Lab Equipment for Wineries of All Sizes

1
Lab Equipment for Wineries of All Sizes

• Foss Winescan vs. OenoFoss
• Capabilities, Cost and Tradeoffs

Paul Huckaba Analytical Laboratory Manager Bronco
Wine Company
2
Overview

• What is Spectroscopy?
• How does it work?
• What types of instruments are there?
• What analyses can these instruments run?
• What are the Pros and Cons?
• How do you run samples?
• Who is this best suited for?
• What kind of results can I expect?

3
What is Spectroscopy?

• Spectroscopy is the study of the interaction
  between matter and radiated energy (light).
• There are lots of kinds of light energy.

4
(No Transcript)
5
Why do we care about Spectroscopy?

• Spectroscopy can be used to analyze wine or must
  samples.

• There are no chemicals or consumables AND the
  analysis only takes 1-2 minutes!

6
How does this work?
Images Courtesy of Gusmer Enterprises
7
What types of instruments are there?

• Currently, there are two main instruments.

Foss Winescan (FT120, Flex, etc.)
OenoFoss
Both are made by Foss, a Danish Company
8
What analyses can these instruments run?

• The capabilities depend on the type of instrument
  that you have, the matrix (must, wine, etc.), and
  what you have calibrated for, but here are the
  highlights

Ethanol GlucoseFructose Malic Acid TA (Total
Acid)
pH Volatile Acidity NOPA/YAN Others
9
?Tartaric Acid to pH8.2
10
What are the Pros and Cons?

• Pros
• -Easy to use
• -No chemicals
• -Very quick

Cons -Requires Calibration -Cost -Data may not be
absolutely accurate
11
How do you run samples?

• OenoFoss

12
How do we run samples?

• OenoFoss

13
How do we run samples?

• OenoFoss

14
How do you run samples?

• Foss Winescan

15
How do you run samples?

• Foss Winescan

16
Any differences?
Foss Winescan
OenoFoss

• Smaller footprint
• No moving parts, so no real maintenance
• Takes about 2 minutes for duplicate analysis
• Less Expensive
• Cant automate

• Larger footprint
• Needs periodic maintenance
• Takes about a minute for duplicate analysis
• Can be Autosampled
• Can run more tests
• Has available SO2 modules (on Flex model)

17
Who is this suited for?
Foss Winescan
OenoFoss

• Best For
• Smaller sized winery labs that need quick answers
• Labs with small sample loads
• Labs with non-technical staff

• Best For
• Medium-to-Large sized winery labs that need more
  throughput and can devote resources to
  calibration
• Laboratories needing Autosampler Capability

18
What kind of results can I expect?

• We ran a study of these two instruments,
  comparing them to our Wet Chemistry methods.
  Red and White wines were tested.
• We have calibrated our Winescan, but the OenoFoss
  used a factory calibration.
• This is a comparison of our results, but as
  alwaysYour mileage may vary.

19
2011 Results
FT 120

Red Wines

Wine Alc TA pH GF VA
001MOU 0.23 -0.01 -0.06 0.92 0.060
960PTS 0.16 0.19 0.02 0.10 0.045
061GRN 0.08 -0.20 -0.07 0.16 0.141
901PNR 0.19 0.06 -0.02 0.14 0.097
801DDR 0.19 0.16 0.00 -0.06 0.091
960NMR 0.17 0.00 -0.01 0.44 0.113
009PNR 0.15 0.04 0.00 0.34 -0.009
009PNR 0.18 -0.01 -0.01 0.30 -0.015
002CSV 0.10 0.05 -0.02 0.39 0.005
060SHZ 0.09 -0.08 0.01 0.19 0.094
936MER 0.09 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.011
050PNR 0.24 0.07 -0.01 0.00 0.062
Average 0.16 0.09 0.02 0.27 0.062
Delta values
20
2011 Results
FT 120

White Wines

Wine Alc TA pH GF VA
001SYM 0.12 0.09 0.09 N/A 0.071
970LSB 0.34 0.12 -0.08 -0.09 0.028
901LCD 0.29 0.68 -0.01 -0.69 -0.065
802LSB 0.28 0.50 -0.06 -0.57 -0.021
972LCD 0.32 0.19 -0.02 -0.23 -0.036
008MOS 0.32 0.16 0.04 N/A 0.104
060SCC 0.32 0.22 0.02 -0.33 -0.007
002FRC 0.23 0.46 -0.02 -0.10 0.006
928CHD 0.26 0.50 -0.01 -0.30 -0.023
001DWH 0.18 -0.03 -0.04 -0.23 -0.095
960RCD 0.25 0.52 -0.04 -0.37 -0.005
905CHD 0.17 0.53 0.00 -0.67 -0.079
Average 0.26 0.33 0.04 0.36 0.045
Delta values
21
2011 Results
OenoFoss

Red Wines

Wine Alc TA pH GF VA
001MOU -0.13 -0.20 -0.05 -0.26 -0.020
960PTS -1.22 0.10 0.07 -0.49 0.090
061GRN 0.01 -0.20 -0.04 -0.01 0.170
901PNR 0.07 -0.40 0.01 -0.67 0.120
801DDR -0.09 -0.40 0.04 -2.80 -0.030
960NMR -0.93 -0.05 0.11 -0.17 0.150
009PNR -0.77 -0.10 0.00 -0.61 -0.005
009PNR -0.10 -0.45 -0.03 -0.64 -0.020
002CSV 0.09 -0.20 0.19 -0.17 -0.030
060SHZ -0.07 -0.45 -0.02 -0.02 0.005
936MER -0.10 -0.10 0.15 -0.52 -0.040
050PNR -0.78 0.05 -0.08 -0.42 0.080
Average 0.36 0.23 0.07 0.57 0.063
Delta values
22
2011 Results
OenoFoss

White Wines

Wine Alc TA pH GF VA
001SYM N/A 0.30 0.47 N/A 0.110
970LSB -0.70 0.05 -0.02 -0.14 0.090
901LCD -0.12 0.10 0.06 -0.70 -0.005
802LSB 0.01 0.05 -0.09 -0.57 0.030
972LCD -1.17 0.05 0.07 -1.02 -0.070
008MOS 0.45 0.40 0.17 N/A 0.190
060SCC -0.80 -0.25 0.12 -0.26 0.100
002FRC 0.01 0.05 0.03 -0.37 0.100
928CHD -1.59 0.05 0.07 -0.53 0.000
001DWH -0.57 -0.40 0.02 -1.17 0.060
960RCD 0.04 0.05 0.03 -0.37 0.140
905CHD -0.72 0.10 0.13 -0.67 -0.100
Average 0.56 0.15 0.11 0.58 0.083
Delta values
23
If at first you dont succeed

• The data from the 2011 trial was basically just
  using the off the shelf calibration.
• We wanted to see if we would see the same sort of
  discrepancies, and if so, could we could do
  better by calibrating.
• All Infrared instruments tend to better when
  calibrated with the sample types being tested.

24
2012 data
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss PNG 12.74 6.92 1.745 3.34 5.77 0.169
Historical   12.59 7.78 - 3.35 5.54 0.233
Oeno Foss LCD 13.75 0.00 3.055 3.47 6.38 0.152
Historical   13.47 0.52 3.787 3.48 6.44 0.267
Oeno Foss CHD 13.50 5.07 0.879 3.39 5.98 0.308
Historical   13.52 6.19 - 3.40 5.74 0.315
Oeno Foss PNG 12.29 6.40 2.545 3.34 6.40 0.024
Historical   12.43 7.99 - 3.39 6.32 0.156
Oeno Foss LCD 13.50 0.00 3.268 3.49 6.57 0.268
Historical   13.41 0.52 3.787 3.49 6.37 0.257
Oeno Foss RSL 10.30 21.09 2.901 3.21 6.60 0.188
Historical   10.05 23.65 - 3.32 6.11 0.177
25
2012 data
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss CHD 13.48 0.00 2.635 3.71 5.23 0.163
Historical   13.37 0.21 2.760 3.83 4.72 0.128
Oeno Foss LSB 12.56 0.03 2.794 3.56 5.94 0.238
Historical   12.48 0.97 - 3.68 5.92 0.220
Oeno Foss CSB 13.53 3.22 2.301 3.43 6.37 0.298
Historical   13.48 4.34 2.480 3.39 6.05 0.286
Oeno Foss GWT 12.82 23.06 1.662 3.35 5.62 0.251
Historical   12.58 24.53 - 3.29 5.37 0.212
Oeno Foss WPG 12.61 1.09 2.103 3.67 5.29 0.006
Historical   12.60 1.67 - 3.79 5.17 0.098
Oeno Foss CHD 13.62 0.00 2.546 3.39 6.03 0.243
Historical   13.57 0.61 - 3.41 5.65 0.206
26
2012 data
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss CHD 13.24 0.00 2.489 3.39 5.94 0.155
Historical   13.30 0.27 2.547 3.45 5.70 0.130
Oeno Foss LPG 13.19 0.34 1.599 3.36 5.50 0.093
Historical   13.34 0.40 1.637 3.39 5.03 0.071
Oeno Foss PNG 13.52 0.15 1.474 3.54 4.81 0.062
Historical   13.57 0.50 1.507 3.62 4.35 0.083
Oeno Foss CHD 13.72 0.00 2.808 3.59 5.75 0.202
Historical   13.56 0.44 - 3.79 4.76 0.219
Oeno Foss CHD 13.26 0.00 3.013 3.45 6.61 0.207
Historical   13.24 0.47 3.078 3.50 6.32 0.158
Oeno Foss CHD 13.17 0.00 2.887 3.70 5.31 0.154
Historical   13.07 0.52 3.149 3.84 4.81 0.113
27
2012 data
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss CHD 13.14 0.00 0.292 3.47 5.73 0.232
Historical   13.39 0.29 0.205 3.45 5.92 0.242
Oeno Foss DWH 12.94 3.15 2.301 3.35 6.14 0.226
Historical   12.86 3.94 - 3.38 5.77 0.195
Oeno Foss LPG 13.76 0.13 1.717 3.49 5.56 0.127
Historical   13.83 0.31 0.302 3.59 5.19 0.155
Oeno Foss PNG 13.11 0.47 2.087 3.37 6.02 0.184
Historical   13.03 0.23 2.326 3.39 5.60 0.166
Oeno Foss LPG 13.43 0.54 1.502 3.36 5.44 0.089
Historical   13.34 0.40 1.637 3.39 5.03 0.129
Oeno Foss CSB 13.43 0.00 1.959 3.51 6.46 0.408
Historical   13.60 0.34 - 3.50 6.31 0.358
28
2012 data
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss LSB 13.66 0.61 2.250 3.29 6.11 0.209
Historical   13.74 0.97 2.629 3.35 5.90 0.229
Oeno Foss LPG 13.56 0.33 1.850 3.32 5.80 0.103
Historical   13.52 0.48 1.582 3.30 5.34 0.092
Oeno Foss CHD 13.55 0.00 2.581 3.41 6.01 0.221
Historical   13.43 0.50 - 3.42 5.80 0.164
Oeno Foss LSB 13.44 0.27 2.469 3.30 6.16 0.167
Historical   13.51 0.60 - 3.34 6.00 0.194
Oeno Foss WPG 13.20 0.00 2.484 3.32 6.13 0.038
Historical   13.01 0.80 - 3.49 5.76 0.100
Oeno Foss CHD 13.28 0.00 2.729 3.38 6.01 0.184
Historical   13.29 0.24 2.932 3.39 5.79 0.184
29
2012 data
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss WPG 12.50 0.64 2.165 3.32 5.75 0.181
Historical   12.42 0.79 - 3.38 5.78 0.211
Oeno Foss CHD 13.46 4.63 1.217 3.39 6.02 0.234
Historical   13.34 6.45 - 3.40 5.95 0.300
Oeno Foss CHD 10.38 0.00 4.405 3.39 7.37 0.114
Historical   10.22 0.05 4.881 3.45 7.00 0.100
Oeno Foss CHD 14.07 0.00 0.231 3.40 5.49 0.330
Historical   14.07 0.32 - 3.33 5.13 0.234
Oeno Foss PNG 13.02 0.13 2.146 3.64 5.22 0.068
Historical   12.81 0.38 2.896 3.81 4.78 0.122
Oeno Foss PNG 13.66 0.56 0.929 3.47 4.78 0.133
Historical   13.33 0.42 1.113 3.35 5.79 0.143
30
2012 data
Delta values
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss PNG -0.15 0.86 - 0.01 -0.23 0.064
Historical  
Oeno Foss LCD -0.28 0.52 0.73 0.01 0.06 0.115
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD 0.02 1.12 - 0.01 -0.24 0.007
Historical  
Oeno Foss PNG 0.14 1.59 - 0.05 -0.08 0.132
Historical  
Oeno Foss LCD -0.09 0.52 0.52 0.00 -0.20 -0.011
Historical  
Oeno Foss RSL -0.25 2.56 - 0.11 -0.49 -0.011
Historical  
EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Yellow 0.15 1.00 0.05 0.30 0.030
Red 0.25 1.50 0.10 0.50 0.050
31
2012 data
Delta values
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss CHD -0.11 0.21 0.13 0.12 -0.51 -0.035
Historical  
Oeno Foss LSB -0.08 0.94 - 0.12 -0.02 -0.018
Historical  
Oeno Foss CSB -0.05 1.12 0.18 -0.04 -0.32 -0.012
Historical  
Oeno Foss GWT -0.24 1.47 - -0.06 -0.25 -0.039
Historical  
Oeno Foss WPG -0.01 0.58 - 0.12 -0.12 0.092
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD -0.05 0.61 - 0.02 -0.38 -0.037
Historical  
EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Yellow 0.15 1.00 0.05 0.30 0.030
Red 0.25 1.50 0.10 0.50 0.050
32
2012 data
Delta values
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss CHD 0.06 0.27 0.06 0.06 -0.24 -0.025
Historical  
Oeno Foss LPG 0.15 0.06 0.04 0.03 -0.47 -0.022
Historical  
Oeno Foss PNG 0.05 0.35 0.03 0.08 -0.46 0.021
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD -0.16 0.44 - 0.20 -0.99 0.017
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD -0.02 0.47 0.06 0.05 -0.29 -0.049
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD -0.10 0.52 0.26 0.14 -0.50 -0.041
Historical  
EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Yellow 0.15 1.00 0.05 0.30 0.030
Red 0.25 1.50 0.10 0.50 0.050
33
2012 data
Delta values
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss CHD 0.25 0.29 -0.09 -0.02 0.19 0.010
Historical  
Oeno Foss DWH -0.08 0.79 - 0.03 -0.37 -0.031
Historical  
Oeno Foss LPG 0.07 0.18 -1.42 0.10 -0.37 0.028
Historical  
Oeno Foss PNG -0.08 -0.24 0.24 0.02 -0.42 -0.018
Historical  
Oeno Foss LPG -0.09 -0.14 0.14 0.03 -0.41 0.040
Historical  
Oeno Foss CSB 0.17 0.34 - -0.01 -0.15 -0.050
Historical  
EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Yellow 0.15 1.00 0.05 0.30 0.030
Red 0.25 1.50 0.10 0.50 0.050
34
2012 data
Delta values
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss LSB 0.08 0.36 0.38 0.06 -0.21 0.020
Historical  
Oeno Foss LPG -0.04 0.15 -0.27 -0.02 -0.46 -0.011
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD -0.12 0.50 - 0.01 -0.21 -0.057
Historical  
Oeno Foss LSB 0.07 0.33 - 0.04 -0.16 0.027
Historical  
Oeno Foss WPG -0.19 0.80 - 0.17 -0.37 0.062
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD 0.01 0.24 0.20 0.01 -0.22 0.000
Historical  
EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Yellow 0.15 1.00 0.05 0.30 0.030
Red 0.25 1.50 0.10 0.50 0.050
35
2012 data
Delta values
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss WPG -0.08 0.15 - 0.06 0.03 0.030
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD -0.12 1.82 - 0.01 -0.07 0.066
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD -0.16 0.05 0.48 0.06 -0.37 -0.014
Historical  
Oeno Foss CHD 0.00 0.32 - -0.07 -0.36 -0.096
Historical  
Oeno Foss PNG -0.21 0.25 0.75 0.17 -0.44 0.054
Historical  
Oeno Foss PNG -0.33 -0.14 0.18 -0.12 1.01 0.010
Historical  
EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Yellow 0.15 1.00 0.05 0.30 0.030
Red 0.25 1.50 0.10 0.50 0.050
36
Re-Calibration

• We wanted to see if we could improve upon the
  data that we generated if we calibrated the
  OenoFoss with our data.
• Data from 36 samples were added into the
  calibration.
• 12 samples were then run to evaluate the effect
  of the recalibration.
• Sowhat did we see?

37
Post-Calibration
Delta Values
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Pre-calibration LCD 0.28 0.52 0.73 0.01 0.06 0.115
Post calibration LCD 0.02 0.14 0.17 0.01 0.06 0.021

Pre-calibration CHD 0.02 1.12 - 0.01 0.24 0.007
Post calibration CHD 0.05 0.05 - 0.02 0.07 0.077

Pre-calibration PNG 0.14 1.59 - 0.05 0.08 0.132
Post calibration PNG 0.03 0.24 - 0.07 0.11 0.087

Pre-calibration LCD 0.09 0.52 0.52 0.00 0.20 0.011
Post calibration LCD 0.08 0.17 0.07 0.01 0.24 0.022
gt0.1 gt1.0 gt0.4 gt0.05 gt0.2 gt0.03
38
Post-Calibration
Delta Values
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Pre-calibration RSL 0.25 2.56 - 0.11 0.49 0.011
Post calibration RSL 0.00 0.33 - 0.17 0.34 0.008

Pre-calibration CHD 0.11 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.51 0.035
Post calibration CHD 0.03 0.14 0.09 0.08 0.15 0.034

Pre-calibration LSB 0.08 0.94 - 0.12 0.02 0.018
Post calibration LSB 0.16 0.07 - 0.09 0.17 0.001

Pre-calibration CSB 0.05 1.12 0.18 0.04 0.32 0.012
Post calibration CBS 0.00 0.17 0.09 0.02 0.08 0.030
gt0.1 gt1.0 gt0.4 gt0.05 gt0.2 gt0.03
39
Post-Calibration
Delta Values
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Pre-calibration GWT 0.24 1.47 - 0.06 0.25 0.039
Post calibration GWT 0.02 1023.53 - 0.03 0.06 0.008
(too sweet)

Pre-calibration WPG 0.01 0.58 - 0.12 0.12 0.092
Post calibration WPG 0.09 0.06 - 0.05 0.14 0.065

Pre-calibration CHD 0.05 0.61 - 0.02 0.38 0.037
Post calibration CHD 0.06 0.06 - 0.04 0.13 0.022
gt0.1 gt1.0 gt0.4 gt0.05 gt0.2 gt0.03
40
Post-Calibration Evaluation

• Overall, the data were better.
• We went from 30 outliers (out of 59 test results)
  to 11 outliers.
• Only 2 results went from what we would consider
  acceptable to not acceptable.
• Most results got quite a bit closer to the Wet
  Chemistry values.

41
Could you live with this?
Variety EtOH G/F Malic pH TA VA
Oeno Foss PNG 12.74 6.92 1.745 3.34 5.77 0.169
Historical   12.59 7.78 - 3.35 5.54 0.233

Oeno Foss LCD 13.75 0.00 3.055 3.47 6.38 0.152
Historical   13.47 0.52 3.787 3.48 6.44 0.267

Oeno Foss CHD 13.50 5.07 0.879 3.39 5.98 0.308
Historical   13.52 6.19 - 3.40 5.74 0.315

Oeno Foss PNG 12.29 6.40 2.545 3.34 6.40 0.024
Historical   12.43 7.99 - 3.39 6.32 0.156

Oeno Foss LCD 13.50 0.00 3.268 3.49 6.57 0.268
Historical   13.41 0.52 3.787 3.49 6.37 0.257

Oeno Foss RSL 10.30 21.09 2.901 3.21 6.60 0.188
Historical   10.05 23.65 - 3.32 6.11 0.177
42
A little bit about the software

• If desired, you can have different profiles for
  red, white, dry, sweet, etc.
• Units significant digits can be customized.
• Searchable history by lot number.
• Reports can be generated by date, tank, lot
  number, etc. and exported to Excel.
• Can also export to LIMS, SQL, CSV, XML formats.

43
This might be best for a winery that

• is just starting out and has no lab equipment
• has little manpower in the lab, or a few people
  who wear multiple hats.
• has multiple (small) locations and wants to
  minimize variation between locations.
• is struggling to find qualified lab techs.
• is wanting to use NIR technology, but just cant
  justify a Foss Winescan.

44
What else do I need to know about this?

• Calibrations are available for a number of
  analytes, but they can be expensive (5K-10K),
  or you can do them yourself.
• For the OenoFoss, the instrument is limited to
  one-at-a-time analysis, and has a more limited
  Alcohol range (8-18) and GlucoseFructose range
  (0-25 g/L).
• Neither instrument likes chunky, gassy samples
  (can degas/centrifuge).

45
So, what does all this mean?

• Spectroscopic techniques are very fast,
  inexpensive to run, and especially good for
  looking for patterns/trends, especially if you
  are running the same wines.
• It will take some effort on your part to get the
  most out of your instrument.
• If these instruments fit your winery needs, they
  can be a valuable tool.

46
Any Questions?

• Thank you.