Influence of inactive dry yeast treatments during grape ripening on postharvest berry skin texture parameters and phenolic compounds extractability

Phenolic compounds are very important in crop plants and have been the subject of a large number of studies. Three main reasons can be cited for optimizing the level of phenolic compounds in crop plants: their physiological role in plants, their technological significance for food processing, and their nutritional characteristics1 Indeed, an enormous diversity of phenolic antioxidants is found in fruits and vegetables, and their presence and roles can be affected or modified by several pre- and postharvest cultural practices and/or food processing technologies (Ruiz-García et al. 2012, Goldman et al. 1999, Tudela et al. 2002). In winegrapes, the technological importance of phenolic compounds, mainly flavonoids, is well-known.

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].

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).

Beihong and Beimei are two wine cultivars from ‘Muscat Hamberg’ (V. vinifera L.) and wild V. amurensis Rupr., which were released in China in 2008. Here，two enology practices were reported. Firstly, the impact of different yeasts including D254, GRE, K1, D21 and BDX on dry wine quality of Beihong and Beimei was investigated. For Beihong, among wines fermented by all yeasts, residual sugar content was the lowest, total anthocyanin and resveratrol contents were the highest in the wine by D254. However, the wine by D254 had lower titrable acid than those by the other yeasts except BDX.

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).