ArticleBMC plant biology2026
Volatile compounds of volatile oils and hydrosols: intra-specific comparison in seven Lamiaceae species.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aromatic plants of the Lamiaceae family are widely recognized as major natural sources of volatile oils (VOs), with broad applications in pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and food systems. In contrast, hydrosols (HYDs)-the aqueous co-products of hydrodistillation-have received comparatively less attention, despite growing industrial relevance and the potential to provide distinct, water-compatible aromatic signatures. In the present work, the volatile signatures of VOs and taxon-matched HYDs from seven Lamiaceae species (Lavandula × intermedia, Melissa officinalis, Mentha × piperita, Origanum onites, Salvia rosmarinus, Salvia fruticosa, and Salvia officinalis) were profiled and contrasted using GC/FID-MS for VOs and SPME-GC/FID-MS for HYDs. HYDs were produced in a separate HYD-oriented hydrodistillation run; thus, VO-HYD differences reflect protocol- and matrix-dependent profiles rather than phase partitioning within a single distillation. By profiling both distillation products across seven taxa, this study helps characterize recurring matrix- and protocol-dependent compositional fingerprints of VO and HYD. Because HYDs and VOs were analyzed using different sampling modes and matrices, peak-area percentages are reported as within-matrix distributions and are not treated as directly comparable concentrations. Across taxa, oxygenated terpenes dominated both products, typically driven by oxygenated monoterpenes. VOs were generally characterized by a stronger presence of less polar and highly volatile compounds (e.g., monoterpene hydrocarbons and selected esters/ketones), whereas HYDs showed a more pronounced contribution of polar oxygenated compounds, including alcohols, oxides, and oxygenated sesquiterpenes. Several moderately water-soluble volatiles were consistently prominent in HYDs, highlighting the recurrent representation of several moderately polar oxygenated volatiles in HYDs. Overall, under the applied protocol, HYDs appeared as chemically distinct distillates with a stronger relative representation of polar oxygenated volatiles, supporting their potential use as complementary aromatic resources for aqueous-oriented formulations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.