terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 EMERGENCE OF INORGANIC PHOSPHONATE RESIDUES IN GRAPEVINE PLANT PARTS, BERRIES AND WINES FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN FOLIAR SPRAYING

EMERGENCE OF INORGANIC PHOSPHONATE RESIDUES IN GRAPEVINE PLANT PARTS, BERRIES AND WINES FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN FOLIAR SPRAYING

Abstract

Inorganic phosphonates are known to effectively support the control of grapevine downy mildew in vi- ticulture. Their application helps the plant to induce an earlier and more effective pathogen defense. However, inorganic phosphonates have been banned in organic viticulture due to their classification as plant protection products since October 2013. Despite the ban, phosphonate has been recently detected in organic wines. Winemakers often assured that they had not applied the fungicide, however, without providing solid proof. This development has fueled the need to better understand potential phosphonate sources and, in particular, phosphonate uptake and distribution in vines. For this purpose, we set up an isolated test field with container vines, allowing to investigate different routes of uptake and the subse- quent mobility of phosphonate over two consecutive years after defined applications. Samples of leaves, stems and berries were analysed by IC-ICP-MS, being validated for quantification of low phosphonate levels therein (LOQs of 0.08-0.15 mg/kg fresh weight). Thereby, grapevines were shown to take up well detectable amounts of phosphonate through the roots, although the total amount found in berries was significantly lower when applying a 0.54 % (w/v) phosphonate solution to the roots (6 mg/kg) than after foliar spray application (38 mg/kg). Furthermore, the determination of the ratios of phosphonate levels in leaves and those in stems allowed identifying whether the vines were sprayed with phosphonate or took up phosphonate through the roots, e.g., from contaminated groundwater. We also present data from open-field vineyards to validate the results obtained with container vines. Besides soil-borne phospho- nate, we also found phosphonate residues in enological additives and processing aids, also contributing to potential phosphonate contaminations in the final wine product. In brief, our contribution will provi- de new insights into the origin of phosphonate in vines and derived wines originating from vineyards that had not been sprayed with phosphonate in the respective growing season.

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Article

Authors

Sören Otto1, Randolf Kauer2, Yvette Wohlfahrt¹, Beate Berkelmann-Löhnertz3, Bianca May4, Ralf Schweiggert1

1. Geisenheim University, Von-Lade-Strasse 1, D-65366 Geisenheim, Germany
2. Department of Beverage Research, Chair of Analysis & Technology of Plant-based Foods
3. Department of Viticulture, Chair of Organic Viticulture
4. Department of Crop Protection, Chair of Crop Protection in Viticulture and Horticulture
5. Department of Enology, Chair of Wine and Beverage Chemistry

Contact the author*

Keywords

phosphonic acid, contaminants, IC-ICP-MS, organic viticulture

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT VITICULTURAL AND ENOLOGICAL PRACTICES ON THE PHENOLIC COMPOSITION OF RED WINES

Global climate change is exerting a notable influence on viticulture sector and grape composition. The increase in temperature and the changes in rainfall pattern are causing a gap between phenolic and technological grape maturities [1]. As a result, the composition of grapes at harvest time and, consequently, that of wines are being affected, especially with regards to phenolic composition. Hence, wine quality is decreasing due to changes in the organoleptic properties, such as color and astringency, making necessary to implement new adaptive technologies in wineries to modulate these properties in order to improve wine quality.

EFFECT OF MANNOPROTEIN-RICH EXTRACTS FROM WINE LEES ON PHENOLICCOMPOSITION AND COLOUR OF RED WINE

In 2022, wine production was estimated at around 260 million hl. This high production rate implies to generate a large amount of by-products, which include grape pomace, grape stalks and wine lees. It is estimated that processing 100 tons of grapes leads to ~ 22 tons of by-products from which ~ 6 tons are lees [1]. Wine lees are a sludge-looking material mostly made of dead and living yeast cells, yeast debris and other particles that precipitate at the bottom of wine tanks after alcoholic fermentation. Unlike grape pomace or grape stalks, few strategies have been proposed for the recovery and valorisation of wine less [2].

CHANGES IN CU FRACTIONS AND RIBOFLAVIN IN WHITE WINES DURING SHORT-TERM LIGHT EXPOSURE: IMPACTS OF OXYGEN AND BOTTLE COLOUR

Copper in white wine can be associated with Cu(II) organic acids (Cu fraction I), Cu(I) thiol species (Cu fraction II), and Cu sulfides (Cu fraction III). The first two fractions are associated with the repression of reductive aromas in white wine, but these fractions gradually decrease in concentration during the normal bottle aging of wine. Although exposure of white wine to fluorescent light is known to induce the accumulation of volatile sulfur compounds, causing light-struck aroma, the influence on the loss of protective Cu fractions is uncertain. Riboflavin is known to be a critical initiator of photochemical reac-tions in wine, but the rate of its decay under short-term light exposure in different coloured bottles and for wine of different oxygen concentrations is not well understood.

METHYL SALICYLATE, A COMPOUND INVOLVED IN BORDEAUX RED WINES PRODUCED WITHOUT SULFITES ADDITION

Sulfur dioxide (SO₂) is the most commonly used additive during winemaking to protect wine from oxidation and from microorganisms. Thus, since the 18th century, SO₂ was almost systematically present in wines. Recently, wines produced without any addition of SO₂ during all the winemaking process including bottling became more and more popular for consumers. A recent study dedicated to sensory characterization of Bordeaux red wines produced without added SO₂, revealed that such wines were perceived differently from similar wines produced with using SO₂ and were characterized by specific fruity aromas and coolness1,2.

POTENTIAL DEACIDIFYING ROLE OF A COMMERCIAL CHITOSAN: IMPACT ON PH, TITRATABLE ACIDITY, AND ORGANIC ACIDS IN MODEL SOLUTIONS AND WHITE WINE

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 (Colan-gelo et al., 2018; Castro Marin et al., 2021).