| Literature DB >> 35268681 |
Natale Badalamenti1, Maurizio Bruno1,2, Rosario Schicchi3, Anna Geraci1, Mariarosaria Leporini4, Luigia Gervasi4, Rosa Tundis4, Monica Rosa Loizzo4.
Abstract
In this work, seven Citrus aurantium essential oils (EOs) derived from flavedo of cultivars 'Canaliculata', 'Consolei', 'Crispifolia', 'Fasciata', 'Foetifera', 'Listata', and 'Bizzaria' were investigated. EOs were also combined in 1:1 (v/v) ratio to identify possible synergism or antagonism of actions. GC-MS analysis was done to investigate Eos' phytochemical profiles. The antioxidant activity was studied by using a multi-target approach based on FRAP, DPPH, ABTS, and β-carotene bleaching tests. A great difference was observed in EOs' phytochemical profiles. d-limonene (33.35-89.17%) was the main monoterpene hydrocarbon, and α-Pinene, β-myrcene, and β-linalool were identified in almost all samples. Among EOs, only C3 showed high quantitative and qualitative variability in its chemical composition. The chemical diversity of EOs was also demonstrated by PCA and HCA statistical analysis. Samples C2, C4, C5, C6, and C7 were statistically similar to each other, while C1 and C3 were characterized as having a different amount of other compounds and oxygenated monoterpenes, respectively, with respect to the other EOs mentioned. The global antioxidant score (GAS) revealed that among the tested EOs, C. aurantium 'Fasciata' EO had the highest antioxidant potential, with a GAS value of -0.47, whereas among combinations, the EO obtained by mixing 'Canaliculata' + 'Bizzaria' was the most active. Comparison by theoretical and real data on inhibitory concentration (IC50) and FRAP values did not reveal any significant effect of synergism or antagonism of actions to be valid in all biological applied tests. These findings, considered together, represent an important starting point to understand which compounds are responsible for the activities and their future possible industrial application.Entities:
Keywords: Citrus aurantium; GC-MS analysis; PCA analysis; d-limonene; essential oil combinations; global antioxidant score
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35268681 PMCID: PMC8911714 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27051580
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1The seven C. aurantium cultivars grown in the Palermo Botanical Garden: C. aurantium ‘Canaliculata’ (C1), C. aurantium ‘Consolei’ (C2), C. aurantium ‘Crispifolia’ Risso & Poit. (C3), C. aurantium ‘Fasciata’ Risso & Poit. (C4), C. aurantium ‘Foetifera’ (C5), C. aurantium ‘Listata’ (C6), and C. aurantium ‘Bizzaria’ (C7).
Composition (%) of the essential oils of the seven C. aurantium cultivars collected in the Botanical Garden of Palermo, Sicily.
| Content (%) C | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Compounds | LRIexp A | LRIlit B | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | Ident. D | Sign. E |
| 1 | α-Pinene | 936 | 934 | 2.98 a | 2.57 c | - | 2.69 b | 1.67 d | 3.01 a | 1.49 e | 1, 2, 3 | ** |
| 2 | β-Pinene | 977 | 981 | 3.33 a | - | 0.91 d | 2.71 b | - | 2.73 b | 1.58 c | 1, 2, 3 | ** |
| 3 | β-Myrcene | 990 | 994 | 2.76 d | 7.52 a | 1.95 f | 2.04 e | 5.61 b | 1.00 | 4.13 c | 1, 2, 3 | ** |
| 4 | 1001 | 1005 | 3.77 a | - | - | 1.35 b | - | - | - | 1, 2 | ** | |
| 5 | 1031 | 1028 | 77.53 d | 80.50 c | 33.35 f | 76.00 e | 82.78 b | 76.06 e | 89.17 a | 1, 2, 3 | ** | |
| 6 | β- | 1038 | 1036 | - | 1.45 a | - | 0.92 d | - | 1.18 c | 1.04 b | 1, 2 | ** |
| 7 | 1070 | 1078 | - | - | 1.59 a | - | - | - | - | 1, 2, 3 | ** | |
| 8 | β-Linalool | 1098 | 1101 | 2.58 c | 1.04 f | 7.69 a | 2.67 b | 1.89 e | 2.31 d | 1.03 f | 1, 2 | ** |
| 9 | α-Terpineol | 1189 | 1194 | - | - | 7.06 a | 1.08 c | 0.91 d | 1.17 b | - | 1, 2 | ** |
| 10 | 1203 | 1208 | 2.07 a | - | - | - | - | - | - | 1, 2 | ** | |
| 11 | 1229 | 1235 | - | - | 1.63 a | - | - | - | - | 1, 2 | ** | |
| 12 | β-Citral | 1238 | 1242 | - | - | 1.88 a | - | - | - | - | 1, 2 | ** |
| 13 | Bergamol | 1256 | 1258 | - | 1.46 d | 6.77 a | 3.55 c | 1.43 d | 4.33 b | - | 1, 2 | ** |
| 14 | 1259 | 1267 | - | - | 3.36 a | - | - | - | - | 1, 2 | ** | |
| 15 | Neryl Acetate | 1365 | 1366 | - | - | 6.28 a | - | - | - | - | 1, 2 | ** |
| 16 | Geranyl Acetate | 1386 | 1392 | - | - | 10.12 a | 1.41 c | - | 1.51 d | - | 1, 2 | ** |
| 17 | 1402 | 1406 | - | - | 1.44 a | - | - | - | - | 1, 2 | ** | |
| 18 | Caryophyllene | 1419 | 1423 | - | - | 1.00 a | - | - | - | - | 1, 2, 3 | ** |
| 19 | Germacrene D | 1480 | 1485 | - | - | 3.48 a | - | - | - | - | 1, 2 | ** |
| 20 | 1550 | 1554 | - | - | 4.57 a | - | - | - | - | 1, 2 | ** | |
| Monoterpene Hydrocarbons | 86.60 | 92.04 | 36.21 | 84.36 | 90.06 | 84.52 | 97.41 | |||||
| Oxygenated Monoterpenes | 2.58 | 2.50 | 44.79 | 8.71 | 4.23 | 9.32 | 1.03 | |||||
| Sesquiterpene Hydrocarbons | - | - | 4.48 | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Oxygenated Sesquiterpenes | - | - | 4.57 | - | - | - | - | |||||
| Others | 5.84 | - | 3.03 | 1.35 | - | - | - | |||||
| Total | 95.02 | 94.54 | 93.08 | 94.42 | 94.29 | 93.84 | 98.44 | |||||
A Linear retention index, obtained through the modulated chromatogram, reported for DB-5MS apolar column; B linear retention index reported for DB-5MS column or equivalents reported in the literature; C content is the peak volume percentage of compounds in the essential oil sample; D 1 = retention index identical to bibliography; 2 = identification based on comparison of MS; 3 = retention time identical to authentic compounds. Compounds are classified in order of linear retention time of non-polar column. E Sign: significance at p < 0.05. Results followed by different letters in the same line are significantly different (p < 0.05) according to Tukey’s multiple range test.
Figure 2Principal component analysis (PCA) of EOs from C. aurantium and their mixes based on the principal classes of compounds: monoterpene hydrocarbons (MH), oxygenated monoterpenes (MO), sesquiterpenes hydrocarbons (SH), oxygenated sesquiterpenes (OS), and others (O). The vectors shown are the eigenvectors of the covariance matrix. Group ‘A’ included C1C2, C1C4, C1C5, C1C6, and C1C7 samples; group ‘B’ contained the samples C2, C4, C5, C6, C7, C2C4, C2C5, C2C6, C2C7, C4C5, C4C6, C4C7, C5C6, C5C7, and C6C7; group ‘C’ included C2C3, C3C4, C3C5, C3C6, and C3C7 samples.
Figure 3Dendrogram obtained by hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) based on the Euclidian distances between groups of A, B, and C, for C. aurantium EOs and their mixes. The samples’ codes are reported in Section 3.1.
Antioxidant activities of seven C. aurantium cultivars EO and their combinations.
| DPPH | ABTS | β-Carotene Bleaching Test | FRAP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 38.39 ± 2.12 g | 25.31 ± 2.66 a | 38.61 ± 3.54 n | 20.62 ± 2.36 n |
| C2 | 33.01 ± 1.71 c | 30.14 ± 2.27 d | 22.68 ± 2.16 g | 28.23 ± 4.12 h |
| C3 | 40.18 ± 2.82 i | 36.22 ± 2.42 j | 55.72 ± 3.87 v | 55.92 ± 2.92 a |
| C4 | 33.98 ± 2.00 c | 27.45 ± 1.85 b | 15.46 ± 1.31 b | 44.44 ± 3.66 d |
| C5 | 39.01 ± 2.74 h | 29.56 ± 2.93 c | 48.73 ± 2.64 q | 50.23 ± 3.41 b |
| C6 | 37.93 ± 2.54 f | 27.38 ± 1.77 b | 18.56 ± 1.56 d | 20.65 ± 1.78 n |
| C7 | 40.74 ± 3.18 i | 32.32 ± 2.72 f | 49.68 ± 2.93 r | 45.44 ± 2.45 c |
| EOs Combination (1:1 | ||||
| C1C2 | 36.12 ± 1.81 e | 38.39 ± 2.75 l | 57.28 ± 3.41 z | 19.98 ± 1.98 o |
| C1C3 | 42.09 ± 2.48 k | 33.01 ± 2.84 g | 25.77 ± 2.58 j | 21.72 ± 1.92 m |
| C1C4 | 31.75 ± 2.33 a | 40.18 ± 3.01 n | 50.63 ± 3.67 s | 23.08 ± 2.01 k |
| C1C5 | 32.64 ± 2.54 b | 33.98 ± 2.52 g | 31.96 ± 2.73 k | 27.18 ± 2.23 i |
| C1C6 | 31.05 ± 2.25 a | 39.01 ± 2.96 m | 53.82 ± 3.86 | 20.73 ± 2.14 m |
| C1C7 | 31.44 ± 2.63 a | 37.93 ± 2.84 kl | 13.42 ± 2.24 a | 22.60 ± 2.35 l |
| C2C3 | 37.16 ± 2.85 f | 39.42 ± 2.73 | 41.14 ± 3.72 p | 22.04 ± 2.32 l |
| C2C4 | 34.60 ± 2.16 d | 35.16 ± 2.4 i | 24.12 ± 1.94 i | 23.49 ± 2.41 k |
| C2C5 | 38.49 ± 2.92 g | 36.85 ± 2.64 j | 37.66 ± 2.57 m | 24.26 ± 2.66 j |
| C2C6 | 38.68 ± 2.73 g | 33.98 ± 2.25 g | 17.53 ± 2.01 c | 22.55 ± 2.47 l |
| C2C7 | 37.60 ± 2.77 f | 38.13 ± 2.74 l | 25.95 ± 2.43 j | 23.14 ± 2.52 k |
| C3C4 | 41.96 ± 3.24 j | 46.23 ± 3.88 o | 22.68 ± 2.52 g | 22.91 ± 2.36 l |
| C3C5 | 33.91 ± 2.45 c | 37.16 ± 3.57 k | 55.06 ± 3.04 v | 22.71 ± 2.2 l |
| C3C6 | 31.86 ± 2.24 a | 33.08 ± 2.35 g | 36.08 ± 2.86 l | 23.11 ± 2.31 k |
| C3C7 | 36.37 ± 2.57 e | 31.40 ± 2.49 e | 37.41 ± 2.97 m | 23.19 ± 2.47 k |
| C4C5 | 34.38 ± 2.35 d | 36.22 ± 2.71 j | 23.54 ± 2.03 h | 29.61 ± 3.05 g |
| C4C6 | 37.16 ± 2.76 f | 34.68 ± 2.52 h | 57.72 ± 3.81 z | 30.95 ± 3.16 f |
| C4C7 | 34.60 ± 2.40 d | 38.51 ± 2.73 l | 19.54 ± 1.61 e | 27.23 ± 2.42 i |
| C5C6 | 38.49 ± 3.48 g | 38.34 ± 2.65 l | 54.86 ± 3.33 u | 28.06 ± 2.77 h |
| C5C7 | 38.68 ± 3.39 g | 31.12 ± 2.44 e | 21.64 ± 1.57 f | 30.97 ± 3.26 f |
| C6C7 | 37.60 ± 2.98 f | 34.30 ± 2.25 h | 51.23 ± 3.58 t | 30.14 ± 3.01 f |
| C1 + C2 + C3 + C4 + C5 + C6 + C7 | 44.96 ± 3.70 l | 39.23 ± 2.73 m | 40.21 ± 3.29 o | 38.06 ± 3.54 e |
| Sign | ** | ** | ** | ** |
Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD). The following positive controls were used: ascorbic acid in 2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) (IC50 value of 5.03 ± 0.79 μg/mL) and 2,2′-Azino-Bis-3-Ethylbenzothiazoline-6-Sulfonic acid (ABTS) (IC50 value of 1.72 ± 0.09 μg/mL) test; propyl gallate in β-carotene bleaching test (IC50 value of 0.09 ± 0.004 μg/mL); butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) in ferric reducing ability power (FRAP) (FRAP value 63.27 ± 4.48 μM Fe(II)/g). Sign: significance at ** p < 0.05. Results followed by different letters in the same line are significantly different according to Tukey’s multiple range test.