Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Received: 27 June 2013 Revised: 7 September 2013 Accepted: 9 October 2013 Published online in Wiley Online Library: 24 October 2013
Keywords: sulphur dioxide reduction; distilled grape spirits; calcium oxide; activated charcoal; hydrogen peroxide
J. Inst. Brew. 2013; 119: 314–320 Copyright © 2013 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling
SO2 reduction in distilled grape spirits by three methods
Institute of Brewing & Distilling
Ethanol (analytical grade) was purchased from Kermel diluted H2O2 was added slowly to the first distillate to avoid localized
(Tianjin, China). Chromatographic-grade standards including over oxidation. The first distillate was equilibrated for 3 h and then
1-propanol, 2-methyl-1-propanol, 1-butanol, 2-methyl-1-butanol, the total SO2 was analysed to confirm the success of the addition.
3-methyl-1-butnol, 1-pentanol, 1-hexanol, 2-phenethylethanol, The treatment was divided into several steps at room temperature
ethyl acetate, ethyl butyrate, isoamyl acetate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl until the total SO2 did not decrease further.
oenanthate, ethyl lactate, butyl caproate, ethyl phenylacetate,
acetal, isovaleric aldehyde, acetaldehyde, isobutyraldehyde, furfural,
acetic acid, hexanoic acid, propanoic acid, isobutyric acid, butyric Analytical methods
acid, isovaleric acid, heptylic acid and octanoic acid were purchased
from Sigma and Aldrich (St Louis, MO, USA), and all had a purity Ethanol (%, v/v), titratable acidity and pH were determined
above 98%. according to OIV standard methods (16).
Stock solutions of references standards were prepared in
distilled water containing 50% (v/v) of ethanol. Tert-amyl alcohol,
n-butyl acetate and 2-ethyl butyrate were used as internal Analysis of SO2
standards. All other chemicals and solvents used in this research Total SO2 in the base wine and in the first distillate were mea-
were analytical grade. sured using an oxidation method according to OIV standard
(16), which has a detection limit of 10 mg L 1. Total SO2 in the
Distillation SD was measured by the pararosaniline hydrochloride method,
which has a detection limit of 1.00 mg L 1.
A double-distillation method was adopted from Satora and
Tuszynski (15) with some modifications. The distillation of the Volatile compound analysis. The volatile compounds were
base wine was carried out in a 5 L conical flask. First, the wine analysed by a GC method according to Diéguez et al. (17) and
was distilled to obtain the first distillate at an alcohol concentra- López-Vázquez et al. (18) with some modifications. The 10 μL
tion of 27–28% (v/v; pH 2.52, titratable acid 0.62 g L 1 acetic acid of internal standard, including tert-amyl alcohol and n-butyl ace-
equivalent, total SO2 292 mg L 1). Then the first distillate was tate at 162 mg L 1 and 2-ethyl butyrate at 186.6 mg L 1 in a 50%
treated with CaO, AC or H2O2 and then distilled again. During alcohol aqueous solution, was added to 1.0 mL of the SD and 1
the second distillation, three fractions were collected in se- μL of the sample was injected directly into the Shimadzu 2010
quence: the heads (1% of ethanol), the heart fraction (83%) chromatograph system with a free induction decay detector. A
and the tails (16%). An alcoholic concentration of 68%-72% capillary column CP-WAX 57CB (cross-linked polyethylene glycol
(v/v) was reached in the second distillate (heart fraction) (SD). stationary phase, 50 m × 0.2 mm × 0.25 μm) was used. The
In order to avoid losses of aroma, all samples were sealed and detector and injector temperatures were 260 and 240°C, respec-
kept at 4°C until analysis. tively. The oven temperature program was as follows: initial tem-
perature was 35°C, maintained for 4 min; increased to 60°C at
SO2 reduction the rate of 2°C min 1; followed by temperature ramp rates of
10°C min 1 to 130°C and 15°C min 1 to 205°C; and finally
Calcium oxide treatment. The CaO addition dosage was maintained at 205°C for 15 min. The carrier gas was nitrogen
based on the titratable acidity and content of total SO2. When with a flow rate of 1.35 ml min 1; the split ratio was 40:1.
1 mg of CaO was added to 1 L of the first distillate, the reduction The qualitative analyses of the volatile compounds (higher al-
of total acidity was about 0.987 mg according to a previous cohols, acids, aldehydes and acids) were based on the compari-
experiment. Considering the reaction efficiency, the actual addi- son of retention times that were read from the chromatograms
tion of CaO to 1 L of the first distillate should be greater than the of samples and standards. The quantitative analysis was
theoretical value of 628.2 mg. The CaO amount of 883.7, 927.9, according to internal standard method. All tests were carried
972.1 and 1060.4 mg L 1 was added to the first distillate and out in triplicate. The concentrations of volatile compounds were
mixed at room temperature. The mixture was subjected to SD recalculated on the basis of 100% (v/v) ethanol and expressed as
once the CaO was dissolved. The titratable acidity and total mg L 1 100°.
SO2 content in the SD were determined.
Activated carbon treatment. Treatment temperature and the Sensory analysis. Sensory analysis was an additional tech-
AC addition dosage are two important factors influencing the nique to evaluate the three methods. All samples were diluted
effectiveness of SO2 reduction. To determine the optimum with distilled water to an alcohol concentration of 40% (v/v)
temperature, samples with 1.0 g L 1 AC were sealed and placed before sensory evaluation, and then assessed by nine people,
into 20, 40 and 70°C water baths, and then shaken until there aged 25–30, who had sensory experience. During each session,
was no further decrease in total SO2 content. Afterwards, the four samples were evaluated in duplicate at 20°C.
effectiveness under each temperature treatment was evaluated.
The optimum AC addition dosage was selected from 0.5, 1.0, 1.5,
2.0 and 2.5 g L 1. Samples, with certain amounts of AC, were Statistical analysis
sealed and treated at the optimum temperatures determined
All data were the mean value of three parallel experiments and
above, and then the samples were shaken until the total SO2
expressed as mean values ± standard deviations. Statistical anal-
did not decrease.
ysis was carried out using Excel 2003 software. Differentiation
Hydrogen peroxide treatment. Hydrogen peroxide was di- analysis was carried out using DPS 7.05 statistical analysis
luted to a concentration below 1% before use and the concentration software with a confidence level of 95% (p = 0.05), the different
of diluted H2O2 was calibrated using potassium permanganate. The letters indicating significant differences (p < 0.05).
315
J. Inst. Brew. 2013; 119: 314–320 Copyright © 2013 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib
Q. Zhang et al.
Institute of Brewing & Distilling
Results and discussion and these two indices showed no significant differences among
the five treatments. To evaluate the effectiveness of SO2 reduc-
SO2 reduction effectiveness tion, 72, 24, 17, 12 and 12 h were tested for the five AC treatment
concentrations. The required treatment period decreased signif-
Calcium oxide treatment. The residual SO2 content after CaO
icantly with increases in the AC dosage. The addition of 1.0 and
treatment is shown in Table 1. The amount of residual SO2 was
2.0 g L 1 deserved attention as there was a sharp decrease of
3.12 mg L 1 when the dosage was 883.7 mg L 1, while it was
time, from 72 to 24 h, when the AC dosage was increased. By in-
2.07 mg L 1 when the dosage was 927.9 mg L 1. When the
creasing the AC dosage to 2.5 g L 1, no significant decrease in
CaO dosage was increased to 972.1 and 1060.4 mg L 1, only
time was observed in comparison to the 2.0 g L 1. In consider-
1.12 and 1.05 mg L 1 SO2 was detected, respectively, but a
ation of the cost of maintaining a temperature of 70°C, the 2.0
distinct alkali smell was identified in these two distillates. The
g L 1 addition dosage was chosen in order to decrease the treat-
conclusion could be drawn that the more CaO that was added,
ment time.
the less SO2 remained. Correspondingly, a lower titratable acid-
ity and higher pH were acquired. However, in consideration of Hydrogen peroxide treatment. The content of SO2 in the SD-
the effectiveness of SO2 reduction and the effect on flavour, H2O2 treated product was less than 1.00 mg L 1 SO2, as shown
927.9 mg L 1 was chosen as a suitable dosage. in Table 4, in comparison to the 654 mg L 1 SO2 in the control
sample. The reduction in the SO2 resulted in a significant reduc-
Activated carbon treatment. As shown in Table 2, the treat- tion in the titratable acidity (from 757.7 to 69.0 mg L 1) and a
ment temperature with AC played an important role in the effec- corresponding increase in the pH value (from 2.42 to 4.43) in
tiveness of SO2 reduction. The times needed for SO2 decreased the SD-H2O2.
lower than 1.00 mg L 1 with 24 h and 30 days for 70 and 40°C
treatments, respectively. However, for the 20°C treatment, there
was still 98 mg L 1 residual SO2 after 120 days. It was concluded Volatile compounds in the second distillate
that, the higher the temperature was, the shorter the treatment Volatile compounds, including higher alcohols, esters, aldehydes
period needed for SO2 reduction. Since there was no significant and acids in the SDs were identified and quantified by the GC
difference in the pH and titratable acidity between SD-ACs method. The variety and concentration of the volatile
treated at 40 and 70°C, the temperature of 70°C was selected compounds in all of samples are given in Table 5. Different
for further experiments to determine the addition dosages SO2 reduction methods resulted in significant differences in
of AC. the concentrations of the volatile compounds (p < 0.05).
As seen in Table 3, all of the total SO2 content values were be-
low 1.00 mg L 1 when 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 or 2.5 g L 1 AC was added Higher alcohols. Higher alcohols dominated the volatile com-
to the samples. The pH value of the SD-ACs was in the range of pounds in the SDs. There were no significant differences in the
5.12–5.26 and the titratable acidity was from 39.1 to 43.2 mg L 1, total amount of higher alcohols amongst the CaO, AC treatment
Table 1. General composition of second distillate with different calcium oxide additions (SD-CaO)
Alcohol (%,v/v) 68.9 ± 0.1a 68.7 ± 0.1a 68.8 ± 0.1a 68.8 ± 0.1a 68.7 ± 0.1a
pH 2.42 ± 0.06a 5.50 ± 0.05b 6.05 ± 0.11c 7.06 ± 0.10d 7.45 ± 0.12e
Titratable aciditya (mg L 1) 757.3 ± 12.3a 7.0 ± 0.0b 5.5 ± 0.0c n.d. n.d.
Total SO2 (mg L 1) 654 ± 11a 3.12 ± 0.05b 2.07 ± 0.04c 1.12 ± 0.04d 1.05 ± 0.05d
All values are expressed as mean values ± standard deviations (n = 3). Different lower-case letters in the same row indicate signif-
icant differences (p < 0.05).
a
Described as acetic acid.
n.d., Not detected.
1
Table 2. Comparison of second distillate with 1.0 g L of activated carbon at different temperatures (SD-AC)
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib Copyright © 2013 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling J. Inst. Brew. 2013; 119: 314–320
SO2 reduction in distilled grape spirits by three methods
Institute of Brewing & Distilling
Table 3. General composition of second distillate with different additions of activated carbon (SD-AC) at 70°C
Addition of activated carbon (g, L 1) Control 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Treatment period (h) — 72a 24b 17c 12d 12d
Alcohol (%, v/v) 68.9 ± 0.1a 69.0 ± 0.1a 69.1 ± 0.1a 68.9 ± 0.1a 69.1 ± 0.1a 69.1 ± 0.1a
pH 2.42 ± 0.03a 5.12 ± 0.10b 5.16 ± 0.09b 5.20 ± 0.03b 5.14 ± 0.06b 5.26 ± 0.10b
Titratable aciditya (mg L 1) 757.3 ± 12.3a 41.3 ± 2.0b 43.2 ± 2.0b 39.1 ± 2.0b 39.1 ± 2.0b 40.5 ± 2.0b
Total SO2 (mg L 1) 654 ± 11a <1.00 b <1.00b <1.00b <1.00b <1.00b
All values are expressed as mean values ± standard deviations (n = 3). Different lower-case letters in the same row indicate signif-
icant differences (p < 0.05).
a
Described as acetic acid.
J. Inst. Brew. 2013; 119: 314–320 Copyright © 2013 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib
Q. Zhang et al.
Institute of Brewing & Distilling
1
Table 5. Volatile compounds in the second distillate after treatment using different products (mg L 100°)a
control, SD-CaO, SD-AC and SD-H2O2, respectively. Isoamyl ace- and there was a substantial increase in all of the treated samples.
tate with its fruity notes of ‘banana’ and ‘apple’ (33) contributes This could be because more acetaldehyde was released during
to the aroma of spirits and ethyl lactate is considered to stabilize treatment, which then reacted with ethanol.
the flavour of the distillate and to soften the harsh flavour char- Acetaldehyde was the major carbonyl compound in the spirit
acteristics when present in low concentrations (26). In general, a (373.7 mg L 1 100°) and it contributes to aroma (35). Its level de-
decrease in the ester content will cause a loss of spirit aroma. creased significantly (p < 0.05) after treatment. No significant
difference was detected between the levels in the SD-CaO and
Aldehydes. A significant increase in the amount of total alde- SD-H2O2 treatments, which were 86.7 and 89.9 mg L 1 100°,
hydes was observed with the SD-H2O2 (p < 0.05) treatment; respectively.
however, it did not drop notably in the SD-CaO and SD-AC treat- The isovaleric aldehyde content in the SD-AC was similar
ment compared with the control. Acetal contributes a pungent to that in the control, whereas the amount in the SD-CaO
and unpleasant note to spirit aroma (34), and it forms during dis- and SD-H2O2 decreased. Isobutyraldehyde, which has a
tillation and favours high temperatures and a high ethanol content. banana–melon aroma note, decreased significantly after the
It presented at a low concentration in the control (26.0 mg L 1 100°) H2O2 treatment.
318
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib Copyright © 2013 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling J. Inst. Brew. 2013; 119: 314–320
SO2 reduction in distilled grape spirits by three methods
Institute of Brewing & Distilling
Table 6. Comparison of the three different treatment methods for SO2 reduction
1 1
Additive H2O2 927.9 mg L CaO 2.0 g L AC
Treatment period (h) About 48 h Immediately 12 h
Treatment temperature (°C) RT RT 70°C
Alcohol (%, v/v) 68.7 ± 0.2a 68.8 ± 0.1a 69.1 ± 0.1a
pH value 4.43 ± 0.06a 6.05 ± 0.11c 5.14 ± 0.06b
Titratable aciditya (mg L 1) 69.0 ± 2.0a 5.5 ± 0.0c 39.1 ± 2.0b
Residual total SO2 (mg L 1) <1.00b 2.07 ± 0.04a <1.00b
All values are expressed as mean values ± standard deviations (n = 3). Different lower-case letters in the same row indicate
significant differences (p < 0.05).
a
Described as acetic acid.
RT, Room temperature.
Furfural contributes ‘coconut’, ‘almond’ and ‘nutty’ notes to caused the greatest decrease in acids and esters, while the AC
distillates (36). There was a high content in the control method caused little decrease in the acids and esters. The
(3.0 mg L 1 100°) and a reduced content in the SD-H2O2 H2O2 method retained most of the aromatic components. How-
(0.7 mg L 1 100°) and SD-CaO (1.4 mg L 1 100°). Different ever, the sensory evaluation was not in full accord with the con-
methods caused significant differences in the content of the tent of the analysed volatile compounds. The sensory evaluation
furfural levels (p < 0.05). of the SD-AC was prior to the others and followed that of the SD-
H2O2. The treatment period was about 48 h with the H2O2 at
Acids. The total acids in the control were mainly characterized room temperature and about 12 h at 70°C by AC, while almost
by acetic acid (52.6 mg L 1 100°, 50% of total acid), octanoic acid no time was consumed by the CaO with the room temperature
(33.3 mg/L, 30% of total acid) and hexanoic acid (16.2 mg L 1, treatment (Table 6).
15% of total acid). Compared with the control, the total acid
content decreased significantly in all three treated samples
(p < 0.05). The acid level was reduced about 90% in SD-CaO ow-
ing to the neutralization reaction, while the value in SD-AC was Conclusions
about 40%, because of the adsorption of aliphatic acids. The All the three methods could reduce SO2 effectively. However,
least decrease was seen in the SD-H2O2 treatment. there were significant differences in their cost and in the flavour
Although acetic acid was dominant in the spirit, its content of the corresponding distillates. The SD-AC treatment gave the
was far below its perception threshold of 200 mg L 1 (17). best quality but at the highest cost. The SD-CaO treatment had
Octanoic acid, which supplies caprylic odours to the spirit, was the lowest cost but there were quality issues. The cost of the
found at a concentration higher than its perception threshold SD-H2O2 treatment was lower than that of the SD-AC treatment
of 8.8 mg L 1 (17), in both the SD-H2O2 and in the control. and the quality was superior to the SD-CaO treatment. Thus, the
AC method could be used for producing a high-grade distillate
Sensory evaluation in the wine industry, while the CaO method could be used for
a general distillate, especially when the base wine had a high
The control was characterized by a strong pungent matchstick volatile acid content. The H2O2 method was an effective way
taste owing to its high concentration of SO2. The SD-CaO treated to reduce the SO2 quantitatively for the wine industry. In conclu-
sample was described as oil, cooked sweet potato and stale tast- sion, the AC method is the recommended method to use in the
ing, owing to its low acidity and total ester content, along with wine industry to produce distillates of high quality.
its higher content of aldehydes and alcohols (as shown in
Table 5). The SD-AC treated sample was characterized by a pure,
sweet taste, a clear fruit flavour owing to its low acid content
and higher content of esters. The SD-H2O2 sample had a smoky, References
paper flavour and a more noticeable aroma, probably owing to 1. Carreté, R., Vidal, M. T., and Bordons, A. M. (2002) Inhibitory effect of
the higher content of esters and some acids, such as octanoic sulfur dioxide and other stress compounds in wine on the ATPase
acid, whose content was higher than the taste threshold, and activity of Oenococcus oeni, FEMS Microbiol. Lett., 211, 155–159.
2. Danilewicz, J. C. (2003) Review of reaction mechanisms of oxygen
so would bring a caprylic odour. and proposed intermediate reaction products in wine: central role
of iron and copper, Am. J. Enol. Viticult., 54, 73–85.
3. Jackowetz, J. N., and Mira de Orduña, R. (2012) Metabolism of SO2
Comparison of the different methods for SO2 reduction binding compounds by Oenococcus oeni during and after malolactic
fermentation in white wine, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 155, 153–157.
The residual total SO2 levels in the SD-AC and SD-H2O2 were be- 4. Jackowetz, J. N., and Orduña, R. M. D. (2013) Survey of SO2 binding
low 1.00 mg L 1, while in the SD-CaO they were about 2.00 mg carbonyls in 237 red and white table wines. Food Control, 32, 687–692.
L 1. There were significant differences between pH and titrat- 5. Arellano, V. M., Martos, M. R., Cabreros, M. R., Fernández, A. B., Loria,
able acidity (p < 0.05). The SD-H2O2 had the lowest pH (4.43) J. G., and Mosquera, M. R. (2011) Sulfite sensitivity in a patient with
allergic asthma, Allergol. Immunopathol., 5, 306–307.
and the SD-CaO had the highest pH (6.05). In contrast, the 6. Vally, H., and Thompson, P. (2001) Role of sulfite additives in wine in-
SD-H2O2 had the highest titratable acidity (69.0 mg L 1) and duced asthma: single dose and cumulative dose studies, Thorax, 56
the SD-CaO had the lowest (5.5 mg L 1). The CaO method (10), 763–769.
319
J. Inst. Brew. 2013; 119: 314–320 Copyright © 2013 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib
Q. Zhang et al.
Institute of Brewing & Distilling
7. Blasi, M., Barbe, J. C., Dubourdieu, D., and Deleuze, H. (2008) New the major volatile compounds of Tsipouro a traditional Greek distil-
method for reducing the binding power of sweet white wines. late, Food Sci. Technol. Int., 9, 371–378.
J. Agr. Food Chem., 56, 8470–8474. 23. Silva, M. L., Malcata, F. X., and Revel, G. D. (1996) Volatile contents of
8. Buzrul, S. (2012) High hydrostatic pressure treatment of beer and grape marcs in Portugal, J. Food Compos. Anal., 9, 72–80.
wine: A review, Innov. Food Sci. Emerg., 13, 1–12. 24. Falque, E., Fernandez, E., and Dubourdieu, D. (2001) Differentiation
9. Fredericks, I. N., du Toit, M., and Krügel, M. (2011) Efficacy of ultravi- of white wines by their aromatic index, Talanta, 54, 271–281.
olet radiation as an alternative technology to inactivate microorgan- 25. Cortés, S., Gil, L., and Fernandez, E. (2005) Volatile composition of tra-
isms in grape juices and wines, Food Microbiol., 28, 510–517. ditional and industrial Orujo spirits, Food Control, 16, 383–388.
10. Sonni, F., Chinnici, F., Natali, N., and Riponi, C. (2011) Pre-fermentative 26. Apostolopoulou, A. A., Flouros, A. I., Demertzis, P. G., and Akrida-
replacement of sulphur dioxide by lysozyme and oenological tannins: Demertzi, K. (2005) Differences in concentration of principal vola-
Effect on the formation and evolution of volatile compounds during tile constituents in traditional Greek distillates, Food Control, 16,
the bottle storage of white wines, Food Chem., 129, 1193–1200. 157–164.
11. Salaha, M. I., Kallithraka, S., Marmara, I., Koussiss, E., and Tzourou, 27. Ferrari, G., Lablanquie, O., Cantagrel, R., Ledauphin, J., Payot, T.,
I. (2008) A natural alternative to sulphur dioxide for red wine produc- Fournier, N., and Guichard, E. (2004) Determination of key odorant
tion: Influence on colour, antioxidant activity and anthocyanin con- compounds in freshly distilled cognac using GC-O, GC-MS, and sen-
tent, J. Food Compos. Anal., 21, 660–666. sory evaluation, J. Agric. Food Chem., 52(18), 5670–5676.
12. Macías-Pérez, M. C., Bueno-López, A., Lillo-Ródenas, M. A., Salinas- 28. Cortés, S., Fernández, A., Otero, C., and Salgado, I. (2009) Application
Martínez de Lecea, C., and Linares-Solano, A. (2008) SO2 retention of sensory descriptive analysis to complete the current official card
on CaO/activated carbon sorbents. Part III. Study of the retention of the Galician Orujo spirits, J. Sens. Stud., 24, 317–331.
and regeneration conditions, Fuel, 87, 3170–3175. 29. Nonato, E. A., Carazza, F., Silva, F. C., Carvalho, C. R., and Cardeal, Z. L.
13. Lee, K. T., Mohamed, A. R., Bhatia, S., and Chu, K. H. (2005) Removal of sul- (2001) A headspace solid-phase microextraction method for the de-
fur dioxide by fly ash/CaO/CaSO4 sorbents, Chem. Eng. J., 114, 171–177. termination of some secondary compounds of Brazilian sugar cane
14. Gaur, V., and Asthana, R. (2006) Removal of SO2 by activated carbon spirits by gas chromatography, J. Agric. Food Chem., 49, 3533–3539.
fibers in the presence of O2 and H2O, Carbon, 44, 46–60. 30. Selli, S., Cabaroglu, T., Canbas, A., Erten, H., Nurgel, C., Lepoutre, J. P.,
15. Satora, P., and Tuszynski, T. (2010) Influence of indigenous yeasts on and Gunata, Z. (2004) Volatile composition of red wine from cv.
the fermentation and volatile profile of plum brandies, Food Kalecik Karasi grown in central Anatolia, Food Chem., 85, 207–213.
Microbiol., 27, 418–424. 31. King, E. S., Kievit, R. L., Curtin, C., Swiegers, J. H., Pretorius, I. S., and
16. OIV. International Oenological Codex, Edition 2006. (2006) Compen- Bastian, S. (2004) The effect of multiple yeasts co-inoculations on
dium of International Methods of Wine and Must Analysis, Office Sauvignon blanc wine aroma composition, sensory properties and
International de la Vigne et du Vin: Paris. consumer preference, Food Chem., 122, 618–626.
17. Diéguez, S. C., Dı́az, L. D., Luisa, M., De La Peña, G., and Gómez, E. F. 32. Guichard, H., Lemesle, S., Ledauphin, J., Barillier, D., and Picoche,
(2002) Variation of volatile organic acids in spirits during storage at B. (2003) Chemical and sensorial aroma characterization of freshly
low and room temperatures, LWT-Food Sci. Technol., 35, 452–457. distilled Calvados. 1. Evaluation of quality and defects on the basis
18. López-Vázquez, C., Bollaín, M. H., Berstsch, K., and Orriols, I. (2010) of key odorants by olfactometry and sensory analysis, J. Agric. Food
Fast determination of principal volatile compounds in distilled Chem., 51, 424–432.
spirits, Food Control, 21, 1436–1441. 33. Francis, I. L., and Newton, J. L. (2005) Determining wine aroma from
19. Cortés, S., Rodríguez, R., Salgado, J. M., and Domínguez, J. M. (2011) compositional data, Aust. J. Grape Wine Res., 11, 114–126.
Comparative study between Italian and Spanish grape marc spirits 34. Masino, F., Montevecchi, G., Riponi, C., and Antonelli, A. (2009) Com-
in terms of major volatile compounds, Food Control, 22, 673–680. position of some commercial grappas (grape marc spirit): the anom-
20. Silva, M. L., Macedo, A. C., and Malcata, F. X. (2000) Review: steam alous presence of 1,1-diethoxy-3-methylbutane a case study, Eur.
distilled spirits from fermented grape pomace, Food Sci. Technol. Food Res. Technol., 228, 565–569.
Int., 6, 285–300. 35. Porto, C. D., Cordaro, F., and Marcassa, N. (2006) Effects of carbohy-
21. Cortés, S., Salgado, J. M., Rodríguez, N., and Domínguez, J. M. (2010) drate and noncarbohydrate sweeteners on the orange spirit volatile
The storage of grape marc: Limiting factor in the quality of the dis- compounds, LWT-Food Sci. Technol., 39, 159–165.
tillate, Food Control, 22, 673–680. 36. Monica-Lee, K. Y., Paterson, A., and Piggot, J. R. (2000) Perception of
22. Flouros, A. I., Apostolopoulou, P. G., Demertzis, P. G., and Akrida- whisky flavor reference compounds by Scottish distillers, J. Inst.
Demertzi, K. (2003) Note: Influence of the packaging material on Brew., 106, 203–208.
320
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jib Copyright © 2013 The Institute of Brewing & Distilling J. Inst. Brew. 2013; 119: 314–320