Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Post Combustion CO2 Capture from a Combined-Cycle Gas Turbine Power Plant via Taguchi Design of Experiment
Next Article in Special Issue
Lipid Isolation Process and Study on Some Molecular Species of Polar Lipid Isolated from Seed of Madhuca ellitica
Previous Article in Journal
Global Evolution Commended by Localized Search for Unconstrained Single Objective Optimization
Previous Article in Special Issue
Purification of Amygdalin from the Concentrated Debitterizing-Water of Apricot Kernelsusing XDA-1 Resin
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 7
Issue 6
10.3390/pr7060363
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Yield, Phytochemical Constituents, and Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils from the Leaves/Twigs, Branches, Branch Wood, and Branch Bark of Sour Orange (Citrus aurantium L.)

by
Mohammad K. Okla
1,
Saud A. Alamri
1,
Mohamed Z.M. Salem
2,*,
Hayssam M. Ali
1,3,
Said I. Behiry
4,
Ramadan A. Nasser
2,
Ibrahim A. Alaraidh
1,
Salem M. Al-Ghtani
5 and
Walid Soufan
6
1
Botany and Microbiology Department, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
2
Forestry and Wood Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture (El-Shatby), Alexandria University, Alexandria 21545, Egypt
3
Timber Trees Research Department, Sabahia Horticulture Research Station, Horticulture Research Institute, Agriculture Research Center, Alexandria 21526, Egypt
4
Agricultural Botany Department, Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University, Alexandria 21531, Egypt
5
Biology Department, University College of Taymma, University of Tabuk, Taymma, Tabuk P. O. Box 741, Saudi Arabia
6
Plant Production Department, Faculty of Food & Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2019, 7(6), 363; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7060363
Submission received: 11 May 2019 / Revised: 22 May 2019 / Accepted: 27 May 2019 / Published: 11 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Green Separation and Extraction Processes)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the present work, essential oils (EOs) extracted from different parts of sour orange Citrus aurantium (green leaves/twigs, small branches, wooden branches, and branch bark) were studied through gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Furthermore, the EOs in the amounts of 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 µL were studied for their antibacterial activity against three pathogenic bacteria, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Dickeya solani, and Erwinia amylovora. The main EO compounds in the leaves/twigs were 4-terpineol (22.59%), D-limonene (16.67%), 4-carvomenthenol (12.84%), and linalool (7.82%). In small green branches, they were D-limonene (71.57%), dodecane (4.80%), oleic acid (2.72%), and trans-palmitoleic acid (2.62%), while in branch bark were D-limonene (54.61%), γ-terpinene (6.68%), dodecane (5.73%), and dimethyl anthranilate (3.13%), and in branch wood were D-limonene (38.13%), dimethyl anthranilate (8.13%), (-)-β-fenchol (6.83%), and dodecane (5.31%). At 25 µL, the EO from branches showed the highest activity against A. tumefaciens (IZ value of 17.66 mm), and leaves/twigs EO against D. solani and E. amylovora had an IZ value of 17.33 mm. It could be concluded for the first time that the wood and branch bark of C. aurantium are a source of phytochemicals, with D-limonene being the predominant compound in the EO, with potential antibacterial activities. The compounds identified in all the studied parts might be appropriate for many applications, such as antimicrobial agents, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals.

1. Introduction

Natural extracts and essential oils (EOs) extracted from aromatic and indigenous plants have a broad spectrum of biological activities such as antibacterial, antifungal, antioxidant, anticancer [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]. EOs from Citrus spp., especially from peels, have been studied extensively in many research projects over the past few decades [9,10,11]. They have exhibited bioactivity potentials against the growth of pathogenic bacteria, fungi, and insects [12,13]. The main chemical compounds identified in the EOs from Citrus were limonene, α-pinene, β-pinene, citral, linalool, myrcene, γ-terpinene, eugenol methyl ether, neral, geranial, neryl acetate, and β-caryophyllene [14,15,16,17,18]. The Citrus plants have many biological and aromatic properties because of the occurrence of EOs, alkaloids, glycosides, flavonoids, tannins, and other compounds in its various parts [19,20].
Citrus aurantium L. (Rutaceae), known as sour or bitter orange, is extensively consumed in Mediterranean countries as marmalade and a flavoring agent [21]. The extracted oils have been recognized as safe for their wide uses as antibacterial, antifungal antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anxiolytic effects [22,23,24,25], and have analgesic activity [26].
Limonene was determined as the main component of bitter orange peel EO, followed by β-myrcene, linalool, β-pinene, and α-pinene [27]. The major compound in Tunisian neroli EO extracted from C. aurantium blossoms is 25.7% linalool [28]. The (R)-(-)-linalool was 59–64% in Citrus (south and south-central Brazil), whereas the hydrolate (orange water) of C. aurantium has nootkatone (17%), α-terpineol (10%), linalool (10%), and limonene (0.8%) [29].
At maturity, limonene exhibited the highest level, with several minor compounds, including linalool, myrcene, and α-terpineol, in the EOs from bitter orange peel [30]. Limonene (92–95%) with linalool and linalyl acetate (together 0.3–3.2%) were identified in the EOs from living (fruits that are still on the tree) bitter orange peel [31]. Shen et al. 32] showed the anti-inflammatory potential of EO from blossoms of C. aurantium L. var. amara Engl with major constituents of linalool, α-terpineol, (R)-limonene, and linalyl acetate [32]. C. aurantium zest EO is composed of limonene (85.22%), β-myrcene, and α-pinene as the main compounds [13]. EO of sweet orange zest consisted of limonene as the main compound, followed by myrcene, α-farnesene, and γ-terpinene [33,34], whereas the EO of sweet orange zest from Uganda and Rwanda contained limonene, myrcene, α-pinene, and linalool [35]. Using the hydrodistillation method, the linalool and terpenes were found to be the main compounds in Neroli blossom EO, whereas, in water recovered oils, linalool, linalyl acetate, geraniol, α-terpineol, and nerol were the main compounds [36]. In flowers, the oil showed the presence of camphor, thymol, linalool, carvacrol, and borneol as main compounds with significant anti-oxidant effect [37].
The goal of the present work was to identify the aromatic chemical profile and antibacterial activity of the EOs from different parts of C. aurantium that could be suitable for different industrial purposes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material of C. aurantium

Fresh branches of C. aurantium were collected in 2019, from Alexandria, Egypt, during pruning process for the trees. The resultant materials were separated to leaves/twigs, small green branches, branch wood, and branch bark. The wood and bark of branches were separated. All the materials were washed with tape water to remove the dust, then cut to small pieces by using scissors to facilitate the extraction process of essential oils (EOs).

2.2. Extraction of EOs

Approximately 100 g from each of leaves/twigs, branches, the wood of branches, and branch bark from C. aurantium were soaked in 2 L flasks with 1500 mL of water and hydrodistillated for 3 h in a Clevenger-type apparatus [38]. The distillates of the EOs were dried over anhydrous Na2SO4, filtrated, and measured with respect to the mass of fresh weight of raw material (Table 1). The EOs from leaves/twigs (Petitgrain), branches (2–4 cm in diameter), the wood of branches, and branch bark were kept dry in sealed Eppendorf tubes and stored at 4 °C prior to chemical analyses.

2.3. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS) Analysis

The chemical composition of the essential oils was determined using a Trace GC Ultra-ISQ mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, Austin, TX, USA) with a direct capillary column TG–5MS (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm film thickness). Initially, the column oven temperature was held at 45 °C, then increased by 5 °C/min to 250 °C and held for 2 min, then increased to 280 °C by 10 °C/min. The injector and MS transfer line temperatures were kept at 250 °C. Helium was used as a carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 1 mL/min. The solvent delay was 2 min and diluted samples of 1 µL were injected automatically using an Autosampler AS1310 coupled with the GC in the split mode. EI mass spectra were collected at 70 eV ionization voltages over a range of m/z of 40–600 in full scan mode. The ion source was set at 200 °C. Identification of the constituents was performed on the basis of their retention times and by comparing the mass spectra with those found in the library search (NIST and Wiley) [39]. Type threshold values contained in Xcalibur 3.0 data system of GC/MS were used as match factors and to confirm that all mass spectra are appended to the library with measuring the Standard Index (SI) and Reverse Standard Index (RSI), where the value ≥650 is acceptable to confirm the compounds [40].

2.4. Antibacterial Activity

Antibacterial evaluation of the EOs was assayed against three phytopathogenic bacteria, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Dickeya solani, and Erwinia amylovora (Microbiology Laboratory, Agricultural Botany Department, Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University, Egypt). The antibacterial evaluation test of the studied four EOs was performed by measuring the inhibition zones (IZs) in millimeters around the loaded filter papers with different amounts of oils (5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 µL) using disc diffusion method [40,41]. Sterile filter paper discs (Whatman filter paper no. 1) with a diameter of 4 mm loaded with different amounts of the studied EOs were placed on the surface of prepared agar plates. All the plates were incubated in incubator at 30 °C for 24 h. Negative control discs were left without any EO. All of the tests were performed in triplicate and the values of the IZs (the clear zones with no bacterial growth around the loaded discs) were reported including the diameter of the disc.

2.5. Statsitcal Analysis

Values of the bacteria’s inhibition zones were statistically analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) in completely randomized design with two factors (oil type and oil amount) using a computer program, Statistical Analysis System [42], and compared with those of the control. Means were compared with L.S.D. test at p < 0.05 levels.

3. Results

3.1. Chemical Composition of the EOs

Table 2 presents the chemical composition of EOs from C. aurantium green leaves/twigs. The main compounds were 4-terpineol (22.59%), D-limonene (16.67%), 4-carvomenthenol (12.84%), linalool (7.82%), methyl methanthranilate (4.41%), cis-4-thujanol (3.72%), γ-terpinene (3.58%), tetraneurin-α-diol (2.61%), 6,9,12,15-docosatetraenoic acid methyl ester (2.48%), and linalyl acetate (2.28%).
Table 3 shows the chemical composition of EOs from C. aurantium small green branches. The main compounds in small branches were D-limonene (71.57%), dodecane (4.80%), oleic acid (2.72%), trans-palmitoleic acid (2.62%), undecane (2.28%), 1-nonadecanol (2.11%), γ-terpinene (1.97%), 4-terpineol (2.13%), and α-terpineol (1.04%).
The chemical constituents of C. aurantium branch bark is shown in Table 4. The main components were D-limonene (54.61%), γ-terpinene (6.68%), dodecane (5.73%), dimethyl anthranilate (3.13%), undecane (3.00%), tetradecyloxirane (2.08%), ethyl iso-allocholate (1.96%), 4-terpineol (1.59%), myrcene (1.53%), and 1,3-diolein (1.52%).
Table 5 shows the chemical compounds identified in C. aurantium branch wood. The main compounds in the EO were D-limonene (38.13%), dimethyl anthranilate (8.13%), (-)-β-fenchol (6.83%), dodecane (5.31%), 4-carvomenthenol (4.21%), γ-terpinene (3.62%), cis-4-thujanol (3.49%), thymol (3.30%), valencene (3.30%), linalool (2.94%), 6,7-dihydrogeraniol (2.15%), and undecane (2.13%).
The GC–MS chromatograms of the identified compounds of EOs from the studied different parts of C. aurantium are shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Antibacterial Activity of the EOs

From the main effects of the extracted oils from different parts of C. aurantium (Figure 2a), oil from leaves/twigs showed the highest activity against all the studied three phytopathogenic bacteria. The main effects of oil amount from all the studied plant parts (Figure 2b) showed that increasing the amount of oil (µL) also increased the antibacterial activity, as measured by the inhibition zone (IZ).
Table 6 presents the antibacterial activity of the studied EOs from different parts of C. aurantium. The highest activity against the growth of A. tumefaciens was observed by the application of EO from branches at 25 µL (IZ value of 17.66 mm), followed by oil from leaves/twigs at 20 and 25 µL with IZ value of 15.66 mm. On the other hand, EOs from bark and branch wood did not show any activity against A. tumefaciens. At 25 µL of leaves/twigs EO, the highest activity (17.33 mm) against D. solani was reported, followed by the application of branch EO at 25 µL (16.66 mm) and 20 µL (16.66 mm). For the antibacterial activity of EOs against the growth of E. amylovora at oil amount of 20 and 25 µL from leaves/twigs, the highest IZ value was observed (17.33 mm), followed by branch EO at 25 µL with IZ value of 15.33 mm. Also, the EO from leaves/twigs at 10 and 15 µL showed good activity against E. amylovora with IZ value of 15.00 mm.

4. Discussion

The results of the present work showed the variation in the chemical composition of the EOs from different parts of C. aurantium. Most previous studies have focused on the identification of chemical composition of EOs from the peels, pericarp, blossoms, and leaves, and no core results have been reported from branches, wood, or bark. Additionally, the trials of antimicrobial activities of the EOs were measured against human pathogenic bacteria and plant pathogenic fungi, with no results about the activity against plant bacterial pathogens.
4-terpineol (22.59%) and D-limonene (16.67%) were the most predominate components abundant in green leaves/twigs of C. aurantium, while D-limonene with percentages of 71.57%, 54.61%, and 38.13% was found in small green branches, branch bark, and branch wood, respectively. Results from Wolffenbuttel et al. [29] showed that limonene (39.5–92.7%) and linalool (14.2–24.8%) are the main components of the pericarp and leaves, respectively, of citrus oils obtained by steam distillation, hydrodistillation, or cold press extraction. Linalyl acetate, linalool, α-terpineol, geranyl acetate, geraniol, and geranial as oxygenated monoterpene hydrocarbons were primarily identified in petitgrain oil of C. aurantium var. amara [12], whereas limonene was present only at a concentration of 1.4%. Terpinen-4-ol, α-pinene, β-pinene, 1,8-cyneol, linalool, and 4-terpineol and their mixture have been shown to have potent antifungal activity [12,43,44]. The most abundant compounds in Tunisian oil were linalool with lower amounts of linalyl acetate and α-terpineol [45]. Algerian C. aurantium leaf EO showed linalool, γ-terpinene, and α-terpineol with percentages of 18.6, 6.9, and 15.1%, respectively, while in peel EO were linalool, cis-linalool oxide, trans-carveol, endo-fenchyl acetate, and carvone with percentages of 12, 8.1, 11.9, 5.5, and 5.8%, respectively [46]. Previously, α-terpineol from Cinnamomum longepaniculatum decreased cell size and irregular cell shape, cell wall, and membrane of E. coli [47]. α-terpinene, terpinen-4-ol, terpinolene, and α-terpineol had strong antibacterial activities against Propionibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus aureus [48].
Linalyl acetate was present in Sicilian petitgrain oil with a lower amount of linalool [49]. Linalyl acetate and linalool were the main components in petitgrain oil from Turkey [50]. EOs of the peels, flowers, and leaves from C. aurantium, collected from northern Greece, exhibited the primary compounds linalool (29.14%), β-pinene (19.08%), trans-β-ocimene (6.06%), and trans-farnesol (5.14%) [51]. The EOs from blossoms of C. aurantium growing in the Darab region in Fars Province, Iran, showed that geraniol, α-terpineol, linalool, and benzene acetaldehyde were the main compounds [52]. Myrcene was found in low percentage of the present work and previously it was reported that myrcene, which found in the EO, is known to possess cytotoxic activity [53,54]. Dl-limonene with 94.81% is the main compound identified in peel EO from C. aurantium with promising larvicide against Anopheles stephensi [9]. Limonene, (E)-nerolidol, α-terpineol, α-terpinyl acetate, and (E,E)-farnesol were the main compounds in the flower EO of C. aurantium with good antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa [10]. α-terpineol and terpinene-4-ol, found in the leaf EO from C. hystrix, were more active against Acinetobacter baumannii, Streptococcus spp., and Haemophilus influenzae than crude oil, while limonene, the most abundant component of C. hystrix oil, had lower antibacterial activity [55].
Zest EO had limonene (85.22%), β-myrcene (4.3%), and α-pinene (1.29%) as the main components, and the EO showed higher antioxidant activity than did limonene alone with a potential for antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella sp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Bacillus subtilis, and Escherichia coli [13]. Among 34 kinds of citrus EOs, four EOs from C. aurantium zest presented good antioxidant activities, as measured by a DPPH assay [16]. Strong fungicidal activity was exhibited by limonene and (E)-nerolidol present in the EO of the flowers of C. aurantium L. var. amara [56].
Considering that limonene is the major compound of the EO of Citrus, this compound has good antioxidant properties [57]. Additionally, other compounds, such as linalool and borneol, have antitumor effects; sabinene and pinene have anti-inflammatory activity; and citral exhibits analgesic functions [58,59,60,61,62].
Although cis-β-terpineol, D-limonene, 4-carvomenthenol, and linalool were the main compounds in petitgrain EO in the present study, the compounds of linalyl acetate, linalool, α-terpineol, and geranyl acetate [12,18,63] were the main compounds in petitgrain EO, which exhibited good antibacterial and antifungal activity, especially against Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus niger, and Penicillium expansum, whereas the weakest fungicidal effects were observed for Candida krusei [12]. A mixture of terpenoid containing terpinen-4-ol and linalool exhibited high antifungal activity against Trichophyton mentagrophytes, T. rubrum, Microsporum gypseum, A. niger, and A. flavus [43].
Limonene, linalool, citronellal, and citronellol were the main constituents of EO from C. aurantifolia leaves and fruit peels and exhibited promising antibacterial activity against oral pathogenic bacteria Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus casei [64].
Leaves EO of C. aurantium grown in Shiraz (south of Iran) showed the presence of limonene, linalool, and trans-β-ocimene as major components and exhibited strong antioxidant activity [65]. EO obtained by cold pressing of C. aurantium fruits with high percentage of limonene (77.90%) and minor percentages of β-pinene (3.40%) and myrcene (1.81%) was inactive against Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas, while moderately active against Stapylococcus aureus [66]. Limonene from linalool-rich essential oil inhibits S. aureus [67].
The variations in the chemical composition of the EOs could be explained by various extraction processes and plant parts used. Furthermore, they are affected by various soils and climatic characteristics of the regions where the C. aurantium trees grow [36,45,68,69,70,71]. For example, the ranges of linalool acetate, linalool, farnesol, nerolidol, and geranyl acetate at 12.2–28.9%, 22.9–54%, 0.2–10.4%, 0.4–21.4%, and 0.97–9.3%, respectively, in C. aurantium blossom EO were observed by seven different methods of oil extraction [71].

5. Conclusions

In the present study, variations in essential oils composition from different parts of C. aurantium were reported. 4-terpineol, followed by D-limonene, were the main constituents in EO from the leaves/twigs, while D-limonene was the main constituent in small green branches, the branch wood, and the branch bark. EOs from leaves and small branches promised to be potential antibacterial activates against Agrobacterium tumefaciens, Dickeya solani, and Erwinia amylovora. The EOs obtained from different parts of C. aurantium displayed bioactive compounds, which have the potential for application as biopreservative agents, antioxidants, antimicrobial compounds, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals.

Author Contributions

M.K.O., S.A.A., M.Z.M.S., S.I.B., H.M.A. and R.A.N. designed the experiment, conducted laboratory analyses, wrote parts of the manuscript, and interpreted the results; I.A.A., S.M.A.-G., and W.S. contributed reagents and materials; and M.Z.M.S. visualized and revised the article.

Funding

This research was funded by Dean of Scientific Research, King Saud University, through the research group project number PRG-1439-63.

Acknowledgments

We extend our appreciation to the Dean of Scientific Research, King Saud University, for funding the work through the research group project number PRG-1439-63. The authors also thank the Deanship of Scientific Research and RSSU at King Saud University for their technical support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sanei-Dehkordi, A.; Soleimani-Ahmadi, M.; Akbarzadeh, K.; Abadi, Y.S.; Paksa, A.; Gorouhi, M.A.; Mohammadi-Azni, S. Chemical composition and mosquito larvicidal properties of essential oil from leaves of an Iranian indigenous plant Zhumeria majdae. J. Essen. Oil Bear. Plant 2016, 19, 1454–1461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tayeb, A.H.; Sadeghifara, H.; Hubbe, M.A.; Rojas, O.J. Lipoxygenase-mediated peroxidation of model plant extractives. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 104, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. EL-Hefny, M.; Mohamed, A.A.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Abd El-Kareem, M.S.M.; Ali, H.M. Chemical composition, antioxidant capacity and antibacterial activity against some potato bacterial pathogens of fruit extracts from Phytolacca dioica and Ziziphus spina-christi grown in Egypt. Sci. Horticul. 2018, 233, 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. EL-Hefny, M.; Ashmawy, N.A.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Salem, A.Z.M. Antibacterial activity of the phytochemicals-characterized extracts of Callistemon viminalis, Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Conyza dioscoridis against the growth of some phytopathogenic bacteria. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 113, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Elghandour, M.M.Y.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Greiner, R.; Salem, A.Z.M. Effects of natural blends of garlic and eucalypt essential oils on biogas production of four fibrous feeds at short term of incubation in the ruminal anaerobic biosystem. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 5313–5321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Salem, M.Z.M.; Behiry, S.I.; EL-Hefny, M. Inhibition of Fusarium culmorum, Penicillium chrysogenum and Rhizoctonia solani by n-hexane extracts of three plant species as a wood-treated oil fungicide. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 126, 1683–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Medina, M.F.E.; Alaba, P.A.; Estrada-Zuñiga, M.E.; Velázquez-Ordoñez, V.; Barbabosa-Pliego, A.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Alonso-Fresán, M.U.; Camacho-Díaz, L.M.; Salem, A.Z.M. Anti-staphylococcal properties of four plant extracts against sensitive and multi-resistant bacterial strains isolated from Cattle and Rabbits. Microb. Pathog. 2017, 113, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tavakoli, S.; Vatandoost, H.; Zeidabadinezhad, R.; Hajiaghaee, R.; Hadjiakhoondi, A.; Abai, M.R.; Yassa, N. Gas Chromatography, GC/Mass analysis and bioactivity of essential oil from aerial parts of Ferulago trifida: Antimicrobial, antioxidant, AChE inhibitory, general toxicity, MTT assay and larvicidal activities. J. Arthropod Borne Dis. 2017, 11, 414–426. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sanei-Dehkordi, A.; Sedaghat, M.M.; Vatandoost, H.; Abai, M.R. 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 paradise. J. Arthropod Borne Dis. 2016, 10, 577–585. [Google Scholar]
  10. Haj Ammar, A.; Bouajila, J.; Lebrihi, A.; Mathieu, F.; Romdhane, M.; Zagrouba, F. Chemical composition and in vitro antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of Citrus aurantium L. fowers essential oil (Neroli oil). Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 15, 1034–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Radan, M.; Parčina, A.; Burčul, F. Chemical composition and antioxidant activity of essential oil obtained from bitter orange peel (Citrus aurantium L.) using two methods. Croat. Chem. Acta 2018, 91, 125–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gniewosz, M.; Kraśniewska, K.; Kosakowska, O.; Pobiega, K.; Wolska, I. Chemical compounds and antimicrobial activity of petitgrain (Citrus aurantium L. var. amara) essential oil. Herba Pol. 2017, 63, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Teneva, D.; Denkova-Kostova, R.; Goranov, B.; Hristova-Ivanova, Y.; Slavchev, A.; Denkova, Z.; Kostov, G. Chemical composition, antioxidant activity and antimicrobial activity of essential oil from Citrus aurantium L zest against some pathogenic microorganisms. Z Naturforsch C 2019, 74, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kamal, G.M.; Anwar, F.; Hussain, A.I.; Sarri, N.; Ashraf, M.Y. Yield and chemical composition of Citrus essential oils as affected by drying pretreatment of peels. Int. Food Res. J. 2011, 18, 1275–1282. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ahmad, M.M.; Rehman, S.; Iqbal, Z.; Anjum, F.M.; Sultan, J.I. Genetic variability to essential oil composition in four Citrus fruit species. Pak. J. Bot. 2006, 38, 319–324. [Google Scholar]
  16. Choi, H.S.; Sawamura, M. Composition of the essential oil of Citrus tamurana Hort. ex Tanaka (Hyuganatsu). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 4868–4873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Vekiari, S.A.; Protopapadakis, E.E.; Parthena, P.; Dimitrios, P.; Panou, C.; Vamvakias, M. Composition and seasonal variation of the essential oil from leaves and peel of a Cretan lemon variety. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lota, M.L.; de Rocca Serra, D.; Jacquemond, C.; Tomi, F.; Casanova, J. Chemical variability of peel and leaf essential oils of sour orange. Flavour Frag. J. 2001, 16, 89–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Souza, E.; Stamford, T.; Lima, E.; Trajano, V.; Filho, J. Antimicrobial effectiveness of spices: An approach for use in food conservation systems. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2005, 48, 549–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. De Masi, L.; Castaldo, D.; Pignone, D.; Servillo, L.; Facchiano, A. Experimental evidence and in silico identification of tryptophan decarboxylase in Citrus genus. Molecules 2017, 22, 272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Rousef, P.; Perez-Cacho, R. Citrus flavor. In Flavours and Fragrances: Chemistry, Bioprocessing and Sustainability, 1st ed.; Berger, R.G., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  22. Caccioni, D.R.; Guizzardi, M.; Biondi, D.M.; Renda, A.; Ruberto, G. Relationship between volatile components of citrus fruit essential oils and antimicrobial action on P. digitatum and P. italicum growth. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1998, 43, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Giamperi, L.; Fraternale, D.; Ricci, D. The in vitro action of essential oils on different organisms. Essent. Oil Res. 2002, 14, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pultrini Ade, M.; Galindo, L.A.; Costa, M. Effects of the essential oil from Citrus aurantium L. in experimental anxiety models in mice. Life Sci. 2006, 78, 1720–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Gruenwald, J.; Brendler, T.; Jaenicke, C. PDR for Herbal Medicines, 2nd ed.; Medical Economics Company: Montvale, NJ, USA, 2000; pp. 346–351. [Google Scholar]
  26. Abdi-Azar, H.; Maleki, S.A. Comparison of the anesthesia with thiopental sodium alone and their combination with Citrus aurantium L. (Rutaseae) essential oil in male rat. Bull. Environ. Pharmacol. Life Sci. 2014, 3, 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gölükcü, M.; Toker, R.; Tokgöz, H.; Turgut, D.Y. Bitter orange (Citrus aurantium L.) peel essential oil compositions obtained with different methods. Derim 2015, 32, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dhifi, W.; Mnif, W.; Jelali, N.; El Beyrouthy, M.; Ben Salem, N. Citrus aurantium (bitter orange) blossoms essential oil and methanolic extract: Composition and free radical scavenging activity. Acta Hortic. 2013, 997, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wolffenbuttel, A.N.; Zamboni, A.; dos Santos, M.K.; Borille, B.T.; Augustin, O.A.; de Cassia Mariotti, K.; Leal, M.B.; Limberger, R.P. Chemical components of citrus essential oils from Brazil. Nat. Prod. J. 2015, 5, 14–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vahid, R.; Sharareh, N. Changes of peel essential oil composition of Citrus aurantium L. during fruit maturation in Iran. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2015, 18, 1006–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Boelens, M.H.; Jimene, R. The chemical composition of the peel oils from unripe and ripe fruits of bitter orange, Citrus aurantium L. ssp. Amara. Engl. Flavour Fragr. J. 1989, 4, 139–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shen, C.Y.; Jiang, J.G.; Zhu, W.; Ou-Yang, Q. Anti-inflammatory effect of essential oil from Citrus aurantium L. var. amara. Engl. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 8586–8594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tao, N.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, M. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activities of essential oil from the peel of bingtang sweet orange (Citrus sinensis Osbeck). Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 1281–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Azar, A.P.; Nekoei, M.; Larijani, K.; Bahraminasab, S. Chemical composition of the essential oils of Citrus sinensis cv. Valencia and a quantitative structure-retention relationship study for the prediction of retention indices by multiple linear regression. J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 2011, 76, 1627–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Njoroge, S.M.; Phi, N.T.; Sawamura, M. Chemical composition of peel essential oils of sweet oranges (Citrus sinensis) from Uganda and Rwanda. J. Essent. Oil Bear Plants 2009, 12, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ines, E.; Hajer, D.; Rachid, C. Aromatic quality of Tunisian sour orange essential oils: Comparison between traditional and industrial extraction. Nat. Volatiles Essent. Oils 2014, 1, 66–72. [Google Scholar]
  37. Sadeghimanesh, A.; Khalaji-Pirbalouty, V.; Lorigooini, Z.; Rafieian-Kopaei, M.; Torki, A.; Rabiei, Z. Phytochemical and neuroprotective evaluation of Citrus aurantium essential oil on cerebral ischemia and reperfusion. Bangladesh J. Pharmacol. 2018, 13, 353–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Salem, M.Z.M.; Ali, H.M.; El-Shanhorey, N.A.; Abdel-Megeed, A. Evaluation of extracts and essential oil from Callistemon viminalis leaves: Antibacterial and antioxidant activities, total phenolic and flavonoid contents. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Med. 2013, 6, 785–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. NIST/EPA/NIH Mass Spectral Library (NIST 14) and NIST Mass Spectral Search Program, (Version 2.0g); Standard Reference Data Program; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, May 2014.
  40. Salem, M.Z.M.; Mansour, M.M.A.; Elansary, H.O. Evaluation of the effect of inner and outer bark extracts of Sugar Maple (Acer saccharum var. saccharum) in combination with citric acid against the growth of three common molds. J. Wood Chem. Technol. 2019, 39, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. NCCLS–National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Disk Susceptibility Tests Sixth Edition: Approved Standard M2-A6; NCCLS: Villanova, PA, USA, 1997.
  42. Behiry, S.I.; Okla, M.K.; Alamri, S.A.; EL-Hefny, M.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Alaraidh, I.A.; Ali, H.M.; Al-Ghtani, S.M.; Monroy, J.C.; Salem, A.Z.M. Antifungal and antibacterial activities of Musa paradisiaca L. peel extract: HPLC analysis of phenolic and flavonoid contents. Processes 2019, 7, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. SAS. User Guide: Statistics (Release 8.02); SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  44. Griffin, S.G.; Wyllie, S.G.; Markham, J.L.; Leach, D.N. The role of structure and molecular properties of terpenoids in determining their antimicrobial activity. Flavour Frag. J. 1999, 14, 322–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hammer, K.A.; Carson, C.F.; Riley, T.V. Antifungal activity of the components of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 95, 853–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ellouze, I.; Abderrabba, M. Kinetics of extraction of Citrus aurantium essential oil by hydrodistillation: Influence on the yield and the chemical composition. J. Mater Environ. Sci. 2014, 5, 841–848. [Google Scholar]
  47. Li, L.; Shi, C.; Yin, Z.; Ji, R.; Peng, L.; Kang, S.; Li, Z. Antibacterial activity of α-terpineol may induce morphostructural alterations in Escherichia coli. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2014, 45, 1409–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Lee, C.-J.; Chen, L.-W.; Chen, L.-G.; Chang, T.-L.; Huang, C.-W.; Huang, M.-C.; Wang, C.-C. Correlations of the components of tea tree oil with its antibacterial effects and skin irritation. J. Food Drug Anal. 2013, 21, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Abderrezak, M.K.; Abaza, I.; Aburjai, T.; Kabouche, A.; Kabouche, Z. Comparative compositions of essential oils of Citrus aurantium growing in different soils. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2014, 5, 1913–1918. [Google Scholar]
  50. De Pasquale, F.; Siragusa, M.; Abbate, L.; Tusa, N.; De Pasquale, C.; Alonzo, G. Characterization of five sour orange clones through molecular markers and leaf essential oils analysis. Sci. Hort. 2006, 109, 54–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kirbaslar, G.; Kirbaslar, S.I. Composition of Turkish bitter orange and lemon leaf oils. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2004, 16, 105–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Sarrou, E.; Chatzopoulou, P.; Dimassi-Theriou, K.; Therios, I. Volatile constituents and antioxidant activity of peel, flowers and leaf oils of Citrus aurantium L. growing in Greece. Molecules 2013, 18, 10639–10647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Monsef-Esfahani, H.R.; Amanzade, Y.; Alhani, Z.; Hajimehdipour, H.; Faramarzi, M.A. GC/MS analysis of Citrus aurantium L. hydrolate and its comparison with the commercial samples. Iran J. Pharm. Res. 2004, 3, 177–179. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sibanda, S.; Chigwada, G.; Poole, M.; Gwebu, E.T.; NolettoJ, A.; Schmidt, J.M.; Rea, A.I.; Setzer, W.N. Composition and bioactivity of the leaf essential oil of Heteropyxis dehniae from Zimbabwe. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2004, 92, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Srisukh, V.; Tribuddharat, C.; Nukoolkarn, V.; Bunyapraphatsara, N.; Chokephaibulkit, K.; Phoomniyom, S.; Chuanphung, S.; Srifuengfung, S. Antibacterial activity of essential oils from Citrus hystrix (makrut lime) against respiratory tract pathogens. ScienceAsia 2012, 38, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Usta, J.; Kreydiyyeh, S.; Knio, K.; Barnabe, P.; Bou-Moughlabay, Y.; Dagher, S. Linalool decreases HepG2 viability by inhibiting mitochondrial complexes I and II, increasing reactive oxygen species and decreasing ATP and GSH levels. Chemico-Biol. Interact. 2009, 180, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hsouna, A.B.; Hamdi, N.; Halima, N.B.; Abdelkafi, S. Characterization of essential oil from Citrus aurantium L. flowers: Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities. J. Oleo Sci. 2013, 62, 763–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Bacanli, M.; Başaran, A.A.; Başaran, N. The antioxidant and antigenotoxic properties of citrus phenolics limonene and naringin. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2015, 81, 160–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. El Asbahani, A.; Miladi, K.; Badri, W.; Sala, M.; Addi, E.H.A.; Casabianca, H.; El Mousadik, A.; Hartmann, D.; Jilale, A.; Renaud, F.N.R.; et al. Essential oils: From extraction to encapsulation. Int. Pharmaceut. 2015, 483, 220–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Marija, M.; Lesjak, I.N. Phytochemical composition and antioxidant, antinflammatory and antimicrobial activities of Juniperus macrocarpa. J. Funct. Foods 2014, 7, 257–268. [Google Scholar]
  61. Miracle, C.; Galbis, B. Impact assessment of carvacrol and citral effect on Escherichia coli K12 and Listeria innocua growth. Food Control 2013, 33, 536–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Singh, P.; Shukla, R.; Prakash, B.; Kumar, A.; Singh, S.; Mishra, P.K. Chemical profile, antifungal, anti-aflatoxigenic and antioxidant activity of Citrus maxima Burm. and Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck essential oils and their cyclic monoterpene, DL-limonene. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2010, 48, 1734–4170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Valente, J.; Zuzarte, M. Antifungal, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activities of Oenanthe crocata L essential oil. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2013, 62, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Babushok, V.I.; Linstrom, P.J.; Zenkevich, I.G. Retention indices for frequently reported compounds of plant essential oils. J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 2011, 40, 1–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lemes, R.S.; Alves, C.C.F.; Estevam, E.B.B.; Santiago, M.B.; Martins, C.H.G.; Santos, T.C.L.D.; Crotti, A.E.M.; Miranda, M.L.D. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of essential oils from Citrus aurantifolia leaves and fruit peel against oral pathogenic bacteria. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2018, 90, 1285–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Majnooni, M.-B.; Mansouri, K.; Gholivand, M.-B.; Mostafaie, A.; Mohammadi-Motlagh, H.-R.; Afnanzade, N.-S.; Abolghasemi, M.-M.; Piriyaei, M. Chemical composition, cytotoxicity and antioxidant activities of the essential oil from the leaves of Citrus aurantium L. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 498–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Quintero, A.; Gónzalez, C.N.; Sánchez, F.; Usubillaga, A.; Rojas, L. Constituents and biological activity of Citrus aurantium amara L. essential oil. Acta Hort. 2003, 597, 115–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mazzanti, G.; Betinelli, L.; Salvatore, G. Antimicrobial properties of the linalool-rich essential oil. Flavour Fragr. J. 1998, 13, 289–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ellouze, I. Contribution à l’étude de la valorisation du bigaradier Citrus aurantium L. Mémoire de mastère; INAT: Tunis, Tunisie, 2007; 57p. [Google Scholar]
  70. Rahimi, A.; Hashemi, P.; Talei, G.R.; Borzuei, M.; Ghiasvand, A.R. Comparative analyses of the volatile components of Citrus aurantium L. flowers using ultrasonic- assisted headspace SPME and hydrodistillation combined with GC-MS and evaluation of their antimicrobial activities. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. Res. 2014, 1, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Mohagheghniapour, A.; Saharkhiz, M.J.; Golmakani, M.T. Variations in chemical compositions of essential oil from sour orange (Citrus aurantium L.) blossoms by different isolation methods. Sus. Chem. Pharm. 2018, 10, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 07 00363 g001a 550Processes 07 00363 g001b 550
Figure 1. GC–MS chromatogram showing the chemical analysis of essential oils from leaves/twigs (1), small branches (2), bark of branches (3), and wood of branches (4).
Figure 1. GC–MS chromatogram showing the chemical analysis of essential oils from leaves/twigs (1), small branches (2), bark of branches (3), and wood of branches (4).
Processes 07 00363 g001aProcesses 07 00363 g001b
Processes 07 00363 g002 550
Figure 2. The main effects of oils from different parts of C. aurantium (a) and their amounts (b) on the growth of A. tumefaciens, D. solani, and E. amylovora.
Figure 2. The main effects of oils from different parts of C. aurantium (a) and their amounts (b) on the growth of A. tumefaciens, D. solani, and E. amylovora.
Processes 07 00363 g002
Table
Table 1. Oil yield from different parts of Citrus aurantium.
Table 1. Oil yield from different parts of Citrus aurantium.
Part UsedOil Yield (mL/100 g Material)
Leaves/twigs3.45
Branches1.55
Wood of branches1.15
Branch bark1.10
Table
Table 2. Chemical composition of essential oils from Citrus aurantium green leaves and twigs.
Table 2. Chemical composition of essential oils from Citrus aurantium green leaves and twigs.
CompoundRelative Quantity (%)Molecular FormulaMolecular Weight (g/mol)SI 1RSI 2
Myrcene0.30C10H16136803833
β-Pinene1.21C10H16136804862
d-Limonene16.67C10H16136934936
2-Carene epoxide0.45C10H16O152793842
Undecane0.92C11H24156863920
γ-Terpinene3.58C10H16136927938
cis-4-Thujanol3.72C10H18O154936947
Octadecyl vinyl ether0.76C20H40O296760766
4-Terpineol22.59C10H18O154961966
Dodecane1.59C12H26170883883
cis-para-2-Menthen-1-ol0.71C10H18O154847886
trans,trans-(+)-5-Caranol0.52C10H18O154772841
2,6,10-Trimethyltetradecane0.56C17H36240768795
4-Carvomenthenol12.84C10H18O154932943
Linalool7.82C10H18O154839861
5,9-Dimethyl-4,8-decadienal0.42C12H20O180770805
Linalyl acetate2.28C12H20O2196825888
α-Terpineol0.96C10H18O154762790
Vitamin A aldehyde (Retinal)0.32C20H28O284704807
Ascaridol0.97C10H16O2168765850
4,7-Octadecadienoic acid methyl ester0.48C19H30O2290691712
Arachidonic acid methyl ester0.54C21H34O2318740777
Thymol0.90C10H14O150774864
6,9,12-Octadecatrienoic acid methyl ester0.53C19H32O2292719764
2-(7-Heptadecynyloxy) tetrahydro-2H-pyran0.83C22H40O2336714749
(Z)-Pseudosolasodine diacetate0.94C31H49NO4499680717
Methyl methanthranilate4.41C9H11NO2165819929
3′,4′,7-Trimethylquercetin0.41C18H16O7344661690
2-[4-Methyl-6-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-1-enyl)hexa-1,3,5-trienyl]cyclohex-1-en-1-carboxaldehyde1.38C23H32O324717761
Ethyl iso-allocholate0.61C26H44O5436717744
Oleic acid0.87C18H34O2282685754
6,9,12,15-Docosatetraenoic acid methyl ester2.48C23H38O2346713797
Tetraneurin-α-diol2.61C15H20O5280697786
1 SI: Standard Index. 2 RSI: Reverse Standard Index.
Table
Table 3. Chemical composition of essential oil from Citrus aurantium small branches.
Table 3. Chemical composition of essential oil from Citrus aurantium small branches.
CompoundRelative Quantity (%)Molecular
Formula		Molecular Weight (g/mol)SI 1RSI 2
α-Pinene0.52C10H16136873934
Decane0.72C10H22142859937
Myrcene1.08C10H16136819836
2-Methyldodecan-1-ol0.46C13H28O200788835
d-Limonene71.57C10H16136940941
(E)- 2,3-Epoxycarane0.49C10H16O152759817
Undecane2.28C11H24156928950
γ-Terpinene1.97C10H16136878910
Myristyl alcohol0.57C14H30O214774777
1-Nonadecanol2.11C19H40O284766775
4-Terpineol2.13C10H18O154897942
Dodecane4.80C12H26170919934
Tetradecane0.84C14H30198780788
α-Terpineol1.04C10H18O154832880
3,6-Octadecadienoic acid methyl ester0.49C19H34O2294729777
Octahydro- 1,2,4-metheno-1H-cyclobuta[cd]pentalene-3,5-diol0.46C10H12O2164712778
cis-Z-α-Bisabolene epoxide0.96C15H24O220735759
Oleic acid2.72C18H34O2282762781
Arachidonic acid methyl ester0.82C21H34O2318753815
(E)-Acrylic acid,
3-(3-methoxycarbonyl-1-cyclohexen-4-yl)-methylester		0.66C12H16O4224604688
trans-Palmitoleic acid2.62C16H30O2254760807
Ethyl iso-allocholate0.66C26H44O5436743772
1 SI: Standard Index. 2 RSI: Reverse Standard Index.
Table
Table 4. Chemical composition of essential oil from Citrus aurantium branch bark.
Table 4. Chemical composition of essential oil from Citrus aurantium branch bark.
CompoundRelative Quantity (%)Molecular FormulaMolecular Weight (g/mol)SI 2RSI 1
α-Pinene1.28C10H16136884938
Decane1.27C10H22142817929
Myrcene1.53C10H16136812841
β-Pinene1.38C10H16136855899
2,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-ol0.45C10H18O154703740
1-Decene0.52C10H20140765786
1-Tetradecanol0.66C14H30O214770776
d-Limonene54.61C10H16136938940
(E)- 2,3-Epoxycarane0.96C10H16O152774829
Undecane3.00C11H24156894930
γ-Terpinene6.68C10H16136908945
cis-p-2-Menthen-1-ol0.41C10H18O154754822
Hexahydrofarnesol1.2C15H32O228750740
Tetradecyloxirane2.08C16H32O240743809
4-Terpineol1.59C10H18O154850920
Dodecane5.73C12H26170893923
2,6,10-Trimethyltetradecane1.17C17H36240754782
4-Carvomenthenol1.20C10H18O154782800
α-Terpineol1.15C10H18O154825884
Methyl hexadecadienoate0.41C17H30O2266716723
trans-(Z)-α-Bisabolene epoxide0.61C15H24O220729801
4,7-Octadecadienoic acid, methyl ester0.61C19H30O2290707730
2-[4-Methyl-6-(2,6,6-trimethylcyclohex-1-enyl)hexa-1,3,5-trienyl]cyclohex-1-en-1-carboxaldehyde0.48C23H32O324703714
Oleic acid1.33C18H34O2282780804
9-Hexadecenoic acid1.16C16H30O2254776810
Dimethyl anthranilate3.13C9H11NO2165669893
Methyl hexadecadienoate0.92C17H30O2266764801
1,3-Diolein1.52C39H72O5620753780
Ethyl iso-allocholate1.96C26H44O5436744767
1 SI: Standard Index. 2 RSI: Reverse Standard Index.
Table
Table 5. Chemical composition of essential oil from Citrus aurantium branch wood.
Table 5. Chemical composition of essential oil from Citrus aurantium branch wood.
CompoundRelative Quantity (%)Molecular FormulaMolecular Weight (g/mol)SI 1RSI 2
α-Pinene1.50C10H16136941948
Decane0.65C10H22142880939
Myrcene0.96C10H16136837906
β-Pinene1.54C10H16136909939
D-Limonene38.13C10H16136940941
p-Cymene0.72C10H14134805823
Undecane2.13C11H24156934951
γ-Terpinene3.62C10H16136901935
4-Terpineol0.95C10H18O154866906
1-Dodecanol0.54C12H26O186769798
1-Eicosanol1.69C20H42O298769776
Linalool2.94C10H18O154873898
cis-4-Thujanol3.49C10H18O154933945
Dodecane5.31C12H26170926939
7-Methyl pentadecane1.12C16H34226850885
4-Carvomenthenol4.21C10H18O154898907
Capraldehyde0.93C10H20O156823885
(-)-β-Fenchol6.83C10H18O154932937
6,7-Dihydrogeraniol2.15C10H20O156886897
β-Citrylideneethanol0.45C12H20O180730742
trans-Carveol0.83C10H16O152820864
(Z)-Citral1.42C10H16O152782830
6-Methyltetraline0.57C11H14146777841
Dihydro cuminyl alcohol0.91C10H16O152805854
Thymol3.30C10H14O150904917
Farnesol1.05C15H26O222801813
Nerolidyl acetate0.66C17H28O2264805825
Valencene3.30C15H24204931958
Dimethyl anthranilate8.13C9H11NO2165909940
1 SI: Standard Index. 2 RSI: Reverse Standard Index.
Table
Table 6. Antibacterial activity of essential oils from C. aurantium against three phytopathogenic bacteria.
Table 6. Antibacterial activity of essential oils from C. aurantium against three phytopathogenic bacteria.
Extracted OilOil Amount (µL)Inhibition Zone Values (mm)
A. tumefaciensD. solaniE. amylovora
Leaves/twigs00.000.000.00
50.009.33 ± 0.5712.66 ± 0.57
1010.00 ± 0.0014.66 ± 0.5715.00 ± 0.00
1511.66 ± 0.5715.00 ± 0.0015.00 ± 0.00
2015.66 ± 0.5716.66 ± 0.5717.33 ± 0.57
2515.66 ± 0.5717.33 ± 0.5717.33 ± 0.57
Branches00.000.000.00
50.0011.33 ± 0.5712.00 ± 0.00
106.00 ± 0.0011.33 ± 0.5712.00 ± 0.00
1510.00 ± 0.0014.33 ± 0.5712.33 ± 0.57
2010.00 ± 0.0016.66 ± 1.5214.66 ± 0.57
2517.66 ± 0.5716.66 ± 0.5715.33 ± 0.57
Branch bark00.000.000.00
50.000.006.00 ± 0.00
100.000.0010.00 ± 0.00
150.002.00 ± 3.4610.00 ± 0.00
200.007.66 ± 0.5711.66 ± 0.57
250.009.66 ± 0.5712.33 ± 0.57
Branch wood00.000.000.00
50.000.006.00 ± 0.00
100.0010.00 ± 0.006.33 ± 0.57
150.0010.66 ± 0.5710.00 ± 0.00
200.0010.66 ± 0.5711.33 ± 0.57
250.0013.66 ± 0.5712.00 ± 0.00
p-value < 0.0001< 0.0001< 0.0001

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Okla, M.K.; Alamri, S.A.; Salem, M.Z.M.; Ali, H.M.; Behiry, S.I.; Nasser, R.A.; Alaraidh, I.A.; Al-Ghtani, S.M.; Soufan, W. Yield, Phytochemical Constituents, and Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils from the Leaves/Twigs, Branches, Branch Wood, and Branch Bark of Sour Orange (Citrus aurantium L.). Processes 2019, 7, 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7060363

AMA Style

Okla MK, Alamri SA, Salem MZM, Ali HM, Behiry SI, Nasser RA, Alaraidh IA, Al-Ghtani SM, Soufan W. Yield, Phytochemical Constituents, and Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils from the Leaves/Twigs, Branches, Branch Wood, and Branch Bark of Sour Orange (Citrus aurantium L.). Processes. 2019; 7(6):363. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7060363

Chicago/Turabian Style

Okla, Mohammad K., Saud A. Alamri, Mohamed Z.M. Salem, Hayssam M. Ali, Said I. Behiry, Ramadan A. Nasser, Ibrahim A. Alaraidh, Salem M. Al-Ghtani, and Walid Soufan. 2019. "Yield, Phytochemical Constituents, and Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils from the Leaves/Twigs, Branches, Branch Wood, and Branch Bark of Sour Orange (Citrus aurantium L.)" Processes 7, no. 6: 363. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr7060363

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop