The Numbers Don’t Lie: Solving Wineries’ Analytical Challenges

The winemaking world is buzzing with shiny new analytical gadgets that promise to revolutionize how we understand our wines—but do they actually deliver, or are they just expensive lab toys? I’ve been tracking analytical feedback from winemakers who’ve actually invested in some of these new tools, and the real-world feedback might surprise you. Some of these innovations are quietly transforming how producers work smarter (not harder), while others are gathering dust in corners after their initial novelty wore off. Here’s some observations beyond clever marketing and trends.

The Sentia

This flashy little analytical tool has become more of a widespread hit this vintage, and it’s been interesting to watch how useful it is for producers of all sizes. My general opinion about anything that measures a whole handful of analytes (e.g., SO2, TA, pH, Alcohol, etc.) is that the unit is probably too good to be true. That being said, I’ve found the Sentia does have some real advantages, but also some limitations when it comes to practical use during the winemaking process. 

The Sentia was marketed early on as a malic acid reader, and for that purpose it is useful. I’ve seen winemakers making better decisions with regards to when an MLF is complete by using this tool to watch the actual malic acid concentration change as opposed to only relying on a visual paper chromatography assessment. It does only measure up to 5 g/L of malic acid so for regions with relatively high malic acid retention, it may not be as useful. But the lower limit of the readable range is sufficient to show a winemaker when MLF is actually complete. And for that fact alone, that makes the Sentia worth it.

Over the last year or so, I have had some clients review how well it does at measuring volatile acidity (VA) in the form of acetic acid. The acetic acid test strips have not proven very accurate against more formal VA analytical tests like using the cash still or against a segmented flow result from a wine lab. This is especially true as the free SO2 concentration increases in a wine, which have observed may inflate the VA reading.

In terms of free SO2, the Sentia does not seem to be that far off from readings when compared against analytical lab results. However, through the 2024 vintage, we noticed that the 50 ppm limit of free SO2 was a hard limit. This year, in 2025, Sentia released the high end of the reading range up to 75 ppm of free SO2. At the time of this blog post, I have not collected any data on SO2 results related to this updated limit.

In 2025, the Sentia also offered the ability to look at glucose-fructose (residual sugar) concentrations. Adding up these two numbers would allow winemakers to know when a primary fermentation is completely dry (<1 g/L residual sugar). While I don’t have good observations on the effectiveness of this offering yet, this function could be a game changer for many operations guessing when fermentation is complete.

How can a winemaker best use the Sentia to their advantage?

I especially like it for testing the end of MLF. A winemaker can use paper chromatography for basic monitoring and then use the Sentia towards the end of MLF to confirm the malic acid content is dry (<0.1 g/L malic acid). 

For free SO2, many winemakers are also using it for quick SO2 checks. If a wine appears close to a free SO2 limit, they may double check it using an alternative method (i.e., AO or the Vinmetrica unit) to measure the wine or by sending out a wine sample to a reputable lab. The benefit of the Sentia for free SO2 purposes is that it seems to encourage more winemakers to stay current on SO2 measurements. The downsides are the costs of the strips and the lack of total SO2 measurements. 

A Multi-Analyte Solution

I have a few clients that have attempted to integrate FOSS or CDR WineLab instruments into their winery. For some wineries, the integration of these multi-analyte units can appear to save time and resources on lab personnel. But again, initial cost can be inhibitive and I still question the accuracy of results for several of the analytes these units claim to measure. This year, I saw several discrepancies with results from a FOSS unit, and the cost to double check those readings with another reputable lab can be costly in and of itself.

I continue to prefer a mini-spectrophotometer, which can give wineries the opportunity to measure many analytes (e.g., YAN as ammonia and primary amino nitrogen, acetic acid (as VA), residual sugar, and malic acid) under more reliable methods. I currently like the MegaQuant Wave Spectrophotometer which uses Megazyme enzyme kits for analysis or the Vintessentials Spectrophotometer V140 which probably works best with Vintessential enzyme kits. Since these units are smaller than a regular spectrophotometer, their cost is more in line with other multi-analyte instruments. 

The reliability with enzymatic methods is based on the number of years enzymatic assays have been used for various analytes, especially in relation to wine analysis. The tricky part – and, often, inhibitive part – with them is getting familiar with the methodology: handling small materials, being able to follow somewhat detailed protocols for analysis, and managing the longevity of the enzyme kits, which do eventually expire. Like most lab analysis, enzymatic kits are not inexpensive and they require a winemaker to plan out kit storage to improve its longevity before the kit expires.

Some Fundamental Reminders on Analysis

As a consultant, I see these laboratory mishaps regularly. This is especially common with the diverse backgrounds associated with today’s winemakers! So here a few analytical tips that I think many wineries could benefit from hearing: 

During harvest, it’s best to take the sugar reading using a refractometer until after the juice/must is inoculated. Refractometers offer a better reading of the actual sugar, and they are recommended to use if the winemaker wants to make a sugar adjustment prior to inoculation. Once the juice/must is inoculated, switch to using a hydrometer, which will be more accurate than the refractometer, as alcohol concentration accumulates during fermentation.

The biggest error in measuring from titrations is often human error. Titrations of all kinds require some patience. They also require consistency from the individual that is running the analysis. For some wineries, finding a semi-automatic titrator could be a big help in getting more consistent readings and may be something worth investing in over time. 

Always take the time to invest in a really good pH meter. The Winemaking Lesson: pH Explained provides some examples of my go-to pH meters. I still prefer benchtop models, which often have more reliable calibration protocols. Remember to buy fresh buffers annually. Additionally, electrodes usually need replaced every 1 – 2 years. A good benchtop pH meter will be able to diagnose if the electrode is no longer working properly. As electrodes are expensive (upwards of $500), it’s a good idea to become familiar with these protocols, which are often detailed in the pH meter manual. 

SO2 concentrations are one of the most frequently measured analytes in wine, but they are also time consuming if you are using an AO. Most people that are using a Vinmetrica said they can cut down analysis time to about 5 minutes per sample. If time is what is inhibiting you, consider swapping methods. 

Finally, stop flying blind through your wine production cycle—every day you’re missing critical analytical checkpoints is another day you’re gambling with quality instead of controlling it. Most winemakers know they should be testing more, but figuring out exactly what to test and when often feels like guesswork that eats up precious time. The Checklist: Essential Wine Production Analyses cuts through the confusion with a streamlined roadmap that shows you precisely which tests matter at each stage of production. Think of it as your analytical insurance policy—because discovering a problem three weeks too late isn’t just costly, it’s heartbreaking. 

The views and opinions expressed through dgwinemaking.com are intended for general informational purposes only. Denise Gardner Winemaking does not assume any responsibility or liability for those winery, cidery, or alcohol-producing operations that choose to use any of the information seen here or within dgwinemaking.com.