Intelligent use of ethanol for the direct quantitative determination of methanol in alcoholic beverages

Charapitsa, Siarhei; Sytova, S.; Kavalenka, Anton; Sabalenka, Lidziya; Zayats, M. F.; Егоров, В. В.; Лещев, С. М.; Melsitova, Ina; Vetokhin, S. S.; Zayats, N. I.

doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2022.104772

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…where i C is the concentration of the ith volatile compound in the anhydrous part of the sample, including ethanol, mg/L AA, determined from chromatographic data by direct determination of the concentrations of volatile compounds using ethanol as a reference substance [3,4], according to the following formulas 0.95 1.00 A are the areas of chromatographic peaks of the ith volatile compound and ethanol, obtained during measuring of the standard mixture, used for calibration, correspondingly, a.u. ; st i C is the concentration of the ith volatile compound in the standard mixture for chromatograph calibration, mg/L AA.…”

Section: Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Correct determination of alcoholic strength in alcoholic products

Kolesnov,

Charapitsa,

Sytova

et al. 2023

BIO Web Conf.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper describes a method, which combines sample density measurement data and gas chromatographic data to determine the quantitative content of volatile compounds, including ethyl alcohol, in sample. This approach can improve the accuracy of alcohol content measurements. The proposed method takes into account the presence in sample of congeners, such as methanol, fusel oils, esters and etc. The experimental study of 8 brandy samples was carried out. All samples were distillated and measured by GC-FID. The volatile compounds identified in the analyzed distillates were acetaldehyde, isobutanal, ethyl acetate, methanol, butan-2-ol, propan-1-ol, 2-methylpropan-1-ol, isoamyl acetate, butan-1-ol, 3-methylbutan-1-ol, ethyl caproate, ethyl lactate, hexanol, cis-3-hexen-1-ol, ethyl caprylate, furfural, ethyl caprate, ethyl laurate and 2-phenylethanol. The quantitative determination of congeners was carried out using ethanol as a reference substance. The sum of volume content of detected congeners in studied distillates ranged from 0.28 to 0.46%. The absolute difference between results for determination of alcoholic strength using only water-ethanol tables (traditional method) and combination of data from water-ethanol tables and gas chromatography data (proposed method) ranged from 0.22 to 0.40%.

show abstract

Section: Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is no need to add any internal standard to the analysed sample, since ethyl alcohol is an essential component of any alcoholic beverage. This method was studied and validated for the determination of methanol in spirit drinks [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correct determination of alcoholic strength in alcoholic products

Kolesnov,

Charapitsa,

Sytova

et al. 2023

BIO Web Conf.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The intelligent use of ethanol for direct determination of methanol in wines

Charapitsa,

Sytova,

Kavalenka

et al. 2023

BIO Web Conf.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The results of experimental studies of the method based on the usage of ethyl alcohol as an internal standard for the direct determination of methyl alcohol in wines are presented. The method was validated in terms of precision, accuracy, limits of detection and quantification (LOD and LOQ), linearity, and robustness. The results, obtained for the developed method, were compared with the results, obtained for the official internal standard method OIV-MA-AS312-03A, using 4-methylpentan-2-ol as an internal standard. The within- and between-day precision (RSD) values of concentrations were in the ranges of 0.1-1.6% and 0.4-2.1% for the developed and official methods, correspondingly. The recovery values of concentrations were in the ranges of 99.4-101.7% and 99.4-102.3% for the developed and official methods, correspondingly. The linearity parameters R2 were 0.99996 and 0.99995 for the developed and official methods, correspondingly, as well as the LODs were 0.46 mg/L and 0.65 mg/L, the LOQs were 1.39 mg/L and 1.96 mg/L for mentioned methods. 36 samples of red, white and pink wines with different sugar levels (dry, semi-dry, semi-sweet and sweet) were studied by both developed and official methods. The relative difference between results obtained for both methods didn’t exceed ±1.5%.

show abstract