VTechWorks staff will be away for the Thanksgiving holiday beginning at noon on Wednesday, November 27, through Friday, November 29. We will resume normal operations on Monday, December 2. Thank you for your patience.
 

Comparison of analytical methods for prediction of prefermentation nutritional status of grape juice

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGump, B. H.en
dc.contributor.authorZoecklein, Bruce W.en
dc.contributor.authorFugelsang, K. C.en
dc.contributor.authorWhiton, R. S.en
dc.contributor.departmentFood Science and Technologyen
dc.date.accessed2014-07-09en
dc.date.accessioned2014-07-10T13:56:44Zen
dc.date.available2014-07-10T13:56:44Zen
dc.date.issued2002en
dc.description.abstractFive methods for evaluating nitrogen status were compared using 70 Cabernet Sauvignon juice samples: nitrogen by o-phthaldialdehyde (NOPA), arginine NOPA, enzymatic ammonia, Formol, and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Parallel recovery studies using model solutions of various amino acids and ammonia, presented singly and in combination, were also conducted. The results from two fruit-processing methods were compared using immature and mature berries. NOPA measurements were significantly higher in mature, pressed whole berry-derived samples, compared with homogenized juice. Adjustment of formaldehyde pH prior to analysis was found to be critical to consistency of the Formol method. Average amino acid recoveries for the Formol titration ranged from 82 to 99%. Average recovery for proline was 16.9 +/- 0.4%. Ammonium nitrogen was also recovered (84 +/- 3%) in the Formol procedure. Formol results trended significantly with NOPA. The correlation coefficient between Formol and NOPA plus NH4+ was 0.87, with Formol values being higher. The average deviation between the Formol and HPLC plus NH4+ and between the NOPA plus NH4+ and HPLC plus NH4+ was 7.3%.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen
dc.identifier.citationGump, B. H.; Zoecklein, B. W.; Fugelsang, K. C.; Whiton, R. S., "Comparison of analytical methods for prediction of prefermentation nutritional status of grape juice," Am. J. Enol. Vitic 2002 vol. 53 no. 4 325-329. http://ajevonline.org/content/53/4/325.abstracten
dc.identifier.issn0002-9254en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10919/49450en
dc.identifier.urlhttp://ajevonline.org/content/53/4/325.abstracten
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherAmerican Society for Enology and Viticultureen
dc.rightsIn Copyrighten
dc.rights.urihttp://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/en
dc.subjectassimilable nitrogenen
dc.subjectformolen
dc.subjecthplcen
dc.subjectnopaen
dc.subjectfanen
dc.subjectyancen
dc.subjectamino acidsen
dc.subjectnh4+en
dc.subjectamino-acidsen
dc.subjectbiotechnology & applied microbiologyen
dc.subjectfood science & technologyen
dc.subjecthorticultureen
dc.titleComparison of analytical methods for prediction of prefermentation nutritional status of grape juiceen
dc.title.serialAmerican Journal of Enology and Viticultureen
dc.typeArticle - Refereeden
dc.type.dcmitypeTexten

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
325.full.pdf
Size:
45.97 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Main article
Download

Collections

Scholarly Works, Food Science and Technology