Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF TEXAS DALLAS
New Analytical Methods
Rapid quantitation of 12 volatile aldehyde compounds in wine by LCQQQ-MS: A combined measure of free and hydrogen-sulfite bound forms Xinyi Zhang, Nikolaos Kontoudakis, and Andrew C. Clark J. Agric. Food Chem., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.8b07021 • Publication Date (Web): 27 Feb 2019 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on March 10, 2019
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
1
Rapid quantitation of 12 volatile aldehyde compounds in wine by LC-
2
QQQ-MS: A combined measure of free and hydrogen-sulfite bound
3
forms
4
Xinyi Zhang*†ǂ, Nikolaos Kontoudakis†ǂ, Andrew C. Clark†ǂ
5 6
†
National Wine and Grape Industry Centre, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia
7
ǂ
School of Agricultural and Wine Sciences, Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga,
8
NSW 2678, Australia
9 10
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +612-6933-4082
11
E-mail address:
[email protected] 12 13
Other author email addresses:
[email protected] (X. Zhang),
[email protected] (N.
14
Kontoudakis),
[email protected] (A.C. Clark).
15
1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
16
Page 2 of 28
Abstract
17 18
This work outlines a rapid novel methodology for the direct quantitation of 12 volatile aldehyde
19
compounds related to oxidative off-flavours in wine, by measuring the combined free and hydrogen
20
sulfite-bound forms of each aldehyde compounds, comprising of four general aldehydes, four Strecker
21
aldehydes and four (E)-2-alkenals. The methodology requires minimal preparation of wine samples: the
22
addition of internal standards and 6 g/L sulfur dioxide, and filtration prior to quantitation by liquid
23
chromatography-triple quadrupole-mass spectrometer. Overall, the limit of detection, limit of
24
quantification, accuracy (recovery, 82% – 119%) and precision (repeatability and reproducibility, RSD
25
≤ 10%) were satisfactory to enable routine measurement of the 12 aldehyde compounds in wine. The
26
methodology was applied to 20 commercial white and red wines from various varieties and vintages. A
27
general trend of higher concentrations of the aldehyde compounds in white wines compared to red
28
wines was observed.
29 30 31
Keywords: wine, oxidation, volatile aldehyde compounds, sulfur dioxide
32
2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 3 of 28
33
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Introduction
34 35
Oxygen can greatly influence the development of wine. Adequate oxygen supply is critical for fault-
36
free fermentation,1 and can influence aroma evolution,2 colour stabilization3,4 and astringency
37
reduction5,6 during ageing. Excessive oxygen exposure leads to an increased risk of microbial and
38
chemical spoilage, including wine oxidation.1 Oxidized wine is characterised by colour and aroma
39
deterioration,7-9 such as the formation of brown pigments,10 the loss of desirable fruity attributes,11,12
40
and the generation of undesirable oxidation-related odorants, such as carbonyl compounds, especial
41
aldehydes.9 Depending on their molecular structure and concentration,13 aldehydes can give either
42
pleasant or undesirable nuances to wine, generally described as hay, old wood,7 papery, fusel,14 farm-
43
feed and cooked vegetables.15 Acetaldehyde (apple/woody),16 methional (boiled vegetable/rotten
44
potato) and phenylacetaldehyde (honey)14 are important examples of aldehyde compounds with the
45
potential to induce off-flavours. Apart from being generated as yeast metabolites during fermentation,17
46
aldehydes can also be produced via oxidation of their corresponding alcohols, other precursors, or from
47
Strecker degradation of amino acids.2,18,19
48 49
Aldehydes compounds are reactive molecules in wine that are known to react with phenolic
50
compounds20 and hydrogen sulfite (HSO3-), an equilibrium form of sulfur dioxide (SO2).21,22 After
51
reacting with hydrogen sulfite, aldehyde compounds form α-hydroxyalkylsulfonates,22 which are non-
52
volatile and hence the detrimental aromas of aldehydes in wine are repressed.23 However, the reaction
53
between aldehydes and hydrogen sulfite is reversible. As the SO2 in wine is gradually depleted due to
54
reactions with oxidative products or storage at high temperature during ageing,17,24 the bound aldehydes
55
can be released progressively:23,25 the weaker binders first (e.g. benzaldehyde)1 and stronger binders
56
last (e.g. acetaldehyde).26 Therefore, the concentrations of SO2 and hydrogen sulfite-bound aldehyde 3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
57
compounds can have significant impact on the evolution of wine aroma and the development of
58
oxidative off-flavours in wine during ageing.27 The accurate quantification of total aldehyde
59
compounds is particularly important in the understanding of potential wine aroma alterations during
60
bottle ageing.
61 62
There are several established methods to determine the concentrations of total volatile aldehyde
63
compounds in wine. Most of them involve the hydrolysis of the hydrogen sulfite-aldehyde adduction
64
products (i.e. α-hydroxyalkylsulfonate) under alkaline or acidic conditions,28,29 derivatisation with o-
65
(2,3,4,5,6-pentafluorobenzyl)hydroxylamine hydrochloride (PFBHA)30,31 or 2,4-
66
dinitrophenylhydrazine (2,4-DNPH),17,28,29,32 and quantification with mass spectrometry (MS),29,31
67
diode array detector (DAD)28,32 or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR).26 The concentrations of bound
68
aldehyde compounds can also be indirectly determined via calculation using the dissociation constants
69
in conjunction with the measured concentrations of free aldehydes and free surrogate aldehydes.27
70 71
The aim of this work is to establish a novel methodology to determine the total concentrations of a
72
range of aldehyde compounds in wine by enabling direct measurement of the hydrogen sulfite-bound
73
forms of the corresponding aldehydes. The method includes the conversion of the free aldehyde
74
compounds into the bound form by adding SO2 during the sample preparation prior to analysis.
75
Quantification was performed on LC-QQQ-MS in multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode. This
76
method was validated in both white and red wines.
77 78
Materials and methods
79 80
Chemicals and wines 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 28
Page 5 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
81
All reagents were of analytical or HPLC grade unless otherwise stated. 5-methylfurfural (≥98.5%),
82
benzaldehyde (≥99%), 3-(methylthio)-propionaldehyde (methional) (≥97%), furfural (≥99%), 2-
83
methylpropanal (≥99%), 3-methylbutanal (≥97%), 2-phenylacetaldehyde (≥95%), (E)-2-heptenal
84
(≥95%) and nonanal (≥95%) were supplied by Sigma-Aldrich (Castle Hill, NSW, Australia). (E)-2-
85
hexenal (≥98%), hexanal (≥98%), (E)-2-octenal (≥95%), and (E)-2-nonenal (≥97%) were purchased
86
from Alfa Aesar (Gymea, NSW, Australia). 4,5-Dimethylfurfural (≥97%), hydrocinnamaldehyde
87
(≥98.5%), 3-(methylthio)butanal (≥96%), 3,5,5-trimethylhexanal (≥97%) from Sigma-Aldrich,
88
benzaldehyde-d6 (≥99.9%), furfural-d4 (≥99.2%), 3-methylbutanal-d2 (≥99.5%) and hexanal-d12
89
(≥98.6%) from CDN isotopes (Pointe-Claire, Quebec, Canada) were used as internal standard (IS).
90
Sodium metabisulphite (Na2S2O5) was provided by Ajax Finechem (Taren Point, NSW, Australia).
91
Ultrapure water (18.2 MΩ cm) utilised was generated from a Milli-Q Plus purification system (Merck
92
Millipore, Bayswater, VIC, Australia). Individual stock solutions of each aldehyde compound were
93
prepared in ethanol, stored at – 80 °C and used within 3 months of preparation. Regenerated cellulose
94
0.2 µm membrane syringe filters (Phenex) were supplied by Phenomenex (Lane Cove West, NSW,
95
Australia).
96 97
The model wine used in this study consisted of 12% (v/v) aqueous ethanol, 0.011 M potassium
98
hydrogen tartrate and 0.007 M tartaric acid. The final optimised method was applied to ten white and
99
ten red Australian wines made from different varieties (Shiraz, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Pinot
100
Noir, Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, Riesling and Semillon) and vintages (2007 – 2017). All of the
101
measurements were conducted in triplicate.
102 103
LC-QQQ-MS analysis conditions
5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 6 of 28
104
LC-QQQ-MS analysis was performed on an Agilent 6400 series (Agilent Technologies Australia,
105
Mulgrave, VIC, Australia) LC system, including a thermostated autosampler (G1367E) with a 100 µL
106
injection loop, and a binary pump (G1316C) connected to an Agilent 6470 Triple Quad LC/MS system.
107
The temperature of the autosampler was set at 20 °C, and sample injection volume was 1.5 µL.
108
Aldehyde compounds binding to hydrogen sulfite (i.e. hydroxyalkylsulfonate) were separated by a
109
ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (Waters Australia, Rydalmere, NSW, Australia) at 30 °C by
110
passage of the mobile phase A (0.04% formic acid in water) and B (0.04% formic acid in methanol) at
111
the flow rate of 0.3 mL/min and following the schedule: 0 min, 100% A; 5 min, 100% A; 15 min, 60%
112
A; 25 min, 0% A; 27 min, 0% A; 30 min, 100% A; 35 min, 100% A. Total running time was 40 min.
113
Analysis performed on the triple quadrupole was carried out in MRM and negative ionization mode.
114
All of the monitored transitions and optimised parameters are listed in Table 1. Data was acquired and
115
analysed through Agilent MassHunter Workstation software, version B.09.00.
116 117
Optimization of the sample pre-treatment
118 119
Calculation of the required amount of SO2 for sample preparation
120
The amount of SO2 required to ensure gross binding of free aldehydes in wine was calculated from the
121
dissociation constants (𝐾𝑑) of the addition products of hydrogen sulfite and aldehyde compounds (i.e.
122
hydroxyalkylsulfonates) (Eq. 1). The calculation was performed to ensure that less than 5% of the total
123
aldehydes in wine would be in free fraction (Eq. 2). 𝐾𝑑 =
124
[𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑒ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑒 ― 𝐻𝑆𝑂3― ]
[𝐻𝑆𝑂3― ] = 𝐾𝑑 ∙
125 126
[𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑒ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑒][𝐻𝑆𝑂3― ]
[𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑒ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑒 ― 𝐻𝑆𝑂3― ] [𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑒ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑒]
where 6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
(1) (2)
Page 7 of 28
127
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
[𝑓𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑒ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑒] [𝑎𝑙𝑑𝑒ℎ𝑦𝑑𝑒 ― 𝐻𝑆𝑂3― ]
= 0.05
128
According to de Azevedo,22 of the aldehydes to be quantified, benzaldehyde had the weakest binding
129
strength with hydrogen sulfite (i.e. highest 𝐾𝑑 of 2.83 × 10-3). The calculated amount of SO2 required
130
to ensure 95% of benzaldehyde in bound form was 3.7 g/L. Considering other wine components may
131
bind part of the added SO2, a concentration of 6 g/L of SO2 aqueous solution was selected as the
132
standard amount for sample preparation to ensure an excess amount of SO2 in wine samples.
133 134
Optimization of pH and assessment of sample stability
135
The pH of separate of model wine batches, containing 50 mg/L free SO2 (unrelated to the 6 g/L SO2
136
added during sample preparation for LC-QQQ-MS analysis), were adjusted to 3.0, 3.2, 3.5, 3.8 and 4.0
137
with tartaric acid (1 M) or NaOH (1 M). Then, 1.0 mL of each of the model wine samples were spiked
138
with IS and analytes to achieve the final concentration as follows: 5-methylfurfural (56.9 µg/L),
139
benzaldehyde (28.2 µg/L), methional (30.3 µg/L), furfural (107.9 µg/L), 2-methylpropanal (12.9 µg/L),
140
3-methylbutanal (31.5 µg/L), 2-phenyacetaldehyde (58.1 µg/L), (E)-2-hexenal (7.3 µg/L), (E)-2-
141
heptanal (5.9 µg/L), hexanal (28.2 µg/L), (E)-2-octenal (6.5 µg/L), nonanal (12.0 µg/L), and (E)-2-
142
nonenal (5.6 µg/L). Each sample was then analysed as described in Section 2.2.
143 144
To examine the stability of samples, 1.0 mL of model wine sample at pH of 3.5 was prepared as
145
described above and injected over 3 days. On the first day, the sample was injected every 3 hours for
146
24 hours consecutively. The sample was then injected again on consecutive days, at the same time as
147
the first injection.
148 149
Optimised sample preparation
7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
150
1.0 mL of wine sample was spiked with 10 µL of an IS solution consisting of 15.0 mg/L 4,5-
151
dimethylfurfural, 7.3 mg/L hydrocinnamaldehyde, 13.0 mg/L benzaldehyde-d6, 9.6 mg/L 3-
152
(methylthio)butanal and 11.0 mg/L hexanal-d12. Then 45 µL of 200 g/L Na2S2O5 aqueous solution
153
(final concentration of SO2 at 6 g/L) was added to the wine. Afterward, the sample was syringe filtered
154
and analysed by LC-QQQ-MS. When analysing multiple prepared samples, the samples were stored in
155
the LC autosampler at 20 °C prior to analysis.
Page 8 of 28
156 157
Method validation procedure
158 159
Linearity and selection of IS
160
Linearity was determined by spiking wine samples (model wine, 4 white and 4 red wines made from
161
different varieties) with 8 levels of aldehyde concentrations, covering concentrations from 0 to 1700
162
µg/L, a concentration range which has been previously reported for these compounds in wine31 (Table
163
2). For the purposes of determining linearity, the aldehyde concentrations naturally present in the white
164
and red wines were set to 0 µg/L. The concentration of each added analyte was then plotted against the
165
peak area ratio of the analyte to internal standard. The potential internal standard compounds tested in
166
this trial included 4,5-dimethylfurfural, hydrocinnamaldehyde, 3-(methylthio)butanal, 3,5,5-
167
trimethylhexanal, benzaldehyde-d6, furfural-d4, 3-methylbutanal-d2 and hexanal-d12 (Table 1 and 2).
168 169
Limit of detections (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ)
170
Limit of detections (LODs) and quantifications (LOQs) were generally calculated as the lowest
171
concentration of each analyte showing signal-to-noise ratio of greater than 3 and 10 respectively. In this
172
study, the LODs trials were carried out in both white and red wine matrices. However, due to the
173
operation of the MS in MRM mode, the baseline noise at retention times corresponding to 58 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 9 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
174
methylfurfural, benzaldehyde, methional, furfural, 2-methylpropanal and 3-methylbutanal was
175
negligible. Therefore, the LODs of these analytes were determined by injecting a series of samples
176
containing decreasing concentrations of the analytes until there was no significant difference (p ≤ 0.05)
177
in signal intensity between consecutive standards.31
178 179
Recovery, repeatability and reproducibility
180
Triplicate white and red wine samples were spiked with all 13 analytes at two concentrations (Table 3),
181
which corresponded to relatively high and low concentrations of the aldehydes in wine. Recoveries
182
were determined from the analysis of the spiked and unadulterated wine samples, and calculated from
183
the calibration curves established in real wine matrices.
184 185
For repeatability, one white and one red wine sample were spiked with all 13 analytes and analysed 5
186
times consecutively within one day. The concentrations were at intermediate points of quantitation
187
calibration curves (see Section 2.3.2), and chosen to reflect typical levels found in oxidized wines. For
188
reproducibility, three sets of triplicate spiked white and red wine samples were prepared and analysed
189
on three different days within one week. Both repeatability and reproducibility results were expressed
190
in terms of their respective relative standard deviations (RSD).
191 192
Statistical analysis
193
Statistical analyses were carried out on software Excel 2013 (Microsoft, Redmond, Washington, USA)
194
and SPSS (IBM, Armonk, New York, USA). The significant differences for response intensity of the
195
analytes in the pH optimisation experiment were determined by Tukey’s test with a 95% confidence
196
level. Student’s t-tests at 95% confidence level were performed to compare the slopes of calibration
9 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 10 of 28
197
curves of each analyte in different wine matrices. Quoted uncertainty is the standard deviation of three
198
replications within one treatment.
199 200
Results and discussions
201 202
Optimization of sample pre-treatment
203 204
Assessment of linearity
205
The linearity of the 13 analyte calibration curves for this methodology was examined in model, white
206
and red wines respectively. Most analytes displayed good linearity in the three tested matrices, as the
207
coefficient of determination (R2) values ranged from 0.981 to 0.999 (Table 2), except for methional in
208
model wine (0.966). For this methodology, the ISs were selected based on their ability to provide
209
consistent calibration slopes over different wine matrices (Table 2). However, 5-methylfurfural
210
displayed significantly different slopes for the calibration curves among the three matrices with all of
211
the eight potential IS compounds (supplementary Table 1). Therefore, none of the tested IS compounds
212
could offset matrix effects for this analyte. In addition, significantly different calibration curve slopes
213
for certain analytes, such as furfural, (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-nonenal (higher sensitivity in
214
model wine) and methional (lower sensitivity in model wine), were observed between model and real
215
wines, but not between white and red wines. Due to this similarity, one calibration curve in either white
216
or red wine was sufficient for the quantitation of both red and white wine samples. Based on these
217
results, the calibration curve constructed in Chardonnay wine was subsequently used for quantitative
218
calculation. Different set of ISs were able to overcome the different calibration curve slopes between
219
model and real wines to some extent, but better validation results obtained when using calibrations
220
established in real wines (see Section 3.2, model wine calibration data not shown). The reason for the 10 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 11 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
221
different sensitivity for certain analytes when analysed in model wine versus real wines (Table 2) is
222
uncertain. The co-elution of the extra components of real wine, compared to model wines, with the
223
measured analytes and/or internal standards may lead to suppression or enhancement effects during MS
224
ionisation processes, but further work is required to confirm such effect.
225 226
Optimization of pH
227
The mobile phase for the chromatographic gradient had a pH of 2.5 within the first 15 min and 10 of
228
the 13 aldehyde compounds eluted during this period. The remaining three aldehydes eluted when the
229
pH of the mobile phase increased from 2.5 to 4.4 within 22.5 min (Table 1). Despite these changes in
230
pH during the chromatographic gradient, all of the analytes produced well-resolved MS signals (Figure
231
1). However, many of the early (i.e. within the first 3 min) eluting analytes could potentially co-elute
232
with polar wine components, such as organic acids that are at g/L concentration levels in wine. The
233
latter components could induce localised pH changes in the mobile phase and cause potential drift in
234
the retention times and/or impact analyte ionization in the MS detector. To investigate the impact of
235
sample pH on the chromatographic retention times and MS sensitivity, the analytes were analysed after
236
addition to a model wine, containing tartaric acid, at a varied pH values (i.e. pH 3.0 to 4.0).
237 238
Despite varying the sample pH from 3.0 to 4.0, the retention times of analytes remained unchanged as
239
indicated in Table 1, demonstrating that sample pH had no impact on elution time and the detectability
240
of the analytes. However, it was evident that there was a significant influence of sample pH on MS
241
response intensity for certain analytes, with the intensity increasing with pH, particularly for
242
phenylacetaldehyde, hexanal (including its deuterated analogue), nonanal and the internal standard
243
hydrocinnamaldehyde (Figure 2). However, the degree of variation of the MS response intensity as a
244
function of the average signal was small. Nonanal had the largest variation (RSD 10.6%), followed by 11 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 12 of 28
245
methional, (E)-2-heptenal and hexanal (RSD 7.5 – 6.6%), while the majority of the analytes had minor
246
variations of less than 5% RSD. The reason for the impact of the sample pH on the analyte response
247
intensity was uncertain. Changing the pH of the wine would alter the balance of the SO2 equilibrium,
248
and hence hydrogen sulfite concentration, but given the pKa1 and pKa2 values of 1.8 and 7.0,33
249
respectively, the variation of hydrogen sulfite over the pH range 3 to 4 would be minimal. For example,
250
the hydrogen sulfite would vary from 93 to 99 % of the total added SO2 from pH 3 to 4, which in turn
251
would equate to 1.86 to 1.98 g/L of the added SO2. This remains in vast excess of the sub-mg/L
252
combined concentration of the aldehyde compounds. Given the minor influence on the analyte signal
253
intensity within the relatively large pH range of 3 – 4, it was decided not to adjust wine pH prior to
254
analysis for the remainder of this study. To limit the influence of any pH dependence on the result, both
255
wines and calibration standards could be adjusted to the same pH value.
256 257
Stability of prepared samples
258
The stability of the analytes (i.e. α-hydroxyalkylsulfonates) after sample pre-treatment was examined
259
and the result was expressed as recovery percentage in comparison with the freshly prepared sample
260
measured on the first injection (Supplementary Table 3). All of the analytes were relatively stable over
261
the first 9 hours (recovery variation < 18%), and most remained stable up to 12 hours. The exception
262
were 2-phenylacetaldehyde and nonanal, which had increased recoveries of 124% and 127%
263
respectively by 12 hours (Supplementary Table 3). Therefore, wine samples can be analysed
264
immediately by LC-QQQ-MS after sample preparation, or alternatively the prepared samples are stable
265
for up to 9 – 12 hours, depending on the specific analyte.
266 267
Method validation procedure
268
12 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 13 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
269
Limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ)
270
The results of the LOD and LOQ in wine matrices are listed in Table 2. The LODs of the 13 analytes
271
ranged from 0.10 to 3.46 µg/L, which are mostly lower than the respective odour detection thresholds
272
for the free form of the aldehyde in water or model wine solution as summarised by Mayr.31 The
273
exception was (E)-2-nonenal that has a LOD of 0.18 µg/L (Table 2), marginally higher than the quoted
274
odour threshold of 0.17 µg/L for the free form in water.31
275 276
Accuracy
277
The accuracy of the methodology was assessed in terms of recovery experiments and conducted using
278
internal standard-based calibration curve constructed in Chardonnay (Table 3). The average and
279
standard deviation of the recovery results of each analyte at the two concentration in both white and red
280
wines were calculated (Table 3). In general, this method gave very satisfactory performance according
281
to recovery, repeatability and reproducibility test results. The overall average recovery result for each
282
compound was within the range of 97% to 114% and the standard deviation was less than 10%, except
283
for 2-methylpropanal (14%) and methional (16%). The larger uncertainty in recovery for the latter two
284
compounds was largely due to higher recoveries in red wine compared to white wine for a given
285
concentration (Supplementary Table 4), and this was a difference that was not observed for the other
286
compounds. However, the individual recoveries for these particular compounds, across different wine
287
colours and concentrations, were still within the range of 95-127%, which was considered an
288
acceptable recovery range. No significant differences were observed at high versus low concentrations
289
for a given aldehyde within red or white wines (Supplementary Table 4). Consequently, one calibration
290
curve in real a wine matrix, regardless white or red wine, was adequate for the analysis for all wine
291
samples. Repeatability showed a RSD lower than 3.8% and 8.0% in white and red wine, while the
292
corresponding reproducibilities were below 8.4% and 2.9% (RSD) respectively (Table 3). 13 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 14 of 28
293 294
Analysis of wines
295
Twenty Australian commercial wines (ten white and ten red wines) made from various varieties and
296
vintages were analysed with this methodology to quantify the concentrations of 12 aldehyde
297
compounds (Table 4). Higher concentrations of furfural, 2-methylpropanal and methional were found
298
in the four older white wines (i.e. vintage after 2015), while (E)-2-octenal and (E)-2-nonenal showed
299
higher concentrations in the younger white wines (i.e. vintages 2016 and 2017). The four youngest red
300
wines (i.e. vintage 2017) contained higher concentrations of benzaldehyde and 3-methylbutanal, but the
301
highest concentrations of hexanal, nonanal, 2-methylpropanal and (E)-2-nonenal were detected in the
302
red wine samples from vintages 2016 to 2011. Interestingly, the oldest red wine (i.e. wine sample red
303
10, vintage 2007) had lower concentrations of these aldehydes. This is probably due to the ability of
304
phenolic compounds to react with aldehydes via cycloaddition or polymerisation.20 The vastly lower
305
concentrations of phenolic compounds in white compared to red wine also most likely explains why
306
most aldehyde compounds, such as hexanal, methional, furfural, 3-methylbutanal and (E)-2-octenal,
307
showed higher concentrations in the white wines compared to the red wines, regardless of vintage. In
308
addition to the direct reaction of aldehydes with phenolic compounds, the phenolics in red wine are
309
also suggested to provide certain antioxidant capacity to restrict the production of aldehyde
310
compounds.34 The concentrations of the (E)-2-alkenals, apart from (E)-2-nonenal, were below their
311
LODs in all wines. The concentrations of these aldehydes can be low after fermentation due to
312
reduction by yeast to their corresponding aldehydes. In addition, they can also react with nucleophiles,
313
such as glutathione to form alternate products.35
314 315
In conclusion, the use of SO2 to induce the aldehyde compounds in wine to form their hydrogen sulfite-
316
bound form provided a method for the rapid measurement of the total concentrations of 12 oxidative14 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 15 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
317
related volatile aldehyde compounds in wine. The preparation of samples is simple, requires no
318
incubation time, and the utilisation of LC-QQQ-MS offers an accurate quantification for the target
319
analytes. The added advantage is that after sample preparation, the analytes are no longer volatile and
320
errors of measurement due to analyte volatilisation during sample storage prior to analysis are
321
minimised. The results of linearity, repeatability and reproducibility provide confidence in the
322
reliability and efficiency of this method. The established method was applied to measure the
323
concentrations of the 12 aldehyde compounds in 20 commercial wines and the result are consistent
324
with previously reported concentration range for these analytes. Comparison of different methods to
325
quantify total aldehyde compounds in wine will be an area of future work.
326 327
Acknowledgements
328
This work was conducted as part of a PhD program at the National Wine and Grape Industry Centre
329
(NWGIC) supported by a Charles Sturt University Postgraduate Research Scholarship and an
330
International Tuition Payment scholarship. Further stipend and operating support was provided by
331
Wine Australia (AGW Ph1509). The NWGIC is a research centre within CSU in alliance with the
332
Department of Primary Industries New South Wales (NSW) and the NSW Wine Industry Association.
333
Technical assistance from Michael Loughlin during LC-QQQ-MS analysis was greatly appreciated.
334 335 336
References (1) Laurie, V. F.; Clark, A. C. Wine oxidation. In Oxidation in foods and beverages and antioxidant
337
applications. Volume 2: Management in different industry sectors, Decker, E. A.; Elias, R. J.;
338
McClements, D. J., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Ltd: Cambridge, UK, 2010; pp 445-475.
339 340
(2) Ugliano, M. Oxygen contribution to wine aroma evolution during bottle aging. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2013, 61, 6125-6136. 15 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
341
(3) Gambuti, A.; Rinaldi, A.; Ugliano, M.; Moio, L. Evolution of phenolic compounds and
342
astringency during aging of red wine: Effect of oxygen exposure before and after bottling. Journal of
343
Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2013, 61, 1618-1627.
344
Page 16 of 28
(4) Wirth, J.; Morel-Salmi, C.; Souquet, J. M.; Dieval, J. B.; Aagaard, O.; Vidal, S.; Fulcrand, H.;
345
Cheynier, V. The impact of oxygen exposure before and after bottling on the polyphenolic composition
346
of red wines. Food Chemistry 2010, 123, 107-116.
347
(5) Chira, K.; Pacella, N.; Jourdes, M.; Teissedre, P.-L. Chemical and sensory evaluation of Bordeaux
348
wines (Cabernet-Sauvignon and Merlot) and correlation with wine age. Food Chemistry 2011, 126,
349
1971-1977.
350
(6) del Carmen Llaudy, M.; Canals, R.; González-Manzano, S.; Canals, J. M.; Santos-Buelga, C.;
351
Zamora, F. Influence of micro-oxygenation treatment before oak aging on phenolic compounds
352
composition, astringency, and color of red wine. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2006, 54,
353
4246-4252.
354
(7) Silva Ferreira, A. C.; Hogg, T.; Guedes de Pinho, P. Identification of key odorants related to the
355
typical aroma of oxidation-spoiled white wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2003, 51,
356
1377-1381.
357
(8) Escudero, A.; Asensio, E.; Cacho, J.; Ferreira, V. Sensory and chemical changes of young white
358
wines stored under oxygen. An assessment of the role played by aldehydes and some other important
359
odorants. Food Chemistry 2002, 77, 325-331.
360 361
(9) Bueno, M. n.; Carrascón, V.; Ferreira, V. Release and formation of oxidation-related aldehydes during wine oxidation. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2016, 64, 608-617.
16 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 17 of 28
362 363 364 365 366 367 368
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
(10) Singleton, V. L.; Kramling, T. E., Browning of white wines and an accelerated test for borwning capacity. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 1976, 27, 157-160. (11) Pons, A.; Lavigne, V.; Darriet, P.; Dubourdieu, D. Role of 3-methyl-2,4-nonanedione in the flavor of aged red wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2013, 61, 7373-7380. (12) Hofmann, T.; Schieberle, P.; Grosch, W. Model studies on the oxidative stability of odor-active thiols occurring in food flavors. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 1996, 44, 251-255. (13) de Azevedo, L. C.; Reis, M. M.; Pereira, G. E.; da Rocha, G. O.; Silva, L. A.; de Andrade, J. B. A
369
liquid chromatographic method optimization for the assessment of low and high molar mass carbonyl
370
compounds in wines. Journal of Separation Science 2009, 32, 3432-3440.
371 372 373
(14) Culleré, L.; Cacho, J.; Ferreira, V. An assessment of the role played by some oxidation-related aldehydes in wine aroma. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2007, 55, 876-881. (15) Silva Ferreira, A. C.; Guedes de Pinho, P.; Rodrigues, P.; Hogg, T. Kinetics of oxidative
374
degradation of white wines and how they are affected by selected technological parameters. Journal of
375
Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2002, 50, 5919-5924.
376
(16) Wildenradt, H. L.; Singleton, V. L. The production of aldehydes as a result of oxidation of
377
polyphenolic compounds and its relation to wine aging. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture
378
1974, 25, 119-126.
379
(17) Cruz, M. P.; Valente, I. M.; Gonçalves, L. M.; Rodrigues, J. A.; Barros, A. A. Application of gas-
380
diffusion microextraction to the analysis of free and bound acetaldehyde in wines by HPLC–UV and
381
characterization of the extracted compounds by MS/MS detection. Analytical and Bioanalytical
382
Chemistry 2012, 403, 1031-1037.
17 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
383
(18) Pripis-Nicolau, L.; de Revel, G.; Bertrand, A.; Maujean, A. Formation of flavor components by
384
the reaction of amino acid and carbonyl compounds in mild conditions. Journal of Agricultural and
385
Food Chemistry 2000, 48, 3761-3766.
386
(19) Rizzi, G. P. Formation of strecker aldehydes from polyphenol-derived quinones and α-amino
387
acids in a nonenzymic model system. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2006, 54, 1893-
388
1897.
389
(20) Bueno, M.; Marrufo-Curtido, A.; Carrascón, V.; Fernández-Zurbano, P.; Escudero, A.; Ferreira,
390
V. Formation and accumulation of acetaldehyde and strecker aldehydes during red wine oxidation.
391
Frontiers in Chemistry 2018, 6, 1-19.
392
(21) Barbe, J.-C.; de Revel, G.; Annick, J.; Lonvaud-Funel, A.; Bertrand, A. Role of carbonyl
393
compounds in SO2 binding phenomena in musts and wines from botrytized grapes. Journal of
394
Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2000, 48, 3413-3419.
395
(22) de Azevedo, L. C.; Reis, M. M.; Motta, L. F.; da Rocha, G. O.; Silva, L. A.; de Andrade, J. B.
396
Evaluation of the formation and stability of hydroxyalkylsulfonic acids in wines. Journal of
397
Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2007, 55, 8670-8680.
398
(23) Ferreira, V.; Bueno, M.; Franco-Luesma, E. New insights into the chemistry involved in aroma
399
development during wine bottle aging: Slow redox processes and chemical equilibrium shifts. In
400
Advances in wine research, Ebeler, S. B.; Sacks, G.; Vidal, S.; Winterhalter, P., Eds. 2015, Vol. 1203,
401
pp 275-289.
402
(24) Mattivi, F.; Arapitsas, P.; Perenzoni, D.; Guella, G. Influence of Storage Conditions on the
403
Composition of Red Wines. In Advances in Wine Research, American Chemical Society: 2015, Vol.
404
1203, pp 29-49.
18 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 18 of 28
Page 19 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
405
(25) Escudero, A.; Hernández-Orte, P.; Cacho, J.; Ferreira, V. Clues about the role of methional as
406
character impact odorant of some oxidized wines. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2000,
407
48, 4268-4272.
408
(26) Nikolantonaki, M.; Magiatis, P.; Waterhouse, A. L. Direct analysis of free and sulfite-bound
409
carbonyl compounds in wine by two-dimensional quantitative proton and carbon nuclear magnetic
410
resonance spectroscopy. Analytical Chemistry 2015, 87, 10799-10806.
411
(27) Bueno, M.; Zapata, J.; Ferreira, V. Simultaneous determination of free and bonded forms of
412
odor-active carbonyls in wine using a headspace solid phase microextraction strategy. Journal of
413
Chromatography A 2014, 1369, 33-42.
414
(28) Elias, R. J.; Laurie, V. F.; Ebeler, S. E.; Wong, J. W.; Waterhouse, A. L. Analysis of selected
415
carbonyl oxidation products in wine by liquid chromatography with diode array detection. Analytica
416
Chimica Acta 2008, 626, 104-110.
417 418 419
(29) Han, G.; Wang, H.; Webb, M. R.; Waterhouse, A. L. A rapid, one step preparation for measuring selected free plus SO2-bound wine carbonyls by HPLC-DAD/MS. Talanta 2015, 134, 596-602. (30) Ferreira, V.; Culleré, L.; Loscos, N.; Cacho, J. Critical aspects of the determination of
420
pentafluorobenzyl derivatives of aldehydes by gas chromatography with electron-capture or mass
421
spectrometric detection: Validation of an optimized strategy for the determination of oxygen-related
422
odor-active aldehydes in wine. Journal of Chromatography A 2006, 1122, 255-265.
423
(31) Mayr, C. M.; Capone, D. L.; Pardon, K. H.; Black, C. A.; Pomeroy, D.; Francis, I. L.
424
Quantitative analysis by GC-MS/MS of 18 aroma compounds related to oxidative off-flavor in wines.
425
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2015, 63, 3394-3401.
19 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
426
(32) Jackowetz, J. N.; Mira De Orduña, R. Improved sample preparation and rapid UHPLC analysis
427
of SO2 binding carbonyls in wine by derivatisation to 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine. Food Chemistry
428
2013, 139, 100-104.
429 430 431 432 433
Page 20 of 28
(33) Waterhouse, A. L.; Sacks, G.; Jeffery, D. W. Sulfur Dioxide. In Understanding Wine Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester, UK, 2016; pp 164-172. (34) Paixão, N.; Perestrelo, R.; Marques, J. C.; Câmara, J. S. Relationship between antioxidant capacity and total phenolic content of red, rosé and white wines. Food Chemistry 2007, 105, 204-214. (35) Clark, A. C.; Deed, R. C. The chemical reaction of glutathione and trans-2-hexenal in grape juice
434
media to form wine aroma precursors: the impact of pH, temperature, and sulfur dioxide. Journal of
435
Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2018, 66, 1214-1221.
436
20 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 21 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
437 438
Figure Captions
439
Figure 1. LC-QQQ-MS chromatogram of a spiked model wine showing the peaks of all of the analytes
440
and ISs. Peaks: 1, furfural; 2, 2-methylpropanal; 3, methional; 4, 5-methylfurfural; 5, benzaldehyde-d6;
441
6, benzaldehyde; 7, 3-methylbutanal; 8, 3-(methylthio)butanal; 9, 4,5-dimethylfurfural; 10, (E)-2-
442
hexenal; 11, 2-phenylacetaldehyde; 12, hexanal-d12; 13, hexanal; 14, hydrocinnamaldehyde; 15, (E)-2-
443
heptenal; 16, (E)-2-octenal; 17, (E)-2-nonenal; 18, nonanal.
444 445
Figure 2. Influence of pH on LC-QQQ-MS response in model wine (n=3). The result is shown as the
446
MS response intensity (peak area) for each analyte. Numbers on the top of the bar charts are relative
447
standard deviation (RSD) results of the response intensity of each analyte over the whole pH range.
448
21 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 22 of 28
13
110 100
4
25 1
15
3
0 0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
14
12
5
5
30
6
10 2
intensity
20
retention time (min)
11
18
20 7
17
15
10
9
16
10 8
intensity
90 40
0 0
5
10
15
retention time (min)
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
20
25
al
an
l
hi on et al hy lfu rfu be ra nz l al de 3hy m et de hy lb ut an (E )-2 al ph -h en ex yl en ac al et al de hy de he xa (E na )-2 l -h ep te (E na )-2 l -o ct (E en )-2 al -n on en al no na na l IS _b en IS _m et hi o IS _d im fu r IS _h ex IS _h yd ro m
et
m
op
ra
rfu
fu lp r
hy
et
5000
5-
m
2-
response intensity
Page 23 of 28 Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
80000 7.1
70000
60000 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.8 4.0
10000
3.1 7.5
4.9
50000 3.4
15000 2.1
3.1 4.1
2.0 10.6
2.6 6.6
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
3.0 1.5 2.2
2.9 2.2 4.5
0
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 24 of 28
Table 1: Mass spectral transitions and collision energies selected for analysis of aldehyde compoundsb. retention time (min)
precursor ion to product iona (m/z)
fragmentor
collision energy (eV)
Analytes furfural 0.827 177 – 81 50 8 2-methylpropanal 1.248 153 – 81 60 9 methional 1.638 185 – 81 60 6 5-methylfurfural 1.712 191 – 81 55 10 benzaldehyde 2.059 187 – 81 55 7 3-methylbutanal 3.218 167 – 81 60 8 (E)-2-hexenal 6.655 179 – 81 60 4 2-phenylacetaldehyde 7.090 201 – 81 60 7 hexanal 12.308 181 – 81 60 7 (E)-2-heptenal 14.502 193 – 81 60 8 (E)-2-octenal 18.725 207 – 81 60 7 (E)-2-nonenal 21.352 221 – 81 60 7 nonanal 22.464 223 – 81 60 5 Internal standards (abbr.) furfural-d4 (fur) 0.823 180 – 81 55 10 benzaldehyde-d6 (ben) 1.975 193 – 81 50 8 3-methylbutanal-d2 (3mb) 3.347 169 – 81 60 10 3-(methylthio)butanal (methio) 3.802 199 – 81 60 8 4,5-dimethylfurfural (dimfur) 5.901 205 – 81 60 8 hexanal-d12 (hex) 11.930 193 – 81 60 8 hydrocinnamaldehyde (hydro) 13.854 215 – 81 60 10 3,5,5-trimethylhexanal (trimhex) 20.730 223 – 81 60 5 a The precursor ions of all of the analytes are the hydrogen sulfite bound forms (i.e. α-hydroxyalkylsulfonates), and the product ion is the hydrogen sulfite ion. b
The cell accelerator voltage is 1 V and the polarity is negative for all analytes.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 25 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 2. Calibration data in different matrices. calibration range LOD (µg/L) (µg/L) furfuralc,e 8.6 – 1726.4 3.45 2-methylpropanalc 1.0 – 206.5 0.10 methionalc,e 2.4 – 116.4 0.49 5-methylfurfuralb,c 4.6 – 218.6 0.91 benzaldehydec 2.3 – 108.2 0.90 3-methylbutanalc,f 2.5 – 251.7 2.52 (E)-2-hexenale 0.59 – 14.0 0.49 2-phenylacetaldehyde 6.4 – 222.9 0.46 hexanal 2.3 – 108.2 0.23 (E)-2-heptenal 0.47 – 11.4 2.13 (E)-2-octenale 0.52 – 12.5 0.36 (E)-2-nonenale 0.45 – 10.8 0.18 nonanalf 0.96 – 23.0 0.12 a Abbreviations for IS can be found in Table 1.
LOQ (µg/L) 11.5 0.34 1.62 3.04 3.01 8.39 1.63 1.55 0.77 7.10 1.21 0.60 0.39
ISa dimfur ben hydro n/a methio ben hydro dimfur hydro hex dimfur dimfur dimfur
model wine sloped (2.11 ± 0.03) × 10-3 (1.49 ± 0.03) × 10-2 (0.69 ± 0.03) × 10-3 n/a (3.40 ± 0.06) × 10-3 (0.94 ± 0.02) × 10-2 (2.84 ± 0.08) × 10-3 (1.11 ± 0.03) × 10-2 (1.77 ± 0.04) × 10-2 (1.66 ± 0.01) × 10-3 (2.48 ± 0.02) × 10-2 (2.29 ± 0.01) × 10-2 (3.05 ± 0.08) × 10-2
R2 0.996 0.994 0.966 n/a 0.996 0.991 0.991 0.986 0.990 0.999 0.999 0.999 0.992
white wine sloped, g (1.17 ± 0.07) × 10-3 (1.35 ± 0.09) × 10-2 (1.00 ± 0.12) × 10-3 n/a (3.32 ± 0.48) × 10-3 (1.16 ± 0.06) × 10-2 (2.37 ± 0.15) × 10-3 (1.00 ± 0.10) × 10-2 (1.82 ± 0.16) × 10-2 (1.52 ± 0.06) × 10-3 (1.74 ± 0.11) × 10-2 (1.85 ± 0.10) × 10-2 (2.54 ± 0.21) × 10-2
R2 0.991 0.992 0.990 n/a 0.994 0.989 0.998 0.994 0.995 0.995 0.995 0.997 0.996
red wine sloped, g (1.45 ± 0.15) × 10-3 (1.51 ± 0.15) × 10-2 (1.27 ± 0.18) × 10-3 n/a (3.17 ± 0.34) × 10-3 (0.94 ± 0.12) × 10-2 (2.26 ± 0.19) × 10-3 (1.04 ± 0.09) × 10-2 (1.68 ± 0.23) × 10-2 (1.62 ± 0.16) × 10-3 (1.67 ± 0.14) × 10-2 (1.84 ± 0.16) × 10-2 (2.56 ± 0.23) × 10-2
R2 0.992 0.994 0.995 n/a 0.993 0.981 0.997 0.994 0.997 0.990 0.998 0.998 0.993
b
No suitable IS identified, as there were significant different slopes between red and white wine matrices (Supplementary Table 1).
c
No baseline noise found and LOD and LOQ were determined by injecting samples containing decreasing concentration levels of analytes.
d
Quoted slope and uncertainty are the average and standard deviations generated in model wine (n=3), white wine (n=4) and red wine (n=4) respectively.
e f
Showed significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) linearity slope between model and real wine matrices.
Showed significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) linearity slope between model wine and white wine matrices.
No significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) was observed in the slopes for the white and red wines, and combined data for the slopes and uncertainties of all white and red wines can be found in Supplementary Table 2.
g
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Page 26 of 28
Table 3. Method validation data.
furfural 2-methylpropanal methional 5-methylfurfural benzaldehyde 3-methylbutanal (E)-2-hexenal 2-phenylacetaldehyde hexanal (E)-2-heptenal (E)-2-octenal (E)-2-nonenal nonanal a
calibration data for quantitationa 0.00110 0.01471 0.00115 n/a 0.00396 0.01227 0.00221 0.01116 0.02058 0.00158 0.01584 0.01701 0.02450
recovery test concentrations (µg/L) 10; 204 0.67; 13 2.6; 51 34; 164 2.7; 55 5.3; 106 0.56; 11 2.6; 52 2.5; 50 0.52; 10 1.2; 24 0.64; 129 5.1; 1024
recoveryb (%) 111 ± 3 111 ± 14 113 ± 16 n/a 102 ± 6 97 ± 9 97 ± 4 111 ± 2 99 ± 3 99 ± 3 97 ± 8 104 ± 2 114 ± 6
repeatability, white RSD (%) 1.2 1.1 1.9 n/a 3.8 2.1 2.3 2.3 1.2 2.9 2.1 0.9 1.8
repeatability, red RSD (%) 1.9 3.7 2.6 n/a 0.3 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.9 8.0 1.7 3.1 3.8
reproducibility, white RSD (%) 8.4 1.9 1.2 n/a 1.7 2.9 0.3 0.4 6.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 6.0
reproducibility, red RSD (%) 1.2 1.1 1.9 n/a 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 1.2 2.9 2.1 0.9 1.8
Slopes of the calibration curves used for accuracy calculation, constructed in Chardonnay wine.
b
Quoted recovery and uncertainty are the average and standard deviations of the recovery results calculated from both triplicated white (n=1) and red wine (n=1) samples at two different concentration levels.
ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 27 of 28
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Table 4. Concentrations (µg/L) of volatile aldehyde compounds in the 20 commercial wine samples.
vintage age when analysed
red 1 2017