Next Article in Journal
Antidiabetic Food-Derived Peptides for Functional Feeding: Production, Functionality and In Vivo Evidences
Next Article in Special Issue
Chitosan in Sparkling Wines Produced by the Traditional Method: Influence of Its Presence during the Secondary Fermentation
Previous Article in Journal
Development of a Sensory Flavor Lexicon for Mushrooms and Subsequent Characterization of Fresh and Dried Mushrooms
Previous Article in Special Issue
1,1,6-Trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene (TDN) Sensory Thresholds in Riesling Wine
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 9
Issue 8
10.3390/foods9080981
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Bee Pollen Role in Red Winemaking: Volatile Compounds and Sensory Characteristics of Tintilla de Rota Warm Climate Red Wines

by
Antonio Amores-Arrocha
*,
Pau Sancho-Galán
,
Ana Jiménez-Cantizano
and
Víctor Palacios
Department of Chemical Engineering and Food Technology, Vegetal Production Area, Faculty of Sciences, University of Cadiz, Agrifood Campus of International Excellence (ceiA3), IVAGRO, P.O. Box 40, 11510 Puerto Real, Cadiz, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2020, 9(8), 981; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9080981
Submission received: 3 July 2020 / Revised: 22 July 2020 / Accepted: 22 July 2020 / Published: 23 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Analysis on Aroma Compounds of Wine, Vinegar and Derived Products)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
One of the main aspects that define wine quality is its aromatic profile. Nutritional deficiencies in musts can lead to olfactory defects and a decline in quality. Commercial activators and nutrients are usually added to the must in these cases. The natural composition of bee pollen can provide all the necessary nutrients for yeasts. This investigation aims to analyze the impact of pollen addition on the profile of volatile and sensory compounds in Tintilla de Rota warm climate red wines. Volatile compounds were measured by Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry, Odorant Activity Values analysis to find out each compound’s fragrant participation, and sensorial analysis was conducted for a qualified panel of wine-tasters. As a result of the chromatographic analysis, 80 volatile compounds of different chemical families were identified and quantified. Bee pollen increased mainly isoamyl alcohol, esters, and terpenes compounds families in wines. Odorant Activity Values analysis showed an increase in fruity odorant series mainly, followed by floral, for all wines with pollen addition. The sensory analysis showed that low pollen doses (0.1 g/L and 0.25 g/L) increased tasting notes of fruit and floral attributes and fruit and floral odorant series as well, highlighting an increase in red and black fruit notes mainly. On the other hand, high doses deviated the sensory profile towards fleshy stone fruit, and raisin fruit, mostly. In addition, high bee pollen doses produce an increase in the odorant category responsible for the chemical, fatty, and grassy aromas mainly, and high and intermediate dose (1 g/L) an increase in the earthy notes in the aromas. Therefore, low bee pollen doses (0.1 and 0.25 g/L) can improve both the aromatic compound profile, as well as the Odorant Activity Values levels and the sensory profile in Tintilla de Rota red wines.

1. Introduction

The present tendency in wine consumption focuses on well-structured wines and full bodied in the mouth [1]. In addition, it is remarkable that the aroma of wine constitutes an important factor in consumer preference [2]. The compounds involved in the aroma can be derived from many sources: alcoholic fermentation, from biosynthesis, and from the conversion from neutral grape compounds to active components [3]. The majority of esters, as well as higher alcohols, volatile acids, and compounds within the thiol and terpene families, which are varietal compounds, are produced during alcoholic fermentation by yeast [4].
A complex and varied nutrient composition rich in amino acids, as well as fatty acids and vitamins in grape musts [5,6] ensure an adequate alcoholic fermentation development. In order to obtain them, weather conditions should be suitable during the grapes ripening stage [7]. Unfortunately, the current context of global warming is giving rise to problematic ripening processes directly responsible of changes in grape must composition [8,9], generating nutrient deficiencies for the yeasts. In this regard, potential difficulties may appear during alcoholic fermentation and, as a consequence, sensory profile defects in wines [10]. In warm climate areas, such as Southern Andalusia (Spain), wines may experience a loss in aromatic and sensory expression [11]. In order to confront these new environmental conditions in traditional winegrowing regions, several authors suggest cultivating autochthonous varieties better adapted to them. However, currently the main solution used by winemakers to resolve these problems is to employ commercial synthetic fermentative activators and nutrients [12,13].
Bee pollen is a natural product with a rich composition mainly composed by proteins, vitamins, minerals, and carbohydrates, but also of amino acids, fatty acids, sterols, phospholipids, carotenoids and polyphenols [14,15,16,17,18,19]. Amores-Arrocha et al. [20,21] stated bee pollen as a “Green nutrient activator”, as they observed improvements in fermentation kinetics (increased fermentation rate, reduction of the yeast lag phase and increased cell multiplication), both in white and red winemaking processes, although its use is currently not legally authorized for industrial processing. In addition, at low doses, bee pollen has not affected the red wine’s physicochemical composition or color parameters [20] Other published studies showed how bee pollen use improved both volatile and sensory compounds profiles of young white wines [22] as well as the aging kinetics and sensory profile of white wines undergoing biological aging [23]. Therefore, the aim of this research is to explore the effect of bee pollen use on the profile of both volatile compounds and sensory profile in red wines elaborated with an autochthonous grape variety: Tintilla de Rota.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Layout

Tintilla de Rota clusters of grapes were collected from vineyards of the privately-owned winery Luis Pérez, located in Jerez de la Frontera (southern Andalusia, Spain) (36°42′00.6′′ N, 6°11′34.0′′ W, 100 m above sea level). Vineyard soil was mainly limestone, known locally as “albariza”. Grapes were destemmed and crushed. To avoid oxidations, the skins and grape musts mixture was sulphited with 25 mg/kg of K2O5S2 (Sigma-Aldrich Chemical S.A., Madrid, Spain), tempered (20 °C) and no pH correction. A control (0 g/L) and six different doses (0.1, 0.25, 1, 5, 10 and 20 g/L) of commercial grounded bee pollen (Valencia, Spain) were studied. Bee pollen was added to each fermenter and homogenized with the paste, before adding the yeast inoculum. All vinifications assays were carried out in duplicate using temperature controlled glass fermenters (V = 5 L). Commercial yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Lalvin 71B® strain (Lallemand, Barcelona, Spain), 10 g/hL inoculum was used to perform the alcoholic fermentation (AF). For malolactic fermentation (MLF), once AF was over, a Lactic Acid Bacteria (LAB) inoculum (1 g/hL) Oenococcus oeni S11B P2 Instant (Laffort, Bordeaux, France) was added.

2.2. Analysis of Volatile Compounds and Odor Activity Values (OAV)

Volatile compounds and their corresponding OAVs were analyzed following the methodology indicated by several authors [22,24]. Odor series were assigned to each component based on the main odor descriptor according to Peinado et al. [25], to obtain quantitative information from chemical analysis based on target criteria.

2.3. Sensory Wines Evaluation

A 10-member panel of trained and instructed experts experienced in wine tasting performed the evaluations. The sensory analysis was carried out in individual cabins equipped with a lighting control system. 50 mL of wine were provided to each taster in a regular wine-tasting glasses (ISO 3591, 1997) [26], topped with glass to avoid volatile compounds evaporation. Each sample was encoded using a random three-digit code to be tasted according to the order indicated. The wines were then served at a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C. In order not to overload judges, each of them performed the same tasting on a two different days in order to carry out the sensory analysis more than once presenting wine glasses randomly each time. Specific tasting notes were given to each taster and each attribute was scored according to an increase in intensity, based on a 10-point rating scale. All the sensorial characteristics employed in the tasting sheets have been selected taking into account the commercial wine style sensorial profile and following Jackson [27] tasting descriptors for red wines. Fruity, floral, and spicy aromas, as well as acidity, astringency, bitterness, sweetness, and milky notes were evaluated as generic attributes. In addition, the global judgment was added, as an attribute which encompasses the balance of all the attributes in conjunction with each other. Fruits groups (red, black, white, tropical, citrus, fruits with bone, raisin, and nuts), flowers groups (white, red, blue), vegetable, spices, woody, toast, balsamic, minerals, animals, and chemical, were the specific attributes evaluated by the judges.

2.4. Data Treatment

Means and standard deviations with significant differences were determined by bidirectional ANOVA and Bonferroni’s multiple range (BSD) test; p < 0.05 was considered significant (GraphPad Prism version 6.01 for Windows, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). For statistical significance, all tests were conducted in triplicate (n = 3). Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was performed using the SPSS 24.0 statistical computer package (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Evaluation of the Effects of the Addition of Pollen on Wine Volatile Compounds and their Corresponding Odorant Activity Values (OAV)

3.1.1. Higher Alcohols and Methanol

Higher alcohols total concentrations were found in order of 200 mg (Table 1). In general, higher alcohols are not affected by the use of pollen, except for the 0.25 g/L dose, where isoamyl alcohol is slightly higher, without exceeding 400 mg/L. Taking into account the red wines, Yeast Assimilable Nitrogen (YAN) levels [20] were higher than those of white wines [21], it could be expected higher alcohol levels, however, this does not occur. These results imply that there is no relationship between YAN and increased alcohol production, and skin presence is buffering the effect of pollen.

3.1.2. Aldehydes

In general, the aldehyde content of red wines (3066–5699 µg/L) was lower than white wines [22]. No correlation was observed between aldehyde formation and pollen dose, and their contents fluctuate between the different doses. As might be expected, acetaldehyde was the major compound in this family, followed by benzeneacetaldehyde. Both compounds contributed to the wines sensory profile with nutty and floral notes. Additionally, nonanal and 3-methyl-butanal were identified, which, due to low perception thresholds, contribute to the wines’ aromatic profile.

3.1.3. Alcohols

Alcohol content was representing between 4–5.5% of the total volatile compounds (Table 1). Its values showed fluctuations in all samples, without following any correlation. This behavior is mainly marked by phenylethyl alcohol, which is the main alcohol, alongside with 1-pentanol and 1H-Indole-3-ethanol. Both phenylethyl alcohol and 1H-Indole-3-ethanol showed fluctuations while 1-pentanol together with most alcohols tended to increase significantly with respect to the control.

3.1.4. Acids

Acid compounds content of red wines is much lower than that of white wines [22], which could be attributed to varietal character and also to skins presence during alcoholic fermentation. Some authors have found that grape skins provide fatty acids (oleic and linoleic), reducing the of volatile acids synthesis by yeasts [28,29]. However, analyzing the acid profile, two very different behaviors can be distinguished (Table 1). On the one hand, both control as well as low and intermediate doses (0.1–1 g/L) presented concentrations between 1688.54 and 2177.68 µg/L. On the other hand, the high doses (5–20 g/L) showed a greater range of concentration, with values between 3265.30 and 4064.52 µg/L. This could be due to autolysis phenomena produced between the end of AF and MLF, since volatile fatty acids from the cell membranes (hexanoic, octanoic, decanoic, and dodecanoic fatty acids) may be transferred into the medium via cell lysis [28,30].

3.1.5. Esters

Esters family percentages of representation in red wines were observed between 10.86–22.34% (Table 1). Therefore, with the bee pollen addition, the formation of esters is favored in Tintilla de Rota red wines. A linear correlation is also observed between esters concentration and pollen doses (R2 = 0.96). In most cases, esters increase with the dose of pollen: ethyl acetate (R2 = 0.96), isoamyl acetate, ethyl octanoate, diethyl succinate (R2 = 0.68), phenethyl acetate, ethyl lactate (R2 = 0.64), methyl hexadecanoate, hexadecanoic acid, ethyl ester, ethyl 8-nonanoate (R2 = 0.90), hexyl acetate (R2 = 0.78), ethyl nonanoate (R2 = 0.71) and diethyl malate (R2 = 0.67). According to some authors, after MLF, an increase in esters concentration, ethyl acetate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl lactate, and ethyl octanoate can be observed [31,32,33,34,35,36]. It should be noted that the main ester is ethyl acetate, whose descriptor is acrylic flavor, so it could be one of the compounds responsible for providing unpleasant aromas [37], especially for wines elaborated with the highest bee pollen doses (10 g/L and 20 g/L). This effect could be promoted because of YAN content and not because of pollen.

3.1.6. C6-Alcohols

C6-alcohols were found in a range between 490 and 587 µg/L (Table 1). These compounds have fresh herbs and vegetables flavors and could be formed prior to AF via enzymatic action on their major precursors (linoleic acid and linolenic acid) [38]. During AF, these compounds are reduced to alcohols by yeast, mainly hexanol and hexenol, being the second most fragrant, but it was found in lower concentration in wines [38,39]. There are also these compounds present in grapes in their glycol form, but in lower concentration than in the pre-fermentation stages. Furthermore, the presence of antioxidant polyphenolic substances from the skins allows a low oxidation of final red wines.

3.1.7. Terpenes

Terpenes represented very small percentages within the different volatile compound families of the obtained red wines (<0.1%) (Table 1). These compounds are typical of some grape varieties, and provide important floral notes in wine aroma [40]. The main terpenes able to contribute to wine aroma are naturally found in grape skins. In parallel to enzymatic actions, winemaking operations favors the extraction of these compounds from the grape must (macerations, pump-over, or head dipping) [39]. As can be seen in Table 1, most of the terpenes increased with pollen addition, with 8-hydroxylinalool standing out. However, there was no direct correlation between the applied dose and these family of compounds. It could be suggested that in addition to the grape skins, bee pollen was directly providing terpenes to wines.

3.1.8. Phenols

Most of the phenolic compounds are formed during AF, by decarboxylation of hydroxycinnamic acids carried out by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Phenols were found in very low concentrations in red wines. 4-vinylguaiacol and acetovainillone were detected, providing spicy notes as typical varietal aromas of Tintilla de Rota wines. Phenol contents fluctuated with pollen doses unable to establish any pattern in this regard.

3.1.9. Thiols, Acetals, and Norisoprenoids

Thiols, acetals, and norisoprenoids represented the three minor compounds families of the volatile compound profile of red wines samples. Thiols were represented by 3-(methylthio)-1-propanol, whose concentration increased by bee pollen addition. This compounds formation has its origin in cysteine precursors present in grape must [39] which are degraded by yeasts to give rise to thiols. Thiols increase also could be justified by the natural richness of bee pollen in cysteine [41,42,43]. Acetals are compounds that can come from acetaldehyde and glycerol, however they are more commonly found at high levels in fortified wines [39,44]. Acetals family was represented by 1-(1-Ethoxyethoxy)-pentane, whose concentration showed a rising trend from the 5 g/L dose. Norisoprenoid family was represented by 3-oxo-α-ionol, whose concentration increased with pollen addition especially at high doses (10 and 20 g/L pollen). Some norisoprenoid, such as 3-oxo-α-ionol, have been found in several types of honey [45]. Considering bee pollen as the main raw material of honey, it is possible these compounds are being released by pollen during winemaking.

3.1.10. Lactones

Certain lactones have fermentation origins and are able to take part in wine aroma [46]. Both compounds identified in red wines studied were dihydro-5-pentylglycol-2(3H)-furanone and 2.3-dihydro-benzofuranone, representing under 0.1% of the total amount of volatile compounds. Dihydro-5-pentyl-2-(3H)-furanone showed a fluctuating behavior, while 2.3-dihydro-benzofuranone remained constant at all doses.

3.1.11. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of Volatile Compounds

Table 2 shows the results of the loadings of the factors extracted in the analysis of the Principal Components Analysis (PCA). Concentration of total volatile compounds by aromatic families: higher alcohols, methanol, acids, C6-alcohols, alcohols, phenols, terpenoids, esters, aldehydes, acetals, norisoprenoids, and lactones, were variables included. PCA analysis extracted three factors that represent more than 91% of the total variance. Factor 1 (F1) correlated positively with acids, C6-alcohols, esters, acetals and norisoprenoids, the latter two represented by 1-(1-ethoxyethoxy)-pentane and norisoprenoids by 3-oxo-α-ionol. All families whose concentration can be influenced by the presence of pollen are represented in this factor, being the esters the ones with the highest load (0.958). Factor 2 (F2) represented families of compounds not related to the influence of pollen. The decrease of some of these families could be related to ester formation. These could be considered as intermediate compounds or precursors of other compounds and therefore their concentration may fluctuate with the pollen dose. F2 could explain all the fluctuations in all families resulting from consumption of some compounds in order to form others. In some cases, it is observed families where at certain pollen doses, their concentrations are lower than the control. This behavior is possibly a reflection of the consumption of these compounds to form others. Factor 3 (F3) belongs to pollen response on the aromatic profile of wines. This factor involves volatile compound families displaying higher concentration increases with pollen presence, not correlated with doses.
F1 increased with the pollen dose, reaching higher levels for high doses (10 and 20 g/L). This suggests that the effect of ester formation is the main one, taking into account that it is one of the compound families with high participation in the aromatic profile of wines (10.86–22.34%). F2 positioned control and dose of 0.1 g/L with similar behaviors, while those doses that generate an increase mainly of higher alcohols, aldehydes and phenols advanced towards positive values. However, this factor is offset by the effect of the methanol. As previously observed, this compound exhibited fluctuations in its concentration, which means that F2 had no correlation with the pollen dose. Factors F3, together with F1, showed an increasing trend of both pollen-formed and pollen-produced compounds.
Therefore, it could be pointed out that pollen use in Tintilla de Rota grapes variety vinification favors to produce fruity and floral aromas compounds in wines.

3.1.12. Odorant Activity Values (OAV) Analysis.

Odorant Activity Values (ΣOAV) of all volatile compounds involved in the aromatic profile of wines are shown in Table 3. Widely, there was an OAV increase between 30.7 and 63.6% in all pollen dosage wines without correlation. The most important odorant series in wines was fruity. Its values increased with the pollen addition (129.35–154.61), reaching maximum levels for 0.25 g/L, followed by 20 g/L and 5 g/L doses. Floral series reached maximum levels for doses between 0.25–1 g/L, while it began to decrease from the dose of 10 g/L. Spicy aromas were intensified an average 58% between 1–10 g/L of pollen dose. Fatty aroma series increased slightly in 5 g/L samples, increasing a 25% over ΣOAVT. On 1 g/L, herbal odorant series showed a slight increase, mainly caused by C6 alcohols, α-terpineol, n-propyl alcohol.
Despite the increase in “negative” odorants series (fatty and grassy), their influence on the total was very low (Table 3). It should be noted that higher bee pollen doses increased chemical odorant series and 1 g/L, 5 g/L and 10 g/L dosages increased earthy notes as well. In all cases, the highest load was observed in fruity, floral and spicy series, with values greater than 90% and much higher in all pollen dosage wines (<94%). Despite varietal character, increases in fruity, floral and spicy series would suggest that bee pollen promoted an increase of compounds enhancing wine aromatic profile quality. Low and intermediate pollen doses were those with the maximum levels of ΣOAV (fruits, flowers, and spices). Besides, the increase in fatty and herbaceous aromas, produced during winemaking with high doses, dropped the ratio Σ (fruits, flowers, spices)/Σ (fatty, herbaceous). These results proved that low doses of bee pollen promote fruit and floral aromas, enhancing varietal sensory quality in red wines.

3.2. Sensory Evaluation of the Resulting Wines.

Generic and specific attributes average results with significant differences between the pollen wines and the control are shown in Figure 1a,b. Additional Table S1 show average numeric results of sensory analysis (generic and specific attributes). Each of the tasters was able to identify an average of 20 attributes. Tasters noted attributes related to fruit and floral aromas, and feelings of acidity and sweetness in mouth the most significant differences (ANOVA, p < 0.05) (Figure 1a). Low doses (0.1 and 0.25 g/L) were valued the best for fruit and floral attributes, being 0.25 g/L the best. Nevertheless, wines pungency increased with high bee pollen doses. An increase in spicy character would be related to a phenols and some esters increase, such as methyl vanilla, belonging to spicy odorant family.
For generic olfactory attributes, 0.25 g/L was the best evaluated followed by 0.10 g/L. Bitterness and astringency feelings, decreased from 5 g/L to 20 g/L compared to low doses and control, while sweetness feeling increased. For general taste attributes, 0.25 g/L and 1 g/L were the best scored wines. Thus, the 0.25 g/L bee pollen dose could be the best resulting dose in terms of general sensory (olfactory and gustatory) aspects. Wines with low doses of bee pollen improved their olfactory organoleptic qualities, increasing fruity and floral notes, highly appreciated by consumers in young red wines [46].
Compared with the control, all specific olfactory attributes (Figure 1b) showed significant differences excluding the white flower notes. Low doses were the best scored in red and black fruit attributes, being the best valued 0.25 g/L. Concerning citrus notes, a clear tendency was found with the pollen doses increase. Stone fruit and ripe or raisin fruit notes were significantly scored (ANOVA, p < 0.05) above low dose and control. This effect could be explained by oxidation notes produced from certain fatty acids [47], translated as ripe fruit or raisin notes by tasters.
Finally, it should be noted for red flower notes, low and intermediate pollen doses got the lowest values significantly compared to control. In contrast, the largest doses (10 and 20 g/L) had significantly lower values compared to the control. Also, all the large doses (5 g/L to 20 g/L) showed greater aromatic intensity in the vegetable notes. In addition, these doses showed a slight tendency to increase to spices, wood, toast, balsamic, minerals and animal’s notes, compared to the low, intermediate doses and control (Figure 1b).

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, the contribution of multiflora bee pollen to Tintilla de Rota red grape musts increases the concentration of total volatile compounds of final wines, especially the families of higher alcohols, esters, terpenes, phenols, thiols, and norisoprenoids families. Lower pollen doses (0.1 and 0.25 g/L) increases the total levels of the OAV and the series of aromas associated with the fruity and floral character of red wines, whereas high bee pollen doses enhance the chemical, fatty, and grassy aromatic series mainly. In addition, high and intermediate dose (1 g/L) produced an increase in the earthy notes in the aromas. Descriptive sensory analysis determines that low doses of pollen (0.1 and 0.25 g/L) obtain the highest scores in the overall assessment and sensory attributes responsible for fruity and floral aromas in red wines, highlighting red and black fruit attributes. However, the high doses diverted the sensory profile towards fleshy stone fruit, fruit with raisins, and more typical aromas of red wines with some evolution or aging.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/8/981/s1. Table S1. Generic and specific olfatory attributes results of Tintilla de Rota wines sensory analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.A.-A., P.S.-G., V.P. and A.J.-C.; data curation, A.A.-A. and V.P.; formal analysis, A.A.-A.; funding acquisition, A.A.-A. and V.P.; investigation, A.A.-A., P.S.-G., V.P. and A.J.-C.; methodology, A.A.-A., P.S.-G., V.P. and A.J.-C.; project administration, A.A.-A. and V.P.; supervision, V.P.; writing—original draft, A.A.-A., P.S.-G., A.J.-C. and V.P.; writing—review and editing, A.A.-A., P.S.-G., A.J.-C. and V.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Cadiz for a Ph.D. student assistantship under the program 2013-023/PU/EPIF-FPI-CT/CP.

Acknowledgments

A.A.A. gratefully thanks the University of Cadiz for a Ph.D. student assistantship under the program 2013-023/PU/EPIF-FPI-CT/CP. The authors also thank the private winery Luis Pérez from Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz, for grapes supporting.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Mestre, M.V.; Maturano, Y.P.; Gallardo, C.; Combina, M.; Mercado, L.; Toro, M.E.; Carrau, F.; Vazquez, F.; Dellacassa, E. Impact on sensory and aromatic profile of low ethanol malbec wines fermented by sequential culture of Hanseniaspora uvarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae native yeasts. Fermentation 2019, 5, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. King, E.S.; Kievit, R.L.; Curtin, C.; Swiegers, J.H.; Pretorius, I.S.; Bastian, S.E.P.; Leigh Francis, I. The effect of multiple yeasts co-inoculations on Sauvignon Blanc wine aroma composition, sensory properties and consumer preference. Food Chem. 2010, 122, 618–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Styger, G.; Prior, B.; Bauer, F.F. Wine flavor and aroma. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 38, 1145–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Polášková, P.; Herszage, J.; Ebeler, S.E. Wine flavor: Chemistry in a glass. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2008, 37, 2478–2489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Briche, E.; Beltrando, G.; Somot, S.; Quénol, H. Critical analysis of simulated daily temperature data from the ARPEGE-climate model: Application to climate change in the Champagne wine-producing region. Clim. Chang. 2014, 123, 241–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sacchelli, S.; Fabbrizzi, S.; Menghini, S. Climate change effects and adaptation strategies in the wine sector: A quantitative literature review. Wine Econ. Policy 2016, 5, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Zamora, F. Dealcoholised wines and low-alcohol wines. In Wine Safety, Consumer Preference, and Human Health; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 163–182. [Google Scholar]
  8. De Orduña, R.M. Climate change associated effects on grape and wine quality and production Food Research International Climate change associated effects on grape and wine quality and production. Food Res. Int. 2017, 43, 1844–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Boulton, R.B.; Singleton, V.L.; Bisson, L.F.; Kunkee, R.E. Yeast and Biochemistry of Ethanol Fermentation. In Principles and Practices of Winemaking, 1st ed.; Boulton, R.B., Singleton, V.L., Bisson, L.F., Kunkee, R.E., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 1996; pp. 141–143. [Google Scholar]
  10. Webb, L.B.; Whetton, P.H.; Barlow, E.W.R. Modelled impact of future climate change on the phenology of winegrapes in Australia. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2007, 13, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hernández-Orte, P.; Ibarz, M.J.; Cacho, J.; Ferreira, V. Effect of the addition of ammonium and amino acids to musts of Airen variety on aromatic composition and sensory properties of the obtained wine. Food Chem. 2005, 89, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, P.R.; Toh, M.; Yu, B.; Curran, P.; Liu, S.Q. Manipulation of volatile compound transformation in durian wine by nitrogen supplementation. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 48, 650–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Trinh, T.T.T.; Woon, W.Y.; Yu, B.; Curran, P.; Liu, S.Q. Effect of L-isoleucine and L-phenylalanine addition on aroma compound formation during longan juice fermentation by a co-culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Williopsis saturnus. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2010, 31, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Barth, O.M.; Almeida-Muradian, L.B.; Pamplona, L.C.; Coimbra, S.; Barth, O.M. Chemical composition and botanical evaluation of dried bee pollen pellets. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2005, 18, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. De-Melo, A.A.M.; Estevinho, L.M.; Moreira, M.M.; Delerue-Matos, C.; Freitas, A.D.S.D.; Barth, O.M.; de Almeida-Muradian, L.B.D.; De-Melo, A.A.M.; Estevinho, L.M.; Moreira, M.M.; et al. Phenolic profile by HPLC-MS, biological potential, and nutritional value of a promising food: Monofloral bee pollen. J. Food Biochem. 2018, 42, e12536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Human, H.; Nicolson, S.W. Nutritional content of fresh, bee-collected and stored pollen of Aloe greatheadii var. davyana (Asphodelaceae). Phytochemistry 2006, 67, 1486–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Paramás, A.M.G.G.; Bárez, J.A.G.; Marcos, C.C.; García-Villanova, R.J.; Sánchez, J.S.; Gonzalez-paramas, A.M.; Garcia-villanova, R.J.; Gonza, A.M.; Paramás, A.M.G.G.; Bárez, J.A.G.; et al. HPLC-fluorimetric method for analysis of amino acids in products of the hive (honey and bee-pollen). Food Chem. 2006, 95, 148–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dong, J.; Yang, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, H. Fatty acid profiles of 20 species of monofloral bee pollen from China. J. Apic. Res. 2017, 54, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Xu, X.; Sun, L.; Dong, J.; Zhang, H. Breaking the cells of rape bee pollen and consecutive extraction of functional oil with supercritical carbon dioxide. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2009, 10, 42–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Amores-Arrocha, A.; Sancho-Galán, P.; Jiménez-Cantizano, A.; Palacios, V. Bee Pollen as Oenological Tool to Carry out Red Winemaking in Warm Climate Conditions. Agronomy 2020, 10, 634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Amores-Arrocha, A.; Roldán, A.; Jiménez-Cantizano, A.; Caro, I.; Palacios, V. Effect on White Grape Must of Multiflora Bee Pollen Addition during the Alcoholic Fermentation Process. Molecules 2018, 23, 1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Amores-Arrocha, A.; Roldán, A.; Jiménez-Cantizano, A.; Caro, I.; Palacios, V. Evaluation of the use of multiflora bee pollen on the volatile compounds and sensorial profile of Palomino fino and Riesling white young wines. Food Res. Int. 2018, 105, 197–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sancho-Galán, P.; Amores-Arrocha, A.; Jiménez-Cantizano, A.; Palacios, V. Use of multiflora bee pollen as a flor velum yeast growth activator in biological aging wines. Molecules 2019, 24, 1763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Tronchoni, J.; Curiel, J.A.; Sáenz-Navajas, M.P.; Morales, P.; De-la-Fuente-Blanco, A.; Fernández-Zurbano, P.; Ferreira, V.; Gonzalez, R. Aroma profiling of an aerated fermentation of natural grape must with selected yeast strains at pilot scale. Food Microbiol. 2018, 70, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Peinado, R.A.; Moreno, J.A.J.; Bueno, J.E.; Moreno, J.A.J.; Mauricio, J.C. Comparative study of aromatic compounds in two young white wines subjected to pre-fermentative cryomaceration. Food Chem. 2004, 84, 585–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. ISO NORM. 3591(1977) Sensory Analysis: Apparatus Wine Tasting Glass; ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jackson, R.S. Wine Tasting: A Professional Handbook; Academic Press: London, UK, 2009; p. 350. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ribéreau-Gayon, P.; Dubourdieu, D.; Donéche, B.; Lonvaud, A. Tratado de Enologia: Microbiología del Vino. Vinificaciones; Mundi-Prensa: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  29. Togores, J.H. Tratado de Enología I; Mundi Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lonvaud-Funel, A.; Joyeux, A.; Desens, C. Inhibition of malolactic fermentation of wines by products of yeast metabolism. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1988, 44, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zeeman, W.; Snyman, J.P.; van Wyk, C.J. The influence of yeast strain and malolactic fermentation on some volatile bouquet substances and on quality of table wines. In Grape and Wine Centennial Symposium; University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  32. Laurent, M.-H.; Henick-Kling, T.; Acree, T.E. Changes in he aroma and odor of Chardonnay wine due to malolactic fermentation. Vitic. Enol. Sci. 1994, 49, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  33. De Revel, G.; Martin, N.; Pripis-Nicolau, L.; Lonvaud-Funel, A.; Bertrand, A. Contribution to the knowledge of malolactic fermentation influence on wine aroma. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 4003–4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Delaquis, P.; Cliff, M.; King, M.; Girard, B.; Hall, J.; Reynolds, A. Effect of two commercial malolactic cultures on the chemical and sensory properties of Chancellor wines vinified with different yeasts and fermentation temperatures. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2000, 51, 42–48. [Google Scholar]
  35. Gambaro, A.; Boido, E.; Zlotejablko, A.; Medina, K.; Lloret, A.; Dellacassa, E.; Carrau, F. Effect of malolactic fermentation on the aroma properties of Tannat wine. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2001, 7, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Swiegers, J.H.; Bartowsky, E.J.; Henschke, P.A.; Pretorius, I. Yeast and bacterial modulation of wine aroma and flavour. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 139–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ferreira, V.; Lopez, R. The actual and potential aroma of winemaking grapes. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Crouzet, J.; Flanzy, C. Les Enzymes En Oenologie. In Œnologie, Fondements Scientifiques et Technologiques; Tec & doc-Lavoisier: Paris, France, 1998; pp. 362–413. [Google Scholar]
  39. Cheynier, V.; Schneider, R.; Salmon, J.M.; Fulcrand, H. Chemistry of Wine. In Comprehensive Natural Products II, 1st ed.; Hung-Wen, L., Mander, L., Eds.; Elsevier: Ámsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 1119–1172. [Google Scholar]
  40. Bayonove, C.L.; Baumes, R.L.; Crouzet, J.; Günata, Z. Aromas. In Enología: Fundamentos científicos y tecnológicos, 1st ed.; Flanzy, C., Ed.; Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2003; pp. 137–176. [Google Scholar]
  41. Campos, M.G.R.; Bogdanov, S.; de Almeida-Muradian, L.B.; Szczesna, T.; Mancebo, Y.; Frigerio, C.; Ferreira, F. Pollen composition and standardisation of analytical methods. J. Apic. Res. 2008, 47, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. da Silva, G.R.; da Natividade, T.B.; Camara, C.A.; da Silva, E.M.S.; dos Santos, F.D.A.R.; Silva, T.M.S. Identification of Sugar, Amino Acids and Minerals from the Pollen of Jandaíra Stingless Bees (Melipona subnitida). Food Nutr. Sci. 2014, 05, 1015–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Bogdanov, S. Pollen: Production, Nutrition and Health : A Review. 2017. Available online: https://www.bee-hexagon.net/pollen/ (accessed on 4 May 2018).
  44. Palacios, V.; Roldán, A.; Jiménez-Cantizano, A.; Amores-Arrocha, A. Physicochemical and microbiological characterization of the sensory deviation responsible for the origin of the special sherry wines “palo cortado” type. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Jerkovic, I. Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry in Honey Fingerprinting: The Occurrence of 3,4-dihydro-3-oxoedulan and (E)-4-(r-1’,t-2’,c-4’-trihdroxy-3’,6’,6’-trimethylcyclohexyl)-but-3-en-2-one. Int. J. Chem. Mol. Eng. 2018, 12, 81526. [Google Scholar]
  46. Ferreira, V.; López, R.; Cacho, J.F. Quantitative determination of the odorants of young red wines from different grape varieties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2000, 80, 1659–1667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Li, H.; Tao, Y.S.; Wang, H.; Zhang, L. Impact odorants of Chardonnay dry white wine from Changli County (China). Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2008, 227, 287–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 09 00981 g001 550
Figure 1. Tintilla de Rota red wines sensorial evaluation results of generic attributes (a), and specific olfactory attributes (b). * indicates level of significance for two-way ANOVA (BSD-test) (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 and **** p < 0.0001).
Figure 1. Tintilla de Rota red wines sensorial evaluation results of generic attributes (a), and specific olfactory attributes (b). * indicates level of significance for two-way ANOVA (BSD-test) (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 and **** p < 0.0001).
Foods 09 00981 g001
Table
Table 1. Comparative effect of the addition of bee pollen (0.1, 0.25, 1, 5, 10 and 20 g/L) on concentrations of volatile compounds (µg/L) and control elaboration of Tintilla de Rota red wines.
Table 1. Comparative effect of the addition of bee pollen (0.1, 0.25, 1, 5, 10 and 20 g/L) on concentrations of volatile compounds (µg/L) and control elaboration of Tintilla de Rota red wines.
CompoundsTintilla de Rota Red Wines Pollen Doses
Control0.1 g/L0.25 g/L1 g/L5 g/L10 g/L20 g/L
Higher alcohols
2-Propanol34,953.9±1276.1 a36,052.5±2210.1 a38,842.7±4907.9 a34,985.5±1788.9 a36,902.1±799.7 a34,768.3±1495 a33,171.9±815.5 a
n-Propyl alcohol27,691.4±2165.4 a28,078.3±3292.1 a,b27,692.6±1445 a33,332.2±3069.1 b,c29,588.4±720.7 a,c30,273.1±2148.2 a,c34,846.2±2039.4 c
Isobutanol31,385.1±1539.9 a,b31,248.3±1983.1 a39,121±683.8 b38,397.8±1745.5 a,b34,307.7±358.1 a,b36,460.3±1599.1 a,b50,569±1463.5 c
Isoamyl alcohols354,323.6±16,785.8 a,b350,155.6±21,853 a,b393,105.9±5534 a354,546.7±16,445 a,b316,247.7±3734.7 b347,556.9±15,377.3 a,b355,663.7±10,652.6 a,b
Total448,353.9±21,767.1445,534.8±29,338.3498,762.1±12,570.7461,262.2±23,048.6417,045.8±5613.1449,058.5±20,619.7474,250.8±14,971
% higher alcohols77.53% 76.12% 77.82% 74.73% 70.49% 71.89% 67.65%
Methanol32,708.5±3833 a,b34,834.6±3461.2 a,c,d27,651.5±141.1 b40,294±5164 c,d,e40,450.6±1741.7 d,e43,161.7±5621 e33,131.9±4624.9 a,b
Total32,708.5±383334,834.6±3461.227,651.5±141.140,294±516440,450.6±1741.743,161.7±562133,131.9±4624.9
% methanol5.66% 5.95% 4.31% 6.53% 6.84% 6.91% 4.73%
Acids
Butanoic acid30±0.2 a,b33±0.7 b34.2±0.8 c,d29.3±0.8 a32±2.5 b,c,d29.8±0.4 a,b29.4±0.7 a,b
3-Methyl-butanoic acid189±1.6 a190.4±2.7 a182.2±10.7 a188.8±13.5 a193.4±6.8 a189.9±14.1 a184.2±7.3 a
Hexanoic acid556.3±42.4 a651.6±5.8 b466.5±26.1 c,e,f390.4±4.5 d463.5±29.4 e,f477.2±3.3 f770.4±23 g
Heptanoic acid20.7±0.7 a24±0.6 a24.7±0.5 a25.6±0.7 a27.9±0.9 a74.8±0.9 b144.4±10.7 c
2-Hexenoic acid34±0.6 a39.4±0.6 b,c39.9±0.3 c44.6±1.6 d,e45.7±1.7 e53.7±4.5 f60±0.2 g
Octanoic acid624.4±19.8 a366.6±23.9 b,c443.7±30.9 c648.1±37.2 a1424.5±14 d,e1443.3±30.6 e1253.8±39.3 f
Nonanoic acid87.7±2.1 a76.4±3.4 a90.5±3.7 a116.2±1.4 a556.2±9.7 b182.6±0.4 c184.4±11.1 c
n-Decanoic acid0.19±0.01 a398.5±26.5 b,c,f412.4±1.3 c,f311.9±6.9 d866.4±46.2 e440.9±3.0 f450.3±39.6 f
9-Decenoic acid21.4±1.5 a154.3±12.4 b33.8±1.9 c,d39.1±0.8 d80.1±1.3 e,g52.7±2.7 f87.9±0.6 g
Benzoic acid84.2±5.9 a200.8±0.1 b108.7±1.4 a,c125±5.8 c328.8±29.8 d274±3.5 e371.3±12.2 f
Benzeneacetic acid40.8±0.4 a42.8±0.8 a,b,c41.9±1.1 a43.9±0.5 a,b,c46±0.7 b,c46.4±0.7 c49.5±2.2 c
Total1688.6±75.22177.7±77.51878.5±78.71962.8±73.84064.5±143.13265.3±64.13585.5±147
% acids0.29% 0.37% 0.29% 0.32% 0.69% 0.52% 0.51%
C-6 alcohols
1-Hexanol493.9±9.5 a431.1±1.7 b,c,d436.6±19.2 c,d433±10.2 d434.2±20.2 e520.3±1.4 a539.5±53.1 a
(E)-3-Hexen-1-ol 16.7±0.2 a29.1±0.5 b,c30.9±0.9 c,d33.1±0.8 d35.7±1.7 e36.1±0.6 e37.7±1.4 e
(Z)-3-Hexen-1-ol25.3±2.4 a30±1.4 a,d31.8±1.0 a91.2±0.4 b101.1±6.8 c6.2±0.3 d9.5±0.1 a,d
Total535.9±12.1490.3±3.6499.2±21557.2±11.4571±28.7562.6±2.3586.7±54.6
% C-6 alcohols0.09% 0.08% 0.08% 0.09% 0.10% 0.09% 0.08%
Alcoholes
3-Penten-2-ol103.6±4.9 a45.1±2.4 b,c50.6±0.1 c63.6±4.7 d,e,f67.2±3.9 e,f70.9±0.1 f129.5±2.0 g
1-Pentanol1358.2±53.1 a1812.7±73.5 b,c,d,e1331.8±123.8 a1746.8±14.0 c,d,e1847.5±17.9 d,e1992.8±0.5 e2925.1±187.4 f
3-Ethyl-2-pentanol10.1±0.3 a12.7±0.7 b,c13.9±1.0 c16.6±0.1 d,e17.8±0.1 e20±0.2 f21.3±1.9 f
4-Methyl-1-pentanol13±0.7 a16±0.8 b,c,d17.3±0.6 c,d18.3±0.7 d,e20.5±0.4 e,f20.7±1.1 f25.8±1.7 g
3-Methyl-1-pentanol290.4±8.0 a278.7±2.9 a184.1±7.2 b320.1±20.5 c288.6±15.5 a273.6±4.3 a110.2±8.7 d
3-Ethoxy-1-Propanol99.3±0.7 a100.7±0.7 a112.4±2.8 b,c,e118.9±1.1 c,d,e,f125±0.8 d,e,f120±1.6 e,f125.9±0.6 f
1-Octanol20.8±1.0 a23±0.7 a,b24.7±0.4 b,c,d,e25.5±0.1 c,d,e,f25.9±0.1 d,e,f25.8±1.6 e,f27.6±0.7 f
1-Nonanol3.8±0.3 a2.4±0.2 b,c,d,e2.7±0.02 c,d,f2.4±0.2 d,e2.2±0.2 e2.8±0.2 f,g3.1±0.02 g
Benzyl alcohol84.5±7.1 a93.7±0.6 a133±10.6 a,b179.7±3.8 b603.9±58.2 c248.8±2.3 d247.7±18.8 d
Phenylethyl Alcohol23,942.5±1414.2 a23,512±235.9 a28,318.7±302.5 b,c24,110.5±1481.8 a27,830.4±2039.4 c22,209.8±331.3 a23,346.3±2021.2 a
1 H-Indol-3-ethanol862.1±25 a1313.5±10.6 b,c1452±118.6 c1823.4±2.6 d,e1866.8±64.1 e452±28.7 f551.7±6.5 f
1-Butanol31.2±1.6 a22.7±0.9 a,b15.3±0.9 b,e23.3±1.7 a,e114.3±5.8 c44.3±1.0 d29.7±0.8 a
3-Metil-2-buten-1-ol41.5±1.7 a25.8±1.2 b46.9±1.4 a,c49.3±4.3 c57.1±2.8 d65.5±4.1 e77.9±1.1 f
Total26,861±1518.627,259±331.231,703.5±57028,498.3±1535.632,867.2±220925,547±37727,622±2251.4
% Alcoholes4.64% 4.66% 4.95% 4.62% 5.56% 4.09% 3.94%
Phenols
2,6-di-terc-butil-4-ethylfenol23.1±0.8 a29.1±0.5 b,c29.8±0.4 c20.1±0.1 d,e,f18.6±1.4 e,f20.8±0.9 a,f23.3±0.1 a
4-Etilfenol6.7±0.2 a8.2±0.4 b,e9.4±0.7 c,d,e10.1±0.1 d8.6±0.2 e4.9±0.5 f7.2±0.1 a
4-Vinilguaiacol33.4±1.1 a55.7±5.3 b76.6±3.7 c,d74.9±6.3 d23.1±0.8 e,f23±1.4 f41.5±0.3 g
Acetovainillin19.7±0.7 a32.7±0.8 b,d,f46.2±0.5 c32.6±0.7 d,f26.3±0.7 e20.5±1.4 a36.3±0.7 f
Total82.9±2.9125.6±7162±5.2137.7±7.276.6±3.169.2±4.1108.3±1.2
% Phenols0.01% 0.02% 0.03% 0.02% 0.01% 0.01% 0.02%
Terpenes
Linalool oxide50.5±0.9 a74.2±1.8 b86.3±8.1 c,f59.1±0.8 d50.1±3.5 a38.2±0.6 e88.3±2.7 f
Linalool11.5±0.5 a12.9±0.8 a,b13.5±0.1 b16.7±0.3 c,e11.8±0.5 a18.4±0.8 d17±0.5 e,d
α-Terpieol9.7±0.2 a10.8±0.1 a15.3±0.1 b19.1±0.9 c,e23.2±1.4 d18.9±1.4 e34±2.4 f
(R)-(+)-β-Citronellol8.7±0.2 a9.7±0.2 a,b10.2±0.1 b13.8±0.9 c,e16.8±0.9 d,f12.7±0.8 e15.7±1.4 f
2,6-dimetil-3,7-Octadiene-2,6-diol, 29±0.1 a32.8±0.4 b,e,f,g38.9±0.2 c,d,e41.2±1.5 d36.2±0.7 e,f33.3±0.6 f,g32.6±0.7 g
8-Hydroxylinalool49.4±2.1 a100.4±0.9 b,d,g202.4±0.3 c91.1±7.9 d387.1±8.9 e142.2±11.8 f130.3±9.8 f,g
Total158.8±4.1240.8±4.3366.7±8.9240.9±12.4525.2±15.8263.7±16318±17.4
% Terpenes0.03% 0.04% 0.06% 0.04% 0.09% 0.04% 0.05%
Esters
Ethyl acetate60,290.1±5264.2 a65,998.8±4222.7 a,b68,955±3516.9 a,b75,224.6±6073.5 b,c85,400.4±1651.2 c,d94,930.8±4988.6 d151,421.2±10,126 e
Ethyl butyrate0.15±0.01 a27.2±0.7 b,g37.5±2.8 c55.3±1.8 d127.1±2.4 e16.7±0.1 f23±1.9 g
Ethyl isovalerate5.6±0.3 a14.5±0.2 b17.7±0.1 c20.9±0.8 d,g25.1±0.7 e27.6±0.1 f19.9±2.1 g
Isoamyl acetate29.4±0.9 a45.5±1.6 b,c50.5±0.3 c75.5±1.9 d180.1±3.8 e107.6±0.1 f126.9±1.4 g
Ethyl hexanoate60±0.1 a107.6±2.1 b,c,g105.1±0.7 c,g124.9±1.8 d,e,f118.9±0.3 e,h133.6±1.4 f115±4.3 g,h
Hexyl acetate26.3±0.01 a29.4±0.01 a,b30.3±0.01 b,c,d,e32.8±0.7 c,g28.3±1.4 a,e33.4±0.01 d,g42.6±2.1 f
Ethyl 2-hydroxy-3-methyl butanoate13.2±1.3 a15.8±0.9 a17.7±0.7 a29.6±0.8 b,e63.3±2.7 c37±1.4 d33.4±3.0 e
Ethyl octanoate204.5±6.1 a349.9±32.6 b,c,g372±0.6 c,g244.8±22.1 d,e,f261.2±26.5 e,f245.4±21.8 f346.7±3.1 g
Ethyl nonanoate10.9±0.9 a12.2±1.0 b,c,g11±0.6 a,g13±0.8 c16.3±0.6 d,e,f15.8±1.4 e17.1±0.5 f
Ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate36.8±1.6 a36.2±3.1 a37.4±2.7 a82.6±0.7 b112.9±7.6 c39.3±1.9 a47.8±2.0 d
Isoamyl lactate43.3±1.8 a139±0.6 b,f229.3±3.1 c101.2±1.0 d255.5±7.1 e146.6±2.1 f127.8±0.4 f
Ethyl decanoate112.1±7.1 a122.4±0.3 a154.8±3.6 b111.8±5.3 a270.2±7.5 c,d127.1±1.6 a273.9±5.8 d
Diethyl succinate509.3±12.2 a681.5±2.5 b,d,e950.9±48 c,f636.5±51.2 d,e633.3±44.2 e907.9±43.2 f1310.2±125.7 g
Ethyl 9-decenoate59.7±0.8 a,c63.9±2.3 a,b66.1±0.8 b,d64.3±1.3 a,b,d59.4±0.7 a56.5±1.3 c62.8±0.8 a,b,d
Ethyl phenylacetate1.27±0.01 a2.23±0.01 b,c,d,f,g2.27±0.03 c,d,f,g2.39±0.07 d,e,f2.55±0.04 e2.27±0.08 f,g2.2±0.08 g
Phenethyl acetate33.8±0.1 a97.4±6.8 b,e,d,f104.5±4.1 c,d94.9±2.6 d,f279.1±5.1 e80.9±2.6 f251±3.1 g
Diethyl malate24.4±0.7 a32.9±0.9 b,c,d34.9±0.9 c,d,e36±0.9 d,e37±0.6 e40.6±0.7 f45.1±0.9 g
Methyl vanillate242.7±0.5 a287.4±5.2 a610.1±8.2 b,c550.3±45.8 c,e,f1541.4±18.6 d454±44.7 e,f470.4±62.1 f
Ethyl lactate121.4±1.5 a173.8±5.3 b,c155.9±4.3 c204.6±21.0 d,e199±3.2 e271.1±25.7 f256±4.0 f
Butanoic acid 3-hydroxy ethyl ester51.8±2.5 a63±1.3 a,b57±5.2 a76±3.5 b,d231.3±3.8 c82.7±1.3 d105.1±8.0 e
Ethyl (Z)-4-decenoate60.9±1.2 a165.9±3.7 b,d203.7±17.7 c191.3±6.1 d,c391.5±6.4 e31.9±1.6 a57.4±0.6 a
Ethyl dodecanoate68.2±2.6 a35.6±2.0 b143.5±14.1 c,f172±2.8 d303.9±8.1 e121.1±1.0 f91.8±0.3 g
Methyl tetradecanoate34.8±1.5 a66.4±7.2 b,c,d,f88.5±6.6 c,d,f72.8±3.8 d,f297.9±18.1 e80.5±0.8 f87.5±1.9 f
Succinoic acid 2-hydroxy-3-methyl diethyl ester93.3±8.1 a110.3±10.4 a,b,e126.9±3.4 b,c,e,f144.2±4.8 c,e,f450.8±36.4 d131.8±1.5 e147.2±2.3 f
Methyl hexadecanoate81.4±4.6 a100.9±5.2 b,e147.6±0.7 c219.3±10.1 d,g106.3±2.1 e186.4±4.3 f227.6±5.2 g
Hexadecanoic acid, ethyl ester310.8±7.4 a,f,g420.9±33.5 b,d732.6±20.6 c,e435.7±10.9 d719.8±61.2 e300.3±2.5 f356.1±14.5 g
Propanoic acid 2-methyl-propyl ester84.7±0.8 a116.1±11.1 b160±2.4 c,d,f154.5±4.5 d,f181.7±0.1 e147.7±8.1 f155.2±9.2 f
Ethyl 8-nonenoato205.6±3.5 a216.4±3.1 a,b235.9±0.8 b,f209.4±2.2 a,f293.9±6.5 c,d313±17.6 d363.5±20.5 e
Total62,816.5±5332.369,533.2±4366.373,838.8±3669.979,381.1±6282.992,587.9±1927.199,069.5±5177.4156,584.3±10,411.7
% esters10.86% 11.88% 11.52% 12.86% 15.65% 15.86% 22.34%
Aldehydes
Acetaldehyde4890.4±279.7 a,b4810.7±204.3 a5520.7±263.1 b4482.1±472.6 a2887.5±294.1 c,d3292.9±322.7 d4422.9±417.9 a
Benzeneacetaldehyde66.6±1.9 a74.3±5.7 a,e131.9±10.4 b,c,d145.3±11.7 c119.8±7.0 d80.5±3.8 a,e85.1±2.6 e
Nonanal10.5±0.6 a,e13.4±0.4 b,d16.2±1.0 c14.2±0.5 d10.7±0.6 a9.9±0.1 a,e8.6±0.7 e
3-methyl-butanal15.1±0.5 a28.5±1.5 b,c30.1±0.5 c,d35.1±2.6 d48.8±2.6 e10±0.3 a15.4±0.4 a
Total4982.6±282.74926.8±2125698.9±2754676.8±487.43066.8±304.43393.3±326.94532.1±421.6
% Aldehydes0.86% 0.84% 0.89% 0.76% 0.52% 0.54% 0.65%
Thiols
3-(methylthio)-1-Propanol21.4±1.8 a49.3±3.8 b148.9±7.5 c95.7±3.7 d,f198.5±3.2 e88.1±8.6 f111.7±2.4 g
Total21.4±1.849.3±3.8148.9±7.595.7±3.7198.5±3.288.1±8.6111.7±2.4
% thiols0.004% 0.01% 0.02% 0.02% 0.03% 0.01% 0.02%
Acetals
1-(1-etoxietoxi)-pentano2.1±0.1 a2±0.1 a1.8±0.1 a3.2±0.1 b4.4±0.2 c5.4±0.1 d5.7±0.2 e
Total 2.1±02±01.8±0.13.2±04.4±0.25.4±0.15.7±0.2
% acetals0.0004% 0.0003% 0.0003% 0.0010% 0.0010% 0.0010% 0.0010%
Norisoprenoids
3-Oxo-α-ionol7.6±0.1 a13.3±0.4 b,c,d,e13.1±0.1 c,d,e14.1±0.2 d,e14.7±0.1 e42.8±0.6 f44.9±1.0 f
Total 7.6±0.113.3±0.413.1±0.114.1±0.214.7±0.142.8±0.644.9±1
% Norisoprenoids0.001% 0.002% 0.002% 0.002% 0.002% 0.010% 0.010%
Lactones
Dihydro-5-pentyl-2-(3 H)-Furanona59.6±0.7 a55.8±4.8 a107.2±2.8 b,d78.8±0.5 c106.8±0.3 d66.8±0.2 a120.6±8.4 e
2,3-dihydro-benzofuran50.6±1.1 a50±4.0 a50.6±1.1 a42.3±0.8 b49.5±0.8 a48.8±1.5 a50.1±1.6 a
Total 110.2±1.7105.8±8.8157.8±4121.1±1.4156.2±1.1115.6±1.7170.7±10
% lactones0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.03% 0.02% 0.02%
Different superscript letters indicate that there are significant differences between the samples (p < 0.05, ANOVA, BSD test).
Table
Table 2. Loadings of the main components of the volatile compounds in Tintilla de Rota dosed with bee pollen and control wines.
Table 2. Loadings of the main components of the volatile compounds in Tintilla de Rota dosed with bee pollen and control wines.
F1F2F3
Higher alcohols0.1790.936−0.059
Methanol0.193−0.862−0.082
Acids0.648−0.5330.492
C-6 alcohols0.744−0.4490.151
Alcohols−0.2820.1020.948
Phenols−0.2840.8310.152
Terpenes and derivatives0.129−0.1960.961
Esters0.9580.0560.164
Aldehydes−0.3550.895−0.242
Thiols0.190−0.0800.955
Acetals0.895−0.4200.121
Norisoprenoids0.945−0.079−0.140
Lactones0.5130.3360.769
Explained variance (%)32.7530.3728.80
Rotated component matrix loadings of Principal Components Analysis of volatile compounds in Tintilla de Rota red wines, using varimax with Kaiser normalization.
Table
Table 3. Odor activity values summary (ΣOAV) grouped by odorant series.
Table 3. Odor activity values summary (ΣOAV) grouped by odorant series.
Odorant SeriesBee Pollen Doses in Tintilla de ROTA Red Wines
Control0.1 g/L0.25 g/L1 g/L5 g/L10 g/L 20 g/L
Fruity93.03142.21154.61134.68146.87129.35151.40
Floral25.2531.0145.2643.2440.4126.5836.55
Fatty8.508.678.158.4610.8910.4710.69
Grassy1.151.151.171.451.421.261.45
Dry fruit0.050.050.060.050.030.030.04
Earthy, mushrooms0.600.610.520.740.780.640.33
Chemical0.100.220.130.150.350.290.39
Spicy0.941.522.172.091.120.751.23
Phenolic0.020.020.020.020.020.010.02
∑OAVT129.62185.45212.09190.86201.89169.38202.10
Odor Activity Values (OAV) sum of the main odorants found in Tintilla de Rota red wines produced (Control and different bee pollen doses addition (from 0.1 to 20 g/L)). ΣOAVT means the total sum of ΣOAV.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Amores-Arrocha, A.; Sancho-Galán, P.; Jiménez-Cantizano, A.; Palacios, V. Bee Pollen Role in Red Winemaking: Volatile Compounds and Sensory Characteristics of Tintilla de Rota Warm Climate Red Wines. Foods 2020, 9, 981. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9080981

AMA Style

Amores-Arrocha A, Sancho-Galán P, Jiménez-Cantizano A, Palacios V. Bee Pollen Role in Red Winemaking: Volatile Compounds and Sensory Characteristics of Tintilla de Rota Warm Climate Red Wines. Foods. 2020; 9(8):981. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9080981

Chicago/Turabian Style

Amores-Arrocha, Antonio, Pau Sancho-Galán, Ana Jiménez-Cantizano, and Víctor Palacios. 2020. "Bee Pollen Role in Red Winemaking: Volatile Compounds and Sensory Characteristics of Tintilla de Rota Warm Climate Red Wines" Foods 9, no. 8: 981. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9080981

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