Effect of nanofiltration on the chemical composition and wine quality

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).

Protein haze in white wines is a major technological and economic problem of the wine industry. Field tests were carried out in steep slope vineyards planted with Riesling grapes over 3 dry growing seasons to study the effect of drought stress on the concentration of proteins in the resulting wines. Plots suffering from drought stress were compared with surrounding drip irrigated plots. Riesling grapes were processed into wines by conventional procedures. Protein amounts of the isolated wine colloids of the stressed samples were always higher than those of the watered samples(mean watered 13.8 ± 0.44, mean stressed 17.4 ± 0.40 g 100 g-1). As a consequence, higher bentonite doses were needed to achieve protein haze stability of the drought stressed treatments.

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].

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (SC) is the main driver of alcoholic fermentation however, in wine, non-Saccharomyces species can have a powerful effect on aroma and flavor formation. This study aimed to compare untargeted volatile compound profiles from SPME-GC×GC-TOF-MS of Sauvignon blanc and Shiraz wine inoculated with six different non-Saccharomyces yeasts followed by SC. Torulaspora delbrueckii (TD), Lachancea thermotolerans (LT), Pichia kluyveri (PK) and Metschnikowia pulcherrima (MP) were commercial starter strains, while Candida zemplinina (CZ) and Kazachstania aerobia (KA), were isolated from wine grape environments. Each fermentation produced a distinct chemical profile that was unique for both grape musts. The SC-monoculture and CZ-SC sequential fermentations were the most distinctly different in the Sauvignon blanc while the LT-SC sequential fermentations were the most different from the control in the Shiraz fermentations.

Wooden barrels have been the preferred method for oak maturation for wines, but the use of alternative oak products, such as staves and oak chips have increased in South Africa due to lower production costs. This study investigated the effect of different oak products used during fermentation and ageing on the sensory profile, degree of liking and perceived quality of a South African Chenin blanc wine. The different wine treatments included an unoaked tank control wine, wines matured in 5th fill barrels, wines matured in new barrels from three different cooperages, and wines matured in 5th fill barrels with stave inserts from two different cooperages.