IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Impact of aging on dimethyl sulfide (DMS) in Corvina and Corvinone wines

Impact of aging on dimethyl sulfide (DMS) in Corvina and Corvinone wines

Abstract

Amarone is an Italian red wine produced in the Valpolicella area, in north-eastern Italy. Due to its elaboration with withered grapes, Amarone is a rather unique example of dry red wine. However, there is very limited data so far concerning the volatile composition of commercial Amarone wines, which also undergo a cask aging of 2-4 years before release. The present work aims at characterizing the aroma composition of Amarone and to elucidate the relationships between chemical composition and sensory characters.  Two sets of Amarone wines from different vintages 2015 (17 wines) and 2016 (15 wines) were analyzed. The analyses were carried out by means of Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) and extracted by Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) and Solid Phase Micro Extraction (SPME). In addition, the sampled wines were subjected to a sensory evaluation in the form of sorting task. From both data sets, 70 volatile compounds were successfully identified and quantified, 30 of which were present in concentrations above their odor thresholds in all the samples. Using the odor activity value (OAV), the compounds that potentially contribute to Amarone perceived aroma are b-damascenone, ethyl and isoamyl acetate, ethyl esters (hexanoate, octanoate, butanoate, 3-methybutanoate), 4-ethyl guaiacol, 3-methylbutanoic acid, dimethyl sulfide (DMS), eugenol, massoia lactone, 1,4-cineol, TDN, cis-whisky lactone. The only differences found between the two vintages’ OAV list, could be observed in the presence of dimethyl trisulfide (DMTS) in the vintage 2015; whereas in the 2016 set g-nonalactone and trans-whisky lactone were found. Regarding the compounds that impart the most differences across both vintages, OAV max/min, where 4- ethyl phenol, 4-ethyl guaiacol, 1,8-cineole, 1,4-cineole, dimethyl sulfide (DMS). Results from the sorting task sensory analysis of the 17 wines from vintage 2015 showed three clusters formed. Cluster 1 composed of eight wines and described as “red fruit”, “solvent” and “sweet spices”. Cluster 2 formed by four Amarone was associated mainly with the “animal” and “oak/toasted” attributes. And cluster 3 (five wines) described with the attribute “cooked fruit”. While in the sorting task of vintage 2016 (15 wines) two clusters were formed: cluster A formed by 5 wines described as “cooked fruit” and “solvent”; and cluster B (10 wines) associated with the attributes “sweet spices”, “red fruit” and “oak/toasted”. To our knowledge the present research is the first attempt to identify and classify Amarone della Valpolicella commercial wines in terms of aroma. This study provides a list of compounds that can be characteristic of Amarone wine and that have been consistent across two vintages coming from different wineries . Moreover, from the volatiles analyzed, compounds such as dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and cineoles have been singled out as potential aroma markers of diversity in Amarone wines. Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) is a low molecular weight sulfur compound produced in wine during aging by the chemical degradation of S-Methyl-L-methionine (SMM). Investigating the aromatic profile of Amarone commercial wines from different wineries, it was found that DMS presented a high variation in concentration across wine samples ranging from 2.88 to 64.34 μg/L, which potentially can affect the perceived aroma. Therefore, in order to investigate this variation, the influence of grape variety, withering, precursor and vintage on DMS formation was studied. To achieve this a set of experimental wines, vintage 2017, 2018 and 2019 made with Corvina and Corvinone (fresh and withered) grapes from five different vineyards was submitted to accelerated aging. Samples in duplicate were kept at 45 °C for 24, 48, and 96 days, and then analyzed by HS-SPME GC-MS to determine their DMS content.Results showed minor increases in all samples at 24 and 48 days, whereas a considerable accumulation of DMS occurred at 96 days with concentrations approaching values around 120 μg/L. Additionally, it was observed that wines made from withered grapes presented higher concentrations respect to those made with fresh grapes, while the grape variety did not show a significant difference. The precursor influence in the wines was explored as well through the correlation between DMS concentration and primary amino acid nitrogen (PAN) content in wines (before aging). PAN content was measured at 340 nm in an automatic analyzer. In wines from vintage 2017, a good correlation (R2=0.7742) was found between the DMS (concentration of DMS at 96 days minus initial concentration) and PAN. While for wines from vintage 2018 and 2019, the correlation was 0.5581 and 0.4043, respectively. Finally, in order to further elucidate additional factors related to the variability in the ability of wines to generate DMS during aging, the influence of pH was also investigated. For this, two sets of wine, one spiked with SMM, were submitted to an accelerated aging (one month, 45 °C), in which pH was adjusted to 3 and 4. Results showed an increase in DMS of 10% in the samples with pH 4, which could be explained by the stability of SMM in acid conditions, therefore, at a higher pH the precursor could be more prone to release DMS.  Concluding, this study points out PAN as a potential tool to predict the production of DMS during aging. As well as providing some indications of the influence of withering in DMS production. 

DOI:

Publication date: June 24, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

Samaniego Solis Jessica Anahi1, Luzzini Giovanni1, Slaghenaufi Davide1 and Ugliano Maurizio1

1University of Verona

Contact the author

Keywords

DMS, Corvina, Corvinone, wine aging, Amarone

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Revealing the Barossa zone sub-divisions through sensory and chemical analysis of Shiraz wine

The Barossa zone is arguably one of the most well-recognised wine producing regions in Australia and internationally; known mainly for the production of its distinct Shiraz wines. However, within the broad Barossa geographical delimitation, a variation in terroir can be perceived and is expressed as sensorial and chemical profile differences between wines. This study aimed to explore the sub-division classification across the Barossa region using chemical and sensory measurements. Shiraz grapes from 4 different vintages and different vineyards across the Barossa (2018, n = 69; 2019, n = 72; 2020, n = 79; 2021, n = 64) were harvested and made using a standardised small lot winemaking procedure. The analysis involved a sensory descriptive analysis with a highly trained panel and chemical measurement including basic chemistry (e.g. pH, TA, alcohol content, total SO2), phenolic composition, volatile compounds, metals, proline, and polysaccharides. The datasets were combined and analysed through an unsupervised, clustering analysis. Firstly, each vintage was considered separately to investigate any vintage to vintage variation. The datasets were then combined and analysed as a whole. The number of sub-divisions based on the measurements were identified and characterised with their sensory and chemical profile and some consistencies were seen between the vintages. Preliminary analysis of the sensory results showed that in most vintages, two major groups could be identified characterised with one group showing a fruit-forward profile and another displaying savoury and cooked vegetables characters. The exploration of distinct profiles arising from the Barossa wine producing region will provide producers with valuable information about the regional potential of their wine assisting with tools to increase their target market and reputation. This study will also provide a robust and comprehensive basis to determine the distinctive terroir characteristics which exist within the Barossa wine producing region.

Pruned vine biomass exclusion from a clay loam vineyard soil – examining the impact on physical/chemical properties

The wine industry worldwide faces increasing challenges to achieve sustainable levels of carbon emission mitigation. This project seeks to establish the feasibility of harvesting winter pruned vineyard biomass (PVB) for potential use in carbon footprint reduction, through its use as a renewable biofuel for energy production. In order to make this recommendation, technical issues such as the potential environmental impact, chemical composition and fuel suitability, and logistical challenges of harvesting biomass needs to be understood to compare with the results from similar studies. Of particular interest is the role PVB plays as a carbon source in vineyard soils and what effect annual removal might have on soil carbon sequestration. A preliminary trial was established in the Waite Campus vineyard (University of Adelaide) to test current management strategies. Vines are grown in a Eutrophic, Red Dermosol clay loam soil with well managed midrow swards. A comparison was undertaken of mid-row treatments in two 0.25 Ha blocks (Shiraz and Semillon), including annual cultivation for seed bed preparation, the deliberate exclusion of PVB (25 years) and incorporation of PVB (13 years) at an average of 3.4 and 5.5 Mg/Ha-1 for Shiraz and Semillon respectively. In both 0-10cm and 10-30cm soil core sample depths, combined soil carbon % measures in the desired range of 1.80 to 3.50, were not significantly different between treatments or cultivars and yielded an estimated 42 Mg/ha-1 of sequestered soil carbon. Other key physical and chemical measures were likewise not significantly different between treatments. Preliminary results suggest that in a temperate zone vineyard, managed such as the one used in this study, there is no long term negative impact on soil carbon sequestration through removing PVB. This implies that growers could confidently harvest PVB for use in several end fates including as a bio fuel.

Grapevine yield-gap: identification of environmental limitations by soil and climate zoning in Languedoc-Roussillon region (south of France)

Grapevine yield has been historically overlooked, assuming a strong trade-off between grape yield and wine quality. At present, menaced by climate change, many vineyards in Southern France are far from the quality label threshold, becoming grapevine yield-gaps a major subject of concern. Although yield-gaps are well studied in arable crops, we know very little about grapevine yield-gaps. In the present study, we analysed the environmental component of grapevine yield-gaps linked to climate and soil resources in the Languedoc Roussillon. We used SAFRAN data and IGP Pays d’Oc wine yields from 2010 to 2018. We selected climate and soil indicators proving to have a significant effect on average wine yield-gaps at the municipality scale. The most significant factors of grapevine yield were the Soil Available Water Capacity; followed by the Huglin Index and the Climatic Dryness Index. The Days of Frost; the Soil pH; and the Very Hot Days were also significant. Then, we clustered geographical zones presenting similar indicators, facilitating the identification of resources yield-gaps. We discussed the number of zones with the experts of IGP Pays d’Oc label, obtaining 7 zones with similar limitations for grapevine yield. Finally, we analysed the main resources causing yield-gaps and the grapevine varieties planted on each zone. Mapping grapevine resource yield-gaps are the first stage for understanding grapevine yield-gaps at the regional scale.

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.

Impact of geographical location on the phenolic profile of minority varieties grown in Spain. II: red grapevines

Because terroir and cultivar are drivers of wine quality, is essential to investigate theirs effects on polyphenolic profile before promoting the implantation of a red minority variety in a specific area. This work, included in MINORVIN project, focuses in the polyphenolic profile of 7 red grapevines minority varieties of Vitis vinifera L. (Morate, Sanguina, Santafe, Terriza Tinta Jeromo Tortozona Tinta) and Tempranillo) from six typical viticulture Spanish areas: Aragón (A1), Cataluña (A2), Castilla la Mancha (A3), Castilla –León (A4), Madrid (A5) and Navarra (A6) of 2020 season. Polyphenolic substances were extracted from grapes. 35 compounds were identified and quantified (mg subtance/kg fresh berry) by HPLC and grouped in anthocyanins (ANT) flavanols (FLAVA), flavonols (FLAVO), hydroxycinnamic (AH), benzoic (BA) acids and stilbenes (ST). Antioxidant activity (AA, mmol TE /g fresh berry) was determined by DPPH method. The results were submitted to a two-way ANOVA to investigate the influence of variety, area and their interaction for each polyphenolic family and cluster analysis was used to construct hierarchical dendrograms, searching the natural groupings among the samples. Sanguina (A3) had the most of total polyphenols while Tempranillo (A5) those of ANT. Sanguina (A2) and (A3) reached the highest values of FLAVO, FLAVA and AA. These two last samples had also the maximum of AA. The effect cultivar and area were significant for all polyphenolic families analyzed. A high variability due to variety (>50%) was observed in FLAVA and the maximum value of variability due to growing area was detected in AA (86.41%), ANT and FLAVO (51%); the interaction variety*zone was significant only for ANT, FLAVO, EST and AA. Finally, dendrograms presented five cluster: i) Sanguina (A2); ii) Sanguina (A3); iii) Tempranillo (A5); iv) Tempranillo (A3); Terriza (A3,A5), Morate (A5,A6); v) Santafé (A1,A6); Tortozona tinta (A1,A3,A6); Tinta Jeromo (A3,A4).