Impact of toasting and botanical origin on oak wood (Q. sp.) volatilome using untargeted GCxGC-ToFMS analysis

In the production of sparkling wines, during the second fermentation, mannoproteins are released by yeast autolysis, which affect the quality of the wines. The effect of mannoproteins has been extensively studied, and may affect aroma and foam quality. However, there are no studies on the effect of other polysaccharides such as those from grapes. Considering the large production of waste from the wine industry, it was proposed to obtain polysaccharide-rich extracts from some of these by-products[1].

The wooden barrel is a key factor in enology, since wine chemical composition and sensory properties changes significantly in contact with the barrel[1]. Today’s highly competitive market constantly demands new differentiated products and wineries search innovations continuously.
Wood selection is crucial: barrels stability to keep constant their contribution and the result on products, and additional and differentiated wood contributions to impact their new products. Oak wood selection has traditionally been carried out using parameters such as specie, location and grain, however, it goes one step further nowadays. Large cooperage work with non-destructive techniques that allow classifying oak wood quickly and easily according to their organoleptic contribution[2].

In winemaking grapes, it is known that most aroma compounds are present as non-volatile precursors, such as glycosidic precursors. In fact, there is strong evidence supporting the connection between the content of aroma precursors and the aromatic quality of wine [1]. Acid hydrolysis is preferred to reveal the aroma potential of winemaking grapes, as it predicts more accurately the chemical rearrangements occurring during fermentation in acidic environments [2]. In this study, a method involving a fast fermentation followed by acid hydrolysis at 75ºC was used to evaluate the accumulation of aroma compounds over time in fractions obtained from six different varieties of winemaking grapes.

In the 19th century, devastating outbreaks of phylloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifoliae Fitch), almost brought European viticulture to its knees. Phylloxera does not only take energy in form of sugars from the vine, but also affects the up- and down- regulations of genes, acts as a carbon sink and reprograms the physiology of the grapevines, including nutrient uptake and the defense system [1]. A key trait of rootstocks is the ability to perform well under high lime conditions as about 30 % of the land surface has calcareous soil. Iron deficiency not only causes the well-known problems of lime-induced chlorosis and stunted growth, but also affects the entire plant metabolism.

“Sulphites” and mainly sulphur dioxide (SO2) is by far the most widely used additive (E-220/INS 220) in winemaking and likely the most difficult to replace. The well-known antioxidant, antioxidasic and antimicrobial properties of SO2 make this molecule a practically essential tool, not only in winemaking, but also in the production of other food products. The current trend in winemaking is the reduction of this unfriendly additive due to its negative effects on health and environmental. In particular, it could cause headaches and intolerance/allergic reactions in sensitive individuals. Wine is considered one of the major contributors of exposure of SO2 in the adult population, when this beverage is included in the diet.