Open Access
Issue
BIO Web Conf.
Volume 15, 2019
42nd World Congress of Vine and Wine
Article Number 02020
Number of page(s) 4
Section Oenology
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20191502020
Published online 23 October 2019

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2019

Licence Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1. Introduction

Awareness by consumers, producers and policy makers that the available resources are limited and of the negative environmental impact caused by the human activities, has been forcing industry to develop and adapt their manufacturing process towards more sustainable processes and products. The sustainability is achieved through development of economically viable and safer processes aiming minimizing the environmental impact of human activities. One of the issues causing serious concern is food waste, including wastes created during both processing and product distribution [12]. An important principle of the sustainability concept is the waste valorization [3], where wastes are a source of raw materials such as bioactive compounds, reducing their environmental impact [4]. One of the most interesting and important classes of these bioactive compounds are phenolic compounds. In fact the recovery of valuable compounds from agricultural and food industry wastes, namely phenolic compounds, is an emerging field with great potential to drive sustainable production [5678910]. It can be expected in the near future, upon of the European Commission's plans for a circular economy that manufacturers will need to demonstrate that their products have been designed to increase the possibility of reuse and recycling [11].

Polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (PVPP) is a water insoluble synthetic polymer obtained by cross-linking of polyvinylpyrrilidone (PVP) [121314]. Due to its excellent adsorbent properties, selectivity, stability, inertness and non allergenicity [13] it is generally used in the production of wine, beer, juices and other beverages to avoid haze formation, eliminating compounds responsible for bitterness, astringency, browning and pinking [1415]. Phenolic compounds bind to PVPP through hydrophobic interaction between the PVPP, specially its pyrrolidone ring and their aromatic ring and by hydrogen-bond between the phenol groups and carbonyl group of pyrrolidone [1214151617]. It is more efficient at low pH due to the protonation of the adsorbate [15] although the structure of the polyphenol plays an important role for their interaction with PVPP [18]. It is widely used in the wine industry, being allowed to be applied in white and red wines with a maximum dose of 80 g/hL [19]. Nowadays, most of the PVPP used in the wine industries ends on the municipal wastewater treatment plants. Although PVPP toxicity is low for the aquatic environment it biodegradability is slow [20]. Additionally, after application as it comprises significant quantities of adsorbed phenolic compounds its disposal can have a significant impact in the environmental, as phenolic compounds are very refractory [21].

The high commercial value of PVPP has raised the interest to recycling and reuse PVPP. In the beer industry a method has been developed for recycling and reusing PVPP obtained from haze removal from beer [22]. Therefore the main purpose of this work was to develop a simple, cheap and eco-friendly regeneration strategy for re-use of PVPP, using an ammoniacal solution of ethanol to desorb the phenolic compounds, after the fining process in white wine, to evaluate the recycling cycles number in the adsorption performance of PVPP used in wine fining and at the same time to obtain pure extracts of wine phenolic compounds in order to exploit new opportunities for recycling used PVPP.

2. Material and methods

2.1. PVPP and wine sample

An unused PVPP was supplied by SAI Enology Company (100% grade, average particle size 110 μm) and the wine used to evaluate the influence of the PVPP recycling cycles number in the adsorption performance of PVPP used as fining agent, has the following characteristics: young white wine of 2017 vintage, from Lisbon (Portugal), alcohol content 12.5 (%v/v), titratable acidity 5.7 g/L (as tartaric acid), volatile acidity 0.33 g/L (as acetic acid), pH 3.56, free sulphur dioxide 42 mg/L and total sulphur dioxide 101 mg/L.

2.2. Fining experiments

In each fining experiment, the wine was fined with 40 g/hL of PVPP (new and recycled). Wine without addition of PVVP was used as a control. The wine was stored at room temperature (3 days) in sealed flasks and then centrifuged (537.6 g; 15 min) for further analysis. Experiments were performed in duplicate.

2.3. PVPP regeneration and recovering of adsorbed phenolic compounds

100 g of wet PVPPs were mixed with 100 mL of an ammoniacal solution of ethanol (0.1 M), after 15 min at room temperature, the suspension was filtered, being the filtrates neutralized to pH ∼ 6.5 with acetic acid, the procedures was repeated. PVPP was washed with water and dried to be reused and the filtrates obtained in each PVPP recycled were analysed by RP-HPLC-DAD as described by Ferreira et al. [23].

2.4. Determination and quantification of Individual phenolic compounds by RP-HPLC-DAD

Phenolic compounds in wine and present in the filtrates obtained during each PVPP regeneration were analysed by RP-HPLC-DAD (Ultimate 3000, Dionex). A reverse phase C18 column (ACE 5, 250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm; ACE, Scotland) was used. Mobile phase consisted of solvent A 5% formic acid and solvent B methanol, the flow rate was 1.0 mL/min and the temperature was maintained at 30 C during the run. The elution program was as follows: 5% B from zero to 5 min followed by a linear gradient up to 65% B until 65 min and from 65 to 67 min down to 5% B. Detection was performed by absorbance reading between 200–600 nm with a photo diode-array detector (PDA-100, Dionex) [24]. The injection volume was 25 μL for the extracts and 50 μL for the white wines. Peak identification was confirmed by retention time and UV-spectra comparison with those of authentic commercial standards. For the quantification a calibration curve was used in the range of 50–1000 mg/L for rutin and chlorogenic acid, in the range of 5–80 mg/L for (−)-epicatechin and resveratrol, 5–100 mg/L for gallic acid, prototecachuic acid, (+)-catechin, caffeic acid and ferulic acid. For those compounds which no standards were available calibration curves of gallic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid and rutin were used for benzoic acid derivatives, cinnamic acids derivatives (caftaric and coutaric acids) and flavonol derivatives, respectively.

2.5. Effect of the recycling cycles number in PVPP performance and recovery of adsorbed phenolic compounds

The same wine was fined at least 4 times with the PVPP new/recycled and recovered phenolic compounds adsorbed was measured as described above, and the recovery rate was calculated.

2.6. Statistical analysis

One way ANOVA with a Tukey post-hoc test was used for indicating significant differences (p < 0.05) between more than two means. Analyses were performed using the Statistica 10 software. (Statsoft, OK, USA).

3. Results and discussion

In a previous study performed in our laboratory Ferreira et al. [23] observed that the use of an alkaline solution of ethanol allows to desorb the adsorbed phenolic compounds in yields ranging from 2.82 g/kg of wet PVPP to 10.90 g/kg of wet PVPP, using three different used PVPP's from the wine industry used in white wine fining for removing browning [25] and pinking phenolic compounds [26]. In this work were recovered 20 to 24 phenolic compounds, being the most abundant (+)-catechin, (−)-epicatechin, chlorogenic acid, trans-caftaric acid and gallic acid as shown in Fig. 1, the phenolic profile was determined by RP-HPLC-DAD.

Also the efficiency of the recycled PVPP (recycled for times) was compared with a new PVPP in the same white wine by sequential fining experiments.

thumbnail Figure 1.

Chromatograms at 280 nm, 325 nm and 350 nm of phenolic compounds present in the first washing solution of trees different PVPP's (A, B, C). Peak identification: 1. gallic acid; 2. 3,4 dihydroxibenzoic; 3. (+) – catechin; 4. (−) – epicatechin; 5–8 and 11–13 unidentified derivative of procyanidins; 9. derivative of benzoic acid; 14. 2-S-glutathionyl caftaric acid; 15. trans-caftaric acid; 16. coutaric acid; 17. chlorogenic acid; 18. caffeic acid; 19. p-coumaric acid, 20. derivative glycosylated of resveratrol; 21. ferulic acid; 22. resveratrol; 23. caffeic acid ethyl ester; 24. ferulic acid ethyl ester; 25. rutin and 10, 26. unknown.

3.1. Effect of the recycling cycles number in PVPP fining performance and recovery of adsorbed phenolic compounds

Table 1 shows the phenolic compounds adsorption performance after white wine fining with a new PVPP and the same PVPP after recycling four times, using the same white wine. The fining efficiency of the new PVPP was 3.97 g of total phenolic compounds by kg of PVPP, whereas the fining efficiency of the recycled PVPP until the 4th cycle was not significantly different (ANOVA, p < 0.141) from that of the new PVPP.

Regarding the phenolic compounds removal capacity of PVPP as shown in Fig. 2, (+)-catechin and resveratrol were removed to undetectable levels followed by rutin (74% removal), protocatechuic acid (22% removal), chlorogenic acid and caffeic acid ethyl ester (17% removal), p-coumaric and ferulic acids (6% removal), and trans-caftaric acid (5% removal).

Being the recovery of the adsorbed phenolic compounds shown in Table 2, and for the new PVPP the percentage of recovered was on average 83.6 ± 10.3% not being significantly different from 100% (p < 0.266) and the recovery of the phenolic compounds adsorbed on the recycled PVPPs were not significantly different than those on the new PVPP (ANOVA, p < 0.139). Rutin was the main recovered phenolic (35% w/w), followed by trans-caftaric acid (26% w/w), chlorogenic acid (16% w/w), and coutaric acid (6% w/w), with the remaining phenolic compounds existing with an abundance less than 2% (w/w) [23].

The results showed that the performance of the recycled PVPP for white wine fining was not significantly different from the performance of the new one, and the PVPP can be recycled at least 4 times without loss of fining performance.

Table 1.

Adsorption performance of white wine phenolic compounds of a new PVPP and the same PVPP after each recycling cycles.

thumbnail Figure 2.

Fining performance of white wine phenolic compounds of a control wine using a new PVPP (first fining experiment) and the same PVPP after 4th recycling cycles, obtained by RP-HPLC-DAD.

Table 2.

Recovery of white wine phenolic compounds adsorbed on a new PVPP and the same PVPP after each recycling cycles.

4. Conclusions

The results obtained in this work show that it is possible use recycled PVPP for wine fining with identical performance to the new one by applying a low cost and eco-friendly procedure that allows to reuse PVPP at least 4 times without changing the adsorption and the efficiency of the PVPP. At the same time, reused PVPP could decrease its synthesis and decrease the disposal in wastewater, decreasing the phenolic load of the effuents generated by the wine industry and obtaining in the same process valuable and pure phenolic compounds with high antioxidant activity and bioactivity, appreciated by other industries such as food, cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by European Investment Funds by FEDER/COMPETE/POCI under POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007728 and funds from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) to CQ-VR (PEst-OE/QUI/UI0616/2014). This study has received funding from FEDER, Interreg Espana-Portugal Programme, under the framework of the Project ref 0377_IBERPHENOL_6_E. S.S.F. acknowledges the financial support provided by the European Social Funds and the Regional Operational Programme Norte 2020 (operation NORTE-08-5369-FSE-000054).

References

  • A. Segre, Total Food: Sustainability of the Agri-Food Chain, edited by K.W. Waldron, G.K. Moates, C.B. Faulds (The Royal Society of Chemistry, 2009), p. 162 [Google Scholar]
  • A. Segre, S. Gaiani (Royal Society of Chemistry Publishing, UK, 2011) [Google Scholar]
  • P. Glavič, R. Lukman, J. Clean. Prod. 15, 1875 (2007) [Google Scholar]
  • R.A.D. Arancon, C.S.K. Lin, K.M. Chan, T.H. Kwan, R. Luque, Energy Sci. Eng. 1, 53 (2013) [Google Scholar]
  • S. Yusoff, J. Cleaner. Prod. 14, 87 (2006) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • D. Sud, G. Mahajan, M. Kaur, Bioresour. Technol. 99, 6017 (2008) [Google Scholar]
  • A. Bhatnagar, M. Sillanpää, Chem. Eng. J. 157, 277 (2010) [Google Scholar]
  • M. Koller, R. Bona, G. Braunegg, C. Hermann, P. Horvat, M. Kroutil, J. Martinz, J. Neto, L. Pereira, P. Varila, Biomacromolecules 6, 561 (2005) [Google Scholar]
  • P.S. Kulkarni, C. Brazinha, C.A. Afonso, J.G. Crespo, Green Chem. 12, 1990 (2010) [Google Scholar]
  • M.W. Nam, J. Zhao, M.S. Lee, J.H. Jeong, J. Lee, Green Chem. 17, 1718 (2015) [Google Scholar]
  • J.H. Clark, T.J. Farmer, L. Herrero-Davila, J. Sherwood, Green Chem. 18, 3914 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  • L.W. Doner, G. Bécard, P.L. Irwin, J. Agric. Food Chem. 41, 753 (1993) [Google Scholar]
  • C. Folch-Cano, C. Olea-Azar, H. Speisky, Colloids Surf. A 418, 105 (2013) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • P.J. Magalhães, J.S. Vieira, L.M. Gonçalves, J.G. Pacheco, L.F. Guido, A.A. Barros, J. Chromatogr. A 217, 3258 (2010) [Google Scholar]
  • L. Jankowiak, I.V. Avermaete, R. Boom, A.J.V.D. Goot, Sep. Purif. Technol. 149, 479 (2015) [Google Scholar]
  • Z-B. Dong, Y-R. Liang, F-Y. Fan, J-H. Ye, X-Q. Zheng, J-L. Lu, J. Agric. Food Chem. 59, 4238 (2011) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • B. Laborde, V. Moine-Ledoux, T. Richard, C. Saucier, D. Dubourdieu, J-P. Monti, J. Agric. Food Chem. 54, 4383 (2006) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • C. Morge, Revue des OEnologues 140, 22 (2011) [Google Scholar]
  • Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 25 October 2011, Official Journal of the European Union L 304 (2011) [Google Scholar]
  • Regulation (EC) 1907/2006, of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 18 December 2006, Official Journal of the European Union L 136 (2007) [Google Scholar]
  • S. Kuppusamy, P. Thavamani, M. Megharaj, R. Naidu, Env. Tech. Inn. 4, 17 (2015) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • T.R. Noordman, D.N.M. Van, A. Richter, EP2595723 A1, 2010; Heineken Supply Chain B.V., EP20110738065, 2013 [Google Scholar]
  • S.S. Ferreira, A.J. Alves, L. Filipe-Ribeiro, F. Cosme, F.M. Nunes, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 6, 4599 (2018) [Google Scholar]
  • R. Guise, L. Filipe-Ribeiro, D. Nascimento, O. Bessa, F.M. Nunes, F. Cosme, Food Chem. 156, 250 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  • F. Cosme, I. Capao, L. Filipe-Ribeiro, R.N. Bennett, A. Mendes-Faia, LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 46, 382 (2012) [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • J. Andrea-Silva, F. Cosme, L. Filipe-Ribeiro, A.S.P. Moreira, A.C. Malheiro, M.A. Coimbra, M.R.M. Domingues, F.M. Nunes, J. Agric. Food Chem. 62, 5651 (2014) [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

All Tables

Table 1.

Adsorption performance of white wine phenolic compounds of a new PVPP and the same PVPP after each recycling cycles.

Table 2.

Recovery of white wine phenolic compounds adsorbed on a new PVPP and the same PVPP after each recycling cycles.

All Figures

thumbnail Figure 1.

Chromatograms at 280 nm, 325 nm and 350 nm of phenolic compounds present in the first washing solution of trees different PVPP's (A, B, C). Peak identification: 1. gallic acid; 2. 3,4 dihydroxibenzoic; 3. (+) – catechin; 4. (−) – epicatechin; 5–8 and 11–13 unidentified derivative of procyanidins; 9. derivative of benzoic acid; 14. 2-S-glutathionyl caftaric acid; 15. trans-caftaric acid; 16. coutaric acid; 17. chlorogenic acid; 18. caffeic acid; 19. p-coumaric acid, 20. derivative glycosylated of resveratrol; 21. ferulic acid; 22. resveratrol; 23. caffeic acid ethyl ester; 24. ferulic acid ethyl ester; 25. rutin and 10, 26. unknown.

In the text
thumbnail Figure 2.

Fining performance of white wine phenolic compounds of a control wine using a new PVPP (first fining experiment) and the same PVPP after 4th recycling cycles, obtained by RP-HPLC-DAD.

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.