Next Article in Journal
miR-155-Induced Activation of Pro-Inflammatory Stat1/TBX21 Pathway and M1-Signature Genes Incite Macrophage Apoptosis and Clearance of Mycobacterium fortuitum in Zebrafish
Next Article in Special Issue
Isolation and Characterization of Lactic Acid Bacteria from Cocoa Mucilage and Meat: Exploring Their Potential as Biopreservatives for Beef
Previous Article in Journal
Drug Resistance: An Incessant Fight against Evolutionary Strategies of Survival
Previous Article in Special Issue
In Vitro Screening of Antiviral Activity of Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolated from Traditional Fermented Foods
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microbiology Research
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/microbiolres14020038
microbiolres-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Novel Low-Alcohol Sangria-Type Wine Products with Immobilized Kefir Cultures and Essential Oils

by
Anastasios Nikolaou
*,
Valentini Santarmaki
,
Gregoria Mitropoulou
,
Georgios Sgouros
and
Yiannis Kourkoutas
*
Laboratory of Applied Microbiology & Biotechnology, Department of Molecular Biology & Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace, 68100 Alexandroupolis, Greece
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microbiol. Res. 2023, 14(2), 543-558; https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres14020038
Submission received: 23 February 2023 / Revised: 10 April 2023 / Accepted: 10 April 2023 / Published: 13 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Collection Microbiology and Technology of Fermented Foods)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Low-alcohol wines (ranging from <0.5 to 10.5% vol) are novel products that have been steadily gaining scientific and commercial attention. Over the past few years, consumer interest in healthier foods has augmented the development of novel functional products containing probiotic microorganisms, while the urge for a reduction in chemical preservatives has shifted the food and wine industry’s interest to natural alternatives, such as essential oils (EOs). In the present study, low-alcohol (~6% vol) wines with (wet or dried) immobilized kefir cultures on fruit pieces, and essential oils (Citrus medica or Cinnamomum zeylanicum) were produced and evaluated for their properties. The viability of the immobilized kefir cultures on apple and pear pieces was not affected by the addition of EOs, and levels >7 logcfu/g were maintained after 2 h of immersion in wines. HS-SPME GC/MS analysis revealed characteristic compounds originating from the chemical composition of the added EOs in the final products. Principal component analysis (PCA) revealed that the relative content of terpenes, alcohols and carbonyl compounds played a major role in the discrimination of low-alcohol wine products. EO addition affected the products’ sensory evaluation and resulted in significantly higher aroma and taste density compared to control samples. Notably, all novel Sangria-type wine variants were approved during preliminary sensory evaluation.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In the past few years, low-alcohol wines (ranging from <0.5 to 10.5% vol) have been steadily gaining scientific and commercial attention, as they are preferred by consumers for a variety of reasons (healthier habits, modern lifestyle, economic motives, etc.) [1]. Typically, pre- and post-fermentation treatments are required for low-alcohol wine-making, but since their outcome is hard to predict, the use of kefir culture has recently been proposed [2,3]. Kefir culture is derived from a homemade, highly nutritional and healthy fermented milk product, in which a wide spectrum of yeasts, lactic acid and, occasionally, acetic acid bacteria co-exist [4], many species of which have previously been associated with probiotic or beneficial properties for the consumer [5,6]. For this reason, kefir beverages are considered to be of high added value and may be characterized as “functional foods”, a term which includes a variety of products that may potentially positively affect body functions, reduce the risk of disease or promote well-being in general upon regular consumption [7]. However, in order to perform alcoholic and malolactic fermentation [3] or, ideally, positively affect the consumer’s health [8], adequate numbers of kefir cultures are required. For this reason, immobilization strategies and the use of dried cultures are usually recommended, as they are associated with many advantages and offer compatibility with industrial and commercial needs [9,10].
Nevertheless, microbial spoilage may occur in wine at various pre- or post-fermentation stages and is usually caused by yeast (of the genera Brettanomyces, Candida, Hanseniaspora, Pichia, Metschnikowia, Saccharomycodes, Schizosaccharomyces and Zygosaccharomyces) [11,12] and bacterial species (of the genera Lactobacillus, Oenococcus, Pediococcus, Weissella, Acetobacter, Gluconobacter and Gluconoacetobacter) [13,14]. The addition of chemical preservatives, especially sulphur dioxide (SO2), is a common practice in wineries worldwide for preventing the growth of spoilage microorganisms and their negative actions [15,16,17]. However, the excessive use of SO2 has raised a major concern, both from oenologists and the public, since it may negatively affect the wine’s aroma [18,19] or even result in various adverse health effects [20,21,22].
As a result, in the past few years, increased attention has been drawn on the use of natural preservatives like essential oils (EOs) as antimicrobial and antioxidant agents in numerous food matrices [23,24,25,26]. In general, EOs are secondary metabolites synthesized by aromatic and medicinal plants. They are volatile, highly soluble in alcohol and organic solvents and consist of multiple chemical compounds, such as alcohols, esters, ketones, terpenes, terpenoids and phenolics, though their composition may vary depending on harvesting season, geographical region, oil extraction methods, etc. [27]. Cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum) EO from bark has revealed antibacterial [28,29], antidiabetic [30], antilipidemic [31], antioxidant [32] and anti-inflammatory actions [30], while, the biological activities of citron (Citrus medica) EO are similar [33,34,35,36]. Various studies have examined the suitability of these EOs for application in foods (such as meat products [37,38], yogurt [26,39], fruits [40,41,42], etc.) as natural antimicrobial and antioxidant compounds. Recently, their antimicrobial activity was evaluated in storage of low-alcohol wines and in deliberately contaminated wine products [28]. However, their effect on beneficial cell cultures, such as kefir, has not yet been examined.
Considering the above and following the increasing consumer interest in more natural and healthier food products, the potential of a new functional Sangria-type low-alcohol wine product containing immobilized kefir cultures on fruit pieces and EOs was investigated in the present study. Data indicating the effective survival of immobilized kefir culture (in counts capable of conferring a beneficial effect) and improved product quality are presented.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Kefir Culture Immobilization and Production of Dried Cultures

Κefir culture, previously isolated from a traditional kefir drink [2], was grown in diluted grape must of the Muscat Hamburg variety (Tyrnavos Cooperative Winery and Distillery, Tyrnavos, Greece) at 30 °C for 24 h. The medium consisted of ~30–35 g/L sugars supplemented with 0.1% w/v MgSO47H2O, 0.1% w/v (NH4)2SO4, 0.2% w/v KH2PO4 and 0.4% w/v yeast extract. Prior to use, the pH was adjusted to 6.2 by adding 1N NaOH, and the medium was sterilized at 121 °C for 15 min.
For the immobilization process, kefir biomass was harvested by centrifugation (6000 rpm, 20 min, 4 °C), washed twice with sterile ¼ Ringer’s solution (LabM, St. Albans, UK) and resuspended in the same solution. Apple or pear pieces (~575 g) were then submerged in 1 L of kefir culture solution for 10 h at room temperature, and the immobilized cells were washed twice with ¼ Ringer’s solution. Immobilized thermally dried and freeze-dried kefir cultures on apple and pear pieces were produced, as recently described [2,3] and stored at 4 °C until further use.

2.2. Novel Low-Alcohol Sangria-Type Wines Preparation

Low-alcohol wine of ~6% vol was produced by free kefir culture as previously described [2], using diluted grape must of the Muscat Hamburg variety. After fermentation, wine was clarified by centrifugation (9000 rpm, 20 min, 4 °C). C. medica and C. zeylanicum EOs were then added separately (0.01% v/v of each oil) or in combination (0.005% v/v of each oil) into the low-alcohol wine samples. Wines with no EO addition were used as controls, and all samples were stored at 4 °C until further use. Immobilized wet or dried (thermally dried or freeze-dried) kefir cultures on apple or pear pieces (after rehydration) were then introduced into the wines at a final concentration of ~30% w/w, resulting in novel Sangria-type products.

2.3. Microbial Enumeration

Due to the absence of chemical preservatives, all wine samples stored at 4 °C were initially checked for common wine-spoilage microorganisms (O. oeni, P. pentosaceus, G. cerinus, D. bruxellensis, C. zemplinina, H. uvarum, P. guilliermondii or Z. bailii), as previously described [28].
After preparation of the Sangria-type products, the survival of immobilized kefir cells was monitored at frequent intervals (0.5, 1 and 2 h). In brief, 5 g of immobilized cells were drained, blended with 45 mL of sterile ¼ Ringer’s solution and subjected to serial dilutions; counts of total mesophilic flora were then determined on Plate Count Agar. Results were expressed as logcfu/g, and the viability of the cultures was calculated as recently reported [43].

2.4. Chemical Analyses

The pH and total and volatile acidity values of all products were determined after the addition of immobilized kefir cultures into the wine products, as previously reported [2].
Samples of novel low-alcohol wines (10 g) were analyzed for the content of minor volatiles using the HS-SPME GC/MS technique [6890N GC, 5973NetworkedMS MSD (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA)], as previously described [44]. All analyses were carried out in triplicate, and the mean values are presented (standard deviation for all values was ±5%).

2.5. Preliminary Sensory Evaluation

Preliminary sensory evaluation for aroma, taste and overall acceptability of the new wine products with immobilized kefir cultures and EOs was performed by a mixed panel of random wine tasters [45]. The Sangria-type products were evaluated on a 0–5 scale; wine products with apple or pear pieces (no culture addition) were used as controls. Tasters were offered water and crackers to clean their palates between samples.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed for determination of statistical differences of all treatments (state of immobilized kefir culture: wet/thermally dried/freeze-dried, immersion time in the final product: 0 h/1 h/2 h and EO enrichment: C. medica/C. zeylanicum/mix were considered as factors) and their interactions. All analyses were performed using Duncan’s multiple range test with a 95% confidence level. The concentrations of minor volatile compounds (HS-SPME GC/MS) were used as variables in principal component analysis (PCA), and XLSTAT 2015.1 was used to compute the algorithm.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Viability of Immobilized Kefir Cultures in the Novel Sangria-Type Low-Alcohol Wines

Fruit pieces are known to be suitable immobilization carriers for kefir culture [44,46] and, as expected, total counts of wet immobilized kefir culture on apple and pear pieces exceeded 8 logcfu/g. Application of drying processes (thermal or freeze-drying), however, resulted in significantly (p < 0.05) reduced counts compared to the wet culture [2,3], but still >7.5 logcfu/g in all cases (data not shown). Reduced cell viability after a drying treatment is not uncommon [47,48,49], but cell immobilization is considered to be a promising strategy for the maintenance or even enhancement of kefir culture viability during processing and storage [2,3].
The development of new Sangria-type low-alcohol wines supplemented with EOs and immobilized kefir culture on fruit pieces presupposes the survival of kefir cells. For this reason, dried (thermally or freeze-dried) immobilized kefir cells (on apple or pear pieces) were directly immersed in low-alcohol wines (~6% vol) supplemented with EOs (0.01% v/v C. zeylanicum, 0.01% C. medica or a mixture of both at 0.005% each), at a final proportion of ~25% w/w in the reconstituted wine product, and their populations were monitored for 2 h. Likewise, wet immobilized kefir cells (on apple or pear pieces) were directly immersed in low-alcohol wines with EOs and served as controls. Results showed that the state of immobilized kefir culture (wet or dried) and the immersion time in EO-supplemented low-alcohol wines significantly affected (p < 0.05) kefir total counts, and a strong interaction (p < 0.05) among the factors was observed (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Interestingly, and despite the documented antimicrobial action of C. zeylanicum and C. medica EOs [28], the viability of immobilized kefir culture after initial immersion (timepoint of 0 h) was not affected in most cases or resulted in a slight reduction compared to the initial populations. Adaptation and recovery of populations at a later storage stage [50] or even a count increase (up to 1 logcfu/g) have been documented [51]. That is a very important aspect of kefir culture’s survival ability, as numerous benefits of kefir consumption have been related to its microbial composition [52,53,54]. The kefir culture used in this study was originally isolated from a homemade traditional kefir drink and is a part of the microbial collection of the Laboratory of Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Democritus University of Thrace (Alexandroupolis, Greece). Its microbial populations have been previously investigated with DNA next generation sequencing, and the existence of various species with potential health-promoting effects has been verified [2]. For instance, L. kefiri strains have been associated with mucus adhesion ability [55,56], in vivo cholesterol and triglyceride level reduction [57,58] and immunomodulation properties [59]. Additionally, K. marxianus strains are known to be associated with cholesterol-lowering effects, bile salt hydrolase activity [60] and immunomodulatory properties [61], while K. lactis and S. cerevisiae strains have been associated with promoting health and well-being, in general [62,63]. In the present study, kefir populations >109 cfu were established in a typical wine serving [64], thus achieving the minimum recommended cell concentration to confer beneficial health effects on the consumer [65].
As previously demonstrated, no food-spoilage microorganisms were detected in the low-alcohol wine samples used for the Sangria-type products, despite the absence of chemical preservatives after wine manufacture [28]. In general, it should be noted that various species present in kefir culture are known for their antimicrobial activity. Specifically, L. kefiri strains have been associated with protective or inhibitory effects against food-spoilage microorganisms and other pathogens (such as Salmonella, E. coli, C. difficile, etc.) [54]. Similarly, Saccharomyces and Kluyveromyces species (the most abundant kefir yeasts) are known for their antimicrobial and antioxidant properties [66]. The antimicrobial activity of various EOs against food-borne pathogens and food-spoilage microbes is also well documented [28,67,68,69,70]. Thus, the combined inhibitory effect of EOs along with kefir culture could be utilized for food microbial safety enhancement and shelf-life prolongation [71].

3.2. Chemical Analyses

3.2.1. pH and Acidity Values

In all cases examined, pH (3.9–4.0) was at a level typically observed in low-alcohol wines (Table 1). Volatile acidity was significantly affected (p < 0.05) by the state of the immobilized kefir cells (wet or dried cultures), and higher values were recorded in wine products with wet cultures (0.51–0.57 g acetic/L) compared to wine products with freeze-dried immobilized cultures (0.39–0.45 g acetic/L). Regarding wines with thermally dried immobilized kefir cultures, the volatile acidity ranged from 0.48 to 0.63 g acetic/L (depending on EO treatment applied), but remained within values commonly found in low-alcohol wine products [2,3]. Likewise, wine products with freeze-dried or thermally dried immobilized kefir cultures had increased total acidity values compared to wet cultures, but the increase was not significant in all cases and remained at typical levels for wines.

3.2.2. HS-SPME GC/MS Analyses

As the development of new foods and beverages with a unique sensory profile is an undeniable consumer desire, EOs are gaining attention for their organoleptic effect on food matrices. For that reason, the aromatic profile of new Sangria-type wine products with EOs and immobilized kefir cultures on fruit pieces (apple or pear) was analyzed using the HS-SPME GC/MS technique. In general, esters, organic acids, terpenes, alcohols and carbonyl compounds are considered important aroma and flavor constituents. In total, 99 volatile compounds were detected in samples supplemented with EOs (Supplementary Table S1), with the majority of them belonging to esters and terpenes. Noticeably, wine samples with no EO addition revealed similar volatile composition, as recently reported [2,3]. The relative content (%) of the volatile groups identified by HS-SPME GC/MS analysis is presented in Table 2.
In low-alcohol wines with immobilized kefir cells on apple pieces, the state of kefir cultures (wet, thermally or freeze-dried) and the EO addition (C. medica, C. zeylanicum, EO mix or no EO) significantly affected (p < 0.05) organic acids, terpenes, alcohols, carbonyls and miscellaneous content. The content of esters, however, was affected only by EO addition, while strong interactions (p < 0.05) between the two factors were observed in most cases. Similarly, esters, organic acids, alcohols, carbonyls and miscellaneous content in low-alcohol wines with immobilized kefir cells on pear pieces was significantly affected (p < 0.05) by both factors, while strong interactions (p < 0.05) were noted in all cases. The content of terpenes, on the other hand, was significantly affected (p < 0.05) only by the addition of EOs.
Esters are considered crucial aroma contributors, enhancing the aroma complexity of wines and mainly contributing pleasant fruity and floral notes [72]. In contrast to methyl esters, which are naturally present in grapes, ethyl esters are mainly secondary metabolites produced via the conjugation of alcohols and fatty acids during the alcoholic fermentation process, and most of them have low odor-detection thresholds, while they can mask the unpleasant aroma scents of fatty acids [73]. In the present study, 31 ester compounds were identified and, among them, ethyl octanoate (responsible for sweet, banana- and pear-like aroma notes), ethyl hexanoate (producing banana and apple aromas), 2-phenylethyl acetate (responsible for fruity rose aroma) [74] and ethyl 9-decenoate (providing quince-like and floral notes) [75] were the most abundant. Other esters adding fruity aromas, such as banana-, pineapple-, strawberry- and apple-like scents (isoamyl acetate, butyl acetate, ethyl propionate, hexyl acetate, ethyl butanoate, ethyl 2-methylbutyrate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl nonanoate, ethyl decanoate), floral attributes (ethyl benzoate, ethyl tetradecanoate), oily and fatty notes (ethyl dodecanoate, ethyl linoleate), as well as creamy (ethyl hexadecanoate) or sweet, honey and floral scents (ethyl phenylacetate) were also detected in lower concentrations [72,74]. Additionally, cinnamyl acetate, benzyl benzoate and hydrocinnamyl acetate were present only in wine variants with C. zeylanicum EO, in line with its chemical composition [28,76], and these volatile odorants exhibit sweet, fruity, flowery and balsamic fragrances [77,78]. Other ester compounds linked with cinnamon EO addition in wines were benzyl acetate, ethyl benzoate, ethyl cinnamate, ethyl hydrocinnamate and isoeugenyl acetate, which are known for cinnamon-, sweet-balsamic, floral, fruity and honey-like odors [77,79], and their concentration was lower compared to the previously mentioned substances.
Terpenes and their derivative compounds were the most numerous and the most abundant identified volatile odorants, resulting in significantly (p < 0.05) higher content, especially in wine samples supplemented with C. medica EO (for both fruit carriers). Notably, 35 terpenes and derivative compounds were detected in wine samples with EO addition versus only 8 relative compounds in the control samples. In samples supplemented with 0.01% v/v C. medica EO, linalool was the most prevalent volatile compound, ranging from 70.9 to 80.9% (of the total volatile content) between different samples and contributing floral, citrus-like, sweet and muscat-like odors [74,77,78]. It was followed by ethyl octanoate (2.7–7.5%), geraniol (3.8–6.3%), nerol (1.0–2.2%), α-terpineol (1.5–2.5%) and limonene (0.6–2.2%), which also added mostly floral, sweet, citrus-like and green scents [74,78,80]. In contrast, apart from linalool, wines with C. zeylanicum EO addition were characterized by α-terpineol, caryophyllene oxide (revealing woody, spicy notes), caryophyllene (known for sweet, woody, green, spicy odor) and α-humulene (having woody odor) [78,79] in relatively high content. Other compounds also known to contribute woody (β-myrcene, δ-cadinene), fruity (β-phellandrene, α-terpinene, γ-terpinene, citral, α-farnesene, citral, (-)-spathulenole), floral (o-cymene, linalool oxide, (E)-nerolidol) or spicy notes (α-phellandrene, carvacrol) were also detected in small quantities [78,79,81,82].
Long-chain fatty acids are naturally present in grapes. They generally have high odor threshold values and thus present a modest contribution to the aroma of wines [77,83]. They are mainly produced from autoxidation of the saturated lipid constituents of fruits, while short-chain fatty acids are metabolism products produced by yeast and bacteria [74,77]. Despite their low impact on wine aroma, they are important precursor compounds for the formation of more powerful odorants, such as esters, aldehydes and alcohols [84]. Octanoic acid, known for its oily, fatty acid, rancid, soapy and cheesy odor character [74], was the major identified fatty acid and was present in all wine samples. Other fatty acids presenting cheesy, vinegar, sour, fatty and rancid aromas (hexanoic, decanoic and hexadecanoic acid) [74,79] were also detected in lower concentrations.
Higher alcohols are also considered important wine flavor contributors and may be produced as byproducts of yeast alcoholic fermentation or synthesized through degradation of the relevant amino acids [85,86]. Higher alcohols (especially C6 and C9) usually generate herbal, strong and pungent odors, but at low concentrations (<300 mg/L), are associated with a wine’s complexity, elegance and high quality [86]. In the present study, higher alcohols content ranged from 26.2 to 324.9 mg/L, and 2-phenylethanol (providing a characteristic floral, rose-, honey-like bouquet) [74] was present in all wine samples; its concentration varied (1.1–129.4 mg/L) depending on EO treatment. Likewise, isoamyl and amyl alcohols were also identified in all wine variants in high quantities, producing burnt, cocoa, floral, malty [78] and oily, sweet, dark chocolate and malty scents, respectively [79,87]. Noticeably, eugenol, cinnamyl alcohol and hydrocinnamyl alcohol were detected only in wines with cinnamon EO, revealing a sweet, spicy, clove-like (eugenol and hydrocinnamyl alcohol) or sweet, balsam, cinnamon-like (cinnamyl alcohol) fragrance [79,88]. Other alcohols responsible for fruity, creamy (2,3 butanediol), herbal, grassy, woody (1-hexanol), green, bitter, alcohol (isobutanol) or jasmine-, lemon-like (1-octanol) bouquets [74,79] were detected in most wine samples, but in low quantities.
In general, carbonyl compounds comprise the most abundant group of volatiles detected in red grape varieties [84]. According to the results, a few carbonyl compounds were detected in all samples, but significantly higher (p < 0.05) relative amounts were observed in wine variants containing C. zeylanicum EO compared to wines with no EO addition or wines with C. medica EO (for both fruit carriers). Among them, cinnamaldehyde and benzenepropanal were the major aldehydes, as they are important constituents in cinnamon oil [76]. Cinnamaldehyde has a sweet, spicy, cinnamon, honey-like odor contribution, and benzenepropanal has a honey-like, floral and roasted fragrance [79,87]. Other aldehydes, such as hexanal (fresh, green), nonanal (fatty, soapy, rose, floral, citrus-like), benzaldehyde (sweet, cherry, roasted, almond-like) and decanal (floral, citrus notes) [74,79,88,89] were also identified in low quantities.
A few miscellaneous compounds with minimal sensorial impact were also identified, in accordance with our previous studies in low-alcohol wines [2,3].
Each aromatic compound present in wine has its own odor threshold and, notably, most of them are usually found in concentrations below that value [90]. As a result, they do not solely influence the development of the product’s fragrance [72] nor can the aroma be considered as the sum of contributions made by each individual compound [91]. Instead, the final aromatic bouquet relies on synergistic or additive or even suppressive interactions, depending on the compounds’ presence and concentrations. Moreover, the alcohol content of the wine may alter the organoleptic perception of the product, while parameters, such as variations in an individual’s perception or sensitivity should not be ignored [72,91].

3.2.3. Principal Component Analysis

As shown in Figure 3, PCA of minor volatiles detected by HS-SPME analysis revealed that the addition of EOs rather than the state of the kefir culture (wet or dried) had a significant effect. In particular, wine samples with 0.01% v/v C. medica EO, presenting a relatively high abundance of terpenes and their derivative compounds (Supplementary Figure S1), were clustered at the top left part of the plot. In contrast, wine samples with 0.01% v/v C. zeylanicum EO were characterized by a relatively high amount of alcohols and carbonyl compounds (Supplementary data), which correlated positively most with PC1. As a result, the mixed EOs addition resulted in a diagonal distribution, affected by both trends. All wine variants with no EO addition (controls) were clustered at the bottom left corner of the plot.

3.3. Preliminary Sensory Evaluation

The sensory attributes (aroma, taste, overall evaluation) of the new Sangria-type wines represent important criteria for determining their acceptability by consumers. According to the results (Table 3), the aroma, taste density and overall evaluation were significantly (p < 0.05) affected by the addition of EOs, while the state of kefir cultures (wet, thermally or freeze-dried) had no effect on the scores. In particular, wines with EOs had significantly (p < 0.05) higher scores (3 to 4 rating) regarding aroma and taste density compared to the wines with no addition of EOs (control samples). The majority of wine variants supplemented with EOs were characterized by fruity and piquant scents, while the samples without EOs mostly had wine-like aromas. Concerning taste, addition of EOs resulted in a sweet/bitter taste in most wine variants, which, in the case of C. medica supplementation, was associated with an unpleasant aftertaste, while wines supplemented with C. zeylanicum EO were characterized by an enjoyable cola-like aftertaste. As for wines with no EOs added, the taste was slightly sour with a typical wine aftertaste. In contrast to the aroma and taste density, wines without EOs were highly graded regarding overall evaluation, probably because they more closely resembled the consumers’ familiar perception of the typical Sangria wine [92]. Products with C. zeylanicum EO closely followed the tasters’ preference, but samples with C. medica EO gathered mixed criticism, possibly due to the bitter notes detected upon tasting. After all, factors like the appearance (color, shape, etc.) and general expected perception of a product (e.g., Sangria wine) constitute the basic characteristics responsible for the identification and selection of the product and strongly affect concepts, such as the desirability and selection by consumers [93].
Serving fruit pieces (containing immobilized cells) and low-alcohol wines with EOs in different containers, with the testers’ direct involvement in the process of reconstituting the final Sangria-type product, was characterized as highly intriguing. Thus, attributes like the style of presentation could be exploited, in terms of sensory marketing, as it can influence the consumers’ perception, judgement and behavior, affecting their satisfaction and resulting in indirect product promotion [94]. All Sangria-type products with immobilized kefir cultures and EOs were characterized as highly original and were accepted by the tasting panel, indicating a great market potential for these products.

4. Conclusions

In the current study, novel Sangria-type low-alcohol wines supplemented with immobilized kefir cultures on fruit pieces and EOs were produced and evaluated. High cell viability was retained after immersion of immobilized kefir cells for 2 h in low-alcohol wines supplemented with Citrus medica EO (0.01% v/v), Cinnamon zeylanicum EO (0.01% v/v) or mixed EOs (0.005% v/v each), and adequate numbers (enough to confer potential beneficial activity) were retained in all cases. Fluctuations in pH, as well as total and volatile acidity values, were observed depending on the state (wet or dried) of the cells used, but were among typical levels for wines. HS-SPME GC/MS analysis and PCA applied on results revealed that EO supplementation and the relative content of terpenes, alcohols and carbonyl compounds played a major role in the discrimination of the novel low-alcohol wine products. Notably, EO supplementation resulted in higher aroma and taste density, and all new wine products were accepted by the sensory panel.
In conclusion, data supporting the development of a novel Sangria-type low-alcohol wine with immobilized kefir cells on fruit pieces and EOs with great market potential are presented. However, more research is still required for aspects, such as minimizing the organoleptic impact of EOs on the product, as well as effectively prolonging its shelf life.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microbiolres14020038/s1, Table S1: Minor volatiles (mg/L) detected by HS-SPME GC/MS analysis in Sangria-type low-alcohol wines with immobilized kefir cultures and essential oils.; Figure S1: Biplot showing the projection of the minor volatiles on the first two principal components of the PCA.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.N. and Y.K.; data curation, V.S., G.M. and G.S.; funding acquisition, Y.K.; investigation, A.N., V.S., G.M. and G.S.; methodology, A.N. and V.S.; project administration, Y.K.; supervision, Y.K.; writing—original draft, A.N. and V.S.; writing—review and editing, A.N. and Y.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Greek Operational Program “Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning, Support researchers with emphasis on young researchers” [MIS 5006289]: “Novel wine products using biopreservatives and probiotics”, co-funded by the European Union (European Social Fund) and Greek National Funds, National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) 2014–2020.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to restrictions of the funding authorities.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Goold, H.D.; Kroukamp, H.; Williams, T.C.; Paulsen, I.T.; Varela, C.; Pretorius, I.S. Yeast’s balancing act between ethanol and glycerol production in low-alcohol wines. Microb. Biotechnol. 2017, 10, 264–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Nikolaou, A.; Sgouros, G.; Mitropoulou, G.; Santarmaki, V.; Kourkoutas, Y. Freeze-dried Immobilized Kefir Culture in Low-Alcohol Wine-Making. Foods 2020, 9, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Nikolaou, A.; Sgouros, G.; Santarmaki, V.; Mitropoulou, G.; Kourkoutas, Y. Preliminary Evaluation of the Use of Thermally-Dried Immobilized Kefir Cells in Low Alcohol Winemaking. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Plessas, S.; Nouska, C.; Mantzourani, I.; Kourkoutas, Y.; Alexopoulos, A.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Microbiological Exploration of Different Types of Kefir Grains. Fermentation 2017, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Kumura, H.; Tanoue, Y.; Tsukahara, M.; Tanaka, T.; Shimazaki, K. Screening of dairy yeast strains for probiotic applications. J. Dairy Sci. 2004, 87, 4050–4056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Tas, T.K.; Ekinci, F.Y.; Guzel-Seydim, Z.B. Identification of microbial flora in kefir grains produced in Turkey using PCR. Int. J. Dairy Technol. 2012, 65, 126–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Roberfroid, M. 1—Defining functional foods and associated claims. In Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, Functional Foods, 2nd ed.; Saarela, M., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ribeiro, A.P.D.O.; Gomes, F.D.S.; dos Santos, K.M.O.; da Matta, V.M.; de Sá, D.D.G.C.F.; Santiago, M.C.P.D.A.; Conte, C.; Costa, S.D.D.O.; Ribero, L.D.O.; Godoy, R.L.D.O.; et al. Development of a probiotic non-fermented blend beverage with juçara fruit: Effect of the matrix on probiotic viability and survival to the gastrointestinal tract. LWT 2020, 118, 108756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bekatorou, A.; Plessas, S.; Mallouchos, A. Cell Immobilization Technologies for Applications in Alcoholic Beverages. In Applications of Encapsulation and Controlled Release, 1st ed.; Mishra, M., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015; pp. 933–955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dimitrellou, D.; Santarmaki, V.; Nikolaou, A.; Mitropoulou, G.; Kandylis, P.; Kourkoutas, Y. Encapsulated/Immobilized Biocatalysts for Production of Dairy Products. In Encapsulation in Food Processing and Fermentation, 1st ed.; Lević, S., Nedović, V., Bugarski, B., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tristezza, M.; Lourenço, A.; Barata, A.; Brito, L.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M.; Loureiro, V. Susceptibility of wine spoilage yeasts and bacteria in the planktonic state and in biofilms to disinfectants. Ann. Microbiol. 2010, 60, 549–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Enrique, M.; Marcos, J.F.; Yuste, M.; Martínez, M.; Vallés, S.; Manzanares, P. Antimicrobial action of synthetic peptides towards wine spoilage yeasts. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 118, 318–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Barata, A.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M.; Loureiro, V. The microbial ecology of wine grape berries. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 153, 243–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cavaglia, J.; Mas Garcia, S.; Roger, J.-M.; Mestres, M.; Boqué, R. Detection of bacterial spoilage during wine alcoholic fermentation using ATR-MIR and MCR-ALS. Food Control 2022, 142, 109269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oliveira, C.M.; Ferreira, A.C.S.; De Freitas, V.; Silva, A.M.S. Oxidation mechanisms occurring in wines. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 1115–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Abramovič, H.; Košmerl, T.; Poklar Ulrih, N.; Cigić, B. Contribution of SO2 to antioxidant potential of white wine. Food Chem. 2015, 174, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Barata, A.; Caldeira, J.; Botelheiro, R.; Pagliara, D.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M.; Loureiro, V. Survival patterns of Dekkera bruxellensis in wines and inhibitory effect of sulphur dioxide. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 121, 201–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Li, H.; Guo, A.; Wang, H. Mechanisms of oxidative browning of wine. Food Chem. 2008, 108, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Siebert, T.E.; Solomon, M.R.; Pollnitz, A.P.; Jeffery, D.W. Selective Determination of Volatile Sulfur Compounds in Wine by Gas Chromatography with Sulfur Chemiluminescence Detection. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9454–9462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vally, H.; Misso, N.L. Adverse reactions to the sulphite additives. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. Bed Bench. 2012, 5, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Gupta, M.K.; Basavaraj, G.V. Sulphites in food & drinks in asthmatic adults & children: What we need to know. Indian J. Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2021, 35, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Guerrero, R.F.; Cantos-Villar, E. Demonstrating the efficiency of sulphur dioxide replacements in wine: A parameter review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 42, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Garcia-Sotelo, D.; Silva-Espinoza, B.; Perez-Tello, M.; Olivas, I.; Alvarez-Parrilla, E.; González-Aguilar, G.A.; Ayala-Zavala, J.F. Antimicrobial activity and thermal stability of rosemary essential oil:β−cyclodextrin capsules applied in tomato juice. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 111, 837–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Arasu, M.V.; Viayaraghavan, P.; Ilavenil, S.; Al-Dhabi, N.A.; Choi, K.C. Essential oil of four medicinal plants and protective properties in plum fruits against the spoilage bacteria and fungi. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 133, 54–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Demirok Soncu, E.; Özdemir, N.; Arslan, B.; Küçükkaya, S.; Soyer, A. Contribution of surface application of chitosan-thyme and chitosan-rosemary essential oils to the volatile composition, microbial profile, and physicochemical and sensory quality of dry-fermented sausages during storage. Meat Sci. 2020, 166, 108127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Milanović, V.; Sabbatini, R.; Garofalo, C.; Cardinali, F.; Pasquini, M.; Aquilanti, L.; Osimani, A. Evaluation of the inhibitory activity of essential oils against spoilage yeasts and their potential application in yogurt. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 341, 109048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dhifi, W.; Bellili, S.; Jazi, S.; Bahloul, N.; Mnif, W. Essential Oils’ Chemical Characterization and Investigation of Some Biological Activities: A Critical Review. Medicines 2016, 3, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Mitropoulou, G.; Nikolaou, A.; Santarmaki, V.; Sgouros, G.; Kourkoutas, Y. Citrus medica and Cinnamomum zeylanicum Essential Oils as Potential Biopreservatives against Spoilage in Low Alcohol Wine Products. Foods 2020, 9, 577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ganić, T.; Vuletić, S.; Nikolić, B.; Stevanović, M.; Kuzmanović, M.; Kekić, D.; Đurović, S.; Cvetković, S.; Mitić-Ćulafić, D. Cinnamon essential oil and its emulsion as efficient antibiofilm agents to combat Acinetobacter baumannii. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 989667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Arachchige, S.P.G.; Abeysekera, W.P.K.M.; Ratnasooriya, W.D. Antiamylase, Anticholinesterases, Antiglycation, and Glycation Reversing Potential of Bark and Leaf of Ceylon Cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum Blume) In Vitro. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2017, 2017, 5076029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Abeysekera, W.P.K.M.; Premakumara, G.A.S.; Ratnasooriya, W.D.; Abeysekera, W.K.S.M. Anti-inflammatory, cytotoxicity and antilipidemic properties: Novel bioactivities of true cinnamon (Cinnamomum zeylanicum Blume) leaf. BMC Complement. Med. Ther. 2022, 22, 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Singh, R.; Parasuraman, S.; Kathiresan, S. Antioxidant and Antidiabetic Activity of Methanolic extract of Bark of Cinnamomum zeylanicum in Diabetic Rats. Free Radic. Antioxid. 2020, 10, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mitropoulou, G.; Fitsiou, E.; Spyridopoulou, K.; Tiptiri-Kourpeti, A.; Bardouki, H.; Vamvakias, M.; Panas, P.; Chlichlia, K.; Pappa, A.; Kourkoutas, Y. Citrus medica essential oil exhibits significant antimicrobial and antiproliferative activity. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 84, 344–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ghani, A.; Taghvaeefard, N.; Hosseinifarahi, M.; Dakhlaoui, S.; Msaada, K. Essential oil composition and antioxidant activity of citron fruit (Citrus medica var. macrocarpa Risso.) peel as relation to ripening stages. Int. J. Environ. Health Res. 2022, 18, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Menichini, F.; Tundis, R.; Bonesi, M.; de Cindio, B.; Loizzo, M.R.; Conforti, F.; Statti, G.A.; Menabeni, R.; Bettini, R.; Menichini, F. Chemical composition and bioactivity of Citrus medica L. cv. Diamante essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation, cold-pressing and supercritical carbon dioxide extraction. Nat. Prod. Res. 2011, 25, 789–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Panara, K.; Joshi, K.; Nishteswar, K. A Review on Phytochemical and Pharmacological Properties of Citrus medica Linn. Int. J. Pharm. Biol. 2012, 3, 1292–1297. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ben Hsouna, A.; Ben Halima, N.; Smaoui, S.; Hamdi, N. Citrus lemon essential oil: Chemical composition, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities with its preservative effect against Listeria monocytogenes inoculated in minced beef meat. Lipids Health Dis. 2017, 16, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Aminzare, M.; Aliakbarlu, J.; Tajik, H. The effect of Cinnamomum zeylanicum essential oil on chemical characteristics of Lyoner- type sausage during refrigerated storage. Vet. Res. Forum 2015, 6, 31–39, PMCID:4405683. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  39. Salama, H.H.; El-Sayed, H.S.; Kholif, A.M.M.; Edris, A.E. Essential oils nanoemulsion for the flavoring of functional stirred yogurt: Manufacturing, physicochemical, microbiological, and sensorial investigation. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2022, 21, 372–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shehata, S.A.; Abdeldaym, E.A.; Ali, M.R.; Mohamed, R.M.; Bob, R.I.; Abdelgawad, K.F. Effect of Some Citrus Essential Oils on Post-Harvest Shelf Life and Physicochemical Quality of Strawberries during Cold Storage. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brnawi, W.I.; Hettiarachchy, N.S.; Horax, R.; Kumar-Phillips, G.; Seo, H.S.; Marcy, J. Comparison of Cinnamon Essential Oils from Leaf and Bark with Respect to Antimicrobial Activity and Sensory Acceptability in Strawberry Shake. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rashid, Z.; Khan, M.R.; Mubeen, R.; Hassan, A.; Saeed, F.; Afzaal, M. Exploring the effect of cinnamon essential oil to enhance the stability and safety of fresh apples. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nelios, G.; Santarmaki, V.; Pavlatou, C.; Dimitrellou, D.; Kourkoutas, Y. New Wild-Type Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus Strains as Candidates to Manage Type 1 Diabetes. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nikolaou, A.; Tsakiris, A.; Kanellaki, M.; Bezirtzoglou, E.; Akrida-Demertzi, K.; Kourkoutas, Y. Wine production using free and immobilized kefir culture on natural supports. Food Chem. 2019, 272, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Nikolaou, A.; Kourkoutas, Y. High-Temperature Semi-Dry and Sweet Low Alcohol Wine-Making Using Immobilized Kefir Culture. Fermentation 2021, 7, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nikolaou, A.; Galanis, A.; Kanellaki, M.; Tassou, C.; Akrida-Demertzi, K.; Kourkoutas, Y. Assessment of free and immobilized kefir culture in simultaneous alcoholic and malolactic cider fermentations. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 76, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Betoret, E.; Betoret, N.; Calabuig-Jiménez, L.; Barrera, C.; Dalla Rosa, M. Effect of Drying Process, Encapsulation, and Storage on the Survival Rates and Gastrointestinal Resistance of L. salivarius spp. salivarius Included into a Fruit Matrix. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Haindl, R.; Neumayr, A.; Frey, A.; Kulozik, U. Impact of cultivation strategy, freeze-drying process, and storage conditions on survival, membrane integrity, and inactivation kinetics of Bifidobacterium longum. Folia Microbiol. 2020, 65, 1039–1050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mileriene, J.; Serniene, L.; Kondrotiene, K.; Santarmaki, V.; Kourkoutas, Y.; Vasiliauskaite, A.; Lauciene, L.; Malakauskas, M. Indigenous Lactococcus lactis with Probiotic Properties: Evaluation of Wet, Thermally- and Freeze-Dried Raisins as Supports for Cell Immobilization, Viability and Aromatic Profile in Fresh Curd Cheese. Foods 2022, 11, 1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tomova, T.; Petelkov, I.; Shopska, V.; Denkova-Kostova, R.; Kostov, G.; Denkova, Z. Production of probiotic wort-based beverages with grapefruit (Citrus paradisi L.) or tangerine (Citrus reticulata L.) zest essential oil addition. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2021, 20, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Teneva, D.; Denkova, Z.; Denkova-Kostova, R.; Goranov, B.; Kostov, G.; Slavchev, A.; Hristova-Ivanova, Y.; Uzunova, G.; Degraeve, P. Biological preservation of mayonnaise with Lactobacillus plantarum LBRZ12, dill, and basil essential oils. Food Chem. 2021, 344, 128707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bourrie, B.C.T.; Willing, B.P.; Cotter, P.D. The Microbiota and Health Promoting Characteristics of the Fermented Beverage Kefir. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Prado, M.R.; Blandón, L.M.; Vandenberghe, L.P.S.; Rodrigues, C.; Castro, G.R.; Thomaz-Soccol, V.; Soccol, C.R. Milk kefir: Composition, microbialcultures, biologicalactivities, and related products. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Slattery, C.; Cotter, P.D.; O’Toole, P.W. Analysis of Health Benefits Conferred by Lactobacillus Species from Kefir. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  55. Carasi, P.; Ambrosis, N.M.; De Antoni, G.L.; Bressollier, P.; Urdaci, M.C.; Serradell, M.L. Adhesion properties of potentially probiotic Lactobacillus kefiri to gastrointestinal mucus. J. Dairy Res. 2014, 81, 16–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Zavala, L.; Golowczyc, M.A.; van Hoorde, K.; Medrano, M.; Huys, G.; Vandamme, P.; Abraham, A.G. Selected Lactobacillus strains isolated from sugary and milk kefir reduce Salmonella infection of epithelial cells in vitro. Benef. Microbes 2016, 7, 585–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kim, D.H.; Jeong, D.; Kang, I.B.; Kim, H.; Song, K.Y.; Seo, K.H. Dual function of Lactobacillus kefiri DH5 in preventing high-fat-diet-induced obesity: Direct reduction of cholesterol and upregulation of PPAR-α in adipose tissue. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2017, 61, 1700252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Zubiría, M.G.; Gambaro, S.E.; Rey, M.A.; Carasi, P.; Serradell, M.L.A.; Giovambattista, A. Deleterious Metabolic Effects of High Fructose Intake: The Preventive Effect of Lactobacillus kefiri Administration. Nutrients 2017, 9, 470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Carasi, P.; Racedo, S.M.; Jacquot, C.; Romanin, D.E.; Serradell, M.A.; Urdaci, M.C. Impact of kefir derived Lactobacillus kefiri on the mucosal immune response and gut microbiota. J. Immuno. Res. 2015, 2015, 361604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Liu, H.; Xie, Y.; Xiong, L.; Dong, R.; Pan, C.; Teng, G.; Zhang, H. Effect and Mechanism of Cholesterol-Lowering by Kluyveromyces from Tibetan Kefir. Adv. Mat. Res. 2012, 343, 1290–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Maccaferri, S.; Klinder, A.; Brigidi, P.; Cavina, P.; Costabile, A. Potential probiotic Kluyveromyces marxianus B0399 modulates the immune response in Caco-2 cells and peripheral blood mononuclear cells and impacts the human gut microbiota in an in vitro colonic model system. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 956–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Lima, M.D.S.F.; Souza, K.M.S.; Albuquerque, W.W.C.; Teixeira, J.A.C.; Cavalcanti, M.T.H.; Porto, A.L.F. Saccharomyces cerevisiae from Brazilian kefir-fermented milk: An in vitro evaluation of probiotic properties. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 110, 670–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Oliveira, D.R.; Lopes, A.C.A.; Pereira, R.A.; Cardoso, P.G.; Duarte, W.F. Selection of potentially probiotic Kluyveromyces lactis for the fermentation of cheese whey–based beverage. Ann. Microbiol. 2019, 69, 1361–1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mantzari, E.; Marteau, T.M. Impact of Sizes of Servings, Glasses and Bottles on Alcohol Consumption: A Narrative Review. Nutrients 2022, 14, 4244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hill, C.; Guarner, F.; Reid, G.; Gibson, G.R.; Merenstein, D.J.; Pot, B.; Morelli, L.; Canani, R.B.; Flint, H.J.; Salminen, S.; et al. Expert consensus document: The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2014, 11, 506–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  66. Cho, Y.-J.; Kim, D.-H.; Jeong, D.; Seo, K.-H.; Jeong, H.S.; Lee, H.G.; Kim, H. Characterization of yeasts isolated from kefir as a probiotic and its synergic interaction with the wine byproduct grape seed flour/extract. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 9, 535–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Coimbra, A.; Ferreira, S.; Duarte, A.P. Biological properties of Thymus zygis essential oil with emphasis on antimicrobial activity and food application. Food Chem. 2022, 393, 133370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mith, H.; Duré, R.; Delcenserie, V.; Zhiri, A.; Daube, G.; Clinquart, A. Antimicrobial activities of commercial essential oils and their components against food-borne pathogens and food spoilage bacteria. Food Sci. Nutr. 2014, 2, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Hsu, K.-P.; Tu, S.-H.; Su, Y.-C.; Ho, C.-L. Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity Against Food-Borne Pathogens of Calocedrus formosana Heartwood Essential Oil. Natl. Prod. Commun. 2021, 16, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Park, J.-B.; Kang, J.-H.; Song, K.B. Antibacterial activities of a cinnamon essential oil with cetylpyridinium chloride emulsion against Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium in basil leaves. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2018, 27, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ahmed, Z.; Wang, Y.; Ahmad, A.; Khan, S.T.; Nisa, M.; Ahmad, H.; Afreen, A. Kefir and health: A contemporary perspective. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 53, 422–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Jackson, R.S. Wine Science: Principles and Applications, 4th ed.; Academic Press Inc.: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  73. Boss, P.K.; Pearce, A.D.; Zhao, Y.; Nicholson, E.L.; Dennis, E.G.; Jeffery, D.W. Potential grape-derived contributions to volatile ester concentrations in wine. Molecules 2015, 20, 7845–7873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Cai, J.; Zhu, B.-Q.; Wang, Y.-H.; Lu, L.; Lan, Y.-B.; Reeves, M.J.; Duan, C.-Q. Influence of pre-fermentation cold maceration treatment on aroma compounds of Cabernet Sauvignon wines fermented in different industrial scale fermenters. Food Chem. 2014, 154, 217–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Zang, X.; Du, Q.; Qu, R.; Ye, D.; Lu, Y.; Liu, Y. Analysis of Volatile Aroma Compounds and Sensory Characteristics Contributing to Regional Style of Red Wines from Hexi Corridor Based on Sixteen Grape Varieties/Clones. Fermentation 2022, 8, 501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gotmare, S.; Tambe, E. Identification of Chemical Constituents of Cinnamon Bark Oil by GCMS and Comparative Study Garnered from Five Different Countries. Glob. J. Sci. Front. Res. Biol. Sci. 2019, 19, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  77. Pino, J.A.; Queris, O. Characterization of odor-active compounds in guava wine. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 4885–4890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Guo, X.; Ho, C.-T.; Wan, X.; Zhu, H.; Liu, Q.; Wen, Z. Changes of volatile compounds and odor profiles in Wuyi rock tea during processing. Food Chem. 2021, 341, 128230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Yao, L.; Mo, Y.; Chen, D.; Feng, T.; Song, S.; Wang, H.; Sun, M. Characterization of key aroma compounds in Xinjiang dried figs (Ficus carica L.) by GC–MS, GC–olfactometry, odor activity values, and sensory analyses. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 150, 111982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ma, Y.; Tang, K.; Xu, Y.; Thomas-Danguin, T. A dataset on odor intensity and odor pleasantness of 222 binary mixtures of 72 key food odorants rated by a sensory panel of 30 trained assessors. Data Brief. 2021, 36, 107143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Schmidt, E.; Bail, S.; Buchbauer, G.; Stoilova, I.; Krastanov, A.; Stoyanova, A.; Jirovetz, L. Chemical Composition, Olfactory Evaluation and Antioxidant Effects of the Essential oil of Origanum Majorana L. from Albania. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2008, 3, 1051–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Xiao, Z.; Fan, B.; Niu, Y.; Wu, M.; Liu, J.; Ma, S. Characterization of odor-active compounds of various Chrysanthemum essential oils by gas chromatography-olfactometry, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and their correlation with sensory attributes. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2016, 1009–1010, 152–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Lucarini, M.; Durazzo, A.; Kiefer, J.; Santini, A.; Lombardi-Boccia, G.; Souto, E.B.; Romani, A.; Lampe, A.; Ferrari Nicoli, S.; Gabrielli, P.; et al. Grape Seeds: Chromatographic Profile of Fatty Acids and Phenolic Compounds and Qualitative Analysis by FTIR-ATR Spectroscopy. Foods 2020, 9, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Šikuten, I.; Štambuk, P.; Tomaz, I.; Marchal, C.; Kontić, J.K.; Lacombe, T.; Maletić, E.; Preiner, D. Discrimination of genetic and geographical groups of grape varieties (Vitis vinifera L.) based on their volatile organic compounds. Front. Plant. Sci. 2022, 13, 942148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Dunlevy, J.; Kalua, C.; Keyzers, R.; Boss, P. The Production of Flavour & Aroma Compounds in Grape Berries. In Grapevine Molecular Physiology & Biotechnology, 2nd ed.; Roubelakis-Angelakis, K.A., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 293–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Swiegers, J.H.; Pretorius, I.S. Yeast modulation of wine flavor. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2005, 57, 131–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Pang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Qiu, J.; Cao, J.; Sun, Y.; Li, H.; Kong, F. Coupled multidimensional GC and odor activity value calculation to identify off-odors in thermally processed muskmelon juice. Food Chem. 2019, 301, 125307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bartsch, J.; Uhde, E.; Salthammer, T. Analysis of odour compounds from scented consumer products using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and gas chromatography-olfactometry. Anal. Chim. Acta 2016, 904, 98–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Czerny, M.; Christlbauer, M.; Christlbauer, M.; Fischer, A.; Granvogl, M.; Hammer, M.; Hartl, C.; Hernandez, N.M.; Schieberle, P. Re-investigation on odour thresholds of key food aroma compounds and development of an aroma language based on odour qualities of defined aqueous odorant solutions. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2008, 228, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ribereau-Gayon, P.; Glories, Y.; Maujean, A.; Dubourdieu, D. The microbiology of wine and vinifications. In Handbook of Enology; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2006; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  91. Niu, Y.; Yao, Z.; Xiao, Z.; Zhu, G.; Zhu, J.; Chen, J. Sensory evaluation of the synergism among ester odorants in light aroma-type liquor by odor threshold, aroma intensity and flash GC electronic nose. Food Res. Int. 2018, 113, 102–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Regulation (EU) No 251/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on the Definition, Description, Presentation, Labelling and the Protection of Geographical Indications of Aromatised Wine Products and Repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32014R0251 (accessed on 23 February 2023).
  93. Sharif, M.; Butt, M.; Sharif, H.; Nasir, M. Sensory Evaluation and Consumer Acceptability. In Handbook of Food Science and Technology; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 362–386. [Google Scholar]
  94. Krishna, A. An integrative review of sensory marketing: Engaging the senses to affect perception, judgment and behavior. J. Consum. Psychol. 2012, 22, 332–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Microbiolres 14 00038 g001 550
Figure 1. Total cell counts (logcfu/g) of (a) wet immobilized kefir cultures, (b) thermally dried immobilized kefir cultures, (c) freeze-dried immobilized kefir cultures in low-alcohol wine products supplemented with essential oils (EOs). Co: low-alcohol wines without EOs addition, Cm: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Citrus medica EO, Cz: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Cinnamon zeylanicum EO, Mix: low-alcohol wines with Citrus medica and Cinnamon zeylanicum EOs (0.005% each). The immobilization support is shown at the end of the sample codes. Ap: immobilized kefir cultures on apple pieces, Pe: immobilized kefir cultures on pear pieces.
Figure 1. Total cell counts (logcfu/g) of (a) wet immobilized kefir cultures, (b) thermally dried immobilized kefir cultures, (c) freeze-dried immobilized kefir cultures in low-alcohol wine products supplemented with essential oils (EOs). Co: low-alcohol wines without EOs addition, Cm: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Citrus medica EO, Cz: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Cinnamon zeylanicum EO, Mix: low-alcohol wines with Citrus medica and Cinnamon zeylanicum EOs (0.005% each). The immobilization support is shown at the end of the sample codes. Ap: immobilized kefir cultures on apple pieces, Pe: immobilized kefir cultures on pear pieces.
Microbiolres 14 00038 g001
Microbiolres 14 00038 g002 550
Figure 2. Survival rate (%) of wet, thermally dried and freeze-dried immobilized kefir cultures in low-alcohol wine products supplemented with essential oils (EOs) after 2 h of immersion. Co: low-alcohol wines without EOs addition, Cm: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Citrus medica EO, Cz: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Cinnamon zeylanicum EO, Mix: low-alcohol wines with Citrus medica and Cinnamon zeylanicum EOs (0.005% each). The immobilization support is shown at the end of the sample codes. Ap: immobilized kefir cultures on apple pieces, Pe: immobilized kefir cultures on pear pieces.
Figure 2. Survival rate (%) of wet, thermally dried and freeze-dried immobilized kefir cultures in low-alcohol wine products supplemented with essential oils (EOs) after 2 h of immersion. Co: low-alcohol wines without EOs addition, Cm: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Citrus medica EO, Cz: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Cinnamon zeylanicum EO, Mix: low-alcohol wines with Citrus medica and Cinnamon zeylanicum EOs (0.005% each). The immobilization support is shown at the end of the sample codes. Ap: immobilized kefir cultures on apple pieces, Pe: immobilized kefir cultures on pear pieces.
Microbiolres 14 00038 g002
Microbiolres 14 00038 g003 550
Figure 3. Score plot of the principal component analysis (PCA) of total identified minor volatiles in low-alcohol wine variants with essential oils (EOs) and immobilized kefir cultures. Co: low-alcohol wines without EOs addition, Cm: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Citrus medica EO, Cz: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Cinnamon zeylanicum EO, Mix: low-alcohol wines with Citrus medica and Cinnamon zeylanicum EOs (0.005% v/v each). The state of the cells is shown in the middle of the sample codes (Wt: wet immobilized kefir cultures, ThDr: thermally dried immobilized kefir cultures, FrDr: freeze-dried immobilized kefir cultures). The immobilization support is shown at the end of the sample codes (Ap: immobilized kefir cultures on apple pieces, Pe: immobilized kefir cultures on pear pieces).
Figure 3. Score plot of the principal component analysis (PCA) of total identified minor volatiles in low-alcohol wine variants with essential oils (EOs) and immobilized kefir cultures. Co: low-alcohol wines without EOs addition, Cm: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Citrus medica EO, Cz: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Cinnamon zeylanicum EO, Mix: low-alcohol wines with Citrus medica and Cinnamon zeylanicum EOs (0.005% v/v each). The state of the cells is shown in the middle of the sample codes (Wt: wet immobilized kefir cultures, ThDr: thermally dried immobilized kefir cultures, FrDr: freeze-dried immobilized kefir cultures). The immobilization support is shown at the end of the sample codes (Ap: immobilized kefir cultures on apple pieces, Pe: immobilized kefir cultures on pear pieces).
Microbiolres 14 00038 g003
Table
Table 1. Oenological parameters of low-alcohol wine products with essential oils and wet, thermally dried or freeze-dried immobilized kefir culture on fruit pieces.
Table 1. Oenological parameters of low-alcohol wine products with essential oils and wet, thermally dried or freeze-dried immobilized kefir culture on fruit pieces.
Wine SampleTotal Acidity
(g Tartaric/L)		Volatile Acidity
(g Acetic/L)		pHAlcohol
(% vol)
Wet kefir culturesCo_Wt_Ap2.6 ± 0.10.54 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Co_Wt_Pe2.1 ± 0.10.51 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cm_Wt_Ap2.0 ± 0.10.57 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cm_Wt_Pe1.8 ± 0.10.51 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cz_Wt_Ap2.1 ± 0.10.54 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cz_Wt_Pe2.3 ± 0.10.54 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Mix_Wt_Ap2.6 ± 0.10.57 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Mix_Wt_Pe2.0 ± 0.10.54 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Thermally dried kefir culturesCo_ThDr_Ap2.3 ± 0.10.48 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Co_ThDr_Pe2.6 ± 0.10.51 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cm_ThDr_Ap3.0 ± 0.10.63 ± 0.033.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cm_ThDr_Pe2.0 ± 0.10.51 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cz_ThDr_Ap2.9 ± 0.10.54 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cz_ThDr_Pe2.7 ± 0.10.57 ± 0.034.0 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Mix_ThDr_Ap3.0 ± 0.10.57 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Mix_ThDr_Pe2.3 ± 0.10.57 ± 0.034.0 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Freeze-dried kefir culturesCo_FrDr_Ap2.7 ± 0.10.45 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Co_FrDr_Pe2.4 ± 0.10.42 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cm_FrDr_Ap2.7 ± 0.10.39 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cm_FrDr_Pe2.1 ± 0.10.45 ± 0.034.0 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cz_FrDr_Ap2.7 ± 0.10.39 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Cz_FrDr_Pe2.1 ± 0.10.45 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Mix_FrDr_Ap2.6 ± 0.10.42 ± 0.023.9 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Mix_FrDr_Pe2.1 ± 0.10.42 ± 0.024.0 ± 0.16.0 ± 0.1
Co: low-alcohol wines without EO addition, Cm: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Citrus medica EO, Cz: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Cinnamon zeylanicum EO, Mix: low-alcohol wines with Citrus medica and Cinnamon zeylanicum EOs (0.005% each). The immobilization support is shown at the end of the sample codes. Ap: immobilized kefir cultures on apple pieces, Pe: immobilized kefir cultures on pear pieces.
Table
Table 2. Relative percentage content (%) of the identified volatile compound groups in low-alcohol wine products with immobilized kefir cultures and essential oils, as detected by HS-SPME GC/MS analysis.
Table 2. Relative percentage content (%) of the identified volatile compound groups in low-alcohol wine products with immobilized kefir cultures and essential oils, as detected by HS-SPME GC/MS analysis.
Essential Oil AdditionSamplesCompounds Detected
EstersAcidsTerpenesAlcoholsCarbonyls Miscellaneous
Citrus medica
(0.01% v/v)		Cm_Wt_Ap8.4 a0.3 a89.1 f2.1 a<0.1 a0.1 a
Cm_ThDr_Ap8.5 a0.3 a86.9 f3.8 a<0.1 a0.4 b
Cm_FrDr_Ap8.5 a0.3 a87.7 f3.4 a<0.1 a0.1 a
Cm_Wt_Pe4.9 A0.2 A92.2 D2.5 A<0.1 A0.1 A
Cm_ThDr_Pe3.9 A0.2 A,B92.7 D2.9 A<0.1 A0.2 A
Cm_FrDr_Pe12.3 B0.3 A,B84.6 D2.5 A<0.1 A0.2 A
Cinnamon
zeylanicum
(0.01% v/v)		Cz_Wt_Ap37.9 c1.0 b33.5 c24.8 e2.0 b0.8 c
Cz_ThDr_Ap42.4 c1.0 b24.8 b18.9 d10.9 d1.9 f
Cz_FrDr_Ap36.3 c2.3 c21.7 b17.1 d21.3 f1.2 e
Cz_Wt_Pe30.8 D1.2 D34.1 B29.1 F3.3 E1.5 E
Cz_ThDr_Pe29.8 D1.8 E34.4 B25.3 E5.9 F2.8 F
Cz_FrDr_Pe37.6 E1.0 C,D33.3 B16.6 D10.3 G1.2 D
EO Mix
(0.005% v/v each)		Mix_Wt_Ap23.1 b0.4 a68.1 e7.4 b0.7 a0.4 b
Mix_ThDr_Ap19.0 b0.9 b65.8 d,e7.4 b6.0 c1.0 d
Mix_FrDr_Ap19.7 b1.0 b58.8 d7.5 b12.7 e0.4 b
Mix_Wt_Pe19.0 C0.5 A,B,C72.1 C6.8 B0.9 B,C0.7 B,C
Mix_ThDr_Pe11.8 B1.0 C,D74.7 C10.1 C1.2 C,D1.2 D
Mix_FrDr_Pe14.6 B,C0.8 B,C,D70.3 C7.7 B,C6.0 F0.6 B
No EO additionCo_Wt_Ap68.7 d4.3 e2.9 a23.7 e0.1 a0.4 b
Co_ThDr_Ap76.3 e2.2 c1.1 a18.7 d0.4 a1.3 e
Co_FrDr_Ap82.1 e3.6 d1.8 a11.4 c0.2 a0.9 c
Co_Wt_Pe72.5 H2.3 F8.2 A15.7 D0.4 A,B0.8 C
Co_ThDr_Pe59.5 G5.0 G2.5 A29.8 F1.6 D1.5 E
Co_FrDr_Pe45.3 F10.7 H5.6 A38.1 G0.1 A0.2 A
Co: low-alcohol wines without EO addition, Cm: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Citrus medica EO, Cz: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Cinnamon zeylanicum EO, Mix: low-alcohol wines with Citrus medica and Cinnamon zeylanicum EOs (0.005% each). The state of the cells is shown in the middle of the sample codes (Wt: wet immobilized kefir cultures, ThDr: thermally dried immobilized kefir cultures, FrDr: freeze-dried immobilized kefir cultures). The immobilization support is shown at the end of the sample codes. Ap: immobilized kefir cultures on apple pieces, Pe: immobilized kefir cultures on pear pieces. a–f Significant differences (p < 0.05) in the same column between low-alcohol wines with kefir cells immobilized on apple pieces are shown with different letters. A–H Significant differences (p < 0.05) in the same column between low-alcohol wines with kefir cells immobilized on pear pieces are shown with different letters. Standard deviation for all values was about ±5%.
Table
Table 3. Sensory evaluation of new Sangria-type wines with immobilized kefir cultures on fruit pieces and essential oils.
Table 3. Sensory evaluation of new Sangria-type wines with immobilized kefir cultures on fruit pieces and essential oils.
Wine Products Supplemented with EOsAroma DensityTaste DensityOverall Evaluation
Wet kefir cultureCo_Wt_Ap2.8 ± 0.42.8 ± 0.43.6 ± 0.7
Co_Wt_Pe2.7 ± 0.53.1 ± 0.23.5 ± 0.6
Cm_Wt_Ap3.8 ± 0.83.2 ± 0.43.3 ± 0.9
Cm_Wt_Pe4.0 ± 0.94.3 ± 0.52.9 ± 0.9
Cz_Wt_Ap3.3 ± 0.43.4 ± 0.53.3 ± 0.7
Cz_Wt_Pe3.5 ± 0.82.9 ± 0.23.4 ± 0.5
Mix_Wt_Ap4.2 ± 0.43.5 ± 0.83.3 ± 0.9
Mix_Wt_Pe3.5 ± 0.63.3 ± 0.53.3 ± 0.7
Thermally dried
kefir culture		Co_ThDr_Ap2.6 ± 0.72.9 ± 0.53.0 ± 0.6
Co_ThDr_Pe2.9 ± 0.42.8 ± 0.73.7 ± 0.8
Cm_ThDr_Ap3.6 ± 0.63.5 ± 0.62.6 ± 0.7
Cm_ThDr_Pe3.6 ± 0.63.2 ± 0.62.9 ± 0.9
Cz_ThDr_Ap2.9 ± 0.53.1 ± 0.83.1 ± 0.7
Cz_ThDr_Pe3.6 ± 0.53.4 ± 0.43.4 ± 0.6
Mix_ThDr_Ap3.2 ± 0.63.1 ± 0.53.0 ± 0.8
Mix_ThDr_Pe3.5 ± 0.73.3 ± 0.43.2 ± 0.7
Freeze-dried
kefir culture		Co_FrDr_Ap2.6 ± 0.72.9 ± 0.53.4 ± 0.9
Co_FrDr_Pe2.4 ± 0.72.8 ± 0.53.1 ± 0.7
Cm_FrDr_Ap3.4 ± 0.93.3 ± 0.62.7 ± 0.6
Cm_FrDr_Pe3.4 ± 0.73.7 ± 0.82.5 ± 0.9
Cz_FrDr_Ap3.7 ± 0.73.8 ± 0.52.8 ± 0.6
Cz_FrDr_Pe3.6 ± 0.73.4 ± 0.52.8 ± 0.8
Mix_FrDr_Ap4.2 ± 0.33.6 ± 0.83.0 ± 0.8
Mix_FrDr_Pe3.3 ± 0.53.3 ± 0.43.0 ± 0.9
Co: low-alcohol wines without EOs addition, Cm: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Citrus medica EO, Cz: low-alcohol wines with 0.01% v/v Cinnamon zeylanicum EO, Mix: low-alcohol wines with Citrus medica and Cinnamon zeylanicum EOs (0.005% each). The immobilization support is shown at the end of the sample codes. Ap: immobilized kefir cultures on apple pieces, Pe: immobilized kefir cultures on pear pieces.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nikolaou, A.; Santarmaki, V.; Mitropoulou, G.; Sgouros, G.; Kourkoutas, Y. Novel Low-Alcohol Sangria-Type Wine Products with Immobilized Kefir Cultures and Essential Oils. Microbiol. Res. 2023, 14, 543-558. https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres14020038

AMA Style

Nikolaou A, Santarmaki V, Mitropoulou G, Sgouros G, Kourkoutas Y. Novel Low-Alcohol Sangria-Type Wine Products with Immobilized Kefir Cultures and Essential Oils. Microbiology Research. 2023; 14(2):543-558. https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres14020038

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nikolaou, Anastasios, Valentini Santarmaki, Gregoria Mitropoulou, Georgios Sgouros, and Yiannis Kourkoutas. 2023. "Novel Low-Alcohol Sangria-Type Wine Products with Immobilized Kefir Cultures and Essential Oils" Microbiology Research 14, no. 2: 543-558. https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres14020038

APA Style

Nikolaou, A., Santarmaki, V., Mitropoulou, G., Sgouros, G., & Kourkoutas, Y. (2023). Novel Low-Alcohol Sangria-Type Wine Products with Immobilized Kefir Cultures and Essential Oils. Microbiology Research, 14(2), 543-558. https://doi.org/10.3390/microbiolres14020038

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop