| Literature DB >> 35624672 |
Maria-Daniela Mot1, Simona Gavrilaș2, Andreea I Lupitu2, Cristian Moisa2, Dorina Chambre2, Delia Mirela Tit1,3, Mihaela Alexandra Bogdan1, Adina-Maria Bodescu4, Lucian Copolovici2, Dana Maria Copolovici2, Simona Gabriela Bungau1,3.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to reveal the chemical and biochemical characteristics and the potential aromatherapy applications of the essential oil (EO) of Salvia officinalis (common sage) within a hospital environment. The chemical composition was determined by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry and ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. Three types of sage EOs were included in this study: two commercial oils and one oil obtained by in-house hydrodistillation. Based on the findings, these EOs were included in different chemotypes. The first two samples were similar to the most common chemotype (α-thujone > camphor > 1,8-cineole > β-thujone), while the in-house sage EO revealed a high content of 1,8-cineole, borneol, α-thujone, similar to the Dalmatian type. The latter sample was selected to be evaluated for its antioxidant and medical effects, as borneol, a bicyclic monoterpene, is known as a substance with anesthetic and analgesic effects in traditional Asian medicine. The study suggests that the antioxidant capacity of the sage EO is modest (33.61% and 84.50% inhibition was determined by DPPH and ABTS assays, respectively), but also that the inhalation of sage EO with high borneol content by hospitalized patients could improve these patients' satisfaction.Entities:
Keywords: Salvia officinalis; antioxidant activity; aromatherapy; chemical analysis; essential oil; inhalation
Year: 2022 PMID: 35624672 PMCID: PMC9137537 DOI: 10.3390/antiox11050808
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Figure 1GC-MS chromatograms obtained for the investigated Salvia officinalis essential oil samples: B-SEO, pink; EG-SEO, black; L-SEO, blue.
Salvia officinalis L. essential oil chemical composition (% TIC) determined by GC-MS analyses.
| No. | KI | Compound/Class | Present Study | Turkey | Poland | Morocco | Sudan | Brazil | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B-SEO | EG-SEO | L-SEO | ||||||||
| 1 | 925 | Unidentified | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | ||||||
| 2 | 926 | Tricyclene/MH | 0.42 ± 0.01 | |||||||
| 3 | 930 | α-Thujene/MH | 0.17 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | 0.31 | ||||
| 4 | 939 | α-Pinene/MH | 5.96 ± 0.03 | 4.23 ± 0.02 | 7.8 ± 0.05 | 7.17 | 0.02 | 3.18 | 8.96 | 3.07 |
| 5 | 954 | Camphene/MH | 5.59 ± 0.07 | 6.92 ± 0.10 | 8.73 ± 0.12 | 8.40 | 3.67 | 5.09 | 4.40 | |
| 6 | 975 | Sabinene/MH | 1.70 ± 0.01 | 1.55 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.41 | 0.15 | |||
| 7 | 979 | β-Pinene/MH | 0.78 ± 0.03 | 0.55 ± 0.02 | 10.52 ± 0.15 | 2.92 | 0.40 | 2.57 | ||
| 8 | 990 | β-Myrcene/MH | 0.72 ± 0.06 | 1.16 | 1.94 | 3.65 | ||||
| 9 | 1012 | 4-Carene/MH | 0.42 ± 0.02 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | ||||||
| 10 | 1024 | p-Cymene/MH | 0.85 ± 0.02 | 1.01 ± 0.03 | 1.33 | |||||
| 11 | α-Terpinene/MH | 0.34 ± 0.02 | 0.18 | 0.2 | 0.22 | |||||
| 12 | 1029 | 1,8-Cineole/MH | 13.39 ± 0.21 | 14.22 ± 0.19 | 17.98 ± 0.23 | 18.54 | 23.72 | 17.52 | 14.8 | |
| 13 | 1050 | trans-β-Ocimene/MH | 0.52 ± 0.06 | |||||||
| 14 | 1051 | D-Limonene/MH | 2.46 | 1.7 | 0.37 | |||||
| 15 | 1056 | Linalool/MH | 0.79 | |||||||
| 16 | 1059 | γ-Terpinene/MH | 0.60 ± 0.05 | 0.15 ± 0.06 | 0.62 ± 0.08 | 0.18 | 0.42 | |||
| 17 | 1088 | α-Terpinolene/MH | 0.60 ± 0.10 | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.12 | |||||
| 18 | 1089 | 2-Carene/MH | 0.19 ± 0.01 | |||||||
| 19 | 1102 | α-Thujone/MO | 26.03 ± 0.25 | 26.73 ± 0.26 | 8.74 ± 0.12 | 22.30 | 21.22 | 0.91 | 24.8 | |
| 20 | 1109 | β-Thujone/MO | 4.65 ± 0.11 | 4.19 ± 0.12 | 1.34 ± 0.11 | 14.28 | 13.45 | 3.97 | ||
| 21 | 1146 | Camphor/MO | 20.09 ± 0.24 | 22.64 ± 0.27 | 2.56 ± 0.12 | 14.40 | 18.22 | 21.23 | 11.57 | 10.9 |
| 22 | 1169 | Borneol/MO | 3.1 ± 0.20 | 3.31 ± 0.19 | 15.86 ± 0.23 | 0.37 | 2.42 | 1.67 | 0.81 | 11.1 |
| 23 | 1188 | α-Terpineol/MO | 0.50 ± 0.07 | 0.46 ± 0.08 | ||||||
| 24 | 1287 | Bornyl acetate/MO | 1.93 ± 0.11 | 2.27 ± 0.13 | 0.88 ± 0.06 | 0.32 | 0.22 | |||
| 25 | 1290 | Thymol/MO | 0.33 ± 0.01 | |||||||
| 26 | 1351 | α-Cubebene/SH | 0.2 ± 0.06 | |||||||
| 27 | 1380 | α-Copaene/SH | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.13 | ||||||
| 28 | 1381 | α-Ylangene/SH | 0.26 ± 0.11 | |||||||
| 29 | 1389 | β-Bourbonene/SH | 0.15 ± 0.03 | |||||||
| 30 | 1393 | Unidentified | 0.21 ± 0.03 | |||||||
| 31 | 1402 | Unidentified | 0.23 ± 0.07 | |||||||
| 32 | 1419 | β-Caryophyllene/SH | 4.54 ± 0.23 | 3.28 ± 0.21 | 5.66 ± 0.22 | 0.58 | 3.76 | 2.89 | ||
| 33 | 1429 | Unidentified | 0.39 ± 0.01 | 0.29 ± 0.3 | ||||||
| 34 | 1432 | γ-Cadinen/SH | 0.24 ± 0.09 | |||||||
| 35 | 1439 | α-Guaiene/SH | 0.14 ± 0.01 | |||||||
| 36 | 1456 | α-Humulene/SH | 4.89 ± 021 | 4.29 ± 0.21 | 8.64 ± 0.25 | 0.94 | 1.45 | 1.47 | ||
| 37 | 1479 | γ-Muurolene/SH | 0.40 ± 0.08 | 0.26 ± 0.02 | 0.63 ± 0.06 | |||||
| 38 | 1500 | α-Muurolene/SH | 0.43 ± 0.07 | |||||||
| 39 | 1512 | Unidentified | 0.06 ± 0.01 | |||||||
| 40 | 1523 | δ-Cadinene/SH | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.17 ± 0.01 | |||||
| 41 | 1576 | Isoledene/SH | 0.61 ± 0.05 | |||||||
| 42 | 1583 | Caryophyllene oxide/SO | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.29 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.07 | |||||
| 43 | 1592 | Viridiflorol/SO | 3.09 ± 0.19 | 0.6 | ||||||
| 44 | 1593 | Unidentified | 2.34 ± 0.19 | 1.88 ± 0.18 | ||||||
| 45 | 1594 | Unidentified | 0.35 ± 0.03 | 0.61 ± 0.08 | 0.6 ± 0.09 | |||||
| 46 | 1603 | Unidentified | 0.08 ± 0.01 | |||||||
| 47 | 1607 | Unidentified | 0.6 ± 0.08 | |||||||
MH—monoterpene hydrocarbons; MO—oxygenate monoterpene; SH—sesquiterpene hydrocarbons; SO—oxygenated sesquiterpene, KI—Kovats retention index.
Figure 2The ATR-FTIR spectra of the Salvia officinalis L. essential oil samples.
The ATR-FTIR absorption band for SEO samples and vibrational assignments.
| Wavenumber (cm−1) of ATR-FTIR Recorded Bands | Vibrational Assignment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| L-SEO | B-SEO | EG-SEO | |
| 3459 | 3474 | 3474 | (O-H) stretching vibration [ |
| 3066 | 3058 | 3058 | (CH) stretching vibration of CH3 and CH2 (Csp3 and Csp2) [ |
| 2951 | 2958 | 2958 | |
| 2926 | 2929 | 2930 | |
| 2875 | 2875 | 2875 | |
| 1741 | 1741 | 1741 | (C=O) stretching vibration in carbonyl group; (C=C) stretching vibration in (>C=CH2), (-CH=CH-), and (-CH=C<) alkyl groups [ |
| 1642 | 1637 | 1638 | |
| 1456 | 1455 | 1455 | (C-H) symmetric and asymmetric bending vibration of (CH3) and (CH2) groups, (C-H) in-plane bending, (C-O) symmetric and asymmetric stretching vibration, (O-H) in-plane bending, (CH3(CO)) symmetric bending, (C-O-C) symmetric and asymmetric stretching [ |
| - | 1415 | 1415 | |
| 1371 | 1371 | 1371 | |
| 1303 | 1303 | 1303 | |
| 1266 | 1274 | 1274 | |
| 1236 | 1241 | 1241 | |
| 1214 | 1215 | 1215 | |
| 1166 | 1165 | 1165 | |
| 1106 | 1104 | 1104 | |
| 1080 | 1077 | 1078 | |
| 1054 | - | - | |
| - | 1045 | 1045 | |
| 1022 | 1022 | 1022 | |
| 982 | 983 | 983 | (CH2) and (CH) out-of-plane wagging, (O-H) out-of-plane banding vibration [ |
| 877 | 880 | 879 | |
| 844 | 847 | 848 | |
| 817 | 810 | 810 | |
| 759 | 750 | 750 | |
| 642 | 642 | 642 | |
Patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics.
| Variable | Control Group | Salvia EO Group | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) | ||||
| Sex (Female/Male) | 14/36 | 46/78 | 174 (100) | |
| Weight (Kg) | 76.80 ± 13.74 | 74.98 ± 14.74 | 0.2173 * | |
|
| 0.5877 ** | |||
| Middle school | 7 (14) | 11 (9) | 18 (10) | |
| High school | 25 (50) | 68 (55) | 93 (53) | |
| University | 18 (36) | 45 (36) | 63 (36) | |
|
| 0.3032 ** | |||
| Social aid | 3 (6) | 7 (6) | 10 (17) | |
| Active | 24 (48) | 75 (60) | 99 (57) | |
| Retired | 23 (46) | 42 (34) | 65 (37) | |
|
| 0.2839 ** | |||
| Excellent | 13 (26) | 34 (27) | 47 (27) | |
| Very good | 5 (10) | 24 (19) | 29 (17) | |
| Good | 17 (34) | 36 (29) | 53 (30) | |
| Bad | 15 (30) | 26 (21) | 41 (24) | |
| Very bad | 0 (0) | 4 (3) | 4 (2) | |
|
| 0.1135 ** | |||
| Daily | 22 (44) | 63 (51) | 85 (49) | |
| 1–3 times/week | 5 (10) | 23 (19) | 28 (16) | |
| No | 23 (46) | 38 (31) | 61 (35) | |
|
| 0.4354 ** | |||
| Daily | 18 (36) | 57 (46) | 75 (43) | |
| 1–3 times/week | 22 (44) | 49 (40) | 71 (41) | |
| No | 10 (20) | 18 (15) | 28 (16) | |
|
| 0.0046 ** | |||
| Daily | 7 (14) | 46 (37) | 53 (30) | |
| Occasionally | 18 (36) | 42 (34) | 60 (34) | |
| No | 25 (50) | 36 (29) | 61 (35) | |
|
| 0.1561 *** | |||
| Daily | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | |
| Occasionally | 10 (20) | 51 (41) | 61 (35) | |
| No | 40 (80) | 72 (58) | 112 (64) | |
|
| 0.0951 *** | |||
| Daily | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Occasionally | 15 (30) | 31 (25) | 46 (26) | |
| No | 35 (70) | 93 (75) | 128 (74) | |
|
| 0.6036 **** | |||
| Yes | 19 (38) | 42 (34) | 61 (35) | |
| No | 31 (62) | 82 (66) | 113 (65) | |
|
| 0.0186 **** | |||
| Yes | 9 (18) | 46 (37) | 55 (32) | |
| No | 41 (82) | 78 (63) | 119 (68) | |
n—number of patients; * t-test; ** chi-squared test; *** Kruskal-Walis test; **** Fisher’s exact test.
Figure 3Patients’ satisfaction with the treatment they received during their current hospitalization (Mann-Whitney U test).