1997
DOI: 10.1021/jf970157j
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Isolation and Identification of Volatile Compounds from a Wine Using Solid Phase Extraction, Gas Chromatography, and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

Abstract: Recovery efficiencies of main volatile components of wine from porous polymer Porapak Q were investigated using dichloromethane, ethyl ether, and pentane as solvents. The nine wine components used for recovery tests were 2-methyl-1-propanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, 2-phenylethanol, ethyl hexanoate, ethyl octanoate, diethyl butanedioate, hexanoic acid, octanoic acid, and decanoic acid. Dichloromethane showed the highest recovery efficiency, followed by ethyl ether and pentane. Nearly 80% recovery for ethyl hexanoat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
35
0
3

Year Published

2001
2001
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 56 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
1
35
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Several classical analytical methods such as liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) [6][7][8], liquid-liquid microextraction (LLME) [7,9,10], simultaneous distillation-solvent extraction [11], solidphase extraction (SPE) [12][13][14][15][16], supercritical fluid extraction [17], microwaves extraction [18] and ultrasound extraction [19], among others, have been developed for the analysis of the minor volatile compounds in wines. These classical analytical methods have some drawbacks such as the relatively low reproducibility, possibility of contamination with solvents, the length of time required and insufficient selectivity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several classical analytical methods such as liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) [6][7][8], liquid-liquid microextraction (LLME) [7,9,10], simultaneous distillation-solvent extraction [11], solidphase extraction (SPE) [12][13][14][15][16], supercritical fluid extraction [17], microwaves extraction [18] and ultrasound extraction [19], among others, have been developed for the analysis of the minor volatile compounds in wines. These classical analytical methods have some drawbacks such as the relatively low reproducibility, possibility of contamination with solvents, the length of time required and insufficient selectivity.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Microwave assisted extraction (Razungles, Gü nata, Baumes, Pinatel, & Bayonove, 1993), supercritical fluid extraction (Blanch, Reglero, & Herraiz, 1995) (Ferreira, Ló pez, Escudero, & Cacho, 1998;Ortega, Ló pez, Cacho, & Ferreira, 2001;Wada & Shibamoto, 1997). Compared to traditional techniques, SPME offers many advantages such as high sensitivity and reproducibility, does not require solvent and combines extraction and pre-concentration in a single step without pre-treatment of samples.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of Porapak Q as a trapping agent and dichloromethane as a solvent has been shown to achieve satisfactory recovery of wine volatiles. For example, major wine volatiles such as 2-phenylethanol, diethyl succinate, and octanoic acid, could be nearly 100% recovered using this method (Wada & Shibamoto, 1997). However, this method is unable to isolate semivolatile compounds such as tartaric acid and their esters.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The recovery method used for volatile compounds was one previously reported (Wada & Shibamoto, 1997). The use of Porapak Q as a trapping agent and dichloromethane as a solvent has been shown to achieve satisfactory recovery of wine volatiles.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%