Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Grape metabolites, aroma precursors and the complexities of wine flavour

Grape metabolites, aroma precursors and the complexities of wine flavour

Abstract

A critical aspect of wine quality from a consumer perspective is the overall impression of wine flavour, which is formed by the interplay of volatile aroma compounds, their precursors, and taste and matrix components. Grapes contribute some potent aroma compounds, together with a large pool of non-volatile precursors (e.g. glycoconjugates and amino acid conjugates). Aroma precursors can break down through chemical hydrolysis reactions, or through the action of yeast or enzymes, significantly changing the aroma profile of a wine during winemaking and storage. In addition, glycoconjugates of monoterpenes, norisoprenoids and volatile phenols, together with sulfur-conjugates in wine, provide a reservoir of additional flavour through the in-mouth release of volatiles which may be perceived retro-nasally. In this presentation a summary will be presented about recent research into the contribution to wine aroma and flavour from glycoside precursors of terpenes [1], norisoprenoids [1, 2] and phenols [3, 4], and also about aroma compound formation from sesquiterpene- [5] and sulfur-precursors [6, 7]. The diverse mechanisms involved in formation and degradation of wine aroma precursors will be discussed, as well as practical implications for grape growing and winemaking.

1. Black et al. (2015) Terpenoids and their role in wine flavour: recent advances. AJGWR 21, 582–600. 2. Kwasniewski et al. (2010) Timing of cluster light environment manipulation during grape development affects C13 norisoprenoid and carotenoid concentrations in Riesling. JAFC 58, 6841–6849. 3. Parker et al. (2012) The contribution of several volatile phenols and their glycoconjugates to smoke related sensory properties of red wine. JAFC 60: 2629-2637. 4. Mayr et al. (2014) Determination of the importance of in-mouth release of volatile phenol glycoconjugates to the flavor of smoke-tainted wines. JAFC 62: 2327-2336. 5.Herderich et al. (2015) Terroir effects on grape and wine aroma compounds. In: Advances in Wine Research; ACS Symposium Series 1203, 131-146. 6. Capone et al. (2012) Effects on 3-mercaptohexan-1-ol precursor concentrations from prolonged storage of Sauvignon Blanc grapes prior to crushing and pressing. JAFC 60: 3515-3523. 7.Viviers et al. (2013) Effects of five metals on the evolution of hydrogen sulfide, methanethiol, and dimethyl sulfide during anaerobic storage of Chardonnay and Shiraz wines. JAFC 61: 12385-12396.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Article

Authors

Markus Herderich*

*AWRI

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

On the losses of dissolved CO2 during champagne aging

A misconception lingers in the minds of some wine consumers that Champagne wines don’t age. It’s largely a myth, certainly as far as the best cuvees are concerned. Actually, during the so-called autolysis period of time (in the closed bottle, after the “prise de mousse”), complex chemical reactions take place when the wine remains in contact with the dead yeast cells, which progressively bring complex and very much sought-after aromas to champagne. Nevertheless, despite their remarkable impermeability to liquid and air, caps or natural cork stoppers used to cork the bottles are not 100% hermetic with regard to gas transfers. Gas species therefore very slowly diffuse through the cap or cork stopper, along their respective inverse partial pressure. After the “prise de mousse”, because the partial pressure of CO2 in the bottleneck reaches up to 6 bars (at 12 °C), gaseous CO2 progressively diffuse from the bottle to the ambient air
(where the partial pressure of gaseous CO2 is only of order of 0,0004 bar).

Reaction Mechanisms of Copper and Iron with Hydrogen Sulfide and Thiols in Model Wine

Fermentation derived sulfidic off-odors due to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and low molecular weight thiols are commonly encountered in wine production and removed by Cu(II) fining. However, the mechanism underlying Cu(II) fining remains poorly understood, and generally results in increased Cu concentration that lead to deleterious reactions in finished wine. The present study describes a mechanistic investigation of the iron and copper mediated reaction of H2S, cysteine, 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol, and 6-sulfanylhexan-1-ol with oxygen. The concentrations of H2S, thiols, oxygen, and acetaldehyde were monitored over time. It was found that Cu(II) was rapidly reduced by both H2S and thiols to Cu(I).

Reduction of herbaceous aromas by wine lactic acid bacteria mediated degradation of volatile aldehydes

Consumers typically prefer wines with floral and fruity aromas over those presenting green-pepper, vegetal or herbaceous notes. Pyrazines have been identified as causatives for herbaceous notes in wines, especially Bordeaux reds. However, pyrazines are not universally responsible for herbaceousness, and several other wine volatile compounds are known to produce distinct vegetal/herbaceous aromas in wines. Specifically, volatile aldehydes elicit sensations of herbaceousness or grassiness and have been described in wines well above their perception thresholds.

Prediction of the production kinetics of the main fermentative aromas in alcoholic fermentation

Fermentative aromas (especially esters and higher alcohols) highly impact the organoleptic profile of young and white wines. The production of these volatile compounds depends mainly on temperature and Yeast Available Nitrogen (YAN) content in the must. Available dynamic models predict the main reaction
(bioconversion of sugar into ethanol and CO2 production) but none of them considers the production kinetics of fermentative aroma compounds during the process of fermentation. We determined the production kinetics of the main esters and higher alcohols for different values of initial YAN content and temperature, using an innovative online monitoring Gas Chromatography device.

DNA and type of grain: which factor does better explain sensory differences of sessile and pedunculate oaks?

Sessile oak and pedunculate oak have shown several differences of interest for enological purposes. Tannic and aromatic composition among sessile oak or pedonculate oak has been well studied. Sessile oak is generally more aromatic than pedunculated, while the later is more tannic. This scientific point of view is rarely applied to classify oak in cooperages. Most coopers use the type of grain to distinguish wide and thin grain.