宁夏贺兰山东麓不同产区赤霞珠干红葡萄酒品质分析

范瑾1,郑兰香2,操敏1,李明1*

1(宁夏大学 葡萄酒与园艺学院,宁夏 银川,750021)2(宁夏大学 生态环境学院,宁夏 银川,750021)

摘 要 为探究贺兰山东麓赤霞珠干红葡萄酒风格特征及筛选影响其品质的土壤因子,以4个产区12个葡萄园的葡萄酒及土壤为材料,测定其葡萄酒理化指标、香气成分,土壤养分状况和胞外酶活性,并应用顶空固相微萃取-气相色谱质谱联用(headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry,HS-SPME-GC-MS)、多元回归分析、正交偏最小二乘判别分析(orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis,OPLS-DA)等方法,对葡萄酒特征香气成分进行分析。结果表明,12款酒样均符合干红葡萄酒国家标准,其中,永宁产区酒精度、残糖和总酚含量较高,镇北堡产区可滴定酸含量较高,青铜峡产区游硫和单宁含量较高,红寺堡产区花色苷含量较高。感官分析发现,所有酒样清澈透亮且呈宝石红色,色调也基本一致,镇北堡和永宁产区酒样香气和口感得分较高,均处于“很好”水平。同时利用HS-SPME-GC-MS技术对酒样中的挥发性香气成分进行提取分析,共检测出64种挥发性化合物,包括酯类22种、高级醇类18种、脂肪酸6种、醛酮类7种、类异戊二烯类7种。不同葡萄园的赤霞珠干红葡萄酒可通过OPLS-DA实现有效区分,在OPLS-DA结果的基础上通过变量投影重要性(variable importance in projection,VIP)值从GC-MS中筛选出14种关键香气物质,结合香气活力值(odor activity value,OAV)分析发现,4-萜烯醇和2-甲氧基-3-异丁基吡嗪是贺兰山东麓赤霞珠干红葡萄酒中贡献最大的香气组分,主要呈现香料、青椒和柑橘味。通过OAV>1加成值发现永宁产区葡萄酒果香味和花香味较浓郁,青铜峡产区葡萄酒脂肪味较浓郁,镇北堡产区葡萄酒植物味较浓郁。基于多元回归方程分析发现,速钾、有效磷、纤维素二糖水解酶、N-乙酰-β-D-葡萄糖苷酶、亮氨酸氨基肽酶、β-1,4-葡萄糖苷酶显著影响葡萄酒品质和风味特征。该研究结果将为贺兰山东麓葡萄园的生产管理提供理论依据,同时有助于提升消费者对不同风格葡萄酒的理解,丰富消费选择。

关键词 贺兰山东麓;葡萄酒风格;土壤因子;胞外酶活性;多元回归方程

赤霞珠(Vitis vinifera L.Cabernet Sauvignon)原产于法国波尔多,是世界上栽培范围最为广泛的葡萄品种,也是目前宁夏贺兰山东麓产区的主栽品种,该品种酿制的葡萄酒具有口感醇厚、香气浓郁的特点。作为我国生产优质酿酒葡萄和葡萄酒的黄金地带,宁夏贺兰山东麓葡萄酒产区土壤资源丰富,气候干旱少雨,光照充足,昼夜温差大,具有生产酿酒葡萄的最佳水、土、光、热资源组合。由于该区域受纬度地带性的影响,各子产区土壤类型存在一定差异,其物理与化学指标均表现出相应的空间差异性[1]。有研究发现[2],贺兰山东麓不同子产区不同质地的土壤,碳、氮、磷、钾含量也存在显著差异,整体处于全国较低水平。各子产区不同的土壤质地、养分状况、酶活性等因素会导致果实品质存在一定差异,养分状况影响果实着色,进而影响葡萄酒的颜色[3]。探究不同产区葡萄酒品质特征,不仅有助于产区葡萄酒特色风味的划分,而且有助于根据产区特色制定合理的施肥策略。

“产区决定风格”[4],优质高端的小产区对风土有严格的要求,同一产区不同地块,可能由于土壤的差异导致葡萄产量、品质、葡萄酒风格存在较大的区别。其中,葡萄酒风格可通过香气成分进行区别,其种类、含量以及各物质之间的相互作用对产地风格及品种典型性具有决定性作用[5]。香气通过刺激人体的嗅觉和味觉器官,从而对葡萄酒品质做出评价,可用来指导葡萄的栽培及葡萄酒的酿造,进而提升葡萄酒品质[6]。目前,在葡萄及葡萄酒中已发现的香气成分大约有1 300种,有研究发现[7],因葡萄品种和风土的不同,香气物质的构成和比例呈现较大差异,而对同一品种而言,风土是影响果实和葡萄酒香气物质组成和含量最重要的因素。

为探究贺兰山东麓赤霞珠干红葡萄酒风格特征及筛选影响其品质的土壤因子,以4个产区12个‘赤霞珠’葡萄园为试验地,测定其葡萄酒理化指标、香气成分、土壤养分状况和胞外酶活性,为贺兰山东麓葡萄园的生产管理提供理论依据,同时有助于消费者对不同风格葡萄酒的理解和选择。

1 材料与方法

1.1 实验概况

试验地位于宁夏贺兰山东麓,地处北纬37°43′~39°23′,东经105°45′~106°47′,该区域土壤资源丰富,气候干旱少雨,光照充足,昼夜温差大,具有生产酿酒葡萄的最佳水、土、光、热资源组合。选择4个子产区累计12个葡萄园,各葡萄园管理水平较好,各采样点信息见表1。

表1 试验样地基本情况

Table 1 Basic information of the experimental plot

子产区地块经度纬度株行距/m树龄/年种植架型镇北堡志辉源石(ZHYS)38°35′2″106°0′15″1.5×4.59厂字形美贺(MH)38°37′36″106°0′50″1.0×3.210厂字形新牛(XN)38°36′59″106°4′13″1.0×3.210厂字形青铜峡西鸽(XG)38°3′53″105°53′20″1.0×3.010厂字形梦沙泉(MSQ)38°1′40″105°54′20″0.5×3.510厂字形维加妮(WJN)38°2′57″105°53′26″0.5×3.010厂字形永宁 立兰(LL)38°16′57″105°58′34″0.8×3.010厂字形西夏王(XXW)38°15′37″106°2′59″0.8×3.010厂字形保乐力加(BLLJ)38°15′17″106°3′17″1.0×3.09厂字形红寺堡红寺堡(HSP)37°27′24″106°5′24″0.5×4.08厂字形东方裕兴(DFYX)37°20′0″106°9′55″0.5×3.210厂字形红丰(HF)37°24′28″106°6′50″0.5×3.29厂字形

1.2 实验方法

1.2.1 样品采集

供试材料为8~10年生赤霞珠葡萄园,园区葡萄架型为水平厂字型,南北行向,株行距为0.5 m×4.5 m,冬季以短梢修剪为主,其他栽培措施等均一致。2023年10月进行土壤样品的采集,每个采样区内采用“S”形随机取样,利用d=5 cm的土钻取样15次,取样深度为0~20 cm,去除可见根和石砾后混合,过2 mm 筛网后迅速运回实验室并于4 ℃冰箱保存。采取的土壤样品分为2部分:第1部分自然风干后用于土壤理化性质检测;第2部分于4 ℃下保存,测定土壤酶活性。

葡萄酒酿造:待果实成熟时,采取新鲜果实除梗破碎后放入10 L发酵罐中(添加体积80%),添加SO2并搅拌均匀,按照SO2 60 mg/L计,即0.1%(体积分数)H2SO3,待H2SO3入罐1 h后,按照40 mg/L标准加入果胶酶,24 h后按照200 mg/L接种酵母,每天早、晚固定时间压帽2次,测定温度和比重,当比重不高于0.995,并维持不变3~4 d时,视为酒精发酵结束。酒精发酵结束后进行皮渣分离,将自流汁和压榨汁混合均匀。接种诺盟生物科技有限公司的商业乳酸菌,进行苹果酸-乳酸发酵,每隔2 d进行一次数据测定,当苹果酸含量不高于0.2 g/L时结束发酵,添加0.1%(体积分数)的H2SO3,将葡萄酒静置澄清后分离酒泥,装瓶贮存,用理化性质和香气检测。

1.2.2 土壤测定指标及方法

土壤理化性质测定均参考鲍士旦《土壤农化分析》[8],土壤pH值用酸度计测定,电导率用电导率仪测定,土壤全氮采用凯氏定氮法测定,碱解氮采用碱解扩散法测定,土壤全磷和有效磷采用钼锑抗比色法测定,土壤全钾和速钾采用火焰光度法测定,土壤有机质和有机碳含量采用重铬酸钾容量法检测。

土壤胞外酶活性采用微孔板荧光法[9]测定,共检测与土壤碳氮磷循环过程紧密相关的5种土壤酶的活性,包括:β-1,4-葡萄糖苷酶(β-D-glucosidase,BG)和纤维二糖水解酶(cellobiohydrolase,CBH)代表碳获取酶;N-乙酰-β-D-葡萄糖苷酶(N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase,NAG)和亮氨酸氨肽酶(leucine aminopeptidase,LAP)代表氮获取酶;碱性磷酸酶(alkaline phosphatase,AP)代表磷获取酶。称取3 g土壤样品,加入125 mL调好pH的Tris-HCl缓冲液,磁悬搅拌器充分搅拌后,吸取土壤悬浊液、酶底物和标准物质于酶标板中,制备样品放于25 ℃培养箱中,于黑暗条件下培养,分别培养0.5 h(AP)、2 h(NAG和LAP)和4 h(BG和CBH)。结束后使用多功能酶标仪在365 nm激发波长和450 nm发射波长下测定荧光值并计算酶活性。

1.2.3 葡萄酒理化性质测定

参照GB/T 15038—2006《葡萄酒、果酒通用分析方法》和GB/T 15037—2006《葡萄酒》,测定葡萄酒中酒精度、残糖(以葡萄糖g/L计)、挥发酸(以乙酸g/L计)、可滴定酸(以酒石酸g/L计)、游离二氧化硫质量浓度;pH值通过pH计测定;总酚含量采用福林-肖卡法测定;花色苷采用亚硫酸氢盐漂白法测定;单宁采用贝塔-史密斯法测定。

1.2.4 葡萄酒感官评价方法

香气特征感官品评参照葡萄酒品尝评分表描述的方法略作改动[10]。由宁夏大学葡萄酒专业老师与学生组成葡萄酒感官品评小组,共16名(8名男性,8名女性),每位品尝员均经过专业品评培训,以盲品的形式,在标准品酒室(GB/T 13868—2009《感官分析 建立感官分析实验室的一般导则》)使用标准品酒杯(GB/T 40003—2021《感官分析 葡萄酒品评杯使用要求》)进行品鉴,品尝员根据表2对葡萄酒品质进行打分。

表2 葡萄酒感官评分标准表 单位:分

Table 2 Wine sensory evaluation scoring criteria table

项目 优很好好一般较差差很差外观分析澄清度6543210色调6543210色度6543210香气分析纯正度6543210浓郁度6543210优雅度6543210协调度6543210口感分析酸度6543210浓郁度6543210结构6543210协调度6543210香气持久度6543210余味6543210总体评价8765420

1.2.5 葡萄酒香气物质检测

参照金刚等[11]的方法利用顶空固相微萃取-气相色谱质谱联用(headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry,HS-SPME-GC-MS)技术对酒样中的挥发性香气成分进行提取分析。在20 mL顶空瓶中加入1.5 g Nacl、5 mL酒样、10 μL 4-甲基-2-戊醇(1.008 3 g/L)作为内标,密封顶空瓶,置于CTC自动进样器。萃取前250 ℃老化10 min,在250 r/min、40 ℃下平衡5 min,然后在40 ℃,250 r/min下萃取30 min后进样,进样口温度240 ℃,解吸10 min。使用DB-WAX(30 mm×0.25 mm,0.25 μm,Agilent)色谱柱,不分流进样,载气高纯氦气(≥99.999%),起始柱温40 ℃,恒温5 min,然后依次以3 ℃/min升到97 ℃,以2 ℃/min升到120 ℃,以3 ℃/min升到150 ℃,以8 ℃/min升到220 ℃,保持10 min。离子源温度230 ℃,传输线温度240 ℃,轰击电压70 eV,扫描范围40~300 u。

定性定量分析:将总离子流色谱图的每个峰与 NIST Library 17 谱库进行匹配,并根据C8~C20正构烷烃混合标准品的保留时间,用保留指数(retention index,RI)法计算各香气物质的保留指数并进行定性分析;对有标准品的香气物质用其标准曲线进行定量分析,没有标准品的香气物质以4-甲基-2-戊醇为内标进行半定量分析。

1.3 数据处理

采用Microsoft Excel 2019软件对实验数据进行计算;通过SPSS 25.0进行单因素方差分析和多元回归分析(P<0.05);采用Origin 2021绘制柱状图、雷达图;Simca 14.1绘制正交偏最小二乘判别分析(orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis,OPLS-DA)图。所有指标测定均设3次重复。

2 结果与分析

2.1 各葡萄园土壤理化指标差异性分析

土壤养分状况与葡萄品质和葡萄酒风格特征息息相关,对贺兰山东麓酿酒葡萄园土壤理化指标进行测定,发现各葡萄园土壤性质存在显著性差异,结果如表3所示。土壤pH值为8.67~9.38,各葡萄园土壤pH值均在8.6以上,属于强碱性土壤,产区整体表现为:青铜峡>红寺堡>镇北堡>永宁;电导率范围为73.53~155.18 μs/cm,永宁产区土壤电导率显著高于其他产区,其中以永宁产区的立兰葡萄园最高(155.18 μs/cm)。氮磷钾与作物的生长密切相关,而贺兰山东麓各葡萄园土壤养分状况分布极不均匀[12],全钾、全磷、全氮范围分别为16.24~19.49、0.24~0.65、0.27~1.27 g/kg,镇北堡产区全钾、全磷和全氮含量显著高于其他产区,其中全钾含量以志辉源石最高(19.49 g/kg),全磷含量以志辉源石(0.65 g/kg)和美贺庄园(0.65 g/kg)最高,全氮含量以美贺庄园(1.27 g/kg)最高。速钾含量为77.50~200.67 mg/kg,有效磷范围为1.26~17.55 mg/kg,碱解氮范围为13.51~45.89 mg/kg,与史祥宾等[13]研究结果相似。对比第二次全国土壤普查耕层有机质平均含量(19.8 g/kg)发现,各葡萄园有机质含量为4.01~18.56 g/kg,整体水平偏低,红寺堡产区处于极贫乏水平。孙权等[14]研究中发现,宁夏葡萄园土壤有机质水平贫乏,但随着栽培年限的增长,含量逐步上升。土壤营养条件与葡萄酒的品质紧密相关,贺兰山东麓葡萄园仍需加大有机肥的投入。

表3 各葡萄园土壤理化指标分析

Table 3 Analysis of soil physical indicators in each vineyard

葡萄园pH电导率含量/(g/kg)全钾含量/(g/kg)全磷含量/(g/kg)全氮含量/(mg/kg)有效钾含量/(mg/kg)有效磷含量/(mg/kg)碱解氮含量/(mg/kg)有机质含量/(g/kg)ZHYS9.22±0.03ab73.53±2.81d19.49±0.35b0.65±0.01b0.88±0.04b77.50±3.77f1.26±0.09f26.43±1.36d13.63±0.44bMH9.04±0.08bc116.37±18.39bc18.72±0.23bcd0.65±0.03b1.27±0.09a183.83±22.29ab16.73±4.76ab45.89±6.01b18.56±1.54aXN9.19±0.05abc85.88±3.44cd19.03±0.54bc0.56±0.04c0.46±0.02e115.33±8.75def14.98±2.82abc23.02±2.07de6.03±0.35deXG9.29±0.02a80.88±3.13cd17.37±0.35defg0.24±0.01e0.48±0.02de137.08±7.54cde5.85±0.47ef18.83±0.72def6.56±0.36dMSQ9.38±0.03a76.42±3.93cd16.24±0.28g0.25±0.01e0.41±0.02ef106.67±10.37def5.14±0.43ef13.51±1.09f5.65±0.30defWJN9.19±0.15abc91.97±6.83cd16.55±0.35fg0.29±0.02e0.41±0.01ef174.17±11.67abc5.54±0.51ef15.15±1.61f6.06±0.25deLL8.67±0.05d155.18±35.90b17.84±0.27cdef0.41±0.02d0.64±0.03c200.67±16.15a8.29±0.65de35.89±2.02c9.16±0.35cXXW9.24±0.09ab105.10±17.76cd16.95±0.40efg0.47±0.02d0.61±0.02de99.83±14.75ef10.21±0.91cde20.94±1.27def9.33±0.52cBLLJ8.96±0.11c113.70±8.17bcd17.54±0.33defg0.48±0.04d0.63±0.11c123.50±14.76de12.78±1.15abcd26.24±2.90d9.23±1.70cHSP9.17±0.02abc88.52±2.40cd18.31±0.16bcde0.30±0.02e0.27±0.03f171.17±3.53abc17.55±2.99a17.52±1.57ef4.01±0.20efDFYX9.26±0.03ab74.80±3.40cd17.68±0.59cdefg0.45±0.03d0.29±0.02f123.17±3.53de11.13±1.11bcde16.29±1.16ef3.53±0.23fHF9.17±0.05abc89.60±4.69cd18.38±0.59bcde0.47±0.03d0.39±0.01ef147.17±7.90bcd6.99±0.38def23.31±0.64de5.18±0.07def镇北堡9.15±0.04b91.93±7.36b19.08±0.23b0.62±0.02a0.87±0.09a125.56±13.10a10.99±2.41a31.78±3.18a12.74±1.35a青铜峡9.32±0.06b82.25±3.39b16.29±0.20d0.25±0.01d0.41±0.01c133.33±10.40a5.17±0.29b14.88±0.98b5.76±0.24c永宁8.95±0.07c124.66±13.85a17.44±0.21c0.45±0.02b0.63±0.04b141.33±13.30a10.42±0.74a27.69±1.91a9.24±0.57b红寺堡9.20±0.02b84.31±2.55b18.12±0.28c0.41±0.02b0.32±0.02c147.17±5.58a11.89±1.46a19.04±0.98b4.24±0.20c

注:表中数值为“平均值±标准差”,肩标小写字母代表P<0.05显著水平(下同)。

2.2 各葡萄园土壤胞外酶活性比较分析

土壤胞外酶在养分循环过程中具有重要作用,是生物化学反应的关键媒介和催化剂[15]。BG和CBH代表碳获取酶,NAG和LAP代表氮获取酶,AP代表磷获取酶,如表4所示,NAG为3.35~6.16 nmol/(g·h),产区整体表现为:永宁>青铜峡>镇北堡>红寺堡;CBH为1.92~6.03 nmol/(g·h),永宁产区土壤CBH显著高于其他产区,其中以永宁产区的保乐力加葡萄园最高[6.03 nmol/(g·h)];BG为4.89~13.29 nmol/(g·h),产区整体表现为:镇北堡>永宁>红寺堡>青铜峡;LAP为1.11~6.51 nmol/(g·h),产区整体表现为镇北堡>青铜峡>永宁>红寺堡,镇北堡产区土壤LAP活性显著高于其他产区,其中以镇北堡产区志辉源石葡萄园[6.51 nmol/(g·h)]最高;AP活性为0.16~0.59 nmol/(g·h),产区整体表现为:镇北堡>永宁>红寺堡>青铜峡。WU等[16]对黄土高原土壤胞外酶活性研究中提出,轻度干旱可促进土壤胞外酶活性,由于各葡萄园土壤类型不同,其土壤含水量也存在差异,其可能是各葡萄园土壤胞外酶活性存在显著性差异的原因之一。也有研究发现[17],温度升高可显著提高AP活性,由于各葡萄园分布于不同产区,环境条件存在显著性差异,其也可能是导致各葡萄园土壤AP活性存在显著性差异的原因之一。ZHANG等[18]对杉木人工林地胞外酶活性的研究发现,土壤性质比气候因子对胞外酶活性的影响更为重要,本研究通过对土壤理化性质的研究发现,各葡萄园土壤养分和有机质含量存在显著性差异,可通过合理施用有机肥或有机覆盖,提高土壤胞外酶活性,进而提高果实产量[19]

表4 各葡萄园土壤胞外酶活性分析 单位:nmol/(g·h)

Table 4 Analysis of soil extracellular enzyme activities in each vineyard

葡萄园NAG含量CBH含量BG含量LAP含量AP含量ZHYS5.90±0.29ab2.79±0.35bc12.22±0.93ab6.51±0.45c0.45±0.06abcMH4.96±0.23abcd2.11±0.28c8.91±0.75cde3.26±0.46ef0.33±0.07abcdXN4.26±0.29de3.32±0.46bc9.70±0.74bcd3.15±0.33ef0.59±0.02aXG4.67±0.28bcde2.53±0.38c7.57±0.53cdef4.52±0.27d0.28±0.09bcdMSQ4.96±0.36abcd2.60±0.70c6.84±0.96def1.79±0.34gh0.26±0.09bcdWJN5.45±0.69abcd3.50±0.42bc6.78±1.04def2.32±0.25fgh0.42±0.05abcdLL6.16±0.37a4.49±0.40ab6.94±0.51def2.92±0.43efg0.24±0.02bcdXXW6.03±0.39ab5.96±0.63a7.44±0.56def2.03±0.19fgh0.52±0.07abBLLJ5.61±0.50abcd6.03±0.55a13.29±0.98a2.83±0.34efg0.18±0.03cdHSP4.38±0.48cde2.17±0.33c6.20±0.27ef1.11±0.14h0.30±0.03bcdDFYX3.35±0.24e1.92±0.08c4.89±0.33f1.35±0.14h0.31±0.03abcdHF5.68±0.39abc3.50±0.07bc10.42±0.75abc3.83±0.29de0.16±0.02d镇北堡5.04±0.27ab2.74±0.25c10.27±0.64a4.31±0.59a0.46±0.05a青铜峡5.09±0.32ab3.54±0.30c6.31±0.52c2.67±0.54ab0.19±0.06b永宁5.94±0.23a5.49±0.37b9.27±1.08ab2.59±0.22b0.31±0.06ab红寺堡4.50±0.41b2.52±0.26c7.17±0.87bc2.13±0.47b0.25±0.03b

2.3 各葡萄园土壤理化指标OPLS-DA

12款酒样分别来自贺兰山东麓4个子产区,为研究不同葡萄园土壤理化特征,利用OPLS-DA基于降维原理简化数据后对土壤数据进行可视化处理,以12个葡萄园作为自变量,不同葡萄园的土壤理化和胞外酶活性作为因变量,通过OPLS-DA,可实现葡萄园土壤特征的有效区分。本次分析中的自变量拟合指数(R2x)为0.969,因变量拟合指数(R2y)为0.842,模型预测指数(Q2)为0.736,R2Q2均超过0.5表示模型具有较好的拟合准确性和预测能力[20]。OPLS-DA得分图(图1-a)显示,镇北堡子产区(ZHYS、MH、XN)都位于第四象限,永宁子产区(LL、XXW、BLLJ)都位于第一象限,说明各子产区内土壤理化性质相似;XG与红寺堡子产区(HSP、DFYX、HF)位于第三象限,说明XG与红寺堡子产区土壤性质相似,青铜峡子产区(MSQ、WJN)土壤理化性质相似。经过200次置换检验,如图1-b所示,Q2回归线与Y轴的相交点负半轴,说明模型不存在过拟合[21],模型验证有效,认为该结果可用于阐述葡萄园土壤特征呈现产区化分布。

a-OPLS-DA得分图;b-模型交叉验证结果图

图1 不同葡萄园土壤理化指标OPLS-DA得分图、模型交叉验证结果图

Fig.1 OPLS-DA score plot of soil physicochemical indicators in different vineyards and model cross-validation results

2.4 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒的理化指标比较分析

由表5可知,挥发酸质量浓度低于1.2 g/L,残糖均低于4 g/L,酒精度维持在14.24~15.03%vol,各指标均符合干红葡萄酒国家标准(GB/T 15037—2006《葡萄酒》)。葡萄酒的酒精度和残糖反映了葡萄果实的含糖量,含糖量高的果实会导致葡萄酒的酒精度和残糖升高[22],而果实的含糖量与土壤及环境因子有关[23]。WU等[24]在研究中提出,磷肥的施用可以提高果实含糖量,降低酸度。本研究发现各葡萄园土壤含磷量存在显著性差异,其可能是导致葡萄酒中糖、酸物质等呈现区域差异的重要原因。有研究发现[25-26],合理使用氮肥不仅可以提高果实产量和果穗大小,还可以提高果实中酚类物质和花青素含量。钾对果实糖分和可溶性固形物的积累有显著促进作用[27],施用钾肥可促进果皮花青素的合成,改善果实的着色[28]。酚类物质是葡萄果实的重要品质成分之一,也是葡萄酒骨架的重要成分,决定着葡萄及其葡萄酒的涩味、苦味和抗氧化性能[29]。本试验中各酒样单宁含量为2.11~5.78 g/L,表现为XXW(5.78 g/L)最高,LL(2.11 g/L)最低;花色苷含量为485.92~820.75 mg/L,表现为HSP(820.75 mg/L)最高,XG(485.92 mg/L)最低;总酚含量为1.57~2.02 g/L,表现为MSQ(2.02 g/L)最高,DFYX(1.57 g/L)最低,各酒样间存在显著性差异。根据各产区葡萄酒特色,合理施肥,将有利于提高果实品质,进而提高葡萄酒品质。

表5 各葡萄园“赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒基本理化指标

Table 5 Basic physicochemical characteristics of ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ dry red wines from various vineyards

葡萄园pH酒精度含量/%vol挥发酸含量/(g/L)可滴定酸含量/(g/L)残糖含量/(g/L)游离SO2含量/(mg/L)单宁含量/(g/L)花色苷含量/(mg/L)总酚含量/(g/L)ZHYS3.62±0.01h14.34±0.08d0.58±0.03b7.06±0.06b2.76±0.01cd20.05±0.74de3.91±0.01f558.29±0.29h1.81±0.01dMH3.98±0.01a14.24±0.12d0.31±0.07f4.13±0.11fg2.74±0.02d20.48±0.43cde4.59±0.02c658.88±0.00e1.82±0.01cdXN3.78±0.00e14.79±0.12ab0.42±0.01cde4.31±0.11efg2.84±0.02ab19.63±0.43de3.53±0.01g566.13±0.00i1.88±0.00bcXG3.73±0.01f15.03±0.14a0.34±0.01ef4.00±0.13g2.89±0.03a27.31±0.43a2.93±0.01h485.92±0.29l1.80±0.01dMSQ3.84±0.00d14.56±0.08bcd0.57±0.03b4.50±0.11ef2.80±0.01bcd26.45±0.74a4.18±0.02e616.88±0.00g2.02±0.02aWJN3.88±0.01bc14.78±0.19abc0.37±0.01def4.38±0.25efg2.84±0.03abc18.77±0.74ef2.56±0.01i735.58±0.29b1.64±0.01fLL3.91±0.00b14.97±0.19a0.46±0.03cd4.19±0.06fg2.87±0.03a15.79±0.43gh2.11±0.02j669.08±0.29d1.72±0.02eXXW3.70±0.01g14.83±0.09ab0.31±0.02f4.56±0.13ef2.85±0.02ab21.33±0.74cd5.78±0.01a509.54±0.29k1.92±0.02bBLLJ3.68±0.01g14.85±0.08ab0.33±0.02ef4.69±0.11de2.85±0.02ab23.89±0.74b3.94±0.01f556.21±0.29j2.00±0.01aHSP3.84±0.00d14.30±0.10d0.52±0.01bc4.25±0.13efg2.75±0.02d17.07±0.85fg2.95±0.02h820.75±0.00a1.80±0.03dDFYX3.62±0.01h14.38±0.06cd0.44±0.03cd5.19±0.17c2.77±0.01d22.61±0.74bc4.77±0.02b645.75±0.00f1.57±0.02gHF3.85±0.01cd14.83±0.02ab0.32±0.01f5.06±0.11cd2.85±0.00ab13.65±0.74h4.41±0.00d692.13±0.00c1.98±0.02a镇北堡3.79±0.05a14.46±0.10a0.44±0.04a5.17±0.48b2.78±0.02c20.05±0.30b3.69±0.24a604.43±13.98b1.83±0.01a青铜峡3.82±0.02a14.79±0.10a0.43±0.04a4.29±0.11b2.84±0.02ab24.18±1.40a4.29±0.13a612.79±36.05b1.82±0.04a永宁3.76±0.04a14.89±0.07a0.37±0.03a4.48±0.09b2.86±0.01a20.34±1.24ab3.64±0.28a578.28±23.68b1.88±0.03a红寺堡3.77±0.04a14.50±0.09bc0.43±0.03a4.83±0.16b2.79±0.02bc17.78±1.36b3.61±0.56a719.54±26.17a1.78±0.04a

2.5 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒挥发性气味化合物分析

2.5.1 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒香气成分分析

如图2所示,从12款酒样中共检测出64种挥发性成分,包括酯类22种、高级醇类18种、脂肪酸6种、醛酮类7种、类异戊二烯类7种、其他4种。其中,分别鉴定出ZHYS(61种)、MH(62种)、XN(60种)、XG(60种)、MSQ(63种)、WJN(62种)、LL(61种)、XXW(60种)、BLLJ(61种)、HSP(62种)、DFYX(62种)、HF(62种)挥发性成分,有58个共有成分。挥发性成分总量由高到低为:LL(724 462.31 μg/L)、MSQ(639 100.03 μg/L)、XN(624 058.31 μg/L)、BLLJ(621 151.52 μg/L)、WJN(620 250.03 μg/L)、HSP(610 444.86 μg/L)、DFYX(585 822.9 μg/L)、MH(568 562.29 μg/L)、XG(557 542.28 μg/L)、ZHYS(552 760.37 μg/L)、HF(524 435.16 μg/L)、XXW(524 185.11 μg/L)。不同葡萄园干红葡萄酒香气物质种类及含量存在差异,这与张文昊等[30]研究结果相似。

a-香气种类数量;b-物质含量

图2 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒各类香气种类数量及物质含量

Fig.2 Number of aroma categories and substance concentrations in ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ dry red wine

2.5.2 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒香气成分的OPLS-DA

为研究贺兰山东麓赤霞珠干红葡萄酒的香气特征,利用OPLS-DA基于降维原理简化数据后对GC-MS数据进行可视化处理,以64种共有香气为因变量,12款酒样作为自变量,通过OPLS-DA,可实现赤霞珠干红葡萄酒香气的有效区分。本次分析中的自变量拟合指数(R2x)为0.824,因变量拟合指数(R2y)为0.968,模型预测指数(Q2)为0.864,R2Q2均超过0.5表示模型具有较好的拟合准确性和预测能力[20]。OPLS-DA得分图(图3-a)显示,镇北堡子产区(ZHYS、MH、XN)和青铜峡子产区(XG、MSQ、WJN)样品都位于第一象限,说明6款样品成分相似;红寺堡子产区(HSP、DFYX、HF)样品都位于第三象限,永宁子产区(LL、XXW、BLLJ)样品都位于第四象限,说明各子产区内酒样挥发性成分相似,各子产区间成分存在较大差异。

a-OPLS-DA得分图;b-模型交叉验证结果图;c-挥发性成分VIP图

图3 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒OPLS-DA得分图、模型交叉验证结果图和挥发性成分VIP图

Fig.3 OPLS-DA score plot,model cross-validation results,and volatile compounds VIP plot of Cabernet Sauvignon dry red wine

经过200次置换检验,如图3-b所示,Q2回归线与Y轴的相交点负半轴,说明模型不存在过拟合[21],模型验证有效,认为该结果可用于区别12款酒样香气特征分析。

为进一步分析样本之间差异性的标志物,利用变量重要性投影(variable importance in projection,VIP)值进行筛选,其中VIP值越大其贡献率越大,通常将VIP>1作为筛选差异物质的标准[31]。如图3-c所示,筛选得到14个VIP>1的化合物,包括正辛醛(香草奶油坚果,VIP=1.83)、己酸(奶酪,VIP=1.58)、水杨酸甲酯(果香,VIP=1.54)、棕榈酸乙酯(果香,VIP=1.46)、β-紫罗酮(花香,VIP=1.31)、1-戊醇(醇香,VIP=1.28)、异戊酸乙酯(甜果香,VIP=1.24)、1-辛醇(花香,VIP=1.24)、右旋萜二烯(果香,VIP=1.16)、乙酸(醋酸味,VIP=1.15)、月桂酸乙酯(果香花香,VIP=1.12)、糠醛(辛辣,VIP=1.10)、异戊酸(脂肪、果香,VIP=1.05)、乙酸乙酯(果香,VIP=1.01)。

2.6 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒关键差异香气OAV分析

香气化合物含量的高低并不能作为判定物质香气特征的依据,通常赋予物质香气特征的是具有较高OAV的香气成分[32]。OAV是香气物质的浓度与嗅觉阈值的比值,可以用来表现香气物质对葡萄酒香气的贡献,比值越大,对样品总体香气的贡献率越大,1≤OAV≤100的物质为样品关键香气成分,0.1≤OAV<1的物质对样品总体风味具有重要的修饰作用[33]。通过查阅相关文献,找出各物质的香气阈值,计算差异香气成分的OAV。如表6所示,符合OAV>1条件的挥发性化合物有31种,而OAV>10的化合物有13种。根据OAV分析结果发现,4-萜烯醇和2-甲氧基-3-异丁基吡嗪是贺兰山东麓赤霞珠干红葡萄酒中贡献最大的香气组分,主要赋予葡萄酒香料、青椒、柑橘等气味,而4-萜烯醇在各酒样间存在较大差异,表现为BLLJ(1 092.00)最高,DFYX(305.00)最低;右旋萜二烯仅在HSP中OAV>1,丰富了酒样柠檬的清香;辛酸乙酯在XN、XG和XXW中OAV<1,酒样中菠萝风味较弱;琥珀酸二乙酯仅在ZHYS、LL、XXW和BLLJ中OAV>1,丰富了酒样的果香味;XN中异丁酸含量最高,酒样奶油味更浓郁。

表6 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒挥发性风味物质OAV

Table 6 OAV of flavor compounds in ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ dry red wine

香气成分阈值[34]/(μg/kg)ZHYSMHXNXGMSQWJNLLXXWBLLJHSPDFYXHF香气描述[35-36]气味系列[37]乙酸乙酯7 500.007.896.734.895.307.909.167.005.465.546.347.195.30水果、甜味指甲油1,6丁酸乙酯35.005.435.473.414.585.606.566.034.774.447.536.765.62果香、草莓、青苹果6正己酸乙酯14.0024.2619.4210.3510.8921.0819.8914.9812.7813.1118.9320.8818.82草莓、青苹果、茴香5,6乙酸异戊酯300.001.482.621.082.350.872.592.132.591.742.684.921.94果香,香蕉6辛酸乙酯600.001.171.270.860.951.281.181.200.911.111.301.221.01菠萝、梨、花香3,6癸酸乙酯39.0033.4637.7832.6334.0634.7035.4236.0333.1544.8438.4335.8131.73脂肪、果香4,6琥珀酸二乙酯6 000.001.12<1<1<1<1<11.091.011.05<1<1<1果香6乙酸苯乙酯250.00<11.10<11.18<11.081.011.181.071.001.621.02花香、桃子,木香2,3,6水杨酸乙酯2.002.662.642.682.652.652.652.672.682.642.642.652.66冬青,植物5异丁醇7 500.0010.0011.8710.129.9914.1011.8510.9813.9114.158.4210.0010.99苹果、醇香1,6丙醇50 000.00<1<11.531.31<11.342.30<1<13.131.17<1成熟水果6异戊醇30 000.007.107.468.016.868.597.779.106.778.546.377.727.20香蕉、果香6顺-2-己烯醇400.0011.2611.567.498.3211.4910.8311.267.629.7911.4210.888.74青草味51-辛烯-3-醇20.0018.1720.1013.1614.6119.9818.8619.5813.4117.1019.8618.9515.33蘑菇53-甲硫基丙醇300.008.4011.3916.1911.9911.7411.558.569.9116.224.058.969.01硫化物味、洋葱、脂肪1,4,5苯乙醇1 400.0043.3544.9350.7944.5545.0142.2642.0334.1156.3128.7444.7944.82玫瑰、蜂蜜3,4异丁酸2 300.004.616.3010.138.375.964.939.327.825.858.425.768.31奶酪、脂肪4异戊酸700<13.041.91<12.871.04<1<1<1<1<11.84油脂、甜腊、浆果4,6己酸420.003.663.613.893.663.623.414.585.374.364.294.883.59奶酪、木料2,4辛酸500.001.691.941.872.001.761.982.102.902.282.052.641.67奶酪、脂肪味4癸醛0.1524.3325.0027.2023.5329.6052.0031.8025.8728.1324.2029.4726.93油脂、柑橘4,6苯甲醛5.001.471.621.881.551.672.101.911.751.653.231.811.52苦杏仁、植物2,52,3-丁二酮50.0066.64264.65271.27147.38135.91187.91270.85147.93198.03257.49258.2643.66丁香、水果3,6右旋萜二烯1.50<1<1<1<1<1<1<1<1<11.19<1<1柠檬、橙子64-萜烯醇0.01616.00809.00573.00632.00668.00698.00741.00592.001 092.00818.00305.00385.00柑橘6α-大马酮0.05387.20387.40387.40387.40387.40387.40387.40387.40387.40387.40387.40387.20甜苹果、桃子、李子6β-紫罗酮0.0942.7843.1143.0042.8942.4442.6743.3343.4443.4442.7843.4442.44紫罗兰、玫瑰34-乙基-2-甲氧基苯酚33.003.093.093.093.093.093.093.093.093.123.093.093.09糖果、中草药、香烟1,52-甲氧基-3-异丁基吡嗪0.01406.00406.00406.00406.00406.00406.00406.00406.00407.00406.00408.00406.00土壤、香料、青椒2,5

注:气味系列中1,化学味;2,香料味;3,花香;4,脂肪味;5,植物味;6,果香。

选取OAV>1的香气成分,根据其OAV加成值绘制香气轮廓图(图4)。将香气归类为化学味、香料、花香、脂肪味、植物味、果香六类,由于物质的复杂性部分物质属于2种类别。4个产区表现出不同的风格特点,以果香、植物味、香料和花香味突出,其次是化学味和脂肪味。果香加成值在各产区间存在显著性差异,以永宁产区(4 563.54)最高,其次是镇北堡产区(4 107.47)、青铜峡产区(4 013.79)、红寺堡产区(3 591.74);花香表现为永宁产区(944.02)最高,其次是镇北堡产区(915.43)、红寺堡产区(875.70)、青铜峡产区(799.01)。

图4 四个产区“赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒OAV>1香气轮廓图

Fig.4 Aroma profiles of volatile compounds with OAV>1 in ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ dry red wines from four producing regions

2.7 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒感官品质分析

从外观、香气、口感等方面做综合评价,选取13个指标为代表,其中外观质量包括澄清度、色度、色调,香气质量包括纯正度、浓郁度、优雅度、协调度,口感质地包括酸度、浓郁度、结构感、协调度、香味持久度、余味。12款酒样感官评价分析结果如表7所示,从外观品质看,各酒样无显著性差异,所有酒样清澈透亮且呈宝石红色,色调也基本一致。从香气品质看,MH的纯正度(5.00分)和协调度(5.67分)得分较高,XXW的浓郁度(6.00分)和优雅度(5.67分)得分较高,均处于“很好”水平。MSQ的纯正度(3.67分)、浓郁度(4.33分)和优雅度(4.33分)较低,HSP的优雅度(4.33分)和协调度(4.33分)较低,均处于“好”水平。从口感品质看,XN酸度(5.33分)处于“很好”水平,MSQ酸度(3.33分)略高,处于“一般”水平。ZHYS的浓郁度(5.67分)和香气持久度(5.67分)处于“好”水平,MSQ的浓郁度(3.33分)、香气持久度(4.33分)和余味(3.67分)得分较低,处于“一般”水平,XXW结构(6.00分)丰富,处于“优”水平。总体评价来看,XXW得分最高(7.00分),处于“很好”水平,MSQ的得分较低(4.67分),处于“一般”水平。

表7 “赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒感官评分 单位:分

Table 7 Sensory evaluation scores of ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ dry red wine

葡萄园外观香气口感澄清度色调色度纯正度浓郁度优雅度协调度酸度浓郁度结构协调度香气持久度余味总体评价ZHYS3.67±0.33c4.00±0.00a4.67±0.33ab4.67±0.33a5.33±0.33a5.00±0.00a5.00±0.00a4.33±0.33ab5.67±0.67a5.00±0.58a5.67±0.67a5.67±0.67a4.67±0.33a6.33±0.33abMH4.00±0.58bc4.67±0.33a5.33±0.33a5.00±0.00a5.67±0.88a5.00±1.00a5.67±0.88a4.33±0.67ab5.33±0.67a5.00±1.00a5.00±1.00a4.33±1.20a4.33±0.88a5.67±0.33abcXN5.33±0.33a4.67±0.33a5.00±0.00ab4.67±0.33a5.00±0.58a5.33±0.88a5.00±0.58a5.33±0.33a5.00±0.58a5.33±0.88a6.00±1.15a5.33±0.67a4.33±0.67a6.00±0.58abcXG3.00±0.00c4.33±0.33a4.00±0.00b4.33±0.33a5.33±0.33a5.33±0.33a5.00±0.00a4.33±0.33ab4.67±0.88a4.00±1.00a5.00±0.58a4.67±0.88a3.67±0.88a5.00±0.00bcMSQ5.00±0.00ab5.00±0.58a5.00±0.00ab3.67±0.88a4.33±0.67a4.33±0.67a4.67±0.88a3.33±0.67b4.33±0.67a5.33±0.67a5.00±1.00a4.33±1.20a3.67±0.88a4.67±0.33bWJN4.00±0.58bc4.00±0.00a4.33±0.33ab4.67±0.33a5.33±0.67a5.67±0.33a4.67±0.33a4.33±0.33ab5.00±1.00a5.00±0.58a4.67±0.88a4.33±1.20a4.00±1.00a5.33±0.33bcLL3.00±0.00c4.00±0.00a4.33±0.33ab4.67±0.33a5.00±0.58a4.67±0.33a5.00±0.00a4.67±0.33ab5.00±0.58a5.33±0.88a5.00±0.58a5.00±0.58a4.00±1.00a5.67±0.67abcXXW5.33±0.33a5.00±0.58a5.00±0.58ab4.67±0.33a6.00±0.58a5.67±0.88a5.33±0.88a5.00±0.58ab5.33±0.88a6.00±1.15a5.33±1.76a5.33±0.88a4.67±0.33a7.00±0.58aBLLJ3.33±0.33c4.00±0.58a4.00±0.00b5.00±0.00a5.00±0.00a4.67±0.33a5.33±0.33a4.67±0.33ab5.00±0.00a5.00±0.58a5.00±1.15a4.67±1.45a4.33±0.67a5.67±0.33abcHSP3.00±0.00c4.00±0.00a4.33±0.33ab4.00±0.58a4.67±0.33a4.33±0.67a4.33±0.67a3.67±0.88ab4.67±0.88a4.33±1.20a4.67±1.33a4.33±1.20a4.00±1.15a5.33±0.33bcDFYX3.00±0.00c4.33±0.33a4.33±0.33ab4.33±0.33a5.33±0.33a5.67±0.33a5.33±0.33a4.33±0.33ab5.33±0.88a5.67±0.88a5.33±1.20a4.67±1.33a5.00±0.58a5.67±.33abcHF4.00±0.00bc5.00±0.00a4.67±0.33ab4.33±0.67a5.00±1.53a5.33±1.20a5.00±1.00a4.33±0.67ab4.67±1.33a4.67±1.45a5.00±1.15a4.67±1.33a4.00±1.00a6.00±0.58abc镇北堡4.33±0.51a4.45±0.22a5.00±0.19a4.78±0.11a5.33±0.19a5.11±0.11a5.22±0.22a4.66±0.33a5.33±0.19b5.11±0.11a5.56±0.29a5.11±0.40a4.44±0.11a6.00±0.19a青铜峡4.00±0.58a4.44±0.29a4.44±0.29a4.22±0.29a5.00±0.33a5.11±0.40a4.78±0.11a4.00±0.33a4.67±0.19b4.78±0.40a4.89±0.11b4.44±0.11a3.78±0.11a5.22±0.11a永宁3.89±0.73a4.33±0.33a4.44±0.29a4.78±0.11a5.33±0.33a5.00±0.33a5.22±0.11a4.78±0.11a5.11±0.11b5.44±0.29a5.11±0.11ab5.00±0.19a4.33±0.33a6.11±0.44a红寺堡3.33±0.33a4.44±0.29a4.44±0.11a4.22±0.11a5.00±0.19a5.11±0.40a4.89±0.29a4.11±0.22a4.89±0.22b4.89±0.40a5.00±0.19ab4.56±0.29a4.33±0.33a5.45±0.40a

2.8 土壤因子对“赤霞珠”干红葡萄酒品质及香气成分的影响

通过对贺兰山东麓不同子产区赤霞珠葡萄园土壤理化指标与葡萄酒香气化合物(OAV>1)建立偏最小二乘回归方程发现(表8),酒精度和残糖与CBH呈显著正相关;可滴定酸与速钾呈显著负相关;花色苷与速钾呈显著正相关;琥珀酸二乙酯与NAG呈显著正相关;乙酸苯乙酯与NAG呈显著负相关;异丁醇与CBH呈显著正相关;2,3-丁二酮与有效磷呈显著正相关;α-大马酮与LAP呈显著负相关;4-乙基-2-甲氧基苯酚与BG呈显著正相关,与LAP呈显著负相关。综上所述,贺兰山东麓不同子产区土壤养分之间存在显著性差异,也是形成各产区干红葡萄酒花香、果香和植物味呈香差异的重要原因之一。

表8 影响葡萄酒品质的土壤因子筛选及回归方程

Table 8 Screening of soil factors affecting wine quality and regression equations

葡萄酒品质回归方程判定系数(R2)F值显著性(P)Y2Y2=0.132X11+14.1870.6477.1920.023Y5Y5=0.023X11+2.7340.6276.4890.029Y8Y8=1.562X1+415.0620.636.5870.028Y4Y4=-0.012X1+6.3870.5785.0080.049Y15Y15=0.262X10-0.7220.3405.1400.047Y16Y16=-0.125X10+1.7360.3605.6290.039Y18Y18=1.050X11+7.6120.59214.5210.003Y32Y32=11.506X2+76.8340.54612.0500.006Y35Y35=-0.033X13+387.4640.4498.1420.017Y37Y37=0.003X12-0.004X13+3.0760.3435.2250.009

注:Y2:酒精度;Y4:可滴定酸;Y5:残糖;Y8:花色苷;Y15:琥珀酸二乙酯;Y16:乙酸苯乙酯;Y18:异丁醇;Y32:2,3-丁二酮;Y35:α-大马酮;Y37:4-乙基-2-甲氧基苯酚;X1:速钾;X2:有效磷;X10:NAG;X11:CBH;X12:BG;X13:LAP。

3 结论

本研究对12款赤霞珠干红葡萄酒的品质进行分析,各项指标均符合国家葡萄酒标准,其中,永宁产区酒精度、残糖和总酚含量较高,镇北堡产区可滴定酸含量较高,青铜峡产区游硫和单宁含量较高,红寺堡产区花色苷含量较高。感官分析发现,所有酒样清澈透亮且呈宝石红色,色调也基本一致,镇北堡和永宁产区酒样香气和口感得分均较高,都处于“很好”水平。同时利用HS-SPME-GC-MS技术对酒样中的挥发性香气成分进行提取分析,共检测出64种挥发性化合物,包括酯类22种、高级醇类18种、脂肪酸6种、醛酮类7种、类异戊二烯类7种。不同葡萄园的赤霞珠干红葡萄酒可通过OPLS-DA实现有效区分,在OPLS-DA结果的基础上通过VIP值从GC-MS中筛选出14种关键香气物质(正辛醛、己酸、水杨酸甲酯等),结合OAV分析发现,4-萜烯醇和2-甲氧基-3-异丁基吡嗪是贺兰山东麓赤霞珠干红葡萄酒中贡献最大的香气组分,主要呈现香料、植物和果香味。通过OAV>1加成值发现,永宁产区葡萄酒果香味和花香味较浓郁,青铜峡产区葡萄酒脂肪味较浓郁,镇北堡产区葡萄酒植物味较浓郁。基于多元回归方程分析发现,纤维素二糖水解酶和速钾显著影响葡萄酒的品质特征,土壤胞外酶活性显著影响葡萄酒的香气成分。综上所述,贺兰山东麓不同葡萄园赤霞珠干红葡萄酒品质和风格存在显著性差异,并成区域化分布,由于葡萄园土壤肥力的差异性,应合理施肥,可为打造葡萄酒产区化特色提供理论依据,同时该研究结果将有助于提升消费者对不同风格葡萄酒的理解,丰富消费选择。

参考文献

[1] 胡泽军.贺兰山东麓不同子产区气象和土壤条件与‘赤霞珠’葡萄品质的关系研究[D].银川:宁夏大学,2021.HU Z J.Study on the relationship between the weather and soil conditions in different sub-producing areas in the eastern foot of Helan Mountain and the quality of Cabernet Sauvignon grapes[D].Yinchuan:Ningxia University,2021.

[2] 王锐.贺兰山东麓土壤特征及其与酿酒葡萄生长品质关系研究[D].咸阳:西北农林科技大学,2016.WANG R.Relationship berween soil quality with grape growth and composition at the eastern foot of Helan Mountain wine production regions[D].Xianyang:Northwest A&F University,2016.

[3] 冯蕊,张晓煜,李芳红,等.贺兰山东麓酿酒葡萄品质成分对气象因子的响应特征[J].西北植物学报,2022,42(8):1363-1372.FENG R,ZHANG X Y,LI F H,et al.Response of quality components of wine grape in the eastern foothills of Helan Mountain to meteorological factors[J].Acta Botanica Boreali-Occidentalia Sinica,2022,42(8):1363-1372.

[4] FISCHER U,ROTH D,CHRISTMANN M.The impact of geographic origin,vintage and wine estate on sensory properties of Vitis vinifera cv.‘Riesling’ wines[J].Food Quality and Preference,1999,10(4-5):281-288.

[5] 彭婧,任小彤,韩晓,等.贺兰山东麓产区不同地块对酿酒葡萄果实香气物质的影响[J].食品科学,2022,43(22):291-300.PENG J,REN X T,HAN X,et al.Effects of different parcels on the aroma substances of wine grapes from eastern foothill of Helan Mountain[J].Food Science,2022,43(22):291-300.

[6] STYGER G,PRIOR B,BAUER F F.Wine flavor and aroma[J].Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology,2011,38(9):1145-1159.

[7] RUBIO P,GARIJO P,SANTAMARA P,et al.Influence of oak origin and ageing conditions on wine spoilage by Brettanomyces yeasts[J].Food Control,2015,54:176-180.

[8] 鲍士旦.土壤农化分析[M].第三版.北京:中国农业出版社,2000.BAO S D.Soil and Agricultural Chemistry Analysis[M].3th ed.Beijing:China Agricultural Press,2000.

[9] GERMAN D P,WEINTRAUB M N,GRANDY A S,et al.Optimization of hydrolytic and oxidative enzyme methods for ecosystem studies[J].Soil Biology and Biochemistry,2011,43(7):1387-1397.

[10] 李华.葡萄酒品尝学[M].北京:科学出版社,2006.LI H.Wine Tasting[M].Beijing:China:Science Publishing House,2006.

[11] 金刚,张雪,谷晓博,等.贺兰山东麓不同子产区赤霞珠葡萄自然发酵对葡萄酒香气的影响[J].食品与发酵工业,2021,47(7):153-160.JIN G,ZHANG X,GU X B,et al.Effects of spontaneous fermentation of Cabernet Sauvignon from different sub-regions of Helan Mountain east foothill on wine aroma[J].Food and Fermentation Industries,2021,47(7):153-160.

[12] 王会来,马嘉伟,柳丹,等.基于主成分-聚类分析的山区果园土壤肥力评价[J].果树学报,2025,42(5):1097-1111.WANG H L,MA J W,LIU D,et al.Evaluation of soil fertility of major hilly orchards based on principal component analysis and cluster analysis[J].Journal of Fruit Science,2025,42(5):1097-1111.

[13] 史祥宾,王孝娣,王宝亮,等.‘红地球’葡萄氮、磷、钾、钙、镁的年需求特性研究[J].园艺学报,2021,48(11):2146-2160.SHI X B,WANG X D,WANG B L,et al.Requirement rule of nitrogen,phosphorus,potassium,calcium and magnesium of‘Red Globe’ grapevine[J].Acta Horticulturae Sinica,2021,48(11):2146-2160.

[14] 孙权,张学英,王振平,等.宁夏贺兰山东麓葡萄基地土壤.微量元素分布状况[J].中外葡萄与葡萄酒,2008(2):4-8.SUN Q,ZHANG X Y,WANG Z P,et al.Trace elements distribution in the soil profile of wine grape base at the eastern foot of Helan mountain of Ningxia[J].Sino-Overseas Grapevine &Wine,2008(2):4-8.

[15] XU H W,YOU C M,TAN B,et al.Effects of livestock grazing on the relationships between soil microbial community and soil carbon in grassland ecosystems[J].Science of the Total Environment,2023,881:163416.

[16] WU R Q,WANG Y S,HUO X Y,et al.Drought and vegetation restoration patterns shape soil enzyme activity and nutrient limitation dynamics in the Loess Plateau[J].Journal of Environmental Management,2025,374:123846.

[17] MIR R B,SANAULLAH M,MAHMOOD F,et al.Interactive effects of biochar rates and elevated temperature on organic matter cycling and extracellular enzyme activity in a sandy loam aridisol[J].Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition,2025,25(2):3056-3071.

[18] ZHANG H S,DENG M L,YANG H,et al.Regional-scale biogeographical patterns of soil extracellular enzyme activities across eight Chinese fir plantation locations[J].European Journal of Soil Biology,2024,122:103639.

[19] LIU C,SHANG S J,WANG C,et al.Biochar amendment increases peanut production through improvement of the extracellular enzyme activities and microbial community composition in replanted field[J].Plants,2025,14(6):922.

[20] YUN J,CUI C J,ZHANG S H,et al.Use of headspace GC/MS combined with chemometric analysis to identify the geographic origins of black tea[J].Food Chemistry,2021,360:130033.

[21] 邵淑贤,徐梦婷,林燕萍,等.基于电子鼻与HS-SPME-GC-MS技术对不同产地黄观音乌龙茶香气差异分析[J].食品科学,2023,44(4):232-239.SHAO S X,XU M T,LIN Y P,et al.Differential analysis of aroma components of Huangguanyin oolong tea from different geographical origins using electronic nose and headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry[J].Food Science,2023,44(4):232-239.

[22] 胡瑞祺,杨薇熹,凌梦琪,等.贺兰山东麓产区地块间‘赤霞珠’和‘马瑟兰’葡萄酒香气差异分析[J].中国酿造,2024,43(6):49-58.HU R Q,YANG W X,LING M Q,et al.Analysis of aroma difference between ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ and ‘Marselan’ wines among parcels in the eastern foothills of Helan Mountain[J].China Brewing,2024,43(6):49-58.

[23] 马宗桓,李玉梅,韦霞霞,等.河西走廊不同产地‘美乐’葡萄品质及香气物质的差异分析[J].园艺学报,2024,51(5):1083-1098.MA Z H,LI Y M,WEI X X,et al.Analysis of quality and aroma components of ‘Merlot’ grape from different areas in Hexi Corridor[J].Acta Horticulturae Sinica,2024,51(5):1083-1098.

[24] WU S W,LI M,ZHANG C M,et al.Effects of phosphorus on fruit soluble sugar and citric acid accumulations in Citrus[J].Plant Physiology and Biochemistry,2021,160:73-81.

[25] LI J J,WANG L,JAVED H U,et al.Nutrient solution with high nitrogen content,a suitable facilitator of growth and berry quality in hydroponic ‘Shine Muscat’ grapevine (Vitis vinifera×V.labrusca)[J].Scientia Horticulturae,2023,310:111749.

[26] STEFANELLO L O,SCHWALBERT R,SCHWALBERT R A,et al.Ideal nitrogen concentration in leaves for the production of high-quality grapes cv ‘Alicante Bouschet’ (Vitis vinifera L.) subjected to modes of application and nitrogen doses[J].European Journal of Agronomy,2021,123:126200.

[27] OBENLAND D,FELIZIANI E,ZHU S,et al.Potassium application to table grape clusters after veraison increases soluble solids by enhancing berry water loss[J].Scientia Horticulturae,2015,187:58-64.

[28] PUSHPAVATHI Y,SATISHA J,SATISHA G C,et al.Influence of different sources and methods of potassium application on the quality of grapes cv.sharad seedless (Vitis vinifera L.)[J].Current Science Association,2020,118(4):639-643.

[29] 李文超,孙盼,王振平.不同土壤条件对酿酒葡萄生理及果实品质的影响[J].果树学报,2012,29(5):837-842.LI W C,SUN P,WANG Z P.Effects of different soil condition on physiology and fruit quality of wine grapes[J].Journal of Fruit Science,2012,29(5):837-842.

[30] 张文昊,陈新军,孙雪楠,等.天山北麓玛纳斯小产区四种干红葡萄酒香气物质特征分析[J].食品与发酵工业,2025,51(8):299-306.ZHANG W H,CHEN X J,SUN X N,et al.Characterization of aroma substances of four dry red wines from Manas region in northern foot of Tianshan Mountains[J].Food and Fermentation Industries,2025,51(8):299-306.

[31] 王娜,廖源,高天容,等.基于GC-IMS技术的浓香型白酒等级判别方法[J].中国食品学报,2025,25(1):348-358.WANG N,LIAO Y,GAO T R,et al.The grade discrimination method of strong-flavor Baijiu based on GC-IMS[J].Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology,2025,25(1):348-358.

[32] 陶永胜,李娜.葡萄酒中香气物质研究进展[J].食品科学技术学报,2023,41(3):28-40.TAO Y S,LI N.Research progress on aroma compounds in wine[J].Journal of Food Science and Technology,2023,41(3):28-40.

[33] HOU Z S,WEI Y Y,SUN L B,et al.Effects of drying temperature on umami taste and aroma profiles of mushrooms (Suillus granulatus)[J].Journal of Food Science,2022,87(5):1983-1998.

[34] 王征,杨慧,张众,等.自然发酵对“赤霞珠”葡萄酒香气物质及理化性质的影响[J].中国食品学报,2024,24(12):372-386.WANG Z,YANG H,ZHANG Z,et al.Effects of natural fermentation of Cabernet Sauvignon wine on aroma component and physicochemical properties[J].Journal of Chinese Institute of Food Science and Technology,2024,24(12):372-386.

[35] 藏伟,刘叶,刘宇,等.本土季也蒙毕赤酵母在干红葡萄酒中试生产中的应用潜力[J].食品科学,2023,44(18):117-125.ZANG W,LIU Y,LIU Y,et al.Application potential of native Meyerozyma guilliermondii in pilot production of dry red wine[J].Food Science,2023,44(18):117-125.

[36] 郑茗源,索雨洁,张佳静,等.‘白玫瑰’和‘红玫瑰’葡萄果实发育过程中香气物质变化规律及葡萄酒香气特征研究[J].西北农林科技大学学报(自然科学版),2025,53(5):132-145;156.ZHENG M Y,SUO Y J,ZHANG J J,et al.Evolution of aromatic compounds during berry development of ‘Muscat Blanc’ and ‘Muscat Rouge’ and aroma characteristics of wine[J].Journal of Northwest A&F University (Natural Science Edition),2025,53(5):132-145;156.

[37] 马统魏,张波,王红娟,等.红树莓酒发酵过程中游离态和结合态香气成分分析[J].食品与发酵工业,2025,51(18):360-368.MA T W,ZHANG B,WANG H J,et al.Analysis of free and bound aroma components in red raspberry wine fermentation[J].Food and Fermentation Industries,2025,51(18):360-368.

Quality evaluation of Cabernet Sauvignon dry red wine from various regions in the eastern foothill of Helan Mountain in Ningxia

FAN Jin1,ZHENG Lanxiang2,CAO Min1,LI Ming1*

1(College of Wine and Horticulture,Ningxia University,Yinchuan 750021,China)2(College of Ecology and Environment,Ningxia University,Yinchuan 750021,China)

ABSTRACT To explore the stylistic characteristics of Cabernet Sauvignon dry red wine in the eastern foothill of the Helan Mountain and identify the soil factors influencing its quality,this study analyzed wine and soil samples from 12 vineyards across 4 regions.The physicochemical properties and aromatic components of the wine samples,as well as the soil nutrient contents and extracellular enzyme activity,were measured.Techniques such as headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS),multiple regression analysis,and orthogonal partial least squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) were employed to analyze the characteristic aromatic components of the wines.The results showed that all 12 wine samples complied with the national standards for dry red wine.Among them,the alcohol contents,residual sugar,and total phenolics were higher in Yongning production area,titratable acid content was higher in Zhenbeipu production area,free sulfur and tannin contents were higher in Qingtongxia production area,anthocyanin content was higher in Hongsipu production area.Sensory analysis revealed that all the samples were clear and ruby red in color,and the color tones were basically the same,with high scores for aroma and taste in the Zhenbeipu and Yongning appellations,both of which were at the ‘very good’ level.The volatile aroma compounds in the wine samples were extracted and analyzed using HS-SPME-GC-MS technology.A total of 64 volatile compounds were identified,including 22 esters,18 higher alcohols,6 fatty acids,7 aldehydes and ketones,and 7 terpenoids.The Cabernet Sauvignon dry red wine from different vineyards could be effectively differentiated using OPLS-DA.Based on the OPLS-DA results,14 differential aroma compounds were screened from GC-MS data through variable importance in projection (VIP) values.Combined with odor activity value (OAV) analysis,it was found that 4-terpineol and 2-methoxy-3-isobutylpyrazine were the most significant aroma contributors in Cabernet Sauvignon dry red wine from the eastern foothill of Helan Mountain,primarily exhibiting spicy,green pepper,and citrus notes.The OAV>1 additive values showed that Yongning wine was more fruity and floral,Qingtongxia wine was more fatty,and Zhenbeipu wine was more vegetal.Multivariate regression analysis revealed that available potassium,available phosphorus,CBH,NAG,LAP,and BG significantly influenced wine quality and flavor characteristics.The findings of this study will provide a theoretical basis for vineyard management practices in the eastern foothills of Helan Mountain,while also facilitating consumers understanding and selection of wines with distinct styles.

Key words the eastern foothill of Helan Mountain; regional wine style; soil parameters; extracellular enzyme activity; multiple regression equation

DOI:10.13995/j.cnki.11-1802/ts.043336

引用格式:范瑾,郑兰香,操敏,等.宁夏贺兰山东麓不同产区赤霞珠干红葡萄酒品质分析[J].食品与发酵工业,2026,52(2):353-363.FAN Jin,ZHENG Lanxiang,CAO Min,et al.Quality evaluation of Cabernet Sauvignon dry red wine from various regions in the eastern foothill of Helan Mountain in Ningxia[J].Food and Fermentation Industries,2026,52(2):353-363.

第一作者:硕士研究生(李明副教授为通信作者,E-mail:lm_y096@126.com)

基金项目:宁夏回族自治区重点研发计划项目(2024BBF01003-03);宁夏自然科学基金项目(2023AAC03113);宁夏贺兰山东麓葡萄酒产业技术协同创新中心葡萄酒领域科技人才开放课题项目(CXZXKT2024011)

收稿日期:2025-05-20,改回日期:2025-07-13