Premium
Investigating aroma diversity combining purge‐and‐trap, comprehensive two‐dimensional gas chromatography, and mass spectrometry
Author(s) -
Franchina Flavio Antonio,
Zanella Delphine,
Lazzari Eliane,
Stefanuto PierreHugues,
Focant JeanFrançois
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of separation science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.72
H-Index - 102
eISSN - 1615-9314
pISSN - 1615-9306
DOI - 10.1002/jssc.201900902
Subject(s) - two dimensional gas , chemistry , chromatography , mass spectrometry , aroma , gas chromatography , two dimensional chromatography , gas chromatography–mass spectrometry , time of flight mass spectrometry , sample preparation , analytical chemistry (journal) , ion , food science , organic chemistry , ionization
Headspace gas chromatography is frequently used for aroma profiling thanks to its ability to naturally exploit the volatility of aroma compounds, and also to provide chemical information on sample composition. Its main advantages rely on simplicity, no use of solvent, amenability to automation, and the cleanliness of the extract. In the present contribution, the most effective sampling (dynamic extraction), separation (multidimensional gas chromatography), and detection (mass spectrometry) techniques for untargeted analysis are exploited in combination, showing their potential in unraveling aroma profiles in fruit beers. To complete the overall analytical process, a neat workflow for data analysis is discussed and used for the successful characterization and identification of five different beer flavors (berries, cherry, banana, apple, and peach). From the technical viewpoint, the coupling of purge‐and‐trap, comprehensive two‐dimensional gas chromatography, and mass spectrometry makes the global methodology unique, and it is for the first time discussed. A (low‐)flow modulation approach allowed for the full transfer into the second dimension with mass‐spectrometry compatible flow (< 7 mL/min), avoiding the need of splitting before detection and making the overall method sensitive (1.2–5.2‐fold higher signal to noise ratio compared to unmodulated gas chromatography conditions) and selective.