Musty Taints Anita Oberholster Introduction: Musty Taints • What off-odours are classified as musty taints? – Fungal, earthy, moldy, corky, mushroom or straight musty • What causes musty taints? – Haloanisoles (TCA, TCB) – Alkylmethoxypyrazine (MDMP) – Carbon unsaturated aliphatic compounds with carbonyl function (1-octen-3-one, 1nonen-3-one) – (-)-Geosmin Musty Taint: Cork Taint • Cork taint caused by aroma intense compounds in the cork transferring to the wine • Economic loss, estimates 1-5% of bottles effected • Main contributor is 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA) • Responsible for 80-85% of cork taint • Many times only compound analysed TCA • TCA taints sometimes from other sources than corks – Contaminated processing aids – Oak barrels – Wineries with high background of these compounds – Bottels • Bottle to bottle variation indicate cork taint Sefton and Simpson, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 226-240. TCA • ‘Musty’, ‘mouldy’, ‘wet cardboard’ character • Generally detection threshold given as 1.4-4.6 ng/L • Threshold varies substantially among individuals – 1 –250 ng/L (white wine) experienced panellists, group threshold 17 ng/L – 2.5 –250 000 ng/L (white wine) inexperienced panellists, group threshold 210 ng/L – 1-2 ng/L experienced judges • TCA chemically stable, will not degrade over time Sefton and Simpson, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 226-240. Other Chloroanisoles • Frequently detected with TCA: – 2,4-dichloroanisole (2,4-DCA) – 2,6-dichloroanisole (2,6-DCA) – 2,3,4,6-tetrachloroanisole (TeCA) – Pentachloroanisole (PCA) • TCA always most important contributor 2,4-DCA 2,6-DCA TeCA PCA Origin of Chloroanisoles • Origin of chloroanisoles in cork – Already present in bark of living cork trees • 2,4,6-trichlorophenols (TCP) produced from naturallyoccuring phenols and chlorine from sanitizers, cleaning products and town water • Chlorine-bleaching treatments of cork, now mostly discontinued • Chlorophenol biocides accumulated in environment • Microorganisms capable of methylation are present in cork, form TCA from TCP – Decline of TCA in corks • Suggest depletion of source of contamination Sefton and Simpson, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 226-240. Simpson and Sefton, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2007, 13, 106-116. Origin of Chloroanisoles • Co-occurence of TCA with other chlorinecompounds – If co-contaminants contain fewer chlorine-atoms – indicate sources as town water, sanitizers or bleaching agents – If co-contaminants contain higher number of chlorine-atoms indicate PCP or TeCP-based biocides – Presence of both indicate multiple TCA-producing pathways Simpson and Sefton, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2007, 13, 106-116. Transmission from Cork to Wine • Transmission depend on several factors: – Solubility of taint compound in wine – Affinity of taint compound for cork surface and interior – Location of taint compound on cork – Rates of taint compound migration through cork – Volume of wine in contact with closure • Only TCA have been studied in detail – All discussion - according to TCA findings Sefton and Simpson, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 226-240. Transmission from Cork to Wine • TCA – high affinity for cork – Corks soaked in contaminated wine will absorb TCA – Only small amount of TCA in cork extracted into wine • TCA can contaminate outside of cork closures, but does not migrate through cork • Contamination only from part of cork in contact or close proximity to wine • Formation of TCA in situ have been suggested – Experiments show no conversion of TCP to TCA in bottle (Liacopoulos et al., 1999) Capone et al., Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2002, 8, 196-199. Sefton and Simpson, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 226-240. Screening for Chloroanisoles • Screening method usually based on sensory assessments of wine soaks or corks in damp environment – Advantage – low cost, detect both known an unknown taints – Disadvantage – variation in performance of assessors – Low sensitivity and corks soaked in batches – Soaked few hrs to 2 days in mostly aqueous alcohol • Instrumental analysis of TCA – Identify specific taints as well precursors Sefton and Simpson, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 226-240. Screening for Chloroanisoles • No screening method reflects accurately level of taint in bottle – Whole surface of cork is extracted in cork soaks – Short soaking periods means only ‘rapidly released’ TCA measured – Batches soaked, if one cork contaminated the average could be below detection limit • However, these measurements still help predict bottle taint Sefton and Simpson, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 226-240. Screening for Chloroanisoles • TCA contaminated corks detected (1%), much lower than incidence of cork taint observed (5%) – Underestimation during cork assessment – Short duration of extraction (24-48 hrs) – Presence of usually 5 corks per soak and small vol of wine • Despite limitation of methods, badly contaminated corks will be detected Sefton and Simpson, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 226-240. Removal of Chloroanisoles • TCA diminished by aeration – Accelerated by high moisture content and heat • Steam-cleaning removes 75-80% of rapidly releasable TCA – Bottle trials show good results • Supercritical carbon dioxide extraction – AWRI found no TCA transfer to wine after 2 years using these closures • Other techniques designed to diminish TCA – Microwave treatment – Enzymes – Use of physical barriers Tribromoanisole (TBA) • 2,4,6-Tribromoanisole (TBA) identified in tainted wine • ‘Musty or corked’ character • Detection threshold of 4 ng/L • Produced by microbial breakdown (Omethylation) of precursor 2,4,6-tribromophenol (TBP) TBA Chatonnet et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 1255-1262. Sources of TBA • Similar to TCA, plastic material in general readily absorb TBA and to lesser extent TBP • Polyethylene- or polyester-based winemaking equipment, silicon bungs etc. contaminated • Wineries with TBA problems – Wooden timbers massively impregnated with TBP – Some paints also contained TBP • TBP used as flame retardant or/and fungicide Chatonnet et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 1255-1262. In summary TCA/TBA • Both TCA and TBA have low detection threshold • Distinctive ‘musty and/or corky’ character • Screening methods useful in prediction of bottle taint although not absolute • Effective methods available to remove contaminants from cork • Incidence decreasing as sources of contamination depletes Musty Taints: Alkylmethoxypyrazines 2-Methoxy-3,5-dimethyl-pyrazine (MDMP) • ‘Wet cork’ or ‘corky’ character, ‘fresh hazelnut’ or ‘herbaceous’ character and ‘moldy’ or ‘earthy’ character at high concentrations • Detection threshold of 2.1 ng/L • Measured in affected wines, 1.4 – 3.5 ng/L Chatonnet et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 12481-12490. Simpson et al., Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 5425-5430. Formation of MDMP • Several microorganisms able to synthesize MDMP – Serratia odorifera , C. crocatus, and R. excellensis • Biosynthesize from amino acids not well-known – The alanine amide condenses with methylglyoxal (pyruvaldehyde) to form 2-hydroxy-3,5—DMP, which after methylation produces MDMP • L-alaine and L-leucine responsible for highest conc of MDMP – Lesser extent L-valine and phenylalanine Chatonnet et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 12481-12490. Source of Contamination • Corks – Cutting punches used for cork cylinders possible source of taint – Opposite to TCA, it has low affinity for corks and easily extracts into wine – High contamination levels, 86% corks tested > 2ng/L – Corks < 5 ng/L, (34.9 %) minimal risk – Batches with 5.1-15.0 ng/L, medium risk (51.2 %) – Batches with > 15.1 ng/L , extreme risk (16.3%) Chatonnet et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 12481-12490. Simpson et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 5425-5430. Source of Contamination • Oak – Found wine contaminated with MDMP, in vats with oak chips, none found in same wine without oak chips – Wood used for industrial wood chips stored on ground, possible source of MDMP – Microorganisms found in soil that produce MDMP – MDMP destroyed by heat, 220 °C remove 93% – Untoasted and lightly toasted oak may contain MDMP – Heat at 105 °C for 10 min only removes 50% of MDMP Chatonnet et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 12481-12490. In summary MDMP • R. excellensis microorganism primarily responsible for MDMP in cork • Both cork and oak are sources of contamination • Decontamination techniques – Similar to TCA removal – Lower affinity for cork, higher removal • MDMP > 10 ng/L in 40% of corks • Systematic monitoring needed similar to TCA • Origin of microorganism – Likely storage of raw material near soil Other Musty Taint Compounds • Three compounds detected in cork taint wines other than haloanisoles or MDMP – Geosmin (‘earthy’ character) • Detection threshold 25 ng/L – 2-Methylisoborneol (‘earthy/musty’ character) • Detection threshold 30 ng/L – 1-Octen-3-one (‘mushroom’ character) • Detection threshold 20 ng/L La Guerche et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 9193-9200. Pons et al., J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 3264-3272. Sefton and Simpson, Austr. J. Grape Wine Res. 2005, 11, 226-240. Concluding remarks • Primary cause of musty taints • TCA and TBA • MDMP • Contributor to musty taints • 1-Octen-3-one • 1-Methylisoborneol (possibly degrades) • Geosmin (possibly degrades) • Small contributor to musty taints • 2,4-DCA, 2,6-DCA, TeCA, PCA Contact details • Anita Oberholster – – – – – RMI North, room 3146 aoberholster@ucdavis.edu Tel: (530) 754-4866 http://wineserver.ucdavis.edu http://enologyaccess.org