Printer Friendly

"Gold" Pressed Essential Oil: An Essay on the Volatile Fragment from Citrus Juice Industry By-Products Chemistry and Bioactivity.

1. Introduction

Among agricultural commodities and the consequent industries, Citrus fruits hold a significant position. According to Food and Agricultural Organization [1], global Citrus fruit production in the year 2014 reached approximately 140 Mt, 60% of which were oranges. Worldwide, it is estimated that annually over 30% of Citrus fruits produced (40% of oranges) are being processed by the food industry to produce mainly juice based products. This endeavor is generating a considerably high amount of by-products that can be potentially used as a biorefinery raw material [2].

The residues of citrus juice production consisted of peel, pulp seeds, and whole citrus fruits that do not meet the quality requirements, while only 50% of the fresh fruit's mass is transformed into juice [3]. In general, these citrus juicing byproducts have an insignificant economic value, even though they are rich in soluble sugars, cellulose, hemicellulose, pectin, flavonoids, and essential oils [2, 4]. Among them the Cold Pressed Essential Oil (CPEO) is widely used by the food, beverage, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries as flavoring and fragrance agent due to its characteristic aroma profile [5]. This utilization as industrial raw materials has created a market for these CPEOs in which their price escalation is 6 to 7 [euro] per kg for grapefruit; 8 to 12 [euro] per kg for orange; 12 to 15 [euro] per kg for mandarin; 30 to 35 [euro] per kg for lemon [6]. CPEOs consisted of volatile and nonvolatile fractions that are composed of more than 200 compounds [7]. The volatile fraction, which represents an 85% to 99% of the CPEO, is well characterized in the literature [8]. Phytochemicals commonly found in Citrus CPEOS are monoterpene and sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, their oxygenated derivatives and aliphatic aldehydes, alcohols, and esters. The main volatile compound of Citrus essential oils is D-limonene, a nonoxygenated monoterpene derived by the combination of two isoprene units [6]. The CPEOs obtained as by-products from the Citrus juice industry are recovered in yields ranging from 0,4 to 0,6 mL per kg [6]. However, CPEOs are characterized by high percentages of nonvolatile residues, which contain hydrocarbons, sterols, fatty acids, waxes, carotenoids, coumarins, psoralens, and flavonoids [8].

D-Limonene is one of the world's most widespread terpenes constituting up to 90-95% of the orange peel oil and 75% of lemon peel oil. The worldwide annual production of D-limonene is over 70 million kg and rising fast [9]. In addition to its flavor and fragrance properties, this phytochemical is used in a broad variety of consumer products due to its physicochemical properties. For example, Dlimonene is being used as a nontoxic solvent in oleochemical, wax, resin, paint, and glue industrial preparations or as a valuable renewable biosolvent, an alternative to hazardous petroleum solvents [10]. Another major application of Dlimonene is its application as a cleaning agent replacing various environmentally unfriendly cleaning agents such as toluene, hexane, and chlorinated organic solvents [11]. Due to its low price, D-limonene is an attractive starting compound for the biotechnological production of industrially relevant fine chemicals and flavor compounds with identical carbon skeletons, such as carveol, carvone, and perillyl alcohol [12].

Herein we present the outcome of our study concerning the sustainable valorization of the Citrus juice industry CPEO by-products incorporating a binary approach. This biorefinery method focuses on the retrieval and simultaneous fragmentation of the CPEOs volatile fraction aiming at the increase of the (a) content of D-limonene, a fine chemical with distinct exploitation potentials and (b) bioactivity of the processed CPEO volatile fragments. As a target organism for the bioactivity assessment, the Asian Tiger Mosquito was chosen, Aedes (Stegomyia) albopictus (Skuse 1894) (Diptera: Culicidae), which is currently considered as the most invasive mosquito species in the world [13] with great public health importance since it is a confirmed vector of Yellow Fever [14], dengue fever [15], Chikungunya fever [16], and Zika [17] viruses.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials. The original material of the study consisted of the CPEOs derived from the industrial processing [18] of the following four different Citrus species, (a) Orange, Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck; (b) Lemon, C. limon (L.) Osbeck; (c) Grapefruit, C. paradisi Macfad.; (d) Mandarin, C. reticulata Blanco, which were kindly provided by the industry of fruit juices Christodoulou Bros SA. All sampling details are included in Table 1.

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Isolation and Fragmentation of the CPEO Volatile Fraction. The four-industrial CPEOs were subjected to conventional hydrodistillation. All distillations were performed with 3L of [H.sub.2]O in a modified Clevenger apparatus for 3 hours. Four EOs were obtained as the initial fragments (first 20 min) of the hydrodistillation of these industrial by-products and another four were isolated from the remaining fragments (consequent 2h and 40 min). The essential oil yields are included in Table 1.

2.2.2. Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS). The GC/MS analyses were performed on a Agilent Technologies 7890A Gas Chromatograph, equipped with a HP 5MS 30 m x 0.25 mm x 0.25 [micro]m film thickness capillary column, connected with an Agilent 5957C, VL MS Detector with Triple-Axis Detector system operating in EI mode, and He as the carrier gas (1mL/min). The initial column temperature was 60[degrees]C and heated gradually to 280[degrees]C with a 3[degrees]C/min rate. The identification of the compounds was based on comparison of their Retention Indices (RI) obtained, using various n-alkanes ([C.sub.9]-[C.sub.24]) and their El-mass spectra were compared with the NIST/NBS, Wiley libraries spectra, and literature [19, 20]. Additionally, the identity of the indicated phytochemicals was confirmed by comparison with available authentic samples. All authentic samples utilized for the identification of EOs compounds were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, except for germacrene D and [alpha]-thujene, which had been isolated in the context of previous studies.

2.2.3. Rearing Ae. albopictus in the Laboratory. Larvae and adults of Ae. albopictus were obtained from a laboratory colony which was maintained at 25 [+ or -] 2[degrees]C, 80% relative humidity and photoperiod of 16: 8-h light/dark (L/D), in the laboratory of the Benaki Phytopathological Institute, Kifissia, Greece. The adults were kept in wooden frame cages (33 x 33 x 33 cm) with a 32 x 32 mesh, with easy access to 10% sucrose solution on a cotton stick. Females were fed with fresh chicken blood with Hemotek[C] blood feeding system. The larvae were reared in tap water-filled cylindrical enamel pans with diameter of 35 and 10 cm deep covered by fine muslin. Approximately 400 larvae were fed in excess with powdered fish food (JBL Novo Tom 10% Artemia) in each pan until the emergence of adults. Adult mosquitoes were often collected with a mouth aspirator and transferred to the rearing cage. Plastic beakers with 100 ml water and strips of moistened filter paper were provided in the cage for oviposition. The eggs were kept damp for a few days and then placed in the pans for hatching [21].

2.2.4. Larvicidal Bioassays. The larval mortality bioassays were carried out according to the test method of larval susceptibility as recommended by the World Health Organization [22] with modifications. Sufficient amounts of each compound were transferred to a vial and the residual solvent was removed under high vacuum. Stock solutions of 10% (w/v) in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) were prepared for each testing material. Twenty late third-to early fourth-instar mosquito larvae were placed in 2% (v/v) aqueous solution of DMSO (98 ml of tap water plus 2 ml of DMSO), followed by the addition of 29 [micro]l of the tested material solution. The aqueous solutions were then gently shaken for homogenization [21]. Five replicates per dose were tested and a treatment with 98 ml of tap water and 2 ml of DMSO was included in each bioassay as the control. The mortality rates of the essential oils tested were arbitrary classified to "low," "moderate," and "very good" if the mortality rates ranged between 0-50%, 50-80%, and 80-100%, respectively.

2.2.5. Repellent Activity Bioassay. For the repellent activity of the essential oils, the assessment was based on the human landing counts [23, 24]. The study was conducted into a cage (33 x 33 x 33 cm) with a 32 x 32 mesh and with a 20 cm diameter circular opening fitted with cloth sleeve. Each cage contained 100 adult mosquitoes (sex ratio, 1: 1), 5 to 10 days old, starved for 12 h at 25 [+ or -] 2[degrees]C, and 70-80% relative humidity. A plastic glove with an opening measuring of 5 x 5 cm was employed for all the bioassays. Different doses (from 0.05 to 1 [micro]l[cm.sup.-2]) for DEET were applied and it was found that the lowest dose, where zero landings were counted, was [approximately equal to] 0.2 [micro]l[cm.sup.-2]. All testing materials were applied on paper (Whatman chromatography paper) of 24 [cm.sup.2] total area and tested at two doses: 50 [micro]l ("low," =0.2 [micro]l[cm.sup.-2] of testing material) and 100 [micro]l ("high," =0.4 [micro]l[cm.sup.-2] of testing material) of 100 [micro]g[micro][l.sup.-1] stock solution. Control treatments without the components and with DEET were also included for the repellency tests as standards (control and positive control, resp.). Each treatment was repeated eight times and four human volunteers were used [21, 25].

2.2.6. Data Analysis. Larvicidal effect was recorded 24 h after treatment. Data obtained from each dose-larvicidal bioassay (total mortality, m[gl.sup.-1] concentration in water) were subjected to probit analysis in which probit-transformed mortality was regressed against [log.sub.10]-transformed dose; [LC.sub.50], [LC.sub.90] values and slopes were calculated (SPSS 11.0).

Data concerning the repellency of the samples (mosquito landings) were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test. When significant differences were detected, Mann-Whitney U tests were carried out for pairwise comparison. Bonferroni correction was applied to correct for 66 pairwise comparisons leading to an adjusted a = 0.0006 [25].

3. Results

The volatile fractions of the four Citrus taxa presented essential oil yields and recovery rates as percent of the relative industrial CPEO, which are included in Table 1. From the four CPEOs studied orange exhibited the highest volatile recovery rate (0,880), whereas lemon exhibited the lowest (0,740). In all cases, the essential oil yields were higher during the first 15 min of the hydrodistillation (fragment 1) of the CPEOs.

3.1. Phytochemical Assessment. The detailed qualitative and quantitative analytical data of the main volatile constituents of the CPEOs have been summarized in Table 2. It must be noted that 30 different phytochemicals, representing 73.89% to 99.98% of the respective samples were identified by combined GC and GC/MS analyses as constituents of the samples studied. The investigated samples were found to contain mainly monoterpenes, mostly cyclic, and only occasionally aliphatic. More specifically, particularly, in the case of orange, grapefruit, and mandarin, D-limonene was by far the most abundant component (up to 97.79%), while compounds like myrcene and [alpha]-pinene where found in lower percentages. On the contrary, in the case of lemon EOs, D-limonene was found in lower percentages (up to 56.50%) followed by [beta]-pinene, [gamma]-terpinene, myrcene, [alpha]-pinene, neral, and citral, among others.

Similar findings of a previous study on the CPEOs derived from industrial cold-pressing of fresh fruit peels of orange, mandarin, and lemon are in accordance with the abovementioned results, where D-limonene was the most abundant compound in all fruits with concentrations reaching 85.5% in orange, 74.38% in mandarine, and 59.1% in lemon [26]. Ahmad et al. [27] investigated the chemical composition of citrus essential oils collected by cold-pressing of shredded fruit peels. According to their findings, the abundance of D-limonene in two sweet orange varieties was 61.08% and 76.28%, in grapefruit 86.27%, and in lemon 53.61%. According to previous results on the chemical composition of lemon CPEO, D-limonene exhibited the highest percent (75.68%) followed by [beta]-pinene (8.7%) and [gamma]-terpinene (7.19%) [28]. Concerning mandarine, Sawamura et al. [29] studied the CPEO retrieved by a hand-pressing method of whole fruits and peels and resulted in a high percent of D-limonene (80.3%). Thus, few studies investigate the chemistry of citrus CPEOs, while no previous study exists concerning the CPEOs produced as by-products by the citrus juice producing industry. It is important to notice that the quantitative results of the previous studies mentioned above refer to uncorrected percentages of chemical constituents due to the presence of nonvolatile compounds in the CPEOs that are not detected by the analytical instruments used.

The applied herein process consisted of the simultaneous tasks of isolation and fractionation of the CPEOs volatile content, which was evaluated for first time presenting intriguing results in respect to the produced essential oils major compounds (above 3% of the essential oil). More specifically, the D-limonene concentration was increased in all cases in both hydrodistillation fragments (1 and 2) in comparison with its original occurrence in the respective CPEOs as indicated in Figure 1. In grapefruit, the percent of D-limonene in the CPEO (72.35%) reached 89.63% in fragment 1 and 79.56% in fragment 2 of the hydrodistillation, whereas other main compounds with increased abundancy in fragment 2 were aterpineol (3,19%) and [beta]-caryophyllene (4,26%). For lemon, the abundance of D-limonene was increased from 37.22% in the CPEO to 52.66% in fragment 1 and 56.50% in fragment 2, while a noticeable increase of [beta]-pinene (19.16%), [alpha]-pinene (5.08%), and [gamma]-terpinene (13.86%) content is also observed in fragment 1. A sharp increase of D-limonene content is observed after the hydrodistillation of the mandarin CPEO. Specifically, the presence of D-limonene reached 92.75% and 97.79% in fragments 1 and 2 of the hydrodistillation, respectively, as compared to its initial abundance in the CPEO which was determined as 80.06%. Other constituents with increased abundance in the first fragment of the hydrodistillation are myrcene (4.28%), [alpha]-pinene (1.74%), and sabinene. Finally, for oranges, the D-limonene content was increased in the first fragment of the hydrodistillation, reaching the 95.01%. In the second fragment, an increase of the content of D-limonene, myrcene, and [alpha]-terpinolene was observed.

3.2. Bioactivity Assessment

3.2.1. Larvicidal Bioassays. Citrus based essential oils (EOs) have already been pinned as potent population control agents against Aedes sp., by Khan and Akram [30], who suggested the relevant consideration of EOs from C. grandis, C. sinensis, C. paradisi, C. reticulata, C. limon, and C. aurantium but also identified the necessity for the design and implementation of relevant field trials. Four years earlier, in 2009 Michaelakis et al. [31] reported the increased larvicidal activity of the EOs derived from the dried peels of C. sinensis, C. limon, and C. aurantium against Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae). Since then the toxicity of Citrus EOs has been confirmed against two Culex sp. taxa, Cx. pipiens [31] and Cx. quinquefasciatus [32]; two Anopheles sp. taxa, An. labranchiae [33] and An. stephensi [34]; two Aedes sp. taxa, Ae. albopictus [21, 35] and Ae. aegypti [36, 37]. Adaptation of these results as a starting point for scientific discussion was implemented after the performance of an insect toxicity sketch, which included as complementary targets the larvae of Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) investigated by Bilal et al. [38] and Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) performed by Villafane et al. [39].

Since the larvicidal properties of Citrus EOs are solidly established, the serious question phrased by Khan and Akram [30] concerning the necessity for field trials implementation remains. The latter require the availability of a large volume of a consistent quality EO. An intriguing answer to this question was suggested in 2011 by Did et al. [35] that employed the EOs isolated from the Citrus juice industry solid wastes, which though potent as a source required additional infrastructure development and additional production stages to become broadly available. Our approach herein refers to the exploitation of readily available by-products of the Citrus juice industry that are defined as the CPEOs, all four of which are assessed on their toxicity per se, and after refinement, for first time herein.

The larvicidal bioassay results are cumulated in Table 3, where the mean percentage ([+ or -]s.e.) of dead larvae is presenting and indicates results 24 h after the implementation of the testing material. The last consisted of the 4 CPEO and 8 EO samples of Table 1. From the four CPEOs tested those from grapefruit and mandarin were found to be of insignificant toxicity, the one from orange exhibited a mild toxicity, and this from lemon presented a moderate toxicity, justifying thus the depreciated value of the respective by-products. The applied process though proved significant by improving the larvicidal properties in seven of the eight in total, processed samples, as indicated in Figure 2. Even the percentages of Figure 2 indicate an impressive increase of toxicity for the two grapefruit EOs, as most potent proved the lemon first volatile fraction (C05) and the second volatile fraction from orange (C12), exhibiting, respectively, 74% and 94% larvae mortality. Among the eight volatile fractions, only the second volatile fraction of mandarin presented no toxicity (C9). This sample presented a unique phytochemical profile consisting of the highest percentage of D-limonene (97,8%).

These preliminary results from the 12 samples tested did not provide any relation between the phytochemical content or the fluctuation of the major compounds and the larvicidal pattern.

The combined study of larvicidal results in conjunction with the low toxicity of mandarin second volatile fraction is indicative that the accompanying the limonene phytochemicals could be attributed to the increase of toxicity. Previous studies [21] indicated that some commonly found substances in EOs with significant larvicidal activity are [alpha]-pinene, 3-carene, (R)-(+)-limonene, myrcene, and terpinen-4-ol. The increased toxicity that is recorded in all samples containing amounts of myrcene exceeding the limit of 3% may partly explain this toxicity pattern. In either case, the obtained results could justify the application of the simultaneous volatile fraction isolation and fragmentation.

3.2.2. Repellence Bioassays. The repellent properties of Citrus derived EOs have been studied and confirmed in a band wider than the larvicidal band of target organisms. In these, the following is included: six Coleoptera, Periplaneta americana [40,41], P. fuliginosa [41], Blattellagermanica [40,41], Neostylopyga rhombifolia [40], Tribolium castaneum [38, 42], and Sitophilus zeamais [43]; the aphid Tetranychus urticae [44]; seven Diptera, Loutzomyiayoungi [45], Simulium damnosum [46], Aedes albopictus [21, 47], Ae. aegypti [48], Anopheles dirus (ibid.), An. stephensi [34], and Culex quinquefasciatus [49]. Within this rough background and based upon these significant research efforts, the present study focused on the investigation of the four-industrial origin CPEO and the eight derived volatile fragments, which is a novelty of the study.

The results summarized in Table 4 present the mean number of landings for five minutes. All four CPEOs presented a low to moderate repellent activity. The applied process of CPEOs refinement did not provide any significant results on the respective repellence activity. Specifically, the orange volatile fractions (C11, C12) exhibited almost the same figures with the respective CPEO (C10) landing averaging to around 50; the application of grape fruit (C02, C03) and lemon (C05, C06) volatile fractions presented an increase of landings compared with the relevant CPEOs (C01, C04), therefore presenting a significant decrease in correlation with their repellent properties; on the other hand, mandarin volatile fragments presented a differentiated performance since both the first and second fragments improved the CPEO's (C07) repellence exhibiting less landings, by 50% for the second fragment (C09) and by 22% for the first fragment (C08). As potential factor for the observed differentiation, the phytochemicals contained in the colorant fragment of the CPEOs may be considered, the lack of which is the major difference between the CPEO and the relative EOs. Those results agree with previous studies indicating that most hydrocarbons (e.g., [alpha]-pinene) had a lower repellent efficacy against adult mosquitoes compared to aldehydes, oxides, or alcohols [50].

4. Conclusions

In conclusion, the current work exploiting invaluable industrial by-products demonstrated a protocol that can provide D-limonene of analytical grade (97%), revealing thus in the form of the mandarin second volatile fragment an alternative source for the retrieval of this valuable molecule.

Industrial by-products as natural insecticides could be a promising tool especially for targeting mosquito larvae. The lack of any significant difference in the phytochemical content of the mandarin three samples, with the simultaneous differentiation of bioactivity in both larvicidal and repellency bioassays, indicates that the root cause may not be detected in the volatile fragment components and there are some factors that need more investigation to extract useful conclusions such as enantioselectivity of major and minor ingredients [21, 51, 52].

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/2761461

Disclosure

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This research has been cofinanced by the European Union (EU Environmental Funding Programme LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance) and Greek National Funds through the LIFE CONOPS project (http://www .conops.gr) "Development & Demonstration of Management Plans against--the Climate Change Enhanced--Invasive Mosquitoes in S. Europe" (LIFE12 ENV/GR/000466). The authors would also like to attribute special gratitude to the Greek Industry of Fruit Juices Christodoulou Bros SA (http://www.chbjuices.com) that kindly offered all four CPEOs studied herein but also provided valuable information concerning their producing capacity and pricing.

References

[1] FAO, "FAOSTAT, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations STATISTICS DIVISION," 2017.

[2] M. Boukroufa, C. Boutekedjiret, L. Petigny, N. Rakotomanomana, and F. Chemat, "Bio-refinery of orange peels waste: A new concept based on integrated green and solvent free extraction processes using ultrasound and microwave techniques to obtain essential oil, polyphenols and pectin," Ultrasonics Sonochemistry, vol. 24, pp. 72-79, 2015.

[3] E. Garcia-Castello, J. Lora-Garcia, J. Garcia-Garrido, and A. D. Rodriguez-Lopez, "Energetic comparison for leaching waste liquid from citric juice production using both reverse osmosis and multiple-effect evaporation," Desalination, vol. 191, no. 1-3, pp. 178-185, 2006.

[4] F. R. Marin, C. Soler-Rivas, O. Benavente-Garcia, J. Castillo, and J. A. Perez-Alvarez, "By-products from different citrus processes as a source of customized functional fibres," Food Chemistry, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 736-741, 2007.

[5] P. Ruiz Perez-Cacho and R. Rouseff, "Processing and storage effects on orange juice aroma: A review," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 56, no. 21, pp. 9785-9796, 2008.

[6] M. Christodoulou, "Christodoulou Bros SA," Industry of Fruit Juices. Argolida, 21055, Agia Triada. Nafplio, Greece. Personal Communication, 2017.

[7] P. E. Shaw, "Review of quantitative analyses of citrus essential oils," Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 246-257, 1979.

[8] G. Dugo and L. Mondello, Citrus Oils: Composition, Advanced Analytical Techniques, Contaminants, and Biological Activity, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2010.

[9] F. M. Kerton, Alternative Solvents for Green Chemistry, Green Chemistry Series, RSC Publishing, 2009.

[10] M. Virot, V. Tomao, C. Ginies, F. Visinoni, and F. Chemat, "Green procedure with a green solvent for fats and oils' determination. Microwave-integrated Soxhlet using limonene followed by microwave Clevenger distillation," Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1196-1197, no. 1-2, pp. 147-152, 2008.

[11] T. Toplisek and R. Gustafson, "Cleaning with D-limonenes: a substitute for chlorinated solvents?" Precision Cleaning, vol. 3, no. 8, pp. 17-20, 1995.

[12] A. Z. M. Badee, S. A. Helmy, and N. F. S. Morsy, "Utilisation of orange peel in the production of [alpha]-terpineol by Penicillium digitatum (NRRL 1202)," Food Chemistry, vol. 126, no. 3, pp. 849-854, 2011.

[13] M. Enserink, "Entomology: A mosquito goes global," Science, vol. 320, no. 5878, pp. 864-866, 2008.

[14] A. D. T. Barrett and S. Higgs, "Yellow fever: a disease that has yet to be conquered," Annual Review of Entomology, vol. 52, pp. 209-229, 2007.

[15] K. L. Ebi and J. Nealon, "Dengue in a changing climate," Environmental Research, vol. 151, pp. 115-123, 2016.

[16] G. Rezza, "Dengue and Chikungunya: Long-distance spread and outbreaks in naive areas," Pathogens and Global Health, vol. 108, no. 8, pp. 349-355, 2014.

[17] M. Di Luca, F. Severini, L. Toma et al., "Experimental studies of susceptibility of Italian Aedes albopictus to Zika virus," Eurosurveillance, vol. 21, no. 18, 2016.

[18] A. Arce and A. Soto, "Citrus Essential Oils: Extraction and Deterpenation," Tree and Forestry Science and Biotechnology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 1-9, 2008.

[19] R. P. Adams, Identification of Essential Oils Components by Gas Chromatography/Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy, Carol Stream, Ill, USA, Allured, 2001.

[20] Y. Masada, Analysis of Essential Oils by Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry, Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1976.

[21] A. Giatropoulos, D. P. Papachristos, A. Kimbaris et al., "Evaluation of bioefficacy of three Citrus essential oils against the dengue vector Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae) in correlation to their components enantiomeric distribution," Parasitology Research, vol. 111, no. 6, pp. 2253-2263, 2012.

[22] World Health Organization, Guidelines for Laboratory and Field Testing of Mosquito larvicides World Health Organization (WHO) Communicable Disease Control, Prevention and Eradication WHO Pesticide Evaluation Scheme (WHOPES), Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.

[23] R. E. Coleman, L. L. Robert, L. W. Roberts et al., "Laboratory evaluation of repellents against four anopheline mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) and two phlebotomine sand flies (Diptera: Psychodidae)," Journal of Medical Entomology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 499-502, 1993.

[24] J. M. Govere and D. V. Durrheim, "Techniques for evaluating repellents," in Insect Repellents: Principles Methods, And Use, M. Debboun, S. P. Frances, and D. Strickman, Eds., CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fla, USA, 2006.

[25] A. Giatropoulos, D. Pitarokili, F. Papaioannou et al., "Essential oil composition, adult repellency and larvicidal activity of eight Cupressaceae species from Greece against Aedes albopictus (Diptera: Culicidae)," Parasitology Research, vol. 112, no. 3, pp. 1113-1123, 2013.

[26] L. Espina, M. Somolinos, S. Loran, P. Conchello, D. Garcia, and R. Pagan, "Chemical composition of commercial citrus fruit essential oils and evaluation of their antimicrobial activity acting alone or in combined processes," Food Control, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 896-902, 2011.

[27] M. M. Ahmad, Salim-Ur-Rehman, Z. Iqbal, F. M. Anjum, and J. I. Sultan, "Genetic variability to essential oil composition in four citrus fruit species," Pakistan Journal of Botany, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 319-324, 2006.

[28] M. A. Ferhat, B. Y. Meklati, and F. Chemat, "Comparison of different isolation methods of essential oil from Citrus fruits: cold pressing, hydrodistillation and microwave 'dry' distillation," Flavour and Fragrance Journal, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 494-504, 2007.

[29] M. Sawamura, N. Thi Minh Tu, Y. Onishi, E. Ogawa, and H.-S. Choi, "Characteristic odor components of Citrus reticulata Blanco (ponkan) cold-pressed oil," Bioscience, Biotechnology and Biochemistry, vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 1690-1697, 2004.

[30] H. A. A. Khan and W. Akram, "Citrus-based essential oils could be used for dengue vector mosquitoes control," Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine, vol. 6, no. 6, p. 504, 2013.

[31] A. Michaelakis, D. Papachristos, A. Kimbaris, G. Koliopoulos, A. Giatropoulos, and M. G. Polissiou, "Citrus essential oils and four enantiomeric pinenes against Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae)," Parasitology Research, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 769-773, 2009.

[32] D. Sritabutra and M. Soonwera, "Repellent activity of herbal essential oils against Aedes aegypti (Linn.) and Culex quinquefasciatus (Say.)," Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 271-276, 2013.

[33] F. El-Akhal, A. El Ouali Lalami, and R. Guemmouh, "Larvicidal activity of essential oils of Citrus sinensis and Citrus aurantium (Rutaceae) cultivated in Morocco against the malaria vector Anopheles labranchiae (Diptera: Culicidae)," Asian Pacific Journal ofTropical Disease, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 458-462, 2015.

[34] A. Sanei-Dehkordi, M. M. Sedaghat, H. Vatandoost, and M. R. Abai, "Chemical compositions of the peel essential oil of Citrus aurantium and its natural larvicidal activity against the malaria vector Anopheles stephensi (Diptera: Culicidae) in comparison with Citrus paradisi," Journal of Arthropod-Borne Diseases, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 577-585, 2016.

[35] S. U. Did, W. Akram, H. A. A. Khan, A. Hussain, and F. Hafeez, "Citrus waste-derived essential oils: alternative larvicides for dengue fever mosquito, Aedes albopictus (Skuse) (Culicidae: Diptera)," Pakistan Journal of Zoology, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 367-372, 2011.

[36] N. Sutthanont, W. Choochote, B. Tuetun et al., "Chemical composition and larvicidal activity of edible plant-derived essential oils against the pyrethroid-susceptible and -resistant strains of Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae)," Journal of Vector Ecology, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 106-115, 2010.

[37] A. F. de Oliveira Araujo, J. T. Ribeiro-Paes, J. T. de Deus et al., "Larvicidal activity of Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merr and Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck essential oils and their antagonistic effects with temephos in resistant populations of Aedes aegypti," Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, vol. 111, no. 7, pp. 443-449, 2016.

[38] H. Bilal, W. Akram, S. A. Hassan et al., "Insecticidal and repellent potential of citrus essential oils against Tribolium castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae)," Pakistan Journal of Zoology, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 997-1002, 2015.

[39] E. Villafane, D. Tolosa, A. Bardon, and A. Neske, "Toxic effects of Citrus aurantium and C. limon essential oils on Spodoptera frugiperda (lepidoptera: noctuidae)," Natural Product Communications, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1389-1392, 2011.

[40] U. Thavara, A. Tawatsin, P. Bhakdeenuan et al., "Repellent activity of essential oils against cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattidae, Blattellidae, and Blaberidae) in Thailand," Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 663-673, 2007.

[41] C. Yoon, S.-H. Kang, J.-O. Yang, D.-J. Noh, P. Indiragandhi, and G.-H. Kim, "Repellent activity of citrus oils against the cockroaches Blattella germanica, Periplaneta americana and P. fuliginosa," Journal of Pesticide Science, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 77-88, 2009.

[42] Y. Wu, H.-P. Chen, J.-Y. Wei et al., "Repellent constituents of essential oil from citrus wilsonii stem barks against tribolium castaneum," Natural Product Communications, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 1515-1518, 2014.

[43] N. Nishida, T. Ohi, K. Jinno et al., "Development of insectrepellent papers with unused components in citrus essential oil," Kinoshi Kenkyu Kaishi/Annals of the High Performance Paper Society, Japan, vol. 49, pp. 73-78, 2010.

[44] C. A. G. da Camara, Y. Akhtar, M. B. Isman, R. C. Seffrin, and F. S. Born, "Repellent activity of essential oils from two species of Citrus against Tetranychus urticae in the laboratory and greenhouse," Crop Protection, vol. 74, pp. 110-115, 2015.

[45] E. Rojas and J. V. Scorza, "The use of lemon essential oil as a sandfly repellent," Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 85, no. 6, p. 803, 1991.

[46] M. S. O. Aisien, A. A. Imasuen, V. A. Wagbatsoma, and B. A. Ayinde, "Preliminary evaluation of the repellent activity of some plant essential oils against Simulium damnosum s.l., the vector of human onchocerciasis," International Journal of Tropical Insect Science, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 196-199, 2004.

[47] N. G. Das, I. Baruah, P. K. Talukdar, and S. C. Das, "Evaluation of botanicals as repellents against mosquitoes," Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, vol. 40, no. 1-2, pp. 49-53, 2003.

[48] N. Auysawasdi, S. Chuntranuluck, S. Phasomkusolsil, and V. Keeratinijakal, "Improving the effectiveness of three essential oils against Aedes aegypti (Linn.) and Anopheles dirus (Peyton and Harrison)," Parasitology Research, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 99-106, 2016.

[49] N. Misni, Z. M. Nor, and R. Ahmad, "Repellent effect of microencapsulated essential oil in lotion formulation against mosquito bites," Journal of Vector Borne Diseases, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 44-53, 2017.

[50] P. J. Weldon, J. F. Carroll, M. Kramer, R. H. Bedoukian, R. E. Coleman, and U. R. Bernier, "Anointing Chemicals and Hematophagous Arthropods: Responses by Ticks and Mosquitoes to Citrus (Rutaceae) Peel Exudates and Monoterpene Components," Journal of Chemical Ecology, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 348-359, 2011.

[51] A. Michaelakis, A. T. Strongilos, E. A. Bouzas, G. Koliopoulos, and E. A. Couladouros, "Larvicidal activity of naturally occurring naphthoquinones and derivatives against the West Nile virus vector Culex pipiens," Parasitology Research, vol. 104, no. 3, pp. 657-662, 2009.

[52] K. P. Mitsopoulou, V. P. Vidali, G. Koliopoulos, E. A. Couladouros, and A. Michaelakis, "Hyperforin and deoxycohumulone as a larvicidal agent against culex pipiens (diptera: Culicidae)," Chemosphere, vol. 100, pp. 124-129, 2014.

V. N. Kapsaski-Kanelli, (1) E. Evergetis, (1) A. Michaelakis, (2) D. P. Papachristos, (2) E. D. Myrtsi, (1) S. D. Koulocheri, (1) and S. A. Haroutounian (1)

(1) Department of Nutritional Physiology and Feeding, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos 75,11855 Athens, Greece

(2) Benaki Phytopathological Institute, 8 S. Delta Str., 14561 Athens, Greece

Correspondence should be addressed to A. Michaelakis; a.michaelakis@bpi.gr and S. A. Haroutounian; sehar@aua.gr

Received 7 July 2017; Accepted 5 September 2017; Published 4 October 2017

Academic Editor: Nikos Chorianopoulos
Table 1: The four Citrus fruits samples taxon attribution,
definition, and recovery yield (CPEO = Cold Pressed Essential Oil;
F1 = fragment 1 (first 15 min); F2 = fragment 2 (consequent 2 h and
45 min). * Volume of the respective CPEO. ** In the case of CPEO,
the industrial figure corresponds to %W/W of produced juice [6]).

Taxon           Code   Sample definition   Volume distilled*,
                                             recovered (mL)

C. paradisi     C01          CPEO                 50,0
                C 02          F1                  23,2
                C 03          F2                  18,5
                        Total vol. fr.            41,7
C. limon        C 04         CPEO                 20,0
                C 05    CPEO vol. fr. 1           8,3
                C 06    CPEO vol. fr. 2           6,5
                        Total vol. fr.            14,8
C. reticulata   C 07         CPEO                 25,0
                C 08    CPEO vol. fr. 1           10,8
                C09     CPEO vol. fr. 2           10,1
                        Total vol. fr.            20,9
C. sinensis     C 10         CPEO                 25,0
                C 11    CPEO vol. fr. 1           12,0
                C 12    CPEO vol. fr. 2           10,0
                        Total vol. fr.            22,0

Taxon           Code   Yield (% V/V)**

C. paradisi     C01       0,4-0,6%
                C 02        46,4%
                C 03        37,0%
                            83,4%
C. limon        C 04      0,4-0,6%
                C 05        41,5%
                C 06        32,5%
                            74,0%
C. reticulata   C 07      0,4-0,6%
                C 08        43,2%
                C09         40,4%
                            83,6%
C. sinensis     C 10      0,4-0,6%
                C 11        48,0%
                C 12        40,0%
                            88,0%

Table 2: Citrus samples compounds in percentage of total composition.

Compounds               RI    C01    C 02   C 03   C 04   C 05   C 06

[alpha]-Thujene        930                         0,6    1,3
[alpha]-Pinene         939    0,8    0,9           2,3    5,1    2,1
Sabinene               975    0,9    1,2
[beta]-Pinene          976                         10,5   19,2   13,7
Myrcene                991    2,6    2,9    1,8    2,0    3,7    1,9
D-Limonene             1029   72,4   89,6   79,6   37,2   52,7   56,5
trans-[beta]-ocimene   1050          0,3           0,2    0,3
[gamma]-Terpinene      1060                        10,4   13,9   13,4
[alpha]-Terpinolene    1089          0,3    0,6    0,7    0,9    0,7
Nonanal                1101                        0,2
cis-limonene oxide     1137
Citronellal            1153          0,3    0,5    0,3    0,3
[alpha]-Terpineol      1179   0,8    1,0    3,2    0,3           0,5
Decanal                1202   0,4    0,7    1,9
Neral                  1238                        1,2    0,6    1,5
Carvone                1243                 0,6
Lavandulyl acetate     1290                        0,9    0,2    1,2
Citral                 1320                        2,0    0,9    2,6
Neryl acetate          1362                 0,7    1,2    0,4    1,5
[alpha]-Copaene        1377          0,4    1,6
[beta]-Cubebene        1388          0,4    1,7
[beta]-Caryophyllene   1419   0,9    0,9    4,3    0,6           0,8
[alpha]-Bergamotene    1435                        1,0    0,2    1,5
[alpha]-Humulene       1456                 0,7
Germacrene D           1485                 0,9
Valencene              1496                        0,2
Bicyclogermacrene      1500                        0,1
[beta]-Bisabolene      1506                        1,5    0,2    2,2
S-Cadinene             1523                 1,4
Nootkatone             1807   1,1           0,5
Total                         79,8   98,9   100,0  73,4   99,8   100,0

Compounds              C 07   C 08   C 09   C10    C11    C 12

[alpha]-Thujene
[alpha]-Pinene         0,8    1,7           0,9    1,3    0,9
Sabinene                      1,2                         0,8
[beta]-Pinene
Myrcene                2,7    4,3    2,2    3,1    3,6    4,1
D-Limonene             80,1   92,8   97,8   83,9   95,0   90,8
trans-[beta]-ocimene
[gamma]-Terpinene
[alpha]-Terpinolene                                       1,1
Nonanal
cis-limonene oxide                                        0,4
Citronellal
[alpha]-Terpineol
Decanal                                                   0,9
Neral
Carvone                                                   0,5
Lavandulyl acetate
Citral
Neryl acetate
[alpha]-Copaene
[beta]-Cubebene
[beta]-Caryophyllene
[alpha]-Bergamotene
[alpha]-Humulene
Germacrene D
Valencene                                                 0,5
Bicyclogermacrene
[beta]-Bisabolene
S-Cadinene
Nootkatone
Total                  83,5   100,0  99,9   87,9   99,9   99,9

Compounds              Identification

[alpha]-Thujene           a, b, c
[alpha]-Pinene            a, b, c
Sabinene                  a, b, c
[beta]-Pinene               a, b
Myrcene                   a, b, c
D-Limonene                a, b, c
trans-[beta]-ocimene        a, b
[gamma]-Terpinene         a, b, c
[alpha]-Terpinolene         a, b
Nonanal                     a, b
cis-limonene oxide          a, b
Citronellal                 a, b
[alpha]-Terpineol           a, b
Decanal                     a, b
Neral                       a, b
Carvone                     a, b
Lavandulyl acetate          a, b
Citral                      a, b
Neryl acetate               a, b
[alpha]-Copaene             a, b
[beta]-Cubebene             a, b
[beta]-Caryophyllene      a, b, c
[alpha]-Bergamotene         a, b
[alpha]-Humulene            a, b
Germacrene D              a, b, c
Valencene                   a, b
Bicyclogermacrene           a, b
[beta]-Bisabolene         a, b, c
S-Cadinene                  a, b
Nootkatone                  a, b
Total

Sample names according to Table 1; RI = Retention Index;
identification method: a = MS, b = RI, and c = comparison
with authentic standard.

Table 3: Mean percentage ([+ or -]s.e.) of dead
larvae of Aedes albopictus in larvicidal bioassays
by the 12 Citrus samples.

Code    Mean percentage ([+ or -]s.e.)
                of dead larvae

C01            2.0 [+ or -] 1.2
C 02          28.0 [+ or -] 6.0
C 03          24.0 [+ or -] 6.0
C 04          23.0 [+ or -] 8.8
C 05          74.0 [+ or -] 6.0
C 06          31.0 [+ or -] 2.9
C 07           2.0 [+ or -] 1.2
C 08          14.0 [+ or -] 4.3
C09            0.0 [+ or -] 0.0
C 10          10.0 [+ or -] 8.8
C11           51.0 [+ or -] 6.2
C 12          94.0 [+ or -] 3.7
DMSO*          0.0 [+ or -] 0.0

* Control.

Table 4: Mean number ([+ or -]s.e.) of landings of Aedes albopictus
on the uncovered area of the glove per 5 minutes and comparison
with the positive control (DEET) and the control (DCM) by using the
12 Citrus essential oils (d.f. = 1. [alpha] = 0.05).

Code   Mean number ([+ or -]s.e.)    ThEET     ThCM
           of landings/5 min

C01        32.9 [+ or -] 3.9        0.0003*   0.0011*
C 02       50.6 [+ or -] 3.6        0.0003*   0.1712
C 03       38.0 [+ or -] 1.0        0.0003*   0.0008*
C 04       23.0 [+ or -] 5.3        0.0003*   0.0011*
C 05       39.0 [+ or -] 5.2        0.0003*   0.0117*
C 06       39.5 [+ or -] 7.7        0.0003*   0.1275
C 07       36.0 [+ or -] 2.7        0.0003*   0.0008*
C 08       32.6 [+ or -] 0.9        0.0003*   0.0008*
C 09       18.0 [+ or -] 3.0        0.0003*   0.0008*
C10        49.6 [+ or -] 1.9        0.0003*   0.0237*
C11        51.0 [+ or -] 4.3        0.0003*   0.1412
C12        52.1 [+ or -] 5.1        0.0003*   0.1267
DEET        0.0 [+ or -] 0.0          --        --
DCM        56.0 [+ or -] 4.0          --        --

* Significant difference.

Figure 1: D-Limonene increase in the refined samples,
expressed as percentage of the relevant CPEO limonene
content.

                 F1    F2

C. paradisi     24%   10%
C. limon        41%   52%
C. reticulata   16%   22%
C. sinensis     13%    8%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Figure 2: Larvicidal toxicity of the refined samples,
expressed as percentage of the relevant CPEO toxicity

                 F1      F2

C. paradisi     1300%   1100%
C. limon        222%    35%
C. reticulata   600%    -100%
C. sinensis     410%    840%

Note: Table made from bar graph.
COPYRIGHT 2017 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Kapsaski-Kanelli, V.N.; Evergetis, E.; Michaelakis, A.; Papachristos, D.P.; Myrtsi, E.D.; Koulocheri
Publication:BioMed Research International
Article Type:Report
Date:Jan 1, 2017
Words:6658
Previous Article:Effects of Physical Activity on Motor Skills and Cognitive Development in Early Childhood: A Systematic Review.
Next Article:The lncRNA H19 Promotes Cell Proliferation by Competitively Binding to miR-200a and Derepressing [beta]-Catenin Expression in Colorectal Cancer.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters