Eggermont Damien, Spadafora Natasha Damiana, Aspromonte Juan, Pellegrino Rocío, Purcaro Giorgia
Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Bât. G1 Chimie Des Agro-Biosystèmes, Passage Des Déportés 2, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium.
Department of Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Sciences, University of Ferrara, 44121, Ferrara, Italy.
Anal Bioanal Chem. 2023 Jul;415(18):4501-4510. doi: 10.1007/s00216-023-04654-2. Epub 2023 Apr 12.
In the present work, the potential benefit of using multi-cumulative trapping headspace extraction was explored by comparing the results using solid-phase microextraction (SPME) coated with divinylbenzene/carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane and a probe-like tool coated with polydimethylsiloxane. The efficiency of a single 30-min extraction, already explored in previous work, was compared with that of multiple shorter extractions. We evaluated three different conditions, i.e., three repeated extractions for 10 min each from different sample vials (for both the probe-like tool and SPME) or from the same vial (for SPME) containing brewed coffee. The entire study was performed using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. The two-dimensional plots were aligned and integrated using a tile-sum approach before any statistical analysis. A detailed comparison of all the tested conditions was performed on a set of 25 targeted compounds. Although a single 30-min extraction using the probe-like tool provided a significantly higher compound intensity than SPME single extraction, the use of multiple shorter extractions with SPME showed similar results. However, multiple extractions with the probe-like tool showed a greater increase in the number of extracted compounds. Furthermore, an untargeted cross-sample comparison was performed to evaluate the ability of the two tested tools and the different extraction procedures in differentiating between espresso-brewed coffee samples obtained from capsules made of different packaging materials (i.e., compostable capsules, aluminum capsules, aluminum multilayer pack). The highest explained variance was obtained using the probe-like tool and multiple extractions (91.6% compared to 83.9% of the single extraction); nevertheless, SPME multiple extractions showed similar results with 88.3% of variance explained.
在本研究中，通过比较使用涂有二乙烯基苯/碳分子筛/聚二甲基硅氧烷的固相微萃取（SPME）和涂有聚二甲基硅氧烷的探针式工具的结果，探索了使用多累积捕集顶空萃取的潜在益处。将先前工作中已探索的单次30分钟萃取效率与多次较短时间萃取的效率进行了比较。我们评估了三种不同条件，即从不同样品瓶（针对探针式工具和SPME）或从装有煮好咖啡的同一瓶（针对SPME）中进行三次重复萃取，每次萃取10分钟。整个研究使用全二维气相色谱-质谱联用技术进行。在进行任何统计分析之前，使用平铺求和方法对二维图谱进行对齐和积分。对一组25种目标化合物进行了所有测试条件的详细比较。尽管使用探针式工具进行单次30分钟萃取比SPME单次萃取提供了显著更高的化合物强度，但使用SPME进行多次较短时间萃取显示出类似的结果。然而，使用探针式工具进行多次萃取显示出萃取化合物数量有更大的增加。此外，进行了非靶向交叉样品比较，以评估两种测试工具和不同萃取程序区分从不同包装材料制成的胶囊（即可堆肥胶囊、铝胶囊、铝多层包装）中获得的浓缩咖啡冲泡咖啡样品的能力。使用探针式工具和多次萃取获得的解释方差最高（91.6%，而单次萃取为83.9%）；尽管如此，SPME多次萃取显示出类似的结果，解释方差为88.3%。
