Skip to main content
Applied Biological Chemistry
Download PDF

Optimization of fermentation conditions, physicochemical profile and sensory quality analysis of seedless wampee wine

Applied Biological Chemistry volume 67, Article number: 81 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

The aims of the present stud were to optimize fermentation parameters of seedless wampee wine using response surface methodology (RSM) and evaluate the changes in flavor metabolites during fermentation. Seedless wampee wine of optimal sensory quality was produced using an inoculum concentration of 0.6%, initial sugar levels of 200 g/L, a fermentation temperature of 22 °C, and a fermentation period of 9 days. Then the flavor compound profiles (amino acids, organic acids and volatile aroma compounds) of seedless wampee wine during the fermentation under optimal conditions were analyzed using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometr (GC-MS). The main fermented phase of fermentation resulted in fluctuations in both total amino acids and organic acids, with stabilization occurring later on. A total of 54 volatile components, including esters, alcohols, terpenes, and acids, were putatively identified. Terpenes were the primary drivers of the flavor characteristics of seedless wampee. The rise of esters and decline of terpenes have the potential to significantly alter the flavor of wine during fermentation. These results would contribute to the further development of seedless wampee wine.

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

Clausena lansium (Lour.) Skeels, commonly known as wampee, is a fruit crop of the Rutaceae family that is native to southern China, Thailand and Vietnam [1]. Wampee fruit is renowned for its rich taste and flavor, and has been introduced to India, Sri Lanka, Australia, the United States and in Central America [2, 3]. Previous studies have identified multiple key flavor and taste components in different parts of the wampee fruit, which explained the reason that many consumers tend to eat the pulp and peel rather than the seed of wampee [4]. As an edible medicinal and non-medicinal fruit, wampee is nowadays available in various forms such as fruit cups, gelatins, juices, jams, jellies, and pies [2]. Wampee has also been used to treat bronchitis in traditional Chinese and Vietnamese medicine [5]. Recent studies have identified its extensive health benefits, including anti-oxidation, anti-bacterium, anti-inflammation, antihypertension, neuroprotection, and prebiotic effects, which are mainly attributed to the bioactive phenolics, carbazole alkaloids, and polysaccharides [6,7,8,9,10]. Wampee can be classified according to its taste, which can be either sweet or sweet-sour. The sweet variety is typically consumed fresh, while the sweet-sour variety is commonly used as a raw material for the production of processed foods, such as preserved fruit, wine, and vinegar [11]. Seedless wampee (C. lansium S. cv. WuHeHuangPi), a sweet–sour cultivar, is characterized by its thin skin, thick flesh and distinctive sweet-sour flavor. Due to the expanded cultivation of seedless wampee and the seasonality of the fruit, various wampee-derived products need to be developed urgently.

Nowadays, fruit wine is gaining popularity among consumers because of its special flavor and nutritional benefits. Various types of fruit, such as grapes, apples, durians and red pitayas, can be used for making fruit wine [12,13,14,15]. In Vietnam, wampee is fermented with sugar, to produce a beverage that resembles champagne [2]. Fruit wine production not only resolves production, marketing, transportation and preservation issues during the fruit harvest season, but also enhances sensory quality and physical and chemical properties. Flavor metabolites are recognized as crucial indicators of wine quality and play a major role in consumer purchasing decisions [16, 17]. The composition and concentration of primary metabolites, specially carbohydrates, organic acids and amino acids, are closely correlated with the flavor and taste of fruit wine [18, 19]. Additionally, during fermentation, microorganisms can break down complex macromolecules into smaller molecules with improved bioaccessibility and bioavailability. Enzymes also facilitate the formation and release of flavor compounds to enhance the quality of fruit wine [20]. Over the last decade, researchers have examined the potential health benefits of consuming appropriate fruit wine, especially the non-volatile components, such as phenolic compounds and polysaccharide [21,22,23]. Nevertheless, limited information is available on the dynamic flavor changes of wampee during fermentation is still unknown, particularly for seedless wampee.

The commercial value of fruit wine depends on its organoleptic and sensory characteristics which are influenced by a combination of non-volatile and volatile components. The compositions and abundance of these components are closely associated with the fermentation process of fruit wine. Hence, we optimized various variables, such as inoculum concentration, initial sugar, time, and temperature using response surface methodology (RSM) to enhance the quality attributes of seedless wampee wine. Additionally, we evaluated the fluctuation of physicochemical indicators, such as free amino acids, organic acids and volatile aroma compounds. Hopefully, these results would provide a scientific basis for seedless wampee wine production and increase the versatile application of seedless wampee in the food industry.

Materials and methods

Materials and reagents

Seedless wampee was collected in Yunfu, Guangdong Province, China. Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast was purchased from Angel Yeast Co., Ltd. (Hubei, China). Lallzyme EX-V was purchased from Lallemand Inc. (Toulouse, France). The materials used in winemaking were of food grade. Folin-Ciocalteu’s phenol reagent (99%), L-ascorbic acid (99%), gallic acid (99%), protocatechuic acid (99%), chlorogenic acid (99%), vanillic acid (99%), syringic acid (99%), coumaric acid (99%), ferulic acid (99%), rutin (99%), quercetin (99%), fluorescein sodium salt (99%), 2,2-azobis(2-methylpropionamidine) dihydrochloride (AAPH) (99%) were procured from Aladdin Ltd. (Shanghai, China). All the chemicals and reagents used in this study were of analytical grade.

Seedless wampee wine preparation

The fermentation process was shown in Fig. 1. Briefly, seedless wampee was washed with water, then water (1:1, v/v) was added to crush and pulp with a homogenizer, after which 100 mg/kg SO2 was added to inhibit miscellaneous bacteria. Then 0.1% (w/v) Lallzyme EX-V was added and treated at 50 °C for 1 h for clarification, followed by inactivation in a water bath at 80 °C for 10 min. Meanwhile, 1 g of yeast was inoculated into a 100 mL of 3% (v/v) sugar solution and placed in 38 °C for activation. Afterwards, the activated yeast solution (0.5–0.7%, v/v) was inoculated into the wampee pulp, which was adjusted for the initial sugar level (190–210 g/L) and subjected to pre-fermentation at a suitable temperature (21–23 °C) for 8–10 d. In order to analyze changes in physicochemical indicators and sensory quality during fermentation, seedless wampee was fermented under optimal process conditions, and the upper wine layer was collected and subjected to post-fermentation at 20 °C. The samples were collected on day 0, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, 19, 24 and 29 for further analysis.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Preparation of seedless wampee wine

Full size image

Response surface methodology for optimization of fermentation conditions

In this study, Box-Behnken design and response surface methodology (BBD-RSM) was used to investigate the effect of fermentation factors on the quality of seedless wampee wine [24]. The sensory score of seedless wampee wine was taken as the response variable (Y) (Table S1). The experimental design was applied with four independent variable factors including inoculum size, initial sugar, fermentation time, and fermentation temperature at three levels, as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1 Treatment combinations with results of the response surface of seedless wampee wine
Full size table

Sensory evaluation

Sensory evaluation of seedless wampee wine was carried out in accordance with national standards of the PRC by ten semi-trained panels, respectively [25]. Plain water was provided to panelists between the evaluations of different samples to avoid lingering aftertaste. Scores were given by evaluators for appearance (0–30), aroma (0–30), taste (0–30) and typicality (0–20), respectively (Table S1). The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering and informed consent was obtained from each subject prior to their participation in the study.

Amino acids analysis

Briefly, concentrations of amino acids in seedless wampee wine were analyzed by the high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) system (1260, Agilent Technologies, USA), with Advance Bio 3 A amino acid chromatography columns (4.6 × 100 mm, 2.7 μm, Agilent Technologies, USA) [26]. The sample was centrifuged at a rate of 1000 r/min for 10 min, and then the supernatant was filtered through a 0.45 μm membrane for analysis. Ten millimolars Na2HPO4- Na2B4O7 (1:1, v/v) which adjust the pH to 8.2 was used as buffer A and acetonitrile-methanol-acetic acid (45:45:10, v/v) was used as buffer B. The flow rate was fixed at 1 mL/min and the column temperature was set at 40 °C. The absorbance was monitored at 338 nm. The program began with 98% A and 2% B. Then the buffer A linearly dropped to 43% from 0 to 13.4 min, dropped to 0% from 13.4 to 15.8 min, and subsequently, rose back to 98% from 15.8 to 20 min. The chromatographic peaks were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively mainly by comparison with standards.

Organic acids analysis

The method used for the determination of organic acids was based on a previous report [27]. The HPLC system (1260, Agilent Technologies, USA) with ZORBAX SB-Aq columns (250 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) was applied for organic acid detection. Buffer A consisted of 10% methanol and 0.01 mol/L KH2PO4 solution was used as buffer B. The isocratic elution program was started with 3% A and 97% B and the absorbance was monitored at 241 nm. The other details were as follows: injection volume was 10 µL, flow rate was 0.8 mL/min, and the column temperature was 30 °C. Identification and quantification were conducted using the external standard method.

Volatile analysis

Volatile compounds were analyzed using the headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS) system (7890B, Agilent Technologies, USA) [28]. In brief, 7 mL of wine samples were mixed with 0.4 g of NaCl in 15 mL headspace vials. Then, 10 µL of 2-octanol (2.2 mg/L) was added as the internal standard, and the headspace vials were sealed. Subsequently, samples were equilibrated at 45 °C for 50 min, and the volatile compounds were extracted from the headspace to the solid-phase microextraction (SPME) fiber. Separation of volatile components was performed with a DB-WAX UI gas chromatography column (30 m × 250 μm, 0.25 μm, Agilent Technologies, USA). Helium at a flow rate of 1 mL/min was used as the carrier gas. The transfer line was set to 250 °C and the ion-source temperature was set to 230 °C. The ionization energy of the impact was 70 eV, with a scanning range of m/z from 35 to 450. The SPME fiber was placed into a gas chromatograph injection port and desorbed for 5 min at 250 °C. The oven temperature was initially maintained at 40 °C for 5 min, and increased to 120 °C at a rate of 3 °C/min and kept for 3 min, followed by another increase in temperature to 220 °C at a rate of 6 °C/min with a final holding of 5 min. The compounds were identified by comparing their mass spectra against synthetic standards and matches from NIST 2.0 library.

Statistical analysis

Data were expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD, n = 3). Significant differences (p < 0.05) were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple comparison post-test using SPSS statistical software 21.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Design-Expert 8.0.7 was applied to establish the second-order polynomial equation and generate the contour plots based on analysis of variance and the optimization. A dose-effect analysis was performed using Calcusyn software version 2.0 (Biosoft, Cambridge, UK). Multivariate data analysis was performed using SIMCA software 14.0 (Umetrics, Umeaa, Sweden). For GC-MS data, mass spectral resolution and comparison with the NIST 20.0 standard library were used. Results with > 80% match were retained for qualitative analysis. The relative content of each component was calculated using the internal standard method.

Results and discussion

Effects of different fermentation conditions on sensory evaluation

Sensory evaluation plays an indispensable role in the quality of fruit wine fermentation. This study indicated that optimization of fermentation conditions can improve the sensory quality of seedless wampee wine. The sensory scores of seedless wampee wine under different fermentation conditions (inoculum size, initial sugar, fermentation time, and fermentation temperature) were shown in Table 1. The second-order polynomial response surface model fitted for sensory quality was displayed in Eq. (1):

$$\eqalign{& Y{\rm{ }}\left( {sensory{\rm{ }}evaluation,{\rm{ }}scores} \right){\rm{ }} = {\rm{ }} \cr & 94.54 + 0.9\:{\rm{ }}{X_1} + 0.57{\rm{ }}{X_2} + 0.33{\rm{ }}{X_3} + 0.25{\rm{ }}{X_4} - \cr & 1.35{\rm{ }}{X_1}{X_2} - 0.075{\rm{ }}{X_1}{X_3} - 0.58{\rm{ }}{X_1}{X_4} - 0.55{\rm{ }}{X_2}{X_3} - \cr & 1.1{\rm{ }}{X_2}{X_4} - 0.28{\rm{ }}{X_3}{X_4} - 1.57{\rm{ }}{X_1}^2 - \cr & 1.84{\rm{ }}{X_2}^2 - 2.29{\rm{ }}{X_3}^2 - 4.39{\rm{ }}{X_4}^{2 } \cr}$$
(1)

The results of the analysis of variance for the regression model using RSM were presented in Table 2. The regression model was indicated to be significant with a p- value of 0.0016 (p < 0.01). The quadratic polynomial model for sensory evaluation resulted in a determination coefficient (R2 = 0.8443), which showed that 84.43% of the change could be explained [29]. The lack of fit, corresponding to p-values of 0.0818, showed non-significance of difference, demonstrating that the experimental data was highly probable. Among the factors explored in the sensory evaluation of seedless wampee wine, inoculum size (X1) had the greatest effect followed by initial sugar (X2), fermentation time (X3), and fermentation temperature (X4). The combined effects of the tested factors on the sensory scores were visualized in Fig. 2. The quadratic term (X4²) displayed highly significance (p<0.0001), followed by X22 and X32 (p < 0.01), and X4² was also significant (p < 0.05).

Table 2 Variance analysis of response surface model
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

3D surface plots for the effect of independent variables (a. inoculum concentration and initial sugar; b. inoculum concentration and fermentation time; c. inoculum concentration and fermentation temperature; d. initial sugar and fermentation time; e. initial sugar and fermentation temperature; f. fermentation time and fermentation temperature.) on sensory score of seedless wampee wine

Full size image

According to the response surface and the regression equation, the optimal value for inoculum concentration, initial sugar, fermentation temperature and fermentation time to produce a sensory score value of 94.68 were 0.63%, 200.47 g/L, 22.00 °C and 9.06 d. To ensure the validity of the model equations, three replicate tests were performed under the optimal conditions with slight modification as follows: an inoculum concentration of 0.6%, initial sugar concentration of 200 g/L, fermentation at a temperature of 22 °C, and fermentation for 9 d, taking into account the feasibility of the practical operation. The sensory score of 94.54 was in line with the expected results, suggesting that the established prediction model could effectively predict the sensory score.

Amino acid content of the seedless wampee wine during fermentation

As one of the precursors of volatile compounds, amino acids are recognized for their contribution to the aroma and taste of wine [18, 19]. The sensitivity of amino acids profiles to processing conditions varies depending on the processing methods and materials [30]. Fifteen free amino acids were detected in seedless wampee wine in this study. These fatty acids were categorized according to taste as sweet amino acids (Ser, Ala, Thr, Gly, Cys, Pro), bitter amino acids (Leu, Ile, Val, His, Arg, Lys, Tyr), and umami amino acid (Asp, Glu) [31]. Overall, there was a greater variation in total amino acids during the main fermentation, ranging from 100.98 mg/L on day 5 to 2492.36 mg/L on day 0, but the levels remained relatively stable during the post-fermentation period, ranging from 187.38 to 210.74 mg/L (Fig. 3a). Regarding amino acids responsible for taste, the percentage of sweet amino acids decreased from 82% on day 0 to 48% on day 29, which could be partly attributed to the significant reductions of Ser and Ala (Fig. 3b). On the 9th day, the volatile compounds had 52.74% of sweetness amino acids, 12.12% of umami amino acids and 35.07% of bitterness amino acids. Although the proportion of bitter amino acids increased during the initial stage of fermentation, their concentration decreased significantly during fermentation, dropping from 161.18 mg/L on day 0 to 54.93 mg/L on day 29, which represents a 65.9% reduction. It has been suggested that the bitterness threshold is adjusted through the acidity threshold [32], and that the increase of bitter amino acids may balance the acidity of seedless wampee, resulting in a more harmonious flavor of wampee wine. Furthermore, the percentage of umami amino acids significantly increased during fermentation, from 11% on day 0 to 22% on day 29. Previous studies have demonstrated that fermented beverages with prolonged yeast exposure contain high levels of free Glu, which may enhance umami more than beverages with limited or no yeast exposure. This is consistent with the results of our study, where the freshness amino acids increased significantly during the late fermentation of wampee wine [33]. Amino acids not only contribute to aroma formation, but are also precursors of a variety of flavor compounds, mainly due to their role in microbial growth and metabolism as nitrogen sources [17]. The profile of individual amino acids in fruit wine was influenced by various factors, including yeast, fermentation conditions, and carbon source [34, 35]. In our study, decreases in bitter amino acid content during fermentation might contribute to the taste of seedless wampee wine.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Changes in amino acid composition (a) and the proportion of taste amino acid (b) during seedless wampee wine fermentation

Full size image

Organic acid content of the seedless wampee wine during fermentation

The presence of an adequate amount of organic acids has been shown to hinder the growth of contaminating bacteria and improve the mellowness and flavor of wine [36]. In order to investigate the variations in organic acid levels in the fermentation process of seedless wampee wine, eight organic acids, namely oxalic acid, tartaric acid, pyruvic acid, malic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid, citric acid, and succinic acid, were identified through HPLC analysis of the seedless wampee wine. Overall, the concentration of organic acids exhibited a modest decline during the fermentation process and then maintained a relatively stable, fluctuating between 15.24 and 16.08 mg/L after the seventh day, suggesting that the microbial community involved in the fermentation of wampee wine had achieved a state of equilibrium (Fig. 4a).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Changes in organic acid composition (a) and the proportion of organic acid (b) during seedless wampee wine fermentation

Full size image

As for the concentrations of individual organic acids, tartaric acid, lactic acid, and succinic acid, were observed to be significantly increased (p < 0.05). Tartaric acid exhibited the highest increase, rising from 0.14 mg/L on day 0 to 2.05 mg/L on day 29, indicating a 13.64-fold increase. The peel of seedless wampee is a possible source of the higher tartaric acid concertation [37]. On the other hand, the levels of oxalic acid, pyruvic acid, malic acid, acetic acid, and citric acid were significantly reduced (p < 0.05), and malic acid exhibited the most significant decline, decreasing from 0.22 mg/L on day 0 to 0.04 mg/L on day 29.

After the fermentation process, the predominant organic acid found in seedless wampee wine was changed from initially acetic acid to lactic acid, with the percentage of acetic acid decreasing from 54% on day 0 to 28% on day 29 and the percentage of lactic acid increasing from 23% on day 0 to 34% on day 29 (Fig. 4b). The increase in alcohol content during fermentation could lead to the solubility of lactic acid in wampee. As reported, most organic acids in beverages were not directly correlated with sensory characteristics, however, the ratio of acetic acid to total organic acid content exhibited a strong correlation with sensory characteristics [38]. The ratio of acetic acid to total organic acid content remained steady (22-28%) from day 5 to day 29, suggesting that organic acids have a minimal impact on the sensory features of seedless wampee wine during this stage. Furthermore, it should be noted that acetic acid contributes to the synthesis of ethyl acetate, and the reduction of acetic acid during fermentation is accompanied by an increase in ethyl acetate concentration, which may ultimately result in improved fruit aroma of wampee wine [39].

Dynamic changes of aroma compounds in seedless wampee wine during fermentation

There was a strong relationship between the sensorial properties and aroma compounds of fruit wine [40]. The main volatile aroma compounds of seedless wampee wine during fermentation were determined by HS-SPME-GC–MS system, including 14 esters, 10 alcohols, 27 terpenes, and 3 acids (Table 3). In general, the composition of volatile aroma components varied during the fermentation process. The flavor components of seedless wampee fruit presented a fruity and floral aroma that is characteristic of terpenes, with lower levels of alcohols, esters and acids [41]. During the fermentation process, more than10 esters, 3 alcohols, 2 acids and 4 terpenes being produced in seedless wampee wine, whereas 9 terpenes found in wampee juice were not detected in the resulting wine. The fermentation process resulted in the gradual development of a delicate and mellow flavor of seedless wampee wine, which was achieved by day 29.

Table 3 Relative contents (%) of aroma components in seedless wampee wine during fermentation process
Full size table

Esters play a major role in providing fresh and fruity fragrances to wine. They are primarily produced during yeast metabolism through the fatty acid acyl- and acetyl-coenzyme A (CoA) pathways [42, 43]. The seedless wampee wine contained twelve esters, eight of which were ethyl esters of fatty acid. Ethyl decanoate and ethyl octanoate were promoted most significantly after fermentation compared with seedless wampee juice, followed by ethyl 9-decenoate, ethyl palmitate and ethyl tetradecanoate (> 1%). The similar trend of change for ethyl decanoate and ethyl octanoate was observed during wine fermentation, which brought out grape and fat odors to the seedless wampee wine [23].

The alcohols present in fruit wine that are derived from yeast`s amino acid metabolism are associated with the variety of fruit [44]. Phenylethyl alcohol and n-pentanol were the prominent higher alcohols found in seedless wampee wine as they were the byproducts of alcoholic fermentation. A moderate amount of these compounds contributes to the mellow and sweet taste of fruit wine. For instance, phenylethyl alcohol is known for its rose-like aroma and jasmine aroma [45], while n-pentanol plays a role in providing bitter almond and fat flavor [46]. Additionally, various alcohols including 4-terpinenol, linalool, (-)-α-cadinol, spathulenol, and α-bisabolol were derived from wampee juice, although there were some losses during the fermentation process.

Terpenes have a unique aroma with a low flavor threshold and are reported as the characteristic flavor for ripened fruit and wine [47]. In seedless wampee wine, there was an overall downward trend in terpenes (from 41.68 to 18.03%) compared to day 0. This decrease could be attributed to the sharp decline in α-ocimene, α-phellandrene, 4-carene, calamenene and α-pinene. A decline in terpenes during wine fermentation was attributed to either volatility or transformation into different metabolites [48]. Additionally, the release of glycocide-bound terpenes in fruit by enzymatic hydrolysis during fermentation may partially explain the accumulation of terpenes in wampee wine [49].

Multivariate statistical analysis of seedless wampee wine during fermentation

Multivariate data analysis was carried out to analyze the flavor composition, including volatile aroma components and non-volatile aroma components (amino acids and organic acids), to map the samples from seedless wampee wine fermentation and gain understanding of the basic principles underlying the differences observed (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5
figure 5

Multivariate statistical analysis of seedless wampee wine during seedless wampee fermentation. (a) Principle component analysis (PCA) score plot, (b) Partial least squares - discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) score plot, (c) Model validation diagram and (d) Variable importance plot(VIP)through PLS-DA analysis

Full size image

According to the results of the principal component analysis (PCA), the samples from different fermentation periods were distributed across four quadrants (Fig. 5a). The wampee juice samples were situated in the third quadrant, while the samples that underwent fermentation for 2–9 days could be found in the first and second quadrants, and the samples that fermented for 14–29 days were situated in the fourth quadrant. Three distinct regions were observed in the seedless wampee wine: unfermented, main fermented and post-fermented phase, indicating significant variations in the flavor compounds, including organic acids, amino acids and volatile flavor compounds among the different fermentation stages. To further characterize these samples, a partial least squares - discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) model contrasted with an R2 of 98.4% and a Q2 of 93.9% (Fig. 5b). Clearly, the unfermented samples, as well as those fermented for 2–9 days and 14–29 days, exhibited distinct characteristics, and the flavor variations observed in the different stages of wampee fruit wine fermentation were clearly separated. These findings were consistent with the results obtained from the PCA model. After conducting the alignment test and 200 alignment experiments, it was found that the intersection of the Q2 regression line with the vertical axis was less than 0, and the y-values of the left simulation points of R2 and Q2 were lower than the rightmost origin (Fig. 5c). These results indicated that the PLS-DA model had strong predictive ability with no signs of overfitting. Therefore, it can used for flavor analysis of seedless wampee wine. The VIP values indicate the varying contributions of different flavor compounds, with a VIP value greater than 1 indicating a more significant discriminatory contribution. A total of 33 major flavor compounds, comprising 6 organic acids, 12 amino acids, and 15 volatile flavor compounds, processed a VIP value above 1 (Fig. 5d). Organic acids, including citric acid, succinic acid and tartaric acid, along with amino acids such as Ser, Ala and Asp, and volatile flavor compounds such as cedrene, (-)-germacrene and calamenene, comprised the vital flavor components of seedless wampee wine.

The present study investigated the application of seedless wampee in fruit wine fermentation. The optimal fermentation conditions for seedless wampee wine were established, including an inoculum concentration of 0.6%, an initial sugar level of 200 g/L, a fermentation temperature of 22 °C, and a fermentation period of 9 days. Under these conditions, the sensory score can reach 94.68. Then the changes of physicochemical profile and sensory properties of seedless wampee wine were evaluated under optimal fermentation conditions. Notably, the non-volatile components, including amino acids and organic acids exhibited significant changes during the main-fermented process. Regarding volatile aroma components, the number and concentration of esters showed a significant increase after fermentation, whereas the number and content of terpenes relatively decreased in seedless wampee wine. These results enhance our understanding of the flavor formation of seedless wampee wine. Further studies could focus on the bioactive components and potential health benefits of seedless wampee wine.

References

  1. Fan Y, Sahu SK, Yang T, Mu W, Wei J, Cheng L et al (2021) The Clausena lansium (Wampee) genome reveal new insights into the carbazole alkaloids biosynthesis pathway. Genomics 113(6):3696–3704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2021.09.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Lim TK (2012) Clausena lansium. In: Lim TK (ed) Edible Medicinal and non-medicinal plants: volume 4, fruits. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 871–883

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Prasad KN, Hao J, Yi C, Zhang D, Qiu S, Jiang Y et al (2009) Antioxidant and anticancer activities of wampee (Clausena lansium (Lour.) Skeels) peel. J Biomed Biotechnol 2009:612805. https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/612805

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Zhao ZH, Hao YF, Liu YJ, Shi YS, Lin X, Wang L et al (2023) Comprehensive evaluation of aroma and taste properties of different parts from the wampee fruit. Food Chem X 19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100835

  5. Arbab IA, Abdul AB, Aspollah M, RasedeeAbdullah, Abdelwahab SI, Ibrahim MY et al (2012) A review of traditional uses, phytochemical and pharmacological aspects of selected members of clausena genus (rutaceae). J Med Plants Res 6(38):5107–5118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Pirasut R, Rudee S, Surat L, Jintakorn K (2015) In vitro evaluation of the antibacterial and anti-inflammation activities of Clausena lansium (lour.) Skeels. Songklanakarin J Sci Technol (SJST) 37(1):43–48

  7. Liu Y-P, Guo J-M, Liu Y-Y, Hu S, Yan G, Qiang L et al (2019) Carbazole alkaloids with potential neuroprotective activities from the fruits of Clausena lansium. J Agric Food Chem 67(20):5764–5771. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.9b00961

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Phachonpai W, Terdthai T (2020) Antihypertensive and vasoprotective effects of Clausena lansium fruits extract in L-NAME induced hypertensive rats. Pak J Pharm Sci 33(2):745–749. https://doi.org/10.36721/pjps.2020.33.2.Sup.745-749.1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Chang X, Ye Y, Pan J, Lin Z, Qiu J, Peng C et al (2022) Comparative analysis of phytochemical profiles and antioxidant activities between Sweet and Sour Wampee (Clausena lansium) fruits. Foods 11(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11091230

  10. Song C, Huang F, Liu L, Zhou Q, Zhang D, Fang Q et al (2022) Characterization and prebiotic properties of pectin polysaccharide from Clausena lansium (lour.) Skeels fruit. Int J Biol Macromol 194:412–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.11.083

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Yin Q-c, Ji J-b, Zhang R-h, Duan Z-w, Xie H, Chen Z et al (2022) Identification and verification of key taste components in wampee using widely targeted metabolomics. Food Chemistry: X 13:100261

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Peng B, Li F, Cui L, Guo Y (2015) Effects of Fermentation temperature on key aroma compounds and sensory properties of Apple Wine. J Food Sci 80(12):S2937–S2943. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lu Y, Voon MK, Huang D, Lee PR, Liu SQ (2017) Combined effects of fermentation temperature and pH on kinetic changes of chemical constituents of durian wine fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101(7):3005–3014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-016-8043-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lin X, Hu X, Wang Q, Li C (2020) Improved flavor profiles of red pitaya (Hylocereus lemairei) wine by controlling the inoculations of Saccharomyces Bayanus and Metschnikowia agaves and the fermentation temperature. J Food Sci Technol 57(12):4469–4480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-020-04484-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Brand J, Panzeri V, Buica A (2020) Wine Quality drivers: a Case Study on South African Chenin Blanc and Pinotage wines. Foods 9(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9060805

  16. Jiang B, Zhang Z (2010) Volatile compounds of young wines from cabernet sauvignon, cabernet gernischet and chardonnay varieties grown in the loess plateau region of China. Molecules 15(12):9184–9196. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules15129184

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Parker M, Capone DL, Francis IL, Herderich MJ (2018) Aroma precursors in grapes and wine: Flavor Release during Wine Production and Consumption. J Agric Food Chem 66(10):2281–2286. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.6b05255

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Yan X, Li S, Tu T, Li Y, Niu M, Tong Y et al (2023) Free amino acids identification and process optimization in greengage wine fermentation and flavor formation. J Food Sci 88(3):988–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Li Z, Qin C, He X, Chen B, Tang J, Liu G et al (2023) Development of Green Banana Fruit wines: Chemical compositions and in Vitro Antioxidative activities. Antioxidants 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12010093

  20. Yang H, Cai G, Lu J, Plaza EG The production and application of enzymes related to the quality of fruit wine. Crit Reviews Food Sci Nutr. 2020(3):1–11

  21. Hui Y, Wen S, Lihong W, Chuang W, Chaoyun W (2021) Molecular structures of nonvolatile components in the Haihong fruit wine and their free radical scavenging effect. Food Chem 353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129298

  22. Zhang K, Meng J, Li X, Tang X, Ma S, Lv Y et al (2020) Noni (Morinda citrifoliaL.) Wine prevents the oxidative stress and obesity in mice induced by high-fat diet. J Food Biochem 44(11). https://doi.org/10.1111/jfbc.13460

  23. Sun T, Zhang H, Li Y, Liu Y, Dai W, Fang J et al (2020) Physicochemical properties and immunological activities of polysaccharides from both crude and wine-processed Polygonatum Sibiricum. Int J Biol Macromol 143:255–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.11.166

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Pansuriya RC, Singhal RS (2010) Response surface methodology for optimization of production of lovastatin by solid state fermentation. Brazilian J Microbiol 41:164–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Administration NS (2006) Analytical methods of wine and fruit wine. National standards of the people’s Republic of China. China Standards, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  26. Pleissner D, Wimmer R, Eriksen NT (2011) Quantification of amino acids in fermentation media by isocratic HPLC analysis of their α-hydroxy acid derivatives. Anal Chem 83(1):175–181

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Qian M, Ruan F, Zhao W, Dong H, Bai W, Li X et al (2023) The dynamics of physicochemical properties, microbial community, and flavor metabolites during the fermentation of semi-dry Hakka rice wine and traditional sweet rice wine. Food Chem 416:135844. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.135844

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang L, Mi S, Liu R, Sang Y, Wang X (2020) Evaluation of volatile compounds in milks fermented using traditional starter cultures and probiotics based on odor activity value and chemometric techniques. Molecules 25(5):1129

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Tsegay ZT, Lemma SM (2020) Response surface optimization of Cactus Pear (Opuntia ficus-indica) with Lantana camara (L. camara) fruit fermentation process for Quality Wine production. Int J Food Sci 2020:8647262. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8647262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Boye J, Wijesinha-Bettoni R, Burlingame B (2012) Protein quality evaluation twenty years after the introduction of the protein digestibility corrected amino acid score method. Br J Nutr 108(Suppl 2):S183–211. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007114512002309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sun M, Yang F, Hou W, Jiang S, Yang R, Zhang W et al (2022) Dynamic variation of amino acid contents and identification of Sterols in Xinyang Mao Jian Green Tea. Molecules 27(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27113562

  32. Cattaneo C, Riso P, Laureati M, Gargari G, Pagliarini E (2019) Exploring associations between Interindividual Differences in Taste Perception, oral Microbiota Composition, and reported Food Intake. Nutrients 11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11051167

  33. Schmidt CV, Olsen K, Mouritsen OG (2021) Umami potential of fermented beverages: Sake, wine, champagne, and beer. Food Chemistry. ;360. doi: ARTN 128971 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128971

  34. Yan X, Li S, Tu T, Li Y, Niu M, Tong Y et al (2023) Free amino acids identification and process optimization in greengage wine fermentation and flavor formation. J Food Sci. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16452

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Tao Y, Wang Y, Yang J, Wang Q, Jiang N, Dinh-Toi C et al (2017) Chemical composition and sensory profiles of mulberry wines as fermented with different Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains. Int J Food Prop 20:2006–2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2017.1361970

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Yan S, Xiangsong C, Xiang X (2019) Improvement of the aroma of lily rice wine by using aroma-producing yeast strain Wickerhamomyces Anomalus HN006. AMB Express 9(1):89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-019-0811-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sokač T, Gunjević V, Pušek A, Tušek AJ, Dujmić F, Brnčić M et al (2022) Comparison of drying methods and their effect on the Stability of Graševina grape Pomace biologically active compounds. Foods 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11010112

  38. Moon S-Y, Chung H-C, Yoon H-N (1997) Comparative analysis of commercial vinegars in physicochemical properties, minor components and organoleptic tastes. Korean J Food Sci Technol 29(4):663–670

    Google Scholar 

  39. Gao W, Fan W, Xu Y (2014) Characterization of the key odorants in light aroma type Chinese liquor by gas chromatography-olfactometry, quantitative measurements, aroma recombination, and omission studies. J Agric Food Chem 62(25):5796–5804. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf501214c

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fracassetti D, Camoni D, Montresor L, Bodon R, Limbo S (2020) Chemical characterization and Volatile Profile of Trebbiano Di Lugana Wine: a Case Study. Foods 9(7). https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9070956

  41. Chokeprasert P, Charles AL, Sue K-H, Huang T-C (2007) Volatile components of the leaves, fruits and seeds of wampee Clausena lansium (Lour.) Skeels. J Food Compos Anal 20(1):52–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2006.07.002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rocha SM, Rodrigues F, Coutinho P, Delgadillo I, Coimbra MA (2004) Volatile composition of Baga red wine: Assessment of the identification of the would-be impact odourants. Anal Chim Acta 513(1):257–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Saerens SM, Delvaux FR, Verstrepen KJ, Thevelein JM (2010) Production and biological function of volatile esters in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microb Biotechnol 3(2):165–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2009.00106.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Ferreira V, López R, Cacho JF (2000) Quantitative determination of the odorants of young red wines from different grape varieties. J Sci Food Agric 80(11):1659–1667

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Xiao Z, Li J, Niu Y, Liu Q, Liu J (2017) Verification of key odorants in rose oil by gas chromatography-olfactometry/aroma extract dilution analysis, odour activity value and aroma recombination. Nat Prod Res 31(19):2294–2302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2017.1303693

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Duan G, Liu Y, Lv H, Wu F, Wang R (2020) Optimization of Zaoheibao wine fermentation process and analysis of aroma substances. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 34(1):1056–1064

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Du X, Rouseff R (2014) Aroma active volatiles in four southern highbush blueberry cultivars determined by gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). J Agric Food Chem 62(20):4537–4543. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf500315t

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. King A, Richard Dickinson J (2000) Biotransformation of Monoterpene alcohols by Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Torulaspora delbrueckii and Kluyveromyces Lactis. Yeast 16(6):499–506. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0061(200004)16:6%3C499::AID-YEA548%3E3.0.CO;2-E

  49. Yang Y, Jin GJ, Wang XJ, Kong CL, Liu J, Tao YS (2019) Chemical profiles and aroma contribution of terpene compounds in Meili (Vitis vinifera L.) grape and wine. Food Chem 284:155–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.01.106

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the Research Capacity Enhancement Project of Key Disciplines in Guangdong Province, grant number 2021ZDJS005, Guangdong Provincial Postgraduate Education Innovation Program Project, grant number 2023SFKC_057, and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Lingnan Specialty Food Science and Technology, grant number 2021B1212040013.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Lingnan Specialty Food Science and Technology, College of Light Industry and Food Technology, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou, 510225, China

    Hong Wang, Xiang Liao, Chunyao Lin, Weidong Bai, Gengsheng Xiao & Gongliang Liu

  2. Key Laboratory of Green Processing and Intelligent Manufacturing of Lingnan Specialty Food, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Academy of Contemporary Agricultural Engineering Innovations, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou, 510225, China

    Hong Wang, Weidong Bai, Gengsheng Xiao & Gongliang Liu

  3. Guangdong Xingyao Biotechnology Co. Ltd, Yunfu, Guangdong, China

    Xingyuan Huang

Authors
  1. Hong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiang Liao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chunyao Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Weidong Bai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gengsheng Xiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xingyuan Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Gongliang Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Hong Wang: Methodology; Writing — original draft; Writing — review & editing, Visualization. Xiang Liao: Writing — original draft; Writing — review & editing; Visualization. Chunyao Lin: Methodology; Software; Writing — original draft; Writing — review & editing. Weidong Bai: Writing — review & editing; Supervision. Gengsheng Xiao: Funding acquisition; Supervision. Xingyuan Huang: Investigation. Gongliang Liu: Funding acquisition. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gongliang Liu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, H., Liao, X., Lin, C. et al. Optimization of fermentation conditions, physicochemical profile and sensory quality analysis of seedless wampee wine. Appl Biol Chem 67, 81 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-024-00938-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13765-024-00938-y

Keywords