After Champagne popping, the first consumer’s observation is the shape of the cork stopper. Consumers expect a “mushroom shape”. Nevertheless, we sometimes observe a “barrel” shape due to inappropriate cork’s elastic properties. The aim of this study was to follow the loss of cork stopper resiliency during 26 months according to the density (d) of the cork in contact with the wine. 1680 disks were weighed + measured and divided in 6 density classes: High (H1 d= 0,19 g/cm3 – H2 d= 0,21 g/cm3), Medium (M, not studied) and Low (L1 d= 0,13 g/cm3 – L2 d= 0,14 g/cm3). Then, 138 technical cork stoppers were produced for each of the 4 studied groups. These corks consisted of an agglomerated natural cork granule body to which two natural cork disks were glued. A total of 552 bottles of sparkling wine were closed with these corks and open after 13, 19 and 26 months to follow cork resiliencies. Wine bottles were stored horizontally; thus, the external natural cork disks were in contact to the wine. During the 26 months of the study, highly significant differences (ANOVA) were observed between the resiliencies of H-corks and those of L-corks, whatever the time studied. The diameters of the L-corks were statistically higher than those of the H-corks. No significant differences were observed between L1 and L2 corks. At the opposite, differences were noted between H1 and H2 at 19 and 26 months. This could be explained by the heterogeneity of the resiliency that was higher for H-corks than for L-corks. Finally, the corks were visually (12 judges) divided in 3 classes corresponding to high (expected mushroom shape, i.e high resiliency), medium (irregular shape of the disk in contact with the wine and/or low premature deterioration of the expected resiliency) and low qualities (barrel shape = premature deterioration of the resiliency). The corks were also divided in 3 categories corresponding to 0-33%, 34-66% and 67-100% resiliency. A strong correlation was noted between the visual and the instrumental categorizations. This study strongly evidenced 1) the importance of the cork density on the cork stopper behaviour when opening the bottle and 2) the interest of an instrumental approach reflecting the consumer’s perception.

Despite the extensive research performed during the last decades, the multifactorial mechanism responsible for the white wine protein haze formation is not fully characterized. Herein, a new model is proposed, which is based on the experimental identification of sulfur dioxide as a major modulating factor inducing wine protein haze upon heating. As opposed to other reducing agents, such as 2-mercaptoethanol, dithiothreitol and tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP), the addition of SO2 to must/wine upon heating cleaves intraprotein disulfide bonds, hinders thiol-disulfide exchange during protein interactions and can lead to the formation of novel inter/intraprotein disulfide bonds. Those are eventually responsible for wine protein aggregation which follows a nucleation-growth kinetic model as shown by dynamic light scattering [1].

Le climat a de fortes implications sur le bon fonctionnement physiologique de la vigne et a besoin d’être quantifié afin de déterminer l’aptitude des régions à la culture de la vigne. Une méthode, qui pourrait éventuellement servir à prévoir l’aptitude des régions à la culture de la vigne, est proposée.

Contribution Foam is the characteristic that differentiates sparkling wines from still wines, being the first sensory attribute that tasters and consumers perceive and that determines the final quality of sparkling wines [1]. The foaming properties mainly depend on the chemical composition of wines [2-3], and different factors involved in wine composition will have an effect on foam quality. In Spain, the sparkling wine market focuses on the production of white and rosé sparkling wine, with very low production of red sparkling wines. However, this type of wines is elaborated in countries like Australia, South-Africa, Argentina, Italy or Portugal, with a great acceptance by consumers. No studies on the foaming characteristics of red sparkling wines have been found.

Tangible variation of sensory characteristics is often perceived in wine aged in similar barrels. This variation is mostly explained by differences in the wood chemical composition, and in the production of the barrels. Despite these facts, the literature concerning barrel-to-barrel variation and its effect on wine sensory and chemical characteristics is very scarce [1]. In this study, the barrel-to-barrel variation in barrel-aged wines was examined in respect of the most important phenolic compounds of oenological interest and chromatic characteristics, considering both the effects of the (individual) barrel and cooperage. A red wine was aged in 49 new medium-toasted oak (Quercus petraea) barrels, from four cooperages, for 12 months