4.6 Article

Comparative GC/MS Analysis of Essential Oils Extracted by 3 Methods from the Bud of Citrus aurantium L. var. amara Engl

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 76, Issue 9, Pages C1219-C1225

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02421.x

Keywords

Citrus aurantium L; var; amara Engl; essential oil; gas chromatography; mass spectrometry; reflux extraction; steam distillation extraction; ultrasound-assisted extraction

Funding

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [20080430826, 200801250]
  2. Natl. Key Technology RD Program [2006BAD27B04]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A comparative study of steam distillation extraction (SDE), reflux extraction (RE), and ultrasound-assisted extraction (USE) was conducted for the extraction of essential oils from the bud of Citrus aurantium L. var. amara Engl. Each method was evaluated in terms of qualitative and quantitative composition of the isolated essential oil by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The extract yields of essential oil were 0.16%, 2.18%, and 2.34%, respectively. A total of 82 compounds were identified by GC/MS. The main components obtained by SDE were terpinen-4-ol (20.98%), dipentene (11.67%), terpinene (9.24%), those by RE were palmitic acid (20.61%), 2-chloroethyl linoleate (14.54%), tetracosane (12.26%), and a-linolenic acid (11.24%), and those by USE were tetracosane (11.32%), heneicosane (11.06%), and palmitic acid (8.76%). Comparative analysis indicated that SDE was favorable for the extraction of monoterpene hydrocarbons, sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, alcohols, and carbonyl compounds, RE and USE had certain advantages in the extraction of aliphatic saturated hydrocarbons, organic acids, and esters. It is concluded that different extraction methods may lead to different yields of essential oils; the choice of appropriate method is very important to obtain more desired components with higher physiological activities.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available