| Literature DB >> 29225994 |
M Basalekou1, C Pappas2, Y Kotseridis1, P A Tarantilis2, E Kontaxakis3, S Kallithraka1.
Abstract
Color, phenolic content, and chemical age values of red wines made from Cretan grape varieties (Kotsifali, Mandilari) were evaluated over nine months of maturation in different containers for two vintages. The wines differed greatly on their anthocyanin profiles. Mid-IR spectra were also recorded with the use of a Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrophotometer in ZnSe disk mode. Analysis of Variance was used to explore the parameter's dependency on time. Determination models were developed for the chemical age indexes using Partial Least Squares (PLS) (TQ Analyst software) considering the spectral region 1830-1500 cm-1. The correlation coefficients (r) for chemical age index i were 0.86 for Kotsifali (Root Mean Square Error of Calibration (RMSEC) = 0.067, Root Mean Square Error of Prediction (RMSEP) = 0,115, and Root Mean Square Error of Validation (RMSECV) = 0.164) and 0.90 for Mandilari (RMSEC = 0.050, RMSEP = 0.040, and RMSECV = 0.089). For chemical age index ii the correlation coefficients (r) were 0.86 and 0.97 for Kotsifali (RMSEC 0.044, RMSEP = 0.087, and RMSECV = 0.214) and Mandilari (RMSEC = 0.024, RMSEP = 0.033, and RMSECV = 0.078), respectively. The proposed method is simpler, less time consuming, and more economical and does not require chemical reagents.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29225994 PMCID: PMC5687142 DOI: 10.1155/2017/5767613
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Samples and containers per vintage (V1: 2012; V2: 2013).
| Grape variety | Container | Samples | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months | 6 months | 9 months | 12 months | ||
| Kotsifali/Mandilari | Inox tank | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/— |
| Inox tank with oak chips | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/— | |
| French oak | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/— | |
| American oak | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/— | |
| Acacia | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/— | |
| Chestnut | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/V2 | V1/— | |
|
| |||||
| Sum of samples for both varieties | 12/12 | 12/12 | 12/12 | 12/— | |
Changes in average values of color parameters and chemical age indexes (CI: color intensity, h: hue, CA1: chemical age i, CA2: chemical age ii, ID: degree of ionisation of anthocyanins, CD: color density, CDS: color density corrected for SO2, TA: total anthocyanin concentration, SRP: SO2 resistant pigments) during maturation, for Kotsifali and Mandilari wines.
| 2012 vintage | 2013 vintage | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 months | 6 months | 9 months | 3 months | 6 months | 9 months | |
| Kotsifali | ||||||
| CI | 2.8 | 3.4 | 3.9 | 5.5 | 5.1 | 6.1 |
| h | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| CA 1 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| CA 2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| ID | 18.5 | 15.5 | 28.3 | 23.7 | 23.0 | 24.8 |
| CD | 2.9 | 4.0 | 3.2 | 4.4 | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| CDS | 3.4 | 4.5 | 3.3 | 4.9 | 4.5 | 4.7 |
| TA | 143.0 | 140.5 | 56.6 | 145.4 | 130.7 | 100.3 |
| SRP | 0.4 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 |
| Mandilari | ||||||
| CI | 14.8 | 16.4 | 16.2 | 14.8 | 12.7 | 14.0 |
| h | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| CA 1 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| CA 2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| ID | 32.8 | 34.4 | 57.4 | 28.1 | 26.8 | 27.7 |
| CD | 11.2 | 13.1 | 11.6 | 10.6 | 10.1 | 9.9 |
| CDS | 12.1 | 13.3 | 11.9 | 11.1 | 10.2 | 10.3 |
| TA | 285.9 | 187.8 | 92.4 | 322.6 | 278.4 | 221.5 |
| SRP | 3.2 | 5.2 | 4.9 | 2.6 | 2.9 | 3.3 |
Figure 1Biplot of principal components 1 and 2 for mean scores of Kotsifali and Mandilari color parameters.
Test results for fixed effects of hue, chemical age indexes i and ii, total anthocyanins, and SO2 resistant pigments for Kotsifali and Mandilari wine samples.
| Nparm | DF | Sum of Squares |
| Prob > | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Variety | 1 | 1 | 2.081079 | 617.9852 | <.0001 |
| Vintage | 1 | 1 | 0.0592846 | 17.6048 | <.0001 |
| Time | 2 | 2 | 0.1038602 | 15.4209 | <.0001 |
| Container | 5 | 5 | 0.0467252 | 2.775 | 0.0252 |
|
| |||||
| Variety | 1 | 1 | 0.15791902 | 30.0835 | <.0001 |
| Vintage | 1 | 1 | 0.04734925 | 9.02 | 0.0038 |
| Time | 2 | 2 | 0.64369316 | 61.3116 | <.0001 |
| Container | 5 | 5 | 0.04057336 | 1.5458 | 0.1888 |
|
| |||||
| Variety | 1 | 1 | 0.13732412 | 40.686 | <.0001 |
| Vintage | 1 | 1 | 0.05456823 | 16.1673 | 0.0002 |
| Time | 2 | 2 | 0.20179451 | 29.8935 | <.0001 |
| Container | 5 | 5 | 0.02202906 | 1.3053 | 0.2734 |
|
| |||||
| Variety | 1 | 1 | 225840.64 | 121.065 | <.0001 |
| Vintage | 1 | 1 | 42884.5 | 22.9888 | <.0001 |
| Time | 2 | 2 | 139047.49 | 37.2692 | <.0001 |
| Container | 5 | 5 | 8431.81 | 0.904 | 0.4843 |
|
| |||||
| Variety | 1 | 1 | 135.1368 | 317.3832 | <.0001 |
| Vintage | 1 | 1 | 6.22457 | 14.6191 | 0.0003 |
| Time | 2 | 2 | 10.32205 | 12.1212 | <.0001 |
| Container | 5 | 5 | 0.35078 | 0.1648 | 0.9745 |
indicates significant levels.
Figure 2Typical FT-IR spectra for Kotsifali and Mandilari wines.
Figure 3Correlation between the actual chemical age i values and the values predicted by the model for Kotsifali (a) and Mandilari (b) samples.
Figure 4Correlation between the actual chemical age ii values and the values predicted by the model for Kotsifali (a) and Mandilari (b) samples.