Sampling technique biases in the analysis of fruit fly volatiles: a case study of Queensland fruit fly

Saeedeh Noushini*, Soo Jean Park, Ian Jamie, Joanne Jamie, Phillip Taylor

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)
16 Downloads (Pure)


Diverse methods have been used to sample insect semiochemicals. Sampling methods can differ in efficiency and affinity and this can introduce significant biases when interpreting biological patterns. We compare common methods used to sample tephritid fruit fly rectal gland volatiles (‘pheromones’), focusing on Queensland fruit fly, Bactrocera tryoni. Solvents of different polarity, n-hexane, dichloromethane and ethanol, were compared using intact and crushed glands. Polydimethylsiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane/divinylbenzene and polyacrylate were compared as adsorbents for solid phase microextraction. Tenax-GR and Porapak Q were compared as adsorbents for dynamic headspace sampling. Along with compounds previously reported for B. tryoni, we detected five previously unreported compounds in males, and three in females. Dichloromethane extracted more amides while there was no significant difference between the three solvents in extraction of spiroacetals except for (E,E)-2,8-dimethyl-1,7-dioxaspiro[5.5]undecane for which n-hexane extracted higher amount than both dichloromethane and ethanol. Ethanol failed to contain many of the more volatile compounds. Crushed rectal gland samples provided higher concentrations of extracted compounds than intact rectal gland samples, but no compounds were missed in intact samples. Of solid phase microextraction fibers, polyacrylate had low affinity for spiroacetals, ethyl isobutyrate and ethyl-2-methylbutanoate. Polydimethylsiloxane was more efficient for spiroacetals while type of fiber did not affect the amounts of amides and esters. In dynamic headspace sampling, Porapak was more efficient for ethyl isobutyrate and spiroacetals, while Tenax was more efficient for other esters and amides, and sampling time was a critical factor. Biases that can be introduced by sampling methods are important considerations when collecting and interpreting insect semiochemical profiles.

Original languageEnglish
Article number19799
Pages (from-to)1-14
Number of pages14
JournalScientific Reports
Publication statusPublished - 13 Nov 2020

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2020. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.


Dive into the research topics of 'Sampling technique biases in the analysis of fruit fly volatiles: a case study of Queensland fruit fly'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.
  • ITTC for Fruit Fly Biosecurity Innovation (ARC)

    Taylor, P., Clarke, A., Riegler, M., Kemp, D., Ponton, F., Cameron, S., Schutze, M., Cook, J., Papanicolaou, A., Dominiak, B., Jessup, A., Reynolds, O., Suckling, M., El Sayad, A., Mas, F., Royer, J., Schellhorn, N., Macfadyen, S., Wilson, C., MQRES Inter Tuition Fee only 2, M. I. T. F. O. 2. & MQRES Inter Tuition Fee only, M. I. T. F. O.

    27/06/16 → …

    Project: Research

Cite this