484 F.Supp. 1214 (1980)
TENNA MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
COLUMBIA UNION NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, Defendant.
No. 75CV-729-W-2-6.
United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.
February 14, 1980.
*1215 Irving Achtenberg, Achtenberg & Achtenberg, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Harlan D. Burkhead, Lathrop, Koontz, Righter, Clagett, Parker & Norquist, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER DIRECTING ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
SACHS, District Judge.
This diversity suit, brought by an Ohio seller of goods against a Missouri bank for alleged misrepresentations inducing a sale of goods to a defaulting buyer, arises from a five or ten minute telephone call on January 6, 1975. The credit manager of the seller ("Tenna") spoke to an employee of the bank ("Columbia Union") and was given reassuring information concerning the prospective buyer's average bank balance, loan payment record, net worth and customers. Tenna contends it was seriously misled by misrepresentations, half-truths and nondisclosures, that it thereupon sold some $17,000 worth of small motors to the buyer ("Honan") and suffered losses when, within about two months, Columbia Union called its secured loan to Honan and seized all of Honan's assets, including the motors, leaving nothing for Tenna, an unsecured creditor.
Tenna initially sued the corporate buyer and its major stockholders as well as the bank, but settled with the co-defendants upon payment of $4,000. The remaining claim against Columbia Union is in the amount of $13,983.36, with interest.
*1216 After withdrawal of a jury demand, the case was tried to the Court on January 28, 1980, with most of the evidence being in the form of documentary evidence and the depositions of witnesses who are no longer available to testify. The Court also heard testimony from an official of the Small Business Administration ("SBA"), guarantor of Honan's bank loan, from Honan's principal officer and stockholder, and from an official of Columbia Union who was not directly involved in the Honan loan or in dealings with Tenna. All witnesses were called by Tenna. Columbia Union's position is that there was an insufficiency of proof to allow recovery, and, moreover, the Missouri Statute of Frauds prevents reliance on the telephone conversation with its employee, Gaston. Sec. 432.040, RSMo.[1]
Tenna contends that Columbia Union cannot rely on the Missouri statute when giving oral credit information to a nonresident whose losses will be suffered elsewhere, that the statute does not deal with misleading nondisclosures, and that the statute does not immunize conversations with a party which has a financial interest in the transaction and ultimately gains therefrom.
The Court's conclusions, detailed below, generally accept Columbia Union's legal position, although the Court finds enough misleading information in the conversation to impose liability on Columbia Union under Missouri law for its modest gains from the transaction which resulted from the conversation.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts are material to the Court's ruling or are helpful to a general understanding of the case:
1. Plaintiff Tenna is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business in that State; defendant Columbia Union is a bank organized under Federal law with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri. Pretrial Stipulation, ("Stip.") filed August 8, 1977, paras. 1 and 7.
2. On December 19, 1974, Honan directed a purchase order to Tenna for 10,000 motors at $3.20 per motor, credit being approved on such purchase order on January 6, 1975. P.Exh. 15. The terms of release were 1,000 at once, with balance at 2,500 per month, beginning February 15, 1975. P.Exh. 15, Stip. para. 11. Payment terms were net 30 days. P.Exh. 15.
3. By subsequent arrangement, 100 motors were shipped and invoiced on January 14, 1975 and 5,265 motors were shipped and invoiced on January 16, 1975. The total agreed price (never paid) was $17,983.36. Stip. paras. 12-14.
4. Credit approval was given by Tenna's credit manager, Maurice Chodorow (identified on the purchase order as M.C.), in reliance on a telephone conversation of January 6, 1975, with Stephen F. Gaston, an assistant cashier of Columbia Union, who was assigned to the bank's secured lending department as credit administrator. P.Exh. 15, Gaston Dep. 4, Stip. paras. 16, 22, Chodorow Dep. 19-20, 34, 45-6. Chodorow's call, from Ohio, was directed to Gaston by the bank's telephone switchboard operator.
5. Gaston was thoroughly familiar with the Honan account, being responsible for the administration of loan documents and examining the status of the loan. Gaston Dep. 5, 8; Allison testimony; P.Exh. 20. Gaston and his superior, Haines, reported on the status of the Honan account at periodic departmental meetings. Allison testimony.
6. When Chodorow spoke to Gaston, he probably followed normal practice in explaining that Tenna was considering a sale of motors priced at some $40,000 and that the bank had been given as a credit reference. *1217 There is no evidence, however, that the potential buyer, as the bank's customer, had authorized Gaston to supply all details of its business (Gaston Dep. 36), and such lack of authorization would have made Gaston somewhat reticent in making disclosures. Allison testimony; Gaston Dep. 37. As credit manager, Chodorow probably was aware that Gaston was inhibited in volunteering disclosures which might be adverse to Tenna.
7. Gaston supplied to Chodorow the following information about Honan:
(a) Honan's bank balance was in the "low five figures" ($10,000 to $20,000). Chodorow Dep. 24.
(b) Honan was current on its loan obligations to the bank, and there were "no situations of defaults or anything of this nature." Chodorow Dep. 25; Gaston Dep. 38.
(c) Honan's net worth was in the "high five figures" ($75-95,000). Chodorow Dep. 25.
(d) Honan had an inventory of $40-45,000. Chodorow Dep. 25.
(e) Honan had Montgomery Ward and Western Auto as customers. Chodorow Dep. 25-6. This information was particularly significant to Tenna, in that Chodorow considered these purported customers as excellent accounts, paying well and "moving a lot of merchandise." Ibid.
(f) Honan had experienced "some minor problems . . . because it was a young business" but Gaston "did not see any reason why (Tenna) could not reasonably expect payment . . ." Gaston Dep. 38. Although Chodorow did not remember these comments on his subsequent deposition, and had not made a notation concerning them (presumably because they were generalizations), the Court accepts Gaston's recollection as a credible admission, and considers that the belittling of Honan's "problems" was likely persuasive.
8. The bank balance on Honan's commercial account on January 6, 1975, was $443.03, and said account was rarely at "five figures." P.Exh. 24. Honan's "custodian account," however had a balance of $18,309.22 on January 6, 1975. D.Exh. 1. The custodian account was used in collecting accounts receivable. Allison testimony. The bank account information given by Gaston was not substantially erroneous, although Gaston did not advise Chodorow (and was not asked) how closely controlled Honan was on its secured loan.
9. In March, 1975, Columbia Union decided to call its loan, stating reasons for insecurity which did not include failures of Honan to make payments when due. P.Exh. 14. Gaston's statement to Chodorow that Honan was not in default on its loan payments was accurate, according to the record, although somewhat misleading in that the lenders (Columbia Union and its guarantor, SBA) had previously deferred certain payment requirements. Stip. para. 19.
10. The bank's most recent financial statement from Honan, as of the time of the telephone conversation with Chodorow, was a November, 1974 statement showing "a positive net worth of $55,000", but Gaston was doubtful (when deposed) that it took into account a $75,000 loss for the year 1974, which was recorded on a profit and loss statement dated a month later. Gaston Dep. 32-3. In November, 1974, Columbia Union had been advised, in a letter from SBA, that Honan's "financial statements show a net investment of only $73,509 after reflecting losses sustained in prior years (which) compare unfavorably with (Honan's) indebtedness totaling $383,978." P.Exh. 9 (emphasis supplied). Columbia Union subsequently determined, at least by March, 1975, that Honan had a slightly negative net worth as of January, 1975. P.Exh. 14. Gaston's statement was thus materially incorrect, although the statement seems to have been based on the most recent figures available to Gaston.
11. Honan's inventory as of December 31, 1974, was $53,328.21. Gaston Dep. 23. As of October 17, 1974, Honan's president reported to the bank, however, that "our inventory is approximately $18,000 which is going to make it impossible for us to meet any projected (sales) figures as provided *1218 you at these inventory levels, and, frankly, we need your help" to obtain a $400,000 loan for adequate capitalization.[2] Honan stated in a report to the bank on December 2, 1974, that the company required an average inventory of $142,000. P.Exh. 20. Gaston's advice to Chodorow as to Honan's inventory was thus apparently accurate when given, although it skirted very serious business problems.
12. There is no evidence that Honan could fairly be considered a supplier of Montgomery Ward and Western Auto, as represented by Gaston. In advice to Columbia Union in July, 1974, Honan's president had stated that "in addition to . . purchase orders, we have on hand commitments from Sears, Ward's, Penney's and Western Auto Supply Company for national programs." P.Exh. 17. Because of inventory inadequacies and undercapitalization, of which Gaston was or should have been aware, these major companies were no more than prospects. P.Exh. 20. It was seriously misleading for Gaston to induce Chodorow to believe Honan had a going business with the named concerns.
13. Honan was suffering from more than "minor" problems, as of January, 1975, and was in fact in a precarious condition. Honan "ran out of money" in September, 1974, and had not found a new source of funds. P.Exh. 20. Gaston's assurances were materially misleading.
14. On or about March 15, 1975, Columbia Union declared a default on one or more of its loans to Honan, and thereafter took possession of substantially all the assets of Honan, including the merchandise shipped by Tenna. Stip. para. 24.
15. On April 15, 1975, Tenna made demand on Honan for payment of its obligation to Tenna. Stip. para. 15.
16. SBA was the guarantor, to the extent of 80%, of Honan's obligations to the bank on its major bank loan in the authorized amount of $400,000. Columbia Union called upon SBA for payment under the guaranty, and SBA made such payment and took over servicing of the account in August, 1975. Rasmussen testimony.
17. The motors acquired from Tenna were sold, on behalf of SBA, by Honan's former president. He sold 500 motors for $3.00 each and the balance for $2.75. A 10% sales commission was charged. Honan testimony.
18. On August 30, 1976, receipts from the sale of assets were paid to Columbia Union, based on the bank's 20% security interest in the assets. Allison testimony.
19. Columbia Union's share of the proceeds from the sale of Tenna's motors was 20% of the net proceeds ($13,390.87) or $2,678.17.[3]

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

I.
The Court agrees with Columbia Union that Missouri law, with its pertinent Statute of Frauds provision (Sec. 432.040, RSMo), governs this transaction, where an Ohio seller telephoned to a Missouri bank for credit information.
In considering choice of law with respect to the Statute of Frauds, the Missouri Supreme Court has relied on the theory that the Missouri statute "has been considered a rule of evidence affecting the remedy," and has thus applied forum law in litigation brought in Missouri. Campbell v. Sheraton Corp. of America, 363 Mo. 688, 253 S.W.2d 106, 109 (1952). In the alternative, the Missouri Court looked to forum law because Missouri was deemed to have the greatest interest in the transaction. Ibid., 110.
A comparison of governmental interests is a method increasingly favored to resolve conflicts. Strassberg v. New England Mutual Life Insurance Company, 575 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1978). This technique has recently been emphasized in Missouri cases. National *1219 Starch and Chemical Corp. v. Newman, 577 S.W.2d 99, 104 (Mo.App.1978).
When the Court in Campbell relied on a "procedural classification," it implicitly considered the statutory objective of protecting the courts and alleged promisors by "limiting the possibilities of perjury" and "avoiding unseemly disputes" as to what sort of assurances or promises may have been made. 1 Restatement of Conflict of Laws 2d, § 141, page 392.
Another objective of the pertinent Statute of Frauds is to protect a speaker from being bound by ill-considered promises or assurances, and, in the current context, from being drawn, without consideration, into other parties' transactions. 3 Williston on Contracts (3d ed.) § 452. A requirement of a writing helps "to insure a sufficient seriousness of intent." Lee v. Jenkins Brothers, 268 F.2d 357, 372 (2d Cir. 1959).
All of these factors direct the Court to look to Missouri law, in that the protective features of the statute should be made available to a Missouri court and a Missouri-based defendant. The fact that the recipient of the alleged assurances or promises may be a nonresident, and its reliance may occur in another state, would not generally call for exempting the transaction from the full force of Missouri law.
The State of Ohio, which has no similar statute, would seem to have slight interest in applying extraterritorially its local common law of fraud and misrepresentation. While the protection of Ohio residents from fraud is surely a significant objective of local Ohio law, it would be anticipated that Ohio would rely on Federal law and out-of-state law for the protection of Ohio residents who engage in out-of-state transactions.
Further supporting a choice of Missouri law is the fact that an Ohio party contacted a Missouri party by telephone, thus using the telephone as a substitute for coming to Missouri to seek out credit information. Under such circumstances, the parties "could reasonably expect Missouri law to apply." Havenfield Corp. v. H & R Block, Inc., 509 F.2d 1263, 1268 (8th Cir. 1975).
The Court therefore accepts Missouri law as controlling in this diversity case.

II.
As previously quoted in footnote 1, the sweeping provisions of Sec. 432.040, RSMo, clearly apply to all representations and assurances on which Tenna relies. If Tenna is unable to rely on what Gaston said, it doubtless could not rely on what he failed to say. Moreover, the Court is unable to find any reliance in fact, or any reasonable reliance, on Gaston's failure to disclose information about which Chodorow did not ask; for example, the security arrangements which extended to all of Honan's assets, existing and after-acquired.
On the other hand, some of the representations implicitly dealt with matters not directly mentioned. If, as Gaston concedes, he told Chodorow that Honan had been suffering from only "minor" problems, such a representation is inconsistent with Honan's being so seriously undercapitalized as to be considered "out of money" for a period of months prior to the inquiry, and having insufficient inventory to service prospective customers. P.Exh. 20.
The Court believes that all representations and assurances causing the extension of credit to Honan were required to be in writing, under the statute, before Tenna could safely rely on them. Missouri law generally gives total immunity to irresponsible speech in oral responses to credit inquiries. Boyd v. Farmers' Bank, 223 Mo. App. 442, 14 S.W.2d 6 (1928).
By interpretation and application, however, the statute may not be used when the response is principally motivated by direct self-interest and is intended to create a contract to which the respondent would be a party. Boyd, supra. Nor does the statute apply to avoid liability as a "trustee ex maleficio" to the extent of any unjust enrichment. Beall v. Farmers' Exchange Bank of Gallatin, 76 S.W.2d 1098, 1100-1 (Mo.1934).
*1220 The Boyd opinion rejects a contention that the statute is no defense to a claim for fraud and deceit, even when it is claimed that "the main purpose and object of the representations . . . were to subserve a pecuniary purpose of the bank." 14 S.W.2d at 8. It was said to be "`immaterial that the person making the representations may have had some design of obtaining an incidental advantage to himself as a result of the credit intended to be secured thereby.'" Ibid.[4] The Boyd court conceded, however, that "when the primary purpose of such representations (was) to secure the execution of a contract to which the person making them is a party, such representations are not within the terms of the statute and need not be in writing in order to be actionable." Ibid.[5]
Boyd almost precludes Tenna from making any claim, as Tenna does not and cannot contend that Columbia Union sought the execution of a contract to which the bank itself would be a party.
Beall lends some support to Tenna, however, to the extent that Tenna limits itself to following assets which were ultimately acquired by Columbia Union as the result of the misleading information supplied orally by Gaston. The facts in Beall were considerably more favorable to the plaintiffs, however, in that the bank's cashier was plainly guilty of fraud in selling a note on oral representations as to the financial responsibility of the makers; he also supplied a spurious financial statement in his own handwriting. While ruling that the oral statements alone would not support a claim, the Missouri Supreme Court held the defendant bank liable as "trustee ex maleficio" of assets which it acquired by reason of the cashier's fraud. The Court relied on the fact that the bank's assets were "swelled by the transactions." 76 S.W.2d at 1101.
More recent Missouri cases impose constructive trusts to prevent unjust enrichment occurring through constructive fraud as well as actual fraud. Steele v. Cross, 366 S.W.2d 434 (Mo.1963); Murphy v. Olds, 508 S.W.2d 249 (Mo.App.1974). Even an innocent misrepresentation may give rise to a constructive trust. Basman v. Frank, 250 S.W.2d 989, 993 (Mo.1952) (referring to misrepresentation as a separate ground for imposing a trust, in addition to such alternate grounds as fraud or breach of duty under a confidential relationship). See also In re Mid-Center Redevelopment Corp., 383 F.Supp. 954, 972 (D.N.J.1974).
In the present case the Court has found material misrepresentations of fact causing an extension of credit to Honan, which permitted Honan to acquire assets from Tenna, a portion of which ultimately enriched the bank. Ruling as it believes a Missouri court would, in this unchartered segment of Missouri law, the Court concludes that unjust enrichment has occurred, and that Columbia Union should be treated as a constructive trustee of the sum of $2,678.17, which it finally acquired as a result of the misrepresentations.[6]
It is therefore ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of plaintiff and against Columbia Union National Bank, in the amount of $2,678.17, together with interest at the rate of 6% from August 30, 1976. *1221 Costs will be assessed in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant bank.
NOTES
[1]  "No action shall be brought to charge any person upon or by reason of any representation or assurance made concerning the character, conduct, credit, ability, trade or dealings of any other person, unless such representation or assurance be made in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged thereby, or by some person thereunto by him lawfully authorized." The statute is closely related to the requirement of a written promise "to answer for the debt . . . of another person . . ." Sec. 432.010, RSMo.
[2]  On November 25, 1974, SBA refused to guaranty the requested loan (Stip. para. 25), and Honan's future was bleak when Chodorow spoke to Gaston. P.Exh. 20.
[3]  500 motors at $3.00 sold for $1,500. The remaining 4,865 motors at $2.75 sold for $13,378.75. Sales commission on $14,878.75 was $1,487.88.
[4]  Missouri reportedly shares with Maine and Massachusetts an exceptionally rigid rule applying the statute even though a defendant has made a fraudulent statement. Brock & Davis Co., Inc. v. Charleston National Bank, 443 F.Supp. 1175, 1179 (S.D.W.Va.1977).
[5]  Compare Wahl v. Cunningham, 320 Mo. 57, 6 S.W.2d 576, 580-5 (1928), distinguishing between "collateral" and "original" guaranties of debts of third persons.
[6]  In post-trial suggestions, Tenna contends that the Court should not restrict it to recovery of sums actually received by Columbia Union, but should impose liability as in a conversion case, because the bank was at one time in possession of the motors. The Court does not believe the evidence shows that Columbia Union dealt with the motors in an arbitrary or self-serving manner; rather, it seems to have acted reasonably and in accordance with its contractual relationship with SBA. Tenna has previously asserted that Columbia Union "would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain proceeds from liquidation of (Tenna's) merchandise, so constructive trust should be imposed on the proceeds." To the extent Columbia Union received such proceeds, the Court agrees.


Frank Sheridan

Frank Sheridan (June 11, 1869 – November 24, 1943) was an American actor of the silent and early sound film eras.

Born in Boston, he began acting later in life, at the age of 46, and had several leading roles. As time went on, he segued into the character actor role, and continued working right into his 70s. Although mostly in smaller roles, he continued to enjoy featured roles occasionally throughout the 1930s, as in his role of Sam Stubener in the 1936 film, Conflict, which starred John Wayne.

Sheridan and his wife Edna (née Carroll) Sheridan, had one child. Frank Sheridan died on November 24, 1943 in Hollywood, aged 74.

Filmography

(Per AFI database)

An * denotes a featured or starring role.

At Bay  (1915) - District Attorney Graham*
The Money Master  (1915)- John Haggleton*
The Perils of Divorce  (1916) - John Graham*
The Struggle  (1916) - Major James Carewe*
Enlighten Thy Daughter  (1917) - Daniel Stevens*
Vengeance Is Mine  (1917) -  Peter Van Brunt*
Ruler of the Road  (1918) - Hugh Tomlinson*
A Daughter of Two Worlds  (1920) - Black Jerry Malone*
Anne of Little Smoky  (1921) - "The" Brockton*
Her Lord and Master  (1921) - Fred Stillwater*
 The Rider of the King Log (1921) -  John Xavier Kavanagh*
One Exciting Night  (1922) - The detective
 The Man Next Door (1923) - Curley*
 Two Shall Be Born (1924) -  Dominick Kelly*
Lena Rivers  (1925) - Henry Rivers Grahme Jr.*
Fast Life  (1929) -  Warden*
Side Street  (1929) - Mr. O'Farrell*
Danger Lights  (1930) - Ed Ryan*
The Other Tomorrow  (1930) - Dave Weaver*
Ladies of the Big House  (1931) - Warden Hecker*
The Public Defender  (1931) - Charles Harmer*
The Flood  (1931) - David Bruce Sr.*
Silence  (1931) - Joel [Alva] Clarke*
Young Donovan's Kid  (1931) - Father Dan*
Murder by the Clock  (1931) - Chief of police
A Free Soul  (1931) - Prosecuting attorney
Broken Lullaby  (1932) - Priest
Washington Merry-Go-Round  (1932) - Kelleher
The Roadhouse Murder  (1932) - District Attorney
The Last Mile  (1932) - Warden Frank Lewis*
Okay, America!  (1932) - Police commissioner
Afraid to Talk  (1932) - Police commissioner
Deception  (1932) -  Leo
The Man Who Dared: An Imaginative Biography  (1933) - Senator John McGuinness*
The Woman Accused  (1933) - Inspector Swope
Mama Loves Papa  (1933) - The mayor
Speed Demon  (1933) - Captain Torrance*
The Cat's-Paw  (1934) - Police Commissioner Dan Moriarity*
Stand Up and Cheer!  (1934) - Senator
Upper World  (1934) - Inspector Kellogg
Wharf Angel  (1934) - The Captain
The Witching Hour  (1934) - Chief of police
The Merry Widow  (1934) - Judge
The Whole Town's Talking  (1935) - Russell
The Revenge Rider  (1935) - Jed Harmon*
The Spanish Cape Mystery  (1935) - Walter Godfrey*
Front Page Woman  (1935) - Warden
Frisco Kid  (1935) - Mulligan
Whispering Smith Speaks  (1935) - Gordon D. Harrington Sr.*
Death Flies East  (1935) - Warden
Men Without Names  (1935) - Police captain
West Point of the Air  (1935) - General Debbin
Nevada  (1935) - Tom Blaine
The Payoff  (1935) - George Gorman
His Night Out  (1935) - Detective
Woman Wanted  (1935) - Judge
The Best Man Wins  (1935) - Captain of the salvage tug
Murder with Pictures  (1936) - Police Chief
Country Gentlemen  (1936) - Chief of police
Missing Girls  (1936) - Prison Warden
The Little Red Schoolhouse  (1936) - Warden Gail
Conflict  (1936) - Sam Stubener*
The Voice of Bugle Ann  (1936) - Nathan
San Francisco  (1936) - Founders' Club Member
The Leavenworth Case  (1936) - Silas Leavenworth*
The Life of Emile Zola  (1937) - M. Van Cassell
Parnell  (1937) - Sheriff
The Great O'Malley  (1937) - Father Patrick
Maytime  (1937) - Committeeman
Woman in Distress  (1937) - Inspector Roderick
A Fight to the Finish  (1937) - Warden
City Streets  (1938) - Father Ryan*
Secrets of a Nurse  (1938) - Warden
Heroes in Blue  (1939) - Mike Murphy*
Black Friday  (1940) - Chaplain

References

Category:1869 births
Category:1943 deaths
Category:American male silent film actors
Category:20th-century American male actors
Category:Male actors from Boston
Category:Disease-related deaths in California


<!-- Do not edit this file. It is automatically generated by API Documenter. -->

[Home](./index.md) > [puppeteer](./puppeteer.md) > [Protocol](./puppeteer.protocol.md) > [Media](./puppeteer.protocol.media.md) > [PlayerMessage](./puppeteer.protocol.media.playermessage.md) > [message](./puppeteer.protocol.media.playermessage.message.md)

## Protocol.Media.PlayerMessage.message property

<b>Signature:</b>

```typescript
message: string;
```


Bitcoin one of the best performers with Binance Coin leading the market

BTC is the least volatile coin of them all

The leading cryptocurrency is beating ‘em all!

Bitcoin is not only outperforming the traditional assets like gold, oil, and government bonds in 2019 but also remains the king of the cryptocurrency market.

When it comes to one-year returns, the leading cryptocurrency might register mere 4 percent returns but still is at the second spot due to the reason that other top cryptocurrencies have 1-year returns in the negative.

While BTC is at the second spot, Binance Coin (BNB), the native token of the largest cryptocurrency Binance is the winner with 100 percent gains. If we take a look at other cryptocurrencies, Chainlink is the winner with almost 300 percent gains.

As per the data provided by Messari, Chainlink is followed by Bitcoin SV (185%), Ravencoin (130%), Holo (100%), Enjin Coin (42%), Moeda Loyalty Points (28%), and Basic attention Token (24%). However, with over 98 percent losses, RChain is the biggest loser.

1-Year Volatility & Return:$BTC significantly less volatile than all other cryptoassets & 2nd best performer -> safe haven within asset class during bear markets. "Flight-to-safety" provides buy support, reduces vol. pic.twitter.com/15nVxQ3tMU — Ceteris Paribus (@ceterispar1bus) June 5, 2019

Currently, the flagship cryptocurrency is trading at $8,005 with 24 hours gains of 0.72 percent. In the past seven days, BTC/USD is down by 6.54 percent while in the green by over 32 percent in the past 30 days and up by 115 percent till date in 2019.

Bitcoin is the Least Volatile Crypto-asset

The cryptocurrency market is known for being an extremely volatile market, much more than the stock market.

Volatility is actually the amount of uncertainty or risk associated with the size of the change in an asset’s value. A higher volatility means the value of an asset is spread out over a large range of values, meaning its price can change dramatically over a short time period in either direction. On the other hand, lower volatility means the value doesn’t fluctuate dramatically and tends to be more steady. Speaking of being steady, take a look at this monster chart.

Bitcoin returns: 1 year: +4%

2 years +194%

3 years: +923%

4 years: +3,039%

5 years: +1,101%

6 years: +6,320%

7 years: +144,912% No matter what year they bought bitcoin, everyone always wishes they had bought more. — Rhythm (@Rhythmtrader) June 6, 2019

Among all the cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin is the most stable one as in the past one year, its volatility has been the least at 0.55.

BTC is followed by Monero (0.78), Zcash (0.79) Binance Coin (0.79), Ethereum (0.81), Decred (0.82), Dash (0.82), Litecoin (0.83), Bitcoin Gold (0.83), and Lisk (0.84). Meanwhile, PChain has the highest 1 year volatility at 5.13.

Bitcoin’s price is $10,662.99 BTC/USD exchange rate today. The real-time BTC market cap of $197.16 Billion currently ranks #1 with a chart dominance at 62.37%, daily trading volume of $228.79 Billion and live coin value change of BTC 3.60 in the last 24 hours.


"Athiti Devo Bhava", which means guests are like our god, is the epithet of Indian culture. That's also the catch-line of the Ministry of Tourism's Incredible India campaign. The recently released data from the ministry shows a healthy rise in foreign tourists arriving in India.

Representational image. Reuters

The data points out to a remarkable rise in e-visa entries. The facility is now available for citizens arriving from 150 countries. The spike in tourist arrivals can be attributed to the thriving e-visa facility.

While alleged racial attacks, harassment and sexual assaults against foreign tourists continue to be a major worry, this, however, has not dampened the spirits of foreign tourists.

Tourism sector is doing well on all counts. Read on to get a fair idea of the state of tourism in India.

This seems to be a game-changer for the Indian tourism industry. The Narendra Modi government introduced the e-visa facility in November 2014. This has reduced considerable paperwork and has facilitated ease of travelling for India-bound tourist. From 1,10,657 e-visa arrivals in 2015, it rose to 4,34,927 arrivals this year — a whopping 293% spike. February, in particular, sees a rise in the total number of e-visa entries — a 369% rise. The Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi followed by Mumbai's Chhatrapati Shivaji International Airport form about two-thirds of the total e-visa arrivals.

There has been a steady rise in the total number of foreign tourist arriving in India. While 32.04 lakh foreign tourist arrived in 2014, the figure rose to about 36.36 lakh in the first five months till May 2016 — a 13.48% rise. The winter months of January and February see more foreign tourists arrivals than the summer months of April and May when there is a sharp dip.

It is not the US, UK or any western country that tops the chart. It is our neighbour Bangladesh. Around 14.9% of the total 36.36 lakh tourist arrivals were from Bangladesh in 2016. The US and the UK were the next top source for foreign tourists. Canada and Sri Lanka complete the list.

Tourism is a major component of India's foreign exchange earnings. Between 2014 and 2016, there has been a healthy increase in the foreign exchange earnings through tourism. Forex earnings increases in the winter months of January and February and declines during the hot Indian summers. The month of April has also seen the biggest spike in forex earnings, a 29.6% rise between 2014-16. The month of January sees India collecting the highest amount of forex earnings.

Delhi and Mumbai, the two biggest metros of India also see the most number of foreign tourist arrivals. While the national capital tops the list, Mumbai comes second. Chennai, a key terminal for tourists arriving from south-east Asia and Sri Lanka came third. The surprise entry in this list is a nondescript location called Haridaspur. It is an inland port close to Bangladesh. It may be a major reason for the rise in Bangladeshi tourists coming to India.

The numbers released by the Ministry of Tourism is surely encouraging. With half the year remaining, there is scope for much higher growth rate for Indian tourism sector.


1. Introduction {#sec1-molecules-24-03120}
===============

Muscat Hamburg grapes (*Vitis vinifera* L. cv. Muscat Hamburg) have been grown in Tianjin for more than one hundred years due to the advantageous properties of this type of grape including: wide adaptability, strong disease resistance, high yield, easy management and strong flavor. Muscat Hamburg grapes are commonly consumed as both table grapes and grapes for winemaking, and the grape flavor characteristics make them very popular in the region. Muscat Hamburg wine (a dry white wine) was initially produced by the Tianjin Dynasty Winery in the 1980s. This type of wine was highly awarded in worldwide wine competitions. Since then, the production of Muscat Hamburg wine has dramatically increased, and currently, approximately 5000 tons is produced every year (95% of which is white wine, 2% is red wine and 3% is sparkling wine).

There are two main and popular techniques used in making fresh Muscat Hamburg wines in China including classical white-winemaking and red-winemaking techniques. However, these two types of Muscat Hamburg wine cannot meet the demand of consumers for the high-quality wine. The reason for the lack of consumer appreciation of these wines as high-quality wines appears to be due to the fact that the content of phenolic substances in white wine is lower, and the wine has a poorer mouthfeel as well as a lower beneficial compounds (polyphenols) due to the reduced involvement of the grape skin in the white-winemaking process \[[@B1-molecules-24-03120],[@B2-molecules-24-03120]\]. On the other hand, the red-winemaking process, which includes daily (1--3 times) pumping over in air, results in a lower content of aroma compounds. Indeed, the effect of the phenolic compounds in wine quality has been studied extensively in recent years in many different types of wine regions \[[@B3-molecules-24-03120],[@B4-molecules-24-03120]\]. Therefore, the demand from the market has driven research into elucidating the factors that affect the quality of wines and developing new winemaking techniques and new types of wine. Wine quality is mainly assessed by three factors, the color, aroma and taste of the wine. Different fermentation technologies can be used to improve these quality characteristics to suit consumer preferences.

Carbonic maceration is widely used to produce wine with novel characteristics. The technique has been used in France for more than 80 years \[[@B5-molecules-24-03120]\], and it exploits a process that takes place naturally inside grape berries stored intact in an anaerobic environment. After carbonic maceration, the final product has a richer flavor and superior aromatic qualities \[[@B6-molecules-24-03120]\] with a higher content of phenolic compounds \[[@B5-molecules-24-03120]\], which are desirable to consumers. Carbonic maceration techniques have been used with many grape varieties, including Gamay, Tempranillo, Monastrell, Airén, Syrah, and Tinta Miúda grapes \[[@B5-molecules-24-03120],[@B6-molecules-24-03120],[@B7-molecules-24-03120],[@B8-molecules-24-03120],[@B9-molecules-24-03120],[@B10-molecules-24-03120]\]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no studies applying this technique to Muscat Hamburg grapes.

Therefore, the main objective of this study is to determine the influence of carbonic maceration compared with classical red and white wine fermentation techniques on the color, aroma and sensory properties of Muscat Hamburg wine compared with classical red and white wine fermentation techniques. Results from this work will improve our comprehension in carbonic maceration wine fermentation technique used in Muscat Hamburg grapes to enhance the quality of Muscat Hamburg wine.

2. Results and Discussion {#sec2-molecules-24-03120}
=========================

2.1. General Composition of Wine {#sec2dot1-molecules-24-03120}
--------------------------------

After the fermentations were completed (final concentration of sugar \< 2 g/L), the general compositions of the wines were measured, and the results are summarized in [Table 1](#molecules-24-03120-t001){ref-type="table"}.

In general, Muscat Hamburg wines made by different winemaking techniques did not have significantly different (*p* \< 0.05) alcohol concentrations, contents of reducing sugar, free SO~2~ levels, total acidities and dry extract contents. The Muscat Hamburg wines made by carbonic maceration exhibited higher pH values than the wines obtained by classical red- and white-winemaking processes. This observation can be attributed to two factors. First, the malic acid content was reduced in the carbonic macerated wine because of the carbonic maceration technique itself; depending on the grape variety and fermentation temperature, greater than 15%--60% of the malic acid is metabolized during the carbonic maceration process \[[@B11-molecules-24-03120],[@B12-molecules-24-03120]\]. The second reason could be that the lower fermentation temperature (13--15 °C) after carbonic maceration led to precipitation of calcium tartrate and potassium tartrate. These factors resulted in the Muscat Hamburg wines produced by carbonic maceration being more acidic than the wines produced by the other two techniques.

2.2. Color Measurements {#sec2dot2-molecules-24-03120}
-----------------------

The values of psychometric lightness (*L*\*), hue angle (*h*), and psychometric chroma (*C*\*) were analyzed, and the values in three-dimensional color space, *a*\* (measure of redness) and *b*\* (measure of yellowness), of the two types of red wines (R and CM) were also determined, as highlighted in [Table 2](#molecules-24-03120-t002){ref-type="table"}.

The *L*\* values were very high in the Muscat Hamburg wines produced by the red-winemaking and carbonic maceration techniques (96.41 and 96.79, respectively). The values of *C*\* (41.26), *a*\* (43.25) and *b*\* (0.84) were significantly higher (*p* \< 0.01) in the wine produced by carbonic maceration than in the wine produced by red-winemaking techniques (35.67, 37.65 and 0.75, respectively). However, visually, the carbonic macerated wine did not have a more vivid color. This fact can be attributed to its greater lightness, which affects the saturation (*S*\*~uv~ = *C*\*~uv~/*L*\*) more than the chroma, making this wine less saturated and preventing us from seeing a purer color \[[@B9-molecules-24-03120]\]. The classical red wine and carbonic maceration-derived samples had similar *h* (hue angle) values (located in the red region), and the colors of these two kinds of wine were not significantly different. Our results agree with the previous finding that the wines made by carbonic maceration had higher chroma values than wines obtained by classical red-wine vinification techniques \[[@B13-molecules-24-03120]\]. Moreover, this result can be explained by the carbonic maceration leading to a lower anthocyanin content, mainly monoglucosides and total phenols \[[@B13-molecules-24-03120]\], which is related to lighter wines and less saturated but more colorful samples (higher chroma values).

2.3. Aromatic Profile Analysis {#sec2dot3-molecules-24-03120}
------------------------------

The results of the volatile compounds, odor descriptors and thresholds are shown in [Table 3](#molecules-24-03120-t003){ref-type="table"}. In this study, the olfactory perception thresholds and odor descriptors of compounds in wine were taken from the available literature \[[@B14-molecules-24-03120],[@B15-molecules-24-03120],[@B16-molecules-24-03120],[@B17-molecules-24-03120],[@B18-molecules-24-03120]\]. Thirty-two compounds, including alcohols (two), aldehydes and ketones (five), terpenes (10), acids (two) and esters (13), were identified and quantified in Muscat Hamburg wine. According to the quantitative data, the concentration of total volatiles in the wines ranged from 3614.66 to 6384.97 μg/L. The different winemaking methods significantly (*p* \< 0.001) influenced the concentration of volatiles in the wines. Among the three kinds of wines, the Muscat Hamburg wine prepared by carbonic maceration contained the highest concentration of volatiles (6384.97 μg/L), followed by the wines prepared by classical white-winemaking (4251.65 μg/L) and red-winemaking (3614.66 μg/L) techniques. This result may be due to the occurrence of anaerobic fermentation in the absence of oxygen and saturation with CO~2~, and the profile of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) changes significantly. Many studies have reported that carbonic maceration resulted in higher concentrations of VOCs, especially esters and fatty acids \[[@B19-molecules-24-03120]\].

Esters were the most abundant type of aromatic compounds in the wines (77.1%--82.15% (*w*/*w*)), followed by terpenes and aldehydes. The concentrations of total esters in the wines ranged from 2969.24 to 5221.26 μg/L. Esters are largely responsible for the fresh and fruity aromas of wines and are mainly produced during alcoholic fermentation \[[@B20-molecules-24-03120]\]. The different winemaking technologies significantly (*p* \< 0.001) influenced the concentration of esters in the wines. The concentration of esters in the Muscat Hamburg wine made by carbonic maceration was higher than that in the Muscat Hamburg wine made by classical white and red-winemaking techniques. This result was attributed to a much higher content of ethyl esters (ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate and ethyl decanoate) and acetate esters (hexenyl acetate, isoamyl acetate and phenylethyl acetate). Ethyl esters, which are derived from medium-chain fatty acids, are responsible for the fruity character of wines, the most representative aroma family in all wines. Ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate and ethyl decanoate, which are associated with pleasant notes "pear", "banana" and "fruity", were the most abundant ethyl esters. Acetate esters, which are formed from acetic acid and higher alcohols, have a greater influence on the perceived aroma than ethyl esters \[[@B21-molecules-24-03120]\]. Among the quantified acetate esters, three compounds (hexenyl acetate, isoamyl acetate and phenylethyl acetate) were associated with the positive attributes "fruits", "banana" and "floral" in the Muscat Hamburg wines. The contents of ethyl esters and acetate esters were significantly higher (*p* \< 0.001) in the Muscat Hamburg wine made by carbonic maceration. In addition, our results, which indicate higher levels of ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate and ethyl decanoate in the Muscat Hamburg wines, are consistent with the results of previous studies on Muscat wines \[[@B22-molecules-24-03120]\].

The concentrations of terpenes in the wines ranged from 405.1 to 787.9 μg/L. (±)-β-Citronellol, linalool and limonene were the greatest contributors to the higher concentration of terpenes in Muscat Hamburg wine. Similar results were observed in a previous study that reported that aromatic varieties, such as Muscat Hamburg, Gewürztraminer, Irsai Oliver and Rhine Riesling, had the highest terpenoid concentrations \[[@B23-molecules-24-03120]\]. In addition, the contents of terpenes were significantly (*p* \< 0.001) higher in the wine produced by carbonic maceration (787.9 μg/L) compared with the levels in the wines produced by white- and red-winemaking techniques (678.96 μg/L and 405.1 μg/L, respectively). This result agrees with the previous finding that both the free and bound terpenoid contents were markedly higher when using carbonic maceration at higher temperatures (32 °C) \[[@B24-molecules-24-03120]\]. These terpenes played a key role in the OAVs of Muscat Hamburg wines due to the low thresholds of these terpene compounds, such as (±)-β-citronellol, linalool and limonene. Numerous studies have reported that terpene compounds can be used analytically for varietal characterization. Terpene compounds are secondary plant metabolites derived from acetyl Co-A. Terpenes are also synthesized by microorganisms; however, the synthesis of terpenes by *Saccharomyces cerevisiae* has not been observed. Terpenes are important components of varietal aroma and are not influenced by yeast metabolism during fermentation \[[@B25-molecules-24-03120]\].

Low numbers of aldehydes (four), ketones (one), acids (two) and alcohols (two) were detected in the Muscat Hamburg wines, and their concentrations were much lower than those of the other aroma compounds. Due to its low odor threshold (0.05 µg/L), β-damascenone contributed substantially to the OAVs. Alcohols are formed by the degradation of amino acids, carbohydrates and lipids \[[@B26-molecules-24-03120]\]. The production of fatty acids has been reported to be dependent on the composition of the must and the fermentation conditions \[[@B27-molecules-24-03120]\]. Fatty acids are associated with fatty olfactory notes \[[@B20-molecules-24-03120]\].

Among the 32 volatile compounds identified and quantified in the wines, only 17 compounds were detected at levels above their odor thresholds (OAVs \> 1), and these compounds included an alcohol, an aldehyde, a ketone, terpenes (five) and esters (nine). Ethyl octanoate had the highest OAV (\> 300), followed by β-damascenone (OAV \> 100) and then (−)-rose oxide. (±)-β-Citronellol, linalool, limonene, isoamyl acetate and ethyl hexanoate were present at concentrations above the perception threshold (OAVs \> 10). 3-Methyl-1-butanol, nonanal, geraniol, (*Z*)-3-hexenyl acetate, ethyl butyrate, ethyl caproate, hexenyl acetate, ethyl decanoate and phenylethyl acetate were also present at concentrations above the perception threshold (OAVs \> 1).

An aromatic series can be defined as a group of volatile compounds with similar odor descriptors. Based on its odor descriptors, each compound was assigned to one or more aromatic series: solvent, floral, sweet, green (vegetal or herbaceous), fatty or fruity, which were chosen because these terms are commonly used to describe young wines \[[@B28-molecules-24-03120]\]. The value of each aromatic series was obtained as the sum of the OAVs of the compounds in the series. Therefore, the contribution of a specific compound to each series can be determined. This procedure allows the quantitative information obtained by chemical analysis to be related to sensory perception.

The impact of different fermentation technologies on the OAVs of the odorant series for Muscat Hamburg wine is summarized in [Figure 1](#molecules-24-03120-f001){ref-type="fig"}. The fruity and floral series had the greatest impacts on the OAVs of the wine, followed by the sweet and green series. The solvent and fatty series were not detected in the wines. The contributions of all the odorant series were significantly different in the different wines (*p* \< 0.001). The OAVs of the Muscat Hamburg wine made by carbonic maceration were significantly higher than those of the wines made by classical white- and red-winemaking processes (*p* \< 0.001). Carbonic maceration exposes intact grape berries to an oxygen-deprived environment, allowing enzymatic fermentation to occur within the berries, typically resulting in richly aromatic wines with a fruity bouquet and palate softness \[[@B11-molecules-24-03120]\]. These results provide clear evidence that carbonic maceration can be adopted by wineries to obtain Muscat Hamburg wines with superior quality.

2.4. Sensory Evaluation {#sec2dot4-molecules-24-03120}
-----------------------

The average scores of all the types of Muscat Hamburg wine in the sensory evaluation are shown in [Table 4](#molecules-24-03120-t004){ref-type="table"}. Wines with higher scores have more desirable attributes. Significant differences (*p* \< 0.001) between the different wines were found in the aroma analysis (aroma purity, intensity and quality), taste analysis (taste purity, taste duration and taste quality) and harmony. Carbonic macerated Muscat Hamburg wine received the highest scores in aroma analysis, taste analysis and harmony (26.3, 37.5 and 10.2, respectively), followed by white Muscat Hamburg wine (24.2, 35.4 and 9.5, respectively) and red Muscat Hamburg wine (22.4, 34.1 and 8.6, respectively). The results of aroma analysis were in accordance with the previous quantitative analysis of aroma compound, which showed that Muscat Hamburg wine prepared by carbonic maceration had the highest content of esters and terpenes. The lower content of phenols, which greatly influence the taste and harmony of red wine, in the red Muscat Hamburg wine could by why this sample received the lowest scores in the taste and harmony categories of the sensory evaluation \[[@B29-molecules-24-03120]\]. Carbonic macerated Muscat Hamburg wine received the highest score overall with 86.8 points and was rated as "excellent". The classically prepared white wine, which received 82.1 points, was listed second and rated as "very good", while the classically prepared red wine received 77.6 points and was rated as "good". These results indicate carbonic maceration produces wines with distinctive of properties, superior quality, and a harmonious balance compared with wines produced by conventional techniques \[[@B11-molecules-24-03120],[@B30-molecules-24-03120]\].

In general, carbonic macerated Muscat Hamburg wine received highest score, it is related to unique aroma, such as floral, fatty and fruity. The floral aroma is mainly determined by caryophyllene and α-terpineol, the fatty one may be connected with n--decanoic acid and (*E*)-2-nonenal, while ethyl laurate have a major role in the fruity aromatic series. Other aroma compounds in Muscat Hamburg wine have some effect of odor to a certain degree. Ultimately, the highest sensory evaluation is connected closely with the aroma compounds present.

3. Materials and Methods {#sec3-molecules-24-03120}
========================

3.1. Grape Sampling {#sec3dot1-molecules-24-03120}
-------------------

The grapevines were grown in Chadian vineyard (38°83′--39°54′ N, 116°23′--117°45′ E), Hangu County, Tianjin, China. The vineyard had an annual accumulated temperature of 3900--4200 °C and an annual rainfall of 580--720 mm. The soil in the vineyard is mainly clay, and the row width and vine spacing were 2.5 and 1.0 m, respectively. The ten-year-old, own-rooted Muscat Hamburg vines were watered by a drip irrigation system. Grape samples were harvested at 22 °Bx and were of similar size and had no physical damage or infections.

3.2. Yeast Strains {#sec3dot2-molecules-24-03120}
------------------

*Saccharomyces cerevisiae* BH8 was used in this study. In a previous study, we found that the use of *S. cerevisiae* BH8 could increase the content of aroma compounds \[[@B31-molecules-24-03120]\]. *S. cerevisiae* wine yeast strain BH8 was isolated from the 'Beihong' wine grape variety ('*Muscat Hamburg*' × '*V. amurensis*') and cultivated by the Institute of Botany, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China \[[@B32-molecules-24-03120]\]. This strain was identified as *S. cerevisiae* by color and colony topography on WL Nutrient Agar \[[@B33-molecules-24-03120]\] as well as by DNA sequence analysis conducted at the Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.

3.3. Fermentation Experiments {#sec3dot3-molecules-24-03120}
-----------------------------

Three different winemaking methods were used in this study (classical white-winemaking, classical red-winemaking and carbonic maceration methods). Muscat Hamburg grapes were hand-harvested in 2014. For the classical white-winemaking method, the Muscat Hamburg grapes were immediately destemmed and gently crushed. Musts were clarified by cold-settling for 18 h at 10 °C to separate the clear juice from the sediment and the loading volume was about 90% of the tank capacity. The fermentation temperature was 13--15 °C, and the alcoholic fermentation lasted for 12 days. In classical red-winemaking method, the Muscat Hamburg grapes were destemmed and subjected to a short cold maceration (4 h at 10 °C) prior to the winemaking process and the loading volume was around 80% of the tank capacity. The fermentation temperature was controlled at 25--28 °C. In addition, during the fermentation process, half of the total volume of wine was pumped over in air 1--3 times per day depending on the kinetics of the fermentation. After the alcoholic fermentation was complete (7 days), only free-run must was used for bottling. For the carbonic maceration process, the intact grapes with stems were placed into a stainless-steel tank that had been saturated with food-grade carbon dioxide and hermetically closed. The tanks were saturated with carbon dioxide every 12 h. The temperature was controlled at 28 °C for 12 days. After carbonic maceration, only the must obtained by gentle pressing was used for fermentation. The fermentation temperature was controlled at 13--15 °C, and the alcoholic fermentation lasted for 7 days.

All grape must samples were treated with sulfur dioxide (sulfited) to a final concentration of 40 mg/L, and the final pH value of the must was adjusted to 3.3 by aseptically adding tartaric acid (85%, *w*/*v*). This organic acid was selected because it is normally found in grapes and wines and is rarely metabolized by ascomycetous yeasts. The initial yeast inoculums were 1 × 10^6^ cells/mL from cultures grown overnight in YPD medium (1% (*w*/*v*) yeast extract, 2% (*w*/*v*) peptone and 2% (*w*/*v*) glucose).

All the fermentations were carried out in 25-L stainless-steel tanks with at least three replicates. A stainless-steel mesh screen was fixed at the bottom of the 25-L stainless-steel tank during the carbonic maceration process to separate the intact grapes from the must. The fermentation temperature and must density were monitored periodically during the fermentation processes. After alcoholic fermentation, the wines were decanted into secondary tanks, cold stabilized for 3 weeks at 4 °C, and then bottled. The Muscat Hamburg wine samples were labeled as follows: W (classical white-winemaking process), R (classical red-winemaking process) and CM (carbonic maceration winemaking process).

3.4. General Enological Parameters {#sec3dot4-molecules-24-03120}
----------------------------------

The general parameters of the wine were analyzed according to the Office International de la Vigne et du Vin \[[@B34-molecules-24-03120]\]. The following parameters were analyzed: alcohol percentage, reducing sugars, pH value, total acidity, free SO~2~ and dry extract.

3.5. Color Measurements {#sec3dot5-molecules-24-03120}
-----------------------

After bottling and storage at 16--18 °C for one month, the colors of the wine were assessed. Color measurements were performed according to the CIELAB 76 convention \[[@B10-molecules-24-03120]\] by determining the transmission data at wavelengths from 380 to 770 nm at 10-nm intervals. The cylindrical coordinates, *L*\* (psychometric lightness), *C*\* (psychometric chroma) and *h* (hue angle) values, were obtained using the Triest 1.0 program. The values in three-dimensional color space, *a*\* (measure of redness) and *b*\* (measure of yellowness), were calculated as described.

3.6. Volatile Compounds Analysis {#sec3dot6-molecules-24-03120}
--------------------------------

The aroma compounds were extracted from the wine samples by headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) and analyzed using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) as described by Zhang et al. \[[@B35-molecules-24-03120]\]. A 5-mL sample of wine was mixed with 1 g of NaCl in a 15-mL sample vial. The vial was tightly capped with a PTFE-silicon septum and heated at 40 °C for 30 min on a heating platform with agitation at 400 rpm. An SPME fiber (50/30 μm DVB/Carboxen/PDMS, Supelco, Bellefonte, PA, USA), preconditioned according to the manufacturer's instructions, was then inserted into the headspace and left for 30 min with continuous heating and agitation using a magnetic stirrer to achieve suitable extraction.

The GC-MS system used in this study was an Agilent 6890 GC equipped with an Agilent 5975 mass spectrometer (Beijing, China). The column was a 60 m × 0.25 mm HP-INNOWAX capillary column with 0.25-μm film thickness (J & W Scientific, Folsom, CA, USA). Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. Samples were injected by placing the SPME fiber in the GC inlet for 25 min with the splitless GC inlet mode. The oven was initially held at 50 °C (for 1 min), heated to 220 °C at a rate of 3 °C/min and then held at 220 °C for 5 min. The samples were analyzed by mass spectrometry in electron impact mode (MS/EI) at 70 eV over the *m*/*z* range of 20 to 450 U. The mass spectrophotometer was operated in selective ion mode with automatic peak selection, and the area of each peak was determined by analysis with ChemStation software (Agilent Technologies). Each analysis was repeated three times.

All standard solutions were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Beijing, China) and Fluka (Buchs, Switzerland). All standards had purities above 97%. Sample solutions were prepared using the methods reported by Howard et al. \[[@B36-molecules-24-03120]\]. 4-Methyl-2-pentanol was used as internal standard. Five-point calibration curves for the quantification of each compound were prepared using the method described by Ferreira et al. \[[@B37-molecules-24-03120]\]. These curves were also used as a reference to determine the appropriate concentration range for preparing standard solutions. The regression coefficients of the calibration curves were above 97% (*w*/*w*).

3.7. OAV Calculation {#sec3dot7-molecules-24-03120}
--------------------

The aromatic profiles of the wines were evaluated based on their "odor activity values" (OAVs). This aromatic index allows the degree of participation of each compound in the final aroma to be determined. In this sense, only compounds with OAVs \> 1 were considered active odorants. OAVs were calculated using the equation OAV = c/t \[[@B38-molecules-24-03120]\], where c is the concentration of the individual compound in the wine, and t is the olfactory perception threshold of the compound in the wine.

3.8. Sensory Evaluation {#sec3dot8-molecules-24-03120}
-----------------------

After bottling and storage at 16--18 °C for two months, wine samples were subjected to sensory evaluation. The panelists were selected as described by Tomasino et al. \[[@B39-molecules-24-03120]\]. The wine samples were evaluated by a trained and experienced panel composed of 15 tasters (10 male, 5 female) from different wineries in Tianjin, China. The wine samples (30 mL) were randomly labeled and arbitrarily presented to the panel in a standard wine tasting room in Tianjin Dynasty Winery. The evaluation consisted of describing the appearance, aroma, taste and harmony found in the wine samples, and these parameters could receive maximum scores of 15, 30, 44 and 11, respectively \[[@B40-molecules-24-03120]\].

3.9. Statistical Analysis {#sec3dot9-molecules-24-03120}
-------------------------

All experiments were repeated at least three times. All values are presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD). Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 19.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The significance of the results was determined with an unpaired t-test or one-way ANOVA with Tukey's test. For all graphs, bars with different symbols are significantly different at \* *p* \< 0.05, \*\* *p* \< 0.01, and \*\*\* *p* \< 0.001.

4. Conclusions {#sec4-molecules-24-03120}
==============

Compared with the Muscat Hamburg wines made by classical red and white-winemaking techniques, the results of this experiment demonstrated that the Muscat Hamburg wine made by carbonic maceration had significantly higher (*p* \< 0.001) contents of esters (ethyl octanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl decanoate, hexenyl acetate, isoamyl acetate and phenylethyl acetate) and terpenes ((±)-β-citronellol, linalool and limonene), which were the main aromatic compounds of the wine. Finally, the Muscat Hamburg wine prepared by carbonic maceration had a significantly better volatile profile and sensory evaluation scores relative to the wines prepared by the other two techniques. The results of this work will improve our understanding of the aromatic compounds, color and sensory properties of Muscat Hamburg wines. From this research, we can conclude that carbonic maceration is a better choice for making Muscat Hamburg wine and has great potential for broad future application. To date, research on wines prepared by carbonic maceration remains in the laboratory stage, and there are no wine produced by carbonic maceration in China. This is because Chinese wine consumers poorly understand the carbonic maceration technique, the quality of grapes are difficult to meet the large-scale production of carbonic maceration wines and the increased production cost also restricts the production of carbonic maceration wine. All carbonic macerated wines are imported from abroad. Therefore, we believe that the carbonic macerated Muscat Hamburg wine will meet the demands of wine consumers and the wine market in China.

The authors thank Lijun Wang (Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing) for technical support with the GC-MS analysis. The authors are especially grateful to the expert tasters from Tianjin Dynasty Winery for their assistance with the sensory evaluation. We also thank Rolland Harrison from Lincoln University (New Zealand) for the critical review of this paper.

**Sample Availability:** Samples of the compounds are not available.

Data curation, Y.-S.Z. and Y.-T.G.; funding acquisition, D.M., W.-Q.G., G.D. and S.-Y.W.; investigation, Y.-S.Z., Y.-T.G. and G.D.; supervision, H.Z., S.-Y.W., W.-Q.G. and G.D.; Writing---Original Draft: G.D.; Writing---Review and Editing: D.M., B.-J.L., L.-W.W., C.B., M.-Y.W., H.Z., W.-Q.G. and G.D.

This work was supported by the Tianjin Municipal Science and Technology Commission (16JCQNJC14600 and 18JCQNJC09900), the 13th Five-Year innovation team "Study on new processing technology and related mechanisms of agricultural products storage and processing" (TD13-5087), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 31701172).

The authors declare no conflict of interest. And the funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

![The impact of different fermentation technologies on the odor activity values (OAVs) of the odorant series for Muscat Hamburg wine. \*\*\* *p* \< 0.001.](molecules-24-03120-g001){#molecules-24-03120-f001}

molecules-24-03120-t001_Table 1

######

General composition of Muscat Hamburg wines.

  Composition of Wine         Type of Wine   Significance ^b^
  --------------------------- -------------- ------------------ -------------- -----
  Alcoholicity (*v*/*v*, %)   12.05 ± 0.13   11.85 ± 0.16       11.75 ± 0.17   ---
  Reducing sugar (g/L)        2.67 ± 0.08    2.98 ± 0.11        3.11 ± 0.15    ---
  Free SO~2~ (mg/L)           5.42 ± 0.21    4.08 ± 0.25        5.33 ± 0.15    ---
  Total acidity ^a^ (g/L)     6.25 ± 0.15    6.45 ± 0.25        5.85 ± 0.16    ---
  pH value                    3.41 ± 0.16    3.35 ± 0.24        3.65 ± 0.21    \*
  Dry extract (g/L)           25.35 ± 1.52   26.53 ± 2.16       26.15 ± 1.56   ---

Results are the mean values for the three independent fermentations. ^a^ Measured as H~2~SO~4;~ ^b^ ---; no significance; \* *p* \< 0.05.

molecules-24-03120-t002_Table 2

######

Colors of Muscat Hamburg wines from different winemaking technologies.

  Color   Type of Wine   Significance \*
  ------- -------------- ----------------- ------
  *L*\*   96.41 ± 0.34   96.79 ± 0.42      ---
  *C*\*   35.67 ± 0.28   41.26 ± 0.45      \*\*
  *h*     23.68 ± 0.12   24.14 ± 0.25      ---
  *a*\*   37.65 ± 0.59   43.25 ± 0.45      \*\*
  *b*\*   0.75 ± 0.12    0.84 ± 0.11       \*\*

Results are the mean values for the three independent fermentations. \* Significant data from red and carbonic macerated Muscat Hamburg wine; ---; no significance; \* *p* \< 0.05; \*\* *p* \< 0.01.

molecules-24-03120-t003_Table 3

######

The impact of different fermentation technologies on wine aroma compounds in Muscat Hamburg wine.

  --------------------------- ------------------------- --------- ------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------- -------- --------
  **Aroma Compound**          **Retention Index ^a^**   **Ion**   **Type of Wine (µg/L)**   **Odor Descriptors ^c^**   **Odorant Series**   **Threshold (µg/L)**            **Significance ^d^**
  ***m*/*z*^b^**              **W**                     **R**     **CM**
  **Alcohols**
  3-Methyl-1-butanol          1203                      55        31.47 ± 1.23 \*           42.74 ± 3.15 \*            58.52 ± 1.47 \*      Floral                          2                      30       \*\*\*
  2-Nonanol                   1517                      45        4.17 ± 0.27 \*            4.56 ± 0.21 \*             2.29 ± 0.08 \*       Cucumber                        4                      58       \*\*\*
  Subtotal (µg/L)                                                 35.64                     47.3                       60.81
  Subtotal (*w*/*w*, %)                                           0.84                      1.31                       0.95
  **Aldehydes and Ketones**
  (*E*)-2-Nonenal             1539                      43        119.65 ± 9.23 \*          70.34 ± 5.35 \*            198.46 ± 16.32 \*    Fatty                           5                      600      \*\*\*
  Octanal                     1292                      43        3.41 ± 0.13 \*            ---                        4.41 ± 0.24 \*       Fatty                           5                      15       ---
  Nonanal                     1394                      57        ---                       5.45 ± 0.25 \*             4.47 ± 0.42 \*       Green                           4                      1        ---
  Decanal                     1499                      43        11.86 ± 0.73 \*           15.25 ± 1.07 \*            12.54 ± 1.02 \*      Grass                           4                      1000     \*\*\*
  β-Damascenone               1833                      69        4.69 ± 0.26 \*            6.39 ± 0.43 \*             6.11 ± 0.41 \*       Flowers, Apple, Rose, Honey     2, 3, 6                0.05     \*\*\*
  Subtotal (µg/L)                                                 139.61                    97.43                      225.99
  Subtotal (*w*/*w*, %)                                           3.28                      2.7                        3.54
  **Terpenes**
  (−)-Rose oxide              1356                      139       17.02 ± 0.71 \*           6.86 ± 0.24 \*             19.54 ± 0.83 \*      Rose, Lychee                    2, 6                   0.2      \*\*\*
  (±)-β-Citronellol           1770                      69        258.04 ± 21.59 \*         40.18 ± 1.72 \*            230.14 ± 11.8 \*     Floral, Rose                    2                      18       \*\*\*
  4-Terpinenol                1575                      81        1.78 ± 0.096 \*           76.12 ± 7.19 \*            2.25 ± 0.25 \*       Sweet, Green, Citrus, Floral,   2, 3, 4, 6             250      \*\*\*
  Linalool                    1547                      71        179.21 ± 8.16 \*          216.11 ± 8.31 \*           269.45 ± 15.36 \*    Flowery, Fruity                 2, 6                   15       \*\*\*
  Nerol                       1805                      69        11.6 ± 1.05 \*            4.04 ± 0.16 \*             18.04 ±1.62 \*       Rose, Lime                      2, 6                   400      \*\*\*
  Limonene                    1191                      68        91.68 ± 6.52 \*           26.68 ± 1.92 \*            111.9 ± 5.19 \*      Citrus-like, Fruity, Green      4, 6                   10       \*\*\*
  Citral                      1748                      69        6.78 ± 0.52 \*            ---                        2.68 ± 0.15 \*       Floral, Lemon                   2, 6                   41       ---
  Caryophyllene               1581                      93        ---                       9.18 ± 0.65 \*             8.05 ± 0.58 \*       Flowery                         2                      64000    ---
  Geraniol                    1855                      69        81.18 ± 5.32 \*           13.76 ± 0.89 \*            77.38 ± 6.32 \*      Floral, Rose                    2                      30       \*\*\*
  α-Terpineol                 1703                      59        31.67 ± 2.14 \*           12.17 ± 0.58 \*            48.47 ± 2.86 \*      Floral, Sweet                   2, 3                   1000     \*\*\*
  Subtotal (µg/L)                                                 678.96                    405.1                      787.9
  Subtotal (*w*/*w*, %)                                           15.97                     11.2                       12.34
  **Acids**
  Hexanoic acid               1860                      60        52.16 ± 2.62 \*           42.35 ± 2.15 \*            35.85 ± 1.21 \*      Cheese, Fatty, Grass, Fruity    5, 6                   140      \*\*\*
  *n*--Decanoic acid          2292                      60        67.38 ± 3.15 \*           53.24 ± 1.56 \*            53.16 ± 1.36 \*      Fatty                           5                      15,000   \*\*\*
  Subtotal (µg/L)                                                 119.54                    95.59                      89.01
  Subtotal (*w*/*w*, %)                                           2.81                      2.64                       1.39
  **Esters**
  (*Z*)-3-Hexenyl acetate     1331                      43        10.08 ± 0.69 \*           3.83 ± 0.19 \*             13.15 ± 0.73 \*      Green, Apple, Grassy            4, 6                   8        \*\*\*
  Ethyl butyrate              1047                      43        21.25 ± 0.86 \*           23.14 ± 1.34 \*            24.23 ± 0.97 \*      Fruity                          6                      20       \*\*\*
  Isoamyl acetate             1122                      70        654.65 ± 5.35 \*          581.24 ± 4.19 \*           952.64 ± 8.17 \*     Banana, Fruity, Sweet           3, 6                   30       \*\*\*
  Ethyl caproate              1227                      88        6.15 ± 0.27 \*            5.01 ± 0.37 \*             6.98 ± 0.19 \*       Fruity, Banana                  6                      5        \*\*\*
  Ethyl hexanoate             1232                      88        914.41 ± 5.32 \*          785.63 ± 4.53 \*           1077.56 ± 6.92 \*    Green apple, Banana             6                      14       \*\*\*
  Hexenyl acetate             1007                      43        8.77 ± 0.75 \*            10.16 ± 0.45 \*            7.58 ± 0.34 \*       Fruity                          6                      2        \*
  Ethyl heptanoate            1334                      88        2.84 ± 0.06 \*            3.91 ± 0.09 \*             ---                  Pineapple, Green                4, 6                   14       ---
  Methyl octanoate            1390                      74        3.49 ± 0.21 \*            4.16 ± 0.13 \*             5.42 ± 0.17 \*       Fruity, Green                   4, 6                   200      \*\*\*
  Ethyl octanoate             1437                      88        724.43 ± 6.17 \*          830.21 ± 7.21 \*           1540.84 ± 11.17 \*   Floral, Fruity, Banana, Pear    2, 6                   5        \*\*\*
  Ethyl decanoate             1639                      88        494.4 ± 4.13 \*           293.25 ± 3.34 \*           824.07 ± 6.24 \*     Fruity                          6                      200      \*\*\*
  Ethyl 9-decenoate           1697                      88        53.45 ± 2.36 \*           31.26 ± 1.21 \*            48.15 ± 2.17 \*      Fruity, Fatty                   5, 6                   100      \*\*\*
  Phenylethyl acetate         1830                      104       301.09 ± 2.07 \*          341.08 ± 2.15 \*           467.62 ± 1.67 \*     Floral                          2                      250      \*\*\*
  Ethyl laurate               1848                      88        82.89 ± 1.43 \*           56.36 ± 0.32 \*            253.02 ± 3.43 \*     Fruity                          6                      1,500    \*\*\*
  Subtotal (µg/L)                                                 3277.9                    2969.24                    5221.26
  Subtotal (*w*/*w*, %)                                           77.1                      82.15                      81.78
  Total (µg/L)                                                    4251.65                   3614.66                    6384.97
  --------------------------- ------------------------- --------- ------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------- -------- --------

\* Mean value and SD for three independent fermentation; --- not data; ^a^ Kovats retention index was calculated based on an n-alkane series (C6--C24) on a poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG) column under the same chromatographic conditions. ^b^ The characteristic ion (*m*/*z*) was used for identifying the corresponding compound and evaluating their peak areas to avoid possible interference by other compounds. ^c^ 1, solvent; 2, floral; 3, sweet; 4, green; 5, fatty; 6, fruity. ^d^ \* *p* \< 0.05; \*\*\* *p* \< 0.001.

molecules-24-03120-t004_Table 4

######

Sensory analysis of Muscat Hamburg wines produced by different winemaking techniques.

  Attributes               Class              Type of Wine   Significance ^b^
  ------------------------ ------------------ -------------- ------------------ ------------- --------
  Visual analysis          Clarity (5)        4.5 ± 0.15     4.4 ± 0.15         4.6 ± 0.1     ---
  Appearance (10)          8.5 ± 0.15         8.1 ± 0.2      8.2 ± 0.1          \*\*
  Aroma analysis           Aroma purity (6)   5.3 ± 0.1      5.1 ± 0.15         5.5 ± 0.15    \*\*\*
  Aroma intensity (8)      6.8 ± 0.15         5.8 ± 0.15     7.3 ± 0.2          \*\*\*
  Aroma quality (16)       12.1 ± 0.15        11.5 ± 0.15    13.5 ± 0.2         \*\*\*
  Taste analysis           Taste purity (6)   5.1 ± 0.1      4.6 ± 0.2          5.3 ± 0.2     \*\*\*
  Taste intensity (8)      6.8 ± 0.1          6.7 ± 0.15     6.9 ± 0.2          ---
  Taste prolongation (8)   6.6 ± 0.15         6.7 ± 0.1      7.1 ± 0.2          \*
  Taste quality (22)       16.9 ± 0.1         16.1 ± 0.2     18.2 ± 0.2         \*\*\*
  Global evaluation        Harmony (11)       9.5 ± 0.15     8.6 ± 0.1          10.2 ± 0.15   \*\*\*
  Total ^a^                100                82.1 ± 0.3     77.6 ± 0.2         86.8 ± 0.4    \*\*\*

^a^ \> 86 = excellent; 81 -- 85 = very good; 71 -- 80 = good; 50 -- 70 = average; \< 50 = inadequate. ^b^ ---; no significance; \* *p* \< 0.05; \*\* *p* \< 0.01; \*\*\* *p* \< 0.001.

[^1]: The authors contributed equally to this work.


Q:

Unable to correctly fetch my client's reactions - discord.js

I'm currently working on a system which allows users to create Role Reaction messages. I'm using Enmap (js <=> sqlite database) to store the pairs given by users emojiIdOrName: roleId.
So, as you can read in the title, I'm having issues with Reactions.
When a member reacts with whatever emoji of a message stored in my DB, my code first makes sure that all the emoji-role pairs stored for this message are correct (checks if the stored roles are still available, if all the reactions you see under the message are in the DB and vice versa). If something's wrong, the pair is deleted from the DB and the reaction is deleted from the message.
So according to what I said above (if it's clear enough), when you remove an emoji from the message (on discord side, e.g. ), the next time someone reacts should update the database and remove the correspondign entry in the DB before even getting a role.
But it actually doesn't.
What I tried
First of all I obviously tried to debug my code by putting some console.logs everywhere. For what I understood, when a reaction was cached once trying to fetch the message again does not update the cache and the reaction still appears to be on the message (when it's not ^^).
So I tried different things I could see around Stackoverflow, like adding the client.on('raw', ....) bit. It didn't change anything.
Then I tried using partials (I thought it might help smh) for Messages and Reactions. Nothing different.
Even tried iterating other the reactions like so
reaction.message.reactions.cache.forEach(async r => {
    await r.fetch();
});

Here is a concrete example of what I said.
I just removed a reaction: , only one remaining but here is what I get when logging the reaction emoji: . I'm using the following code
case 'dev':
  message.channel.messages.fetch(arguments[1]).then(m => {
    console.log(m.reactions.cache.map(r => {r.fetch();return r.emoji.name}))
  })
  break;

What I did not try (and I don't want to use it)
I don't want to use other events like messageReactionRemove, messageReactionRemoveAll, messageReactionRemoveEmoji etc. as there are too much ways of removing a reaction (it would be a pain to handle all of these).
Making it shorter
To make it shorter, I'd like to be able to fetch a message's real reactions and not get cached ones with the messageReactionAdd event.

Edit
Ok soo I've been busy trying a few things lately and I found something really interesting. In fact it appears that everything I said above is true but only for reactions added by everyone who isn't the client. I'm now trying to correctly fetch my bot's reactions.

A:

Okay so I finally got an answer.
I can do what I want to do by clearing both the message's and reactions' cache, and then recache the message by fetching it.
In JS, it is the following:
client.on('messageReactionAdd', async (reaction, user) => {
    await reaction.message.channel.messages.cache.delete(reaction.message.id);
    await reaction.message.reactions.cache.clear();
    let message = await reaction.message.fetch();
    ....

Message is exaclty the same as reaction.message, but the reactions are the new ones (it doesn't include the deleted ones).


Where Is Your Third Place?

"The suburbs lacked what sociologist Ray Oldenburg calls third places. If home is the primary place, and work is a second place, then a third place anywhere else one goes to be around other people—to build community, to hang out, to feel connected." (99% invisible)

I am an architecture student from KU Leuven, Belgium and I am doing a research about the suburbs in the borough of Bromley. This survey is to help me to get to know what are the 3rd places in the area or beyond.

* Required