Cookies

Like most websites The Analytical Scientist uses cookies. In order to deliver a personalized, responsive service and to improve the site, we remember and store information about how you use it. Learn more.

Determination of Phenolic compounds in Whisky using SBSE-GC/MS and LVI-GC/MS

Abstract

In this study, a method was developed for quantitative determination of seven phenolic compounds in scotch whisky. Two different whisky brands were analyzed by Stir Bar Sorptive Extraction (SBSE), based on novel EG-Silicone Twisters, combined with thermal desorptiongas chromatography-mass spectrometry (TD-GC-MS).

Direct Large Volume Injection (LVI) -GC-MS was used as reference method. Optimized methods for LVI-GC-MS and SBSE-TD-GC-MS analysis were used for quantitative determination of the target compounds: phenol, o-,m-, and p-cresol, guaiacol, 4-ethylguaiacol, and 4-ethylphenol. Both methods were evaluated regarding linearity of calibration, reproducibility, and limits of detection (LOD), or limits of quantifi cation (LOQ), for the target compounds. These values were calculated for pure whisky (40 % v/v, ethanol/ water). Target compound LODs for the SBSE-TD-GC-MS method range from 1.2 ng/mL (guaiacol) to 6.9 ng/mL (4-ethylguaiacol) based on extraction of 5 mL ethanol/water sample. LODs of LVI-GC-MS range from 90 ng/mL (phenol) to 210 ng/mL (4-ethylguaiacol) based on injection of 20 μL ethanol/water sample. Coeffi cients of determination (R²) for the calibration curves were found to be higher than 0.999 for the SBSE-based method and between 0.991 and 0.999 for the LVI method. Recoveries of phenolic compounds in ethanol/water matrix using the EGSilicone Twister were calculated to be between 12.2 % (guaiacol) and 56.8 % (4-ethylguaiacol) with relative standard deviations from 4.2 % to 8.9 %. Comparable quantitative results were achieved using SBSE and LVI to determine concentrations of target compounds in two different whisky brands. Relative standard deviations ranged from 0.8 to 5.4 % for SBSE and 1.6 to 6.2 % for LVI. For GC separation a fast narrow-bore column FFAP was chosen. An MS deconvolution software (IFD™ mass spectral deconvolution algorithms) was applied for quantifi cation of coeluting analytes and analytes masked by matrix.

Enjoy our FREE content!

Log in or register to read this article in full and gain access to The Analytical Scientist’s entire content archive. It’s FREE and always will be!

Login if you already created an account

Or register now - it’s free and always will be!

You will benefit from:

  • Unlimited access to ALL articles
  • News, interviews & opinions from leading industry experts
  • Receive print (and PDF) copies of The Analytical Scientist magazine
Register

Or Login as a Guest or via Social Media

Related Application Notes

μ-PrepCell™ SS Reduction of S-S Bonds

| Contributed by Antec Scientific

Comprehensive guide to 2D Gas Chromatography (GCxGC)

| Contributed by SepSolve Analytical

Reaction monitoring of Antibody-Drug-Conjugates (ADCs) Using YMC´s BioPro HIC BF

| Contributed by YMC

Newsletter

Send me the latest from The Analytical Scientist.

Sign up now

Related Articles

Landmark Literature 2018: Part II

Landmark Literature 2018: Part I

| Michael Witting, M Farooq Wahab

A Day to Remember

| Victoria Samanidou

Most Popular

Register here

Register to access our FREE online portfolio, request the magazine in print and manage your preferences.

You will benefit from:

  • Unlimited access to ALL articles
  • News, interviews & opinions from leading industry experts
  • Receive print (and PDF) copies of The Analytical Scientist magazine

Register