A comparison of SnifProbe and SPME for aroma sampling

M. Poliak, M. Kochman, A. Gordin, A. Amirav*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


The popular solid phase micro extraction (SPME) device and method is compared with SnifProbe (Gordin and Amirav in J Chromatogr A 903:155-172, 2000) in their application for coffee aroma sampling for its analysis. The main difference between SPME and SnifProbe is in the relative motion of the sampled air. While SPME is based on static air sampling and the achievement of equilibrium, SnifProbe is based on active air pumping through the adsorption trap. A second important difference concerns the sample introduction into the GC injector for its intra injector thermal desorption. SPME is based on the use of a special syringe for sample introduction without any change to the injector, while SnifProbe requires a ChromatoProbe for sample introduction. We found that as a result of these differences, while SnifProbe provides a more faithful (representative) headspace and aroma sample collection, SPME is characterized by major compound dependent sample bias. In addition, SnifProbe enabled much faster sample collection than SPME. Since SnifProbe uses the ChromatoProbe for sample introduction into the GC, bigger sample collection/trapping devices such as silicone tubing can be used, and as a result, over ten times superior SnifProbe sensitivity (versus SPME) was demonstrated. Additional SnifProbe and SPME features are compared and discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)487-493
Number of pages7
Issue number7-8
StatePublished - Oct 2006


FundersFunder number
United States - Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund
Israel Academy of Sciences and HumanitiesUS-3500-03
Israel Science Foundation


    • ChromatoProbe
    • Gas chromatography
    • SnifProbe
    • Solid phase microextraction


    Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of SnifProbe and SPME for aroma sampling'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this