4.5 Article

Interactions of phenolic and volatile compounds with yeast lees, commercial yeast derivatives and non toasted chips in model solutions and young red wines

期刊

EUROPEAN FOOD RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 234, 期 2, 页码 231-244

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00217-011-1633-3

关键词

Lees; Commercial yeast derivatives; Chips; Phenolic and volatile compounds; Model wine solution; Red wine

资金

  1. 'Instituto Nacional de Investigacion y Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria' (INIA) [RTA2006-071]
  2. INIA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ageing of wines on lees, the use of commercial yeast derivative products and the addition of oak chips to wine permit the release of different compounds such as mannoproteins and polysaccharides into wines during yeast autolysis. These compounds released can interact with phenolic compounds and/or aromatic compounds, also modifying wine sensory perception. For that reason, the aim of this work was to evaluate the interaction of phenolic and volatile compounds of wines with yeast lees, non-toasted oak wood chips and different commercial yeast derivative preparations in model wine solutions and in a real red wine. The results found in this study have shown that most of the phenolic and volatile compounds studied are adsorbed by wood and bound by lees in model wine solutions. However, in the model wines in general, the commercial yeast derivative products studied only interacted with the volatile compounds but not with the phenolic compounds. The adsorption of the phenolic compounds occurred in the first 15 days of treatment, remaining constant for 2 months; however, in the case of volatile compounds, these compounds initially displayed a retention effect, but after 30-60 days, the release of the previously bound compounds was instigated. The adsorption effect on the phenolic and volatile compounds in the model wine solution was not always the same as in the red wine studied, which highlights the important presence of other wine compounds in these interactions.

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

4.5
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