Benefits of using sample enrichment techniques (Headspace SPME, Twister SBSE, and Dynamic headspace) to determine trace level analytes present in a herbal based liquor

Significance of the Topic

Determining trace‐level volatile compounds in complex matrices such as herbal‐based liquors is critical for quality control, flavor profiling and safety assessment. Conventional static headspace methods often lack sensitivity for minor constituents. Sample enrichment techniques enhance detection limits and precision, enabling comprehensive volatile analysis in food, beverage and natural product industries.

Objectives and Study Overview

This study compared four sample introduction methods—static headspace (HS), headspace solid‐phase microextraction (HS‐SPME), stir bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) using Twister, and dynamic headspace (DHS)—for quantifying trace analytes in a commercial herbal liquor. Key goals were to assess reproducibility, method precision and analyte coverage under identical GC–MS conditions.

Methodology

A 7890A GC coupled to a 5975C MS was used with a 30 m HP‐Innowax column. Identical oven and scan settings (35–350 amu) were applied across all techniques. Static HS used 2 mL sample at 60 °C, 2.5 mL injection. HS‐SPME employed a Carboxen/PDMS fiber, 100 µL sample, 60 °C incubation, 10 min extraction. SBSE used a PDMS‐coated magnetic stir bar in 100 µL liquor diluted to 5 mL, stirred 2 h, thermal desorption in CIS. DHS purged 100 µL sample at 80 °C with 50 mL carrier gas onto Tenax TA trap, dried then desorbed.

Used Instrumentation

• Gerstel MPS2 XL Multipurpose Sampler
• Gerstel Dynamic Headspace Module
• Gerstel Thermal Desorption Unit and CIS 4
• Gerstel SPME Option
• Agilent 7890A GC with 5975C inert XL MSD
• PDMS Twister Stirrer Plate

Main Results and Discussion

Static HS exhibited poor precision for limonene and anethole (%RSD > 18%), leading to its exclusion. HS‐SPME yielded %RSDs of 5–8% for furfural, linalool and anethole; eugenol showed higher variability (~23%) due to water effects. SBSE achieved excellent precision (%RSD 1.7–7%) for isopentyl alcohol, linalool, anethole and eugenol; limonene was not detected, likely from low aqueous solubility. DHS provided the broadest analyte profile with good precision (%RSD 3–9%) across six compounds, though limonene and eugenol required further optimization.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• HS‐SPME and SBSE enable sensitive quantitation of key aroma compounds with minimal solvent use.
• DHS offers comprehensive volatile coverage for complex botanical matrices.
• Improved reproducibility supports routine QC in beverage and natural product labs.

Future Trends and Potential Applications

Advances in sorbent materials and automation will further enhance sensitivity and reduce analysis time. Coupling enrichment methods with high‐resolution MS and multidimensional GC could enable deeper profiling of trace volatiles in food, fragrance and environmental samples. Miniaturized and on‐site enrichment modules may expand applications in field testing and real‐time monitoring.

Conclusion

Enrichment techniques (HS‐SPME, SBSE, DHS) outperform static headspace for trace analyte detection in herbal liquors. SBSE excels in precision for selected compounds, while DHS delivers the most comprehensive analyte spectrum. Method selection should balance sensitivity, analyte range and operational complexity for targeted applications.