MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6998387203

Acetaldehyde in wines and its metabolism by wine lactic acid bacteria

2006· dissertation· en· W6998387203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcetaldehydeWineMalolactic fermentationLactic acidWine faultFermentationWhite WineYeastBacteria
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acetaldehyde is the most important wine carbonyl and is mainly formed by yeast during alcoholic fermentation (AF) or by oxidation of ethanol. It is a small and highly reactive molecule that has chemical, sensory and microbiological significance. In most table wines, the acetaldehyde aroma is undesired and chemically bound to SO2. Besides masking the acetaldehyde aroma, SO2 has antimicrobial and antioxidant roles, and bound SO 2 is less active in these functions. Thus, wines with acetaldehyde require more SO2, which may be of concern for health reasons. For this thesis, acetaldehyde concentrations in Ontario wines were studied, as well as the metabolism of free and SO2-bound acetaldehyde by wine lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and its effect on growth. Red and white wines had averages of 20 and 40 mg l-1, respectively, and the lowest and highest overall values were 1 and 232 mg l-1. Acetaldehyde concentrations were not correlated with wine quality. Acetaldehyde is degraded by most LAB simultaneously with malic acid across wine pH levels. Previous microbial adaptation to high acetaldehyde concentrations led to modified degradation kinetics and higher degradation rates, which may be useful for the specific removal of acetaldehyde in wines, which would not benefit from acid reduction. There was no stimulation of bacterial growth by acetaldehyde and SO2 -bound acetaldehyde inhibited bacteria.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207