4.3 Article

Comparative study of phytochemical profile and antioxidant activity of flavedo from two Iranian citron fruit (Citrus medica L.)

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11694-021-00859-0

关键词

Antioxidant activity; Citrus medica L; Chemotype; Hesperidin; Hesperetin; Limonene

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed the composition and antioxidant activity of essential oils from big and small citrons, finding that the antioxidant activity was higher in big citrons. Limonene was the main component in big citrons, while small citrons contained limonene, linalool, and linalyl acetate.
The citrus fruit peel essential oils (EO) can be considered a valuable by-product of citrus production and processing and the main product of some specific citrus cultivars. The EO contents of two citron fruits including Citrus medica L. var. 'medica' Proper. (small citron) and C. medica L. var. 'macrocarpa' Risso. (big citron), as well as their constituents and antioxidant activity (IC50), were analyzed by GC/MS. Some biochemical properties of flavedo extract (total flavonoide and total phenol) and polyphenol compounds (HPLC methods) including rutin, quersetin, hesperidin, hesperetin and trans-ferrulic acid are determined. The EO percentage and yield were 0.71% (v/w) and 0.09 ml/fruit in the big citron while 1.86% and 0.20 ml/fruit in the small citron, respectively. The main constituent of EO in macrocarpa variety was limonene (89.39%). While in medica variety, limonene (48.59%), linalool (22.98%) and linalyl acetate (8.21%) were detected as the major components. The antioxidant activity of the EO in the big citron was higher than that in the small citron. All polyphenol compounds, with the exception of rutin, have a higher value in big citron as compare with small citron. In general, limonene was identified as the main compound in both citron trees. These varieties are seemingly divided into two chemotypes: limonene chemotype (macrocarpa variety) and limonene-linalool chemotype (medica variety).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据