Modification of EPDM seals to prevent aroma carry-over during the bottling of wine

Müller, David; Gottman, Jörg; Lutz, Johannes; Schuster, Jens; Fischer, Ulrich

doi:10.1016/j.aiepr.2022.08.004

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the cost is often the deciding factor for industry usage, with EPDM being the more economical option over FKM (Abts, 2010). EPDM polymers available on the market differ in their formulation, particularly with the incorporation of filling materials such as minerals, talc, natural organics and synthetic inorganics into the polymer mesh to reduce costs and control physical properties (Müller et al, 2022). The absorption behaviour of the polymers usually becomes secondary or even redundant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improved sealing polymers and cleaning procedures to mitigate aroma carryover during bottling of aromatised and regular wines on the same filling line

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bottling of aromatised wines and regular table wines often takes place on the same bottling line. Installed sealings in the bottling line absorb volatiles from aromatised wines and, due to inadequate cleaning, carryover occurs into the subsequently bottled regular wine. This unintentional carryover can lead to accusations of illegal flavouring of wine. To minimise the carryover risk, sealing materials that absorb less volatiles are beneficial. Incorporating kaolin and micro-cellulose into the ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM) network decreased absorption of the critical α-ionone by 51 and 60 %, respectively.Besides the minimisation of the absorption, a performed cleaning can reduce aroma carryover. So far, knowledge about cleaning parameters that can increase cleaning efficiency is limited since cleaning usually focuses on surficial removal and prevents microbiological cross-contamination. An evaluation of the cleaning parameters, temperature, time and agents clearly revealed a high factor in the considered temperature. The highest cleaning efficiency was seen at 85 °C, whereas the cleaning additives such as citric acid, caustic soda, ozone or dissolved carbon dioxide had no impact. High proportions of the aroma compounds were removed from the polymer in the first 20 min at 85 °C, but none of the performed cleaning sequences was able to remove all compounds.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%