| Literature DB >> 28903259 |
Giorgio Verrelli1, Larisa Lvova2, Roberto Paolesse3, Corrado Di Natale4, Arnaldo D'Amico5.
Abstract
An Electronic Tongue system (ET) composed of "all-solid-state" potentiometricsensors was developed and applied for the identification of white wines. The sensingproperties were due to the PVC based membranes doped with several metallo-porphyrinsdeposited on the surface of glassy carbon working electrodes; potentiometric responsetowards several ions in a concentration range from 10-5 M to 10-1 M were studied and cross-sensitivity of sensors was estimated. The sensor array was applied both for the classificationand quantitative analysis of "Verdicchio D.O.C." Italian dry white wines produced by ninecantinas. Peculiar parameters of white wines (namely alcoholic degree, volatile acidity, SO₂,L-Malic Acid, L-Lactic Acid and Total Polyphenols) individuated by standard analyticalmethods were compared with the values evaluated by metalloporphyrin-based ET. Thesystem satisfactory discriminates between an artificial wine control and analyzed winescoming from different cantinas and produced in different years. A satisfactory correlationbetween results of wine analysis performed by certified methods and ET response has beenobtained for SO₂, L-Malic Acid, and Total Phenols content. The developed procedureallows the monitoring of the acetic acid amount in wines and hence to control wine volatileacidity, so indicating the initial steps of wine spoilage process.Entities:
Keywords: Electronic tongue; Porphyrins; Potentiometric sensors; White wine analysis
Year: 2007 PMID: 28903259 PMCID: PMC3965223 DOI: 10.3390/s7112750
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Composition of studied membranes and their cross-sensitivity parameters; polymeric matrix composition PVC:plasticizer (a,b,c)= 1:2 in weight; a DOS, boNPOE, cTOP, dR: -O-(CH2)6-CH3,fAbsolute value of the average slope of cationic or anionic sensor response
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | |||||
| 1a | H2TPP | - | 13.8 | 0.96 | 0.050 |
| 2b | Co(III)TPPBr | - | 26.7 | 0.79 | 0.020 |
| 3b | Co(II)TPP-Rc | - | 14.0 | 4.68 | 0.020 |
| 4a | Co(II)TPP-R | TpClPBK, 0.4 | 25.9 | 0.72 | 0.010 |
| 5c | - | - | 10.9 | 0.21 | 0.020 |
| 6a | - | TDACl, 0.4 | 45.6 | 5.60 | 0.046 |
| 7a | Pt(II)TPP | - | 24.9 | 0.45 | 0.069 |
| 8a | Pt(II)TPP | TDACl, 0.4 | 36.9 | 9.90 | 0.069 |
| 9a | Pt(II)TPP | TDACl, 1.6 | 40.7 | 3.70 | 0.045 |
| 10b | Pt(IV)TPPCl2 | - | 32.1 | 1.50 | 0.109 |
| 11b | Pt(IV)TPPCl2 | TDACl 0.4 | 43.4 | 2.70 | 0.116 |
| 12b | Pt(IV)TPPCl2 | TDACl 1.6 | 38.3 | 1.07 | 0.158 |
Figure 1.PCA score plot for discrimination of five Verdicchio Italian white wines evaluated by porphyrins-based ET. On graph: aw – “artificial wine” of composition: tartaric acid 5 g/L, ethanol 123 g/L, isobutyl alcohol 0.3 g/L, isoamyl alcohol 0.06 g/L, pH=3.2, number of replicas n=4.
Figure 2.PLS-DA plot for ‘Verdicchio’ dry white wines: classification for year of production.
Wine parameters obtained by independent chemical analysis.
|
| |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Caldirola | 11.72 | 0.27 | 90 | 1.05 | 0.18 | 21.6 | 4.76 |
| Casal del Cavalieri | 12.65 | 0.34 | 80 | 0.31 | 1.82 | 8.81 | 5.74 |
| Fazi Battaglia | 12.20 | 0.31 | 96 | 1.70 | 0.80 | 9.24 | 6.92 |
| Piersanti | 12.31 | 0.27 | 90 | 0.86 | 0.53 | 8.91 | 6.48 |
| Moncaro | 12.19 | 0.22 | 77 | 1.06 | 0.16 | 8.12 | 6.70 |
| San Sisto | 13.01 | 0.46 | 93 | 0.36 | 0.87 | 9.67 | 6.62 |
| Sant'Ignazio | 12.95 | 0.40 | 61 | 0.26 | 1.13 | 6.53 | 4.98 |
Figure 3.Results porphyrin-based ET application in Verdicchio white wines for determination of: (A) SO2-content, PLS model: Slope 0.9965, R2 0.9992, number PC 4; (B) Total Polyphenols (vs Folin-Ciocalteau index), PLS model: Slope 0.8592, R2 0.9922, number PC 4; (C) Malic Acid, PLS model: Slope 0.9797, R2 0.9963, number PC 4; Wine samples: w1- ‘Caldirola’, 2002, w2- ‘Casal dei Cavalieri’, 2002, w3- ‘Fazi Bataglia’,2002, w4- ‘Piersanti’, 2003, w5- ‘Moncaro’, 2003, w6- ‘San Sisto’, 1999, w7- ‘San Ignazio’, 2003.
Figure 4.Acetic acid content in Verdicchio wines. Data treated by MLR, Calibration: Slope 0.9888, R2 0.9943, RMSEC 0.000917, Validation: Slope 0.9857, R2 0.9799, RMSEP 0.001743. The wines notations are the same as in Figure 3 caption.
The results of acetic acid prediction in Verdicchio wines.
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ‘Caldirola’ | 0.270 | 0.262 | 3.0 |
| ‘Casal dei Cavaglieri’ | 0.340 | 0.337 | 0.9 |
| ‘Fazi Bataglia’ | 0.310 | 0.360 | 16.1 |
| ‘Piersanti’ | 0.270 | 0.274 | 1.5 |
| ‘Moncaro’ | 0.220 | - | - |
| ‘San Sisto’ | 0.460 | 0.482 | 4.8 |
| ‘San Ignazio’ | 0.400 | 0.470 | 17.5 |