| Literature DB >> 32013186 |
Stella A Ordoudi1, Maria Papapostolou1, Stella Kokkini2, Maria Z Tsimidou1.
Abstract
The last years, non-targeted fingerprinting by Fourier-transform infrared (FT-IR) spectroscopy has gained popularity as an alternative to classical gas chromatography (GC)-based methods because it may allow fast, green, non-destructive and cost-effective assessment of quality of essential oils (EOs) from single plant species. As the relevant studies for Laurus nobilis L. (bay laurel) EO are limited, the present one aimed at exploring the diagnostic potential of FT-IR fingerprinting for the identification of its botanical integrity. A reference spectroscopic dataset of 97 bay laurel EOs containing meaningful information about the intra-species variation was developed via principal component analysis (PCA). This dataset was used to train a one-class model via soft independent modelling class analogy (SIMCA). The model was challenged against commercial bay laurel and non-bay laurel EOs of non-traceable production history. Overall, the diagnostic importance of spectral bands at 3060, 1380-1360, 1150 and 1138 cm-1 was assessed using GC-FID-MS data. The findings support the introduction of FT-IR as a green analytical technique in the quality control of these often mislabeled and/or adulterated precious products. Continuous evaluation of the model performance against newly acquired authentic EOs from all producing regions is needed to ensure validity over time.Entities:
Keywords: 1,8-cineole; FT-IR spectroscopy; GC-FID-MS; Laurus nobilis L.; bay laurel; botanical origin; chemometrics; essential oil; fingerprinting; green analytical methods
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32013186 PMCID: PMC7037323 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25030583
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Inverse 2nd order derivative FT-IR transmittance spectra of the reference bay laurel leaf essential oil (EO) samples (n = 97); 3300–2700 cm−1 (A); 2100–1500 cm−1 (B); 1500–900 cm−1 (C); 900–500 cm−1 (D). Peaks shifted by more than ± 2 cm−1 are shown in italics.
Assignment of the most characteristic bands in the FT-IR transmittance spectra of L. nobilis L. EOs based on literature [23,24,25] and spectra of reference compounds.
| Wavenumber (cm−1) | Assignment | Relevant Constituent(s) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zero order Spectrum | 2nd Derivative Spectrum | ||
| Characteristic group vibrations | |||
| 3440 | - | linalool, terpinene-4-ol, α-terpineol | |
| 3073; 2985 (sh) | 3075; 2986 | methyleugenol | |
| 2965; 2879 | 2967; 2879–2870 | 1,8-cineole | |
| 2947–2945 | 1,8-cineole, other unidentified | ||
| 2925; 2853 (sh) | 2924; 2853 | sabinene, linalool, β-pinene | |
| 2834 (sh) | 2833 | (Ar–CH2–O) or Ar–OCH3 | methyleugenol, eugenol |
| 2724 | 2725 | –CHO | unidentified |
| 1730 | 1732 | α-terpinyl, bornyl, linalyl acetates | |
| 1713–1695 | –C=O–OH or aryl –C(H)=O | alkyl ketones (cyclic), aryl aldehydes | |
| 1655–1640 (br) | 1660–1630 | sabinene, linalool, methyleugenol | |
| 1514 | 1516–1514 | methyleugenol, eugenol, | |
| 1440–1510 | 1467–1465 | methyleugenol, eugenol | |
| Skeletal vibrations | |||
| 1446 | 1445;1433 | sabinene, spathulenol, α-, β-pinene | |
| 1375–1363 | 1377; 1364–1360 | 1,8-cineole, α-terpinyl acetate | |
| 1259; 1167–1155 | 1262–1258; 1155 | methyleugenol, eugenol | |
| 1080 | 1080 | 1,8-cineole | |
| 1032 (sh) | 1033–1031 | acetates of primary alcohols | |
| 1018 | 1017 | α-pinene, γ-terpinene | |
| 995 | 985 | 1,8-cineole | |
| 920–916 | (CH3)3–C–O or 5-membered cyclic ethers | ||
| 887 | pinene | ||
| 843 | |||
| 816 | |||
| 801–797 | |||
| 770–764 | |||
ν, stretching vibration; δ, in plane deformation vibration; γ, out of plane deformation vibration ω, wagging vibration; sh, shoulder; br, broad.
Figure 2Scatterplots of principle component analysis (PCA) scores (t) along the first and second (A), third (B), fourth (C), fifth (D) or sixth (E) principal components extracted from the pre-processed dataset of 88 reference bay laurel EOs (obtained from leaves of cultivated trees in AUTh campus). •: female (n = 8), •: male trees (n = 7). Dot codes refer to the tree (D#) and harvest month (M#) identifiers.
Figure 3Scatterplot of PCA scores (t) along the first and second principal component of bay laurel leaf EO samples corresponding to six different sampling dates (M1–M6) from tree D02 (AUTh campus).
GC-MS data for the constituents of bay laurel leaf EOs corresponding to six different sampling dates (M1–M6) from tree D02 (AUTh campus).
| No | Compound | Content (%) * | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D02_M1 | D02_M2 | D02_M3 | D02_M4 | D02_M5 | D02_M6 | ||
| Compounds eluted prior to 8 min not considered | |||||||
| 1 | camphene | tr. * | 0.51 | 0.63 | 0.56 | tr. | 0.59 |
| 2 | β-pinene | 1.80 | 2.98 | 3.35 | 3.32 | 2.41 | 3.97 |
| 3 | sabinene | 4.48 | 7.23 | 7.31 | 8.39 | 6.36 | 10.06 |
| 4 | β-myrcene | 0.57 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 1.12 | 0.99 | 1.26 |
| 5 | limonene | 1.26 | 1.72 | 1.55 | 1.56 | 1.80 | 1.87 |
| 6 | 1,8-cineole | 25.6 | 35.62 | 24.59 | 29.92 | 29.25 | 34.9 |
| 7 | γ-terpinene | tr. | 0.36 | 0.37 | 0.19 | tr. | 0.39 |
| 8 | tr. | 0.49 | 0.53 | 0.20 | tr. | 0.25 | |
| 9 | unidentified | tr. | tr. | 0.21 | 0.25 | tr. | 0.22 |
| 10 | unidentified | 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.48 | 0.50 | tr. | 0.68 |
| 11 | linalool | 4.08 | 3.87 | 2.48 | 1.57 | 1.95 | 1.34 |
| 12 | bornyl acetate | 1.48 | 1.13 | 1.19 | 0.68 | 0.98 | 0.75 |
| 13 | β-elemene | tr. | 0.32 | 0.68 | 1.17 | 1.13 | 0.39 |
| 14 | terpinen-4-ol | 2.75 | 2.39 | 2.38 | 1.01 | 2.15 | 1.75 |
| 15 | 1.26 | 0.98 | 1.05 | 0.3 | 1.07 | 0.74 | |
| 16 | unidentified | 0.61 | 0.48 | 0.39 | 0.38 | tr. | 0.47 |
| 17 | terpinyl acetate | 31.7 | 23.62 | 22.07 | 15.3 | 28.39 | 18.07 |
| 18 | germacrene D | tr. | tr. | 0.50 | 1.46 | 1.10 | 0.39 |
| 19 | unidentified | 0.90 | 0.60 | 0.69 | tr. | 1.04 | 0.52 |
| 20 | bicyclogermacrene | 0.64 | tr. | 0.71 | 4.19 | 2.73 | 0.55 |
| 21 | tr. | tr. | 0.29 | 1.06 | 0.97 | 0.25 | |
| 22 | methyl eugenol | 6.42 | 4.42 | 4.45 | 1.80 | 3.77 | 2.19 |
| 23 | ledol | 0.66 | 0.41 | 0.54 | 0.4 | 0.92 | 0.37 |
| 24 | unidentified | 0.89 | 0.49 | 0.78 | 2.39 | 1.82 | 0.63 |
| 25 | β-guaiene | tr. | 1.20 | 0.60 | 5.69 | 1.87 | 0.68 |
| 26 | spathulenol | 5.25 | 3.52 | 4.53 | 1.90 | 3.31 | 2.60 |
| 27 | eugenol | 1.49 | 1.02 | 1.25 | 0.7 | 1.79 | 1.52 |
| Total (%) | 92.47 | 94.71 | 84.36 | 86.01 | 95.8 | 87.40 | |
* tr.: traces.
Figure 4GC-MS chromatographic profiles of randomly selected EOs originated from three female and three male bay laurel leaves (A); projection of the same EO samples on the PC14 scoreplot of the reference FT-IR dataset (B). •: female trees •: male trees. Dot codes refer to the tree (D#) and harvest month (M#) identifiers. The chromatographic peaks were cross-referenced against the NIST mass spectral library (version 2.0f, 2008) and assigned to compounds no 1–27, as shown in Table S1.
Figure 5Hotelling’s T plots displaying the predicted variance of commercial bay laurel EOs from the one-class model of reference EOs explained by six PCs (A) and two PCs (B).
Figure 6Hotelling’s T plot displaying the predicted variance of all the commercial EOs from the one-class model of reference bay laurel EOs (S L1—V L2); eucalyptus EOs (V E—Ph E), rosemary (O R), sage (A S1, A S2) and melissa EOs (V M1, V M2) EOs.