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*: rafael.apolinar.valiente@gmail.com

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.