# Effects of Ethanol Concentration on Oral Aroma Release After Wine Consumption
## 2 Results and Discussion
### Effects of Ethanol and Individual Differences on the Prolonged Oral Aroma Release  
To globally understand the effects of ethanol during wine consumption it is important to consider not only the aroma released immediately after wine intake, but also the oral aroma release that lingers in the mouth once the wine is no longer in the oral cavity. Therefore, after monitoring the immediate aroma release, the panelists were asked to keep their mouths closed and 2 min later, a second oral monitoring was carried out in the same conditions as described above (Figure 1). With these data, a two-way ANOVA analysis was performed in order to understand the effect of individual differences and ethanol content on the prolonged oral aroma release. Results are shown in Table 3. Similar to what happened in the immediate oral aroma release, a high variability among individuals and in the interactions between individuals and ethanol content was observed for all the aroma compounds assayed (Table 3). Regarding the effects of ethanol content on the prolonged oral aroma release, it can be observed that the presence of ethanol significantly increased the oral release for five of the six esters assayed. Moreover, the release of ethyl hexanoate was also increased by the ethanol content, but the effect did not reach the significance level (\(p\)-value = 0.087) (Table 3). Once again, to better visualize these results, data were plotted, and shown in Figure 4. Here, data were normalized considering the values obtained for the 0.5% _v/v_ as 0% and calculating the ratio for the other two wines. As can be observed, all the esters \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Ethyl** & **Isoamyl** & **Ethyl** & **Ethyl** & **Ethyl** & **Ethyl** \\  & **Butyrate** & **Acetate** & **Pentanoate** & **Hexanoate** & **Octaoate** & **Decanoate** \\ \hline Mean & 133,838.96 & 321,509.22 & 199,024.90 & 633,104.58 & 5,761,616.25 & 6,940,717.29 \\ SEM 1  & 31,033.08 & 43,941.31 & 36,020.31 & 105,826.43 & 519,018.38 & 515,250.95 \\ R2 2  & 0.83 & 0.96 & 0.86 & 0.90 & 0.91 & 0.91 \\ F 3  & 9.02 & 45.07 & 11.32 & 21.13 & 19.41 & 18.74 \\ Pr \(>\) F 4  & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ \hline Subject & F & 19.80 & 121.52 & 31.67 & 63.78 & 55.75 & 48.91 \\  & Pr \(>\) F & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ \hline Ethanol & F & 8.91 & 12.64 & 7.44 & 2.56 & 3.76 & 7.55 \\  & Pr \(>\) F & 0.000 & \textless{}0.0001 & 0.001 & 0.087 & 0.030 & 0.001 \\ \hline Subject+Ethanol & F & 3.62 & 10.38 & 1.66 & 1.98 & 2.82 & 4.54 \\  & Pr \(>\) F & 0.000 & \textless{}0.0001 & 0.079 & 0.028 & 0.002 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Results of the two-way ANOVA performed to compare the statistical significance of the ethanol content on the prolonged intra-oral aroma release (n = 10). Each sample was analyzed in triplicate. Figure 3: Immediate oral ethyl decanoate release (absolute peak areas) obtained for the volunteers (n = 10) after rinsing their mouths with the wines. Different letters across the different compounds denote statistical differences (\(p\) value \(<\) 0.05) after the application of the Tukey test for means comparison. were more released at higher ethanol content. Moreover, the more apolar compounds (ethyl octanoate and ethyl decanoate) were also significantly more released in the 5% _v/v_ than in 0.5% _v/v_. Interestingly, these results showed the same trend as the previous studies and dynamic sensory studies performed on this topic which showed an enhancement of aroma release in the presence of ethanol [14; 20], and an increase in the duration of fruity/floral notes as the ethanol concentration increases [12].