The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of Aroma Volatiles in Commercial Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon Wines Using Gas Chromatography−Olfactometry and Gas Chromatography−Mass Spectrometry
Abstract
Seventy-four aroma active compounds were observed in Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon wines produced in California and Australia. Volatiles were sampled using solid phase microextraction and analyzed using time-intensity gas chromatography-olfactometry and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The most intense odorants were 3-methyl-1-butanol, 3-hydroxy-2-butanone, octanal, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl 2-methylbutanoate, beta-damascenone, 2-methoxyphenol, 4-ethenyl-2-methoxy-phenol, ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, acetic acid, and 2-phenylethanol. Aroma compounds were classified according to their aroma descriptor similarity and summed into nine distinct categories consisting of fruity, sulfury, caramel/cooked, spicy/peppery, floral, earthy, pungent/chemical, woody, and green/vegetative/fatty. Both Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon wines were characterized by high fruity, caramel, green, and earthy aroma totals. Although there were distinct quantitative differences between Merlot and Cabernet wines, the relative aroma category profiles of the four wines were similar. Of the 66 volatiles identified by GC-MS, 28 were esters and 19 were minor alcohols. Between 81 and 88% of the total MS total ion chromatogram peak areas from each wine type were produced from only eight compounds: ethanol, ethyl octanoate, ethyl decanoate, ethyl acetate, 3-methyl-1-butanol, ethyl hexanoate, diethyl succinate, and 2-phenylethanol. Merlot wines from both Australia and California contained 4-5 times more ethyl octanoate than Cabernet Sauvignon wines from the same sources.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Escudero, A., Campo, E., Fariña, L., Cacho, J., & Ferreira, V. (2007) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jf0636418 · Cited by 615
Nature’s Chemical Signatures in Human Olfaction: A Foodborne Perspective for Future Biotechnology
Dunkel, A., Steinhaus, M., Kotthoff, M., Nowak, B., Krautwurst, D., Schieberle, P., & Hofmann, T. (2014) · Angewandte Chemie International Edition · doi:10.1002/anie.201309508 · Cited by 549
Sun, S. Y., Jiang, W. G., & Zhao, Y. P. (2011) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.01.039 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Gürbüz, O., Rouseff, J. M., & Rouseff, R. L.
- Venue
- Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2006-05-01
- Volume
- 54
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 3990-3996
- ISSN
- 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5118
- OpenAlex
- W2065670578
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Aroma Volatiles in Commercial Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon Wines Using Gas Chromatography−Olfactometry and Gas Chromatography−Mass Spectrometry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jf053278p
- The paper
- Gürbüz, O., Rouseff, J. M., & Rouseff, R. L. (2006). Comparison of Aroma Volatiles in Commercial Merlot and Cabernet Sauvignon Wines Using Gas Chromatography−Olfactometry and Gas Chromatography−Mass Spectrometry. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf053278p
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.