The Role of Potent Thiols in “Empyreumatic” Flint/Struck-Match/Mineral Odours in Chardonnay Wine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims. A wide range of Chardonnay styles exist on the market, from fruit-forward examples to wines displaying “empyreumatic” aromas such as flint, smoky, mineral, and struck-match. The thiols 2-furylmethanethiol and phenylmethanethiol have been linked to these aromas, and this study aimed to determine the contribution of these compounds to specific sensory properties in Chardonnay wines, as well as the consumer acceptance of wine displaying “empyreumatic” aromas. Methods and Results. Twenty-four Australian and New Zealand Chardonnay wines were selected for volatile analysis and quantitative sensory descriptive analysis. Consumer liking of a subset of six wines was also determined, and a further sensory study involving additions of the thiols to a base wine was conducted. Partial least squares regression showed that flint/struck-match/mineral aromas were related to 2-furylmethanethiol concentration with phenylmethanethiol less well associated. The odorant addition study confirmed that 2-furylmethanethiol directed flint/struck-match/mineral aromas and exerted strong suppression of other aromas while phenylmethanethiol played a lesser role. Consumer acceptance (n = 92) was overall lower for wines displaying high flint/struck-match/mineral aromas, although cluster analysis of the liking scores identified a sizeable consumer group (33%) who preferred wines with this attribute. Conclusions. The potent thiol 2-furylmethanethiol was indicated to be the primary contributor to flint/struck-match/mineral aromas in Chardonnay wines, with phenylmethanethiol playing a subordinate role. Significance of the Study. Increased concentration of 2-furylmethanethiol and the conferred “empyreumatic” odours should be carefully considered when producing wine styles to appeal to consumers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".