Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Efficiency of alternative chemical and physical treatments in reducing Brettanomyces Bruxellensis from oak wood

Efficiency of alternative chemical and physical treatments in reducing Brettanomyces Bruxellensis from oak wood

Abstract

Oak barrels form an integral part of wine production, especially that of high quality wines. However, due to its porosity, wood presents an ecological niche for microbial proliferation and is highly susceptible to microbial spoilage which could cause considerable economic losses. Brettanomyces bruxellensis, the most commonly encountered microorganism responsible for spoilage during barrel ageing, can remain in barrels after barrel sanitation to contaminate new batches of wine after refilling. Therefore, effective sanitation treatments are of utmost importance to prevent recurring wine spoilage. Since a moratorium on the use of sulphur dioxide, the most widely used biocide for barrel sanitation, has been issued by the European Commission, there is a drastic need to evaluate alternative sanitation methods. Literature on the effectiveness of barrel sanitation treatments is scattered and presents inconclusive results. Furthermore, all studies have used culture-dependent methods to detect Brettanomyces which has been reported to attain a viable but non-culturable state [1,2]. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate several physical and chemical sanitation treatments in their efficiency to eliminate B. bruxellensis from oak wood. French oak wood was contaminated with different B. bruxellensis strains and subsequently subjected to several chemical and physical sanitation treatments. The methods included, among others, ozone gas, ozonated water, high pressure ultrasound, steam, peracetic acid, sodium percarbonate and microwave. After their extraction from the oak wood, Brettanomyces cells were subjected to a fluorescence-based live/dead staining and detected by means of flow cytometry. The treatments differed greatly in their ability to reduce B. bruxellensis cells with ozone gas showing promising results. Sodium percarbonate and steam treatments were also effective in reducing cells. This study presents the first evaluation of alternative barrel sanitation treatments by flow cytometry, a culture-independent method, and is also the first study to compare an array of barrel sanitation treatments under controlled conditions.

1. Agnolucci, M., Rea, F., Sbrana, C., Cristani, C., Fracassetti, D., Tirelli, A., Nuti, M., 2010. Sulphur dioxide affects culturability and volatile phenol production by Brettanomyces/ Dekkera bruxellensis. International Journal of Food Microbiology 143, 76-80. 2. Serpaggi, V., Remize, F., Recorbet, G., Gaudot-Dumas, E., Sequeira-Le Grand, A., Alexandre, H., 2012. Characterization of the “viable but nonculturable”(VBNC) state in the wine spoilage yeast Brettanomyces. Food Microbiology 30, 438-447.

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Article

Authors

Engela Kritzinger*, Maren Scharfenberger-Schm, Ulrich Fischer

*DLR Rheinpfalz

Contact the author

Tags

IVES Conference Series | Macrowine | Macrowine 2016

Citation

Related articles…

Anti/prooxidant activity of wine polyphenols in reactions of adrenaline auto-oxidation

Adrenaline (epinephrine) belongs to catecholamine class. It is a neurotransmitter and both a hormone which is released by the sympathetic nervous system and adrenal medulla in response to a range of stresses in order to regulate blood pressure, cardiac stimulation, relaxation of smooth muscles and other physiological processes. Adrenaline exhibits an effective antioxidant capacity (1). However, adrenalin is capable to auto-oxidation and in this case it generates toxic reactive oxygen intermediates and adrenochrome. Under in vitro conditions, auto-oxidation of adrenaline occurs in an alkaline medium (2).

Evaluation of colloidal stability in white and rosé wines investing Dynamic Light Scattering technology

Proteins constitute one of the three main components of grape juice and white wine, phenolic compounds and polysaccharides being the others. A specific group of the total grape-derived proteins resists degradation or adsorption during the winemaking process and remains in finished wine if not removed by the commonplace commercial practice of bentonite fining. While bentonite is effective in removing the problematic proteins, it is claimed to adversely affect the quality of the treated wine under certain conditions, through the removal of colour, flavor and texture compounds. A number of studies have indicated that different protein fractions require distinct bentonite concentrations for protein removal and consequent heat stabilization.

Fining-Derived Allergens in Wine: from Detection to Quantification

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).

Comparative proteomic analysis of wines made from Botrytis cinerea infected and healthy grapes reveal interesting parallels to the gushing phenomenon in sparkling wine

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.

Bentonite fining in cold wines: prediction tests, reduced efficiency and possibilities to avoid additional fining treatments

Bentonite fining is widely used to prevent protein haze in white wines. Most wineries use laboratory-scale fining trials to define the appropriate amount of bentonite to be used in the cellar. Those pre-tests need to mimic as much as possible the industrial scale fining procedure to determine the exact amount of bentonite necessary for protein stability. Nevertheless it is frequent that, after fining with the recommended amount of bentonite, wines appear still unstable and need an additional fining treatment. It remains a major challenge to understand why the same wine, fined with the same dosage of the same bentonite, achieves stability in the lab, but not in the cellar.