Tag Archives: wine technology

Wine Technology of the Future: System and Method for Pairing Food with Wine

Posted on March 20, 2013 by Becca| 2 Comments

—————————————————————————————————-

Welcome to The Academic Wino! If you are new here, please read the “About Me” page to find out more about myself and the blog. If you would like to receive free updates on articles like this by email, then sign up here or you can subscribe to the RSS feed. Also, check us out on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, and or Pinterest. Thanks for visiting!

—————————————————————————————————-

“Wine Technology of the Future” is a series on The Academic Wino that features new inventions and patents that attempt to make your wine experience easier and more enjoyable. Previously on this series, we’ve introduced the “self aerating wine bottle”; the “corkscrew with integral intelligent thermometer”; “wine dispensing and preservation device”; “multi-stream wine aerating device”; and most recently the “wine bag carrier”. Today’s invention is the “system and method for pairing food with wine”, invented by Eric S. Arsenault from Ann Arbor, Michigan. The patent was filed on May 24th, 2011, and was published on January 29th, 2013.

There has been a sort of tradition in the past few decades that certain wines must be paired with certain types of foods. For example: it is often said that one should serve red wine with red meat and white wine with fish. Of course, these “traditions” are relatively new with respect to the entire history of wine, as up until the most recent past all styles of wines were served during every course of the meal, and were chosen by a diner based upon the type of wine they wanted to drink, and not what someone told them they should drink based on the dish. As an aside: Tim Hanni has done a lot of research as well as published a book discussing the very concept of pairing wine “to the diner and not the dinner”, which is highly recommended reading for everyone (even if you’re a staunch critic of the concept!). Click here to read my review of that book.

…but I digress!…

Yours and my opinion of the concept of wine and food pairings aside, this “system and method for pairing food with wine” device is basically a computer system that lets you input the type of food you are planning to each, and presents to the user a recommendation of the type of wine they should consume with that dish based on an extensive database with wine information, as well as food information based on a menu from a restaurant.

Figure 3 from US Patent 8364545

Basically, what happens is that the customer sits down at a table in a restaurant and is given a tablet with the menu choices listed. The customer then selects what he/she would like to eat, and then the tablet “talks” to the main computer database via a wireless system (located someplace else inside the restaurant) and it comes back with a wine with the best “Pairing Compatibility Score”. It is assumed that the customer will then go ahead and order that particular wine, since according to the computer, it is the best wine to pair with that particular dish on the menu.

I have a couple of problems with the device: 1) what happens when the customer doesn’t like the kind of wine the computer recommends? Maybe they try it again and they get another unsatisfactory answer. What are they supposed to do now? Give up and drink cocktails? This goes back to the pairing to the “diner and not the dinner” idea that Tim Hanni has frequently preached, which stresses that one should really pick the wine that they like and not what someone tells them is the appropriate choice. Everyone has different tastes and sensitivities, so a device catering to only one type of taster is anything but efficient and an otherwise good idea.

Now, if this device were to determine the type of taster that was choosing their meals BEFORE calculating a “Pairing Compatiblity Score” and selecting the appropriate wine, that could potentially be much more effective and less likely to alienate those people who have different taste preferences that the designer of the machine. In fact, the author did mention later on in the patent that this could be an option programmed into the device, which I think should be first and foremost an absolute requirement, and not simply an afterthought that “maybe this could be an option” (of course, now I’m just being picky…).

My second problem with this device is that it’s kind of pointless and a waste of money. OK, maybe that’s a little too harsh, but really: the patent author talks about how wine is so complicated and that basically NO ONE is qualified to select the appropriate wine unless they are a certified sommelier (I’m serious: that’s how it reads). The author says that since paying a sommelier can be expensive, investing in this machine is the only option a restaurant has in order to select an appropriate bottle of wine for every diner. Whatever happened to basic wine training? Seriously, sure, wine can be complicated, but choosing wine for dinner doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t have to be for that matter. Just give the waiters and waitresses a basic training and wine and maybe not spend a small fortune to make the wine novice feel even more like a failure when it comes to their own ability to choose wine.

In regards to technology, this “system and method for pairing food with wine” is a neat little computer program that can calculate the “perfect” wine and food pairing based on very detailed information about the selection from the menu and the wines in the cellar. For gadgets sake, it is kind of cool and would be fun to play with. However, if I were a restaurant owner, I don’t think I would spend my money on something like this when some basic wine training for the staff could be just as effective.

What do you all think of this device? Am I crazy to think it’s kind of unnecessary? Have I gone off the deep end? Would you invest in this type of device if you owned a restaurant? What if they made an at-home version? Would you buy it? Please feel free to comment!

Source: United States Patent 8364545: “System and method for pairing food with wine”. Accessed online 3/19/13 http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8364545.html

Posted in Technology

Tagged Tim Hanni, US patents, Vinotype, what wine with what food, wine technology, wine with food

Could UV-Irradiation Replace Sulfur Dioxide in Wines?

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Becca| 2 Comments

—————————————————————————————————-

There are many things that can have an effect on the quality and stability of wine. Specifically, both enzymatic and non-enzymatic oxidative reactions can significantly influence the aromatic and structural quality of a wine, which without appropriate control, can run rampant and cause off-aromas and flavors in the wine, thus spoiling the beverage. Spoilage microorganisms (such as certain yeasts and bacteria), as well as compounds naturally present in wine can cause oxidation reactions or become oxidized themselves, resulting in undesirable sensory characteristics in the finished wine.

In order to control these spoilage microorganisms and undesirable chemical reactions, winemakers have historically (and currently) employed SO2 (sulfur dioxide) during the winemaking process. In recent years, however, there has been a strong push for winemakers to reduce their usage of SO2, stemming

By inspector_81 (originally posted to Flickr as IMG_1381) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

partly from the finding that SO2 exposure could be a health risk for certain individuals. Currently, there isn’t one compound or product that can completely replace SO2 in winemaking, though research is ongoing and has already found that reducing the amount of SO2 used in conjunction with another alternative technology could protect the finished wine just as well as higher levels of SO2 used alone. These alternative technologies include hydrostatic pressure, pulsed electric fields, ultrasound irradiation, and UV (ultraviolet) irradiation.

The study presented today aimed to examine the use of UV irradiation as a protective agent against wine spoilage, while comparing with SO2 and no treatment controls. The measure for determining if any of the treatments protected against wine spoilage or oxidation was polyphenol oxidase activity. Polyphenol oxidase is partially responsible for the browning of white wines after oxidation, so theoretically, if polyphenol oxidase levels are decreased, the wine is not oxidized (or is less oxidized) than a wine with higher polyphenol oxidase levels.

Methods

Two white grapes were used in this study: Xarel-lo and Parellada (from vineyards in Spain). Grapes were processed in a home juicer and then pressed. To remove any solids, juice samples were centrifuged then the liquid removed. The juice was then split, with half remaining as fresh juice and the other half going into a freezer. For both fresh and frozen juice, samples were split into the following treatments: 1) SO2 addition (50 mg/L potassium metabisulphite) prior

By Ben Mills (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

to winemaking; 2) UV irradiation treatment prior to winemaking; and 3) winemaking without SO2 or UV treatments (control).

UV irradiation occurred in a dark chamber that housed the juice and a lamp. The irradiation treatment lasted 3 hours and 30 minutes, with samples taken at 0, 60, 120, 180, and 210 minutes.

Winemaking occurred at the Raimat winery in Lleida, Spain. 500mL of each treatment must were placed into a separate glass bottle. Fermentation occurred within these glass bottles using a commercial yeast.

The following analyses were performed on the samples: pH of the must before and after UV irradiation; pH of the wine; soluble solids content; color of musts and wines; tartaric acid content; alcohol content; volatile acidity; and polyphenol oxidase activity.

Results

• In untreated musts, Xarel-lo musts had higher levels of soluble solids than Parellada musts.
• Polyphenol oxidase activity was decreased in all UV irradiation samples.
o The level of polyphenol oxidase activity remained at 18% +/-1 of its original activity in Xarel-lo samples and at 30% +/- 1 in Parellada samples after UV treatment.
• Polyphenol oxidase activity was completely deactivated by SO2 treatment.
• Polyphenol oxidase activity inactivation was the same for both fresh and frozen samples of grape varieties (i.e. no statistical differences in inactivation between fresh and frozen samples).
• Inactivation constants were higher for Xarel-lo samples than Parellada samples, which the authors attributed to an increased denaturation ability of the enzyme in Xarel-lo samples compared with Parellada samples.
o Inactivation constants were statistically similar between fresh and frozen samples of both grape varieties.
• UV irradiation alone did not cause any change in brightness (color) in any sample.
o In Xarel-lo musts, fermentation caused a decrease in brightness in samples that had been previously irradiated, but not for those treated with SO2.
o In Parellada musts, fermentation caused a decrease in brightness in samples that had been previously irradiated and in untreated samples.
o Frozen musts were less bright after thawing than fresh musts.
• In terms of redness, the freezing and thawing process increased the redness of the sample.
o Wines from UV treated musts were redder than wines from SO2 treated musts.
• In terms of yellowness, untreated frozen samples showed an increase in yellowness (the trend was not seen in UV treated samples).
o In Xarel-lo wines, fermentation of frozen and thawed musts resulted in a decrease in yellowness that was not found in any other treatment.
o In Parellada wines, UV treated musts created less yellow wines than wines made from SO2 treated musts.
• There were no significant differences between any of the treatments in regards to absorbance spectra.
• UV irradiation treatment samples fermented at a slower rate than SO2 treatment samples, which the authors attributed to the decrease in natural microflora caused by UV irradiation.
• There were no significant differences found between any of the samples in regards to density evolution through the winemaking process.
• In terms of enological parameters:
o Freezing and thawing resulted in Xarel-lo wines with lower pH, higher tartaric acid, and higher volatile acidity.
o In Parellada wines, pH was higher in wines made from frozen and thawed musts as well as UV treated musts, however, no in wines made from SO2 treated musts.

Conclusions

The authors of this study reported that based on the results, they can conclude that UV irradiation can partially decrease polyphenol oxidase activity in the white wines Xarel-lo and Parellada. It is important to note that UV treatment did not completely eliminate polyphenol oxidase activity as it did with SO2 treatment, but as the authors mentioned, it could potentially be utilized in concert with reduced SO2 levels.

Though the results of this study are interesting, the results only raise more questions for me. First of all, polyphenol oxidase, while a very important contributor to wine spoilage (in terms of oxidation and browning), it’s not the only one. The authors themselves mentioned a couple other enzymes responsible for wine spoilage, including laccase and peroxidase, though we don’t know how UV irradiation would affect the activity of these browning enzymes.

The authors also mention toward the end of the paper that UV light has historically been shown to have negative consequences on wine, but that those papers only looked at UV exposure on finished wine, and not on the musts prior to fermentation. That’s all well and good, but why would you bother saying that and not present us with the comparison? Wine goes bad with UV exposure, so

By Tarvo Metspalu (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

why wouldn’t the same thing happen with the musts-turned-wine? The authors give no explanation to why they think treating the musts wouldn’t yield the same negative consequences on the wine as it does when exposed to finished wine. Maybe the mechanism and effects are different, but one really shouldn’t make a statement like that unless they are prepared to step up with some results.

After all this talk of wine spoilage, browning, and protection against spoilage and off-aromas or flavors, the study is strongly lacking in any sort of sensory analysis of the finished wines for each treatment. If the primary outcome is strongly tied to aromatic quality, why not have a sensory analysis? I’d be very curious to see how UV irradiation affected the flavor and aroma of the finished wine, particularly after the authors made the statement that UV exposure of finished wines has been shown to have negative sensory effects.

Overall, this study is a good start; however, there are several issues that should be addressed in a follow-up before I am convinced UV irradiation is an appropriate treatment for combating oxidation or spoilage in wines. Don’t give your wines a tan just yet!

What do you all think of this study? Do you see any other problems with the study? Am I being too harsh? What sorts of follow-up experiments or studies would you like to see?

Source: Falguera, V., Forns, M., and Ibarz, A. 2013. UV-vis irradiation: An alternative to reduce SO2 in white wines? LWT – Food Science and Technology 51: 59-64.

Posted in Enology

Tagged antioxidants, enology, sulfur dioxide, wine quality, wine spoilage, wine technology, winemaking

Using Microwave Technology to Eliminate Spoilage Organisms in Oak Barrels: A Novel Approach

Posted on February 18, 2013 by Becca| 6 Comments

—————————————————————————————————-

As many, if not all, of you reading this blog already know, the use of oak in winemaking is a very common practice for adding complexity and quality to a wine. Using oak is typically more expensive than using stainless steel tanks, as the cost of the equipment is simply much higher. As a result of this added cost of using oak barrels, winemakers will often use the same barrel for multiple vintages. Of course, using older barrels is also a style choice and not always a financial necessity, as older barrels give a more delicately oaked wine that is well desired among many wine consumers.

All that being said, using a barrel multiple times brings up the issue of having to clean it properly in order to avoid contaminating the next wine that resides inside of it. The porous structure of wood easily allows microbial and other spoilage organisms to “set up camp”, if you will, and is extremely difficult to remove via the current cleaning systems in place at wineries all over the globe. In fact, the washing process will typically only remove the larger particles and

By Maxdesbacchus (Own work) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

organisms on the surface of the oak, and can easily miss those organisms that are living deeper inside the wood staves. Many organisms, such as the spoilage critters Brettanomyces, can develop into very large colonies while only starting from a very small number of cells. So, even if you think you are cleaning the barrel thoroughly, you could miss just a couple of little buggers and they’ll still propagate and thrive to spoil your next batch of wine by causing off-aromas and unpalatable sensory characteristics.

Since the current method of cleaning and sanitation of wine barrels is relatively sub-par, a method that allows for the removal of all organisms from all crevices of the barrel needs to be found. There is some research on the topic; however, none of the methods so far have been completely effective in reducing spoilage organisms in the oak barrels. The authors of the study presented today introduced the use of microwave technology in order to remove the spoilage organisms from the cracks and crevices of the oak barrel. They claim that this technology could not only potentially solve the spoilage microorganisms problem in oak barrels, but could also reduce the levels of SO2 needed in wine

By Mk2010 (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

since it would no longer be needed to prevent the spoilage usually caused by oak barrel contamination. They also mention that using microwave technology to kill the spoilage organisms in oak barrels would result in the lowering of water consumption and energy costs since the usual high-energy blasts of water would no longer be needed to remove the spoilage organisms.

Methods

The equipment used to sanitize the oak was based off a “pulse train generator of high frequency microwaves”. Oak was exposed to the microwaves for 3 minutes at 3000 watts. Over the three minutes, the following treatment was applied: 0-90% for 10 seconds, followed by 90% for 40 seconds, followed by 90-0% for 10 seconds, all repeated 3 times for a total of 3 minutes. The authors noted that the maximum temperature that occurred on the oak was 48oC.

The equipment used in the experiment was only large enough to treat 30cm length oak staves, though ideally the commercial product would be large enough to treat the entire barrel.

The barrels used in this experiment were: a 3 year old American oak barrel, and a 2 year old French oak barrel. Both were confirmed to be highly contaminated with spoilage organisms from previous winemaking and storage. The barrels were first washed with hot water vapor pressure and then were broken down into staves. Half of the staves were randomly assigned to the microwave treatment, while the other half were assigned to the control treatment (no microwave exposure). Treatments were performed in duplicate.

Microbial analysis was performed by collecting wood scrapings from each of the staves to a depth of 8mm.

Results

• The most prominent organism found in both microwave-treated oak staves and control oak staves was Brettanomyces bruxellenxis, representing 99.6% and 98% of the respective microbial populations.
• Even after being washed with hot water vapor pressure, the staves from both American and French staves in the control treatment had a high level of microbial contamination.
o Total cell counts found in control oak staves were: 4.16 log units of total yeasts, 3.27 log units of Brettanomyces, 2.15 log units for lactic acid bacteria, and 2.48 log units for acetic acid bacteria.
• The microwave treatment on the oak staves resulted in significantly fewer microbial population counts than the control treatment.
o Total cell counts found in the microwave-treated oak staves were: 3.24 log units of total yeasts, 2.74 log units of Brettanomyces, 0.20 log units of lactic acid bacteria, and 0 log units of acetic acid bacteria.
• The microwave treatment resulted in a 36-38% reduction in the yeast population, a 35-67% reduction in the Brettanomyces population, a 91-100% reduction in the lactic acid bacteria population, and finally a 100% reduction (i.e. total elimination) of the acetic acid bacteria population.
• The percentage of reduction of microorganisms was larger in American oak barrel staves, which the authors deduce is possibly a result of the greater porosity of French oak barrel staves allowing for greater wine infiltration and thus greater difficulty in cleaning and sanitizing the barrels.
• The microwave treatment did not affect the chemical composition and quality of the wood itself.

Conclusions

The results of this study are fascinating in that microwave treatment of oak barrel staves effectively reduces yeast populations inside the pores of the wood, and nearly eliminates the lactic and acetic acid bacterial populations. While it doesn’t completely eliminate all of the spoilage microorganisms responsible for creating off flavors and aromas in wine (i.e. Brettanomyces yeasts), it does significantly reduce them, and in certain cases remove them all together (i.e. lactic and acetic acid bacteria). According to the authors, this microwave treatment is a significant improvement over any of the current cleaning and

Photo by Bernt Rostad: http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3457/3246033875_f9556cf61b.jpg

sanitizing methods for removing potential contaminants in oak barrels.

I agree with the authors when they suggested perhaps combining the microwave treatment with another method for microorganism removal, such as laser, ultrasonics, or UV radiation, all of which are currently being studied as possible methods for contaminant removal. Perhaps the combination of one or more of these methods would create a synergy that could remove significantly more of the microbial population than either one on their own. Microwave treatment appears to nearly eliminate all of the lactic acid and acetic acid bacteria in the oak barrel staves, so combining it with a method that effectively reduces the yeasts populations may result in the “perfect storm” of spoilage organism removal techniques.

Determining if a system could be created that would effectively reduce or eliminate the spoilage organism populations in whole oak barrels, and not simply oak barrel staves, is of utmost importance. Real world applications of this technique will occur in the whole barrel, so it is important to determine if this method will work in this scenario, or if the system needs to be altered or tweaked in any way, in order to remain effective in this different scenario.

The authors mentioned that the microwave treatment did not affect the chemical composition of the wood itself, but only affected the microbial population. I would like to see a sensory analysis of wine fermented and/or stored in these microwaved barrels (compared to controls) in order to confirm that, in fact, the chemical composition of the barrels did not change.

If this technique can be applied on a larger scale (i.e. at the intact whole barrel level), it could be a very good investment for the wine industry, particularly if a combination treatment is found to eliminate not only the bacteria populations but also the trouble yeasts. Not only would the winemaker not have to worry about spoilage in their wines (theoretically), but they would not have to use as much SO2 for protecting against these potential contaminants, and they would not be wasting nearly as much water on the hot water vapor pressure washing process. Good for the winemaker, good for the consumer, and good for the environment (theoretically!).

I’d love to hear what you all think! Please feel free to leave your comments!

Source: González-Arenzana, L., Santamaría, P., López, R., Garijo, P., Gutiérrez, A.R., Garde-Cerdán, T., and López-Alfaro, I. 2013. Microwave technology as a new tool to improve microbial control of oak barrels: A preliminary study. Food Control 30: 536-539.

Posted in Enology

Tagged oak barrels, spoiled wine, wine in oak, wine quality, wine technology, winemaking

Wine Technology of the Future: Wine Bag Carrier

Posted on January 18, 2013 by Becca| 2 Comments

“Wine Technology of the Future” is a series on The Academic Wino that features new inventions and patents that attempt to make your wine experience easier and more enjoyable. Previously on this series, we’ve introduced the “self aerating wine bottle”; the “corkscrew with integral intelligent thermometer”; “wine dispensing and preservation device”; and most recently the “multi-stream wine aerating device”. Today’s invention is the “Wine Bag Carrier” invented by Jerry Griffith from Loudon, TN. The patent was filed on March 16^th, 2012 and was published on October 11^th, 2012.

According to the inventor, this wine bag carrier was invented as an alternative to the current bag-in-box wine packaging. Specifically first, the author noted that the cardboard box that holds the plastic bag of wine inside is bulky and the same size regardless of whether or not the bag inside was full or empty. He cites that this is an issue for those lacking refrigerator space. Second, the author cites the wine bag carrier was invented to act as a literal carrier of wine from place to place. The bag could be worn on one’s shoulders for convenient travel and use in a variety of places.

Figure 2 from US Patent 0255971

The patent’s design indicates that the bag is insulated, thereby allowing the carrier to be transported out and about and still maintain the coolness of the wine inside. Just think—you can be our own personal travelling bar whenever you wished! The design of the bag is also such that as the wine is consumed, the sides of the bag may compress (unlike a cardboard box) allowing a greater utilization of space in one’s refrigerator. By compressing the bag, getting the last little bit of wine at the bottom of the bag is much easier to remove than it is when it is contained in the incompressible cardboard box.

I’m not going to lie; this invention is really straight forward and simple. It’s not a fancy complicated aerator or wine preservation device: it’s a bag. Simple concepts sometimes make great designs!

The wine bag carrier is designed to be insulated, with a bottom and two insulated sides. On one of the sides, there is an opening designed to fit the tap of the bag containing the wine. The inventor noted that the size of the bag is large enough to fit the standard wine-in-box-sized plastic wine bag. The bag is also outfitted with a messenger bag-style strap that one can easily wear around one’s shoulders. In addition, the bag is equip with a tap that protrudes from the side of the bag for easy pouring and is protected when not in use by a circular flange (i.e. a little cap).

Figures 4 and 5 from US Patent 0255971

What do you do when you’ve finished the bag of wine? The wine bag carrier is designed to unzip from one size in order to remove the empty bag and replace it with a full bag of wine. One would think having this cloth wine bag carrier would result in a decrease in waste due to not having the cardboard box housing the bag, however, since stores don’t sell the plastic bags of wine separate from the cardboard boxes, one would have to purchase a box of wine and then remove the bag from the cardboard to place in the cloth wine bag carrier. The cardboard box is then still waste and the cloth wine bag carrier hasn’t reduced the waste at all. If one were to sell the plastic bag of wine without the cardboard box, then the amount of waste produced could be reduced.

This could be a fun accessory and conversation piece for parties, picnics, sporting events, or any other get together that involves people getting together to enjoy a bit of the grape and each others’ company. In all honesty, it’s probably not something I would purchase for myself, but I think it certainly has its’ place in the economy. This product reminds me of the product already on the market, the “Menu Baggy Winecoat” (click for a description), though the wine bag carrier looks to be a little easier to carry due to its strap across the shoulders/back instead of the clutch-like handle on the Winecoat.

What do you all think of this invention? Is it something you could see yourself purchasing and using? Please feel free to leave your comments!

Patent Source: United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2012/0255971 A1; http://patents.com/us-20120255971.html

Posted in Technology

Tagged bag in a box, boxed wine, wine bag, wine carrier, wine technology

Tag Archives: wine technology

Wine Technology of the Future: System and Method for Pairing Food with Wine

Could UV-Irradiation Replace Sulfur Dioxide in Wines?

Using Microwave Technology to Eliminate Spoilage Organisms in Oak Barrels: A Novel Approach

Wine Technology of the Future: Wine Bag Carrier

Click to vote!

Categories

Recent Posts

Follow Us!

Sign Up For E-mail Updates!

Recommended by The Academic Wino:

Archives