Comparative Analysis of Bioactive Compounds in Pine Resin: Headspace/GC-MS and Direct Injection/GC-MS

Abstract

This study, the chemical composition of pine resin collected from three different locations (Kaburgediği, Karabucak and Mavisilifke) of Mersin province in the Mediterranean Region of Türkiye was investigated using headspace/GC-MS and direct injection/GC-MS techniques. A commercial essential oil was used as a control sample in the study. The analysis focused on key volatile compounds, including ?-pinene, delta-3-carene, camphene, DL-limonene (mixture of D- and L-form), and caryophyllene. The headspace/GC-MS method was more effective for detecting compounds with higher volatility, such as ?-pinene, which was more abundant in Karabucak (66.12% in headspace vs. 53.13% in direct injection). On the other hand, direct injection/GC-MS provided higher sensitivity for less volatile compounds, such as caryophyllene (4.82% in direct injection vs. 0.67% in headspace in Kaburgediği). The most significant difference between the methods was observed in the detection of DL-limonene, which showed higher concentrations in direct injection/GC-MS (3.76% in Mavisilifke) compared to headspace/GC-MS (1.51%). This suggests that direct injection/GC-MS is better for quantifying compounds with lower volatility, while headspace/GC-MS is more effective in capturing the overall aroma profile, especially for volatile compounds. This highlights the difference in efficiency and sensitivity based on the compound's volatility. Therefore, choosing the right method depends on the specific compounds of interest and their volatility characteristics. These findings highlight the unique volatile profiles of each resin, shaped by both the species and the analytical method used, with implications for their aromatic and potential pharmacological properties.

This study, the chemical composition of pine resin collected from three different locations (Kaburgediği, Karabucak and Mavisilifke) of Mersin province in the Mediterranean Region of Türkiye was investigated using headspace/GC-MS and direct injection/GC-MS techniques. A commercial essential oil was used as a control sample in the study. The analysis focused on key volatile compounds, including ?-pinene, delta-3-carene, camphene, DL-limonene (mixture of D- and L-form), and caryophyllene. The headspace/GC-MS method was more effective for detecting compounds with higher volatility, such as ?-pinene, which was more abundant in Karabucak (66.12% in headspace vs. 53.13% in direct injection). On the other hand, direct injection/GC-MS provided higher sensitivity for less volatile compounds, such as caryophyllene (4.82% in direct injection vs. 0.67% in headspace in Kaburgediği). The most significant difference between the methods was observed in the detection of DL-limonene, which showed higher concentrations in direct injection/GC-MS (3.76% in Mavisilifke) compared to headspace/GC-MS (1.51%). This suggests that direct injection/GC-MS is better for quantifying compounds with lower volatility, while headspace/GC-MS is more effective in capturing the overall aroma profile, especially for volatile compounds. This highlights the difference in efficiency and sensitivity based on the compound's volatility. Therefore, choosing the right method depends on the specific compounds of interest and their volatility characteristics. These findings highlight the unique volatile profiles of each resin, shaped by both the species and the analytical method used, with implications for their aromatic and potential pharmacological properties.