Two sequential reflux extraction processes were performed on 25 g of each herbal product. The first extraction used 1.5 L of solvent for 30 min and the second 750 mL of solvent for the same time. The two extract solutions were combined, concentrated in a rotary evaporator (Vacuum Pump V-700, Buchi Labortechnik, Flawil, Switzerland), and lyophilized (ALPHA 1–2 LDplus freeze dryer, Martin Christ Gefriertrocknungsanlagen GmbH, Osterode am Harz, Germany).
The dry extracts were kept in a glass vacuum desiccator to not capture moisture from the atmosphere. The samples were marked as follows: RE—rosemary extracts, TE—thyme extracts [42 (link)], REM—rosemary extract from the control crop, REF—rosemary extract from the common crop, TEM—thyme extract from the control crop, and TEF—thyme extract from the common crop. The solvent used for polyphenolic compound extraction was 50% ethanol for both medicinal plants, ensuring the most effective process [43 (link),69 (link)].
The raw materials’ quality was evaluated using established and typical spectrophotometric techniques. The identity of the analyzed chemicals in the plant raw materials was also validated using the UHPLC–MS and HR ESI–MS techniques.
The dry extracts were kept in a glass vacuum desiccator to not capture moisture from the atmosphere. The samples were marked as follows: RE—rosemary extracts, TE—thyme extracts [42 (link)], REM—rosemary extract from the control crop, REF—rosemary extract from the common crop, TEM—thyme extract from the control crop, and TEF—thyme extract from the common crop. The solvent used for polyphenolic compound extraction was 50% ethanol for both medicinal plants, ensuring the most effective process [43 (link),69 (link)].
The raw materials’ quality was evaluated using established and typical spectrophotometric techniques. The identity of the analyzed chemicals in the plant raw materials was also validated using the UHPLC–MS and HR ESI–MS techniques.
Free full text: Click here
