English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

When employing GC and GC-MS, constituents of essential oils are most frequently identified by comparing retention indices and mass spectra with those reported in the literature or analytical libraries. While this allows for a rapid analysis, incorrect data can lead to a constituent being repeatedly misidentified. This was demonstrated in this work for 5-oxolinalool (6-hydroxy-2,6-dimethylocta-2,7-dien-4-one), an oxygenated monoterpene that was often erroneously identified as 2-methylnon-2-en-4-one. After encountering an unknown constituent of the essential oil of  Sambucus nigra  L. (Viburnaceae) flowers, we sought to acquire relevant analytical data on both compounds. Even though their mass spectra were rather similar (with 2-methylnon-2-en-4-one missing the peak at  m / z  71), their retention indices were found to be significantly different. It follows that a revision of all prior identifications of 2-methylnon-2-en-4-one as an essential-oil constituent is needed.

Continual misidentification of 5-oxolinalool as 2-methylnon-2-en-4-one in essential oils