OENO IVAS 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 The affinity of white wine proteins for bentonite is dependent on wine composition and is directly related to their thermal stability / sensitivity

The affinity of white wine proteins for bentonite is dependent on wine composition and is directly related to their thermal stability / sensitivity

Abstract

Bentonite fining is commonly used in oenology to remove all or parts of white wine proteins, which are known to be involved in haze formation. This fining is effective, but has disadvantages: it is not selective, thus molecules responsible for aroma are also removed, it causes substantial volume losses, and finally it generates wastes. Over the last decades, the knowledge of wine proteins has increased: they have been identified, their structures are known, some of them have been crystallized. 

However, haze formation is not only a question of protein composition and concentration. It depends on many other factors, such as pH, wine composition (polyphenols, polysaccharides,…). Heat or chemical tests used to adjust the bentonite dose often leads to an overestimation, because they aim at removing all the proteins, even the ones that are stable in the range 60-80 °C and are not involved in spontaneous haze. 

In this study, we analyzed and quantified the proteins in 7 white wines (3 varieties, 4 areas), treated with four bentonite doses ranging from 5 to 80 g/hL. In parallel, samples of wines were heated during 30 minutes at 40, 60 and 80 °C and the residual proteins analyzed. 

The wines differed in their protein composition. In each wine, when they were present, the proteins were adsorbed on bentonite in this order: chitinase and β-glucanase, Lipid Transfer Protein (LTP), Thaumatin Like (TL) 22 kDa, TL 19 kDa and Invertase. 

The adsorption of a given protein was wine dependent. This could be due to wine pH and ionic strength (different in the studied wines), which changes electrostatic interactions that drive the protein adsorption onto bentonite, but also to other differences in composition (ethanol, polysaccharides, polyphenols, metals…). Experiments performed at pH 2.5 indicated that pH is not the only cause of such different adsorption behaviours: indeed adsorption isotherms were different. 

Protein adsorption on bentonite was compared to their thermal sensitivity. It was ranked as previously: β-glucanase ~ Chitinase > TL22 > TL19 ~ Invertase > LTP. It is worth noting that the most thermostable proteins are the ones which need the highest doses of bentonite on a wide panel of wines. These stable proteins do not need to be removed and thus bentonite doses could be reduced. More specific tests, which would take into account only the most sensitive proteins need to be developed.

DOI:

Publication date: June 23, 2020

Issue: OENO IVAS 2019

Type: Article

Authors

Céline Poncet-Legrand (1), Eric Meistermann (2), Frédéric Charrier (3), Philippe Cottereau (4), Patrick Chemardin (1), Aude Vernhet (1)

1 UMR SPO- Univ Montpellier – INRA- Montpellier SupAgro – 2, place Pierre Viala, 34060 Montpellier cedex FRANCE 
2 Institut Français de la Vigne et du Vin, F-68000 Colmar 
3 Institut Français de la Vigne et du Vin, F-44120 Vertou 
4 Institut Français de la Vigne et du Vin, F-30230 Rodilhan 

Contact the author

Keywords

haze formation, fining, protein adsorption, wine matrix

Tags

IVES Conference Series | OENO IVAS 2019

Citation

Related articles…

Short-term relationships between climate and grapevine trunk diseases in southern French vineyards

[lwp_divi_breadcrumbs home_text="IVES" use_before_icon="on" before_icon="||divi||400" module_id="publication-ariane" _builder_version="4.19.4" _module_preset="default" module_text_align="center" module_font_size="16px" text_orientation="center"...

Late frost protection in Champagne

Probably one of the most counterintuitive impacts of climate change on vine is the increased frequency of late frost. Champagne, due to its septentrional position is historically and regularly affected by this meteorological hazard. Champagne has therefore developed a strong experience in frost protection with first experiments dating from the end of 19th century. Frost protection can be divided in two parts: passive and active. Passive protection includes all the methods that do not seek to modify the vine’s environment or resistance at the time of frost. The most iconic passive protection in Champagne is the establishment of the individual reserve. This reserve allows to stock a certain quantity of clear wine during a surplus year to compensate a meteorological hazard like frost during the following years. Other common passive methods are the control of planting area (walls, bushes, topography), the choice of grape variety, late pruning, or the impact of grass cover and tillage. Active frost protection is also divided in two parts. Most of the existing techniques tend to modify vine’s environment. Most of the time they provide warmth (candles, heaters, windmills, heating cables…), or stabilise bud’s temperature above a lethal threshold (water sprinkling). The other way to actively fight is to enhance the resistance of buds to frost (elicitors). The Comité Champagne evaluates frost protection methods following three main axes: the efficiency, the profitability, and the environmental impact through a lifecycle assessment. This study will present the results on both passive and active protection following these three axes.

Biodiversity in the vineyard agroecosystem: exploring systemic approaches

Biodiversity conservation and restoration are essential for guarantee the provision of ecosystem services associated to vineyard agroecosystem such as climate regulation trough carbon sequestration and control of pests and diseases. Most of published research dealing with the complexity of the vineyard agroecosystems emphasizes the necessity of innovative approaches, including the integration of information at different temporal and spatial scales and development of systemic analysis based on modelling. A biodiversity survey was conducted in the Franciacorta wine-growing area (Lombardy, Italy), one of the most important Italian wine-growing regions for sparkling wine production, considering a portion of the territory of 112 ha. The area was divided into several Environmental Units (EUs), defined as a whole vineyard or portion of vineyard homogenous in terms of four agronomic characteristics: planting year, planting density, cultivar, and training system. In each EU a set of compartments was identified and characterised by specific variables. The compartments are meteorology, morphology (altitude, slope, aspect, row orientation, and solar irradiance), ecological infrastructures and management. The landscape surrounding EU was also characterised in terms of land-use in a buffer zone of 500 m. For each component a specific methodology was identified and applied. Different statistical approaches were used to evaluate the method to integrate the information related to different compartments within the EU and related to the buffer zone. These approaches were also preliminarily evaluated for their ability to describe the contribution of biodiversity and landscape components to ecosystem services. This methodological exploration provides useful indication for the development of a fully systemic approach to structural and functional biodiversity in vineyard agroecosystems, contributing to promote a multifunctional perspective for the all wine-growing sector.

Simulating climate change impact on viticultural systems in historical and emergent vineyards

Global climate change affects regional climates and hold implications for wine growing regions worldwide. Although winegrowers are constantly adapting to internal and external factors, it seems relevant to develop tools, which will allow them to better define actual and future agro-climatic potentials. Within this context, we develop a modelling approach, able to simulate the impact of environmental conditions and constraints on vine behaviour and to highlight potential adaptation strategies according to different climate change scenarios. Our modeling approach, named SEVE (Simulating Environmental impacts on Viticultural Ecosystems), provides a generic modeling framework for simulating grapevine growth and berry ripening under different conditions and constraints (slope, aspect, soil type, climate variability…) as well as production strategies and adaptation rules according to climate change scenarios. Each activity is represented by an autonomous agent able to react and adapt its reaction to the variability of environmental constraints. Using this model, we have recently analyzed the evolution of vineyards’ exposure to climatic risks (frost, pathogen risk, heat wave) and the adaptation strategies potentially implemented by the winegrowers. This approach, implemented for two climate change scenarios, has been initiated in France on traditional (Loire Valley) and emerging (Brittany) vineyards. The objective is to identify the time horizons of adaptations and new opportunities in these two regions. Carried out in collaboration with wine growers, this approach aims to better understand the variability of climate change impacts at local scale in the medium and long term.

Spatiotemporal patterns of chemical attributes in Vitis vinifera L. cv. Cabernet Sauvignon vineyards in Central California

Spatial variability of vine productivity in winegrapes is important to characterise as both yield and quality are relevant for the production of different wine styles and products. The objectives were to understand how patterns of variability of Cabernet Sauvignon fruit composition changed over time and space, how these patterns could be characterised with indirect measurements, and how spatial patterns of the variation in fruit compositional attributes can aid in improving management. Prior to the 2017 vintage, 125 data vines were distributed across each of four vineyards in the Lodi American Viticultural Area (AVA) of California. Each data vine was sampled at commercial harvest in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Yield components and fruit composition were measured at harvest for each data vine, and maps of yield and fruit composition were produced for eight ‘objective measures of fruit quality’: total anthocyanins, polymeric tannins, quercetin glycosides, malic acid, yeast assimilable nitrogen, β-damascenone, C6 alcohols and aldehydes, and 3-isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine. Patterns of variation in anthocyanins and phenolic compounds were found to be most stable over time. Given this relative stability, management decisions focused on fruit quality could be based on zonal descriptions of anthocyanins or phenolics to increase profitability in some vineyards. In each vineyard, dormant season pruning weights and soil cores were collected at each location, elevation and soil apparent electrical conductivity surveys were completed, and remotely sensed imagery was captured by fixed wing aircraft and two satellite platforms at major phenological stages. The data collected were used to develop relationships among biophysical data, soil, imagery, and fruit composition. The standardised and aggregated samples from four vineyards over three seasons were included in the estimation of ‘common variograms’ to assess how this technique could aid growers in producing geostatistically rigorous maps of fruit composition variability without cumbersome, single season sampling efforts.