TCA Question...

I read that BVs wines, during their problems, came in at 1.3 to 4.6 parts per trillion with an average of 2.7.

Actually, I think even 1 part per trillion can be detected by especially sensitive people. My guess is this would be in a white wine or neutral media (water ??). I find that reds tend to "cover up" a slight corkiness better than whites. I can taste it, but it sometimes gets over powered by other components.

Andy

snipped-for-privacy@my-deja.com (JEP) wrote>

Thank you for the response. I believe most of the BV problems were from cooperage in one of the cellars rather than from corks. I'm looking more for TCA measurements in ppt of badly corked bottles. I had heard that some measure in amounts of 40-50 parts per trillion but I'm trying to confirm if those levels really do happen.

Dan

It appears that a lot of "corked" wine was caused by non-real cork sources. There a number of instances of TCA taint that have been tracked to cellar sources and/or composite corks rather than real cork. The wine is still corked. The term is generally used for wine tainted by TCA, no matter the source of the TCA.

Maybe I just don't get what you're trying to prove/refute.

Andy

I thought my question was pretty direct so I'll reprint it exactly as it appears in the first line of my original message...

"Does anyone have a idea of the amount of TCA (2,4,6-Trichloroanisole) that is found in a badly tainted bottle of wine?"

I'm trying to find the upper range of TCA contamination that would be found in a severely corked bottle. Is it 10 ppt, 20 ppt, 30... 50...?

I am quite familiar with many of the sources of TCA contamination as well as the levels at which most people perceive the presence of TCA and I am not asking about either of those.

Dan

An interesting question, which does not seem to be discussed nearly as much as the perception threshold.

Here is someone who makes a claim for a bottle with 300ppt.

And that is the question I tried to answer.

That's not what you asked in your original post. This is a completely different question all together.

Andy

Wrong, Andy.

I appreciate that you responded to the post but you did not come close to answering my question as it was stated and then restated in my original post. It seems clear that you overlooked that my orignal post was very specific about the levels of TCA in *BADLY* corked wines.

You related the info from the Wine Spectator regarding the levels of TCA found in some of BV's red wines. The levels they found were 1.3 to 4.6 ppt, and according to the same publication in thier October 31,

2001 issue "Many people detect the substance at around five parts per trillion". I hardly think that the levels found in BV which were well below most peoples threshold qualify as *BADLY* corked wines and therefore, those numbers do not help answer the question.

If you have read the thread, you might have noticed the reply from Steve Slatcher who referred to a bottle that is supposed to have a measured TCA content of 300 ppt. He seems to have been able to understand the question as stated.

This response to you has taken the thread off topic. Again, thank you for your effort to respond. Your attempt is genuinely appreciated.

It appears that we all know about the general threshold levels and the variance if perception levels by different individuals but there is very little information available regarding "how high is up".

Dan

Since it is detectable at 1-3ppt, the mind boggles at what it wuld taste at

50 ppt!

Wrong Dan.

To me a *BADLY* corked wine is one that the TCA interfers with the enjoyment of the wine. I had some of the corked BVs and it was *BADLY* corked. It was subsequently reported what the TCA levels were measured to be. Were my bottles at that level, I don't really know because I didn't have them tested, but they were *BADLY* corked.

Your second attempt at asking the question asked for the highest levels found. Completely different question.

Andy

I'm not going to waste anymore bandwidth on you just because you feel you have to defend your answer. You do not. I believe others understood my original question and either gave the info they had or gave none because they had none. I again thank you for your original effort.

There was no second attempt to ask the question, just a clarification to you because you misunderstood the orignal one. Of course, even after that clarification, you added no useful information which apparently means you have none. If, as I am beginning to suspect, you will feel the need to post further to this thread without actually giving useful info, you will rightfully earn a spot in the 'twit' filter. Are you really one of those 'have to have the last word even when I have nothing to say' people? Let's just chalk it up to misunderstanding and let it go at that.