Differentiation through E‐Nose and GC‐FID data modeling of rosé sparkling wines elaborated via Traditional and Charmat methods

Background

The growing demand for rosé sparkling wine has led to an increase in its production. Traditional or Charmat wine‐making influence the aromatic profiles in wine. Analysis such as gas chromatography makes an accurate assessment of wines based on volatile detection but is resource‐intensive. On the other hand, electronic noses emerged as versatile tools, offering rapid, cost‐effective discrimination of wines, and contributing insights into quality and production processes, because of its aptitude to perform a global aromatic pattern evaluation. In this study, rosé sparkling wines were produced using both methods and major volatile compounds and polyols were measured. Wines were tested by e‐nose, and predictive modelling were performed to distinguish them.

Results

Volatile profiles showed differences between Charmat and traditional methods, especially at five months of aging. A PLS‐DA was carried out on E‐Nose detections, obtaining a model that describes 94 % of the variability, separating samples in different clusters and correctly identifying different classes. The differences derived from PLS‐DA clustering agree with results obtained by gas‐chromatography. Moreover, PCR model was built to verify the ability of the E‐Nose to non‐destructively predict the amount of different volatiles analysed.

Conclusion

Production methods of Rosé sparkling wine affect the final wine aroma profiles due to the differences in terms of volatiles. The PLS‐DA of the data obtained with E‐nose reveal that distinguishing between Charmat and Traditional methods is possible. Moreover, predictive models using GC‐FID analysis and electronic nose highlight the possibility of fast and efficient prediction of volatiles from the electronic nose.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.