Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Effect of ageing with Specific Inactivated Dry Yeasts on the volatile composition of Sauvignon Blanc and Carménère wines

Effect of ageing with Specific Inactivated Dry Yeasts on the volatile composition of Sauvignon Blanc and Carménère wines

Abstract

The wine is a complex matrix made up of several compounds which can interact among themselves throughout the wine ageing process, thereby modifying their sensorial characteristics. It is well known that during ageing of wines on lees, polysaccharides (mainly mannoproteins) can be released and can interact with the aromatic fraction modifying its volatility. Furthermore, the dead yeast can also release other compounds which can act as flavor agents and aromatic precursors improving the complexity of the wines. For several years, the companies of enological products have supplied wineries with several preparations rich in mannoproteins and polysaccharides obtained from Saccharomyces cerevisiae cell walls, using physical and/or enzymatic treatment under different names (inactivated dry yeast, yeast autolysates, yeast cell walls, yeast proteic extracts and yeast mannoproteins). These products are supplied as an alternative to wine ageing on lees in order to improve the aromatic profile of the wines. The aim of this work was to study the effect of ageing with different Specific Inactivated Dry Yeasts (SIDY) on the volatile composition of Chilean Sauvignon Blanc and Carménère white and red wines. The dose applied was 30 g/hL and the treatments lasted 2 months. The wines were analyzed by gas chromatography mass spectrometryusing the headspace stir bar sorptive extraction technique (HSSE). Stir bars coated with polydimethylsiloxane
(PDMS) were used. In the case of white wines, two different SIDY (SIDY 1 and SIDY 2) were used. The results showed that, in general, the wines treated with both SIDY had higher ester and alcohol amounts than the control wines. Respect to the red wines, three different SIDY (SIDY 1, SIDY 2 and SIDY3) were used. In this case, in general, the wines treated with SIDY 3 were wines with a higher amount of esters and lower quantities of alcohols than the other two treated (SIDY 1, SIDY 2) and the control wines. In addition, the treated red wines presented lower amounts of acetic acid and acetoin than the controls.

Acknowledgements: This study was supported by CONICYT-Chile PAI N° 781403003, FONDECYT 11140275 andFONDECYT N°1140882 Projects.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Rubén Del Barrio Galán*, Álvaro Peña-Neira, Cristina Ubeda

*Lallemand Inc. Chile y Compañía Limitada

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Metabolomics comparison of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however, in wine, non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect on aroma and flavor formation. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS of Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) were commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct chemical profile that was unique for both grape musts. The SC-monoculture and CZ-SC sequential fermentations were the most distinctly different in the Sauvignon blanc while the LT-SC sequential fermentations were the most different from the control in the Shiraz fermentations.

Removal of Fumonisin B1 and B2 from red wine using polymeric substances

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).

Extraction of pathogenesis-related proteins and phenolics in Sauvignon Blanc as affected by different

The composition of wine is largely determined by the composition of pre-fermentation juice, which is influenced by extraction of grape components. Different grape harvesting and processing conditions could affect the extraction of grape components into juice. Among these grape components, pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins are of great concern for white wine maker as they are the main cause of haze formation in finished white wine. If not removed before bottling, these PR proteins may progress into haze through the formation of complex with phenolics under certain conditions. Thaumatin-like proteins (TLPs) and chitinases are the main constituents of PR proteins found in protein haze.

Interactions of wine polyphenols with dead or living Saccharomyces cerevisiae Yeast Cells and Cell Walls: polyphenol location by microscopy

Tannin, anthocyanins and their reaction products play a major role in the quality of red wines. They contribute to their sensory characteristics, particularly colour and astringency. Grape tannins and anthocyanins are extracted during red wine fermentation. However, their concentration and composition change over time, due to their strong chemical reactivity1. It is also well known that yeasts influence the wine phenolic content, either through the release of metabolites involved in the formation of derived pigments1, or through polyphenol adsorption2,3.

Modulating role of SO2 in white wine protein haze formation

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].