4.7 Article

Impact of Bottle Aging on Smoke-Tainted Wines from Different Grape Cultivars

Journal

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 65, Issue 20, Pages 4146-4152

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b01233

Keywords

acid hydrolysis; bottle aging; cultivars; guaiacol glycoconjugates; smoke taint; volatile phenols; wine

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council Training Centre for Innovative Wine Production [IC130100005]
  2. Australian Government
  3. Wine Australia [GWR Ph1403]
  4. Australian grapegrowers and winemakers through their investment body

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Smoke taint is the term given to the objectionable smoky, medicinal, and ashy characters that can be exhibited in wines following vineyard exposure to bushfire smoke. This study sought to investigate the stability of smoke taint by determining changes in the composition and sensory properties of wines following 5 to 6 years of bottle aging. Small increases in guaiacol and 4-methylguaiacol (of up to 6 mu g/L) were observed after bottle aging of smoke-affected red and white wines, while syringol increased by as much as 29 mu g/L. However, increased volatile phenol levels were also observed in control red wines, which indicated that changes in the composition of smoke-affected wines were due to acid hydrolysis of conjugate forms of both naturally occurring and smoke-derived volatile phenols. Acid hydrolysis of smoke-affected wines (post-bottle aging) released additional quantities of volatile phenols, which demonstrated the relative stability of glycoconjugate precursors to the mildly acidic conditions of wine. Bottle aging affected the sensory profiles of smoke-affected wines in different ways. Diminished fruit aroma and flavor led to the intensification of smoke taint in some wines, but smoke-related sensory attributes became less apparent in smoke-affected Shiraz wines, post-bottle aging.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available