The main goal of this study is to investigate the impact of monetary policy (MP) on the risk-taking behavior of Bangladeshi banks. It also attempts to examine the role of Basel II in the association between MP and bank risk-taking pre- and post-2010. This study analyzes data from 33 commercial banks in Bangladesh over the 20 years from 2002 to 2021 and uses the two-step system generalized method of moments to address heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation issues. Unlike previous research, this study confirms the significant effect of Basel II on the relationship between MP and banks' risk-taking behavior. The main findings are first that a non-linear U-shaped relationship exists between MP and banks' risk-taking behavior, implying that when bank rate (BR) and cash reserve ratio (CRR) increase, bank credit risk first decreases, then later increases. Second, bank-level characteristics such as liquidity, regulatory capital, and size have a significant effect on risk, whereas bank age has an insignificant effect on risk-taking behavior. Third, MP and Basel II jointly influence risk-taking so that banks take higher risks before implementing Basel II. Overall, thisstudy offers significant practical implications for academics, researchers, and regulators interested in leveraging the findings.
Citation: Changjun Zheng, Md Abdul Mannan Khan, Mohammad Morshedur Rahman, Shahed Bin Sadeque, Rabiul Islam. The impact of monetary policy on banks' risk-taking behavior in an emerging economy: The role of Basel II[J]. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2023, 3(4): 427-451. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2023024
| [1] | Burcu Bozova, Muharrem Gölükcü, Haluk Tokgöz, Demet Yıldız Turgut, Orçun Çınar, Ertuğrul Turgutoglu, Angelo Maria Giuffrè . The physico-chemical characteristics of peel essential oils of sweet orange with respect to cultivars, harvesting times and isolation methods. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2025, 10(1): 40-57. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2025003 |
| [2] | Gregorio Gullo, Antonio Dattola, Vincenzo Vonella, Rocco Zappia . Performance of the Brasiliano 92 orange cultivar with six trifoliate rootstocks. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 203-215. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021013 |
| [3] | Gullo Gregorio, Dattola Antonio, Zappia Rocco . Comparative study of some fruit quality characteristics of two of Annona cherimola Mill. grown in southern Italy. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 658-671. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.658 |
| [4] | Nubia Amaya Olivas, Cindy Villalba Bejarano, Guillermo Ayala Soto, Miriam Zermeño Ortega, Fabiola Sandoval Salas, Esteban Sánchez Chávez, Leon Hernández Ochoa . Bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of essential oils of Origanum dictamnus from Mexico. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 387-394. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.387 |
| [5] | Cíntia Sorane Good Kitzberger, Maria Brígida dos Santos Scholz, Luiz Filipe Protasio Pereira, João Batista Gonçalves Dias da Silva, Marta de Toledo Benassi . Profile of the diterpenes, lipid and protein content of different coffee cultivars of three consecutive harvests. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(3): 254-264. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.3.254 |
| [6] | Celale Kirkin, Seher Melis Inbat, Daniel Nikolov, Sabah Yildirim . Effects of tarragon essential oil on some characteristics of frankfurter type sausages. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 244-250. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.244 |
| [7] | Salvatore D’Aquino, Daniela Satta, Luciano De Pau, Amedeo Palma . Effect of a cold quarantine treatment on physiological disorders and quality of cactus pear fruit. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 114-126. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.114 |
| [8] | Cíntia Sorane Good Kitzberger, Clandio Medeiros da Silva, Maria Brígida dos Santos Scholz, Maria Isabel Florentino Ferreira, Iohann Metzger Bauchrowitz, Jeferson Benedetti Eilert, José dos Santos Neto . Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of plums accesses (Prunus salicina). AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2017, 2(1): 101-112. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2017.1.101 |
| [9] | Shahindokht Bassiri-Jahromi, Aida Doostkam . Comparative evaluation of bioactive compounds of various cultivars of pomegranate (Punica granatum) in different world regions. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 41-55. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.41 |
| [10] | Tarik Ainane, Fatouma Mohamed Abdoul-Latif, Asmae Baghouz, Zineb El Montassir, Wissal Attahar, Ayoub Ainane, Angelo Maria Giuffrè . Essential oils rich in pulegone for insecticide purpose against legume bruchus species: Case of Ziziphora hispanica L. and Mentha pulegium L.. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(1): 105-118. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023005 |
The main goal of this study is to investigate the impact of monetary policy (MP) on the risk-taking behavior of Bangladeshi banks. It also attempts to examine the role of Basel II in the association between MP and bank risk-taking pre- and post-2010. This study analyzes data from 33 commercial banks in Bangladesh over the 20 years from 2002 to 2021 and uses the two-step system generalized method of moments to address heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation issues. Unlike previous research, this study confirms the significant effect of Basel II on the relationship between MP and banks' risk-taking behavior. The main findings are first that a non-linear U-shaped relationship exists between MP and banks' risk-taking behavior, implying that when bank rate (BR) and cash reserve ratio (CRR) increase, bank credit risk first decreases, then later increases. Second, bank-level characteristics such as liquidity, regulatory capital, and size have a significant effect on risk, whereas bank age has an insignificant effect on risk-taking behavior. Third, MP and Basel II jointly influence risk-taking so that banks take higher risks before implementing Basel II. Overall, thisstudy offers significant practical implications for academics, researchers, and regulators interested in leveraging the findings.
Essential oils are generally obtained from the leaves, fruits, bark, or roots of plants. These are natural products that are present in liquid form at room temperature, can easily crystallize, are usually colorless or light yellow in color, and have a strong and aromatic odor [1]. Essential oils consist of a complex mixture of fragrant and volatile components found in secondary plant metabolism. Most of the components found in their structures are terpenoids, monoterpenes, and sesquiterpenes [2,3,4]. Citrus oils have an important place among essential oils. It is reported that the global Citrus oil production is approximately 16,000 tons and the global price is approximately 14,000 USD/ton [5].
Although Turkey holds an important position in the production of citrus fruits, it generally relies on imports for Citrus peel oils. However, Turkey has the potential to produce these oils domestically. Citrus peel oils are among the most significant essential oils imported by Turkey. According to 2022 data, the total value of essential oil imports was 31,783,450 USD, with approximately 30% of this value consisting of citrus peel oils. When examining the total essential oil trade, excluding citrus fruits, the export value of 29,599,149 USD in 2022 surpasses the import value of 21,795,022 USD [6]. These data highlight the importance of domestic production of these products for the Turkish economy. Citrus essential oils are listed on the GRAS (Food Generally Recognized as Safe) list and are known for their broad-spectrum biological activities, including antimicrobial, antifungal, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anxiolytic [7,8,9,10]. Citrus peel oils can be obtained by hydrodistillation or cold pressing method [11,12,13] and are used in many areas such as cosmetics, perfumery, pharmaceutics, production of cleaning products [14,15,16,17], and the food industry [18,19,20,21].
The most important feature of citrus (orange, mandarin, bergamot, bitter orange) peel essential oils is their high limonene content, which varies widely from 36.54% to 96.10% [12]. Limonene is used on an industrial scale in many areas such as food, medicine, and cosmetics [22].
In Turkey, which has a major potential in terms of raw materials, the production of such products is significant for the country's economy. In addition, the utilization of citrus peels, which can be seen as waste, can also contribute to the development of the producer and processing industry. The quality of the obtained product will be determined by the Citrus cultivar, the harvesting time, and the processing method.
The four cultivars studied in this experiment are very popular and appreciated in Turkey. For this reason, there is great interest in the physico-chemical composition of different parts of the fruit and its derivatives. The techniques and varieties of lemon cultivation were selected based on previous experiments, hoping to obtain a product with a more valuable organoleptic composition. This study aimed to reveal the characteristics and essential oil composition of lemon peel oils obtained by two different methods in four different harvest periods for a total of four cultivars, which have an important place among Citrus fruits.
This research was carried out between 2021 and 2023 in the Aksu-central unit of the Batı Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute (Antalya, Turkey). Four lemon (Citrus limon, L) cultivars were used in the research. Each commercial cultivar was harvested in two production seasons (2021–2022 and 2022–2023) covering four different harvest periods (Table 1). The products were obtained from the Citrus parcels of the Kayaburnu unit of the Batı Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute. During the harvesting process, care was taken to take samples from four different components of each tree. The harvested fruit samples were brought to the Food Technology and Medicinal Plants Laboratory on the same day and analysis was started.
| Harvest | Batem Pınarı | Interdonato | Meyer | Ak Limon |
| 1 | 01 Sep 2021/2022 | 01 Sep 2021/2022 | 20 Oct 2021/2022 | 20 Feb 2022/2023 |
| 2 | 20 Sep 2021/2022 | 20 Sep 2021/2022 | 10 Nov 2021/2022 | 10 Mar 2022/2023 |
| 3 | 10 Oct 2021/2022 | 10 Oct 2021/2022 | 30 Nov 2021/2022 | 30 Mar 2022/2023 |
| 4 | 30 Oct 2021/2022 | 30 Oct 2021/2022 | 20 Dec 2021/2022 | 20 Apr 2022/2023 |
DownLoad:
CSV
First, fruit weight and peel ratio were analyzed. For this purpose, 10 fruits were used for each repetition, and each fruit and its peels were weighed to an accuracy of 0.01 g. Fruit weight and peel ratio were given by taking the average of all measurement values.
Essential oil production from fruit peels was carried out using two different methods. For the hydrodistillation process, the Clevenger apparatus was used, according to TS EN ISO 6571 [23]. For this, 200 mL of distilled water was added to 50 g of fresh fruit peel. The mix was homogenized (1 min, 25 ℃, 22,000 rpm) with a blender (Waring 8011ES, Model HGB2WTS3, USA) and then subjected to distillation using a Clevenger device (Isotex, Turkey) for 3 h. The amount of essential oils was given by the volume based on the weight of fresh fruit peel (mL/100 g, %). TS EN ISO 6571 Turkish Standard is identical to the relevant ISO standard.
The cold press method, which is also used in commercial production, was also used. The amount of essential oils was determined according to Kırbaslar et al. [24]. For this purpose, the flavedo part of the fruit peels, which is rich in essential oils, was grated and then subjected to manual pressing with a 10 cm diameter seven-hole kitchen-type hand press. The resulting water–essential oil (volatiles) mixture was then separated by centrifugation at 15,294 × g for 20 min at 20 ℃. The amount of essential oils was given by the volume based on the weight of fresh fruit peel (mL/100 g, %).
The essential oils obtained were analyzed for density, refractive index, optical rotation, and essential oil composition, which are among the basic quality analyses specified in the European Pharmacopoeia. Density analyzes of the samples were determined according to the Turkish Standards Institute method of determining the density of essential oils using a capillary tube TS ISO 279 [25]. Refractive index analyses were carried out according to TS ISO 280 [26]. Measurements were made at 20° using a digital refractometer (A. Krüss Optronic GmbH. DR6000). Optical rotation values were determined according to TS ISO 592 at 589.44 nm [27] using a polarimeter device (Optical Activity Ltd. PolAAR 31). TS ISO 279, TS ISO 280, and TS ISO 592 standards are identical to the relevant ISO standards and are used as the Turkish Standard.
The composition of essential oils (%) was determined by a gas chromatography (Agilent 7890A)-mass spectrometry (Agilent 5975C)-flame ionization detector (GC-MS/FID) device [28]. For this purpose, samples were diluted with hexane at a ratio of 1:50. Essential oil component analysis of the samples was performed using a capillary column (HP Innowax Capillary; 60.0 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 μm). Helium was used as the carrier gas at a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min. Samples were injected at 1 μL with a split ratio of 50:1. The injector temperature was set to 250 ℃. The column temperature program was set to 60 ℃ (10 min), 20 ℃/min from 60 to 250 ℃, and 250 ℃ (10.5 min). In line with this temperature program, the total analysis time was 60 min. For the mass detector, scanning range (m/z) 35–500 atomic mass units and electron bombardment ionization 70 eV were used. WILEY and OIL ADAMS libraries were used to identify the components of the essential oils. Relative retention indices (RRI) of the compounds were determined relative to the retention times of a series of C8–C40 n-alkanes (Sigma, USA). Relative ratio amounts (%) of the determined components were calculated from FID chromatograms without normalization.
The research was carried out with three replicates according to the randomized parcel trial design [29]. Analyses were carried out in two parallels and results were subjected to variance analysis (ANOVA) and Duncan multiple comparison test using the SAS package program. Results are given as mean ± standard error.
The average values of fruit weights, fruit peel ratios, and peel essential oil amounts of the four lemon cultivars are given in Table 2. It was observed that the fruit weights generally increased, partially depending on the harvest time. According to fruit weight, the most suitable harvest time for Meyer and Interdonato cultivars was the third and fourth harvest period, while the fourth harvest time for Batem Pınarı and the second harvest time for Ak Limon were found to be the most suitable. Among lemon varieties, Ak Limon differs significantly from other varieties with its high peel rate (30.13%). Depending on the harvest time, the peel ratios varied among the varieties and were distributed within a narrower range.
| Cultivar | Harvest | Fruit weight (g/fruit) |
Peel ratio (%) | Essential oil content (%) by CP | Essential oil content (%) by HD |
| Batem Pınarı | 1 | 103.13 ± 2.935 | 21.12 ± 0.770 | 0.21 ± 0.070 | 1.98c ± 0.195 |
| 2 | 119.53 ± 8.865 | 21.19 ± 1.910 | 0.24 ± 0.030 | 2.47b ± 0.186 | |
| 3 | 130.41 ± 1.845 | 18.33 ± 1.325 | 0.26 ± 0.075 | 1.99c ± 0.035 | |
| 4 | 170.12 ± 13.230 | 19.62 ± 0.385 | 0.24 ± 0.050 | 1.98c ± 0.144 | |
| Interdonato | 1 | 98.34 ± 2.940 | 19.43 ± 0.380 | 0.26 ± 0.030 | 2.60b ± 0.236 |
| 2 | 118.16 ± 10.365 | 19.56 ± 0.375 | 0.29 ± 0.000 | 2.72ab ± 0.142 | |
| 3 | 149.08 ± 23.175 | 18.22 ± 1.780 | 0.31 ± 0.005 | 3.12a ± 0.073 | |
| 4 | 148.95 ± 22.180 | 19.92 ± 0.080 | 0.18 ± 0.050 | 1.70cd ± 0.058 | |
| Meyer | 1 | 89.85 ± 10.075 | 19.71 ± 0.210 | 0.15 ± 0.005 | 1.23e ± 0.023 |
| 2 | 115.96 ± 18.100 | 19.30 ± 0.430 | 0.17 ± 0.040 | 1.71cd ± 0.131 | |
| 3 | 139.42 ± 7.385 | 20.28 ± 0.850 | 0.16 ± 0.030 | 1.48de ± 0.144 | |
| 4 | 139.96 ± 3.035 | 20.09 ± 0.920 | 0.18 ± 0.005 | 1.29de ± 0.131 | |
| Ak Limon | 1 | 108.29 ± 5.555 | 30.07 ± 2.400 | 0.32 ± 0.080 | 1.49de ± 0.038 |
| 2 | 149.69 ± 5.760 | 29.19 ± 2.855 | 0.28 ± 0.050 | 1.32de ± 0.116 | |
| 3 | 126.93 ± 6.505 | 31.77 ± 4.500 | 0.22 ± 0.075 | 1.21e ± 0.172 | |
| 4 | 137.57 ± 2.245 | 29.48 ± 1.915 | 0.24 ± 0.020 | 1.47de ± 0.181 | |
| F-value | 17.64 | ||||
| p-value | 0.0001 | ||||
| CV* | 13.03 | ||||
| Different letters in the same column indicate a difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. *Coefficient of variation. | |||||
DownLoad:
CSV
The essential oil amounts of the samples were obtained by two different methods, hydrodistillation and cold pressing, and the essential oil amounts were evaluated based on the values determined by the first method (Table 2). The effects of cultivar and harvest time and the interaction between variety and harvest time on the essential oil amount were statistically significant. The Interdonato cultivar had the highest amount of essential oils, followed by Batem Pınarı, Meyer, and Ak Limon varieties. The highest amount of essential oils was detected in the samples taken at the second harvest time. However, this differs depending on the cultivar. The highest essential oil content was detected in the Interdonato variety obtained in the third harvest period. Batem Pınarı and Meyer varieties had the highest essential oil content in the second harvest period, and Ak Limon in the fourth harvest period (Table 2).
Di Vaio et al. [30] found that the amount of essential oils in 18 lemon varieties ranged from 1.90% to 2.28%. Bourgou et al. [31] found that the amount of lemon peel essential oil varied (0.48%–1.30%) according to the harvest time. Vekiari et al. [32] also reported that the harvest time had a significant effect on the amount of lemon peel essential oils. Our research findings have shown a significant effect of cultivar and harvest time. Regarding the isolation method, the essential oil rate in the peels obtained by the hydrodistillation method was considerably higher (1.86%) than by the cold press method (0.23%). This was expected; Ferhat et al. [33] have shown that although there were differences depending on species and varieties, the yield obtained by cold pressing was significantly lower than by hydrodistillation. Mahato et al. [14] also reported that the hydrodistillation method is quite advantageous compared to the cold press method in terms of efficiency in the production of Citrus peel oil. In fact, as seen in the analyses, a significant amount of essential oils remains in the peel waste obtained from industrial cold press applications.
The density, refractive index, and optical activity values of essential oils obtained from lemon peels were also analyzed. ANOVA and Duncan test results for the four lemon varieties evaluated in the study, according to different harvest times and isolation methods, are given in Table 3 and Table 4. While the effect of the isolation method on the density values of lemon peel oils was statistically significant, the effect of cultivar, harvest time, and interactions was not. The density values ranged between 0.8341 and 0.8532 g/mL. Among the cultivars, the highest average density value was for Ak Limon (0.8471 g/mL) and the lowest was for Meyer (0.8423 g/mL). This difference between varieties may also be related to the chemical composition of the oils. There were some differences in the density values according to harvest times; however, these differences remained statistically insignificant. Density values showed the most significant difference according to isolation methods (Table 3 and Table 4). The density values of essential oils obtained by cold pressing were higher than those obtained by hydrodistillation. This may be due to the fact that oils obtained by cold pressing partially contain components with higher molecular weights, especially carotenoids and chlorophyll. In fact, Gonzalez-Mas et al. [34] reported that there are components such as flavonoids, coumarins, diterpenoids, sterols, and fatty acids in the non-volatile parts of citrus oils. The density value range for lemon peel oil obtained by cold pressing is reported as 0.850–0.858 g/mL in the European Pharmacopoeia [35] and 0.845–0.858 g/mL in ISO standards [36]. While the values obtained by cold pressing were compatible with the limit values, the density of the oils obtained by hydrodistillation was below these values. This may be due to the fact that the oils obtained by hydrodistillation consist only of volatile components.
| Density | Refractive index | Optical activity | ||||
| Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 2.54 | 0.0740 | 6.50 | 0.0015 | 118.55 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 0.74 | 0.5381 | 0.23 | 0.8751 | 0.65 | 0.5889 |
| İsolation method (IM) | 33.34 | 0.0001 | 389.30 | 0.0001 | 38.40 | 0.0001 |
| C × HT | 0.91 | 0.5259 | 1.00 | 0.4631 | 0.78 | 0.6379 |
| C × IM | 0.50 | 0.6833 | 3.14 | 0.0389 | 0.52 | 0.6700 |
| HT × IM | 0.83 | 0.4876 | 0.43 | 0.7350 | 0.21 | 0.8909 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.19 | 0.9932 | 0.45 | 0.8983 | 0.11 | 0.9991 |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.6627 | 0.0350 | 3.0184 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Batem Pınarı | Interdonato | Meyer | Ak Limon | |
| Density (g/mL) | 0.8455 ± 0.0016 | 0.8429 ± 0.0017 | 0.8423 ± 0.0015 | 0.8471 ± 0.0018 |
| Refractive index | 1.4747a ± 0.0004 | 1.4744a ± 0.0004 | 1.4747a ± 0.0003 | 1.4740b ± 0.0003 |
| Optical activity (°) | 72.24d ± 0.640 | 75.38c ± 0.714 | 82.59b ± 0.678 | 86.44a ± 0.764 |
| Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | |
| Density (g/mL) | 0.8427 ± 0.0020 | 0.8447 ± 0.0021 | 0.8449 ± 0.0013 | 0.8454 ± 0.0012 |
| Refractive index | 1.4745 ± 0.0004 | 1.4744 ± 0.0003 | 1.4745 ± 0.0003 | 1.4744 ± 0.0004 |
| Optical activity (°) | 79.52 ± 1.744 | 79.60 ± 1.699 | 78.96 ± 1.526 | 78.58 ± 1.457 |
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||
| Density (g/mL) | 0.8404b ± 0.0010 | 0.8485a ± 0.0009 | ||
| Refractive index | 1.4732b ± 0.0001 | 1.4757a ± 0.0001 | ||
| Optical activity (°) | 81.02a ± 1.025 | 77.31b ± 1.118 | ||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
The refractive index values of the samples showed partial differences among the varieties. The refractive index value of the Ak Limon variety was statistically significantly lower than the other three varieties. The effect of harvest time on the refractive index remained insignificant (p > 0.05). Essential oil isolation methods had a significant effect on the refractive index (p < 0.05); it was significantly higher for the cold pressing method than hydrodistillation (Table 4). This may be due to the differences in the components in the oil content. The refractive index value for lemon peel essential oils obtained by cold pressing is 1.473–1.476 according to the European Pharmacopoeia [35] and 1.473–1.479 according to ISO standards [36]. The refractive index values of the peel oils obtained by two different methods from four lemon cultivars in four different harvest periods were compatible with the reference values.
The optical activity values varied between 70.20° and 90.40° depending on the cultivar, harvest time, and isolation methods. The highest optical activity value was determined in Ak Limon, followed by Meyer, Interdonato, and Batem Pınarı cultivars. Regarding the harvest times, differences remained statistically insignificant. The optical activity of essential oils obtained by the hydrodistillation method was higher than those obtained by cold pressing. The optical activity of lemon peel essential oils, which is one of the most important quality criteria of essential oils, should range between +57° and +70° according to the European Pharmacopoeia when obtained by cold pressing [35] and between +66° and +78° for three different lemon types (obtained by cold-press) in ISO standards. In our study, the optical activity values for the Batem Pınarı and Interdonato varieties were compatible with these reference values, while the Meyer and Ak Limon varieties remained above these range values. This may be closely related to the composition of the peel oils. In fact, Ak Limon and Meyer varieties attract attention for their higher limonene content compared to the other two varieties.
Essential oil compositions of the four lemon varieties were determined by the chromatographic method in order to reveal detailed quality characteristics according to harvest time and isolation method. Essential oil compositions for the lemon varieties Batem Pınarı, Interdonato, Meyer, and Ak Limon are given in Tables 5, 6, 7, and 8, respectively.
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.3 |
| α-thujene | 1133 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 4.8 | 4.1 | 4.7 | 3.6 | 4.7 | 4.0 | 5.1 | 4.8 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| α-terpinene | 1187 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 76.0 | 76.2 | 76.4 | 77.5 | 77.3 | 76.9 | 76.5 | 76.7 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-ocimene | 1242 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 8.9 | 9.4 | 9.1 | 9.2 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - | - | - |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Bergamotene | 1553 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1595 | 0.2 | - | 0.2 | - | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-caryophyllene | 1596 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| α-humulene | 1661 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| α-terpineol | 1709 | - | - | - | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Neryl acetate | 1734 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Geranyl acetate | 1764 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Nerol | 1804 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geraniol | 1848 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | - | 0.3 | - | 0.3 | - |
| Unidentified | - | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
| α-thujene | 1133 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 3.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| α-terpinene | 1187 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 79.5 | 78.2 | 78.6 | 79.8 | 79.9 | 79.6 | 79.2 | 79.0 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-ocimene | 1242 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 8.3 | 9.0 | 8.6 | 8.5 | 8.3 | 8.6 | 8.3 | 8.6 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - | - | - |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Bergamotene | 1553 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1595 | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β- caryophyllene | 1596 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| α- Humulene | 1660 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Neryl acetate | 1734 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Geranyl acetate | 1764 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Nerol | 1804 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geraniol | 1848 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | - | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - |
| Unidentified | - | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.1 |
| α -thujene | 1133 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| α-terpinene | 1187 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 84.4 | 84.3 | 84.3 | 84.0 | 84.4 | 84.2 | 83.6 | 84.1 |
| 1, 8-cineole | 1222 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-ocimene | 1242 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 6.8 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 7.1 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 0.8 |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| p-cymenene | 1443 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Citronellal | 1481 | - | 0.1 | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Bergamotene | 1553 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-elemen | 1585 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1595 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-caryophyllene | 1596 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.1 | - | - |
| α-terpineol | 1709 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.13 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Neryl acetate | 1734 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Geranial | 1748 | - | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| Unidentified | - | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| α-thujene | 1133 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 89.0 | 88.7 | 88.8 | 88.6 | 89.0 | 89.0 | 88.8 | 87.6 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| p-cymenene | 1443 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Citronellal | 1481 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.3 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| α-bergamotene | 1553 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| β-caryophllene | 1596 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | - | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| α-terpineol | 1709 | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Germacrene D | 1726 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Citronellol | 1772 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
| Unidentified | - | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Among the lemon cultivars evaluated within the scope of the study, 25 different components of Batem Pınarı were identified. The main component of all essential oils in all analyzed cultivars was limonene, which has a monoterpene structure. Limonene content for this cultivar ranged between 76.0%–77.5%, depending on harvest time and isolation method. Batem Pınarı had the lowest average limonene content. It is known that limonene, which has different functional properties, is also determinant for the characteristic smell of Citrus fruits. Three other components that were proportionally higher in Batem Pınarı were γ-terpinene, β-pinene, and β-myrcene. Batem Pınarı (3.6%–5.1%) and Interdonato (2.7%–4.0%) varieties differed significantly from the other two regarding their high β-pinene content. There were some slight differences in the ratios of these components and other essential oil components depending on the harvest time and isolation method.
Proportionally, the second most important component in lemon peel oils was γ‑terpinene. After analyzing the ANOVA and Duncan multiple comparison test results, the γ‑terpinene ratio showed a significant variation regarding cultivars (Table 9, Table 10). Batem Pınarı was the standout cultivar with its γ-terpinene content of 9.3%. This was followed by Interdonato, Meyer, and Ak Limon cultivars. There was an inverse proportion between the rate of this component and limonene content. The effect of harvest time and isolation method on this component ratio remained limited.
| β-myrcene | Limonene | γ-terpinene | ||||
| Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 41.85 | 0.0001 | 739.79 | 0.0001 | 1079.53 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 2.33 | 0.0930 | 1.94 | 0.1435 | 0.65 | 0.5898 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 17.32 | 0.0002 | 0.15 | 0.7043 | 2.20 | 0.1474 |
| C × HT | 0.86 | 0.5673 | 0.51 | 0.8533 | 0.65 | 0.7499 |
| C × IM | 3.50 | 0.0264 | 0.57 | 0.6414 | 0.54 | 0.6560 |
| HT × IM | 3.96 | 0.0165 | 0.80 | 0.5028 | 0.13 | 0.9419 |
| C × HT × IM | 1.32 | 0.2665 | 0.68 | 0.7178 | 0.70 | 0.7042 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.7127 | 0.9533 | 4.9586 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | Batem Pınarı | Interdonato | Meyer | Ak Limon |
| β-myrcene | 1.8b ± 0.011 | 1.9a ± 0.012 | 1.9a ± 0.011 | 1.8b ± 0.006 |
| Limonene | 76.7d ± 0.204 | 79.2c ± 0.244 | 84.2b ± 0.109 | 88.7a ± 0.149 |
| γ-terpinene | 9.3a ± 0.080 | 8.5b ± 0.105 | 6.8c ± 0.054 | 3.0d ± 0.065 |
| Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | |
| β-myrcene | 1.9 ± 0.019 | 1.9 ± 0.016 | 1.9 ± 0.013 | 1.9 ± 0.012 |
| Limonene | 82.0 ± 1.281 | 82.3 ± 1.178 | 82.5 ± 1.189 | 81.9 ± 1.164 |
| γ-terpinene | 6.9 ± 0.649 | 6.9 ± 0.643 | 6.8 ± 0.634 | 6.9 ± 0.602 |
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||
| β-myrcene | 1.89a ± 0.011 | 1.86b ± 0.009 | ||
| Limonene | 82.2 ± 0.857 | 82.2 ± 0.819 | ||
| γ-terpinene | 6.8 ± 0.431 | 7.0 ± 0.449 | ||
| Different letters on the same line for each application indicate a difference between the averages at p < 0.05 level. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
There were some differences in other essential oil components of the cultivars, depending on the applications. Some other components found in proportionally high levels were α-pinene, β-pinene, and sabinene. Their proportions also varied depending on the cultivar, harvest time, and isolation method. Among these components, α-pinene showed a distribution in the range of 0.7–1.6; the highest was detected in the Batem Pınarı and the lowest in the Ak Limon variety. β-pinene was also detected at significant levels in lemon peel oils; it was highest in Batem Pınarı (3.63%–5.13%) and lowest in Ak Limon cultivars (0.3%–0.4%). Sabinen, which is proportionally important in lemon peel oils, was widely distributed from 0.1% to 1.0%. The lemon cultivars examined within the scope of this research were generally rich in terms of components. While 25 components were identified in Batem Pınarı and Meyer varieties, 24 components were identified in Interdonato, and 21 components were identified in Ak Limon. In addition to the components evaluated, some differences were observed in their proportions depending on the cultivar, harvest time, and isolation method. However, these were very low, especially in the essential oil composition depending on the isolation method.
Reference values for some component ratios have been specified in the European Pharmacopoeia. These components include limonene and γ-terpinene, with reference values of 56%–78% and 6%–12%, respectively [35]. In ISO standards, limonene and γ-terpinene limit values are reported to be 60%–80% and 6%–12%, respectively [36].
The statistical analysis of limonene, β-myrcene, and γ-terpinene components, which are proportionally higher in all samples according to cultivar, harvest time, and isolation method, are reported in Table 9 and Table 10. While the effect of variety and isolation method on the β-myrcene ratio of these components was significant, the effect of harvest time was not. Among the varieties, Meyer had the highest β-myrcene ratio, followed by Interdonato, Ak Limon, and Batem Pınarı cultivars. When the isolation methods were evaluated, the β‑myrcene ratio obtained by the hydrodistillation method was higher than that by cold pressing. Regarding harvest times, there were almost no differences in β-myrcene ratios. Limonene had the highest proportion in lemon peel oils, being the characteristic component of Citrus peel essential oils. While the effect of the cultivar on the limonene content was statistically significant, the effect of harvest time and isolation method was not (Tables 9 and 10). Limonene content significantly changed depending on the varieties; Ak Limon had the highest limonene content, followed by Meyer, Interdonato, and Batem Pınarı. No significant changes were detected in limonene, β-myrcene, and γ-terpinene ratios according to harvest time. According to the isolation method, the β-myrcene ratio was significantly higher in the essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation.
Benoudjit et al. [37] found that the major components of lemon peel essential oils obtained by cold pressing were limonene (64.75%), γ-terpinene (11.72%), and β-pinene (11.24%). Kırbaslar et al. [38] determined that peel oils from cold-pressed Turkish lemons (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f. contained high amounts of monoterpene hydrocarbons (89.9%), and its major components are limonene (61.8%), γ-terpinene (10.6%), and β-pinene (8.1%). Paw et al. [39] determined that the major components in the chemical composition of essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation from the peel of Citrus limon L. Burmf grown in North East India are limonene (55.40%) and neral (10.39%) compounds. Owolabi et al. [40] determined that limonene (85.9%), sabinene (3.9%), and myrcene (3.1%) were the dominant components in the essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation of Citrus lemon dry peels grown in Nigeria. Aboubi et al. [41] determined that the main components of essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation in three different regions of Morocco were limonene (48.56%–53.44%), β-pinene (17.78%–17.37%), and γ-terpinene (12.81%–12.33%). Dao et al. [42] determined that the major components in the chemical composition of the essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation of lemon peel were limonene (62.17%), γ-terpinene (12.35), and β-pinene (11.72). Gök et al. [43] extracted the peel of Cyprus lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.) by supercritical CO2 extraction (SFE), cold pressing (CP), and hydrodistillation (HD) methods. Limonene, γ-terpinene, and β-pinene were the major compounds in lemon extracts obtained by all three methods. Akarca and Sevik [44] determined the main components of Kütdiken lemon peel essential oil to be limonene (68.65%), γ-terpinene (10.81%), and β-pinene (7.74%). According to long-term data, it was reported that the limonene content of lemon peel oil was 59.57%–79.15% [45]. Brahmi et al. [10] analyzed lemon peel oils obtained by hydrodistillation and microwave-assisted hydrodistillation extraction methods; there were significant changes in the ratio of all components, including the main components limonene and γ-terpinene, depending on the extraction method.
These data show that Batem Pınarı and, partly, the Interdonato varieties comply with the standards. Meyer and Ak Limon varieties attract attention with their higher limonene content. The data show that there is a significant variation. It has been reported that many factors, such as genotype, origin, environment, extraction method, and degree of maturity, may be effective in this difference [5,13,46]. This reveals that the essential oils obtained by both methods may show similar functional properties. The data show that it would be useful to conduct studies depending on the intended use.
This research revealed that the lemon peel essential oil composition and some of its properties may vary depending on the cultivar, harvest time, and isolation method. When the essential oil amounts of the samples were evaluated, there were significant differences between cultivars—the Interdonato variety had the highest value. This also varied depending on the harvest time of the samples. The density, refractive index, and optical activity values of the analyzed essential oils showed significant differences depending on the variety and isolation method. Regarding the essential oil composition, the number of components detected and their ratio differed depending on the cultivar and harvest time. When a general evaluation was made, the differences in component ratios determined according to the isolation method remained statistically insignificant. The main component in all samples was limonene, ranging in proportion from 76.0% to 89.0%. The limonene content of Batem Pınarı and Interdonato varieties was generally consistent with the literature. On the other hand, the limonene content of Meyer and Ak Limon varieties differed from the literature and standard data (ISO, European Pharmacopeia). In particular, Ak Limon had higher limonene content than the other varieties and standard reference values. Therefore, Ak Limon may make a difference in terms of functional properties depending on the area of use. The findings obtained here show that there is a variation in lemon peel oils. Particular attention should be paid to cultivar selection and isolation methods, depending on the area of use.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
This study was prepared using the findings of the project no. TAGEM/TBAD/B/21/A7/P6/2370, supported by the General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies (TAGEM), Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Plant authority, E.T.; conceptualization, M.G.; methodology, M.G.; software, M.G. and A.M.G.; validation, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; formal analysis, B.B. and M.G.; investigation, M.G. and O.Ç., D.Y.T., H.T.; resources, B.B. and M.G.; data curation, B.B., M.G., O.Ç., D.Y.T., H.T., E.T. and A.M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G., B.B. O.Ç., D.Y.T., H.T., E.T.; writing—review and editing, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; visualization, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; supervision, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; project administration, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; funding acquisition, M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
| [1] |
Acharya VV, Imbierowicz B, Steffen S, et al. (2020) Does the lack of financial stability impair the transmission of monetary policy? J Financ Econ 138: 342–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.06.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.06.011
|
| [2] | Agur I, Demertzis M (2010) Monetary policy and excessive bank risk taking. 271. Available at SSRN http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1950167 |
| [3] |
Aiyar S, Calomiris CW, Hooley J, et al. (2014) The international transmission of bank capital requirements: Evidence from the UK. J Financ Econo 113: 368–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.003
|
| [4] |
Aiyar S, Calomiris CW, Wieladek T (2016) How does credit supply respond to monetary policy and bank minimum capital requirements? Eur Econ Rev 82: 142–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2014.05.003
|
| [5] |
Akhter N (2023) Determinants of commercial bank's non-performing loans in Bangladesh: An empirical evidence. Cogent Econ Financ 11: 2194128. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2023.2194128 doi: 10.1080/23322039.2023.2194128
|
| [6] |
Al‐Tamimi HAH (2008) Implementing Basel II: an investigation of the UAE banks' Basel II preparations. J Financ Regul Compl 16: 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1108/13581980810869814 doi: 10.1108/13581980810869814
|
| [7] |
Altavilla C, Canova F, Ciccarelli M (2020) Mending the broken link: Heterogeneous bank lending rates and monetary policy pass-through. J Monetary Econ 110: 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2019.01.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2019.01.001
|
| [8] |
Altunbas Y, Gambacorta L, Marques-Ibanez D (2012) Do bank characteristics influence the effect of monetary policy on bank risk? Econ Lett 117: 220–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.106 doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2012.04.106
|
| [9] |
Anani M, Owusu F (2023) Regulatory capital and bank risk-resilience amid the Covid-19 pandemic: How are the Basel reforms faring? Financ Res Lett 52: 103591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103591 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2022.103591
|
| [10] |
Anwar CJ, Suhendra I, Purwanda E, et al. (2023) Investigating the relationship between monetary policy, macro-prudential policy and credit risk in Indonesia banking industry. Heliyon 9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18229 doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18229
|
| [11] |
Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58: 277–297. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297968 doi: 10.2307/2297968
|
| [12] |
Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econometrics 68: 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-d doi: 10.1016/0304-4076(94)01642-d
|
| [13] |
Avery RB, Berger AN (1991) Risk-based capital and deposit insurance reform. J Bank Financ 15: 847–874. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(91)90103-s doi: 10.1016/0378-4266(91)90103-s
|
| [14] |
Bashir U, Yugang Y, Hussain M (2020) Role of bank heterogeneity and market structure in transmitting monetary policy via bank lending channel: empirical evidence from Chinese banking sector. Post-Communist Econ 32: 1038–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/14631377.2019.1705082 doi: 10.1080/14631377.2019.1705082
|
| [15] |
Bekaert G, Hoerova M, Duca ML (2013) Risk, uncertainty and monetary policy. J Monetary Econ 60: 771–788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2013.06.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jmoneco.2013.06.003
|
| [16] |
Berger AN, Bouwman CH (2017) Bank liquidity creation, monetary policy, and financial crises. J Financ Stabil 30: 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2017.05.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2017.05.001
|
| [17] | Bernanke BS (2000) Japanese monetary policy: a case of self-induced paralysis? Japan's financial crisis and its parallels to US experience, 149–166. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 18313611. |
| [18] | Blundell R, Bond S, Windmeijer F (2001) Estimation in dynamic panel data models: improving on the performance of the standard GMM estimator, 15. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2000.0012 |
| [19] | Blunden T (2005) Global consumer initiatives: will Basel II work? Consum Policy Rev 15: 229. |
| [20] | Bond SR, Hoeffler A, Temple JR (2001) GMM estimation of empirical growth models. Available at SSRN 290522. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.253866 |
| [21] |
Borio C, Zhu H (2012) Capital regulation, risk-taking and monetary policy: a missing link in the transmission mechanism? J Financ Stabil 8: 236–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2011.12.003 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2011.12.003
|
| [22] |
Brana S, Campmas A, Lapteacru I (2019) (Un) Conventional monetary policy and bank risk-taking: A nonlinear relationship. Econ Modell 81: 576–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.07.005 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.07.005
|
| [23] |
Bui DT, Nguyen CP, Su TD (2021) Asymmetric impacts of monetary policy and business cycles on bank risk-taking: evidence from Emerging Asian markets. J Econ Asymmetries 24: e00221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2021.e00221 doi: 10.1016/j.jeca.2021.e00221
|
| [24] |
Chami R, Cosimano TF (2010) Monetary policy with a touch of Basel. J Econ Bus 62: 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconbus.2009.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.jeconbus.2009.12.001
|
| [25] |
Chen M, Wu J, Jeon BN, et al. (2017) Monetary policy and bank risk-taking: Evidence from emerging economies. Emerg Mark Rev 31: 116–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ememar.2017.04.001 doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2017.04.001
|
| [26] |
Chen TY, Kao LJ (2014) Dividend changes and information about future profitability: an application of difference GMM. Applied Econ Lett 21: 505–508. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2013.870648 doi: 10.1080/13504851.2013.870648
|
| [27] | Čihák M, Schaeck K (2007) How well do aggregate bank ratios identify banking problems? International Monetary Fund Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.5089/9781451868388.001 |
| [28] |
Das Gupta A, Sarker N, Rifat Rahman M (2021) Relationship among cost of financial intermediation, risk, and efficiency: Empirical evidence from Bangladeshi commercial banks. Cogent Econ Financ 9: 1967575. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2021.1967575 doi: 10.1080/23322039.2021.1967575
|
| [29] |
de Moraes CO, de Mendonça HF (2019) Bank's risk measures and monetary policy: Evidence from a large emerging economy. N Am J Econ Financ 49: 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2019.04.002 doi: 10.1016/j.najef.2019.04.002
|
| [30] |
de Moraes CO, Montes GC, Antunes JAP (2016) How does capital regulation react to monetary policy? New evidence on the risk-taking channel. Econ Model 56: 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.03.025 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2016.03.025
|
| [31] |
Delis MD, Hasan I, Mylonidis N (2017) The risk‐taking channel of monetary policy in the US: Evidence from corporate loan data. J Money Credit Bank 49: 187–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12372 doi: 10.1111/jmcb.12372
|
| [32] |
Dell'Ariccia G, Laeven L, Suarez GA (2017) Bank leverage and monetary policy's risk‐taking channel: evidence from the United States. J Financ 72: 613–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.12467 doi: 10.1111/jofi.12467
|
| [33] |
Demsetz RS, Strahan PE (1997) Diversification, size, and risk at bank holding companies. J Money Credit Bank 300–313. https://doi.org/10.2307/2953695 doi: 10.2307/2953695
|
| [34] |
Djatche MJN (2019) Re-exploring the nexus between monetary policy and banks' risk-taking. Econ Model 82: 294–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.01.016 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2019.01.016
|
| [35] |
ElBannan MA (2015) Do consolidation and foreign ownership affect bank risk taking in an emerging economy? An empirical investigation. Manag Financ 41: 874–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-12-2013-0342 doi: 10.1108/mf-12-2013-0342
|
| [36] |
Fu B, Luo D (2021) Monetary policy uncertainty and bank leverage: Evidence from China. Econ Lett 203: 109866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109866 doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2021.109866
|
| [37] |
Furlong FT, Keeley MC (1989) Capital regulation and bank risk-taking: A note. J Bank Financ 13: 883–891. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4266(89)90008-3 doi: 10.1016/0378-4266(89)90008-3
|
| [38] |
Ge X, Liu Y, Zhuang J (2023) Monetary policy uncertainty, market structure and bank risk-taking: Evidence from China. Financ Res Lett 52: 103599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2022.103599 doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2022.103599
|
| [39] |
Geng Z, Zhai X (2013) Monetary policy instruments and bank risks in China. Int J Asian Bus Inf Manag (IJABIM) 4: 57–71. https://doi.org/10.4018/jabim.2013040105 doi: 10.4018/jabim.2013040105
|
| [40] | Gondwe S, Gwatidzo T, Mahonye N (2022) Bank regulation and risk-taking in sub-Sahara Africa. J Financ Regul Compl (ahead-of-print). https://doi.org/10.1108/jfrc-12-2021-0104 |
| [41] |
Gopalakrishnan B, Jacob J, Mohapatra S (2021) Risk-sensitive Basel regulations and firms' access to credit: Direct and indirect effects. J Bank Financ 126: 106101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106101 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2021.106101
|
| [42] | Gropp R, Heider F (2007) What can corporate finance say about banks' capital structures. Eur Central Bank Work Pap. Available from: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1096.pdf. |
| [43] |
Hakenes H, Schnabel I (2011) Bank size and risk-taking under Basel II. J Bank Financ 35: 1436–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.10.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2010.10.031
|
| [44] |
Haque F (2019) Ownership, regulation and bank risk-taking: evidence from the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Corp Gov-Int J Bus Soc 19: 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1108/cg-07-2017-0135 doi: 10.1108/cg-07-2017-0135
|
| [45] |
Haris M, Tan Y, Malik A, et al. (2020) A study on the impact of capitalization on the profitability of banks in emerging markets: A case of Pakistan. J Risk Financ Manag 13: 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13090217 doi: 10.3390/jrfm13090217
|
| [46] |
Hussain M, Bashir U, Bilal AR (2021) Effect of monetary policy on bank risk: does market structure matter? Int J Emerg Mark 16: 696–725. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-09-2019-0674 doi: 10.1108/ijoem-09-2019-0674
|
| [47] |
Jiang H, Yuan C (2022) Monetary policy, capital regulation and bank risk-taking: Evidence from China. J Asian Econ 82: 101512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101512 doi: 10.1016/j.asieco.2022.101512
|
| [48] |
Jung A (2023) Are monetary policy shocks causal to bank health? Evidence from the euro area. J Macroecon 75: 103494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2022.103494 doi: 10.1016/j.jmacro.2022.103494
|
| [49] |
Kabundi A, De Simone FN (2020) Monetary policy and systemic risk-taking in the euro area banking sector. Econ Model 91: 736–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2019.10.020 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2019.10.020
|
| [50] | Kennedy P (2008) A guide to econometrics. John Wiley & Sons. Available from: https://masonlec.org/site/rte_uploads/files/Econometrics%20Book%20-%20Intro, %20Ch%201%20and%202.pdf |
| [51] |
Khan HH, Ahmad RB, Gee CS (2016) Bank competition and monetary policy transmission through the bank lending channel: Evidence from ASEAN. Int Rev Econ Financ 44: 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2016.03.003 doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2016.03.003
|
| [52] |
Khan S (2022) The impact of capital structure on bank performance in emerging markets: Empirical evidence from GCC countries. Financ Int Q 18: 56–65. https://doi.org/10.2478/fiqf-2022-0005 doi: 10.2478/fiqf-2022-0005
|
| [53] |
Mahrous SN, Samak N, Abdelsalam MAM (2020) The effect of monetary policy on credit risk: evidence from the MENA region countries. Rev Econ Polit Sci 5: 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1108/reps-07-2019-0099 doi: 10.1108/reps-07-2019-0099
|
| [54] |
Malovaná S, Kolcunová D, Brož V (2019) Does monetary policy influence banks' risk weights under the internal ratings-based approach? Econ Syst 43: 100689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2018.10.003 doi: 10.1016/j.ecosys.2018.10.003
|
| [55] |
Mateev M, Moudud-Ul-Huq S, Nasr T (2021) Capital regulation and market competition in the MENA region: policy implications for banking sector stability during COVID-19 Pandemic. Glob Bus Rev 09721509211064442. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509211064442 doi: 10.1177/09721509211064442
|
| [56] |
Mateev M, Sahyouni A, Tariq MU (2023) Bank regulation, ownership and risk taking behavior in the MENA region: policy implications for banks in emerging economies. Rev Manag Sci 17: 287–338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-022-00529-5 doi: 10.1007/s11846-022-00529-5
|
| [57] |
Matthys T, Meuleman E, Vander Vennet R (2020) Unconventional monetary policy and bank risk taking. J Int Money Financ 109: 102233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2020.102233 doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2020.102233
|
| [58] |
Mohammed N, Ismail AG, Muhammad J (2015) Evidence on market concentration in Malaysian dual banking system. Procedia-Soc Behav Sci 172: 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.351 doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.351
|
| [59] |
Moudud-Ul-Huq S (2021) Does bank competition matter for performance and risk-taking? Empirical evidence from BRICS countries. Int J Emerg Mark 16: 409–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-03-2019-0197 doi: 10.1108/ijoem-03-2019-0197
|
| [60] |
Naceur SB, Marton K, Roulet C (2018) Basel III and bank-lending: Evidence from the United States and Europe. J Financ Stabil 39: 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2018.08.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2018.08.002
|
| [61] |
Naqvi H, Pungaliya R (2023) Bank size and the transmission of monetary policy: Revisiting the lending channel. J Bank Financ 146: 106688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2022.106688 doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2022.106688
|
| [62] |
Ngambou Djatche MJ (2022) Monetary policy, prudential policy and bank's risk‐taking: A literature review. J Econ Surv 36: 1559–1590. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12485 doi: 10.1111/joes.12485
|
| [63] |
Nguyen VHT, Boateng A (2015) An analysis of involuntary excess reserves, monetary policy and risk-taking behaviour of Chinese banks. Int Rev Financ Anal 37: 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2014.11.013 doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2014.11.013
|
| [64] |
Ogunmola GA, Chien F, Chau KY, et al. (2022) The Influence of Capital Requirement of Basel III Adoption on Banks' Operating Efficiency: Evidence from US Banks. J Cent Bank Theor Pr 11: 5–26. https://doi.org/10.2478/jcbtp-2022-0011 doi: 10.2478/jcbtp-2022-0011
|
| [65] |
Olivero MP, Li Y, Jeon BN (2011) Consolidation in banking and the lending channel of monetary transmission: Evidence from Asia and Latin America. J Int Money Financ 30: 1034–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2011.06.006 doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2011.06.006
|
| [66] |
Özşuca EA, Akbostancı E (2016) An empirical analysis of the risk-taking channel of monetary policy in Turkey. Emerg Mark Financ Trade 52: 589–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496x.2015.1047300 doi: 10.1080/1540496x.2015.1047300
|
| [67] |
Rahman MM, Hamid MK, Khan MAM (2015) Determinants of bank profitability: Empirical evidence from Bangladesh. Int J Bus Manag 10: 135. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v10n8p135 doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v10n8p135
|
| [68] | Ridwan R, Mayapada AG (2022) Does sharia governance influence corporate social responsibility disclosure in Indonesia Islamic banks? In (12: 299–318): Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1749819 |
| [69] |
Roy R, Bashar OH, Bhattacharya PS (2023) The cross-industry effects of monetary policy: New evidence from Bangladesh. Econ Model 106479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106479 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106479
|
| [70] |
Rubio M, Carrasco-Gallego JA (2016) The new financial regulation in Basel III and monetary policy: A macroprudential approach. J Financ Stabil 26: 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2016.07.012 doi: 10.1016/j.jfs.2016.07.012
|
| [71] |
Saif-Alyousfi AY, Saha A (2021) Determinants of banks' risk-taking behavior, stability and profitability: Evidence from GCC countries. Int J Islamic Middle 14: 874–907. https://doi.org/10.1108/imefm-03-2019-0129 doi: 10.1108/imefm-03-2019-0129
|
| [72] |
Sarkar S, Sensarma R (2019) Risk-taking channel of monetary policy: Evidence from Indian banking. Margin: J Appl Econ Res 13: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0973801018800088 doi: 10.1177/0973801018800088
|
| [73] |
Sarkar S, Sensarma R, Sharma D (2019) The relationship between risk, capital and efficiency in Indian banking: Does ownership matter? J Financ Econ Policy 11: 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfep-05-2018-0074 doi: 10.1108/jfep-05-2018-0074
|
| [74] |
Siddique A, Khan MA, Khan Z (2021) The effect of credit risk management and bank-specific factors on the financial performance of the South Asian commercial banks. Asian J Account Res 7: 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajar-08-2020-0071 doi: 10.1108/ajar-08-2020-0071
|
| [75] |
VanHoose DD (2008) Bank capital regulation, economic stability, and monetary policy: what does the academic literature tell us? Atlantic Econ J 36: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11293-007-9100-z doi: 10.1007/s11293-007-9100-z
|
| [76] |
Veeramoothoo S, Hammoudeh S (2022) Impact of Basel III liquidity regulations on US Bank performance in different conditional profitability spectrums. N Am J Econ Financ 63: 101826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2022.101826 doi: 10.1016/j.najef.2022.101826
|
| [77] |
Wu J, Yan Y, Chen M, et al. (2022) Monetary policy, economic uncertainty and bank risk: Cross-country evidence. J Int Money Financ 122: 102580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2021.102580 doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2021.102580
|
| [78] |
Zheng C, Moudud-Ul-Huq S, Rahman M, et al. (2017) The effects of ownership structure on banks' capital and risk-taking behavior: empirical evidence from developing country. Res Int Bus Financ 42: 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.035 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.035
|
| [79] |
Zheng C, Moudud-Ul-Huq S, Rahman MM, et al. (2017) Does the ownership structure matter for banks' capital regulation and risk-taking behavior? Empirical evidence from a developing country. Res Int Bus Financ 42: 404–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.035 doi: 10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.07.035
|
| [80] |
Zhou S, Tewari DD (2019) Shadow banking, risk-taking and monetary policy in emerging economies: A panel cointegration approach. Cogent Econ Financ 7: 1636508. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1636508 doi: 10.1080/23322039.2019.1636508
|
| [81] |
Zins A, Weill L (2017) Islamic banking and risk: The impact of Basel II. Econ Model 64: 626–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2017.05.001 doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2017.05.001
|
| 1. | Meriem Slama, Nabila Slougui, Dounia Ounnas, Akila Benaissa, Insaf Bataiche, Hydrodistillation Optimization for Borago officinalis L. Essential Oil and Its Chemical Composition Analysis, 2024, 1612-1872, 10.1002/cbdv.202402478 | |
| 2. | Wenling Sun, Yanhong Liu, Dengwen Lei, Lixuan Wei, Jiale Guo, Dynamic changes of drying behavior, physicochemical quality, and volatile oil of Exocarpium citri grandis under different drying temperatures, 2025, 90, 0022-1147, 10.1111/1750-3841.17654 | |
| 3. | Imen Lahmar, Ikbal Chaieb, Lyubov Yotova, Naceur El Ayeb, Influence of harvesting period on essential oil: composition, bioactivity of Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf and insecticidal activity against Tribolium castaneum (Herbst, 1797) in stored product, 2025, 2365-6433, 10.1007/s41207-025-00756-8 | |
| 4. | Birinchi Bora, Tao Yin, Bin Zhang, Can Okan Altan, Soottawat Benjakul, Comparison between Indian and commercial chamomile essential oils: Chemical compositions, antioxidant activities and preventive effect on oxidation of Asian seabass visceral depot fat oil, 2025, 25901575, 102292, 10.1016/j.fochx.2025.102292 | |
| 5. | Burcu Bozova, Muharrem Gölükcü, Haluk Tokgöz, Demet Yıldız Turgut, Orçun Çınar, Ertuğrul Turgutoglu, Angelo Maria Giuffrè, The physico-chemical characteristics of peel essential oils of sweet orange with respect to cultivars, harvesting times and isolation methods, 2025, 10, 2471-2086, 40, 10.3934/agrfood.2025003 |
Changjun Zheng, Md Abdul Mannan Khan, Mohammad Morshedur Rahman, Shahed Bin Sadeque, Rabiul Islam. The impact of monetary policy on banks' risk-taking behavior in an emerging economy: The role of Basel II[J]. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2023, 3(4): 427-451. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2023024
| Harvest | Batem Pınarı | Interdonato | Meyer | Ak Limon |
| 1 | 01 Sep 2021/2022 | 01 Sep 2021/2022 | 20 Oct 2021/2022 | 20 Feb 2022/2023 |
| 2 | 20 Sep 2021/2022 | 20 Sep 2021/2022 | 10 Nov 2021/2022 | 10 Mar 2022/2023 |
| 3 | 10 Oct 2021/2022 | 10 Oct 2021/2022 | 30 Nov 2021/2022 | 30 Mar 2022/2023 |
| 4 | 30 Oct 2021/2022 | 30 Oct 2021/2022 | 20 Dec 2021/2022 | 20 Apr 2022/2023 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Cultivar | Harvest | Fruit weight (g/fruit) |
Peel ratio (%) | Essential oil content (%) by CP | Essential oil content (%) by HD |
| Batem Pınarı | 1 | 103.13 ± 2.935 | 21.12 ± 0.770 | 0.21 ± 0.070 | 1.98c ± 0.195 |
| 2 | 119.53 ± 8.865 | 21.19 ± 1.910 | 0.24 ± 0.030 | 2.47b ± 0.186 | |
| 3 | 130.41 ± 1.845 | 18.33 ± 1.325 | 0.26 ± 0.075 | 1.99c ± 0.035 | |
| 4 | 170.12 ± 13.230 | 19.62 ± 0.385 | 0.24 ± 0.050 | 1.98c ± 0.144 | |
| Interdonato | 1 | 98.34 ± 2.940 | 19.43 ± 0.380 | 0.26 ± 0.030 | 2.60b ± 0.236 |
| 2 | 118.16 ± 10.365 | 19.56 ± 0.375 | 0.29 ± 0.000 | 2.72ab ± 0.142 | |
| 3 | 149.08 ± 23.175 | 18.22 ± 1.780 | 0.31 ± 0.005 | 3.12a ± 0.073 | |
| 4 | 148.95 ± 22.180 | 19.92 ± 0.080 | 0.18 ± 0.050 | 1.70cd ± 0.058 | |
| Meyer | 1 | 89.85 ± 10.075 | 19.71 ± 0.210 | 0.15 ± 0.005 | 1.23e ± 0.023 |
| 2 | 115.96 ± 18.100 | 19.30 ± 0.430 | 0.17 ± 0.040 | 1.71cd ± 0.131 | |
| 3 | 139.42 ± 7.385 | 20.28 ± 0.850 | 0.16 ± 0.030 | 1.48de ± 0.144 | |
| 4 | 139.96 ± 3.035 | 20.09 ± 0.920 | 0.18 ± 0.005 | 1.29de ± 0.131 | |
| Ak Limon | 1 | 108.29 ± 5.555 | 30.07 ± 2.400 | 0.32 ± 0.080 | 1.49de ± 0.038 |
| 2 | 149.69 ± 5.760 | 29.19 ± 2.855 | 0.28 ± 0.050 | 1.32de ± 0.116 | |
| 3 | 126.93 ± 6.505 | 31.77 ± 4.500 | 0.22 ± 0.075 | 1.21e ± 0.172 | |
| 4 | 137.57 ± 2.245 | 29.48 ± 1.915 | 0.24 ± 0.020 | 1.47de ± 0.181 | |
| F-value | 17.64 | ||||
| p-value | 0.0001 | ||||
| CV* | 13.03 | ||||
| Different letters in the same column indicate a difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. *Coefficient of variation. | |||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Density | Refractive index | Optical activity | ||||
| Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 2.54 | 0.0740 | 6.50 | 0.0015 | 118.55 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 0.74 | 0.5381 | 0.23 | 0.8751 | 0.65 | 0.5889 |
| İsolation method (IM) | 33.34 | 0.0001 | 389.30 | 0.0001 | 38.40 | 0.0001 |
| C × HT | 0.91 | 0.5259 | 1.00 | 0.4631 | 0.78 | 0.6379 |
| C × IM | 0.50 | 0.6833 | 3.14 | 0.0389 | 0.52 | 0.6700 |
| HT × IM | 0.83 | 0.4876 | 0.43 | 0.7350 | 0.21 | 0.8909 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.19 | 0.9932 | 0.45 | 0.8983 | 0.11 | 0.9991 |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.6627 | 0.0350 | 3.0184 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Batem Pınarı | Interdonato | Meyer | Ak Limon | |
| Density (g/mL) | 0.8455 ± 0.0016 | 0.8429 ± 0.0017 | 0.8423 ± 0.0015 | 0.8471 ± 0.0018 |
| Refractive index | 1.4747a ± 0.0004 | 1.4744a ± 0.0004 | 1.4747a ± 0.0003 | 1.4740b ± 0.0003 |
| Optical activity (°) | 72.24d ± 0.640 | 75.38c ± 0.714 | 82.59b ± 0.678 | 86.44a ± 0.764 |
| Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | |
| Density (g/mL) | 0.8427 ± 0.0020 | 0.8447 ± 0.0021 | 0.8449 ± 0.0013 | 0.8454 ± 0.0012 |
| Refractive index | 1.4745 ± 0.0004 | 1.4744 ± 0.0003 | 1.4745 ± 0.0003 | 1.4744 ± 0.0004 |
| Optical activity (°) | 79.52 ± 1.744 | 79.60 ± 1.699 | 78.96 ± 1.526 | 78.58 ± 1.457 |
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||
| Density (g/mL) | 0.8404b ± 0.0010 | 0.8485a ± 0.0009 | ||
| Refractive index | 1.4732b ± 0.0001 | 1.4757a ± 0.0001 | ||
| Optical activity (°) | 81.02a ± 1.025 | 77.31b ± 1.118 | ||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.3 |
| α-thujene | 1133 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 4.8 | 4.1 | 4.7 | 3.6 | 4.7 | 4.0 | 5.1 | 4.8 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| α-terpinene | 1187 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 76.0 | 76.2 | 76.4 | 77.5 | 77.3 | 76.9 | 76.5 | 76.7 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-ocimene | 1242 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 8.9 | 9.4 | 9.1 | 9.2 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - | - | - |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Bergamotene | 1553 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1595 | 0.2 | - | 0.2 | - | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-caryophyllene | 1596 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| α-humulene | 1661 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| α-terpineol | 1709 | - | - | - | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Neryl acetate | 1734 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Geranyl acetate | 1764 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Nerol | 1804 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geraniol | 1848 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | - | 0.3 | - | 0.3 | - |
| Unidentified | - | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
| α-thujene | 1133 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 3.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| α-terpinene | 1187 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 79.5 | 78.2 | 78.6 | 79.8 | 79.9 | 79.6 | 79.2 | 79.0 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-ocimene | 1242 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 8.3 | 9.0 | 8.6 | 8.5 | 8.3 | 8.6 | 8.3 | 8.6 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - | - | - |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Bergamotene | 1553 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1595 | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β- caryophyllene | 1596 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| α- Humulene | 1660 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Neryl acetate | 1734 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Geranyl acetate | 1764 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Nerol | 1804 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geraniol | 1848 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | - | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - |
| Unidentified | - | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.1 |
| α -thujene | 1133 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| α-terpinene | 1187 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 84.4 | 84.3 | 84.3 | 84.0 | 84.4 | 84.2 | 83.6 | 84.1 |
| 1, 8-cineole | 1222 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-ocimene | 1242 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 6.8 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 7.1 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 0.8 |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| p-cymenene | 1443 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Citronellal | 1481 | - | 0.1 | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Bergamotene | 1553 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-elemen | 1585 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1595 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-caryophyllene | 1596 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.1 | - | - |
| α-terpineol | 1709 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.13 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Neryl acetate | 1734 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Geranial | 1748 | - | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| Unidentified | - | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| α-thujene | 1133 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 89.0 | 88.7 | 88.8 | 88.6 | 89.0 | 89.0 | 88.8 | 87.6 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| p-cymenene | 1443 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Citronellal | 1481 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.3 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| α-bergamotene | 1553 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| β-caryophllene | 1596 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | - | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| α-terpineol | 1709 | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Germacrene D | 1726 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Citronellol | 1772 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
| Unidentified | - | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| β-myrcene | Limonene | γ-terpinene | ||||
| Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 41.85 | 0.0001 | 739.79 | 0.0001 | 1079.53 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 2.33 | 0.0930 | 1.94 | 0.1435 | 0.65 | 0.5898 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 17.32 | 0.0002 | 0.15 | 0.7043 | 2.20 | 0.1474 |
| C × HT | 0.86 | 0.5673 | 0.51 | 0.8533 | 0.65 | 0.7499 |
| C × IM | 3.50 | 0.0264 | 0.57 | 0.6414 | 0.54 | 0.6560 |
| HT × IM | 3.96 | 0.0165 | 0.80 | 0.5028 | 0.13 | 0.9419 |
| C × HT × IM | 1.32 | 0.2665 | 0.68 | 0.7178 | 0.70 | 0.7042 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.7127 | 0.9533 | 4.9586 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | Batem Pınarı | Interdonato | Meyer | Ak Limon |
| β-myrcene | 1.8b ± 0.011 | 1.9a ± 0.012 | 1.9a ± 0.011 | 1.8b ± 0.006 |
| Limonene | 76.7d ± 0.204 | 79.2c ± 0.244 | 84.2b ± 0.109 | 88.7a ± 0.149 |
| γ-terpinene | 9.3a ± 0.080 | 8.5b ± 0.105 | 6.8c ± 0.054 | 3.0d ± 0.065 |
| Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | |
| β-myrcene | 1.9 ± 0.019 | 1.9 ± 0.016 | 1.9 ± 0.013 | 1.9 ± 0.012 |
| Limonene | 82.0 ± 1.281 | 82.3 ± 1.178 | 82.5 ± 1.189 | 81.9 ± 1.164 |
| γ-terpinene | 6.9 ± 0.649 | 6.9 ± 0.643 | 6.8 ± 0.634 | 6.9 ± 0.602 |
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||
| β-myrcene | 1.89a ± 0.011 | 1.86b ± 0.009 | ||
| Limonene | 82.2 ± 0.857 | 82.2 ± 0.819 | ||
| γ-terpinene | 6.8 ± 0.431 | 7.0 ± 0.449 | ||
| Different letters on the same line for each application indicate a difference between the averages at p < 0.05 level. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Harvest | Batem Pınarı | Interdonato | Meyer | Ak Limon |
| 1 | 01 Sep 2021/2022 | 01 Sep 2021/2022 | 20 Oct 2021/2022 | 20 Feb 2022/2023 |
| 2 | 20 Sep 2021/2022 | 20 Sep 2021/2022 | 10 Nov 2021/2022 | 10 Mar 2022/2023 |
| 3 | 10 Oct 2021/2022 | 10 Oct 2021/2022 | 30 Nov 2021/2022 | 30 Mar 2022/2023 |
| 4 | 30 Oct 2021/2022 | 30 Oct 2021/2022 | 20 Dec 2021/2022 | 20 Apr 2022/2023 |
| Cultivar | Harvest | Fruit weight (g/fruit) |
Peel ratio (%) | Essential oil content (%) by CP | Essential oil content (%) by HD |
| Batem Pınarı | 1 | 103.13 ± 2.935 | 21.12 ± 0.770 | 0.21 ± 0.070 | 1.98c ± 0.195 |
| 2 | 119.53 ± 8.865 | 21.19 ± 1.910 | 0.24 ± 0.030 | 2.47b ± 0.186 | |
| 3 | 130.41 ± 1.845 | 18.33 ± 1.325 | 0.26 ± 0.075 | 1.99c ± 0.035 | |
| 4 | 170.12 ± 13.230 | 19.62 ± 0.385 | 0.24 ± 0.050 | 1.98c ± 0.144 | |
| Interdonato | 1 | 98.34 ± 2.940 | 19.43 ± 0.380 | 0.26 ± 0.030 | 2.60b ± 0.236 |
| 2 | 118.16 ± 10.365 | 19.56 ± 0.375 | 0.29 ± 0.000 | 2.72ab ± 0.142 | |
| 3 | 149.08 ± 23.175 | 18.22 ± 1.780 | 0.31 ± 0.005 | 3.12a ± 0.073 | |
| 4 | 148.95 ± 22.180 | 19.92 ± 0.080 | 0.18 ± 0.050 | 1.70cd ± 0.058 | |
| Meyer | 1 | 89.85 ± 10.075 | 19.71 ± 0.210 | 0.15 ± 0.005 | 1.23e ± 0.023 |
| 2 | 115.96 ± 18.100 | 19.30 ± 0.430 | 0.17 ± 0.040 | 1.71cd ± 0.131 | |
| 3 | 139.42 ± 7.385 | 20.28 ± 0.850 | 0.16 ± 0.030 | 1.48de ± 0.144 | |
| 4 | 139.96 ± 3.035 | 20.09 ± 0.920 | 0.18 ± 0.005 | 1.29de ± 0.131 | |
| Ak Limon | 1 | 108.29 ± 5.555 | 30.07 ± 2.400 | 0.32 ± 0.080 | 1.49de ± 0.038 |
| 2 | 149.69 ± 5.760 | 29.19 ± 2.855 | 0.28 ± 0.050 | 1.32de ± 0.116 | |
| 3 | 126.93 ± 6.505 | 31.77 ± 4.500 | 0.22 ± 0.075 | 1.21e ± 0.172 | |
| 4 | 137.57 ± 2.245 | 29.48 ± 1.915 | 0.24 ± 0.020 | 1.47de ± 0.181 | |
| F-value | 17.64 | ||||
| p-value | 0.0001 | ||||
| CV* | 13.03 | ||||
| Different letters in the same column indicate a difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. *Coefficient of variation. | |||||
| Density | Refractive index | Optical activity | ||||
| Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 2.54 | 0.0740 | 6.50 | 0.0015 | 118.55 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 0.74 | 0.5381 | 0.23 | 0.8751 | 0.65 | 0.5889 |
| İsolation method (IM) | 33.34 | 0.0001 | 389.30 | 0.0001 | 38.40 | 0.0001 |
| C × HT | 0.91 | 0.5259 | 1.00 | 0.4631 | 0.78 | 0.6379 |
| C × IM | 0.50 | 0.6833 | 3.14 | 0.0389 | 0.52 | 0.6700 |
| HT × IM | 0.83 | 0.4876 | 0.43 | 0.7350 | 0.21 | 0.8909 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.19 | 0.9932 | 0.45 | 0.8983 | 0.11 | 0.9991 |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.6627 | 0.0350 | 3.0184 | |||
| Batem Pınarı | Interdonato | Meyer | Ak Limon | |
| Density (g/mL) | 0.8455 ± 0.0016 | 0.8429 ± 0.0017 | 0.8423 ± 0.0015 | 0.8471 ± 0.0018 |
| Refractive index | 1.4747a ± 0.0004 | 1.4744a ± 0.0004 | 1.4747a ± 0.0003 | 1.4740b ± 0.0003 |
| Optical activity (°) | 72.24d ± 0.640 | 75.38c ± 0.714 | 82.59b ± 0.678 | 86.44a ± 0.764 |
| Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | |
| Density (g/mL) | 0.8427 ± 0.0020 | 0.8447 ± 0.0021 | 0.8449 ± 0.0013 | 0.8454 ± 0.0012 |
| Refractive index | 1.4745 ± 0.0004 | 1.4744 ± 0.0003 | 1.4745 ± 0.0003 | 1.4744 ± 0.0004 |
| Optical activity (°) | 79.52 ± 1.744 | 79.60 ± 1.699 | 78.96 ± 1.526 | 78.58 ± 1.457 |
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||
| Density (g/mL) | 0.8404b ± 0.0010 | 0.8485a ± 0.0009 | ||
| Refractive index | 1.4732b ± 0.0001 | 1.4757a ± 0.0001 | ||
| Optical activity (°) | 81.02a ± 1.025 | 77.31b ± 1.118 | ||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 1.3 |
| α-thujene | 1133 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 4.8 | 4.1 | 4.7 | 3.6 | 4.7 | 4.0 | 5.1 | 4.8 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| α-terpinene | 1187 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 76.0 | 76.2 | 76.4 | 77.5 | 77.3 | 76.9 | 76.5 | 76.7 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-ocimene | 1242 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 9.4 | 9.5 | 9.3 | 9.3 | 8.9 | 9.4 | 9.1 | 9.2 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - | - | - |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Bergamotene | 1553 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1595 | 0.2 | - | 0.2 | - | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-caryophyllene | 1596 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| α-humulene | 1661 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| α-terpineol | 1709 | - | - | - | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Neryl acetate | 1734 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.9 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Geranyl acetate | 1764 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Nerol | 1804 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geraniol | 1848 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | - | 0.3 | - | 0.3 | - |
| Unidentified | - | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.2 |
| α-thujene | 1133 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 3.2 | 3.3 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 4.0 | 3.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| α-terpinene | 1187 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 79.5 | 78.2 | 78.6 | 79.8 | 79.9 | 79.6 | 79.2 | 79.0 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-ocimene | 1242 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 8.3 | 9.0 | 8.6 | 8.5 | 8.3 | 8.6 | 8.3 | 8.6 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - | - | - |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Bergamotene | 1553 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1595 | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β- caryophyllene | 1596 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| α- Humulene | 1660 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Neryl acetate | 1734 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| Geranyl acetate | 1764 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Nerol | 1804 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geraniol | 1848 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | - | 0.1 | - | 0.2 | - |
| Unidentified | - | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 1.1 |
| α -thujene | 1133 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| α-terpinene | 1187 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 84.4 | 84.3 | 84.3 | 84.0 | 84.4 | 84.2 | 83.6 | 84.1 |
| 1, 8-cineole | 1222 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-ocimene | 1242 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 6.8 | 6.7 | 6.6 | 6.9 | 6.7 | 6.9 | 7.0 | 7.1 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 0.8 |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| p-cymenene | 1443 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Citronellal | 1481 | - | 0.1 | - | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Bergamotene | 1553 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-elemen | 1585 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1595 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-caryophyllene | 1596 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | 0.1 | - | - |
| α-terpineol | 1709 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.13 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Neryl acetate | 1734 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Geranial | 1748 | - | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| Unidentified | - | 0.8 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-pinene | 1030 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| α-thujene | 1133 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-pinene | 1122 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 |
| β-myrcene | 1170 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 1.8 | 1.8 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 89.0 | 88.7 | 88.8 | 88.6 | 89.0 | 89.0 | 88.8 | 87.6 |
| β-phellandrene | 1223 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| γ-terpinene | 1260 | 3.0 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| p-cymene | 1285 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Terpinolene | 1298 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| p-cymenene | 1443 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Citronellal | 1481 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 1.3 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| α-bergamotene | 1553 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| β-caryophllene | 1596 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | - | - | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| (E)-β-farnesene | 1663 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| α-terpineol | 1709 | 0.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Germacrene D | 1726 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| β-bisabolene | 1746 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Citronellol | 1772 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
| Unidentified | - | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| β-myrcene | Limonene | γ-terpinene | ||||
| Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | Statistic F | p-value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 41.85 | 0.0001 | 739.79 | 0.0001 | 1079.53 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 2.33 | 0.0930 | 1.94 | 0.1435 | 0.65 | 0.5898 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 17.32 | 0.0002 | 0.15 | 0.7043 | 2.20 | 0.1474 |
| C × HT | 0.86 | 0.5673 | 0.51 | 0.8533 | 0.65 | 0.7499 |
| C × IM | 3.50 | 0.0264 | 0.57 | 0.6414 | 0.54 | 0.6560 |
| HT × IM | 3.96 | 0.0165 | 0.80 | 0.5028 | 0.13 | 0.9419 |
| C × HT × IM | 1.32 | 0.2665 | 0.68 | 0.7178 | 0.70 | 0.7042 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.7127 | 0.9533 | 4.9586 | |||
| Compound | Batem Pınarı | Interdonato | Meyer | Ak Limon |
| β-myrcene | 1.8b ± 0.011 | 1.9a ± 0.012 | 1.9a ± 0.011 | 1.8b ± 0.006 |
| Limonene | 76.7d ± 0.204 | 79.2c ± 0.244 | 84.2b ± 0.109 | 88.7a ± 0.149 |
| γ-terpinene | 9.3a ± 0.080 | 8.5b ± 0.105 | 6.8c ± 0.054 | 3.0d ± 0.065 |
| Harvest 1 | Harvest 2 | Harvest 3 | Harvest 4 | |
| β-myrcene | 1.9 ± 0.019 | 1.9 ± 0.016 | 1.9 ± 0.013 | 1.9 ± 0.012 |
| Limonene | 82.0 ± 1.281 | 82.3 ± 1.178 | 82.5 ± 1.189 | 81.9 ± 1.164 |
| γ-terpinene | 6.9 ± 0.649 | 6.9 ± 0.643 | 6.8 ± 0.634 | 6.9 ± 0.602 |
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||
| β-myrcene | 1.89a ± 0.011 | 1.86b ± 0.009 | ||
| Limonene | 82.2 ± 0.857 | 82.2 ± 0.819 | ||
| γ-terpinene | 6.8 ± 0.431 | 7.0 ± 0.449 | ||
| Different letters on the same line for each application indicate a difference between the averages at p < 0.05 level. | ||||
