🌿 Aromatic Plants

ROSEMARY CAMPHOR Salvia rosmarinus Spenn.

Key Properties

Quick Navigation

🌿 Camphor chemotype 🌿 Species 🌿 How rosemary oil is defined 🌿 European Pharmacopoeia ranges 🌿 Wild rosemary from Algeria 🌿 Chemotypes described 🌿 ISO standard 🌿 How camphor is regulated 🌿 Adverse effects documented 🌿 Laboratory and animal studies 🌿 Camphor poisoning 🌿 References
Introduction
Rosemary oil, camphor chemotype

Species

BinomialRosmarinus officinalis
Accepted nameSalvia rosmarinus Spenn.
POWO statussynonym
FamilyLamiaceae
GenusSalvia
IPNI identifierurn:lsid:ipni.org:names:457138-1

Source: Govaerts R. (ed.), World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, accessed on 21/09/2026.

What is the camphor chemotype of rosemary oil?

According to Guelifet and co-authors (2025), their results establish that the wild rosemary population they studied in Algeria belongs to the camphor–alpha-pinene chemotype, which they distinguish from the verbenone–bornyl acetate chemotype common in cultivated varieties and from the 1,8-cineole–camphor chemotype prevalent in some Mediterranean regions; they describe it as consistent with the Romanian type but distinct from the Tunisian reference. The 2024 HMPC assessment report on rosemary (EMA/HMPC/681037/2021) states that the structure of the carbon skeleton of the main constituents of the essential oil points to three biogenetic types: the eucalyptol type (Italy, Morocco and Tunisia), the camphor-borneol type (Spain) and the alpha-pinene-verbenone type (France, Corsica); the paragraph closes on a reference to Chandler (1985), and the three types carry no reference of their own.

Which species is the oil obtained from?

In the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP, Kew), extract read on 02/10/2026, the name with identifier 183733 has the rank “Species”, the status “Accepted” and the family Lamiaceae : Salvia rosmarinus Spenn. In the same extract, Rosmarinus officinalis, of rank “Species”, has the status “Synonym” and is attached to the accepted name 183733 , with the author L.

On the EMA page “Rosmarini aetheroleum”, read on 02/10/2026, the substance has the Latin name “Rosmarini aetheroleum”, the English common name “Rosemary oil”, the status “F: Assessment finalised” and the botanical name “Rosmarinus officinalis L.”

Which plants called rosemary are not rosemary?

Citing Chandler (1985), the 2024 HMPC assessment report states that bog rosemary (species of Andromeda) and wild or March rosemary are members of the family “Ericacea” and are not related to rosemary ; the report names wild or March rosemary Ledum palustre L.

In the WCVP (extract read on 02/10/2026), Ledum palustre L. has the status “Synonym” and is attached to the accepted name with identifier 2427484, of status “Accepted”: Rhododendron tomentosum Harmaja (Ledum palustre L. in the report).

How is rosemary oil defined?

Section 2 of the European Union herbal monograph on rosemary oil (EMA/HMPC/513893/2021, revision 1, 2024) covers the essential oil (“rosemary oil”) and states that the material complies with the European Pharmacopoeia monograph 01/2008:1846 ; its heading is “Rosmarinus officinalis L., aetheroleum”. According to the 2024 HMPC assessment report, the European Pharmacopoeia (01/2008:1846) defines rosemary oil as the essential oil obtained by steam distillation from the aerial parts of the plant, a clear, mobile, colourless or pale-yellow liquid with a characteristic odour, whose chemical composition is complex ; the plant is named Rosmarinus officinalis L. in the source.

Which composition ranges does the European Pharmacopoeia set?

According to the 2024 HMPC assessment report, an oil within the ranges that comply with the European Pharmacopoeia (01/2008:1846) has a camphor content of 13.0 to 21.0 % for the Spanish type and of 5.0 to 15.0 % for the Moroccan and Tunisian type. For cineole, the same ranges are 16.0 to 25.0 % for the Spanish type and 38.0 to 55.0 % for the Moroccan and Tunisian type. For alpha-pinene, they are 18 to 26 % for the Spanish type and 9.0 to 14.0 % for the Moroccan and Tunisian type; for camphene, 8.0 to 12.0 % and 2.5 to 6.0 %. For bornyl acetate, they are 0.5 to 2.5 % for the Spanish type and 0.1 to 1.5 % for the Moroccan and Tunisian type; for borneol, 2.0 to 4.5 % and 1.5 to 5.0 %. For verbenone, they are 0.7 to 2.5 % for the Spanish type and at most 0.4 % for the Moroccan and Tunisian type. For the Spanish type and then the Moroccan and Tunisian type, the report gives: beta-pinene 2.0–6.0 % and 4.0–9.0 %; beta-myrcene 1.5–5.0 % and 1.0–2.0 %; limonene 2.5–5.0 % and 1.5–4.0 %; p-cymene 1.0–2.2 % and 0.8–2.5 %; alpha-terpineol 1.0–3.5 % and 1.0–2.6 %.

What did a study of wild rosemary from Algeria find?

Guelifet and co-authors (2025) studied essential oils from wild plants collected in Algeria; the aerial parts were harvested over 2022–2023, in the middle of each season (autumn, winter, spring and summer) , the plant being named Rosmarinus officinalis L. (Salvia rosmarinus Spenn.) in the source. The material was shade-dried at ambient temperature for 15 days, and the powdered aerial parts were then subjected to three extraction techniques: hydrodistillation (HD), steam distillation (SD) and microwave-assisted distillation (MD). The oils were analysed by gas chromatography with flame ionisation detection (GC-FID) for quantification and by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) for compound identification.

What was the composition of these oils?

In these oils, camphor emerged as the predominant compound across all seasons and all extraction methods, at 21.95 % to 36.52 %, followed by alpha-pinene (7.31–21.72 %), camphene (7.84–18.23 %) and 1,8-cineole (7.65–14.53 %); other constituents included borneol (1.42–6.57 %), 4-terpineol (0.82–6.48 %) and alpha-terpineol (0.58–2.72 %). According to the authors, microwave-assisted distillation produced oils richer in oxygenated monoterpenes (54.27–59.65 %), with camphor reaching 36.52 %, against 28.47 % in the oils obtained by steam distillation. Spring harvests yielded a larger proportion of identified compounds than the other seasons (98.92–99.02 %), enriched in particular in alpha-pinene (up to 21.72 % by steam distillation) and camphene (18.23 %), with a high camphor content (36.52 % by microwave-assisted distillation) and 1,8-cineole (14.53 %). The authors write that camphor-dominated chemotypes are common in wild North African and cultivated South American rosemary, and that their maximum camphor concentration (36.52 ± 1.8 %) overlaps with values reported from Mexico.

How many chemotypes of rosemary oil are described?

In the study by Satyal and co-authors (2017), a hierarchical cluster analysis based on the compositions of the authors’ oils and on 72 compositions reported in the literature revealed at least five different chemotypes of rosemary oil. The five chemotypes are: (1) alpha-pinene/1,8-cineole, (2) verbenone/alpha-pinene/camphor/1,8-cineole, (3) myrcene/1,8-cineole/camphor, (4) 1,8-cineole/camphor/alpha-pinene and (5) alpha-pinene/beta-pinene/camphene. Chemotype 4 is dominated by 1,8-cineole, comprises 33 samples and, according to the authors, can be considered comparable to the “cineoliferum” chemotype described by Napoli and co-workers.

Which ISO standard covers rosemary oil?

According to the ISO catalogue record (archived copy of 04/06/2026), ISO 1342:2012 is edition 3, was published in 2012-10, has 11 pages and falls under technical committee ISO/TC 54 ; its title is “Essential oil of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.)”. The abstract of the record states that ISO 1342:2012 specifies certain characteristics of the essential oil of rosemary in order to facilitate assessment of its quality; the abstract names neither a type nor an origin. The record states that ISO 1342:2012 was last reviewed and confirmed in 2023 (stage 90.93 “International Standard confirmed”, 2023-03-10), and that this version therefore remains current. In the “Life cycle” section of the record, the previous edition, ISO 1342:2000, is marked “Withdrawn”.

How is camphor identified and regulated?

In the ECHA CHEM search API (query “76-22-2”, read on 02/10/2026), the substance with identifier 100.000.860 has the name “Bornan-2-one”, EC number 200-945-0, CAS number 76-22-2, the IUPAC name “1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo[2.2.1]heptan-2-one”, the formula C10H16O and the masked IUPAC name “Camphor”. Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 adds entry 331 to Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 for camphor (Bornan-2-one; 1,7,7-Trimethylbi-cyclo[2.2.1]-2-heptanone, marked with note (*4); CAS 76-22-2/ 21368-68-3/ 464-49-3/ 464-48-2; EC 200-945-0/ 244-350-4/ 207-355-2/ 207-354-7): its presence is to be indicated in the list of ingredients when its concentration exceeds 0.001 % in leave-on products and 0.01 % in rinse-off products. Under note (*4) of the same regulation, cosmetic products containing a substance so marked that do not comply with the restriction(s) may be placed on the Union market until 31 July 2026 and made available on that market until 31 July 2028.

What adverse effects are documented for rosemary oil?

According to the 2024 HMPC assessment report, serious poisoning by rosemary or its oil is not reported; the potential problems of gastroenteritis and nephritis after ingestion of large amounts of the oil are mentioned in the literature, but do not relate to actual cases (Bisset and Wichtl, 1994). For the essential oil, the same report states that cases of hypersensitivity (asthma) have been found in the literature, and that their frequency is not known. Section 4.8 of the 2024 European Union herbal monograph on rosemary oil lists as undesirable effects hypersensitivity (contact dermatitis), under “Immune system disorders”, and hypersensitivity (asthma), under “Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders”, the frequency of both being not known. Section 4.9 of the same monograph states that no case of overdose has been reported.

What do laboratory and animal studies report?

Citing Fahim and co-authors (1999), the 2024 HMPC assessment report states that an essential oil of rosemary had a lethal dose 50 (LD50) of 5.5 g/kg body weight given intragastrically to rats, and a lethal effect on all animals at an intragastric dose of 0.9 g/100 g body weight. Section 5.3 of the 2024 European Union herbal monograph states that tests on reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity and carcinogenicity have not been performed. The assessment report states that no guideline-conform genotoxicity tests are available for rosemary extracts or for the essential oil from rosemary. Citing Gomes-Carneiro and co-authors (1998), the report states that camphor did not show mutagenic activity in Salmonella typhimurium strains TA 1535, TA 1538, TA 98 and TA 100, with and without S9 activation, and that no mutagenic effect was found with d,l-camphor in strains TA 97a, TA 98, TA 100 and TA 102, with and without metabolic activation. The report states that no carcinogenicity studies are available for rosemary extracts or the essential oil, nor for camphor; in a pulmonary tumour response test, d-camphor injected intraperitoneally into strain A/He mice (groups of 15 males and females) three times a week for 8 weeks, in total doses of 3.6 and 18 g/kg body weight, induced no increase in primary lung tumours and was not considered by the authors to be carcinogenic for the lung (Stoner and co-authors, 1973).

What is documented about camphor poisoning?

Citing Barnes and co-authors (2002), the 2024 HMPC assessment report states that, orally, camphor readily causes epileptiform convulsions if taken in sufficient quantity. The same report states that, although rosemary preparations contain variable quantities of camphor, there are no human data to support the development of seizures as a complication of the ingestion of rosemary extracts. Citing EFSA (2008b), the report states that camphor intoxication in humans includes central nervous stimulation, oral and gastric irritation, nausea and vomiting, excitement, hallucinations, delirium, muscular excitability, tremors, convulsions and urinary retention, and that locally camphor can produce irritation of the skin, eyes and mucous membranes of the respiratory tract. According to the report, the same EFSA document mentions that the intoxications present in the literature generally involve accidental intake of camphorated oil (20 % camphor in cottonseed oil). Citing EFSA (2008b), the report states that 20 children aged 1 to 4 years became ill with seizures after ingestion of 1 to 1.5 tablespoons of camphorated oil, equivalent to about 3 to 4.5 g of camphor. Citing the same source, the report states that a literature review of 64 cases found 6 reports of death, and that in a 19-month-old child the ingestion of 1 g of camphor in camphorated oil was fatal. Citing EFSA (2008b) for a recent published case, the report describes a 10-year-old boy who presented at the emergency room with lethargy, nausea, vomiting and rigors, 24 h after chewing three over-the-counter transdermal patches containing 4.7 % camphor (95.4 mg per patch) and 2.6 % menthol. In the sentence following the EFSA reference, the report adds that, assuming a body weight of 30 kg, this would correspond to 10 mg/kg body weight of camphor. The outcome is not given in the passage. According to the report, the American Academy of Pediatrics (1978) concluded that although adults recovered from ingestion of up to 43 g of camphor, the ingestion of 2 g generally produces dangerous effects, and that in children ingestion of 0.7 to 1.0 g of camphor has proved fatal.

References