Study of the content of amino acids and biogenic amines in sparkling red wines

Contribution Sparkling wines elaborated following the traditional method undergo a second fermentation in closed bottles of base wines, followed by aging of wines with lees for at least 9 months. Most of the sparkling wines elaborated are white and rosé ones, although the production of red ones is highly increasing. One of the initial problems in red sparkling wine processing is to obtain suitable base wines that should have moderate alcohol content and astringency and adequate color intensity; which is difficult to obtain when grapes must be harvested at low phenolic and industrial maturity stage. The low phenolic maturity degree in the red grapes makes essential to choose an adequate winemaking methodology to obtain the base wines because the extracted polyphenols will vary according the winemaking technique: carbonic maceration or destemmed-crushed grapes.

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).

Among nitrogen compounds included in white wines, the peptide fraction is certainly the least studied, however this fraction is quantitatively the most important (Feuillat, 1974). Existing studies concern the fraction below 1 kDa and only for white and sparkling wines (Bartolomé et al, 1997, Desportes et al 2000). In this report, we have developed methods to isolate peptides from reference white wines. Then, we have applied this methodology with bitter wine to answer a research question: is there a relation between peptides and the bitterness of white wine as for some cheese for example (Furtado, 1984)?

Despite the extensive research performed during the last decades, the multifactorial mechanism responsible for the white wine protein haze formation is not fully characterized. Herein, a new model is proposed, which is based on the experimental identification of sulfur dioxide as a major modulating factor inducing wine protein haze upon heating. As opposed to other reducing agents, such as 2-mercaptoethanol, dithiothreitol and tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP), the addition of SO2 to must/wine upon heating cleaves intraprotein disulfide bonds, hinders thiol-disulfide exchange during protein interactions and can lead to the formation of novel inter/intraprotein disulfide bonds. Those are eventually responsible for wine protein aggregation which follows a nucleation-growth kinetic model as shown by dynamic light scattering [1].

This study investigates the effect of wood chips addition during the alcoholic fermentation on the phenolic
composition of the produced wines. A series of wood chips, originating from American, French, Slavonia
oak and Acacia were added at the beginning of wine alcoholic fermentation. Besides, a mixture consisting
of 50% French and 50% Americal oak chips were added during the experimentation. The wine samples
were analyzed one month after the end of malolactic fermentation, examining various chemical
parameters such as total anthocyanins, total phenolic content, tannins combined with protein (BSA) and
ellagitannin content.