Using combinations of recombinant pectinases to elucidate the deconstruction of the polysaccharide‐rich grape cell wall during winemaking

Originally, the role of the malolactic fermentation (MLF) was simply to improve the microbial stability of wine via biological deacidification. However, there is an accumulation of evidence to support the fact that lactic acid bacteria (LAB) also contribute positively to the taste and aroma of wine. Many different LAB enter into grape juice and wine from the surface of grape berries, cluster stems, vine leaves, soil and winery equipment. Due to the highly selective environment of juices and wine, only a few types of LAB are able to grow.

Different separation techniques are frequently used during vinification process. Nowadays, clarification and microbiological stabilization of wine or beer can be done using precoat filters or crossflow filters to remove yeast and bacteria. Kieselguhr powders are the most used filter aids for precoat filtration. Their crystalline structure and their pulverulent nature induce ecotoxicological risks when used. Moreover, regeneration and reuse of these filter aids is not efficient and the filtration waste requires cost effective retreatment.

Not only vintner’s decisions in the vineyard, but also winemaker’s choices of technology approaches in the cellar play a significant role in the final wine style and quality. Whereas traditional technologies within chosen terroir are quite well explored and thus somehow predictable, there is no proper knowledge available on possible outcomes in case of implementing novel, alternative winemaking strategies. To reveal their effects on wine aroma compounds and sensory characteristics, two alternative strategies
(cryoextraction or addition of whole grape berries during last stages of fermentation) were compared to classical Vipava valley winemaking approach as normally used for an autochthonous variety Zelen. After separate vinification and bottling, all the experimental wines were subjected to semiquantitative metabolic profiling of volatile compounds (VOCs) by means of GC/MS and were then also sensorialy evaluated by pre-trained panel.

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].

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).