# Aroma Characteristics of Lavender Extract and Essential Oil from _Lavandula angustifolia_ Mill.
## 2 Results and Discussion
### Odor Property of Lavender Extracts
#### 2.1.2 Effect of Extraction Solvent on the Odor Characteristics of LEs  
In order to describe the actual odor profiles of the laverader extracts, the odor characteristics of LE-W, LE-A95 and LE-A99 were assessed by sensory panelists. As can be seen from Figure 2A, LE-W had the strong intensity of floral, moderate spicy, camphor-like, clove-like, medicine-like, pine-like, herbal and woody odors, while LE-A99 had a stronger intensity of spicy, woody and pine-like odors and a weaker intensity of medicine-like odor. There were no significant differences on the odor attributes of camphor-like, herbal, clove-like and hay odors between LE-W and LE-A99. By comparison, LE-A95 had the highest intensity of floral, camphor-like, herbal and clove-like odors among the three samples, whereas the least intensity of hay odor was found in LE-A95. Other than these findings, no significant difference was found for the other four odor attributes between LE-A95 and LE-A99. Nevertheless, LE-W, in general, tended to have the lowest score of overall assessment. As a strong polar solvent, purified water was weak in dissolving volatile or semi-volatile components. Consistent with the results of volatile compositions, the least odor property might be interpreted as the lowest amount of volatiles in LE-W.  
Taken as a whole, the results of sensory evaluation and aroma compositions showed that 95% edible ethanol, which was of lower cost than 99% edible ethanol and had better solubility of volatile and semi-volatile components, could be used as an appropriate extraction solvent to prepare laverader extracts, allowing for the higher intensity of characteristic floral, spicy and herbal odors, better odor property and much more volatile compounds. For the subsequent assays, 95% edible ethanol was selected as the extraction solvent.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**No.**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RT**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**RI**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Volatile Compounds**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Relative Content (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**ID \({}^{*}\)**} \\ \cline{5-6}  & & & & **LE-A95** & & & **LE-W** \\ \hline
23 & 32.91 & 1268 & Lavandulyl acetate & \(11.88\pm 0.14\) & \(11.10\pm 0.36\) & \(10.32\pm 0.11\) & MS, RI \\
24 & 34.86 & 1289 & Bornyl acetate & \(0.34\pm 0.00\) & \(0.47\pm 0.03\) & \(0.40\pm 0.02\) & MS, RI \\
25 & 35.90 & 1348 & Copaene & \(0.16\pm 0.01\) & \(0.15\pm 0.01\) & \(0.10\pm 0.01\) & MS, RI, S \\
26 & 36.63 & 1363 & Neryl acetate & \(0.30\pm 0.02\) & \(0.26\pm 0.01\) & \(0.26\pm 0.01\) & MS, RI, S \\
27 & 37.02 & 1383 & Geranyl acetate & \(0.57\pm 0.03\) & \(0.45\pm 0.01\) & \(0.44\pm 0.01\) & MS, RI, S \\
28 & 37.32 & 1433 & _trans_–a-Bergamente & \(0.54\pm 0.02\) & \(0.47\pm 0.00\) & \(0.54\pm 0.01\) & MS, RI \\
29 & 38.60 & 1442 & (E)-\(\beta\)-Carryophyllene & \(6.67\pm 0.14\) & \(4.7\pm 0.14\) & \(5.02\pm 0.07\) & MS, RI, S \\
30 & 39.18 & 1469 & (E)-\(\beta\)-Farmesene & \(1.37\pm 0.06\) & \(1.37\pm 0.08\) & \(1.85\pm 0.11\) & MS, RI, S \\
31 & 40.85 & 1477 & Coumarin & \(0.13\pm 0.01\) & \(0.14\pm 0.00\) & \(0.24\pm 0.01\) & MS, RI, S \\
32 & 41.18 & 1484 & Germacrene D & \(0.31\pm 0.02\) & \(0.30\pm 0.01\) & \(0.13\pm 0.00\) & MS, RI \\
33 & 50.78 & 1593 & Caryophyllene oxide & \(0.25\pm 0.00\) & \(0.29\pm 0.01\) & \(0.41\pm 0.02\) & MS, RI \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{6}{l}{\({}^{*}\) Identification method; MS, identification based on the NIST 2017 (National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA; 17 th edition) mass spectral database; RT, retention time; RI, retention index; S, the compounds were identified using authentic standard compounds; nd, not detectable. LE-W—extraction with purified water; LE-A95—extraction with 95% edible ethanol; LE-A99—extraction with 99% edible ethanol.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: _Cont._