Next Article in Journal
Innovative Tools for Nitrogen Fertilization Traceability in Organic Farming Products: A Cauliflower Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Physiological and Productivity Responses in Two Chili Pepper Morphotypes (Capsicum annuum L.) under Different Soil Moisture Contents
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 10
Issue 1
10.3390/horticulturae10010093
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Advances in the Quality Improvement of Fruit Wines: A Review

by
Lei He
1,*,
Yifan Yan
2,
Min Wu
1 and
Leqin Ke
1
1
Hangzhou Vocational & Technical College, Hangzhou 310018, China
2
Wine Research Centre, Faculty of Land and Food Systems, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2024, 10(1), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10010093
Submission received: 31 December 2023 / Revised: 16 January 2024 / Accepted: 17 January 2024 / Published: 18 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Improvement of Fruit Wine Flavor)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fruit wines have gained great interest in recent years due to the increasingly diverse demands of consumers for different fruit wines with different colors, flavors, and nutritional values. Some fruits such as blueberry and strawberry are perishable and have a short shelf life. The production of fruit wine reduces fruit losses after harvest and enhances fruit utilization. The production of fruit wine with premium quality is determined by both intrinsic (i.e., genetic background) and extrinsic factors (e.g., yeast and fermentation protocol). This article provides an updated overview on the strategies and technologies aiming to improve the quality of fruit wines. Recent progress in improving fruit wine quality by variety selection, post-harvest treatments, yeast selection, fermentation protocols, fermentation conditions, and aging technologies has been comprehensively reviewed.

1. Introduction

There has long been a focus on fruits due to their high levels of nutritive contents and bioactive compounds, as well as good taste and pleasant flavors [1,2]. However, some fruits such as blueberry, strawberry, plum, and peach are perishable and have a short shelf life, which leads to relatively large losses varying from 10 to 30% of the production volume [3]. In order to reduce the post-harvest loss of fruits and improve their availability in preserved form, fruit wines are made by the fermentation of a large variety of fruits other than grape, such as blueberry, bilberry, cherry, peach, apple, plum, and mango. In addition, the increasing demands of consumers for diverse alcoholic beverages or wines also contribute to the development of fruit wine.
The demand and consumption of fruit wines has increased rapidly in recent years, attracting attention to improve their quality. The overall quality of fruit wine (e.g., sensory characteristics and nutritional values) depends on a variety of factors, mainly including the quality of raw fruit material (i.e., freshly harvested fruits), post-harvest treatments, fermentation conditions, vinification procedures, and aging processes [4,5,6,7,8]. The quality of raw fruit material is subjected to the genetic background of the fruit, environmental conditions, and cultural practices during fruit growth and development [1].
Recent studies have provided enhancements in the improvement of fruit wine quality, especially by simultaneous inoculation (SIM) or sequential inoculation (SEQ) of mixed cultures of non-Saccharomyces yeast and Saccharomyces yeast [7,9,10,11,12], followed by yeast selection [13,14,15], fermentation condition optimization [6,16,17], raw fruit material selection [4,18], post-harvest treatment [5,18], and wine aging technology [8]. This article systematically summarized the recent advances in improving fruit wine quality and provided general guidelines for selecting high-quality raw fruit materials, proper post-harvest treatments and yeasts, optimal inoculation protocols and fermentation conditions, and appropriate wine aging technologies to improve fruit wine quality.

2. Selection of Raw Material and Post-Harvest Treatment to Improve Fruit Wine Quality

The quality of raw fruit material depends on various factors and their interactions [19]. Firstly, the genetic intrinsic factor implies that some varieties naturally produce higher volatile compounds, polyphenols, or other compounds than others. Additionally, extrinsic factors such as environmental conditions, cultivation management, and post-harvest treatments also have an impact on the quality of fresh fruits.
Fruit variety affects not only the physical properties and chemical compositions of fresh fruits but also plays an important role in the sensory perception of the resultant fruit wine. In grape wine, aroma compounds are traditionally divided into three types: varietal, fermentation, and aging aroma [20]. The varietal aroma compounds refer to the aroma compounds originating from the grape and are the major contributor to the overall aroma of wine [21]. Wines made by different varieties usually have a specific varietal aroma [22]. Additionally, red wines made from different varieties have different tastes. For instance, ‘Merlot’ red wine is very soft, while Cabernet Sauvignon red wine is powerful and sharp [23]. However, the impact of fruit varieties on fruit wine quality has not been extensively investigated. Recent studies mainly compared the compositions and content of targeted compounds among different varieties of raw fruit material [24,25,26], but only a few investigated the impact of fruit varieties on the quality of their corresponding fruit wines. Specifically, Yuan et al. identified the volatile markers for distinguishing ‘O’Neal’ and ‘Misty’ blueberry wines using a non-targeted volatile metabolomic approach [4] and tracked the changes in volatiles in the two blueberry wines during alcoholic fermentation [27]. Wang et al. further combined volatomic analysis and sensory assessment to illuminate the aroma characteristics of nine types of blueberry wines derived from different blueberry cultivars [18]. The content and composition of non-anthocyanin phenolics were investigated in white bilberry wine and blue bilberry wine, suggesting that non-pigmented bilberries could be potential candidates for white bilberry wine production [28]. In plum wine, Čačanska lepotica wine had the highest contents of total phenols, total anthocyanins, and total flavan-3-ols, as well as the highest color intensity, and the strongest antiradical activity compared to Čačanska rana and Požegača wines [29]. In mango wine, Reddy et al. suggested that mango varieties Banginapalli, Banglora, and Alphonso were the most suitable ones for fruit wine production among the selected six varieties in South India [30]. Based on organoleptic properties, the mango wines made from Banginapalli and Alphonso varieties had better sensory characteristics (e.g., flavor, taste, and mouth feel) [31]. Wang et al. found a lower degradation of bioactive melatonin in mulberry red wine made by ‘Hongguo2’ during fermentation than in mulberry white wine made by ‘Baiyuwang’, which may be attributed to the higher antioxidative phenolics in black mulberry cultivar compared to the white cultivar [32]. There are a wide variety of cultivated and wild fruit varieties available today [33], and future research should focus more on the selection of appropriate fruit varieties for fruit wine production.
Environmental conditions such as temperature, light, water, soil, and microbial populations originating from the native environment surrounding the vineyard significantly affect grape growth and development, and subsequently the quality of wine [34,35]. Cultivation management such as leaf removal, training systems, vine spacing, cluster thinning, and shoot density also affect the aroma compounds and phenolic compounds in wine [36,37,38]. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is little research investigating the effects of environmental conditions and cultivation management on the quality of fruit wine.
The effect of post-harvest treatments on fruit wine quality has rarely been investigated. Current knowledge suggests that berry sorting and partial dehydration after harvest affect the quality of blueberry wines. After berry sorting, ‘Misty’ berry wine made with smaller blueberries had a more intense fruity and floral aroma [18]. Moderate postharvest dehydration (20–30% weight loss) increased the contents of total terpenes, benzeneacetaldehyde and phenylethyl alcohol, ethyl butanoate, methyl salicylate, 1-hexanol, and γ-nonalactone in blueberries and corresponding wines, leading to the enhancement of floral, fruity, and sweet notes of blueberry wines [5].

3. Effects of Fermentation on Fruit Wine Quality

Fermentation is a crucial step in fruit wine production. Alcohol is converted from sugar during this process and diverse metabolites (e.g., esters and higher alcohols) determining fruit wine quality are also formed. A variety of factors including yeasts (i.e., Saccharomyces and non-Saccharomyces) [14,39,40], inoculation protocols of mixed culture fermentation (i.e., combination of mixed cultures, inoculation modality, and inoculum ratio) [7,9,10], and fermentation conditions (i.e., temperature and pH) [6,16] have been reported to affect the physico-chemical and sensory quality of fruit wines.

3.1. Yeasts

The selection of yeasts is vital to obtaining grape wines and fruit wines with distinctive yet pleasant flavors [41,42]. Commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts have been widely used in the production of blueberry [5,33], plum [6,43], pineapple [44], and strawberry [45] wines, achieving controllability and reproducibility during the fermentation process and predictability in the sensory quality of the fermented beverages. The Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain can also produce a mixed fruit wine from pawpaw, banana, and watermelon, which was acceptable by consumers [46]. Although Saccharomyces cerevisiae is the most common yeast species used in fruit wine fermentation, few studies investigated the impact of different Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeasts on the fruit wine quality. Lin et al. compared the influence of four commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae on volatile profiles of pineapple wine and proposed that strains D254 and BV818 could be used for making intense pineapple wine and imparting characteristic aromas (e.g., 4-hydroxy-2,5-dimethylfuran-3-one, limonene, and ethyl 3-methylthiopropionate), respectively [44].
Despite the advantages of using Saccharomyces cerevisiae, grape wines produced by pure Saccharomyces cerevisiae lack the complexity of flavor when compared to those produced by spontaneous fermentation, during which non-Saccharomyces yeasts play an important role [41,47]. Non-Saccharomyces yeasts generally have low fermentability and weak alcohol tolerance [48]. Therefore, these yeasts were initially considered as undesired or spoilage strains during wine fermentation [41]. In recent years, non-Saccharomyces yeasts have gained attention due to their ability to enhance the flavor and improve the quality of wine [9,49]. Here, the effects of pure non-Saccharomyces yeasts inoculation on fruit wine have been reviewed, when compared to Saccharomyces yeasts (Table 1), mainly focusing on oenological characteristics (e.g., ethanol content, pH, titratable acidity) and volatile compounds. Generally, in contrast to Saccharomyces yeasts, pure inoculation of non-Saccharomyces yeasts leads to a lower content of ethanol in fruit wines such as blueberry [9], bilberry [50], peach [10], lychee [51], as well as apple, pear, and kiwifruit wines [40], compared to inoculation with Saccharomyces yeasts. The lower ethanol could be attributed to the different metabolic flux distribution during fermentation between non-Saccharomyces yeasts and Saccharomyces yeasts, and the lower tolerance of non-Saccharomyces yeasts to ethanol [52]. Lower ethanol levels were also observed in cherry wines made by Torulaspora delbrueckii and Metschnikowia pulcherrima when compared to the cherry wines made by Saccharomyces yeasts, but they were not statistically significant [53]. In addition to ethanol, the pH and titratable acidity also play a crucial role in the properties, quality, and microbiological stability of wine [54]. Sun et al. reported a lower pH in cherry wine inoculated with pure T. delbrueckii compared to that with Saccharomyces yeasts [53]. Likewise, lower pH was also observed in apple wine inoculated with Pichia kluyveri than that with Saccharomyces yeasts [40]. Fruit wine like blueberry wine fermented with industrial Saccharomyces yeasts usually has an excessively sour taste caused by high contents of residual organic acids, negatively affecting the flavor and quality of blueberry wine [55]. Fermentation with non-Saccharomyces yeasts could potentially solve this problem. Wang et al. found that titratable acidity was decreased in blueberry wine using pure T. delbrueckii when compared to Saccharomyces yeast inoculation [9], which could attribute to the decreased malic acid and citric acid contents [56]. A Pichia fermentans yeast also had a strong ability to degrade citric acid during blueberry wine fermentation [55]. Likewise, Hanseniaspora uvarum and M. pulcherrima reduced the titratable acidity in peach wine, mainly attributing to the reduced malic acid [10].
Regarding volatile compounds, increasing evidence demonstrated the positive contributions of non-Saccharomyces yeasts on the improvement of aroma complexity and sensory perception of fruit wines. Padilla et al. have concluded which non-Saccharomyces yeast species produced higher or lower volatile compounds in wine [41]. For instance, M. pulcherrima, Candida zemplinina, and Lachancea thermotolerans were described as higher producers of higher alcohols. M. pulcherrima still seems to be a strong producer of higher alcohols in peach wine [10] and bilberry wine [49], in accordance with its fermentation characteristics in wine [33]. Nevertheless, pure M. pulcherrima fermentation led to a decrease in higher alcohols in mango wine [57], indicating the impact of fruit matrices on higher alcohols during fermentation. A commercial strain of T. delbrueckii Zymaflore Alpha was found to increase total anthocyanins, total flavonoids, and total phenols in blueberry wine; however, three ethyl esters (ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, ethyl hexanoate, and ethyl octanoate) with fruity notes were simultaneously decreased [9], indicating pure T. delbrueckii fermentation in blueberry wine may not be the best choice. In contrast, four ethyl esters of ethyl L (−)-lactate, ethyl palmitate, ethyl 2-furoate, and ethyl caprate increased in peach wine inoculated with T. delbrueckii Zymaflore Alpha [10]. The different effects of the same commercial T. delbrueckii strain on ethyl esters in blueberry wine and peach wine might be attributed to the different chemical compositions of blueberry and peach fruits.
Additionally, some studies evaluated and compared the effects of different non-Saccharomyces yeasts on the quality of fruit wine, which improved the current understanding of the potential application of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in fruit wine production. Through comparing eight non-Saccharomyces yeasts, Liu et al. found that H. uvarum inoculation led to the highest levels of phenolic acids and flavan-3-ols in bilberry wine, and fermentations with Saccharomycodes ludwigii, T. delbrueckii, and M. pulcherrima resulted in higher levels of myricetin-3-O-glucoside and syringetin-3-O-glucoside but lower levels of most phenolic acids [15]. A recent study also compared ten non-Saccharomyces yeasts from Daqu in blueberry wine and found that Wickerhamomyces anomalus yeast showed good fermentation ability and the ability to convert anthocyanins and vinylphenols into more stable vinylphenol pyranoanthocyanins, and produced no H2S in the meantime. This might be a potential non-Saccharomyces yeast for the production of fruit wines with premium quality [13].
Table 1. Effects of pure non-Saccharomyces yeasts on fruit wine quality when compared to Saccharomyces yeasts.
Table 1. Effects of pure non-Saccharomyces yeasts on fruit wine quality when compared to Saccharomyces yeasts.
Fruit WineYeast (s)Impact on Fruit Wine QualityRef.
Blueberry wineT. delbrueckiiIncreased total anthocyanins, total flavonoids, and total phenols;
Decreased ethanol, titratable acidity, ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, ethyl hexanoate, and ethyl octanoate		[9]
Peach wineH. uvarumIncreased pH, volatile acidity, ethyl acetate, methyl acetate, furfuryl acetate, 2-octanone, and pentanal;
Decreased ethanol and titratable acidity		[10]
M. pulcherrimaIncreased pH, (E, E)-farnesol, ethyl sorbate, 4-penten-1-ol, (Z)-3-hexenol, 2-methyl-1-butanol, and acetoin;
Decreased ethanol and titratable acidity		[10]
L. thermotoleransIncreased pH, nerolidol, phenylethyl alcohol, 1-hexanol, ethyl butyrate, and ethyl hexanoate;
Decreased ethanol		[10]
T. delbrueckiiIncreased pH, ethyl L (−)-lactate, ethyl palmitate, ethyl 2-furoate, ethyl caprate, and nonanal;
Decreased ethanol		[10]
Apple wineM. pulcherrimaDecreased acetic acid[11]
M. sinensisDecreased ethanol[11]
W. anomalusIncreased ethyl acetate[11]
P. kluyveriDecreased pH and ethanol[40]
Plum wineH. thailandicaDecreased total phenols and antioxidant activity[14]
Pear wineL. thermotoleransIncreased pH;
Decreased ethanol		[40]
Kiwifruit wineL. thermotoleransDecreased ethanol[40]
C. zemplininaDecreased ethanol[40]
Bilberry wineH. uvarum and I. orientalisIncreased ethyl acetate[49]
M. pulcherrimaIncreased higher alcohols[49]
S. pombeIncreased acetoin and pyruvic acid;
Decreased ethanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, 4-methyl-1-pentanol, 3-methyl-1-pentanol, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol, ethyl acetate, diethyl succinate, and β-citronellol		[50,58]
T. delbrueckiiIncreased 2-phenylethanol and phenethyl acetate;
Decreased ethanol, total sugar, 4-methyl-1-pentanol, diethyl succinate, acetaldehyde, and 3-methylbutanal		[50]
Lychee wineT. delbrueckiiIncreased geraniol and cis-rose oxide;
Decreased ethanol, volatile acids, and esters		[51]
Cherry wine T. delbrueckiiDecreased pH[53]
Mango wineM. pulcherrimaDecreased volatile acidity, ethyl acetate, and higher alcohols[57]
T. delbrueckiiDecreased volatile acidity and higher alcohols[57]

3.2. Inoculation Protocols of Mixed Culture Fermentation

Although non-Saccharomyces yeasts have positive effects on fruit wine quality, such as increasing the complexity of aroma, reducing the anthocyanin adsorption, and benefiting the formation of some stable pigments like pyranoanthocyanins and proanthocyanins [9,13], these yeasts are usually characterized by a weaker fermentation ability when compared to Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Therefore, mixed fermentations of non-Saccharomyces yeast and Saccharomyces yeast have been proposed to retain the positive effects and reduce the negative impacts of non-Saccharomyces yeasts on wine quality. Previous studies found that the interaction between non-Saccharomyces yeast and Saccharomyces yeast during alcoholic fermentation is not only species-specific but also strain-specific [59]. In addition, the inoculation modality (i.e., SIM or SEQ) and inoculum ratio can significantly affect the quality of fruit wine [7,9,56]. On the basis of these findings, a suitable inoculation protocol with the optimal combination of mixed cultures, inoculation modality, and inoculum ratio of mixed cultures is necessary for mixed fermentation. Here, the effects of mixed fermentation of one non-Saccharomyces yeast and one Saccharomyces yeast on fruit wine quality have been reviewed, when compared to the Saccharomyces single yeast fermentation (Table 2). The improvement of ‘fruity’, ‘floral’, and ‘global aroma’ notes is of great interest in fruit wines. Terpenes and norisoprenoids with low olfactory perception thresholds are responsible for fruity and floral notes in wine [60,61]. Additionally, some ethyl esters of organic acids and straight-chain fatty acids, as well as acetates of higher alcohols, also contribute to the fruity aroma of wine [62].
Glycosidically bound terpenes and norisoprenoids typically exhibit remarkably higher concentrations than their free counterparts in fruits [61,63]. The addition of non-Saccharomyces yeasts with the ability to produce β-glucosidase plays a crucial role in releasing glycosidically bound terpenes and norisoprenoids during fermentation [64]. In fruit wines, the total terpene and individual terpene have been reported to be increased by mixed cultures of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae [7,53], Hanseniaspora opuntiae/S. cerevisiae [65], H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae [10,65], and T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae [9,16,51,65], when compared to pure S. cerevisiae fermentation. Specifically, Zhang et al. found that 1:10SIM of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae increased the levels of linalool and citronellol, and 10:1SIM, 1:1SIM, 10:1SEQ, 1:1SEQ, and 1:10SEQ increased the levels of linalool, citronellol, nerolidol, and total terpenes in plum wines, with 10:1SEQ producing the highest concentration of these compounds [7]. Likewise, higher α-terpineol and linalool were observed in cherry wine inoculated with 10:1SEQ of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae [53]. In blueberry wine, 1:1SIM of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae resulted in higher levels of α-terpinene, 1,4-cineole, o-cymene, limonene, β-ocimene, terpinolene, and nerol oxide, while 1:1SEQ performed better than 1:1SIM, with higher levels of α-terpinene, 1,4-cineole, (+)-4-carene, o-cymene, limonene, trans-β-ocimene, β-ocimene, terpinolene, myrcenol, β-terpineol, nerol oxide, cis-geraniol, and (6E)-nerolidol [9]. In citrus wine, 10:1SEQ of H. opuntiae/S. cerevisiae, H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae, and T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae consistently led to an increase in total terpenes [65]. In addition, both 10:1SIM and 10:1SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae increased linalool content in cherry wine [16,53]. A ratio of 10:1SEQ of H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae increased linalool content in peach wine [10], while 1:1SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae increased geraniol content in lychee wine [51]. On the basis of the above-mentioned studies, an inoculation ratio of 10:1 coupled with SEQ of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae, H. opuntiae/S. cerevisiae, H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae, and T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae could be good choices to produce more terpenes in fruit wines. In regard to norisoprenoids, SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae and M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae were found to be beneficial for norisoprenoids accumulation. In previous studies, a higher concentration of β-damascenone was found in cherry wines fermented with 10:1SIM/ SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae and 10:1SEQ of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae [53], while the lower level of β-damascenone was found in blueberry wine fermented with 1:1SIM of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae [9]. The different inoculation ratios of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae and the properties of different fruit matrices could be responsible for the opposite results of β-damascenone from the abovementioned studies. Moreover, 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene (TDN) and (E)-geranylacetone were increased in blueberry wine by 1:1SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae [9].
The increase in desirable esters is another target of mixed fermentation of non-Saccharomyces yeast and Saccharomyces yeast. Generally, the combinations of H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae, H. opuntiae/S. cerevisiae, M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae, Schizosaccharomyces pombe/S. cerevisiae, and T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae with proper inoculation modality and ratio were found to increase the fruity esters in fruit wines. Specifically, higher total esters were observed after fermentation with both 10:1SIM and 10:1SEQ of H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae in plum wine [12]. Likewise, Hu et al. found that fermentation with 10:1SEQ of H. opuntiae/S. cerevisiae and H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae resulted in higher ethyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, and phenethyl acetate in citrus wine [65]. In peach wine, 10:1SEQ of H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae, M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae, L. thermotolerans/S. cerevisiae, and T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae increased the concentration of ethyl acetate, with the highest concentration of 51.16 mg/L by H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae [10]. Ethyl acetate shows favorable effects on wine aroma at concentrations below 80 mg/L [66], while it imparts spoilage characteristics to wine at levels of 150–200 mg/L [67]. Regarding M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae, a previous study in plum wine showed that 10:1/1:1/1:10SEQ of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae increased the levels of total esters and several individual esters (i.e., hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, phenethyl acetate, and ethyl caproate), which contribute to the fruity odor [7]. The authors also found that 10:1/1:1SIM of the same mixed cultures increased the contents of hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, and ethyl caproate, while 1:10SIM increased the level of ethyl acetate in plum wine. In cherry wine, 10:1EQ of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae was observed to increase the levels of ethyl butyrate, ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl hex-3-enoate, methyl octanoate, ethyl octanoate, ethyl decanoate [53]. In bilberry wine, 1:1SIM of S. pombe/S. cerevisiae led to higher ethyl hexanoate content, and 1:1SEQ of S. pombe/S. cerevisiae resulted in higher total ester, ethyl acetate, ethyl hexanoate, and ethyl heptanoate contents [50]. The effects of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae on esters were inconsistent among different studies. A ratio of 10:1SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae might be suitable for increasing ester contents, as it resulted in higher ethyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, and phenethyl acetate contents in citrus wine [65], higher ethyl acetate content in peach wine [10], and higher ethyl butyrate, ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl hex-3-enoate, and ethyl octanoate contents in cherry wine [16,53]. In bilberry wine, 1:1SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae also led to higher levels of phenethyl acetate and ethyl dodecanoate [50], whereas blueberry wine fermented with 1:1SIM/SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae had lower levels of two fruity esters ethyl hexanoate and ethyl octanoate [9]. These results suggested that the ester production by T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae could be good candidates of mixed cultures for improving ester production during fruit wine fermentation, but the effects of these mixed cultures are highly dependent on the inoculation ratio and fruit matrices.
In addition, the effects of mixed fermentations on oenological characteristics, phenolic compounds, and higher alcohols depend on fruit matrices, non-Saccharomyces species, inoculation modality, and inoculation ratio (Table 2). Decreased ethanol was observed in blueberry wines fermented with 1:1SIM of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae and 10:1 SIM/SEQ of H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae [9], plum wines fermented with 10:1/1:1/1:10SEQ of M. pulcher-rima/S. cere-visiae [7], citrus wines fermented with 10:1SEQ of H. opuntiae/S. cerevisiae, H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae, or T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae [65], and bilberry wines fermented with 1:1SIM/SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae [50]. Fermentation with 1:1SIM/SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae decreased titratable acidity in blueberry wine [9]. Decreased volatile acids were observed in lychee wine fermented with 1:1SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae [51], and mango wine fermented with 10:1SIM T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae, and 10:1SIM of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae [57]. In contrast, increased volatile acids were found in plum wines fermented with 10:1SIM/SEQ of H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae [12], cherry wine fermented with 10:1SEQ of M. pulcher-rima/S. cere-visiae [53], and peach wines fermented with H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae and T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae [10]. Fermentation with H. opuntiae/S. cerevisiae, H. uvarum/S. cerevisiae, and L. thermotolerans/S. cerevisiae resulted in increased higher alcohols in citrus wines or peach wines [10,65]. The impacts of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae and T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae on higher alcohol contents seem to vary according to fruit matrices, inoculation modality, and inoculation ratio. For instance, 1:10SIM of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae increased higher alcohols in plum wine, while 1:1/1:10SEQ decreased it [7]. Differently from plum wine, 10:1SEQ of M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiae increased the higher alcohols in peach wine [10]. Fermentation with 1:1SIM/SEQ of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae increased total anthocyanins in blueberry wines [9], which could be attributed to the lower anthocyanin absorption in T. delbrueckii cell walls [33].
Recent studies also suggested that inoculation of more than one non-Saccharomyces species in combination with Saccharomyces cerevisiae might be a new strategy to improve wine quality [41,68]. The concentrations of ethyl esters of fatty acids were higher in wine fermented by a combination of C. zemplinina, H. uvarum, and S. cerevisiae compared to that fermented by pure S. cerevisiae, C. zemplinina/S. cerevisiae, or H. uvarum/S. Cerevisiae [69]. Moreover, Zhang et al. suggested that the triple mixed cultures of T. delbrueckii, H. vineae, and S. cerevisiae could be an option for making up the species shortages and further improving the overall quality of ‘Petit Manseng’ wine [68]. However, knowledge on the effects of triple mixed cultures with more than one non-Saccharomyces species and one Saccharomyces species on fruit wine quality is still limited. Recently, the effects of triple mixed cultures of S. cerevisiae, Dekkera bruxellensis, and W. anomalus, and quadruple mixed cultures of S. cerevisiae, D. bruxellensis, W. anomalus, and M. pulcherrima, as well as quadruple mixed cultures of S. cerevisiae, D. bruxellensis, W. anomalus, and Metschnikowia sinensis, on the quality of apple wines were evaluated [11]. The highest contents of volatile compounds were found in apple wines fermented by mixed cultures of M. pulcherrima/W. anomalus/D. bruxellensis/S. cerevisiae.
Table 2. Mixed cultures of yeasts designed to improve the quality of fruit wines when compared to pure Saccharomyces yeast fermentation.
Table 2. Mixed cultures of yeasts designed to improve the quality of fruit wines when compared to pure Saccharomyces yeast fermentation.
Fruit WineMixed CulturesModalityInoculation RatioImpact on Fruit Wine QualityRef.
Plum wineM. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiaeSIM10:1/1:1Increased linalool, citronellol, nerolidol, total terpenes, hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, and ethyl caproate[7]
SIM1:10Increased higher alcohols, linalool, citronellol, and ethyl acetate [7]
SEQ10:1Increased linalool, citronellol, nerolidol, total terpenes, total esters, hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, phenethyl acetate, and ethyl caproate;
Decreased ethanol		[7]
SEQ1:1/1:10Increased linalool, citronellol, nerolidol, total terpenes, total esters, hexyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, phenethyl acetate, and ethyl caproate;
Decreased ethanol and higher alcohols		[7]
H. uvarum/S. cerevisiaeSIM10:1Increased total esters and volatile acids[12]
SEQ10:1Increased total esters and volatile acids[12]
Blueberry wineT. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiaeSIM1:1Increased total anthocyanins, α-terpinene, 1,4-cineole, o-cymene, limonene, β-ocimene, terpinolene, and nerol oxide;
Decreased ethanol, titratable acidity, higher alcohols, β-damascenone, ethyl hexanoate, and ethyl octanoate		[9]
SEQ1:1Increased total anthocyanins, α-terpinene, 1,4-cineole, (+)-4-carene, o-cymene, limonene, trans-β-ocimene, β-ocimene, terpinolene, myrcenol, β-terpineol, nerol oxide, cis-geraniol, (6E)-nerolidol, TDN, and (E)-geranylacetone;
Decreased titratable acidity, ethyl hexanoate, and ethyl octanoate 		[9]
H. uvarum/S. cerevisiaeSIM10:1Decreased ethanol[12]
SEQ10:1Decreased ethanol [12]
Peach wineH. uvarum/S. cerevisiaeSEQ10:1Increased pH, volatile acidity, higher alcohols, linalool, and ethyl acetate[10]
M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiaeSEQ10:1Increased higher alcohols and ethyl acetate
[10]
L. thermotolerans/S. cerevisiaeSEQ10:1Increased pH, higher alcohols, and ethyl acetate;
Decreased titratable acidity		[10]
T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiaeSEQ10:1Increased pH, volatile acidity, and ethyl acetate;
Decreased higher alcohols		[10]
Cherry wineT. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiaeSIM/SEQ10:1Increased linalool, β-damascenone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl hex-3-enoate, and ethyl octanoate [16,53]
M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiaeSEQ10:1Increased volatile acids, α-terpineol, linalool, β-damascenone, ethyl butyrate, ethyl 3-methylbutanoate, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl hex-3-enoate, methyl octanoate, ethyl octanoate, and ethyl decanoate[53]
Bilberry wineT. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiaeSIM1:1Decreased ethanol[50]
SEQ1:1Increased higher alcohols, phenethyl acetate, and ethyl dodecanoate;
Decreased ethanol		[50,56]
S. pombe/S. cerevisiaeSIM1:1Increased pH and ethyl hexanoate
[50,56]
SEQ1:1Increased pH, total esters, ethyl acetate, ethyl hexanoate, and ethyl heptanoate[50,56]
Lychee wineT. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiaeSIM1:1Increased pH[51]
SEQ1:1Increased geraniol;
Decreased volatile acids 		[51]
Mango wineT. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiaeSIM10:1Decreased volatile acidity and higher alcohols[57]
M. pulcherrima/S. cerevisiaeSIM10:1Decreased volatile acidity and higher alcohols[57]
Citrus wineH. opuntiae/S. cerevisiaeSEQ10:1Increased higher alcohols, total terpenes, ethyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, and phenethyl acetate;
Decreased ethanol		[65]
H. uvarum/S. cerevisiaeSEQ10:1Increased pH and higher alcohols, total terpenes, ethyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, and phenethyl acetate;
Decreased ethanol		[65]
T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiaeSEQ10:1Increased volatile acids, pH, higher alcohols, total terpenes, ethyl acetate, isoamyl acetate, and phenethyl acetate;
Decreased ethanol		[65]
SIM, simultaneous inoculation; SEQ, sequential inoculation.

3.3. Fermentation Conditions

In addition to the yeasts and inoculation protocols, fermentation conditions such as temperature, pH, SO2 level, and aeration are also important factors that affect yeast growth, duration, fermentation rate, and the subsequent quality of fruit wine [70,71].
Low-temperature fermentation inhibited yeast growth and sugar consumption but was able to maintain the varietal aroma from the fruit [72,73], while high-temperature fermentation can lead to the loss of key aroma compounds such as isobutyl acetate and isopentylacetate [74]. Therefore, fruit wines are commonly suggested to be fermented at a moderate temperature between 20 and 25 °C for optimal aromatic and sensory characteristics [6,16,74]. Specifically, apple wine fermented at 20 °C had the highest levels of the most key aroma compounds (e.g., isobutylalcohol and isopentylalcohol) and the highest consumer acceptance, in comparison to those fermented at 17 °C, 23 °C, and 26 °C [74]. Likewise, in plum wine, the highest sensory evaluation score was obtained during fermentation at 20 °C when compared to those at 16 °C, 18 °C, 22 °C, and 24 °C [6]. Sun et al. found that sequential fermentation of T. delbrueckii/S. cerevisiae at 25 °C rather than 20 °C and 30 °C can result in the best sensory quality of cherry wine, which was partially attributed to the altered yeast–yeast interactions by temperature [16]. Furthermore, two cultivars of mulberry wines fermented at 25 °C showed higher levels of bioactive melatonin than those fermented at 16 °C [32]. To obtain a mango wine with a satisfactory production of ethanol, increased glycerol, and minimized volatile acidity, the fermentation conditions of temperature 22.5 °C, pH 3.8, and inoculum size 11.9% were recommended as optimal conditions [71]. A further study evaluated the effects of temperature, pH, SO2, and aeration on the microorganisms and sensory quality of mango wine, and suggested that temperature 25 °C, pH 5, 100 ppm of SO2, and must with initial oxygen were optimum for a better quality of mango wine [70]. Sun et al. unraveled that the amount of added SO2 was related to the contents of reducing sugars, soluble solids, ethanol, and volatile aroma compounds in strawberry wine, and suggested that the addition of 60–80 mg/L of SO2 at the beginning of fermentation was able to improve strawberry wine quality [17].

4. Effects of Wine Aging Technologies on Fruit Wine Quality

The main drawback for some fruit (e.g., blueberry and plum) wine making is destitute anthocyanin contents and/or unstable anthocyanins in the corresponding fruit wines. The degradation and absorption of these anthocyanins during aging directly threaten the organoleptic quality and dramatically shorten the shelf life of fruit wine. In the wine aging process, physical methods, such as ultrasonic waves, gamma rays, electric fields, nanogold photocatalysis, and high pressure have been proven to greatly reduce the aging time and improve the wine quality [75]. In blueberry wine, low-frequency power ultrasound treatment with specific treatment time and cycles (i.e., 180 W, 20 min, and 2 cycles) has been reported to improve color characteristics and reduce chromatic aberration of blueberry wine, which were attributed to unattenuated anthocyanins protected from the ultrasound treatment [76]. The improved color characteristic of the L* value in blueberry wine was also obtained by high-power pulsed microwave with low frequencies (50 and 100 Hz), and an increased maturity of blueberry wine body along with a shortened aging time were achieved at the same time [77]. Ultrasound treatments at 28 and 40 kHz improved the color performance (i.e., a*, b*, and C* values) and intensity of aged plum wine [8]. In addition, Cao et al. found that high hydrostatic pressure greatly affected alcohol and ester contents, as well as increased phenolic compounds in red raspberry wine [78]. The ultrasonicated mulberry wine was found to possess more antiradical properties than manosonicated and pressurized mulberry wines, as the different effects of these non-thermal processing methods on antioxidant compounds such as flavonols and anthocyanins [79].

5. Prospects

Fermentation plays an important role in determining the quality of fruit wine due to the complex biochemical reactions and formation of quality-related compounds during the process. Increasing evidence showed the benefits of mixed culture fermentation of non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces to improve the quality of fruit wine; however, the combination of mixed cultures, inoculation modality, and inoculum ratio still need further optimization according to the chemical composition and nutritional characteristics of raw fruit material, as well as the preference of winemakers and consumers. The actual performance of mixed inoculation strategies must be evaluated in fermenters at both pilot scale and industrial scale before they are applicable for commercial use. It is worth noting that mixed fermentation is characterized by complex and largely unknown interactions between non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces yeasts [80], which might result in unpredictable, uncontrollable, and unreproducible fruit wine quality. Omics approaches (e.g., genomic, proteomic, and metabolomic) and molecular tools could be promising tools to solve this problem [81].
Additionally, knowledge on the effects of the genetic background of raw fruit material, growing environmental conditions, cultivation management, post-harvest treatments, and wine aging technologies on fruit wine quality is rather limited at this stage, which also restricts the strategies for the quality improvement of fruit wines and processing of perishable fruits. It remains necessary to investigate the effects of these factors on the chemical components and sensory quality of fruit wines, and this will provide the winemakers with fundamental knowledge on fruit wine quality and therefore allow winemakers to manipulate and improve fruit wine quality through various strategies and technologies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.H. and Y.Y.; methodology, L.H., Y.Y. and M.W.; formal analysis, L.H., Y.Y., M.W. and L.K.; investigation, L.H., Y.Y., M.W. and L.K.; writing—original draft preparation, L.H. and Y.Y.; writing—review and editing, L.H. and Y.Y.; supervision, L.H.; project administration, L.H.; funding acquisition, L.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Hangzhou Vocational & Technical College Foundation for High-level Talent Research Initiation (Grant No. RCXY202319).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Yan, Y.; Pico, J.; Sun, B.; Pratap-Singh, A.; Gerbrandt, E.; Diego Castellarin, S. Phenolic profiles and their responses to pre-and post-harvest factors in small fruits: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 63, 3574–3601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Pu, Y.; Jiang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Cao, J.; Jiang, W. Advances in propolis and propolis functionalized coatings and films for fruits and vegetables preservation. Food Chem. 2023, 414, 135662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Joensuu, K.; Hartikainen, H.; Karppinen, S.; Jaakkonen, A.-K.; Kuoppa-Aho, M. Developing the collection of statistical food waste data on the primary production of fruit and vegetables. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 24618–24627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yuan, F.; Cheng, K.; Gao, J.; Pan, S. Characterization of cultivar differences of blueberry wines using GC-QTOF-MS and metabolic profiling methods. Molecules 2018, 23, 2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wang, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Cui, M.-Y.; Fu, Y.; Wang, X.-H.; Yang, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Yang, X.-H.; Bi, H.-J.; Gao, X.-L. Aroma enhancement of blueberry wine by postharvest partial dehydration of blueberries. Food Chem. 2023, 426, 136593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Liu, G.; Wei, P.; Tang, Y.; Pang, Y.; Sun, J.; Li, J.; Rao, C.; Wu, C.; He, X.; Li, L. Evaluation of bioactive compounds and bioactivities in plum (Prunus salicina Lindl.) wine. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 766415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, M.; Zhong, T.; Heygi, F.; Wang, Z.; Du, M. Effects of inoculation protocols on aroma profiles and quality of plum wine in mixed culture fermentation of Metschnikowia pulcherrima with Saccharomyces cerevisiae. LWT 2022, 161, 113338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wu, Z.; Li, X.; Zeng, Y.; Cai, D.; Teng, Z.; Wu, Q.; Sun, J.; Bai, W. Color stability enhancement and antioxidation improvement of sanhua plum wine under circulating ultrasound. Foods 2022, 11, 2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, Y.; Qi, X.-Y.; Fu, Y.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, X.-H.; Cui, M.-Y.; Ma, Y.-Y.; Gao, X.-L. Effects of Torulaspora delbrueckii co-fermented with Saccharomyces cerevisiae on physicochemical and aromatic profiles of blueberry fermented beverage. Food Chem. 2023, 409, 135284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, C.; Li, M.; Ren, T.; Wang, J.; Niu, C.; Zheng, F.; Li, Q. Effect of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and non-Saccharomyces strains on alcoholic fermentation behavior and aroma profile of yellow-fleshed peach wine. LWT 2022, 155, 112993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kręgiel, D.; Pawlikowska, E.; Antolak, H.; Dziekońska-Kubczak, U.; Pielech-Przybylska, K. Exploring Use of the Metschnikowia pulcherrima Clade to Improve Properties of Fruit Wines. Fermentation 2022, 8, 247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Huang, M.; Liu, X.; Li, X.; Sheng, X.; Li, T.; Tang, W.; Yu, Z.; Wang, Y. Effect of Hanseniaspora uvarum–Saccharomyces cerevisiae Mixed Fermentation on Aroma Characteristics of Rosa roxburghii Tratt, Blueberry, and Plum Wines. Molecules 2022, 27, 8097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhou, J.; Tang, C.; Zou, S.; Lei, L.; Wu, Y.; Yang, W.; Harindintwali, J.D.; Zhang, J.; Zeng, W.; Deng, D.; et al. Enhancement of pyranoanthocyanin formation in blueberry wine with non-Saccharomyces yeasts. Food Chem. 2024, 438, 137956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Niyomvong, N.; Trakunjae, C.; Boondaeng, A. Fermentation Characteristics and Aromatic Profiles of Plum Wines Produced with Hanseniaspora thailandica Zal1 and Common Wine Yeasts. Molecules 2023, 28, 3009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Liu, S.; Zhao, Y.; Li, Y.; Lou, Y.; Feng, X.; Yang, B. Comparison of phenolic profiles of albino bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) wines fermented by non-Saccharomyces yeasts. Food Biosci. 2023, 55, 102980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sun, S.Y.; Gong, H.S.; Zhao, Y.P.; Liu, W.L.; Jin, C.W. Sequential culture with Torulaspora delbrueckii and Saccharomyces cerevisiae and management of fermentation temperature to improve cherry wine quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 1880–1887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sun, Y.; Zhang, T.; Lü, H.; Yu, Z.; Li, X. Effect of added sulphur dioxide levels on the fermentation characteristics of strawberry wine. J. Inst. Brew. 2016, 122, 446–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wang, Y.; Cui, M.-Y.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, Y.; Yang, Q.; Fu, Y.; Bi, H.-J.; Yang, X.-H.; Gao, X.-L. Enhancing blueberry wine aroma: Insights from cultivar selection and berry sorting. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 2023, 7, 100643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kyriacou, M.C.; Rouphael, Y. Towards a new definition of quality for fresh fruits and vegetables. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 234, 463–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lan, Y.-B.; Xiang, X.-F.; Yang, W.-X.; Zhu, B.-Q.; Pu, H.-T.; Duan, C.-Q. Characterization of free and glycosidically bound volatile compounds, fatty acids, and amino acids in Vitis davidii Foex grape species native to China. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 29, 1641–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ruiz, J.; Kiene, F.; Belda, I.; Fracassetti, D.; Marquina, D.; Navascués, E.; Calderón, F.; Benito, A.; Rauhut, D.; Santos, A. Effects on varietal aromas during wine making: A review of the impact of varietal aromas on the flavor of wine. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 7425–7450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Styger, G.; Prior, B.; Bauer, F.F. Wine flavor and aroma. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 38, 1145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Swami, S.B.; Thakor, N.; Divate, A. Fruit wine production: A review. J. Food Res. Technol. 2014, 2, 93–100. [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuang, L.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, J.; Li, H.; Xu, G.; Li, J. Factor analysis and cluster analysis of mineral elements contents in different blueberry cultivars. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2022, 109, 104507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Šamec, D.; Maretić, M.; Lugarić, I.; Mešić, A.; Salopek-Sondi, B.; Duralija, B. Assessment of the differences in the physical, chemical and phytochemical properties of four strawberry cultivars using principal component analysis. Food Chem. 2016, 194, 828–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Cosmulescu, S.; Trandafir, I.; Nour, V.; Botu, M. Total phenolic, flavonoid distribution and antioxidant capacity in skin, pulp and fruit extracts of plum cultivars. J. Food Biochem. 2015, 39, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Liu, F.; Li, S.; Gao, J.; Cheng, K.; Yuan, F. Changes of terpenoids and other volatiles during alcoholic fermentation of blueberry wines made from two southern highbush cultivars. LWT 2019, 109, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liu, S.; Marsol-Vall, A.; Laaksonen, O.; Kortesniemi, M.; Yang, B. Characterization and quantification of nonanthocyanin phenolic compounds in white and blue bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) juices and wines using UHPLC-DAD− ESI-QTOF-MS and UHPLC-DAD. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 7734–7744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Miljić, U.; Puškaš, V.; Cvejić Hogervorst, J.; Torović, L. Phenolic compounds, chromatic characteristics and antiradical activity of plum wines. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017, 20, 2022–2033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Reddy, L.; Reddy, O.V.S. Production and characterization of wine from mango fruit (Mangifera indica L.). World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 21, 1345–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kumar, Y.S.; Varakumar, S.; Reddy, O.V.S. Evaluation of antioxidant and sensory properties of mango (Mangifera indica L.) wine. CyTA—J. Food 2012, 10, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wang, C.; Yin, L.-Y.; Shi, X.-Y.; Xiao, H.; Kang, K.; Liu, X.-Y.; Zhan, J.-C.; Huang, W.-D. Effect of Cultivar, Temperature, and Environmental Conditions on the Dynamic Change of Melatonin in Mulberry Fruit Development and Wine Fermentation. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, M958–M967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Liu, S.; Laaksonen, O.; Li, P.; Gu, Q.; Yang, B. Use of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in berry wine production: Inspiration from their applications in winemaking. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2022, 70, 736–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Van Leeuwen, C. Terroir: The effect of the physical environment on vine growth, grape ripening, and wine sensory attributes. In Managing Wine Quality; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 341–393. [Google Scholar]
  35. Stefanini, I.; Cavalieri, D. Metagenomic approaches to investigate the contribution of the vineyard environment to the quality of wine fermentation: Potentials and difficulties. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gutiérrez-Gamboa, G.; Zheng, W.; de Toda, F.M. Current viticultural techniques to mitigate the effects of global warming on grape and wine quality: A comprehensive review. Food Res. Int. 2021, 139, 109946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wang, Y.; He, Y.-N.; He, L.; He, F.; Chen, W.; Duan, C.-Q.; Wang, J. Changes in global aroma profiles of Cabernet Sauvignon in response to cluster thinning. Food Res. Int. 2019, 122, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Wang, Y.; He, L.; Pan, Q.; Duan, C.; Wang, J. Effects of Basal Defoliation on Wine Aromas: A Meta-Analysis. Molecules 2018, 23, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Miljić, U.; Puškaš, V.; Vučurović, V.; Muzalevski, A. Fermentation Characteristics and Aromatic Profile of Plum Wines Produced with Indigenous Microbiota and Pure Cultures of Selected Yeast. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 1443–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wei, J.; Zhang, Y.; Yuan, Y.; Dai, L.; Yue, T. Characteristic fruit wine production via reciprocal selection of juice and non-Saccharomyces species. Food Microbiol. 2019, 79, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Padilla, B.; Gil, J.V.; Manzanares, P. Past and Future of Non-Saccharomyces Yeasts: From Spoilage Microorganisms to Biotechnological Tools for Improving Wine Aroma Complexity. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saranraj, P.; Sivasakthivelan, P.; Naveen, M. Fermentation of fruit wine and its quality analysis: A review. Aust. J. Sci. Technol. 2017, 1, 85–97. [Google Scholar]
  43. Januszek, M.; Satora, P. How different fermentation type affects volatile composition of plum jerkums. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lin, X.; Wang, Q.; Hu, X.; Wu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, S.; Li, C. Evaluation of different Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains on the profile of volatile compounds in pineapple wine. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 4119–4130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Feng, Y.; Liu, M.; Ouyang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Ju, Y.; Fang, Y. Comparative study of aromatic compounds in fruit wines from raspberry, strawberry, and mulberry in central Shaanxi area. Food Nutr. Res. 2015, 59, 29290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Ogodo, A.C.; Ugbogu, O.C.; Ugbogu, A.E.; Ezeonu, C.S. Production of mixed fruit (pawpaw, banana and watermelon) wine using Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolated from palm wine. SpringerPlus 2015, 4, 683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Liu, P.-T.; Lu, L.; Duan, C.-Q.; Yan, G.-L. The contribution of indigenous non-Saccharomyces wine yeast to improved aromatic quality of Cabernet Sauvignon wines by spontaneous fermentation. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 71, 356–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Luan, Y.; Zhang, B.-Q.; Duan, C.-Q.; Yan, G.-L. Effects of different pre-fermentation cold maceration time on aroma compounds of Saccharomyces cerevisiae co-fermentation with Hanseniaspora opuntiae or Pichia kudriavzevii. LWT 2018, 92, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, S.; Laaksonen, O.; Marsol-Vall, A.; Zhu, B.; Yang, B. Comparison of volatile composition between alcoholic bilberry beverages fermented with non-Saccharomyces yeasts and dynamic changes in volatile compounds during fermentation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 3626–3637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, S.; Laaksonen, O.; Yang, B. Volatile composition of bilberry wines fermented with non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces yeasts in pure, sequential and simultaneous inoculations. Food Microbiol. 2019, 80, 25–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Chen, D.; Liu, S.-Q. Impact of simultaneous and sequential fermentation with Torulaspora delbrueckii and Saccharomyces cerevisiae on non-volatiles and volatiles of lychee wines. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 65, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ciani, M.; Morales, P.; Comitini, F.; Tronchoni, J.; Canonico, L.; Curiel, J.A.; Oro, L.; Rodrigues, A.J.; Gonzalez, R. Non-conventional yeast species for lowering ethanol content of wines. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sun, S.Y.; Gong, H.S.; Jiang, X.M.; Zhao, Y.P. Selected non-Saccharomyces wine yeasts in controlled multistarter fermentations with Saccharomyces cerevisiae on alcoholic fermentation behaviour and wine aroma of cherry wines. Food Microbiol. 2014, 44, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Vahl, K.; Kahlert, H.; von Mühlen, L.; Albrecht, A.; Meyer, G.; Behnert, J. Determination of the titratable acidity and the pH of wine based on potentiometric flow injection analysis. Talanta 2013, 111, 134–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Zhong, W.; Liu, S.; Yang, H.; Li, E. Effect of selected yeast on physicochemical and oenological properties of blueberry wine fermented with citrate-degrading Pichia fermentans. LWT 2021, 145, 111261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liu, S.; Laaksonen, O.; Kortesniemi, M.; Kalpio, M.; Yang, B. Chemical composition of bilberry wine fermented with non-Saccharomyces yeasts (Torulaspora delbrueckii and Schizosaccharomyces pombe) and Saccharomyces cerevisiae in pure, sequential and mixed fermentations. Food Chem. 2018, 266, 262–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Sadineni, V.; Kondapalli, N.; Obulam, V.S.R. Effect of co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Torulaspora delbrueckii or Metschnikowia pulcherrima on the aroma and sensory properties of mango wine. Ann. Microbiol. 2012, 62, 1353–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liu, S.; Laaksonen, O.; Yang, W.; Zhang, B.; Yang, B. Pyranoanthocyanins in bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus L.) wines fermented with Schizosaccharomyces pombe and their evolution during aging. Food Chem. 2020, 305, 125438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wang, C.; Mas, A.; Esteve-Zarzoso, B. The Interaction between Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Non-Saccharomyces Yeast during Alcoholic Fermentation Is Species and Strain Specific. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Black, C.A.; Parker, M.; Siebert, T.E.; Capone, D.L.; Francis, I.L. Terpenoids and their role in wine flavour: Recent advances. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2015, 21, 582–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. He, L.; Meng, N.; Castellarin, S.D.; Wang, Y.; Sun, Q.; Li, X.-Y.; Dong, Z.-G.; Tang, X.-P.; Duan, C.-Q.; Pan, Q.-H. Combined Metabolite and Transcriptome Profiling Reveals the Norisoprenoid Responses in Grape Berries to Abscisic Acid and Synthetic Auxin. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Sumby, K.M.; Grbin, P.R.; Jiranek, V. Microbial modulation of aromatic esters in wine: Current knowledge and future prospects. Food Chem. 2010, 121, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chen, X.; Quek, S.Y. Free and glycosidically bound aroma compounds in fruit: Biosynthesis, transformation, and practical control. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 63, 9052–9073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Zhang, P.; Zhang, R.; Sirisena, S.; Gan, R.; Fang, Z. Beta-glucosidase activity of wine yeasts and its impacts on wine volatiles and phenolics: A mini-review. Food Microbiol. 2021, 100, 103859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hu, L.; Liu, R.; Wang, X.; Zhang, X. The sensory quality improvement of citrus wine through co-fermentations with selected non-Saccharomyces yeast strains and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Plata, C.; Millan, C.; Mauricio, J.; Ortega, J. Formation of ethyl acetate and isoamyl acetate by various species of wine yeasts. Food Microbiol. 2003, 20, 217–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lambrechts, M.; Pretorius, I. Yeast and its importance to wine aroma. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2000, 21, 97–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zhang, B.; Liu, H.; Xue, J.; Tang, C.; Duan, C.; Yan, G. Use of Torulaspora delbrueckii and Hanseniaspora vineae co-fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae to improve aroma profiles and safety quality of Petit Manseng wines. LWT 2022, 161, 113360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Andorrà, I.; Berradre, M.; Mas, A.; Esteve-Zarzoso, B.; Guillamón, J.M. Effect of mixed culture fermentations on yeast populations and aroma profile. LWT 2012, 49, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Reddy, L.V.A.; Reddy, O.V.S. Effect of fermentation conditions on yeast growth and volatile composition of wine produced from mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit juice. Food Bioprod. Process. 2011, 89, 487–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sudheer Kumar, Y.; Prakasam, R.S.; Reddy, O.V.S. Optimisation of fermentation conditions for mango (Mangifera indica L.) wine production by employing response surface methodology. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 2320–2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Beltran, G.; Novo, M.; Guillamón, J.M.; Mas, A.; Rozès, N. Effect of fermentation temperature and culture media on the yeast lipid composition and wine volatile compounds. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 121, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Beltran, G.; Rozès, N.; Mas, A.; Guillamón, J.M. Effect of low-temperature fermentation on yeast nitrogen metabolism. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 23, 809–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Peng, B.; Li, F.; Cui, L.; Guo, Y. Effects of Fermentation Temperature on Key Aroma Compounds and Sensory Properties of Apple Wine. J. Food Sci. 2015, 80, S2937–S2943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Tao, Y.; García, J.F.; Sun, D.-W. Advances in Wine Aging Technologies for Enhancing Wine Quality and Accelerating Wine Aging Process. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2014, 54, 817–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Li, X.; Zhang, L.; Peng, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Wu, K.; Zhou, N.; Yan, Y.; Ramaswamy, H.S.; Sun, J.; Bai, W. The impact of ultrasonic treatment on blueberry wine anthocyanin color and its In-vitro anti-oxidant capacity. Food Chem. 2020, 333, 127455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Liu, S.; Li, S.; Li, S.; Wang, Y.; Fan, L.; Zhou, J. Effects of high power pulsed microwave on the enhanced color and flavor of aged blueberry wine. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2023, 33, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Cao, Z.; Li, Y.; Yu, C.; Li, S.; Zhang, X.; Tian, Y. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on the quality of red raspberry wine. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46, e16030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tchabo, W.; Ma, Y.; Kwaw, E.; Zhang, H.; Li, X.; Afoakwah, N.A. Effects of Ultrasound, High Pressure, and Manosonication Processes on Phenolic Profile and Antioxidant Properties of a Sulfur Dioxide-Free Mulberry (Morus nigra) Wine. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2017, 10, 1210–1223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sadoudi, M.; Tourdot-Maréchal, R.; Rousseaux, S.; Steyer, D.; Gallardo-Chacón, J.-J.; Ballester, J.; Vichi, S.; Guérin-Schneider, R.; Caixach, J.; Alexandre, H. Yeast–yeast interactions revealed by aromatic profile analysis of Sauvignon Blanc wine fermented by single or co-culture of non-Saccharomyces and Saccharomyces yeasts. Food Microbiol. 2012, 32, 243–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Roullier-Gall, C.; David, V.; Hemmler, D.; Schmitt-Kopplin, P.; Alexandre, H. Exploring yeast interactions through metabolic profiling. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 6073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

He, L.; Yan, Y.; Wu, M.; Ke, L. Advances in the Quality Improvement of Fruit Wines: A Review. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10010093

AMA Style

He L, Yan Y, Wu M, Ke L. Advances in the Quality Improvement of Fruit Wines: A Review. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(1):93. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10010093

Chicago/Turabian Style

He, Lei, Yifan Yan, Min Wu, and Leqin Ke. 2024. "Advances in the Quality Improvement of Fruit Wines: A Review" Horticulturae 10, no. 1: 93. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10010093

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop