Cargando…
Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO(2) for the Production of Wine
SO(2) is an antioxidant and selective antimicrobial additive, inhibiting the growth of molds in the must during the early stages of wine production, as well as undesirable bacteria and yeasts during fermentation, thus avoiding microbial spoilage during wine production and storage. The addition of SO...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8469166/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34574285 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10092175 |
_version_ | 1784573860883988480 |
---|---|
author | Silva, Filipa V. M. van Wyk, Sanelle |
author_facet | Silva, Filipa V. M. van Wyk, Sanelle |
author_sort | Silva, Filipa V. M. |
collection | PubMed |
description | SO(2) is an antioxidant and selective antimicrobial additive, inhibiting the growth of molds in the must during the early stages of wine production, as well as undesirable bacteria and yeasts during fermentation, thus avoiding microbial spoilage during wine production and storage. The addition of SO(2) is regulated to a maximum of 150–350 ppm, as this chemical preservative can cause adverse effects in consumers such as allergic reactions. Therefore, the wine industry is interested in finding alternative strategies to reduce SO(2) levels, while maintaining wine quality. The use of non-thermal or cold pasteurization technologies for wine preservation was reviewed. The effect of pulsed electric fields (PEF), high pressure processing (HPP), power ultrasound (US), ultraviolet irradiation (UV), high pressure homogenization (HPH), filtration and low electric current (LEC) on wine quality and microbial inactivation was explored and the technologies were compared. PEF and HPP proved to be effective wine pasteurization technologies as they inactivate key wine spoilage yeasts, including Brettanomyces, and bacteria in short periods of time, while retaining the characteristic flavor and aroma of the wine produced. PEF is a promising technology for the beverage industry as it is a continuous process, requiring only microseconds of processing time for the inactivation of undesirable microbes in wines, with commercial scale, higher throughput production potential. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8469166 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84691662021-09-27 Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO(2) for the Production of Wine Silva, Filipa V. M. van Wyk, Sanelle Foods Review SO(2) is an antioxidant and selective antimicrobial additive, inhibiting the growth of molds in the must during the early stages of wine production, as well as undesirable bacteria and yeasts during fermentation, thus avoiding microbial spoilage during wine production and storage. The addition of SO(2) is regulated to a maximum of 150–350 ppm, as this chemical preservative can cause adverse effects in consumers such as allergic reactions. Therefore, the wine industry is interested in finding alternative strategies to reduce SO(2) levels, while maintaining wine quality. The use of non-thermal or cold pasteurization technologies for wine preservation was reviewed. The effect of pulsed electric fields (PEF), high pressure processing (HPP), power ultrasound (US), ultraviolet irradiation (UV), high pressure homogenization (HPH), filtration and low electric current (LEC) on wine quality and microbial inactivation was explored and the technologies were compared. PEF and HPP proved to be effective wine pasteurization technologies as they inactivate key wine spoilage yeasts, including Brettanomyces, and bacteria in short periods of time, while retaining the characteristic flavor and aroma of the wine produced. PEF is a promising technology for the beverage industry as it is a continuous process, requiring only microseconds of processing time for the inactivation of undesirable microbes in wines, with commercial scale, higher throughput production potential. MDPI 2021-09-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8469166/ /pubmed/34574285 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10092175 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Review Silva, Filipa V. M. van Wyk, Sanelle Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO(2) for the Production of Wine |
title | Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO(2) for the Production of Wine |
title_full | Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO(2) for the Production of Wine |
title_fullStr | Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO(2) for the Production of Wine |
title_full_unstemmed | Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO(2) for the Production of Wine |
title_short | Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO(2) for the Production of Wine |
title_sort | emerging non-thermal technologies as alternative to so(2) for the production of wine |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8469166/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34574285 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10092175 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT silvafilipavm emergingnonthermaltechnologiesasalternativetoso2fortheproductionofwine AT vanwyksanelle emergingnonthermaltechnologiesasalternativetoso2fortheproductionofwine |