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…

A combination of biotechnology tools and coopers elements for an alternative the addition of SO2 at the end of the malolactic fermentation in red wines or at the “mutage” for the “liquoreux” wines

In red wines the post-MLF SO2 addition is an essential event. It is also the case for the “mutage” during the elaboration of the “liquoreux”. At these moments SO2 plays an antimicrobial action and an antioxidant effect. But at current pH of wines, ensuring a powerful molecular SO2 has become very difficult. Recent work on Brettanomyces strains have also shown that some strains are resistant up to 1.2 mg / L of molecular SO2. It’s also the case of the some Saccharomuces or Zygosaccharomyces strains suitable to re-ferment “liquoreux” wines after the “mutage”.

Impact of varying ethanol and carbonation levels on the odor threshold of 1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphtalene (petrol off-flavor) and role of berry size and Riesling clones

1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphtelene (TDN) evokes the odor of “petrol” in wine, especially in the variety Riesling. Increasing UV-radiation due to climate change intensifies formation of carotenoids in the berry skins and an increase of TDN-precursors1. Exploring new viticultural and oenological strategies to limit TDN formation in the future requires precise knowledge of TDN thresholds in different matrices. Thresholds reported in the literature vary substantially between 2 µg/L up to 20 µg/L2,3,4 due to the use of different methods. As Riesling grapes are used for very different wine styles such as dry, sweet or sparkling wines, it is essential to study the impact of varying ethanol and carbonation levels.

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)?

Characterization of non-Saccharomyces yeast and its interaction with Saccharomyces cerevisiae with investigation of fermentation kinetics and aromatic composition

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.20.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Identification of caffeic acid as a major component of Moscatel wine protein sediment

Proteins play a significant role in the colloidal stability and clarity of white wines [1]. However, under conditions of high temperatures during storage or transportation, the proteins themselves can self-aggregate into light-dispersing particles causing the so-called protein haze [2]. Formation of these unattractive precipitates in bottled wine is a common defect of commercial wines, making them unacceptable for sale [3]. Previous studies identified the presence of phenolic compounds in the natural precipitate of white wine [4], contributing to the hypothesis that these compounds could be involved in the mechanism of protein haze formation.