The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Effects of Bunch Rot (Botrytis cinerea) and Powdery Mildew (Erysiphe necator) Fungal Diseases on Wine Aroma
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Chemistry, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fchem.2017.00020 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Angela Lopez Pinar, Doris Rauhut, Ernst Ruehl, Andrea Buettner |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to characterize the effects of bunch rot and powdery mildew on the primary quality parameter of wine, the aroma. The influence of these fungal diseases was studied by comparative Aroma Extract Dilution Analyses (AEDA) and sensory tests. The effect of bunch rot was investigated on three grape varieties, namely White Riesling, Red Riesling and Gewürztraminer and that of powdery mildew on the hybrid Gm 8622-3; thereby, samples were selected that showed pronounced cases of infection to elaborate potential currently unknown effects. Both infections revealed aromatic differences induced by these fungi. The sensory changes were not associated with one specific compound only, but were due to quantitative variations of diverse substances. Bunch rot predominantly induced an increase in the intensities of peach-like/fruity, floral and liquor-like/toasty aroma notes. These effects were found to be related to variations in aroma substance composition as monitored via AEDA, mainly an increase in the FD factors of lactones and a general moderate increase of esters and alcohols. On the other hand, powdery mildew decreased the vanilla-like character of the wine while the remaining sensory attributes were rather unaffected. Correspondingly, FD factors of the main aroma constituents were either the same or only slightly modified by this disease. Moreover, bunch rot influenced the aroma profiles of the three varieties studied to a different degree. In hedonic evaluation, bunch rot-affected samples were rated as being more pleasant in comparison to their healthy controls in all three varieties while the powdery mildew-affected sample was rated as being less pleasant than its healthy control. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 50% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 68 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 14 | 20% |
| Researcher | 12 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 16 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 28 | 41% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 9% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 1% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 10% |
| Unknown | 22 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 102. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2018.
All research outputs
#350,544
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Chemistry
#12
of 5,985 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,347
of 308,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Chemistry
#1
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,985 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.