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.

Low generation triazine-based dendrimers-synthesis, characterzation and in vitro biological activity

In the present study, two low generation triazine-based dendrimers, G1.0(Cl)4 dendrimer and G1.5(OH)8 dendrimer, were synthesized and their cytotoxicity were tested by using the NIH 3T3 and the A2780 cell lines. In the synthesis process of the G1.0(Cl)4 dendrimer, cyanuric chloride (CAC) which has high reactivity chlorine atom was connected to the terminal of triethylene glycol (TEG) via nucleophilic substitution by controlling temperature. The prepared G1.0(Cl)4 dendrimer was purified by silica gel column chromatography. Then the four chlorine atoms in the G1.0(Cl)4 dendrimer were substituted by diethanolamine (DEA) to give dendrimer with the hydroxyl terminal group G1.5(OH)8. The starting materials, CAC, G1.0(Cl)4 dendrimer and G1.5(OH)8 dendrimer were analyzed by one-dimensional NMR, FTIR and MS techniques. The two dendrimers, G1.0(Cl)4 and G1.5(OH)8, showed perfect stability in the air environment at room temperature. However, G1.0(Cl)4 is not soluble in water while the G1.5(OH)8 dendrimer is a water soluble compound. Furthermore, cell biological evaluation at the studied concentrations showed that the CAC, as well as the prepared G1.0(Cl)4 and G1.5(OH)8 dendrimers, have no cytotoxicity towards the NIH 3T3 and A2780 cell lines.