Vol.1, No.3, 176-182 (2009)
Copyright © 2009 Openly accessible at http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/
Active volatiles of cabernet sauvignon wine from Changli
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.
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
Keywords: Cabernet Sauvignon; Red wine; Aroma
compounds; OAV; GC-MS
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
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
SciRes Copyright © 2009 Openly accessible at http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/
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
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
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
SciRes Copyright © 2009 http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/Openly accessible at
Table 1. General composition of cabernet sauvignon must and
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
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].
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
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
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
SciRes Copyright © 2009 Openly accessible at http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/
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
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
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
SciRes Copyright © 2009 http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/Openly accessible at
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,
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
-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,
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
(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
SciRes Copyright © 2009 Openly accessible at http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/
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
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.
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.
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.
[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,
[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
SciRes Copyright © 2009 http://www.scirp.org/journal/HEALTH/Openly accessible at
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,
[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,
[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,