Monitoring of Pesticide Residues from Vine to Wine

Since 2012, EU Commission approved compulsory labeling of wines treated with allergenic additives or processing aids “if their presence can be detected in the final product” (EU Commission Implementing Regulation No. 579/2012 of 29 June 2012). The list of potential allergens to be indicated on wine labels comprises sulphur dioxide and milk- and egg- derived fining agents, including hen egg lysozyme, which is usually added in wines as preservative. In some non-EU countries, the list includes gluten, tree nuts and fish gelatins. With the exception of lysozyme, all these fining proteins were long thought to be totally removed by subsequent winemaking processings (e.g. bentonite addition).

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.

Red grape pomace, a waste from wine production, can be valorised by extracting polyphenols, high-added value compounds used in cosmetics or oenology. For use at an industrial level, using green extraction techniques, pomace need to be stored before being processed. The aim of this study is to test various storage conditions in order to maintain high level of polyphenols over 180 days, while keeping storage cost economically interesting. In a first step, different storage conditions (ambient temperature or cooled (4°C) temperature, anaerobic (saturation with N2) or aerobic conditions, and addition of sulphur dioxide (SO2)) were compared on small samples (1 kg) packed in plastic pockets. The quality of storage was assessed by following the optical density of the pomace extract at 280 nm (DO 280 expressed as mg/l eq gallic acid), which is an indication of the amount of remaining extractable polyphenols.

Introduction: Malolactic fermentation (MLF) is a common process in winemaking to reduce wine acidity, maintain microbial stability and modify wine aroma. However, successful MLF is often hampered by their sluggish or stuck activity of malolactic bacteria (MLB) which may be caused by nutrient deficiency, especially when MLB are inoculated after alcoholic fermentation (Alexandre et al., 2004; Lerm et al., 2010). Identification and characterization of essential nutrients and growth factors for MLB allows for production of highly efficient nutrient supplements for MLF.

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.