Effect of white wine composition on protein haze potential

Abstract

Background and Aims Haze formation in white wine is caused by protein aggregation and can be influenced by many other wine components. This study investigated the impact of wine matrix composition on haze formation in 60 white wines to assess the feasibility of predicting haze by measuring selected wine components. Methods and Results Sixteen wine matrix components previously shown to influence wine haze in model and reconstitution studies were analysed in a range of white wines and compared to the amount of haze formed in a heat test. Protein concentration and electrical conductivity were the only components that significantly (P < 0.05) correlated with haze formation (positive and negative correlations, respectively). Partial least squares and multiple linear regression analyses, however, indicated that this correlation (R2 = 0.54, standard error in cross validation = 9.00, residual predictive deviation (RPD) = 1.44) was not sufficient to use as a model for predicting haze formation. Conclusions Protein concentration and electrical conductivity are the key influencing factors of haze formation in white wines, although multiple other components are likely to also contribute to the amount of haze produced. Significance of the Study Predicting haze potential in wine is achieved more effectively by inducing a haze than by measuring individual wine components.

Use of ultrafiltration and proteolytic enzymes as alternative approaches for protein stabilisation of white wine

“…A key difference, however, between the semi-commercial and pilot scale UF treatments was that permeate was not heat stable; ΔNTU was 3.8 and almost 10 mg/L of haze-forming protein was detected in the permeate. The concentration of haze-forming proteins alone is not considered a reliable indicator of haze potential (McRae et al 2018b) and this was supported by haze potential and protein data for retentate and permeate in the current study. The retentate protein concentration was 8.6 times higher than that of the SB wine, yet the corresponding haze potential was only 5.4 times higher.…”

“…The conductivity of Mar was 25 and 32% higher than that of SBS and SB wines, respectively (data not shown), which further explains why protein was more readily removed from the Mar retentate; that is increased ionic strength facilitated protein aggregation in a previous study (Marangon et al 2011). Certainly, it has been established that wine protein aggregation and haze formation is a multifactorial process (McRae et al 2018b).…”

“…heat stable TLPs and LTPs) beyond what might occur naturally. The heat test, however, remains the standard approach for predicting the protein haze formation (McRae et al 2018a,b).…”

“…The improved heat stability of recombined Mar wine reflects the significant removal of haze-forming proteins in treated retentate ( Figure 5). The efficacy of treatments largely depended on the initial composition of each wine; not only the initial protein concentration, but likely also the concentration of phenolic substances, polysaccharides and sulfate, which are considered to influence protein aggregation and haze formation (van Sluyter et al 2015, McRae et al 2018b.…”

Pathogenesis-Related Proteins in Wine and White Wine Protein Stabilization

“…A study on Chilean Sauvignon Blanc wine reported that more protein haze formation in wine was observed by increasing the electrical conductivity [78]. However, a more recent study on a range of Australian white wines showed a negative correlation between protein haze formation and electrical conductivity [79]. These contradictory results could be related to the differences in other wine components of importance to protein haze formation.…”