| Literature DB >> 35681354 |
Guillermo Pascual1, María Dolores López1, Marisol Vargas1, Mario Aranda2, Juan Antonio Cañumir3.
Abstract
Management of waste and use of winemaking by-products plays an important role in the development of new ingredients, especially with antiviral properties. Although the richness of bioactive compounds from wine waste is known, less is known about potential antiviral action. Bioactive compounds and health-enhancing effects of winery by-products make them potential candidates for use in antiviral ingredients. The design of new formulations by using nano-microencapsulation techniques will be necessary to successfully control diseases produced by viruses. Outcomes about the use of winery by-products, bioactive compounds found in winery wastes, green extraction techniques to concentrate these compounds, and development of formulations to obtain new ingredients were extracted from research around the world to be discussed and updated in this manuscript. The evidence collected in this review aims to encourage transfer of in vitro and in vivo knowledge to a new step for the development of antiviral and treatments.Entities:
Keywords: extraction techniques; phenolic compounds; virus; wine waste
Year: 2022 PMID: 35681354 PMCID: PMC9180464 DOI: 10.3390/foods11111604
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Schematic diagram of waste generation during wine production.
Main by-products available in wine making and their uses.
| By-Products | Bioactive Compounds | Current Use | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Grape pomace waste | Organic matter content, polyphenols (anthocyanins and tannins), flavonol content, ethanol precipitate | Alternative source of antioxidant compounds and dietary fiber for yogurt | [ |
| Energy source | [ | ||
| To extend shelf life of lamb meat | [ | ||
| To reduce acrylamide formation | [ | ||
| To neutralize the production of reactive oxygen | [ | ||
| To reduce cholesterol level | [ | ||
| Stable delivery system, protecting resveratrol | [ | ||
| Biomethane | [ | ||
| Cosmetic formulation (skin aging) | [ | ||
| Dietary fiber supplement, human food supplement | [ | ||
| Grape seed | Flavanol content. | To modify the formulation of meat products | [ |
| Energy production, biodiesel | [ | ||
| Direct inclusion of natural antioxidants | [ | ||
| Skin moisturizer (gel formulation) | [ | ||
| Animal feed (rainbow trout) | [ | ||
| Extraction with supercritical CO2 | [ | ||
| Wastewater | Tartaric acid and malic acid content | Acidulant compound in soft drinks | [ |
| Vine shoot and stems | Phenolic compounds | Biodegradable packaging | [ |
| Energy production, biomethane | [ |
Figure 2Green extraction techniques applied to by-products from the wine industry.
Main bioactive compounds found in pomace by-products.
| Compounds of Interest | Grape Pomace (Skin and Seed) | Grape Skin | Grape Seed |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gallic acid | 1090.1 μg g−1 of extract (RP-HPLC) [ | 122 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC–UV) [ | 9.8 mg kg−1 of fresh grape (HPLC-DAD-FLV) [ |
| 397.67 μg mL−1 of extract (HPLC-DAD) [ | 8.76 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | 30.3 mg kg−1 dw (RP-HPLC/UV) [ | |
| 252.8 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 1.19 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD) [ | 136.74 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | |
| 95.36 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-ESI/MS/MS) [ | 1.92 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD) [ | ||
| 260.92 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| Syringic acid | 1731.7 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | ||
| Caffeic acid | 16.0 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 0.54 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | 1.06 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ |
| 438.43 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-ESI/MS/MS) [ | |||
| p-Coumaric acid | 64.6 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 1.96 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD) [ | |
| 214.55 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-ESI/MS/MS) [ | |||
| Ferulic acid | 24.1 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 2.12 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | 2.17 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ |
| 1.33 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-ESI/MS/MS) [ | |||
| Caftaric acid | 1.80 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | ||
| Trans-resveratrol | 36.0 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 5.64 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | |
| 20.66 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-ESI/MS/MS) [ | 1.43 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD) [ | ||
| Cyanidin 3- | 870 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 528 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |
| 6.99 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | |||
| Myricetin | 36.77 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-ESI/MS/MS) [ | 1.8 μmol kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD/FLD) [ | 2.42 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ |
| 452 ppm of dry extract (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS) [ | 2.1 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | ||
| 2.45 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| Rutin | 998.5 μg g−1 of extract (RP-HPLC) [ | 57.04 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-DAD) [ | 9.05 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-DAD) [ |
| 112.96 μg mL−1 of extract (HPLC-DAD) [ | 223 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC–UV) [ | 30.7 mg kg−1 dw (RP-HPLC/UV) [ | |
| Delphinidin 3- | 1043 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | ||
| 9.79 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| (+)-Catechin | 5083 μg g−1 of extract (RP-HPLC) [ | 13.20 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-DAD) [ | 117 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-DAD) [ |
| 89.73 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | 628 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC–UV) [ | 270 mg kg−1 of fresh grape (HPLC-DAD-FLV) [ | |
| 275.09 μg mL−1 of extract (HPLC-DAD) [ | 49.38 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC–DAD–ESI-MS/MS) [ | 21.1 mg kg−1 dw (RP-HPLC/UV) [ | |
| 3387.5 μg g-1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 7.47 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | 86.73 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC–DAD–ESI-MS/MS) [ | |
| 11.45 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD) [ | 270.26 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | ||
| 25 mg kg−1 of fresh grape (HPLC-DAD-FLV) [ | 106.5 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD) [ | ||
| (-)-Epicatechin | 192.8 μg g−1 of extrac (RP-HPLC) [ | 323 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC–UV) [ | 210 mg kg−1 of fresh grape (HPLC-DAD-FLV) [ |
| 1763.4 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 13.55 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC–DAD–ESI-MS/MS) [ | 38.1 mg kg−1 dw (RP-HPLC/UV) [ | |
| 112.72 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS (Lingua, 2016 #242) | 3.56 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | 6.81 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC–DAD–ESI-MS/MS) [ | |
| 2.67 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD) [ | 223.08 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | ||
| 13 mg kg−1 of fresh grape (HPLC-DAD-FLV) [ | 77.51 mg kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD) [ | ||
| 47.50 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-DAD) [ | |||
| Kaempferol | 346.8 μg g−1 of extract (RP-HPLC) [ | 34.2 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |
| 28.53 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-ESI/MS/MS) [ | 0.41 μmol kg−1 of grape (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | ||
| 2.37 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | 8.93 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-DAD/FLD) [ | ||
| 34.23 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | 14.89 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | ||
| 1.53 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |||
| Quercetin 3-glucuronide | 130 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | 22 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |
| 81.42 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | 0.98 mg 100g−1 (HPLC-DAD) [ | ||
| 990 ppm of dry extract (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| Peonidin 3- | 0,15 mg g−1 of extract (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | 551 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |
| 2460 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | |||
| 18.31 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| 1591 ppm of dry extract (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| 18.70 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | |||
| 0.97 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| Malvidin 3- | 5,70 mg g−1 of extract (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | 2489 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |
| 26,658 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | |||
| 955.85 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| 12182 ppm of dry extract (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| 64.6 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | |||
| 142.22 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| Quercetin | 650.2 μg g−1 of extract (RP-HPLC–DAD) [ | 316 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC–UV) [ | 1009.4 mg kg−1 dw (RP-HPLC/UV) [ |
| 159.60 μg mL−1 of extract (HPLC-DAD) [ | 40.03 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-DAD) [ | 11.72 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | |
| 557.3 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 0.53 μmol kg−1 of grape (HPLC-DAD/FLD) [ | ||
| 26.25 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-ESI/MS/MS) [ | 121.94 mg kg−1 dw (UHPLC-DAD-MS/MS) [ | ||
| 382.93 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | 1043 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | ||
| 0.54 mg g−1 of extract (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | 3.68 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-DAD) [ | ||
| 392 ppm of dry extract (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| 15.30 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | |||
| 251.06 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| Delphinidin 3- | 0,16 mg g−1 of extract (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | 870 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |
| 4581 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | |||
| 4.47 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| 775 ppm of dry extract (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| 3.73 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | |||
| Petunidin 3- | 1424 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | ||
| 72.13 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| 0.86 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| Malvidin 3- | 2,02 mg g−1 of extract (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | 486 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |
| 4021 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | |||
| 1718.92 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| 937 ppm of dry extract (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| 0.96 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-UV-DAD) [ | |||
| 195.01 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| Cyanidin 3- | 1886 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 327 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |
| 3.99 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| Petunidin 3- | 2481 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | 339 mg kg−1 dw (UPLC-DAD-MS) [ | |
| 29.95 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| 765 ppm of dry extract (HPLC-DAD-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| 72.95 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ | |||
| Peonidin 3- | 1902 μg g−1 of extract (HPLC-MWD) [ | ||
| 32.64 mg L−1 of extract (HPLC-PDA-MS) [ | |||
| 1.83 mg kg−1 dw (HPLC-PDA-ESI-MS/MS) [ |
Main technologies for the encapsulation of winemaking wastes.
| Raw Material | Technology | Process Variable/Formulation | Encapsulation Agent | Main Result | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dry grape residue pressed | Microcapsulation. Buchi B-290 spray drying (Buchi Labortechnic AG, Switzerland). | Spray drying with the main chamber of 165 mm diameter, 600 mm cylindrical height, and 1.5 mm nozzle diameter at four air inlet temperatures (120, 140, 160, 180 °C). The pump power was kept at 40% to maintain feed flow rate as 12 mL min−1, and air flow rate as 35 m3 h−1. During drying processes, the temperature of the feed mixture was 25 °C | Maltodextrin and gum arabic as coating material. Two different core: coating material ratios (1:1 and 1:2), three different maltodextrin: gum arabic ratios (10:0, 8:2, and 6:4) | Encapsulation efficiency 98.8% and 99.1% for core: coating ratios of 1:1 and 1:2. Highest yield (64.9%) MD:GA ratio 10:0, at temperature 180 °C | [ |
| Agiorgitiko ( | Spray drying (Buchi, B-191, Buchi Laboratoriums-Technik, Flawil, Switzerland) | Ratio of wall-to-core material of 8.8, an inlet air temperature of 189 °C, a drying air flow rate of 65% | Maltodextrin:skim milk powder (50:50) | Optimum values of encapsulation efficiency (92.49%) and yield (37.28%) | [ |
| Dry grape residue pressed | Spray drying process Buchi B-290 equipped with a 1.5 mm nozzle diameter and 600 mm × 165 mm main spray chamber | Peristaltic pump set to 40% power, 12 mL min−1 feed flow rate, and 35 m3 h−1 air flow rate. The temperature of the feed mixture kept constant at 25 °C during drying process. | Maltodextrin dextrose equivalents (MDDE4-7 and MDDE17-20) and gum Arabic (G9752) | The microcapsules obtained under optimal conditions were stored at two different relative humidities (33% and 52%) during 75 days. | [ |
| Byproducts (seeds and peels) of Bordo red grapes ( | Pilot spray drying model MSD 5.0; freeze-drying in the proper equipment model LC 1500 | Used a 2 mm nozzle and air flow of 40 L/min. The compressor air pressure was 0.2 MPa and the feed rate of the mixture 44 mL/min, performed by a peristaltic pump. Variables tested were inlet air temperature (130, 150, and 170 °C) | The carrier agent used in the atomization process was maltodextrin MOR-REX® 1910 | Bordo grape extracts using maltodextrin produced powders with low moisture content, low hygroscopicity, high solubility, and stable color. | [ |
Studies on the health/biochemical properties of different bioactive extracts against some diseases and viruses.
| Bioactive Ingredient Extract | Disease and Virus | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Grape seed and grape marc meal extract | Gut morphology, apparent digestibility of nutrients, microbial composition in faeces, and the expression of pro-inflammatory genes in the intestine of pigs. | [ |
| Extraction from wine production waste (seeds, skin, and pomace) from Pinot noir and Pinot meunier | Anti-influenza activity | [ |
| Polyphenols extraction from Cabernet Sauvignon grape pomace |
Effect of different classes of antibiotics against | [ |
|
Oligostilbenoids isolated from extracts of | Antiproliferative activity on four different cell lines (MCR-5, AGS, SK-MES-1, and J82) determined by means of the MTT reduction assay. | [ |
|
Leaf extract | Antiviral activity against two human viruses: The Herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) and widespread severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). | [ |
|
Phenolic extract from grape stems ( | Inhibit the growth of | [ |
| Hydroalcoholic extract from grape pomace var. Máximo IAC 138-22 | Ovicidal and larvicidal activity against gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep. | [ |
| Grape seed extract | Antiviral activities against hepatitis A virus (HAV) and human norovirus surrogates (feline calicivirus (FCV-F9) and murine norovirus (MNV-1)). | [ |
| Grape seed-extracted proanthocyanidin | Inhibition of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) | [ |