Potentialities of two solventless extraction approaches—Stir bar sorptive extraction and headspace solid-phase microextraction for determination of higher alcohol acetates, isoamyl esters and ethyl esters in wines

A stir bar sorptive extraction with liquid desorption followed by large volume injection coupled to gas chromatography–quadrupole mass spectrometry (SBSE-LD/LVI-GC–qMS) was evaluated for the simultaneous determination of higher alcohol acetates (HAA), isoamyl esters (IsoE) and ethyl esters (EE) of fatty acids. The method performance was assessed and compared with other solventless technique, the solid-phase microextraction (SPME) in headspace mode (HS). For both techniques, influential experimental parameters were optimised to provide sensitive and robust methods. The SBSE-LD/LVI methodology was previously optimised in terms of extraction time, influence of ethanol in the matrix, liquid desorption (LD) conditions and instrumental settings. Higher extraction efficiency was obtained using 60 min of extraction time, 10% ethanol content, n-pentane as desorption solvent, 15 min for the back-extraction period, 10 mL min−1 for the solvent vent flow rate and 10 °C for the inlet temperature. For HS-SPME, the fibre coated with 50/30 μm divinylbenzene/carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane (DVB/CAR/PDMS) afforded highest extraction efficiency, providing the best sensitivity for the target volatiles, particularly when the samples were extracted at 25 °C for 60 min under continuous stirring in the presence of sodium chloride (10% (w/v)). Both methodologies showed good linearity over the concentration range tested, with correlation coefficients higher than 0.984 for HS-SPME and 0.982 for SBES-LD approach, for all analytes. A good reproducibility was attained and low detection limits were achieved using both SBSE-LD (0.03–28.96 μg L−1) and HS-SPME (0.02–20.29 μg L−1) methodologies. The quantification limits for SBSE-LD approach ranging from 0.11 to 96.56 μg L−and from 0.06 to 67.63 μg L−1 for HS-SPME. Using the HS-SPME approach an average recovery of about 70% was obtained whilst by using SBSE-LD obtained average recovery were close to 80%. The analytical and procedural advantages and disadvantages of these two methods have been compared. Both analytical methods were used to determine the HAA, IsoE and EE fatty acids content in “Terras Madeirenses” table wines. A total of 16 esters were identified and quantified from the wine extracts by HS-SPME whereas by SBSE-LD technique were found 25 esters which include 2 higher alcohol acetates, 4 isoamyl esters and 19 ethyl esters of fatty acids. Generally SBSE-LD provided higher sensitivity with decreased analysis time.

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.

Comparison of two extraction methods for evaluation of volatile constituents patterns in commercial whiskeys: Elucidation of the main odour-active compounds

An analytical procedure based on manual dynamic headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) method and the conventional extraction method by liquid–liquid extraction (LLE), were compared for their effectiveness in the extraction and quantification of volatile compounds from commercial whiskey samples. Seven extraction solvents covering a wide range of polarities and two SPME fibres coatings, has been evaluated. The highest amounts extracted, were achieved using dichloromethane (CH2Cl2) by LLE method (LLECH2Cl2)(LLECH2Cl2) and using a CAR/PDMS fibre (SPMECAR/PDMS) in HS-SPME. Each method was used to determine the responses of 25 analytes from whiskeys and calibration standards, in order to provide sensitivity comparisons between the two methods. Calibration curves were established in a synthetic whiskey and linear correlation coefficient (r ) were greater than 0.9929 for LLECH2Cl2LLECH2Cl2 and 0.9935 for SPMECAR/PDMS, for all target compounds. Recoveries greater than 80% were achieved. For most compounds, precision (expressed by relative standard deviation, R.S.D.) are very good, with R.S.D. values lower than 14.78% for HS-SPME method and than 19.42% for LLE method. The detection limits ranged from 0.13 to 19.03 μg L−1 for SPME procedure and from 0.50 to 12.48 μg L−1 for LLE. A tentative study to estimate the contribution of a specific compound to the aroma of a whiskey, on the basis of their odour activity values (OAV) was made. Ethyl octanoate followed by isoamyl acetate and isobutyl alcohol, were found the most potent odour-active compounds.