Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research Vo1.58, December 1999, pp 995- 1 004

Effect of Different Sugar Sources and Wood Chips on the

Quality of Peach Brandy

P K Shah and V K Joshi Department of Postharvest Technology, Dr Y S Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni, Solan, H P

Received: 22 March 1 999; accepted: 30 September 1 999

Peach (Prunus persica L.) pulp of July Elberta variety, ameliorated with either sugar, j aggery or molasseS was fermented and distilled into brandy. There were variations in the ethanol content and other biochemical characteristics of brandy as were the differ­ences in the peach musts prepared with different sugar sources. Sugar based brandy gave highest ethanol , aldehyde and fusel oil contents, desirable level of titratable acidity while that from molasses gave a product with highest ester content. The inclusion of wood chips in the distillates significantly affected the titratable acidity, aldehyde, fusel oil, furfural and ester contents. Quercus wood chips increased the titratable acidity and furfural content while Albizia or Bombax enhanced the ester and aldehyde levels. Inclusion of wood chips greatly improved the sensory quality of peach brandy in maturation. Advancement in maturation pe�iqd significantly increased the total esters, aldehyde, fusel oil and furfural content of peach brandy. Later six months showed more pronounced changes than the initial period. The brandies of all the treatments improved in sensory qualities but the sugar based peach brandy matured with Quercus wood chips was rated the best.

Introduction

Preparation of brandy - a distillate of wine is an an­cient practice and its origin is lost into antiquity. The consumption of brandy is associated with many medici­nal properties from the ancient times. Brandies from fruits l ike grape, plum, apricot and peach are very popu­larl . In India, fruit brandies are produced commerc ially from grape, cashew and Mahua flowers, despite large scale production of fruits l ike apple, stone fruits, guava etc . I .2•3. The stone fruits like peach are very pulpy and to ferment, these have to be diluted, which results in the reduction of sugar content to a very low level unlike grape or even apple where such effect does not exist. The large scale production of such fruits especially culls goes waste if not utilized properly. Production of alcoholic bever­ages from such fruits is an attractive alternative. There is thus, no alternative except for addition of some source of sugars for production of ethyl alcohol in the proper concentration .

Traditional ly, grape brandy is matured in oak wood cooperage and its flavour is based on compounds l ike esters, lignin, phenolics and aromatic aldehydes which are increased during ageing as a resul t of oxidation pro­cess and extraction from wooden barrels or wood chips 1 .4.5 . Even addition of fermented oak leaves has been

practised in the production of brandy6. There is neither published information on the production technology of peach brandy, its quality and use of wood chips in peach brandy. Considering the postharvest technological infra­structure available and the .quantum of peach fruit pro­duced coupled with scope of brandy production, the stud­ies were planned by using different sugar sources in brandy preparation and its maturation with wood chips.

Materials and Methods Materials

Peach fruits of July Elberta variety were obtained from the department of Frui t Breeding &. Genetic Resources, Dr YS Parmar UHF, Nauni-Solan. Sugar, molasses and jaggery used to ameliorate the must for brandy experi­ments, were procured locally. The culture of Saccharo­myces cerevisiae var. el lipsoideus strain UCD 595 used in this study was obtained from the Department of Oenol­ogy and Viticulture, California, Davis.

Preparation of Peach Wine

. . �he peach pulp was d iluted in 1 : 1 ratio, raising the 1TI1ttai TSS to 24 (UB) with sugar, molasses or j aggary syrup (700B) i n three separate musts, adding pectinol and diammonium hydrogen phosphate (DAHP) and po-

996

.;

-G)

.,.. an en t-

i ; 2 0 1 9 1 8 1 1 1 6 1 5

8 2

J SCI IND RES VOL.58 DECEMBER 1 999

M u s t Wi t h m ..... Sugar � G>-O MoUases .

� A--tI. JaggE'r�

7 +

o 96 1 44 ' 9� Fermentat i on t i me ,h

240

Figure I - Comparison of rate of fermentation of peach must with sugar molasses and jagerry

tassium metabisulphite (KMS) at the rate of 0.5 per cent, O. I per cent and 1 00 ppm, respectively. The fermenta­tions were carried.out by the addition of active yeast culture of Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. ellipsoideus at the rate of 5 per cent, at a temperature of 22 ± 1 °C.

3 g per 650 ml beer bottle as per treatments. The matu­ration was carried out for a year. AnalysisEthanol con­tent in brandy was determined by an alcoholometer di . rectly. The total aldehyde and ester contents were esti­mated in brandy by the method of Amerine and Ough7

and LiberatyR, respectively. Fusel oil and furfural con­tents were estimated by the method of Guymon and Nakagiri9 and Schoennian'o, respectively, while titrat­able acidity and pH were determined by the method de­scribed earlier" . Sensory analysis was conducted by a semi-trained panel of judges on a prescribed proformal . The brandies were evaluated for colour and flavour, and qual ity directly whi le that for taste after diluting it ap­p."opdately. The samples were presented in clear branrly

Distillation of Peach Wine Peach wine of three types were distilled as per the

standard practice in the glass distillatiortapparatus I . The

'Head and tails' were discarded and the middle portion retained for further studies.

Effect of Wood Chips Addition Slightly roasted wool! chips of d i ffonm t t1"OOS viz.,

Q . 'Ib, ,�15:�i� nnd Bombhl W�'ft dOed t th� rute of �lt\ ��. arid . . � � �� �d : 't\\ �\ p �r1dlsi1e8 . �vaiu-

SHAH & JOSHI : QUALITY OF PEACH BRANDY 997

12 �------------���--------------------------� _______ Mo lasses

->

o 0 J a g g er y *-*- S u gar

1 4 4 192 240 Fer mentat i on t i me , h

Figure 2 - Changes i n ethanol concentration during termination of peach must with different sources of sugar

ation was carried out in separate booths. The judges rinsed their mouth with plain water in the evaluation session. The data of quantitative estimation of different brandies were analysed by CRD (factorial), while that of sensory evaluation by RBD'2.

Results and Discussion

Changes in Must During Fermentation Out of three musts tried sugar based must had the low­

est TSS and hence, h igh fermentab il ity (Fig. 1 ) . Conse­quently, the trend in curve and their calculated rates of fermentation (RF) values also reflected the extent of their fermentabi lity. Both the jaggery and sugar based peach must had higher rate of fermentation than molasses, which might be due to presence of inhibitory substances in molasses affecting the fermentation 13 • As expected, with the increase in fermentation time, the ethanol con­centration increased virtually throughout the fermenta­tion period (Fig. 2). The jaggery and sugar based musts gave a wine with more ethanol content than that with molasses. Interestingly, the jaggery based must corrobo­rated with the rate of fermentation upto 1 44 h and then declined. It could be due to difference in sucrose con­tent between the sugar and jaggery based musts, though both had the same total soluble solids. All the peach musts showed a decreasing trend of titratable acidity during initial two days of fermentation after which it increases (Fig. 3). The increase in acidity might be due to production of organic acid during fermentation .

Physico-chemical Composition of Wine Physico-chemical composition of peach must and

wine of different sugar sources showed variations in their composition (Table 1 and 2). The highest and lowest TSS ("B) were recorded in wines prepared from peach pulp ameliorated with molasses and sugar, respectively. The ethanol contents were in accordance with their respec­tive rates of fermentation and quantity of fermentable sugar present (Table I ) . Differences in the titratable acid-

o·g

>-

-.. Molasses � Jaggery lI---lf' S u gar

.-:: 0 ·7 "0 u o

' ", :0 2 0-6 o � . .....

0-5

0 -----.��8�--�9�6----�14���--�1�9�2--------� Ft'rmenta l ion t i me , h

Figure 3 - Changes i n titratable acidity during fermen­tation of peach must with different sources of sugar

998 ] SCI IND RES VOL.58 DECEMBER 1 999

Table 1- Physico-chemical characteristics of peach musts from different sugar sources

Treatment Titratable p H Total Rate of Colour (TCU) acidity, sugar, fermantation,

per cent M A per cent °B/24 h Red Yel low B lue

Peach must 0.S8 3 .74 22.30 1 .6S 4.S6 1 0.83 4. 1 6 (Sugar) ( 1 .03) (S.S9)

Peach must 1 .34 2.S6 1 9.03 1 .70 7.20 I S . 1 7 3.S3 (molasses) ( 1 .3S) (S.34)

Peach must 1 .23 2.78 2 1 .83 2.83 1 1 . 1 7 1 4. 1 0 3 .26 (Jaggery) ( 1 .3 1 ) (S. I O)

C.D.(p= 0 05) 0.0 1 6 0.030 0. 1 8 0.056 0.4 1 0.3 1 0.38

M A = Malic acid. TCU = Tintometer colour unit. Values in parentheses are transformed values

Table 2 - Physico-chemical analysis of peach wine from musts with different sources of sugar

Method TSS, oB Alcohol, Titratable per cent v/v acidity, per cent

M A

Peach wine 8 .0 1 0.67 0 .61

(Sugar)

Peach wine 1 2.0 7.7S 0.96

(molasses)

Peach wine 9.0 1 0.00 0.8 1

(Jaggery)

M A = Malic acid. TCU = Tintometer colour unit.

ity, colour value and pH amongst the wines prepared from the musts ameliorated with different sources of sugar are evident.

Yield and Alcohol Content of Brandy The sugar-based must gave the highest yield of brandy

(Table 3) and can be considered as the best. The amount of ethanol in different brandies was however, in accor­dance with their respective ethanol contents in wines prior to distil lation as discussed earlier (Table 2).

From the standard point of view, al l the brandies have low ethanol than 42.85 per cent (v/v) standard of BIS. However, by distil lation, or increasing the sugar content of the must, the required amount can be easily met. Fur-

pH Colour (TCU)

Red Yel low Blue

3.S I S.O I S .O 1 .0

2.8 1 6.0 30.0 4.3

3.46 1 0.0 1 4.0 0.00

ther, a commercial disti l late (brandy, whisky, gin , co­gnac) normally has 80- 1 00 proof ethanol and thus, sugar based brandy can be easily compared to it.

Chemical Analysis Highest ester content was found in molasses based

brandy and lowest in sugar based brandy. Due to higher quantity of acid present in molasses based brandy ester formation might be more in i t l . Ethyl acetate is the most common and known ester for imparting fruity flavour to the brandy. Sugar based brandy recorded h igher fur­fural content than other treatments. Furfural is mainly formed during distil lation and wine with high ethanol content increases the solubil ity of furfural forming sub-

,

�

. ...

SHAH & JOSHI : QUALITY OF PEACH BRANDY 999

Table 3 - Recovery of brandy from peach wine cv. July Elberta

Method Volume of Alcohol in Volume Yield of wine, I wine, per of brandy, I alcohol

cent vlv (per cent) Sugar 1 8 .6 1 0.67 3 . 50 40.86

Molasses 1 5 .6 7.75 3. 1 0 3 1 .65

Jaggery 1 7.0 1 0.00 3.40 37.00

stances during distil lation. Naturally, brandy containing more ethyl alcohol is expected to contain h igher amount of furfural as found earlier also l . Highest fusel oi l con­tent (higher alcohols) was found in sugar based brandy which might be due to its more ethanol content which might have dissolved more h igher alcohols than other brandies. Low levels of fusel oil contribute to develop­ment of flavour in alcoholic beverages its higher quan­tities areconsidered undesirablel4.

Sugar-based brandy had the highest aldehyde content but all the three types of brandies contained aldehyde in the range of 1 9-25 mg/I, reported for 'Cognac' and 'Armagnac' brandies. During distil lation, some alde­hydes are produced by oxidation of ethanol I . The t itrat­able acidity of commercial brandies range between 52-92 mgt\ . Our values are well within the range. For bet­ter sugar-acid blend in these brandies range of titratable acidity is considered a desirable characteristic4. The pH values of peach brandies were according to the titrat­able acidity. Based on chemical characteristics, the sugar based brandy has an edge over others.

Effect of Wood Chips on Peach Brandy Albizia chips treated peach brandy recorded the low­

est titratable acidity and h ighest pH in all the three dif­ferent treatments (Table 5), quite similar to that reported earlier in Piska brandy4. The increase in acidity ac­counted for the decrease in pH, probably due to dissolu­tion of fixed acid from the wood chips l5 . H igher amount of aldehyde Albizia chips treated brandy than the con­trol or brandy treated with other wood chips was re­corded. The increase in aldehyde contents is apparently due to the contribution of wood as observed for aromatic aldehyde in Cognac aged in wood I6. 17,4 (Table 5). The wood treated brandies showed slightly more ethanol contents than the control (Table 6) which might have occurred due to loss of water by evaporation and soak­ing of wood chips I .

Brandy with Albizia chips showed highest ester cont­ents. Compared to the control, all the wood chip treated brandies contained more esters probably due to their ex­traction from wood chips during the process of matura­tion as reported earlier 17 . Similar observations on the effect of wood chips addition on the esters content has been made earlierl6. It is apparent from the results pre­sented in Table 7 that all the wood chips treated bran­dies had higher furfural content than the control, with Quercus chips treated brandies contributing more fur­fural than others. New brandy was compared with that aged in Quercus barrels and found that the contents of furfural, 5-methyl furfural, diethyl succinate and methyl­octalactatone were more abundant in aged brandy than new brandy l .

Table 4 - Biochemical characteristics of peach brandy from must with different sources o f sugar

Treatment

Peach brandy ( sugar)

Peach brandy (molasses)

Peach brandy (jaggery)

C D (1'= 0.05)

Ethanol, per cent vlv

40. 1 7

30.72

37.50

0. 1 9

Total Fusel esters, oil,

mgt I OOml mg/l

2 1 .68 48.7 1

3 1 .63 36.33

27.60 4 1 .43

0.44 0.35

Furfural, Aldehyde, Titratable pH mgtl mgtl acidity,

1 5. 1 2 24.59 5 8.47 2.87

9.45 1 9 . 1 9 92.22 2 .80

1 2.90 2 1 .43 60.76 3 .04

0. 1 6 0.48 0.50 0. 1 0

1 000

Method

Peach brandy (sugar)

Peach brandy (molasses)

Peach brandy (jaggery)

Overall mean C D (P= O.Oll

Treatment Wood

Wo

2.74

2.75

2.93

2.8 1

J SCI IND RES VOL.58 DECEMBER 1 999

Table 5 - Effect of addition of wood chips on pH, titratable acidity and aldehyde contents of peach brandy from musts with different sources of sugar.

pH Titratable acidity, mgll

WI W2 WJ Overall Wo WI W2 WJ mean

2.76 3 .02 2.98 2.87

2.79 2.92 2.84 2.82

2.95 3.30 2.99 3.04

2.83 3.08 2.94

58.47 62.92 62. 1 7 58.36

92.22 1 06.4 93.64 88.29

60.76 73.94 64.56 60.59

1 0.48 8 1 .09 73.44 69.08

Aldyhyde, mgll

Overall Wo W I W2 mean

60.48 24.59 25.0 1 28.26

95. 1 3 1 9 .93 1 9.69 24.22

64.96 2 1 .43 23.53 22.60

2 1 .99 22.74 25.03

Treatment x wood

0.004 0.004 0.00 1

0.44 0.50 0.87

Wo = Control, WI = Oak chips, W2 = Albizia chips, WJ = Bombax chips

Table 6 - Effect of wood chips on ethanol and total ester contents of peach brandy from must

Method

Peach brandy (sugar)

Peach brandy (molasses)

Peach brandy (jaggery)

Overall mean

C D (P= O.Oll Treatment

Wood

Treatment x wood

Wo

40. 1 7

30.72

37.50

36. 1 3

with different sources of sugar.

Ethanol, per cent v/v Total esters, mg/l 00 ml

WI WI WJ Overall Wo W I W2 mean

40.47 40.89 40.72 40.56 2 1 .63 22.48 25.09

3 1 .44 32. 1 7 30.94 3 1 .32 4 1 .63 33 .58 35.83

38.06 38.06 37.72 37.83 27.60 30.76 28.28

36.66 37.04 36.46 26.97 28.94 29.73

0. 1 7

0. 1 9

0.33

Wo = Control, W I = Oak chips, W 2 = A lbizia chips, W J = Bombax chips

WJ Overall mean

22.06 22.82

33 .24 33.57

27.38 28.50

27.56

0.38

0.44

0.77

WJ Overall mean

27.02 26.22

20.63 2 1 . 1 2

2 1 .58 22.29

23.08

0.4 1 0.47 0.82

";-

�

...

•

"(

SHAH & JOSHI : QUALITY OF PEACH BRANDY

Table 7 - Effect of wood chips on furfural and fusel oil contents of peach brandy from must with

Method

Peach brandy (sugar)

Peach brandy (molasses)

Peach brandy (jaggery)

Overall mean

C D (P= O.05) Treatment Wood Treatment x wood

Wo

1 5 . 1 2

9.45

1 2.90

1 2.49

Furfural, mg/l

W , Wz

1 5 .69 1 4.39

1 2.93 1 1 .57

1 4.48 1 3 .82

1 4.37 1 3 .26

different sources of sugar

Fusel oi l , mg/l OOml

W3 Overall Wo W , Wz mean

1 5 .50 1 5 . 1 7 48.7 1 50. 8 1 50.98

1 1 .93 1 1 .47 36.33 37.49 37.99

1 2.77 1 3 .49 4 1 .43 43 .6 1 43.56

1 3 .40 4 1 . 1 6 43.64 44. 1 7

0. 1 3 0. 1 6 0.27

Wo = Control, W, = Oak chips, Wz = A lbizia chips, W3 = Bombax chips

W3 Overall mean

5 1 .70 50.55

37.68 37.37

44.04 42.9 1

44.47

0.30 0.35 0 .6 1

Table 8 - Changes in pH, titratable acidity and aldehyde contents of brandy from musts with different

Method

Peach brandy (sugar)

Peach brandy (molasses)

Peach brandy (jaggery)

Overal l mean

C D (P= O.051

Treatment

M ,

3.02

3 . 1 5

2.90

3 .02

Maturation

pH

Mz

2.85

2.99

2.79

2.88

Treatment x Maturation

M , = 3 months, Mz = 6 months, M3 =

M3

2.76

2.99

2.78

2.84

1 2 months

sources of sugar during maturation

Titratable acidity, mg/l Aldyhyde, mg/l

Overall M, Mz M3 Overall M , Ml M 3 mean mean

2.87 58.41 60.33 62.69 60.48 24.98 26.39 27.28

3. 04 62.47 64.92 67.48 64.96 1 9.37 20.59 23.39

2.82 90.62 95.92 98.83 95. 1 3 20.98 2 1 .27 24.6 1

70.50 73.73 76.34 2 1 .78 22.75 25 .09

0.003 0.44

0.003 0.44

0.006 0.76

1 00 1

Overall mean

26.22

2 1 . 1 2

22.20

0.4 1

0.4 1

0.72

1 002 J SCI IND RES VOL.58 DECEMBER 1 999

Tabl e 9 - Changes in ethanol and total ester contents of brandy from musts with different sources of sugar during maturation

Ethanol, per cent vtv Total Ester, mgtl OOml

Method M , M 2 M J Overall M , M 2 MJ mean mean

Peach brandy 40. 1 2 40.72 40.83 40.56 1 9.62 22.40 26.45

(sugar)

Peach brandy 30.58 3 1 .50 3 1 .07 3 1 .32 30.63 32.93 37. 1 4

(molasses)

Peach brandy 37.08 37.87 38 .54 37.83 25. 1 2 28.72 3 1 .67 (j aggery)

Overall mean 35.93 36.70 37.08 2 1 .79 28.0 1 3 1 .75

C D (1'= 0.05)

Treatment 0. 1 7

Maturation = 0. 1 7 Treatment x Maturation = 0.29

M = ) 3 months,M2 = 6 months, MJ = 1 2 months

Tabl e 1 0 - Changes in furfural and fusel oil content of brandy from musts with different sources of sugar during maturation

Method

Peach brandy (sugar)

Peach brandy (molasses)

Peach brandy (jaggery)

Overall mean

C D (1'= 0.05)

Treatment

Furfural , mgll

M , M 2

1 2.02 1 5 .99

9.86 1 1 .87

9.38 1 4.72

1 0.42 1 4. 1 9

Maturation Treatment x Maturation

MJ

1 7.52

1 2.68

1 6.37

1 5 .52

M = I 3 months, M 2 = 6 months, MJ =

Fusel oi l , mgtl OOml

Overall M , M2

MJ mean

1 5 . 1 7 46. 1 5 50.39 55. 1 1

1 1 .47 30.62 35. 1 8 46.3 1

1 3 .49 38 .20 42.77 47.77

38 .32 42.78 49.73

0.01 0.01 0.23

1 2 months

Overal l mean

50.55

37.37

42.9 1

0.30 0.30 0.52

Overall

22.82

33 .57

28.50 '�

0.38 0.38 0.67

,.

-1"

SHAH & JOSHI : QUALITY OF PEACH BRANDY 1 003

Table 1 1 - Sensory evaluation of peach brandy from musts with different sugar sources during maturation.

Storage (6 months) Storage ( 1 2 months)

Method Wo WI W2 W� Overall Wo W I W2 W� Overall mean mean

Peach brandy 1 1 .42 1 3 .95 1 2 .7 1 1 3 . 1 3 1 2.80 1 3 .04 1 5 .57 1 3 .60 1 4.37 1 4. 1 4

(sugar)

Peach brandy 1 0.59 1 3 . 2 1 1 1 .20 1 2.08 1 1 .77 1 2.60 1 4.27 1 2. 1 0 1 2.83 1 2.95

(molasses)

Peach brandy 1 0.80 1 3 .00 1 1 .5 1 1 2.30 1 1 .90 1 1 .8 1 1 3 .64 1 1 .34 1 2.32 1 2.27 Uaggery)

Overall mean 1 0.93 1 3 .38 1 1 .80 1 2.50 1 2.48 1 4.49 1 2.34 1 3 . 1 7

C D (1)= 0 05) Treatment 1 .27 1 .67 Wood 1 .27 1 .67

Wo = Control, WI = Oak chips, W2 = A lbizia chips, W� = Bombax chips

Reaction between original furfural content of brandy with oxidative and dissolution contents of furfural from wood ageing contributed more furfural to the brandies I .

Maturation of Brandy The changes in chemical characteristics of different

peach brandies during maturation were recorded for a year (Table 8, 9, 1 0) . The titratable acidity and alde­hyde contents in different types of brandies were sig­n ificantly increased, while pH decreased. Increase in acidity and aldehyde with a decrease in pH, was appar­ently the result of concentration effect4" x. Ethanol con­tent and ester content differed significantly amongst dif­ferent brandies during maturation periods. In brandies, the total ester increases during ageing depending upon the amount of acetic acid available for esterification with alcohol. Therefore, the increase in esters is always greater in brandies having higher acid content such as the molasses-based brandy in our study, Our results are in confirmation with the earlier report on Piska brandy4, The furfural content increased significantly recording higher amount during first six months of matu­ration than the latter periods, as observed for peach wine earlier'x, The brandies are matured for a longer period than carried out in our study. With more maturation more pronounced changes can be expected,

Sensory Quality All the wood treated brandies improved in overall sen­

sory qualities compared to the control (Table 1 1 ) but the one Oak treated w ith Quercus was the superior. Fur­ther, based on the overall scanning of data, the sugar based brandy treated with Quercus chips was adjudged the best in overall sensory quality characteristics l ike colour, aroma, flavour, bouquet, astringency, sweetness, volati le and titratable acidity and overall impression . Sugar based brandy retained its superior sensory quality during maturation and its subsequent treatment with other wood chips, Better quality of wood chips treated bran­�ies is attributed to the process of extraction of pheno­lics from wood and non-enzymatic oxidation of the ex­tracted Quercus wood l ignin and its conversion into aro­�atic aldehyde , The components play an important role In development of the taste and flavour of brandies dur­ing ageing',

The results (Table I I ) further revealed that with the increase in time of maturation, the brandies of all the treatments improved in sensory qualities though main­taining their original quality characteristics pattern . The Im�rovement in sensory quali ty of alcoholic beverages durmg maturation is well estab l ished for grape based products 1 • Thus, peach brandy should be matured atleast for a year with wood chips to improve i ts qual ity. How­ever, further improvement in quality with higher matu-

1 004 J SCI IND RES VOL.58 DECEMBER 1 999

ration periods could be expected. It can be concluded that peach fruits has a potential to produce brandy as a means of value addition, though more efforts to increase the yield and quality of brandy would be needed before it is commercialized.

References Amerine M A, Berg H A, Kunkee R E, Ough C S, Singleton

V L & Webb A D, TechnoLogy of Wille Making, 4th edn,( AV I Publishers Co Inc, Westport Connecticut) 1 980.

2 Patel J D, Venkataramu K & Subha Rao M S, Studies on the Preparation of Cider and Brandy from Some Varieties of I ndian Apples,lnd Fd Packer, 31 (6) ( 1 977) 5-6.

3 Dhawan S S, Kainsa R L & Gupta 0 P, Haryana Agric Univ J Res, 13(3) ( 1 983) 420.

4 Litchev V, I nfluence of Oxidation Processes on Development of the Taste and Flavour of Wine Disti l lates, Am J EnoL Vitic, 40( 1 ) ( 1 989) 3 1 -35.

5 Puech J L, Moutounet M , Lepoutre J P, Broumers R & Bayonove C, Oak Wood Component Extracted by Spirits, Rev Oeno-Ioques Tech Vitivini Coles Oenologiq, 17( 1 994) 27-3 1 .

6 B regvadze U D , M aturation of Brandy USSR Patent No 1 698279, 1 99 1 (FSTA 25(3): 34 1 6 1 , 1 993).

7 Amerine M A & Ough, C S , in Wine alld Must AnaLysis 2nd edn, ( John Wiley and Sons, New York) 1 979.

8 Liberaty V, Ester Determination and Their AppLicalion to Wine, M Sc Thesis, University of California, Davis, 1 96 1 .

9 Guymon J F & Nakagiri J, Method for the Determination of Fusel Oil , Proc Am Soc EnoL, 3( 1 5) ( 1 952) 1 1 7- 1 34.

1 0 Schoeneman R L, Determination of Furfural in Disti l led Spir­its, J Assoc Off AnaL Chem, 44( 1 96 1 ) 342-394.

I I Ranganna S, Handbook of Analysis alld Quality COIl/1V1 for Fruil alld VegetabLe PlVducts, 2nd Edn (Tata McGraw Hil l Pub Co, New Delhi) 1 986.

1 2 Mahony M 0, Sensory Evaluation of Food Statistical Methods and Procedure (Marcel Dekker I nc, New York) 1 985.

1 3 Tauro P, Production of Ethanol from Agricultural Byproducts in Recycling Residues of Agriculture and Industry, edited by M Sc Kalra (Bico Printers, New Demoria Publications, Ludhiana, India) 1 980.

1 4 Gayon P R,. Wine Flavour, in Flavour of Food and Beverages - Chemistry and Technology, edited by G Charlambousand G E I nglett (Academic Press Inc, New York and London) 1 978, p. 335.

15 Guymon J F, Factors Effecting Physical and Chemical Changes in Beverage Bbrandy During Aging, Proc Wine Tech COllf Cali­

fomia, Davis ( 1 949) 1 35- 1 46.

1 6 G u y mo n J F & Crowe l l E A, S eparation o f Vani l l i ne, Syringaldehyde and Other Aromatic Compounds in the Extracts of French and American Oak Woods by Brandy and Aqueous Alcohol Solution, Qual Plant Material Veget, 12( 1 968) 320-333.

1 7 Puech J L, Extraction of Phenolic Compounds from Oak Wood in Model Solutions and Evolution of Aromatic Aldehyde in Wines Aged in Oak Barrel , Am J Ellol Vi/ic, 38(3) ( 1 987) 236-23 8.

18 Quady A K & Guymon J F, Relation of M aturity, Acidity and Growing Region of Thompson Seedless and French Col om bard Grape to Wine Aroma and Quality of Brandy Disti l late, Am J EnoL Vi/ie, 24( 1 973) 1 66- 1 75.

1 9 Onishi M, Guymon J F & Crowell E A, Changes in Some Volatil e Constituents of Brandy During Aging, Am J Ellol Vitie, 28 ( 1 977) 1 52- 1 58.

20 Joshi V K & Shah P K , Effect of Wood Treatment on Chemical and Sensory Quali ty of Peach Wine During Ageing, A cta Alimenlaria, 27(4) ( 1 998) 3 1 8.