4.7 Article

Chemical Profiling and Antioxidant Activity of Wild and Cultivated Sage (Salvia officinalis L.) Essential Oil

期刊

HORTICULTURAE
卷 9, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae9060624

关键词

Salvia officinalis L; wild; cultivated; essential oil; GC; MS analysis; antioxidant activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical composition of sage essential oils (SEOs) from wild and cultivated plants, with shading or not, was investigated. The yield of SEOs from wild plants (3.51 mL/100 g) was higher than that from cultivated plants (shaded plants: 3.20 mL/100 g and non-shaded plants: 2.56 mL/100 g). The main components of SEO from wild plants were cis-thujone, camphor, 1,8-cineole, veridiflorol, and borneol. Net shading decreased the content of toxic cis-thujone in sage and cultivated sage showed stronger antioxidant activity compared to wild sage plants.
Chemical profiling the sage essential oils (SEOs) from wild and cultivated (shaded or non-shaded) plants has been investigated. The yield of SEOs from wild plants (3.51 mL/100 g) was higher than that from cultivated plants(shaded plants: 3.20 mL/100 g and non-shaded plants: 2.56 mL/100 g).The main components of SEO from wild plants were cis-thujone (43.2%), camphor (17.6%), 1,8-cineole (13.8%), veridiflorol (3.8%) and borneol (3.4%).The chemical composition of SEO from cultivated plants included camphor > cis-thujone > 1,8-cineole. Net shading lowered the content of toxic cis-thujone in sage (23.5%) and is therefore recommended in order to achieve better quality of SEO compared to non-shaded plants (cis-thujone 28.3%).The thujone content of SEO from wild plants is much higher (43.2%), and this drastically reduces the quality of EO. Cultivated sage was found to have stronger antioxidant activity (shaded plants 6.16 mg/mL or non-shaded 7.49 & PLUSMN; 0.13 mg/mL) compared to wild sage plants (9.65 mg/mL). The isolated SEOs are good sources of natural antioxidants with potential applications in the food and pharmaceutical industries.

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

4.7
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