Export file:

Format

  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Odor detection threshold (ODT) and odor rejection threshold (ORT) determination of sotolon in Madeira wine: A preliminary study

1 Faculty of Exact Sciences and Engineering, University of Madeira, Campus da Penteada, 9020-105 Funchal, Portugal
2 Institute of Nanostructures, Nanomodelling and Nanofabrication (I3N), University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Special Editions: Consumer sensory perception and quality of food: trends in sensory branding

Madeira is a fortified wine, well renowned worldwide. It is during the aging process that its characteristic bouquet is developed, through the formation of specific aromas. Sotolon (3-hydroxy-4,5-dimethyl-2(5H)-furanone) is frequently pointed out as one of the molecules responsible for the aroma of the finest Madeiras. The present work serves as a preliminary insight on the sensorial impact of this compound in Madeira wine. The odor detection threshold of sotolon in a sweet-type Madeira was obtained by the 3-Alternative Forced Choice method. The estimated threshold value was obtained by 19 non-trained and non-expert panelists, within the spiked range 4–314 µg/L. An odor threshold of 112 µg/L was obtained using a 3-year-old Madeira with 6.3 ± 0.4 µg/L endogenous sotolon. This result is about 6-fold higher than those previously reported for other fortified wines. A Paired Preference test was chosen to determine the concentration at which the panelists would reject the wine spiked with sotolon. Nineteen panelists assessed a series of spiked concentrations ranging from 253–3464 µg/L. Within this range, it is not possible to define the concentration value from which the aroma of sotolon it is no longer pleasant. Thus, an odor rejection threshold could not be obtained. Indeed, the study also suggests that sotolon does not become unpleasant at higher concentrations.
  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

Keywords fortified wine; wine key-aromas; sensory analysis; 3-alternative forced choice; paired preference test

Citation: João M. Gaspar, Vanda Pereira, and José C. Marques. Odor detection threshold (ODT) and odor rejection threshold (ORT) determination of sotolon in Madeira wine: A preliminary study. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2018, 3(3): 172-180. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.3.172

References

  • 1. Pereira V, Albuquerque FM, Silva Ferreira AC, et al. (2011) Evolution of 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and furfural (F) in fortified wines submitted to overheating conditions. Food Res Int 44: 71–76.    
  • 2. Pereira V, Cacho J, Marques JC (2014) Volatile profile of Madeira wines submitted to traditional accelerated ageing. Food Chem 162: 122–134.    
  • 3. Oliveira E Silva H, Guedes De Pinho P, Machado BP, et al. (2008) Impact of forced-aging process on Madeira wine flavor. J Agric Food Chem 56: 11989–11996.    
  • 4. Martin B, Etievant PX, Le Quere JL, et al. (1992) More clues about sensory impact of sotolon in some flor sherry wines. J Agric Food Chem 40: 475–478.    
  • 5. Collin S, Nizet S, Claeys Bouuaert T, et al. (2012) Main odorants in jura flor-sherry wines. Relative contributions of sotolon, abhexon, and theaspirane-derived compounds. J Agric Food Chem 60: 380–387.
  • 6. Silva Ferreira AC, Barbe JC, Bertrand A (2003) 3-hydroxy-4,5-dimethyl-2(5H)-furanone: A key odorant of the typical aroma of oxidative aged Port wine. J Agric Food Chem 51: 4356–4363.    
  • 7. Cutzach I, Chatonnet P, Dubourdieu D (1998) Rôle du sotolon dans l'arôme des vins doux naturels. Influence des conditions d'élevage et de vieillissement. J Int des Sci la Vigne du Vin 32: 223–233.
  • 8. Silva Ferreira AC, Hogg T, Guedes De Pinho P (2003) Identification of key odorants related to the typical aroma of oxidation-spoiled white wines. J Agric Food Chem 51: 1377–1381.    
  • 9. Câmara JS, Marques JC, Alves MA, et al. (2004) 3-hydroxy-4,5-dimethyl-2(5H)-furanone levels in fortified Madeira wines: Relationship to sugar content. J Agric Food Chem 52: 6765–6769.    
  • 10. ISO, (2008) ISO 5492:2008. Sensory analysis–Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
  • 11. Lawless HT, Heimann H (2010) Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, 2 Eds., New York: Springer, 125–145.
  • 12. Brown DGW, Clapperton JF, MeilGaard MC, et al. (1978) Flavor thresholds of added substances. J Am Soc Brew Chem 36: 73–80.
  • 13. Lundahl DS, Lukes BK, McDaniel MR, et al. (1986) A semi-ascending paired difference method for determining sensory thresholds of added substances to background media. J Sens Stud 1: 291–306.    
  • 14. ASTM International, (2004) Standard practice E679-04. Standard practice for determination of odor and taste thresholds by a forced-choice ascending concentration series method of limits. West Conshohocken, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials.
  • 15. Tempere S, Cuzange E, Malak J, et al. (2011) The training level of experts influences their detection thresholds for key wine compounds. Chemosens Percept 4: 99–115.    
  • 16. Lawless HT (2010) A simple alternative analysis for threshold data determined by ascending forced-choice methods of limits. J Sens Stud 25: 332–346.    
  • 17. Prescott J, Norris L, Kunst M, et al. (2005) Estimating a 'consumer rejection threshold' for cork taint in white wine. Food Qual Prefer 16: 345–349.    
  • 18. ISO, (2005) ISO 5495:2005. Sensory analysis–Methodology–Paired comparison test. Geneva, Switzerland: Interational Organization for Standardization, 2005.
  • 19. ISO, (2005) ISO 6658:2005. Sensory analysis–Methodology–General guidance. Geneva, Switzerland: Interational Organization for Standardization, 2005.
  • 20. Roessler EB, Pangborn RM, Sidel JL, et al. (1978) Expanded statistical tables for estimating significance in paired-preference, paired-difference, duo-trio and triangle tests. J Food Sci 43: 940–943.    
  • 21. Ross CF, Zwink AC, Castro L, et al. (2014) Odour detection threshold and consumer rejection of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene in 1-year-old Riesling wines. Aust J Grape Wine Res 20: 335–339.    
  • 22. Cliff M, Bansal M, Stanich K, et al. (2011) Comparison of new and existing threshold methods for evaluating sulfur compounds in different base wines. J Sens Stud 26: 184–196.    
  • 23. Perry D, Hayes J (2016) Effects of matrix composition on detection threshold estimates for methyl anthranilate and 2-aminoacetophenone. Foods 5: 35–35.    
  • 24. Peng M, Jaeger SR, Hautus MJ (2012) Determining odour detection thresholds: Incorporating a method-independent definition into the implementation of ASTM E679. Food Qual Prefer 25: 95–104.    

 

Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

© 2018 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved