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

4-Ethylphenol (EP) in wine is associated with organoleptic defects such as barn and horse sweat odors. The origin of EP is the bioconversion reaction of p-coumaric acid (CA), naturally present in grapes and grape musts by contaminating yeasts of the genus Brettanomyces bruxellensis. Yeast cell walls (YCW) have shown adsorption capacities for different compounds. They could be applied to wines in order to adsorb either CA and/or EP and thus reduce the organoleptic defects caused by the contaminating yeasts.

It is well known that the vinification of grapes at full maturation can produce rich, full-bodied wines,
with intense and complex flavour profiles. However, the juice obtained from such grapes may have very
high sugar concentration, resulting in wines with an excessive concentration of ethanol. In addition, the decoupling between technological maturity and phenolic/aromatic one due to global warming, exacerbates this problem in some wine-growing regions. In parallel with the increase of the mean alcohol content of wines on the market, also the demand for reduced alcohol beverages has increased in recent years, mainly as a result of health and social concerns about the risks related to the consumption of alcohol.

In recent years, consumer demand for products without chemical additives increased, becoming a priority for the wine sector. SO₂ is widely used for its multiple properties including antiseptics, antioxidants and antioxidasics and the strategy of bioprotection in winemaking represents now an alternative to this chemical additive. In oenology, results have highlighted the interest of bioprotection to limit the development of microorganisms like Hanseniaspora uvarum and thus reduce the doses of sulphite. Indeed, this species is considered because of its acetic acid and methyl butyl acetate production, the latter can cover the varietal character of wines.

In the last decades the use of bioestimulants in viticulture have been promoted as alternative to conven- tional pesticides. Moreover, as bioestimulants promote the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites in grape berries, several studies had investigated their influence on the accumulation of phenolic com- pounds (Monteiro et al., 2022). However, few studies, so far, are focused on the accumulation of the vo- latile compounds and their impact on the produced wines (Giménez-Bañón et al., 2022; Gomez- Plaza et al., 2012; Ruiz Garcia et al., 2014).
This study was conducted in a single vineyard of white autochthonous grapevine variety Savvatia- no (Vitis vinifera L.) in Muses Valley (Askri, Viotia, Greece). Chitosan (CHT), Abscisic Acid (ABA) and Benzothiadiazole (BTH) were applied.

Enzymatic browning (BE) of must is caused by polyphenol oxidases (PPOs), tyrosinase and laccase. Both PPOs can oxidize diphenols such as hydroxycinnamic acids (HA) to quinones, which can later polymerize to form melanins [1], which are responsible of BE in white wines and of oxidasic haze in red wines. SO₂ is the main tool used to protect must from BE thanks to its capacity to inhibit PPOs [2]. However, the current trend in winemaking is to reduce and even eliminate this unfriendly additive. Among the different possible alternatives for protecting must against BE, the inoculation with a selected Metschnikowia pulcherrima MP1 is without any doubt one of the most promising ones.