MODELLING THE AGEING POTENTIAL OF SYRAH RED WINES BY ACCELERATED AGEING TESTS: INFLUENCE OF ANTIOXIDANT ASSAYS AND PHENOLIC COMPOSITION

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

A lot of work has been done on the impact of Botrytis on the foam of sparkling wines. This work often concerns wines produced in cool regions, where Botrytis is the dominant fungal pathogen. However, in southern countries such as Spain, in particularly hot years such as 2022, the majority fungal pathogen is sometimes Rhizopus. Like Botrytis, Rhizopus is a fungus that produces an aspartic protease.

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.

The importance of the non-Saccharomyces yeasts (NSY) in winemaking has been extensively reviewed in the past for their aromatic or bioprotective capacity while, recently their antioxidant/antiradical potential has emerged under winemaking conditions. In the literature the antioxidant potential of NSY was solely explored through their capacity to improve glutathione (GSH) content during alcoholic fermen- tation [1], while more and more studies pointed out the activity of the non-glutathione soluble fraction released by yeasts [2].

In a recent study several genes controlling the acidification properties of the wine yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae have been identified by a QTL approach [1]. Many of these genes showed allelic variations that affect the metabolism of malic acid and the pH homeostasis during the alcoholic fermentation. Such alleles have been used for driving genetic selection of new S. cerevisiae starters that may conversely acidify or deacidify the wine by producing or consuming large amount of malic acid [2]. This particular feature drastically modulates the final pH of wine with difference of 0.5 units between the two groups.