DO MICROPLASTICS IN VINEYARD SOIL AFFECT THE BIOAVAILABILITY OF VINE NUTRITION?

Oenococcus oeni is the main Lactic Acid Bacteria responsible for malolactic fermentation, converting malic acid into lactic acid and carbon dioxide in wines. Following the alcoholic fermentation, this second fermentation ensures a deacidification and remains essential for the release of aromatic notes and the improvement of microbial stability in many wines. Nevertheless, wine is a harsh environment for microbial growth, especially because of its low pH (between 2.9 and 3.6 depending on the type of wine) and nutrient deficiency. In order to maintain homeostasis and ensure viability, O. oeni possesses different cellular mechanisms including organic acid metabolisms which represent also the major pathway to synthetize energy in wine.

In a previous work1, it was suggested that the different contents in delphinidin and catechin of the grapes were determinant on the O2 consumption and Strecker aldehyde (SAs) accumulation rates. Higher delphinidin seemed to be related to a faster O2 consumption and a smaller SAs accumulation rate, and the opposite was observed regarding catechin.
In the present paper, these observations were fully corroborated by adding synthetic delphinidin to a wine model containing polyphenolic fractions (PFs) extracted from garnacha and synthetic catechin to a wine model containing PF extracted from tempranillo: The delphinin-containing garnacha model consumed O₂ significantly faster and accumulated significantly smaller amounts of SAs than the original garnacha model, and the catechin-containing tempranillo model, consumed O2 significantly slower and accumulated significantly higher amounts of SAs than the original tempranillo model.

Smoke impact in wines is caused by a wide range of volatile phenols found in wildfire smoke. These compounds are absorbed and accumulate in berries, where they may also become glycosylated. Both volatile and glycosylated forms eventually end up in wine where they can cause off-flavors. The impact on wine aroma is mainly attributed to volatile phenols, while in-mouth hydrolysis of glycosylated forms may be responsible for long-lasting “ashy” aftertastes (1).

Ultrafiltration is a process that fractionates mixtures using semipermeable membranes, primarily on the basis of molecular weight. Depending on the nominal molecular weight cut-off (MWCO) specifications of the membrane, smaller molecules pass through the membrane into the ‘permeate’, while larger molecules are retained and concentrated in the ‘retentate’. This study investigated applications of ultrafiltration technology for enhanced wine quality and profitability. The key objective was to establish to what extent ultrafiltration could be used to manage phenolic compounds (associated with astringency or bitterness) and proteins (associated with haze formation) in white wine.

Today, nearly one billion bottles of different sizes and capacities are aging in Champagne cellars while waiting to be put on the market. Among them, several tens of thousands of prestigious cuvees elaborated prior the 2000s are potentially concerned by prolonged aging on lees. However, when it comes to champagne tasting, dissolved CO₂ is a key compound responsible for the very much sought-after effer-vescence in glasses [1]. Yet, the slow decrease of dissolved CO₂ during prolonged aging of the most prestigious cuvees raises the issue of how long a champagne can age before it becomes unable to form CO₂ bubbles during tasting [2].