Comparison of Solid-Phase Microextraction Using Classical Fibers Versus Mini-Arrows Applying Multiple Headspace Extraction and Various Agitation Techniques

  • Michael Ziegler
  • Hans-Georg Schmarr
Short Communication


Multiple headspace extraction allowed the comparison of extraction efficiencies for solid-phase microextraction (SPME) using classical fiber-type sorbents versus the relatively novel mini-Arrows. A hydro-alcoholic matrix and two wine aroma compounds (1,1,6-trimethyl-1,2-dihydronaphthalene (TDN) and 2,10,10-trimethyl-6-methylen-1-oxaspiro[4.5]dec-7-ene (vitispirane)) were exemplarily chosen for the evaluation. SPME fiber coating materials were compared with their corresponding SPME mini-Arrow counterparts. With chemically equivalent sorption phases, higher extraction efficiencies were found for the SPME mini-Arrow system due to the larger sorption volume. The comparison of diverse agitation devices revealed a significant influence of the agitation mode on extraction kinetics and extracted analyte amount in non-equilibrium conditions. Furthermore, the evaluation of SPME fibers or SPME mini-Arrow coatings containing a carboxen-type material revealed the importance of an appropriate desorption (injection) temperature. If not chosen carefully, analyte injection may not be complete, possibly resulting in reduced detection limits or generation of carryover problems. Also noteworthy is the construction of the SPME mini-Arrow device as such, as this is more robust compared to the classical SPME fiber, enhancing the lifetime of the extraction device.


SPME SPME arrow Multiple headspace extraction Boundary layer Agitation Extraction efficiency 



The authors are thankful to CTC Analytics AG for the supply of SPME fibers and SPME mini-Arrows, and Beat Schilling (BGB Analytik AG) for technical support. We are also thankful to CHROMTECH for the supply of the SMM and the conditioning station. We appreciate the donation of TDN and vitispirane samples by Dr. Recep Gök. Part of this research project was supported by the German Ministry of Economics and Technology (via AiF) and the FEI (Forschungskreis der Ernährungsindustrie.V., Bonn, Germany); Project AiF 16680N.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies involving human or animal participants.


  1. 1.
    Helin A, Rönkkö T, Parshintsev J, Hartonen K, Schilling B, Läubli T, Riekkola M-L (2015) Solid phase microextraction arrow for the sampling of volatile amines in wastewater and atmosphere. J Chromatogr A 1426:56–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kremser A, Jochmann MA, Schmidt TC (2016) PAL SPME arrow-evaluation of a novel solid-phase microextraction device for freely dissolved PAHs in water. Anal Bioanal Chem 408(3):943–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kremser A, Jochmann MA, Schmidt TC (2016) Systematic comparison of static and dynamic headspace sampling techniques for gas chromatography. Anal Bioanal Chem 408(24):6567–6579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    CTC Analytics AG (2016) PAL SPME Arrow—the better SPME. Manufacturer publication, CTC Analytics AG, ZwingenGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    De la Calle García D, Magnaghi S, Reichenbächer M, Danzer K (1996) Systematic optimization of the analysis of wine bouquet components by solid-phase microextraction. J High Resolut Chromatogr 19(5):257–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Darrouzès J, Bueno M, Pécheyran C, Holeman M, Potin-Gautier M (2005) New approach of solid-phase microextraction improving the extraction yield of butyl and phenyltin compounds by combining the effects of pressure and type of agitation. J Chromatogr A 1072(1):19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pawliszyn J (2010) Theory of extraction. In: Pawliszyn J, Lord HL (eds) Handbook of sample preparation. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, pp 3–24Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kolb B (1982) Multiple headspace extraction—a procedure for eliminating the influence of the sample matrix in quantitative headspace gas chromatography. Chromatographia 15(9):587–594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hakkarainen M (2007) Developments in multiple headspace extraction. J Biochem Biophys Methods 70(2):229–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kolb B, Ettre LS (1991) Theory and practice of multiple headspace extraction. Chromatographia 32(11–12):505–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mendes-Pinto MM (2009) Carotenoid breakdown products the—norisoprenoids—in wine aroma. Arch Biochem Biophys 483(2):236–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langen J, Wang C-Y, Slabizki P, Wall K, Schmarr H-G (2013) Quantitative analysis of γ- and δ-lactones in wines using gas chromatography with selective tandem mass spectrometric detection. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom 27:2751–2759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Aisala H, Linderborg KM, Sandell M (2018) Fiber depth, column coating and extraction time are major contributors in the headspace solid-phase microextraction—gas chromatography analysis of Nordic wild mushrooms. Eur Food Res Technol 244(5):841–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pawliszyn J (1999) Quantitative aspects of SPME. In: Pawliszyn J (ed) Applications of solid phase microextraction. RSC chromatography monographs. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 3–21Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pawliszyn J (2000) Theory of solid-phase microextraction. J Chromatogr Sci 38(7):270–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Semenov SN, Koziel JA, Pawliszyn J (2000) Kinetics of solid-phase extraction and solid-phase microextraction in thin adsorbent layer with saturation sorption isotherm. J Chromatogr A 873(1):39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ramus K, Kopinke F-D, Georgi A (2012) Sorption-induced effects of humic substances on mass transfer of organic pollutants through aqueous diffusion boundary layers: the example of water/air exchange. Environ Sci Technol 46(4):2196–2203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ai J (1999) Quantitation by SPME before reaching a partition equilibrium. In: Pawliszyn J (ed) Applications of solid phase microextraction. RSC Chromatography Monographs. The Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, pp 22–37Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Viticulture and OenologyDienstleistungszentrum Ländlicher Raum (DLR) RheinpfalzNeustadt an der WeinstraßeGermany
  2. 2.Faculty for Chemistry, Food ChemistryKaiserslautern University of TechnologyKaiserslauternGermany
  3. 3.Faculty for Chemistry, Instrumental Analytical ChemistryUniversity Duisburg-EssenEssenGermany

Personalised recommendations