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…

Late frost protection in Champagne

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

Local adaptation tools to ensure the viticultural sustainability in a changing climate

[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"...

Climate ethnography and wine environmental futures

Globalisation and climate change have radically transformed world wine production upsetting the established order of wine ecologies. Ecological risks and the future of traditional agricultural systems are widely debated in anthropology, but very little is understood of the particular challenges posed by climate change to viticulture which is seen by many as the canary in the coalmine of global agriculture. Moreover, wine as a globalised embedded commodity provides a particularly telling example for the study of climate change having already attracted early scientific attention. Studies of climate change in viticulture have focused primarily on the production of systematic models of adaptation and vulnerability, while the human and cultural factors, which are key to adaptation and sustainable futures, are largely missing. Climate experts have been unanimous in recognising the urgent need for a better understanding of the complex dynamics that shape how climate change is experienced and responded to by human systems. Yet this call has not yet been addressed. Climate ethnography, coined by the anthropologist Susan Crate (2011), aims to bridge this growing disjuncture between climate science and everyday life through the exploration of the social meaning of climate change. It seeks to investigate the confrontation of its social salience in different locations and under different environmental guises (Goodman 2018: 340). By understanding how wine producers make sense of the world (and the environment) and act in it, it proposes to focus on the co-production of interdisciplinary knowledge by identifying and foreshadowing problems (Goodman 2018: 342; Goodman & Marshall 2018). It seeks to offer an original, transformative and contrasted perspective to climate change scenarios by investigating human agency -individual or collective- in all its social, political and cultural diversity. An anthropological approach founded on detailed ethnographies of wine production is ideally placed to address economic, social and cultural disruptions caused by the emergence of these new environmental challenges. Indeed, the community of experts in environmental change have recently called for research that will encompass the human dimension and for more broad-based, integrated through interdisciplinarity, useful knowledge (Castree & al 2014). My paper seeks to engage with climate ethnography and discuss what it brings to the study of wine environmental futures while exploring the limitations of the anthropological environmental approach.

Understanding graft union formation by using metabolomic and transcriptomic approaches during the first days after grafting in grapevine

Since the arrival of Phyloxera (Daktulosphaira vitifolia) in Europe at the end of the 19th century, grafting has become essential to cultivate Vitis vinifera. Today, grafting provides not only resistance to this aphid, but it used to adapt the cultivars according to the type of soil, environment, or grape production requirements by using a panel of rootstocks. As part of vineyard decline, it is often mentioned the importance of producing quality grafted grapevine to improve vineyard longevity, but, to our knowledge, no study has been able to demonstrate that grafting has a role in this context. However, some scion/rootstock combinations are considered as incompatible due to poor graft union formation and subsequently high plant mortality soon after grafting. In a context of climate change where the creation of new cultivars and rootstocks is at the centre of research, the ability of new cultivars to be grafted is therefore essential. The early identification of graft incompatibility could allow the selection of non-viable plants before planting and would have a beneficial impact on research and development in the nursery sector. For this reason, our studies have focused on the identification of metabolic and transcriptomic markers of poor grafting success during the first days/week after grafting; we have identified some correlations between some specialized metabolites, especially stilbenes, and grafting success, as well as an accumulation of some amino acids in the incompatible combination. The study of the metabolome and the transcriptome allowed us to understand and characterise the processes involved during graft union formation.

Biodiversity in the vineyard agroecosystem: exploring systemic approaches

Biodiversity conservation and restoration are essential for guarantee the provision of ecosystem services associated to vineyard agroecosystem such as climate regulation trough carbon sequestration and control of pests and diseases. Most of published research dealing with the complexity of the vineyard agroecosystems emphasizes the necessity of innovative approaches, including the integration of information at different temporal and spatial scales and development of systemic analysis based on modelling. A biodiversity survey was conducted in the Franciacorta wine-growing area (Lombardy, Italy), one of the most important Italian wine-growing regions for sparkling wine production, considering a portion of the territory of 112 ha. The area was divided into several Environmental Units (EUs), defined as a whole vineyard or portion of vineyard homogenous in terms of four agronomic characteristics: planting year, planting density, cultivar, and training system. In each EU a set of compartments was identified and characterised by specific variables. The compartments are meteorology, morphology (altitude, slope, aspect, row orientation, and solar irradiance), ecological infrastructures and management. The landscape surrounding EU was also characterised in terms of land-use in a buffer zone of 500 m. For each component a specific methodology was identified and applied. Different statistical approaches were used to evaluate the method to integrate the information related to different compartments within the EU and related to the buffer zone. These approaches were also preliminarily evaluated for their ability to describe the contribution of biodiversity and landscape components to ecosystem services. This methodological exploration provides useful indication for the development of a fully systemic approach to structural and functional biodiversity in vineyard agroecosystems, contributing to promote a multifunctional perspective for the all wine-growing sector.