English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To determine the impact of oral physiology on the volatility of typical wine aroma compounds, mixtures of a synthetic wine with oral components (centrifuged human saliva (HS), artificial saliva with mucin (AS), and buccal epithelial cells (BC)) were prepared. Each wine type was independently spiked with four relevant wine odorants (guaiacol, β-phenyl ethanol, ethyl hexanoate, and β-ionone). Additionally, the impact of four types of phenolic compounds (gallic acid, catechin, grape seed extract, and a red wine extract) on aroma volatility in the HS, AS, and BC wines was also assessed. Static headspace was measured at equilibrium by solid phase microextraction–GC/MS analysis. Results showed a significant impact of oral components on the volatility of the four tested odorants. Independently of the type of aroma compound, aroma volatility was in general, higher in wines with BC. Moreover, while guaiacol and ethyl hexanoate volatility was significantly lower in wines with HS compared to wines with AS, β-ionone showed the opposite behavior, which might be related to metabolism and retention of mucin, respectively. Phenolic compounds also showed a different effect on aroma volatility depending on the type of compound and wine. Gallic acid had little effect on polar compounds but it enhanced the volatility of the most hydrophobic ones (ethyl hexanoate and β-ionone). In general, flavonoid type polyphenols significantly reduced the volatility of both polar (guaiacol and β-phenyl ethanol) and hydrophobic compounds (β-ionone in HS and BC wines), but through different mechanisms (e.g., π–π interactions and hydrophobic binding for polar and apolar odorants respectively). On the contrary, flavonoids enhanced the volatility of ethyl hexanoate, which might be due to the inhibition exerted on some salivary enzymes (e.g., carboxyl esterase) involved in the metabolism of this odorant molecule.

Interactions among Odorants, Phenolic Compounds, and Oral Components and Their Effects on Wine Aroma Volatility