| Literature DB >> 33923559 |
Olga Vyviurska1, Nemanja Koljančić1, Ha Anh Thai1, Roman Gorovenko1, Ivan Špánik1.
Abstract
The enantiomeric ratio of chiral compounds is known as a useful tool to estimate wine quality as well as observe an influence of wine-producing technology. The incorporation of flow-modulated comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography in this type of analysis provides a possibility to improve the quality of results due to the enhancement of separation capacity and resolution. In this study, flow-modulated comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography was incorporated in enantioselective analysis to determine the influence of winemaking technology on specific features of botrytized wines. The samples included Tokaj essences (high-sugar wines), Tokaj botrytized wines and varietal wines (Furmint, Muscat Lunel, Lipovina) and wines maturated on grape peels. The obtained data was processed with hierarchic cluster analysis to reveal variations in composition and assess classification ability for botrytized wines. A significant difference between the samples was observed for the enantiomeric distribution of ethyl lactate and presence of monoterpene alcohols. The varietal wines were successfully separated from the other types, which showed more similar results and could be divided with additional parameters. We observed a correlation between the botrytized wines and the varietal wines fermented with grape skins. As to the essences produced from juice of botrytized grapes, the results were quite similar to those of the botrytized wines, even though monoterpenes were not detected in the extracts.Entities:
Keywords: Tokaj wine region; botrytized wines; enantioselective analysis; flow-modulated comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography
Year: 2021 PMID: 33923559 PMCID: PMC8074103 DOI: 10.3390/foods10040876
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
The samples used for investigation.
| Code | Year | Producer | Code | Year | Producer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ES1 | 1999 | TOKAJ & CO. | 5P7 | 2000 | Zlatý Strapec |
| ES2 | 2000 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ | 5P8 | 2003 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| GP30 | 2016 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ | 5P9 | 2003 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| GP90 | 2016 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ | 5P10 | 2004 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 2P1 | 1989 | TOKAJ & CO. | 6P1 | 1977 | Zlatý Strapec |
| 2P2 | 1990 | TOKAJ & CO. | 6P2 | 1983 | Zlatý Strapec |
| 3P1 | 1988 | Zlatý Strapec | 6P3 | 1989 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 3P2 | 1990 | TOKAJ & CO. | 6P4 | 1989 | TOKAJ & CO. |
| 3P3 | 1995 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ | 6P5 | 1999 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 3P4 | 1995 | Zlatý Strapec | 6P6 | 2002 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 3P5 | 1999 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ | 6P7 | 2003 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 3P6 | 2000 | Zlatý Strapec | 6P8 | 2006 | TOKAJ & CO. |
| 3P7 | 2009 | TOKAJ & CO. | F1 | 2014 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 4P1 | 1993 | Zlatý Strapec | F2 | 2015 | TOKAJ & CO. |
| 4P2 | 1995 | TOKAJ & CO. | F3 | 2015 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 4P3 | 2000 | Zlatý Strapec | M1 | 2016 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 4P4 | 2002 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ | M2 | 2016 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 4P5 | 2004 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ | M4 | 2015 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 4P6 | 2009 | TOKAJ & CO. | M5 | 2015 | TOKAJ & CO. |
| 5P1 | 1959 | Zlatý Strapec | L1 | 2015 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 5P2 | 1972 | Zlatý Strapec | L2 | 2015 | TOKAJ & CO. |
| 5P3 | 1989 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ | L3 | 2015 | TOKAJ & CO. |
| 5P4 | 1990 | TOKAJ & CO. | L4 | 2015 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 5P5 | 1993 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ | L5 | 2015 | J & J OSTROŽOVIČ |
| 5P6 | 1993 | Zlatý Strapec | - | - | - |
2P, 3P, 4P, 5P and 6P are shortcut for “puttony” wines with the corresponding number of tubs was added.
Figure 1GC×GC-MS (A) and GC×GC-FID (B) chromatogram of Furmint varietal wine (2015).
Target chiral compounds.
| Compounds | RT1, min | RT2, s | RI | Resolution |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-(+)-ethyl lactate | 44.288 | 1.491 | 972 | - |
| S-(-)-ethyl lactate | 44.988 | 1.491 | 979 | 3.29 |
| R-(-)-linalool | 60.388 | 1.177 | 1204 | - |
| S-(+)-linalool | 60.688 | 1.177 | 1210 | 1.56 |
| R-(+)-α-terpineol | 68.288 | 1.491 | 1322 | - |
| S-(-)-α-terpineol | 68.588 | 1.491 | 1328 | 2.59 |
| 78.788 | 1.648 | 1506 | - | |
| 81.488 | 1.805 | 1543 | 11.00 | |
| R-γ-nonalactone | 84.388 | 1.833 | 1592 | - |
| S-γ-nonalactone | 84.588 | 1.833 | 1595 | 8.20 |
RT1 corresponds to retention time of compounds eluted from first dimension and RT2 corresponds to retention time of compounds eluted from second dimension, RI—retention index for the 1st column.
Results of GC×GC-FID analysis.
| Code | Enantiomer Ratio [%] | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R-(+)-Ethyl Lactate | S-(-)-Ethyl Lactate | R-(-)-Linalool | S-(+)-Linalool | R-(+)-α-Terpineol | S-(-)-α-Terpineol | R-γ-Nonalactone | S-γ-Nonalactone | |||
|
| ||||||||||
| ES1 | 24 | 76 | - | - | - | - | 61 | 39 | 38 | 62 |
| ES2 | 30 | 70 | - | - | - | - | 74 | 26 | 38 | 62 |
|
| ||||||||||
| GP30 | 11 | 89 | - | - | - | - | 77 | 23 | 24 | 76 |
| GP90 | 28 | 72 | - | - | - | - | 71 | 29 | 34 | 66 |
|
| ||||||||||
| 2P1 | 21 | 79 | - | - | - | - | 70 | 30 | 43 | 57 |
| 2P2 | 14 | 86 | - | - | - | - | 70 | 30 | - | - |
| 3P1 | 27 | 73 | - | - | - | - | 69 | 31 | 46 | 54 |
| 3P2 | 24 | 76 | - | - | - | - | 66 | 34 | 48 | 52 |
| 3P3 | 15 | 85 | - | - | - | - | 71 | 29 | 39 | 61 |
| 3P4 | 22 | 78 | - | - | 45 | 55 | 61 | 39 | 36 | 64 |
| 3P5 | 14 | 86 | - | - | - | - | 77 | 23 | 36 | 64 |
| 3P6 | 18 | 82 | - | - | - | - | 75 | 25 | 44 | 56 |
| 3P7 | 70 | 30 | 43 | 57 | - | - | - | - | 48 | 52 |
| 4P1 | 35 | 65 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 40 | 60 |
| 4P2 | 24 | 76 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 39 | 61 |
| 4P3 | 20 | 80 | - | - | - | - | 61 | 39 | 43 | 57 |
| 4P4 | 32 | 68 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 39 | 61 |
| 4P5 | 20 | 80 | - | - | - | - | 68 | 32 | 42 | 58 |
| 4P6 | 36 | 64 | 39 | 61 | 51 | 49 | - | - | 46 | 54 |
| 5P1 | 38 | 62 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 43 | 57 |
| 5P2 | 24 | 76 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 27 | 73 |
| 5P3 | 26 | 74 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 46 | 54 |
| 5P4 | 21 | 79 | - | - | - | - | 65 | 35 | 37 | 63 |
| 5P5 | 20 | 80 | - | - | - | - | 58 | 42 | 46 | 54 |
| 5P6 | 25 | 75 | - | - | - | - | 64 | 36 | 42 | 58 |
| 5P7 | 22 | 78 | - | - | - | - | 70 | 30 | 40 | 60 |
| 5P8 | 43 | 57 | - | - | 52 | 48 | - | - | 33 | 67 |
| 5P9 | 42 | 58 | - | - | 51 | 49 | - | - | 32 | 68 |
| 5P10 | 41 | 59 | - | - | - | - | 74 | 26 | 33 | 67 |
| 6P1 | 29 | 71 | - | - | 48 | 52 | 71 | 29 | 39 | 61 |
| 6P2 | 25 | 75 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 40 | 60 |
| 6P3 | 54 | 46 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 58 | 42 |
| 6P4 | 15 | 85 | - | - | - | - | - | - | 37 | 63 |
| 6P5 | 23 | 77 | - | - | - | - | 75 | 25 | 38 | 62 |
| 6P6 | 27 | 73 | - | - | 36 | 64 | 71 | 29 | 38 | 62 |
| 6P7 | 30 | 70 | - | - | 44 | 56 | 80 | 20 | 39 | 61 |
| 6P8 | 81 | 19 | - | - | 54 | 46 | 58 | 42 | 42 | 58 |
|
| ||||||||||
| F1 | 77 | 23 | - | - | - | - | 73 | 27 | - | - |
| F2 | 79 | 21 | - | - | 55 | 45 | - | - | 42 | 58 |
| F3 | 91 | 9 | 52 | 48 | 58 | 42 | 72 | 28 | - | - |
| M1 | - | - | 56 | 44 | 67 | 33 | - | - | - | - |
| M2 | - | - | 48 | 52 | 63 | 37 | 63 | 37 | - | - |
| M4 | 83 | 17 | 51 | 49 | 59 | 41 | 68 | 32 | - | - |
| M5 | 73 | 27 | 40 | 60 | 54 | 46 | - | - | - | - |
| L1 | - | - | 38 | 62 | 59 | 41 | 74 | 26 | - | - |
| L2 | 88 | 12 | 37 | 63 | - | - | 64 | 36 | - | - |
| L3 | 50 | 50 | 47 | 53 | 54 | 46 | - | - | 53 | 47 |
| L4 | 91 | 9 | 41 | 59 | 56 | 44 | - | - | - | - |
| L5 | 90 | 10 | 45 | 55 | 56 | 44 | 71 | 29 | - | - |
2P, 3P, 4P, 5P and 6P are shortcut for “puttony” wines with the corresponding number of tubs was added.
Figure 2Transformation of linalool (modified [34]).
Figure 3HCA dendrogram of the obtained data. Dissimilarity is calculated as a ratio of dlink to dmax.