Characterization of commercial enological tannins and its effect on human saliva diffusion

Intra-vineyard variation grape berry ripening occurs within bunches, between bunches on the same vine and between vines. Although it is assumed that such variation also occurs at the grape berry cell wall level, no study to data has investigated in any depth. Here we have used a intra-vineyard panel design to investigate pooled bunches from six vines (per panel) in the context of a winemaking scenario. The dissected vineyard was harvested by separate panels, where each panel was then subjected to a standard winemaking procedure with or without the addition of three different enzyme preparations for maceration.

The grapevine is an important economical crop that is very sensitive to climate changes and microclimate. The observations made during the last decades at a vineyard scale all concur to show the impact of climate change on vine physiology, resulting in accelerated phenology and earlier harvest (Jones and Davis 2000). It is well-known that berry content is affected by the ambient temperature. While the first experiences were primarily conducted on the impact of temperature on anthocyanin accumulation in the grape, few studies have focused on others component of phenolic metabolism, such as tannins.

Lately several works highlighted the capacity of grape cell-wall material (CWM) to interact with proanthocyanidins (PA), indicating its potential use as fining agent for red wines.1–4 However, those studies were performed by using purified PAs and very high doses of CWM (almost ten-fold higher than those used in wine industry for other commercial fining agents). The present study focuses on the applicability of CWM from Cabernet sauvignon pomace as fining agent for red wines under real winery conditions. Grapes of cultivar Cabernet sauvignon were harvested at three different maturity levels
(unripe, mature, and overripe) and used for red winemaking. The pomace of such vinifications were used as source of CWM, and applied into red wines at two different concentrations: 0.2 g/L and 2.5 g/L.

Chemical studies aiming at assessing how a wine reacts towards oxidation usually focus on the characterization of wine constituents, such as polyphenols, or oxidation products. As an alternative, the key oxidation intermediate hydrogen peroxide H2O2 has never been quantified, although it plays a pivotal role in wine oxidation. H2O2 is obtained from molecular oxygen as the result of a first cascade of oxidation reactions involving metal ions and polyphenols. The produced H2O2 then reacts in a second cascade of oxidation to produce reactive hydroxyl radicals that can attack almost any chemical substrate in wine.

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).