TCA-free corks - guaranteed!

[Glenn E.]

http://www.thedrinksreport.com/news/201 ... t-tca.html

[Glenn E.]

I'm not sure how this translates, though:

"A non-detectable TCA guarantee means that if any TCA remains in a cork it is below the detection threshold of 0.5 nanograms/litre."

What's that equate to in parts per trillion? Isn't PPT how people usually refer to cork taint?

[Eric Menchen]

Well, 1 liter of water is roughly 1 kg. (It is that at maximum density, around 4 degrees C). Wines with alcohol can be less dense than water, but the residual sugar in Port generally makes it more dense. Checking IVDP sweetness standards, "Sweet" comes in from 1.0180 to 1.0339 g/cm^3, which covers my guess of around 1.02. (https://winewomantravel.com/2010/12/06/ ... ite-ports/ has the IVDP numbers.) So you can do the math from there

[Glenn E.]

Well... three are online converters that do it, too. But those say that 0.5 ng/L is equal to 500 PPT, which is WAY over any kind of reasonable "detectable" threshold. Roy says he can sometimes detect TCA down to 3-5 PPT. So my assumption is that something, somewhere along the "mythology" line of TCA is askew.

[Glenn E.]

The wikipedia article on cork taint implies that PPT == ng/L, so Amorim's 0.5 ng/L guarantee would be well below the typical human detection threshold of 4-6 PPT (which equals 4-6 ng/L).

[Eric Menchen]

0.5 ng = 0.5 * 10^-9 grams
per /
liter = 1 kg for water = 1000 g
* 1,000,000,000,000 (trillion)
= 0.5 PPT

For Port you could use 1020 g to come up with 0.49 PPT.

So this site is correct: http://www.llojibwe.org/drm/environment ... ations.pdf
And this one is not: http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/ng_lppt.php
Although this page there is: http://www.endmemo.com/sconvert/ng_lppb.php

[Andy Velebil]

Pretty cool when you think about it. I would suspect it's accurate as what major company would allow two different companies to validate it. A big game changer for sure. My understanding, it is only in use for the very top end corks at the moment. I would suspect that screening would increase down the quality line as the technology progresses with time.

I am very glad to see cork producers making big investments in this technology. No doubt the increase in use of screw caps and pressure from top end wine companies around the world drove that.

[Mario Ferreira]

the article on the URL below explains that converting it into the real world this new technology with its level of precision of 0.5 nanograms per litre is the equivalent of 1 drop in a total of 800 olympic swimming pools !

Full article here (in portuguese):
URL: http://observador.pt/2016/05/16/cortice ... -no-vinho/

[Eric Menchen]

My understanding, it is only in use for the very top end corks at the moment. I would suspect that screening would increase down the quality line as the technology progresses with time.

That is my understanding as well. Before this wasn't even practically feasible. Now it is feasible, but feasible doesn't mean it is cheap.

[Tom Archer]

Two thoughts here..

1) We need to press the producers to reveal which of their products are sealed with guaranteed corks, and which are not. If there's a significant cost factor involved, we might find (for example..) that Graham's vintage uses them, but Malvedos does not, so we need full disclosure.

2) Are Amorim promising to destroy any corks that fail the test, or will we find an increased incidence of corked bottles at the low end of the price spectrum? Pushing producers to buy the premium product by taking less care with the regular product would be brutally commercial, but commerce is often like that..