Literature DB >> 22069217

Comparison of headspace solid-phase microextraction, headspace single-drop microextraction and hydrodistillation for chemical screening of volatiles in Myrtus communis L.

Mohammad Moradi1, Massoud Kaykhaii, Ali Reza Ghiasvand, Shahriar Shadabi, Alinazar Salehinia.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) and headspace single-drop microextraction (HS-SDME) methods have never been used for the extraction and analysis of the volatile compounds of Myrtus communis. For that reason, in this work, these two techniques were compared with the traditional hydrodistillation (HD) extraction technique.
OBJECTIVE: To compare SPME and SDME with HD for the extraction and analysis of Myrtus communis volatiles.
METHODOLOGY: Three extraction methods, i.e. SPME, SDME and HD, coupled to gas chromatography-mass spectrometry were used and optimised for the analysis of Myrtus communis volatiles. The SPME extraction was performed on a 100 µm PDMS fibre and for SDME a drop of n-octadecane containing 0.7% of menthol as internal standard was used as extracting solvent. The results were compared from different viewpoints including efficiency of extraction, different kinds of species extracted and quantity of extracted compounds with HD.
RESULTS: The main analytes extracted by SPME were found to be α-pinene, limonene, 1,8-cineole, linalool, linalyl acetate, α-terpinyl acetate and geranyl acetate, whereas for SDME α-pinene, limonene, 1,8-cineole, linalool, linalyl acetate and β-myrcene were extracted as major components. Hydrodistillation could extract α-pinene, limonene, 1,8-cineole, linalool, α-terpineol, linalyl acetate, α-terpinyl acetate, geranyl acetate and cis-isoeugenol better than other volatiles from Myrtus communis.
CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that HS-SPME and HS-SDME can be applied successfully for the extraction and separation of volatiles in aromatic plants, and these techniques are easier to perform, and more effective than HD for collection of more volatile compounds.
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22069217     DOI: 10.1002/pca.1368

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phytochem Anal        ISSN: 0958-0344            Impact factor:   3.373


  4 in total

1.  Antibacterial activity of the essential oils of myrtle leaves against Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae.

Authors:  Abdollah Ghasemi Pirbalouti; Hamed Mirbagheri; Behzad Hamedi; Ebrahim Rahimi
Journal:  Asian Pac J Trop Biomed       Date:  2014-05

2.  Chemical Composition of Essential Oils from Different Parts of Zingiber kerrii Craib and Their Antibacterial, Antioxidant, and Tyrosinase Inhibitory Activities.

Authors:  Aknarin Pintatum; Surat Laphookhieo; Emilie Logie; Wim Vanden Berghe; Wisanu Maneerat
Journal:  Biomolecules       Date:  2020-02-04

3.  Chemical Composition of Myrtle (Myrtus communis L.) Berries Essential Oils as Observed in a Collection of Genotypes.

Authors:  Marianna Usai; Mauro Marchetti; Nicola Culeddu; Maurizio Mulas
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2018-09-29       Impact factor: 4.411

4.  Botanic Garden as a Factory of Molecules: Myrtus communis L. subsp. communis as a Case Study.

Authors:  Claudia Giuliani; Martina Bottoni; Fabrizia Milani; Sefora Todero; Patrizia Berera; Filippo Maggi; Laura Santagostini; Gelsomina Fico
Journal:  Plants (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-11
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.