Retention Indices for Most Frequently

Reported Essential Oil Compounds in GC

2009, 69, 257–269

Valeri I. Babushok1,&, Igor G. Zenkevich2

1
KTC Consulting, 14 Hartley Place, Gaithersburg, MD 20878, USA; E-Mail: vibabushok@gmail.com
2
Chemical Research Institute of St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia

Received: 16 July 2008 / Revised: 6 September 2008 / Accepted: 23 September 2008

Online publication: 11 November 2008

stituents of an essential oil of most spe-

cies. The use of GC and GC-MS is the
Abstract common procedure for identification of
essential oil compounds [1–3]. Measure-
Retention indices were evaluated for one hundred most commonly reported essential oil ment of retention indices (RI) of chemi-
compounds in gas chromatography (GC) using a large retention index database. Retention cal compounds and comparing with
data are presented for three types of stationary phases: dimethyl silicone, dimethyl silicone available retention data collections is a
with 5% phenyl groups, and polyethylene glycol stationary phases. The data evaluations are general approach in the confirmation of
based on the treatment of multiple measurements with the number of data records ranging compound identification.
between 30 and 470 per compound. Data distribution analysis was limited to temperature With the aim of developing a database
programming conditions. Data reported include the most probable value of retention index, of retention information, NIST started a
average and median values, standard deviation, and confidence intervals. The values of most collection of retention data [4, 5]. Cur-
probable retention indices correspond to frequently used GC conditions of measurements rently the data collection contains more
(temperature program, column parameters, gas flow conditions). The results are compared than 290,000 retention indices (data re-
with data from several available retention index collections. cords) for over 44,000 compounds (re-
lease 2008). A majority of the compounds
(53%) in the collection have just one
measurement [5]. On the other hand 50%
Keywords of the measurements belong to only 2.4%
of the compounds, all of which have more
Gas chromatography
than 46 multiple measurements (repli-
Retention indices
cates). For example, a-phellandrene is
Kováts indices
among the most frequently reported
Essential oil
compounds with 829 data-points (overall
number of RI data-records) currently in
the database. The RI data distributions
for compounds with multiple measure-
Introduction ments were discussed in detail in [6, 7],
based on the analysis of data content of
It is known that a large number of NIST GCRIDatabase. The distribution
components of plant essential oils is of replicate RI measurements is the result
We dedicate this work to the 50th anniversary common to many species. Adams [1] of a number of factors, including different
of the publication of the article by E. sz. indicated that the ability to identify five conditions of measurements (temperature
Kováts (Helv. Chim. Acta, 41:1915–1932,
1958) in which the retention index was intro-
hundred compounds would enable one conditions, columns, etc.), identification
duced for the first time. to identify more than 90% of the con- errors and measurement errors (random

Original Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) 257

DOI: 10.1365/s10337-008-0872-3
0009-5893/09/02
2008 Vieweg+Teubner | GWV Fachverlage GmbH
 160 conditions of measurements: temperature
conditions, column parameters and other
140 conditions often used in the measure-
ments.
Number of mesurements

120 We present retention data for three

stationary phases (dimethylsilicone,
100
dimethylsilicone with 5% phenyl groups
and polyethylene glycol) and for temper-
80
ature programming conditions. The
60
analysis includes the verification of pos-
sible misidentification [7]. In this work we
40 used the approach of RI data distribution
analysis [7] to extract the most probable
20 values of retention indices, corresponding
to typically used gas chromatographic
0 conditions of measurements. The derived
907

910

913

916

919

922

925

928

931

934

937

940

943

946

949

952

955
retention data can be used for improve-
Retention index ment of identification of chemical com-
pounds, for comparison purposes and for
Fig. 1. Retention index data distribution for a-pinene on dimethylsilicone with 5% phenyl further increase of accuracy of retention
groups (number of measurements—471; shown RI values correspond to the lower edge of bin; index measurements.
bin size—3 iu)

Retention Index Data

120 Distributions

100 The distribution of retention index

Number of measurements

values for a chemical compound repre-

sents a dataset of numbers of data-records
80
corresponding to certain RI intervals
(bins). The observed distributions are the
60 result of several factors including small
variations in stationary phase polarity,
temperature conditions and column
40
dimensions. The observed data spread is
also caused by errors in measurements
20 and compound misidentification [7]. For
close experimental conditions of mea-
0
surements there should be a one-maxi-
mum (one-mode) distribution. Thus the
1451

1454

1457

1460

1463

1466

1469

1472

1475

1478

1481

1484

1487

1490

1493

1496

1499

1502

1505

1508

histogram maximum corresponds to

Retention index experimental conditions of most mea-
surements. Figure 1 contains distribu-
Fig. 2. Retention index data distribution for germacrene D on dimethylsilicone with 5% phenyl tion of retention index values measured
groups (number of measurements—334; shown RI values correspond to the lower edge of bin;
bin size—3 iu) on dimethylsilicone with 5% phenyl
groups for a-pinene (471 data records).
and systematic). This leads to a non-ran- number of these compounds can be found It demonstrates the relatively narrow
dom distribution of RI data to some ex- in the collection of Adams [1] and range of retention indices observed for
tent [5–7]. Flavornet collection [8]. As it was indi- this compound with the maximum fre-
The purpose of this study is to derive cated above, a large body of data exists for quency of observations occurring at 939
retention indices for the most commonly these compounds, thus reliable values of RI value [average value—935.6, median
reported compounds in GC based on the RI data can be provided. We undertook value—937 and standard deviation
data from the NIST data-collection [5]. the analysis of data distributions of rep- 7.1 iu (index unit)]. More than 50% of
The frequency of measurements corres- licate measurements for the most com- measured RI values are concentrated in
ponds to the number of data points in the monly reported compounds to provide the 935–940 iu range. Figure 2 demon-
database. Most of these compounds are statistically justified RI values. The pre- strates a similar data distribution for
constituents of essential oils. A large sented values correspond to typically used germacrene D.

258 Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) Original

 Several types of data distributions 45
(histograms) were observed [7]. Single-
40
mode or single-maximum distributions
were observed for a large number of

Number of measurements
35
compounds with data concentrated
within a relatively narrow range of RI 30
corresponding to the experimental con-
25
ditions of the majority of GC measure-
ments. Due to the non-random nature of 20
these distributions, the distributions may
have asymmetrical form and can be 15

shifted to the edge of range of observed

10
RI values. Thus Fig. 3 demonstrates a
shifted maximum of RI data distribution 5
for eugenol. For some compounds with a
0
relatively large number of replicate

1317

1324

1331

1338

1345

1352

1359

1366

1373

1380
measurements, distributions without a
pronounced maximum or data distribu- Retention index
tions with several relatively small maxi-
mums with no apparent main group of Fig. 3. Assymetrical RI distribution for eugenol on dimethylsilicone (number of measure-
data were observed. Distributions with ments—139; bin size—7 iu)
several maximums (multimode distribu-
tions) represent a more difficult case. 40
There are several causes for the appear-
ance of these maximums, which were 35
discussed in detail in [7]. In this work it
Number of measurements

was additionally found that the appear- 30

ance of additional modes may be the
result of a publication of the same RI 25

value in several articles by the same

20
group of authors. Figure 4 contains bi-
modal RI data distribution for a-thujene 15
on a polar polyethylene glycol phase
(PEG). The second maximum at 10
RI = 1,031 is the result of relatively
large number of measurements by the 5
same group of authors. In this work the
additional ‘‘author’s’’ modes were dis- 0
996

1001

1006

1011

1016

1021

1026

1031

1036

regarded in the choice of most probable
(mode) value of the retention index.
However, all these values were included
in the calculation of averaged and med-
ian values, thus leading to some shift of
averaged and median values as a result
of included repeated values.
When measurements are performed at
close experimental conditions, it is rea-
sonable to suggest that one of the sources
of multi-mode behavior is the misidenti-
fication of analytes [7]. Single-mode RI
histograms should be considered as a
confirmation of agreement of inter-labo-
ratory RI data. Note, that Cheong [9]
used a histogram approach in the evalu-
ation of the effective carbon number.
Zenkevich [10, 11] discussed a statistical
RI data treatment in the creation of
1041
Retention index
Fig. 4. Bimodal RI data distribution for a-thugene on polar stationary phase (number of
measurements 143; bin size—5 iu). The mode with higher RI value is the result of publication of
the same RI values by same group of authors in several papers
retention index data collections. Authors deviation of 16.7 iu (SE-30) was found,
[12–14] provided the mean values of which is comparable with standard devi-
retention indices to present the results of ations for inter-laboratory measurements
multiple measurements for the same of RI for basic drugs reported by Moffat
compounds. Adrey and Moffat [12] [15] (15–20 iu). Note that retention indi-
additionally included the ranges of RI ces determined in inter- and intra-labo-
values based on available data relative the ratory measurements are not equivalent
averaged values. Ramsey et al. [13] esti- to some extent. In this work we do not use
mated standard deviations for retention data weighting of multiple RI determi-
index data of twenty drug compounds for nations involved in the data treatment.
which more than ten retention index val- All considered RI data-records were
ues were available. The mean standard treated as equivalent data.

Original Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) 259

Table 1. Retention indices for most frequently reported essential oil compounds

Name CAS Phasea Number Mode Average Median Standard 50% RI 95% RI Literature
of value value value deviation range range datab
replicates

2,3-Butanedione 431-03-8 Methylsilicone 36 560 571.9 565 17.5 560–575 555–613 655 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 88 593 597.3 595 11 591–606 579–621 593 [8]
PEG 158 980 975.6 979 13.8 966–984 943–1,012 970 [8]
3-Methylbutanal 590-86-3 Methylsilicone 69 631.6 631 8.4 627–638 614–649 641 [8], 626–628 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 129 652 651.7 652 11 649–658 622–671 650 [8], 647–650 [21]
PEG 107 914 919.4 917 10.6 911–926 902–943 1,649–1,667 [21], 917 [22]
3-Methyl-1-butanol 123-51-3 Methylsilicone 85 719 720.7 719 10.2 714–724 700–744 736 [8], 718–719 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 93 736 738.7 736 9.5 733–742 719–767 736 [8], 731–732 [21]
PEG 224 1,210 1,205.1 1,208 16 1,196–1,215 1,169–1,239 1,205 [8], 1,201–1,206 [21],
1,215 [22]
Toluene 108-88-3 Methylsilicone 132 752 754.2 752 7.9 748–759 741–772 756 [8], 744–750 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 82 771 767.3 768 7.3 762–772 750–779 760–766 [21]
PEG 112 1,040 1,039.6 1,039 12.5 1,033–1,046 1,017–1,070 1,042 [8], 1,305–1,316 [21],
1,040 [22]
Pentanol 71-41-0 Methylsilicone 77 752 753 753 9.9 746–759 729–773 745–748 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 78 766 767.1 766 6 763–772 758–783 762 [1], 763–764 [21]
PEG 175 1,250 1,246.5 1,249 16 1,236–1,256 1,213–1,294 1,255 [8], 1,200–1,205 [21],
1,256 [22]
Hexanal 66-25-1 Methylsilicone 176 772 777 776 7 771–780 768–800 772 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 239 800 799.3 800 8.3 798–803 776–817 801 [1], 801 [8]
PEG 369 1,084 1,081.3 1,082 16.3 1,074–1,090 1,036–1,111 1,084 [8], 1,080 [22]
Ethyl butanoate 105-54-4 Methylsilicone 68 785 786 785 5 782–789 778–800 789 [8], 782–783 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 97 802 798.5 802 9 798–804 771–808 802 [1], 804 [8], 802–803 [21]
PEG 160 1,025 1,035.3 1,035 11.8 1,025–1,043 1,015–1,061 1,028 [8], 1,031–1,033 [21]
Furfural 98-01-1 Methylsilicone 88 800 804.7 803 6.8 800–810 795–829 800 [8], 798–800 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 97 830 833.8 833 9.4 829–839 811–852 828 [1], 829 [8], 828–832 [21]
PEG 166 1,461.1 1,462 15.8 1,451–1,471 1,427–1,493 1,455 [8], 1,446–1,459 [21]
(E)-2-Hexenal 6728-26-3 Methylsilicone 100 827 827.7 827 7.3 824–830 817–853 827 [8], 820–824 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 137 854 853.7 854 7.5 850–856 832–867 846 [1], 847–852 [21]
PEG 202 1,215 1,215.3 1,215 16.1 1,207–1,222 1,192–1,247 1,211–1,232 [21], 1,225 [22]
(Z)-3-Hexenol 928-96-1 Methylsilicone 107 834 841.4 840 9 834–847 827–863 844 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 83 857 856.1 857 7.2 852–859 841–875 850 [1], 858 [8]
PEG 202 1,379.2 1,379 15.8 1,370–1,390 1,351–1,417 1,391 [8], 1,388 [22]
n-Hexanol 111-27-3 Methylsilicone 114 858 853.9 854 7.3 849–858 839–881 858 [8], 851–852 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 114 867 868 868 11.5 865–874 828–888 863 [1], 851 [8], 868 [21]
PEG 213 1,356 1,351.4 1,354 17.4 1,344–1,361 1,314–1,386 1,360 [8], 1,342–1,347 [21],
1,354 [22]
Methional 3268-49-3 Methylsilicone 31 865.6 864 5.3 862–870 856–875 864 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 133 909 907.6 908 5.8 904–910 898–924 909 [8]
PEG 153 1,450 1,455 1,453 15.3 1,448–1,463 1,426–1,495 1,458 [8]
2-Heptanone 110-43-0 Methylsilicone 87 865 869 869 5 865–873 859–878 872 [8], 864–867 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 102 891 891.7 892 5.1 889–894 882–902 889 [1], 895 [8], 889–891 [21]
PEG 117 1,178 1,180.6 1,180 15.5 1,172–1,189 1,154–1,207 1,170 [8], 1,175–1,182 [21],
1,185 [22]
Heptanal 111-71-7 Methylsilicone 96 878 880.9 880 6.2 877–883 873–899 885 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 150 901 900.8 901 8.5 899–904 872–914 901 [1], 903 [8]
PEG 159 1,186 1,184.3 1,184 13.5 1,176–1,194 1,151–1,213 1,174 [8], 1,186 [22]
a-Thujene 2867-05-2 Methylsilicone 216 924 925.3 924 6.2 922–929 913–938 930 [8], 924 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 233 931 927.7 930 7 925–932 905–938 924 [1], 938 [8]
PEG 143 1,021 1,025.2 1,024 9.3 1,019–1,035 1,003–1,039 1,021 [8], 1,013 [22]
a-Pinene 80-56-8 Methylsilicone 428 930 933.7 932 7.7 929–937 922–955 926 [8], 930 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 471 939 935.6 937 7.1 932–940 912–948 932 [1], 939 [8]
PEG 364 1,025.1 1,025 10.6 1,017–1,032 1,007–1,045 1,032 [8], 1,010 [22]
Benzaldehyde 100-52-7 Methylsilicone 167 926 934.8 932 12 925–942 919–964 920–927 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 205 962 963.3 962 10.3 959–968 941–986 952 [1], 960 [8], 955–963 [21]
PEG 317 1,517.5 1,518 22.7 1,501–1,532 1,465–1,558 1,495 [8], 1,496–1,515 [21],
1,528 [22]
Camphene 79-92-5 Methylsilicone 258 943 946.3 945 7.2 941–951 933–962 957 [8], 944 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 295 953 949.9 951.5 6.3 947–954 928–964 946 [1], 953 [8]
PEG 233 1,066 1,067.9 1,068 13.2 1,059–1,077 1,042–1,090 1,075 [8], 1,053 [22]
Dimethyl trisulfide 3658-80-8 Methylsilicone 52 949 948.8 949 7.7 942–952 935–964 949 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 99 970 972.6 971 9.7 966–981 950–992 974 [8]
PEG 112 1,380 1,378.8 1,378 14.4 1,368–1,387 1,352–1,408 1,377 [8], 1,383 [22]
1-Octen-3-one 4312-99-6 Methylsilicone 21 955.3 956 4.6 953–958 945–961 956 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 103 980 977.5 979 4.9 975–981 961–991 972 [1], 976 [8]
PEG 138 1,296 1,301.2 1,300 13.3 1,292–1,310 1,278–1,328 1,313 [8], 1,299 [22]

260 Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) Original

Table 1. continued

Name CAS Phasea Number Mode Average Median Standard 50% RI 95% RI Literature
of value value value deviation range range datab
replicates

1-Octen-3-ol 3391-86-4 Methylsilicone 95 965.2 964 6.3 961–968 956–980 958 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 181 980 980 980 5.7 977–983 964–991 974 [1], 982 [8]
PEG 212 1,444.3 1,449 17.7 1,437–1,455 1,396–1,476 1,394 [8], 1,456 [22]
6-Methyl-5- 110-93-0 Methylsilicone 71 963 965.3 965 4.3 962–968 942–986 965 [8], 961–963 [21]
hepten-2-one 5%Phe-Me-Sil 95 985 985.6 985 5.1 984–988 974–995 981 [1], 974 [8], 987–988 [21]
PEG 141 1,336.5 1,336 15.7 1,327–1,344 1,308–1,365 1,336 [8], 1,327–1,334 [21],
1,340 [22]
Sabinene 3387-41-5 Methylsilicone 273 970 967 967 6.2 963–971 957–979 970 [8], 964 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 294 975 972.8 974 6.3 971–977 953–982 969 [1], 972 [8]
PEG 262 1,120 1,121.2 1,121.5 13.9 1,114–1,131 1,089–1,149 1,123 [8], 1,133 [22]
b-Pinene 127-91-3 Methylsilicone 373 971 972.3 972 6.9 968–977 959–986 985 [8], 969 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 414 980 977.5 979 6.4 975–981 962–989 974 [1], 981 [8]
PEG 337 1,118 1,109.2 1,110 13.8 1,101–1,118 1,078–1,133 1,116 [8], 1,095 [22]
2-Pentylfuran 3777-69-3 Methylsilicone 51 980 979.4 980 3.2 977–982 964–984
5%Phe-Me-Sil 91 993 991.7 993 5.3 990–995 976–999 993 [8]
PEG 98 1,230 1,231.8 1,231 10.1 1,224–1,240 1,204–1,253 1,240 [8], 1,240 [22]
Octanal 124-13-0 Methylsilicone 136 981 982.9 982 5.2 980–985 975–999 982 [8], 979–980 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 205 1,004 1,002.2 1,003 7.5 1,000–1,006 975–1,015 998 [1], 1,006 [8],
1,003–1,004 [21]
PEG 259 1,289 1,287.1 1,288 13.5 1,278–1,296 1,259–1,315 1,280 [8], 1,281–1,288 [21],
1,286 [22]
Hexanoic acid 142-62-1 Methylsilicone 32 983.5 982 17.8 973–997 948–1,008 890 [8], 981–998 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 70 994.6 993 18.3 980–1,018 959–1,041 967 [1], 1,019 [8],
995–1,010 [21]
PEG 225 1,842.4 1,844 19.9 1,832–1,854 1,793–1,874 1,829 [8], 1,820–1,840 [21]
Myrcene 123-35-3 Methylsilicone 376 983 983.2 983 5 981–986 973–993 990 [8], 983 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 411 991 990 991 4 988–992 975–998 988 [1], 992 [8]
PEG 380 1,174 1,160 1,160 11.4 1,155–1,168 1,131–1,178 1,145 [8], 1,167 [22]
Ethyl hexanoate 123-66-0 Methylsilicone 68 981 984.1 983 5.3 980–986 974–1,002 984 [8], 981–982 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 103 1,000 999.9 1,000 3.8 997–1,002 993–1,010 997 [1], 1,002 [8], 1,000 [21]
PEG 175 1,223 1,232.8 1,230 11.2 1,223–1,241 1,205–1,259 1,220 [8], 1,227–1,234 [21]
a-Phellandrene 99-83-2 Methylsilicone 229 997 999.1 998 6.4 995–1,002 989–1,013 1,009 [8], 996 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 247 1,003 1,003.5 1,004 6.6 1,002–1,007 989–1,014 1,002 [1], 1,007 [8]
PEG 178 1,167 1,167 12.1 1,158–1,176 1,147–1,194 1,166 [8], 1,160 [22]
d-3-Carene 13466-78-9 Methylsilicone 147 1,005 1,006.9 1,005 8.9 1,000–1,009 994–1,035 1,017 [8], 1,000 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 162 1,011 1,010.4 1,010 5.2 1,008–1,012 1,000–1,031 1,008 [1], 1,009 [8]
PEG 120 1,145 1,144.8 1,146 14 1,138–1,152 1,112–1,171 1,148 [8], 1,144 [22]
Benzyl alcohol 100-51-6 Methylsilicone 85 1,005 1,015.7 1,009 13.7 1,005–1,025 1,001–1,046 1,117 [8], 1,003–1,005 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 85 1,032 1,037.4 1,036 8.2 1,032–1,041 1,025–1,057 1,026 [1], 1,039 [8],
1,033–1,037 [21]
PEG 226 1,870 1,866.5 1,870 21.3 1,853–1,881 1,822–1,908 1,865 [8], 1,844–1,871 [21]
a-Terpinene 99-86-5 Methylsilicone 212 1,010 1,010.3 1,010 7.4 1,006–1,013 1,000–1,025 1,020 [8], 1,007 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 277 1,018 1,016.1 1,017 5.5 1,015–1,019 1,003–1,026 1,014 [1], 1,012 [8]
PEG 216 1,177.6 1,180 14.3 1,168–1,188 1,138–1,205 1,178 [8], 1,175 [22]
Benzene 122-78-1 Methylsilicone 93 1,012 1,013 1,011 10.1 1,005–1,018 1,002–1,043 1,004 [8]
acetaldehyde 5%Phe-Me-Sil 198 1,043 1,046.4 1,045 10.1 1,042–1,052 1,019–1,066 1,036 [1], 1,049 [8]
PEG 175 1,641.2 1,640 22.7 1,626–1,652 1,595–1,697 1,625 [8], 1,669 [22]
p-Cymene 99-87-6 Methylsilicone 368 1,012 1,013.7 1,013 5.8 1,010–1,017 1,003–1,026 1,027 [8], 1,013 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 382 1,026 1,024.1 1,025 5.8 1,022–1,027 1,010–1,034 1,020 [1], 1,025 [8]
PEG 343 1,280 1,269.6 1,270 13.1 1,263–1,281 1,243–1,296 1,261 [8], 1,266 [22]
b-Phellandrene 555-10-2 Methylsilicone 153 1,018 1,021.3 1,021 9.4 1,016–1,026 1,005–1,045 1,035 [8], 1,022 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 141 1,030 1,029.9 1,030 8.2 1,028–1,033 1,005–1,043 1,025 [1], 1,053 [8]
PEG 199 1,207.7 1,208 16.2 1,198–1,218 1,163–1,243 1,209 [8], 1,202 [22]
Limonene 138-86-3 Methylsilicone 414 1,020 1,022.2 1,022 5 1,019–1,026 1,009–1,029 1,022 [8], 1,021 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 374 1,030 1,029.3 1,030 6.5 1,027–1,032 1,014–1,040 1,024 [1], 1,033 [8]
PEG 430 1,203 1,197.8 1,199 13.6 1,190–1,205 1,166–1,126 1,178 [8], 1,194 [22]
1,8-Cineole 470-82-6 Methylsilicone 260 1,022 1,021.6 1,022 7.7 1,017–1,026 1,005–1,039 1,015 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 280 1,033 1,031.9 1,032 6.7 1,029–1,034 1,019–1,048 1,026 [1], 1,030 [8]
PEG 246 1,211.6 1,212 14.2 1,203–1,221 1,185–1,243 1,213 [8], 1,198 [22]
(Z)-b-Ocimene 3338-55-4 Methylsilicone 208 1,028 1,028.9 1,028 6.9 1,025–1,031 1,017–1,044 1,027 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 218 1,040 1,038 1,038 6.3 1,036–1,041 1,022–1,049 1,032 [1], 1,043 [8]
PEG 187 1,228 1,234.3 1,235 12 1,227–1,245 1,200–1,256 1,245 [8]
(E)-b-Ocimene 3779-61-1 Methylsilicone 242 1,037 1,038.6 1,038 6 1,035–1,042 1,026–1,052 1,043 [8], 1,038 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 281 1,050 1,048.2 1,049 5 1,045–1,051 1,035–1,058 1,044 [1], 1,038 [8]
PEG 247 1,250 1,251.2 1,250 10.6 1,244–1,257 1,232–1,271 1,242 [8], 1,237 [22]

Original Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) 261

Table 1. continued

Name CAS Phasea Number Mode Average Median Standard 50% RI 95% RI Literature
of value value value deviation range range datab
replicates

c-Terpinene 99-85-4 Methylsilicone 301 1,047 1,050.5 1,050 6.6 1,046–1,055 1,035–1,063 1,058 [8], 1,049 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 369 1,062 1,059.5 1,060 7.3 1,057–1,063 1,043–1,073 1,054 [1], 1,074 [8]
PEG 278 1,244 1,245.1 1,245 13.1 1,238–1,255 1,216–1,270 1,238 [8], 1,240 [22]
cis-Sabinene 17699-16-0 Methylsilicone 108 1,056.7 1,055 9.1 1,052–1,060 1,037–1,083
hydrate 5%Phe-Me-Sil 120 1,068 1,067.9 1,068 4.6 1,066–1,070 1,044–1,076 1,065 [1], 1,073 [8]
PEG 79 1,465.4 1,465 9.8 1,458–1,474 1,447–1,484
n-Octanol 111-87-5 Methylsilicone 109 1,058.6 1,057 6.4 1,053–1,061 1,050–1,073 995 [8], 1,054–1,056 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 126 1,070 1,071.7 1,070 6 1,068–1,074 1,063–1,084 1,063 [1], 981 [8],
1,071–1,072 [21]
PEG 216 1,562 1,551.9 1,556 17.2 1,544–1,563 1,513–1,584 1,553 [8], 1,118–1,124 [21],
1,561 [22]
cis-Linalool oxide 5989-33-3 Methylsilicone 81 1,066 1,065.2 1,066 8.1 1,060–1,069 1,045–1,081 1,071 [8]
(furanoid) 5%Phe-Me-Sil 78 1,074 1,072.7 1,073 6.7 1,070–1,075 1,057–1,087 1,067 [1], 1,070 [8]
PEG 92 1,443.7 1,443 22 1,423–1,460 1,405–1,478 1,420 [8]
Terpinolene 586-62-9 Methylsilicone 265 1,077 1,078.6 1,079 6.6 1,075–1,083 1,064–1,092 1,089 [8], 1,079 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 316 1,088 1,086.9 1,088 5.8 1,086–1,090 1,070–1,098 1,086 [1]
PEG 274 1,280 1,281.8 1,283 10.5 1,276–1,290 1,259–1,303 1,276 [22]
Nonanal 124-19-6 Methylsilicone 162 1,082 1,084.1 1,083 6.4 1,081–1,086 1,073–1,103 1,079 [8], 1,080–1,083 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 302 1,104 1,103.1 1,103 7.2 1,101–1,106 1,081–1,118 1,100 [1], 1,104 [8],
1,104–1,105 [21]
PEG 298 1,391.3 1,391 12.9 1,383–1,400 1,356–1,419 1,385 [8], 1,385–1,393 [21],
1,396 [22]
Linalool 78-70-6 Methylsilicone 404 1,085 1,085.9 1,086 6 1,083–1,089 1,073–1,101 1,085 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 431 1,098 1,098.9 1,099 5.5 1,097–1,101 1,086–1,112 1,095 [1], 1,100 [8]
PEG 517 1,553 1,543.8 1,547 15.8 1,537–1,557 1,506–1,571 1,537 [8], 1,554 [22]
Phenylethylalcohol 60-12-8 Methylsilicone 96 1,081 1,088.1 1,086 9.3 1,080–1,096 1,076–1,105 1,080 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 130 1,116 1,116.1 1,116 10.3 1,110–1,120 1,102–1,140 1,106 [1], 1,118 [8]
PEG 283 1,905 1,903 1,905 25.1 1,890–1,920 1,856–1,951 1,925 [8]
Camphor 76-22-2 Methylsilicone 172 1,125 1,122.7 1,123 10 1,118–1,128 1,095–1,142 1,107–1,121 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 178 1,143 1,143.1 1,143 6.9 1,141–1,146 1,126–1,159 1,141 [1], 1,139 [8],
1,140–1,154 [21]
PEG 123 1,515.4 1,518 16.5 1,510–1,527 1,483–1,539 1,491 [8], 1,483–1,511 [21]
(E)-2-Nonenal 18829-56-6 Methylsilicone 46 1,135.5 1,134 6.3 1,131–1,140 1,126–1,149 1,130 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 125 1,161 1,161.6 1,162 7.2 1,158–1,165 1,144–1,176 1,157 [1], 1,162 [8],
1,162 [21]
PEG 139 1,535.5 1,532 16.3 1,526–1,546 1,508–1,573 1,527 [8], 1,546 [22]
Borneol 507-70-0 Methylsilicone 195 1,155 1,152.5 1,152 10 1,147–1,156 1,134–1,180 1,180 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 195 1,165 1,166.5 1,166 6.3 1,164–1,169 1,152–1,182 1,165 [1], 1,162 [8]
PEG 139 1,699.1 1,701 20.7 1,690–1,718 1,650–1,730 1,677 [8]
p-Cymen-8-ol 1197-01-9 Methylsilicone 54 1,158 1,161.3 1,162 7 1,157–1,167 1,148–1,174 1,200 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 113 1,183 1,183.3 1,183 4.6 1,182–1,185 1,167–1,193 1,179 [1], 1,166 [8]
PEG 111 1,848.3 1,851 17.3 1,838–1,864 1,805–1,865 1,838 [8]
Terpinen-4-ol 562-74-3 Methylsilicone 324 1,161 1,162.3 1,163 8.3 1,158–1,168 1,147–1,178 1,182 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 370 1,177 1,176.3 1,177 7.4 1,175–1,179 1,154–1,189 1,174 [1], 1,179 [8]
PEG 303 1,611 1,601.9 1,602 18.8 1,591–1,612 1,559–1,637 1,591 [8]
a-Terpineol 98-55-5 Methylsilicone 343 1,172 1,174.9 1,175 8.1 1,169–1,179 1,159–1,193 1,289 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 390 1,189 1,189.1 1,189 8.3 1,188–1,192 1,163–1,207 1,186 [1], 1,195 [8]
PEG 383 1,693.8 1,695 19.4 1,681–1,706 1,652–1,732 1,688 [8]
Ethyl octanoate 106-32-1 Methylsilicone 45 1,180 1,182.3 1,181 5 1,179–1,183 1,176–1,195 1,182 [8], 1,180–1,181 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 77 1,196 1,197 1,196 4.5 1,194–1,200 1,190–1,209 1,196 [1], 1,198 [8],
1,197–1,199 [21]
PEG 128 1,431 1,434.3 1,431 12 1,426–1,441 1,412–1,461 1,436 [8], 1,427–1,434 [21],
1,438 [22]
Myrtenol 515-00-4 Methylsilicone 68 1,184 1,182 1,182 7.4 1,177–1,185 1,168–1,200
5%Phe-Me-Sil 86 1,194 1,195 1,194 3.7 1,192–1,196 1,188–1,206 1,194 [1]
PEG 89 1,792.5 1,796 15.3 1,784–1,804 1,753–1,808
Decanal 112-31-2 Methylsilicone 137 1,184 1,186.3 1,185 6.4 1,182–1,188 1,176–1,204 1,186 [8], 1,182–1,185 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 213 1,204 1,206 1,205 7.1 1,203–1,208 1,188–1,223 1,201 [1], 1,209 [8],
1,205–1,207 [21]
PEG 178 1,497 1,495.8 1,497 16.1 1,485–1,506 1,448–1,525 1,484 [8], 1,485–1,500 [21],
1,502 [22]
Nerol 106-25-2 Methylsilicone 115 1,212 1,215.2 1,212 8.5 1,209–1,219 1,206–1,240 1,234 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 74 1,228 1,226.2 1,228 6.4 1,225–1,230 1,204–1,235 1,227 [1], 1,233 [8]
PEG 165 1,792.7 1,795 22.1 1,781–1,808 1,752–1,832 1,770 [8]
Citronellol 106-22-9 Methylsilicone 81 1,212 1,213 1,212 6.4 1,209–1,215 1,203–1,229 1,229 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 77 1,228 1,226.6 1,228 6.4 1,224–1,230 1,211–1,238 1,223 [1], 1,233 [8]
PEG 128 1,762.2 1,764 15.6 1,755–1,773 1,722–1,787 1,762 [8]

262 Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) Original

Table 1. continued

Name CAS Phasea Number Mode Average Median Standard 50% RI 95% RI Literature
of value value value deviation range range datab
replicates

Carvone 99-49-0 Methylsilicone 81 1,217.7 1,218 7.8 1,211–1,223 1,206–1,236 1,210 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 121 1,242 1,240.6 1,242 7.6 1,239–1,243 1,215–1,259 1,239 [1], 1,254–1,255 [8]
PEG 88 1,735.8 1,738 16.4 1,722–1,751 1,704–1,755 1,751 [8]
Geraniol 106-24-1 Methylsilicone 176 1,236 1,238.9 1,237 7.4 1,234–1,242 1,228–1,258 1,258 [8], 1,235–1,237 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 144 1,255 1,254.4 1,255 9.7 1,252–1,257 1,230–1,276 1,249 [1], 1,276 [8],
(1,257–1,259) [21]
PEG 249 1,847 1,838.4 1,845 22.1 1,830–1,856 1,786–1,867 1,847 [8], 1,835–1,850 [21]
Geranial 141-27-5 Methylsilicone 91 1,248 1,248 1,248 7 1,242–1,252 1,232–1,267 1,258 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 92 1,270 1,269.8 1,270 9.8 1,266–1,272 1,248–1,294 1,264 [1], 1,277 [8]
PEG 106 1,726.1 1,728 17.8 1,716–1,739 1,680–1,755 1,715 [8]
Bornyl acetate 76-49-3 Methylsilicone 124 1,270 1,269.4 1,270 6.9 1,265–1,273 1,252–1,284 1,262–1,272 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 153 1,285 1,285.1 1,285 5.8 1,283–1,288 1,270–1,299 1,287 [1], 1,284–1,295 [21]
PEG 120 1,580.3 1,580 15 1,570–1,593 1,547–1,599 1,561–1,581 [21]
Thymol 89-83-8 Methylsilicone 121 1,267 1,272.4 1,271 9.1 1,266–1,278 1,255–1,290
5%Phe-Me-Sil 126 1,290 1,291.3 1,290 6.5 1,289–1,293 1,272–1,304 1,289 [1]
PEG 87 2,176.8 2,188 27.9 2,172–2,198 2,143–2,205
Carvacrol 499-75-2 Methylsilicone 86 1,278 1,282.6 1,278 9.1 1,275–1,288 1,271–1,301
5%Phe-Me-Sil 128 1,299 1,299.3 1,299 6.3 1,297–1,301 1,284–1,314 1,298 [1]
PEG 92 2,212.8 2,223 32.8 2,189–2,239 2,140–2,246
b-Elemene 515-13-9 Methylsilicone 184 1,388 1,387.3 1,288 8.3 1,383–1,391 1,370–1,404
5%Phe-Me-Sil 242 1,391 1,390.2 1,391 8.9 1,389–1,394 1,363–1,406 1,389 [1], 1,393 [8]
PEG 174 1,585 1,590.1 1,591 12.4 1,584–1,600 1,562–1,610 1,595 [8]
(E,E)-2,4-Decadienal 25152-84-5 Methylsilicone 59 1,288 1,289.5 1,288 5.2 1,286–1,292 1,279–1,304 1,288 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 131 1,317 1,319 1,317 7.5 1,313–1,322 1,297–1,338 1,315 [1], 1,317 [8]
PEG 126 1,803.7 1,805 20.5 1,790–1,825 1,765–1,828 1,710 [8]
Eugenol 97-53-0 Methylsilicone 139 1,327 1,337.6 1,333 14.5 1,326–1,343 1,320–1,381 1,381 [8], 1,321–1,330 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 149 1,356 1,357.4 1,356 8.6 1,354–1,360 1,339–1,380 1,356 [1], 1,364 [8],
1,356–1,366 [21]
PEG 150 2,166.6 2,166 20.5 2,151–2,185 2,117–2,209 2,141 [8], 2,128–2,162 [21]
a-Terpinyl acetate 80-26-2 Methylsilicone 88 1,333 1,333 1,333 5.6 1,330–1,334 1,324–1,349
5%Phe-Me-Sil 90 1,350 1,347.1 1,350 7.2 1,344–1,351 1,330–1,357 1,346 [1]
PEG 71 1,693.4 1,692 15.0 1,684–1,707 1,662–1,727 1,700 [8]
Neryl acetate 141-12-8 Methylsilicone 93 1,342 1,342.7 1,343 4.8 1,340–1,345 1,328–1,365 1,345 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 81 1,365 1,361.1 1,363 7.9 1,360–1,366 1,342–1,376 1,359 [1]
PEG 77 1,717.4 1,722 14.7 1,706–1,726 1,685–1,742 1,742 [8]
a-Cubebene 17699-14-8 Methylsilicone 128 1,353.3 1,351 11.9 1,345–1,359 1,332–1,381 1,365 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 168 1,351 1,350.3 1,351 6.5 1,348–1,352 1,338–1,367 1,345 [1], 1,345 [8]
PEG 125 1,461.2 1,465 12.9 1,454–1,468 1,431–1,481 1,463 [8]
Geranyl acetate 105-87-3 Methylsilicone 136 1,359 1,361.6 1,361 7.8 1,358–1,363 1,344–1,385 1,265 [8], 1,360 [21]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 98 1,383 1,379 1,381 8.2 1,378–1,384 1,354–1,390 1,379 [1], 1,382 [8],
1,385 [21]
PEG 128 1,750.1 1,750 14.7 1,742–1,765 1,711–1,772 1,711 [8], 1,747–1,755 [21]
(E)-b-Damascenone 23726-93-4 Methylsilicone 44 1,360 1,362 1,361 5.7 1,358–1,367 1,352–1,372 1,363 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 107 1,381 1,384.4 1,385 8.2 1,381–1,390 1,365–1,402 1,383 [1], 1,386 [8]
PEG 124 1,820.4 1,822 18.3 1,806–1,838 1,783–1,851 1,813 [8]
a-Copaene 3856-25-5 Methylsilicone 249 1,375 1,374.7 1,375 8.9 1,369–1,380 1,355–1,395 1,353 [8], 1,372 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 332 1,377 1,375.9 1,376 8.1 1,374–1,378 1,360–1,393 1,374 [1], 1,377 [8]
PEG 251 1,488 1,491.6 1,492 17.3 1,482–1,497 1,457–1,531 1,488 [8]
b-Bourbonene 5208-59-3 Methylsilicone 115 1,381.7 1,383 8.9 1,377–1,386 1,362–1,405 1,400 [8], 1,385 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 185 1,384 1,384.4 1,384 9.9 1,382–1,386 1,347–1,412 1,387 [1]
PEG 98 1,524.2 1,526 14.4 1,515–1,535 1,496–1,550 1,585 [8]
b-Cubebene 13744-15-5 Methylsilicone 66 1,382.7 1,385 7.5 1,378–1,387 1,364–1,395 1,389 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 129 1,390 1,387.1 1,389 6.8 1,387–1,391 1,360–1,394 1,387 [1]
PEG 92 1,541.1 1,544.5 12.7 1,535–1,549 1,514–1,560 1,546 [8]
E-Caryophyllene 87-44-5 Methylsilicone 447 1,414 1,419 1,419 11.4 1,413–1,423 1,397–1,449 1,438 [8], 1,417 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 472 1,418 1,419.2 1,419 10 1,417–1,421 1,396–1,444 1,417 [1], 1,467 [8]
PEG 380 1,598.4 1,596 19.8 1,584–1,612 1,563–1,644 1,594 [8], 1,598 [22]
Aromadendrene 489-39-4 Methylsilicone 78 1,439.8 1,440 14.6 1,432–1,447 1,410–1,475 1,458 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 131 1,440 1,439.8 1,439 9 1,436–1,442 1,419–1,464 1,439 [1]
PEG 83 1,620 1,620 23.2 1,605–1,628 1,583–1,671 1,600 [8]
(E)-b-Farnesene 18794-84-8 Methylsilicone 135 1,448 1,450.7 1,448 10.9 1,445–1,455 1,435–1,488 1,451 [8], 1,482 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 160 1,458 1,455.3 1,457 8.4 1,454–1,459 1,435–1,468 1,454 [1], 1,445 [8]
PEG 133 1,668 1,663.5 1,663 13.3 1,657–1,671 1,630–1,695 1,658 [8]
a-Humulene 6753-98-6 Methylsilicone 315 1,447 1,449.3 1,451 10.7 1,443–1,455 1,425–1,472 1,472 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 371 1,454 1,452.8 1,454 9.5 1,450–1,456 1,430–1,476 1,452 [1], 1,467 [8]
PEG 296 1,667 1,667.6 1,667 17.5 1,656–1,682 1,632–1,699 1,663 [8]

Original Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) 263

Table 1. continued

Name CAS Phasea Number Mode Average Median Standard 50% RI 95% RI Literature
of value value value deviation range range datab
replicates

Allo-Aromadendrene 25246-27-9 Methylsilicone 107 1,459.6 1,460 9.9 1,442–1,466 1,438–1,479 1,479 [8], 1,464 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 167 1,461 1,460.1 1,461 8.8 1,458–1,463 1,442–1,478 1,458 [1]
PEG 107 1,650.5 1,657 14.5 1,640–1,661 1,618–1,681 1,639 [8]
(E)-b-ionone 79-77-6 Methylsilicone 79 1,462 1,466.3 1,466 6.9 1,461–1,470 1,453–1,483 1,466 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 88 1,485 1,486 1,485 6.7 1,484–1,489 1,470–1,498 1,487 [1], 1,493 [8]
PEG 123 1,931.6 1,936 21.1 1,912–1,952 1,889–1,959 1,912 [8]
c-Muurolene 30021-74-0 Methylsilicone 109 1,471 1,473.4 1,473 11.1 1,467–1,479 1,450–1,501 1,488 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 199 1,477 1,475.6 1,477 6.9 1,474–1,479 1,456–1,488 1,478 [1], 1,475 [8]
PEG 105 1,688.9 1,691 17.1 1,676–1,704 1,655–1,723 1,681 [8]
Germacrene D 23986-74-5 Methylsilicone 228 1,473 1,475.9 1,476 9.1 1,471–1,481 1,457–1,493 1,500 [8], 1,474 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 334 1,480 1,480.5 1,480 7.4 1,479–1,483 1,463–1,499 1,484 [1], 1,487 [8]
PEG 210 1,704 1,708.3 1,710 16.2 1,700–1,722 1,669–1,727 1,705 [8]
b-Selinene 17066-67-0 Methylsilicone 105 1,480.3 1,480 10.1 1,475–1,486 1,458–1,502 1,419 [8], 1,475 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 171 1,485 1,484.8 1,486 6.95 1,483–1,489 1,466–1,496 1,489 [1]
PEG 111 1,718.1 1,716 16.5 1,708–1,731 1,686–1,750 1,711 [8]
a-Selinene 473-13-2 Methylsilicone 83 1,488.2 1,489 10.6 1,482–1,494 1,467–1,512 1,486 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 91 1,494 1,491.9 1,494 6.3 1,489–1,496 1,476–1,501 1,498 [1]
PEG 93 1,724.7 1,725 16 1,716–1,737 1,694–1,748
Bicyclogermacrene 24703-35-3 Methylsilicone 119 1,490 1,491 8.7 1,486–1,495 1,468–1,507 1,490 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 188 1,494 1,493.2 1,495 7.3 1,492–1,497 1,472–1,502 1,500 [1], 1,517 [8]
PEG 136 1,734.6 1,735 19.1 1,724–1,750 1,688–1,766 1,738 [8]
a-Muurolene 31983-22-9 Methylsilicone 111 1,494 1,491.6 1,494 7.8 1,487–1,497 1,473–1,506 1,506 [8], 1,495 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 189 1,499 1,497.7 1,499 7.5 1,496–1,501 1,478–1,510 1,500 [1]
PEG 117 1,719.9 1,722 21.9 1,700–1,736 1,677–1,769 1,714 [8]
(E,E)-a-Farnesene 502-61-4 Methylsilicone 103 1,495 1,496 1,495 8.6 1,491–1,500 1,479–1,518 1,518 [8], 1,492 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 133 1,509 1,506.7 1,508 7.2 1,503–1,510 1,484–1,522 1,505 [1], 1,500 [8]
PEG 128 1,743.7 1,745 15.2 1,735–1,754 1,700–1,768 1,725 [8]
b-Bisabolene 495-61-4 Methylsilicone 128 1,500 1,499.7 1,500 7.4 1,495–1,505 1,485–1,513 1,513 [8], 1,496 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 160 1,509 1,507.9 1,509 7.9 1,506–1,510 1,489–1,528 1,505 [1], 1,498 [8]
PEG 96 1,727.5 1,727 15.5 1,716–1,740 1,698–1,788 1,714 [8]
c-Cadinene 39029-41-9 Methylsilicone 147 1,506.1 1,508 10.9 1,499–1,512 1,480–1,526 1,526 [8], 1,510 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 222 1,513 1,511.6 1,513 8.2 1,510–1,514 1,493–1,530 1,514 [1]
PEG 114 1,752 1,763.4 1,770.5 16.3 1,752–1,776 1,724–1,791 1,752 [8]
d-Cadinene 483-76-1 Methylsilicone 261 1,516 1,514.4 1,516 7.5 1,510–1,519 1,497–1,529 1,531 [8], 1,515 [11]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 362 1,524 1,523.2 1,524 9 1,521–1,525 1,505–1,551 1,522 [1], 1,519 [8]
PEG 236 1,755.8 1,758 16.3 1,746–1,770 1,719–1,780 1,749 [8]
(E)-Nerolidol 40716-66-3 Methylsilicone 112 1,549 1,549.7 1,549 7.1 1,546–1,552 1,536–1,565 1,564 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 152 1,564 1,560.1 1,563 8.9 1,558–1,565 1,536–1,570 1,561 [1], 1,539 [8]
PEG 123 2,034.2 2,040 19.6 2,025–2,050 1,984–2,064 2,009 [8]
Spathulenol 6750-60-3 Methylsilicone 146 1,568 1,565.9 1,568 9.1 1,560–1,573 1,545–1,581
5%Phe-Me-Sil 251 1,576 1,574.6 1,576 8.1 1,574–1,578 1,554–1,587 1,577 [1], 1,619 [8]
PEG 145 2,131.2 2,136 16.2 2,121–2,144 2,092–2,153 2,129 [8]
Caryophyllene oxide 1139-30-6 Methylsilicone 243 1,574 1,571.1 1,574 11.7 1,564–1,578 1,546–1,594 1,600 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 321 1,581 1,579.5 1,581 8.2 1,577–1,583 1,560–1,596 1,582 [1], 1,573 [8]
PEG 216 1,986.8 1,988 23.8 1,969–2,008 1,936–2,032 1,962 [8]
Globulol 51371-47-2 Methylsilicone 71 1,578.6 1,580 10.5 1,570–1,588 1,559–1,595
5%Phe-Me-Sil 95 1,585 1,581.2 1,583 7.6 1,578–1,586 1,560–1,593 1,590 [1]
PEG 73 2,087.7 2,085 15.5 2,073–2,096 2,045–2,104
epi-a-Cadinol 5937-11-1 Methylsilicone 97 1,624.9 1,625 9.8 1,616–1,632 1,605–1,643
5%Phe-Me-Sil 96 1,640 1,637.2 1,640 7.8 1,634–1,641 1,614–1,651 1,638 [1]
PEG 84 2,167.1 2,167 18.6 2,155–2,187 2,126–2,192
epi-a-Muurolol 19912-62-0 Methylsilicone 81 1,630 1,631 1,632 10.2 1,625–1,636 1,607–1,651 1,659 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 101 1,641 1,641.6 1,641 6.2 1,640–1,643 1,628–1,655 1,640 [1], 1,635 [8]
PEG 90 2,185 2,182 18.8 2,171–2,207 2,145–2,209 2,148 [8]
b-Eudesmol 473-15-4 Methylsilicone 82 1,633.3 1,634 11.6 1,620–1,642 1,597–1,665
5%Phe-Me-Sil 89 1,649 1,648.4 1,649 5.7 1,647–1,651 1,630–1,659 1,649 [1], 1,654 [8]
PEG 83 2,238.7 2,241 14.5 2,222–2,255 2,195–2,283 2,246 [8]
a-Cadinol 481-34-5 Methylsilicone 128 1,642 1,640.8 1,642 12.5 1,632–1,648 1,618–1,669 1,674 [8]
5%Phe-Me-Sil 188 1,653 1,651.5 1,653 9.8 1,650–1,655 1,620–1,670 1,652 [1], 1,676 [8]
PEG 125 2,225.9 2,224 23.4 2,218–2,253 2,173–2,255 2,191 [8]

a
Stationary phase: Methylsilicone - dimethylsilicone; 5%Phe-Me-Sil – dimethylsilicone with 5% phenyl groups, PEG - polyethylene
glycol.
b
Retention indices of [1] are provided as linear retention indices. Previous editions [1] listed retention indices determined using logarithmic
times. RI data from [21] were rounded to integer values. Shown RI data ranges correspond to RI measurements at two temperature
programs [21]

264 Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) Original

Analysis of RI Data 12
Distributions. Data
Presentation
10

We used the GC retention index data-

base developed at NIST [5] to obtain 8
evaluated RI values for most frequently

KRI-LRI
reported compounds. The commonly
reported compounds with the largest 6

numbers of data-records were deter-

mined using the database (Table 1). The 4
list of most frequently reported com-
pounds was generated based on the
number of data records available for 2
compounds. The following describes our
procedure for treatment of retention
0
data of these compounds. The list of 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400
compounds includes mainly the com- LRI
pounds of essential oils. We limited our
analysis to the first 100 most commonly Fig. 5. Dependence of difference between retention indices determined using linear and
logarithmic time treatments on linear retention index based on the results presented in [1], 5%
identified compounds in GC, based on phenyl-dimethylsilicone stationary phase
the number of data-records available for
these compounds. Only compounds with
more than 30 data-records for each sta- 12
tionary phase were considered.
The data treatment was limited to
10
the three commonly used stationary
phases (unpolar and polar phases):
dimethylsilicone stationary phase 8
Max(K RI-LRI)

(OV-101, HP-1, DB-1,SE-30, etc.), dimeth-

ylsilicone phase with 5% phenyl groups
(DB-5, SE-54, HP-5, Ultra-2, etc.) and
polyethylene glycol stationary phase
(polar phase, e.g. Carbowax 20 M,
Innowax, CP-Wax 52 CB) [5]. Another
constraint was the use of RI data
measured under temperature pro-
grammed conditions. Note, that both
linear (LRI, in accord with definition of
van den Dool and Kratz) [5, 16] and
logarithmic (KRI, in accord with defi-
nition of Kováts) [1, 5] retention time
treatments are used for retention index
determinations under temperature pro-
gramming conditions.
The difference in retention indices
(KRI–LRI) determined by two proce-
dures, demonstrates a damped oscilla-
tory behavior with the increase of the
retention index (retention time), Fig. 5.
The results presented (Fig. 5) are based
on data and measurement conditions
available in [1]. Naturally the difference
disappears at RI values close to index
values of reference compounds of
Kovats retention scale, and it is at a
6
4
2
0
600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100
LRI
Fig. 6. Maximum values of difference between retention indices determined using linear and
logarithmic time treatments as a function of linear retention index
maximum between RIs of neighboring used in the identification of essential oil
reference compounds. The dependence components (non-polar stationary
of maximum values of this oscillatory phase). The maximum difference value
function demonstrates a decreasing and its decrease depend on the adjusted
behavior with the increase of retention retention time value (tr) and on the dif-
time (index), Fig. 6. The maximum dif- ference between retention times of
ference LRI–KRI is about 10–12 iu at neighboring reference linear alkanes
retention index values 600–800 and is (Dtr). The difference between two deter-
decreasing to 1–2 iu at index values minations decreases with decrease of
1,500–1,700 for a typical temperature Dtr/tr ratio. The data of [1] show the
program and experimental conditions decrease of this ratio with the increase of

Original Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) 265

retention index for the used experimental
conditions. The locations of maximums
and the character of this function can be
easily found with the use of definitions
of corresponding retention indices. The
difference between retention indices
determined by two procedures was ana-
lyzed for isothermal measurements in
[17–20].
The following data collections were
used for comparison with derived indi-
ces, where the data were available: col-
lection of Adams (DB-5) [1], Flavornet
collection (DB-5, OV-101, Carbowax
20 M) [8] and Sadtler library (DB-1, SE-
54, CW-20 M and cross-linked CW-
20 M) [21]. Additionally we included RI
values from Bianchi et al’s recent paper
(Supelcowax-10; [22]) and data from
Zenkevich’s collection (non-polar
dimethylsilicone stationary phase; [11])
for comparison purposes.
One of the problems for construction
of RI data distributions (histograms) is
the choice of optimum bin size. The
common procedure of histogram con-
struction includes splitting the range of
the data into equal-sized intervals called
bins. For a small bin size, there might be
a very ‘‘noisy’’ picture. The actual form
of data distribution may be lost for a
very large bin size. Recently Shimazaki
and Shinomoto [23, 24] suggested a
procedure for the choice of optimum bin
size assuming Poisson distribution of
data. The procedure was realized on the
web (http://www.ton.scphys.kyoto-u.ac.
jp/*hideaki/res/index.html#WebApp).
The derived relationship allows one to
determine the optimum bin size for a
given data sequence. The optimum size
corresponds to the minimum of func-
tion,
C ðDÞ ¼ ð2hRIi
V Þ=D2 ;
P
where hRIi = RIi/N and V=
P 2
(RIi - hRIi) /N are the mean and
variance values respectively. N is the
number of measurements. For Gaussian
data distribution, Scott [25] suggested
the following relationship for determi-
nation of the optimum bin size:
D = 3.49r N-1/3. In accord with this
formula, the optimum bin size is 6 iu for
266
data set containing 100 replicate
measurements and standard deviation
8 iu. Our experience shows that bin sizes
3–8 iu can be used for most data sets with
more than 50 replicate measurements.
Prior to the calculation of data dis-
tribution characteristics, the outlier RI
values were deleted based on the data
review. RI data points separated by
more than 10 iu from the main group of
data, were considered as outliers and
were not included in a further data
analysis. Data distribution construction
was performed using the procedure sug-
gested in [23, 24]. For each compound
the following values were determined:
the mode (most probable) value, average
and median values, standard deviation
and confidence range (50 and 95% data
ranges). Mode value was determined as
the value corresponding to the maximum
of data distribution. The RI value
assigned to the mode corresponds to the
largest frequency of observations inside
the ‘‘maximum’’ bin. It represents the
most probable value of the retention
index corresponding to measurement
conditions of the most of experiments.
Of course, the generated data distri-
butions do not represent the exact ran-
dom data as it was discussed above. The
observed deviations from the mode (or
average value) are the combination of
random and systematic errors, where
systematic deviations represent signifi-
cant contributions. Where it was not
possible to assign the mode value (e.g.
for distributions with several not-well
resolved maximums), the corresponding
data are not presented in the Table 1.
Table 1 contains the results of the
determination of RI values for most
frequently reported compounds. The
following data are presented for each
compound:
• Name of compound,
• CAS number,
• Number of replicate measurements for
compound,
• Mode value (most probable value)
• Average value,
• Median value,
• Standard deviation,
Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4)
• Confidence intervals (50 and 95%
range of RI data values),
• Retention index data from literature
[1, 8, 11, 21, 22].
Data were ordered in accord with the
RI values measured on dimethylsilicone
stationary phase (median value). Addi-
tionally the cross-reference Table 2 con-
tains the data ordered alphabetically by
compound name. For naming we used
the list of names employed by Adams [1].
Other names (synonyms, trade names),
structures and original RI data with
references can be found in the NIST
chemistry WebBook [26] and the NIST/
EPA/NIH MS database [27]. There were
several compounds, for which the num-
ber of data records for one of the sta-
tionary phases was less than 30. These
data were not considered.
As it was indicated above the mode
RI value corresponds to some typically
used conditions of GC measurements.
As an example Table 3 contains typically
used chromatographic conditions for the
registration of b-caryophyllene (472 re-
cords). Of course, the derived conditions
do not necessarily correspond to the
presented mode and average RI values.
However the shown conditions charac-
terize the conditions of most measure-
ments to some extent. Thus the data
demonstrate that DB-5 type column is
used mainly for measurements among
the columns with 5% phenylmethylsili-
cone stationary phase. Typical column
dimensions were: 30 m length, 0.25 mm
diameter and 0.25 lm phase thickness.
Typical temperature program was star-
ted from 60 to 250C at temperature
increase 3 or 4C/min.
Discussion
Table 4 demonstrates the average stan-
dard deviations and averaged confidence
intervals for the reviewed compounds.
Typically, the average standard devia-
tions are in the following order: poly-
ethylene glycol > dimethylsilicone >
dimethylsilicone with 5% phenyl groups.
Original
It should be noted that these data do not Table 2. Retention indices (median values) for dimethylsilicone phase ordered alphabetically
characterize the whole set of chemical
n Name RI n Name RI
compounds in the database. However, it
is possible to assume that this information 1 Aromadendrene 1,440 51 Hexanal 776
can characterize the RI variability of 2 Aromadendrene, allo 1,460 52 Hexanoate, ethyl 983
similar compounds to some extent. 3 Benzaldehyde 932 53 Hexanoic acid 982
4 Benzene acetaldehyde 1,011 54 n-Hexanol 854
There were several cases of multi- 5 Benzyl alcohol 1,009 55 (E)-2-Hexenal 827
mode data distributions. A detailed dis- 6 b-Bisabolene 1500 56 (Z)-3-Hexenol 840
cussion of multimode character of RI 7 Bicyclogermacrene 1,491 57 a-Humulene 1,451
data distributions can be found in [7]. It 8 Borneol 1,152 58 (E)-b-Ionone 1,466
9 Bornyl acetate 1,270 59 Limonene 1,022
is important to note that multimode 10 b-Bourbonene 1,383 60 Linalool 1,086
behavior is a good indicator of a possible 11 Butanal, 3-methyl 631 61 cis-Linalool oxide (furanoid) 1,066
misidentification of the compound. In 12 2,3-Butanedione 565 62 Methional 864
13 Butanoate, ethyl 785 63 a-Muurolene 1,494
several cases there were uncertainties in 14 1-Butanol, 3-methyl 719 64 c-Muurolene 1,473
determination of mode values of reten- 15 d-Cadinene 1,516 65 epi-a-Muurolol 1,632
tion indices. The relatively large spread 16 c-Cadinene 1,508 66 Myrcene 983
of the main mode and data variability 17 Camphene 945 67 Myrtenol 1,182
18 Camphor 1,123 68 Nerol 1,212
may be the result of a relatively large 19 a-Cadinol 1,642 69 (E)-Nerolidol 1,549
number of close RI values belonging to 20 epi-a-Cadinol 1,625 70 Neryl acetate 1,343
different isomers of the analyzed com- 21 d-3-Carene 1,005 71 Nonanal 1,083
22 Carvacrol 1,278 72 (E)-2-Nonenal 1,134
pound with very similar retention indi-
23 Carvone 1,218 73 (E)-b-Ocimene 1,038
ces. Also there was a relatively large 24 E-Caryophyllene 1,419 74 (Z)-b-Ocimene 1,028
number of cases of false modes as a 25 Caryophyllene oxide 1,574 75 Octanal 982
result of publication of the same values 26 1,8-Cineole 1,022 76 Octanoate, ethyl 1,181
27 Citronellol 1,212 77 n-Octanol 1,057
of indices in several papers by the same 28 a-Copaene 1,375 78 1-Octen-3-ol 964
group of authors. For example, the 29 a-Cubebene 1,351 79 1-Octen-3-one 956
database [5] contains the results of RI 30 b-Cubebene 1,385 80 Pentanol 753
measurements from 61 papers of Baser 31 p-Cymene 1,013 81 a-Phellandrene 998
32 p-Cymen-8-ol 1,162 82 b-Phellandrene 1,021
with co-workers, e.g. [28–30]. RI 33 (E)-b-Damascenone 1,361 83 Phenylethylalcohol 1,086
measurements were performed on the 34 (E,E)-2,4-Decadienal 1,288 84 a-Pinene 932
polar HP-Innowax phase. The same RI 35 Decanal 1,185 85 b-Pinene 972
36 b-Elemene 1,288 86 Sabinene 967
data for a fairly large number of com- 37 b-Eudesmol 1,634 87 cis-Sabinene hydrate 1,055
pounds may have been used as anchor 38 Eugenol 1,333 88 a-Selinene 1,489
(reference) values for determination of 39 (E)-b-Farnesene 1,448 89 b-Selinene 1,480
retention indices of other solutes. This 49 (E,E)-a-Farnesene 1,495 90 Spathulenol 1,568
41 Furan, 2-pentyl 980 91 a-Terpinene 1,010
approach leads to a consistent RI data 42 Furfural 803 92 c-Terpinene 1,050
set. On the other hand, the large number 43 Geranial 1,248 93 a-Terpineol 1,175
of the repeated RI values might lead to 44 Geraniol 1,237 94 Terpinen-4-ol 1,163
45 Geranyl acetate 1,361 95 Terpinolene 1,079
an appearance of an additional maxi-
46 Germacrene D 1,476 96 a-Terpinyl acetate 1,333
mum in data distributions. Particularly, 47 Globulol 1,580 97 a-Thujene 924
it was observed that the data of this 48 Heptanal 880 98 Thymol 1271
group of authors are shifted to higher 49 2-Heptanone 869 99 Toluene 752
50 5-Hepten-2-one, 6-methyl 965 100 Trisulfide, dimethyl 949
retention index values for many solutes
on a polar phase. Thus an additional
maximum is often observed. It could be distributions for a-pinene and germac- Comparison of derived values
that some systematic shifts of retention rene D show narrow data distributions demonstrated that obtained mode values
indices are the result of slight differences (Figs. 1, 2). Narrow range of RI values are close to calculated median and aver-
in polarities of considered stationary demonstrates a good agreement between age index values in most cases for non-
phases. Particularly, the list of consid- measurements of different authors and polar stationary phases. The deviations
ered polar phases includes phases with the reliability of retention data. On the are mainly observed for shifted distribu-
different levels of ‘‘cross-linkage’’, acid other hand, there is a relatively large tions. Typically these differences are less
and basic treated PEGs, and PEGs with number of distributions without pro- than 2–5 iu and the average and median
different average molecular weights. This nounced main group of data. Sometimes values are inside the 50% confidence
leads to additional data variability. a wide range of RI data might be the interval (unpolar phase). In some cases a
For a rather large number of com- result of misidentification, particularly relatively large difference was observed.
pounds, the 50% confidence range for isomers with close retention index Thus this difference is 10 iu for average
constitutes just 5–9 iu. Thus data values. value of retention index of eugenol on

Original Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) 267

Table 3. Commonly used GC experimental conditions for recording b-caryophyllene

Column Column size: length (m); Carrier Temperature program: Temperature program:
diameter (mm); gas initial T(C); final Tf(C); initial and final hold (min),
thickness of stationary ramp (C min-1) where data were available
phase (lm)

5%-Phenyldimethylsilicone 30; 0.25; 0.25 He 60; 250; 3/4a 5; 20

DB-5 (*50%)
Dimethylsilicone DB-1 (35%), 25(*20%), 30(*20%), He 60(30%)/50(22%); 5; 10/20a
CP Sil 5CB (11%) 50(*15%), 60(*15%); 0.25; 0.25 220/200a; 2/3/4/5a
Polyethylene glycol DB-WAX (23%), 60(40%), 30(25%), He 60(30%) and 40/50/70 2/5/10a; 20/10a
Carbowax 20 M (15%) 50(21%); 0.25; 0.25 (*14% each);
220/200/230a; 2/3/4/5a

Percentages in parenthesis show approximately the fraction of data in the database obtained with the use of indicated measurement
conditions
a
The shown parameters were used with approximately the same frequency in the considered dataset

Table 4. Averaged standard deviation and confidence range size for commonly reported
chemical compounds
Stationary phase Standard
deviation (iu)
Dimethylsilicone 8.2
Dimethylsilicone with 7.4
5% phenyl groups
Polyethylene glycol 16.3
dimethylsilicone phase. Note that the
calculation of average characteristics was
conducted for datasets with deleted out-
liers. A relatively large number of cases
with large differences was observed for the
polar phase. It was observed that the dif-
ference between mode and median (aver-
age) RI values can be more than 10 iu.
The obtained retention indices agree
with the data of Adams’ collection [1]. A
relatively large difference was observed
for several compounds like hexanoic
acid, benzaldehyde and phenylethylal-
cohol. Where data were available, the
Sadtler’ retention index values [21] are
also in agreement with RI data of this
work. Approximately 200 iu difference
was observed for toluene, which is the
obvious misprinting in [21].
In general, the RI values for
dimethylsilicone stationary phase are
less than RI for dimethylsilicone with
5% phenyl groups. Typically this differ-
ence constitutes more than 5–10 iu.
However, it was observed in several
cases that retention indices for these
stationary phases are very close, or even
50% confidence 95% confidence RI
RI range size (iu) range size (iu)
10.0 32.4
5.6 31.7
21.7 61.4
opposite ordering is observed. Thus the
average and median RI values are 1353.3
and 1,351 for a-cubebene on dimethyl-
silicone phase respectively. On dimeth-
ylsilicone phase with 5% phenyl groups
average and median values of retention
index are 1350.3 and 1,351, respectively.
It might be that the actual RI value for
dimethylsilicone phase is less than
1,350 iu. Close RI values were also ob-
served for a-copane, E-caryophylene and
aromadendrene for these stationary
phases. Note that this relationship
between retention indices measured on
dimethylsilicone and 5% phenyl-
dimethylsilicone phases is not observed
for a relatively large number of com-
pounds considered in [8].
Conclusion
Collection of RI data has a relatively
long history starting from the beginning
of 1960s. Some time ago NIST initiated
the development of a database on GC
retention indices of chemical compounds
with the aim of providing the best
available retention data for commonly
used GC columns [5]. The developed
database allows one to study and eval-
uate retention index variability for dif-
ferent chemical compounds, which
results from the differences in the col-
umn properties (brand, column size,
etc.), differences in the conditions of
measurements and experimental errors.
In this work, we evaluated RI values
for 100 most frequently GC identified
compounds of essential oils for dimeth-
ylsilicone, dimethylsilicone with 5% of
phenyl groups and polyethylene glycol
stationary phases. Estimated retention
index values correspond to temperature
programming conditions. The data
evaluation was based on a treatment of
replicate measurements from the NIST
GC-RI database [5]. The presented mode
or most probable RI values correspond
to the largest frequency of measurements
and to the typically used GC measure-
ment conditions. Note that the derived
values represent the current state of GC-
RI database [5]. It might be that more
accurate measurements will improve
some retention index values in future.
The analyzed set of compounds
represents possibly the most well charac-
terized compounds in GC retention
index measurements. The available data
for these compounds provide informa-
tion on the average errors of RI, vari-
ability level, and possible level of
accuracy in RI data to some extent. We
believe that this information is of interest
for different procedures of chemical

268 Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4) Original

compound identification based on RI
information. The derived RI indices are
also of interest for reference purposes in
retention data analysis.
Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge the large
contribution of P. J. Linstrom in RI data
handling using the NIST database.
References
1. Adams RP (2007) Identification of
essential oil components by gas chroma-
tography/mass spectrometry, 4th edn.
Allured Publ., Carol Stream
2. Merfort I (2002) J Chromatogr A
967:115–130. doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(01)
01560-6
3. Jennings WG, Shibamoto T (1980)
Quantitative analysis of flavor and fra-
grance volatiles by glass capillary GC.
Academic Press, New York
4. Klassen JK, Stein SE, Zenkevich IG
(2000) In: Abstracts of 23rd international
symposium on capillary chromatography.
Rep. A18 (CD-ROM), Riva del Garda,
Italy
5. Babushok VI, Linstrom PJ, Reed JJ,
Zenkevich IG, Brown RL, Mallard WG
et al (2007) J Chromatogr A 1157:414–
421. doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2007.05.044
6. Stein SE, Babushok VI, Brown RL, Lin-
strom PJ (2007) J Chem Inf Model
47:975–980. doi:10.1021/ci600548y
Original
7. Zenkevich IG, Babushok VI, Linstrom
PJ, Stein SE (2005) Misidentified com-
pounds found in the creation of compre-
hensive collection of retention indices. In:
Abstracts of 28th international sympo-
sium on capillary chromatography. NV,
CD-ROM, Las Vegas (paper in prepara-
tion)
8. Acree TE, Arn H (2004) Flavornet. Cornell
University, NY (http://www.flavornet.org
; and previous web-edition)
9. Cheong WJ (2002) Bull Korean Chem
Soc 23:459–468
10. Zenkevich IG (1996) J Anal Chem
51:1041–1048 (in Russian)
11. Zenkevich IG (1996) Plant Resour 34:48–
58 (in Russian)
12. Ardrey RE, Moffat AC (1981) J Chro-
matogr 220:195–252. doi:10.1016/S0021-
9673(00)81925-1
13. Ramsey JD, Lee TD, Osselton MD,
Moffat AC (1980) J Chromatogr 184:185–
206. doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(00)85641-1
14. Gas Chromatographic Retention Indices
of Toxicologically Relevant Substances
on Packed or Capillary Columns with
dimethylsilicone Stationary Phases. Re-
port XVIII of the DFG Commission for
Clinical-Toxicological Analysis (1992)
3rd edn, VCH
15. Moffat AC (1975) J Chromatogr 113:69–
95. doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(00)88799-3
16. van den Dool H, Kratz PD (1963)
J Chromatogr 11:463–471. doi:10.1016/
S0021-9673(01)80947-X
17. Vigdergauz MS, Martynov AA (1971)
Chromatographia 4:463–467. doi:
10.1007/BF02268816
18. Sojak L, Vigdergauz MS (1978) J
Cromatogr 148:159–167
19. Mitra GD (1981) J Chromatogr 211:239–
242. doi:10.1016/S0021-9673(00)88039-5
20. Sojak L (2004) Petrol Coal 46(3):1–35
Chromatographia 2009, 69, February (No. 3/4)
21. The Sadtler Standard Gas Chromatogra-
phy Retention Index Library (1986) Sad-
tler Division, Bio-Rad Laboratories, vol
1–4, Philadelphia, PA
22. Bianchi F, Careri M, Mangia A, Musci M
(2007) J Sep Sci 30:563–572. doi:10.1002/
jssc.200600393
23. Shimazaki H, Shinomoto S (2007) Neural
Comput 19:1503–1527. doi:10.1162/neco.
2007.19.6.1503
24. Shimazaki H, Shinomoto S (2007) Adv
Neural Inf Process Syst 19:1289–1296
25. Scott DW (1979) Biometrica 66:605–610.
doi:10.1093/biomet/66.3.605
26. Linstrom PJ, Mallard WG (2008) NIST
chemistry WebBook. NIST standard ref-
erence database number 69, September
2008. National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry
27. Ausloos P, Clifton CL, Lias SG, Mikaya
AI, Stein SE, Tchekhovskoi DV et al
(1999) J Am Soc Mass Spectrom. 10:287–
299 (NIST Standard Reference Database
1A. NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral
Library with Search Program. Data
Version NIST 05:2008
28. Baser KHC, Ozek G, Ozek T, Duran A
(2006) Flavour Fragr J 21:568–570.
doi:10.1002/ffj.1620
29. Demirci B, Baser KHC, Tabanca N,
Wedge DE (2006) J Agric Food Chem
54:3146–3150. doi:10.1021/jf053222v
30. Tabanca N, Demirci B, Kirimer N, Baser
KHC, Bedir E, Khand IA et al (2005)
J Chromatogr A 1097:192–198. doi:
10.1016/j.chroma.2005.10.047
269