4.5 Article

Resolution of volatile fuel compound profiles from Ascocoryne sarcoides: a comparison by proton transfer reaction-mass spectrometry and solid phase microextraction gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

期刊

AMB EXPRESS
卷 2, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGEROPEN
DOI: 10.1186/2191-0855-2-23

关键词

Biofuel; Solid phase microextraction; Proton transfer reaction-mass spectrometry; Volatile organic compounds; Fungal hydrocarbons; Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry

资金

  1. National Science Foundation (NSF) Emerging Frontiers in Research and Innovation (EFRI) [0937613]
  2. Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport Systems (CBET) [0802666]
  3. NSF Integrated Graduate and Education Research Traineeship (IGERT) Program
  4. Directorate For Engineering [0937613] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Volatile hydrocarbon production by Ascocoryne sacroides was studied over its growth cycle. Gas-phase compounds were measured continuously with a proton transfer reaction-mass spectrometry (PTR-MS) and at distinct time points with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) using head space solid phase microextraction (SPME). The PTR-MS ion signal permitted temporal resolution of the volatile production while the SPME results revealed distinct compound identities. The quantitative PTR-MS results showed the volatile production was dominated by ethanol and acetaldehyde, while the concentration of the remainder of volatiles consistently reached 2,000 ppbv. The measurement of alcohols from the fungal culture by the two techniques correlated well. Notable compounds of fuel interest included nonanal, 1-octen-3-ol, 1-butanol, 3-methyl- and benzaldehyde. Abiotic comparison of the two techniques demonstrated SPME fiber bias toward higher molecular weight compounds, making quantitative efforts with SPME impractical. Together, PTR-MS and SPME GC-MS were shown as valuable tools for characterizing volatile fuel compound production from microbiological sources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据