4.7 Article

Direct accurate analysis of cysteinylated and glutathionylated precursors of 4-mercapto-4-methyl-2-pentanone and 3-mercaptohexan-1-ol in must by ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 812, 期 -, 页码 250-257

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2014.01.004

关键词

Precursor; Grape; Cysteine; Glutathione; Aroma; Liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry

资金

  1. Programa Europa de estancias de investigacion (Caja de Ahorros de la Inmaculada y el Gobierno de Aragon)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A direct method for the quantitative determination in grapes of four known precursors of the varietal aromas of the thiol character of wine has been optimized and validated. A small volume of centrifuged and filtered must is directly injected in the ultrahigh liquid performance chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry system (UHPLC-MS-MS). Must sugars and other early eluting polar compounds are diverted to the waste, not entering the ion source. Cysteinyl (CYS) and glutathionyl ( GLU) precursors from 3-mercaptohexanol (3MH) and 4-mercapto-4-methylpentanone (4M4MP) are separated in 5 min rendering narrow peaks (W-1/2 <9 s). No system performance degradation has been noticed in series of more than 200 injections. A standard addition procedure using the consecutive injection of a spiked sample made it possible to satisfactorily correct for matrix effects, with recoveries very close to 100% in all cases. Intermediate reproducibility was satisfactory (RSD between 1 and 10%), except for the glutathione-4-mercapto-4methyl-2-pentanone ( GLUMP) precursor, for which this value is around 20%. The limits of detection in real-must were below 1 mu g L-1 for the precursors of the 4M4MP and for cysteine-3-mercaptohexan- 1 -ol (CYSMH) and glutathione-3-mercaptohexan-1-ol (GLUMH), 2 and 7 mu g L-1, respectively, what is enough for the determination of these precursors in musts of any variety. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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