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 AbstractEffect of Ethanol on the Adsorption of Volatile Sulfur Compounds on Solid Phase Micro-Extraction Fiber Coatings and the Implication for Analysis in Wine    Next Abstract"Attraction to conspecific and nonconspecific chemical stimuli in male and female Macropodus opercularis (Teleostei, Anabantoidei)" »

Molecules


Title:Effect of Wine Matrix Composition on the Quantification of Volatile Sulfur Compounds by Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction-Gas Chromatography-Pulsed Flame Photometric Detection
Author(s):Davis PM; Qian MC;
Address:"Department of Food Science & Technology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. yungdoufu@gmail.com. Department of Food Science & Technology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. Michael.qian@oregonstate.edu. Oregon Wine Research Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. Michael.qian@oregonstate.edu"
Journal Title:Molecules
Year:2019
Volume:20190912
Issue:18
Page Number: -
DOI: 10.3390/molecules24183320
ISSN/ISBN:1420-3049 (Electronic) 1420-3049 (Linking)
Abstract:"The analysis of volatile sulfur compounds using headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) is heavily influenced by matrix effects. The effects of a wine matrix, both non-volatile and volatile components (other than ethanol) were studied on the analysis of several common sulfur volatiles found in wine, including hydrogen sulfide (H(2)S), methanethiol (MeSH), dimethyl sulfide (DMS), dimethyl disulfide (DMDS), dimethyl trisulfide (DMTS), diethyl disulfide (DEDS), methyl thioacetate (MeSOAc), and ethyl thioacetate (EtSOAc). Varying levels of devolatilized wine and common wine volatiles (acids, esters, alcohols) were added to synthetic wine samples to act as matrices. Sulfur standards were added and analyzed using gas chromatography with pulsed-flame photometric detection (GC-PFPD). Five internal standards were used to find best representatives of each compound despite matrix effects. Sensitivity remained stable with the addition of devolatilized wine, while addition of volatile components decreased sensitivity. DMS was found to be best measured against EMS; DMDS and the thioacetates were best measured against DES; H(2)S, MeSH, DEDS, and DMTS were best measured against DIDS. The method was used to quantitate the volatile sulfur compounds in 21 wines with various ethanol contents and volatile profiles"
Keywords:"Chromatography, Gas/methods Disulfides/analysis Food Analysis/methods Hydrogen Sulfide/analysis Photometry/methods Sensitivity and Specificity Solid Phase Microextraction/*methods Sulfhydryl Compounds/analysis Sulfides/analysis Sulfur Compounds/*analysis/;"
Notes:"MedlineDavis, Peter M Qian, Michael C eng Switzerland 2019/09/25 Molecules. 2019 Sep 12; 24(18):3320. doi: 10.3390/molecules24183320"

 
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 04-12-2024