Anti/prooxidant activity of wine polyphenols in reactions of adrenaline auto-oxidation

The impact of minute amounts of headspace oxygen on the post-bottling development of wine is generally considered to be very important, since oxygen, packaging and storage conditions can either damage or improve wine quality. This is reflected in the generalised use of inert bottling lines, where the headspace between the white wine and the stopper is filled with an inert gas. This experiment aimed to address some open questions about the chemistry of the interaction between wine and oxygen, crucial for decisions regarding optimal closure. While it is known that similar amounts of oxygen affect different wines to a variable extent, our knowledge of chemistry is not sufficient to construct a predictive method.

Proteins play a significant role in the colloidal stability and clarity of white wines [1]. However, under conditions of high temperatures during storage or transportation, the proteins themselves can self-aggregate into light-dispersing particles causing the so-called protein haze [2]. Formation of these unattractive precipitates in bottled wine is a common defect of commercial wines, making them unacceptable for sale [3]. Previous studies identified the presence of phenolic compounds in the natural precipitate of white wine [4], contributing to the hypothesis that these compounds could be involved in the mechanism of protein haze formation.

For several years, numerous studies aimed at limiting the use of SO2 in wines (thermal treatments, pulsed electric fields, microwaves …). Processes must be able to preserve the organoleptic qualities of wines with low energy consumption. In this context, ultraviolet radiations (UV-C), at 254 nm, are well known for their germicidal proprieties. In order to inactivate microorganisms in grape juice and wine without affecting the quality of the product, efficiency of UV-C treatment process should be optimized.

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).

Proteins constitute one of the three main components of grape juice and white wine, phenolic compounds and polysaccharides being the others. A specific group of the total grape-derived proteins resists degradation or adsorption during the winemaking process and remains in finished wine if not removed by the commonplace commercial practice of bentonite fining. While bentonite is effective in removing the problematic proteins, it is claimed to adversely affect the quality of the treated wine under certain conditions, through the removal of colour, flavor and texture compounds. A number of studies have indicated that different protein fractions require distinct bentonite concentrations for protein removal and consequent heat stabilization.