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 Abstract"A Technique for Thermal Desorption Analyses Suitable for Thermally-Labile, Volatile Compounds"    Next AbstractSex pheromone evolution is associated with differential regulation of the same desaturase gene in two genera of leafroller moths »

J Chem Ecol


Title:Sampling of Volatiles in Closed Systems: A Controlled Comparison of Three Solventless Volatile Collection Methods
Author(s):Alborn HT; Bruton RG; Beck JJ;
Address:"Chemistry Research Unit, Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1700 SW 23rd Drive, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA. hans.alborn@usda.gov. Chemistry Research Unit, Center for Medical, Agricultural, and Veterinary Entomology, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1700 SW 23rd Drive, Gainesville, FL, 32608, USA"
Journal Title:J Chem Ecol
Year:2021
Volume:20210820
Issue:12
Page Number:930 - 940
DOI: 10.1007/s10886-021-01306-6
ISSN/ISBN:1573-1561 (Electronic) 0098-0331 (Linking)
Abstract:"Complex inter-organismal communication among plants, insects, and microbes in natural and agricultural ecological systems is typically governed by emitted and perceived semiochemicals. To understand and ultimately utilize the role of volatile semiochemicals in these interactions, headspace volatiles are routinely collected and analyzed. Numerous collection systems are available (e.g., static or dynamic; adsorption or absorption) where the choice of technique should be dependent upon the plant, insect, or microbial ecological system studied, the information sought, and the limitations of each method. Within these constraints, it remains necessary that each method detects and provides the accurate in situ, or in vitro, volatile profile of the studied system. Herein, we analyzed and compared the pros and cons of three solventless, thermal desorption systems (SPME, Tenax/cold trap, SPDE) using a synthetic standard blend of compounds mimicking a simple natural blend (benzaldehyde, b-caryophyllene, (Z)-3-hexenol, 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, and limonene). Direct splitless injection and Super Q collections of the standard blend were used as controls. The results indicated that related qualitative, as well as quantitative differences, could be correlated with adsorbent sampling capacity and structural bias. The results for Tenax/cold trap and SPDE also were affected by sampled headspace volumes. All solventless techniques exhibited high analytical reproducibility, with SPME and SPDE providing ease of use, low cost, and minimal instrument modifications. The more complex Tenax/cold trap technique provided higher collection efficiency. Using these results, we provide guidance for technique selection for chemical communication applications"
Keywords:Reproducibility of Results Solid Phase Extraction/instrumentation/*methods Specimen Handling/instrumentation/*methods Volatile Organic Compounds/*analysis Adsorption Analysis Semiochemicals Thermal desorption Volatiles;
Notes:"MedlineAlborn, Hans T Bruton, Robert G Beck, John J eng CRIS Project # 6036-11210-001-00D/Agricultural Research Service/ Comparative Study 2021/08/21 J Chem Ecol. 2021 Dec; 47(12):930-940. doi: 10.1007/s10886-021-01306-6. Epub 2021 Aug 20"

 
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 05-12-2024