Instituto de Fermentaciones Industriales (CSIC), Juan de la Cierva, 3, 28006 Madrid, Spain.
J Chromatogr A. 2009 Oct 23;1216(43):7351-7. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2009.08.055. Epub 2009 Aug 26.
The analytical performance of three extraction procedures based on cold liquid-liquid extraction using dicloromethane (LLE), solid phase extraction (SPE) using a styrene-divinylbenzene copolymer and headspace solid phase microextraction (SPME) using a carboxen-polydimethylsiloxane coated fibre has been evaluated based on the analysis of 30 representative wine volatile compounds. From the comparison of the three procedures, LLE and SPE showed very good linearity covering a wide range of concentrations of wine volatile compounds, low detection limits, high recovery for most of the volatile compounds under study and higher sensitivity compared to the headspace-SPME procedure. The latter showed in general, poor recovery for polar volatile compounds. Despite some drawbacks associated with the LLE and SPE procedures such as the more tedious sampling treatment and the use of organic solvents, the analytical performance of both procedures showed that they are more adequate for the analysis of wine volatiles.
基于对 30 种代表性葡萄酒挥发性化合物的分析，评估了基于二氯甲烷（LLE）冷液-液萃取、苯乙烯-二乙烯基苯共聚物固相萃取（SPE）和羧基-聚二甲基硅氧烷涂层纤维顶空固相微萃取（SPME）三种萃取方法的分析性能。与三种方法的比较，LLE 和 SPE 表现出很好的线性关系，涵盖了葡萄酒挥发性化合物的宽浓度范围，检测限低，对于大多数研究的挥发性化合物的回收率高，与顶空-SPME 方法相比具有更高的灵敏度。后者对于极性挥发性化合物的回收率一般较差。尽管 LLE 和 SPE 方法存在一些缺点，如采样处理较繁琐，使用有机溶剂，但这两种方法的分析性能表明，它们更适合于葡萄酒挥发性化合物的分析。
