ROSEMARY OIL Salvia rosmarinus

What do the sources document about cineole in rosemary oil?

According to the HMPC assessment report on rosemary (EMA), the European Pharmacopoeia monograph 01/2008:1846 defines rosemary oil as the essential oil obtained by steam distillation from the aerial parts of “R. officinalis L.”, a clear, mobile, colourless or pale-yellow liquid with a characteristic odour, whose chemical composition is complex. The same report states that, to comply with the European Pharmacopoeia (01/2008:1846), the “cineole” content of rosemary oil of the “Moroccan and Tunisian type” lies between 38.0 and 55.0 %. According to Elyemni and co-authors (2019), “the cineole” is the major constituent of the rosemary oils they obtained by two methods, at “32.18%” by microwave-assisted hydrodistillation (MAH) and “31.20%” by Clevenger hydrodistillation (CH). That source does not name the chemotype of the oil. According to Annemer and co-authors (2022), the chemical compositions of the 27 individual “S. rosmarinus” oils they studied were identified as two chemotypes, “1,8-cineole” and “α-pinene”; in their words, “The 1,8-cineole chemotype was present in period 3 (May 2018)”. In their discussion, Hamdeni and co-authors (2026) write that the “S. rosmarinus” oil “was mainly composed of eucalyptol (46.56%) indicating a predominance of eucalyptol chemotype”, a proposition followed by their references 34 to 36. On the ECHA CHEM substance record consulted on 10/10/2026 (search response for “eucalyptol”), the substance named “Cineole” has the identifier 100.006.757 and the EC number 207-431-5; the rmlCas field of the record carries 470-82-6. On the same record, the iupacMaskedName field carries, among its entries, “Cineole”, “Cineole, Eucalyptol”, “EUCALYPTOL”, “cineole” and “Eucalyptol”. Its iupacName field carries, among its entries, “1,3,3-Trimethyl-2-oxabicyclo[2.2.2]octane; 1,8-Cineole”.

Which plant is rosemary oil obtained from?

Satyal and co-authors (2017) name the plant “Rosmarinus officinalis L.”, “rosemary”, of the family “Lamiaceae”, and describe it as “an evergreen shrub with aromatic needle-like leaves”. In the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP, Kew), extract read on 02/10/2026, Salvia rosmarinus Spenn. is a name of rank “Species” with the status “Accepted”, in the family Lamiaceae (identifier 183733). In the same extract, Rosmarinus officinalis L., of rank “Species”, has the status “Synonym” and is attached to the accepted name with identifier 183733 (Salvia rosmarinus Spenn.).

How do European texts define rosemary oil?

In the European Union herbal monograph of the EMA/HMPC on “Rosmarinus officinalis L., aetheroleum”, the herbal substance is “Not applicable”, the preparation concerned is the essential oil (“rosemary oil”), and the material complies with European Pharmacopoeia monograph 01/2008:1846. The same monograph gives the French name of the substance as “romarin (huile essentielle de)”.

Which types of rosemary oil does the HMPC assessment report name?

According to the HMPC assessment report, in a paragraph that closes on the reference Chandler (1985), the structure of the carbon skeleton of the main constituents of the essential oil points to three biogenetic types, among them the eucalyptol type (Italy, Morocco and Tunisia).

Which ranges does the European Pharmacopoeia set for the “Moroccan and Tunisian type”?

Besides the “cineole” range given above, the following ranges come from the same table.

According to the HMPC assessment report, to comply with the European Pharmacopoeia (01/2008:1846), the “camphor” content of rosemary oil of the “Moroccan and Tunisian type” lies between 5.0 and 15.0 %. For the same type, the “α-pinene” range is 9.0 to 14.0 %, and the “camphene” range 2.5 to 6.0 %. The ranges are 4.0 to 9.0 % for “β-pinene”, 1.0 to 2.0 % for “β-myrcene”, 1.5 to 4.0 % for “limonene” and 0.8 to 2.5 % for “ρ-cymene”. They are 0.1 to 1.5 % for “bornyl-acetate”, 1.0 to 2.6 % for “α-terpineol”, 1.5 to 5.0 % for “borneol”, and “max 0.4%” for “verbenone”.

What plant material did Elyemni and co-authors (2019) study?

According to Elyemni and co-authors (2019), the samples of rosemary were harvested at the flowering stage in May 2018 in the region of Fez, at 406 m (“34°01′59′′ Latitude North and 5°00′01′′ Longitude West”); the source does not name the chemotype of the oil. Only the aerial part of the plant was used: the leaves and the apical parts were dried in the shade for eight days, at a room temperature fixed at “25°C”.

How did the study obtain the oil by Clevenger hydrodistillation (CH)?

In the study’s protocol, 100 g of rosemary were added to 800 ml of distilled water in a “2-liter” flask, placed in a balloon heater attached to a “refrigerator” to ensure the condensation of the essential oils for 3 hours. At the end of the distillation, the authors observed two phases, an aqueous phase (“aromatic water”) and an organic phase (essential oil) less dense than water; the oil was collected, dried over anhydrous sodium sulphate and stored in sealed vials, in the dark, at “4°C”.

How did the study obtain the oil by microwave-assisted hydrodistillation (MAH)?

According to the authors, the microwave-assisted hydrodistillation was carried out with a domestic microwave oven directly connected to a Clevenger-type extractor and to a cooling system that condensed the distillate continuously; the excess of condensed water was returned to the extraction flask to restore the water to the plant material. In this protocol, 100 g of rosemary samples were placed in a “2-liter” flask containing 200 ml of distilled water, heated inside the oven cavity at a fixed power of 600 W “until extraction of the all essential oils”.

How did the study express yield and energy consumption?

Elyemni and co-authors (2019) express the yields of rosemary essential oil in g relative to 100 g of dry plant material. They determined the energy consumption of the CH and MAH extractions with a watt-meter connected to the input of the microwave generator and to that of the heater.

How were the oils analysed?

According to the authors, the GC analysis used a flame ionization detector (FID) and two capillary columns of different polarities, “OV type: 101 (25 m x 0.22 mm x 0.25 mm)” and “Carbowax 20 M (25 m x 0.22 mm x 0.25 μm)”, with helium as carrier gas at “0.8 ml/min” and an oven programmed “between 50 and 200°C with a gradient of 5°C/min”. The composition of the oils from both methods was determined by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC/MS), on a DB1-type fused silica capillary column (“25 m x 0.23 mm x 0.25 μm”), with helium as carrier gas and a temperature programme identical to that of the GC.

What composition does table 2 of the study give?

According to Elyemni and co-authors (2019), their results made it “possible” to identify 16 compounds for the two methods, representing a total of “99.80%” in CH and “99.75%” in MAH; the source does not name the chemotype of the oil. In table 2, in %, the “Monoterpene hydrocarbons” amount to “35,84” (MAH) and “37,19” (CH); “α-Pinene” (Kovats index 939) to “15,4” and “15,82”; “Camphene” (954) to “9,16” and “9,77”. In the same table, in % for MAH then CH: “β-Pinene” (979) “3,72” and “3,56”; “α-Terpinene” (1017) “2,49” and “2,44”; “para-Cymene” (1025) “4,15” and “4,79”; “Limonene” (1028) “0,92” and “0,81”. The “Oxygenated monoterpenes” amount to “63,03” and “61,76”; “Cineole” (1030) to “32,18” and “31,2”; “β-myrcene” (1048), which the table lists under “Oxygenated monoterpenes”, to “4” and “3,75”. The table writes “Cineole”, where the text of section 3.2 writes “the cineole”. “Linalool” (1097) is given at “1,37” and “1,49”; “Camphor” (1146) at “16,2” and “16,54”; “Borneol” (1169) at “1,64” and “1,47”. “α-Terpineol” (1199) is given at “7,36” and “7,16”; “Verbenone” (1205) at “0,28” and “0,15”. The “Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons” amount to “0,27” and “0,11”; “β-Caryophyllene” (1419) to “0,12” and “0,08”; “α-Caryophyllene” (1423) to “0,15” and “0,03”. The “Other oxygenated compounds” amount to “0,61” and “0,74”, which is the single line “Bornyl acetate” (1289), at “0,61” and “0,74”. The last lines give “Total oxygenated compounds” at “63,64” and “62,5”, “Total nonoxygenated compounds” at “36,11” and “37,3”, and “Total” at “99,75” and “99,8”.

How do the two methods compare, according to the authors?

Elyemni and co-authors (2019) write that the chemical composition of the oils obtained by the two methods is “identical”, with slight quantitative differences in certain constituents, and that “the cineole” is the major constituent, at a slightly higher rate for MAH than for CH, “32.18%” and “31.20%” respectively. They write that the percentages of camphor (“16.54% in CH and 16.20% in MAH”) and of α-pinene (“15.82% in CH and 15.40% in MAH”) are lower for MAH than for CH; the source does not name the chemotype of the oil. According to the authors, the amounts of oxygenated compounds are “higher” and those of monoterpene hydrocarbons lower in the rosemary oil extracted by MAH than in the oil obtained by CH. For both techniques, the extraction temperature is that of water boiling at atmospheric pressure (“100°C”); to reach it and obtain the distillation of the first droplet of rosemary essential oil, the authors report heating for “3 min only” with MAH against “45 min” with CH. In table 3, the extraction time is “20” min (MAH) and “180” min (CH), and the electric consumption “0,23” kWh (MAH) and “2,25” kWh (CH). According to the authors, a “20-minute” extraction by MAH gives a yield “similar” to that obtained after 180 min by CH.

What did Annemer and co-authors (2022) measure in Salvia rosmarinus oils from Figuig (Morocco)?

Which plant material did the authors study?

According to Annemer and co-authors (2022), the aerial parts of “Salvia rosmarinus Spenn”, as the source writes it (WCVP accepted name: Salvia rosmarinus Spenn.), were collected from three cooperatives located in the Figuig Province, in the Oriental region of Morocco. The plants were collected from wild populations during nine periods from January 2018 to April 2019, period 3 (P3) being May 2018, on the same day from the three cooperatives. Botanical identification was carried out by Professor Ghanmi Mohammed, a former researcher at the Forestry Research Center of Rabat (Morocco). In table 4 of the study, cooperative C1 lies in the rural community of Talsint (altitude “1 332” m), C2 in that of Boumeriem (1025 m) and C3 in that of Talsint (1760 m); the table places C1, C2 and C3 in the Figuig Province, Oriental region.

How were the oils obtained and analysed, and how was the yield expressed?

The aerial parts were dried in shade at ambient temperature, then hydrodistilled in a Clevenger-type apparatus. Each specimen was put in a 2 L glass flask containing 100 g of dry plant material and 800 mL of distilled water, and the mixture was brought to a boil for three hours. The oil obtained was placed in an opaque green flask, dried using anhydrous sodium sulfate and stored at 4 °C. The yields of the oils from the different samples were calculated using a formula (formula (1) of the study), and all the experiments were carried out in triplicate. According to the authors, the samples from period 3 (“collected in May”), taken from the three cooperatives, showed an average oil yield of 3.0 ± 0.1, one of the two highest average yields their sentence reports; that sentence writes neither the unit nor the basis of the yield. Gas chromatography analyses of all the samples were run on a Hewlett-Packard (HP 6890) gas chromatograph equipped with an HP-5 capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm, film thickness 0.25 µm), an FID detector and an injector set at 275 °C. The chemical composition was determined by GC/MS on a Hewlett-Packard gas chromatograph (HP 6890) coupled with a mass spectrometer (HP 5973), with an HP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm, film thickness 0.25 µm), a column temperature set at 50 °C and raised to 250 °C at 2 °C/min, and helium at 1.5 mL/min as carrier gas. The identity of the components was confirmed with the NIST 98 spectra library and verified by comparing their elution order with relative retention indices from the literature; each experiment was performed in triplicate. The individuals of the authors’ principal component analysis are the 27 oil samples taken from three cooperatives during nine harvest periods.

What does table 1 of the study give for period 3 (May 2018)?

Table 1 of Annemer and co-authors (2022) gives the major components of the oils by cooperative and harvest period in “% Relative Peak Area”, as the mean ± standard deviation of triplicates, from the chromatograms of three experiments obtained on an HP-5 MS column; the retention indices (RI) were calculated with a homologous series of C8-C28 alkanes. For period 3 (May 2018), the “α-pinene” cell is 9.9 ± 0.2 for cooperative C1, 11.6 ± 0.5 for C2 and 10.7 ± 0.5 for C3, in “% Relative Peak Area”. The “Camphene” cell is 2.9 ± 0.7 for C1, 6.3 ± 0.2 for C2 and 5.9 ± 0.4 for C3, in “% Relative Peak Area”. The “β-pinene” cell is 6.1 ± 1.0 for C1, 7.3 ± 0.6 for C2 and 6.8 ± 1.2 for C3, in “% Relative Peak Area”; for C2, the table gives this same value, standard deviation included, for four periods. The “Myrcene” cell is 2.9 ± 1.7 for C1, 1.0 ± 0.1 for C2 and 1.4 ± 0.5 for C3, in “% Relative Peak Area”. The “Limonene” cell is 1.9 ± 0.1 for C1, 1.6 ± 0.4 for C2 and 1.8 ± 0.0 for C3, in “% Relative Peak Area”. The “1,8-cineole” cell is 51.1 ± 1.8 for C1, 46.2 ± 0.3 for C2 and 47.3 ± 0.8 for C3, in “% Relative Peak Area”. The “Camphor” cell is 7.3 ± 0.5 for C1, 5.8 ± 0.2 for C2 and 5.3 ± 0.1 for C3, in “% Relative Peak Area”. The “α-Terpineol” cell is 1.4 ± 0.2 for C1, 1.2 ± 0.0 for C2 and 1.1 ± 0.1 for C3, in “% Relative Peak Area”. The “Total%” line, which the source does not define further, is 83.3 ± 0.6 for C1, 81.0 ± 0.7 for C2 and 80.3 ± 0.9 for C3.

What did Hamdeni and co-authors (2026) measure in a Salvia rosmarinus oil from Tunisia?

Which plant material did Hamdeni and co-authors study?

According to Hamdeni and co-authors (2026), during the spring of 2025 (March–April), five plant species, among them “S. rosmarinus”, as the source writes it (WCVP accepted name: Salvia rosmarinus Spenn.), were collected from various regions of Tunisia; for “S. rosmarinus”, the aerial parts were gathered. “S. rosmarinus” was among the species collected from the wild, C. citratus being the only cultivated one. In table 6 of the study, for “S. rosmarinus”, the used part is “Aerial parts”, the harvesting period “March–April/2025” and the location “Tborsok (36.499551° N, 9.318492° E)”. For what the authors call a “representative” sampling, the plant material was harvested at random from several individual plants or trees within each species, then combined into homogenized samples. After collection, the plant material was placed in a glass greenhouse and air-dried under ambient conditions for five days, then stored in paper bags at room temperature until analysis. All the plant species were taxonomically identified by Professor Lamia Hamrouni following standard procedures, and voucher specimens were deposited in the herbarium of the National Institute of Research on Rural Engineering, Water and Forests (INRGREF).

How was the oil obtained and analysed, and how was the yield expressed?

The oils were extracted by hydrodistillation of 50 g of dried plant material in a Clevenger-type apparatus, for 3 h. The extractions were performed on individual species (“individual species”), “S. rosmarinus” among them, in three replicates. The extracted oils were dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate and stored at 4 °C in amber glass vials. The oil yield was calculated as % (w/w) relative to the dry weight of plant material, determined in three replicates and expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The GC-MS analysis was run on an HP 8890 gas chromatograph coupled to an HP 5977B mass spectrometer, equipped with an HP-5MS UI column (30 m × 0.25 mm; 0.25 µm). The injector and detector were at 250 °C and 280 °C; the oven was programmed from 45 °C (held 1 min) to 250 °C (held 6 min) at 5 °C/min, for a total runtime of 48 min; the carrier gas was helium at a constant flow rate of 1 mL min −1; samples of 1 µL were injected in split mode at a 1:100 ratio, and the spectra were acquired in scan mode over m/z 30 to 600. The components were identified by comparing their calculated retention indices (RI calc.), determined relative to a homologous n-alkane series, with literature retention indices (RI lit.), and by comparing their mass spectra with those of commercial libraries (Wiley 7, NIST 05) and/or those “reported in the literature”.

What does table 1 of the study give for the oil distilled alone (column SR)?

In table 1, the yield (“yield (% w/w, dry basis)”) of the “S. rosmarinus” oil distilled alone (column SR) is written “0.85± 0.17”, followed by the letters “ab”. In the composition (%) of the same column, the line “Eucalyptol” (RI calc. 1020, RI lit. 1031) is 46.56, “Borneol” (1184, 1166) 11.35 and “α-Pinene” (916, 928) 9.06. The line “Caryophyllene” (1417, 1420) is 8.34, “Camphor” (1145, 1143) 7.44 and “β-Pinene” (960, 974) 6.64. The line “Camphene” (931, 948) is 4.85, “β-Myrcene” (977, 988) 2.39, “Bornyl acetate” (1280, 1283) 2.12 and “Sabinene hydrate” (1078, 1065) 1.25. By class, column SR gives “Monoterpene hydrocarbons %” at 22.92, “Oxygenated monoterpenes %” at 68.72, “Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons %” at 8.34, and “Oxygenated sesquiterpenes %” at 0 on this sample. The line “Total identified %” of column SR is 99.98.

How do the authors describe this oil in their results?

In their results, the authors write that the “S. rosmarinus” oil “comprised ten chemical constituents (99.98%)”, with eucalyptol (46.56 %), borneol (11.35 %) and α-pinene (9.06 %) as predominant.

Which ISO standard covers rosemary oil?

According to the ISO catalogue record, ISO 1342:2012, “Essential oil of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.)”, has the status “Published”; it is edition 3, published in 2012-10, has 11 pages and falls under technical committee ISO/TC 54. The abstract of the same record states that ISO 1342:2012 specifies certain characteristics of the essential oil of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) in order to facilitate assessment of its quality; the abstract names neither a chemical type nor an origin. According to the same record, ISO 1342:2012 was reviewed and confirmed in 2023 (stage 90.93, “International Standard confirmed”, on 2023-03-10), and this version therefore “remains current”. In the “Life cycle” section of the record, under “Previously”, ISO 1342:2000 has the status “Withdrawn”. In the ISO catalogue for classification ICS 71.100.60, ISO 1342:2012 is titled “Essential oil of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.)”, falls under ISO/TC 54 and is at stage 90.93. In the same catalogue, ISO 1342:2000, “Oil of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.)”, is marked “Withdrawn”, at stage 95.99, under ISO/TC 54. ISO 1342:1988, “Oil of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis Linnaeus)”, is marked “Withdrawn”, at stage 95.99, under ISO/TC 54. The recommendation ISO/R 1342:1971, “Oil of rosemary”, is marked “Withdrawn”, at stage 95.99, under ISO/TC 54.

References

• Govaerts R. (ed.), World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew — https://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/WCVP/wcvp.zip
• Satyal P., Jones T.H., Lopez E.M., McFeeters R.L., Ali N.A.A. et al., « Chemotypic Characterization and Biological Activity of Rosmarinus officinalis », Foods 2017;6(3):20, doi:10.3390/foods6030020 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5368539/fullTextXML
• European Medicines Agency, Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products (HMPC), « Assessment report on Rosmarinus officinalis L., aetheroleum and Rosmarinus officinalis L., folium », Final – Revision 1, EMA/HMPC/681037/2021, 29 May 2024 — https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/herbal-report/final-assessment-report-rosmarinus-officinalis-l-aetheroleum-rosmarinus-officinalis-l-folium-revision-1_en.pdf
• European Medicines Agency, Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products (HMPC), « European Union herbal monograph on Rosmarinus officinalis L., aetheroleum », Final – Revision 1, EMA/HMPC/513893/2021, 29 May 2024 — https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/herbal-monograph/final-european-union-herbal-monograph-rosmarinus-officinalis-l-aetheroleum-revision-1_en.pdf
• Elyemni M., Louaste B., Nechad I., Elkamli T., Bouia A. et al., « Extraction of Essential Oils of Rosmarinus officinalis L. by Two Different Methods: Hydrodistillation and Microwave Assisted Hydrodistillation », The Scientific World Journal 2019;2019:3659432, doi:10.1155/2019/3659432 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC6463580/fullTextXML
• Annemer S., Farah A., Stambouli H., Assouguem A., Almutairi M.H. et al., « Chemometric Investigation and Antimicrobial Activity of Salvia rosmarinus Spenn Essential Oils », Molecules 2022;27(9):2914, doi:10.3390/molecules27092914 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC9099978/fullTextXML
• Hamdeni I., Boukhris-Bouhachem S., Louhaichi M., Boulila A., Amri I. et al., « Synergistic and Additive Interactions in Essential Oils Obtained from Combined Plant Materials: Enhanced Control of Insect Pests », Molecules 2026;31(6):945, doi:10.3390/molecules31060945 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC13029542/fullTextXML
• European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), ECHA CHEM, search for « eucalyptol », substance record 100.006.757 « Cineole » (EC 207-431-5), consulted 10/10/2026 — https://chem.echa.europa.eu/api-substance/v1/substance?pageIndex=1&pageSize=20&searchText=eucalyptol
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO), catalogue record « ISO 1342:2012 — Essential oil of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) », edition 3, 2012-10, archived copy of 04/06/2026 (Internet Archive) — https://web.archive.org/web/20260604115158id_/https://www.iso.org/standard/56521.html
• 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/