Authors:
Dominika AndrysWest Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin, Poland

Search for other papers by Dominika Andrys in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Danuta KulpaWest Pomeranian University of Technology, Szczecin, Poland

Search for other papers by Danuta Kulpa in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

The aim of this study was to identify and determine by means of gas chromatography–flame ionization detector (GC–FID) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) method the volatile compounds of essential oils obtained from three varieties of narrow-leaved lavender grown in the field and in in vitro cultures. The essential oils were isolated by hydrodistillation in Deryng apparatus. It was found that the analyzed essential oils varied in terms of chemical composition depending on the variety and conditions of growth. Sixty-four to 87 different compounds were identified in the oils. Essential oils of all 3 varieties obtained in in vitro cultures contained large amounts of borneol (13–32%). This compound was also dominant in plants obtained from in vivo conditions in varieties Ellagance Purple (11%) and Blue River (13%), and in the Munstead variety, the dominant compound was linalool (13%). High concentration of epi-α-cadinol (10–20%) was found in essential oils obtained from in vitro cultured plants. Globulol was found in high concentration (10%) in the Munstead variety grown in in vitro conditions. However, significant quantitative and qualitative differences were found with respect to composition of essential oils obtained from plants grown in the field and in vitro conditions. There was a lack of (E)-β-ocimene, 3-octyn-2-one, 1-octen-3-yl acetate, sabina ketone, pinocarvone, trans-carveol, nerol, epi-longipinanol, or humulene epoxide II. In comparison to oils obtained from field-grown plants, the oils isolated from plants grown in in vitro conditions contained the less volatile compounds identified in the final stage of GC–FID and GC–MS analysis, i.e., thymol, carvacrol, γ-gurjunene, trans-calamene, α-calacorene, khusinol, and 8-cedren-13-ol.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to identify and determine by means of gas chromatography–flame ionization detector (GC–FID) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) method the volatile compounds of essential oils obtained from three varieties of narrow-leaved lavender grown in the field and in in vitro cultures. The essential oils were isolated by hydrodistillation in Deryng apparatus. It was found that the analyzed essential oils varied in terms of chemical composition depending on the variety and conditions of growth. Sixty-four to 87 different compounds were identified in the oils. Essential oils of all 3 varieties obtained in in vitro cultures contained large amounts of borneol (13–32%). This compound was also dominant in plants obtained from in vivo conditions in varieties Ellagance Purple (11%) and Blue River (13%), and in the Munstead variety, the dominant compound was linalool (13%). High concentration of epi-α-cadinol (10–20%) was found in essential oils obtained from in vitro cultured plants. Globulol was found in high concentration (10%) in the Munstead variety grown in in vitro conditions. However, significant quantitative and qualitative differences were found with respect to composition of essential oils obtained from plants grown in the field and in vitro conditions. There was a lack of (E)-β-ocimene, 3-octyn-2-one, 1-octen-3-yl acetate, sabina ketone, pinocarvone, trans-carveol, nerol, epi-longipinanol, or humulene epoxide II. In comparison to oils obtained from field-grown plants, the oils isolated from plants grown in in vitro conditions contained the less volatile compounds identified in the final stage of GC–FID and GC–MS analysis, i.e., thymol, carvacrol, γ-gurjunene, trans-calamene, α-calacorene, khusinol, and 8-cedren-13-ol.

Introduction

The lavender genus (Lavandula) belongs to the mint family (Lamiaceae Lindl.). It comprises 39 species, numerous hybrids, and approximately 400 registered varieties [1]. Lavandula is native to the Mediterranean region and is commercially grown, among others, in France, Spain, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Australia, China, and in the United States [2]. The most commonly grown and best-known species of the Lavandua genus are Lavandula stoechas, Lavandula dentata, and most of all Lavandula angustifolia.

Narrow-leaved lavender (L. angustifolia Mill. syn. Lavandula officinalis Chaix) is used in many industries mainly due to its essential oils characterized by a specific aroma. The oils are used in perfume [3, 4] and cosmetics industry [5, 6]. Apart from the aroma, the oils show a number of medicinal properties including anti-bacterial properties and are, therefore, used in medicine and pharmaceutical industry [3, 710]. Essential oils are mixtures of mainly monoterpene and sesquiterpene compounds; however, their composition depends on various factors connected with both biological material used for isolating the oil as well as with the physical factors of this technological process [1113].

Essential oils are contained in the secretory tissue covering the entire above ground portion of the plant; therefore, essential oil can be isolated from flowers [1416], stem [17], or leaves [18]. However, the type of material used for oil isolation affects the concentration of particular compounds of essential oils [19]. The method of oil isolation also has a significant effect on its composition. Reverchon and Della Porta [20] isolated essential oils using two methods: hydrodistillation (steam distillation — the most widely used commercial method), and supercritical fluid extraction. The analysis of the composition of the obtained oils showed significant differences in the amount of, among others, linalyl acetate — using supercritical extraction, its concentration was 34.7%, and using hydrodistillation, only 12.1%.

Numerous studies point to significant variations in terms of composition of essential oils isolated from species of the Lavandula genus. Linalool, camphor, and 1,8-cineole were the main components of essential oil isolated from Lavandula latifolia Med. [21] and Lavandula intermedia Emeric ex Loiseleur [22]. The main components of oil obtained from Lavandula pedunculata (Miller) Cav. were camphor and 1,8-cineole [15] and in the case of Lavandula pinnata L., α- and β-phellandrene [23]. In essential oil of Lavandula viridis L'Hér, 1,8-cineole and camphor were the main components [24], and in oil obtained from L. stoechas L., fenchon, camphor, myrtenyl acetate, and 1,8-cineole [25]. Main compounds dominating the aroma of essential oil isolated from L. angustifolia are linalool, which amounts to 25–38%, and linalool acetate, 25–45% [2628]. Nevertheless, the studies were limited to field-grown plants or growing in natural conditions.

The method of plant tissue culture allows for quick proliferation of tissue in controlled sterile conditions. So far, it has been used in production of large number of plant cuttings genetically identical to the mother plant [29, 30]. Nowadays, as the technique of in vitro culture develops and its costs decrease, the aim is to apply this technique for proliferation of plant tissue in order to obtain secondary metabolite, including essential oils. However, for this to happen, it is necessary to determine the influence of the conditions of in vitro plant cultures on the variations in the amount and composition of essential oils — as was found in Thymus caespititius [31], Achillea millefolium [32], Agastache rugosa [33], and Lantana camara [34].

At present, there is a little information on the composition of essential oils isolated from tissues of plants of Lavandula genus, proliferated in in vitro cultures. The composition of isolated essential oils was identified as for, among others, L. pedunculata [35, 15], L. viridis [24], L. vera, and L. viridis [36]. The study by Prasad et al. [37] identified the effects of proliferation of shoots of L. officinalis syn., L. angustifolia var. Sher-e-Kashmir in in vitro cultures by comparing the composition of essential oils obtained from the mother plant with that obtained from clones which were previously proliferated in in vitro cultures and later grown in the field. However, there is a shortage of publications on the quantitative and qualitative composition of essential oils obtained from tissues of L. angustifolia during proliferation in in vitro cultures. The present study aims to provide the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the composition of essential oils obtained from three varieties of narrow-leaved lavender Ellagance Purple, Blue River, and Munstead grown in natural conditions as mother plants as well as those proliferated in in vitro conditions.

Materials and methods

Field-grown plant

The material used in the study was field-grown plants of narrow-leaved lavender (L. angustifolia L.) of three varieties: Ellagance Purple, Blue River, and Munstead and cultured in in vitro conditions. Field-growing plants were obtained from experimental cultivation by the Department of Horticulture of the West Pomeranian University of Technology in Szczecin conducted in the period 2013–2014. The seeds for initiation of the culture were obtained from voucher specimen number 195 from the Institute of Natural Fibres and Medicinal Plants in Poznan, Poland. The fragments of stems without inflorescence, harvested in mid-July from plants at full bloom, were used to initiate in vitro culture and air dried in order to obtain a sample for isolation of essential oil.

In vitro plants

The fragments of shoots of the aforementioned field-growing plants were used as original explants for the initiation of in vitro cultures. The explants, 1 cm long fragments of shoots, were placed on Murashige and Skoog medium (MS) media of mineral composition according to Murashige and Skoog [38], supplemented with vitamins: nicotinic acid, 0.5 mg dm−3; pyridoxine HCl, 0.5 mg dm−3; thiamine HCl, 0.1 mg dm−3; glycine, 2 mg dm−3; agar, 8 g dm−3; sucrose, 30 g dm−3; and inositol, 100 mg dm−3. pH was adjusted to 5.7 with solutions of 0.1 M NaOH and HCl prior to autoclaving. Media were sterilized by autoclaving at 121 °C for 20 min at 103 kPa. The sterile shoots induced to grow were proliferated on the media with a mineral composition according to Murashige and Skoog [38] supplemented with 2 mg dm−3 kinetin and 0.2 mg dm−3 indole-3-acetic acid. Proliferation cycle was repeated 4 times after 6 weeks each. The cultures were placed in phytotrons at 23 ± 1 °C with a 16 h light–8 h night photoperiod with a photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) of 30 μmol m−2 s−1 supplied by 21 W cool white fluorescent lamps. Then, the proliferated lavender shoots (together with leaves) were air dried and constituted a sample for isolation of essential oils.

Gas chromatography with mass spectroscopy (GC–MS) of essential oils

The analysis was conducted in Central Agroecology Laboratory of the University of Life Sciences in Lublin. Dried material in weight of 20 g of field-grown and in vitro plant tissue were used for the purpose of oil isolation. Isolation of essential oils was repeated in three replicates. The percentage content of essential oil was determined using hydrodistillation method of steam distillation in Deryng apparatus, according to European Pharmocopoeia [39].

The chemical constituents of the essential oil were analyzed by capillary gas chromatography–flame ionization detector (GC–FID) and gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS). The oil was stored at 4 °C until the GC–FID and GC–MS analysis. The qualitative and quantitative composition of essential oil was determined by GC–MS method using gas chromatograph Varian Chrompack CP-3800 equipped with a with a mass detector (4000 GC-MS/MS) and a flame ionization detector (FID). A VF-5ms column (equivalent of DB-5) was used. Parameters of chromatographic column were as follows: length, 30 m; internal diameter, 0.25 mm; stationary phase film thickness, 1 μm. The carrier gas was Helium (He) with constant flow rate 0.5 mL/min. The temperature of the dispenser was 250 °C (split 1:100). The dosing was 1 μL of the solution (10 μL of sample in 1000 μL of hexane). Temperature gradient was applied (50 °C for 1 min, then an increase to 250 °C at a rate of 4 °C/min and 250 °C for 10 min). The range recorded was 40–1000 m/z, and the scan rate was 0.8 s/scan. Retention index was determined on grounds of a series of alkanes C10–C40.

Software and statistical analysis

The obtained results of the hydrodistillation assays were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance. For two-way cross-classification, evaluating the significance of differences with Tukey's confidence intervals and performing least significant difference (LSD) calculations at the level of significance α = 0.05.

The HP Chemstation software was used for the collecting and processing the data. The qualitative analysis was based on identification of compounds in samples by comparing MS spectra with standard spectra of NIST Mass Spectral Library [40] and with data available in the literature [41]. The compounds which showed conformity of mass spectra with the standard library spectra of more than 95% were taken into account. Relative percentage content of the analyzed compounds was based on the peak area of the total ionic current of all the compounds present in a given sample. The quantitative composition of essential oil was determined assuming that the sum of individual compounds amounts to 100%. The analysis was repeated in three replicates for each experiment. The obtained results of the assays were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance for one-way cross-classification, separately for each compound and variety, evaluating the significance of differences between lavender grown in the field and in in vitro cultures with Student t test calculated at a confidence level of P ≤ 0.05.

Results and discussion

From dry plant material of field-grown narrow-leaved lavender, 0.53% of essential oil was obtained from Ellagance Purple, 0.52% from Blue River, and 0.90% from the Munstead variety. Propagation of plants in in vitro cultures resulted in a decrease in the content of essential oil in shoots and leaves — distillation efficacy was 0.51% for Ellagance Purple, 0.20% Blue River, and 0.84% for the Munstead variety (Table 1). Statistically significant difference of hydrodistillation efficacy between means of Blue River field-grown and in vitro essential oils was observed. However, between essential oils isolated from field-grown and in vitro plants of Ellagance Purple and Munstead, cultivar was not observed.

Table 1.

Hydrodistillation efficacy of Lavandula angustifolia varieties field-grown and propagated in vitro (%). The values represent the means of three replicates ± SE

Cultivar (A) Plant type (B) Mean
Field-grown In vitro
Ellagance Purple 0.53 ± 0.03 0.51 ± 0.04 0.52
Blue River 0.52 ± 0.03 0.20 ± 0.01 0.36
Munstead 0.90 ± 0.04 0.84 ± 0.04 0.87
Mean 0.65 0.52
LSD 0.05 (Tukey's test) for:
Cultivar (A) 0.180
Plant type (B) 0.120
Interaction (A × B) 0.254
Interaction (B × A) 0.216

Table 2 shows the detailed composition and amounts of particular compounds identified in essential oils of Ellagance Purple, Blue River, and Munstead varieties of narrow-leaved lavender grown in in vivo and in vitro conditions. The GC–MS analysis allowed for identification of 92.44–97.71% of compounds in the analyzed essential oils. Most of the compounds belong to monoterpenoids group and monoterpenoid esters. The chemical composition of essential oils isolated from shoots of the three varieties of narrow-leaved lavender field and in vitro grown varied greatly (Table 2). In the oil, isolated from field-grown plant, 83 compounds were identified in Ellagance Purple, 87 in Blue River, and 82 in the Munstead variety. In comparison, the number of compounds identified in the essential oils isolated from in vitro plants was smaller — 72 in Ellagance Purple, 69 in Blue River, and 64 in the Munstead variety. A decrease in the number of constituent compounds in essential oils of Caryopteris clandonensis proliferated in vitro was also found by Łuczkiewicz et al. [42]. According to Avato et al. [43], the decrease in the number of compounds produced is connected with juvenility of plant tissue in in vitro conditions which is associated with a drop in production of more complex metabolites produced in the subsequent stages of metabolic pathways.

Table 2.

Essential oil composition (%) of varieties Lavandula angustifolia isolated from field-grown parent plants and the respective in vitro shoot cultures

Compound RT (min) RI Ellagance Purple Blue River Munstead
Field-grown In vitro Field-grown In vitro Field-grown In vitro
Tricycylene 6.838 926 tr. tr. 0.10ns 0.14ns ±0.15 0.11a 0.05b
α-Thujene 6.921 931 0.11b 0.23a ±0.02 0.21ns 0.73ns ±0.84 0.17b 0.36a ±0.01
α-Pinene 7.157 939 1.67b ±0.00 2.69a ±0.17 1.17ns ±0.00 1.33ns ±0.45 0.88b ±0.03 3.25a ±0.02
α-Fenchene 7.620 951 0.07 0.07
Camphene 7.673 953 0.52b 1.21a ±0.07 1.37ns ±0.06 0.98ns ±1.19 1.67a ±0.09 1.19b ±0.00
Thuja-2.4-(10)-diene 7.797 957 tr. tr. tr. tr. tr. tr.
Benzaldehyde 8.090 963 tr. tr. tr.
Verbenene 8.341 967 0.60a ±0.07 0.28b ±0.07 0.64a ±0.04 0.36b ±0.11 0.33b ±0.02 0.58a ±0.01
Sabinene 8.384 976 0.26b ±0.04 0.98a ±0.02 0.27a ±0.02 0.09b ±0.03 0.12b 0.87a ±0.01
β-Pinene 8.560 981 5.17b ±0.06 6.50a ±0.04 2.11a 0.29b ±0.09 0.83b 6.26a ±0.01
3-Octanone 8.777 986 0.19 ±0.26 0.27 ±0.01 0.34 ±0.02
Myrcene 8.901 991 0.07b 0.34a ±0.01 0.16b ±0.02 0.55a ±0.17 0.58ns 0.37ns ±0.16
Dehydro-1.8-cineole 8.949 992 0.20a 0.10b ±0.01 0.13 ±0.01
3-Octanol 9.161 993 tr. tr.
trans-Isolimonene 9.250 995 0.08 ±0.02 0.15
α-Phellandrene 9.498 1004 tr. ±0.03
δ-2-Carene 9.573 1011 0.78b 2.74a ±0.19 1.29b ±0.02 4.49a ±1.52 0.66b ±0.03 4.47a ±0.01
α-Terpinene 9.850 1018 0.06b 0.07a tr. 0.06b 0.11a ±0.00
p-Cymene 9.945 1027 1.29a ±0.01 0.82b ±0.04 1.47a ±0.02 0.91b ±0.27 0.71b 1.14a ±0.01
o-Cymene 10.118 1032 2.40a ±0.04 1.31b ±0.08 3.11a ±0.05 1.21b ±0.36 1.62b ±0.07 1.80b ±0.03
Sylvestrene 10.278 1033 1.65b ±0.03 2.17a ±0.10 3.79ns ±0.03 2.64ns ±0.82 2.41a ±0.10 2.05b ±0.03
1.8-Cineole 10.389 1049 4.04b ±0.05 4.84a ±0.27 5.48a 0.86b ±0.09 2.70a ±0.07 2.00b
(Z)-β-Ocimene 10.485 1052 0.19 ±0.01 tr. 0.10a 0.05b ±0.01 1.08 ±0.04 tr.
(E)-β-Ocimene 10.852 1055 0.12 0.11 0.73 ±0.03
o-Cresol 11.064 1062 tr. tr. tr.
γ-Terpinene 11.289 1067 0.14ns 0.14ns 0.14ns ±0.01 0.09ns ±0.03 0.18ns 0.20ns
trans-Linalool oxide 11.716 1088 0.96 ±0.01 0.59 ±0.01 0.47
cis-Sabinene hydrate 11.724 1089 0.21 ±0.01 tr. 0.09 ±0.03 0.13 ±0.01
m-Cymenene 12.111 1090 0.10 ±0.02 0.11 ±0.01 0.06
Terpinolene 12.130 1093 0.14 ±0.01 0.27 ±0.07 0.24 ±0.00
p-Mentha-2.4(8)-diene 12.269 1094 0.24 ±0.01 0.20 ±0.06 0.22
cis-Linalool oxide 12.280 1095 0.67 ±0.04 0.44 ±0.03 0.43 ±0.02
p-Cymenene 12.463 1097 0.27a ±0.06 0.12b ±0.01 0.21a ±0.04 0.11b ±0.03 0.13b 0.15a
Linalool 12.755 1098 5.94a ±0.26 2.32b ±0.05 3.71ns 3.31ns ±0.88 12.67a 0.36b ±0.00
trans-Sabinene hydrate 12.817 1099 tr. tr.
3-Octyn-2-one 12.881 1117 0.25 0.10 ±0.01 0.09
1-Octen-3-yl acetate 13.001 1121 0.09 0.42 ±0.01 0.50
Endo-fenchol 13.485 1122 0.05
trans-Mentha-2.8-dien-1-ol 13.557 1123 0.06 0.23 ±0.01 0.11 ±0.00
trans-p-Mentha-2.8-dien-1-ol 13.559 1124 0.13 0.25 ±0.08 0.13
cis-Menth-2-en-1-ol 13.645 1128 0.12 0.42 ±0.02 0.21 ±0.00
α-Campholenal 13.742 1129 0.29a ±0.01 0.06b 0.22 ±0.02 0.12ns ±0.02 0.12ns
cis-Limonene oxide 13.951 1132 0.21a 0.11b 0.28a ±0.09 0.09b ±0.03 0.09b 0.15a ±0.00
cis-p-Mentha-2.8-dien-1-ol 14.086 1136 0.11b ±0.01 0.15a 0.26ns ±0.02 0.28ns ±0.07 0.12b 0.15a
Nopinone 14.193 1138 0.46 0.19
trans-Pincarveol 14.253 1139 2.01a ±0.04 1.59b ±0.03 1.04a ±0.20 0.10b ±0.03 0.45b 1.58a ±0.00
trans-Verbenol 14.420 1141 0.68 ±0.02 0.40 0.25 ±0.00
cis-Verbenol 14.428 1142 0.66 0.35 ±0.09 0.72 ±0.03
Camphor 14.487 1144 1.30b ±0.01 1.79a ±0.04 1.89a ±0.16 1.04b ±0.21 1.33a ±0.14 0.62b ±0.00
Sabina ketone 14.854 1156 0.11 0.09 ±0.01 tr.
Pinocarvone 15.030 1162 2.64 ±0.02 1.63 ±0.01 0.72
Borneol 15.393 1165 11.32b ±0.02 32.17a ±0.89 13.36b ±0.06 25.75a ±5.41 9.32b ±0.28 13.38a ±0.07
p-Cymen-8-ol 15.666 1183 2.05a ±0.04 1.50b ±0.01 2.01a ±0.08 1.10b ±0.22 4.22a ±0.17 2.02b ±0.00
Cryptone 15.900 1188 2.17a ±0.04 0.81b ±0.03 5.12a ±0.11 1.01b ±0.18 2.84a ±0.08 0.88b ±0.13
α-Terpineol 16.217 1189 3.20a ±0.00 2.87b ±0.07 1.91a 0.56b ±0.09 2.61a ±0.10 2.38b ±0.00
Myrtenal 16.622 1193 0.25b ±0.01 0.57a ±0.01 0.21b ±0.12 0.68a ±0.10 0.12b ±0.03 1.22a
Verbenone 16.724 1204 1.29a ±0.03 0.30b ±0.01 1.50a ±0.02 0.21b ±0.06 0.61a ±0.04 0.43b ±0.01
trans-Carveol 17.009 1217 0.47 0.76 ±0.02 0.37 ±0.02
4-Methylene-isophorone 17.069 1221 0.15 0.26 ±0.02 0.13
Nerol 17.165 1228 tr. 0.23 0.40
Isobornylformate 17.342 1233 0.60 0.68 0.45 ±0.02
cis-Sabinene hydrate acetate 17.357 1235 0.30 ±0.01 0.15 ±0.04 0.14 ±0.01
cis-Carveol 17.477 1237 0.08 0.07 ±0.02
Cumin aldehyde 17.837 1239 0.81 ±0.03 3.71 ±0.02 1.96 ±0.05
Carvone 17.885 1242 0.49ns ±0.16 0.31ns ±0.01 0.35 ±0.10 0.30 ±0.17
Geraniol 18.067 1245 1.04a ±0.04 0.18b ±0.02 0.64a ±0.03 0.27b 12.28 ±0.44
Piperitone 18.235 1147 0.21 ±0.01 0.09
Thymoquinone 18.689 1198 0.33 0.36 ±0.01 0.10 ±0.13
Linalyl acetate 19.177 1238 0.97a ±0.08 0.12b ±0.01 1.68a ±0.02 0.43b ±0.04 0.85a ±0.04 0.49b ±0.10
Neo-isopulegyl acetate 19.247 1270 0.06 ±0.07 0.73 ±0.01 1.37 ±0.02
Iso-3-thujyl acetate 19.251 1278 0.05 0.39 ±0.04 0.09
α-Terpinen-7-al 19.345 1280 tr. 0.14 0.07 ±0.00
p-Cymen-7-ol 19.512 1287 0.56 1.61 ±0.01 0.80 ±0.03
Thymol 19.521 1290 0.12 0.28 ±0.02 0.27 ±0.01
Carvacrol 19.756 1292 0.13 0.10 ±0.03 0.21 ±0.00
Perilla alcohol 19.778 1298 0.25 0.21 ±0.07 0.10 ±0.01
Myrtenyl acetate 20.761 1305 0.08 0.07
3- Oxo-p-menth-1-en-7-al 21.062 1350 0.44 0.73 ±0.01 0.36 ±0.02
Neryl acetate 21.684 1365 0.24b 3.77a ±0.21 0.31b 1.10a ±0.02 0.70b ±0.04 1.56a ±0.07
Linalylisobutanoate 22.346 1370 9.77 ±0.18 6.07 ±0.09 5.12 ±0.20
Longicyclene 22.466 1373 0.07
α-Funebrene 23.135 1375 0.07 ±0.02
α-cis-Bergamotene 23.480 1398 tr. 0.22 0.07
E-caryophyllene 23.665 1399 1.62a ±0.01 1.31b ±0.05 2.05b ±0.02 4.39a ±0.08 0.94b ±0.05 3.54a ±0.17
β-Cedrene 23.870 1418 0.07 0.09 ±0.07 0.22 ±0.01
α-trans-Bergamotene 24.104 1427 0.17 0.25 0.10 ±0.00
Coumarin 24.259 1429 0.09 0.08 ±0.03 0.12 ±0.00
Aromadendrene 24.458 1439 0.09 0.13 0.06
β-Duprezianene 24.460 1441 tr. 0.24 ±0.02
epi-β-Santalene 24.552 1447 0.08 0.10 tr.
β-Copaene 24.558 1448 tr. 0.27 ±0.02
(Z)-β-farnesene 24.739 1450 tr. 0.39 ±0.03 0.38
α-Himachalene 24.898 1463 0.10 ±0.03 0.36 ±0.01
trans-Muurola-3.5-diene 25.048 1464 0.09 0.43 ±0.02 0.12 ±0.01
Dehydro-aromadendrene 25.182 1466 0.06 ±0.01 0.11 ±0.03 0.07
γ-Amorphene 25.628 1467 0.10 ±0.04 0.11 ±0.07
9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene 25.720 1469 tr. 0.21 ±0.02
γ-Gurjunene 26.341 1473 0.12 ±0.01 0.53 ±0.09 0.18 ±0.01
β-Bisabolene 26.432 1509 0.13 ±0.00
α-Amorphene 26.447 1510 3.60 ±0.23 0.14 ±0.04 0.15 ±0.01
γ-Cadinene 26.621 1513 1.90 ±0.02 1.60b ±0.01 8.38a ±1.01 1.40b ±0.04 4.68a ±0.36
trans-Calamenene 26.840 1525 0.24 ±0.02 0.62 ±0.11 0.30 ±0.03
epi-Longipinanol 27.149 1529 0.45 0.44 0.32 ±0.02
α-Calacorene 27.473 1548 0.11 ±0.01 0.26 ±0.07 0.16 ±0.01
Caryophyllene oxide 27.772 1564 0.67a ±0.01 0.16b ±0.08 0.42a ±0.02 0.11b ±0.03 0.42b ±0.03 0.95a ±0.06
Globulol 28.704 1583 6.85a ±0.01 2.07b ±0.23 4.40a ±0.03 1.58b ±0.54 4.62b ±0.08 9.95a ±0.88
Khusimone 29.418 1589 0.14ns ±0.01 0.12ns ±0.01 0.10ns ±0.01 0.17ns ±0.06 0.10ns 0.15ns
Humulene epoxide II 29.509 1614 0.15 ±0.02 0.08 ±0.01 0.09
Cubenol 29.656 1642 0.80ns ±0.03 0.97ns ±0.12 0.59b ±0.03 1.85a ±0.73 0.61b ±0.04 1.44a ±0.04
epi-α-Cadinol 30.449 1653 7.45ns ±0.53 9.85ns ±1.49 5.87ns ±0.14 20.18ns ±7.30 7.05b ±0.01 15.81a ±0.55
Epoxyallo-alloaromadendrene 30.610 1655 0.31 ±0.18 0.18 ±0.01
Himachalol 30.800 1657 0.42a ±0.00 0.17b ±0.06 0.30ns ±0.02 0.41ns ±0.23 0.30b ±0.00 0.47a ±0.08
14-Hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene 31.218 1658 0.52a ±0.02 0.19b ±0.04 0.24ns ±0.03 0.37ns ±0.24 1.68ns ±2.79 0.37ns ±0.02
cis-14-nor-Murol-5-en-4-one 31.634 1661 1.03 ±0.04 0.76 ±0.02 0.80 ±0.00
14-Hydroxy-α-muurolene 32.368 1663 0.32 ±0.02 0.29 ±0.02 0.24 ±0.01
Khusinol 32.384 1665 0.19 ±0.03 0.42 ±0.33 0.40 ±0.01
8-Cedren-13-ol 32.810 1668 tr. 0.10 ±0.09 0.09
Nootkatone 33.149 1776 0.63a ±0.02 0.29b ±0.05 0.42ns ±0.01 0.52ns ±0.40 0.44b ±0.01 0.53a ±0.03
Total identified compounds 83 72 87 69 82 64
Total identified (%) 96.03 94.98 95.20 95.76 97.71 92.44
Monoterpene hydrocarbons 14.87 19.70 15.79 14.16 12.00 22.88
Oxygenated monoterpenes 57.56 55.57 61.02 39.18 65.92 29.91
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons 3.86 5.70 4.30 16.71 3.12 9.49
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes 19.74 14.01 14.09 25.71 16.67 30.16

The values represent the means of three replicates ± SE.

RT (min), retention time on VF-5ms capillary column; RI, retention index was determined on grounds of a series of alkanes C10–C40; a,b, means followed by the same letter(s) within every varieties are not significantly different at p = 0.05 (Student t test); ns, not statistically significant; tr., trace <0.05% or 0.001 mg/mL; –, not detected.

In essential oils isolated from all 3 varieties of field-grown plants, the dominant compounds were borneol (from 9% in Munstead variety to 13% in Blue River), linalool (from 3.71% in Blue River to 13% in Munstead), and globulol (from 4% in Blue River to 7% in Ellagance Purple variety). Daferera et al. [44] isolated the essential oil of a slightly different concentration from narrow-leaved lavender grown in natural conditions. The authors found high concentration of linalool (45%), linalyl acetate (33%), and 1.8-cineole (5%), which were identified to be the main compounds out of 8 identified and constituted 82% of the total composition of the oil. The analysis of the composition was made with the use of GC–MS, and Lickens-Nickerson method was used for isolation of essential oil applying distillation with organic solvents lighter than water. The analysis of composition of essential oils obtained from seven varieties of narrow-leaved lavender: Jubileina, Hemus, Hebar, Raya, Sevtopolis, Drujba, and Karlovo using GC–MS method was done by Zagorcheva et al. [16]. The plants were harvested in summer, and isolation of oil was done from fresh flowers using steam distillation. In the course of the study, 32 compounds were identified, with linalool having the highest concentration (19–34%), followed by linalyl acetate (21–33%), lavandulyl acetate (3–7%), and caryophyllene (1–4%). However, in the presented study, those compounds were in lower concentration. The study on oils isolated from flowers of L. angustifolia Mill. by Wesołowska et al. [45] shows the highest concentration of linalool (29–31%), linalool acetate (12–18%), and α-terpineol (8–12%) among the identified compounds (depending on the variety from 43 to 47). Twenty-nine compounds present in lavender essential oils were found by Daferera et al. [46] with linalool (26%), linalyl acetate (18%), and α-terpineol (6%). However, according to Adaszyńska et al. [47], essential oil of narrow-leaved lavender of Munstead, Munstead Strain, Lavender Lady, Ellagance Purple, and Blue River varieties contained linalol (24–16%), linalyl anthranilate (12–2%), 1-terpinen-4-ol (10–6%), terpineol (p-menth-1-en-8-ol) (8–4%), and linalool oxide (5–1%). From 18 to 21 different compounds were identified with GC–MS analysis of the essential oils. According to Cong et al. [48], 17 different compounds comprise lavender essential oil isolated from L. angustifolia. The highest concentration was found for linalool (45%), geraniol (11%), lavandulol acetate (11%), 3.7-dimetylo-2.6-octadien-1-ol (10%), and izoterpineol (7%). The research conducted by the authors of the present study shows high concentration of geraniol (12%) in essential oils isolated from field-grown lavender of Munstead variety.

The dominant compound in terms of composition of essential oil isolated from lavender plants proliferated in in vitro conditions, similarly to the oil isolated from field-grown lavender plants, was borneol — 32% in Ellagance Purple, 26% in Blue River, and 13% in the Munstead variety. However, there were some significant quantitative and qualitative differences in % of constituents of oils isolated from field-grown plants and in vitro. Linalyl isobutanoate, one of the main compounds present in oils isolated from field-grown plants in the concentration from 5% to 10%, was not found in oils isolated from plants grown in vitro regardless of analyzed variety — similarly to other compounds, such as (E)-β-ocimene, cis-linalool oxide, 3-octyn-2-one, 1-octen-3-yl acetate, sabina ketone, trans-carveol, 4-methylene-isophorone, nerol, epi-longipinanol, or humulene epoxide II. Sudria et al. [49, 50] studied the effect of conditions of culturing on the production of essential oils by L. dentata and found that the variation in the amount of oil produced in in vitro cultures, as well as its concentration, is connected with the addition of plant growth regulators to proliferation media, which affects the endogenous regulation of metabolic pathways.

In comparison to the oils isolated from field-grown plants, the oils isolated from plants grown in in vitro conditions are characterized by the presence of the less volatile compounds, identified in the final stage of GC–MS analysis, i.e., thymol, carvacrol, epoxy allo-alloaromadendrene, khusinol, 8-cedren-13-ol, and trans-calamene. γ-Amorphene was found in trace quantity in essential oils of Munstead (0.11%) and Blue River (0.10%) variety obtained from in vivo plants, whereas in Ellagance Purple variety and in oils obtained from in vitro plants of the same varieties, the compound was not present. There was an increase in concentration of γ-cadinene to 5% for Munstead and 8% for Blue River variety. Additionally, α-amorphene was found in the Ellagance Purple variety of in vitro grown plant in the amount of 4%. epi-α-Cadinol, a compound which was found in all essential oils, was identified in substantial quantity in in vitro oils (10% in oil of Ellagance Purple, 20% in Blue River and 16% in the Munstead variety). The concentration of globulol is also noteworthy as it was identified in all isolated essential oils with the highest concentration (10%) in in vitro Munstead essential oil, however, in lower concentration in Ellagance Purple (2%) and in Blue River (2%) variety. Other compounds which were found only in plants propagated in in vitro cultures were, among others, terpinolene, p-mentha-2.4(8)-diene, trans-p-mentha-2.8-dien-1-ol, cis-verbenol, cis-sabinene hydrate acetate, and iso-3-thujyl acetate. Unexpectedly, in tested essential oils, limonene and 3-carene were not detected, which are components that occur in the lavender essential oil.

Zuzarte et al. [15] isolated essential oils from field-grown plant and from in vitro cultures of L. pendunculata, classified as belonging to two chemotypes: 1,8-cineole/camphor and fenchone. The GC–MS analysis showed that the main components of the oils were the same for field-grown as well as in vitro propagated plants; however, their concentration varied. Higher concentration of compounds in plants propagated in in vitro cultures classified as 1,8-cineole/camphor chemotype was found for, among others, α-pinene (14%) and bornyl acetate (10%); in terms of the fenchone chemotype, α-pinen (10%) and camphor (11.6%). The chemical uniformity of essential oils isolated from field-grown plants and in vitro shoot cultures propagated on MS media supplemented with 0.5 mg dm−3 BAP-6-benzyloaminopurine (BAP) and micropropagated plants of the same clone L. viridis was also observed by Nogueira and Romano [24]. In all analyzed oils, among 45 identified compounds, the same main compounds were determined. Monoterpene fraction identified in oils isolated from in vitro culture showed slight variation in terms of content of carbohydrate and oxidized components in comparison to oil obtained from mother plant.

Conclusion

In vitro method of propagating plant tissues allows for obtaining large bulk of plants in relatively short period of time, yet the method can affect the metabolism of plants and, consequently, the qualitative and quantitative composition of produced essential oils. In turn, this can affect the aroma and even modify antioxidative and antimicrobial action of the essential oils. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of lavender essential oils isolated from field-grown plants are confirmed. However there are not yet published results in respect to lavender essential oils isolated from in vitro plants. Presented results have shown that in vitro conditions lead to a change biochemical profile of the essential oils and increasing the concentration, e.g., borneol, γ-cadinene, epi-α-cadinol, or emergence of other chemical compounds. That might have an impact on differences in the antimicrobial and antioxidant activity of essential oils. Our previous research shows that essential oils isolated from in vitro propagated plants show higher antioxidant and antimicrobial activity especially in respect to bacteria presented on the human skin, in comparison with oils isolated from field-grown plants [51]. Essential oils with confirmed and more than average antioxidant and antimicrobial potential could be use in cosmetic industry as a natural preservative, which would extend cosmetics durability without the addition of synthetic preservatives.

Abbreviations

GC–MS gas chromatography–mass spectrometry GC–FID gas chromatography–flame ionization detector RI retention index PPFD photosynthetic photon flux density LSD least significant difference

References

  • 1.

    Upson T. ; Andrews S. The genus Lavandula (1st ed.), Timber Press, Inc., USA, 2004.

  • 2.

    Cavanagh H. M. A. ; Wilkinson J. M. Aust. Infect. Control. 2005, 10, 3538.

  • 3.

    Cavanagh H. M. A. ; Wilkinson J. M. Phytother. Res. 2002, 16, 301308.

  • 4.

    Lahlou M. Flavour Fragr. J. 2004, 19, 159165.

  • 5.

    Aburjai T. ; Natsheh F. M. Phytother. Res. 2003, 17, 9871000.

  • 6.

    Baumann L. S. Dermatol. Ther. 2007, 20, 330342.

  • 7.

    Adam K. ; Sivropoulou A.; Kokkini S.; Lanaras T.; Arsenakis M. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 45, 17391745.

  • 8.

    Hui L. ; He L.; Huan L.; Xiao Lan L.; Ai Guo Z. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2010, 4, 3093130.

  • 9.

    Lis-Balchin M. ; Deans S. G.; Eaglesham E. Flavour Fragr. J. 1998, 13, 98103.

  • 10.

    Lis-Balchin M. ; Hart S. Phytother. Res. 1999, 13, 540542.

  • 11.

    Landmann C. ; Fink B.; Festner M.; Dregus M.; Engel K. H.; SchwabArch W. Biochem. Biophys. 2007, 465, 417429.

  • 12.

    Van de Braak S. A. A. J. ; Leijten G. C. J. J. in Essential Oils and Oleoresins: A Survey in the Netherlands and Other Major Markets in the European Union. CBI, Centre for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries, Rotterdam, 1999, 116.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Zheljazkov V. D. ; Cantrell C. L.; Astatkie T.; Jeliazkova E. J. Oleo Sci. 2013, 62, 195199.

  • 14.

    Lane A. ; Boecklemann A.; Woronuk G. N.; Sarker L.; Mahmoud S. S. Planta. 2010, 231, 835845.

  • 15.

    Zuzarte M. ; Dinis A. M.; Cavaleiro C.; Salgueiro L. R.; Canhoto J. M. Ind. Crop Prod. 2010, 32, 580587.

  • 16.

    Zagorcheva T. ; Stanev S.; Rusanov K.; Atanassov I. J. Agri. Sci. Technol. 2013, 5, 459462.

  • 17.

    Adaszyńska-Skwirzyńska M. ; Swarcewicz M.; Dobrowolska A. Med. Chem. 2014, 4, 734737.

  • 18.

    Lakušić B. ; Lakušić D.; Ristić M.; Marčetić M.; Slavkovska V. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2014, 9, 859862.

  • 19.

    Nadalin V. ; Lepojević Ž.; Ristić M.; Vladić J.; Nikolovski B.; Adamović D. Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 2014, 20, 7186.

  • 20.

    Reverchon E. ; Della Porta G. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995, 43, 16541658.

  • 21.

    Munõz-Bertomeu J. ; Arrillaga I.; Segura J. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2007, 35, 479488.

  • 22.

    Desautels A. ; Biswas K.; Lane A.; Boeckelmann A.; Mahmoud S. S. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2009, 4, 15331536.

  • 23.

    Figueiredo A. C. ; Barroso J. G.; Pedro L. G.; Sevinate-Pinto I.; Antunes T.; Fontinha S. S.; Looman A.; Scheffer J. J. C. Flavour Fragr. J. 1995, 10, 9396.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Nogueira J. M. ; Romano A. Phytochem. Anal. 2002, 13, 47.

  • 25.

    Giray E. S. ; Kirici S.; Kaya D. A.; Türk M.; Sönmez O.; İnan M. Talanta. 2008, 74, 930935.

  • 26.

    Demissie Z. A. ; Sarker L. S.; Mahmoud S. S. Planta. 2011, 233, 685696.

  • 27.

    Da Porto C. ; Decorti D.; Kikic I. Food Chem. 2009, 112, 10721078.

  • 28.

    D'Auria F. D. ; Tecca M.; Strippoli V.; Salvatore G.; Battinelli L.; Mazzanti G. Med. Mycol. 2005, 43, 391396.

  • 29.

    Al-Bakhit A. A. M. ; Sawwan J. S.; Al-Mahmoud M. S. J. J. Agr. Sci. 2007, 3, 1625.

  • 30.

    Falk L. ; Biswas K.; Boeckelmann A.; Lane A.; Mahmoud S. S. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2009, 21, 225228.

  • 31.

    Mendes M. D. ; Figueiredo A. C.; Oliveira M. M.; Trindade H. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. 2013, 113, 341351.

  • 32.

    Alvarenga I. C. A. ; Silva S. T.; Bertolucci S. K. V.; Pinto J. E. B. P.; Pacheco F. V. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2015, 9, 948953.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Zielińska S. ; Piątczak E.; Kalemba D.; Matkowski A. O. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. 2011, 107, 161167.

  • 34.

    Affonso V. R. ; Bizzo H. R.; De Lima S. S.; Esquibela M. A.; Sato A. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2007, 18, 15041508.

  • 35.

    Zuzarte M. ; Gonçalves M. J.; Cavaleiro C.; Dinis A. M.; Canhoto J.; Salgueiro L. Cav. Chem. Biodivers. 2009, 6, 12831292.

  • 36.

    Gonçalves S. ; Romano A. Biotechnol. Adv. 2013, 31, 166174.

  • 37.

    Prasad A. ; Shukla S. P.; Mathur A.; Chanotiya C. S.; Mathur A. K. Plant Cell Tiss. Organ. Cult. 2014, 120, 803811.

  • 38.

    Murashige T. ; Skoog F. Physiol. Plant. 1962, 15, 473497.

  • 39.

    European Pharmacopoeia 4th ed. Version 4.08., Strasbourg: EDQM. 3158–3159, 2004.

  • 40.

    NIST Mass Spectral Library NIST/EPA/NIH Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2002.

  • 41.

    Adams R. P. Identification of Essential Oil Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy Allured, Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2001.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Łuczkiewicz M. ; Jesionek A.; Kokotkiewicz A.; Migas P.; Mardarowicz M.; Szreniawa-Sztajnert A.; Zabiegała B.; Buciński A. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2015, 37, 58.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Avato P. ; Fortunato I. M.; Ruta C.; D'Elia R. Plant Sci. 2005, 169, 2936.

  • 44.

    Daferera D. J. ; Ziogas B. N.; Polissiou M. G. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 25762581.

  • 45.

    Wesołowska A. ; Jadczak D.; Grzeszczuk M. Herba Pol. 2010, 56, 2436.

  • 46.

    Daferera D. J. ; Tarantilis P. A.; Polissiou M. G. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 55035507.

  • 47.

    Adaszyńska M. ; Swarcewicz M.; Dzięcioł M.; Dobrowolska A. Nat. Prod. Res. 2013, 27, 14971501.

  • 48.

    Cong Y. ; Abulizi P.; Zhi L. Chem. Nat. Comp., 2008, 44, 810.

  • 49.

    Sudria C. ; Piñol M. T.; Palazon J.; Cusido R. M.; Vila R.; Morales C.; Bonfill M.; Cañigueral S. Plant Cell Tiss Organ. Cult. 1999, 58, 177184.

  • 50.

    Sudria C. ; Palazón J.; Cusidó R.; Bonfill M.; Piñol M. T.; Morales C. Biol. Plant. 2001, 44, 16.

  • 51.

    Andrys D. ; Kulpa D.; Grzeszczuk M.; Bihun M.; Dobrowolska A. Folia Hort. (in press), 2017.

  • 1.

    Upson T. ; Andrews S. The genus Lavandula (1st ed.), Timber Press, Inc., USA, 2004.

  • 2.

    Cavanagh H. M. A. ; Wilkinson J. M. Aust. Infect. Control. 2005, 10, 3538.

  • 3.

    Cavanagh H. M. A. ; Wilkinson J. M. Phytother. Res. 2002, 16, 301308.

  • 4.

    Lahlou M. Flavour Fragr. J. 2004, 19, 159165.

  • 5.

    Aburjai T. ; Natsheh F. M. Phytother. Res. 2003, 17, 9871000.

  • 6.

    Baumann L. S. Dermatol. Ther. 2007, 20, 330342.

  • 7.

    Adam K. ; Sivropoulou A.; Kokkini S.; Lanaras T.; Arsenakis M. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 45, 17391745.

  • 8.

    Hui L. ; He L.; Huan L.; Xiao Lan L.; Ai Guo Z. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2010, 4, 3093130.

  • 9.

    Lis-Balchin M. ; Deans S. G.; Eaglesham E. Flavour Fragr. J. 1998, 13, 98103.

  • 10.

    Lis-Balchin M. ; Hart S. Phytother. Res. 1999, 13, 540542.

  • 11.

    Landmann C. ; Fink B.; Festner M.; Dregus M.; Engel K. H.; SchwabArch W. Biochem. Biophys. 2007, 465, 417429.

  • 12.

    Van de Braak S. A. A. J. ; Leijten G. C. J. J. in Essential Oils and Oleoresins: A Survey in the Netherlands and Other Major Markets in the European Union. CBI, Centre for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries, Rotterdam, 1999, 116.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Zheljazkov V. D. ; Cantrell C. L.; Astatkie T.; Jeliazkova E. J. Oleo Sci. 2013, 62, 195199.

  • 14.

    Lane A. ; Boecklemann A.; Woronuk G. N.; Sarker L.; Mahmoud S. S. Planta. 2010, 231, 835845.

  • 15.

    Zuzarte M. ; Dinis A. M.; Cavaleiro C.; Salgueiro L. R.; Canhoto J. M. Ind. Crop Prod. 2010, 32, 580587.

  • 16.

    Zagorcheva T. ; Stanev S.; Rusanov K.; Atanassov I. J. Agri. Sci. Technol. 2013, 5, 459462.

  • 17.

    Adaszyńska-Skwirzyńska M. ; Swarcewicz M.; Dobrowolska A. Med. Chem. 2014, 4, 734737.

  • 18.

    Lakušić B. ; Lakušić D.; Ristić M.; Marčetić M.; Slavkovska V. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2014, 9, 859862.

  • 19.

    Nadalin V. ; Lepojević Ž.; Ristić M.; Vladić J.; Nikolovski B.; Adamović D. Chem. Ind. Chem. Eng. Q. 2014, 20, 7186.

  • 20.

    Reverchon E. ; Della Porta G. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995, 43, 16541658.

  • 21.

    Munõz-Bertomeu J. ; Arrillaga I.; Segura J. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2007, 35, 479488.

  • 22.

    Desautels A. ; Biswas K.; Lane A.; Boeckelmann A.; Mahmoud S. S. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2009, 4, 15331536.

  • 23.

    Figueiredo A. C. ; Barroso J. G.; Pedro L. G.; Sevinate-Pinto I.; Antunes T.; Fontinha S. S.; Looman A.; Scheffer J. J. C. Flavour Fragr. J. 1995, 10, 9396.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Nogueira J. M. ; Romano A. Phytochem. Anal. 2002, 13, 47.

  • 25.

    Giray E. S. ; Kirici S.; Kaya D. A.; Türk M.; Sönmez O.; İnan M. Talanta. 2008, 74, 930935.

  • 26.

    Demissie Z. A. ; Sarker L. S.; Mahmoud S. S. Planta. 2011, 233, 685696.

  • 27.

    Da Porto C. ; Decorti D.; Kikic I. Food Chem. 2009, 112, 10721078.

  • 28.

    D'Auria F. D. ; Tecca M.; Strippoli V.; Salvatore G.; Battinelli L.; Mazzanti G. Med. Mycol. 2005, 43, 391396.

  • 29.

    Al-Bakhit A. A. M. ; Sawwan J. S.; Al-Mahmoud M. S. J. J. Agr. Sci. 2007, 3, 1625.

  • 30.

    Falk L. ; Biswas K.; Boeckelmann A.; Lane A.; Mahmoud S. S. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2009, 21, 225228.

  • 31.

    Mendes M. D. ; Figueiredo A. C.; Oliveira M. M.; Trindade H. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. 2013, 113, 341351.

  • 32.

    Alvarenga I. C. A. ; Silva S. T.; Bertolucci S. K. V.; Pinto J. E. B. P.; Pacheco F. V. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2015, 9, 948953.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33.

    Zielińska S. ; Piątczak E.; Kalemba D.; Matkowski A. O. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. 2011, 107, 161167.

  • 34.

    Affonso V. R. ; Bizzo H. R.; De Lima S. S.; Esquibela M. A.; Sato A. J. Braz. Chem. Soc. 2007, 18, 15041508.

  • 35.

    Zuzarte M. ; Gonçalves M. J.; Cavaleiro C.; Dinis A. M.; Canhoto J.; Salgueiro L. Cav. Chem. Biodivers. 2009, 6, 12831292.

  • 36.

    Gonçalves S. ; Romano A. Biotechnol. Adv. 2013, 31, 166174.

  • 37.

    Prasad A. ; Shukla S. P.; Mathur A.; Chanotiya C. S.; Mathur A. K. Plant Cell Tiss. Organ. Cult. 2014, 120, 803811.

  • 38.

    Murashige T. ; Skoog F. Physiol. Plant. 1962, 15, 473497.

  • 39.

    European Pharmacopoeia 4th ed. Version 4.08., Strasbourg: EDQM. 3158–3159, 2004.

  • 40.

    NIST Mass Spectral Library NIST/EPA/NIH Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2002.

  • 41.

    Adams R. P. Identification of Essential Oil Compounds by Gas Chromatography/Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy Allured, Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2001.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Łuczkiewicz M. ; Jesionek A.; Kokotkiewicz A.; Migas P.; Mardarowicz M.; Szreniawa-Sztajnert A.; Zabiegała B.; Buciński A. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2015, 37, 58.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43.

    Avato P. ; Fortunato I. M.; Ruta C.; D'Elia R. Plant Sci. 2005, 169, 2936.

  • 44.

    Daferera D. J. ; Ziogas B. N.; Polissiou M. G. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 25762581.

  • 45.

    Wesołowska A. ; Jadczak D.; Grzeszczuk M. Herba Pol. 2010, 56, 2436.

  • 46.

    Daferera D. J. ; Tarantilis P. A.; Polissiou M. G. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 55035507.

  • 47.

    Adaszyńska M. ; Swarcewicz M.; Dzięcioł M.; Dobrowolska A. Nat. Prod. Res. 2013, 27, 14971501.

  • 48.

    Cong Y. ; Abulizi P.; Zhi L. Chem. Nat. Comp., 2008, 44, 810.

  • 49.

    Sudria C. ; Piñol M. T.; Palazon J.; Cusido R. M.; Vila R.; Morales C.; Bonfill M.; Cañigueral S. Plant Cell Tiss Organ. Cult. 1999, 58, 177184.

  • 50.

    Sudria C. ; Palazón J.; Cusidó R.; Bonfill M.; Piñol M. T.; Morales C. Biol. Plant. 2001, 44, 16.

  • 51.

    Andrys D. ; Kulpa D.; Grzeszczuk M.; Bihun M.; Dobrowolska A. Folia Hort. (in press), 2017.

  • Collapse
  • Expand
The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.
 
The Open Access statement together with the description of the Copyright and License Policy are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.
 

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Kowalska, Teresa

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Sajewicz, Mieczyslaw

Editors(s)

  • Danica Agbaba (University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Ivana Stanimirova-Daszykowska (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • Monika Waksmundzka-Hajnos (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)

Editorial Board

  • R. Bhushan (The Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India)
  • J. Bojarski (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland)
  • B. Chankvetadze (State University of Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia)
  • M. Daszykowski (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • T.H. Dzido (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • A. Felinger (University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary)
  • K. Glowniak (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • B. Glód (Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Siedlce, Poland)
  • A. Gumieniczek (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • U. Hubicka (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland)
  • K. Kaczmarski (Rzeszow University of Technology, Rzeszów, Poland)
  • H. Kalász (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • K. Karljiković Rajić (University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)
  • I. Klebovich (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • A. Koch (Private Pharmacy, Hamburg, Germany)
  • Ł. Komsta (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • P. Kus (Univerity of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • D. Mangelings (Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium)
  • E. Mincsovics (Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary)
  • Á. M. Móricz (Centre for Agricultural Research, Budapest, Hungary)
  • G. Morlock (Giessen University, Giessen, Germany)
  • A. Petruczynik (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • R. Skibiński (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • B. Spangenberg (Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany)
  • T. Tuzimski (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • Y. Vander Heyden (Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium)
  • A. Voelkel (Poznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland)
  • B. Walczak (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • W. Wasiak (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland)
  • I.G. Zenkevich (St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation)

 

KOWALSKA, TERESA
E-mail: kowalska@us.edu.pl

SAJEWICZ, MIECZYSLAW
E-mail:msajewic@us.edu.pl

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Science Citation Index
  • Sci Search
  • Research Alert
  • Chemistry Citation Index and Current Content/Physical
  • Chemical and Earth Sciences
  • SCOPUS
  • GoogleScholar
  • Index Copernicus
  • CABI

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
652
Journal Impact Factor 2,011
Rank by Impact Factor Chemistry, Analytical 66/87
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,789
5 Year
Impact Factor
1,350
Journal Citation Indicator 0,40
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator Chemistry, Analytical 72/99
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
29
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,27
Scimago Quartile Score Chemistry (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
2,8
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
General Chemistry 210/409 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,586

2020
 
Total Cites
650
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
1,639
Rank by
Chemistry, Analytical 71/83 (Q4)
Impact Factor
 
Impact Factor
1,412
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year
1,301
Impact Factor
Journal
0,34
Citation Indicator
 
Rank by Journal
Chemistry, Analytical 75/93 (Q4)
Citation Indicator
 
Citable
45
Items
Total
43
Articles
Total
2
Reviews
Scimago
28
H-index
Scimago
0,316
Journal Rank
Scimago
Chemistry (miscellaneous) Q3
Quartile Score
 
Scopus
393/181=2,2
Scite Score
 
Scopus
General Chemistry 215/398 (Q3)
Scite Score Rank
 
Scopus
0,560
SNIP
 
Days from
58
submission
 
to acceptance
 
Days from
68
acceptance
 
to publication
 
Acceptance
51%
Rate

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
495
Impact Factor 1,418
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,374
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,936
Immediacy
Index
0,460
Citable
Items
50
Total
Articles
50
Total
Reviews
0
Cited
Half-Life
6,2
Citing
Half-Life
8,3
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00048
Article Influence
Score
0,164
% Articles
in
Citable Items
100,00
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,05895
Average
IF
Percentile
20,349
Scimago
H-index
26
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,255
Scopus
Scite Score
226/167=1,4
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Chemistry (miscellaneous) 240/398 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,494
Acceptance
Rate
41%

 

Acta Chromatographica
Publication Model Online only
Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 400 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access
Purchase per Title  

Acta Chromatographica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
1992
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Institute of Chemistry, University of Silesia
Founder's
Address
PL-40-007 Katowice, Poland, Bankowa 12
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2083-5736 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2022 0 12 7
Jul 2022 0 12 10
Aug 2022 0 9 7
Sep 2022 0 15 5
Oct 2022 0 18 11
Nov 2022 0 10 6
Dec 2022 0 0 0