New acacia gums fractions: how their features affect the foamability of sparkling base wines?

Abstract

When sparkling wine is served, the first attribute perceived is foam1. Bentonite is usually added to wine in order to cause particle flocculation, but this procedure also leads to a drastic loss of foamability2. Acacia gums improve the foamability of some sparkling base wines treated with bentonite3. Acacia gums are already authorized as additives in wine production4. We studied how the addition of new fractions from Acacia gums affected the wines foamability. Our work deepens the relationship between wine foamability and gums fractions properties. Eight sparkling base wines were elaborated by the traditional white winemaking method. Three of them were elaborated in three different regions from Spain: Malaga using Moscatel grapes as well as Saragossa and Tarragona (TA), both using Macabeo grapes. The other five base wines were elaborated in the French region of Champagne using Chardonnay (4) and Pinot noir (1) grapes. They were treated with bentonite, stirred and filtered. Acacia senegal (Asen) and Acacia seyal (Asey) gums were fractionated by Ion Exchange Chromatography giving two high (F1sen and F1sey) and two low (F2sen and F2sey) molar mass fractions. Fractions and sparkling base wines were deeply characterized. Four Acacia gums fractions were separately added to wines (300 mg·L-1), resulting in “supplemented CO-wines”. Based on shaking test, wine was vigorously hand-shaken in closed tubes. The foam height at 5 and every 10 seconds during 90 seconds was measured (all in triplicate). The maximum foam height was improved in 11 out of the 16 supplementations (69%) with F1 fractions, which were the fractions with high protein amount and high molar mass. F1sey and mainly F1sen showed a positive effect improving the foamability in Spanish wines. F1 fractions also increased foamability of French wines, but in a more inefficient and irregular pattern. Moreover, the differentials of foam height (ΔFH) between “supplemented CO-wines” and CO-wines enhanced significantly in all the studied wines at several moments after supplementations with F1 fractions. F2 fractions gave enhancing effect only sporadically. Adding F1sen and F1sey, the foam height showed positive Pearson correlations with, respectively, (i) polysaccharides rich in arabinose and galactose percentage and (ii) the number average molar mass of polysaccharides. But after F1 supplementations, the mannoproteins percentage in base wines affected negatively their foamability. The Proteins %, the hydrophobic score, the volumetric properties, the molar masses, the high molar mass ranges and the content of several amino acids of gums fractions affected positively the foamability in different wines, whereas it was negatively affected by the sugars %.Concluding, sparkling base wine foamabilities strongly depend on the wine and the gum fraction addition, but also on their relationship.

DOI:

Publication date: September 15, 2021

Issue: Macrowine 2021

Type: Article

Authors

Rafael Apolinar-Valiente, Thomas Salmo, Pascale Williams,  Michaël Nigen, Christian Sanchez, Thierry Doco,  Richard Marchal.

UMR-1208/IATE, Montpellier SupAgro, France.LOCA, Université de Reims, France. UMR-1083/SPO, INRAE-Montpellier, France. UMR-1208/IATE, Université Montpellier, France. UMR-1208/IATE, Université Montpellier, France. UMR-1083/SPO, INRAE-Montpellier, France. LVBE, Université de Haute-Alsace, Colmar, France.

Contact the author

Keywords

sparkling base wine; foam; acacia gums; ion exchange chromatography; macromolecules; sec-malls; biochemical properties; structural features

Citation

Related articles…

Effects of long-term drought stress on soil microbial communities from a Syrah cultivar vineyard

Changes in the rainfall and temperature patterns affect the increase of drought periods becoming one of the major constraints to assure agricultural and crop resilience in the Mediterranean regions. Beside the adaptation of agricultural practices, also the microbial compartment associated to plants should be considered in the crop management. It is known that the microbial community change according to several factors such as soil composition, agricultural management system, plant variety and rootstock.

Do wine sulphites affect gut microbiota? An in vitro study of their digestion in the gastrointestinal tract

“Sulphites” and mainly sulphur dioxide (SO2) is by far the most widely used additive (E-220/INS 220) in winemaking and likely the most difficult to replace. The well-known antioxidant, antioxidasic and antimicrobial properties of SO2 make this molecule a practically essential tool, not only in winemaking, but also in the production of other food products. The current trend in winemaking is the reduction of this unfriendly additive due to its negative effects on health and environmental. In particular, it could cause headaches and intolerance/allergic reactions in sensitive individuals. Wine is considered one of the major contributors of exposure of SO2 in the adult population, when this beverage is included in the diet.

Ozone to improve the implantation of Lachancea thermotolerans for improving pH in warm areas in wines with low SO2 levels

Una de las biotecnologías más potentes para disminuir el pH en vinos de zonas cálidas y en variedades de pH elevado es el uso de la levadura no-saccharomyces lachancea thermotolerans. Esta especie es capaz de formar ácido láctico a partir de azúcares, reduciendo al mismo tiempo ligeramente el grado alcohólico. Por lo tanto, mejora dos de los principales problemas de los vinos de regiones afectadas por el calentamiento global. El ácido láctico es un ácido orgánico con una buena integración sensorial en el sabor del vino, y también química y biológicamente estable durante el envejecimiento del vino.

VOLATILE AND GLYCOSYLATED MARKERS OF SMOKE IMPACT: EVOLUTION IN BOTTLED WINE

Smoke impact in wines is caused by a wide range of volatile phenols found in wildfire smoke. These compounds are absorbed and accumulate in berries, where they may also become glycosylated. Both volatile and glycosylated forms eventually end up in wine where they can cause off-flavors. The impact on wine aroma is mainly attributed to volatile phenols, while in-mouth hydrolysis of glycosylated forms may be responsible for long-lasting “ashy” aftertastes (1).

BIOPROTECTION BY ADDING NON-SACCHAROMYCES YEASTS : ADVANCED RESEARCH ON THIS PROMISING ALTERNATIVE TO SO₂

Sulphur dioxide has been used for many years for its antimicrobial, antioxidant and antioxydasic properties in winemaking but nowadays, it is a source of controversy. Indeed, consumers are more attentive to the naturalness of their foods and beverages and the legislation is changing to reduce the total SO₂ levels allowed in wines. To limit and replace the doses of sulphur dioxide applied, winemakers can now use bioprotection consisting in live yeast addition as alternative,seems to be promising. This process, lightly used in from the food industry, allows to colonize the environment and limit the development or even eliminate undesirable microorganisms without altering the sensory properties of the product.