Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
Toward Dynamic Detection of Circulating Tumor Cells Exploiting Specific Molecular Recognition Elements
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Structure Underlying the Allosteric Mechanism of Caffeine Detection in Taste Sensor
Previous Article in Special Issue
Kullback–Leibler Importance Estimation Procedure to Improve Gas Quantification in an Electronic Nose
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation by a GC Electronic Nose of the Differences in Volatile Profile Induced by Stopping Fermentation with Octanoic and Decanoic Acid to Produce Sweet Wines

by
Cornel Baniţă
,
Oana Arina Antoce
* and
George Adrian Cojocaru
Department of Bioengineering of Horti-Viticultural Systems, Faculty of Horticulture, University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, 59 Mărăşti Ave., Sector 1, 011464 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Chemosensors 2023, 11(2), 98; https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors11020098
Submission received: 23 December 2022 / Revised: 26 January 2023 / Accepted: 27 January 2023 / Published: 30 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Chemosensors in Biological Challenges)

Abstract

:
Due to their inhibitory effect on the growth and fermentation of yeasts, medium-chain fatty acids can be used for the production of naturally sweet wines. Addition of octanoic acid, decanoic acid or their combinations is able to stop the alcoholic fermentation, reducing at the same time the doses of sulphur dioxide addition needed for the same goal in the classical technologies. Doses in the range of 10–30 mg L−1 of these acids were used, and their effect on the aroma profile of the sweet wines obtained was evaluated by using a chromatographic electronic nose with two columns. Based on the chromatographic peaks, which are considered the sensors of this e-nose, differentiation of the wines treated with octanoic or decanoic acids is easily achieved. The acid doses, the type of acid and also the yeast used for fermentations have all detectable influences on the volatile profiles of the wines. Discriminant factor analysis was applied on the e-nose data to separate the wines obtained with different treatments. Several differences in the content of the volatile compounds were identified and discussed in view of their sensory influences and the impact of treatment and yeast, respectively. Special attention was given to the formation of ethyl octanoate and ethyl decanoate which, at acid additions over 10 mg L−1, are formed in quantities which have a detectable influence on the aromatic profile. Ethyl octanoate and decanoate are produced in direct relation to the dose of the corresponding acids, but the yeast named ST leads to higher amounts of ethyl decanoate while the one named ERSA leads to higher amounts of ethyl octanoate. In accordance with the e-nose results, the aromatic profile obtained by stopping the fermentation with decanoic acid and using the ERSA yeast is more complex, the wines thus produced preserving more of the varietal and fermentation aroma. This research will be continued at an industrial scale.

1. Introduction

The production of naturally sweet wines generally relies on stopping the fermentation, the most common technique for this being the addition of large quantities of sulphur dioxide [1] and lowering the temperature until the yeast is not able to survive. Sulphur dioxide is an additive that is very useful for the antioxidant protection of wines and also for their microbiological stabilisation. However, the usage of high concentrations of sulphur dioxide is not desirable, as some people can be sensitive to this product or its related compounds that are formed in acidic media such as wine [2]. To lower the SO2 doses necessary to stop the fermentation in order to produce sweet wines, other alternative techniques were sought for some time. Based on the observation that medium-chain fatty acids (MCFAs), such as hexanoic, octanoic, decanoic and dodecanoic acids, naturally produced by the yeast during fermentation [3] to protect themselves against other yeasts, could sometimes even lead to unwanted stuck fermentations [4,5,6], researchers came up with the idea of adding these acids on purpose in order to arrest fermentation at appropriate times [7]. In this way, instead of the high doses required to stop fermentation, only low doses of SO2 are still needed, for the normal antioxidant protection of wines. Taking into account that these acids are natural products, for which—in normal concentrations—no negative effects on human health were found [8,9], the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV) also decided to accept this practice of stopping the fermentation by adding medium-chain fatty acids, an OIV resolution being presently under discussion. Several studies were carried out and the results initially showed that doses in the range of 10–20 mg L−1 would be sufficient to arrest the fermentation and produce sweet wines [7,10,11].
In this context, looking for an alternative method to produce our traditional wines of Tămâioasă românească at Pietroasa Research Station, we also decided to investigate this procedure and to evaluate the influences that adding medium-chain fatty acids can have on the aromatic profile of this aromatic wine.
In order to evaluate the aroma profile of the resulting wines, an electronic nose with two short chromatographic columns of different polarities was used. The goal was to determine the influences on the aroma of the type of acid used, as well as of the dosage, not neglecting the possible effect of the fermentation yeasts inoculated, which can produce different concentrations of fermentation by-products in such complex media. Differentiation of the groups of wines produced by stopping fermentation with octanoic acid, decanoic acid and their combinations was pursued by using the e-nose.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Wine Variants Preparation

The experimental variants were prepared with grapes of the Tămâioasă românească variety cultivated in the Pietroasa Viticulture Centre—Dealu Mare Vineyard, Buzău, at the Didactic Research Station for Viticulture and Pomiculture Pietroasa–Istrita–Branch of University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Bucharest (USAMV Bucharest). Tămâioasa românească is a representative grape variety for the aromatic sweet wines obtained in this area, its main characteristic being the high accumulation of sugars, which allows for the obtaining of wines with natural residual sugar, suitable for consumption both as young wines or as wines aged for long periods of time.
When they reached about 260 g L−1 sugars, the grapes were harvested by hand in 15–20 kg crates and transported to the winemaking line, where they were de-stemmed and crushed. At the same time, 50 mg kg−1 potassium metabisulfite was added for antioxidant protection. The resulting mash was left for pre-fermentative maceration for 6 to 8 h at an approximate temperature of 14–15 °C, in the presence of 5 g 100 kg−1 of the extraction enzyme Speed Up Aroma (Sodinal, Bucharest, Romania). After maceration, the must was separated and transferred to another vessel for settling in the presence of 1 mL 100 L−1 of enzyme complex Enosim Lux (Agrovin, Ciudad Real, Spain), containing PG 4500 U/g, PME 1000 U/g and PL 130 U/g, along with 10 g 100 L−1 polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP) (Laffort, Floirac, France). The settling required about 2 days at a temperature of about 10 °C. At the end, the limpid must was racked, its acidity corrected by adding 1.5 g L−1 tartaric acid, and used to obtain the experimental variants.
After that, two strains of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts were inoculated in two separated batches. One of the yeast strains, ERSA 1376 (Enologica Vason S.P.A., San Pietro in Cariano, Verona, Italy), abbreviated hereafter as ERSA, is characterized by its capacity to produce intense and persistent fruit aromas, generally typical of Sauvignon Blanc, but also recommended for aromatic white wines from other varieties with a terpenic profile, due to its capacity to preserve and intensify the varietal aromas. The other yeast strain, Zymaflore ST (Laffort, Floirac, France), abbreviated hereafter as ST, is a Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. cerevisiae strain recommended especially for the production of sweet white wines, due to its high tolerance for sugar and alcohol, but also low tolerance to SO2. This yeast too has the ability to highlight some of the varietal flavours of the fermented varieties.
The alcoholic fermentation of the must took place in 220 L vessels. To obtain sweet wines, stopping of the alcoholic fermentation progress was carried out, for each experimental variant and repetition, in glass demijohns of 5 L capacity. Stopping was performed when the alcoholic fermentation was approximately 75–80% completed, that is, at around 12% vol. ethanol. For each experimental variant, the following oenological materials were added in accordance with Table 1, and each variant was prepared in triplicate:
-
octanoic acid—in doses of 10, 20 and 30 mg L−1;
-
decanoic acid—in doses of 10, 20 and 30 mg L−1;
-
octanoic and decanoic acid combinations—10 mg L−1 and 15 mg L−1 of each;
-
SO2—60 mg L−1 for samples with fatty acids and 120 mg L−1 for control samples;
-
0.6 g L−1 bentonite was added in each sample, including the control.
At the end, immediately after the treatment with fatty acids, 0.6 g L−1 bentonite was added to facilitate clarification. After 3–4 weeks, the wine was passed through sterilising filter pads, using a plate and frame filter and then stored at 13–15 °C.

2.2. Wine Variants Analyses

The main chemical parameters were determined using reference methods recommended by the OIV. Thus, the distillation method OIV-MA-AS312-01A was used to determine the alcohol concentration, the chemical method OIV-MA-AS311-01A and the refractometric method OIV-MA-AS2-02 were used to determine the concentration of sugars, and the potentiometric method OIV-MA-AS313-01 was applied to determine the total titratable acidity and pH.
The analyses of the organic volatile compounds by the electronic nose were performed by using a flash GC gas-chromatograph with two short columns, fabricated by Alpha MOS S.A (Toulouse, France) under the name of Heracles e-nose analyser. The areas of representative chromatographic peaks are selected as the sensors of the electronic nose, as described previously [12,13]. The columns are DB5 (5% diphenyl and 95% dimethylpolysiloxane) and DB1701 (14% cyanopropylphenyl and 86% dimethyl-polysiloxane). Due to the different polarities of the two chromatographic columns (DB5 is non-polar and DB1701 is low-/mid-polar), the volatile compounds which are separated on both columns have different retention times, thus allowing for a higher probability of identification of compounds, in spite of the rapidity of separation (acquisition time for a chromatogram is 46 s). Flame ionization detectors (FID) at the end of each column are used for the detection of volatile compounds. The GC e-nose operation method [13] has the following main parameters: gas injection from the head-space after stirring the vials at 500 rpm in the autosampler oven at 60 °C for 10 min, injector temperature of 250 °C, initial column temperature 40 °C with an increase rate of a 5 °C/s up to 200 °C, temperature and pressure of both detectors of 200 °C and 35 psi, respectively. To ensure a better separation, the apparatus is also equipped with a Tenax trap placed before the GC columns (sampling temperature at 40 °C, desorption at 250 °C, purge for 50 s and bake-out for 50 s). Hydrogen is used as a carrier gas at pressure of 16 psi. The full description of the apparatus, the methods of analysis for wine, calibration and calculation of Kovats indices were presented in previous papers [12,13,14,15,16].
AlphaSoft v12.42 and the library AroChemBase v. 2010 are the software packages used for data processing, generation of the volatile profiles of wines, statistical analyses for sample discriminations (PCA and DFA) and the identification of chemical compounds based on retention Kovats indices.
Sensory attributes for the identified volatile organic compounds are provided in accordance with the AroChemBase library and other public databases, such as FEMA (Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States) or FlavorDB (https://cosylab.iiitd.edu.in/, accessed on 9 November 2022).
Each wine variant was introduced in the chromatograph in triplicate, and results are reported as averages ± standard deviations. To compare the means, ANOVA was performed by using IBM® SPSS® Statistics software v.16 (IBM, New York, NY, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Compounds Identified in Tămâioasă Românească Wines by GC e-Nose

The wine variants produced were analysed to confirm that they are within the range of desired physico-chemical parameters. All wines, irrespective of the methods to stop fermentation and yeast used for fermentation, achieved a concentration of ethanol in the range of 12.1–12.8% vol., total titratable acidity of 6.6–6.9 g L−1 tartaric acid, stable pH around 3.1 and a sugar concentration of 65–69 g L−1.
The organic volatile compounds were identified in accordance with their retention time (RT) on at least one of the two columns of the GC electronic nose, but most of them were separated on both columns. The identified compounds were included in Table 2, along with their most usual sensory effect.
The identified compounds belong to several chemical classes, which are normally involved in wine aroma. Terpenes are highly correlated with the varietal aroma of grapes, especially in those with muscat-type aroma [17], as is the case of Tămâioasă românească, while the esters, aldehydes and alcohols are modulated by the yeasts used for the grape must fermentation [18]. External factors and conditions can greatly influence the metabolism of yeast and leave a mark on the aroma profile of the fermented media.

3.2. Influence of ERSA Yeast on the Volatile Compounds of Tămâioasă Românească Wines Treated with Octanoic or Decanoic Acid

In Table 3, the main volatile compounds of the wines fermented by ERSA yeasts are quantitatively reported for each experimental wine that resulted after stopping fermentation by using various dosages of medium-chain fatty acids. The concentrations of the volatile compounds identified in each wine are expressed in chromatographic peak areas, which is enough to allow for a comparison of the yeast and medium-chain fatty acid effects.
Similarly, Table 4 contains the results for the wines fermented by ST yeast.
While the aroma profile induced by the Tămâioasă românească grape variety is evident in all the samples, especially as regards the identified terpenic compounds, which do not vary much among samples, the yeasts and the addition of medium-chain fatty acids modulate the aroma produced during fermentation. As observed in both Table 3 and Table 4, the varietal muscat-type aroma in all samples is unchanged by the fermentation conditions, the levels of β-linalool, trans-geraniol, nerol oxide, (e)-linalool oxide, limonen-1,2-epoxide, β-myrcene and cis-β-ocimene being not significantly different, irrespective of the yeast used or the addition of the octanoic or decanoic acid to stop fermentation. The influences of yeasts and medium-chain fatty acids are discussed in Section 4.

3.3. Discrimination Analysis Performed by the e-Nose for Samples Treated with Various Doses of Octanoic and Decanoic Acid to Stop Fermentation

For the discrimination of wine samples based on the most significant volatile compounds identified by the gas-chromatograph electronic nose, the areas of their peaks, which play the role of sensors for this type of e-nose, were analysed by Discriminant Factor Analysis (DFA).

3.3.1. Discrimination of Samples Considered Altogether, Irrespective of the Yeast Used for Fermentation

In order to determine if the e-nose is able to discriminate among samples prepared in the presence of various dosages of octanoic acid, decanoic acid or their combinations, all the samples were taken into account, irrespective of the yeast used for fermentation (Figure 1). Even with a low validation score for the DF analysis, discrimination was possible in this way for groups of wines with different medium-chain fatty acid treatments, but also based on the different yeasts used.
Based on the volatile compounds determined by the GC-nose, the samples are mainly separated in accordance with the yeast inoculated to perform the must fermentation (Figure 1). The axis DF1, representing 49.72% of the total variance of the experimental data, essentially includes the effects of fermentation aroma compounds produced by the yeasts. Thus, it is clear that the ST yeast produces more isoamyl acetate aroma (banana) while ERSA induces more 2-methyl butanol, acetaldehyde and ethyl acetate. Some primary aroma-related compounds are also part of DF1, such as indole (more for the ST fermented wines) and ethyl hexanoate and α-terpinen-7-al (more for the ERSA fermented wines). Thus, the groups of samples fermented with ST are separated to the left of the diagram, while the groups of samples fermented with ERSA are present in the right side of the diagram.
DF2, representing 37.76% of the sample group variance, is clearly differentiating the samples based on the treatment with either octanoic or decanoic acid. The medium-chain fatty acids are not determined with the type of columns the GC-nose is endowed with; however, their esters, produced by the yeasts in the presence of these acids, are clearly revealed. Thus, the DF2 axis includes the effects of ethyl octanoate and ethyl decanoate, along with some linalool oxide, which is correlated with the presence of decanoic acid and especially the ST yeast. Accordingly, the samples treated with octanoic acid are all grouped in the upper quadrants of the diagram, where the influence of ethyl octanoate in the wine aromatic profile is clear, while the samples treated with decanoic acid are all grouped in the lower quadrants of the diagram, where the main factor influencing the aromatic profiles of wines is the ethyl decanoate. As expected, wines for which the fermentation was stopped by a combination of octanoic and decanoic acid are placed in between the wine groups of octanoic and decanoic, respectively, being closer to the DF1 axis.

3.3.2. Discrimination of Samples Fermented with One Type of Yeast (ERSA or ST)

In order to determine more clearly the influence of the medium-chain fatty acids, DF analysis was also performed separately for the wines fermented with ERSA yeast (Figure 2) or ST yeast (Figure 3).
For the wines fermented with ERSA yeast, the use of octanoic acid to stop fermentation leads to simpler aromatic profiles, with lower concentrations of other volatile compounds; the resulting ethyl octanoate has a major influence, especially at dosages higher than 10 mg L−1. On the contrary, as a result of using decanoic acid to stop fermentation, the presence of ethyl decanoate in the wine fermented with ERSA leads to a very complex aromatic profile, especially for the doses lower than 20 mg L−1.
Similarly, for the wines fermented by ST yeast, stopping the fermentation with octanoic acid leads to a simpler aromatic profile, in which, aside from ethyl octanoate, acetaldehyde, ethyl acetates and α-terpinen-7-al also have their influences. For this yeast too, the wines treated with decanoic acid at no more than 20 mg L−1 maintain a complex aroma profile.
It is already obvious from both diagrams that doses of 30 mg L−1 of either acid influence the wine aroma too greatly. Doses of 10 mg L−1 of either octanoic or decanoic acids have the smallest influence on the wines, their wine aromatic profiles placing relatively close to the ones of control wines (red circles in Figure 2 and Figure 3).

4. Discussion

The influences of the yeast on the volatile aroma profile depended on their metabolism. Some volatile organic compounds, aside from those directly coming from the grapes (terpenes) were significantly influenced by the yeast during fermentation. For instance, exotic fruits aroma of isoamyl acetate and 2-phenylethyl acetate are enhanced by the ERSA yeasts, which is known to be an ester-producing yeast. Further, the pineapple/banana note is enhanced by the higher concentrations of ethyl ester of butanoic and hexanoic acid, as well as ethyl octanoate and ethyl decanoate naturally produced by this yeast even in the absence of octanoic or decanoic acids addition. Moreover, slightly higher concentrations of fermentation alcohols (2,3-butanediol, 2-methyl-1-butanol, 2-phenyl-ethanol), along with other specific wine spicy aroma compounds (abhexone) are produced by ERSA yeast. The other yeast (ST) has higher sugar concentration and produces higher alcohol amounts, but intervenes less in the aroma profile of the varietal wine, by producing slightly lower concentrations of the same fermentation compounds. Other volatile compounds contributing to overall wine aroma were found to be produced in similar quantities by both yeasts. Among these compounds we find several more acetic acid esters (cis-3-hexenyl acetate, ethyl acetate) and aldehydes (acetaldehyde, 2-phenyl-acetaldehyde, 2-methyl-butanal, 2-undecenal), which, being in low concentrations, show that the quality of the wine was not affected by oxidation. The fact that the wines were not much affected by oxidation is proven also by the low production of linalool oxide from the grape-derived β-linalool.
The influences of medium-chain fatty acids are especially observable in the increased levels of ethyl octanoate and ethyl decanoate, which, as discussed further, are correlated with the octanoic and decanoic acids used for the arresting of the fermentation. Other volatile compounds are also increased, as compared to the control wines, in the presence of the added medium-chain fatty acids. Thus, the values recorded on column DB5 for the fruity-sweet2-phenylethyl acetate increase in case of treatment with either octanoic or decanoic acid, irrespective of their dose or the yeast employed. 1H-indol, a floral-earthy aroma compound, even though present in small amounts, shows higher levels in the wine treated with octanoic or decanoic acids. The (e)-2-undecenal, with its specific herbaceous-orange peel aroma, also increases for ST yeast especially in the presence of octanoic acid and for ERSA yeast for both octanoic and decanoic acids, the effect being dose-dependent. This (e)-2-undecenal tends to be associated with oxidation of wines, and so does the (e)-linalool oxide. For this last compound, which results from the oxidation of β-linalool, it was observed that its concentrations are also increasing as compared to control in wines obtained after treatment with medium-chain fatty acids. The β-linalool/(e)-linalool oxide ratio is higher when the linalool is less oxidized, and for our wines we observed that the presence of octanoic acid tends to suppress oxidation of this compound in a dose-dependent manner, resulting in an increasingly more fruity-terpenic aroma. Thus, the β-linalool/(e)-linalool oxide ratio on chromatographic column DB5 was determined to be 2 for control, 2.8 for 10 mg L−1 octanoic, 3.6 for 10 mg L−1 octanoic + 10 mg L−1 decanoic, 5.3 for 20 mg L−1 octanoic, 6.2 for 30 mg L−1 octanoic and 6.5 for 15 mg L−1 octanoic + 15 mg L−1 decanoic, while for decanoic acid alone the ratio showed no protection from oxidation, its value being 1.4, 1.8 and 1.0 for doses of 10, 20 and 30 mg L−1 decanoic acid, respectively. On the chromatographic column DB1701 a similar behaviour was observed, the ratio for control and doses of 10, 20 and 30 mg L−1 decanoic acid being 1.8, 1.8, 1.5 and 1.3, respectively, while for treatments with 10, 20, 30 mg L−1 octanoic acid, 10 mg L−1 octanoic + 10 mg L−1 decanoic and 15 mg L−1 octanoic + 15 mg L−1 decanoic the values were 3.4, 7.7, 6.9, 4.2 and 9.3, respectively. Some of the volatile compounds are, however, decreased by the medium-chain fatty acids. This is the case of α-terpinen-7-al, a spicy aromatic compound, and abhexone, which may impart a curry-like nuance. Compared to the control wine, these compounds are found in lower concentrations in all samples treated with octanoic or decanoic acid and fermented with ERSA yeast.
Consequently, with all the modulation of aroma in the presence of certain yeasts and medium-chain fatty acids, the aroma profile of the final wine can be significantly influenced and difficult to differentiate based only on sensory analysis.
The electronic nose proved to be a very useful and rapid tool able to discriminate among the types of treatments applied for stopping the fermentation, as well as the dosage of fatty acids used. This discrimination was mainly due to the partial transformation by the yeasts of the medium-chain fatty acid used for interrupting the course of fermentation into their corresponding ethyl esters as a mechanism of detoxification [19]. The concentration of the ethyl esters produced was proportional to the dose of acid used (in the range of 10–30 mg L−1), as proven by the peak areas determined on both chromatographic columns of the e-nose (Figure 4 and Figure 5). The yeast had also an influence, the ST strain producing more ethyl decanoate than ERSA when decanoic acid is added to the medium, while ERSA naturally produces more ethyl octanoate than ST, a fact observed in control wines to which no medium-chain fatty acid was added.
In both yeast strains, the concentrations of octanoic and decanoic acids of 10 mg L−1 were sufficient to inhibit fermentation, an effect observed also by Viegas et al. [6] on strains of S. cerevisiae and Kluyveromyces marxianus.
As it was demonstrated that the inhibitory effect of octanoic and decanoic acids is due to their undissociated form [6,20,21], the decrease of pH is prone to increase the inhibitory effect, especially in acid media such as wine, where the pH generally ranges from 2.9–3.8 [22].
The results also demonstrate that decanoic acid is more efficient than octanoic acid in inhibiting yeast growth and fermentation, the outcome being correlated with the molecular chain length [20], and higher liposolubility [23] and its ability to induce leakage from the yeast cells [24].
Ethanol, by contributing to the permeabilization of the yeast membranes [20] or activation of plasma membrane ATPase [25], can have a synergistic effect [20,26] on the inhibition induced by the octanoic and decanoic acid; however, some antagonistic effect was also documented [20,23] as the ethyl-esters produced are less inhibitory than the acids [23].

5. Conclusions

This research work showed that the wine fermentation can be stopped by any of the medium-chain fatty acids used—octanoic and decanoic acids—alone or in combinations. All the dosages employed were able to stop the fermentation of either of the two yeasts studied, allowing at the same time for a reduction of the added SO2, from 120 mg L−1 to only 60 mg L−1. However, the aroma profile of the wine, even though based on the same main compounds, is influenced by the choice of the acid, by its dose and by the yeast strain, which all together determine the final concentrations and ratios of volatile compounds produced.
Being sufficient to stop the fermentation with less influence on the aroma profile of the wine, the dose of 10 mg L−1 of either acid can be recommended.
The DFA analyses and the e-nose discrimination of wine samples based on their volatile profile indicates that decanoic acid leads to a more complex aroma in wines, some of the volatile compounds being preserved in overall higher concentrations.
If the goal is not to change much the volatile profile of wines obtained from the Tămâioasă romanească grape variety, in the case of decanoic acid being used to stop the fermentation, the yeast ERSA, producing less ethyl decanoate from the added acid, is recommended. However, in the case of octanoic acid being used to stop the fermentation, the yeast ST was observed to produce lower levels of the corresponding esters and is therefore recommended in association with the use of this fatty acid.
It should also be taken into account that, as the ethyl esters are less inhibitory than the acids, a yeast strain which produces higher amounts of ethyl esters also lowers the efficacy of the corresponding acids in stopping the fermentation.
This research will be continued at an industrial scale, and a sensory analysis with a panel of experts will also be performed to decide on the technological interventions most suitable for obtaining sweet wines from grape varieties with muscat aroma.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.A.A.; methodology, O.A.A.; software and formal analysis G.A.C., C.B., O.A.A.; investigation, C.B. and O.A.A.; resources C.B. and O.A.A.; data curation, O.A.A.; writing—original draft preparation O.A.A.; graphic preparation G.A.C.; writing—review and editing, O.A.A.; supervision, O.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was performed with the administrative and technical support (equipment, raw materials, funds) belonging to the University of Agronomic Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Bucharest, Romania.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Divol, B.; Strehaiano, P.; Lonvaud-Funel, A. Effectiveness of dimethyldicarbonate to stop alcoholic fermentation in wine. Food Microbiol. 2005, 22, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Taylor, S.L.; Higley, N.A.; Bush, R.K. Sulfites in Foods: Uses, Analytical Methods, Residues, Fate, Exposure Assessment, Metabolism, Toxicity, and Hypersensitivity. In Advances in Food Research; Chichester, C.O., Mrak, E.M., Schweigert, B.S., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986; Volume 30, pp. 1–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Csutoras, C.; Bakos-Barczi, N.; Burkus, B. Medium chain fatty acids and fatty acid esters as potential markers of alcoholic fermentation of white wines. Acta Aliment. 2022, 51, 33–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Novak, M.; Strehaiano, P.; Moreno, M.; Goma, G. Alcoholic fermentation: On the inhibitory effect of ethanol. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 1981, 23, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lafon-Lafourcade, S.; Geneix, C.; Ribereau-Gayon, P. Inhibition of alcoholic fermentation of grape must by fatty acids produced by yeasts and their elimination by yeast ghosts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1984, 47, 1246–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Viegas, C.A.; Rosa, M.F.; Correia, I.S.; Novais, J.M. Inhibition of yeast growth by octanoic and decanoic acids produced during ethanolic fermentation. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1989, 55, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Licek, J.; Baron, M.; Sochor, J.; Kumsta, M.; Mlcek, J. Observation of residues content after application of a medium-chain fatty acids mixture at the end of alcoholic fermentation. Fermentation 2022, 8, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Api, A.M.; Belsito, D.; Biserta, S.; Botelho, D.; Bruze, M.; Burton, G.A.; Buschmann, J.; Cancellieri, M.A.; Dagli, M.L.; Date, M.; et al. RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, octanoic acid, CAS Registry Number 124-07-2. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 138 (Suppl. S1), 111271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Api, A.M.; Belsito, D.; Biserta, S.; Botelho, D.; Bruze, M.; Burton, G.A.; Buschmann, J.; Cancellieri, M.A.; Dagli, M.L.; Date, M.; et al. RIFM fragrance ingredient safety assessment, decanoic acid, CAS Registry Number 334-48-5. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2020, 144 (Suppl. S1), 111465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Baroň, M.; Kumšta, M.; Prokeš, K.; Tomášková, L.; Tomková, M. The inhibition of Saccharomyces cerevisiae population during alcoholic fermentation of grape must by octanoic, decanoic and dodecanoic acid mixture. BIO Web Conf. 2017, 9, 02025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Licek, J.; Baron, M.; Sochor, J. Comparison of MCFA and other methods of terminating alcohol fermentation and their influence on the content of carbonyl compounds in wine. Molecules 2020, 25, 5737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Antoce, A.O.; Cojocaru, G.A. Evaluation by Flash GC Electronic Nose of the Effect of Combinations of Yeasts and Nutrients on the Aromatic Profiles of Feteasca Regala Wines after Two Years of Storage. Fermentation 2021, 7, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cojocaru, G.A.; Antoce, A.O. Influence of glutathione and ascorbic acid treatments during vinification of Feteasca Regala variety and their antioxidant effect on volatile profile. Biosensors 2019, 9, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Antoce, O.A.; Namolosanu, C.I. Rapid and precise discrimination of wines by means of an electronic nose based on gas-chromatography. Rev. Chim. 2011, 62, 593–595. [Google Scholar]
  15. Strani, L.; D’Alessandro, A.; Ballestrieri, D.; Durante, C.; Cocchi, M. Fast GC E-Nose and Chemometrics for the Rapid Assessment of Basil Aroma. Chemosensors 2022, 10, 105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Yimenu, S.M.; Kim, J.Y.; Kim, B.S. Prediction of egg freshness during storage using electronic nose. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 3733–3746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Marais, J. Terpenes in the Aroma of Grapes and Wines: A Review. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 1983, 4, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lambrechts, M.G.; Pretorius, I.S. Yeast and its Importance to Wine Aroma—A Review. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2000, 21, 97–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Legras, J.L.; Erny, C.; Le Jeune, C.; Lollier, M.; Adolphe, Y.; Demuyter, C.; Delobel, P.; Blondin, B.; Karst, F. Activation of two different resistance mechanisms in Saccharomyces cerevisiae upon exposure to octanoic and decanoic acids. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2010, 76, 7526–7535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Antoce, O.A.; Antoce, V.; Takahashi, K.; Pomohaci, N.; Nămoloşanu, I. A calorimetric method applied to the study of yeast growth inhibition by alcohols and organic acids. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1997, 48, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Antoce, O.A.; Antoce, V.; Takahashi, K. Inhibitory effects of decanoic acid on yeast growth at various pHs and ethanol concentrations. Biocontrol Sci. 1998, 2, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Obreque-Slier, E.; Espínola-Espínola, V.; López-Solís, R. Wine pH Prevails over Buffering Capacity of Human Saliva. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 8154–8159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Stevens, S.; Hofmeyr, J.H.S. Effects of ethanol, octanoic and decanoic acids on fermentation and the passive influx of protons through the plasma membrane of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1993, 38, 656–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sa-Correia, I.; Salgueiro, S.P.; Viegas, C.A.; Novais, J.M. Leakage induced by ethanol, octanoic and decanoic acids in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 1989, 5, S123–S127. [Google Scholar]
  25. Viegas, C.A.; Sa-Correia, I. Activation of plasma membrane ATPase of Saccharomyces cerevisiae by octanoic acid. J. Gen. Microbiol. 1991, 137, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Viegas, C.A.; Sa-Correia, I.; Novais, J.M. Synergistic inhibition of the growth of Saccharomyces bayanus by ethanol and octanoic or decanoic acids. Biotechnol. Lett. 1985, 7, 611–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Discriminant Factor Analysis for the classification of all wine samples prepared by fermentation with two different yeasts (ERSA and ST) and by stopping fermentation with various dosages (10, 15, 20, 30 mg L−1) of two medium-chain fatty acids (octanoic and decanoic acids).
Figure 1. Discriminant Factor Analysis for the classification of all wine samples prepared by fermentation with two different yeasts (ERSA and ST) and by stopping fermentation with various dosages (10, 15, 20, 30 mg L−1) of two medium-chain fatty acids (octanoic and decanoic acids).
Chemosensors 11 00098 g001
Figure 2. Discriminant Factor Analysis for the classification of all wine samples prepared by fermentation with ERSA yeasts and by stopping fermentation with various dosages of octanoic and decanoic acids.
Figure 2. Discriminant Factor Analysis for the classification of all wine samples prepared by fermentation with ERSA yeasts and by stopping fermentation with various dosages of octanoic and decanoic acids.
Chemosensors 11 00098 g002
Figure 3. Discriminant Factor Analysis for the classification of all wine samples prepared by fermentation with ST yeasts and by stopping fermentation with various dosages of octanoic and decanoic acids.
Figure 3. Discriminant Factor Analysis for the classification of all wine samples prepared by fermentation with ST yeasts and by stopping fermentation with various dosages of octanoic and decanoic acids.
Chemosensors 11 00098 g003
Figure 4. The increase of ethyl octanoate generated by the ERSA yeast (left) and ST yeast (right) with the dose of octanoic acid added in the range of 0–30 mg L−1.
Figure 4. The increase of ethyl octanoate generated by the ERSA yeast (left) and ST yeast (right) with the dose of octanoic acid added in the range of 0–30 mg L−1.
Chemosensors 11 00098 g004
Figure 5. The increase of ethyl decanoate generated by the ERSA yeast (left) and ST yeast (right) with the dose of decanoic acid added in the range of 0–30 mg L−1.
Figure 5. The increase of ethyl decanoate generated by the ERSA yeast (left) and ST yeast (right) with the dose of decanoic acid added in the range of 0–30 mg L−1.
Chemosensors 11 00098 g005
Table 1. Experimental variants of Tămâioasă românească wines obtained by stopping fermentation with medium-chain fatty acids.
Table 1. Experimental variants of Tămâioasă românească wines obtained by stopping fermentation with medium-chain fatty acids.
Wine Samples
Fermented with
ERSA Yeast
Wine Samples
Fermented with
ST Yeast
Octanoic
Acid mg L−1
Decanoic
Acid mg L−1
SO2
mg L−1
ERSA_0 ST_0 --120
ERSA_oc10 ST_oc10 10-60
ERSA_oc20 ST_oc20 20-60
ERSA_oc30 ST_oc30 30-60
ERSA_de10 ST_de10-1060
ERSA_de20 ST_de20-2060
ERSA_de30 ST_de30-3060
ERSA_ocde10 ST_ocde10 101060
ERSA_ocde15 ST_ocde15 151560
oc—octanoic acid; de—decanoic acid.
Table 2. Compounds identified in Tămâioasă românească wines on both columns of GC e-nose.
Table 2. Compounds identified in Tămâioasă românească wines on both columns of GC e-nose.
CompoundColumn
DB5
RT (s)
Sensors on
DB5
(Peak Area)
Column DB1701
RT (s)
Sensors on DB1701
(Peak Area)
Sensory Attributes
Aldehydes
acetaldehyde3.13415.49-1-A3.86541.82-2-Apungent, ethereal
2-methyl-butanal6.23646.08-1-A7.10730.27-2-Anut, caramel, sweet
2-phenyl-acetaldehyde19.151026.76-1-A24.191176.08-2-Ahoney, sweet, rose, herbaceous, floral
(e)-2-undecenal31.841361.38-1-A36.451507.84-2-Ageranium, metallic, pungent, sweet, herbaceous, fruity, fatty
Alcohols
2-methyl-1-butanol7.97738.67-1-A11.16849.51-2-Amalt, wine, ethereal, fusel alcohols, fatty
2,3-butanediol8.94768.28-1-A16.07971.57-2-Afruits
2-phenyl-ethanol21.781088.98-1-A28.091279.81-2-A floral, rose, honey, sweet, spicy
Ethyl esters
ethyl butanoate9.86796.22-1-A11.57860.18-2-Abanana, ethereal, pineapple
ethyl-2-methyl-butanoate11.84846.48-1-A13.51909.56-2-Agreen apple, plum
ethyl hexanoate17.8993.12-1-A19.601058.80-2-Aapple, banana, wine, pineapple
ethyl octanoate25.771197.94-1-A27.501264.65-2-Apear, pineapple, floral, apricot
ethyl decanoate32.971392.28-1-A34.701460.26-2-Agrape, pear, oily, sweet, waxy, fruity, apple, soapy, winey
Acetate esters
ethyl acetate4.76611.29-1-A5.71675.39-2-Aethereal, aniseed, pineapple
isoamyl acetate12.94874.02-1-A14.81941.16-2-Abanana, pear
cis-3-hexenyl acetate18.271004.67-1-A20.291076.04-2-Aherbaceous, banana, vegetable
2-phenylethyl acetate27.801253.13-1A30.281339.07-2-Afruity, sweet
Terpenes
β-myrcene17.10976.36-1-A17.851015.20-2-Asweet, fruity, spice, woody, metallic
cis-β-ocimene19.761042.09-1-A22.561133.75-2-Acitrus, herbal
β-linalool22.351107.22-1-A24.691189.38-2-Acitrus, floral, sweet
nerol oxide23.881147.51-1-A30.921356.24-2-Asweet, fruity, floral, rose
(e)-linalool oxide24.631173.31-1-A--floral
trans-geraniol27.471242.49-1-A31.931378.40-2-Asweet, apple, apricot, berries, rose
limonen-1,2-epoxide23.491137.14-1-A25.921221.66-2-Asweet, fruity, spicy, woody, metallic
α-terpinen-7-al *--32.781407.37-2-Afat, spice
Heterocyclic compounds
abhexone **--33.451431.31-2-Acurry
1H-indol28.941283.06-1-A37.551541.25-2-Asweet, burnt, floral, jasmine, earthy
* p-mentha-1,3-dien-7-al; 1,3-p-Menthadien-7-al. ** 5-ethyl-3-hydroxy-4-methyl-2(5H)-furanone.
Table 3. Compounds identified on both columns of GC e-nose in Tămâioasă românească wines fermented by ERSA yeast, determined after stopping fermentation by using various dosages of medium-chain fatty acids.
Table 3. Compounds identified on both columns of GC e-nose in Tămâioasă românească wines fermented by ERSA yeast, determined after stopping fermentation by using various dosages of medium-chain fatty acids.
Peak Area/Compound *ERSERS_oc10ERS_oc20ERS_oc30ERS_de10ERS_de20ERS_de30ERS_ocde10ERS_ocde15
Acetaldehyde
415.49-172,627 ± 7300 a72,157 ± 3424 a70,593 ± 1169 a70,331 ± 4569 a73,524 ± 2915 a72,952 ± 5438 a69,304 ± 3392 a69,955 ± 2440 a71,461 ± 4647 a
541.82-2-A61,410 ± 6777 a60,160 ± 2272 a58,534 ± 1277 a58,911 ± 3451 a61,650 ± 2444 a61,080 ± 4198 a58,142 ± 2865 a59,126 ± 2031 a60,563 ± 3886 a
Ethyl acetate
611.29-1115,742 ± 6491 a117,375 ± 6851 a120,215 ± 2789 a118,769 ± 5080 a112,220 ± 11,834 a118,661 ± 6686 a119,235 ± 4301 a121,163 ± 5373 a115,826 ± 5595 a
675.39-2-A83,543 ± 5404 a83,693 ± 5752 a86,814 ± 1789 a86,370 ± 4473 a80,768 ± 9799 a85,279 ± 5306 a86,397 ± 3045 a88,513 ± 3904 a83,960 ± 4177 a
2-Methylbutanal
646.08-1572 ± 182 a704 ± 114 a637 ± 146 a574 ± 122 a562 ± 192 a539 ± 107 a529 ± 107 a605 ± 160 a624 ± 191 a
730.27-2-A9672 ± 849 a9562 ± 323 a9376 ± 263 a9409 ± 342 a9421 ± 400 a9623 ± 267 a9354 ± 440 a9575 ± 410 a9683 ± 356 a
2-Methyl-1-butanol
738.67-1162,167 ± 13,867 a163,996 ± 6739 a162,758 ± 5876 a161,097 ± 10,036 a162,962 ± 7171 a164,218 ± 8921 a159,802 ± 8889 a161,917 ± 7062 a166,926 ± 6017 a
849.51-2-A125,821 ± 10,438 a126,833 ± 5224 a126,318 ± 4719 a124,693 ± 7558 a125,635 ± 4788 a127,350 ± 6798 a124,073 ± 6921 a125,375 ± 4629 a130,309 ± 5313 a
2,3-Butanediol
768.28-11841 ± 288 a2059 ± 158 a1970 ± 165 a2001 ± 266 a1949 ± 169 a1959 ± 275 a1936 ± 135 a1937 ± 241 a2069 ± 250 a
971.57-2-A2487 ± 366 a2523 ± 409 a2252 ± 131 a2303 ± 286 a2474 ± 485 a2397 ± 280 a2289 ± 171 a2314 ± 176 a2546 ± 204 a
Ethyl butanoate
796.22-15879 ± 639 a6030 ± 337 a5794 ± 203 a5762 ± 451 a5865 ± 226 a5897 ± 531 a5631 ± 182 a5674 ± 303 a5890 ± 252 a
860.18-2-A5373 ± 573 a5364 ± 161 a5146 ± 140 a5162 ± 259 a5324 ± 337 a5402 ± 225 a5066 ± 258 a5218 ± 272 a5342 ± 341 a
Ethyl 2-Methylbutanoate
846.48-1-A670 ± 247 a757 ± 234 a643 ± 157 a690 ± 203 a710 ± 183 a685 ± 181 a677 ± 102 a656 ± 235 a715 ± 160 a
909.56-2-A705 ± 125 ab621 ± 61 ab569 ± 36 b597 ± 99 b577 ± 152 b661 ± 49 ab630 ± 79 ab717 ± 100 ab776 ± 94 a
Isoamyl acetate
874.02-1-A72,352 ± 6235 a72,544 ± 3861 a69,411 ± 2062 a68,603 ± 4693 a70,707 ± 3031 a72,287 ± 5827 a68,079 ± 3376 a67,802 ± 2575 a70,896 ± 3898 a
941.16-2-A54,005 ± 4386 a53,579 ± 1888 a51,668 ± 1421 a50,819 ± 3326 a52,484 ± 1691 a53,943 ± 3714 a51,033 ± 3243 a50,889 ± 1912 a52,947 ± 2999 a
β-Myrcene
976.36-1-A761 ± 0 a657 ± 120 a608 ± 96 a550 ± 62 a668 ± 75 a549 ± 18 a573 ± 82 a542 ± 168 a655 ± 76 a
1015.20-2-A1128 ± 326 a979 ± 213 a894 ± 86 a941 ± 168 a1005 ± 266 a1016 ± 120 a1012 ± 170 a1092 ± 199 a1179 ± 207 a
Ethyl hexanoate
993.12-1-A41,346 ± 5969 a38,497 ± 3382 a36,251 ± 972 a36,564 ± 4520 a38,987 ± 4042 a39,295 ± 5302 a35,670 ± 2238 a35,523 ± 1519 a38,586 ± 3583 a
1058.80-2-A30,982 ± 3963 a28,826 ± 2273 a27,234 ± 656 a27,375 ± 3178 a29,089 ± 3001 a29,164 ± 3698 a26,698 ± 1769 a26,649 ± 1052 a28,876 ± 2681 a
Cis-3-hexenyl acetate
1004.67-1-A8155 ± 1261 a8042 ± 768 a7476 ± 199 a7486 ± 1001 a8096 ± 855 a8027 ± 1104 a7234 ± 504 a7209 ± 473 a7945 ± 665 a
1076.04-2-A7695 ± 1166 a7280 ± 593 a6801 ± 176 a6862 ± 853 a7343 ± 842 a7324 ± 840 a6709 ± 466 a6806 ± 376 a7386 ± 719 a
2-Phenylacetaldehyde
1026.76-1-A1634 ± 378 a1773 ± 229 a1599 ± 180 a1609 ± 261 a1767 ± 131 a1713 ± 179 a1615 ± 147 a1585 ± 272 a1724 ± 162 a
1176.08-2-A288 ± 104 a200 ± 91 a166 ± 37 a142 ± 72 a224 ± 119 a183 ± 43 a203 ± 68 a216 ± 87 a236 ± 91 a
cis-β-Ocimene
1042.09-1-A644 ± 191 a765 ± 173 a676 ± 137 a692 ± 166 a758 ± 87 a719 ± 132 a707 ± 102 a714 ± 170 a782 ± 88 a
1,133.75-2-A562 ± 113 a386 ± 119 ab351 ± 38 b324 ± 73 b368 ± 150 b353 ± 84 b392 ± 78 ab422 ± 95 ab450 ± 81 ab
2-Phenylethanol
1088.98-1-A1057 ± 415 a1425 ± 197 a1266 ± 180 a1283 ± 225 a1357 ± 115 a1237 ± 152 a1196 ± 130 a1219 ± 225 a1303 ± 107 a
1279.81-2-A1670 ± 254 a1656 ± 198 a1639 ± 101 a1351 ± 663 a1544 ± 265 a1416 ± 185 a1382 ± 155 a1528 ± 137 a1791 ± 189 a
β-Linalool
1107.22-1-A1959 ± 995 a2255 ± 292 a2013 ± 138 a1938 ± 64 a2187 ± 254 a2044 ± 360 a1940 ± 227 a1961 ± 292 a2362 ± 333 a
1189.38-2-A1577 ± 295 a1393 ± 247 a1377 ± 149 a1292 ± 125 a1279 ± 263 a1193 ± 109 a1229 ± 154 a1357 ± 216 a1396 ± 213 a
Limonene-1,2-epoxide
1137.14-1-A226 ± 137 a292 ± 58 a220 ± 59 a166 ± 15 a281 ± 53 a227 ± 49 a227 ± 52 a198 ± 115 a230 ± 73 a
1221.66-2-A0 ± 0 a133 ± 52 a88 ± 16 a106 ± 39 a143 ± 53 a135 ± 43 a52 ± 0 a142 ± 36 a136 ± 62 a
Nerol oxide
1147.51-1-A455 ± 179 a536 ± 131 a491 ± 108 a486 ± 60 a467 ± 99 a423 ± 53 a480 ± 97 a476 ± 198 a557 ± 109 a
1356.24-2-A196 ± 118 a165 ± 65 a124 ± 27 a170 ± 54 a166 ± 58 a223 ± 27 a181 ± 63 a169 ± 79 a218 ± 78 a
(E)-Linalool oxide
1173.31-1-A980 ± 309 cd804 ± 177 cde378 ± 80 ef315 ± 75 f1529 ± 211 ab1147 ± 444 bc1884 ± 185 a539 ± 337 def366 ± 49 ef
Ethyl octanoate
1197.94-1-A71,285 ± 13,666 d140,537 ± 18,627 c183,934 ± 5719 b245,027 ± 43,655 a73,573 ± 10,399 d71,003 ± 12,528 d64,707 ± 5177 d121,240 ± 6544 c143,604 ± 16,296 c
1264.65-2-A53,094 ± 10,103 d102,170 ± 12,833 c132,385 ± 3664 b177,575 ± 33,812 a54,366 ± 7752 d51,881 ± 8292 d48,002 ± 3589 d87,525 ± 4553 c103,766 ± 12,322 c
trans-Geraniol
1242.49-1-A240 ± 185 b461 ± 93 ab488 ± 87 a431 ± 133 ab428 ± 63 ab367 ± 66 ab407 ± 76 ab359 ± 198 ab445 ± 90 ab
1378.40-2-A639 ± 79 a425 ± 150 b404 ± 96 b336 ± 131 b453 ± 135 ab345 ± 61 b396 ± 77 b398 ± 112 b432 ± 93 b
2-Phenylethyl acetate
1253.13-1-A1194 ± 708 b1889 ± 225 a1847 ± 199 ab1634 ± 293 ab2069 ± 321 a1691 ± 188 ab1705 ± 154 ab1504 ± 540 ab1762 ± 150 ab
1339.07-2-A1067 ± 220 ab885 ± 271 b1095 ± 154 ab1291 ± 446 ab1256 ± 347 ab1345 ± 305 ab1534 ± 195 a1168 ± 178 ab1411 ± 213 a
1H-indole
1283.06-1-A380 ± 298 b1191 ± 410 a1159 ± 277 a886 ± 214 ab1129 ± 324 a1176 ± 241 a1129 ± 186 a825 ± 495 ab1169 ± 257 a
1541.25-2-A587 ± 173 cd301 ± 278 d702 ± 249 bcd759 ± 348 abc725 ± 162 abcd777 ± 163 abc1134 ± 154 a795 ± 251 abc1125 ± 209 ab
(E)-2-Undecenal
1361.38-1-A169 ± 149 d296 ± 125 cd452 ± 119 bc531 ± 225 bc373 ± 96 cd493 ± 121 bc673 ± 91 ab552 ± 200 bc837 ± 55 a
1507.84-2-A614 ± 94 ab521 ± 218 ab656 ± 148 a729 ± 264 a518 ± 120 ab351 ± 125 b457 ± 100 ab575 ± 167 ab675 ± 143 a
Ethyl decanoate
1392.28-1-A27,190 ± 5754 c28,524 ± 7012 c26,090 ± 2906 c29,330 ± 9233 c72,926 ± 10,727 b97,502 ± 18,319 a104,400 ± 18,163 a65,583 ± 6806 b72,961 ± 9533 B
1460.26-2-A24,616 ± 4933 c23,995 ± 4034 c22,721 ± 2217 c24,617 ± 4572 c52,950 ± 8103 b70,150 ± 13,245 a75,229 ± 12,953 a47,774 ± 4823 b52,972 ± 7148 b
α.-Terpinen-7-al
1407.37-2-A385 ± 103 a225 ± 105 ab231 ± 86 ab185 ± 129 b224 ± 80 ab164 ± 64 b201 ± 66 b202 ± 94 b237 ± 76 ab
Abhexone
1431.31-2-A709 ± 124 a393 ± 215 b386 ± 162 b227 ± 185 b468 ± 155 ab241 ± 91 b310 ± 130 b342 ± 137 b395 ± 131 b
* Compounds are listed in order of separation on the column DB5. Different letters on each row indicate a statistically significant difference between the averages for the assessed varieties at a probability level of 95% (α = 0.05) determined by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Compounds identified on both columns of GC e-nose in Tamâioasă românească wines fermented by ST yeast, determined after stopping fermentation by using various dosages of medium-chain fatty acids.
Table 4. Compounds identified on both columns of GC e-nose in Tamâioasă românească wines fermented by ST yeast, determined after stopping fermentation by using various dosages of medium-chain fatty acids.
Peak Area/Compound *STST_oc10 ST_oc20ST_oc30ST_de10 ST_de20 ST_de30ST_ocde10ST_ocde15
Acetaldehyde
415.49-166,323 ± 5163 a69,854 ± 5079 a69,884 ± 6581 a71,488 ± 3658 a71,125 ± 4688 a71,761 ± 4787 a69,472 ± 2697 a71,321 ± 3019 a70,153 ± 1367 a
541.82-2-A56,199 ± 4107 a59,623 ± 4374 a60,106 ± 5730 a61,349 ± 3315 a60,388 ± 3837 a61,488 ± 3592 a59,228 ± 3224 a61,118 ± 3158 a60,523 ± 850 a
Ethyl acetate
611.29-1111,999 ± 10,461 a110,119 ± 5613 a113,674 ± 5694 a114,301 ± 4325 a105,371 ± 11,220 a113,362 ± 4425 a115,287 ± 3848 a111,644 ± 7355 a110,074 ± 5497 a
675.39-2-A84,110 ± 7345 a82,734 ± 4649 a85,688 ± 4527 a86,356 ± 3276 a77,796 ± 9180 a85,257 ± 3574 a86,628 ± 3142 a83,783 ± 5798 a83,191 ± 4389 a
2-Methylbutanal
646.08-1426 ± 163 a500 ± 104 a427 ± 81 a528 ± 152 a614 ± 109 a522 ± 144 a670 ± 127 a515 ± 181 a553 ± 187 a
730.27-2-A7644 ± 544 a7941 ± 358 a7936 ± 568 a8091 ± 414 a7974 ± 355 a8165 ± 234 a8025 ± 501 a8046 ± 205 a7950 ± 281 a
2-Methyl-1-butanol
738.67-1147,793 ± 10,556 a154,833 ± 10,939 a148,307 ± 11,337 a152,818 ± 10,351 a155,016 ± 8510 a156,039 ± 9457 a155,245 ± 7482 a154,468 ± 6279 a152,308 ± 3550 a
849.51-2-A116,655 ± 7801 a121,411 ± 8786 a117,431 ± 9029 a120,754 ± 8438 a121,178 ± 7639 a123,167 ± 7374 a123,206 ± 7051 a122,724 ± 4501 a120,511 ± 2890 a
2,3-Butanediol
768.28-11626 ± 231 a1745 ± 161 a1651 ± 148 a1781 ± 136 a1836 ± 71 a1829 ± 217 a1916 ± 121 a1814 ± 185 a1971 ± 252 a
971.57-2-A2181 ± 182 a2320 ± 282 a2190 ± 312 a2208 ± 256 a2362 ± 266 a2285 ± 233 a2201 ± 233 a2296 ± 237 a2270 ± 58 a
Ethyl butanoate
796.22-15518 ± 420 a5846 ± 450 a5642 ± 432 a5843 ± 420 a5726 ± 348 a5891 ± 445 a5841 ± 211 a5810 ± 267 a5519 ± 240 a
860.18-2-A5121 ± 348 a5327 ± 327 a5260 ± 446 a5336 ± 343 a5267 ± 423 a5426 ± 237 a5301 ± 339 a5378 ± 291 a5129 ± 241 a
Ethyl 2-Methylbutanoate
846.48-1-A721 ± 76 a746 ± 38 a737 ± 47 a830 ± 127 a827 ± 142 a799 ± 123 a879 ± 159 a790 ± 125 a831 ± 160 a
909.56-2-A783 ± 96 a762 ± 70 a813 ± 106 a828 ± 96 a835 ± 151 a849 ± 50 a824 ± 134 a859 ± 88 a904 ± 83 a
Isoamyl acetate
874.02-1-A75,984 ± 4944 a79,100 ± 7034 a75,201 ± 6669 a77,132 ± 7160 a76,972 ± 4478 a78,791 ± 5628 a76,919 ± 3660 a77,859 ± 4546 a70,454 ± 2678 a
941.16-2-A57,751 ± 3825 a59,939 ± 5119 a57,272 ± 4964 a58,625 ± 5438 a58,085 ± 3684 a60,121 ± 4857 a58,360 ± 2772 a58,877 ± 3438 a53,536 ± 2080 a
β-Myrcene
976.36-1-A658 ± 0 a636 ± 68 a579 ± 78 a637 ± 93 a683 ± 98 a627 ± 78 a640 ± 1 10 a635 ± 81 a585 ± 148 a
1015.20-2-A1125 ± 233 a1208 ± 125 a1166 ± 245 a1137 ± 140 a1217 ± 211 a1190 ± 111 a1095 ± 241 a1213 ± 138 a1136 ± 170 a
Ethyl hexanoate
1058.80-2-A24,550 ± 1882 a25,678 ± 3297 a24,034 ± 3239 a24,866 ± 3023 a25,317 ± 2067 a25,298 ± 2618 a24,217 ± 1643 a25,377 ± 2403 a21,972 ± 832 a
Cis-3-hexenyl acetate
1004.67-1-A7672 ± 709 a8115 ± 1084 a7512 ± 999 a7737 ± 1022 a7975 ± 656 a7832 ± 903 a7453 ± 519 a7772 ± 662 a6608 ± 363 a
1076.04-2-A7185 ± 653 a7568 ± 941 a7037 ± 1004 a7243 ± 868 a7469 ± 700 a7381 ± 751 a7019 ± 652 a7441 ± 722 a6432 ± 315 a
2-Phenylacetaldehyde
1026.76-1-A1840 ± 249 ab1891 ± 104 a1710 ± 157 ab1767 ± 186 ab1781 ± 148 ab1828 ± 152 ab1757 ± 207 ab1768 ± 127 ab1515 ± 216 b
1176.08-2-A207 ± 84 a232 ± 51 a209 ± 74 a188 ± 74 a251 ± 89 a234 ± 59 a208 ± 105 a245 ± 59 a213 ± 72 a
cis-β-Ocimene
1042.09-1-A739 ± 150 a835 ± 52 a750 ± 114 a796 ± 92 a816 ± 103 a814 ± 82 a804 ± 137 a802 ± 89 a701 ± 114 a
1133.75-2-A400 ± 85 b391 ± 43 b417 ± 66 ab402 ± 93 b448 ± 88 ab445 ± 51 ab444 ± 113 ab486 ± 57 ab560 ± 120 a
2-Phenylethanol
1088.98-1-A1193 ± 128 a1325 ± 59 a1306 ± 154 a1388 ± 133 a1284 ± 127 a1272 ± 112 a1255 ± 156 a1238 ± 121 a1188 ± 216 a
1279.81-2-A1630 ± 173 a1941 ± 326 a186 9 ± 386 a2030 ± 305 a1718 ± 211 a1648 ± 238 a1577 ± 334 a1934 ± 224 a2025 ± 339 a
β-Linalool
1107.22-1-A2328 ± 249 ab2432 ± 305 ab2313 ± 366 ab2175 ± 385 b2347 ± 240 ab2274 ± 305 ab2242 ± 361 ab2486 ± 330 ab2857 ± 388 a
1189.38-2-A1120 ± 184 a1315 ± 121 a1324 ± 143 a1285 ± 308 a1284 ± 216 a1258 ± 154 a1153 ± 235 a1366 ± 136 a1403 ± 180 a
Limonene-1,2-epoxide
1137.14-1-A211 ± 77 a234 ± 18 a188 ± 46 a176 ± 49 a240 ± 54 a210 ± 64 a230 ± 89 a210 ± 58 a182 ± 77 a
1221.66-2-A0 ± 0 -121 ± 49 -102 ± 51 -161 ± 60 -98 ± 35 -117 ± 50 -145 ± 0 -153 ± 51 -149 ± 52 -
Nerol oxide
1147.51-1-A491 ± 112 a497 ± 36 a538 ± 71 a623 ± 82 a565 ± 67 a551 ± 93 a634 ± 133 a620 ± 92 a713 ± 274 a
1356.24-2-A262 ± 96 a155 ± 42 a141 ± 64 a145 ± 96 a0 ± 0 a187 ± 57 a204 ± 78 a223 ± 36 a250 ± 71 a
(E)-Linalool oxide
1173.31-1-A1296 ± 230 a723 ± 336 b302 ± 33 b313 ± 65 b1304 ± 186 a1523 ± 288 a1742 ± 199 a599 ± 470 b306 ± 50 b
Ethyl octanoate
1197.94-1-A53,385 ± 5333 d129,918 ± 2183 c175,314 ± 33,106 b243,330 ± 30,130 a60,200 ± 6905 d57,131 ± 8451 d53,848 ± 5173 d123,993 ± 15,280 c137,807 ± 3202 c
1264.65-2-A40,095 ± 4020 d94,435 ± 15,863 c128,602 ± 24,295 b178,860 ± 22,634 a44,669 ± 5099 d42,868 ± 6192 d40,595 ± 3980 d91,417 ± 11,194 c102,126 ± 3520 c
trans-Geraniol
1242.49-1-A293 ± 176 a352 ± 19 a347 ± 56 a388 ± 106 a371 ± 147 a304 ± 61 a357 ± 96 a380 ± 53 a373 ± 152 a
1378.40-2-A447 ± 108 a509 ± 83 a444 ± 102 a447 ± 126 a446 ± 75 a395 ± 101 a364 ± 130 a476 ± 52 a465 ± 68 a
2-Phenylethyl acetate
1253.13-1-A1263 ± 210 b1616 ± 96 ab1506 ± 141 ab1572 ± 237 ab1593 ± 204 ab1555 ± 123 ab1630 ± 208 a1626 ± 124 a1482 ± 270 ab
1339.07-2-A1248 ± 210 a947 ± 159 a1022 ± 262 a1315 ± 440 a1094 ± 116 a1260 ± 270 a1408 ± 311 a1288 ± 183 a1294 ± 205 a
1H-indole
1283.06-1-A510 ± 195 b973 ± 196 ab839 ± 273 ab1048 ± 357 ab971 ± 253 ab1146 ± 466 a1479 ± 525 a1375 ± 308 a1273 ± 453 a
1541.25-2-A684 ± 107 c619 ± 196 c577 ± 191 c748 ± 137 abc682 ± 140 c726 ± 190 bc802 ± 269 abc1027 ± 117 ab1069 ± 156 a
(E)-2-Undecenal
1361.38-1-A572 ± 156 ab437 ± 44 b373 ± 127 b524 ± 159 b416 ± 131 b446 ± 93 b617 ± 187 ab737 ± 155 a735 ± 139 a
1507.84-2-A395 ± 126 cd580 ± 134 bcd658 ± 145 ab859 ± 143 a360 ± 144 d393 ± 156 cd359 ± 179 d638 ± 39 abc768 ± 72 ab
Ethyl decanoate
1392.28-1-A22,344 ± 3694 c24,711 ± 4347 c23,607 ± 4337 c25,987 ± 1720 c75,717 ± 9326 b109,065 ± 20,283 a127,502 ± 22,464 a74,607 ± 9252 b83,732 ± 4696 b
1460.26-2-A22,424 ± 3758 c24,842 ± 4229 c23,574 ± 4248 c25,518 ± 1808 c55,160 ± 6529 b79,389 ± 14,933 a92,663 ± 16,640 a54,676 ± 6636 b61,401 ± 3125 b
α-Terpinen-7-al
1407.37-2-A178 ± 130 a163 ± 46 a195 ± 24 a189 ± 91 a150 ± 23 a163 ± 34 a190 ± 46 a199 ± 47 a213 ± 55 a
Abhexone
1431.31-2-A472 ± 218 a464 ± 133 a345 ± 125 a368 ± 158 a402 ± 158 a306 ± 161 a229 ± 173 a434 ± 61 a405 ± 77 a
* Compounds are listed in order of separation on the column DB5. Different letters on each row indicate a statistically significant difference between the averages for the assessed varieties at a probability level of 95% (α = 0.05) determined by one-way ANOVA and Tukey test (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Baniţă, C.; Antoce, O.A.; Cojocaru, G.A. Evaluation by a GC Electronic Nose of the Differences in Volatile Profile Induced by Stopping Fermentation with Octanoic and Decanoic Acid to Produce Sweet Wines. Chemosensors 2023, 11, 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors11020098

AMA Style

Baniţă C, Antoce OA, Cojocaru GA. Evaluation by a GC Electronic Nose of the Differences in Volatile Profile Induced by Stopping Fermentation with Octanoic and Decanoic Acid to Produce Sweet Wines. Chemosensors. 2023; 11(2):98. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors11020098

Chicago/Turabian Style

Baniţă, Cornel, Oana Arina Antoce, and George Adrian Cojocaru. 2023. "Evaluation by a GC Electronic Nose of the Differences in Volatile Profile Induced by Stopping Fermentation with Octanoic and Decanoic Acid to Produce Sweet Wines" Chemosensors 11, no. 2: 98. https://doi.org/10.3390/chemosensors11020098

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop