Enoforum 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Enoforum Web 9 Enoforum Web Conference 2021 9 Cellar session 9 Relation between phenolic content, antioxidant capacity, oxygen consumption rate of diverse tannins

Relation between phenolic content, antioxidant capacity, oxygen consumption rate of diverse tannins

Abstract

The work was aimed at comparing some analytical methods used to characterize oenological tannins and the measure of oxygen consumption rate (OCR), in order to provide oenologists with a rapid method to test the antioxidant capacity of tannin based products and a tool to choose the best suited product for each purpose. Seven tannins with different botanical origin were studied by determining the polyphenolic content (Folin-Ciocalteau assay, GAE%; Total Polyphenols Index, TPI%; Phloroglucinolysis, CT%), antiradical activity (DPPH), reducing capacity (FRAP), redox properties (Linear Sweep Voltammetry, LSV). The OCR was measured with a noninvasive luminescence-based technology in an oxygen saturated model wine solution, containing transition metals and metabisulphite to better simulate the oxidative conditions. The results showed a high variability in polyphenolic content due to the botanical origin of tannins. The OCR determined over 21 days was described by quadratic equations, with coefficients varying with the dose and botanical origin of tannins and with SO2 concentration. The tannins ranked differently for antioxidant capacity, depending on the kind of test. The OCR was correlated with the LSV and FRAP indexes. The Factor Analysis of data distinguished three causes of variability between tannins (3 Factors) and the analytical parameters describing them: 1) the richness in polyphenols (First Factor, explaining the 34.02% of the total data variability), described by GAE%, TPI%, DPPH; 2) the tannin typology (Second Factor, 27.4%), described by LSV and CT%; 3) the oxygen consumption rate (Third Factor, 30.00%), described by OCR, LSV, FRAP.

DOI:

Publication date: April 23, 2021

Issue: Enoforum 2021

Type: Article

Authors

Silvia Mottaa, Massimo Guaitaa, Claudio Cassinob, Antonella Bossoa

a Consiglio per la ricerca in agricoltura e l’analisi dell’economia agraria – Centro di Ricerca Viticoltura ed Enologia, via P. Micca 35, 14100 Asti, Italy
b Dipartimento di Scienze e Innovazione Tecnologica, Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale, Viale T. Michel 11, 15121 Alessandria, Italy

Contact the author

Tags

Enoforum 2021 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Protected Designation of Origin (D.P.O.) Valdepeñas: classification and map of soils

The objective of the work described here is the elaboration of a map of the different types of vineyard soils that to guide the famers in the choice of the most productive vine rootstocks and varieties. 90 vineyard soils profiles were analysed in the entire territory of the Origen Denominations of Valdepeñas. The sampling was carried out in 2018 (June to October) by making a sampling grid, followed by photointerpretation and control in the field. The studied soils can be grouped into 9 different soil types (according to FAO 2006 classification): Leptosols, Regosols, Fluvisols, Gleysols, Cambisols, Calcisols, Luvisols and Anthrosols. A map showing the soil distribution with different type of soils has been made with the ArcGIS program. Regarding to the choice of rootstock, Calcisoles are soils with a high active limestone content, so the rootstocks used in these soils must be resistant to this parameter; Luvisols are deep soils with high clay content, so they will support vigorous rootstocks. Because the cartographic units are composed of two or more subgroups, with are associated in variable proportions, 9 different soil associations have been established; Unit 1: Leptosols, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 15% and 5% respectively); Unit 2: Cambisols with Regosols and Luvisols (40%, 30% and 30% respectively); Unit 3: Cambisols and Gleysols with Regosols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 4: Regosols with Cambisols, Leptosols and Calcisols (40%, 30%, 15% and 15% respectively); Unit 5: Cambisols, Leptosols, Calcisols and Regosols (25% each of them); Unit 6: Luvisols with Cambisol and Calcisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 7: Luvisols and Calcisols with Cambisols (40%, 40% and 20% respectively); Unit 8: Calcisols with, Cambisols and Luvisols (80%, 10% and 10% respectively); Unit 9: Anthrosols. These study allow to elaborate the first map of vineyard soils of this Protected Designation of Origin in Castilla-La Mancha.

A predictive model of spatial Eca variability in the vineyard to support the monitoring of plant status

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Mapping and tracking canopy size with VitiCanopy

Understanding vineyard variability to target management strategies, apply inputs efficiently and deliver consistent grape quality to the winery is essential. However, despite inherent vineyard variability, the majority are managed as if they are uniform. VitiCanopy is a simple, grower-friendly tool for precision/digital viticulture that allows users to collect and interpret objective spatial information about vineyard performance. After four years of field and market research, an upgraded VitiCanopy has been created to achieve a more streamlined, technology-assisted vine monitoring tool that provides users with a set of superior new features, which could significantly improve the way users monitor their grapevines. These new features include:
• New user interface
• User authentication
• Batch analysis of multiple images
• Ease the learning curve through enhanced help features
• Reporting via the creation of colour maps that will allow users to assess the spatial differences in canopies within a vineyard.
Use-case examples are presented to demonstrate the quantification and mapping of vineyard variability through objective canopy measurements, ground-truthing of remotely sensed measurements, monitoring of crop conditions, implementation of disease and water management decisions as well as creating a history of each site to forecast quality. This intelligent tool allows users to manage grapevines and make informed management choices to achieve the desired production targets and remain profitable.

Soil, vine, climate change – what is observed – what is expected

To evaluate the current and future impact of climate change on Viticulture requires an integrated view on a complex interacting system within the soil-plant-atmospheric continuum under continuous change. Aside of the globally observed increase in temperature in basically all viticulture regions for at least four decades, we observe several clear trends at the regional level in the ratio of precipitation to potential evapotranspiration. Additionally the recently published 6th assessment report of the IPCC (The physical science basis) shows case-dependent further expected shifts in climate patterns which will have substantial impacts on the way we will conduct viticulture in the decades to come.
Looking beyond climate developments, we observe rising temperatures in the upper soil layers which will have an impact on the distribution of microbial populations, the decay rate of organic matter or the storage capacity for carbon, thus affecting the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and the viscosity of water in the soil-plant pathway, altering the transport of water. If the upper soil layers dry out faster due to less rainfall and/or increased evapotranspiration driven by higher temperatures, the spectral reflection properties of bare soil change and the transport of latent heat into the fruiting zone is increased putting a higher temperature load on the fruit. Interactions between micro-organisms in the rhizosphere and the grapevine root system are poorly understood but respond to environmental factors (such as increased soil temperatures) and the plant material (rootstock for instance), respectively the cultivation system (for example bio-organic versus conventional). This adds to an extremely complex system to manage in terms of increased resilience, adaptation to and even mitigation of climate change. Nevertheless, taken as a whole, effects on the individual expressions of wines with a given origin, seem highly likely to become more apparent.

Extreme canopy management for vineyard adaptation to climate change: is it a good idea?

Climate change constitutes an enormous challenge for humankind and for all human activities, viticulture not being an exception. Long-term strategic changes are probably needed the most, but growers also need to deal with short-term changes: summers that are getting progressively warmer, earlier harvest dates and higher pH in musts and wines. In the last 10-15 years, a relevant corpus of research is being developed worldwide in order to evaluate to which extent extreme canopy management operations, aimed at reducing leaf area and, thus, limiting the source to sink ratio, could be useful to delay ripening. Although extreme canopy management can result in relevant delays in harvest dates, longer term studies, as well as detailed analysis of their implications on carbohydrate reserves, bud fertility and future yield are desirable before these practices can be recommended.