2008Liquor-making Science & TechnologyRequires access

Reduction of Malic Acid in Grape Wine by Using Natural and Genetically Enhanced Micoorganism

Yun Li

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Naturally selected yeast ICV-GRE and 71B, malolactic bacteria Lalvin31, and genetically enhanced yeast ML01 were compared for biodeacidification of malic acid in the production of Vignoles wine. ICV-GRE yeast consumed 18 % of malic acid with no lactic acid production. Lalvin31 promoted wine fermention like ICV-GRE and it converted the residual malic acid to lactic acid and consumed some citric acid. ICV-GRE plus Lalvin31 treatment produced less lactic acid compared with ML01 treatment (because malic acid consumed by the ICV-GRE yeast) and had the lowest titratable acidity. ML01 could effectively convert 5.7 g/L (100 %) malic acid to lactic acid during the first 60 h of fermentation.The 71B yeast consumed 1.9 g/L(33 %)of the malic acid with no lactic acid production.Grape wine produced with ML01 had higher level of total sulfur dioxide (SO2) than grape wine by other treatment. Secondary experiments found that ML01 yeast produced 34.6 mg/L SO2 (three times as much as ICV-GRE and six times as much as 71B).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Naturally selected yeast ICV-GRE and 71B, malolactic bacteria Lalvin31, and genetically enhanced yeast ML01 were compared for biodeacidification of malic acid in the production of Vignoles wine. ICV-GRE yeast consumed 18 % of malic acid with no lactic acid production. Lalvin31 promoted wine fermention like ICV-GRE and it converted the residual malic acid to lactic acid and consumed some citric acid. ICV-GRE plus Lalvin31 treatment produced less lactic acid compared with ML01 treatment (because malic acid consumed by the ICV-GRE yeast) and had the lowest titratable acidity. ML01 could effectively convert 5.7 g/L (100 %) malic acid to lactic acid during the first 60 h of fermentation.The 71B yeast consumed 1.9 g/L(33 %)of the malic acid with no lactic acid production.Grape wine produced with ML01 had higher level of total sulfur dioxide (SO2) than grape wine by other treatment. Secondary experiments found that ML01 yeast produced 34.6 mg/L SO2 (three times as much as ICV-GRE and six times as much as 71B).

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Naturally selected yeast ICV-GRE and 71B, malolactic bacteria Lalvin31, and genetically enhanced yeast ML01 were compared for biodeacidification of malic acid in the production of Vignoles wine. ICV-GRE yeast consumed 18 % of malic acid with no lactic acid production. Lalvin31 promoted wine fermention like ICV-GRE and it converted the residual malic acid to lactic acid and consumed some citric acid. ICV-GRE plus Lalvin31 treatment produced less lactic acid compared with ML01 treatment (because malic acid consumed by the ICV-GRE yeast) and had the lowest titratable acidity. ML01 could effectively convert 5.7 g/L (100 %) malic acid to lactic acid during the first 60 h of fermentation.The 71B yeast consumed 1.9 g/L(33 %)of the malic acid with no lactic acid production.Grape wine produced with ML01 had higher level of total sulfur dioxide (SO2) than grape wine by other treatment. Secondary experiments found that ML01 yeast produced 34.6 mg/L SO2 (three times as much as ICV-GRE and six times as much as 71B).

Key concepts: Malic acid, Malolactic fermentation, Lactic acid, Wine fault, Food science, Wine, Yeast, Chemistry

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Reduction of Malic Acid in Grape Wine by Using Natural and Genetically Enhanced Micoorganism — Research Paper | ScholarLens