Premium
A Comparison of Selected Analytical Approaches to the Analysis of an Essential Oil
Author(s) -
Coleman W. M.,
Lawrence B. M.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
flavour and fragrance journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.393
H-Index - 70
eISSN - 1099-1026
pISSN - 0882-5734
DOI - 10.1002/(sici)1099-1026(199701)12:1<1::aid-ffj603>3.0.co;2-l
Subject(s) - solid phase microextraction , chemistry , essential oil , gas chromatography , chromatography , volatile organic compound , sampling (signal processing) , qualitative analysis , gas chromatography–mass spectrometry , process engineering , computer science , mass spectrometry , organic chemistry , engineering , qualitative research , social science , filter (signal processing) , sociology , computer vision
Four gas chromatograph‐based methods have been evaluated for their ability to provide qualitative and quantitative information on the characteristics of the components of the essential oil of Virginia cedarwood ( Juniperus virginiana L.). Each method was found to possess certain strengths and limitations in providing the desired endpoints. Direct injection of solutions of the essential oil in an organic solvent provided very precise values for the percentage contribution. Solid‐phase microextraction (SPME) employing a poly(dimethylsiloxane) fibre provided information as to the distribution of major and minor volatile compounds in the headspace above the oil sample. Dynamic headspace analysis provided similar information, but both methods provided different perspectives on the constituency of the headspace. Gas‐tight sampling of the headspace provided yet another viewpoint on the components in the headspace above the cedarwood oil. The exposure time of the fibre in the SPME experiment and the sweep time of the dynamic headspace experiment were found to have a very significant impact on the resulting distribution profile of the volatile compounds. Explanations as to the causes and implications of these results on the qualitative and quantitative analysis of essential oils were provided. Therefore, the desired analytical endpoint should dictate the type of gas chromatographic approach employed. For example, if information concerning the components responsible for the aroma of an essential oil is desired, then gas‐tight sampling will provide a precise assessment of the distribution of those volatile components. On the other hand, dynamic headspace analysis and SPME will provide valuable qualitative information about all of the components of essential oils. Direct injection into a GC will provide the best quantitative information on the components of the essential oil. © 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.