Comparison of two quantitative GC–MS methods for analysis of tomato aroma based on purge-and-trap and on solid-phase microextraction

Abstract

Two analytical procedures, one based on purge-and-trap and the other on solid phase microextraction, both followed by GC-MS measurement using an ion-trap mass spectrometer in the electron impact mode, have been developed for determination and quantitation of up to 39 aroma compounds in fresh tomatoes. The method based on purge-and-trap for isolation of the volatile compounds uses Tenax as adsorbent and a hexane-diethyl ether mixture as solvent for elution. The method was validated for linearity, precision (better than 20% for most compounds), and limit of detection, which was approximately 1 ng g(-1). This method enabled identification of up to 30 compounds in real samples. Use of SPME was considered as an alternative, to simplify sample treatment while maintaining the information level for the samples (e.g. the number of compounds detected) and quality of quantitation. A procedure based on SPME using a Carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane fibre was developed and validated for determination of 29 aroma compounds; precision was better than 20% and limits of detection ranged from 4 to 30 ng g(-1).

Tomato fruit volatile profiles are highly dependent on sample processing and capturing methods

“…Different methods for the sampling of tomato volatiles have been used in the literature, such as headspace (Baldwin et al 1991(Baldwin et al , 2004Maul et al 2000;Tandon et al 2003), headspace solid phase microextraction (Tikunov et al 2005(Tikunov et al , 2013Zanor et al 2009;Ortiz-Serrano and Gil 2010), adsorption in a Super Q resin followed by elution in an organic solvent (Tieman et al 2006a;Mathieu et al 2009;Goulet et al 2012;Mageroy et al 2012), liquid-liquid extraction with an organic solvent (Aubert et al 2005;Selli et al 2014), purge-and-trap in a Tenax sorbent followed by thermal desorption (Ruiz et al 2005), or purified air or dry nitrogen passed over the sample so that the extracted volatiles are retained in a Tenax trap and then extracted with an organic solvent (Buttery et al 1987(Buttery et al , 1988Buttery 1993;Beltran et al 2006), just to cite some of them. All these methods are capable of collecting a subset of volatiles from the fruit samples (some of them already present in the whole intact fruit, others produced during the experimental procedure), but no systematic comparative study had been performed to compare them.…”

Long-term postharvest aroma evolution of tomatoes with the alcobaça (alc) mutation

“…The extraction system developed in a previous work [22] 241 consisted in a 50-mL Erlenmeyer flask attached to a glass 242 cap with two connexion tubes: the inlet connected to a dry 243 N 2 gas supply and the outlet fitted to the Tenax trap. Dry 244 nitrogen (99.7%) was used to carry out the purge process and 245 was led to flow into the flask at a flow of 1 L min -1 .…”

“…Separation of the 259 analytes was carried out on a 30 m 9 0.25 mm DB-5MS 260 (0.25 lm film thickness) Varian capillary column, using 261 helium at a constant flow of 1 mL min -1 as carrier gas. The 262 temperature programme was as follows: 45°C for 5 min, 263 then raised to 96°C at a rate of 3°Cmin -1 , then raised to 264 150°C at a rate of 6°C min -1 and finally raised up to 265 240°C at a rate of 30°C min Quantification of analytes in the sample extracts was 278 performed using an external calibration curve obtained 279 after direct injection of solvent standards containing 280 internal standard and plotting relative areas to internal 281 standard methyl salicylate-D4 against concentration 282 (ng mL -1 ) as described by Beltran et al [22]. Quantifica-283 tion ion used for the internal standard methyl salicylate-D 4 284 was 155.…”

Influencia de la adición de glicosidasas sobre el potencial aromático del tomate (Solanum lycopersicum L.)

“…Estos métodos presentan varios inconvenientes, incluyendo su alto costo y tiempos de preparación excesivos. La técnica de micro extracción en fase sólida (SPME), cuya idoneidad para el análisis de alimentos ha sido demostrada en múltiples trabajos previos (Ibáñez et al, 1998;Song et al, 1998;Volante et al, 2000;Riu-Aumatell et al, 2004;Markovic et al, 2007), elimina la mayoría de estos inconvenientes (Beltran et al, 2006). La SPME no requiere solventes o aparatos complicados, y puede concentrar compuestos volátiles y no volátiles, en muestras líquidas o gaseosas (Yang y Peppard, 1994).…”