Grape metabolites, aroma precursors and the complexities of wine flavour

In general, there is a well-established lexicon related to wine aroma and taste properties; however mouth-feel-related vocabulary usually includes heterogeneous, multimodal and personalized terms. Gawel et al.
(2000) published a wheel related to mouthfeel properties of red wine. However, its use in scientific publications has been limited. The authors accepted that the approach had certain limitations as it included redundant and terms with hedonic tone and some others were absent. It is of high interest to generate a mouth-feel lexicon and finding the chemical compound or group of compounds responsible for such properties in red wine. In the present work a chemical fractionation method has been developed.

Vineyard exposure to smoke can lead to grapes and wine which exhibit objectionable smoky and ashy aromas and flavours, more commonly known as ‘smoke taint’ [1, 2]. In the last decade, significant bushfires have occurred around the world, including near wine regions in Australia, Canada, South Africa and the USA, as a consequence of the warmer, drier conditions associated with climate change. Considerable research has subsequently been undertaken to determine the chemical, sensory and physiological consequences of grapevine exposure to smoke. The sensory attributes associated with smoke-tainted wine have been linked to the presence of several smoke-derived volatile phenols, such as guaiacols, syringols and cresols [2].

The effects of anthropogenic activities on vineyard (different plant protections) and in winery
(pressing/clarification step, addition of sulfur dioxide) on fungal populations from grape to wine were studied. The studied anthropogenic activities modify the fungal diversity. Thus, lower biodiversity of grapes from organic modality was measured for the three vintages considered compared to biodiversity from ecophyto modality and conventional modality. The pressing / clarification steps strongly modify fungal populations and the influence of the winery flora is highlighted.

INTRODUCTION: Oenological tannins are widely used in winemaking to improve some characteristics of wines [1] being the antioxidant properties probably one of the main reasons [2]. However, commercial tannins have different botanical sources and chemical composition [3] which probably determines different antioxidant potential. There are some few references about the antioxidant properties of commercial tannins [4] but none of them have really measured the direct oxygen consumption by them. The aim of this work was to measure the kinetics of oxygen consumption by different commercial tannins in order to determine their real capacities to protect wine against oxygen. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 4 different commercial tannins were used: T1: condensed tannin from grape seeds, T2: gallotannin from chinese gallnuts, T3: ellagitannin from oak and T4: tannin from quebracho containing condensed tannins and ellagitannins.

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however, in wine, non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect on aroma and flavor formation. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS of Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) were commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct chemical profile that was unique for both grape musts. The SC-monoculture and CZ-SC sequential fermentations were the most distinctly different in the Sauvignon blanc while the LT-SC sequential fermentations were the most different from the control in the Shiraz fermentations.