terclim by ICS banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 FUNGAL CHITOSAN IS AN EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE TO SULPHITES IN SPECIFIC WINEMAKING SITUATIONS

FUNGAL CHITOSAN IS AN EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE TO SULPHITES IN SPECIFIC WINEMAKING SITUATIONS

Abstract

The most common method to prevent or eliminate microbes in wine is sulfur dioxide (SO₂) addition. However, as risk of acute allergy exists, the European Union has classified SO₂ as one of the 14 priority food allergens (EU Regulation N°1169/2011, Annex II). The legal dose admitted in both conventional and organic farming will be downgraded probably in the near future, according to consumer’s expectations. In addition, sulfur dioxide addition does not always prevent microbial spoilage, because of the emergence of tolerant/resistant strains. Winemakers thus need alternate and efficient antiseptic methods to reduce total SO₂ content in wines. The resolutions of the 7th general assembly of the International Organization of Vine and Wine (OIV/OENO 338A/2009) and the European Union (EC 53/2011) authorized the addition of fungal chitosan to reduce spoilage microorganism populations especially Brettanomyces bruxellensis. Chitosan is a partially acetylated polysaccharide of glucosamine. It is positively charged at wine pH, which allows it to interact with the microorganisms and particles present in the wine. With the trend in oenology of limiting SO₂, more and more questions arise as to the impact of fungal chitosan on other microorganisms from grapes and wine-related environment. It was shown recently that most species were affected, at least transiently, by chitosan treatment (Miot-Sertier et al. 2022). However, a high variability prevails within most species and sensitive, intermediate and tolerant strains can be observed, as well as different efficiencies depending on the wine chemical parameters or the winemaking stage when the treatment is performed.

In order to have a clear opinion on the usefulness of a chitosan treatment, we have carried out tests in various situations in which sulphites were not enough to protect the wine (presence of tolerant strains in particular). Though chitosan does not solve all the microbial spoilage issues, this study reveals that chitosane can be an interesting alternative to sulphites in certain situations. Furthermore, when the antiseptic effect is clear it seems durable and hence, wines are protected for microbial spoilage over long periods.
The study also shows that structural differences among fungal chitosans impact their efficiency. The organoleptic consequences of the treatment are also evaluated on red and white wines.

DOI:

Publication date: February 9, 2024

Issue: OENO Macrowine 2023

Type: Poster

Authors

Cécile Miot-Sertier¹, Margot Paulin¹, Axel Marchal¹, Patricia Ballestra¹, Warren Albertin¹, Isabelle Masneuf Pomarède¹, Joana Coulon², Virginie Moine², Amélie Vallet-Courbin³, Julie Maupeu³, Thierry Doco⁴, Cédric Delattre5-6,Marguerite Dols-Lafargue¹

1. Univ. Bordeaux, INRAE, Bordeaux INP, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, OENO, UMR1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
2. Biolaffort, 11 rue Aristide Bergès, 33270 Floirac, France
3. Microflora-ADERA, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
4. UMR 1083, UMR Sciences pour l’Oenologie, INRA, SupAgro, UM1, 2 place Viala, F-34060 Cedex Montpellier, France
5. Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont Auvergne INP, CNRS, Institut Pascal, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
6. Institut Universitaire de France (IUF), 1 Rue Descartes, 75000 Paris, France

Contact the author*

Keywords

Antiseptic, Spoilage, Chitosan, Sulfites

Tags

IVES Conference Series | oeno macrowine 2023 | oeno-macrowine

Citation

Related articles…

PROGRESS OF STUDIES OF LEES ORIGINATING FROM THE FIRST ALCOHOLIC FERMENTATION OF CHAMPAGNE WINES

Champagne wines are produced via a two-step process: the first is an initial alcoholic fermentation of grape must that produces a still base wine, followed by a second fermentation in bottle – the prise de mousse – that produces the effervescence. This appellation produces non-vintage sparkling wines composed of still base wines assembled from different vintages, varieties, and regions. These base wines, or “reserve wines,” are typically conserved on their fine lies and used to compensate for quality variance between vintages (1). Continuously blending small amounts of these reserve wines into newer ones also facilitates preserving the producer’s “house style.”

DETERMINATION OF FREE AMINO ACIDS, AMINO ACID POTENTIAL AND PROTEASE ACTIVITY IN THE LEES AND STILL WINES OF CHAMPAGNE

Prior to winemaking, organic or mineral nitrogen compound concentrations are usually measured in the vineyard and in grape musts. These indicators facilitate vine cultivation decisions, usually through yield or vigor. During vinification, yeast and bacteria metabolize nitrogen compounds in the musts in order to generate biomass. After fermentation, the microorganisms rerelease a part of this nitrogen as soluble compounds into the wines. Another part remains bound in the lees and can be lost during racking. The must’s natural nitrogen quantities, additional supplements during fermentation, and lees contact management enhance the release of nitrogen compounds to the wines. During ageing these nitrogen compounds – primarily the amino acids – are implicated in the generation of odorous compounds such as heterocycles(1).

OENOLOGICAL AND SUSTAINABILITY POTENTIAL OF WINES PRODUCED FROM DISEASE RESISTANT GRAPE CULTIVARS (PIWI WINES)

The strategy for sustainability in the wine sector of the EU refers to a set of practices and principles that aim to minimize the negative impact of wine production on the environment, social and economic sustainability. Sustainable wine production involves a range of practices that are designed to reduce waste, conserve resources, and promote the well-being of workers and communities.

UNEXPECTED PRODUCTION OF DMS POTENTIAL DURING ALCOOLIC FERMENTATION FROM MODEL CHAMPAGNE-LIKE MUSTS

The overall quality of aged wines is in part due to the development of complex aromas over a long period (1.) The apparition of this aromatic complexity depends on multiple chemical reactions that include the liberation of odorous compounds from non-odorous precursors. One example of this phenomenon is found in dimethyl sulphide (DMS) which, with its characteristic odor truffle, is a known contributor to the bouquet of premium aged wine bouquet (1). DMS supposedly accumulates during the ten first years of ageing thanks to the hydrolysis of its precursor dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSp.) DMSp is a possible secondary by-product from the degradation of S-methylmethionine (SMM), an amino acid iden- tified in grapes (2), which can be metabolized by yeast during alcoholic fermentation.

EFFECT OF FUMARIC ACID ON SPONTANEOUS FERMENTATION IN GRAPE MUST

Malolactic fermentation (MLF)¹, the decarboxylation of L-malic acid into L-lactic acid, is performed by lactic acid bacteria (LAB). MLF has a deacidifying effect that may compromise freshness or microbiological stability in wines² and can be inhibited by fumaric acid [E297] (FA). In wine, can be added at a maximum allowable dose of 0.6 g/L³. Its inhibition with FA is being studied as an alternative strategy to minimize added doses of SO₂⁴. In addition, wine yeasts are capable of metabolizing and storing small amounts of FA and during alcoholic fermentation (AF).