Novel analytical technologies for wine fingerprinting in and beyond the laboratory

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.

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.

Among nitrogen compounds included in white wines, the peptide fraction is certainly the least studied, however this fraction is quantitatively the most important (Feuillat, 1974). Existing studies concern the fraction below 1 kDa and only for white and sparkling wines (Bartolomé et al, 1997, Desportes et al 2000). In this report, we have developed methods to isolate peptides from reference white wines. Then, we have applied this methodology with bitter wine to answer a research question: is there a relation between peptides and the bitterness of white wine as for some cheese for example (Furtado, 1984)?

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].

All along the winemaking process, conditioning and aging, wine is susceptible to be contaminated by different molecules. Contaminations can have various origins, related to wine microorganisms or as a result of an exogenous contamination. The aforementioned contamination of the wine can be caused by the migration of molecules from the materials in contact with the wine or by a contamination from exogenous molecules present in the air. Regardless of the source of the contamination, mainly two types of consequences can be observed.