2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample set
The sample collection consisted of 64 samples of cold-pressed lemon oil obtained by industrial extraction from 3 different geographic origins: Italy (n=46), Argentina (n=13) and Spain (n=5). Italian lemon fruits were harvested from November 2010 to May 2011, while Argentinian lemon fruits were harvested in May and June 2011. Spanish fruits were harvested from November 2010 to May 2011. The samples were obtained from industrial suppliers and were a mix of several cultivars. Because samples were obtained from industrial suppliers who bought lemon fruits from different farmers, it was impossible to obtain monovarietal CPLOs. Argentinian samples were obtained from Eureka, Lisbon, and Genova cultivars, Spanish samples were obtained from Fino and Verna cultivars, and Italian samples were obtained mainly from Feminello but also from Commune, Santa Teresa, and Sfusato cultivars. In this work, the geographic origin denomination did not consider differences among the cultivars.
To distinguish between the different extraction processes, emphasis was placed on the Italian sample set. The Italian sample set consisted of 46 samples extracted with 4 main different processes: BOE (Brown Oil Extractor) (n=11), Sfumatrice (n=11), Pelatrice (n=11), and FMC (FMC© extractor) (n=13).
The most common method is the FMC-type extractor, which is widely used in orange processing worldwide. In this method, the oil and juice are simultaneously extracted by a cutter tube that pierces the fruit and removes the juice while the oil is extracted. The separate juice and oil products are then piped away for further processing and finishing (Reeve, 2005).
The Brown Oil Extractor (BOE or Brown) process is particularly common in the United States and South America, and rare in Europe. It differs from FMC because the oil is extracted from lemons, first, by gently puncturing the flavedo, or peel, with thousands of stainless steel needle points. The oil sacks are then ruptured, releasing the oil, which is subsequently captured in a water spray. Next, this water spray is centrifuged to separate the water and to polish and finish the oil (Reeve, 2005).
The third main method of processing involves Pelatrice-type rasping equipment. This process is similar to the Brown process, but rather than using stainless steel needle points to pierce the fruit and remove the oil, the fruit is subjected to rolling disc graters that allow the flavedo to be rasped (Reeve, 2005).
The last method, Sfumatrice, involves extracting the oil from the half peels without juice. Peels fall into the oil extracting section and are taken by a rotating drum that rolls and presses them against a stationary profile. This causes a repeated deformation of the half peel and a breakage of the oil sacks. Oil is collected by a water rain provided through a set of sprayers. The mixture of water and essential oil falls into a tank and is then conveyed to the following stages of finishing and separation (Reeve, 2005).
The volatile and non-volatile fractions of the oil were subjected to various analytical methods, as described above.
2.2. FT-MIR
Three spectra of each sample (one for the CPLOR) were recorded, using a PerkinElmer Spectrum One spectrometer equipped with a DTGS detector, an Ever-Glo source, and a KBr/germanium beam splitter. Samples were deposited without any preparation on an ATR cell equipped with a diamond crystal. Spectra were recorded between 4000 cm-1 and 650 cm-1 with a nominal resolution of 4 cm-1 and 16 co-added accumulations. Air was taken as reference for the background spectrum before each sample. Between spectra, the ATR plate was cleaned in situ by scrubbing with ethanol solution. A background spectrum was regularly collected and compared to the previous background spectrum to verify cleanliness. This procedure was also used as instrument qualification.
2.3. GC-FID and GC-MS
The CPLO was injected into a GC 6890 (Agilent) equipped with a double injector and two DB-1 capillary columns (60 m × 0.25 mm, film thickness 0.25 μm, J&W 122-1062). One column was connected to an MS 5973N (Agilent) for identification, and the other to an FID for quantitation. The temperature programme was as follows: 50 °C for 5 min, increased to 120 °C at a rate of 3 °C/min, then increased to 250 °C at a rate of 5 °C/min, 5 min isothermal, then increased to 300 °C at a rate of 15 °C/min, and then 20 min isothermal; split ratio, 1:50; injection volume, 0.2 μl; injector and detector temperatures, both 250 °C; carrier gas, helium at constant flow rates of 1.8 ml/min and 2.1 ml/min, respectively. The CPLO was diluted 1:10 in dichloromethane before being submitted to GC-FID-MS analysis. For all GC-MS analyses, mass spectra were generated by EI at 70eV at a scan ranging from m/z: 29-250 during the first 20 min and then at a scan ranging from m/z: 29-450.
Compounds were identified by analyzing and comparing mass spectra and linear retention indices
2. Materials and methods2.1. Sample setThe sample collection consisted of 64 samples of cold-pressed lemon oil obtained by industrial extraction from 3 different geographic origins: Italy (n=46), Argentina (n=13) and Spain (n=5). Italian lemon fruits were harvested from November 2010 to May 2011, while Argentinian lemon fruits were harvested in May and June 2011. Spanish fruits were harvested from November 2010 to May 2011. The samples were obtained from industrial suppliers and were a mix of several cultivars. Because samples were obtained from industrial suppliers who bought lemon fruits from different farmers, it was impossible to obtain monovarietal CPLOs. Argentinian samples were obtained from Eureka, Lisbon, and Genova cultivars, Spanish samples were obtained from Fino and Verna cultivars, and Italian samples were obtained mainly from Feminello but also from Commune, Santa Teresa, and Sfusato cultivars. In this work, the geographic origin denomination did not consider differences among the cultivars.To distinguish between the different extraction processes, emphasis was placed on the Italian sample set. The Italian sample set consisted of 46 samples extracted with 4 main different processes: BOE (Brown Oil Extractor) (n=11), Sfumatrice (n=11), Pelatrice (n=11), and FMC (FMC© extractor) (n=13).The most common method is the FMC-type extractor, which is widely used in orange processing worldwide. In this method, the oil and juice are simultaneously extracted by a cutter tube that pierces the fruit and removes the juice while the oil is extracted. The separate juice and oil products are then piped away for further processing and finishing (Reeve, 2005).The Brown Oil Extractor (BOE or Brown) process is particularly common in the United States and South America, and rare in Europe. It differs from FMC because the oil is extracted from lemons, first, by gently puncturing the flavedo, or peel, with thousands of stainless steel needle points. The oil sacks are then ruptured, releasing the oil, which is subsequently captured in a water spray. Next, this water spray is centrifuged to separate the water and to polish and finish the oil (Reeve, 2005).The third main method of processing involves Pelatrice-type rasping equipment. This process is similar to the Brown process, but rather than using stainless steel needle points to pierce the fruit and remove the oil, the fruit is subjected to rolling disc graters that allow the flavedo to be rasped (Reeve, 2005).The last method, Sfumatrice, involves extracting the oil from the half peels without juice. Peels fall into the oil extracting section and are taken by a rotating drum that rolls and presses them against a stationary profile. This causes a repeated deformation of the half peel and a breakage of the oil sacks. Oil is collected by a water rain provided through a set of sprayers. The mixture of water and essential oil falls into a tank and is then conveyed to the following stages of finishing and separation (Reeve, 2005).
The volatile and non-volatile fractions of the oil were subjected to various analytical methods, as described above.
2.2. FT-MIR
Three spectra of each sample (one for the CPLOR) were recorded, using a PerkinElmer Spectrum One spectrometer equipped with a DTGS detector, an Ever-Glo source, and a KBr/germanium beam splitter. Samples were deposited without any preparation on an ATR cell equipped with a diamond crystal. Spectra were recorded between 4000 cm-1 and 650 cm-1 with a nominal resolution of 4 cm-1 and 16 co-added accumulations. Air was taken as reference for the background spectrum before each sample. Between spectra, the ATR plate was cleaned in situ by scrubbing with ethanol solution. A background spectrum was regularly collected and compared to the previous background spectrum to verify cleanliness. This procedure was also used as instrument qualification.
2.3. GC-FID and GC-MS
The CPLO was injected into a GC 6890 (Agilent) equipped with a double injector and two DB-1 capillary columns (60 m × 0.25 mm, film thickness 0.25 μm, J&W 122-1062). One column was connected to an MS 5973N (Agilent) for identification, and the other to an FID for quantitation. The temperature programme was as follows: 50 °C for 5 min, increased to 120 °C at a rate of 3 °C/min, then increased to 250 °C at a rate of 5 °C/min, 5 min isothermal, then increased to 300 °C at a rate of 15 °C/min, and then 20 min isothermal; split ratio, 1:50; injection volume, 0.2 μl; injector and detector temperatures, both 250 °C; carrier gas, helium at constant flow rates of 1.8 ml/min and 2.1 ml/min, respectively. The CPLO was diluted 1:10 in dichloromethane before being submitted to GC-FID-MS analysis. For all GC-MS analyses, mass spectra were generated by EI at 70eV at a scan ranging from m/z: 29-250 during the first 20 min and then at a scan ranging from m/z: 29-450.
Compounds were identified by analyzing and comparing mass spectra and linear retention indices
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
