found in

almost all wine production districts and has the largest

growing area in China. Changli County, a region of North

China, has become a famous wine producing district as

one of the four districts of Wine Denomination of Origin

in China, and the winemaking sector is the principal

economy of the county. In Changli County, the main red

grape variety used in wine production is Cabernet Sau-

vignon. The growing area of Cabernet Sauvignon is 2400

Ha and accounts for 72% of the total grape planting areas.

Therefore, it is important to understand the characters of

Cabernet Sauvignon red wine made from Changli.

Wine aroma is an important aspect of wine quality. In a

recent consumer study, the flavor of wine was found to be

one of the attributes most important to consumers when

buying wine. Volatile compounds influence the organo-

leptic characteristics of wines, particularly the aromatic

characteristics, and the aroma constituents of different

grapes and wines have been extensively studied in the last

few years. In the order of 1000 volatile compounds, such

as alcohols, esters, organic acids, phenols, thiols, mono-

terpenes and norisoprenoids have been found in wines,

only several tens of which can be impact odorants. Vola-

tile compounds found in wines can reflect the influence of

variety, climate and soil, etc. Therefore, these compounds

play a decisive role in wine quality and regional charac-

teristics [1-3]. Since the contribution of volatile com-

pounds to the final aroma depends on whether the con-

centration in the wine is above the perception threshold,

OAV (odor activity value) was introduced to determine

impact odorants [4,5]. OAV calculation depends both on

measuring concentration and on odor threshold in the

same matrix. Only those odorants with OAV >1 can be

perceived.

Some studies have indicated that the young red wines

of Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot and Grenache have simi-

lar aromatic characteristics [6]. The most active odorants

of these three varietal young red wines suggested by

aroma extract dilution analysis (AEDA) were isopentyl

and β-phenylethyl alcohols, the ethyl esters of butyric,

isobutyric, 2-methyl butyric and hexanoic acids, γ-nona-

lactone and eugenol. Data showed that differences be-

tween these varieties are quantitative rather than qualita-

tive [7,8]. In past decades, the unique characteristics of

Chinese wine began to attract notice with the rapid de-

velopment of wine production in China. However, sen-

sory data for Chinese wine are scarce, especially for

wines with denomination of origin. A study of aromatic

compounds of the Cabernet Sauvignon red wine Sha-

cheng (China) showed that ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexa-

noate and isopentyl acetate jointly contributed to more

than 97% of the global aroma according to OAVs [9].

Y. S. Tao et al. / Natural Science 1 (2009) 176-182

177

However, this result may be misleading; further studies

are necessary to understand the nature of aromatic com-

pounds found in premium Chinese wine.

Quantitative assessment of volatile compounds in win-

es has met with some difficulty, mainly due to their com-

plexity and large concentration variations from 1 ng/L to

several g/L. Therefore, sample preparation essentially

consists of extraction and concentration of the compou-

nds of interest. In this study, volatile compounds were

extracted by solid-phase micro-extraction and detected by

GC-MS, which has been published [10]. This work re-

ported the results of the first study profiling of the major

volatile compounds and the impact odorants in Cabernet

Sauvignon wines from the Changli County region of

China.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Wines

Changli Cabernet Sauvignon wines from vintages be-

tween 2000 and 2005 (Each year has two samples which

were supplied by Huaxia Winemaking Company and

Yueqiannian Winemaking Company respectively, Chan-

gli County.) were used to analyze the composition of

volatile compounds. Wine samples were collected six

months after winemaking and then stored at 5-10 ℃

before analysis.

Wine making: Sound grapes of Cabernet Sauvignon

were obtained from the vineyard. Grapes were de-

stemmed and crushed on a commercial grape destem-

mer-crusher, the output of which was pumped to stain-

less steel tanks. The must was treated with sulfur dioxide

(45 mg/L) and soaked for approximately 24 h. Alcohol

fermentation was going on at 25-30℃. After fermenta-

tion, the wines were racked and subjected to malo-lactic

fermentation. The wines were then racked and sulfur

dioxide (75mg/L) was added. The wines were stored at

15℃ in stainless-steel tanks. Racking and stabilizing

processes were carried out prior to analysis.

Reducing sugars, density, ethanol, extract, titratable

acidity, pH, volatile acidity, total and free SO2 were ana-

lyzed with the methods provided by the Office Interna-

tional de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV, 1990) [11].

2.2. Reagents

All reagents used were analytical grade. Absolute ethanol,

tartaric acid, and sodium chloride were purchased from

Xi’an chemical factory (Xi’an, China). Water was obtained

from a Milli-Q purification system (Millipore). Solvents

did not require additional distillation. 32 pure reference

compounds were from Sigma–Aldrich (China sector):

ethyl acetate, ethyl butyrate, 1-propanol, 2-methyl thio-

phene, 2-methyl-1-propanol, isopentyl acetate, 1-butanol,

2,5-dimethyl-tetrahydro-furan, isopentyl alcohol, ethyl

hexanoate, ethenyl benzene, ethyl lactate, 1-hexanol, 3-

octanol, ethyl octanoate, furfural, decanal, cis-geraniol, β-

ionone, linalool, β-damascenone, ethyl decanoate, phe-

nethyl acetate, 1-decanol, hexanoic acid, benzyl alcohol, 2-

phenyl-ethanol, ethyl dodecanoate, ethyl hexadecanoate,

octanoic acid, decanoic acid, and p-ethyl-phenol.

2.3. Standard Solutions

Exact volumes of the standard chemical compounds were

dissolved in synthetic wines to prepare the calibration

data. These standard compounds were dissolved in syn-

thetic wines at concentrations three orders of magnitude

higher than typically found in wines. For quantification,

five-point calibration curves were prepared for each

compound using the method described by Ferreira et al.

(2000) [8]. The final alcohol content of the synthetic wine

was 11% (v/v). The synthetic wine had 6 g/L of tartaric

acid and its pH was 3.3–3.4 adjusted with 1M NaOH

(synthetic wine matrix). Octan-3-ol was employed as an

internal standard because it was not the typical volatile

compound in wine and it had a perfect ion peak shape and

peak place in the TIC. Exact volumes of octan-3-ol were

dissolved in absolute ethanol. All these solutions were

stored at 4 ℃ in darkness [1,12].

2.4. Solid Phase Micro-Extraction (SPME)

Sampling Conditions

SPME was performed following the methods described

previously [13]. Both wine samples and model solutions

were analyzed in 15-ml glass vials, filled with 10 ml of

each sample and 2 g NaCl. For SPME analyses, the vials

were dipped in a thermostatic water bath. A magnetic

stirring bar was placed in the vial to agitate the sample.

PDMS (100 µm Polydimethylsiloxane) was used as the

solid-phase fiber for micro-extraction. The vial was equi-

librated at 40℃ for 10 min, and the power magnetic

stirrer was then added. SPME was performed at 40℃ for

30 min, and was immediately followed by the desorption

of the analytes into the gas chromatograph injector. The

solid-phase fiber remained into the injector for about 3

min.

2.5. GC–MS Analysis

GC–MS apparatus: TRACE DSQ (Thermo-Finnigan,

USA). Analytical column: DB-Wax capillary column

(30m×0.32mm i.d., 0.25 µm film thickness), (J&W,

Folsom, USA). Carrier: He at 1ml/min. The temperature

program used was 40 ℃ for 3 min, raised to 160 ℃ at 4

℃/min, then raised to 230℃ at 7 ℃/min for 8 min. The

transfer line temperature was 230℃, and the injection

temperature was 250 ℃. Mass spectra were recorded in

electron impact (EI) ionization mode. Mass spectrometry:

Y. S. Tao et al. / Natural Science 1 (2009) 176-182

178

Table 1. General composition of cabernet sauvignon must and

wine.

Ranges

Must composition

Titratable aciditya(g/L) 9.3-9.7

pH 3.2-3.4

Reducing sugars (g/L) 191-200

Wine composition

Density (20℃) 0.991-0.994

Ethanol (%, v/v) 10.4-12.1

Reducing sugars (g/L) 0.78-1.82

Extract (g/L) 21-25

Titratable aciditya (g/L) 3.6-4.5

pH 3.3-3.6

Volatile acidity

(g/L) 0.46-0.71

Free SO2 (mg/L) 11-19

Total SO2 (mg/L) 90-121

(a) As tartaric acid. (b) As acetic acid.

mass range 33-450 amu, scanned at 1 s intervals. The ion

source temperature was 230℃.

2.6. Qualitative Analysis and Quantification

Identification of volatile compound was achieved by

comparing mass spectra obtained from the sample with

those from pure standards injected in the same conditions,

and by comparing the Kov’ats index or the mass spectra

found in the NIST2.0 MS library Database or found in the

literature.

An internal standard quantification method using oc-

tan-3-ol was employed. Quantitative data of the identified

compounds were obtained by interpolation of the relative

areas versus the internal standard area using calibration

graphs built for pure reference compounds. The concen-

tration of volatile compounds, for which there was no

pure reference, was obtained by using the same calibra-

tion graphs as the compounds with the most similar

chemical structure according to the formula and chemical

character [3,14].

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Those general compositions of sample wines were dis-

played in Table 1. There is no significant difference

among these samples.

Volatile compounds found in Cabernet Sauvignon red

wines from Changli County detected by SPME-GC-MS

are shown in Table 2. There are 65 aroma compounds and

their concentrations vary from 0.5μg/L to 2.23 g/L. The

majority of the compounds were higher alcohols, esters,

and fatty acids. Other compounds identified were ter-

penes, norisoprenoids, volatile phenols and furans. The

OAV of each compound was obtained using concentra-

tion divided by odor threshold. Twenty-one compounds

had OAV values greater than one. Impact odorants of the

Chardonnay white wine from Changli had previously

been identified using the same method. Thirteen of the 41

volatile compounds detected had aroma activity and

contributed to the pleasant fruity and floral aroma of the

Chardonnay wine [14]. The active aroma compounds

identified in that study were approximately half of the

total volatiles detected in Cabernet Sauvignon red wines

identified in this study, indicating the aroma of the red

wine may be more complex.

3.1. Esters

Esters found in wine include acetates, ethyl esters and

other esters of fusels and fatty acids. In the sample wines,

21 esters were identified with concentrations ranging

from 62 to 390 mg/L. Contents of esters accounted for

about 20-30% of the total aroma compounds. Five ace-

tates, 13 ethyl esters and three others were found in this

chemical group. In acetates, the OAVs of ethyl acetate

and isopentyl acetate were higher than one. Ethyl acetate

may contribute a pleasant, fruity fragrance to the general

wine aroma at concentrations lower than 150 mg/L.

However, at higher concentrations, ethyl acetate can

contribute a sour-vinegar odor [21]. Isopentyl acetate

contributes a fresh fruity odor, reminiscent of banana

flavors.

Among 13 ethyl esters, ethyl butyrate, ethyl isovaler-

ate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl lactate and ethyl octanoate

have OAVs over one. Ethyl butyrate has the favor of

sour fruit, strawberry and sweet fruit. Ethyl isovalerate

smells of banana and sweet fruit. Ethyl hexanoate has the

flavor of green apple, fruit, strawberry and anise. Ethyl

octanoate gives pineapple, pear and floral aromas. Ethyl

lactate contributes lactic and raspberry odors. These ac-

tive ethyl esters are responsible for the full-bodied fruity

and floral aroma of wine. Results also confirmed most of

the wines rich in these compounds showed elevated lev-

els of higher alcohol acetates, thus adding to the sweet

and soapy odors, and pleasant floral and fruity aroma.

Esters of fusel and fatty acids had lower concentra-

tions, but their odor thresholds were also lower. In this

study, isopentyl lactate had OAVs over one, and influ-

ences the overall aroma of the wine. Isopentyl lactate

contributes cream and nut flavors. This compound is

produced by malo-lactic fermentation [2]; therefore ma-

lo-lactic fermentation may be occurring in the wine as

well.

3.2. Higher Alcohols

Higher major alcohols were the most abundant volatiles

in all the studied wines. They are formed mainly during

the first two stages of alcoholic fermentation [3,21]. In

our work, 25 higher alcohols were identified and quanti

fied, forming the largest group of volatile compounds.

Their concentrations varied from 248 to 886 mg/L and

Y. S. Tao et al. / Natural Science 1 (2009) 176-182

179

Table 2. Concentrations and OAVs of volatile compounds in cabernet sauvignon wines from Changli County.

Concentration(µg /L)

NO. RT Compounds Max. Min. Mean

Odor thresholda

(µg/L) OAVbOdor description

1 3.26 ethyl acetate 90000 11700426007500 [1] >1 fruity, sweet

2 5.60 isobutyl acetate 180 70 80 1600[15] 0.1 strawberry, fruity, flowery

3 6.15 ethyl butyrate 1900 500 800 20 [16] >1 sour fruit, strawberry, fruity

4 6.54 1-propanol 20400 5800 1030050000 [2] 0.1-0.5fresh, alcohol

5 6.96 ethyl isovalerate 80 20 30 3[8] >1 banana, sweet fruity

6 8.14 isobutyl alcohol 105200 310005290040000 [16] >1 fusel, alcohol

7 8.36 isopentyl acetate 2800 200 600 30 [16] >1 fresh, banana

8 9.66 1-butanol 4700 1600 2800 150000 [16] <0.1 medicinal, alcohol

9 11.59 isopentyl alcohol 567500 16440032810030000 [16] >1 alcohol, harsh, bitter

10 12.03 ethyl hexanoate 1300 400 700 14 [16] >1 green apple, fruity, strawberry, anise

11 12.83 3-methyl-3-buten-1-ol 300 100 200 600[*] 0.1-0.5light fruity, sweet fruity[8]

12 12.94 1-pentyl alcohol 400 200 300 80000[2] <0.1 alcohol

13 13.34 hexyl acetate 20 10 10 1500 [16] <0.1 pleasant fruity, pear

14 13.84 2-O-2-phenylethyl formate 2600 60 600 n.d.

15 14.99 isohexyl alcohol 600 200 400 5000 [*] 0.5 tropical fruity, light fruity

16 15.20 2-heptanol 40 10 20 200-300[*] 0.1-0.5lemon, orange, copper[8]

17 15.40 3-methyl-1-pentanol 900 200 500 500[*] 1 soil, mushroom

18 15.80 ethyl lactate 237400 4330010010014 000 [2] >1 lactic, raspberry

19 1392 1-hexanol 28400 11400 173008000 [16] >1 green, grass

20 16.56 (E)-3-hexen-1-ol 2100 600 1000 400[17] >1 Green grass, herb[8]

21 16.95 3-ethoxy-1-propanol 600 100 70 100[20] 0.5-1

22 17.20 (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol 1500 700 900 400[17] >1 Green grass, herb[8]

23 17.93 (E)-2-hexen-1-ol 800 150 300 400[17] 0.5-1 Green grass, herb[8]

24 18.23 (Z)-2-hexen-1-ol 370 100 110 400[17] 0.1-0.5Green grass, herb[8]

25 18.43

ethyl 2-hydroxy

-3-meth

l but

rate 50 10 30 1000[19] <0.1 Pineapple, strawberry, tea, honey[8]

26 18.69 ethyl octanoate 740 130 400 5 [16] >1 pineapple, pear, floral

27 19.51 1-heptanol 260 40 100 200-300[*] 0.1-0.5lemon, orange, copper[8]

28 19.87 linalool oxide 50 10 10 500[19] <0.1 rose, wood [8]

29 20.58 2-ethyl hexanol 80 30 40 8000[*] <0.1 mushroom, sweet fruity[8]

30 21.17 isooctanol 400 60 150 900[2] 0.1-0.5fatty, orange, rose

31 21.39 β-ionone 9 1 4 0.09[17] >1 raspberry, violet, sweet fruity

32 21.48

α-ionone 6 2 3 0.09[17] >1 raspberry, violet, sweet fruity

33 22.14

ethyl 2-hydroxy

-4-meth

l valerate 80 10 40 n.d.

34 22.30 linalool 130 10 40 25[15] >1 muscat, flowery, fruity

35 22.67 1-octanol 230 70 140 900[2] 0.5-0.1flesh orange, rose, sweet herb

Y. S. Tao et al. / Natural Science 1 (2009) 176-182

180

Concentration(µg /L)

NO. RT Compounds Max. Min. Mean

Odor thresholda

(µg/L) OAVbOdor description

36 22.89 isopentyl lactate 740 170 300 200[*] >1 cream, nut[4]

37 23.08 isobutyric acid 200 40 60 8100[14] <0.1 phenol, chemical, fatty

38 23.25 2,3-butanediol 8600 800 3200 120000 [2,18] <0.1 butter, creamy

39 23.83 4-terpineol 110 10 20 110-400[13] 0.1-0.5light aroma, wood, soil[8]

40 24.29 2(3H)-dihydro-furanone 900 100 300 50000[15] <0.1 milk, cream[8]

41 24.91 ethyl decanoate 100 4 30 200 [20] 0.1-0.5fruity, fatty, pleasant

42 25.49 isopentyl octanoate 240 40 90 125[2] 0.5-1 sweet, light fruity, cheese, cream

43 25.67 1-nonanol 110 30 40 600[*] 0.1-0.5apple, banana, raspberry, strawberry,

rose

[

]

44 25.98 diethyl succinate 52800 4800 23100200000 [16] 0.1-0.5light fruity

45 26.40 ethyl 9-decenoate 5 1 1 100[*] <0.1 light fruity, fatty[8]

46 26.62 β- terpineol 200 20 80 110-400[13] 0.1-0.5wood, soil [8]

47 27.10 3-methoil-1-propanol 120 60 70 1000[15] 0.1 raw potato, garlic

48 28.53 1-decanol 150 20 60 400 [2] 0.1-0.5orange flowery, special fatty

49 29.71 phenethyl acetate 500 80 170 250 [16] 0.5-1 pleasant, floral

50 29.86 β-damascenone 20 3 7 0.05 [16] >1

bark, canned peach, baked apple, dry

51 30.60 ethyl laurate 40 0 5 1500[*] <0.1 sweet, floral, fruity, cream

52 30.91 hexanoic acid 1700 100 900 420 [16] >1 cheese, rancid

53 31.34 benzyl alcohol 2000 500 900 200000[15] <0.1 almond

54 32.15 2-phenyl-ethanol 140100 308007170014000 [16] >1 flowery, pollen, perfume

55 32.99

5-butyl-dihydro-4-methyl

-2

(

)

-furanone 1350 80 170 67[2] >1 peach, coco

56 33.44 dodecan-1-ol 40 0 10 1000 [2] <0.1 unpleasant in higher concentration,

flower

in low concentration

57 34.48

p-ethyl-2-methoxy phe-

nol 10 0 1 33[16] 0.1 medicine, wood, clove, smoky

58 34.76 [E]-nerolidol 200 10 30 700[*] 0.1-0.5wood, orange, light fruity

59 34.90 ethyl myristate 10 0 1 2000[*] <0.1 sweet fruity, butter, fatty odor[8]

60 35.24 octanoic acid 10000 700 3400 500 [16] >1 rancid, harsh, cheese, fatty acid

61 36.77 eugenol 6 1 1 6[2,17] 0.1-0.5smoky, clove

62 36.94 p-ethyl phenol 24 2 8 440[15] <0.1 phenolic, leather, spicy, almond

63 38.15 ethyl hexadecanoate 24 0 2 1500 [2,18] <0.1 fatty, rancid, fruity, sweet

64 38.59 n-decanoic acid 730 10 140 1000 [16] 0.1-0.5fatty, unpleasant

65 38.94 2,4-di-tert-butyl-phenol 370 60 150 200 [2,17] 0.5-1 phenolic

(a) The reference from which the odor threshold and odor description have been taken is given in parentheses. [1] Guth (1997b). The matrix was a 10%

water/ethanol solution; [2] and [19] Li (2006) and Sun et al. (2004). The matrix was a 12% ethanol/water mixture containing 5 g/L tartaric acid at pH

3.2. [8,15-18] Ferreira et al. (2000), Aznar et al. (2003), Cullere et al. (2004), Gomez et al. (2007) and Lopez et al. (2004). The matrix was an 11%

water/ethanol solution containing 7 g/l glycerol and 5 g/l tartaric acid, with the pH adjusted to 3.4 with 1 M NaOH; [13] José et al. (2004). The matrix

was a 10% water/ethanol solution containing 5 g/l tartaric acid. [20] Peinado, et al. (2004). The matrix was an 11% water/ethanol solution containing

5 g/l tartaric acid, with the pH adjusted to 3.4 with 1 M NaOH; [*] Calculated in the Laboratory of Wine Olfactometry, College of Enology, North-

west A & F University, China. Orthonasal thresholds were calculated in a 12% ethanol/water mixture containing 5 g/L tartaric acid at pH 3.2. n.d., not

detected.

(b) Odor activity value calculated by dividing concentration by the odor threshold value of the compound.

Y. S. Tao et al. / Natural Science 1 (2009) 176-182

181

they made up of about 75% of the total aromatic com-

pounds. Aromatic compounds with OAVs higher than

one were isobutyl alcohol, isopentyl alcohol, 3-methyl-1-

pentyl alcohol, 1-hexanol, (E,Z)-3-hexen-1-ol and 2-

phenyl-ethanol. Isobutyl and isopentyl alcohols have

fusel characters and may give a bitter or harsh sensory

odor when in high concentrations. 3-methyl-1-pentyl al-

cohol has soil and mushroom nuances. 1-hexanol and

hexen-1-ol contribute green grass, herb odor. 2-phenyl-

ethanol gives flowery, pollen, and perfume nuances.

3.3. Fatty Acids

Four fatty acids were detected in the sample wines. Their

concentrations ranged from 0.816 to 12.63 mg/L and

accounted for 0.26-0.98% of the total volatile compounds.

The OAVs of hexanoic and octanoic acids were higher

than one. They contributed cheese and cream flavors in

lower concentrations, while giving a rancid and harsh

odor in higher concentration. Although the presence of

C6–C10 fatty acids is usually related to the occurrence of

negative odors, they are very important for aromatic

equilibrium in wines because they oppose the hydrolysis

of the corresponding esters [22].

3.4. Terpenols

Numerous studies have reported that the terpenoid com-

pounds could be used analytically for varietal charac-

terization. Terpene compounds belong to the secondary

plant constituents, of which biosynthesis begins with

acetyl-coenzyme A (CoA). Terpenes are not changed by

yeast metabolism during fermentation [20]. Five terpenes

were detected in sample wines: linalool, linalool oxide,

4-terpineol, β-terpineol and [E]-nerolidol. Only linalool

had an OAV greater than one and contributed muscat,

flowery and fruity odors. Because they have overlapping

effects, terpenols may play an important role in contrib-

uting to the overall aroma.

3.5. Norisoprenoids

In this chemical group, α-ionol, β-ionol, and β-damas-

cenone, three norisoprenoids often reported, were all

detected in sample wines, and all had odor activity. The

ionols are responsible for the raspberry, violet and sweet

fruity nuances, while β-damascenone contributes odors of

bark, canned peach, baked apple, and dry plum.

3.6. Volatile Phenols

Some volatile phenols, such as eugenol and guaiacol, may

be the major differences between Cabernet Sauvignon

and other red variety wines [8]. Four phenols were iden-

tified in our study, but all seemed to have no odor con-

tribution. Eugenol and 2,4-di-tert-butyl phenol have

OAVs between 0.5 to 1. Eugenol has smoky and clove

odors. 2,4-di-tert-butyl phenol gives phenols’ chemical

character.

3.7. Others

An AEDA study regarding the odorants of Bordeaux

Cabernet Sauvignon red wines showed that 3-methiol-

1-propanol, furaneol and homofuraneol had high flavor

dilution (FD) factors [6]. In our work, two furans and one

sulfur compound were detected in the sample wines:

2(3H)-dihydrofuran, 5-butyl-dihydro-4-methyl-2(3H)-

furan and 3-methiol-1-propanol. Only 5-butyl-dihydro-

4-methyl-2(3H)-furan had odor activity and smelled of

peach and cocoa.

4. CONCLUSIONS

Aroma compounds in Cabernet Sauvignon dry red wine

from Changli County were evaluated by SPME-GC-MS;

65 volatile compounds were identified and quantified.

Their concentrations ranged from 0.5 μg/L to 2.23 g/L.

Twenty-one volatile compounds were considered to be

the powerful impact odorants of this wine because their

OAVs were more than one. These active volatile com-

pounds include eight esters, seven higher alcohols, two

fatty acids, one terpenols (linalool), α/β-ionol and β-dam-

ascenone, one compound of furan. These compounds

have different sensory characters and give the wine very

complicated aroma, which included not only pleasant

floral and fruity odors, but also cheese, clove flavors, and

grassy and smoky aromas. Taste or olfactory experiments

could be designed to confirm the sensory characteristics

of the wine.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was supported by the China National Science Fund

(30571281). The authors are grateful to the Huaxia Winemaking Com-

pany and the Yueqiannian Winemaking Company (Changli County) for

supplying the samples used in this study.

REFERENCES

[1] H. Guth, (1997) Quantiation and sensory studies of char-

acter impact odorants of different white wine varieties.

Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 45, 3027-3032.

[2] H. Li, (2006) Wine Tasting. Beijing, China: China Science

Press 29-106.

[3] R. Perestrelo, A. Fernandes, F. F. Albuquerque, J. C.

Marques, and J. S. Camara, (2006) Analytical characteriza-

tion of the aroma of Tinta Negra Mole red wine: Identifica-

tion of the main odorants compounds. Analytica Chimica

Acta, 563, 154-164.

[4] H. Li, Y. S.Tao, W. H. Kang, and C. L. Yin, (2006) Wine

aroma analytical investigation progress on GC (Review).

Journal of Food Science and Biotechnology (China), 25,

99-104.

[5] M. Vilanova, and C. Martinez, (2007) First study of deter-

mination of aromatic compounds of red wine from Vitis

vinifera CV, Castanal grown in Galicia (NW Spain). Euro-

Y. S. Tao et al. / Natural Science 1 (2009) 176-182

182

pean Food Research and Technology, 224, 431-436.

[6] Y. Kotseridis and R. Baumes, (2000) Identification of

impact odorants in Bordeaux red grape juice, in the com-

mercial yeast used for its fermentation, and in the pro-

duced wine. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry,

48, 400-406.

[7] R. Lopez, V. Ferreira, P. Hernamdez, and J. F. Cacho,

(1999) Identification of impact odorants of young red

wines made with Merlot, Cabernet Sauvignon and Gren-

ache grape varieties: A comparative study. Journal of the

Science of Food and Agriculture, 79, 1461-1467.

[8] V. Ferreira, R. Lopez, and J. F. Cacho, (2000) Quantitative

determination of the odorants of young red wines from

different grape varieties. Journal of the Science of Food and

Agriculture, 80, 1659-1667.

[9] M. Zhang, Q. Xu, C. Duan, and Y. Wu, (2007) Compara-

tive study of aromatic compounds in young red wines

from Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, and Cabernet

Gernischet varieties in China. Journal of Food Science,

72(5), c248-c252.

[10] Y. S. Tao, H. Li, and H. Wang, (2007) Optimization of wine

aroma analysis by solid-phase microextraction. Journal of

Northwest A & F University: Natural Science Edition,

35(12), 181-185.

[11] O. I. V. (1990) Recueil des methods internationals d’ana-

lyse des vins et des mouts. Paris: Office International de la

Vigne et du Vin.

[12] V. Ferreira, R. Lopez, A. Escudero, and J. F Cacho, (1998)

Quantitative-determination of trace and ultra-trace flavor ac-

tive compounds in red wines through Gas-Chromatographic

Ion-Trap Mass-Spectrometric analysis of micro-extracts,

Journal of Chromatography A, 806, 349-354.

[13] M. O. José, M. A. Isabel, M. P. Óscar, S. M. José, and J. A.

António, (2004) Characterization and differentiation of five

“Vinhos Verdes” grape varieties on the basis of monoterpenic

compounds. Analytica Chimica Acta, 513(1), 269-275.

[14] H. Li , Y. S. Tao, H. Wang, and L. Zhang, (2008) Impact

odorants of Chardonnay dry white wine from Changli

County (China). European Food Research and Technology,

227(1), 287-292.

[15] M. Aznar, R. Lopez, J. Cacho, and V. Ferreira, (2003)

Prediction of aged red wine aroma properties from aroma

chemical composition, Partial least squares regression

models. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 51,

2700-2707.

[16] L. Cullere, A. Escudero, J. Cacho, and V. Ferreira, (2004)

Gas chromatograpgy-Olfactory and chemical qualitative

study of the aroma of six premium quality Spanish aged

red wines. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 52,

1653-1660.

[17] M. J. Gomez, J. F. Cacho, V. Ferreira, I. M. Vicario, and F.

J. Heredia, (2007) Volatile components of Zalema white

wines. Food Chemistry, 100, 1464-1473.

[18] R. Lopez, E. Ezpeleta, I. Sanchez, J. Cacho, and V.

Ferreira, (2004) Analysis of the aroma intensities of vola-

tile compounds released from mild acid hydrolysates of

odorless precursors extracted from Tempranillo and

Grenache grapes using gas chromatography-olfactometry.

Food Chemistry, 88, 95-103.

[19] B. G. Sun and Y. P. Liu, (2004) Food Spice and Flavor

Handbook, China Petroleum Press.

[20] R. A. Peinado, J. Moreno, M. Medina, and J. C. Mauricio,

(2004) Changes in volatile compounds and aromatic series

in sherry wine with high gluconic acid levels subjected to

aging by submerged flor yeast cultures. Biotechnology

Letters, 26(9), 757-762.

[21] M. Gil, J. M. Cabellos, T. Arroyo, and M. Prodanov, (2006)

Characterization of the volatile fraction of young wines

from the Denomination of Origin “Vinos de Madrid”

(Spain). Analytica Chimica Acta, 563, 145–153.

[22] A. Bertrand, (1981) Formation des substances volatiles au

cours de la fermentation alcoolique, Incidence sur la

qualit´e du vin. Colloque Soc. Fr. Microbiol., Reims,

252–267.