Athès Violaine, Peña y Lillo Marcial, Bernard Clémence, Pérez-Correa Ricardo, Souchon Isabelle
Unité Mixte de Recherche Génie et Microbiologie des Procédés Alimentaires, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique/Institut National Agronomique Paris-Grignon, 78850 Thiverval-Grignon, France.
J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Apr 7;52(7):2021-7. doi: 10.1021/jf0350257.
Several experimental methodologies exist for measuring volatilities; however, results show great dispersion and sometimes lack of agreement between different methods. The aim of our study was to compare the performance of three static headspace methods (vapor phase calibration, VPC; phase ratio variation, PRV; and liquid calibration static headspace, LC-SH) for determining gas/liquid partition coefficients of two aroma compounds in hydroalcoholic multicomponent solutions at infinite dilution. Comparison with literature data based on static and dynamic methods showed that PRV is simpler than VPC and LC-SH and that VPC and PRV are more accurate than LC-SH, which presented a significant bias (50% lower values).
存在几种用于测量挥发性的实验方法；然而，结果显示出很大的分散性，并且不同方法之间有时缺乏一致性。我们研究的目的是比较三种静态顶空方法（气相校准法，VPC；相比变化法，PRV；以及液相校准静态顶空法，LC-SH）在无限稀释条件下测定水醇多组分溶液中两种香气化合物气/液分配系数的性能。与基于静态和动态方法的文献数据比较表明，PRV比VPC和LC-SH更简单，并且VPC和PRV比LC-SH更准确，LC-SH存在显著偏差（值低50%）。
