Open Access
Issue
BIO Web Conf.
Volume 9, 2017
40th World Congress of Vine and Wine
Article Number 02011
Number of page(s) 3
Section Oenology
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20170902011
Published online 04 July 2017

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences 2017

Licence Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

The use of calcium sulfate (CaSO4 ∙ 2H2O) is authorized in the European Union as a complementary acidifier in liquor wines from Spain provided that the residual sulfate content in the wine does not exceed 2.5 g/L expressed as potassium sulfate [1]. Calcium sulfate is also authorized in the United States for the production of wines aged under yeast veil although residual sulfate cannot exceed 2 g/L [2]. The OIV is also currently considering the approval of calcium sulfate for liquor wines [3]. Gómez et al. [4] recommended a combined acidification with 2 g/L of calcium sulfate and sufficient tartaric acid to achieve a pH of 3.25. In this way, the necessary dose of tartaric acid does not exceed 1.5 g/L, the maximum authorized level in UE, and the final concentration of sulfates is lower than 2.5 g/L. To predict the final pH after an addition of tartaric acid or/and calcium sulfate Moreno and Peinado [5] proposed a simple and easy to apply model. In this model the acidity of wine is considered to be due to a monoprotic acid. This model has been developed and verified in [6, 7], obtaining errors in pH predictions lower than 5%. However for winemakers is more interesting to predict the necessary acidifier dose to reach the required pH. In this way the OIV prescribes in [3] that “It is advisable to make previous tests in the laboratory to calculate the doses of calcium sulfate and tartaric acid needed to reach the required pH”.

To predict the dose of acidifiers it is necessary to change the equations proposed in [6] in this way:

For tartaric acid: (1) where X is the dose in meq/L, Ki is the acidity constant, AA is the ash alkalinity and TA is the total acidity. The subscripts “i” and “f” denote initial and final states respectively. In this model it is considered that the medium is saturated in tartrate and, as a consequence, the addition of tartaric acid as an acidifying agent will introduce the common ion HT (bitartrate) and thiswill precipitate naturally or during cold stabilization as potassium bitartrate. In this way, one can consider that all of the HT added will precipitate as potassium bitartrate and this does not contribute to the titratable acidity.

For calcium sulfate(2)and for combined acidification, the final equation would be a combination of both.

Nevertheless, in these equations pH and pK appears as exponential functions what increase the effect of the errors. In consequence, an error of 0.1 units of pH produces an error of 25% in the predicted dose.

Experiences carried out in the harvest of 2016 working with the best laboratory conditions (Fig. 1) and described in [7] showed that the errors in the prediction of the acidification doses cannot be reduced below 10% using the model described in [6].

thumbnail Figure 1.

Prediction of the doses of acidifiers.

This fact shows that the simplified model used must be corrected to obtain better prediction results.

The aim of this work consists of designing and verifying some corrections in the model previously used in order to minimize the errors in the prediction of the doses of acidifiers used in the winemaking of Sherry musts.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Corrections to the model

For Tartaric acid:

Instead of supposing that all added tartaric acid precipates as potassium bitartrate, it is considered that a fraction f of the addition does not precipitate because there is not enough time to reach the equilibrium in acidified musts before fermentation. In this case, the dose X of tartaric acid would be obtained by a new equation to be called (3).

For Calcium sulfate

The initial model does not consider the increase of ash alkalinity due to calcium sulfate. In consequence, in this correction it is considered that fraction g of added sulfate remains in solution and increases ash alkalinity. The dose Y of calcium sulfate would be obtained by e new equation to be called (4).

For combined acidification

A combination of the equations (3) and (4) is used in combined acidification. The dose X of tartaric acid would be obtained by the Eq. (5) where logically participates the dose Y of calcium sulfate.

2.2. Acidification tests

The Sherry must used in the acidification tests was obtained from Palomino fino grapes harvested at optimum maturation state and pressed in a pneumatic press at a pressure lower than 1Kg/cm2. Next, 2 g/L of SO2 was added to the obtained must to allow its preservation until the acidification tests were carried out and to avoid the beginning of alcoholic fermentation. These tests were conducted with 100mL of must in 250mL Erlenmeyer flaks, placed on a magnetic stirrer and adding slowly the corresponding dose of acidifier weighed with a precision of 0.1mg. The flasks were covered with plastic film to avoid SO2 evaporation. For the first 2 minutes the stirring speed was high to dissolve the acidifiers and later it was maintained until 30 minutes at the lowest possible speed (c.a. 60 r.p.m.) to keep the solids suspended. The doses of tartaric acid and calcium sulfate used were 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0 g/L alone and combined. The samples were centrifuged before analysis and pH, titratable acidity and buffering power were determined in all samples before and after acidification. All tests and analysis were carried out in duplicate indicating the results as the average values.

2.3. Analytical methods

pH, titratable acidity and buffering power were determined as in [6].

2.4. Determination of f and g factors

Iterative calculations using Excel 2016 were carried out to know the values of f and g factors that minimized the errors in the predicted doses of acidifiers obtained by using the Eqs. (3), (4) and (5) in relation to the real doses. In these calculations, f and g factors were gradually changed until obtaining the minimal errors. In the combined acidification, the dose of tartaric acid was fixed and we tried to predict the dose of calcium sulfate. In consequence, couples of f and g factors values minimizing the error in calcium sulfate dose were searched for.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Acidification tests

The results of the acidification tests carried out in the laboratory are shown in Table 1. In general terms, these results are according with those obtained in previous research works [6].

Table 1.

Results of the acidification tests.

3.2. Determination of f and g factors

The evolutions of errors with the values of f and g factors for an acidification of 2 g/L are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

thumbnail Figure 2.

Variation of the prediction error with f factor for acidification with 2 g/L of tartaric acid.

thumbnail Figure 3.

Variation of prediction error with g factor for acidification with 2 g/L of calcium sulfate.

As it can be seen, both evolution plots show similar shapes, first decreasing the error with the factors until reaching a minimum value, corresponding to certain factor value, and then sharply increasing the prediction errors with the factor values.

Figure 4 shows the values of f and g factors that minimize the errors in combined acidification. As it can be seen, these factors are very well correlated with a correlation factor of 0.9998.

The procedure for calculating the f and g values for other acidifier doses was the same and the values obtained are shown in Table 2. As it can be seen, the factors are approximately constants for all considered doses. This fact confirms that the corrections of the model considered are valid regardless of the doses of acidifiers used.

thumbnail Figure 4.

Values of f and g factors in combined acidification with 2 g/L of tartaric acid and calcium sulfate.

Table 2.

f and g factors for different doses of acidifiers.

4. Conclusions

The proposed corrections to the chemical model for the acidification equilibria in the Sherry winemaking are able to predict properly the necessary doses to reach the required pH values with very low errors. Hence, the chemical model developed can be a valuable tool for winemakers that can be easily implemented as a spreadsheet in a computer to be used in the laboratory during the harvest.

References

  • European Union, Commission Regulation (EC) N° 606/2009 laying down the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices and the applicable restrictions, O.J.E.U. L153(606/2009), pp. 1–59 (2009) [Google Scholar]
  • e-CFR.Electronic Code of Federal Regulations, “Title 27: Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms PART 24 WINE Subpart L Storage, Treatment and Finishing of Wine §24.246 Materials authorized for the treatment of wine and juice. Available on line at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID= 5a39ba6737562446636”, 2010 [Google Scholar]
  • OIV, “Resolution OENO-TECHNO 15-583 Step 7. Treatment of musts with calcium sulphate for liqueur wines.” 2017 [Google Scholar]
  • G. J, G. MM, and D. J, “Study of the acidification of Sherry musts with gypsum and tartaric acid”, Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 44 (4), pp. 1–5 (1993) [Google Scholar]
  • J. Moreno Vigara and R. A. Peinado Amores, Oenological Chemistry , 1st ed. San Diego CA. (USA): Academic Press, 2010 [Google Scholar]
  • J. Gómez, C. Lasanta, J. M. Palacios-Santander, and L. M. Cubillana-Aguilera, “Chemical modeling for pH prediction of acidified musts with gypsum and tartaric acid in warm regions”, Food Chem. 168 , pp. 218–224 (2015) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • J. Gomez et al., “Comprehensive chemical study of the acidification of musts in Sherry area with calcium sulphate and tartaric acid.”, in 39th World Congress of Vine and Wine (2016) [Google Scholar]

All Tables

Table 1.

Results of the acidification tests.

Table 2.

f and g factors for different doses of acidifiers.

All Figures

thumbnail Figure 1.

Prediction of the doses of acidifiers.

In the text
thumbnail Figure 2.

Variation of the prediction error with f factor for acidification with 2 g/L of tartaric acid.

In the text
thumbnail Figure 3.

Variation of prediction error with g factor for acidification with 2 g/L of calcium sulfate.

In the text
thumbnail Figure 4.

Values of f and g factors in combined acidification with 2 g/L of tartaric acid and calcium sulfate.

In the text

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.