Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37041278›Full record

ArticleAnalytical and bioanalytical chemistry2023

Exploring different high-capacity tools and extraction modes to characterize the aroma of brewed coffee.

Damien Eggermont, Natasha Damiana Spadafora, Juan Aspromonte, Rocío Pellegrino, Giorgia Purcaro

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Damien EggermontGembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Bât. G1 Chimie Des Agro-Biosystèmes, Passage Des Déportés 2, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium.
Natasha Damiana SpadaforaDepartment of Chemical, Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Sciences, University of Ferrara, 44121, Ferrara, Italy.
Juan AspromonteLaboratorio de Investigación Y Desarrollo de Métodos Analíticos, LIDMA, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas (Universidad Nacional de La Plata, CIC-PBA, CONICET), 1900, La Plata, Argentina.
Rocío PellegrinoLaboratorio de Investigación Y Desarrollo de Métodos Analíticos, LIDMA, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas (Universidad Nacional de La Plata, CIC-PBA, CONICET), 1900, La Plata, Argentina.
Giorgia PurcaroGembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Bât. G1 Chimie Des Agro-Biosystèmes, Passage Des Déportés 2, 5030, Gembloux, Belgium. gpurcaro@uliege.be.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the present work, the potential benefit of using multi-cumulative trapping headspace extraction was explored by comparing the results using solid-phase microextraction (SPME) coated with divinylbenzene/carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane and a probe-like tool coated with polydimethylsiloxane. The efficiency of a single 30-min extraction, already explored in previous work, was compared with that of multiple shorter extractions. We evaluated three different conditions, i.e., three repeated extractions for 10 min each from different sample vials (for both the probe-like tool and SPME) or from the same vial (for SPME) containing brewed coffee. The entire study was performed using comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. The two-dimensional plots were aligned and integrated using a tile-sum approach before any statistical analysis. A detailed comparison of all the tested conditions was performed on a set of 25 targeted compounds. Although a single 30-min extraction using the probe-like tool provided a significantly higher compound intensity than SPME single extraction, the use of multiple shorter extractions with SPME showed similar results. However, multiple extractions with the probe-like tool showed a greater increase in the number of extracted compounds. Furthermore, an untargeted cross-sample comparison was performed to evaluate the ability of the two tested tools and the different extraction procedures in differentiating between espresso-brewed coffee samples obtained from capsules made of different packaging materials (i.e., compostable capsules, aluminum capsules, aluminum multilayer pack). The highest explained variance was obtained using the probe-like tool and multiple extractions (91.6% compared to 83.9% of the single extraction); nevertheless, SPME multiple extractions showed similar results with 88.3% of variance explained.

Indexed as

CoffeeOdorantsAluminumCapsulesDimethylpolysiloxanesGas Chromatography-Mass SpectrometrySolid Phase MicroextractionAluminumCapsulesCoffeeDimethylpolysiloxanesCoffeeHigh capacity (HC)HiSorbMulti-cumulative trapping (MCT)Multidimensional comprehensive gas chromatography (GC × GC)Solid-phase microextraction (SPME)

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.