Rapid analytical methods for early detection of smoke taint in grape juice

Summary

Objective

This project seeks to develop analytical capabilities that enable industry to quickly detect and quantify smoke exposure in grapes and wine - aiming to develop low cost, rapid diagnostics for smoke taint testing, that allow targeted recovery of unaffected grapes and improved management (or alternate uses) of smoke-affected grapes. In addition to recovered yields, provision of rapid screening methods as alternatives to conventional GC-MS and LC-MS/MS analyses will permit testing within the time constraints of harvest. The project is associated with preliminary (unpublished) trials by the University of Adelaide and the Australian Wine Research Institute.

Background

Despite significant progress towards understanding the physiological, chemical and sensory consequences of grapevine smoke exposure, (1) smoke taint remains a threat to the long-term economic viability of winemakers (worldwide). In Australia, ~4% of the 2020 harvest (worth ~$40 million) was lost to smoke taint, while the Californian wine industry suffered ~$400 million in property, crop and wine losses (2).

Volatile phenols have been identified as chemical markers of smoke taint, and glycosylation of phenols in grapevine leaves and fruit reported as a biochemical response to smoke exposure, (3, 4) leading to the development of novel analytical methods for quantitation of volatile phenol glycosides (5) 

Sector benefits

The research aligns with Strategy 4 ‘Grow Sustainable Environments’ of Wine Australia’s 2020-2025 Strategic Plan and addresses the need for ‘early warning systems’ by developing rapid methods for detecting the presence and severity of smoke taint. Rapid testing will permit targeted recovery of unaffected grapes and better management (or alternate uses) of smoke-affected grapes, affording significant financial benefit.

References

1. Ristic et al (2016) Theo Exp Plant Physio 28:6783.
2. Walpole (2020) https://www.tafco.com.au/farmsmart/r-d/143-bushfire-2020.html
3. Hayasaka et al (2010a) Anal Chim Acta 660:143148.
4. Hayasaka et al (2010b) J Agric Food Chem 58:1098910998.
5. Hayasaka et al (2013) J Agric Food Chem 61:25–33.