Does Fungal Chitosan Leave Noticeable Traces in Treated Wines?
Margot Paulin,
Cécile Miot-Sertier,
Julie Miranda,
Amélie Vallet-Courbin,
Julie Maupeu,
Cédric Delattre,
Joana Coulon,
Virginie Moine,
Axel Marchal,
Stéphanie Roi,
Thierry Doco,
Marguerite Dols-Lafargue
Affiliations
Margot Paulin
ISVV and Institute Pascal, University of Bordeaux, INRAE, Bordeaux INP, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, OENO, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
Cécile Miot-Sertier
ISVV and Institute Pascal, University of Bordeaux, INRAE, Bordeaux INP, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, OENO, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
Julie Miranda
ISVV and Institute Pascal, University of Bordeaux, INRAE, Bordeaux INP, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, OENO, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
Amélie Vallet-Courbin
Microflora-ADERA, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
Julie Maupeu
Microflora-ADERA, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
Cédric Delattre
Clermont Auvergne INP, CNRS, Institute Pascal, Université Clermont Auvergne, F-63000 Clermont-Ferrand, France
Joana Coulon
Biolaffort, 11 Rue Aristide Bergès, F-33270 Floirac, France
Virginie Moine
Biolaffort, 11 Rue Aristide Bergès, F-33270 Floirac, France
Axel Marchal
ISVV and Institute Pascal, University of Bordeaux, INRAE, Bordeaux INP, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, OENO, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
Stéphanie Roi
UMR 1083, UMR Sciences pour l’Oenologie, INRA, SupAgro, UM1, 2 Place Viala, F-34060 Cedex Montpellier, France
Thierry Doco
UMR 1083, UMR Sciences pour l’Oenologie, INRA, SupAgro, UM1, 2 Place Viala, F-34060 Cedex Montpellier, France
Marguerite Dols-Lafargue
ISVV and Institute Pascal, University of Bordeaux, INRAE, Bordeaux INP, Bordeaux Sciences Agro, OENO, UMR 1366, ISVV, F-33140 Villenave d’Ornon, France
Background (1): The use of fungal chitosan as an antiseptic in wine appears as a promising alternative to sulfur dioxide for the elimination of Brettanomyces bruxellensis sensitive strains. Nevertheless, its utilization raises the question, “how are the treated wines different from the untreated ones?” Methods (2): Chitosan treatment residues were sought in the oligosaccharide and polysaccharide fractions and among 224 low MW ions (−1) in several wines by using liquid chromatography (size exclusion HPLC or LC-MS) and GC-MS. Standard oenological parameters were also examined as well as possible sensory modifications by a panel of tasters composed of experts and non-experts. Results (3): None of these methods enabled the reproducible and reliable identification of a treated wine without comparing it to its untreated control. The fingerprints of treatment are not reliably detectable by the analytical methods used in this study. However, the treated wines seem permanently protected against the development of chitosan-sensitive strains of B. bruxellensis. Conclusions (4): If chitosan treatment modifies the wine, the associated changes were not identified by the liquid chromatography method mentioned above and they were not perceived by most people in our taster panel. However, the expected antimicrobial action of chitosan was observed on B. bruxellensis sensitive strains and persisted at least one year. Tolerant strains were less affected by these persistent effects.