Effectiveness of high-throughput miniaturized sorbent- and solid phase microextraction techniques combined with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry analysis for a rapid screening of volatile and semi-volatile composition of wines: a comparative study

In this study the feasibility of different extraction procedures was evaluated in order to test their potential for the extraction of the volatile (VOCs) and semi-volatile constituents (SVOCs) from wines. In this sense, and before they could be analysed by gas chromatography–quadrupole first stage masss spectrometry (GC–qMS), three different high-throughput miniaturized (ad)sorptive extraction techniques, based on solid phase extraction (SPE), microextraction by packed sorbents (MEPS) and solid phase microextraction (SPME), were studied for the first time together, for the extraction step. To achieve the most complete volatile and semi-volatile signature, distinct SPE (LiChrolut EN, Poropak Q, Styrene-Divinylbenzene and Amberlite XAD-2) and MEPS (C2, C8, C18, Silica and M1 (mixed C8-SCX)) sorbent materials, and different SPME fibre coatings (PA, PDMS, PEG, DVB/CAR/PDMS, PDMS/DVB, and CAR/PDMS), were tested and compared. All the extraction techniques were followed by GC–qMS analysis, which allowed the identification of up to 103 VOCs and SVOCs, distributed by distinct chemical families: higher alcohols, esters, fatty acids, carbonyl compounds and furan compounds. Mass spectra, standard compounds and retention index were used for identification purposes. SPE technique, using LiChrolut EN as sorbent (SPELiChrolut EN), was the most efficient method allowing for the identification of 78 VOCs and SVOCs, 63 and 19 more than MEPS and SPME techniques, respectively. In MEPS technique the best results in terms of number of extractable/identified compounds and total peak areas of volatile and semi-volatile fraction, were obtained by using C8 resin whereas DVB/CAR/PDMS was revealed the most efficient SPME coating to extract VOCs and SVOCs from Bual wine. Diethyl malate (18.8 ± 3.2%) was the main component found in wine SPELiChrolut EN extracts followed by ethyl succinate (13.5 ± 5.3%), 3-methyl-1-butanol (13.2 ± 1.7%), and 2-phenylethanol (11.2 ± 9.9%), while in SPMEDVB/CAR/PDMS technique 3-methyl-1-butanol (43.3 ± 0.6%) followed by diethyl succinate (18.9 ± 1.6%), and 2-furfural (10.4 ± 0.4%), are the major compounds. The major VOCs and SVOCs isolated by MEPSC8 were 3-methyl-1-butanol (26.8 ± 0.6%, from wine total volatile fraction), diethyl succinate (24.9 ± 0.8%), and diethyl malate (16.3 ± 0.9%). Regardless of the extraction technique, the highest extraction efficiency corresponds to esters and higher alcohols and the lowest to fatty acids. Despite some drawbacks associated with the SPE procedure such as the use of organic solvents, the time-consuming and tedious sampling procedure, it was observed that SPELiChrolut EN, revealed to be the most effective technique allowing the extraction of a higher number of compounds (78) rather than the other extraction techniques studied.

Optimisation of stir bar sorptive extraction and liquid desorption combined with large volume injection-gas chromatography–quadrupole mass spectrometry for the determination of volatile compounds in wines

Stir bar sorptive extraction and liquid desorption followed by large volume injection coupled to gas chromatography–quadrupole mass spectrometry (SBSE–LD/LVI-GC–qMS) had been applied for the determination of volatiles in wines. The methodology was optimised in terms of extraction time and influence of ethanol in the matrix; LD conditions, and instrumental settings. The optimisation was carried out by using 10 standards representative of the main chemical families of wine, i.e. guaiazulene, E,E-farnesol, β-ionone, geranylacetone, ethyl decanoate, β-citronellol, 2-phenylethanol, linalool, hexyl acetate and hexanol. The methodology shows good linearity over the concentration range tested, with correlation coefficients higher than 0.9821, a good reproducibility was attained (8.9–17.8%), and low detection limits were achieved for nine volatile compounds (0.05–9.09 μg L−1), with the exception of 2-phenylethanol due to low recovery by SBSE. The analytical ability of the SBSE–LD/LVI-GC–qMS methodology was tested in real matrices, such as sparkling and table wines using analytical curves prepared by using the 10 standards where each one was applied to quantify the structurally related compounds. This methodology allowed, in a single run, the quantification of 67 wine volatiles at levels lower than their respective olfactory thresholds. The proposed methodology demonstrated to be easy to work-up, reliable, sensitive and with low sample requirement to monitor the volatile fraction of wine.