MUGWORT Artemisia vulgaris

According to the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP, Kew), in the extract read on 21 September 2026, Artemisia vulgaris L. is a name of rank “Species” with the status “Accepted”, placed in the family Asteraceae. In the oil hydrodistilled from fresh leaves collected in Manipur and analysed by direct injection, Table 1 of Singh et al. (2023) gives line 11, “Eucalyptol”, a relative area (RA%) of 29.91. According to Malik et al. (2019), the highest contents of their oil, distilled from dried leaves, were 37.45 % of caryophyllene, followed by germacrene-D (16.17 %) and humulene with 13.66 %.

Which WCVP record bears the name, and how do the sources write it?

The WCVP record of Artemisia vulgaris L. carries the identifier 2922622. Singh et al. (2023) write the name “A. vulgaris” in their text. Malik et al. (2019) also write “A. vulgaris”.

Two oils are described below, each from its own study, organ and process; their figures are not averaged or set against each other.

Where were the leaves distilled by Singh et al. (2023) collected?

According to Singh et al. (2023), the fresh leaves of “A. vulgaris” used in their study were collected in June 2022 on the hillocks of the Phayeng region, in the Imphal West district (Manipur), at “N 24° 16.275, E 093° 52.651”, at an altitude of “874 m”.

How was the Singh et al. oil obtained?

The fresh leaves (“500 g”) were hydrodistilled “for 4 h” in a Clevenger apparatus. The essential oils obtained were dried over anhydrous sodium sulphate and kept in a freezer until use.

How was the Singh et al. oil analysed?

For the headspace SPME, the oil (“2 mL”) was placed in a clear “10 mL” vial with a silicone-septum cap, and a “75 µm CAR/PDMS” SPME fibre was exposed to it “for 10 min” before being introduced into the chromatograph. Direct injection used “0.5 µL (1:100, AVEO: n-hexane)” of oil, and for SPME the fibre was injected “for 2 min” into the GC-MS. The GC-MS analysis was run on a Trace 1300 (GC) coupled to a TSQ DUO (MS), fitted with a TG-5MS fused-silica capillary column “(30 m × 0.25 mm; 0.25 μm film thickness)”. For GC, the oven was programmed “from 40° to 280 °C”, at “5 °C” per minute, with helium as carrier gas at a flow rate of “1.0 mL” per minute. The transfer line and the ion source of the mass detector were set at “250 °C and 280 °C” respectively, and the injector at “240 °C”, in split mode “1:20” — a split ratio distinct from the 1:100 dilution of the oil in n-hexane. Mass spectra were taken at “70 eV” over a mass range “from 35 to 450 Mw”. In Table 1, the “RSI” column is the reverse search index (“Reverse search index”) on the TG-5MS capillary column. The “RA%” values of Table 1 are relative areas: the peak area relative to the total peak area.

What did Singh et al. (2023) detect in the oil?

According to Singh et al. (2023), 47 compounds were detected in the oil by direct injection, accounting for “97.66%” of the total area. The same 47 compounds were detected by the SPME analysis of the oil, accounting for “97.35%” of the total area. With both methods, the major compounds were “eucalyptol”, followed by “sabinene”, “endo-Borneol”, “2, 7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-4-ol” and “10-epi-ç-Eudesmol”, in the authors’ order. These two names are written thus in the results text; Table 1 writes “2,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-4-ol” and “10-epi-γ-Eudesmol”, and neither spelling corrects the other.

What does Table 1 of Singh et al. (2023) give for the direct injection of the oil?

For the oil hydrodistilled from fresh leaves of the Phayeng region (Manipur), the “Direct AVEO Injection Method” column of Table 1 gives the following relative areas (RA%), with each compound named as the table writes it.

The name of line 4, “p-mentha-1(7)”, is incomplete as the table writes it, and that of line 30 ends with a comma; neither is completed here. Line 18 is given under the table’s name, “(-)-Alcanfor”, and no identity with another name is drawn here. The name of line 45, “Dihydro-cis-à-copaene-8-ol”, is given as the table writes it, uncorrected.

What does Table 1 of Singh et al. (2023) give for the SPME of the oil headspace?

For the same oil, sampled by SPME of the headspace of the oil, the “AVEO SPME Method” column of Table 1 gives the following relative areas (RA%), with each compound named as the table writes it.

On line 38, the table writes the name two ways: “1,6,10-Dodecatrien-3-ol,3,7,11-trimethyl-, (E)-” in the direct-injection column and “1,6,10-Dodecatrien-3-ol,3,7,11-trimethyl-” in the SPME column; each is given in its own column. The names of lines 4, 18, 30 and 45 are given in this column as the table writes them, as in the direct-injection column.

Where were the plants studied by Malik et al. (2019) collected, and how were they identified?

According to Malik et al. (2019), aerial parts (“before the onset of flowering”) of “A. vulgaris” were collected in August 2016 from plants growing in the botanical garden of the Federal University of Maranhão, Sao Luís, Maranhão, Brazil. The plants were identified and authenticated by Dr. Eduardo B. de Almeida Junior, and the voucher specimens (number “8.637”) were kept at the herbarium of the Federal University of Maranhão, Sao Luis, Brazil.

How was the Malik et al. oil obtained?

To extract the essential oils, the leaves were dried at 40 °C in an oven with circulating air. The material was then sliced into small pieces and extracted with water by hydro-distillation for 3 h in a Clevenger-type apparatus. The essential oils thus obtained (1.3 mL) were dried over anhydrous sodium sulphate and stored at 4 °C until use. The authors give the essential oil extracted from the leaves of Brazilian “A. vulgaris” as “(0.5%, v/v)”.

How was the Malik et al. oil analysed?

The essential oils were analysed with a GC-2010 plus gas chromatograph coupled to a GCMS-QP2010 SE mass spectrometry detector and fitted with an AOC20i auto-injector. A capillary Rtx-5MS column (30 m × 0.25 mm i.d. × 0.25 µm film thickness) was used for separation, with helium (flow rate 1.0 mL/min) as carrier gas. The temperature was held at 60 °C for 5 min, then programmed to 240 °C at 3 °C per minute; samples were injected at 250 °C, with an injection volume of 1.0 μL at a 1:30 split ratio. Mass spectra were obtained by electron impact ionisation (70 eV) in full scan mode (40 to 500 m/z), with an ion source at 200 °C. Compounds were identified by comparing retention indices (RI) and mass spectra with data from the “NIST 11.0 MS” library and from the literature.

What did Malik et al. (2019) report for their oil?

According to Malik et al. (2019), the results indicated 18 chemical compounds in the chromatogram, making up 100 % of the total components detected. The highest contents were 37.45 % of caryophyllene, followed by germacrene-D (16.17 %) and humulene with 13.66 %. The text of section 3.1 writes “germacrene-D”, the table “Germacrene D”, and the abstract “germacrene D”. Monoterpene hydrocarbons “were not found” in the essential oil in the present investigation, whereas one diterpene (phytol, 2.94 %) was detected.

What does Table 1 of Malik et al. (2019) give?

For the oil hydrodistilled from dried leaves of plants of the botanical garden of the Federal University of Maranhão, Table 1 gives the following lines, with each compound named as the table writes it; “RI” is given by the table’s note as “Retention index”.

References

• Govaerts R. (ed.), World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew — https://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/WCVP/wcvp.zip
• Singh N.B., Devi M.L., Biona T., Sharma N., Das S., Chakravorty J., Mukherjee P.K., Rajashekar Y., « Phytochemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of Essential Oil from the Leaves of Artemisia vulgaris L. », Molecules 2023;28(5):2279, doi:10.3390/molecules28052279 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC10005419/fullTextXML
• Malik S., de Mesquita L.S.S., Silva C.R., de Mesquita J.W.C., de Sá Rocha E., Bose J., Abiri R., de Maria Silva Figueiredo P., Costa-Júnior L.M., « Chemical Profile and Biological Activities of Essential Oil from Artemisia vulgaris L. Cultivated in Brazil », Pharmaceuticals 2019;12(2):49, doi:10.3390/ph12020049 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC6631396/fullTextXML