The impact of smoke exposure on different grape varieties Renata Ristic and Kerry Wilkinson
Flavours Colour Tannins TA ph Anthocyanins
SMOKE TAINT MAGIC BOX OF KNOWLEDGE What Grape to do varieties in a winery?????? Compounds??? What to do in a vineyard???
Volatile phenols associated with smoke taint Volatile phenol Aroma descriptors Thresholds (µg/l) Guaiacol* Smoky, phenolish, sharp, sweet, burnt rubber 1 4-Methyl guaiacol* Smoky, toasted, ashy, sweet 21 4-Ethyl guaiacol Smoky, sweet, spicy, clove-like 25 4-Ethyl phenol Smoky, horsy, medicinal,, barnyard, ashy 13 4-Vinyl guaiacol Smoky, woody -fire 4 Syringol Smoky, phenol, spicy 5 4-Methyl syringol Smoky, ashy, medicinal 1 Cresols (o-, p-, m-) Smoky, ashy 2-68??? Smoky, ashy
Vineyard stories: Grape varieties Berry maturity Defoliation
Would defoliation make any difference? Leaf removal pre smoke Leaf removal post smoke Control (no leaf removal, no smoke) Smoke (no leaf removal) Leaf removal (no smoke)
control leaf removal Experimental Treatments smoke LR pre-smoke LR post-smoke Glycoconjugates (µg/l) 2 ± 1 c 47 ± 1 c 384 ± 53 ab 496 ± 42 a 365 ± 39 b Guaiacol (µg/l) nd nd 2.3 ±.3 b 3.3 ±.9 a 2. ±.6 b Woody aftertaste Ashy aftertaste Acidity Smoky Fruit aroma 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Fruit flavour Smoke Cold ash Earthy Burnt rubber control leaf removal smoke LR pre-smoke LR post-smoke Defoliation prior to smoke exposure gave wines with intense smoky, ashy and burnt rubber characters. This practice also significantly decreased the perception of fruit attributes. Defoliation after smoke treatment reduced the intensity of cold ash and ashy aftertaste attributes compared with other smoke treatments. Fruit characters were perceived to be as high as in the defoliation treatment (no smoke) indicating that enhancement of fruit characters by defoliation could partially mask theperception of smoky characters.
Which grape variety is the most sensitive to smoke?
White varieties: Sauvignon Blanc Chardonnay Pinot Gris Red varieties: Shiraz Cabernet Sauvignon Merlot Pinot Noir Vineyards located in Adelaide and in the Adelaide Hills
Viticultural parameters: Canopy architecture Sunlight intensity (% PAR) Leaf area Mineral composition Pruning weight Yield Y/PW Bunch number & weight No of berries/bunch Bunch architecture Chemical analysis TSS ph Wine colour density Wine hue Anthocyanins* Phenolics* Brown pigments** Volatile phenols Plant response Stomatal conductance Water potential NIR Sensory assessment Intensity of smoke related attributes Intensity of fruit aroma and flavour
Concentration of volatile phenols Treatment Total soluble solids ( o Brix) Total glycoconjugates in berries (µg/kg) Total glycoconjugates in wines (µg/l) Guaiacol (µg/l) 4-methyl guaiacol (µg/l) Total cresols (µg/l) Syringol (µg/l) Shiraz C 26.7 ± 1. 62 ± 42 334 ± 5 9. ±.58 nd 3.3 ±.3 8.3 ±.3 Shiraz S 24.3 ±.1 1978 ± 199 148 ± 151 26. ± 2. 2. ±. 9.7 ±.7 9.7 ±.7 Cab Sav C 23. ±.4 49 ± 3 39 ± 6 1.7 ±.3 nd 4.7 ±.3 7.3±.3 Cab Sav S 23. ±.1 662 ± 24 396 ± 78 2. ± 4.4 tr 17. ± 2.7 1.3 ±.3 Merlot C 22.7 ±.4 81 ± 7 54 ± 6 1.7 ±.3 nd 1.3 ±.3 5.3±.3 Merlot S 23. ±.1 2452 ± 162 894 ± 61 17. ±.6 3. ±. 12.3 ±.3 8.7 ±.3 Pinot Noir C 19.6 ±.4 56 ± 13 19 ± 1 nd nd 1. ±. 2. ±. Pinot Noir S 17.9 ±.2 253 ± 64 111 ± 17 6. ± 1. tr 8. ± 1. 3.3 ±.3 Chardonnay C 19.9 ±.2 65 ± 4 9 ± 1 nd nd nd nd Chardonnay S 19.7 ±.1 73 ± 136 213 ± 32 1. ±.6 nd tr tr Sav Blanc C 2.3 ± 1.6 37 ± 4 1 ± 2 nd nd nd nd Sav Blanc S 23.6 ± 2.7 175 ± 338 18 ± 37 1.7 ±.3 nd tr 1.3 ±.7 Pinot Gris C 2.3 ±.8 45 ± 2 8 ± 1 nd nd nd nd Pinot Gris S 21. ±.4 55 ± 183 36 ± 66 9.7 ±.9 tr 8.3 ± 1.2 2.3 ±.3
gs gs gs gs (mmol m -2 s -1 ) gs gs gs Recovery of stomatal conductance Cabernet Sauvignon 1 8 6 4 2 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days after smoking Pinot Gris 1 8 6 4 2 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days after smoking Pinot Noir 1 8 6 4 2 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days after smoking Sauvignon Blanc 1 8 6 4 2 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days after smoking Merlot 1 8 6 4 2 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days after smoking Chardonnay 1 8 6 4 2 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days after smoking 1 8 6 4 2 Shiraz 3 6 9 12 15 18 Days after smoking
Concentration of volatile phenols Treatment Total soluble solids ( o Brix) Total glycoconjugates in berries (µg/kg) Total glycoconjugates in wines (µg/l) Guaiacol (µg/l) 4-methyl guaiacol (µg/l) Total cresols (µg/l) Syringol (µg/l) Shiraz C 26.7 ± 1. 62 ± 42 334 ± 5 9. ±.58 nd 3.3 ±.3 8.3 ±.3 Shiraz S 24.3 ±.1 1978 ± 199 148 ± 151 26. ± 2. 2. ±. 9.7 ±.7 9.7 ±.7 3 x 5 x 3 x 3 x 1 x Cab Sav C 23. ±.4 49 ± 3 39 ± 6 1.7 ±.3 nd 4.7 ±.3 7.3±.3 Cab Sav S 23. ±.1 662 ± 24 396 ± 78 2. ± 4.4 tr 17. ± 2.7 1.3 ±.3 14 x 1 x 12 x 4 x 1 x Merlot C 22.7 ±.4 81 ± 7 54 ± 6 1.7 ±.3 nd 1.3 ±.3 5.3±.3 Merlot S 23. ±.1 2452 ± 162 894 ± 61 17. ±.6 3. ±. 12.3 ±.3 8.7 ±.3 3 x 17 x 1 x 9 x 2 x Pinot Noir C 19.6 ±.4 56 ± 13 19 ± 1 nd nd 1. ±. 2. ±. Pinot Noir S 17.9 ±.2 253 ± 64 111 ± 17 6. ± 1. tr 8. ± 1. 3.3 ±.3 5 x 6 x 6 x 8 x 2 x Chardonnay C 19.9 ±.2 65 ± 4 9 ± 1 nd nd nd nd Chardonnay S 19.7 ±.1 73 ± 136 213 ± 32 1. ±.6 nd tr tr 11 x 24 x 1 x Sav Blanc C 2.3 ± 1.6 37 ± 4 1 ± 2 nd nd nd nd Sav Blanc S 23.6 ± 2.7 175 ± 338 18 ± 37 1.7 ±.3 nd tr 1.3 ±.7 29 x 18 2 x 1 x Pinot Gris C 2.3 ±.8 45 ± 2 8 ± 1 nd nd nd nd Pinot Gris S 21. ±.4 55 ± 183 36 ± 66 9.7 ±.9 tr 8.3 ± 1.2 2.3 ±.3 12 x 38 x 1 x 8 x 2 x
PCA of wines made from smoke exposed and control grapes
Any maturity effect?
Harvest A berry maturity for sparkling wines Harvest B full berry maturity Effects on plant physiology Sauvignon Blanc Shiraz Chardonnay Merlot
Bitter* Drying** CHARDONNAY Acidity*** Fruit aroma * 1 8 6 4 2 Smoke aroma*** Cold ash*** Earthy Bitter*** Drying SAUVIGNON BLANC Acidity*** Fruit aroma*** 12 1 8 6 4 2 Smoke aroma*** Cold ash*** Earthy Metallic Woody Metallic Woody Medicinal** Medicinal Medicinal Medicinal Woody AT* Fruit flavour Woody AT** Fruit flavour* Ashy AT*** Smoky*** Ashy AT*** Smoky*** Chard A control Chard A smoke Chard B control Chard B smoke MERLOT Sav Blanc A control Sav Blanc A smoke Sav Blanc B control Sav Blanc B smoke SHIRAZ Drying** Acidity Fruit aroma *** 1 8 6 Smoke aroma*** Cold ash*** Drying*** Acidity* Fruit aroma 1 8 6 Smoke aroma*** Cold ash*** Bitter Metallic 4 2 Earthy Woody*** Bitter*** Metallic* 4 2 Earthy Woody* Medicinal* Medicinal Medicinal Medicinal Woody AT** Ashy AT*** Smoky*** Fruit flavour*** Woody AT* Ashy AT*** Smoky*** Fruit flavour*** Merlot A control Merlot A smoke Merlot B control Merlot B smoke Shiraz A control Shiraz A smoke Shiraz B control Shiraz B smoke
FLAVOUR COMPOUNDS AFFECTED BY SMOKE EXPOSURE Chard SavB Merlot Shiraz A B A B A B A B C S C S C S C S C S C S C S C S Guaiacol nd 2.7 nd 2. nd 4. nd 2.7 tr 2.7a 1.b 18.a 7.7c 22.b 1.7c 28.3a 4-methyl guaiacol nd tr nd tr nd 1.a nd nd nd 6.3a nd 5.3a nd 3.3a nd 3.a Syringol nd 4.7a nd 2.b nd 6.a nd 2.7b 2.c 14.7a 2.7c 9.3b 4.7b 8.3a 6.3b 9.3a Methyl syringol nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd 2.7a nd 2.7a nd tr nd nd Total cresols nd nd nd nd nd 6.3 nd nd tr 4.3a tr 5.a 2.c 3.7b 2.7c 6.a Acetic acid, 2-methylpropyl ester.25d.29c.36b.44a.6d.1c.25b.33a.16a.17a.1b.9b nd nd nd nd Acetic acid 2-phenylethyl ester.13.2.28.24.15c.26c.97b 1.16a.2.2.3.3.4.5.6.4 Acetic acid methyl ester.....1c.1c.2b.2a.b.b.1a.1a.1b.1b.2a.2a Butanedoic acid diethyl ester.2.22.18.3.54b.75b 2.32a 2.42a.41b.48b 1.7a 1.4a 1.43b 1.55b 2.99a 2.83a Butanedoic acid, 2-methyl, ethyl ester.2b.2b.4a.3ab.7c.7c.8b.1a.4b.5b.8a.1a.18b.19b.33a.24ab Butanoic acid ethyl ester.32.27.34.3.94b.98b 1.81a 1.75a.12b.13b.17a.17a.33b.32b.54a.15c Butanoic acid 2-methyl ethyl ester.4b.5b.5b.14a.94b.74b 1.1ab 1.43a.37.33.44.49 1.15b 1.37b 1.77a 1.96a Butanoic acid 3-methyl ethyl ester.25b.29b.36a.44a.78c.79c 1.b 1.16a.77c.74c 1.9b 1.59a 1.1b 1.34b 2.19a 2.13b Butanoic acid, 2-methyl, ethyl ester.2bc.2c.4a.3b.7c.7c.8b.1a.4b.5b.8a.1a.18b.19b.33b.24ab Butanol 3-methyl acetate (isoamyl acetate).86b.8b 1.39a 1.62a 8.5d 12.5c 33.39b 4.28a.3a.67b.93a.67b 4.67a 3.87b 4.85a 4.37b Benzeneacetic ethyl ester.7.2.4.3.5.6.7.7.3c.5bc.6ab.12a.12c.12c.26a.2b 3-hexen-1-ol acetate (E).3b.5a.2b.3ab.14b.32a.7b.4b tr tr tr tr.3.2.1.1 3-hexen-1-ol acetate (Z).4b.4b.6a.c.6c.19bc.21b.37a tr tr tr tr.1.1 nd.1 Ethyl acetate.25b.29ab.36ab.44a.49b.65b 1.99a 2.17a.22b.21b.32a.31a.77b.69b 1.17a 1.12a Ethyl 9-decenoate.25a.25a.2a.b.9a.7ab.2c.4bc.3b.4b.8a.5ab nd nd nd nd Hexanoic acid ethyl ester 7.76 7.6 8.1 5.67.4c.5bc.7ab.9a 2.27b 2.61b 3.65a 2.51b 43.7 41.8 4. 42.2 Hexanoic acid methyl ester.3a.3ab.2b.2b.14a.11ab.7bc.5c.1.1.1.1.4.4.4.5 Nonanoic acid ethyl ester.6a.6a.5a.1b.9c.13bc.21ab.28a.3b.3b.7a.6a.13a.7b.15a.14a Octanoic acid, ethyl ester 2.4 21.4 22.8 19.2 2.6b 24.2b 41.2a 4.a 3.6b 4.1b 7.3a 6.1a 8.9b 8.9b 11.4a 1.1ab Decanoic acid methyl ester.12.15.8.22.19c.23bc.31ab.37a.1....2.3.4.3 Propyl octanoate.2.2.2.3.3c.7b.7b.15a nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd Butrolactone.1.1.1.1.2b.1b.6a.6a.1b.2b.5a.4a.4b.4b.8a.6ab Hexanoic acid 1.5 1.2 1.2.8 4.1a 3.6a 3.3ab 2.5b.28.32.36.33.32b.34b.67a.5ab Octanoic acid 4.4 3.9 3.9 3.3 14.1 13.7 14.3 13.2.4.46.56.46.54a.56ab.24bc.18c Decanoic acid 2.6 2. 2. 1.4 6.8 7.3 6.3 5.6 2.8 3.1 3.6 4.2.2.2.1.1 3-hexen-1-ol (E).1.2.1.1.2b.7a.4b.5b.8ab.9a.6c.7b.33a.19b.14b.5c 3-hexen-1-ol (Z).1.1.2.1.15a.14a.2b.2b.6b.6a.3c.3c.11b.15a.7c.7c Phenylethyl alcohol 2.6 3.4 6.6 3.7 4.2b 5.2b 12.5a 12.6a 4.4c 5.bc 6.4ab 7.3a 14.6b 16.b 24.1a 2.6a Isoamyl alcohol 3.6b 3.6b 7.8a 4.4b 8.8d 1.4c 16.8b 18.a 4.6b 4.7b 6.6a 6.2a 15.4 16.9 18.4 18.6 1-nonanol..2.2.2.2.3.2.3.2.6b.7b.1a.11a.12c.17b.2a.21a 2-nonanol.3b.3b.5a.5a nd nd nd nd.2b.2b.3a.3a nd nd nd nd
PC 2 bitter fruit flavour total alcohol fruit aroma total esters Sav Blanc B control Shiraz B control Shiraz B smoke drying total acids Sav Blanc B smoke Shiraz A smoke woody AT Merlot B control Chard B control metallic guaiacol Shiraz A control Merlot A control medicinal total cresols syringol Chard A control smoky Chard B smoke Merlot B smoke ashy Chard A smoke 4-methyl guaiacol PC 1 Sav Blanc A control acidity Sav Blanc A smoke methyl syringol Merlot A smoke
The effect of smoke exposure on different grape varieties: Variability in plant response Variability in smoke uptake The effect of berry maturity differs
Acknowledgements: Kerry Pinchbeck and Anthea Fudge, University of Adelaide CSIRO, AWRI, DPI Victoria, Curtin University, DAFWA Louisa Rose, Yalumba Wine Company Lallemand, Australia, Laffort, Australia, Provisor, Memstar Staff and students from the University of Adelaide and the Australian Wine Research Institute for participation in sensory trials This research was supported by: the Australian Research Council through a Linkage Project grant with funding from four Australian wine industry partners; and the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation. THANK YOU!