
The study aimed to evaluate the impact of the early addition of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae HD A54 strain before pressing during winemaking. This approach aimed to reduce the dissolved oxygen in the grape must, thus preserving the wine characteristics. Two different treatments were settled: Trial A, where sulphite or other substances were not added during pressing; and Trial B, where a S. cerevisiae strain was added at the pressing stage. The chemical parameters were determined through an enzymatic analyzer, which indicated a faster fructose consumption compared to the glucose in Trial A. The plate counts were measured to monitor the microbial groups during vinification. Both treatments showed regular trends with respect to the Saccharomyces population. Trial B exhibited a higher oxygen consumption compared to the control trial, especially in the early stages of winemaking. This was determined through a dissolved O2 analysis. Furthermore, Trial B had lower absorbance values at the post-pressing and pre-clarification stages. Both the dissolved oxygen and the absorbance analyses underscored the positive impact of the S. cerevisiae HD A54 strain in protecting against oxidative processes in the grape musts at the pre-fermentative stage. The analysis of volatile organic compounds detected 30 different compounds, including alcohols and esters. Trial B had higher alcohol levels, particularly hydroxyethylbenzene (135.31 mg/L vs. 44.23 mg/L in Trial A). Trial A had almost a four times higher ethyl acetate concentration than Trial B, which is an indicator of oxidation. Interestingly, Trial B showed higher concentrations of 3-methyl-butyl acetate and 2-phenylethyl acetate, which are molecules that correspond to fruity (banana) and floreal (rose) aromas, respectively. Regarding the sensory analysis, Trial B received better scores for the fruity and floral attributes, as well as the overall wine quality.
Citation: Enrico Viola, Vincenzo Naselli, Rosario Prestianni, Antonino Pirrone, Antonella Porrello, Filippo Amato, Riccardo Savastano, Antonella Maggio, Micaela Carusi, Venera Seminerio, Valentina Craparo, Azzurra Vella, Davide Alongi, Luca Settanni, Giuseppe Notarbartolo, Nicola Francesca, Antonio Alfonzo. The impact of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae bio-protective strain during cold static clarification on Catarratto wine[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(1): 40-58. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025003
[1] | Maria Parapouli, Anastasios Vasileiadis, Amalia-Sofia Afendra, Efstathios Hatziloukas . Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its industrial applications. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(1): 1-31. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020001 |
[2] | Kholoud Baraka, Rania Abozahra, Maged Wasfy Helmy, Nada Salah El Dine El Meniawy, Sarah M Abdelhamid . Investigation of the protective and therapeutic effects of Lactobacillus casei and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in a breast cancer mouse model. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(2): 193-207. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022016 |
[3] | Amira ElBaradei, Dalia Ali Maharem, Ola Kader, Mustafa Kareem Ghareeb, Iman S. Naga . Fecal carriage of ESBL-producing Escherichia coli in Egyptian patients admitted to the Medical Research Institute hospital, Alexandria University. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(4): 422-433. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020025 |
[4] | Saboura Haghighi, Hamid Reza Goli . High prevalence of blaVEB, blaGES and blaPER genes in beta-lactam resistant clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(2): 153-166. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022013 |
[5] | Farzad Rahmati . Characterization of Lactobacillus, Bacillus and Saccharomyces isolated from Iranian traditional dairy products for potential sources of starter cultures. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(4): 815-825. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.815 |
[6] | Alberto Bernacchi, Giulia Semenzato, Manuel di Mascolo, Sara Amata, Angela Bechini, Fabiola Berti, Carmela Calonico, Valentina Catania, Giovanni Emiliani, Antonia Esposito, Claudia Greco, Stefano Mocali, Nadia Mucci, Anna Padula, Antonio Palumbo Piccionello, Battogtokh Nasanbat, Gantulga Davaakhuu, Munkhtsetseg Bazarragchaa, Francesco Riga, Claudio Augugliaro, Anna Maria Puglia, Marco Zaccaroni, Fani Renato . Antibacterial activity of Arthrobacter strains isolated from Great Gobi A Strictly Protected Area, Mongolia. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 161-186. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024009 |
[7] | Alaa Fathalla, Amal Abd el-mageed . Salt tolerance enhancement Of wheat (Triticum Asativium L) genotypes by selected plant growth promoting bacteria. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 250-271. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020016 |
[8] | Sabrine Balti, Yassine Mabrouk, Mouna Souihi, Imen Hemissi, Ismail Amri, Ethan Humm, Noor Khan, Ann M. Hirsch . Combined inoculation of rhizobacteria with Mesorhizobium promotes growth, nutrient contents, and protects chickpea against Fusarium redolens. AIMS Microbiology, 2025, 11(2): 318-337. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2025015 |
[9] | Mohamed H. El-Sayed, Doaa A. Elsayed, Abd El-Rahman F. Gomaa . Nocardiopsis synnemataformans NBRM9, an extremophilic actinomycete producing extremozyme cellulase, using lignocellulosic agro-wastes and its biotechnological applications. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 187-219. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024010 |
[10] | Helene Nalini Chinivasagam, Wiyada Estella, Damien Finn, David G. Mayer, Hugh Rodrigues, Ibrahim Diallo . Broiler farming practices using new or re-used bedding, inclusive of free-range, have no impact on Campylobacter levels, species diversity, Campylobacter community profiles and Campylobacter bacteriophages. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 12-40. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024002 |
The study aimed to evaluate the impact of the early addition of a Saccharomyces cerevisiae HD A54 strain before pressing during winemaking. This approach aimed to reduce the dissolved oxygen in the grape must, thus preserving the wine characteristics. Two different treatments were settled: Trial A, where sulphite or other substances were not added during pressing; and Trial B, where a S. cerevisiae strain was added at the pressing stage. The chemical parameters were determined through an enzymatic analyzer, which indicated a faster fructose consumption compared to the glucose in Trial A. The plate counts were measured to monitor the microbial groups during vinification. Both treatments showed regular trends with respect to the Saccharomyces population. Trial B exhibited a higher oxygen consumption compared to the control trial, especially in the early stages of winemaking. This was determined through a dissolved O2 analysis. Furthermore, Trial B had lower absorbance values at the post-pressing and pre-clarification stages. Both the dissolved oxygen and the absorbance analyses underscored the positive impact of the S. cerevisiae HD A54 strain in protecting against oxidative processes in the grape musts at the pre-fermentative stage. The analysis of volatile organic compounds detected 30 different compounds, including alcohols and esters. Trial B had higher alcohol levels, particularly hydroxyethylbenzene (135.31 mg/L vs. 44.23 mg/L in Trial A). Trial A had almost a four times higher ethyl acetate concentration than Trial B, which is an indicator of oxidation. Interestingly, Trial B showed higher concentrations of 3-methyl-butyl acetate and 2-phenylethyl acetate, which are molecules that correspond to fruity (banana) and floreal (rose) aromas, respectively. Regarding the sensory analysis, Trial B received better scores for the fruity and floral attributes, as well as the overall wine quality.
Over the past few decades, the winemaking industry has placed a significant reliance on sulphur dioxide (SO2) as a preservative due to the numerous critical functions it performs [1]. In the context of winemaking, SO2 is an effective agent to combat acetic acid bacteria, lactic acid bacteria, and yeasts, thus maintaining the quality of the wine. Additionally, it acts as a potent antioxidant, thereby mitigating the effects of dissolved oxygen and inhibiting oxidising enzymes. Grape oxidases (tyrosinase and laccase), which are responsible for phenol oxidation and aroma development, are neutralised by SO2 [2]. This compound is a broad-spectrum antimicrobial agent that prevents off-flavor formation by inhibiting the indigenous microbiota that could otherwise lead to uncontrolled spontaneous fermentation [3]. SO2 enhances the wine color stability during ageing and facilitates the release of phenolic compounds from the grape skin during maceration [4]. Due to its affordability and ability to maintain wine characteristics even after bottling, SO2 is widely used in winemaking globally [5]–[8]. However, there are concerns about excessive SO2 levels. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended the use of alternative methods to either reduce or eliminate the consumption of sulphites, particularly in light of the potential negative effects on consumer health, especially for those with allergies or sensitivities [2]. Additionally, the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) has been gradually lowering the maximum recommended dosage for distributed wines [9]. Furthermore, the European Community has mandated that wine containing SO2 must include this information on labels [10]. Moreover, global wine consumers have demonstrated a growing inclination towards products that align with the natural definition, which is characterized by a minimal use of preservatives and chemicals. The objective is to espouse ecologically responsible wine-growing and oenological practices that prioritize consumer health [11],[12].
In order to control the microbial populations in the context of winemaking, a number of alternative strategies have been explored, including the use of ultraviolet radiation, pulsed electric fields (PEF), high pressure, ultrasound, and high hydrostatic pressure treatments [13],[14]. Furthermore, researchers have investigated the potential of utilizing substances such as chitosan, lysozyme, dimethyl dicarbonate, and sorbic acid to address this challenge [6]. In addition to the aforementioned physical and chemical methods, there is a biological control alternative, known as bio-protection. The strategy is comprised of a series of techniques designed to prevent microbial contamination and to achieve the same results typically achieved through the use of SO2. In particular, various microbial species, including yeasts (both Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces) and bacteria, are introduced at different stages of the food production process, either before, during, or after the process [15]. These microorganisms act as bio-protectors by employing a range of mechanisms, comprising both passive and active strategies. Passive strategies include the deprivation of resources and the establishment of dominance within a colonized space [16]–[18]. Microorganisms deploy tactics to restrict the competitors' access to resources, including nutrients and oxygen. Furthermore, they secure dominance in terms of the space they occupy. Indeed, the nutrients, oxygen, and space are the main parameters that affect the population dynamics [19]–[22]. Conversely, active strategies include the production of several molecules with various effects, such as antimicrobial compounds [15]. Notably, to date, no studies have evaluated the effect of inoculating a low concentration of Saccharomyces cerevisiae before the pressing stage to enhance the defense against oxygen-related issues.
The experimental plan is reported in Figure 1, and foresaw to evaluate the effect on oxygen consumption, organoleptic properties, and volatile compounds using Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains during the white vinification process. The Catarratto variety (Vitis vinifera L.) of grapes from a vineyard located in San Giuseppe Jato, (37°59′20′′ N; 13°11′34′′ E, Palermo, Sicily, Italy) were processed at a laboratory scale in the Department of Agricultural, Food and Forest Sciences (SAAF) at University of Palermo. Immediately after harvesting, the grapes were destemmed, crushed, and pressed without the addition of any coadjuvant (Trial A). In the second trial (B), 5 g/hL of the S. cerevisiae HD A54 strain was added at the pressing stage. The strain was used in its active dry yeast (ADY) form, and was rehydrated following the manufacturer's protocol. Clarification was carried out and lasted 24 h at 8 °C. The following products were used for clarification: Clarification Hzym® Extractive FCE G (2 g/hL; HTS Enologia, Marsala, Italy) and Hveg® Vegepure juice (20 g/hL; HTS Enologia, Marsala, Italy). SO2 was not added in “A” trial, nor in trial “B” before clarification. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae HD A54 strain, provided by HTS Enologia (Marsala, Italy), was used as a starter to carry out alcoholic fermentation, which was carried out at 14 °C. Prior to yeast inoculum, each trial was supplemented with 20 g/hL of Hnutrix® B-Starter simplex (HTS Enologia, Marsala, Italy), which is a yeast partial autolisate useful as a starting nutrient for ADY. Di-ammonium phosphate (DAP; 20 g/L; Chimica Noto s.r.l., Partinico, Italy) was added during alcoholic fermentation at 4% (v/v) of ethanol; during the last phase of alcoholic fermentation, 10 g/hL of Hnutrix® B-Energia (HTS Enologia, Marsala, Italy), which is a formulation of organic nitrogen and micronutrients, was added in order to avoid nutrient starvation during alcoholic fermentation. At the end of alcoholic fermentation, the wines were separated from the lees and transferred into a clean glass carboy; lastly, 5 g/hL of Hvin®UP Fresh (HTS Enologia, Marsala, Italy), a solution used to improve shelf life and to preserve wine aroma, and 8 g/hL of potassium metabisulphite were added. The wines were stored at 8 °C up to the bottling phase. Sample collection involved the grape must during several phases of the vinification process. In detail, the grape must was collected after pressing, before, during (12 h of process ongoing), and after clarification, at yeast inoculum, at 3 and 6 days of alcoholic fermentation, and at the end of alcoholic fermentation. All samples were immediately subjected to analyses.
All samples collected during the wine production were analyzed; in particular, the yeast and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) populations were monitored. The samples were diluted in Ringer's solution (Sigma-Aldrich, Milan, Italy) (ratio 1:10) and analyzed in triplicate for total yeasts (TY) on Wallerstein Laboratory (WL) nutrient agar (Condalab, Torrejón de Ardoz, Spain) [23] at 28 °C for 72 h, and total non-Saccharomyces yeast on Lysine Agar (LA) (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Milan, Italy) at 28 °C for 5 days [24]. Mesophilic lactobacilli were detected on de-Man, Rogosa, and Sharpe (MRS) agar medium (Condalab, Torrejón de Ardoz, Spain), which were supplemented with cycloheximide (10 mg/mL) and incubated under microaerophilic conditions at 30 °C for 48 h [25]. Presumptive Saccharomyces spp. were calculated as the difference between the total yeast count on WL nutrient agar and the total non-Saccharomyces.
Regarding the chemical parameters monitored during alcoholic fermentation, the pH and total acidity were assessed following the OIV procedures [26],[27]. In addition, the remaining monitored chemical parameters were detected through enzymatic assays on an iCubio iMagic M9 (iCubio Biomedical Technology Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, China); in detail, the quantification of acetic, malic, tartaric, and lactic acids was conducted as reported by Matraxia et al. [28]. Furthermore, the ethanol content was measured as previously reported by Chawafambira [29]. The reagents were purchased from R-Biopharm AG (Darmstadt, Germany), and these analyses were performed in triplicate.
The soluble oxygen was monitored to evaluate the effect of the S. cerevisiae HD A54 strain to reduce the oxygen content from post pressing to the end of alcoholic fermentation. To this end, a portable dissolved oxygen meter Mod. HQ30D, equipped with Intellical LDO101 Luminescence/Optical dissolved oxygen probe (Hach Lange S.r.l, Milan, Italy), was employed. The samples were analyzed for the absorbance using a 420 nm optical path before, during, and after clarification, at the inoculum, and at the end of alcoholic fermentation by spectrophotometer (UV-1601-Shimadsu, Tokyo, Japan).
The standards for each compound were individually purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (82024 Taufkirchen, Germany). 2,3-butanediol was used as the standard for the alcohol fraction, acetoin as the standard for the carboxyl-function fraction, and ethyl lactate as the standard for the ester fraction. In addition, n-alkane standards (C8 to C40) were purchased from the Aldrich Chemical Co. (St. Louis, Mo., USA). The standard solutions of each compound were prepared at five different concentrations: 2,3-butanediol (53.2 mg/L, 112.5 mg/L, 225.0 mg/L, 262.0 mg/L, and 450.0 mg/L); acetoin (24.7 mg/L, 45.70 mg/L, 64.7 mg/L, 115.6 mg/L, 173.30 mg/L, and 289.8 mg/L); and ethyl lactate (79.0 mg/L, 134.0 mg/L, 224.0 mg/L, 326.0 mg/L, and 477.0 mg/L).
In order to determine the volatile organic composition, the procedure outlined by Francesca et al. [30] was applied. In detail, the wine samples (10 mL) from all trials were mixed with MS SupraSolv® dichloromethane (5 mL) in a 50 mL conical flask. The mixture was stirred at room temperature for 30 min and then centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 10 min using a Low-Speed Centrifuge (ScanSpeed 416) with a Swing Rotor (LaboGene ApS Industrivej 6–8, Vassingerød, DK-3540 Lynge, Denmark). The aqueous phase was removed, and anhydrous sodium sulphate (1 g) was added before centrifugation at 4000 rpm for 5 min. The dichloromethane layer was removed and dried under N2 gas to 0.3 mL.
Gas chromatographic analyses were performed with the Agilent 7000C GC system, fitted with a fused silica Agilent DB-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d.; 0.25 µm film thickness), coupled to an Agilent triple quadrupole Mass Selective Detector MSD 5973 (ionization voltage 70 eV; electron multiplier energy 2000 V; transfer line temperature 295 °C; solvent delay: 3.5 min). Helium was the carrier gas (1 mL/min).
The temperature was initially maintained at 40 °C for 1 min. Then, it was gradually increased to 250 °C at a rate of 3 °C/min for 30 min, and finally maintained at 250 °C at 10 °C/min. One µL of sample was automatically injected at 250 °C and in the splitless mode, where the transfer line temperature was 295 °C. The individual peaks were analyzed using the GC MS Solution package, Version 2.72. The identification of compounds was carried out using Adams, NIST 11, Wiley 9, and the FFNSC 2 mass spectral database. These identifications were also confirmed by other published mass spectra and linear retention indices (LRI). The LRIs were calculated using a series of n-alkanes (C8–C40). Quantification was carried out using the three calibration lines. For compounds belonging to other classes than the standards, similarity was used for quantification.
In order to determine the sensory profiles of the experimental wines, a quantitative descriptive analysis was conducted by following the methodology reported by Jackson [31].
Each panelist had a strong experience on winemaking and sensory analyses, and were picked among people who already participated in past similar studies as judges. There was a total of 14 trained judges, consisting in 7 men and 7 women between the ages of 26 and 63 years old. In order to assess their sensory skills, they were previously subjected to a test based on flavors and tastes associated to the wines. Several descriptive attributes were chosen to evaluate the experimental wines in terms of the odor appearance, mouth feel, gustatory taste, flavor, and overall quality. Other descriptors regarded the identification and quantification of off-odors and off-flavors connected to microbial aspects and a list of several other attributes referring to pungent, putrid, and petroleum [32].
Each individual attribute was assessed by scoring on an unstructured 9 cm scale. Lastly, every panelist judged each sample in triplicate with a different wine bottle every time. An incomplete balanced block design was utilized to reduce the contrast impact between the samples [33].
The XLStat software for Excel, version 2020.3.1 (Addinsoft, New York, USA), was used to process the statistical data and to generate the graphics. In particular, the physicochemical, microbiological, oenological, VOC, and sensory data were submitted to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The Tukey's test was performed to make the comparisons, and statistical significance was attributed to p < 0.05.
During fermentation, the yeast populations were investigated (Figure 2), and the indigenous non-Saccharomyces population in the grape must was found to be 4.8 Log CFU/mL. Notably, the Saccharomyces species was not detected in the grape must, which is consistent with previous studies [34]–[36]. Additionally, low concentrations of LAB were observed at the start of the vinification process (<4.0 Log CFU/mL). However, these LAB levels are comparable to those found by Sannino et al. [37] on SO2 free grape must. In Trial B, the S. cerevisiae HD A54 strain was inoculated during the pressing phase at a density between 3.4–3.5 Log CFU/mL. In Trial A, the presumptive S. cerevisiae population was slightly above the detection limit (2.1 Log CFU/mL). Interestingly, the presumptive S. cerevisiae levels remained stable during the clarification phase in Trial A, while there was a small increase in the presumptive S. cerevisiae levels in Trial B due to cell multiplication of the inoculated S. cerevisiae HD A54 strain. Although no literature studies specifically address the addition of bioprotective S. cerevisiae, this increase can be considered a regular growth pattern for an inoculated S. cerevisiae strain within a few hours [38].
In both Trials A and B, there was a consistent trend in non-Saccharomyces count values, with a slight decrease observed. The S. cerevisiae HD A54 strain was inoculated at a level of 6.0 Log CFU/mL in these trials. During alcoholic fermentation, both the presumptive Saccharomyces and presumptive non-Saccharomyces populations increased, reaching their peak at three days in Trial A and up to six days in Trial B. The fermentation kinetics of the S. cerevisiae population followed a regular pattern (Figure 2), which aligns with the findings of Morgan et al. [39] regarding SO2-free grape must.
The key chemical parameters (sugars, organic acids, pH, total acidity, and glycerol) determined in the must and wine are reported in Table 1. Initially, the musts showed a sugar concentration of 275.7 g/L, a pH of 3.25, tartaric acid at 5.08 g/L, and malic acid at 1.36 g/L. The sugar consumption and acetic acid production showed similar trends between the treatments during alcoholic fermentation. However, the fructose values significantly differed, with Trial A showing consumption due to indigenous non-Saccharomyces yeasts that favor fructose [40]. Despite this, both treatments reached similar residual sugar levels (Figure 3). At the end of fermentation, the acetic acid levels were comparable to those reported by Alfonzo et al. [41] on “Catarratto bianco lucido” cultivar, which was likely influenced by the bioprotective effect of the HD A54 strain. Indeed, several S. cerevisiae strains exert their antimicrobial effect through the production of killer toxins or other inhibitory substances [42]. Alcoholic fermentation concluded in 12 days for both treatments, which resulted in residual sugar values below 2.0 g/L.
Throughout the vinification process, no significant differences were found between the trials in terms of the acetic, malic, tartaric, or lactic acid, and the glycerol content. The ethanol levels were monitored at various sampling points during fermentation. Initially, both treatments showed similar ethanol values; however, by the sixth day, Trial A had a higher ethanol content (5.88 %) compared to Trial B (3.46 %). This trend continued, with Trial A reaching 13.34 % ethanol by the ninth day, while Trial B remained at 11.06 %. Ultimately, both treatments completed alcoholic fermentation with a similar ethanol content (14.10 % for Trial A and 14.04 % for Trial B), thus indicating successful fermentation.
Parameters | Must | Vinification | ||||||||
Pre-clarification | Post-clarification | 3 d of alcoholic fermentation | ||||||||
A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | ||
Residual sugar Ψ | 275.70 ± 3.41 | 269.6 ± 4.81a | 273.80 ± 4.76a | n.s. | 262.67 ± 8.44a | 271.19 ± 7.74a | n.s. | 255.05 ± 7.97a | 265.61 ± 4.57a | n.s. |
Fructose Ψ | 156.15 ± 2.31 | 146.28 ± 0.46b | 156.01 ± 0.46a | *** | 146.10 ± 1.55b | 155.39 ± 1.59a | ** | 139.40 ± 3.51a | 149.66 ± 6.04a | n.s. |
Glicerol Ψ | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.05 ± 0.01a | 0.04 ± 0.01a | n.s. | 0.115 ± 0.00a | 0.11 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.54 ± 0.02a | 0.35 ± 0.13a | n.s. |
Acetic acid Ψ | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.08 ± 0.02a | 0.07 ± 0.01a | n.s. |
Malic acid Ψ | 1.36 ± 0.03 | 1.37 ± 0.02a | 1.36 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 1.37 ± 0.03a | 1.35 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 1.29 ± 0.07a | 1.31 ± 0.01a | n.s. |
Tartaric acid Ψ | 5.08 ± 0.05 | 4.33 ± 0.05a | 4.56 ± 0.24a | n.s. | 4.04 ± 0.19a | 4.09 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 4.85 ± 0.30a | 4.42 ± 0.15a | n.s. |
Lactic acid Ψ | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.02 ± 0.01a | 0.03 ± 0.00a | n.s. |
Ethanol |
0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.22 ± 0.07a | 0.09 ± 0.04a | n.s. | 0.39 ± 0.16a | 0.14 ± 0.09a | n.s. | 0.84 ± 0.22a | 0.41 ± 0.23a | n.s. |
Parameters | 6 d of alcoholic fermentation | 9 d of alcoholic fermentation | End of alcoholic fermentation | |||||||
A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | ||
Residual sugar Ψ | 157.00 ± 4.49b | 202.25 ± 8.38a | *** | 11.75 ± 3.89b | 57.60 ± 1.40a | *** | 1.53 ± 0.00a | 0.51 ± 0.06b | *** | |
Fructose Ψ | 104.51 ± 7.48b | 126.77 ± 2.08a | ** | 9.63 ± 1.36b | 52.61 ± 0.52a | *** | 0.47 ± 0.06a | 0.07 ± 0.07b | ** | |
Glicerol Ψ | 4.98 ± 0.16a | 6.20 ± 1.62a | n.s. | 6.58 ± 0.04a | 7.12 ± 0.40a | n.s. | 7.05 ± 0.37a | 6.77 ± 0.25a | n.s. | |
Acetic acid Ψ | 0.20 ± 0.03a | 0.17 ± 0.01a | n.s. | 0.10 ± 0.01a | 0.10 ± 0.03a | n.s. | 0.07 ± 0.01a | 0.07 ± 0.03a | n.s. | |
Malic acid Ψ | 1.25 ± 0.01a | 1.24 ± 0.04a | n.s. | 1.23 ± 0.05a | 1.24 ± 0.10a | n.s. | 1.21 ± 0.05a | 1.20 ± 0.05a | n.s. | |
Tartaric acid Ψ | 4.44 ± 0.11a | 4.11 ± 0.13b | * | 4.17 ± 0.17a | 3.89 ± 0.17a | n.s. | 3.55 ± 0.05a | 3.67 ± 0.17a | n.s. | |
Lactic acid Ψ | 0.01 ± 0.00a | 0.02 ± 0.01a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | |
Ethanol |
5.88 ± 0.25a | 3.46 ± 0.31b | *** | 13.34 ± 0.21a | 11.06 ± 0.12b | *** | 14.04 ± 0.03a | 14.10 ± 0.04a | n.s. |
Result indicates mean value ± standard deviation of two determinations from three replicates. Data within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey's test. Tukey's test was not applied on must values. P value: *, P < 0.05 **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. Ψ, expressed in g/L;
The monitoring of oxygen levels during the clarification process is depicted in Figure 4. Following the completion of the pressing process, the oxygen concentration was found to be 4.67 mg/L in Trial A. In comparison, Trial B, which included the bio-protective HD A54 strain, demonstrated a significantly lower oxygen concentration of 3.40 mg/L. As stated by Catarino et al. [43], several winemaking operations, particularly the pressing stage, contribute to the uptake of oxygen. The considerable difference in the dissolved oxygen levels between Trial A and Trial B at this detection point, amounting to almost 30% less in Trial B, provides clear evidence of the beneficial impact of the bio-protective strain shortly after its addition. Both trials exhibited a comparable trend in dissolved oxygen during clarification; however, the disparity between the treatments persisted until the start of the clarification process, after which the differences leveled out. Furthermore, the dissolved oxygen concentrations exhibited a further decline at the inoculum stage for both trials. In particular, Trial A showed a reduction of 19.49% from the previous detection point, with a value of 1.02 mg/L. Trial B exhibited an even more pronounced reduction, with a decrease of 30.33% from the previous detection point, thus resulting in a value of 0.74 mg/L of dissolved oxygen at the inoculum stage. Additionally, slight differences between the treatments were evident at this detection point and at the end of alcoholic fermentation, as highlighted by the ANOVA.
In Figure 5, the absorbance values at 420 nm can be observed. The absorbance consistently decreased as the clarification proceeded. Following the pressing stage, Trial A showed significantly higher values (0.429) than Trial B (0.378). These findings slightly exceed the range reported by Darias-Martı́n et al. [44], who observed values between 0.2 to 0.6 after pressing, albeit with the addition of 40 mg/L of potassium metabisulphite immediately post-pressing. The trend persisted at the second detection point, where Trail B demonstrated the bioprotective effect of the HD A54 strain, thus yielding a lower value (0.295) than Trial A (0.348).
Clarification, a common winemaking procedure, aims to enhance the wine appearance by reducing browning issues and achieving a greater clarity [45]. Interestingly, no significant differences were found between the treatments from this point until the end of alcoholic fermentation. Both the dissolved oxygen and absorbance analyses underscore the positive impact of the S. cerevisiae HD A54 strain in protecting against oxidative processes in the musts, especially during the phase between pressing and clarification.
Table 2 reports the VOC composition, which consists of 30 compounds grouped into six classes: Alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, esters, and others. Alcohols were the most abundant, with Trial A containing a total of 117.58 ± 12.78 mg/L and Trial B containing a total of 189.49 ± 12.63 mg/L. Among the alcohol compounds, hydroxyethylbenzene exceeded the perception threshold. This compound is linked to floral odors [46],[47]. Notably, Trial B had a higher concentration of this compound (135.31 mg/L) compared to Trial A (44.23 mg/L). Additionally, 3-methyl-thio-1-propanol was more pronounced in Trial A (2.01 mg/L) than in Trial B, where it remained below the perception threshold. This particular compound is associated with an unpleasant odor reminiscent of a cooked potato [48]. The differences in the VOC composition between the two trials suggest that the HD A54 strain may have positively influenced Trial B.
LRI | Compounds (Common name) | Odour Perception Threshold | Trial A (mg/L) | Trial B (mg/L) | |
S.S. | |||||
∑Alcohols | 117.58 ± 12.78b | 189.49 ± 12.63a | * | ||
607 | 2-methyl-1-propanol | 40 mg/L [49] | 1.00 ± 0.41a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | * |
764 | 1-pentanol | 80 mg/L [50] | 59.92 ± 5.32a | 50.13 ± 4.08a | n.s. |
765 | 1,2-propanediol | Unknown | 0.52 ± 0.07a | 0.86 ± 0.14a | n.s. |
824 | 2,3-butanediol | 120 mg/L [51] | 2.88 ± 0.27a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | *** |
856 | 3-methyl-1-pentanol | Unknown | 0.25 ± 0.08a | 0.14 ± 0.03a | n.s. |
878 | 1-hexanol | 8 mg/L [52] | 0.91 ± 0.08a | 0.45 ± 0.09b | * |
983 | 3-methyl-thio-1-propanol | 1 mg/L [53] | 2.01 ± 0.09a | 0.85 ± 0.04b | *** |
1134 | Hydroxyethylbenzene | 10 mg/L [46],[47] | 44.23 ± 5.29b | 135.31 ± 7.97a | *** |
1314 | 2-methoxy-4-methyl-phenol | Unknown | 0.82 ± 0.05a | 0.36 ± 0.11b | *** |
1432 | 4-hydroxyphenyl ethanol | Unknown | 4.11 ± 1.05a | 0.91 ± 0.09b | * |
1505 | 2,4-di-tert-butyl phenol | 0.2 mg/L [50] | 0.93 ± 0.07a | 0.48 ± 0.08b | * |
∑Aldehydes | 3.03 ± 0.44a | 2.16 ± 0.40a | n.s. | ||
1224 | 3,4-dimethyl benzaldehyde | Unknown | 0.80 ± 0.15a | 0.51 ± 0.12a | n.s. |
2020 | Octadecanal | Unknown | 2.23 ± 0.29a | 1.65 ± 0.28a | n.s. |
∑Ketones | 2.04 ± 0.54a | 1.56 ± 0.30a | n.s. | ||
722 | 3-hydroxy-2-butanone | 30 mg/L [49] | 0.49 ± 0.00a | 0.51 ± 0.12a | n.s. |
964 | 4-hydroxy-2-butanone | Unknown | 1.03 ± 0.51a | 0.74 ± 0.11a | n.s. |
1285 | 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-1-propanone | Unknown | 0.52 ± 0.03a | 0.31 ± 0.07b | * |
∑Carboxylic acids | 4.47 ± 0.53a | 0.94 ± 0.16b | ** | ||
590 | Acetic acid | 200 mg/L [54] | 0.63 ± 0.08a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | * |
916 | 4-hydroxy butanoic acid | Unknown | 0.36 ± 0.06a | 0.12 ± 0.04b | ** |
1015 | Hexanoic acid | 0.42 mg/L [52] | 0.27 ± 0.08a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | ** |
1195 | Octanoic acid | 2.20 mg/L [55] | 3.21 ± 0.31a | 0.82 ± 0.12b | ** |
∑Esters | 15.85 ± 3.50a | 15.82 ± 2.39a | n.s. | ||
589 | Ethyl acetate | 7.5 mg/L [54] | 8.25 ± 0.99a | 2.14 ± 0.62b | ** |
803 | Ethyl lactate | 60 mg/L [56] | 0.15 ± 0.02a | 0.29 ± 0.06a | n.s. |
886 | 3-methyl-butyl acetate | 0.03 mg/L [52] | 2.99 ± 0.86b | 7.84 ± 0.53a | *** |
941 | Ethyl 3-hydroxy butanoate | Unknown | 0.21 ± 0.08a | 0.16 ± 0.04a | n.s. |
1002 | Ethyl-butyl acetate | Unknown | 1.40 ± 0.62a | 0.76 ± 0.06a | n.s. |
1199 | Ethyl octanoate | 0.005 mg/L [52] | 0.66 ± 0.21b | 1.40 ± 0.23a | ** |
1260 | 2-phenylethyl acetate | 0.25 mg/L [57] | 1.51 ± 0.63b | 3.08 ± 0.77a | * |
1386 | Ethyl-9-decenoate | Unknown | 0.61 ± 0.07a | 0.15 ± 0.08b | * |
1395 | Ethyl decanoate | 0.2 mg/L [52] | 0.07 ± 0.02a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | * |
∑Others | 0.25 ± 0.05a | 0.17 ± 0.07a | n.s. | ||
1768 | 3-(2-hydroxyethyl)-indole | Unknown | 0.25 ± 0.05a | 0.17 ± 0.07a | n.s. |
Result indicates mean value ± standard deviation of two determinations from three replicates. Data within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey's test. P value: *, P < 0.05 **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. Abbreviations: SS, statistical significance; n.s., not significant.
As the second most prevalent class of compounds, the esters had concentrations of 15.85 ± 3.50 for Trial A and 15.82 ± 2.39 mg/L for Trial B. Ethyl acetate, a prominent ester, exhibited significantly higher levels in Trial A (8.25 mg/L) compared to Trial B (2.14 mg/L), which remained below the threshold [54]. Interestingly, ethyl acetate serves as an indicator of oxidation: lower ester values correlate with a greater protection against oxidation [58]. In terms of fruity aromas, Trial B stood out due to the presence of 3-methyl-butyl acetate (banana-associated) [59] and ethyl octanoate (with pear and pineapple notes) [59], measuring 7.84 mg/L and 1.40 mg/L, respectively. Although Trial A recorded values above the perception threshold, they were significantly lower than those in Trial B (2.99 and 0.66 mg/L, respectively). Additionally, Trial B exhibited a higher concentration of 2-Phenylethyl acetate, an ester associated with flowery notes [47], at 3.08 mg/L, compared to Trial A at 1.51 mg/L.
Another represented class was carboxylic acids, which are often linked to unwanted odors in wine [30]. Surprisingly, all carboxylic acids remained below the perception threshold in this study. However, it is essential to note that hexanoic acid and octanoic acid are typically responsible for unpleasant odors such as fatty, cheesy, and rancid smells. In the bio-protected treatment (Trial B), these acids were either entirely absent or below the perception threshold. In Trial A, hexanoic acid remained below the threshold (0.42 mg/L), while octanoic acid was perceptible at a concentration of 3.21 mg/L. Furthermore, acetic acid, a key indicator of wine spoilage and quality reduction [60], remained below the perception threshold in Trial A and was totally absent in Trial B.
Figure 6 displays a radar plot generated after a sensory evaluation of the experimental wines. Notably, the two treatments showed variability, particularly in the odor attributes. Bio-protected Trial B scored higher in several odor-related attributes, except for the “off-odor” attribute, where Trial A had a slightly greater score. The “fruity” attribute received a definitively higher score for Trial A, thus aligning with the VOC analysis that highlighted compounds associated with fruity aromas, such as 3-methyl-butyl acetate and ethyl octanoate. Similarly, in terms of the floral attribute, the judges favored Trial B, which is consistent with the VOC analysis that showed higher values for hydroxyethylbenzene and 2-phenylethyl acetate, both associated with floral scent, specifically rose.
Considering these findings, Trial B scored better in terms of complexity and the overall odor quality. Interestingly, the scores for fruity and floral attributes closely resembled those reported in a study by Alfonzo et al. [41] on Catarratto wines produced with different S. cerevisiae strains. As for the taste descriptors, Trial B received a higher score for intensity, while Trial A scored better in the smoothness attribute. Although mouthfeel-related attributes are often linked to a higher concentration of glycerol produced by certain non-Saccharomyces yeast strains [61],[62], this study did not highlight significantly higher glycerol production in Trial A nor a greater non-Saccharomyces yeast population. Nevertheless, Trial B received a higher score for the descriptor “taste overall quality”. Overall, the judges preferred the attributes associated with Trial B.
In recent years, reducing SO2 levels in winemaking has gained importance. Bioprotective yeasts offer winemakers a valuable solution by limiting the growth of unwanted microorganisms, preserving the product quality, and optimizing the space utilization. Current research primarily focuses on non-Saccharomyces yeasts such as Torulaspora delbrueckii and Metschnikowia pulcherrima to play a bio-protection role and to enhance the sensory aspects, which are particularly crucial in this context. The use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts could deeply influence the wine quality, thereby producing peculiar metabolites and potentially affecting other wine parameters such as acidity and alcohol content. This study evaluated the bio-protective properties of a specific S. cerevisiae strain which was added during the pre-fermentative stage throughout winemaking. Specifically, the addition of the HD A54 S. cerevisiae strain positively influenced the dissolved O2 levels from post-pressing until the end of fermentation. Additionally, it impacted the absorbance values, particularly before clarification, thus mitigating the browning effects. Furthermore, the VOC composition revealed an enhanced protection in the bio-protected trial, specifically for compounds associated with fruity and floral aromas. A sensory evaluation by judges confirmed these findings, with Trial B receiving higher scores for floral and fruity attributes. Overall, the wines treated with S. cerevisiae HD A54 after pressing were favorably evaluated. Finally, this strain successfully facilitated must fermentation without the need for SO2, thus suggesting its potential use in wine fermentation to either eliminate or decrease the utilization of sulphites.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
[1] |
Ferrer-Gallego R, Puxeu M, Nart E, et al. (2017) Evaluation of Tempranillo and Albariño SO2-free wines produced by different chemical alternatives and winemaking procedures. Food Res Int 102: 647-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.046 ![]() |
[2] |
Guerrero RF, Cantos-Villar E (2015) Demonstrating the efficiency of sulphur dioxide replacements in wine: A parameter review. Trends Food Sci Technol 42: 27-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2014.11.004 ![]() |
[3] |
Christofi S, Malliaris D, Katsaros G, et al. (2020) Limit SO2 content of wines by applying High Hydrostatic Pressure. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 62: 102342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2020.102342 ![]() |
[4] |
Santos MC, Nunes C, Cappelle J, et al. (2013) Effect of high pressure treatments on the physicochemical properties of a sulphur dioxide-free red wine. Food Chem 141: 2558-2566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.05.022 ![]() |
[5] |
Roullier-Gall C, Hemmler D, Gonsior M, et al. (2017) Sulfites and the wine metabolome. Food Chem 237: 106-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.05.039 ![]() |
[6] |
Di Gianvito P, Englezos V, Rantsiou K, et al. (2022) Bioprotection strategies in winemaking. Int J Food Microbiol 364: 109532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2022.109532 ![]() |
[7] |
Ferraz P, Cassio F, Lucas C (2019) Potential of yeasts as biocontrol agents of the phytopathogen causing cacao witches' broom disease: Is microbial warfare a solution?. Front Microbiol 10: 1766. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01766 ![]() |
[8] |
Keswani C, Singh HB, Hermosa R, et al. (2019) Antimicrobial secondary metabolites from agriculturally important fungi as next biocontrol agents. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 103: 9287-9303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-10209-2103 ![]() |
[9] | OIV (International Organisation of Vine and Wine)Recueil des methodes internationales d'analyses des vins et des moûts (2010). Avaible from: https://www.oiv.int/fr/normes-et-documents-techniques/methodes-danalyse/recueil-des-methodes-internationales-danalyse-des-vins-et-des-mouts-2-vol |
[10] | Directive 2003/89/EC of the European parliament and of the council amending directive 2000/13/EC as regards indication of the ingredients present in foodstuffs. Avaible from: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2003/89/oj |
[11] |
Lisanti MT, Blaiotta G, Nioi C, et al. (2019) Alternative methods to SO2 for microbiological stabilization of wine. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 18: 455-479. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12422 ![]() |
[12] |
Silva M, Gama J, Pinto N, et al. (2019) Sulfite concentration and the occurrence of headache in young adults: A prospective study. Eur J Clin Nutr 73: 1316-1322. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41430-019-0420-2 ![]() |
[13] |
Santos MC, Nunes C, Rocha MAM, et al. (2015) High pressure treatments accelerate changes in volatile composition of sulphur dioxide-free wine during bottle storage. Food Chem 188: 406-414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.05.002 ![]() |
[14] |
Fredericks IN, du Toit M, Krügel M (2011) Efficacy of ultraviolet radiation as an alternative technology to inactivate microorganisms in grape juices and wines. Food Microbiol 28: 510-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2010.10.018 ![]() |
[15] |
Pandin C, Le Coq D, Canette A, et al. (2017) Should the biofilm mode of life be taken into consideration for microbial biocontrol agents?. Microb Biotechnol 10: 719-734. https://doi.org/10.1111/1751-7915.12693 ![]() |
[16] |
Bauer MA, Kainz K, Carmona-Gutierrez D, et al. (2018) Microbial wars: Competition in ecological niches and within the microbiome. Microb Cell 5: 215. https://doi.org/10.15698/mic2018.05.628 ![]() |
[17] |
Parijs I, Steenackers HP (2018) Competitive inter-species interactions underlie the increased antimicrobial tolerance in multispecies brewery biofilms. ISME J 12: 2061-2075. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0146-5 ![]() |
[18] |
Ghoul M, Mitri S (2016) The ecology and evolution of microbial competition. Trends Microbiol 24: 833-845. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2016.06.011 ![]() |
[19] |
Curiel JA, Morales P, Gonzalez R, et al. (2017) Different non-Saccharomyces yeast species stimulate nutrient consumption in Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixed cultures. Front Microbiol 8: 2121. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02121 ![]() |
[20] |
Petitgonnet C, Klein GL, Roullier-Gall C, et al. (2019) Influence of cell-cell contact between L. thermotolerans and S. cerevisiae on yeast interactions and the exo-metabolome. Food Microbiol 83: 122-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2019.05.005 ![]() |
[21] |
Prior KJ, Bauer FF, Divol B (2019) The utilisation of nitrogenous compound by commercial non-Saccharomyces yeasts associated with wine. Food Microbiol 79: 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2018.12.002 ![]() |
[22] |
Siedler S, Balti R, Neves AR (2019) Bioprotective mechanisms of lactic acid bacteria against fungal spoilage of food. Curr Opin Biotechnol 56: 138-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2018.11.015 ![]() |
[23] |
Pallmann CL, Brown JA, Olineka TL, et al. (2001) Use of WL medium to profile native flora fermentations. Am J Enol Vitic 52: 198-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.5344/ajev.2001.52.3.198 ![]() |
[24] |
Couto MB, Reizinho RG, Duarte FL (2005) Partial 26S rDNA restriction analysis as a tool to characterise non-Saccharomyces yeasts present during red wine fermentations. Int J Food Microbiol 102: 49-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.01.005 ![]() |
[25] | ISO 15214Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs–Horizontal method for the enumeration of mesophilic lactic acid bacteria–Colony-count technique at 30 °C (1998). |
[26] | OIV (International Organisation of Vine and Wine)Compendium of international methods of wine and must analysis (2020). Available from: https://www.oiv.int/en/technical-standards-and-documents/methods-of-analysis/compendium-of-international-methods-of-analysis-of-wines-and-musts-2-vol |
[27] | OIV (International Organisation of Vine and Wine)Compendium of international methods of wine and must analysis (2020). Available from: https://www.oiv.int/en/technical-standards-and-documents/methods-of-analysis/compendium-of-international-methods-of-analysis-of-wines-and-musts-2-vol |
[28] |
Matraxia M, Alfonzo A, Prestianni R, et al. (2021) Non-conventional yeasts from fermented honey by-products: Focus on Hanseniaspora uvarum strains for craft beer production. Food Microbiol 99: 103806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2021.103806 ![]() |
[29] |
Chawafambira A (2021) The effect of incorporating herbal (Lippia javanica) infusion on the phenolic, physicochemical, and sensorial properties of fruit wine. Food Sci Nutr 9: 4539-4549. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2432 ![]() |
[30] |
Francesca N, Naselli V, Prestianni R, et al. (2024) Impact of two new non-conventional yeasts, Candida oleophila and Starmerella lactis-condensi, isolated from sugar-rich substrates, on Frappato wine aroma. Food Biosci 57: 103500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2023.103500 ![]() |
[31] | Jackson RS (2016) Wine Tasting: A Professional Handbook. Boston: Academic Press. |
[32] |
Issa-Issa H, Guclu G, Noguera-Artiaga L, et al. (2020) Aroma-active compounds, sensory profile, and phenolic composition of Fondillón. Food Chem 316: 126353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126353 ![]() |
[33] |
Cochran WG, Cox GM (1957) Experimental designs. New York: John Wiley & Sons. |
[34] |
Di Maro E, Ercolini D, Coppola S (2007) Yeast dynamics during spontaneous wine fermentation of the Catalanesca grape. Int J Food Microbiol 117: 201-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.04.007 ![]() |
[35] |
Varela C, Sengler F, Solomon M, et al. (2016) Volatile flavour profile of reduced alcohol wines fermented with the non-conventional yeast species Metschnikowia pulcherrima and Saccharomyces uvarum. Food Chem 209: 57-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.04.024 ![]() |
[36] | González SS, Barrio E, Querol A (2007) Molecular identification and characterization of wine yeasts isolated from Tenerife (Canary Island, Spain). J Appl Microbiol 102: 1018-1025. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2006.03150.x |
[37] |
Sannino C, Francesca N, Corona O, et al. (2013) Effect of the natural winemaking process applied at industrial level on the microbiological and chemical characteristics of wine. J Biosci Bioeng 116: 347-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2013.03.005 ![]() |
[38] |
Minebois R, Pérez-Torrado R, Querol A (2020) A time course metabolism comparison among Saccharomyces cerevisiae, S. uvarum and S. kudriavzevii species in wine fermentation. Food Microbiol 90: 103484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2020.103484 ![]() |
[39] |
Morgan SC, Haggerty JJ, Johnston B, et al. (2019) Response to sulfur dioxide addition by two commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Fermentation 5: 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation5030069 ![]() |
[40] |
Csoma H, Kállai Z, Czentye K, et al. (2023) Starmerella lactis-condensi, a yeast that has adapted to the conditions in the oenological environment. Int J Food Microbiol 401: 110282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2023.110282 ![]() |
[41] |
Alfonzo A, Prestianni R, Gaglio R, et al. (2021) Effects of different yeast strains, nutrients and glutathione-rich inactivated yeast addition on the aroma characteristics of Catarratto wines. Int J Food Microbiol 360: 109325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021.109325 ![]() |
[42] |
Windholtz S, Nioi C, Coulon J, et al. (2023) Bioprotection by non-Saccharomyces yeasts in oenology: Evaluation of O2 consumption and impact on acetic acid bacteria. Int J Food Microbiol 405: 110338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2023.110338 ![]() |
[43] | Catarino A, Alves S, Mira H (2014) Influence of technological operations in the dissolved oxygen content of wines. J Chem Chem Eng 8: 390-394. https://doi.org/10.17265/1934-7375%2F2014.04.010 |
[44] |
Darias-Martı́n J, Dı́az-González D, Dı́az-Romero C (2004) Influence of two pressing processes on the quality of must in white wine production. J Food Eng 63: 335-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2003.08.005 ![]() |
[45] |
Villano D, Fernández-Pachón MS, Troncoso AM, et al. (2006) Influence of enological practices on the antioxidant activity of wines. Food Chem 95: 394-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.01.005 ![]() |
[46] |
Selli S, Cabaroglu T, Canbas A, et al. (2004) Volatile composition of red wine from cv. Kalecik Karasι grown in central Anatolia. Food Chem 85: 207-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2003.06.008 ![]() |
[47] |
Cañas PI, Romero EG, Alonso SG, et al. (2008) Changes in the aromatic composition of Tempranillo wines during spontaneous malolactic fermentation. J Food Compos Anal 21: 724-730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2007.12.005 ![]() |
[48] |
Fariña L, Villar V, Ares G, et al. (2015) Volatile composition and aroma profile of Uruguayan Tannat wines. Food Res Int 69: 244-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.12.029 ![]() |
[49] |
De Lerma NL, Bellincontro A, Mencarelli F, et al. (2012) Use of electronic nose, validated by GC–MS, to establish the optimum off-vine dehydration time of wine grapes. Food Chem 130: 447-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.07.058 ![]() |
[50] | Li H (2006) Wine Tasting. Beijing: China Science Press 29-106. |
[51] |
Li H, Tao YS, Wang H, et al. (2008) Impact odorants of Chardonnay dry white wine from Changli County (China). Eur Food Res Technol 227: 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-007-0722-9 ![]() |
[52] |
Ferreira V, López R, Cacho JF (2000) Quantitative determination of the odorants of young red wines from different grape varieties. J Sci Food Agric 80: 1659-1667. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0010(20000901)80:11%3C1659::AID-JSFA693%3E3.0.CO;2-6 ![]() |
[53] |
Gómez-Míguez MJ, Cacho JF, Ferreira V, et al. (2007) Volatile components of Zalema white wines. Food Chem 100: 1464-1473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.11.045 ![]() |
[54] |
Guth H (1997) Quantitation and sensory studies of character impact odorants of different white wine varieties. J Agric Food Chem 45: 3027-3032. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf970280a ![]() |
[55] |
Rocha SM, Rodrigues F, Coutinho P, et al. (2004) Volatile composition of Baga red wine: Assessment of the identification of the would-be impact odourants. Anal Chim Acta 513: 257-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aca.2003.10.009 ![]() |
[56] | Lloret A, Boido E, Lorenzo D, et al. (2002) Aroma variation in Tannat wines: Effect of malolactic fermentation on ethyl lactate level and its enantiomeric distribution. Ital J Food Sci 14: 175-180. http://hdl.handle.net/10449/18119 |
[57] |
Delgado JA, Sánchez-Palomo E, Alises MO, et al. (2022) Chemical and sensory aroma typicity of La Mancha Petit Verdot wines. LWT 162: 113418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2022.113418 ![]() |
[58] |
Yao M, Wang F, Arpentin G (2023) Bioprotection as a tool to produce natural wine: Impact on physicochemical and sensory analysis. BIO Web Conf 56: 02019. https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20235602019 ![]() |
[59] |
Bayram M, Kayalar M (2018) White wines from Narince grapes: Impact of two different grape provenances on phenolic and volatile composition. OENO One 52: 81-92. https://doi.org/10.20870/oeno-one.2018.52.2.2114 ![]() |
[60] |
Zoecklein BW, Fugelsang KC, Gump BH, et al. (1995) Volatile acidity. Wine Analysis and Production. New York: Springer 192-198. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6978-4_11 ![]() |
[61] |
Canonico L, Comitini F, Ciani M (2019) Metschnikowia pulcherrima selected strain for ethanol reduction in wine: Influence of cell immobilization and aeration condition. Foods 8: 378. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Ffoods8090378 ![]() |
[62] |
Laguna L, Sarkar A, Bryant MG, et al. (2017) Exploring mouthfeel in model wines: Sensory-to-instrumental approaches. Food Res Int 102: 478-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.009 ![]() |
Parameters | Must | Vinification | ||||||||
Pre-clarification | Post-clarification | 3 d of alcoholic fermentation | ||||||||
A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | ||
Residual sugar Ψ | 275.70 ± 3.41 | 269.6 ± 4.81a | 273.80 ± 4.76a | n.s. | 262.67 ± 8.44a | 271.19 ± 7.74a | n.s. | 255.05 ± 7.97a | 265.61 ± 4.57a | n.s. |
Fructose Ψ | 156.15 ± 2.31 | 146.28 ± 0.46b | 156.01 ± 0.46a | *** | 146.10 ± 1.55b | 155.39 ± 1.59a | ** | 139.40 ± 3.51a | 149.66 ± 6.04a | n.s. |
Glicerol Ψ | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.05 ± 0.01a | 0.04 ± 0.01a | n.s. | 0.115 ± 0.00a | 0.11 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.54 ± 0.02a | 0.35 ± 0.13a | n.s. |
Acetic acid Ψ | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.08 ± 0.02a | 0.07 ± 0.01a | n.s. |
Malic acid Ψ | 1.36 ± 0.03 | 1.37 ± 0.02a | 1.36 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 1.37 ± 0.03a | 1.35 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 1.29 ± 0.07a | 1.31 ± 0.01a | n.s. |
Tartaric acid Ψ | 5.08 ± 0.05 | 4.33 ± 0.05a | 4.56 ± 0.24a | n.s. | 4.04 ± 0.19a | 4.09 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 4.85 ± 0.30a | 4.42 ± 0.15a | n.s. |
Lactic acid Ψ | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.02 ± 0.01a | 0.03 ± 0.00a | n.s. |
Ethanol |
0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.22 ± 0.07a | 0.09 ± 0.04a | n.s. | 0.39 ± 0.16a | 0.14 ± 0.09a | n.s. | 0.84 ± 0.22a | 0.41 ± 0.23a | n.s. |
Parameters | 6 d of alcoholic fermentation | 9 d of alcoholic fermentation | End of alcoholic fermentation | |||||||
A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | ||
Residual sugar Ψ | 157.00 ± 4.49b | 202.25 ± 8.38a | *** | 11.75 ± 3.89b | 57.60 ± 1.40a | *** | 1.53 ± 0.00a | 0.51 ± 0.06b | *** | |
Fructose Ψ | 104.51 ± 7.48b | 126.77 ± 2.08a | ** | 9.63 ± 1.36b | 52.61 ± 0.52a | *** | 0.47 ± 0.06a | 0.07 ± 0.07b | ** | |
Glicerol Ψ | 4.98 ± 0.16a | 6.20 ± 1.62a | n.s. | 6.58 ± 0.04a | 7.12 ± 0.40a | n.s. | 7.05 ± 0.37a | 6.77 ± 0.25a | n.s. | |
Acetic acid Ψ | 0.20 ± 0.03a | 0.17 ± 0.01a | n.s. | 0.10 ± 0.01a | 0.10 ± 0.03a | n.s. | 0.07 ± 0.01a | 0.07 ± 0.03a | n.s. | |
Malic acid Ψ | 1.25 ± 0.01a | 1.24 ± 0.04a | n.s. | 1.23 ± 0.05a | 1.24 ± 0.10a | n.s. | 1.21 ± 0.05a | 1.20 ± 0.05a | n.s. | |
Tartaric acid Ψ | 4.44 ± 0.11a | 4.11 ± 0.13b | * | 4.17 ± 0.17a | 3.89 ± 0.17a | n.s. | 3.55 ± 0.05a | 3.67 ± 0.17a | n.s. | |
Lactic acid Ψ | 0.01 ± 0.00a | 0.02 ± 0.01a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | |
Ethanol |
5.88 ± 0.25a | 3.46 ± 0.31b | *** | 13.34 ± 0.21a | 11.06 ± 0.12b | *** | 14.04 ± 0.03a | 14.10 ± 0.04a | n.s. |
Result indicates mean value ± standard deviation of two determinations from three replicates. Data within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey's test. Tukey's test was not applied on must values. P value: *, P < 0.05 **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. Ψ, expressed in g/L;
LRI | Compounds (Common name) | Odour Perception Threshold | Trial A (mg/L) | Trial B (mg/L) | |
S.S. | |||||
∑Alcohols | 117.58 ± 12.78b | 189.49 ± 12.63a | * | ||
607 | 2-methyl-1-propanol | 40 mg/L [49] | 1.00 ± 0.41a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | * |
764 | 1-pentanol | 80 mg/L [50] | 59.92 ± 5.32a | 50.13 ± 4.08a | n.s. |
765 | 1,2-propanediol | Unknown | 0.52 ± 0.07a | 0.86 ± 0.14a | n.s. |
824 | 2,3-butanediol | 120 mg/L [51] | 2.88 ± 0.27a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | *** |
856 | 3-methyl-1-pentanol | Unknown | 0.25 ± 0.08a | 0.14 ± 0.03a | n.s. |
878 | 1-hexanol | 8 mg/L [52] | 0.91 ± 0.08a | 0.45 ± 0.09b | * |
983 | 3-methyl-thio-1-propanol | 1 mg/L [53] | 2.01 ± 0.09a | 0.85 ± 0.04b | *** |
1134 | Hydroxyethylbenzene | 10 mg/L [46],[47] | 44.23 ± 5.29b | 135.31 ± 7.97a | *** |
1314 | 2-methoxy-4-methyl-phenol | Unknown | 0.82 ± 0.05a | 0.36 ± 0.11b | *** |
1432 | 4-hydroxyphenyl ethanol | Unknown | 4.11 ± 1.05a | 0.91 ± 0.09b | * |
1505 | 2,4-di-tert-butyl phenol | 0.2 mg/L [50] | 0.93 ± 0.07a | 0.48 ± 0.08b | * |
∑Aldehydes | 3.03 ± 0.44a | 2.16 ± 0.40a | n.s. | ||
1224 | 3,4-dimethyl benzaldehyde | Unknown | 0.80 ± 0.15a | 0.51 ± 0.12a | n.s. |
2020 | Octadecanal | Unknown | 2.23 ± 0.29a | 1.65 ± 0.28a | n.s. |
∑Ketones | 2.04 ± 0.54a | 1.56 ± 0.30a | n.s. | ||
722 | 3-hydroxy-2-butanone | 30 mg/L [49] | 0.49 ± 0.00a | 0.51 ± 0.12a | n.s. |
964 | 4-hydroxy-2-butanone | Unknown | 1.03 ± 0.51a | 0.74 ± 0.11a | n.s. |
1285 | 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-1-propanone | Unknown | 0.52 ± 0.03a | 0.31 ± 0.07b | * |
∑Carboxylic acids | 4.47 ± 0.53a | 0.94 ± 0.16b | ** | ||
590 | Acetic acid | 200 mg/L [54] | 0.63 ± 0.08a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | * |
916 | 4-hydroxy butanoic acid | Unknown | 0.36 ± 0.06a | 0.12 ± 0.04b | ** |
1015 | Hexanoic acid | 0.42 mg/L [52] | 0.27 ± 0.08a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | ** |
1195 | Octanoic acid | 2.20 mg/L [55] | 3.21 ± 0.31a | 0.82 ± 0.12b | ** |
∑Esters | 15.85 ± 3.50a | 15.82 ± 2.39a | n.s. | ||
589 | Ethyl acetate | 7.5 mg/L [54] | 8.25 ± 0.99a | 2.14 ± 0.62b | ** |
803 | Ethyl lactate | 60 mg/L [56] | 0.15 ± 0.02a | 0.29 ± 0.06a | n.s. |
886 | 3-methyl-butyl acetate | 0.03 mg/L [52] | 2.99 ± 0.86b | 7.84 ± 0.53a | *** |
941 | Ethyl 3-hydroxy butanoate | Unknown | 0.21 ± 0.08a | 0.16 ± 0.04a | n.s. |
1002 | Ethyl-butyl acetate | Unknown | 1.40 ± 0.62a | 0.76 ± 0.06a | n.s. |
1199 | Ethyl octanoate | 0.005 mg/L [52] | 0.66 ± 0.21b | 1.40 ± 0.23a | ** |
1260 | 2-phenylethyl acetate | 0.25 mg/L [57] | 1.51 ± 0.63b | 3.08 ± 0.77a | * |
1386 | Ethyl-9-decenoate | Unknown | 0.61 ± 0.07a | 0.15 ± 0.08b | * |
1395 | Ethyl decanoate | 0.2 mg/L [52] | 0.07 ± 0.02a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | * |
∑Others | 0.25 ± 0.05a | 0.17 ± 0.07a | n.s. | ||
1768 | 3-(2-hydroxyethyl)-indole | Unknown | 0.25 ± 0.05a | 0.17 ± 0.07a | n.s. |
Result indicates mean value ± standard deviation of two determinations from three replicates. Data within a row followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey's test. P value: *, P < 0.05 **, P < 0.01; ***, P < 0.001. Abbreviations: SS, statistical significance; n.s., not significant.
Parameters | Must | Vinification | ||||||||
Pre-clarification | Post-clarification | 3 d of alcoholic fermentation | ||||||||
A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | ||
Residual sugar Ψ | 275.70 ± 3.41 | 269.6 ± 4.81a | 273.80 ± 4.76a | n.s. | 262.67 ± 8.44a | 271.19 ± 7.74a | n.s. | 255.05 ± 7.97a | 265.61 ± 4.57a | n.s. |
Fructose Ψ | 156.15 ± 2.31 | 146.28 ± 0.46b | 156.01 ± 0.46a | *** | 146.10 ± 1.55b | 155.39 ± 1.59a | ** | 139.40 ± 3.51a | 149.66 ± 6.04a | n.s. |
Glicerol Ψ | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.05 ± 0.01a | 0.04 ± 0.01a | n.s. | 0.115 ± 0.00a | 0.11 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.54 ± 0.02a | 0.35 ± 0.13a | n.s. |
Acetic acid Ψ | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.08 ± 0.02a | 0.07 ± 0.01a | n.s. |
Malic acid Ψ | 1.36 ± 0.03 | 1.37 ± 0.02a | 1.36 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 1.37 ± 0.03a | 1.35 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 1.29 ± 0.07a | 1.31 ± 0.01a | n.s. |
Tartaric acid Ψ | 5.08 ± 0.05 | 4.33 ± 0.05a | 4.56 ± 0.24a | n.s. | 4.04 ± 0.19a | 4.09 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 4.85 ± 0.30a | 4.42 ± 0.15a | n.s. |
Lactic acid Ψ | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.02 ± 0.01a | 0.03 ± 0.00a | n.s. |
Ethanol |
0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.22 ± 0.07a | 0.09 ± 0.04a | n.s. | 0.39 ± 0.16a | 0.14 ± 0.09a | n.s. | 0.84 ± 0.22a | 0.41 ± 0.23a | n.s. |
Parameters | 6 d of alcoholic fermentation | 9 d of alcoholic fermentation | End of alcoholic fermentation | |||||||
A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | A | B | S.S. | ||
Residual sugar Ψ | 157.00 ± 4.49b | 202.25 ± 8.38a | *** | 11.75 ± 3.89b | 57.60 ± 1.40a | *** | 1.53 ± 0.00a | 0.51 ± 0.06b | *** | |
Fructose Ψ | 104.51 ± 7.48b | 126.77 ± 2.08a | ** | 9.63 ± 1.36b | 52.61 ± 0.52a | *** | 0.47 ± 0.06a | 0.07 ± 0.07b | ** | |
Glicerol Ψ | 4.98 ± 0.16a | 6.20 ± 1.62a | n.s. | 6.58 ± 0.04a | 7.12 ± 0.40a | n.s. | 7.05 ± 0.37a | 6.77 ± 0.25a | n.s. | |
Acetic acid Ψ | 0.20 ± 0.03a | 0.17 ± 0.01a | n.s. | 0.10 ± 0.01a | 0.10 ± 0.03a | n.s. | 0.07 ± 0.01a | 0.07 ± 0.03a | n.s. | |
Malic acid Ψ | 1.25 ± 0.01a | 1.24 ± 0.04a | n.s. | 1.23 ± 0.05a | 1.24 ± 0.10a | n.s. | 1.21 ± 0.05a | 1.20 ± 0.05a | n.s. | |
Tartaric acid Ψ | 4.44 ± 0.11a | 4.11 ± 0.13b | * | 4.17 ± 0.17a | 3.89 ± 0.17a | n.s. | 3.55 ± 0.05a | 3.67 ± 0.17a | n.s. | |
Lactic acid Ψ | 0.01 ± 0.00a | 0.02 ± 0.01a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | n.s. | |
Ethanol |
5.88 ± 0.25a | 3.46 ± 0.31b | *** | 13.34 ± 0.21a | 11.06 ± 0.12b | *** | 14.04 ± 0.03a | 14.10 ± 0.04a | n.s. |
LRI | Compounds (Common name) | Odour Perception Threshold | Trial A (mg/L) | Trial B (mg/L) | |
S.S. | |||||
∑Alcohols | 117.58 ± 12.78b | 189.49 ± 12.63a | * | ||
607 | 2-methyl-1-propanol | 40 mg/L [49] | 1.00 ± 0.41a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | * |
764 | 1-pentanol | 80 mg/L [50] | 59.92 ± 5.32a | 50.13 ± 4.08a | n.s. |
765 | 1,2-propanediol | Unknown | 0.52 ± 0.07a | 0.86 ± 0.14a | n.s. |
824 | 2,3-butanediol | 120 mg/L [51] | 2.88 ± 0.27a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | *** |
856 | 3-methyl-1-pentanol | Unknown | 0.25 ± 0.08a | 0.14 ± 0.03a | n.s. |
878 | 1-hexanol | 8 mg/L [52] | 0.91 ± 0.08a | 0.45 ± 0.09b | * |
983 | 3-methyl-thio-1-propanol | 1 mg/L [53] | 2.01 ± 0.09a | 0.85 ± 0.04b | *** |
1134 | Hydroxyethylbenzene | 10 mg/L [46],[47] | 44.23 ± 5.29b | 135.31 ± 7.97a | *** |
1314 | 2-methoxy-4-methyl-phenol | Unknown | 0.82 ± 0.05a | 0.36 ± 0.11b | *** |
1432 | 4-hydroxyphenyl ethanol | Unknown | 4.11 ± 1.05a | 0.91 ± 0.09b | * |
1505 | 2,4-di-tert-butyl phenol | 0.2 mg/L [50] | 0.93 ± 0.07a | 0.48 ± 0.08b | * |
∑Aldehydes | 3.03 ± 0.44a | 2.16 ± 0.40a | n.s. | ||
1224 | 3,4-dimethyl benzaldehyde | Unknown | 0.80 ± 0.15a | 0.51 ± 0.12a | n.s. |
2020 | Octadecanal | Unknown | 2.23 ± 0.29a | 1.65 ± 0.28a | n.s. |
∑Ketones | 2.04 ± 0.54a | 1.56 ± 0.30a | n.s. | ||
722 | 3-hydroxy-2-butanone | 30 mg/L [49] | 0.49 ± 0.00a | 0.51 ± 0.12a | n.s. |
964 | 4-hydroxy-2-butanone | Unknown | 1.03 ± 0.51a | 0.74 ± 0.11a | n.s. |
1285 | 2-hydroxy-2-methyl-1-phenyl-1-propanone | Unknown | 0.52 ± 0.03a | 0.31 ± 0.07b | * |
∑Carboxylic acids | 4.47 ± 0.53a | 0.94 ± 0.16b | ** | ||
590 | Acetic acid | 200 mg/L [54] | 0.63 ± 0.08a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | * |
916 | 4-hydroxy butanoic acid | Unknown | 0.36 ± 0.06a | 0.12 ± 0.04b | ** |
1015 | Hexanoic acid | 0.42 mg/L [52] | 0.27 ± 0.08a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | ** |
1195 | Octanoic acid | 2.20 mg/L [55] | 3.21 ± 0.31a | 0.82 ± 0.12b | ** |
∑Esters | 15.85 ± 3.50a | 15.82 ± 2.39a | n.s. | ||
589 | Ethyl acetate | 7.5 mg/L [54] | 8.25 ± 0.99a | 2.14 ± 0.62b | ** |
803 | Ethyl lactate | 60 mg/L [56] | 0.15 ± 0.02a | 0.29 ± 0.06a | n.s. |
886 | 3-methyl-butyl acetate | 0.03 mg/L [52] | 2.99 ± 0.86b | 7.84 ± 0.53a | *** |
941 | Ethyl 3-hydroxy butanoate | Unknown | 0.21 ± 0.08a | 0.16 ± 0.04a | n.s. |
1002 | Ethyl-butyl acetate | Unknown | 1.40 ± 0.62a | 0.76 ± 0.06a | n.s. |
1199 | Ethyl octanoate | 0.005 mg/L [52] | 0.66 ± 0.21b | 1.40 ± 0.23a | ** |
1260 | 2-phenylethyl acetate | 0.25 mg/L [57] | 1.51 ± 0.63b | 3.08 ± 0.77a | * |
1386 | Ethyl-9-decenoate | Unknown | 0.61 ± 0.07a | 0.15 ± 0.08b | * |
1395 | Ethyl decanoate | 0.2 mg/L [52] | 0.07 ± 0.02a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | * |
∑Others | 0.25 ± 0.05a | 0.17 ± 0.07a | n.s. | ||
1768 | 3-(2-hydroxyethyl)-indole | Unknown | 0.25 ± 0.05a | 0.17 ± 0.07a | n.s. |