4.4 Article

Evaluation of needle trap micro-extraction and solid-phase micro-extraction: Obtaining comprehensive information on volatile emissions from in vitro cultures

Journal

BIOMEDICAL CHROMATOGRAPHY
Volume 32, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bmc.4285

Keywords

bacterial cultures; needle trap micro-extraction; solid-phase micro-extraction; Trace gas analysis; volatile organic compound

Funding

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [RE 1098/4-1RE 1098/4-2SCHU 1960/-2SCHU 1960/4-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emitted from in vitro cultures may reveal information on species and metabolism. Owing to low nmol L-1 concentration ranges, pre-concentration techniques are required for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) based analyses. This study was intended to compare the efficiency of established micro-extraction techniques - solid-phase micro-extraction (SPME) and needle-trap micro-extraction (NTME) - for the analysis of complex VOC patterns. For SPME, a 75 mu m Carboxen (R)/polydimethylsiloxane fiber was used. The NTME needle was packed with divinylbenzene, Carbopack X and Carboxen 1000. The headspace was sampled bi-directionally. Seventy-two VOCs were calibrated by reference standard mixtures in the range of 0.041-62.24 nmol L-1 by means of GC-MS. Both pre-concentration methods were applied to profile VOCs from cultures of Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis. Limits of detection ranged from 0.004 to 3.93 nmol L-1 (median = 0.030 nmol L-1) for NTME and from 0.001 to 5.684 nmol L-1 (median = 0.043 nmol L-1) for SPME. NTME showed advantages in assessing polar compounds such as alcohols. SPME showed advantages in reproducibility but disadvantages in sensitivity for N-containing compounds. Micro-extraction techniques such as SPME and NTME are well suited for trace VOC profiling over cultures if the limitations of each technique is taken into account.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available