A preliminary study of clonal selection in cv. Viura in relation to varietal aroma profile

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).

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].

Bentonite fining is widely used to prevent protein haze in white wines. Most wineries use laboratory-scale fining trials to define the appropriate amount of bentonite to be used in the cellar. Those pre-tests need to mimic as much as possible the industrial scale fining procedure to determine the exact amount of bentonite necessary for protein stability. Nevertheless it is frequent that, after fining with the recommended amount of bentonite, wines appear still unstable and need an additional fining treatment. It remains a major challenge to understand why the same wine, fined with the same dosage of the same bentonite, achieves stability in the lab, but not in the cellar.

From the standpoint of wine aroma oxidation there are two effects observed: aroma degradation of oxygen sensitive compounds (polyfunctional mercaptans) and the appearance of new substances with high aromatic power (acetaldehyde, methional, phenylacetaldehyde, sotolon, alkenals, isobutanal and 2, 3-metylbutanals) (1-5). According to our experience, Strecker aldehydes are compounds with highest sensory relevance in the oxidative degradation of many wines (5-7).

“The Human being has an excellent ability to detect and discriminate odors but typically has great difficulty in identifying specific odorants”(1). Furthermore, “from a cognitive point of view the mechanism used to judge wines is closer to pattern recognition than descriptive analysis.” Therefore, when one wants to reveal the volatile “wine-like feature” pattern recognition techniques are required. Sensomics is one of the most recent “omics”, i.e. a holistic perspective of a complex system, which deals with the description of substances originated from microorganism metabolism that are “active” to human senses (2). Depicting the relevant volatile fraction in wines has been an ongoing task in recent decades to which several research groups have allocated important resources. The most common strategy has been the “target approach” in order to identify the “key odorants” for a given wine varietal.