Planta Med 2016; 82(S 01): S1-S381
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1596389
Abstracts
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

The effect of different extraction methods on chemical composition profile and pharmacological activities of essential oils and hydrosols

F Ghavidel
1   Department of Phytopharmaceuticals, School of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
,
MM Zarshenas
1   Department of Phytopharmaceuticals, School of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
,
A Sakhteman
2   Department of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
,
A Gholami
3   Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
,
Y Ghasemi
4   Pharmaceutical Sciences Research Center, Department of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
,
P Faridi
1   Department of Phytopharmaceuticals, School of Pharmacy, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 December 2016 (online)

 

Herbal medicinal oils and hydrosols are of most useful preparations in traditional Persian medicine[1]. Hydrosols and essential oils (EO) extracted by hydrodistillation [2]. For multi plants extraction, plants could mix together before extraction (method A) or each plant extracted individually then the products mixed together (method B), (figure 1). But, till now no comprehensive evaluation has been performed on the impact of these two methods on chemical composition profile of products. Therefore, current study aimed to chemically assess the impact of these two different extraction methods on chemical composition profile and pharmacological activity. Authenticated samples of Mentha spicata L. (MS), Zataria multiflora Boiss. (ZM), Bunium persicum (Boiss.) B. Fedtsch. (BP) and Trachyspermum ammi (L.) Sprague (TA) were subjected to hydrodistillation via a Clevenger with method A & B. All samples were injected to GC/MS. Anti microbial and anti oxidant activity of EOs and hydrosols were measured by MIC and DPPH methods, respectively. ATR-IR spectroscopy was used for recorded finger print from EOs. EOs had Carvone (28.91%), Thymol (36.36%), Cuminic aldehyde (26.76%), Thymol (53.44%) as the major components of MS, ZM, BP and TA, respectively. Hydrosol of MS, ZM, BP, and TA revealed to have Piperitenone (38.27%), Carvacrol (55.94%), Cuminol (32.48%) and Thymol (90.94%) as major components, respectively. With method A extraction, EOs had Carvacrol (17.95%) and hydrosols had Thymol (43.74%) as major component. With method B extraction EOs had γ-Terpinene (19.75%) and hydrosols had Thymol (44.46%) as major component. In general the main anti microbial activity was found in EO with method B (MIC = 1.17 µl/ml) and the main anti oxidant activity was found in EO with method A (2.15 µg/ml). The outcome of study showed that there were differences between main components, antimicrobial activity, antioxidant and ATR-IR spectroscopy of samples in both preparation methods.

Zoom Image
Fig. 1: Method A & Method B

Keywords: Hydrosol, essential oil, traditional medicine, traditional dosage form.

References:

[1] Bakkali F, Averbeck S, Averbeck D, Idaomar M. Biological effects of essential oils-a review. Food Chem Toxicol 2008;46:446 – 475

[2] Moein M, Zarshenas MM, Delnavaz S. Chemical composition analysis of rose water samples from Iran. Pharm Biol 2014;52:1358 – 1361