Table 2.
LC–MS identification and quantification of metabolites of the extract of rosemary leaves. Concentration is presented as mean ± standard deviation derived from triplicate analysis.
| Peak No. | Rt (min) | Negative Ionization (m/z) | Positive Ionization (m/z) | M.W. | Molecular Formula | Tentative Identification |
Concentration (μg/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.1 | 341 [M − H]− 387 [M + FA−H]− 179 [caffeic − H]− 683 [2M − H]− |
365 [M + Na]+ | 342 | C15H18O9 | Caffeic acid hexoside [39] | 14.47 ± 0.44 |
| 2 | 16.6 | 325 [M − H]− 651 [2M − H]− 163 [p-coumaric − H]− |
349 [M + Na]+ 365 [M + K]+ 691 [2M + K]+ 183 [M + H + K]2+ |
326 | C15H18O8 | Coumaric acid hexoside [39] | nq |
| 3 | 17.8 | 305 [M − H]− | 307 [M + H]+ 329 [M + Na]+ 345 [M + K]+ |
306 | C15H14O7 | Gallocatechin [29,36] | 163.77 ± 0.83 |
| 4 | 27.8 | 477 [M − H]− 955 [2M − H]− 315 [M – H − 162(hexose)]− |
479 [M + H]+ 501 [M + Na]+ 979 [2M + Na]+ |
478 | C22H22O12 | Isorhamnetin 3-O-hexoside [35,36] | 43.47 ± 1.22 |
| 5 | 32.4 | 461 [M − H]− 923 [2M − H]− 299 [M – H – 162 (hexose)]− |
463 [M + H]+ 485 [M + Na]+ 947 [2M + Na]+ |
462 | C22H22O11 | Homoplantaginin (Hispidulin-7-glucoside) [23,36,37] | nq |
| 6 | 33.7 | 359 [M − H]− 719 [2M − H]− |
383 [M + Na]+ 743 [2M + Na]+ |
360 | C18H16O8 | Rosmarinic acid st | 111.75 ± 1.24 |
| 7 | 34.5 | 461 [M − H]− 923 [2M − H]− 285 [luteolin − H]− |
463 [M + H]+ | 462 | C21H18O12 | Luteolin -3-O-acetyl-O- glucuronide [37] | 88.57 ± 1.85 |
| 8 | 41.0 | 503 [M − H]− 1007 [2M − H]− 285 [luteolin − H]− 390 443 |
505 [M + H]+ | 504 | C23H20O13 | Luteolin-3-O-(O-acetyl)-β-D-glucuronide isomer I [36,37] | 16.27 ± 2.94 |
| 9 | 41.8 | 623 [M − H]− | 625 [M + H]+
647 [M + Na]+ |
624 | C28H32O16 | Isorhamnetin-rutinoside | nq |
| 10 | 42.3 | 285 [M − H]− 571 [2M − H]− |
287 [M + H]+ | 286 | C15H10O6 | Luteolin [37,38] | 5.02 ± 2.23 |
| 11 | 42.6 | 315 [M − H]− | 317 [M + H]+ | 316 | C16H12O7 | Isorhamnetin [29,37] | nq |
| 12 | 43.0 | 207 [M − H]− | 209 [M + H]+ 231 [M + Na]+ |
208 | Trihydroxy cinnamic acid derivative [29] | 35.06 ± 0.06 | |
| 13 | 46.7 | 329 [M − H]− | 353 [M + Na]+ 683 [2M + Na]+ |
330 | C17H14O7 | Cirsiliol | 11.77 ± 1.2 |
| 14 | 49.7 | 345 [M − H]− 691 [2M − H]− |
347 [M + H]+ 715 [2M + Na]+ |
346 | C20H26O5 | Rosmanol [23,29,36,37,38] | 6.52 ± 0.1 |
| 15 | 51.0 | 345 [M−H]− 691 [2M − H]− |
347 [M + H]+ 715 [2M + Na]+ |
346 | C20H26O5 | Rosmanol isomer [23,36,37] | 40.25 ± 0.11 |
| 16 | 52.4 | 345 [M − H]− 691 [2M − H]− |
369 [M + Na]+ 715 [2M + Na]+ |
346 | C20H26O5 | Epirosmanol [23,36,37] | 14.05 ± 0.1 |
| 17 | 52.6 | 359 [M − H]− | 393 [M + Na]+ | 360 | C18H16O8 | Epirosmanol methyl ether [36,37] | nq |
| 18 | 53.7 | 343 [M − H]− 389 [M + FA − H]− |
367 [M + Na]+ 711 [2M + Na]+ |
344 | C20H24O5 | Rosmadial [23,36,38] | 15.77 ± 0.12 |
| 19 | 54.2 | 359 [M − H]− | 361 [M + H]+ 383 [M + Na]+ |
360 | C18H16O8 | Epirosmanol methyl ether [37] | 1.31 ± 0.12 |
| 20 | 55.0 | 329 [M − H]− 375 [M + FA − H]− |
331 [M + H]+ 353 [M + Na]+ 683 [2M + Na]+ |
330 | C20H26O4 | Carnosol [37,39] | nq |
| 21 | 55.5 | 359 [M − H]− | 361 [M + H]+ 383 [M + Na]+ |
360 | C18H16O8 | Rosmanol methyl ether isomer [37] | 9.72 ± 0.13 |
| 22 | 60.7 | 403 [M + H]− | 427 [M + Na]+ 831 [2M + Na]+ |
404 | Unknown | 27.97 ± 0.34 # | |
| 23 | 63.7 | 373 [M − H]− | 375 [M + H]+ 397 [M + Na]+ |
374 | C22H30O5 | 11,12-Dimethyl rosmanol [37] | 12.66 ± 3.83 |
| 24 | 75.2 | 345 [M − H]− | 369 [M + Na]+ 715 [2M + Na]+ |
346 | C20H26O5 | 12-O-Methyl carnosic acid [37] | 3.1 ± 0.11 |
Notes: nq: not quantified, st: standard compound used for identification, FA: formic acid. #: this compound, although unknown, was quantified with rosmarinic acid curve. The superscript numbers refer to the previous studies on leaves of Rosmarinus officinalis that mention the same ingredient.