4.4 Article

Variation in the mineral composition of wine produced using different winemaking techniques

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOSCIENCE AND BIOENGINEERING
卷 130, 期 2, 页码 166-172

出版社

SOC BIOSCIENCE BIOENGINEERING JAPAN
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiosc.2020.03.012

关键词

Elemental composition; Geographical origin; Inductively coupled-plasma mass spectrometry; Inductively coupled-plasma atomic emission spectrometry; Metrology; Multi-element analysis; Oenology; Wine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It has been reported that the concentrations of minerals in wines can be used to discriminate their geographical origin. However, some winemaking techniques may also affect the mineral concentration of the final product. In this study, we examined the effects of various winemaking techniques, including (i) fining, (ii) aging with oak tips, (iii) maceration with grape skins, (iv) chaptalization and acidification, and (v) yeast nutrient addition for alcohol fermentation, on the concentration of 18 minerals (Li, B, Na, Mg, Si, P, S, K, Ca, Mn, Co, Ni, Ga, Rb, Sr, Mo, Ba and Pb) in a total of 154 wine samples using grapes from different production areas. Among the various winemaking techniques, maceration with grape skin had the largest effect on mineral content, significantly changing the concentrations of 17 or 18 elements (B, Na, Mg, Si, P, S, K, Ca, Mn, Co, Ni, Ga, Rb, Sr, Mo, Ba and Pb). Fining treatment using bentonites had the second largest effect, altering the concentrations of 14 elements (Li, B, Na, Si, P, S, Ca, Co, Ga, Rb, Sr, Mo, Ba and Pb). However, in principal component analysis using all data (n = 154), the wine samples were clearly clustered according to grapes used in the experiments rather than the winemaking technique. In conclusion, some winemaking techniques significantly altered the concentration of some minerals in wine; however, the principal factor influencing winemineral composition seems to be its geographical origin. (C) 2020, The Society for Biotechnology, Japan. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据