IVAS 2022 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 IVAS 9 IVAS 2022 9 Potential deacidifying role of a commercial chitosan: impact on pH, titratable acidity, and organic acids in model solutions and white wine

Potential deacidifying role of a commercial chitosan: impact on pH, titratable acidity, and organic acids in model solutions and white wine

Abstract

Chitin is the main structural component of a large number of organisms (i.e., mollusks, insects, crustaceans, fungi, algae), and marine invertebrates including crabs and shrimps. The main derivative of chitin is chitosan (CH), produced by N-deacetylation of chitin in alkaline solutions. Over the past decade, the OIV/OENO 338A/ 2009 resolution approved the addition of allergen-free fungoid CH to must and wine as an adjuvant for microbiological control, prevention of haziness, metals chelation and ochratoxins removal (European Commission. 2011). Despite several studies on application of CH in winemaking, there are still very limited and controversial data on its interaction with acidic components in wine (Colangelo et al., 2018; Castro Marin et al., 2021). Therefore, the aim of this work was to assess the effect of a fungoid CH on pH, titratable acidity, and organic acids content in white wine and wine model solutions. A powdered sample of CH was added to each solution from 0 to 2.0 g/L and maintained under stirring (150 rpm) for 3h at room temperature. Before and after treatment, samples were analyzed for pH, titratable acidity, and organic acids content. Based on preliminary results, the CH treatment influenced both pH and titratable acidity: pH increased from 3,17±0,03 to 3,29±0,03, while titratable acidity decreased from 5,27±0,05 g/L to 4,58±0,04 g/L as tartaric acid equivalents. In detail, reductions in tartaric acid by 5-15% and in malic acid by 7-11% were observed. At the highest dosage (2.0 g/L) the CH produced a greater removal of tartaric acid (up to 202 mg per g of CH) than of malic acid (up to 63,45 mg/g of CH). These outcomes highlighted the valuable role of an allergen-free CH-based adsorbent as an alternative adjuvant for deacidification of white wines.

References

European Commission. 2011. European Commission Regulation (EU) 53/2011 of 21 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 606/2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices and the applicable restrictions. Official Journal of the European Union, L19/1-L19/6.
Colangelo, D., F. Torchio, D. M. De Faveri, and M. Lambri. 2018. The use of chitosan as alternative to bentonite for wine fining: effects on heat-stability, proteins, organic acids, colour, and volatile com- pounds in an aromatic white wine. Food Chemistry 264:301–9.
Castro Marín, A.; Colangelo, D.; Lambri, M.; Riponi, C.; Chinnici, F. Relevance and perspectives of the use of chitosan in winemaking: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 1–15

DOI:

Publication date: June 23, 2022

Issue: IVAS 2022

Type: Poster

Authors

Gabrielli Mario1, Romanini Elia1, Gruppi Alice1, Bassani Andrea1, Chinnici Fabio2, Castro Marin Antonio2 and Lambri Milena1

1Department for Sustainable Food Process, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore
2Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Contact the author

Keywords

wine; chitosan; organic acids; pH; titratable acidity

Tags

IVAS 2022 | IVES Conference Series

Citation

Related articles…

Pruned vine biomass exclusion from a clay loam vineyard soil – examining the impact on physical/chemical properties

The wine industry worldwide faces increasing challenges to achieve sustainable levels of carbon emission mitigation. This project seeks to establish the feasibility of harvesting winter pruned vineyard biomass (PVB) for potential use in carbon footprint reduction, through its use as a renewable biofuel for energy production. In order to make this recommendation, technical issues such as the potential environmental impact, chemical composition and fuel suitability, and logistical challenges of harvesting biomass needs to be understood to compare with the results from similar studies. Of particular interest is the role PVB plays as a carbon source in vineyard soils and what effect annual removal might have on soil carbon sequestration. A preliminary trial was established in the Waite Campus vineyard (University of Adelaide) to test current management strategies. Vines are grown in a Eutrophic, Red Dermosol clay loam soil with well managed midrow swards. A comparison was undertaken of mid-row treatments in two 0.25 Ha blocks (Shiraz and Semillon), including annual cultivation for seed bed preparation, the deliberate exclusion of PVB (25 years) and incorporation of PVB (13 years) at an average of 3.4 and 5.5 Mg/Ha-1 for Shiraz and Semillon respectively. In both 0-10cm and 10-30cm soil core sample depths, combined soil carbon % measures in the desired range of 1.80 to 3.50, were not significantly different between treatments or cultivars and yielded an estimated 42 Mg/ha-1 of sequestered soil carbon. Other key physical and chemical measures were likewise not significantly different between treatments. Preliminary results suggest that in a temperate zone vineyard, managed such as the one used in this study, there is no long term negative impact on soil carbon sequestration through removing PVB. This implies that growers could confidently harvest PVB for use in several end fates including as a bio fuel.

Grapevine yield-gap: identification of environmental limitations by soil and climate zoning in Languedoc-Roussillon region (south of France)

Grapevine yield has been historically overlooked, assuming a strong trade-off between grape yield and wine quality. At present, menaced by climate change, many vineyards in Southern France are far from the quality label threshold, becoming grapevine yield-gaps a major subject of concern. Although yield-gaps are well studied in arable crops, we know very little about grapevine yield-gaps. In the present study, we analysed the environmental component of grapevine yield-gaps linked to climate and soil resources in the Languedoc Roussillon. We used SAFRAN data and IGP Pays d’Oc wine yields from 2010 to 2018. We selected climate and soil indicators proving to have a significant effect on average wine yield-gaps at the municipality scale. The most significant factors of grapevine yield were the Soil Available Water Capacity; followed by the Huglin Index and the Climatic Dryness Index. The Days of Frost; the Soil pH; and the Very Hot Days were also significant. Then, we clustered geographical zones presenting similar indicators, facilitating the identification of resources yield-gaps. We discussed the number of zones with the experts of IGP Pays d’Oc label, obtaining 7 zones with similar limitations for grapevine yield. Finally, we analysed the main resources causing yield-gaps and the grapevine varieties planted on each zone. Mapping grapevine resource yield-gaps are the first stage for understanding grapevine yield-gaps at the regional scale.

Variety and climatic effects on quality scores in the Western US winegrowing regions

Wine quality is strongly linked to climate. Quality scores are often driven by climate variation across different winegrowing regions and years, but also influenced by other aspects of terroir, including variety. While recent work has looked at the relationship between quality scores and climate across many European regions, less work has examined New World winegrowing regions. Here we used scores from three major rating systems (Wine Advocate, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Spectator) combined with daily climate and phenology data to understand what drives variation across wine quality scores in major regions of the Western US, including regions in California, Oregon and Washington. We examined effects of variety, region, and in what phenological period climate was most predictive of quality. As in other studies, we found climate, based mainly on growing degree day (GDD) models, was generally associated with quality—with higher GDD associated with higher scores—but variety and region also had strong effects. Effects of region were generally stronger than variety. Certain varieties received the highest scores in only some areas, while other varieties (e.g., Merlot) generally scored lower across regions. Across phenological stages, GDD during budbreak was often most strongly associated with quality. Our results support other studies that warmer periods generally drive high quality wines, but highlight how much region and variety drive variation in scores outside of climate.

Inhibition of Oenococcus oeni during alcoholic fermentation by a selected Lactiplantibacillus plantarum strain

The use of selected cultures of the species Lactiplantibacillus plantarum in Oenology has grown in prominence in recent years. While initial applications of this species centred very much around malolactic fermentation (MLF), there is strong evidence to show that certain strains can be harnessed for their bio-protective effects. Unwanted spontaneous MLF during alcoholic fermentation (AF), driven by rogue Oenococcus oeni, is a winemaking deviation that is very difficult to manage when it occurs. This work set out to determine the efficacy of one particular strain of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum(Viniflora® NoVA™ Protect), against this problem in Cabernet Sauvignon must. The work was carried out at commercial scale and in a winery environment and compared the bio-protective culture with the more traditional approach of reducing must pH by the addition of tartaric acid. The combination of both was also investigated. The concentration of both Oenococcus oeni and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum was determined using qPCR. The adventitious Oenococcus oeni showed the most growth during AF in the control wine, whereas in the wines treated with Lactiplantibacillus plantarum a bacteriostatic effect against this species was observed. This effect was comparable to the wines treated with tartaric acid. This has particular commercial relevance for controlling the flora in musts with high pH, or when the addition of tartaric acid is either not permitted or is prohibitive for other reasons.

An analytical framework to site-specifically study climate influence on grapevine involving the functional and Bayesian exploration of farm data time series synchronized using an eGDD thermal index

Climate influence on grapevine physiology is prevalent and this influence is only expected to increase with climate change. Although governed by a general determinism, climate influence on grapevine physiology may present variations according to the terroir. In addition, these site-specific differences are likely to be enhanced when climate influence is studied using farm data. Indeed, farm data integrate additional sources of variation such as a varying representativity of the conditions actually experienced in the field. Nevertheless, there is a real challenge in valuing farm data to enable grape growers to understand their own terroir and consequently adapt their practices to the local conditions. In such a context, this article proposes a framework to site-specifically study climate influence on grapevine physiology using farm data. It focuses on improving the analysis of time series of weather data. The analytical framework includes the synchronization of time series using site-specific thermal indices computed with an original method called Extended Growing Degree Days (eGDD). Synchronized time series are then analyzed using a Bayesian functional Linear regression with Sparse Steps functions (BLiSS) in order to detect site-specific periods of strong climate influence on yield development. The article focuses on temperature and rain influence on grape yield development as a case study. It uses data from three commercial vineyards respectively situated in the Bordeaux region (France), California (USA) and Israel. For all vineyards, common periods of climate influence on yield development were found. They corresponded to already known periods, for example around veraison of the year before harvest. However, the periods differed in their precise timing (e.g. before, around or after veraison), duration and correlation direction with yield. Other periods were found for only one or two vineyards and/or were not referred to in literature, for example during the winter before harvest.