Foss Winescan vs. OenoFoss:
Capabilities, Cost and Tradeoffs
Paul Huckaba
Analytical Laboratory Manager
Bronco Wine Company








What is Spectroscopy?
How does it work?
What types of instruments are there?
What analyses can these instruments run?
What are the Pros and Cons?
How do you run samples?
Who is this best suited for?
What kind of results can I expect?


Spectroscopy is the study of the
interaction between matter and
radiated energy (“light”).
There are lots of kinds of light energy.
 Spectroscopy
can be used to analyze
wine or must samples.
 There
are no chemicals or consumables
AND the analysis only takes 1-2 minutes!
Infrared
(IR)-laser
The IR laser source
generates IR light
through the
sample, at a
specific wavelength
range
Result of the measured
sample is presented
to the user.
”Clean”
Sample
The IR light passing
through the sample
is absorbed by
different molecules
in the sample. The
remaining light
passes through the
sample and is
collected in a series
of IR interferograms
Single Beam Spectrum
In the PC, the spectrum goes through
a series of calculations against the
calibration models in order to derive
the results (3,000 sample wine library)
Images Courtesy of Gusmer Enterprises
IR-Interferogram
The interferograms are sent
to the PC where FTIR
mathematics transforms
the interferograms into
single beam spectra
Currently, there are two main instruments.
Foss Winescan
(FT120, Flex, etc.)
OenoFoss
Both are made by Foss, a Danish Company
The capabilities depend on the type of instrument
that you have, the matrix (must, wine, etc.), and
what you have calibrated for, but here are the
highlights…
Ethanol
Glucose+Fructose
Malic Acid
TA (Total Acid)
pH
Volatile Acidity
NOPA/YAN
+ Others…
Tartaric Acid to pH=8.2
Pros
-Easy to use
-No chemicals
-Very quick
Cons
-Requires Calibration
-Cost
-Data may not be
“absolutely” accurate
OenoFoss
OenoFoss
OenoFoss
Foss
Winescan
Foss
Winescan
Foss Winescan
 Larger footprint
 Needs periodic
maintenance
 Takes about a minute
for duplicate analysis
 Can be Autosampled
 Can run more tests
 Has available SO2
modules (on Flex model)





OenoFoss
Smaller footprint
No moving parts, so
no real maintenance
Takes about 2
minutes for duplicate
analysis
Less Expensive
Can’t automate


Foss Winescan
Best For
Medium-to-Large sized
winery labs that need
more throughput and
can devote resources
to calibration
Laboratories needing
Autosampler Capability



OenoFoss
Best For
Smaller sized winery
labs that need quick
answers
Labs with small
sample loads
Labs with nontechnical staff

We ran a study of these two instruments,
comparing them to our “Wet Chemistry”
methods. Red and White wines were tested.

We have calibrated our Winescan, but the
OenoFoss used a “factory” calibration.

This is a comparison of our results, but as
always…Your mileage may vary.
“Delta
values”
Wine
001MOU
960PTS
061GRN
901PNR
801DDR
960NMR
009PNR
009PNR
002CSV
060SHZ
936MER
050PNR
Average
Alc
0.23
0.16
0.08
0.19
0.19
0.17
0.15
0.18
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.24
0.16
FT 120
Red Wines
TA
-0.01
0.19
-0.20
0.06
0.16
0.00
0.04
-0.01
0.05
-0.08
0.17
0.07
0.09
pH
-0.06
0.02
-0.07
-0.02
0.00
-0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
0.01
0.00
-0.01
0.02
G+F
0.92
0.10
0.16
0.14
-0.06
0.44
0.34
0.30
0.39
0.19
0.17
0.00
0.27
VA
0.060
0.045
0.141
0.097
0.091
0.113
-0.009
-0.015
0.005
0.094
0.011
0.062
0.062
“Delta
values”
Wine
001SYM
970LSB
901LCD
802LSB
972LCD
008MOS
060SCC
002FRC
928CHD
001DWH
960RCD
905CHD
Average
Alc
0.12
0.34
0.29
0.28
0.32
0.32
0.32
0.23
0.26
0.18
0.25
0.17
0.26
FT 120
White Wines
TA
0.09
0.12
0.68
0.50
0.19
0.16
0.22
0.46
0.50
-0.03
0.52
0.53
0.33
pH
0.09
-0.08
-0.01
-0.06
-0.02
0.04
0.02
-0.02
-0.01
-0.04
-0.04
0.00
0.04
G+F
N/A
-0.09
-0.69
-0.57
-0.23
N/A
-0.33
-0.10
-0.30
-0.23
-0.37
-0.67
0.36
VA
0.071
0.028
-0.065
-0.021
-0.036
0.104
-0.007
0.006
-0.023
-0.095
-0.005
-0.079
0.045
“Delta
values”
Wine
001MOU
960PTS
061GRN
901PNR
801DDR
960NMR
009PNR
009PNR
002CSV
060SHZ
936MER
050PNR
Average
Alc
-0.13
-1.22
0.01
0.07
-0.09
-0.93
-0.77
-0.10
0.09
-0.07
-0.10
-0.78
0.36
OenoFoss
Red Wines
TA
-0.20
0.10
-0.20
-0.40
-0.40
-0.05
-0.10
-0.45
-0.20
-0.45
-0.10
0.05
0.23
pH
-0.05
0.07
-0.04
0.01
0.04
0.11
0.00
-0.03
0.19
-0.02
0.15
-0.08
0.07
G+F
-0.26
-0.49
-0.01
-0.67
-2.80
-0.17
-0.61
-0.64
-0.17
-0.02
-0.52
-0.42
0.57
VA
-0.020
0.090
0.170
0.120
-0.030
0.150
-0.005
-0.020
-0.030
0.005
-0.040
0.080
0.063
“Delta
values”
Wine
001SYM
970LSB
901LCD
802LSB
972LCD
008MOS
060SCC
002FRC
928CHD
001DWH
960RCD
905CHD
Average
Alc
N/A
-0.70
-0.12
0.01
-1.17
0.45
-0.80
0.01
-1.59
-0.57
0.04
-0.72
0.56
OenoFoss
White Wines
TA
0.30
0.05
0.10
0.05
0.05
0.40
-0.25
0.05
0.05
-0.40
0.05
0.10
0.15
pH
0.47
-0.02
0.06
-0.09
0.07
0.17
0.12
0.03
0.07
0.02
0.03
0.13
0.11
G+F
N/A
-0.14
-0.70
-0.57
-1.02
N/A
-0.26
-0.37
-0.53
-1.17
-0.37
-0.67
0.58
VA
0.110
0.090
-0.005
0.030
-0.070
0.190
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.060
0.140
-0.100
0.083

The data from the 2011 trial was basically
just using the “off the shelf” calibration.

We wanted to see if we would see the
same sort of discrepancies, and if so,
could we could do better by calibrating.

All Infrared instruments tend to better
when calibrated with the sample types
being tested.
Oeno Foss
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
PNG
12.74
6.92
1.745
3.34
5.77
0.169
12.59
7.78
-
3.35
5.54
0.233
13.75
0.00
3.055
3.47
6.38
0.152
13.47
0.52
3.787
3.48
6.44
0.267
13.50
5.07
0.879
3.39
5.98
0.308
13.52
6.19
-
3.40
5.74
0.315
12.29
6.40
2.545
3.34
6.40
0.024
12.43
7.99
-
3.39
6.32
0.156
13.50
0.00
3.268
3.49
6.57
0.268
13.41
0.52
3.787
3.49
6.37
0.257
10.30
21.09
2.901
3.21
6.60
0.188
10.05
23.65
-
3.32
6.11
0.177
Historical
Oeno Foss
LCD
Historical
Oeno Foss
CHD
Historical
Oeno Foss
PNG
Historical
Oeno Foss
LCD
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
RSL
Oeno Foss
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
CHD
13.48
0.00
2.635
3.71
5.23
0.163
13.37
0.21
2.760
3.83
4.72
0.128
12.56
0.03
2.794
3.56
5.94
0.238
12.48
0.97
-
3.68
5.92
0.220
13.53
3.22
2.301
3.43
6.37
0.298
13.48
4.34
2.480
3.39
6.05
0.286
12.82
23.06
1.662
3.35
5.62
0.251
12.58
24.53
-
3.29
5.37
0.212
12.61
1.09
2.103
3.67
5.29
0.006
12.60
1.67
-
3.79
5.17
0.098
13.62
0.00
2.546
3.39
6.03
0.243
13.57
0.61
-
3.41
5.65
0.206
Historical
Oeno Foss
LSB
Historical
Oeno Foss
CSB
Historical
Oeno Foss
GWT
Historical
Oeno Foss
WPG
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
CHD
Oeno Foss
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
CHD
13.24
0.00
2.489
3.39
5.94
0.155
13.30
0.27
2.547
3.45
5.70
0.130
13.19
0.34
1.599
3.36
5.50
0.093
13.34
0.40
1.637
3.39
5.03
0.071
13.52
0.15
1.474
3.54
4.81
0.062
13.57
0.50
1.507
3.62
4.35
0.083
13.72
0.00
2.808
3.59
5.75
0.202
13.56
0.44
-
3.79
4.76
0.219
13.26
0.00
3.013
3.45
6.61
0.207
13.24
0.47
3.078
3.50
6.32
0.158
13.17
0.00
2.887
3.70
5.31
0.154
13.07
0.52
3.149
3.84
4.81
0.113
Historical
Oeno Foss
LPG
Historical
Oeno Foss
PNG
Historical
Oeno Foss
CHD
Historical
Oeno Foss
CHD
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
CHD
Oeno Foss
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
CHD
13.14
0.00
0.292
3.47
5.73
0.232
13.39
0.29
0.205
3.45
5.92
0.242
12.94
3.15
2.301
3.35
6.14
0.226
12.86
3.94
-
3.38
5.77
0.195
13.76
0.13
1.717
3.49
5.56
0.127
13.83
0.31
0.302
3.59
5.19
0.155
13.11
0.47
2.087
3.37
6.02
0.184
13.03
0.23
2.326
3.39
5.60
0.166
13.43
0.54
1.502
3.36
5.44
0.089
13.34
0.40
1.637
3.39
5.03
0.129
13.43
0.00
1.959
3.51
6.46
0.408
13.60
0.34
-
3.50
6.31
0.358
Historical
Oeno Foss
DWH
Historical
Oeno Foss
LPG
Historical
Oeno Foss
PNG
Historical
Oeno Foss
LPG
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
CSB
Oeno Foss
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
LSB
13.66
0.61
2.250
3.29
6.11
0.209
13.74
0.97
2.629
3.35
5.90
0.229
13.56
0.33
1.850
3.32
5.80
0.103
13.52
0.48
1.582
3.30
5.34
0.092
13.55
0.00
2.581
3.41
6.01
0.221
13.43
0.50
-
3.42
5.80
0.164
13.44
0.27
2.469
3.30
6.16
0.167
13.51
0.60
-
3.34
6.00
0.194
13.20
0.00
2.484
3.32
6.13
0.038
13.01
0.80
-
3.49
5.76
0.100
13.28
0.00
2.729
3.38
6.01
0.184
13.29
0.24
2.932
3.39
5.79
0.184
Historical
Oeno Foss
LPG
Historical
Oeno Foss
CHD
Historical
Oeno Foss
LSB
Historical
Oeno Foss
WPG
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
CHD
Oeno Foss
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
WPG
12.50
0.64
2.165
3.32
5.75
0.181
12.42
0.79
-
3.38
5.78
0.211
13.46
4.63
1.217
3.39
6.02
0.234
13.34
6.45
-
3.40
5.95
0.300
10.38
0.00
4.405
3.39
7.37
0.114
10.22
0.05
4.881
3.45
7.00
0.100
14.07
0.00
0.231
3.40
5.49
0.330
14.07
0.32
-
3.33
5.13
0.234
13.02
0.13
2.146
3.64
5.22
0.068
12.81
0.38
2.896
3.81
4.78
0.122
13.66
0.56
0.929
3.47
4.78
0.133
13.33
0.42
1.113
3.35
5.79
0.143
Historical
Oeno Foss
CHD
Historical
Oeno Foss
CHD
Historical
Oeno Foss
CHD
Historical
Oeno Foss
PNG
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
PNG
“Delta
values”
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
PNG
-0.15
0.86
-
0.01
-0.23
0.064
LCD
-0.28
0.52
0.73
0.01
0.06
0.115
CHD
0.02
1.12
-
0.01
-0.24
0.007
PNG
0.14
1.59
-
0.05
-0.08
0.132
LCD
-0.09
0.52
0.52
0.00
-0.20
-0.011
RSL
-0.25
2.56
-
0.11
-0.49
-0.011
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
EtOH
G/F
Yellow
0.15
Red
0.25
Malic
pH
TA
VA
1.00
0.05
0.30
0.030
1.50
0.10
0.50
0.050
“Delta
values”
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
CHD
-0.11
0.21
0.13
0.12
-0.51
-0.035
LSB
-0.08
0.94
-
0.12
-0.02
-0.018
CSB
-0.05
1.12
0.18
-0.04
-0.32
-0.012
GWT
-0.24
1.47
-
-0.06
-0.25
-0.039
WPG
-0.01
0.58
-
0.12
-0.12
0.092
CHD
-0.05
0.61
-
0.02
-0.38
-0.037
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
EtOH
G/F
Yellow
0.15
Red
0.25
Malic
pH
TA
VA
1.00
0.05
0.30
0.030
1.50
0.10
0.50
0.050
“Delta
values”
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
CHD
0.06
0.27
0.06
0.06
-0.24
-0.025
LPG
0.15
0.06
0.04
0.03
-0.47
-0.022
PNG
0.05
0.35
0.03
0.08
-0.46
0.021
CHD
-0.16
0.44
-
0.20
-0.99
0.017
CHD
-0.02
0.47
0.06
0.05
-0.29
-0.049
CHD
-0.10
0.52
0.26
0.14
-0.50
-0.041
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
EtOH
G/F
Yellow
0.15
Red
0.25
Malic
pH
TA
VA
1.00
0.05
0.30
0.030
1.50
0.10
0.50
0.050
“Delta
values”
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
CHD
0.25
0.29
-0.09
-0.02
0.19
0.010
DWH
-0.08
0.79
-
0.03
-0.37
-0.031
LPG
0.07
0.18
-1.42
0.10
-0.37
0.028
PNG
-0.08
-0.24
0.24
0.02
-0.42
-0.018
LPG
-0.09
-0.14
0.14
0.03
-0.41
0.040
CSB
0.17
0.34
-
-0.01
-0.15
-0.050
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
EtOH
G/F
Yellow
0.15
Red
0.25
Malic
pH
TA
VA
1.00
0.05
0.30
0.030
1.50
0.10
0.50
0.050
“Delta
values”
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
LSB
0.08
0.36
0.38
0.06
-0.21
0.020
LPG
-0.04
0.15
-0.27
-0.02
-0.46
-0.011
CHD
-0.12
0.50
-
0.01
-0.21
-0.057
LSB
0.07
0.33
-
0.04
-0.16
0.027
WPG
-0.19
0.80
-
0.17
-0.37
0.062
CHD
0.01
0.24
0.20
0.01
-0.22
0.000
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
EtOH
G/F
Yellow
0.15
Red
0.25
Malic
pH
TA
VA
1.00
0.05
0.30
0.030
1.50
0.10
0.50
0.050
“Delta
values”
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
WPG
-0.08
0.15
-
0.06
0.03
0.030
CHD
-0.12
1.82
-
0.01
-0.07
0.066
CHD
-0.16
0.05
0.48
0.06
-0.37
-0.014
CHD
0.00
0.32
-
-0.07
-0.36
-0.096
PNG
-0.21
0.25
0.75
0.17
-0.44
0.054
PNG
-0.33
-0.14
0.18
-0.12
1.01
0.010
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
Oeno Foss
Historical
EtOH
G/F
Yellow
0.15
Red
0.25
Malic
pH
TA
VA
1.00
0.05
0.30
0.030
1.50
0.10
0.50
0.050

We wanted to see if we could improve
upon the data that we generated if we
calibrated the OenoFoss with our data.

Data from 36 samples were added into
the calibration.

12 samples were then run to evaluate the
effect of the recalibration.

So…what did we see?
“Delta
Values”
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
Pre-calibration
LCD
0.28
0.52
0.73
0.01
0.06
0.115
Post calibration
LCD
0.02
0.14
0.17
0.01
0.06
0.021
Pre-calibration
CHD
0.02
1.12
-
0.01
0.24
0.007
Post calibration
CHD
0.05
0.05
-
0.02
0.07
0.077
Pre-calibration
PNG
0.14
1.59
-
0.05
0.08
0.132
Post calibration
PNG
0.03
0.24
-
0.07
0.11
0.087
Pre-calibration
LCD
0.09
0.52
0.52
0.00
0.20
0.011
Post calibration
LCD
0.08
0.17
0.07
0.01
0.24
0.022
>0.1
>1.0
>0.4
>0.05
>0.2
>0.03
“Delta
Values”
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
Pre-calibration
RSL
0.25
2.56
-
0.11
0.49
0.011
Post calibration
RSL
0.00
0.33
-
0.17
0.34
0.008
Pre-calibration
CHD
0.11
0.21
0.13
0.12
0.51
0.035
Post calibration
CHD
0.03
0.14
0.09
0.08
0.15
0.034
Pre-calibration
LSB
0.08
0.94
-
0.12
0.02
0.018
Post calibration
LSB
0.16
0.07
-
0.09
0.17
0.001
Pre-calibration
CSB
0.05
1.12
0.18
0.04
0.32
0.012
Post calibration
CBS
0.00
0.17
0.09
0.02
0.08
0.030
>0.1
>1.0
>0.4
>0.05
>0.2
>0.03
“Delta
Values”
Variety
EtOH
G/F
Malic
pH
TA
VA
Pre-calibration
GWT
0.24
1.47
-
0.06
0.25
0.039
Post calibration
GWT
0.02
1023.53*
-
0.03
0.06
0.008
(*too sweet)
Pre-calibration
WPG
0.01
0.58
-
0.12
0.12
0.092
Post calibration
WPG
0.09
0.06
-
0.05
0.14
0.065
Pre-calibration
CHD
0.05
0.61
-
0.02
0.38
0.037
Post calibration
CHD
0.06
0.06
-
0.04
0.13
0.022
>0.1
>1.0
>0.4
>0.05
>0.2
>0.03

Overall, the data were better.

We went from 30 outliers (out of 59 test
results) to 11 outliers.

Only 2 results went from what we would
consider “acceptable” to “not acceptable”.

Most results got quite a bit closer to the
Wet Chemistry values.
Variety
PNG
EtOH
12.74
12.59
G/F
6.92
7.78
Malic
1.745
-
pH
3.34
3.35
TA
5.77
5.54
VA
0.169
0.233
Oeno Foss
Historical
LCD
13.75
13.47
0.00
0.52
3.055
3.787
3.47
3.48
6.38
6.44
0.152
0.267
Oeno Foss
Historical
CHD
13.50
13.52
5.07
6.19
0.879
-
3.39
3.40
5.98
5.74
0.308
0.315
Oeno Foss
Historical
PNG
12.29
12.43
6.40
7.99
2.545
-
3.34
3.39
6.40
6.32
0.024
0.156
Oeno Foss
Historical
LCD
13.50
13.41
0.00
0.52
3.268
3.787
3.49
3.49
6.57
6.37
0.268
0.257
Oeno Foss
Historical
RSL
10.30
10.05
21.09
23.65
2.901
-
3.21
3.32
6.60
6.11
0.188
0.177
Oeno Foss
Historical

If desired, you can have different profiles for
red, white, dry, sweet, etc.

Units & significant digits can be customized.

Searchable history by lot number.

Reports can be generated by date, tank, lot
number, etc. and exported to Excel.

Can also export to LIMS, SQL, CSV, XML
formats.

is just starting out and has no lab equipment

has little manpower in the lab, or a few
people who “wear multiple hats”.

has multiple (small) locations and wants to
minimize variation between locations.

is struggling to find qualified lab techs.

is wanting to use NIR technology, but just
can’t justify a Foss Winescan.

Calibrations are available for a number of
analytes, but they can be expensive
($5K-$10K), or you can do them yourself.

For the OenoFoss, the instrument is
limited to one-at-a-time analysis, and has
a more limited Alcohol range (8-18%) and
Glucose+Fructose range (0-25 g/L).

Neither instrument likes chunky, gassy
samples (can degas/centrifuge).

Spectroscopic techniques are very fast,
inexpensive to run, and especially good
for looking for patterns/trends, especially
if you are running the same wines.

It will take some effort on your part to
get the most out of your instrument.

If these instruments fit your winery
needs, they can be a valuable tool.
Thank you.