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…

To a better understanding of the impact of vine nitrogen status on volatile thiols from plot to transcriptome level

Volatile thiols contribute largely to the organoleptic characteristics and typicity of Sauvignon blanc wines. Among this family of odorous compounds, 3-sulfanylhexan-1-ol (3SH) and 4-methyl-4-sulfanylpentan-2-one (4MSP) have a major impact on wine flavor. These thiols are formed during alcoholic fermentation by the yeast from odorless and non-volatile precursors found in the berry and the must. The effect of vine nitrogen status on 3SH and 4MSP in Sauvignon blanc wine and on the glutathionylated and cysteinylated precursors of 3SH (Glut-3SH and Cys-3SH) was investigated in this study.

Effect of supplementation with inactive yeast during alcoholic fermentation in base wine for sparkling

INTRODUCTION: Foam stability of sparkling wines is significantly favored by the presence of surface active agents such as proteins and polysaccharides [1]. For that reason, the renowned sparkling wines are aged after the second fermentation in contact with the lees for several months (even years). Thereby wines are enriched in these macromolecules due to yeast autolysis. Since this practice is slow and costly, winemakers are seeking for alternative procedures to increase their concentration in base wines. In that sense, the supplementation with inactive yeast during alcoholic fermentation has been proposed [2]. The aim of this study was to determine whether this new strategy is really useful for enriching base wines in macromolecules and for improving foam properties of the base wines.

Modulating role of SO2 in white wine protein haze formation

Despite the extensive research performed during the last decades, the multifactorial mechanism responsible for the white wine protein haze formation is not fully characterized. Herein, a new model is proposed, which is based on the experimental identification of sulfur dioxide as a major modulating factor inducing wine protein haze upon heating. As opposed to other reducing agents, such as 2-mercaptoethanol, dithiothreitol and tris(2-carboxyethyl)phosphine hydrochloride (TCEP), the addition of SO2 to must/wine upon heating cleaves intraprotein disulfide bonds, hinders thiol-disulfide exchange during protein interactions and can lead to the formation of novel inter/intraprotein disulfide bonds. Those are eventually responsible for wine protein aggregation which follows a nucleation-growth kinetic model as shown by dynamic light scattering [1].

Analysis of peptide fraction from white wines

Among nitrogen compounds included in white wines, the peptide fraction is certainly the least studied, however this fraction is quantitatively the most important (Feuillat, 1974). Existing studies concern the fraction below 1 kDa and only for white and sparkling wines (Bartolomé et al, 1997, Desportes et al 2000). In this report, we have developed methods to isolate peptides from reference white wines. Then, we have applied this methodology with bitter wine to answer a research question: is there a relation between peptides and the bitterness of white wine as for some cheese for example (Furtado, 1984)?

Bentonite fining in cold wines: prediction tests, reduced efficiency and possibilities to avoid additional fining treatments

Bentonite fining is widely used to prevent protein haze in white wines. Most wineries use laboratory-scale fining trials to define the appropriate amount of bentonite to be used in the cellar. Those pre-tests need to mimic as much as possible the industrial scale fining procedure to determine the exact amount of bentonite necessary for protein stability. Nevertheless it is frequent that, after fining with the recommended amount of bentonite, wines appear still unstable and need an additional fining treatment. It remains a major challenge to understand why the same wine, fined with the same dosage of the same bentonite, achieves stability in the lab, but not in the cellar.