Comparison of micro-scale simultaneous distillation–extraction and stir bar sorptive extraction for the determination of volatile organic constituents of grape juice

Caven-Quantrill, Darren J.; Buglass, Alan J.

doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2006.03.091

Cited by 82 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lately 1990s, a new technique, namely stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) has also been developed by Baltussen et al [34] and applied to the extraction of volatile constituents [35]. Zalacain et al [36] used this technique to the analysis of wine primary aroma compounds, while Demyttenaere et al [37] used the same methodology to extract whiskey volatiles.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of two extraction methods for evaluation of volatile constituents patterns in commercial whiskeysElucidation of the main odour-active compounds

Caldeira

Rodrigues

Perestrelo

et al. 2007

Talanta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An analytical procedure based on manual dynamic headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) method and the conventional extraction method by liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), were compared for their effectiveness in the extraction and quantification of volatile compounds from commercial whiskey samples. Seven extraction solvents covering a wide range of polarities and two SPME fibres coatings, has been evaluated. The highest amounts extracted, were achieved using dichloromethane (CH 2 Cl 2 ) by LLE method (LLE CH 2 Cl 2 ) and using a CAR/PDMS fibre (SPME CAR/PDMS ) in HS-SPME. Each method was used to determine the responses of 25 analytes from whiskeys and calibration standards, in order to provide sensitivity comparisons between the two methods. Calibration curves were established in a synthetic whiskey and linear correlation coefficient (r) were greater than 0.9929 for LLE CH 2 Cl 2 and 0.9935 for SPME CAR/PDMS , for all target compounds. Recoveries greater than 80% were achieved. For most compounds, precision (expressed by relative standard deviation, R.S.D.) are very good, with R.S.D. values lower than 14.78% for HS-SPME method and than 19.42% for LLE method. The detection limits ranged from 0.13 to 19.03 g L −1 for SPME procedure and from 0.50 to 12.48 g L −1 for LLE.A tentative study to estimate the contribution of a specific compound to the aroma of a whiskey, on the basis of their odour activity values (OAV) was made. Ethyl octanoate followed by isoamyl acetate and isobutyl alcohol, were found the most potent odour-active compounds.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of two extraction methods for evaluation of volatile constituents patterns in commercial whiskeysElucidation of the main odour-active compounds

Caldeira

Rodrigues

Perestrelo

et al. 2007

Talanta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…it acts as both an extraction internal standard and a GC internal standard, since its recovery into the stir-bar PDMS phase is 100%. 6 Semi-quantitative concentrations of the positively identi¼ed volatile compounds were determined by comparing peak area response to that of the internal standard. Semi-quantitative concentrations of co-eluting analytes were estimated by manual inspection of the mass spectra across co-eluting peaks, using Agilent MS Chemstation software.…”

Section: Stir-bar Sorptive Extraction (Sbse)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 Prior to use, the stir-bars were conditioned at 300°C in a helium stream (100 ml/min) for 1 h, using a TC-1 tube conditioner (Gerstel). For isolation of volatile compounds, stir-bars were placed into crimped 20 ml glass headspace vials, along with juice (20 ml).…”

Section: Stir-bar Sorptive Extraction (Sbse)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In all these cases, the extraction was performed in immersion mode, followed by analysis using GC-MS. Additionally, stirbars have been used in headspace mode (known as headspace sorptive extraction, HSSE) for the determination of 'cork taint' compounds in wine cork stoppers. 12 Application of SBSE to the analysis of grape must components is somewhat more limited, but volatile components 6,[13][14][15] and fungicide residues 16 have been determined. The aim of this work was to use SBSE-GC-MS to determine the ½avour components in the must of several 'aromatic' varieties from the 2000 Brix) of the juice from random samples (~200 grapes) using a hydrometer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3 The ¼rst application of SBSE to wine analysis was in 2000 4 and following that it has been demonstrated that SBSE has considerable sensitivity advantages over SPME 5 and SDE. 6 During this time, SBSE has been used in the analysis of fungicide residues, 5,7 volatile phenols, 8 'cork taint', 9 oak volatiles 10 and aroma compounds 5,11 in wine. In all these cases, the extraction was performed in immersion mode, followed by analysis using GC-MS. Additionally, stirbars have been used in headspace mode (known as headspace sorptive extraction, HSSE) for the determination of 'cork taint' compounds in wine cork stoppers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seasonal variation of flavour content of English vineyard grapes, determined by stir‐bar sorptive extraction–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Caven-Quantrill

Buglass

2008

Flavour & Fragrance J

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The juices (musts) of Huxelrebe, Madeleine Angevine 7672, Ortega, Schönburger and Siegerrebe wine grapes of up to four vintages from two East Anglian vineyards were analysed for volatile ½avour components, using stir-bar sorptive extraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The analytical ½avour pro¼les for each variety differed considerably from season to season, depending on ripeness (and in turn on seasonal weather and yield), as judged by sugar content. (E)-Anethole and estragole were most abundant in less ripe juices, although in all cases their concentrations were low. Likewise, C6 aldehydes hexanal and (E)-2-hexenal, as well as other carbonyl compounds, were more abundant in less ripe musts. Additionally, the aliphatic:aromatic ester ratio tended to be higher for riper musts, and higher concentrations of decanoic and dodecanoic acids tended to characterize riper juices. Aliphatic alcohols and terpenoids showed mixed trends. Despite the seasonal differences in ½avour pro¼les, it was deduced that very few variations of individual components were likely to have much organoleptic impact in themselves. Seasonal variations in linalool and (E)-b-damascenone contents probably had the greatest ½avour (aromatic fruity) impact on Schönburger and Siegerrebe juices and Huxelrebe and Ortega juices, respectively.

show abstract

Extraction and Focusing Methods in Sample Preparation

2010

Handbook of Alcoholic Beverages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of micro-scale simultaneous distillation–extraction and stir bar sorptive extraction for the determination of volatile organic constituents of grape juice

Cited by 82 publications

References 20 publications

Comparison of two extraction methods for evaluation of volatile constituents patterns in commercial whiskeysElucidation of the main odour-active compounds

Comparison of two extraction methods for evaluation of volatile constituents patterns in commercial whiskeysElucidation of the main odour-active compounds

Seasonal variation of flavour content of English vineyard grapes, determined by stir‐bar sorptive extraction–gas chromatography–mass spectrometry

Extraction and Focusing Methods in Sample Preparation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About