Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Volatile and phenolic profiles of wines closed with different stoppers and stored for 30 months

Volatile and phenolic profiles of wines closed with different stoppers and stored for 30 months

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the volatile and phenolic profiles of three red and one rosé wines stored in bottles for 30 months. Four wines were provided by a winery located in South Tyrol (Kellerei Bozen, Bolzano, Italy), which included Merlot, Lagrein red, Lagrein rosé and St. Magdalener and were closed with different types of stoppers: a blend of natural cork microgranules and polymers without glue addition (Supercap Nature, Mombaroccio, Italy), a one-piece natural cork, agglomerated natural cork and a technical cork 1+1. Volatile compounds were extracted by head-space solid phase microextraction (HS-SPME) and then analysed by GC-MS, while the phenolic compounds were determined by HPLC-DAD-FLD. The type of stopper did not show significant differences on the chemical profiles of the wines. Instead, the interaction between the wines and the type of stoppers as well as the type of wines had a significant influence on the volatile and phenolic profiles. Regarding the volatile profile, significant differences were observed for ethyl butanoate and 2-hydroxyethylpropanoate which were present just in St. Magdalener and absent in Lagrein rosé wines, respectively. Also, 2-methylethyl butanoate and 3-methylethyl butanoate were not detected in both Lagrein red and rosé, whereas isopentyl acetate was found in Merlot wines at low concentration. On the other hand, 1-hexanol, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl octanoate and ethyl decanoate were found at high concentration in Lagrein rosé wine compared to the three red wines. Regarding the phenolic profile, results showed a low concentration of p-coumaric acid, protocatechuic acid, caftaric acid, (+)-catechin, (-)-epicatechin, S-glutathionyl caftaric acid (GRP) and syringic acid in Lagrein rosé wine with respect to the red wines. However, the concentration of gallic acid was higher in Merlot wine and differed significantly from the three others with the lowest value in the Lagrein rosé. The chemical profiles of the four wines were significantly influenced by the type of wine due to their grape variety and vinification processes. Conversely, the type of stopper did not show any significant differences in terms of volatile nor phenolic profile, due to the high technical quality of the closures under study.

DOI:

Publication date: September 14, 2021

Issue: Macrowine 2021

Type: Article

Authors

Prudence Fleur Tchouakeu Betnga

Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy ,Edoardo LONGO, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy Vakare MERKYTE, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy Amanda DUPAS DE MATOS, Feast Lab, Massey University, New Zealand Fabrizio ROSSETTI, Mérieux NutriSciences, Italy   Emanuele BOSELLI, Free University of Bozen-Bolzano, Italy

Contact the author

Keywords

cork stoppers; technical stoppers; volatile profile; phenolic profile; wines; bottle

Citation

Related articles…

Le cuivre sur raisins et moûts: dosage et intérêts de la mesure

Avec l’accroissement des surfaces viticoles conduites en Bio, la question de l’impact de la présence de résidus de cuivre (seul anti fongique autorisé dans l’UE dans ce cadre Règlementaire) sur le déroulement des fermentations et sur les qualités œnologiques et organoleptiques des vins s’est révélée de plus en plus cruciale.

Teasing apart terroir: the influence of management style on native yeast communities within Oregon wineries and vineyards

Newer sequencing technologies have allowed for the addition of microbes to the story of terroir. The same environmental factors that influence the phenotypic expression of a crop also shape the composition of the microbial communities found on that crop. For fermented goods, such as wine, that microbial community ultimately influences the organoleptic properties of the final product that is delivered to customers. Recent studies have begun to study the biogeography of wine-associated microbes within different growing regions, finding that communities are distinct across landscapes. Despite this new knowledge, there are still many questions about what factors drive these differences. Our goal was to quantify differences in yeast communities due to management style between seven pairs of conventional and biodynamic vineyards (14 in total) throughout Oregon, USA. We wanted to answer the following questions: 1) are yeast communities distinct between biodynamic vineyards and conventional vineyards? 2) are these differences consistent across a large geographic region? 3) can differences in yeast communities be tied to differences in metabolite profiles of the bottled wine? To collect our data we took soil, bark, leaf, and grape samples from within each vineyard from five different vines of pinot noir. We also collected must and a 10º brix sample from each winery. Using these samples, we performed 18S amplicon sequencing to identify the yeast present. We then used metabolomics to characterize the organoleptic compounds present in the bottled wine from the blocks the year that we sampled. We are actively in the process of analysing our data from this study.

Unraveling grapevine resilience to water and nutrient limitations

Water and nutrient availability significantly impact crop yield, thus the application of sustainable strategies towards efficient water use and nutrient absorption by plants is needed.

The history of the first demarkated wine region of the world – the Tokaj wine region

The optimal climatic conditions of the region were proved in 1867, when a leaf-print of Vitis tokaiensis was found in a stone from miocen age (13 million years ago).

New disease-resistant grapevine varieties response to drought under a semi-arid climate

In many regions, climate change leads to an increase in air temperature combined with a reduction of rainfall, intensifying climatic demand and water deficits (WD) (Cardell et al. 2019), which in turn may negatively impact grapevine development, yield and grape composition (Santos et al. 2020). In addition, climate change may also increase disease pressure, leading to further yield and quality losses, besides increasing costs due to increased vineyard spraying (Santos et al. 2020) and reducing viticulture acceptability by consumers (Guichard et al. 2017). Adopting new resistant varieties appears as a promising long-term solution to better manage vine protection, but unfortunately little is known regarding their behavior in front of WD.