Influence of different storage containers on chemical and sensory fingerprint of Pinot blanc and Griiner Veltliner wines

Discussions about choosing the right storage container for wine production have increased again in recent years. Stainless steel and wood are the most common materials, but some wine producers think about alternatives, such as various concrete eggs, amphoras or granite casks. There are several scientific papers dealing with individual influencing factors of the different containers on the chemical and sensory fingerprint of wines. However, there are only a few studies comparing several different container materials. Therefore the aim of this work was to characterize the chemical and sensory fingerprints of wines, which were matured in different common (stainless steel, wood) and alternative (amphora, concrete eggs, glazed clay barrel, granite barrel) containers. For the study, grape must of the variety 'Gruner Veltliner' (vintage 2016) and the variety 'Pinot blanc' (vintage 2017) were vinified in the different containers under standardized conditions. After storage for 12 months in the containers, and another 4 (Pinot blanc') or 15 (Gruner Veltliner') months in the bottle, the wines were analyzed for more than 150 substances, including 102 volatiles, 22 phenols and 15 elements and sensorily characterized by Napping (R) method. Apart from the storage in new wood, the other wines clustered in a heat map analogous to their grape variety and not analogous to container choice (granite cask, used wooden barrel, concrete egg and amphora). There were some significant differences in the aroma and phenol composition between the various types of wine, but only a few indications for the different storage containers, including higher levels of aluminum in the amphorae wine and higher levels of iron in granite cask wines. As expected the volatile profile was most strongly influenced by wood barrel storage. For example, in the variant new wood, the Odor Activity Value (OAV) limit of 1 (detected concentration higher than perception threshold) was exceeded for the volatile substances (Z)-whiskylactone, vanillin, eugenol, 5-methylfurfural and guaiacol and increased in the variants "used wood" compared to the other containers. Nevertheless, a descriptive evaluation of the wine aroma (nasal and retronasal) showed that a distinction of the variety failed. In contrast the familiar wood flavors were recognized easily by the panel. The differences between the wines were too low to be perceived sensorily. In summary, the influence of the container on the wine 's composition was lower than the influence of the starting product, although the wine making was the same, except for the container choice and the starting product.