Professional Documents
Culture Documents
tinh dầu Iran rosemary
tinh dầu Iran rosemary
To cite this article: Iman Bajalan, Razieh Rouzbahani, Abdollah Ghasemi Pirbalouti & Filippo
Maggi (2017): Quali-quantitative variation of essential oil from Iranian rosemary (Rosmarinus
officinalis L.) accessions according to environmental factors, Journal of Essential Oil Research,
DOI: 10.1080/10412905.2017.1380542
Article views: 5
Download by: [The Library at Queen's University] Date: 24 October 2017, At: 23:55
Journal of Essential Oil Research, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/10412905.2017.1380542
rosemary oil. Chemical components were identified by GC-FID and GC/MS. Results indicated that Accepted 10 September 2017
essential oil yields exhibited significant variation among accessions. The highest contents were KEYWORDS
recorded for the Bo2 and Bo3 accessions (2.6 and 2.3 ml/100 g, respectively). The major constituents Rosmarinus officinalis L.;
were 1,8-cineole (5.32–28.29%), camphor (1.58–25.32%) and α-pinene (14.19–21.43%). The Iranian environmental factors;
accessions also exhibited chemical variability for other major compounds such as borneol, piperitone, 1,8-cineole; correspondence
camphene, bornyl acetate, verbenone, and trans-pinocamphone. According to multivariate analysis, analyses; principal
including CA, HCA, DCA, and PCA the rosemary accessions belonged to two main chemotypes component analysis;
(I camphor type and II α-pinene/1,8-cineole/camphor type). Results of CA and DCA analyzes were correlation
similar and both of them were in agreement with the results of PCA analyzes. Furthermore, there
were positive and negative correlations between the major constituents and environmental factors.
Table 1. Collection site, geographical and soil characteristics of different Rosmarinus officinalis accessions.
Latitude and
Longitude Altitude Nitrogen phosphorus potassium E. C.b
No. A. n. a
Region (UTM) (m a.s.l) CaO (%) (%) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) pH (dS m−1) Soil texture
1 Do1 Dorud, Lorestan 322029 E 1455 16.6 0.11 10.1 389 7.6 0.73 Clay loam
Province, Iran 3707478 N
2 Do2 Dorud, Lorestan 322029 E 1455 16.6 0.11 10.1 389 7.6 0.73 Clay loam
Province, Iran 3707478 N
3 Do3 Dorud, Lorestan 322029 E 1455 16.6 0.11 10.1 389 7.6 0.73 Clay loam
Province, Iran 3707478 N
4 Kh1 Khoramabad, 261185 E 1368 17.4 0.12 5.8 645 7.7 1.35 Clay loam
Lorestan 3707356 N
Province, Iran
5 Kh2 Khoramabad, 261185 E 1368 17.4 0.12 5.8 645 7.7 1.35 Clay loam
Lorestan 3707356 N
Province, Iran
6 Kh3 Khoramabad, 261185 E 1368 17.4 0.12 5.8 645 7.7 1.35 Clay loam
Lorestan 3707356 N
Province, Iran
7 Bo1 Borujerd, 290028 E 1581 15.2 0.19 12.8 447 7.4 0.96 Clay loam
Downloaded by [The Library at Queen's University] at 23:55 24 October 2017
Lorestan 3753829 N
Province, Iran
8 Bo2 Borujerd, 290028 E 1581 15.2 0.19 12.8 447 7.4 0.96 Clay loam
Lorestan 3753829 N
Province, Iran
9 Bo3 Borujerd, 290028 E 1581 15.2 0.19 12.8 447 7.4 0.96 Clay loam
Lorestan 3753829 N
Province, Iran
10 Ma1 Malayer, 302088 E 1840 14.6 0.14 11.3 352 7.7 0.72 Silty clay
Hamedan 3793470 N
Province, Iran
11 Ma2 Malayer, 302088 E 1840 14.6 0.14 11.3 352 7.7 0.72 Silty clay
Hamedan 3793470 N
Province, Iran
12 Ma3 Malayer, 302088 E 1840 14.6 0.14 11.3 352 7.7 0.72 Silty clay
Hamedan 3793470 N
Province, Iran
13 Jo1 Jowkar, Hamed- 287114 E 1705 15.7 0.16 10.2 378 7.5 0.68 Sandy loam
an Province, 3811412 N
Iran
14 Jo2 Jowkar, Hamed- 287114 E 1705 15.7 0.16 10.2 378 7.5 0.68 Sandy loam
an Province, 3811412 N
Iran
15 Jo3 Jowkar, Hamed- 287114 E 1705 15.7 0.16 10.2 378 7.5 0.68 Sandy loam
an Province, 3811412 N
Iran
16 Bi1 Bisotun, 724468 E 1312 10.48 0.12 9.54 329 7.3 0.54 Clay loam
Kermanshah 3808439 N
Province, Iran
17 Bi2 Bisotun, 724468 E 1312 10.48 0.12 9.54 329 7.3 0.54 Clay loam
Kermanshah 3808439 N
Province, Iran
18 Bi3 Bisotun, 724468 E 1312 10.48 0.12 9.54 329 7.3 0.54 Clay loam
Kermanshah 3808439 N
Province, Iran
19 Ke1 Kermanshah, 693621 E 1343 22.23 0.11 15.12 227 7.7 0.47 Clay
Kermanshah 3807294 N
Province, Iran
20 Ke2 Kermanshah, 693621 E 1343 22.23 0.11 15.12 227 7.7 0.47 Clay
Kermanshah 3807294 N
Province, Iran
21 Ke3 Kermanshah, 693621 E 1343 22.23 0.11 15.12 227 7.7 0.47 Clay
Kermanshah 3807294 N
Province, Iran
a
Association name.
b
Electrical conductivity.
the same phenotype. For each population, to be more Garmin) receiver has been used in order to record the
exact about sampling, three leaf samples were collected location data.
from one shrub (individual) and then were mixed into Soil samples were taken from each region. In each
one sample. A Global Positioning System (GPS, Vista area, six samples were taken from depths of 0–40 cm and
JOURNAL OF ESSENTIAL OIL RESEARCH 3
mixed. The soil properties were analyzed using standard Compound identification
laboratory procedures. Soil pH was determined using
The components of the oils were identified by compari-
an automatic probe. Nitrogen (N) was analyzed accord-
son of their spectra with those from available MS (NIST
ing to Kjeldahl method. Phosphorus (P) and Potassium
08 and Wiley MS) libraries and by comparison of their
(K) were determined by Olsen and flame photometer
KI (Kovats index) relative to C5-C24 n-alkanes obtained
method, resp. Electrical conductivity (EC) was also
on an apolar HP-5MS column with those reported in the
determined by an electrical conductivity meter (EC
literature (12). The percentage composition (average of
meter) (9).
three independent analyses) was computed from the GC
peak areas without using any correction factors.
Essential oil isolation
Fresh leaves were dried for 10 days at room tempera- Statistical analysis
ture. One hundred grams of dried material were submit-
Data were analyzed using the SPSS ver. 21 statistical soft-
ted to hydrodistillation for 3 h, using a Clevenger-type
ware. A probability value at p ≤ 0.05 was considered sta-
apparatus, according to the method recommended in
tistically significant using Duncan’s multiple range test.
Downloaded by [The Library at Queen's University] at 23:55 24 October 2017
3
2.6 a
2.43 b
2.35 bc
2.16 d
2.3 c
2.5
Essential oil yield (ml/100 g)
1.78 e
1.69 ef
2
1.64 f
1.61 f
1.51 g
1.4 h
1.4 h
1.28 i
1.22 i
1.5
1.11 j
0.95 k
0.9 kl
0.84 l
0.61 m
1
0.6 m
0.53 m
0.5
Figure 1. Essential oil yield of rosemary accessions. Means with same letters are not significant (p ≤ 0.05), according to Duncan’s multiple
range test.
4 I. BAJALAN ET AL.
reported that the essential oil yield of R. officinalis L. from Multivariate analysis
Algeria, obtained by steam and hydrodistillation methods
The chemical composition of Iranian rosemary acces-
were 1.2 and 0.44%, respectively. In addition, in another
sions was analyzed using Minitab and PC-ORD programs
investigation by Jamshidi et al. (15) the essential oil yields
for grouping of population. The HCA was based on the
of rosemary from central Iran (Lalehzar and Kerman)
major essential oil compounds. As a result, the samples
were 2.1–2.6%. Khorshidi et al. (16) reported that the
were classified into two main groups (Figures 2 and 3).
essential oil yield of rosemary from Karaj province (Iran)
The first group consisted of six accessions (Bo1, Bo2,
was 1.8%. Overall, the essential oil yields of rosemary from
Bo3, Ke1, Ke2 and Ke3 populations). They were richer
different countries ranged from 0.7 to 2.1% (17–20).
in camphor (21.41–25.32%) and poorer in 1,8-cineole
(5.32–8.38%). The second group was classified in two
Essential oil composition subgroups. The main component of first subgroup (Kh1,
Kh2, Kh3, Ma1, Ma2 and Ma3 populations) was 1,8-cine-
The essential oil constituents of 21 Iranian rosemary
ole (22.85–28.29%), whereas camphor occurred in low
accessions are reported in Table 2. A total of 34 constitu-
amounts (1.58–4.33%). On the other hand, the main
ents were identified by GC-FID and GC/MS, representing
components of second subgroup (Bi1, Bi2, Bi3, Do11,
Downloaded by [The Library at Queen's University] at 23:55 24 October 2017
Figure 2. Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), based on the main compositions of the essential oils using Ward’s minimum variance.
Downloaded by [The Library at Queen's University] at 23:55 24 October 2017
Camphor
Principal component analyses (PCA)
1,8-Cineole
Eigenvalues 0.755 0.227 0.017 1.000
-1.0 1.0 Cumulative percentage vari- 75.3 98.1 99.8
ance of species data
Sum of all eigenvalues 1.000
Figure 3. Correspondence analyses of the oil constituents
obtained from rosemary essential oils.
instance in samples from Poland (35), Balkan Penninsula
(23) and Serbia (36). This constituent was missing in the
Iranian rosemary.
1.0
Jo1 Jo3
Jo2 α-Pinene
Do1 BI3
BI1BI2
Ke3Ke1
Correlation between compounds and soil
Kh3 Do3 Ke2 Bo3
characteristics
Kh2
Kh1 Bo2
Do2 Bo1
Ma3 Analyses of correlations revealed that there were sig-
Ma2
Ma1 nificant correlations between camphene and borneol
Camphor
(0.714), camphene and verbenone (0.638), 1,8-cineole
1,8-Cineole and trans-pinocamphone (0.651), camphor and borneol
(0.559), camphor and verbenone (0.714), camphor and
-1.0
1.5
X16
1
-Pinene
−0.355
X15
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
1
0.977
−0.227
Kh2
X14
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
1
*
Ma3
Ke3 BI1 Kh1 Ma2
Jo3 BI3
Ke2 Do1 Ma1
Bo3 Do3 Do2
−0.673
−0.177
−0.801
Bo2 Jo1
Ke1
X13
Bo1
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
**
**
*
1
1,8-Cineole
0.210
−0.235
0.164
0.195
X12
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
-1.0
Camphor
0.021
−0.694
−0.115
0.398
−0.265
-1.0 2.0
X11
Downloaded by [The Library at Queen's University] at 23:55 24 October 2017
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
ns
*
*
ns
ns
ns
ns
**
**
**
**
*
1
**
**
*
**
**
**
**
**
Notes: No significant; *Significant at the 5% probability levels; **Significant at the 1% probability levels.
Table 4. Correlation of major components of rosemary and some environmental factors.
X6
ns
**
**
**
**
**
**
*
1
**
1
in Tunisian rosemary.
0.331
0.161
0.391
−0.342
−0.058
0.054
−0.598
0.333
−0.239
0.638
0.714
−0.740
0.218
−0.316
X2
ns
1
Conclusion
This study highlighted a wide variability in the essential
0.509
−0.022
0.499
−0.442
−0.014
0.128
−0.124
−0.234
0.112
0.096
−0.109
−0.109
−0.001
−0.308
0.235
Verbenone
Piperitone
Camphor
α-Pinene
Altitude
Borneol
pH
E. C.
K
P
X9
X8
X7
X6
X5
X4
X3
X2
X1
8 I. BAJALAN ET AL.
acidity. According to our results, the main volatile com- 11. I. Bajalan and A. Ghasemi Pirbalouti, Variation in chemical
ponents of Iranian rosemary were 1,8-cineole, camphor composition of essential oil of populations of Lavandula ×
and α-pinene. Applications of CA, DCA and PCA revealed intermedia collected from Western Iran. Industrial Crops
and Products, 69, 344–347 (2015).
differences in the chemical composition depending on the 12. R.P. Adams, Identification of Essential Oil Components by
geographical origin and determined the membership of Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, 4th ed., Allured
the Iranian rosemary accessions to two main chemotypes. Publ. Corp, Carol Stream, IL (2007).
13. M. Singh, R. Ganesha Rao and S. Ramesh, Effects of N and
K on growth, herbage, oil yield and nutrient uptake pattern
Disclosure statement of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) under semi-arid
tropical conditions. Journal of Horticultural Science and
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Biotechnology, 82, 414–419 (2007).
14. C. Boutekedjiret, F. Bentahar, R. Belabbes and J. Bessiere,
The essential oil from Rosmarinus officinalis L. Journal of
Funding Essential Oil Research, 10, 680–682 (1998).
This work was supported by Young Researchers and Elite Club 15. R. Jamshidi, Z. Afzali and D. Afzali, Chemical composition of
of I.A.U. (Borujerd Branch, Iran) [grant number 93532]. hydrodistillation essential oil of rosemary in different origins
in Iran and comparison with other countries. American-
Downloaded by [The Library at Queen's University] at 23:55 24 October 2017
25. J.A. Pino, M. Estarrón and V. Fuentes, Essential oil of composition and antimicrobial activity of Rosmarinus
rosemary (Rosemary officinalis L.) from Cuba. Journal of officinalis L. oils from Sardinia and Corsica. Flavour and
Essential Oil Research, 10, 111–112 (1998). Fragrance Journal, 17, 15–19 (2002).
26. A. Lubbe and R. Verpoorte, Cultivation of medicinal and 33. P. Cioni, G. Flamini, C. Buti Castellini, L. Ceccarini and
aromatic plants for specialty industrial materials. Industrial M. Macchia, Composition and yield of the essential oils from
Crops and Products, 34, 785–801 (2011). whole plant, leaves and branches of Rosmarinus officinalis L.
27. A. Ghasemi Pirbalouti, M. Hashemi and F.T. Ghahfarokhi, growing in minor islands of ‘Parco Nazionale dell’ Arcipelago
Essential oil and chemical compositions of wild and Toscano’. Acta Horticulturae, 723, 255–260 (2006).
cultivated Thymus daenensis Celak and Thymus vulgaris L. 34. E.M. Napoli, G. Curcuruto and G. Ruberto, Screening
Industrial Crops and Products, 48, 43–48 (2013). of the essential oil composition of wild Sicilian rosemary.
28. M. Lange, M. Türke, E. Pašalić, S. Boch, D. Hessenmöller, Biochemical Systematics and Ecology, 38, 659–670
J. Müller, D. Prati, S.A. Socher, M. Fischer and W.W. (2010).
Weisser, Effects of forest management on ground-dwelling 35. A. Szumny, A. Figiel, A. Gutiérrez-Ortíz and Á.A.
beetles (Coleoptera; Carabidae, Staphylinidae) in Central Carbonell-Barrachina, Composition of rosemary essential
Europe are mainly mediated by changes in forest structure. oil (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) as affected by drying method.
Forest Ecology and Management, 329, 166–176 (2014). Journal of Food Engineering, 97, 253–260 (2010).
29. N. Enright, B. Miller and R. Akhter, Desert vegetation and 36. B. Bozin, N. Mimica-Dukic, I. Samojlik and E. Jovin,
vegetation–environment relationships in Kirthar National Antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of rosemary and
Downloaded by [The Library at Queen's University] at 23:55 24 October 2017
Park, Sindh. Journal of Arid Environments, 61, 397–418 sage (Rosmarinus officinalis L. and Salvia officinalis L.,
(2005). Lamiaceae) essential oils. Journal of Agricultural and Food
30. M.J. Jordán, V. Lax, M.C. Rota, S. Lorán and J.A. Sotomayor, Chemistry, 55, 7879–7885 (2007).
Effect of bioclimatic area on the essential oil composition 37. I. Bajalan and A. Ghasemi Pirbalouti, Variation in
and antibacterial activity of Rosmarinus officinalis L. Food antibacterial activity and chemical compositions of essential
Control, 30, 463–468 (2013). oil from different populations of myrtle. Industrial Crops
31. A. Angioni, A. Barra, E. Cereti, D. Barile, J.D. Coïsson, and Products, 61, 303–307 (2014).
M. Arlorio, S. Dessi, V. Coroneo and P. Cabras, Chemical 38. N. Tigrine-Kordjani, F. Chemat, B. Meklati, L. Tuduri,
composition, plant genetic differences, antimicrobial and J. Giraudel and M. Montury, Relative characterization
antifungal activity investigation of the essential oil of of rosemary samples according to their geographical
Rosmarinus officinalis L. Journal of Agricultural and Food origins using microwave-accelerated distillation, solid-
Chemistry, 52, 3530–3535 (2004). phase microextraction and Kohonen self-organizing maps.
32. G. Pintore, M. Usai, P. Bradesi, C. Juliano, G. Boatto, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 389, 631–641
F. Tomi, M. Chessa, R. Cerri and J. Casanova, Chemical (2007).