Supramolecular approaches to the study of the astringency elicited by wine phenolic compounds

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.

The present study was performed in a traditional winery located in the viticultural area of Brunello di Montalcino, Siena, Italy, in the vintage 2015. Actually, in this winery Sangiovese grape musts are fermented in large oak barrels by a single strain of Saccharomyces cerevisiae previously isolated in the same winery. Pumping over operations are carried out once or twice a day until the end of alcoholic fermentations. The aim of this work was to investigate on the oenological properties of Sangiovese wine produced with the traditional winemaking process adopted by the winery under study obtained from the fermentation of whole berries compared to that from crushed grape must. In particular, two lots of 65q of Sangiovese grapes from the same 3ha vineyard were vinified in 150hL oak barrels.

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”.

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).

The occurrence of faults and taints in wine, such as those caused by microbial spoilage or various taints, have resulted in significant financial losses to wine producers. The wine industry commits significant financial resources towards fining and taint removal processes each year. Fining involves the addition of one or more adsorptive substrates to juice or wine to bind certain components, thus reducing their concentration [1]. However, these processes are often not selective and can also remove desirable flavour and aroma compounds.