CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Assessment of some diterpenoids in commercial distilled gin

Vichi, Stefania, Aumatell, Montserrat Riu, Buxaderas, Susana, López-Tamames, Elvira·2008·Analytica Chimica Acta
DOI 10.1016/j.aca.2008.09.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In the present study the qualitative and quantitative determination of diterpenoids in commercial distilled gin was carried out. This widely consumed juniper-based spirit is aromatized using Juniper (Juniperus communis) berries. Although juniper reportedly contains several diterpenic compounds, no studies have addressed the diterpenic composition of juniper-based spirits or beverages. With this objective, here we followed a multilevel factorial experimental design to optimize a direct immersion-solid phase microextraction (DI-SPME) method coupled to gas chromatography/mass spectrometry and analyzed eight commercial brands of gin. With total concentrations ranging from 10 to 190 microg L(-1), manool, manoyl oxide and trans-totarol were the most abundant diterpenoids of the 10 identified or tentatively identified at variable but not negligible concentrations in the distilled gin samples. The diterpenic composition allowed the brands to be differentiated. This indicates that these compounds contribute to the sensory characteristics of the distinct commercial brands, thus guaranteeing the authenticity and consequently the quality of the product.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.aca.2008.09.005

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Kallio, 1989, J. Agric. Food Chem., 37, 1013, 10.1021/jf00088a043 · DOI
  2. Barjaktarović, 2005, J. Agric. Food Chem., 53, 2630, 10.1021/jf048244g · DOI
  3. de Pascual, 1980, Phytochemistry, 19, 1153, 10.1016/0031-9422(80)83074-3 · DOI
  4. San Feliciano, 1991, Phytochemistry, 30, 3134, 10.1016/S0031-9422(00)98270-0 · DOI
  5. Mossa, 1992, Phytochemistry, 31, 2789, 10.1016/0031-9422(92)83631-8 · DOI
  6. Kuo, 1996, Phytochemistry, 42, 779, 10.1016/0031-9422(95)00877-2 · DOI
  7. Topçu, 1999, Phytochemistry, 50, 1195, 10.1016/S0031-9422(98)00675-X · DOI
  8. Lee, 2001, J. Nat. Prod., 64, 511, 10.1021/np0004505 · DOI
  9. Barrero, 2004, Phytochemistry, 65, 2507, 10.1016/j.phytochem.2004.07.021 · DOI
  10. Martin, 2006, Phytochem. Anal., 17, 32, 10.1002/pca.878 · DOI
  11. Barrero, 2005, Phytochemistry, 66, 105, 10.1016/j.phytochem.2004.10.017 · DOI
  12. Tan, 2002, Phytochemistry, 61, 881, 10.1016/S0031-9422(02)00361-8 · DOI
  13. Demetzos, 2002, Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett., 12, 3605, 10.1016/S0960-894X(02)00792-8 · DOI
  14. He, 1997, Planta Med., 63, 158, 10.1055/s-2006-957635 · DOI
  15. Kinouchi, 2000, J. Nat. Prod., 63, 817, 10.1021/np0000217 · DOI
  16. D.O.L 288/24 of 27/10/98; Commission Decision of Octover 15, 1997. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L288 (1998) 24. · DOI
  17. Long, 1983, Anal. Chem., 55, 712, 10.1021/ac00259a060 · DOI
  18. IUPAC Compendium of Chemical Terminology, 2nd edition, 1997. See http://iupac.org/publications/analytical_compendium/Cha18sec437.pdf.
  19. Skaltza, 2001, Phytochemistry, 57, 253
  20. Demetzos, 2002, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 30, 651, 10.1016/S0305-1978(01)00145-4 · DOI
  21. Angelopoulou, 2001, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 29, 405, 10.1016/S0305-1978(00)00071-5 · DOI
  22. Prosen, 1999, Trends Anal. Chem., 18, 272, 10.1016/S0165-9936(98)00109-5 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Vichi, 2005, J. Agric. Food Chem., 53, 10154, 10.1021/jf058121b · DOI
  24. Martin, 2004, Plant Physiol., 135, 1908, 10.1104/pp.104.042028 · DOI
  25. De Pascual, 1983, Phytochemistry, 22, 300, 10.1016/S0031-9422(00)80113-2 · DOI
  26. Fang, 1993, Phytochemistry, 33, 1169, 10.1016/0031-9422(93)85043-Q · DOI
  27. Adams, 2000, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 28, 515, 10.1016/S0305-1978(99)00089-7 · DOI
  28. Adams, 2001, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 29, 609, 10.1016/S0305-1978(00)00098-3 · DOI
  29. Adams, 2005, Biochem. Syst. Ecol., 33, 771, 10.1016/j.bse.2005.01.001 · DOI
  30. Salido, 2002, J. Ethnopharmacol., 81, 129, 10.1016/S0378-8741(02)00045-4 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 21

Metadata

Authors
Vichi, S., Aumatell, M. R., Buxaderas, S., & López-Tamames, E.
Venue
Analytica Chimica Acta
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-11
Volume
628
Issue
2
Pages
222-229
ISSN
0003-2670
DOI
10.1016/j.aca.2008.09.005
Cited by
21
References
0
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review