Evaluation of Polarized Projective Mapping as a possible tool for attributing South African Chenin blanc dry wine styles

In addition to aroma compounds also protein composition strongly influences the quality of wines. Proteins of wine derive mainly from the plant Vitis vinifera and may be influenced by abiotic stress as well as fermentation conditions or fining. Additionally, fungal infections can affect the protein content as well by introducing fungal proteins or affecting grape protein composition. An infection of the vine with the plant pathogenic fungus Botrytis (B.) cinerea was shown to cause a degradation of proteins in the resulting wine. Moreover, it influences the foaming properties in sparkling wine.

Consumers predominantly use visual, aromatic and texture cues as quality/preference indicators to describe olfactory sensations. In this study, the effect of micro-organism in wine production was investigated using analytical and sensory techniques to achieve relevant analytical characterisation. Selected anthocyanins, flavan-3-ols, flavonols and phenolic acids were quantified in Syrah wines using RP-HPLC-DAD. Standard oenological parameters were also measured. Syrah grape must was fermented with various combinations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) and non-Saccharomyces (Metschnikowia pulcherrima or Hanseniaspora uvarum) yeasts, which was followed by sequential inoculation of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (Oenococcus oeni or Lactobacillus plantarum).

A part, at least, of the fruity aroma of red wines is the consequence of perceptive interactions between various aromatic compounds, particularly ethyl esters and acetates, which may contribute to the perception of fruity aromas, specifically thanks to synergistic effects.1,2 The question of the indirect impact of non-fruity compounds on this particular aromatic expression has not yet been widely investigated. Among these compounds higher alcohols (HA) represent the main group, from a quantitative standpoint, of volatiles in many alcoholic beverages. Moreover, some bibliographic data suggested their contribution to the aromatic complexity by either increasing or masking flavors of wine, depending of their concentrations.

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].

Several winemaking operations, such as filtration, pumping, and racking, are known to potentially facilitate the incorporation of atmospheric O2 into the wine. Control of grape must oxidation is one key aspect in the management of white wine aroma expression, color stability and shelf-life extension. On the one hand, controlled must oxidation may help to remove highly reactive phenolic compounds, which otherwise could contribute to premature oxidation. And on the other hand, in certain cases of extreme protection of the must from O2 (e.g. pressing under inert atmosphere), it can help to preserve varietal aromas and natural must antioxidants.