Food security is relevant due to the uncertain availability of healthy food. Accordingly, it is necessary to know the biological potential of new crops as a food source to meet the basic nutritional needs of a growing population. This study aimed to analyze chemical extractions of the cultivated species Suaeda edulis and its wild relative S. esteroa to determine their biological and nutritional value. For analysis, we collected 25 plants of S. edulis in the chinampas-producing area of Xochimilco, Mexico City, and 25 plants of S. esteroa in Balandra beach, Baja California Sur, Mexico. We quantified total phenols, total flavonoids, and the total antioxidant capacity of free and conjugated fractions by Folin-Ciocalteu, aluminum trichloride, DPPH, and TEAC spectrophotometric methods. S. esteroa reflected a higher content of total phenols, total flavonoids, and total antioxidant capacity (free and conjugated) than the values of S. edulis. We determined 39.94 and 49.64% higher values of total phenol content in S. esteroa than S. edulis, 36 and 40.33% in total flavonoid content, 32.92 and 40.50% in total antioxidant capacity by DPPH, and 34.45 and 48.91% by TEAC for free and conjugated fractions, respectively. We identified 11 phenolic compounds in both halophytes; among them, the free form ferulic acid, gallic acid, and rutin showed high concentrations in S. edulis, whereas quercetin and ferulic acid were more abundant in S. esteroa. The conjugated fraction showed lower concentrations than the free fraction. In conclusion, we found a high biologically active potential of the halophytes studied; this could boost their consumption, which in turn would offer S. edulis and S. esteroa as new sustainable crops to help address food shortages in regions with water scarcity or soil salinity, as well as to counteract chronic degenerative diseases associated with obesity.
Citation: Francyelli Regina Costa-Becheleni, Enrique Troyo-Diéguez, Alan Amado Ruiz-Hernández, Fernando Ayala-Niño, Luis Alejandro Bustamante-Salazar, Alfonso Medel-Narváez, Raúl Octavio Martínez-Rincón, Rosario Maribel Robles-Sánchez. Determination of bioactive compounds and antioxidant capacity of the halophytes Suaeda edulis and Suaeda esteroa (Chenopodiaceae): An option as novel healthy agro-foods[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(3): 716-742. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024039
| [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 |
Food security is relevant due to the uncertain availability of healthy food. Accordingly, it is necessary to know the biological potential of new crops as a food source to meet the basic nutritional needs of a growing population. This study aimed to analyze chemical extractions of the cultivated species Suaeda edulis and its wild relative S. esteroa to determine their biological and nutritional value. For analysis, we collected 25 plants of S. edulis in the chinampas-producing area of Xochimilco, Mexico City, and 25 plants of S. esteroa in Balandra beach, Baja California Sur, Mexico. We quantified total phenols, total flavonoids, and the total antioxidant capacity of free and conjugated fractions by Folin-Ciocalteu, aluminum trichloride, DPPH, and TEAC spectrophotometric methods. S. esteroa reflected a higher content of total phenols, total flavonoids, and total antioxidant capacity (free and conjugated) than the values of S. edulis. We determined 39.94 and 49.64% higher values of total phenol content in S. esteroa than S. edulis, 36 and 40.33% in total flavonoid content, 32.92 and 40.50% in total antioxidant capacity by DPPH, and 34.45 and 48.91% by TEAC for free and conjugated fractions, respectively. We identified 11 phenolic compounds in both halophytes; among them, the free form ferulic acid, gallic acid, and rutin showed high concentrations in S. edulis, whereas quercetin and ferulic acid were more abundant in S. esteroa. The conjugated fraction showed lower concentrations than the free fraction. In conclusion, we found a high biologically active potential of the halophytes studied; this could boost their consumption, which in turn would offer S. edulis and S. esteroa as new sustainable crops to help address food shortages in regions with water scarcity or soil salinity, as well as to counteract chronic degenerative diseases associated with obesity.
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] | WHO (World Health Organization) (2024) Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/obesity#tab = tab_2. |
| [2] |
Čolak E, Pap D (2021) The role of oxidative stress in the development of obesity and obesity-related metabolic disorders. J Med Biochem 40: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5937/jomb0-24652 doi: 10.5937/jomb0-24652
|
| [3] |
Mahmoud AM (2022) An overview of epigenetics in obesity: The role of lifestyle and therapeutic interventions. J Mol Sci 23: 1341. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23031341 doi: 10.3390/ijms23031341
|
| [4] | Ylli D, Sidhu S, Parikh T, et al. (2022) Endocrine changes in obesity. Endotext[Internet]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK279053/. |
| [5] |
Lee CJ, Sears CL, Maruthur N (2020) Gut microbiome and its role in obesity and insulin resistance. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1461: 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14107 doi: 10.1111/nyas.14107
|
| [6] |
Aziz T, Hussain N, Hameed Z, et al. (2024) Elucidating the role of diet in maintaining gut health to reduce the risk of obesity, cardiovascular and other age-related inflammatory diseases: recent challenges and future recommendations. Gut Microbes 16: 2297864. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2023.2297864 doi: 10.1080/19490976.2023.2297864
|
| [7] |
Alruwaili H, Dehestani B, le Roux CW (2021) Clinical impact of liraglutide as a treatment of obesity. Clin Pharmacol: Adv and Appl 13: 53–60. https://doi.org/10.2147/CPAA.S276085 doi: 10.2147/CPAA.S276085
|
| [8] |
Huang PF, Wang QY, Chen RB, et al. (2024) A new strategy for obesity treatment: Revealing the frontiers of anti-obesity medications. Curr Mol Med 2024: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2174/0115665240270426231123155924 doi: 10.2174/0115665240270426231123155924
|
| [9] |
Ray A, Stelloh C, Liu Y, et al. (2024) Histone modifications and their contributions to hypertension. Hypertens 81: 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.123.21755 doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.123.21755
|
| [10] |
Rathod P, Yadav RP (2024) Gut microbiome as therapeutic target for diabesity management: Opportunity for nanonutraceuticals and associated challenges. Drug Delv Transl Res 14: 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13346-023-01404-w doi: 10.1007/s13346-023-01404-w
|
| [11] |
Ayed K, Nabi L, Akrout R, et al. (2023) Obesity and cancer: focus on leptin. Mol Biol Rep 50: 6177–6189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-023-08525-y11 doi: 10.1007/s11033-023-08525-y11
|
| [12] |
Kumar N, Goel N (2019) Phenolic acids: Natural versatile molecules with promising therapeutic applications. Biotechnol Rep 24: e00370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00370 doi: 10.1016/j.btre.2019.e00370
|
| [13] |
Rudrapal M, Khairnar SJ, Khan J, et al. (2022) Dietary polyphenols and their role in oxidative stress-induced human diseases: Insights into protective effects, antioxidant potentials and mechanism (s) of action. Front Pharmacol 13: 283. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.806470 doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.806470
|
| [14] |
Rodríguez-Pérez C, Segura-Carretero A, del Mar Contreras M (2019) Phenolic compounds as natural and multifunctional anti-obesity agents: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 59: 1212–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.1399859 doi: 10.1080/10408398.2017.1399859
|
| [15] | Bento C, Gonç alves AC, Jesus F, et al. (2017) Chapter 6—Phenolic compounds: Sources, properties, and applications. In: Porter R, Parker N (Eds.), Bioactive Compounds, 271–299. |
| [16] |
Gaur G, Gä nzle MG (2023) Conversion of (poly) phenolic compounds in food fermentations by lactic acid bacteria: Novel insights into metabolic pathways and functional metabolites. Curr Res Food Sci 6: 100448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crfs.2023.100448 doi: 10.1016/j.crfs.2023.100448
|
| [17] |
Dantas SBS, Moraes GKA, Araujo AR, et al. (2023) Phenolic compounds and bioactive extract produced by endophytic fungus Coriolopsis rigida. Nat Prod Res 37: 2037–2042. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2022.2115492 doi: 10.1080/14786419.2022.2115492
|
| [18] |
Cecchi L, Ghizzani G, Bellumori M, et al. (2023) Virgin olive oil by-product valorization: An insight into the phenolic composition of olive seed extracts from three cultivars as sources of bioactive. Molecules 28: 2776. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28062776 doi: 10.3390/molecules28062776
|
| [19] |
Baccouri B, Mechi D, Rajhi I, et al. (2023) Tunisian wild olive leaves: Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity as an important step toward their valorization. Food Anal Meth 16: 436–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12161-022-02430-z doi: 10.1007/s12161-022-02430-z
|
| [20] | Lozoya-Pérez NE, Orona-Tamayo D, Paredes-Molina DM, et al. (2024) Chapter 28—Microalgae: A potential opportunity for proteins and bioactive compounds destined for food and health industry. In: Nadathur S, Wanasundara JPD, Scanlin L (Eds.), Sustainable Protein Sources (Second Edition), Advances for a Healthier Tomorrow, Academic Press, 581–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91652-3.00018-6 |
| [21] |
Ruiz Hernández AA, Rouzaud Sández O, Frías J, et al. (2022) Optimization of the duration and intensity of UV-A radiation to obtain the highest free phenol content and antioxidant activity in sprouted sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Plants Food Hum Nutr 77: 317–318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11130-021-00938-z doi: 10.1007/s11130-021-00938-z
|
| [22] |
Ma D, Wang C, Feng J, et al. (2021) Wheat grain phenolics: A review on composition, bioactivity, and influencing factors. J Sci Food Agric 101: 6167–6185. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.11428 doi: 10.1002/jsfa.11428
|
| [23] |
Klimek-Szczykutowicz M, Prokopiuk B, Dziurka K, et al. (2022) The influence of different wavelengths of LED light on the production of glucosinolates and phenolic compounds and the antioxidant potential in in vitro cultures of Nasturtium officinale (watercress). PCTOC 149: 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-021-02148-6 doi: 10.1007/s11240-021-02148-6
|
| [24] |
Hassan MA, Xu T, Tian Y, et al. (2021) Health benefits and phenolic compounds of Moringa oleifera leaves: A comprehensive review. Phytomedicine 93: 153771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2021.153771 doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2021.153771
|
| [25] | Flowers TJ, Hajibagheri MA, Clipson NJW (1986) Halophytes. Q Rev Biol 61: 313–337. Available from: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/415032. |
| [26] | Flowers TJ, Colmer TD (2008) Salinity tolerance in halophytes. New Phytol 179: 945–963. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25150520. |
| [27] |
Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59: 651–681. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911 doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911
|
| [28] |
Lopes M, Sanches-Silva A, Castilho M (2023) Halophytes as source of bioactive phenolic compounds and their potential applications. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 63: 1078–1101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1959295 doi: 10.1080/10408398.2021.1959295
|
| [29] |
Bose J, Rodrigo-Moreno A, Shabala S (2014) ROS homeostasis in halophytes in the context of salinity stress tolerance. J. Exp. Bot 65: 1241–1257. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert430 doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert430
|
| [30] | Tanveer M, Ahmed HAI (2020) ROS signaling in modulating salinity stress tolerance in plants. In: Hasanuzzaman M, Tanveer M (Eds.), Salt and Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants. Signaling and communication in plants, Springer, Cham, 229–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40277-8_11 |
| [31] |
Hameed A, Ahmed MZ, Hussain T, et al. (2021) Effects of salinity stress on chloroplast structure and function. Cells 10: 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10082023 doi: 10.3390/cells10082023
|
| [32] |
Hamed KB, Ellouzi H, Talbi OZ, et al. (2013) Physiological response of halophytes to multiple stresses. Funct Plant Biol 40: 883–896. https://doi.org/10.1071/FP13074 doi: 10.1071/FP13074
|
| [33] |
Hasanuzzaman M, Raihan MRH, Masud AAC, et al. (2021) Regulation of reactive oxygen species and antioxidant defense in plants under salinity. Int J Mol Sci 22: 9326. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22179326 doi: 10.3390/ijms22179326
|
| [34] | Kumar S, Abedin MM, Singh AK, et al. (2020) Role of phenolic compounds in plant-defensive mechanisms. In: Lone R, Shuab R, Kamili A (Eds.), Plant Phenolics Sustainable Agriculture, Springer, Singapore, 1: 517–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4890-1_22 |
| [35] |
Baysal I, Ekizoglu M, Ertas A, et al. (2021) Identification of phenolic compounds by LC-MS/MS and evaluation of bioactive properties of two edible halophytes: Limonium effusum and L. sinuatum. Molecules 26: 4040. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26134040 doi: 10.3390/molecules26134040
|
| [36] |
Pungin A, Lartseva L, Loskutnikova V, et al. (2023) Effect of salinity stress on phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity in halophytes Spergularia marina (L.) Griseb. and Glaux maritima L. cultured in vitro. Plants 12: 1905. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12091905 doi: 10.3390/plants12091905
|
| [37] |
Custodio L, Garcia-Caparros P, Pereira CG, et al. (2022) Halophyte plants as potential sources of anticancer agents: A comprehensive review. Pharmaceutics 14: 2406. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics14112406 doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14112406
|
| [38] |
Pereira CG, Locatelli M, Innosa D, et al. (2019) Unravelling the potential of the medicinal halophyte Eryngium maritimum L.: In vitro inhibition of diabetes-related enzymes, antioxidant potential, polyphenolic profile and mineral composition. S African J Bot 120: 204–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2018.06.013 doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2018.06.013
|
| [39] |
Cho JY, Park KH, Hwang DY, et al. (2015) Antihypertensive effects of Artemisia scoparia Waldst in spontaneously hypertensive rats and identification of angiotensin I converting enzyme inhibitors. Molecules 20: 19789–19804. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules201119657 doi: 10.3390/molecules201119657
|
| [40] | García E (1988) Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación climática de Kö ppen. Instituto de Geografía, UNAM, México, D.F. |
| [41] |
González Carmona E, Torres Valladares CI (2014) La sustentabilidad agrícola de las chinampas en el valle de México: caso Xochimilco. Rev Mex de Agron 34: 698–709. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.173283 doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.173283
|
| [42] | Troyo Diéguez E, Mercado Mancera G, Cruz Falcón A, et al. (2014) Análisis de la sequía y desertificación mediante índices de aridez y estimación de la brecha hídrica en Baja California Sur, noroeste de México. Invest Geogr 85: 66–81. https://doi.org/10.14350/rig.32404 |
| [43] | Guevara Olivar BK, Ortega Escobar HM, Ríos Gómez R, et al. (2015) Morfología y geoquímica de suelos de Xochimilco. Terra Latinoamericana 33: 263–273. Available from: http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script = sci_arttext & pid = S0187-57792015000400263. |
| [44] | Ferren Jr WR, Whitmore SA (1983) Suaeda esteroa (Chenopodiaceae), a new species from estuaries of Southern California and Baja California. J Calif Bot Soc Madroño 30: 181–190. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41424425. |
| [45] |
Salazar-Lopez NJ, Loarca-Piña G, Campos-Vega R, et al. (2016) The extrusion process as an alternative for improving the biological potential of sorghum bran: phenolic compounds and antiradical and anti-inflammatory capacity. Evidence-Based Complementary Altern Med 2016: 8387975. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8387975 doi: 10.1155/2016/8387975
|
| [46] |
Quan TH, Benjakul S, Sae-leaw T, et al. (2019) Protein–polyphenol conjugates: Antioxidant property, functionalities, and their applications. Trends Food Sci Technol 91: 507–517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.049 doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2019.07.049
|
| [47] |
Adom KK, Liu RH (2002) Antioxidant activity of grains. J Agric Food Chem 50: 6182–6187. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0205099 doi: 10.1021/jf0205099
|
| [48] |
Valenzuela-González M, Rouzaud-Sández O, Ledesma-Osuna AI, et al. (2022) Bioaccessibility of phenolic compounds, antioxidant activity, and consumer acceptability of heat-treated quinoa cookies. Food Sci Technol 42: e43421. https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.43421 doi: 10.1590/fst.43421
|
| [49] |
Ruiz-Hernández AA, Cárdenas-López JL, Cortez-Rocha MO, et al. (2021) Optimization of germination of white sorghum by response surface methodology for preparing porridges with biological potential. CyTA J Food 19: 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2020.1853814 doi: 10.1080/19476337.2020.1853814
|
| [50] |
Salazar-López NJ, Astiacarán-García H, González-Aguilar GA, et al. (2017) Ferulic acid on glusose dysregulation, dyslipdemia, and inflammation in diet-induced obese rats: An integrated study. Nutrients 9: 675. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9070675 doi: 10.3390/nu9070675
|
| [51] |
Lee KM, Kalyani D, Tiwari MK, et al. (2012) Enhanced enzymatic hydrolysis of rice straw by removal of phenolic compounds using a novel laccase from yeast Yarrowia lipolytica. Bioresour. Technol 123: 636–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.066 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2012.07.066
|
| [52] | Social Science Statistics (2024) The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test of Normality. Available from: https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/kolmogorov/default.aspx. |
| [53] | Statistics Kingdom (2024) Levenexs Homocedasticity Test of Similarity of Variances. Available from: https://www.statskingdom.com/230var_levenes.html. |
| [54] | Hammer Ø, Harper, DAT, Ryan, PD (2001) PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Electron Paleontol 4: 9. Available from: https://www.nhm.uio.no/english/research/resources/past/. |
| [55] |
Agati G, Azzarello E, Pollastri S, et al. (2012) Flavonoids as antioxidants in plants: location and functional significance. Plant Sci 196: 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2012.07.014 doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2012.07.014
|
| [56] | Singh A, Roychoudhury A (2024) Role of phenolic acids and flavonoids in the mitigation of environmental stress in plants. In: Singh A, Roychoudhury A (Eds.), Biology and Biotechnology of Environmental Stress Tolerance in Plants, Apple Academica Press, 1st Edition, 22. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781003346173-11/role-phenolic-acids-flavonoids-mitigation-environmental-stress-plants-ankur-singh-aryadeep-roychoudhury. |
| [57] |
Zhang Y, Li Y, Ren X, et al. (2023) The positive correlation of antioxidant activity and prebiotic effect about oat phenolic compounds. Food Chem 402: 134231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134231 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.134231
|
| [58] |
Kumar K, Debnath P, Singh S, et al. (2023) An overview of plant phenolics and their involvement in abiotic stress tolerance. Stresses 3: 570–585. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses3030040 doi: 10.3390/stresses3030040
|
| [59] |
Adhikary S, Dasgupta N (2023) Role of secondary metabolites in plant homeostasis during biotic stress. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol 50: 102712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2023.102712 doi: 10.1016/j.bcab.2023.102712
|
| [60] |
Parada J, Aguilera JM (2007) Food microstructure affects the bioavailability of several nutrients. J Food Sci 72: R21–R32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00274.x doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00274.x
|
| [61] |
Gao Y, Ma S, Wang M, et al. (2017) Characterization of free, conjugated, and bound phenolic acids in seven commonly consumed vegetables. Molecules 22: 1878. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules22111878 doi: 10.3390/molecules22111878
|
| [62] |
Bautista I, Boscaiu M, Lidón A, et al. (2016) Environmentally induced changes in antioxidant phenolic compounds levels in wild plants. Acta Physiol Plant 38: 9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-015-2025-2 doi: 10.1007/s11738-015-2025-2
|
| [63] |
Aloisi I, Parrotta L, Ruiz KB, et al. (2016) New insight into quinoa seed quality under salinity: Changes in proteomic and amino acid profiles, phenolic content, and antioxidant activity of protein extracts. Front Plant Sci 7: 656. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00656 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00656
|
| [64] |
Muñoz-Bernal Ó A, Torres-Aguirre GA, Núñez-Gastélum JA, et al. (2017) Nuevo acercamiento a la interacción del reactivo de Folin-Ciocalteu con azúcares durante la cuantificación de polifenoles totals. TIP 20: 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recqb.2017.04.003 doi: 10.1016/j.recqb.2017.04.003
|
| [65] |
Everette JD, Bryant QM, Green AM, et al. (2010) Thorough study of reactivity of various compound classes toward the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent. J Agric Food Chem 58: 8139–8144. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf1005935 doi: 10.1021/jf1005935
|
| [66] |
Liu W, Feng Y, Yu S, et al. (2021) The flavonoid biosynthesis network in plants. Int J Mol Sci 22: 12824. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222312824 doi: 10.3390/ijms222312824
|
| [67] |
Agati G, Brunetti C, Fini A, et al. (2020) Are flavonoids effective antioxidants in plants? Twenty years of our investigation. Antioxidants 9: 1098. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9111098 doi: 10.3390/antiox9111098
|
| [68] |
Dias MC, Pinto DC, Silva AM (2021) Plant flavonoids: Chemical characteristics and biological activity. Molecules 26: 5377. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26175377 doi: 10.3390/molecules26175377
|
| [69] | Ahmad R, Hussain S, Anjum MA, et al. (2019) Oxidative stress and antioxidant defense mechanisms in plants under salt stress. In: Hasanuzzaman M, Hakeem K, Nahar K, et al. (Eds.), Plant Abiotic Stress Tolerance: Agronomic, molecular, and biotechnological approaches, Springer, Cham, 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06118-0_8 |
| [70] |
Marchiosi R, dos Santos WD, et al. (2020) Biosynthesis and metabolic actions of simple phenolic acids in plants. Phytochem Rev 19: 865–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11101-020-09689-2 doi: 10.1007/s11101-020-09689-2
|
| [71] |
Giuffrè AM (2019) Bergamot (Citrus bergamia, Risso): The effects of cultivar and harvest date on functional properties of juice and cloudy juice. Antioxidants 8: 221. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox8070221 doi: 10.3390/antiox8070221
|
| [72] |
Deng GF, Shen C, Xu XR, et al. (2012) Potential of fruit wastes as natural resources of bioactive compounds. Int J Mol Sci 13: 8308–8323. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms13078308 doi: 10.3390/ijms13078308
|
| [73] |
Christodoulou MC, Orellana Palacios JC, Hesami G, et al. (2022) Spectrophotometric methods for measurement of antioxidant activity in food and pharmaceuticals. Antioxidants 11: 2213. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11112213 doi: 10.3390/antiox11112213
|
| [74] | Bakhshi S, Abbaspour H, Saeidisar S (2018) Study of phytochemical changes, enzymatic and antioxidant activity of two halophyte plants: Salsola dendroides Pall and Limonium reniforme (Girard) Lincz in different seasons. J Plant Environ Physiol 46: 79–92. |
| [75] |
Castañeda-Loaiza V, Oliveira M, Santos T, et al. (2020) Wild vs cultivated halophytes: Nutritional and functional differences. Food Chem 333: 127536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127536 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127536
|
| [76] |
Skroza D, Šimat V, Vrdoljak L, et al. (2022) Investigation of antioxidant synergisms and antagonisms among phenolic acids in the model matrices using FRAP and ORAC methods. Antioxidants 11: 1784. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11091784 doi: 10.3390/antiox11091784
|
| [77] | Kutchan TM, Gershenzon J, Moller BL, et al. (2015) Natural products. In: Buchanan BB, Gruissem W, Jones RL (Eds.), Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Plants, Wiley, New York, 1132–1205. |
| [78] |
Boerjan W, Ralph J, Baucher M (2003) Lignin biosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol 54: 519–546. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplants.54.031902.134938 doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplants.54.031902.134938
|
| [79] |
Vanholme R, Demedts B, Morreel K, et al. (2010) Lignin biosynthesis and structure. Plant Physiol 153: 895–905. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.155119 doi: 10.1104/pp.110.155119
|
| [80] |
Wildermuth MC (2006) Variations on a theme: synthesis and modification of plant benzoic acids. Curr Opin Plant Biol 9: 288–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2006.03.006 doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2006.03.006
|
| [81] |
Widhalm JR, Dudareva N (2015) A familiar ring to it: biosynthesis of plant benzoic acids. Mol Plant 8: 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2014.12.001 doi: 10.1016/j.molp.2014.12.001
|
| [82] | Heller W, Forkmann G (2017) Biosynthesis of flavonoids. In: Harborne JB (Ed.), The Flavonoids Advances in Research Since 1986, Routledge, 1st Edition, 37. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9780203736692-11/biosynthesis-flavonoids-werner-heller-gert-forkmann. |
| [83] |
Mandal SM, Chakraborty D, Dey S (2010) Phenolic acids act as signaling molecules in plant-microbe symbioses. Plant Signaling Behav 5: 359–368. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.5.4.10871 doi: 10.4161/psb.5.4.10871
|
| [84] |
Padayachee A, Netzel G, Netzel M, et al. (2012) Binding of polyphenols to plant cell wall analogues-Part 2: Phenolic acids. Food Chem 135: 2287–2292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.07.004 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.07.004
|
| [85] |
Hajlaoui H, Arraouadi S, Mighri H, et al. (2022) HPLC-MS profiling, antioxidant, antimicrobial, antidiabetic, and cytotoxicity activities of Arthrocnemum indicum (Willd.) Moq. extracts. Plants 11: 232. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11020232 doi: 10.3390/plants11020232
|
| [86] |
Jdey A, Falleh H, Jannet SB, et al. (2017) Phytochemical investigation and antioxidant, antibacterial and anti-tyrosinase performances of six medicinal halophytes. S African J Bot 112: 508–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2017.05.016 doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2017.05.016
|
| [87] |
Sánchez-Gavilán I, Ramírez Chueca E, de la Fuente García V (2021) Bioactive compounds in Sarcocornia and Arthrocnemum, two wild halophilic genera from the Iberian Peninsula. Plants 10: 2218. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10102218 doi: 10.3390/plants10102218
|
| [88] |
De Oliveira DM, Finger‐Teixeira A, Rodrigues Mota T, et al. (2014) Ferulic acid: A key component in grass lignocellulose recalcitrance to hydrolysis. Plant Biotechnol J 13: 1224–1232. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12292 doi: 10.1111/pbi.12292
|
| [89] |
Buanafina MMDO, Morris P (2022) The impact of cell wall feruloylation on plant growth, responses to environmental stress, plant pathogens and cell wall degradability. Agronomy 12: 1847. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081847 doi: 10.3390/agronomy12081847
|
| [90] |
Deng Y, Feng Z, Yuan F, et al. (2015) Identification and functional analysis of the autofluorescent substance in Limonium bicolor salt glands. Plant Physiol Biochem 97: 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.09.007 doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.09.007
|
| [91] | Fitzpatrick LR, Woldemariam T (2017) Small-molecule drugs for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. In: Comprehensive Medicinal Chemistry III, Elsevier Inc., 495–510. |
| [92] |
Zhang X, Ran W, Li X, et al. (2022) Exogenous application of gallic acid induces the direct defense of tea plant against Ectropis obliqua caterpillars. Front Plant Sci 13: 833489. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.833489 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.833489
|
| [93] | Waśkiewicz A, Muzolf-Panek M, Goliński P (2013) Phenolic content changes in plants under salt stress. In: Ahmad P, Azooz M, Prasad M (Eds.), Ecophysiology and Responses of Plants under Salt Stress, Springer, New York, 283–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4747-4_11 |
| [94] |
Singh P, Arif Y, Bajguz A, et al. (2021) The role of quercetin in plants. Plant Physiol Biochem 166: 10–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.05.023 doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.05.023
|
| [95] |
Agati G, Brunetti C, Di Ferdinando M, et al. (2013) Functional roles of flavonoids in photoprotection: new evidence, lessons from the past. Plant Physiol Biochem 72: 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2013.03.014 doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2013.03.014
|
| [96] |
Cesco S, Mimmo T, Tonon G, et al. (2012) Plant-borne flavonoids released into the rhizosphere: impact on soil bioactivities related to plant nutrition. A review. Biol Fertil Soils 48: 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-011-0653-2 doi: 10.1007/s00374-011-0653-2
|
| [97] |
Ng JLP, Hassan S, Truong TT (2015) Flavonoids and auxin transport inhibitors rescue symbiotic nodulation in the Medicago truncatula cytokinin perception mutant cre1. Plant Cell 27: 2210–2226. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.15.00231 doi: 10.1105/tpc.15.00231
|
| [98] |
Peer W, Blakeslee J, Yang H, et al. (2011) Seven things we think we know about auxin transport. Mol Plant 4: 487–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/ssr034 doi: 10.1093/mp/ssr034
|
| [99] |
Agati G, Matteini P, Goti A, et al. (2007) Chloroplast‐located flavonoids can scavenge singlet oxygen. New Phytol 174: 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.01986.x doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.01986.x
|
| [100] |
Chagas MDSS, Behrens MD, Moragas-Tellis CJ, et al. (2022) Flavonols and flavones as potential anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antibaterial compounds. Oxid Med Cell Longevity 2022: 9966750. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/9966750 doi: 10.1155/2022/9966750
|
| [101] | de Souza M M, da Silva B, Badiale-Furlong E, et al. (2021) Phenolic acid profile, quercetin content, and antioxidant activity of six Brazilian halophytes. In: Grigore MN (Ed.), Handbook of Halophytes: From Molecules to Ecosystems towards Biosaline Agriculture, Springer, Cham, 1395–1419. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57635-6_44 |
| [102] |
Shomali A, Das S, Arif N, et al. (2022) Diverse physiological roles of flavonoids in plant environmental stress responses and tolerance. Plants 11: 3158. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11223158 doi: 10.3390/plants11223158
|
| [103] | Frutos MJ, Rincón-Frutos L, Valero-Cases E (2019) Chapter 2.14—Rutin. In: Nonvitamin and Nonmineral Nutritional Supplements, Academic Press, 111–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812491-8.00015-1 |
| [104] |
Hodaei M, Rahimmalek M, Arzani A, et al. (2018) The effect of water stress on phytochemical accumulation, bioactive compounds and expression of key genes involved in flavonoid biosynthesis in Chrysanthemum morifolium L. Ind Crops Prod 120: 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.04.073 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.04.073
|
| [105] |
Sánchez-Gavilán I, Ramírez E, de la Fuente V, et al. (2021) Bioactive compounds in Salicornia patula Duval-Jouve: A mediterranean edible euhalophyte. Foods 10: 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020410 doi: 10.3390/foods10020410
|
| [106] |
Chekroun-Bechlaghem N, Belyagoubi-Benhammou N, Belyagoubi L, et al. (2019) Phytochemical analysis and antioxidant activity of Tamarix africana, Arthrocnemum macrostachyum and Suaeda fruticosa, three halophyte species from Algeria. Plant Biosyst-Int J Deal Asp Plant Biol 153: 843–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2018.1555191 doi: 10.1080/11263504.2018.1555191
|
| [107] |
Zeb A (2020) Concept, mechanism, and applications of phenolic antioxidants in foods. J Food Biochem 44: e13394. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfbc.13394 doi: 10.1111/jfbc.13394
|
| [108] |
Zengin G, Aumeeruddy-Elalfi Z, Mollica A, et al. (2018) In vitro and in silico perspectives on biological and phytochemical profile of three halophyte species—A source of innovative phytopharmaceuticals from nature. Phytomedicine 38: 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2017.10.017 doi: 10.1016/j.phymed.2017.10.017
|
| [109] |
Vilela C, Santos SA, Coelho D, et al. (2014) Screening of lipophilic and phenolic extractives from different morphological parts of Halimione portulacoides. Ind Crops Prod 52: 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.11.002 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2013.11.002
|
| [110] | Stanković M, Jakovljević D (2021) Phytochemical diversity of halophytes. In: Grigore MN (Ed.), Handbook of Halophytes, Springer, Cham, 2089–2114. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57635-6_125 |
| [111] |
Chiavaroli A, Sinan KI, Zengin G, et al. (2020) Identification of chemical profiles and biological properties of Rhizophora racemosa G. Mey. extracts obtained by different methods and solvents. Antioxidants 9: 533. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9060533 doi: 10.3390/antiox9060533
|
| [112] |
Cho JY, Yang X, Park KH, et al. (2013) Isolation and identification of antioxidative compounds and their activities from Suaeda japonica. Food Sci Biotechnol 22: 1547–1557. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-013-0250-2 doi: 10.1007/s10068-013-0250-2
|
| [113] | Pratyusha S (2022) Phenolic compounds in the plant development and defense: An overview. In: Plant stress physiology-perspectives in agriculture, 125–140. |
| [114] |
Sun R, Sun XF, Wang SQ, et al. (2002) Ester and ether linkages between hydroxycinnamic acids and lignins from wheat, rice, rye, and barley straws, maize stems, and fast-growing poplar wood. Ind Crops Prod 15: 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6690(01)00112-1 doi: 10.1016/S0926-6690(01)00112-1
|
| [115] |
Ueda M, Sawai Y, Shibazaki Y, et al. (1998) Leaf-opening substance in the nyctinastic plant, Albizzia julibrissin Durazz. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 62: 2133–2137. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.62.2133 doi: 10.1271/bbb.62.2133
|
| [116] |
Li ZH, Wang Q, Ruan X, et al. (2010) Phenolics and plant allelopathy. Molecules 15: 8933–8952. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules15128933 doi: 10.3390/molecules15128933
|
| [117] |
Begum AA, Leibovitch S, Migner P, et al. (2001) Specific flavonoids induced nod gene expression and pre‐activated nod genes of Rhizobium leguminosarum increased pea (Pisum sativum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris L.) nodulation in controlled growth chamber environments. J Exp Bot 52: 1537–1543. https://doi.org/10.1093/jexbot/52.360.1537 doi: 10.1093/jexbot/52.360.1537
|
| [118] |
Chaudhry UK, Ö ztürk ZN, Gö kç e AF (2024) Assessment of salt and drought stress on the biochemical and molecular functioning of onion cultivars. Mol Biol Rep 51: 37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-023-08923-2 doi: 10.1007/s11033-023-08923-2
|
| [119] |
Ri I, Pak S, Pak U, et al. (2024) How does UV-B radiation influence the photosynthesis and secondary metabolism of Schisandra chinensis leaves?. Ind Crops Prod 208: 117832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117832 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.117832
|
| [120] |
Scalzini G, Vernhet A, Carillo S, et al. (2024) Cell wall polysaccharides, phenolic extractability, and mechanical properties of Aleatico winegrapes dehydrated under sun or in controlled conditions. Food Hydrocoll 149: 109605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.109605 doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.109605
|
| [121] |
Panth N, Park SH, Kim HJ, et al. (2016) Protective effect of Salicornia europaea extracts on high salt intake-induced vascular dysfunction and hypertension. Int J Mol Sci 17: 1176. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17071176 doi: 10.3390/ijms17071176
|
| [122] |
Nikalje GC, Srivastava AK, Pandey GK, et al. (2018) Halophytes in biosaline agriculture: Mechanism, utilization, and value addition. Land Degrad Dev 29: 1081–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2819 doi: 10.1002/ldr.2819
|
| [123] |
Ventura Y, Sagi M (2013) Halophyte crop cultivation: The case for Salicornia and Sarcocornia. Environ Exp Bot 92: 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.07.010 doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.07.010
|
| [124] |
Ventura Y, Wuddineh WA, Myrzabayeva M, et al. (2011) Effect of seawater concentration on the productivity and nutritional value of annual Salicornia and perennial Sarcocornia halophytes as leafy vegetable crops. Sci Hortic 128: 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2011.02.001 doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.02.001
|
| [125] |
Ghasemzadeh A, Ghasemzadeh N (2011) Flavonoids and phenolic acids: Role and biochemical activity in plants and human. J Med Plants Res 5: 6697–6703. https://doi.org/10.5897/JMPR11.1404 doi: 10.5897/JMPR11.1404
|
| [126] |
Ozcan T, Akpinar-Bayizit A, Yilmaz-Ersan L, et al. (2014) Phenolics in human health. Int J Chem Eng Appl 5: 5. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJCEA.2014.V5.416 doi: 10.7763/IJCEA.2014.V5.416
|
| 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 |
Figures(7) / Tables(4)
Francyelli Regina Costa-Becheleni, Enrique Troyo-Diéguez, Alan Amado Ruiz-Hernández, Fernando Ayala-Niño, Luis Alejandro Bustamante-Salazar, Alfonso Medel-Narváez, Raúl Octavio Martínez-Rincón, Rosario Maribel Robles-Sánchez. Determination of bioactive compounds and antioxidant capacity of the halophytes Suaeda edulis and Suaeda esteroa (Chenopodiaceae): An option as novel healthy agro-foods[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(3): 716-742. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024039
| 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. | ||||
