Plants · Spices
Angelica archangelica: root and seed essential oils
Angelica archangelica L.
- Family
- Apiaceae
Species
| Binomial | Angelica archangelica |
|---|---|
| Accepted name | Angelica archangelica L. |
| WCVP status | accepted |
| Family | Apiaceae |
| IPNI identifier | urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:837560-1 |
Source: Govaerts R. (ed.), World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, accessed on 21/09/2026.
Key facts
- Wang et al. (2025) studied an essential oil hydrodistilled from the root of A. archangelica.
- In that root oil, “δ-3-Carene” accounts for 24.26 %RA and “Limonene” for 19.81 %RA.
- Langrand et al. (2026) had seed oils steam-distilled in France, from plants grown on a “TE-polluted” soil.
- In those seed oils, “β-Phellandrene” is given as “76.27± 0.20” and “76.30 ± 0.40” (in %), and as “80.16 ± 0.14” in a commercial control oil.
This page describes two distinct products of Angelica archangelica L.: an oil hydrodistilled from the root and oils steam-distilled from the seeds. According to Wang et al. (2025), 35 compounds, accounting for 96.94 % of the root oil, were identified. The seed oils of Langrand et al. (2026) come from one field trial and are compared with a commercial seed oil used as a control.
How is the plant named?
Wang et al. (2025) name the plant Angelica archangelica L.
What do the root and seed oils contain?
What did GC-MS identify in the root oil?
According to Wang et al. (2025), 35 compounds, accounting for 96.94 % of the A. archangelica essential oil, were identified. Table 2 gives “Total identified (%)” as 96.94. The table below gives the rows of Table 2 retained on this page, in %RA, for the root essential oil.
| Peak | AI | Compound, as written | %RA |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 1010 | “δ-3-Carene” | 24.26 |
| 13 | 1031 | “Limonene” | 19.81 |
| 3 | 932 | “α-Pinene” | 14.96 |
| 12 | 1023 | “o-Cymene” (the text, in 3.1, writes “ο-Cymene”, with a Greek omicron) | 9.94 |
| 6 | 973 | “β-Pinene” | 6.55 |
| 15 | 1101 | “Linalool” | 6.49 |
| 8 | 988 | “Myrcene” | 5.60 |
| 4 | 947 | “Camphene” | 1.50 |
| 11 | 1013 | “1,4-Cineole” | 1.38 |
| 32 | 1717 | “(3E)-Butylidene phthalide” | 1.06 |
Which compounds were measured in the seed oils?
Table 1 of Langrand et al. (2026) gives the following values, in %, for the oils distilled from Angelica seeds of the non-inoculated (NI) and inoculated (I) plots of the polluted soil. It gives the same compounds for the commercial control oil distilled from Angelica seeds; a “–” is the cell as the table writes it.
| Compound, as written | RT | KI* | NI plot (%) | I plot (%) | Commercial control oil (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “β-Phellandrene” | 1.795 | 1026 | “76.27± 0.20” | “76.30 ± 0.40” | “80.16 ± 0.14” |
| “α-Pinene” | 1.262 | 933 | “7.36 ± 0.69” | “7.41 ± 0.31” | “7.02 ± 0.08” |
| “α-Phellandrene” | 1.644 | 999 | “3.26 ± 0.11” | “3.27 ± 0.09” | “4.20 ± 0.14” |
| “β-Curcumene” | 4.458 | 1553 | “2.06 ± 0.03” | “2.11 ± 0.09” | “–” |
| “β-Myrcene” | 1.552 | 979 | “1.43 ± 0.07” | “1.31 ± 0.08” | “1.65 ± 0.05” |
| “Humulene” | 4.154 | 1457 | “1.40 ± 0.08” | “1.38 ± 0.04” | “1.63 ± 0.04” |
How were the root and seed oils analysed?
According to Wang et al. (2025), the components of the root oil were identified by GC-MS on a DB-5 MS fused silica capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm). The oil was diluted in n-hexane and injected at 250 °C, 1 μL of a 10 % solution per injection. The oven was held at 50 °C for 2 min, raised to 240 °C at 10 °C per minute and held for 5 min. The carrier gas was helium, at a flow rate written “1.0 μL/min”, and spectra were scanned from 50 to 550 m/z.
In Wang et al. (2025), retention indices were determined against a homologous series of n-alkanes (C7–C40) under the same conditions, and components were identified with NIST 14.L. The note to Table 2 defines AI as the arithmetic index on a DB5 column, MS as a mass spectrum match with the NIST library and AS as an authentic sample. The relative percentages of the components were quantified from peak areas. Note b of Table 2 defines “%RA” as the relative area, the peak area relative to the total peak area.
In Langrand et al. (2026), the composition of the three seed oils (2020 I and NI; commercial oil) was determined by gas chromatography. The chromatograph was simultaneously coupled to a flame ionisation detector and a mass spectrometer.
In Langrand et al. (2026), the oils, first diluted in ethyl acetate (1:500 v/v), were injected in split mode (ratio 1:80), 0.2 µL at 220 °C. The column was a ZB-5MS capillary column (5 % phenylarylene / 95 % dimethylpolysiloxane, length 10 m, internal diameter 0.10 mm, phase thickness 0.10 μm). The carrier gas (helium) was held at a constant linear velocity of 60 cm·s⁻¹; the oven started at 60 °C for 30 s, then rose linearly by 25 °C·min⁻¹ to a plateau of 315 °C (1 min).
In Langrand et al. (2026), mass spectra were obtained by electron ionisation at 70 eV and recorded from 35 to 500 amu (m/z), with the ion source at 280 °C and the transfer line at 240 °C. Kovats indices were determined from retention times and the co-injection of a series of n-alkanes of 8 to 40 carbon atoms.
In Langrand et al. (2026), compounds were identified by comparing Kovats indices and mass spectra with those of the NIST and Wiley 275 libraries. The relative percentages of the oil constituents were measured from peak areas.
How are the oils obtained?
How was the root oil obtained?
According to Wang et al. (2025), the essential oil studied was extracted from the root of A. archangelica by hydrodistillation.
How were the seed-bearing plants grown and harvested?
According to Langrand et al. (2026), A. archangelica L., which the source describes as “a perennial aromatic plant species”, was sown in September 2018 at “300,000 seeds per hectare”. It was grown for 2 years on a 7100 m² “TE-polluted” soil, at “50◦25′55.5′′ N, 3◦02′25.5′′ E”. The trial field was divided into two plots, one inoculated (I) and one non-inoculated (NI), with a commercial mycorrhizal inoculant containing the “AMF” Rhizophagus irregularis. The Angelica seeds were harvested with a combine in summer, when the seeds reached maturity (June 2020).
How were the seed oils distilled?
In Langrand et al. (2026), the essential oils of the study were distilled from Angelica seeds harvested in 2020 on the NI and I plots, by an essential oil producer in France. The distillation ran in a three-hour cycle until no more oil was recovered, on a steam-distillation unit (“14 m3 tank-saturated water steam, 0.3 bar”). The Angelica essential oils were stored at 4 °C in tightly closed brown glass vials until analysis and use.
Which commercial oil served as a control?
According to Langrand et al. (2026), a commercial essential oil distilled from Angelica seeds was analysed and used as a control.
See also: Pimpinella anisum, Foeniculum vulgare, steam distillation, drops ↔ ml converter.
References
- Wang G., Ge X., Lü D., Zhang Z., Wang L., Sun S., Jia X., Zhang B., Kuanysh K., Dani S., Wang H., « Insecticidal Activity of Angelica archangelica Essential Oil and Transcriptomic Analysis of Sitophilus zeamais in Response to Oil Fumigation », Biology 2025;14(11):1606, doi:10.3390/biology14111606 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12649985/fullTextXML
- Langrand J., Fontaine J., Verdin A., Laruelle F., Facon N., Fourmentin S., Lounès-Hadj Sahraoui A., « Biocidal, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory activities of essential oils extracted from Angelica spp. cultivated on contaminated soils », Scientific Reports 2026;16:2695, doi:10.1038/s41598-025-32550-5 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12824355/fullTextXML
- Govaerts R. (ed.), World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew — https://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/WCVP/wcvp.zip