Effect of the winemaking technology on the phenolic compounds, foam parameters in sparklig wines

Winemaking decisions and techniques are known to affect the final aromatic composition of red wines. Winemakers put a constant effort into the improved controlling of vinification procedures to achieve better quality. Anyway an increased customer’s demand for uniqueness is often forcing them to adjust and offer new and new interesting products. To support the producers, an improved knowledge on aromatic potential as affected by classical and alternative strategies is needed.

The use of glutathione (GSH) in winemaking has been legitimated recently, according to OIV resolutions OENO 445-2015 and OENO 446-2015 a maximum dose of 20 mg/L is now allowed to use in must and wine. Several studies have proven the benefits of GSH, predominantly in Sauvignon blanc. Thus, oxidative coloration of must and wine is limited, aroma compounds such as volatile thiols are preserved, and the development of ageing flavors such as sotolon and 2-aminoacetophenone is impeded. The protective effect may be explained by the high affinity of GSH to bind o-quinones which are formed during phenolic oxidation and which are known to initiate browning and other oxidative changes. Some researchers have proposed the hydroxycinnamic acid to GSH ratio (HGR) as an indicator of oxidation susceptibility of must and could show that lower ratios yielded lighter musts.

Beihong and Beimei are two wine cultivars from ‘Muscat Hamberg’ (V. vinifera L.) and wild V. amurensis Rupr., which were released in China in 2008. Here，two enology practices were reported. Firstly, the impact of different yeasts including D254, GRE, K1, D21 and BDX on dry wine quality of Beihong and Beimei was investigated. For Beihong, among wines fermented by all yeasts, residual sugar content was the lowest, total anthocyanin and resveratrol contents were the highest in the wine by D254. However, the wine by D254 had lower titrable acid than those by the other yeasts except BDX.

“The Human being has an excellent ability to detect and discriminate odors but typically has great difficulty in identifying specific odorants”(1). Furthermore, “from a cognitive point of view the mechanism used to judge wines is closer to pattern recognition than descriptive analysis.” Therefore, when one wants to reveal the volatile “wine-like feature” pattern recognition techniques are required. Sensomics is one of the most recent “omics”, i.e. a holistic perspective of a complex system, which deals with the description of substances originated from microorganism metabolism that are “active” to human senses (2). Depicting the relevant volatile fraction in wines has been an ongoing task in recent decades to which several research groups have allocated important resources. The most common strategy has been the “target approach” in order to identify the “key odorants” for a given wine varietal.

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).