01941naa a2200325 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001910000190006024501930007926000090027252009760028165000110125765000110126865000230127965000080130265300280131065300090133865300260134765300260137365300080139965300200140765300150142770000220144270000230146470000180148770000220150570000170152770000160154477300550156020768412019-05-23       2018    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d1 aNICOLLI, K. P.  aSensory, olfactometry and comprehensive two-dimension algas chromatography analyses as appropriate tools to characterize the effects of vine management on wine aromah[electronic resource]  c2018  aFor the first time, the in fluence of different vine management was evaluated in relation to volatile profile and sensory perception through GC × GC/TOFMS, QDA, GC-FID, GC/MS, and GC-O. GC × GC/TOFMS analyses and QDA have shown that a larger spacing between vine rows (2 rather than 1 m), attachment of shoots upwards, and irrigation did not result in wine improvement. Conversely, wines elaborated with grapes from a vine with a lower bud load (20 per plant; sample M1) stood out among the other procedures, rendering the most promising wine aroma. GC × GC/TOFMS allowed identification of 220 compounds including 26 aroma active compounds also distinguished by GC-O. Among them, eight volatiles were important to differentiate M1 from other wines, and five out of those eight compounds could only be correctly identified and quantified after separation in second dimension. Higher levels of three volatiles may explain the relation of M1 wine with red and dry fruits.  aCanopy  aGrapes  aVolatile compounds  aUva  aChromatography analyses  aGC-O  aHS-SPME-GC × GC/TOFM  aHS-SPME-GC ×GC/TOFMS  aQDA  aVine management  aWine aroma1 aBIASOTO, A. C. T.1 aSOUZA-SILVA, E. A.1 aGUERRA, C. C.1 aSANTOS, H. P. dos1 aWELKE, J. E.1 aZINI, C. A.  tFood Chemistrygv. 243, p. 103-117, 2018. [online]