YLANG-YLANG Cananga odorata

According to the World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP, Kew), in the extract read on 21 September 2026, Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thomson is a name of rank “Species” with the status “Accepted”, placed in the family Annonaceae. Chakira et al. (2025) extracted the essential oil of ylang-ylang flowers sampled at Saint-Pierre (Réunion Island) between January and February 2021; in their Table 1, the yield, calculated against the mass of plant material, is 0.956 ± 0.06 % by SFME, 0.80 ± 0.01 % by HD and 0.463 ± 0.02 % by SD. Brokl et al. (2013) hydrodistilled for 8 h flowers collected at Mavigoni (Mayotte) and carried out their study on fraction 1 and fraction 4 of the distillate, collected after 25 min and after 8 h.

Which name is accepted, and how do the sources write it?

The WCVP record of Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thomson carries the identifier 2695745.

Where do the ylang-ylang flowers studied by Chakira et al. (2025) come from?

Chakira et al. (2025) used fresh ylang-ylang flowers, which they name “Cananga odorata, forma genuina”. The freshly harvested flowers were immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen, stored at −80 °C in separate batches, and then extracted; each extraction method was run in triplicate, on batches of 100 g of flowers. In this study, only undamaged, mature yellow flowers with a red-purplish heart were harvested. Sampling took place between January and February 2021 in the town of Saint-Pierre (Réunion Island; coordinates −21.27724; 55.46689). The flowers came from traditionally managed trees, cultivated without pesticide or fertilizer inputs.

How did Chakira et al. (2025) extract the ylang-ylang essential oils?

The extractions were carried out in a laboratory located at an altitude of 83 m (coordinates −20.9065; 55.4987), with a minimal difference in boiling temperature compared with sea level (0.3 °C). Hydrodistillation (HD) was carried out with a Clevenger-type device, on flowers mixed with 1.5 L of distilled water, as described by Chakira et al. (2022). Steam-water distillation (SD) used an apparatus with a 12 L vessel: the plant material rested on two perforated stainless-steel grids above 1 L of water, heated electrically; the condensed vapours were collected in a burette pre-filled with about 85 mL of distilled water, and the excess water returned to the vessel by cohobation. The recirculating water chiller of the SD setup was set at 8 °C, and the SFME setup was connected to an identical cooling system. In solvent-free microwave extraction (SFME), a batch of 100 g of flowers was placed in a 2 L glass microwave reactor, without any added solvent or water, at atmospheric pressure, with the power set at 350 W and kept constant throughout the extraction. The SFME extraction time was set at 60 min per batch. The extraction temperature, signalled by the appearance of the first droplets of condensed oil, was reached in 20 min by SFME, against 46 min by SD and 52 min by HD. In this study, the essential oils were then brought into contact with anhydrous sodium sulfate, conditioned in amber glass vials under a nitrogen atmosphere, and kept at 4 °C until analysis.

What processing time, yield and density does Table 1 of Chakira et al. (2025) give?

In Table 1, the processing time is 60 (20 + 40) ± 0 min for SFME and 226 (46 + 180) ± 1 min for SD. The essential oil yield of the ylang-ylang flowers is 0.956 ± 0.06 % by SFME, 0.80 ± 0.01 % by HD and 0.463 ± 0.02 % by SD, as means ± standard errors of three extractions per method. The yield was calculated against the plant material (VM): yield = m (EO) × 100/m (VM), the masses being expressed in grams. Table 1 gives the density of the oils, without unit, as 0.988 ± 0.002 by SFME, 0.985 ± 0.004 by HD and 0.959 ± 0.003 by SD, as means ± standard errors of three extractions per method.

How did Chakira et al. (2025) analyse the volatile compounds?

The volatile composition was analysed on a Clarus580 SQ8, by mass spectrometry on an Elite-5MS fused-silica capillary column and by GC-FID on an Elite-FFAP column, as described by Chakira et al. (2022). The oven programme was 65 °C (1 min), then 4 °C/min up to 190 °C, then 15 °C/min up to 285 °C, held for 2 min; the injector was at 260 °C and the detector at 300 °C, with helium as carrier gas at a constant flow of 0.6 mL/min. For mass spectrometry, the ionization energy was 70 eV, spectra were acquired over m/z 30–400, the transfer line and ion source were at 250 °C and 230 °C, and the electron multiplier voltage was 1568; a solvent delay of 6 min was applied and the total run time was 74.5 min. The identification of volatile compounds by mass spectrometry was based on the retention indices of the peaks, also compared with the NIST MS 17 database using NIST MS search 2.3. Contents are expressed as relative abundance with respect to all integrated peaks; the note to Table 2 specifies relative percentages calculated from peak areas, as means ± standard errors of three extractions per method.

What share do the compound classes take in the oils of Chakira et al. (2025)?

According to the abstract, light oxygenated compounds made up 81.23 % of the SFME extract, 69.94 % of the HD extract and 57.98 % of the SD extract. In the text (§3.2), heavy oxygenated compounds made up 13.69 % (HD) and 13.68 % (SD), against 7.75 % for the oil obtained by SFME. Terpene hydrocarbons made up 10.95 % of the oil obtained by SFME and 27.12 % of the oil obtained by SD. Total esters made up 60.5 % of the identified volatile compounds in the oil obtained by SFME, 47.13 % in the oil obtained by SD and 53.72 % in the oil obtained by HD. In Table 2, total aromatic compounds are 65.01 ± 4.61 (HD), 72.34 ± 6.07 (SFME) and 57.29 ± 3.85 (SD), in relative percentage of peak areas. Total terpenes are 29.37 ± 1.90 (HD), 21.11 ± 1.57 (SFME) and 38.1 ± 2.90 (SD), in relative percentage of peak areas. Total aliphatic derivatives are 5.5 ± 0.72 (HD), 6.52 ± 1.13 (SFME) and 4.57 ± 0.61 (SD), in relative percentage of peak areas. The total of identified compounds is 99.97 % for SFME and 99.96 % for SD.

What does Table 2 of Chakira et al. (2025) give, compound by compound?

Table 2 gives one column per extraction method; the values are relative percentages calculated from peak areas, as means ± standard errors of three extractions per method. The values below are given as Table 2 writes them, method by method; they belong to this study alone and are not averaged with any other source. Cells marked “-” are reproduced as the table writes them, without interpretation.

The source writes some of these names differently from one place to another; each name is given where the source writes it, and none corrects the other:

• “(E,E)-cinnamyl acetate” in Table 2; “E-cinnamyl acetate” in Table A1, with the same values, and in §3.4; “(E, E)-cinnamyl acetate” in §3.4.
• “phenyl ethyl acetate” in Table 2; “phenylethyl acetate” in §3.4.
• “benzene methanol, 2-methyl, acetate” in Table 2; “benzene methanol-2-methyl acetate” in §3.4.
• “benzene methanol, 4-methoxy, acetate” in Table 2; “benzene methanol-4-methoxy-, acetate” in §3.4.
• “α-humulene” is written “α -humulene”, with a space, in Table 2.
• “α-farnesene” in Table 2; “(E,E)-α-farnesene” in Table A1, with the same values.
• “germacrene-D” in Table 2; “germacrene D” in Table A1, with the same values.
• “farnesol” in Table 2; “(E,E)-farnesol” in Table A1, with the same values.
• “geranyl Acetate” in Table 2; “geranyl acetate” in Table A1, with the same values.

How were the ylang-ylang flowers of Brokl et al. (2013) harvested and distilled?

Brokl et al. (2013) collected fresh, mature flowers of “C. odorata” between 7 am and 8 am in July 2009 at Mavigoni, Mayotte. Seven trees were chosen at random in the plantation and their flowers pooled into one composite sample for the distillation (350 g of mature flowers from seven trees; 50 g of flowers collected from each tree). The distillation was performed directly in the field with portable equipment, within an hour of the harvest. The flowers were hydrodistilled for 8 h in a Clevenger-type apparatus (2 L reactor, 235 mm vertical column). They were added to the water at 70 °C, then brought to the boil. Four separate fractions of the distillate were collected, after 25 min (fraction 1), 1 h (fraction 2), 3 h (fraction 3) and 8 h (fraction 4). In this study, the essential oils were dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate (0.20 g for 1.5 mL of essential oil) and kept in amber vials at 4 °C until use. The study was carried out on fraction 1 and fraction 4.

How did Brokl et al. (2013) analyse fractions 1 and 4?

The essential oils were diluted in diethyl ether (4 µL of oil in 174 µL of diethyl ether) containing 2 µL of methyl octanoate as standard, itself diluted in diethyl ether (25 µL of standard in 75 µL of diethyl ether). The GC×GC TOFMS system comprised a gas chromatograph and an instrument fitted with a liquid nitrogen quadruple jet thermal modulator and a secondary oven. The first-dimension column was a low-polarity silarylene phase, with a selectivity similar to 5 % phenyl/95 % dimethylpolysiloxane phases, of 30 m × 0.25 mm internal diameter × 0.25 μm film thickness. The second-dimension column was a medium-polarity 50 % phenyl polysilphenylene-siloxane phase of 1.2 m × 0.10 mm internal diameter × 0.10 μm film thickness. The carrier gas was helium at a constant flow of 1 mL min−1, and the split ratio of the split/splitless injector was set to 1:20. The main oven temperature went from 45 °C to 85 °C at 20 °C min−1, then to 285 °C at 5 °C min−1, with a final isothermal period of 10 min at 285 °C. The secondary oven was programmed 5 °C above the main oven; the modulation period was 4 s, with a modulator temperature offset of 15 °C above the main oven, and the hot pulse lasted 600 ms. Mass spectra were acquired over m/z 30–400 at 100 spectra s−1; the ion source was at 230 °C, the transfer line at 250 °C, the detector voltage at 1,500 V and the ionization energy (EI source) at 70 eV. A solvent acquisition delay of 6 min was applied to protect the MS analyser from excessive solvent exposure. Automatic peak finding with mass deconvolution produced a raw peak table, a peak being included only with a signal-to-noise ratio of at least 100 and a library match. Library searching used the NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library (NIST 11) and the Wiley Registry of Mass Spectral Data (9th edition). First-dimension linear retention indices were calculated from the retention times of a C8–C20 alkane mixture analysed under the same chromatographic conditions as the samples. Relative abundances (% values) were calculated from the ratio between the peak area of each compound and the sum of areas of all selected compounds.

What do Brokl et al. (2013) report on the compounds of fractions 1 and 4?

After a first data processing, the peak tables of fractions 1 and 4 held 681 and 839 hits respectively; after the second processing, which removed artefacts and column bleeding, 370 and 446 hits remained. The authors identified 161 individual compounds and labelled them “potentially characteristic analytes”. This selection rested on a manual review of the peak tables, keeping signals with a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) above 200 and forward and reverse library similarity factors above 750 and 800 respectively. The authors’ previous GC-MS study reported 96 compounds present in fraction 1 or fraction 4, 79 of which are also found in the list of 161 compounds from the GC×GC-TOFMS analysis. The authors thus report 82 additional “potentially characteristic analytes”, seven of which had already been reported in fraction 2 or fraction 3 in the classical GC-MS study. In all, 17 compounds reported in the GC-MS study were not identified in the GC×GC study; three of them had been confirmed by injection of standards (3-methyl-2-buten-1-ol, 3-methyl butyl acetate and p-cresyl acetate). Of the 75 (82−7) compounds not reported in the earlier study, the majority belonged to terpenes, terpenoid esters or alcohols, and 14 were alkanes. Second-dimension peak widths at half height ranged from 100 ms to 150 ms and were spread over 3 s of the 4 s modulation period. The authors observe that fraction 4 is richer in high-boiling compounds, and fraction 1 in more volatile ones. Several sesquiterpenes, present mainly in fraction 4, “could not be identified” for lack of standards and because of the similarity of their mass spectra.

What does Table 1 of Brokl et al. (2013) give, compound by compound?

Table 1 gives the relative abundance (%) of the selected compounds in fraction 1 and fraction 4, calculated against the sum of the areas of all selected compounds. In the legend of Table 1, “tr” (trace) stands for a relative content below 0.02 %. The values below are given as Table 1 writes them; they belong to this study alone and are not averaged with any other source. Cells marked “-” are reproduced as the table writes them, without interpretation. Lines whose compound the table does not name are shown as “not identified”, with their line number.

The source writes two of these names differently from one place to another; each name is given where the source writes it, and neither corrects the other:

• “phenyl acetaldehyde” in Table 1; “phenylacetaldehyde” in §2.
• “β-bourbonene” in Table 1; “β-bourborene” in §2.

Which ISO standards, IFRA standard and EU entry refer to Cananga odorata?

In the ISO catalogue for classification ICS 71.100.60, ISO 3063:2004 bears the title “Oil of ylang-ylang (Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook. f. et Thomson forma genuina)”, falls under ISO/TC 54 and is at stage “90.93”. The same catalogue lists ISO 3063:1983, titled “Oil of ylang-ylang (Cananga odorata (Lamark) J.D. Hooker and Thomson))”, marked [Withdrawn], under ISO/TC 54 at stage “95.99”. According to the ISO catalogue record of ISO 3063:2004, the standard has the publication date 2004-11 and is at edition 2. Both titles are reported as titles of works; the content of the standards is not reproduced here. In the IFRA standards library (search “ylang”), one entry carries CAS numbers 8006-81-3, 68606-83-7 and 83863-30-3, the title “Ylang ylang extracts”, the publication date 2020-01 and amendment 49. Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 enters in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 an entry 347, “Cananga odorata flower oil and extract; Ylang Ylang flower oil and extract”, with the INCI name “Cananga Odorata Flower Extract; Cananga Odorata Flower Oil”. In that entry, the CAS column reads “83863-30-3/ 8006-81-3/ 68606-83-7/ 93686-30-7” and the EC column “281-092-1/ -/ -/ 297-681-1”.

References

• Govaerts R. (ed.), World Checklist of Vascular Plants (WCVP), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew — https://sftp.kew.org/pub/data-repositories/WCVP/wcvp.zip
• Chakira A., Soria C., Lallemand L., Mares G., Chillet M., Garcia C., Palá-Pául J., « Improving the Quality of Ylang-Ylang Essential Oils [Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. &Thomson] Through Microwave-Assisted Extraction Compared to Conventional Extraction Methods », Plants 2025;14(20):3217, doi:10.3390/plants14203217 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12567001/fullTextXML
• Brokl M., Fauconnier M.-L., Benini C., Lognay G., du Jardin P., Focant J.-F., « Improvement of Ylang-Ylang Essential Oil Characterization by GC×GC-TOFMS », Molecules 2013;18(2):1783–1797, doi:10.3390/molecules18021783 — https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC6270406/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/
• International Organization for Standardization (ISO), catalogue record « ISO 3063:2004 — Oil of ylang-ylang (Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook. f. et Thomson forma genuina) », edition 2, 2004-11, archived copy of 24/09/2026 (Internet Archive) — https://web.archive.org/web/20260924091426id_/https://www.iso.org/standard/34878.html
• IFRA Standards Library, search for “ylang”, consulted 29/09/2026 — https://ifrafragrance.org/standards-library?query=ylang
• Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1545 of 26 July 2023 amending Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards labelling of fragrance allergens in cosmetic products — https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32023R1545