Use of C18 reversed-phase liquid chromatography for the isolation of monoterpene glycosides and nor-isoprenoid precursors from grape juice and wines

Williams, Patrick J.; Strauss, Christopher R.; Wilson, B.; Massy‐Westropp, Ralph A.

doi:10.1016/s0021-9673(00)85911-7

Cited by 169 publications

(136 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The most frequently used method is solid-phase extraction (SPE), which can be done relatively quickly and is fairly inexpensive. For wine and grape analysis, the sorbent is typically reverse phase, often C-18 (Williams et al 1982b) or Amberilite XAD-2 (Günata et al 1985). Samples are loaded (after homogenization and either filtration or centrifugation to remove solids, in the case of grapes) and the column washed with water, which removes the highly polar compounds, such as salts and free sugars.…”

Section: Analytical Techniques To Measure Glycosidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glycosidically Bound Volatile Aroma Compounds in Grapes and Wine: A Review

Hjelmeland

Ebeler

2014

Am. J. Enol. Vitic.

143

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Volatile aroma compounds in plants are typically found both as "free" and "bound" to a sugar moiety. When bound, these compounds are not odor active; however, upon hydrolysis of the glycoside, these compounds may then be volatilized. In grapes and wine, a large proportion of volatile aroma compounds are found in the bound form. A review of glycosides in grapes and in wine is presented with a focus on identified glycoside structures, their biosynthesis, their potential roles in the plant, and methods for their analysis. Studies of these compounds and their concentration changes during the winemaking process are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Analytical Techniques To Measure Glycosidesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Glycosidically Bound Volatile Aroma Compounds in Grapes and Wine: A Review

Hjelmeland

Ebeler

2014

Am. J. Enol. Vitic.

143

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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%

Development of headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography–mass spectrometry methodology for analysis of terpenoids in Madeira wines

Câmara

Alves

Marques

2006

Analytica Chimica Acta

122

103

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A dynamic headspace solid-phase microextraction methodology was developed for analysis of varietal aroma compounds in must and Madeira wine samples, a spirit wine with an ethanol content of 18% (v/v). The factors with influence in the headspace solid-phase microextraction efficiency such as: fibre coating, extraction time and temperature, pH, ionic strength, ethanol content, desorption time and temperature, were optimised and the method validated. The best results were obtained for a 85 m polyacrylate fibre, with a 60 min headspace for must and 120 min for wine samples, in a 2.4 ml sample at 40 • C with 30% of NaCl. The extract is injected in the splitless mode in a GC-MS Varian system, Saturn III, and separated on a Stabilwax capillary column. The linear dynamic range of the method covers the normal range of occurrence of analytes in wine with typical r 2 between 0.985 (␤-ionone) and 0.998 (linalool) for musts and between 0.980 (␣-terpineol) and 0.999 (linalool) for must and wine samples, respectively. For must samples the reproducibility ranges from 2.5% (citronellol) to 14.4% (nerolidol) (as R.S.D.), and from 4.8% (citronellol) to 14.2% (nerolidol) for wine samples. The analysis of spiked samples has shown that matrix effects do not significantly affect method performance. Limits of detection obtained are in low g l −1 range for all compounds analysed in this study.

show abstract

“…This observation is particularly important because it implies that the optimisation of time/temperature parameters may favour the generation of these low odour-threshold impact odorants. Furthermore, the release of a-terpineol in Bobal-608C samples (7.06 mg L 71 ) might as well be related to thermal dehydration, a-terpineol has been reported to be the final degradation/stabilisation product of different terpenols (Williams, Strauss, Wilson, & Massy-Westropp, 1982). Although terpenols released into solutions are not over the olfactory threshold, they may contribute to improve the aroma perception of fruity, citrus and floral aromatic series.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%