Next Article in Journal
Avian Eggshell Membrane as a Novel Biomaterial: A Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Salt Content Reduction on Food Processing Technology
Previous Article in Journal
Muscle and Serum Metabolomics for Different Chicken Breeds under Commercial Conditions by GC–MS
Previous Article in Special Issue
Changes in Phenolics during Cooking Extrusion: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 10
Issue 9
10.3390/foods10092175
foods-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:
Review

Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO2 for the Production of Wine

by
Filipa V. M. Silva
1,* and
Sanelle van Wyk
2
1
LEAF, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
2
Department of Chemical & Materials Engineering, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2021, 10(9), 2175; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10092175
Submission received: 10 August 2021 / Revised: 4 September 2021 / Accepted: 8 September 2021 / Published: 14 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Effect of Processing Methods in Food Quality and Human Health: Latest Advances and Prospects)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
SO2 is an antioxidant and selective antimicrobial additive, inhibiting the growth of molds in the must during the early stages of wine production, as well as undesirable bacteria and yeasts during fermentation, thus avoiding microbial spoilage during wine production and storage. The addition of SO2 is regulated to a maximum of 150–350 ppm, as this chemical preservative can cause adverse effects in consumers such as allergic reactions. Therefore, the wine industry is interested in finding alternative strategies to reduce SO2 levels, while maintaining wine quality. The use of non-thermal or cold pasteurization technologies for wine preservation was reviewed. The effect of pulsed electric fields (PEF), high pressure processing (HPP), power ultrasound (US), ultraviolet irradiation (UV), high pressure homogenization (HPH), filtration and low electric current (LEC) on wine quality and microbial inactivation was explored and the technologies were compared. PEF and HPP proved to be effective wine pasteurization technologies as they inactivate key wine spoilage yeasts, including Brettanomyces, and bacteria in short periods of time, while retaining the characteristic flavor and aroma of the wine produced. PEF is a promising technology for the beverage industry as it is a continuous process, requiring only microseconds of processing time for the inactivation of undesirable microbes in wines, with commercial scale, higher throughput production potential.

1. Introduction

Oxidation and the undesirable activity of specific microorganisms have a negative effect on wine quality and shelf life. Sensory quality is the most important factor for wine consumers. Most sensory related attributes are largely dependent on wine’s phenolic composition which determines color, bitterness and astringency [1]. The loss of wine quality during storage is often accelerated due to exposure to sunlight, high temperatures, oxygen, vibration, pH, contaminants from the storage environment surrounding the wine or cork, microbial spoilage and the failure of bottle closures. The storage of wine for ageing and maturation depends on chemical composition and equilibria, with specific flavors and characteristics, which increase wine quality, developing during this period. On the contrary, the quality of white wines typically does not improve during storage, so they can be sold and consumed straight after production within the first 1 to 2 years. On average, red wines have a longer shelf life than white wines due to their higher phenolic concentration, which reduces their susceptibility to oxidation.
In winemaking, sulfur dioxide (SO2) is often used at different stages in the production process (e.g., after harvesting the fruit, after crushing, added to the must before fermentation, before maturation, before bottling). SO2 has the ability to control oxidative processes including polyphenol oxidase and to inhibit Maillard reactions. If left untreated, oxidation can lead to a decrease in the sensorial and nutritional quality of wine [2,3]. In addition to antioxidant action, SO2 also exhibits antimicrobial capacity against spoilage microorganisms, inhibiting the growth of molds in the must during the early stages of wine production, as well as undesirable bacteria and yeasts during fermentation, preventing unwanted secondary fermentation and the formation of yeast haze [4], and thus avoiding microbial spoilage during wine production and storage. The addition of SO2 to wine before bottling leads to an increased shelf life, with less likelihood of the formation of off-odors. SO2 exists in a bound and free form, the latter being the active form of the compound. The amount of each form present depends on the pH of the wine [3,5]. As wine pH increases, antimicrobial capacity decreases. The addition of SO2 can also increase the extraction of phenolic [2,3].
The excessive use of SO2 can have a detrimental effect on wine quality including the neutralization of wine aroma, the formation of hydrogen sulfite, unwanted aromas and flavors and cloudiness after bottling [3,6]. Moreover, SO2 can have adverse effects in humans including allergic reactions, headaches, asthma, dermatitis, abdominal pain, diarrhea and bronchoconstriction. As SO2 is a commonly used preservative in the wine industry, it is also important to consider the cumulative effect it has on the consumer [4]. This led to the establishment of strict regulations and limits governing SO2 application in wineries. The SO2 regulatory limits for wine preservation are constantly being reviewed and reduced [2,3]. Currently, the International Organization of the Vine and Wine (OIV) recommends 150 mg/L total SO2 for red wines, the European Union limits the total use of SO2 to 160 mg/L for red wines and 210 mg/L for white and rosé wines and Australia permits 350 mg/L total SO2 for all wines [3]. The use of fungal-source chitosan for the inactivation of Brettanomyces has also been authorized by the OIV and European Union (Regulation (EC) No 606/2009) [7]. Although SO2 free wines are considered healthier, more natural and sustainable, it is a challenge to produce wines without the addition of SO2. Consequently, the wine industry is interested in finding alternative strategies to reduce or eliminate SO2 in wine production, while maintaining wine quality. To be successful, the alternative must provide the same level of microbial stability and antioxidant activity while also safeguarding the quality of the wine produced, and be less harmful to humans [3]. The use of thermal technologies is unacceptable for the wine industry because of their detrimental effects on the delicate organoleptic characteristics of wine (e.g., flavor, aroma and color) [8]. Thus, the application of non-thermal technologies to produce, age and preserve wine is an area of great interest. Ideally, these technologies will allow the reduction in the use of SO2 additive in wine production, while keeping or improving the original characteristics of the produced wine [4,9,10,11,12]. Van Wyk et al. (2018) compared sensory, microbiology and other quality parameters in wine subjected to SO2 addition, HPP and PEF treatments during one year storage [13]. No sensory differences were detected between HPP and PEF treated wines and the untreated wines after being stored for one year [13]. The inactivation of polyphenoloxidase enzyme by US, PEF and HPP has been demonstrated [14], and this could be another way to control the undesirable change in the polyphenol profile of wines.
In this investigation, a review of the application of the following non-thermal technologies for wine pasteurization was carried out: pulsed electric fields (PEF), high pressure processing (HPP), ultrasound (US), high pressure homogenization (HPH), low electric current (LEC), ultraviolet irradiation and filtration. The specific objectives were: (i) to present the fundaments of the non-thermal technologies mentioned and their benefits in terms of wine quality; (ii) to review and introduce the main microorganisms of concern that can potentially spoil wine; (iii) to investigate the effect of non-thermal technologies on microbial inactivation and compare the technologies in terms of the efficiency of key microbes’ inactivation in wine; (iv) to discuss the commercial viability of using non-thermal technologies to reduce or eliminate the use of sulfur dioxide in the wine industry.

2. Non-Thermal Cold Pasteurization Technologies for Wine Preservation

2.1. Pulsed Electric Fields (PEF)

PEF, a relatively novel non-thermal technology, is a promising alternative for wine preservation because it operates in continuous mode [4] (Figure 1). Depending on the application, it can have a relatively low energy consumption compared to other food preservation technologies [15]. Since PEF is a continuous process, it is easier to integrate into existing industrial processes. In operation, short microsecond pulses of high electric field strength are applied to pumpable beverages flowing between two electrodes [16]. The shape of the applied pulses is either exponential, where the voltage rises quickly to its maximum before decaying slowly to zero, or square where it remains constant for a few microseconds [16,17,18].
A typical PEF system is based on a high voltage pulse generator along with a treatment chamber, a suitable fluid handling system, and monitoring and controlling devices [4,16]. PEF is able to inactivate spoilage microorganisms, often without any significant effect on beverage quality [16,17]. Figure 1 shows an example of a PEF unit including details of some components (e.g., PEF treatment chamber, electrodes, thermocouples) and also information on the mechanism of microbe inactivation in the beverage. Microbial inactivation is thought to occur due to the formation of a potential difference across the microbial cell membranes. This in turn causes the permeabilization or electroporation of the cell membrane, leading to the loss of intracellular fluids [19]. The electric field strength required for the inactivation depends on the size and shape of the cell as well as the composition of its membrane. The bigger the size of the cells, the more susceptible the cells are to the applied electric field pulses; for example, vegetative yeasts are more susceptible than vegetative bacteria cells [20]. Rod-shaped cells required five times stronger electric fields than spherical cells of similar dimensions [19].
Most authors have reported a temperature increase associated with increasing treatment electric field strength or energy [16]. This increase in temperature also increases the rate of inactivation by improving the cell membrane fluidity and mass transfer from the cells [19]. As this temperature increase is not desirable for wine, proper processing conditions must be selected to ensure a non-thermal process, namely flow rate, initial wine temperature and electric field intensity.
Examples of PEF processed beverages include grape-, strawberry-, orange- and apple juices, milk, soup, liquid egg and beer [15,16,18,20,21,22]. PEF can also be operated or designed as a batch process, thus cured fish and meat products have also been processed [23]. One of the main reasons why PEF has not been commercially implemented is the need for high-voltage electric pulses, which pose a significant safety risk in commercial scale operations.

Impact on Wine Quality

Abca and Evrendilek (2014) [20] found that subjecting red wine to three µs bipolar PEF pulses at 31 kV/cm (T ≤ 40 °C), resulted in no changes to sensory quality and the treatment had no effect on total phenolic content, antioxidant activity or color. Using 100 pulses of the same electric field strength (31 kV/cm), Puértolas et al. (2009) [17] concluded that the color and odor of PEF treated red wine remained unchanged. Red wine processed using 20 kV/cm (T ≤ 42 °C) for 10,000 µs, had no effect on the anthocyanins present in the wine, but led to a slight increase in tannin concentration and slight changes in the total phenolic index and color intensity [19].
PEF also has other applications in wine production. The technology has been applied to grape pomace and grape skins during the early stages of wine production to improve final wine quality or reduce maceration time. Puértolas et al. (2010a) [24] concluded that a pilot-scale PEF unit was able to produce a high phenolic content wine that can subsequently be used to create a high-quality oak aged red wine. The crushed Cabernet Sauvignon grapes were treated using 50 pulses at 5 kV/cm (122 Hz, 3.67 kJ/kg, <30 °C), after which potassium metabisulfite was added before fermentation [24]. The treatment of Cabernet Sauvignon grape juice with skins using square pulses at 5 kV/cm for a residence time of 0.41 s (122 Hz, 50 pulses, 3.67 kJ/kg, ≤ 17 °C), produced a finished wine that required a shorter maceration time and had a higher Folin-Ciocalteu index, polyphenol concentration and color intensity [22]. López et al. (2008) [25] tested the effect of PEF treatment (10 kV/cm, 50 pulses, 1 Hz, 6.7 kJ/kg, <30 °C) of grape skins on wine quality factors. The prior PEF treatment reduced the duration of maceration during vinification and increased the quantity of phenolic compounds in the final wine. A low electric field strength of 5 kV/cm to treat Cabernet Sauvignon grape pomace led to an increase in the color intensity, total phenolic content, tannins and anthocyanins of the final wine produced [26]. López et al. (2009) also found that the PEF treatment of grape pomace was able to reduce the required maceration time from 268 to 72 h [26].

2.2. High Pressure Processing (HPP)

HPP is a modern commercial non-thermal technology that can be used to extend shelf life by inactivating spoilage and pathogenic yeasts, molds and bacteria in wine, beer, juices, solid foods and other products through the application of isostatic and uniform pressures usually between 100 and 600 MPa [4,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. Microbial inactivation can generally be increased by increasing pressure or holding time [29,30,35]. According to previous research, HPP has a greater effect on larger molecules such as enzymes, proteins, and lipids, whereas smaller molecules including vitamins, flavor and several bioactive/health related compounds are generally unaffected. Thus, HPP can better maintain the quality of food, without any significant impact on flavor [32,36,37,38]. Microbial inactivation can occur due to the disruption of cell membranes, protein denaturation and solute loss (Figure 2). Research suggests that microbial inactivation by HPP involves the perforation of the cell membrane, the formation of dimples and swellings or the overall shrinkage of the volume of the cells [35,39,40]. The financial feasibility of HPP is also greatly increased by using the shortest possible processing time that still achieves the desired level of pasteurization [4].
A HPP unit consists of a vessel, a pressure generating pump and a yoke for safety. In the HPP chamber, pressure is applied uniformly throughout a pressure medium and the sealed product. Usually, vacuum-sealed flexible pouches are used for the “in pack” process, as they can withstand both a decrease in volume during compression and the associated expansion on decompression. More recently, Hiperbaric developed a technology named “in bulk” HPP for processing liquids before packaging, allowing the use of any type of rigid container (e.g., glass, can, etc.). Due to the adiabatic compression inside the chamber, a temperature increase of around 3 °C per 100 MPa occurs [11,28]. The increase in temperature is dependent on the properties of the food and can be reduced by decreasing the rate of pressurization [4]. The maximum temperature after compression can be reduced by starting the process with a low initial temperature of the beverage.
Most HPP units are operated in batch, but semi-continuous units for pumpable products have now also been developed by industry [41]. Due to HPP being independent of the shape and size of the product, the scale-up to commercial size is relatively simple. When HPP is unable to produce the required level of microbial inactivation, it can be combined with reduced quantities of preservatives or other preservation technologies [42].
Since 2000, the usage of HPP technology worldwide has increased exponentially and has been implemented commercially in Japan, the USA and across Europe. At the end of 2010, the annual world-wide HPP production capacity reached 250,000 tons. The total number of installed HPP units has been increasing quickly in the food and beverage industry: 315 in 2015, >400 by 2016, etc. [41]. The current industry suppliers of HPP units include Avure (Ohio, USA), Hiperbaric, S.A. (Burgos, Spain), Uhde High Pressure Technologies GmbH (Hagen, Germany) and BaoTou Kefa High Pressure Technologies (BaoTou, China). In 2013, Hiperbaric and Avure introduced the largest HPP unit with a capacity of 525 L and throughput of 3000 L or kg per hour [41]. HPP processed products currently available on the market include fruit and vegetable juices/smoothies, other beverages, pre-cooked meals and meat- and fish-based products [41,43,44]. The application of HPP is currently limited to high-value products due to the high initial capital investment required [41]. The cost of production must therefore be offset by the increase in the value of the product produced through an increase in quality, shelf life, consumer convenience, reduction in preservatives and lower transportation, labor or storage costs. In conclusion, the advantages of HPP include: (i) operation at or below room temperature; (ii) microbial inactivation with no heat damage and fewer preservatives and other additives, improving sensorial and nutritional quality; (iii) instantaneous transfer of pressure, regardless of liquid size and geometry; and (iv) the creation of novel functional food properties, including new structures and textures [45]. This makes HPP an attractive alternative technology for use in the wine sector.

Impact on Wine Quality

In 1996 Lonvaud-Funel et al. [46] investigated the effect of high pressure on microbial inactivation in wine for its stabilization. HPP treatment of 650 MPa for 15 min caused no change in the overall sensory quality of red wine and 11 sensory attributes [47]. The same study found that total phenolic content, tartaric esters, flavonols and tannins decreased when wine was subjected to the same HPP treatment. Using milder conditions of 500 MPa for 5 min, Santos et al. (2013a) [48] found no change in the antioxidant activity and b* color parameter of red wine directly after processing. Storing the wine in bottles caused minor changes in the wine sensory properties after 9 months, and higher L*, a* and b* color parameters and lower antioxidant activity after 12 months in-bottle storage [48]. Puig et al. (2003) [9] detected no effect on organoleptic quality when subjecting red wine to the same conditions (500 MPa, 5 min). Mok et al. (2006) [27] found that HPP treatment at 350 MPa for 10 min had no effect on the mouthfeel, aroma and taste of red wine.
Regarding white wine, Puig et al. (2003) [9] detected no organoleptic difference between untreated and 500 MPa, 5 min treated wine. Santos et al. (2013b) [49] found that the same HPP conditions had no effect on the antioxidant activity and total phenolic content of white wine. Processing liquor white Sauterne wine using 355 MPa for 10 min resulted in no significant difference in the sensory quality [50]. Red grape must subjected to 551 MPa for 10 min did not have any effect on the color and little or no effect on the sensory quality of the final wine produced [51].
Research has shown that HPP can lead to the acceleration of wine ageing [45,48]. This suggests that HPP has the potential to shorten the time required to produce a desirable, high quality ‘aged’ wine. HPP can also change wine color involving decreased color intensity and an increase in brownish color often associated with aged wines [48,49].

2.3. Power Ultrasound (US)

Power ultrasound (US) is a non-thermal technology with the potential to be used as a wine preservation technique. Sound intensity or acoustic intensity between 10 and 1000 W/cm2 [52,53,54] producing waves with frequencies between 20 and 100 kHz are applied to liquid samples causing the formation of small bubbles. When these bubbles collapse, a phenomenon known as cavitation occurs. Localized high pressure (50,000 kPa) and temperature (5000 °C) regions are formed as well as free radicals, shock waves and shear forces. High frequency small bubbles result in a less intense but more uniform acoustic field with a greater rate of cavitation collapse during sonication [55]. In ultrasound units, a generator converts electricity into high-frequency alternating current, followed by the conversion of current into mechanical vibrations [56]. Liquid foods are sonicated by the direct contact of a probe, also known as a sonotrode, horn, finger or ultrasonic tip [56]. US units have also been designed to operate in batch or continuous mode, with cooling water jackets to control temperature during operation [57], as a temperature increase is expected [55,58,59]. The microorganisms are inactivated due to the disruption of their cell membranes/walls. The technology has also been found to be good for food deteriorative enzyme inactivation (e.g., polyphenoloxidase) [14,56,58]. Cavitation may affect the chemical and physical properties of processed foods and can accelerate the wine aging process [15,60].
The efficiency of US is dependent on the viscosity, vapor pressure and surface tension of the liquid sample treated. Microbial inactivation by US also depends on the shape, size and species of microorganism treated, with smaller cells believed to be less sensitive than larger cells [53,55,61,62].
Potential uses of US in the wine industry include wine aging/maturation, improved fermentation, sanitation of barrels and equipment, and the extraction of bioactive aromatic and phenolic compounds from grapes and must. US can also be used to improve the penetration of the wine into the structure of oak barrels and chips, improving oak vanilla, caramel, cream, earthy and spice flavors [4]. US has been found to be more effective at sterilizing wine barrels compared to existing methods, while also providing a significant cost reduction [55]. As this technology is already used commercially for food applications (e.g., extraction of compounds, emulsification, and degassing), it should be easy to scale up for pasteurization purposes. According to Gracin et al. (2016) [54], the scale-up of continuous flow US is possible, which significantly improves its ability to be utilized in the wine or other beverage industry.

Impact on Wine Quality

Singleton and Draper (1963) [63] found that using ultrasound treatment at 90 kHz for 60 min in direct contact with wine, increased the tannin concentration and changed the overall flavor of red wine. Indirect water bath ultrasound treatment (30 kHz, 20 kPa) of red wine over a prolonged period of 10 days resulted in increased anthocyanin concentration, and a decrease in L* color parameter [64]. Similar to Singleton and Draper (1963) [63], Luo et al. (2012) [53] found that treating red wine (24 kHz, 0.2 W/mL, 22 mm radius probe) led to significant changes in flavor and aroma. Zhang and Wang (2017) [65] investigated the effect of US on red wine directly after treatment and also after 70 days storage. Directly after US processing using 20 kHz, 950 W for 14 min, color density and visual characteristics increased. After storage, the trend in changing phenolic composition was similar in the US treated and untreated wine. Lastly, Singleton and Draper (1963) [6] studied the effect of US on white wine. Treatment conditions of 90 kHz and 35 W for 60 min resulted in an increase in tannin concentration as well as the generation of a ‘scorched’ off-flavor. One other potential application of US in the wine industry is the acceleration of wine maturation. Ultrasound treatment was found to accelerate changes in wine quality associated with wine aging, thereby shortening vinification time [63,65].

2.4. Ultraviolet (UV) Irradiation

UV light is an energy efficient technology that employs the use of UV-A (320–400 nm), UV-B (280–320 nm) and UV-C (200–280 nm) radiation for microbial inactivation [5]. The UV microbial inactivation mechanism is thought to involve damage to microbial cell DNA, inhibiting reproductive and other cell functions [5]. UV-C penetrability and effectiveness depend on the absorbance, color, density, soluble solids and suspended materials in the beverages [5,66]. Industrial applications of UV include the disinfection of water, surfaces and food packages.

Impact on Wine Quality

Falguera et al. (2013) [6] used UV-visible irradiation (250–740 nm, 0–210 min, 25 °C) to process 800 mL of white wine must. The same level of preservation (polyphenoloxidase inactivation) was achieved as with the use of SO2 without a significant change in quality parameters including pH, alcohol and tartaric acid content. The ability of UV-C (254 nm) to inactivate yeasts (Brettanomyces bruxellensis and Saccharomyces cerevisiae) and bacteria (Lactobacillus plantarum, Pediococcus acidilactici, Oenococcus oeni and Acetobacter aceti) in grape juice and wines was investigated [66]. Dosages of up to 3672 J/L (flow rate of 4000 L/h) were able to cause microbial log reductions within a range of 4.3 to 5.0 in Chardonnay and Pinotage wines, and Chenin Blanc and Shiraz juices. UV-C was able to stabilize the grape juice and wine, reducing the required level of SO2 [66]. However, wine color deteriorated as polyphenol-oxidase activity was not prevented, so a residual use of SO2 was still necessary [6]. As expected, ultraviolet was more effective in white wine than red wine [5].

2.5. High Pressure Homogenization (HPH)

HPH is mainly known for preventing milk creaming in homogenized milk. The main differences between HPP and HPH is that the latter can be used in a continuous operation mode and employs much lower pressures than HPP.

Impact on Wine Quality

Comuzzo et al. (2015) [67], found that HPH treatments between 50 to 150 MPa produced wine with stronger fruity aromas and less off-flavors. Additionally, multiple HPH passes at 200 MPa resulted in no significant impact on the sensory attributes of red and white grape musts. HPH technology can also be used to disrupt and break microbial cell membranes [68].

2.6. Filtration

Filtration has the ability to decrease microbial growth, reduce browning and prevent haziness through the removal of colloids [69]. The suitable pore size for wine filtration depends on a number of factors including the effectiveness of removal of targeted microorganism, throughput and economic viability. To remove yeasts and bacteria, it is generally recommended to use a pore size of 0.45 µm [69]. However, it has been reported that the cell size of yeasts such as B. bruxellensis decreases as a result of SO2 treatment [70]. As a result, filtration using 0.45 µm pore size after SO2 treatment could be insufficient for the removal of damaging spoilage microorganisms such as B. bruxellensis [71]. Due to membrane fouling, wine quality and permeation rates are often reduced. This in turn decreases the economic viability of filtration [19,69].

Impact on Wine Quality

Filtration can often have a detrimental effect on wine characteristics, most significantly sensorial properties [43,69]. The smaller the filter/membrane pore size, the greater the of negative impact on wine quality. Due to its effect on the colloidal structures of wine, filtration reduces the color intensity, viscosity and body of wine [17,72,73]. Arriagada-Carrazana et al. (2005) [74] conducted a study investigating the effect of membrane filtration on the phenolic quality and aromatic profile of a Cabernet Sauvignon wine. A 1.2 µm pre-filter followed by a 0.65 µm filter led to a reduction in color intensity and polyphenolic profile. A sensory panel, conducting a triangle test, confirmed the reduction in color and polyphenolic quality. Membrane adsorption was thought to have caused the observed difference in wine quality [74].

2.7. Low Electric Current (LEC)

As opposed to PEF, LEC uses a constant low-power electric charge (≤ 200 mA) over prolonged treatment times up to several months to reduce the integrity of the membranes of spoilage microorganisms [69].

Impact on Wine Quality

LEC treatment of red wine using 200 mA for 60 days had no effect on wine color or odor [73]. The ability of LEC (200 mA, 90 days, <15 °C) to prevent the formation of undesirable flavors by D. bruxellensis during storage in oak barrels was compared to SO2 treatment [75]. A sensory panel of 18 analyzed the wines after four months in the barrels and found that there was no difference between the two wines in terms of phenolic content or sensory properties. Low-voltage treatment was shown to have a positive effect on grape juice fermentation by subjecting SO2-free grape must to 200 mA for 16 days [76]. LEC had no effect on the growth of S. cerevisiae while increasing the death rate of apiculate (lemon-shaped cell morphology) yeasts.

3. Microbial Wine Spoilage

The microbes are the main targets of the preservation technologies presented in the following Section (Section 4—Effect of PEF, HPP and other non-thermal technologies on microbial inactivation in wine). This section is based on a previous publication by Van Wyk and Silva (2019) [4]. Yeasts and bacteria are common types of wine spoilage microorganisms which can have negative effects on wine quality and shelf life, leading to detrimental economic losses. As the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae is generally more tolerant to high ethanol concentrations compared to other microorganisms [77], it is widely employed for several industrial fermentation processes, including the production of alcoholic beverages. With respect to wine, S. cerevisiae is the most abundant microorganism found in the final wine at the end of fermentation, converting the must sugars into alcohol and generating important compounds (e.g., aroma), which are vital for the final wine properties. However, it is important to control the activity of this oenological yeast after fermentation to keep the wine desirable properties and stability during storage. This fermenting yeast can be controlled in wine by SO2 additions or inactivation with non-thermal processes, as investigated by a number of authors.
Contaminant yeasts detected in wines belong to the genus Brettanomyces/Dekkera, Saccharomyces, Schizosaccharomyces and Zygosaccharomyces, while spoilage bacteria include Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc, Oenococcus, Pediococcus and Acetobacter [2]. Off-odors, haziness and precipitation are indicators of microbial spoilage. The source of contamination can be the grape skins, insects, winery walls and other equipment in contact with the grapes, grape juice, must or wine. As red wines’ grape skins and stems are in contact for longer periods of time with the juice/wine during fermentation, these wines are more frequently contaminated than any other wine type [2,78,79]. The wine industry prevents microbial contamination by ensuring grape quality, proper sanitation of winery equipment including oak barrels, and controlling oxygen and sulfite levels [79].

3.1. Brettanomyces Yeast

Brettanomyces or Dekkera (name given to the spore forming microorganism) poses a great threat to the wine industry, leading to detrimental economic losses worldwide [2,79,80]. This yeast has been detected in wines and wineries across the world, including all major wine producing countries [79,80]. The genera Brettanomyces/Dekkera consists of five species: B. custersianus, B. naardenensis, B. nanus, B. anomalus and B. bruxellensis [80]. B. bruxellensis is mainly found in barrel-aged red wines with low SO2 content and high pH. The presence of less than 104 cfu/mL can have a detrimental effect on the sensory quality of wine, resulting in unpalatable off-odors and -flavors [2,78,79]. Brettanomyces yeasts are infamous for causing mousy off-flavors, also known as ‘Brett. character’. The off-odors produced are characterized as being ‘barnyard-like’, ‘medicinal’, ‘Band-aid®’ or ‘horsey’. The chemical compounds responsible for the off-flavors and -odors are 4-ethylguaiacol (4-EG) and 4-ethylphenol (4-EP). Brettanomyces is the only known microorganism to cause the formation of these compounds in wines [78,79,80,81]. Depending on the species and strain, Brettanomyces can also cause the formation of acetic acid known as vinegar taint. When volatile fatty acids are produced, they can cause rancid and/or cheesy flavors and odors [80,81]. Survival studies conducted by Barata et al. (2008) [82] found that most D. bruxellensis strains are able to grow in environments with ethanol concentrations as high as 15% (v/v). Temperatures exceeding 36 °C over a period of 12 h resulted in complete loss of viability [82]. Additionally, these yeasts are able to survive and grow in environments with low pH and nutrients [69,78,81], although these environmental stresses can cause the yeasts to change into a viable but non-culturable (VBNC) state. While in this dormant state, the cells cannot be cultured without resuscitation even though they are still alive. Some researchers have found that this can sometimes occur directly after the addition of sulfur dioxide [69].

3.2. Other Spoilage Yeasts

Zygosaccharomyces bailii is another yeast that can cause cloudiness in bottled wine through the formation of flocculants and granular deposits. It can also produce acetic acid and metabolize malic acid resulting in off-odors and pH increase. Due to Z. bailii’s high resistance to yeast inhibitors including sulfur dioxide and tolerance to high ethanol (18%) environments, it can be difficult to control this yeast in wine [2,83]. Film-like growths can form on the surface of wines due to the presence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Saccharomyces bayanus, Zygosaccharomyces fermentati and species of Candida, Pichia and Hansenula [83].

3.3. Bacteria

The number of bacteria found on grapes varies depending on their condition, with healthy fruit typically having considerably less than damaged grapes. Spoilage caused by lactic acid bacteria typically occurs in warm environments with a pH higher than 3.5 and insufficient sulfur dioxide. Lactobacillus brevis and Oenococcus oeni cause the transformation of tartaric acid to lactic acid, which leads to a rise in pH, a dull red-brown color in red wines, an increase in carbon dioxide, cloudiness, and the formation of viscous deposits and mousy off-odors. L. brevis and Lactobacillus buchneri can also cause bitterness. Furthermore, O. oeni and Pediococcus can cause ropiness, characterized by the flotation of silky threads in spoiled wines [2,83]. Since the 19th century, acetic acid bacteria, including strains of Gluconobactera and Acetobacter, have been known to cause the oxidation of ethanol to undesirable acetic acid and the oxidation of polyols to ketones. Due to the ability of these acetic acid bacteria to survive anaerobic conditions, they are able to grow in barreled and bottled wines. Bacteria of the genus Bacillus cause the formation of sediment and earthy, musty off-odors [83]. Bacteria can be kept under control in wine by maintaining a low pH and temperature environment, minimizing the concentration of oxygen and adding sulfur dioxide [83].

3.4. Molds

Molds including Aspergillus, Penicillium, Alternaria, Botrytis, Cladosporium, Mucor, Oidium, Plasmopara, Rhizopus and Uncinula are known to infect grapes. These can enter in the process in the crushing stage, decreasing the juice yield and increasing the grape pressing time. Molds deteriorate the wine quality by altering its composition, producing off-flavors, and encouraging the undesirable growth of spoilage yeasts and bacteria. The resistance of molds to HPP is very variable, depending on the species [84]. Molds can easily be controlled in wine as they are unable to survive due to their susceptibility to alcohol concentration of ≥ 3% and SO2 [2].

4. Effect of PEF, HPP and Other Non-Thermal Technologies on Microbial Inactivation in Wine

This literature review showed limited studies of microbial inactivation in wine by some of the seven non-thermal technologies described previously in Section 2. Therefore, this section presents results of microbial inactivation in wine by PEF, HPP and US, and allows a comparison of the efficiency of each technology. The microbial inactivation for different non-thermal PEF, HPP and US conditions is expressed in terms of log reductions and shown in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. The wine composition, the microorganism species and strain are factors that affect the level of inactivation. For example, the wines’ electrical conductivity is directed related to its composition, and is crucial for PEF efficiency. The microbial reduction is expected to increase with process intensity and duration (time). Depending on the process, the intensity is given by the electric field strength for PEF (kV/cm), the pressure for HPP (MPa) and the acoustic power density for US (W/mL). With respect to continuous PEF processing, the real treatment time is calculated from the residence time (dependent on the flow rate), the frequency of the pulses, and the pulse width, with low flow rate conditions maximizing the treatment time. Being a batch process, the HPP conditions are straightforward, i.e., the pressure and time set for the constant pressure phase of the HPP cycle. The US can be set in batch or continuous mode.

4.1. Brettanomyces Bruxellensis

Table 1 shows a summary of Brett inactivation expressed in terms of log reductions for different non-thermal PEF, HPP and US conditions. An electric field strength of 20 kV/cm applied to red wine for 6000 μs, led to more than 4.8 log reductions of Brettanomyces bruxellensis [19]. Puértolas et al. (2009) [17] achieved 5.2 log reductions of Dekkera bruxellensis and 5.8 log reductions of Dekkera anomala in red wine using 100 pulses at 31 kV/cm. These results suggest that D. bruxellensis in more resistant to PEF inactivation than D. anomala. Van Wyk et al. (2019) [12] could reduce the treatment time to as low as 39 µs by increasing the electric field intensity to 50 kV/cm, to obtain 3.0 log reductions in B. bruxellensis.
Non-thermal HPP treatment at 400 MPa for only 5 s resulted in the complete inactivation (>7.0 log reductions) of Brettanomyces bruxellensis in Cabernet Sauvignon wine [11]. The same study concluded that the strain of B. bruxellensis had a significant effect on HPP inactivation. Strain AWRI 1499 proved to be the most resistant, with 3.0 log reductions in red wine after processing at 150 MPa for 10 min. Puig et al. (2003) [3] achieved at least 6.0 log reductions of B. bruxellensis using 500 MPa for 5 min (=300 s). Treatment at 100 MPa resulted in no significant B. bruxellensis inactivation [11,85]. This suggests a minimum threshold pressure below which no inactivation occurs. The results confirm the microbial inactivation dependence on HPP pressure and time [11,85,86]. Van Wyk & Silva (2017a) [10] investigated the effect of wine intrinsic properties on the inactivation of B. bruxellensis, by performing HPP studies in seven different wines, including red, white and rosé wines. HPP treatments at 200 MPa for 3 min resulted in 3.0, 3.8, 5.0, 5.8 and 6.0 log reductions in Dolcetto Syrah, SO2-free Cabernet Merlot, Syrah, Cabernet Sauvignon and Pinot Noir, respectively. Complete inactivation (>6.0 log reductions) was achieved in rosé wine using 200 MPa for 2 min, while only 15 s was required to achieve complete inactivation (>7.0 log reductions) in the Chardonnay wine [10], showing the effect of wine composition on Brett inactivation. Additionally, results showed that alcohol concentrations above 12.0% v/v had a significant effect on Brett inactivation with an increase of log reduction from 3.0 for 10.5–12% to 4.2 for 14% red Dolcetto Syrah wines, while wine pH from 3 to 4 in Cabernet Sauvignon wine was found to have no effect on B. bruxellensis inactivation [10].
Ultrasound (US) set at a low acoustic power density of 0.2 W/mL was not efficient for Brett inactivation, even after a long processing time of 20 min, which only reduced the yeast in 0.24 log in red wine [53]. When using thermo-sonication, the combination of thermal conditions of 50 °C with US treatment for 1 min, Gracin et al. (2016) [54] achieved 3.0 log reductions of Brettanomyces bruxellensis yeast in red wine and 2.0 log reductions of lactic acid bacteria. However, high temperature has a negative impact on wine sensory properties and is not recommended.
Research has shown that LEC is an effective technology for the inactivation of wine spoilage microorganisms. Lustrato et al. (2010) [73] investigated the inactivation of D. bruxellensis by LEC in red wine (13.5% alcohol) using 200 mA for 60 days. After 1 and 30 days, 4.0 and 5.2 log reductions were achieved, respectively [73]. Lustrato et al. (2015) [75] found that, after 30 days storage in oak barrels, there was no significant difference in the viable cell count of D. bruxellensis between the LEC treated (200 mA, <15 °C) wine and wine treated using SO2. At the end of the experiment, SEM (scanned electron microscope) images showed the rupturing of the yeast cells which caused its irreversible inactivation [75].

4.2. Yeasts Important for Wine

Table 2 shows a summary of inactivation of different yeasts in wine submitted to different technologies and processing conditions. Abca and Evrendilek (2014) [20] found that 31 kV/cm bipolar pulses resulted in 4.5 log reductions of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in red wine. The same electric field strength applied to Saccharomyces bayanus in red wine led to significantly higher inactivation of 5.4 log reductions [17]. Abca and Evrendilek (2014) [20] also looked at the inactivation of Candida lipolytica and Hansenula anomala in red wine and found that 31 kV/cm caused 4.4 and 3.2 log reductions, respectively. Thus H. anomala was more resistant to PEF than C. lipolyitica and S. cerevisiae.
Similar to the B. bruxellensis results, Puig et al. (2003) [9] achieved 6.0 log reduction of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in red and white wine using 500 MPa for 5 min. With a reduced pressure of 300 MPa for 6 min, Tonello et al. (1998) [86] achieved more than 7.0 log reductions of S. cerevisiae in wine. Tonello et al. (1996) [87] found that HPP treatment at 321 MPa for 180 s resulted in more than 7.0 log reductions. Using 400 MPa for 20 s, Tonello et al. (1996) [87] attained more than 3.5 log reductions of S. cerevisiae in white wine and >3.7 log reductions of S. ludwigii in rosé wine, respectively. It was also concluded that HPP inactivation depends on the type and size of microorganism targeted [87]. Environmental scanning electron microscopy analysis images of S. cerevisiae spores demonstrated its death after HPP treatment of 600 MPa for 5 min, showing the release of intracellular content and change in the shape and size of the cell [40]. Lastly, alcohol concentration proved to be an important factor for microbial inactivation, with higher log reductions achieved in wines with alcohol concentrations above 13% v/v [10,86,87].
Residual yeast inactivation (≤0.6 log reductions) was registered in red wine, even after a very long and unrealistic US treatment time of 20 min at 0.2 W/mL [53]. The highest yeast inactivation was a 0.6 log reduction of Pichia membranefaciens and the lowest a 0.13 log reduction of Schizosaccharomyces pombe.
HPH treatments of 150 MPa was able to induce a 2.2 log reduction of Saccharomyces bayanus [67]. Subsequently, further studies of Comuzzo et al. [88,89] revealed 3.5 log reductions using multiple HPH passes (10 L/h) at <40 °C. Puig et al. (2008) [68] found that subjecting red and white grape musts to 200 MPa using a flow rate of 120 L/h, caused complete inactivation of wild yeasts and lactic acid bacteria.
Table
Table 2. Inactivation of different yeasts in wine by non-thermal PEF, HPP and US technologies *.
Table 2. Inactivation of different yeasts in wine by non-thermal PEF, HPP and US technologies *.
Yeast SpeciesPasteurization
Process		WineAlcohol Content (% v/v)Processing ConditionsTreatment TimeLog ReductionReference
Saccharomyces cerevisiaePEFRed 12.031 kV/cm, 3 µs square bipolar pulse,
40 mL/min, T ≤ 40 °C		−4.5[20]
Saccharomyces bayanusPEFRed 13.031 kV/cm, 1 Hz, 100 pulses, batch, T < 30 °C−5.4[17]
Candida lipolyticaPEFRed 12.031 kV/cm, 3 µs square bipolar pulse,
40 mL/min, T ≤ 40 °C		−4.4[20]
Hansenula anomalaPEFRed 12.031 kV/cm, 3 µs square bipolar pulse,
40 mL/min, T ≤ 40 °C		−3.2[20]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeHPPnr15.0300 MPa360 s>7.0[86]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeHPPRed & whitenr500 MPa300 s6.0[9]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeHPPWhitenr400 MPa20 s>3.5[87]
Saccharomyces ludwigiiHPPRosénr400 MPa20 s>3.7[87]
Saccharomyces cerevisiaeUSRed14.024 kHz, 0.2 W/mL,
T ≤ 25 °C		20 min0.30[53]
Schizosaccharomyces pombeUSRed14.024 kHz, 0.2 W/mL,
T ≤ 25 °C		20 min0.13[53]
Zygosaccharomyces bailiiUSRed14.024 kHz, 0.2 W/mL,
T ≤ 25 °C		20 minNo
inactivation		[53]
Pichia membranefaciensUSRed14.024 kHz, 0.2 W/mL,
T ≤ 25 °C		20 min0.60[53]
* HPP was carried out at room temperature, maintaining nonthermal conditions; PEF—pulsed electric fields; HPP—high pressure processing; US—power ultrasound, nr—not reported.

4.3. Bacteria

Table 3 shows the results of bacteria inactivation in wine by non-thermal technologies. Only 2.7 log reductions of Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus was achieved in red wine using 31 kV/cm bipolar pulses [20]. Puértolas et al. (2009) [17] treated red wine containing Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus hilgardii using 100 pulses at 31 kV/cm, resulting in 4.8 and 5.2 log reductions, respectively. The magnitude of bacteria inactivation was similar or slightly lower than with yeasts (5.2 to 5.8 log reductions), using the same process. Lastly, 20 kV/cm applied for 6000 μs led to >1.0 and >5.3 log reductions of Pediococcus parvulus and Oenococcus oeni in red wine, respectively [19]. Therefore, research has shown that the size of the microorganisms has a significant effect on PEF inactivation, with larger yeast cells being less resistant to inactivation than smaller bacteria cells [17,20].
Table
Table 3. Inactivation of bacteria in wine by non-thermal PEF, HPP and US technologies *.
Table 3. Inactivation of bacteria in wine by non-thermal PEF, HPP and US technologies *.
Bacterium SpeciesPasteurization
Process		WineAlcohol Content (% v/v)Processing ConditionsTreatment TimeLog
Reduction		Reference
Lactobacillus
plantarum		PEFRed13.031 kV/cm, 1 Hz, 100 pulses, batch, T < 30 °C−4.8[17]
Lactobacillus hilgardiiPEFRed13.031 kV/cm, 1 Hz, 100 pulses, batch, T < 30 °C−5.2[17]
Lactobacillus
delbrueckii
ssp. bulgaricus		PEFRed12.031 kV/cm, 3 µs square bipolar pulse,
40 mL/min, T ≤ 40 °C		−2.7[20]
Pediococcus parvulusPEFRednr20 kV/cm, 0.5 Hz,
10 µs pulse width,
T ≤ 42 °C		6000 µs>1.0[19]
Oenococcus oeniPEFnrnr20 kV/cm, 0.5 Hz,
10 µs pulse width,
T ≤ 38 °C		6000 µs>5.3[19]
Lactobacillus
plantarum		HPPRed & whitenr500 MPa300 s8.0[9]
Pediococcus
damnosus		HPPRednr400 MPa20 s>3.4[87]
Oenococcus oeniHPPRed & whitenr500 MPa300 s8.0[9]
Acetobacter acetiHPPRed & white nr500 MPa300 s8.0[9]
Acetobacter acetiHPPRednr400 MPa20 s>4.2[87]
Acetobacter
pasteurianus		HPPRed & white nr500 MPa300 s8.0[9]
Lactobacillus
plantarum		USRed14.024 kHz, 0.2 W/mL,
T ≤ 25 °C		20 min0.13[53]
Pediococcus sp. USRed14.024 kHz, 0.2 W/mL,
T ≤ 25 °C		20 min0.35[53]
Oenococcus oeniUSRed14.024 kHz, 0.2 W/mL,
T ≤ 25 °C		20 min0.22[53]
Acetobacter
pasteurianus		USRed14.024 kHz, 0.2 W/mL,
T ≤ 25 °C		20 min0.60[53]
* HPP was carried out at room temperature, maintaining nonthermal conditions; PEF—pulsed electric fields; HPP—high pressure processing; US—power ultrasound, nr—not reported.
A number of HPP inactivation studies have been conducted on spoilage bacteria in red and white wines (Table 3). Puig et al. (2003) [9] used 500 MPa for 5 min to investigate the inactivation of Lactobacillus plantarum, Acetobacter aceti, Acetobacter pasteurianus and Oenococcus oeni in red and white wine, resulting in 8.0 log reductions for all four bacteria. Tonello et al. (1996) [87] found that 400 MPa applied for only 20 s resulted in >4.2 log reductions of A. aceti in wine. Tonello et al. (1996) [87] also looked at the inactivation of Pediococcus damnosus in wine using 400 MPa for 20 s, which led to more than 3.4 log reductions.
Regarding US, similarly to yeast, the inactivation of bacteria was almost none, ranging from log reductions of 0.13 with Lactobacillus plantarum to 0.35 with Pediococcus sp. bacteria [53] after a 20 min treatment (0.2 W/mL).

5. Comparison of Technologies and Final Remarks

PEF and HPP proved to be effective wine pasteurization technologies, as they inactivate key wine spoilage yeasts and bacteria in short periods of time, feasible for application in the wine industry. Both technologies have the potential to complement or be used as alternatives to SO2 addition to must, grape juice and finished wine at different stages of wine production, to control undesirable microbial growth or stop fermentation, and stabilize and preserve the quality of the finished wine until consumption. In fact, PEF is a promising technology for the wine industry as it is a continuous technology, requiring short processing times, in the magnitude of microseconds, for the inactivation of microbes of concern in the wineries. This enables commercial scale production with higher throughput. In addition, the same PEF unit also has the potential to decrease wine maceration time during the early stages of production. HPP and US have been investigated for the acceleration of wine ageing, reducing the required vinification time. US produced insufficient inactivation even after application of unrealistically long processing times.
Despite the encouraging results demonstrating less or no SO2 addition to wine by using non-thermal technologies such as HPP [90] and PEF [91], more research is needed to determine the extent to which the use of SO2 can be reduced or eliminated in the production/stabilization of different types of wine. The role of SO2 in wine is complex and more research is required involving simultaneous assessment of microbial inactivation and wine quality after processing and during storage. Further wine stability studies with SO2 free wines are needed to compare the quality of the wine produced using non-thermal methods vs the conventional addition of SO2. More wine stability/quality studies should focus on the combination of a non-thermal method with a reduced amount of added SO2 preservative.
Another important aspect is the investigation and comparison of costs of non-thermal technologies in terms of capital investment, energy requirement and environmental impact. In addition, although some technologies such as HPP are already used at commercial scale for other beverages and packed foods, others are not. Fortunately, the modern wine consumer’s increasing demand for healthier and preservative free novel wines serves to promote research as well as applications and improvements of non-thermal technologies to the wine industry.
This review shows the potential of both HPP and PEF for wine preservation, as these technologies have minimal effect on overall wine sensory quality (flavor and aroma) and biochemical quality factors such as antioxidant activity, phenolic content and anthocyanins.

Author Contributions

F.V.M.S. and S.v.W. contributed equally to this review. Both authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

University of Auckland Doctoral and Morton Coutts Scholarships to Sanelle van Wyk are acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Raposo, R.; Chinnici, F.; Ruiz-Moreno, M.J.; Puertas, B.; Cuevas, F.J.; Carbú, M.; Guerrero, R.F.; Somovilla, V.O.; Rojas, J.M.M.; Cantos-Villar, E. Sulfur free red wines through the use of grapevine shoots: Impact on the wine quality. Food Chem. 2018, 243, 453–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Du Toit, M.; Pretorius, I. Microbial Spoilage and Preservation of Wine: Using Weapons from Nature’s Own Arsenal—A Review. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2019, 21, 74–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. 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]
  4. van Wyk, S.; Silva, F.V.M. Nonthermal preservation of wine. In Preservatives and Preservation Methods for the Beverage Industry; Grumezescu, A.M., Holban, A.M., Eds.; The Science of Beverages series; Elsevier: Duxford, UK; Cambridge, MA, USA; Kidlington, UK, 2019; Chapter 7; Volume 15, pp. 203–235. [Google Scholar]
  5. Santos, M.C.; Nunes, C.; Saraiva, J.A.; Coimbra, M.A. Chemical and physical methodologies for the replacement/reduction of sulfur dioxide use during winemaking: Review of their potentialities and limitations. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2012, 234, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Falguera, V.; Forns, M.; Ibarz, A. UV-vis irradiation: An alternative to reduce SO2 in white wines? LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 51, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Benucci, I.; Lombardelli, C.; Cacciotti, I.; Liburdi, K.; Nanni, F.; Esti, M. Chitosan beads from microbial and animal sources as enzyme supports for wine application. Food Hydrocoll. 2016, 61, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Silva, F.M.; Sims, C.; Balaban, M.O.; Silva, C.L.M.; O’Keefe, S. Kinetics of flavour and aroma changes in thermally processed cupuaçu (Theobroma grandiflorum) pulp. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2000, 80, 783–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Puig, A.; Vilavella, M.; Daoudi, L.; Guamis, B.; Mínguez, S. Microbiological and biochemical stabilization of wines by application of high pressure technique. Bull. del l’OIV 2003, 76, 596–617. [Google Scholar]
  10. van Wyk, S.; Silva, F.V.M. High pressure processing inactivation of Brettanomyces bruxellensis in seven different table wines. Food Control 2017, 81, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. van Wyk, S.; Silva, F.V.M. High pressure inactivation of Brettanomyces bruxellensis in red wine. Food Microbiol. 2017, 63, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. van Wyk, S.; Silva, F.V.; Farid, M.M. Pulsed electric field treatment of red wine: Inactivation of Brettanomyces and potential hazard caused by metal ion dissolution. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 52, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. van Wyk, S.; Farid, M.M.; Silva, F.V. SO2, high pressure processing and pulsed electric field treatments of red wine: Effect on sensory, Brettanomyces inactivation and other quality parameters during one year storage. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 48, 204–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Silva, F.V.M.; Sulaiman, A. Polyphenoloxidase in Fruit and Vegetables: Inactivation by Thermal and Non-thermal Processes. In Encyclopedia of Food Chemistry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Oxford, UK; Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 287–301. [Google Scholar]
  15. Sulaiman, A.; Farid, M.; Silva, F.V.M. Quality stability and sensory attributes of apple juice processed by thermo-sonication, pulsed electric field and thermal processing. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2017, 23, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Milani, E.A.; Alkhafaji, S.; Silva, F.V. Pulsed Electric Field continuous pasteurization of different types of beers. Food Control 2015, 50, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Puértolas, E.; López, N.; Condón, S.; Raso, J.; Alvarez, I. Pulsed electric fields inactivation of wine spoilage yeast and bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 130, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Huang, K.; Yu, L.; Liu, D.; Gai, L.; Wang, J. Modeling of yeast inactivation of PEF-treated Chinese rice wine: Effects of electric field intensity, treatment time and initial temperature. Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 456–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Delsart, C.; Grimi, N.; Boussetta, N.; Sertier, C.M.; Ghidossi, R.; Vorobiev, E.; Peuchot, M.M. Impact of pulsed-electric field and high-voltage electrical discharges on red wine microbial stabilization and quality characteristics. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 120, 152–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Abca, E.E.; Evrendilek, G.A. Processing of Red Wine by Pulsed Electric Fields with Respect to Quality Parameters. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2014, 39, 758–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Garde-Cerdán, T.; Marsellés-Fontanet, A.R.; Arias-Gil, M.; Ancín-Azpilicueta, C.; Martín-Belloso, O. Effect of storage conditions on the volatile composition of wines obtained from must stabilized by PEF during ageing without SO2. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2008, 9, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Puértolas, E.; Saldaña, G.; Condón, S.; Alvarez, I.; Raso, J. Evolution of polyphenolic compounds in red wine from Cabernet Sauvignon grapes processed by pulsed electric fields during aging in bottle. Food Chem. 2010, 119, 1063–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Puértolas, E.; Luengo, E.; Álvarez, I.; Raso, J. Improving mass transfer to soften tissues by pulsed electric fields: Fundamentals and applications. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 3, 263–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Puértolas, E.; Saldanña, G.; Alvarez, I.; Raso, J. Effect of Pulsed Electric Field Processing of Red Grapes on Wine Chromatic and Phenolic Characteristics during Aging in Oak Barrels. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 2351–2357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. López, N.; Puértolas, E.; Condón, S.; Álvarez, I.; Raso, J. Application of pulsed electric fields for improving the maceration process during vinification of red wine: Influence of grape variety. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2008, 227, 1099–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. López, N.; Puértolas, E.; Hernández-Orte, P.; Álvarez, I.; Raso, J. Effect of a pulsed electric field treatment on the anthocyanins composition and other quality parameters of Cabernet Sauvignon freshly fermented model wines obtained after different maceration times. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 42, 1225–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mok, C.; Song, K.-T.; Park, Y.-S.; Lim, S.; Ruan, R.; Chen, P. High Hydrostatic Pressure Pasteurization of Red Wine. J. Food Sci. 2006, 71, M265–M269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Evelyn; Silva, F.V. Modeling the inactivation of psychrotrophic Bacillus cereus spores in beef slurry by 600MPa HPP combined with 38–70 °C: Comparing with thermal processing and estimating the energy requirements. Food Bioprod. Process. 2016, 99, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Evelyn; Silva, F.V. Resistance of Byssochlamys nivea and Neosartorya fischeri mould spores of different age to high pressure thermal processing and thermosonication. J. Food Eng. 2017, 201, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Evelyn; Silva, F.V.M. Inactivation of pathogenic microorganisms in foods by high-pressure processing. In Food Safety and Protection; Rai, V.R., Bai, J.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; pp. 343–378. [Google Scholar]
  31. Evelyn; Silva, F.V.M. Heat assisted HPP for the inactivation of bacteria, moulds and yeasts spores in foods: Log reductions and mathematical models. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 143–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Milani, E.A.; Silva, F. Nonthermal pasteurization of beer by high pressure processing: Modelling the inactivation of saccharomyces cerevisiae ascospores in different alcohol beers. High Press. Res. 2016, 36, 595–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Milani, E.A.; Ramsey, J.G.; Silva, F.V. High pressure processing and thermosonication of beer: Comparing the energy requirements and Saccharomyces cerevisiae ascospores inactivation with thermal processing and modeling. J. Food Eng. 2016, 181, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Houška, M.; Silva, F.V.M. Introduction to high-pressure processing of fruit and vegetable products. In High Pressure Processing of Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Houška, M., Silva, F.V.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; Chapter 1; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  35. Silva, F.V.M.; Evelyn. High pressure processing effect on microorganisms in fruit and vegetable products. In High Pressure Processing of Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Houška, M., Silva, F.V.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; Chapter 2; pp. 3–37. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lee, P.Y.; Oey, I. Sensory properties of high pressure treated fruit and vegetable juices. In High Pressure Processing of Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Houška, M., Silva, F.V.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; Chapter 8; pp. 121–133. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sánchez-Moreno, C.; de Ancos, B. High pressure processing effect on nutrients and their stability. In High Pressure Processing of Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Houška, M., Silva, F.V.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; Chapter 6; pp. 85–103. [Google Scholar]
  38. Tříska, J. Health active components in fruit/vegetable juices treated by high pressure. In High Pressure Processing of Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Houška, M., Silva, F.V.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; Chapter 7; pp. 105–119. [Google Scholar]
  39. Norton, T.; Sun, D.-W. Recent Advances in the Use of High Pressure as an Effective Processing Technique in the Food Industry. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2007, 1, 2–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rozali, S.N.; Milani, E.A.; Deed, R.C.; Silva, F.V. Bacteria, mould and yeast spore inactivation studies by scanning electron microscope observations. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 263, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Balda, F.P.B. Current status of industrial HPP equipment for food processing. In High Pressure Processing of Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Houška, M., Silva, F.V.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 73–83. [Google Scholar]
  42. Uchida, R.; Silva, F.V.M. Modelling the inactivation of Alicyclobacillus acidoterrestris spores by high pressure combined with thermal processing: Study the effect of temperature and soluble solids. Food Control 2017, 73, 426–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Buzrul, S. High hydrostatic pressure treatment of beer and wine: A review. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2012, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Houska, M.; Pravda, P. Examples of Commercial Fruit and Vegetable Juices and Smoothies Cold Pasteurized by High Pressure Chapter 10. In High Pressure Processing of Fruit and Vegetable Juices; Houška, M., Silva, F.V.M., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 147–154. [Google Scholar]
  45. Nunes, C.; Santos, M.C.; Saraiva, J.A.; Rocha, S.M.; Coimbra, M.A. Influence of high hydrostatic pressure technology on wine chemical and sensorial characteristics: Potentialities and drawbacks. Adv. Food Nutr. Res. 2017, 82, 205–235. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Lonvaud-Funel, A.; Largeteau, A.; Tonello, C.; Demazeau, G. Résistance aux hautes pressions de microorganismes du vin: Applications à la stabilisation. In Oenologie 95: 5e. Symposium International d’Oenologie; Tec et Doc: Paris, France, 1996; pp. 352–356. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tao, Y.; Sun, D.; Górecki, A.; Blaszczak, W.; Lamparski, G.; Amarowicz, R.; Fornal, J.; Jelinski, T. Effects of high hydrostatic pressure processing on the physicochemical and sensorial properties of a red wine. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2012, 16, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Santos, M.C.; Nunes, C.; Cappelle, J.; Gonçalves, F.J.; Rodrigues, A.; Saraiva, J.; Coimbra, M.A. Effect of high pressure treatments on the physicochemical properties of a sulphur dioxide-free red wine. Food Chem. 2013, 141, 2558–2566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Santos, M.C.; Nunes, C.; Rocha, M.A.M.; Rodrigues, A.; Rocha, S.; Saraiva, J.; Coimbra, M.A. Impact of high pressure treatments on the physicochemical properties of a sulphur dioxide-free white wine during bottle storage: Evidence for Maillard reaction acceleration. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2013, 20, 51–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lonvaud-Funel, A.; Dupont, G.; Demazeau, G.; Bignon, J. Essais de mutage de vins blancs liquoreux par traitement aux hautes pressions. OENO One 1994, 28, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Takush, D.G.; Osborne, J.P. Investigating High Hydrostatic Pressure Processing as a Tool for Studying Yeast during Red Winemaking. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2011, 62, 536–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Feng, H.; Yang, W. Ultrasonic processing. In Nonthermal Processing Technologies for Food; Zhang, H.Q., Barbosa-Canovas, G.V., Balasubramaniam, V.M., Dunne, C.P., Farkas, D.F., Yuan, J.T.C., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Somerset, UK, 2010; pp. 135–154. [Google Scholar]
  53. Luo, H.; Schmid, F.; Grbin, P.; Jiranek, V. Viability of common wine spoilage organisms after exposure to high power ultrasonics. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2012, 19, 415–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gracin, L.; Jambrak, A.R.; Juretić, H.; Dobrović, S.; Barukčić, I.; Grozdanović, M.; Smoljanić, G. Influence of high power ultrasound on Brettanomyces and lactic acid bacteria in wine in continuous flow treatment. Appl. Acoust. 2016, 103, 143–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kentish, S.; Feng, H. Applications of Power Ultrasound in Food Processing. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 5, 263–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Silva, F.V.M.; Sulaiman, A. Advances in thermosonication for the inactivation of endogenous enzymes in foods. In Ultrasound: Advances in Food Processing and Preservation, 1st ed.; Bermudez-Aguirre, D., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 101–130. [Google Scholar]
  57. Milani, E.A.; Silva, F.V.M. Ultrasound assisted thermal pasteurization of beers with different alcohol levels: Inactivation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae ascospores. J. Food Eng. 2017, 198, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sulaiman, A.; Soo, M.J.; Farid, M.; Silva, F.V. Thermosonication for polyphenoloxidase inactivation in fruits: Modeling the ultrasound and thermal kinetics in pear, apple and strawberry purees at different temperatures. J. Food Eng. 2015, 165, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sulaiman, A.; Farid, M.; Silva, F.V. Strawberry puree processed by thermal, high pressure, or power ultrasound: Process energy requirements and quality modeling during storage. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2016, 23, 293–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Martín, J.F.G.; Sun, D.-W. Ultrasound and electric fields as novel techniques for assisting the wine ageing process: The state-of-the-art research. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 33, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Evelyn; Milani, E.; Silva, F.V. Comparing high pressure thermal processing and thermosonication with thermal processing for the inactivation of bacteria, moulds, and yeasts spores in foods. J. Food Eng. 2017, 214, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Evelyn; Silva, F.V. Ultrasound assisted thermal inactivation of spores in foods: Pathogenic and spoilage bacteria, molds and yeasts. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 105, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Singleton, V.L.; Draper, D.E. Ultrasonic Treatment with Gas Purging as a Quick Aging Treatment for Wine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1963, 14, 23–35. [Google Scholar]
  64. Masuzawa, N.; Ohdaira, E.; Ide, M. Effects of Ultrasonic Irradiation on Phenolic Compounds in Wine. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 2000, 39, 2978–2979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, Q.-A.; Wang, T.-T. Effect of ultrasound irradiation on the evolution of color properties and major phenolic compounds in wine during storage. Food Chem. 2017, 234, 372–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Fredericks, I.N.; du Toit, M.; Krügel, M. Efficacy of ultraviolet radiation as an alternative technology to inactivate microorganisms in grape juices and wines. Food Microbiol. 2011, 28, 510–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Comuzzo, P.; Calligaris, S.; Iacumin, L.; Ginaldi, F.; Palacios Paz, A.E.; Zironi, R. Potential of high pressure homogenization to induce autolysis of wine yeasts. Food Chem. 2015, 185, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Puig, A.; Olmos, P.; Quevedo, J.; Guamis, B.; Mínguez, S. Microbiological and Sensory Effects of Musts Treated by High-pressure Homogenization. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2008, 14, 5–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zuehlke, J.M.; Petrova, B.; Edwards, C.G. Advances in the control of wine spoilage by Zygosaccharomyces and Dekkera/Brettanomyces. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 4, 57–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Agnolucci, M.; Rea, F.; Sbrana, C.; Cristani, C.; Fracassetti, D.; Tirelli, A.; Nuti, M. Sulphur dioxide affects culturability and volatile phenol production by Brettanomyces/Dekkera bruxellensis. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 143, 76–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Millet, V.; Lonvaud-Funel, A. The viable but non-culturable state of wine micro-organisms during storage. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 30, 136–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Comitini, F.; Ingeniis, J.; Pepe, L.; Mannazzu, I.; Ciani, M. Corrigendum to Pichia anomala and Kluyveromyces wickerhamii killer toxins as new tools against Dekkera/Brettanomyces spoilage yeasts. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2004, 241, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lustrato, G.; Vigentini, I.; De Leonardis, A.; Alfano, G.; Tirelli, A.; Foschino, R.; Ranalli, G. Inactivation of wine spoilage yeasts Dekkera bruxellensis using low electric current treatment (LEC). J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 109, 594–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Arriagada-Carrazana, J.; Sáez-Navarrete, C.; Bordeu, E. Membrane filtration effects on aromatic and phenolic quality of Cabernet Sauvignon wines. J. Food Eng. 2005, 68, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Lustrato, G.; Alfano, G.; De Leonardis, A.; Macciola, V.; Ranalli, G. Inactivation of Dekkera bruxellensis yeasts in wine storage in brand new oak barrels using low electric current technology. Ann. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 2091–2098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lustrato, G.; Alfano, G.; Belli, C.; Grazia, L.; Iorizzo, M.; Ranalli, G. Scaling-up in industrial winemaking using low electric current as an alternative to sulfur dioxide addition. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 101, 682–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Martorell, P.; Querol, A.; Fernaández-Espinar, M.T. Rapid Identification and Enumeration of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Cells in Wine by Real-Time PCR. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 6823–6830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Loureiro, V.; Malfeito-Ferreira, M. Dekkera/Brettanomyces spp. In Food Spoilage Microorganisms; Blackburn, C.W., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2006; pp. 354–398. [Google Scholar]
  79. Wedral, D.; Shewfelt, R.; Frank, J. The challenge of Brettanomyces in wine. LWT 2010, 43, 1474–1479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Oelofse, A.; Pretorius, I.; Du Toit, M. Significance of Brettanomyces and Dekkera during Winemaking: A Synoptic Review. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2008, 29, 124–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Steensels, J.; Daenen, L.; Malcorps, P.; Derdelinckx, G.; Verachtert, H.; Verstrepen, K.J. Brettanomyces yeasts—From spoilage organisms to valuable contributors to industrial fermentations. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 206, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  82. 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]
  83. Jackson, R.S. Post-Fermentation Treatments and Related Topics. In Wine Science, 4th ed.; Jackson, R.S., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2014; pp. 535–676. [Google Scholar]
  84. Silva, F.V.; Evelyn. Resistant moulds as pasteurization target for cold distributed high pressure and heat assisted high pressure processed fruit products. J. Food Eng. 2020, 282, 109998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. González-Arenzana, L.; Sevenich, R.; Rauh, C.; López, R.; Knorr, D.; López-Alfaro, I. Inactivation of Brettanomyces bruxellensis by High Hydrostatic Pressure technology. Food Control. 2016, 59, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tonello, C.; Largeteau, A.; Demazeau, G.; Lonvaud-Funel, A. High pressure inactivation modelling of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in grape juice and wine. In High Pressure Biology and Medicine; Bennett, P.B., Demchenko, I., Marquis, R.F., Eds.; University of Rochester Press: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 102–108. [Google Scholar]
  87. Tonello, C.; Largeteau, A.; Demazeau, G.; Lonvaud-Funel, A. Les applications éventuelles des hautes pressions en oenologie. Revue Française d’Oenologie 1996, 161, 13–16. [Google Scholar]
  88. Comuzzo, P.; Calligaris, S.; Iacumin, L.; Ginaldi, F.; Voce, S.; Zironi, R. Application of multi-pass high pressure homogenization under variable temperature regimes to induce autolysis of wine yeasts. Food Chem. 2017, 224, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Comuzzo, P.; Calligaris, S. Potential Applications of High Pressure Homogenization in Winemaking: A Review. Beverages 2019, 5, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Christofi, S.; Malliaris, D.; Katsaros, G.; Panagou, E.; Kallithraka, S. Limit SO2 content of wines by applying High Hydrostatic Pressure. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 62, 102342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. González-Arenzana, L.; Portu, J.; López, N.; Santamaría, P.; Gutiérrez, A.R.; López, R.; López-Alfaro, I. Pulsed Electric Field treatment after malolactic fermentation of Tempranillo Rioja wines: Influence on microbial, physicochemical and sensorial quality. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 51, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 10 02175 g001 550
Figure 1. Diagram showing the pulsed electric field (PEF) inactivation of wine spoilage microorganisms (T refers to temperature which is below 40 °C for a non-thermal process).
Figure 1. Diagram showing the pulsed electric field (PEF) inactivation of wine spoilage microorganisms (T refers to temperature which is below 40 °C for a non-thermal process).
Foods 10 02175 g001
Foods 10 02175 g002 550
Figure 2. Diagram showing the high-pressure processing (HPP) inactivation of wine spoilage microorganisms.
Figure 2. Diagram showing the high-pressure processing (HPP) inactivation of wine spoilage microorganisms.
Foods 10 02175 g002
Table
Table 1. Inactivation of Brettanomyces bruxellensis yeast in wine by non-thermal PEF, HPP and US technologies *.
Table 1. Inactivation of Brettanomyces bruxellensis yeast in wine by non-thermal PEF, HPP and US technologies *.
Pasteurization
Technology		WineAlcohol
Content
(% v/v)		Processing ConditionsTreatment TimeLog
Reduction		Reference
PEFRed 13.031 kV/cm, 1 Hz,
100 pulses, batch,
T < 30 °C		−5.2[17]
PEFRed nr20 kV/cm, 0.5 Hz,
10 µs pulse width,
T ≤ 37 °C		6000 µs>4.8[19]
PEFRed 13.550 kV/cm, 100 Hz,
1.7 µs pulse width,
T < 40 °C 		39 µs 3.0[12]
HPPRed Cabernet Sauvignon13.4400 MPa5 s>7.0[11]
HPPWhite
Chardonnay		13.0200 MPa15 s>7.0[10]
HPPRosé12.5200 MPa120 s>6.0[10]
HPPRed Pinot Noir13.0200 MPa180 s6.0[10]
HPPRed & whitenr500 MPa300 s6.0[9]
HPPRed Cabernet Sauvignon13.5200 MPa180 s5.8[10]
HPPRed Syrah12.5200 MPa180 s5.0[10]
HPPRed SO2-free
Cabernet Merlot		13.7200 MPa180 s3.8[10]
HPPRed Dolcetto
Syrah		10.5
14.0		200 MPa180 s3.0
4.2		[10]
USRed14.024 kHz, 0.2 W/mL,
T ≤ 25 °C		20 min0.24[53]
* HPP was carried out at room temperature, maintaining nonthermal conditions; PEF—pulsed electric fields; HPP—high pressure processing; US—power ultrasound, nr—not reported.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva, F.V.M.; van Wyk, S. Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO2 for the Production of Wine. Foods 2021, 10, 2175. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10092175

AMA Style

Silva FVM, van Wyk S. Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO2 for the Production of Wine. Foods. 2021; 10(9):2175. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10092175

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, Filipa V. M., and Sanelle van Wyk. 2021. "Emerging Non-Thermal Technologies as Alternative to SO2 for the Production of Wine" Foods 10, no. 9: 2175. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10092175

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop