This work demonstrates rosehip oil composition through GC-MS and several spectroscopy methods, indicating quality control possibilities.
We report the study of seven commercially available rosehip oils (Rosa canina L.) using GC-MS, colorimetry (CIELab), UV-VIS, FTIR, and 3D EEM fluorescence spectroscopy, including using a smartphone spectrometer. GC-MS revealed two groups of oil samples with different chemical constituents: ω-6-dominant with 45–51% α-linolenic acid (samples S1, S2, and S5–S7) and ω-3-dominant with 47–49% α-linolenic, 7.3–19.1% oleic, 1.9–2.8% palmitic, 1.0–1.8% stearic, and 0.1–0.72% arachidic acid (S3, S4). In S1 PUFA content was found to be ~75% with ω-6/ω-3 ≈ 2:1. Favorable lipid indices of AI 0.0197–0.0302, TI 0.0208–0.0304, and h/H 33.0–50.6 were observed. The highest h/H (50.55) was observed in S5 and the lowest TI (0.0208) in S3. FTIR showed characteristic lines at ~3021, 2929/2853, 1749, and ~1370 cm−1, and PCA yielded 60–80% variation and separated S1 from the rest of the samples, while the clusters grouped S5 and S6. The smartphone spectrometer also reproduced the individual differences in sample volumes ≤ 1 µL under 355–395 nm UV excitation. The non-destructive optical markers reflect the fatty acid profile and allow fast low-cost identification and quality control. An integrated control method including routine optical screening, periodic CG-MS verification, and chemometric models to trace oxidation and counterfeiting is suggested.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nikolova et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: