Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Testing the effectiveness of Cell-Wall material from grape pomace as fining agent for red wines

Testing the effectiveness of Cell-Wall material from grape pomace as fining agent for red wines

Abstract

Lately several works highlighted the capacity of grape cell-wall material (CWM) to interact with proanthocyanidins (PA), indicating its potential use as fining agent for red wines.1–4 However, those studies were performed by using purified PAs and very high doses of CWM (almost ten-fold higher than those used in wine industry for other commercial fining agents). The present study focuses on the applicability of CWM from Cabernet sauvignon pomace as fining agent for red wines under real winery conditions. Grapes of cultivar Cabernet sauvignon were harvested at three different maturity levels (unripe, mature, and overripe) and used for red winemaking. The pomace of such vinifications were used as source of CWM, and applied into red wines at two different concentrations: 0.2 g/L and 2.5 g/L. The effectiveness of the treatments with CWM was assessed by analyzing the color and phenolic composition of treated wines. Using the lowest dose (0.2 g/L) of CWM has little influence on the color and the phenolic composition of treated wines. However, the highest dose (2.5 g/L) of CWM statistically decreases the phenolic content of wines and modifies their chromatic features: decreasing color intensity (CI) and increasing tone (T). The effect of CWM treatment is greater for wines from unripe and overripe grapes than for wines from mature grapes. In contrast, the maturity level of grapes used for obtain CWM from grape pomace has a little effect on the effectiveness of fining treatment, since the three CWM used (from unripe, mature, and overripe grape pomace) show similar impact on wine color and phenolic composition. Given all this, it seems that the applicability of CWM as fining agent strongly depends on the initial phenolic composition of wines. Besides, high doses of CWM are required to achieve wine clarification. Thus, our results seem to disclose the limitations of using CWM as fining agent at industrial scale.

(1) Guerrero, R. F.; Smith, P.; Bindon, K. Application of Insoluble Fibers in the Fining of Wine Phenolics. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61 (18), 4424–4432. (2) Bindon, K.; Smith, P.; Kennedy, J. Interaction between grape-derived proanthocyanidins and cell wall material. 1. Effect on proanthocyanidin composition and molecular mass. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58 (4), 2520–2528. (3) Bindon, K.; Smith, P. Comparison of the affinity and selectivity of insoluble fibres and commercial proteins for wine proanthocyanidins. Food Chem. 2013, 136 (2), 917–928. (4) Bautista-Ortín, A. B.; Ruiz-García, Y.; Marín, F.; Molero, N.; Apolinar-Valiente, R.; Gómez-Plaza, E. Remarkable proanthocyanidin adsorption properties of monastrell pomace cell wall material highlight its potential use as an alternative fining agent in red wine production. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63 (2), 620–633.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Mariona Gil Cortiella*, Álvaro Peña-Neira, Rubén Del Barrio Galán

*Universidad de Chile

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

The impact of different yeasts and harvest time on the wine quality of Beihong and Beimei (<I>V. vinifera x V. amurensis</I>)

Beihong and Beimei are two wine cultivars from ‘Muscat Hamberg’ (V. vinifera L.) and wild V. amurensis Rupr., which were released in China in 2008. Here,two enology practices were reported. Firstly, the impact of different yeasts including D254, GRE, K1, D21 and BDX on dry wine quality of Beihong and Beimei was investigated. For Beihong, among wines fermented by all yeasts, residual sugar content was the lowest, total anthocyanin and resveratrol contents were the highest in the wine by D254. However, the wine by D254 had lower titrable acid than those by the other yeasts except BDX.

South Africa’s top 10 Sauvignon blanc wines. How do the chemical and sensory profiles compare?

FNB Top 10 Sauvignon Blanc competition, presented by the Sauvignon Blanc Interest Group of South Africa and sponsored by First National Bank, is the country’s foremost platform for producers of this cultivar to showcase and benchmark their wines. Wines entered in the competition originated from all over the winegrowing regions of the country and the winning wines showed good representation of quality South African Sauvignon blanc wines. The ten selected wines were subjected to various chemical analyses including volatile thiol and methoxypyrazine determination, while the sensory profile of each wine was determined using projective mapping.

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.

Monitoring of Pesticide Residues from Vine to Wine

Those previous years, pesticides are often brought to the forefront by media. Questions arose about their toxicity for growers and consumers. Even if a downward trend is underway, the use of pesticides is required to ensure steady quality and quantity of harvests. A large number of active ingredients are authorized but regarding viticulture, mainly insecticides and fungicides are applied, to control pests and diseases and to increase crop yield. Some phytosanitary products, principally fungicides, applied close to the harvest date may frequently be detected in wines.

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.