| Literature DB >> 26016543 |
Ángel Benito1, Fernando Calderón2, Felipe Palomero3, Santiago Benito4.
Abstract
Most red wines commercialized in the market use the malolactic fermentation process in order to ensure stability from a microbiological point of view. In this second fermentation, malic acid is converted into L-lactic acid under controlled setups. However this process is not free from possible collateral effects that on some occasions produce off-flavors, wine quality loss and human health problems. In warm viticulture regions such as the south of Spain, the risk of suffering a deviation during the malolactic fermentation process increases due to the high must pH. This contributes to produce wines with high volatile acidity and biogenic amine values. This manuscript develops a new red wine making methodology that consists of combining the use of two non-Saccharomyces yeast strains as an alternative to the traditional malolactic fermentation. In this method, malic acid is totally consumed by Schizosaccharomyces pombe, thus achieving the microbiological stabilization objective, while Lachancea thermotolerans produces lactic acid in order not to reduce and even increase the acidity of wines produced from low acidity musts. This technique reduces the risks inherent to the malolactic fermentation process when performed in warm regions.The result is more fruity wines that contain less acetic acid and biogenic amines than the traditional controls that have undergone the classical malolactic fermentation.Entities:
Keywords: Lachancea thermotolerans; Schizosaccharomyces pombe; ethyl carbamate; histamine; lacticacid; malic acid; urea
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26016543 PMCID: PMC6272599 DOI: 10.3390/molecules20069510
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Population development of Saccharomyces cerevisiae 87 (SC), Kluyveromyces thermotolerans CONCERTO™ (KT) and Schizosaccharomyces pombe V2 (SK) during the different sequential fermentation processes.
Figure 2(A) Glucose + fructose concentrations (g/L); (B) Glycerol concentrations (g/L); (C) Pyruvic acid (mg/L); (D) l-Lactic acid concentrations (g/L); (E) l-Malic acid concentrations (g/L); (F) Acetic acid concentrations (g/L). Parameters of the studied wines based on Tempranillo variety during fermentations performed by Saccharomyces cerevisiae 87 by itself (SC), sequential fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae 87 and Kluyveromyces thermotolerans CONCERTO™ (KT···SC), sequential fermentation with Schizosaccharomyces pombe V2 and Kluyveromyces thermotolerans CONCERTO™ (KT…SK), and Schizosaccharomyces pombe V2 by itself (SK).
Final analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae 87 by itself (SC), sequential fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae 87 and Kluyveromyces thermotolerans CONCERTO™ (KT···SC), sequential fermentation with Schizosaccharomyces pombe V2 and Kluyveromyces thermotolerans CONCERTO™ (KT…SK), Schizosaccharomyces pombe V2 by itself (SK), and fermentations after malolactic fermentation with Oenococcus oeni 217 (+ MLF).
| Compounds | SC | SC + MLF | KT···SC | KT···SC + MLF | KT···SK | SK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.01 ± 0.01a | 0.54 ± 0.08b | 2.75 ± 0.12c | 3.27 ± 0.19d | 2.96 ± 0.21c | 0.01 ± 0.01a | |
| 0.92 ± 0.02b | 0.01 ± 0.01a | 0.89 ± 0.04b | 0.01 ± 0.01a | 0.01 ± 0.01a | 0.01 ± 0.01a | |
| Acetic Acid (g/L) | 0.36 ± 0.01b | 0.44 ± 0.05c | 0.32 ± 0.02a | 0.39 ± 0.04bc | 0.37 ± 0.02b | 0.41 ± 0.02c |
| Residual Sugar (g/L) | 2.08 ± 0.30b | 0.12 ± 0.04a | 2.22 ± 052b | 0.16 ± 0.04a | 2.41 ± 0.58b | 2.13 ± 0.17b |
| Glycerol (g/L) | 5.96 ± 0.02a | 5.89 ± 0.05a | 6.48 ± 0.05b | 6.36 ± 0.06b | 6.65 ± 0.04c | 6.59 ± 0.03bc |
| Free SO2 (mg/L) | 26.12 ± 2.38a | 25.25 ± 3.43ab | 25.25 ± 3.28ab | 21.15 ± 1.28b | ||
| Total SO2 (mg/L) | 56.52 ± 2.43b | 44.13 ± 3.16a | 46.50 ± 3.21a | 58.58 ± 1.15b | ||
| Alcohol (% | 14.56 ± 0.01c | 14.54 ± 0.02c | 14.20 ± 0.04b | 14.18 ± 0.06b | 14.03 ± 0.05a | 14.23 ± 0.02b |
| pH | 3.94 ± 0.01c | 3.99 ± 0.02d | 3.74 ± 0.02a | 3.79 ± 0.02b | 3.83 ± 0.02b | 4.03 ± 0.02d |
| Urea | 1.43 ± 0.01b | 1.45 ± 0.02b | 0.12 ± 0.04a | 0.08 ± 0.01a | ||
| Color Intensity | 6.16 ± 0.03b | 5.38 ± 0.06a | 6.29 ± 0.06c | 5.51 ± 0.07a | 6.42 ± 0.08c | 6.88 ± 0.03d |
| Citric Acid (g/L) | 0.22 ± 0.01a | 0.03 ± 0.02b | 0.24 ± 0.03a | 0.04 ± 0.03b | 0.23 ± 0.03a | 0.22 ± 0.02a |
Results represent the mean ± SD for three replicates. Means in the same row with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05).
Biogenic amines analysis of Saccharomyces cerevisiae 87 by itself (SC), sequential fermentation with Saccharomyces cerevisiae 87 and Kluyveromyces thermotolerans CONCERTO™ (KT···SC), sequential fermentation with Schizosaccharomyces pombe V2 and Kluyveromyces thermotolerans CONCERTO™ (KT…SK), Schizosaccharomyces pombe V2 by itself (SK), and fermentations after malolactic fermentation with Oenococcus oeni 217 (+ MLF).
| Compounds | SC | SC + MLF | KT···SC | KT···SC + MLF | KT···SK | SK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histamine (mg/L) | 0.43 ± 0.02a | 1.46 ± 0.06b | 0.42 ± 0.04a | 1.48 ± 0.15b | 0.44 ± 0.04a | 0.38 ± 0.02a |
| Tiramine (mg/L) | 0.25 ± 0.01a | 0.36 ± 0.04b | 0.26 ± 0.02a | 0.38 ± 0.06b | 0.22 ± 0.03a | 0.26 ± 0.03a |
| Phenylethylamine (g/L) | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. |
| Putrescine (g/L) | 1.78 ± 0.03a | 2.18 ± 0.18b | 1.82 ± 0.11a | 2.24 ± 0.21b | 1.71 ± 0.08a | 1.88 ± 0.07a |
| Cadaverine (g/L) | 0.51 ± 0.02a | 0.65 ± 0.04b | 0.49 ± 0.05a | 0.69 ± 0.07b | 0.52 ± 0.03ab | 0.55 ± 0.03a |
Results represent the mean ± SD for three replicates. Means in the same row with the same letter are not significantly different (p < 0.05).