Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractComparison of micro-scale simultaneous distillation-extraction and stir bar sorptive extraction for the determination of volatile organic constituents of grape juice    Next AbstractAge effects on pheromone induced Fos expression in olfactory bulbs of a primate »

J Chromatogr A


Title:Comparison of volatile constituents extracted from model grape juice and model wine by stir bar sorptive extraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
Author(s):Caven-Quantrill DJ; Buglass AJ;
Address:"Frutarom (UK) Ltd, Wellingborough, Northants NN8 2RN, United Kingdom; Faculty of Science and Technology, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge CB11PT, United Kingdom"
Journal Title:J Chromatogr A
Year:2011
Volume:20101223
Issue:7
Page Number:875 - 881
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.12.078
ISSN/ISBN:1873-3778 (Electronic) 0021-9673 (Linking)
Abstract:"A stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) method coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry was optimised for the analysis of volatile components of a model wine, based on a previously optimised method used for analysis of the same components in model grape juice. The presence of ethanol in the model wine sample matrix resulted in decreased sensitivity of the method toward most of the volatile constituents. Mean percent relative recoveries and reproducibilities (%CV) were 22.8% and 7.1%, respectively, compared with 28.4% and 8.5% for model grape juice. The mean limit of detection (LoD) ratio (juice:wine) was 0.25. Similar sensitivities for the two sample matrices using this method were achieved by changing the split ratio from 20:1 (grape juice) to 5:1 (wine), giving a mean limit of detection ratio (juice:wine) of 1.0, thus allowing direct comparison of chromatograms of volatile components in the two matrices. This enabled direct comparisons of grape juices and the wines derived from them by alcoholic yeast fermentation. The influence of ethanol concentration in the range 9-15% on method sensitivity is discussed, using an overlay of the total ion chromatograms. The use of a gas saver device for the 5:1 split ratio analysis of desorbed model wine aroma compounds is discussed in terms of preventing extraneous reaction of sorbent and stationary phases with air during analysis"
Keywords:"Acetates/analysis Acyclic Monoterpenes Analysis of Variance Beverages/analysis Chemical Fractionation/*methods Ethanol/analysis Fatty Alcohols/analysis Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry/*methods Models, Chemical Odorants/analysis Sensitivity and Specif;"
Notes:"MedlineCaven-Quantrill, Darren J Buglass, Alan J eng Comparative Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Netherlands 2011/01/11 J Chromatogr A. 2011 Feb 18; 1218(7):875-81. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2010.12.078. Epub 2010 Dec 23"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 17-11-2024