# Influence of Region on Sensory and Chemical Profiles of Pennsylvania Gruner Veltliner Wines
## 4 Conclusions  
This study examined regional differences in Pennsylvania-grown Gruner V. wines across two vintages along with both sensory and instrumental analysis. This was the first study to examine regional differences in Pennsylvania using a controlled winemaking method, and also the first time Pennsylvania Gruner V. wines were examined by a trained sensory panel. Differences in orthonasal aroma, taste, mouthfeel, and in-mouth flavor were found between the wines when compared to each other as well as between wines from different growing regions. Sensory differences were also found for wines within the same growing region, specifically those located at the same commercial vineyard, suggesting mesoclimatic and soil factors might contribute to differences in wine sensory and chemical properties. While a number of aroma and flavor attributes were found to differ by region in Year 2, only yellow color was significantly different across regions in both years of study, with NW wines rated highest in yellow color in both years. Regional sensory profiles were created for Gruner V. wines; however, regional differences were less clear when aspects were examined individually via instrumental methods. The presence or absence of precursor compounds is dependent on various conditions in the vineyard, of which were not examined fully in this study. While GDD and rainfall for the ripening period and entire growing season did show consistent associations with sensory and instrumental measures, namely in thiol aroma and thiol flavor, there are other important factors, both cultural and environmental, that may be contributing to regional differences that were not included in this study. Further work in examining Pennsylvania regionality with a more robust examination in cultural conditions may unveil additional explanations for these differences. The following are available online at [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods10040825/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods10040825/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods10040825/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods10040825/s1)). Table S1: Date of harvest, growing degree days (GDD), and rainfall quantified as veraison to harvest (_V) and total (_T) values for Year 1 and Year 2 vineyard sites, together with elevation and soil series details, Table S2: Significant differences between PA regions for Year 1 GV wines. Values that share the same letter within column are not significantly different according to [PERSON]'s post-hoc comparison (\(p<0.05\)), Table S3: Juice chemistry and harvest data for Year 1 and Year 2 sites (TSS: total soluble solids; TA: titratable acidity; YAN: yeast assimilable nitrogen), Table S4: Significant differences between regions for Year 2 wines. Values that share the same letter within column are not significantly different according to [PERSON]'s post-hoc comparison (\(p<0.05\)). Attributes that end in F indicate in-mouth flavor, A indicate aroma, T indicate taste, and MF indicate mouthfeel attributes, Table S5: Chemistry results for the wines (**a**)Year 1, (**b**) Year 2 (FR... fermentation replicate; RS... Residual sugar; TA... titratable acidity; LA... lactic acid; VA... volatile acidity), Table S6: Identified volatile compounds in wines in year 1, together with loadings for the first two dimensions of the PCA shown in Figure 4C, Table S7: Significant differences for volatile analysis between regions for Year 1. Internal standard equivalent values (\(\mathrm{\SIUnitSymbolMicro g}/\mathrm{L}\)) that share a letter in column are not significantly different according to [PERSON]'s post-hoc comparison (\(p<0.05\)). Table S8: Identified volatile compounds in wines in year 2, together with loadings for the first two dimensions of the PCA shown in Figure 4D, Table S9: Significant differences for volatile analysis between regions for Year 2.