4.7 Article

Characterisation of Extracts Obtained from Unripe Grapes and Evaluation of Their Potential Protective Effects against Oxidation of Wine Colour in Comparison with Different Oenological Products

期刊

FOODS
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods10071499

关键词

antioxidant extracts; unripe grapes; wine colour; anti-browning effect; phenols; SO2; ascorbic acid; oenological tannins

资金

  1. REGIONE TOSCANA [835445]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Unripe grape extracts rich in antioxidants can be used as alternatives to SO2 in winemaking to protect wine color. The composition and antioxidant activity of the extracts varied depending on pH levels and types of wine, showing different color protection capacities.
Unripe grapes (UGs) are a waste product of vine cultivation rich in natural antioxidants. These antioxidants could be used in winemaking as alternatives to SO2. Three extracts were obtained by maceration from Viognier, Merlot and Sangiovese UGs. The composition and antioxidant activity of the UG extracts were studied in model solutions at different pH levels. The capacity of the UG extracts to protect wine colour was evaluated in accelerated oxidation tests and small-scale trials on both red and white wines during ageing in comparison with sulphur dioxide, ascorbic acid and commercial tannins. The Viognier and Merlot extracts were rich in phenolic acids while the Sangiovese extract was rich in flavonoids. The antioxidant activity of the extracts and commercial tannins was influenced by the pH. In the oxidation tests, the extracts and commercial products showed different wine colour protection capacities in function of the type of wine. During ageing, the white wine with the added Viognier UG extract showed the lowest level of colour oxidation. The colour of the red wine with the UG extract evolved similarly to wine with SO2 and commercial tannins. The obtained results indicated that natural and healthy UG extracts could be an interesting substitute for SO2 during wine ageing.

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

4.7
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