Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Analytica Chimica Acta

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aca

Review

Unraveling the evolving nature of gaseous and dissolved carbon dioxide in

champagne wines: A state-of-the-art review, from the bottle to the tasting glass
Grard Liger-Belair a,b, , Guillaume Polidori c , Virginie Zninari a
a
Equipe Effervescence, Groupe de Spectromtrie Molculaire et Atmosphrique (GSMA), UMR CNRS 6089, UFR Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, BP 1039, 51687 Reims Cedex 2, France
b
Laboratoire dnologie et Chimie Applique, UPRES EA 2069, URVVC, UFR Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, Universit de Reims, B.P. 1039, 51687 Reims Cedex 2, France
c
Laboratoire de Thermomcanique, Groupe de Recherche en Sciences Pour lIngnieur (GRESPI), UFR Sciences Exactes et Naturelles, Universit de Reims, B.P. 1039, 51687 Reims Cedex
2, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In champagne and sparkling wine tasting, the concentration of dissolved CO2 is indeed an analytical
Received 21 July 2011 parameter of high importance since it directly impacts the four following sensory properties: (i) the
Received in revised form 30 August 2011 frequency of bubble formation in the glass, (ii) the growth rate of rising bubbles, (iii) the mouth feel,
Accepted 6 October 2011
and (iv) the nose of champagne, i.e., its so-called bouquet. In this state-of-the-art review, the evolving
Available online 14 October 2011
nature of the dissolved and gaseous CO2 found in champagne wines is evidenced, from the bottle to
the glass, through various analytical techniques. Results obtained concerning various steps where the
Keywords:
CO2 molecule plays a role (from its ingestion in the liquid phase during the fermentation process to its
Champagne
Sparkling wines
progressive release in the headspace above the tasting glass) are gathered and synthesized to propose a
CO2 self-consistent and global overview of how gaseous and dissolved CO2 impact champagne and sparkling
Effervescence wine science.
Glass shape 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Tasting

Grard Liger-Belair received his PhD in physical sci-
ences in 2001 from the University of Reims, in France.
He received an associate professor position at the Uni-
versity of Reims in 2002, and a full professor position,
in 2007, in the same University. He has been research-
ing the physics and chemistry behind the bubbling
properties of champagne and sparkling wines for sev-
eral years. His current interests include the science
of bubbles, foams and thin lms, and their broad
interdisciplinary applications. He is the author of sev-
eral academic and popular science books. His rst
book, Uncorked: the science of champagne, published
by Princeton University Press, won the 2004 award for
the Best Professional/Scholarly Book in Physics from the Association of American
Publishers.
Guillaume Polidori received his PhD in uid mechan-
ics in 1994 from the University of Poitiers in France,
and became an associate professor in 1994 in the
University of Reims. He then became a full profes-
sor in 2004 in the same University. His main current
interests include theoretical modeling in thermal con-
vection and ow visualization applied to various
scientic elds, such as free convection, underwater
swimming in sport science, or mixing phenomena in
champagne and sparkling wine tasting.

Corresponding author at: Equipe Effervescence, Groupe de Spectromtrie Molculaire et Atmosphrique (GSMA), UMR CNRS 6089, UFR Sciences Exactes et Naturelles,
BP 1039, 51687 Reims Cedex 2, France. Tel.: +33 3 26 91 86 14; fax: +33 3 26 91 86 14.
E-mail address: gerard.liger-belair@univ-reims.fr (G. Liger-Belair).

0003-2670/$ see front matter 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aca.2011.10.007
2 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115
Virginie Zninari received her PhD in physics from
the University of Reims in 1998. Her PhD thesis
was devoted to photoacoustic spectroscopy using
new generation semi-conductor diode lasers. Vir-
ginie Zninari received a full professor position in
Reims University in 2008, where her current interests
include molecular spectroscopy, and atmospheric gas
detection using infrared lasers. She is currently co-PI
of a national DGA research program, and a European
research program, both in collaboration with Alcatel-
Thales lab.
1. Introduction
Since the end of the 17th century, champagne has been a world-
wide renowned French sparkling wine. Nevertheless, only quite
recently much research has been devoted to depict each and every
parameter involved in its bubbling process [1]. From a strictly
chemical point of view, champagne wines are multicomponent
hydroalcoholic systems supersaturated with CO2 dissolved gas
molecules formed together with ethanol during the second fermen-
tation process, called prise de mousse (promoted by adding yeasts
and a certain amount of sugar inside bottles lled with a base wine
and sealed with a cap). Actually, during this second fermentation
process which occurs in cool cellars, the bottles are sealed, so that
the CO2 molecules cannot escape and progressively dissolve into
the wine [13]. Therefore, CO2 molecules dissolved into the wine
and gaseous CO2 molecules trapped under the cork progressively
establish equilibrium (an application of Henrys law which states
that the concentration of a given gas molecule dissolved into a solu-
tion is proportional to its partial pressure in the vapor phase, above
the solution). Champagne wines therefore hold a concentration of
dissolved CO2 proportional to the level of sugar added to promote
this second fermentation (see Ref. [3] for example, and references
therein).
Actually, a standard 75 cl champagne bottle typically holds
about 9 g of dissolved CO2 , which correspond to a volume close
to 5 L of gaseous CO2 under standard conditions for temperature
and pressure [13]. This very signicant volume of dissolved CO2
is responsible for bubble formation once the bottle is uncorked and
the wine poured into a glass. In champagne and sparkling wine
tasting, the concentration of dissolved CO2 is indeed a parameter
of high importance since it directly impacts the four following sen-
sory properties: (i) the frequency of bubble formation in the glass
[46], (ii) the growth rate of rising bubbles [46], (iii) the mouth
feel, i.e., the mechanical action of collapsing bubbles as well as
the chemosensory excitation of nociceptors in the oral cavity (via
the conversion of dissolved CO2 to carbonic acid) [710], and (iv)
the aromatic perception of champagne (i.e., its so-called bouquet
[11,12]), as collapsing bubbles release their content in gaseous CO2
and volatile organic compounds above the champagne surface.
Carbon dioxide is a potent irritant in the nasal cavity, as are many
others organic compounds [1315]. Carbonation, or the perception
of dissolved CO2 , involves a truly multimodal stimulus. In addition
to the tactile stimulation of mechanoreceptors, CO2 acts on both
trigeminal receptors [7,1619] and gustatory receptors [9,10]. Both
of these chemically induced sensations involve the carbonic anhy-
drase enzyme, which can convert CO2 to carbonic acid. For the sense
of taste, the stimulation with CO2 appears to involve the extracel-
lular anhydrase enzyme and the transient receptor potential (TRP)
mechanism of sour receptor cells [9]. This is consistent with the
enhancement of sour taste by the presence of CO2 and the suppres-
sion of sweetness [20,21]. Moreover, given the involvement of TRP
mechanisms in both nociception and temperature sensing, inter-
actions between carbonation and temperature might be expected.
Actually, an enhancement of irritation, tactile sensations, cooling,
and cold pain have all been observed with carbonation of solu-
tions served at low temperature (as are indeed champagne wines,
sparkling wines, and carbonated beverages in general) [2224]. For
recent and global overviews of how dissolved CO2 may promote
chemically induced sensations in the oral and nasal cavities, see
the review by Brand [25], and the most recent edition of the book
by Lawless and Heymann [26].
Actually, a link has been recently evidenced between carbon-
ation and the release of some aroma compounds in carbonated
waters [27,28]. Sensory results revealed that the presence of CO2
increased aroma perception regardless of the sugar content in mint-
avored carbonated beverages [28]. CO2 seemed thus to induce
large modications of the physicochemical mechanisms respon-
sible for the aroma release and avor perception in soft drinks.
Therefore, following these recent highlights, a link is also strongly
suspected between the level of dissolved CO2 and the release of
aromatic compounds during champagne and sparkling wine tast-
ing. For all the aforementioned reasons, keeping the dissolved CO2
molecules as long as possible inside the bottle during aging, and
inside a glass during tasting, is a challenge of importance for cham-
pagne wine elaborators, as well as for glassmakers and sommeliers
(in charge of proposing to clients and consumers an ideal way of
serving and tasting champagne).
In this article, a state-of-the-art review of the evolving nature
of the dissolved and gaseous CO2 found in champagne wines is
done, from the bottle to the tasting glass, in order to propose
a global overview of how CO2 impact champagne and sparkling
wine science. Impacts of various physicochemical and geometrical
parameters of the wine, bottle, and glass itself are presented, in
tasting conditions, through various analytical techniques.
2. The CO2 within the bottle
The modern production of champagne is not so far removed
from that developed empirically by the Benedictine monk Dom
Pierre Prignon, in the late 17th century. This method is also used
outside the champagne region. Sparkling wines produced as such
are labelled mthode traditionelle. Indeed, most American and Aus-
tralian sparkling winemakers use this method to elaborate their
own sparkling wines. This method involves several distinct steps
[13].
2.1. A rst alcoholic fermentation
Three grape cultivars are grown in the 75 000 acres of the cham-
pagne vineyards: Chardonnay (a white grape), Pinot Meunier and
Pinot Noir (both dark grapes). Usually around mid-September (but
more often around early September since the past few years, prob-
ably due to global warming), the grapes harvested from these
vineyards are pressed to make a juice, called the grape must.
After pressing, the must is transferred into open vats where yeast
(Saccharomyces cerevisiae) is added. In champagne, the must typ-
ically holds about 180 g L1 of sugars. Generally speaking, the key
metabolic process during winemaking is alcoholic fermentation:
the conversion of sugars into ethanol and carbon dioxide by yeast.
The process of fermentation was rst scientically described by
the French chemist Joseph-Louis Gay Lussac in 1810, when he
demonstrated that glucose is the basic starting block for producing
ethanol:
C6 H12 O6 2CH3 CH2 OH + 2CO2 (1)
The manner in which yeast contributes to the fermentation
process was not clearly understood until 1857, when the French
microbiologist Louis Pasteur discovered that not only does the
fermentation process not require any oxygen, but alcohol yield is
 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115 3

Table 1
Henrys law constant of dissolved CO2 in champagne (in g L1 bar1 ), as a function
of temperature, for a typical champagne with 12.5% (v/v) of ethanol and 10 g L1 of
sugars.

Temperature ( C) Henrys law constant kH (g L1 bar1 )

0 2.98
1 2.88
2 2.78
3 2.68
4 2.59
5 2.49
6 2.41
7 2.32
8 2.23
Fig. 1. A cellar master (here Thierry Gasco, from Champagne Pommery) will blend 9 2.16
several different still wines from various grape varieties, vineyards and vintages to 10 2.07
produce one champagne. 11 2.00
Alain Cornu/Collection CIVC. 12 1.93
13 1.86
14 1.79
actually reduced by its presence. The amount of ethanol generated 15 1.73
16 1.67
by this rst alcoholic fermentation is about 11%. At this step, cham-
17 1.60
pagne is still actually a non-effervescent white wine, because the 18 1.54
huge amount of gaseous carbon dioxide produced during the rst 19 1.48
alcoholic fermentation (close to 50 L of gaseous CO2 per liter of 20 1.44
21 1.40
must) is allowed to escape into the atmosphere.
22 1.34
23 1.29
2.2. The art of blending 24 1.25
25 1.21

Because it is rare that a single wine of a single vintage from a
single vineyard and grape variety will provide the perfect balance
of avor, sugar level, and acidity necessary for making a ne cham-
pagne, wine makers will often mix several different still wines. This
is called the assemblage (or blending) step, and it is carried out
directly after the rst alcoholic fermentation is complete. Blend-
ing is considered a key step in the art of champagne-making (see
Fig. 1). A cellar master will sometimes blend up to 80 different wines
from various grape varieties, vineyards and vintages to produce one
champagne. The blending of still wines originally made from the
three grape cultivars forms a base wine, which will then undergo
a second fermentation the key step in producing the sparkle in
champagne and other sparkling wines.
2.3. The prise de mousse: a second alcoholic fermentation in a
sealed bottle
Once the base wine is created, sugar (about 24 g L1 ) and yeast
are added. The entire concoction is put into thick-walled glass bot-
tles, and sealed with caps. The bottles are then placed in a cool cellar
(1012 C), and the wine is allowed to slowly ferment for a second
time, producing alcohol and carbon dioxide again. Following Eq.
(1), 24 g L1 of sugar added in closed bottles to promote the second
alcoholic fermentation produce approximately 11.8 g of CO2 per
liter of wine. The concentration of dissolved CO2 in champagne (in
g L1 ) is therefore roughly equivalent to half of the concentration
of sugar (in g L1 ) added into the base wine in order to promote the
prise de mousse. Finally, a standard 75 cl champagne bottle holds
close to 9 g of dissolved CO2 molecules. By use of the molar mass
of CO2 (44 g mol1 ), and the molar volume of an ideal gas (close to
24 L mol1 at 12 C), it can be deduced that about 5 L of gaseous CO2
are trapped into a single bottle of champagne (i.e., six times its own
volume!).
Actually, during this second fermentation process which occurs
in cool cellars, the bottles are sealed, so that the CO2 molecules
cannot escape and progressively dissolve into the wine. Therefore,
CO2 molecules dissolved into the wine and gaseous CO2 molecules
under the cork progressively establish equilibrium an application
of Henrys law which states that the partial pressure of a given gas
Compiled from the data by Agabaliantz [29].
above a solution is proportional to the concentration of the gas
dissolved into the solution, as expressed by the following relation:
c = kH PCO2 (2)
where c is the concentration of dissolved CO2 molecules, PCO2 is
the partial pressure of CO2 molecules in the vapor phase, and kH is
its Henrys law constant (i.e., its solubility into the wine). Since the
present work specically deals with the dissolved CO2 concentra-
tion found in champagne samples, and to facilitate the reading of
the article, the subscript CO2 found in the formulas will be omitted
in the following.
Generally speaking, the solubility of a given gas into a solution
is strongly temperature-dependent (the lower the temperature of
the solution, the higher the gas solubility). In champagne and other
sparkling wines, Agabaliantz thoroughly examined the solubility
of dissolved CO2 molecules as a function of both temperature and
wine parameters [29]. His empirical relationships are still in use
nowadays by champagne and other sparkling winemakers. For a
typical sparkling wine elaborated according to the mthode tradi-
tionnelle, Agabaliantz established the temperature dependence of
the Henrys law constant, which is displayed in Table 1.
Thermodynamically speaking, the behavior of Henrys law con-
stant as a function of temperature can be conveniently expressed
with a Vant Hoff like equation as follows:
 H  1 1

diss
kH (T ) = k298 K exp (3)
R T 298
where k298 K is the Henrys law constant of dissolved CO2 at
298 K (1.21 g L1 bar1 ), Hdiss is the dissolution enthalpy of CO2
molecules in the liquid medium (in J mol1 ), R is the ideal gas con-
stant (8.31 J K1 mol1 ), and T is the absolute temperature (in K). By
tting Agabaliantz data with the latter equation, it is worth noting
that the dissolution enthalpy of CO2 molecules in champagne may
be evaluated [30]. The best t to Agabaliantz data was found with
Hdiss 24 800 J mol1 . In comparison, the dissolution enthalpy of
CO2 molecules in pure water is about 19 900 J mol1 [31].
4 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115
Fig. 2. During disgorging, the necks of the bottles are frozen, creating a small ice
plug that traps the sediment of dead yeast cells. Bottle caps are removed, and the
CO2 pressure that is released shoots the ice out of the bottle neck, along with all the
yeast sediment.
Kumesawaga/Collection CIVC.
2.4. Disgorging and corking
This second fermentation is followed by a minimum period of 15
months of aging, in contact with dead yeast cells (called aging on
lees). The autolysis of yeast occurs during the aging of champagne
on lees (and of other sparkling wines elaborated through the mth-
ode traditionnelle). During this process, the yeast releases different
compounds that modify the organoleptic properties of the wine.
This aging period is required to give these wines their roundness
and characteristic aroma and avor, as detailed in the review by
Alexandre and Guilloux-Benatier [32]. More details about chemi-
cal and biochemical features involved in sparkling wine production
(from a traditional to an improved winemaking technology) can
be found in two recent reviews by Pozo-Bayon et al. [33], and by
Torresi et al. [34].
After aging on lees, bottles then undergo disgorging. The necks
of the bottles are frozen, creating a small ice plug that traps the
sediment of dead yeast cells. The bottle caps are then removed in
order to remove the sediment of dead yeast cells, as shown in the
photograph displayed in Fig. 2. Specic liquor, which consists of a
mixture of sugar and old wines, is then added in order to replace
the bit of wine lost during disgorging. A bit of dissolved CO2 is also
inevitably lost at this step, but bottles are quickly corked with tradi-
tional or technical cork stoppers to prevent an excessive loss of CO2
[13]. After corking the bottle, dissolved and gaseous CO2 quickly
recover equilibrium. Dissolved CO2 molecules progressively desorb
12
Standard Bottle
Magnum Bottle
10 Half Bottle
P (bars)
6
2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
T (C)
Fig. 3. Temperature dependence of the pressure P under the cork, within the three
most common champagne bottle types, namely, the standard bottle, the magnum
bottle, and the half bottle, respectively.
from the liquid medium to promote the raise of gaseous pressure
under the cork, which nally and quickly recovers a stable value.
Nevertheless, because the solubility of CO2 strongly depends on
the champagne temperature, the pressure of gaseous CO2 under
the cork also strongly depends, in turn, on the champagne temper-
ature. The physicochemical equilibrium of CO2 molecules within a
champagne bottle is ruled by both Henrys law (for CO2 -dissolved
gas molecules) and the ideal gas law (for the gaseous CO2 in the
headspace under the cork). Moreover, the conservation of the total
mass of CO2 molecules (dissolved into the wine and in the vapor
phase under the cork) applies, since bottles are hermetically closed.
Therefore, by combining the two above-mentioned laws with mass
conservation, the following relationship was determined which
links the pressure P of gaseous CO2 under the cork (in bar) with
both temperature and bottles parameters as [35]:
mRT
P (4)
4.4 103 v + (kH RT )V
where m is the total mass of CO2 within the bottle (in g), kH is the
Henrys law constant given in Table 1 (in g L1 bar1 ), V is volume
of champagne within the bottle (in L), and v is the volume of the
gaseous headspace under the cork (in L).
Most commonly, champagne is elaborated in three various types
of bottle, namely the standard bottle (with a volume of 75 cl), the
magnum bottle (with a volume of 150 cl), and the half bottle (with
volume of 37.5 cl). It is worth noting that the above-mentioned
bottles present indeed different volume content, but the same
headspace volume v 25 mL, as well as similar cork stoppers (in
terms of length, and cross section).
The temperature dependence of the pressure P under the cork,
within the three above-mentioned bottle types, is displayed in
Fig. 3. At the temperature of champagne tasting (usually between
8 and 10 C), the pressure within bottles is close to 5 bar (i.e.,
5 105 N m2 ), whatever the bottle type. It is worth noting that
the pressure inside the bottle is very slowly bottle type-dependent
(provided that 24 g L1 of sugar were added in the base wine to
promote the prise de mousse).
Moreover, since dissolved and gaseous CO2 experience equilib-
rium through Henrys law, as stated in Eq. (2), the concentration
 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115
C (g L )
-1
12
11
Standard Bottle
Magnum Bottle
Half Bottle
10
0 5 10 15 20 25
T (C)
Fig. 4. Temperature dependence of the dissolved CO2 concentration within cham-
pagne, within the three most common champagne bottle types.
c of CO2 dissolved molecules found in champagne expresses as
follows:
kH mRT
c = kH P
4.4 103 v + (kH RT )V
The temperature dependence of the dissolved CO2 concen-
tration within champagne, for the three above-mentioned bottle
types, is displayed in Fig. 4. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the smaller
the bottle volume, the lower the concentration of dissolved CO2 . It
is also worth noting from Fig. 4 that the concentration of dissolved
CO2 is rather slightly temperature-dependent (despite a pressure
within the bottle which is highly temperature-dependent, as seen
in Fig. 3).
Concentrations of CO2 molecules dissolved into champagne are
indeed easily accessible by use of carbonic anhydrase, which is the
ofcial method recommended by the OIV (namely the International
Ofce of Vine and Wine) for measuring the CO2 content in cham-
pagne and sparkling wines [36]. This method is thoroughly detailed
in two papers [37,38]. Numerous experiments with early disgorged
champagne samples were done recently [3840]. The characteris-
tic concentration of dissolved CO2 measured inside freshly opened
standard bottles was found to be of order of 11.5 g L1 , and therefore
in very good accordance with Eq. (5).
2.5. The impact of champagne aging
The cork of a wine bottle is far from being completely hermetic
with regard to gas exchanges. Cork is a porous material [4145].
Gas species are therefore able to slowly diffuse through the cork
along their respective inverse partial pressure gradients (see Fig. 5)
[44,45]. In case of a corked champagne bottle, the huge difference
in CO2 partial pressure between the headspace (close to 6 bar at
12 C) and the ambient air (of order of only 0.0004 bar) forces CO2
molecules to slowly diffuse through the cork. Therefore, during its
aging period of time, a corked champagne bottle progressively loses
its gaseous CO2 content, as well as its dissolved CO2 content (which
both experience equilibrium through the so-called Henrys law).
As seen in the preceding paragraph, early disgorged champagne
wines (elaborated with 24 g L1 of sugar added in the base wine to
promote the prise de mousse) hold a concentration of dissolved CO2
5
30
Fig. 5. Scheme of the bottle neck, and compilation of the various cork, bottle, and
wine parameters.
of c 11.5 g L1 [3740]. Recently, the concentration of dissolved
CO2 was measured in various samples of an older champagne wine
elaborated in the late 1990s (also with 24 g L1 of sugar added in
the base wine to promote the prise de mousse), disgorged, and aged
(5)
in a cool cellar ever since. Approximately ten years after having
been disgorged and corked, this old champagne was found
to hold a much lower level of dissolved CO2 of only c 8 g L1
[44,45]. As expected, the old champagne contains substantially less
dissolved CO2 than the young one, undoubtedly due to the slow
but continuous diffusion of gaseous CO2 through the cork, all along
the aging period. Actually, deeper investigations about the way
cork stoppers alter with time in a bottle neck are needed to better
understand how their porosity and permeability are affected
with regards to gas transfers during champagne aging. Such
experiments are to be conducted along that line in a near future.
2.6. Uncorking the bottle
In order to visualize the cloud of gaseous CO2 escaping and
expanding when the cork pops out of a bottle (invisible in the visible
light spectrum), a technique based on the infrared (IR) thermogra-
phy principle has been used [46]. The CO2 absorptions observable
by the IR camera are quite weak because this gas molecule has only
a strong absorption peak in the detector bandwidth at 4.245 m.
Consequently, the best way to visualize the ow of gaseous CO2 des-
orbing from champagne is to t the camera with a band-pass lter
(centered on the CO2 emission peak), as shown in a recent article
[47]. The time sequence displayed in Fig. 6 illustrates the uncorking
of a champagne bottle as seen through high-speed infrared imag-
ing. As seen from Fig. 6, the gaseous volume of CO2 under pressure
in the headspace under the cork, suddenly expands and gushes out
of the bottleneck. The shock wave of the gushing gaseous CO2 can
even be evidenced.
After the uncorking of the bottle, the pressure of gaseous CO2
experienced by the champagne inside the bottle suddenly falls.
Consequently, the thermodynamic equilibrium of CO2 is broken,
and the dissolved CO2 content found in champagne must inevitably
escape to recover equilibrium, and fulll Henrys law, as stipulated
by Eq. (2).
After having been uncorked by the taster, the bottle is then gen-
erally inclined to pour champagne into a ute or a coupe. The aim
6 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115

Fig. 6. Time sequence illustrating the uncorking of a champagne bottle as seen through infrared thermography; the time interval between successive frames is 100 ms.

of the following paragraphs is to closely examine how dissolved
CO2 progressively escapes from the liquid medium to progressively
invade the headspace above glasses, thus progressively modifying
the gaseous chemical space perceived by the consumer.
3. Evidence for losses of dissolved CO2 during champagne
serving
The impact of the pouring step on the loss of dissolved CO2
from champagne has remained completely unexplored until very
recently. During the pouring step, the free air/champagne interface
indeed considerably increases. Actually, champagne ows from
the bottle to the tasting glass, into the form of a liquid tongue,
which presents a very large interface with regard to its own volume
[48]. Moreover, the pouring step is a hugely turbulent phase, with
possible entrapment of air bubbles inside champagne, which also
contribute to the diffusion of dissolved CO2 from the liquid phase
to the ambient air. Besides, champagne is strongly mixed during
the pouring step, with formation of eddies of various sizes in the
liquid matrix, which also undoubtedly contribute to signicant
losses of dissolved CO2 .
The impact of the pouring step on the loss of dissolved CO2
from champagne was examined, depending on the way cham-
pagne is served into the ute [48]. Two ways of serving champagne
 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115 7

Fig. 7. Time-sequences illustrating both ways of serving 100 mL of champagne into the ute; the champagne-like way of serving (this way is the traditional way of serving
champagne and sparkling wines in bars, clubs, and restaurants) (a); the beer-like way of serving, traditionally reserved for beer serving (to prevent an excessive formation
of foam) (b).
Grard Liger-Belair.

were examined, i.e., (i) a standard champagne-like way and (ii)
and a standard beer-like way of serving, respectively. More-
over, impacts on losses of dissolved CO2 of three champagne
service temperatures were also examined (i.e., 4 C, 12 C, and 18 C,
respectively).
3.1. Impact of the way champagne is served, and the role of
temperature
After uncorking a bottle, two ways of serving 100 mL of cham-
pagne into the ute were examined with regard to their respective
impacts on losses of dissolved CO2 : (i) a standard champagne-like
and (ii) a standard beer-like way of serving. Photographs displayed
in Fig. 7 illustrate both ways of serving champagne into the ute.
(i) During the standard champagne-like way of serving, cham-
pagne vertically falls and hits the bottom of the ute (thus
usually providing a thick head of foam, which quickly vertically
extends, and then progressively collapses during serving). This
way is the traditional way of serving champagne and sparkling
wines in bars, clubs, and restaurants.
(ii) During the beer-like way of serving, champagne ows along
the inclined ute wall and progressively lls the ute. The axis
of symmetry of the ute inevitably and progressively recovers
its vertical position during serving. This beer-like way of serv-
ing champagne is less turbulent, with usually much less foam
generation.
Impacts on losses of dissolved CO2 in champagne were inves-
tigated for three sets of champagne temperatures, i.e., 4 C, 12 C,
and 18 C, respectively, and for both ways of serving champagne.
A volume of 100 4 mL of champagne was carefully poured into
the ute. It is worth noting that the heat capacity of the glass
(0.8 kJ kg1 K1 ) being much lower than that of champagne
8 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115

Table 2
Losses of dissolved CO2 concentrations in champagne during the pouring step (in
g L1 ), and corresponding volumes of gaseous CO2 discharged from champagne
(converted in cm3 ), for both ways of serving, and at three champagne temperatures.

Temperature Champagne-like Beer-like

c (g L1 ) VCO2 (cm3 ) c (g L1 ) VCO2 (cm3 )

4 C 3.0 0.2 166 11 1.6 0.2 88 11
12 C 3.3 0.2 182 11 2.0 0.3 110 17
18 C 4.0 0.5 221 28 3.7 0.3 204 17

(4.2 kJ kg1 K1 ), the temperature of champagne remains almost

constant during the few seconds of the pouring process [49].
To enable a statistical treatment, four successive pouring and
dissolved CO2 measurements were done for both ways of serving
champagne, and for each champagne temperature. An arithmetic
average of the four data provided by the four successive pouring
were done, to nally produce one single average dissolved CO2
concentration corresponding to a given way of serving champagne
at a given temperature (with standard deviations corresponding to
the root-mean-square deviations of the values provided by the four
successive pouring). Concentrations of dissolved CO2 data, denoted
cL , as chemically measured immediately after pouring champagne
into the ute, are displayed in Table 2 (for both ways of serving,
and for each champagne temperature). It is clear from Table 2 that
the higher the temperature of champagne, the lower its concen-
tration of dissolved CO2 after pouring. Moreover, it also clearly
appears that the beer-like way of serving champagne is signicantly
less impacting its concentration of dissolved CO2 after the pouring
step.
Fig. 8. Setup used to visualize, through IR video recordings, the volutes of gaseous
CO2 desorbing from champagne during the pouring process.
3.2. The pouring of champagne revisited through high-speed
infrared imaging
The visualization technique based on infrared imaging has also
been used to lm the gaseous CO2 uxes outgassing from cham-
pagne during the pouring step [48]. The experimental set-up used
to monitor the volutes of gaseous CO2 escaping during the pouring
process is displayed in Fig. 8. Time-sequences displayed in Fig. 9
illustrate the pouring steps, as seen through the objective of the IR
video camera, for both ways of serving champagne (at 4 C, and at
18 C, respectively). It therefore clearly appears, through IR video

Fig. 9. Snapshots illustrating both ways of serving champagne, as seen through the objective of the IR video camera for a bottle stored at 4 C (a) and (b), and for a bottle
stored at 18 C (c) and (d).
 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115
Fig. 10. Laser tomography reveals the ow patterns found inside a ute poured with champagne; within a ute thoroughly washed and therefore showing no effervescence
at all, a few tens of seconds after pouring, champagne is completely at rest (a), whereas in a ute showing effervescence, ascending bubbles drive characteristic ow patterns
(b); detail in (c).
camera recordings, that the higher the champagne temperature is,
the more easily dissolved CO2 escapes during the pouring process,
thus conrming the tendency underscored by chemical measure-
ments (for both ways of serving champagne). It is also worth noting
that the ow of gaseous CO2 seems to ow down from the opening
of the ute, by licking the glass walls, rather than by diffusing
isotropically all around it. This observation betrays the fact that
gaseous CO2 is approximately 1.5 times denser (CO2 = 1.87 g L1
at 20 C) than dry air is (air = 1.20 g L1 at 20 C), and therefore
tends to naturally ow down.
Ambient air being considered as a huge thermal tank, it quickly
thermalizes the volume of gaseous CO2 outgassing from cham-
pagne during the pouring step. Therefore, by considering the ux of
gaseous CO2 discharging from champagne as an ideal gas, the vol-
ume of gaseous CO2 discharging during the pouring step, denoted
V20 C (expressed in cm3 ), expresses as follows,
c vf RT
V20 C = 106
MCO2 P0
with c being the loss of dissolved-CO2 concentration during the
pouring step (i.e., c = ci cL , expressed in g L1 ), vf being the vol-
ume of champagne poured into the ute (in L, namely 0.1 L in the
present case), T being the ambient temperature (namely 293 K in
the present case), MCO2 being the molar mass of CO2 (44 g mol1 ),
and P0 being the atmospheric pressure (close to 105 Pa).
Besides, Table 2 compiles losses of dissolved CO2 concentra-
tions (with regard to the initial concentration ci before pouring of
ci 11.5 g L1 ) as well as the corresponding volume of gaseous CO2
escaping during the pouring step. It is worth noting that during
the few seconds of the champagne-like way of serving, cham-
pagne loses approximately as much dissolved CO2 as during the
9
rst 10 min following pouring, as shown in two papers [38,39]. To
prolong the drinks chill and to help champagne retain its CO2 con-
tent (and therefore its effervescence), the champagne-like way of
serving is certainly not the most appropriate.
4. On the losses of dissolved CO2 within the glass, after the
pouring step
Once champagne is poured into a ute, there are indeed two
pathways for progressive CO2 and potentially aromatic volatile
organic compounds (VOC) losses. CO2 and VOC escape (i) into the
form of heterogeneously nucleated bubbles, the so-called efferves-
cence and (ii) by invisible diffusion through the free surface of
the glass [16]. Glass-shape is therefore also suspected to play an
important role as concerns the kinetics of CO2 and avor release
during champagne tasting.
From the consumer point of view, the role of bubbling is
(6)
indeed essential in champagne, in sparkling wines and even in any
other carbonated beverage. Without bubbles, champagne would be
unrecognizable, beers and sodas would be at. However, the role
of effervescence is suspected to go far beyond the solely aesthetical
point of view. It was indeed recently demonstrated that the contin-
uous ow of ascending bubbles strongly modies the mixing and
convection conditions of the liquid medium [5052]. In turn, the
CO2 discharge by diffusion through the free air/champagne inter-
face may be considerably accelerated, as well as the release of the
numerous VOC, which both strongly depend on the mixing ow
conditions of the liquid medium [53]. The photographs displayed
in Fig. 10, done with the laser tomography technique, shows the
ow patterns driven by ascending bubbles, and which consider-
ably increase the release of gaseous CO2 and VOC [5052]. Sufce
10 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115
Table 3
Geometrical parameters linked with each type of drinking vessel lled with 100 mL of champagne, and concentration of dissolved CO2 found in champagne after pouring it
in each type of drinking vessel.
Type of vessel Liquid level after
pouring, h (in cm)
Flute 7.4
Coupe 2.9
to say that a strong coupling therefore nally exists between rising
bubbles, glass shape, CO2 discharge and avor release. From the
tasters point of view indeed, the perception of wine avors was
also clearly found to be inuenced by glass shape [54,55].
Quite recently, glassmakers showed interest in proposing to
consumers, a new generation of champagne tasting glasses, espe-
cially designed, with a well controlled CO2 release all along tasting.
This is the reason why, in recent years, much interest has been
devoted to depict each and every parameter involved in the release
of gaseous CO2 from glasses poured with champagne or sparkling
wine.
4.1. Flute versus coupe
In case of champagne and other sparkling wine tasting, two quite
emblematic types of drinking vessels have coexisted for decades:
(i) the classical ute, namely a long-stemmed glass with a deep
tapered bowl and a narrow aperture and (ii) the classical coupe,
namely a shallower glass with a much wider aperture. Advantages
and disadvantages of both glass shapes have long been debated in
popular wine magazines, nevertheless without bringing any ana-
lytical data corresponding to each type of drinking vessel.
Due to their very different geometrical properties, the rate at
which gaseous CO2 escapes was therefore supposed to signi-
cantly differ from these two types of drinking vessel. Recently,
measurements of CO2 volume uxes outgassing from champagne
were done, during the rst 10 min following pouring [39]. In order
to avoid the randomly located bubbling environment inevitably
provided in glasses showing natural effervescence, single standard
utes and coupes identically etched on their bottoms were used for
this set of experiments thus providing a standardized and arti-
cial effervescence [38,39]. Between the successive pouring and
time series data recordings, the ute and the coupe were systemat-
ically thoroughly washed in a dilute aqueous formic acid solution,
rinsed using distilled water, and then compressed air dried. This
drastic treatment limits the potential formation of calcium car-
bonate crystals on the ute wall, as well as the adsorption of any
dust particle acting as natural bubble nucleation sites. With such
a surface treatment, CO2 bubble nucleation is strictly restricted
to the bubble nucleation sites of the ring-shaped engravement,
so that differences in the kinetics of CO2 release from one type
of drinking vessel to another are attributed only to geometrical
differences between them (assuming identical etching). Table 3
summarizes the geometrical and analytical pertinent parameters
linked with each type of drinking vessel poured with 100 mL
of champagne. It is worth noting that losses of CO2 dissolved
molecules during the pouring process are of the same order of
magnitude whether champagne is served in the ute or in the
coupe, despite a signicantly longer pouring process in case of
the ute (mainly due to an excess of foam restricted in narrower
aperture, which forces the taster to pour champagne into the ute
in two or three steps in order to avoid champagne overow).
This observation rst appeared counter intuitive to us, but actu-
ally, losses of dissolved CO2 induced by a longer pouring process
in the ute could be counterbalanced by the much larger area
offered to CO2 dissolved molecules escape in case of the coupe
aperture [39].
Surface area offered to gas Initial concentration of dissolved CO2
discharge, A (in cm2 ) in the glass, after pouring (in g L1 )
21.2 7.4 0.4
60.8 7.4 0.5
4.1.1. The progressive loss of dissolved CO2 with time
For each type of drinking vessel, the corresponding loss of dis-
solved CO2 concentration with time, all along the rst 10 min
following pouring, is displayed in Fig. 11. Despite signicant stan-
dard deviations (mainly attributed to the difcult repeatability of
the manual pouring process between the six successive pouring
and time series data records conducted for each type of drinking
vessel), it is clear from Fig. 11 that the progressive loss of dis-
solved CO2 concentration with time is signicantly higher when
champagne is served in the coupe than in the ute. From the taster
point of view, this observation is of importance for both the visual
aspect of champagne tasting and its mouth feel sensation. Actu-
ally, it was shown that the higher the concentration of dissolved
CO2 in champagne, the higher the kinetics of bubble nucleation, the
larger the average bubbles size, and nally the more effervescence
in the glass [5,6]. Moreover, it is also well known in champagne,
and in other sparkling beverage tasting, that the higher the con-
centration of dissolved CO2 , the higher the zzy sensation when
bubbles burst over the tongue [710]. To the best of our knowledge,
this is the rst set of analytical results concerning the inuence of
glass shape on its progressive loss of dissolved CO2 concentrations
with time in tasting conditions, and therefore the rst analytical
proof that a long-stemmed glass with a deep tapered bowl and a
narrow aperture prolongs the drinks chill and helps to retain its
effervescence, by contrast with a shallower coupe of much wider
aperture.
8
Flute
Coupe
7
6
CL (g L )
-1
5
4
3
2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
t (s)
Fig. 11. Progressive losses of dissolved CO2 concentrations (in g L1 ) all along the
rst 10 min following the pouring process in a ute and in a coupe, respectively lled
with 100 mL of champagne; each datum of each time series is the arithmetic average
of six successive values recorded from six successive pouring; standard deviations
correspond to the root-mean-square deviations of the values provided by the six
successive data recordings.

2,0
1,8
Total CO2 volume flux (cm s )
-1
1,6
3
1,4 0,4
1,2 0,3
1,0 0,2
0,8
0,1
0,6 0,0
200
300
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 100 200 300
t (s)
Fig. 12. Total CO2 volume uxes recordings (in cm3 s1 ) desorbing from a ute and
coupe respectively lled with 100 mL of champagne, all along the rst 10 min fol-
lowing the pouring process; each datum of each time series is the arithmetic average
of six successive values recorded from six successive pouring.
4.1.2. Kinetics of CO2 uxes outgassing from both the ute and
the coupe
In champagne and other sparkling wine tasting, in addition to
the visual aspect of effervescence and mouth feel both depending
(among many other parameters) on the dissolved CO2 concentra-
tion cL (t) an other important aspect is the smell or nose of the
wine, the so-called bouquet [11,12]. Effervescence of champagne
and other sparkling wines is strongly suspected to promote the
development of aromas in the headspace above the glass. The myr-
iad of bubbles nucleating on the utes wall and travelling through
the wines bulk is expected to enhance the release of volatile organic
compounds by considerably enhancing exchange surfaces between
the wine and the atmosphere. It is worth noting that, in a typi-
cal ute poured with champagne or sparkling wine, approximately
50 000 bubbles would have already nucleated, rose and nally
exploded during the rst 3 min following pouring [5]. Each bubble
having a diameter close to 1 mm, this cloud of 50 000 bubbles total-
izes a global exchange surface of approximately 1500 cm2 during
the rst 3 min following pouring. This is huge compared with the
area of the air/wine interface which rarely exceeds 20 cm2 in a clas-
sical ute. However, each bubble collapsing at the wines surface
inevitably frees its tiny CO2 volume. Consequently, the inevitable
counter party of the exhausting aromas effect attributed to bub-
bles exchange surfaces, is to progressively bring gaseous CO2 in the
headspace above the wines surface. It is indeed well-known that a
sudden and abundant quantity of CO2 may irritate the nose during
the evaluation of aromas [1319].
The analytical parameter which characterizes the progressive
release of gaseous CO2 desorbed from a glass poured with cham-
pagne is the total volume ux of CO2 escaping from the wine/air
interface. The total CO2 volume uxes outgassing from each type
of drinking vessel poured with 100 mL of champagne, are presented
in the graph displayed in Fig. 12, during the rst 10 min following
the pouring process. Experimentally, during approximately the rst
3 min following the pouring process, it is clear that total CO2 vol-
ume uxes are signicantly higher when champagne is served in
the coupe than in the ute. Nevertheless, this tendency reverses
from about 3 min until 10 min after pouring, and total CO2 volume
G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115 11
70
Coupe Flute
Flute
60 Coupe
50
FUS (mm3 s cm )
-2
40
-1
30
20
400
500
600
10
0
400 500 600 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
t (s)
Fig. 13. CO2 volume uxes per unit surface (in mm3 s1 cm2 ) as determined with
Eq. (7), desorbing from a ute and a coupe respectively lled with 100 mL of cham-
pagne, all along the rst 10 min following the pouring process.
uxes outgassing from the ute become higher than those out-
gassing from the coupe (see the inset in Fig. 12). However, it is
worth noting that, from the point of view of champagne and other
sparkling wine tasting, the pertinent parameter which character-
izes a given type of drinking vessel with regard to its progressive
CO2 release with time is not really the total CO2 volume ux out-
gassing from it. Actually, the open aperture of tasters nostrils being
obviously much smaller than the surface area of the drinking vessel
offered to total gas discharge, we proposed a more adapted ana-
lytical parameter in order to compare the progressive CO2 release
from various glasses, namely the CO2 volume ux per unit surface
area, denoted FUS , and deduced as follows for each type of drinking
vessel:
FT
FUS = (7)
A
with FT being the total CO2 volume ux outgassing from each type
of drinking vessel (given in Fig. 12), and A being the free surface
area of the given type of drinking vessel (given in Table 3). CO2
volume uxes per unit surface area outgassing from each type of
drinking vessel poured with 100 mL of champagne, are presented
in Fig. 13. Fig. 13 shows that CO2 volume uxes outgassing per unit
surface area are much higher in the ute than in the coupe, during
the 10 min following the pouring process. From the point of view
of champagne tasting, it means that the ute should nally enable
higher concentrations of gaseous CO2 above the champagne free
surface during tasting (due to its narrower open aperture compared
to that of the coupe), despite lower total CO2 volume uxes in the
rst 3 min following pouring [39].
Further determination of the gaseous CO2 concentration in the
headspace above the champagne free surface, a parameter use-
ful for champagne tasting, will be achieved by use of micro gas
chromatography (GC) in a near future.
4.2. The impact of champagne temperature
In order to test the inuence of champagne temperature on the
kinetics of CO2 release from a ute, experiments were performed at
three sets of champagne temperature, namely 4 C, 12 C, and 20 C,
respectively, in a temperature-controlled room [38]. The total CO2
12 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115

1,2
T = 4 C 1,2 T = 4 C
T = 12 C T = 12 C
1,0
T = 20 C T = 20 C
1,0
CO2 volume flux (cm s )
-1

CO2 volume flux (cm s )

-1
3

0,8

3
0,8

0,6
0,6

0,4
0,4

0,2

0,2
0,0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0,0
t (s) 4 5 6 7 8
-1
Fig. 14. Total CO2 volume uxes recordings (in cm3 s1 ) desorbing from a 100 mL
CL (g L )
ute poured with champagne, all along the rst 10 min following the pouring pro-
cess, and at three different champagne temperature; each datum of each time series Fig. 16. Total CO2 volume uxes recordings (in cm3 s1 ) desorbing from a ute lled
is the arithmetic average of six successive values recorded from six successive with 100 mL of champagne as a function of its dissolved CO2 concentration, and at
pouring; standard deviations correspond to the root-mean-square deviations of the three champagne temperatures.
values provided by the six successive data recordings.

Besides, correlations between CO2 volume uxes outgassing

volume uxes outgassing from the ute poured with champagne,
from the ute and dissolved CO2 concentrations in champagne
during the rst 10 min following pouring and for each champagne
were done [38]. They are compiled, and displayed in Fig. 16, for
temperature, are presented in the graph displayed in Fig. 14. Exper-
each champagne temperature. It is clear from Fig. 16 that, for a
imentally, it is clear that the lower the champagne temperature, the
given dissolved CO2 concentration of champagne, the lower the
lower CO2 volume uxes outgassing from the ute and especially
champagne temperature, the lower CO2 volume uxes outgassing
in the early moments following the pouring process. The progres-
from the ute.
sive losses of dissolved CO2 concentrations were also monitored
with time, for each champagne temperature (see Fig. 15). It clearly
appears in Fig. 15 that low champagne temperatures help keeping 4.3. The impact of champagne aging
dissolved CO2 inside champagne during tasting.
The inuence of champagne aging was also examined, with
regard to its loss of dissolved CO2 [45]. Two types of champagne
9 wines having experienced different periods of aging were tested,
namely a young one (disgorged and corked in 2009, and referred
4 C to as YC in the following), and an older one, disgorged and corked
12 C early 2001 (stored in a cool cellar ever since, and referred to as OC in
8
20 C the following). For a better overview, Table 4 compiles the concen-
trations of dissolved CO2 of both champagne types, before and after
pouring. Logically, and as expected, the YC and the OC were found
7
to hold a concentration of dissolved CO2 much lower after pouring
CL (g L )
-1

than that before pouring. Moreover, it is worth noting that losses

of dissolved CO2 after pouring appear signicantly less important
6 in the OC (about 2.5 g L1 ) than in the YC (more than 4 g L1 ).
Average CO2 volume uxes outgassing from utes etched on
their bottoms, and poured with samples of YC and OC, respectively,
5 are presented in Fig. 17. It is clear from Fig. 17 that CO2 volume
uxes outgassing from the ute poured with YC are much higher
than those outgassing from the ute poured with OC. Besides, it
also appears that the difference in CO2 volume uxes between both
4
champagne types, denoted F, progressively decreases with time,
to nally vanish approximately 10 min after pouring. This observa-
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 tion is mainly attributed to the fact that the difference in dissolved
CO2 concentrations between both champagne types progressively
t (s) decreases as time proceeds, so that the driving force behind the
progressive desorption of CO2 from a glass, initially much higher
Fig. 15. Progressive losses of dissolved CO2 concentrations (in g L1 ), all along the
rst 10 min following the pouring process in a ute lled with 100 mL of champagne,
in YC than in OC after pouring, progressively decreases with time
and at three champagne temperatures. [45].
 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115
Table 4
Viscosity and concentration of dissolved CO2 found in both champagne types (in the bottle, and after pouring 100 mL of champagne).
Champagne type Dynamic viscosity, 
(at 20 C, and in mPa s)
YC 1.55 0.02
OC 1.65 0.02
4.4. Development of a CO2 sensor based on near infrared
technology
In champagne tasting, since a sudden and abundant quantity of
CO2 is known to irritate the nose during the evaluation of aromas,
it seemed pertinent to us to develop a non destructive and non
intrusive instrument able to monitor and quantify the concentra-
tion of gaseous CO2 , in tasting conditions. Laser diode spectrometry
proved to be an effective tool to provide accurate gaseous CO2
concentration measurements, by infrared absorption spectroscopy
[56]. In particular, a new generation of laser diodes emitting at
room-temperature near 2.7 m appear promising for the future
development of highly compact laser sensors [57]. Based on this
near-infrared laser technology, a compact CO2 sensor was therefore
recently developed in order to quantify accurately the concentra-
tion of gaseous CO2 found above glasses poured with champagne
or sparkling beverages [58]. The spectrometer developed for the
CO2 sensing above champagne glasses is shown in Fig. 18. A lot of
preliminary experiments have been necessary to develop a com-
plete protocol for measurements, such as isolation of the set-up
and cleaning procedure of the glass before it was lled [59].
Standard commercial champagne wine and beer were used for
this set of preliminary experiments. In order to avoid the randomly
located bubbling environment inevitably provided in glasses
showing natural effervescence, a single standard ute etched at
its bottom was used, thus providing a standardized and arti-
cial effervescence. Gaseous CO2 concentrations were monitored
above the ute poured with champagne or beer, all along the rst
25 min following pouring. It is worth noting that, in order to cal-
ibrate our instrument, the rst 5 min of each data processing on
champagne or beer (before pouring), systematically correspond to
1,4
1,2
CO2 volume flux (cm s )
-1
1,0
3
0,8
0,6
F
0,4
0,2
0,0
0 100 200 300 400
t (s)
Fig. 17. Total CO2 volume uxes recordings (in cm3 s1 ) desorbing from a 100 mL
ute poured with YC and OC samples, respectively.
Reprinted with permission from Ref. [45].
13
Initial concentration of dissolved CO2 Initial concentration of dissolved CO2
in the bottle, before pouring (in g L1 ) in the ute, after pouring (in g L1 )
11.6 0.3 7.4 0.4
8.2 0.3 5.8 0.1
atmospheric CO2 measurements. Concentrations of gaseous CO2
are in very good agreement with the standard atmospheric CO2
concentrations (approximately 380400 ppm), thus validating our
experimental set-up. After the pouring process, signicant dif-
ferences in CO2 concentrations above the glass were evidenced
depending on whether it was poured with champagne or beer.
Immediately after pouring, the level of gaseous CO2 above the glass
poured with champagne is approximately twice the one reached
above the glass poured with beer (around 2.5% for champagne
against only 1.3% for beer). Then, the decrease of the gaseous CO2
concentration above the ute which ensues is faster for champagne
than for beer. About 15 min after pouring, gaseous CO2 concentra-
tions above the ute superimpose [58,59].
We were logically tempted to wonder why such differences
appear between champagne and beer. In order to depict our experi-
mental observations, the contribution of effervescence to the global
kinetics of CO2 release was discussed, and modeled by use of results
developed over recent years on the bubble rise, growth, and col-
lapse at the liquid surface.
4.5. The contribution of collapsing bubbles to CO2 volume uxes
outgassing from a glass: a multi-parameter modeling
The contribution of rising bubbles to the global kinetics of CO2
released from a sparkling beverage is quite easily accessible by tak-
ing into account the whole number of nucleation sites in the glass,
the average frequency of bubble production from a nucleation site,
and the average size of a bubble as it reaches the liquid surface (to
nally collapse and release its CO2 content above the liquid surface).
The frequency of bubble formation from a single bubble nucleation
site, denoted f, was modeled in previous works and found to obey
the following scaling law [6]:
DT (cL kH P)
f (8)
P
YC
OC
500 600
Fig. 18. A three-dimensional view of the infrared diode laser spectrometer designed
to monitor gaseous CO2 concentrations above glasses poured with carbonated bev-
erages.
14 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115
with T being the liquid temperature, cL being the bulk concentra-
tion of dissolved CO2 , kH being the Henrys law constant, P being
the ambient pressure, and D being the diffusion coefcient of CO2
molecules dissolved into the liquid medium.
The diameter of a bubble reaching the liquid surface, denoted d,
was also found to depend on various parameters as follows [5,30]:
  2/9  c k P 1/3
L H
d T 1/3 D2/9 h1/3
g P Authors are also indebted to the Rgion Champagne-Ardenne, the
with  being the liquid density, g being the acceleration due to
gravity, and h being the distance travelled by the bubble from its
nucleation site.
Finally, the contribution of effervescence to the global CO2 vol-
ume ux outgassing from the ute may be accessed by multiplying
the number N of nucleation sites in the ute by the average bubble
nucleation frequency f, and by the average volume v of a bub-
ble collapsing at the liquid surface. Therefore, by combining the
two aforementioned scaling laws, the CO2 volume ux released by
bubbles, denoted dV/dt, may be expressed as follows:
dV 
 2/3  c k P 2
L H
= Nf v Nfd3 T 2 D5/3 h (10)
dt g P Senses 25 (2000) 277.
In case of ascending beer bubbles, some other correlations
between the bubbles diameter and its travelled distance were pro-
posed [60,61].
It is worth noting from the previous relationship that, every
other parameter being equal, the higher the bulk concentration cL
in the liquid medium, the higher the CO2 volume ux outgassing
into the form of bubbles (as experimentally shown in the previous
paragraphs, by correlating CO2 volume uxes with the bulk con-
centration cL of dissolved CO2 ). Besides, because champagne holds
about twice more dissolved CO2 than beers do [5], the headspace
above a champagne glass is more concentrated in CO2 vapors than
the headspace above a beer glass [58,59].
5. Conclusions and future prospects
In this state-of-the-art review, the evolving nature of the dis-
solved and gaseous CO2 found in champagne wines was evidenced,
from the fermentation process in the sealed bottle to the tasting
glass, through analytical techniques. Impacts of various physico-
chemical parameters of both the champagne and the tasting glass
on the progressive release of dissolved CO2 were presented and
discussed, in tasting conditions.
In a near future, we plan to test the inuence of the glass mate-
rial (glass, crystal, plastic, etc.) on the kinetics of CO2 release from
champagne or sparkling wines. In addition, we also plan to test the
inuence of other various physicochemical parameters of the liquid
medium on the kinetics of CO2 release, such as its viscosity, and liq-
uid level in the glass, for example. Further determination of gaseous
CO2 and VOC concentrations in the headspace above champagne
glasses, in tasting conditions, is actually under deeper investigation
by use of micro gas chromatography (GC) techniques [62]. These
further investigations are expected to be conducted together with
sensory analysis experiments.
Moreover, champagne is a very complex liquid matrix. Dissolved
salts, carbohydrates, mineral ions, etc., could affect the colliga-
tive properties of the test matrix and, thus, the mobility of CO2
molecules, which could therefore affect in turn the overall kinet-
ics of the bubble nucleation process (and therefore the release of
the gaseous CO2 from champagne). Molecular dynamics simulation
studies could maybe help us in better understanding, at the molec-
ular scale, the interactions between the CO2 molecule and the other
species around. Experiments are to be conducted along these lines.
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Marielle Bourget and Herv Pron, for their
constant and precious help with the high-speed infrared imaging
device. Thanks are due to the EuroplAgro institute and to the Asso-
ciation Recherche Oenologie Champagne Universit for nancial
support, and to Thierry Gasco, chef de cave of Champagne Pom-
mery, for regularly supplying us with various champagne samples.
(9)
Ville de Reims, and the Conseil Gnral de la Marne for supporting
our research.
References
[1] G. Liger-Belair, Uncorked: The Science of Champagne, Princeton University
Press, Princeton, 2004.
[2] G. Liger-Belair, J. Rochard, Les vins effervescents: du terroir la bulle, Dunod,
Paris, 2008.
[3] B. Duteurtre, Le Champagne: de la tradition la science, Lavoisier, Paris, 2010.
[4] G. Liger-Belair, R. Marchal, M. Vignes-Adler, B. Robillard, A. Maujean, P. Jeandet,
Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 50 (1999) 317.
[5] G. Liger-Belair, Ann. Phys. (Paris) 31 (2006) 1.
[6] G. Liger-Belair, M. Parmentier, P. Jeandet, J. Phys. Chem. B 110 (2006) 21145.
[7] J.-M. Dessirier, C.T. Simons, M.L. Carstens, M. OMahony, E. Carstens, Chem.
[8] E. Carstens, M.L. Carstens, J.-M. Dessirier, M. OMahony, C.T. Simons, M. Sudo,
S. Sudo, Food Qual. Prefer. 13 (2002) 431.
[9] J. Chandrashekar, D. Yarmolinsky, L. von Buchholtz, Y. Oka, W. Sly, N. Ryba, C.
Zuker, Science 326 (2009) 443.
[10] A. Dunkel, T. Hofmann, Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 49 (2010) 2975.
[11] C. Priser, P.X. Etievant, S. Nicklaus, O. Brun, J. Agric. Food Chem. 45 (1997) 3511.
[12] T. Tominaga, G. Guimbertau, D. Dubourdieu, J. Agric. Food Chem. 51 (2003)
1016.
[13] W.S. Cain, C.L. Murphy, Nature 284 (1980) 255.
[14] J.E. Cometto-Muniz, W.S. Cain, Chem. Senses 8 (1984) 315.
[15] J.E. Cometto-Muniz, S.M. Hernandez, Percept. Psychophys. 47 (1990) 391.
[16] N. Thurauf, I. Friedel, C. Hummel, G. Kobal, Neurosci. Lett. 128 (1991) 297.
[17] A. Livermore, T. Hummel, Chem. Senses 29 (2004) 41.
[18] A.M. Kleeman, J. Albrecht, V. Schpf, K. Haegler, R. Kopietz, J.M. Hempel, J. Linn,
V.L. Flanagin, G. Fest, M. Wiesmann, Physiol. Behav. 97 (2009) 401.
[19] T. Meusel, S. Negoias, M. Scheibe, T. Hummel, Pain 151 (2010) 516.
[20] B.J. Cowart, Chem. Senses 23 (1998) 397.
[21] L. Hewson, T. Hollowood, S. Chandra, J. Hort, Chem. Percept. 2 (2009) 94.
[22] N.J. Yau, M.R. McDaniel, Chem. Senses 16 (1991) 337.
[23] B.G. Green, Chem. Senses 17 (1992) 435.
[24] S.J. Harper, M.R. McDaniel, J. Food Sci. 58 (1993) 893.
[25] G. Brand, Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 30 (2006) 908.
[26] H.T. Lawless, H. Heymann, Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices,
Springer, New York, 2010.
[27] M.A. Pozo-Bayon, M. Santos, P.J. Martin-Alvarez, G. Reineccius, Flavour Frag. J.
24 (2009) 226.
[28] A. Saint-Eve, I. Dlris, E. Aubin, E. Semon, G. Feron, J.-M. Rabillier, D. Ibarra, E.
Guichard, I. Souchon, J. Agric. Food Chem. 57 (2009) 5891.
[29] G.G. Agabaliantz, Bull. OIV 36 (1963) 703.
[30] G. Liger-Belair, J. Agric. Food Chem. 53 (2005) 2788.
[31] D.R. Lide, H.P. Frederikse, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 76th ed.,
CRC Press, Boston, 1995.
[32] H. Alexandre, M. Guilloux-Benatier, Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 12 (2006) 119.
[33] M.A. Pozo-Bayon, A. Martinez-Rodriguez, E. Pueyo, M.V. Moreno-Arribas,
Trends Food Sci. Technol. 20 (2009) 289.
[34] S. Torresi, M.T. Frangipane, G. Anelli, Food Chem. 129 (2011) 1232.
[35] G. Liger-Belair, G. Polidori, G.P. Jeandet, Chem. Soc. Rev. 37 (2008) 2490.
[36] Dioxyde de Carbone Ref MA-F-AS314-01-DIOCAR, in: Recueil des mthodes
internationales danalyse des boissons spiritueuses, des alcools et de la fraction
aromatique des boissons, OIV, Paris, 1994.
[37] G. Autret, G. Liger-Belair, J.-M. Nuzillard, M. Parmentier, A. Dubois de Montrey-
naud, P. Jeandet, B.T. Doan, J.-C. Beloeil, Anal. Chim. Acta 535 (2005) 73.
[38] G. Liger-Belair, S. Villaume, C. Cilindre, P. Jeandet, J. Agric. Food Chem. 57 (2009)
1997.
[39] G. Liger-Belair, S. Villaume, C. Cilindre, G. Polidori, P. Jeandet, J. Agric. Food
Chem. 57 (2009) 4939.
[40] C. Cilindre, G. Liger-Belair, S. Villaume, P. Jeandet, R. Marchal, Anal. Chim. Acta
660 (2010) 164.
[41] S. Silva, M. Sabino, V. Fernandes, V. Correlo, L. Boesel, R. Reis, Int. Mater. Rev.
50 (2005) 345.
[42] H. Pereira, Cork: Biology Production and Uses, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2007.
[43] D.P. Faria, A.L. Fonseca, H. Pereira, O.M. Teodoro, J. Agric. Food Chem. 59 (2011)
3590.
[44] G. Liger-Belair, S. Villaume, J. Agric. Food Chem. 59 (2011) 4051.
[45] G. Liger-Belair, S. Villaume, C. Cilindre, P. Jeandet, Anal. Chim. Acta 660 (2010)
29.
[46] D. Gordge, R. Page, Exp. Fluids 14 (1993) 409.
 G. Liger-Belair et al. / Analytica Chimica Acta 732 (2012) 115
[47] H. Pron, D. Caron, F. Beaumont, G. Liger-Belair, G. Polidori, J. Vis. 13 (2010) 181.
[48] G. Liger-Belair, M. Bourget, S. Villaume, P. Jeandet, H. Pron, G. Polidori, J. Agric.
Food Chem. 58 (2010) 8768.
[49] P. Tipler, G. Mosca, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, W.H. Freeman, New
York, 2003.
[50] G. Liger-Belair, J.-B. Religieux, S. Fohanno, M.-A. Vialatte, P. Jeandet, G. Polidori,
J. Agric. Food Chem. 55 (2007) 882.
[51] G. Liger-Belair, F. Beaumont, M.-A. Vialatte, S. Jgou, P. Jeandet, G. Polidori, Anal.
Chim. Acta 621 (2008) 30.
[52] G. Polidori, P. Jeandet, G. Liger-Belair, Am. Sci. 97 (2009) 294.
[53] M. Tasachaki, A.L. Gady, M. Kalopesas, R. Linforth, V. Aths, M. Marin, A. Taylor,
J. Agric. Food Chem. 56 (2008) 5308.
[54] T. Hummel, J.F. Delwiche, C. Schmidt, K.B. Httenbrink, Appetite 41 (2003) 197.
[55] M. Vilanova, P. Vidal, S. Corts, J. Sens. Stud. 23 (2008) 114.
15
[56] V. Zninari, B. Parvitte, L. Joly, T. Le Barbu, N. Amarouche, G. Durry, Appl. Phys.
B: Lasers Opt. 85 (2006) 265.
[57] L. Joly, B. Parvitte, V. Zninari, G. Durry, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt. 86 (2007)
743.
[58] M. Mulier, V. Zeninari, L. Joly, T. Decarpenterie, B. Parvitte, P. Jeandet, G. Liger-
Belair, Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt. 94 (2009) 725.
[59] M. Mulier, Mise en place dun spectromtre laser infrarouge pour ltude de la
diffusion du CO2 gazeux hors du champagne et de quelques boissons efferves-
centes, PhD thesis, Universit de Reims Champagne-Ardenne, Reims, France,
2009.
[60] Y. Zhang, Z. Xu, Elements 4 (2008) 47.
[61] Y. Zhang, Geochemical Kinetics, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2008.
[62] C. Cilindre, A. Conreux, G. Liger-Belair, J. Agric. Food Chem. 59 (2011) 7317.