SPRAY-DRIED OF SICILIAN NERO D'AVOLA WINES, EVALUATION OF THE AROMATIC AND PHENOLIC PROFILES BY MASS SPECTROMETRIC TECHNIQUES

Similar documents
Table 1: Experimental conditions for the instrument acquisition method

Profiling of Aroma Components in Wine Using a Novel Hybrid GC/MS/MS System

RESOLUTION OIV-OENO ANALYSIS OF VOLATILE COMPOUNDS IN WINES BY GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY

by trained human panelist. Details for each signal are given in Table 2.

Somchai Rice 1, Jacek A. Koziel 1, Jennie Savits 2,3, Murlidhar Dharmadhikari 2,3 1 Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University

Somchai Rice 1, Jacek A. Koziel 1, Anne Fennell 2 1

GAS-CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF SOME VOLATILE CONGENERS IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF STRONG ALCOHOLIC FRUIT SPIRITS

Extraction of Acrylamide from Coffee Using ISOLUTE. SLE+ Prior to LC-MS/MS Analysis

Agilent J&W DB-624 Ultra Inert Capillary Column Screens Distilled Spirits by GC/MS Static Headspace

Product No. Product Name CAS FEMA Specification Packing. BBTY2001 2,3,5 Trimethyl Pyrazine, Natural % n.

Emerging Applications

Application Note: Analysis of Melamine in Milk (updated: 04/17/09) Product: DPX-CX (1 ml or 5 ml) Page 1 of 5 INTRODUCTION

Natural Aroma Chemicals

Natural Aroma Chemicals

Natural Aroma Chemicals

CHAPTER 8. Sample Laboratory Experiments

Encapsulated Flavours New Horizons for the Delivery of Aroma and Taste Flander s Food Technology Day, Brussels, September 29-30, 2010

Fast Analysis of Smoke Taint Compounds in Wine with an Agilent J&W DB-HeavyWax GC Column

Analytical Report. Volatile Organic Compounds Profile by GC-MS in Clove E-liquid Flavor Concentrate. PO Box 2624 Woodinville, WA 98072

Analytical Report. Volatile Organic Compounds Profile by GC-MS in Cupcake Batter Flavor Concentrate

Volatile Profiling in Wine Using Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry with Thermal Desorption

Comprehensive analysis of coffee bean extracts by GC GC TOF MS

Analytical Method for Coumaphos (Targeted to agricultural, animal and fishery products)

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

Analytical Report. Table 1: Target compound levels. Concentration units are ppm or N/D, not detected.

Tyler Trent, SVOC Application Specialist; Teledyne Tekmar P a g e 1

Extraction of Multiple Mycotoxins From Animal Feed Using ISOLUTE Myco SPE Columns prior to LC-MS/MS Analysis

Rapid Analysis of Soft Drinks Using the ACQUITY UPLC H-Class System with the Waters Beverage Analysis Kit

A novel approach to assess the quality and authenticity of Scotch Whisky based on gas chromatography coupled to high resolution mass spectrometry

Factors influencing mandarin fruit quality. What drives the eating. Outline. experience in mandarins?

Little Things That Make A Big Difference: Yeast Selection. Yeast selection tasting

The Natural Choice for Flavor and Fragrance Ingredients. The Natural Choice for Flavor and Fragrance Ingredients. natural PRODUCT LIST

ADVANCED BEER AROMA ANALYSIS. Erich Leitner TU Graz, Institute of Analytical Chemistry and Food Chemistry, Graz, Austria

CHAPTER 8. Sample Laboratory Experiments

The Natural Choice for Flavor and Fragrance Ingredients. The Natural Choice for Flavor and Fragrance Ingredients. natural PRODUCT LIST

One class classification based authentication of peanut oils by fatty

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS - GC PROFILING

VINOLOK (VINOSEAL) closure evaluation Stage 1: Fundamental performance assessment

Characterization of the Volatile Substances and Aroma Components from Traditional Soypaste

Changes in aroma composition of blackberry wine during fermentation process

Figure S1: Fatty acid composition in milk fat from transgenic and control cows.

Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 2017, 9(9): Research Article

The Determination of Pesticides in Wine

Determination of Melamine Residue in Milk Powder and Egg Using Agilent SampliQ Polymer SCX Solid Phase Extraction and the Agilent 1200 Series HPLC/UV

Determination of Caffeine in Coffee Products According to DIN 20481

Dr.Nibras Nazar. Microbial Biomass Production: Bakers yeast

High resolution mass approaches for wine and oenological products analysis

CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS - GC PROFILING

Determination of Pesticides in Coffee with QuEChERS Extraction and Silica Gel SPE Cleanup

Determination of the concentration of caffeine, theobromine, and gallic acid in commercial tea samples

Identification of Adulteration or origins of whisky and alcohol with the Electronic Nose

Analysis of Dairy Products, Using SIFT-MS

Higher Resolution Separation of Organic Acids and Common Inorganic Anions in Wine

Bromine Containing Fumigants Determined as Total Inorganic Bromide

The Application of Grape Grading Based on PCA and Fuzzy Evaluation

Life Science and Chemical Analysis Solutions. Key Words: GCxGC-TOFMS, SPME, Food and Flavors. LECO Corporation; Saint Joseph, Michigan USA

Seedling VOCs induce host preference in Bagrada hilaris Burmeister Mokhtar Abdulsattar Arif

SUPELCO. Analysis of Flavors and Off-Flavors in Foods and Beverages Using SPME. Robert E. Shirey and Leonard M. Sidisky

GC/MS BATCH NUMBER: L50109

Rapid Tea Analysis on Poroshell 120 SB-C18 with LC/MS

The Benefits of GC/MS Coupled with a Headspace Trap to Monitor Volatile Organic Compounds in the Production of Beer

AppNote 4/2003. Fast Analysis of Beverages using a Mass Spectral Based Chemical Sensor KEYWORDS ABSTRACT

Analysis of Volatile Compounds of Jasminum nitidum [Acc.JN.1] Flowers

Determination of key volatiles in Australian Black Truffles aroma by combined GCMS and organoleptic techniques

GC/MS BATCH NUMBER: L40103

GC/MS BATCH NUMBER: LM0100

Secondary Aroma Compounds in Fresh Grape Marc Distillates as a Result of Variety and Corresponding Production Technology

Identification and Semiquantitation of Monoterpene Glycosides in Ripening Muscat of Alexandria Grapes

Alcohol Meter for Wine. Alcolyzer Wine

High Sensitivity Quantitation Method of Dicyandiamide and Melamine in Milk Powders by Liquid Chromatography Tandem Mass Spectrometry

Volatiles: Impacts of Fruit Development, Ethylene, and Storage Environment. Jim Mattheis Tree Fruit Research Laboratory Wenatchee, WA, USA

16th International CEEPUS Symposium and Summer School on Bioanalysis, Warsaw, Poland, July 06-12, 2016

Characterisation of New Zealand hop character and the impact of yeast strain on hop derived compounds in beer

EXTRACTION PROCEDURE

Zoe Grosser, Vinson Leung, Jim Fenster, Brian LaBrecque Horizon Technology, Inc., Salem, NH USA

Analysis of Resveratrol in Wine by HPLC

BARRELS, BARREL ADJUNCTS, AND ALTERNATIVES

Determination of Methylcafestol in Roasted Coffee Products According to DIN 10779

Determination of natamycin in wines Résolution OIV-SCMA

GC/MS BATCH NUMBER: B50105

No adulterants, diluents, or contaminants were detected via this method. Conforms to 10/12 Iso Norms

! " # # $% 004/2009. SpeedExtractor E-916

GC/MS BATCH NUMBER: S30103

No adulterants, diluents, or contaminants were detected via this method. Conforms to ranges found in the literature. Extra caution should be taken

EXTRACTION OF SEDIMENTS FOR AROMATIC AND CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS

Determination of Pesticide Residues in Red Wine

Investigating the factors influencing hop aroma in beer

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

No adulterants, diluents, or contaminants were detected via this method.

Fermentation-derived aroma compounds and grape-derived monoterpenes

Beyond TPH. John Fitzgerald Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Research Article Analysis of Volatile Flavor Compounds of Jujube Brandy by GC-MS and GC-O Combined with SPME

Good Brett and other urban Brettanomyces myths

Custom Barrel Profiling

AppNote 13/2012. Automated Solid Phase Extraction (SPE)-LC-MS/MS Method for the Determination of Acrylamide in Brewed Coffee Samples KEYWORDS ABSTRACT

IF YOU DRINK, SMOKE AND EAT CHOCOLATE YOU DON T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WORMS

No adulterants, diluents, or contaminants were detected via this method. Total Italidione level 4-5%.

Inhibition of the Decrease of Volatile Esters and Terpenes During Storage of Wines and a Model Wine Medium by Wine Phenolic Extracts

STUDIES ON THE ANALYTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WINES OBTAINED FROM VINE VARIETY WITH BIOLOGICAL RESISTANT

PROFICIENCY TESTING PROGRAMS BEVERAGES

Transcription:

SPRAY-DRIED OF SICILIAN NERO D'AVOLA WINES, EVALUATION OF THE AROMATIC AND PHENOLIC PROFILES BY MASS SPECTROMETRIC TECHNIQUES Giuseppe Avellone a, Andrea Salvo b,c, Rosaria Costa b,c, Emanuele Saija b,c, David Bongiorno a, Vita Di Stefano a, Giorgio Calabrese d, Giacomo Dugo a b. a Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Biologiche Chimiche e Farmaceutiche (STEBICEF), Università di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, Parco d Orleans II, 9128 Palermo, Italy b Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Odontoiatriche, e delleimmagini Morfologichee Funzionali(Biomorf), University of Messina, Viale Annunziata, 98168 Messina, Italy c Science4Life s.r.l., a spin-off of the University of Messina, Messina, Italy d Dipartimento di Scienze Agrariee Forestali, Universita' degli Studidi Torino, Via Verdi 8, 1124 Torino, Italy

INTRODUCTION Spray-drying falls within the group of microencapsulation technologies, including spray-chilling, fluidized-bed coating, extruding, lyophilisation, coacervation, among others(desai& Park, 25; Nedovic et al., 211). It finds wide application in food industry since decades, basically due to its cheapness, flexibility, robustness, efficiency. Based on a simple definition, encapsulation is a technique which entraps particles (usually bioactive compounds) within a wall material, working as a shell or matrix. The products of such a technological process are microcapsules with diameters comprised in the range of mm mm, generally containing active ingredients. More specifically, spray-drying is a technological process where a liquid is atomized through a hot gas (air or nitrogen) current, becoming consequently a powder(gharsallaoui et al., 27).

INTRODUCTION Mainly because of the water removal from food commodities, numerous are the advantages derived from spray-drying: i) reduction of microbiological decay events; ii) instantaneous solubilisation of spray-dried products (improved product s handling); iii) decrease of transport costs due to consistent volume reduction of powdered products( green feature of the technology); iv) protection of the core material against environmental factors (i.e. moisture, light, oxygen); v) improvement of organoleptic properties of a food (e.g. masking bitterness of an ingredient by coating it with a wall material having a pleasant taste); vi) elimination of cross reactions between more ingredients.

INTRODUCTION A key role in a successful spray-drying procedure is played by the wall material chosen as encapsulating agent; the latter must be able to protect the capsule content, to be stable over time and to avoid interaction with the outer environment. Encapsulation technologies are utilized not only in food industry, but also in other fields(e.g. dried detergents reconstituted upon use). A variety of synthetic polymers is available as wall material; however, this list is definitely restricted when the spray-dried product is destined to food consumption. Commonly, carbohydrates (starches, syrup solids, maltodextrins, pectins), gums (gum Arabic, mesquite gum) or milk proteins are employed as wall material(gharsallaoui et al., 27).

AIM Nero d Avola wines produced in Sicily(Italy) were investigated in order to: i) elucidate the aromatic composition by means of HS-SPME coupled with SPME-GC/MS; ii) assess the polyphenolic content by UHPLC tandem mass spectrometry; iii) compare the results obtained from both the screenings with those relative to the same wines, but preliminarily subjected to spray-drying processing. The purpose was basically to determine if and how microencapsulation affects the quality of Nero d Avola wine as concerns its volatile composition and phenolic profile.

SAMPLES AND METHODS Commercial Nero d Avola wines (geographical indication) were from the brand Conte di Matarocco, Terre Siciliane and produced by Cantine Paolini(Sicily, Italy). Spray-drying condition For spray-drying procedures, a Mini Spray Dryer B-29 (Büchi, Cornaredo, Italy), was exploited. A 2 ml aliquot of wine (12% v/v ethanol) was added with 4 g of maltodextrin * in a screw capped conical flask, and homogenized for 15 min ca, at room temperature (19-2 C) until complete dissolution. Inlet and outlet temperatures(nitrogen) were 15 and 65 C, respectively; Feed flow rate was set at 18% of the maximum tolerated by the instrument. Drying rate was approximatelyof5mlofwineper1min. Theyieldwasestimatedas82%w/vca. * Maltodextrin (dextrose equivalent 13.-17.)

Solid-Phase Microextraction For SPME extraction, four different fiber coatings were used: divinylbenzene/carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane(dvb/car/pdms,5/3um), carbowax/divinylbenzene(cw/dvb, 7 um), carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane(car/pdms, 85 um), polydimethylsiloxane(pdms, um). In order to assess the best extraction time for each fiber several preliminary tests at increasing times(5, 1, 15 and 2 min) were evaluated, it was determined that 15 min was suitable to obtain equilibrium and to reproduce the extraction procedure. 4 ml of wine, whether untreated or re-solubilized, were added with.6 g of NaCland 1 ul of a 2 ppm solution of internal standard (1-hexan-d13-ol) and placed in a 8 ml amber glass. Spray-dried wines were re-solubilized by dissolving 2 g of powdered wine in 1 ml of an ethanol/water (12:88, v/v) solution. Wine samples were pre-conditioned at 35 C for 3 min and under agitation (25 rpm); successively

GC-MS A Focus GC- DSQ II gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer (Thermo, CA, USA) equipped with a 3 m.25 mm i.d..25 um film thickness ZB-WAX column (Phenomenex, CA, USA) was used. The oven temperature programme was from 4 C(3 min) at 1 C/min to 25 C, hold 2 min. Gas flow rate (He) was.8 ml/min. Injection took place in splitless mode(3min)andatatemperatureof25 C. Data were acquired in the electron impact (EI) mode with an ionisation voltage of7ev,usingfullscanionmonitoring foramassrange35-4m/z. Component assignment was based on computer matching with the WILEY 7 and NIST 2 mass spectral libraries; and on comparison with data retrieved from literature The relative amounts of volatiles (semiquantitative analysis) were obtained by multiplying the area ratio of target compound/internal standard by the concentration(ug/l) of the internal standard.

HS-SPME-GC/MS (TIC) fingerprints of untreated wine samples extracted by means of four different fiber coatings RT:. - 26.3 Relative Abundance 8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 8.24 3.89 3.79 3.12 11.51 14.53 8.6 17.18 6.42 6.77 1.17.12 1.62 2.81 4.23 12.81 14.6 15.83 17.1 18.85 2.94 22.94 24.4 25. 8.22.18.29.17 3.12 3.86 8.6 11.51 1.17 17.18 6.78 5.34 6.34 14.6 2.94 1.62 2.81 7.7 9.45 12.81 14.79 15.83 18.86 21.76 24.31 25.4 8.22 3.14 3.78 3.91 1.17 14.53 8.6 6.33 6.78 11.51 17.18 1.63 4.23 9.24 12.8 12.79 15.35 18.85 2.94 23.21 24.26 25.3 8.26 1.62 3.9 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 22 24 26 Time (min) 14.53 14.53 11.47 17.18 1.17 1.28 3.1 12.6 14.4 2.94 4.2 6.45 6.71 14.74 16.81 18.85 22. 24.3 25.2 NL: 1.6E9 TIC MS vino_pdms_ um NL: 1.72E9 TIC MS Vino_DVB- CAR- PDMS_5-3um_1531 9134646 NL: 1.77E9 TIC MS vino_carxe N- PDMS_85um NL: 1.48E9 TIC MS vino_carwa X-DVB_7um

HS-SPME-GC/MS (TIC) chromatograms of spray-dried wines after resolubilization, extracted by different fibers RT:. - 26.3 8 6 4 3.84 NL: 1.11E9 TIC MS vinoliofilizzato_1 2%EtOH_PDMS _um Relative Abundance 2 8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2 8 6 4 2.18 1.63 3.12 4.99 7.5 7.74 8.17 8.75 1.15 11.5 14.5 14.51 17.17 17.62 2.38 2.93 22.94 24.99 3.81 1.63.14.14 8.17 1.17 2.82 3.14 4.99 7.8 7.72 9.24 1.27 12.2 12.4 14.53 16.81 17.17 17.62 2.56 2.93 23.2 24.3 24.99 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 22 24 26 Time (min) NL: 9.93E8 TIC MS vinoliofilizzato_1 2%EtOH_DVB- CAR-PDMS_5-3um 1.15 8.16 14.53 7.72 12.2 17.17 2.81 3.12 4.99 7.7 9.24 11.5 12.4 16.36 17.62 2.56 2.93 22.94 24.29 25.54 3.88 NL: 1.2E9 TIC MS vinoliofilizzato_1 2%EtOH_CAR WAX- DVB_7um 14.52 17.18 8.27 1.18 17.62 12.1 12.87 16.81 2.38 2.93 1.96 3.15 4.45 6.82 7.67 14.74 22.94 24.29 25.54 3.89 NL: 1.25E9 TIC MS vinoliofilizzato_1 2%EtOH_CARB OXEN- PDMS_85um

HS-SPME-GC-MS COMPOSITION OF WINE SAMPLES 1/4 DVB/Car/PDMS CW/DVB Car/PDMS PDMS Nr. Compound Odour threshold* (mg/l) Neat wine (mg/l) Spray-dried wine (mg/l) Neat wine (mg/l) Spray-dried wine (mg/l) Neat wine (mg/l) Spray-dried wine (mg/l) Neat wine (mg/l) Spray-dried wine (mg/l) 1 Acetaldehyde 12.82.29.16.396.212.159.53.69 2 Dimethyl sulfide 1.2 n.f. n.f. n.f..12 n.f. n.f. n.f. 3 Ethyl formate N/A.24.2 n.f. n.f..98.69.151.82 4 Ethyl acetate 7,5 12.175.52 4.227.228 19.784 1.293 37.658 1.652 5 Ethanol, 59.592 47.565 336.841 218.823 59.286 66.78 29.549 315.751 6 Ethyl propanoate 1.322 n.f. n.f. n.f..28 n.f..677 n.f. 7 Ethyl isobutyrate.1 1.8 n.f..381 n.f..453 n.f. 2.448 n.f. 8 2,3-Butanedione.86.45.41.29.249.118.114.78.167 9 Ethyl butyrate 1,6.877 n.f..314 n.f..49 n.f. 2.126 n.f. 1 1-Propanol 5,.253.175.175.131.351.135.36.164 11 Succinic acid, butyl propyl ester N/A.45 n.f. n.f. n.f..37 n.f. n.f. n.f. 12 Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate 18.392 n.f..126 n.f..233 n.f..881 n.f. 13 Ethyl isovalerate 3.596.16.155 n.f..277.4 1.359 n.f. 14 2-Methylbutyl acetate 5 n.f..2 n.f. n.f. n.f..24 n.f. n.f. 15 Isobutanol 4, 1.314.45 1.885.73.792.61 4.419.22 16 2,2,6-Trimethyl-6-vinyltetrahydropyran N/A.9 n.f. n.f. n.f..41 n.f. n.f. n.f. 17 Isoamyl acetate 3 3.27.78.734.65 1.63.65 5.537.339 18 Ethyl valerate 5.24.16 n.f..171 n.f..24.41.147 19 1-Butanol 15,.61 n.f. n.f. n.f..73 n.f..167 n.f. 2 Sulfur dioxide N/A n.f. n.f..612 2.228 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 21 Limonene 2 n.f..69 n.d..94 n.f. n.f..131.159 22 Isoamyl alcohol 3, 37.32 2.436 63.522 3.643 26.891 2.236 93.873 5.54 23 Ethyl hexanoate 14 7.356.126 2.574.155 3.59.29 12.199.392 24 2,4-Hexadienoic acid, ethyl ester (2E,4E)- N/A n.f..12 n.f..57 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. Compounds in bold are odour active Values are means of triplicate analyses. n.f. = not found. N/A = not available. *Values retrieved from references Tao & Zhang, 21; Verzera et al., 216; L.J. van Gemert, 211.

HS-SPME-GC-MS COMPOSITION OF WINE SAMPLES 2/4 25 (1E,2E)-Dipropenylcyclobutane N/A n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f..2 n.f. n.f. n.f. 26 Isoamyl butyrate N/A n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f..65 n.f. 27 Hexyl acetate 1,5.49 n.f..12 n.f. n.f. n.f..73 n.f. 28 Octanal.7 n.f..65.126.53 n.f..69.494.122 29 Acetoin 8.56 n.f..388.265.481 n.f. n.f. n.f. 3 3-Hexenoic acid, ethyl ester N/A.29 n.f..8 n.f. n.f. n.f..53 n.f. 31 4-Methyl-1-pentanol 5,.12 n.f..49 n.f..16 n.f..29 n.f. 32 2-Heptanol 3 n.f. n.f..12 n.f..16 n.f. n.f. n.f. 33 3-Methyl-1-pentanol 2.2.61 n.f..73 n.f..45 n.f..86 n.f. 34 Ethyl heptanoate 2.2.53 n.f..24 n.f..12 n.f..151 n.f. 35 Ethyl lactate 14, 1.852.592 6.173 2.444 1.962.96 2.844.71 36 1-Hexanol 8, 1.355.147 1.163.94 1.518.24 1.42.11 37 (3E)-Hexen-1-ol 4 n.f. n.f..37 n.f. n.f..61.24 n.f. 38 (3Z)-Hexen-1-ol 4 n.f. n.f..151 n.f. n.f. n.f..98 n.f. 39 Methyl octanoate 2.11.16.69 n.f..29 n.f..131 n.f. 4 Nonanal 1.82.24.53.351.2 n.f..351.947 41 Carbon disulfide N/A.24 n.f. n.f. n.f..16 n.f. n.f. n.f. 42 Ethyl octanoate 5 11.61.518 1.526 1.293 1.991.167 23.427 2.574 43 1-Octen-3-ol 1 n.f. n.f..24 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 44 1-Heptanol 3.22.29.151.41.118 n.f..24.61 45 Isoamyl hexanoate N/A n.f. n.f..16 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 46 Furfural 14,.347.184.12.143.241.151.82 n.f. 47 Acetic acid N/A n.f. n.f. 8.315 9.621 1.44.36 n.f. n.f. 48 2-Propyl-1-pentanol N/A.926.849 1.514 4.292.461.714 1.195.991 49 3-Ethyl-4-methylpentanol N/A.11 n.f..118 n.f..82 n.f..18 n.f. 5 Ethyl nonanoate N/A n.f..9 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f..265 n.f. 51 2,3-Butanediol 12,.94 n.f..894 1.86.69.45.24 n.f. 52 Linalool 25.257.73.241.28.147.53.29 n.f. 53 n-octyl formate N/A.28.16.228.94.78 n.f..294 n.f. Compounds in bold are odour active Values are means of triplicate analyses. n.f. = not found. N/A = not available. *Values retrieved from references Tao & Zhang, 21; Verzera et al., 216; L.J. van Gemert, 211.

HS-SPME-GC-MS COMPOSITION OF WINE SAMPLES 3/4 54 Isoamyl lactate 2.277.24.437 n.f..18.2.424 n.f. 55 b-ionone.9 n.f. n.f..241.6.24.2.29 n.f. 56 Hexadecane N/A n.f..33 n.f. n.f..57.24 n.f..473 57 Propylene Glycol N/A.57 n.f..457.318 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 58 n-nonylcyclohexane N/A n.f..33 n.f..98 n.f. n.f. n.f..286 59 Terpinen-4-ol 11 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f..12 n.f. n.f. 6 Diethylene Glycol ethyl ether N/A n.f. n.f..126.192 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 61 2-Furancarboxylic acid, ethyl ester N/A.98.4.16.12.24 n.f..86 n.f. 62 Ethyl decanoate 2 1.8.33 1.518 1.489.216.37 2.615 2.89 63 Dihydro-2(3H)-furanone 5,.53.24.29.416.41.49.37.65 64 Butanoic acid 24.294.49.477.249.12.37.42.171 65 Furfuryl alcohol 2, n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f..49.65 n.f. n.f. 66 Diethyl succinate 2, 11.167 2.85 17.67 11.187 2.354.588 2.24 6.45 67 Ethyl dec-(9e)-enoate n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f..53 n.f. 68 2-Methylhexanoic acid N/A n.f..33.69.412.94.45.139 n.f. 69 a-terpineol 33.359.12.326 n.f..94.33.343.73 7 Ethyl decanoate 2 n.f..12 n.f..49 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 71 3-(Methylthio)-1-propanol 1,.65.12.49.253.37.12.147 n.f. 72 Diethyl glutarate N/A.37 n.f..126.37.12 n.f..53 n.f. 73 Methyl salicylate n.f. n.f..131 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 74 Phenylethyl acetate 25.48.114.49.69.78 n.f..457.269 75 b-damascenone.5.22.49.559.286.49.12.53.131 76 Ethyl dodecanoate 1,5 n.f..212 n.f. 1.253 n.f..8 n.f. 1.636 77 Hexanoic acid 2,.192.37.563.68.114.29.56.167 78 Benzyl alcohol 2,.277.86.849 1.2.94.45.359.2 79 Butanedioic acid, ethyl-3-methylbutyl ester N/A.249.2.457.143.37.8.514.11 8 Phenethyl alcohol 14, 4.366 1.314 1.987 18.58 1.261.592 7.76 3.586 81 1-Dodecanol 1,.73.661.94 6.426.5.49.122 3.794 82 Diethylene glycol N/A.151.53.73.73.53.2 n.f..41 Compounds in bold are odour active Values are means of triplicate analyses. n.f. = not found. N/A = not available. *Values retrieved from references Tao & Zhang, 21; Verzera et al., 216; L.J. van Gemert, 211.

HS-SPME-GC-MS COMPOSITION OF WINE SAMPLES 4/4 83 Ethyl tetradecanoate 2, n.f. n.f. n.f..783 n.f. n.f. n.f..68 84 Octanoic acid 5.571.61 1.195.857.12.24 1.71.412 85 4-Hexyl-2,5-dihydro-2,5-dioxo-3- N/A.82.33.245.343 n.f. n.f..196.326 furanacetic acid 86 Hexadecanal 4,5 n.f. n.f..24 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 87 1-hexadecanol N/A n.f. n.f. n.f..437 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 88 4-Ethylphenol 44 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f..4 n.f. n.f. n.f. 89 Nonanoic acid 3, n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f..12.4.294.139 9 Ethyl palmitate 1,5.37.57.98 1.612 n.f. n.f..282 1.89 91 Decanoic acid 1,.78 n.f..94 n.f..8 n.f..269 n.f. 92 2,4-di-t-Butylphenol 2 1.579.555 3.195 4.38.514.253 3.554 2.86 93 Dodecanoic acid 1, n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f..241.159 94 Tetradecanoic acid 1,.143.29 n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 95 Octadecanoic acid 2, n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. n.f. 2.63.322 96 9-Octadecenoic acid N/A.29 n.f..71.53 n.f..24 5.271.955 TOTAL 164.11 59.78 485.31 298.89 128.68 75.61 452.82 356.58 Compounds in bold are odour active Values are means of triplicate analyses. n.f. = not found. N/A = not available. *Values retrieved from references Tao & Zhang, 21; Verzera et al., 216; L.J. van Gemert, 211. Precision of SPME-GC-MS method was evaluated by measurement of RSD% relative to three replicates for each sample and preliminary tests to be analyzed: values obtainedwereintherange.5-7.6%,withanaveragersd%of3.4%.

DVB/Car/PDMS (neat wine),11%,14% 1,58%,59%,49%,74% aldehydes esters alcohols sulphur 46,15% 5,22% ketones other acids terpenoids,74% 1,97% 2,1% DVB/Car/PDMS (spray-dried wine),1% 1,% 3,94% aldehydes esters alcohols sulphur ketones other 51,97% 38,28% acids terpenoids

UHPLC-MS/MS The LC-MS-MS system was a UHPLC (Dionex UltiMate 3 Rapid Separation LC) system by Thermo Fischer Scientific equipped with an autosampler and controlled by Chromeleon 7.2 software, by Thermo Fisher (Bremen, DE) and Dionex Softron GmbH (Germering, DE). The UHPLC system was coupled to a quadrupole Orbitrap mass spectrometer (Q Exactive) (Thermo Scientific, Germany), equipped HESI ion source. The HESI conditions were: sheath gas flow rate 35 (arbitrary units); auxiliary gas unit flow rate 4 (arbitrary units); sweep gas flow rate 7 (arbitrary units); spray voltage 3,5kV; S lens RF level 3; capillary temperature 25 C; auxiliary gas heater temperature 25 C. The UHPLC column was a Phenomenex Luna C18 (2) 5x1mm, 2.5μm. The column temperature was set at 35 C and the injection volume at 1. µl. Mobile phase composition: formic acid/water.1% v/v (eluent A), acetonitrile (eluent B), at a flow rate of 5 μl min-1. The gradient was: 2 min, 5% B; 2 4.5 min, linear increase to 1% B; 4.5 16 min, linear increase to 25% B; 16 29 min, linear increase to 95% B; 29 3 min, hold 95% B; 3 31 min, linear decrease5%b;31 33min,hold5%B. The MS was operated in electrospray negative mode and the analyses were conducted in two acquisitions modes: Full-Scan and SIM. The resolution power in full scan was 35. FWHM (at m/z 2) and the scan range was -8 m/z. Scan rate was 2 scan s-1 and the automatic gain control(agc) target was set at 1e 5 ions for a maximum injection time of 2 ms. The quadrupole s isolation windowwas1m/z.

PHENOLIC CONTENT A targeted qualitative screening of the polyphenolic fraction was carried out by means of LC-ESI( )-MS analysis. Measured masses of target analytes have been reported in table. Compound Measuredmass [M-H] - Formula MW Resveratrol 227.7137 C 14 H 12 O 3 228 Myricetin 317.329 C 15 H 1 O 8 318 Catechin 289.7176 C 15 H 14 O 6 29 Gallic acid 169.1425 C 7 H 6 O 5 17 Ferulic acid 193.563 C 1 H 1 O 4 194 Caffeic acid 179.3498 C 9 H 8 O 4 18 Measured masses by using LC-ESI quadrupole Orbitrap mass spectrometer (negative ionization).

PHENOLIC CONTENT Comparison of the pholyphenolic profiles of untreated and spray-dried wines has been evidenced in figures. Selected ion monitoring allowed to achieve the determination of seven phenolic compounds in both the types of samples investigated. More specifically, three carboxylic acids (gallic, caffeic and ferulic acids), one stilbene (trans-resveratrol), two flavanols (catechin and epicatechin) and one flavonoid (myricetin), were detected. RT:. - 33. SM: 3G 5 6.88 gallic acid NL: 1.58E5 169.1169-169.1338 ms [168.51-169.51] MS vino_1 Relative Abundance 5 5 5 5 5 2.92 2.84 3. 3.11 3.27 3.43 3.63 catechin caffeic acid ferulic acid 12.14 12.31 11.97 myricetin 14.3 14.16 13.91 14.45 resveratrol 13.76 13.88 14.62 15.5 16.99 18.47 21.9 21.73 23.42 25.66 3.38 31.14 14.17 21.73 22.3 21.65 18.39 21.52 22.24 28.45 29.17 2. 22.41 17.46 17.59 23.43 24.94 26.13 26.51 21.3 21.33 21.46 21.75 22.93 23.6 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 22 24 26 28 3 32 Time (min) 2.82 2.53 epicatechin 31.1 NL: 1.7E4 179.3287-179.3466 ms [178.53-179.53] MS vino_1 NL: 4.3E3 193.4887-193.58 ms [192.55-193.55] MS vino_1 NL: 7.71E4 227.647-227.6634 ms [226.57-227.57] MS vino_1 NL: 6.9E4 289.6974-289.7263 ms [288.57-289.57] MS vino_1 NL: 1.97E4 317.3176-317.3493 ms [316.53-317.53] MS vino_1 HPLC-ESI-MS (SIM) chromatograms of phenolics determined in samples of untreated wines.

PHENOLIC CONTENT This led to the assumption that the microencapsulation process didn t affect the qualitative composition of the polyphenolic fraction. Although only a rough screening was carried out in this study, by comparing the signal intensities of target analytes, it might be supposed that the amounts of phenolics are quite similar in both neat and spray-dried samples. All the polyphenols determined in this study were previously reported for Nero d Avola wines. Each standard was injected 5 times consecutively, at one concentration level (namely 1 ppm) and repeatability assessed through RSD% (on average 2.5%). RT:. - 33. SM: 3G Relative Abundance 5 5 5 5 5 5 2.92 3. 3.12 3.28 3.48 3.55 catechin 6.74 6.82 7.7 7.48 caffeic acid ferulic acid 12.4 myricetin 12.12 13.84 13.96 14.13 resveratrol 14.3 13.81 13.69 13.9 14.56 14.93 14.19 gallic acid 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 2 22 24 26 28 3 32 Time (min) 18.11 18.24 21.83 18.49 21.61 22.3 18.71 21.39 23.15 26.28 27.38 21.33 21.2 21.3 2.69 epicatechin 21.5 22.53 23. 32.64 25.75 28.38 NL: 9.75E5 169.1169-169.1338 ms [168.51-169.51] MS vino_2 NL: 9.37E4 179.3287-179.3466 ms [178.53-179.53] MS vino_2 NL: 1.2E4 193.4923-193.5116 ms [192.55-193.55] MS vino_2 NL: 7.88E4 227.647-227.6634 ms [226.57-227.57] MS vino_2 NL: 3.96E5 289.6974-289.7263 ms [288.57-289.57] MS vino_2 NL: 2.22E4 317.3176-317.3493 ms [316.53-317.53] MS vino_2 HPLC-ESI-MS (SIM) profiles of phenolic compounds present in resolubilizedspray-dried wine samples.

CONCLUSIONS Microencapsulation techniques are becoming widespread in food and beverage industry, in consideration of their numerous advantages, some of them being preservation from microbial and environmental contamination, elimination of interferences, concentration of bioactive ingredients. In this study, red wines from the cultivar Nero d Avola were subjected to spray-drying technology and successively analyzed by GC/MS and LC/MS, for the assessment of the volatile and phenolic composition. The purpose of the study was basically to evaluate if the spray-drying process somehow affects the important components of aroma and phenolics. The results here obtained evidenced a marked reduction of odour active compounds in microencapsulated wines, after resolubilization in water/ethanol; when considering the total amount of volatiles a twofold reduction was observed. Conversely, the qualitative analysis of polyphenols showed no influence of the spray-drying process on these functional constituents, thus confirming the efficiency of microencapsulation in the isolation and concentration of bioactive molecules. The results here presented give a hint for the development of a sustainable wine product, namely a wine powder, which could be exported worldwide with a considerable cost reduction due to the elimination of the liquid volume. Prior to selling/consumption, the wine powder can be safely reconstituted as normal wine through the addition of a hydroalcoholic solution. The final product, as shown in this report, might have a slightly poorer aroma, but would certainly remain a wine of acceptable quality.

2024 © cuisinedocbox.com Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Feedback