Molecules

Research

Jump to: Review

16 pages, 1314 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Evaluation of Spinning Cone Column Distillation as a Strategy for Remediation of Smoke Taint in Juice and Wine

by Carolyn Puglisi, Renata Ristic, Jamie Saint and Kerry Wilkinson

Molecules 2022, 27(22), 8096; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27228096 - 21 Nov 2022

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 5184

Abstract

Where vineyard exposure to bushfire smoke cannot be avoided or prevented, grape and wine producers need strategies to transform smoke-affected juice and wine into saleable product. This study evaluated the potential for spinning cone column (SCC) distillation to be used for the remediation [...] Read more.

Where vineyard exposure to bushfire smoke cannot be avoided or prevented, grape and wine producers need strategies to transform smoke-affected juice and wine into saleable product. This study evaluated the potential for spinning cone column (SCC) distillation to be used for the remediation of ‘smoke taint’. Compositional analysis of ‘stripped wine’ and condensate collected during SCC treatment of two smoke-tainted red wines indicated limited, if any, removal of volatile phenols, while their non-volatile glycoconjugates were concentrated due to water and ethanol removal. Together with the removal of desirable volatile aroma compounds, this enhanced the perception of smoke-related sensory attributes; i.e., smoke taint intensified. Stripped wines also became increasingly sour and salty as ethanol (and water) were progressively removed. A preliminary juice remediation trial yielded more promising results. While clarification, heating, evaporation, deionization and fermentation processes applied to smoke-tainted white juice gave ≤3 µg/L changes in volatile phenol concentrations, SCC distillation of smoke-tainted red juice increased the volatile phenol content of condensate (in some cases by 3- to 4-fold). Deionization of the resulting condensate removed 75 µg/L of volatile phenols, but fermentation of reconstituted juice increased volatile phenol concentrations again, presumably due to yeast metabolism of glycoconjugate precursors. Research findings suggest SCC distillation alone cannot remediate smoke taint, but used in combination with adsorbents, SCC may offer a novel remediation strategy, especially for tainted juice. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1292 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Correlating Sensory Assessment of Smoke-Tainted Wines with Inter-Laboratory Study Consensus Values for Volatile Phenols

by James W. Favell, Kerry L. Wilkinson, Ieva Zigg, Sarah M. Lyons, Renata Ristic, Carolyn J. Puglisi, Eric Wilkes, Randell Taylor, Duane Kelly, Greg Howell, Marianne McKay, Lucky Mokwena, Tim Plozza, Pei Zhang, AnhDuyen Bui, Ian Porter, Orrin Frederick, Jasha Karasek, Colleen Szeto, Bruce S. Pan, Steve Tallman, Beth Anne McClure, Hui Feng, Eric Hervé, Anita Oberholster, Wesley F. Zandberg and Matthew Noestheden Show full author list Hide full author list

Molecules 2022, 27(15), 4892; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27154892 - 30 Jul 2022

Cited by 11 | Viewed by 3077

Abstract

Vineyard exposure to wildfire smoke can taint grapes and wine. To understand the impact of this taint, it is imperative that the analytical methods used are accurate and precise. This study compared the variance across nine commercial and research laboratories following quantitative analysis [...] Read more.

Vineyard exposure to wildfire smoke can taint grapes and wine. To understand the impact of this taint, it is imperative that the analytical methods used are accurate and precise. This study compared the variance across nine commercial and research laboratories following quantitative analysis of the same set of smoke-tainted wines. In parallel, correlations between the interlaboratory consensus values for smoke-taint markers and sensory analyses of the same smoke-tainted wines were evaluated. For free guaiacol, the mean accuracy was 94 ± 11% in model wine, while the free cresols and 4-methylguaiacol showed a negative bias and/or decreased precision relative to guaiacol. Similar trends were observed in smoke-tainted wines, with the cresols and glycosidically bound markers demonstrating high variance. Collectively, the interlaboratory results show that data from a single laboratory can be used quantitatively to understand smoke-taint. Results from different laboratories, however, should not be directly compared due to the high variance between study participants. Correlations between consensus compositional data and sensory evaluations suggest the risk of perceivable smoke-taint can be predicted from free cresol concentrations, overcoming limitations associated with the occurrence of some volatile phenols, guaiacol in particular, as natural constituents of some grape cultivars and of the oak used for barrel maturation. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 1201 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Investigation of Different Winemaking Protocols to Mitigate Smoke Taint Character in Wine

by Anita Oberholster, Yan Wen, Sandra Dominguez Suarez, Jesse Erdmann, Raul Cauduro Girardello, Arran Rumbaugh, Bishnu Neupane, Charles Brenneman, Annegret Cantu and Hildegarde Heymann

Molecules 2022, 27(5), 1732; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27051732 - 7 Mar 2022

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 3344

Abstract

There is an increase in the levels of volatile phenols in wine made with smoke-impacted grapes. These compounds are present in wood smoke resulting from the pyrolysis (thermal decomposition) of lignin and at high levels give overpowering smoky and ashy characters to a [...] Read more.

There is an increase in the levels of volatile phenols in wine made with smoke-impacted grapes. These compounds are present in wood smoke resulting from the pyrolysis (thermal decomposition) of lignin and at high levels give overpowering smoky and ashy characters to a wine. This research aimed to compare all the suggested wine mitigation strategies that evolved from prior research using smoke-impacted grapes under identical winemaking conditions except for the parameter under investigation. Cabernet Sauvignon grapes were received from three areas with varying amounts of smoke exposure in Northern California. Gas chromatography combined with mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and descriptive analyses were performed to correlate the volatile phenol composition to smoke taint characteristics. The winemaking variables investigated were the use of different fermentation yeasts, oak additions, and fermentation temperatures. Among other attributes, smokiness and ashy aftertaste were significantly different among the wines, showing a clear difference between the wines made from smoke-impacted fruit and the control wines made from non-impacted fruit. Findings indicate that mitigation strategies during red wine fermentation have a limited impact on the extraction of smoke-taint markers and the expression of smoke-taint sensory characteristics. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 642 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Thinking Inside the Box: A Novel Approach to Smoke Taint Mitigation Trials

by Colleen Szeto, Renata Ristic and Kerry Wilkinson

Molecules 2022, 27(5), 1667; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27051667 - 3 Mar 2022

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2108

Abstract

When bushfires occur near wine regions, grapevine exposure to smoke can taint grapes due to the uptake of smoke-derived volatile compounds that can subsequently impart unpleasant smoky, medicinal, burnt rubber and ashy characters to wine. Whereas early research sought to understand the effects [...] Read more.

When bushfires occur near wine regions, grapevine exposure to smoke can taint grapes due to the uptake of smoke-derived volatile compounds that can subsequently impart unpleasant smoky, medicinal, burnt rubber and ashy characters to wine. Whereas early research sought to understand the effects of smoke on grapevine physiology, and grape and wine chemistry, research efforts have shifted towards the strategic imperative for effective mitigation strategies. This study evaluated the extent to which excised grape bunches could be reproducibly tainted during smoke exposure in a purpose-built ‘smoke box’. The volatile phenol composition of grapes exposed to smoke for 30 min was similar to that of smoke-affected grapes from field trials involving grapevine exposure to smoke. Some variation was observed between replicate smoke treatments, but implementing appropriate controls and experimental replication enabled the smoke box to be used to successfully evaluate the efficacy of several agrochemical sprays and protective coverings as methods for mitigating the smoke exposure of grapes. Whereas the agrochemical sprays did not provide effective protection from smoke, enclosing grape bunches in activated carbon fabric prevented the uptake of up to 98% of the smoke-derived volatile phenols observed in smoke-affected grapes. As such, the study demonstrated not only a convenient, efficient approach to smoke taint research that overcomes the constraints associated with vineyard-based field trials, but also a promising new strategy for preventing smoke taint. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

16 pages, 1189 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Evaluating the Potential for Smoke from Stubble Burning to Taint Grapes and Wine

by Kerry Wilkinson, Renata Ristic, Imogen McNamara, Beth Loveys, WenWen Jiang and Mark Krstic

Molecules 2021, 26(24), 7540; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26247540 - 13 Dec 2021

Cited by 7 | Viewed by 2609

Abstract

It has been well established that bushfire/wildfire smoke can taint grapes (and therefore wine), depending on the timing and duration of exposure, but the risk of smoke contamination from stubble burning (a practice employed by some grain growers to prepare farmland for sowing) [...] Read more.

It has been well established that bushfire/wildfire smoke can taint grapes (and therefore wine), depending on the timing and duration of exposure, but the risk of smoke contamination from stubble burning (a practice employed by some grain growers to prepare farmland for sowing) has not yet been established. This study exposed excised bunches of grapes to smoke from combustion of barley straw and pea stubble windrows to investigate the potential for stubble burning to elicit smoke taint. Increased levels of volatile phenols (i.e., chemical markers of smoke taint) were detected in grapes exposed to barley straw smoke (relative to control grapes), with smoke density and the duration of smoke exposure influencing grape volatile phenols. However, the sensory panel did not perceive wine made from grapes exposed to low-density smoke to be tainted, despite the presence of low levels of syringol providing compositional evidence of smoke exposure. During the pea stubble burn, grapes positioned amongst the burning windrows or on the edge of the pea paddock were exposed to smoke for ~15–20 and 30–45 min, respectively, but this only resulted in 1 µg/kg differences in the cresol and/or syringol concentrations of smoke-affected grapes (and 1 µg/L differences for wine), relative to controls. A small, but significant increase in the intensity of smoke aroma and burnt rubber flavor of wine made from the grapes positioned amongst the burning pea stubble windrows provided the only sensory evidence of any smoke taint. As such, had vineyards been located immediately downwind from the pea stubble burn, it is unlikely that there would have been any smoke contamination of unharvested grapes. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
Environmental conditions before, during and after exposure of excised bunches of Shiraz grapes to barley straw smoke (i.e., −30 to 0, 0 to 300 and 300 to 330 min, respectively): (a) wind and gust speed, and temperature; and (b) particulate matter (PM) concentrations. Full article ">Figure 2
Concentrations of (a) guaiacol, (b) 4-methylguaiacol, (c) cresols and (d) syringol in control (C) and smoke-affected (S) Shiraz grapes (µg/kg) sampled at hourly time points (i.e., t = 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 h) and wines (µg/L, denoted by an asterisk). Data are the means of three replicates ± standard error (where available). Different letters indicate statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05, one-way ANOVA) amongst grape and wine samples; nd = not detected. Full article ">Figure 3
Sensory profiles of control and smoke-affected Shiraz wines; A = aroma, F = flavor, and AT = aftertaste. Data are the mean intensity ratings for one blended wine per treatment, presented to 62 panelists; ratings for all attributes were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05, two-way ANOVA). Full article ">Figure 4
Environmental conditions before, during (shaded) and after pea stubble burn: (a) wind and gust speed, and air temperature, measured amongst the stubble windrows; and particulate matter (PM) concentrations, measured (b) amongst stubble windrows in a pea field, (c) on the edge of the pea field (downwind) and (d) in an adjacent field (approximately 500 m downwind). Full article ">Figure 4 Cont.
Environmental conditions before, during (shaded) and after pea stubble burn: (a) wind and gust speed, and air temperature, measured amongst the stubble windrows; and particulate matter (PM) concentrations, measured (b) amongst stubble windrows in a pea field, (c) on the edge of the pea field (downwind) and (d) in an adjacent field (approximately 500 m downwind). Full article ">Figure 5
Sensory profiles of control and smoke-affected Cabernet Sauvignon wines; A = aroma, F = flavor, AT = aftertaste. Data are the mean intensity ratings for one blended wine per treatment, presented to 52 panelists; ratings for starred attributes were statistically significant (*** = p ≤ 0.05; ** = p ≤ 0.01; two-way ANOVA). Full article ">

9 pages, 503 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Smoked-Derived Volatile Phenol Analysis in Wine by Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction-Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry

by Ruiwen Yang, Armando Alcazar-Magana, Yanping L. Qian and Michael C. Qian

Molecules 2021, 26(18), 5613; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26185613 - 16 Sep 2021

Cited by 5 | Viewed by 2594

Abstract

Smoke-derived taint has become a significant concern for the U.S. wine industry, particularly on the west coast, and climate change is anticipated to aggravate it. High volatile phenols such as guaiacol, 4-methylguaiacol, 4-ethylguaiacol, 4-ethylphenol, and o-, p-, m-cresols have been [...] Read more.

Smoke-derived taint has become a significant concern for the U.S. wine industry, particularly on the west coast, and climate change is anticipated to aggravate it. High volatile phenols such as guaiacol, 4-methylguaiacol, 4-ethylguaiacol, 4-ethylphenol, and o-, p-, m-cresols have been suggested to be related to smoke-exposed grape and wine. This paper describes an analytical approach based on ethylene glycol/polydimethylsiloxane (EG/PDMS)-stir bar sorptive extraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (SBSE-GC-MS) to quantify or estimate the concentrations of some smoke-related volatile phenols in wines. Correlation coefficients with R² ≥ 0.990 were obtained. This method can quantify most smoked-related volatile phenols down to 0.5 μg/L in wine in selective ion monitoring mode. Recovery for the targeted volatile phenols ranged from 72.2% to 142.4% in the smoke-tainted wine matrix, except for 4-vinylguaiacol. The standard deviations of the volatile phenols were from 0 to 23% in smoke-tainted wine. The approach provides another tool to evaluate wine smoke exposure and potential smoke taint. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 3264 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Evaluation of Different Interstimulus Rinse Protocols on Smoke Attribute Perception in Wildfire-Affected Wines

by Jenna A. Fryer, Thomas S. Collins and Elizabeth Tomasino

Molecules 2021, 26(18), 5444; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26185444 - 7 Sep 2021

Cited by 16 | Viewed by 2423

Abstract

Wildfires produce smoke that can carry organic compounds to a vineyard, which are then absorbed by the grape berry and result in wines with elevated levels of smoke-related phenols. These phenols have been found to have a large impact on the flavor of [...] Read more.

Wildfires produce smoke that can carry organic compounds to a vineyard, which are then absorbed by the grape berry and result in wines with elevated levels of smoke-related phenols. These phenols have been found to have a large impact on the flavor of wines, being the cause of a smokey flavor with a lasting ashy aftertaste. When evaluating the sensory profile of these wines, there is an observed problem due to the lasting nature of these undesirable attributes and potential flavor carryover between samples. Through the use of standard and temporal attribute check-all-that-apply, this research desires to better understand the impact of smoke on the sensorial profiles of wines with various levels of smoke phenols (high, moderate, and low). Additionally, through the employment of different interstimulus protocols, the effectiveness of rinses on diminishing the smoke flavor in wines and optimal time separation were investigated. It was determined that a 1 g/L pectin rinse in between samples with a 120 s separation is optimal to ensure the removal of smoke attribute perception. This work also indicated the need to look deeper at the effects of the in-mouth hydrolysis of glyconjugate phenols that impact overall smoke flavor. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
Temporality of TCATA attributes based on the proportion of overall citations in 1 s intervals over 180 s for the high smoke phenol wine. Full article ">Figure 2
Separation of high smoke phenol (blue), moderate smoke phenol (orange), and low smoke phenol (grey) wines in 30 s intervals based on DA for each rinse system: (A) water, (B) pectin, and (C) mouthwash. Ellipses represent a 95% confidence interval, around the means. Full article ">Figure 3
Separation of water (blue), pectin (orange), and mouthwash (grey) rinses in 30 s intervals using DA for each wine; (A) high smoke phenol, (B) moderate smoke phenol, (C) low smoke phenol. Ellipses represent a 95% confidence interval around the means. Full article ">Figure 4
Average intensity over all wines and times for water (blue), pectin (orange), and mouthwash (grey). The same letters above bars indicate no statistical difference within each attribute as determined by Tukey HSD comparison of means at a 95% confidence level. Error bars represents standard error of the means. Full article ">Figure 5
Separation of high smoke phenol (blue), moderate smoke phenol (orange), and low smoke phenol (grey) wines at each position within a set at 0 s based on DA from smoke-related attributes for each rinse system: (A) water, (B) pectin, and (C) mouthwash. Ellipses represent a 95% confidence interval, around the means. Full article ">Figure 6
Separation of high smoke phenol (blue), moderate smoke phenol (orange), and low smoke phenol (grey) wines based on preceding sample (low smoke sample—L, moderate smoke sample—M, low smoke sample—L, and no sample—N) within a set at 0 s based on DA from smoke-related attributes for each rinse system: (A) water, (B) pectin, and (C) mouthwash. Ellipses represent a 95% confidence interval, around the means. Full article ">Figure 7
Flowchart of the fixed-time-point evaluation procedure employed in study 3. Full article ">

13 pages, 955 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Glycosylation of Volatile Phenols in Grapes following Pre-Harvest (On-Vine) vs. Post-Harvest (Off-Vine) Exposure to Smoke

by Julie A. Culbert, WenWen Jiang, Renata Ristic, Carolyn J. Puglisi, Elizabeth C. Nixon, Hongmei Shi and Kerry L. Wilkinson

Molecules 2021, 26(17), 5277; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26175277 - 31 Aug 2021

Cited by 9 | Viewed by 2436

Abstract

Taint in grapes and wine following vineyard exposure to bushfire smoke continues to challenge the financial viability of grape and wine producers worldwide. In response, researchers are studying the chemical, sensory and physiological consequences of grapevine smoke exposure. However, studies involving winemaking trials [...] Read more.

Taint in grapes and wine following vineyard exposure to bushfire smoke continues to challenge the financial viability of grape and wine producers worldwide. In response, researchers are studying the chemical, sensory and physiological consequences of grapevine smoke exposure. However, studies involving winemaking trials are often limited by the availability of suitable quantities of smoke-affected grapes, either from vineyards exposed to smoke or from field trials involving the application of smoke to grapevines. This study compared the accumulation of volatile phenol glycosides (as compositional markers of smoke taint) in Viognier and Cabernet Sauvignon grapes exposed to smoke pre- vs. post-harvest, and found post-harvest smoke exposure of fruit gave similar levels of volatile phenol glycosides to fruit exposed to smoke pre-harvest. Furthermore, wines made from smoke-affected fruit contained similar levels of smoke-derived volatile phenols and their glycosides, irrespective of whether smoke exposure occurred pre- vs. post-harvest. Post-harvest smoke exposure therefore provides a valid approach to generating smoke-affected grapes in the quantities needed for winemaking trials and/or trials that employ both chemical and sensory analysis of wine. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 2521 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Development and Utilization of a Model System to Evaluate the Potential of Surface Coatings for Protecting Grapes from Volatile Phenols Implicated in Smoke Taint

by Julie A. Culbert, Mark P. Krstic and Markus J. Herderich

Molecules 2021, 26(17), 5197; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26175197 - 27 Aug 2021

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 2268

Abstract

Due to the increasing frequency of wildfires in recent years, there is a strong need for developing mitigation strategies to manage the impact of smoke exposure of vines and occurrence of ‘smoke taint’ in wine. One plausible approach would be to prevent or [...] Read more.

Due to the increasing frequency of wildfires in recent years, there is a strong need for developing mitigation strategies to manage the impact of smoke exposure of vines and occurrence of ‘smoke taint’ in wine. One plausible approach would be to prevent or inhibit the uptake of volatile phenols from smoke into grape berries in the vineyard. In this study we describe a model system we developed for evaluating under controlled conditions the effectiveness of a range of surface coatings (including existing horticultural sprays) for reducing/preventing the uptake of volatile phenols and their subsequent conversion to phenolic glycosides. Grapes were coated with the materials to be tested and then exposed to gaseous phenols, via evaporation from an aqueous solution, in a semi-closed glass container. Analysis of volatile phenols and their glycosidic grape metabolites demonstrated that the treatments typically did not provide any significant protection; in fact, some resulted in higher concentrations of these compounds in the grapes. The highest concentrations of volatile phenols and their glycosides were observed after application of oily, hydrophobic materials, suggesting that these materials may enhance the adsorption or transfer of volatile phenols into grape berries. Therefore, it is important to consider the types of sprays that are being applied in the vineyard before and during smoke events to prevent the potential of exacerbating the uptake of smoke compounds by grape berries. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
Muscat Gordo grape bunches after being treated with Biopest® (left), Surround®WP (middle), and titanium dioxide in Raynox® (right). Full article ">Figure 2
Concentrations of (a) total volatile phenols (n = 7) and (b) total phenolic glycosides (n = 15), contained in Muscat Gordo grape homogenates after grapes had been treated with surface coatings and then exposed to volatile phenols. Con = control; BioP = Biopest®; Carb = carbon (applied in Raynox®); Dec = Deccoshield; EcoP = Ecoprotector®; FDO = fruit drying oil; PP = Parka Plus; PT = Peratec; Ray = Raynox®; SO = silicone oil; Surr = Surround®WP; TD = titanium dioxide (applied in Raynox®). Different letters between treatments (annotated above the standard error bars) indicate statistical significance (p = 0.05, Tukey HSD means comparison test from one-way ANOVA). Full article ">Figure 3
Concentrations of (a) total volatile phenols (n = 7) and (b) total phenolic glycosides (n = 15), contained in Shiraz grape homogenates after grapes had been treated with surface coatings and then exposed to volatile phenols. Con = control; BioP = Biopest®; Carb = carbon (applied in Raynox®); Dec = Deccoshield®; EcoP = Ecoprotector®; FDO = fruit drying oil; PP = Parka Plus; PT = Peratec; Ray = Raynox®; SO = silicone oil; Surr = Surround®WP; TD = titanium dioxide (applied in Raynox®). Different letters between treatments (annotated above the standard error bars) indicate statistical significance (p = 0.05, Tukey HSD means comparison test from one-way ANOVA). Full article ">Figure 4
Concentrations of total volatile phenols plotted against total phenolic glycosides for (a) Muscat Gordo (Experiment 1) and (b) Shiraz grape homogenates after grapes had been treated with surface coatings and then exposed to volatile phenols. Note: Results for the carbon treatment were removed for Shiraz grapes since residual carbon interfered with the volatile phenol analysis. Full article ">Figure 5
Principal component analysis for averaged individual phenolic glycosides data based on percentage to the control; black dot ( <img alt="Molecules 26 05197 i001" src="/molecules/molecules-26-05197/article_deploy/html/images/molecules-26-05197-i001.png"/>) = Muscat Gordo Experiment 1; blue dot ( <img alt="Molecules 26 05197 i002" src="/molecules/molecules-26-05197/article_deploy/html/images/molecules-26-05197-i002.png"/>) = Muscat Gordo Experiment 2; red dot ( <img alt="Molecules 26 05197 i003" src="/molecules/molecules-26-05197/article_deploy/html/images/molecules-26-05197-i003.png"/>) = Shiraz experiment; green dot ( <img alt="Molecules 26 05197 i004" src="/molecules/molecules-26-05197/article_deploy/html/images/molecules-26-05197-i004.png"/>) = Controls; Con = control; BioP = Biopest®; Carb = carbon; Dec = Deccoshield®; EcoP = Ecoprotector®; FDO = fruit drying oil; PP = Parka Plus; PT = peratec; Ray = Raynox®; SO = silicone oil; Surr = Surround®WP; TD = titanium dioxide. Full article ">

15 pages, 2514 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Assessment of Volatile Aromatic Compounds in Smoke Tainted Cabernet Sauvignon Wines Using a Low-Cost E-Nose and Machine Learning Modelling

by Vasiliki Summerson, Claudia Gonzalez Viejo, Alexis Pang, Damir D. Torrico and Sigfredo Fuentes

Molecules 2021, 26(16), 5108; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26165108 - 23 Aug 2021

Cited by 21 | Viewed by 3430

Abstract

Wine aroma is an important quality trait in wine, influenced by its volatile compounds. Many factors can affect the composition and levels (concentration) of volatile aromatic compounds, including the water status of grapevines, canopy management, and the effects of climate change, such as [...] Read more.

Wine aroma is an important quality trait in wine, influenced by its volatile compounds. Many factors can affect the composition and levels (concentration) of volatile aromatic compounds, including the water status of grapevines, canopy management, and the effects of climate change, such as increases in ambient temperature and drought. In this study, a low-cost and portable electronic nose (e-nose) was used to assess wines produced from grapevines exposed to different levels of smoke contamination. Readings from the e-nose were then used as inputs to develop two machine learning models based on artificial neural networks. Results showed that regression Model 1 displayed high accuracy in predicting the levels of volatile aromatic compounds in wine (R = 0.99). On the other hand, Model 2 also had high accuracy in predicting smoke aroma intensity from sensory evaluation (R = 0.97). Descriptive sensory analysis showed high levels of smoke taint aromas in the high-density smoke-exposed wine sample (HS), followed by the high-density smoke exposure with in-canopy misting treatment (HSM). Principal component analysis further showed that the HS treatment was associated with smoke aroma intensity, while results from the matrix showed significant negative correlations (p < 0.05) were observed between ammonia gas (sensor MQ137) and the volatile aromatic compounds octanoic acid, ethyl ester (r = −0.93), decanoic acid, ethyl ester (r = −0.94), and octanoic acid, 3-methylbutyl ester (r = −0.89). The two models developed in this study may offer winemakers a rapid, cost-effective, and non-destructive tool for assessing levels of volatile aromatic compounds and the aroma qualities of wine for decision making. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
Mean values of smoke aroma intensities as rated using a 15 cm intensity scale with the letters of significance from the ANOVA and Fisher least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test (p < 0.05; α = 0.05). Abbreviations: C = control, CM = control with in-canopy misting, HS = high-density smoke exposure, HSM = high-density smoke exposure with in-canopy misting, LS = low-density smoke exposure, SE = standard error. Full article ">Figure 2
Mean stacked values of the electronic nose depicting the letters of significance from the ANOVA and Fisher least significant difference (LSD) post hoc test (p < 0.05; α = 0.05). Abbreviations: C = control, CM = control with in-canopy misting, HS-high = density smoke exposure, HSM = high-density smoke exposure with in-canopy misting, LS = low-density smoke exposure. Full article ">Figure 3
Principal component analysis displaying the e-nose readings (blue), smoke aroma intensity (green) and volatile aromatic compounds (purple). Abbreviations: C = control, CM = control with in-canopy misting, HS = high-density smoke exposure, HSM = high-density smoke exposure with in-canopy misting, LS = low-density smoke exposure. Full article ">Figure 4
Matrix illustrating the significant (p < 0.05) correlations between the sensory parameters, e-nose readings, and volatile aroma compounds. Colour bar: the blue side depicts the positive correlations, while the yellow side depicts the negative correlations. Darker blue and yellow colours denote higher correlations. Full article ">Figure 5
Overall correlations of the two models to predict: (a) the levels of volatile aromatic compounds (Model 1) and (b) levels of smoke aroma intensities (Model 2). Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
Overall correlations of the two models to predict: (a) the levels of volatile aromatic compounds (Model 1) and (b) levels of smoke aroma intensities (Model 2). Full article ">Figure 6
Two-layer feedforward network for the artificial neural network models developed to predict: (a) the levels of volatile aromatic compounds present in wine (Model 1) and (b) smoke aroma intensity (Model 2). Abbreviations: W = weights, b = biases. Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
Two-layer feedforward network for the artificial neural network models developed to predict: (a) the levels of volatile aromatic compounds present in wine (Model 1) and (b) smoke aroma intensity (Model 2). Abbreviations: W = weights, b = biases. Full article ">

15 pages, 1842 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Glycosidically-Bound Volatile Phenols Linked to Smoke Taint: Stability during Fermentation with Different Yeasts and in Finished Wine

by Brandon A. Whitmore, Stephanie E. McCann, Matthew Noestheden, Eric G. Dennis, Sarah M. Lyons, Daniel M. Durall and Wesley F. Zandberg

Molecules 2021, 26(15), 4519; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26154519 - 27 Jul 2021

Cited by 6 | Viewed by 3074

Abstract

When wine grapes are exposed to smoke, there is a risk that the resulting wines may possess smoky, ashy, or burnt aromas, a wine flaw known as smoke taint. Smoke taint occurs when the volatile phenols (VPs) largely responsible for the aroma of [...] Read more.

When wine grapes are exposed to smoke, there is a risk that the resulting wines may possess smoky, ashy, or burnt aromas, a wine flaw known as smoke taint. Smoke taint occurs when the volatile phenols (VPs) largely responsible for the aroma of smoke are transformed in grape into a range of glycosides that are imperceptible by smell. The majority of VP-glycosides described to date are disaccharides possessing a reducing β-d-glucopyranosyl moiety. Here, a two-part experiment was performed to (1) assess the stability of 11 synthesized VP-glycosides towards general acid-catalyzed hydrolysis during aging, and (2) to examine whether yeast strains differed in their capacity to produce free VPs both from these model glycosides as well as from grapes that had been deliberately exposed to smoke. When fortified into both model and real wine matrices at 200 ng/g, all VP-disaccharides were stable over 12 weeks, while (42–50 ng/g) increases in free 4-ethylphenol and p-cresol were detected when these were added to wine as their monoglucosides. Guaiacol and phenol were the most abundantly produced VPs during fermentation, whether originating from natural VP-precursors in smoked-exposed Pinot Noir must, or due to fortification with synthetic VP-glycosides. Significant yeast strain-specific differences in glycolytic activities were observed for phenyl-β-d-glycopyranoside, with two strains (RC212 and BM45) being unable to hydrolyze this model VP, albeit both were active on the guaiacyl analogue. Thus, differences in Saccharomyces cerevisiae β-glucosidase activity appear to be influenced by the VP moiety. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
(a) Smoke-derived VPs are stored within ripening grape tissues as mono-β-d-glucosides (R = H) or a range of larger disaccharides (R = β-xylose, β-glycose, α-rhamnose, etc.), none of which possess the characteristic smoky odor of the free VPs. The hydrolysis of these VP-glycosides may be catalyzed either by the acidic pH of wine (i) or by the activity of yeast/bacterial glycosyl-hydrolases (ii), resulting in increased concentrations of free VPs during aging or primary fermentation, respectively. (b) Three VP-disaccharides (R = glucose (Glc) or xylose (Xyl)) and eight VP-mono-β-d-glucosides (R = H) were added to model and real wines to assess their stability towards hydrolysis; additionally, the same suite of model VP-glycosides was added to smoke-exposed grapes and matched controls to evaluate the ability of differing commercial yeast strains to affect their hydrolysis during primary fermentation. Full article ">Figure 2
Quantitation of free volatile phenols (VPs) from Cabernet Franc wine that had been fortified with 200 ng/g of VP-glucosides and stored under differing conditions for 12 weeks (top panel). Note that GG, GP, SG, and mono refer to guaiacol-gentiobioside, guaiacol-primeveroside, syringol-gentiobioside and VP-monoglucosides, respectively; cont. = control, i.e., unfortified samples. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean. Bars with black outlines (the lower panel) were calculated by determining the difference between free VP concentrations quantitated at week 12 and week 0; error bars for the difference in VP concentrations denote the sum of the errors in quadrature. Note the top and bottom panels have different y-axis scales. Full article ">Figure 3
Concentrations of volatile phenols (VPs) in wines produced by different yeast strains from smoke-exposed or control Pinot Noir grapes with and without fortification with VP-monoglucosides. All VP-monoglucosides were added to grape samples at a concentration of 200 ng/g. The lower, gray histograms depict the concentration of ethanol measured at the end of primary fermentation. Full article ">

17 pages, 3360 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Large-Scale Reassessment of In-Vineyard Smoke-Taint Grapevine Protection Strategies and the Development of Predictive Off-Vine Models

by James W. Favell, Osei B. Fordwour, Sydney C. Morgan, Ieva Zigg and Wesley F. Zandberg

Molecules 2021, 26(14), 4311; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26144311 - 16 Jul 2021

Cited by 8 | Viewed by 3217

Abstract

Smoke taint in wine is thought to be caused by smoke-derived volatile phenols (VPs) that are absorbed into grape tissues, trapped as conjugates that are imperceptible by smell, and subsequently released into wines as their free odor-active forms via metabolism by yeasts during [...] Read more.

Smoke taint in wine is thought to be caused by smoke-derived volatile phenols (VPs) that are absorbed into grape tissues, trapped as conjugates that are imperceptible by smell, and subsequently released into wines as their free odor-active forms via metabolism by yeasts during fermentation. Blocking VP uptake into grapes would, therefore, be an effective way for vineyards to protect ripening grape crops exposed to smoke. Here, we re-evaluated a biofilm that had previously shown promise in pilot studies in reducing levels of smoke-derived VPs. A suite of nine free and acid-labile VPs were quantitated in Pinot Noir grapes that had been exposed to smoke after being coated with the biofilm one, seven or 14 days earlier. In contrast with earlier studies, our results demonstrated that in all cases, the biofilm treatments led to increased concentrations of both free and total VPs in smoke-exposed grapes, with earlier applications elevating concentrations of some VPs more than the later time points. Tracking VP concentrations through the grape ripening process demonstrated that some (phenol, p/m-cresol, and guaiacol) were not entirely sequestered in grapes as acid-labile conjugates, suggesting the presence of VP storage forms beyond simple glycosides. Free VPs in grapes, though a minor portion of the total, most clearly correlated with concentrations present in the resulting wines. Finally, red table grapes, available year round, were observed to replicate the effects of the biofilm treatments and were capable of transforming most VPs into acid-labile conjugates in under 24 h, indicating that they might be an effective model for rapidly assessing smoke-taint prophylactic products in the laboratory. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
Commercial table grapes are an effective model for evaluating methods to prevent the accumulation of VPs due to smoke exposure. (a) Agro-spray treatments 16 h prior to smoke exposures increase the concentrations of VPs present in/on grapes processed and analyzed within one hour of smoke exposure for both untreated and biofilm-treated grapes, VPs could not be rinsed off with water. Histograms labelled with the H+ indicate that VPs were quantitated after acid hydrolysis. (b) Then 24 h after smoke exposure, both untreated and biofilm-treated table grapes had transformed significant quantities of free VPs into acid-labile conjugates, albeit (c) relative levels of free VPs were altered over this time period. (d) The difference between free and acid-labile VPs represents the fraction putatively glycosylated in-grape, illustrated here with phenol. (e) Differences in total (i.e., the sum of bound and free VPs) and free VPs 24 h post-smoke exposure indicate in-grape transformation; histograms depicting the difference in VP levels (Δ) are indicated with a black outline. Error bars for histograms indicate the standard error of the mean (SEM) for n = 3 replicate bunches of grapes except for (e), where they denote the quadrature-sum of the SEM. Full article ">Figure 2
Re-evaluation of the capacity for and duration of smoke-taint protection afforded by the biofilm spray when applied one, seven or 14 days before smoke exposure at a single vineyard (vineyard 1), as compared to a spray-free control. Both free and acid-labile (H+) VPs were quantitated by GC–MS/MS (a) immediately (i.e., within 1 h; T1) following smoke exposure, and (b) at commercial maturity (T2). (c) It was hypothesized that the difference (Δ) in VP levels between grapes that had been smoke exposed (S), and non-exposed (N) controls would be equivalent at T1 and T2—as illustrated here using guaiacol concentrations in the grapes treated with biofilm 1 day prior to smoke exposure (top panel)—since all grapes were otherwise subjected to identical growing conditions until harvest. The actual Δ(S-N) for samples at harvest (black outline; lower panel), however, indicates a rise in acid-labile VP conjugates. (d) Acid-labile conjugates of smoke-derived phenol, p/m-cresol, guaiacol, and 4-methylguaiacol all increased as berries ripened. All error bars represent the SEM of n = 4 replicates except in (d), where they denote the quadrature-sum of the SEM. Full article ">Figure 3
Inter-vineyard comparison of the effect of biofilm treatments on the accumulation of smoke taint-associated VPs or their conjugates in Pinot Noir grapes. Mean concentrations (n = 4 vines per condition) of both free and total (H+) VPs were determined in control or biofilm-treated Pinot Noir grapes (a) within 1 h of smoke exposure (T1) and (b) at harvest (T2); data are shown only for biofilm treatments occurring one day before smoke exposure. (c) Differences Δ(S-N) between the smoke-exposed (S) and non-treated (N) samples collected at each of three vineyards are depicted with histograms outlined with a black border. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean (a,b) or their sum in quadrature (c). Full article ">Figure 4
Fate of endogenous or smoke-derived, free and acid-labile VPs during the fermentation of Pinot Noir grapes subjected to differing biofilm treatments. The concentrations of both free and acid-labile (H+) VPs were quantitated by GC–MS in (a) Pinot Noir must/juice pooled from the biofilm study and (c) the resulting wines. Differences (Δ) in VP concentrations between the smoke-exposed (S) and non-treated (N) must (b,d) wine samples were determined and are depicted with histograms outlined with a black boarder. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean (a,c) or their sum in quadrature (b,d). (e) Pearson’s correlation coefficients between the concentrations of free or acid-labile VPs in the must/juice vs. the free, aroma-active forms in wines were calculated to deduce which must/juice measurement most closely correlated with the wines. Example linear regressions are only depicted for guaiacol and p/m-cresol. *, **, and *** indicate p < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.005, respectively. Full article ">

14 pages, 2077 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Compositional Changes in Grapes and Leaves as a Consequence of Smoke Exposure of Vineyards from Multiple Bushfires across a Ripening Season

by WenWen Jiang, Mango Parker, Yoji Hayasaka, Con Simos and Markus Herderich

Molecules 2021, 26(11), 3187; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26113187 - 26 May 2021

Cited by 13 | Viewed by 3253

Abstract

The negative effects of smoke exposure of grapes in vineyards that are close to harvest are well documented. Volatile phenols in smoke from forest and grass fires can contaminate berries and, upon uptake, are readily converted into a range of glycosylated grape metabolites. [...] Read more.

The negative effects of smoke exposure of grapes in vineyards that are close to harvest are well documented. Volatile phenols in smoke from forest and grass fires can contaminate berries and, upon uptake, are readily converted into a range of glycosylated grape metabolites. These phenolic glycosides and corresponding volatile phenols are extracted into the must and carried through the winemaking process, leading to wines with overtly smoky aromas and flavours. As a result, smoke exposure of grapes can cause significant quality defects in wine, and may render grapes and wine unfit for sale, with substantial negative economic impacts. Until now, however, very little has been known about the impact on grape composition of smoke exposure very early in the season, when grapes are small, hard and green, as occurred with many fires in the 2019–20 Australian grapegrowing season. This research summarises the compositional consequences of cumulative bushfire smoke exposure of grapes and leaves, it establishes detailed profiles of volatile phenols and phenolic glycosides in samples from six commercial Chardonnay and Shiraz blocks throughout berry ripening and examines the observed effects in the context of vineyard location and timing of smoke exposure. In addition, we demonstrate the potential of some phenolic glycosides in leaves to serve as additional biomarkers for smoke exposure of vineyards. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
Average particulate matter (PM10) concentrations measured by air quality measuring stations near Bulga (air station 1, solid line) and Singleton (air station 2, dashed line) with sampling time points T1 to T5 approximately marked on the time series. Full article ">Figure 2
Map [<a href="#B31-molecules-26-03187" class="html-bibr">31</a>] of Chardonnay and Shiraz vineyard blocks and air quality monitoring stations (air station 1 near Bulga; air station 2 near Singleton); red areas indicate the closest fire zones. CHA = Chardonnay; SHZ = Shiraz. Full article ">Figure 3
Principal components PC-1 and PC-2 scores and loadings biplot of phenolic glycosides in Chardonnay (CHA; triangles) and Shiraz (SHZ; circles) grape berries from all blocks sampled at five time points (T1: purple; T2: yellow; T3: blue; T4: green; T5: red). All values (ng/berry) are means of three field replicates (n = 3) and expressed as syringol gentiobioside equivalents per berry. Gu = guaiacol; Cr = cresol; Ph = phenol; Sy = syringol; MGu = 4-methylguaiacol; MSy = 4-methylsyringol; MG = monoglucosides; GG = gentiobiosides; PG = pentosylglucosides; RG = rutinoside. Full article ">Figure 4
(a) Concentrations of phenolic glycosides in Chardonnay leaves from all sites and in grapes from block C sampled at time points T1 (blue bars), T3 (orange bars) and T5 (grey bars). Values are means of three vineyard replicates (n = 3) expressed in µg/kg as syringol gentiobioside equivalents. Error bars denote ± standard error. Gu = guaiacol; Cr = cresol; Ph = phenol; Sy = syringol; MGu = 4-methylguaiacol; MSy = 4-methylsyringol; MG = monoglucosides; GG = gentiobiosides; PG = pentosylglucosides; RG = rutinoside. (b) Concentrations of phenolic glycosides in Shiraz leaves from all sites and in grapes from block C sampled at time points T1 (blue bars), T3 (orange bars) and T5 (grey bars). Values are means of three vineyard replicates (n = 3) expressed in µg/kg as syringol gentiobioside equivalents. Error bars denote ± standard error. Gu = guaiacol; Cr = cresol; Ph = phenol; Sy = syringol; MGu = 4-methylguaiacol; MSy = 4-methylsyringol; MG = monoglucosides; GG = gentiobiosides; PG = pentosylglucosides; RG = rutinoside. Full article ">Figure 4 Cont.
(a) Concentrations of phenolic glycosides in Chardonnay leaves from all sites and in grapes from block C sampled at time points T1 (blue bars), T3 (orange bars) and T5 (grey bars). Values are means of three vineyard replicates (n = 3) expressed in µg/kg as syringol gentiobioside equivalents. Error bars denote ± standard error. Gu = guaiacol; Cr = cresol; Ph = phenol; Sy = syringol; MGu = 4-methylguaiacol; MSy = 4-methylsyringol; MG = monoglucosides; GG = gentiobiosides; PG = pentosylglucosides; RG = rutinoside. (b) Concentrations of phenolic glycosides in Shiraz leaves from all sites and in grapes from block C sampled at time points T1 (blue bars), T3 (orange bars) and T5 (grey bars). Values are means of three vineyard replicates (n = 3) expressed in µg/kg as syringol gentiobioside equivalents. Error bars denote ± standard error. Gu = guaiacol; Cr = cresol; Ph = phenol; Sy = syringol; MGu = 4-methylguaiacol; MSy = 4-methylsyringol; MG = monoglucosides; GG = gentiobiosides; PG = pentosylglucosides; RG = rutinoside. Full article ">

17 pages, 1550 KiB

Open AccessArticle

Potential Mitigation of Smoke Taint in Wines by Post-Harvest Ozone Treatment of Grapes

by Margherita Modesti, Colleen Szeto, Renata Ristic, WenWen Jiang, Julie Culbert, Keren Bindon, Cesare Catelli, Fabio Mencarelli, Pietro Tonutti and Kerry Wilkinson

Molecules 2021, 26(6), 1798; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26061798 - 23 Mar 2021

Cited by 16 | Viewed by 4443

Abstract

When bushfires occur near grape growing regions, vineyards can be exposed to smoke, and depending on the timing and duration of grapevine smoke exposure, fruit can become tainted. Smoke-derived volatile compounds, including volatile phenols, can impart unpleasant smoky, ashy characters to wines made [...] Read more.

When bushfires occur near grape growing regions, vineyards can be exposed to smoke, and depending on the timing and duration of grapevine smoke exposure, fruit can become tainted. Smoke-derived volatile compounds, including volatile phenols, can impart unpleasant smoky, ashy characters to wines made from smoke-affected grapes, leading to substantial revenue losses where wines are perceivably tainted. This study investigated the potential for post-harvest ozone treatment of smoke-affected grapes to mitigate the intensity of smoke taint in wine. Merlot grapevines were exposed to smoke at ~7 days post-veraison and at harvest grapes were treated with 1 or 3 ppm of gaseous ozone (for 24 or 12 h, respectively), prior to winemaking. The concentrations of smoke taint marker compounds (i.e., free and glycosylated volatile phenols) were measured in grapes and wines to determine to what extent ozonation could mitigate the effects of grapevine exposure to smoke. The 24 h 1 ppm ozone treatment not only gave significantly lower volatile phenol and volatile phenol glycoside concentrations but also diminished the sensory perception of smoke taint in wine. Post-harvest smoke and ozone treatment of grapes suggests that ozone works more effectively when smoke-derived volatile phenols are in their free (aglycone) form, rather than glycosylated forms. Nevertheless, the collective results demonstrate the efficacy of post-harvest ozone treatment as a strategy for mitigation of smoke taint in wine. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
Sensory profiles of wines made from control and smoke-affected grapes, with and without post-harvest ozone treatment (at 1 ppm for 24 h or 3 ppm for 12 h); A = aroma; F = flavor; AT = aftertaste. Values are mean ratings of one blended wine per treatment, presented to 50 judges; * indicates statistical significance (p = 0.05, one-way ANOVA). Smoke exposure occurred at approximately 7 days post-veraison. Full article ">Figure 2
Concentrations (µg/L) of (a,b) guaiacol, (c,d) phenol and (e,f) syringol in smoke-affected grapes, with and without ozone treatment (at (a,c,e) 1 or (b,d,f) 3 ppm for 6, 12 or 24 h).Values are means of three replicates (n = 3). Different letters indicate statistical significance (p = 0.05, one-way ANOVA). Post-harvest smoke treatments were applied on consecutive days, but smoke density was lower on the second day of treatment due to increased wind. Full article ">Figure 3
Total tannin and anthocyanin concentrations (mg/g) in smoke-affected grapes, with and without post-harvest ozone treatment (at (a,b) 1 or (c,d) 3 ppm for 6, 12 or 24 h).Values are means of three replicates (n = 3). Different letters indicate statistical significance (p = 0.05, one-way ANOVA); ns = not significant. Post-harvest smoke treatments were applied on consecutive days, but smoke density was lower on the second day of treatment due to increased wind. Full article ">

Review

Jump to: Research

19 pages, 811 KiB

Open AccessFeature PaperReview

Techniques for Mitigating the Effects of Smoke Taint While Maintaining Quality in Wine Production: A Review

by Ysadora A. Mirabelli-Montan, Matteo Marangon, Antonio Graça, Christine M. Mayr Marangon and Kerry L. Wilkinson

Molecules 2021, 26(6), 1672; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26061672 - 17 Mar 2021

Cited by 24 | Viewed by 5515

Abstract

Smoke taint has become a prominent issue for the global wine industry as climate change continues to impact the length and extremity of fire seasons around the world. Although the issue has prompted a surge in research on the subject in recent years, [...] Read more.

Smoke taint has become a prominent issue for the global wine industry as climate change continues to impact the length and extremity of fire seasons around the world. Although the issue has prompted a surge in research on the subject in recent years, no singular solution has yet been identified that is capable of maintaining the quality of wine made from smoke-affected grapes. In this review, we summarize the main research on smoke taint, the key discoveries, as well as the prevailing uncertainties. We also examine methods for mitigating smoke taint in the vineyard, in the winery, and post production. We assess the effectiveness of remediation methods (proposed and actual) based on available research. Our findings are in agreement with previous studies, suggesting that the most viable remedies for smoke taint are still the commercially available activated carbon fining and reverse osmosis treatments, but that the quality of the final treated wines is fundamentally dependent on the initial severity of the taint. In this review, suggestions for future studies are introduced for improving our understanding of methods that have thus far only been preliminarily investigated. We select regions that have already been subjected to severe wildfires, and therefore subjected to smoke taint (particularly Australia and California) as a case study to inform other wine-producing countries that will likely be impacted in the future and suggest specific data collection and policy implementation actions that should be taken, even in countries that have not yet been impacted by smoke taint. Ultimately, we streamline the available information on the topic of smoke taint, apply it to a global perspective that considers the various stakeholders involved, and provide a launching point for further research on the topic. Full article

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine)

► Show Figures

Figure 1

Journal Menu

Journal Browser

Smoke Taint in Grapes and Wine

Share This Special Issue

Special Issue Editor

Special Issue Information

Keywords

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

Published Papers (15 papers)

Research

Review

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI