4.7 Review

Recent advances in postharvest technology of the wine grape to improve the wine aroma

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 100, 期 14, 页码 5046-5055

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.8910

关键词

wine grape; cooling; withering; dehydration; ozone; ethylene

资金

  1. ARSIAL (Agenzia Regionale per lo Sviluppo e l'Innovazione nel Lazio) Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Postharvest techniques are widely used for the handling and storage of fresh horticultural crops. Some of these techniques are interesting for use with wine grapes to improve the quality of wine. In this review, we consider the postharvest techniques that are already commercially used in the wine sector and others that may be significant in inducing or extracting the aroma from grapes to produce high-quality wines. Precooling consists of rapidly lowering the grape temperature, which allows the preservation/increase of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). We also discuss sustainability. Partial dehydration consists of the partial removal of water from grapes, and if a suitable environment is adopted it can be used to produce and extract berry VOCs. As a solid, carbon dioxide is used in wine processing for the rapid cooling of grapes and, as a gas, it is used for carbonic maceration. Ozone has been used for sanitation purposes in wineries for a long time, but more recently it has been used to produce wine without sulfite addition and to increase the aromatic quality of wine grapes. Ethylene application is not used commercially for wine grapes, but promising results in terms of phenolic extraction and aromatic changes in grapes are discussed. A comparison among the proposed techniques is reported in terms of grape aromatic quality and process features. The proposed techniques could help a winemaker to maintain or induce aromatic compounds in grape berries before the vinification process. The choice depends on the desired wine and economic consistency. (c) 2018 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据