Austrian Pinot blanc wines: Typicity, wine styles and the influence … · ethyl dodecanoate,...

BIO Web of Conferences 15, 02005 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20191502005

42nd World Congress of Vine and Wine

Austrian Pinot blanc wines: Typicity, wine styles and theinfluence of different oenological decisions on the volatileprofile of wines

C. Philipp, S. Sari, P. Eder, E. Patzl-Fischerleitner, and R. Eder

Höhere Bundeslehranstalt und Bundesamt für Wein- und Obstbau, Wienerstraße 74, 3400 Klosterneuburg, Austria

Abstract. Pinot blanc is found in all wine regions of Austria. However, it plays an economically subordinaterole compared to the most important white grape variety, Grüner Veltliner. The concept of wine typicityand terroir is that the geographical origin and oenological practices, along with the grape variety, make animportant contribution to the final expression of the finished wine. The purpose of this study was to discussdifferent styles of Austrian Pinot blanc wines and to discuss the various wine production decisions in terms ofwine stylistics and aromatic profile. 131 commercial Austrian wine samples of the Pinot blanc variety ofthe 2015 to 2017 vintages were collected and the manufacturer’s practices were determined by means of aquestionnaire related to the wine styles. Using various GC-SIM-MS methods, more than 100 essential volatilesubstances were quantified. A trained panel, an expert panel and consumers evaluated the wines based ontypicity and quality. 15 typical wines were then assessed on a sensory basis by means of predetermined aromaand wine styles. The four Austrian Pinot blanc wine styles previously discussed and presented by the sameauthors (citrus (1st style), green apple and green pear (2nd style), ripe yellow apple, quince, cooked pear, breadand honey notes (3rd style), as well as intensive oak notes (4th style)) were able to be partially reproduced bythe trained panel. The following three wine styles could be better understood by the consumers: fresh fruity(style A), complex aroma with or without moderate wood (style B) and lots of wood aroma (style C). Thesestyles (A–C) were able to withstand a sensory examination and a discriminant analysis by substance. Anoenological guideline could help the producers to achieve the respective style. Austria’s wine-growing areais probably too small and the importance of the Pinot blanc variety for the individual areas still too low tosupport the terroir concept for this grape variety.

1. Introduction

Pinot blanc is an old grape variety with some fans.Interestingly, it is experiencing an unexpected renaissancein Central Europe, especially in Germany, South Tyrol andAustria. In Austria, specialisations are to be found wherePinot blanc has now been approved as DAC (DistrictusAustriae Controllatus). Accordingly, the regions aroundthe Leithaberg and also the DAC areas in Styriaincreasingly deal with this old colour mutant of Pinot noir.In general, the distribution of the variety in Austria isrelatively even. This means that Pinot blanc can be foundeverywhere, but it is not the most important grape varietyanywhere and therefore plays an economically subordinaterole in comparison with Grüner Veltliner [1]. However,with a total cultivated area of 1,992 ha hectares, Austriais the third largest Pinot Blanc-producing country in theworld (14,834 hectares) [2].

The concept of wine typicity in terms of the terroir isof the opinion that the oenological practices, in additionto the grape variety and the geographical origin, makean important contribution to the final expression inthe finished wine [3]. There are only a few scientificpublications on the typicity of Pinot blanc wines andno papers that have dealt with the terroir for Pinotblanc production. Wines of this variety have always beenconsidered rich in content and long-lasting. The typical

aroma of Pinot blanc is described with pear, apple, quince,banana, apricot, caramel and citrus notes. For maturewines, bread flavours can be recognized. A longer bottlematuration allows the wine to gain in density and structure.The neutral aroma is considered to be less than trendyand the grape variety definitely does not have a youthfulimage [4]. Nevertheless, the wines tend to be in theupper quality and price range and are in great demand.In one study, 106 people (24 consumers, 34 winegrowers,48 official wine tasters) in Austria were asked aboutthe colour, flavour and taste characteristics of a typicalAustrian Pinot blanc. The results showed that the termsripe pomaceous fruit and nut flavours are most associatedwith Austrian Pinot blanc. For some wine categories, suchas the reserve, wood and vanilla flavours play a crucial role[5]. Controversially, German Pinot blanc wines are oftenassociated with the term pineapple [6]. Pinot blanc winesfrom South Tyrol are described with the flavour descriptorsapple, pear, citrus notes, green notes, occasionally quinceand exotic fruit, and in exceptional cases with spicy andnutty notes [7]. Furthermore, it was found that there is apositive correlation between wine quality, typicity and theperceived pear aroma of the Austrian Pinot blanc wines [8].The perceived pear aroma is difficult to describe, as thestudies [8–10] show. With the representation of sensory-analytical typograms of the pear aroma, a simple model forthe description of the pear aroma has been demonstrated

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).



and various influencing parameters on the composition ofthe typograms discussed [8–10].

Just as there are few papers on the typicity of Pinotblanc wines, there are even fewer scientific publicationson the theme of Pinot blanc wine styles. Only [11] havediscussed wine styles of typical Pinot blanc wines. The15 most typical wines from a total sample number of46 Pinot blanc of the 2016 vintage and Ausrian originwere evaluated by Napping®- method with 21 trainedexperts, 34 wine producers and 21 wine consumers.The results showed that the 15 wines were divided bythe panel members into 4 wine styles. Pinot blanc withthe descriptors ripe yellow fruit, bread, honey and briochewere grouped together. Furthermore, Pinot blanc clusteredwith green fruit flavours like green apple, green pear.As a third group Pinot blanc with citrus flavours wereclustered in a group. The fourth Pinot blanc style describedwere wines with vanilla, oak and or nut flavours. AKruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences (p <0.05) between these different styles in perceived overallquality, perceived typicity, total alcohol, ethyl hexanoate,ethyl octanoate, methyl (E) -2,6-octadienoate, methyl andethyl hexanoate content, ethyl decadienoate (isomers),ethyl dodecanoate, methyl vanillate, cis-whisky lactone,1-butanol, (z) -linalool oxide and diacetyl [11].

The aim of this study was to test whether thesefour wine styles proposed by [11] are sensorially andanalytically reproducible, or whether other to be definedwine styles are better suited for Austrian Pinot blancwines. Furthermore, the oenological decisions made by thecorresponding wine producers to achieve the wine styleswere evaluated. As [12] proposed describing the typicity ofwines both from the perspective of the producers and fromthe field of vision of the consumers, the typicity and styleof the Austrian Pinot blanc wines should be consideredfrom these poles in this paper.

2. Material and methods2.1. Samples

131 different Pinot blanc wines from the years 2015to 2017 were collected from a total of 64 wineriesin Austria. The wines came from all relevant wineregions in the federal states of Burgenland, Vienna, LowerAustria and Styria. Depending on the wine production,the Pinot blancs were sourced from the producers afterharvest from April to October and stored at 4 ◦C untilanalysis. The wines were described by the winemakersas typical of the variety and vintage. Metadata about thewines was then collected using an internet questionnaire(www.soscisurvey.de). A total of 13 questions wereasked about sugar content, maceration time, pressfractions, clarification variants, must finings, spontaneousfermentation, pure cultured yeast, fermentation tank,fermentation temperature, maturation choice, months ofyeast contact, barrel storage and filtration.

2.2. Sensory analyses

To discuss different wine styles, sensory experiments wereconducted with a consumer panel (n = 15) and a panel ofpeople trained for the specific issues (n = 12). In addition,an expert panel (n = 6) was available.

The trained taster panel consisted of 12 people aged 24to 46 years. Of these, 5 were female and 7 male, who wereinvolved in wine production, analysis and evaluation in avariety of ways in everyday life and in their profession.The tasters were employees of the Federal College andResearch Center of Viticulture and Pomology, studentsof agricultural science or oenology, employees of theUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences andwinegrowers. The training of the panel was carried out insix units of 1.5 hours, so that the parameters, that wereimportant for the assessment of the given wine styles,were imprinted. Possible Pinot blanc styles were furtherdiscussed in three units of 1.5 hours each.

The consumer panel consisted of 15 people who wereto correspond to an average wine consumer and were notfurther defined. The expert panel consisted of personsqualified to participate in official wine tasting and havemany years of experience in the sensory evaluation ofwines. They said they had some expertise in evaluation ofPinot blanc too. The consumer panel and the expert panelwere not given training.

The tasting sessions were held at the Federal Collegeand Research Center of Viticulture and Pomology inKlosterneuburg in accordance with the guidelines of anISO17025 accredited laboratory for quality wine testing.For the evaluation of the quality and typicity of thewines, the expert panel and the trained panel, but not theconsumer panel, were interviewed together. The qualitywas evaluated in five batches (each with a maximum of15 wines, anonymous and randomized) over two tastingsessions per year, according to a 20-point scheme, and theevaluation of the typicity of the wines using unstructuredscales (10 cm) in duplicate. The tastings took place in theautumn of the year following the harvest.

In the course of this study, only 5 typical wines peryear were supposed to be used for further sensory tests.The trained panel and the consumer had to rate 5 typicalwines of the three vintages (15 wines in total) with regardto the type of wine. This happened in autumn of 2018. Allwines were checked before tasting for any ageing defectsand replaced in case of abnormalities by the next rankedwine. This happened in 3 cases. In the evaluation of thewine styles, the vintages were not evaluated separately dueto their different maturity, but in three rounds, each with10 wines (mixed from the three vintages, also possibledouble nominations, randomized and anonymous). Eachtaster had to evaluate 30 wines. The tasters were invitedto taste one Pinot blanc after the other and then put themtogether in groups. They had to form at least 2 differentgroups but a maximum of 7 groups, whereby one winecould also be a group. Once the group formation had beencompleted, the trained panel had to label the groups createdand describe them using the given terms. The followingflavours were available: apricot, vineyard peach, greenapple, overripe/ripe apple, pear, walnut, almond, hazelnut,grapefruit, lemon, pineapple, banana, mango, figs, applecompote, elderflower, wild flowers, fresh grass, asparagus,vanilla, cinnamon, pepper, coconut, burnt sugar, honey,oak, burnt wood, bacon, leather, sauerkraut, yoghurt,biscuit, honey, fresh bread and chocolate. The consumerpanel only had to divide the groups into fruity and light,fruity and complex and complex with clear wood andvanilla notes.

2



2.3. Analytics

For the determination of the basic parameters of the wines,FT-IR analyses according to OIV/OENO Resolution390/2010 were carried out by means of a FOSS WineScan(FT 120 Reference Manual, Foss, Hamburg, Germany)[13].

Of the 15 selected wines, a total of 102 flavours ofthe aromatic group, esters, higher alcohols, carboxylicacids, carbonyl compounds, lactones, volatile phenols, freemonoterpenes and free C13-norisoprenoids were analysedin duplicate using 6 different GC-SIM-MS methods. Thecontent of decadienoic acid ethyl ester was determinedaccording to [9] by means of HS-SPME-GC-SIM-MS. Thequantification of the 14 relevant free monoterpenes wascarried out according [14]. In addition, 32 esters weredetermined by Stable Isotope Dilution Assay HeadspaceSolid-Phase Microextraction Gas Chromatography MassSpectroscopy (SIDA-HS-SPME-GC-MS). The methodwas developed by [15] especially for Pinot blancwines. [16] was used to quantify the C13-norisoprenoids(1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene, and vitispirane).The determination of the volatile phenols and lactoneswas carried out according to [17]. The determinationof the main quantitative flavourings such as relevanthigher alcohols, relevant short and mid-chain carboxylicacids, carbonyl compounds and ester compounds werecarried out by means of a partial SIDA-HS-SPME-GC-MS method. An Agilent Technologies 6890 N NetworkGC system, an Agilent 5975 Inert Mass SelectiveDetector (both Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara USA)and a CTC Analytics autosampler (Zwingen, Switzer-land) with a 65µm, polydimethyl-siloxane/divinylbenzene(PDMS/DVB), fused silica/SS fibre core (SUPLECO, PA,USA) fibre were used. 1 g salt (NaCl) was weighed intoa 20 ml vial and 2 ml milli-Q water added. Then 1 mlof the sample was pipetted to it. 50µl each of the threeinternal standard solutions (acid standard: butanoic acid-d7, hexanoic acid-d12, ester standard: ethylhexanaote-d5,ethyloctanoate-d5 and alcohol standard (butanol-d10 andhexanol-d13); in 2 butanone; nominal concentration 200µg/l) were pipetted to it. The sample was pre-incubated inthe autosampler unit (PAL) for one minute, then stirred atan incubation temperature of 30 ◦C with a magnetic stirrerat 500 rpm and extracted for 30 minutes. Subsequently,the fibre was injected into the gas chromatograph in“splitless mode” and the extracted sample was desorbedfor 35 minutes at 245 ◦C. The GC instrument parameterswere the same as in [18]. The samples were measuredin single-ion mode (SIM). The evaluation was madeusing the relative ratio of the peak area of the sampleto the peak area of the internal standard. The followingstandards were analysed and the m/z ratios used forthe quantification and the retention times are given inthe bracket: 1-propanol (31, RT: 9.312 min), isobutanol(42, RT: 11.487 min), isoamyl alcohol (70, RT: 16.825 min),1-butanol (56, RT: 13.888 min), (Z) -3-hexen-1-ol (82,RT: 24.817) diacetyl (43, RT: 6.932 min), ethyl lactate(45, RT: 22.875 min) ethyl acetate (61, RT: 4.687 min),ethyl propanoate (57, RT: 6.364 min), isovaleric acid(60, RT: 36.433 min), 1-hexanol (69: RT: 23.495 min),propionic acid (74, RT: 33.460 min), butyric acid (60, RT:35.203 min), hexanoic acid (60, RT: 42.868 min), octanoicacid (115, RT: 50.053 min), isobutyric acid (43, RT:

Table 1. Determined typicity, quality and origin of the wines usedfor the wine style evaluation, ranked according to the typicity.

No. Vintage Typicity Quality Wine region1 2015 8.4 15.6 Leithaberg2 2016 7.9 17.4 Kamptal7 2016 7.7 16.0 Klosterneuburg

11 2016 7.5 15,4 Wagram12 2017 7.5 15.6 Kamptal13 2016 7.4 15.9 Wachau8 2015 7.3 17.2 South Styria

14 2017 7.3 14.7 Leithaberg9 2017 7.2 16.2 Thermenregion6 2015 7.2 15.2 Weinviertel

10 2016 7.0 15.7 South Styria3 2016 6.9 15.3 Thermenregion

15 2015 6.9 13.9 South Styria4 2015 6.6 14.8 Weinviertel5 2017 6.4 15.0 Vienna

32.456 min), decanoic acid (129, RT: 56.551 min), diethylsuccinates (101, RT: 36.679 min) and benzyl alcohol (108,RT: 43.932 min).

2.4. Statistics

The statistical evaluation was done with SPSS 22.0(IBM, Armonk, USA). First, the data was subjected to adescriptive analysis and checked for normal distribution.The analytical data was not normally distributed. Themedian value was used as the central value. The flavouranalyses and basic parameters of the wines were subjectedto a common principal component analysis. The scatterand charge diagram were presented in the form of aPCA biplot representation and presents the percent ofthe covered variance of the scattering in the two axes.The diagram was further divided into four quadrants. Allanalytical data was used to calculate the first and secondfactors. The same statistical module was used for theevaluation of the sensory evaluation by the trained paneland the consumer panel as well as the evaluation of theonline questionnaire [19].

3. Results

3.1. Typicity and quality of the wines

In the course of the study, 131 Pinot blanc wines from theyears 2015 to 2017 were assessed by an expert commissionand a trained panel according to their typicity and overallquality. The average typicity of the 131 wines obtainedfrom both commissions varied from 1.83 to 8.41 ona 10 cm scale (0 not typical and 10 very typical) andthe overall quality from 9.73 (defective wine) to 17.44(excellent wine). There was a strong positive correlationbetween the results of the two commissions (r > 0.8),because of they were evaluated together. Table 1 shows thetypicity, quality and origin of the 15 typical wines selectedfor the evaluation of the wines. The alcohol content variedfrom 12.2 to 14.8% vol. The typicity of the wines wasgreater than 6.4 cm, the quality greater than 13.9 points.

3



Figure 1. Principal component analysis of the results of theflavour analyses and basic parameters of the 15 evaluated wines(1st quadrant top right, 2nd quadrant top left, 3rd quadrant bottomleft, 4th quadrant bottom right).

3.2. Results of the aroma analyses

102 volatile substances and some basic parameterswere analysed in the 15 wines used for the evaluation(Table 2–4). A statistical evaluation of the results wasachieved by means of principal component analysis(Fig. 1). It can be seen that wines 11, 13, 14 and 12cluster together in the first quadrant. These wines showedconcentrations higher than the median values for theamounts of the ethyl esters, methyl esters and isoamylesters. Also, the values for the volatile phenols and oaksubstances are greater than the median concentrations,although not due to high levels of vanillin. Wine 2 differsfrom the other wines in the high concentrations of volatilephenols and oak substances, especially vanillin. But it alsoshows high concentrations of ethyl esters, methyl estersand aromatic esters. Wines 10, 8 and 9 show high levelsof free monoterpenes and cluster together in the secondquadrant. Unlike the cluster in Quadrant 1, the wines inQuadrant 2 are heterogeneous in terms of concentrationsof esters and volatile phenols. Wine 9 has undergone acomplete malolactic fermentation, which is why the ethyllactate concentrations in this wine are very high comparedto wines 10 and 8. The wines of Quadrant 3 show low ethylester concentrations but are heterogeneous as far as thevolatile phenols and some other flavourings are concerned.Wines 3 and 15 show high ethyl acetate and diacetylconcentrations. On the basis of the lactic acid values,wines 5, 7, 4, 1, 3 and 15 show (results not presented) anincipient acid degradation or an acidification with lacticacid. Sample 5 had more residual sugar at 6 g/l than theother samples (



Tabl

e2.

Con

tent

(mea

nof

two

mea

sure

men

ts)

offr

eem

onot

erpe

nes,

high

eral

coho

ls,v

olat

ilefa

ttyac

ids

and

ethy

lest

ers

inth

e15

win

esst

udie

d.

Fre

em

onot

erpe

nes

(µg/

l)1

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

Med

ian

(Z)-

linal

oolo

xide

4.3

4.2

19.3

4.3

4.7

3.4

4.7

20.3

15.4

11.3

3.5

2.2

3.1

3.8

6.4

4.3

(E)-

linal

oolo

xide

1.6

2.6

6.6

1.5

1.7

1.4

1.2

7.9

4.3

4.0

1.4

1.5

1.7

1.5

2.9

1.7

Lin

aloo

l9.

812

.149

.77.

312

.27.

83.

557

.637

.040

.99.

04.

87.

88.

03.

09.

8H

otri

enol

5.8

5.0

20.0

7.0

5.3

7.3

4.0

73.3

33.0

52.5

3.7

3.7

10.4

5.0

11.8

7.0

(Z)-

rose

oxid

en.

d.0.

10.

1n.

d.0.

1n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.0.

10.

10.

10.

20.

1(E

)-ro

seox

ide

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

(E)-

limon

ene

oxid

en.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.B

eta-

terp

ineo

ln.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.N

erol

oxid

e0.

50.

51.

60.

40.

30.

60.

53.

92.

23.

00.

30.

40.

90.

41.

10.

5L

avan

dulo

ln.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.A

lpha

-ter

pine

ol4.

13.

734

.64.

87.

88.

27.

438

.727

.530

.66.

24.

16.

15.

013

.07.

4G

amm

a-te

rpin

eol

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

Ner

ol1.

71.

06.

11.

31.

96.

94.

17.

37.

79.

40.

90.

71.

30.

72.

81.

9C

itron

ello

l1.

01.

14.

93.

82.

25.

23.

95.

34.

45.

74.

63.

72.

15.

65.

14.

4G

eran

iol

12.6

19.9

23.3

19.3

22.1

11.5

9.9

22.3

17.8

25.7

31.6

23.9

32.2

33.9

25.6

22.3

Sum

free

mon

oter

pene

s(µ

g/l)

41.4

50.2

166.

249

.758

.352

.339

.223

6.6

149.

318

3.1

61.2

45.1

65.7

6471

.961

.2H

ighe

ral

coho

ls(m

g/l)

1-Pr

opan

ol34

.35

37.5

138

.81

34.2

523

.44

27.6

530

.29

29.4

148

.83

44.2

150

.84

31.0

627

.48

49.5

818

.23

34.2

5Is

obut

anol

22.5

637

.92

25.2

840

.16

35.2

032

.49

24.9

524

.97

19.2

519

.99

33.4

434

.85

31.1

732

.16

32.2

232

.16

Isoa

myl

alco

hol

145.

7015

7.50

159.

2017

9.10

125.

6015

5.00

101.

0013

2.60

121.

4014

8.50

163.

2011

6.70

147.

3018

8.90

104.

0014

7.36

1-B

utan

ol0.

170.

110.

120.

190.

140.

130.

130.

160.

330.

160.

360.

160.

150.

380.

090.

16(Z

)-3-

hexe

n-1-

ol0.

060.

080.

100.

110.

050.

080.

040.

130.

050.

090.

090.

110.

150.

110.

170.

091-

Hex

anol

1.66

0.88

1.80

0.66

0.44

2.35

0.73

1.54

1.78

3.08

1.00

1.40

1.57

1.29

0.99

1.40

Sum

high

eral

coho

ls(m

g/l)

204.

523

422

5.31

254.

4718

4.87

217.

715

7.14

188.

8119

1.64

216.

0324

8.93

184.

2820

7.82

272.

4215

5.70

207.

82Vo

latil

efa

ttyac

ids

(mg/

l)Pr

opan

oic

acid

1.30

0.87

0.80

2.36

1.08

1.47

1.87

1.08

1.96

1.75

1.23

1.20

1.95

1.57

1.99

1.47

But

yric

acid

0.96

1.03

0.93

1.02

0.44

1.01

1.90

1.91

1.05

1.06

1.82

1.72

0.23

2.10

1.82

1.05

Isob

utyr

icac

id1.

370.

680.

920.

900.

881.

171.

541.

750.

960.

921.

380.

961.

330.

601.

830.

96Is

oval

eric

acid

0.32

0.37

0.48

0.44

0.22

0.40

0.36

0.46

0.34

0.40

0.56

0.29

0.25

0.46

0.14

0.37

Hex

anoi

cac

id0.

291.

562.

622.

291.

332.

562.

533.

341.

821.

781.

491.

412.

021.

491.

161.

78O

ctan

oic

acid

5.37

6.29

3.95

5.16

5.41

3.53

4.42

6.06

3.33

3.70

6.13

5.67

6.86

3.84

6.95

5.37

Dec

anoi

cac

id0.

822.

316.

230.

903.

041.

091.

512.

861.

581.

042.

041.

942.

641.

852.

021.

94Su

mvo

lati

lefa

tty

acid

s(m

g/l)

10.4

313

.11

15.9

313

.07

12.4

11.2

314

.13

17.4

611

.04

10.6

514

.65

13.1

915

.28

11.9

115

.91

13.1

1E

thyl

este

rs(µ

g/l)

Eth

ylac

etat

e(m

g/l)

44.1

035

.50

78.4

051

.10

45.5

055

.70

76.2

037

.30

47.6

041

.90

29.1

037

.20

31.5

032

.80

88.9

037

.20

Eth

ylpr

opan

oate

197.

070

.010

6.0

84.0

153.

084

.087

.927

618

1.0

120.

373

.725

2.3

167.

923

2.7

328.

915

3.0

Eth

ylbu

tano

ate

397.

566

5.6

247.

147

0.9

498.

542

0.0

349.

052

9.9

257.

032

4.6

389.

054

2.8

523.

942

7.9

231.

342

0.0

Eth

ylis

oval

erat

e9.

113

.310

.010

.66.

613

.15.

718

.512

.812

.916

.512

.917

.710

.010

.712

.8E

thyl

vale

rate

0.9

0.9

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.4

0.6

1.1

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.9

1.0

1.2

0.7

0.8

Eth

ylhe

xano

ate

837.

610

79.8

485.

877

8.0

1129

.360

8.2

770.

783

5.8

561.

656

6.6

927.

277

8.8

1079

.981

5.3

550.

777

8.8

Eth

ylhe

ptan

oate

0.7

1.4

0.7

0.9

0.7

0.2

0.3

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.8

0.6

0.6

0.8

0.2

0.6

Eth

yloc

tano

ate

3655

.439

76.5

1673

.124

63.9

1843

.118

07.3

2056

.719

32.7

1908

.418

44.7

2687

.521

15.0

2719

.425

68.8

1550

.420

85.9

Eth

yldo

deca

noat

e71

.749

.119

.146

.263

.110

6.7

66.5

65.8

90.0

84.8

56.2

76.4

62.6

138.

266

.166

.1E

thyl

tetr

adec

anoa

te15

.816

.815

.413

.417

.014

.912

.711

.521

.014

.215

.815

.87.

118

.323

.715

.8E

thyl

hexa

deca

noat

e45

.352

.124

.538

.147

.714

.938

.530

.463

.642

.947

.833

.823

.966

.150

.042

.9E

thyl

deca

noat

e16

25.9

1516

.361

1.5

1239

.815

35.9

1761

.014

50.4

1494

.823

98.2

1616

.818

01.3

1743

.615

80.5

3186

.115

18.4

1580

.5Su

met

hyle

ster

sw

itho

utet

hyla

ceta

te68

56.9

7441

.831

93.6

5146

.452

95.5

4830

.748

39.0

5197

.154

95.0

4629

.060

16.5

5572

.961

84.5

7465

.443

31.1

5295

.5

5



Tabl

e3.

Con

tent

(mea

nof

two

mea

sure

men

ts)o

fthe

met

hyle

ster

s,is

oam

yles

ters

,aro

mat

ices

ters

,est

ers

ofun

satu

rate

dfa

ttyac

ids,

acet

ates

ofhi

gher

alco

hols

,mix

edan

dot

here

ster

sin

clud

ing

med

ian

valu

ein

the

15w

ines

stud

ied.

Met

hyle

ster

s(µ

g/l)

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

Med

ian

Met

hyli

sova

lera

te<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1M

ethy

lhex

anoa

te1.

31.

31.

20.

71.

20.

60.

61.

11.

00.

92.

01.

52.

81.

50.

71.

2M

ethy

loct

anoa

te0.

90.

80.

70.

60.

90.

50.

81.

01.

30.

91.

00.

91.

70.

90.

40.

9M

ethy

ldec

anoa

te0.

80.

50.

40.

40.

60.

70.

81.

11.

91.

41.

00.

91.

51.

20.

50.

8M

ethy

ldod

ecan

oate

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

Met

hylt

etra

deca

noat

e<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1Su

mm

ethy

lest

ers

(µg/

l)3.

02.

62.

31.

72.

71.

82.

23.

24.

23.

24.

03.

36.

03.

61.

63.

0Is

oam

yles

ters

(µg/

l)Is

oam

ylac

etat

e23

02.5

1689

.583

0.2

1147

.325

70.9

1488

.198

6.1

2975

.321

16.0

1634

.021

03.7

1737

.221

82.6

2548

.944

1.2

1737

.2Is

oam

ylbu

tano

ate

0.2

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.4

Isoa

myl

isov

aler

ate

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

Isoa

myl

hexa

noat

e2.

73.

01.

42.

62.

91.

61.

51.

91.

81.

81.

81.

52.

32.

21.

01.

8Is

oam

yloc

tano

ate

1.9

3.5

1.3

2.6

1.9

2.7

3.4

4.0

2.4

2.5

4.9

5.4

6.7

11.1

3.9

3.4

Sum

isoa

myl

este

rs(µ

g/l)

2307

.316

96.5

833.

411

5325

76.1

1492

.899

1.4

2981

.621

20.6

1638

.721

1117

44.7

2192

.325

62.6

446.

417

44.7

Aro

mat

ices

ters

(µg/

l)E

thyl

benz

oate

0.2

0.4

0.2

0.2

0.8

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.3

Hex

ylph

enyl

acet

ate

0.7

0.4

2.2

0.5

1.0

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.7

0.4

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.9

0.6

Eth

ylsa

licyl

ate

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

n.d.

Eth

ylph

enyl

acet

ate

0.9

5.0

1.7

2.0

1.2

0.6

0.6

2.4

1.2

1.0

1.3

2.0

2.3

2.2

1.3

1.3

Sum

arom

atic

este

rs(µ

g/l)

1.8

5.8

4.1

2.7

3.0

1.4

1.4

3.3

2.2

1.8

1.8

2.6

2.9

2.8

2.5

2.6

Est

ers

from

unsa

tura

ted

acid

s(µ

g/l)

Eth

yl(E

)-2-

dece

noat

en.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.n.

d.E

thyl

(E,Z

)-2,

4-de

cadi

enoa

te1.

81.

61.

61.

01.

61.

00.

30.

80.

30.

40.

10.

20.

20.

20.

20.

4H

ighe

ral

coho

lace

tate

s(µ

g/l)

Isob

utyl

acet

ate

113.

415

2.8

47.1

150.

711

7.1

124.

710

0.3

160.

311

3.0

157.

710

2.7

63.0

57.3

77.8

36.3

113.

02-

Met

hylb

utyl

acet

ate

324.

849

.323

.060

.759

.611

9.1

78.9

238.

016

9.3

130.

722

5.6

109.

611

1.4

138.

743

.311

1.4

Hex

ylac

etat

e28

4.2

192.

365

.626

1.8

140.

917

7.3

36.5

216.

414

6.9

410.

823

6.3

168.

219

1.7

148.

939

.817

7.3

Oct

ylac

etat

e0.

51.

30.

71.

00.

51.

31.

21.

31.

51.

71.

71.

42.

11.

80.

91.

3Su

mhi

gher

alco

hola

ceta

tes

(µg/

l)72

2.9

395.

713

6.4

474.

231

8.1

422.

421

6.9

616

430.

770

0.9

566.

334

2.2

362.

536

7.2

120.

339

5.7

Mix

edan

dot

her

este

rs(µ

g/l)

Isob

utyl

prop

iona

te27

.063

.79.

520

.46.

123

.110

.029

.222

.722

.815

.322

.025

.117

.314

.822

.0B

utyl

isob

utan

oate

0.4

0.0

0.0

0.1

0.0

0.3

0.3

0.7

0.8

0.5

0.6

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.3

0.3

Pent

ylbu

tano

ate

0.1

0.3

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.3

0.2

Hex

ylis

obut

anoa

te0.

20.

20.

10.

20.

30.

20.

30.

30.

20.

20.

40.

40.

50.

30.

30.

3Pr

opyl

isov

aler

ate

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

But

ylbu

tano

ate

15.1

15.5

12.0

17.0

12.0

11.8

11.8

13.1

13.2

12.2

11.8

11.8

12.0

12.1

13.0

12.1

Prop

yloc

tano

ate

1.3

0.8

0.7

0.9

1.5

0.6

0.9

1.2

2.2

1.6

1.7

1.2

1.2

2.1

0.4

1.2

Isob

utyl

octa

noat

e0.

30.

70.

20.

40.

20.

80.

71.

01.

00.

60.

50.

80.

71.

10.

70.

7E

thyl

lact

ate

1496

5.0

3428

6.0

3438

9.0

1798

9.0

1419

6.0

8610

.010

0350

.096

10.0

1720

40.0

1026

0.0

1295

5.0

1477

5.0

1189

0.0

1354

5.0

6968

0.0

1419

6.0

Die

thyl

succ

inat

e12

14.0

2173

.014

33.0

1127

.091

3.0

2240

.017

60.0

1160

.019

60.0

1640

.023

44.0

2088

.019

36.0

1072

.046

08.0

1760

.0Su

mm

ixed

and

othe

res

ters

(µg/

l)16

223.

436

540.

235

844.

619

155.

215

129.

310

887

1021

34.2

1081

5.7

1740

40.4

1193

8.1

1532

9.5

1689

9.8

1386

614

650.

674

317.

815

992.

8

6



Tabl

e4.

Con

tent

(mea

nof

two

mea

sure

men

ts)

ofC

13-n

oris

opre

noid

s,ca

rbon

ylco

mpo

unds

,vol

atile

phen

ols

and

lact

ones

inth

e15

win

esst

udie

d.

C13

-non

oris

opre

noid

sµ

g/l)

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

Med

ian

Viti

spir

ane

1.1

1.6

3.8

0.8

0.5

0.8

1.1

0.4

0.9

1.3

0.8

2.2

4.4

0.8

0.6

0.9

1,1,

6-T

rim

ethy

l-1,

2-di

hydr

onap

htha

lene

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.5

0.1

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

0.9

0.4

0.1

0.4

Sum

C13

-nor

isop

reno

ids

(µg/

l)1.

52.

24.

61.

10.

81.

11.

60.

51.

31.

71.

22.

75.

31.

20.

71.

3C

arbo

nylc

ompo

unds

(µg/

l)D

iace

tyl

780.

019

9.0

754.

085

5.0

257.

060

1.0

616.

073

6.0

404.

062

9.0

319.

027

4.0

596.

024

8.0

927.

060

1.0

Vola

tile

phen

ols

and

lact

ones

µg/

l)Fu

rfur

al15

6.2

511.

919

7.6

80.7

37.4

191.

313

9.0

96.9

141.

616

5.3

355.

224

4.7

613.

231

1.1

80.0

165.

35-

Met

hylf

urfu

ral

1.2

8.3

1.7

0.4

0.4

1.9

1.4

1.3

1.4

1.7

1.7

1.3

6.7

3.6

1.3

1.4

o-C

reso

l0.

40.

80.

31.

30.

50.

61.

30.

50.

81.

70.

60.

40.

40.

30.

40.

5m

/p-C

reso

liso

mer

1.9

3.6

1.2

1.3

1.3

0.9

2.9

1.1

0.3

1.9

0.9

1.1

1.4

1.2

0.7

1.2

Gua

iaco

l1.

36.

80.

71.

52.

24.

63.

32.

62.

54.

71.

71.

50.

91.

22.

02.

04-

Met

hylg

uaia

col

<0.

12.

0<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.5

0.2

0.2

0.7

0.1

0.1

0.3

0.0

0.2

4-E

thyl

guai

acol

0.4

2.7

0.3

0.3

0.3

0.1

0.8

1.0

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.0

0.1

0.1

0.3

(E)-

whi

sky

lact

one

0.2

1.2

0.8

0.1

0.8

0.8

0.8

1.5

0.9

0.7

2.1

1.2

1.3

1.3

0.7

0.8

5-A

ceto

xym

ethy

l-2-

fura

ldeh

yde

30.5

19.3

30.4

11.3

23.2

17.6

10.1

12.6

12.0

17.5

24.6

17.1

27.1

9.4

18.5

17.6

4-V

inyl

guai

acol

85.8

171.

184

.214

7.2

180.

314

6.3

145.

611

8.5

105.

219

7.7

124.

816

4.5

117.

676

.454

.612

4.8

(Z)-

whi

sky

lact

one

1.7

2.0

2.1

1.8

1.0

2.5

1.0

3.3

2.8

1.1

2.8

0.2

2.1

0.5

0.9

1.8

2,6-

Dim

etho

xyph

enol

2.0

23.7

1.2

2.5

3.6

0.7

1.4

0.7

1.3

0.6

4.1

3.9

2.4

2.8

2.9

2.4

Eug

enol

0.7

2.7

3.8

1.1

0.9

0.8

0.9

0.8

2.3

1.4

1.5

0.7

1.0

0.7

3.2

1.0

2-M

etho

xy-4

-pro

pylp

heno

l<

0.1

0.3

<0.

10.

3<

0.1

0.3

0.6

0.5

0.3

0.4

<0.

10.

3<

0.1

<0.

1<

0.1

0.3

Van

illin

11.7

136.

621

.510

.111

.722

.015

.919

.527

.310

.527

.015

.725

.053

.714

.219

.5(Z

)-is

oeug

neol

2.6

11.1

7.4

7.0

4.8

5.8

4.1

3.3

5.4

4.1

9.1

13.3

12.5

6.5

7.2

6.5

(E)-

isoe

ugen

ol0.

53.

31.

01.

30.

80.

30.

40.

30.

30.

21.

10.

80.

50.

80.

50.

5E

thyl

vani

llin

0.2

0.2

1.6

0.2

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.7

1.7

1.4

1.3

1.3

4.1

0.5

Ace

tova

nillo

ne17

.343

.628

.319

.919

.818

.720

.929

.115

.038

.735

.733

.942

.524

.912

.424

.9D

elta

-dec

alac

tone

4.5

4.4

3.1

5.3

4.9

5.2

3.1

4.0

2.9

3.0

4.8

6.1

6.3

4.9

2.5

4.5

Met

hylv

anill

ate

9.3

9.1

9.9

9.3

8.1

10.2

6.3

11.4

6.7

22.9

21.7

18.1

20.7

15.9

5.9

9.9

4-H

ydro

xy-3

-met

hoxy

phen

ylac

eton

e1.

06.

80.

60.

91.

72.

81.

42.

11.

31.

76.

30.

70.

73.

11.

11.

4E

thyl

vani

llate

7.6

19.8

7.5

7.7

21.5

5.4

5.2

6.6

6.5

10.1

34.5

34.0

31.0

41.5

13.7

10.1

4-A

llyl-

2,6-

dim

etho

xyph

enol

0.6

5.6

0.9

1.1

2.6

1.0

0.9

1.0

0.5

0.8

3.6

1.5

2.0

3.0

0.9

1.0

Syri

ngal

dehy

de12

1.5

75.8

25.8

36.3

29.8

107.

870

.023

.065

.261

.514

1.6

86.0

130.

017

6.6

70.3

70.3

Ace

tosy

ring

one

6.0

36.4

6.7

5.7

5.9

10.3

7.0

6.2

8.2

12.7

28.7

14.1

20.7

22.2

16.0

10.3

Sum

vola

tile

phen

ols

and

lact

ones

(µg/

l)46

5.1

1109

.143

8.6

354.

636

455

8.6

445.

134

8.8

411.

756

1.9

836.

766

2.8

1067

.476

3.3

314.

146

5.1

7



Figure 2. Principal component analysis of sensory evaluationaccording to aromatic wine style by means of a trained panel(1st quadrant top right, 2nd quadrant top left, 3rd quadrant bottomleft, 4th quadrant bottom right).

Figure 3. Principal component analysis of sensory evaluationaccording to aromatic wine style by means of a consumer panel.

with maceration periods between 2 and 6 h and 6.7% ofthe wines had a maceration time of more than 10 h. Only33% of the wines contained press fractions from pressingsabove 1.2 bar. 40% of the operations sedimented the mustswithout enzyme and 20% by flotation. 20% of the mustswere not fined, however, only 6.7% of the musts werefined with combined products. 73.3% of the wines werefermented with pure cultured yeast, but only one winewas completely fermented spontaneously, the remainingwines were vinified combined. A wide variety of standardwhite wine yeasts (20%), special burgundy yeasts (46.7%)and other yeasts were used. No operation used yeasts torelease monoterpenes from sugar-bound precursors (aromayeasts). Only 20% of the wines were cleared quickly afterfermentation, the remaining wines were aged on the yeast,with 46.7% of the wines even having yeast contact timeslonger than 6 months. 33.3% of the wines were aged only

in stainless steel tanks and only one wine 100% in smalloak barrels. 3 wines were not filtered sterile.

The wines in the first quadrant generally had highersugar content, the maceration time was longer, and theyeast contact was more intense. Fermentation and storageof the wines took place in stainless steel tanks. The winesin the fourth quadrant were aged in wood. Wine 2 was alsofermented in wood. The vinification of wine 15 differedfrom all other wines in that it fermented spontaneously, andthe fermentation temperature was higher, and the wine wasnot sterilized. In wine 10, a combined fining was carriedout in the must. Wine 9 and wine 2 had a complete aciddecay. For the remaining wines, there were no distinctiveabnormalities. Standard yeasts were used, the fermentationtemperature was moderate, and no wood was traditionallyused in the vinification.

4. InterpretationIn the course of this study, wines from the Pinot blancvarieties of the 2015 to 2017 vintages were tested tofind out whether the wine styles proposed by [11] (citrus(1st style), green apple and green pear (2nd style), ripeyellow apple, quince, cooked pear, bread and honey notes(3rd style), as well as intense oak notes (4th style)) aresensorially and analytically reproducible. Typicity wasconsidered by consumers, producers and wine experts. Itwas found that the four wine styles proposed by [11]could be partially recreated, but several gradations andtransitions between the styles existed, so that an absolutedistinction, with the exception of strong oak-maturedwines, was even difficult with a trained panel. The resultsof the consumer study showed that a distinction intothree groups fruity and light, fruity and complex, complexwood vanilla was more understood, but some incorrectassignments also happened here. On the other hand, theevaluation of the analytical results and the questionnaireafter the oenological decisions showed that the fruity andcomplex group also made it possible to include somewood aromas (partial ageing in oak barrels). Thus, thethree proposed wine styles, which were also understood byconsumers, could be named as follows: fresh fruity (styleA), complex aroma with or without moderate wood (styleB) and lots of wood aroma (style C). Of course, there werefine gradations between these types of wine. In connectionwith the analytical data and the data of the trained panel,it can thus be stated that wine 2 belongs to the complexaroma with lots of wood group, wines 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13,14 to the group complex aroma with or without moderatewood and wines 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 to freshlyfruity group. These styles (A–C) were able to withstanda discriminant analysis by substance (Fig. 4) and a sensoryexamination (Figs. 5 and 6).

By interviewing the winegrowers and collectingmetadata for the vinification of the wines, one ofthem wanted to establish a direct connection betweenwinegrowers’ decisions on the aromatic profile of thewines and, finally, membership of a defined wine style.

Due to the many choices and obviously greatvariability in the oenological processes, this connectionwas only partially successful. Sample 2 was 100%fermented in new oak and stored in oak, which is whymembership of style C, lots of wood aroma is clearlyreproducible. Wine 15 was fermented spontaneously at

8



Figure 4. Main component analysis of metadata collection:(sugar graduation (numeric in month); time of skin contact(ordinal: 0 whole-bunch pressing, 1: very short time skin contact,2: short skin contact (less than 2 hours), 3: moderate skin contact(2–5 hours), 4: long skin contact (5–10 hours), press fractions(ordinal: 1: only free run, 2: press fraction to 1.2 bar pressure,3: press fractions more than 1.2 bar included), child of mustclarification (ordinal: 0: no clarification, 1: natural sedimentationwithout addition of enzyme, 2: sedimentation with addition ofenzyme, 3: flotation), must finning (ordinal: 0: no must finning,1: addition of gelatine based products, 2: addition of caseinbased products, 3: combination of different finning products ormixed products); fermentation style (ordinal: 1: use of 100%commercial yeast, 2: part of the 3: after starting spontaneousfermentation commercial yeasts were added, 4: spontaneousfermentation); kind of yeast (ordinal: 1: standard white wineyeast (neutral), 2: special yeasts for Pinot blanc wines, 3: aromayeasts, 4: no yeast was added); fermentation vessel ordinal: 1:stainless steel, 2: combination of oak and stainless steel, 3: oak);fermentation temperature (1: cold fermentation (below 18 ◦C),2: moderate temperature (between 18 ◦C and 21 ◦C), 3: warmfermentation (above 21 ◦C)); vinification style (ordinal: 1: quickclarification after fermentation; 2: storage on the lees; 3: storageon the whole lees); month of sur lie (ordinal: 0: there is no storageon the lees, 1: short contact with lees (less than 2 months), 3:storage on the lees for 3 months, 4: long storage on the lees for 6months, 5: very long storage on the lees (more than 6 months));ageing on oak (ordinal: 0: no oak at all, 1: part of the wine inor on oak, 2: 100% of wine in or on oak); filtration (ordinal: 1:sterile filtration, 2: no sterile filtration).

higher temperatures. Due to the higher ethyl acetateconcentration (Table 2), the overall fruitiness of the wine islikely to have increased. This connection is ambivalent. Atlow starting concentrations there is a positive correlationwith the quality, if a limit is exceeded (depending onthe type of wine, between 100–200 mg/l), a noticeableacetone smell leads to negative evaluations in the caseof tastings [21]. In contrast, wine 8, also with high ethylacetate concentrations, which was also numbered amongthe fruity wines, but was fermented with commercial whitewine yeasts. What connects the wines of the categoryfruity in general is short to no yeast contact times. Witha few exceptions (samples 11 and 12), the complex aromawith or without moderate wood wines had yeast contactafter fermentation, higher sugar content, longer maceration

Figure 5. New wine styles (sensory data, consumer evaluation) –green: fresh fruity (style A), black: comples aroma with orwithout moderate wood (style B) and blue: lots of wood aroma(style C), without statistical evaluation of the style boundaries.

Figure 6. New wine styles (sensory data, trained panelevaluation) – green: fresh fruity (style A: green apple, grapefruit,lemon), black: complex aroma with or without moderate wood(style B: pineapple, ripe apple, apricot, pear, walnut, maybe a bitoak and vanilla) and blue: lots of wood aroma (style C: vanilla,oak, bacon, cinnamon), without statistical evaluation of the styleboundaries.

times and, as already discussed, in some cases a partialstorage in wooden casks.

5. ConclusionThe selections of 15 typical Pinot blanc wines fromthe years 2015 to 2017 were grouped along the samelines as their aromatic profile and sensory evaluation inthree wine categories: fresh fruity (style A), complex

9



Figure 7. New wine styles (analytical data) – green: freshfruity (style A: higher concentration of free monoterpenes, ethylacetate), black: complex aroma with or without moderate wood(style B: higher concentration of middle and long chain ethylesters) and blue: lots of wood aroma (style C: high concen-tration of vanillin), without statistical evaluation of the styleboundaries.

aroma with or without moderate wood (style B) and lotsof wood aroma (style C). Austria is a small but veryheterogeneous wine region. The terroir concept has alreadybeen implemented differently for some grape varietiessuch as Grüner Veltliner, Riesling and Blaufränkisch insome areas. However, Austria’s wine-growing area isprobably too small and the importance of the Pinot blancvariety for the individual areas still too low to supportthe terroir concept for this grape variety. Which is whythe proposed or another style profiling for the Pinotblanc producers could also be a first step towards bettermarketing and better consumer understanding. It should benoted at this point that the proposals for the style definitionhave been discussed with a relatively small number ofsamples in the course of this academic paper, so furtherstudies and evaluations would be useful. It is necessaryto further research on the question of which flavorscharacterize the respective wine style. An oenologicalguideline can help the producers to achieve the respectivestyle. Further research work should be invested in this tasktoo.

We would like to thank the many people who took part in thesensory evaluations on a voluntary basis. This is especially truefor the 12 people of the trained tasting panel, who invested a lot oftime. We would also like to thank the wine producers who madetheir wines available for free.

References

[1] F. Regner, C. Philipp, M. Reichl, B. Zöch,R. Hack, N. Prammer, A. Rockenbauer, Poster at XIIInternational Conference on Grapevine Breeding andGenetics (2018)

[2] Deutsches Weininstitut, Deutscher Wein: Statistik2017/2018 (2019)

[3] I. Maitre, R. Symoneaux, F. Jourjon, E. Mehinagic,Food Qual. Prefer. 21, 726 (2010)

[4] R. Steurer, Weißer Burgunder: ÖsterreichischerWeinführer Band 1 Weinkultur (2002)

[5] C. Philipp, Der Winzer 9, 18 (2018)[6] U. Perkmann, A. Ba, A. Produktion und Vermarktung

von Weißburgunder – Umfrage bei den Produzentenin Deutschland, Österreich und Italien (WIFOBericht 2016)

[7] U. Pedri, G. Pertoll, Mitt Klosterneuburg 63, 173(2013)

[8] C. Philipp, P. Eder, W. Brandes, F. Regner,E. Patzl-Fischerleitner, E.R. Eder, BIO Web ofConferences 9, 02033 (2017)

[9] C. Philipp, P. Eder, W. Brandes,E. Patzl-Fischerleitner, R. Eder, J. Food Qual.(2018)

[10] C. Philipp, P. Eder, H. Scheiblhofer, R. Eder,R. Mitt, Klosterneuburg 68, 258 (2018)

[11] C. Philipp, S. Sari, S. Nauer, W. Brandes,E. Patzl-Fischerleitner, R. Eder. Poster at OIVCongress in Uruguay (2018)

[12] G. Giraud, Complément to the paper presented toINRA-INAO « terroir & typicité » group in, 1–3(2003)

[13] Organisation für Rebe und Wein: OIV/OENOResolution 390/2010 (2010)

[14] H. Michlmayr, S. Nauer, W. Brandes, C. Schümann,K. Kulbe, M. Andrés, R. Eder, Food Chem 135, 80(2012)

[15] C. Philipp, S. Nauer, S. Sari, P. Eder, E. Patzl-Fischerleitner, R. Eder, Mitt Klosterneuburg 69 (inprint)

[16] R. Gök, Einfluss von Hefen auf die glykosidischgebundenen Aromavorstufen und Untersuchungenzur Vermeidung der TDN-Fehlnote in Riesling(Dissertation an der TU Braunschweig 2015)

[17] W. Brandes, S. Wendelin, R. Eder, MittKlosterneuburg 52, 97 (2002)

[18] C. Ortega, R. Lopez, J. Cacho, V. Ferreira, J. Chrom.A 923, 205 (2001)

[19] E. J. Candès, X. Li, Y. Ma, J. Wright, JACM 58, 11(2011)

[20] C.C. Valente, Understanding South African CheninBlanc Wine by Using Data Mining TechniquesApplied to Published Sensory Data (2016)

[21] R. Eder, W. Brandes, Weinanalyse im eigenenBetrieb: Grundparameter: Grundlagen, Methoden,Richtwerte (2003)

10

1 Introduction2 Material and methods3 Results4 Interpretation5 ConclusionReferences

Austrian Pinot blanc wines: Typicity, wine styles and the influence … · ethyl dodecanoate,...

Documents

Transcript of Austrian Pinot blanc wines: Typicity, wine styles and the influence … · ethyl dodecanoate,...