OIV-MA-AS314-01 Carbone dioxide (with a. range of concentration up to 1.5 g/L)

Type II method

1. Principle

1.1.   Still wines (CO₂ over pressure 0.5 x 10⁵ Pa[*])

The volume of wine taken from the sample is cooled to around 0°C and mixed with a sufficient quantity of sodium hydroxide to give a pH of 10-11. Titration is carried out with an acid solution in the presence of carbonic anhydrase.  The carbon dioxide content is calculated from the volume of acid needed to change the pH from 8.6 (bicarbonate form) to 4.0 (carbonic acid).  A blank titration is carried out in the same conditions on decarbonated wine in order to take account of the volume of sodium hydroxide solution taken up by the wine acids.

1.2.   Sparkling and semi-sparkling wines

The sample of wine to be analyzed is cooled near to the freezing point. After removal of a sub-sample to be used as a blank after decarbonation, the remainder of the bottle is made alkaline to fix all the carbon dioxide in the form of . Titration is carried out with an acid solution in the presence of carbonic anhydrase. The carbon dioxide content is calculated from the volume of acid solution needed to change the pH from 8.6 (bicarbonate form) to 4.0 (carbonic acid). A blank titration is carried out in the same conditions in decarbonated wine in order to take account of the volume of sodium hydroxide taken up by the wine acids.

2. Description of the method

2.1.   Still Wines

• (CO₂ over pressure 0.5 x Pa)
  1. Apparatus
• Magnetic stirrer
• pH meter
  2. Reagents

• Sodium hydroxide solution, 0.1 M
• Sulfuric acid solution, 0.05 M
• Carbonic anhydrase solution, 1 g/L
  3. Procedure

Cool the wine sample together with the 10 mL pipette used for sampling to approximately 0°C.

Place 25 mL sodium hydroxide solution, 0.1 M, in a 100 mL beaker; add two drops of carbonic anhydrase solution, 1 g/L.  Introduce 10 mL of wine using the pipette cooled to 0°C.

Place the beaker on the magnetic stirrer, immerse the pH electrode and magnetic rod, and stir moderately.

When the liquid has reached room temperature, titrate slowly with the sulfuric acid solution, 0.05 M, until the pH reaches 8.6.  Note the burette reading.

Continue titrating with the sulfuric acid until the pH reaches 4.0.  Let n mL be the volume used between pH 8.6 and 4.0.

Remove CO₂ from approximately 50 mL of the wine sample by shaking under vacuum for three minutes, the flask being heated in a water bath to about 25 °C.

Carry out the above procedure on 10 mL of the decarbonated wine.  Let n'mL be the volume used.

2.1.4. Expression of results

1 mL of the titrated sodium hydroxide solution, 0.05 M, corresponds to 4.4 mg of CO₂. The quantity of CO₂ in grams per liter of wine is given by:

• 0.44 (n - n')

The result is quoted to two decimal places.

Note: For wines which contain little CO₂ (CO₂ < 1 g/L), the addition of carbonic anhydrase to catalyze the hydration of CO₂ is unnecessary.

2.2.   Sparkling and semi-sparkling wines

2.2.1. Apparatus

• Magnetic stirrer
• pH meter
  2. Reagents

• Sodium hydroxide, 50% (m/m)
• Sulfuric acid solution, 0.05 M
• Carbonic anhydrase solution, 1 g/L
  3. Procedure

Mark the level of wine in the bottle and then cool until freezing begins.

Allow the bottle to warm up slightly, while shaking, until ice crystals disappear.

Remove the stopper rapidly and place 45 to 50 mL of wine in a measuring cylinder for blank titration. The exact volume removed, v mL, is determined by reading on the measuring cylinder after it has returned to room temperature.

Immediately after the blank sample has been removed, add 20 mL of the sodium hydroxide solution for a 750 mL bottle.

Allow the wine to reach room temperature.

Place 30 mL of boiled distilled water and two drops of the carbonic anhydrase solution into a 100 mL beaker. Add 10 mL of wine that has been made alkaline.

Place the beaker on the magnetic stirrer, set up the electrode and magnetic rod and stir moderately.

Titrate with the sulfuric acid solution, 0.05 M, slowly until the pH reaches 8.6.  Note the burette reading.

Continue titrating slowly with the sulfuric acid, 0.05 M, until the pH reaches 4.0.  Let n mL be the volume added between pH 8.6 and 4.0.

Remove CO₂ from the v mL of wine placed on one side for the blank titration by agitating under vacuum for three minutes, the flask being heated in a water bath at about 25 °C.  Remove 10 mL of decarbonated wine and add to 30 mL of boiled distilled water, add two to three drops of sodium hydroxide solution, 50%, to bring the pH to 10 to 11.  Then follow the above procedure.  Let n' mL be the volume of sulfuric acid added, 0.05 M.

2.2.4. Expression of results

1 mL sulfuric acid, 0.05 M, corresponds to 4.4 mg of CO₂.

Empty the bottle of wine which has been made alkaline and determine to within 1 mL the initial volume of wine by making up to the mark with water, say V mL. The quantity of CO₂ in grams per liter of wine is given by the following formula:

 

The result is quoted to two decimal places.

2.3.   Expression of Results

The excess pressure at 20°C () expressed in Pascals is given by the formula:

Where :

• Q = CO₂ content in g/L of wine,
• A= the alcoholic strength of wine at 20 °C,
• S= the sugar content of the wine in g/L,
• Patm = the atmospheric pressure, expressed in Pascals.

2.4.   Note

The procedure described below can be used as the usual method for wines containing less than 4 g per liter of carbon dioxide.

Prepare two samples of wine for analysis.

Open one of the samples after it has been cooled to approximately 5°C and immediately add 5 mL of a sodium hydroxide solution, 50% (m/m), for 375 mL of sample. Stopper immediately and mix.  Place 10 mL of wine so processed into a beaker containing 40 mL of water and add 3 drops of carbonic anhydrase solution, 0.1 mg/mL.  Titrate with a sulfuric acid solution, 0.02275 M, until reaching a pH of 8.6, then continue titrating to a pH of 4.0.  The volume used to change the pH from 8.6 to 4.0 is n mL.

Remove the carbon dioxide from about 25 mL of wine, taken from the second sample, by agitation under a vacuum for about 1 min. into a 500 mL flask containing 3 drops of carbonic anhydrase solution.  Add 0.33 mL of sodium hydroxide, 50% (m/m).  Apply the above titration procedure to 10 mL decarbonated wine. Let n' mL be the volume of H₂SO₄, 0.02275 M used. 1mL corresponds to 200 mg of carbon dioxide per liter. The amount of wine analyzed for carbon dioxide, in milligrams per liter:

• (n - n') x 200 x 1.013

Bibliography

Reference method:

• Caputi A, Ueda M., Walter P. & Brown T., Amer. J. Enol. Vitic., 1970, 21, 140-144.
• Sudraud P., F.V., O.I.V., 1973, n° 350.
• Goranov N., F.V., O.I.V., 1983, n° 758.
• Brun S. & Tep Y., F.V., O.I.V., 1981, n° 736 & 1982, n° 736 (bis).

Collaborative Study Titrimetric determination of carbon dioxide in sparkling and semi-sparkling wines

Report on Results

Goal of the study

The objective of the study is to determine the repeatability and reproducibility characteristics of the reference method (MA-E-AS314-01-DIOCAR) for the titrimetric CO₂ determination in sparkling and semi-sparkling wine.

O.I.V. definitions and limits for the CO₂ content are given with resolution OENO 1/2002.

Needs and purpose of the study

The reference method for the CO₂ determination includes no precision data. This collaborative trial was thus conducted.

Due to the analytical particularity, the conventional validation protocol was not able to be completely respected. Out of one bottle of sample only one independent determination could be done. Each bottle had to be considered as individual. Therefore homogeneity testing within the pre-investigations for collaborative studies was impossible. In order to provide homogenous test material close co-operation with producers was necessary. Samples were obtained during the filling of the bottles on the filling line in a very short time space, thus that it must be assumed that the CO₂ is homogeneously distributed in all bottles.

This study was designed to be a blind duplicate test. The complete anonymity of the samples could not be guaranteed because the partners involved used different types of bottles and/or stoppers for the different samples. Therefore we had to rely on the honesty of the participating laboratories which were requested to perform the data analysis independently without any data modification.

Scope and applicability

1. The method is quantitative.
2. The method is applicable for the determination of CO₂ in sparkling and semi-sparkling wines to check that standards are respected.

Materials and matrices

The collaborative study included 6 different samples. All were sent in blind duplicate, so that in total 12 bottles were distributed to the participants.

Table 1. Samples and coding.

Sample	Bottle Code	Type
SAMPLE A	(Code 1 + 9)	sparkling wine
SAMPLE B	(Code 2 + 5)	semi-sparkling wine (“petillant”)
SAMPLE C	(Code 3 + 4)	sparkling wine
SAMPLE D	(Code 6 + 10)	semi- sparkling wine (“petillant”)
SAMPLE E	(Code 7 + 11)	semi- sparkling wine (“petillant”)
SAMPLE F	(Code 8 + 12)	sparkling wine (red)

Control measures

The method considered is already approved in practice. Only the missing precision data had to be determined within the collaborative study. A pre-trial was not required because most of the laboratories had been already using the reference method in routine analysis.

Method to be followed and supporting documents

Supporting documents were given to the participants (Covering letter Reference for method of analysis, Sample Receipt Form and Result Sheet).

The determination of CO₂ content in g/l should be expressed in g/l.

Data analysis

1. Determination of outliers was assessed by Cochran, Grubbs and paired Grubbs tests.
2. Statistical analysis was performed to obtain repeatability and reproducibility data.
3. HORRAT values were calculated.

Participants

13 laboratories from several different countries participated in the collaborative study. Lab-Code numbers were given to the laboratories. The participating laboratories have proven experience in the analysis of CO₂ in sparkling wine.

Table 2. List of participants.

Landesuntersuchungsamt D-56068 Koblenz GERMANY	Institut für Lebensmittelchemie und Arzneimittelprüfung D-55129 Mainz GERMANY
Landesuntersuchungsamt D-67346 Speyer GERMANY	Institut für Lebensmittel, Arzneimittel und Tierseuchen D-10557 BERLIN GERMANY
Servicio Central de Viticultura y Enologia E-08720 Villafranca Del Pendes SPAIN	Landesuntersuchungsamt D-54295 Trier GERMANY
Landesuntersuchungsamt D-85764 Oberschleißheim GERMANY	Instituto Agrario di S. Michele I-38010 S. Michele all Adige ITALIA
Chemisches Landes- u. Staatl. Veterinäruntersuchungsamt D-48151 Münster GERMANY	Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi I-31015 Conegliano (Treviso) ITALY
Bundesamt für Weinbau A-7000 Eisenstadt AUTRIA	BgVV D-14195 Berlin GERMANY
Chemisches und Veterinäruntersuchungsamt D-70736 Fellbach GERMANY

 

[*] 1 bar  = 10⁵ Pascal (Pa)

OIV-MA-AS314-03 Determination of the carbon isotope ratio of in sparkling wines – Method using isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS)

Type II method

Foreword

The following standard method has been prepared with the agreement of all the laboratories participating in the OIV Collaborative study: -IRMS analyses of in sparkling wine (2003-2004).

Introduction

The headspace in a bottle of sparkling wines contains a -rich gaseous phase in equilibrium with the dissolved in the liquid phase. This gas evolves during the second fermentation, induced by the addition of sugar from grape, beet, sugar cane or maize. However, the content of sparkling wines may also be increased artificially with industrial .

In 1997, an off-line method for the determination of the isotopic ratio of from sparkling wines by isotope mass spectrometry (IRMS) was presented to the OIV. This method led on to new procedures based on automated on-line techniques, developed in some European laboratories. One of these procedures was presented to the OIV in 2001. Technical progress in the next few years may well lead to new procedures for determining reliably and rapidly the isotopic ratio of numerous samples of . An exhaustive description of all applicable procedures for different techniques runs the risk of the method being rapidly superseded. The following method takes this into account and describes the basic principles for the correct measurement of the carbon-13 content in from sparkling wine and includes a brief description of the procedures used nowadays and, by way of examples, some exhaustive descriptions of procedures based on off-line and on-line techniques.

1. Scope

 

This method determines by isotope mass spectrometry (IRMS) the stable carbon isotope ratio () of in sparkling wines. The method includes a range of procedures whose use depends on the instruments available.

2. Normative references

 

ISO 5725-2:1994 “Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results. Part 2: Basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method”.

ISO 78-2:1999 “Chemistry - Layouts for standards - Part 2: Methods of chemical analysis”.

3. Definitions

 

• : Isotope ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12 for a considered sample;
• Carbon 13 () content expressed in parts per mill (‰);
• V-PDB: Vienna-Pee-Dee Belemnite. The PDB standard is a fossil calcium carbonate from South Carolina in USA, with an isotope ratio (or ) = 0.0112372. This value is the reference point for the common international PDB scale for values expressed in parts per mill (‰).
• m/z: mass to charge relationship
• : Repeatability standard deviation. The standard deviation of test results obtained under repeatability conditions (conditions where independent test results are obtained with the same method on identical test samples in the same laboratory by the same operator using the same equipment within short intervals of time).
• r: Repeatability limit. Value less than or equal to which the absolute difference between two test results obtained under repeatability conditions may be expected to be with a probability of 95%; r=2.8·.
• : Reproducibility standard deviation. The standard deviation of test results obtained under reproducibility conditions (conditions where test results are obtained with the same method on identical test samples in different laboratories with different operators using different equipment).
• R: Reproducibility limit. Value less than or equal to which the absolute difference between two test results obtained under reproducibility conditions may be expected to be with a probability of 95%; R=2.8·

4. Principle

Plants are classified as C3 and C4 depending on the route followed for sugar synthesis. The sugar from C3 plants, such as grape and beet, has lower content than the sugar from C4 plants like cane sugar and maize. This difference is maintained in the content of the fermentation products of sugars such as ethanol and . Moreover, the industrial used in the food industry and that comes from the combustion of fossil fuels or from the thermal treatment of carbonates has content different from the products of C3 and C4 plants. Consequently, the isotope ratio of from sparkling wine is governed by the type of sugar used in the second fermentation (C3or C4) or by the isotopic composition of the industrial added.

The studies performed till now on the ¹³C content of from sparkling wine have shown that the obtained by fermentation of sugar from C3 plants has in the range of -17‰ to -26‰, whereas obtained by fermentation of sugar from C4 plants has in the range of -7‰ to -10‰. Gasified wines have their isotope ratio below -29‰ or above -10‰, depending on the carbon dioxide source^1-4. Therefore, the measurement of the stable carbon isotope ratio () of from sparkling wines can be a good method for finding the origin of the gas.

content is determined from carbon dioxide gas obtained from sparkling wine. The various possible combinations of the isotopes lead to mass 44 corresponding to the isotopomer, mass 45 corresponding to and species, and mass 46 for the isotopomer ( and can be ignored due to their very low abundance). The corresponding ion currents are determined on the three different collectors. The ionic current m/z 45 is corrected for the contribution of which is computed from the intensity current measured for m/z 46 by including the relative abundance of and (Craig correction). Comparison with a reference calibrated against the international standard V-PDB then allows the calculation of the content on the ‰ relative scale.

5. Reagents and material

 

The materials and consumables depend on the equipment used in the laboratory.

When the separation and purification of the samples is performed by cryotrapping in a vacuum line the following reagents are used:

 

• Liquid nitrogen
• Ethanol
• Solid

In general, the following consumables are used for the analysis with any Continuous Flow system (EA-IRMS or GC-C-IRMS). Other materials of similar quality can replace any product on this list:

• Helium for analysis (CAS 07440-59-7)
• Oxygen for analysis (CAS 07782-44-7)
• Carbon dioxide for analysis used as a secondary reference gas for carbon-13 content (CAS 00124-38-9).
• Oxidising reagent for the furnace of the combustion system, such as cupper oxide for microanalysis (CAS 1317-38-0).
• Desiccant to remove water produced by combustion: for example, magnesium perchlorate for microanalyses (CAS 10034-81-4). This is not necessary when the EA-IRMS or the GC-C-IRMS systems remove water by cryotrapping.
• Capillary column and the Naphion membrane to remove water produced by combustion in GC-C-IRMS systems.

The Reference Gas used in the measurements can be a certified gas or a working reference gas calibrated compared to international references with known delta values (certified gases or reference materials). Some international reference materials that can be used for gas reference calibration and for control of the gas reference calibration are the following:

Code sample	Material
IMEP-8-A		-6.40% from Messer Griesheim
ISO-TOP		-25.7%
BCR-656	Ethanol	-20.91% from IRMM
BCR-657	Glucose	-10.76% “
SAI-692C		-10.96% from Oztech trading Coorporation (USA)
NBS-22	Oil	-29.7% from IAEA
IAEA-CH-6 (ANU)	Sucrose	-10.4% “
NBS-18	Calcite	-5.1% “
NBS-19	TS-limestone	+1.85% “
FID-Mix	Mixture of n-alkanes in isooctanol	From Varian
C14		-29.61%
C15		-25.51%
C16		-33.39%

 

6. Apparatus

 

The usual laboratory apparatus for carbon isotope ratio measurements and, in particular, the following:

• Isotopic ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS), with the ability to determine the content of gas at natural abundance with an internal precision of 0.05 ‰ or better (expressed in relative value). The internal precision is defined here as the difference between two measurements of the same sample.

The mass spectrometer will generally be fitted with a triple collector to measure simultaneously the current intensities for m/z 44, 45 and 46. The mass spectrometer should either be fitted with a dual-inlet system, for alternating measurement of the unknown sample and a standard, or use a continuous-flow technique (CF-­IRMS).

• Continuous-flow systems (CF­-IRMS). Continuous-flow systems with an automated gas sampling system can be used. Several commercially available CF-IRMS techniques suitable for the scope of the present method are:
  • GC-C-IRMS (Gas chromatography – combustion- IRMS)
  • EA-IRMS (Elemental analyser equipped for liquid or solid injection)

These systems separate and purify and elute the resulting carbon dioxide to the ionisation chamber of the spectrometer.

• Gas Sampler-IRMS. A peripheral system may be used for the on-line gas preparation, isolation of and introduction of into the isotope ratio mass spectrometer.
• Glass or steel vacuum line, with cryogenic traps and connected to a pump able to obtain a pressure lower than mbar.
• Gas sampling devices, commercially available (such as syringe for gas samples) or designed in-house, able to extract a aliquot from the sparkling wine without isotopic fractionation.
• Sealed vials for gas samples, adaptable on gas autosampler to the continuous-flow systems.
• Sealed vials for sparkling wine aliquots, adaptable on vacuum line and/or on gas autosampler to the continuous-flow systems.

7. Procedure

The proposed method includes three steps: sampling, purification and separation, and ratio measurement. These steps can be totally independent

(off-line system) or fully or partially connected on-line (on-line system). Any procedure that avoids isotopic fractionation of the CO₂ sample during the three steps of the method may be used. Details on particular procedures based on off-line and CF systems are given in Annexes A, B and C.

The following description refers to the procedures used for the participant laboratories in the inter-laboratory test.

7.1.  sampling procedures:

1. Sampling the at room temperature from the headspace of the bottle by plugging a special device through the cork, or
2. Sampling the from the headspace of the bottle after removing the cork and sealing the bottle with a gas-tight precision lock connected to a sampling device. The sparkling wine bottle should be cooled to under 0°C before changing the locking device and then warmed to room temperature. An aliquot of gas collected in the sampling device is removed by a gas-tight syringe and injected into a sealed GC-vial, or
3. Sampling the from an aliquot of sparkling wine. The sparkling wine bottle should be cooled to 4°-5°C before removing the cork. The wine aliquots are placed in a special bottle adaptable to a glass vacuum line or to a gas autosampler.
4. Refrigerate the sample at 4-5 °C, before quickly transferring the liquid into a vial and sealing it with a Teflon-silicone septum cap. Then 50 μL of liquid is then transferred into a 10 mL vial and analysed. If necessary, the vial should be filled with helium in order to remove the atmospheric .
5. After refrigerating the sample, the bottle is opened at room temperature and a sample of 200 μL of liquid is taken using a pipette and placed in suitable vials. The vials are immediately resealed then placed in an ultrasonic bath for 10 min prior to analysis.

The statistical results of the inter-laboratory test for sampling procedures 7.1.d and 7.1.e are given in ANNEX E.

7.2.  purification and separation procedures

1. Uncondensed gases and water present in the gas sample are removed in a vacuum line by use of cryogenic traps, or
2. Gas samples are purified and separated by different on-line systems, which are connected to the IRMS by means of continuous-flow or a cryogenic trap. Some of the on-line systems that can be used are the following:

• a water cryogenic trap on-line with a continuous-flow system
• a water trap (magnesium perchlorate) followed by a gas chromatograph
• a gas chromatograph connected either directly to the IRMS or by means of a combustion interface.
  3.   ratio measurement:

The carbon isotope ratio of obtained from sparkling wine is measured by using an isotopic ratio mass spectrometer.

 

8. Calculation

 

Express the isotope ratio of the from sparkling wine as the deviation from a working standard () previously calibrated in relation to the international standard PDB (Pee Dee Belemnite). This parameter is defined as the relative difference per thousand between the and ratios of a sample in relation to the PDB Standard. The PDB standard is a fossil calcium carbonate from South Carolina in USA, with an isotope ratio () = 0.0112372. This value is the reference point of the common international PDB scale for values expressed in parts per mill (‰).

The values expressed in relation to the working standard are calculated with the following equation:

where

is the isotope ratio of the test portion;

is the isotope ratio of the working standard.

The values expressed in relation to the PDB standard are calculated using the following equation:

where

is the isotopic deviation of the working standard previously determined from the PDB standard expressed in parts per mill (‰).

Express the results to two decimal places.

9. Precision

Details of the inter-laboratory test on precision of the method are given in annex D and E.

9.1.  Repeatability

The absolute difference between two single results found on identical test sample by one operator using the same apparatus within the shortest feasible time interval will exceed the repeatability limit r in no more than 5% of the cases.

The accepted mean values of the standard deviation of repeatability (S_r) and repeatability limit (r) are equal to:

= 0.21‰

r = 0.58‰

Characteristics of sampling procedures 7.1.a-c

= 0.21‰

r = 0.56‰

Characteristics of sampling procedures 7.1d and 7.1e

9.2.  Reproducibility

The absolute difference between two single results found on identical test sample reported by two laboratories will exceed the reproducibility R in not more than 5% of the cases.

The accepted mean values of the standard deviation of reproducibility (S_R) and reproducibility limit (R) are equal to:

= 0.47‰

R = 1.33‰

Characteristics of sampling procedures 7.1.a-c

= 0.68‰

R = 1.91‰

Characteristics of sampling procedures 7.1d and 7.1e

10. Test report

The test report shall contain the following data:

• all the information necessary for the identification of the sample tested;
• a reference to the International Standard Method;
• the method used, including the procedure for sampling and measurement and the instrument system used;
• the results of the test and units, including the results of the individual determinations and their mean, calculated as specified in clause 8 (“Calculation”);
• any deviations from the procedure specified;
• any unusual features observed during the test;
• the date of the test;
• whether repeatability has been verified;
• a description of the procedure for the reference gas calibration used to measure the test portions.

Annexes (A,B,C,D, E)

 

11. Bibliography

• Mesure du rapport isotopique ¹³C/¹²C du gaz carbonique des vins mousseux et des vins gazéifiés. J. Merin and S. Mínguez. Office International de la Vigne et du Vin. Paris. F.V. 1039, 2426/200297 (1997).
• Examination of the ¹³C/¹²C isotopes in sparkling and semi-sparkling wine with the aid of simple on-line sampling. M. Boner and H. Förstel. Office International de la Vigne et du Vin. Paris. F.V. 1152. (2001).
• Use of ¹³C/¹²C ratios for studying the origin of CO₂ in sparkling wines. J.Dunbar. Fresenius Z. Anal. Chem., 311, 578-580 (1982).
• Contribution to the study of the origin of CO₂ in sparkling wines by determination of the ¹³C/¹²C isotope ratio. I. González-Martin, C. González-Pérez, E. Marqués-Macías. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45, 1149-1151 (1997).
• Protocol for Design, Conduct and Interpretation of Method-Performance studies. Pure Appl. Chem., 1995, 67, 331-343.

 

Annex A Experimental procedure based on off-line systems for sampling and measurement

(“in-house” sampling device, off-line vacuum line and dual-inlet IRMS)

 

1. Material

• Sampling device. The device that will be used to extract gas aliquots from the bottle consists of a hollow punch (steel needle) with three lateral orifices through which the gas enters. It is connected to a valve system composed of two valves connected in sequence and has a capacity of about 1 mL. One valve is attached to the punch (Valve 1) and the other is attached to a steel tube (Valve 2), which connects the device to a vacuum line. For a glass vacuum line an adapter with a flexible steel tube will be necessary. Figure shows the device for gas collection.
• Off-line vacuum line with two cryogenic traps (P<0.05 mbar). Two types of vacuum line can be used, a glass or steel vacuum line.
• Dual-inlet - Isotope ratio mass spectrometer with the ability to determine the content of gas at natural abundance with an internal precision of 0.05‰ or better (expressed in relative δ value). Internal precision is here defined as the difference between two measurements of the same sample.

2. Procedure (see Figure)
   1.   sampling:

1. Connect the sampling device to vacuum line and test its seal capacity.
2. Punch the sampling device with the valves closed into the bottle cork by means of a circular movement whilst maintaining the device vertical.
3. Connect the sampling device–wine bottle assembly to the vacuum line and evacuate the line and the reservoir delimited by the two valves (Valve 2 opened and Valve 1 closed).
4. Once a vacuum has been created in the reservoir, close valve 2, open valve 1 and maintain this configuration for 1 min. After the equilibration time, close valve 1. The gas retained in the reservoir is then purified.

2.2.  purification and separation:

1. Transfer the collected in the reservoir to the first cryogenic trap by liquid nitrogen for at least 1 min, then pump the uncondensed gas until a pressure of less than 0.05 mbar is reached.
2. Transfer the CO₂ sample to the measurement device by using liquid nitrogen in the second cryogenic trap and by changing the liquid nitrogen in the first cryogenic trap for a water trap at –80 5 ºC. Maintain this for at least 1 min.
3. Pump the uncondensed gas (until a pressure of less than 0.05 mbar is reached) before closing the measurement device.
   3.   ratio measurement

The carbon isotope ratio of obtained is measured by using a dual-inlet IRMS.

3. Reference

• Mesure du rapport isotopique du gaz carbonique des vins mousseux et des vins gazeifiés. J.Merín, S.Mínguez. Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, F.V. 1039, 2426/200297.

Annex B Experimental procedure based on the on-line systems for sampling and measurement (CF-IRMS)

 

1. Sampling technique

At first the sampling system is evacuated, the carbon dioxide is extracted from the bottle using a “sampling device”, and a specific quantity is transferred to the storage vessel. After applying an overpressure, a small quantity of sample gas is introduced into the on-line helium flow with the aid of a restrictor. The sampling system is illustrated in Figure 2.

There is now a continuous carbon dioxide flow present in the helium flow (sample flow). The remaining helium flow is free from carbon dioxide and acts as the zero flow. Artificial “switching peaks” are generated by temporarily switching from the zero flow to the sample flow (switching time: 2 seconds), which are measured in the MS for their isotopic ratio.

2. Procedure (see Figure):

 

2.1.  Evacuation of the sampling system

The entire sampling system is evacuated to a negative pressure of 1 mbar (V3 closed)

2.2.  Sampling

The closure is pierced with a “sampling device” and the bottle atmosphere is transferred into the gas storage vessel (GV) with the aid of the negative pressure (pressure increase to approx. after 50 mbar). The fine adjustment valve (VF) permits a controlled and slow transfer of the gas. The gas is purified in the cryotrap during transfer.

2.3.  Feeding

After sampling (V3, V2 closed, V4 open), an overpressure of 1,5 bar is built up with the aid of helium. The gas to be measured is fed to the CF-IRMS by opening V3. The measurement can be performed after a pre-run of 150 seconds. A capillary is integrated as a restrictor which only allows the feeding of a very small carrier gas quantity (10mL/min).

2.4.  Measurement

A carbon dioxide flow is now continuously present in the helium sample flow (PRO). Switching from the sample flow (PRO) to the pure helium flow (NUL) permits the generation of artificial switching peaks.

Switching on the sample side: 2 seconds (zero side: 10-30 seconds).

3. Reference

• Examination of the ¹³C/¹²C isotopes in sparkling and semi-sparkling wine with the aid of simple on-line sampling. M. Boner and H. Förstel. Office International de la Vigne et du Vin, FV 1152.

 

V1-V4 check valve

VP vacuum pump

VF fine adjustment valve

SK sampling device

PRO helium sample flow (50 mL/min)

NUL helium (zero) flow (60mL/min)

KF water trap propanol at – 90ºC

GV 250 ml gas storage vessel

DM pressure gauge

KA restrictor capillary (10cm, 150µm)

VM 2/4-way valve

 

Annex C Experimental procedure based on the GC-C-IRMS technique

 

1. Instrument characteristics

• Gas Chromatograph: GC Varian 3400
• Capillary Column: HP-INNOWax (Crosslinked Polyethylene Glycol), 30 m x 0.25 mm ID, film thickness 0.5 μm
• Combustion interface by ThermoFinnigan-MAT, with oxidation oven set at 940°C or off; reduction oven at 640°C or off
• Mass Spectrometer: DeltaPlus ThermoFinnigan-MAT.

2. Procedure
   1.   sampling:

Aliquots of gas were collected through a 25cc syringe, by plugging a long iron needle through the cork. pressure filled the syringe with the headspace gas spontaneously.

Transfer the gas in already crimped vials for subsequent analysis. The vials used to store the gas are previously crimped with Teflon-silicone septum caps. To flush out the air inside – and thus the atmospheric – a second needle is plunged into the septum, to guarantee that headspace gas from wine pushes out the air in vial. See figure below.

NOTE: A bigger syringe is used, in line with vial volume, to make sure the vial is clean. In our case, a 25cc (or even bigger) syringe for a 2 ml vial.

Flushed air from vial		Headspace gas from wine, containing CO2 to inject
* Note that vial is not in scale with syringe.

 

2.2.  GC-IRMS analyses: CO₂ injection and ratio measurement

A very few μL of gas were directly injected into the column with a 10 μL cemented-needle Hamilton syringe. Split conditions of high flow were set up. The carrier helium was at 20 PSI.

4 injections were carried out in each run for each sample. Total run time for the analysis was 6 minutes. See chromatogram below.

2.3.  Processing of results

The software used to record and elaborate signals from the mass spectrometer, was version 1.50 of Isodat NT, from ThermoFinnigan-Bremen, running under MS-Windows NT OS.

For each sample, the mean δvalue is calculated as the average value of the last 3 injections. The δ value of the first injection is systematically discarded.

Annex D(informative): Statistical results of the inter-laboratory test

 

In accordance with ISO 5725:1994, the following parameters were defined in an inter-laboratory test conducted by 11 European laboratories and a Mexican laboratory.

Year of the inter-laboratory test	2003-2004
Number of laboratories	12
Number of samples	5 in blind duplicates
Parameter	δ

Sample identification	A	B	C	D	E
Number of participating laboratories	12	12	12	12	12
Number of laboratories retained after eliminating outliers	12	11	12	12	12
Number of replicates per laboratory	2	2	2	2	2
Number of accepted test results	24	22	24	24	24
Mean (δ) ‰	-9.92	-20.84	-23.66	-34.80	-36.43
	0.057	0.031	0.119	0.006	0.044
Repeatability standard deviation () ‰	0.24	0.18	0.35	0.08	0.21
Repeatability value, r (2.8 x ) ‰	0.67	0.49	0.97	0.21	0.58
	0.284	0.301	0.256	0.140	0.172
Reproducibility standard deviation () ‰	0.53	0.55	0.51	0.37	0.41
Reproducibility value, R (2.8 x ) ‰	1.49	1.54	1.42	1.05	1.16

Sample types A	Sparkling wine
Sample types B	Sparkling wine
r	Sparkling wine
Sample types D	Gasified wine
Sample types E	Gasified wine

Annex E

 

Statistical results of the inter-laboratory test on sparkling

and gasified wines

Sampling procedures 7.1.d and 7.1.e

In accordance with method OIV-MA-AS1-09: R2000, the following parameters were defined as part of an inter-laboratory test conducted with 16 laboratories.

Year of the inter-laboratory test	2013-2014
Number of laboratories	16
Type of samples	Sparkling and gasified wines
Number of samples	3, as blind duplicates
Parameter measured	δ

INDICATORS	WINE NO. 1	WINE NO. 2	WINE NO. 3
Number of laboratories	16	14	16
Number of repetitions	2	2	2
Minimum	-32.90	-33.10	-23.64
Maximum	-29.83	-30.97	-20.57
Repeatability variance	0.0467	0.0118	0.0648
Inter-group variance	0.43853	0,29762	0.51616
Reproducibility variance	0.4852	0.3094	0.5810
Overall average	-31.42	-31.83	-22.15
Repeatability standard deviation	0.22	0.11	0.25
r limit	0.612	0.307	0.720
Reproducibility standard deviation	0.70	0.56	0.76
R limit	1.971	1.574	2.157

 

Biblipgraphy

• Ana I. Cabañero, Tamar San-Hipólito and Mercedes Rupérez, GasBench/isotope ratio mass spectrometry: a carbon isotope approach to detect exogenous CO2 in sparkling drinks Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 2007; 21: 3323–3328.
• Laetitia Gaillard, Francois Guyon ⁄, Marie-Hélène Salagoïty, Bernard Médina, Authenticity of carbon dioxide bubbles in French ciders through multiflow-isotope ratio mass spectrometry measurements. Food Chemistry. 2013, 141: 2103–2107

OIV-MA-AS314-04 Determination of carbon dioxide in wine by manometric method (for a range of concentration from 0.5 g/L to 7 g/L

Type II method

 

1. Principle

The carbon dioxide in the sample is bound with 10 M sodium hydroxide. An Erlenmeyer flask with a side arm is connected to a manometer and the carbon dioxide is released with sulphuric acid from the prepared sample. The resultant increase in pressure is measured. It allows quantifying carbon dioxide content.

2. Reagents

2.1.  Freshly distilled or deionised water;

2.2.  Sodium hydroxide (purity 98%);

2.3.  Sulphuric acid (purity95-97%);

2.4.  Sodium carbonate anhydrous (purity 99%).

Preparation of the reagents

2.5.  10 M Sodium hydroxide: dissolve 100 g of sodium hydroxide (2.2) in 200 ml water (2.1) and make up to 250 ml in a volumetric flask.

2.6.  Sulphuric acid, about 50% (v/v): cautiously add concentrated sulphuric acid (2.3) to an equal volume of water (2.1). Mix well by stirring. Cool to room temperature.

2.7.  Carbon dioxide standard solution 10 g/l: dry anhydrous sodium carbonate (2.4) in an oven at 260°C-270°C over night, and cool to room temperature in a desiccator. Dissolve 6.021 g of dry sodium carbonate in water (2.1) and make up to 250 ml in a volumetric flask.

2.8.  Carbon dioxide calibration solutions 0.4; 1; 2; 4 and 6 g/l: with pipettes take 2, 5, 10, 20 and 30 ml of the standard solution (2.7) in separate 50 ml volumetric flasks and make up to 50 ml with water (2.1).

3. Apparatus
   1.   250 ml and 50 ml volumetric flasks;
   2.   Oven;
   3.   Dessicator;
   4.   Balance with an accuracy of  0.1 mg;
   5.   Refrigerator or water-ethylene glycol bath, -4^oC;
   6.   Electronic density meter or pycnometer and thermostatic water bath, 20^oC;
   7.   Pipettes 0.5, 2, 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30 ml;
   8.   100 ml cone-shaped vial, large ground-glass mouth;
   9.   Digital manometer (allowing measures up to 200 kPa with an accuracy of 0.1kPa);
   10.         Reaction flask: 25 ml Erlenmeyer flask with a 3 ml side arm and a three-way valve (see figure 1);
   11.         Vacuum system (i.e. water suction pump).
   12.         Separation funnel

4. Procedure

4.1.  Sample preparation

Prepare the sample in duplicate. Cool the sample in a refrigerator overnight or in a -4^oC water-ethylene glycol bath for 40 min. Place 3 ml of 10 M sodium hydroxide solution (2.5) in a 100 ml cone-shaped vial. Weigh the flask with contents at an accuracy of 0.1 mg. Pour approximately 75 ml of the cooled sample in the cone-shaped vial containing the sodium hydroxide solution. Weigh the flask with contents at an accuracy of 0.1 mg. Mix and allow to warm up to room temperature

4.2.  Determination of carbon dioxide content

Transfer 2 ml of the prepared sample (4.1) into the reaction flask. Connect the flask to the manometer via the open three-way valve. Pipette 0.5 ml of 50% sulphuric acid (2.6) into the side arm. Secure the three-way valve and the side arm stopper with clips. Note the air pressure. Close the three-way valve. Mix the contents by tilting and shaking vigorously. Note the pressure. The prepared sample can be diluted with water

if necessary.

Fig.1 Apparatus. A manometer, B rubber hose, C three-way valve, D reaction flask (left) and  approximate measures of the glassware (centre and right).

4.3.  Calibration

Determine the carbon dioxide content of the calibration solutions as described above (4.2). Measure three calibration solutions which are within the expected concentration range of the sample. These calibration solutions are measured in duplicate.

4.4.  Measurement of the density of the sample

Remove carbon dioxide from the sample by shaking the sample first in a separation funnel and then for 3 min in a vacuum generated by a water suction pump. Measure the density of the sample either with an electronic density meter or a pycnometer.

5. Calculation

Calculate the pressure increase caused by the carbon dioxide released from each calibration solution and construct a calibration graph.

Calculate the slope (a) and bias (b) of the calibration graph.

Volume V (ml) of the prepared sample:

V = [(m2-m1) x 1000]/d (1)

where

m1 (g)= weight of (flask + 3 ml NaOH);

m2 (g) = weight of (flask + 3 ml NaOH + sample);

d (kg/m³) = density of sample.

Pressure increase p_i caused by the carbon dioxide released from the prepared sample:

pi = ps - pap (2)

where

p_s = manometer reading after releasing the carbon dioxide from the sample

p_ap = manometer reading before addition of (i.e. air pressure)

Concentration of carbon dioxide, C, in the sample (g/l) is given by:

C = [( pi - b) / a] x [(V + 3)/V] x L (3)

where

= increase of pressure ( equation 2)

a = slope of calibration graph

b = bias of calibration graph

V = sample volume (equation 1)

L = dilution factor in case the sample is diluted after sample preparation

Content of carbon dioxide in % by weight:

CO2 % (w/w) = C x 100/d (4)

Example of the calculation of the content of carbon dioxide:

 

6. Validation

6.1.  Performance criteria

• Standard deviation estimated from duplicates, s_o = 0.07 g/l
• Relative standard deviation, RSD = 1.9%
• Repeatability, r = 5.6 %
• Expanded measurement uncertainty (k = 2), U = 3.8%
• Calibration range 0.4-6 g/L
• Determination range 0.3 -12 g/L (samples with concentration above 6 g/L should be diluted 1:2 with water to fit the calibration range)
• Detection limit 0.14 g/L

Annex A Literature

• European Brewery Convention Analytica-EBC, Fourth edition, 1987, 9.15 Carbon dioxide.
• OIV, SCMA 2002, FV N° 1153, determination of carbon dioxide in alcoholic beverages by a modified EBC method
• OIV, SCMA 2004, FV N° 1192, determination of carbon dioxide in alcoholic Beverages by a modified EBC method, Statistical results of the collaborative study
• OIV, SCMA 2005, FV N° 1222, comparison of the titrimetric method and the modified EBC method for the determination of carbon dioxide in alcoholic beverages
• Ali-Mattila, E. and Lehtonen, P., Determination of carbon dioxide in alcoholic beverages by a modified EBC method, Mitteilungen Klosterneuburg 52 (2002): 233-236

Annex B: Statistical results of the collaborative study

Determination of carbon dioxide in alcoholic beverages by a modified EBC method

1. Goal of the study

The objective of the study was to determine the repeatability and reproducibility of the modified EBC method for the determination of carbon dioxide in wines, sparkling wines, ciders and beers.

2. Needs and purpose of the study

Fermentation produces carbon dioxide in alcoholic beverages. In the production of sparkling wines, carbon dioxide is one of the most essential products and it can also be added to certain alcoholic beverages. Carbon dioxide modifies the taste and aroma and is a preserving agent in alcoholic beverages.

In accordance with the definitions of the International Code of Oenological practices, sparkling wine should have an excess pressure of not less than 3 bar due to carbon dioxide in solution, when kept at a temperature of 20°C in closed containers. Correspondingly semi-sparkling wine should have an excess pressure of not less than 1 bar and not more than 2,5 bar.  Excess pressure of, 3 bar, 2.5 bar and 1 bar correspond at 20°C about, 5.83 g/L, 5.17 g/L and 3.08 g/L of carbon dioxide in solution, respectively.

There is currently no practical and reliable method for the determination of carbon dioxide in alcoholic beverages. The wide variation in carbon dioxide results in international proficiency tests is a clear indication of the fact that there is a need for a reliable method.

3. Scope and applicability

 

The proposed method is quantitative and it is applicable for the determination of carbon dioxide in alcoholic beverages. This method was validated in a collaborative study for the determination of carbon dioxide in wine, beer, cider and sparkling wine via the analyses at levels ranging approximately from 0.4 g/L to 12 g/L (Note: the actual calibration level ranges from 0,4 g/L  to 6 g/L. The samples should be diluted with water to this level in case the carbon dioxide content is higher than 6 g/L).

4. Materials and matrices

 

The collaborative study consisted of 6 different samples. All except the beer samples were sent in blind duplicate, so that in total 12 bottles were distributed to the participants: two beers, two ciders, two red wines, two white wines, two pearl wines and two sparkling wines.  Each bottle was coded individually for each participant. All samples were delivered in original bottles and the labels were removed from all samples except the sparkling wine samples. Measuring the amount of carbon dioxide in 10 bottles of the same lot number tested the homogeneity of the samples.

5. Practice samples

Four control samples were sent to participants to familiarize them with the method. These samples included one beer, one wine, one pearl wine and one sparkling wine sample.

6. Method to be followed and supporting documents

 

The method and an Excel table for the calculation of results were sent to participants.

Supporting documents were also given, including the covering letter, sample receipt form, and result sheets.

7. Data analysis

 

7.1.  Determination of outliers was assessed by Cochran’s test, Grubbs’ test and bilateral Grubbs test.

7.2.  Statistical analysis was performed to obtain repeatability and reproducibility data.

8. Participants

Nine laboratories in different countries participated in the collaborative study. Lab-codes were given to the laboratories. The participating laboratories have proven experience in the analysis of alcoholic beverages.

Alcohol Control Laboratory	Altia Ltd
Alko Inc.	Valta-akseli
P.O.Box 279	Rajamäki
FIN-01301 Vantaa	Finland
Finland

Arcus AS	ARETO Ltd
Haslevangen 16	Mere pst 8a
.O.Box 6764 Rodeløkka	10111 Tallinn
0503 Oslo	Estonia
Norway

Bundesamt für Weinbau	Comité Interprofessionnel du vin de Champagne
Gölbeszeile 1	5, rue Henri MARTIN
A-7000 Eisenstadt	BP 135
Austria	51204 EPERNAY CEDEX
	France

High-Tec Foods Ltd	Institut für Radioagronomie
Ruomelantie 12 B	Forschungszentrum
02210 Espoo	Jülich GMBH
Finland	Postfach 1913
	52425 JÜLICH
	Germany

Systembolagets laboratorioum

Armaturvägen 4,

S-136 50 HANINGE

Sweden

9. Results

The homogeneity of the samples was determined by measuring the carbon dioxide content in 10 bottles of the same lot number at the Alcohol Control Laboratory (Finland). Samples with the corresponding lot numbers were sent to the participants.

According to the homogeneity test the CO₂ content in the two beers was the same and therefore they were considered as blind duplicates.

The individual results for all samples and laboratories of the collaborative study are given below.

1. Removed because of large systematic error obviously due to poor calibration

2. Outlier by Cochran’s test

3. Outlier by Grubbs’ test

Statistical results of the collaborative test are summarised below.

			White	Red	Pearl	Sparkling
	Beer	Cider	wine	Wine	wine	wine
Mean (g/L)	5.145	4.859	1.316	0.532	5.139	6.906
Mean rep. 1 (g/L)	5.156	4.833	1.306	0.510	5.154	6.897
Mean rep 2 (g/L)	5.134	4.885	1.327	0.553	5.124	6.914
sr (g/L)	0.237	0.089	0.060	0.053	0.086	0.149
sR (g/L)	0.237	0.139	0.135	0.059	0.124	0.538
SDRr (%)	4.597	1.821	4.562	9.953	1.663	2.163
RSDR (%)	4.611	2.855	10.22	11.07	2.407	7.795
r (2,8*sr) (g/L)	0.662	0.248	0.168	0.148	0.239	0.418
R (2,8*sR) (g/L)	0.664	0.388	0.377	0.165	0.346	1.507
HORRAT R	1.043	0.640	1.883	1.779	0.544	1.843

Conclusion

The Horrat values are < 2 indicating an acceptable method. The Horrat values are, however, a little bit high. In five of the nine participating laboratories these tests were made almost with no previous experience. Therefore the results can be considered at least as very satisfactory.

The method gives the results in g/L but the results can be converted to pressure units^[1]

Annex C: Validation at low carbon dioxide levels

1. The detection and the determination limit

A sample of white wine was analysed in duplicate ten times. The statistical data was as follows:

Replicates	10
Mean CO2 (g/L)	0.41
Standard deviation of the mean, s (g/L)	0.048
Detection limit 3 x s	0.14
Determination limit 6 x s	9.48

2. Standard addition

Standard additions in five different concentrations in duplicates were made into the same wine which was used for the determination of the detection and determination limits. The corresponding concentrations of CO₂ were also added to water. The linear regressions of these two experiments were compared.

Fig. 1 Standard additions to the sample and to water

Statistical data of the plots:

	Water+ standards	Sample+ standards
Slope	19.3	18.9
Uncertainty of the slope	0.3	0.3
Intercept	6.6	6.4
Uncertainty of the intercept	0.4	0.5
Residual standard deviation	0.4	0.3
number of samples	15	10

According to statistical data the two regression lines are similar.

Fig. 2. The residuals of the “water+standards” equation

The residuals are dispatched on both sides of zero indicating that the regression line is linear.

Annex D: Comparison with other techniques and laboratories

 

1. Comparison of the modified EBC method with the commercial Anton Paar CarboQC instrument

Sample	Modified EBC method (g/L)	Anton Paar Carbo QC (g/L)	Difference
Sparkling wine	9,14	9,35	-0,21
Cider	4,20	4,10	0,1
White wine	1,18	1,10	0,08
Red wine	1,08	0,83	0,25
Beer 1	5,26	5,15	0,11
Beer 2	4,89	4,82	0,07
Beer 3	4,90	4,92	-0,02
Non-alcohol beer 1	5,41	5,33	0,08
Non-alcohol beer 2	5,39	5,36	0,03
			Mean 0.006

According to t-test there is no systematic difference in the measurements.

2. Comparison between Bfr, Germany and ACL, Finland

Bfr sent four samples to ACL, and ACL sent five samples to Bfr. These nine samples were analysed independently both by ACL using the method presented in this paper and in Germany at Bfr using the titrimetric method. Statistics of the results were as follows:

Mean of the difference	0.14 g/L
Std. of the difference	0.13 g/L
Z-score	1.04

The method presented here and the titrimetric method were also compared by Bundesamt für Weinbau in Austria using 21 samples of their own. Statistical data was as follows:

Mean of the difference	-0.01 g/L
Std. of the difference	0.26 g/L
Z-score	-0.03

Conclusion

According to this paper as well as earlier experiments this method is universal. It is suitable for the determination of the carbon dioxide content in all kinds of alcoholic beverages, e.g. beers, wines, fruit wines, ciders, pearl wines and sparkling wines with the concentration level of 0.3 g/L and higher.

^[1] Troost, G. and Haushofer, H., Sekt, Schaum- und Perlwein, Eugen Ulmer Gmbh & Co., 1980, Klosterneuburg am Rhein, ISBN 3-8001-5804-3, Diagram 1 on the page 13.