| Literature DB >> 35407116 |
Laura De Martino1, Lucia Caputo1, Giuseppe Amato1, Marco Iannone1, Anna Angela Barba1,2, Vincenzo De Feo1,3.
Abstract
Edible herbs are widely used in the human diet due to their pleasant flavors and countless health benefits associated with their components having, mainly, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory therapeutic functions. Since herbs are highly perishable materials because of their high water content, to guarantee products are safe and stable over time, it is necessary that they undergo stabilization operations. The application of microwave-assisted drying, a promising technique in terms of process sustainability, for the stabilization of the aromatic herb, Ocimum basilicum L., was investigated. The activities were carried out by applying different operating conditions in order to evaluate the impact of the time/temperature combination on the final quality of dried basil. The latter was investigated via the chemical characterization of extracted essential oils and tissue damages. Conventional convective processes were also applied to perform comparisons between dried basil products both under production and the quality preservation points of view. Results showed that microwave heating is suitable as a drying method, as expected, due to the well-known interaction between vegetable tissue (rich in water) and the electromagnetic field; and that drying methods have a different influence on the chemical composition of the essential oils extracted from dried products, in terms of the number (ranging from 41 to 18 components in different dried samples) and percentage (until 67% in linalool and 21% in α-trans-bergamotene in different dried samples) of its' constituents.Entities:
Keywords: Ocimum basilicum L.; drying methods; essential oil; microwave heating; process sustainability
Year: 2022 PMID: 35407116 PMCID: PMC8998133 DOI: 10.3390/foods11071029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1The fresh sample of Ocimum basilicum.
Sample codes and notes on selected operative conditions of applied drying methods.
| Samples Code 1 | Drying Method/Operative Parameters |
|---|---|
| CD1 | Shade drying/shady room conditions for 6 days |
| CD2 | Hot–air drying/static oven at 50 °C for 24 h |
| MWD1 | Assisted microwave heating/2300 W for 8 min |
| MWD2 | Assisted microwave heating/1150 W for 30 min |
1 Untreated product is indicated as fresh or raw material.
Samples code and note on selected operative conditions of applied drying methods.
| Samples Code | Residual Moisture Content | Treatment Times |
|---|---|---|
| Fresh | 85.09 ± 2.64 | -- |
| CD1 | 55.46 ± 8.27 | 6 days |
| CD2 | 10.52 ± 1.80 | 24 h |
| MWD1 | 10.53 ± 1.72 | 8 min |
| MWD2 | 10.48 ± 3.71 | 30 min |
Figure 2Comparison between microwave dried basil samples (center, MWD1) and convective method (right, CD2) and fresh basil (left).
Figure 3Electrolyte losses from fresh and dried basil samples (CD1—shade drying conditions; CD2—hot air-drying; MWD1—assisted microwave heating 2300 W; MWD2—assisted microwave heating 1150 W).
Effects of different drying methods on the essential oil composition of Ocimum basilicum cv ‘Aroma 2’. Results are expressed as mean area percentage ± standard deviation (SD) of three independent determinations (n = 3) and statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, at 5% level probability.
|
| Compound Name | % | KI a | KI b | Identif. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh | CD1 | CD2 | MWD1 | MWD2 | |||||
| 1 | 2-Methyl butanal | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.1 ± 0.01 | 0.5 ± 0.02 ° | 0.3 ± 0.01 | - | 745 | 920 | 1,2 |
| 2 | α-Pinene | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.1 ± 0.01 | - | - | 861 | 1036 | 1,2,3 |
| 3 | β- Pinene | t | t | - | - | - | 873 | 1110 | 1,2,3 |
| 4 | δ-3-Carene | 1.1 ± 0.05 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 0.8 ± 0.02 * | 0.1 ± 0.01 **** | - | 897 | 1153 | 1,2,3 |
| 5 | Myrcene | - | 0.1 ± 0.03 | - | - | - | 917 | 1173 | 1,2,3 |
| 6 | 1,8- Cineole | 12.0 ± 0.3 | 12.3 ± 0.3 ° | 10.2 ± 0.2 **** | 5.2 ± 0.19 **** | 4.6 ± 0.2 **** | 949 | 1213 | 1,2,3 |
| 7 | β- Ocimene <Z> | 0.4 ± 0.01 | 1.7 ± 0.1 °°°° | - | 0.1 ± 0.01 * | - | 970 | 1246 | 1,2,3 |
| 8 | α-Terpinene | t | t | - | - | - | 1001 | 1166 | 1,2,3 |
| 9 | Linalool | 57.1 ± 0.5 | 65.1 ± 0.4 °°°° | 55.7 ± 0.3 **** | 41.7 ± 0.35 **** | - | 1020 | 1553 | 1,2,3 |
| 10 | Terpinolene | 3.2 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 **** | 2.5 ± 0.09 **** | 1.2 ± 0.1 **** | 6.8 ± 0.4 °°°° | 1021 | 1291 | 1,2,3 |
| 11 | Isoborneol | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | - | 1052 | 1633 | 1,2,3 |
| 12 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.3 ± 0.02 | - | 1075 | - | 1,2,3 | |
| 13 | t | t | - | - | - | 1088 | 1614 | 1,2 | |
| 14 | 0.2 ± 0.02 | 0.3 ± 0.02 | - | t | - | 1096 | 1470 | 1,2 | |
| 15 | Isobornyl acetate | 0.3 ± 0.03 | 0.4 ± 0.03 | 0.6 ± 0.02 * | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.1 ± 0.01 | 1185 | 1582 | 1,2 |
| 16 | Thymol | 0.2 ± 0.01 | t | - | 0.6 ± 0.03 °°° | 8.4 ± 2.1 °°°° | 1218 | 2172 | 1,2,3 |
| 18 | δ-Elemene | 0.4 ± 0.04 | 0.6 ± 0.04 | 0.8 ± 0.04 °°° | 1.1 ± 0.1 °°°° | - | 1228 | 1460 | 1,2,3 |
| 19 | α-Ylangene | t | t | - | t | - | 1241 | 1491 | 1,2 |
| 20 | β-Cubebene | - | - | 0.4 ± 0.01 °°°° | - | - | 1264 | 1445 | 1,2 |
| 21 | Eugenol | 8.1 ± 0.4 | 0.5 ± 0.01 **** | - | 12.2 ± 0.2 °°°° | - | 1256 | 2186 | 1,2,3 |
| 22 | Z-Isoeugenol acetate | 0.8 ± 0.01 | t | - | 0.9 ± 0.04 | - | 1275 | 2395 | 1,2 |
| 23 | β- Elemene | - | - | 5.0 ± 0.1 °°°° | - | - | 1281 | 1598 | 1,2 |
| 24 | 1-Ethenyl-1-methyl-2,4-bis(1-methylethenyl)-cyclohexane | 2.4 ± 0.09 | 2.8 ± 0.1 °°° | - | 6.0 ± 0.2 °°°° | 6.5 ± 0.21 °°°° | 1282 | 1593 | 1,2 |
| 25 | (E)-Caryophyllene | 0.4 ± 0.03 | 0.1 ± 0.01 * | - | 0.6 ± 0.02 | - | 1285 | 1575 | 1,2,3 |
| 26 | β-Ylangene | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.1 ° | 2.5 ± 0.11 °°°° | 3.3 ± 0.16 °°°° | 3.7 ± 0.3 °°°° | 1299 | 1589 | 1,2,3 |
| 27 | β-Copaene | 0.6 ± 0.03 | 0.7 ± 0.09 | 1.1 ± 0.5 °°°° | 1.6 ± 0.08 °°°° | 0.4 ± 0.06 | 1312 | 1628 | 1,2 |
| 28 | α- | 4.2 ± 0.1 | 2.7 ± 0.2 **** | 0.5 ± 0.01 **** | - | 21.0 ± 0.43 °°°° | 1320 | 1573 | 1,2 |
| 29 | Aromadendrene | 0.3 ± 0.05 | 0.4 ± 0.02 | - | 1.0 ± 0.1 °°°° | 0.7 ± 0.03 °°° | 1325 | 1628 | 1,2,3 |
| 30 | α-Humulene | 0.5 ± 0.06 | 0.8 ± 0.07 ° | 1.3 ± 0.1 °°°° | 1.6 ± 0.14 °°°° | 1.5 ± 0.1 °°°° | 1333 | 1671 | 1,2,3 |
| 31 | 0.4 ± 0.03 | 0.8 ± 0.06 °°° | 0.9 ± 0.03 °°°° | 1.2 ± 0.11 °°°° | 1.3 ± 0.09 °°°° | 1343 | 1638 | 1,2,3 | |
| 32 | 0.8 ± 0.04 | 1.3 ± 0.1 °°°° | 2.1 ± 0.09 °°°° | 2.6 ± 0.19 °°°° | 11.6 ± 0,25 °°°° | 1361 | 1675 | 1,2 | |
| 33 | γ-Gurjunene | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.4 ± 0.03 | 0.5 ± 0.01 | 0.8 ± 0.04 °°°° | 1.2 ± 0.1 °°°° | 1367 | 1687 | 1,2 |
| 34 | γ- Muurolene | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.3 ± 0.02 | 0.4 ± 0.03 | 0.9 ± 0.04 °°°° | 1.6 ± 0.13 °°°° | 1376 | 1684 | 1,2 |
| 35 | Aristolochene | 0.6 ± 0.05 | 1.2 ± 0.1 °°°° | 1.7 ± 0.08 °°°° | 2.4 ± 0.4 °°°° | 2.8 ± 0.21 °°°° | 1387 | - | 1,2 |
| 36 | γ-Himalachene | t | - | 4.9 ± 0.15 °°°° | - | - | 1391 | - | 1,2 |
| 37 | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 3.0 ± 0.4 °°°° | - | 4.8 ± 0.4 °°°° | 8.8 ± 0.3 °°°° | 1395 | 1711 | 1,2 | |
| 38 | δ-Cadinene | 0.2 ± 0.01 | 0.3 ± 0.01 | - | 0.6 ± 0.02 °°°° | - | 1402 | 1751 | 1,2 |
| 39 | t | 0.1 ± 0.01 | - | 0.1 ± 0.01 | - | 1484 | 2091 | 1,2 | |
| 40 | 1,10-di- | 0.1 ± 0.03 | 0.1 ± 0.02 | 0.3 ± 0.06 | 0.5 ± 0.01 °°° | 0.7 ± 0.02 °°°° | 1490 | 2054 | 1,2 |
| 41 | 1- | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 2.2 ± 0.09 °°°° | 8.6 ± 0.2 °°°° | 9.6 ± 0.4 °°°° | 14.6 ± 0.4 °°°° | 1509 | 2025 | 1,2 |
|
| 99.0 | 99.2 | 98.0 | 98.1 | 98.0 | ||||
| Monoterpenes hydrocarbons | 19.4 | 21.6 | 8.3 | 13.3 | - | ||||
| Oxygenated monoterpenes | 22.2 | 21.6 | 25.0 | 23.3 | 21.1 | ||||
| Sesquiterpenes hydrocarbons | 47.2 | 45.7 | 58.3 | 50.0 | 68.4 | ||||
| Oxygenated sesquiterpenes | 11.1 | 10.8 | 8.3 | 13.3 | 10.5 | ||||
| Yield ( | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 1.1 | ||||
* (component decreases) = p < 0.05; **** = p < 0.0001 vs. fresh sample; ° (component increases) = p value < 0.05; °°° = p value < 0.001; °°°° = p value < 0.0001 vs. fresh sample; a, b are the Kovats retention indices determined relative to a series of n-alkanes (C10–C35) on the apolar HP-5 MS and the polar HP Innowax capillary columns, respectively; 1 = comparison of the Kovats retention indices with published data; 2 = comparison of mass spectra with those listed in the NIST 02 and Wiley 275 libraries and with published data; 3 = coinjection with authentic compounds; t = trace (<0.1%).
Figure 4Comparative aroma profile with respect to the major components of O. basilicum cv ‘Aroma 2’ essential oils obtained after drying under different conditions. Statistical references: **** (component decreases) = p < 0.0001 vs. fresh sample according to two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, at 5% level probability; °°°° (component increases) = p value < 0.0001 vs. fresh sample according to two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, at 5% level probability.
Figure 5Comparison of percentages of main chemical groups (%) of fresh basil and samples dried by different methods. Statistical references: **** (component decreases) = p < 0.0001 vs. fresh sample according to two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, at 5% level probability; °°°° (component increases) = p-value < 0.0001 vs. fresh sample according to two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test, at 5% level probability.