PERCEPTUAL INTERACTIONS PHENOMENA INVOLVING VARIOUS VOLATILE COMPOUND FAMILIES LINKED TO SOME FRUITY NOTES IN BORDEAUX RED WINES

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

Hanseniaspora vineae (Hv) is a fermenting non-Saccharomyces yeast that compared to Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Sc) present some peculiar features on its metabolism that make it attractive for its use in wine production. Among them, it has been reported a faster yeast lysis and release of polysaccharides, as well as increased ß-glucosidase activity. Hv also produces distinctive aroma compounds, including elevated levels of fermentative compounds such as ß-phenylethyl acetate and norisoprenoids like safranal. However, it is known for its high nutritional requirements, resulting in prolonged and sluggish fermentations, even when complemented with Sc strain and nutrients.

With the development of naturality expectations, wines produced without any addition of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) become very popular for consumers and such wines are increasingly present on the market. Recent studies also showed that Bordeaux red wines without added SO₂ could be differentiated from a sensory point of view from similar wines produced with SO₂¹. Thus, the aim of the current study was to characterize from a sensory point of view, specific aromas of wines without added SO₂ and to identify compounds involved.

Right after the pouring of wine in a glass, a myriad of volatile organic compounds, including ethanol, overwhelm the glass headspace, thus causing the so-called wine’s bouquet [1]. Otherwise, it is worth noting that during wine tasting, most people automatically swirl their glass to enhance the release of aromas in the glass headspace [1]. About a decade ago, Swiss researchers revealed the complex fluid mechanics underlying wine swirling [2]. However, despite mechanically repeated throughout wine tasting, the consequences of glass swirling on the chemical space found in the headspace of wine glasses are still barely known.

Yeast cell walls (CWs) may adsorb wine components with a significant impact on wine quality. When dealing with red wines, this adsorption is mainly related to physicochemical interactions between wine polyphenols and cell wall mannoproteins. However, mannoproteins are a heterogeneous family of complex peptidoglycans including long and highly branched N-linked oligosaccharides and short linear O-linked oligosaccharides, resulting in a huge structural diversity.