Citation: Valentina Maria Merlino, Filippo Brun, Alice Versino, Simone Blanc. Milk packaging innovation: Consumer perception and willingness to pay[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(2): 307-326. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.2.307
| [1] | Muharrem Gölükcü, Burcu Bozova, Haluk Tokgöz, Demet Yıldız Turgut, Orçun Çınar, Ertuğrul Turgutoglu, Angelo Maria Giuffrè . Effects of cultivar, harvesting time and isolation techniques on the essential oil compositions of some lemon cultivars. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(3): 904-920. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024049 |
| [2] | Nubia Amaya Olivas, Cindy Villalba Bejarano, Guillermo Ayala Soto, Miriam Zermeño Ortega, Fabiola Sandoval Salas, Esteban Sánchez Chávez, Leon Hernández Ochoa . Bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of essential oils of Origanum dictamnus from Mexico. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(3): 387-394. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.3.387 |
| [3] | Gregorio Gullo, Antonio Dattola, Vincenzo Vonella, Rocco Zappia . Performance of the Brasiliano 92 orange cultivar with six trifoliate rootstocks. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(1): 203-215. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021013 |
| [4] | Salvatore D’Aquino, Daniela Satta, Luciano De Pau, Amedeo Palma . Effect of a cold quarantine treatment on physiological disorders and quality of cactus pear fruit. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 114-126. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.114 |
| [5] | Tarik Ainane, Fatouma Mohamed Abdoul-Latif, Asmae Baghouz, Zineb El Montassir, Wissal Attahar, Ayoub Ainane, Angelo Maria Giuffrè . Essential oils rich in pulegone for insecticide purpose against legume bruchus species: Case of Ziziphora hispanica L. and Mentha pulegium L.. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(1): 105-118. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023005 |
| [6] | Shahindokht Bassiri-Jahromi, Aida Doostkam . Comparative evaluation of bioactive compounds of various cultivars of pomegranate (Punica granatum) in different world regions. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(1): 41-55. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.41 |
| [7] | Stefano Puccio, Anna Perrone, Giuseppe Sortino, Giuseppe Gianguzzi, Carla Gentile, Vittorio Farina . Yield, pomological characteristics, bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity of Annona cherimola Mill. grown in mediterranean climate. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 592-603. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.592 |
| [8] | Celale Kirkin, Seher Melis Inbat, Daniel Nikolov, Sabah Yildirim . Effects of tarragon essential oil on some characteristics of frankfurter type sausages. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(2): 244-250. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.244 |
| [9] | Gullo Gregorio, Dattola Antonio, Zappia Rocco . Comparative study of some fruit quality characteristics of two of Annona cherimola Mill. grown in southern Italy. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 658-671. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.658 |
| [10] | Cíntia Sorane Good Kitzberger, Maria Brígida dos Santos Scholz, Luiz Filipe Protasio Pereira, João Batista Gonçalves Dias da Silva, Marta de Toledo Benassi . Profile of the diterpenes, lipid and protein content of different coffee cultivars of three consecutive harvests. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2016, 1(3): 254-264. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2016.3.254 |
Essential oils are generally obtained from the leaves, fruits, barks, or roots of plants, and are a natural product that is liquid at room temperature, can easily crystallize, is usually colorless or pale yellow, and has a strong and aromatic odor [1]. Essential oils consist of a complex mixture of pleasant-smelling and volatile components that are secondary plant metabolism products. Most of the components found in their structures are terpenoids, monoterpenes, and sesquiterpenes [2].
The production and consumption of essential oils have been increasing in recent years [3]. It is reported that the trade value of essential oils in the world is approximately 6 billion US dollars. It is stated that citrus peel oils are the most traded essential oils in the world [4]. In addition to its economic value, citrus peel oil production is very important in terms of waste evaluation. In fact, citrus peels generally appear as waste in fruit juice production. However, citrus peels are a rich source of functional components such as essential oil, pectin, and phenolic compounds [5,6,7]. A significant portion of essential oil production is carried out by the USA, China, and Brazil. Countries with high consumption are the USA, England, France, Japan, and Germany [8]. Türkiye, on the other hand, exports products such as rose essential oil, thyme essential oil, and bay laurel essential oil while importing some essential oils, especially citrus peel oils [9]. It is stated that there are more than 10,000 cultivars of citrus fruits in the world [10]. One of the most produced species among citrus fruits is orange [11]. Citrus peel oils can be obtained by cold pressing, hydrodistillation, and solvent extraction methods [12,13,14,15,16]. Citrus peel oils contain many bioactive components with different functional properties such as limonene, myrcene, α-pinene, β-pinene, sabinene, and linalool [17,18,19]. Citrus peel oils, which can be obtained by different methods, are used in many areas such as the food industry, cosmetics, perfumery, pharmaceutical industry, and the production of cleaning products [19,20,21,22]. In this sense, although synthetic products can also be used, the demand for products produced from natural sources is constantly increasing [23].
Türkiye realized 2.8% of the world's citrus production and 1.73% of the orange production in 2022 [24]. Considering the citrus production data, Turkey has great potential in the production of citrus peel oils. However, a significant portion of citrus oils is met through imports. According to TÜİK data, the total import value of citrus essential oils, one of the most imported essential oils, was 6,738,217 USD in 2020, while this value reached 15,641,898 USD in 2023. Considering the 2023 data, 53% of this is orange peel essential oil [25]. These data show that the production of these products is very important for the country's economy. Citrus essential oils are on the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) list with their broad-spectrum biological activities being antimicrobial, antifungal, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anxiolytic [20,26,27]. The most important feature of citrus peel essential oils is their high limonene content. It has been reported that the limonene content of citrus peel essential oils (orange, mandarin, bergamot, bitter orange) is distributed in a very wide range, such as 36.54% to 96.10% [28]. It is stated that orange peel oils stand out with their high limonene content among citrus fruits [17]. Differences in the amount of limonene and other components of orange essential oil can be observed depending on the cultivars. Limonene (p-mentha-1, 8-diene) is used in many areas such as food, medicine, and cosmetics on an industrial scale. Its use in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industry is due to its aromatic properties as well as its high absorption. Limonene, which is widely used in the food industry due to its aromatic properties, is considered "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) on the FDA list [29,30]. It has been reported that the composition of citrus peel oils may differ according to the type and cultivar as well as the isolation method (cold press, hydrodistillation) [31,32].
In Türkiye, which has significant potential in terms of raw materials, the production of such products is important for the world and national economy. Cultivars of Washington Navel, Navelina, and Valencia Late are the most common in Türkiye. In addition, the Moro cultivar is widely grown among blood oranges. The number of orange cultivars is constantly increasing though breeding studies. Batem Fatihi, which was used in the study, is a new cultivar developed as a result of breeding studies. There is a great interest in the physico-chemical properties of different parts of the citrus fruits. In addition, the evaluation of citrus peels, which are seen as waste, will also contribute to the development of the producer and processing industry. The citrus cultivars to be used in production, the harvest time of the material used, and the isolation method are among the determining factors on the quality of essential oil. Within the scope of the study, it was aimed to reveal some quality characteristics and essential oil compositions of peel essential oils obtained from 5 orange cultivars with two methods in four different harvest periods.
This research was carried out between 2021-2023 in the Aksu-central unit of the Batı Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute (Antalya, Türkiye). Five orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck) cultivars were used in the research. Each commercial cultivar was harvested in two production seasons (2021–2022, 2022–2023) covering four different harvest periods (Table 1). The materials used within the scope of the research were obtained from the citrus parcels of the Kayaburnu unit of the Batı Akdeniz Agricultural Research Institute. During the harvesting process, fruit samples were taken from four sides of each tree. The harvested fruit samples were brought to the Food Technology and Medicinal Plants Laboratory on the same day, and the analysis was started.
| Harvest | Batem Fatihi | Navelina | Washington Navel | Valencia Late | Moro |
| 1 | 10 November | 10 November | 10 November | 20 February | 02 January |
| 2 | 30 November | 30 November | 30 November | 10 March | 20 January |
| 3 | 20 December | 20 December | 20 December | 30 March | 10 February |
| 4 | 10 January | 10 January | 10 January | 20 April | 02 March |
DownLoad:
CSV
First, fruit weight and peel ratio were analyzed for the samples brought to the laboratory. For this purpose, 10 fruits were used for each repetition. Each fruit and its peels were weighed to an accuracy of 0.01 g. Fruit weight and peel ratio were given by taking the average of the measurement values from ten fruits in each repetition.
Essential oil in the samples was extracted by the hydro-distillation method with a Clevenger-type apparatus according to ISO 6571 [33]. For this purpose, 200 mL of distilled water was added to 50 g of fresh fruit peel, homogenized with a blender (Waring 8011ES, USA), and then subjected to distillation using a Clevenger device (Isotex, Türkiye). The amount of essential oil is given by volume based on the weight of fresh fruit peel (mL/100 g, %).
For cold pressing, essential oil was collected according to the Kırbaslar et al. [34]. For this purpose, the flavedo part of the fruit peels was grated, and then this part, which is rich in essential oil, was subjected to manual pressing with a 10 cm diameter seven-hole kitchen type apparatus. The water-essential oil emulsion was collected and then separated by centrifugation. This process was applied at 15294 × g at 20 ℃ for 20 minutes. The amount of essential oil is given by volume based on the weight of fresh fruit peel (mL/100 g, %).
Physico-chemical characteristics are an important criterion of the quality and purity of essential oils. The obtained essential oils were analyzed for relative density, refractive index, optical rotation, and essential oil composition, which are among the basic quality analyzes specified in the European Pharmacopoeia. Relative density analyses were determined according to ISO 279 [35]. Refractive index analyses were carried out according to ISO 280 [36]. Measurements were made at 20 ℃ using a digital refractometer (A. Krüss Optronic GmbH. DR6000). The optical rotation value of lemon peel essential oils was determined according to ISO 592 [37] by a polarimeter device (Optical Activity Ltd. PolAAR 31).
The essential oil was analyzed by gas chromatography (Agilent 7890A)-mass spectrometry (Agilent 5975C)-flame ionization detector (GC-MS/FID device, Özek et al. [38]. Samples were diluted with hexane at a ratio of 1:50 to be analyzed. Essential oil component analysis of the samples was performed using a capillary column (HP Innowax Capillary; 60.0 m x 0.25 mm x 0.25 μm). GC-MS spectra were obtained using the following conditions: Carrier gas Helium; flow rate of 0.8 mL/min; and injection volume 1 μL with a split ratio of 50:1. The injector temperature was set at 250 ℃. The column temperature program was set as 60 ℃ (10 minutes), 20 ℃/minute from 60 ℃ to 250 ℃, and 250 ℃ (10.5 minutes). In line with this temperature program, the total analysis time was 60 minutes. For the mass detector, scanning range (m/z) 35–500 atomic mass units and electron bombardment ionization 70 eV were used. WILEY and OIL ADAMS libraries were used to identify the components of the essential oil. Relative Retention Indices (RRI) of the compounds on the column were determined relative to the retention times of a series of C8-C40 n-alkanes (Sigma, USA). Relative ratio amounts (%) of the determined components were calculated from FID chromatograms.
The research was carried out with three replications according to the randomized parcel trial design [39]. The analyses were carried out in two parallels, and the results were subjected to variance analysis (ANOVA) and the Duncan Multiple Comparison Test using the SAS package program. Results are given as mean ± standard error.
The ANOVA and Duncan Multiple Comparison Test results for the fruit weights and peel ratios of the orange cultivars evaluated within the scope of the study are given in Table 2 and Table 3. While the cultivar had a statistically significant effect on the fruit weight and peel ratio of the oranges evaluated, the effects of harvest time and cultivar x harvest time remained insignificant. The cultivar with the highest fruit weight was Washington Navel, while the cultivar with the lowest was Moro. The fruit weights of the orange samples evaluated generally increased in parallel with the increase in harvest time. However, this difference remained statistically insignificant (Table 2).
| Fruit weight | Peel ratio | Essential oil content | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 17.47 | 0.0001 | 4.74 | 0.0075 | 5.56 | 0.0014 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 1.18 | 0.3437 | 0.40 | 0.7568 | 2.07 | 0.0732 |
| C×HT | 0.53 | 0.8678 | 0.15 | 0.9991 | 1.08 | 0.4064 |
| Coefficient of variation | 15.3389 | 17.0473 | 15.7103 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Cultivar | Harvest | Fruit weight (g/fruit) | Peel ratio (%) |
| Batem Fatihi | 1 | 223.48 ± 15.390 | 22.79ab ± 1.445 |
| 2 | 250.06 ± 5.075 | 23.04ab ± 3.635 | |
| 3 | 283.51 ± 20.305 | 22.95ab ± 5.250 | |
| 4 | 296.37 ± 22.850 | 25.03ab ± 3.810 | |
| mean | 263.36a ± 12.62 | 23.45b ± 1.473 | |
| Navelina | 1 | 286.42 ± 35.735 | 25.15ab ± 3.305 |
| 2 | 295.33 ± 18.775 | 24.34ab ± 4.940 | |
| 3 | 262.54 ± 83.700 | 25.92ab ± 3.350 | |
| 4 | 301.91 ± 23.455 | 26.33ab ± 2.510 | |
| mean | 286.55a ± 18.97 | 25.43b ± 1.404 | |
| W. Navel | 1 | 307.45 ± 24.190 | 22.70ab ± 1.465 |
| 2 | 293.40 ± 22.060 | 23.90ab ± 2.600 | |
| 3 | 298.56 ± 22.255 | 26.52ab ± 3.135 | |
| 4 | 301.21 ± 21.960 | 26.72ab ± 3.250 | |
| mean | 300.15a ± 8.77 | 24.96b ± 1.211 | |
| Valencia Late | 1 | 167.56 ± 24.975 | 21.61b ± 0.775 |
| 2 | 199.44 ± 19.595 | 22.89ab ± 1.640 | |
| 3 | 186.33 ± 1.040 | 22.04b ± 2.155 | |
| 4 | 220.60 ± 7.775 | 20.38b ± 0.070 | |
| mean | 193.48b ± 9.57 | 21.73b ± 0.633 | |
| Moro | 1 | 168.90 ± 13.450 | 29.39a ± 0.355 |
| 2 | 155.64 ± 0.455 | 29.54a ± 2.215 | |
| 3 | 202.42 ± 14.365 | 30.57a ± 3.360 | |
| 4 | 184.47 ± 12.300 | 32.71a ± 4.595 | |
| mean | 177.86b ± 7.93 | 30.55a ± 1.260 | |
| Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences between the means for cultivars at the p < 0.05 level. | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
Among the orange cultivars examined within the scope of the study, Moro had the highest peel ratio with 30.55%, and Valencia Late had the lowest peel ratio with 21.73%. Partial increases occurred in the fruit peel ratio with the advancement in harvest time, but these differences remained statistically insignificant (Table 2).
The volatile oil amounts of the sample peels of five orange cultivars evaluated in the project according to their harvest times and extraction applications are graphed in Figure 1. While the volatile oil rates of the orange samples showed significant differences according to the cultivars, the change remained insignificant according to the harvest time and cultivar x harvest time interaction (Table 2). Among the cultivars, the peel volatile oil amounts of Valencia Late (2.51%) and Navelina (2.55%) cultivars were higher than the others. The one with the lowest volatile oil rate among the cultivars was Moro (1.98%). When an evaluation was made according to the harvest times, the highest volatile oil amount was detected in Batem Fatihi, Navelina, Moro, and Valencia Late cultivars at the second harvest time, and in the Washington Navel cultivar at the first harvest time (Figure 1). When evaluated according to the methods of obtaining essential oil, the peel essential oil content of orange cultivars was higher with hydrodistillation (2.31%) than with cold press (0.48%). Geraci et al. [40] reported in their study on 12 orange cultivars that the amount of essential oil showed significant differences according to the cultivars as well as the extraction method. Ferrer et al. [41] reported that the amount of orange peel essential oil varies depending on the cultivar and the fruit maturity stage. In the study conducted by Bourgou et al. [42], it was determined that the amount of orange peel oil may vary according to the harvest period (a total of three periods). In the study, the lowest amount of essential oil was determined in the first harvest period, while the highest value was determined in the second harvest period. In the study conducted by Ferhat et al. [43] on 10 different citrus fruits, it was determined that the amount of essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation was considerably higher than the amount of oil obtained by cold pressing. In our study, it was revealed that there were some differences in this sense. When an evaluation was made on the amount of essential oil, it was seen that it was appropriate to harvest all cultivars at the second harvest time except the Washington Navel cultivar (first harvest).
It was observed that there were some differences in the relative density, refractive index, and optical activity values of the orange peel oils evaluated within the scope of the research, especially according to the extraction method, harvest times, and cultivars. The variance analysis results of the relative density, refractive index, and optical activity values of the orange peel essential oils, according to the cultivar, harvest time, and extraction methods are given in Table 4, and the Duncan Multiple Comparison Test results are given in Table 5. The statistical evaluation data showed that the extraction method had a significant effect on the relative density, refractive index, and optical activity values of the orange peel essential oil, while the cultivar and harvest time factors were insignificant (Table 4). The average relative density value of the orange peel essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation was 0.8402, while the value obtained by cold pressing was 0.8444. The relative density value range for orange oil obtained by cold pressing in the European Pharmacopoeia is 0.842–0.850 [44], and it is reported as 0.842–0.850 in ISO standards [45]. In the study conducted by Xu et al. [46], the specific gravity value of Hamlin and Valencia peel essential oils obtained by cold pressing was reported as 0.843-0.848. In the study conducted by Li et al. [47], this value was reported as 0.8428 for orange peel essential oil. In our study, while the samples obtained by cold pressing were compatible with the limit values, the relative density values of the oils obtained by hydrodistillation remained below these values. It is thought that this situation may be due to the fact that the oils obtained by hydrodistillation consist only of volatile components.
| Relative density | Refractive index | Optical activity | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 0.33 | 0.8577 | 0.33 | 0.8568 | 0.22 | 0.9269 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 0.73 | 0.5424 | 0.76 | 0.5250 | 1.76 | 0.1705 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 5.83 | 0.0204 | 148.86 | 0.0001 | 42.88 | 0.0001 |
| C × HT | 0.69 | 0.7510 | 0.48 | 0.9175 | 0.45 | 0.9332 |
| C × IM | 0.41 | 0.7980 | 0.36 | 0.8378 | 0.36 | 0.8328 |
| HT × IM | 0.75 | 0.5305 | 0.71 | 0.5523 | 0.05 | 0.9865 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.58 | 0.8459 | 0.12 | 0.9998 | 0.09 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.8298 | 0.0398 | 1.9870 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Batem Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| Relative density | 0.8404 ± 0.0012 | 0.8428 ± 0.0023 | 0.8427 ± 0.0011 | 0.8419 ± 0.0013 | 0.8426 ± 0.0020 | |||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | 1.4732 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0003 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | |||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.57 ± 0.595 | 96.96 ± 0.593 | 96.54 ± 0.593 | 97.02 ± 0.543 | 96.88 ± 0.413 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| Relative density | 0.8426 ± 0.0015 | 0.8419 ± 0.0010 | 0.8404 ± 0.0013 | 0.8435 ± 0.0019 | ||||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4733 ± 0.0002 | ||||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.95 ± 0.421 | 97.26 ± 0.352 | 97.01 ± 0.409 | 95.97 ± 0.652 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| Relative density | 0.8402b ± 0.0012 | 0.8440a ± 0.0007 | ||||||
| Refractive index | 1.4723b ± 0.0001 | 1.4739a ± 0.0001 | ||||||
| Optical activity (°) | 98.20a ± 0.234 | 95.39b ± 0.272 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
When an evaluation was made between the extraction methods, it was determined that the refractive index values of the oils obtained by cold pressing were lower than the refractive index values of the samples obtained by the hydrodistillation method (Table 5). The refractive index value for the orange peel essential oil obtained by cold pressing was stated as 1.470–1.476 in the European Pharmacopoeia [44] and as 1.470–1.476 in ISO standards [45]. In the study conducted by the reserchers in [46] on Hamlin and Valenci cultivar orange peel oils, it was determined that the refractive index values of the samples obtained by the cold pressing method varied between 1.4718–1.4727. The researchers stated that values such as refractive index, specific gravity and optical activity can be used in the determination of adulteration in essential oils. In the study conducted by Javed et al. [48], the refractive index value of the orange peel essential oil obtained by the hydrodistillation method was determined as 1.471. Within the scope of our study, it was observed that the refractive index values of the peel oils obtained by two different methods from five orange cultivars were compatible with the ISO [45] and European Pharmacopoeia [44] limit values and the literature values [46]. Augustyn et al. [49] determined the refractive index value of steam distilled Kisar sweet orange peel oil as 1.4651. Similar to our study, the higher density of the essential oil in cold pressing is associated with the higher refractive index [49].
The optical activity values of the samples varied between 93.93° and 99.63°. The optical activity values of orange peel oils varied within a narrow range according to the cultivars (Table 5). It is thought that this may be due to the similarity of the essential oil compositions of the orange cultivars. When an evaluation is made according to the harvest times, it can be said that there are generally small changes. According to the extraction methods, it was observed that there were significant differences in optical activity values as well as in the relative density and refractive index. It was determined that the optical activity values of the essential oils obtained by the hydrodistillation method for orange cultivars were higher than the optical activity values of the samples obtained by cold pressing. It is thought that this result is due to the difference in the physico-chemical properties of the oils. The optical activity value of orange peel oil is limited between +94° and +99° in the European Pharmacopoeia [44]. The limit values of orange essential oil obtained by the cold pressing method are also reported in the same values in ISO standards [45]. In the study conducted by Javed et al. [48], the optical activity value of orange peel oil was determined as 89–91°. The findings determined within the scope of our research are in accordance with the limit values. However, it is higher than the values determined by Javed et al. [48]. In fact, the limonene value of the cultivars studied in the literature remained below 90%. It is thought that the detected difference is due to this composition difference.
The average values of the compositions of the essential oils obtained from the peels of the orange cultivars evaluated within the scope of the project are given in Table 6, Table 7, Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10 for the cultivars Batem Fatihi, Navelina, Washington Navel, Valencia Late, and Moro, respectively. A total of 10 different components were detected in the essential oil of Batem Fatihi peel. The ratio of these components showed some numerical differences according to the harvest time and extraction method. The main component in Batem Fatihi peel essential oil was limonene. The ratio of this component was distributed in a narrow range of 95.9–96.1% in this cultivar. These data show that there was no significant difference in the ratio of this component according to the harvest time and extraction method for the Batem Fatihi cultivar. The second highest component in this cultivar was β-myrcene, which has a monoterpene structure like limonene. The amount of this component did not show any significant difference according to the harvest time and extraction method. The ratio of other components detected in this orange cultivar remained below 1% (Table 6).
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 95.9 | 96.0 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.3 | 96.4 | 96.3 | 96.1 | 96.3 | 96.3 | 96.2 | 96.1 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Terpinolen | 1298 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 95.7 | 95.8 | 95.5 | 95.4 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.3 | 95.4 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.10 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.13 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.2 | 96.2 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.9 | 96.3 | 96.0 | 96.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Valencene | 1745 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 94.9 | 94.9 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.0 | 95.2 | 95.1 | 95.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Undefined | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Similar essential oil components were detected in the second orange cultivar evaluated within the scope of the research, the Naveline cultivar, and a significant portion of the essential oil components of this cultivar consists of limonene, a monoterpene structure with various functional properties. The ratio of this component varied between 96.1–96.4% in this cultivar. The second component in this cultivar was β-myrcene, and the ratio of this component was 2.0% for all samples. It was seen that the ratio of other components was similar to other orange cultivars. Unlike the Batem Fatihi cultivar, terpinolene component was detected instead of geranial in this cultivar. However, the ratio of this component remained at a very low level (Table 7). Although some numerical differences were detected in the essential oil compositions of Washington Navel, Valencia Late, and Moro cultivars, these were at very low levels in proportion. Limonene is again the main component in these cultivars and it was distributed between 95.3–95.9% in Washington Navel, 95.8–96.3% in Valencia Late, and 94.9–95.2% in Moro cultivar. As in the other two orange cultivars, it was determined that the second most important component in Washington Navel, Valencia Late, and Moro cultivars was β-myrcene. In these cultivars, the ratio of this component was similar to Batem Fatihi and Navelina.
The two major components of orange samples, limonene and β-myrcene, were statistically evaluated according to cultivar, harvest time, and extraction method (Table 11, Table 12). β-Myrcene contents of the samples showed significant changes according to cultivar (p < 0.01) and harvest time (p < 0.05), but statistically insignificant changes according to extraction method and interactions (Table 11). The cultivar with the highest β-myrcene content among the cultivars was Navelina, while the lowest was Valencia Late. It was determined that the β-myrcene rate decreased with the advancement of harvest time. However, the differences were numerically quite low (Table 12). Limonene contents in orange peel essential oils also showed statistically significant changes among cultivars (p < 0.01), but insignificant changes according to harvest time, extraction method, and interactions. Among the cultivars, Navelina had the highest limonene content, followed by Valencia Late, Batem Fatihi, Washington Navel, and Moro cultivars, respectively. However, these differences occurred within a very narrow range (Table 12).
| β-Myrcene | Limonene | |||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 3.46 | 0.0162 | 20.65 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 3.00 | 0.0417 | 0.40 | 0.7565 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 0.33 | 0.5669 | 0.63 | 0.4310 |
| C × HT | 0.57 | 0.8532 | 0.47 | 0.9223 |
| C × IM | 0.13 | 0.9726 | 0.15 | 0.9605 |
| HT × IM | 0.33 | 0.8013 | 0.14 | 0.9334 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.68 | 0.7595 | 0.07 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.9341 | 0.4254 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
| B.Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 2.03a ± 0.011 | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 1.98b ± 0.011 | 2.0ab ± 0.009 | |||
| Limonene | 96.03a ± 0.051 | 96.24a ± 0.032 | 95.59b ± 0.092 | 96.06a ± 0.063 | 95.09c ± 0.135 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.02a ± 0.009 | 2.01a ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.010 | ||||
| Limonene | 95.84 ± 0.121 | 95.76 ± 0.110 | 95.87 ± 0.127 | 95.75 ± 0.120 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01 ± 0.006 | 2.00 ± 0.006 | ||||||
| Limonene | 95.77 ± 0.085 | 95.84 ± 0.082 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
In the study conducted by Ferrer et al. [41] on Cara Cara Navel and Madam Vinous cultivars from the fruit formation stage to the later stages of maturity, it was determined that there were significant changes in the peel essential oil composition until the maturity stage was reached. It was determined that limonene, the main component of the peel essential oil, varied between 25–95% throughout all stages. However, no significant change was detected in the essential oil composition of the samples between the cultivars. In the study conducted by Li et al. [47], the ratio of limonene, determined as the main component, in the peel oil was reported as 78.30%. In the study conducted by Lin et al. [50] on the Newhall cultivar, it was determined that the limonene and β-myrcene contents of the peel essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation were 88.25% and 1.90%, respectively. Viuda-Martos et al. [51] similarly determined the major components limonene and β-myrcene as 94.9% and 1.16%, respectively. Taktak et al. [52] investigated the effects of different extraction methods on the yield and composition of essential oils from the peel of some citrus species, including orange. In the study, some differences were detected in the composition of the peel essential oil according to the extraction methods, and it was determined that limonene in the composition of the orange peel essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation was 86.7%. Brahmi et al. [53] also investigated the effects of hydrodistillation and microwave-assisted hydrodistillation methods on the composition of the essential oil of Valencia orange. As a result of the study, it was determined that the extraction method was effective on the essential oil composition as well as the yield of the essential oil. While the limonene ratio in the sample obtained by hydrodistillation was 92.74%, it was determined as 89.86% in the microwave-assisted hydrodistillation method. In a study conducted by Wolfenbüttel et al. [54], it was determined that limonene, the main component in peel oils obtained by hydrodistillation and cold pressing from oranges obtained from different regions in Brazil, varied between 67.7–78.3%. Researchers also reported that this component in orange peel essential oil varied between 78.5–97% in studies conducted in different countries. In another evaluation conducted on long-term data, limonene and β-myrcene ranges for orange peel essential oil were reported as 85.16–96.80% and 0.93–2.05%, respectively [55]. In the study conducted by Ferreira et al. [56], it was determined that limonene, the main component of the peel oil obtained by hydrodistillation and cold pressing method, was in the range of 96.1-96.6% and β-myrcene was 1.9%. Limit values are given for α-pinene, β-pinene, sabinene, β-myrcene, limonene, octanal, decanal, linalool, neral, valensene, and geranial in the European Pharmacopoeia for orange peel oils. Reference values for limonene and β-myrcene, which are the major components, are stated as 92–97%, 1.7–2.5%, respectively [44]. Limit values for limonene and β-myrcene are also reported as 93–96% and 1.5–3.5%, respectively, in ISO standards [45]. It was observed that the five cultivars evaluated within the scope of our study were within these limit values.
As a result of the research; when the analysis findings obtained were evaluated, it was determined that the orange peel essential oil ratio showed significant differences according to the cultivar and harvest time. It was observed that the relative density, refractive index, and optical activity properties showed significant differences especially according to the essential oil extraction method. It was determined that the essential oil composition could show partial differences according to the cultivar, harvest time, and extraction method. However, these differences generally remained insignificant at a statistical level. Limonene and β-myrcene were the major components in all the evaluated samples. According to the findings obtained as a result of the study, it was shown that all of these cultivars can be used in the production of orange peel oils. The cultivars within the scope of our study attracted attention with their generally high limonene content according to international standards (European Pharmacopoeia and ISO standards). Cold press application is a widely preferred method for orange peel essential oils on the industrial scale. On the other hand, an evaluation was made on the basis of two isolation methods, especially in terms of limonene, which is the functional component of citrus oils, it was determined that the production of orange peel oils by the hydrodistillation method did not cause any negative effects in terms of limonene content. These data show that the essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation can be used in many areas, especially in the food industry and cosmetics industry.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence [AI] tools in the creation of this article.
This study was prepared using the findings of the project no. TAGEM/TBAD/B/21/A7/P6/2370, supported by the General Directorate of Agricultural Research and Policies [TAGEM], Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Plant authority, E.T.; conceptualization, M.G.; methodology, M.G.; software, M.G. and A.M.G.; validation, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; formal analysis, B.B. and M.G.; investigation, M.G. and O.Ç., D.Y.T., H.T.; resources, B.B. and M.G.; data curation, B.B., M.G., O.Ç., D.Y.T., H.T., E.T. and A.M.G.; writing – original draft preparation, M.G., B.B. O.Ç., D.Y.T., H.T., E.T.; writing – review and editing, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; visualization, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; supervision, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; project administration, B.B., M.G. and A.M.G.; funding acquisition, M.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript
| [1] |
Gelici‐Zeko MM, Lutters D, Klooster R ten, et al. (2013) Studying the influence of packaging design on consumer perceptions (of dairy products) using categorizing and perceptual mapping. Packag Technol Sci 26: 215-228. doi: 10.1002/pts.1977
|
| [2] |
Koutsimanis G, Getter K, Behe B, et al. (2012) Influences of packaging attributes on consumer purchase decisions for fresh produce. Appetite 59: 270-280. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2012.05.012
|
| [3] | Kuvykaite R, Dovaliene A, Navickiene L (2009) Impact of package elements on consumer's purchase decision. Econ Manag 14: 441-447. |
| [4] | Sevilla J (2012) When it's what's outside that matters: Recent findings on product and packaging design. ACR North Am Adv 40: 308-312. |
| [5] |
Simmonds G, Spence C (2017) Thinking inside the box: How seeing products on, or through, the packaging influences consumer perceptions and purchase behaviour. Food Qual Prefer 62: 340-351. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.11.010
|
| [6] | Adam MA, Ali K (2014) Impact of visual elements of packaging of packaged milk on consumer buying behaviour. Interdiscip J Contemp Res Bus 5: 118-160. |
| [7] | Mandler JM, Johnson NS (1976) Some of the thousand words a picture is worth. J Exp Psychol 2: 529-540. |
| [8] |
Paivio A, Csapo K (1973) Picture superiority in free recall: Imagery or dual coding? Cognit Psychol 5: 176-206. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90032-7
|
| [9] |
Mueller S, Szolnoki G (2010) The relative influence of packaging, labelling, branding and sensory attributes on liking and purchase intent: Consumers differ in their responsiveness. Food Qual Prefer 21: 774-783. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.011
|
| [10] | Rodríguez-Rojas A, Arango Ospina A, Rodríguez-Vélez P, et al. (2019) What is the new about food packaging material? A bibliometric review during 1996-2016. Trends Food Sci Technol 85: 252-261. |
| [11] |
Demartini E, Gaviglio A, La Sala P, et al. (2019) Impact of information and food technology neophobia in consumers' acceptance of shelf-life extension in packaged fresh fish fillets. Sustain Prod Consum 17: 116-125. doi: 10.1016/j.spc.2018.09.006
|
| [12] |
Heide M, Olsen SO (2017) Influence of packaging attributes on consumer evaluation of fresh cod. Food Qual Prefer 60: 9-18. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.02.015
|
| [13] |
Loose SM, Peschel A, Grebitus C (2013) Quantifying effects of convenience and product packaging on consumer preferences and market share of seafood products: The case of oysters. Food Qual Prefer 28: 492-504. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.11.004
|
| [14] |
McDaniel C, Baker RC (1977) Convenience food packaging and the perception of product quality. J Mark 41: 57. doi: 10.1177/002224297704100406
|
| [15] |
Suppakul P, Miltz J, Sonneveld K, et al. (2003) Active packaging technologies with an emphasis on antimicrobial packaging and its applications. J Food Sci 68: 408-420. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb05687.x
|
| [16] | CLAL (2020) Quadro dei paesi dell'Unione Europea. Available from: https://www.clal.it/?section=quadro_europa&country=IT. |
| [17] | ISMEA (2019) Settore lattiero caseario (scheda di settore). Available from: http://www.ismeamercati.it/lattiero-caseari/latte-derivati-bovini. |
| [18] | Tetrapak (2019) Tetra Rex® bio-based, la prima confezione completamente rinnovabile. Available from: https://www.tetrapak.com/it/packaging/tetra-rex. |
| [19] |
Meneses M, Pasqualino J, Castells F (2012) Environmental assessment of the milk life cycle: The effect of packaging selection and the variability of milk production data. J Environ Manage 107: 76-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.019
|
| [20] | L'evoluzione del packaging e dei marchi (2019) Centrale del latte du Torino. Available from: http://centralelatte.torino.it/azienda/levoluzione-del-packaging-e-dei-marchi/. |
| [21] | Greene W (2012) Econometric Analysis, 7th Edition, Stern School of Business, New York University. |
| [22] | Dai Y, Zhu B, Ying R (2006) Consumers' choice on food safety: a case study of organic vegetable purchasing behavior in Nanjing. J Nanjing Agric Univ Soc Sci Ed 1: 47-52. |
| [23] |
Khan MdA-A, Shaikh AA, Panda GC, et al. (2019) Inventory system with expiration date: Pricing and replenishment decisions. Comput Ind Eng 132: 232-247. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.04.002
|
| [24] |
Harwood WS, Drake MA (2018) Identification and characterization of fluid milk consumer groups. J Dairy Sci 101: 8860-8874. doi: 10.3168/jds.2018-14855
|
| [25] | Merlino VM, Borra D, Lazzarino LL, et al. (2019) Does the organic certification influence the purchasing decisions of milk consumers? Quality 20: 382-387. |
| [26] |
Thøgersen J, Pedersen S, Aschemann-Witzel J (2019) The impact of organic certification and country of origin on consumer food choice in developed and emerging economies. Food Qual Prefer 72: 10-30. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.09.003
|
| [27] | Italian law: Decreto ministeriale 9 dicembre 2016. (2017) Indicazione dell'origine in etichetta della materia prima per il latte e i prodotti lattieri caseari, in attuazione del regolamento (UE) n. 1169/2011, relativo alla fornitura di informazioni sugli alimenti ai consumatori. Available from: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2017/01/19/17A00291/sg. |
| [28] |
Murphy SC, Martin NH, Barbano DM, et al. (2016) Influence of raw milk quality on processed dairy products: How do raw milk quality test results relate to product quality and yield? J Dairy Sci 99: 10128-10149. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11172
|
| [29] |
Haas R, Canavari M, Imami D, et al. (2016) Attitudes and preferences of Kosovar consumer segments toward quality attributes of milk and dairy products. J Int Food Agribus Mark 28: 407-426. doi: 10.1080/08974438.2016.1163311
|
| [30] |
Werle COC, Trendel O, Ardito G (2013) Unhealthy food is not tastier for everybody: The "healthy=tasty" French intuition. Food Qual Prefer 28: 116-121. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.07.007
|
| [31] | Adam MA, Ali K (2014) Impact of packaging elements of packaged milk on consumer buying behaviour. Inst Bus Adm Karachi 2014: 94-106. |
| [32] | Zekiri J, Hasani VV (2015) The role and impact of the packaging effect on consumer buying behaviour. Ecoforum 4: 232-240. |
| [33] |
Zhu C, Lopez RA, Liu X (2019) Consumer responses to front-of-package labeling in the presence of information spillovers. Food Policy 86: 101723. doi: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2019.05.006
|
| [34] | Finco A, Bentivoglio D, Bucci G (2017) A label for mountain products? Let's turn it over to producers and retailers. Qual-Access Success 18: 198-205. |
| [35] |
De Graaf S, Van Loo EJ, Bijttebier J, et al. (2016) Determinants of consumer intention to purchase animal-friendly milk. J Dairy Sci 99: 8304-8313. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-10886
|
| [36] |
Hanrahan L, McHugh N, Hennessy T, et al. (2018) Factors associated with profitability in pasture-based systems of milk production. J Dairy Sci 101: 5474-5485. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-13223
|
| [37] |
Macdonald KA, Penno JW, Lancaster JAS, et al. (2008) Effect of stocking rate on pasture production, milk production, and reproduction of dairy cows in pasture-based systems. J Dairy Sci 91: 2151-2163. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0630
|
| [38] | Markova-Nenova N, Wätzold F (2018) Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk. Land Use Policy 79: 223-239. |
| [39] |
Umberger WJ, Boxall PC, Lacy RC (2009) Role of credence and health information in determining US consumers' willingness-to-pay for grass-finished beef. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 53: 603-623. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8489.2009.00466.x
|
| [40] |
Tempesta T, Vecchiato D (2013) An analysis of the territorial factors affecting milk purchase in Italy. Food Qual Prefer 27: 35-43. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.06.005
|
| [41] |
Trinh G, Corsi A, Lockshin L (2019) How country of origins of food products compete and grow. J Retail Consum Serv 49: 231-241. doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.027
|
| [42] |
Skallerud K, Wien AH (2019) Preference for local food as a matter of helping behaviour: Insights from Norway. J Rural Stud 67: 79-88. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2019.02.020
|
| [43] | Schifani G, Romeo P, Dara Guccione G, et al. (2016) Conventions of quality in consumer preference toward local honey in Southern Italy. Qual-Access Success 17: 92-97. |
| [44] |
Hao Y, Liu H, Chen H, et al. (2019) What affect consumers' willingness to pay for green packaging? Evidence from China. Resour Conserv Recycl 141: 21-29. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.10.001
|
| [45] |
Merlino VM, Borra D, Girgenti V, et al. (2018) Beef meat preferences of consumers from Northwest Italy: Analysis of choice attributes. Meat Sci 143: 119-128. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.023
|
| [46] |
Bakke AJ, Shehan CV, Hayes JE (2016) Type of milk typically consumed, and stated preference, but not health consciousness affect revealed preferences for fat in milk. Food Qual Prefer 49: 92-99. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.12.001
|
| [47] |
Brewer JL, Blake AJ, Rankin SA, et al. (1999) Theory of reasoned action predicts milk consumption in women. J Am Diet Assoc 99: 39-44. doi: 10.1016/S0002-8223(99)00012-7
|
| [48] |
Briefel RR, Johnson CL (2004) Secular trends in dietary intake in the United States. Annu Rev Nutr 24: 401-431. doi: 10.1146/annurev.nutr.23.011702.073349
|
| [49] |
McCarthy KS, Lopetcharat K, Drake MA (2017) Milk fat threshold determination and the effect of milk fat content on consumer preference for fluid milk. J Dairy Sci 100: 1702-1711. doi: 10.3168/jds.2016-11417
|
| [50] | Gilaninia S, Ganjinia H, Charmchi K (2013) Affecting factors of packaging milk production on Guilan consumer behavior. Niger Chapter Arab J Bus Manag Rev 1: 29-40. |
| [51] |
Meneses M, Pasqualino J, Castells F (2012) Environmental assessment of the milk life cycle: The effect of packaging selection and the variability of milk production data. J Environ Manage 107: 76-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.04.019
|
| [52] |
Chalupa-Krebzdak S, Long CJ, Bohrer BM (2018) Nutrient density and nutritional value of milk and plant-based milk alternatives. Int Dairy J 87: 84-92. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2018.07.018
|
| [53] |
Lloyd MA, Zou J, Ogden LV, et al. (2004) Sensory and nutritional quality of nonfat dry milk in long-term residential storage. J Food Sci 69: S326-S331. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2004.tb18025.x
|
| [54] |
García-Madariaga J, Blasco López MF, Burgos IM, et al. (2019) Do isolated packaging variables influence consumers' attention and preferences? Physiol Behav 200: 96-103. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2018.04.030
|
| [55] |
Spence C, Velasco C (2018) On the multiple effects of packaging colour on consumer behaviour and product experience in the 'food and beverage' and 'home and personal care' categories. Food Qual Prefer 68: 226-237. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.03.008
|
| [56] |
Ares G, Deliza R (2010) Studying the influence of package shape and colour on consumer expectations of milk desserts using word association and conjoint analysis. Food Qual Prefer 21: 930-937. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.006
|
| [57] | Balzarotti S, Maviglia B, Biassoni F, et al. (2015) Glass vs. plastic: Affective judgments of food packages after visual and haptic exploration. Procedia Manuf 3: 2251-2258. |
| [58] |
Magnier L, Schoormans J (2015) Consumer reactions to sustainable packaging: The interplay of visual appearance, verbal claim and environmental concern. J Environ Psychol 44: 53-62. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.09.005
|
| [59] |
Rebollar R, Gil I, Lidón I, et al. (2017) How material, visual and verbal cues on packaging influence consumer expectations and willingness to buy: The case of crisps (potato chips) in Spain. Food Res Int 99: 239-246. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.05.024
|
| [60] |
Klaiman K, Ortega DL, Garnache C (2016) Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability. Resour Conserv Recycl 115: 1-8. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.08.021
|
| [61] |
Rokka J, Uusitalo L (2008) Preference for green packaging in consumer product choices-Do consumers care? Int J Consum Stud 32: 516-525. doi: 10.1111/j.1470-6431.2008.00710.x
|
| [62] |
Bortolini M, Galizia FG, Mora C, et al. (2018) Bi-objective design of fresh food supply chain networks with reusable and disposable packaging containers. J Clean Prod 184: 375-388. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.231
|
| [63] |
Sonneveld K (2000) What drives (food) packaging innovation? Packag Technol Sci 13: 29-35. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1522(200001/02)13:1<29::AID-PTS489>3.0.CO;2-R
|
| [64] | Laroche M, Bergeron J, Barbaro‐Forleo G (2001) Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. J Consum Mark 18: 03-520. |
| [65] |
Trivedi RH, Patel JD, Acharya N (2018) Causality analysis of media influence on environmental attitude, intention and behaviors leading to green purchasing. J Clean Prod 196: 11-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.024
|
| [66] |
Castellini A, Disegna M, Mauracher C, et al. (2014) Consumers' willingness to pay for quality and safety in clams. J Int Food Agribus Mark 26: 189-208. doi: 10.1080/08974438.2014.897668
|
| [67] |
Blanc S, Massaglia S, Borra D, et al. (2020) Animal welfare and gender: a nexus in awareness and preference when choosing fresh beef meat? Ital J Anim Sci 19: 410-420. doi: 10.1080/1828051X.2020.1747952
|
| [68] | Simmonds G, Woods AT, Spence C (2018) 'Show me the goods': Assessing the effectiveness of transparent packaging vs. product imagery on product evaluation. Food Qual Prefer 63: 18-27. |
| [69] |
Simmonds G, Woods AT, Spence C (2019) 'Shaping perceptions': Exploring how the shape of transparent windows in packaging designs affects product evaluation. Food Qual Prefer 75: 15-22. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.02.003
|
| [70] | Junaid AB, Nasreen R (2012) Determination of consumer behaviour amongst millennials in dermaceuticals (skin care products). Int J Mark Stud 4: 88-99. |
| [71] | Smith BT, Tasman WS (2005) Retinopathy of prematurity: late complications in the baby boomer generation (1946-1964). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 103: 225. |
| [72] |
D'Amico M, Di Vita G, Monaco L (2016) Exploring environmental consciousness and consumer preferences for organic wines without sulfites. J Clean Prod 120: 64-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.014
|
| [73] |
Testa R, Asciuto A, Schifani G, et al. (2019) Quality determinants and effect of therapeutic properties in honey consumption: An exploratory study on Italian consumers. Agriculture 9: 174. doi: 10.3390/agriculture9080174
|
| [74] |
Boin E, Nunes J (2018) Mushroom consumption behavior and influencing factors in a sample of the portuguese population. J Int Food Agribus Mark 30: 35-48. doi: 10.1080/08974438.2017.1382420
|
| [75] | Greene WH, Hensher DA (2008) Modeling ordered choices: A primer and recent developments. Cambrige University Press, 181. |
| [76] | McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P, Frontiers of Econometrics. New York, Academic Press, 105-142. |
| [77] | Cameron AC, Trivedi PK (2009) Microeconometrics using stata. Stata press College Station, TX. |
| [78] |
Massaglia S, Merlino VM, Borra D, et al. (2019) Consumer attitudes and preference exploration towards fresh-cut salads using best-Worst scaling and latent class analysis. Foods 8: 568. doi: 10.3390/foods8110568
|
| [79] | ISMEA Latte e derivati bovini-News e analisi-Riprende a correre l'export di formaggi e latticini. Available from: http://www.ismeamercati.it/flex/cm/pages/ServeBLOB.php/L/IT/IDPagina/9848. |
| [80] |
AlKanhal HA, Al-Othman AA, Hewedi FM (2001) Changes in protein nutritional quality in fresh and recombined ultra high temperature treated milk during storage. Int J Food Sci Nutr 52: 509-514. doi: 10.1080/09637480020027000-6-2
|
| [81] |
Antonelli ML, Curini R, Scricciolo D, et al. (2002) Determination of free fatty acids and lipase activity in milk: Quality and storage markers. Talanta 58: 561-568. doi: 10.1016/S0039-9140(02)00324-7
|
| [82] |
Van Aardt M, Duncan SE, Marcy JE, et al. (2005) Aroma analysis of light-exposed milk stored with and without natural and synthetic antioxidants. J Dairy Sci 88: 881-890. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72754-5
|
| [83] |
Ricci EC, Stranieri S, Casetta C, et al. (2019) Consumer preferences for made in Italy food products: The role of ethnocentrism and product knowledge. AIMS Agric Food 4: 88-110. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.1.88
|
| [84] |
Altamore L, Ingrassia M, Chironi S, et al (2018) Pasta experience: Eating with the five senses-A pilot study. AIMS Agric Food 3: 493-520. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2018.4.493
|
| [85] | Zhang Y, Jin S, Zhang YY, et al. (2018) How country-of-origin influence Chinese consumers evaluation for imported milk? Available from: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277193. |
| [86] | Regione Piemonte (2019) Campagna informativa 'Piemunto'. Available from: https://www.regione.piemonte.it/web/temi/agricoltura/promozione-qualita/modulistica-campagna-informativa-marchio-piemunto. Accessed 26 Nov 2019 |
| [87] |
Scuderi A, Bellia C, Foti VT, et al. (2019) Evaluation of consumers' purchasing process for organic food products. AIMS Agric Food 4: 251-265. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.2.251
|
| [88] |
Świda J, Halagarda M, Popek S (2018) Perceptions of older consumers regarding food packaging as a prerequisite for its improvement: A case study of Polish market. Int J Consum Stud 42: 358-366. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12427
|
| [89] |
Tucker CA, Farrelly T (2016) Household food waste: The implications of consumer choice in food from purchase to disposal. Local Environ 21: 682-706. doi: 10.1080/13549839.2015.1015972
|
| [90] | Drichoutis AC, Lazaridis P, Nayga RM (2005) Nutrition knowledge and consumer use of nutritional food labels. Eur Rev Agric Econ 32: 93-118. |
| [91] |
Michaelidou AM (2008) Factors influencing nutritional and health profile of milk and milk products. Small Rumin Res 79: 42-50. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2008.07.007
|
| [92] | Güney Oİ (2019) Consumer attitudes towards goat milk and goat milk products: A pilot survey in South-east of Turkey. Turk J Agric-Food Sci Technol 7: 314-319. |
| [93] | Paterson ME (2016) Assessment of consumers' perceptions, preferences, behaviors and values with fluid milk packaging, code date and new product concepts. Doctor of Philosophy, Iowa State University, Digital Repository, 97. |
| [94] |
Rybanska J, Nagyova L, Horska E (2019) Milk product packaging features as the key factor of successful canvassing techniques. Econ Sci Rural Dev Conf Proc 51: 338-345. doi: 10.22616/ESRD.2019.094
|
| [95] |
Eltayeb TK, Zailani S, Ramayah T (2011) Green supply chain initiatives among certified companies in Malaysia and environmental sustainability: Investigating the outcomes. Resour Conserv Recycl 55: 495-506. doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.003
|
Figures(1) / Tables(8)
Valentina Maria Merlino, Filippo Brun, Alice Versino, Simone Blanc. Milk packaging innovation: Consumer perception and willingness to pay[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5(2): 307-326. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2020.2.307
| Harvest | Batem Fatihi | Navelina | Washington Navel | Valencia Late | Moro |
| 1 | 10 November | 10 November | 10 November | 20 February | 02 January |
| 2 | 30 November | 30 November | 30 November | 10 March | 20 January |
| 3 | 20 December | 20 December | 20 December | 30 March | 10 February |
| 4 | 10 January | 10 January | 10 January | 20 April | 02 March |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Fruit weight | Peel ratio | Essential oil content | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 17.47 | 0.0001 | 4.74 | 0.0075 | 5.56 | 0.0014 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 1.18 | 0.3437 | 0.40 | 0.7568 | 2.07 | 0.0732 |
| C×HT | 0.53 | 0.8678 | 0.15 | 0.9991 | 1.08 | 0.4064 |
| Coefficient of variation | 15.3389 | 17.0473 | 15.7103 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Cultivar | Harvest | Fruit weight (g/fruit) | Peel ratio (%) |
| Batem Fatihi | 1 | 223.48 ± 15.390 | 22.79ab ± 1.445 |
| 2 | 250.06 ± 5.075 | 23.04ab ± 3.635 | |
| 3 | 283.51 ± 20.305 | 22.95ab ± 5.250 | |
| 4 | 296.37 ± 22.850 | 25.03ab ± 3.810 | |
| mean | 263.36a ± 12.62 | 23.45b ± 1.473 | |
| Navelina | 1 | 286.42 ± 35.735 | 25.15ab ± 3.305 |
| 2 | 295.33 ± 18.775 | 24.34ab ± 4.940 | |
| 3 | 262.54 ± 83.700 | 25.92ab ± 3.350 | |
| 4 | 301.91 ± 23.455 | 26.33ab ± 2.510 | |
| mean | 286.55a ± 18.97 | 25.43b ± 1.404 | |
| W. Navel | 1 | 307.45 ± 24.190 | 22.70ab ± 1.465 |
| 2 | 293.40 ± 22.060 | 23.90ab ± 2.600 | |
| 3 | 298.56 ± 22.255 | 26.52ab ± 3.135 | |
| 4 | 301.21 ± 21.960 | 26.72ab ± 3.250 | |
| mean | 300.15a ± 8.77 | 24.96b ± 1.211 | |
| Valencia Late | 1 | 167.56 ± 24.975 | 21.61b ± 0.775 |
| 2 | 199.44 ± 19.595 | 22.89ab ± 1.640 | |
| 3 | 186.33 ± 1.040 | 22.04b ± 2.155 | |
| 4 | 220.60 ± 7.775 | 20.38b ± 0.070 | |
| mean | 193.48b ± 9.57 | 21.73b ± 0.633 | |
| Moro | 1 | 168.90 ± 13.450 | 29.39a ± 0.355 |
| 2 | 155.64 ± 0.455 | 29.54a ± 2.215 | |
| 3 | 202.42 ± 14.365 | 30.57a ± 3.360 | |
| 4 | 184.47 ± 12.300 | 32.71a ± 4.595 | |
| mean | 177.86b ± 7.93 | 30.55a ± 1.260 | |
| Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences between the means for cultivars at the p < 0.05 level. | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Relative density | Refractive index | Optical activity | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 0.33 | 0.8577 | 0.33 | 0.8568 | 0.22 | 0.9269 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 0.73 | 0.5424 | 0.76 | 0.5250 | 1.76 | 0.1705 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 5.83 | 0.0204 | 148.86 | 0.0001 | 42.88 | 0.0001 |
| C × HT | 0.69 | 0.7510 | 0.48 | 0.9175 | 0.45 | 0.9332 |
| C × IM | 0.41 | 0.7980 | 0.36 | 0.8378 | 0.36 | 0.8328 |
| HT × IM | 0.75 | 0.5305 | 0.71 | 0.5523 | 0.05 | 0.9865 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.58 | 0.8459 | 0.12 | 0.9998 | 0.09 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.8298 | 0.0398 | 1.9870 | |||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Batem Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| Relative density | 0.8404 ± 0.0012 | 0.8428 ± 0.0023 | 0.8427 ± 0.0011 | 0.8419 ± 0.0013 | 0.8426 ± 0.0020 | |||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | 1.4732 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0003 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | |||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.57 ± 0.595 | 96.96 ± 0.593 | 96.54 ± 0.593 | 97.02 ± 0.543 | 96.88 ± 0.413 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| Relative density | 0.8426 ± 0.0015 | 0.8419 ± 0.0010 | 0.8404 ± 0.0013 | 0.8435 ± 0.0019 | ||||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4733 ± 0.0002 | ||||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.95 ± 0.421 | 97.26 ± 0.352 | 97.01 ± 0.409 | 95.97 ± 0.652 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| Relative density | 0.8402b ± 0.0012 | 0.8440a ± 0.0007 | ||||||
| Refractive index | 1.4723b ± 0.0001 | 1.4739a ± 0.0001 | ||||||
| Optical activity (°) | 98.20a ± 0.234 | 95.39b ± 0.272 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 95.9 | 96.0 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.3 | 96.4 | 96.3 | 96.1 | 96.3 | 96.3 | 96.2 | 96.1 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Terpinolen | 1298 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 95.7 | 95.8 | 95.5 | 95.4 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.3 | 95.4 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.10 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.13 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.2 | 96.2 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.9 | 96.3 | 96.0 | 96.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Valencene | 1745 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 94.9 | 94.9 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.0 | 95.2 | 95.1 | 95.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Undefined | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| β-Myrcene | Limonene | |||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 3.46 | 0.0162 | 20.65 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 3.00 | 0.0417 | 0.40 | 0.7565 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 0.33 | 0.5669 | 0.63 | 0.4310 |
| C × HT | 0.57 | 0.8532 | 0.47 | 0.9223 |
| C × IM | 0.13 | 0.9726 | 0.15 | 0.9605 |
| HT × IM | 0.33 | 0.8013 | 0.14 | 0.9334 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.68 | 0.7595 | 0.07 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.9341 | 0.4254 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
| B.Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 2.03a ± 0.011 | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 1.98b ± 0.011 | 2.0ab ± 0.009 | |||
| Limonene | 96.03a ± 0.051 | 96.24a ± 0.032 | 95.59b ± 0.092 | 96.06a ± 0.063 | 95.09c ± 0.135 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.02a ± 0.009 | 2.01a ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.010 | ||||
| Limonene | 95.84 ± 0.121 | 95.76 ± 0.110 | 95.87 ± 0.127 | 95.75 ± 0.120 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01 ± 0.006 | 2.00 ± 0.006 | ||||||
| Limonene | 95.77 ± 0.085 | 95.84 ± 0.082 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Harvest | Batem Fatihi | Navelina | Washington Navel | Valencia Late | Moro |
| 1 | 10 November | 10 November | 10 November | 20 February | 02 January |
| 2 | 30 November | 30 November | 30 November | 10 March | 20 January |
| 3 | 20 December | 20 December | 20 December | 30 March | 10 February |
| 4 | 10 January | 10 January | 10 January | 20 April | 02 March |
| Fruit weight | Peel ratio | Essential oil content | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 17.47 | 0.0001 | 4.74 | 0.0075 | 5.56 | 0.0014 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 1.18 | 0.3437 | 0.40 | 0.7568 | 2.07 | 0.0732 |
| C×HT | 0.53 | 0.8678 | 0.15 | 0.9991 | 1.08 | 0.4064 |
| Coefficient of variation | 15.3389 | 17.0473 | 15.7103 | |||
| Cultivar | Harvest | Fruit weight (g/fruit) | Peel ratio (%) |
| Batem Fatihi | 1 | 223.48 ± 15.390 | 22.79ab ± 1.445 |
| 2 | 250.06 ± 5.075 | 23.04ab ± 3.635 | |
| 3 | 283.51 ± 20.305 | 22.95ab ± 5.250 | |
| 4 | 296.37 ± 22.850 | 25.03ab ± 3.810 | |
| mean | 263.36a ± 12.62 | 23.45b ± 1.473 | |
| Navelina | 1 | 286.42 ± 35.735 | 25.15ab ± 3.305 |
| 2 | 295.33 ± 18.775 | 24.34ab ± 4.940 | |
| 3 | 262.54 ± 83.700 | 25.92ab ± 3.350 | |
| 4 | 301.91 ± 23.455 | 26.33ab ± 2.510 | |
| mean | 286.55a ± 18.97 | 25.43b ± 1.404 | |
| W. Navel | 1 | 307.45 ± 24.190 | 22.70ab ± 1.465 |
| 2 | 293.40 ± 22.060 | 23.90ab ± 2.600 | |
| 3 | 298.56 ± 22.255 | 26.52ab ± 3.135 | |
| 4 | 301.21 ± 21.960 | 26.72ab ± 3.250 | |
| mean | 300.15a ± 8.77 | 24.96b ± 1.211 | |
| Valencia Late | 1 | 167.56 ± 24.975 | 21.61b ± 0.775 |
| 2 | 199.44 ± 19.595 | 22.89ab ± 1.640 | |
| 3 | 186.33 ± 1.040 | 22.04b ± 2.155 | |
| 4 | 220.60 ± 7.775 | 20.38b ± 0.070 | |
| mean | 193.48b ± 9.57 | 21.73b ± 0.633 | |
| Moro | 1 | 168.90 ± 13.450 | 29.39a ± 0.355 |
| 2 | 155.64 ± 0.455 | 29.54a ± 2.215 | |
| 3 | 202.42 ± 14.365 | 30.57a ± 3.360 | |
| 4 | 184.47 ± 12.300 | 32.71a ± 4.595 | |
| mean | 177.86b ± 7.93 | 30.55a ± 1.260 | |
| Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences between the means for cultivars at the p < 0.05 level. | |||
| Relative density | Refractive index | Optical activity | ||||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 0.33 | 0.8577 | 0.33 | 0.8568 | 0.22 | 0.9269 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 0.73 | 0.5424 | 0.76 | 0.5250 | 1.76 | 0.1705 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 5.83 | 0.0204 | 148.86 | 0.0001 | 42.88 | 0.0001 |
| C × HT | 0.69 | 0.7510 | 0.48 | 0.9175 | 0.45 | 0.9332 |
| C × IM | 0.41 | 0.7980 | 0.36 | 0.8378 | 0.36 | 0.8328 |
| HT × IM | 0.75 | 0.5305 | 0.71 | 0.5523 | 0.05 | 0.9865 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.58 | 0.8459 | 0.12 | 0.9998 | 0.09 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 0.8298 | 0.0398 | 1.9870 | |||
| Batem Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| Relative density | 0.8404 ± 0.0012 | 0.8428 ± 0.0023 | 0.8427 ± 0.0011 | 0.8419 ± 0.0013 | 0.8426 ± 0.0020 | |||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | 1.4732 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0003 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0003 | |||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.57 ± 0.595 | 96.96 ± 0.593 | 96.54 ± 0.593 | 97.02 ± 0.543 | 96.88 ± 0.413 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| Relative density | 0.8426 ± 0.0015 | 0.8419 ± 0.0010 | 0.8404 ± 0.0013 | 0.8435 ± 0.0019 | ||||
| Refractive index | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4730 ± 0.0002 | 1.4731 ± 0.0002 | 1.4733 ± 0.0002 | ||||
| Optical activity (°) | 96.95 ± 0.421 | 97.26 ± 0.352 | 97.01 ± 0.409 | 95.97 ± 0.652 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| Relative density | 0.8402b ± 0.0012 | 0.8440a ± 0.0007 | ||||||
| Refractive index | 1.4723b ± 0.0001 | 1.4739a ± 0.0001 | ||||||
| Optical activity (°) | 98.20a ± 0.234 | 95.39b ± 0.272 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.1 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 95.9 | 96.0 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.3 | 96.4 | 96.3 | 96.1 | 96.3 | 96.3 | 96.2 | 96.1 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Terpinolen | 1298 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 95.7 | 95.8 | 95.5 | 95.4 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.3 | 95.4 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.10 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.13 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 1.9 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 96.2 | 96.2 | 95.8 | 95.9 | 95.9 | 96.3 | 96.0 | 96.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.3 |
| Valencene | 1745 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Undefined | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| Compound | RRI | 1. Harvest | 2. Harvest | 3. Harvest | 4. Harvest | ||||
| HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | HD | CP | ||
| α-Pinene | 1030 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| Sabinene | 1132 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| δ-3-Carene | 1156 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| β-Myrcene | 1170 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Limonene | 1214 | 94.9 | 94.9 | 95.2 | 95.2 | 95.0 | 95.2 | 95.1 | 95.2 |
| β-Phellandrene | 1223 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Octanal | 1302 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.1 |
| Decanal | 1503 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Linalool | 1549 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Geranial | 1748 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
| Undefined | 0.2 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | |
| HD: Hydrodistillation, CP: Cold-pressed. | |||||||||
| β-Myrcene | Limonene | |||
| Statistic F | p-Value | Statistic F | p-Value | |
| Cultivar (C) | 3.46 | 0.0162 | 20.65 | 0.0001 |
| Harvest time (HT) | 3.00 | 0.0417 | 0.40 | 0.7565 |
| Isolation method (IM) | 0.33 | 0.5669 | 0.63 | 0.4310 |
| C × HT | 0.57 | 0.8532 | 0.47 | 0.9223 |
| C × IM | 0.13 | 0.9726 | 0.15 | 0.9605 |
| HT × IM | 0.33 | 0.8013 | 0.14 | 0.9334 |
| C × HT × IM | 0.68 | 0.7595 | 0.07 | 1.000 |
| Coefficient of variation | 1.9341 | 0.4254 | ||
| B.Fatihi | Navelina | W.Navel | V.Late | Moro | ||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 2.03a ± 0.011 | 2.01a ± 0.006 | 1.98b ± 0.011 | 2.0ab ± 0.009 | |||
| Limonene | 96.03a ± 0.051 | 96.24a ± 0.032 | 95.59b ± 0.092 | 96.06a ± 0.063 | 95.09c ± 0.135 | |||
| 1.Harvest | 2.Harvest | 3.Harvest | 4.Harvest | |||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.02a ± 0.009 | 2.01a ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.007 | 1.99b ± 0.010 | ||||
| Limonene | 95.84 ± 0.121 | 95.76 ± 0.110 | 95.87 ± 0.127 | 95.75 ± 0.120 | ||||
| Hydrodistillation | Cold-pressed | |||||||
| β-Myrcene | 2.01 ± 0.006 | 2.00 ± 0.006 | ||||||
| Limonene | 95.77 ± 0.085 | 95.84 ± 0.082 | ||||||
| Different letters on the same line indicate a significant difference between the means at the p < 0.05 level. | ||||||||
