MOVING FROM SULFITES TO BIOPROTECTION: WHICH IMPACT ON CHARDONNAY WINE?

In 2022, wine production was estimated at around 260 million hl. This high production rate implies to generate a large amount of by-products, which include grape pomace, grape stalks and wine lees. It is estimated that processing 100 tons of grapes leads to ~ 22 tons of by-products from which ~ 6 tons are lees [1]. Wine lees are a sludge-looking material mostly made of dead and living yeast cells, yeast debris and other particles that precipitate at the bottom of wine tanks after alcoholic fermentation. Unlike grape pomace or grape stalks, few strategies have been proposed for the recovery and valorisation of wine less [2].

Barrel fermentation and barrel-ageing of wine are commonly utilised practices in premium wine production. The wine aroma compounds related to barrel contact are varied and can enhance a range of wine aromas and flavours, such as ‘struck flint’, ‘caramel’, ‘red berry’, ‘toasty’ and ‘nutty’, as well as conventional oaky characters such as ‘vanilla’, ‘spice’, ‘smoky’ and ‘coconut’. A survey of commercially produced premium Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir and Chardonnay wines was conducted, assessing the prevalence of compounds that have been proposed as barrel-ageing markers¹ including oak lactones, volatile phenols, furanones, aldehydes, thiazoles2,3, phenylmethanethiol⁴ and 2-furylmethanethiol.⁵

Wine polysaccharides (PS) play an important role in balancing mouthfeel and stability of wine and even influence aroma volatility. Despite this, there is limited research into the effect of winemaking additives on the polysaccharide profile and other macromolecules of New Zealand (NZ) Pinot noir wine. In this study the influence of a selection of commercial S. cerevisiae strains on the chemical profile, including polysaccharides, of New Zealand Pinot noir (PN) wine was investigated. Research scale PN fermentations using five strains of commercially available S. cerevisiae (Lalvin EC1118 and RC212, Levuline BRG YSEO, Viallate Ferm R71 and R82) were undertaken. PS were qualified and quantified using HPLC-RID.

The structural diversity is one of the most remarkable characteristics of proanthocyanidins (PA). Indeed, PA in wines may vary in the B-ring and C-ring substitutes, the C-ring stereochemistry, the degree of polymerization (DP) and the linkage between the monomers. Knowing in detail the structural characteristics of the PA of a wine can help us to understand and modulate several sensorial characteristics of the wine, such as color, antioxidant properties, flavor, and mouthfeel properties. In the last years was discovered and confirmed the presence of sulfonated monomeric and oligomeric flavan-3-ols in wine [1], as well as was pointed out their importance in wine quality [1,2].

Smoke impacts on wines are becoming a worldwide problem; the size and severity of wildfires increasing due to influences from changing climates.¹ For over a century, wines have been known to have a unique issue of absorbing chemical compounds derived from wildfire smoke wherein the flavor of the subsequent wine becomes ashy, rubbery, campfire-like, and smoky.² The economic impacts of a smoke-impacted wine can last for years depending on the grape varietal, costing Oregon and Washington states in the United States over a billion dollars from the 2020 wildfires, as an example.³ While years of research have indicated elevated concentrations of smoke-related compounds, such as guaiacol and syringol, in wines after smoke events, unfortunately, replicating the sensory experience using smoke-associated phenols has not had much success.⁴