Volatile vs Non-Volatile Plant Compounds: A Comparative Guide for Drug Discovery and Development

Abstract

This article provides a comparative analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and non-volatile compounds (NVCs) derived from plants, tailored for researchers and drug development professionals. It explores the fundamental chemical properties and biosynthetic pathways of these compounds, reviews advanced methodologies for their extraction and analysis, and addresses key challenges in their application. By presenting a structured comparison of their therapeutic potential, mechanisms of action, and suitability for different drug delivery systems, this work aims to serve as a strategic resource for selecting and optimizing plant-based compounds in pharmaceutical development, from initial discovery to clinical application.

Defining the Landscape: Chemical Diversity and Biosynthesis of Plant Compounds

In plant research, the chemical profile of an organism is broadly categorized into its volatile and non-volatile components. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) are carbon-based chemicals that easily evaporate at room temperature, contributing to aroma, plant defense, and communication [1] [2]. In contrast, Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs) possess low vapor pressure and do not readily evaporate, often serving as building blocks, storage molecules, or having specific bioactivities [3] [4]. This guide provides a comparative framework for researchers studying these distinct classes of plant metabolites, detailing their definitions, analytical methodologies, and functional roles.

Core Definitions and Key Characteristics

The primary distinction between VOCs and NVCs lies in their volatility, a property intrinsically linked to their boiling points and vapor pressure.

Table 1: Classification of Organic Compounds by Volatility

Category	Abbreviation	Boiling Point Range (°C)	Example Compounds
Very Volatile Organic Compounds	VVOC	<0 to 50-100	Propane, Butane, Methyl Chloride [1] [2]
Volatile Organic Compounds	VOC	50-100 to 240-260	Formaldehyde, d-Limonene, Toluene, Acetone, Ethanol [1] [2]
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds	SVOC	240-260 to 380-400	Pesticides (e.g., DDT), Plasticizers (e.g., Phthalates), Fire Retardants (e.g., PCBs) [1] [2]
Non-Volatile Compounds	NVC	>380-400	Flavonoid glycosides, Anthocyanidin glycosides, Carnosic acid, Rosmarinic acid [3] [4]

Table 2: Comparative Summary of VOCs vs. NVCs

Feature	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs)
Core Definition	Carbon compounds that vaporize under normal indoor/room conditions [2].	Compounds that do not readily evaporate at normal temperatures and pressures.
Volatility & Vapor Pressure	High volatility; vapor pressure > 10⁻⁸ kPa [5].	Low volatility; very low vapor pressure.
Typical Physical State at Room Temp	Often exist as gases or have a distinct aroma [6].	Typically found in solids or liquids without a detectable aroma.
Primary Research Focus in Plants	Aroma, fragrance, ecological interactions (e.g., pollinator attraction), defense [4] [7].	Bioactivity (e.g., antioxidants, anticancer), nutritional value, structural components [3] [4].
Common Detection by Human Senses	Often detectable by smell (e.g., hexyl acetate in pears) [6] [7].	Generally odorless and detected through taste or bioassay [6].

Experimental Protocols for Analysis

The fundamental difference in volatility between VOCs and NVCs necessitates distinct analytical approaches for their extraction and identification.

Protocol for VOC Analysis (Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry - GC-MS)

The analysis of VOCs typically relies on Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) due to their thermally stable and volatile nature [3] [8].

• Sample Preparation & VOC Extraction:

  • Hydrodistillation: Plant material is heated in water to produce an essential oil, which is collected for analysis [3].
  • Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME): A needle with a fiber is exposed to the headspace above a fresh or dried sample, absorbing VOCs without solvent use. This is ideal for capturing the "volatilome" of a living plant [3].
  • Solvent Extraction: Samples are dissolved in organic solvents to extract volatile components before injection into the GC-MS [4].

• Instrumental Analysis (GC-MS):

  • The extracted VOCs are injected into the GC system. The high temperature of the injection port (often >200°C) ensures complete vaporization.
  • The gaseous compounds are carried by an inert gas through a chromatographic column, where they are separated based on their differential partitioning between the mobile gas phase and the stationary phase in the column.
  • The separated compounds are then ionized and fragmented in the mass spectrometer detector.

• Data Identification: The resulting mass spectra are compared against standard reference libraries (e.g., NIST) for compound identification [3].

Protocol for NVC Analysis (Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry - LC-MS)

NVCs, being less volatile or thermally labile, are typically analyzed using Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) [3] [8].

• Sample Preparation & Extraction:

  • Solvent Extraction: Plant tissue is homogenized and extracted with a solvent like methanol, ethanol, or a water-methanol mixture to dissolve non-volatile bioactive compounds [3] [4].
  • The extract is often concentrated and re-dissolved in a suitable solvent for injection.

• Instrumental Analysis (LC-MS):

  • The extract is injected into the LC system, where it is carried by a liquid solvent (mobile phase) through a column packed with a solid stationary phase. Separation occurs based on polarity, size, or other chemical interactions.
  • The separated compounds are then introduced into the mass spectrometer. Electrospray Ionization (ESI) is a common soft ionization technique that generates ions directly from the liquid phase, making it ideal for thermally unstable NVCs like flavonoid glycosides and phenolic acids [3].

• Data Identification: High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) allows for accurate mass measurement, enabling the determination of elemental composition and tentative identification of unknown NVCs by matching with databases [3].

Biosynthetic Pathways in Plants

The biosynthesis of VOCs and NVCs in plants often involves interconnected metabolic pathways. Research on pear aromas, for instance, integrates the study of both volatile and non-volatile metabolites to understand aroma formation [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Instruments for Metabolite Research

Item	Function/Purpose	Example Use Case
GC-MS System	Separates and identifies volatile, thermally stable compounds.	Profiling the aroma compounds (esters, alcohols) in pear fruits [7].
HS-SPME Fibers	Extracts VOCs from the headspace of a sample without solvents.	Capturing the volatilome of fresh Portenschlagiella ramosissima plant material [3].
LC-MS (ESI) System	Separates and identifies non-volatile and thermally labile compounds.	Analyzing flavonoid glycosides and phenolic diterpenes in rosemary extracts [3] [4].
UHPLC-HRMS	Provides high-resolution separation and accurate mass measurement for complex NVC mixtures.	Detecting and identifying lipid derivatives and anthocyanidin glycosides in plant methanol extracts [3].
Hydrodistillation Apparatus	Extracts essential oils from plant material for VOC analysis.	Obtaining rosemary essential oil for antimicrobial testing [4].
Organic Solvents (e.g., Methanol, Hexane)	Extraction medium for both VOCs (non-polar solvents) and NVCs (polar solvents).	Methanol for extracting non-volatile antioxidants from rosemary [4].
Solid Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges	Clean-up and fractionation of complex crude extracts before analysis.	Purifying rosemary extracts to isolate specific antioxidant fractions [4].
Diadenosine pentaphosphate pentaammonium	Diadenosine pentaphosphate pentaammonium, MF:C20H44N15O22P5, MW:1001.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Substituted piperidines-1	Substituted Piperidines-1|Pharmaceutical Research Reagent

Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are low molecular weight, lipophilic metabolites with high vapor pressure that mediate critical ecological interactions for plants, including pollinator attraction, defense against herbivores, and protection from abiotic stresses [9] [10]. These compounds are classified based on their biosynthetic origins into three major groups: terpenoids (derived from isoprenoid pathways), benzenoids/phenylpropanoids (derived from the shikimate pathway), and fatty acid derivatives (largely from lipoxygenase pathways) [11] [12]. The specific composition and emission of VOCs are highly species-specific and can vary between tissues, developmental stages, and in response to environmental conditions [13] [14]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of the biosynthetic pathways, experimental methodologies, and research tools essential for studying these ecologically and economically significant compounds, with particular relevance for researchers investigating plant-insect interactions, metabolic engineering, and natural product development.

Comparative Analysis of Major VOC Biosynthetic Pathways

Table 1: Characteristic Features of Major Plant VOC Classes

Feature	Terpenoids	Benzenoids/Phenylpropanoids	Fatty Acid Derivatives
Biosynthetic Origin	Mevalonate (MVA) pathway (cytosol); Methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway (plastids) [13] [10]	Shikimate pathway [11]	Lipoxygenase (LOX) pathway [11] [15]
Main Precursors	IPP and DMAPP (C5 units); GPP (C10); FPP (C15) [13] [9]	Phenylalanine [11]	Linoleic and linolenic acids (C18) [15]
Key Enzymes	Terpene Synthases (TPSs) [9] [10]	Phenylalanine Ammonia Lyase (PAL) [11]	Lipoxygenase (LOX), Hydroperoxide Lyase (HPL) [15]
Representative Compounds	Camphene, myrcene, camphor, menthol (monoterpenes) [13]	Benzaldehyde, 2-phenylethanol, eugenol, methyl benzoate [11]	Hexanal, (E,E)-2,4-nonadienal, 1-octen-3-ol [15]
Primary Functions	Pollinator attraction, direct & indirect defense [13] [14]	Pollinator attraction, defense against pathogens and insects [11] [16]	Flavor, aroma, defense signaling [15]
Subcellular Localization	Cytoplasm (MVA), Chloroplasts (MEP) [13] [10]	Cytosol, Peroxisomes [11]	Chloroplasts, Cytosol [15]

Table 2: Quantitative Comparison of VOC Abundance Across Studies

Study Context	Total VOCs Identified	Terpenoids (%)	Benzenoids/Phenylpropanoids (%)	Fatty Acid Derivatives (%)	Key Analytical Method
Ficus hirta (B-phase syconia) [13]	Not Specified	92.10 (37.08% monoterpenoids; 55.02% sesquiterpenes)	Not Reported	Not Reported	GC-MS
Lanxangia tsaoko (Multiple Tissues) [14]	1009	20.5	Not Specified (Esters: 16.5%)	Not Specified	GC-MS
Chicken Meat (Breast Muscle) [15]	9	Not Detected	Benzaldehyde detected	Major components (e.g., Hexanal, 1-octen-3-ol)	HS-SPME/GC-MS
Pomegranate Seed Oil (Supercritical Extract) [17]	Not Specified	Terpenes present	Aldehydes (e.g., (E)-cinnamaldehyde) present	Esters present	HS-SPME/GC-MS

Core Biosynthetic Pathways: Mechanisms and Regulation

The Terpenoid Pathways (MVA and MEP)

Terpenoid biosynthesis utilizes two distinct, compartmentalized pathways. The mevalonic acid (MVA) pathway operates in the cytosol and uses acetyl-CoA to produce the C5 precursors isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP), which condense to form farnesyl diphosphate (FPP), the direct precursor to sesquiterpenoids (C15) [13] [10]. In contrast, the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway is localized in plastids and generates IPP and DMAPP from pyruvate and glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate. These condense to form geranyl diphosphate (GPP), the precursor of monoterpenoids (C10), and geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate (GGPP), the precursor of diterpenoids (C20) [10] [14]. Although separated, metabolic crosstalk occurs between these pathways [10]. The diversity of terpenoid skeletons is generated by a family of enzymes known as terpene synthases (TPSs), which can produce multiple products from a single substrate [9] [10]. A multi-omics study on Ficus hirta demonstrated a shift in precursor pathway utilization between developmental stages, with the MVA pathway being predominant in the receptive stage (B-phase) syconia for pollinator attraction [13].

The Benzenoid/Phenylpropanoid Pathway

Benzenoids and phenylpropanoids (BPs) are characterized by an aromatic ring and are synthesized from the amino acid phenylalanine, which is produced via the shikimate pathway in plastids [11]. The committed step in BP biosynthesis is the deamination of phenylalanine to form trans-cinnamic acid, catalyzed by the enzyme phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL) in the cytosol [11] [16]. The propyl side chain of cinnamic acid can then be shortened through β-oxidation in peroxisomes or non-β-oxidation pathways to produce benzenoids (C6–C1) like benzaldehyde and benzoic acid. Alternatively, modifications without chain shortening yield phenylpropanoid-related compounds (C6–C2) such as phenylacetaldehyde and phenylpropanoids (C6–C3) like eugenol [11]. A distinct route involves type III polyketide synthases (PKS III) acting on cinnamyl-CoA to produce polyketides such as 1,3,5-trimethoxybenzene [11] [9]. BP emission is highly responsive to stress; for example, heat stress and herbivory can induce the emission of compounds like eugenol, benzaldehyde, and methyl salicylate [16].

The Fatty Acid Derivative Pathway (LOX Pathway)

Fatty acid-derived VOCs are primarily generated through the lipoxygenase (LOX) pathway [15]. This pathway starts with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) such as linoleic (C18:2) and linolenic (C18:3) acid, which are oxidized by lipoxygenase (LOX) enzymes to form hydroperoxy fatty acids [15]. These hydroperoxides are then cleaved by hydroperoxide lyase (HPL) to produce short-chain volatile aldehydes, such as hexanal and (E,E)-2,4-nonadienal [15]. These aldehydes can be further modified by dehydrogenases to form alcohols (e.g., 1-octen-3-ol) or by oxidoreductases to form esters, which significantly contribute to the "green" odor notes in vegetation and the flavor profile of meat products [15]. In chicken meat, specific amino acids (L-tyrosine, L-asparagine, valine) have also been identified as precursors for certain fatty acid-derived VOCs like heptanal and (E,E)-2,4-nonadienal, indicating an interplay between different metabolic pathways in forming the final volatile profile [15].

Essential Experimental Protocols for VOC Analysis

Integrated Multi-Omics Workflow for Pathway Elucidation

This protocol, adapted from studies on Ficus hirta and Lanxangia tsaoko, outlines a comprehensive approach to dissect VOC biosynthesis [13] [14].

• Sample Collection and Preparation: Collect plant tissues (e.g., syconia, flowers, leaves) of interest, considering different developmental stages (e.g., pre-receptive A-phase vs. receptive B-phase) or treatments (e.g., stress induction). Immediately flash-freeze samples in liquid nitrogen and store at -80°C to preserve RNA, protein, and metabolite integrity [13].
• Volatile Metabolite Profiling (GC-MS):
  • Volatile Extraction: Use Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME). Weigh homogenized tissue and place it in a sealed vial. Equilibrate at a defined temperature (e.g., 70°C) for 20-30 minutes. Then, expose a SPME fiber (e.g., DVB/CAR/PDMS) to the vial's headspace to adsorb VOCs [17] [15].
  • GC-MS Analysis: Desorb the SPME fiber in the GC injector port. Separate compounds using a capillary GC column (e.g., TC-5MS, 30 m x 0.25 mm x 0.25 µm) with a programmed temperature ramp. Detect and identify eluted compounds using a Mass Spectrometer in electron ionization (EI) mode (e.g., 70 eV), comparing mass spectra to standard libraries [13] [15] [14].
  • Data Analysis: Perform peak alignment, and use statistical methods like Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Orthogonal Projections to Latent Structures-Discriminant Analysis (OPLS-DA) to identify differentially abundant VOCs between samples [14].
• Transcriptome Sequencing:
  • Extract total RNA from the same tissue samples using a kit with DNase I treatment. Assess RNA quality (e.g., RIN > 8.0).
  • Prepare cDNA libraries and sequence using a platform like Illumina. Assemble clean reads de novo or map them to a reference genome.
  • Identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs), focusing on key pathway genes (e.g., TPS, PAL, LOX) and transcription factors (e.g., bHLH, MYB) [13] [14].
• Proteome Analysis:
  • Extract total proteins from tissue samples and digest them with trypsin.
  • Analyze the resulting peptides using Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Identify proteins by searching fragment spectra against a protein database.
  • Identify differentially expressed proteins (DEPs) and perform KEGG pathway enrichment analysis to link protein abundance to metabolic pathways [13].
• Data Integration: Correlate transcript, protein, and metabolite datasets to identify key genes and proteins responsible for the biosynthesis of specific VOCs and to construct regulatory networks [13].

Functional Characterization of Terpene Synthases (TPS)

This protocol is used to verify the enzymatic function of candidate TPS genes identified through transcriptomics [14].

• Heterologous Expression: Clone the full-length coding sequence of the candidate TPS gene into an appropriate expression vector (e.g., pET, pGEX for bacterial systems). Transform the vector into E. coli cells (e.g., BL21) for protein expression.
• Protein Purification: Induce protein expression, lyse the cells, and purify the recombinant TPS protein using affinity chromatography (e.g., Ni-NTA resin for His-tagged proteins).
• In Vitro Enzyme Assay: Incubate the purified TPS protein with a specific substrate (e.g., GPP for monoterpenes, FPP for sesquiterpenes) in a suitable reaction buffer containing Mg²⁺ or Mn²⁺ as a cofactor. Perform a negative control with an empty vector protein extract.
• Product Identification: Extract the reaction products with an organic solvent (e.g., hexane) and analyze them using GC-MS. Identify the terpenoid products by comparing their mass spectra and retention times with those of authentic standards or library data [14].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Kits for VOC Pathway Research

Reagent / Kit Name	Function / Application	Specific Example from Literature
SPME Fiber Assembly (DVB/CAR/PDMS)	Adsorbs a broad range of volatile compounds from sample headspace for GC-MS analysis.	Used for VOC profiling in pomegranate seed oil and chicken meat [17] [15].
TriZol Reagent / RNeasy Kit	Simultaneous or sequential extraction of high-quality total RNA, protein, and metabolites from a single sample.	Essential for integrated transcriptomic and proteomic studies [13].
Illumina TruSeq RNA Library Prep Kit	Preparation of cDNA libraries from total RNA for high-throughput sequencing on Illumina platforms.	Used for transcriptome sequencing to identify differentially expressed genes [13] [14].
Ni-NTA Agarose	Purification of recombinant His-tagged proteins via affinity chromatography.	Critical for purifying recombinant TPS enzymes for functional characterization in vitro [14].
pET Expression Vector Systems	High-level expression of recombinant proteins in E. coli for functional studies.	Used for heterologous expression of TPS genes from Lanxangia tsaoko [14].
(R)-(-)-Citramalic Acid Lithium	(R)-(-)-Citramalic Acid Lithium, MF:C5H8LiO5, MW:155.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Glyoxalase I inhibitor 5	Glyoxalase I Inhibitor 5|Research Use	Glyoxalase I Inhibitor 5 is a potent Glo-I inhibitor (IC50=1.28µM) for cancer research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.

In plant chemistry, compounds are broadly categorized into volatile (VOCs) and non-volatile compounds (NVCs) based on their ability to evaporate at ambient temperatures. VOCs, such as essential oils and aromatic substances, are characterized by low molecular weight and high vapor pressure, contributing to plant aroma and direct ecological interactions [18] [19]. In contrast, NVCs encompass a range of heavier, non-evaporating molecules crucial for plant defense, structure, and long-term survival. Among NVCs, alkaloids, flavonoids, and phenolic compounds represent three major structural classes with profound pharmacological significance. These NVCs are the cornerstone of countless therapeutic agents, forming the foundation of modern drug discovery and development efforts derived from medicinal plants [20] [21]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these key NVCs, focusing on their structural diversity, quantitative assessment, and the experimental protocols essential for their study.

Structural and Functional Analysis of Major NVC Classes

Alkaloids

Alkaloids are nitrogen-containing heterocyclic compounds, typically basic in nature, that are synthesized primarily by higher plants [22]. Their structures are derived from amino acids and they often form salts via protonation, a property crucial to their bioactivity [22]. The genus Ocimum (basil), for instance, has been found to contain a diverse array of alkaloids including pyrrolidine, piperidine, and quinoline structural classes [22].

• Pharmacological Potential: Alkaloids demonstrate a wide spectrum of significant pharmaceutical potential. They exhibit antibacterial activity by disrupting bacterial cell membrane integrity, effectively inhibiting pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli [22]. Certain piperidine alkaloids display antioxidant properties, scavenging free radicals and mitigating oxidative stress-induced cellular damage [22]. Furthermore, alkaloids like montanine show antitumor effects by inhibiting tumor cell proliferation and migration while inducing apoptosis [22].
• Biosynthetic Pathways: The biosynthesis of alkaloids in plants involves complex pathways that are increasingly being elucidated through modern transcriptomic analyses. For example, integrated transcriptomic studies on Ocimum are helping to identify key genes involved in the synthesis and regulation of pivotal alkaloid metabolites such as N-p-coumaroyltyramine and N-cis-feruloyltyramine [22].

Flavonoids

Flavonoids are a class of hydroxylated phenolic substances with a primary skeleton of diphenyl propane (C6-C3-C6), consisting of two benzene rings (A and B) linked by a three-carbon bridge that commonly forms an oxygenated heterocyclic ring (C) [23]. They are synthesized via the phenylpropanoid pathway, beginning with the condensation of one molecule of p-coumaroyl-CoA with three molecules of malonyl-CoA, catalyzed by chalcone synthase (CHS) to form chalcone, which is then isomerized by chalcone isomerase (CHI) to form flavanone—the precursor to various flavonoid subclasses [23].

• Subclasses and Functions: Flavonoids are divided into multiple subgroups based on the carbon of the C ring and the degree of oxidation of the B ring. Major subclasses include:
  • Flavones (e.g., apigenin, luteolin): Found in fruit skins, red wine, and tomato skin.
  • Flavonols (e.g., quercetin, kaempferol): Abundant in onions, olive oil, and berries.
  • Flavanones (e.g., naringenin, hesperidin): Mainly present in citrus fruits.
  • Flavanols (e.g., catechin, epicatechin): Common in apples and tea.
  • Isoflavonoids (e.g., genistein): Have a limited occurrence, primarily in soybeans and other legumes.
  • Chalcones: Characterized by an open-chain structure lacking the heterocyclic C ring [23].
• Biological Roles in Plants and Humans: In plants, flavonoids provide pigmentation, attract pollinators, and offer protection against UV radiation by absorbing UV light and acting as free radical scavengers [23]. They also play roles in defense against microbial infections. For humans, flavonoids possess antibacterial, antiviral, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antimutagenic, and anticarcinogenic properties, making them valuable for therapeutic and functional food applications [23].

Phenolic Compounds

Phenolic compounds constitute a substantial and diverse category of plant secondary metabolites, produced primarily via the shikimic acid (phenylpropanoids) and acetic acid pathways [18]. They are characterized by the presence of at least one aromatic ring with one or more hydroxyl groups.

• Major Groups: This class includes simple phenolics, phenolic acids, coumarins, lignans, stilbenes, and complex polymers like tannins [18].
  • Phenolic Acids: Further divided into:
    • Benzoic acid derivatives (C6-C1, e.g., gallic acid, protocatechuic acid): Typically found in low amounts in edible plants.
    • Cinnamic acid derivatives (C6-C3, e.g., caffeic acid, ferulic acid, p-coumaric acid, sinapic acid): More abundant and often exist in combined forms such as glycosylated derivatives or esters with quinic acid (e.g., chlorogenic acid) or tartaric acid [18].
  • Coumarins: These belong to the benzo-α-pyrone group and can be categorized into simple coumarins, furanocoumarins, and pyranocoumarins. They are found in plants like Aesculus hippocastanum (Horsechestnut) and Hypericum perforatum (St. John's Wort) [18].
• Therapeutic Properties: Phenolic compounds are recognized for their powerful antioxidant activities, inhibiting lipid oxidation and scavenging reactive oxygen species (ROS) [18]. Specific compounds like rosmarinic acid (abundant in rosemary, sage, and thyme) and caffeic acid are major contributors to the bioactive functions of their respective plants, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial effects [18]. Gallic acid exhibits antineoplastic and bacteriostatic activities, while salicylic acid has anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and antifungal properties [18].

Table 1: Comparative Summary of Major Non-Volatile Compound (NVC) Classes

Feature	Alkaloids	Flavonoids	Phenolic Compounds
Basic Structure	Nitrogen-containing heterocyclic rings [22]	Diphenyl propane (C6-C3-C6) [23]	Aromatic ring with one or more hydroxyl groups [18]
Biosynthetic Origin	Derived from amino acids [22]	Phenylpropanoid pathway [23]	Shikimic acid & acetic acid pathways [18]
Key Subclasses	Pyrrolidine, Piperidine, Quinoline [22]	Flavones, Flavonols, Flavanones, Isoflavonoids [23]	Phenolic acids, Coumarins, Lignans, Stilbenes [18]
Example Bioactivities	Antibacterial, Antitumor, Antioxidant [22]	Antioxidant, Anti-inflammatory, Antiviral [23]	Antioxidant, Anti-inflammatory, Antimicrobial [18]
Quantitative Method	UPLC-MS/MS [22]	Colorimetric assays, HPLC [23]	Folin-Ciocalteu, HPLC [18]

Quantitative Profiling and Experimental Protocols

Accurate quantification and characterization of NVCs require sophisticated analytical techniques. The following protocols are standard in the field.

Protocol for Alkaloid Profiling using UPLC-MS/MS

This protocol is used for comprehensive characterization and quantification of alkaloid metabolites in plant tissues [22].

• Sample Preparation: Fresh plant materials (e.g., leaves) are collected, immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen, and lyophilized. The dried tissues are then ground into a fine powder. Alkaloids are extracted from the powder using a suitable solvent system, typically involving methanol or a methanol-water mixture, often with sonication assistance [22].
• Instrumental Analysis: The extract is analyzed using Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS).
  • Chromatography: The extract is injected into a UPLC system equipped with a C18 column. Alkaloids are separated using a gradient elution with mobile phases such as water and acetonitrile, both containing a volatile acid or buffer to enhance separation.
  • Mass Spectrometry: Eluted compounds are analyzed by a tandem mass spectrometer. Initially, a primary mass scan (MS1) detects the molecular ions. Subsequently, selected ions are fragmented in a collision cell, and a second mass scan (MS2) detects the product ions. This provides structural information for compound identification.
• Data Processing and Metabolite Identification: The MS data is processed using specialized software. Alkaloids are identified by comparing the observed mass-to-charge ratio (m/z), retention time, and fragmentation patterns (MS/MS spectra) against those of standard compounds or entries in established metabolite databases [22].

Protocol for Flavonoid and Phenolic Content Analysis

This outlines common methods for assessing total flavonoid and phenolic content in plant extracts [23] [18].

• Extraction: Plant material is dried and powdered. For flavonoids and soluble phenolics, extraction is typically performed with solvents like methanol, ethanol, or aqueous mixtures through stirring, maceration, or sonication [23].
• Total Phenolic Content (TPC) Determination:
  • The Folin-Ciocalteu (FC) assay is employed [18].
  • The plant extract is mixed with the FC reagent, which is reduced by phenolic compounds, resulting in a blue color.
  • After incubation, sodium carbonate solution is added to stabilize the color.
  • The absorbance is measured spectrophotometrically at ~765 nm.
  • TPC is quantified by comparison to a standard curve, typically prepared with gallic acid, and expressed as milligrams of Gallic Acid Equivalents (GAE) per gram of sample [18].
• Total Flavonoid Content (TFC) Determination:
  • A common method is the aluminum chloride colorimetric method.
  • The plant extract is mixed with sodium nitrite solution. After a few minutes, aluminum chloride solution is added, followed by sodium hydroxide solution.
  • This sequence produces a pink-orange color complex with flavones and flavonols.
  • The absorbance is measured at ~510 nm.
  • TFC is calculated using a standard curve from a flavonoid like quercetin or catechin and expressed as milligrams of Quercetin Equivalents (QE) per gram of sample [23].

Table 2: Key Reagent Solutions for NVC Research

Research Reagent / Solution	Function in Experimental Protocol
UPLC-MS/MS System	High-resolution separation, detection, and structural characterization of alkaloids and other metabolites [22].
C18 Chromatography Column	Stationary phase for reverse-phase separation of complex plant extracts based on compound hydrophobicity [22].
Methanol & Acetonitrile (HPLC Grade)	Organic solvents used for efficient extraction of NVCs and as mobile phases in UPLC/HPLC [22].
Folin-Ciocalteu Reagent	Oxidizing agent used in the colorimetric assay to determine total phenolic content in plant extracts [18].
Aluminum Chloride (AlCl₃)	Complexing agent used in the colorimetric assay to determine total flavonoid content [23].
Quercetin / Gallic Acid Standards	Reference compounds used to create calibration curves for the quantitative determination of flavonoid and phenolic content, respectively [23] [18].

Research Applications and Future Perspectives in Drug Discovery

The structural diversity of plant-derived NVCs makes them an invaluable resource for addressing modern therapeutic challenges, particularly the rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and complex chronic diseases.

• Combatting Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR): Plant extracts and their purified NVCs are increasingly investigated as alternative or synergistic antimicrobial agents. For example, artemisinin from Artemisia annua is a landmark discovery for malaria treatment, highlighting the potential of exploring medicinal plants based on traditional knowledge [24]. Bioactive NVCs from Ocimum and other Lamiaceae species exhibit antibacterial activity against pathogens like Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli, and show promise as antifungal agents by disrupting fungal membrane integrity and inhibiting mycotoxin biosynthesis [22] [24].
• Advanced Analytical and Delivery Technologies: The field is being transformed by omics platforms (genomics, metabolomics) and artificial intelligence, which accelerate the discovery and characterization of bioactive NVCs [20]. Furthermore, to overcome limitations like poor bioavailability and stability of herbal medicines, nanotechnology-based drug delivery systems (e.g., liposomes, niosomes, solid lipid nanoparticles) are being developed to enhance target specificity and therapeutic efficacy [20].
• Sustainable Sourcing and Standardization: A critical challenge is the sustainable sourcing of medicinal plants, as overexploitation threatens biodiversity with an estimated 4,000–10,000 species at risk [20]. Future efforts must integrate sustainable cultivation practices and biotechnological methods to ensure a consistent supply. Concurrently, robust standardization and regulatory frameworks are essential to guarantee the quality, efficacy, and safety of plant-derived pharmaceuticals [20] [24].

Alkaloids, flavonoids, and phenolic compounds represent three structurally distinct yet pharmacologically vital classes of non-volatile plant metabolites. As this guide illustrates, alkaloids offer potent bioactivities rooted in their nitrogen-containing structures, flavonoids provide diverse antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits through their characteristic C6-C3-C6 skeleton, and phenolic compounds deliver broad therapeutic potential via their aromatic phenol groups. The continued integration of advanced analytical protocols, omics technologies, and innovative delivery systems is paramount for fully unlocking the potential of these NVCs. By bridging traditional knowledge with cutting-edge science, researchers can harness these complex molecules to drive the next generation of evidence-based, plant-derived therapeutics for global health challenges.

Ecological Roles and In-Planta Functions of VOCs and NVCs

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs) represent two fundamental classes of specialized metabolites with distinct properties and functions in plant ecology and physiology. VOCs are typically lipophilic compounds with low molecular weights and high vapor pressures, allowing them to freely diffuse through membranes and be released into the atmosphere or soil [25]. In contrast, NVCs encompass a broader range of molecular weights and properties, generally exhibiting lower mobility within and between plants. These compounds include diverse structural classes such as phenolic diterpenes, flavonoid glycosides, and phenolic acids that remain primarily within plant tissues [26] [4]. Understanding the comparative ecological roles, biosynthetic pathways, and research methodologies for these compound classes is essential for advancing plant ecology, chemical ecology, and drug discovery from natural products.

This review systematically compares VOCs and NVCs through the lens of their ecological functions, research methodologies, and potential applications, providing researchers with a structured framework for selecting appropriate analytical approaches based on their scientific objectives.

Methodological Approaches: Analytical Techniques for VOCs versus NVCs

The fundamental differences in physical and chemical properties between VOCs and NVCs necessitate distinct methodological approaches for their extraction, analysis, and characterization. Researchers must select techniques aligned with their target compound class and research questions, as summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Comparison of Primary Methodologies for VOC and NVC Analysis

Aspect	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs)
Primary Extraction Methods	Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME), Hydrodistillation, Steam Distillation	Solvent Extraction (Methanol, Ethanol, Chloroform), Supercritical COâ‚‚ Extraction
Common Analysis Techniques	Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)	Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography-High Resolution MS (UHPLC-HRMS)
Sample Introduction	Direct thermal desorption or solvent injection	Liquid injection after dissolution
Key Identification Parameters	Retention Indices, Mass Spectra Libraries, Authentic Standards	Retention Time, High-Resolution Mass, Tandem MS Fragmentation, NMR
Spatial Resolution Capability	Limited; often whole organ or plant emission	High; can be tissue-specific or even cellular
Temporal Resolution Capability	High; can monitor real-time emission dynamics	Lower; typically represents snapshot of accumulation

VOC-Specific Workflows and Techniques

Analysis of VOCs requires capturing compounds that are readily released into the airspace surrounding plant material. Headspace (HS) sampling is a primary technique, with Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME) being particularly well-developed [25]. This method involves exposing a coated fiber to the headspace above a plant sample, allowing VOCs to adsorb onto the fiber coating, which is then thermally desorbed directly into a GC injector. The choice of fiber coating polarity (e.g., polydimethylsiloxane/PDMS, divinylbenzene/DVB, Carboxen) is critical for optimizing the extraction of different VOC classes [25]. Hydrodistillation is another key method, used to obtain the total volatile fraction in the form of an essential oil and a hydrosol (the water-soluble volatile fraction) [26].

The analysis is predominantly performed using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). Structural identification relies on several complementary approaches: comparison of mass spectra with commercial databases, calculation and matching of Retention Indices (RI) against published values, and, when available, confirmation by co-injection with authentic standards [25]. This multi-step identification process is crucial for reliable VOC annotation.

NVC-Specific Workflows and Techniques

The analysis of NVCs typically begins with a solid-liquid solvent extraction. Methanol and ethanol are common solvents for extracting a broad range of polar to semi-polar NVCs like flavonoid glycosides and phenolic acids [26]. Less polar solvents like dichloromethane or chloroform may be used for specific compound classes, and supercritical COâ‚‚ extraction is employed for high-value applications such as obtaining deodorized rosemary antioxidants approved for food use [4].

For analysis, Liquid Chromatography coupled to Mass Spectrometry is the workhorse technique. Ultra-High Performance Liquid Chromatography–High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (UHPLC–HRMS) with electrospray ionization (ESI) provides the separation power and mass accuracy needed to identify and characterize complex NVC mixtures, such as distinguishing between different flavonoid glycosides [26]. Tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) is used for structural elucidation, and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy is often employed for definitive structural confirmation.

Ecological Roles and Biosynthesis: A Comparative Analysis

VOCs and NVCs play complementary and sometimes overlapping roles in plant survival and fitness, mediating interactions with the environment and other organisms. Their distinct physical properties dictate the scope and range of their ecological functions, as detailed in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparative Ecological Roles of VOCs and NVCs in Plants

Ecological Function	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs)
Pollinator Attraction	Primary role; long-distance signaling (e.g., linalool in moth-pollinated Clarkia breweri) [25]	Indirect role; pigmentation (anthocyanins, carotenoids) provides visual cues [27]
Defense against Herbivores	Indirect defense via predator attraction (e.g., (E)-β-ocimene) [25]; direct repellent (e.g., linalool) [25]	Direct defense via toxicity or digestibility reduction (e.g., phenolic diterpenes, alkaloids) [4]
Defense against Microbes	Demonstrated (e.g., β-caryophyllene in Arabidopsis floral defense) [25]	Widespread (e.g., rosmarinic acid, carnosic acid) [4]
Plant-Plant Communication	Yes; allelopathy, priming, kin recognition (e.g., methyl benzoate) [25] [28]	Limited; primarily via root exudates (allelopathy)
Response to Abiotic Stress	Yes; emission patterns change with drought, temperature [25] [28]	Yes; accumulation as protectants (e.g., antioxidants under oxidative stress)
Spatial Range of Action	Long-distance (airborne)	Localized (within tissue or immediate rhizosphere)

Biosynthetic Pathways and Key Compounds

The biosynthesis of VOCs and NVCs often shares common precursor pathways but diverges into specialized branches.

VOCs are primarily classified into three major families based on their biosynthetic origin:

• Terpenoids, derived from the mevalonic acid (MVA) pathway in the cytosol or the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway in plastids, form the largest group and include compounds like linalool, β-caryophyllene, and (E)-β-ocimene [25].
• Phenylpropanoids/Benzenoids are produced via the shikimate pathway from phenylalanine and include methyl benzoate and methyl salicylate [25].
• Fatty Acid Derivatives are biosynthesized in chloroplasts from C18 unsaturated fatty acids (linoleic and linolenic acid), yielding compounds like (Z)-3-hexen-1-ol and green leaf volatiles [25].

NVCs encompass a more diverse set of biosynthetic pathways and structural classes:

• Phenolic Diterpenes (e.g., carnosic acid, carnosol) and Phenolic Acids (e.g., rosmarinic acid) are prominent antioxidants in rosemary and other Lamiaceae species [4].
• Flavonoid Glycosides are synthesized via the phenylpropanoid pathway and are common across many plant families, contributing to pigmentation, UV protection, and antioxidant activity [26].
• Anthocyanins, a type of flavonoid, are responsible for red, blue, and purple pigmentation in flowers and fruits, guided by the activity of specific transcription factors [27].

The following diagram illustrates the core biosynthetic pathways and their interconnection, highlighting key VOC and NVC products.

Figure 1: Core Biosynthetic Pathways of VOCs and NVCs. VOCs (blue) are often final volatile products, while NVCs (red) include both intermediate and final non-volatile products. Pathways are interconnected through primary metabolism.

Research Applications and Integrated Approaches

Case Studies in Comparative Analysis

Modern research increasingly leverages integrated approaches to study VOCs and NVCs simultaneously, providing a more holistic view of a plant's chemical profile.

• Biodiversity and Genetic Studies: Research on wild populations of rosemary (Salvia rosmarinus) has explored the diversity of both VOCs and key NVCs (carnosic acid, carnosol, rosmarinic acid) across different genotypes. This dual analysis revealed that the genetic background significantly influences the composition of both compound classes, allowing for the identification of distinct chemotypes with potential applications in the food and pharmaceutical industries [4].
• Fruit Aroma and Flavor Research: A comprehensive study on pear cultivars compared aromatic (Pyrus communis) and non-aromatic (Pyrus pyrifolia) species by integrating VOC and NVC metabolomics with transcriptome data. The research identified 16 key ester and alcohol VOCs as primary differential aroma compounds. Furthermore, it linked their variation to the differential abundance of precursor NVCs (amino acids and fatty acids) and the expression of key enzyme genes in their biosynthesis pathways, such as PcMAGL and PcTD [7]. This multi-omics approach successfully connected non-volatile precursor metabolism to volatile end-product formation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for VOC and NVC Research

Item	Function/Application	Relevant Compound Class
SPME Fibers (e.g., PDMS, DVB/CAR/PDMS)	Adsorbs VOCs from headspace for thermal desorption in GC-MS	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
C18 Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges	Purification and concentration of semi-polar NVCs from crude extracts	Phenolic Acids, Flavonoid Glycosides
Deuterated Solvents (e.g., CD3OD, D2O)	Solvent for NMR spectroscopy for structural elucidation	Both VOCs and NVCs
Authentic Chemical Standards (e.g., linalool, carnosic acid)	Essential for calibration and definitive identification via GC- or LC-MS	Both VOCs and NVCs
Derivatization Reagents (e.g., MSTFA)	Increases volatility of semi-volatile compounds for GC-MS analysis	Fatty Acids, Some NVCs
LC-MS Grade Solvents (e.g., Methanol, Acetonitrile)	Mobile phase for UHPLC-MS; ensures minimal background noise	Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs)
Xanthine oxidoreductase-IN-1	Xanthine oxidoreductase-IN-1, MF:C18H20N4O2, MW:324.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Argininosuccinic acid disodium	Argininosuccinic acid disodium, MF:C10H16N4Na2O6, MW:334.24 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Experimental Protocols for Key Analyses

Protocol 1: HS-SPME-GC-MS for VOC Profiling

This protocol is adapted from methodologies used to analyze floral VOCs and the volatilome of Portenschlagiella ramosissima [25] [26].

• Sample Preparation: Fresh plant material (e.g., 100 mg of flowers or leaves) is placed in a glass vial and immediately sealed with a PTFE/silicone septum cap. A stability period may be applied to allow equilibrium.
• HS-SPME Extraction: A DVB/CAR/PDMS fiber is exposed to the headspace of the sample vial. The extraction is performed for a set time (e.g., 15-30 min) at a controlled temperature (e.g., 40°C) with optional agitation.
• GC-MS Analysis: The fiber is thermally desorbed in the GC injector (e.g., 250°C for 5 min in splitless mode). Separation is achieved on a non-polar (e.g., DB-5MS) or semi-polar capillary column using a temperature program. Mass spectrometry detection is performed in electron impact (EI) mode at 70 eV, scanning a mass range of, for example, m/z 35-350.
• Identification & Quantification: Peaks are identified by comparing mass spectra to commercial libraries (e.g., NIST, Wiley) and by calculating Retention Indices relative to a homologous alkane series. Semi-quantification can be based on peak area counts, while absolute quantification requires calibration with authentic standards.

Protocol 2: UHPLC-HRMS for NVC Profiling

This protocol is based on methods used for analyzing non-volatile compounds in Portenschlagiella ramosissima and rosemary [26] [4].

• Sample Extraction: Dried and powdered plant material (e.g., 50 mg) is extracted with a suitable solvent (e.g., 80% methanol in water) using sonication or vortex agitation. The extract is centrifuged, and the supernatant is filtered through a 0.22 µm membrane filter prior to analysis.
• UHPLC-HRMS Analysis: The filtered extract is injected onto a reversed-phase UHPLC column (e.g., C18, 1.8 µm particle size). Separation is achieved using a binary gradient of water and acetonitrile, both acidified with 0.1% formic acid. The column temperature is maintained (e.g., 40°C). High-resolution mass spectrometry is performed with electrospray ionization (ESI) in both positive and negative ion modes.
• Data Processing: Data-dependent acquisition (DDA) is used to obtain MS and MS/MS spectra for peaks exceeding a predefined intensity threshold. Molecular formulae are proposed based on accurate mass measurements.
• Identification: Compounds are tentatively identified by matching the accurate mass, isotopic pattern, and MS/MS fragmentation spectra against databases (e.g., PubChem, GNPS) or in-house libraries. Definitive identification requires comparison with an authentic standard.

The following diagram outlines the decision-making workflow for selecting the appropriate analytical methodology based on research goals.

Figure 2: Decision Workflow for VOC and NVC Analytical Method Selection. The path is determined by the target compound class, guiding researchers to appropriate extraction, analysis, and identification techniques.

In the scientific exploration of medicinal plants, the chemical compounds responsible for therapeutic properties and ecological interactions are broadly categorized as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and non-volatile bioactive compounds (NVCs). Volatile organic compounds are small, lipophilic molecules with high vapor pressure at ambient temperatures, typically characterized by low molecular weight (100–500 Da) and low boiling points [29] [30]. These properties enable them to readily vaporize and diffuse through air and soil pores, facilitating plant-environment communication [30]. In contrast, non-volatile compounds encompass a diverse range of higher molecular weight metabolites that do not readily vaporize, including many polysaccharides, saponins, phenolic diterpenes, and phenolic acids [26] [4].

This guide provides a comparative analysis of these compound classes, examining their distribution across plant tissues, biosynthetic origins, ecological functions, and research methodologies. Understanding the distinct characteristics and interplay between volatile and non-volatile compounds is essential for advancing phytochemical research, drug discovery, and the sustainable utilization of medicinal plant resources.

Comparative Analysis of Compound Classes

Defining Characteristics and Distribution

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Volatile and Non-Volatile Compounds in Medicinal Plants

Characteristic	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs)
Chemical Definition	Carbon-based solids/liquids that vaporize at 0.01 kPa at 20°C [29]	Compounds that do not readily enter the gas phase under normal conditions
Molecular Weight	Low (100-500 Da) [30]	Generally higher
Vapor Pressure	High [30]	Low to negligible
Boiling Point	Low (typically ≤250°C) [29]	High
Lipophilicity	Generally high [30]	Variable
Primary Plant Sources	Flowers (highest quantity/diversity), roots, stems, leaves, fruits [31]	All plant tissues, often concentrated in specific storage organs
Example Major Classes	Terpenoids, benzenoids, phenylpropanoids, green leaf volatiles [4] [32] [33]	Polysaccharides, saponins, phenolic diterpenes, phenolic acids, flavonoid glycosides [26] [4]
Example Key Compounds	Myristicin, 2,3,5-Trimethylpyrazine, (E)-β-caryophyllene, 1,8-Cineole [26] [30] [4]	Carnosic acid, Rosmarinic acid, Carnosol, Codonopsis polysaccharides [30] [4]

Biosynthetic Pathways and Ecological Functions

The biosynthesis and ecological roles of VOCs and NVCs highlight their functional divergence and complementarity within plant systems.

Volatile Organic Compounds are primarily synthesized through several key pathways. The terpenoid biosynthesis pathway uses precursors from the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) and mevalonic acid (MEP) pathways, leading to monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes via enzymes like terpene synthases (TPS) [7] [4]. The lipoxygenase (LOX) pathway utilizes unsaturated fatty acids as substrates, with key enzymes including LOX, hydroperoxide lyase (HPL), and alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), to produce C6 aldehydes, alcohols, and their esters [7]. Additionally, amino acid degradation pathways provide precursors for alcohols, aldehydes, and esters through the action of enzymes like aminotransferase (ATF) and pyruvate decarboxylase (PDC) [7]. VOCs primarily serve as mediators of ecological interactions. They facilitate plant-plant communication, enabling neighboring plants to prime their defenses against impending herbivore attacks [32]. Furthermore, they play a crucial role in attracting pollinators and seed dispersers [31], and directly defend against herbivores and pathogens through toxicity or by recruiting beneficial microorganisms, such as in the rhizosphere [30] [32].

Non-Volatile Compounds are derived from diverse biosynthetic routes. Phenylpropanoid and flavonoid pathways produce phenolic acids, anthocyanins, and lignin, with key enzymes including phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) and chalcone synthase (CHS) [30]. The diterpenoid biosynthesis pathway leads to compounds like carnosic acid, originating from the MEP pathway [4]. Specialized carbohydrate pathways are responsible for the synthesis of complex polysaccharides [30]. The primary functions of NVCs are often constitutive and storage-related. They provide direct, stored chemical defenses against herbivores and pathogens [4]. They also contribute to structural support and pigmentation, and serve as important storage forms of energy and carbon. While less involved in airborne signaling, some NVCs in roots, like those in Codonopsis radix, interact with the rhizoplane microbiome, influencing the accumulation of active components [30].

Research Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

The distinct physicochemical properties of VOCs and NVCs necessitate specialized analytical approaches for their extraction, separation, and identification.

Analytical Techniques for Volatile and Non-Volatile Profiling

Table 2: Comparative Analytical Methodologies for Plant Compound Analysis

Analytical Stage	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs)
Sample Preparation	Minimal processing; fresh or air-dried plant material often used whole or chopped [26] [33]	Often requires drying, grinding, and extensive extraction [26] [4]
Primary Extraction	Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME) [26] [33], Hydrodistillation (for essential oils) [26]	Solvent Extraction (Methanol, Ethanol, supercritical COâ‚‚) [26] [4]
Key Extraction Details	HS-SPME uses fibers of varying polarity (e.g., 65 μm PDMS/DVB); incubation at 40°C for 30-40 min [33]	Extraction conditions (solvent, temperature, time) critically influence yield and profile [4]
Separation & Analysis	Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) [26] [30] [4]	Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) coupled to HRMS [26]
Identification	Comparison of mass spectra with libraries, use of Retention Indices (RI) [26]	High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (HRMS) for accurate mass, MS/MS fragmentation, reference standards [26]

Detailed Experimental Workflow

A generalized yet detailed experimental workflow, synthesizing protocols from recent studies, is provided below.

1. Plant Material Collection and Preparation

• Source: Collect healthy plant material (leaves, roots, flowers) from defined populations, noting geographical and seasonal data [4] [33].
• Replication: Use multiple biological replicates (e.g., 6 independent plants per population) [33].
• Processing for VOCs: Analyze fresh or immediately freeze in liquid nitrogen and store at -80°C to preserve profile. For analysis, samples may be used whole or chopped (e.g., 1.5 mg in a 22 mL vial) [33].
• Processing for NVCs: Air-dry or oven-dry plant material, then grind to a homogeneous powder [4].

2. Compound Extraction

• VOCs via HS-SPME:
  • Condition SPME fiber (e.g., 65 μm PDMS/DVB) in GC injector at 270°C for 1 hour before first use [33].
  • Incubate sample vial at 40°C for 30-40 min to allow volatile partitioning into the headspace [33].
  • Expose the conditioned fiber to the vial's headspace for a set time (e.g., 30 min) to adsorb volatiles [33].
• NVCs via Solvent Extraction:
  • Weigh a precise amount of dried powder (e.g., 1.0 g).
  • Perform extraction with a suitable solvent (e.g., methanol, ethanol, or supercritical COâ‚‚ for selective compound classes), often using shaking, sonication, or pressurized techniques [4].
  • Filter and concentrate the extract under reduced pressure or a nitrogen stream.

3. Instrumental Analysis

• VOCs via GC-MS:
  • GC Column: HP-5MS or equivalent low-polarity stationary phase (5%-phenyl-95%-methylpolysiloxane, 30 m x 0.25 mm i.d. x 0.25 μm) [33].
  • Carrier Gas: Helium, constant flow (e.g., 1 mL/min).
  • Temperature Program: Ramp from initial 40°C (hold 3-5 min) to 250°C at 3-8°C/min [33].
  • MS: Electron Impact (EI) ionization at 70 eV; scan range m/z 40-450.
• NVCs via UHPLC-HRMS:
  • LC Column: Reversed-phase C18 column (e.g., 2.1 x 100 mm, 1.8 μm).
  • Mobile Phase: Gradient of water and acetonitrile, both with modifiers like 0.1% formic acid.
  • MS: Electrospray Ionization (ESI) in positive/negative modes; high-resolution mass analyzer (e.g., Q-TOF).

4. Data Processing and Compound Identification

• VOCs: Compare acquired mass spectra to commercial libraries (NIST, Wiley). Use Kovats Retention Indices (RI) calculated from an alkane series for additional confirmation [26].
• NVCs: Use accurate mass measurements to propose molecular formulas. Compare MS/MS fragmentation patterns with databases or authentic standards.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for Phytochemical Research

Item	Function/Application	Examples / Key Characteristics
SPME Fibers	Extraction and concentration of VOCs from sample headspace [26] [33]	65 μm PDMS/DVB; 50/30 μm DVB/CAR/PDMS (StableFlex). Choice depends on target compound polarity [33].
GC-MS Columns	Separation of complex VOC mixtures prior to mass spectrometric detection [33]	HP-5MS (or equivalent), 5%-phenyl-95%-methylpolysiloxane, 30m x 0.25mm i.d. x 0.25μm film thickness [33].
UHPLC Columns	High-resolution separation of non-volatile extracts under high pressure.	Reversed-phase C18 columns (e.g., 2.1 x 100 mm, 1.8 μm particle size).
Mass Spectrometry-Grade Solvents	Extraction and mobile phase preparation for HPLC; minimizes background noise and ion suppression.	Methanol, Acetonitrile, Water, all with low UV cutoff and high purity.
Alkane Standard Solution	Calculation of Kovats Retention Indices (RI) for VOC identification [26]	C8-C40 n-alkane mixture in hexane or methanol.
Chemical Reference Standards	Unambiguous identification and quantification of target compounds via retention time and MS/MS matching.	Commercially available purified compounds (e.g., carnosic acid, rosmarinic acid, specific terpenes).
Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE) Cartridges	Clean-up and fractionation of complex plant extracts to isolate compound classes of interest.	C18, Silica, Diol, Ion-Exchange phases in various sizes.
RNA/DNA Extraction Kits	Isolation of high-quality nucleic acids for concurrent transcriptome studies to link gene expression to metabolite profiles [7] [30]	Kits suitable for polysaccharide-rich plant tissues.
Stable Isotope-Labeled Precursors	Elucidation of biosynthetic pathways through tracking of incorporated labels in metabolites.	¹³C-Glucose, D₂-L-Phenylalanine, etc.
(25R)-Spirost-4-ene-3,6,12-trione	(25R)-Spirost-4-ene-3,6,12-trione, MF:C27H36O5, MW:440.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
MA-PEG4-VC-PAB-DMEA-duocarmycin DM	MA-PEG4-VC-PAB-DMEA-duocarmycin DM, MF:C68H89ClN12O17, MW:1382.0 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Quantitative Data from Comparative Studies

Empirical research consistently demonstrates significant qualitative and quantitative variation in both VOCs and NVCs across plant species, genotypes, and populations, driven by genetics and environment.

Table 4: Quantitative Findings from Selected Comparative Studies

Study Focus / Plant Material	Key Volatile Findings	Key Non-Volatile Findings	Methodology Summary
Rosemary Wild Populations (Salvia rosmarinus) [4]	57 individual VOCs identified. 1,8-Cineole (Eucalyptol) content varied significantly: 20.6-50.8% in some populations, while others were characterized by high verbenone (14.4-20.8%) or α-pinene (33.7-49.0%).	Carnosic acid content ranged from 0.7 to 18.4 mg/g dw. Rosmarinic acid content ranged from 4.3 to 21.7 mg/g dw. Notable diversity was observed across 95 genotypes from 24 populations.	VOC: Solvent extraction & GC-MS. NVC: Methanol extraction & UHPLC.
Undervalued Wild Edible Plants [33]	37 compounds identified with major qualitative/quantitative differences. Benzyl nitrile, benzyl isothiocyanate, p-cymene, and 2-hexenal were primary volatiles. Benzyl alcohol and eugenol were key differentiating aromas.	Not a primary focus of this study, but the plants are recognized for being rich in fiber, minerals, vitamins, and antioxidants.	VOC: HS-SPME-GC-MS on fresh leaves.
Pear Cultivars (Pyrus communis vs P. pyrifolia) [7]	510 volatile compounds identified. 16 key differential esters/alcohols (e.g., butyl acetate, hexyl acetate) were significantly higher in aromatic P. communis.	Analysis focused on non-volatile precursors (fatty acids, amino acids). Higher levels of precursors like isoleucine and valine were found in aromatic cultivars, feeding into VOC synthesis pathways.	Integrated VOC (GC-MS) and NVC (LC-MS) metabolomics with transcriptomics.
Portenschlagiella ramosissima [26]	Myristicin was the dominant VOC in essential oil (63.92%) and hydrosol (66.67%). Elemicin was also detected (0.82% in EO, 5.13% in HY).	Methanol extract analysis revealed flavonoid glycosides, an anthocyanidin glycoside, and lipid derivatives.	VOC: Hydrodistillation, HS-SPME, GC-MS. NVC: UHPLC-ESI-HRMS.

The comparative analysis of volatile and non-volatile compounds in medicinal plants reveals a complex phytochemical landscape where these compound classes play distinct yet complementary roles. VOCs, with their high vapor pressure, serve as primary mediators of plant-environment communication, while NVCs often provide constitutive defense and storage functions. This functional divergence is mirrored in the specialized analytical protocols required for their study, from HS-SPME-GC-MS for volatiles to solvent extraction-UHPLC-HRMS for non-volatiles.

The quantitative data synthesized in this guide underscores the profound influence of genetic background and environmental factors on the profiles of both compound classes. For researchers and drug development professionals, this comparative framework highlights the necessity of employing integrated, multi-omics approaches to fully elucidate the biosynthetic pathways, ecological functions, and pharmacological potential of medicinal plants. A holistic understanding of both volatile and non-volatile compounds is therefore indispensable for advancing phytochemical research and developing sustainable applications for human health and well-being.

From Extraction to Therapy: Analytical Techniques and Therapeutic Applications

The efficacy of bioactive compounds derived from natural products is highly dependent on the extraction technique employed [34]. The choice of method fundamentally influences the yield, chemical profile, and subsequent bioactivity of the final extract, making selection a critical first step in natural product research for pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals [35]. This guide provides an objective comparison of three central techniques: hydrodistillation, headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME), and traditional solvent-based methods.

These techniques cater to different analytical needs. Hydrodistillation is the standard for isolating essential oils, while HS-SPME excels at capturing a volatile profile without solvents. Solvent-based methods, whose efficiency depends on solvent polarity, are versatile for a broad range of volatile and non-volatile compounds [34] [36]. The following sections compare their performance with experimental data, detail standardized protocols, and situate their use within a broader research context.

Performance Comparison: Experimental Data and Applications

The following table summarizes the key characteristics of the three extraction techniques based on comparative studies.

Table 1: Comparison of Key Extraction Techniques for Plant Volatiles

Extraction Technique	Primary Application	Key Advantages	Key Limitations	Sample Experimental Yield/Output
Hydrodistillation (HD)	Essential oil isolation [37] [38]	Simplicity, low cost, no organic solvent required [36] [38]	High temperature can degrade heat-sensitive compounds; long extraction time; requires large sample mass [37] [34]	Propolis yield: 0.08% - 1.03% [37]; Mint yield: 0.9 - 16.5 mL/kg dry weight [38]
Headspace-SPME (HS-SPME)	Volatilome profiling [26] [38]	Solvent-free, fast, minimal sample required, suitable for fresh plant material [37] [39]	Non-exhaustive extraction; fiber selection critically influences results; not a preparative method [37] [40]	Extracts a representative profile of volatiles; performance measured by peak area/number (e.g., +340% peak area after optimization) [41]
Solvent-Based Extraction	Broad-range extractables (volatiles & non-volatiles) [34] [36]	High versatility; selectivity tunable via solvent polarity; preparative scale [34] [36]	Often requires large volumes of (potentially toxic) solvents; long extraction times; potential for solvent residue [34] [36]	Pomelo peel oil yield via hydrodistillation: ~2.6% [42]; SLE extract color and composition varies significantly with solvent polarity [40]

The choice of technique directly dictates the chemical profile obtained. A study on Brazilian propolis concluded that the PDMS/DVB fiber for HS-SPME extracted volatiles most similarly to the hydrodistilled essential oil, making it the optimal choice for representative analysis [37]. In contrast, research on Portenschlagiella ramosissima demonstrated the power of combining techniques; HS-SPME and hydrodistillation revealed a volatile profile dominated by myristicin, while a methanol extract analyzed by UHPLC-HRMS identified non-volatile flavonoid glycosides [26]. This highlights that for a complete picture of a plant's phytochemistry, multiple extraction methods are often necessary.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Hydrodistillation Protocol

Application: This protocol is adapted from methods used for propolis and pomelo peel, ideal for isolating essential oils from plant material [37] [42].

Materials:

• Apparatus: Clevenger-type apparatus, 2000 mL round-bottom flask, heat source, condenser.
• Sample Preparation: Plant material should be crushed or cut into small pieces to increase surface area. For pomelo peel, a size of 2 × 5 mm is used [42].

Procedure:

• Loading: Accurately weigh approximately 60-100 g of prepared plant material into the flask. Add 200-500 mL of distilled water [37] [42].
• Distillation: Assemble the Clevenger apparatus. Apply heat to maintain a consistent distillation rate. A "level 5-high" distillation rate is optimal for pomelo peel oil [42].
• Collection: Distill for a predetermined time (e.g., 120 minutes for pomelo peel [42] or 3 hours for propolis [37]). The essential oil is collected in the arm of the Clevenger apparatus.
• Recovery: After distillation, separate the essential oil from the water, dry over anhydrous sodium sulfate, and store in a sealed, dark glass vial at 2–5°C [42].

Key Optimization Parameters:

• Raw material-to-solvent ratio (e.g., 1:4 is optimal for pomelo peel) [42].
• Extraction time (e.g., 120 min for pomelo peel) [42].
• Particle size (ground material yields more than unground) [42].

HS-SPME Protocol

Application: This protocol is optimized for capturing the volatile profile of plant materials like mint leaves or propolis, and can be adapted for biofluids [37] [38] [41].

Materials:

• SPME Fiber: The choice of fiber coating is critical. PDMS/DVB (65 μm) is recommended for a profile similar to hydrodistilled oil [37]. For complex volatilomes, tri-phase DVB/CAR/PDMS is also common [41].
• Apparatus: Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer (GC-MS), heated agitator, sealed headspace vials.

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Place approximately 1 g of ground sample into a 20 mL headspace vial. For liquid samples like BALF, a 0.5 mL aliquot in a 10 mL vial is optimal [37] [41].
• Equilibration: Place the vial in a heater and incubate with agitation (e.g., 250 rpm) for a set time (e.g., 10-30 min) at a controlled temperature (e.g., 75°C for propolis [37]).
• Extraction: Expose the conditioned SPME fiber to the vial's headspace for the extraction period (e.g., 20-50 min). Time and temperature should be optimized for the sample matrix [37] [41].
• Desorption: Immediately after extraction, insert the fiber into the GC injector port for thermal desorption (e.g., 1 min at 230°C for propolis [37]).

Key Optimization Parameters:

• Fiber Coating: Select based on target analyte polarity and molecular weight [37] [39].
• Extraction Time & Temperature: A central composite design can find the ideal balance (e.g., 45°C and 50 min for BALF) [41].
• Ionic Strength: Adding salt (e.g., 40% NaCl) can enhance sensitivity for polar volatiles via the salting-out effect [41].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Selecting the correct materials is fundamental to the success of any extraction protocol. The following table itemizes key solutions and their functions.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Extraction Protocols

Item Name	Function / Application	Example from Literature
Clevenger Apparatus	Standard pharmacopoeia device for hydrodistillation and essential oil collection [40].	Used for hydrodistillation of propolis [37] and pomelo peel [42].
SPME Fibers	Solvent-less extraction and concentration of volatiles; coating choice dictates selectivity [37] [39].	PDMS/DVB (65 μm) found optimal for propolis volatiles similar to HD oil [37].
Anhydrous Sodium Sulfate	Drying agent to remove trace water from organic extracts post-isolation.	Used to dry pomelo peel essential oil after hydrodistillation [42].
HP-5ms GC Column	Standard non-polar/polar capillary column for separating complex volatile mixtures in GC-MS.	Used for the GC-MS analysis of propolis volatiles (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm) [37].
Solvents (n-Hexane, Diethyl Ether, Methanol)	Extraction of compounds based on polarity in Solid-Liquid Extraction (SLE).	n-Hexane, diethyl ether, and methylene chloride used in SLE of liverworts [40]. Methanol used for UHPLC-ESI-HRMS analysis of non-volatiles [26].
10-Methyldodecanoyl-CoA	10-Methyldodecanoyl-CoA, MF:C34H60N7O17P3S, MW:963.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Phenylmethyl N-(10-bromodecyl)carbamate	Phenylmethyl N-(10-bromodecyl)carbamate, MF:C18H28BrNO2, MW:370.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Method Selection within a Research Strategy

The choice of extraction method is not one-size-fits-all but should be strategically aligned with the research goals concerning volatile versus non-volatile compounds.

• Research Focused on Volatile & Semi-Volatile Compounds: For a comprehensive overview of a plant's volatilome with minimal artifact formation, HS-SPME is the superior choice, especially when sample mass is limited [37] [38]. When the goal is to isolate a preparative quantity of essential oil for downstream biological testing or applications, hydrodistillation remains the standard technique [36].

• Research Focused on Non-Volatile Compounds: For the analysis of polyphenols, flavonoids, glycosides, and other non-volatile bioactive compounds, solvent-based extraction is indispensable. The choice of solvent (e.g., methanol, ethanol) is critical to maximize the yield of target compounds [26] [34].

• Comprehensive Phytochemical Profiling: The most robust studies employ an integrated approach. For instance, a study on Portenschlagiella ramosissima used HS-SPME and hydrodistillation to characterize the volatile profile and UHPLC-HRMS to analyze the non-volatile components of a methanol extract, providing a complete picture of the plant's phytochemistry [26].

The comprehensive analysis of plant metabolites necessitates a multi-platform analytical strategy due to the fundamental dichotomy between volatile and non-volatile compounds. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), responsible for plant aroma and defense, are typically lipophilic and can be released directly from plant tissues [7]. In contrast, non-volatile metabolites, including many primary metabolites like sugars, amino acids, and organic acids, require distinct extraction and analytical approaches [43] [44]. This guide objectively compares Gas Chromatography-Ion Mobility Spectrometry (GC-IMS), Liquid Chromatography-High Resolution Mass Spectrometry (LC-HRMS), and metabolomic fingerprinting, framing them within a comparative study of these compound classes. We provide supporting experimental data and protocols to equip researchers with the knowledge to select appropriate methodologies for their specific research goals in plant science and drug development.

Technology Comparison: Principles and Applications

The following table summarizes the core characteristics, strengths, and limitations of each analytical platform.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of GC-IMS, GC-MS, and LC-HRMS in Metabolomic Profiling

Feature	GC-IMS / GC-MS	LC-HRMS
Optimal Compound Class	Volatile, thermally stable compounds [45] [44]; Aromas, short-chain alcohols/acids, hydrocarbons [45]	Non-volatile, thermally labile compounds [43] [46]; Lipids, polyamines, conjugated flavonoids [46] [47]
Sample Preparation	Often requires derivatization (methoximation/silylation) for non-volatiles [45] [44]; Headspace-SPME for volatiles [44]	Minimal preparation; protein precipitation common; aqueous-compatible [43] [47]
Separation Mechanism	Gas-phase separation based on volatility and interaction with stationary phase [43]	Liquid-phase separation based on polarity, charge, hydrophobicity [43] [46]
Detection & Identification	Electron Ionization (EI) with reproducible, library-matchable spectra (NIST, Wiley) [45] [44]; IMS adds collision cross section (CCS) for conformation [47]	Electrospray Ionization (ESI); Accurate mass (<5 ppm) for empirical formula; MS/MS for structure [46] [47]
Key Strengths	High chromatographic resolution; Excellent sensitivity; Robust spectral libraries for IDs; Gold standard for volatiles and primary metabolism [45] [44]	Broadest metabolite coverage; No derivatization needed; Ideal for polar, high MW, unstable compounds [43] [47]
Major Limitations	Derivatization adds complexity, not high-throughput; Limited to volatiles/silylatable compounds [43] [44]	Less standardized than GC-MS; Complex data interpretation; Ion suppression in complex matrices [43] [46]

Experimental Protocols for Plant Metabolite Analysis

Protocol for GC-MS Analysis of Plant Volatiles

This protocol is adapted from methods used to analyze differential aroma compounds in Pyrus communis and P. pyrifolia cultivars [7] and standardized procedures [44] [48].

• Sample Preparation: For volatile collection, use Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME) or adsorption onto multibed adsorbent cartridges followed by thermal desorption [7] [48]. For primary metabolites, employ a ternary solvent extraction (water, isopropanol, acetonitrile) to cover a wide polarity range, followed by a lipid clean-up step and subsequent derivatization [44].
• Derivatization: For non-volatile metabolites, a two-step derivatization is critical.
  • Methoximation: Protect carbonyl groups by reacting with methoxyamine hydrochloride (20 mg/mL in pyridine) for 90 minutes at 30°C [44].
  • Silylation: Replace active hydrogens with trimethylsilyl groups using N-Methyl-N-(trimethylsilyl)trifluoroacetamide (MSTFA) with 1% trimethylchlorosilane (TMCS) for 30 minutes at 37°C [44]. Modern robotic autosamplers can automate this process [45].
• GC-MS Analysis:
  • Injection: Use a pulsed splitless mode.
  • Column: Mid-polarity 5%-phenyl dimethylpolysiloxane column (e.g., 30m x 0.25mm i.d., 0.25µm film thickness) [45] [44].
  • Oven Program: Ramp from 60°C to 330°C with specific rates optimized for the metabolite class.
  • Carrier Gas: High-purity helium [43].
  • MS Detection: Electron Ionization (EI) at 70 eV; scan range: m/z 50-600 [44].
• Data Processing: Use Automated Mass Spectral Deconvolution and Identification System (AMDIS) for deconvolution and software like ChromaTOF for peak picking. Identify compounds by matching mass spectra and retention indices against libraries (e.g., NIST, FiehnLib) [44].

Protocol for LC-HRMS Analysis of Non-Volatile Metabolites

This protocol is informed by applications in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) [43] and dietary biomarker discovery [47], incorporating tips for robust analysis [46].

• Sample Preparation: Homogenize plant tissue in a cold solvent system like methanol:water (e.g., 80:20, v/v) to quench metabolism and precipitate proteins. Centrifuge to remove solid residues [43].
• LC-HRMS Analysis:
  • System: Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC) coupled to a high-resolution mass spectrometer (e.g., Q-TOF) [47].
  • Column: Reversed-phase C18 column (e.g., 1.6 µm, 2.1 x 100 mm) is standard for broad coverage [46].
  • Mobile Phase: Combination of water (A) and methanol (B), both modified with 1 mM ammonium acetate and 0.1% formic acid, provides a good balance for positive and negative ionization modes [46].
  • Gradient: A generic screening gradient should start with a low organic percentage (e.g., 1% B) to retain polar analytes and include a hold at a high organic percentage (e.g., 99% B) to elute very non-polar compounds [46]. Example: 1-99% B over 15-20 minutes [47].
  • MS Conditions:
    • Ionization: Electrospray Ionization (ESI), positive and negative mode switching.
    • Acquisition: Data-independent acquisition (e.g., HDMSE) is beneficial for untargeted analysis [46].
    • Source Temp.: 120°C; Desolvation Temp.: 500°C [46].
    • Acquisition Range: m/z 50-1500 [46].
    • Calibration: Use a reference mass (e.g., leucine enkephalin) for real-time mass correction [46].
• Data Processing: Process raw data with software (e.g., UNIFI, XCMS) for peak alignment, normalization, and multivariate statistical analysis (PCA, OPLS-DA) to identify significant markers [47].

Case Study: Integrated Analysis of Pear Aroma Biosynthesis

A study on the formation of aroma compounds in Pyrus communis (aromatic) and P. pyrifolia (non-aromatic) provides a powerful example of integrating these platforms [7]. The research identified 510 volatile compounds using GC-MS, with 16 key esters and alcohols (e.g., butyl acetate, hexyl acetate) significantly more abundant in the aromatic P. communis [7]. Transcriptome and non-volatile metabolite analysis via LC-MS revealed that amino acid degradation pathways (isoleucine, valine, alanine) provided critical precursors for these aroma compounds [7]. Key enzyme genes, including monoacylglycerol lipase (PcMAGL) and threonine dehydratase (PcTD), were identified as major factors for the aroma disparity [7]. This demonstrates how GC-MS and LC-HRMS elucidate different parts of a biological pathway.

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow of this integrated metabolomic study.

Figure 1: Integrated Workflow for Pear Aroma Study [7]

The biosynthesis pathways for the key aroma compounds identified in the pear case study are summarized below.

Figure 2: Key Aroma Biosynthesis Pathways in Pear [7]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Metabolomic Profiling

Item	Function/Application	Example Use Case
MSTFA with 1% TMCS	Silylation derivatization reagent for GC-MS. Replaces active hydrogens, increasing volatility and thermal stability of metabolites [44].	Derivatization of sugars, amino acids, and organic acids for primary metabolomics [44].
C18 Reversed-Phase UHPLC Column	High-efficiency separation column for LC-HRMS. Separates metabolites based on hydrophobicity [46].	Broad, untargeted profiling of non-volatile plant extracts [43] [47].
Ammonium Acetate & Formic Acid	Mobile phase additives for LC-HRMS. Improve chromatographic peak shape and ionization efficiency in ESI [46].	Generic LC-HRMS screening method for diverse chemistries [46].
NIST Mass Spectral Library	Reference library of EI mass spectra. Enables tentative identification of compounds by spectrum matching [45] [44].	Identification of volatiles and derivatized metabolites from GC-MS data [44].
Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME) Fiber	Sample preparation device for extracting and concentrating volatile compounds from headspace [44].	Sampling of pear fruit volatiles for aroma profiling [7].
N1, N10-Diacetyl triethylenetetramine-d8	N1, N10-Diacetyl triethylenetetramine-d8, MF:C10H22N4O2, MW:238.36 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
HiBiT tag	HiBiT tag, MF:C63H101N17O14, MW:1320.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) represent a diverse class of low molecular weight carbon-based molecules characterized by high vapor pressure and low boiling points, enabling easy evaporation at room temperature [49]. While traditionally studied for their roles in plant ecology and as environmental pollutants, a paradigm shift is occurring in understanding their therapeutic potential. This review systematically compares the antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective activities of VOCs against conventional non-volatile therapeutic compounds, particularly plant-derived metabolites. The inherent volatility of these compounds presents unique advantages for therapeutic delivery, including rapid systemic distribution and non-invasive administration routes, while also posing distinct challenges for therapeutic application and stabilization [49] [31]. Emerging evidence indicates that VOCs interact with biological systems through complex mechanisms, modulating cellular signaling pathways, enzyme activities, and receptor interactions distinct from their non-volatile counterparts [49]. This comparative analysis synthesizes current experimental data on VOC efficacy, mechanisms of action, and potential clinical applications across multiple disease contexts.

Comparative Therapeutic Activities of VOCs

Antimicrobial Activities

VOCs demonstrate significant potential as antimicrobial agents, particularly in diagnostic applications and combating resistant pathogens. Research indicates that infectious pathogens alter VOC composition, creating unique volatile signatures that can discriminate between bacterial and viral infections [50]. Electronic nose (e-nose) technology leveraging VOC profiles has demonstrated impressive diagnostic capability, discriminating influenza A from uninfected controls with 96.30% sensitivity and 90.62% specificity in nasopharyngeal swab samples [50].

The VITEK REVEAL system, which utilizes VOC detection from bacterial metabolism for rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (AST), has shown exceptional performance against Gram-negative pathogens. When evaluating 3,603 organism/antibiotic combinations, this VOC-based system demonstrated 97.1% essential agreement and 98.3% categorical agreement with reference broth microdilution methods, while significantly reducing time-to-result to approximately 6.5 hours compared to conventional AST [51]. This accelerated detection is particularly valuable for bloodstream infections where timely appropriate therapy is critical for patient survival [51].

Table 1: Antimicrobial Performance of VOC-Based Technologies

Technology/Compound	Target Pathogen/Application	Efficacy Metrics	Time Advantage
VITEK REVEAL System [51]	Gram-negative bacteremia	97.1% essential agreement, 98.3% categorical agreement	~6.5 hours vs. 13-24 hours for conventional methods
Electronic Nose (Influenza A) [50]	Viral pathogen detection	96.30% sensitivity, 90.62% specificity	Rapid point-of-care testing
Electronic Nose (SARS-CoV-2) [50]	Viral pathogen detection	75% sensitivity, 68.57% specificity	Rapid point-of-care testing

Anti-Inflammatory Activities

VOCs modulate inflammatory processes through multiple mechanisms, primarily via regulation of oxidative stress pathways and immune cell signaling. Chronic exposure to certain VOCs can induce increased generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), leading to oxidative stress and inflammation through the activation of inflammatory parameters [49]. This oxidative stress can disrupt cellular functions and potentially affect human drug metabolism and utilization receptors [49].

Alternatively, certain plant-derived VOCs demonstrate anti-inflammatory properties. Terpenoids, a major class of plant VOCs, have shown modulatory effects on immune responses and are being investigated for commercial applications in pharmaceuticals and cosmetics [31]. The anti-inflammatory mechanisms of VOCs include direct receptor interactions where they can mimic or inhibit the actions of endogenous ligands, potentially leading to modified inflammatory responses [49]. These interactions can cause receptor conformation changes, modifying receptor sensitivity to drug binding, and affecting enzymes such as cytochrome P450 and CYP2E1 responsible for drug metabolism [49].

Table 2: Anti-Inflammatory Mechanisms of VOCs and Related Compounds

Compound/Mechanism	Biological Target	Inflammatory Outcome	Research Context
ROS Induction [49]	Cellular oxidative stress pathways	Pro-inflammatory response	Occupational exposure settings
Terpenoids [31]	Immune cell signaling	Anti-inflammatory modulation	Plant-derived compounds
VOC-Receptor Interactions [49]	Drug metabolism enzymes (CYP450, CYP2E1)	Altered inflammatory drug metabolism	In vitro and occupational studies
Calcineurin Inhibitors [52]	NFAT pathway, cytokine expression	Reduced neuroinflammation	Neurodegenerative disease models

Neuroprotective Activities

The neuroprotective potential of VOCs operates through two primary paradigms: direct endogenous neuroprotection and diagnostic application for neurodegenerative diseases. Volatile compounds from various human biological matrices, including exhaled breath, feces, and skin sebum, show promise as candidate biomarkers for specific neurodegenerative diseases (NDDs) [53] [54]. The development of non-invasive diagnostic approaches based on VOC signatures could enable early diagnosis and personalized management of NDDs, significantly improving patient quality of life [53].

While not volatile themselves, calcineurin inhibitors provide insight into neuroprotective mechanisms relevant to VOC actions. These compounds demonstrate multifaceted neuroprotection through: (1) inhibition of apoptosis via reduced DNA fragmentation and stabilized mitochondrial membrane potential; (2) mitochondrial protection by preventing mitochondrial permeability transition; (3) suppression of neuroinflammation through inhibition of the calcineurin/NFAT pathway and downregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β); and (4) reduction of nitric oxide production and ROS accumulation [52]. Specifically, voclosporin has demonstrated superior acetylcholinesterase (AChE) inhibitory activity, surpassing even galantamine at low concentrations, and significantly restored cell viability in H₂O₂-induced oxidative stress models [52].

Environmental exposures to certain VOCs, however, may contribute to neurodegenerative pathogenesis. Epidemiological and experimental studies suggest that exposures to air pollution, pesticides, heavy metals, and solvents contribute to Parkinson's disease (PD) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathogenesis through mechanisms including oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and protein aggregation [53].

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

VOC Detection and Analysis Platforms

Advanced analytical techniques are crucial for characterizing VOC profiles and their therapeutic applications. Headspace Q-TOF GC/MS (Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry) enables comprehensive speciation of VOCs emitted from topical drugs and medical products, with emission rates quantified in the range of 9.7 × 10⁻⁵ µg s⁻¹ g to 5.9 µg s⁻¹ g of product [55]. This approach allows for assessment of potential inhalation exposure from medically applied products.

The Cyranose 320 e-nose system utilizes an array of 32 nanocomposite sensors that change resistivity based on VOC adsorption, generating unique electrical resistance "smellprints" that can discriminate between disease states with high reproducibility (mean ICC = 0.997 for biological specimens) [50]. For antimicrobial susceptibility testing, the VITEK REVEAL system employs 96-well broth microdilution plates to generate minimum inhibitory concentration values by detecting VOCs released during bacterial metabolism, providing results within 5.5-6 hours [51].

Table 3: Key Experimental Platforms for VOC Research

Platform/Technology	Primary Application	Key Performance Metrics	Sample Types
Headspace Q-TOF GC/MS [55]	VOC speciation and quantification	Detection range: 9.7×10⁻⁵ to 5.9 µg s⁻¹ g	Topical drugs, medical products
SIFT-MS [55]	VOC emission rate quantification	High sensitivity for trace gases	Pharmaceutical formulations
Cyranose 320 e-nose [50]	Disease pattern recognition	32-sensor array, ICC = 0.997 reproducibility	Breath, nasopharyngeal swabs
VITEK REVEAL [51]	Rapid antimicrobial susceptibility	97.1% essential agreement with reference BMD	Positive blood cultures

In Vitro and Cellular Assays

Standardized biological assays provide critical data on VOC mechanisms and efficacy. For neuroprotective evaluation, the Ellman method quantitatively assesses acetylcholinesterase inhibition, a key therapeutic target in Alzheimer's disease [52]. Oxidative stress models using Hâ‚‚Oâ‚‚-induced degeneration in neuron-like SH-SY5Y cells allow evaluation of neuroprotective potential through MTT assays for cell viability, neurite analysis for structural integrity, and caspase-3 ELISA measurements for apoptosis [52].

Molecular docking studies using CB-Dock2 software with AutoDock Vina integration predict binding affinities between therapeutic compounds and target proteins like acetylcholinesterase, while molecular dynamic simulations via the CABSflex 2.0 server analyze conformational flexibility of protein-ligand complexes [52]. These computational approaches provide insights into VOC-receptor interactions before conducting in vivo and in vitro studies.

Mechanistic Pathways of VOC Action

VOCs exert their therapeutic effects through multiple interconnected biological pathways. The diagram below illustrates key neuroprotective mechanisms shared by volatile compounds and related therapeutic agents:

VOCs and related neuroprotective compounds counter neurodegenerative processes through several interconnected mechanisms. They directly inhibit acetylcholinesterase (AChE), enhancing cholinergic neurotransmission [52]. Simultaneously, they reduce oxidative stress by decreasing reactive oxygen and nitrogen species (ROS/RNS) production [52]. Through suppression of neuroinflammation, they downregulate pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β) and inhibit microglial activation [52]. Their anti-apoptotic effects include reduced caspase-3 activation and DNA fragmentation, while mitochondrial protection preserves membrane potential and prevents permeability transition [52]. Additionally, they modulate calcium homeostasis, preventing sustained cytosolic calcium elevations and calcineurin overactivation [52].

For antimicrobial applications, VOCs operate through distinct mechanisms:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Platforms

Table 4: Key Research Tools for VOC Therapeutic Studies

Category	Specific Tools/Reagents	Research Application	Key Features
Analytical Platforms	Headspace Q-TOF GC/MS [55]	VOC speciation and quantification	High-resolution metabolite profiling
	SIFT-MS [55]	Emission rate quantification	Real-time trace gas detection
	Cyranose 320 e-nose [50]	Disease pattern recognition	32-sensor array with AI analysis
Biological Assays	Ellman method [52]	AChE inhibition assessment	Quantitative enzyme activity measurement
	MTT assay [52]	Cell viability determination	Mitochondrial function assessment
	Caspase-3 ELISA [52]	Apoptosis quantification	Specific apoptotic pathway activation
Cell Models	SH-SY5Y cells [52]	Neuroprotection studies	Neuron-like model for neurodegeneration
	HMC3 microglial cells [52]	Neuroinflammation research	Human microglial activation studies
Computational Tools	CB-Dock2 with AutoDock Vina [52]	Molecular docking studies	Binding affinity predictions
	CABSflex 2.0 server [52]	Molecular dynamics simulations	Protein-ligand conformational analysis
Nicotinamide riboside malate	Nicotinamide riboside malate, CAS:2415659-01-5, MF:C15H20N2O10, MW:388.33 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Cyclosporin A-Derivative 3	Cyclosporin A-Derivative 3, CAS:121584-34-7, MF:C63H111N11O12, MW:1214.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

This comparative analysis demonstrates that VOCs possess significant therapeutic potential across antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and neuroprotective applications, with mechanisms distinct from non-volatile compounds. The volatility of these compounds presents both challenges and unique opportunities for therapeutic delivery and diagnostic development. VOC-based technologies show particular promise in rapid pathogen identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing, where they significantly reduce diagnostic timeframes while maintaining high accuracy [51] [50]. In neurodegenerative diseases, VOC signatures from biological matrices offer potential for non-invasive early diagnosis [53] [54], while VOC-like compounds demonstrate multimodal neuroprotective mechanisms targeting oxidative stress, neuroinflammation, and apoptotic pathways [52]. Future research directions should focus on optimizing VOC delivery systems, stabilizing therapeutic compounds, and conducting controlled clinical trials to translate these promising findings into clinical practice. The integration of VOC-based diagnostics and therapies represents an emerging frontier in precision medicine, potentially offering less invasive, more rapid approaches to disease management across multiple therapeutic areas.

Natural Volatile Compounds (NVCs) represent a specialized class of plant secondary metabolites characterized by low molecular weight, high vapor pressure, and lipophilic properties that enable them to freely diffuse through cell membranes [7]. These compounds, which include various terpenoids, alcohols, esters, aldehydes, and aromatic phenols, serve crucial ecological functions for plants—from attracting pollinators to providing defense against pathogens [31]. From a therapeutic perspective, NVCs exhibit diverse biological activities that have positioned them as promising candidates for drug development across multiple disease areas. Their structural diversity and inherent bioactivity make them particularly valuable for addressing complex pathological mechanisms in cancer, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases [56] [31].

The biosynthesis of NVCs occurs through three primary metabolic pathways: fatty acid oxidation, amino acid degradation, and terpenoid synthesis pathways [7]. Each pathway generates distinct classes of volatile compounds with unique structural features and biological properties. In the fatty acid oxidation pathway, lipoxygenase (LOX) and β-oxidation processes convert unsaturated and saturated fatty acids into C6-C9 aldehydes, alcohols, and esters [7]. The amino acid degradation pathway transforms compounds like isoleucine, valine, and alanine into alcohols, aldehydes, and esters with low carbon atomic numbers [7]. Meanwhile, the terpenoid pathway utilizes isoprene units (C5H8) to create diverse structures including monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes [7]. Understanding these biosynthetic routes is essential for harnessing NVCs for therapeutic applications, as it enables the optimization of their production and the engineering of analogs with enhanced pharmacological properties.

Comparative Analysis of NVCs Versus Non-Volatile Plant Compounds

Plant-derived natural products encompass both volatile and non-volatile compounds, each with distinct chemical properties and therapeutic applications. Understanding their fundamental differences is crucial for selecting appropriate candidates for specific drug development programs.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Volatile vs. Non-Volatile Plant Compounds in Drug Development

Characteristic	Natural Volatile Compounds (NVCs)	Non-Volatile Plant Compounds
Molecular Weight	Low (<300 Da) [7]	Medium to High (>300 Da)
Vapor Pressure	High [7]	Low to negligible
Membrane Permeability	Excellent due to lipophilicity [7]	Variable, often requires transport mechanisms
Biosynthetic Pathways	Fatty acid oxidation, amino acid degradation, terpenoid synthesis [7]	Often shikimate, complex alkaloid, or flavonoid pathways
Representative Therapeutic Classes	Terpenes, esters, short-chain alcohols, aldehydes [7] [31]	Alkaloids, flavonoids, tannins, lignans
Typical Extraction Methods	Steam distillation, headspace sampling, solvent extraction [7]	Maceration, Soxhlet extraction, pressurized liquid extraction
Stability Considerations	Generally less stable, prone to oxidation and evaporation [7]	More stable, but susceptible to degradation under certain conditions
Administration Routes	Inhalation, transdermal, oral (with formulation) [7]	Primarily oral, parenteral

The comparative advantage of NVCs lies in their superior membrane permeability, which facilitates efficient cellular uptake and potentially enhanced bioavailability for certain administration routes [7]. However, this advantage is counterbalanced by challenges in formulation and stability. Non-volatile compounds, while potentially facing bioavailability challenges due to poorer membrane penetration, generally offer better stability and more straightforward formulation options [31]. From a therapeutic perspective, NVCs often exhibit more immediate biological effects, particularly in neurological and respiratory applications, while non-volatile compounds may provide longer-lasting systemic effects. The choice between these compound classes depends heavily on the specific therapeutic target, desired pharmacokinetic profile, and administration route considerations.

Anticancer Applications of NVCs

Mechanisms of Action and Molecular Targets

Natural Volatile Compounds exert anticancer effects through multiple molecular mechanisms, distinguishing them from conventional chemotherapeutic agents. Many NVCs demonstrate pro-apoptotic activity by upregulating caspase cascades while simultaneously modulating oxidative stress pathways in cancer cells [31]. Terpenoid-based NVCs, including monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes, have shown particular promise in inducing cell cycle arrest at G1/S or G2/M checkpoints through regulation of cyclin-dependent kinases and their inhibitors [31]. Additionally, certain volatile aldehydes and esters derived from fatty acid oxidation pathways inhibit cancer cell migration and invasion by downregulating matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) and interfering with epithelial-mesenchymal transition processes [7].

The comparative advantage of NVCs in oncology lies in their ability to target multiple pathways simultaneously, potentially reducing the likelihood of resistance development. Unlike monoclonal antibodies and Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) that target specific antigens like HER2, NECTIN-4, or TROP-2 [57], NVCs typically employ a multi-target approach. For instance, while ADCs achieve precision through antibody-mediated targeting of specific cancer cell surface markers [57], NVCs leverage their small size and lipophilicity to penetrate tumor tissues and interact with multiple intracellular targets. This fundamental difference in mechanism presents complementary therapeutic opportunities, with ADCs offering high specificity for particular cancer subtypes and NVCs providing broader activity across multiple cancer types with different resistance profiles.

Comparative Efficacy Data and Clinical Progress

Table 2: Comparison of Selected NVCs with Established Anticancer Modalities

Therapeutic Agent	Class/Type	Primary Mechanism	Key Molecular Targets	Clinical Stage/Status
Monoterpene NVCs	Natural Volatile Compound	Pro-apoptotic, cell cycle arrest	Caspases, CDK inhibitors, ROS	Preclinical to Phase I
Sesquiterpene NVCs	Natural Volatile Compound	Anti-metastatic, anti-angiogenic	MMPs, VEGF signaling	Preclinical to Phase I
Enhertu	Antibody-Drug Conjugate [57]	HER2-targeted delivery of deruxtecan	HER2, Topoisomerase I	Approved (2019)
Padcev	Antibody-Drug Conjugate [57]	Nectin-4-targeted delivery of MMAE	Nectin-4, Microtubules	Approved (2019)
Polivy	Antibody-Drug Conjugate [57]	CD79b-targeted delivery of MMAE	CD79b, Microtubules	Approved (2019)
Apitegromab	Monoclonal Antibody [58]	Inhibits myostatin activation	Latent myostatin	Pre-registration (Priority Review)

The global ADC market has demonstrated remarkable growth, with sales reaching approximately $8 billion in H1 2025 and projected to exceed $16 billion for the full year [57]. This commercial success highlights the pharmaceutical industry's investment in targeted cancer therapies. While NVCs have not yet achieved similar market penetration as ADCs, they offer distinct advantages in terms of synthetic accessibility, lower production costs, and the potential for oral bioavailability. The therapeutic window of NVCs appears favorable compared to conventional chemotherapy, though potentially narrower than the highly targeted approach of ADCs [57]. Currently, 41 ADC candidates are in Phase III clinical trials, focusing on both established targets like HER2 and emerging targets such as B7-H3, CLDN18.2, and ROR1 [57]. Meanwhile, NVCs remain primarily in preclinical and early clinical development stages, with their multi-target mechanisms presenting both therapeutic advantages and regulatory challenges for cancer drug development.

Antidiabetic Applications of NVCs

Molecular Mechanisms in Glucose Metabolism and Insulin Signaling

Natural Volatile Compounds influence glucose homeostasis through multiple pathways, offering complementary mechanisms to established antidiabetic drug classes. Certain terpenoid-derived NVCs enhance glucose uptake in peripheral tissues by activating AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and modulating glucose transporter type 4 (GLUT4) translocation [31]. Other volatile esters and alcohols demonstrate insulin-sensitizing effects through partial agonism of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARγ), albeit with potentially different binding modes than classical thiazolidinediones [7]. Additionally, selected NVCs of the aldehyde and ketone classes inhibit hepatic gluconeogenesis by suppressing phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PEPCK) and glucose-6-phosphatase expression [7].

The landscape of diabetes treatment has evolved significantly with 59 unique antihyperglycemic drugs now approved by the FDA since 1982 [59]. Modern classes include GLP-1 receptor agonists, DPP-4 inhibitors, and SGLT2 inhibitors, which have gained substantial market share [59]. Interestingly, some glucose-lowering drugs like semaglutide and tirzepatide (originally developed for diabetes) have demonstrated remarkable cardiovascular benefits, signaling a shift toward broader preventive strategies in cardiology [60]. The SELECT trial found that semaglutide reduced major adverse cardiovascular events by 20% in patients with obesity but without diabetes [60]. NVCs offer a different approach, typically acting through more direct modulation of metabolic enzymes and signaling pathways rather than the incretin-based mechanisms that dominate current diabetes drug development.

Comparative Efficacy and Clinical Positioning

Table 3: NVCs Compared to Established Antidiabetic Drug Classes

Therapeutic Agent	Class/Type	Primary Mechanism	HbA1c Reduction	Cardiovascular Effects	Administration
Selected NVCs	Natural Volatile Compounds	AMPK activation, PPARγ modulation	0.5-1.0% (preclinical models)	Under investigation	Oral, Inhalation
Tirzepatide (Mounjaro)	GLP-1/GIP Receptor Agonist [61]	Dual incretin receptor agonist	1.5-2.4%	Demonstrated benefit [60]	Once-weekly injection
Semaglutide (Ozempic)	GLP-1 Receptor Agonist [61]	GLP-1 receptor agonist	1.5-1.8%	20% MACE risk reduction [60]	Once-weekly injection
SGLT2 Inhibitors	SGLT2 Inhibitors [61]	Reduce glucose reabsorption	0.5-0.8%	Heart/Kidney protection [61]	Oral
Insulin Icodec	Once-weekly Insulin [61]	Basal insulin analog	Variable	Neutral	Once-weekly injection
Metformin	Biguanide [59]	AMPK activation, reduced gluconeogenesis	1.0-1.5%	Neutral to beneficial	Oral

The antidiabetic drug market continues to evolve with several key developments in 2025, including the expected approval of tirzepatide for weight management and the advancement of once-weekly insulin icodec [61]. Non-injectable alternatives are also gaining momentum, with oral GLP-1 agonists (e.g., Rybelsus) and inhalable insulin (Afrezza) offering patient-friendly administration options [61]. In this context, NVCs present opportunities for developing oral or inhaled formulations with potentially rapid onset of action. However, they face significant challenges in achieving the glycemic efficacy demonstrated by leading incretin-based therapies, which show HbA1c reductions up to 2.4% [61]. The future positioning of NVCs in diabetes management may lie in combination therapies, early intervention strategies, or targeting specific patient subgroups that respond preferentially to their unique mechanisms of action.

Cardioprotective Applications of NVCs

Cardiovascular Protective Mechanisms

Natural Volatile Compounds confer cardioprotection through multiple pathways, targeting various aspects of cardiovascular pathophysiology. Certain terpenoid-derived NVCs demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects by suppressing nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) signaling and reducing expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines including IL-1β and IL-6 [62] [31]. Other volatile aldehydes and phenolic compounds inhibit oxidation of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, a key step in atherogenesis, through free radical scavenging and metal chelation activities [56]. Additional NVCs, particularly those derived from fatty acid oxidation pathways, exhibit vasodilatory effects by enhancing nitric oxide bioavailability and modulating calcium channel activity in vascular smooth muscle [56].

The understanding of cardiovascular diseases has evolved significantly, with recognition of their multilevel heterogeneity—from complex pathobiological mechanisms at molecular and cellular levels to diverse clinical presentations and therapeutic responses [62]. This heterogeneity arises from individuals' unique genomic and exposomic characteristics, underscoring the need for precision approaches [62]. The role of inflammation in cardiovascular disease has been increasingly highlighted, with drugs like colchicine (an anti-inflammatory agent) gaining FDA approval in 2023 for treating coronary inflammation based on demonstrating approximately 30% reduction in heart attack risk [60]. NVCs with anti-inflammatory properties may offer similar benefits through different mechanisms. Recent advances in precision cardiovascular medicine utilize systems biology and network medicine, applying artificial intelligence to multiomics data to elucidate disease mechanisms and identify novel biomarkers and drug targets [62].

Comparative Clinical Outlook

The cardiovascular drug development landscape has recently welcomed innovative therapies including aprocitentan, a dual endothelin receptor antagonist approved in 2025 as the first new drug class for hypertension in nearly 20 years [60]. Additionally, RNA therapeutics in development show promise for effective precision therapy and could help address conventional drug development obstacles [62]. The field is also being transformed by artificial intelligence, which improves diagnostic precision and personalizes treatment through analysis of medical imaging and predictive models incorporating genetic data, lifestyle factors, and traditional risk metrics [60].

In this context, NVCs face significant challenges in demonstrating cardiovascular outcome benefits comparable to established therapies. However, they may find applications in early-stage prevention, complementary approaches to standard care, or targeting specific pathological processes not adequately addressed by current options. Natural products more broadly have been identified as potential remedies for CVDs, with fruits, vegetables, spices, herbs, propolis, honey, and red wine containing compounds that improve cardiovascular health [56]. The future of cardiology is increasingly focused on preventing heart disease very early in life, with Dr. Eugene Braunwald emphasizing that "we will be able to identify and prevent the development of [risk factors] in the first place" [60]. NVCs may play a valuable role in this shift toward primordial prevention strategies.

Experimental Methodologies for NVC Research

Standardized Protocols for NVC Isolation and Characterization

The study of Natural Volatile Compounds requires specialized methodologies for their extraction, separation, and identification due to their unique chemical properties. Headspace solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) represents the gold standard for volatile compound analysis [7]. This technique allows for the capture and concentration of volatile metabolites from various biological samples without solvent interference. For quantitative analysis, internal standards such as 2-undecanone or deuterated analogs of target compounds are typically added prior to extraction to account for procedural losses and matrix effects [7].

Metabolomic studies investigating both volatile and non-volatile metabolites employ complementary extraction protocols. A typical integrated workflow begins with flash-freezing plant or tissue samples in liquid nitrogen followed by homogenization. The powdered material is then divided for parallel processing: one aliquot undergoes methanol/water extraction for non-volatile metabolites, while another is reserved for HS-SPME-GC-MS analysis of volatile components [7]. For the non-volatile fraction, ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with high-resolution mass spectrometry (UPLC-HRMS) provides comprehensive coverage of polar and semi-polar metabolites. This dual approach enables researchers to capture a complete chemical profile and potentially identify correlations between volatile and non-volatile metabolic networks [7].

Functional Assays and Mechanistic Studies

Elucidating the biological activities of NVCs requires a tiered experimental approach beginning with in vitro screening assays followed by increasingly complex model systems. For anticancer applications, standard protocols include cell viability assays (MTT, XTT, or resazurin-based), apoptosis detection (Annexin V/PI staining with flow cytometry), cell cycle analysis (propidium iodide staining), and migration/invasion assays (Boyden chamber with Matrigel coating) [57]. For antidiabetic screening, glucose uptake assays in cultured adipocytes or myotubes using fluorescently-labeled glucose analogs, along with insulin secretion studies in pancreatic β-cell lines, provide initial activity assessment [59]. Cardioprotective effects are typically evaluated through endothelial cell protection assays, monocyte adhesion studies, and foam cell formation assays in macrophages [56].

Transcriptomic analysis combined with metabolic profiling offers powerful insights into NVC mechanisms of action. RNA sequencing of treated versus untreated cells identifies differentially expressed genes and affected pathways [7]. For studies on plant biosynthesis pathways, virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) has proven effective for functional characterization of candidate genes, as demonstrated in Lilium 'Siberia' petals where LoCOP1 was shown to negatively regulate floral scent production [31]. Heterologous expression in systems like E. coli or S. cerevisiae followed by in vitro enzyme assays with potential substrates confirms biochemical function, as evidenced by the characterization of HcJMT1 methyltransferase from Hedychium coronarium which catalyzes the conversion of jasmonic acid to methyl jasmonate [31].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 4: Key Research Reagents for NVC Investigation

Reagent/Technology	Function/Application	Specific Examples
HS-SPME Fibers	Capture and concentrate volatile compounds from headspace	DVB/CAR/PDMS, CAR/PDMS fibers
GC-MS Systems	Separate and identify volatile compounds	Agilent, Thermo Scientific systems
Stable Isotope Labels	Track metabolic fluxes and biosynthesis pathways	13C-glucose, 15N-amino acids, D2O
LOX Inhibitors	Probe fatty acid oxidation pathways in NVC biosynthesis	NDGA, esculetin
AAT Activity Assays	Measure alcohol acyltransferase activity	In vitro assays with alcohol and acyl-CoA substrates
VIGS Vectors	Gene functional characterization in plants	TRV-based vectors for gene silencing
Heterologous Expression Systems	Produce and characterize biosynthetic enzymes	E. coli, S. cerevisiae, insect cell systems
DNA crosslinker 2 dihydrochloride	DNA crosslinker 2 dihydrochloride, MF:C15H22Cl2N8O, MW:401.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
(2S)-7,4'-Dihydroxy-3'-Prenylflavan	(2S)-7,4'-Dihydroxy-3'-Prenylflavan, MF:C20H22O3, MW:310.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Biosynthesis Pathways of Therapeutic NVCs

The biosynthesis of Natural Volatile Compounds occurs through three well-established metabolic pathways that generate distinct classes of bioactive molecules. Understanding these pathways is essential for optimizing the production of therapeutically valuable NVCs and engineering analogs with enhanced pharmacological properties.

Biosynthesis Pathways of Bioactive NVCs and Therapeutic Applications

The fatty acid oxidation pathway begins with unsaturated fatty acids that undergo sequential transformations through the coordinated actions of lipoxygenase (LOX), hydroperoxide lyase (HPL), alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), and alcohol acyltransferase (AAT) enzymes [7]. This pathway generates straight-chain aldehydes, alcohols, and their corresponding esters such as hexanal, hexanol, and hexyl acetate, which contribute to the characteristic aromas of many fruits and have demonstrated anticancer and anti-inflammatory properties [7]. The amino acid degradation pathway utilizes amino acids including isoleucine, valine, alanine, and threonine as substrates for aminotransferases (ATF), pyruvate decarboxylase (PDC), and AAT enzymes to produce branched-chain alcohols, aldehydes, and esters like 2-methylbutanol and ethyl-2-methylbutyrate [7]. These compounds exhibit various bioactivities including antimicrobial and potential metabolic effects. The terpenoid synthesis pathway employs the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) and mevalonate (MVA) routes to produce isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP) precursors, which are subsequently converted by terpene synthases (TPS) into diverse mono- and sesquiterpenes [7]. These compounds show particularly promising anticancer and cardioprotective activities through multiple mechanisms of action.

Natural Volatile Compounds represent a promising yet underexplored resource for drug development across anticancer, antidiabetic, and cardioprotective applications. Their structural diversity, multi-target mechanisms, and favorable physicochemical properties for membrane permeability position them as valuable candidates for addressing complex disease pathologies. However, significant challenges remain in their stabilization, formulation, and targeted delivery to specific tissues. The comparative analysis presented in this review highlights both the distinctive advantages of NVCs and the substantial development hurdles they must overcome to transition from promising natural products to clinically established therapeutics.

Future research directions should prioritize the integration of modern technologies to advance NVC-based drug development. Artificial intelligence and network medicine approaches offer powerful tools for predicting NVC targets, identifying synergistic combinations, and understanding their effects within complex biological networks [62]. The application of precision medicine methodologies, including multiomics analyses and patient stratification strategies, will be essential for matching specific NVCs to responsive patient subpopulations [62]. Additionally, innovations in formulation science—particularly nanoencapsulation and controlled-release technologies—may help overcome the stability and bioavailability challenges that have historically limited the pharmaceutical development of volatile compounds. As the field progresses, strategic integration of NVCs with established therapeutic modalities may yield combination approaches that leverage the unique advantages of both natural products and targeted synthetic drugs, potentially opening new frontiers in the treatment of cancer, metabolic disorders, and cardiovascular diseases.

The therapeutic application of plant-derived compounds is a cornerstone of modern pharmacology. However, the efficacy of these compounds is fundamentally governed by their ability to reach systemic circulation and target sites in active form. This guide provides a comparative analysis of two distinct classes of plant compounds: Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), which are naturally suited for inhalation delivery, and Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs), which require innovative strategies to overcome poor bioavailability. The inherent properties of VOCs, such as low molecular weight and high vapor pressure, facilitate their rapid absorption via the respiratory tract [63]. In contrast, many potent NVCs, including various alkaloids, phenolic diterpenes, and glycosides, face significant challenges due to low water solubility, poor membrane permeability, and pre-systemic metabolism, which limit their therapeutic potential [64] [21]. This article objectively compares delivery strategies for both classes, framing the discussion within the context of advancing plant-based drug development.

Comparative Analysis of Volatile and Non-Volatile Plant Compounds

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Volatile and Non-Volatile Plant Compounds

Characteristic	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs)
Definition	Low molecular weight organic compounds (typically 50-200 Da) with appreciable vapor pressure under ambient conditions [63].	Compounds with low vapor pressure, often with higher molecular weights and greater structural complexity.
Primary Natural Roles	Plant-pollinator attraction, plant-plant communication, defense against pests and pathogens [63].	Plant defense (e.g., antimicrobial, antioxidant), signaling, and pigmentation [64] [21].
Biosynthetic Pathways	Primarily from amino acids, fatty acids (via lipoxygenase/β-oxidation), and terpene pathways [7] [63].	Diverse pathways yielding alkaloids, phenolic diterpenes, flavonoids, phenolic acids, and glycosides [64] [65] [21].
Example Bioactives	Esters (butyl acetate), alcohols (linalool), aldehydes (hexanal), terpenes (α-pinene) [7] [63].	Carnosic acid (rosemary), curcumin (turmeric), silymarin (milk thistle), berberine (Berberis vulgaris) [4] [64] [21].
Typical Administration Route	Inhalation (natural and therapeutic) [66] [63].	Oral ingestion, requiring bioavailability enhancement [64].

Inhalation Delivery of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Deposition and Absorption Mechanisms

Inhaled VOCs and Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs) are absorbed systemically through multiple mechanisms in the respiratory tract. The high vapor pressure and lipophilicity of these compounds allow them to pass freely through alveolar membranes via passive diffusion, leading to rapid absorption into the bloodstream [66] [67]. Research on compounds like trichloroethylene (TCE) shows they can appear in arterial blood within one minute of inhalation exposure [67].

Diagram 1: Inhalation Deposition and Absorption Mechanisms

Experimental Protocols for VOC Bioavailability Assessment

Protocol 1: Dynamic Headspace Sampling for VOC Analysis from Plant Materials

• Objective: To collect and concentrate volatile metabolites from the air surrounding a plant sample (headspace) for chemical and bioactivity analysis [63].
• Methodology:
  • Plant Material Preparation: Fresh or dried plant material (e.g., rosemary leaves, pear fruit) is homogenized and placed in an air-tight container.
  • Purge and Trap: A stream of purified air is passed over the sample at a controlled flow rate (e.g., 50-200 mL/min). Volatiles released from the material are entrained in the air stream.
  • Adsorbent Trapping: The volatile-laden air is directed through a cartridge containing an adsorbent material (e.g., Tenax TA, activated charcoal), which captures and concentrates the compounds.
  • Desorption: The trapped volatiles are released from the adsorbent via thermal desorption or solvent extraction for analysis.
  • Analysis: The concentrated volatiles are typically analyzed by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) for identification and quantification [63].

Protocol 2: In Vivo Assessment of Inhalation Bioavailability

• Objective: To determine the systemic uptake and distribution of inhaled VOCs/SVOCs adsorbed to particulate matter, simulating real-world exposure [68].
• Methodology:
  • Dust Preparation: A respirable fraction of house dust (<5 μm) is coated with the target compound (e.g., PFOA) by exposing it to a saturated vapor of the compound in a sealed chamber until equilibrium is reached [68].
  • Animal Exposure (Rat Model): Rats are exposed to the coated dust via a specialized inhalation system (e.g., PreciseInhale system), allowing for spontaneous inhalation of the aerosolized dust. Control groups receive an oral gavage of the same dust.
  • Sample Collection: Blood plasma is collected at sequential time points (e.g., 0, 1, 3, 6, 24, 48 hours). At termination, target tissues (lungs, liver, kidney) are collected [68].
  • Bioanalytical Assessment: Tissues and plasma are analyzed for the target compound using techniques like LC-MS/MS. Pharmacokinetic parameters (C~max~, T~max~, AUC) are calculated to compare bioavailability between inhalation and oral routes [68].

Key Data on Inhalation Bioavailability

Table 2: Comparative Bioavailability of Compounds via Inhalation vs. Ingestion

Compound / Class	Study Model	Key Findings (Inhalation vs. Oral)	Reference
PFOA (adsorbed to house dust)	Rat model (PreciseInhale system)	Plasma C~max~ was 4 times higher after inhalation. At 48h, levels in plasma, liver, and kidney were twice as high from inhalation.	[68]
Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs)	Review of human exposure	Inhalation contributes significantly to indoor exposure for SVOCs like PBDEs, PCBs, and phthalate esters. Systemic absorption from lungs is rapid.	[66] [67]
Trichloroethylene (TCE)	Human exposure model	Internal dose from inhalation and dermal exposure during showering was comparable to ingesting 2 liters of contaminated water.	[67]

Bioavailability Enhancement of Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs)

Challenges and Enhancement Pathways

NVCs face significant bioavailability hurdles. Their development into phytopharmaceutical drugs is challenged by low yield from plant material, poor solubility, and the presence of cytotoxic components in crude extracts [64]. The following pathway outlines the primary strategies to overcome these challenges.

Diagram 2: Strategies for NVC Bioavailability Enhancement

Experimental Protocols for NVC Bioavailability Enhancement

Protocol 1: Development of a Standardized Phytopharmaceutical Drug (PPD)

• Objective: To transform a plant extract into a standardized, purified formulation containing a minimum of four bioactive phytoconstituents to ensure consistent efficacy and safety [64].
• Methodology:
  • Extraction and Fractionation: The crude plant extract (e.g., from rosemary leaves) is obtained using a selective solvent (e.g., supercritical COâ‚‚ for deodorized extracts). The extract is then fractionated using chromatographic techniques to enrich bioactive compounds (e.g., carnosic acid and carnosol) [4] [64].
  • Standardization: The fraction is analyzed (e.g., by HPLC/DAD/MS) to identify and quantify the marker compounds. The extract is standardized to a specific concentration of these active constituents to guarantee batch-to-batch consistency [64].
  • Bioavailability Screening: The standardized PPD is evaluated using in vitro models (e.g., Caco-2 cell monolayers for permeability) and in vivo models to assess absorption, distribution, and overall bioavailability compared to the crude extract [64].

Protocol 2: Synthesis and Evaluation of Nanoformulations

• Objective: To improve the water solubility and cellular uptake of a poorly bioavailable NVC (e.g., curcumin) by encapsulating it in a nanoparticle system.
• Methodology:
  • Nanoparticle Synthesis: The NVC is encapsulated into a nanoparticle, such as a liposome or a biopolymer matrix. For example, an active bionanocomposite film can be created by incorporating rosemary essential oil and nanoclay into chitosan [4].
  • Characterization: The nanoformulation is characterized for particle size, zeta potential, encapsulation efficiency, and drug loading.
  • In Vitro Release and Uptake: The release profile of the NVC is studied in simulated physiological fluids. Cellular uptake and cytotoxicity are assessed in relevant cell lines (e.g., HeLa cells for anticancer activity) [65].
  • In Vivo Efficacy: The pharmacokinetic profile (C~max~, AUC, half-life) of the nanoformulation is compared against the free compound in an animal model to quantify bioavailability enhancement [64].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for VOC and NVC Delivery Research

Reagent / Material	Function	Application Example
Tenax TA Adsorbent Tubes	Traps and concentrates volatile organic compounds from air/headspace for subsequent thermal desorption and GC-MS analysis.	Dynamic headspace sampling of aroma compounds from pear fruits [63].
PreciseInhale Exposure System	Enables controlled, spontaneous inhalation of aerosolized particles (e.g., compound-coated dust) by intubated rodents for realistic exposure studies.	In vivo inhalation bioavailability study of PFOA adsorbed to house dust in rats [68].
Supercritical COâ‚‚ Extraction System	Provides a low-temperature, inert environment for extracting thermally labile and oxygen-sensitive non-volatile bioactives (e.g., antioxidants).	Production of deodorized rosemary extracts rich in carnosic acid and carnosol [4].
Caco-2 Cell Line	A human colon adenocarcinoma cell line that forms polarized monolayers, used as a standard in vitro model for predicting intestinal absorption of compounds.	Permeability screening of novel phytopharmaceutical drugs (PPDs) [64].
OASIS WAX Solid-Phase Extraction Cartridges	A mixed-mode, strong anion-exchange sorbent designed for the effective extraction and clean-up of acidic compounds, including various PFAS and other acids.	Clean-up and concentration of PFOA from plasma and tissue samples before LC-MS/MS analysis [68].
Enhydrin chlorohydrin	Enhydrin chlorohydrin, MF:C23H29ClO10, MW:500.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
LNA-guanosine 3'-CE phosphoramidite	LNA-guanosine 3'-CE phosphoramidite, MF:C44H53N8O8P, MW:852.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The strategic development of innovative delivery systems for plant-derived compounds is paramount to unlocking their full therapeutic potential. For Volatile Organic Compounds, the inhalation route represents a natural and highly efficient delivery mechanism, as evidenced by superior systemic bioavailability compared to oral ingestion for several environmental contaminants and potential therapeutics [68]. For Non-Volatile Compounds, overcoming bioavailability barriers requires a multi-faceted approach. The standardization of Phytopharmaceutical Drugs, the application of nanoformulations, and the emerging technology of Plant-Made Biologics present a robust toolkit for enhancing the delivery of these challenging yet valuable molecules [4] [64]. The choice between leveraging the innate advantages of VOCs or engineering solutions for NVCs ultimately depends on the target disease, the compound's physicochemical properties, and the desired pharmacokinetic profile. Future research will continue to bridge the gap between the traditional therapeutic uses of plants and the rigorous demands of modern drug development.

Navigating Challenges: Stability, Bioavailability, and Production Hurdles

Addressing VOC Instability During Processing and Storage

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and non-volatile bioactive compounds represent two fundamental classes of specialized plant metabolites with significant applications across pharmaceutical, food, and cosmetic industries. The core challenge in utilizing these compounds lies in their divergent stability profiles during industrial processing and storage. VOCs, comprising essential oils and aromatic compounds, are characterized by their low molecular weight and high vapor pressure, making them inherently susceptible to evaporation, degradation, and chemical transformation when exposed to environmental factors. In contrast, non-volatile compounds such as phenolic diterpenes and acids generally demonstrate greater molecular stability but face challenges related to extraction efficiency and oxidative degradation.

Understanding these stability dynamics is not merely a technical consideration but a fundamental requirement for drug development professionals seeking to standardize bioactive plant compounds for therapeutic applications. The instability of VOCs presents particular challenges for dosage consistency, shelf-life determination, and bioavailability in pharmaceutical formulations. This comparative analysis examines the factors influencing compound stability across processing methods and storage conditions, providing evidence-based guidance for researchers working with plant-derived compounds.

Comparative Stability Profiles: Volatile versus Non-Volatile Compounds

Table 1: Fundamental Stability Characteristics of Plant Compound Classes

Characteristic	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	Non-Volatile Bioactive Compounds
Molecular Properties	Low molecular weight, high vapor pressure	Higher molecular weight, low vapor pressure
Primary Stability Challenges	Evaporation, oxidative degradation, heat sensitivity	Enzymatic degradation, oxidation, polymerization
Impact of Heat Processing	Significant losses through volatilization	Variable effects; may enhance extractability
Sensitivity to Oxygen	High (especially terpenes)	Moderate to high (especially phenolics)
Light Sensitivity	Variable (high for certain compounds)	Variable (high for pigments like anthocyanins)
Typical Extraction Methods	Steam distillation, solvent extraction, SPME	Solvent extraction, supercritical COâ‚‚
Storage Stability	Generally poor; requires protective packaging	Generally better; degradation slower

The instability of VOCs stems directly from their physicochemical properties. These compounds, primarily terpenoids and aromatic compounds, exhibit high vapor pressures that facilitate their release into the atmosphere—a property essential for plant ecological functions but problematic for storage and processing [31] [69]. Non-volatile compounds including carnosic acid, carnosol, and rosmarinic acid demonstrate greater molecular stability but remain susceptible to oxidative degradation pathways that can diminish bioactivity over time [4].

Processing Methodologies: Comparative Impact on Compound Stability

Thermal versus Non-Thermal Processing

Table 2: Impact of Processing Methods on Compound Stability

Processing Method	Effect on VOCs	Effect on Non-Volatile Compounds	Key Research Findings
Pasteurization	Significant reduction in most VOCs through volatilization and thermal degradation	Mixed effects: reduction in vitamin C and sulforaphane; increased extractability of carotenoids and chlorogenic acid	Pasteurization better preserved chlorogenic acid, carotenoids, and catechins in fruit/vegetable blends [70]
High-Pressure Processing	Better preservation of volatile profiles due to minimal heat exposure	Superior retention of vitamin C and sulforaphane; variable effects on other compounds	Pascalization preserved vitamin C and sulforaphane better than pasteurization [70]
Solvent Extraction	Effective but may alter VOC profiles through solvent residue	Highly effective for phenolic diterpenes; solvent choice critical for efficiency	Supercritical COâ‚‚ extraction preferred for carnosic acid and carnosol in rosemary [4]
Drying Methods	Significant VOC losses without optimized temperature and time parameters	Generally better retention with potential surface modification affecting bioavailability	Air-drying of rosemary better preserved VOCs compared to oven-drying at high temperatures [4]

The selection of processing methodologies fundamentally determines the retention and functionality of plant compounds. Conventional thermal processing methods like pasteurization consistently demonstrate detrimental effects on VOC integrity through multiple degradation pathways. Research on complex fruit and vegetable blends demonstrates that pascalization better preserved vitamin C (a compound with moderate volatility) and sulforaphane compared to pasteurization [70]. Conversely, pasteurization resulted in higher concentrations of certain non-volatile compounds including chlorogenic acid, carotenoids, and catechins, potentially through enhanced extractability from plant matrices [70].

For rosemary extracts, which contain both volatile essential oils and non-volatile bioactive compounds like carnosic acid and carnosol, processing method selection creates complex trade-offs. Supercritical COâ‚‚ extraction has emerged as the preferred method for obtaining standardized, deodorized extracts rich in non-volatile antioxidant compounds, while conventional steam distillation remains applicable primarily for essential oil production [4].

Experimental Protocols for Processing Stability Assessment

Protocol 1: Comparative Processing Impact Analysis

• Sample Preparation: Create homogeneous blends of plant materials representing diverse phytochemical classes. For complex mixture studies, combine equal parts by weight of selected fruits and vegetables [70].
• Processing Applications: Divide samples into three treatment groups: (1) untreated control, (2) pascalization (500-600 MPa for 1-5 minutes), and (3) pasteurization (72-95°C for 15-30 seconds) [70].
• Extraction Methods: For VOCs, employ Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME) with appropriate fiber coatings (e.g., DVB/CAR/PDMS) to capture diverse chemical classes. For non-volatile compounds, use standardized solvent extraction (e.g., methanol/water mixtures) [4] [69].
• Analysis: Utilize GC-MS for VOC profiling and HPLC-DAD/MS for non-volatile compounds. Quantify key markers relative to internal standards.

Protocol 2: Encapsulation Efficiency Assessment

• Encapsulation Methods: Test zeolite-based systems (13X-HP zeolite) for VOC stabilization and biopolymeric matrices (chitosan-alginate) for non-volatile compounds [71].
• Release Kinetics: Employ thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) and headspace-GC-MS to quantify controlled release profiles under standardized conditions (e.g., 37°C, 65% RH) [71].
• Molecular Modeling: Apply COSMO-RS and molecular dynamics simulations to predict component-carrier interactions and optimize encapsulation efficiency [71].

Storage Stability: Temporal Degradation Patterns

Factors Influencing Storage Stability

Table 3: Storage Stability Under Different Conditions

Storage Condition	VOC Stability Profile	Non-Volatile Compound Stability	Recommended Mitigation Strategies
Frozen (-18°C)	Good medium-term retention with potential losses during freeze-thaw cycles	Excellent retention for most compounds over 6 months	Single-use aliquots to avoid repeated freeze-thaw cycles; vacuum packaging
Refrigerated (4°C)	Moderate stability with progressive losses over weeks	Good stability for most compounds except certain pigments	Oxygen-impermeable packaging; antioxidant additives
Room Temperature	Poor stability with rapid loss of characteristic profiles	Variable: phenolic compounds relatively stable; vitamins susceptible	Light-resistant containers; oxygen scavengers; desiccants
Accelerated Stability Testing	40°C/75% RH for 1-3 months predicts room temperature stability over 6-12 months	Correlation less established; compound-specific degradation patterns	Monitor key degradation markers rather than full profile

Long-term storage stability presents distinct challenges for volatile versus non-volatile compounds. Research demonstrates that frozen storage at -18°C generally preserves both VOC and non-volatile compound profiles effectively over six-month periods, though VOCs may experience significant losses during freeze-thaw cycles [70]. The impact of freezing varies between processing methods, with pascalized samples demonstrating better retention of specific phytochemicals including lutein, cyanidin-3-glucoside, and epicatechin gallate after freezing and immediate thawing [70].

For VOCs specifically, storage stability is governed by molecular structure, weight, and functional groups. Research categorizes VOC components into top, middle, and base notes based on volatility patterns, with top notes (low molecular weight compounds like monoterpenes) exhibiting the most rapid evaporation rates during storage [71]. This classification system provides valuable guidance for predicting storage stability and designing appropriate stabilization strategies.

Experimental Protocols for Storage Stability Assessment

Protocol 3: Longitudinal Storage Stability Study

• Sample Preparation: Process plant material using standardized methods and divide into aliquots for different storage conditions.
• Storage Conditions: Implement multiple storage regimes including -18°C (frozen), 4°C (refrigerated), and 25°C/60% RH (accelerated) with protection from light [70].
• Sampling Intervals: Analyze samples at t=0, 1, 3, and 6 months with additional time points for longer studies.
• Analysis Methods: Employ matched analytical methods (SPME-GC-MS for VOCs; HPLC for non-volatiles) with strict standardization to ensure comparability across time points.
• Data Analysis: Calculate degradation kinetics and determine shelf-life based on key marker compounds falling below 90% of initial concentration.

Stabilization Strategies and Modulation Techniques

Advanced Stabilization Technologies

The development of effective stabilization strategies requires tailored approaches for volatile versus non-volatile compounds. For VOCs, encapsulation technologies represent the most promising approach. Zeolite-based systems, particularly 13X-HP zeolite with its hierarchical porosity and negatively charged framework, have demonstrated efficacy in modulating VOC volatilization through differential adsorption based on molecular structure and intermolecular forces [71]. Lipid-based nanoemulsions and biopolymeric nanocapsules provide additional options for controlling VOC release kinetics.

Complementary to encapsulation, functional additives act as fixatives to slow component volatilization. Certain low-volatility EO components may serve as natural fixatives by prolonging scent persistence through intermolecular interactions [71]. Computational modeling approaches including COSMO-RS and molecular dynamics simulations have emerged as valuable predictive tools for identifying suitable component-carrier combinations before experimental validation [71].

For non-volatile compounds, stabilization focuses primarily on preventing oxidative degradation. Deodorized extracts standardized for carnosic acid and carnosol content demonstrate enhanced storage stability compared to full-spectrum extracts [4]. Additionally, the use of oxygen-impermeable packaging and antioxidant additives (including natural antioxidants like tocopherols) significantly extends shelf-life for both compound classes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Essential Research Materials for Stability Studies

Reagent/Material	Application Function	Specific Examples
SPME Fibers	VOC capture and concentration for analysis	DVB/CAR/PDMS ternary coating for broad-spectrum VOC capture [69]
Zeolite Carriers	VOC encapsulation and controlled release	13X-HP zeolite for differential component adsorption [71]
Antioxidant Additives	Prevention of oxidative degradation during processing/storage	Tocopherols, ascorbic acid, and natural extracts like rosemary extract [4]
Reference Standards	Quantification and method validation	Certified reference materials for key VOCs and phenolic compounds
Stability Testing Chambers	Controlled stress conditions for accelerated studies	Programmable chambers for temperature, humidity, and light control
Molecular Modeling Software	Prediction of volatility and component-carrier interactions	COSMO-RS, GROMACS for molecular dynamics simulations [71]
Neoantimycin	Neoantimycin, MF:C36H46N2O12, MW:698.8 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The comparative analysis of VOC and non-volatile compound stability reveals fundamental trade-offs that must guide research and development decisions. VOCs demand specialized handling throughout processing and storage, with non-thermal methods and advanced encapsulation technologies offering the most promising stabilization approaches. Non-volatile compounds, while generally more robust, require optimization of extraction parameters and protection from oxidative degradation.

For drug development professionals, these stability characteristics directly influence decisions regarding compound selection, formulation strategies, and shelf-life determination. The increasing application of computational modeling and multi-scale evaluation protocols represents a significant advancement in predicting and modulating compound behavior [71]. Future research directions should focus on developing integrated stabilization approaches that address the specific vulnerabilities of both compound classes, particularly for complex botanical preparations containing both volatile and non-volatile bioactive constituents.

Diagram: Experimental Workflow for Stability Assessment

Experimental Workflow for Comprehensive Stability Assessment

Diagram: Compound Stability Decision Framework

Compound Stability Decision Framework

Overcoming Low Bioavailability and Solubility of NVCs

Non-volatile plant compounds (NVCs), including flavonoids, alkaloids, terpenoids, and phenolic compounds, represent a rich source of therapeutic agents with diverse pharmacological activities. However, their development into effective pharmaceuticals is significantly hampered by inherent biopharmaceutical challenges. Most NVCs are classified under Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) Class II (low solubility, high permeability) or Class IV (low solubility, low permeability), primarily due to their poor aqueous solubility and limited gastrointestinal absorption [72] [73]. These characteristics directly lead to low bioavailability, meaning only a small fraction of the administered dose reaches systemic circulation unaltered to exert its therapeutic effect [72]. For oral formulations, which constitute over 50% of pharmaceutical dosage forms, this solubility barrier often results in high pill burdens and inconsistent therapeutic outcomes [74]. Consequently, innovative formulation strategies are urgently required to overcome these limitations and unlock the full therapeutic potential of NVCs.

Comparative Analysis of Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies

Various technological approaches have been developed to enhance the solubility and bioavailability of NVCs. The table below provides a structured comparison of the primary technologies, their mechanisms of action, and representative experimental data.

Table 1: Comparison of Bioavailability Enhancement Technologies for NVCs

Technology	Mechanism of Action	Representative NVC	Experimental Performance Data	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Nanocrystals [75] [76]	Particle size reduction to nanoscale (10-800 nm) increases surface area and dissolution rate.	Quercetin, Apigenin, Resveratrol [75] [72]	• Quercetin nanosuspension: Significant increase in dissolution rate and bioavailability compared to raw drug [72].• General enhancement for BCS Class II/IV drugs [75].	• Carrier-free system.• Universal for various administration routes.• Potential for passive targeting.	• Physicochemical stability challenges (aggregation).• Requires stabilizers [75].
Nanophytosomes [77]	Forms hydrogen bonds with phospholipids, enhancing membrane permeability and stability.	Bryonia dioica, Glaucium leiocarpum, Silymarin [77]	• Encapsulation Efficiency: ~75-80% [77].• Release Profile: Initial burst followed by sustained release.• Cytotoxicity: Biocompatible up to 200 μg/mL on fibroblast cells.	• Superior bioavailability and stability for herbal extracts.• Unique drug loading mechanism.	• Relatively new technology; requires more validation.
Lipid-Based Nanoparticles (SNEDDS, SLNs) [72] [74]	Enhances solubilization via lipid nanoemulsions or solid lipid matrices; can improve lymphatic absorption.	Fenofibrate [72]	• Fenoglide (Fenofibrate): Marketed product using PEG for solubility enhancement [72].• SNEDDS: Forms stable nanoemulsions with high surface area for improved absorption [74].	• Effective for highly lipophilic drugs.• Can reduce food-effect issues.	• Variable excipient quality can impact batch consistency.• Limited drug loading for some actives [74].
Amorphous Solid Dispersions (ASD) [72] [73]	Drug is dispersed in polymer matrix in amorphous state, increasing energy and kinetic solubility.	Itraconazole, Nabilone [72]	• Sporanox (Itraconazole): Marketed ASD using HPMC [72].• Solution Engine 2.0 screening: Achieved 10 to 100-fold solubility increases for hundreds of APIs [73].	• Can handle high melting point drugs.• High solubility enhancement potential.	• Risk of drug recrystallization over time.• Requires specialized polymers (e.g., HPMC, PVP).
Polymeric Nanoparticles/Micelles [78] [74]	Encapsulates drug in nanocarriers; can provide controlled release and targeted delivery.	Quercetin [78]	• Quercetin nano-delivery: Reformulation enhanced solubility and bioavailability [78].• Widely used in cancer therapy for targeted delivery.	• Controlled release profiles.• Potential for active targeting.	• Complex manufacturing and quality control.• Potential carrier toxicity.

Experimental Protocols for Key Technologies

Protocol 1: Production of Nanocrystals via Top-Down Media Milling

Objective: To reduce the particle size of a poorly water-soluble NVC to the nanometer range to enhance its dissolution rate and apparent solubility [75] [76].

Materials:

• Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API): The target NVC (e.g., Quercetin).
• Milling Media: Zirconia or ceramic beads (0.1-0.5 mm diameter).
• Stabilizer Solution: An aqueous solution of a surface-active agent (e.g., Poloxamer 188, HPMC, or lecithin) to prevent particle aggregation.
• Equipment: High-energy bead mill.

Methodology:

• Suspension Preparation: Disperse the coarse powder of the NVC in the stabilizer solution to form a macroscopic suspension (typical solid content: 10-30% w/w) [75].
• Milling Process: Charge the suspension and the milling media into the chamber of the bead mill. The milling media typically occupies 50-80% of the chamber volume.
• Size Reduction: Operate the mill for a predetermined time (several hours to days) or for a set number of cycles. The process generates heat, so temperature control via a cooling jacket is essential.
• Separation & Recovery: Upon completion, separate the nanocrystal suspension from the milling media using a sieve or filter. The resulting nanosuspension can be used as a liquid dosage form or further processed into solid dosage forms (e.g., by spray-drying or lyophilization) [75] [76].

Critical Parameters:

• Stabilizer type and concentration: Crucial for colloidal stability and preventing Ostwald ripening [75].
• Milling time and energy input: Directly influences the final particle size distribution.
• Temperature control: Prevents degradation of the heat-labile NVC.

Protocol 2: Preparation of Nanophytosomes via Thin-Film Hydration

Objective: To encapsulate a standardized plant extract into a phospholipid-based vesicle to improve its bioavailability and stability [77].

Materials:

• Plant Extract: Dry powdered extract of the NVC (e.g., Bryonia dioica or Glaucium leiocarpum).
• Phospholipid: High-purity soy lecithin (≥99%).
• Solvent: Chloroform.
• Hydration Medium: Sterile double-distilled water.
• Equipment: Rotary evaporator, ultrasonic homogenizer, ultrasonic bath.

Methodology:

• Solution Preparation: Dissolve soy lecithin and the dry plant extract in a 2:1 weight ratio in chloroform. Incubate at 4°C for 24 hours to ensure interaction [77].
• Thin Film Formation: Transfer the solution to a round-bottom flask of a rotary evaporator. Evaporate the solvent under vacuum at 50°C and 150 rpm to form a thin, dry lipid film on the inner wall of the flask.
• Hydration: Add a volume of pre-warmed (50°C) double-distilled water to the flask and rotate at the same temperature for a specified time to hydrate the film and form multilamellar vesicles.
• Size Reduction: To reduce the vesicle size to the nanoscale, subject the hydrated suspension to probe sonication (e.g., using an ultrasonic homogenizer for 2 minutes, repeated 3 times with 5-minute intervals). Follow this with bath sonication for 15-20 minutes to achieve a homogeneous nanosuspension [77].

Characterization:

• Encapsulation Efficiency (EE): Determined by ultracentrifugation followed by spectrophotometric analysis of the free drug in the supernatant. EE of 75-80% has been reported [77].
• Particle Size and Zeta Potential: Analyzed by Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) to ensure nanoscale size and sufficient surface charge for colloidal stability.

Visualization of Key Workflows and Pathways

Nanophytosome Formulation Workflow

NVC Bioavailability Enhancement Pathway

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The successful development of advanced NVC delivery systems relies on a suite of specialized reagents and materials. The table below details key components and their functions in experimental formulations.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for NVC Formulation Development

Reagent/Material	Category	Primary Function	Example in Context
Soy Lecithin	Phospholipid	Primary building block for nanophytosomes and liposomes; enhances membrane permeability [77].	Used in thin-film hydration for nanophytosomes [77].
Poloxamer 188 / HPMC	Polymeric Stabilizer	Prevents aggregation in nanocrystal suspensions by providing steric stabilization [75].	Common stabilizer in media milling of Quercetin nanocrystals [75] [72].
HP-β-Cyclodextrin	Complexing Agent	Forms inclusion complexes with drug molecules, masking hydrophobic regions to enhance apparent solubility [72].	Used to enhance solubility of Rebamipide via complexation [72].
Soluplus	Polymeric Matrix	A polyvinyl caprolactam–polyvinyl acetate–PEG graft copolymer designed for solid dispersions via hot-melt extrusion [79].	Used in ASDs to maintain supersaturation and inhibit crystallization [79].
EUDRAGIT Polymers	Functional Polymer	pH-responsive polymers for targeted colonic release or to enhance solubility in specific GI regions [79].	EUDRAGIT FS 100 targets drug release to the colon [79].
Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCTs)	Lipid Excipient	Oil phase in lipid-based systems (e.g., SNEDDS); enhances drug solubilization and lymphatic transport [73].	Core component of self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery systems (SNEDDS) [74].
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG)	Co-polymer/Solubilizer	Improves drug wettability and dissolution; used in solid dispersions and as a stealth coating for nanoparticles [72].	Used in GRIS-PEG (Griseofulvin) solid dispersion [72].

The comparative analysis of technologies for enhancing the bioavailability of Non-Volatile Plant Compounds reveals a versatile toolkit available to scientists. Nanocrystals offer a robust, carrier-free approach for many BCS Class II NVCs, while nanophytosomes present a specialized and highly effective platform for herbal extracts, improving both solubility and cellular absorption. Lipid-based systems like SNEDDS are ideal for highly lipophilic compounds, and amorphous solid dispersions remain a powerful workhorse for a wide range of molecules. The choice of technology is not mutually exclusive; hybrid approaches often provide synergistic benefits. The decision must be guided by the specific physicochemical properties of the NVC, the intended administration route, and the therapeutic target. As the field advances, the trend is moving towards more sophisticated, targeted, and stable formulations that can reliably translate the promising in vitro activity of NVCs into effective in vivo therapies, ultimately bridging the gap between botanical discovery and clinical application.

Standardization and Quality Control of Complex Plant Extracts

The therapeutic application of plant extracts represents a cornerstone of pharmaceutical development and herbal medicine. The complexity of these botanicals, supplied across diverse global markets, raises significant quality issues, necessitating robust analytical methods for their identification and standardization [80]. This challenge is further amplified by the fundamental dichotomy in plant chemistry: volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and non-volatile bioactive compounds. These two classes differ not only in their chemical and physical properties but also in their production sites within the plant, their ecological roles, and the technologies required for their extraction and analysis [81] [4]. VOCs are typically lipophilic compounds with low molecular weights and high vapor pressures, responsible for plant aroma and direct ecological interactions like pollinator attraction [81]. In contrast, non-volatile compounds, such as phenolic diterpenes and flavonoid glycosides, often account for pronounced antioxidant, antiproliferative, and other pharmacological activities [26] [4]. This guide provides a comparative framework for the standardization and quality control of these distinct compound classes, presenting objective experimental data and protocols essential for researchers and drug development professionals.

Comparative Analysis of Volatile and Non-Volatile Compounds

The intrinsic properties of volatile and non-volatile compounds dictate every aspect of their handling, from initial extraction to final quality control. The table below provides a structured comparison of their core characteristics, which form the basis for divergent analytical methodologies.

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Volatile and Non-Volatile Plant Compounds

Characteristic	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	Non-Volatile Bioactive Compounds
Chemical Nature	Lipophilic, low molecular weight, high vapor pressure [81]	Higher molecular weight, low vapor pressure, often polar [26] [4]
Primary Ecological Role	Pollinator attraction, plant defense, communication [81]	Plant defense mechanisms, pigmentation [26]
Example Compound Classes	Terpenoids, phenylpropanoids/benzenoids, fatty acid derivatives [81]	Flavonoid glycosides, phenolic diterpenes, phenolic acids, saponins [26] [82] [4]
Typical Extraction Methods	Hydrodistillation, steam distillation, Headspace-SPME [26] [83]	Maceration, Soxhlet extraction, Microwave-assisted extraction [82] [83]
Dominant Analytical Techniques	Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) [26] [84]	High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC), LC-Mass Spectrometry [26] [82]

Experimental Protocols for Compound Analysis

Protocol for VOC Analysis via HS-SPME and GC-MS

The analysis of VOCs requires techniques that capture the delicate aroma profile without alteration. Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME) coupled with Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) is a premier, solvent-free method for this purpose.

• Principle: This technique involves the adsorption of VOCs emitted from a sample onto a coated fiber, followed by thermal desorption in the GC injector for separation and identification [84] [81].
• Sample Preparation: Fresh or air-dried plant material is often lightly crushed to disrupt glandular trichomes and placed in a sealed vial. For quantitative work, an internal standard may be added [26].
• SPME Fiber Selection: The choice of fiber is critical. A Carboxen/Polydimethylsiloxane (CAR/PDMS) fiber is frequently selected for its ability to trap a broad range of volatile compounds, from light to mid-molecular weight [84].
• Headspace Extraction: The sample vial is incubated at a controlled temperature (e.g., 30–75°C) for a defined time (e.g., 20–65 minutes) to allow the VOCs to reach equilibrium in the headspace. The SPME fiber is then exposed to this headspace to adsorb the analytes [26] [84].
• GC-MS Analysis: The fiber is introduced into the hot GC injector, where trapped compounds are desorbed. Separation occurs on a capillary column (e.g., non-polar 5% phenyl polysiloxane), and mass spectrometry is used for identification by comparing spectra to reference libraries (e.g., NIST) and by using retention indices for confirmation [26] [84] [81].

Protocol for Non-Volatile Compound Analysis via UHPLC-HRMS

For non-volatile compounds, Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography coupled with High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry (UHPLC-HRMS) offers superior separation power and definitive identification.

• Principle: This method separates compounds in a liquid matrix using a pressurized solvent system and a solid stationary phase, followed by detection and accurate mass measurement via mass spectrometry [26] [82].
• Extraction: Dried, powdered plant material is typically extracted using a suitable solvent via maceration or ultrasound-assisted extraction. Methanol is a common choice for extracting a wide range of medium-polarity bioactive compounds like flavonoids and phenolic acids [26] [83]. The extract is then filtered and concentrated prior to analysis.
• UHPLC Conditions: Separation is performed on a reverse-phase column (e.g., C18) with a small particle size (<2 µm) to achieve high resolution. A gradient elution of two solvents is used, for example:
  • Mobile Phase A: Water with 0.1% Formic Acid
  • Mobile Phase B: Acetonitrile with 0.1% Formic Acid The gradient typically runs from a low percentage of B to a high percentage over several minutes, effectively separating the complex mixture [26] [82].
• HRMS Detection: An electrospray ionization (ESI) source, often in negative or positive mode, is used to ionize the compounds. The high-resolution mass analyzer (e.g., Time-of-Flight or Orbitrap) provides accurate mass measurements, allowing for the tentative identification of compounds based on their elemental composition and the confirmation of known compounds by comparison with standard reference materials [26].

Quantitative Comparison of Key Compounds

Standardization requires quantitative data on key markers. The following tables present experimental data from recent studies on specific plants, highlighting the distinct profiles of volatile and non-volatile fractions.

Table 2: Quantitative Profile of Portenschlagiella ramosissima (Apiaceae) [26]

Compound Class	Specific Compound	Content in Essential Oil (%)	Content in Hydrosol (%)	Reported Bioactivity
Benzene Derivative	Myristicin	63.92	66.67	Antiphytoviral
Benzene Derivative	Elemicin	0.82	5.13	Antiphytoviral
Monoterpene	Sabinene	10.23	Not Detected	-
Monoterpene	(E)-β-Ocimene	7.95	Not Detected	-
Monoterpene	γ-Terpinene	2.80	Not Detected	-
Non-Volatile Compounds	Detected via UHPLC-HRMS	Concentration not specified
	Flavonoid Glycosides	Present	-	Moderate Antiproliferative
	Anthocyanidin Glycoside	Present	-	Moderate Antiproliferative

Table 3: Quantitative Profile of Rosemary (Salvia rosmarinus) [4]

Compound Type	Key Compounds	Reported Range or Dominant Compounds	Key Applications
Volatile Compounds (VOCs)	1,8-Cineole (Eucalyptol)	Variable (subject to genotype)	Flavoring, fragrance, bioinsecticides
	α-Pinene	Variable (subject to genotype)	Flavoring, fragrance, bioinsecticides
	Camphor	Variable (subject to genotype)	Flavoring, fragrance, bioinsecticides
Non-Volatile Compounds	Carnosic Acid	1.12 - 19.53 mg/g dry weight	Antioxidant food additive, health supplements
	Carnosol	0.16 - 4.14 mg/g dry weight	Antioxidant food additive, health supplements
	Rosmarinic Acid	1.66 - 8.91 mg/g dry weight	Antioxidant, anti-inflammatory

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful standardization hinges on the use of specific, high-quality materials and reagents. The following toolkit details essential items for the experimental protocols described.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for Plant Compound Analysis

Item	Function/Application	Key Considerations
SPME Fibers	Solventless extraction of VOCs from sample headspace [84].	CAR/PDMS is often optimal for a broad range of VOCs; fiber polarity and thickness must be considered for specific targets [84].
Chromatography Columns	Separation of complex mixtures prior to detection.	GC: Non-polar (5% phenyl polysiloxane) for VOCs [26]. HPLC/UHPLC: Reverse-phase (C18) for non-volatiles; particle size <2 µm for UHPLC [82].
MS-Grade Solvents	Mobile phase for LC; dilution for standards; extraction.	High purity (LC-MS grade) is critical to minimize background noise and ion suppression in mass spectrometry [82].
Chemical Reference Standards	Identification and quantification of target compounds.	Certified reference materials (CRMs) are essential for validating methods and performing accurate quantification [82] [85].
Deuterated Internal Standards	Correcting for analyte loss during sample preparation and instrumental variation.	Used for precise quantification in MS, especially when recovery rates are variable [82].

The comparative analysis of volatile and non-volatile compounds in plant extracts reveals a landscape defined by distinct chemical and methodological pathways. As shown, VOCs like myristicin in Portenschlagiella ramosissima or 1,8-cineole in rosemary require gas-phase extraction and GC-MS analysis [26] [4]. In contrast, standardizing non-volatile bioactive compounds such as carnosic acid or flavonoid glycosides demands robust liquid-phase extraction and UHPLC-HRMS protocols [26] [4]. The provided experimental data, protocols, and toolkit offer a foundational framework for researchers. Advancing this field requires the continued integration of these parallel approaches, ensuring that both the aromatic essence and the therapeutic core of plant extracts are rigorously controlled and standardized for efficacy and safety in drug development and beyond.

Scalability Issues in Natural Product Isolation and Synthesis

The exploration of natural products represents a cornerstone in drug discovery and development, providing invaluable compounds for therapeutic applications. However, researchers face significant scalability challenges when transitioning from laboratory-scale isolation to industrial production of these complex molecules. These challenges are particularly pronounced when comparing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) with non-volatile metabolites, as their distinct chemical properties demand fundamentally different extraction and synthesis approaches. VOCs are lipophilic compounds with low molecular weight and high vapor pressure at ambient temperature, typically released from flowers, fruits, leaves, and other plant organs [10]. In contrast, non-volatile compounds such as polyphenols exhibit greater structural complexity and lower vapor pressure, requiring alternative processing strategies.

The scalability bottleneck extends beyond simple production volume increases to encompass economic viability, environmental sustainability, and technological feasibility. As the demand for biotherapeutics and plant-derived compounds grows globally, the industry faces unprecedented pressure to incorporate smart technologies and enhance worker skills to build affordable, patient-focused, and scalable manufacturing systems [86]. This comparative analysis examines current extraction and synthesis methodologies for both volatile and non-volatile natural products, evaluating their scalability limitations and presenting innovative solutions that are reshaping this critical field.

Comparative Analysis of Extraction Techniques

Modern Extraction Methods for Natural Products

The selection of appropriate extraction techniques is paramount for successful isolation of natural products, with significant implications for scalability. Traditional methods like solid-liquid extraction (SLE) and hydrodistillation (HD) remain prevalent but present substantial limitations when scaled for industrial applications. Recent advancements have introduced more efficient, environmentally sustainable alternatives that address these scalability concerns while improving yield and purity.

Table 1: Comparison of Extraction Techniques for Natural Products

Extraction Method	Mechanism	Best Suited For	Scalability Potential	Limitations	Environmental Impact
Hydrodistillation (HD)	Volatile compound separation via water evaporation and condensation	Volatile compounds, essential oils	Moderate; established industrial use but energy-intensive	High temperature degrades thermolabile compounds; long processing times	High energy consumption; large water usage
Solid-Liquid Extraction (SLE)	Solvent-based dissolution of compounds	Non-volatile compounds (polyphenols, alkaloids)	High; easily scalable with industrial equipment	Large solvent volumes; prolonged extraction times	Significant solvent waste; disposal challenges
Microwave-Assisted Extraction (MAE)	Microwave energy accelerates solvent extraction	Both volatile and non-volatile compounds	High; rapid extraction with reduced solvent	Equipment costs; limited penetration depth	Reduced solvent consumption; lower energy vs. HD
Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction (UAE)	Cavitation disrupts cell walls enhancing solvent access	Both volatile and non-volatile compounds	Moderate to high; adaptable to flow systems	Potential free radical formation; scaling challenges	Reduced solvent use; lower energy requirements
Supercritical Fluid Extraction (SFE)	Supercritical COâ‚‚ as solvent	Volatile compounds, heat-sensitive molecules	High; excellent for continuous processing	High capital investment; technical expertise required	Minimal solvent use; COâ‚‚ recyclable
Pressurized Liquid Extraction (PLE)	High temperature and pressure enhance solvent extraction	Non-volatile compounds, polar molecules	High; automated systems available	High equipment cost; potential thermal degradation	Reduced solvent consumption; efficient
Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME)	Adsorption of volatile compounds onto coated fiber	Volatile organic compounds exclusively	Low; primarily analytical scale	Limited quantitative application; fiber fragility	Negligible solvent use; minimal waste

Quantitative Performance Comparison of Extraction Techniques

Evaluating the efficiency of extraction methods requires consideration of multiple performance metrics that directly impact scalability decisions. The following data synthesizes findings from comparative studies to provide actionable insights for method selection.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Metrics of Extraction Methods

Extraction Method	Extraction Time	Temperature Range (°C)	Typical Yield (%)	Solvent Consumption	Energy Demand	Capital Cost
Hydrodistillation (HD)	2-6 hours	95-100	0.1-2.5	Moderate (water)	High	Low to moderate
Solid-Liquid Extraction (SLE)	6-48 hours	20-60	1.5-15	High	Low	Low
Microwave-Assisted Extraction (MAE)	5-30 minutes	40-120	2.0-18	Low to moderate	Moderate	Moderate
Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction (UAE)	10-60 minutes	20-60	1.8-12	Low to moderate	Moderate	Low to moderate
Supercritical Fluid Extraction (SFE)	30-90 minutes	31-80	1.5-10	Very low (COâ‚‚)	Moderate to high	High
Pressurized Liquid Extraction (PLE)	10-20 minutes	50-200	3.0-20	Low	Moderate	High
Headspace Solid-Phase Microextraction (HS-SPME)	5-60 minutes	25-80	N/A (analytical)	None	Low	Low

Research comparing four extraction techniques for volatile organic compounds from liverworts (Calypogeia azurea) demonstrated significant methodological impacts on outcomes. HD performed with n-hexane and m-xylene, SLE utilizing different solvents and durations, microwave-assisted extraction, and HS-SPME all yielded distinct compound profiles. HS-SPME showed advantages for qualitative analysis of volatiles with minimal sample preparation, while preparative methods like MAE provided higher yields for industrial applications [40].

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

Protocol 1: Integrated Analysis of Volatile and Non-Volatile Metabolites

This protocol is adapted from research investigating aroma compound formation mechanisms in Pyrus communis and Pyrus pyrifolia cultivars, which successfully combined multiple analytical approaches [7].

Materials and Methods:

• Plant Material: Fresh plant tissues (fruits, leaves, or flowers) harvested at appropriate developmental stages
• Extraction Solvents: n-hexane, diethyl ether, methylene chloride, methanol (HPLC grade)
• Equipment: GC-MS system, RNA sequencing platform, spectrophotometer, centrifuge

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Homogenize 5 g of plant material in liquid nitrogen and divide into aliquots for parallel analysis.
• Volatile Compound Extraction:
  • Employ HS-SPME with a 50/30 μm DVB/CAR/PDMS fiber for 30 minutes at 40°C
  • Alternatively, perform hydrodistillation using a Deryng apparatus for 3 hours
  • Collect volatiles in n-hexane (1 mL) and store at -20°C until analysis
• Non-Volatile Metabolite Extraction:
  • Extract 100 mg of homogenate with 1 mL of methanol:water (80:20, v/v)
  • Sonicate for 15 minutes, then centrifuge at 12,000 × g for 10 minutes
  • Collect supernatant for LC-MS analysis
• Transcriptome Analysis:
  • Extract total RNA from separate 100 mg tissue aliquot using commercial kit
  • Prepare sequencing libraries and perform RNA-seq analysis
  • Identify differentially expressed genes in biosynthetic pathways
• Integrated Data Analysis:
  • Correlate volatile and non-volatile metabolite profiles with gene expression data
  • Identify key enzymes and regulatory genes in biosynthetic pathways

Scalability Considerations: For larger-scale applications, MAE or PLE can replace manual extraction to improve throughput and reduce solvent consumption [87].

Protocol 2: High-Throughput Automated Genome Mining

This protocol leverages the FAST-NPS (Self-resistance-gene-guided, high-throughput automated genome mining) platform for bioactive natural product discovery from microbial sources such as Streptomyces [88].

Materials and Methods:

• Bacterial Strains: Streptomyces isolates, heterologous expression host
• Bioinformatics Tools: ARTS (Antibiotic Resistant Target Seeker) software
• Automation Equipment: Illinois Biological Foundry for Advanced Biomanufacturing (iBioFAB) or equivalent robotic system
• Molecular Biology Reagents: PCR components, restriction enzymes, ligases, growth media

Procedure:

• Genome Mining:
  • Sequence bacterial genomes using next-generation sequencing platforms
  • Analyze genomes with ARTS tool to identify biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) containing self-resistance genes
  • Prioritize BGCs based on self-resistance gene presence as bioactivity predictor
• Automated Gene Cluster Capture:
  • Program robotic system to perform high-throughput PCR amplification of target BGCs
  • Utilize CAPTURE method for direct cloning of large BGCs from microbial genomes
  • Assemble constructs in appropriate expression vectors automatically
• Heterologous Expression:
  • Transform constructs into suitable bacterial host via automated transformation
  • Culture clones in 96-well deep plate format with optimized media
  • Induce expression with appropriate inducers for 24-72 hours
• Bioactivity Screening:
  • Extract metabolites directly from culture broth using solid-phase extraction
  • Screen extracts against target pathogens or cancer cell lines
  • Confirm bioactivity of positive hits through secondary assays
• Scale-Up Production:
  • Transfer promising BGCs to bioreactor systems for larger-scale production
  • Optimize fermentation parameters for maximum yield

Scalability Advantages: The fully automated FAST-NPS platform enables parallel processing of hundreds of BGCs compared to approximately ten with manual methods, achieving a 95% success rate in cloning and 100% success rate in discovering bioactive compounds from prioritized BGCs [88].

Biosynthetic Pathways of Plant Volatiles and Regulation

Plant volatile organic compounds are synthesized through several specialized biosynthetic pathways that present distinct scalability challenges for commercial production. The three major pathways include the terpenoid, phenylpropanoid/benzenoid, and fatty acid derivative pathways, each with unique regulatory mechanisms [10].

Figure 1: Biosynthetic pathways of volatile organic compounds in plants and their regulatory mechanisms. The diagram highlights three major pathways and their connection to primary metabolism, along with epigenetic and environmental factors that influence VOC production.

The terpenoid pathway represents the largest family of VOCs, with over 550 compounds derived from five-carbon precursors isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP) [10]. These precursors are synthesized via two compartmentally separated pathways: the mevalonic acid (MVA) pathway in the cytosol and the methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) pathway in plastids. Terpene synthases/cyclases (TPSs) then convert prenyl diphosphate precursors into the tremendous diversity of volatile terpenoids found in plants. Scalability challenges in terpenoid production include low yields, metabolic complexity, and difficulties in heterologous expression of TPS genes in microbial systems.

Fatty acid derivative pathways encompass both lipoxygenase (LOX) and β-oxidation pathways, which produce C6 aldehydes, alcohols, and their corresponding esters found in fruits like peach, melon, strawberry, and banana [7]. Key enzymes include LOX, hydroperoxide lyase (HPL), alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), and alcohol acyltransferase (AAT). From a scalability perspective, these pathways often rely on expensive precursor compounds and complex multi-enzyme systems that challenge industrial implementation.

Amino acid oxidation pathways generate significant portions of volatile aroma compounds such as alcohols, aldehydes, and esters with low carbon numbers. These pathways produce compounds including 3-methyl-1-butanol, 3-methylbutyl ester, and 3-methylbutyric acid in banana, and eugenol methyl ether in strawberry [7]. The key enzymes involved include aminotransferase (ATF), pyruvate decarboxylase (PDC), and aromatic amino acid aminotransferase (ArAT). Scalability is limited by substrate specificity and the need for cofactors that increase production costs.

Emerging research indicates that epigenetic factors, including DNA methylation and histone modification, play crucial regulatory roles in VOC biosynthesis [10]. This regulatory complexity presents both challenges and opportunities for scaling production, as epigenetic modifications could potentially be manipulated to enhance compound yields.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Natural Product Research

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Scalability Considerations
SPME Fibers (DVB/CAR/PDMS)	Adsorption of volatile compounds for GC-MS analysis	Limited to analytical scale; not suitable for preparative work
Ionic Liquids	Green extraction solvents for various metabolite classes	Emerging technology; cost challenges at industrial scale
Deep Eutectic Solvents	Biodegradable solvent systems for green extraction	Promising for scale-up; tunable properties for specific compounds
Supercritical COâ‚‚	Non-polar solvent for SFE of lipophilic compounds	Excellent scalability; closed-loop systems minimize waste
Magnetic Nanoparticles	Functionalized substrates for selective compound isolation	Potential for large-scale continuous processing
Stable Producer Cell Lines	Consistent production of target compounds in biomanufacturing	Essential for industrial-scale bioproduction; reduces variability
Biosynthetic Gene Clusters	Heterologous production of natural products in microbial hosts	Enables alternative production without plant cultivation
Enzyme Cocktails (LOX, ADH, AAT, TPS)	Biocatalysis for specific biotransformations	Recyclable immobilized enzymes improve economic viability
HPLC Solvents (Methanol, Acetonitrile)	Separation and purification of non-volatile compounds	Significant cost and waste concerns at industrial scale
PCR Reagents	Amplification of biosynthetic gene clusters	Well-established scalability with automated systems

Workflow for Natural Product Discovery and Scaling

The transition from initial discovery to scaled production requires carefully orchestrated workflows that address scalability at each developmental stage. The following diagram illustrates an integrated approach combining modern genomics with automated manufacturing.

Figure 2: Integrated workflow for natural product discovery and scale-up, highlighting critical transition points from discovery to commercial production.

The bioprocessing and bioproduction sector in 2025 is experiencing fundamental changes through continuous processing, digitalization, and sustainability initiatives [86]. Advances in biotherapeutic demand have prompted the industry to incorporate smart technologies alongside regulatory development and worker skill enhancement to build affordable, patient-focused, scalable manufacturing systems. Continuous bioprocessing has reached significant adoption milestones, with leading biopharma companies implementing continuous processing to improve efficiency while minimizing production footprint. Key benefits include improved product consistency, reduced cycle times, lower capital and operating costs, and real-time monitoring and control of critical parameters [86].

Digital transformation plays an increasingly crucial role in addressing scalability challenges. The implementation of digital twins (virtual process replicates) enables researchers to simulate operations while optimizing performance outcomes and predictive forecasting [86]. When integrated with machine learning approaches, these systems provide proactive deviation detection, dynamic process control, and accelerated technology transfer. Modern biomanufacturing facilities now integrate information from laboratory operations with Manufacturing Execution Systems (MES) and Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems to support improved decision-making throughout manufacturing operations.

The isolation and synthesis of natural products present distinct scalability challenges that vary significantly between volatile and non-volatile compounds. For volatile organic compounds, techniques like SFE and MAE offer promising scalability potential with reduced environmental impact compared to traditional hydrodistillation. For non-volatile compounds, methods including PLE and automated SLE provide improved throughput and yield for industrial applications. The integration of bioinformatics-guided discovery platforms like FAST-NPS with automated manufacturing systems represents a paradigm shift in addressing scalability constraints from initial discovery through commercial production.

Future directions point toward increased hyper-personalization with real-time manufacturing of patient-specific therapies, AI-designed biologics that accelerate drug discovery and manufacturability assessment, and cell-free biomanufacturing systems for portable, on-demand production in remote locations [86]. As the industry evolves beyond 2025, the emphasis in bioproduction will continue shifting from sheer productivity increase toward intelligent operation, accelerated production, and environmental stewardship at its core. Successfully navigating the scalability landscape will require interdisciplinary approaches that combine biology, engineering, and data science to overcome the persistent challenges in natural product isolation and synthesis.

Toxicological Assessment and Dose-Dependent Adverse Effects

The comparative study of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and non-volatile metabolites in plants represents a critical frontier in toxicological science, with significant implications for drug development and environmental risk assessment. Volatile organic compounds are characterized by their low molecular weight, lipophilicity, and high vapor pressure at room temperature, enabling rapid environmental dispersion and biological uptake [7] [31]. In contrast, non-volatile plant compounds exhibit greater molecular stability, reduced mobility in biological systems, and typically require specific transport mechanisms for cellular absorption. The fundamental distinction in physicochemical properties between these compound classes directly influences their toxicokinetic profiles and dose-response relationships [89] [90].

Understanding the dose-dependent adverse effects of these compounds is essential for both pharmaceutical applications and environmental safety. The historical principle of dose-response relationship traces back to ancient Greek and Roman philosophers who recognized that "the dose makes the poison" [91]. Modern toxicology has refined this concept through quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) and computational models that predict molecular interactions and biological effects [92]. Recent research has revealed that volatile and non-volatile plant compounds exhibit distinct toxicological behaviors at different organizational levels, from molecular interactions to population-level impacts [89] [90].

Comparative Toxicity Mechanisms: Volatile vs. Non-Volatile Compounds

Molecular Interactions and Baseline Toxicity

The baseline toxicity (minimum toxic effect without specific molecular targeting) differs significantly between volatile and non-volatile compounds due to their distinct physicochemical properties. Research demonstrates that gaseous VOCs exhibit higher baseline toxicity compared to their liquid counterparts, primarily due to increased free energy and reduced fundamental gap of gaseous molecules, which enhances molecular reactivity [89]. Different classes of gaseous VOCs employ varied mechanisms to enhance their toxicity, including diminished capacity of frontier orbitals to accept electrons and altered electronic transition patterns [89].

Non-volatile compounds typically exhibit more predictable dose-response relationships, as their stability allows for cumulative effects in biological systems. However, certain non-volatile phytochemicals can trigger structural alerts for genotoxic carcinogenicity and mutagenicity, as identified through in silico tools like Toxtree [92]. For instance, compounds such as aniline, 2,6-dimethoxybenzoquinone, and 1-iodododecane from Curtisia dentata have demonstrated potential genotoxic hazards in computational assessments [92].

Metabolic Activation and Detoxification Pathways

Plants have evolved sophisticated detoxification pathways to manage toxic chemicals within their cells. A newly discovered cytosolic glyoxylate shunt in Arabidopsis thaliana provides a complementary pathway to main photorespiration processes, acting as a "highway detour" when primary metabolic roads are compromised [93]. This pathway involves key enzymes including glyoxylate reductase 1 (GLYR1) and hydroxypyruvate reductase 2 (HPR2), which process cytotoxic chemicals into less volatile compounds that can be reused in photosynthesis [93].

Table 1: Key Metabolic Pathways for Plant Compound Detoxification

Metabolic Pathway	Primary Compounds Processed	Key Enzymes	Cellular Location	Toxicological Significance
Photorespiration	Glycolate, glyoxylate	HPR1, CAT2	Peroxisomes	Primary detoxification of photorespiratory byproducts [93]
Cytosolic Glyoxylate Shunt	Glyoxylate, hydroxypyruvate	HPR2, GLYR1	Cytosol	Backup pathway under high light stress [93]
Amino Acid Degradation	Isoleucine, valine, alanine	Threonine dehydrase, Acyl CoA dehydrogenase	Mitochondria	Provides intermediates for aroma compound synthesis [7]
β-oxidation Pathways	Saturated fatty acids	Acyl CoA dehydrogenase, Monoacylglycerol lipase	Peroxisomes	Synthesis of straight-chain esters and lactones [7]

For volatile compounds, specific biosynthetic pathways contribute to their toxicological profiles. In pear fruits (Pyrus communis vs. Pyrus pyrifolia), amino acid degradation processes (isoleucine, valine, and alanine oxidation and threonine dehydration) provide important intermediate substances for synthesis of aroma compounds [7]. Key enzyme genes including monoacylglycerol lipase (PcMAGL), threonine dehydrase (PcTD), and acyl CoA dehydrogenase (PcACD) have been identified as critical factors in the disparity of aromatic compounds between species [7].

Advanced Methodologies in Toxicological Assessment

Experimental Protocols for Dose-Response Characterization

In Vitro Bioassays for Baseline Toxicity Assessment

The Vibrio fischeri bioluminescence inhibition assay represents a standardized approach (ISO 11348-2007) for rapid baseline toxicity testing of chemical compounds [89]. This protocol involves exposing the marine bacteria to serial dilutions of test compounds and measuring the decrease in light emission after specified exposure periods. Recent advancements have enabled the assessment of gaseous VOCs through self-assembled passive colonization hydrogel (SAPCH) beads immobilizing V. fischeri (SAPCH-V), allowing in situ, high-throughput toxicity testing of air pollutants within 2 hours [89].

For volatile compounds, the experimental workflow includes:

• Sample Introduction: Gaseous VOCs are introduced into exposure chambers containing SAPCH-V beads, while liquid-phase VOCs are dissolved in appropriate solvents [89].
• Exposure Conditions: Standardized temperature (15°C) and exposure duration (30 minutes) are maintained [89].
• Luminescence Measurement: Bacterial bioluminescence is measured using a microplate reader, with inhibition calculated relative to negative controls [89].
• Data Analysis: Concentration-inhibition curves are plotted, and IC50 values (concentration causing 50% inhibition) are determined through regression analysis [89].

In Silico Toxicity Prediction Protocols

Computational toxicology approaches have gained prominence for preliminary risk assessment of plant compounds. The Toxtree software (v3.1.0) employs rule-based and decision-tree algorithms to estimate toxicological potential based on molecular structure [92]. The standard protocol includes:

• Compound Identification: Chemical constituents are identified through gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) with ≥80% chromatogram similarity to reference databases [92].
• Structure Verification: Compounds are verified using chemical databases (PubChem, HMDB, NIST) and scientific literature [92].
• Cramer Classification: Chemicals are classified into three toxicity classes (I-III) using the "Cramer rules with extensions to functional groups" decision tree [92].
• Structural Alert Screening: Compounds are screened for alerts indicating genotoxic carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and non-genotoxic carcinogenicity [92].

Population-Level Risk Assessment Methodologies

The PROTEX model provides a process-based approach for simulating life-course human exposure to chemicals, incorporating inter-individual variability in anthropometrics and dietary patterns [90]. This methodology involves:

• Environmental Fate Modeling: Predicting chemical concentrations in environmental compartments based on emission rates [90].
• Food-Web Bioaccumulation: Modeling chemical concentrations in aquatic and terrestrial organisms constituting human diet [90].
• Human Exposure Assessment: Predicting age-dependent and sex-specific daily oral doses using anthropometric data and dietary patterns [90].
• Monte-Carlo Simulation: Generating virtual populations (e.g., 329,131 Americans) with demographic characteristics sampled from actual population distributions [90].
• Dose-Response Integration: Combining exposure estimates with linear or non-linear dose-response relationships to estimate population-level health impacts [90].

Quantitative Analysis of Dose-Response Relationships

Table 2: Experimentally Determined Toxicological Parameters for Selected Plant Compounds

Compound	Chemical Class	Physical State	IC50 (Vibrio fischeri)	Toxicity Mechanisms	Cramer Classification
Acetaldehyde	Aldehyde VOC	Gaseous	0.15 mg/L	High free energy, reduced fundamental gap [89]	Class I (Low toxicity)
Acetaldehyde	Aldehyde VOC	Liquid	5.32 mg/L	Lower molecular reactivity [89]	Class I (Low toxicity)
n-Butanol	Alcohol VOC	Gaseous	0.31 mg/L	Frontier orbital electron acceptance [89]	Class I (Low toxicity)
n-Butanol	Alcohol VOC	Liquid	46.8 mg/L	Reduced bioavailability [89]	Class I (Low toxicity)
Pyridine	Heterocyclic VOC	Gaseous	0.08 mg/L	Electronic transition patterns [89]	Class II (Intermediate toxicity)
Pyridine	Heterocyclic VOC	Liquid	15.6 mg/L	Solvation effects [89]	Class II (Intermediate toxicity)
Aniline (from C. dentata)	Aromatic amine	Non-volatile	N/A	Structural alerts for genotoxic carcinogenicity [92]	Class III (High toxicity)
2,6-dimethoxybenzoquinone	Quinone	Non-volatile	N/A	Structural alerts for mutagenicity [92]	Class III (High toxicity)

Research reveals that inter-individual variability significantly influences toxicological outcomes. Studies with organochlorine pesticides (dieldrin and heptachlor) demonstrate that human exposure can vary by a factor of six among different demographic groups due to variations in anthropometrics and dietary patterns [90]. When combined with non-linear dose-response relationships with heterogeneous susceptibility, the estimated overall health impact differs substantially from models assuming homogeneous populations [90].

Pathway Diagrams for Compound Metabolism and Toxicity

Metabolic Pathways of Volatile Compound Detoxification

Diagram 1: Parallel pathways for cytotoxic compound detoxification in plants. The main photorespiration pathway (red) and cytosolic glyoxylate shunt (blue) provide complementary routes for processing harmful metabolic byproducts, with the shunt activating under stress conditions when primary pathways are compromised [93].

Toxicological Assessment Workflow

Diagram 2: Integrated workflow for comprehensive toxicological assessment of plant compounds, combining analytical chemistry, in silico prediction, experimental bioassays, and population-level risk modeling [89] [92] [90].

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Plant Compound Toxicology

Reagent/Material	Specifications	Application	Toxicological Relevance
Self-Assembled Passive Colonization Hydrogel (SAPCH)	Sodium alginate, gelatin, chitosan hydrochloride	Immobilization of V. fischeri for gaseous VOC testing [89]	Enables baseline toxicity assessment of volatile compounds in gaseous state
Vibrio fischeri Lyophilized Strains	ISO 11348-2007 compliant	Bioluminescence inhibition assays [89]	Standardized baseline toxicity measurement for both volatile and non-volatile compounds
Thermal Desorption Tubes	Tenax TA, Carbopack B adsorbents	Capture and concentration of gaseous VOCs [94]	Sample preparation for low-concentration atmospheric VOC analysis
GC-MS Columns	DB-5MS, 30m × 0.25mm × 0.25μm	Separation and identification of volatile compounds [7] [92]	Quantitative analysis of complex plant volatile mixtures
Proton Transfer Reaction-Mass Spectrometry (PTR-MS)	High-sensitivity real-time monitoring	Direct atmospheric VOC measurement [94]	Real-time kinetic studies of VOC emissions and transformations
Toxtree Software	v3.1.0 with Cramer rules extension	In silico toxicity prediction [92]	Preliminary risk assessment and compound prioritization
PROTEX Model Software	Process-based modular structure	Population exposure modeling [90]	Incorporates inter-individual variability in risk assessment

Comparative Toxicological Data Analysis

Differential Toxicity Profiles: Volatile vs. Non-Volatile Compounds

The physical state of compounds significantly influences their toxicological profiles. Research demonstrates that gaseous VOCs consistently exhibit higher toxicity than their liquid counterparts, with IC50 ratios (liquid/gaseous) ranging from 6.5 for acetaldehyde to 150 for n-butanol [89]. This enhanced toxicity of gaseous compounds is attributed to fundamental differences in molecular properties, including increased free energy and reduced fundamental gap, which enhance reactivity in biological systems [89].

For non-volatile compounds, the potential for bioaccumulation represents a critical toxicological consideration. Lipophilic persistent organic chemicals like organochlorine pesticides demonstrate strong tendencies to accumulate in animal lipids, leading to higher exposure rates in individuals consuming lipid-richer diets [90]. This bioaccumulation potential necessitates more complex toxicokinetic models that account for long-term exposure scenarios and inter-individual metabolic variability.

Mixture Effects and Interaction Potentials

The toxicological interactions in compound mixtures differ significantly between volatile and non-volatile compounds. Binary mixtures of gaseous VOCs exhibit distinctly different toxic effects compared to their liquid-phase counterparts, with interaction patterns that cannot be predicted solely from individual compound toxicities [89]. These differences highlight the importance of evaluating mixture effects in relevant physical states for accurate risk assessment.

Non-volatile compounds in complex botanical mixtures present additional challenges for toxicity assessment. Frameworks developed for natural flavouring complexes (NFCs) enable risk-based screening approaches that prioritize constituents for further investigation based on chemical structure and exposure thresholds [92]. This approach is particularly valuable for compounds with structural alerts or those classified into Cramer toxicity Classes II and III, which may warrant more detailed toxicological investigation [92].

The comparative assessment of volatile and non-volatile plant compounds reveals fundamental differences in toxicological behavior, dose-response relationships, and risk assessment methodologies. Volatile compounds exhibit enhanced reactivity in gaseous states, complex mixture interactions, and require specialized assessment approaches that account for their physical state and environmental mobility. Non-volatile compounds demonstrate greater potential for bioaccumulation, more predictable mixture effects, and necessitate longer-term exposure considerations in risk models.

The integration of advanced assessment methodologies—including in silico prediction tools, sensitive bioassays, and population-level modeling—provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating the toxicological profiles of both compound classes. Future research directions should focus on elucidating the molecular mechanisms underlying the observed toxicity differences between physical states, developing integrated assessment strategies that account for real-world mixture exposures, and refining population models to better capture inter-individual variability in susceptibility to both volatile and non-volatile plant compounds.

Strategic Comparison: Efficacy, Mechanisms, and Drug Development Potential

In the relentless battle against infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), therapeutic strategies predominantly exploit two distinct mechanisms: the direct killing of pathogens and the strategic modulation of the host's immune system [95]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of these two approaches, focusing on the roles of volatile and non-volatile plant-derived compounds. The escalating threat of AMR, associated with nearly 1.27 million annual deaths globally, has intensified the search for novel therapeutic agents, with plant secondary metabolites emerging as a promising frontier [96] [95]. These compounds offer a diverse array of bioactivities, enabling a direct assault on microbial integrity or a sophisticated manipulation of immune pathways to bolster host defenses. This review, contextualized within a broader thesis on plant compounds, aims to delineate the mechanisms, experimental evidence, and practical applications of these contrasting yet complementary strategies for a scientific audience.

Direct Antimicrobial Action

Direct antimicrobial agents function by targeting and disrupting the essential structures of pathogenic microorganisms, leading to growth inhibition or cell death.

• Membrane Disruption: Many plant antimicrobials, particularly terpenes and phenolic compounds, exert their effects by compromising the integrity of the microbial plasma membrane. This leads to increased permeability, leakage of cellular contents, and ultimately, cell lysis [97] [98].
• Inhibition of Biofilm Formation: Biofilms are structured communities of bacteria that are highly resistant to antibiotics. Plant-derived compounds such as flavonoids and terpenes can inhibit biofilm formation by disrupting bacterial signaling pathways (quorum sensing) and reducing bacterial adhesion to surfaces [97].
• Enzyme Inhibition and Protein Synthesis Interference: Certain compounds can inactivate microbial enzymes or interfere with protein synthesis. For example, some plant metabolites inhibit bacterial β-lactamase enzymes, thus protecting concurrently administered antibiotics from degradation [95]. Alkaloids like berberine can target nucleic acid synthesis [97].
• Efflux Pump Inhibition: Bacteria often expel antibiotics using efflux pumps. Plant compounds can inhibit these pumps, increasing the intracellular concentration of antibiotics and restoring their efficacy [97] [98].

Systemic Immunomodulation

Immunomodulators do not directly attack pathogens but instead influence the host's immune system, either enhancing its response (immunostimulation) or suppressing aberrant activity (immunosuppression).

• Cytokine Modulation: A primary mechanism involves regulating the production and release of cytokines. Natural products can suppress pro-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., TNF-α, IL-1, IL-6, IL-11, IL-8) to alleviate inflammation or stimulate them to enhance pathogen clearance [99]. They can also promote anti-inflammatory cytokines (e.g., IL-4, IL-10, IL-13) [99].
• Immune Cell Regulation: Immunomodulators can influence the activity and proliferation of various immune cells. This includes:
  • Macrophages: Enhancing the phagocytic activity of macrophages to clear pathogens [100] [99].
  • T-Cells and B-Cells: Modulating the function of T-helper cells (e.g., Th1, Th2, Th17) and promoting the growth of B and T lymphocytes [99].
  • Natural Killer (NK) Cells: Increasing the population and cytotoxic activity of NK cells, which are crucial for eliminating infected and cancerous cells [99].
• Modulation of Signaling Pathways: Compounds like curcumin and resveratrol can exert their effects by inhibiting key transcription factors and enzymes involved in inflammation, such as NF-κB and COX-2 [100] [99].

Table 1: Core Mechanisms of Direct Antimicrobial vs. Immunomodulatory Actions

Feature	Direct Antimicrobial Action	Systemic Immunomodulation
Primary Target	Pathogen structures (membrane, enzymes, DNA)	Host immune cells and signaling molecules
Key Mechanisms	Membrane disruption, biofilm inhibition, enzyme inactivation, efflux pump inhibition [97] [95] [98]	Cytokine regulation, immune cell activation/proliferation, phagocytosis enhancement [100] [99]
Speed of Action	Relatively fast	Can be slower, requires host system engagement
Therapeutic Goal	Eradicate or inhibit microbial growth	Enhance host defense or suppress overactive immunity
Resistance Risk	Higher (pathogen evolves to survive) [95]	Lower (target is host, not pathogen)

Experimental Data and Efficacy Profiles

Quantitative Efficacy of Direct Antimicrobials

Substantial in vitro evidence supports the potency of plant compounds against a range of pathogens, including multidrug-resistant strains.

Table 2: Experimental Efficacy of Select Plant-Derived Antimicrobials

Compound/Extract	Source	Pathogen Tested	Experimental Model	Key Result	Citation
Ethyl Acetate Fraction	Diplopterys pubipetala	N/A	DPPH Antioxidant Assay	EC~50~: 6.42 µg/mL	[101]
Ethanolic Extract	Boehmeria rugulosa	Staphylococcus aureus	In-vitro antimicrobial assay	Zone of Inhibition: 18.45 mm	[102]
		Bacillus cereus	In-vitro antimicrobial assay	Zone of Inhibition: 15.88 mm	[102]
		Escherichia coli	In-vitro antimicrobial assay	Zone of Inhibition: 12.35 mm	[102]
Flavonoids & Terpenes	Various Plants	Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli	In-vitro assays	Strong antibacterial properties; membrane disruption and biofilm inhibition are common mechanisms.	[97] [98]
Alkaloids (e.g., Berberine)	Various Plants	Methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)	In-vitro assays	Efficacy against resistant strains by targeting nucleic acid synthesis and cell wall integrity.	[97]

Documented Effects of Immunomodulatory Agents

Clinical and pre-clinical studies highlight the potential of plant-derived compounds to regulate immune responses in various disease models.

Table 3: Experimental Efficacy of Select Plant-Derived Immunomodulators

Compound/Extract	Source	Model System	Key Immunomodulatory Effect	Citation
Elderberry Extract (eldosamb)	Elderberry	Clinical Study	Reduced production of TNF-α and IFN-γ, initiating Th2-helper cell adaptive immune response.	[100]
Quercetin, Curcumin, Resveratrol	Various Plants (Onion, Turmeric, Grapes)	Pre-clinical & Clinical Trials	Marketed immunomodulators; mechanism involves induction of cytokines and phagocyte cells, and inhibition of iNOS, PGE, and COX-2 synthesis.	[100] [99]
Allium cepa (Onion)	Onion	In-vivo/In-vitro	Immunosuppressive effects; reduced total WBC, neutrophil count, and serum nitric oxide levels.	[99]
Zataria multiflora	Z. multiflora	Phase II Clinical Trial (Asthmatic patients)	Improved clinical symptoms, modulated oxidative stress, and regulated cytokine levels.	[99]

Methodological Framework: Key Experimental Protocols

Protocols for Assessing Direct Antimicrobial Activity

• Disk Diffusion or Agar Well Assay: This standard method involves spreading a bacterial/fungal suspension on an agar plate. Paper disks or wells are infused with the test compound/extract. After incubation, the zone of inhibition around the disk/well is measured to determine antimicrobial activity [102].
• Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Determination: The broth microdilution method is used to quantify antimicrobial potency. Serial dilutions of the test compound are prepared in a broth medium inoculated with a standard pathogen density. The MIC is the lowest concentration that visually inhibits growth after incubation [101] [96].
• Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) for Volatiles: For volatile compounds, GC-MS coupled with solid-phase microextraction (SPME) is employed. This allows for the separation, identification, and quantification of volatile organic compounds responsible for antimicrobial activity [101] [102].
• Biofilm Inhibition Assays: The effect on biofilm formation is typically assessed using microtiter plate-based methods. Bacterial cultures are grown with sub-MIC levels of the test compound, and the resulting biofilm biomass is quantified using crystal violet or other specific stains [97].

Protocols for Evaluating Immunomodulatory Activity

• Cell-Based Immunoassays: Isolated immune cells (e.g., macrophages, lymphocytes) from spleen or blood are cultured and stimulated with mitogens or antigens in the presence or absence of the test compound. Proliferation is measured using assays like MTT or BrdU incorporation [99].
• Cytokine Profiling: The levels of various cytokines (e.g., TNF-α, IL-6, IL-10) in culture supernatants or serum from treated animals/patients are quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or multiplex bead-based assays [100] [99].
• Flow Cytometry for Immune Cell Phenotyping: This technique is used to analyze the percentage and activation status of different immune cell populations (e.g., T-cell subsets, B cells, NK cells, macrophages) in blood or tissue samples after treatment with an immunomodulator [99].
• Animal Models of Inflammation or Infection: The in vivo efficacy of immunomodulators is tested in animal models (e.g., of autoimmune disease, asthma, or infection). Parameters such as survival, pathogen load, and markers of inflammation are assessed [99].

Signaling Pathways and Experimental Workflows

Direct Antimicrobial Mechanisms Workflow

The following diagram summarizes the key steps and mechanisms involved in evaluating the direct antimicrobial action of plant compounds.

Direct Antimicrobial Action Evaluation Workflow

Immunomodulatory Signaling Pathways

This diagram outlines the key immune cells and pathways modulated by plant-derived natural products, highlighting the complex interplay between different components of the immune system.

Immunomodulation by Natural Products

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Key Reagents and Materials for Research in Plant Compound Bioactivity

Item	Function/Application	Examples/Notes
Polar Solvents (Ethanol, Methanol)	Extraction of a wide range of polar and mid-polar phytochemicals (e.g., phenolics, flavonoids) [102].	Aqueous mixtures (e.g., 70% ethanol) often optimize yield of bioactive compounds [102].
Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (UHPLC-MS/MS)	Separation, identification, and quantification of non-volatile secondary metabolites in complex plant extracts [101].	Provides detailed chemical composition annotation.
Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)	Analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from plants or extracts [101] [102].	Often coupled with Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME) for headspace sampling.
DPPH (2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl)	A stable free radical used to evaluate the antioxidant capacity of plant compounds via colorimetric assay [101].	Measures hydrogen-donating activity of antioxidants.
Cell Culture Media & Mitogens	Culturing immune cells (e.g., lymphocytes, macrophages) for in vitro immunomodulation studies [99].	Mitogens like concanavalin A are used to stimulate immune cell proliferation.
ELISA Kits	Quantification of specific cytokines (e.g., IL-6, TNF-α) or immunoglobulins in cell supernatants or serum [99].	Essential for profiling immune responses.
Reference Bacterial Strains	Quality control and standardization in antimicrobial susceptibility testing (e.g., S. aureus ATCC 12600) [102].	Ensures reproducibility and reliability of antimicrobial assays.

The comparative analysis reveals that the strategic choice between direct antimicrobial action and systemic immunomodulation is not a matter of superiority but of context. Direct antimicrobials, particularly volatile compounds analyzed by GC-MS, offer a rapid, potent defense suitable for acute infections and surface decontamination. In contrast, immunomodulators, often non-volatile compounds characterized by UHPLC-MS/MS, provide a sophisticated, system-wide approach ideal for managing chronic infections, complex inflammatory diseases, and bolstering host resilience with a lower risk of driving pathogen resistance. The future of combating infectious diseases and AMR likely lies in synergistic approaches. Integrating the rapid killing power of direct antimicrobials with the sustained, adaptable defense provided by immunomodulators represents a promising frontier. Advanced omics technologies and network pharmacology will be crucial in identifying the most effective plant-derived compounds and optimizing their combinations for next-generation therapeutic strategies [97] [98].

The strategic selection of a therapeutic approach is a cornerstone of modern drug discovery. Two dominant yet contrasting paradigms have emerged: receptor targeting and multi-target polypharmacology. Receptor targeting operates on the principle of high specificity, designing drugs to interact with a single, well-defined protein target to minimize off-side effects [103]. In contrast, polypharmacology intentionally designs single drugs to modulate multiple targets or disease pathways simultaneously, an approach particularly advantageous for complex, multifactorial diseases [104] [105]. This guide provides an objective comparison of these strategies, framing the analysis within the context of plant volatile and non-volatile compound research. It is structured to assist researchers and drug development professionals in selecting the appropriate strategy based on mechanistic insights, supported experimental data, and specific research objectives.

Conceptual Frameworks and Definitions

Receptor-Targeted Drug Delivery

Receptor targeting relies on the highly specific "lock and key" interaction between a drug (ligand) and its protein target (receptor), typically located on the cell surface [103]. This approach aims to deliver medication directly to a specific site, improving efficacy and minimizing unwanted side effects on healthy tissues. The specificity is often achieved by designing drugs that bind to receptors overexpressed on diseased cells, such as tumor cells, or by leveraging receptors that facilitate transport across biological barriers like the blood-brain barrier [103] [106]. The process involves identifying suitable receptors, developing high-affinity ligands, and often conjugating these ligands to therapeutic agents or drug-carrying nanoparticles [103].

Multi-Target Polypharmacology

Polypharmacology is defined as "the design or use of pharmaceutical agents that act on multiple targets or disease pathways simultaneously" [107]. Unlike the conventional "one drug–one target" model, polypharmacology is based on the concept of "one drug–multiple targets," where a single drug is designed to act on multiple targets within a single disease pathway or on targets involved in multiple diseases [104]. This strategy is particularly valuable for treating complex disorders such as cancer, central nervous system disorders, and infectious diseases, where a single-target approach often proves sub-efficacious due to compensatory mechanisms and redundant functions in biological systems [104] [105]. The therapeutic efficacy of many successful drugs has been retrospectively linked to their multi-targeting properties [104].

Comparative Analysis: Key Characteristics

Table 1: Fundamental characteristics of receptor targeting and polypharmacology.

Feature	Receptor Targeting	Multi-Target Polypharmacology
Core Philosophy	"One drug – one target"	"One drug – multiple targets" [104]
Molecular Basis	High-affinity, specific "lock and key" ligand-receptor interaction [103]	Promiscuity; a single molecule possesses structural features to bind multiple targets [104]
Primary Goal	Maximize efficacy at a single site while minimizing off-target effects [103]	Simultaneously modulate multiple nodes in a disease network for enhanced therapeutic outcome [104] [105]
Ideal Application	Diseases with a well-defined, singular molecular cause; targeted drug delivery [104] [103]	Complex, multi-factorial diseases (e.g., cancer, CNS disorders, metabolic syndrome); overcoming drug resistance [104] [105] [107]
Advantages	Predictable mechanism, reduced risk of off-target side effects [104] [103]	Broader efficacy spectrum, lower risk of resistance, simpler pharmacokinetics than drug combinations [105] [107] [108]
Limitations	Limited efficacy in complex diseases; susceptibility to resistance [104] [105]	Higher risk of off-target toxicity; more complex design and optimization process [104] [105]

Mechanistic Insights and Therapeutic Applications

Mechanisms of Action and Signaling Pathways

Receptor Targeting hinges on the specific binding of a ligand to its cognate receptor, which triggers a defined downstream signaling cascade. This binding often initiates receptor-mediated endocytosis, a process where the ligand-receptor complex is internalized into the cell within a coated vesicle [106]. Clathrin-mediated endocytosis is the best-characterized pathway, where adaptor proteins recruit clathrin to the plasma membrane, leading to vesicle formation, internalization, and subsequent trafficking to early endosomes for sorting [106]. The internalized drug is then released to exert its effect intracellularly. This pathway is exploited for targeted delivery, using ligands like transferrin to direct drugs to cancer cells overexpressing the transferrin receptor [106].

Polypharmacology operates through a less linear, more network-oriented mechanism. A single drug molecule is structurally designed to interact with multiple, sometimes unrelated, targets. This can be achieved by incorporating multiple pharmacophores—the essential structural features required for activity—into a single molecule, creating a "master key" capable of unlocking several biological "locks" [105]. The subsequent effects are the result of the simultaneous modulation of these targets, which may belong to the same disease pathway (e.g., multiple kinases in a signaling network) or to parallel pathways that exhibit co-dependency or synthetic lethality, as seen in certain cancer types [108]. The medium- and long-term effects of such multi-target drugs can also involve changes in the gene expression signature of the cell, going beyond immediate protein inhibition [105].

Diagram 1: Core mechanistic pathways. Receptor targeting follows a specific, linear pathway from ligand binding to a single downstream effect. Polypharmacology modulates a network of targets simultaneously to produce an integrated therapeutic outcome.

Application in Complex Diseases and Drug Repurposing

The application of these strategies diverges significantly based on disease etiology. Receptor targeting is highly effective for diseases with a well-established, singular molecular cause [104]. In contrast, polypharmacology shows superior potential in treating complex disorders like cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and mood disorders, where disease robustness arises from redundant pathways and compensatory mechanisms [105] [107]. For instance, in oncology, dual inhibitors targeting synthetically lethal pairs of proteins (e.g., MEK1 and mTOR) have been generated de novo and shown efficacy in reducing cancer cell viability [108].

Another powerful application of polypharmacology is in drug repurposing, where already-marketed drugs are investigated for new indications based on their off-target profiles [104]. This approach is faster, cheaper, and less risky than developing a novel drug. Computational methods are increasingly used to systematically predict a drug's polypharmacology profile, identifying new therapeutic uses for existing agents [109].

Table 2: Therapeutic applications and representative examples.

Therapeutic Area	Receptor Targeting Application	Polypharmacology Application
Oncology	Targeting HER2 receptors in breast cancer with trastuzumab [103]	Dual inhibition of MEK1 and mTOR in lung cancer models [108]
Neurology	Targeting BBB transporters for CNS drug delivery [103]	Multi-target agents for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease [105] [107]
Psychiatry	-	Multi-target antidepressants/antipsychotics (e.g., brexpiprazole: 5-HT1A/D2) [104]
Drug Resistance	Often limited by target mutations	A key strategy to overcome resistance (e.g., in epilepsy, infections) [105] [107]

Experimental Approaches and Methodologies

Research and Development Workflows

The experimental pathways for developing receptor-targeted drugs versus polypharmacology drugs differ in their initial focus and methods.

Receptor-Targeted Workflow: This often begins with target identification and validation, followed by the design of high-affinity ligands. Methods include structural biology (X-ray crystallography, cryo-EM) to understand the binding site, followed by high-throughput screening of compound libraries against the purified target or computational structure-based drug design [103] [109]. Key experiments involve binding affinity assays (e.g., Ki, IC50 determinations) and cellular assays to confirm functional activity and specificity [109].

Polypharmacology Workflow: The process can start with two main strategies: 1) Phenotypic screening, where compounds are assessed for a complex phenotypic effect in cells or organisms, with target deconvolution occurring later, or 2) A rational design approach where multiple targets are selected a priori based on network biology [104] [105]. Modern rational design heavily utilizes computational methods, including generative AI models like POLYGON, which uses reinforcement learning to generate novel chemical structures optimized for dual-target inhibition and drug-likeness [108]. Validation requires multi-target binding assays and functional characterization in complex disease models.

Diagram 2: Simplified comparative workflows for drug development. The receptor-targeting path focuses on optimizing for selectivity against a single target, while the polypharmacology path focuses on achieving a balanced activity profile across multiple targets.

Key Experimental Protocols

Protocol for Validating Receptor-Targeted Drug Internalization

This protocol is used to confirm that a receptor-targeted therapeutic is not only binding but also being internalized via the intended pathway [106].

• Labeling: The drug or drug-carrier conjugate (e.g., nanoparticle) is labeled with a fluorescent tag (e.g., FITC, Cy5).
• Cell Treatment: Incubate the labeled compound with cells expressing the target receptor and, as a control, with cells that do not express the receptor.
• Inhibition Assay: Pre-treat a subset of cells with pharmacological inhibitors of specific endocytotic pathways (e.g., chlorpromazine for clathrin-mediated endocytosis, filipin for caveolae-mediated endocytosis).
• Time-Course Imaging: Use confocal microscopy or live-cell imaging to track the localization of the fluorescence over time (e.g., 0, 15, 30, 60, 120 minutes).
• Colocalization Analysis: Stain for early endosomal markers (e.g., EEA1), late endosomal/lysosomal markers (e.g., LAMP1), and the target receptor itself. Quantify the degree of colocalization using image analysis software.
• Functional Assay: Correlate internalization with a functional cellular readout, such as target inhibition or a downstream pharmacological effect.

Protocol for Profiling Polypharmacology Interactions

This protocol outlines a computational and experimental approach to identify or validate the multi-target profile of a compound [108] [109].

• In Silico Prediction:

  • Input: Prepare the canonical SMILES string of the query compound.
  • Target Fishing: Use one or more computational target prediction methods (e.g., MolTarPred, PPB2, molecular docking with AutoDock Vina) against a database of protein targets (e.g., ChEMBL, BindingDB).
  • Analysis: Rank the predicted targets based on similarity scores, docking scores (ΔG in kcal/mol), or other confidence metrics.

• Experimental Validation:

  • Binding Assays: Test the compound in a panel of binding assays (e.g., radioligand binding, surface plasmon resonance) against the top predicted targets and the primary intended target(s). Determine IC50 or Ki values.
  • Functional Cellular Assays: Assess the compound's effect in cell-based models that report on the activity of the predicted targets (e.g., pathway-specific reporter assays, phospho-protein profiling).
  • Synergy Assessment: In the case of designed polypharmacology, use isobolographic analysis to determine if the multi-target effect is additive or synergistic compared to single-target inhibitors.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key reagents and solutions for researching receptor targeting and polypharmacology.

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Relevant Strategy
ChEMBL / BindingDB Database	Public databases of bioactive molecules with drug-target interactions; used for ligand-centric target prediction and validation [109].	Polypharmacology
Recombinant Target Proteins	Purified proteins for in vitro binding affinity assays (SPR, ITC) and high-throughput screening.	Both
Endocytosis Inhibitors	Pharmacological agents (e.g., chlorpromazine, filipin III) to determine the specific internalization pathway of a receptor-targeted drug [106].	Receptor Targeting
Fluorescent Tags (e.g., FITC, Cy5)	To label drugs or drug carriers for visualization and tracking of cellular uptake and intracellular trafficking via microscopy [106].	Receptor Targeting
POLYGON / MolTarPred Software	Generative AI and machine learning models for de novo generation of multi-target compounds or prediction of off-target interactions [108] [109].	Polypharmacology
AutoDock Vina / UCSF Chimera	Molecular docking software for predicting the 3D binding pose and binding energy (ΔG) of a compound to a protein target [108].	Both
Pathway-Specific Reporter Cell Lines	Engineered cells (e.g., luciferase-based) to measure the functional effect of a compound on a specific signaling pathway.	Both

Connecting to Plant Compound Research

The comparative study of volatile and non-volatile plant compounds provides a natural and insightful context for this mechanistic comparison. Plants produce a vast array of specialized metabolites, many of which exhibit potent biological activities in humans.

• Plant Volatiles as Polypharmacology Examples: Many plant-derived volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as those responsible for aroma in pears (Pyrus communis), are synthesized through complex, interconnected metabolic pathways (e.g., fatty acid oxidation, amino acid degradation) [7]. A single volatile compound can interact with multiple biological targets in its ecological context, mirroring the polypharmacology concept. Furthermore, the industrial and therapeutic use of volatile terpenoids—in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food—often relies on their complex, multi-faceted biological effects, making them prime candidates for polypharmacological studies [110].

• Non-Volatile Compounds in Targeted Approaches: In contrast, many non-volatile plant compounds (e.g., specific alkaloids or glycosides) have been developed into highly specific pharmaceutical agents. The isolation and structural optimization of these compounds often follow a receptor-targeting paradigm, where the goal is to enhance affinity for a single human protein target while minimizing off-target interactions.

Understanding the biosynthetic pathways of these plant metabolites—including the key enzymes like monoacylglycerol lipase (MAGL) and alcohol acyltransferase (AAT) in pear aroma formation [7]—not only aids in metabolic engineering for improved production but also provides a rich source of chemical scaffolds that can be rationally optimized for either highly specific or deliberately promiscuous therapeutic applications.

The choice between receptor targeting and multi-target polypharmacology is not a matter of superiority but of strategic alignment with the biological complexity of the disease and the desired therapeutic outcome. Receptor targeting offers precision and a clear mechanistic path, ideal for well-defined diseases and targeted delivery applications. Polypharmacology provides a powerful network-based approach to treat complex, multifactorial diseases and overcome drug resistance, albeit with a more challenging design process. The emerging computational tools, from generative AI to predictive target fishing, are significantly accelerating the rational design of both strategies. Research on plant volatile and non-volatile compounds continues to serve as a valuable source of inspiration and chemical starting points, embodying both highly specific and broadly synergistic mechanisms of action that can inform future drug discovery campaigns.

In the realm of plant-based medicine and drug development, the pharmacokinetic behavior of active constituents—encompassing absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion—profoundly influences their therapeutic efficacy. A fundamental pharmacokinetic dichotomy exists between Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs). VOCs are characterized by their low molecular weight, high vapor pressure, and lipophilicity, which allows them to transition readily into a gaseous state at room temperature [10]. These compounds, including monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes, are often responsible for the distinctive aromas of plants and are prevalent in essential oils [111] [10]. In contrast, NVCs encompass a broader range of higher molecular weight, less vapor-prone molecules, such as many glycosides, alkaloids, and polyphenols, which often require specific enzymatic or chemical modification for optimal activity and absorption.

Understanding the distinct pharmacokinetic profiles of these compound classes is critical for rational drug design and the development of effective herbal formulations. This guide provides a comparative analysis of their pharmacokinetic behavior, supported by experimental data and methodologies relevant to researchers and drug development professionals.

The following tables synthesize key quantitative findings from pharmacokinetic studies, primarily in rodent models, to highlight the fundamental differences between VOCs and NVCs.

Table 1: Key Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Select Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Compound (Study Context)	T~max~ (h)	C~max~	t~1/2~ (h)	Oral Bioavailability	Key Tissues for Distribution
Eugenol (in Artemisiae Argyi Folium oil) [111]	0.08	High	1.27	Not specified	Liver, Heart, Kidney, Lung, Spleen
Borneol (in Artemisiae Argyi Folium oil) [111]	0.08	High	1.88	Not specified	Liver, Heart, Kidney, Lung, Spleen
Eucalyptol (in Artemisiae Argyi Folium oil) [111]	0.08	Medium	2.21	Not specified	Liver, Heart, Kidney, Lung, Spleen
Camphor (in Artemisiae Argyi Folium oil) [111]	0.08	Medium	2.45	Not specified	Liver, Heart, Kidney, Lung, Spleen
β-Caryophyllene (in Artemisiae Argyi Folium oil) [111]	0.17	Low	5.02	Not specified	Liver, Heart, Kidney, Lung, Spleen
Bornyl Acetate (in Yinchenzhufu decoction) [112]	Rapid	Not specified	Not specified	Higher in water decoction vs. volatile oil	Not specified
Various VOCs (in Yinchenzhufu decoction) [112]	Rapid (≤ 0.5 h)	Highly variable	Rapid	Generally low; influenced by formulation	Not specified

Table 2: Contrasting General Pharmacokinetic Properties of VOCs vs. NVCs

Property	Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)	Non-Volatile Compounds (NVCs)
Absorption Rate	Very Rapid (T~max~ often < 15 minutes) [111]	Slower, variable (T~max~ can be hours)
Primary Absorption Site	Upper Gastrointestinal Tract [111]	Throughout the GI tract; can be complex
Distribution	Widespread, rapid tissue penetration (e.g., liver, heart, kidney) [111]	Often more restricted; dependent on solubility and plasma protein binding [113]
Elimination Half-life (t~1/2~)	Typically short (1-5 hours) [111]	Can range from short to very long
Key Metabolic Challenge	Rapid hepatic metabolism and elimination [111]	Overcoming poor solubility and first-pass metabolism
Influence of Formulation	Significant; exposure can be higher in water decoctions than in pure volatile oil [112]	Crucial for enhancing solubility, stability, and absorption

Experimental Protocols for Pharmacokinetic Studies

Protocol for VOC Analysis via GC-MS/MS

The following methodology, adapted from studies on Artemisiae Argyi Folium essential oil, outlines a robust protocol for quantifying VOCs in biological matrices [111] [114].

• Animal Dosing and Sample Collection: Rats are orally administered the test material (e.g., essential oil or herbal formulation). Blood plasma and tissue samples (e.g., liver, heart, kidney, lung, spleen) are collected at predetermined time points.
• Sample Preparation (Liquid-Liquid Extraction):
  • Internal standard (e.g., naphthalene) is added to plasma or tissue homogenate.
  • Biosamples are extracted with a solvent mixture of n-hexane/ethyl acetate.
  • The organic layer is separated, evaporated to dryness under a gentle nitrogen stream, and the residue is reconstituted in a suitable solvent for injection [111].
• Instrumental Analysis (GC-MS/MS):
  • GC System: A gas chromatograph equipped with a weak-to-mid polarity capillary column (e.g., TG-5SILMS, 30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 μm film thickness) is used for compound separation.
  • MS Detection: A tandem mass spectrometer operating in Selective Reaction Monitoring (SRM) mode is used for detection. This mode enhances sensitivity and selectivity by monitoring specific precursor ion → product ion transitions unique to each analyte [111] [114].
• Data Quantification: Calibration curves are constructed for each analyte using spiked blank plasma. The concentrations in experimental samples are calculated based on the analyte-to-internal standard response ratio, ensuring precise and accurate quantification [111].

General Considerations for NVC Analysis

While specific protocols depend on the compound, the analysis of NVCs often employs Liquid Chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Sample preparation may involve protein precipitation, solid-phase extraction (SPE), or enzymatic hydrolysis to liberate conjugated metabolites. The core difference from VOC analysis lies in the use of liquid chromatography instead of gas chromatography, as NVCs are typically non-volatile and may require ionization techniques like electrospray ionization (ESI) for mass spectrometric analysis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for Plant Compound Pharmacokinetic Studies

Reagent / Material	Function / Application
TG-5SILMS GC Column	A gas chromatography column optimized for the separation of volatile and semi-volatile analytes [111].
GC-MS/MS System	The core analytical platform for sensitive and selective identification and quantification of VOCs in complex biological samples [111].
n-Hexane / Ethyl Acetate	Solvent system used for the liquid-liquid extraction of VOCs from plasma and tissue homogenates [111].
Selective Reaction Monitoring (SRM)	A highly specific mass spectrometry mode that reduces background noise, crucial for achieving low limits of quantification (LLOQ) in biological matrices [111].
Chemical Reference Standards	High-purity (>98%) authentic compounds (e.g., eucalyptol, borneol, eugenol) are essential for method development, calibration, and positive identification [114].
PBPK Model Template	A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model "superstructure" that facilitates faster, more efficient implementation of chemical-specific PBPK models for dosimetric calculations and risk assessment, applicable to VOCs and other compounds [115].

Visualizing the Workflow and Kinetic Pathways

The following diagrams illustrate the core experimental workflow for VOC analysis and summarize the key pharmacokinetic differences between VOCs and NVCs.

Experimental Workflow for VOC Pharmacokinetics

Comparative Pharmacokinetic Pathways

The experimental data unequivocally demonstrates that VOCs, as a class, are defined by rapid absorption and elimination kinetics. Their lipophilicity facilitates quick uptake, but they undergo extensive and swift hepatic metabolism, leading to short half-lives [111]. This profile suggests therapeutic applications requiring immediate effect, such as in aromatherapy for rapid physiological response, or in topically applied analgesics and antiseptics. However, it also presents a challenge for maintaining sustained therapeutic levels.

In contrast, NVCs generally exhibit slower and more complex absorption kinetics, but their longer half-lives can provide a more prolonged therapeutic effect. The formulation strategy is paramount for both classes. For VOCs, encapsulation or inclusion in water decoctions can surprisingly enhance systemic exposure, as seen with Yinchenzhufu decoction, likely by improving solubility and modulating metabolic processes [112]. For NVCs, advanced delivery systems are often necessary to overcome inherent poor solubility and bioavailability.

This comparative analysis underscores that the choice between a VOC and an NVC, or the strategy for combining them in a formulation, must be guided by the desired pharmacokinetic profile and therapeutic objective. Future research should continue to elucidate the complex interactions within multi-component herbal extracts, providing a deeper scientific foundation for their rational use in drug development and clinical practice.

In the pursuit of new therapeutic agents, plant-derived compounds offer diverse pathways, primarily yielding two distinct classes of drugs: small molecules and phytopharmaceuticals. A small molecule drug is typically a chemically synthesized, low-molecular-weight compound (under 1 kDa) with a well-defined structure [116]. In contrast, a phytopharmaceutical drug (PPD) is a standardized herbal preparation comprising a complex mixture of bioactive compounds derived from a plant source. PPDs are enriched extracts consisting of multiple phytoconstituents like flavonoids, polyphenols, and alkaloids, and their development is guided by traditional knowledge and stringent regulatory standards for quality control [64].

This guide objectively compares the suitability of these two modalities across key parameters for drug development professionals, framed within research on volatile and non-volatile plant compounds.

Comparative Analysis: Core Characteristics

The table below summarizes the fundamental differences between these two drug classes.

Characteristic	Small Molecule Drugs	Phytopharmaceutical Drugs (PPDs)
Definition & Composition	Single, pure chemical entity [116].	Standardized mixture of multiple bioactive plant compounds (minimum of four) [64].
Molecular Size/Weight	Typically < 1 kilodalton (kDa), ~20-100 atoms [116].	Complex mixtures; individual components can range from small molecules to larger complexes.
Source & Production	Chemical synthesis; can be derived from natural product precursors [117] [116].	Extraction and purification from medicinal plants [64].
Typical Administration Route	Primarily oral (tablets, capsules) [116] [118].	Often oral (tablets, powders, liquids), but form depends on the traditional preparation [64].
Bioavailability & Pharmacokinetics	Generally well-characterized for the single entity; can be designed for good oral bioavailability and cell membrane penetration [116].	Complex and less predictable due to multi-component nature; interactions can affect absorption and metabolism [64].
Stability	Generally stable; simpler storage requirements [116].	Can be sensitive to environmental factors; requires careful standardization and control [64].
Cost of Manufacturing	Low average production cost (approx. $5 per pack) [116].	Varies, but often lower R&D costs than novel chemical entities; challenges in standardization can increase costs [64].
Regulatory Pathway (Example)	Well-established New Drug Application (NDA) pathway.	Specific pathways like those by AYUSH and CDSCO in India; requires demonstration of consistency in composition [64].
Mechanism of Action	Typically single-target (e.g., enzyme inhibition) [116].	Often multi-target, synergistic "polypharmacology" [64].
Patent & Exclusivity Landscape	Up to 5 years data exclusivity in the U.S.; median of 3 patents per drug [116].	Evolving IP framework; often relies on traditional knowledge and standardization processes [64].

Experimental Protocols for Compound Analysis

Research into both volatile and non-volatile plant compounds is foundational for developing both drug modalities. The following experimental workflows are central to this field.

Protocol for Profiling Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)

Volatile compounds, responsible for plant aroma, are investigated for various biological activities and require specialized techniques for their analysis [7] [119].

1. Objective: To identify and quantify the volatile organic compounds in a plant sample. 2. Key Reagents & Materials: * Plant Material: Fresh or properly preserved plant tissue. * Internal Standard: Deuterated or chemically similar compound not naturally present in the sample. * Extraction Fiber: Solid-Phase Microextraction (SPME) fiber (e.g., Divinylbenzene/Carboxen/Polydimethylsiloxane). 3. Procedure: * Sample Preparation: The plant material is homogenized under controlled conditions to avoid artifact formation. * Volatile Enrichment (Headspace-SPME): The sample is placed in a vial and heated. An SPME fiber is exposed to the headspace to adsorb volatile compounds for a specified time [7] [119]. * GC-MS Analysis: The fiber is injected into a Gas Chromatograph-Mass Spectrometer (GC-MS) for thermal desorption. Compounds are separated in the GC column and identified by the mass spectrometer [7] [119]. * Data Analysis: Mass spectra are compared against standard libraries (e.g., NIST), and compounds are quantified relative to the internal standard.

(VOC Analysis Workflow)

Protocol for Profiling Non-Volatile Metabolites

Non-volatile compounds (e.g., alkaloids, polyphenols) are the source of many therapeutic agents and require a different analytical approach.

1. Objective: To identify and quantify non-volatile metabolites in a plant extract. 2. Key Reagents & Materials: * Extraction Solvents: Methanol, Acetonitrile, Water (often acidified). * Chromatography Column: C18 reversed-phase UHPLC column. * Reference Standards: Pure compounds for targeted quantification. 3. Procedure: * Extraction: Plant material is extracted with a suitable solvent (e.g., methanol-water) using sonication or shaking. * LC-MS Analysis: The extract is injected into a Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatograph (UHPLC) coupled to a high-resolution mass spectrometer. Compounds are separated in the LC column and identified by their mass-to-charge ratio [7] [120]. * Data Analysis: High-resolution mass data is used for putative identification using metabolomic databases. Tandem MS/MS fragmentation provides structural information.

(Non-Volatile Metabolite Analysis Workflow)

Biosynthetic Pathways in Plants

Understanding the biosynthetic origins of plant compounds is crucial for targeted research. Key pathways for both volatile and non-volatile compounds are visualized below.

(Biosynthetic Pathways for Plant Compounds)

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

This table details key materials and technologies used in plant-based drug discovery research.

Research Reagent / Solution	Function in Research
SPME (Solid-Phase Microextraction) Fiber	Adsorbs and pre-concentrates volatile compounds from the headspace of a sample for GC-MS analysis [119].
GC-MS (Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry)	The gold-standard system for separating, identifying, and quantifying volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds [7] [119].
UHPLC-HRMS (Ultra-High-Performance Liquid Chromatography-High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry)	Separates complex mixtures of non-volatile metabolites with high precision and provides accurate mass data for identification [120].
C18 Reversed-Phase Chromatography Column	The most common column used in UHPLC to separate compounds based on their hydrophobicity [120].
Metabolomic Databases (e.g., NIST, GNPS)	Spectral libraries used to compare experimental MS data against known compounds for identification [120].
Bioactivity Screening Assays (e.g., Enzyme Inhibition)	High-throughput tests used to rapidly evaluate the therapeutic potential of pure compounds or complex extracts [117].

The choice between small molecules and phytopharmaceuticals is not a matter of superiority but of strategic suitability. Small molecule drugs offer unparalleled advantages in terms of oral bioavailability, precise targeting, manufacturing scalability, and well-defined regulatory pathways. They are the bedrock of modern therapeutics, comprising around 60% of global pharmaceutical sales [116]. Conversely, phytopharmaceuticals provide a powerful approach grounded in traditional medicine, offering the potential for multi-target synergistic effects ("polypharmacology") and often a more rapid transition from ethnobotanical knowledge to clinical application [64].

The decision framework for researchers hinges on the therapeutic objective: for a well-defined, single biological target, a purified or synthesized small molecule is optimal. For complex, multi-factorial conditions where a synergistic approach may be beneficial, a standardized phytopharmaceutical presents a compelling strategy. Advances in analytical technologies like GC-MS and UHPLC-HRMS are now enabling the rigorous standardization and mechanistic understanding needed to fully integrate both modalities into the future of drug discovery.

Plant-derived compounds are a cornerstone of modern pharmacology, broadly categorized into volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and non-volatile compounds (NVCs) based on their chemical properties. VOCs are typically lipophilic, low molecular weight molecules that readily vaporize at ambient temperatures, facilitating their release from plant material. These compounds, including monoterpenes like menthol, often serve as chemical messengers and defense molecules in plants. In contrast, NVCs such as artemisinin possess higher molecular weights and polarity, making them less evaporative and often more complex in structure. This fundamental difference in volatility profoundly influences their extraction methodologies, biosynthesis, mechanisms of action, and eventual pharmaceutical applications.

The drug discovery pathway for these two classes diverges significantly based on their inherent properties. This guide provides a comparative analysis of two successful pharmaceutical agents derived from these distinct classes: menthol (a VOC) and artemisinin (an NVC). By examining their experimental data, biosynthesis, and clinical applications, we aim to provide researchers and drug development professionals with a structured framework for understanding how these compound classes perform as therapeutic agents.

Case Study 1: Menthol - A Volatile Organic Compound

Chemical Properties and Pharmacological Profile

Menthol (2-isopropyl-5-methylcyclohexanol) is a monocyclic monoterpene alcohol and a primary constituent of mint essential oils. Its volatile nature contributes to its characteristic aroma and cooling sensation, mediated through activation of the TRPM8 receptor in sensory neurons. Beyond its widespread use as a flavoring and fragrance agent, menthol exhibits documented pharmacological activities including analgesic, antiparasitic, antibacterial, and penetration-enhancing properties [121]. However, its development as a therapeutic agent faces challenges due to inherent physicochemical instability and low bioavailability, limitations directly tied to its volatile nature [121].

Experimental Data and Efficacy Studies

Recent research has focused on overcoming menthol's pharmaceutical limitations through prodrug development. The following table summarizes key stability and permeability data for menthol and its novel prodrug derivatives, 1c and 1g.

Table 1: Stability and Permeability Parameters of Menthol and Prodrugs

Compound	pH Condition	Half-life (t₁/₂)	Degradation Products	Apparent Permeability (Papp)	Key Experimental Findings
Menthol	Not fully quantified	-	-	Lower than prodrugs	Parent compound; limited bioavailability [121]
Prodrug 1c	pH 1.2	Minutes (rapid)	Menthol, CO₂, Alcohols	Highest Papp value	Enhanced stability at pH 5.8 (t₁/₂: 99-115 h); follows pseudo-first-order degradation kinetics [121]
Prodrug 1g	pH 1.2	Minutes (rapid)	Menthol, CO₂, Alcohols	Highest Papp value	Enhanced stability at pH 5.8 (t₁/₂: 99-115 h); follows pseudo-first-order degradation kinetics [121]
Both Prodrugs	pH 7.4	Lower than at pH 5.8	Menthol, COâ‚‚, Alcohols	High	In silico (PerMM software) and in vitro (BAM) models predicted and confirmed high membrane permeability via flip-flop movement [121]

Experimental Protocol: Stability and Permeability Assays

• Stability Studies: Prodrugs 1c and 1g were incubated in buffered solutions at pH 1.2, 5.8, and 7.4 at 37°C to simulate physiological conditions. The concentration of the intact prodrug was monitored over time using a validated gas chromatography (GC) method. Degradation rate constants (k) were determined from the slope of linear regression of ln(concentration) versus time plots. Half-lives (t₁/â‚‚) were calculated using the relationship t₁/â‚‚ = 0.693/k [121].
• Permeability Studies: Two complementary approaches were used:
  • In Silico: The free PerMM software was used to predict passive membrane permeability.
  • In Vitro: Permeability was assessed experimentally using a biomimetic artificial membrane (BAM) model. The apparent permeability (Papp) was calculated from the rate of compound transfer across the membrane [121].

Biosynthesis and Production

Menthol is naturally biosynthesized in Mentha species via the terpenoid pathway. However, traditional extraction from plants faces challenges of resource limitation and environmental concerns. Microbial biosynthesis has emerged as a sustainable alternative, leveraging metabolic engineering in hosts like Escherichia coli, Corynebacterium glutamicum, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae [122]. Synthetic biology approaches, including precursor pathway engineering, enzyme optimization, and pathway flux balancing, are being employed to improve the yield and efficiency of menthol production in these microbial platforms [122].

Case Study 2: Artemisinin - A Non-Volatile Compound

Chemical Properties and Pharmacological Profile

Artemisinin is a sesquiterpene lactone containing a unique endoperoxide bridge, which is essential for its activity. This non-volatile compound is isolated from the plant Artemisia annua (sweet wormwood). Unlike volatile menthol, artemisinin and its derivatives are characterized by low volatility and poor solubility in both water and oil. Its primary mechanism of action involves the endoperoxide bridge reacting with intra-parasitic iron, generating reactive oxygen species that are lethal to the malaria parasite, Plasmodium falciparum.

Experimental Data and Clinical Efficacy

Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are the first-line treatment for uncomplicated P. falciparum malaria globally. The emergence of partial artemisinin resistance, characterized by delayed parasite clearance, underscores the need for next-generation treatments. The following table compares a novel investigational drug with a new single-dose combination therapy.

Table 2: Clinical Profile of Established and Next-Generation Antimalarials

Drug / Therapy	Drug Class	Key Components	Dosing Regimen	Reported Cure Rate	Stage of Development
Artemisinin-based Combinations (ACTs)	Sesquiterpene Lactone + Partner Drug	Artemisinin derivative (e.g., artemether) + partner drug (e.g., lumefantrine)	3-day course	>90% (though declining due to resistance)	Standard first-line treatment [123]
GanLum (Novartis)	New Chemical Class + Established Drug	Ganaplacide + Lumefantrine	Once daily for 3 days	>97%	Experimental, study in 12 African countries; effective against resistant parasites [123]
Single-Dose Quadruple Combination	Combination Therapy	Artemisinin + Pyronaridine + Sulfadoxine + Pyrimethamine	Single dose	93% at 28 days	Experimental trial in Gabon; addresses poor 3-day adherence [123]

Experimental Protocol: Clinical Trial Design for New Antimalarials

• GanLum Study: A study involving approximately 1,700 adults and children across 12 African countries compared GanLum to a common artemisinin-based treatment. The primary endpoint was cure rate, determined by the absence of parasites in blood tests after a follow-up period. The study also assessed efficacy against mutant malaria parasites with partial drug resistance [123].
• Single-Dose Quadruple Therapy Study: From May 2024 to October 2025, over 1,000 non-severe malaria patients in Gabon were enrolled. A little over half received the single-dose, four-drug combination, while the rest received a standard three-day ACT. Blood tests at 28 days compared the parasite-free rates between the two groups [123].

Biosynthesis and Production

Artemisinin is primarily extracted directly from A. annua, a process that is subject to seasonal variability and agricultural constraints, making supply chain stability a concern. To address this, semi-synthetic production methods have been developed. A key precursor, artemisinic acid, is produced in engineered yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) via the mevalonate pathway. This precursor is then chemically converted to artemisinin outside the biological system. The biosynthetic pathway in the plant involves the action of enzymes like amorpha-4,11-diene synthase and cytochrome P450 enzymes.

Comparative Analysis: VOC vs. NVC Drug Development

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Menthol (VOC) and Artemisinin (NVC) as Pharmaceutical Agents

Parameter	Menthol (VOC)	Artemisinin (NVC)
Chemical Nature	Monoterpene alcohol; lipophilic, volatile	Sesquiterpene lactone; non-volatile, contains endoperoxide bridge
Stability Challenges	Low physicochemical stability; degrades rapidly in acidic pH [121]	Relatively stable, but resistance is a major clinical challenge [123]
Bioavailability Issue	Low bioavailability; addressed via prodrug approach [121]	Poor solubility; derivatives and formulations are used to improve it
Primary Production Method	Plant extraction; advancing toward microbial biosynthesis [122]	Plant extraction; semi-synthesis from yeast-produced precursor
Key Therapeutic Target	TRPM8 receptor; parasitic organisms (T. cruzi, Leishmania) [121]	Malaria parasite (P. falciparum) via endoperoxide activation [123]
Resistance Concerns	Not a significant reported issue	Significant and growing partial resistance (delayed parasite clearance) [123]
Innovation Focus	Prodrug development for stability & permeability [121]	Novel combinations and new chemical classes to overcome resistance [123]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 4: Key Reagents and Materials for VOC/NVC Pharmaceutical Research

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Example Application
Biomimetic Artificial Membrane (BAM)	In vitro model for predicting passive membrane permeability of compounds.	Used to measure apparent permeability (Papp) of menthol prodrugs [121].
Gas Chromatography (GC)	Analytical technique for separating and quantifying volatile and semi-volatile compounds.	Used to monitor menthol and prodrug stability and identify degradation products [121].
In Silico Permeability Software (e.g., PerMM)	Computational tool for predicting a compound's ability to cross biological membranes.	Predicted flip-flop movement and high permeability for menthol prodrugs [121].
Microbial Hosts (E. coli, S. cerevisiae)	Engineered platforms for the sustainable production of plant-derived compounds.	Used in microbial biosynthesis of menthol precursors and artemisinic acid [122].
Artemisinin Derivatives (e.g., Artemether)	Semi-synthetic compounds with improved pharmaceutical properties over native artemisinin.	Key components in Artemisinin-based Combination Therapies (ACTs) for malaria.
Next-Generation Antimalarial Agents (e.g., Ganaplacide)	New chemical classes designed to combat artemisinin-resistant parasite strains.	Component of the experimental drug GanLum, showing high cure rates in trials [123].

Conclusion

The comparative analysis of volatile and non-volatile plant compounds reveals a complementary landscape for drug discovery. VOCs offer rapid delivery and potent biological activities like antimicrobial and neuroprotective effects, while NVCs provide structural diversity for systemic diseases and chronic conditions. Future directions should focus on integrating multi-omics technologies for targeted discovery, developing novel formulations to overcome bioavailability challenges, and exploring synergistic effects in multi-component phytopharmaceuticals. The continued investigation of both compound classes, leveraging their unique properties, holds significant promise for addressing complex diseases and advancing personalized medicine, reinforcing the critical role of plant-derived compounds in the future pharmaceutical pipeline.

References

• 1. The Differences Between VOCs, VVOCs, & SVOCs [https://www.thecmmgroup.com/understanding-difference-vocs-vvocs-svocs/]
• 2. Technical Overview of Volatile Organic Compounds [https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/technical-overview-volatile-organic-compounds]
• 3. A Plant Worthy of Further Study-Volatile and Non ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36558905/]
• 4. Exploring volatile aroma and non-volatile bioactive ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308814622024943]
• 5. Understanding Semi-volatile Organic Compounds (SVOCs ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8879700/]
• 6. The Difference Between SVOC and VOC [https://www.phoslab.com/svoc-vs-voc/]
• 7. Integration of volatile and non-volatile metabolites and the ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1559012/full]
• 8. Characterization of Key Metabolic Markers in Hongqujiu ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40422687/]
• 9. Biosynthesis of Plant Volatiles: Nature's Diversity and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2861909/]
• 10. Plant Volatile Organic Compounds Evolution - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7728353/]
• 11. Floral volatile benzenoids/phenylpropanoids: biosynthetic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11469922/]
• 12. Current insights into plant volatile organic compound ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369526625000226]
• 13. Multi-omics analysis the differences of VOCs terpenoid ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9707799/]
• 14. Comprehensive characterization of volatile terpenoids and ... [https://molhort.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43897-024-00140-0]
• 15. A Comparison of Different Tissues Identifies the Main ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physiology/articles/10.3389/fphys.2022.927618/full]
• 16. Atmospheric benzenoid emissions from plants rival those ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep12064]
• 17. Comparative Profiling of Volatile Compounds and Fatty ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12428489/]
• 18. Bioactive (Poly)phenols, Volatile Compounds from Vegetables ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7825428/]
• 19. GC/MS and PCA Analysis of Volatile Compounds Profile in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12608675/]
• 20. Medicinal plants and human health: a comprehensive ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11101-025-10194-7]
• 21. Plant-Derived Natural Products: A Source for Drug ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2998/3/1/11]
• 22. Unraveling the alkaloid diversity and pharmacological ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996925013237]
• 23. Flavonoids a Bioactive Compound from Medicinal Plants ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9192232/]
• 24. Medicinal plants: bioactive compounds, biological activities ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12079674/]
• 25. Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Flowers [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10857460/]
• 26. A Plant Worthy of Further Study—Volatile and Non-Volatile ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9781946/]
• 27. The Genetics of Flower Color [https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/flowers/genetics/]
• 28. Ecological aspects of volatile organic compounds emitted ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/ecology-and-evolution/articles/10.3389/fevo.2023.1059125/full]
• 29. Volatile Organic Compound - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/volatile-organic-compound]
• 30. Volatile organic compounds from medicinal plant ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0981942825002165]
• 31. Plant Volatile Organic Compounds: Revealing the Hidden ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11859731/]
• 32. Volatile-mediated plant–plant interactions - PMC - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8757495/]
• 33. Assessment of the Volatile Profiles and Identification ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/nutrition/articles/10.3389/fnut.2022.912680/full]
• 34. Impact of extraction techniques on phytochemical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12343529/]
• 35. Impact of extraction techniques on phytochemical ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1615338/full]
• 36. Comparative analysis of extraction technologies for plant ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11911331/]
• 37. Comparison of Hydrodistillation and Headspace Solid- ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9040/13/9/322]
• 38. Headspace Solid-Phase Micro-Extraction Versus ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/27/19/6561]
• 39. Recent advances in solid phase microextraction with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11363066/]
• 40. Comparison of Extraction Techniques for the Determination ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9099673/]
• 41. Headspace Solid-Phase Micro-Extraction Method ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2297-8739/11/1/27]
• 42. Factors Affecting Extraction Efficiency and Establishing ... [https://brieflands.com/journals/jjnpp/articles/161646]
• 43. Mass spectrometry-based metabolomic as a powerful tool to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12067679/]
• 44. Metabolomics by Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4829120/]
• 45. GC-MS Metabolomics Analysis [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/industrial/mass-spectrometry/mass-spectrometry-learning-center/mass-spectrometry-applications-area/metabolomics-mass-spectrometry/practical-guide-metabolomics/gc-ms-metabolomics-analysis.html]
• 46. Analytical Considerations for Extractables Screening With ... [https://www.waters.com/nextgen/us/en/library/application-notes/2022/analytical-considerations-for-extractables-screening-with-liquid-chromatography-high-resolution-mass-spectrometry.html?srsltid=AfmBOopiKf3xMFayLwNv-Fmi8-mAqsvvB4c_7xML-vyF0mcom4lKa7F7]
• 47. Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography-Ion Mobility ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/7/1916]
• 48. Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24777796/]
• 49. Volatile Organic Compound–Drug Receptor Interactions [https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9717/13/1/154]
• 50. Examination of unique volatile organic compound signatures ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0332399]
• 51. head-to-head comparison of three rapid AST systems ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12607571/]
• 52. Tacrolimus, Pimecrolimus, Cyclosporin A, and Voclosporin [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12035-025-05149-0]
• 53. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Neurodegenerative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12526079/]
• 54. Diagnostic Potential and Analytical Approaches [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41097449/]
• 55. Volatile organic compounds from topical drugs and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950362025000463]
• 56. A review on recent insights on cardiovascular diseases ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2307410825000823]
• 57. ADC Market 2025: Rising Sales and Growing Phase III ... [https://www.biochempeg.com/article/447.html]
• 58. Emerging New Drug Modalities in 2025 [https://www.bcg.com/publications/2025/emerging-new-drug-modalities]
• 59. Trends in Antidiabetic Drug Discovery: FDA Approved Drugs ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8807560/]
• 60. Newest Advances in Cardiovascular Diseases: A 2025 ... [https://www.laheartspecialists.com/blog/newest-advances-in-cardiovascular-diseases-a-2025-perspective]
• 61. Top 5 Diabetes Drugs in 2025 [https://idataresearch.com/top-5-diabetes-drugs-in-2025/]
• 62. Precision cardiovascular medicine: shifting the innovation ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2025.1474469/full]
• 63. Volatile Metabolites - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4012514/]
• 64. Plant-derived natural products for drug discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9579558/]
• 65. a concise review | Discover Chemistry [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44371-025-00372-z]
• 66. Bioaccessibility and bioavailability of environmental semi- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160412017315568]
• 67. Systemic Exposures to Volatile Organic Compounds ... - NCBI [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK215288/]
• 68. Bioavailability of inhaled or ingested PFOA adsorbed to ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-022-20829-3]
• 69. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from plants [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165993622003557]
• 70. Impact of Processing Method and Storage Time on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10295423/]
• 71. Multi-scale study on the volatility of essential oil and its ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1773224725006306]
• 72. Bioavailability Enhancement Techniques for Poorly Aqueous ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9495787/]
• 73. Solubility & Bioavailability: Difficult Beasts to Tame [https://drug-dev.com/special-feature-solubility-bioavailability-difficult-beasts-to-tame/]
• 74. Enhancing Solubility and Bioavailability with Nanotechnology [https://www.pharmtech.com/view/enhancing-solubility-and-bioavailability-with-nanotechnology]
• 75. Nanocrystals of Poorly Soluble Drugs: Drug Bioavailability ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6161002/]
• 76. Nanocrystals for enhancement of oral bioavailability ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1818087614000555]
• 77. Enhancing Bioavailability and Stability of Plant Secondary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12193903/]
• 78. Enhancing Drug Solubility, Bioavailability, and Targeted ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1420-3049/29/20/4854]
• 79. Improving Bioavailability & Solubility: A Top-Down Versus ... [https://drug-dev.com/special-feature-improving-bioavailability-solubility-a-top-down-versus-bottom-up-approach/]
• 80. Quality control of herbal drugs and preparations [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666831921000400]
• 81. Volatile Organic Compounds Emitted by Flowers [https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/13/3/417]
• 82. Extraction methods and chemical standardization of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570023204006476]
• 83. Preparation of Medicinal Plants: Basic Extraction and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7398001/]
• 84. Extraction and Identification of Volatile Organic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9316202/]
• 85. Advancing herbal medicine: enhancing product quality and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10561302/]
• 86. Bioprocessing & Bioproduction In-Depth Focus 2025 [https://www.pharmafocusamerica.com/articles/bioprocessing-bioproduction-in-depth-focus-2025]
• 87. Current developments and trends in hybrid extraction ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40049075/]
• 88. New automated method increases the efficiency of bioactive ... [https://chbe.illinois.edu/news/stories/New-automated-method-increases-the-efficiency-bioactive-natural-product-discovery]
• 89. Distinct baseline toxicity of volatile organic compounds ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S030438942403471X]
• 90. Inter-Individual Variability and Non-linear Dose-Response ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainability/articles/10.3389/frsus.2021.648138/full]
• 91. The dose response principle from philosophy to modern ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6226566/]
• 92. In silico toxicological risk assessment of chemical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12391825/]
• 93. A new pathway helps clean up toxic chemicals from plant cells [https://natsci.msu.edu/news/2025/2025-07-a-new-pathway-helps-clean-up-toxic-chemicals-from-plant-cells.aspx]
• 94. A Review of Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds from ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2305-6304/13/5/364]
• 95. Plant-Derived Antimicrobials and Their Crucial Role in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6382/13/8/746]
• 96. A systematic review on natural products with antimicrobial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12211454/]
• 97. Plant Antimicrobial Compounds and Their Mechanisms of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/7/3516]
• 98. Antibacterial plant compounds, extracts and essential oils [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0944711321001690]
• 99. The molecular basis of the immunomodulatory effects ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0944711324006858]
• 100. Plants and Plant-Derived Molecules as Natural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10260316/]
• 101. Diplopterys pubipetala (Malpighiaceae) [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40005256]
• 102. Effects of different solvents on phytochemical constituents ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-14506-x]
• 103. What Is the Role of Receptors in Targeted Drug Delivery? [https://synapse.patsnap.com/article/what-is-the-role-of-receptors-in-targeted-drug-delivery]
• 104. Polypharmacology: The science of multi-targeting molecules [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1043661821006393]
• 105. Multi-target pharmacology: possibilities and limitations of the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4585027/]
• 106. Targeting receptor-mediated endocytotic pathways with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3565049/]
• 107. Polypharmacology: promises and new drugs in 2022 - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10243259/]
• 108. De novo generation of multi-target compounds using deep ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47120-y]
• 109. A precise comparison of molecular target prediction methods [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00199d]
• 110. Plant Volatile Organic Compounds: Revealing the Hidden ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/14/4/507]
• 111. Pharmacokinetic and tissue distribution study of eight ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34479182/]
• 112. Volatile components in Yinchenzhufu decoction and their ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2022/ra/d1ra08584k]
• 113. Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction and their implication in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3897029/]
• 114. Pharmacokinetic and tissue distribution study of eight ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570023221003858]
• 115. A model template approach for rapid evaluation and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11998980/]
• 116. Small Molecules: Unsung Heroes of Pharma [https://www.drugpatentwatch.com/blog/small-molecules-unsung-heroes-of-pharma/?srsltid=AfmBOopWRyJ_IFNZcnIjrkPxNt0R_d8CbVPekMl4k2nAUx6a4Q62CLhn]
• 117. Modern Approaches in the Discovery and Development of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8779633/]
• 118. Are small-molecule drugs having their big moment? [https://www.definitivehc.com/blog/small-molecule-drug-rise]
• 119. The Science behind vegetable aromas: types, synthesis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12258172/]
• 120. Natural products in drug discovery: advances and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-00114-z]
• 121. Chemical Stability, In Silico, and In Vitro Permeability Assays [https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2998/2/3/38]
• 122. Microbial Production of Menthol [https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-3-031-90974-0_59]
• 123. 2 new malaria treatments show promise as drug resistance ... [https://wtop.com/national/2025/11/2-new-malaria-treatments-announced-as-drug-resistance-grows/]