Open Access

Steam distillation/drop-by-drop extraction with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry for fast determination of volatile components in jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) extract

Chemistry Central Journal201711:101

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13065-017-0329-6

Received: 21 January 2017

Accepted: 22 September 2017

Published: 13 October 2017

Abstract

Background

Jujube extract is commonly used as a food additive and flavoring. The unique jujube aroma and the mild sweet aroma of the extract are critical factors that determine product quality and affect consumer acceptability. The aroma changes with changes in the extraction condition, which is typically dependent on the characteristics of volatile oils in the extract. Despite their importance, the volatile oils of jujube extract have received less attention compared with the soluble components. So, an appropriate qualitative and quantitative method for determination of the volatile oils is vitally important for quality control of the product.

Results

A method coupling steam distillation/drop-by-drop extraction with gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (S3DE/GC–MS) was developed to determine the volatile components of jujube extract. Steam distillation was coupled with solvent extraction; the resulting condensate containing volatile components from jujube extract was drop-by-drop extracted using 2 mL of methyl tertiary butyl ether. The solvent served two purposes. First, the solvent extracted the volatile components from the condensate. Second, the volatile components were pre-concentrated by drop-by-drop accumulation in the solvent. As a result, the extraction, separation, and concentration of analytes in the sample were simultaneously completed in one step. The main parameters affecting the S3DE procedure, such as the water steam bubbling rate, extraction solvent volume, sample weight and S3DE time, were optimized. The standard addition approach was essential to obtain accurate measurements by minimizing matrix effects. Good linearity (R2 ≥ 0.9887) and good repeatability (RSDs ≤ 10.35%, n = 5) for 16 analytes in spiked standard analyte samples were achieved.

Conclusions

With the S3DE/GC–MS method, seventy-six volatile compounds from jujube extract were identified and the content of 16 compounds was measured. The results were similar to those from simultaneous distillation extraction. The developed method was simple, fast, effective, sensitive, and provided an overall profile of the volatile components in jujube extract. Thus, this method can be used to determine the volatile components of extracts.

Keywords

Steam distillation Drop-by-drop extraction Volatile components GC–MS Jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) extract

Introduction

Jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) is widely distributed in subtropical areas of the northern hemisphere, especially in China [1]. It has been commonly used in functional foodstuffs and crude drugs in traditional Chinese medicine [2, 3]. Jujube extract is usually used as a food additive or flavoring and is listed in the “lists of food additives” in China [4].

Jujube extract is a reddish-brown, semi-liquid substance obtained by extracting jujube fruits using different concentration of ethanol in water. The unique jujube aroma and the mild sweet aroma of the extract are critical factors that determine product quality and affect consumer acceptability [5]. The aroma changes with changes in the extraction condition, which is typically dependent on the characteristics of volatile oils in the extract. Despite their importance, the volatile oils of jujube extract have received less attention compared with the soluble components [68].

Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) is typically employed to analyze volatile components in flavorings. Prior to GC–MS analysis, volatile components were isolated from nonvolatile mixtures, which required sample preparation steps to transfer the analyte into a pre-purified and concentrated form compatible with the analytical system [9]. Commonly used methods for isolating volatile components from natural sources include thermal desorption or vapor collection by cryogenic concentration or by adsorption on solid adsorbents, direct solvent extraction (e.g., Soxhlet and liquid–liquid extraction) [10, 11].

Thermal desorption and vapor collection are unreproducible and prone to artifacts, especially when working in the ppm range [12]. The advantages of direct solvent extraction are that most volatile compounds (low, medium, and high volatility) can be separated in one step, and good analytical precision can be achieved. However, direct extraction with a solvent co-solubilizes non-volatile components, which may contaminate the injectors and limit the analyte concentration [13]. Furthermore, large volumes of organic solvent, long extraction times, and concentration steps are required. Finally, compounds with low boiling points may be entirely missing in the solvent evaporation step.

In recent years, simple, rapid techniques that are solvent-free or require only small amounts of solvent, such as supercritical fluid extraction [14], headspace solid-phase microextraction [1517], headspace liquid-phase microextraction (HS-LPME) [18, 19], and stir-bar sorptive extraction [20], have been widely used to characterize the volatile components of complex matrices. However, these methods often had poor precision. Recently, a method coupling hydro-distillation with static HS-LPME was developed and applied to determine the essential oil components of a natural material; this was a fast, low-cost, facile and efficient method [9, 21]. Despite a poor repeatability, e.g., between 17 and 19% for main components and even worse for minor components, this HS-LPME method provides a good basis for developing a more effective method.

Steam distillation is a popular approach to obtain volatile oils from natural materials. However, it has rarely been employed for the analysis of volatile oils in natural extracts. Small sample amounts are often used in analytical experiments, resulting in fractions of volatile oils too low to be effectively separated. In 1964, Likens et al. [22] introduced simultaneous distillation extraction (SDE) by combining steam distillation and extraction. However, extracts obtained by SDE must be concentrated to reach the minimal sensitivity required for GC.

Godefroot et al. [12] further improved SDE to enable determination following 2 h extractions using a microapparatus and without requiring any concentration steps before gas chromatography. In 1983, Bicchi et al. [23] made improvements to the microapparatus to decrease the volume of solvent used to 100 μL and to avoid hot organic solvent reflux. Bicchi et al. also standardized the operating conditions of the apparatus. More recently, Wei et al. [24] improved the microapparatus by simplifying the operating conditions and isolating volatile oils in natural materials. However, volatile components with low boiling points may be lost. Although the microapparatus is commercially available and has been used for extracting volatile components from natural materials, few practical applications have been reported for accurate quantitative analyses. Currently, methods that couple SDE with concentration steps are popular approaches for analyzing volatile components isolated from matrices. However, long extraction times (> 2 h) and large volumes of organic solvents (> 50 mL) are required [2527]. Similar to direct solvent extraction, the concentration step after SDE may exclude compounds with low boiling points.

This work presents a new sample preparation method, steam distillation/drop-by-drop extraction (S3DE), to effectively extract, separate, and pre-concentrate volatile constituents in extracts. We also developed an easy-to-use approach to isolate and quantitatively analyze volatile components in jujube extracts with minimal solvent volumes at room temperature in a reasonable time. A comparison study with SDE was also carried out to benchmark the performance of the new approach.

Experimental

Material and reagents

Jujube extract was purchased from Zhengzhou Jieshi chemical company, China. The extract was produced by the following procedure. The jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) fruit was cleaned and denucleated. The pitted jujubes were then crumbed and extracted using 65% alcohol for 2 h at 70 °C. Then, the solvent was removed to produce the jujube extract.

Butanol, 3-methyl-1-butanol, 1-hexanol, 1-pentanol, 1-heptanol, 1-octanol, 1-nonanol, acetic acid, isobutyric acid, butyric acid, pentanoic acid, heptanoic acid, octanoic acid, capric acid, undecanoic acid, dodecanoic acid, 2-ethyl hexanol, furfural, 2-acetylfuran, benzaldehyde, 5-methylfurfural, 2-furanmethanol, dl-menthol, phenethyl alcohol, damascenone; ethyl hexanoate, ethyl heptanoate, ethyl caprylate, ethyl nonanoate, methyl caprate, ethyl caprate, diethyl succinate, methyl phenylacetate, ethyl phenylacetate, methyl laurate, phenethyl acetate, ethyl laurate, ethyl 3-phenylpropionate, methyl tetradecanoate, ethyl tetradecanoate, ethyl pentadecanoate, methyl hexadecanoate, ethyl hexadecanoate, ethyl heptadecanoate, ethyl stearate, ethyl oleate, ethyl linoleate, and styralyl propionate (as an internal standard) were purchased from J&K Scientific Ltd. Dichloromethane (chromatography grade) and methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE; chromatography grade) was provided by CNW technologies GmbH.

A mixed standard solution was prepared by resolving the chemicals in MTBE, including 3-methyl-1-butanol (3.53 mg/mL), 1-hexanol (0.29 mg/mL), furfural (0.63 mg/mL), ethyl caprate (0.38 mg/mL), menthol (0.26 mg/mL), 2-furanmethanol (0.26 mg/mL), ethyl phenylacetate (0.55 mg/mL), ethyl laurate (2.86 mg/mL), ethyl 3-phenylpropionate (0.25 mg/mL), phenylethyl alcohol (1.04 mg/mL), heptanoic acid (0.19 mg/mL), ethyl myristate (0.97 mg/mL), octanoic acid (0.32 mg/mL), ethyl hexadecanoate (2.21 mg/mL), decanoic acid (2.05 mg/mL), dodecanoic acid (12.71 mg/mL), ethyl oleate (0.91 mg/mL), and ethyl linoleate (0.23 mg/mL). An internal standard solution (3.58 mg/mL) was prepared by resolving styralyl propionate in MTBE.

Instrumentation and steam distillation/drop-by-drop extraction procedure

A diagram of the S3DE apparatus is shown in Fig. 1. The apparatus primarily consists of a three-necked, round-bottom flask, a condenser, and a collection bottle. The S3DE procedure was as follows. First, the apparatus was assembled following the diagram shown in Fig. 1. Then, the condenser was switched to forced water circulation, which was cooled to 2–3 °C by a refrigeration system. After passing condensate water continuously through the condenser, a 3 g mixture of jujube extract and 20 mL of water were added into the three-necked, round-bottom flask. The water vapor exit was submerged in the mixture. Then, 2 mL of MTBE were spiked into the collection bottle, which was immersed into an ice-salt bath. A safety valve was closed, and water steam generated by a precise steam generator (flow > 10 g/min, 100–400 °C, approximately 0.5 MPa pressure; Suzhou Aros environment generator Co., Ltd.) was bubbled into the mixture. The vapor containing the volatile constituent of jujube extract flowed over into the condenser and was condensed as a liquid. This liquid was collected drop by drop into the collection bottle and was extracted by MTBE. The safety valve was opened, and the bottom bottle was removed after a determined extraction time. This MTBE solution was directly analyzed by GC–MS.
Fig. 1

The diagram of steam distillation/drop-by-drop extraction device. (The device is suitable for extraction of volatile oils from extract. e.g. The jujube extract is produced by the following procedure: The jujube fruit was cleaned and denucleated. The pitted jujubes were then crumbed and extracted using alcohol. Then, the solvent was removed to produce the jujube extract)

A quantitative comparison experiment was performed using SDE/GC–MS. SDE was conducted as described by Wang et al. [5]. Jujube extract (3 g) and 250 mL distilled water were mixed in a 1000-mL flask, and 60 mL dichloromethane was used as extraction solvent in a 100-mL flask. The two flasks were maintained at 120 and 60 °C by an electric jacket and a water bath, respectively. Each extraction was carried out for 3 h after the two arms started to reflux. After extraction, the dichloromethane extract was dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate overnight, concentrated to 2 mL and filtered through a 0.45-μm micropore film prior to GC–MS analysis.

Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry

GC–MS analysis was performed using an Agilent 7890A gas chromatograph equipped with a DB-WAXetr capillary column (60 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25-μm coating thickness) and an Agilent 5975C mass detector. The analysis conditions were as follows: injector and transfer line temperature 250 and 280 °C, respectively; oven temperature increased from 50 °C (for 1 min) to 240 °C at 5 °C/min and was held at 240 °C for 10 min; helium carrier gas at 1 mL/min; 1 μL injection volume; and splitless. All samples for qualitative analyses were analyzed in full scan mode with a mass range of 33–500 amu. Selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode was used for quantitative analyses, the confirmative ions and the quantitative ions of the compounds are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Retention time, linear retention index, area normalization percent content of the volatile components in jujube extract identified by the S3DE/GC–MS and confirmative ion and quantitative ion of the selected compound for quantitative analysis

No.

RT

Compounds

Area normalization percent content (%)

Identification method

LRI

Confirmative ion

Quantitative ion

1

9.887

2-Methyl-1-propanol

3.17

MS

2

11.148

1-Butanol

0.25

RI, MS, ST

1144

3

12.792

3-Methyl-1-butanol

8.45

RI, MS, ST

1207

70, 55

55

4

13.748

Ethyl capronate

0.07

RI, MS, ST

1243

5

13.987

1-Pentanol

0.14

RI, MS, ST

1252

6

15.818

4-Methyl-2-hexanol

0.04

RI, MS

1321

7

16.372

Ethyl heptanoate

0.06

RI, MS, ST

1341

8

16.705

1-Hexanol

0.54

RI, MS, ST

1354

84, 69

69

9

17.204

1,2-Dimethyl-cyclopent-2-enecarboxylic acid

0.12

RI, MS

1372

10

19.046

Ethyl caprylate

0.07

RI, MS, ST

1443

11

19.371

1-Heptanol

0.28

RI, MS, ST

1455

12

19.452

Acetic acid

0.13

RI, MS, ST

1458

13

20.087

Furfural

0.55

RI, MS, ST

1483

96, 95

96

14

20.305

2-Ethyl-1-hexanol

0.08

RI, MS, ST

1491

15

20.409

Ethyl 7-octenoate

0.06

RI, MS

1495

16

21.169

1-(2-Furanyl)-ethanone

0.13

RI, MS, ST

1526

17

21.527

Ethyl nonanoate

0.02

RI, MS, ST

1540

18

21.648

Propanoic acid

0.06

RI, MS

1545

19

21.849

Benzaldehyde

0.12

RI, MS, ST

1553

20

22.022

1-Octanol

0.22

RI, MS, ST

1560

21

22.367

2-Methyl-propanoic acid

0.05

RI, MS, ST

1574

22

22.917

5-Methyl-2-furan-carboxaldehyde

0.17

RI, MS, ST

1596

23

23.021

Hexadecane

0.02

RI, MS, ST

1600

24

23.125

Methyl caprate

0.05

RI, MS, ST

1604

25

23.845

Butanoic acid

0.06

RI, MS, ST

1635

26

24.124

Ethyl caprate

0.39

RI, MS, ST

1646

155, 101

101

27

24.239

Menthol

0.40

RI, MS, ST

1651

138, 128

128

28

24.359

1-Nonanol

0.08

RI, MS, ST

1656

29

24.676

2-Furanmethanol

0.30

RI, MS, ST

1670

98, 81

98

30

25.121

Diethyl succinate

0.02

RI, MS, ST

1688

31

26.082

5-Methyl-2-Furanmethanol

0.04

RI, MS

1730

32

26.394

Pentanoic acid

0.10

RI, MS, ST

1744

33

26.859

1,2-Dimethyl-4-oxocyclohex-2-enecarboxaldehyde

0.03

RI, MS

1765

34

26.921

1-Decanol

0.02

RI, MS

1767

35

27.153

Naphthalene

0.02

RI, MS

1778

36

27.248

Methyl phenylacetate

0.07

RI, MS, ST

1782

37

27.808

Ethyl phenylacetate

0.39

RI, MS, ST

1807

164, 91

91

38

27.901

Methyl laurate

0.24

RI, MS, ST

1811

39

28.505

Phenethyl acetate

0.40

RI, MS, ST

1839

40

28.672

Damascenone

0.14

RI, MS, ST

1847

41

28.765

Ethyl laurate

4.03

RI, MS, ST

1851

183, 101

101

42

29.639

1-Methyl-naphthalene

0.09

RI, MS

1891

43

30.003

Ethyl 3-phenylpropionate

0.33

RI, MS, ST

1909

178, 104

104

44

30.493

Phenylethyl alcohol

0.71

RI, MS, ST

1932

122, 91

91

45

30.919

5-Butyldihydro-2(3H)-furanone

0.08

RI, MS

1953

46

31.013

Heptanoic acid

0.38

RI, MS, ST

1958

87, 73

73

47

31.2

Isobutyl laurate

0.08

RI, MS

1967

48

32.001

4-hydroxy-4-methyl-4H-naphthalen-1-one

0.15

RI, MS

2006

49

32.251

Methyl myristate

0.05

RI, MS, ST

2019

50

33.000

Ethyl myristate

2.68

RI, MS, ST

2057

101, 88

88

51

33.156

Octanoic acid

0.79

RI, MS, ST

2065

73, 60

73

52

33.364

Isoamyl laurate

0.06

RI, MS

2075

53

33.666

Ethyl tetradecenoate (I)

0.09

RI, MS

2090

54

33.791

Ethyl tetradecenoate (II)

2.43

RI, MS

2097

55

33.947

Ethyl tetradecenoate (III)

0.02

RI, MS

2105

56

34.54

6,10,14-Trimethyl-2-pentadecanone

0.19

RI, MS

2136

57

34.967

Ethyl pentadecanoate

0.13

RI, MS, ST

2159

58

35.217

Nonanoic acid

0.25

RI, MS, ST

2172

59

36.216

Methyl hexadecanoate

0.27

RI, MS, ST

2226

60

36.882

Ethyl hexadecanoate

6.32

RI, MS, ST

2263

101, 73

101

61

37.006

Methyl (Z)-9-hexadecenoate

0.12

RI, MS

2270

62

37.131

Decanoic acid

5.08

RI, MS, ST

2276

129, 73

73

63

37.412

Ethyl hexadecenoate (I)

3.50

RI, MS

2292

64

37.652

Ethyl hexadecenoate (II)

0.13

RI, MS

2305

65

37.724

Ethyl hexadecenoate (III)

5.06

RI, MS

2309

66

38.13

Dimethyl phthalate

0.25

RI, MS

2333

67

38.682

Ethyl heptadecanoate

0.07

RI, MS, ST

2364

68

39.054

Undecanoic acid

0.17

RI, MS, ST

2386

69

40.524

Ethyl octadecanoate

0.23

RI, MS, ST

2466

70

40.94

Dodecanoic acid

27.04

RI, MS, ST

2489

200, 171

200

71

41.398

Ethyl oleate

0.30

RI, MS, ST

2512

264, 222

264

72

41.98

Ethyl linoleate

0.35

RI, MS, ST

2540

109, 95

109

73

42.542

Isobutyl phthalate

2.90

RI, MS

2566

74

45.716

Tetradecanoic acid

7.64

RI, MS

2698

75

46.382

Dibutyl phthalate

2.91

RI, MS

2721

76

47.173

Z-7-Tetradecenoic acid

7.57

RI, MS

2747

Identification of volatile components in jujube extract

The volatile components in jujube extract were identified using the NIST11 and Wiley databases and retention indices. Linear retention indices were obtained using gas chromatograms by interpolation between bracketing n-alkanes [2830]. A homologous series of n-alkanes (C-7 to C-40; ULTRA Scientific, Inc.; North Kingstown, USA) was used as a standard. A few targets were further confirmed using standard compounds.

Quantitative analysis of volatile components in the jujube extract

The quantitative analyses of volatile components in the jujube extract were performed using the standard addition approach. All data presented in this paper are averages of five replicates unless otherwise stated. Calibration curves were constructed by determining the peak area ratio of analytes-to-internal standard (Y) versus the amount of spiked standard analytes (X). Method precision was evaluated using relative standard deviation (RSD), and recovery rates were measured following the procedure of Wu et al. [18, 31]. Analyte recovery (five replicate tests) was calculated as (mean calculated amount/nominal amount) × 100%.

Results and discussion

Steam distillation/drop-by-drop extraction and GC–MS analysis

Steam distillation is a good method to obtain volatile oils from large amounts of plant materials. When vapor-capturing volatile oils are sufficiently cooled, the oil naturally separates from the hydrosol [9]. A small amount of the oil is often used for instrument analysis. However, the obtained volatile oils are typically at trace levels too difficult to effectively separate.

In this study, volatile components in jujube extract were extracted by the device shown in Fig. 1. This S3DE extraction process is based on the basic principles of steam distillation and extraction. As water steam is continuously bubbled into a jujube extract solution in the three-necked, round-bottom flask, the vapor captures the volatile components of the jujube extract. The vapor is then transferred under pressure and cooled in the condenser. As the vapor cools, liquid condensate drops, containing the volatile components, are formed and collected in a collection bottle. (The drop formation rate of the liquid condensate can be controlled by modifying the water steam bubbling rate). When an organic solvent less dense than water is present in the collection bottle, the condensate drop can naturally pass through the solvent layer and gather at the bottom of the collection bottle. The volatile components in the drops are extracted into the organic solvent as the drop passes through the organic layer. Thus, the volatile components of the jujube extract can be extracted into the organic phase.

The extraction solvent should be carefully selected to achieve the desired extraction. In this study, MTBE, an organic solvent with a density less than that of water, was used as the extraction solvent and spiked into the collection bottle to extract the condensate without optimization.

Volatile oils naturally separate from hydrosols. As the water steam vapor is condensed, the volatile oils continuously separate from the hydrosol. As a result, the volatile oils are present on the surfaces of the forming drops. When the drops enter the organic solvent layer in the collection bottle, the surface-dwelling volatile oils are desorbed into the organic solvent while the water phase drops pass through the solvent layer. As these aqueous drops are collected in the collection bottle, the volatile oils are concentrated in the organic solvent. This organic solvent phase can then be directly analyzed by GC–MS, as is shown in the chromatogram in Fig. 2a.
Fig. 2

The GC/MS chromatogram of volatile components in jujube extract. The samples of a and b were prepared by S3DE and SDE, respectively

The volatile components in the jujube extract were identified using the NIST11 and Wiley databases and the retention indices. Other analytes were also confirmed using standard compounds. The results are summarized in Table 1.

Parameter optimization of S3DE

Various volatile components with different boiling points, including 3-methyl-1-butanol, 1-heptanol, ethyl caprate, ethyl laurate, ethyl hexadecanoate, and dodecanoic acid, are present in jujube extract and were selected as targets to optimize the extraction parameters, such as the water steam bubbling rate, MTBE volume, sample weight and S3DE time. After the extraction was completed, the MTBE solution containing the analytes was directly injected into the GC/MS system for analysis. All quantifications were based on the relative peak area of the analytes to the internal standards unless otherwise stated.

Bubbling rate of water steam

The water steam bubbling rate is a key factor that affects the efficiency of steam-distillation. A higher bubbling rate typically provides better distillation efficiency. However, if the bubbling rate is too high, the vapor with volatile components would not be completely cooled by the condenser. Furthermore, the condensate would be generated so fast it would be impossible to achieve a drop-by-drop extraction procedure. In this study, we modified the water steam bubbling rate using a control valve to adjust the condenser efficiency. As a result, the condensates were drop-by-drop collected into the collection bottle at a rate of 2 drops/1 s.

Volume of MTBE

Preliminary experiments were performed to optimize the volume of MTBE. The results (Fig. 3) indicated that the relative peak area of the analytes-to-internal standard did not significantly change, whereas the absolute peak area of the analytes decreased with increasing MTBE volume within a set S3DE time. Thus, smaller volumes of MTBE should be used. In practice, the solvent volume typically decreases with increasing S3DE time due to solvent volatility. For convenience-sake, a 2-mL volume of solvent, ideal for GC–MS automatic injection, was used in the S3DE experiments. After S3DE, 1 mL of the MTBE solvent with volatile components was further analyzed using GC–MS.
Fig. 3

Optimization of the extraction solvent volume

Weight of sample

A number of studies have confirmed that the weight of the sample is dependent on the requirements of the analytical instrument. Preliminary experiments showed that the absolute peak area of the selected analytes increased with increasing sample weight. To explore the influence of sample weight on the extraction efficiency of the volatile components in jujube extract, the sample weight was optimized over a 1–10 g range (data not shown). When 1 g of jujube extract was used, a long S3DE time was required to extract sufficient amounts of low content volatile compounds to meet GC–MS minimum detection limit requirements. However, for high content volatile compounds, a prolonged S3DE would result in over-extraction, which may overload the chromatographic column. As a compromise, 3 g sample weights were used.

S3DE time

In general, the amount of volatile components extracted from sample increases with steam-distillation time. During S3DE, solvent extraction was performed following steam-distillation. Experimental results showed that the drop-by-drop extraction and steam-distillation were nearly simultaneous after the first drop of condensate formed in the condenser. Thus, the efficiency of solvent extraction and steam-distillation is primarily dependent on the steam-distillation time, or “S3DE time”. The S3DE time is defined as the time from the formation of the first drop of condensate in the condenser to the time at which the collection bottle is removed.

A series of experiments were performed to optimize the S3DE time (i.e., 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 min), as shown in Fig. 4. The amount of analytes extracted by S3DE was dependent on the S3DE time. The GC–MS data showed that the absolute peak area of all analytes increased with increasing S3DE time. The results also showed that the relative peak area of the analytes-to-internal standard was roughly constant when the S3DE time was at least 8 min. Thus, 8 min was selected as the S3DE time for further experiments.
Fig. 4

Optimization of the S3DE time

Validation of S3DE-GC/MS method

An analytical method should not be influenced by the sample matrix. A blank matrix is always desired for all types of quantitative analyses. However, a blank matrix is usually not available, especially for natural samples. The standard addition approach may be a good alternative way to quantitatively analyze a sample and can compensate for differences in sample matrices [18, 3235]. This approach makes use of the addition of known amounts of analytes of interest to multiple aliquots of the sample and of another non-spiked, baseline aliquot, i.e., the “zero-point”. Then, after the samples are analyzed, a calibration curve of the measured values is plotted against the spiked amounts for each sample aliquot. A straight line is drawn and the value of the X intercept represents the amount of analyte in the unknown sample [18, 31, 36, 37].

In this study, 18 volatile compounds in the extract were selected to validate the S3DE-GC/MS method. An ion monitor was employed for the mass spectrometry analysis of the analytes to identify and measure the level of ions as summarized in Table 1. A series of amounts (0, 20, 40, 60, and 120 μL) of standard solution were spiked into the three-necked, round-bottom flask containing 3 g jujube extract with an internal standard. The samples were then analyzed by the developed method. The calibration curve of each target analyte was constructed and is shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Calibration curves of 18 target analytes

Name

Calibration curves

R2

LOD (μg/g)

Recovery

Value (%)

RSD(%)

3-Methyl-1-butanol

Y = 0.0089X + 0.8730

0.9987

3.16

91.33

10.10

1-Hexanol

Y = 0.0039X + 0.01150

0.9931

0.15

95.62

9.81

Furfural

Y = 0.0062X + 0.0463

0.7099

0.97

74.19

27.44

Ethyl caprate

Y = 0.0066X + 0.0398

0.9990

1.02

103.68

8.24

Menthol

Y = 0.0035X + 0.0239

0.9939

0.61

97.38

8.35

2-Furanmethanol

Y = 0.0016X + 0.0104

0.8042

1.16

79.22

19.03

Ethyl phenylacetate

Y = 0.0300X + 0.2147

0.9991

0.11

96.33

5.41

Ethyl laurate

Y = 0.0085X + 0.4157

0.9962

1.86

99.21

5.87

Ethyl 3-phenylpropionate

Y = 0.0168X + 0.0494

0.9992

0.41

98.45

8.25

Phenylethyl alcohol

Y = 0.0075X + 0.1132

0.9993

1.03

97.61

6.15

Heptanoic acid

Y = 0.0029X + 0.0201

0.9887

1.15

87.06

11.06

Ethyl myristate

Y = 0.0218X + 0.6532

0.9971

2.67

97.99

3.52

Octanoic acid

Y = 0.0024X + 0.0278

0.9895

1.65

90.16

9.17

Ethyl hexadecanoate

Y = 0.0143X + 0.9181

0.9979

3.41

100.04

5.28

Decanoic acid

Y = 0.0096X + 0.4570

0.9894

3.94

93.54

8.66

Dodecanoic acid

Y = 0.0913X + 30.027

0.9981

4.15

95.59

7.94

Ethyl oleate

Y = 0.0028X + 0.0390

0.9990

0.84

94.80

8.36

Ethyl linoleate

Y = 0.0026X + 0.0183

0.9980

0.75

92.34

10.95

A few performance parameters, including linearity, limits of detection (LODs), repeatability and recovery, were investigated using samples with unknown levels of volatile components. A linear response was observed for the added standard stock solutions from 0 to 120 μL with a high coefficient of determination (R2 ≥ 0.9821), excluding furfural (R2 = 0.7084), 2-furanmethanol (R2 = 0.8051) and heptanoic acid (R2 = 0.9087). The relative standard deviation (RSD) was less than 13.97% and is shown in Table 3. Good LODs ranging from 0.11–4.15 μg/g were obtained, as based on three times the standard deviations from ten replicate tests at the “zero-point”. The recoveries of analytes were measured by spiking 20 μL of standard stock solution into the jujube extract sample, which was then analyzed as an unknown level sample. The results (shown in Table 2) were satisfactory except for furfural (74.19%, RSD = 27.44%, n = 5), 2-furanmethanol (79.22%,RSD = 19.03%, n = 5) and heptanoic acid (87.06%, RSD = 11.06%, n = 5). These excluded compounds had low recovery levels and poor linearity. These compounds likely had relatively large water solubility levels.
Table 3

Concentrations of volatile compound in jujube extract obtained by the S3DE method and the SDE method

Name

Concentration (μg/g)

S3DE method

SDE method

Value

Repeatability (RSD, %)

Value

Repeatability (RSD, %)

3-Methyl-1-Butanol

32.70

4.72

28.92

5.11

1-Hexanol

0.98

6.18

0.68

3.07

Ethyl caprate

2.01

5.11

1.67

2.25

Menthol

2.27

5.79

1.91

4.96

Ethyl phenylacetate

2.38

6.13

2.08

5.17

Ethyl laurate

16.3

4.83

16.3

4.13

Ethyl 3-phenylpropionate

0.98

5.91

0.81

2.39

Phenylethyl alcohol

5.10

4.25

4.59

4.23

Heptanoic acid

2.31

10.35

2.36

6.41

Ethyl myristate

9.99

4.81

10.37

3.17

Octanoic acid

3.86

6.87

3.66

5.68

Ethyl hexadecanoate

21.40

4.64

19.09

4.19

Decanoic acid

15.87

5.54

16.96

5.73

Dodecanoic acid

109.62

4.17

113.52

4.36

Ethyl oleate

4.64

6.24

5.77

5.27

Ethyl linoleate

2.35

6.31

1.75

6.48

Quantitative analysis of volatile components in jujube extract

A jujube extract sample with unknown levels of volatile components was analyzed using the developed method. The levels of the volatile components in the sample were obtained by determining the X-intercept as shown in Table 3. The sample was also measured using a conventional SDE/GC–MS method. The chromatogram is shown in Fig. 2b, and the data relative to repeatability of the method (see Additional file 1 for more detail) are deposited in Table 3. Paired t test comparisons between the data collected by the S3DE method and the SDE method were performed using Microsoft Office Excel. The results indicated that there were no significant differences (P = 0.49) between the yields of the sixteen components as determined by the two methods. However, a significant difference (P = 0.01) was observed regarding repeatability. Although a better repeatability was obtained by the SDE method, the developed S3DE method required lower amounts of organic solvent and was a simpler, more rapid, and more accurate procedure for characterizing the volatile components in jujube extract. A review of our experimental procedure and a rigorous standardization of the operating conditions may be helpful to improve the repeatability of the S3DE method, which will be further investigated.

Conclusions

A simple sample preparation procedure was developed to characterize the volatile components in jujube extract. In this procedure, condensates from steam-distillation were drop-by-drop extracted in a small volume of organic solvent. The extraction procedure was performed immediately after steam-distillation. As a result, the extraction, separation, and pre-concentration of analytes in the sample were simultaneously completed. This minimal-solvent approach proved to be a simple, rapid, and accurate procedure for the determination of volatile components in jujube extract. Good linearity (R2 ≥ 0.9887) and good repeatability (RSDs ≤ 6.87%, n = 5) were achieved for 16 analytes in a spiked standard sample, excluding heptanoic acid (RSD = 10.35%). This new approach can be used as an alternative in the analysis of volatile fractions in extracts and complex matrices and provides certain advantages, including simple operation and lower time, energy and organic solvent requirements.

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

SS performed chemical analysis and data analysis, and drafted the manuscript. CG and LP participated in chemical analysis. JX and YS co-participated in the experimental design of the study, provided expert scientific advice and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank for financial support from the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 21572134) and the major project of CNTC [No. 110201301026 (BR = 01)]. Thanks for the helps of Lin Fang-Qing.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Center for Chinese Medicine Therapy and Systems Biology, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
(2)
Key Laboratory in Flavor & Fragrance Basic Research, Zhengzhou Tobacco Research Institute, China National Tobacco Corporation

References

  1. Zhang H, Jiang L, Ye S, Ye YB, Ren FZ (2010) Systematic evaluation of antioxidant capacities of the ethanolic extract of different tissues of jujube (Ziziphus jujuba Mill.) from China. Food Chem Toxicol 48:1461–1465View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Plastina P, Bonofiglio D, Vizza D, Fazio A, Rovito D, Giordano C, Barone I, Catalano S, Gabriele B (2012) Identification of bioactive constituents of Ziziphus jujube fruit extracts exerting antiproliferative and apoptotic effects in human breast cancer cells. J Ethnopharmacol 140:325–332View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Kubota H, Morii R, Kojima-Yuasa A, Huang X, Yano Y, Matsui-Yuasa I (2009) Effect of Zizyphus jujuba extract on the inhibition of adipogenesis in 3T3-L1 preadipocytes. Am J Chin Med 37:597–608View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. National health and family planning commission of the people’s Republic of China (2015) GB 2760-2014 food safety national standards for the usage of food additives. China Food Safety Regulations, The People’s Republic of China, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  5. Wang H, Li P, Sun S-H, Zhang Q-D, Su Y, Zong Y-L, Xie J-P (2014) Comparison of liquid–liquid extraction, simultaneous distillation extraction, ultrasound-assisted solvent extraction, and headspace solid-phase microextraction for the determination of volatile compounds in jujube extract by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Anal Lett 47:654–674View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Zhao J, Li SP, Yang FQ, Li P, Wang YT (2006) Simultaneous determination of saponins and fatty acids in Ziziphus jujuba (Suanzaoren) by high performance liquid chromatography-evaporative light scattering detection and pressurized liquid extraction. J Chromatogr A 1108:188–194View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Guo S, Duan JA, Tang YP, Qian YF, Zhao JL, Qian DW, Su SL, Shang EX (2011) Simultaneous qualitative and quantitative analysis of triterpenic acids, saponins and flavonoids in the leaves of two Ziziphus species by HPLC–PDA–MS/ELSD. J Pharm Biomed Anal 56:264–270View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Huang YL, Yen GC, Sheu F, Chau CF (2008) Effects of water-soluble carbohydrate concentrate from chinese jujube on different intestinal and fecal indices. J Agric Food Chem 56:1734–1739View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Heravi MJ, Sereshti H (2007) Determination of essential oil components of Artemisia haussknechtii Boiss. using simultaneous hydrodistillation-static headspace liquid phase microextraction-gas chromatography mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1160:81–89View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Sánchez-Palomoa E, Alañón ME, Díaz-Maroto MC, González-Viñasa MA, Pérez-Coelloet MS (2009) Comparison of extraction methods for volatile compounds of Muscat grape juice. Talanta 79:871–876View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Coelho JP, Cristino AF, Matos PG, Rauter AP, Nobre BP, Mendes RL, Barroso JG, Mainar A, Urieta JS, Fareleira JM, Sovová H, Palavra AF (2012) Extraction of volatile oil from aromatic plants with supercritical carbon dioxide: experiments and modeling. Molecules 17:10550–10573View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Godefroot M, Sandra P, Verzele M (1981) New method for quantitative essential oil analysis. J Chromatogr 203:325–335View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Mamede MEO, Pastore GM (2006) Study of methods for the extraction of volatile compounds from fermented grape must. Food Chem 96:586–590View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Lang Q, Wai CM (2001) Supercritical fluid extraction in herbal and natural product studies-a practical review. Talanta 53:771–782View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Llompart M, Li K, Fingas M (1998) Solid-phase microextraction and headspace solid-phase microextraction for the determination of polychlorinated biphenyls in water samples. Anal Chem 70:2510–2515View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Millan E, Pawliszyn J (2000) Determination of butyltin species in water and sediment by solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography-flame ionization detection. J Chromatogr A 873:63–71View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Lin J, Zhang P, Pan ZQ, Xu HR, Luo YP, Wang XC (2013) Discrimination of oolong tea (Camellia sinensis) varieties based on feature extraction and selection from aromatic profiles analysed by HS-SPME/GC–MS. Food Chem 141:259–265View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Sun S-H, Xie J-P, Xie F-W, Zong Y-L (2008) Determination of volatile organic acids in Oriental tobacco by needle-based derivatization headspace LPME coupled to gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1179:89–95View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Xie J, Yin J, Sun S, Xie F, Zhang X, Guo Y (2009) Extraction and derivatization in single drop coupled to MALDI-FTICR-MS for selective determination of small molecule aldehydes in single puff smoke. Anal Chim Acta 638:198–201View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. He M, Chen B, Hu B (2014) Recent developments in stir bar sorptive extraction. Anal Bioanal Chem 406:2001–2026View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Tellez MR, Khanb IA, Schaneberg BT, Crockett SL, Rimando AM, Kobaisy M (2004) Steam distillation-solid-phase microextraction for the detection of Ephedra sinica in herbal preparations. J Chromatogr A 1025:51–56View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Likens ST, Nickerson GB (1964) Detection of certain hop oil constitutents in brewing products. Am Soc Brew Chem Proc 22:5–13Google Scholar
  23. Bicchi C, D’amato A, Nano GM, Frattini C (1983) Improved method for the analysis of small amounts of essential oils by microdistillation followed by capillary gas chromatography. J Chromatogr 279:409–416View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Wei Y, Li B, Duan H, Wu X, Yao X (2010) An integrated simultaneous distillation-extraction apparatus for the extraction of essential oils from herb materials and its application in Flos magnoliae. Biomed Chromatogr 24:289–293Google Scholar
  25. Li Y, Pang T, Guo Z, Li Y, Wang X, Deng J, Zhong K, Lu X, Xu G (2010) Accelerated solvent extraction for GC-based tobacco fingerprinting and its comparison with simultaneous distillation and extraction. Talanta 81:650–656View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Peng F, Sheng L, Liu B, Tong H, Liu S (2004) Comparison of different extraction methods: steam distillation, simultaneous distillation and extraction and headspace co-distillation, used for the analysis of the volatile components in aged flue-cured tobacco leaves. J Chromatogr A 1040:1–17View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Díaz-Maroto MC, Díaz-Maroto Hidalgo IJ, Sánchez-Palomo E, Pérez-Coello MS (2005) Volatile components and key odorants of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) and thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.) oil extracts obtained by simultaneous distillation-extraction and supercritical fluid extraction. J Agric Food Chem 53:5385–5389View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Takahashi T, Mizui K, Miyazawa M (2010) Volatile compounds with characteristicodour in moso-bamboo stems (Phyllostachys pubescens Mazel ex Houz. De ehaie). Phytochem Anal 21:489–495View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Selli S, Canbas A, Cabaroglu T, Erten H, Günata Z (2006) Aroma components of cv. Muscat of Bornova wines and influence of skin contact treatment. Food Chem 94:319–326View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Mebazaa R, Mahmoudi A, Fouchet M, Santos MD, Kamissoko F, Nafti A, Cheikh RB, Rega B, Camel V (2009) Characterization of volatile compounds in Tunisian fenugreek seeds. Food Chem 115:1326–1336View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Wu WJ, Asley DL, Watsom CH (2002) Determination of nicotine and other minor alkaloids in international cigarettes by solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 74:4878–4884View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Barshick CM, Barshick SA, Walsh EB, Vance MA, Britt PF (1999) Application of isotope dilution to ion trap gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Anal Chem 71:483–488View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Capelo S, Mira F, de Bettencourt AM (2007) In situ continuous monitoring of chloride, nitrate and ammonium in a temporary stream: comparison with standard methods. Talanta 71:1166–1171View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Serôdio P, Cabra MS, Nogueira JMF (2007) Use of experimental design in the optimization of stir bar sorptive extraction for the determination of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in environmental matrices. J Chromatogr A 1141:259–270View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Sun JJ, Roston DA (1994) Matrix effects during standard addition quantitation of a trace volatile impurity in a drug substance sample. J Chromatogr A 673:211–218View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Basilicata P, Miraglia N, Pieri M, Acampora A, Soleo L, Sannolob N (2005) Application of the standard addition approach for the quantification of urinary benzene. J Chromatogr B 818:293–299View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Bader M (1980) A systematic approach to standard addition methods in instrumental analysis. J Chem Educ 57:703–706View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2017