Screening sensory-directed methodology for the selection of non-saccharomyces wine yeasts based on perceived aroma quality

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).

The color of a red wine is one of the most important parameters of its quality, giving much information on its status, such as the grape variety used or the winemaking style. As the result of a complex equilibrium between different forms of anthocyanins and polymerization reactions which occur over the course of time, color can also serve as an indication of a wines’ age. For this purpose the “chemical age” i and ii indexes have been introduced by Somers in 1977. The chemical age index i measures the color absorbance after the addition of acetaldehyde while chemical index ii provides an indication of how much of the total red pigments are resistant to SO2 bleaching.

A new process for vacuum evaporation was developed where evaporation takes place near the inner surface of a vortex produced by a rotor submerged in the liquid. Contrary to the state of the art the Vortex rotor process does not need a vacuum vessel but the rotating liquid creates a geometrically stable low pressure void surrounded by a vortex stabilized by the equilibrium between centrifugal forces and the pressure difference. First tests with water and sugar solutions at concentrations similar to grape must were conducted to verify the theoretical predictions, test the performance under different conditions and study the effect of various process parameters (Rösti et al 2015).

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).

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].