| Literature DB >> 34203392 |
Yufei Qiu1, Yasi Yu1, Ping Lan2, Yong Wang1, Ying Li1,3.
Abstract
With the increasing global demand for edible oils and the restriction of arable land minimum in China, woody oil plants have gradually become the optimal solution to cover the shortage of current edible oil supply and to further improve the self-sufficiency rate. However, due to the lack of knowledge and technique, problems like "how to make full use of these plant resources?" and "how to guide consumers with reasonable data?" limit the development of woody oilseed industry towards a sustainable circular economy. In this review, several emerging unique woody oil plants in China were introduced, among which Litsea cubeba as a new woody oil plant was highlighted as a reference case based on its current research progress. Unlike other woody oil plants, essential oil rather than oil from Litsea cubeba has always been the main product through the years due to its interesting biological activities. Most importantly, its major component, citral, could be the base for other synthesized perfume compounds with added value. Moreover, the sustainable biorefinery of large amounts of waste residual after Litsea cubeba essential oil processing is now technically feasible, which could inspire a total valorization pathway for other woody oil plants to make more competitive plant-based products with both economic, social, and ecological benefits.Entities:
Keywords: Litsea cubeba valorization; citral-based value-added products; essential oil bioactivities; kernel oil and protein; woody oil plant resource; zero-waste sustainable biorefinery
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34203392 PMCID: PMC8272090 DOI: 10.3390/molecules26133948
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Overview of six unique oil crops in China.
| Woody Oil Plants | Family | Chemical Composition of Seed Oil | References | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seed Oil Content (%) | Total Unsaturated Fatty Acids (%) | Unique Bioactive Substances | Other Bioactive Substances | ||||
|
|
| Theaceae | 1–58 | 85–93 | Camellin | Squalene, tea saponin, lignans, etc. | [ |
|
|
| Juglandaceae | 59–68 | 90–91 | Juglone | Minerals, melatonin, phospholipid, carotene, vitamin, etc. | [ |
|
|
| Paeonia | 28–31 | 88–93 | Paeonol, paeonoside | Monoterpenes, triterpenes, etc. | [ |
|
|
| Sapindaceae | 55–70 | 83–88 | Nervonic acid, saponin | Sterols, phospholipids, etc. | [ |
|
|
| Aceraceae | 38–55 | 90–92 | Nervonic acid | Vitamin E, flavonoids, coumarin, etc. | [ |
|
|
| Eucommia | 32–37 | 90–91 | Aucubin, chlorogenic acid | Iridoids, phenylpropanoids, lignans, etc. | [ |
|
|
| Cornaceae | 55–62 | 74–82 | Octacosanol | β-sitosterol, vitamin, etc. | [ |
Figure 1Sustainable biorefinery to produce plant-based products from Litsea cubeba (solid line: high technical maturity, half dashed line: medium technical maturity, full dashed line: low technical maturity).
Methods for extracting Litsea cubeba essential oils.
| Methods | Conditions | Experimental Remarks | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Microwave-assisted extraction | Microwave irradiation time: 10–20 min; | Compared to conventional steam distillation, the yield of essential oil increased by 36.5–37.5% and the treatment time was four times shorter. The citral content was 5% higher and the amount of its loss in purification reduced by 33.3% | [ |
| Microwave power: 650 W; | Average yield of essential oil was up to 10.29% (g/g). | [ | |
| Ultrasonic-assisted extraction | Liquid to solid ratio: 3.2:1; | The extraction rate under vacuum was 6.94%, which was 33.98% higher than the that of conventional steam distillation. The content of citral was 87.65%. | [ |
| Liquid to solid ratio: 5:1; | Compared to hydrodistillation and steam distillation, essential oil yield increased with the ultrasonic time; the optimal ultrasonic-assisted extraction was helpful for obtaining high-purity citral. | [ | |
| Enzymatic-assisted extraction | Heterologous expressed expansin: 500 mL; | Enzymatic-assisted extraction could significantly improve the yield of essential oil compared to conventional extraction. The highest yield was obtained using composite enzyme (cellulase and expansin), which was 1/3 higher than that using cellulose alone. | [ |
| Supercritical CO2 extraction | Particle size: 60–80 mesh; | The extraction rate was up to above 30.19% and the essential oil had clear color. | [ |
| Combined extraction | Microwave power: 600 W; | Average yield of essential oil of combined extraction assisted by microwave and ultrasound was up to 14.19% (g/g), which was 3.9% higher than that extracted by microwave solely. | [ |
| Oxalic acid/choline chloride: 1:1; | Deep eutectic solvent-homogenate based microwave-assisted hydrodistillation was developed to have a quite different major compounds (e.g., m-cymeme, trans-linalool, etc.) under optimal conditions, which showed higher in vitro radical scavenging activity but lower antifungal activity. | [ |
Minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of Litsea cubeba essential oil against different bacteria and fungi.
| Organism | MIC [µg/mL] | Method | References | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | Gram-Type | |||
| Enterohemorrhagic | − | 500 | Double dilution | [ |
| Methicillin-resistant | + | 500 | Broth micro-dilution | [ |
|
| + | 80 | Broth micro-dilution | [ |
|
| + | 40 | Broth micro-dilution | |
|
| + | 40 | Broth micro-dilution | |
|
| − | 20 | Broth micro-dilution | |
|
| + | 2500 | Broth micro-dilution | [ |
|
| − | 625 | Double dilution | [ |
|
| − | 625 | Double dilution | |
|
| − | 620 | Broth micro-dilution | [ |
|
| + | 600 | Broth micro-dilution | |
|
| − | 0.5 | Broth micro-dilution | [ |
|
| + | 11.88–23.75 | Broth-dilution | [ |
|
| − | 750 | Broth-dilution | [ |
|
| ||||
|
| 0.05 | Agar-dilution | [ | |
|
| 0.5 | Agar-dilution | [ | |
|
| 5 | Agar-dilution | [ | |
|
| 0.49 | Agar-dilution | [ | |
|
| 0.5 | Agar-dilution | [ | |
|
| 0.5 | Agar-dilution | ||
|
| 1.0 | Agar-dilution | [ | |
|
| 700 | Broth micro-dilution | [ | |
|
| 1500 | Broth-dilution | [ | |
|
| 2367.61 ± 688.29 | Broth micro-dilution | [ | |
Repellent effects of Litsea cubeba essential oil on various growth forms of mosquitoes and insects.
| Species | Morphology | Experimental Remarks | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adult | 24 h direct contact mortality: 2.3–20.4% | [ | |
|
| Larva (the fourth-instar) | 24 h LC50: 82.48 µg/mL | [ |
| Pupae | 24 h LC50: 122.92 µg/mL | ||
| Adult | 73.94 percentage repellency at 20 min (2.0 µL) | [ | |
|
| Adult | Contact toxicity 24 h LC50: 27.33 µg/adult | [ |
|
| Adult | Contact toxicity 24 h LC50:71.56 µg/cm2 | |
|
| Adult | 24 h LC50: 0.504 mg/mL | [ |
| Adult | 24 h LC50: 6.23 µL/L | [ | |
|
| Adult | 1.5 g/cm2 repellent rate (12 h): 81.26% | [ |
|
| Larva (the third-instar) | 24 h LC50: 112.5 µg/larva | [ |
|
| Adult | Contact toxicity 12 h LC50: 0.932 µg/cm2, 99 µg/cm2 showed the highest toxicity causing 97.5 ± 4.1% mortality at 12 h | [ |
|
| Adult | The protection period: 480 min; 100 percentage repellency | [ |
|
| Adult | The protection period: 480 min; 100 percentage repellency |
Purification technologies of citral.
| Methods | Conditions | Experimental Remarks | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sodium sulfite chemical addition method | DMSO as phase transfer catalyst: 5% of citral material; | The citral yield was 73.47% and the purity was 85.49%. | [ |
| Methylated-β-cyclodextrin (RM-β-CD) as phase transfer catalyst: 0.65% of citral material; | The citral yield was 86.6% and the purity was 96.5%. | [ | |
| Vacuum distillation | Pretreatment: dehydration, magnetization, filtration, and deoxidation; | The purity of citral was 97.9%, and the yield was 90.8%. | [ |
| Molecular distillation | Film scraping speed: 400 r/min; Feeding amount: 1 L | The purity of citral was up to 98% and the yield rate was up to 77.2%. | [ |
| Film scraping speed: 370–390 r/min; Cooling water temperature: 4–5 °C; | The content of citral was increased from 79.61% to 95.08%, and the yield of citral was 80.02%. | [ |
Figure 2Citral-derived fragrances from Litsea cubeba (LC) essential oils: (A) purified LC essential oils; (B) pseudoionone; (C) α-ionone; (D) β-ionone; (E) lemonile.
Extraction methods and technology of Litsea cubeba kernel oils.
| Methods | Process Conditions | Experimental Remarks | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mechanical pressing | Press in a single screw press, collect and filter the crude oil, then store it in a 4 °C refrigerator. | The crude oil yield was 26.2%, which was reduced to 21.2% after simple refining. | [ |
| Solvent reflux method | Refluxing with petroleum ether (60–90 °C); | The yield of oil is 26.69%. The content of lauric acid was 49.53%. | [ |
| Microwave-assisted extraction | Microwave time: 65 min; | The aqueous extraction rate of kernel oil is 29. 36%. The content of lauric acid, capric acid and oleic acid is >50%, 8.512% and 10.603%, respectively. | [ |
| Microwave time: 63 min; | The extraction rate of kernel oil is 37.42%, which improved by 30.11% compared to | [ | |
| Supercritical CO2 extraction | Extraction time: 80 min; | The extraction rate is above 84.5%, dehulling may increase the extraction rate. | [ |
| Alternative solvent extraction | Solid–liquid ratio at 1:20 (g:mL); | Green solvents were superior to alcoholic solvents with higher oil yields. Alternative solvents to | [ |
Figure 3Sustainable biorefinery route for the production of biolubricant base oils from Litsea cubeba (LC) kernels as waste residues after the essential oil production.