Influence of Fermentation Method on Phenolics, Antioxidant Capacity, and Volatiles in Blackberry Wines

Abstract

The influence of the type of fermentation method on phenolics, antioxidant capacity, and volatiles in blackberry wine was studied. Dry blackberry wines made by traditional fermentation (TF) and carbonic maceration fermentation (CMF) were analyzed for total polyphenols, flavanols, flavonoids, anthocyanins, proanthocyanidin, and antioxidant capacity. High-performance liquid chromatography was used for analysis of nonflavonoid phenolics (gallic, benzoic, salicylic, syringic, caffeic, coumaric, and ferulic) and flavonoids (catechin, quercetin, and rutin). Volatiles were detected by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The results showed that CMF fermentation afforded higher antioxidant activity and phenolic content, especially individual polyphenolics. The total level of phenolics in the CMF wine was substantially higher than in traditional wines: 2953 mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/L for CMF wine vs. 1647 mg of GAE/L for traditional wine. A total of 53 kinds of volatile compounds were detected. Of these, 35 were detected in traditionally brewed wine and 46 in CMF fermented wine. Thus, CMF wine had a more complement volatile profile. The dominance of fruity and floral odor components derived from ethyl esters of fatty acids resulted in the indistinguishable aroma of TF and CMF wines. But, CMF wine had a more complicated aroma. The present results could complement existing theory on the processing of blackberry wines.

Keywords:

• Antioxidant
• Blackberry wine
• Carbonic maceration
• Phenolic
• Volatile compounds

View correction statement:

Erratum

Acknowledgments

We thank the Program of Special Fund for Agroscientific Research in the Public Interest “Processing Characteristics and Quality Evaluation of Staple Agricultural Commodities” (200903043), National Technology System for Grape Industry (nycytx-30-2p-04), State Forestry Administration 948 Project (2009-4-09) and Xi'an Agricultural Application Technology Research Projects (NC1003) for the generous financial support provided for this work.

Notes

^a and ^b significant difference at p < 0.05 by Duncan's test.

Note: m, total polyphenols (mg gallic acid L⁻¹ wines); n, Proanthocyanidin, total flavanols (mg catechin L⁻¹ wines); R, total flavonoids (mg rutin acid L⁻¹ wines); o, total anthocyanins (mg cyaniding-3-glycoside L⁻¹ wines). Values are means of triplicate determination ± SD.

^a and ^b significant difference at p < 0.05 by Duncan's test.

Note: The recovery of standard compounds added in the samples was between 95% and 101%, the relative standard deviation was within 4%.

LOD, limit of detection; LOQ, limit of quantitation.

Note: The data were mean values of triplicate samples (maximum SD: ± 10%).

^a and ^b significant difference at p < 0.05 by Duncan's test.

Note: Values represent means of triplicate determination ± SD.

^a DPPH, PFRAP, CUPRAC and NTSC expressed as mM trolox equivalents (TE).

^b HRSC and SRSA expressed as an inhibition in relation to a control test.

^c and ^d significant difference at p < 0.05 by Duncan's test.

Note: The data were mean values of triplicate samples (maximum SD: ±10%). -, not detected.

tR, detected but not quantified.

^a and ^b indicate significant difference at p < 0.05 by Duncan's test.

Note: The data were mean values of triplicate samples (maximum SD: ±10%).

^a Guth (1997). The matrix was a 10% water/ethanol solution.

^b Ferrier and others (2000). The matrix was a 11% water/ethanol solution containing 7 g/L glycerol and 5 g/L tartartic acid, with the pH adjusted to 3.4 with 1 M NaOH.

^c and ^d significant difference at p < 0.05 by Duncan's test.