| Literature DB >> 29419774 |
Giovanna Fia1, Claudio Gori2, Ginevra Bucalossi3, Francesca Borghini4, Bruno Zanoni5.
Abstract
The wine industry is well known for its production of a large amount of wastes and by-products. Among them, unripe grapes from thinning operations are an undervalued by-product. Grapes are an interesting source of natural antioxidants such as flavonoids, non-flavonoids and stilbenes. A potential strategy to exploit unripe grapes was investigated in this study. Juice from unripe grapes, v. Sangiovese, was obtained by an innovative technique of solid-liquid extraction without the use of solvents. The juice was dried by a spray-drying technique with the addition of arabic gum as support to obtain powder; juice and powder were characterized for antioxidant activity, phenolic concentration and profile. Phenolic acids, flavonols, flava-3-ols, procyanidins and resveratrol were detected in the juice and powder. The powder was used as anti-browning additive in white wine to test the potential re-use of the unripe grapes in the wine industry. The results indicated that the antioxidant complex from unripe grapes contributed to increasing the anti-browning capacity of white wine. Other applications, such as food and nutraceutical products development, can be considered for the antioxidant complex extracted from unripe grapes. In conclusion, the method proposed in this study may contribute to the exploitation of unripe grapes as a by-product of the winemaking process.Entities:
Keywords: Sangiovese; antioxidant activity; phenolic compounds; solid-liquid extraction; unripe grapes
Year: 2018 PMID: 29419774 PMCID: PMC5836017 DOI: 10.3390/antiox7020027
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1Scheme of process for juice production from unripe grapes.
Figure 2Evolution of total polyphenols (TP) and anthocyanins during processing.
Phenolic composition of the juice at the beginning (2 h) and at the end (72 h) of the process, and powder obtained by spray-drying (S-D) with the addition of arabic gum (AG).
| Phenolic Compounds | Concentration (mg/L) of Juice * | Concentration (μg/g of Powder) * | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Time | S-D + AG | ||
| 2 h | 72 h | ||
| Caffeic acid | 0.06 ± 0.01 a | 0.43 ± 0.16 b | 0.8 ± 0.0 |
| Coumaric acid | 0.03 ± 0.00 | nd | 0.5 ± 0.1 |
| Ferulic acid | 1.7 ± 0.4 b | 0.14 ± 0.00 a | 29.4 ± 4.7 |
| Caftaric acid | 50.0 ± 6.6 b | 27.5 ± 1.7 a | 191 ± 5 |
| Coutaric acid | 15.9 ± 1.8 b | 9.4 ± 0.1 a | 27.6 ± 4.4 |
| Fertaric acid | 16.8 ± 3.1 a | 30.1 ± 3.3 b | 291 ± 73 |
| Gallic acid | 0.05 ± 0.00 a | 9.4 ± 2.1 b | 9.5 ± 0.3 |
| Quercetin | 0.07 ± 0.00 a | 0.29 ± 0.01 b | 1.3 ± 0.0 |
| Quercetin 3- | 0.13 ± 0.02 a | 19.8 ± 0.8 b | 11.8 ± 0.8 |
| Quercetin 3- | 0.38 ± 0.07 a | 27.0 ± 1.2 b | 56.6 ± 3.1 |
| Rutin | 0.02 ± 0.00 a | 0.40 ± 0.03 b | 0.4 ± 0.0 |
| Isorhamnetin | 0.04 ± 0.00 | nd | 0.7 ± 0.0 |
| Kaempferol | 0.02 ± 0.00 | nd | 0.5 ± 0.0 |
| Myricetin | nd | 0.03 ± 0.00 b | nd |
| (−)-Epicatechin | 0.24 ± 0.02 a | 39.5 ± 1.6 b | 64 ± 12 |
| (+) Catechin | 6.3 ± 0.2 a | 38.4 ± 1.3 b | 327 ± 19 |
| Procyanidin B1 | 0.82 ± 0.11 a | 23.9 ± 0.9 b | 19.0 ± 1.5 |
| Procyanidin B2 | 0.15 ± 0.00 a | 2.0 ± 0.1 b | 10.1 ± 1.0 |
| Resveratrol | 0.01 ± 0.00 a | ± 0.00 b | 0.2 ± 0.0 |
* Data are presented as mean ± Standard Deviation (SD). Data are the mean of three replications. Significant differences (p < 0.05) are shown by a,b letters in the same line; nd, not detected.
Figure 3Composition (%) of anthocyanins in the juice at the end of processing.
Total polyphenols content (TP) and antioxidant capacity of the juice and powder obtained by spray-drying (S-D) with the addition of arabic gum (AG).
| Sample | Total Polyphenols * | Antioxidant Capacity * |
|---|---|---|
| Juice | 1214.6 ± 37.8 | 5345.8 ± 119.3 |
| S-D + AG | 2.3 ± 0.01 | 24.4 ± 0.00 |
* Data are presented as means ± SD. Data are the mean of three replications. TEAC: Trolox equivalents antioxidant capacity. CATeq: (+)-catechin equivalents.
General analysis of three white wines.
| Sample | PH | Total Acidity | Free SO2 (mg/L) | Total SO2 (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Viognier | 3.35 | 5.5 | 5.0 | 11.0 |
| Chardonnay | 3.06 | 5.6 | 15.5 | 42.3 |
| Bellone | 2.90 | 7.1 | 12.8 | 16.6 |
POM-test performed without and with the addition of powder (2 g/L). Percent increase (% OXH2O2) of the absorbance at 420 nm.
| Wine | Wine | Wine + Powder |
|---|---|---|
| % OXH2O2 | % OXH2O2 | |
| Viognier | 12 | −15 |
| Chardonnay | 34 | 5 |
| Bellone | 9 | 0 |