Contribution of Piperitone to the mint nuances perceived in the aging bouquet of red Bordeaux wines

Mouthfeel is an important quality parameter for Chardonnay wines, particularly those aged in oak. While research on mouthfeel has traditionally focused on the impact of non-aromatic compounds, the role of aroma compounds has largely been over looked. However, in wine as well as other food interactions between retronasal aroma and mouthfeel have been noted. The goal of this research was to investigate the impact of wine aroma on the perception of mouthfeel. Because of the importance of oak aging in the development of Chardonnay mouthfeel, the impact of oak aromas on perceived mouthfeel was explored. Aroma compounds associated with oak (ethyl palmitate, eugenol, furfural, isoeugenol, syringaldehyde, vanillin and whiskey lactone) were added to two different Chardonnay wines; one with no oak influence and one fermented in neutral oak. Low and high concentrations of the compounds were added based on concentrations typically found in barrel aged Chardonnay wine.

Vitis vinifera is one of the most diffused grapevines over the word and it is the raw material for high quality wines production. The availability of more resistant interspecific hybrid vine varieties, developed from crosses between Vitis vinifera and other Vitis species, has generating much interest, also due to the low environmental effect of production. However, hybrid grape wine composition and varietal differences between interspecific hybrids are not well defined. Different studies revealed that wine consumption has health effects due to its high content of antioxidants, as phenolic compounds. In particular, simple phenols are appreciated not only for their physiological health benefits, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory and cardioprotective effects, but also because they affect wines organoleptic profile and have a significant role in defining their nutritional characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: Foam stability of sparkling wines is significantly favored by the presence of surface active agents such as proteins and polysaccharides [1]. For that reason, the renowned sparkling wines are aged after the second fermentation in contact with the lees for several months (even years). Thereby wines are enriched in these macromolecules due to yeast autolysis. Since this practice is slow and costly, winemakers are seeking for alternative procedures to increase their concentration in base wines. In that sense, the supplementation with inactive yeast during alcoholic fermentation has been proposed [2]. The aim of this study was to determine whether this new strategy is really useful for enriching base wines in macromolecules and for improving foam properties of the base wines.

“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.

The aim of this work was to reduce the alcohol content of Tempranillo wine. Tempranillo wines were produced by grapes harvested at different ripening dates (August 11 which was 21 oBrix and September 28 with 25 oBrix). At the second date, the Tempranillo wines were elaborated as follows: grapes were destemmed, crushed and collected into 50 L stainless-steel vats. Before preferementative maceration in cold, 50 % (M1) and 70 % (M2) of the must have been replaced by the same percentage of must from the first harvest. In addition, a control wine (C) was performed with only grapes from the second harvest.