what do you think ?

[Luc Gauthier]

Latest News

Company reveals devices to detect oxidation and cork taint
October 4, 2007


Alia Akkam

Two revolutionary wine devices detecting cork taint and oxidation levels in wines without opening the bottles have been unveiled.

The devices, the only ones in the world of their kind, were developed by the University of California, Davis (UCD), with funding from the owner of the Crystal Springs resort in Vernon, New Jersey.

Resort owner Gene Mulvihill, who boasts a collection of over 50,000 bottles, began funding the research several years ago, saying he wanted to come up with devices that would test the quality of fine wines without opening and damaging bottles.

In 2003, chemists at UCD first developed a wine scanner using MRI technology used in the medical field, to determine whether or not a bottle of wine was spoilt by oxidization.

Mulvihill continued his collaboration with the university to create a cork taint device that can detect the molecule 2,4,6-trichloroanisole (TCA) and determine a bottle's mustiness to 1 point per trillion. The normal level at which humans can detect TCA is considered to be 3 to 4 parts per trillion.

The testing process takes between two and twenty minutes.

'People are paying for good wines,' he said. 'Now they have the technology to make sure they are [good].'

[Al B.]

"Sniffer" technology has come a long way in the past 5 years, artificial noses have moved from the realm of science-fiction to the stage where they are actually one of the most sensitive ways of detecting specific molecules.

I can believe that someone has developed an artificial nose that can detect TCA. However, I would guess that it would be mighty difficult to detect which of several bottles stored together in a case was the one with TCA and which were the 11 that had just lain next to it.

Alex

[Luc Gauthier]

Would they not scan the wine before bottling ?

[Roy Hersh]

We have experienced about 3 bottles of corked wine out of about 200 we have tried. The percentage is far from perfect, but it is not too bad.

[Todd Pettinger]

Wow, another good example of technology put to good use. I can see the resort staff this guy owns with an onerous task ahead: scan all 50,000+ bottles to see if there are any tainted. (Hey, I'd volunteer to work there in exchange for a couple bottles of my choosing! )

On another note, this type of technology, if able to be mass-produced, certainly could bring back the advent of flying with bottles. Simply edit the sniffer to sniff out explosive-type compounds. :)

[Andy Velebil]

I think its great that technology is coming along so fast. But that machine is quite expensive to use and very time consuming. Until it is developed further and can do the job faster, it will only be able to be used buy a few people and some select bottles. But I do hope they continue to develop it enough that it becomes practical and affordable for all to use.

[Moses Botbol]

Wonder how much each scan costs? This could be used as a way to nickel dime down the value of a bottle or vice versa. I can see a lot of negative affects to this kind of testing as well.

[Todd Pettinger]

True Moses. Can you imagine how auction houses would be affected by this? Suddenly, there is a lot less guess-work involved.

Mind you, that could work IN their favour as well.

Maybe the bad bottles would never make it to auction. Or they would in the "buyer beware" category - extremely discounted with the rating attached. Based upon how sensitive one is to TCA, you could decide to take a chance (or not) on a bottle that contains a few PPM of TCA-taint. The higher the PPM, the lower the discount. I suppose they would have to eventually take them OFF the auction market if a certain number was exceeded, or risk getting someone (who may not be up to speed on TCA taint) really, really upset at them.

So many considerations surrounding a device such as this... :?

[Jay Powers]

I'm sorry to be a spoilsport, but this seems to me to be virtually impossible by MRI (or as us chemists, who invented the technique, call NMR...Nuclear Magnetic Resonence). The sensitivity of this technique is low enough that a chemist would never believe that 5% or even 10% impurity in the sample could be reliably detected or quantitated...1 part per trillion? No way. When you think that one part per million would already be 1 mg/L, and theres no way you would even approach that sensitivty by NMR/MRI. It's simple physics.

Perhaps the are talking about neutron diffraction?

Jay

[Roy Hersh]

Sounds like a call for .... Johnnie Neutron!

[Luc Gauthier]

Do the ends justify the means ?
Do you really think the big guys in the Douro are going to invest in sniffer technology ?

[Todd Pettinger]

Do the ends justify the means ?
Do you really think the big guys in the Douro are going to invest in sniffer technology ?

I won't touch the first question, and certainly not challenge the resident chemist (Jay) that what we are describing here may not even be possible, but I will venture a pretty solid guess on the last question you ask Luc: Do you really think the big guys in the Douro are going to invest in sniffer technology ?

In short, no. Why would they? I suppose they could prevent their name from being sullied by collectors and aficionados, but in the end, once they have sold their product to the initial set of distributors, is there that much motivation to care?

Folks know about TCA and likely can afford to wrote off one bad year a producer has. Most times, that will not adversely affect the sales of the next year's release. If, however, that producers has several releases of TCA-tainted bottles, they may see an impact on their orders and sales. And then they may be forced to figure a way to prevent the TCA in the first place. Perhaps this tech would be something they look at, but I still rather doubt it.

Just this guy's