Desalination 231 (2008) 283–289

Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis in winemaking

A. Massota, M. Mietton-Peuchota*, C. Peuchotb, V. Milisica

a
Equipe Génie des Procédés et Environnement, UMR Œnologie INRA), Université Bordeaux 2, France
Tel. +33 (5) 5684 6495; Fax +33 5 5684 6468, -97; email: mmp@genproc.u-bordeaux.fr
b
Institut de la Filtration et Techniques Séparatives, Agen, France

Received 9 June 2007; accepted revised 20 October 2007

Abstract
The paper is an overview of the application of membrane processes to winemaking. The aim is to present both
the application of membrane processes in winemaking and a general philosophy of their development from a
process engineering point of view. Several examples illustrate this approach, in particular applications of nanofiltration
and reverse osmosis membranes, but the other techniques such as microfiltration, ultrafiltration and electrodialysis
are also mentioned. The principal condition for further development of membrane processes in winemaking is a
good understanding of membrane techniques, separation techniques and characterisation of the membrane itself
and the product (must or wine) to be filtered. The last constrain, given the complexity and variability of must and
wine composition, is not trivial and needs a considerable effort at both industrial and research levels. For the same
reasons, the coupling of the membrane and other physico-chemical treatments appears to be a promising research
domain.
Keywords: Wine; Membrane filtration; Alcohol content control; Nanofiltration

1. Introduction past, the membrane material was not adapted to

Membrane filtration has been applied to wine
for a long time. It should be noted that 0.65 μm
and 0.45 μm filtration cartridges very often used
in oenology, are made from membranes. In the
*Corresponding author.
the wine filtration, but at present, the clarifica-
tion cartridges suit perfectly and are integrated in
all bottling units.
Subsequently, in a cross-flow filtration mode,
microfiltration membranes were the first to be
applied for wine clarification. The main advan-
tage of membranes over cartridges was their ca-

Presented at International Workshop on Membranes and Solid–Liquid Separation Processes, INSA-Toulouse, France
11 July 2007

0011-9164/08/$– See front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved
284 A. Massot et al. / Desalination 231 (2008) 283–289
pacity to accept a higher solid concentration in
the retentate. Initially, the mineral and organic
membranes were proposed with 0.2 μm cut-off
and were used in the final clarification of wines.
That application was first developed for the treat-
ment of large volumes, and afterwards spread to
other domains, for example, to noble-rotted sweet
wines. Today, microfiltration is largely used in
oenology for must, lees and wine filtration at dif-
ferent membrane cut-off, from 0.1 to 1.2 μm.
The development of reverse osmosis applica-
tion in must concentration was practically done
in parallel with that of microfiltration in clarifi-
cation [1,2]. However, in both cases two prob-
lems slowed their developments; one was tech-
nological and the second was legislative. The first
rose from the fact that the classical RO modules
were designed essentially for water treatment ap-
plications where suspended solid concentrations
are low and particle sizes are small [3]. New de-
sign (double spacer for spiral modules), more ef-
ficient pre-treatment before concentration and
better knowledge of the product to be filtered en-
abled the development of that technique. The RO
membranes being very selective, let through only
very small molecules or ions. For example, RO
wine permeate contains water, alcohol, acetic acid
(60% of the initial concentration), ethylic acetate
(40% of the initial concentration) and lactic acid
(15% of the initial concentration) [4,5]. The re-
tention rates are a function of the selected mem-
brane characteristics. The level of concentration
is limited by osmotic pressure generated by the
process itself and by the applied pressure.
With recent advances in nanofiltration mem-
brane processing different new applications in
oenology can be foreseen. The complex separa-
tion mechanisms that occur in nanofiltration
(physical, chemical and electrical interaction be-
tween the solvent, solutes and membrane) make
the number of the operating parameters that con-
trol separation efficiency long and give different
results for the same feed and the same membrane
[6]. The specific performance of nanofiltration
membranes and the large choice of the membranes
should facilitate their application and increase the
possibilities for coupling with other membrane
techniques (reverse osmosis–nanofiltration, ultra-
filtration–nanofiltration) with the objective of
performing corrections to must or wine by reduc-
ing or increasing the concentration of a given sol-
ute. So, for must it is possible to apply the combi-
nation of RO–NF instead of a sole reverse osmo-
sis stage as it can treat a smaller quantity of must
and obtain a higher sugar concentration in must
(up to 45°Brix, [7]).
These corrections aim to provide a better equi-
librium and to improve the stability of wine. Mem-
brane processes could also be coupled with ion
exchange treatment or with vacuum evaporation.
At present, that kind of application is being tested
experimentally or is already practised in some
countries for:
• Alcohol content control by its partial removal
from wines or by partial sugar removal from
musts;
• Volatile acidity reduction in wines;
• Acidification of wines;
• Flaw (defect) elimination.
2. Control of alcohol content
The studies on control of alcohol content of
wines by partial removal of alcohol or sugar from
must are initiated by the problems of over con-
centration of sugar and alcohol that some coun-
tries frequently face, or by the new social trends
of limiting alcohol consumption [8–10]. The pro-
duction of over alcoholised wine concerns the
main part of Mediterranean wine regions in
France, Spain or Italy, as well as Californian and
South American vineyards [11]. The problem
originates from commendable wine-grower and
oenological practice. It is widely known that the
quality of red wines depends essentially on the
maturity of phenolic components contained in
grape berries. Phenolic maturity is directly linked
to a high sugar concentration. Thus the grapes are
 A. Massot et al. / Desalination 231 (2008) 283–289
picked having high potential alcohol content, up
to 17% vol., with low acidity. This over maturity
leads to difficulties in wine making: difficulties
in alcoholic fermentation, in microbiological
stabilisation, as well as gustatory disequilibrium
(strengthening of warm sensation in wine). These
problems are augmented by other administrative
constraint: in some countries, as USA, a supple-
mentary tax is added where the alcohol content is
over 14.5% vol. Meanwhile, consumers show
preference for wines with less alcohol content
(between 9 and 13% vol.), a tendency reinforced
by anti-alcohol campaigns. So, Institut de Recher-
che Agronomique of Pech Rouge was granted by
Agence Nationale de Recherche a research project
on “quality wines with reduced alcohol content”.
The aim of the study is to produce wine by taking
into account both aspects and other wine by-prod-
ucts with an alcohol content of less than 6% vol.
Several French companies as IMECA, Bucher
Vaslin, Michael Paetzold, InterRhône have the
same objective and are developing processes that
integrate systematically at least one membrane
technique.
This technology is already implemented in
countries where the regulation permits this kind
of experiments. All systems proposed at present
induce to a certain extent the reduction of must or
wine volumes due to the elimination of a concen-
trate of sugar or alcohol. This decrease in volume
is related to the desired reduction in sugar or al-
cohol content and involves a slight concentration
of other components. For example, the process of
Table 1
Results of must concentration analyses at different stages of treatment
Sugar pH Total acidity
(g.L–1) (gH2SO4.L–1)
Raw juice 271 3.60 2.66
CUF 311 3.50 4.00
PUF 249 3.55 2.53
CNF 428 3.60 3.0
PNF 40 3.40 1.93
285
partial sugar reduction combines an ultrafiltration
membrane that allows the sugar to pass through
and a nanofiltration membrane that retains the
sugar. The maximum degree of concentration is
limited by the resistance of the nanofiltration
membrane under applied pressure (around 75 bar),
noting that the osmotic pressure of the concen-
trate rises constantly during filtration. An example
given in Table 1 shows that the maximum sugar
concentration obtained is approximately 400 g/L.
A second stage of treatment by evaporation
could help to continue the concentration, in par-
ticular in partial alcohol removal from wine by
means of two membranes with different selectivi-
ties against alcohol. Here the selectivity of the
second membrane decreases strongly and so im-
pedes the final concentration. Table 2 shows such
example.
The system for partial alcohol removal pro-
posed by the Australian company Memstar in-
volves a reverse osmosis membrane followed by
a membrane contactor (Liquid Cel by Membrana).
Two such plants are installed in Chile and Aus-
tralia. A Californian company, Vinovation also
proposes membranes for partial alcohol removal
and claims that at present 10% of premium wines
in USA undergo a small correction of alcohol con-
tent.
3. Volatile acidity or malic acid reduction
The same company markets a system for vola-
tile acidity reduction by coupling reverse osmo-
Tartaric acid Malic acid IPT
(g.L–1) (g.L–1)
3.93 0.79 19.2
5.84 0.65 118.0
3.34 0.91 3.8
4.23 0.92 6.9
2.19 0.89 0.8
286 A. Massot et al. / Desalination 231 (2008) 283–289

Table 2
Evolution of alcohol content (DAV) at the second stage
membrane MEMBRANES

Time Permeate DAV permeate DAV concentrate 1 2 4

(min) rate (l/h) (%. vol) (%. vol)
RAW WINE
0 180 n.d 6.2
25 150 1.40 8.2 PERMEATE 5
3
50 90 2.1 13.0 TREATMENT
70 60 5.5 17.0
95 40 7.1 19.1 FINAL WINE
120 20 10.3 21.8
140 20 n.d 23.8
Wi Aft R l

Fig. 1. Coupling of a membrane technique and a perme-

sis and ion exchange resins (weak anionic res-
ins). This process is interesting in that it is a case
where the fermentation is stopped [12,13]. The
trials of volatile acidity reduction with some hun-
dred lots enabled rapid resumption of alcoholic
fermentation in 75% of lots. VA Filtration, a com-
pany from USA, proposes a technique for vola-
tile acidity reduction based on one stage of
nanofiltration followed by selective adsorption of
volatile acidity (Fig. 1).
The volatile acidity or malic acid reduction
could also be done by coupling two stages of re-
verse osmosis (membrane DESAL, NaCl reten-
tion rate >99%). Since the free acids are poorly
retained by the membrane, the permeate after the
first stage filtration (“permeate 1”, Fig. 2) con-
tains free acids, salts, esters and other small mol-
ecules. Once the permeate is neutralised with pH
of the targeted acid, it will be retained by the sec-
ond stage membrane in a salty form. The other
components passing through (“permeate 2”,
Fig. 2) are re-injected in the initial wine. The po-
tassium hydroxide is used for neutralisation.
During the treatment, the decrease of the ace-
tic acid concentration in wine is progressive
(Fig. 2). The rejection rate of acetic acid in first
reverse osmosis varies between 40 and 50%. Af-
ter the neutralisation, the rejection rate of potas-
sium acetate in second reverse osmosis is higher
than 90%.
ate treatment (adsorption, ion exchange resins) — gen-
eral scheme.
The analyses of the wine so treated show an
increase of alcohol (+0.1), of phenolic content and
of colour intensity. The increase is due to a por-
tion of neutralised permeate which corresponds
to the “dead” volume of the second reverse os-
mosis plant not mixed with the treated wine (3%
in the present case). The result is a slight rise of
wine component concentration. The results pre-
sented in Table 3 show the decrease of volatile
and total acidity of the treated wine and a small
increase of pH (+0.02).The potassium concentra-
tion remains stable because of the equilibrium
between the resulting demineralisation and the
concentration of wine due to the loss of volume.
The equipment for volatile acidity reduction
is proposed by the Italian company VELO and
that for malic acid — by the company Bucher
Vaslin. The parameters that control the process
and help to optimise it are an adequate choice of
membrane characteristics and neutralisation con-
ditions.
4. Others applications
The elimination of wine “bad taste” appears
to be a promising research subject. Chilean re-
 A. Massot et al. / Desalination 231 (2008) 283–289 287

Volatile Acidity of wine Permeate 1 Permeate 2

0,9

0,8
Volatile Acidity (g H 2 SO 4 /L)

0,7

0,6

0,5

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

Permeate volume (litres)

Fig. 2. Evolution of wine volatile acidity and of permeates of two reverse osmosis stages.

Table 3
Results of physico-chimical analyses of wines before and after treatment

Red wine sample Red wine treated White wine sample White wine treated
Alcohol content (% v/v) 11.5 11.5 9.20 9.30
Total acidity (gH2SO4/l) 3.92 3.72 7.84 7.35
Volatile acidity (gH2SO4/l) 0.71 0.37 0.86 0.63
pH 3.56 3.58 3.75 3.77
Potassium (mg/l) 1500 1500 1386 1320
Total phenol index (TPI) 24.1 27.3 / /
Colour intensity 0.43 0.49 / /

searchers [14] explored the methods for 4-
ethylphenol and 4-ethylguaiacol reduction in red
wines by combining nanofiltration and adsorp-
tion. The permeate obtained by nanofiltration is
treated by hydrophobic adsorbent resins (XAD-
16HP) and recycled up to the level of desired con-
centration. They claim that the same process could
also be used for herby taste elimination. The re-
sults show that the resin selectivity is not suffi-
cient. In principal, it should be possible to isolate
the “bad taste” by using nanofiltration membranes,
but for this elimination it would be necessary to
improve the post-treatment (e.g. by adsorption,
fining, etc.).
The tartaric acid stabilisation of wines is usu-
ally done by cold treatment. It is progressively
replaced by electrodialysis. A Californian study
[15] suggests the use of nanofiltration and
288 A. Massot et al. / Desalination 231 (2008) 283–289
Table 4
Synthesis of proposed membrane processes
Objective
Concentration of must
Reduction of the sugar content in must
Partial alcohol removal
Reduction of volatile acidity
Tartaric stabilisation
Bad taste reduction
Reduction of malic acid
pH control
microfiltration for tartaric acid stabilisation. At
first, the wine is concentrated by a nano-mem-
brane until the precipitation of the tartar. The crys-
tals are then eliminated by microfiltration and the
two permeates are gathered. The process clarifies
the wine at the same time.
The electrodialysis experiments have been
carried out by the company Eurodia with the ob-
jective of acidifing the wine by potassium reten-
tion (Table 4).
5. Conclusion
The possibility of coupling several membrane
techniques enables numerous new applications.
It cannot be realised without a good knowledge
of the membranes themselves, the transfer phe-
nomena and the separation mechanisms. The re-
duction of sugar content in the must is a good
example: that process represents an innovative
solution, applying a well known technology. The
treatment has the following advantages:
• The risk of stuck fermentation is limited and it
helps the winemaker have better control of
extraction phenomena during vatting.
Processes
Reverse osmosis
Ultrafiltration + nanofiltration
Ultrafiltration + evaporation
Reverse osmosis 1 + reverse osmosis 2
Reverse osmosis + distillation
Reverse osmosis + membrane contactor
Reverse osmosis + anionic resins
Reverse osmosis + reverse osmosis
Reverse osmosis + adsorption
Electrodialysis
Nanofiltration + microfiltration
Nanofiltration + resins adsorption
Nanofiltration + PVPP
Nanofiltration+ nanofiltration
Electrodialysis
• The volume loss induced by the process pro-
vokes an enrichment of wine in phenolic com-
ponents and macromolecules.
• Finally, compared to alcohol, the management
of sugar concentrate, from a regulatory point
of view, is less problematic.
The destination and denomination of the con-
centrate at present are discussed: “concentrated
must for enrichment in sugar” or “concentrated
and rectified must”. As far as alcohol is concerned,
the legislation problems are certainly those that
limit the development of a double stage membrane
alcohol removal. The handling and destination of
alcohol is an administrative problem. The mem-
branes enabling 80% ethanol retention do exist,
but the maximum concentration extent is limited
to 25% vol., beyond which the retention rate de-
creases rapidly.
Numerous other applications could be intended
with the aim of bringing some corrections to must
or wine, as, for example, reduction of malic acid
content in must, pH control, or bad taste elimina-
tion. In all these cases, must or wine are fractioned
by the membranes selected and tasted with care.
 A. Massot et al. / Desalination 231 (2008) 283–289
So, the solutes to be retained are separated and
the initial wine is reconstructed free of rogue com-
ponents that veil its optimum quality.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank all companies for the data
that have been used in preparation of the present
article.
References
[1] E. Ronald, R. Nina., W. Robert, A. Keith and G
Edward, J. Food Sci., 58(3) (1993) 633–637.
[2] C. Delfini and G. Nicolini, J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin,
25(1) (1991) 1–35.
[3] P. Cuenat, D. Kobel and E. Zufferey, Bull. OIV, 701–
702 (1989) 519–537.
[4] P. Noilet, Diplôme universitaire d’expérimentation
et de Recherche en Enologie et Ampélologie.
Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2, 2004, 135 p.
289
[5] M. Mietton-Peuchot, V. Milisic and P. Noilet,
Desalination, 148 (2002) 125–129.
[6] V. Milisic and M. Hamachi, Proc. 3rd Nanofiltration
and Applications Workshop, 2001, pp. 26–28.
[7] I. Kiss, G. Vatay and E. Bekassy-Molnar,
Desalination, 162 (2004) 295–300.
[8] J. Regan, Fermentation, 3(4) (1990) 235–237.
[9] K. Bui, R. Dick, G. Moulin and P. Galzy, Am. J.
Enol. Vitic., 37(4) (1986) 297–300.
[10] N. Chinaud and P. Broussous, J. Int. Sci. Vigne Vin,
25(4) (1993) 245–250.
[11] J.L. Escudier, Rev. fr. œno., 119 (1989) 56–61.
[12] J.E. Rasmussen, E. Schultz, R.E. Snyder, R.S. Jones
and C.R. Smith, Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 46(2) (1995)
278–280.
[13] C. Smith, OIV 1997, Groupe d’Expert Technologie
du Vin, Office International de la Vigne et du Vin,
Paris.
[14] P. Ugarte, E. Agosin, E. Bordeu and J.I. Villalobos,
Am. J. Enol. Vitic., 56(1) (2005) 30–36.
[15] California Energy Commission, Internal Report,
November 2001, 24 p.