IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Phenolic compounds of wine spirits resulting from different ageing technologies: behaviour during the storage in bottle

Phenolic compounds of wine spirits resulting from different ageing technologies: behaviour during the storage in bottle

Abstract

Phenolic compounds are released from the wood into the wine spirit (WS) during the ageing process, and are of utmost importance to the colour, flavour, taste and the overall quality acquired by this spirit drink.1 Their concentrations in the WS and the related effects mainly depend on the kind of wood (oaks vs chestnut), toasting level and ageing technology (traditional using wooden barrels vs alternative).1,2,3

Recent research conducted by our team has been focused on alternative technology towards sustainable ageing of WS resorting to wooden staves combined with micro-oxygenation (MOX).2,3 In the Project CENTRO-04-3928-FEDER-000001, the same wine distillate was aged for 18 months in 1000 L stainless steel tanks with wood staves inside (Limousin oak or chestnut) and MOX (flow rate 2 mL/L/month), and in 250 L barrels made of the same kinds of wood, in duplicate. Despite the promising results achieved, showing faster ageing and the production of high quality aged WSs resulting from the alternative technology compared to those resulting from the traditional one, it is imperative to assess their quality during the storage in bottle to fully validate the new technology. Therefore, the second phase of the investigation is currently made under the Project CENTRO-04-3928-FEDER-000028, studying the chemistry underlying the storage in bottle in order to understand if the features imparted by the ageing technology are retained or if they do not persist. The present work is focused on the behaviour of phenolic compounds of the aged WSs during this stage. For this purpose, the eight aged WSs (from the four modalities: chestnut barrels, Limousin oak barrels, stainless steel tanks with chestnut wood staves and MOX, and stainless steel tanks with Limousin oak wood staves and MOX) were bottled on the same day in 750 mL amber glass bottles (two bottles per modality). The cork stopper and the bottleneck were sealed with parafilm to prevent evaporation. The bottles were stored in the cellar of INIAV-Dois Portos. Sampling was carried out in the beginning and after 12 months of storage, and the phenolic compounds (gallic, syringic, ferulic and ellagic acids, vanillin, syringaldehyde, coniferaldehyde, sinapaldehyde, umbelliferone and scopoletin) were analysed by a HPLC method developed and validated in our laboratory.4

The ANOVA results revealed that most of the compounds’ contents did not change significantly after 12 months of storage in bottle. In addition, the phenolic differences between the WSs resulting from the four ageing modalities remained, except for ferulic acid. Therefore, in these experimental conditions, this stage allowed preserving the phenolic composition imparted to the WS by the alternative ageing technology.

References

1 Canas S., 2017. Phenolic composition and related properties of aged wine spirits: Influence of barrel characteristics. A review. Beverages, 3, 55-76.
2 Canas S., Anjos O., Caldeira I., Belchior A.P., 2019. Phenolic profile and colour acquired by the wine spirit in the beginning of ageing: alternative technology using micro-oxygenation vs traditional technology. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 111, 260-269.
3 Granja-Soares J., Roque R., Cabrita M.J., Anjos O., Belchior A.P., Caldeira I., Canas S., 2020. Effect of innovative technology using staves and micro-oxygenation on the sensory and odorant profile of aged wine spirit. Food Chem., 333, 127450.
4 Canas S., Belchior A.P., Spranger M.I., Bruno de Sousa R., 2003. High-performance liquid chromatography method for analysis of phenolic acids, phenolic aldehydes and furanic derivatives in brandies. Development and validation. J. Sep. Sci., 26, 496–502.

DOI:

Publication date: June 24, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

Canas Sara1, Lourenço Sílvia1, Anjos Ofélia2 and Caldeira Ilda1

1Instituto Nacional de Investigação Agrária e Veterinária – Pólo de Dois Portos
2 Instituto Politécnico de Castelo Branco 

Contact the author

Keywords

wine spirit, storage in bottle, ageing technology, phenolic compounds

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Deconstructing the soil component of terroir: from controversy to consensus

Wine terroir describes the collectively recognized relation between a geographical area and the distinctive organoleptic characteristics of the wines produced in it. The overriding objective in terroir studies is therefore to provide scientific proof relating the properties of terroir components to wine quality and typicity. In scientific circles, the role of climate (macro-, meso- and micro-) on grape and wine characteristics is well documented and accepted as the most critical. Moreover, there has been increasing interest in recent years about new elements with possible importance in shaping wine terroir like berry/leaf/soil microbiology or even aromatic plants in proximity to the vineyard conferring flavors to the grapes. However, the actual effect of these factors is also dependent on complex interactions with plant material (variety/clone, rootstock, vine age) and with human factors. The contribution of soil, although a fundamental component of terroir and extremely popular among wine enthusiasts, remains a much-debated issue among researchers. The role of geology is probably the one mostly associated by consumers with the notion of terroir with different parent rocks considered to give birth to different wine styles. However, the relationship between wine properties and the underlying parent material raises a lot of controversy especially regarding the actual existence of rock-derived flavors in the wine (e.g. minerality). As far as the actual soil properties are concerned, the effect of soil physical properties is generally regarded as the most significant (e.g sandy soils being associated with lighter wines while those on clay with colored and tannic ones) mostly through control of water availability which ultimately modifies berry ripening conditions either directly by triggering biosynthetic pathways, or indirectly by altering vigor and yield components. The role of soil chemistry seems to be weakly associated to wine sensory characteristic, although N, K, S and Ca, but also soil pH, are often considered important in the overall soil effect. Recently, in the light of evidence provided by precision agriculture studies reporting a high variability of vineyard soils, the spatial scale should also be taken into consideration in the evaluation of the soil effects on wines. While it is accepted that soil effects become more significant than climate on a local level, it is not clear whether these micro-variations of vineyard soils are determining in the terroir effect. Moreover, as terroir is not a set of only natural factors, the magnitude of the contribution of human-related factors (irrigation, fertilization, soil management) to the soil effect still remains ambiguous. Lastly, a major shortcoming of the majority of works about soil effects on wine characteristics is the absence of connection with actual vine physiological processes since all soil effects on grape and wine chemistry and sensorial properties are ultimately mediated through vine responses. This article attempts to breakdown the main soil attributes involved in the terroir effect to suggest an improved understanding about soil’s true contribution to wine sensory characteristics. It is proposed that soil parameters per se are not as significant determining factors in the terroir effect but rather their mutual interactions as well as with other natural and human factors included in the terroir concept. Consequently, similarly to bioclimatic indices, composite soil indices (i.e. soil depth, water holding capacity, fertility, temperature etc), incorporating multiple soil parameters, might provide a more accurate and quantifiable means to assess the relative weight of the soil component in the terroir effect.

Delaying irrigation initiation linearly reduces yield with little impact on maturity in Pinot noir

When to initiate irrigation is a critical annual management decision that has cascading effects on grapevine productivity and wine quality in the context of climate change. A multi-site trial was begun in 2021 to optimize irrigation initiation timing using midday stem water potential (ψstem) thresholds characterized as departures from non-stressed baseline ψstemvalues (Δψstem). Plant material, vine and row spacing, and trellising systems were concomitant among sites, while vine age, soil type, and pruning systems varied. Five target Δψstem thresholds were arranged in an RCBD and replicated eight times at each site: 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 MPa (T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively). When thresholds were reached, plots were irrigated weekly at 70% ETc. Yield components and berry composition were quantified at harvest. To better generalize inferences across sites, data were analyzed by ANOVA using a mixed model including site as a random factor. Across sites, irrigation was initiated at Δψstem = 0.24, 0.50, 0.65, 0.93, and 0.98 MPa for T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively. Consistent significant negative linear trends were found for several key yield and berry composition variables. Yield decreased by 12.9, 15.9, 19.5, and 27.4% for T2, T3, T4, and T5, respectively, compared to T1 (p < 0.0001) across sites that were driven by similarly linear reductions in berry weight (p < 0.0001). Comparatively, berry composition varied little among treatments. Juice total soluble solids decreased linearly from T1 to T5 – though only ranged 0.9 Brix (p = 0.012). Because producers are paid by the ton, and contracts simply stipulate a target maturity level, first-year results suggest that there is no economic incentive to induce moderate water deficits before irrigation initiation, regardless of vineyard site. Subsequent years will further elucidate the carryover effects of delaying irrigation initiation on productivity over the long term.

Low-cost sensors as a support tool to monitor soil-plant heat exchanges in a Mediterranean vineyard

Mediterranean viticulture is increasingly exposed to more frequent extreme conditions such as heat waves. These extreme events co-occur with low soil water content, high air vapor pressure deficit and high solar radiant energy fluxes and result in leaf and berry sunburn, lower yield, and berry quality, which is a major constraint for the sustainability of the sector. Grape growers must find ways to proper and effectively manage heat waves and extreme canopy and berry temperatures. Irrigation to keep soil moisture levels and enable adequate plant turgor, and convective and evaporative cooling emerged as a key tool to overcome this major challenge. The effects of irrigation on soil and plant water status are easily quantifiable but the impact of irrigation on soil and canopy temperature and on heat convection from soil to cluster zone remain less characterized. Therefore, a more detailed quantification of vineyard heat fluxes is highly relevant to better understand and implement strategies to limit the effects of extreme weather events on grapevine leaf and berry physiology and vineyards performance. Low-cost sensor technologies emerge as an opportunity to improve monitoring and support decision making in viticulture. However, validation of low-cost sensors is mandatory for practical applicability. A two-year study was carried in a vineyard in Alentejo, south of Portugal, using low-cost thermal cameras (FLIR One, 80×60 pixels and FLIR C5, 160×120 pixels, 8-14 µm, FLIR systems, USA) and pocket thermohygrometers (Extech RHT30, EXTECH instruments, USA) to monitor grapevine and soil temperatures. Preliminary results show that low-cost cameras can detect severe water stress and support the evaluation of vertical canopy temperature variability, providing information on soil surface temperature. All these thermal parameters can be relevant for soil and crop management and be used in decision support systems.

Adapting the vineyard to climate change in warm climate regions with cultural practices

Since the 1980s global regime shift, grape growers have been steadily adapting to a changing climate. These adaptations have preserved the region-climate-cultivar rapports that have established the global trade of wine with lucrative economic benefits since the middle of 17th century. The advent of using fractions of crop and actual evapotranspiration replacement in vineyards with the use of supplemental irrigation has furthered the adaptation of wine grape cultivation. The shift in trellis systems, as well as pruning methods from positioned shoot systems to sprawling canopies, as well as adapting the bearing surface from head-trained, cane-pruned to cordon-trained, spur-pruned systems have also aided in the adaptation of grapevine to warmer temperatures. In warm climates, the use of shade cloth or over-head shade films not only have aided in arresting the damage of heat waves, but also identified opportunities to reduce the evapotranspiration from vineyards, reducing environmental footprint of vineyard. Our increase in knowledge on how best to understand the response of grapevine to climate change was aided with the identification of solar radiation exposure biomarker that is now used for phenotyping cultivars in their adaptability to harsh environments. Using fruit-based metrics such as sugar-flavonoid relationships were shown to be better indicators of losses in berry integrity associated with a warming climate, rather than solely focusing on region-climate-cultivar rapports. The resilience of wine grape was further enhanced by exploitation of rootstock × scion combinations that can resist untoward droughts and warm temperatures by making more resilient grapevine combinations. Our understanding of soil-plant-atmosphere continuum in the vineyard has increased within the last 50 years in such a manner that growers are able to use no-till systems with the aid of arbuscular mycorrhiza fungi inoculation with permanent cover cropping making the vineyard more resilient to droughts and heat waves. In premium wine grape regions viticulture has successfully adapted to a rapidly changing climate thus far, but berry based metrics are raising a concern that we may be approaching a tipping point.

An analytical framework to site-specifically study climate influence on grapevine involving the functional and Bayesian exploration of farm data time series synchronized using an eGDD thermal index

Climate influence on grapevine physiology is prevalent and this influence is only expected to increase with climate change. Although governed by a general determinism, climate influence on grapevine physiology may present variations according to the terroir. In addition, these site-specific differences are likely to be enhanced when climate influence is studied using farm data. Indeed, farm data integrate additional sources of variation such as a varying representativity of the conditions actually experienced in the field. Nevertheless, there is a real challenge in valuing farm data to enable grape growers to understand their own terroir and consequently adapt their practices to the local conditions. In such a context, this article proposes a framework to site-specifically study climate influence on grapevine physiology using farm data. It focuses on improving the analysis of time series of weather data. The analytical framework includes the synchronization of time series using site-specific thermal indices computed with an original method called Extended Growing Degree Days (eGDD). Synchronized time series are then analyzed using a Bayesian functional Linear regression with Sparse Steps functions (BLiSS) in order to detect site-specific periods of strong climate influence on yield development. The article focuses on temperature and rain influence on grape yield development as a case study. It uses data from three commercial vineyards respectively situated in the Bordeaux region (France), California (USA) and Israel. For all vineyards, common periods of climate influence on yield development were found. They corresponded to already known periods, for example around veraison of the year before harvest. However, the periods differed in their precise timing (e.g. before, around or after veraison), duration and correlation direction with yield. Other periods were found for only one or two vineyards and/or were not referred to in literature, for example during the winter before harvest.