Evaluation of preservation methods of low alcoholic plum winenopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/5999/1/NPR 8(4) 392-405.pdf · fermentation of grape juice yet it has also

Natural Product Radiance392

Research PaperNatural Product Radiance, Vol. 8(4), 2009, pp.392-405

IntroductionA large quantity of wines are

produced and consumed all over theworld1, Italy and France being the leadingwine producing countries. Althoughproduction of wine is largely made by thefermentation of grape juice yet it has alsobeen practiced widely from fruits such asapples, cherries, currants, peaches,plums, strawberries, etc2. In India, thetotal production of wine was 8.35 millionbottles per year3, indicating a wide scopeof production of wine from different fruitssuch as plum.

Plum, Prunus salicina Linn.(Hindi–Alubukhara) is a highlyperishable fruit with a shelf-life of 3-4 daysonly at ambient temperature and 1-2weeks in the cold storage. It can neitherbe easily transported to far off places nor

more than 8% v/v ethanol, any productbelow it may be branded as wine product9.In United States of America, the FederalAlcohol Administration Act defines winewith an alcohol content of 7 and 24%(v/v). Wine with more than 15 % alcoholgenerally does not get spoiledmicrobiologically. But those with lesserquantity of alcohol are liable for spoilage.To preserve low alcoholic wines,pasteurization (generally 62 o C for 15 min)or use of chemicals are normally done1,10.To determine, whether there is need foradditional amount of heat input sufficientto preserve the wine with low alcoholcontent such as those blended with 20 and30% pear juice and that does not triggerany chemical change and hence, causeadverse effects on the wine quality, theeffect of pasteurization or chemicalpreservation on quality of wine wasstudied. Only a limited work on lowalcoholic wine from grapes is availableand no work has been reported on lowalcoholic plum wine. The preservation of

Evaluation of preservation methods of low alcoholic plum wineAmandeep Gill, V K Joshi* and Neerja Rana1

Department of Postharvest Technology1Department of Vegetable Science

Dr YS Parmar University of Horticulture and ForestryNauni, Solan -173230, Himachal Pradesh, India

*Correspondent author, E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 6 April 2009; Accepted 12 June 2009

AbstractNatural wine from Plums, Prunus salicina Linn. (cv.‘Santa Rosa’)was prepared and

standardized the preservation technique of low alcoholic wine. The wine was blended with sandpear juice at the rate of 20 and 30%. The blends were preserved with heat treatments i.e. bypasteurizing the wine at different temperatures for different intervals of time and by chemicalpreservatives using sodium benzoate (NaB) and sulphur dioxide @100 ppm each. In all thetreatments, there was no change in TSS, acidity and alcohol concentration whereas when heatingeither at 70 or 80oC for 10 or 2 min, respectively was carried out in comparison to the control(without heating or any preservative), highest reduction in TSS, increase in alcohol concentrationand acidity took place. The heat treatment given to the wine showed complete elimination ofmicroorganisms hence can be used for preservation of low alcohol wine.

Keywords: Low alcoholic wine, Plum wine, Prunus salicina, Preservation of wine, Fermentation,Preservatives.

IPC code; Int. cl.8—C12G 1/00.

it can be put in cold storage for longperiods. Though the fruit could be utilizedfor the preparation of jams, jellies, etc.yet to accommodate the large quantitiesof the fruit produced during the glutperiods, it becomes necessary to explorealternate commercial methods for itsutilization. Production of alcoholicbeverages from this fruit with attractivecolour and high fermentability is one ofthe profitable alternative available toutilize the fruit 1,4-6.

Wine especially with low alcoholcontent is gaining popularity among theconsumers and generating a lot of interestfor the production of such products tothe manufacturer7,8. Different countrieshave different standards for defining thelow alcoholic product as in Australia,product labelled as wine must contain

Vol 8(4) July-August 2009 393

Research Paper

was carried out. In the control, highestreduction in TSS (showing fermentation)took place while in other treatments itremained more or less in between theheating and the control. In general, thepattern exhibited by all the treatmentsremained the same except in thetreatments where alcohol was removed(the manifestation of TSS reduction startedquite earlier). Pasteurization at 60oC for15 min. inhibited the reduction of TSSbetter than NaB/KMS. It has been reportedearlier that 0.8 mM level of SO

2 + DMDC

(Dimethyl dichloride) and NaB +DMDCprevented fermentation in samplesinoculated with 2 or 200 CFU/ml at 31ºCtemperature16. Comparison of TSSreduction in the blends (20 and 30%juice) of all the treatments revealed thataddition of higher juice content led tohigher reduction in TSS. It is apparentthat reduction in TSS took place inalmost all the treatments except in those,where heating was done at 80 or 70oC.Clearly, the fermentation started veryearly in treatment T

3 and reduction in

TSS was observed more in control and inthe treatment where sulphur dioxide wasused because of the lack of alcohol(which was removed by the distillationmethod) as alcohol itself inhibitsfermentation. The reduction in TSSshows that treatments other than thoseheated to 70oC/80oC were not preservedproperly.

Alcohol content in different treatmentsResults obtained (Figs. 2a-h) on

the changes in alcohol content (%) indifferent treatments corroborated with thedecrease in TSS as described earlier.Pasteurizing the wines at 70 or 80oCinhibited the increase in alcohol content.

a low alcoholic wine was investigated andthe results are discussed here.

Materials and MethodsCollection of fruits

Plum fruits of cv. ‘Santa rosa’ andsand pear fruits were procured from DrYS Parmar University of Horticulture andForestry, Orchard, Nauni, Solan, HP. Thefruits were harvested at maturity. The yeastsi.e. Saccharomyces cerevisiae UCD595 and Schizosaccharomyces pombeused in the study were procured from UCDCalifornia Davis and Indian Institute ofHorticultural Research, Bangalore, India.

Preparation of winePlum wine was prepared with

four different treatments, viz. T1

conventional method (usingSaccharomyces cerevisiae ); T

2 using

Saccharomyces cerevisiae butameliorated with honey; T

3 conventional

method but followed by distillation forremoval of alcohol and T

4 deacidification

with Schizosaccharomyces pombefollowed by fermentation withSaccharomyces cerevisiae asdescribed by other workers11. To preparewine, the fruits were converted into pulp.Preparation of pulp, must andfermentation, siphoning, etc., were thesame as reported earlier10.

Blending of wineThe low alcoholic plum wine

was prepared by blending it with differentproportions of sand pear juice at the rateof 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 per cent. Out ofthese blending proportions, two bestblending proportions of sand pear juicewith plum wine were selected by thesensory evaluation11.

Preservation of low alcoholic wineThe experiment on preservation

of low alcoholic plum wine beforematuration was laid out to determine theeffect of preservation treatments. Eachtreatment with two blends was preservedwith heat treatments i.e. by pasteurizingthe wine at different temperature fordifferent intervals (at 80oC for 2 min. or70oC for 10 min. or at 60oC for15 min.). Chemical preservatives, viz.sodium benzoate (NaB) and sulphurdioxide @100ppm each were added tothe wines separately.

Physico-chemical analysesVarious physico-chemical

characteristics of the treated wines wereanalysed at an interval of 48h till 14 days.Total soluble solids (%) were measuredusing a refractometer, titratable acidityand pH, were measured as per theAOAC method12. Ethanol content wasmeasured by the colourimetericprocedure13.

Total microbial analysisThe samples of wines were

analyzed for the total microbial count asper the prescribed methods using standardplate count agar by pour plate technique14.The total microbial count was expressedas CFU/ml.

Results and DiscussionChanges in TSS in differenttreatments

The trends (Figs.1 a-h ) obtainedon the changes in TSS (%) in differenttreatments during 14 days of storageshowed that in all the treatments therewas no change where heating either at70 or 80oC for 10 or 2 min., respectively


It is also apparent that in the control(without heating or preservative), highestincrease in alcohol content took place.In general, all the treatments maintainedthe same trend except where alcohol wasremoved. In these treatments themanifestation of increase in alcohol startedquite earlier during 14 days of observation.Addition of more juice content (30%) ledto the higher increase in alcohol thanlower. Pasteurization at 60oC for15 min. inhibited the increase of alcoholbetter than NaB/KMS preservatives. Itcorroborated with the reduction in TSSdiscussed earlier. Pasteurization showedno change in ethanol concentration andthe heating inhibited the fermentation,hence, no increase in alcohol content tookplace.

Acidity percentage in differenttreatments

Changes in acidity (%) indifferent treatments are depicted in(Figs 3a-h). Similar to change in alcoholthere was no change in acidity in thetreatments that were heated at 70 or 80oC.In the control highest increase in aciditywas documented. The changes in acidityalso reflect the microbial activity and inconfirmation with increase in themicrobial count (CFU/ml) with increasein storage time in control and in thetreatments (discussed in subsequentsection) which were preserved with SO

2

and NaB. On the other hand, the heattreatment given to the wine showed acomplete elimination of microorganisms,hence preservation. Other observationswere similar to those discussed for TSSand ethanol. In all the treatments theaddition of 30% juice content led to the

higher increase in acidity than 20%.Pasteurization at 60oC for 15min.inhibited the increase of acidity better thanNaB/KMS.

Changes in pHTrends obtained on the changes

in pH in different treatments depicted inFigs 4a-h, corroborated with increase ofacidity as discussed earlier. Further, therewas no change in pH in the treatment at70 or 80oC. The data also illustrated thatin the control highest decrease in pH tookplace. In general, the pattern exhibitedby all the treatments remained the sameexcept where alcohol was removed. LikeTSS and acidity the manifestation ofchanges in pH started quite earlier in thesetreatments. Comparison of decrease in pHin the blends of 20 and 30% showed thataddition of more juice content led to thehigher decrease in pH than 20%.Pasteurization at 60oC for 15 mininhibited the decrease of pH better thanNaB/KMS.

Changes in microbial countThe changes in microbial count

(CFU/ml) in different treatments(Figs 5 a-h) showed no microbial/yeastcount in the treatments that werepasteurized at 70 or 80oC. In the controlhighest count was noted. The increase inmicrobial count remained the same,except in the treatment, where alcohol wasremoved. Comparison of increase inmicrobial count in the juice blended winesof all the treatments like otherparameters, addition of more juice contentled to the high increase in microbial loadthan lower content. The difference inbehaviour of the blended wine from that

of normal wine is because of the fact thatthe wines had reduced level of alcoholand had more juice content used inblending that needed additional heattreatment to preserve than the wine withhigher ethanol content. Pasteurization at60oC for 15 min inhibited increase ofmicrobial load. NaB gave betterperformance than KMS. The results onmicrobial/yeast count of varioustreatments clearly reflected that heatingat 70/80oC has been the most effectivetreatment. It has been reported that heattreatment of less than 3 pasteurizationunits (PU) was sufficient to reduce 106

cells/ml of Saccharomyces cerevisiaeand Hansenula anomala added toChenin Blanc juice to an undetectablelevel16. Neither heating at 60oC norchemical additive equalled the heatingtreatment in preventing the changes inblended wine. It is attributed to survivalof the wine yeast in the treatment whereneither heating at a temperature lowerthan 70oC was applied nor any preservativewas added. This is in confirmation toprevious findings by Terrell et al15 whoreported that Saccharomyces is capableof withstanding an amount of 100 ppmSO

2 in wine that is why in this study the

treatments using these preservationtechniques could not inhibit the spoilageas indicated by TSS decrease, increase inacidity, alteration of pH, increase inethanol and microbial count. Yeastascospores are considered more resistantthan vegetative cells and further studiesare indicated to determine the level of PUsrequired for their destruction in theproducts like wine.

Research Paper


Research Paper

Days

Fig. 1(b): Effect of different preservation methods onTSS in 30% blended plum wine (T

1)

Days

TSS

(o Bri

x)

Fig. 1(a): Effect of different preservation methods onTSS in 20% blended plum wine (T

1)

Fig. 1(d): Effect of different preservation methods onTSS in 30% blended plum wine (T

2)

Fig. 1(c): Effect of different preservation methods onTSS in 20% blended plum wine (T

2)

70 degree celsiusSulphurdioxide

Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

TSS

(o Bri

x)

8.4

8.3

8.2

8.1

8

7.9

7.8

7.7

7.6

7.50 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Days

TSS

(o Bri

x)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 147.2

7.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

Days

TSS

(o Bri

x)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 147.7

7.8

8

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

7.9


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate


60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

ControlSodium benzoate


Fig. 1(e) : Effect of different preservation methods onTSS in 20% blended plum wine (T

3)

Fig. 1(f): Effect of different preservation methods onTSS in 30% blended plum wine (T

3)

Fig. 1(g): Effect of different preservation methods onTSS in 20% blended plum wine (T

4)

Fig. 1(h): Effect of different preservation methods onTSS in 30% blended plum wine (T

4)

Research Paper

TSS

(o Bri

x)Days

TSS

(o Bri

x)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 146.9

7

7.1

7.37.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

7.2

Days

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

8

8.1

8.2

8.3


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

7.3

Days

TSS

(o Bri

x)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

7.8

7.9

8

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

8.7

7.7

Days

TSS

(o Bri

x)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 147.4

7.6

7.8

8

8.2

8.4

8.6

8.8


Fig. 2(a): Effect of different preservation methods onalcohol content in 20% blended plum wine (T

1)

Fig. 2(b): Effect of different preservation methods onalcohol content in 30% blended plum wine (T

1)

Fig. 2(c): Effect of different preservation methods onalcohol content in 20% blended plum wine (T

2)

Fig. 2(d): Effect of different preservation methods onalcohol content in 30% blended plum wine (T

2)

Research Paper

Days

Alc

ohol

(%)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 147.4

7.45

7.5

7.55

7.6

7.65

7.7


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

Days

Alc

ohol

(%)

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 147.85

7.9

7.95

8

8.05

8.1

8.15


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

8.2

8.25

8.3

Days

Alc

ohol

(%)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 147.4

7.45

7.5

7.55

7.6

7.65

7.7

Alc

ohol

(%)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

7

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

Days


Fig. 2(e): Effect of different preservation methods onalcohol content in 20% blended plum wine (T

3)

Fig. 2(f): Effect of different preservation methods onalcohol content in 30% blended plum wine (T

3)

Fig. 2(g): Effect of different preservation methods onalcohol content in 20% blended plum wine (T

4)

Fig. 2(h): Effect of different preservation methods onalcohol content in 30% blended plum wine (T

4)

Research Paper

Alc

ohol

(%)

Days


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 147

7.1

7.2

7.3

7.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

Days

Alc

ohol

(%)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 141.12

1.14

1.16

1.18

1.2

1.22

1.24

1.26

DaysA

lcoh

ol (%

)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140.78

0.8

0.82

0.84

0.86

0.88

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

Alc

ohol

(%)

Days


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 147.4

7.5

7.6

7.7

7.8

7.9

8


Fig. 3(a): Effect of different preservation methods ontitratable acidity in 20% blended plum wine (T

1)

Fig. 3(b): Effect of different preservation methods ontitratable acidity in 30% blended plum wine (T

1)

Fig. 3(c): Effect of different preservation methods ontitratable acidity in 20% blended plum wine (T

2)

Fig. 3(d): Effect of different preservation methods ontitratable acidity in 30% blended plum wine (T

2)

Research Paper

Days

Days Days

Days

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Titr

atab

le A

cidi

ty (%

)

0.855

0.86

0.865

0.87

0.875

0.88

0.885

0.89

0.895Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate


Titr

atab

le A

cidi

ty (%

)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0.785

0.79

0.795

0.8

0.805

0.81

0.815

0.82

0.825

Titr

atab

le A

cidi

ty (%

)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140.93

0.935

0.94

0.945

0.95

0.955

Titr

atab

le A

cidi

ty (%

)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140.89

0.895

0.9

0.905

0.91

0.915

0.92

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14


Fig. 3(e): Effect of different preservation methods ontitratable acidity in 20% blended plum wine (T

3)

Fig.3(f): Effect of different preservation methods ontitratable acidity in 30% blended plum wine (T

3)

Fig. 3(g): Effect of different preservation methods ontitratable acidity in 20% blended plum wine (T

4)

Days

Fig. 3(h): Effect of different preservation methods ontitratable acidity in 30% blended plum wine (T

4)

Research Paper

Days

Titr

atab

le A

cidi

ty (%

)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0.905

0.91

0.915

0.92

0.925

0.93

0.935

0.94

0.945

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14Days

Titr

atab

le A

cidi

ty (%

)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0.88

0.89

0.9

0.91

0.92

0.93

0.94

0.95

0.96

0.97

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140.87

Days

Titr

atab

le A

cidi

ty (%

)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0.89

0.895

0.9

0.905

0.91

0.915

0.92

0.925

0.93

0.935

0.8850 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Titr

atab

le A

cidi

ty (%

)


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0.83

0.835

0.84

0.845

0.85

0.855

0.86

0.865

0.87

0.875

0.8250 2 4 6 8 10 12 14


Days

pH

Fig. 4(a): Effect of different preservation methods on pH in20% blended plum wine (T

1)

DayspH

Fig. 4(b): Effect of different preservation methods on pH in30% blended plum wine (T

1)

pH

Days

Fig. 4(c): Effect of different preservation methods on pH in20% blended plum wine (T

2)

Days

pH

Fig. 4(d): Effect of different preservation methods on pH in30% blended plum wine (T

2)

Research Paper


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

3.03

3.04

3.05

3.06

3.07

3.08

3.09

3.1

3.11

3.12

3

3.05

3.1

3.15

3.2

3.25

3.3

3.1

3.12

3.14

3.16

3.18

3.2

3.22

3.24

3

3.02

3.04

3.06

3.08

3.1

3.12

3.14

3.16


Fig. 4(e): Effect of different preservation methods onpH in 20% blended plum wine (T

3)

Days

Fig. 4(f): Effect of different preservation methods onpH in 30% blended plum wine (T

3)

Days Days

Fig. 4(h): Effect of different preservation methods onpH in 30% blended plum wine (T

4)

Fig. 4(g): Effect of different preservation methods onpH in 20% blended plum wine (T

4)

Research Paper

Days

pH


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

3.04

3.06

3.08

3.1

3.12

3.14

3.16

3.18

3.2

3.22

3.02

pH


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 143.24

3.26

3.28

3.3

3.32

3.34

3.36

3.38

3.4

3.42

pH


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 143.1

3.12

3.14

3.16

3.18

3.2

3.22

pH


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

3.06

3.08

3.1

3.12

3.14

3.16

3.18

3.2

3.22

3.24

3.04


Fig. 5(a): Effect of different preservation methods ontotal plate count in 20% blended plum wine (T

1)

Days

Fig. 5(b): Effect of different preservation methods ontotal plate count in 30% blended plum wine (T

1)

Days

Log C

FU/m

l

Fig. 5(c): Effect of different preservation methods ontotal plate count in 20% blended plum wine (T

2)

Days

Fig. 5(d): Effect of different preservation methods ontotal plate count in 30% blended plum wine (T

2)

Days

Research Paper


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Log C

FU/m

l


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.55

0

Log C

FU/m

l


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

0

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0.5

Log C

FU/m

l


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 140

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0.5


Fig. 5(e): Effect of different preservation methods ontotal plate count in 20% blended plum wine (T

3)

Days

Fig. 5(f): Effect of different preservation methods ontotal plate count in 30% blended plum wine (T

3)

Days

Log C

FU/m

l

Fig. 5(g): Effect of different preservation methods ontotal plate count in 20% blended plum wine (T

4)

Days

Fig. 5(h): Effect of different preservation methods ontotal plate count in 30% blended plum wine (T

4)

Days

Research Paper


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

Log C

FU/m

l


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

Log C

FU/m

l


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

Log C

FU/m

l


Control

60 degree celsius

80 degree celsius

Sodium benzoate

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

0.5

1

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0

2

1.5


ConclusionPlum wine prepared with reduced

content of alcohol or with more juicecontent (used to reduce the alcoholconcentration) can be effectivelypasteurized for 70oC for 5 min or 80oCfor 2 minutes. The treatment did not allowreduction in TSS, increase in alcohol,acidity or reduction in pH. The microbialload, major criterion of successfulpasteurization was also reducedappreciably by the pasteurization.

References1. Amerine MA, Kunkee KE, Ough CS, Singleton

VL and Webb AD, Technology of winemaking, AVI Publishers Co. Inc., Westport CT, 1980, p. 794.

2. Jarvis B, Cider, Perry, fruit wines and otherfermented fruit beverages In: Arthey David andAshurst Philips R (editors), Fruit processingnutrition, products and quality management.2nd edition, Aspen Publishers, Inc. Maryland,2001, pp. 111-144.

3. Vyas KK and Joshi VK, Plum wine makingstandardization of methodology, IndianFood Packer, 1982, 36(6), 80-86.

4. Pawar PP, Kawar SS and Tilekar SN, Worldscenario of grape wine and opportunities forIndia, Bever Food World, 2007, 55,50-52.

5. Joshi VK, Attri BL and Mahajan BVC, Physico-chemical and sensory evaluation of vermouthfrom plum fruits, J Food Sci Technol,1991, 3(28), 138-142.

6. Tesevic V, Nikicevic N, Jovanovic A, DjokovicD, Vujusic L, Vuckovic I and Bonic M, Volatilecomponents from old plum brandies, FoodTechnol Biotechnol, 2005, 43(4):367-372.

7. Cuenet P, Kobel D and Cretten J, Surlespotentialities de l’ osmose inverse pour la desalcoolisation partiella on totole des vins.Example d’ application, Rev Suisse ViticArboric Hortic, 1985, 17, 367-371.

8. Schobinger U and Alkoholfreier Wein,Herstellungsverfahren and SensorischeAspekte. Mitt. Geb. Lebeusmttelunter,Hyg. 1986, 77, 23-38.

9. Anonymous, Annual Progress Report,Department of Horticulture, Nigam Vihar,Shimla-H.P., 2008.

10. Joshi VK, Fruit wines 2nd edition, Directorateof Extension Education, Dr Y.S. Parmar

Research Paper

University of Horticulture & Forestry, Nauni,Solan, India, 1997.

11. Amandeep Gill, Production and evaluation oflow alcohol Plum wine, M. Sc. Thesis, Dr YSParmar University of Horticulture & ForestryNauni (HP), 2008.

12. AOAC, Association of Official AnalyticalChemists, Official methods of analysis,Hortwitz W. (ed.), 13th ed., Washington, DC,1980, p.1015.

13. Caputi A Jr and Veda M Brown J,Spectrophotometric determination of ethanolin wine, Am J Enol Vitic, 1968, 19,160-165.

14. Harrigan HF and McCance EM, Laboratorymethods in microbiology, Academic Press,London, 1966, p.264.

15. Terell FR, Morris JR, Johnson MG, Gbur EEand Makus DJ, Yeast inhibition in grape juicecontaining sulphur dioxide, sorbic acid anddimethyldicarbonate, J Food Sci, 1993,58(5), 1132-1134.

16. Malletroit V, Guinard JX, Kunkee E and LewisMJ, Effect of pasteurization on microbiologicaland sensory quality of white grape juice andwine, J Food Process Preserv, 1991, 15,19-29.

Documents

Evaluation of preservation methods of low alcoholic plum winenopr.niscair.res.in/bitstream/123456789/5999/1/NPR 8(4) 392-405.pdf · fermentation of grape juice yet it has also