Quantification of the production of hydrogen peroxide H2O2 during wine oxidation

Champagne regulation allows winegrowers to stock small amounts of still wines in order to compensate vintages’ quality shifts mainly due to climate variations. According to their technical requirements and house style some Champagne producers (commonly named “Champagne houses”) use these stored wines in the blend in order to introduce an element of complexity. These wines possess the particularity of being aged on fine lees in thermo-regulated stainless steel tanks. The Champagne house of Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin has several wines stored this way.

Proteins constitute one of the three main components of grape juice and white wine, phenolic compounds and polysaccharides being the others. A specific group of the total grape-derived proteins resists degradation or adsorption during the winemaking process and remains in finished wine if not removed by the commonplace commercial practice of bentonite fining. While bentonite is effective in removing the problematic proteins, it is claimed to adversely affect the quality of the treated wine under certain conditions, through the removal of colour, flavor and texture compounds. A number of studies have indicated that different protein fractions require distinct bentonite concentrations for protein removal and consequent heat stabilization.

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.

In red wines the post-MLF SO2 addition is an essential event. It is also the case for the “mutage” during the elaboration of the “liquoreux”. At these moments SO2 plays an antimicrobial action and an antioxidant effect. But at current pH of wines, ensuring a powerful molecular SO2 has become very difficult. Recent work on Brettanomyces strains have also shown that some strains are resistant up to 1.2 mg / L of molecular SO2. It’s also the case of the some Saccharomuces or Zygosaccharomyces strains suitable to re-ferment “liquoreux” wines after the “mutage”.

Bacterial malolactic fermentation (MLF) has a considerable impact on wine quality. The yeast strain used for primary fermentation can consistently stimulate (MLF+ phenotype) or inhibit (MLF- phenotype) malolactic bacteria and the MLF process as a function of numerous winemaking practices, but the molecular evidence behind still remains a mystery. In this study, such evidence was elucidated by the direct comparison of extracellular metabolic profiles of MLF+ and MLF- yeast phenotypes. Untargeted metabolomics combining ultrahigh-resolution FT-ICR-MS analysis, powerful machine learning methods and a comprehensive wine metabolite database, discovered around 800 putative biomarkers and 2500 unknown masses involved in phenotypic distinction.