scholarly journals Comparison of an Offline SPE–GC–MS and Online HS–SPME–GC–MS Method for the Analysis of Volatile Terpenoids in Wine

Molecules ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 657 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Williams ◽  
Astrid Buica
Keyword(s):  
Sample Preparation ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
White Wine ◽  
Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Wine Quality ◽  
White Wines ◽  
Preparation Methods ◽  
Odor Thresholds ◽  
Spe Method ◽  
Sample Preparation Methods

The aroma profile is an important marker for wine quality. Various classes of compounds are responsible for the aroma of wine, and one such class is terpenoids. In the context of this work, a validated gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) method for the quantitation of terpenoids in red and white wine using headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS–SPME) and solid-phase extraction (SPE) was established. Calibrations were performed in the respective base wine using both sample preparation methods. The linearity, precision and accuracy evaluated for the respective matrices were excellent for both sample preparations. However, the HS–SPME approach was more sensitive and more accurate. For both sample preparations, the quantification limits were lower than the odor thresholds in wine. The terpenoid concentrations (µg/L) were evaluated for 13 white wines using both sample preparation methods. Importantly, the online HS–SPME approach was more sensitive than the offline SPE method. The major terpenoids identified in the white wines evaluated were linalool (0.2–63 µg/L), geraniol (nd–66 µg/L) and α-terpineol (nd–85 µg/L).

scholarly journals On sample preparation methods for fermented beverage VOCs profiling by GCxGC-TOFMS

Metabolomics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Penghan Zhang ◽  
Silvia Carlin ◽  
Cesare Lotti ◽  
Fulvio Mattivi ◽  
Urska Vrhovsek
Keyword(s):  
Sample Preparation ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
White Wine ◽  
Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction ◽  
Metabolomic Analysis ◽  
Preparation Methods ◽  
Fermented Beverages ◽  
Targeted Profiling ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Sample Preparation Methods

Abstract Introduction Aromas and tastes have crucial influences on the quality of fermented beverages. The determination of aromatic compounds requires global non-targeted profiling of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the beverages. However, experimental VOC profiling result depends on the chosen VOC collection method. Objectives This study aims to observe the impact of using different sample preparation techniques [dynamic headspace (DHS), vortex-assisted liquid–liquid microextraction (VALLME), multiple stir bar sorptive extraction (mSBSE), solid phase extraction (SPE), and solid phase micro-extraction (SPME)] to figure out the most suitable sample preparation protocol for profiling the VOCs from fermented beverages. Methods Five common sample preparation methods were studied with beer, cider, red wine, and white wine samples. After the sample preparation, collected VOCs were analyzed by two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled with time of flight mass spectrometry (GCxGC-TOFMS). Results GCxGC oven parameters can be optimized with the Box–Behnken surface response model and response measure on peak dispersion. Due to the unavoidable column and detector saturation during metabolomic analysis, errors may happen during mass spectrum construction. Profiling results obtained with different sample preparation methods show considerable variance. Common findings occupy a small fraction of total annotated VOCs. For known fermentative aromas, best coverage can be reached by using SPME together with SPE for beer, and VALLME for wine and cider. Conclusions GCxGC-TOFMS is a promising tool for non-targeted profiling on VOCs from fermented beverages. However, a proper data processing protocol is lacking for metabolomic analysis. Each sample preparation method has a specific profiling spectrum on VOC profiling. The coverage of the VOC metabolome can be improved by combining complementary methods.

scholarly journals Ragweed components in honey

2017 ◽  
pp. 65-68
Author(s):  
Éva Nagy ◽  
Anna Novák ◽  
Lajos Daróczi ◽  
András Jávor
Keyword(s):  
Sample Preparation ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Volatile Components ◽  
Solid Phase Micro Extraction ◽  
Preparation Methods ◽  
Data Evolution ◽  
Sample Preparation Methods

The aim of this research was to prove that the syrup containing ragweed used for feeding the bees was transferred to the honey. To reach this goal we developed a method to analyse the volatile components of the samples. We applied two sample preparation methods. The first one was SPME (Solid Phase Micro Extraction) preparation from the headspace of all of the samples. In the second case only the raw leaves of the ragweed were extracted with n-hexane and dichloromethane to complete the SPME results. The measurements were performed on GC-MS equipment. Chromatograms and data evolution showed that the components of the ragweed were also present in honey so they were transferred by bees.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Sample Preparation Methods for Non-Target Screening of Organic Micropollutants in Urban Waters Using High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry

Molecules ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (23) ◽  
pp. 7064
Author(s):  
Nina Huynh ◽  
Emilie Caupos ◽  
Caroline Soares Peirera ◽  
Julien Le Roux ◽  
Adèle Bressy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Preparation ◽  
High Resolution Mass Spectrometry ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Extraction Methods ◽  
Organic Micropollutants ◽  
Preparation Methods ◽  
Sample Extraction ◽  
Target Screening ◽  
Molecular Weight Standard ◽  
Sample Preparation Methods

Non-target screening (NTS) has gained interest in recent years for environmental monitoring purposes because it enables the analysis of a large number of pollutants without predefined lists of molecules. However, sample preparation methods are diverse, and few have been systematically compared in terms of the amount and relevance of the information obtained by subsequent NTS analysis. The goal of this work was to compare a large number of sample extraction methods for the unknown screening of urban waters. Various phases were tested for the solid-phase extraction of micropollutants from these waters. The evaluation of the different phases was assessed by statistical analysis based on the number of detected molecules, their range, and physicochemical properties (molecular weight, standard recoveries, polarity, and optical properties). Though each cartridge provided its own advantages, a multilayer cartridge combining several phases gathered more information in one single extraction by benefiting from the specificity of each one of its layers.

scholarly journals A review of sample preparation methods for the pesticide residue analysis in foods

2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 900-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lijin Zhang ◽  
Shaowen Liu ◽  
Xinyi Cui ◽  
Canping Pan ◽  
Ailin Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Preparation ◽  
Pesticide Residue ◽  
Pesticide Residues ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Residue Analysis ◽  
Liquid Extraction ◽  
Pesticide Residue Analysis ◽  
Preparation Methods ◽  
Assisted Extraction ◽  
Sample Preparation Methods

AbstractThe pesticide residues in foods have received increasing attention as one of the most important food safety issues. Therefore, more strict regulations on the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides in foods have been established in many countries and health organizations, based on the sensitive and reliable analysis methods of pesticide residues. However, the analysis of pesticide residues is a continuing challenge mainly because of the small quantities of analytes as well as the large amounts of interfering substances which can be co-extracted with them, often leading to experimental errors and damage to the analytical instruments. Thus, extensive sample preparation is often required for the pesticide residue analysis for the effective extraction of the analytes and removal of the interferences. This paper focuses on reviewing the recent development in the sample preparation methods for the pesticide residue analysis in foods since 2006. The methods include: liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), supercritical-fluid extraction (SFE), pressurized-liquid extraction (PLE), microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE), gel permeation chromatography (GPC), solid-phase extraction (SPE), molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs), matrix solid-phase dispersion (MSPD), solid-phase micro-extraction (SPME), QuEChERS, cloud point extraction (CPE) and liquid phase micro-extraction (LPME), etc. Particularly their advantages, disadvantages and future perspectives will be discussed.

1H-NMR profile of mezcal and its distillation fractions using two sample preparation methods: direct analysis and solid-phase extraction

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra del C. Pineda-Amaya ◽  
Iran Ocaña-Rios ◽  
Martha E. García-Aguilera ◽  
Hipócrates Nolasco-Cancino ◽  
Beatriz Quiroz-García ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Preparation ◽  
Solid Phase Extraction ◽  
1H Nmr ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Direct Analysis ◽  
Phase Extraction ◽  
Preparation Methods ◽  
Sample Preparation Methods

scholarly journals Comparison of Sample Preparation Methods for Shotgun Proteomic Studies in Aquaculture Species

Proteomes ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 46
Author(s):  
Mário Jorge Araújo ◽  
Maria Lígia Sousa ◽  
Aldo Barreiro Felpeto ◽  
Maria V. Turkina ◽  
Elza Fonseca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sample Preparation ◽  
Solid Phase ◽  
Scophthalmus Maximus ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Preparation Methods ◽  
Mediterranean Mussel ◽  
Consistent Method ◽  
Turbot Scophthalmus Maximus ◽  
Go Terms ◽  
Sample Preparation Methods

Proteomics has been recently introduced in aquaculture research, and more methodological studies are needed to improve the quality of proteomics studies. Therefore, this work aims to compare three sample preparation methods for shotgun LC–MS/MS proteomics using tissues of two aquaculture species: liver of turbot Scophthalmus maximus and hepatopancreas of Mediterranean mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. We compared the three most common sample preparation workflows for shotgun analysis: filter-aided sample preparation (FASP), suspension-trapping (S-Trap), and solid-phase-enhanced sample preparations (SP3). FASP showed the highest number of protein identifications for turbot samples, and S-Trap outperformed other methods for mussel samples. Subsequent functional analysis revealed a large number of Gene Ontology (GO) terms in turbot liver proteins (nearly 300 GO terms), while fewer GOs were found in mussel proteins (nearly 150 GO terms for FASP and S-Trap and 107 for SP3). This result may reflect the poor annotation of the genomic information in this specific group of animals. FASP was confirmed as the most consistent method for shotgun proteomic studies; however, the use of the other two methods might be important in specific experimental conditions (e.g., when samples have a very low amount of protein).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document