Caracterizarea Vinurilor

Trends
Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2010
Characterization of wines using

compositional profiles and
chemometrics
Javier Saurina
This review discusses strategies for characterizing wines based on compositional profiles as sources of information. Contents of low molecular organic
acids, volatile species, polyphenols, amino acids, biogenic amines and
inorganic species seem to depend on climatic, agricultural and wine-making
factors. As a result, compositional profiles of these families of natural wine
components can be exploited as potential descriptors of wine and its quality.
Most characterization studies rely on chemometrics to facilitate extraction
of information. Cluster analysis, principal component analysis and related
methods are currently used for discrimination, classification, modeling and
correlation.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Chemometrics; Classification; Cluster analysis; Compositional fingerprint;
Discrimination; Instrumental assay; Modeling; Principal component analysis; Sensory
property; Wine characterization
Javier Saurina*
Department of Analytical
Chemistry, University of
Barcelona, Diagonal 647,
08028-Barcelona, Spain
Tel.: +34 934 039 778;

Fax: +34 934 021 233;
E-mail: xavi.saurina@ub.edu
234
1. Introduction
In recent years, consumers have been
increasingly interested in information on
the characteristics and the quality of food
products [1]. A wide variety of analytical
methods have been published for characterizing products (e.g., wine, honey, tea,
olive oil and juices) [2]. In the case of
wines, meticulous controls are required to
assess factors (e.g., geographical origins,
grape varieties, vintages and oenological
practices) as a way of evaluating quality
and detecting fraudulent adulterations [3].
Consumer preferences in the selection of
wines take into consideration several
factors (e.g., pleasant color, taste and aroma,
ecological production, guaranteed origin
and quality). These characteristics cannot
be described in a simple manner from
given individual compounds (or various)
of the sample but they result from complex
combinations of hundreds of components.
Typical tests to estimate wine quality rely
on sensorial assays carried out by a group
of expert panelists [4]. Although these
methods are probably the best option for

checking a small number of samples, they
have limitations when dealing with large
batches of wines (e.g., cost of assays, the
inter-individual variability in perception of
sensations and the unreliability of human
senses due to fatigue, health condition or
environmental interferences).
In order to overcome the limitations of
expert-panelist assays, some research
groups have pointed out the possibility of
correlating sensory characteristics with
physic-chemical variables [5,6]. Characterization studies can therefore be carried
out in a simple, sensitive and reproducible
way using suitable analytical methods,
often in combination with chemometric
treatment of data [7]. Wine properties can
be assessed from the contents of organic
constituents, the elemental composition of
metals or isotopic analysis [8]. For example, fraudulent practices (e.g., addition
of sugars or low-quality wines during fermentation) can be detected from isotopic
analysis by nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) and mass spectrometry (MS) [9].
These methods rely on measurements of
isotopic ratios of 13C/12C, 15N/14N,
18
O/16O and 2H/1H, which depend on
geographical origin and vintage. Welldefined authentic samples are needed as
references to establish the ranges of ratios
of genuine samples and to detect those
that are anomalous or different.
Isotopic analysis seems to be complex
and expensive for routine control of food
products, so simpler, cheaper and faster
analytical methods to satisfy demands on
wine analysis are welcome. In this way,
spectroscopic, spectrometric and separation methods have been proposed as being
0165-9936/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.trac.2009.11.008
more straightforward for wine characterization [13].

Elemental analysis is mainly applied to the study of
origins and authenticities [9]. Gas chromatography (GC)
and MS are successful in varietal characterization. There
is special interest in MS combined with headspace
devices as electronic noses (e-noses), which have great
impact in evaluating aroma properties [6]. Highperformance liquid chromatography (HPLC) performs
excellently in winemaking and vintage assays, and
characterizing sensorial properties of color and taste.
The following sections describe the most significant
achievements in wine characterization using chemometric analysis of physic-chemical data. The methods
discussed come from representative papers published in
the last 10 years. Section 2 comments on the principal
types of data as sources of analytical information and
briefly refers to the chemometric methods utilized.
Section 3 contains analytical applications to wine analysis (and Table 1 provides a summary).
2. Data analysis
The type of data handled in wine characterization is,
in general, multivariate in nature. Data comprise a list
or array of values, so-called first-order data in chemometric terminology [10,11]. As shown in Fig. 1,
concentrations of organic and inorganic species,
instrumental responses, including spectra or chromatographic profiles, or more complex combinations of
data from various sources can be used as analytical
data to extract relevant information. Some comments
about these data are as follows.
2.1. Concentration of wine components
Discrete concentration values of each desired species
result in a rich, simple source of data (Fig. 1a), so the
information is principally recovered from selected components while irrelevant species do not influence the
study. The use of concentration values obviously requires prior quantification, which is often complex and
time consuming. At this stage, uncontrolled calibration
errors affecting quantification may confound characterization studies and may lead to misinterpretation of results.
2.2. Instrumental responses
Raw or preprocessed instrumental signals comprising
spectra and chromatographic profiles can be directly
used as chemical fingerprints of the corresponding
samples (Fig. 1b). Note that the use of such signals
makes the quantification step unnecessary. Besides, in
this strategy, identification and full separation of all
components occurring in the samples is not a fundamental issue. Although concentrations of components
Trends
are not explicitly known they are implicit in the intensities of the signal features.
This approach is gaining popularity because it is so
simple, since, as mentioned, those time-consuming steps
devoted to resolving and to quantifying the desired
analytes can be avoided [12].
Other unspecific instrumental responses (e.g., from
electronic noses and tongues) have demonstrated great
performance for modeling and estimating sensorial
properties of wines [13].
2.3. Combined data
Data from various analytical techniques can be combined together as a way of enriching the quantity and
the quality of information and arriving at more feasible
conclusions. Hence, amounts of a wide range of constituents and/or data from one or various instrumental
techniques can be brought together in a convenient
manner (see Fig. 1c). As shown in Section 3, various
applications have been reported joining physic-chemical
data (e.g., pH, conductivity and acidity), concentrations
of relevant species, and chromatographic, MS and other
instrumental responses.
The simultaneous study of properties of a series of
wines is carried out using a table of data in which each
row corresponds to a given sample (Fig. 1f). In this
arrangement, dimensions are m n, m being the number
of samples and n the number of measurements of each
sample.
2.4. Chemometric methods
Principal component analysis (PCA) has been used in
most recent exploratory studies of wines. Information
gained from PCA is often complemented with information from other methods [e.g., groups of similar wines
can be assessed by cluster analysis (CA)]. Also, classification of wines into pre-established categories or groups
is often performed by linear discriminant analysis (LDA)
and Soft Independent Modeling of Class Analogy
(SIMCA) methods. Artificial neural networks (ANNs)
and partial least squares (PLS) regression are sometimes
used for correlation purposes (e.g., in assessing relationships of physic-chemical variables with oenological
and sensorial attributes). PCA, CA, LDA, ANN and PLS
methods are detailed elsewhere [14].
3. Wine studies
3.1. Elemental analysis
The composition of trace and ultratrace mineral
elements of wines seems to be an excellent source of
information to be exploited in characterization studies
[15]. Grapes receive trace elements from the soil, so that
their elemental composition is reasonably correlated
with the geological characteristics of the producing
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/trac
235
Trends
areas. Mineral elements are not metabolized or transformed during oenological processes and they remain
almost unaltered from musts to wines. The classification
of samples according to geographical regions or
denomination of origins and the detection of certain
adulterations may therefore rely on elemental composition. The mean contents of trace elements also depends
on winemaking practices.
In the 1990s, the determination of trace elements in
wines was based mainly on flame atomic spectroscopies.
The absorption mode was, in general, sufficiently sensitive to quantify transition metals (e.g., Fe, Cu, Ca, Co,
and Mn), often present at mg/L levels. Similarly, flame
emission spectroscopy was utilized for determining some
alkaline metals (e.g., Li, Na and K) and alkaline earth
metals (e.g., Ca and Sr).
More recently, the introduction of highly sensitive
atomic spectroscopies to wine analysis has expanded the
variety of elements quantified. Graphite furnace atomic
absorption spectrometry (GF-AAS), inductively coupled
plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) and
inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS)
have been used to determine elements occurring at ng/L
levels in wines.
Apart from atomic spectroscopies, X-ray FL and electrophoresis have been used to determine the elemental
composition of wines.
Table 1 summarizes recent applications.
3.2. Molecular spectroscopies
Ultraviolet visible (UV-Vis), near-infrared (NIR), midinfrared (MIR), fluorescence (FL) and NMR spectroscopies have been exploited in wine analysis (see Table 1).
UV-Vis spectra contain information regarding the
absorbing moieties, basically, polyphenolic compounds
[29]. The simplest compounds (e.g., phenolic, benzoic and
hydroxycinnamic acids) display absorption bands in the
range 300400 nm. More complex molecules (e.g., stilbenes, flavanols, flavonols and anthocyanins) also absorb
moderate or strongly in the visible range. The composition
of these compounds is therefore the principal factor
modulating the color of wines and some taste characteristics. Hence, significant relationships between spectral
data and oenological features can be assessed. Often, UVVis spectral data are complemented with measurements in
the NIR range 8002500 nm. The richer source of
information resulting from these enlarged data sets has
been used in various classification studies [31].
FL of wines comes from naturally occurring fluorophores, mainly polyphenols. In general, excitation
spectra have a maximum at 260270 nm and emission
spectra display characteristic features around 370 nm
and 315 nm. The shapes of excitation and emission
spectra vary slightly among wines because of differences
in the composition of native FL compounds. Table 1
includes applications based on FL.
236
MIR (4004000 cm 1) comprises a complex spectral

range containing multiple vibration bands from functional groups of major wine components, including
sugars and polysaccharides, polyphenols, tannins and
organic acids [38]. Currently, spectra obtained with a
Fourier-transform IR (FTIR) spectrophotometer operating under reflection or transmission modes are utilized
for classification and quantification.
NMR is excellent for generating characteristic fingerprints reflecting the complexity of compositional profiles
of wines [46,47]. The main 1H NMR signals are associated with major components including ethanol, organic
acids, sugars and amino acids. Data can be utilized to
estimate concentrations of alcohols and organic-acid
constituents [48].
From the point of view of information, UV-Vis-NIR and
FL spectra contain a limited number of spectral features,
so limiting their possibilities in discrimination. Despite
this apparent shortcoming, UV-Vis-NIR and FL techniques offer advantages (e.g., simplicity, robustness,
availability and minimal sample treatment).
By contrast, MIR and NMR spectroscopies provide
characteristic chemical fingerprints of great interest for
differentiation. However, drawbacks may arise (e.g.,
more tedious sample treatment procedures, more complex measurements and less reproducible results).
3.3. Mass spectrometry
An emerging trend in wine analysis relies on MS for
describing complex aroma properties associated with
volatile components, which comprise hundreds of substances (e.g., alcohols, aldehydes, esters, acids, and
terpenes). Some of them are already present in grapes,
while others are formed during fermentation and ageing.
Indeed, alcoholic fermentation is the vinification step
leading to formation of the greatest number of aroma
components. Further, ageing involves multiple aromamaturation processes (e.g., oxygenation and reactions
with molecules extracted from the oak barrels). In general, the concentration of volatile compounds decreases
with ageing and strongly conditions the final flavor of
wines.
Contents of volatile compounds in wines vary by
several orders of magnitude, from major to trace constituents. Compounds (e.g., ethanol and glycerol) occur
at concentrations of g/L. Ethyl acetate, isoamyl alcohol,
ethyl lactate, among others, are present at levels in the
range 10100 mg/L. There is a long list of components
present at concentrations of mg/L or below.
Methods reported in the literature (see Table 1) generally combine headspace systems for releasing the volatile species with MS for analytical detection. This
approach is therefore recognized as a type of e-nose, in
which the mass spectra are utilized as fingerprints for
each sample with information related to aroma features.
The chemometric comparison of spectral data is then
Trends
Table 1. Recent methods for the characterization of wines

Samples
Characterization
studies
Chemometric
methods
Remarks
Ref.
Galician
(Spanish) wines
Recognition/
discrimination of
protected
designations of
origin. Detection of
adulterations
Classification
according to
provenance
Flame AES
Flame AAS
Li, Rb, Na, K,

Mn, Fe, Ca
PCA, CA, LDA,

KNN, SIMCA
Most discriminating
elements: Li, Rb and Fe
[16,17]
Flame AES
Flame AAS
Na, K, Al, Sr
Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn
PCA, LDA
[18]
Classification
according to
denomination of
origins
Flame AES
Flame AAS
K, Na, Li, Rb, Sr

Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Zn, Mn
PCA, CA, LDA,

SIMCA
Serbian wines
Classification of red
and white wines
GF-AAS
Cu, Mn, Fe, Cd, Pb
PCA, FA, CA
Sparkling wines
Discrimination
between cava
(Catalonian) and
champagne wines
Recognition/
discrimination of
protected
designations of
origin
GF-AAS
HG-AAS
ICP-OES
LDA, SIMCA
Bohemian
(Czech
Republic) wines
Identification of
origins of Bohemian
wines
ICP-OES ICP-MS
Classification into
red, rose and white
wines
ICP-MS
Best identifications
based on contents of Al,
Ba, Ca, Co, K, Li, Mg,
Mn, Mo, Rb, Sr, V and
Sr/Ba, Sr/Ca, Sr/Mg ratios
Most discriminating
elements: Sr, Rb, Pb, Be,
Ba, Tl, Ti, and Au.
Prediction ability > 95%
[23]
Canary Islands
wines
German wines
Classification
according to
growing areas
ICP-MS
PCA, CA
Prediction ability: 88%
[25]
Nebbiolo wines
from Piedmont
(Italy)
Classification
according to
provenance into five
growing areas
ICP-MS
Cd, Ni, Pb
As
Al, Ba, Ca, Cu, Fe, K,
Mg, Mn, Na, P, Sr, Zn
AL, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd, Ce,
Co, Cr, Cu, Dy, Er, Eu,
Fe, Gd, Ho, K, La, Li, Lu,
Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Nd,
Ni, Pb, Pr, Sc, Se, Sm, Sr,
Tb, Ti, Tm, V, Y, Yb, Zn
Na, K, Ca, Fe, Mg
Al, As, Ba, Ce, Co, Cr,
Cs, Cu, Li, Mn, Mo, Ni,
Pb, Rb, Sb, Sr, Th, U, V,
Y, Zn
Te, Re, Be, Cd, Sn, Sb,
Co, As, V, Ni, Ti, Cu, Pt,
U, Cs, La, Zr, As, Zn, Rb,
Tl, Tb, Ce, Pr, Nd, W,
Pb, Sr, Ba, Ho, Tm, Sm,
Eu, Gd, Lu, Dy, Er, Yb,
Th
Li, Be, Ti, Co, Ni, Ga,
As, Rb, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo,
Cd, b, Te, Cs, La, Ce, Pr,
Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd, Tb, Dy,
Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, W,
Tl, U
Al, As, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cd,
Ce, Co, Cr, Cs, Cu, Dy,
Er, Eu, Fe, Ga, Gd, Ge,
Hf, Ho, I, K, La, Li, Mg,
Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Nd,
Ni, P, Pb, Pd, Pr, Rb, Rh,
Sb, Si, Sm, Sn, Sr, Tb, Te,
Th, Ti, Tl, Tm, U, V, W,
Y, Yb, Zn Zr
Most discriminating
elements: Na, Mg, Fe, Al
and Sr. 93% prediction
ability
Significant differences in
contents of Fe and Cu
among islands.
Most discriminating
elements: Rb, Na, Mn
and Sr. 95% prediction
ability
Discrimination between
red and white wines was
impossible
Remarkable
authentication power.
Zero false positives and
negatives
Li and Mg contents were
characteristic of UtielRequena and Jumilla
regions
Canary Islands
wines
PCA, LDA
Most discriminating
elements:
Si, Mg, Ti, Mn and Mo
[26]
Oloroso sherry
Valencia
(Spanish) wines
Instrumental
techniques
ICP-OES
Data analyzed
PCA, CA
PCA, DA
LDA, ANN
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[24]
(continued on next page)
237
Trends
Table 1 (continued)
Samples
Characterization
studies
Ribera Sacra
(Spanish) wines
Discrimination of
Ribera Sacra wines
from other Galician
wines
Differentiation of
wines produced in
various countries
Classification
according to
producing area
CE
Na, K, Ca, Mn, Li
PCA, LDA,
KNN, SIMCA
Good categorization
according to origin
[27]
X-ray
fluorescence
K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu,

Zn, Br, Rb, Sr
PCA, CA
[28]
UVVis
spectroscopy
Absorption spectra: 300

800 nm
PCA, SIMCA
Geographic
classification into
Spanish and
Australian groups
Preliminary
classification
according to country
Classification
according to grape
varieties
Assessment of
models between
wine scores and
spectra
Study of ripening of
French Cabernet
grapes. Prediction of
anthocyanin
contents
Vis and NIR

spectroscopy

2500 nm
PCA, LDA, PLS
Most discriminating
elements:
K, Fe and Rb
90% prediction ability
according to origin. 75%
prediction ability
according to grape
variety and ageing
Classification ability >
70%
Vis and NIR

spectroscopy

2500 nm
PCA, LDA, PLS

67%
[33]
Vis and NIR

spectroscopy

2500 nm
PCA, PCR, DAPLS

96%
[34]
Vis and NIR

spectroscopy

2500 nm
PLS
Ability for predicting

sensory quality score:
r = 0.61
[35]
Front-face
fluorescence
Excitation spectra of
grape skins: 250350 nm
at kem 350 nm
PCA, DA, PLS
[36]
French and
German wines
Discrimination
between French and
German wines
Front-face
fluorescence
PCA, DA
Portuguese
white wines
Classification
according to variety
and winemaking
procedure.
Prediction of
mannose contents
Classification
according to tannin
levels. Prediction of
tannin contents
Discrimination
among varieties
FTIR (mid)
spectroscopy
Emission spectra: 275

450 nm at kex 261 nm
Excitation spectra: 250
350 nm at kem 350 nm
FTIR spectra of the wine
polysaccharide dry
Extracts: 1200
800 cm 1
Classification according
to ripening.
Prediction of malvidin-3O-glucoside, total
anthocyanins and total
phenols: r > 0.8
Classification abilities >
93%
Identification of the
winemaking process of
must clarification and/or
maceration. Prediction
ability of mannose, r >
0.97
Classification abilities >
60%
Prediction ability of
tannins, r > 0.96
95%
[39]
[43,44]
Cabernet
Sauvignon
wines
La Mancha
(Spanish) wines
Tempranillo
wines
Riesling wines
Australian white
wines
Australian red
wines
Loire Valley
(French) grapes
Red, white and

model wines
Austrian red
wines
Australian red
and white wines
Gamay wines
Bordeaux
(French) wines
238
Discrimination
among varieties.
Fingerprint
authentication
Discrimination
among origin and
vintage
Discrimination
among growing
areas, cultivars and
soil types
Instrumental
techniques
FTIR (mid)
spectroscopy
FTIR (mid)
spectroscopy
FTIR (mid)
spectroscopy
FTIR (mid)
spectroscopy
1
H NMR
spectroscopy
(500 MHz)
Data analyzed
FTIR transmission
spectra:
400 (or 650)4000 cm
Chemometric
methods
PCA, CA, PLS
DA, SIMCA, PLS

1
Remarks
Ref.
[30]
[32]
[37]
[40,41]
Attenuated total
reflectance spectra: 700
4000 cm 1
FTIR transmission
spectra:
9265012 cm 1
CA, SIMCA
PCA, LDA

95%
FTIR transmission
spectra:
8001800 cm 1
1D 1H NMR spectra
(0.78.8 ppm) of dried
tissue extracts D2O using
TSP as shift marker
PCA, PLS

[45]
70% (for origin) and >
50% (for vintage)
Significant clustering
[46,47]
according to growing
areas. Effect of vintage
more noticeable than
effect of soil type
PCA, PLS
[42]
Trends
Table 1 (continued)
Samples
Characterization
studies
Instrumental
techniques
Data analyzed
Chemometric
methods
Remarks
Ref.
Red, rose and

white wines
Exploratory analysis.
Quantification of
wine components
from 1H NMR data
H NMR
spectroscopy
(400 MHz)
H NMR spectra (0.5

6 ppm) of wines in D2O
using TSP as shift marker
PLS
Spanish wines
Headspace-MS
(e-nose)
MS by EI ionization at
70 eV in m/z range 50
200
PCA, SIMCA
Headspace-MS
(e-nose)
180
PCA, LDA, PLS
Classification ability
according to variety >
73%
[50]
Australian red
wines
Differentiation and
classification
according to origin,
variety and ageing
Classification
(Chardonnay and
Riesling)
Monitoring wine
spoilage
Headspace-MS
(e-nose)
PCA, LDA, PLS
Prediction of aroma
properties
Headspace-MS
(e-nose)
Italian wines
Classification of
wine varieties
according to aroma
(volatile) fingerprints
Classification
according to origin
and variety
Headspace-MS
(e-nose)
250
PCA
Successful classification
using 4-ethylphenol as
index of spoilage
Prediction abilities of
scores of aroma notes:
estery (r = 0.75),
perfume floral (r = 0.89),
lemon (r = 0.82), stewed
apple (r = 0.82), passion
fruit (r = 0.67) and honey
(r = 0.90)
Prediction ability >
83.3%
[51]
Australian
Riesling wines
180
180
Differential
pulse
voltammetry:
PEDT-modified
electrodes
Headspace thinfilm
multisensory
array
Others
RP HPLC-UV
Voltammogram range:
0.10.7 V
PCA, PLS
Sample clustering with

respect to varieties and
origin
[54]
Gas sensor e-nose:

current resistance of four
different sensors
pH, Conductivity and
ethanol content
Major polyphenols
PCA, ANN
Prediction ability > 78%
[55]
PCA
RP HPLC-UV
(DAS)
RP HPLC-MS
(ion trap)
Major polyphenols
PCA, FA, PLS
RP HPLC-UV
(DAS)
19 polyphenols
DA
RP HPLC-UV
(DAS)
22 major polyphenols
ANOVA, PCA,
LDA
RP HPLC-UV
RP HPLC-MS
RP HPLC-UV
13 anthocyanins
Polyphenols
ANOVA, CA,
PCA, LDA
PCA, CA
RP HPLC-UV
9 anthocyanins
PCA, CA
Significant correlation
[59]
between polyphenols
and astringency,
bitterness and overall
sensory impression
Significant correlation
[60]
between anthocyanin
concentrations and
pigmentation, sour taste
and astringency
[61,62]
respect to varieties and
geographical origin
Classification ability into [63]
red and white groups >
97%
[64]
100%
Discrimination between [65]
natural and accelerated
browning
[66]
respect to varieties
Australian white
wines
White wines
Italian wines
Classification
according to origin
and variety
Croatian red
wines
Influence of
polyphenolic
composition on
sensory perceptions
Lacrima di
Morro dAlba
red wines
Fino sherry
Classification
according to
polyphenols.
Influence on sensory
perceptions
Differentiation
based on variety and
origin
Classification
according to grape
variety
Classification
Study of browning
German red
wines
Classification
Greek red wines
South African
red and white
wines
Slovenian wines
PCA, PLS
Prediction abilities of
ethanol, glycerol, lactic
acid, methanol and
malic acid: r = 0.12
0.96
More difficult to separate
according to ageing
[48]
[49]
[52]
[53]
239
Trends
Table 1 (continued)
Samples
Characterization
studies
Instrumental
techniques
Red, rose and

white Spanish
wines
Classification
according to type of
wine
Tokaji Aszu
(Hungarian)
wines
Authentication of
wine specialties
made from
botrytized grapes
Spanish red
wines
Classification
according to ageing
Hungarian red
and white wines
Classification
according to
winemaking
technology
Pinotage wines
Classification
according to vintage
and origin
Classification
according to cultivar
RP HPLC-UV,
precolumn
derivatization
with Dabsyl-Cl
RP-HPLC-UV
(DAS)
RP-HPLCfluorimetry (kex
345 nm, kem
455 nm), postcolumn
derivatization
with OPA
RP HPLC-UV
(DAS),
precolumn
derivatization
with NQS
Ion-exchange
HPLC-UV, postcolumn
derivatization
with ninhydrin
SBSE(headspace) and
GC-MS
SBSE(headspace) and
GC-MS
HeadspaceSPME and GCFID
HeadspaceSPME GC-MS
South African
red and white
wines
Spanish wines
Rioja (Spanish)
wines
Andalusian
(Spanish) sweet
wines
Slovakian wines
Differentiation of
certified brands of
origins
Classification
according to
winemaking
Data analyzed
Chemometric
methods
PCA, CA
Most discriminating
variables: putrescine,
histamine and tyramine
[67]
Tartaric, malic, shikimic,

lactic, acetic, citric and
fumaric acids
13 biogenic amines
PCA, LDA
Identification ability of
authentic samples >
96%
[68,69]
8 biogenic amines
Raw chromatographic
profiles
PCA, PLS

respect to ageing. Good
differentiation among
young and aged wines
[12]
8 biogenic amines and

20 amino acids
PCA, LDA
>65% (origin), >62%
(variety) and >73%
(vintage)
[70]
39 volatile compounds
ANOVA, PCA,
FA
[72]
Major volatile and semivolatile components
PCA, CA, DA
18 major volatile
components
PCA, LDA, ANN
11 major volatile
components
PCA, CA, LDA
Reasonable clustering
with respect to origin
and vintage
Successful classification
of wines according to
variety
100% with respect to
origins using ANN
Most discriminating
variables: 3-methyl-butyl
acetate, ethyloctanoate,
diethylsuccinate,
hexanoic acid, 2phenylethanol and
decanoic acid.
Prediction ability 100%

95%
Reasonable relationship
between sensory
properties and GC
profiles
Most discriminating
variables among dry and
sweet wines: cis-oak
lactone, diethylsuccinate
and ethyl octanoate
Preliminary insight to
classification
[77]
Headspace- and
GC-FID
>30 volatile components
PCA, CA, LDA
HeadspaceSPME GC-FID
HeadspaceSPME and GCMS
65 volatile components
PCA, CA, ANN,

LDA, KNN
PCA, PLS
Madeira wines
Characterization of
aroma profiles of
five varieties
HeadspaceSPME and SBSE

and GC-MS
Major aroma
components
PCA
Cabernet
Sauvignon
wines
Hungarian
wines
Classification
according to origin
Microchip CEelectrochemical
detection
Overpressuredthin layer
chromatography
Electrophoretic profiles
PCA, LDA
Polyphenols and
biogenic amines
PCA, CA
Classification into
red and wine classes
Ref.
9 biogenic amines
Classification
according to grape
variety
Classification
Prediction of sensory
scores from volatile
components
Greek dry red

wines
Remarks
GC fingerprint profile

respect to type of wine
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[78]
[79]
[81]
[82]
240
Trends
Table 1 (continued)
Samples
Characterization
studies
Instrumental
techniques
South African
wines
Classification
LLE and GC-FID

FTIR (mid)
spectroscopy
Volatile components
FTIR transmission
spectra:
9295011 cm 1
ANOVA, PCA,
LDA
Italian wines
Classification
according to origin
Various
analytical
techniques
CAIMAN
Italian wines
Authentication of
origin
AAS, HPLC
Spanish (rose)
wines
Classification
according to origin
Various
analytical
techniques
Greek wines
Classification
according to origin
Gamay wines
Classification
according to origin
HPLC
CG-MS
AAS
FTIR (mid)
spectroscopy
Various
analytical
techniques
Slovenian wines
Study of
chaptalization
practices.
Classification
according to origin
Comparison of
wines and musts
SNIF-NMR
IRMS
pH, conductivity,
acidity, ethanol, total
extract, redox potential,
absorbance at four
wavelengths, e-tongue
and e-nose profiles
35 chemical descriptors
(polyphenols, metals,
organic acids,
alcohols, . . .)
19 chemical descriptors
(polyphenols, metals,
classical oenological
parameters, color
parameters)
Polyphenols, metals,
other oenological
parameters, sensory data
FTIR transmission
spectra:
8001800 cm 1
pH, acidity, organic
acids, phenols, color
parameters
D/H isotopic ratios and
d13C
Galician
(Spanish) wines
Authentication of a
Galician certified
brand of origin
Various
analytical
techniques
Slovenian and
Italian wines
Classification
according to origin
Rioja (Spanish)
wines
Classification
according to wine
type (claret, rose and
blend)
Ion exclusionHPLC
ICP-OES
1
H-NMR
UV-Vis
spectroscopy
Colorimetry
Canary Islands
(Spanish) wines
Various
analytical
techniques
Data analyzed
Acidity, pH, reducing

sugars, B, Ca, ashes, Cu,
density, Fe, alcohol, K,
Mg, Na, tartaric acid, Pb,
SO2, Zn
34 chemical variables
including metals,
organic acids, volatile
compounds,
polyphenols
Metals, organic acids,
amino acids
Color parameters
Chemometric
methods
Remarks
Ref.
White wines: prediction

ability >98% using FTIR
data
Red wines: prediction
ability >86% using
FTIR + GC data
Preliminary assessment
of a new classification
method
[83]
Most discriminating
variables:
Cu, Zn, anthocyans and
SO2
[85]
PCA
Satisfactory classification
according to origin
[87]
DA
Higher performance of
MIR spectra with respect
to classical oenological
parameters
[88]
PCA, CA, KNN
Possibility of detecting
adulterations
[89]
PCA, LDA, FA
Differentiation between
wines and musts
[90]
PCA, CA, LDA,

KNN, SIMCA
Most discriminating
variables:
Fe, Li, Rb, delphinidin
and epicatechin
[91]
PCA, CA
Higher performance of
NMR spectra compared
with other data
[92]
ANN, SIMCA

50%
[93]
SIMCA, UNEQ
LDA, ANN
[84]
[86]
AAS, Atomic absorption spectroscopy; AES, Atomic emission spectroscopy; GF, Graphite furnace; HG, Hydride generation; ICP, Inductively coupled plasma;
OES, Optical emission spectroscopy; MS, Mass spectrometry; UV, Ultraviolet; Vis, Visible; NIR, Near infrared; FTIR, Fourier transform infrared; HPLC, High
performance liquid chromatography; GC, Gas chromatography; CE, Capillary electrophoresis; EI, Electronic impact; DAS, Diode array spectrophotometer; kex,
Excitation wavelength; kem, Emission wavelength; FID, Flame-ionization detector; SBSE, Stir-bar sorptive extraction; SPME, Solid-phase microextraction; LLE,
Liquid-liquid extraction; SNIF, Site-specific natural-isotope fractionation; NMR, Nuclear magnetic resonance; IRMS, Isotope-ratio mass spectrometry; TSP,
(Trimethyl)-propionic-2,2,3,3-d4 acid; PEDT, Poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene); Dabsyl-Cl, (4-Dimethylamino-azobenzene-4-sulphonyl chloride); OPA, oPhthaldialdehyde; NQS, 1,2-Naphthoquinone-4-sulfonate; PCA, Principal component analysis; CA, Cluster analysis; DA, Discriminant analysis; LDA, Linear
discriminant analysis; KNN,K-Nearest neighbors; SIMCA, Soft independent modeling of class analogy; ANN, Artificial neural networks; FA, Factor analysis;
PLS, Partial least square (regression); CAIMAN, Classification and influence matrix analysis; UNEQ, Unequal class modeling; r, Coefficient of correlation.
241
An
An
al
yt
e
(a)
1
al
yt
e
2
An
al
yt
e
3
Trends
Concentrations
(b)
mAU
50
Spectrum
40
30
20
10
0
250
(c)
300
Concentrations
Spectrum
Chromatogram
Others
...
(d)
Responses 1 to n
Responses 1 to n
Wine 1
Wines 1 to m
Wine 2
Wine 3
Wine m
D(m x n)
Figure 1. Types of data of interest in wine characterization. (a) Array from discrete concentration (or physico-chemical) values from the analysis
of a wine. (b) Instrumental (spectral) data profile. (c) Combined array from concentrations and instrumental data. (d) Scheme for constructing a
data matrix to be used in the study of a series of wines.
exploited to differentiate and to classify wines according

to variety and other oenological features.
3.4. Electrochemical techniques
To date, electroanalytical data have had little significance in characterizing food products. Table 1 contains
some preliminary studies for evaluating the possibilities
of these techniques in wine analysis.
3.5. Separation techniques
Separation techniques, especially HPLC and GC, have
been widely used for wine characterization and classification. Data of different degrees of complexity (e.g.,
analyte concentrations, peak areas and chromatograms)
can be generated and processed.
In the case of concentrations, the range of analytes
considered is limited to identifiable and quantifiable
242
components. For peak-area data, identification and

quantification can be omitted. Hence, areas of characteristic peaks at well-defined retention times are taken for
analysis.
In the case of chromatographic profiles, the whole run
or selected time windows can be used as analytical data
[12].
Fig. 2 shows an example to illustrate these possibilities
with a chromatogram of the separation of polyphenols
in a red wine by reversed-phase HPLC with UV detection.
As in this case, the great complexity of the wine sample
hinders full separation of all components of interest and
multiple unknown peaks may eventually appear in the
chromatograms. In these circumstances, the separation
of all components and the identification of all chromatographic features may not be fully achieved. However, the occurrence of unresolved peaks should not be
t -resveratrol
ferulic acid
200
vanillic acid
caffeic acid
syringic acid
300
4-hydroxybenzoic acid
catechine
3,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid
Absorbance (mAU)
400
coumaric acid
Trends
gallic acid
100
0
5
10
15
20
25
Time (min)
(Absorbance vstime)
Chromatographic
profile
Peak
areas
a1
Concentrations
c1
a2 a3 a4
a5
...
calibrations
c2
c3
c5
...
Figure 2. Possibilities of generating data of different complexity: chromatographic profile (absorbance vs. time), peak areas and concentrations.
taken as a negative issue, since chromatograms may be

exploited as chemical fingerprints that provide specific
information on the samples analyzed.
The two principal families of wine components investigated by HPLC comprise polyphenols and amino compounds (biogenic amines and amino acids).
Compositional profiles regarding polyphenolic and/or
amino species have been correlated with significant
factors (e.g., organoleptic properties, winemaking practices and grape varieties) [56,57]. However, extracting
information on the influence of oenological factors may
be difficult due to the multifactorial nature of the processes involved [58]. Here, again, application of
chemometrics may assist in reaching reliable conclusions. Table 1 provides some representative examples of
relevant HPLC applications.
GC is typically utilized for the analysis of the volatile
fraction of wines. Headspace and solid-phase microextraction (SPME) have been extensively used for wine
pretreatment in order to recover volatile components. In
the headspace technique, species are volatilized from the

sample under controlled experimental conditions (either
in static or dynamic mode) and the gas phase is directly
transferred to the chromatograph using an appropriate
interface [71]. Alternatively, gas-phase components can
be adsorbed on a fiber to be further introduced into the
injection port of the GC instrument to run the separation. In SPME mode, the fiber is immersed in the wine
phase to retain the desired components. In all cases,
analytes are further released from the fibers by thermal
desorption. The chromatographic detection is often
accomplished by MS as a way of enhancing the sensitivity and the selectivity of data. As mentioned in
Table 1, compositional profiles of volatile compounds
have been exploited to extract information on chemical
and sensory features (e.g., taste and aroma).
To date, CE has been of limited significance in wine
analysis, and only a few methods have been proposed for
quantifying wine components [80]. In one example, the
performance of a CE-microchip device with electrochemical
243
Trends
detection was assessed for preliminary classification of

wines [81].
3.6. Combined data sets
The combination of data from various analytical sources
is a powerful strategy to enrich the information content,
thus improving characterization results. For example,
physico-chemical parameters, analyte concentrations,
spectra, and chromatograms can be analyzed together
from an extended data set. Note that, in these cases,
differences in the nature and the magnitude of the data
handled have to be compensated for. Typically, normalization or standardization pretreatments are required
to provide similar weight to all variables. Table 1 comments on some relevant applications based on combined
data sets.
4. Conclusions
Characterization of wines based on analytical methods
combined with chemometric treatment of data
provides excellent robustness and efficiency, and reduces costs compared with sensory tests by expert
panelists. Physico-chemical parameters, concentrations
of wine components and instrumental signals can be
used as multivariate data. Wine features, including
origin, variety and winemaking practices, can be
evaluated from this source of information.
Because of the multiparametric nature of wines,
chemometics makes interpretation of data more feasible.
Contents of mineral elements result in appropriate
descriptors of origin and authenticity. The volatile fraction of wines is useful for categorizing wines based on
aroma characteristics. Polyphenolic fingerprints can be
exploited in analyzing varieties and evaluating color and
taste. Finally, amino compounds are suitable markers for
studying winemaking practices and ageing of wines.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Spanish Ministerio de
Ciencia y Tecnologa, project CTQ2008-04776/BQU.
References
[1] D.M.A.M. Luykx, S.M. Van Ruth, Food Chem. 107 (2008) 897.
[2] L.M. Reid, C.P. ODonnell, G. Downey, Trends Food Sci. Technol.
17 (2006) 344.
[3] I.S. Arvanitoyannis, M.N. Katsota, E.P. Psarra, E.H. Soufleros, S.
Kallithraka, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 10 (1999) 321.
[4] N. Cayot, Food Chem. 101 (2007) 154.
[5] S. Lopez-Feria, S. Cardenas, M. Valcarcel, Trends Anal. Chem. 27
(2008) 794.
[6] B. Plutowska, W. Wardencki, Food Chem. 101 (2007) 845.
[7] M. Kozak, C.H. Scaman, J. Sci. Food Agric. 88 (2008) 1115.
[8] M. Gishen, R.G. Dambergs, D. Cozzolino, Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.
11 (2005) 296.
[9] N. Ogrinc, I.J. Kosir, J.E. Spangenberg, J. Kidric, Anal. Bioanal.
Chem. 376 (2003) 424.
244
[10] S. Sentellas, J. Saurina, S. Hernandez-Cassou, M.T. Galceran, L.

Puignou, J. Chromatogr., A 909 (2001) 259.
[11] S. Sentellas, J. Saurina, J. Sep. Sci. 26 (2003) 1395.
[12] N. Garca-Villar, S. Hernandez-Cassou, J. Saurina, J. Agric. Food
Chem. 55 (2007) 7453.
[13] M. Scampicchio, D. Ballabio, A. Arecchi, S.M. Cosio, S. Mannino,
Microchim. Acta 163 (2008) 11.
[14] S.D. Brown, R. Tauler, B. Walczak, Comprehensive Chemometrics,
Chemical and Biochemical Data Analysis, Vol. 3, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2009.
[15] M. Suhaj, M. Korenovska, Acta Aliment. 34 (2005) 393.
[16] M.J. Latorre, C. Garca Jares, B. Medina, C. Herrero, J. Agric. Food
Chem. 42 (1994) 1451.
[17] R.M. Pena, M.J. Latorre, S. Garca, A.M. Botana, C. Herrero, J. Sci.
Food Anal. 79 (1999) 2052.
lvarez-Sotomayor, I.A. Gomeza, Food Chem.
[18] P. Paneque, M.T. A
117 (2009) 302.
[19] S. Fras, J.E. Conde, J.J. Rodrguez-Bencomo, F. Garca-Montelongo, J.P. Perez-Trujillo, Talanta 59 (2003) 335.
[20] S. Razic, D. Cokesa, S. Sremac, J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 72 (2007)
1487.
[21] A. Jos, I. Moreno, A.G. Gonzalez, G. Repetto, A.M. Camean,
Talanta 63 (2004) 377.
[22] A. Gonzalvez, A. Llorens, M.L. Cervera, S. Armenta, M. de la
Guardia, Food Chem. 112 (2009) 26.
[23] J. Sperkova, M. Suchanek, Food Chem. 93 (2005) 659.
[24] J.P. Perez-Trujillo, M. Barbaste, B. Medina, Anal. Lett. 36 (2003)
679.
[25] G. Thiel, G. Geisler, I. Blechschmidt, K. Danzer, Anal. Bioanal.
Chem. 378 (2004) 1630.
[26] E. Marengo, M. Aceto, Food Chem. 81 (2003) 621.
[27] M. Nunez, R.M. Pena, C. Herrero, S. Garca-Martn, Analusis 28
(2000) 432.
[28] S.J. Haswell, A.D. Walmsley, J. Anal. Atom. Spectrom. 13 (1998) 131.
[29] V. Cheynier, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 81 (2005) 223S.
[30] M. Urbano, M.D. Luque de Castro, P.M. Perez, J. Garca-Olmo,
M.A. Gomez-Nieto, Food Chem. 97 (2006) 166.
[31] D. Cozzolino, R.G. Dambergs, L. Janik, W.U. Cynkar, M. Gishen, J.
Near Infrared Spectrosc. 14 (2006) 279.
[32] L. Liu, D. Cozzolino, W.U. Cynkar, M. Gishen, C.B. Colby, J. Agric.
Food Chem. 54 (2006) 6754.
[33] L. Liu, D. Cozzolino, W.U. Cynkar, R.G. Dambergs, L. Janik,
B.K. ONeill, C.B. Colb, M. Gishen, Food Chem. 106 (2008) 781.
[34] D. Cozzolino, H.E. Smyth, M. Gishen, J. Agric. Food Chem. 51
(2003) 7703.
[35] D. Cozzolino, G. Cowey, K.A. Lattey, P. Godden, W.U. Cynkar, R.G.
Dambergs, L. Janik, M. Gishen, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 391 (2008)
975.
[36] M. Le Moigne, E. Dufour, D. Bertrand, C. Maury, D. Seraphin, F.
Jourjon, Anal. Chim. Acta 621 (2008) 8.
[37] E. Dufour, A. Letort, A. Laguet, A. Lebecque, J.N. Serra, Anal.
Chim. Acta 563 (2006) 292.
[38] X.Y. Niu, Y.B. Ying, H.Y. Yu, L.J. Xie, X.P. Fu, Spectrosc. Spec.
Anal. 28 (2008) 804.
[39] M.A. Coimbra, F. Goncalves, A.S. Barros, I. Delgadillo, J. Agric.
Food Chem. 50 (2002) 3405.
[40] K. Fernandez, E. Agosin, J. Agric. Food Chem. 55 (2007)
7294.
[41] K. Fernandez, X. Labarca, E. Bordeu, A. Guesalaga, E. Agosin,
Appl. Spectrosc. 61 (2007) 1163.
[42] A. Edelmann, J. Diewok, K.C. Schuster, B. Lendl, J. Agric. Food
Chem. 49 (2001) 1139.
[43] C.J. Bevin, A.J. Fergusson, W.B. Perry, L.J. Janik, D. Cozzolino, J.
Agric. Food Chem. 54 (2006) 9713.
[44] C.J. Bevin, R.G. Dambergs, A.J. Fergusson, D. Cozzolino, Anal.
Chim. Acta 621 (2008) 19.

[45] D. Picque, T. Cattenoz, G. Corrieu, J.L. Berger, Sci. Aliments 25
(2005) 207.
[46] G.E. Pereira, J.P. Gaudillere, C. Van Leeuwen, G. Hilbert, O.
Lavialle, M. Maucourt, C. Deborde, A. Moing, D. Rolin, J. Agric.
Food Chem. 53 (2005) 6382.
[47] G.E. Pereira, J.P. Gaudillere, C. Van Leeuwen, G. Hilbert, M.
Maucourt, C. Deborde, A. Moing, D. Rolin, J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 41
(2007) 103.
[48] F.H. Larsen, F. van den Berg, S.B. Engelsen, J. Chemom. 20
(2006) 198.
[49] M.P. Mart, O. Busto, J. Guasch, J. Chromatogr., A 1057 (2004)
211.
[50] D. Cozzolino, H.E. Smyth, W. Cynkar, R.G. Dambergs, M. Gishen,
Talanta 68 (2005) 382.
[51] W. Cynkar, D. Cozzolino, B. Dambergs, L. Janik, M. Gishen, Sens.
Actuators B 124 (2007) 167.
[52] D. Cozzolino, H.E. Smyth, W. Cynkar, L. Janik, R.G. Dambergs, M.
Gishen, Anal. Chim. Acta 621 (2008) 2.
[53] C. Armanino, M.C. Casolino, M. Casale, M. Forina, Anal. Chim.
Acta 614 (2008) 134.
[54] L. Pigani, G. Foca, K. Ionescu, V. Martina, A. Ulrici, F. Terzi, M.
Vignali, C. Zanardi, R. Seeber, Anal. Chim. Acta 614 (2008) 213.
[55] M. Penza, G. Cassano, Food Chem. 86 (2004) 283.
[56] D.P. Makris, S. Kallithraka, P. Kefalas, J. Food Comp. Anal. 19
(2006) 396.
[57] C. Ancin-Azpilicueta, A. Gonzalez-Marco, N. Jimenez-Moreno,
Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 48 (2008) 257.
[58] J. Saurina, Characterization of wines through the compositional
profiles of biogenic amines and related compounds, focusing on
the description of toxicological and organoleptic features, in: P.
OByrne (Editor), Red Wine and Health, Nova Science Publishers,
Inc., NY, USA, 2009, pp. 630.
[59] I. Budic-Leto, G. Zdunic, J.G. Kljusuric, I. Pezo, I. Alpeza, T. Lovric,
J. Food Agric. Environ. 6 (2008) 138.
[60] E. Boselli, A. Giomo, M. Minardi, N.G. Frega, Eur. Food Res.
Technol. 227 (2008) 709.
[61] D.P. Makris, S. Kallithraka, A. Mamalos, Talanta 70 (2006)
1143.
[62] S. Kallithraka, A. Mamalos, D.P. Makris, J. Agric. Food Chem. 55
(2007) 3233.
[63] A. de Villiers, P. Majek, F. Lynen, A. Crouch, H. Lauer, P. Sandra,
Eur. Food Res. Technol. 221 (2005) 520.
[64] L.J. Kosir, B. Lapornik, S. Andrensek, A.G. Wondra, U. Vrhovsek,
J. Kidric, Anal. Chim. Acta 513 (2004) 277.
[65] M. Palma, C.G. Barroso, J.A. Perez-Bustamante, Analyst (Cambridge, UK) 125 (2000) 1151.
[66] B. Berente, D.D.L. Garca, M. Reichenbacher, K. Danzer, J.
Chromatogr., A 871 (2000) 95.
[67] R. Romero, M. Sanchez-Vinas, D. Gazquez, M.G. Bagur, J. Agric.
Food Chem. 50 (2002) 4713.
[68] J. Kiss, A. Sass-Kiss, J. Agric. Food Chem. 53 (2005) 10042.
Trends
[69] A. Sass-Kiss, J. Kiss, B. Havadi, N. Adanyi, Food Chem. 110
(2008) 742.
[70] K. Heberger, E. Csomos, L. Simon-Sarkadi, J. Agric. Food Chem.
51 (2003) 8055.
[71] R. Castro, R. Natera, E. Duran, Garca-Barroso, Eur. Food Res.
Technol. 228 (2008) 1.
[72] B.T. Weldegergis, A.M. Crouch, J. Agric. Food Chem. 56 (2008)
10225.
[73] A. Tredoux, A. de Villiers, P. Majek, F. Lynen, A. Crouch, P.
Sandra, J. Agric. Food Chem. 56 (2008) 4286.
[74] J.M. Jurado, O. Ballesteros, A. Alcazar, F. Pablos, M.J. Martn, J.L.
Vlchez, A. Navalon, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 390 (2008) 961.
[75] S. Cabredo-Pinillos, T. Cedron-Fernandez, C. Saenz-Barrio, Eur.
Food Res. Technol. 226 (2008) 1317.
[76] R. Marquez, R. Castro, R. Natera, C. Garca-Barroso, Eur. Food
Res. Technol. 226 (2008) 1479.
[77] D. Kruzlicova, J. Mocak, J. Hrivnak, J. Food Nutr. Res. 47 (2008)
37.
[78] E. Koussissi, A. Paterson, J.R. Piggott, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 225
(2007) 749.
[79] R.F. Alves, A.M.D. Nascimento, J.M.F. Nogueira, Anal. Chim. Acta
546 (2005) 11.
[80] N. Garca-Villar, J. Saurina, S. Hernandez-Cassou, Electrophoresis
27 (2006) 474.
[81] M. Scampicchio, S. Mannino, J. Zima, J. Wang, Electroanalysis
(NY) 17 (2005) 1215.
[82] E. Csomos, K. Heberger, L. Simon-Sarkadi, J. Agric. Food Chem.
50 (2002) 3768.
[83] L. Louw, K. Roux, A. Tredoux, O. Tomic, T. Naes, H.H.
Nieuwoudt, P. van Rensburg, J. Agric. Food Chem. 57 (2009)
2623.
[84] D. Ballabio, A. Mauri, R. Todeschini, S. Buratti, Anal. Chim. Acta
570 (2006) 249.
[85] F. Marini, R. Bucci, A.L. Magri, A.D. Magri, Chemom. Intell. Lab.
Syst. 84 (2006) 164.
[86] S. Perez-Magarino, M. Ortega-Heras, M.L. Gonzalez-San Jose, Z.
Boger, Talanta 62 (2004) 983.
[87] S. Kallithraka, I.S. Arvanitoyannis, P. Kefalas, A. El-Zajouli, E.
Soufleros, E. Psarra, Food Chem. 73 (2001) 501.
[88] D. Picque, T. Cattenoz, G. Corrieu, J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin 35 (2001)
165.
[89] I.J. Kosir, M. Kocjancic, N. Ogrinc, J. Kidric, Anal. Chim. Acta 429
(2001) 195.
[90] G. Gonzalez, E.M. Pena-Mendez, Eur. Food Res. Technol. 212
(2000) 100.
[91] S. Rebolo, R.M. Pena, M.J. Latorre, S. Garca, A.M. Botana, C.
Herrero, Anal. Chim. Acta 417 (2000) 211.
[92] M.A. Brescia, I.J. Kosir, V. Caldarola, J. Kidric, A. Sacco, J. Agric.
Food Chem. 51 (2003) 21.
[93] M.E. Melendez, M.S. Sanchez, M. Inguez, L.A. Sarabia, M.C. Ortiz,
Anal. Chim. Acta 446 (2001) 159.
245

Caracterizarea Vinurilor

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Caracterizarea Vinurilor

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Trends

Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2010

Characterization of wines using

Tel.: +34 934 039 778;

methods are probably the best option for

Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2010

more straightforward for wine characterization [13].

Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2010

MIR (4004000 cm 1) comprises a complex spectral

Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2010

Table 1. Recent methods for the characterization of wines

Li, Rb, Na, K,

PCA, CA, LDA,

K, Na, Li, Rb, Sr

PCA, CA, LDA,

Cu, Mn, Fe, Cd, Pb

Prediction ability: 88%

(continued on next page)

Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2010

Na, K, Ca, Mn, Li

K, Ca, Mn, Fe, Ni, Cu,

Absorption spectra: 300

Vis and NIR

Absorption spectra: 400

PCA, LDA, PLS

Vis and NIR

Absorption spectra: 400

PCA, LDA, PLS

Classification ability >

Vis and NIR

Absorption spectra: 400

PCA, PCR, DAPLS

Classification ability >

Vis and NIR

Absorption spectra: 400

Ability for predicting

PCA, DA, PLS

Emission spectra: 275

Red, white and

PCA, CA, PLS

DA, SIMCA, PLS

Classification ability >

Classification ability >

Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2010

Red, rose and

H NMR spectra (0.5

PCA, LDA, PLS

PCA, LDA, PLS

Sample clustering with

Gas sensor e-nose:

Prediction ability > 78%

PCA, FA, PLS

Greek red wines

Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2010

Red, rose and

Tartaric, malic, shikimic,

Sample clustering with

8 biogenic amines and

Major volatile and semivolatile components

PCA, LDA, ANN

PCA, CA, LDA

Classification ability >

>30 volatile components

MIR (4004000 cm 1) comprises a complex spectral