Content uploaded by Tapanee Hongratanaworakit
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tapanee Hongratanaworakit on May 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science Vol. 8(04), pp 126-130, April, 2018
Available online at http://www.japsonline.com
DOI: 10.7324/JAPS.2018.8418
ISSN 2231-3354
© 2018 Tapanee Hongratanaworakit et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License -NonCommercial-
ShareAlikeUnported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/).
*Corresponding Author
Tapanee Hongratanaworakit, 63 Moo 7, Faculty of Pharmacy, Srina-
kharinwirot University, Rangsit-Nakhon-nayok Road, Nakhon-Nayok,
26120, Thailand. E-mail: tapanee @ g.swu.ac.th
Development of Aroma Massage Oil for Relieving Muscle Pain and
Satisfaction Evaluation in Humans
Tapanee Hongratanaworakit*, Sukanya Soontornmanokul, Phattarapond Wongareesanti
Faculty of Pharmacy, Srinakharinwirot University, Rangsit-Nakhon-Nayok Road, Nakhon-Nayok, 26120, Thailand.
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received on: 17/01/2018
Accepted on: 23/02/2018
Available online: 29/04/2018
The objective of this study was to develop aroma massage oil containing natural oils for relieving muscle pain and
evaluate users’ satisfaction. In addition, the skin irritation and skin sensitization of products were tested by using the
Kligman maximization method. Seven essential oils were used as an active ingredient in the formula. Six carrier oils
were used as a carrier oil in the formula. Tests of odor preference and odor acceptance of products were investigated in
sixty-one consumers. The products were evaluated the preliminary physical stability in terms of color, smell, rancidity,
viscosity, and precipitation, for a period of eight weeks. In addition, thirty consumers participated in the satisfaction
evaluation. The results showed that consumers gave the most preference and acceptance to a blended essential oil
preparation 1 (BEOP1) which composed of rosemary, lavender, patchouli, eucalyptus, and peppermint oils. The
consumers gave an overall satised with carrier oil formulas which consisted of sweet almond, grape seed, avocado,
jojoba oils, and macadamia oils. A massage oil formula which composed of BEOP1, vitamin E acetate, isopropyl
myristate, and carrier oils gave the best physical characteristics. Moreover, developed massage oil remained stable for
8 weeks. No skin irritation and no skin sensitization were observed after volunteers applied to developed massage oil
on the inner forearm for two weeks. Therefore, it could be suggested that developed massage oil was safety.
Key words:
Aromatherapy massage
oil, muscle pain, odor
preference, odor acceptance,
irritation, sensitization.
INTRODUCTION
Presently, muscle pain is prevalent in all ages. Muscle
pain causes for many reasons, such as improper use of muscles, use
of excessive muscle, too many exercises. In addition, anxiety or
stress results in muscle pain as well. Modern medicine approaches
to treat and relieve muscle pain using analgesic and anti-
inammatory drugs. Such drugs are mostly synthetic chemicals
which may cause adverse drug reactions such as drowsiness,
stomach irritation. For this reason, some consumers turn to use
more natural products to relieve muscle pain. Treatment of muscle
pain with essential oils is a choice of alternative medicine, which
are very popular and can be observed from the expansion of the
market for health products containing oil, aroma products, and
spa products (Price and Price, 2003). Moreover, essential oils are
derived from natural products which are safer than synthetic drugs.
Essential oils are not only used to relieve muscle pain but also help
to relax or stimulate the mind (Cooksley, 1996). However, use of
essential oil alone may require high doses to achieve effectiveness
for relieving muscle pain. Moreover, the consumer may not like
the smell of the single oil. Therefore, aromatherapy blending
products seem to be the choice of consumers to receive product
smells pleasant. In addition, using blended essential oils together
would provide a synergistic effect better than using essential oil
alone (Cooksley, 1996; Damain and Damain, 1995).
Some studies have shown that essential oils were used
for muscle pain and inammation such as eucalyptus, rosemary,
geranium, patchouli, clary sage, lavender, sweet marjoram,
camphor, tea tree, black cumin, peppermint, and citrus oils (Albert
and Steven, 1996; Golab and Skwarlo-Sonta, 2007; Hajhashemi et
al., 2004; Hong and Shellock, 1991; Lawless, 1999; Lis-Balchin,
2006; Tekeoglu et al., 2006). Our past study (Koonlaboot and
Hongratanaworakit, 2015) demonstrated that blending essential oil
preparation (petty patent number 10269) comprising eucalyptus,
rosemary, patchouli oil, and sweet marjoram, relieve muscle pain in
volunteers. The study design was a quasi-experimental study with
Hongratanaworakit et al. / Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 8 (04); 2018: 126-130 127
one group pretest-post-test. Thirty-ve volunteers participated in
this study. The volunteers assessed muscle pain before and after
applying the product as well as rated satisfaction with the use of
such product. The severity of pain was assessed by a numerical
pain scale (0-10%). The results showed that volunteers felt muscle
pain decreased signicantly after using the product (p < 0.001).
Overall satisfaction with the product was in high level. However,
the opinion after using the product showed that the product had
sticky and oily on the skin too much which made the users low
satisfaction. Therefore, it should improve the ability to penetrate
the skin and product’s oily to achieve maximum satisfaction.
Essential oils may be used alone or blend two, three or
more oils together to match an individual’s physical and emotional
needs. Good blends usually combine all three notes. Top notes
(such as eucalyptus and peppermint) are highly volatile and
give the initial scent. Middle notes (such as rosemary, lavender,
ginger, and sweet marjoram) round out the blend and last a little
longer. Base notes (such as patchouli and sandalwood) are long-
lasting and acts as a xative. Generally, the blends composed of
top note (20–40%), middle note (50–70%), and base note (10%)
(Hudson, 1999; Wildwood, 2000). In this study, we selected seven
essential oils which had been reported an analgesic or/and anti-
inammation effects (Gobel et al., 1994; Juergens et al., 1998a;
Juergens et al., 1998b; Larry et al., 2009; Lis-Balchin, 2006;
Narishetty and Panchagnula, 2005; Price and Price, 2003; Romano
and Stiller, 1994; Rutledge and Jones, 2007; Silva et al., 2003).
The eucalyptus and peppermint oils were used as a top note. The
rosemary, sweet marjoram, lavender, and ginger oils were used as
a middle note. The patchouli oil was used as a base note.
In general, carrier oils are used to dilute essential oils for
use in aromatherapy massage and to make beauty preparations.
Containing vitamins, proteins, and minerals, they are highly
effective moisturizers and provide many of the nutrients that
the skin needs to keep it smooth. Basic carrier oil or all-purpose
carrier oils such as sweet almond, apricot kernel, peach kernel,
grape seed, sunower can be used alone or enriched with special
carrier oils. Special carrier oils such as avocado, sesame, rose
hip, wheat germ can be added to basic carrier oils to improve
penetration of the skin, nourish dry, dehydrated skin, or extend the
life of an oil blend (Hudson, 1999). In this study, we selected three
basic carrier oils, i.e., sweet almond, apricot kernel, grape seed,
and three special carrier oils, i.e., avocado, jojoba, macadamia.
The objective of the study was to develop aroma
massage oil containing natural oils for relieving muscle pain and
evaluate users’ satisfaction. In addition, the skin irritation and
skin sensitization of the product were tested by using the Kligman
maximization method to ensure that the product does not cause
irritation and allergic to consumers when products are used in both
the short and long terms. The data obtained from this study will be
useful for aromatherapy products to relieve muscle pain and can
be used as a body of knowledge in further research related to the
formulation development of natural products.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Essential oils, i.e., eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus
Labill.), peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) rosemary (Rosmarinus
ofcinalis L.), sweet marjoram (Origanum marjorana L.),
lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.), ginger (Zingiber
ofcinalis), patchouli (Pogostemon cablin (Blanco) Benth) were
purchased from Thai-China Flavors and Fragrances Industry Co.,
Ltd., Thailand. Carrier oils, i.e., sweet almond, grapeseed, apricot,
avocado, jojoba, macadamia, were purchased from Make Scents
Co., Ltd., Thailand.
Formulation of blended essential oil preparations (BEOPs)
BEOPs were prepared in a volume ratio, as shown
in Table 1. BEOP 1 was composed of rosemary: lavender:
patchouli: eucalyptus: peppermint oils (5:5:1:4:5). BEOP 2 was
composed of rosemary: lavender: patchouli: eucalyptus: ginger
oils (5:5:1:4:5). BEOP 3 was composed of rosemary: lavender:
patchouli: eucalyptus: sweet marjoram oils (5:5:1:4:5). BEOP
4 was composed of rosemary: lavender: patchouli: ginger:
peppermint oils (5:5:1:4:5). BEOP1 prepared as following: pipette
5 mL of rosemary, 5 mL of lavender, 5 mL of peppermint, 4 mL of
eucalyptus, and 1 mL of patchouli oils in a light-resistant bottle.
Then close tightly and shake well until homogeneous. Kept in
a cool place until use. Other BEOPs were prepared in the same
procedure as BEOP1 but changing the amount and type of the
essential oils.
Table 1: Blended essential oil preparations (BEOPs).
Preparation (mL) BEOP1 BEOP2 BEOP3 BEOP4
Rosemary 5 5 5 5
Lavender 5 5 5 5
Patchouli 1 1 1 1
Eucalyptus 4 4 4 -
Peppermint 5 - - 5
Ginger - 5 - 4
Marjoram - - 5 -
Odor preference and odor acceptance tests
Because of difference in satisfaction of consumers, tests
of odor preference and odor acceptance to BEOPs were carried
out with consumers. Sixty-one healthy consumers took part in the
odor preference and odor acceptance tests. They were fully briefed,
given written informed consent to all aspects of the study (Faculty
of Pharmacy, Srinakharinwirot University Ethics Committees, no.
012/2014) and were free to withdraw at any time. Subjects did
not show any symptoms of upper respiratory infections. The odor
preference test was done by ranking test. The odor acceptance
test was done by a hedonic test. Consumers sniffed four products,
namely BEOP1, BEOP2, BEOP3, and BEOP4. To minimize
sensory adaptation, consumers sniffed the coffee beans between
each product (Moon and Li-Chan, 2007). Consumers ranked of
the preference for those products. Odor preference choices were
1-the most; 2-very; 3-moderate; 4-least. Consumers gave a rating
of acceptance for those products. The 9-point hedonic scale
was used in the acceptance test. Select the good BEOP which
consumers give the most preference and the most acceptance to
further develop the preparation in the next step.
Formulation of carier oil formulas (COFs)
Three carrier oil formulas (COFs) were prepared in
a volume ratio, as shown in Table 2. COF1 was composed of
sweet almond: apricot: avocado: jojoba oils (10:8:1:1). COF2
Hongratanaworakit et al. / Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 8 (04); 2018: 126-130128
was composed of sweet almond: grape seed: avocado: jojoba oils
(8:10:1:1). COF3 was composed of sweet almond: grape seed:
avocado: macadamia oils (10:8:1:1). COF1 prepared as following:
pipette 10 mL of almond, 8 mL of apricot, 1 mL of avocado, and
1 mL of jojoba oils in a light-resistant bottle. Then close tightly
and shake well until homogeneous. Kept in a cool place until use.
Other COFs were prepared in the same procedure as COF1 but
changing the amount and type of the carrier oils. Three COFs were
evaluated consumers’ satisfaction.
Table 2: Carrier oil formulas (COFs).
Preparation (mL) COF1 COF2 COF3
Almond 10 8 10
Grapeseed - 10 8
Apricot 8 - -
Avocado 1 1 1
Jojoba 1 1 -
Macadamia - - 1
COF1 = carrier oil formula 1, COF2 = carrier oil formula 2, COF3 = carrier oil
formula 3.
Evaluation of consumers’ satisfaction
Three COFs were evaluated consumers’ satisfaction.
Thirty consumers participated in the study. They were fully briefed,
given written informed consent to all aspects of the study (Faculty
of Pharmacy, Srinakharinwirot University Ethics Committees, no.
005/M2016) and were free to withdraw at any time. Subjects did
not show any symptoms of upper respiratory infections. Evaluation
of consumers’ satisfaction was done by questionnaire (Koonlaboot
and Hongratanaworakit, 2015). The questionnaire was veried
by experts in terms of content validity, idioms, forms, and the
overall contents. The Internal Consistency Reliability was at an
acceptable level. The Cronbach’s Alpha Coefcient was 0.775.
The satisfaction of the products was evaluated in terms of ability
to spread on the skin, ability to penetrate the skin, skin hydration,
softness of the skin, greasy of the skin, oil on the skin, and overall
formulas satisfaction. The scores for ability to spread on the skin,
ability to penetrate the skin, skin hydration, and softness of the
skin were 1-least satisfaction to 5-most satisfaction. While the
scores for greasy of the skin and oil on the skin were 1-very, 2-t,
and 3-little. The score for satisfaction with overall formulas was
10 points. Select the good COF which consumers give the most
satisfaction to further develop the preparation in the next step.
Formulation of massage oil formulas
Carrier oils have low stability and low absorption
through the skin. Therefore, use of these oils in the product should
add an antioxidant to reduce rancidity and improve the stability
of the product. Synthetic triglycerides, i.e., isopropyl myristate,
isopropyl palmitate, and isopropyl laurate, were used to solve
the problem of rancid oils. These compounds had saturated
triglycerides, which had a good stability. In this study, we selected
isopropyl myristate because it had low viscosity, high spread
on the skin, good absorb, high dissolve into the carrier oil, and
odorless. In addition, vitamin E acetate used as an antioxidant in
the product. Isopropyl myristate was added into the massage oil
formulas and used in the range 10-30% by volume. Massage oils
were prepared in a volume ratio, as shown in Table 3. F1 prepared
as following: add 96 mL of COF2 into a light-resistant bottle.
Then add 4 mL of BEOP1 and 0.05 mL of vitamin acetate. After
that close tightly and shake well until homogeneous. Kept in a
cool place until use. Other massage oil formulas were prepared
in the same procedure as F1 but changing the amount and type of
the base oils.
Table 3: Massage oil formulas for relieving muscle pain.
Formulas (mL) BEOP1 Vit E COF2 COF3 IPM
F1 4 0.05 96 - -
F2 4 0.05 - 96 9.6
F3 4 0.05 86.4 - 9.6
F4 4 0.05 - 86.4 19.2
F5 4 0.05 76.8 - 19.2
F6 4 0.05 - 76.8 28.8
F7 4 0.05 67.2 - -
F8 4 0.05 - 67.2 28.8
Vit E = Vitamin E acetate, IPM = Isopropyl myristate, COF2 = carrier oil formula
2, COF3 = carrier oil formula 3, BEOP1 = blended essential oil preparation 1.
Preliminary physical stability evaluation
The products were evaluated the preliminary physical
stability in terms of color, smell, rancidity, viscosity, and
precipitate. The products were kept in closed containers and kept
at room temperature about 25-30oC for a period of eight weeks.
Physical characteristics were evaluated at 0, 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 weeks.
Safety test
Ten healthy volunteers took part in the safety test. They
were fully briefed, given written informed consent to all aspects
of the study (Faculty of Pharmacy, Srinakharinwirot University
Ethics Committees, no. 005/M2016) and were free to withdraw at
any time. A Kligman maximization method (Waggoner, 1990) was
used to evaluate skin irritation and skin sensitization. The subject’s
arm side was randomly selected. Then 0.1 mL of the product or
the control was applied to the inner forearm and covered with a
semi-occlusion patch (Tegaderm® tape) for 48 hours. After that,
the patch was removed. This procedure was repeatedly performed
in the next ten days. Clinical evaluation of skin irritation and
skin sensitization was done using the visual scoring scale of the
International Contact Dermatitis Research Group (ICDRG) as
follows: 0 = negative reaction; 1 = weak reaction; 2 = strong
reaction; 3 = extreme reaction. Whenever weak reaction was
found in subjects more than 10% of the subjects, the application
was discontinued.
Statistical analysis
The SPSS version 21 was used for statistical analysis.
The odor preference, odor acceptance, and satisfaction rating of
products were analyzed by using a non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis
test for comparison of all groups and using a non-parametric
Mann-Whitney test for comparison between two groups. A p-value
< 0.05 was considered statistically signicant.
Hongratanaworakit et al. / Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 8 (04); 2018: 126-130 129
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Odor preference test
Odor preference ratings for four BEOPs are presented
in Table 4. Consumers gave the most preference to BEOP1.
Comparison of the odor preference ratings of four BEOPs showed
signicant differences in all groups (p < 0.05). The odor preference
rating of the BEOP 1 was signicantly higher than that of BEOP 2,
3, and 4 (p < 0.001).
Table 4: Odor preference ratings for four BEOPs (n = 61).
Preparation
Odor preference ratings (frequency)
The most Very Moderate Least
BEOP 1 25 21 11 4
BEOP 2 10 12 22 17
BEOP 3 11 14 19 17
BEOP 4 15 14 9 23
Odor acceptance test
Odor acceptance scores for four BEOPs are presented in
Table 5. Comparison of the odor acceptance scores of four BEOPs
showed signicant differences in all groups (p < 0.05). The odor
acceptance rating of the BEOP 1 was signicantly higher than that
of BEOP 2, 3, and 4 (p < 0.001).
Table 5: Odor acceptance score for four BEOPs (n = 61).
Preparation Mean acceptance score ± SD
BEOP 1 6.64 ± 1.57
BEOP 2 5.41 ± 2.21
BEOP 3 5.80 ± 2.09
BEOP 4 5.39 ± 2.19
In conclusion, BEOP 1 is a preparation that consumers
have the most preference and the most acceptance, therefore, this
formula was selected to develop the preparation for the next step.
Evaluation of consumers’ satisfaction
Three carrier oil formulas (COFs) were evaluated
consumers’ satisfaction. Thirty consumers participated in the
study. The satisfaction of the COFs was evaluated by questionnaire
in terms of ability to spread on the skin, ability to penetrate the
skin, skin hydration, softness of the skin, greasy of the skin, oil on
the skin, and overall formulas satisfaction. The satisfaction ratings
for three COFs are presented in Table 6.
Table 6: The satisfaction ratings for three COFs.
Mean ± SD
COF1 COF2 COF3
Ability to spread on the skin* 3.50 ± 0.90 3.87 ± 0.82 3.80 ± 0.76
Ability to penetrate the skin* 2.77 ± 0.73 3.63 ± 0.93 3.67 ± 0.92
Skin hydration* 3.87 ± 0.57 4.03 ± 0.49 3.83 ± 0.65
Softness of the skin* 3.47 ± 0.57 3.67 ± 0.55 3.77 ± 0.73
Greasy of the skin** 1.30 ± 0.47 1.80 ± 0.55 2.07 ± 0.74
Oil on the skin** 1.13 ± 0.35 1.57 ± 0.63 1.90 ± 0.80
Overall formulas satisfaction*** 6.38 ± 1.54 7.53 ± 1.22 7.58 ± 1.74
*The scores: 1-least satisfaction to 5-most satisfaction, **the scores: 1-very 2-t
3-little, ***satisfaction with overall formulas score of 10 points.
The results showed that consumers gave an overall
satised with COF1 less than COF2, COF3, as shown in Table
6. The COF1 had the ability to spread on the skin, ability to
penetrate the skin, and softness of the skin less than the COF2
and COF3. The COF2 gave the highest skin hydration. Moreover,
COF1 made sticky and oily skin too much. Considering the
overall average satisfaction between COF2 and COF3 seems no
difference, therefore, the statistical analysis of data should be
done in order to choose the best formula, as shown in Table 7.
Comparison of the consumers’ satisfaction of three COFs showed
signicant differences in terms of ability to penetrate the skin
(p = 0.000), greasy on the skin (p = 0.000), oil on the skin (p =
0.000), and overall formulation satisfaction (p = 0.005). While no
signicant difference in terms of the ability to spread on the skin,
skin hydration, softness of the skin was found (p > 0.05).
Table 7: The statistical analysis of all COF groups for satisfaction ratings.
COF1-COF2-COF3
Chi-Square Asymp. Sig.
Ability to spread on the skin 3.053 0.217
Ability to penetrate the skin 17.456 0.000*
Skin hydration 2.245 0.325
Softness of the skin 3.969 0.137
Greasy of the skin 19.884 0.000*
Oil on the skin 18.239 0.000*
Overall formulas satisfaction 10.683 0.005*
*p < 0.05, n = 30.
Comparison of the consumers’ satisfaction between
COF groups was presented in Table 8. COF2 and COF3 had the
ability to penetrate the skin, greasy of the skin, oil on the skin, and
overall formulas satisfaction better than COF1 (p < 0.05). While
no signicant difference in terms of the ability to spread on the
skin, skin hydration, softness of the skin was found (p > 0.05).
However, consumers’ satisfaction with COF2 and COF3 showed
no signicant differences. In conclusion, we selected COF2 and
COF3 to develop the product in the next step.
Table 8: The statistical analysis between COF groups for satisfaction ratings.
Asymp.Sig
COF1/COF2 COF1/COF3 COF2/COF3
Ability to spread on the skin 0.110 0.179 0.717
Ability to penetrate the skin 0.000* 0.000* 0.797
Skin hydration 0.221 0.791 0.166
Softness of the skin 0.144 0.066 0.530
Greasy of the skin 0.001* 0.000* 0.132
Oil on the skin 0.002* 0.000* 0.105
Overall formulas satisfaction 0.005* 0.005* 0.612
*p < 0.05, n = 30
Preliminary physical stability evaluation
The developed massage oils were evaluated the
preliminary physical stability in terms of color, smell, rancidity,
viscosity, and a precipitate. Color, viscosity, precipitate of all
formulas were not changed for 8 weeks. While the smell of
Hongratanaworakit et al. / Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 8 (04); 2018: 126-130130
products had faded since the fourth week except for F1 and F6.
The rancidity of products increased since the seventh week except
for F1 and F6. Therefore, F1 and F6 were selected to test of
product safety in the next step.
Safety test
The skin irritation and skin sensitization of the
products were tested by using the Kligman maximization method
(Waggoner, 1990). The result showed that no skin irritation and
no skin sensitization were observed after volunteers applied F1
and F6 on the inner forearm for two weeks. Therefore, it could be
suggested that both F1 and F6 were safety.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, a massage oil formula which composed
of BEOP1 (rosemary, lavender, patchouli, eucalyptus, and
peppermint oils), vitamin E acetate, isopropyl myristate, and
carrier oils (sweet almond, grape seed, avocado, jojoba oils,
and macadamia oils) gave the best physical characteristics.
Moreover, developed massage oil remained stable for 8 weeks.
No skin irritation and no skin sensitization were observed after
volunteers applied to developed massage oil on the inner forearm
for two weeks. Therefore, it could be suggested that developed
massage oil was safety. These ndings indicate the possibility to
use massage oil formulas for an alternative product for relieving
muscle pain, but there should be further investigate the efcacy of
these products in patients to obtain the complete results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by grants from Srinakharinwirot
University (063/2016). The authors are grateful to the people who
participated in the study.
REFERENCES
Albert YL, Steven F. 1996. Encyclopedia of common natural
ingredient 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, United States.
Cooksley V. 1996. Aromatherapy: a lifetime guide to healing
with essential oils. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, United States.
Damain P, Damain K. 1995. Aromatherapy: scent and psyche:
using essential oils for physical and emotional well-being. Healing Arts
Press, Vermont, United States.
Gobel H, Schmid G, Soyka D. Effect of peppermint and
eucalyptus oil preparations on neurophysiological and experimental
algesimetric headache parameters. Cephalalgia. 1994; 14:228-234.
Golab M, Skwarlo-Sonta K. Mechanisms involved in the anti-
inammatory action of inhaled tea tree oil in mice. Exp Biol Med. 2007;
232:420-426.
Hajhashemi V, Ghannadi A, Jafarabadi H. Black cumin seed
essential oil, as a potent analgesic and anti-inammatory drug. Phytother
Res. 2004; 18:195-199.
Hong CZ, Shellock FG. Effects of a topically applied
counterirritant (Eucalyptamint) on cutaneous blood ow and on skin and
muscle temperatures. A placebo-controlled study. Am J Phys Med Rehab.
1991; 70:29-33.
Hudson CM. 1999. Aromatherapy massage. Dorling Kindersley
Limited, London, UK.
Juergens UR, Stober M, Vetter H. Inhibition of cytokine
production and arachidonic acid metabolism by eucalyptol (1,8-cineole) in
human blood monocytes in vitro. Eur J Med Res. 1998a; 3:508-510.
Juergens UR, Stober M, Schmidt-Schilling L, Kleuver T, Vetter
H. Anti-inammatory effects of eucalyptol (1,8-cineole) in bronchial asthma
inhibition of arachidonic acid metabolism in human blood monocytes ex
vivo. Eur J Med Res. 1998b; 3:407-412.
Koonlaboot M, Hongratanaworakit T. Muscle pain relief effect
and satisfaction of blended essential oil preparation. Srinakharinwirot
University Journal of Science and Technology. 2015; 7:50-64.
Larry CFL, Orth M, Ricky WK. Clinical effect of a topical
herbal ointment on pain in temporo-mandibular disorders: a randomized
placebo-controlled trial. J Altern Complement Med. 2009; 15:1311-1317.
Lawless J. 1999. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Essential Oils:
The Complete Guide to the Use of Oils in Aromatherapy and Herbalism.
Element Book Limited, Boston, United States.
Lis-Balchin M. 2006. Aromatherapy science: a guide for
healthcare professionals. Pharmaceutical Press, London, England.
Moon SY, Li-Chan CY. Changes in aroma characteristics of
stimulated beef avor by soy protein isolate assessed by descriptive sensory
analysis and gas chromatography. Food Res Int. 2007; 40:1239-1248.
Narishetty ST, Panchagnula R. Effect of L-menthol and
1,8-cineole on phase behavior and molecular organization of SC lipids and
skin permeation of zidovudine. J Control Release. 2005; 102:59-70.
Price S, Price L. 2003. Aromatherapy for Health Professionals,
2nd ed. Churchill Livingstone, New York, United States.
Romano TJ, Stiller JW. Usefulness of topical methyl salicylate,
camphor, and menthol lotion in relieving pain in bromyalgia syndrome
patients. AJPM. 1994; 4:172-174.
Rutledge DN, Jones CJ. Effects of topical essential oil on exercise
volume after a 12-week exercise program for women with bromyalgia: a
pilot study. J Altern Complement Med. 2007; 13:1099-1106.
Silva J, Abebe A, Sousa SM, Duarte VG, Machado MIL, Matos
FJA. Analgesic and anti-inammatory effects of essential oils of Eucalyptus.
J Ethnopharmaco. 2003; 89:277-283.
Tekeoglu I, Dogan A, Demiralp L. Effects of thymoquinone
(volatile oil of black cumin) on rheumatoid arthritis in rat models. Phytother
Res. 2006; 20:869-871.
Waggoner WC. 1990. Clinical safety and efcacy testing of
cosmetics. Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, United States.
Wildwood C. 2000. Aroma remedies. Collins & Brown Limited,
London, UK.
How to cite this article:
Hongratanaworakit T, Soontornmanokul S, Wongareesanti P.
Development of Aroma Massage Oil for Relieving Muscle Pain
and Satisfaction Evaluation in Humans. J App Pharm Sci, 2018;
8(04): 126-130.
