Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Volume
    • AJEV and Catalyst Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Back Orders
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access Publishing
    • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
      • Proprietary Rights Notice for AJEV Online
    • Permissions and Reproductions
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
  • Log in
  • Follow ajev on Twitter
  • Follow ajev on Linkedin
American Journal of Enology and Viticulture

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Volume
    • AJEV and Catalyst Archive
    • Best Papers
    • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
    • Back Orders
  • Information For
    • Authors
    • Open Access Publishing
    • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
    • Submission
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions and Reproductions
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • Help
  • Login
  • ASEV MEMBER LOGIN
Research Report

Hydrogen Sulfide Formation in Canned Wines: Variation Among Can Sources

View ORCID ProfileMatthew J. Sheehan, Jose Hector R. Suarez, Megan M. Benefeito, View ORCID ProfileJulie M. Goddard, View ORCID ProfileGavin L. Sacks
Am J Enol Vitic.  2024  75: 0750003  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2023.23069
Matthew J. Sheehan
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew J. Sheehan
Jose Hector R. Suarez
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan M. Benefeito
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
Julie M. Goddard
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Julie M. Goddard
Gavin L. Sacks
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Find this author on ADS search
  • Find this author on Agricola
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gavin L. Sacks
  • For correspondence: gls9{at}cornell.edu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 1

    Locations within can body sampled for liner and aluminum surface analysis: 1, top of neck, adjacent to seam; 2, tapered portion of can neck; 3, upper can body below the neck; 4, middle can body; and 5, lower can body.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 2

    Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production by treatment group and wine after four months (top) and eight months (bottom). Boxes represent range of H2S produced across three can liners, stored in duplicate (n = 6 points for each time point, wine, and treatment). ↓ pH, ↓ fSO2, and ↓ mSO2, low pH, low free SO2, and low molecular SO2, respectively; ↑ pH, ↑ fSO2, and ↑ mSO2, high pH, high free SO2, and high molecular SO2, respectively. FR, French rosé; PG, Pinot grigio; RB, bubbly rosé; SB, Sauvignon blanc; WB, white bubbly.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 3

    Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production by liner (X1, Y2, and Z2) for each of the five Treatment III (high molecular SO2) wines after four months of storage. Error bars represent one standard error of three technical replicates. The asterisks indicate p < 0.05 (analysis of variance). X1, Y2, Z2: X, Y, and Z signify the can manufacturer; 1 and 2 signify the liner type (BPA epoxy and BPA-NI epoxy, respectively). For example, Y2 indicates a BPA-NI epoxy can from manufacturer Y.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 4

    Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production from can body (see Figure 1, Location 4) and headspace (see Figure 1, Locations 1 and 2) coupons from three different batches of cans (X1, Y2, and Z2), using the accelerated aging assay in triplicate (technical replicates), measuring at three and 14 days of storage. A negative control (no coupon) produced 0.5 μg/L H2S. Error bars represent one standard error. X1, Y2, Z2: X, Y, and Z signify the can manufacturer; 1 and 2 signify the liner type (BPA epoxy and BPA-NI epoxy, respectively). For example, Y2 indicates a BPA-NI epoxy can from manufacturer Y.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 5

    Dependence of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) formation on location of coated aluminum coupon (headspace [HS] versus immersed). Treatment 1, two coupons, one in headspace and one immersed; Treatment 2, one intact coupon, partially in headspace and partially immersed; Treatment 3, two coupons, both immersed; and Treatment 4, coupon in HS only. Three technical replicates were tested for each treatment. Error bars represent one standard error. A negative control group produced 0.5 μg/L H2S.

  • Figure 6
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 6

    Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) production for 10 different can types, as well as the underside of the can lid, after three days in accelerated aging conditions with a commercial German Riesling. Three technical replicates for each type of can (represented on the x-axis) were tested. Error bars represent one standard error. The cans were coded with letters V to Z, signifying the can manufacturer, followed by 1 (BPA epoxy), 2 (BPA-NI epoxy), or 3 (acrylic), to signify the liner type. For two of the can sources, multiple production batches (n = 2 or 3) were tested to evaluate batch-to-batch variation (e.g., Y2-2 indicates it is the second batch of BPA-NI epoxy cans from manufacturer Y).

  • Figure 7
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 7

    Can body liner thickness from 10 different can types, as measured by laser-scanning profilometer (n = 3 cans per liner type). Error bars represent one standard deviation. The cans were coded with letters V to Z, signifying the can manufacturer, followed by 1 (BPA epoxy), 2 (BPA-NI epoxy), or 3 (acrylic), to signify the liner type. For two of the can sources, multiple production batches (n = 2 or 3) were tested to evaluate batch-to-batch variation (e.g., Y2-2 indicates it is the second batch of BPA-NI epoxy cans from manufacturer Y).

  • Figure 8
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 8

    Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) formation after three days at 50°C versus inverse liner thickness for epoxy lined cans (BPA and BPA-NI). Each point represents the average H2S for a different liner (n = 8 technical replicates per liner). Error bars represent one standard error.

  • Figure 9
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    Figure 9

    Liner thickness measurements by laser-scanning profilometry, measured across the cans (X1, Y2, and Z2). Three technical replicates were analyzed. Error bars represent one standard deviation. X1, Y2, Z2: X, Y, and Z signify the can manufacturer; 1 and 2 signify the liner type (BPA epoxy and BPA-NI epoxy, respectively). For example, Y2 indicates a BPA-NI epoxy can from manufacturer Y.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
  • Table 1

    Percentage of sample surface area at different liner thickness cutoffs. The percentages are averages of three technical replicates. Samples were taken from Locations 1 to 5 as shown in Figure 1. X1, Y2, Z2: X, Y, and Z signify the can manufacturer; 1 and 2 signify the liner type (BPA epoxy and BPA-NI epoxy, respectively). For two of the can sources, multiple production batches (n = 2 or 3) were tested to evaluate batch-to-batch variation (e.g., Y2-3 indicates the third batch of BPA-NI epoxy cans from manufacturer Y).

    Table 1
  • Table 2

    Liner thicknesses (in μm) measured by laser interferometry for X1, Y2, and Z2 cans. Values are averages of multiple 1 to 2 mm2 spots around the can interior. Four cans were analyzed at 24 spots in the can body and eight spots in the dome of each can. X1, Y2, Z2: X, Y, and Z signify the can manufacturer; 1 and 2 signify the liner type (BPA epoxy and BPA-NI epoxy, respectively). For example, Y2 indicates a BPA-NI epoxy can from manufacturer Y.

    Table 2

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Supplemental Table 1   Initial composition of wines used in the long-term canning study. TA, titratable acidity; ABV, alcohol by volume.

    Supplemental Table 2  Parameters for open circuit potential testing.

    Supplemental Table 3  Parameters for electrochemical impedance spectroscopy testing. OCP, open circuit potential; DC, direct current; AC, alternating current.

    Supplemental Figure 1  Can body with top and bottom removed.

    Supplemental Figure 2  Locations of (A) body and (B) headspace coupons used for accelerated aging testing. Bare aluminum on the cut coupon edges was sealed with hot-melt glue prior to testing, as shown in (C).

    Supplemental Figure 3  Experimental design for comparing effects of immersed and nonimmersed aluminum on hydrogen sulfide formation. Four technical replicates of each treatment were performed. HS, headspace.

    Supplemental Figure 4   Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy setup with counter electrode on the left, reference electrode in the middle, and the working electrode contacting the bottom of the can. The electrochemical cell is placed inside a grounded Faraday cage.

    Supplemental Figure 5   Unused can with no corrosion (left), and used can with visual corrosion in the neck region (right).

    Supplemental Figure 6
       Visual defects in the polymeric lining of the “moat,” of Y2-2 cans prestorage. Y2-2, Y signifies the can manufacturer; 2 signifies the liner type (BPA-NI epoxy). For two of the can sources, multiple production batches (n = 2 or 3) were tested to evaluate batch-to-batch variation (e.g., Y2-2 indicates it is the second batch of BPA-NI epoxy cans from manufacturer Y).

    Supplemental Figure 7   Elemental analysis by x-ray fluorescence (XRF) for Y2 and Z2 cans. Three technical replicates were analyzed. Y2 and Z2, Y and Z signify the can manufacturer; 2 signifies the liner type (BPA-NI epoxy). For example, Y2 indicates a BPA-NI epoxy can from manufacturer Y.

    Supplemental Figure 8   Fourier transform infrared-attenuated total reflectance spectra of the three liners (on aluminum substrate) used in the long-term storage experiment (X1, Y2, and Z2). X1, Y2, Z2: X, Y, and Z signify the can manufacturer; 1 and 2 signify the liner type (BPA epoxy and BPA-NI epoxy, respectively). For example, Y2 indicates a BPA-NI epoxy can from manufacturer Y.

    Supplemental Figure 9   Metal exposure ratings (enamel rating) for the three types of cans used in the long-term aging study (n = 48). X1, Y2, Z2: X, Y, and Z signify the can manufacturer; 1 and 2 signify the liner type (BPA epoxy and BPA-NI epoxy, respectively). For example, Y2 indicates a BPA-NI epoxy can from manufacturer Y.

    Supplemental Figure 10   Impedance values at low-frequency (0.05 Hz) for the three can types used in the long-term aging study. Three technical replicates were tested for each can type (n = 9). Error bars represent one standard error. X1, Y2, Z2: X, Y, and Z signify the can manufacturer; 1 and 2 signify the liner type (BPA epoxy and BPA-NI epoxy, respectively). For example, Y2 indicates a BPA-NI epoxy can from manufacturer Y.

    • SupplementalData.pdf
PreviousNext
Back to top

Vol 75 Issue 1

Issue Cover
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
View full PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on AJEV.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Hydrogen Sulfide Formation in Canned Wines: Variation Among Can Sources
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from AJEV
(Your Name) thought you would like to read this article from the American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Open Access
Hydrogen Sulfide Formation in Canned Wines: Variation Among Can Sources
View ORCID ProfileMatthew J. Sheehan, Jose Hector R. Suarez, Megan M. Benefeito, View ORCID ProfileJulie M. Goddard, View ORCID ProfileGavin L. Sacks
Am J Enol Vitic.  2024  75: 0750003  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2023.23069
Matthew J. Sheehan
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew J. Sheehan
Jose Hector R. Suarez
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan M. Benefeito
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julie M. Goddard
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Julie M. Goddard
Gavin L. Sacks
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gavin L. Sacks
  • For correspondence: gls9{at}cornell.edu

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Open Access
Hydrogen Sulfide Formation in Canned Wines: Variation Among Can Sources
View ORCID ProfileMatthew J. Sheehan, Jose Hector R. Suarez, Megan M. Benefeito, View ORCID ProfileJulie M. Goddard, View ORCID ProfileGavin L. Sacks
Am J Enol Vitic.  2024  75: 0750003  ; DOI: 10.5344/ajev.2023.23069
Matthew J. Sheehan
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matthew J. Sheehan
Jose Hector R. Suarez
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Megan M. Benefeito
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Julie M. Goddard
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Julie M. Goddard
Gavin L. Sacks
1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Gavin L. Sacks
  • For correspondence: gls9{at}cornell.edu
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Save to my folders

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results and Discussion
    • Conclusions
    • Supplemental Data
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More from this TOC section

  • Rapid Determination of Bud and Leaf Water Content Using Hyperspectral Sensors to Monitor Cold Hardiness in Grapevine
  • Bacterial Diversity and Enological Properties of Fructophilic Lactiplantibacillus plantarum during Fermentation of Traminette Grape
  • Downwind Drift from Grape Airblast Spray Applications: Field Evaluation to Support Mechanistic Model Development
Show more Research Report

Similar Articles

AJEV Content

  • Current Volume
  • Archive
  • Best Papers
  • ASEV National Conference Technical Abstracts
  • Back Orders

Information For

  • Authors
  • Open Access Publishing
  • AJEV Preprint and AI Software Policy
  • Submission
  • Subscribers
  • Permissions and Reproductions

Other

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Feedback
  • Help
  • Alerts
  • ASEV
asev.org

© 2025 American Society for Enology and Viticulture.  ISSN 0002-9254.

Powered by HighWire