Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Identification of caffeic acid as a major component of Moscatel wine protein sediment

Identification of caffeic acid as a major component of Moscatel wine protein sediment

Abstract

Proteins play a significant role in the colloidal stability and clarity of white wines [1]. However, under conditions of high temperatures during storage or transportation, the proteins themselves can self-aggregate into light-dispersing particles causing the so-called protein haze [2]. Formation of these unattractive precipitates in bottled wine is a common defect of commercial wines, making them unacceptable for sale [3]. Previous studies identified the presence of phenolic compounds in the natural precipitate of white wine [4], contributing to the hypothesis that these compounds could be involved in the mechanism of protein haze formation. The objective of this study was to isolate and identify the compounds contained in induced wine protein haze precipitate after alkaline hydrolysis. The heat-induced protein precipitate from five liters of white Moscatel of Alexandria wine was subjected to alkaline hydrolysis in 2 M NaOH, 10 mM EDTA and 1% (w/v) L-ascorbic acid following a protocol described elsewhere [5] with some modifications. The alkaline hydrolyzed sample was subjected to liquid-liquid extraction with ethyl acetate and evaporated to dryness. The extract was further fractionated using reversed phase-high performance liquid chromatography-diode array detector (RP-HPLC-DAD). The major compound present was found to be caffeic acid amongst other minor, unidentified compounds. Caffeic acid was identified by UV-vis spectra and the structure validated by 1H nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). This work corroborates the observation that phenolic compounds, and caffeic acid in particular, may participate in wine protein haze formation since it is the major compound nonprotein compound present in Moscatel wine protein sediment.

References: [1] F.X. Sauvage, B. Bach, M. Moutounet, and A. Vernhet, Food Chemistry, 2010, 118, 26-34. [2] E.J. Waters, W. Wallace, and P.J. Williams, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 1992, 40, 1514-1519. [3] G. Tabilo-Munizaga, T.A. Gordon, R. Villalobos-Carvajal, L. Moreno-Osorio, F.N. Salazar, M. Perez-Won, and S. Acuna, Food Chemistry , 2014, 155, 214-220. [4] M. Esteruelas, N. Kontoudakis, M. Gil, M.F. Fort, J.M. Canals, and F. Zamora, Food Research International, 2011, 44, 77-83. [5] Nardini, M., E. Cirillo, F. Natella, and C. Scaccini, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2002, 50, 5735-5741.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Ricardo Chagas*, Ana Lourenço, Luísa Carvalho, Ricardo Ferreira, Sara Monteiro

*FCT/UNL

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

How do different oak treatment affect the sensory composition of Chenin blanc wines over time?

Wooden barrels have been the preferred method for oak maturation for wines, but the use of alternative oak products, such as staves and oak chips have increased in South Africa due to lower production costs. This study investigated the effect of different oak products used during fermentation and ageing on the sensory profile, degree of liking and perceived quality of a South African Chenin blanc wine. The different wine treatments included an unoaked tank control wine, wines matured in 5th fill barrels, wines matured in new barrels from three different cooperages, and wines matured in 5th fill barrels with stave inserts from two different cooperages.

Fining-Derived Allergens in Wine: from Detection to Quantification

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).

Effect of supplementation with inactive yeast during alcoholic fermentation in base wine for sparkling

INTRODUCTION: Foam stability of sparkling wines is significantly favored by the presence of surface active agents such as proteins and polysaccharides [1]. For that reason, the renowned sparkling wines are aged after the second fermentation in contact with the lees for several months (even years). Thereby wines are enriched in these macromolecules due to yeast autolysis. Since this practice is slow and costly, winemakers are seeking for alternative procedures to increase their concentration in base wines. In that sense, the supplementation with inactive yeast during alcoholic fermentation has been proposed [2]. The aim of this study was to determine whether this new strategy is really useful for enriching base wines in macromolecules and for improving foam properties of the base wines.

Effect of non-Saccharomyces yeast and lactic acid bacteria on selected sensory attributes and polyphenols of Syrah wines

Consumers predominantly use visual, aromatic and texture cues as quality/preference indicators to describe olfactory sensations. In this study, the effect of micro-organism in wine production was investigated using analytical and sensory techniques to achieve relevant analytical characterisation. Selected anthocyanins, flavan-3-ols, flavonols and phenolic acids were quantified in Syrah wines using RP-HPLC-DAD. Standard oenological parameters were also measured. Syrah grape must was fermented with various combinations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) and non-Saccharomyces (Metschnikowia pulcherrima or Hanseniaspora uvarum) yeasts, which was followed by sequential inoculation of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (Oenococcus oeni or Lactobacillus plantarum).

Directed Evolution of Oenococcus oeni: optimising yeast-bacteria interactions for improved malolactic fermentation

Malolactic fermentation (MLF) is a secondary step in the vinification process and it follows alcoholic fermentation (AF) which is predominantly carried out by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. These two processes result in the degradation of metabolites to produce secondary metabolites which also contribute to the final wine flavour and quality. AF results in the production of ethanol and carbon dioxide from sugars and MLF stems from the degradation of L-malic acid (a dicarboxylic acid) to L-lactic acid (a monocarboxylic acid). The latter process results in a smoother texture as the acidity of the wine is reduced by the process, it also adds to the flavour complexity of the wine.