comparison of two procedures to measure foamability from
TRANSCRIPT
R. Apolinar-Valiente1,2*, T. Doco3, T. Salmon1, P. Williams3, M. Nigen2, C. Sanchez2, R. Marchal1.1 Laboratoire d�’Œnologie et Chimie Appliquée, Université de Reims, Reims, France.2 IATE; Montpellier SupAgro, INRAE, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, Montpellier, France.3 SPO; INRAE, Montpellier SupAgro, Univ Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
In sparkling wines, foam is a relevant aspect whose measurement method could affect the results. Foamability can be measured , among others, by two methods: the shaking test (ST)1,2 and the classical sparging-gas
method: the so-called Mosalux; MOS)3. ST is a simple method, but the amount of gas introduced is not controlled. This point is well managed by MOS, but this procedure is longer and needs more complex equipment.
Comparison of two procedures to measure foamability from sparkling base wines supplemented with Acacia gums.
E-mail*: [email protected]
1ST) FRACTIONATION OF GUMS2ND) ELABORATION OF 24 MODALITIES OF BASE SPARKLING WINES
3RD) COMPARISON OF SHAKING TEST (ST) AND MOSALUX TEST (MOS)
Objective of this study is to compare both methods trying to demonstrate that ST is an
alternative and reliable method easily used by winemakers and enological laboratories.
8 wines were elaborated by the traditional method, treated with bentonite (20 g⋅hL-1), stirred and filtered. 4 Acacia gums fractions were separately added (300 mg·L-1) to
2 selected wines (1 French wine and 1 Spanish wine). 8 control wines were elaborated without bentonite neither Acacia gums fractions treatments.
The 3 Spanish base wines came from 3 different regions from Spain using Moscatel and Macabeo grapes.
The other 5 French base wines were elaborated in the region of Champagne using Chardonnay and Pinot noir grapes.
1Bartsch, O. (1924). Kolloidchemische Beihefte, 20(1-5), 1–49.2Marchal, R. et al. (2020). Molecules, 25, 472–4923Maujean, A. et al. (1990). Bull. OIV, 711–712, 405.
4Martínez-Lapuente, L. et al. (2017). Chapter 10 (p. 199). In:
Advances in Production, Processing, Analysis and Valorization, A.
M. Jordão and F. Cosme, IntechOpen. DOI:
10.5772/intechopen.70859.
Mosalux test (MOS)
100 mL of the sample was introduced in
a glass cylinder with a glass frit at the
bottom, injecting carbon dioxide gas
through the glass frit (constant rate flow:
7 L⋅h-1) at constant pressure (1 bar).
Foam height was monitored during gas
injection for 5 min. The maximum foam
height (HM-MOS) reached by the foam
column (mm) and the foam stability
height (HS-MOS, representing the
height (mm) at which the foam stabilizes
during gas injection) were measured. All
the experiments were done in triplicate,
being the room temperature controlled
(18 ± 1 ◦C).
Figure from Martínez-Lapuente et al. (2017)4
Multiple regression analyses were
performed between (i) the foam height
values at T5 and T10 by ST and (ii) the
HM-MOS of 24 varying wines (Table).
The HS-MOS also correlated with the
foam height values at T70 and T90 by
ST of 24 different wines (Table) through
multiple regression analysis.
The obtained R2 values (79% and
72%, respectively) allow us ensuring
consistent trends.
RESULTS
For further information: Apolinar-Valiente et al. (2021), Food Chem., 354, 129477.
Shaking test (ST)
15 mL of each sample were introduced in
tubes (internal diameter: 1 cm; height:
20 cm), and plugged. The distance
between the wine surface and the bung
was 9 cm. The tubes placed in a grid
were vertically, strongly and handly
shaken 12 times (1 agitation/sec).
Pictures were taken at 5, 10, 70, and 90
sec (T5, T10, T70 and T90, respectively)
after stopping the agitation of tubes. T5
and T10 were chosen as the two
moments with the two higher foam
height values. T70 and T90 were chosen
as the two moments when the foam
stability period began and finished. The
foam height (mm) was measured
through a graduated scale positioned
exactly behind the tubes during the
picture taking.
SPANISH WINE 1
6 modalities
SPANISH WINES 2 and 3
4 modalities
Control (SW1co)+Bentonite (SW1be)+F1sen (SW1F1sen)+F2sen (SW1F2sen)+F1sey (SW1F1sey)+F2sey (SW1F2sey)
Control (SW2co, SW3co, SW4co, SW5co)+Bentonite (SW2be, SW3be, SW4be, SW5be)
Control (FW1co)+Bentonite (FW1be)+F1sen (FW1F1sen)+F2sen (FW1F2sen)+F1sey (FW1F1sey)+F2sey (FW1F2sey)
FRENCH WINE 1
6 modalities
Control (FW2co, FW3co, FW4co, FW5co)+Bentonite (FW2be, FW3be, FW4be, FW5be)
FRENCH WINES 2, 3, 4 and 5
8 modalities
ST Time (sec)/Control wines SW1co SW2co SW3co FW1co FW2co FW3co FW4co FW5co
T5 49 36 53 48 53 54 53 51
T10 45 28 48 42 46 47 43 41
T70 30 10 34 19 4 23 12 16
T90 28 9 34 18 3 21 10 15
HM-MOSa 260 202 367 225 277 253 180 210
HS-MOSb 200 130 280 128 137 150 115 120
ST Time (sec)/Bentonite-wines SW1be SW2be SW3be FW2be FW1be FW3be FW4be FW5be
T5 28 21 36 11 37 47 10 23
T10 18 10 25 3 23 37 1 8
T70 5 1 7 0 4 8 0 0
T90 4 1 7 0 3 7 0 0
HM-MOSa 173 130 185 117 155 167 115 132
HS-MOSb 128 125 160 112 142 148 112 118
Chosen wines to be
supplemented with Acacia gums
fractions
ST Time (sec)/Fraction F1sen F2sen F1sey F2sey F1sen F2sen F1sey F2sey
T5 37* 33* 40* 31 20* 10 33 13*
T10 32* 22 34* 24* 8* 3 20* 4
T70 21* 7 13* 7 1 0 1 0
T90 20* 6 12* 6 0 0 1 0
HM-MOSa 215 183 200 175 142 118 160 125
HS-MOSb 160 127 145 128 118 113 130 120
aMOS Maximum Foam Height by MOS (mm)
bFoam Stability Height during CO2 injection by MOS (mm)
SW1be
+
FW1be
+
REFERENCES
HM-MOS = 158.979 – 4.978*T5 + 7.789*T10 (R2=79%)
Component + Residual Plot for HM-MOS
Com
ponent
eff
ect
T5
HS-MOS = 122.387 – 20.478*T70 + 24.255*T90; R2 = 72%
Component + Residual Plot for HS-MOS
Com
ponent
eff
ect
T70
The shaking test (ST) appears as a valid and simple
method to measure Maximum Foam Height and, albeit
with less accuracy, foam stability of sparkling base wines.
ST may be very easily used in wineries and
oenological laboratories.