JUNIPER BERRY OIL Juniperus communis

Höferl et al. analysed a berry essential oil described as “a commercial product from Bulgaria”. Sytykiewicz et al. analysed an essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation from dried cones, which they call “cone-berries”. The two studies are presented separately below; their figures are not combined.

Which plant does this page cover?

Höferl et al. name the plant “Juniperus communis L., Cupressaceae”. Sytykiewicz et al. write “Juniperus communis L.” in their materials section and “Juniperus communis (L.)” in the title of their Table 2.

What did Höferl et al. analyse, and how?

The material is the essential oil of juniper berries, “a commercial product from Bulgaria”, a single sample; this is the origin of the product as the study states it, not a harvest location.

GC/FID and GC/MS analyses were carried out simultaneously, one inlet connected to a 50 m × 0.25 mm × 1.0 μm SE-54 column, the other to a 60 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm Carbowax 20 M column. The carrier gas was helium at a constant flow rate of 1.5 mL/min; the injector was at 230 °C, the FID detector at 250 °C, the GC/MS interface at 250 °C and the ion source at 150 °C, in EI mode at 70 eV, with a scan range of 40–300 amu. The oven programme was 46 °C for 1 min, then 46 °C–100 °C at 5 °C/min, then 100 °C–230 °C at 2 °C/min, then 230 °C for 13.2 min. Compounds were identified with mass-spectral correlations against NIST, Adams Essential Oils, MassFinder and the authors’ own library, and retention indices of reference compounds and from literature data were used to confirm peak data. Quantification was performed via peak area calculations of the FID chromatogram.

What does the berry oil studied by Höferl et al. contain?

According to the text of the study, this oil mainly comprises mono- and sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (80.4% and 9.6%, respectively), and oxygenated derivatives are only minor constituents; these class totals are given by the text, not by the composition table. In the composition table, the “sum” row has a “% Area” of 96.0.

The rows below are those of the composition table for this one sample, in its “% Area” column, which holds relative peak areas of the FID chromatogram; each compound is written as the table writes it, with its retention index (RI). The table gives no definition of “trace”.

• “toluene” (RI 771): “trace”.
• “hexanal” (RI 800): “trace”.
• “α-thujene” (RI 933): 0.9.
• “α-pinene” (RI 943): 51.4, in this sample.
• “α-fenchene” (RI 957): 0.2.
• “camphene” (RI 959): 0.8.
• “thuja-2,4(10)-diene” (RI 964): 0.2.
• “sabinene” (RI 981): 5.8.
• “β-pinene” (RI 988): 5.0.
• “myrcene” (RI 992): 8.3.
• “δ-3-carene” (RI 1019): 0.2.
• “α-terpinene” (RI 1024): 0.1.
• “p-cymene” (RI 1032): 0.9.
• “limonene” (RI 1037): 5.1.
• “β-phellandrene” (RI 1038): 0.5.
• “(E)-β-ocimene” (RI 1050): 0.1.
• “γ-terpinene” (RI 1065): 0.2.
• “cis-sabinene hydrate” (RI 1075): 0.1.
• “terpinolene” (RI 1096): 0.4.
• “linalool” (RI 1101): 0.1.
• “perillene” (RI 1104): 0.1.
• “trans-sabinene hydrate” (RI 1107): 0.1.
• “α-pinene oxide” (RI 1111): 0.1.
• “trans-p-menth-2-en-1-ol” (RI 1131): “tr”; the table writes “tr” here and “trace” on other rows, with no legend for either.
• “campholen aldehyde” (RI 1136): 0.1.
• “trans-pinocarveol” (RI 1154): 0.3.
• “cis-verbenol” (RI 1156): 0.5.
• “borneol” (RI 1180): “trace”.
• “terpinen-4-ol” (RI 1189): 0.9.
• “p-cymen-8-ol” (RI 1193): 0.2.
• “α-terpineol” (RI 1201): 0.2.
• “myrtenol” (RI 1208): 0.1.
• “myrtenal” (RI 1210): 0.2.
• “verbenone” (RI 1223): 0.2.
• “trans-carveol” (RI 1228): 0.2.
• “carvone” (RI 1256): 0.1.
• “methyl citronellate” (RI 1260): 0.1.
• “undecan-2-one” (RI 1294): 0.1.
• “bornyl acetate” (RI 1298): 0.3.
• “methyl geranate” (RI 1326): “trace”.
• “citronellyl acetate” (RI 1352): 0.1.
• “terpinyl acetate” (RI 1359): 0.1.
• “α-cubebene” (RI 1366): 0.6.
• “geranyl acetate” (RI 1382): “trace”.
• “α-copaene” (RI 1397): 0.5.
• “β-elemene” (RI 1409): 0.7.
• “α-gurjunene” (RI 1426): 0.2.
• “longifolene” (RI 1438): 0.1.
• “(E)-β-caryopyhllene” (RI 1447): 2.0; the name is spelt here exactly as the table spells it.
• “γ-elemene” (RI 1451): 0.1.
• “(E)-β-farnesene” (RI 1461): 0.3.
• “α-humulene” (RI 1481): 1.3.
• “γ-muurolene” (RI 1497): 0.4.
• “α-amorphene” (RI 1501): 0.1.
• “germacrene D” (RI 1507): 1.1.
• “β-selinene” (RI 1515): 0.2.
• “α-muurolene” (RI 1520): 0.4.
• “α-selinene” (RI 1521): 0.2.
• “γ-cadinene” (RI 1538): 0.5.
• “δ-cadinene” (RI 1543): 0.8.
• “α-cadinene” (RI 1560): 0.1.
• “spathulenol” (RI 1607): 0.3.
• “caryophyllene oxide” (RI 1616): 0.9.
• “humulene epoxide II” (RI 1643): 0.5.
• “τ-muurol + τ-cadinol” (RI 1668): 0.2, a single value for the two compounds on one row; the table does not give the share of either.
• “α-cadinol” (RI 1681): 0.1.
• “m-camphorene” (RI 1964): 0.2.
• “p-camphorene” (RI 2002): 0.1.

What did Sytykiewicz et al. analyse, and how?

The essential oil comes from the cones (“cone-berries”) of “Juniperus communis L.”; the dried plant material was obtained from a local herbal store in Poland, which is where it was bought, not where it was harvested. The study does not state the geographical origin of the plant or the number of batches.

The plant materials under study were ground into a fine powder and sieved to obtain particles of 20–40 mesh. Portions of 40 g were weighed and subjected to essential oil extraction for 3 h by hydrodistillation in a Clevenger-type apparatus.

After extraction, the oils were collected, dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate, filtered and stored at 4 °C in tightly sealed vials until analysis. The composition was analysed by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry, on a capillary column 30 m long, with an internal diameter of 0.25 mm and a film thickness of 0.25 μm. The temperature programme ran from 40 °C to 280 °C at 5 °C/min; the injection port and transfer line were at 280 °C, and the helium carrier gas flow was 1 mL/min. Samples of 1 μL were injected, with electron impact ionisation at 70 eV and full-scan acquisition over m/z 35–400. Constituents were identified by comparing the retention indices and mass spectra obtained with those “reported in the literature” and with the NIST Mass Spectral Library.

What does the cone oil studied by Sytykiewicz et al. contain?

The GC-MS analysis identified 81 chemical constituents in this cone oil, which the authors call “EOJ”, from this material and with this method. In their conclusions, the authors describe this oil as an “α-pinene-rich chemotype”; the word is theirs, and it applies to this one oil.

In section 2.1, the authors write that the predominant compound of this oil was α-pinene, a monoterpene: “α-pinene (22%)”.

Table 2 gives the GC-MS identification and quantification of the compounds of this oil in the columns “RT”, “RI” and “Peak Area (%)”; the study does not describe how “Peak Area (%)” is calculated. The “Total” row of Table 2 is 85.7 in “Peak Area (%)”.

The rows below are those of Table 2 for this one oil, in its “Peak Area (%)” column, except the “α-Pinene” row, which is not reproduced here; each compound is written as the table writes it, with its retention index (RI).

• “Tricyclene” (RI 919): 0.1.
• “α-Thujene” (RI 926): 0.5.
• “Camphene” (RI 946): 0.3.
• “2,4(10)-Thujadiene” (RI 952): <0.1.
• “Sabinene” (RI 971): 2.3.
• “β-Pinene” (RI 974): 1.8.
• “β-Myrcene” (RI 991): 3.2.
• “Δ3-Carene” (RI 1009): <0.1.
• “p-Cymene” (RI 1023): 3.6.
• “Limonene” (RI 1027): 2.3.
• “1,8-Cineole” (RI 1029): 0.1.
• “(Z)-Sabinene hydrate” (RI 1066): 0.1.
• “α-Pinene oxide” (RI 1096): 1.1.
• “Perillene” (RI 1100): 0.2.
• “α-Fenchol” (RI 1112): <0.1.
• “β-Thujone” (RI 1115): 0.2.
• “Dehydrosabinaketone” (RI 1118): 0.1.
• “(Z)-p-Menth-2-en-1-ol” (RI 1120): 0.2.
• “α-Campholenal” (RI 1125): 0.4.
• “cis-Limonene-oxide” (RI 1132): <0.1.
• “trans-Pinocarveol” (RI 1138): 0.9.
• “cis-Verbenol” (RI 1144): 1.3.
• “(E)-p-Menth-2-en-1-ol” (RI 1147): 0.1.
• “Pinocarvone” (RI 1162): 0.3.
• “Borneol” (RI 1165): 0.4.
• “Terpinen-4-ol” (RI 1177): 3.3.
• “p-Cymen-8-ol” (RI 1185): 1.0.
• “α-Terpineol” (RI 1190): 0.7.
• “Myrtenal” (RI 1195): 0.5.
• “Methyl chavicol” (RI 1198): 0.5.
• “Verbenone” (RI 1208): 2.0.
• “trans-Carveol” (RI 1219): 0.3.
• “Cuminyl aldehyde” (RI 1239): 0.1.
• “Carvone” (RI 1244): 0.2.
• “p-Anisaldehyde” (RI 1254): 1.6.
• “p-Menth-2-en-1,4-diol” (RI 1269): 0.1.
• “trans-Anethol” (RI 1285): 0.6.
• “Bornyl acetate” (RI 1286): 0.7.
• “2-Undecanone” (RI 1293): 0.2.
• “α-Cubebene” (RI 1351): 1.1.
• “Eugenol” (RI 1358): 0.1.
• “α-Ylangene” (RI 1373): 0.1.
• “α-Copaene” (RI 1377): 1.5.
• “β-Elemene” (RI 1393): 2.1.
• “Bicyclo-4(15)-oppositene” (RI 1407): 0.1.
• “(E)-β-caryophyllene” (RI 1421): 0.4.
• “β-Copaene” (RI 1431): 0.1.
• “γ-Elemene” (RI 1435): 0.1.
• “(E)-α-Bergamotene” (RI 1437): 0.1.
• “Guaia-6,9-diene” (RI 1444): 0.1.
• “α-Caryophyllene” (RI 1456): 0.7, under the name the table gives.
• “γ-Muurolene” (RI 1479): 1.5.
• “β-Selinene” (RI 1489): 1.3.
• “epi-Cubebol” (RI 1497): 0.7.
• “γ-Cadinene” (RI 1517): 1.9.
• “trans-Calamenene” (RI 1525): 0.5.
• “Selina-3,7(11)-diene” (RI 1539): 0.1.
• “Nootkatene” (RI 1540): 0.2.
• “α-Calacorene” (RI 1545): 0.2.
• “Elemol” (RI 1552): 0.3.
• “β-Calacorene” (RI 1565): 0.2.
• “Mintoxide” (RI 1570): 0.2.
• “Spathulenol” (RI 1581): 3.1.
• “Caryophyllene oxide” (RI 1586): 3.7; the table also has a separate “trans-Caryophyllene oxide” row.
• “4(14)-Salvialene-1-one” (RI 1597): 0.4.
• “1,2-Humulenepoxide” (RI 1613): 3.4.
• “trans-Caryophyllene oxide” (RI 1602): 0.2.
• “1-epi-Cubenol” (RI 1631): 1.0.
• “epi-α-Cadinol” (RI 1645): 1.8.
• “α-Muurolol” (RI 1649): 0.5.
• “β-Eudesmol” (RI 1654): 0.2.
• “α-Cadinol” (RI 1658): 2.3.
• “10β-Hydroxy-cis-calamenene” (RI 1662): 0.4.
• “ar-Turmerone” (RI 1666): 0.2.
• “10α-Hydroxy-cis-calamenene” (RI 1671): 0.7.
• “Cadalene” (RI 1678): 0.4.
• “Oplopanone” (RI 1741): 0.3.
• “Benzyl benzoate” (RI 1766): 0.1.
• “Manoyl oxide” (RI 1997): 0.1.
• “Abietatriene” (RI 2060): 0.4.

Which ISO standards bear the name of this oil?

In the ISO catalogue consulted, ISO 8897:2010 is titled “Oil of juniper berry (Juniperus communis L.)”, is at stage 90.93 and falls under ISO/TC 54. In the same catalogue, ISO 8897:1991, “Oil of juniper berry (Juniperus communis Linnaeus)”, is marked “Withdrawn”, at stage 95.99, under ISO/TC 54.

What regulatory and hazard data are documented?

References

• Govaerts R. (ed.), World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew — https://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/WCVP/wcvp.zip
• Höferl M., Stoilova I., Schmidt E., Wanner J., Jirovetz L., Trifonova D., Krastev L., Krastanov A., « Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Properties of Juniper Berry (Juniperus communis L.) Essential Oil. Action of the Essential Oil on the Antioxidant Protection of Saccharomyces cerevisiae Model Organism », Antioxidants 2014;3(1):81-98, doi:10.3390/antiox3010081 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC4665443/fullTextXML
• Sytykiewicz H., Łukasik I., Goławska S., « Chemical Composition, Anti-Tyrosinase and Antioxidant Potential of Essential Oils from Acorus calamus (L.) and Juniperus communis (L.) », Molecules 2025;30(11):2417, doi:10.3390/molecules30112417 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12156826/fullTextXML
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO), online catalogue, ICS 71.100.60 « Essential oils », archived copy of 19/03/2026 (Internet Archive) — https://web.archive.org/web/20260319152944id_/https://www.iso.org/ics/71.100.60/x/