Sampling of Volatiles in Closed Systems: A Controlled Comparison of Three Solventless Volatile Collection Methods

Abstract

Complex inter-organismal communication among plants, insects, and microbes in natural and agricultural ecological systems is typically governed by emitted and perceived semiochemicals. To understand and ultimately utilize the role of volatile semiochemicals in these interactions, headspace volatiles are routinely collected and analyzed. Numerous collection systems are available (e.g., static or dynamic; adsorption or absorption) where the choice of technique should be dependent upon the plant, insect, or microbial ecological system studied, the information sought, and the limitations of each method. Within these constraints, it remains necessary that each method detects and provides the accurate in situ, or in vitro, volatile profile of the studied system. Herein, we analyzed and compared the pros and cons of three solventless, thermal desorption systems (SPME, Tenax/cold trap, SPDE) using a synthetic standard blend of compounds mimicking a simple natural blend (benzaldehyde, b-caryophyllene, (Z)-3-hexenol, 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, and limonene). Direct splitless injection and Super Q collections of the standard blend were used as controls. The results indicated that related qualitative, as well as quantitative differences, could be correlated with adsorbent sampling capacity and structural bias. The results for Tenax/cold trap and SPDE also were affected by sampled headspace volumes. All solventless techniques exhibited high analytical reproducibility, with SPME and SPDE providing ease of use, low cost, and minimal instrument modifications. The more complex Tenax/cold trap technique provided higher collection efficiency. Using these results, we provide guidance for technique selection for chemical communication applications