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…

Microbial life in the grapevine: what can we expect from the leaf microbiome?

The above-ground parts of plants, which constitute the phyllosphere, have long been considered devoid of bacteria and fungi, at least in their internal tissues and microbial presence there was long considered a sign of disease. However, recent studies have shown that plants harbour complex bacterial communities, the so-called “microbiome”[1]. We are only beginning to unravel the origin of these bacterial plant inhabitants, their community structure and their roles, which in analogy to the gut microbiome, are likely to be of essential nature. Among their multifaceted metabolic possibilities, bacteria have been recently demonstrated to emit a wide range of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can greatly impact the growth and development of both the plant and its disease-causing agents.

Non-invasive headspace sorptive extraction for monitoring volatile compounds production by saccharomyces and non-saccharomyces strains throughout alcoholic fermentation

Wine is a solution containing abundant volatile compounds which contribute to their aroma. Many of them are produced by yeast as metabolism by-products. Different yeast strains produce different volatile profiles. The possibility of studying the evolution of volatile compounds during fermentation, using sampling methods that not alter the volume of fermentation media, is of great interest. In spite of this, non-invasive methods to monitoring the evolution of volatile profile during fermentation have been seldom used. The goals of this work were to use by first time the headspace sorptive extraction (HSSE) as non-invasive method to monitor the evolution of volatile profiles throughout alcoholic fermentation and to study the changes on volatile profiles produced by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Lachancea thermotolerans during fermentation of a must with high sugar content.

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.

Impact of smoke exposure on the chemical composition of grapes

Vineyard exposure to smoke can lead to grapes and wine which exhibit objectionable smoky and ashy aromas and flavours, more commonly known as ‘smoke taint’ [1, 2]. In the last decade, significant bushfires have occurred around the world, including near wine regions in Australia, Canada, South Africa and the USA, as a consequence of the warmer, drier conditions associated with climate change. Considerable research has subsequently been undertaken to determine the chemical, sensory and physiological consequences of grapevine exposure to smoke. The sensory attributes associated with smoke-tainted wine have been linked to the presence of several smoke-derived volatile phenols, such as guaiacols, syringols and cresols [2].

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].