| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 School of Food Science, Washington State University, Irrigated Agriculture and Extension Center, 24106 N. Bunn Rd., Prosser, WA 99350-8694.
Acknowledgments: The authors appreciate support from the Washington Wine Grape Funds. The authors also thank Chateau Ste. Michelle for their participation especially Josh Maloney for exceptional winemaking.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract Materials and MethodsResults and DiscussionConclusionLiterature Cited |
|---|
Key words: potassium, grape skins, fermentation, extended maceration
Potassium forms soluble and insoluble salts with the major and minor organic acids (primarily tartaric and malic) found in grape and plays a significant role in determining final wine pH (Boulton 1980). The solubility of potassium bitartrate salts is improved significantly by polyphenols (Balakian and Berg 1968) and declines with higher concentrations of ethanol and lower temperatures (Berg and Keefer 1958). Both alcohol and potassium will increase pH if the acid concentration is kept constant (Allen 1982, Boulton 1980). It is thought that extraction of excessive potassium from the skins causes high pH in red wines (Van Wyk 1977). Imbalance of potassium and pH has been demonstrated as a cause of stuck fermentations (Kudo et al. 1998). A 25 to 1 molar ratio of potassium to hydronium ions was identified as the minimum requirement for complete fermentation.
It is generally thought that potassium is extracted from each of the various tissues during fermentation, although there is little data to support this assumption. Small-scale experiments (49 kg) with Chardonnay showed that wines with longer contact times (up to 24 hr) finished with significantly higher concentrations of potassium (Test et al. 1986). Another study evaluated potassium concentration during small-scale (40 kg) fermentations of Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon, Muscat, and Riesling and found that the concentration increased during the first days of skin contact and then either declined or remained constant thereafter (Walker et al. 1998). Here, skin contact for the red varieties was limited to only three days. Two known winemaking parameters impacting final potassium are pomace contact time (Mpelasoka et al. 2003) and ethanol concentration (Berg and Keefer 1958). The purpose of this experiment was to evaluate the effects of skin contact time and alcohol concentration on the extraction of potassium during duplicated commercial scale (8.7 tons, ~7,892 kg) fermentations. Considerable effort was made in an effort to evaluate which tissue (pulp, skin, seed) contributes the most potassium during the fermentation; this localization was confirmed with model wine extractions.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionConclusionLiterature Cited |
|---|
Fruit sampling. Six 200 berry replicates were selected at random from a 9-year-old, 8 hectare own-rooted Merlot (clone 3) vineyard located in the Columbia River Basin, Washington, on the day of harvest. Samples were put in self-sealing bags, placed on ice, and transported to the research station where they were counted and weighed. Each replicate was stored in self-sealing bag at 2°C until analysis.
Winemaking. Merlot grapes were mechanically harvested on 12 and 13 Oct 2007 and were delivered immediately to the winery in gondolas. The grapes were received into a hopper via a Delta E50 destemmer (Vaslin Bucher, Chalonnes sur Loire, France) with the crushers disengaged and then pumped through a must line with a progressive cavity pump. The yield was approximately 0.7 L per kg (170 gallons per ton). Fermentations were carried out in duplicate. After the fruit was destemmed, 30 mg/L of sulfur dioxide was added. Diammonium phosphate (DAP) and water (control: 874 L; high ethanol treatment: 208 L; extended maceration treatment: 833 L) were added the morning after receiving, and yeast was added the evening after receiving. Yeast was added according to the manufacturer’s rehydration procedure. The DAP was added to raise the yeast assimilable nitrogen to 225 mg/L. The amount of dechlorinated water added depended on the treatment. Premier Cuvee, a Saccaromyces cerevisiae bayanus strain (Fermentis, Oskaloosa, IA) (120 mg/L), was added before mixing the tank and after the DAP and water additions were complete. The tanks were mixed at a rate of 1 min per ton of fruit. Each fermentor (18,927 L capacity) held between 7,892 to 8165 kg of must. On day one of maceration, the juice was mixed from the bottom tank valve over the top of the fermentor through an irrigator for 7 min. On day two, the tank was only mixed during the morning additions, and on day three the pump-overs began. Wine was taken from the racking valve through an air pump and pumped over the top of the fermentor through an irrigator. The tank was pumped over ~1 min per ton, three times per day until the must was drained and the pomace pressed in a Willmes press (model TP15; Willmes, Lampertheim, Germany). The press cycle lasted for a total of 46 min, beginning at 150 millibar and finishing at 350 millibar. Pressure was held for 6 min, the bladder deflated, and then rotated twice before reinflating. Each replicate was monitored for Brix and temperature once a day after the morning pump-over. A hand-held digital thermometer was used to check the temperature of the must sampled from the racking valve. The same sample was analyzed with a hand-held densitometer calibrated for Brix (DMA 35N; Anton Paar, Graz, Austria). After pressing the wines were sent to barrel where they were stored at 13°C and sampled on a weekly basis up to 161 days.
Winemaking treatments. Initially the fruit was 28 Brix and each replicate was watered back to a different Brix target. The control was watered back to 23.8 Brix with a pomace contact time of 7 days. The high alcohol treatment was diluted to 26.8 Brix with a 7-day pomace contact time, and the extended maceration treatment was diluted to 23.8 Brix with a 20-day pomace contact time. After pressing, two 3.78-L self-sealing bags of pomace (skins and seeds) were collected from the press pan and stored at 2°C.
Fruit and pomace analysis. Six 30-berry replicates were dissected in an effort to separate the skin, pulp, and seeds of the grape. Each replicate was placed into a large weigh boat. Berries were dissected according to a previously published method (Harbertson et al. 2002) and the juice was collected in the weigh boat, the volume of which was determined using the weight of the liquid and the density as measured with a pocket refractometer (Atago, Tokyo). The pulp solids and liquids were carefully transferred to a 50-mL tube and macerated for 30 sec with a homogenizer (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) to make a fine suspension. Skins and seeds were frozen with liquid nitrogen and separately ground to a fine powder with a mortar and pestle. One gram of tissue (skin, seed, pulp) was digested in a nitric acid/hydrogen peroxide (HNO3/H2O2) solution (Jones and Case 1990). Skins from pomace were separated from the seeds and reconstructed to approximate the skins from six 30-berry replicates. The digested samples were brought to a constant volume with distilled water and analyzed for total K+ by flame emission photometry using a flame photometer (model PFP7; Jenway, Essex, UK). Samples were diluted in the range of 1- to 25-fold. A four-point standard was constructed (20 to 100 mg/L) daily for the analysis of potassium from a 1000 mg/L stock solution. The linear best-fit equation correlation coefficient varied from 0.97 to 0.99 over the analysis dates. Each day a quality-control red wine (Columbia Valley, WA) was run in triplicate to ensure consistency.
pH experiment. Dissected berry skins were separated into 20-berry replicates. Duplicated extractions were carried out in 3 mg/mL tartaric acid solutions that were adjusted to pH 1, 2, 3, and 4 with HCl and NaOH. Solutions were added to flasks at 1 mL/berry skin for a total of 20 mL per replicate to be consistent with volume estimates of whole berries. Samples were then placed on an orbital shaking table set at 50 rpm for 24 hr. Samples were vacuum filtered using a 90 mm #1 Whatman filter paper for 3 min each. The filtrate was saved for potassium analysis and the recovered skins were ground by mortar and pestle after being frozen with liquid nitrogen. The skins and filtrate were analyzed for potassium as described earlier.
Model solution extractions. Skins from dissected berries were separated into three 20-berry replicates and extracted with the following solutions: potassium bitartrate (4, 5, and 6 mg/mL) and potassium bitartrate (4.8 mg/mL) + pectinase (0.04 µL/mL; Adex-G, DSM, Delft, Netherlands). Each solution was adjusted to pH 3.5 with concentrated HCl. Solutions were added to flasks at 1 mL per berry skin and incubated at 30°C in a heated orbital shaking water bath at 50 rpm for 5 days. A second set of model solution extractions was performed using potassium bitartrate (4 mg/mL) but varying the concentration of ethanol from 12 to 18% v:v in steps of 2% at pH 3.5. The same extraction temperature, replication number, time, mixing, and eventual analysis of the potassium in the skin and filtrate were performed.
Wine samples were prepared by pipetting 1 mL of wine into 25 mL volumetric flasks and diluting with distilled water. The samples were then analyzed for potassium using the flame photometer as described earlier.
Experimental design. Microsoft Excel (Redmond, WA) was used for data entry and storage. Data analysis was performed with Statistica (StatSoft, Tulsa, OK). One-factor completely randomized analysis of variance was performed on the winemaking trials and model extraction experiments. For each experiment the variance from each treatment was examined and found to be similar to the other treatments. A 5% level for rejection of the null hypothesis was used for each experiment. Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test was used as a post-hoc comparison of means. Similar to the ANOVA, 5% (p < 0.05) was considered a minimum for significance.
The winemaking trial was set up with a control and two treatments (high ethanol and extended maceration). Each treatment was carried out in duplicate (df = 5). The harvest fruit comparison to the pomace was carried out in quadruplicate for the skins and seeds and pomace separately (df = 15). Each of the model extraction experiments consisted of four treatments and one control. For both experiments the treatments and controls were done in triplicate (df = 11).
|
Results and Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionConclusionLiterature Cited |
|---|
). Evaluation of ethanol concentration of the treatments showed a significant difference (p < 0.05) (Table 1). The high ethanol treatment finished with a statistically significantly greater concentration of ethanol than the extended maceration and control treatments (p < 0.05). Each treatment was monitored for potassium throughout fermentation and periodically after the wine was stored in barrels (Figure 1). Potassium concentration was at a maximum shortly after crushing and slowly declined for about 7 days in the control and high alcohol treatment. The concentration continued to decline slightly during the extended maceration treatment until pressing and became constant thereafter. (Note that Figure 1 axes were altered to illustrate the trend more clearly. Also note that because of the water additions during winemaking, the concentration of potassium was normalized for a better comparison.) The slow decline of potassium was somewhat inconsistent with previous work (Test et al. 1986, Walker et al. 1998), which demonstrated increased potassium with skin contact periods from 12 hr to 72 hr. In this experiment, skin contact time was 168 to 480 hr, which likely led to the significantly different results. As these grapes were mechanically harvested, the berries were likely damaged during the process, which explains why the initial increase of potassium concentration was not observed as in other research (Test et al. 1986, Walker et al. 1998). More significantly, we observed a general decline of potassium concentration during the skin contact period that was not observed by other researchers, a disparity addressed later in the discussion.
|
|
). The high ethanol and the extended maceration treatments had significantly lower concentrations of potassium than the control and were significantly different from each other (p < 0.05). The high ethanol treatment had the lowest potassium concentration of all treatments. Ethanol lowers the solubility of potassium tartrate of wine (Berg and Keefer 1958), a likely explanation for this result.
Fruit and pomace were examined in an attempt to understand which grape tissue(s) contributed the most potassium to the wine. Grapes at harvest were dissected and evaluated for their potassium concentration and compared to skins and seeds of the pomace (Table 2). At harvest, the pulp accounted for ~67% of the total berry potassium, the skin accounted for ~25%, and the seed accounted for the remainder. Potassium content of the skin at harvest was significantly different than the skins recovered from the pomace (p < 0.01). The harvest skins were significantly lower in potassium concentration than the pomace skins. There were no differences in the potassium skin pomace of the different winemaking treatments. Potassium content in skins at harvest was ~20% lower than that in skins of pomace in each of the treatments and control.
|
The average berry weight of the grapes at harvest was ~1.2 g (data not shown). Grape mass is primarily water, so the density of water can be used to estimate 1.2 mL per berry. Using this value as a basis of estimation, potentially 2.16 g/L of potassium is available for extraction into the wine. At initial crushing the juice concentration is greater and is essentially the concentration of the pulp potassium, but the concentration declines ~15 to 25% during the skin contact period. In each case ~50% of the potential potassium is present in the wine after pressing and early stages of production.
Results showed small amounts of potassium extraction from the grape seeds with no increase in potassium concentration in the extended maceration treatment, indicating that seeds contribute very little potassium to the finished wine. Skin pomace contained greater concentrations of potassium than berry skin. The effect was consistent, with each treatment containing a~20% greater concentration than at harvest. Potassium is not easily destroyed or modified chemically, so the laws of conservation can be applied to its partitioning during fermentation. The potassium that is lost during fermentation can be accounted for by the amount present in the skin pomace (Table 3). When a mass balance is applied, between 99.7 and 102.3% of the potassium can be accounted for. Given all of the error inherent in large-scale experiments and analysis, the recovery is acceptable. The freeze-dried yeast contained 50 mg potassium per gram of yeast. Thus, the yeast would contribute a negligible amount of additional potassium.
|
). The best-fit equation would predict that as the pH is lowered by 1 unit, the amount of potassium extracted would increase by ~8% until the available reserve is exhausted. The 3 mg/mL tartaric acid extractions are a less destructive technique, therefore the mechanism of extraction is not cell liquification. The pH dependence of extraction suggests that the potassium is associated with an acidic functional group, such as polysaccharides present in the cell wall. The mechanism would be an ion exchange whereby a proton is exchanged for potassium as the pH is lowered. This mechanism would require that there be a negatively charged molecule present in the cell wall of the skin. Purified grape polysaccharides (arabinogalactan, rhamnogalacturonan) from grape cell walls were found to be negatively charged from pH 2 to 5 (Vernhet et al. 1996). According to the authors, the acidic functional groups responsible for this charge are carboxylic acid groups on the uronic acid portions of polysaccharides (Vernhet et al. 1996). Results found here are consistent with these previous findings, and it is likely that a carboxylic acid present on the cell wall polysaccharides is allowing the skin to behave like an ion exchange resin. It was previously reported that the intrinsic pKa for various plant pectins was pH 2.9 (Ralet et al. 2001). In extrapolating these results to ours, we would predict that half of the acidic functional groups would be negatively charged at that pH and possible for potassium holding. In our research, at pH 3 ~75% of the potassium was extracted. One explanation for this discrepancy is that the apparent pKa is increased because of differences in the structural features of the polysaccharides present in the cell wall; a likely explanation, as we are evaluating a mixture of polysaccharides present in the grape skin.
|
). The experiment was designed to vary the concentration of potassium in the extraction solution. Analysis of the potassium content of the skin and the remaining skin potassium from the various extractions was significant (p < 0.001). The lowest potassium tartrate solution extracted ~53% of the potassium from the skins. However, when the potassium tartrate concentration was increased, the concentration of potassium recovered in the skins exceeded that found in the control. At 5 and 6 mg/mL potassium bitartrate, the skin potassium increased by 22 and 33%, respectively. When a small amount of pectinase enzyme was included with the potassium tartrate, the percentage of potassium extracted increased to 72%. The retentates were significantly different from the original extraction solution(s) that contained potassium (p < 0.01). The corresponding differences present in the grape skin extractions were also present in the retentates. In each case, the recovery of potassium was between 97 and 100% throughout the experiment (data not shown).
|
In order to better understand why the winemaking treatment with higher ethanol concentration had lower concentrations of potassium, we varied the ethanol concentration in the extraction solution and maintained the potassium concentration within a range that would be found in juice (Figure 3). The potassium content of the grape skins and 4.8 mg/mL potassium bitartrate solution were similar to the first model solution experiment (0.55 mg/berry and 1000 mg/mL potassium). Significant differences between the control and treatments were observed (p < 0.05). With 12% ethanol, ~36% of skin potassium was extracted. When the ethanol was increased to 14 and 16%, the percentage of skin potassium decreased slightly but not enough to be statistically significant. At 18% ethanol, the extraction of potassium was nearly negligible and the same as the amount present in the control skins, but significantly different from the lower ethanol concentrations (p < 0.05). Thus, as the concentration of ethanol was raised, the potassium retained in the skin increased. At 18% ethanol, the skin potassium concentration was nearly that of the control, demonstrating that ethanol in a potassium bitartrate solution could prevent the extraction of skin potassium. It is likely that ethanol lowers the skin potassium solubility and explains its lowered extraction. We observed no crystallization of potassium tartrate salts in any of the treatments, so the concentration of the initial solution was not limited by solubility. Therefore, the combined effect of ethanol and potassium concentration explains why potassium is not extracted from the skins during the fermentations and demonstrates why greater potassium concentrations were found in pomace skin than in fruit skin at harvest.
|
|
Conclusion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionConclusionLiterature Cited |
|---|
Manuscript submitted July 2008; revised September 2008
Accepted for publication September 2008
|
Literature Cited |
|---|
|
TopAbstractMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionConclusionLiterature Cited |
|---|
Andraous, J.I., M.J. Claus, D.J. Lindemann, and K.A. Berglund. 2004. Effect of liquefaction enzymes on methanol concentration of distilled fruit spirits. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 55:199–201.
Balakian, S., and H.W. Berg. 1968. The role of polyphenols in the behavior of potassium bitartrate in red wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 19:91–100.
Berg, H.W., and R.M. Keefer. 1958. Analytical determination of tartrate stability in wine. I. Potassium bitartrate. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 9:180–193.
Berg, H.W., M. Akiyoshi, and M.A. Amerine. 1979. Potassium and sodium content of California wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 30:55–57.
Boulton, R. 1980. The general relationship between potassium, sodium and pH in grape juice and wine. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 31:182–186.
Coombe, B.G. 1987. Distribution of solutes within the developing grape berry in relation to its morphology. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 38:120–127.
Haight, K.G., and B.H. Gump. 1994. The use of macerating enzymes in grape juice processing. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 45:113–116.
Harbertson, J.F., J.A. Kennedy, and D.O. Adams. 2002. Tannin in skins and seeds of Cabernet Sauvignon, Syrah, and Pinot noir berries during ripening. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 53:54–59.
Iland, P.G., and B.G. Coombe. 1988. Malate, tartrate, potassium, and sodium in flesh and skin of Shiraz grapes during ripening: Concentration and compartmentation. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 39:71–76.
Jones, J.B., and V.W. Case. 1990. Sampling, handling and analyzing plant tissue samples. In Soil Testing and Plant Analysis. R.L. Westerman (ed.), pp. 389–427. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI.
Kudo, M., P. Vagnoli, and L.F. Bisson. 1998. Imbalance of pH and potassium concentration as a cause of stuck fermentations. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 49:295–301.
Mpelasoka, B.S., D.P. Schachtman, M. Treeby, and M.R. Thomas. 2003. A review of potassium nutrition in grapevines with special emphasis on berry accumulation. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 9:154–168.
Nunan, K.J., I.M. Sims, A. Bacic, S.P. Robinson, and G.B. Fincher. 1998. Changes in cell wall composition during ripening of grape berries. Plant Physiol. 118:783–792.
Possner, D.R.E., and W.M. Kliewer. 1985. The localisation of acids, sugars, potassium and calcium into developing grape berries. Vitis 24:229–240.[Web of Science]
Ralet, M.C., V. Dronnet, H.C. Buchholt and J.F. Thibault. 2001. Enzymatically and chemically de-esterified lime pectins: Characterization, polyelectrolyte behavior and calcium binding properties. Carbohydr. Res. 336:117–125.[Web of Science][Medline]
Rogiers, S.Y., D.H. Greer, J.M. Hatfield, B.A. Orchard, and M. Keller. 2006. Mineral sinks within ripening grape berries (Vitis vinifera L.). Vitis 45:115–123.[Web of Science]
Sacchi, K.L., L.F. Bisson, and D.O. Adams. 2005. A review of the effect of winemaking techniques on phenolic extraction in red wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 56:197–206.
Test, S.L., A.C. Noble, and J.O. Schmidt. 1986. Effect of pomace contact on Chardonnay musts and wines. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 37:133–136.
Van Wyk, C.J. 1977. Improvement of wine quality in hot climates by adaption of winemaking techniques. In Proceedings of the O.I.V. Symposium on the quality of the vintage, pp. 313–330. Oenological and Viticultural Research Institute, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Vernhet, A., P. Pellerin, C. Prieur, J. Osmianski, and M. Moutounet. 1996. Charge properties of some grape and wine polysaccharide and polyphenolic fractions. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 47:25–30.
Walker, R.R., P.R. Clingeleffer, G.H. Kerridge, E.H. Ruhl, P.R. Nicholas, and D.H. Blackmore. 1998. Effects of rootstock Ramsey (Vitis vinifera) on ion and organic acid composition of grapes and wine, and on wine spectral characteristics. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 4:100–110.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
