Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Volume
    • AJEV and Catalyst Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Back Orders
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access Publishing
    • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
      • Proprietary Rights Notice for AJEV Online
    • Permissions and Reproductions
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
  • Log in
  • Follow ajev on Twitter
  • Follow ajev on Linkedin
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Volume
    • AJEV and Catalyst Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Back Orders
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access Publishing
    • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions and Reproductions
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN
Article

Crossflow Membrane Filtration of Wines: Comparison of Performance of Ultrafiltration, Microfiltration, and Intermediate Cut-Off Membranes

C. Peri, M. Riva, P. Decio
Am J Enol Vitic.  1988  39: 162-168  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.1988.39.2.162
C. Peri
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Alimentari e Microbiologiche, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Riva
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Alimentari e Microbiologiche, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
P. Decio
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Alimentari e Microbiologiche, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Crossflow membrane filtration experiments have been performed using three membranes: (1) a cellulose-nitrate microfiltration membrane having an average pore diameter of 0.2 µm (MF 0.2); (2) a polysulfone ultrafiltration membrane having a nominal cut-off of 100 000 daltons (UF 100); and (3) a cellulose-acetate membrane having a cut-off of 20 000 daltons (UF 20). Experiments have been carried out on a white, very light wine and a red, fullbodied wine. Retention data, evaluated for all major wine components, show that differences in membrane behavior mostly concern the colloidal and phenolic fractions, with consequences on the taste and color of wines. Colloids are fully retained by the UF 20 membrane, while they fully permeate the MF 0.2 membrane; intermediate retentions (50%-60%) were observed for the UF 100 membrane. Similarly, phenolics are strongly retained by the UF 20 membrane (70%-80% retentions of all fractions, including anthocyanins), moderately retained (20%-30% retention) by the UF 100 membrane, and practically unretained by the MF 0.2 membrane. While a partial removal of tannins from the red wine was beneficial in terms of taste, as pointed out by the sensory evaluation of astringency, the removal of anthocyanins by the UF 20 membrane determined an unacceptable loss of red wine color. Concerning the turbidity reduction, it was observed that all three membranes gave acceptable results when operating on the slightly cloudy white wine, while the performance of the MF 0.2 membrane was inadequate on the highly turbid red wine. Finally, the comparison of permeability data obtained in the red wine treatment demonstrated that the MF 0.2 membrane was largely superior to the other two membranes in that it did not retain, and therefore was not plugged by, colloids. It is concluded that ultrafiltration membranes are unsuitable for wine treatment and that the optimum cut-off probably lies around 0.1 µm, which is the lower range of pore diameter of the classical microfiltration processes.

  • ultrafiltration of wines
  • crossflow microfiltration
  • Received September 1987.
  • Copyright 1988 by the American Society for Enology and Viticulture

Sign in for ASEV members

ASEV Members, please sign in at ASEV to access the journal online.

Sign in for Institutional and Non-member Subscribers

Log in using your username and password

Forgot your user name or password?

Pay Per Article - You may access this article (from the computer you are currently using) for 2 day for US$10.00

Regain Access - You can regain access to a recent Pay per Article purchase if your access period has not yet expired.

Forgot your user name or password?

PreviousNext
Back to top

Vol 39 Issue 2

  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
View full PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on AJEV.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Crossflow Membrane Filtration of Wines: Comparison of Performance of Ultrafiltration, Microfiltration, and Intermediate Cut-Off Membranes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from AJEV
(Your Name) thought you would like to read this article from the American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
You have accessRestricted access
Crossflow Membrane Filtration of Wines: Comparison of Performance of Ultrafiltration, Microfiltration, and Intermediate Cut-Off Membranes
C. Peri, M. Riva, P. Decio
Am J Enol Vitic.  1988  39: 162-168  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.1988.39.2.162
C. Peri
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Alimentari e Microbiologiche, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Riva
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Alimentari e Microbiologiche, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. Decio
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Alimentari e Microbiologiche, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
You have accessRestricted access
Crossflow Membrane Filtration of Wines: Comparison of Performance of Ultrafiltration, Microfiltration, and Intermediate Cut-Off Membranes
C. Peri, M. Riva, P. Decio
Am J Enol Vitic.  1988  39: 162-168  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.1988.39.2.162
C. Peri
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Alimentari e Microbiologiche, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
M. Riva
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Alimentari e Microbiologiche, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
P. Decio
Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Alimentari e Microbiologiche, University of Milan, via Celoria 2, 20133 Milano, Italy.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Save to my folders

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More from this TOC section

  • Predicting Berry Quality Attributes in cv. Xarel·lo Rain-Fed Vineyards Using Narrow-Band Reflectance-Based Indices
  • Grapevine Crown Gall Suppression Using Biological Control and Genetic Engineering: A Review of Recent Research
  • Effect of Winery Yeast Lees on Touriga Nacional Red Wine Color and Tannin Evolution
Show more Article

Similar Articles

AJEV Content

  • Current Volume
  • Archive
  • Best Papers
  • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
  • Back Orders

Information For

  • Authors
  • Open Access Publishing
  • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
  • Submission
  • Subscribers
  • Permissions and Reproductions

Other

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Help
  • Alerts
  • ASEV
asev.org

© 2025 American Society for Enology and Viticulture.  ISSN 0002-9254.

Powered by HighWire