Poor interoperability of the Adams-Harbertson method for analysis of anthocyanins: comparison with AOAC pH differential method.

The poor interoperability of anthocyanin glycosides measurements by two pH differential methods is documented. Adams-Harbertson, which was proposed for commercial winemaking, was compared to AOAC Official Method 2005.02 for wine. California bottled wines (Pinot Noir, Merlot, and Cabernet Sauvignon) were assayed in a collaborative study (n=105), which found mean precision of Adams-Harbertson winery versus reference measurements to be 77 +/- 20%. Maximum error is expected to be 48% for Pinot Noir, 42% for Merlot, and 34% for Cabernet Sauvignon from reproducibility RSD. Range of measurements was actually 30 to 91% for Pinot Noir. An interoperability study (n=30) found Adams-Harbertson produces measurements that are nominally 150% of the AOAC pH differential method. Large analytical chemistry differences are: AOAC method uses Beer-Lambert equation and measures absorbance at pH 1.0 and 4.5, proposed a priori by Flueki and Francis; whereas Adams-Harbertson uses "universal" standard curve and measures absorbance ad hoc at pH 1.8 and 4.9 to reduce the effects of so-called co-pigmentation. Errors relative to AOAC are produced by Adams-Harbertson standard curve over Beer-Lambert and pH 1.8 over pH 1.0. The study recommends using AOAC Official Method 2005.02 for analysis of wine anthocyanin glycosides.

Adams-Harbertson protein precipitation-based wine tannin method found invalid.

The poor precision of the Adams-Harbertson wine tannin assay which was proposed for commercial winemaking, thereby creating the real possibility of quality control problems, is documented. The method is a version of the Hagerman and Butler protein precipitation-based tannin method. An extensive invalidation of the assay results with luxury wine data shows that the assay cannot distinguish bottled wine with reasonable accuracy. Five laboratories used Adams-Harbertson to assay 9 replicates each, of 3 bottled wines (n = 135) found in California supermarkets, with tannin concentrations of nominally 500 and 1000 ppm by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Reliability exceeded the +/-5% industry requirement by nominally 5 times (z-score based on 5% distribution). Coefficient of variation was +/-27%, making the standard deviation range 54% for Pinot Noir, 34% for Merlot, and 44% for Cabernet Sauvignon. Validity exceeded the 100% requirement. Intralaboratory validity recovery was 55-63%. Interwinery validity was 71-178% of the mean for Pinot Noir, 81-144% for Merlot, and 83-164% for Cabernet Sauvignon. Range as a function of the mean was 89% for Pinot Noir, 55% for Merlot, and 67% for Cabernet Sauvignon. Expect intermethod validity to be nominally 50%, i.e., percent recovery to HPLC. These statistically significant errors were predicted by the literature. First-order error is related to the tannin-protein equilibrium constant (Ka), as suggested by the original author, Hagerman, and the protein equivalence point error as suggested by Silber. This does not obviate second-order errors for tannin-protein analytical chemistry. Winemakers using the measurements risk making wines that are relatively more tannic than the measurements report.