Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Removal of Fumonisin B1 and B2 from red wine using polymeric substances

Removal of Fumonisin B1 and B2 from red wine using polymeric substances

Abstract

The Ability of PVPP (Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone), PVP-DEGMA-TAIC (copolimerization of N-vinyl-2-pyrrolidinone with ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and triallyl isocyanurate) and PAEGDMA (poly(acrylamide-co-ethylene glycol dimethacrylate)) polymers was tested as removal agents for Fumonisin B1 (FB1) and Fumonisin B2 (FB2) from model solutions and red wine. The polymers removal capacity was checked at three different resident times (2, 8 and 24 hours of contact time between the polymer and the sample), showing no differences in the percentage of FB1 and FB2 removal. Then, different polymer concentrations (1, 5 and 10 mg mL-1) were tested in model solution with and without phenolics (i.e. gallic acid and 4-methylcatechol). The three polymers were able to remove FB1 and FB2, with PVP-DEGMA-TAIC and PAEGDMA reaching removal values over 70%. The ability of PVPP to remove Fumonisins was affected by the presence of phenolics in solution; however, this was much less pronounced with the other two polymers. Finally, the effectiveness of the polymers was tested on red wine. A concentration of 10 mg mL-1 of PVP-DEGMA-TAIC polymer removed up to 86.0% for FB1 and 97.9% for FB2, but the amount of polyphenols in solution was affected, with a reduction of 62.7%. However, with a dose of 1 mg mL-1 of polymer, the removal of FB2 was about 70% with only 16.5% removal of polyphenols. The most promising polymer used was PAEGDMA, which removed 70.7% of FB1 and 95.1% of FB2 with only 22.2% removal of polyphenols.

Acknowledgements: Fondecyt grant Nº 314029

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Verónica Carrasco*, Christian Folch, Gal Kreitman, Ryan Elias, V. Felipe Laurie

*Universidad de Talca

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Using combinations of recombinant pectinases to elucidate the deconstruction of the polysaccharide‐rich grape cell wall during winemaking

The effectiveness of enzyme-mediated maceration processes in red winemaking relies on a clear picture of the target (berry cell wall structure) to achieve the optimum combination of specific enzymes to be used. However, we lack the information on both essential factors of the reaction (i.e. specific activities in commercial enzyme preparation and the cell wall structure of berry tissue). In this study, the different combinations of pure recombinant enzymes and the recently validated high throughput cell wall profiling tools were applied to extend our knowledge on the grape berry cell wall polymeric deconstruction during the winemaking following a combinatorial enzyme treatment design.

Effect of intra‐vineyard ripeness variation on the efficiency of commercial enzymes on berry cell wall deconstruction under winemaking conditions

Intra-vineyard variation grape berry ripening occurs within bunches, between bunches on the same vine and between vines. Although it is assumed that such variation also occurs at the grape berry cell wall level, no study to data has investigated in any depth. Here we have used a intra-vineyard panel design to investigate pooled bunches from six vines (per panel) in the context of a winemaking scenario. The dissected vineyard was harvested by separate panels, where each panel was then subjected to a standard winemaking procedure with or without the addition of three different enzyme preparations for maceration.

Comparative proteomic analysis of wines made from Botrytis cinerea infected and healthy grapes reveal interesting parallels to the gushing phenomenon in sparkling wine

In addition to aroma compounds also protein composition strongly influences the quality of wines. Proteins of wine derive mainly from the plant Vitis vinifera and may be influenced by abiotic stress as well as fermentation conditions or fining. Additionally, fungal infections can affect the protein content as well by introducing fungal proteins or affecting grape protein composition. An infection of the vine with the plant pathogenic fungus Botrytis (B.) cinerea was shown to cause a degradation of proteins in the resulting wine. Moreover, it influences the foaming properties in sparkling wine.

Metabolomics comparison of non-Saccharomyces yeasts in Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however, in wine, non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect on aroma and flavor formation. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS of Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) were commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct chemical profile that was unique for both grape musts. The SC-monoculture and CZ-SC sequential fermentations were the most distinctly different in the Sauvignon blanc while the LT-SC sequential fermentations were the most different from the control in the Shiraz fermentations.

Impact of elemental sulfur (S0) residues in Sauvignon blanc juice on the formation of the varietal thiols 3-mercapto hexanol and 3-mercaptohexyl acetate

Elemental sulfur is a fungicide used by grape growers to control the development of powdery mildew, caused by the fungus Erysiphe necator. This compound is effective, cheap and has a low toxicity with no withholding period recommended. However, high levels of S0 residues in the harvested grapes can lead to the formation of reductive sulfur compounds that can impart taints and faults to the wine. Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) is a very volatile and unpleasant sulfur compound which formation is connected to high residues of S0 in juice (10 – 100 mg/L).