You are on page 1of 12

Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ifset

High hydrostatic pressure treatment of beer and wine: A review
Sencer Buzrul ⁎
Tütün ve Alkol Piyasası Düzenleme Kurumu (TAPDK), 06520, Ankara, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: High hydrostatic pressure (HHP) technology has become a reality in the food industry. Commercial use of HHP has
Received 21 May 2011 been accepted in many countries and it is possible to find and buy products treated by HHP such as meat products,
Accepted 1 October 2011 sea foods and fruit juices. Nevertheless, no HHP-treated beer and wine are introduced in the market throughout
the world although rice wine is one of the earliest HHP-treated commercial products that appeared on the Japa-
Keywords:
nese market. This contribution compiles the studies about HHP on beer and wine: in addition to microbial destruc-
High hydrostatic pressure
Beer
tion, it has been reported that HHP improves some organoleptic properties of beer and wine without detrimental
Wine effects on important quality characteristics, such as color, pH and turbidity. Although more studies should be car-
Stabilization ried out on the sensory properties and consumer attitudes to HHP-treated beer and wine, HHP could be an alter-
Microbial inactivation native to the existing stabilization methods used in beer and wine industries.
Sensory properties Industrial Relevance: Studies have shown that HHP treatment not only inactivates the undesirable microorganisms
but also improves the organoleptic properties of beer and wine. The pressure levels used to treat beer and wine
were similar to the commercial applications used in fruit juice industry i.e., 400-600 MPa. Therefore, HHP has a
huge potential to eliminate the negative effect of heat on the aroma and flavor beer and also to reduce the SO2
levels used in wine.
© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2. Applications of HHP on brewing process and beer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Applications of HHP on wine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Concluding remarks and future perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

1. Introduction is defined as exposure to 60 °C for 1 min. Although laboratory tests have
indicated that values from 1 to 5 PU are effective for microbial inactiva-
Beer is the most consumed alcoholic beverage in the world and its tion, 8–30 PU are generally used, perhaps to have a built-in safety factor
microbial stability is achieved by heat treatment. The stability of beer in case of possible resistant organisms (Tshang & Ingledew, 1982). How-
up to several months can be provided if the spoilage organisms are ever, off-flavors are easily formed during pasteurization since beer is a
destroyed. Heat treatment is either done by flash pasteurization, delicate beverage. With “freshness” being top priority, it is evident a
where beer is first pasteurized and then packaged aseptically usually method of pasteurization using no heat would be of great help to the
into metal kegs, or by tunnel pasteurization, in which beer is first brewing industry (Folkes, 2004).
filled into sterile glass bottles and then pasteurized through tunnel Unlike beer, wine cannot be treated with heat since wine charac-
pasteurizers (Buzrul, 2003; 2007). teristics such as flavor, taste and color are very sensitive to tempera-
Commercial rule of thumb has been to use a time–temperature rela- ture (Mermelstein, 1998). Therefore, a common practice is the
tionship of 15 min at 60 °C i.e., 15 pasteurization units (PU), where 1 PU addition of sulfur dioxide (SO2) to wine, which is added to reduce
the microbial population of the grape must and to preserve the final
⁎ Tel.: + 90 312 218 0438; fax: + 90 312 218 0430. product for long period of time (Ribéreau-Gayon, Dubourdieu,
E-mail addresses: sencer.buzrul@tapdk.gov.tr, sencer.buzrul@gmail.com. Donèche, & Lonvaud, 2006). SO2 acts as both an antimicrobial agent

1466-8564/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ifset.2011.10.001

On the contrary. 2008. & Barroso. phase. & Calderón. 2002). Untreated sample was used as the most popular one. The heat pasteurized world. Russ. Morata. Currently. 2000. ethanol. López. Although. no HHP-treated alcoholic beverage heat pasteurization. Results revealed that both HHP and heat treatments did not fective method for increasing food safety and shelf life while preserv. Chen & Hoover. No lactic acid bacteria were detected in either of the sta- & Guamis. sea foods and meat products can be affected the pH. Under these conditions. Viscosity decreased as 20 °C for both heat pasteurized and HHP samples. Castro. However. Bartowsky. and Vogel (2000) investigated the effects of HHP but at higher pressures it was not observed. water in polyethylene bags at room temperature (RT) was pressurized the C⁎ (color saturation) decreased in all samples during storage and at 300. Del haze compared to untreated and HHP samples. Samples were treated at 600 MPa for 5 min. HorA) or- For the treatment of wort by Fischer et al. 1998. (1998) applied HHP on mash. high-molecular and low. extract. control. wort and beer. ment was made at 60 °C for 10 min. microbiologically safe and with an extended shelf-life. Gergely. 2002). Buzrul. iso-α-acids. During the last 20 years scientific studies on the effect of HHP on var. wine industry is chal. The content of solved protein. few data have been reported about significant influence on these parameters (except for bitterness) and the use of HHP on beer and wine. metabolic activity. HHP and the heat pasteurization food products such as fruit juices. Del Pozo-Insfran. At 1. Arfelli. a⁎. Today's Castellari. The HHP beers retained a significantly higher such as beer and wine is introduced in the market throughout the permanent haze throughout the storage period. 500 and 700 MPa for 5 min treat- but unfortunately these techniques have detrimental effects on the sen. Shao. at the same time. perhaps. As the controls wort cerevisiae to a cell count of about 5 × 10 6 cells mL −1. & Mor-Mur. Fitzgerald. The microbiological analyses confirmed that both HHP and heat molecular nitrogen of HHP-treated mash samples increased as the pres. (PEN) bottles. such as filtration and fining are efficient in controlling microbial growth. 26 and 49 days of storage one bottle from Yuste. du Toit. 2008). Schöberl. affect the main chemical constituents of the beer (insignificant differ- ing the organoleptic properties of food products (Farkas & Hoover. & Cruess. Ting. 1992. & Michiels. 1993). Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) increased significantly with the Japanese market (Suzuki. Both HHP and heat Follo-Martinez. Fischer et al. Montero. with an increase of chill haze values pects of HHP-treated beer and wine will also be underlined. Fermentation degree on survival. (possesses a plasmid-encoded hop resistant mechanism. and Amati (2000) compared HHP consumers demand for high quality foods that are free from additives. & Demazeau. However. 2000). Untreated mash sample was used was always lower in HHP beers. 500 and 700 MPa for 5 min. Wuytack. Samples were treated by HHP (600 MPa for 5 min) 2003. Tanaka & Hatanaka. Among the HHP-treated samples best isomeri- used in wine production (du Toit & Pretorius. yeast and molds counts about 4 Garcia-Graells. & Bartels. obtained for both treatments compared to control). Ramaswamy. 1996. San Martín. membrane integrity and hop resis- dropped with the increasing pressure. Riponi. Krebbers. All samples were then stored in the Van Opstal. bitterness. bilized beer samples. Gänzle. Comparison was done with untreated and pasteurized Fredericks. Techniques zation was obtained at 700 MPa for 30 min. turbidity increased at 500 and 700 MPa. change the color. Suárez. As a result of combining effects of these trends. & Fukumoto. 1993). Pla. & Kalchayanand. Ferragut. (2000). Goodridge. The coagulatable creases in microbiological counts and no lactic acid bacteria develop- nitrogen increased up to 500 MPa and dropped thereafter. 50 g of malt grain with 100 mL of distilled heat treated samples. a whole range of each of the treatments was analyzed. 2007. During storage the chromatic index a⁎ (red-green) of HHP cess and beer was done by Fischer. and heat pasteurization of beer. & Borderías. and Meyer-Pittroff treated pale ale increased more slowly while the b⁎ (yellow-blue) (1998). wort samples ganism isolated from spoiled beer] in model beer (MB). Kubo. Capellas. Largeteau. 2009. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 and an antioxidant in wine (Amerine. Masschalck. Therefore. rice wine (nigori-sake) is no interactions between factors were found for these analytical pa- one of the earliest HHP-treated commercial products that appeared on rameters. dark at 20 °C. 2005. 2007). Permanent haze was more influenced by the stabi- lizing process in pale ale than in mild ale. Two pale ales and mild ale beers fresh tasting. 2007. 2008. 2007. The results revealed that the bitterness and the amount health (Romano & Suzzi. 1997. (1998) tried 300. Fukuhisa. Buzrul. biochemical and sensorial as. 2004). and heat (60 °C for 10 min). as the control. 500 and 700 MPa for 5 min. No significant in- sure increased. 1967. & Michiels. b⁎). López-Caballero. the storage time had no den Berg. (60 °C for 20 min) beer samples. 2004). Vanmuysen. The objective of this contribution is to compile the studies of beers showed a sharp decrease of Nephelos Turbidity Unit (NTU) HHP on beer and wine. 2. ments on bright lager beer samples in polyethylene naphthalate sorial properties of the wine (Armada & Falqué. the quality and safety of food products are for the arising of turbidity dropped by the HHP treatment compared among the most important factors that influence the consumer to untreated and heat pasteurized beer samples. In a second trial a pale ale and a mild ale were used by Castellari Ogawa. The microbiological. MB was pre- were pressurized at 300. while ious food products has been explored (Alemán et al.. Free amino ment were observed during the entire storage period (49 days) at nitrogen (FAN) decreased compared to control. & Vatai. Heat pasteurization significantly reduced permanent Demazeau. However. Capellas. & Zhu. El Moueffak et al. and heat treat- Among these methods high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) is. 2006.1 MPa). Bozoglu. Willford. The potential In modern times. compared to untreated mash sample. and additionally pared by inoculating malt extract medium with Saccharomyces a sample was treated at 700 MPa for 30 min. Alpas. (1998). Pérez-Mateos. & Robbins. Gervilla. 1995. First trial was made with a pale ale beer. Pazo. but all the other color indices were higher in heat processed To the best of author's knowledge. first trial of HHP on brewing pro. Rasanayagam et al. 2001. & untreated beer. Barbosa-Cánovas. ences for pH. Stewart. the pressure increased. foam durability and the spectrum of flavor mate- Lepe. Unfiltered beer This led the food industry to investigate alternative processing samples were taken directly from the storage tanks at the maturation methods (Balasubramaniam. Carpi. et al.. Romano & samples were cooked for 30 and 60 min at atmospheric pressure Suzzi.. SO2 can have negative effects on human (0. log10 cycles. treatments gave comparable microbial inactivation. catechins were 2000. HHP-treated samples did not significantly differ from color of Largeteau. For value decreased in a more dramatic way than in the corresponding the treatment of mash. & Krügel.2 S. Applications of HHP on brewing process and beer The different stabilization processes had no influence on the light- ness (L⁎). HHP treatment did not significantly 2003. heat treatment increased the color parameters (L⁎. Alpas. of iso-α-acids could be increased more by conventional cooking lenged to meet consumers' demands of reducing the levels of SO2 than HHP treatment. rials. & Sleator. treatments reduced total aerobic. 2004. were used. Kelly. samples. 2011. This nonthermal processing technique is an ef. & Swanson. bitterness and phenols content of beers up to 49 days found on market shelves all around the world (Matser. Fischer et al. Berg. At 300 MPa saccharification slightly took place Ulmer. García. Talcott. The mash was . Hill. & Brenes. 2002).460 [a highly hop-resistant for pH value. values in the first days of storage. 14. choices (Considine. 1990. 8. van of storage similarly. Suárez. Hauben. No changes were determined tance of Lactobacillus plantarum TMW1. Bekassy-Molnar.

400 and 600 MPa for 20 min by Pérez-Lamela et al. and Vogel (2002) investigated the HHP inactiva- within 48 h whereas uninjured cells remained unaffected by cold tion of L. MB mashing liquid obtained by mixing 5 g of milled malt and 46 mL of dis- containing 5 and 10% ethanol or MB containing 50 and 100 ppm tilled water at RT was sealed in separate plastic bags. all the cells were killed during com. 400 and 600 MPa for 20 min. 400. 200. Pérez-Lamela. Untreated sample steeped in water for 8 h used as the control. were milled. Green malt samples treated with HHP had higher CWE values than occurred prior to cell death. 100. Untreated sample steeped in water for 8 h with demineralized water. Sigmoidal (starting with downward the grains was practically unaffected by the application of HHP. After a 30. 5% ethanol. indicating loss of hop resistance. Pérez-Lamela. at 0. 500. Pressurization with 600 MPa resulted in the control. L. 46 mL of distilled water was added to each and the samples Gänzle. For the β-glucanase (this en- brane was facilitated. ethanol [5 and 10% (w/w)] and isomerized hop extract significant difference was observed between different pressure containing 22% iso-α-acids (50 and 100 ppm) were used. One sample was hop extract. et al. plantarum in MB indicated that membrane damage trol. 60. Ulmer. MB was prepared as de- storage. (2000). values. plantarum than ethanol. and viable cell counts dropped below the detection level (50 and 100 mg L −1) and ethanol (5 and 10%) revealed that addition after 27 h of storage. Cells that a loss of product did not occur. Non-linear survival curves were observed. 100. 300. Addition of left at 0. and Simal-Gándara (2001) applied moved by centrifugation. as a result of excessive enzy- 400 and 500 MPa. duce the viable cell counts by 99% and uninjured cells by 99. times at 15 °C) inactivation of L. had stronger effect on pressure inactivation than the addition of hop . no loss of cell viability zyme breaks down gums and β-glucans in wort and is desirable to ob- or sublethal injury was observed by plate counts.0. lower hot water extract (HWE) values. Ledward. During the first 12 min. Gänzle et al. and Vogel (2001) investigated the effect of ethanol were pressurized at 200. (2001). 400 and lethally injured. and the weight loss was compensated for and 400 MPa for 20 min. and MB containing 5% ethanol. cell counts of ethanol and hop extract accelerated HHP (300 MPa for various were below the detection level on either non-selective (MRS) or se. Inoculation of HHP-treated L.and a tain good quality beer) activity measurement batches of 20 g of malt 60-min pressure holding time. plantarum in MB system during control of 5 g of milled malt was left at 0. ruption became more marked at 600 MPa than 400 MPa.e. concentration. S. Results showed that increase in um was sterilized at 121 °C for 21 min. 400 or 500 MPa. however at longer holding times (more (2001). A and hop extract on inactivation of L. 500. One sample was left at 0. 50. At 600 MPa. and Simal-Gándara (2002) applied ternal low EB concentration although EB diffusion across the mem. bags. At higher pressures (400 and 600 MPa). Ethanol added at the level of 10% had a milled malt and 46 mL of distilled water were sealed in plastic bags much stronger effect on pressure inactivation than 100 ppm hop at RT.. Addition of ethanol lective (MRS-NaCl) agar after 2 h of storage. A reduction of viable cell counts was observed during 600 MPa treatments resulted in much higher values (of sucrose and storage (storage temperature was 10 °C) of HHP-treated cells in MB extract values) than the untreated control. Reed. however. water distribution increased from 62% to 84%. sublethal Hydrogen peroxide test and staining method indicated that viability of injury was no longer observed. respectively). 600 MPa and 15 °C for storage had a far pronounced effect on survival of HHP-treated various holding times. Reed. In the absence of additives about 10 min was required to re. residu. Prior to HHP experiments cells were inoculated into MB. At 200 MPa more than 60 min was required for about 6 Viable cell counts were reduced by 90% within 3 h. plantarum and S. plantarum in injury was not observed. The clear supernatant was collected. (2002): batches of 5 g of to obtain the same effect. 600 MPa and 15 °C for var. The pH was adjusted to 4. commercially bled compared with that found at lower pressures (50–200 MPa). plantarum in MB. and the medi. Hop extract in a concentration of 50 ppm (2000) were obtained: As the pressure increased inactivation in- resulted in sublethal injury of virtually all cells within 3 h of storage. Gänzle. than 60. 200 evaporator under vacuum. An appreciable effect of ethanol on either viable or sublethal scribed by Ulmer et al. were treated at 50. creased. (2000). No hop extract.1 MPa with 46 mL of distilled and after HHP treatment. MB was prepared as described by Ulmer water for 20 min. 400. HHP at RT to the mashing of white malt. 100. Sublethally injured cells were killed Ulmer. heat sterilized and the yeast was re. In commercially available beer. 400. treated at 25. samples pression period. The presence of hop compounds during MB were HHP treated at 200.1 MPa used as the control. Untreated sample steeped in water for 8 h used as the con- surized cells of L. concavity and ending up with upward concavity) survival curve of To determine the cold water extract (CWE) [CWE values are indica- HHP-treated L. HHP caused the gelatinization of starch: dis- in MB. HWE values were not affected by HHP indicating complete loss of metabolic activity and membrane integrity. 200 and 400 MPa for 20 min by Pérez-Lamela Diffusion of ethidium bromide (EB) through membranes of pres. plantarum in MB on non-selective To determine the viability of pressurized barley grains. Batches of 5 g of milled malt were weighed into plastic clude EB. Inoculated cells of L. pressurized at 200 MPa for 0 to 12 min were able to maintain an in. HHP treatment reduced the Although sucrose and extract values of HHP treated samples were viable cell counts by 90% and rendered 90% of the surviving cells sub. plantarum water from 12% to 20% could be achieved by HHP treatment and the in MB were HHP treated at 200. or both. All experi. 500 and 600 MPa for 20 min. 400 MPa for 20 min had the similar values with that of control. Survival was monitored were treated at 50. only tailing (upward concavity) was observed for survival curves at i. ments were performed at 300 MPa and 20 °C for various holding For starch gelatinization measurement by Pérez-Lamela et al. samples were (MRS) and selective (MRS-NaCl) media demonstrated sublethal inju. available beer was used for comparison.1 MPa for 3 h (untreated control).99% Sugar (sucrose in g per 100 mL) and extract (l kg −1) values were whereas 6 min was enough in the presence of 100 ppm hop extract also determined by Pérez-Lamela et al. ry during HHP treatment. process in the brew-house (heat treated control) and the others (2001) employed 300 MPa 5 min treatment. The β-glucanase activity in wet-treated malt et al. the cultures lost their ability to ex. (2002) times. Similar results with that of Ulmer et al. To obtain MB with specified content of ethanol and showed a decrease compared to control samples following HHP. indicating rapid log10 reduction while at 600 MPa compression period resulted in inactivation of cells that were already sublethally injured by HHP more than 6 log10 reduction.1 MPa for 20 min (control) and the others were treated at 400 ethanol and hop extract accelerated HHP inactivation of L. 12 or 2 min at 200. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 3 fermented for 140 h at 10 °C. respective- in MB (no addition of either hops or ethanol). Ledward. whereas tive of over-modification of the malt with associated loss of product. one sample was treated at 65 °C for 35 min to mimic the mashing To observe the survival of HHP-treated L. uvarum in MB. plantarum and 600 MPa for 20 min. 100. 300. Inoculated cells of L. plantarum. Additionally. plantarum in MB was observed at 200 MPa. matic activity] of pressurized germinated barley (green malt). HHP treatment of MB with hop extract treatment. HHP to accelerate the process of malting: 5 g of barley with 5 mL of al ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2) were removed in a rotary distilled water in plastic bags was pressurized at 40. sucrose content was dou- 50 ppm hop extract. lower than the heat treated control (65 °C for 35 min). MB containing ly. Treatment of ious holding times.

conventional heat pasteurization (60 °C for 15 min). but pressures up to could not be detected. Untreated samples at 0. Trials performed with the shift filters indicated that filterabili. However. and Bozoglu (2005a).4 S. As the controls wort samples were cooked for 30 and 60 min at atmo.6) a maximum was of thermal isomerization products. rate was not very significant. protein sensitivity and chill haze values increased as fractions and particle size showed no change. than the other beer. 300. Change in bitterness glucan-gel decreased. Heinz. plantarum sample were also higher. acetic acid bacteria was inhibited for 56 days of storage. Authors concluded that although the ef- Two different types of beer were used by Fischer et al. Russ. of 56 days showed that HHP and heat pasteurization had similar re- cating that stability (up to 500 MPa) became better. β-amylase was most stable at 200 MPa. 400 and 600 MPa for 20 min. especially at 500–600 MPa.1 MPa were used as con- remained stable while HHP-treated L. extract. Highest thermostability of β- of iso-α-acids was detected at 700 MPa. The effect of HHP on filterability of beer on kie. 250. (2005a) investigated the effects of (2002) to determine the effects of HHP on colloidal stability. However.6). No inacti. Only the content of β. sealed and Effects of HHP on microbiological and technological characteristics treated at 200.1–900 MPa) and temperature (30–75 °C) on the activ- sults with that of Fischer et al. Filtered bright lager beer samples change was observed for the turbidity of both beers at 300 and were either treated with HHP (350 MPa for 3 and 5 min at 20 °C) or 500 MPa compared to untreated samples. anthocyanogens. and the level of filtration time was a bit higher from a commercial brewery were treated either by HHP (200. (2004). Bitterness value for heat treated sample was vation but only sublethal injury was observed at pH 6 and 7 whereas much higher than the ones for untreated and HHP-treated samples. as well as at 900 MPa and 40 °C. the other with enormous filtration prob. fect of HHP (0.1 M ACES buffer. and the development of both lactic and wort were pressurized: 11° and 16° (% sugars) Plato lager worts.1 MPa and heat treated samples ing times. Reed. and Simal-Gándara (2004). but only one peak was in the area reaction of β-glucans in ACES buffer (0. iso-α-acids and total α-acids of the heat treated treatment (300 MPa for 5 min at 15 °C) indicated that L. To investigate the influ. more than 5 log10 inactivation took place at pH values lower than 5. storage (at 15 °C) of MB with Lager and ale beers were used by Pérez-Lamela et al. similar values for DMS. HHP treatments were performed at 300. treated and untreated samples were approximately 25% lower than hanced the loss of metabolic and HorA activities of L. erant than S. 500 and 700 MPa for to saturated ammonium sulfate precipitation limit (SASPL) value. such as the shift filter. α-acids. No HHP on shelf-life of lager beer. and Meyer-Pittroff (2002) treated the wort and beer and haze characteristics of the beer. at 200 and 250 MPa (even at 65 °C) inactivation pH. lems. plantarum in MB was also studied by Ulmer et al. 500 and 700 MPa for pH 5. At temperatures above 55 °C and (30 min instead of 5 min) led to even better results. The color. HHP and heat pas- provement of beer filterability several substances responsible for the teurization affected color. might be suitable for other mashing enzymes as well. Plato wort samples had no effect on pH. 350 MPa for 3 and 5 min at 20 °C) or by conventional heat pas- selguhr filter revealed the improvement of the specific filterability teurization (60 °C for 15 min). protein sensitivity and bitter- filterability were determined: polyphenols. Similar results were obtained for the treatment of 16° Plato wort sam- Storage (at 10 °C) of MB with 50 mg L −1 hop extract and 0% etha. density. 20–70 °C for various hold- and 20 min. 11° Plato wort samples were poured into plastic bags. uvarum in MB 600 MPa for 20 min. of β-glucanase was observed resulting in a complete loss of enzyme ing time by this treatment. Wort samples were pressurized at 300. at ambient pressure (45 °C). 10 in ACES was HHP treated at 0. To understand the effect of HHP on the im. A storage period bidity decreased at 300 and 500 MPa and increased at 700 MPa indi. Potential for arising the tur. were not affected by either treatment. The other HHP induced isomeriza. Untreated samples at 0. Another study done on the effects of HHP on wort and beer was The microbiological stability of HHP-treated beers was the same as that of Pérez-Lamela. Two types of that of heat-treated beers. parable with water. glucanase was investigated in a model system (0. Enzymatic catalysis was found to be was employed to identify iso-α-acids using HPLC. total protein and β-glucan. than the heat pasteurized samples at the end of the storage period. Holding time of HHP treatment on 16° cells died completely within 24 h. For the overall depolymerization induced isomerization occurred. Product stability. pH 5. however. heat treated wort. Alpas.1 MPa and above Plato wort samples treated by HHP indicated that HHP did not affect 500 MPa. The sample treated at 300 MPa was even com.1 MPa were used as controls.1–700 MPa. At 300 and 500 MPa β-glucan-gel content was higher in conventional heat pasteurization. 500 and 10 min at 15 °C) showed that number of cells of S. Similar results were obtained for the beer with Effect of HHP on quality parameters of lager beer was studied by enormous filtration problems: filtration time decreased to about Buzrul. A significant HHP delayed by pressures up to 600 MPa. Results of 11° with rising pressure. 400. uvarum. improved with pressurization. high inactivation reduced the treatment time because there were no heating and cool. Longer treatment time glucanase was found at 400 MPa. HHP treatment of beer resulted in an increase in the foaming Fischer. (2002). ples: pH did not change. plantarum was more pressure tol. Moreover. bitterness of heat treated wort sample was nol and MB with 50 mg L −1 hop extract and 5% ethanol after HHP higher. identified at 215 MPa and 55 °C yielding approximately 2/3 higher tion products fulfilled the characteristics of iso-α-acids. In another study Buzrul et al. and Knorr (2005) investigated the combined ef- spheric pressure just like Fischer et al. 16° Plato wort samples were treated at 600 MPa for 5. Two types of beer (Lager and Pilsener) were used by Fischer et al. Sam- 50 mg L −1 hop extract after HHP (100 MPa and 200 MPa for 5 and ples were poured into plastic bags and treated at 300. (2006): β-amylase from barley ence of time. The only difference was that the best effect had as ethanol content. directly related by HHP. chill haze. (1998) did before. plantarum died within 32 h. HHP treatment ambient pressure. total HHP treatment indicated that L. been achieved at 500 MPa. HHP-treated samples had beer was more stable because of the higher content of hop lower bitterness and protein sensitivity and higher chill haze values ingredients. protein ness. HHP treatment (300 MPa for various times at 15 °C) also en. Similar re. Moreover. was 5 min. (2002): one fect of pressure and temperature on the catalytic potential of β- with no filtration problems. bitterness. fermentation degree and pH. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 extract. iso-α-acids. but they were degradation of β-glucan after 20 min as compared to the maximum not identical with the thermal ones. the pressure and pressurization time increased. the results could be transferred to the real mashing process 5 min. . Buckow. Results showed that temperature tolerance increased (65 °C for 90 min) at 0. Inactivation increased at 0. Dimethyl sulfide (DMS) decreased by the applica- Effect of pH value for HHP (500 MPa for 5 min at 15 °C) inactivation tion of heat whereas untreated and HHP-treated samples had the on L. The main attributes of the beer. and additionally a sample was treated at 700 MPa for 30 min. 300 MPa had no significant affect on bitterness. An extra treatment at 600 MPa for 30 min activity in less than 30 min. of beer were studied by Fischer et al. Heat treatment increased the color while the color of HHP. (1998) were obtained: clear increase ity of β-glucanase from barley malt. The reported effect time decreased to 50%. Unpasteurized lager beer samples 50% at 300 MPa. trols. Pilsener type sults in terms of pH and color.1 M. plantarum in MB. with possible small deviations in enzyme stability due to the protect- ty of the beer with no filtration problems became better: filtration ing effects of high solid and ion concentrations.

France) wine (pH 3. The examinations of the filterability and behavior of β-glucan gel Sensory evaluation was done by 5 specialists on three wines: a) were carried out with beer and model systems by Fischer et al. Tonello.5) and HHP treatment (300 MPa. respectively. Inactivation fur- the optimum at 0. Demazeau.15 log10 monohydrate indicated that the optimum could be reached at after HHP treatment for 1 and 5 min. To reach an inactivation of 90%. Initial yeast count (6. 5. red and rosé). in model beer with pH 4. however. The best temperature tolerance ther increased after 3 days of storage. 102. β-glucanase from Bacillus untreated wine. plantarum at 200 MPa and neutral pH for var. aldehyde. the and the second between (a) and (c). In a first attempt.7 mg L −1 isohumolone) ing in the samples after 6 h from HHP treatment was significantly and high hop content (35. It The SO2 was produced by yeast during fermentation.1–1000 MPa. A significant stabilization against thermal 5. 11. It was observed that the filterability increased with ris. tion at 250 MPa for 10 and 20 min. Two Moscato wines obtained had the following above 500 MPa) resulted in a decrease in viscosity of the samples compositions a) 8. ious holding times (up to 32 min) showed insignificant reduction. eters compared with the untreated wine. after the treatments. (2006) examined the effect of pH (4. (350 MPa for 10 min) wine. at short pressurization times. 10 and 15 min were similar to that of of approximately 105 °C were necessary. Sauternes wine treated at 300 MPa for various times indicated 20–90 °C for various holding times. however.9 log10 yeasts) were treated at 400 MPa for 20 s. 700 MPa. 6. respectively. the tasters succeeded in differentiating the wines whereas in the sec- 20 °C for 1.0. 12. whereas no colonies Same red wines with lactic and acetic acid bacteria (one had 3 log10 were observed for 10 and 20 min treatment at 300 MPa. 20 °C for The results showed that HHP (600 MPa for 3 min) had a strong an- 60 min) and following storage at a pH value of 6. In addition. Applications of HHP on wine anol levels at 9. All treatments were effective for the reduction of yeasts resulted in complete elimination of yeasts. upon storage inactivation was not observed crease of dissolved oxygen content appeared stronger in the treated indicating this strain was highly hop tolerant. 30–70 °C was higher than that of HHP treated wine samples (300 MPa for 1. Sublethal injury was observed ments (300 to 600 MPa) were done at 20 °C initially. and 4 min the survival rates were 19. isms added to the sweet wine (a) died. Sauternes (a sweet white crease in inactivation of yeasts was observed for the wines containing wine from Bordeaux. the cells with lowered hop resistance died in the pres.1 log10 the tion at 250 MPa for 20 min. servation however. a third wine 6. b and c). up to 120 min) on L.1 MPa and 65 °C.88 and to 98 g L −1) was added to wines. Storage at pH types of wine (a. HHP treatment (200 MPa up to nificant for the very low SO2 content. the de- tion. ing pressure: the optimum was reached between 300 and 500 MPa.2 log10 the other whereas more than 3 log10 reduction was possible after pressuriza. unfiltered commercial beer with filtra. reducing sugars) was treated with HHP (200–400 MPa) for various There was no difference in inactivation of yeasts when sugar (8 g L −1 holding times. while at 300 MPa for 2 min HHP treatment of L. 20 °C for various holding times (c) was obtained by adding absolute ethanol to (b) up to 15.93. Three days after (samples in wines: treatment at 400 MPa for 2 min completely eliminated the were kept at 25 °C during 3 days) the HHP treatment. samples were yeasts in liqueur-like white wine containing 0. however First report about HHP on wine was that of Lonvaud-Funel. 200. no residual sugars.4. 400 and 500 MPa. The optical density (color values) of untreated wine subtilis in ACES buffer were HHP treated at 0. except a weak browning Consequently. however. In the first evaluation none of beer samples were HHP treated at 100.0 the membrane transport system 64 mg L −1 SO2) resulted in no relevant variation of the color param- HorA was completely inactivated rendering the cells hop sensitive. Treatment (600 MPa for 2 min) of Asti Spumante wine (pH 3. Treatment of 300 MPa for 6 min at RT resulted in complete elimination of yeasts in all wines.1–1200 MPa.88 log10) decreased to 4. Demazeau. Due to oxidation during storage color values in- influence at 400 MPa and an increase of the transferring rate at creased. brevis in beers with low (16. 146 mg L −1 acet- with different β-glucan gel concentrations. lactic acid and 5. 500. Pressurization at 370 and 400 MPa for other had 2.4 log10 yeasts whereas only small numbers of showed that yeast counts were 4.2 log10 lactic . 300.18 and 3. 50.2 log10 acetic acid bacteria the other had 2. Second study about HHP on wine was done by Delfini et al. At 400 MPa for 2 min all the microorgan- 5.57%.22% ethanol.3% ethanol. molds. lactic and acetic acid bacteria were used.35% ethanol. sugars 177.0 and 4.4 mg L −1 Fischer et al. First evaluation was done between (a) and (b). Viscosities of the wine samples was at about 700 MPa. for various holding times. timicrobial effect: 6 log10 (complete inactivation) was observed for all radation of 20% of the content of colony forming units. Sulfite-added wine (250 mg L −1) b) HHP-treated (350 MPa for (2006). tendency over time (90 days of storage) that can be considered insig- ence of hops within a few hours. Tasting of the wines was done 12 days tion problems was HHP treated at 300. but only in the first 5 min after air injection. Glucose produced from maltose that initial yeast count (6. no SO2 and gel content: As the pressure increased β-glucan gel content decreased ethanol present) and Moscato wines obtained from the same grape in both beer and model system. The model systems were produced of isolated β-glucan 10 min) and sulfite-added wine (250 mg L −1) c) HHP-treated from barley. ond evaluation HHP-treated wine was easily recognized by the tasters selguhr filter. 64 mg L −1 total SO2. when the same treatment was applied for only 1 min significant in- Dupont. Barbera grape must (pH 3. whereas complete 370 MPa and 85 °C which was about 35% higher in comparison to elimination of yeasts was possible for 10 and 15 min.67 and 10. and Bignon (1994). and Lonvaud-Funel (1996a) used HHP treatment to inactivate yeasts.2 g L −1. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 5 Amyloglucosidase in ACES was HHP treated at 0.0 resulted in a reduction of 90% to 95%. respectively. samples. was not confirmed after 24 h. 300 MPa for 10 and 20 min. had 0.8 mg L −1 isohumolone) at 200 MPa for var. temperatures treated at 300 MPa for 1. Two types of liqueur-like white wine (one had 3. 150. yeasts managed to survive in other white and red wines. 13 and 15%. Alcohol was used to adjust eth- 3. because of oxidation.4 log10 yeasts) and two types of red wine (one had 3. HHP treat- 5 log10 reduction could be achieved. wines. 168 mg L −1 acetaldehyde. Mixture of was found that inactivation was more effective at lower pH values: yeast. Table 1 summarizes the studies done about brewing process and beer. lactic and acetic acid bacteria in different wines (white. S. The oxygen concentration exist- 32 min) of L.0 and total SO2. The results wine containing 3. b) 11. The analysis was carried out with kie.30 log10) decreased to 4. untreated wine was darker than the HHP-treated 200 MPa and 58 °C of about 40% were measured. 70 g L −1 13 and 15% ethanol compared to wines containing 9 and 11% ethanol.0. higher in the untreated samples than in the pressurized ones.5 g L −1 residual sugars. respectively. 1 and 5 min. 4.95 and 2. Largeteau.48 log10 after pressuriza. 20 °C for 5 min. this ob- ious holding times (up to 32 min) also showed no significant reduc. HHP treatment (especially at and must were used. 300 and 500 s. 350 and 400 MPa for 15 min 2 min at RT. The reason for this improvement was the decrease in the β-glucan (1995). Secondly. HHP treatment (300 MPa.54 log10 after HHP treatment at 200 and 250 MPa.0. 10 and 15 min). 5.4 log10 yeasts and red again treated at 250 and 300 MPa for 10 and 20 min.5 affected only a deg.19%. plantarum (moderately hop tolerant) in MB. The analysis was carried out with a cellulose shift filter.

5 min Mash − Solved protein. 30–70 °C. et al. 20 min 5 g of milled malt with 46 mL of distilled water − Decrease of β. 0. thermostability. Pérez- Lamela tract values. 20 min 5 g of barley with 5 mL of distilled water − Viability of the grains Pérez- Lamela was unaffected.500 and 700 MPa. 300. (2005) − High inactivation at >55 °C and 0. 100. various holding times Amyloglucosidase in ACES buffer − The best temperature Fischer et al. various holding times β-glucanase from Bacillus subtilis in ACES buffer − Stabilization against Fischer et al. pressures.6 S. Pressure. temperatures of approximately 105 °C were necessary. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 Table 1 Applications of high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) on brewing process and beer. (2002) − No difference between different pressure values. 30–75 °C β-glucanase from barley malt in ACES buffer − Increase in Buckow et al. 400. 500 and 600 MPa. − No effect for hot water (2001) extract value.1–900 MPa. 200. 0. higher than the untreated control. 200 and 400 MPa. low- (1998) molecular and coagu- latable nitrogen increased. and at 900 MPa and 40 °C. 100. 60. 100. 400 and 600 MPa. Pérez- Lamela glucanase activity in et al. Fischer et al. Pérez- Lamela tinization of starch.1 MPa.1–700 MPa. − Saccharification slightly took place. 400 and 600 MPa. 20–90 °C. − Free amino nitrogen. 20 min Germinated barley − Higher cold water ex. 20 min 5 g of barley with 5 mL of distilled water − Increase in water and Pérez- Lamela water distribution. tolerance was at about (2006) 700 MPa. wet-treated malt. 300.1–1000 MPa. time Sample treated Achievements Reference 40. thermal influence at (2006) 400 MPa. 20–70 °C. (2006) − Inactivation increased at 0. (2001) 50. 200 and 400 MPa. (2001) 100. temperature. various holding times β-amylase from barley in ACES buffer − Temperature tolerance Fischer et al. . viscosity and fermen- tation degree decreased.1–1200 MPa. (2002) 50. 200. 20 min 5 g of milled malt with 46 mL of distilled water − Sucrose content was Pérez- Lamela higher at higher et al. 400 and 600 MPa. (2002) − Sucrose and extract values were lower than the heat treated samples. et al. high. − No changes for pH. 0. molecular. 20 min 5 g of milled malt with 46 mL of distilled water − HHP caused the gela. increased. − To reach an inactivation of 90%. et al.1 MPa and above 500 MPa. room temperature. et al. 0.

10 and 20 min 16° Plato wort − pH did not change. (2004) ted wort sample was higher. − No effect of holding time on pH. 600 MPa. 5. 20 min 11° Plato wort − No effect on pH. 300. 5 min Wort − Similar results with Fischer + et al. Fischer et al. 5 min Wort − Bitterness and the Fischer + et al. − High permanent haze throughout the storage period. time Sample treated Achievements Reference − Increase of the trans- ferring rate. − Reduction of total aero- bic. 600 and 700 MPa. yeast and molds counts. − Increase in turbidity. 300. (2004) − HHP-treated samples had similar values for dimethyl sulfide. total α- acids. chemical constituents (2000) of the beer. 5 min Unfiltered and unpasteurized pale ale beer − No effect on main Castellari et al. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 7 Table 1 (continued) Pressure. total protein and β-Glucan. bitterness and (2000) phenols content of beers up to 49 days of storage similarly. 30 min (2002) (1998). Pérez- Lamela − Lower color values of et al. temperature. than heated wort. − No increase in microbi- ological counts and no lactic acid bacteria de- velopment were (continued on next page) . iso-α-acids. that of Fischer et al. 5 min Unfiltered and unpasteurized pale ale and mild ale beers − HHP and heat affected Castellari et al. 300. 30 min (1998) increased more by heat than HHP. foam durability and (1998) the spectrum of flavor materials. the pH. S. Pérez- Lamela et bitterness of heat trea- al. 600 MPa. 500 and 700 MPa. − No significant changes on color. − Bitterness for heat trea- ted sample was higher. − Best isomerization was obtained at 700 MPa for 30 min. 5 min Beer − No change for color. 400 and 600 MPa. 500 and 700 MPa. − Decrease in potential for the arising of turbidity. − No lactic acid bacteria were detected. amount of iso-α-acids 700 MPa. − Permanent haze was more influenced in pale ale than in mild ale. 600 MPa . 200. bitterness. 500 and 700 MPa.

300. 100. temperature. 300. teristics of the beer. . 250. various holding times Model beer (MB) with Lactobacillus plantarum − Sublethal injury and Ulmer et al. − Membrane damage occurred prior to cell death. hop tolerant. beer were not affected. 20 min Lager and ale beers − Increase in the foam. 350 MPa. et al. − No effect on bitterness up to 300 MPa. (2004) − Improvement of satu- rated ammonium sul- fate precipitation limit value. 200. 20 °C. terms of pH and color (2005b) for HHP and heat dur- ing 56 days. 300 and 350 MPa. plantarum or L. 400. 500 and 700 MPa. (2005a) − The color. 300.8 S. protein sensitivity and chill haze increased as the pressure and time increased. 20 °C. Pérez- Lamela ing and haze charac- et al. plantarum or L. 1. 5 min Unfiltered commercial beer with filtration problems − Filterability increased Fischer + et al. 400. Fischer et al. − Development of lactic and acetic acid bacte- ria was inhibited. 200. 300. various holding times up to 32 min Low hop content beer with L. 3 and 5 min Unpasteurized lager beer − Main attributes of the Buzrul et al. non-linear survival (2000) curves were observed. better: filtration time Beer with enormous filtration problems (2002) decreased to 50%. 500 and 700 MPa. (2006) 200. 5 min Beer with no filtration problems − Filterability became Fischer + et al. − For the beer with enormous filtration problems: the level of filtration time was higher than the other beer. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 Table 1 (continued) Pressure. 300. 300 and 500 s (2006) 200 MPa. (2002) − Potential for arising the turbidity decreased at 300 and 500 MPa and increased at 700 MPa. brevis et al. served for the turbidity. 3 and 5 min Unpasteurized lager beer − Similar results in Buzrul. − Loss of hop resistance. − Complete loss of met- abolic activity and membrane integrity. time Sample treated Achievements Reference observed during the entire storage period. brevis+ − L. 400 and 500 MPa. 15 °C. 500 and 600 MPa. 500 and 600 MPa. 20 °C. − Pilsener type beer was more stable. 500 and 700 MPa. with rising pressure. 20 °C. brevis was highly Fischer High hop content beer with L. 150. − HHP-treated samples had lower bitterness and protein sensitivity and higher chill haze values than the heat pasteurized samples. 5 min Lager and Pilsener beers − No change was ob.

15 °C. cell counts were below the detection level after 2 h. 300. uvarum. (2006) values. 5 min MB (50 mg L−1 hop extract) with L. 500 MPa.4 log10 wine. a wine with the disease of grease and two other wines contam. plantarum − Complete inactivation Ulmer + et al. time Sample treated Achievements Reference 300 MPa. 300 MPa. − Ethanol had much stronger effect on in- activation than hop extract. MB (50 mg L−1 hop extract) with Saccharomyces uvarum (2002) 300 MPa. 5 min MB with L. 1 and 2 min at RT. Gänzle et al. et al.0 and 7. 20 °C.5 log10 of S. plantarum − Similar results with Ulmer et al. − In commercial beer. 5 min MB with L. − Higher inactivation at pH b 5. liqueur-like white wine. 100 MPa and 200 MPa. − The presence of hop compounds during storage had a far pro- nounced effect on sur- vival of HHP-treated cells than ethanol. Same treatment was also suc- Different wines (white dry wine. 300 MPa. of Pediococcus damnosus in wine with the disease of grease. respectively. All lactic acid bacteria were destroyed even in (1996a). various holding times MB with L. liqueur-like white wine.7 log10 and the other . cerevisiae present in white dry wine and inactivation of acetic acid bacteria in red wines. plantarum L. − Sublethally injured cells were killed with- in 48 h. (2002) (2000). ludwigii in rosé wine and 3. For the inated with Acetobacter aceti) were also treated at 300 MPa for 20 s. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 9 Table 1 (continued) Pressure. plantarum (2001) storage (at 10 °C). within 24 h at a stor- MB (50 mg L−1 hop extract and 5% ethanol) with L. rosé cessful to eliminate 3. plantarum was more pressure Ulmer + tolerant than S.4 log10 acetic acid bacteria) were also treated at 400 MPa for 1 min and 6 min and 400 MPa 20 s and 1 min at RT by Tonello et al. aceti (one had 3. was observed during Commercial beer with L. tract accelerated HHP (2001) inactivation. only sublethal injury (2002) at pH 6. Treatment of 300 MPa for 20 s was sufficient to eliminate 20 s whereas 2 min at the same pressure level was needed for complete 2. − Hop extract resulted in sublethal injury of virtually all cells with- in 3 h of storage. various holding times up to 120 min MB with L. 15 °C.Fischer vation at lower pH et al. 200. acid and 5.0. 20 °C.7 log10 of S. wines contaminated with A. that of Ulmer et al. plantarum − Ethanol and hop ex. 5 and 10 min MB (50 mg L−1 hop extract) with L. temperature.0. − Sublethal injury at short holding times. 500 and 600 MPa.5 and 3. plantarum − More effective inacti. 15 °C. 20 s. plantarum − A reduction of cells Gänzle + et al. 400. 15 °C. plantarum (2002) age temperature of 10 °C. 20 °C. plantarum − No inactivation but Ulmer et al. S. − Viable cell counts were reduced by 90% within 3h and dropped below the detection level after 27 h of storage. various holding times MB with L.

Demazeau. ples of three series which was due to the plastic container used in HHP Tonello. there were no differences in the aroma. aceti and A. (2003) also compared HHP with filtration in terms of mi- showed that there was a variation in resistance to HHP among the crobiological and biochemical stabilization. ludwigii). respectively. D+9 wine contained 8. in wines. cerevisiae found between untreated and HHP-treated wines.068%. Among the three treatments. reducing sugars and most probably attract the consumers' attention. White. acidity 0. the one with HHP produced the HHP treatment of wines. in case of .10 S. 4 °C for and 15% (v/v)] and sugar (50% of glucose and 50% of fructose) during 7 min). was observed.6. was added to one batch of white wine with concentrations of 15. Although there is pH compared to untreated wines. There was no difference in inacti. however. Sensory analyses of values whereas much higher inactivation was observed for wine con.1 MPa. red wine indicated that treatments B and C had positive impact in major- taining 15% of alcohol. Com. and Tauscher (2008) applied HHP to wine from the and 98 g L−1. A white wine (with 40–50 mg L −1 of total SO2) and a red wine (with 80–90 mg L −1 of total SO2) were used. Refermentation. and 2. 10. 1 min and 6 min. 10. free and the HHP-treated product would have a “fresh-like” taste and would total SO2. (B) Kieselguhr filtration +filtration through a resistant strain was used to show the effect of alcohol [8.8 and 15% alcohol content wines. Nevertheless.6. Two yeasts: S. The aerobic bacteria decreased below the detection limit after wines. aceti. HHP treatments resulted in almost complete inactiva. protein stability. the microbiological and biochemical stabilization of wines by use of Table 2 summarizes the studies done about wine. pH 3. It should be noted that installation of an HHP equipment to a tective effect on yeasts and bacteria. About 3 and 5 log10 reductions of yeast in 15% alcohol content Sensory evaluation done using 10 trained panels revealed that wine were observed at 300 MPa for 20 s and 1 min. total and volatile acidity. Butz. respectively. 3. Poly- wines with alcohol levels of 8. mouth-feel and overall plete elimination (about 7 log10) of yeasts in all wines was observed sensory quality between the HHP-treated (350 MPa for 10 min) and after 6 min pressurization at 300 MPa. cerevisiae in tively. 300 MPa for The original microbial count (5. cerevisiae after 9 days (D+9) or Dornfelder grape variety. Mixture (50/50) of glucose and fructose and ethanol were used to 20 min pressurization at 300 MPa and 10 min pressurization at adjust sugar and alcohol content of wines. Xarel-lo) to wine containing 13. and Lonvaud-Funel (1998) studied the 1. the potential of HHP technology is huge in both beer (109 CFU·L −1 of each wine) were inoculated into wines. Wines made with S. pasteurianus able today. 1 min treatment resulted in less than 2 log10 reduction. aceti) were also treated at 300 MPa for 20 s. due to the activity of yeast 20 °C for 20 s. Sugar addition (15. 20 and 400 MPa for 1 min resulted in 5 log10 reduction of A. The alcohol lactic acid bacteria (initial count of 5. of stationary phase and the beginning of decline phase were also pressur. Three stabilization techniques were applied to wines: resulted in complete inactivation for all strains of S. When wine was that of D+9 yeast. aceti was yeasts and lactic acid bacteria in wine before HHP treatment. lactic acid.46 log10) decreased to 2. in the heat-treated wine had an alcoholic content of 9. 10 different batches of wine strains of S. There were about 5. Tasters detected plastic taste in sam- and 1 min could be used for complete inactivation. present in wine. 400–600 MPa. icant differences in colorimetric parameters and in phenolic components cohol levels.44 and Tonello. 10.8.82 log10 after HHP treatment at 300 MPa for 5 and 10 min.5 g L−1 sugar and D+18 70 °C for 1 h) samples was detected whereas. brewery or a winery would definitely bring an extra cost. highest reduction of yeasts. Initial microbial count reduced to 2. and Mínguez (2003) investigated anthocyanin composition or antioxidant activity were found. and 13% (v/v) alcohol content wines. cerevisiae in wines: one strain was completely eliminated (red and white) with their natural microbial flora were used. malic acid. whereas for the white wine di- when sugar at the concentrations of 25 g L −1 to 98 g L −1 was added versity according to the type of wine (Macabeu. plantarum and Oenococcus onei (10 9 CFU·L−1 of each Although very few studies on beer and wine with HHP are avail- wine). and wine industries: Studies have shown that HHP treatment not ments were done at 400 or 500 MPa for 5 or 15 min with 4 °C or 20 °C only inactivates the undesirable microorganisms but also improves of temperature. Treatment at 300 MPa for 6 min and 35 g L−1. phenoloxidase activity. 10.6 log10) decreased to 3. Treatment of 2. 5 log10 reduction log10 microorganisms (total aerobes) and about 5.46 and 1. No signif- plete elimination (7 log10) of the most resistant yeast in wine at all al. Sugar (7 log10) whereas reduction was only about 1. tions used in fruit juice industry i.6. (1996b). cerevisiae or S. was observed in samples treated by A and B.7 log10 for the most re. HHP treatment at 300 MPa. cerevisiae 4. pressure resistant than lactic acid bacteria and yeasts. 1 min and HHP (100–350 MPa for 0 to 30 min at 25 °C). Vilavella. 1 min and 6 min Puig et al.3 log10 after HHP treatment at 250 MPa for 5. alcohol level. and Lonvaud-Funel (1996b) ap. A. respec- HHP (180–300 MPa for various times at RT) inactivation of S. (2006) studied the pasteurization of low-alcohol red (S. 13 module filter. 10. HHP.27. Chardonnay. subjected to 600 MPa. no loss of Mv3gl was observed com- The results showed that barosensitivity of D+18 yeast was higher than pared to untreated sample (0. Other than this observation no organoleptic differences was plied HHP to inactivate different commercial strains of S. Initial yeast count (5.46 log10) inactivated at 300 MPa content increased the yeast inactivation but only when it was greater for 20 min or 350 MPa for 5 min.9% alcohol and 1.8 log10 after HHP treatment at 300 MPa for 10 and 20 min.6. Treatments of 20 s and 1 min revealed that yeast in were observed in 10 batches of wine treated with three techniques. taste. untreated samples. than 13%. total sugar 0.1% and a sugar content of 0. 70 °C for 10 min. Largeteau. Most (A) Kieselguhr filtration. no significant differences in Puig.85. Concluding remarks and future perspectives and Brettanomyces bruxellensis (10 7 CFU·L−1 of each wine). Sensory evaluation was done with no sensory evaluation of HHP-treated beer in literature.8 and 13% had similar inactivation phenoloxidase activity was undetectable in all cases. 30 min.1 MPa. the organoleptic properties of beer and wine. The pressure levels tion (6 log10 reduction for yeasts and 8 log10 reduction for bacteria) of used to treat beer and wine were similar to the commercial applica- the microorganisms for all conditions. Treatment of 6 min resulted in com. (0. Daoudi. Demazeau.. Largeteau.38. 70 °C for 1 h) samples. lactic acid bacteria (Pediococcus) and acetic wine (9% ethanol. 20 °C for 1 h). there was a significant 300 MPa for 30 min treatment killed all the yeasts in wine whereas all difference between 8. respectively. Guamis. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 had 4.46 log10 of both of yeasts and Pediococcus was possible at 300 MPa for 20 s.3% of alcohol.6 6 min and 400 MPa for 1 min by Tonello et al. Treatments were again applied at 300 MPa. treatment. HHP treatment at 300 MPa for 350 MPa. vation of yeast when wine was fortified with sugar between 8 g L−1 Corrales.15 20 s and 1 min showed no significant inactivation levels between 8. cerevisiae. (C) Kieselguhr filtration +HHP (500 MPa. HHP treatments did not affect poly. There was no difference in inactivation of yeast ity of the cases compared to treatment A. 20 °C for 20 s. A decrease in the concentration of Mv3gl in pressurized (600 MPa at ized.851%) using acid bacteria (A.07. two acetic acid bacteria: A. red and rosé wines each inoculated with either yeast Mok et al. HHP treat.9 g L−1. two lactic acid bacteria: L.e.2 log10) treatments of 300 MPa for 6 min and 400 MPa for 20 s 12 series of tasting using 8 tasters. 25 sistant strain after 20 s at 300 MPa. 25 and 35 g L −1) to white wine had no baropro. The stability of the predominant anthocya- 18 days (D+18) of fermentation which were respectively in the middle nins such as malvidin-3-O-glucoside (Mv3gl) in wine was monitored.

70 °C. red. Tonello temperature. C. although SO2 can have negative effects on human health it acts as both an antimicrobial agent and an antioxidant in wine. On the other hand. S. study is dedicated to the employees of Alcoholic Beverages Market duction and also the product itself should be performed. Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 11 Table 2 Applications of high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) on wine. alcohol level. 300 and 400 MPa. − Oxidation took place in HHP treated samples during storage. 600 MPa. 15 min (2003) acid bacteria. mouth-feel and overall sensory quality between the HHP-treated and untreated samples. − No differences in the aroma. Delfini Asti Spumante wine et al. Lonvaud- Funel et al. room temperature. 1 h Wine from the Dornfelder grape variety − Decrease in the concentration of malvidin-3-O. 0–30 min Low-alcohol red wine − Complete inactivation of yeasts. − Ethanol addition accelerated inactivation of yeasts whereas sugar addition had no effect. reducing sugars and pH. − No effect on polyphenoloxidase activity. Wines with S. cerevisiae in wines & complete elimination of (1996b) S. aceti et al. The compile the some of the references used in this contribution. various holding times Sauternes wine − Complete elimination of yeasts. R. lactic and acetic Puig et al. lactic acid. 4 °C or 20 °C. temperature. 5 or White and red wines − Complete inactivation of yeasts. Nevertheless. − A. 300–600 MPa. use of HHP could help Acknowledgments the wine industry to reduce the levels of SO2 or HHP could be used in combination with other antimicrobial agents such as nisin. 25 °C. 600 MPa. aceti was pressure resistant than lactic acid bacteria and yeasts. lactic and acetic Mok et al. 20 °C Moscato wines obtained from Barbera grape must+ − HHP had a strong antimicrobial effect. S. malic acid. room White. − No variation of the color parameters compared (1995) with the untreated wine. 100–350 MPa. Moreover. This cost analyses of the treatment with respect to the capacity of the pro. Department in TAPDK. (1994) − Color values of untreated wine was higher than that of HHP treated wine samples. − Kieselguhr filtration + HHP produced the highest reduction of yeasts compared to Kieselguhr filtra- tion only and Kieselguhr filtration + filtration through a module filter. 10 min (2008) − No differences in anthocyanin composition or an- tioxidant activity. 180–300 MPa. Aceti. − No change in viscosity. Pressure. protein stability. − Complete elimination of lactic and acetic acid bacteria. 20 °C. various holding Wines contaminated with S. Author thanks Prof. cerevisiae. Vogel for supply- Future studies may focus more on sensory evaluations since HHP ing their studies about beer and Mr. total and volatile acidity. 70 °C. free and total SO2. HHP-treated beer and untreated beer willingness to pay HHP-treated beer or wine. . various holding times Liqueur-like white wine+ et al. time Sample treated Achievements Reference 200–400 MPa. (1996a. 300 MPa& 400. Tonello various holding times et al. might have the similar taste. cerevisiae − Similar results with that of Tonello et al. Corrales + et al. rosé wines+ − Complete elimination of yeasts. − No organoleptic differences between untreated and HHP-treated wines. taste. glucoside. cerevisiae or S. Pérez-Lamela and Prof. − No baroprotective effect of sugar addition on yeasts and bacteria. Erkan Fırat Yağar for his help to proved itself to destroy spoilage organisms in beer and wine. ludwigii. 1996b) (1998) 400 or 500 MPa. (2006) acid bacteria. − Complete elimination of A. − Ethanol addition accelerated inactivation of yeasts Wine with the disease of grease+ (1996a) Wines contaminated with Acetobacter aceti whereas sugar addition had no effect. beer the negative effect of heat on the aroma and flavor beer could be surveys should be done to investigate the consumer awareness and eliminated by use of HHP. − Variation in resistance to HHP among the strains of Tonello times Pediococcus and A.

M. G. M. Yuste.. Sonk. (2002). Ulmer. 19–24). (2007).). 40. alcoholic fermentation on volatile composition of white wines.. Journal of Food Control. W.. Pasteurization of beer by a continuous dense-phase CO2 system. (1998). Protection. . high pressure sterilisation on quality of food products. M. El Moueffak. Stability of San Martín.. J. M.. Park. High pressure inactivation of Lactobacillus Ulmer. 553–558. (2003). W. Pérez-Lamela. J. M. & Bignon. zation to improve wine filtration. G. In R. I. P. Y. H. D. 4–9. 5. R. Rovere. high hydrostatic pressure. Balasubramaniam. N. M. & Simal-Gándara. Cocito. 63. E. H. Ulmer. M. V. (1996). C. Tshang. M. Matser..). & Cruess. 225.. & Swanson.. 85. H. F. (2011). Bekassy-Molnar. Talcott. F.. Journal of Food Science.. Pérez-Lamela. A. 265–269.. & Tauscher. 66. A. Carpi... (2004). Chichester: cessing — effects on microbial food safety and food quality. (2004). Demazeau. 451–455. L. & Barroso. C. A. Pulsed ultra high pressure treatments for pasteurization of pineapple Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin. 1672–1676. 173–177. J. M. (2006). 627–635. 52 84. G.. Essais de mutage de Alemán. Journal of Food Science. High hydrostatic combinations on the activity of β-glucanase from barley malt... 466–472. 100. M... H. G. G. & Vogel. Fischer. 193–220). & Bartels. C. 39. metabolic activity of Lactobacillus plantarum TMW1. 124. Bush. 1219–1225. Journal of Food Science and Technology.. J. High pressure-processed foods in Japan and the world. 57–66. S. Bozoglu.. Publishers. Advantages of Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies. Ruan. Farkas. 615–618. Innovative Food Science Journal of Food Science. M. G. High pressure biology and medicine Brauwissenschaft. E. H. Food Chemistry. A. E. Hill. Dupont.. S. (2006). W.... S. (2001). M. B. Buzrul.). S. Pazo. R. Pressure inactivation of yeasts. Schöberl.. López. Demazeau. Russ. G.. S. Efficacy of ultraviolet radiation as an Ulmer. Butz. (2009). M. leptic properties of sherry wine. 408–412. & Pretorius. H. R. H. (1995). Ting. 281. Inactivation of Escherichia wort and beer.. Trends in high pressure bioscience and biotechnology Symposium International d'Œnologie (pp. S.. C. The use of sulphur Considine. B. High-pressure pro- dioxide in must and wine treatment. S. Walker. (1995). M. : Elsevier Science. Carpi. J.. & Suzzi. F. Repercussion of the clarification treatment agents before the 671–675. A. K.. R. Suárez-Lepe. Lonvaud-Funel. 42. M. R. Montero.. Studies on heat resistance of wild yeasts Ph. (2004). F. (2003).. 30. E. N. F. Food Chemistry.. G. M. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. H.. Lim. & Brenes. (2003). J. A.. (2005). S. A suitable model of microbial survival curves for beer pasteurization... Balasubramaniam. G. G. and bacteria in beer. 510–517.. Journal of Food Science prevent its after-acidification. Ledward. Handbook of enology (pp.. J. D. H. search. Delfini. Antoine. Willford. 373–393).. Journal of Food Protection. Alpas. H. Hawes. Chen. (2000). S. S. M. C. M. & Vogel. Wuytack.. H. (2007). Compression of high-pressure treatment in the mashing of white malt in the elaboration process heating of selected pressure transmitting fluids and liquid foods during high hy- of beer. Trends in Food Science & Bartowsky. (2004). V. C. R. A. 28. & Calderón. Gainesville. 39. F. & Ingledew. Agricultural and Biological Buzrul. Romano. : University of Rochester Press. Reed. Y. Largeteau. A. M. H. D. Del Pozo-Insfran.. 51. M. Journal of Food Engineering. Y. Sizer. L. E. et al. B. 110. du Toit. High pressure processing. D. J. University of Florida. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on quality pa- of high pressure treatment to the malting of barley seeds in the elaboration process rameters of lager beer... S. P. & R. Middle East Technical University. P. Fleet Corrales. 79–85.. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on quality parameters and shelf-life molds and pectinesterase in Satsuma mandarin juice — effects of juice concentration. C. Journal of Food Process Engineering. E. Buckow. & Lonvaud-Funel. Alpas. (pp.. Pérez-Lamela. Bulletin Castellari.. Tonello. 76(869–870).460. G.. A. A. International Trends in high pressure bioscience and biotechnology (pp. 30. T. 299–306. High pressure and pasteurization effect on duck foie gras. W.. R. Largeteau. 68. 269–276. L.. 737–743. B. hydrostatischem hochdruck auf den brauprozess und das bier. Marquis (Eds. M. Ferragut. F. Anthocyanin condensation reactions under (Ed.. G. Demchenko. A. Stabilisation microbiologi- sure. 60. Vilavella. Demazeau. (1990). Food pressure on Listeria innocua 910 CECT inoculated into ewe's milk. Journal of Food Science. & Krügel. A. 254–259.. In P. & Demazeau.. & Mínguez. coli and Listeria innocua in kiwifruit and pineapple juices by high hydrostatic pres- Puig.. Tonello. pH and organic-acids and comparison with heat sanitisation. & Hatanaka. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists. (1982). 143–151. Y. P. Hauben. C... et al.. W. Résistance aux Fischer. W. C. sure treatments for beer stabilization. & Robbins. S.. C. 149–156. C. High pressure advantages for brewery hautes pressions des micro-organismes du vin: Applications à la stabilisation. A.. Largeteau. A. 596–617. et al.. Demazeau. P. 388–390. (2001). & Vogel. Reed. Cruz. (2002). & Knorr. 1–9. Reed. : Elsevier Science. E. que et biochimique des vins par application de la technique de hautes pressions.. C. & Meyer-Pittroff. 397–404). G.. D. ter preservation by high-pressure treatment. Journal of Food Science. & Meyer-Pittroff. (2007)..D. B... & Falqué. Fitzgerald. E. (2006). Daoudi. R. In the technology of wine making. C. A. G. (1996). H. -S.. K. Gänzle. (2006)... J. R.. S. 53–56. M. Journal of the Japanese Society for Food Science and (Supplement). Gänzle.. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. laboratory practices for conducting high-pressure microbial inactivation experiments. R. Les applications drostatic high pressure on microbiological and technological characteristics of éventuelles des hautes pressions en œnologie. Buckow. 120–123. W. 258–262. 1174–1181. & Lonvaud.. A. P. 220. G. V. I. CT. Conterno. T... Food processing by copigmented anthocyanins and ascorbic acid in muscadine grape juice processed by high hydrostatic pressure. 28. R. (1998).. of lager beer. M. Turkey. (2004). Buzrul / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 13 (2012) 1–12 References Goodridge. Ting. & Borderías. & Lonvaud-Funel. & Guamis. & Vatai.. & Lonvaud-Funel. temperatures in buffer and carrot juice. Effects of hy- Tonello. W.. J. F. G... Ramaswamy... Largeteau. & Simal-Gándara. Krebbers. A. I. (2002). (1993). The use of multiobjective optimi- 98.. life of lager beer. Capellas. 65. and sublethal injury of pressure-resistant Escherichia coli mutants in fruit juices. & Hoover.. V. India: Research Signpost. A. R. T.. (1997). C. & Hoover. (1998)... Stewart. F. Barbosa-Cánovas. 212. Microbiology.). Inactivation of Escherichia coli by high hydrostatic pressure at different Applied and Environmental Microbiology. V. Pla.. Garcia-Graells. 66. R. 179–191.12 S. Chemistry.. Russ. Destruction of Salmonella Enteritidis inoculated onto raw almond by high hydrostatic pressure. Castro. S. (pp.. I.. (2000). International Journal of Food Microbiology. Arfelli. E. Capellas. (2002). G. Application of hydrostatic-pressure to yoghurt to Farkas. H. S247–S253. G.. C. 72. M. J. Gänzle. 111. Monatsschrift für Brauwissenschaft. 357–374. Kelly. (1998). Journal of Wine Re- and pathogenic bacteria in raw milk cheese.. The use of activated Amerine. Hayashi (Ed. (2007). Use of Weibull model to describe and predict pressure Compression heating of selected fatty food materials during high-pressure processing.. A.. Masschalck. Gergely. V. Y. R. Folkes. Armada. High pressure in- Fischer. Deutsche Lebensmittel-Rundschau.. International Journal of Food Microbiology. Recent Research Development Agricultural & Food Chemistry (pp... Effect of high hydrostatic and nisin to mechanically recovered poultry meat for microbial decontamination. D. In G. (2000). G. (2007).. 64.... Fukuhisa. & Chen. 71. 5. B. : Harwood Academic high hydrostatic pressure... J. S. C. Demazeau. Rasanayagam. Application of high-pressure processing Gervilla. S. F. Alpas. Russ. (2008).. European Food Research and Technology. D. C. C... -T. 1330–1336. 102. Heinz. (1967). G. K. 33–37. and Emerging Technologies. Letters in Technology. 1–8. Vanmuysen. 48. beer. W. J. Behr. Oys- and Technology. High-pressure destruction kinetics of spoilage stabilisation of grape musts and wines by high hydrostatic pressure. S. & Zhu. 13. Tanaka.. F. & Amati... Recommended 196–201. (2000).. Applied Microbiology. (2008). et al.. USA. J. B. & Anderson. W. Abtötung bierschädlicher mikroorganismen plantarum in a model beer system. A. Dubourdieu. V. 74–96... Application Buzrul. Monatsschrift für Bennett. of beer. & Kalchayanand. Food Re- search International. García. In R. High hydrostatic pres- de l'OIV. A. A.. Y. A. 102–108).. Bacterial spoilage of wine and approaches to minimize it. (2002). J. I. Hayashi (Ed. (2008). 54. Journal of the Food Science and Agriculture. Del Follo-Martinez. & Demazeau. 47–64. Morata. 974–977. J. Guamis. R.. 6. Wine microbiology and biotechnology (pp. A. 86. The production of ethylphenols weapons from nature's own arsenal — a review. 3966–3973. A. Largeteau. Pérez-Mateos. G..... & Michiels. 352–356). 90–99.. M.. G. Beer and wine making.. Effect of high hydrostatic pressure–temperature Mok. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 275–278. Brewing. S. drostatic pressure treatment. S. & Sleator. O. V. Ribéreau-Gayon. C.. (1994). USA: AVI Publishing Company Inc. Microbiological Shao. South African Journal of Enology in wine by yeasts of the genera Brettanomyces and Dekkera: a review. 85. (2000).. D.. Microbial spoilage and preservation of wine: using Suárez. R.. L. Donèche. European Food Research and Technology. D. and Viticulture. Buzrul. (2003). M. Effects of high hydrostatic pressure on shelf Trivandrum. thesis. Kubo. C. H. vins blancs liquoreux par traitement aux hautes pressions. 13–16. Riponi. (2008). 365–374). Ting. 88. Berg. G... & Bozoglu. (2001). thesis.. Food Technology. Mordre. A. 1566–1568. (2002). Ledward. European Food Research López-Caballero..Sc. C. Journal of Food Science.. 311–316. E.. Y.. A. M. Sulfur dioxide and wine microorganisms. Tabusso. van den Berg. D. & Simal-Gándara.. R.. charcoal in combination with other fining agents and its influence on the organo- Westport. processes. Suzuki. High pressure inactivation Van Opstal. G. Largeteau. 15.. 10–21. Auswirkungen von activation modelling of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in grape juice and wine. Journal International des (1996). 161. Alpas.. & Fukumoto.. 282–289. N. 59. Journal of Food Engineering. K. D. Fredericks. F. 21. P.. Journal of the Institute of pressure pasteurization of red wine. Effects of high pressure on survival and alternative technology to inactivate microorganisms in grape juices and wines. S. Montury. Revue Française d'Œnologie. & Mor-Mur. A. & Bozoglu. & Michiels. Application Buzrul. H.. V. Applied and Environmental Food Microbiology. M. Heinz. B. E. H. M. A. C.. Mermelstein. LWT-Food Science and Technology.. 55. Monatsschrift für Brauwissenschaft. E.. FEMS Microbiology Letters.. 58. R. du Toit. 40. M. High pressure application to Buzrul. juice. 82. C. C. R.. (2005)... (2005). (2005).. Technology-Nippon Shokuhin Kagaku Kogaku Kaishi. R. 627–645. durch hochdruckbehandlung. D.. Ogawa. 61. (1992). Ankara. inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes Scott A in whole milk.

Related Interests