A multivariate approach using attenuated total reflectance mid-infrared spectroscopy to measure the surface mannoproteins and β-glucans of yeast cell walls during wine fermentations

Vineyard exposure to smoke can lead to grapes and wine which exhibit objectionable smoky and ashy aromas and flavours, more commonly known as ‘smoke taint’ [1, 2]. In the last decade, significant bushfires have occurred around the world, including near wine regions in Australia, Canada, South Africa and the USA, as a consequence of the warmer, drier conditions associated with climate change. Considerable research has subsequently been undertaken to determine the chemical, sensory and physiological consequences of grapevine exposure to smoke. The sensory attributes associated with smoke-tainted wine have been linked to the presence of several smoke-derived volatile phenols, such as guaiacols, syringols and cresols [2].

Limited information is available on grape wall-derived polymeric structure/composition and how this changes during fermentation. Commercial winemaking operations use enzymes that target the polysaccharide-rich polymers of the cell walls of grape tissues to clarify musts and extract pigments during the fermentations. In this study we have assessed changes in polysaccharide composition/ turnover throughout the winemaking process by applying recently developed cell wall profiling approaches to both wine and pomace polysaccharides. The methods included gas chromatography for monosaccharide composition (GC-MS), infra-red (IR) spectroscopy and comprehensive microarray polymer profiling
(CoMPP) using cell wall probes.

The Ability of PVPP (Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone), PVP-DEGMA-TAIC (copolimerization of N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidinone with ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and triallyl isocyanurate) and PAEGDMA
(poly(acrylamide-co-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate)) polymers was tested as removal agents for Fumonisin B1 (FB1) and Fumonisin B2 (FB2) from model solutions and red wine. The polymers removal capacity was checked at three different resident times (2, 8 and 24 hours of contact time between the polymer and the sample), showing no differences in the percentage of FB1 and FB2 removal. Then, different polymer concentrations (1, 5 and 10 mg mL-1) were tested in model solution with and without phenolics (i.e. gallic acid and 4-methylcatechol).

An intelligent packaging might, among others, provide information and allow monitoring of the quality of the packed product or its surrounding environment. A recent project on micro-flow wine bottles closed with aluminium screw cap and tightness liner, highlighted the importance of monitoring the internal overpressure continuously, in real-time and at least for 72 hours, since the internal pressure on the tightness liner and the micro-flow are related. Real-time and continuous measurements are not the standard methods of measurement of the overpressure, yet. The most used equipment for the determination of the pressure in wine bottle is the aphrometer, a destructive device that supplies a single value of pressure.

Contribution Foam is the characteristic that differentiates sparkling wines from still wines, being the first sensory attribute that tasters and consumers perceive and that determines the final quality of sparkling wines [1]. The foaming properties mainly depend on the chemical composition of wines [2-3], and different factors involved in wine composition will have an effect on foam quality. In Spain, the sparkling wine market focuses on the production of white and rosé sparkling wine, with very low production of red sparkling wines. However, this type of wines is elaborated in countries like Australia, South-Africa, Argentina, Italy or Portugal, with a great acceptance by consumers. No studies on the foaming characteristics of red sparkling wines have been found.