Chemical and Physical Methodologies for the Replacement/Reduction of Sulfur Dioxide Use during Winemaking: Review of Their Potentialities and Limitations
Abstract
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is probably one of the most versatile and efficient additives used in winemaking due to its antiseptic and antioxidant properties. This compound is also important for minimizing phenolic polymerization rate and color loss during wine aging. However, allergies caused by SO2-derived compounds, namely the sulfites, are becoming more frequent, causing symptoms such as headaches, nausea, gastric irritation, and breathing difficulties in asthma patients. Consequently, the legislated maximum concentration of SO2 allowed in wines has been gradually reduced. For this reason, it is crucial in a competitive global winemaking market strategy, to reduce or even eliminate the use of SO2 as a preservative and to search for new healthier and safe strategies. This work gives an overview of the main methodologies that have been proposed so far and that have potential to be used in winemaking as an alternative to SO2. The addition of compounds such as dimethyl dicarbonate, bacteriocins, phenolic compounds, and lysozyme, and the use of physical methods, namely pulsed electric fields, ultrasound, ultraviolet radiation, and high pressure are discussed and critically evaluated.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Desulphurization methods for reducing sulfur dioxide from seaweeds include ion exchange, chemical deoxidation, irradiation, and biological conversion.
“as for desulphurization technology, these methods are generally adopted (ion exchange, chemical deoxidation, irradiation, and biological conversion) [104].”
From Current Status and Future Trends in Removal, Control, and Mitigation of Algae Food Safety Risks for Human Consumption (2022) · cites this paper as [104]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 111 · Cited by 184
- Authors
- Santos, M. C., Nunes, C., Saraiva, J. A., & Coimbra, M. A.
- Affiliations
- University of Aveiro (PT)
- Corresponding author
- Coimbra, Manuel A.
- Venue
- European Food Research and Technology
- Published
- 2011-11-08
- Volume
- 234
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-12
- ISSN
- 0373-0174 (ISSN-L)
- 1438-2377
- 1438-2385
- OpenAlex
- W1990560335
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 111
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 10.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- European Food Research and Technology (publishedVersion)
- Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (PTDC/AGR-ALI/101251/2008)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Fermentation and Sensory Analysis
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Biotechnology › Microbial Inactivation Methods
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Quality and Safety Studies
- Keywords
- sulfur dioxide, winemaking, preservatives, dimethyl dicarbonate, bacteriocins, phenolic compounds, lysozyme, pulsed electric field, ultrasound, ultraviolet radiation, high pressure processing, wine aging, wine color stability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review