Attractiveness and sweetness of red wines: Synergies between American oak barrels and mannoproteins

A critical aspect of wine quality from a consumer perspective is the overall impression of wine flavour, which is formed by the interplay of volatile aroma compounds, their precursors, and taste and matrix components. Grapes contribute some potent aroma compounds, together with a large pool of non-volatile precursors (e.g. glycoconjugates and amino acid conjugates). Aroma precursors can break down through chemical hydrolysis reactions, or through the action of yeast or enzymes, significantly changing the aroma profile of a wine during winemaking and storage. In addition, glycoconjugates of monoterpenes, norisoprenoids and volatile phenols, together with sulfur-conjugates in wine, provide a reservoir of additional flavour through the in-mouth release of volatiles which may be perceived retro-nasally.

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.

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.

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.20.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

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).