Also, the effects of major interfering agents were shown to be relatively small, except for acidic species. In fact, it is well known that aldehydes, phenolic acids, antioxidants and some additives and nutrients can react with sulphite because of its high nucleophilicity, forming adducts and cleaving S–S bonds in proteins. The treatment of juices with pectinase is also known to produce

some matrix effects ( Scotter and Castle, 2004 and Swales and Wedzicha, 1992). In order Selleckchem SRT1720 to shed more light on the influence of such matrix effects on the results, experiments were carried out using a standard sulphite solution as reference (standard injection method) instead of the samples fortified with sulphite (standard addition method). The results of the analyses using samples of coconut water, orange, grape and cashew juice are shown in Fig. 4B–D. For the first two samples, the signal for the fortified samples (c) are the one expected for no or little matrix effects, i.e., are the sum of the peak currents for the sample (b) and the standard this website sulphite solution (a). However, a significant systematic decrease of the peak currents was determined for the additivated cashew and grape juice samples (31% and 45%, respectively, relative to the fortification) in comparison with the pure samples (c). Such differences were assigned to reactions of the added sulphite with the cashew and grape

juice matrix, generating bond sulphite species that are stable in 2.0 mol L−1 H2SO4 solution and don’t generate SO2 gas, at least during the time scale of the amperometric FIA analyses. Those reactions should be quite fast since no change could be observed after times longer than about a minute after the fortification

process. Thus, the very same reactions should affect any analysis carried out using the standard addition method and possibly the results of recovery experiments carried out by the standard Monier-Williams method. We can evaluate the error introduced by matrix effects using the data shown in Fig. 4B–D, assuming that the current response for the standard addition method is the difference between the experiments “c” and “b”. The results in ppm of SO2 are the following for the standard injection and standard addition methods (results in parentheses): coconut water = 4.9 × 8 = 39.2 ppm (40.8 ppm), Reverse transcriptase orange juice = 6.3 × 10 = 63.0 ppm (67.0 ppm), cashew juice = 10.1 × 10 = 101.0 ppm (143.0 ppm) and grape juice = 6.3 ppm (11.2 ppm), where ×8 and ×10 are the corrections for the dilution factor. It is clear that the standard addition method gave significantly larger results in comparison with the standard injection method, particularly in the case of cashew and grape juices where up to 41% and 78% larger values were found. Another factor that may introduce errors on the analytical results is the lixiviation of the ZnTRP/FeTPPS film that eventually can change the actual current response.