Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractEffect of refermentation conditions and micro-oxygenation on the reduction of volatile acidity by commercial S. cerevisiae strains and their impact on the aromatic profile of wines    Next AbstractThe neglected cranial nerve: nervus terminalis (cranial nerve N) »

Appl Microbiol Biotechnol


Title:"Effects of acetic acid, ethanol, and SO(2) on the removal of volatile acidity from acidic wines by two Saccharomyces cerevisiae commercial strains"
Author(s):Vilela-Moura A; Schuller D; Mendes-Faia A; Corte-Real M;
Address:"Institute for Biotechnology and Bioengineering, Centre of Genetics and Biotechnology, (IBB/CGB-UTAD), Universidade de Tras-os-Montes e Alto Douro, 5001-801 Vila Real, Portugal"
Journal Title:Appl Microbiol Biotechnol
Year:2010
Volume:87
Issue:4
Page Number:1317 - 1326
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-010-2558-7
ISSN/ISBN:1432-0614 (Electronic) 0175-7598 (Linking)
Abstract:"Herein, we report the influence of different combinations of initial concentration of acetic acid and ethanol on the removal of acetic acid from acidic wines by two commercial Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains S26 and S29. Both strains reduced the volatile acidity of an acidic wine (1.0 gl(-1) acetic acid and 11% (v/v) ethanol) by 78% and 48%, respectively. Acetic acid removal by strains S26 and S29 was associated with a decrease in ethanol concentration of 0.7 and 1.2% (v/v), respectively. Strain S26 revealed better removal efficiency due to its higher tolerance to stress factors imposed by acidic wines. Sulfur dioxide (SO(2)) in the concentration range 95-170 mg l(-1)inhibits the ability of both strains to reduce the volatile acidity of the acidic wine used under our experimental conditions. Therefore, deacidification should be carried out either in wines stabilized by filtration or in wines with SO(2)concentrations up to 70 mg l(-1). Deacidification of wines with the better performing strain S26 was associated with changes in the concentration of volatile compounds. The most pronounced increase was observed for isoamyl acetate (banana) and ethyl hexanoate (apple, pineapple), with an 18- and 25-fold increment, respectively, to values above the detection threshold. The acetaldehyde concentration of the deacidified wine was 2.3 times higher, and may have a detrimental effect on the wine aroma. Moreover, deacidification led to increased fatty acids concentration, but still within the range of values described for spontaneous fermentations, and with apparently no negative impact on the organoleptical properties"
Keywords:Acetic Acid/analysis/*metabolism Ethanol/analysis/*metabolism Hydrogen-Ion Concentration Saccharomyces cerevisiae/*metabolism Sulfur Dioxide/analysis/*metabolism Volatile Organic Compounds/analysis/*metabolism Wine/*analysis/microbiology;
Notes:"MedlineVilela-Moura, Alice Schuller, Dorit Mendes-Faia, Arlete Corte-Real, Manuela eng Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Germany 2010/04/15 Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010 Jul; 87(4):1317-26. doi: 10.1007/s00253-010-2558-7"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 22-11-2024