PMID- 23102525
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20130219
LR  - 20161125
IS  - 1873-3778 (Electronic)
IS  - 0021-9673 (Linking)
VI  - 1266
DP  - 2012 Nov 30
TI  - Multiple automated headspace in-tube extraction for the accurate analysis of 
      relevant wine aroma compounds and for the estimation of their relative liquid-gas 
      transfer rates.
PG  - 1-9
LID - S0021-9673(12)01570-1 [pii]
LID - 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.10.015 [doi]
AB  - An automated headspace in-tube extraction (ITEX) method combined with multiple 
      headspace extraction (MHE) has been developed to provide simultaneously 
      information about the accurate wine content in 20 relevant aroma compounds and 
      about their relative transfer rates to the headspace and hence about the relative 
      strength of their interactions with the matrix. In the method, 5 muL (for 
      alcohols, acetates and carbonyl alcohols) or 200 muL (for ethyl esters) of wine 
      sample were introduced in a 2 mL vial, heated at 35 degrees C and extracted with 32 (for 
      alcohols, acetates and carbonyl alcohols) or 16 (for ethyl esters) 0.5 mL pumping 
      strokes in four consecutive extraction and analysis cycles. The application of 
      the classical theory of Multiple Extractions makes it possible to obtain a highly 
      reliable estimate of the total amount of volatile compound present in the sample 
      and a second parameter, beta, which is simply the proportion of volatile not 
      transferred to the trap in one extraction cycle, but that seems to be a reliable 
      indicator of the actual volatility of the compound in that particular wine. A 
      study with 20 wines of different types and 1 synthetic sample has revealed the 
      existence of significant differences in the relative volatility of 15 out of 20 
      odorants. Differences are particularly intense for acetaldehyde and other 
      carbonyls, but are also notable for alcohols and long chain fatty acid ethyl 
      esters. It is expected that these differences, linked likely to sulphur dioxide 
      and some unknown specific compositional aspects of the wine matrix, can be 
      responsible for relevant sensory changes, and may even be the cause explaining 
      why the same aroma composition can produce different aroma perceptions in two 
      different wines.
CI  - Copyright (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
FAU - Zapata, Julian
AU  - Zapata J
AD  - Laboratory for Flavor Analysis and Enology, Institute of Engineering of Aragon, 
      I3A, Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Sciences, University of 
      Zaragoza, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain.
FAU - Lopez, Ricardo
AU  - Lopez R
FAU - Herrero, Paula
AU  - Herrero P
FAU - Ferreira, Vicente
AU  - Ferreira V
LA  - eng
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
DEP - 20121016
PL  - Netherlands
TA  - J Chromatogr A
JT  - Journal of chromatography. A
JID - 9318488
RN  - 0 (Gases)
RN  - 0 (Volatile Organic Compounds)
SB  - IM
MH  - Chemical Fractionation/*instrumentation/*methods
MH  - Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry/*methods
MH  - Gases/analysis
MH  - Odorants/*analysis
MH  - Reproducibility of Results
MH  - Volatile Organic Compounds/*analysis
MH  - Wine/*analysis
EDAT- 2012/10/30 06:00
MHDA- 2013/02/21 06:00
CRDT- 2012/10/30 06:00
PHST- 2012/07/26 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2012/10/06 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2012/10/08 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2012/10/30 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2012/10/30 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2013/02/21 06:00 [medline]
AID - S0021-9673(12)01570-1 [pii]
AID - 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.10.015 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Chromatogr A. 2012 Nov 30;1266:1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2012.10.015. Epub 
      2012 Oct 16.