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…

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).

Analysis of peptide fraction from white wines

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)?

Attractiveness and sweetness of red wines: Synergies between American oak barrels and mannoproteins

In partnership with a Bordeaux property wanting to improve the quality of its second wine, the effects of two factors, American oak barrels and mannoproteins were studied. Their impact on the attractiveness and sweetness of wines were characterized during two successive vintages (2012 and 2013). Vinification took place with a homogeneous batch of Cabernet Sauvignon. The wine was then divided up into various groups of five barrels of French and American oak, new or reused. Analyses of volatile and non-volatile wood compounds were undertaken at four months and eight months of wood ageing, by LC-MS and GC-MS.

Impact of industrial-scale serial filtration on macromolecules in red wines

Filtration is a critical step in ensuring the clarity and microbial stability of wine prior to bottling. However the process of filtering potentially reduces red wine quality by removing some of the macromolecules that contribute to the texture of the wine. Commercial red wines, Cabernet Sauvignon (CAS) and Shiraz (SHZ), of two vintages and two grades (premium grade wines from the older vintage: CAS13 and SHZ13; and standard grade wines from a younger vintage: CAS14 and SHZ14) were filtered through industrial-scale commercial filtration units prior to bottling. Samples were taken before and after cross-flow filtration, lenticular filters, 0.65 µm and 0.45 µm pore size nylon membrane filters. The concentration and composition of macromolecules, including tannins and polysaccharides, were measured in all samples as well as particle size distribution and wine colour.

Oak wood seasoning: impact on oak wood chemical composition and sensory quality of wine

Oak wood selection and maturation are essential steps in the course of barrel fabrication. Given the existence of many factors involved in the choice of raw material and in natural seasoning of oak wood, it is very difficult to determine the real impact of seasoning and selection factors on oak wood composition. A sampling was done to study the evolution of oak wood chemical composition during four seasoning steps: non matured, 12 months, 18 months and 24 months. For this sampling, three selection factors were taken into account: age, grain type and the Polyphenolic Index measured by Oakscan®. Besides extractables
(~10%), three polymers constitute the main part of oak wood: cellulose, hemicelluloses and lignins.