HAZE RISK ASSESSMENT OF MUSCAT MUSTS AND WINES : WHICH LABORATORY TEST ALLOWS A RELIABLE ESTIMATION OF THE HEATWAVE REALITY?

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

Inorganic phosphonates are known to effectively support the control of grapevine downy mildew in vi- ticulture. Their application helps the plant to induce an earlier and more effective pathogen defense. However, inorganic phosphonates have been banned in organic viticulture due to their classification as plant protection products since October 2013. Despite the ban, phosphonate has been recently detected in organic wines.

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

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].

Brettanomyces bruxellensis is an ubiquitous yeast associated with different fermentation media such as beer and kombucha, where its presence is beneficial to bring an aromatic typicity. However, it is a main spoilage yeast in wines, in which it produces volatile phenols responsible for organoleptic deviations causing significant economic losses (Chatonnet et al., 1992). Cellar and winery equipment’s are considered as the first source of contamination, during fermentation and wine ageing process (Connel et al., 2002). Indeed, it is possible to find B. bruxellensis in the air, on walls and floors of the cellars, on small materials, vats and barrels.