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

Not only vintner’s decisions in the vineyard, but also winemaker’s choices of technology approaches in the cellar play a significant role in the final wine style and quality. Whereas traditional technologies within chosen terroir are quite well explored and thus somehow predictable, there is no proper knowledge available on possible outcomes in case of implementing novel, alternative winemaking strategies. To reveal their effects on wine aroma compounds and sensory characteristics, two alternative strategies
(cryoextraction or addition of whole grape berries during last stages of fermentation) were compared to classical Vipava valley winemaking approach as normally used for an autochthonous variety Zelen. After separate vinification and bottling, all the experimental wines were subjected to semiquantitative metabolic profiling of volatile compounds (VOCs) by means of GC/MS and were then also sensorialy evaluated by pre-trained panel.

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.

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].

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.

All along the winemaking process, conditioning and aging, wine is susceptible to be contaminated by different molecules. Contaminations can have various origins, related to wine microorganisms or as a result of an exogenous contamination. The aforementioned contamination of the wine can be caused by the migration of molecules from the materials in contact with the wine or by a contamination from exogenous molecules present in the air. Regardless of the source of the contamination, mainly two types of consequences can be observed.