Comparative study demonstrates improved clarity in fermented sugarcane-watermelon wine using membrane filtration, indicating superior overall quality despite lower sensory scores.
Clarification of wine is aimed at improving the quality of the product by removing haze. In this study, the effect of two clarification methods namely membrane filtration technique and the use of Keiselguhr diatomaceous earth powder on the physico-chemical and sensory attributes of wine produced using sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L) and watermelon (Citrullus vulgaris L) juice blended in the ratio 1:1 (v/v) and fermented by Saccharomyces cerevisiae isolated from palm wine was determined. Sugarcane-watermelon wine not clarified was the control. Physicochemical analysis of the wine at 0 h indicates the following: sugar (10.73 °Brix), specific gravity (1.043 kg/m3), pH (3.9), alcohol content (5.9%), titratable acidity (0.720 g/l), turbidity (94.32 NTU) and colour intensity (0.892 nm). During maturation of wine, the sugar content, specific gravity, pH, alcohol content, titratable acidity, turbidity and colour intensity of the samples clarified by membrane filtration/diatomaceous earth powder at 72 and 336 h were 6.5/9.9 and 7.2/10.8 °Brix, 1.026/1.040 and 1.029/1.043 kg/m3, 3.7/3.8 and 3.0/3.13, 3.57/5.48 and 3.7/5.7%, 0.375/0.405 and 0.517/0.628 g/l, 29/32.6 and 15/20 NTU, and 0.649/0.873 and 0.642/0.628 nm, respectively. The cumulative sensory scores of wine clarified using Keiselguhr diatomaceous earth powder were slightly higher than the wine clarified by membrane filtration. Taking other parameters into consideration, the clarification of sugarcane-watermelon wine using membrane filtration is relatively better than Keiselguhr diatomaceous earth powder.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Osebhajimhende et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: