ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE USED IN WINE PRODUCTION

Authors

  • Hatice Kalkan Yıldırım
  • Burcu Darıcı

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15414/jmbfs.2020.9.4.675-687

Keywords:

sulfur dioxide (SO2), natural alternatives, plant extracts, physical treatments

Abstract

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is the most common additive used in winemaking for many years. This compound is important for wine producers and consumers due to its antiseptic and antioxidant properties. However, excessive sulfites caused some symptoms such as a headache, nausea, stomach irritation and respiratory distress in asthmatic patients. Additionally, excessive SO2 in winemaking process leads to organoleptic changes of final product. For these reasons, the maximum SO2 concentrations allowed in wines were gradually reduced. In the wine industry it is essential to reduce or even eliminate SO2 especially in the production of organic wines. These obstacles lead to requirements of new healthier and safety strategies for reduction of SO2. Up to know have been discussed the priorities of SO2 used in wine making. Recently some authors evaluated studies with chemical and non-thermal alternatives of SO2. Some other authors reviewed the side effects of SO2 used in wines, but none of them have comprised the effects of new techniques in grape, must, wine and pomace. This review discussed effects of different alternatives (thermal, non-thermal, chemical and natural additives) techniques demonstrated in grape, must, wine and pomace as possible alternative to SO2 in comprehensive manner. The antioxidant, antimicrobial and sensory properties of tannin, oak and vine shoot extracts are also discussed as new alternatives of SO2. The studies demonstrated that SO2 could be lowered and even changed by using the development of new methods.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2020-02-03

How to Cite

Kalkan Yıldırım, H., & Darıcı, B. (2020). ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE USED IN WINE PRODUCTION . Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, 9(4), 675–687. https://doi.org/10.15414/jmbfs.2020.9.4.675-687

Issue

Section

Food Sciences