Hubbry Logo
Wine faultWine faultMain
Open search
Wine fault
Community hub
Wine fault
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Wine fault
Wine fault
Wine fault
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A wine fault is a sensory-associated (organoleptic[1]) characteristic of a wine that is unpleasant, and may include elements of taste, smell, or appearance, elements that may arise from a "chemical or a microbial origin", where particular sensory experiences (e.g., an off-odor) might arise from more than one wine fault.[2] Wine faults may result from poor winemaking practices or storage conditions that lead to wine spoilage.[citation needed]

In the case of a chemical origin, many compounds causing wine faults are already naturally present in wine, but at insufficient concentrations to be of issue, and in fact may impart positive characters to the wine; however, when the concentration of such compounds exceed a sensory threshold, they replace or obscure desirable flavors and aromas that the winemaker wants the wine to express. The ultimate result is that the quality of the wine is reduced (less appealing, sometimes undrinkable), with consequent impact on its value.[3][verification needed]

There are many underlying causes of wine faults, including poor hygiene at the winery, excessive or insufficient exposure of the wine to oxygen, excessive or insufficient exposure of the wine to sulphur, overextended maceration of the wine either pre- or post-fermentation, faulty fining, filtering and stabilization of the wine, the use of dirty oak barrels, over-extended barrel aging and the use of poor quality corks. Outside of the winery, other factors within the control of the retailer or end user of the wine can contribute to the perception of flaws in the wine. These include poor storage of the wine that exposes it to excessive heat and temperature fluctuations as well as the use of dirty stemware during wine tasting that can introduce materials or aromas to what was previously a clean and fault-free wine.[3][verification needed][4][verification needed]

Differences between flaws and faults

[edit]

In wine tasting, there is a big distinction made between what is considered a flaw and a fault. Wine flaws are minor attributes that depart from what are perceived as normal wine characteristics. These include excessive sulfur dioxide, volatile acidity, Brettanomyces or "Brett aromas" and diacetyl or buttery aromas. The amount to which these aromas or attributes become excessive is dependent on the particular tastes and recognition threshold of the wine taster. Generally, a wine exhibiting these qualities is still considered drinkable by most people. However, some flaws such as volatile acidity and Brettanomyces can be considered a fault when they are in such an excess that they overwhelm other components of the wine. Wine faults are generally major attributes that make a wine undrinkable to most wine tasters. Examples of wine faults include acetaldehyde (except when purposely induced in wines like Sherry and Rancio), ethyl acetate and cork taint.[3]

Detecting faults in wine tasting

[edit]
Scientist using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) to measure the chemical volatile aroma profile of wine.

The vast majority of wine faults are detected by the nose and the distinctive aromas that they give off. However, the presence of some wine faults can be detected by visual and taste perceptions. For example, premature oxidation can be noticed by the yellowing and browning of the wine's color. The sign of gas bubbles in wines that are not meant to be sparkling can be a sign of refermentation or malolactic fermentation happening in the bottle. Unusual breaks in the color of the wine could be a sign of excessive copper, iron or proteins that were not removed during fining or filtering. A wine with an unusual color for its variety or wine region could be a sign of excessive or insufficient maceration as well as poor temperature controls during fermentation. Tactile clues of potential wine faults include the burning, acidic taste associated with volatile acidity that can make a wine seem out of balance.[3][4]

Wine fault Characteristics
Acetaldehyde Smell of roasted nuts or dried out straw. Often described as green apples and emulsion paint. Commonly associated with Sherries where these aromas are considered acceptable
Amyl-acetate Smell of "fake" candy banana flavoring
Brettanomyces Smell of barnyards, fecal and gamey horse aromas
Cork taint Smell of a damp basement, wet cardboard or newspapers and mushrooms
Butyric acid Smell of rancid butter
Ethyl acetate Smell of vinegar, paint thinner and nail polish remover
Hydrogen sulfide Smell of rotten eggs or garlic that has gone bad
Iodine Smell of moldy grapes
Lactic acid bacteria Smell of sauerkraut
Mercaptans Smell of burnt garlic or onion
Oxidation Smell of cooked fruit and walnuts. Also detectable visually by premature browning or yellowing of the wine
Sorbic acid plus lactic acid bacteria Smell of crushed geranium leaves
Sulfur dioxide Smell of burnt matches. Can also come across as a pricking sensation in the nose.

Oxidation

[edit]
See also: Premature oxidation

The oxidation of wine is perhaps the most common of wine faults, as the presence of oxygen and a catalyst are the only requirements for the process to occur. Oxidation can occur throughout the winemaking process, and even after the wine has been bottled. Anthocyanins, catechins, epicatechins and other phenols present in wine are those most easily oxidised,[5] which leads to a loss of colour, flavour and aroma - sometimes referred to as flattening. In most cases compounds such as sulfur dioxide or erythorbic acid are added to wine by winemakers, which protect the wine from oxidation and also bind with some of the oxidation products to reduce their organoleptic effect.[6] Apart from phenolic oxidation, the ethanol present within wine can also be oxidised into other compounds responsible for flavour and aroma taints. Some wine styles can be oxidised intentionally, as in certain Sherry wines and Vin jaune from the Jura region of France.

The oxidation of ethanol

Acetaldehyde

[edit]

Acetaldehyde is an intermediate product of yeast fermentation; however, it is more commonly associated with ethanol oxidation catalysed by the enzyme ethanol dehydrogenase. Acetaldehyde production is also associated with the presence of surface film forming yeasts and bacteria, such as acetic acid bacteria, which form the compound by the decarboxylation of pyruvate. The sensory threshold for acetaldehyde is 100–125 mg/L. Beyond this level it imparts a sherry type character to the wine which can also be described as green apple, sour and metallic. Acetaldehyde intoxication is also implicated in hangovers.

Acetic acid

[edit]

Acetic acid in wine, often referred to as volatile acidity (VA) or vinegar taint, can be contributed by many wine spoilage yeasts and bacteria. This can be from either a by-product of fermentation, or due to the spoilage of finished wine. Acetic acid bacteria, such as those from the genera Acetobacter and Gluconobacter produce high levels of acetic acid. The sensory threshold for acetic acid in wine is >700 mg/L, with concentrations greater than 1.2-1.3 g/L becoming unpleasant.

There are different opinions as to what level of volatile acidity is appropriate for higher quality wine. Although too high a concentration is sure to leave an undesirable, 'vinegar' tasting wine, some wine's acetic acid levels are developed to create a more 'complex', desirable taste.[7] The renowned 1947 Cheval Blanc is widely recognized to contain high levels of volatile acidity.

Ethyl acetate is formed in wine by the esterification of ethanol and acetic acid. Therefore, wines with high acetic acid levels are more likely to see ethyl acetate formation, but the compound does not contribute to the volatile acidity. It is a common microbial fault produced by wine spoilage yeasts, particularly Pichia anomala or Kloeckera apiculata. High levels of ethyl acetate are also produced by lactic acid bacteria and acetic acid bacteria.

Sulfur compounds

[edit]

Sulfur is used as an additive throughout the winemaking process, primarily to stop oxidation as mentioned above but also as antimicrobial agent. When managed properly in wine, its presence there is often undetected, however when used recklessly it can contribute to flavour and aroma taints which are very volatile and potent. Sulfur compounds typically have low sensory thresholds.

Sulfur dioxide

[edit]
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfur dioxide

Sulfur dioxide is a common wine additive, used for its antioxidant and preservative properties. When its use is not managed well it can be overadded, with its perception in wine reminiscent of matchsticks, burnt rubber, or mothballs. Wines such as these are often termed sulfitic.

Hydrogen sulfide

[edit]
Hydrogen sulfide
Hydrogen sulfide

Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) is generally thought to be a metabolic by-product of yeast fermentation in nitrogen limited environments. It is formed when yeast ferments via the sulfate reduction pathway. Fermenting wine is often supplemented with diammonium phosphate (DAP) as a nitrogen source to prevent H2S formation. The sensory threshold for hydrogen sulfide is 8-10 μg/L, with levels above this imparting a distinct rotten egg aroma to the wine. Hydrogen sulfide can further react with wine compounds to form mercaptans and disulfides.

Mercaptans

[edit]
ethyl mercaptan

Mercaptans (thiols) are produced in wine by the reaction of hydrogen sulfide with other wine components such as ethanol. They can be formed if finished wine is allowed prolonged contact with the lees. This can be prevented by racking the wine. Mercaptans have a very low sensory threshold, around 1.5 μg/L,[8] with levels above causing onion, rubber, and skunk type odours. Note that dimethyl disulfide is formed from the oxidation of methyl mercaptan.

Dimethyl sulfide

[edit]
Dimethyl sulfide
Dimethyl sulfide

Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) is naturally present in most wines, probably from the breakdown of sulfur containing amino acids. Like ethyl acetate, levels of DMS below the sensory threshold can have a positive effect on flavour, contributing to fruityness, fullness, and complexity. Levels above the sensory threshold of >30 μg/L in white wines and >50 μg/L for red wines, give the wine characteristics of cooked cabbage, canned corn, asparagus or truffles.

Environmental

[edit]

Cork taint

[edit]
2,4,6-trichloroanisole
Main article: Cork taint

Cork taint is a wine fault mostly attributed to the compound 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA), although other compounds such as guaiacol, geosmin, 2-methylisoborneol, 1-octen-3-ol, 1-octen-3-one, 2,3,4,6-tetrachloroanisole, pentachloroanisole, and 2,4,6-tribromoanisole are also thought to be involved.[9] TCA most likely originates as a metabolite of mould growth on chlorine-bleached wine corks and barrels. It causes earthy, mouldy, and musty aromas in wine that easily mask the natural fruit aromas, making the wine very unappealing. Wines in this state are often described as "corked". As cork taint has gained a wide reputation as a wine fault, other faults are often mistakenly attributed to it.

Heat damage

[edit]

Heat damaged wines are often casually referred to as cooked, which suggests how heat can affect a wine. They are also known as maderized wine, from Madeira wine, which is intentionally exposed to heat. The ideal storage temperature for wine is generally accepted to be 13 °C (55 °F). Wines that are stored at temperatures greatly higher than this will experience an increased aging rate. Wines exposed to extreme temperatures will thermally expand, and may even push up between the cork and bottle and leak from the top. When opening a bottle of wine, if a trace of wine is visible along the length of the cork, the cork is partially pushed out of the bottle, or wine is visible on the top of the cork while it is still in the bottle, it has most likely been heat damaged. Heat damaged wines often become oxidized, and red wines may take on a brick color.

Even if the temperatures do not reach extremes, temperature variation alone can also damage bottled wine through oxidation. All corks allow some leakage of air (hence old wines become increasingly oxidized), and temperature fluctuations will vary the pressure differential between the inside and outside of the bottle and will act to "pump" air into the bottle at a faster rate than will occur at any temperature strictly maintained.

Reputedly, heat damage is the most widespread and common problem found in wines. It often goes unnoticed because of the prevalence of the problem, consumers don't know it's possible, and most often would just chalk the problem up to poor quality, or other factors.

Lightstrike

[edit]

Lightstruck wines are those that have had excessive exposure to ultraviolet light, particularly in the range 325 to 450 nm.[10] Very delicate wines, such as Champagnes, are generally worst affected, with the fault causing a wet cardboard or wet wool type flavour and aroma. Red wines rarely become lightstruck because of the phenolic compounds present within the wine that protect it. Lightstrike is thought to be caused by sulfur compounds such as dimethyl sulfide. In France lightstrike is known as "goût de lumière", which translates to a taste of light. The fault explains why wines are generally bottled in coloured glass, which blocks the ultraviolet light, and why wine should be stored in dark environments.

Ladybird (pyrazine) taint

[edit]

Some insects present in the grapes at harvest inevitably end up in the press and for the most part are inoffensive. Others, notably the Asian lady beetle, release unpleasant-smelling nitrogen heterocycles as a defensive mechanism when disturbed. In sufficient quantities, these can affect the wine's odor and taste. With an olfactory detection threshold of a few ppb, the principal active compound is isopropyl methoxypyrazine; this molecule is perceived as rancid peanut butter, green bell pepper, urine, or simply bitter. This is also a naturally occurring compound in Sauvignon grapes, and so pyrazine taint has been known to make Rieslings taste like Sauvignon blanc.[citation needed]

Microbiological

[edit]

Brettanomyces (Dekkera)

[edit]

Main article: Brettanomyces

The yeast Brettanomyces produces an array of metabolites when growing in wine, some of which are volatile phenolic compounds. Together these compounds are often referred to as phenolic taint, "Brettanomyces character", or simply "Brett". The main constituents are listed below, with their sensory threshold and common sensory descriptors:

Geosmin

[edit]

Geosmin is a compound with a very distinct earthy, musty, beetroot, even turnip flavour and aroma and has an extremely low sensory threshold of down to 10 parts per trillion. Its presence in wine is usually derived as metabolite from the growth of filamentous actinomycetes such as Streptomyces, and moulds such as Botrytis cinerea and Penicillium expansum, on grapes. Wines affected by but not attributed to geosmins are often thought to have earthy properties due to terroir.[11] The geosmin fault occurs worldwide and has been found in recent vintages of red wines from Beaujolais, Bordeaux, Burgundy and the Loire in France. Geosmin is also thought to be a contributing factor in cork taint.

Lactic acid bacteria

[edit]
Main article: Malolactic_fermentation § Wine_faults

Lactic acid bacteria have a useful role in winemaking converting malic acid to lactic acid in malolactic fermentation. However, after this function has completed, the bacteria may still be present within the wine, where they can metabolise other compounds and produce wine faults. Wines that have not undergone malolactic fermentation may be contaminated with lactic acid bacteria, leading to refermentation of the wine with it becoming turbid, swampy, and slightly effervescent or spritzy. This can be avoided by sterile filtering wine directly before bottling. Lactic acid bacteria can also be responsible for other wine faults such as those below.

Bitterness taint

[edit]
Acrolein

Bitterness taint or amertume is rather uncommon and is produced by certain strains of bacteria from the genera Pediococcus, Lactobacillus, and Oenococcus. It begins by the degradation of glycerol, a compound naturally found in wine at levels of 5-8 g/L, via a dehydratase enzyme to 3-hydroxypropionaldehyde. During ageing this is further dehydrated to acrolein which reacts with the anthocyanins and other phenols present within the wine to form the taint.[12] As red wines contain high levels of anthocyanins they are generally more susceptible.

Diacetyl

[edit]
Diacetyl

Diacetyl in wine is produced by lactic acid bacteria, mainly Oenococcus oeni. In low levels it can impart positive nutty or caramel characters, however at levels above 5 mg/L it creates an intense buttery or butterscotch flavour, where it is perceived as a flaw. The sensory threshold for the compound can vary depending on the levels of certain wine components, such as sulfur dioxide. It can be produced as a metabolite of citric acid when all of the malic acid has been consumed. Diacetyl rarely taints wine to levels where it becomes undrinkable.[13]

Geranium taint

[edit]
2-ethoxy-3,5-hexadiene

Geranium taint, as the name suggests, is a flavour and aroma taint in wine reminiscent of geranium leaves. The compound responsible is 2-ethoxyhexa-3,5-diene, which has a low sensory threshold concentration of 1 ng/L.[14] In wine it is formed during the metabolism of potassium sorbate by lactic acid bacteria. Potassium sorbate is sometimes added to wine as a preservative against yeast, however its use is generally kept to a minimum due to the possibility of the taint developing. The production of the taint begins with the conversion of sorbic acid to the alcohol sorbinol. The alcohol is then isomerised in the presence of acid to 3,5-hexadiene-2-ol, which is then esterified with ethanol to form 2-ethoxy-3,5-hexadiene. As ethanol is necessary for the conversion, the geranium taint is not usually found in must.

Mannitol

[edit]
Mannitol

Mannitol is a sugar alcohol, and in wine it is produced by heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria, such as Lactobacillus brevis, by the reduction of fructose. Its perception is often complicated as it generally exists in wine alongside other faults, but it is usually described as viscous, ester-like combined with a sweet and irritating finish.[12] Mannitol is usually produced in wines that undergo malolactic fermentation with a high level of residual sugars still present. Expert winemakers oftentimes add small amounts of sulfur dioxide during the crushing step to reduce early bacterial growth.

Ropiness

[edit]

Ropiness is manifested as an increase in viscosity and a slimey or fatty mouthfeel of a wine. In France the fault is known as "graisse", which translates to fat. The problem stems from the production of dextrins and polysaccharides by certain lactic acid bacteria, particularly of the genera Leuconostoc and Pediococcus.

Mousiness

[edit]
2-acetyl-3,4,5,6-
tetrahydropyridine

Mousiness is a wine fault most often attributed to Brettanomyces but can also originate from the lactic acid bacteria Lactobacillus brevis, Lactobacillus fermentum, and Lactobacillus hilgardii,[12] and hence can occur in malolactic fermentation. The compounds responsible are lysine derivatives, mainly;

The taints are not volatile at the pH of wine, and therefore not obvious as an aroma. However, when mixed with the slightly basic pH of saliva they can become very apparent on the palate,[16] especially at the back of the mouth, as mouse cage or mouse urine.

Refermentation

[edit]

Refermentation, sometimes called secondary fermentation, is caused by yeasts refermenting the residual sugar present within bottled wine. It occurs when sweet wines are bottled in non-sterile conditions, allowing the presence of microorganisms. The most common yeast to referment wine is the standard wine fermentation yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, but has also been attributed to Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Zygosaccharomyces bailii.[12] The main issues associated with the fault include turbidity (from yeast biomass production), excess ethanol production (may violate labelling laws), slight carbonation, and some coarse odours. Refermentation can be prevented by bottling wines dry (with residual sugar levels <1.0g/L), sterile filtering wine prior to bottling, or adding preservative chemicals such as dimethyl dicarbonate. The Portuguese wine style known as "vinhos verdes" used to rely on this secondary fermentation in bottle to impart a slight spritziness to the wine, but now usually uses artificial carbonation.

Bunch rots

[edit]

Organisms responsible for bunch rot of grape berries are filamentous fungi, the most common of these being Botrytis cinerea (gray mold) However, there are a range of other fungi responsible for the rotting of grapes such as Aspergillus spp., Penicillium spp., and fungi found in subtropical climates (e.g., Colletotrichum spp. (ripe rot) and Greeneria uvicola (bitter rot)). A further group more commonly associated with diseases of the vegetative tissues of the vine can also infect grape berries (e.g., Botryosphaeriaceae, Phomopsis viticola). Compounds found in bunch rot affected grapes and wine are typically described as having mushroom, earthy odors and include geosmin, 2-methylisoborneol, 1-octen-3-ol, 2-octen-1-ol, fenchol and fenchone.[17]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Wine fault

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A wine fault is an undesirable sensory defect in wine that alters its appearance, aroma, flavor, or texture, arising from chemical reactions, microbial activity, contamination, or improper handling during production, aging, or storage. These faults diminish the wine's quality and can range from subtle off-notes to overt spoilage, with detection thresholds varying by compound and individual perception; for instance, from 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA) becomes noticeable at 1-4 ng/L. Common causes include microbial spoilage by yeasts or bacteria like , oxidation due to oxygen exposure, and instabilities such as protein or crystallization, often exacerbated by poor sanitation, high temperatures, or inadequate use. Notable types encompass volatile acidity (vinegar-like aroma from acetic acid exceeding 0.7 g/L), reductive sulfur compounds (rotten egg smell from at 1.1-1.6 µg/L), and atypical aging off-flavors ( or wet towel notes from 2-aminoacetophenone at 0.5-1.0 µg/L). Prevention relies on stringent viticultural practices, such as clean fruit harvesting and molecular SO₂ addition at 0.8 mg/L, alongside stabilization techniques like cold treatment for tartrates or fining for proteins. While some faults like character (leathery, horse sweat aroma from 4-ethylphenol above 425 µg/L) may appeal to certain styles, most are universally detrimental, prompting ongoing oenological research into detection and mitigation.

Fundamentals

Definition of Wine Faults

Wine faults refer to undesirable sensory characteristics in wine, encompassing off-aromas, off-tastes, or alterations in appearance, that arise from chemical, microbiological, or environmental processes during production, storage, or aging, ultimately rendering the wine substandard or undrinkable. These defects exceed acceptable thresholds and differ from intentional flavors or minor flaws that do not compromise overall drinkability. Recognition of wine faults dates back to ancient winemaking practices, with Roman-era texts such as those by and describing spoiled wines with sour or off odors, often attributing them to improper storage or issues. Modern scientific understanding emerged in the through advancements in chemical analysis, enabling precise identification of causative compounds like aldehydes and volatiles, which were previously detected only sensorally. Wine faults are generally classified by their underlying causes: chemical (e.g., oxidation leading to formation), microbiological (e.g., bacterial or activity producing volatile acids), and environmental (e.g., contamination from packaging materials). For instance, , primarily caused by 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA), historically affected 2-5% of cork-sealed wines before the 2000s, though prevalence has declined with improved cork treatments and alternative closures like screw caps. The impacts of wine faults extend beyond sensory quality, resulting in significant economic losses estimated at several billion euros annually for the global wine industry due to discarded batches, returns, and reputational damage. Health implications are rare, as most faults involve non-toxic compounds, but elevated volatile acidity can signal bacterial , potentially introducing minor risks from spoilage organisms if not addressed.

Distinguishing Flaws from Faults

In wine evaluation, a fundamental distinction exists between faults and flaws. Faults represent unintended defects that compromise the wine's quality and integrity, such as microbial spoilage or chemical imbalances arising from poor practices, leading to off-flavors that render the wine undrinkable. In contrast, flaws encompass deliberate stylistic choices or minor imperfections that do not detract from overall enjoyment and may even contribute to a wine's complexity, like subtle oxidative notes in certain aged varieties or low-level reductive aromas in natural wines. This differentiation hinges on intent, concentration, and context, where flaws can enhance perceived authenticity without crossing into defect territory. Illustrative examples highlight this boundary. Low concentrations of Brettanomyces yeast, producing a faint barnyard or "terroir" note, are often embraced as a flaw in rustic reds like Rhône Valley wines, adding earthy depth without overpowering fruit. Similarly, pronounced astringency from high tannins in young red wines, such as Cabernet Sauvignon, serves as a structural flaw that promises evolution with aging, rather than an immediate fault. Regional traditions further exemplify this: elevated volatile acidity in Italian Lambrusco, contributing a tangy vibrancy, aligns with stylistic norms in sparkling reds from Emilia-Romagna, distinguishing it from spoilage levels that would sour conventional still wines. The threshold between flaw and fault is inherently perceptual, varying by taster sensitivity, wine style, and cultural expectations. For instance, —a buttery compound from —enhances creaminess in at levels below 0.2 mg/L, but exceeds fault territory if concentrations surpass sensory thresholds, evoking spoilage in unbalanced examples. What one expert deems a fault, another may accept as a flaw, underscoring the subjective nature of evaluation. Standards have evolved, particularly with the natural wine movement gaining prominence since the early 2000s, which celebrates minimal intervention and reinterprets elements like faint reduction or as virtues of expression, thereby blurring traditional fault lines. Regulatory frameworks provide objective anchors; for example, the caps total at 150 mg/L for red wines and 200 mg/L for whites (100 mg/L and 150 mg/L for organics), deeming excesses as faults that necessitate intervention to preserve stability without masking character.

Detecting and Identifying Faults

Detecting wine faults begins with sensory evaluation, a systematic process that engages multiple senses to identify deviations from expected wine characteristics. Visually, inspectors assess clarity and color; faults may manifest as excessive haze from microbial activity or browning indicative of oxidation. Olfactorily, the aroma profile is examined for intensity and off-notes, such as musty odors from or sulfurous smells from reduction. Gustatorily, taste balance is evaluated, noting imbalances like excessive acidity or bitterness, while can reveal astringency or sliminess from microbial spoilage. Retro-olfactory assessment follows, focusing on aftertaste persistence and any lingering unpleasant notes. Common detection cues include flat or muted aromas suggesting oxidation, sharp vinegary notes from volatile acidity, or metallic bitterness from reductive conditions. Trained professionals use standardized kits, such as those from the Wine & Spirit Education Trust (WSET), which provide spiked samples to practice identifying faults like or through comparative tasting. These training methods enhance sensitivity to threshold levels where faults become perceptible, typically requiring repeated exposure to build discernment. Analytical techniques complement sensory methods by quantifying fault compounds with precision. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) is widely employed to detect volatile faults, such as 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA) responsible for , at sensory thresholds as low as 4 ng/L. Enzymatic assays measure volatile acidity through acetic acid levels, aiding rapid in-winery assessments. These tools allow for early intervention during production, ensuring faults are identified before bottling. Integrating detection with prevention involves routine monitoring in wineries, such as regular SO2 adjustments to mitigate oxidative and reductive faults based on analytical readings. For consumers, practical tips include decanting young reds to aerate and dissipate sulfur notes, or storing wines away from light and heat to prevent premature oxidation. These strategies, informed by sensory and lab data, help maintain wine quality throughout storage and service.

Oxidative Faults

Acetaldehyde is a primary volatile compound formed during the alcoholic of wine, where converts sugars into via and enzymes, producing as an intermediate that typically reaches concentrations of 30 to 130 mg/L in finished still wines. These levels arise naturally from metabolism, with residual amounts depending on strain-specific activity and conditions. Post-fermentation, concentrations can increase significantly through the non-enzymatic oxidation of in the presence of oxygen, particularly during , bottling, or aging, exacerbating oxidative faults in wine. At elevated concentrations exceeding the sensory threshold of 100 to 125 mg/L, imparts undesirable aromas described as green apple, bruised apple, or varnish-like, which detract from the wine's freshness and fruit character. In excessive amounts, often above 200 mg/L, it contributes to sherry-like oxidative notes that signal fault in non-fortified table wines, though such profiles may be intentional in styles like . Wines with levels surpassing 300 mg/L are generally considered undrinkable due to overpowering off-flavors that mask aromas. Acetaldehyde adversely affects wine quality by forming stable bisulfite adducts with (SO₂), which depletes free SO₂ and diminishes its role as an and agent, thereby promoting further oxidative degradation. This binding accelerates the progression of oxidation, where itself can oxidize to acetic acid, intensifying volatile acidity over time. While low levels of can enhance fruity perceptions, high concentrations lead to chemesthetic sensations like nasal itching and overall sensory imbalance, reducing the wine's and market appeal. To prevent excessive acetaldehyde accumulation, winemakers select strains with low production profiles, such as those exhibiting efficient reduction to during , which can limit residual levels to below 50 mg/L. Additionally, inert gas blanketing with or during transfers and bottling minimizes oxygen ingress, thereby curtailing post-fermentative oxidation and maintaining below fault thresholds. These strategies, combined with timely SO₂ additions to manage binding, ensure oxidative stability without compromising wine quality.

Volatile Acidity

Volatile acidity (VA) in wine refers to the concentration of steam-distillable acids, primarily acetic acid and , which impart undesirable vinegar-like and solvent aromas when elevated. Acetic acid contributes a sharp, vinegary taste, while evokes the scent of remover, with the latter detectable at thresholds as low as 100–120 mg/L. These compounds arise as end-products of oxidative processes, distinguishing VA from earlier intermediates like , which can serve as a precursor in the pathway to acetic acid formation. , legal limits are 1.2 g/L for wines and 1.4 g/L for red wines; in the , the limit is generally 1.2 g/L (20 milliequivalents/L expressed as acetic acid), with 1.08 g/L (18 milliequivalents/L) for whites and rosés, with higher allowances (up to 1.7 g/L) for late-harvest reds to accommodate natural variations. The primary cause of elevated VA is the activity of acetic acid bacteria, such as Acetobacter species, which oxidize to acetic acid in the presence of oxygen, often during barrel aging, in tanks, or inadequate protection. Wild yeasts, including species like Hansenula or stressed , can also produce acetic acid during , exacerbated by factors such as poor , high musts, low levels, or suboptimal fermentation temperatures. High temperatures, in particular, promote and yeast stress, leading to increased VA in wines from hot-climate regions or those undergoing extended ferments. Sensory detection of VA begins at approximately 0.7 g/L, where it introduces a detrimental sharpness that can mask fruit aromas, especially in white wines, though low levels (below 0.3 g/L) may provide a subtle "lift" to acidity without fault perception. At concentrations exceeding 1.5 g/L, the fault becomes pronounced, with solvent-like smells dominating and enhancing the perception of and other acids, rendering the wine unbalanced. VA is measured through followed by of acetic acid with , typically conducted post-fermentation, during storage, or before bottling to ensure compliance. Correction for high VA involves followed by blending with low-VA wines (under 0.7 g/L) to dilute levels, or advanced techniques like to selectively remove acetic acid while preserving wine quality. These methods were particularly relevant in early in regions like , where hot ferments in warm climates historically contributed to elevated VA, prompting innovations in and .

Reductive and Sulfur Faults

Hydrogen Sulfide

(H₂S) is a volatile sulfur compound responsible for reductive faults in wine, primarily arising during alcoholic when experiences stress from low oxygen availability and insufficient nutrients, such as assimilable nitrogen. This formation occurs through metabolic pathways, including reduction and the degradation of sulfur-containing like and , with much of the produced H₂S initially escaping via entrainment but residual amounts persisting if conditions favor accumulation. Levels above the sensory threshold of 1-2 µg/L are considered faulty, with typical concentrations in affected wines up to 20 µg/L, negatively impacting wine quality. Sensory characteristics of H₂S include pronounced aromas reminiscent of rotten eggs or , which contribute to an overall reductive profile that masks desirable fruity notes. These odors are highly volatile and often dissipate upon exposure to air, but if not addressed, H₂S can evolve into more stable mercaptans that persist in the wine. The compound's detection threshold ranges from 1.1 to 1.6 µg/L in white wines, varying by individual sensitivity and the wine's matrix, with some tasters perceiving it as low as 0.5 µg/L. Chemically, H₂S is reactive and binds readily with copper ions to form insoluble precipitates, a property exploited in remediation processes. Its high volatility allows it to contribute transiently to wine aroma unless fixed by other compounds, and detection thresholds can shift based on interactions with the wine's phenolic content or . Prevention strategies focus on mitigating stress during , such as employing nitrogen flushing to reduce oxygen exposure and supplementing musts with nutrients like to ensure adequate levels. Post- treatments include gentle to volatilize H₂S or copper fining, where controlled additions of (kept below 1 mg/L to avoid residues) precipitate the compound for removal by filtration. Such faults are particularly prevalent in high-sugar ferments, like those used for late-harvest wines, where elevated sugar demands higher nutrient inputs to prevent H₂S overproduction.

Mercaptans

Mercaptans, also known as thiols, are volatile sulfur compounds that contribute to persistent reductive faults in wine, primarily forming through the of (H₂S) with alcohols such as or during and aging. Key examples include ethyl mercaptan (, EtSH) and methyl mercaptan (, MeSH), which develop when H₂S reacts chemically with or , respectively, or through . These compounds are more stable than their precursor H₂S, as they do not dissipate as readily and can persist or even intensify over time in low-oxygen environments. The formation of mercaptans is exacerbated by ongoing reductive conditions post-fermentation, such as limited oxygen exposure, as well as factors like high wine , which slows the oxidation of sulfur compounds, and residues of elemental from applications that increase available for metabolism. These faults are particularly prevalent in wines bottled under screw caps, where minimal oxygen ingress prevents natural dissipation, leading to prolonged reductive aromas compared to cork-sealed bottles. Sensory impacts of mercaptans include pungent aromas described as onion-like, rubbery, or cabbage-like for ethyl mercaptan, and rotten egg or burnt rubber notes for methyl mercaptan, often evoking fecal or undertones at elevated levels. Detection thresholds are low, with ethyl mercaptan perceivable at approximately 1.1 µg/L in white wines and 1.8 µg/L in reds, while methyl mercaptan ranges from 0.02 to 2.0 µg/L depending on the wine matrix, making even trace amounts disruptive to character. Due to their stability, mercaptans are more challenging to remediate than H₂S, often requiring targeted interventions. Remediation strategies focus on binding or removing mercaptans, such as adding ascorbic to reduce s back to thiols for subsequent copper fining, where forms insoluble sulfides that precipitate out the compounds. However, these treatments have limited efficacy in bottled wines, as copper fining can risk stripping desirable aromas and is less effective against oxidized forms without prior reduction. Prevention remains preferable, through early during to minimize H₂S precursors and careful management of residues.

Dimethyl Sulfide

(DMS) originates primarily from the degradation of S-methyl (SMM), a sulfur-containing precursor present in s, which is released during and particularly accumulates during wine aging under anaerobic conditions. This precursor forms in grapes through the of , and its concentration can vary based on grape variety and environmental factors, with DMS levels typically low in young wines but increasing significantly post-bottling due to in low-oxygen environments. Unlike yeast-derived compounds, DMS is grape-derived and evolves gradually, often becoming detectable after months or years of storage. At low concentrations, DMS contributes positively to wine aroma, imparting desirable notes of , black olive, and cooked corn that enhance fruity and aged bouquet characteristics, particularly in red wines like and Grenache Noir. However, when levels exceed approximately 25 µg/L—the sensory threshold in red wines—DMS imparts fault-like off-aromas reminiscent of cabbage, asparagus, or oyster shell, which can overpower desirable flavors and render the wine undesirable. This dual role underscores the importance of monitoring DMS during aging, as its perception shifts from beneficial to detrimental based on concentration and wine matrix. Factors elevating DMS to fault levels include hot climates and water stress during grape ripening, which increase SMM accumulation in berries, as observed in warmer vintages and regions like the Rhone Valley. Vineyard practices such as sulfur sprays for disease control can also boost sulfur precursor levels, exacerbating DMS formation. Post-bottling evolution under low oxygen further promotes its release, with studies post-2010 indicating variations in DMS levels potentially influenced by environmental factors such as climate variability. Management strategies involve blending affected wines with fresher, low-DMS lots to dilute concentrations below thresholds, while analytical detection relies on headspace gas chromatography (GC) coupled with mass spectrometry for precise quantification during production and aging. These approaches help mitigate DMS faults, though its incidence appears to be increasing with ongoing climatic shifts.

Excess Sulfur Dioxide

Sulfur dioxide (SO₂) is widely used in as both an agent to inhibit spoilage and an to prevent oxidation of wine components. Overuse occurs when additions exceed necessary levels for protection, often due to miscalculations based on wine , type, or binding compounds, leading to faults when free SO₂ surpasses approximately 50 mg/L. Excess SO₂ imparts undesirable sensory characteristics, including aromas reminiscent of burnt matches or struck flint, along with pungent, irritating odors that can mask the wine's fruit flavors and cause a burning sensation in the and . These effects become perceptible at molecular SO₂ levels above 2 mg/L, equivalent to roughly 40-50 mg/L free SO₂ depending on . Additionally, high SO₂ concentrations can trigger allergic reactions or exacerbations in sensitive individuals, affecting about 1% of the general population and up to 5% of those with . In wine, SO₂ exists in free form (the active antimicrobial and antioxidant portion, ideally maintained at 20-40 mg/L for effective protection) and bound form (inactive, often linked to compounds like acetaldehyde, which ties into oxidative processes). Free SO₂ is measured using methods such as the aeration-oxidation technique, which distinguishes it from total SO₂ (free plus bound). Regulatory limits aim to balance preservation with safety and quality; in the European Union, maximum total SO₂ levels are 150 mg/L for dry red wines and 200 mg/L for dry white and rosé wines (residual sugar < 5 g/L), increasing to 200 mg/L for reds and 250 mg/L for whites/rosés with ≥ 5 g/L residual sugar, as per EU regulations and OIV guidelines. Usage trends show a decline in SO₂ additions since the 2000s, driven by health concerns and the adoption of alternatives like lysozyme, an enzyme that targets gram-positive bacteria to reduce required SO₂ doses without compromising microbial stability.

Environmental Faults

Cork Taint

Cork taint is an environmental contamination fault in wine primarily caused by the presence of haloanisoles, with 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA) and 2,4,6-tribromoanisole (TBA) as the main causative agents. These compounds form through the microbial O-methylation of chlorinated or brominated phenols by molds such as , , and species acting on cork material treated with chlorine-based bleaching agents or biocides. The process occurs when fungi convert precursors like 2,4,6-trichlorophenol (TCP) into TCA, often during cork production or storage in environments exposed to such chemicals. The sensory impact of cork taint manifests as musty, moldy aromas reminiscent of wet cardboard, damp basements, or wet dog, which overpower the wine's intended bouquet even at low concentrations. TCA has a detection threshold of approximately 4 ng/L in wine, making it highly perceptible to trained tasters and contributing to the fault's notoriety. TBA exhibits similar musty notes but with a slightly higher threshold, around 2–8 ng/L. Sources of contamination trace back to cork production practices, including the use of chlorine bleach for sterilization and storage near bleaching agents or contaminated wood, which allow mold growth and haloanisole formation. Historically, this affected 5–10% of wines in the 1990s, but improved testing and quality controls have reduced the prevalence to 1–3% today. Mitigation efforts focus on alternative closures like synthetic corks and screw caps, which eliminate the risk of cork-derived taint, and rigorous testing of natural corks using methods such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or supercritical CO2 extraction to detect haloanisoles before bottling. These advancements, including supplier screening and peroxide-based bleaching, have significantly lowered incidence rates. Prior to 2010, cork taint resulted in an estimated annual economic loss of about $1 billion to the global wine industry due to discarded bottles and reputational damage.

Heat Damage

Heat damage, also known as maderization, refers to the degradation of wine quality resulting from exposure to elevated temperatures during storage or transportation, which accelerates unwanted chemical reactions. This fault is particularly common in bulk shipping scenarios where temperature control is challenging, leading to premature aging and loss of desirable attributes. In white wines, it manifests as a brownish discoloration due to accelerated oxidation-like processes, while red wines may experience shifts toward brick-red hues. The primary mechanisms involve temperatures exceeding 25°C, which hasten oxidation, ester hydrolysis, and the breakdown of volatile aroma compounds. For instance, a 10°C increase can double the rate of these reactions, resulting in the loss of fresh fruit esters and varietal thiols, alongside reduced sulfur dioxide levels that normally protect against further degradation. Additionally, high heat denatures heat-unstable proteins, potentially causing haze formation upon cooling. Sensory impacts include the development of cooked, jammy, or stewed fruit aromas, with an overall flattening of flavors and diminished freshness, often described as "prune-like" in affected whites. Thresholds for irreversible damage vary by duration and wine type, but exposure to 30°C for several days can cause significant quality loss, while brief spikes above 40°C may suffice for visual and volatile alterations. Historical studies from the 1980s, such as those on Australian bulk wine shipments, documented rapid color changes and acetate ester breakdown under similar conditions, highlighting vulnerabilities in international transport. Prevention centers on maintaining stable, cool storage at 12–15°C to minimize reaction rates, with recommendations for temperature-monitored shipping containers and avoiding prolonged exposure above 25°C.

Lightstrike

Lightstrike, also known as goût de lumière, is a photochemical fault in wine triggered by exposure to ultraviolet (UV) and visible light, particularly in the 370-450 nm wavelength range, which activates riboflavin as a photosensitizer. This process leads to the degradation of sulfur-containing amino acids like methionine, resulting in the formation of volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs) such as methanethiol (MeSH) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS). The fault is most pronounced in wines bottled in clear or flint glass, where UV transmission is high, and can develop within hours of exposure under fluorescent or LED lighting that emits harmful wavelengths. The mechanism involves riboflavin (RF), present in wines at concentrations of 50-150 µg/L, absorbing light to enter an excited triplet state and initiating two primary reaction pathways: direct interaction with methionine to produce methional and subsequently MeSH, or generation of singlet oxygen that oxidizes methionine into additional VSCs. These compounds have low sensory thresholds—MeSH at 0.3-10 µg/L and DMDS at 20-45 µg/L—causing off-aromas to emerge rapidly, often after just 2 hours of light exposure equivalent to supermarket shelf conditions. Wines with higher RF levels (>80 µg/L) or those employing reductive styles, which may retain more residual (SO₂), are particularly susceptible, as SO₂ can initially mask but not fully prevent VSC evolution into mercaptan-like notes over time. Sensory impacts include intense, unpleasant aromas reminiscent of cooked , , wet , rotten eggs, or boiled , alongside a loss of the wine's fruity and floral character; these defects can affect 5-10% of exposed wines under typical retail lighting, rendering them unpalatable. The fault primarily targets and wines due to their clearer profiles and higher RF content from grape must, though sparkling wines like Champagne are also vulnerable, as noted in early studies from the linking light exposure to VSC formation in such styles. In severe cases, the taint persists for up to 24 months even after storage in darkness, emphasizing the irreversible nature of the . Prevention focuses on blocking harmful light wavelengths and minimizing RF precursors during production. Tinted glass bottles, such as or varieties, significantly reduce UV transmission—offering for up to 50 days under fluorescent compared to clear —while alternative packaging like bag-in-box or PET bottles provides near-complete shielding. Winemaking strategies include selecting low-RF-producing yeast strains (via genetic control of the RIB5 gene), adding bentonite (1 g/L) or activated charcoal (0.1 g/L) to remove RF, and incorporating antioxidants like glutathione (50 mg/L), SO₂ (25 mg/L), or chestnut tannins (50 mg/L) to scavenge reactive and keep VSCs below detection thresholds. The term "lightstrike" originated from 1970s research on similar photodegradation in , later adapted to wine through studies like those by Maujean in 1984 on Champagne faults.

Ladybug Taint

Ladybug taint, also known as ladybird taint, is an off-flavor defect in wine arising from the contamination of grapes by certain species of ladybugs, particularly the invasive multicolored Asian lady beetle (Harmonia axyridis), during harvest. When these beetles are crushed along with the grapes, they release hemolymph containing high concentrations of methoxypyrazines, primarily 2-isopropyl-3-methoxypyrazine (IPMP), which imparts undesirable aromas and flavors to the resulting wine. Other methoxypyrazines, such as 2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine (IBMP), 2-sec-butyl-3-methoxypyrazine (SBMP), and 2,3-dimethylpyrazine (DMMP), may also contribute but at lower levels. This fault is distinct from similar pyrazine-related issues like those in smoke taint, as it originates solely from insect-derived compounds. The sensory profile of ladybug taint is characterized by intense green, vegetal notes reminiscent of , cilantro, , or rancid , which can overpower the wine's fruit character and lead to rejection by consumers. These off-notes become detectable at very low concentrations, with the detection threshold for IPMP in wine ranging from 0.3 to 2 ng/L, depending on the wine style and evaluator familiarity; higher thresholds (up to 5 ng/L) may apply in more complex red wines. Red wines are particularly susceptible due to extended skin contact during maceration, which allows greater extraction of the pyrazines from residues, whereas wines show lower impact unless heavily contaminated. Levels as low as 1–2 ng/L of IPMP can render a wine faulted, with densities exceeding 1,900 per of grapes sufficient to cause taint. This fault has been most prevalent in North American wine regions since the 1990s, following the accidental introduction of H. axyridis as a biological control agent for , which led to its rapid spread across vineyards in the and . It was first reported in 2001 among winemakers, where severe infestations resulted in the declassification or dumping of approximately one million liters of affected wine from the vintage. While less common in and other regions, sporadic occurrences have been noted globally wherever H. axyridis or the native seven-spot ladybird () populations surge near harvest time, often exacerbated by warm, dry conditions that attract beetles to ripening grapes. Prevention relies on proactive management, including regular using binomial sampling techniques to monitor populations and adjust timing to avoid peak infestation periods. Hand-harvesting in small vineyards allows for manual removal of insects, while mechanical harvesters can incorporate shaker tables or optical sorters to separate beetles from grapes post-collection. Early detection through sensory evaluation or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of must can guide remediation efforts, such as fining agents to reduce levels, though complete prevention remains the most effective strategy.

Smoke Taint

Smoke taint is an environmental fault in wine caused by exposure of grapevines to wildfire smoke, which introduces volatile phenols that impart undesirable aromas and flavors to the resulting wine. This issue has become more prominent since the 2010s due to increased wildfire frequency driven by climate change, particularly affecting regions like California, Australia, and Oregon during critical growth stages. Grapes are most susceptible to smoke absorption between veraison—the onset of ripening when berries soften and change color—and harvest, as the developing skins become more permeable. During this period, smoke particles penetrate the grape skins and are metabolized into glycosylated precursors within the fruit, which can persist through fermentation and aging. In severe events, such as the 2020 California wildfires, smoke taint led to significant economic impacts, including skyrocketing insurance claims, contract rejections, and devaluation of up to 80% of affected acreage in some areas, resulting in millions of dollars in losses. The primary compounds responsible for smoke taint are volatile , including and 4-methylguaiacol, which contribute smoky and ashy aromas, along with related cresols and syringols. These free volatile forms are initially absorbed from the smoke but are quickly conjugated in the grapes into non-volatile glycosylated metabolites, such as glycosides, that evade detection until enzymatic during releases the odorous . Concentrations of these glycosides can accumulate to levels that, upon release, exceed sensory thresholds, with the sum of and cresols often cited above 20 µg/L as a point where smoke flavor becomes discernible in wine. Sensory impacts of smoke taint manifest as off-putting notes reminiscent of campfire, , or burnt rubber, which overpower fruit characters and render wines objectionable at high concentrations. While low levels of these may integrate positively during extended aging, providing subtle savory complexity in some reds, elevated exposures typically result in persistent faults that diminish wine quality and marketability. Mitigation strategies focus on prevention and remediation, including monitoring smoke exposure through analytical testing of grapes three weeks pre-harvest to inform decisions like delayed picking if conditions improve. Post-harvest, techniques such as combined with solid-phase adsorption can reduce volatile phenol levels by 50-90% in affected wines, though they may also strip desirable flavors. Research efforts have surged since 2015, with the Australian Wine Research Institute (AWRI) leading studies on detection, fining agents, and breeding smoke-resistant rootstocks, providing practical tools for global vintners through 2025. Recent 2025 research has identified grapevine-associated bacteria, such as Gordonia alkanivorans, capable of degrading , providing potential biological remediation options.

Microbiological Faults

Brettanomyces

, also known as Dekkera, refers to a of wild spoilage yeasts primarily responsible for phenolic off-flavors in wine, especially during post- stages like barrel aging. These yeasts are ogival and slow-growing, thriving in low-oxygen environments such as wooden barrels where they metabolize residual carbohydrates and nutrients that remain after primary alcoholic by . Unlike primary fermenters, species, particularly B. bruxellensis, exhibit high tolerance to (up to 15% v/v) and can persist in wine for months or years, forming biofilms on barrel surfaces that contribute to persistent contamination risks. The characteristic off-flavors arise from the enzymatic of hydroxycinnamic acids (like p-coumaric and ferulic acids) present in grapes, producing vinyl as intermediates that are further reduced to ethyl . Key compounds include 4-ethylphenol, which imparts barnyard, , or medicinal aromas, and 4-ethylguaiacol, associated with smoky, , or phenolic notes. These volatiles typically occur in a 10:1 ratio (4-ethylphenol to 4-ethylguaiacol) and become sensorially detectable above thresholds of approximately 200–770 µg/L for 4-ethylphenol and 400–440 µg/L for 4-ethylguaiacol, depending on wine matrix and taster sensitivity. While low concentrations (<200 µg/L) of these compounds may enhance complexity with subtle earthy or leathery nuances in aged reds, higher levels dominate and fault the wine by suppressing fruit and varietal aromas, often rendering it undrinkable with descriptors like "horse sweat" or "wet dog." Brettanomyces faults are most prevalent in red wines due to their higher pH, residual sugars, and extended oak exposure, with studies reporting incidence in 5–27% of commercial samples across regions. Effective control relies on sulfur dioxide (SO₂) additions to achieve 0.5–0.8 mg/L free molecular SO₂, which inhibits growth, combined with rigorous hygiene such as barrel steaming, filtration (0.45–1 µm), and avoiding oxygen ingress during racking. The rise in Brettanomyces prevalence during the 1990s was linked to winemaking trends like extended maceration and prolonged barrel aging, which increased nutrient availability and low-oxygen conditions favoring yeast proliferation, though improved practices have since reduced issues in many regions.

Geosmin

Geosmin is a sesquiterpenoid compound responsible for earthy off-flavors in wine, primarily produced by soil-dwelling actinomycetes such as Streptomyces species and certain molds like Botrytis cinerea, often in combination with Penicillium expansum on infected grapes. This microbial fault arises when grapes are exposed to these organisms, with geosmin first identified as a wine contaminant in studies from 2000 that quantified its presence in affected samples. Humans exhibit high sensitivity to geosmin, with detection thresholds ranging from 10 ng/L in neutral matrices to 25–65 ng/L in wine, depending on the varietal and color. Sensory characteristics of geosmin include intense earthy, musty, muddy, and beetroot-like aromas that evoke damp soil or cork-like earthiness, persisting through fermentation and aging due to its volatility and stability. These notes can dominate the wine's bouquet at concentrations above the threshold, rendering it unpalatable and similar in mustiness to cork taint, though distinct in origin. Geosmin contamination typically stems from wet soils and poor vineyard drainage, which favor actinomycete proliferation, or from moldy grapes harvested under humid conditions, particularly affecting white wines where noble rot or bunch rots are prevalent. Contaminated cellar water can also introduce the compound during processing. Remediation options for geosmin are limited and often trade efficacy against wine quality, as fining agents like activated charcoal effectively remove up to 90% but strip desirable aroma compounds such as esters; alternatives like grape seed oil achieve 80–90% reduction in white wines with less impact, though potassium caseinate yields only modest 14–25% decreases. Prevention through vigilant vineyard management, including improved drainage and prompt rot removal, remains the most reliable approach, as no treatment fully eliminates geosmin without compromising the wine's profile.

Mousiness

Mousiness is a microbial wine fault characterized by the production of specific N-heterocyclic compounds, primarily 2-acetyltetrahydropyridine (ATHP), also known as ACTPY, along with 2-acetyl-1-pyrroline (APY) and 2-ethyltetrahydropyridine (ETHPY). These compounds are generated by heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria (LAB), such as certain strains of Lactobacillus and Leuconostoc, during malolactic fermentation or spoilage, and to a lesser extent by Brettanomyces (also called Dekkera) yeast under aerobic conditions. The fault arises from the microbial metabolism of lysine and ornithine in the presence of ethanol and sugars, leading to the formation of these tautomeric pyridone derivatives that exist predominantly in a non-volatile form at typical wine pH levels. The sensory impact of mousiness is unique, manifesting as rodent-like, urine, or stale cracker-box flavors detected exclusively on the palate via retronasal olfaction, with no corresponding aroma when sniffed. This palate-only perception occurs because the compounds become volatile in the higher pH environment of the mouth (around 7-8), allowing them to reach olfactory receptors during swallowing or expectoration. Detection thresholds for these compounds in wine vary by pH and individual sensitivity, but retronasal thresholds typically range from 15 to 300 µg/L, with absolute thresholds around 50-100 µg/L for ATHP and APY in neutral to acidic wine matrices; concentrations in affected wines can reach 4.8-106 µg/L. The fault diminishes wine quality, evoking unpleasant associations that render it unsellable, particularly in those undergoing spontaneous fermentations. Mousiness thrives under conditions of low free sulfur dioxide (SO₂ <20 mg/L), which fails to inhibit the responsible microbes, combined with higher wine pH (>3.5), reduced oxygen exposure during , and minimal intervention practices common in natural winemaking. These conditions allow LAB or to proliferate unchecked, especially in unsulfited musts or during extended lees contact. The fault is prevalent in natural and low-intervention wines, where the avoidance of added SO₂ preserves microbial diversity but heightens spoilage risks. Detecting mousiness poses challenges due to its retronasal , requiring tasters to sip, swish, and spit or to perceive it, as orthonasal sniffing yields nothing; not all individuals are sensitive, with about 40% unable to detect it. An alkaline strip test aids confirmation: a paper strip soaked in (1-5 g/L) is dipped into the wine sample and sniffed for the characteristic odor, as the elevated volatilizes the compounds. Incidence has risen post-2015 alongside the natural wine movement's emphasis on minimal SO₂ use and higher grapes from warmer climates, making it a growing concern in low-intervention production.

Refermentation

Refermentation, also known as secondary fermentation, occurs when residual sugars in bottled wine are fermented by surviving yeast cells or malolactic fermentation (MLF) bacteria, leading to unintended microbial activity post-bottling. This fault is particularly prevalent in sweet wines, where higher levels of unfermented sugars (typically ≥1 g/L for or ≥0.2 g/L for spoilage yeasts like and ) provide substrate for growth, especially if the wine is unfiltered or insufficiently stabilized. Insufficient molecular (SO₂ <0.8 mg/L) or poor sanitation during bottling allows these microbes to persist, initiating fermentation in the anaerobic bottle environment. Additionally, residual malic acid (≥300 mg/L) can trigger MLF bacteria, contributing to the process in wines that have not completed primary fermentation or MLF. The primary effects of refermentation include the production of carbon dioxide (CO₂), resulting in unintended effervescence or sparkling character that is undesirable in still wines, with perceptible spritz detectable at CO₂ levels above 800 mg/L and cork displacement or bottle explosion risks beyond 1,400 mg/L. This gas buildup often accompanies haze and sediment formation from yeast growth, as well as off-aromas described as yeasty, bready, or ester-like, potentially increasing volatile acidity through secondary metabolic byproducts. In severe cases, the pressure can cause bottles to shatter, posing safety hazards, while the overall wine quality diminishes due to altered mouthfeel and appearance. These sensory defects are more pronounced in sweeter styles, where the fault transforms an intended off-dry profile into an unstable, fizzy product. Prevention strategies focus on stabilizing the wine before bottling to inhibit microbial activity. Key measures include sterile filtration to remove yeast and bacteria, addition of potassium sorbate (providing 150 mg/L sorbic acid in 10% alcohol wines) to block yeast reproduction, and maintaining adequate molecular SO₂ levels (≥0.8 mg/L) while racking to minimize oxygen exposure and storing at temperatures below 12°C to slow microbial growth. For sweet wines, stabilizing residual sugars below 1 g/L (glucose/fructose) or completing MLF to reduce malic acid below 300 mg/L is essential, with post-fermentation sweetening performed as close to bottling as possible. With these modern practices, refermentation is rare, though it remains a risk in artisanal or unfiltered productions. Historically, refermentation was a significant issue in winemaking before the widespread adoption of pasteurization in the mid-20th century, as developed from 's 1860s discoveries on heating wine to 55–60°C to kill spoilage microbes without altering flavor. Prior to this, sweet wines like late-bottled ports frequently suffered from bottle explosions and haze due to uncontrolled yeast activity on residual sugars, contributing to economic losses and quality inconsistencies in pre-1950s production. Pasteurization and later filtration advancements largely mitigated these problems, shifting refermentation from a common fault to an occasional concern in contemporary enology.

Bunch Rots

Bunch rots are fungal diseases affecting grape clusters in vineyards, primarily caused by Botrytis cinerea (known as gray rot) and species of Aspergillus, which proliferate under humid, warm conditions that promote spore germination and infection through wounds or natural openings in berries. These pathogens initiate rot during veraison or later stages, leading to berry softening, skin cracking, and secondary infections that exacerbate tissue breakdown. In severe cases, bunch rots result in sour rot, a condition characterized by acetic acid production from associated bacteria, elevating precursors for volatile acidity (VA) in subsequent wines. Affected grapes often exhibit significant yield losses, depending on infection timing and environmental factors, with economic impacts amplified by reduced berry quality and harvest efficiency. The incorporation of rotted grapes into winemaking introduces off-flavors, including earthy and oxidized aromas derived from fungal metabolites such as 1-octen-3-ol and geosmin, the latter potentially contributing musty notes if Aspergillus or related molds dominate. Fungal activity also increases phenolic compounds through berry skin degradation and enzymatic oxidation, potentially leading to astringency and color instability in wines, while high VA precursors can cause vinegary taints during fermentation. Sorting infected clusters at harvest is essential to mitigate these faults, as even low infection levels (1-5%) can compromise wine quality by altering aroma profiles and mouthfeel. Effective management of bunch rots emphasizes cultural practices like canopy management, including leaf removal and shoot thinning to enhance airflow and reduce humidity within the cluster zone, thereby limiting fungal sporulation. Targeted fungicide applications, such as those containing boscalid or , are applied pre-bloom and post-veraison to suppress pathogen development, though integrated approaches are recommended to avoid resistance. Notably, under specific cool, misty conditions can induce noble rot, a beneficial transformation in regions like Sauternes that concentrates sugars and flavors for botrytized wines, distinguishing it from detrimental bunch rot faults.

Lactic Acid Bacteria Faults

Diacetyl

Diacetyl is produced by the lactic acid bacterium Oenococcus oeni during malolactic fermentation (MLF) in wine, serving as an intermediate in the metabolism of citric acid. This process typically occurs after alcoholic fermentation, where O. oeni converts L-malic acid to L-lactic acid, reducing acidity while generating flavor compounds like diacetyl through the degradation of α-acetolactic acid (ALA) via enzymatic or spontaneous decarboxylation. Peak diacetyl concentrations often coincide with the exhaustion of malic acid, with levels generally ranging from 0.2 to 4 mg/L considered ideal for contributing subtle complexity, though concentrations exceeding 8 mg/L are regarded as a fault due to overpowering aromas. Sensorially, diacetyl imparts a distinctive buttery or nutty aroma, often likened to popcorn or melted butter, which is desirable at low levels in varieties like to enhance creamy, rounded profiles. However, in excess, it can become cloying and dominate the wine's bouquet, detracting from varietal character and leading to perceptions of spoilage, particularly when levels surpass 5–7 mg/L. The sensory threshold varies by wine type, with detection as low as 0.2 mg/L in compared to 2.8 mg/L in . Several factors influence diacetyl production and persistence, including fermentation temperature, bacterial strain selection, and environmental conditions. Optimal MLF occurs at 18–22°C, promoting balanced diacetyl formation, while higher temperatures accelerate degradation. Strains of O. oeni vary in their metabolic efficiency, with some producing higher diacetyl yields under semiaerobic conditions or with elevated citric acid; oxygen exposure can increase levels up to 13 mg/L compared to 2 mg/L anaerobically. Over time, diacetyl naturally degrades to acetoin via reduction by O. oeni or yeast, diminishing its aroma impact. Control of diacetyl as a fault involves proactive winemaking practices, such as early harvesting to limit citric acid precursors in grapes, thereby capping potential production. It is a common issue in stalled MLF, which affects 2–5% of fermentations and delays citric acid breakdown, allowing diacetyl accumulation. Careful strain selection and monitoring redox potential during MLF help maintain desirable levels without intervention.

Geranium Taint

Geranium taint is a wine fault characterized by an off-odor and flavor reminiscent of crushed geranium leaves, resulting from the metabolism of sorbic acid by certain lactic acid bacteria (LAB). Sorbic acid, typically added as potassium sorbate, serves as a preservative to inhibit yeast growth and prevent refermentation in sweet wines with residual sugars. This fault arises specifically when viable LAB are present in the wine at the time of sorbate addition, leading to the production of the volatile compound 2-ethoxyhexa-3,5-diene. The biochemical pathway begins with the reduction of sorbic acid by LAB species such as Lactobacillus and Pediococcus, forming sorbic alcohol (2,4-hexadien-1-ol). Under the acidic conditions of wine, this alcohol rearranges to 3,5-hexadien-2-ol, which then reacts with ethanol to yield 2-ethoxyhexa-3,5-diene, the primary culprit for the taint. This compound imparts a pronounced aroma of geranium leaves, sometimes accompanied by sawdust-like notes, and is detectable at very low concentrations with a sensory threshold of approximately 100 ng/L in wine. The taint is irreversible, as the volatile ether persists through treatments like fining or filtration and cannot be effectively removed once formed. In winemaking, geranium taint is a risk primarily in sweet wines where sorbic acid is employed to stabilize against secondary fermentation, a practice that has been common since the preservative's introduction in the mid-20th century. The fault was first identified and characterized in the 1970s, with researchers pinpointing 2-ethoxyhexa-3,5-diene as the source of the geranium-like off-odor arising from sorbic acid additions. Prevention focuses on eliminating LAB prior to sorbate addition, achieved through techniques such as sterile filtration, heat treatment, or sufficient sulfur dioxide levels to suppress bacterial growth. Winemakers are advised to avoid sorbic acid altogether if possible, opting instead for alternative stabilization methods like dimethyl dicarbonate (Velcorin) in wines not undergoing malolactic fermentation, or to monitor for residual LAB activity before treatment. Careful application of potassium sorbate—ensuring concentrations remain effective without excess—further minimizes the risk in treated wines.

Ropiness

Ropiness is a textural fault in wine characterized by an abnormal increase in viscosity due to the production of exopolysaccharides by certain . Primarily caused by species of , such as P. damnosus and P. parvulus, these bacteria synthesize β-glucans through the action of glucosyltransferase enzymes encoded by the gtf gene, resulting in a slimy, rope-like consistency when the wine is poured or swirled. This fault typically emerges during or after , as the bacteria metabolize residual sugars or malic acid under favorable conditions. Sensory detection of ropiness manifests as a viscous, oily mouthfeel with mucous-like strands that can be drawn between fingers, often described as "ropey" or "greasy" in texture, without prominent off-aromas but significantly impairing clarity, balance, and overall drinkability. The β-glucans form long-chain polymers that entangle wine components, reducing astringency while creating an unappealing sliminess that detracts from the wine's freshness and structure. Ropiness is favored by environmental conditions that promote uncontrolled LAB growth, including high pH levels above 3.5, incomplete or stuck MLF, low sulfur dioxide concentrations, and warmer temperatures during winemaking. It occurs more frequently in red wines due to their typically higher pH and nutrient availability post-alcoholic fermentation, though it can affect whites as well. With modern hygiene practices, such as sterile filtration and SO₂ management, incidence remains low, generally under 1% in commercial production. Treatment involves fining with bentonite, a clay that adsorbs the β-glucan polysaccharides and associated proteins, allowing them to settle out and restore clarity, typically at rates of 0.5–2 g/L depending on severity. Enzymatic treatments with β-glucanase combined with lysozyme can also degrade the polymers and inhibit bacterial activity, particularly effective in early detection via qPCR monitoring of gtf genes. Historically, ropiness was more prevalent in unfiltered ciders due to similar LAB activity in low-acid environments, but in wine, targeted interventions post-1980s have minimized its occurrence through improved microbial control.

Bitterness Taint

Bitterness taint in wine arises primarily from the metabolic activity of (LAB), particularly heterofermentative species like and , which produce compounds that intensify phenolic bitterness during or after . This fault manifests as an exaggerated harshness in the mouthfeel and flavor profile, often described as overly astringent or herbal, detracting from the wine's balance. The key process involves LAB degrading glycerol—a major byproduct of alcoholic fermentation—into 3-hydroxypropionaldehyde, which spontaneously dehydrates to form acrolein. This reactive aldehyde then binds with wine phenolics, such as anthocyanins and tannins, creating polymeric complexes that impart a persistent bitter taste. Additionally, certain LAB strains possess β-glucosidase enzymes that hydrolyze phenolic glycosides present in grape skins and juice, releasing free aglycones like quercetin and myricetin, which are inherently bitter and contribute to sensory harshness. Lactobacillus species are particularly implicated in this glycoside breakdown, exacerbating the fault in wines with high phenolic loads. Sensorially, bitterness taint elevates perceptions of astringency and introduces herbal or medicinal notes, often likened to oversteeped tea or unripe fruit, making the wine unpalatable. These effects stem from the -phenolic adducts and liberated flavonol aglycones. Contributing factors include elevated LAB populations, often exceeding 10^6 CFU/mL post-fermentation, prolonged skin contact during red wine production, and higher pH environments (>3.5) that favor heterofermentative growth. Tannic red wines from varieties like are especially susceptible, as their inherent phenolics amplify the taint upon reaction with acrolein. Mitigation strategies center on inhibiting LAB proliferation through early sulfur dioxide (SO2) addition at 30-50 mg/L free SO2 immediately after crushing or alcoholic fermentation, which suppresses glycerol degradation and glycosidase activity. Lysozyme supplementation (250-500 mg/L) has also proven effective in reducing LAB viable counts by up to 4 log cycles in high-risk musts, preventing taint onset without altering wine chemistry significantly. While less extensively studied than other LAB faults, these interventions underscore the importance of microbial monitoring in tannic wine production.

Mannitol Metabolism

Mannitol metabolism in wine is primarily driven by heterofermentative lactic acid bacteria (LAB), such as certain strains of Oenococcus oeni and Lactobacillus species, which reduce residual fructose to mannitol during or after malolactic fermentation (MLF). This process occurs via the mannitol fermentation pathway, where fructose serves as both an electron acceptor and energy source, helping the bacteria maintain redox balance while producing mannitol, acetic acid, and lactic acid as byproducts. Unlike homofermentative LAB, which primarily convert sugars to lactic acid without significant mannitol formation, heterofermentative strains favor this reductive pathway, especially in environments with unbalanced glucose-fructose ratios post-alcoholic fermentation. Sensory impacts of mannitol metabolism manifest as an off-dry or bittersweet perception in wines intended to be dry, often accompanied by a vinegary-estery aroma and slimy due to elevated acetic acid and other metabolites. This residual sweetness arises from 's sweet taste (approximately 50-70% as sweet as ) accumulating without corresponding glucose consumption, disrupting flavor balance and potentially exacerbating volatile acidity (VA) or contributing to conditions that foster other LAB-derived faults like mousiness. In severe cases, the fault imparts a complex off-character including elevated n-propanol and 2-butanol levels, reducing overall wine quality. The fault's impacts include imbalanced acidity-sweetness profiles, which can destabilize wine and heighten refermentation risks from perceived residual sugars, particularly in high-fructose musts such as those from botrytized grapes where fructose levels may exceed 10 g/L post-fermentation. This is more prevalent in late-harvest or botrytis-affected wines, where concentrates sugars and creates favorable conditions for heterofermentative LAB growth. Control strategies emphasize MLF strain selection, favoring homofermentative LAB or low--producing heterofermentative strains like selected O. oeni cultures to minimize the fault while ensuring complete malic acid degradation. Additional measures include maintaining low (<3.5) and molecular SO₂ (>0.8 mg/L) to inhibit unwanted LAB activity, alongside below 18°C and post-MLF SO₂ additions (40-50 mg/L). Monitoring mannitol levels via (HPLC) with detection allows early detection, typically targeting thresholds below 1 g/L to prevent sensory defects.

References

  1. https://www.extension.iastate.edu/wine/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FS40.pdf
  2. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/74428
  3. https://mdpi-res.com/bookfiles/book/5988/Wine_Sensory_Faults.pdf?v=1738116372
  4. https://www.awri.com.au/industry_support/winemaking_resources/sensory_assessment/recognition-of-wine-faults-and-taints/wine_faults/
  5. https://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2018/03/Wine-Faults.pdf
  6. https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/vintage.html
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/cork-taint
  8. https://analyticalscience.wiley.com/content/news-do/wine-faults-and-flaws-practical-guide-keith-grainger
  9. https://extension.psu.edu/volatile-acidity-in-wine
  10. https://www.bonappetit.com/story/guide-to-wine-faults-and-flaws
  11. https://www.guildsomm.com/public_content/features/articles/b/kelli-white/posts/brettanomyces
  12. https://winefolly.com/deep-dive/what-are-wine-tannins/
  13. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/mlf_modulation_AWRI_fact_sheet.pdf
  14. https://www.wine-searcher.com/m/2025/11/the-truth-about-natural-wine
  15. https://www.decanter.com/learn/sulphur-dioxide-and-sulphites-wine-labels-ask-decanter-458624/
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814621010876
  17. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/29359/jnj7thesisPDF.pdf?sequence=1
  18. https://wineserver.ucdavis.edu/industry-info/enology/fermentation-management-guides/key-diagnosing-problem-fermentations/diagnostic-key-classes-character-compounds-aldehydes
  19. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281897440_Acetaldehyde_as_Key_Compound_for_the_Authenticity_of_Sherry_Wines_A_Study_Covering_5_Decades
  20. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27896529/
  21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5613747_Acetic_acid_bacteria_spoilage_of_bottled_red_wine_-_A_review
  22. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996910003777
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016816050700685X
  24. https://extension.psu.edu/volatile-acidity-in-wine/
  25. https://winemakersresearchexchange.com/library/post-fermentation-and-aging/volatile-acidity-definition-legal-limits-and-sensory-thresholds
  26. https://www.oiv.int/standards/international-code-of-oenological-practices/annexes/maximum-acceptable-limits
  27. https://enology.umn.edu/news/volatile-acidity-wine-making
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9182507/
  29. https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstreams/e17854b5-191d-4973-bfab-fdabed859071/download
  30. https://www.etslabs.com/library/31
  31. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.3c00728
  32. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31414495/
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335179524_A_new_analytical_method_to_measure_S-methyl-l-methionine_in_grape_juice_reveals_the_influence_of_yeast_on_dimethyl_sulfide_production_during_fermentation
  34. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf049160a
  35. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293015652_Evolutions_of_Volatile_Sulfur_Compounds_of_Cabernet_Sauvignon_Wines_during_Aging_in_Different_Oak_Barrels
  36. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/f4752k49f
  37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814625036210
  38. https://www.oiv.int/public/medias/7840/oiv-collective-expertise-document-so2-and-wine-a-review.pdf
  39. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351597560_Excessive_Sulfur_Dioxide_Volatile_Sulfur_Compounds_and_Reduced_Aromas
  40. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sulfites-in-wine
  41. https://www.oiv.int/standards/annex-a-methods-of-analysis-of-wines-and-musts/section-3-chemical-analysis/section-3-2-non-organic-compounds/section-3-2-3-other-non-organic-compounds/free-sulfur-dioxide-%2528titrimetry%2529-%2528type-iv%2529-%2528oiv-ma-as313-02%2529
  42. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023XC0809%2803%29
  43. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jsfa.3503
  44. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28062532
  45. https://doi.org/10.48130/fia-0024-0011
  46. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/TN09.pdf
  47. https://www.anzrsai.org/assets/Uploads/PublicationChapter/503-Marquezetalfinal.pdf
  48. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Technical_Review_Issue_224_Scrimgeour.pdf
  49. https://www.eurocave.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Goode-wine-storage-temperatures.pdf
  50. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26175297
  51. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.99279
  52. https://www.enartis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/151218161644.pdf
  53. https://www.decanter.com/learn/advice/light-strike-wine-ask-decanter-440704/
  54. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214289419306088
  55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8306610/
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23079938/
  57. https://www.winespectator.com/articles/producers-in-northeastern-us-ontario-bugged-by-bad-odors-in-wines-21543
  58. https://ojs.openagrar.de/index.php/VITIS/article/view/4234
  59. https://www.awri.com.au/industry_support/winemaking_resources/smoke-taint/
  60. https://www.winespectator.com/articles/how-will-weeks-of-wildfire-smoke-on-the-west-coast-impact-the-2020-vintage
  61. https://napavintners.com/community/docs/UCD_Statement_on_Fires_and_Wine_Industry.pdf
  62. https://www.vinetur.com/en/the-impact-of-wildfire-smoke-on-vineyards-and-wines.html
  63. https://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pub/em-9253-impact-smoke-exposure-wine
  64. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Smoke-Taint-The-latest-research-from-the-AWRI.pdf
  65. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284102820_Review_of_smoke_taint_in_wine_Smoke-derived_volatile_phenols_and_their_glycosidic_metabolites_in_grapes_and_vines_as_biomarkers_for_smoke_exposure_and_their_role_in_the_sensory_perception_of_smoke_tai
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8002560/
  67. https://www.awri.com.au/files/attachment/smoke-taint-practical-management-options/
  68. https://www.the-scientist.com/grapevine-bacteria-may-remove-smoky-taste-from-wine-73537
  69. https://www.oiv.int/public/medias/4831/code-brett-oiv-oeno-462-2014-en.pdf
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/food-science/brettanomyces
  71. https://waterhouse.ucdavis.edu/whats-in-wine/volatile-phenols
  72. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3804181/
  73. https://www.wineaustralia.com/news/articles/brett-on-the-rise-again
  74. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10482-005-3872-4
  75. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0007683
  76. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s002170100346
  77. https://vinlab.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Geosmin-article.pdf
  78. https://sauvignonblanc.com/fault-focus-geosmin-dragging-your-wine-through-the-mud/
  79. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24518330/
  80. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf0528613
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0021967318315668
  82. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814623000705
  83. https://oeno-one.eu/article/view/2350
  84. https://oeno-one.eu/article/view/7481
  85. https://punchdrink.com/articles/natural-wine-flaw-mouse/
  86. https://sauvignonblanc.com/fault-focus-mousiness/
  87. https://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/demystifying-mousiness
  88. https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/FS/FS-56-W.pdf
  89. https://www.extension.iastate.edu/wine/focusing-research-winemaking/
  90. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jf400641r
  91. https://www.wineaustralia.com/getmedia/096e2be0-282a-421e-9924-9d08f2538691/NWG-1201-Final-report
  92. https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/management_of_bunch_rot_diseases_in_grapes
  93. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236910631_Grapevine_Bunch_Rots_Impacts_on_Wine_Composition_Quality_and_Potential_Procedures_for_the_Removal_of_Wine_Faults
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814623007380
  95. https://ipm.ucanr.edu/agriculture/grape/botrytis-bunch-rot/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC91089/
  97. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8261695_The_%27buttery%27_attribute_of_wine_-_Diacetyl_-_Desirability_spoilage_and_beyond
  98. https://ami-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02505.x
  99. https://www.hawaiibevguide.com/wine-faults.html
  100. https://www.extension.iastate.edu/wine/considerations-for-use-of-sorbic-acid-in-sweet-wines/
  101. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4757-6255-6_9
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8466591/
  103. https://winemakermag.com/article/less-common-winemaking-pitfalls
  104. https://americanvineyardmagazine.com/pediococcus-wine-spoilage-concern-or-confusion/
  105. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/ns0648240
  106. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/63846
  107. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7843464/
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665927123000163
  109. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/s1763.pdf
  110. https://journals.asm.org/doi/pdf/10.1128/aem.51.3.539-545.1986
  111. https://www.lallemandwine.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Lallemand-Malolactic-Fermentation.pdf
  112. https://www.awri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Avoiding-spoilage-from-LAB.pdf
  113. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.2147/IJWR.S100653
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.