COMPARISON OF HEADSPACE SOLID PHASE MICROEXTRACTION AND XAD‐2 METHODS TO EXTRACT VOLATILE COMPOUNDS PRODUCED BY<i>SACCHAROMYCES</i>DURING WINE FERMENTATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A modified headspace solid phase microextraction (HS‐SPME) method was compared with Amberlite® XAD‐2 resin for the extraction of volatile compounds. In the HS‐SPME method, volatiles were extracted using an 85 μm polyacrylate fiber from wines that contained a standardized amount of ethanol (10% v/v), NaCl (0.325 g/mL) and internal standards (dodecanol and nonanoic acid). Both extraction procedures yielded high relative recoveries (>92%) and reproducibilities (coefficient of variations ≤ 11%) for the different higher alcohols, esters and medium‐chain fatty acids. Overall, limits of detection for the HS‐SPME and XAD‐2 methods were below sensory threshold concentrations. HS‐SPME and XAD‐2 performed similarly in the analysis of a Riesling wine; however, the HS‐SPME method did not require organic solvents and was generally quicker to perform. In applying the HS‐SPME method, differences in concentrations of volatile compounds produced in Riesling and Chenin blanc wines by 11 different yeast strains were noted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".