Tandem Solid-Phase Extraction Columns for Simultaneous Aroma Extraction and Fractionation of Wuliangye and Other Baijiu
by
Zhanglan He
1, 
Kangzhuo Yang
1,
Zhipeng Liu
1,
Mingzhe An
1,
Zongwei Qiao
1,
Dong Zhao
1,
Jia Zheng
1,* and
Michael C. Qian
2,* 1
Flavor Innovation Center, Technology Research Center, Wuliangye Yibin Co., Ltd., 150# Minjiang West Road, Yibin 644007, China
2
Department of Food Science and Technology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97330, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2021, 26(19), 6030; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26196030
Submission received: 7 September 2021
/
Revised: 29 September 2021
/
Accepted: 30 September 2021
/
Published: 4 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Flavor Chemistry and Technology: A Themed Issue in Honor of Professor Gary A. Reineccius)
Abstract
:Wuliangye baijiu is one of the most famous baijiu in China, with a rich, harmonic aroma profile highly appreciated by consumers. Thousands of volatiles have been identified for the unique aroma profile. Among them, fatty acid esters have been identified as the main contributors to the aroma profile. In addition, many non-ester minor compounds, many of which are more polar than the esters, have been identified to contribute to the characteristic aroma unique to Wuliangye baijiu. The analysis of these minor compounds has been challenging due to the dominance of esters in the sample. Thus, it is desirable to fractionate the aroma extract into subgroups based on functional group or polarity to simplify the analysis. This study attempts a new approach to achieve simultaneous volatile extraction and fractionation using tandem LiChrolut EN and silica gel solid-phase extraction (SPE) columns. A baijiu sample (10 mL, diluted in 40 mL of water) was first passed through the LiChrolut EN (1.0 g) column. The loaded LiChrolut EN column was then dried with air and coupled with a silica gel (5.0 g) SPE column with anhydrous Na2SO4 (10.0 g) in between. The volatile compounds were eluted from the LiChrolut EN column and simultaneously fractionated on the silica gel column based on polarity. The simultaneous extraction and fractionation technique enabled the fractionations of all fatty acid esters into less polar fractions. Fatty acids, alcohols, pyrazines, furans, phenols, hydroxy esters, and other polar compounds were collected in more polar fractions. This technique was used to study the volatile compounds in Wuliangye, Moutai, and Fengjiu baijiu. In addition to fatty acid esters, many minor polar compounds, including 2,6-dimethylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine, p-cresol, and 2-acetylpyrrole, were unequivocally identified in the samples. The procedure is fast and straightforward, with low solvent consumption.
1. Introduction
Baijiu is one of the oldest distilled spirits globally, with its ethanol content typically 40–65% by volume. The composition of baijiu is very complex due to spontaneous solid-state fermentation. Thousands of volatile compounds have been identified in different types of baijiu, and alcohols, fatty acids, and fatty acid esters dominate the composition [1,2].
Gas chromatography-olfactometry (GC-O) was first used to study the aroma-active compounds in baijiu in 2005 [3]. Among all the aroma-active compounds identified, fatty acid esters have been proven to be the main contributors to baijiu aroma [3,4,5,6,7], exhibiting fruity and floral notes [3,4,5,6]. Free fatty acids and alcohols also make important aroma contributions. In addition to these major compounds, other minor compounds may contribute to the unique aroma of the baijiu. Identifying these minor aroma compounds with unique aroma quality has been challenging due to the high concentration of these major compounds, particularly esters. A better understanding of the aroma contribution of these minor compounds to baijiu is still an active research field.
Various methods have been developed to prepare the volatile extract from baijiu samples before gas chromatography (GC) or GC-mass spectrometer (MS) analysis. The most common technique is liquid–liquid extraction (LLE), using organic solvents to obtain the volatile extract. The extract then needs to be fractionated to facilitate the identification and quantification of aroma compounds. The fractionation can be achieved by adjusting the pH of the extract to group the volatile compounds into acidic, basic, neutral, and water-soluble fractions [8,9]. This way, the acids, bases, and alcohols are grouped into respective fractions for a more straightforward GC analysis. The neutral fraction can contain esters, aromatics, aldehydes, acetals, and other neutral compounds. In some cases, the neutral fraction is still too complex, and silica-gel-based normal-phase liquid chromatography can be further used to fractionate volatile compounds into different sub-fractions based on their polarity and functional groups. This approach has enabled the identification of many trace-level aroma compounds in baijiu [5,10,11,12,13]. However, this approach is time-consuming, with high solvent consumption.
Solid-phase extraction (SPE) is a fast extraction technique based on the absorption of analytes on a solid bed. This simple and straightforward procedure has been widely used in food and beverage analysis [14,15,16,17,18]. Compared with the traditional LLE method, the SPE method has the advantages of less solvent consumption, better reproducibility, improved recoveries, and simple operation. It can selectively extract different compounds according to the characteristics of the target analytes [16]. LiChrolut EN adsorbent is a styrene-divinylbenzene (PSDVB)-based polymer [19,20]. It has a high adsorption capacity, can tolerate a wide pH range [21,22], and has an excellent ability to retain diverse groups of volatile compounds [15]. In addition, LiChrolut EN resin has a chromatographic property, but its separation power is limited when used for normal phase separation. The fractionation based on LiChrolut EN resin on baijiu has not been successful, probably due to baijiu’s high alcohol and fatty acid contents. In contrast, silica gel has an excellent chromatographic property [5,23,24,25] and can separate compounds efficiently according to their polarities.
Wuliangye baijiu is a stong-aroma type of baijiu. It is fermented from a mixture of five grains (sorghum, rice, corn, glutinous rice, and wheat) at a proprietary ratio under specific fermentation conditions. Wuliangye baijiu is produced in the Sichuan province of China and is protected as the geographical indication between China and the EU. It is the premium baijiu brand due to its appealing aroma and taste [26,27]. In the history of the Chinese national liquor tasting conference, Wuliangye baijiu has been awarded the distinction of “National Famous Liquor” four out of five times [26]. However, the knowledge on aroma compounds in Wuliangye baijiu is still minimal, especially for those trace compounds with unique aromas [4,28] that are due to the large amounts of esters and fatty acids in Wuliangye baijiu and its unique manufacturing processes [29,30,31]. The high concentration of these esters and fatty acids dominates the GC chromatogram and overloads the column, making it challenging to analyze other minor aroma compounds.
Therefore, this study aims to develop a simple, fast, reproducible, and robust extraction and fractionation method for volatile analysis in Wuliangye and other baijiu. The approach will simultaneously extract the volatiles from baijiu using LiChrolut EN resin extraction and separate esters from other volatile compounds on the silica gel column. The tandem SPE technique will simplify the identification and analysis of trace aroma-active compounds, especially in GC-O analysis.
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Extraction by LiChrolut EN Resins
The recovery was based on the calculated concentration relative to the original concentration in 52% ethanol. The standard deviation was calculated based on triplicated analysis. As shown in Table 1, LiChrolut EN has an excellent ability to retain volatile compounds. At the 5 mg/L level in 52% ethanol, the recoveries of all fatty acid esters were almost complete. The recoveries for lactones, except for γ-butyrolactone (35%), were also excellent. LiChrolut EN showed remarkable recoveries for all volatile phenols, alcohols, aromatic esters, furans, and pyrazines, with only a few exceptions. Out of all of the classes of compounds investigated, only γ-butyrolactone and pyrazine had low recoveries, being 35% and 73%, respectively. Fortunately, neither γ-butyrolactone nor pyrazine is a key aroma compound to baijiu, and their accurate analysis is not needed.
In addition, LiChrolut EN resin had low extract efficiency for fatty acids, especially short-chain acids such as acetic acid (6.2%) and propanoic acid (19.0%). The carboxy acid contents in baijiu are very high [32], and these acids would cause significant interference in separating and identifying other volatile compounds in routine analysis. The low extraction efficiency for acids is beneficial because it simplifies the chromatogram to be more conducive to identifying other minor compounds in the extract. The high recoveries for aroma compounds and low recoveries for interfering carboxy acids reveal that LiChrolut EN is an excellent resin for isolating most aroma compounds from baijiu. It needs to be pointed out, however, that LiChrolut EN resin is not ideal for carboxy acid analysis.
2.2. Fractionation of Simulated Baijiu Sample
2.2.1. Simulated Baijiu Sample
Esters, alcohols, and carboxy acids are the main aroma compounds in baijiu. However, their concentrations vary widely depending on the aroma type and manufacturers, ranging from several ppb to ppm [9,33,34]. A simulated baijiu sample was used to study volatile compounds’ extraction and fractionation using tandem SPE columns based on volatile compounds in strong-aroma-type baijiu. However, the concentrations of some trace substances were increased for easy analysis. This simulated sample was used to evaluate the performance of the tandem SPE columns and the feasibility of this technique for separation.
2.2.2. Ester Distribution
Extracts were fractionated on the tandem SPE columns using pentane-dichloromethane or methanol-dichloromethane at different proportions with increased polarity. As shown in Table 2, pentane (F1) could not elute any compounds from the tandem columns. However, a small number of esters were eluted by pentane–dichloromethane (98:2) (F2), and most of the ethyl esters were eluted in pentane–dichloromethane (95:5) (F3) and pentane–dichloromethane (90:10) (F4). The acetates, however, were primarily eluted in F5 (80:20 pentane–dichloromethane) and some in F6 (50:50 pentane–dichloromethane). This fractionation is meaningful because the most abundant esters in baijiu are ethyl esters, grouped from F2 to F5. In addition, some of the acetates, including ethyl acetate, butyl acetate, isopentyl acetate, and hexyl acetate, were eluted out in F6. Except for ethyl acetate, concentrations of acetates are much lower in baijiu. Therefore, their presence in F6 will unlikely impose major problems for analyzing other polar volatile compounds.
Fan et al. [5,10] reported that esters of baijiu extracts would mainly be eluted out in the fractions of pentane:diethyl ether = 98:2 and pentane:diethyl ether = 95:5 from silica gel. Laura Culleré [19] indicated that when extracts of wines were fractionated in LiChrolut EN resins, ethyl esters of fatty acids would elute in the first fraction because of low retention factors. However, when tandem LiChrolut EN and silica gel columns were used in this study, a more polar solvent was needed to elute the esters. This may be because ester compounds would go through two chromatographic separations, so more polar solvents were needed to elute all the esters from both columns.
2.2.3. More Polar Fractions
F6 (50:50 pentane–dichloromethane) and F7 (90:10 dichloromethane–methanol) were the more polar fractions. All the acids, alcohols, pyrazines, hydroxy esters, and dibasic esters were eluted in F7 because of their strong polarity. Similarly, lactones, furans, and phenolics were mainly eluted in F7, although some were eluted in F6 (Table 3). It can be seen that these compounds were separated from ethyl esters so that the interference of esters on the identification of these substances can be eliminated.
Aromatic esters (except ethyl benzoate) were eluted in F5 and F6, and benzeneacetaldehyde was eluted in F6 and F7, whereas benzyl alcohol and phenylethyl alcohol were eluted in F7 due to being more polar.
It can also be observed that some compounds, such as 2,6-dimethylphenol, nonanal, and ethyl benzoate, were poorly chromatographed and appeared in several fractions. In addition, only a few aldehydes and ketones were included in the simulated sample, so their elution order was not apparent.
It has been reported previously that alcohols, phenols, aldehydes, and ketones can be eluted with pentane:diethyl ether from 95:5 to 50:50, depending on experimental conditions [5,10]. When wine volatiles were fractionated on the LiChrolut EN column, it was reported that most of the volatile compounds could be eluted in less polar fractions (pentane and pentane:dichloromethane = 90:10), whereas fatty acids, phenolics, some lactones, benzyl alcohol, and benzaldehyde are shown in more polar fractions [19]. Compared to the fractionation on silica gel and LiChrolut EN, the elution order was similar on the tandem LiChrolut EN and silica gel columns. This result encouraged further research to develop a simultaneous extraction and fractionation method to separate ester compounds from baijiu extracts.
2.3. Simultaneous Extraction and Fractionation of Baijiu by Tandem Lichrolut EN and Silica Gel SPE Columns
The simultaneous extraction and fractionation method was applied in three aroma types of baijiu (Wuliangye, Moutai, and Fenjiu) to separate esters from other compounds (Table 4). The results showed that the elution order of volatile compounds was quite similar to the simulated baijiu (see Section 2.1, Table 2 and Table 3). Under chromatographic conditions, esters were mainly eluted in less polar fractions (F1–F5 combined fractions). Because of their high concentrations, only a small amount of ethyl hexanoate and ethyl heptanoate were in more polar fractions (F6–F7 fractions). In addition, some long-chain ketones (≥C6), short-chain acetals, some aromatic compounds (benzaldehyde and aroma esters), phenol, and furfural were eluted in these fractions. On the other hand, acids, alcohols, pyrazines, furans, phenolics, hydroxy esters, and dibasic esters were eluted in more polar fractions (except furfural and phenol). Therefore, simultaneous extraction and fractionation using tandem SPE columns is an effective method to separate esters from other compounds in different aroma types of baijiu. As shown in Figure 1, very few esters were present in the polar fraction (F7), which allows for the unequivocal identification of minor polar compounds, including 2,6-dimethylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine, p-cresol, and 2-acetylpyrrole, in the samples. Comparing the three types of baijiu, both Wuliangye and Moutai had more polar compounds than Fengjiu.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Material
3.1.1. Materials
Three aroma types of baijiu samples (Wuliangye (52% vol), Moutai (53% vol), and Fenjiu (45% vol)) were purchased from a local supermarket.
LiChrolut EN resin (60–120 μm) was purchased from Merck KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany), and silica gel resin (60–200 micron) was purchased from Anpel Laboratory Technologies Inc. (Shanghai, China). Empty SPE cartridges were obtained from Agilent Technologies Inc. (Santa Clara, CA, USA).
3.1.2. Chemicals
Dichloromethane (HPLC grade, ≥99.9%) was purchased from Fischer Scientific (Shanghai, China), methanol (HPLC grade, ≥99.9%), and ethyl alcohol (HPLC grade, ≥99.5%) purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai, China). Standards involved in recovery-determined and simulated baijiu (see Table 1 and Table 5) and internal standards (4-octanol, ≥97.0%) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai, China), TCI (Shanghai, China), J&K Scientific (Shanghai, China), and Aladdin (Shanghai, China). Anhydrous sodium sulfate (≥99.0%) was purchased from Aladdin (Shanghai, China). A C7-C30 n-alkane mixture was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Shanghai, China). Pentane was obtained from Xilong Chemical Co., Ltd. (Guangdong, China), and was freshly redistilled prior to use. Milli-Q quality water was obtained from a Milli-Q purification system (Millipore, Shanghai, China).
3.2. Recovery of Volatile Compounds Extracted by LiChrolut EN Resin
Some main volatile compounds in baijiu (Table 1) were selected to determine the recovery of LiChrolut EN resin. Each compound standard was dissolved in 52% (v/v) ethanol–water mixture at a concentration of 5 ppm. A single LiChrolut EN SPE column (0.2 g of LiChrolut EN resins packed in a 6 mL standard SPE column) was used to extract the volatile compounds.
The SPE bed was conditioned sequentially by 5 mL of dichloromethane, methanol, and 10% ethanol–water. The sample (2 mL) was diluted to 10% ethanol (v/v) with Milli-Q-quality water. Then, the diluted sample was passed through the SPE bed with a flow rate of 1 mL/min. After the sample was loaded, the LiChrolut EN SPE bed was rinsed with 5 mL of water, then dried under vacuum at ambient temperature. The volatile compounds were finally eluted with 5 mL dichloromethane. The extract was dried with anhydrous sodium sulfate, filtered, and slowly concentrated to 500 μL under a gentle stream of nitrogen. The internal standard (4-octanol, 5 ppm) was added, and the extract was analyzed by GC–MS. Triplicate samples were prepared to calculate the standard deviation.
The volatile compound concentrations were determined using calibration graphs built with dichloromethane solutions containing known amounts of volatile compounds and a fixed quantity of the internal standard. The recovery was calculated using the concentration of volatile compounds found in eluted dichloromethane solutions divided by the concentration in the original mixture.
3.3. Preparation of Simulated Baijiu
A simulated baijiu sample (52% ethanol by vol) was prepared from pure standards based on the typical concentration range reported in strong-aroma-type baijiu (Table 5).
3.4. Simultaneous Extraction and Fractionation Using Tandem SPE Columns
The tandem SPE for fractionation (see Step 3 in Section 3.4.3) process constitutes one LiChrolut EN column, one anhydrous sodium sulfate column, and one silica gel column (Figure 2). The purpose of the LiChrolut EN, anhydrous sodium sulfate, and silica gel columns is to extract volatile compounds, remove free water, and achieve the final fractionation, respectively.
3.4.1. Step 1: Extraction of Volatile Compounds Using LiChrolut EN SPE Column
Volatile compounds were extracted by a single LiChrolut EN SPE column (1.0 g of LiChrolut EN resins packed in a 12 mL standard SPE column). The SPE bed was conditioned sequentially by 20 mL of dichloromethane, 20 mL of methanol, and 20 mL of 10% ethanol in water (v/v). The sample (10 mL) was diluted to 10% ethanol by volume with Milli-Q water. Then, the diluted sample was passed through the SPE column at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. After the sample loading, the LiChrolut EN SPE column was rinsed with 20 mL of water, then dried for 10 min under vacuum at ambient temperature.
3.4.2. Step 2: Installation of the Anhydrous Sodium Sulfate Column
A SPE bed packed with 10.0 g of anhydrous sodium sulfate in a 20 mL standard SPE column was connected to the volatile-loaded LiChrolut EN column in Step 1 (Figure 2).
3.4.3. Step 3: Connection of the Silica Gel SPE Column and Simultaneous Fractionation on the Tandem SPE Columns
A silica gel SPE column was prepared by packing silica gel (5.0 g) in a 12 mL standard SPE tube. The column was sequentially conditioned with an aliquot of 40 mL of methanol, dichloromethane, and pentane. The prepared silica gel column was installed in tandem with the sample-loaded LiChrolut EN column, with the anhydrous sodium sulfate column in between (Figure 2). Next, an aliquot of 40 mL of the mixture of pentane:dichloromethane, each at different compositions (F1: 100:0, F2: 98:2, F3: 95:5, F4: 90:10, F5: 80:20, F6:50:50), was sequentially applied to elute the volatile compounds from the tandem columns at a flow rate of 1 mL/min. Finally, 40 mL of dichloromethane:methanol (90:10, F7) was applied. All eluents were slowly concentrated to 2 mL and then to a final volume of 500 μL with a stream of nitrogen. An aliquot of 50 μL of the internal standard (4-octanol, final concentration was 5 mg/L) was added to each fraction for GC-MS analysis. Standard calibration curves were used to estimate volatile concentration in each fraction.
3.5. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analysis
Identification and quantitation of volatile compounds in each concentrated fraction were performed on an Agilent 7890B GC equipped with an Agilent 5977B mass selective detector (MSD, Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA), and a PAL RTC autosampler (CTC Analytics AG, Zwingen, Switzerland). A volume of 1 μL of concentrated fractions was injected into the GC injector and separated on an HP-Innowax column (60 m length, 0.32 mm i.d., 0.25 μm film thickness; Agilent Technologies, Inc.). Helium was used as the carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 1.0 mL/min. The GC injector temperature was set at 230 °C. The oven temperature was programmed at 40 °C for a 5 min holding and ramped up to 230 °C at a rate of 4 °C/min with 15 min holding. The MS transfer line and ion source temperatures were 250 and 230 °C, respectively. Electron ionization mass spectrometric data from m/z 35–350 were collected using a scan rate of 5.2/s, with an ionization voltage of 70 eV. The results were calculated using MassHunter software (version B.08.00, Agilent Technologies, Inc.). A C7-C30 n-alkane mixture was injected in the same conditions to calculate the retention indices (RIs), and RIs were calculated in accordance with the method of van den Dool and Kratz [41].
3.6. Volatile Compound Identification
Identification of volatile compounds was based on the following criteria: mass spectra (MS) of unknown compounds were compared with those in the NIST 17 database (Agilent Technologies Inc.), and RIs relative to those of pure reference compounds were compared to the RIs relative to those in the literature (RIL).
3.7. Application of Fractionation in Baijiu
The Wuliangye, Moutai, and Fenjiu baijiu samples were extracted and fractionated using the tandem SPE column method described in Section 3.4.
4. Conclusions
In conclusion, tandem LiChrolut EN-silica gel SPE columns allow fast volatile extraction and fractionation from Wuliangye and other baijiu. It integrates extraction and fractionation steps into a simple procedure. The method is quick and straightforward, with low solvent consumption and minimum extraction bias. It has excellent recoveries for important aroma compounds in baijiu. Furthermore, the technique can successfully eliminate the esters’ interference and facilitate other volatile compound identification and analysis. When this technique was used to analyze the minor polar compounds in Wuliangye, Moutai, and Fengjiu baijiu, many minor polar compounds, including 2,6-dimethylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine, p-cresol, and 2-acetylpyrrole, could be unequivocally identified in the samples.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, J.Z. and M.C.Q.; methodology, Z.H., Z.L. and K.Y.; investigation, Z.H.; data curation, Z.H.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.H.; writing—review and editing, J.Z. and M.C.Q.; supervision, D.Z. and M.C.Q.; project administration, Z.Q. and M.A.; funding acquisition, J.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by the Key High-Tech Project of Yibin, Sichuan province, China (grant number 2019RC001).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sample Availability
Samples are available from the authors.
References
- Liu, H.; Sun, B. Effect of Fermentation Processing on the Flavor of Baijiu. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 5425–5432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, W.; Xu, Y.; Qian, M.C. Current Practice and Future Trends of Aroma and Flavor Research in Chinese Baijiu. In Sex, Smoke, and Spirits: The Role of Chemistry; Guthrie, B., Beauchamp, J.D., Buettner, A., Toth, S., Qian, M.C., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; pp. 145–175. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, W.; Qian, M.C. Headspace solid phase microextraction and gas chromatography-olfactometry dilution analysis of young and aged Chinese “Yanghe Daqu” liquors. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 7931–7938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, W.; Qian, M.C. Characterization of aroma compounds of Chinese “Wuliangye” and “Jiannanchun” liquors by aroma extract dilution analysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 2695–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fan, W.; Qian, M.C. Identification of aroma compounds in Chinese “Yanghe Daqu“ liquor by normal phase chromatography fractionation followed by gas chromatography olfactometry. Flavour Frag. J. 2010, 21, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, Y.L.; An, Y.; Chen, S.; Qian, M.C. Characterization of Qingke liquor aroma from Tibet. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 13870–13881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- He, Y.; Liu, Z.; Qian, M.C.; Yu, X.; Xu, Y.; Chen, S. Unraveling the chemosensory characteristics of strong-aroma type Baijiu from different regions using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography–time-of-flight mass spectrometry and descriptive sensory analysis. Food Chem. 2020, 331, 127335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, Y.; Fan, W.; Qian, M.C. Characterization of aroma compounds in apple cider using solvent-assisted flavor evaporation and headspace solid-phase microextraction. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 3051–3057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, W.; Fan, W.; Xu, Y. Characterization of the key odorants in light aroma type Chinese liquor by gas chromatography–olfactometry, quantitative measurements, aroma recombination, and omission studies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 5796–5804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, W.; Hu, G.; Xu, Y.; Jia, Q.; Ran, X. Analysis of aroma components in Chinese herbaceous aroma type liquor. J. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 31, 810–819. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, W.; Xu, Y. Identification of volatile compounds of Fenjiu and Langjiu by liquid-liquid extraction coupled with normal phase liquid chromatography(Part One). Liquor. Mak. Sci. Technol. 2013, 02, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, W.; Xu, Y. Identification of volatile compounds of Fenjiu and Langjiu by liquid-liquid extraction coupled with normal phase liquid chromatography (Last Part). Liquor. Mak. Sci. Technol. 2013, 03, 17–27. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, S.; Xu, Y.; Qian, M.C. Aroma characterization of Chinese rice wine by gas chromatography-olfactometry, chemical quantitative analysis, and aroma reconstitution. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 11295–11302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gamoh, K.; Nakashima, K. Liquid chromatography/mass spectrometric determination oftrans-resveratrol in wine using a tandem solid-phase extraction method. Rapid Commun. Mass Spectrom. 1999, 13, 1112–1115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, R.; Aznar, M.; Cacho, J.; Ferreira, V. Determination of minor and trace volatile compounds in wine by solid-phase extraction and gas chromatography with mass spectrometric detection. J. Chromatogr. A 2002, 966, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villiers, A.D.; Lynen, F.; Crouch, A.; Sandra, P. Development of a solid-phase extraction procedure for the simultaneous determination of polyphenols, organic acids and sugars in wine. Chromatographia 2004, 59, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, T.; Hui, R.; Hou, D. Analysis of volatile compounds from Chinese wine by solid phase extraction and GC/MS. J. Chin. Mass Spectrom. Soc. 2007, 28, 96–100. [Google Scholar]
- Nie, Q.; Fan, W.; Xu, Y. Quantification of γ-lactones in Baijiu with solid phase extraction (SPE)-gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Food Ferment. Ind. 2012, 38, 159–164. [Google Scholar]
- Aznar, M.; Cacho, J.; Ferreira, V. Fast fractionation of complex organic extracts by normal-phase chromatography on a solid-phase extraction polymeric sorbent: Optimization of a method to fractionate wine flavor extracts. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 1017, 17–26. [Google Scholar]
- Gun’Ko, V.M.; Turov, V.V.; Zarko, V.I.; Nychiporuk, Y.M.; Turov, A.V. Structural features of polymer adsorbent LiChrolut EN and interfacial behavior of water and water/organic mixtures. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2008, 323, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiehn, O.; Jekel, M. Comparison of sorbents using semipolar to highly hydrophilic compounds for a sequential solid-phase extraction procedure of industrial wastewaters. Anal. Chem. 1996, 68, 3083–3089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, P.; Batlle, R.; Nerín, C.; Cacho, J.; Ferreira, V. Use of new generation poly(styrene-divinylbenzene) resins for gas-phase trapping-thermal desorption. Application to the retention of seven volatile organic compounds. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1139, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qian, M.C.; Reineccius, G. Identification of aroma compounds in parmigiano-reggiano cheese by gas chromatography/olfactometry. J. Dairy Sci. 2002, 85, 1362–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Etievant, P.X.; Bayonove, C.L. Aroma components of pomaces and wine from the variety muscat de frontignan. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 34, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, V.; Fernández, P.; Gracia, J.P.; Cacho, J.F. Identification of volatile constituents in wines from Vitis vinifera var vidadillo and sensory contribution of the different wine flavour fractions. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 69, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y. Handbook of Chinese Baijiu Making Technology; China Light Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, J.; Zhao, D.; Peng, Z.; Yang, K.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, Y. Variation of aroma profile in fermentation process of Wuliangye baobaoqu starter. Food Res. Int. 2018, 114, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kim, J.S.; Kam, S.F.; Chung, H.Y. Comparison of the volatile components in two Chinese wines, Moutai and Wuliangye. J. Korean Soc. Appl. Biol. Chem 2009, 52, 275–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zheng, J.; Zhao, D.; Yang, K.; Zhang, J.; Liu, F. Research progress in production of Wuliangye by microbial ecology and flavor chemistry. Liquor. Mak. Sci. Technol. 2019, 112–116. [Google Scholar]
- Peng, Z.; Zhao, D.; Zheng, J.; Yuan, J.; Cao, H.; Peng, Z. Comparison of flavor characteristics between low-alcohol and high-alcohol Wuliangye by using modern flavor chemistry technology. Liquor. Mak. Sci. Technol. 2019, 12, 17–22. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, D.; Zheng, J. Research progress on aroma compounds in Wuliangye. In Sex, Smoke, and Spirits: The Role of Chemistry; Guthrie, B., Beauchamp, J.D., Buettner, A., Toth, S., Qian, M.C., Eds.; ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; pp. 253–261. [Google Scholar]
- Cheng, J.; Hu, G. Determination of lactic acid and fatty acids in Chinese spirits by direct-injection technique with packed column gas chromatography. Liquor. Mak. Sci. Technol. 2019, 77–78. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, X.; Fan, W.; Xu, Y. Comparison on aroma compounds in Chinese soy sauce and strong aroma type liquors by gas chromatography–olfactometry, chemical quantitative and odor activity values analysis. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2014, 239, 813–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fan, H.; Fan, W.; Xu, Y. Characterization of key odorants in Chinese chixiang aroma-type liquor by gas chromatography–olfactometry, quantitative measurements, aroma recombination, and omission studies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 3660–3668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Roland, T.; Friese, L.; Fendesack, F.; Koppler, H. Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric investigation of hop aroma constituents in beer. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1978, 26, 1422–1426. [Google Scholar]
- Akio, Y. Identification of volatile compounds in poultry manure by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. 1987, 387, 371–378. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, I.H.; Choi, H.K.; Kim, Y.S. Difference in the volatile composition of pine-mushrooms (Tricholoma matsutake Sing.) according to their grades. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 4820–4825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Qian, M.C.; Wang, Y. Seasonal Variation of volatile composition and odor activity value of ‘Marion’ (Rubus Spp. Hyb) and ‘Thornless Evergreen’ (R. Laciniatus L.) blackberries. J. Food Sci. 2005, 70, C13–C20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallia, S.; Ferna’ndez-Garcı´a, E.; Bosset, J.O. Comparison of purge and trap and solid phase microextraction techniques for studying the volatile aroma compounds of three European PDO hard cheeses. Int. Dairy J. 2005, 15, 741–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Y.; Xu, Y.; Li, J.; Fan, W.; Jiang, W. Profile of volatile compounds in 11 brandies by headspace solid-phase microextraction followed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, C90–C99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Dool, H.; Kratz, P.D. A generalization of the retention index system including linear temperature programmed gas-liquid partition chromatography. J. Chromatogr. 1963, 11, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
GC chromatogram of F7 (dichloromethane 90%:methanol 10%) of different baijiu samples: (a) Wuliangye; (b) Moutai; (c) Fengjiu. Note: (1) 2-pentanone; (2) 2-butanol; (3) 1-propanol; (4) 2-methyl-1-propanol; (5) 3-methyl-2-butanol; (6) 1-butanol; (7) 3-penten-2-ol; (8) 3-methyl-1-butanol; (9) 2-hexanol; (10) 1-pentanol; (11) 2-methylpyrazine; (12) acetoin; (13) 1,1,3-triethoxypropane; (14) 2-heptanol; (15) 2,6-dimethylpyrazine; (16) ethyl lactate; (17) 1-hexanol; (18) 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine; (19) 3-octanol; (20) nonanal; (21) trimethylpyrazine; (22) ethyl 2-hydroxy-3-methylbutanoate; (23) 1-heptanol; (24) acetic acid; (25) furfural; (26) tetramethylpyrazine; (27) 2-ethyl-1-hexanol; (28) 2-acetylfuran; (29) ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate; (30) 1-octanol; (31) isoamyl lactate; (32) 2-methylpropanoic acid; (33) 1,2-propanediol; (34) ethyl 4-oxovalerate; (35) 2-acetyl-5-methylfuran; (36) butanoic acid; (37) 3-furanmethanol; (38) 3-methylbutanoic acid; (39) diehtyl butanedioate; (40) pentanoic acid; (41) ethyl phenylacetate; (42) 4-methylpentanoic acid; (43) hexanoic acid; (44) benzyl alcohol; (45) phenylethyl alcohol; (46) heptanoic acid; (47) phenol; (48) octanoic acid; (49) p-cresol; (50) nonanoic acid; (51) 2-ethylphenol.
Figure 1.
GC chromatogram of F7 (dichloromethane 90%:methanol 10%) of different baijiu samples: (a) Wuliangye; (b) Moutai; (c) Fengjiu. Note: (1) 2-pentanone; (2) 2-butanol; (3) 1-propanol; (4) 2-methyl-1-propanol; (5) 3-methyl-2-butanol; (6) 1-butanol; (7) 3-penten-2-ol; (8) 3-methyl-1-butanol; (9) 2-hexanol; (10) 1-pentanol; (11) 2-methylpyrazine; (12) acetoin; (13) 1,1,3-triethoxypropane; (14) 2-heptanol; (15) 2,6-dimethylpyrazine; (16) ethyl lactate; (17) 1-hexanol; (18) 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine; (19) 3-octanol; (20) nonanal; (21) trimethylpyrazine; (22) ethyl 2-hydroxy-3-methylbutanoate; (23) 1-heptanol; (24) acetic acid; (25) furfural; (26) tetramethylpyrazine; (27) 2-ethyl-1-hexanol; (28) 2-acetylfuran; (29) ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate; (30) 1-octanol; (31) isoamyl lactate; (32) 2-methylpropanoic acid; (33) 1,2-propanediol; (34) ethyl 4-oxovalerate; (35) 2-acetyl-5-methylfuran; (36) butanoic acid; (37) 3-furanmethanol; (38) 3-methylbutanoic acid; (39) diehtyl butanedioate; (40) pentanoic acid; (41) ethyl phenylacetate; (42) 4-methylpentanoic acid; (43) hexanoic acid; (44) benzyl alcohol; (45) phenylethyl alcohol; (46) heptanoic acid; (47) phenol; (48) octanoic acid; (49) p-cresol; (50) nonanoic acid; (51) 2-ethylphenol.
Figure 2.
Tandem Lichrolut EN and silica gel SPE columns for simultaneous extraction and fractionation.
Figure 2.
Tandem Lichrolut EN and silica gel SPE columns for simultaneous extraction and fractionation.
Table 1.
Recovery of volatile compounds extracted by LiChrolut EN resin.
| RI (HP-Innowax) | Compounds | Quantifier Ion (Qualifier Ions) (m/z) | Recovery | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 900 | Ethyl acetate | 43 (61, 70) | 138% | 2% |
| 1064 | Ethyl 3-methylbutanoate | 88 (85, 60) | 103% | 5% |
| 1137 | Ethyl pentanoate | 88 (85, 73) | 118% | 10% |
| 1244 | Ethyl hexanoate | 88 (99, 60) | 124% | 4% |
| 1329 | Ethyl heptanoate | 88 (113, 101) | 107% | 9% |
| 1446 | Ethyl octanoate | 88 (101, 127) | 96% | 1% |
| 1538 | Ethyl nonanoate | 88 (101, 141) | 96% | 7% |
| 1630 | Ethyl decanoate | 88 (101, 155) | 95% | 5% |
| 1358 | Ethyl lactate | 45 (75) | 99% | 8% |
| 1410 | Ethyl 2-hydroxybutanoate | 59 (75, 89) | 98% | 10% |
| 1442 | Ethyl 2-hydroxypentanoate | 73 (55, 104) | 104% | 7% |
| 1468 | Butyl lactate | 45 (57, 85) | 98% | 8% |
| 1545 | Ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate | 69 (87, 104) | 101% | 5% |
| 1583 | Isoamyl lactate | 45 (70, 55) | 99% | 7% |
| 1635 | γ-Butyrolactone | 42 (56, 86) | 35% | 2% |
| 1615 | γ-Pentalactone | 56 (85, 41) | 106% | 4% |
| 1726 | γ-Hexanolactone | 85 (56, 70) | 111% | 4% |
| 1785 | γ-Heptalactone | 85 (56, 110) | 111% | 4% |
| 1883 | γ-Octalactone | 85 (56, 100) | 124% | 3% |
| 2129 | γ-Decalactone | 85 (56, 128) | 113% | 1% |
| 2376 | γ-Dodecalactone | 85 (41, 55) | 107% | 2% |
| 1882 | Guaiacol | 109 (81, 124) | 108% | 6% |
| 1931 | 2,6-Dimethylphenol | 122 (107, 77) | 112% | 4% |
| 1979 | 4-Methylguaiacol | 138 (123, 95) | 107% | 5% |
| 2007 | Phenol | 94 (66, 39) | 97% | 7% |
| 2079 | p-Cresol | 107 (108, 77) | 100% | 5% |
| 2132 | 4-Ethylphenol | 107 (122, 77) | 100% | 5% |
| 2211 | 4-Vinylguaiacol | 135 (150, 107) | 102% | 4% |
| 1094 | 2-Methylpropanol | 43 (41, 74) | 92% | 4% |
| 1149 | 1-Butanol | 56 (41, 43) | 117% | 14% |
| 1224 | 3-Methyl-1-butanol | 55 (70, 42) | 109% | 2% |
| 1265 | 1-Pentanol | 42 (55, 70) | 106% | 5% |
| 1366 | 1-Hexanol | 56 (69, 43) | 111% | 5% |
| 1465 | 1-Heptanol | 70 (56, 43) | 117% | 6% |
| 1556 | 1-Octanol | 56 (70, 84) | 113% | 4% |
| 1427 | Acetic acid | 60 (43, 45) | 6% | 4% |
| 1526 | Propanoic acid | 74 (45, 57) | 19% | 5% |
| 1565 | 2-Methylpropanoic acid | 43 (73, 88) | 78% | 2% |
| 1644 | Butanoic acid | 60 (73, 55) | 67% | 3% |
| 1686 | 3-Methylbutanoic acid | 60 (43, 87) | 74% | 1% |
| 1753 | Pentanoic acid | 60 (73, 55) | 67% | 4% |
| 1866 | Hexanoic acid | 60 (73, 87) | 68% | 3% |
| 1112 | 2-n-Butyl furan | 81 (53, 124) | 82% | 9% |
| 1518 | 2-Acetylfuran | 95 (110, 43) | 119% | 5% |
| 1477 | Furfural | 96 + 95 (39, 67) | 119% | 7% |
| 1659 | 3-Furanmethanol | 98 (69, 81) | 102% | 5% |
| 1665 | Furfuryl butanoate | 81 (98, 168) | 109% | 4% |
| 1228 | Pyrazine | 80 (53, 81) | 73% | 5% |
| 1283 | 2-Methylpyrazine | 94 (67, 53) | 108% | 1% |
| 1319 | 2,5-Dimethylpyrazine | 108 (42, 81) | 103% | 2% |
| 1346 | 2,6-Dimethylpyrazine | 108 (42, 40) | 109% | 0% |
| 1292 | 2-Ethylpyrazine | 107 (108, 80) | 119% | 3% |
| 1330 | 2,3-Dimethylpyrazine | 67 (108, 40) | 107% | 2% |
| 1418 | Trimethylpyrazine | 122 (42, 81) | 108% | 4% |
| 1434 | 3-Ethyl-2,5-dimethylpyrazine | 135 (56, 108) | 113% | 1% |
| 1447 | 2,3-Dimethyl-5-ethylpyrazine | 135 (108, 136) | 118% | 2% |
| 1463 | 2-Ethenyl-6-methylpyrazine | 120 (52, 94) | 114% | 5% |
| 1480 | Tetramethylpyrazine | 136 (54, 42) | 113% | 3% |
| 1491 | 2,3,5-Trimethyl-6-ethylpyrazine | 149 (150, 122) | 109% | 5% |
| 1501 | 2,3-Diethyl-5-methylpyrazine | 150 (135, 121) | 109% | 5% |
| 1665 | Ethyl benzoate | 105 (77, 122) | 109% | 4% |
| 1789 | Ethyl phenylacetate | 91 (164, 65) | 113% | 5% |
| 1896 | Benzyl alcohol | 79 (108, 91) | 107% | 6% |
| 1907 | Ethyl 3-phenylpropanoate | 104 (91, 178) | 111% | 4% |
| 1931 | Phenylethyl alcohol | 91 (122, 65) | 112% | 4% |
| 1958 | Phenethyl butanoate | 104 (105, 71) | 112% | 1% |
| 2160 | Phenethyl hexanoate | 104 (105, 99) | 104% | 4% |
Table 2.
Ester distribution (as a percent of the total amount) in different fractions.
| RI (HP-Innowax) | Compounds | Less Polar Fractions | More Polar Fractions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | ||
| 900 | Ethyl acetate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| 1032 | Ethyl butanoate | 0% | 0% | 10% | 44% | 44% | 2% | 0% |
| 1049 | Ethyl 2-methylbutanoate | 0% | 0% | 40% | 60% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 1064 | Ethyl 3-methylbutanoate | 0% | 0% | 27% | 49% | 24% | 0% | 0% |
| 1075 | Butyl acetate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 70% | 30% | 0% |
| 1122 | Isopentyl acetate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 11% | 70% | 19% | 0% |
| 1137 | Ethyl pentanoate | 0% | 0% | 17% | 49% | 32% | 2% | 0% |
| 1191 | Ethyl 4-methylpentanoate | 0% | 0% | 26% | 53% | 21% | 0% | 0% |
| 1227 | Butyl butanoate | 0% | 1% | 36% | 52% | 11% | 0% | 0% |
| 1244 | Ethyl hexanoate | 0% | 2% | 28% | 46% | 22% | 2% | 0% |
| 1272 | Isopentyl butanoate | 0% | 0% | 43% | 50% | 7% | 0% | 0% |
| 1277 | Hexyl acetate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 83% | 13% | 0% |
| 1317 | Propyl hexanoate | 0% | 4% | 36% | 50% | 10% | 0% | 0% |
| 1329 | Ethyl heptanoate | 0% | 2% | 30% | 53% | 16% | 0% | 0% |
| 1351 | Isobutyl hexanoate | 0% | 7% | 46% | 45% | 3% | 0% | 0% |
| 1376 | Isoamyl isovalerate | 0% | 6% | 43% | 47% | 4% | 0% | 0% |
| 1417 | Butyl hexanoate | 0% | 5% | 40% | 49% | 7% | 0% | 0% |
| 1428 | Hexyl butanoate | 0% | 6% | 38% | 47% | 9% | 0% | 0% |
| 1446 | Ethyl octanoate | 0% | 2% | 30% | 53% | 14% | 0% | 0% |
| 1469 | Isopentyl hexanoate | 0% | 6% | 45% | 46% | 3% | 0% | 0% |
| 1505 | Pentyl hexanoate | 0% | 5% | 40% | 49% | 5% | 0% | 0% |
| 1538 | Ethyl nonanoate | 0% | 3% | 30% | 55% | 12% | 0% | 0% |
| 1605 | Hexyl hexanoate | 0% | 0% | 43% | 52% | 6% | 0% | 0% |
| 1630 | Ethyl decanoate | 0% | 3% | 29% | 56% | 12% | 0% | 0% |
| 2052 | Ethyl tetradecanoate | 0% | 7% | 46% | 38% | 9% | 0% | 0% |
| 2158 | Ethyl pentadecanoate | 0% | 0% | 56% | 44% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 2252 | Ethyl palmitate | 0% | 0% | 49% | 40% | 10% | 0% | 0% |
| 2421 | Ethyl stearate | 0% | 0% | 68% | 32% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Note: F1, pentane fraction; F2, pentane:dichloromethane, 98:2; F3, pentane:dichloromethane, 95:5; F4, pentane:dichloromethane, 90:10; F5, pentane:dichloromethane, 80:20; F6, pentane:dichloromethane, 50:50; F7, dichloromethane:methanol, 90:10.
Table 3.
Other volatile distributions (as a percent of the total elution) in different fractions.
| RI (HP-Innowax) | Compounds | Less Polar Fractions | More Polar Fractions | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | ||
| Acids | ||||||||
| 1565 | 2-Methylpropanoic acid | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1644 | Butanoic acid | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1686 | 3-Methylbutanoic acid | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1753 | Pentanoic acid | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1866 | Hexanoic acid | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Alcohols | ||||||||
| 1094 | 2-Methyl-1-propanol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1118 | 2-Pentanol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1149 | 1-Butanol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1224 | 3-Methyl-1-butanol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1265 | 1-Pentanol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1366 | 1-Hexanol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1465 | 1-Heptanol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1556 | 1-Octanol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Pyrazines | ||||||||
| 1283 | 2-Methylpyrazine | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1346 | 2,6-Dimethylpyrazine | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1418 | Trimethylpyrazine | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1480 | Tetramethylpyrazine | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Lactones | ||||||||
| 1615 | γ-Pentalactone | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 2024 | γ-Nonanolactone | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 97% |
| Furans | ||||||||
| 1477 | Furfural | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 74% | 26% |
| 1518 | 2-Acety furan | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 91% |
| 1659 | 3-Furanmethanol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Phenolics | ||||||||
| 1882 | Guaiacol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 1% | 99% |
| 1931 | 2,6-Dimethylphenol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 9% | 83% | 8% | 0% |
| 1979 | 4-Methylguaiacol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 3% | 97% |
| 2007 | Phenol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 7% | 93% |
| 2050 | 4-Ethylguaiacol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 2% | 98% |
| 2079 | p-Cresol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 5% | 95% |
| 2132 | 4-Ethylphenol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 7% | 93% |
| Hydroxyesters and dibasic esters | ||||||||
| 1358 | Ethyl lactate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1410 | Ethyl 2-hydroxybutanoate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1468 | Butyl lactate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1545 | Ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1669 | Diehtyl butanedioate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| Aldehydes and ketones | ||||||||
| 986 | 2-Pentone | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| 1083 | Hexanal | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0% |
| 1193 | Heptanal | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 85% | 15% | 0% |
| 1409 | Nonanal | 0% | 0% | 0% | 20% | 60% | 15% | 5% |
| Aromatics | ||||||||
| 1665 | Ethyl benzoate | 0% | 2% | 28% | 61% | 9% | 0% | 0% |
| 1652 | Benzeneacetaldehyde | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 39% | 61% |
| 1789 | Ethyl phenylacetate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 32% | 68% | 0% |
| 1896 | Benzyl alcohol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
| 1907 | Ethyl 3-phenylpropanoate | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 19% | 81% | 0% |
| 1931 | Phenylethyl alcohol | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 100% |
Note: F1, pentane fraction; F2, pentane:dichloromethane, 98:2; F3, pentane:dichloromethane, 95:5; F4, pentane:dichloromethane, 90:10; F5, pentane:dichloromethane, 80:20; F6, pentane:dichloromethane, 50:50; F7, dichloromethane:methanol, 90:10.
Table 4.
Three baijiu volatile distributions in F1–F5 and F6–F7 (as the percentage of the total elution amount).
Table 4.
Three baijiu volatile distributions in F1–F5 and F6–F7 (as the percentage of the total elution amount).
| RI a (RIL) | Compounds | Quantifier Ion (Qualifier Ions) (m/z) | Identification Basis b | Wuliangye | Moutai | Fenjiu | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1–F5 Combined Fractions | F6–F7 Combined Fractions | F1–F5 Combined Fractions | F6–F7 Combines Fractions | F1–F5 Combined Fractions | F6–F7 Combined Fractions | ||||
| Esters | |||||||||
| 900 | Ethyl acetate | 43 (61, 70) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| 1032 | Ethyl butanoate | 71 (88, 60) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| 1049 | Ethyl 2-methylbutanoate | 57 (102, 85) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| 1064 | Ethyl 3-methylbutanoate | 88 (85, 60) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| 1122 (1126 [35]) | Isopentyl acetate | 70 (55, 87) | MS, RIL | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| 1137 | Ethyl pentanoate | 88 (85, 73) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| 1191 | Ethyl 4-methylpentanoate | 74 (101, 86) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | – | – | – | – |
| 1244 | Ethyl hexanoate | 88 (99, 60) | MS, RI | 98% | 2% | 94% | 6% | 83% | 17% |
| 1279 (1305 [36]) | Pentyl butanoate | 71 (55, 89) | MS, RIL | 100% | 0% | – | – | – | – |
| 1287 | Hexyl acetate | 56 (61, 84) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | – | – |
| 1333 | Propyl hexanoate | 99 (117, 61) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | – | – |
| 1338 | Butyl hexanoate | 99 (117, 71) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | – | – | – | – |
| 1348 | Ethyl heptanoate | 88 (113, 101) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | 96% | 4% | 91% | 9% |
| 1366 | Isobutyl hexanoate | 99 (117, 71) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | – | – | – | – |
| 1376 | Isopentyl isopentanoate | 70 (85, 57) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | – | – | – | – |
| 1428 | Hexyl butanoate | 71 (89, 84) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | – | – | – | – |
| 1446 | Ethyl octanoate | 88 (101, 127) | MS, RI | 99% | 1% | 97% | 3% | 100% | 0% |
| 1469 | Isopentyl hexanoate | 70 (99, 117) | MS, RI | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | – | – |
| 1538 | Ethyl nonanoate | 88 (101, 141) | MS, RI | 91% | 9% | 89% | 11% | 82% | 18% |
| 1561 (1552 [35]) | Isopentyl heptanoate | 70 (55, 85) | MS, RIL | 100% | 0% | – | – | – | – |
| 1605 | Hexyl hexanoate | 117 (99, 84) | MS, RI | 99% | 1% | 84% | 16% | 0% | 100% |
| 1630 | Ethyl decanoate | 88 (101, 155) | MS, RI | 93% | 7% | 92% | 8% | 96% | 4% |
| 1850 | Ethyl dodecanoate | 88 (101, 183) | MS, RI | 99% | 1% | 97% | 3% | 100% | 0% |
| 2052 | Ethyl tetradecanoate | 88 (101, 157) | MS, RI | 99% | 1% | 99% | 1% | 100% | 0% |
| 2252 | Ethyl palmitate | 88 (101, 157) | MS, RI | 98% | 2% | 99% | 1% | 96% | 4% |
| 2477 | Ethyl Oleate | 55 (95, 109) | MS, RI | 82% | 18% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| 2525 | Ethyl linoleate | 67 (95, 109) | MS, RI | 99% | 1% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% |
| Acids | |||||||||
| 1468 | Acetic acid | 60 (43, 45) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1565 | 2-Methylpropanoic acid | 43 (73, 88) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1644 | Butanoic acid | 60 (73, 55) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1686 | 3-Methylbutanoic acid | 60 (43, 87) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1753 | Pentanoic acid | 60 (73, 55) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1816 (1817 [36]) | 4-Methylpentanoic acid | 57 (74, 83) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1866 | Hexanoic acid | 60 (73, 87) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1978 | Heptanoic acid | 60 (73, 87) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 2067 | Octanoic acid | 60 (73, 101) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 2138 | Nonanoic acid | 60 (73, 115) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Alcohols | |||||||||
| 1033 | 2-Butanol | 45 (59, 41) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1094 | 2-Methyl-1-propanol | 43 (74, 41) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1118 (1118 [36]) | 3-Methyl-2-butanol | 45 (55, 73) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1149 | 1-Butanol | 56 (41, 43) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1168 (1170 [37]) | 3-Penten-2-ol | 71 (43, 86) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1215 (1220 [38]) | 2-Methyl-1-butanol | 57 (41, 70) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1224 | 3-Methyl-1-butanol | 55 (70, 42) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1244 | 2-Hexanol | 45 (69, 87) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1265 | 1-Pentanol | 42 (55, 70) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1340 | 2-Heptanol | 45 (55, 83) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1366 | 1-Hexanol | 56 (69, 43) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1393 (1396 [37]) | 3-Octanol | 59 (83, 101) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1458 | 1-Octen-3-ol | 57 (85, 71) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | – | – | – | – |
| 1465 | 1-Heptanol | 70 (56, 43) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1496 (1495 [5]) | 2-Ethyl-1-hexanol | 57 (70, 83) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1556 | 1-Octanol | 56 (70, 84) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1605 (1605 [39]) | 1,2-Propanediol | 45 (43, 61) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Pyrazines | |||||||||
| 1283 | 2-Methylpyrazine | 94 (67, 53) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1346 | 2,6-Dimethylpyrazine | 108 (42, 40) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1400 | 2-Ethyl-6-methylpyrazine | 121 (94, 56) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1418 | Trimethylpyrazine | 122 (42, 81) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1469 | 2-Ethyl-3,5-dimethyl-pyrazine | 135 (54, 108) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1480 | Tetramethylpyrazine | 136 (54, 42) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Furans | |||||||||
| 1477 | Furfural | 96 + 95 (39, 67) | MS, RI | 14% | 86% | 9% | 91% | 25% | 75% |
| 1518 | 2-Acetylfuran | 95 (110, 39) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1618 | 2-Acetyl-5-methylfuran | 109 (124, 53) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1659 | 3-Furanmethanol | 98 (69, 81) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Phenolics | |||||||||
| 2007 | Phenol | 94 (66, 65) | MS, RI | 12% | 88% | 18% | 82% | 25% | 75% |
| 2079 | p-Cresol | 107 (108, 77) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 2132 | 2-Ethylphenol | 107 (122, 77) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Hydroxy esters and dibasic esters | |||||||||
| 1358 | Ethyl lactate | 45 (75) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1446 (1443 [6]) | Ethyl 2-hydroxy-3-methylbutanoate | 73 (55, 104) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1468 | Butyl lactate | 45 (57, 85) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1545 | Ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate | 69 (87, 104) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1562 (1540 [38]) | Ethyl 3-hydroxybutanoate | 45 (60, 87) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1565 | Isoamyl lactate | 45 (70, 55) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | – | – | – | – |
| 1612 (1607 [40]) | Ethyl 4-oxopentanoate | 99 (74, 129) | MS, RIL | 0% | 100% | – | – | – | – |
| 1669 | Butanedioic acid, diethyl ester | 101 (129, 73) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Aldehydes and ketones | |||||||||
| 1409 | Nonanal | 57 (43, 98) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 986 | 2-Pentanone | 43 (86, 71) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1081 (1083 [36]) | 2-Hexanone | 58 (43, 85) | MS, RIL | 43% | 57% | – | – | – | – |
| 1203 (1200 [38]) | 2-Heptanone | 58 (43, 71) | MS, RIL | 86% | 14% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
| 1304 | Acetoin | 45 (88) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1301 (1283 [35]) | 2-Octanone | 58 (71, 43) | MS, RIL | 100% | 0% | – | – | – | – |
| 1409 (1417 [38]) | 2-Nonanone | 58 (71, 142) | MS, RIL | 100% | 0% | – | – | – | – |
| 1595 (1608 [38]) | 2-Undecanone | 58 (43, 71) | MS, RIL | – | – | 100% | 0% | – | – |
| Acetals | |||||||||
| 903 | 1,1-Diethoxyethane | 45 (73, 103) | MS, RI | – | – | 100% | 0% | – | – |
| 1069 (1068 [4]) | 1,1-Diethoxy-3-methylbutane | 103 (75, 115) | MS, RIL | 100% | 0% | 63% | 37% | 100% | 0% |
| 1244 | 1,1-Diethoxyhexane | 103 (129, 75) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 61% | 39% | 100% | 0% |
| 1319 | 1,1,3-Triethoxypropane | 103 (87, 75) | MS, RI | 30% | 70% | 1% | 99% | 0% | 100% |
| Aromatics | |||||||||
| 1534 (1537 [6]) | Benzaldehyde | 106 (77, 51) | MS, RIL | 98% | 2% | 99% | 1% | 98% | 2% |
| 1665 | Ethyl benzoate | 105 (77, 122) | MS, RI | 97% | 3% | 82% | 18% | 97% | 3% |
| 1652 | Benzeneacetaldehyde | 91 (120, 65) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 18% | 82% |
| 1789 | Ethyl phenylacetate | 91 (164, 65) | MS, RI | 75% | 25% | 98% | 2% | 95% | 5% |
| 1896 | Benzyl alcohol | 79 (108, 91) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1907 | Ethyl 3-phenylpropanoate | 104 (91, 178) | MS, RI | 68% | 32% | 95% | 5% | 96% | 4% |
| 1931 | Phenylethyl alcohol | 91 (122, 65) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| Others | |||||||||
| 1191 | Pyridine | 79 (52, 78) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% |
| 1994 | 2-Acetylpyrrole | 109 (94, 66) | MS, RI | 0% | 100% | 0% | 100% | – | – |
a Linear retention index calculated on HP-Innowax capillary column. b Methods used for identification of compounds. MS, compounds were identified by mass spectra; RI, compounds were identified by comparison with RI to the pure standards; RIL, compounds were identified by comparison with RI from the literature; –, not identified.
Table 5.
Concentration of volatile compounds used for baijiu simulation.
| Compounds | Company | Purity | Quantifier Ion (Qualifier Ions) (m/z) | Concentration (ppm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Esters | ||||
| Ethyl acetate | J&K | 99.90% | 43 (61, 70) | 5 |
| Ethyl butanoate | J&K | 99.00% | 71 (88, 60) | 200 |
| Ethyl 2-methylbutanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 57 (102, 85) | 5 |
| Ethyl 3-methylbutanoate | TCI | >99.0% | 88 (85, 60) | 5 |
| Butyl acetate | TCI | >99.0% | 43 (56, 73) | 5 |
| Isopentyl acetate | TCI | >98.0% | 70 (55, 87) | 5 |
| Ethyl pentanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 88 (85, 73) | 5 |
| Ethyl 4-methylpentanoate | Sigma | ≥97.0% | 74 (101, 86) | 5 |
| Butyl butanoate | TCI | >99.0% | 71 (56, 89) | 5 |
| Ethyl hexanoate | J&K | 99.00% | 88 (99, 60) | 2000 |
| Isopentyl butanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 71 (70, 55) | 5 |
| Isoamyl isovalerate | Sigma | ≥98.0% | 70 (85, 57) | 5 |
| Hexyl acetate | TCI | >99.0% | 56 (61, 84) | 5 |
| Propyl hexanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 99 (117, 61) | 5 |
| Ethyl heptanoate | TCI | >97.0% | 88 (113, 101) | 20 |
| Isobutyl hexanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 99 (117, 71) | 5 |
| Butyl hexanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 99 (117, 71) | 5 |
| Hexyl butanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 71 (89, 84) | 5 |
| Ethyl octanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 88 (101, 127) | 5 |
| Isopentyl hexanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 70 (99, 117) | 5 |
| Pentyl hexanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 70 (99, 117) | 5 |
| Ethyl nonanoate | TCI | >95.0% | 88 (101, 141) | 5 |
| Hexyl hexanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 117 (99, 84) | 5 |
| Ethyl decanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 88 (101, 155) | 5 |
| Ethyl tetradecanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 88 (101, 157) | 5 |
| Ethyl pentadecanoate | TCI | >97.0% | 88 (101, 157) | 5 |
| Ethyl palmitate | TCI | >97.0% | 88 (101, 157) | 5 |
| Ethyl stearate | Sigma | ≥99.0% | 88 (101, 157) | 5 |
| Acids | ||||
| Acetic acid | Aladdin | 99.70% | 60 (43, 45) | 500 |
| Propanoic acid | Sigma | ≥99.5% | 74 (45, 57) | 50 |
| 2-Methylpropanoic acid | TCI | >99.0% | 43 (73, 88) | 50 |
| Butanoic acid | Sigma | ≥99.0% | 60 (73, 55) | 100 |
| 3-Methylbutanoic acid | TCI | >99.0% | 60 (43, 87) | 100 |
| Pentanoic acid | Sigma | ≥99.0% | 60 (73, 55) | 50 |
| Hexanoic acid | Sigma | ≥99.5% | 60 (73, 87) | 1000 |
| Lactic acid | J&K | 85.00% | – | 500 |
| Alcohols | ||||
| 1-Propanol | TCI | >99.5% | 59 (42, 60) | 200 |
| 2-Methyl-1-propanol | TCI | >99.0% | 43 (74, 41) | 100 |
| 2-Pentanol | TCI | >98.0% | 45 (55, 73) | 20 |
| 1-Butanol | J&K | 99.50% | 56 (41, 43) | 100 |
| 3-Methyl-1-butanol | TCI | >99.0% | 55 (70, 42) | 200 |
| 1-Pentanol | TCI | >99.0% | 42 (55, 70) | 50 |
| 1-Hexanol | TCI | >98.0% | 56 (69, 43) | 50 |
| 1-Heptanol | TCI | 98.00% | 70 (56, 43) | 20 |
| 1-Octanol | TCI | >99.0% | 56 (70, 84) | 20 |
| Pyrazines | ||||
| 2-Methylpyrazine | Sigma | ≥99.0% | 94 (67, 53) | 5 |
| 2,6-Dimethylpyrazine | TCI | >98.0% | 108 (42, 40) | 5 |
| Trimethylpyrazine | TCI | >98.0% | 122 (42, 81) | 5 |
| Tetramethylpyrazine | TCI | >98.0% | 136 (54, 42) | 5 |
| Lactones | ||||
| γ-Valerolactone | TCI | >98.0% | 56 (85, 41) | 5 |
| γ-Nonanolactone | TCI | SG 0.97 | 85 (99, 55) | 5 |
| Furans | ||||
| Furfural | TCI | >98.0% | 96 + 95 (39, 67) | 100 |
| 2-Acety furan | Sigma | ≥99.0% | 95 (110, 39) | 5 |
| 2-Furanmethanol | TCI | >98.0% | 98 (69, 81) | 5 |
| Phenolics | ||||
| Guaiacol | TCI | >98.0% | 109 (81, 124) | 5 |
| 2,6-Dimethylphenol | TCI | >99.0% | 122 (107, 77) | 5 |
| 4-Methylguaiacol | TCI | >98.0% | 138 (123, 95) | 5 |
| Phenol | TCI | >99.5% | 94 (66, 39) | 5 |
| 4-Ethylguaiacol | TCI | >97.0% | 107 (122, 77) | 5 |
| p-Cresol | TCI | >99.0% | 107 (108, 77) | 5 |
| 4-Ethylphenol | TCI | >97.0% | 43 (41, 74) | 5 |
| Hydroxy esters and dibasic esters | ||||
| Ethyl L(-)-lactate | J&K | 98.00% | 45 (75) | 1000 |
| Ethyl 2-hydroxybutanoate | TCI | >95.0% | 59 (75, 89) | 5 |
| Butyl lactate | TCI | >98.0% | 45 (57, 85) | 5 |
| Ethyl 2-hydroxy-4-methylpentanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 69 (87, 104) | 5 |
| Diehtyl butanedioate | TCI | >99.0% | 101 (129, 73) | 5 |
| Aldehydes and ketones | ||||
| 2-Pentone | TCI | SG 0.81 | 43 (86, 71) | 20 |
| Hexanal | TCI | >95.0% | 56 (44, 72) | 5 |
| Heptanal | TCI | >95.0% | 70 (55, 81) | 5 |
| Nonanal | TCI | >95.0% | 57 (43, 98) | 5 |
| Aromatics | ||||
| Ethyl benzoate | TCI | >99.0% | 105 (77, 122) | 5 |
| Benzeneacetaldehyde | Aldrich | ≥90.0% | 91 (120 92) | 5 |
| Ethyl phenylacetate | TCI | >99.0% | 91 (164, 65) | 5 |
| Benzyl alcohol | Sigma | analytical standard | 79 (108, 91) | 5 |
| Phenylethyl alcohol | TCI | >98.0% | 91 (122, 65) | 5 |
| Ethyl 3-phenylpropanoate | TCI | >98.0% | 104 (91, 178) | 5 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
He, Z.; Yang, K.; Liu, Z.; An, M.; Qiao, Z.; Zhao, D.; Zheng, J.; Qian, M.C. Tandem Solid-Phase Extraction Columns for Simultaneous Aroma Extraction and Fractionation of Wuliangye and Other Baijiu. Molecules 2021, 26, 6030. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26196030
AMA Style
He Z, Yang K, Liu Z, An M, Qiao Z, Zhao D, Zheng J, Qian MC. Tandem Solid-Phase Extraction Columns for Simultaneous Aroma Extraction and Fractionation of Wuliangye and Other Baijiu. Molecules. 2021; 26(19):6030. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26196030
Chicago/Turabian StyleHe, Zhanglan, Kangzhuo Yang, Zhipeng Liu, Mingzhe An, Zongwei Qiao, Dong Zhao, Jia Zheng, and Michael C. Qian. 2021. "Tandem Solid-Phase Extraction Columns for Simultaneous Aroma Extraction and Fractionation of Wuliangye and Other Baijiu" Molecules 26, no. 19: 6030. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26196030
