A lot of work has been done on the impact of Botrytis on the foam of sparkling wines. This work often concerns wines produced in cool regions, where Botrytis is the dominant fungal pathogen. However, in southern countries such as Spain, in particularly hot years such as 2022, the majority fungal pathogen is sometimes Rhizopus. Like Botrytis, Rhizopus is a fungus that produces an aspartic protease.
The structural diversity is one of the most remarkable characteristics of proanthocyanidins (PA). Indeed, PA in wines may vary in the B-ring and C-ring substitutes, the C-ring stereochemistry, the degree of polymerization (DP) and the linkage between the monomers. Knowing in detail the structural characteristics of the PA of a wine can help us to understand and modulate several sensorial characteristics of the wine, such as color, antioxidant properties, flavor, and mouthfeel properties. In the last years was discovered and confirmed the presence of sulfonated monomeric and oligomeric flavan-3-ols in wine [1], as well as was pointed out their importance in wine quality [1,2].
Mousy off-flavor is one of the defects of microbial origin in wine. It is described as a particularly unpleasant defect reminiscent of rodent urine (a “dirty mouse cage”), and grilled foods such as popcorn, rice, crackers, and bread crust. Prior to the 2010s, mousiness was very uncommon but it has been becoming more frequent in recent years. It is often associated with an increase in pH as well as certain oenological practices, which tend to significantly decrease the use of sulfur dioxide.
From the chemical angle, Champagne wines are complex hydro-alcoholic mixtures supersaturated with dissolved carbon dioxide (CO₂). During the pouring process and throughout the several minutes of tasting, the headspace of a champagne glass is progressively invaded by many chemical species, including gas-phase CO₂ in large majority. CO₂ bubbles nucleated in the glass and collapsing at the champagne surface act indeed as a continuous paternoster lift for aromas throughout champagne or sparkling wine tasting [1]. Nevertheless, inhaling a gas space with a concentration of gaseous CO₂ close to 30% and higher triggers a very unpleasant tingling sensation, the so-called “carbonic bite”, which might completely perturb the perception of the wine’s bouquet.
A wide range of olfactory descriptors ranging from fresh and jammy fruit notes to cooked and oxidized fruit notes could describe the fruity aroma of red wines [1]. The fruity character of a wine is mainly related to the grape variety selected, to the terroir and the vinification process applied for its conception. In white wines, some volatile compounds confer directly their aroma to the wine while the question of “key” compound is more complex in red wines. According to many studies performed over the past decades, some fruity ethyl esters are directly involved in the fruity perception of red wines while others, present at subthreshold concentrations, participate indirectly to the fruity expression via perceptive interactions [2].
4-Ethylphenol (EP) in wine is associated with organoleptic defects such as barn and horse sweat odors. The origin of EP is the bioconversion reaction of p-coumaric acid (CA), naturally present in grapes and grape musts by contaminating yeasts of the genus Brettanomyces bruxellensis.
Yeast cell walls (YCW) have shown adsorption capacities for different compounds. They could be applied to wines in order to adsorb either CA and/or EP and thus reduce the organoleptic defects caused by the contaminating yeasts.
According to winemakers, wine experts and sommeliers, aromas of wet stone, mineral, struck match and flint in white wines styles, such as those produced from Vitis vinifera L. cv. Chardonnay, are considered to be hallmarks of positive reduction.1,2 In recent years, the production of Chardonnay styles defined by aroma characteristics related to positive reduction has become more desirable among wine experts and consumers. The chemical basis of positive reduction is thought to originate from the concentration of specific volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs), including methanethiol (MeSH) imparting mineral and chalk notes,3 and benzenemethanethiol (BMT) responsible for struck match and flint.1,4
The chemical profile and sensory attributes were studied in Borrigiano IGT Toscana wine (Italy), a blend of Sangiovese 85% and Cabernet Sauvignon 15% grapes harvested in September 2020, where 2-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)ethanol (hydroxytyrosol, HT, [1]) was added to a 750-ml wine bottle in 3 different amounts (30, 60, 120 mg) and compared with the control (no HT addition). The study aimed to evaluate whether Polyphenol-HT1®, a high purity HT (>99%) produced by Nova Mentis using biotechnology, could be used as a supplement to sulfites and how it would impact the sensory and chemical profile of this wine [2]. Each sample was prepared in triplicate.
Young white wines are typically released to the market a few months after harvest, to be consumed within a year, when their fresh fruity aromas are still dominant and appealing to modern consumers. Esters, particularly higher alcohol acetates (HAAs) and ethyl esters of fatty acids (EEFAs), play a central role in the fruity expression of young white wines [1]. However, these esters are known to undergo significant hydrolysis during the first months of aging [1, 2].
Hydroxytyrosol (HT) is a phenolic compound with extensive bioactive properties. It is present in olives, olive oil and wines. Its occurrence in wines is partly due to yeast synthetise tyrosol from tyrosine by the Ehrlich pathway, which is subsequently hydroxylated to .
The aim of the present work is to study how different yeast strains can influence in the HT production and, how the different nitrogen consumption of each strain can interfere the production of bioactive compounds.
All along the red winemaking process, many microorganisms develop in wine, some being beneficial and essential, others being feared spoilers. One of the most feared microbial enemy of wine all around the world is Brettanomyces bruxellensis. Indeed, in red wines, this yeast produces volatile phenols, molecules associated with a flavor described as “horse sweat”, “burnt plastic” or “leather”. To produce significant and detectable concentrations of these undesired molecules, the yeasts should first grow and become numerous enough. Even if the genetic group of the strain present and the cellar temperature may modulate the yeast growth rate¹ and thus the risk of spoilage, the main factor seems to be the wines themselves, some being much more permissive to B. bruxellensis development than others.
Red wine ageing is an important step in the red wine evolution and impacts its chemical and sensory characteristics through many chemicals and physico-chemical reactions. The kinetics of these evolutions depend on the wine studied and influence the wine ageing potential. Generally, high quality red wines require a longer period of bottle ageing before consumption¹. The ageing potential is an impor-tant parameter for wine quality and is related to the capacity of a wine to undergo oxidation over time². Phenolic compounds which are ones of the main substrates for oxidation can then potentially modulate ageing potential³.
The evolution of wine during bottle ageing has been of great interest to ensure consistent quality over time. While the role of wine closures on the amount of oxygen is well-known [1], closures could also play other roles such as the scalping phenomenon of flavour compounds. Flavour scalping has been described as the sorption of flavour compounds by the packaging material, which could result in losses of flavour intensity. It has been reported in the literature that volatile sulphur compounds (VSC) can be scalped on wine closures depending on the type of closure (traditional and agglomerated cork, screw-cap, synthetic [2]).
Barrel fermentation and barrel-ageing of wine are commonly utilised practices in premium wine production. The wine aroma compounds related to barrel contact are varied and can enhance a range of wine aromas and flavours, such as ‘struck flint’, ‘caramel’, ‘red berry’, ‘toasty’ and ‘nutty’, as well as conventional oaky characters such as ‘vanilla’, ‘spice’, ‘smoky’ and ‘coconut’. A survey of commercially produced premium Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir and Chardonnay wines was conducted, assessing the prevalence of compounds that have been proposed as barrel-ageing markers¹ including oak lactones, volatile phenols, furanones, aldehydes, thiazoles2,3, phenylmethanethiol⁴ and 2-furylmethanethiol.⁵
In 2020, 12% of all bottled German wines were aromatized, which may increase further due to rising popularity of dealcoholized wines. As sealing polymers of a bottling line absorb aroma compounds and may release them into regular wines in the next filling¹, this unintentional carry-over bears the risk to violate the legal ban of any aromatization of regular wine. However, following EU legislation, German food control authorities accept a technical unavoidable transfer of aroma compounds, if this is of no sensory significance.
Wine polysaccharides (PS) play an important role in balancing mouthfeel and stability of wine and even influence aroma volatility. Despite this, there is limited research into the effect of winemaking additives on the polysaccharide profile and other macromolecules of New Zealand (NZ) Pinot noir wine. In this study the influence of a selection of commercial S. cerevisiae strains on the chemical profile, including polysaccharides, of New Zealand Pinot noir (PN) wine was investigated. Research scale PN fermentations using five strains of commercially available S. cerevisiae (Lalvin EC1118 and RC212, Levuline BRG YSEO, Viallate Ferm R71 and R82) were undertaken. PS were qualified and quantified using HPLC-RID.
It is a well-established fact that premature oxidation is noxious for wine aromatic quality and longevity. Although some oxidation-related aroma molecules have been previously identified, there are not works carrying out systematic research about the changes in the profiles of odour-active volatiles during wine oxidation.
Smoke impact in wines is caused by a wide range of volatile phenols found in wildfire smoke. These compounds are absorbed and accumulate in berries, where they may also become glycosylated. Both volatile and glycosylated forms eventually end up in wine where they can cause off-flavors, described as “smoky”, “bacon”, “campfire” and “ashtray”, often long-lasting and lingering on the palate. In cases of large wildfire events, economic losses for all wine industry actors can be devastating.