Assessing Wine Quality in Glass and Alternative Packaging During Storage ^†

Abstract

Glass bottles remain ideal for wine marketing and long-term storage, but they also represent a major contributor to the overall carbon footprint of wine production. Although aluminum and plastic are emerging as alternative packaging, these materials can influence wine quality. The impact of wine packaging on the composition, color, and total phenolics of red wine and white wine was evaluated at 0, 6, and 12 months of storage at 15 °C in 2022 and 2023. Chambourcin and Vignoles (Vitis hybrids) grapes were harvested, produced into wine, then bottled in different packaging. Eight wine packaging treatments were evaluated for the 2022 wines, including three glass treatments (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL) and five 250 mL containers of aluminum (AL), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), and polypropylene (PP). Ten wine packaging treatments were evaluated for the 2023 wines, including three glass treatments (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL), three aluminum treatments (250 mL, 375 mL, and 500 mL), three PET treatments (two 250 mL and 750 mL), and one 750 mL flexible pouch. In both years, the packaging treatment significantly impacted dissolved oxygen, free sulfur dioxide, L*, Delta E, and chroma at 6- and 12 months of storage in the red and white wines. As expected, the wine in glass packaging (375 and 750 mL) had the best color and phenolic stability during storage. Regardless of packaging treatment, Delta E (where values >5 indicate noticeably different color compared to wines in Glass 750 at bottling) for these wines increased during storage. For alternative packaging, aluminum and PET had potential for wine stored up to 6 months but less at 12 months of storage. Alternative packaging can lower the wine industry’s carbon footprint but does not provide the extended shelf-life of wine offered by glass packaging. However, alternative packaging remains a promising option for wines intended to be consumed within six months of bottling.

1. Introduction

Wine grape (Vitis) production plays a vital role in modern culture, with vineyards cultivated around the world, grapes transformed into wine, and the finished products distributed to consumers. Four countries (Italy, France, Spain, and the United States) produced more than 50% of the wine with the United States as the largest consumer (33.3 million hL in 2023 [1]. In 2025, the U.S. wine industry generated over $324 billion, supporting U.S. workers in grape and wine production, logistics, packaging, and tourism [2]. Given its global economic impact, reducing the carbon footprint of wine production is essential for the long-term sustainability of the grape and wine industry.

Although techniques for producing, storing, and transporting wine have evolved over time, the rise in wine as a tradable commodity led to the development of glass bottles as a dependable packaging solution for a growing market. Even though glass is an ideal material for storing wine due to its impermeability, chemical inertness, and suitability for aging wine, glass bottles are energy-intensive to produce and transport, contributing up to 34% of the total carbon footprint associated with wine production [3,4,5]. This high carbon footprint of glass can be offset by recycling, but in the United States, only 32% of all glass used was recycled in 2018 [6].

The U.S. wine packaging market was worth $3.5 billion in 2024, with an expected worth of $4.2 billion by 2029 [7]. Although glass bottle costs greatly impact the industry’s value, wine packaging companies are increasingly innovating with alternative materials and a wider range of serving sizes. The use of wine in aluminum cans, plastic bottles, and flexible materials enable consumers to purchase wine in various serving sizes rather than a conventional 750 mL glass bottle. Packaging such as the Bag-in-Box (BIB) [outer corrugated container with an inner bladder bag made of high barrier flexible films] accommodate larger quantities (1.5–3.0 L) of wine in one package [8]. Low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and high-density polyethylene (HDPE) are other examples of plastic packaging. Because materials like aluminum, plastics, and flexible pouches weigh less than glass, they generally produce a lower carbon footprint. However, plastics, especially those that are not constructed with a moisture and oxygen barrier, will not protect the integrity of wines [9]. Aluminum, especially the inner liner used to prevent wine and metal interactions, can create rotten egg aromas due to the formation of hydrogen sulfide [10,11]. While reducing the carbon footprint is essential, these efforts must not compromise the sensory integrity or overall quality of the wine.

Consumers tend to associate the price of a bottle of wine as a quality cue with four segments for the wines; commercial wines (<$13), semi-premium ($13–21), premium ($21–40), and ultra-premium (>$40) [12,13,14]. Consumers check bottle quality, label quality and expression, and proper naming when selecting wines [15]. Consumers perceive glass as the optimum packaging material for wine and note qualities like the shape and color of the glass as reasons to buy certain wines over others [15,16]. While 91% of Italian consumers (n = 1000) exclusively purchased wine in glass bottles, 62% considered buying wine in alternative packaging if it reduced environmental impact without compromising quality [17,18]. Additionally, a study of Croatian wine consumers found that while they typically associated wine with glass packaging, they were open to adopting alternative packaging if informed about the material’s integrity in preserving wine quality [19]. Scozzafava et al. [20] found that consumers were less inclined to pay a premium for wine in a BIB compared to a bottle, regardless of the wine’s taste. Consumers who are experienced wine drinkers are more receptive to alternative wine packaging [21]. One challenge with alternative wine packaging is that it does not offer the same product visibility as conventional glass, which may lead consumers to perceive the wine as lower quality.

Consumer interest in sustainable products is a significant driver for exploring alternative wine packaging but can vary by generation (Generation Z is 1997 onward, Millennials/Generation Y is 1981–1996, Generation X is 1965–1980, Baby Boomers is 1946–1964, and Silent Generation is 1928–1945). Millennials, known for their environmental awareness, often seek eco-friendly products and were more receptive to alternative packaging, mainly due to its utility for larger portions in social settings [22,23]. Younger generations in Germany were more willing to pay a premium for sustainable packaging especially among higher-income consumers (25% of Generation Z versus 1% of Generation X) [24]. In addition, Generation Z wine consumers, who self-reported as knowledgeable about wine with above-average incomes, were most likely to accept alternative packaging options [25]. Savelli and Travasi [26] showed that Generation Z (360 Italian respondents aged 18–25) had low purchase intentions and limited awareness of sustainable wines, which contradicted their interest in sustainable consumption options. However, digital technologies, especially social networks, can play a role in enhancing Generation Z’s attitudes towards sustainable wine consumption by reinforcing their knowledge and awareness of sustainability. Barber [27] profiled 313 U.S. wine consumers and recommended marketing environmentally-friendly wine packaging using media approaches directed toward specific market segments, whereas generic advertisements may not effectively capture the differing environmental attitudes. While Orlowski et al. [28] demonstrated that for U.S. consumers (n = 60–100), non-traditional packaging negatively influenced purchase intentions for wine, this effect was dependent on individual differences (a desire for a unique product) and label attributes (eco-friendliness). The more open a consumer is toward wine innovation, the more aware they are about protecting the environment [29]. Bartz et al. [30] suggested that educating consumers about the environmental benefits of alternative packaging could increase the adoption of alternative wine packaging and support transitions to sustainable practices.

Regardless of packaging, quality attributes at bottling and during storage are important to marketing wines. The U.S. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) federally regulates some wine composition attributes including volatile acidity (acetic acid) and sulfur dioxide (SO₂) levels. Volatile acidity must not exceed 1.4 g/L in red wines and 1.2 g/L in all others [31,32]. Excessive acetic acid in wines can lead to unpleasant aromas, such as ethyl acetate (fingernail polish removal) or vinegar. SO₂ is added to wine to prevent color degradation/oxidation and unwanted microorganisms. Total SO₂ levels must not exceed 350 mg/L for all U.S. wines, and if SO₂ equals or exceeds 10 mg/L, the label must have a sulfite declaration [32,33]. To ensure microbial stability during fermentation and at bottling, the recommended pH and titratable acidity of wine grapes at harvest are 3.0–3.4 and 0.65–0.8%, respectively [34]. A typical dry table wine is 85–89% water, 9–13% ethanol, and the remaining compounds are the acids, phenolics, minerals, and residual sugars that provide unique color and flavor to each wine [35].

Dissolved oxygen (O₂) is another important quality attribute for storing wine, and the dissolved O₂ levels should be 1–2 mg/L at bottling. Wines are sparged with nitrogen or carbon dioxide prior to and during bottling to reduce dissolved O₂. The saturation of oxygen in wine is impacted by temperature, where dissolved O₂ is 8 mg/L at 20 °C but solubility increases to 14 mg/L at 0 °C. The dissolved O₂ in bottled wine should be lower than 0.6 mg/L and 1.25 mg/L for white and rosé/red wines, respectively [34,36]. Higher levels of O₂ in wine can result in SO₂ loss which can cause color instability [37].

The color stability in wine is important to maintain the quality of the wines, especially in terms of preventing the oxidation that causes browning in both red and white wines [38]. Wines can brown during aging because of oxidative chemical browning. For white wines, the primary reasons for browning are phenolic oxidation, Maillard reaction, and residual sugar caramelization, whereas red wines are impacted by the loss of phenolic and anthocyanin content and the formation of polymeric pigments [39]. Oxidation during wine production can be controlled through SO₂ additions, nitrogen sparging, and adjustments to acidity.

While enhancing the sustainability of the grape and wine industry is important, it should not come at the expense of wine quality. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the quality of wine stored in glass and alternative packaging formats during storage.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Grape Cultivars and Harvest

In 2022 and 2023, Vignoles and Chambourcin (Vitis hybrids) grapes were hand harvested (122–150 kg) in August–September from a commercial grower in Hindsville, AR, USA. Hybrid grapes are crosses of different species of grapes bred to resist pests, diseases, and harsh climates, like Arkansas and other U.S. Southeastern states. The grapes were then taken for wine production at the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture (UA System) Food Science Department in Fayetteville, AR, USA. In 2022 at harvest, the Vignoles grapes had soluble solids of 20.0%, a pH of 3.43, and a titratable acidity of 0.88%, and the Chambourcin grapes had soluble solids of 22.4%, a pH of 3.37 pH, and a titratable acidity of 0.85%. In 2023 at harvest, the Vignoles grapes had soluble solids of 21.75%, a pH of 3.39, and a titratable acidity of 0.91%, and the Chambourcin grapes had soluble solids of 21.9%, a pH of 3.56, and a titratable acidity of 0.77%. Sugar or acid adjustments were not needed for wine production for both varieties and years.

2.2. Wine Production

For wine production each year, the grapes from each variety were weighed then crushed and destemmed. SO₂, as potassium metabisulfite, was added at crush at 30 mg/L. The wines were processed in traditional red and white wine styles for wine production. Prior to bottling, wines from each variety were combined into a large container, sparged with nitrogen, and the SO₂ of the wines was adjusted to 0.8 molecular SO₂. At bottling, each bottle was nitrogen sparged prior to filling, and all bottles were filled to 98% capacity (by weight). The wines were bottled into packaging treatments and stored at 15 °C for analysis at 0 (bottling), 6, and 12 months. All wine packaging treatments were kept in complete darkness during storage.

2.3. Chambourcin Red Wine Production

After crushing/destemming, the musts (seeds, skins, pulp, and juice) were placed in 60 L plastic containers with food-grade polyethylene liners for fermentation. The initial juice/must composition was analyzed. The musts were inoculated with D254 yeast (0.26 g/L) and Fermaid-O^™ yeast nutrient (0.26 g/L) (Lallemand Enology, Montreal, QC, Canada). The bags in the containers were partially sealed with tape to allow carbon dioxide to escape during fermentation. During fermentation, the must cap was punched down twice daily through the bag without exposing the must to air. The grapes were fermented at 15 °C on the skins until dryness (0° Brix). The must was pressed in a 70 L Enrossi bladder-type press at 4 bar pressure (Enoagricol Rossi, Calzolaro, Italy), and wine was collected into glass carboys with fermentation locks. The wines were racked three times to clarify and remove spent yeast cells.

2.4. Vignoles White Wine Production

After crushing/destemming, the must was pressed in a 70 L Enrossi bladder-type press at 4 bar pressure (Enoagricol Rossi, Calzolaro, Italy), and the juice was collected into glass carboys and cold settled (4 °C) overnight. The juice was racked into glass carboys. The initial juice composition was analyzed. The juice was inoculated with QA23 (0.26 g/L), and Fermaid-O^™ yeast nutrient (0.26 g/L) (Lallemand Enology, Montreal, QC, Canada) was added. The juice was fermented in glass carboys with fermentation locks. The wines were racked three times to clarify and remove spent yeast cells. After fermentation, wines were cold stabilized for 2 months at 2 °C.

2.5. Wine Packaging and Bottling

At bottling, each bottle was nitrogen sparged prior to filling, and all bottles were filled to 98% capacity (by weight). For this manuscript, the ‘packaging treatment’ includes packaging material and closure/type material as shown in

Table 1. Packaging treatments used to evaluate Chambourcin and Vignoles wines during storage at 15 °C (2022 and 2023).

Packaging Treatment a	PET 250A	PET 250B	HDPE 250	LDPE 250	PP 250	AL 250	Glass 250	AL 375	Glass 375	AL 500	Glass 750	Flex 750	PET 750
Years evaluated	2022 and 2023	2023	2022	2022	2022	2022 and 2023	2022 and 2023	2023	2022 and 2023	2023	2022 and 2023	2023	2023
Packaging size (mL)	250	250	250	250	250	250	250	375	375	500	750	750	750
Maximum capacity (g)	252	248	283	261	300	302.5	244	334.5	386.5	498.5	787	762.5	758.5
Filled capacity (g)	247	243	277.5	256	294	296.5	239	328	379	488.5	771	747.3	743.5
Closure liner	Unlined	F217 Foam Liner	Unlined (PP Cap)	F217 Foam	Unlined	Foam	Foam (2022); F217 Foam (2023)	Foam	Plastisol	TBD	Plastisol	Unlined	Saranex
Cap size (mm)	38	24–410	24–415	24–410	43–415	24–410	24–400	24	28–400	24	28–400	38 with 6.25 mm nozzle	30 × 60 Style
Photo

^a Wine was bottled into 13 types of packaging including three sizes of glass (Glass) bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (two 250 mL and 750 mL), three sizes of aluminum (AL) (250 mL, 375 mL, and 500 mL), one 750 mL flexible (Flex) pouch, one 250 mL high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle, one 250 mL low-density polyethylene (LDPE), and one 250 mL polypropylene (PP) bottle.

. The wines for each packaging treatment were bottled in triplicate. The composition, color, and phenolics of the wines were evaluated at bottling and during storage (0, 6, and 12 months) at 15 °C.

In January 2023, the 2022 Vignoles and Chambourcin vintage wines were bottled into eight packaging treatments. The packaging included three sizes of glass bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL) and 250 mL alternative packaging including polyethylene terephthalate (PET 250A), high-density polyethylene (HDPE 250), low-density polyethylene (LDPE 250), polypropylene (PP 250), and aluminum (AL 250) with epoxy phenolic lining. All bottles, except the 375 mL and 750 mL glass bottles, were sourced online (Berlin Packaging, Chicago, IL, USA).

In February 2024, the 2023 Vignoles and Chambourcin vintage wine were bottled into 10 packaging treatments. The caps of all the packaging treatments were sealed with Parafilm^® (Amcor, Inc, Thomson, GA, USA). Five of the packaging treatments from the 2022 vintage (AL 250, Glass 250, PET 250A, Glass 375, and Glass 750) were evaluated again. Five additional packaging treatments were evaluated including a 250 mL PET bottle (PET 250B, Berlin Packaging, Chicago, IL, USA), a 750 mL PET bottle (PET 750, Mexiterra LLC, Santa Fe Springs, CA, USA), a 750 mL standup flexible pouch (Flex) with aluminum and plastic layers (AstraPouch^®, Middlesex, NY, USA), a 375 mL aluminum bottle (AL 375) with an epoxy phenolic lining (MJS Packaging, Livonia, MI, USA), and a 500 mL aluminum bottle (AL 500) with a Bisphenol-A Non Intent (BPANI) liner.

2.6. Composition Attributes Analysis

The composition attributes evaluated included soluble solids, pH, titratable acidity, dissolved oxygen, volatile acidity, free SO₂, and ethanol.

2.7. Soluble Solids

The soluble solids of the juice and musts, expressed as a percentage (%), were measured using an Abbe Mark I refractometer. (Bausch and Lomb, Scientific Instrument, Keene, NH, USA). Sugar density, expressed as a percentage (%), of the must and wine samples were measured with an EasyDens portable density meter (Anton Paar, Graz, Austria).

2.8. pH

The pH of juice, musts, and wines was measured using an APERA PH700 pH meter (Columbus, OH, USA). Fermenting musts and wines were degassed prior to analysis.

2.9. Titratable Acidity

The titratable acidity of juice, musts, and wines was expressed as % w/v (g/100 mL) tartaric acid and measured using a Metrohm 862 Compact Titrosampler (Riverview, FL, USA). Six grams of sample was added to 50 mL degassed, deionized water, and titrated with 0.1 N sodium hydroxide to an endpoint of pH 8.2. Fermenting musts and wines were degassed prior to analysis.

2.10. Dissolved O₂

The dissolved O₂ of the wine was measured with a H12040-0, edge Multiparameter DO Meter (HANNA^® Instruments, Woonsocket, RI, USA).

2.11. Volatile Acidity

The volatile acidity content of wines, expressed as g/L of acetic acid, was determined using the cash still method [40].

2.12. Free SO₂

The free SO₂ content of wines was determined using the aeration–oxidation method and expressed as mg/L [40].

2.13. Ethanol

Ethanol levels (% abv) were measured using a Dujardin–Salleron ebulliometer (model 360; Paris, France).

2.14. Color Attributes Analyses

The color attributes (L*, Delta E, hue angle, chroma, red color, brown color, and color density) of the wines were evaluated.

2.15. L*, Delta E, Hue Angle, and Chroma

L*, hue angle, and chroma were measured using a ColorFlex EZ system (HunterLab, Reston, VA, USA) with a ring and disk set (to control liquid levels and light interactions) for measuring translucent liquids in a 63.5 mm glass sample cup with an opaque cover to determine Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage (CIE) Lab transmission values of L* = 100, a* = 0, and b* = 0 [41,42]. The CIELAB system describes color variations as perceived by the human eye. CIELAB is a uniform three-dimensional space defined by colorimetric coordinates, L*, a*, and b*. The vertical axis L* measures lightness from completely opaque (0) to completely transparent (100), while on the hue-circle, +a* red, −a* green, +b* yellow, and −b* blue are measured.

Delta E was calculated as $\sqrt{{({L^{*}}_2-{L^{*}}_1)}^2+{({a^{*}}_2-{a^{*}}_1)}^2+{({b^{*}}_2-{b^{*}}_1)}^2}$ to measure color accuracy by determining the difference from a standard (control) to a sample. The L*, a*, and b* values for wines in Glass 750 at 0 months (at bottling) were used as the standard for this study. The values are measured from 0 to 100, with values less than 1 indicating no perceptible difference, values 1–2 perceptible through close observation, values 2–10 perceptible at a glance, values 11–49 have more color similarities than differences, values 50–99 have more differences than similarity, and a value of 100 has no perceptible difference [43]. Hue angle, calculated as ${\tan }^{-1}{\displaystyle \frac{{\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{*}}}{a^{*}}}$, describes color in angles from 0 to 360°: 0° is red, 90° is yellow, 180° is green, 270° is blue, and 360° is red. For samples with hue angles < 90°, a 360° compensation (hue + 360°) was used to account for discrepancies between red samples with hue angles near 0° and those near 360° [44]. Chroma was calculated as $\sqrt{{a^{*}}^2+{{\mathrm{b}}^{\mathrm{*}}}^2}$ and identified the color a wine differed from gray of the same lightness and corresponded to saturation (intensity/purity) of the perceived color.

2.16. Red Color, Brown Color, and Color Density

Red color, brown color, and color density were measured spectrophotometrically as absorbance at 520 nm (red color), 420 nm (brown color), and 420 nm + 520 nm (color density) using a VWR Spectrophotometer UV-1600PC UV-VIS (VWR International, LLC, Radnow, PA, USA) [40]. Chambourcin wines were diluted 16.67 times with deionized water prior to analysis. All samples were measured in a 1 cm cell against a blank sample of deionized water.

2.17. Phenolic Attributes Analysis

The phenolic attributes (total phenolics and total monomeric anthocyanins) of the Chambourcin wines were evaluated, but only total phenolics were evaluated for Vignoles wines because those are white wines.

2.18. Total Phenolics

Total phenolics, expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/L, were measured using the Folin–Ciocalteu assay with a gallic acid standard curve based on serial dilutions [45]. Absorbance was measured at 760 nm using a VWR Spectrophotometer UV-1600PC UV-VIS (VWR International, LLC, Radnow, PA, USA).

2.19. Total Monomeric Anthocyanins

The total monomeric anthocyanin concentration was determined using the pH differential method [46]. This method is based on the reaction of anthocyanin pigments in their different forms at different pH values; specifically, the difference between the colored oxonium form at pH 1.0 and the colorless hemiketal form at pH 4.5. The samples were evaluated with a VWR Spectrophotometer UV-1600PC UV-VIS (VWR International, LLC, Radnow, PA, USA). The appropriate dilution factor (DF) for the sample was determined by diluting with potassium chloride buffer, pH 1.0, until the absorbance of the sample at the λvis-max, 510 nm, which is based on the molar absorptivity (ɛ = 26,900) and molecular weight (MW = 449.2) of cyanidin-3-glucoside and is within the linear range of the spectrophotometer (less than 1.2 abs). The final volume of the sample was divided by the initial volume to obtain the dilution factor. The absorbance of each diluted sample was measured in a 1 cm cell for all spectrophotometer measurements at 510 nm and at 700 nm (to correct for haze), against a blank cell filled with distilled water. For a path length of 1 cm, the absorbance of the diluted samples (A) was calculated as follows: A = (Aʎvis-max − A700) pH1.0 − (Aʎvis-max − A700) pH4.5. The monomeric anthocyanin pigment concentration in the original sample was calculated using the following formula, monomeric anthocyanin pigment (mg/L) = (A × MW × DF × 1000)/(ε × 1), where MW is the molecular weight, DF is the dilution factor, and ε is the molar absorptivity. Total monomeric anthocyanins were expressed as mg/L.

2.20. Consumer Sensory Analysis (2023)

Consumer sensory analysis (n = 63) of the aroma of Chambourcin and Vignoles 2023 vintage wines in different packaging treatments was conducted at the Food Science Department, UA System in October–November 2024 (University of Arkansas Institutional Review Board protocol #2407551600). The wines were evaluated after nine months of storage. The consumer sensory analysis of the aroma was a randomized complete block design. The wines were served at room temperature (21 °C) in wine glasses labeled with three-digit codes. Silicone covers were placed on the wine glasses containing wine for the evaluations. Within each variety, the serving order was randomized among panelists to prevent presentation order bias and mitigate carry-over/fatigue effects. The consumer survey was conducted using QualtricsXM Platform™ (Provo, UT, USA). Each panelist evaluated overall liking of the aroma on a 9-point verbal hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely; 9 = like extremely). The panelists were also asked to select three terms to best describe the aroma of the wine. The description terms of the aromas included fruity citrus, vegetative/fresh, earthy/dirty, nail polish remover/ethyl acetate, caramel/buttery, tropical fruit, sulfur, chemical/petroleum, oxidized/acetaldehyde, vinegar/acetic acid, and other. Panelists were also asked demographic questions (gender, age, marital status, level of education, location born and household income) and wine consumption questions.

2.21. Statistical Design and Analysis

Analyses of the composition, phenolic, color, and sensory attributes were conducted using JMP^® (version 19.0; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used each year to determine the significance of main factors (packaging treatment). Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) was used for mean separation at a p-value ≤ 0.05. For the 2022 Vignoles and Chambourcin wines, there were 72 samples (8 packaging treatments × 3 storage times × 3 replications). For 2023 Vignoles and Chambourcin wines, there were 60 samples (10 packaging treatments × 2 storage times × 3 replications). The consumer sensory analysis of the aroma was a randomized complete block design.

3. Results and Discussion

The composition, color, and phenolics of the 2022 and 2023 Chambourcin and Vignoles wines in different packaging treatments were evaluated at bottling and during storage (0, 6, and 12 months) at 15 °C, and the data is presented by year and variety. In 2022, eight wine packaging treatments were evaluated for each variety, and 10 packaging treatments for each variety in 2023 (Table 1). In addition, the consumer sensory panel evaluated the aroma of the 2023 wines. These hybrid varieties (Chambourcin and Vignoles) served as a good base to evaluate red and white wines for this packaging study. In both years the packaging closure (caps) materials varied because some packaging types did not have options for closure material (i.e., purchase included the caps without options for material).

Oxygen ingress is impacted by the packaging material including the cap. Glass and aluminum packaging have essentially zero oxygen permeability compared to plastics; however, aluminum packaging can have lining and seams that impact oxygen ingress. Oxygen transmission rate (OTR) is the rate that oxygen permeates though a surface at a specific temperature and relative humidity (23 °C at 0% RH) expressed as cc/m²/24 h [47]. The estimated OTR of the polymers in this study included PET at 55 mL/m²/24 h, HDPE at 1600 mL/m²/24 h, PP at 3040 mL/m²/24 h, and LDPE at 7400 mL/m²/24 h [47]. The polymers in this study were standard (did not contain oxygen scavengers). All wine packaging treatments were kept in complete darkness during storage.

At bottling, each bottle was nitrogen sparged prior to filling, and all bottles were filled to 98% capacity (by weight). For this manuscript the ‘packaging treatment’ included packaging material and closure type/material. However, inferences can be made about the packaging material impact because the bottle/container wall (surface area of the bottle/container) contributes to most of the total oxygen ingress (90–99%), while the cap/closure contributes 1–10% [47]. This is the opposite of glass and aluminum packaging, where the oxygen ingress is almost zero so the closure may have more ingress than the container. After bottling in glass, metal screw caps show oxygen ingress at less than 1 μL/day in the first year of storage [48].

For the eight packaging treatments evaluated in 2022, all closures were screw-type. The 375 and 750 Glass bottles had 28 mm metal caps with plastisol liners. The PET 250A bottle had a 38 mm plastic cap with no liner. The HDPE 250 bottle had a 24 mm plastic cap with no liner. The PP 250 bottle had a 43 mm plastic cap with no liner. The Glass 250 had a 24 mm metal cap with a foam liner. The LDPE 250 and AL 250 bottles had 24 mm plastic caps with foam liners.

Of the 10 packaging treatments evaluated in 2023, all closures were screw-type except Flex 750. The 375 and 750 Glass bottles had 28 mm metal caps with plastisol liners. The PETA 250 bottle had a 38 mm plastic cap with no liner. The PET 250B, Glass 250, and AL 250 bottles had 24 mm plastic caps with foam liners. The PET 750 bottle used a 24 mm Novatwist cap with a Saranex^® liner. The Flex packages used a 38 mm bottom discharge spout with a 6.25 mm nozzle that was unlined. The 375 and 500 aluminum bottles with metal closures were obtained from private industry companies. The AL 375 bottle used a 24 mm metal cap with a foam liner. The AL 500 bottle used a 24 mm metal cap with a plastic liner. In addition, parafilm was applied to each bottle closure on the package to mitigate permeation through the closure during storage. Even though the oxygen ingress of the closure is low relative to the body of the packaging, it was anticipated that the addition of the parafilm could further reduce the ingress, thus minimizing closure impact. Thus, comparisons of packaging by year were not explored in this manuscript.

3.1. Wine Attributes at Bottling (0 Months of Storage)

The means and standard deviations of the composition, color, and phenolics of the Chambourcin and Vignoles wines at bottling are presented in

Table 2. Composition, color, and phenolic attributes of Chambourcin and Vignoles wines at bottling (0 days storage) with different packaging treatments (2022 and 2023).

Year and Attribute a	Chambourcin	Vignoles
2022
pH	3.51 ± 0.04	3.52 ± 0.07
Titratable acidity (% tartaric)	0.72 ± 0.02	0.75 ± 0.02
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)	0.85 ± 0.00	1.25 ± 0.00
Volatile acidity (g/L)	0.20 ± 0.05	0.25 ± 0.03
Free sulfur dioxide (mg/L)	47.00 ± 0.00	42.00 ± 0.00
Ethanol (%)	12.60 ± 0.00	11.80 ± 0.00
L*	1.47 ± 0.18	65.16 ± 0.42
Delta E b	1.65 ± 1.19	0.60 ± 0.46
Hue angle (°) c	12.52 ± 1.04	95.66 ± 1.62
Chroma	8.72 ± 1.21	15.47 ± 0.70
Red color d	4.38 ± 0.14	N/A f
Brown color d	2.79 ± 0.18	0.14 ± 0.00
Color density d	7.17 ± 0.32	N/A
Total phenolics (mg/L) e	1986.80 ± 64.41	510.53 ± 12.65
Total anthocyanins (mg/L)	348.87 ± 11.19	N/A
2023
pH	3.70 ± 0.03	3.71 ± 0.03
Titratable acidity (% tartaric)	0.68 ± 0.03	0.87 ± 0.03
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L)	1.51 ± 0.23	2.27 ± 0.00
Volatile acidity (g/L)	0.13 ± 0.02	0.17 ± 0.02
Free sulfur dioxide (mg/L)	48.12 ± 2.74	59.55 ± 3.45
Ethanol (%)	12.00 ± 0.00	11.90 ± 0.00
L*	2.21 ± 0.11	66.99 ± 0.07
Delta E	0.60 ± 0.53	0.49 ± 0.27
Hue angle (°)	13.79 ± 0.16	98.93 ± 0.14
Chroma	14.95 ± 0.57	11.36 ± 0.28
Red color	3.76 ± 0.14	N/A
Brown color	2.64 ± 0.14	0.07 ± 0.00
Color density	6.40 ± 0.28	N/A
Total phenolics (mg/L)	3020.22 ± 135.95	298.86 ± 8.91
Total anthocyanins (mg/L)	665.91 ± 17.12	N/A

^a Average of all packaging treatments and replications at bottling; ^b Delta E > 5 corresponds to clearly noticeable difference in color as compared to wines at 0-months (at bottling) of storage in Glass 750; ^c Hue angles < 90° were subjected to 360° compensation to account for discrepancies between red samples near 0° and those near 360°; ^d Red color was calculated as absorbance of wine at 520 nm, brown color at 420 nm, color density at 520 nm + absorbance 420 nm; ^e total phenolics was expressed as mg gallic equivalents/L wine. ^f Data not applicable for white wines.

. Chambourcin and Vignoles wines in 2022 and 2023 at bottling did not exceed legal limits for volatile acidity or SO₂.

3.2. Chambourcin Attributes at Bottling (2022 and 2023)

The Chambourcin musts had similar values to those in previously conducted research on this variety in Arkansas [49]. In both years, Chambourcin wines had a pH of 3.51–3.70, titratable acidity of 0.68–0.72%, dissolved O₂ of 0.85–1.51 mg/L, volatile acidity of 0.13–0.20 g/L, free SO₂ of 47.00–48.12 mg/L, ethanol of 12.00–12.60%, L* of 1.47–2.21, hue angle of 13.18–13.76°, chroma of 8.72–14.95, red color of 3.76–4.38, brown color of 2.64–2.79, color density of 6.40–7.17, total phenolics of 1986.80–3020.22 mg/L, and total anthocyanins of 348.87–665.91 mg/L.

At bottling, red color measurements in both years (3.76–4.38) were like the values of 3–6 for Chambourcin wines from grapes grown in Georgia [50] and the values of 4–6 measured for Chambourcin wines from grapes grown in Arkansas [51]. Prajitna et al. [52] found total phenolics (833–1809 mg/L) and total anthocyanins (224–1138 mg/L) varied per year (2000–2002) in a cluster thinning study in Ohio. Mayfield [51] evaluated the effect of an inactivated yeast vineyard foliar spray in 2018 and 2019 on Chambourcin wine with total anthocyanins of 832–1115 mg/L (by HPLC analysis). Our research on Chambourcin wine from grapes grown in Arkansas found total phenolics (1986–3020 mg/L) which were higher than the values presented by Prajinta et al. [52] and total anthocyanin (349–666 mg/L) which were lower than those reported by Mayfield [51]. Generally, the 2022 Chambourcin wines at bottling had lower pH, dissolved O₂, free SO₂, L*, chroma, total phenolics, and total anthocyanins, and higher titratable acidity, volatile acidity, ethanol, red color, brown color, and color density compared to the 2023 wines.

3.3. Chambourcin at Bottling (2022)

For composition attributes, the Chambourcin wines had a pH of 3.51, a titratable acidity of 0.72%, a dissolved O₂ of 0.85 mg/L, a volatile acidity of 0.20 g/L, a free SO₂ of 47.00 mg/L, and an ethanol of 12.6%. For color attributes, the wines had an L* of 1.47, a Delta E of 1.65, a hue angle of 13.18°, a chroma of 8.72, a red color of 4.38, a brown color of 2.79, and a color density of 7.17. For phenolic attributes, the wines had total phenolics of 1986.80 mg/L and total anthocyanins of 348.87 mg/L.

3.4. Chambourcin at Bottling (2023)

For composition attributes, Chambourcin wines had a pH of 3.70, a titratable acidity of 0.68%, a dissolved O₂ of 1.51 mg/L, a volatile acidity of 0.13 g/L, a free SO₂ of 48.12 mg/L, and an ethanol of 12.00%. For color attributes, the wines had an L* of 2.21, a Delta E of 0.60, a hue angle of 13.76, a chroma of 14.95, a red color of 3.76, a brown color of 2.64, and a color density of 6.40. For phenolic attributes, the wines had total phenolics of 3020.22 mg/L and total anthocyanins of 665.91 mg/L.

3.5. Vignoles Attributes at Bottling (2022 and 2023)

The Vignoles musts had similar soluble solids, higher pH, and lower titratable acidity than those in previously conducted research on this variety in Arkansas [53]. In both years, the Vignoles wines had a pH of 3.52–3.71, a titratable acidity of 0.75–0.87%, a dissolved O₂ of 1.25–2.27 mg/L, a volatile acidity of 0.17–0.25 g/L, a free SO₂ of 42.00–59.55 mg/L, an ethanol of 11.80–11.90%, an L* of 65.16–66.99, a hue of 95.66–98.93, a chroma of 11.36–15.47, a brown color of 0.07–0.14, and total phenolics of 298.86–510.53 mg/L.

At bottling, the Vignoles wines had a higher pH (3.52–3.71) than the wine produced by Threlfall et al. [54] from other Vitis hybrids grown in Arkansas in 2017 and 2018 (3.25–3.44). Our Vignoles wines from grapes grown in Arkansas had higher total phenolics (299–511 mg/L) compared to Zalema (V. vinifera) wines (231 mg/L) measured on an HPLC [55] and similar brown color values (0.07–0.14) compared to Vignoles wines produced in Missouri (0.07–0.10) [56]. Ghidossi et al. [9] also evaluated brown color for white wine from the Bordeaux region (0.08) in a study assessing packaging on wine conservation. Generally, the 2022 Vignoles wines at bottling had a lower pH, titratable acidity, free SO₂, ethanol, and L*, and a higher dissolved O₂, volatile acidity, chroma, brown color, and total phenolics compared to 2023 wines.

3.6. Vignoles at Bottling (2022)

For composition attributes, the Vignoles wines had a pH of 3.52, a titratable acidity of 0.75%, a dissolved O₂ of 1.25 mg/L, a volatile acidity of 0.25 g/L, a free SO₂ of 42.00 mg/L, and an ethanol of 11.80%. For color attributes, the wines had a L* of 65.16, a Delta E of 0.60, a hue of 95.66, a chroma of 15.47, and a brown color of 0.14. The wines had total phenolics of 510.53 mg/L.

3.7. Vignoles at Bottling (2023)

For composition attributes, the Vignoles wines had a pH of 3.71, a titratable acidity of 0.87%, a dissolved O₂ of 2.27 mg/L, a volatile acidity of 0.17 g/L, a free SO₂ of 59.55 mg/L, and an ethanol of 11.90%. For color attributes, the wines had a L* of 66.99, a Delta E of 0.49, a hue of 98.93, a chroma of 11.36, and a brown color of 0.07. The wines had total phenolics of 298.86 mg/L.

3.8. Wine Attributes During Storage (2022 and 2023)

While packaging plays a key role in marketing food and beverage products, it must also preserve the product’s essential attributes. Regardless of the packaging format, consumers expect wine to maintain specific appearance qualities, especially its color. It is important to monitor the composition, color, and phenolic attributes to determine the causes of visible color changes during storage. In this study, the color and phenolics of the wine were impacted by the packaging during storage. In addition, the volatile acidity was well below the legal limit of 1.4 g/L for red wine and 1.2 g/L for white wine.

The packaging treatments for the 2023 study were chosen to optimize and expand on the work done in the 2022 study. From the eight packaging treatments evaluated in 2022, only five packaging treatments (Glass 250, Glass 375, Glass 750, aluminum, and PET) were evaluated again in the 2023 study plus additional packaging. In addition to the glass packaging, two other materials (PET 250A and AL 250) merited further evaluation in 2023. In the 2023 storage study, three PET bottles, three aluminum bottles, three glass bottles, and a multi-layer stand-up pouch were evaluated for both varieties. The interactions between wine and its packaging can vary depending on the wine, the packaging material, and the closure. Some of the results from the 2022 study had confounding results attributed to the closure type, particularly the Glass 250 packaging. Thus, Glass 250 packaging was repeated in the 2023 study but with a polypropylene closure instead of the metal closure because metal closures were not available. One way to mitigate oxygen permeation through the cap in this study without changing the cap was to seal the closure. Thus, parafilm was added to all caps for each packaging type in the 2023 study to minimize the impact of the different closures as a barrier for oxygen permeation.

The effects on the composition, color, and phenolic attributes of the Chambourcin and Vignoles wines during storage were evaluated. In general, there were not many impacts on pH and titratable acidity from the storage of the wines in different packaging treatments, so these values are not reported in the tables. Revi et al. [57] found increased titratable acidity (5.5–5.75) in Vilana wine packaged in BIBs stored from 0 to 6 months with no changes in pH (3.35–3.38).

Dissolved O₂, SO₂, color, and phenolics were the most impacted attributes in this packaging study. In general, the dissolved O₂ of the wines in packaging treatments increased during storage from 0 to 12 months, while SO₂ decreased. Revi et al. [57] found that free SO₂ content in Vilana wine decreased more in composite bags (83% loss of free SO₂ content) as compared to glass packaging (32% loss of free SO₂ content) over a 6-month period.

In terms of the color attributes, the color density of the Chambourcin wines after 12 months of storage ranged from 6–11 in 2022 to 6–8 in 2023, slightly higher than the values of 7–9 reported by Mayfield [51]. Mayfield [51] found the L* values decreased from 7.7 to 6.1 during 12 months of storage for wines produced from Chambourcin grapes grown in Arkansas, which also decreased in this study from 0 months of storage to 12 months of storage. For the Vignoles wine, the L* values also decreased during storage, with values 65.2–67.0 at 0 months of storage and 58.45–65.48 at 12 months of storage. For the Vignoles wine, the brown color values also increased during storage, with values 0.07–0.14 at 0 months of storage and 0.12–0.34 at 12 months of storage. In terms of brown color, Ghidossi et al. [9] reported increased brown color in white wine packaged in PET mono-layer and multi-layer bottles after 12 months of storage at 20 °C (0.16 and 0.12, respectively).

Giovanelli and Brenna [58] evaluated the oxidative stability of Bardolino wine stored in glass and PET bottles and found no decrease in total phenolics from 0 to 170 days storage at 20 and 30 °C. Burtch and Mansfield [59] reported that Vitis hybrid wines can have higher anthocyanin and phenolic concentrations at bottling but experience faster degradation when compared to V. vinifera wines. Recamales et al. [55] evaluated the effect of time and storage conditions on the phenolic composition and color of a Zalema white wine and found that total phenolics increased in 750 mL glass bottles over 6 months of storage in glass packaging (from 231.05 to 234.86 mg/L).

The visual impact of color during storage was easier to notice in white wines than in red wines because the deep, dark color of the red wines masked color degradation. There was less browning visible at 6 months compared to 12 months of storage in the Vignoles wines. Delta E calculated from the L*, a * and b * values was utilized to further understand visible color differences in these wines [43]. Delta E indicates how different two colors look to the human eye measured from a difference from a standard (Glass 750 at bottling) to a sample. In general, the Delta E values < 1 = indicates no visible difference, values 1–2 = indicates only experts notice, values 2–3 = indicates most people notice, and values > 5 = indicates clearly different colors.

Generally, the Delta E values for the wines in the packaging treatments increased during storage (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Regardless of packaging treatment, the Chambourcin 2022 wines at 0, 6, and 12 months of storage had Delta E values of 1.6, 5.7, and 5.7, respectively, Vignoles 2022 wines had 0.6, 9.7, and 21.2, respectively, Chambourcin 2023 wines had 0.6, 4.5, 6.6, respectively, and the Vignoles 2023 wines had 0.5, 1.3, and 4.8, respectively. Lange and Wyser [58] reported the oxygen permeability of PE (50–200 cm³mm/(m²dayatm)], PP (50–100 cm³mm/(m²dayatm)], and PET (1–5 cm³mm/(m²dayatm) at 23 °C/50% RH.

Blake et al. [60] reported a 100% decrease in the free SO₂ of wine in Tetra Pak^® packaging over 3 months of storage compared to other glass packaging. Revi et al. [57] found free SO₂ decreased in glass (32%) and two multi-layer bags (83%) during storage of Vilana white wine over 180 days. The rapid loss of free SO₂ in some of the alternative packaging treatments indicates that oxygen was ingressing through the package, thereby scavenging free SO₂ and contributing to accelerated color degradation in the wines. Four plastic packages used in this 2022 study were single-layer bottles without an oxygen barrier layer. Utilizing packages with oxygen barriers could slow down the rate of free SO₂ loss. Aluminum is not inert like glass; thus chemical linings such as epoxy phenolic and phenolic materials are used to prevent materials from contacting aluminum metal. Free SO₂ loss wine in aluminum packaging could be attributed to the wines’ impact on the inner liner.

The performance of the packaging treatments are summarized using the Delta E values and visual color reported in

Table 3. Color ^a of Chambourcin and Vignoles wines during storage (0, 6, and 12 months) at 15 °C with different packaging treatments (2022).

Variety	Storage (Months)	Packaging Treatment b
		PET 250A	HDPE 250	LDPE 250	PP 250	AL 250	Glass 250	Glass 375	Glass 750
Chambourcin	0
	6
	12
Vignoles	0
	6
	12

^a Colors converted from Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage L*, a *, and b * values to RGB using a free online tool, https://colordesigner.io/convert/labtorgb [41] (accessed on 5 January 2026). ^b Wine was bottled into eight types of packaging including three sizes of glass bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL) and 250 mL packaging including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), and aluminum (AL) with epoxy phenolic lining.

and

Table 4. Color ^a of Chambourcin and Vignoles wines during storage (0, 6, and 12 months) at 15 °C with different packaging treatments (2023).

Variety	Storage (Months)	Packaging Treatment b
		PET 250A	PET 250B	AL 250	Glass 250	AL 375	Glass 375	AL 500	Glass 750	Flex 750	PET 750
Chambourcin	0
	6
	12
Vignoles	0
	6
	12

^a Colors converted from Commission Internationale de l’Eclairage L*, a*, and b* values to RGB using a free online tool, https://colordesigner.io/convert/labtorgb [41] (accessed on 5 January 2026); ^b Wine was bottled into 10 types of packaging including three sizes of glass bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (250A mL, 250B mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of aluminum (AL) with inner linings (250 mL, 375 mL, and 500 mL), and one 750 mL flexible (Flex) pouch.

. In the 2022 study, Glass 375 and Glass 750 performed best, while AL 250 and PET 250A showed potential. In the 2023 study, the glass and aluminum packaging performed well, followed by the PET packaging, with Flex 750 performing the worst.

3.9. Chambourcin (2022)

The packaging significantly impacted the dissolved O₂, free SO₂, L*, Delta E, chroma, red color, brown color, color density, total phenolics, and total anthocyanins at 6 and 12 months of storage in the 2022 Chambourcin wines (

Table 5. Main effects on composition, color, and phenolic attributes of Chambourcin wines during storage (6 and 12 months) at 15 °C with different packaging treatments (2022).

Storage and Packaging ab	Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)	Free Sulfur Dioxide (mg/L)	L*	Delta E c	Hue Angle (°) d	Chroma	Red Color e	Brown Color e	Color Density e	Total Phenolics f (mg/L)	Total Anthocyanins (mg/L)
6 months
AL 250	1.48 e	0.00 c	0.80 c	6.71 e	13.95 a	3.70 c	5.08 abc	4.03 b	9.12 c	1636.26 ab	583.35 bc
Glass 250	1.26 ef	10.67 b	1.10 bc	4.01 f	14.08 a	6.37 b	4.81 cd	3.50 c	8.32 d	1653.80 ab	623.43 ab
Glass 375	0.90 f	30.67 a	1.79 ab	2.15 g	14.08 a	12.47 a	3.75 e	2.62 d	6.37 e	1707.60 a	649.25 a
Glass 750	0.83 f	29.33 a	1.90 a	1.36 h	14.87 a	11.67 a	3.80 e	2.67 d	6.47 e	1700.58 a	653.93 a
HDPE 250	5.50 b	0.00 c	0.82 c	8.00 b	15.72 a	2.40 d	5.14 ab	5.72 a	10.86 ab	1493.57 bc	395.65 d
LDPE 250	6.34 a	0.00 c	1.16 bc	8.07 a	11.28 a	2.29 d	5.34 a	5.96 a	11.30 a	1451.46 c	373.83 d
PET 250A	2.04 d	0.00 c	0.73 c	7.65 d	13.36 a	2.75 d	4.72 d	3.92 b	8.65 cd	1672.51 ab	566.43 c
PP 250	5.00 c	0.00 c	1.42 abc	7.87 c	10.07 a	2.47 d	5.02 bc	5.65 a	10.67 b	1499.42 bc	388.97 d
p-value	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.2892	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.0004	<0.0001
12 months
AL 250	2.47 b	0.00 b	0.51 c	7.78 b	10.15 a	2.67 b	4.45 ab	4.13 c	8.59 b	1207.62 abcd	431.94 cd
Glass 250	1.95 b	0.00 b	0.82 abc	5.73 f	11.01 a	4.68 b	4.22 bcd	3.40 cd	7.62 bc	1334.23 ab	470.46 bc
Glass 375	1.75 b	18.40 a	1.54 ab	0.78 g	12.82 a	9.59 a	3.71 cd	2.85 d	6.56 c	1366.72 a	521.23 ab
Glass 750	1.72 b	24.27 a	1.78 a	0.74 h	12.79 a	11.07 a	3.61 d	2.75 d	6.36 c	1298.38 abc	532.14 a
HDPE 250	10.03 a	0.00 b	0.64 bc	7.52 c	9.49 a	2.91 b	4.64 ab	6.28 a	10.92 a	1165.04 bcd	221.54 e
LDPE 250	9.77 a	0.00 b	1.40 abc	7.21 e	8.94 a	3.16 b	4.73 ab	6.30 a	11.03 a	1070.92 d	203.28 e
PET 250A	3.37 b	0.00 b	0.55 bc	8.25 a	7.72 a	2.19 b	4.95 a	5.16 b	10.12 a	1288.29 abc	381.18 d
PP 250	8.18 a	0.00 b	0.69 bc	7.24 d	13.34 a	3.17 b	4.33 abc	5.87 ab	10.20 a	1137.03 cd	239.57 e
p-value	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.0013	<0.0001	0.2375	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.0005	<0.0001

^a Samples were evaluated in triplicate. Means with different letters for each attribute are significantly different (p < 0.05) within storage time using Tukey’s honestly significant difference test. ^b Wine was bottled into eight types of packaging including three sizes of glass bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL) and 250 mL packaging including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), and aluminum (AL) with epoxy phenolic lining. ^c Delta E > 5 corresponds to clearly noticeable difference in color as compared to wines at 0 months (at bottling) of storage in Glass 750. ^d Hue angles < 90° were subjected to 360° compensation to account for discrepancies between red samples near 0° and those near 360°. ^e Red color was calculated as absorbance of wine at 520 nm, brown color at 420 nm, color density at 520 nm + absorbance 420 nm. ^f Total phenolics expressed as mg gallic equivalents/L wine.

and Figure 1). After 12 months of storage, the Chambourcin wine had a 3.62 pH, 0.58% titratable acidity, 4.90 mg/L dissolved O₂, 0.19 g/L volatile acidity, and 5.33 mg/L free SO₂. For color attributes, the wines had 0.99 L*, 5.85 Delta E, 10.78 hue, 4.93 chroma, 4.33 red color, 4.59 brown color, and 8.93 color density. For phenolic attributes, the wines had 1233.53 mg/L total phenolics and 375.17 mg/L total anthocyanins. Kojić and Jakobek [61] found that Cabernet Sauvignon, Frankovka, Merlot, and Pinot noir wines packaged in BIBs and PET had free SO₂ levels that decreased and volatile acidity levels that increased during 12 months of storage at 15–18 °C. Free SO₂ decreased from 47 to 5.33 mg/L in these Chambourcin wines. As compared to levels at bottling, the 2022 Chambourcin wines at 12 months of storage had lower titratable acidity, volatile acidity, free SO₂, L*, hue angle, chroma, and total phenolics, and higher pH, dissolved O₂, red color, brown color, color density, and total anthocyanins.

Dissolved O₂. At 6 months of storage Glass 750 (0.83 mg/L) had the lowest dissolved O₂ and LDPE 250 (6.34 mg/L) had the highest. At 12 months of storage Glass 750 (1.72 mg/L) had the lowest dissolved O₂ and HDPE (10.03 mg/L) the highest.

Free SO₂. At 6 months of storage wine in Glass 250, 375, and 750 had SO₂ levels of 10.67, 30.67, and 29.33 mg/L, respectively and all other treatments had none. At 12 months of storage Glass 375 and 750 had 18.40 and 24.27 mg/L SO₂ respectively and all other treatments had none.

L*. At 6 and 12 months of storage, the darkest wines were packaged in PET 250 A, aluminum, and HDPE 250. The wine stored at 6 months in Glass 375 and Glass 750 had the highest L* (1.79 and 1.90, respectively). The wine stored at 12 months in Glass 375 and Glass 750 had the highest L* (1.54 and 1.78, respectively).

Delta E. The wine in Glass 750 had the least change from the standard wine after 6 (1.36) and 12 months of storage (0.74). At 12 months of storage, the greatest change from the standard wine was observed in the wine packaged in PET 250A (8.25).

Hue angle. The packaging did not impact the hue angle of the wine at 6 or 12 months of storage. The wine at 12 months of storage (10.78) had a lower hue angle than the wine at 6 months of storage (13.18).

Chroma. At both storage times, the wine packaged in Glass 375 and Glass 750 had higher chroma than all other treatments. The wine packaged in PET 250A had the lowest chroma after 12 months of storage (2.19), whereas wine packaged in Glass 750 had the highest chroma after 12 months of storage (11.07).

Red color. At both storage times, Glass 375 and Glass 750 had the lowest red color. At 6 months of storage LDPE 250 had the highest red color (5.34), and at 12 months of storage, PET 250A had the highest red color (4.95).

Brown color. At both storage times, Glass 375 and Glass 750 had the lowest brown color values. At 6 and 12 months of storage LDPE 250 had the highest brown color (5.96 and 6.30, respectively).

Color density. At both storage times, Glass 375 and Glass 750 had the lowest color density values. At 6 and 12 months of storage LDPE 250 had the highest color density (11.30 and 11.03, respectively).

Total phenolics. At 6 months of storage, Glass 375 and Glass 750 had the highest total phenolics (1700.58 and 1707.60 mg/L, respectively), and LDPE 250 (1451.46 mg/L) had the lowest. At 12 months of storage, Glass 375 (1366.72 mg/L) had the highest total phenolics, and LDPE 250 had the lowest (1070.92 mg/L).

Total anthocyanins. At 6 and 12 months of storage, Glass 375 (649.25 and 521.23 mg/L, respectively) and Glass 750 (653.93 and 532.14 mg/L, respectively) had the highest total anthocyanins, and LDPE 250 (373.83 and 203.28 mg/L, respectively) had the lowest.

3.10. Vignoles (2022)

The packaging significantly impacted dissolved O₂, free SO₂, L*, Delta E, chroma, brown color, and total phenolics at 6 and 12 months of storage in the 2022 Vignoles wines (

Table 6. Main effects on composition, color, and phenolic attributes of Vignoles wines during storage (6 and 12 months) at 15 °C with different packaging treatments (2022).

Storage and Packaging ab	Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)	Free Sulfur Dioxide (mg/L)	L*	Delta E c	Hue Angle (°) d	Chroma	Brown Color e	Total Phenolics (mg/L) f
6 months
AL 250	1.77 c	2.00 c	67.47 c	5.85 e	84.99 c	20.02 b	0.18 b	413.74 ab
Glass 250	1.39 c	2.67 c	68.33 b	5.45 g	87.74 b	19.59 b	0.33 a	416.37 ab
Glass 375	0.93 d	28.33 a	70.83 a	5.57 f	94.67 a	17.07 c	0.15 b	443.86 a
Glass 750	0.83 d	19.33 b	70.70 a	5.44 h	93.86 a	16.92 c	0.17 b	443.28 a
HDPE 250	5.19 a	0.00 c	63.63 e	15.06 c	80.53 d	29.55 a	0.30 a	390.35 b
LDPE 250	5.44 a	0.00 c	63.07 e	16.99 a	80.54 d	31.49 a	0.28 a	388.89 b
PET 250A	2.65 b	1.00 c	66.64 d	7.46 d	83.67 c	21.92 b	0.20 b	404.68 b
PP 250	5.35 a	0.00 c	63.69 e	15.38 b	80.96 d	29.96 a	0.35 a	395.03 b
p-value	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
12 months
AL 250	8.10 b	0.53 b	56.30 bc	26.17 d	79.49 bc	39.24 a	0.39 abc	276.69 bc
Glass 250	3.80 c	0.00 b	61.28 ab	13.29 f	85.10 b	27.72 bc	0.23 cd	300.78 b
Glass 375	3.67 c	18.67 a	66.69 a	2.35 g	97.78 a	17.86 c	0.14 d	340.56 a
Glass 750	3.73 c	18.40 a	66.51 a	1.93 h	95.09 a	17.40 c	0.14 d	340.00 a
HDPE 250	15.83 a	0.00 b	53.11 c	33.87 b	77.57 c	46.14 a	0.47 ab	246.16 d
LDPE 250	9.35 b	0.00 b	52.23 c	34.56 a	76.93 c	46.45 a	0.54 a	256.53 cd
PET 250A	5.50 c	0.00 b	56.89 bc	25.17 e	79.66 bc	38.41 ab	0.34 bc	281.18 bc
PP 250	9.18 b	0.00 b	54.61 c	32.35 c	78.53 bc	45.19 a	0.45 ab	257.09 cd
p-value	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001

^a Samples were evaluated in triplicate. Means with different letters for each attribute are significantly different (p < 0.05) within storage time using Tukey’s honestly significant difference test. ^b Wine was bottled into eight types of packaging including three sizes of glass bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL) and 250 mL packaging including polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene (LDPE), polypropylene (PP), and aluminum (AL) with epoxy phenolic lining. ^c Delta E > 5 corresponds to clearly noticeable difference in color as compared to wines at 0 months (at bottling) of storage in Glass 750. ^d Hue angles < 90° were subjected to 360° compensation to account for discrepancies between red samples near 0° and those near 360°. ^e Brown color was evaluated at 420 nm. ^f Total phenolics expressed as mg gallic equivalents/L wine.

and Figure 2). After 12 months of storage, the Vignoles wine had a 3.60 pH, 0.74% titratable acidity, 7.40 mg/L dissolved O₂, 0.16 g/L volatile acidity, and 4.70 mg/L free SO₂. For color attributes, the wines had 58.45 L*, 21.21 Delta E, 83.77° hue, 34.80 chroma, and 0.34 brown color. For phenolic attributes, the wines had 287.37 mg/L total phenolics. In the white wines, more oxidation occurs if free SO₂ levels are lower than 10 mg/L [62]. Ghidossi et al. [9] found that free SO₂ decreased over 12 months of storage for wines packaged in BIBs (from 32 to 7 mg/L) and mono-layer PET (from 32 to 3 mg/L). Free SO₂ of the Vignoles wines at 12 months of storage decreased from 42.00 to 4.70 mg/L. Recamales et al. [55] found a decrease in the total phenolics over 12 months of storage in glass packaging (from 231.05 to 216.51 mg/L). The total phenolics decreased from 510.53 to 287.37 mg/L across all packaging treatments in our Vignoles wines. As compared to levels at bottling, the 2022 Vignoles wines at 12 months of storage had lower titratable acidity, volatile acidity, free SO₂, L*, hue angle, and total phenolics, and higher pH, dissolved O₂, chroma and brown color.

Dissolved O₂. At 6 months of storage, Glass 750 (0.83 mg/L) had the lowest dissolved O₂ and LDPE 250 (5.44 mg/L) had the highest. At 12 months of storage Glass 375 (3.67 mg/L) had the lowest dissolved O₂ and HDPE (15.83 mg/L) the highest.

Free SO₂. At 6 months of storage, for the wine in Glass 375 and 750, SO₂ levels were 28.33 and 19.33 mg/L, respectively, higher than all other treatments. At 12 months of storage Glass 375 and 750 had 18.67 and 18.40 mg/L SO₂ respectively and all other treatments had 0 to less than 1 mg/L.

L*. At 6 and 12 months of storage, the darkest wines were packaged in HDPE 250, LDPE 250, and PP 250, and the least dark wines were packaged in Glass 375 and Glass 750.

Delta E. The wine in Glass 750 had the least change from the standard wine after 6 and 12 months of storage (5.44 and 1.93, respectively). The greatest change from the standard wine occurred in the wine packaged in LDPE 250 at 6 and 12 months of storage (16.99 and 34.56, respectively).

Hue angle. At 6 and 12 months of storage, the wines with the highest hue angles were packaged in Glass 375 and Glass 750. At 6 months of storage, the wine with the lowest hue angle was packaged in HDPE 250. At 12 months of storage, the wine with the lowest hue angle was packaged in LDPE 250.

Chroma. At 6 and 12 months of storage, the wines with the lowest chromas were packaged in Glass 375 and Glass 750. At 6 months of storage, the wine with the highest chroma was packaged in LDPE 250. At 12 months of storage, the wine with the highest chroma was packaged in LDPE 250.

Brown color. At both storage times, Glass 375 and Glass 750 had the lowest brown color values. At 6 months of storage PP 250 had the highest brown color, and at 12 months of storage LDPE 250 had the highest brown color.

Total phenolics. At both storage times, Glass 375 and Glass 750 had the highest total phenolics. At 6 months of storage LDPE 250 had the lowest total phenolics, and at 12 months of storage HDPE 250 had lowest total phenolics.

3.11. Chambourcin (2023)

The packaging significantly impacted free SO₂, L*, Delta E, hue angle, chroma, red color, color density, and total anthocyanins at 6 and 12 months of storage in the 2023 Chambourcin wines (

Table 7. Main effects on composition, color, and phenolic attributes of Chambourcin wines during storage (6 and 12 months) at 15 °C with different packaging treatments (2023).

Storage and Packaging ab	Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)	Free Sulfur Dioxide (mg/L)	L*	Delta E c	Hue Angle (°) d	Chroma	Red Color e	Brown Color e	Color Density e	Total Phenolics f (mg/L)	Total Anthocyanins (mg/L)
6 months
AL 250	2.43 a	29.87 bcd	2.07 ab	2.70 g	13.21 bc	12.85 bc	3.77 cd	2.91 ef	6.68 de	1898.53 a	560.86 abc
AL 375	2.21 a	31.20 abc	1.84 bc	3.62 f	13.61 ab	11.95 c	3.94 bc	3.01 de	6.94 cd	1851.87 a	536.59 cd
AL 500	1.68 a	39.47 ab	2.09 ab	1.04 i	13.76 ab	14.52 a	3.85 bc	2.92 ef	6.76 de	1845.20 a	575.11 a
Flex 750	2.49 a	30.27 abc	1.55 cd	5.29 e	13.48 abc	10.30 d	3.97 ab	3.24 b	7.21 bc	1817.20 a	537.48 cd
Glass 250	1.87 a	28.00 cd	1.54 cd	6.09 c	12.88 cd	9.50 de	3.78 cd	3.10 cd	6.87 d	1838.53 a	539.93 bcd
Glass 375	1.93 a	33.50 abc	2.00 ab	1.85 h	13.84 a	13.71 ab	3.81 bcd	2.92 ef	6.72 de	1823.87 a	567.98 abc
Glass 750	1.80 a	40.53 a	2.23 a	0.34 j	13.78 ab	15.20 a	3.65 d	2.82 f	6.46 e	1881.20 a	572.66 ab
PET 250A	1.87 a	11.20 e	0.88 e	10.47 a	12.11 e	5.16 f	4.16 a	3.61 a	7.77 a	1786.53 a	498.96 e
PET 250B	1.58 a	19.60 de	1.45 d	7.12 b	12.47 de	8.47 e	3.93 bc	3.28 b	7.21 bc	1802.53 a	523.45 de
PET 750	2.02 a	25.39 cd	1.38 d	5.99 d	13.65 ab	9.62 de	4.15 a	3.22 bc	7.37 b	1863.87 a	544.16 abcd
p-value	0.0568	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.3861	<0.0001
12 months
AL 250	2.39 bc	27.63 ab	1.50 abc	5.71 f	13.95 a	9.88 bc	5.32 ab	1.95 a	7.28 ab	1772.72 ab	432.84 ab
AL 375	3.88 ab	20.22 b	1.71 abc	5.56 g	13.96 a	10.01 bc	5.65 ab	2.08 a	7.73 ab	1885.06 a	389.20 abc
AL 500	1.98 bc	31.31 a	2.03 abc	1.97 h	14.27 a	13.59 ab	5.29 ab	1.83 a	7.12 ab	1948.03 a	445.53 a
Flex 750	2.79 abc	12.00 c	1.23 c	8.86 d	13.47 a	6.74 cd	6.10 a	2.26 a	8.36 a	1609.75 b	391.87 abc
Glass 250	2.88 abc	11.60 c	1.24 c	10.53 c	12.59 a	5.06 de	5.75 ab	2.25 a	8.01 ab	1812.22 ab	376.28 bc
Glass 375	2.55 abc	33.23 a	2.18 abc	1.52 i	14.05 a	14.02 a	4.94 b	3.40 a	8.34 a	1739.38 ab	426.60 ab
Glass 750	1.68 c	33.97 a	2.33 ab	0.65 j	14.16 a	14.90 a	5.27 ab	1.86 a	7.13 ab	1699.88 ab	422.15 ab
PET 250A	4.51 a	0.00 d	2.54 a	13.03 a	2.46 b	2.57 e	3.19 c	2.96 a	6.15 b	1919.63 a	326.85 c
PET 250B	3.13 abc	11.31 c	1.27 c	10.79 b	11.90 a	4.80 de	5.90 a	2.35 a	8.24 a	1766.54 ab	374.50 bc
PET 750	2.62 abc	22.19 b	1.46 bc	7.31 e	13.65 a	8.28 cd	5.80 a	2.10 a	7.90 ab	1708.52 ab	394.98 ab
p-value	0.0021	<0.0001	0.0009	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	0.4124	0.0201	0.0038	0.0002

^a Samples were evaluated in triplicate. Means with different letters for each attribute are significantly different (p < 0.05) within effect using Tukey’s honestly significant difference test. ^b Wine was bottled into 10 types of packaging including three sizes of glass bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (250A mL, 250B mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of aluminum (AL) with inner linings (250 mL, 375 mL, and 500 mL), and one 750 mL flexible (Flex) pouch. ^c Delta E > 5 corresponds to clearly noticeable difference in color as compared to wines at 0 months (at bottling) of storage in Glass 750. ^d Hue angles <90° were subjected to 360° compensation to account for discrepancies between red samples near 0° and those near 360°. ^e Red color was calculated as absorbance of wine at 520 nm, brown color at 420 nm, color density at 520 nm + absorbance 420 nm. ^f Total phenolics expressed as mg gallic equivalents/L wine.

and Figure 3). After 12 months of storage, the Chambourcin wine had a 3.65 pH, 0.57% titratable acidity, 2.84 mg/L dissolved O₂, 0.23 g/L volatile acidity, and 20.35 mg/L free SO₂. For color attributes, the wines had 1.75 L*, 6.59 Delta E, 12.45° hue, 8.99 chroma, 5.32 red color, 2.30 brown color, and 7.63 color density. For phenolic attributes, the wines had 1,786.17 mg/L total phenolics and 398.08 mg/L total anthocyanins. Kojić and Jakobek [62] found that Cabernet sauvignon, Frankovka, Merlot, and Pinot noir wines packaged in BIBs and PET had free SO₂ levels that decreased and volatile acidity levels that increased during 12 months of storage at 15–18 °C. As compared to the levels at bottling, the 2023 Chambourcin wines at 12 months of storage had lower titratable acidity, free SO₂, L*, hue angle, chroma, total phenolics, and total anthocyanins, and higher pH, dissolved O₂, volatile acidity, Delta E, red color, brown color, and color density.

Dissolved O₂. The packaging significantly impacted dissolved O₂, at 12 months of storage but not 6 months of storage (2.0 mg/L). At 12 months of storage Glass 750 (1.68 mg/L) had the lowest dissolved O₂ and PET 250A (4.51 mg/L) the highest.

Free SO₂. At 6 months of storage the wine in Glass 750 (40.53 mg/L) had the highest SO₂ levels, and PET 250A (11.20 mg/L) had the lowest. At 12 months of storage the wine in Glass 750 (33.97 mg/L) had the highest SO₂ levels, and PET 250A (0 mg/L) had the lowest.

L*. At 6 months of storage, the darkest wine was packaged in PET 250A (0.88), and at 12 months of storage, the darkest wine was packaged in FLEX 750 (1.23). At 6 months of storage, the less dark wine was packaged in Glass 750 (2.23), and at 12 months of storage, the less dark wine was packaged in PET 250A (2.54).

Delta E. The wine in Glass 750 had the least change from the standard wine after 6 and 12 months of storage (0.34 and 0.65, respectively). The wine in PET 250A had the most change from the standard wine after 6 and 12 months of storage (10.47 and 13.03, respectively).

Hue angle. At 6 months of storage, Glass 375 had the highest hue angle (13.84°) and PET 250A had the lowest (12.11°). However, at 12 months of storage, PET 250A had lowest hue angle (2.46°) than the wine in all the other packaging.

Chroma. At both storage times, the wine packaged in Glass 750 had higher chroma values (15.20 and 14.90, respectively) than the wine packaged in PET 250A (5.16 and 2.57, respectively).

Red color. At 6 months of storage, Glass 750 had the lowest red color (3.65) and PET 250A had the highest (4.16). However, at 12 months of storage, PET 250A had the lowest red color (3.19) and Flex 750 had the highest (6.10).

Brown color. The packaging significantly impacted brown color at 6 months of storage but not 12 months of storage (2.3 mg/L). At 6 months of storage, Glass 750 had the lowest brown color (2.82) and PET 250A (3.61) had the highest.

Color density. At 6 months of storage, Glass 750 had the lowest color density value (6.46) and PET 250A had the highest (7.77). However, at 12 months of storage, PET 250A had the lowest color density value (6.15) and Flex 750 had the highest (8.36).

Total phenolics. The packaging significantly impacted total phenolics at 12 months of storage but not 6 months of storage (1841 mg/L). At 12 months of storage, AL 500 had the highest total phenolics (1948.03 mg/L), and Flex 750 (1609.75 mg/L) had the lowest.

Total anthocyanins. At 6 and 12 months of storage, AL 500 (575.11 and 445.53 mg/L, respectively) had the highest total anthocyanins, and PET 250A (498.96 and 326.85 mg/L, respectively) had the lowest.

3.12. Vignoles (2023)

The packaging significantly impacted free SO₂, L*, Delta E, hue angle, chroma, brown color, and total phenolics at 6 and 12 months of storage in the 2023 Vignoles wines (

Table 8. Main effects on composition, color, and phenolic attributes of Vignoles wines during storage (6 and 12 months) at 15 °C with different packaging treatments (2023).

Storage and Packaging ab	Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)	Free Sulfur Dioxide (mg/L)	L*	Delta E c	Hue Angle (°) d	Chroma	Brown Color e	Total Phenolics (mg/L) f
6 months
AL 250	2.88 bc	31.25 bc	67.11 a	1.30 e	99.14 ab	12.18 cd	0.09 c	422.81 abc
AL 375	2.57 c	16.27 d	66.83 ab	1.99 b	98.42 ab	12.85 ab	0.10 b	405.31 bcd
AL 500	2.69 c	40.37 ab	67.23 a	0.90 f	99.42 a	11.76 de	0.09 c	423.80 ab
Flex 750	3.45 abc	18.67 d	66.49 b	1.83 c	95.35 ef	12.45 bc	0.10 b	372.31 e
Glass 250	3.17 abc	26.93 cd	66.87 ab	0.90 f	96.43 de	11.60 de	0.09 c	388.81 de
Glass 375	2.61 c	40.05 ab	67.14 a	0.38 h	97.98 bc	11.20 ef	0.09 c	426.11 ab
Glass 750	2.53 c	48.64 a	67.18 a	0.17 i	98.22 ab	10.86 f	0.09 c	437.66 a
PET 250A	4.26 ab	2.19 e	64.93 c	3.94 a	88.42 g	13.33 a	0.11 a	341.62 f
PET 250B	4.55 a	19.20 d	66.54 b	1.54 d	95.22 f	12.12 cd	0.09 c	369.34 e
PET 750	2.69 c	31.20 bc	67.06 a	0.51 g	96.82 cd	11.19 ef	0.09 c	399.37 cd
p-value	0.0002	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
12 months
AL 250	3.16 a	0.80 d	65.82 bc	4.61 e	96.12 cd	15.27 bcd	0.12 bc	337.07 b
AL 375	3.30 a	1.33 d	66.07 abc	4.92 d	98.37 bc	15.70 bc	0.14 b	350.96 b
AL 500	5.90 a	29.49 b	67.41 a	1.42 h	101.49 a	12.17 ef	0.09 c	394.17 a
Flex 750	5.11 a	0.32 d	64.22 d	7.68 b	89.20 ef	17.61 b	0.14 ab	298.18 c
Glass 250	4.21 a	3.15 d	65.35 cd	4.45 f	91.44 e	14.63 cde	0.12 bc	296.94 c
Glass 375	4.10 a	28.43 b	66.45 abc	1.36 i	98.97 ab	12.09 ef	0.09 c	387.68 a
Glass 750	3.53 a	49.87 a	67.04 ab	0.68 j	99.31 ab	11.56 f	0.09 c	397.56 a
PET 250A	4.70 a	0.00 d	62.19 e	13.06 a	86.61 g	22.51 a	0.17 a	288.92 c
PET 250B	5.07 a	0.00 d	63.97 d	7.58 c	88.66 fg	17.33 bc	0.14 b	293.55 c
PET 750	4.69 a	14.45 c	66.30 abc	2.28 g	95.74 d	12.92 def	0.10 c	327.81 b
p-value	0.4065	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001

^a Samples were evaluated in triplicate. Means with different letters for each attribute are significantly different (p < 0.05) within effect using Tukey’s honestly significant difference test. ^b Wine was bottled into 10 types of packaging including three sizes of glass bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (250A mL, 250B mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of aluminum (AL) with inner linings (250 mL, 375 mL, and 500 mL), and one 750 mL flexible (Flex) pouch. ^c Delta E > 5 corresponds to clearly noticeable difference in color as compared to wines at 0 months (at bottling) of storage in Glass 750. ^d Hue angles < 90° were subjected to 360° compensation to account for discrepancies between red samples near 0° and those near 360°. ^e Brown color was calculated as absorbance of wine at 420 nm. ^f Total phenolics expressed as mg gallic equivalents/L wine.

and Figure 4). After 12 months of storage, the Vignoles wine had a 3.60 pH, 0.82% titratable acidity, 4.38 mg/L dissolved O₂, 0.21 g/L volatile acidity, and 12.78 mg/L free SO₂. For color attributes, the wines had 65.48 L*, 4.80 Delta E, 94.59° hue, 15.18 chroma, and 0.12 brown color. For phenolic attributes, the wines had 337.28 mg/L total phenolics. In white wines, greater levels of oxidation will occur once free SO₂ concentration is lower than 10 mg/L [62]. Ghidossi et al. [9] found that free SO₂ decreased over 12 months of storage for wines packaged in BIBs (from 32 to 7 mg/L) and mono-layer PET (from 32 to 3 mg/L). Recamales et al. [55] found an increase in total phenolics over 6 months of storage in glass packaging (from 231.05 to 234.86 mg/L) of Zalema wine. As compared to the levels at bottling, the 2023 Vignoles wines at 12 months of storage had lower pH, titratable acidity, free SO₂, L*, hue angle, and higher dissolved O₂, volatile acidity, Delta E, chroma, brown color, and total phenolics.

Dissolved O₂. The packaging treatment significantly impacted dissolved O₂, at 6 months of storage but not 12 months of storage (4.4 mg/L). At 6 months of storage Glass 750 (2.53 mg/L) had the lowest dissolved O₂ and PET 250B (4.55 mg/L) the highest.

Free SO₂. At 6 months of storage, the wine in Glass 750 (48.64 mg/L) had the highest SO₂ levels and PET 250A (2.19 mg/L) had the lowest. At 12 months of storage, the wine in Glass 750 (49.87 mg/L) had the highest SO₂ levels, and PET 250A and PET 250B (0 mg/L) had the lowest.

L*. At 6 and 12 months of storage, the darkest wines were packaged in PET 250A (64.93 and 62.19, respectively), and the least dark wines were packaged in AL 500 (67.23 and 67.41, respectively).

Delta E. The wine in Glass 750 had the least change from the standard wine after 6 and 12 months of storage (0.17 and 0.68, respectively). The greatest change from the standard wine occurred in wine packaged in PET 250A at 6 and 12 months of storage (3.94 and 13.06, respectively).

Hue angle. At 6 and 12 months of storage, the lowest hue angle wines were packaged in PET 250A (88.42° and 86.61°, respectively), and the highest were packaged in AL 500 (99.42° and 101.49°).

Chroma. At 6 and 12 months of storage, the wines with the lowest chromas were packaged in Glass 750 (10.86 and 11.56) and the highest in PET 250A (13.33 and 22.51).

Brown color. At both storage times, the wine in PET 250A had a higher brown color than the wine in other packaging (0.11 and 0.17, respectively).

Total phenolics. At both storage times, Glass 750 had the highest total phenolics 437.66 and 397.56, respectively) and PET 250A had the lowest (341.62 and 288.92, respectively).

3.13. Consumer Sensory of Chambourcin and Vignoles Wines (2023)

A consumer sensory panel (n = 63) evaluated the overall aroma liking of the Chambourcin and Vignoles wines in the different packaging treatments and selected descriptive terms for the wines (

Table 9. Consumer ^a sensory evaluation of overall aroma liking of Chambourcin and Vignoles wines stored 9 months at 15 °C with different packaging treatments (2023).

Packaging Treatment bc	Chambourcin	Vignoles
AL 250	4.12 cd	3.61 d
AL 375	5.03 abc	3.32 d
AL 500	3.77 d	5.95 a
Flex 750	4.88 bc	5.33 abc
Glass 250	5.89 a	5.98 a
Glass 375	3.77 d	5.72 abc
Glass 750	3.62 d	4.77 bc
PET 250A	5.02 abc	4.71 c
PET 250B	5.17 ab	5.63 abc
PET 750	5.55 ab	5.77 ab
p-value	<0.0001	<0.0001

^a Wines were evaluated by 63 consumer panelists using a nine-point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely, 2 = dislike very much, 3 = dislike moderately, 4 = dislike slightly, 5 = neither like nor dislike, 6 = like slightly, 7 = like moderately, 8 = like very much, and 9 = like extremely). ^b Wine was bottled into 10 types of packaging including three sizes of glass bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (250A mL, 250B mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of aluminum (AL) with inner linings (250 mL, 375 mL, and 500 mL), and one 750 mL flexible (Flex) pouch. ^c Means with different letters for each attribute within location are significantly different (p < 0.05) using Tukey’s honestly significant difference test.

and

Table 10. The three most common flavor descriptors selected by consumers ^a for the aroma of the Chambourcin and Vignoles wines stored 9 months at 15 °C with different packaging treatments ^b (2023).

Variety	AL 250 c	AL 375	AL 500	Flex 750	Glass 250	Glass 375	Glass 750	PET 250A	PET 250B	PET 750
Chambourcin
Vignoles

^a The wines were evaluated by 65 consumer panelists. ^b The wine was bottled into 10 types of packaging including three sizes of glass bottles (250 mL, 375 mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles (250A mL, 250B mL, and 750 mL), three sizes of aluminum (AL) with inner linings (250 mL, 375 mL, and 500 mL), and one 750 mL flexible (Flex) pouch. ^c The magnitude of the word corresponds to the number of times the word was chosen for the aroma terms including fruity citrus, vegetative/fresh, earthy/dirty, nail polish remover/ethyl acetate, caramel/buttery, tropical fruit, sulfur, chemical/petroleum, oxidized/acetaldehyde, vinegar/acetic acid, and other.

). The panelists were 60% female, ages 21–34 years (60%) with a four-year degree or graduate degree (79%). The panelists consumed red wine (54%) and white wine (57%) at least once per month or 2–3 times per month. The Chambourcin and Vignoles wines in Glass 250 had the highest aroma liking followed by the PET 750 bottles. For the Chambourcin wines, the most selected term was fruity/berry for AL 250 (44%), AL 375 (54%), Flex 750 (51%), Glass 250 (62%), PET 250A (56%), PET 250B (52%), and PET 750 (65%) and earthy dirty for AL 500 (43%), Glass 375 (48%), and Glass 750 (46%). For the Vignoles wines, the most selected term was fruity/citrus for AL 500 (65%), Glass 250 (62%), Glass 375 (54%), Glass 750 (46%), PET 250A (40%), PET 250B (57%), and PET 750 (71%), sulfur for AL 250 (49%) and AL 375 (57%), and tropical fruit for Flex 750 (51%).

4. Limitations

There were some limitations for this evaluation of wine packaging treatments including the type of packaging available to purchase and the variety of wines that were evaluated. Although the packaging treatments were sparged with nitrogen prior to filling, using automated packaging equipment for bottling/filling prevents oxidation better compared to hand bottling. Wine quality can be impacted by packaging shape, packaging size, packaging materials and materials for caps/closures/liners, and headspace, thus confounding the impact and interpretation. The sensory data reflects the aroma preference of a specific participant group (n = 63) at one time point during storage and do not necessarily represent the overall quality, overall sensory acceptability, or purchase intent of all consumers.

5. Conclusions

Vignoles and Chambourcin (Vitis hybrid) wines bottled in glass and alternative wine packaging were evaluated to assess the impact on wine composition, color, and phenolics at bottling and during storage at 15 °C. The alternative packaging included plastics (HDPE, LDPE, PP, and PET), aluminum, and flexible pouches as compared to glass bottles. Wines from each variety (Chambourcin and Vignoles) were evaluated at 0, 6, and 12 months of storage at 15 °C with eight packaging treatments in 2022 and 10 packaging treatments in 2023.

The attributes consistently impacted by the packaging treatment included dissolved O₂, free SO₂, color attributes, and phenolics. Alternative packaging impacted dissolved O₂ uptake and free SO₂ degradation in the wines but had less impact in glass compared to alternative packaging. Color degradation/browning was less noticeable in the Chambourcin wine than the Vignoles wine because the color degradation was masked by the depth of the Chambourcin wine color. The wines in glass packaging performed well for the attributes evaluated. Aluminum packaging had the most potential of the alternative packaging in terms of maintaining composition, color, and phenolic attributes during storage. PET was the only plastic packaging with potential as alternative packaging but had issues with wine quality degradation, especially after 6 months of storage. PP, HDPE, and LDPE were the worst performing of the alternative packaging evaluated regarding maintaining the color, composition, and phenolic attributes of the wines. The flexible pouches did not perform as well as aluminum in terms of wine quality.

Alternative packaging can lower a winery’s overall supply-chain carbon footprint because these materials are lighter and require less energy to produce than glass. They are also generally more cost-effective and offer wineries an opportunity to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. Such packaging shows particular promise for wines intended for short-term storage, typically less than six months. Future research should further examine wine quality in emerging alternative packaging formats designed for short-term use, as well as the associated costs and consumer perceptions.