The impact of dosage sugar-type and aging on Maillard reaction-associated products in traditional method sparkling wines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liqueur d’expedition (dosage) is a final sugar addition made to sparkling wine which determines the sweetness and balance of the finished product. In the present study, the influence of dosage sugar composition on Maillard reaction-associated products and precursors in traditional method (bottle-fermented) sparkling wines was evaluated over 18-months of storage in climate-controlled cellar conditions (14 °C, 70 % relative humidity). Evaluated dosage sugar-types included glucose, fructose, cane-derived sucrose, beet-derived sucrose, maltose, and Must Concentrate Rectified (MCR) Sucraisin®, which were compared to a zero dosage (no sugar added) control. Maillard reaction-associated products were quantified by headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled to gas-chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC/MS), and precursors including sugars and amino acids, were measured by enzymatic assay and proton (1H) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, respectively. Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was used to effectively discriminate between wines based on aging duration but did not adequately separate wines treated with different dosage sugar-types. Decreases in alanine and glycine were observed after 18-months of cellar aging, suggesting that Maillard reaction product formation may be partially related to their depletion. Benzaldehyde and ethyl-3-mercaptopropionate were identified as discriminatory Maillard reaction-associated compounds when comparing 0- and 18-month aged wines, with benzaldehyde increasing and ethyl-3-mercaptopropionate decreasing over the aging period. This research contributes to an increased understanding of Maillard reaction pathways in the unique low-temperature and low pH sparkling wine matrix and establishes the relatively greater effect of aging duration compared to dosage sugar-type on the formation of Maillard reaction-associated products. The combined application of HS-SPME-GC/MS and 1H NMR based metabolomics presents new insights into the chemical composition of sparkling wines during aging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".