INTRODUCTION
Silicon, whose content in soil is rather high (50–
400 g/kg soil), plays a significant role in soil formation
and fertility [1, 2]. Back in 1813, Davy established that
silicon is concentrated in the epidermal tissues of plants,
creating a barrier that protects plants from insect pests.
This was the first work on the importance of silicon in
plant physiology.
Today, we know a lot about the role of silicon in plant
life (Fig. 1). In particular, silicon content determines
the level of natural protection against biotic and abiotic
stresses [2–8]. Silicon nutrition for plants increases leaf
area and creates favorable conditions for photosynthesis
[7, 9]. When added to the soil, readily-soluble silica
improves the metabolism of nitrogen and phosphorus
in tissues, increases the content of phosphates, and
facilitates the consumption of boron and other elements.
In addition, it reduces the toxicity of excessive heavy
metals, neutralizes the negative effects of excessive
nitrogen fertilizers, increases the population of
ammonifiers, improves nitrification, and helps the soil to
absorb mobile forms of nitrogen [10–14].
Silicon fertilizers are increasingly being used in
agriculture across the world (the USA, China, India,
Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Australia, and
other countries). Their production increases by 20–30%
annually. An ecological alternative to pesticides, they
also increase plants’ resistance to stress.

Russia-produced silicon fertilizers include natural
silicon materials (Diatomite, BIO COMPLEX;
Promzeolit, PROMZEOLIT), concentrated monosilicic
acid with active colloidal silicon (Akkor, Moscow
Region), as well as physiologically active organosilicon
biostimulants (FLORA-SI, Moscow). Among them is a
unique fertilizer – NanoKremny (NANOCREMNY) –
crystalline silicon with a particle size under 0.5 μm,
which has no analogues in Russia or other countries.
Silicon fertilizers have a proven positive effect
on different soils for the Leguminosae, Gramineae,
Solanaceae, Citrinae, and Cruciferae families, as well
as other agricultural crops. However, few studies have
looked into tank mixtures of pesticides and bioactive
substances in relation to Vitis vinifera. In practice,
using scientifically unfounded tank compositions
often leads to negative phytosanitary and economic
consequences [15].
The quantity and quality of grape and wine yield
can be increased by using foliar dressing with macroand
microelements. Grape quality is determined
primarily by sugar content and acidity of the berry
juice. According to State Standard 31782-2012 “Fresh
grape of combine and hand harvesting for industrial
processing. Specifications”, the concentration of sugars
in grapes for winemaking must be at least 160 g/L for
white varieties and 170 g/L for red varieties. To ensure
such high concentrations of sugars and stable grape
yield, the grapevine must be provided with sources of
microelements [16, 17].
In recent years, scientists have been interested in the
role of bioorganic additives in winemaking technology.
Silicon-containing preparations, in particular, have a
beneficial effect on yeast metabolism and functional
activity. They intensify alcoholic fermentation, enrich
the wine with volatile components and, therefore,
improve its aroma [18–20].
We aimed to substantiate the use of the NanoKremny
mineral fertilizer in the Crimean vineyards and to study
its effect on crop efficiency, the quality and quantity of
grape, as well as the chemical composition and sensory
indicators of dry table wines.
STUDY OBJECTS AND METHODS
Our study objects were the grapes of white (Aligoté,
Chardonnay) and red (Cabernet Sauvignon) varieties,
as well as respective dry wines produced in 2017–
2018 in the western piedmont-coastal area of the main
viticulture zones of Crimea, namely the South-Western
Zone (S. Perovskoy; SVZ-AGRO, Sevastopol), the
Central Steppe Zone (Legenda Kryma, Geroyskoye
village), and the South Coast zone (Livadiya branch of
Massandra Winery, Yalta). Grape cultivation was in line
with the technological maps adopted for each variety in
each zone.
The technology for dry white table wines
(Chardonnay and Aligoté) included the following stages:
– crushing grapes on a manual roll-mill crusher;
– destemming;
– pressing the pulp on a manual basket-type press;

– sulfitating the must with sulfur dioxide (75–80 mg/L)
and stirring;
– clarifying the must at 14–16°С for 18–20 h;
– decanting the clarified must;
– introducing a pure culture of the Saccharomyces
cerevisiae yeast from the Magarach collection
of winemaking microorganisms (strain I-271 for
Chardonnay, I-187 and I-525 for Aligoté) and stirring;
– fermenting the must until dry at 20 ± 2°С with
stirring 2–3 times a day;
– clarifying the wine; and
– decanting the wine.
The technology for dry red table wines (Cabernet
Sauvignon) consisted of the following stages:
– crushing grapes on a manual roll-mill crusher;
– destemming;
– sulfitating the pulp with sulfur dioxide (75–80 mg/L)
and stirring;
– introducing a pure culture of the S. cerevisiae
yeast from the Magarach collection of winemaking
microorganisms (strains I-652 and I-250) and mixing;
– fermenting the pulp with a floating cap at 24 ± 2°С,
with mixing 7–8 times a day, up to 1/3 of residual
sugars;
– pressing the pulp on a manual basket-type press;
– fermenting the must until dry;
– self-clarifying; and
– decanting.
Fieldworks were conducted with common methods of
viticulture and plant protection [21, 22]. Foliar dressing
was introduced in a tank mixture with pesticides.
Experimental treatment schemes are presented
in Table 1.
The chemical composition of grapes, must,
and wines was analyzed with standard oenological
methods [23–25].
The phenolic ripeness of grapes was assessed
according to Glories et al. [24]. Their method
determines the potential amount of anthocyanins that
grapes can produce (ApH1.0) and the amount of easily
extractable anthocyanins (ApH3.2). The ratio between
these amounts shows the percentage of easily extractable
anthocyanins in the grape berry (Ea, %).
The concentration of organic acids was determined
in freshly squeezed, centrifuged must (OPN-8
centrifuge, Kyrgyzstan) by HPLC (Shimadzu LC20AD
Prominence chromatograph, Japan). The method
required preliminary calibration with standard
solutions of pure substances on the spectrophotometric
detector, taking into account their retention time.
Individual components of the organic acid profile were
determined at 210 nm. The sample was separated on a
Supelcogel C610H column (Supelco
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
Chardonnay,
Legenda
Kryma
Chardonnay,
S. Perovskoy
c.u.

in an isocratic mode of eluent supply (0.1% aqueous
solution of phosphoric acid, flow rate 0.5 mL/min). The
refractometric detector was additionally calibrated
using solutions of carbohydrate standards with the
same retention time as organic acids, taking into
account their analytical characteristics during analysis.

The concentration of organic acids in the sample was
calculated mathematically, using the data obtained on
the UV and refractometric detectors.
Volatile components were determined by gas
chromatography (Agilent Technology 6890, USA) at
an evaporator temperature of 220°С and a thermostat
temperature of 50–240°С programmed at 4°С/min. The
components were extracted with methylene chloride.
The experimental samples were separated on an HPINNOWAX
column (Carbowax 20M or PE-FFAP; 30 m
long, 0.25 mm inner diameter). The NIST 2007 database
was used to identify the substances.
Experimental data were processed by variational
statistical methods using Excel and SPSS Statistica
17 (arithmetic mean, root-mean-square deviation, and
error mean square of a singular result). The tables and
figures show the mean values of the indicators (standard
deviation under 5% at P ≤ 0.005).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Silicon fertilizers are an innovation in modern
intensive agriculture worldwide. NanoKremny is a
unique fertilizer that contributes to high-yielding and
ecological crops. Its main component is a biologically
and chemically active silicon in a chelated form.
Our field experiments showed that NanoKremny
produced the best results when applied threefold in the
periods of active growth and formation of vegetative and
generative organs in grape plants: bud pushing, before
florification, after florification, and at the beginning
of bunch formation (Table 1). This treatment led to
increased stress resistance and yield, as well as reduced
fungal diseases. In particular, it contributed to:
– higher productivity of grape plants: for example, the
first three spray treatments of Cabernet Sauvignon
(Livadiya, Massandra) improved the water balance
of grape plants and increased the leaf area (by 13.9%),
growth and ripening parameters (by 11.3 and 12.2%),
and crop quantity (by 14.7%);
– lower risk of downy mildew disease (1.2–3.6 times,
depending on variety) and oidium (protection improved
by 10–12%) with threefold spraying during blossom
clustering, before florification, and after florification;
– higher crop yield: for example, by 5, 45, and 49% for
Aligoté (SVZ-AGRO), Chardonnay (S. Perovskoy), and
Cabernet Sauvignon (SVZ-AGRO), respectively [26, 27].
The quality of grapes and young wines was assessed
on the basis of their chemical composition and sensory
characteristics. The grape batches under study met the
requirements of State Standard 31782. The optimal
contents of titratable acids are 6–9 and 5–8 g/L and
those of sugar are 170–200 and 180–220 g/L for white
and red varieties, respectively [28]. These contents are
not standardized and recommended for table wines in
scientific literature. We compared the carbohydrateacid
composition of the experimental grape batches
against the controls and found an up to 5% increase in
sugars for Legenda Kryma’s Chardonnay and a 5%
decrease in sugars for S. Perovskoy’s Chardonnay and
SVZ-AGRO’s Cabernet Sauvignon (Table 2). This
might be associated with a significant (by 45–49%)
yield growth. The experimental batches of Aligoté
and Livadiya’s Cabernet Sauvignon had a similar
composition to that of the controls.
The concentration of titratable acids in the
experimental samples increased by 7 and 9% for Aligoté and Livadiya’s Cabernet Sauvignon, respectively.
NanoKremny significantly reduced active acidity
(by 0.20) only in the Cabernet Sauvignon samples,
compared to the controls. Thus, we did not identify any
changes in the carbohydrate-acid complex that would be
common for all the experimental samples, regardless of
variety or place of growth.
Silicon makes plant more stress-resistant by
stimulating the synthesis of phenolic metabolites and
the activity of protective enzymes, such as monophenolmonooxygenase
(MPMO), peroxidase, and others [29–
31]. Important technological characteristics of grapes
for winemaking are the content of phenolic compounds,
including anthocyanins, phenolic ripeness, and the
activity of grape oxidases at the time of their technical
ripeness [32].
The experimental treatments increased the
technological reserve of phenolic compounds in the
experimental samples by 82–170 and 71–82 mg/L
for white and red varieties, respectively, compared
to the control. We found that the phenolic reserve in
the Cabernet Sauvignon and Aligoté samples, both
control and experimental, corresponded to the values
recommended for table wine production: at least
2000 mg/L for red grapes and under 1000 mg/L for
white grapes [28, 32].
We did not find a single trend in the effect of
NanoKremny on the accumulation of monomeric
anthocyanins in grapes at that stage. For example,
Livadiya’s Cabernet Sauvignon showed a 3% increase
in monomeric anthocyanins, whereas the same variety
from SVZ-AGRO had an 8% decrease. Cabernet
Sauvignon growing on the South Coast reaches phenolic
ripeness when it has at least 45% of easily extractable
anthocyanins [32]. We only used phenolically ripe
samples of Cabernet Sauvignon (both control and
experimental), with 44–56% of easily extractable
anthocyanins. The experimental treatment did not have a
significant effect on this indicator.
We found that the effect of NanoKremny on the
MPMO activity of the must depended largely on the
grape variety (Fig. 2). For example, Chardonnay showed
a decreasing trend, regardless of the place of its growth,
which is a favorable factor for white table wines.
Cabernet Sauvignon showed the opposite trend, while
the Aligoté samples were not affected at all. However,
we registered a correlation between the MPMO activity
and the place of growth. For example, Chardonnay
showed a decrease in the MPMO activity by 24 and
33% for Legenda Kryma and S. Perovskoy, respectively,
while Cabernet Sauvignon had an increase by
91 and 61% for SVZ-AGRO and Livadiya, respectively,
compared to the control.
Organic acids determine the sensory characteristics
of wines and the intensity of redox processes, as well as
protect them from harmful bacterial microflora [33, 34].
Recent studies have proved the relationship between
the metabolism of organic acids and plant resistance
to stress [35]. Organic acids are produced during
plant respiration due to the incomplete oxidation of
carbohydrates, as well as during photosynthesis (mainly
in leaves, with further transportation to grape berries).
Since silicon fertilizers create favorable conditions
for photosynthesis, we can assume that they have an
indirect effect on the metabolism of organic acids in
the grapevine. As we can see in Fig. 3, NanoKremny
contributed to a 9–12% increase in tartaric acid in the
grapes, regardless of their variety and growth area. A
similar trend was observed with malic acid (especially
in Chardonnay), whose concentration increased by 8% in
Cabernet Sauvignon and by 25 and 48% in Chardonnay
from S. Perovskoy and Legenda Kryma, respectively.
The quality assessment revealed that all the white
and red dry table wines produced from the grapes
treated in different ways met the requirements of State
Standard 32030-2013 “Table wines and table winestocks.
General specifications” (Table 3).
The chemical composition of wines and their
quality result from a combination of factors, including
agricultural methods used in the vineyard. To neutralize
technological influence, we used the same technology
to produce all the wines. The technologically relevant
parameters of grape and wine quality were taken from
previous studies [10, 28, 32].

We found that the Chardonnay and Aligoté
experimental wines showed various trends in relation to
titratable acids and active acidity. In the Aligoté wines,
the concentration of titratable acids was determined
by the yeast strain. For example, strains I-187 and
I-525 increased titratable acids by 1.5 and 0.2 g/L,
respectively, compared to the control.
Just as the experimental batches of Chardonnay
grapes, the experimental wines from them had a high
content of phenolic compounds – 7% higher than in
the controls. Their technological reserve in the Aligoté
wines, however, remained the same. On average,
the concentration of phenolic compounds in the
experimental wines amounted to 114–123 mg/L, which
was 26–29% lower than in the controls (Fig. 4).
It was impossible to determine the exact effect of
NanoKremny on the chemical composition of Cabernet
Sauvignon wines at that stage of research. Only 33% of
the wine samples showed an 0.7 g/L increase in titratable
acids. In 33% of the tested wines, the concentration of
titratable acids decreased by 0.9 g/L. In other cases, this
indicator was the same for both the experimental wines
and the controls. 

The profile of organic acids in the “grapes-wine”
chain showed the dominance of tartaric acid, whose
concentration in the control and experimental samples
did not differ, averaging 1.4 g/L (Fig. 5). Malic acid,
however, did not show the same increasing trend in
the wines as it did in the experimental grape samples.
Its average concentration in the experimental wines
was 33% lower than in the controls. This might be due
to malolactic fermentation, which also led to higher
concentrations of lactic and succinic acids, mostly
expressed in the experimental wine samples (Fig. 5).
Although NanoKremny contributed to the
accumulation of phenolic compounds in the grapes,
their concentration averaged 1446–2427 mg/L in
67% of the experimental wines, which was 2–7%
lower than in the controls. The only exception was the
wines from SVZ-AGRO where the concentration of
phenolic compounds averaged 1593 mg/L – 20% higher
than in the control. This might be due to the initial
composition of raw materials and the physiological and
biochemical properties of the strains used. Compounds
produced from fermentation can affect the speed of
redox processes initiated and mediated by phenolic
compounds.
The concentration of monomeric anthocyanins
was 301–385 and 314–401 mg/L in the control and
experimental wines, respectively. In Livadiya’s wines,
monomeric anthocyanins accounted for 12–17% of
phenolic compounds, only half of their proportion
in the grapes. In the wines from SVZ-AGRO, they
amounted to 20–26%, almost the same as in the grapes
(21–23%). This might be due to their ability to bind
with other сompounds, form complex structures, and
precipitate [36]. This assumption could be supported by
a lower content of acetaldehyde in the wine materials in
2017 (8–40 mg/L) compared to 2018 (90–133 mg/L).
Aroma is an important characteristic of wine
quality. According to the chromatographic analysis, the
concentrations of aroma-producing components in the
Aligoté and Cabernet Sauvignon wines averaged 104–
108 and 120–149 mg/L in the controls, and 96–104 and
112–141 mg/L in the experimental samples, respectively.
Aliphatic and aromatic alcohols were predominant
among aromatic substances, with the same total
concentrations in the experimental and control samples
averaging 27–31 and 25–32 mg/L for Aligoté and 35–47
and 27–35 mg/L for Cabernet Sauvignon, respectively.
All experimental wines from Aligoté grapes,
regardless of the yeast strain used, showed an increase
in ethyl esters 1.2–1.5 times (Fig. 6). They also had
high concentrations of acetic acid esters – 2.2 times and
1.6 times higher when treated with the I-187 and
I-525 yeast strains, respectively (Fig. 6). The I-525 strain
raised the concentration of dioxanes and dioxolans to an
average of 3.29 mg/L, which was 2.9 times higher than
in the controls.
The experimental wines from Cabernet Sauvignon
grapes showed lower (1.2–1.5 times) concentrations
of ethyl esters, averaging 7–9 mg/L. As we can see in
Fig. 6, the samples treated with the I-652 strain had
1.3 and 2.1 times lower concentrations of lactones and acetates than in the controls, averaging 3.14 and
3.76 mg/L, respectively. The I-250 strain increased
the concentration of dioxanes and dioxolans 1.8 times
compared to the control. These compositions of the
aroma-producing complex might be determined by
the physiological and biochemical abilities of the yeast
strains used.
The assessment of the influence of grape treatment
on the sensory quality of wines showed that young white
table wines from Chardonnay grapes contained some
shades of medicinal herbs, absent in the control samples.
The control Aligoté wines were characterized by a
light straw color, a floral aroma, with hints of meadow
herbs, candy and spicy tones, and a harmonious taste.
In contrast, the experimental wines had a straw color, a
fruity aroma, with herbal, spicy and candy tones, as well
as a fresh, slightly astringent taste. The average tasting
scores of Aligoté wines were 7.70 and 7.77 points for the
experimental and control samples, respectively.
The control red table wines from Cabernet
Sauvignon grapes had a dark ruby color, a varietal
berry aroma with hints of spices, nightshade, morocco
leather, and milk cream, as well as a moderate velvety
flavor with light astringency. Their average tasting
scores were 7.69 and 7.82 points for the 2017 and
2018 grape harvests, respectively. The experimental
wines (chemical protection + NanoKremny treatment)
had a dark ruby color, a berry aroma with light herbal
tints, and a somewhat simple palate with moderate
tannins. Their average tasting scores were 7.57 and 7.74–
7.75 for the 2017 and 2018 grape harvests, respectively.
Different yeast strains had no significant effect on the
tasting scores of the experimental red wines.
Thus, the differences in the sensory scores of the
control and experimental wines were statistically
insignificant (Р < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Our study showed that the optimal treatment of
grapevines is a threefold application of NanoKremny
(0.15 L/ha) during the periods of active growth and
formation of vegetative and generative organs in the
grape plant. This scheme has a positive effect on
vegetative development, water balance, grape plant
productivity, as well as yield quality and quantity. Also,
it prevents the development of mildew and oidium
diseases.
The NanoKremny treatment of the grapevine
preserves the content of titratable acids during grape
ripening and accumulates phenolic compounds, tartaric
and malic acids in the berries. We found no significant
differences in the physicochemical parameters of the
wines from NanoKremny-treated grapes and the control
wines from grapes that underwent standard chemical
protection.
The sensory evaluation of young wine samples
showed that the NanoKremny treatment enhanced the
expression of herbal (grassy) shades in the aroma of both
white and red wines. Although it somewhat simplified
their taste, NanoKremny did not have a negative effect
on the wine quality.
CONTRIBUTION
N.V. Aleinikova studied the effect of NanoKremny
on the grape plant and was involved in approving the
final version of the manuscript. I.V. Peskova processed
experimental data about the effect of NanoKremny on
the quality of grapes and wines, and was involved in
writing the manuscript. E.V. Ostroukhova studied the
effect of NanoKremny on the quality of grapes as raw
materials for winemaking and on the quality of wines;
she was also involved in approving the final version of
the manuscript. Ye.S. Galkina processed experimental
data about the effect of NanoKremny on the grape plant.
P.A. Didenko conducted fieldworks to identify the effect
of foliar dressing on the grape plant. P.A. Probeigolova
and N.Yu. Lutkova analyzed the chemical composition of
grapes and wines.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful to D.Yu. Pogorelov and
S.O. Ulyantsev from the Department of Wine Chemistry
and Biochemistry at the Magarach All-Russian National
Research Institute of Viticulture and Winemaking for
their help with chromatographic analysis, as well as
all our colleagues involved in the preparation of the
manuscript.

1. Tubana BS, Babu T, Datnoff LE. A review of silicon in soils and plants and its role in us agriculture: History and future perspectives. Soil Science. 2016;181(9-10):393-411. https://doi.org/10.1097/SS.0000000000000179.

2. Sahebi M, Hanafi MM, Akmar ASN, Rafii MY, Azizi P, Tengoua FF, et al. Importance of silicon and mechanisms of biosilica formation in plants. BioMed Research International. 2015;2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/396010.

3. Reynolds OL, Padula MP, Zeng R, Gurr GM. Silicon: Potential to promote direct and indirect effects on plant defense against arthropod pests in agriculture. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00744.

4. Van Bockhaven J, De Vleesschauwer D, Höfte M. Towards establishing broad-spectrum disease resistance in plants: silicon leads the way. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2013;64(5):1281-1293. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers329.

5. Bakhat HF, Bibia N, Zia Z, Abbas S, Hammad HM, Fahad S, et al. Silicon mitigates biotic stresses in crop plants: A review. Crop Protection. 2018;104:21-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.10.008.

6. Habibi G. Effects of soil- and foliar-applied silicon on the resistance of grapevine plants to freezing stress. Acta Biologica Szegediensis. 2015;59(2):109-117.

7. Haddad R, Kamangar A. The ameliorative effect of silicon and potassium on drought stressed grape (Vitis vinifera L.) leaves. Iranian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding. 2015;4(2):48-58.

8. Jana S, Jeong BR. Silicon: The most under-appreciated element in horticultural crops. Trends in Horticultural Research. 2014;4(1):1-19. https://doi.org/10.3923/thr.2014.1.19.

9. Song A, Li P, Fan F, Li Z, Liang Y. The effect of silicon on photosynthesis and expression of its relevant genes in rice (Oryza sativa L.) under high-zinc stress. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113782.

10. Zia Z, Bakhat HF, Saqib ZA, Shah GM, Fahad S, Ashraf MR, et al. Effect of water management and silicon on germination, growth, phosphorus and arsenic uptake in rice. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2017;144:11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.06.004.

11. Cartes P, Cea M, Jara A, Violante A, Mora ML. Description of mutual interactions between silicon and phosphorus in Andisols by mathematical and mechanistic models. Chemosphere. 2015;131:164-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.02.059.

12. Alovisi AMT, Neto AEF, Serra AP, Alovisi AA, Tokura LK, Lourente ERP, et al. Phosphorus and silicon fertilizer rates effects on dynamics of soil phosphorus fractions in oxisol under common bean cultivation. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2016;11(30):2697-2707. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2016.11304.

13. Veresoglou SD, Barto EK, Menexes G, Rillig MC. Fertilization affects severity of disease caused by fungal plant pathogens. Plant Pathology. 2013;62(5):961-969. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12014.

14. Kulikova AKh. Kremniy i vysokokremnistye porody v sisteme udobreniya selʹskokhozyaystvennykh kulʹtur [Silicon and high-siliceous rocks in the fertilization system for agricultural crops]. Ulyanovsk: Ulyanovsk State Agrarian University named after P.A. Stolypin; 2013. 176 p. (In Russ.).

15. Sanin SS. Current phytosanitary problems in Russia. Izvestiya of Timiryazev Agricultural Academy. 2016;(6):45-55. (In Russ.).

16. Serpuhovitina KA, Krasilnikov AA, Russo DE, Khudaverdov EN. Growth, development and productivity of varieties with systemic fertilizer of vineyards. Fruit growing and viticulture of South Russia. 2014;26(2):119-141. (In Russ.).

17. Radchevsky PP, Matuzok NV, Bazoyan SS. Influence of a foliar spraying with new-generation mineral fertilizers on agrobiological and technological indicators of chardonnay grapes. Polythematic Online Scientific Journal Of Kuban State Agrarian University. 2016;(115):665-690. (In Russ.).

18. Panasyuk AL, Kuzmina EI, Kharlamova LN, Babaeva MV, Romanova IP. Influence of bio-organic additives on the ability of yeast to provide biotransformation of pesticides in apple must. IOP Conference Series Materials Science and Engineering. 2019;582(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/582/1/012011.

19. Panasjuk AL, Shishkov YuI, Kuzmina EI, Kharlamova LN, Zaharov MA, Borisova AL. Intensification of process of fermentation of an apple mash with use of the made active biomass of yeast. Vinodelie i vinogradarstvo [Winemaking and viticulture]. 2010;(5):14-15. (In Russ.).

20. Panasjuk AL, Shishkov YuI, Kuzmina EI, Harlamova LN, Zaharov MA. Borisova AL. Change of ultrastructure of cells of wine yeast at use of a bioorganic additive. Vinodelie i vinogradarstvo [Winemaking and viticulture]. 2010;(6):24-25. (In Russ.).

21. Dolzhenko VI. Metodicheskie ukazaniya po registratsionnym ispytaniyam fungitsidov v selʹskom khozyaystve [Methodological guidelines for registration testing of fungicides in agriculture]. St. Petersburg: VIZR; 2009. 379 p. (In Russ.).

22. Sychev VG, Shapoval OA, Mozharova IP, Verevkina TM, Mukhina MT, Korshunov AA, et al.. Rukovodstvo po provedeniyu registratsionnykh ispytaniy agrokhimikatov v selʹskom khozyaystve [Guidelines for registration testing of agrochemicals in agriculture]. Moscow: Plodorodie; 2018. 193-200 p. (In Russ.).

23. Gerzhikova VG. Methods of technical chemistry control in winemaking. Simferopol: Tavrida; 2009. 304 p. (In Russ.).

24. Cagnasso E, Rolle L, Caudana A, Gerbi V. Relationship between grape phenolic maturity and red wine phenolic composition. Italian Journal of Food Science. 2008;20(3):365-380.

25. Lee J, Durst RW, Wrolstad RE. Determination of total monomeric anthocyanin pigment content of fruit juices, beverages, natural colorants, and wines by the pH differential method: Collaborative study. Journal of AOAC International. 2005;88(5):1269-1278. https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/88.5.1269.

26. Aleinikova NV, Galkina ES, Berezovskaya SP, Radionovskaya YaE, Didenko PA, Shaporenko VN, et al. Biological regulation on the use of domestic antidote “Nanokremnyi” (Nano-Silicon) in the vineyards with winemaking grapes in Crimea. Magarach. Viticulture and Vinemaking. 2017;(4):35-37. (In Russ.).

27. Aleinikova NV, Galkina ES, Didenko PA, Didenko LV. Determination of the impact of the use of domestic fertilizer NanoSilicon on the productivity of grapes in the soil and climatic conditions of the Crimea. Science Almanac. 2018;49(11-2):176-179. (In Russ.).

28. Valuyko GG, Kosyura VT. Spravochnik po vinodeliyu [Winemaking guidelines]. Simferopol: Tavrida; 2000. 624 p. (In Russ.).

29. Kulbat K. The role of phenolic compounds in plant resistance. Biotechnology and Food Sciences. 2016;80(2):97-108.

30. Wang M, Gao L, Dong S, Sun Y, Shen Q, Guo S. Role of silicon on plant-pathogen interactions. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017;8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00701.

31. Fortunato AA, Rodrigues F, do Nascimento KJT. Physiological and biochemical aspects of the resistance of banana plants to Fusarium wilt potentiated by silicon. Phytopathology.2012;102(10):957-966. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-02-12-0037-R.

32. Ostroukhova EV, Peskova IV, Probeigolova PA, Verik GN. A study of the interrelationship between the carbohydrate and acid maturity and the phenolic maturity of the grape “Cabernet Sauvignon”. Magarach. Viticulture and Vinemaking. 2012;(1):30-32. (In Russ.).

33. Danilewicz JC. Role of tartaric and malic acids in wine oxidation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2014;62(22):5149-5155. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf5007402.

34. Chidi BS, Bauer FF, Rossouw D. Organic acid metabolism and the impact of fermentation practices on wine acidity: A review. South African Journal for Enology and Viticulture. 2018;39(2):315−329. https://doi.org/10.21548/39-2-3172.

35. Drincovich MF, Voll LM, Maurino VG. Editorial: On the diversity of roles of organic acids. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2016;7. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01592.

36. Oliveira J, de Freitas V, Mateus N. Polymeric pigments in red wines. In: Morata A, editor. Red wine technology. Academic Press; 2019. pp. 207-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-814399-5.00014-1.