4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparison of different extraction methods for the determination of essential oils and related compounds from aromatic plants and optimization of solid-phase microextraction/gas chromatography

期刊

ANALYTICAL AND BIOANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 387, 期 6, 页码 2207-2217

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00216-006-1045-6

关键词

extraction; SPME; GC; Origanum majorana L.; Thymus vulgaris L.; Salvia officinalis L.; Carum carvi L.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different extraction methods for the subsequent gas chromatographic determination of the composition of essential oils and related compounds from marjoram (Origanum majorana L.), caraway (Carum carvi L.), sage (Salvia officinalis L.), and thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.) have been compared. The comparison was also discussed with regard to transformation processes of genuine compounds, particularly in terms of expenditure of time. Hydrodistillation is the method of choice for the determination of the essential oil content of plants. For investigating the composition of genuine essential oils and related, aroma-active compounds, hydrodistillation is not very useful, because of discrimination and transformation processes due to high temperatures and acidic conditions. With cold solvent extraction, accelerated solvent extraction, and supercritical fluid extraction, discrimination of high and non-volatile aroma-active components as well as transformation processes can be diminished, but non-aroma-active fats, waxes, or pigments are often extracted, too. As solid-phase microextraction is a solvent-free fully automizable sample preparation technique, this was the most sparing to sensitive components and the most time-saving method for the rapid determination of the aroma compounds composition in marjoram, caraway, sage, and thyme. Finally, solid-phase microextraction could be successfully optimized for the extraction of the aroma components from the plants for their subsequent gas chromatographic determination.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据