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…

Effect of nanofiltration on the chemical composition and wine quality

In Enology the conventional processes of filtration for clarification and stabilization are giving place to alternative membrane processes, including nanofiltration (NF). Furthermore, the increased alcohol content in wines recorded in recent years became an important issue for all the main wine producing countries. Among techniques available to the wine industry to reduce the ethanol content, NF is certainly one of the newest. This study is focused on the evaluation of NF influence on wine physical-chemical composition, including mineral content, which in accordance to our best knowledge is a novelty.

Use of glutathione under different grape processing and winemaking conditions and its impact on the formation of sulfide off-flavors, colour, and sensory characteristics of Riesling, Sauvignon blanc, and Chardonnay

The use of glutathione (GSH) in winemaking has been legitimated recently, according to OIV resolutions OENO 445-2015 and OENO 446-2015 a maximum dose of 20 mg/L is now allowed to use in must and wine. Several studies have proven the benefits of GSH, predominantly in Sauvignon blanc. Thus, oxidative coloration of must and wine is limited, aroma compounds such as volatile thiols are preserved, and the development of ageing flavors such as sotolon and 2-aminoacetophenone is impeded. The protective effect may be explained by the high affinity of GSH to bind o-quinones which are formed during phenolic oxidation and which are known to initiate browning and other oxidative changes. Some researchers have proposed the hydroxycinnamic acid to GSH ratio (HGR) as an indicator of oxidation susceptibility of must and could show that lower ratios yielded lighter musts.

Impact of non-fruity compounds on red wines fruity aromatic expression: the role of higher alcohols

A part, at least, of the fruity aroma of red wines is the consequence of perceptive interactions between various aromatic compounds, particularly ethyl esters and acetates, which may contribute to the perception of fruity aromas, specifically thanks to synergistic effects.1,2 The question of the indirect impact of non-fruity compounds on this particular aromatic expression has not yet been widely investigated. Among these compounds higher alcohols (HA) represent the main group, from a quantitative standpoint, of volatiles in many alcoholic beverages. Moreover, some bibliographic data suggested their contribution to the aromatic complexity by either increasing or masking flavors of wine, depending of their concentrations.

Ageing of sweet wines: oxygen evolution according to bung and barrel type

Barrel ageing is a crucial step in the wine process because it allows many changes to the wine as enrichment, colour stabilization, clarification and also a slow oxygenation. Effects of the oak barrel have to be known to prevent oxidation of the wine. The type of bung used during ageing is also a parameter to consider. Ageing sweet wines in barrel is a real challenge. These wines may need some oxygen at the beginning of ageing but they should be protected at the end of their maturation, to avoid oxidation.

Development and validation of a standardized oxidation assay for the accurate measurement of the ability of different wines to form “de novo” oxidation-related aldehydes

From the standpoint of wine aroma oxidation there are two effects observed: aroma degradation of oxygen sensitive compounds (polyfunctional mercaptans) and the appearance of new substances with high aromatic power (acetaldehyde, methional, phenylacetaldehyde, sotolon, alkenals, isobutanal and 2, 3-metylbutanals) (1-5). According to our experience, Strecker aldehydes are compounds with highest sensory relevance in the oxidative degradation of many wines (5-7).