C itrus monstruosa Discrimination among Several C itrus Species by Multivariate Analysis of Volatiles: A Metabolomic Approach

Abstract

The origin and taxonomy of Citrus monstruosa (Rutaceae) are currently unknown and thus a nontargeted metabolomic analysis on the flavedo volatiles was performed. Headspace solid-phase micro extraction coupled with gas chromatography analysis was applied to eight Citrus spp. including Citrus monstruosa, and the chemical composition of the volatile organic compounds (VOC) was analyzed to give a chemical comparison between different Citrus species. Forty-four metabolites were detected across the species: several monoterpenes were found in all Citrus spp. and among them limonene comes first in all Citrus spp. ranging from 96.7 to 66.7%. Conversely, some molecules were found to be specific for only a few of the samples. The classical univariate evaluation of the VOC data is unlikely to give objective data for the cultivar classification; a multivariate approach, principal component analysis, is an easy to use, powerful tool. Therefore, a chemometric comparison between chromatographic data of all Citrus spp. was performed with the aim of understanding the role of VOC in the discrimination of the eight studied cultivars.

Genetic, morphological and chemical investigations reveal the genetic origin of Pompia (C. medica tuberosa Risso & Poiteau) – An old endemic Sardinian citrus fruit

“…The sour orange profile differed from that of Pompia, as there was a relatively high linalool concentration (about 5% versus 0.1%. The citron profile in the present study differed from that of Petretto et al (2015) by the lower proportion of limonene (50% versus 71%) and higher nerol, neral, geraniol, geranial, neryl acetate and geranyl acetate levels (1.3-7.4% versus < 1%). These variations may have been due to the process of EO extraction or a cultivar effect, i.e.…”

“…However, different results were reported for the EO composition of Pompia fruit peel in Sardinia: limonene content of 77.5% (Fenu et al, 2010), 93.3% (Camarda et al, 2013) and 77.4% (Flamini et al, 2019) or 90% (Rosa et al, 2019). Petretto et al (2015), by a different process of extraction (saturation in the head space), also obtained a rich Pompia limonene profile (94.1%), which was close to that of sour orange. The sour orange profile differed from that of Pompia, as there was a relatively high linalool concentration (about 5% versus 0.1%.…”

Stir bar sorptive extraction coupled with GC/MS applied to honey: optimization of method and comparative study with headspace extraction techniques

“…The use of internal normalization of the chromatogram, without considering any correction factor, has several limitations for obtaining quantitative data [17]. Conversely, when applied to the same sample, the TIC internal normalization serves as a useful tool for the comparison of several techniques applied to the same sample [18]. SBSE volatiles differ qualitatively and quantitatively from those obtained by the SPME and DHS methods.…”

Volatile Compounds in Citrus Essential Oils: A Comprehensive Review

“…Among other compounds described in rinds of C. reticulata , we highlight the sesquiterpene hydrocarbon β-copaene, which has only been reported in the five species in this cluster according to their volatile profile [ C . reticulata (Merle et al, 2004; Hosni et al, 2010; Luciardi et al, 2016), C. sinensis (Mondello et al, 2003; Hosni et al, 2010; Petretto et al, 2016), C. paradisi (Petretto et al, 2016), C. aurantium (Hosni et al, 2010), and C. grandis (Sawamura et al, 1991; Hosni et al, 2010)].…”