Open Advanced Search
Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day.
Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.
Learn More →
Fast and Reliable Multiresidue Analysis of Aromas in Wine by Means of Gas Chromatography Coupled with Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry
Fast and Reliable Multiresidue Analysis of Aromas in Wine by Means of Gas Chromatography Coupled...
Guerriero, Ettore;Iorizzo, Massimo;Cerasa, Marina;Notardonato, Ivan;Testa, Bruno;Letizia, Francesco;Di Fiore, Cristina;Russo, Mario Vincenzo;Avino, Pasquale
Article Fast and Reliable Multiresidue Analysis of Aromas in Wine by Means of Gas Chromatography Coupled with Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry 1 2 1 2 2 2 Ettore Guerriero , Massimo Iorizzo , Marina Cerasa , Ivan Notardonato , Bruno Testa , Francesco Letizia , 2 2 2 , 3 , Cristina Di Fiore , Mario Vincenzo Russo and Pasquale Avino * Institute of Atmospheric Pollution Research (IIA), National Research Council (CNR), Rome Research Area-Montelibretti, I-00015 Monterotondo Scalo, Italy; firstname.lastname@example.org (E.G.); email@example.com (M.C.) Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Food Sciences (DiAAA), University of Molise, Via De Sanctis, I-86100 Campobasso, Italy; firstname.lastname@example.org (M.I.); email@example.com (I.N.); firstname.lastname@example.org (B.T.); email@example.com (F.L.); c.diﬁore@studenti.unimol.it (C.D.F.); firstname.lastname@example.org (M.V.R.) Institute of Ecotoxicology & Environmental Sciences, Kolkata 700156, India * Correspondence: email@example.com; Tel.: +39-0874-404634 † This paper is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Badal Bhattacharya, founder of the Institute of Ecotoxicology & Environmental Sciences, Kolkata, India, passed away on 16 May 2021. Abstract: The paper would like to show a direct injection into GC-MS/QqQ for the determination of secondary aromas in white wine samples fermented in two different ways. The procedure has been Citation: Guerriero, E.; Iorizzo, M.; compared with more traditional methods used in this ﬁeld, i.e., headspace analysis and liquid–liquid Cerasa, M.; Notardonato, I.; Testa, B.; extraction. The application of such direct injection, for the ﬁrst time in the literature, allows us to Letizia, F.; Di Fiore, C.; Russo, M.V.; analyze Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in the range 0.1–100 g mL , with Limits of Detection Avino, P. Fast and Reliable Multiresidue 1 1 (LODs) and Limits of Quantiﬁcation (LOQs) between 0.01–0.05 g mL and 0.03–0.09 g mL , Analysis of Aromas in Wine by respectively, intraday and interday below 5.6% and 8.5%, respectively, and recoveries above 92% at Means of Gas Chromatography two different fortiﬁcation levels. The procedure has been applied to real wine samples: it evidences Coupled with Triple Quadrupole how the fermentation in wood (cherry) barrel yields higher VOC levels than ones in wine fermented Mass Spectrometry . Analytica 2021, 2, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.3390/ in steel tank, causing production of different secondary aromas and different relative ﬂavors. analytica2020005 Keywords: wine; Fiano; aromas; fermentation; headspace; liquid–liquid extraction; direct injection; Academic Editor: Victoria Samanidou comparison; VOC; GC-MS/QqQ Received: 8 May 2021 Accepted: 22 May 2021 Published: 27 May 2021 1. Introduction Aroma is one of the important organoleptic characteristics of wine . Nowadays, Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral about 800 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are identiﬁed . Basically, the distinc- with regard to jurisdictional claims in tion in primary, secondary and tertiary aromas is nothing more than an old simplifying published maps and institutional afﬁl- approach that dates to about sixty years ago. Today, it is an anachronistic and above iations. all non-exhaustive classiﬁcation, born in a historical period in which knowledge on the composition of the volatile fraction of wine was very limited. In fact, in those years only a few tens of volatile molecules had been identiﬁed, while today we know few hundreds of them. The primary, secondary and tertiary sequence is based on the origin of the odorous Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. molecules during the grape–wine transformation process. The ﬁrst studies on the volatile Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. fraction of wine were conducted on Moscato. In fact, the grapes of this variety and the This article is an open access article respective wine turned out to be an ideal study model due to their high content of odorous distributed under the terms and substances. The easy perception of precise smells during the tasting of these grapes and conditions of the Creative Commons their wines led the ﬁrst scholars to talk about primary, secondary and tertiary aromas, Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// meaning by primary those of the grape [3–5], secondary those produced during alcoholic creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). Analytica 2021, 2, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica2020005 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/analytica Analytica 2021, 2 39 fermentation  and tertiary those deriving from the aging of wine (regardless of the con- tainer used for storage) . Subsequently, this classiﬁcation was erroneously generalized and applied to most wines without considering the advances in scientiﬁc knowledge of the sector, so today this subdivision into “watertight compartments” is simplistic and incom- plete because the phenomena related to the biogenesis of volatile components in wine and the quality of the odor emanating from them are much more complex and interconnected. Secondary aromas essentially refer to esters and higher alcohols of fermentative origin [8,9]. The volatile components belonging to these two chemical classes are typi- cal secondary products of alcoholic fermentation, regardless of the starting food matrix. The esters (amyl and ethyl of short-chain fatty acids) are characterized by fruity notes such as banana, apple, melon, pineapple, etc.; the higher alcohols have historically been always associated with the so-called vinosity . In practice, they are responsible for the aromatic background of any beverage of fermentation origin . Thus, when they are clearly perceived in a wine, it means that the wine in question is extremely poor in odorous molecules. Furthermore, the quantitative balance between esters and alcohols of fermentation origin is very important, it greatly inﬂuences the olfactory quality of young wine and in particular that of white wines obtained from non-aromatic grapes . Many variables, even more than the yeasts themselves that conduct alcoholic fer- mentation (indigenous or selected) signiﬁcantly affect the balance between esters and alcohols. Some of them are turbidity of the medium, availability of nitrogenous nutrients, pH, oxygen level of the medium and fermentation temperature. The free fraction consists of volatile compounds, directly accessible to the olfactory mucosa and therefore odorous, while the bound fraction consists of aromatic components present in the form of non-odorous precursors of a glycosidic nature [2,13,14]. The latter are gradually released by hydrolysis during winemaking, especially during the aging of the wine, thus increasing the complexity and aromatic speciﬁcity of the wine . With the progress of aging, in fact, the aromatic character of the wine changes from an aroma of a mainly fermentative nature to a more complex one, strongly inﬂuenced by compounds of a varietal nature and therefore attributable to the grape of origin. The grape variety used in the production of a particular wine characterizes the aroma of that wine [16–18]. However, other factors such as degree of ripeness of grapes, climate, viticultural practices, aging, winemaking techniques, yeasts and region are known to affect the aroma of wine [19–21]. Volatile aroma compounds are very important to grape wine quality and include varietal ﬂavor (ﬂavor compounds originating from the grapes), pre-fermentative ﬂavor (originated during grape processing), fermentative ﬂavor (produced by yeast and bacte- ria during alcoholic and malolactic fermentations) and post-fermentative ﬂavor, due to transformations that occurred during conservation and aging of wine. Alcohols, acids, esters and terpenes are among the main substances that deﬁne the sensory properties and quality of wine. [22,23]. Particularly, for a particular wine the aroma depends fundamen- tally on the grape variety used in the production [16,17] but also on some parameters such as region, climate, ripeness degree of the grape, yeasts and winemaking techniques, viti- cultural practices, aging, affect the aroma of wine [19,21,24–29]. Further, most of the wine ﬂavor compounds are produced or released during wine fermentation due to microbial activities of Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces yeast genera (Brettanomyces, Candida, Debaryomyces, Hanseniaspora, Hansenula, Kloeckera, Kluyveromyces, Lachancea, Metschnikowia, Pichia, Saccharomycodes, Schizosaccharomyces, Torulaspora and Zygosaccharomyces). Both in spontaneous and inoculated wine fermentations, non-Saccharomyces are important in early stages of the fermentation, before Saccharomyces becomes dominant in the culture, and contribute meaningfully to the global aroma proﬁle of wines [30–32]. Organoleptic char- acteristics of wine is the result of interactions of several compounds. The knowledge of these compounds are important factors in assessing the quality of wine [33,34]. To understand the wine composition, a multitude of scientiﬁc investigations was car- ried out and several appropriate analytical tools were developed in the past few decades. Analytica 2021, 2 40 In fact, the VOC characterization of these aromas is an important issue in analytical chem- istry. Basically, the papers are mainly addressed to investigate the characteristics of each wine and/or an identiﬁcation of possible regionality/falsiﬁcation of a wine product [35–39]. This paper would like to investigate the possibility to characterize the wine aromas by means of different analytical methods and compare their ability to separate and quantify different compounds simultaneously. Three different analytical protocols have been tested followed by gas chromatography coupled with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry (GC- MS/QqQ): (i) direct injection; (ii) microextraction with hexane; (iii) headspace analysis. These three methods have been tested and compared according to the analytical parameters and applied to real wine samples. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Materials All chemicals were of analytical reagent. Ultrapure water was obtained with a Milli- Q system (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA). NaCl and hexadeuterobenzene (Benzene-d , perdeuterated benzene) were purchased from Sigma (Milan, Italy). Alcohol standard solutions, namely ethyl acetate, isopropanol, glycerol, 1-butanol, pentanol, 2,3-butanediol, propylene glycol, ethyl lactate, furfural, hexanol, lactic acid, hydroxymethylfurfural, suc- cinic acid, tyrosol, were from Sigma. A stock solution (100 g mL of each compound) was prepared from the relative standard solutions and stored at 21 C. Solutions at different concentrations were obtained diluting stock standard solutions at the desired concentration. 2.2. Wine Sampling In this study, white grape of Vitis vinifera cv Fiano and the commercial yeast Saccha- romyces cerevisiae (Fermol Elegance, AEB, Brescia, Italy; indicated below with the abbrevia- tion FE) were used. The grapes were harvested during the 2020 vintage and transported to an industrial winery (Mastroberardino s.p.a.) located in the Campania region (Italy). The grape must show the following chemical composition: pH 3.10, sugar 204 g L , total acidity (expressed as tartaric acid) 8.2 g L , and YAN (yeast assimilable nitrogen) 156 mg L . Before the use, the grape juice was clariﬁed at 0 C for 48 h, then heated to 18 C, added of potassium metabisulphite (50 mg L ). Finally, the grape must with 20 g hL of the commercial yeast S. cerevisiae FE was inoculated, in according to the pro- ducer ’s instructions and portioned into two aliquots using stainless steel tanks (AISI 304) (Fiano 1) and cherry barrels of 2 hL (Fiano 2). Fermentations were performed at 18 C (2 C). To maintain an optimal YAN level for yeasts, after 72 h of fermentation all the batches were added with 25 mg L of ammonium phosphate. No further treatment was applied to the wine. The fermentation process was monitored assessing the reducing sugar. The samplings for chemical analysis were performed after the alcoholic fermentation. 2.3. Preliminary Chemical Analysis on Wine Samples 1 1 The pH, total acidity (g L as tartaric acid) and reducing sugar (g L ) were analyzed according to the ofﬁcial methods established by the European Commission (EC) ; acetic acid, L-malic acid, L-lactic acid and catechins were enzymatically determined using commercial kit (Boehringer Mannheim GmbH, Ingelheim, Germany). 2.4. Extraction Methods Three different extraction procedures have been tested and compared for achiev- ing the best possible results: (a) headspace analysis, (b) liquid–liquid extraction and (c) direct injection. 2.4.1. Headspace Analysis In the 20 mL glass vials, 2 g of NaCl (analytical grade NaCl puriﬁed in an oven at 400 C for 2 h) was inserted and 10 mL of wine were then introduced and capped with Analytica 2021, 2 41 a screw cap and a perforable PTFE membrane/Silicone. The wine was spiked with 2 ng of perdeuterated benzene in methanol by piercing the PTFE/Silicone septum. The vials were placed in a GC oven and brought to 80 C for 10 min (preconditioning), after which helium 5.5 was bubbled at a ﬂow of 40 mL min for 5 min with a needle that reached the bottom of the vials. The outgoing helium, together with the vapors from the headspace, was collected by means of a short needle connected to a 40 cm-long air-cooled glass tube in order to condense the spray and partially the water vapors. An adsorbent trap was connected to the end of the tube by means of a swagelok union for the subsequent analysis in thermodesorber/GC-MS (thermodesorber CP4020 TCT Thermal Desorber, Chrompack, Gas Chromatograph Thermo Trace GC-Ultra, mass spectrometer Thermo DSQ Single Quadrupole MS, Thermo Fisher Scientiﬁc Inc., Waltham, MA, USA). The adsorbent trap consisted of a 4 mm I.D., 140 mm long glass tube ﬁlled with 240 mg of Activated Carbon Fiber (ACF) adsorbent. The adsorbent trap was then back ﬂushed for 5 min with a helium ﬂow of 100 mL min at room temperature to reduce the amount of residual water. The adsorbent trap was thermodesorbed at 300 C for 10 min with a ﬂow of 20 mL min of helium. The thermodesorbed vapors were cryofocused on a cryogenic trap consisting of a 0.53 mm I.D. and 15 cm long silica capillary. The cryogenic trap during heat absorption was maintained at 180 C with liquid nitrogen. After the thermal desorption of the ACF trap, the cryofocused Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) were ballistically desorbed bringing the capillary temperature from 180 C to 300 C in 1 min. 2.4.2. Liquid-Liquid Extraction Perdeuterated benzene (as standard) and 2 g of NaCl, for increasing the ionic strength, were added to 10 mL of wine sample (or ultrapure water, MilliQ, and alcohols for the blank procedure). The solution was debated for 10 min with 500 L of pentane. A portion of the pentane was poured into a vial and injected into a GC-MS/QqQ system. 2.4.3. Direct Injection After the addition of the perdeuterated benzene standard, the wine sample was directly injected into the GC-MS/QqQ system. 2.5. GC-MS/QqQ Analysis The instrumental analyses were performed by a triple quadrupole gas chromato- graph/mass spectrometer (Trace 1310 GC/TSQ 8000 Evo, Thermo Fisher Scientiﬁc), the chro- matographic separation was performed by a DB-624 column (60 m 0.25 mm, 1.40 m I.D., Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The injected volume is always 1 L in PTV injector operating in splitless mode (SL time 0.6 min), the injection temperature is 200 C for 0.05 min and at 14.5 C s up to 300 C for 0.6 min. Gas carrier is He, the temperature 1 1 1 program starts at 2.0 mL min and, after 20 min at 1.1 mL min rate, up to 3.5 mL min for 25 min. The optimized chromatographic run is 50 C (hold time 1 min), ramp 7 C 1 1 min , 100 C (0 min), ramp 10 C min , 240 C (30 min). Each analysis was performed with MS acquisition in scan mode (29–350 m/z) with 0.2 s scan time and emission current of 50 A and an electron energy of 70 eV in EI+ mode. The source temperature is set up at 260 C and the transfer line temperature at 240 C. Data acquisition, processing and han- dling are performed using XCalibur software (Thermo Fisher Scientiﬁc). Before proceeding to the GC-MS/QqQ analyses, 2 ng of perdeuterated benzene in methanol were added as internal standard (I.S.) in all the samples. 3. Results The paper would like to show an easy, rapid, and effective method for analyzing the VOCs fraction, which is responsible of the wine aroma, in comparison with traditional pro- cedures. Before approaching this evaluation among the three different extraction methods, the authors reported the main chemical parameters for identifying the wine samples. Analytica 2021, 2 42 3.1. Preliminary Chemical Analysis White grapes of the same varieties, i.e., Fiano, were subjected to alcoholic fermentation in two different containers: Fiano 1 in steel tank and Fiano 2 in cherry barrel. Under both conditions the fermentations were completed after 10 days as evidence of regular fermenta- tive activity of the added starter yeast. Table 1 shows the main chemical characteristics of the two wine samples investigated in this study after fermentation. Table 1. Main chemical characteristics of the wine investigated in this study. Alcohol Reducing Total Volatile Malic Acid Lactic Acid Catechin 1 2 Wine Content Sugar pH Acidity Acidity 1 1 1 (g L ) (g L ) (mg L ) 1 1 1 (% vol) (g L ) (g L ) (g L ) Fiano 1 12.7 < 2.0 3.48 6.6 0.54 0 1.23 52 Fiano 2 12.9 < 2.0 3.40 7.2 0.75 0 1.26 73 1 2 1 Fiano 1 fermented in steel tank, Fiano 2 in cherry barrel; Measure related to acetic acid (g L of acetic acid). The data are quite similar between them, showing that the alcoholic fermentation in the two different containers does not signiﬁcantly affect the chemical properties. 3.2. Comparison and Choice of the Extraction Procedure Three different extraction procedures have been studied and compared: speciﬁcally, the comparison occurred among (a) headspace analysis, (b) liquid–liquid extraction and (c) direct injection. For this goal the authors would like to show the chromatograms obtained in the three different situations for better evidencing their strengths and weak- nesses. Figure 1 shows the GC-MS/QqQ chromatograms obtained following the three different procedures applied to standard alcohol solutions and real wine samples (i.e., Fiano 2), respectively. The chromatograms are quite different among them. The headspace procedure seems to be more effective than the others, the peaks are shaped and no artifacts are present or “produced” during the analysis (Figure 1a,b for standard solution and real wine sample, respectively), but, according to our experiments, it requires some precautions that make its operation not easy. There is a high risk of the cryogenic trap becoming clogged after each injection: the advantage of getting good chromatographic performances is balanced by strenuous operations for setting the instrument. On the other hand, the direct injection (the relative chromatograms are reported in Figure 1e,f, respectively) is quite powerful: even in this case, no artifacts are formed, whereas a saturated peak in the real sample can be revealed at around 20.5 min due to glycerin, but it does not interfere with the VOCs determination. Using this procedure, the precautions are relatively less than the previous procedure: the lines should be changed every 10 injections and the use a precolumn of 5 m is highly recommended for avoiding column problems. Basically, it means that the wine can be injected with no pretreatment operation. Finally, the liquid–liquid extraction does not give satisfactory results for overall the compounds, just few of them can be detected with high resolution. Following this statement, the determination of the analytical parameters has been focused on the procedure based on the direct injection. 3.3. Study of the Analytical Parameters In addition to the fact that no pretreatment is necessary, another advantage in using the direct injection method is that the analytical parameters to be controlled are almost zero. In this study, only the possible inﬂuence of adding NaCl to increase the ionic strength of the solution was veriﬁed to achieve higher recoveries [41,42]. It should be noted that the analytical parameters have been studied on the stock solution (and its relative diluted solutions) containing 13 VOCs. Table 2 shows the results (in terms of% recoveries) obtained spiking a wine sample with a standard solution of some alcohol (5 ng L of each) and perdeuterated benzene as I.S. (2 ng) and adding different amounts of NaCl. Analytica 2021, 2 43 The presence of low concentration salt both stabilizes the VOC measurements (salting out), especially as regards the standard deviation, and gives excellent recoveries whereas for NaCl quantities higher than 5 g L the VOC solubility decreases. This occurrence justiﬁes the authors’ choice regarding direct injection without the addition of NaCl due to the Analytica 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 6 minimum advantage that would be obtained. Figure 1. Chromatograms obtained after the three different procedures: (a,b) following headspace analysis for blank so- Figure 1. Chromatograms obtained after the three different procedures: (a,b) following headspace analysis for blank lution and real wine sample, respectively; (c,d) following liquid–liquid extraction; (e,f) following direct injection. solution and real wine sample, respectively; (c,d) following liquid–liquid extraction; (e,f) following direct injection. Following this statement, the determination of the analytical parameters has been focused on the procedure based on the direct injection. 3.3. Study of the Analytical Parameters In addition to the fact that no pretreatment is necessary, another advantage in using the direct injection method is that the analytical parameters to be controlled are almost zero. In this study, only the possible influence of adding NaCl to increase the ionic strength of the solution was verified to achieve higher recoveries [41,42]. It should be Analytica 2021, 2 44 Table 2. Effect of different NaCl amounts on the VOCs recoveries (%). The conditions are as follows: real white wine sample spiked with VOCs (5 g mL of each) and 2 ng of I.S. In brackets are reported the RSDs (%); each analysis was in triplicate. Recovery (%) Compound 1 1 1 1 1 0 g L 2 g L 5 g L 10 g L 15 g L Ethyl acetate 98.8 (7.1) 96.7 (5.9) 94.7 (3.8) 91.2 (3.5) 85.5 (3.2) Isopropanol 101.2 (6.9) 98.3 (5.7) 95.9 (4.0) 92.9 (4.1) 88.1 (3.0) 2,3-Butanediol 102.4 (8.1) 97.9 (7.1) 95.1 (5.1) 90.2 (3.0) 87.3 (2.6) 1-Butanol 99.5 (6.1) 98.2 (4.9) 94.8 (3.4) 89.9 (3.5) 85.2 (2.1) Pentanol 99.8 (7.2) 97.7 (6.5) 94.3 (4.2) 89.5 (2.8) 88.1 (2.4) Propylene glycol 101.4 (6.6) 98.5 (5.1) 97.2 (4.2) 93.6 (3.2) 89.3 (2.6) Ethyl lactate 99.5 (6.1) 97.2 (4.5) 91.6 (3.9) 91.8 (2.9) 90.1 (2.5) Furfural 98.7 (6.4) 96.3 (4.6) 94.7 (3,7) 92.8 (3.1) 89.5 (2.9) Hexanol 98.9 (5.7) 97.1 (4.2) 94.2 (3.5) 91.5 (2.7) 88.3 (2.1) Lactic acid 99.5 (5.7) 97.6 (5.2) 94.5 (4.8) 93.0 (3.8) 91.2 (2,3) Hydroxymethylfurfural 101.0 (6.0) 98.2 (4.8) 96.1 (4.1) 91.2 (3.3) 90.8 (1.8) Succinic acid 99.7 (6.4) 97.5 (4.0) 95.2 (3.1) 91.3 (2.8) 91.5 (1.7) Tyrosol 100.1 (7.8) 97.9 (6.1) 94.2 (4.2) 92.2 (2.9) 89.9 (2.3) Following the optimized parameters all the analytical parameters have been studied. 2 1 Table 3 reports the correlation coefﬁcients (R ) in the range 0.1–100 g mL along with the limits of detection (LODs) and limits of quantiﬁcation (LOQs) determined according to the Knoll’s deﬁnition (i.e., a chromatographic peak equal to three times and seven times, respectively, the standard deviation of the baseline noise) [43,44], and repeatability and reproducibility of VOCs present in the standard solution. As it could be seen, the linear- ity ( 0.9944) is good for all the compounds in the investigated range as well as LODs 1 1 (between 0.01–0.05 g mL ) and LOQs (between 0.03–0.09 g mL ) and repeatability (as intraday precision; 5.6) and reproducibility (as interday precision; 8.2) are effec- tive for determining and characterizing aromas in wine samples. Finally, the recoveries have been studied, spiking the real wine samples with two different VOC concentrations 1 1 (0.5 g mL and 20 g mL ). Table 3 shows such recoveries ranging between 92 and 102% with RSDs 5.9. Finally, Figure 2 shows the GC-MS/QqQ chromatogram of a real white wine sample: the peaks appear well-solved as well as each determination is precise and accurate. Thus, the authors decided to proceed with the direct injection into the GC-MS/QqQ for analyzing the wine samples. 2 1 Table 3. Correlation coefﬁcients (R ) evaluated in the range 0.10–100 g mL , limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantiﬁcation (LOQ) inter and intraday precision as Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) and recoveries at two different concentrations of some VOCs determined by GC-MS/QqQ. LOD LOQ Intraday Interday Recovery (%) Compound 1 1 1 1 (g mL ) (g mL ) (as RSD,%) (as RSD,%) 0.5 g mL 20 g mL Ethyl acetate 0.9968 0.04 0.06 6.5 7.5 94.1 (3.9) 97.8 (2.1) Isopropanol 0.9952 0.03 0.07 3.4 6.4 93.1 (4.1) 98.7 (3.6) 2,3-Butanediol 0.9981 0.04 0.08 4.5 6.3 96.2 (2.9) 98.4 (3.3) 1-Butanol 0.9989 0.03 0.05 2.8 5.2 95.9 (4.1) 100.2 (3.7) Pentanol 0.9979 0.03 0.06 3.9 5.5 96.2 (4.7) 101.1 (3.0) Propylene glycol 0.9985 0.02 0.05 3.6 5.7 92.3 (3.6) 98.5 (2.7) Ethyl lactate 0.9977 0.01 0.03 4.2 6.7 93.1 (4.5) 99.2 (3.7) Furfural 0.9991 0.03 0.06 5.6 8.5 94.5 (5.9) 98.3 (2.1) Hexanol 0.9968 0.02 0.04 4.8 7.2 97.3 (4.1) 100.5 (3.2) Lactic acid 0.9985 0.02 0.05 4.5 6.6 94.2 (4.3) 97.3 (2.8) Hydroxymethylfurfural 0.9982 0.02 0.06 5.1 8.2 95.8 (3.8) 99.7 (2.9) Succinic acid 0.9979 0.04 0.07 4.2 5.9 94.5 (4.7) 98.9 (4.4) Tyrosol 0.9944 0.05 0.09 3.7 6.3 96.9 (5.3) 99.5 (2.1) Analytica 2021, 2, FOR PEER REVIEW 8 2 −1 Table 3. Correlation coefficients (R ) evaluated in the range 0.10–100 µg mL , limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quan- tification (LOQ) inter and intraday precision as Relative Standard Deviation (RSD) and recoveries at two different concen- trations of some VOCs determined by GC-MS/QqQ. LOD LOQ Intraday Interday Recovery (%) Compound R −1 −1 −1 −1 (µg mL ) (µg mL ) (as RSD,%) (as RSD,%) 0.5 µg mL 20 µg mL Ethyl acetate 0.9968 0.04 0.06 6.5 7.5 94.1 (3.9) 97.8 (2.1) Isopropanol 0.9952 0.03 0.07 3.4 6.4 93.1 (4.1) 98.7 (3.6) 2,3-Butanediol 0.9981 0.04 0.08 4.5 6.3 96.2 (2.9) 98.4 (3.3) 1-Butanol 0.9989 0.03 0.05 2.8 5.2 95.9 (4.1) 100.2 (3.7) Pentanol 0.9979 0.03 0.06 3.9 5.5 96.2 (4.7) 101.1 (3.0) Propylene glycol 0.9985 0.02 0.05 3.6 5.7 92.3 (3.6) 98.5 (2.7) Ethyl lactate 0.9977 0.01 0.03 4.2 6.7 93.1 (4.5) 99.2 (3.7) Furfural 0.9991 0.03 0.06 5.6 8.5 94.5 (5.9) 98.3 (2.1) Hexanol 0.9968 0.02 0.04 4.8 7.2 97.3 (4.1) 100.5 (3.2) Lactic acid 0.9985 0.02 0.05 4.5 6.6 94.2 (4.3) 97.3 (2.8) Analytica Hydroxymet 2021, 2 hylfurfural 0.9982 0.02 0.06 5.1 8.2 95.8 (3.8) 99.7 (2.9) 45 Succinic acid 0.9979 0.04 0.07 4.2 5.9 94.5 (4.7) 98.9 (4.4) Tyrosol 0.9944 0.05 0.09 3.7 6.3 96.9 (5.3) 99.5 (2.1) 13.22 22.15 20.51 22.18 23.56 18.22 7.10 15.32 10.94 7.20 33.95 35.07 27.07 37.88 29.14 32.90 38.26 40.90 47.23 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Time (min) Figure 2. GC-MS/QqQ chromatogram in TIC mode of real wine sample fermented in cherry barrel. Figure 2. GC-MS/QqQ chromatogram in TIC mode of real wine sample fermented in cherry barrel. For experimental conditions, see text. For peak list, see Table 4. For experimental conditions, see text. For peak list, see Table 4. Table 4. VOC levels (g mL ; n.d.: not detected) determined in white wine samples fermented in cherry barrel and steel tank. The determinations were performed by means of direct injection followed by GC-MS/QqQ. Fiano White Wine (g mL ) Compound t (min) Cherry Barrel Steel Tank Ethyl acetate 9.68 4.08 1.94 Isobutanol 10.58 8.40 3.76 Acetic acid 10.74 3.24 n.d. Ammonium acetate 10.94 11.27 2.43 Diglycerol 11.17 45.06 n.d. 1-Hydroxypropan-2-one 12.54 2.02 0.28 Isoamyl alcohol 13.24 25.87 20.76 Pentanol 13.29 7.28 5.42 1-Heptene-4-ol 14.17 0.35 0.12 Dioxirane 14.40 0.26 n.d. Propylene glycol 14.54 2.10 1.75 Ethyl lactate 15.14 1.52 1.22 2,3-Butanediol 15.32 8.59 7.21 1,3-Butanediol 15.50 5.67 4.38 Furan-2-carbaldehyde (or Furfural) 16.07 3.38 0.47 Hexanol 16.22 0.25 0.19 2-Furanmethanol 16.53 2.13 0.10 Lactic acid 16.96 0.19 0.06 R elative Abundance Analytica 2021, 2 46 Table 4. Cont. Fiano White Wine (g mL ) Compound t (min) Cherry Barrel Steel Tank Pyruvic acid 17.10 0.64 0.07 1-Methoxybutan-2-ol 17.39 0.12 0.25 1,3-Dioxane-2-methyl-4-methyl 17.58 0.41 n.d. 4-Acethylpyrazole 17.67 0.45 0.08 2,4-Dihydroxy-2,5-dimethyl-3(2H)-furanone 18.53 1.73 0.16 Furfural-5-metil 18.84 2.00 0.76 4-Oxopentanedioic acid 18.91 1.83 0.26 Dihydroxyacetone 19.04 2.36 n.d. (or 1,3-Dihydroxypropan-2-one) Pyran-2,6(3H)-dione 19.89 0.67 0.55 2-Acetylfuran (or 2-Furyl methyl ketone) 21.40 1.05 0.07 Phenethyl alcohol 21.58 9.17 15.57 Diethyl butanedioate (or Diethyl succinate) 21.73 0.62 0.58 Glycerin acetate (or 1-acetylglycerol) 21.86 0.54 0.31 Pyrarone 22.15 7.03 1.07 Ethyl succinate 22.18 12.15 12.77 5-Hydroxymaltol 22.43 0.59 0.01 Succinic acid (or Butanedioic acid) 22.85 3.61 7.72 2,3-Dihydrobenzofuran 23.18 1.65 0.54 Hydroxymethylfurfural 23.56 10.16 0.09 Tyrosol (or 4-(2-Hydroxyethyl)phenol) 27.07 5.27 6.00 3.4. Analysis of Real Wine Samples for Determining the Aromas As just reported in the previous section, Figure 2 shows the chromatogram obtained after the direct injection of a real white wine (Fiano) sample, particularly the sample fermented in cherry barrel, whereas the Table 4 reports the determinations performed by means of direct injection and GC-MS/QqQ of Fiano wines fermented in cherry barrel and steel tank. First, it should be evidenced the high VOCs resolution to be achieved by this method- ology. In the literature, many papers dealing the VOCs determination for the wine aroma characterization are present [23,45–54]. Basically, such issue is achieved by means of an- alytical methods based on extraction (i.e., liquid–liquid extraction, pre-column clen-up, cartridge extraction, headspace procedure, etc.) followed by GC-MS or HPLC-MS analysis whereas for the ﬁrst time, at authors’ knowledge, this paper describes a direct injection of real wine sample into the GC-MS/QqQ equipment, never tested before. The results obtained are very good; 38 compounds have been detected in wine samples fermented by two different ways, i.e., cherry barrel and steel tank. Table 4 highlights the different levels reached by VOCs during the two different fermentations: as it can be seen, the wine fermented in cherry barrel systematically shows higher VOC levels than the wine fer- mented in steel tank (except 1-methoxybutan-2-ol, phenethyl alcohol, succinic acid and tyrosol), as well as a greater number of compounds (i.e., acetic acid, diglycerol, dioxirane, 1,3-dioxane-2-methyl-4-methyl, dihydroxyacetone). The reason can be reasonably due to the different materials used for fermentation. In fact, the cherry barrel, basically a wooden barrel, allows a greater wine breathing and consequently a greater presence of aromas in the wine. On the other hand, the steel tank is more hermetic and reduces the possibility of aeration of the wine and therefore the VOCs formation that characterize the relative aroma. 4. Conclusions The quali/quantitative determination of secondary aromas is still an interesting task in the wine science even if such issue is well-studied. The literature reports analytical methods based on extraction procedures followed by GC or HPLC separation: this paper shows a direct injection of real white wine samples into the GC-MS/QqQ system. This procedure allows us to analyze the sample without any chemical pretreatment: the results on alcohol solution standards are good compared with liquid–liquid extraction and headspace analysis as well as on the real samples. The procedure has been applied two real Fiano wine samples Analytica 2021, 2 47 evidencing the VOC proﬁle differences between two different fermentations, i.e., in barrel cherry and steel tank: the wood container allows to get higher VOC levels and greater compound number. The next step will be to test such procedure to other fermented beverages, e.g., beer, marsala, fortiﬁed wines, liqueurs. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.I. and P.A.; methodology, E.G.; software, M.C.; vali- dation, I.N.; formal analysis, M.C.; investigation, B.T., F.L. and I.N.; resources, E.G.; data curation, C.D.F.; writing—original draft preparation, P.A.; writing—review and editing, M.I. and P.A.; visual- ization, P.A.; supervision, M.V.R.; project administration, M.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank Mario Monaco for his helpful support in the wine characterization. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Bakharev, V.V.; Feoktistov, P.A.; Malyshkin, S.S.; Paydulova, S.A.; Bykov, D.E.; Pavlova, L.V. Aroma proﬁle of muscat wine from Citron Magaracha grapes grown in the Samara region. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 640, 022019. [CrossRef] 2. Gunata, Y.Z.; Bayonove, C.L.; Baumes, R.L.; Cordonnier, R. The aroma of grapes. Localisation and evolution of free and bound fractions of some grape aroma components c.v. Muscat during ﬁrst development and maturation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1985, 36, 857–862. [CrossRef] 3. Sánchez Palomo, E.; Díaz-Maroto, M.C.; González-Viñas, M.A.; Soriano-Pérez, A.; Pérez- Coello, M.S. Aroma proﬁle of wines from Albillo and Muscat grape varieties at different stages of ripening. Food Cont. 2007, 8, 398–403. [CrossRef] 4. Radeka, S.; Herjavec, S.; Peršuric, ´ Ð.; Lukic, ´ I.; Sladonja, B. Effect of different maceration treatments on free and bound varietal aroma compounds in wine of Vitis vinifera L. cv. Malvazija istarska bijela. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2008, 46, 86–92. 5. Callejón, R.M.; Margulies, B.; Hirson, G.D.; Ebeler, S.E. Dynamic changes in volatile compounds during fermentation of Cabernet Sauvignon grapes with and without skins. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 2012, 63, 301–312. [CrossRef] 6. Swiegers, J.H.; Bartowsky, E.J.; Henschke, P.A.; Pretorius, I.S. Yeast and bacterial modulation of wine aroma and ﬂavour. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 139–173. [CrossRef] 7. Ortega-Heras, М.; Pérez-Magariño, S.; Cano-Mozo, E.; González-San José, M.L. Differences in the phenolic composition and sensory proﬁle between red wines aged in oak barrels and wines aged with oak chips. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 43, 1533–1541. [CrossRef] 8. Matheis, K.; Granvogl, M.; Schieberle, P. Quantitation and enantiomeric ratios of aroma compounds formed by an Ehrlich degradation of l-isoleucine in fermented foods. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 646–652. [CrossRef] 9. Benucci, I.; Cerreti, M.; Maresca, D.; Mauriello, G.; Esti, M. Yeast cells in double layer calcium alginate–chitosan microcapsules for sparkling wine production. Food Chem. 2019, 300, 125174. [CrossRef] 10. Fracassetti, D.; Bottelli, P.; Corona, O.; Foschino, R.; Vigentini, I. Innovative alcoholic drinks obtained by co-fermenting grape must and fruit juice. Metabolites 2019, 9, 86. [CrossRef] 11. Katarína, F.; Katarína, M.; Katarína, D.; Ivan, D.; Fedor, M. Inﬂuence of yeast strain on aromatic proﬁle of Gewürztraminer wine. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 59, 256–262. [CrossRef] 12. Suriano, S.; Alba, V.; Di Gennaro, D.; Basile, T.; Tamborra, M.; Tarricone, L. Major phenolic and volatile compounds and their inﬂuence on sensorial aspects in stem-contact fermentation winemaking of Primitivo red wines. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 3329–3339. [CrossRef] 13. Tominaga, G.; Waxman, K.; Soliman, M.H.; Sarfeh, I.J.; Bui, H.X.; Tarnawski, A. Protective effect of pentoxifylline on gastric mucosa. J. Surg. Res. 1988, 44, 727–732. [CrossRef] 14. Mollerup, S.; Øvrebø, S.; Haugen, A. Lung carcinogenesis: Resveratrol modulates the expression of genes involved in the metabolism of pah in human bronchial epithelial cells. Int. J. Cancer 2001, 92, 18–25. [CrossRef] 15. Gunata, Y.Z.; Bayonove, C.L.; Baumes, R.L.; Cordonnier, R.E. Changes in free and bound fractions of aromatic components in vine leaves during development of muscat grapes. Phytochemistry 1986, 25, 943–946. [CrossRef] 16. Piñeiro, Z.; Natera, R.; Castro, R.; Palma, M.; Puertas, B.; Barroso, C.G. Characterisation of volatile fraction of monovarietal wines: Inﬂuence of winemaking practices. Anal. Chim. Acta 2006, 563, 165–172. [CrossRef] 17. Cabrita, M.J.; Costa Freitas, A.M.; Laureano, O.; Borsa, D.; Di Stefano, R. Aroma compounds in varietal wines from Alentejo, Portugal. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2007, 20, 375–390. [CrossRef] Analytica 2021, 2 48 18. González-Rodríguez, R.M.; Noguerol-Pato, R.; González-Barreiro, C.; Cancho-Grande, B.; Simal-Gándara, J. Application of new fungicides under good agricultural practices and their effects on the volatile proﬁle of white wines. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 397–403. [CrossRef] 19. Chang, E.; Jung, S.; Hur, Y. Changes in the aromatic composition of grape cv. Cheongsoo wine depending on the degree of grape ripening. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2014, 23, 1761–1771. [CrossRef] 20. Wang, J.; Hue, S.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Fan, W. Effect of different pre-fermentation treatments on polyphenols, color, and volatile compounds of three wine varieties. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2016, 25, 735–743. [CrossRef] 21. Zhang, B.; Luan, Y.; Duan, C.Q.; Yan, G.L. Use of Torulaspora delbrueckii co-fermentation with two Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains with different aromatic characteristic to improve the diversity of red wine aroma proﬁle. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 606. [CrossRef] 22. Ugliano, M.; Henschke, P.A. Yeast and wine ﬂavour. In Wine Chemistry and Biochemistry; Moreno-Arribas, M.V., Polo, C., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 313–392. ISBN 978-0-387-74118-5. 23. Naranjo, A.; Martínez-Lapuente, L.; Ayestarán, B.; Guadalupe, Z.; Pérez, I.; Canals, C.; Adell, E. Aromatic and sensory characterization of Maturana Blanca wines made with different technologies. Beverages 2021, 7, 10. [CrossRef] 24. Selli, S.; Canbas, A.; Cabaroglu, T.; Erten, H.; Gunata, Z. Aroma components of cv. Muscat of Bornova wines and inﬂuence of skin contact treatment. Food Chem. 2006, 94, 319–326. [CrossRef] 25. Losada, M.M.; López, J.F.; Añón, A.; Andrés, J.; Revilla, E. Inﬂuence of some oenological practices on the aromatic and sensorial characteristics of white Verdejo wines. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47, 1826–1834. [CrossRef] 26. Garde, T.; Ancín-Azpilicueta, C. Effect of oak barrel type on the volatile composition of wine: Storage time optimization. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 39, 199–205. 27. Fernández de Simón, B.; Martínez, J.; Sanz, M.; Cadahía, E.; Esteruelas, E.; Muño, A.M. Volatile compounds and sensorial characterisation of red wine aged in cherry, chestnut, false acacia, ash and oak wood barrels. Food Chem. 2014, 147, 346–356. [CrossRef] 28. González-Barreiro, C.; Rial-Otero, R.; Cancho-Grande, B.; Simal-Gándara, J. Wine aroma compounds in grapes: A critical review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 55, 202–218. [CrossRef] 29. Roldán, A.M.; Sánchez-García, F.; Pérez-Rodríguez, L.; Palacios, V.M. Inﬂuence of different viniﬁcation techniques on volatile compounds and the aromatic proﬁle of Palomino ﬁno wines. Foods 2021, 10, 453. [CrossRef] 30. Dussap, C.-G.; Poughon, L. Microbiology of alcoholic fermentation. In Current Developments in Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Pandey, A., Sanromán, M.A., Du, G., Soccol, C.R., Dussap, C.-G., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 263–279. ISBN 9780444636669. 31. Moreno-Arribas, M.; Polo, M. Winemaking biochemistry and microbiology: Current knowledge and future trends. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2005, 45, 265–286. [CrossRef] 32. Fleet, H.; Heard, G.M. Yeast-growth during fermentation. In Wine Microbiology and Biotechnology; Fleet, G.M., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1993; pp. 27–54. ISBN 978-0415278508. 33. Styger, G.; Prior, B.; Bauer, F.F. Wine ﬂavor and aroma. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biot. 2011, 38, 1145–1159. [CrossRef] 34. Ferreira, V. Volatile aroma compounds and wine sensory attributes. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition; Reynolds, A.G., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2010; pp. 3–28. ISBN 9781845694845. 35. Tomasino, E.; Harrison, R.; Sedcole, R.; Frost, A. Regional differentiation of New Zealand pinot noir wine by wine professionals using canonical variate analysis. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 2013, 64, 357–363. [CrossRef] 36. Tomasino, E.; Harrison, R.; Breitmeyer, J.; Sedcole, R.; Sherlock, R.; Frost, A. Aroma composition of 2-year-old New Zealand Pinot Noir wine and its relationship to sensory characteristics using canonical correlation analysis and addition/omission tests. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2015, 21, 376–388. [CrossRef] 37. Retallack, G.J.; Burns, S.F. The effects of soil on the taste of wine. GSA Tod. 2016, 26, 4–9. [CrossRef] 38. Zhang, X.; Kontoudakis, N.; Suklje, K.; Antalick, G.; Blackman, J.W.; Rutledge, D.N.; Schmidtke, L.M.; Clark, A.C. Changes in red wine composition during bottle ageing: Impacts of grape variety, vineyard location, maturity and oxygen availability during ageing. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 13331–13343. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 39. Cantu, A.; Lafontaine, S.; Frias, I.; Sokolowsky, M.; Yeha, A.; Lestringant, P.; Hjelmeland, A.; Byer, S.; Heymann, H.; Runnebaum, R.C. Investigating the impact of regionality on the sensorial and chemical aging T characteristics of Pinot noir grown throughout the U.S. West coast. Food Chem. 2021, 337, 127720. [CrossRef] 40. European Commission (EC). Regulation (EEC) N 2676/90 of 17/09/1990. Community methods for the analysis of wines. Off. J. Eur. Comm. 1990, L272, 0001–0192. 41. Russo, M.V.; Avino, P.; Notardonato, I. Fast analysis of phthalates in freeze-dried baby foods by ultrasound-vortex-assisted liquid-liquid microextraction coupled with gas chromatography-ion trap/mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2016, 1474, 1–7. [CrossRef] 42. Avino, P.; Notardonato, I.; Perugini, L.; Russo, M.V. New protocol based on high-volume sampling followed by DLLME-GC- IT/MS for determining PAHs at ultra-trace levels in surface water samples. Microchem. J. 2017, 133, 251–257. [CrossRef] 43. Knoll, J.E. Estimation of the limit of detection in chromatography. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 1985, 23, 422–425. [CrossRef] 44. Russo, M.V.; Avino, P.; Cinelli, G.; Notardonato, I. Sampling of organophosphorus pesticides at trace levels in the atmosphere using XAD-2 adsorbent and analysis by gas chromatography coupled with nitrogen-phosphorus and ion-trap mass spectrometry detectors. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2012, 404, 1517–1527. [CrossRef] Analytica 2021, 2 49 45. Mestres, M.; Busto, O.; Guasch, J. Analysis of organic sulfur compounds in wine aroma. Review. J. Chromatogr. A 2000, 881, 569–581. [CrossRef] 46. Aznar, M.; López, R.; Cacho, J.F.; Ferreira, V. Identiﬁcation and quantiﬁcation of impact odorants of aged red wines from Rioja. GC-olfactometry, quantitative GC-MS, and odor evaluation of HPLC fractions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 2924–2929. [CrossRef] 47. Escalona, E.; Birkmyre, L.; Piggott, J.R. Effect of maturation in small oak casks on the volatility of red wine aroma compounds. Anal. Chim. Acta 2002, 458, 45–54. [CrossRef] 48. Moio, L.; Ugliano, M.; Genovese, A.; Gambuti, A.; Pessina, R.; Piombino, P. Effect of antioxidant protection of must on volatile compounds and aroma shelf life of Falanghina (Vitis vinifera L.) wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 891–897. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 49. Oliveira, J.M.; Faria, M.; Sá, F.; Barros, F.; Araújo, I.M. C -alcohols as varietal markers for assessment of wine origin. Anal. Chim. Acta 2006, 563, 300–309. [CrossRef] 50. Vilanova, M.; Campo, E.; Escudero, A.; Graña, M.; Masa, A.; Cacho, J. Volatile composition and sensory properties of Vitis vinífera red cultivars from North West Spain: Correlation between sensory and instrumental analysis. Anal. Chim. Acta 2012, 720, 104–111. [CrossRef] 51. Pérez-Olivero, S.J.; Pérez-Pont, M.L.; Conde, J.E.; Pérez-Trujillo, J.P. Determination of lactones in wines by headspace solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2014, 863019, 1–10. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 52. Moreno, J.A.; Zea, L.; Moyano, L.; Medina, M. Aroma compounds as markers of the changes in sherry wines subjected to biological ageing. Food Control. 2005, 16, 333–338. [CrossRef] 53. Ayestarán, B.; Martínez-Lapuente, L.; Guadalupe, Z.; Canals, C.; Adell, E.; Vilanova, M. Effect of the winemaking process on the volatile composition and aromatic proﬁle of Tempranillo Blanco wines. Food Chem. 2019, 276, 187–194. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 54. Pérez-Navarro, J.; Izquierdo-Cañas, P.M.; Mena-Morales, A.; Chacón-Vozmediano, J.L.; Martínez-Gascueña, J.; García-Romero, E.; Hermosín-Gutierrez, I.; Gómez-Alonso, S. Comprehensive chemical and sensory assessment of wines made from white grapes of Vitis vinífera cultivars Albillo Dorado and Montonera del Casar: A comparative study with Airén. Foods 2020, 9, 1282. [CrossRef]
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Fast and Reliable Multiresidue Analysis of Aromas in Wine by Means of Gas Chromatography Coupled with Triple Quadrupole Mass Spectrometry
Di Fiore, Cristina
Russo, Mario Vincenzo
, Volume 2 (2) –
May 27, 2021
Share Full Text for Free
Add to Folder
Web of Science