For SO2 analysis I am looking at the Hanna HI 84100 vs. the glass A/O kit. I am leaning toward the 84100 because of the repeatability factor, quick testing time, and the expectation of growth. We are currently testing 3 batches 3 time per year, but will easily double that next year and continue at that pace for some time. Right now we are sending samples to labs, but hope to limit that and bring that function in house. Has anyone used either system with any opinion of long-term use?
I’d go with the Hanna, especially if you’re anticipating growth. It’s not that expensive and it’s definitely quicker and easier to use than an A/O setup.
I have a Hanna instrument that is more robust and use it for pH/TA/free & total/FAN and occasionally for RS.
I have been pretty pleased with it, this being the first crush I had it.
Remember that the titrants and reagents are also expenses, so you will not completely eliminate those. Although at such a small amount, you will rarely need to replenish.
Also remember that the autotitrators generally have different method bases than the analytical labs you use. For example, the SO2’s are based on the Ripper method. The titrators are very precise, but they are measuring your analyte in a different way. I have generally found so far that the Ripper will run 4-7 ppm higher than an AO. As long as you keep that in mind, you can easily recalibrate your goals for free SO2.
They are also GIGO (garbage in, garbage out)…take care of your probes and instrument and do whatever sample prep is needed for best results (clarifying, degassing, etc).
For a while I was leaning toward the A/O method because of the higher accuracy potential and lower chemical costs, then I presented my ideas to a friend at a lab. He thought that although the auto titrator was a bit less accurate, it would have a much easier time replicating tests and therefor be much more consistent. That, in addition to needing to rely on my endpoint determination with the A/O, cleaning it constantly between tests…and the feedback here, it seems that Hanna is a pretty good choice.
My biggest concern now is the longevity of the parts, like the probe. I know my hanna ph meter’s probe is not the most consistent and that may be because it’s about a year old. Although it is taken care of very well.
I’ve checked mine against analysis from ETS for pH/TA concerns. We’ve found that with proper degassing (~10 minutes with moderately vigorous nitrogen bubbling with a frit), we hit their numbers pretty closely, but I certainly think it needs to be constantly evaluated and re-calibrated. Without degassing, it was all over the map. If you’re doing juice samples, I also think that clarification is important. We have a centrifuge here for that. And then, of course, using judgement and common sense with the results. The probes do seem to be a little flimsy when compared to some of those available for the high-end pH meters. We’ve already had to replace on pH probe, but it was under warranty.
The question of accuracy is a slippery slope and of course, raises the question of what the “right” numbers are. Who’s to say, really?
For SO2, I’m of the mind that ballpark is acceptable. Some might not be if they strictly conform to the 0.X molecular mindset. Personally, there are free’s I just won’t go to regardless of pH for wine quality reasons, but in general have numbers I want to see for lower pH wines and higher pH wines and different microbe loads that we can assess via one method or another.
Keeping the probes full of solution, cleaning and storing them properly and inspecting for defects is a major part of using one of these instruments…as is keeping an eye on the pump and ensuring that there aren’t air bubbles in the line and it’s working correctly, etc.
So I would definitely recommend the instruments, and the support has been excellent. Down here, there is a guy we can call from their distributor who will come out any time, free of charge, if we’re having problems, and will also train any new staff if we desire. I would just recommend looking at the analysis you’re more used to and comparing the two and sort of re-calibrating what you want to see based on that. You’re right that it will definitely be more precise than replicating color-based endpoints.
I have never really spent much time degassing prior to analysis- maybe that is one of my problems. I tested a finished wine at 3.41 ph the other day, which was the exact same ph I got last month and the month before that -all after calibrating, and got lab results back with a ph of 3.70. Could a difference of that size be due to degassing or might there be something else going on? Electrode is clean, scratch-free, and constantly monitored. I’ll run a test that has been fully degassed and see how that affects my number.
As for the SO2, well, I just bought the hanna. I agree with you about ballpark being acceptable- as long as I get the same ballpark consistently! I’m really excited to get it into action and get the “lab” a little bit closer to an actual lab. I appreciate all the help here- It’s nice to have a few additional perspectives weigh in.
I also just bought a glass distillation setup for alcohol from R&D glass in Berkeley. Went and met with those guys last summer and watched them hand-blow a VA still…really cool!
Yeah, the dissolved CO2 takes the form of carbonic acid and can artificially lower pH’s and raise TA’s. Certainly if that is a newly-finished 2009 wine, I would expect CO2 to interfere with the pH reading. We have even been degassing 2008s that have been racked several times prior to analysis (although many I know do not) and it seems to make a difference, albeit a smaller one.
Sounds like a likely culprit. I think I will go start a sample degassing and take a ph reading or two tonight! We’ll see if I can get my ph to match, or get close to the lab’s.
Has anyone heard anything about the Astoria Analyzer? Does F/TS02, VA, L-Malic acid, residule sugar(glu and fru). It says you can do rapid VA tests- less than two minutes.
SO2’s via Ripper? Malics and VA’s enzymatically? What is the sugar test? The one problem I have with my Hanna is the RS method includes sucrose…great for the Euros but not what I’m used to, making the numbers harder to work off (usually requiring confirmation from an outside lab).
Fun story about that as an aside. I was visiting an Enologist in South Africa once who worked with an American consultant/winemaker. He kept being told that the RS’s were too high (when the WM was not in country towards the end of the season), and why can’t he get a damn ferment complete? Turns out he was using a similar method that included sucrose (as is customary, I guess, in many parts of the world), and they were really talking apples and oranges. His g/f numbers were, in fact, dry.
Turns out this machine is quite complex and uses “flowing reagents”. I was quoted 70k for it. The Hanna(at $7.45K) is starting to sound pretty good. Maybe coupled with a spec for malics.
Nate, would I have to decolorize or filter (Syrah)samples before adding them to the reagents with the Hanna?
One of our grad students was doing his thesis on the flow analyzer when I was in school and just before it was going to market. At the time the base unit was about 20K, and each test required a different module, at about 5K each. I’m sure it’s more now. It sure was accurate though.
I clarify juice samples with a 'fuge, and there is sample prep for the titrator [different depending on what test you’re running], but no decolorization.
Ok. Now that I am all set up with my 84100 and ready to run tests for the rest of my life, where do I find the component lists of each of the hanna reagents, standards, etc. so that I can mix my own? Am I going to spend $60 on a bottle of 84100-55 standard every 5 tests I do or can I make this in the lab for a fraction of the price? Just the cost of running the machine?
$12 a test? Really? WTF? You can send them out for that price, or slightly more. I am just about to buy one of these too. I didn’t realize the reagent costs were that high.?.?
That doesn’t sound right, Michael. You just use 50ml of the 84100-55 standard to calibrate the machine before you start running a batch of tests, so the bottle should last awhile.
There’s a good video for running the 84100 on Youtube:
The standard that comes with the machine a 200ml bottle and each calibration requires 50ml. We had some trouble with the initial calibration, even after watching various videos such as the one Ken posted (thanks, Ken). For some reason the machine kept posting an error message. Hanna has an awesome service dept, though, and sent us a new bottle of standard and a new pump hose to try the process again. They said that we should try again with new solution and a new hose and hopefully it will work. If it doen’t fix the problem they will replace the probe and then the unit…
At this point, once we are up and running we will do about 6 tests in a day, three or so times per year. We have three wines which will be tested, corected and tested again. It is my understanding that the standard needs to be used for calibration and calibration needs to occur before each set of tests (for the best accuracy). I don’t know how long you could really go without calibrating and get the same results. It seems, though, that the standard and other chemicals used in these processes are easily mixed “at home”…but of course I am having a really difficult time finding a list of ingredients or components or whatever they’d like to call it. I have found health and saftey data for each chemical, (84100-55, -54, -53, etc.) but they dont give me much to work with.
Ken, do you have one of these- or something similar? How often do you calibrate?
N Weis, what is your standard operation for calibration? Do you just “go for it” and run the tests w/o calibrating?
John, I guess technically it would be $12 per batch of tests…if you do them all in the same day or two days. But that doesn’t include the other chemicals that you need for this thing. I am starting to wonder “what the hell?”!!!
Michael, there’s a Hanna machine at one of the wineries where I work part-time. We’ve run the calibration before running a batch of tests for each day - last time was about 40 free SO2 tests over two days. Of course we ran through a lot of the stabilizer reagent packets but only did the calibration once each day.
The Hanna machine is at the larger place where I work, and it makes sense for doing that volume of testing - it’s fast, hopefully pretty accurate, and way less expensive than sending out that many samples to a lab. The smaller wineries I’m at use other methods or send out to a lab. But if you’re planning to grow from the size you are now (and it sounds like you are), I’m sure the Hanna will pay off in the long run, even if the cost per test is high for running such a small number of them right now.
