Red Wine Aging Techniques in Spring Water

Abstract

In wine production, technology influences its chemical composition, which in turn affects its organoleptic properties. As a result, innovative production techniques play a crucial role on the competitive wine market. Underwater wine aging has gained increasing popularity in recent years as an innovative method that can expand the variety of products available and bring engaging story telling. Some companies now offer this service to wine producers, although there is still limited knowledge about its effects on different wine types. This preliminary study investigated the impact of underwater aging by examining a well-structured red wine that was submerged for several months in spring water, comparing them to the same wine aged in a cellar for the same period. The chemical properties of the wines were analyzed after both the first (12 months of underwater and cellar aging), second (another 12 months), and third aging periods (further 12 months), to determine if there were any significant differences between them. The results revealed that underwater aging had a significant impact on the wines' chemical composition. The dissolved oxygen level and total anthocyanin content were most notably affected by the different aging methods, while the phenolic profile and color compounds showed less influence from the treatments. The sensory test indicated that the wines aged under water and in the cellar were perceived differently, depending on the aging method and the time of evaluation (after 12, 24 or 36 months). The results of the organoleptic tests underline how the effect of the conservation environment on the sensory properties is of greater impact in the early stages of post-bottling refinement, while the differences tend to disappear when the post-bottling refinement is extended up to 36 months. The first results of a second experimental campaign seem to confirm the trends detected in the first one, although with less evidence. Further investigation is required to gain a comprehensive understanding of the complexities of underwater aging and its wider impact on wine production.

Keywords: Albugnano wine; underwater wine; wine aging; wine maturation; wine phenols.

Figure 17

Comparison of the total polyphenol content in wine samples refined according to the two different methodologies (traditional in cellar and in vineyard and cellar wells) during 2021, 2022, and 2023. The determination of the total polyphenol content was carried out using the Folin–Ciocalteu method, measuring the absorbance of a chemically treated sample with a spectrophotometer.

Figure 18

Comparison of the total anthocyanin content in wine samples refined according to the two different methodologies (traditional in cellar and in vineyard and cellar wells) during 2021, 2022, and 2023. The identification of the total anthocyanin content was carried out using the Ribéreau–Gayon and Stonestreet method, measuring the absorbance of a chemically treated sample with a spectrophotometer.

Figure 1

Vineyard well at the beginning of the experiment (2020), before planting the vines (rootstocks).

Figure 2

Interior of the well.

Figure 3

Vineyard well in 2023, during the growing season.

Figure 4

Cellar well openings.

Figure 5

Interior of the cellar well with the samples placed to refine on the bottom.

Figure 6

(a–c) Types of containers used for water refinement ((a): PVC pipes, (b): galvanized iron cage, and (c): plastic box closed by a metal mesh).

Figure 7

(a,b) Positioning of the cage and one of the PVC pipes inside the well in the vineyard, with the samples immersed at a depth of approximately 3 m.

Figure 8

Probes used for environmental temperature and humidity detection.

Figure 9

Positioning the temperature probe in correspondence with the samples in water.

Figure 10

Temperature probe positioned in the cellar in correspondence with the traditionally aged samples.

Figure 11

Albugnano 2020 bottles positioned in the cellar’s well.

Figure 12

Temperature and humidity data (atmospheric and in the wine cellar) during the study period (2020 ÷ 2025).

Figure 13

Temperature and humidity data (atmospheric by RAM station and in the wine cellar by a GSP probe for the well and RC5 probe for the cellar environment) in September 2020.

Figure 14

Heat map of air temperature values detected by the cellar probe.

Figure 15

Heat map of water temperature values detected by the well’s cellar probe.

Figure 16

Comparison of dissolved oxygen content in wine samples (T = tube, V = vacuum, F = free) refined according to the two different methodologies (traditional in cellar and in vineyard and cellar wells) during 2021, 2022, and 2023.

Figure 19

Albugnano 2020 sample extracted from cellar’s well.

Figure 20

Comparison of the dissolved oxygen content in wine samples refined according to the two different methodologies (traditional and underwater) and taken during four consecutive years (2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025).

Figure 21

Comparison of the total polyphenol content in wine samples refined according to the two different methodologies (traditional and underwater), and taken during four consecutive years (2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025). The determination of the total polyphenol content was carried out using the Folin–Ciocalteu method, measuring the absorbance of a chemically treated sample with a spectrophotometer.

Figure 22

Comparison of the total anthocyanin content in wine samples refined according to the two different methodologies (traditional and underwater) and taken during four consecutive years (2021, 2022, 2023, and 2025). The identification of the total anthocyanin content was carried out using the Ribéreau–Gayon and Stonestreet method, measuring the absorbance of a chemically treated sample with a spectrophotometer.