Olivia Estes Chemistry/block C
9/30/09 Mr. Ippolito
Matson, John. “Champagne bubbles liberate flavor compounds” Scientific American. September 29 2009.
After pouring a glass of champagne the bubbles that are penetrating through the glass of champagne also carry compounds that trigger smell receptors and bring them to the surface of the sparkling wine and then squirt them upward. Although champagne is thought of as the only sparkling wine this mechanism occurs in many other wines. During the study of this theory the researchers analyzed the chemical makeup of the wine and the droplets above the liquids surface by adding an additional component structure. These droplets are referred to as aerosols. An aerosol is a gaseous suspension of a fine solid or liquid particle. The aerosols cascade upward into tiny Bubbles of suspended carbon dioxide, which escalate to the surface of the champagne and then explode. A typical 0.75-liter bottle of champagne can hold the amount of five liters of CO2 gas, which is enough to form tens of millions of bubbles, estimated by the study author. The chemistry of the champagne aerosols are sufficiently different than the chemistry of the liquid champagne itself. The aerosols contain a surface-active compound that is chemically attracted to interfaces between gases and liquids-some of which contribute in assigning the aroma of wine. Surface-active molecules are drawn to the gas-liquid boundary of the champagne bubbles, which are bubbles of CO2 gas surrounded by liquid, and are then released upward to the surface when the bubble rises. When the bubbles burst, the surface-active compounds are thrusted numerous centimeters into the area where they can reach the nostrils of the consumer. "They are projected into the form of these aerosols, which are overconcentrated with surface-active molecules, some of them showing aromatic properties," Liger-Belair says.
I chose this article because I found it very interesting in that it educated me about the process in which the aroma of the champagne is produced. This is why champagne is often used in celebration as it not only tastes good but also smells good. Because of the scent of champagne, society widely drinks it and it probably wouldn’t be as popular without its well-known smell.
My criticism for this article is that it was hard to understand because of the scientific terminology that was not yet in my vocabulary. The explanations could have been written to better suite a wider audience rather than those with a scientific background. Although the topic of the article to be interesting I still found the writing of it could have been improved.
Olivia, you did a very good job at choosing an article that catches everyone’s attention, when you hear the words “champagne bubbles” in a chemistry class article review that your expecting to have something to do about atoms or heat energy, its randomness catches your attention and makes you want to listen. I thought the article did a very well detailed description of why “champagne bubbles liberate flavor compound” and thoroughly explained the process of how the popping of the bubbles sends off and attractive smell to the consumer. Another aspect of the article that I thought made it well presented was that it was short, when a reader sees a super long article it’s a major turn off and it feels like a chore to read it, but this article was short and made it easy to reread to understand the details better. Though the article was “short and sweet” and very descriptive, it was a bit hard to understand, because there were many scientific words that I did not understand and had to just mentally skip them when I read the article. Luckily the article was so well described that I could survive with out the scientific words that were beyond my understanding, but it would have been easier if it had been written with out them so that I didn’t have to go back and reread a sentence a couple times just to get the gist of what was trying to be said. Another thing that I thought could have made the article better is if it made references and examples to things in everyday life that readers could relate back to when they don’t understand what the author is trying to say. All in all I thought the article was very interesting and I was impressed to learn that it is actually the bubbles of the champagne that give off the smell when they pop, and not just the drink its self.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very well written for several reasons. The first reason is that Olivia made what could have been a very confusing review easy to understand for the reader. Aerosols and what they do could have been easily confusing. Also, Olivia was very direct and didn't waste words with her review. She was very to the point throughout the review. Finally, Olivia was very detailed, no overlooking anything in the review. However, Olivia could have told us why champagne has such a special smell despite the fact that there are many other wines in which the process described in the article. Olivia also could have told us of the background of champagne, which would have made the review much easier to understand. I learned from this why champagne is so bubbly and that it had a great smell, which I had never known before. Overall this was a well written and clear review.
ReplyDeleteI thought that overall this was a well written and thought out article. Olivia did a great job! One of the few reasons it was great is because Olivia took a complicated article with complicated scientific terminology and made it very simplified. This was able to summarize the article in a way that those without scientific back rounds could understand. I also thought that for a very complex article she was able to limit the large confusing words. Words used in the article were complex and gave little explanation. Olivia gave for the most part easily decipherable vocabulary in her review. The third thing i thought olivia did well was that the article was not lengthy at all. Normally an article full of complex scientific words would not have enticed me to read it. The way Olivia was able to explain it to the student with less complex scientific knowledge i thought was very well done. If she wrote things as complex as they were in the article i would not have been able to read her article without being frustrated. Olivia did a great job of making the article easy to understand, but at the same time not losing an educational value.
ReplyDeleteOne thing i think Olivia could have done better was to better explain the few complex words used in the article. Words like receptors and components may have confused some students. I also think it could have been explained that champagne has a distinct smell and reaction for those that have not had encounters with it.
From this article I learned many things about champagne. Now when i am older if i am ever with friends drinking champagne and they wonder why it bubbles and smells the way it does, I can tell them. Overall
I must say that this was a superb review.
This summary review was a very clearly-written summary that got strait to the point. I like the fact that when Olivia told us that the droplets are call aerosols she then defined what an aerosol is to make the understanding of this process easier for me to understand. I thought that Olivia's specific examples were really good. For example, she wrote that 0.75 liters of champain can have a total of 5 liters of CO2 gas. Another aspect of this summary that I liked was when she explained the the aroma created by the champain is the reason that champlain is so popular by the public. This told the reader about how the process that the aroma is formed is important.I suggest to Olivia that if she could further define some of the scientific terms the read would be a little easier. I did get a little lost somtimes when she was discussing the aerosols and how they were different from the chemistry of the champain. On the other hand, I was impressed overall that she took a challenging article and taught the class about it.
ReplyDelete~Alex Adrian
Olivia said that this article was very hard to understand because of the scientific terminology. Considering this and her good review of the article, she really grasped the main objects and made this confusing article very easy to understand. I liked how she explained what an aerosol was to help understand what she was talking about. I also liked that she chose a topic that we would understand, and that is interesting. For example, she did not chose a topic so scientific that we would not understand why it is important. Olivia could have explained some of the complicated terminology. This was important to know because when people smell their wine for taste testing I can tell them why the smell is so stong.
ReplyDeleteAs I began to read the article itself, I was also, like Olivia and Bailey, a bit confused about the scientific terminology. Olivia did a great job rephrasing it in plain language that most people could understand. Olivia pulled out the important facts of the article, just giving the perfect amount of information, so that her review was a light and an interesting read. The review was scientifically correct and was also written in a sophisticated way that made the reader not aware that they were receiving a lot of complicated information that is hard to comprehend. Even though some parts of her review were a little confusing she did a nice job of explaining what an aerosol is, a key part of understanding the article.
ReplyDeleteThere were a few things that I thought needed some clarification.
One, Are there some types of wines and champagne’s that attract your smell receptors more? Two, Do all people have smell receptors?
This article particularly impressed me; I was amazed to learn that some much goes into smelling champagne and wine. I thought the article was interesting and I thought the review was great! Nice Job Olivia!
Good Job Olivia! There were three things that you did particularly well in your article. One was that it looks like you simplified the scientific vocabulary so that in was easy for someone of our level to understand. Another thing was that you really made your article pop against the others. This is good to get the readers' attention. Finally, I loved how you told the information. It was clear and to the point.Although the article was very well written, you cold make a few changes to make it even better. One thing that could be improved has to do with word choice. Instead of using the same words over and over, experiment with different synonims. Also, you could have added some illistative writing that would paint the picture of the article in the reader's head. I was really excited to learn that the bubbles in champagne really cause the smell! That's so cool! GREAT JOB! xoxo Caroline p.s. I'm still jealous of your accent...
ReplyDeleteI think Olivia did a great job on her article. For one, she broke down what seemed a very hard to understand article, from reading it personally, to a very simple and well explained one. A second reason why this blog was well written was the way you took an article that had a not so interesting title and made it into your own. That really impressed me. Though this article is great I still think it needs a little work. I thought you could have loosened it up alot more, less tight and sophitocated and more of a warm feeling to it. Besides that I felt you did a great job. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDelete