Macrowine 2021
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Interest and impact of PVP/PVI (Polyvinylpyrrolidone/ Polyvinylimidazole) on winemaking and final quality of wines

Interest and impact of PVP/PVI (Polyvinylpyrrolidone/ Polyvinylimidazole) on winemaking and final quality of wines

Abstract

Consumers’ health and security force authorities to limit, in wine as in others food industry products, the concentration in « dangerous » molecules. Therefore the legal limit in heavy metals keeps on decreasing. As per proof EU regulation just decrease the stain concentration in wine from 0,2 to 0,15 mg/l. Certain changes , such as sodium arsenite treatment in vines, disappearance of brass in wineries to the benefit of stainless steel, limit even more the concentration of heavy metals in wines. But the use of copper derivates in vines treatments is difficult to replace. In the case of wine and its elaboration, the problem is even more complex. Indeed, regulation forces the wine producers to control the concentration of certain heavy metals in final wines. But most of the time the measured concentration is largely under legal limit (copper < 1 mg/l) with an average of 0 à 0,2 mg/l of CU, this has the consequence to let consider the wine producers that they have no problem. Unfortunately they are wrong ! This lecture will demonstrate that a major part of musts contain a copper concentration over 0,5 mg/l. The gap between must and wine is majorly do to the alcoholic fermentation that eliminate partially copper. This high concentration has a direct impact on winemaking and final wines quality. Copper is a known antiseptic, and it can have some toxic effects on micro-organisms (this effect is strain / species dependant). This leads to fermentations problems from slugglish to suck AF or difficult MLF. In addition heavy metals have an impact that can cause over 50% of “destruction” of certain aromatic compounds of grapes such as free thiols. Copper is also taking an active part in oxidation mechanisms that forms quinones and conduct to an increase of yellow length in wines colour. It increases bitterness of wines and also limit SO2 action ( copper is trapping free fraction). As for conclude this lecture will demonstrate the interest and impact PVP/PVI (only or in formulation) during winemaking as a solution to heavy metal presence such as copper. 

Publication date: May 17, 2024

Issue: Macrowine 2016

Type: Poster

Authors

Christophe Morge*, Céline Sparrow

*SOFRALAB

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.

Field-grown Sauvignon Blanc berries react to increased exposure by controlling antioxidant homeostasis and displaying UV acclimation responses that are influenced by the level of ambient light

Leaf removal in the bunch zone is a common viticultural practice with several objectives, yet it has been difficult to conclusively link the physiological mechanism(s) and metabolic berry impact to this widely practiced treatment. We used a field-omics approach1 in a Sauvignon blanc high altitude model vineyard, showing that the early leaf removal in the bunch zone caused quantifiable and stable responses (over years) in the microclimate where the main perturbation was increased exposure. We provide an explanation for how leaf removal leads to the shifts in grape metabolites typically linked to this treatment and confirm anecdotal evidence and previous reports that leaf removal treatment at an early stage of berry development affects “quality-associated” metabolites (monoterpenes and norisoprenoids).

Assessing the effect of oak derived aromas on mouthfeel perception in Chardonnay wine

Mouthfeel is an important quality parameter for Chardonnay wines, particularly those aged in oak. While research on mouthfeel has traditionally focused on the impact of non-aromatic compounds, the role of aroma compounds has largely been over looked. However, in wine as well as other food interactions between retronasal aroma and mouthfeel have been noted. The goal of this research was to investigate the impact of wine aroma on the perception of mouthfeel. Because of the importance of oak aging in the development of Chardonnay mouthfeel, the impact of oak aromas on perceived mouthfeel was explored. Aroma compounds associated with oak (ethyl palmitate, eugenol, furfural, isoeugenol, syringaldehyde, vanillin and whiskey lactone) were added to two different Chardonnay wines; one with no oak influence and one fermented in neutral oak. Low and high concentrations of the compounds were added based on concentrations typically found in barrel aged Chardonnay wine.

A combination of biotechnology tools and coopers elements for an alternative the addition of SO2 at the end of the malolactic fermentation in red wines or at the “mutage” for the “liquoreux” wines

In red wines the post-MLF SO2 addition is an essential event. It is also the case for the “mutage” during the elaboration of the “liquoreux”. At these moments SO2 plays an antimicrobial action and an antioxidant effect. But at current pH of wines, ensuring a powerful molecular SO2 has become very difficult. Recent work on Brettanomyces strains have also shown that some strains are resistant up to 1.2 mg / L of molecular SO2. It’s also the case of the some Saccharomuces or Zygosaccharomyces strains suitable to re-ferment “liquoreux” wines after the “mutage”.

DNA and type of grain: which factor does better explain sensory differences of sessile and pedunculate oaks?

Sessile oak and pedunculate oak have shown several differences of interest for enological purposes. Tannic and aromatic composition among sessile oak or pedonculate oak has been well studied. Sessile oak is generally more aromatic than pedunculated, while the later is more tannic. This scientific point of view is rarely applied to classify oak in cooperages. Most coopers use the type of grain to distinguish wide and thin grain.