EFFECT OF FERMENTATION TEMPERATURE GRADIENT AND SKIN CONTACT ON ESTER AND THIOL PRODUCTION AND TROPICAL FRUIT PERCEPTION IN CHARDONNAY WINES

Under standard wine tasting conditions, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) responsible for the wine’s bouquet progressively invade the glass headspace above the wine surface. Most of wines being complex water/ethanol mixtures (with typically 10-15 % ethanol by volume), gaseous ethanol is therefore undoubtedly the most abundant VOC in the glass headspace [1]. Yet, gaseous ethanol is known to have a multimodal influence on wine’s perception [2]. Of particular importance to flavor perception is the effect of ethanol on the release of aroma compounds into the headspace of the beverage [1].

Hydroxytyrosol (HT) is a phenolic compound with extensive bioactive properties. It is present in olives, olive oil and wines. Its occurrence in wines is partly due to yeast synthetise tyrosol from tyrosine by the Ehrlich pathway, which is subsequently hydroxylated to .
The aim of the present work is to study how different yeast strains can influence in the HT production and, how the different nitrogen consumption of each strain can interfere the production of bioactive compounds.

All along the red winemaking process, many microorganisms develop in wine, some being beneficial and essential, others being feared spoilers. One of the most feared microbial enemy of wine all around the world is Brettanomyces bruxellensis. Indeed, in red wines, this yeast produces volatile phenols, molecules associated with a flavor described as “horse sweat”, “burnt plastic” or “leather”. To produce significant and detectable concentrations of these undesired molecules, the yeasts should first grow and become numerous enough. Even if the genetic group of the strain present and the cellar temperature may modulate the yeast growth rate¹ and thus the risk of spoilage, the main factor seems to be the wines themselves, some being much more permissive to B. bruxellensis development than others.

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.

The overall quality of aged wines is in part due to the development of complex aromas over a long period (1.) The apparition of this aromatic complexity depends on multiple chemical reactions that include the liberation of odorous compounds from non-odorous precursors. One example of this phenomenon is found in dimethyl sulphide (DMS) which, with its characteristic odor truffle, is a known contributor to the bouquet of premium aged wine bouquet (1). DMS supposedly accumulates during the ten first years of ageing thanks to the hydrolysis of its precursor dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSp.) DMSp is a possible secondary by-product from the degradation of S-methylmethionine (SMM), an amino acid iden- tified in grapes (2), which can be metabolized by yeast during alcoholic fermentation.