Identification of the Volatile Components of Galium verum L. and Cruciata leavipes Opiz from the Western Italian Alps
1
CREA Research Centre for Animal Production and Aquaculture, viale Piacenza 29, 26900 Lodi, Italy
2
Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali—CRPA S.p.A., viale Timavo, n. 43/2, 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy
3
Dipartimento di Farmacia-Scienze del Farmaco, Università, via Orabona 4, 70125 Bari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2020, 25(10), 2333; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25102333
Submission received: 17 April 2020
/
Revised: 13 May 2020
/
Accepted: 15 May 2020
/
Published: 16 May 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Natural Products in Italy)
Abstract
:The chemical composition of the volatile fraction from Galium verum L. (leaves and flowers) and Cruciata laevipes Opiz (whole plant), Rubiaceae, was investigated. Samples from these two plant species were collected at full bloom in Val di Susa (Western Alps, Turin, Italy), distilled in a Clevenger-type apparatus, and analyzed by GC/FID and GC/MS. A total of more than 70 compounds were identified, making up 92%–98% of the total oil. Chemical investigation of their essential oils indicated a quite different composition between G. verum and C. laevipes, both in terms of the major constituents and the dominant chemical classes of the specialized metabolites. The most abundant compounds identified in the essential oils from G. verum were 2-methylbenzaldheyde (26.27%, corresponding to 11.59 μg/g of fresh plant material) in the leaves and germacrene D (27.70%; 61.63 μg/g) in the flowers. C. laevipes essential oils were instead characterized by two sesquiterpenes, namely β-caryophyllene (19.90%; 15.68 μg/g) and trans-muurola-4(15),5-diene (7.60%; 5.99 μg/g); two phenylpropanoids, benzyl alcohol (8.30%; 6.71 μg/g), and phenylacetaldehyde (7.74%; 6.26 μg/g); and the green-leaf alcohol cis-3-hexen-1-ol (9.69%; 7.84 μg/g). The ecological significance of the presence of such compounds is discussed.
1. Introduction
Galium verum L. and Cruciata laevipes Opiz (syn. Galium cruciata (L.) Scop.) belong to the Rubiaceae plant family, namely to the Rubieae monophyletic group, the only tribe classified within the family. Phylogenetic studies [1,2] showed that the tribe can be separated into two groups, one of them including both genera, Galium, the largest genus within the tribe with 655 species, and Cruciata including only 9 species. In addition, based on DNA sequence data, it was demonstrated that the two species G. verum and C. laevipes fall into two separated clades, whose members are also characterized by some morphological differences.
G. verum L., is a herbaceous perennial species largely spread across most of Europe, North Africa, and temperate Asia. It grows between 0 and 1800 m above the sea level in different habitats, including dry-sand meadows, rocky outcrops, roadsides, dunes, and seashores. G. verum is a scrambling plant, with 60–120 cm long stems that root frequently when they touch the soil. The leaves are linear needle-like, shiny dark green, with prominently revolute margins, covered with hair underneath, grouped in whorls of eight–twelve. It blooms in July–September producing fragrant yellow flowers, clustered in dense panicles. The fruits are black schizocarps [3].
The name of the genus derives from the Greek term “gala”, milk, referring to the common use of plants of this species to curdle milk when producing cheese. G. verum is well-known by the common name of lady’s bedstraw or yellow spring bedstraw (madder family), from the old practice to use its foliage to stuff mattresses. In addition, the flowers give a yellow pigment that has been employed traditionally to color food, and the roots produce a red dye that is used to color wool. The plant also has some traditional medical uses as a diuretic, choleretic, and spasmolytic [4].
C. laevipes Opiz, commonly known as crossword or smooth bedstraw, is also distributed across Europe and Asia, growing between 0 and 1500 m above the sea level. It is a perennial herb, 10 to 60 cm tall; with quadrangular stems; and leaves that are three-nerved and whorled in clusters of four. The flowers are yellow, between five and nine on each top, blooming in May–June; their peduncles carry two bracteoles each and are filled with dense hairs [3]. This species grows in open woodland, waysides, and pastures, and prefers calcareous soils [5]. C. laevipes has long been known in folk medicine for its wound-healing properties, and it was employed in the past in both external and internal applications. These latter include remedies to treat obstructions of the stomach and bowels, to stimulate appetite and as a remedy for rheumatism and dropsy [6].
The two plant species, G. verum and C. laevipes are also widespread in Italy, all over the country, especially in the Alpine regions, and were also commonly found in the Western Italian Alpine pasture vegetation [7].
Phytochemical studies have shown that both Galium and Cruciata genera synthesize many different classes of specialized metabolites, such as iridoid glycosides, antraquinones, phenolics, flavonoids, and coumarins [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17], possibly accounting for the biological properties highlighted for some of the species. They also produce terpenoids and aromatic essential oils [18,19,20,21].
The aim of this work was to determine the flavor constituents of G. verum L. and C. laevipes Opiz collected in the wild Italian alpine region, in order to fully characterize their volatile fraction for the first time.
2. Results
Volatiles identified in the aerial parts of G. verum and C. laevipes are reported in Table 1, listed in order of elution on a DB-5 column. Leaves and flowers from G. verum were analyzed separately, while, due to their small size, flowers from C. laevipes could not be isolated and for this species the whole plant was analyzed.
In total, more than 70 compounds were identified in both species, on average amounting to 92%–98% of the total. Chemical investigations of their essential oils indicated a quite different composition between G. verum and C. laevipes, both in terms of major constituents and the dominant chemical classes of the specialized metabolites (Table 1; Figure 1). The chemical structures of the most abundant detected compounds are reported in Figure 2.
Aldhehydes were the most abundant chemical class of components amounting to 43.71 ± 0.01% (18.91 ± 0.44 μg/g) and to 42.64 ± 0.46% (94.93 ± 2.33 μg/g) in G. verum essential oils from leaves and flowers, respectively. The second major chemical class was represented by alcohols in the leaves (25.70 ± 1.67%, 11.11 ± 0.47 μg/g) and by terpenes in the flowers (32.42 ± 1.24%, 72.15 ± 1.77 μg/g). Alcohols were also present in high amount (12.09 ± 0.24%, 26.92 ± 0.89 μg/g) in the essential oils from the flowers of G. verum (Table 1).
2-Methylbenzaldehyde was the main component identified in the essential oils obtained from G. verum leaves, accounting for 26.27 ± 1.07% (11.59 ± 0.73 μg/g). This aldehyde also represented a dominant constituent in essential oils from the flowers of the same species (24.04 ± 1.07%, 53.54 ± 3.12 μg/g). A second major aldehyde detected in the essential oils from these two plant organs from G. verum was represented by 4-methylbenzaldehyde (Table 1). The second major component characteristic of the essential oils from G. verum leaves was cis-3-hexen-1-ol, amounting to 17.34 ± 2.41% (7.49 ± 0.87 μg/g).
The sesquiterpene germacrene D was the main metabolite (27.70 ± 1.67%, 61.63 ± 2.87 μg/g) identified in the flowers from essential oils of the same species.
Both samples of essential oils obtained from G. verum also contained small quantities of hydrocarbons and esters (Table 1), amounting, respectively, to 8.45 ± 0.22% (leaves) and 2.18 ± 0.25% (flowers), and to 3.76 ± 1.29% (leaves) and 1.52 ± 0.04% (flowers). Among these, a number of linear-chained alkanes such as nonacosane (2.98 ± 0.21%, 1.29 ± 0.12 μg/g), tricosane (1.62 ± 0.17%, 0.70 ± 0.06 μg/g), and eptacosane (0.72 ± 0.14%, 0.31 ± 0.05 μg/g) was especially abundant in the essential oils distilled from the leaves (Table 1).
The ester fraction contained, almost entirely, cis-3-hexenylacetate, accounting for 3.46 ± 1.30% (1.50 ± 0.60 μg/g) and 1.12 ± 0.02% (2.50 ± 0.04 μg/g) in the G. verum leaves and flowers, respectively.
C. laevipes essential oil yielded an interesting mixture of volatile compounds (Figure 1), with terpenes as the best represented chemical group, accounting for 46.11 ± 3.21% of the total oil, corresponding to 36.34 ± 3.21 μg/g fresh weight. Borneol was the most abundant monoterpene with 4.07 ± 0.43% (3.21 ± 0.32 μg/g) of the volatile fraction, while β-caryophyllene was the most abundant sesquiterpene and the single most abundant compound of the total oil, quoted as 19.90 ± 2.32% corresponding to 15.68 ± 1.92 μg/g fresh weight. Among other sesquiterpenes, trans-muurola-4(15),5-diene was detected at a relatively high amount, 7.60 ± 0.42% (5.99 ± 0.37 μg/g fresh weight), while α-humulene and the oxygenated terpene eudesma-4(15),7-dien-1β-ol were present at 2.51 ± 0.04% (1.98 ± 0.04 μg/g) and 2.60 ± 0.16% (2.05 ± 0.14 μg/g), respectively. Four oxygenated sesquiterpenes were also detected at percentages ranging between 0.70% and 1.20%, whose structure could not be identified. However, based on their MS fragmentation patterns, closely related to those of the standard compounds, it was possible to assign them the molecular formulas reported in Table 1.
Alcohols were the second most abundant chemical class of compounds, accounting for 22.72 ± 1.68% of the total volatiles, thus yielding 18.35 ± 1.85 μg/g fresh weight. Among them the aliphatic cis-3-hexen-1-ol showed the highest percentage value with 9.69 ± 1.18% (7.84 ± 1.17 μg/g), followed by the aromatic benzyl alcohol with 8.30 ± 0.24% (6.71 ± 0.24 μg/g).
Aldehydes accounted for 13.02 ± 0.86% of the total oil, corresponding to 10.50 ± 0.95 μg/g fresh weight. The two main compounds of this class were phenylacetaldehyde and benzaldehyde, accounting for 7.74 ± 0.41% (6.26 ± 0.52 μg/g) and 2.05 ± 0.21% (1.66 ± 0.21 μg/g) of the total volatiles.
Among other classes of compounds, acids accounted for 4.27 ± 0.04% of the total oil, corresponding to 3.37 ± 0.01 μg/g fresh weight, mainly represented by hexadecanoic acid (2.25 ± 0.36%, 1.98 ± 0.27 μg g−1). Phenolics were also present at detectable amounts, quantified as 3.97 ± 0.38% of the total oil (3.13 ± 0.28 μg/g fresh weight). The main component of this class was eugenol, which is well known as a natural antimicrobial agent [22], and is detected at 3.67 ± 0.39% of the total volatiles corresponding to 2.89 ± 0.29 μg/g fresh weight.
As in G. verum volatile oils, C. laevipes yielded a number of linear-chained alkanes, together accounting for 3.87 ± 0.11% of the oil and corresponding to 3.05 ± 0.10 μg/g fresh weight. Nonacosane (0.80 ± 0.05%, 0.63 ± 0.03 μg/g), tricosane (0.54 ± 0.04%, 0.43 ± 0.04 μg/g), and pentacosane (0.52 ± 0.08%, 0.41 ± 0.07 μg/g) were the most abundant homologues of this class.
Esters were also present in C. laevipes volatile fraction at 2.72 ± 0.29% (2.20 ± 0.29 μg/g fresh weight). Their presence is somehow significant since both compounds were detected, i.e., cis-3-hexenyl acetate (2.44 ± 0.27%, 1.97 ± 0.28 μg/g) and methyl salicylate (0.28 ± 0.02%, 0.22 ± 0.01 μg/g), which can both be associated to mechanisms of active plant defense [23,24].
Among the miscellaneous components worth mentioning was a relatively small amount of indole (0.34 ± 0.04%, 0.27 ± 0.03 μg/g), a metabolite that is possibly derived from the degradation of tryptophan, which is quite rare in plant volatiles and is associated with the presence of parasites in some cases [23].
3. Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first detailed investigation of the chemical composition of the essential oils produced by the two Rubiaceae species, G. verum and C. leavipes. In addition, this was the first characterization of these two species growing wild in the Italian Alpine environment.
Previous studies on the two species mainly dealt with the characterization of methanolic extractives [4,17]. The composition of volatiles obtained from the wild plants from East Europe was also reported [18,20] and in G. verum, only the flowers were analyzed. Data from the literature indicate a different chemical composition compared to our study, i.e., G. verum flowers were described to contain cis-3-hexen-1-ol as the most abundant component, followed by squalene [20]. Essential oils from C. laevipes were instead reported to produce borneol and verbenone, as the major terpenes [18].
Qualitative and quantitative differences can be possibly attributed to the different habitats in which the plant material used in our study was growing, i.e., the Italian Alpine environment.
Essential oils from the leaves of G. verum were characterized by a high amount of 2-methylbenzaldehyde, which is a compound that also naturally occurs in other aromatic plants such as Taraxacum officinale and Morinda officinalis [25,26], and was also reported as a component of the essential oils from G. humifusum [21]. This phytochemical and some derived molecules showed a strong anti-mite effect [26,27], thus suggesting its ecological contribution, and possibly of 4-methylbenzaldehyde, to prevent insect attacks.
On the other hand, essential oils distilled from G. verum leaves are very rich in cis-3-hexen-1-ol, and is well-known as a semiochemical acting as a repellant/attractant for herbivores [28].
The presence of germacrene D as the major metabolite in the flowers of the same species was also consistent with an ecological role. This sesquiterpene was reported to act as a pheromone with anti-herbivore properties and it has been reported to be repellent against aphids [29]. The same compound, however, often contributes to the floral scent of some plant species because of its importance as an attractant of pollinators [30].
With regards to C. leavipes, it should be underlined that the two major aromatic aldehydes, phenylacetaldeyde and benzaldehyde, largely exceeded the modest contribution of short-chained saturated and unsaturated aliphatic aldehydes (from C6 to C10). It is to be noted that most linear-chained aliphatic alcohols and aldehydes, also known as green-leaf volatiles, are derived from the enzymatic cleavage of C18 unsaturated acids, and play a major role in plant signaling and defense mechanisms [23,31]. Consequently, it is worth noting the presence of linolenic acid as one of the precursors of green-leaf volatiles, in both G. verum and C. laevipes essential oils [32,33]. On the other hand, aromatic alcohols and aldehydes are synthesized through the phenylpropanoid pathway, together with other benzenoids and phenolics, and they can be enzymatically converted into one another through specific dehydrogenases [34]. Since aromatic aldehydes and alcohols are common volatiles in flowers [35], the interconversion of alcohols into aldehydes and vice-versa might play a significant role in modulating flower scent and might contribute to attract pollinators. The linear-chained alkanes might also play a significant role in pollinator attraction, besides having a possible function in preventing moisture loss from plant tissues [36,37,38].
Finally, the presence of compounds such as cis-3-hexenyl acetate and methyl salicylate can be reasonably associated with the mechanisms of active plant defense [23,24] in the species C. laeveipes.
In conclusion, the chemical composition of the essential oils obtained from the two Rubiaceae species, G. verum and C. laevipes, indicate a complex balance of phytochemicals to protect the plants in their environment. In addition, as shown for other studied Alpine plants [39,40] and plants producing essential oils with similar composition [27,41,42], G. verum and C. laevipes produce volatiles with valuable biological properties.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Plant Material
Cruciata laevipes Opiz and Galium verum L. were identified according to Pignatti [3]. Aerial parts were collected at full bloom in the vicinity of Dravugna, Val di Susa, Western Alps (1250 m. asl; N 45°08′47″, E 7°16′46″) in the province of Turin, Italy. Plants were cut at about 1 cm height above ground to avoid soil impurities, samples were weighted and then placed in sealed bottles, half-filled with CH2Cl2, as a preservative. The G. verum flowers were separately collected and stored. Samples were taken to the laboratory within the day and stored at 4 °C, until distillation. Specimens of C. laevipez (CL1908) and G. verum (GV1935) are deposited at CREA, Lodi, Italy.
4.2. Isolation of the Oil
The plant material (about 50 g of the C. laevipes whole plant and the G. verum leaves and about 35 g of the G. verum flowers), to which 0.352 mg of 3-methylcyclohexanone (Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA), 99% purity) and 0.511 mg of octadecane (Sigma-Aldrich, 99% purity) were added as internal standards, was steam-distilled with odor-free water in a Clevenger-type apparatus, for 1 h. The distillate was saturated with NaCl, extracted with freshly distilled Et2O (3 × 100 mL), dried over anhydrous Na2SO4, and concentrated with a rotary evaporator to give a pale-yellow oil with a yield of 0.01%–0.02%, (weight/fresh weight basis). The resulting oil was then diluted with Et2O and analyzed by GC/FID and GC/MS.
4.3. Analysis of the Essential Oil
GC/FID analysis was carried out using a Perkin Elmer model 8500 GC (Perkin Elmer Italia Spa, Milano, Italy) equipped with a 30 m × 0.32 mm i.d., Elite-5MS capillary column (0.32 μm film thickness). The sample (0.5 μL) was injected in the “split” mode (1:30), with a column temperature program of 40 °C for 5 min, then increased to 260 °C at 4 °C/min and finally held at that temperature for 10 min. Injector and detector were set at 230 °C and 280 °C, respectively; the carrier gas was He with a head pressure of 12.0 psi.
GC/MS analysis was carried out using a Perkin Elmer Clarus 500 GC equipped with a Clarus 500 mass spectrometer, using the same capillary column and chromatographic conditions as for the GC/FID analysis. Mass spectra were acquired over the 40–500 amu range at 1 scan/sec with ionizing electron energy 70 eV, ion source 230 °C. The transfer line was set at 270 °C, while the carrier gas was He at 1.0 mL/min.
4.4. Identification and Quantitation of the Oil Components
The identification of the volatile oil components was performed by their retention indices (AI), their mass spectra, by comparison with the NIST database mass spectral library [43], as well as with literature data [44,45]. Authentic reference compounds purchased from Sigma-Aldrich were also used. Retention indices were calculated using an n-alkane series (C6–C32) under the same GC conditions as that for the samples. The relative amount of individual components of the oil were expressed as percent peak area relative to total peak area from the GC/FID analysis of the whole extracts. The quantitative data were obtained with GC/FID analysis by the internal standard method, using 3-methylcyclohexanone as the internal reference for compounds with an AI < 1350 (Rt < 25.0 min.; compounds 1–35 in Table 1), and octadecane for compounds with an AI > 1350 (Rt > 25.0 min.; compounds 36–75 in Table 1). A linear proportion between the areas was used, assuming an equal response factor for all detected compounds.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.T. and P.A.; Methodology, A.T., D.R., and E.B.; Validation, A.T. and E.B.; Formal Analysis, A.T. and E.B.; Investigation, D.R. and E.B.; Resources, A.T. and P.A.; Data Curation, D.R. and E.B.; Writing-Original & Draft Preparation, A.T.; Writing-Review & Editing, A.T. and P.A.; Visualization, P.A.; Supervision, A.T. and P.A.; Funding Acquisition, A.T. and P.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was partially funded by the project: “Composti naturali e microorganismi per la difesa ed il priming di colture biologiche mediterranee” of the Italian Ministry of Agriculture, Alimentation, and Forestry Policies.
Acknowledgments
The authors warmly thank G. Falchero and R. Paoletti for their support provided by the localization, identification, and collection of the plant samples. Technical support from B. Pintus of CREA, Lodi, Italy, is gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Soza, V.L.; Olmstead, R.G. Molecular systematiucs of tribe Rubieae (Rubiaceaea): Evolution of major clades, development of leaf-like whorls, and biogeography. Taxon 2010, 59, 755–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, L.-E.; Meng, Y.; Peng, D.-L.; Nie, Z.-L.; Sun, H. Molecular phylogeny of Galium, L of the tribe Rubieae (Rubiaceae)-Emphasis on Chinese species and recognition of a new genus Pseudogalium. Mol. Phylog. Evol. 2018, 126, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pignatti, S. Flora D’Italia; Edagricole: Bologna, Italy, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Mocan, A.; Crisan, G.; Vlase, L.; Ivănescu, B.; Bădărău, A.S.; Arsene, A.L. Phytochemical investigations of four gallium species (Rubiaceae) from Romania. Farmacia 2016, 64, 95–99. [Google Scholar]
- Clapham, A.R.; Tutin, T.G.; Warburg, E.F. Flora of the British Isles; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 1962. [Google Scholar]
- Medicinal Herbs. Available online: http://www.naturalmedicinalherbs.net/herbs/c/cruciata-laevipes=crosswort.php (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Montacchini, F.; Caramiello Lomagno, R.; Forneris, G.; Piervittori, R. Carta della vegetazione della valle di Susa ed evidenziazione dell’influsso antropico. In Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche; CNR: Torino, Italy, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Snafi, A.E. Galium verum-A review. Indo Am. J. Pharm. Sci. 2018, 5, 2142–2149. [Google Scholar]
- Martins, D.; Nunez, C.V. Secondary metabolites from Rubiaceae species. Molecules 2015, 20, 13422–13495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borisov, M.I. Chemical studies on Galium tauricum. Farmatsevtychnyi Zhurnal 1967, 22, 56–59. [Google Scholar]
- Borisov, M.I. Coumarins of the genus Asperula and Galium. Chem. Nat. Compd. 1974, 10, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borisov, M.I.; Borisyuk, U.G. A phytochemical study on Galium cruciata. Farmatsevtychnyi Zhurnal 1965, 20, 63–66. [Google Scholar]
- Plouvier, V. Recherche de l’arbutoside et l’asperuloside chez quelques Rubiacees. Presense du monotropeoside chez les Liquidambar (Hamamelidaceae). Compt. Rendus Acad. Sci. 1964, 258, 735. [Google Scholar]
- Ergun, F.; Kusmenoglu, S.; Sender, B. High-performance liquid chromatograpic determination of iridoids in Cruciata taurica. J. Liq. Chromatogr. 1984, 7, 1985–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Rosa, S.; Mitova, M.; Handjieva, N.; Çali, I. Coumarin glucosides from Cruciata taurica. Phytochemistry 2002, 59, 447–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitova, M.I.; Anchev, M.E.; Panev, S.G.; Handjieva, N.V.; Popov, S.S. Coumarins and iridoids from Crucianella graeca, Cruciata glabra, Cruciata laevipes and Cruciata pedemontana (Rubiaceae). Zeitschrift Für Naturforschung C 1996, 51, 631–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demirezer, L.O.; Gürbüz, F.; Güvenalp, Z.; Ströch, K.; Zeeck, A. Iridoids, flavonoids and monoterpene glycosides from Galium verum subsp. verum. Turk. J. Chem. 2006, 30, 525–534. [Google Scholar]
- Il’ina, T.V.; Kovaleva, A.M.; Goryachaya, O.V.; Vinogradov, B.A. Terpenoids and aromatic compounds from essential oils of Cruciata laevipes and C. glabra. Chem. Nat. Comp. 2013, 48, 1106–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Il’ina, T.V.; Kovaleva, A.M.; Goryachaya, O.V.; Vinogradov, B.A. Essential oils of Galium salicifolium flowers and herb. Chem. Nat. Comp. 2012, 48, 151–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Il’ina, T.V.; Kovaleva, A.M.; Goryachaya, O.V.; Vinogradov, B.A. Essential oil from Galium verum flowers. Chem. Nat. Comp. 2009, 45, 587–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Il’ina, T.V.; Kovaleva, A.M.; Goryachaya, O.V.; Komissarenko, A.N. Terpenoids and aromatic compounds in essential oils of the herbs Galium hercynicum and G. humifusum. Chem. Nat. Comp. 2011, 47, 130–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorman, H.J.D.; Deans, S.G. Antimicrobial agents from plants: Antibacterial activity of plant volatile oils. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 88, 308–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kessler, A.; Baldwin, I.T. Plant responses to insect herbivory: The emerging molecular analysis. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 2002, 53, 299–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pichersky, E.; Gershenzon, J. The formation and function of plant volatiles: Perfumes for pollinator attraction and defense. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2002, 5, 237–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bylka, W.; Matlawska, I.; Franski, R. Essential oil composition of Taraxacum officinale. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2010, 32, 231–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, J.Y.; Kim, M.G.; Park, J.H.; Hong, S.T.; Lee, H.S. Evaluation of benzaldehyde derivatives from Morinda officinalis as anti-mite agents with dual function as acaricide and mite indicator. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 7149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Park, J.H.; Lee, N.H.; Yang, Y.C.; Lee, H.S. Food protective effects of 3-methylbenzaldehyde derived from Myosotis arvensis and its analogues against Tyrophagus putrescentiae. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 6608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Wei, J.; Kang, L. Roles of (Z)-3-hexenol in plant-insect interactions. Plant Signal. Behav. 2011, 6, 369–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Norge, K.; Becerra, J.X. Germacrene D, a common sesquiterpene in the genus Bursera (Burseraceae). Molecules 2009, 14, 5289–5297. [Google Scholar]
- Zito, P.; Dotteri, S.; Sajeva, M. Floral volatiles in a sapromyophilous plant and their importance in attracting house fkly pollinators. J. Chem. Ecol. 2015, 41, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knudsen, J.T.; Tollsten, L.; Bergstrom, G. Floral scents—A checklist of volatile compounds isolated by headspace techniques. Phytochemistry 1993, 33, 253–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hatanaka, A. The biogeneration of green odour by green leaves. Phytochemistry 1993, 34, 1201–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matsui, K. Green leaf volatiles: Hydroperoxyde lyase pathway of oxylipin metabolism. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2006, 9, 274–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dudareva, N.; Pichersky, E.; Gershenzon, J. Biochemistry of plant volatiles. Plant Physiol. 2004, 135, 1893–1902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boatright, J.; Negre, F.; Chen, X.; Kish, C.M.; Wood, B.; Peel, G.; Orlova, I.; Gang, D.; Rhodes, D.; Dudareva, N. Understanding in vivo benzenoid metabolism in petunia petal tissue. Plant Physiol. 2004, 135, 1993–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Schiestl, F.P.; Ayasse, M.; Paulus, H.F.; Löfstedt, C.; Hansson, B.S.; Ibarra, F.; Francke, W. Sex pheromone mimicry in the early spider orchid (Ophrys sphegoides): Patterns of hydrocarbons as the key mechanism for pollination by sexual deception. J. Comp. Physiol. A 2000, 186, 567–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mant, J.; Brändli, C.; Vereecken, N.J.; Schulz, C.M.; Francke, W.; Schiestl, F.P. Cuticular hydrocarbons as sex pheromone of the bee Colletes cunicularius and the key to its mimicry by the sexually deceptive orchid Ophrys exaltata. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 1765–1787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Eigenbrode, S.D. The effects of plant epicuticular waxy blooms on attachment and effectiveness o predatory insects. Arthropod Struct. Dev. 2004, 33, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitalini, S.; Madeo, M.; Tava, A.; Iriti, M.; Vallone, L.; Avato, P.; Cocuzza, C.E.; Simonetti, P.; Argentieri, M.P. Chemical profile, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of Achillea Moscata Wulfen, an endemic species from Alps. Molecules 2016, 21, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Argentieri, M.P.; Madeo, M.; Avato, P.; Iriti, M.; Vitalini, S. Polyphenol content and bioactivity of Achillea moschata from the Italian and Swiss Alps. Zeitschrift Für Naturforschung C 2020, 75, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Limem-Ben Amor, I.; Boubaker, J.; Sgaier, M.B.; Skandrani, I.; Bhouri, W.; Neffati, A.; Kilani, S.; Bouhlel, I.; Gherida, K.; Chekir-Gherida, L. Phytochemistry and biological activities of Phlomis species. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2009, 125, 183–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casiglia, S.; Bruno, M.; Bramucci, M.; Quassinti, L.; Lupidi, G.; Fiorini, D.; Maggi, F. Kundmannia sicula (L.) DC: A rich source of germacrene D. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2017, 29, 437–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- NIST/EPA/NIH. Mass Spectral Database; Version 2.1; Perkin-Elmer Instrument LLC: Waltham, MA, USA, 2000.
- Joulain, D.; Konig, W.A. The Atlas of Spectral Data of Sesquiterpene Hydrocarbons; EB Verlag: Hamburg, Germany, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Adams, R.P. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, 4th ed.; Allured Publ. Corp.: Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
Sample Availability: Samples of the essential oils are available from the authors. |
Figure 1.
Gaschromatogram of the volatile fractions of Cruciata laevipez (A) and Galium verum flowers (B) and leaves (C). IS 1: internal standard 1 (3-methylcycohexanone); and IS 2: internal standard 2 (octadecane). For compound identification, see Table 1.
Figure 1.
Gaschromatogram of the volatile fractions of Cruciata laevipez (A) and Galium verum flowers (B) and leaves (C). IS 1: internal standard 1 (3-methylcycohexanone); and IS 2: internal standard 2 (octadecane). For compound identification, see Table 1.
Figure 2.
Chemical structure of the most representative compounds detected in the volatile fractions of Cruciata laevipez and Galium verum. For compound identification, see Table 1.
Figure 2.
Chemical structure of the most representative compounds detected in the volatile fractions of Cruciata laevipez and Galium verum. For compound identification, see Table 1.
Table 1.
Composition (% and μg/g fresh weight) of volatiles from Galium verum leaves and flowers and Cruciata laevipes whole plant.
Table 1.
Composition (% and μg/g fresh weight) of volatiles from Galium verum leaves and flowers and Cruciata laevipes whole plant.
| Galium verum | Cruciata laevipez | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaves | Flowers | Whole Plant | |||||||
| Compound a | AI tab b | AI c | % | μg/g | % | μg/g | % | μg/g | |
| 1 | 3-Methyl-3-buten-1-ol | 731 | 737 | - | - | 1.78 ± 0.12 | 3.96 ± 0.21 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.17 ± 0.02 |
| 2 | 3-Methyl-1-butanol | 740 | 741 | - | - | - | - | 0.36 ± 0.06 | 0.29 ± 0.04 |
| 3 | Pentanol | 765 | 768 | tr | tr | 1.07 ± 0.19 | 2.38 ± 0.46 | 0.33 ± 0.12 | 0.27 ± 0.09 |
| 4 | cis-2-Penten-1-ol | 771 | 775 | 1.73 ± 0.57 | 0.75 ± 0.26 | tr | tr | 0.29 ± 0.08 | 0.23 ± 0.06 |
| 5 | Hexanal | 799 | 799 | 0.81 ± 0.26 | 0.35 ± 0.11 | 0.52 ± 0.07 | 1.15 ± 0.17 | 0.55 ± 0.06 | 0.44 ± 0.06 |
| 6 | 4-Hydroxy-4-methyl pentan-2-one | 831 | 837 | - | - | - | - | 0.51 ± 0.07 | 0.41 ± 0.06 |
| 7 | trans-2-Hexenal | 851 | 851 | tr | tr | - | - | 0.47 ± 0.06 | 0.38 ± 0.06 |
| 8 | cis-3-Hexen-1-ol | 855 | 854 | 17.34 ± 2.41 | 7.49 ± 0.87 | 3.35 ± 0.13 | 7.47 ± 0.40 | 9.69 ± 1.18 | 7.84 ± 1.17 |
| 9 | Hexanol | 870 | 869 | 0.39 ± 0.11 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 2.26 ± 0.10 | 5.03 ± 0.14 | 0.27 ± 0.04 | 0.22 ± 0.04 |
| 10 | Heptanal | 904 | 902 | 0.10 ± 0.04 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | - | - | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.02 |
| 11 | trans-2-Heptenal | 958 | 955 | - | - | - | - | 0.26 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.01 |
| 12 | Benzaldehyde | 960 | 959 | 1.08 ± 0.06 | 0.47 ± 0.04 | 0.30 ± 0.03 | 0.67 ± 0.08 | 2.05 ± 0.21 | 1.66 ± 0.21 |
| 13 | Oct-1-en-3-ol | 980 | 981 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.00 | tr | tr | 1.92 ± 0.38 | 1.56 ± 0.35 |
| 14 | 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-ol | 992 | 991 | tr | tr | - | - | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.03 |
| 15 | Decane | 1000 | 999 | - | - | - | - | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.02 |
| 16 | cis-3-Hexenylacetate | 1004 | 1005 | 3.46 ± 1.30 | 1.50 ± 0.60 | 1.12 ± 0.02 | 2.50 ± 0.04 | 2.44 ± 0.27 | 1.97 ± 0.28 |
| 17 | 2,4-Heptadienal | 1005 | 1007 | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.07 ± 0.01 | - | - | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.17 ± 0.01 |
| 18 | Benzyl alcohol | 1042 | 1034 | 4.37 ± 0.01 | 1.89 ± 0.04 | 1.98 ± 0.04 | 4.42 ± 0.15 | 8.30 ± 0.24 | 6.71 ± 0.24 |
| 19 | Phenylacetaldehyde | 1051 | 1042 | 5.19 ± 0.62 | 2.25 ± 0.32 | 3.43 ± 0.23 | 7.63 ± 0.62 | 7.74 ± 0.41 | 6.26 ± 0.52 |
| 20 | Linalool | 1099 | 1099 | 0.51 ± 0.07 | 0.22 ± 0.04 | 0.29 ± 0.02 | 0.65 ± 0.05 | 0.21 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.02 |
| 21 | Nonanal | 1104 | 1104 | 0.38 ± 0.10 | 0.16 ± 0.04 | 1.85 ± 0.02 | 4.12 ± 0.02 | 0.48 ± 0.04 | 0.38 ± 0.0.3 |
| 22 | 2-Phenylethanol | 1106 | 1110 | 1.68 ± 0.28 | 0.73 ± 0.14 | 1.64 ± 0.08 | 3.66 ± 0.24 | 1.16 ± 0.12 | 0.91 ± 0.09 |
| 23 | 2-Methylbenzaldehyde | 1152 d | 1153 | 26.27 ± 1.07 | 11.59 ± 0.73 | 24.04 ± 1.07 | 53.54 ± 3.12 | 0.21 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.01 |
| 24 | 4-Methylbenzaldehyde | 1171 d | 1173 | 7.31 ± 1.49 | 3.16 ± 0.57 | 8.45 ± 0.57 | 18.80 ± 1.01 | 0.33 ± 0.05 | 0.26 ± 0.03 |
| 25 | Borneol | 1165 | 1174 | - | - | - | - | 4.07 ± 0.43 | 3.21 ± 0.32 |
| 26 | Methyl salicylate | 1190 | 1192 | 0.30 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.39 ± 0.03 | 0.87 ± 0.07 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.01 |
| 27 | α-Terpineol | 1194 | 1195 | 0.21 ± 0.03 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.26 ± 0.06 | 0.58 ± 0.01 | 0.46 ± 0.01 |
| 28 | Dodecane | 1200 | 1200 | 0.44 ± 0.02 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.02 | 0.31 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.01 |
| 29 | Decanal | 1206 | 1205 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.37 ± 0.06 | 0.83 ± 0.13 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.01 |
| 30 | β-Cyclocitral | 1217 | 1222 | 0.49 ± 0.01 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.18 ± 0.02 |
| 31 | Geraniol | 1249 | 1251 | 0.65 ± 0.04 | 0.28 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 0.49 ± 0.03 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.02 |
| 32 | trans-2-Decenal | 1260 | 1262 | 0.04 ± 0.03 | 0.02 ± 0.02 | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.11 ± 0.01 |
| 33 | Indole | 1290 | 1293 | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.01 | - | - | 0.34 ± 0.04 | 0.27 ± 0.03 |
| 34 | p-Vinylguaiacol | 1309 | 1308 | 0.51 ± 0.29 | 0.22 ± 0.12 | 0.85 ± 0.04 | 1.90 ± 0.07 | 0.30 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.01 |
| 35 | 2,4-Decadienal | 1315 | 1318 | 0.21 ± 0.06 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | 0.31 ± 0.01 | - | - |
| 36 | Eugenol | 1356 | 1351 | 1.12 ± 0.09 | 0.49 ± 0.03 | 0.20 ± 0.04 | 0.45 ± 0.09 | 3.67 ± 0.39 | 2.89 ± 0.29 |
| 37 | α-Copaene | 1374 | 1377 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.20 ± 0.06 | 0.16 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.02 |
| 38 | β-Bourbonene | 1388 | 1384 | 0.93 ± 0.01 | 0.40 ± 0.01 | 0.24 ± 0.05 | 0.53 ± 0.11 | 0.61 ± 0.04 | 0.48 ± 0.04 |
| 39 | Isolongifolene | 1390 | 1391 | - | - | - | - | 0.24 ± 0.03 | 0.19 ± 0.03 |
| 40 | Tetradecane | 1400 | 1399 | 0.22 ± 0.05 | 0.09 ± 0.02 | 0.13 ± 0.03 | 0.29 ± 0.07 | 0.21 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.01 |
| 41 | Dodecanal | 1408 | 1408 | 0.96 ± 0.05 | 0.42 ± 0.03 | 3.03 ± 0.32 | 6.75 ± 0.62 | - | - |
| 42 | β-Caryophyllene | 1417 | 1424 | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 1.33 ± 0.10 | 2.95 ± 0.18 | 19.90 ± 2.32 | 15.68 ± 1.92 |
| 43 | α-Humulene | 1452 | 1461 | - | - | - | - | 2.51 ± 0.04 | 1.98 ± 0.04 |
| 44 | allo-Aromadendrene | 1458 | 1466 | - | - | - | - | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.17 ± 0.01 |
| 45 | Germacrene D | 1484 | 1475 | 0.44 ± 0.18 | 0.19 ± 0.07 | 27.70 ± 1.67 | 61.63 ± 2.87 | - | - |
| 46 | trans-β-Ionone | 1487 | 1480 | - | - | - | - | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.01 |
| 47 | trans-Muurola-4(14),5-diene | 1493 | 1486 | - | - | - | - | 7.60 ± 0.42 | 5.99 ± 0.37 |
| 48 | Bicyclogermacrene | 1500 | 1498 | 0.26 ± 0.08 | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 1.18 ± 0.35 | 2.63 ± 0.82 | - | - |
| 49 | cis-γ-Bisabolene | 1514 | 1514 | 0.10 ± 0.03 | 0.04 ± 0.01 | 0.51 ± 0.07 | 1.14 ± 0.16 | - | - |
| 50 | δ-Cadinene | 1522 | 1519 | 0.27 ± 0.06 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.39 ± 0.02 | 0.31 ± 0.02 |
| 51 | trans-Nerolidol | 1561 | 1560 | 0.46 ± 0.15 | 0.20 ± 0.07 | 0.30 ± 0.03 | 0.67 ± 0.08 | - | - |
| 52 | C15H22O MW = 218 | - | 1579 | - | - | - | - | 0.70 ± 0.06 | 0.50 ± 0.05 |
| 53 | C15H24O MW = 220 | - | 1588 | - | - | - | - | 0.79 ± 0.06 | 0.62 ± 0.04 |
| 54 | C15H24O MW = 220 | - | 1640 | - | - | - | - | 1.01 ± 0.02 | 0.80 ± 0.01 |
| 55 | C15H24O MW = 220 | - | 1644 | - | - | - | - | 1.20 ± 0.05 | 0.95 ± 0.04 |
| 56 | Eudesma-4,(15),7-dien-1β-ol | 1687 | 1690 | - | - | - | - | 2.60 ± 0.16 | 2.05 ± 0.14 |
| 57 | Pentadecanal | 1709 d | 1705 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.07 ± 0.02 | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 0.15 ± 0.02 |
| 58 | Tetradecanoic acid | 1764 d | 1759 | 0.33 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.01 | - | - | 0.15 ± 0.02 | 0.12 ± 0.02 |
| 59 | Hexadecanal | 1815 d | 1816 | 0.25 ± 0.09 | 0.11 ± 0.04 | 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.81 ± 0.13 | - | - |
| 60 | Hexahydrofarnesylacetone | 1838 d | 1840 | 0.35 ± 0.13 | 0.15 ± 0.06 | 0.08 ± 0.01 | 0.19 ± 0.02 | 0.24 ± 0.02 | 0.19 ± 0.01 |
| 61 | Hexadecanoic acid | 1965 d | 1961 | 0.70 ± 0.33 | 0.31 ± 0.15 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.02 | 2.52 ± 0.36 | 1.98 ± 0.27 |
| 62 | Eicosane | 2000 | 1999 | 0.22 ± 0.04 | 0.10 ± 0.02 | - | - | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.04 |
| 63 | cis-Phytol | 2079 d | 2081 | 1.72 ± 0.23 | 0.74 ± 0.12 | 0.30 ± 0.02 | 0.66 ± 0.06 | 2.65 ± 0.65 | 2.09 ± 0.52 |
| 64 | Heneicosane | 2100 | 2100 | 0.62 ± 0.10 | 0.27 ± 0.05 | 0.34 ± 0.02 | 0.76 ± 0.05 | - | - |
| 65 | trans-Phytol | 2121 d | 2119 | 0.36 ± 0.11 | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | 0.11 ± 0.01 | 0.27 ± 0.03 | 0.21 ± 0.02 |
| 66 | Linolenic acid | 2137 d | 2136 | 0.16 ± 0.13 | 0.07 ± 0.06 | tr | tr | 1.60 ± 0.30 | 1.26 ± 0.24 |
| 67 | Tricosane | 2300 | 2300 | 1.62 ± 0.17 | 0.70 ± 0.06 | 0.71 ± 0.06 | 1.55 ± 0.16 | 0.54 ± 0.04 | 0.43 ± 0.04 |
| 68 | Tetracosane | 2400 | 2400 | 0.38 ± 0.08 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.14 ± 0.02 | 0.30 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | 0.18 ± 0.01 |
| 69 | Pentacosane | 2500 | 2500 | 0.59 ± 0.12 | 0.25 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.36 ± 0.08 | 0.52 ± 0.08 | 0.41 ± 0.07 |
| 70 | Hexacosane | 2600 | 2600 | 0.12 ± 0.03 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | - | - | 0.09 ± 0.03 | 0.07 ± 0.02 |
| 71 | Eptacosane | 2700 | 2700 | 0.72 ± 0.14 | 0.31 ± 0.05 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | 0.35 ± 0.06 | 0.37 ± 0.01 | 0.30 ± 0.01 |
| 72 | Octacosane | 2800 | 2800 | - | - | - | - | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.04 ± 0.01 |
| 73 | Squalene | 2829 d | 2828 | 0.70 ± 0.24 | 0.31 ± 0.11 | - | - | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.02 |
| 74 | Nonacosane | 2900 | 2901 | 2.98 ± 0.21 | 1.29 ± 0.12 | 0.36 ± 0.05 | 0.80 ± 0.12 | 0.80 ± 0.05 | 0.63 ± 0.03 |
| 75 | Entriacontane | 3100 | 3102 | 0.54 ± 0.23 | 0.23 ± 0.09 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.10 ± 0.05 | 0.24 ± 0.04 | 0.19 ± 0.03 |
| Aldehydes | 43.71 ± 0.01 | 18.91 ± 0.44 | 42.64 ± 0.46 | 94.93 ± 2.33 | 13.02 ± 0.86 | 10.50 ± 0.95 | |||
| Alcohols | 25.70 ± 1.67 | 11.11 ± 0.47 | 12.09 ± 0.24 | 26.92 ± 0.89 | 22.72 ± 1.68 | 18.35 ± 1.85 | |||
| Terpenes | 6.85 ± 0.68 | 2.97 ± 0.36 | 32.42 ± 1.24 | 72.15 ± 1.77 | 46.11 ± 3.21 | 36.34 ± 2.75 | |||
| Hydrocarbons | 8.45 ± 0.22 | 3.66 ± 0.01 | 2.18 ± 0.25 | 4.85 ± 0.61 | 3.87 ± 0.11 | 3.05 ± 0.10 | |||
| Esters | 3.76 ± 1.29 | 1.63 ± 0.59 | 1.52 ± 0.04 | 3.37 ± 0.11 | 2.72 ± 0.29 | 2.20 ± 0.29 | |||
| Phenolics | 1.64 ± 0.37 | 0.71 ± 0.14 | 1.06 ± 0.09 | 2.35 ± 0.16 | 3.97 ± 0.38 | 3.13 ± 0.28 | |||
| Acids | 1.19 ± 0.44 | 0.52 ± 0.21 | 0.10 ± 0.01 | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 4.27 ± 0.04 | 3.37 ± 0.02 | |||
| Miscellaneous | 1.04 ± 0.12 | 0.64 ± 0.20 | 0.19 ± 0.07 | 0.43 ± 0.15 | 1.47 ± 0.09 | 1.17 ± 0.08 | |||
| Total | 92.33 ± 0.26 | 40.13 ± 0.78 | 92.18 ± 0.41 | 205.21 ± 1.87 | 98.14 ± 0.02 | 78.09 ± 0.62 | |||
a Compounds listed in order of elution from an Elite-5 column. b According to Adams 2006, unless stated otherwise. c Calculated by GC using n-alkane series (C6–C32) under the same analytical conditions as for the samples. d Calculated using authentic reference standards. tr, traces (<0.01%); values >0.01% quoted to nearest 0.01%.
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Tava, A.; Biazzi, E.; Ronga, D.; Avato, P. Identification of the Volatile Components of Galium verum L. and Cruciata leavipes Opiz from the Western Italian Alps. Molecules 2020, 25, 2333. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25102333
AMA Style
Tava A, Biazzi E, Ronga D, Avato P. Identification of the Volatile Components of Galium verum L. and Cruciata leavipes Opiz from the Western Italian Alps. Molecules. 2020; 25(10):2333. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25102333
Chicago/Turabian StyleTava, Aldo, Elisa Biazzi, Domenico Ronga, and Pinarosa Avato. 2020. "Identification of the Volatile Components of Galium verum L. and Cruciata leavipes Opiz from the Western Italian Alps" Molecules 25, no. 10: 2333. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25102333
