Next Article in Journal
Dicationic Bis-Pyridinium Hydrazone-Based Amphiphiles Encompassing Fluorinated Counteranions: Synthesis, Characterization, TGA-DSC, and DFT Investigations
Next Article in Special Issue
Upcycling Rocha do Oeste Pear Pomace as a Sustainable Food Ingredient: Composition, Rheological Behavior and Microstructure Alone and Combined with Yeast Protein Extract
Previous Article in Journal
Phenolic Contents, Organic Acids, and the Antioxidant and Bio Activity of Wild Medicinal Berberis Plants- as Sustainable Sources of Functional Food
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 27
Issue 8
10.3390/molecules27082493
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Food Ingredients Derived from Lemongrass Byproduct Hydrodistillation: Essential Oil, Hydrolate, and Decoction

by
Luís Rodrigues
1,2,
Elisabete Coelho
1,*,
Renata Madeira
1,3,
Pedro Teixeira
4,
Isabel Henriques
5 and
Manuel A. Coimbra
1
1
Laboratório Associado para a Química Verde (LAQV-REQUIMTE), Department of Chemistry, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
2
Colab4Food—Collaborative Laboratory, 4485-655 Vairão, Portugal
3
União dos Produtores de Refrigerantes de Estarreja Lda (UPREL), 3860-210 Estarreja, Portugal
4
Centre of Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM), Biology Department, University of Aveiro, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal
5
Centre for Functional Ecology, Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Coimbra, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2022, 27(8), 2493; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27082493
Submission received: 19 March 2022 / Revised: 31 March 2022 / Accepted: 7 April 2022 / Published: 12 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research from Top Food Chemists)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Essential oil (EO), hydrolate, and nondistilled aqueous phase (decoction) obtained from the hydrodistillation of lemongrass byproducts were studied in terms of their potential as food ingredients under a circular economy. The EO (0.21%, dry weight basis) was composed mainly of monoterpenoids (61%), the majority being citral (1.09 g/kg). The minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of lemongrass EO against Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica, and Staphylococcus aureus, were 617, 1550, and 250 μg/mL, respectively. This effect was dependent on the citral content. Particularly for Gram-negative bacteria, a synergism between citral and the remaining EO compounds enhanced the antimicrobial activity. The polymeric material obtained from the nondistilled aqueous phase was composed of phenolic compounds (25% gallic acid equivalents) and carbohydrates (22%), mainly glucose (66 mol%). This polymeric material showed high antioxidant activity due to bound phenolic compounds, allowing its application as a functional dietary fiber ingredient. Matcha green tea formulations were successfully mixed with lemongrass hydrolate containing 0.21% EO (dry weight basis) with 58% of monoterpenoids, being citral at 0.73 g/kg, minimizing matcha astringency with a citrus flavor and extending the product shelf life. This holistic approach to essential oils’ hydrodistillation of Cymbopogon citratus byproducts allows for valorizing of the essential oil, hydrolate, and decoction for use as food ingredients.

1. Introduction

Cymbopogon citratus, Stapf (Lemongrass) is found in countries across Asia, America, Europe, and Africa [1,2]. It is commonly consumed as a herbal infusion or as a premium infusion, where solely lemongrass tips are employed. It contains up to 2% of essential oils on a dry mass basis [3], which is generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [4]. Lemongrass’s attractiveness is due to its lemon scent derived from citral, a mixture of the geometric isomers geranial (α-citral), ranging from 50.0 to 27.0%, and neral (β-citral), ranging from 50.8 to 4.5% [1]. The ISO (International Organization for Standardization) provides standards (geranial range 40.0–50.0%, neral range 31.0–40.0%) with which commercial lemongrass EOs should comply [5]. Lemongrass EO from byproducts such as the one used in this study, may not comply with these standards, thus emphasizing the need to identify other applications, such as its use as a flavoring ingredient. The feasibility of lemongrass EO incorporation into beverage formulation has been successfully demonstrated by Kieling et al. [6] who conducted an exhaustive sensorial description of the beverages obtained.
Lemongrass EO has been described as potentially having multiple properties, such as antihypertensive and vasorelaxant [7], antioxidant [8], anti-diabetic and anti-inflammatory [1], antifungal [9], and antibacterial [10]. In fact, citral has been shown to exert a strong antibacterial effect through DNA interaction, on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in vitro [2,11] and in vivo [12]. Similarly, geranic acid, an acid derived from geranial oxidation and also found in lemongrass EO, is accountable for the inhibition of tyrosinase, possibly preventing phenolic compound oxidation by polyphenoloxidase, responsible for the undesirable browning of foods [13]. Geraniol, a monoterpenol also found in lemongrass EO, has gastric healing properties capable of boosting lemongrass EO’s gastroprotective activity [14]. Thus, despite citral being considered the overall parameter to infer lemongrass EO quality [15,16], other biomolecules may play a role when considering food and beverage applications. These properties support applications of lemongrass EO such as in aromatherapy [17], as an alternative to synthetic pesticides [9], as a mosquito repellent [18], as a natural food preservative [10,19], and as a shelf-life extender [20,21,22].
Hydrodistillation is a widespread method for EO extraction [23], giving rise to an aqueous phase (hydrolate) that distillates together with the essential oil and is physically separated from the essential oil due to its higher polarity and density. This hydrolate is discarded together with the nondistilled aqueous phase and the plant debris. The nondistilled aqueous phase obtained from lemongrass has been reported to be composed mainly of glucose-rich polysaccharides [24] and to have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties [25].
In this study, the lemongrass byproduct EO profile will be disclosed as well as its antimicrobial activity against Gram-negative bacteria, namely Escherichia coli and Salmonella anatum strains, and the Gram-positive bacterium Staphylococcus aureus. A holistic strategy will be used to permit the recovery of all fractions (nondistilled aqueous phase and the hydrolate) otherwise wasted and to attribute their possible applications. Under a circular economy concept, the holistic approach to essential oils and the hydrodistillation of Cymbopogon citratus byproducts will be completed by exploring lemongrass polysaccharides within the nondistilled aqueous phase regarding their carbohydrate content as well as their antioxidant properties, and by using the hydrolate as a functional ingredient in a matcha tea formulation, complying with beverage safety regulations.

2. Results

2.1. Characterization of Lemongrass Byproducts: Essential Oil and Hydrolate

The lemongrass EO yield was 0.21%. The same yield was obtained for the lemongrass EO recovered from the hydrolate, resulting in a global yield of 0.42%. These results allow us to hypothesize that these wastes are a relevant source of emulsified EO compounds for possible food applications. To validate this hypothesis, the chemical compositions of the pale-yellow lemongrass EO and the hydrolate EO were determined (Table 1).
Twelve volatile compounds were identified in the lemongrass EO, corresponding to 62.58% of the total oil composition, with citral isomers being the major components (309.21 mg g−1 for geranial and 212.17 mg g−1 for neral). Other oxygenated compounds were also identified, including geranic acid (36.18 mg g−1), geraniol (31.57 mg g−1), and neric acid (7.14 mg g−1).
Fifteen volatile compounds were identified in the hydrolate EO, corresponding to 59.42% of the total oil composition, with citral isomers being the major components (213.79 mg g−1 for geranial and 135.00 mg g−1 for neral). Geranic acid (115.20 mg g−1), geraniol (69.50 mg g−1), and neric acid (28.71 mg g−1) were also identified. Although in trace amounts, perillyl alcohol (1.07 mg g−1), octanoic acid (3.13 mg g−1), and dihydroactinidiolide (1.35 mg g−1) were only found in the hydrolate EO.
Table
Table 1. Volatile compounds identified in essential oils (EOs) from byproducts of C. citratus leaves obtained by hydrodistillation.
Table 1. Volatile compounds identified in essential oils (EOs) from byproducts of C. citratus leaves obtained by hydrodistillation.
Peak NumberCompoundRIlit hRIcal gEO a (mg/g)Hydrolate EO a (mg/g)Water Solubility
(mg/L at 37 °C) b		logPReliability of ID p
1Linalool1507 i15355.03 ± 2.27 *2.34 ± 1.78 *4802.97 cA, B
22-Undecanone1579 j15743.90 ± 0.50 *1.54 ± 1.26 *124.25 bB
3Neral1656 i1650212.17 ± 55.66 *135.00 ± 52.79 *4003.45 dB
4Geranial1742 k1704309.21 ± 58.95 *213.79 ± 55.57 *4003.45 dB
5Geranyl acetate1719 i17325.09 ± 0.83 *3.60 ± 1.33 *1904.48 dB
6Citronellol1762 k17503.57 ± 0.42 *3.85 ± 0.17 *3503.91 cB
7Nerol1836 k17794.48 ± 0.16 *4.17 ± 0.25 *13703.47 eB
8Geraniol1840 k183031.57 ± 5.95 *69.50 ± 16.97 *13703.56 fB
9Caryophyllene oxide1999 k19992.54 ± 0.01 *5.57 ± 1.27 *73.49 bB
10Perillyl alcohol1972 i2022-1.07 ± 0.4319002.50 bB
11Octanoic acid2164 l2129-3.13 ± 1.319102.92 bB
12Dihydroactinidiolide2294 m2210-1.35 ± 0.586103.28 bB
13Neric acid2331 k23357.14 ± 3.51 *28.71 ± 12.19 *12202.72 bB
14Geranic acid2356 n237736.18 ± 17.34 *115.20 ± 43.52 *12202.72 bA, B
15Palmitic acid2866 o28144.89 ± 0.73 *5.38 ± 1.88 *0.416.26 bA, B
Total 62.58 ± 10.3859.42 ± 4.23
Yield (% w/w) 0.210.21
Each value in the table is represented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3); the symbol (*) in the same line indicates a nonsignificant difference (p < 0.05). a Estimated concentrations for all compounds were made by peak area comparisons to the area of a known amount of internal standard (2-undecanol). b Data obtained from hmdb.ca [26]. c Data obtained from [27]. d Data obtained from [28]. e Data obtained from [29]. f Data obtained from [30]. g Retention indices relative to C14–C27 n-alkanes series. h Retention indices reported in the literature for DB-FFAP columns or equivalent (i [31]; j [32]; k [33]; l [34]; m [35]; n [36]; o [37]). p The reliability of the identification or structural proposal is indicated by the following: A, mass spectrum and retention time consistent with those of an authentic standard; B, structural proposals are given on the basis of mass spectral data (Wiley 275 Library).

2.2. C. citratus Byproducts: EO Antimicrobial Activity

The potential antimicrobial activity of lemongrass EO was investigated by measuring the inhibition zone diameters through an agar disc diffusion assay and assessing the minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) by a broth microdilution assay (Table 2).
Lemongrass EO showed stronger antimicrobial activity against S. aureus (inhibition zone = 13 mm and MIC = 250 μg/mL) than against the Gram-negative bacteria E. coli (inhibition zone = 3 mm and MIC = 617 μg/mL) and S. enterica (inhibition zone = 0 mm and MIC = 1550 μg/mL). Citral isomers, the major compounds of lemongrass EO, used as standard, followed the same pattern, displaying stronger antimicrobial activity against S. aureus (MIC = 105 μg/mL) than against E. coli (MIC = 1070 μg/mL) and S. enterica (MIC > 2035 μg/mL). Based on these MIC values, due to the lower citral content of the hydrolate EO, much higher MIC values are expected for this sample.

2.3. Characterization of Lemongrass Byproducts: NonDistilled Aqueous Phase

Together with the EO, the hydrodistillation process of lemongrass byproducts produced a nondistilled aqueous phase that was recovered, accounting for 14.82 (% w/w). Carbohydrates accounted for 41%, comprised mainly of glucose (63 mol%) and uronic acids (27 mol%). The free sugars represented 24% of total carbohydrates and were mainly glucose (52%) and fructose (16%) (Table 3) in accordance with the free sugar composition of other aromatic plants [38]. This extract was also composed of phenolics, accounting for 20.7 mg GAE/g allowing an antioxidant activity of 1.4 TEAC (Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity).
The dialysis of the nondistilled aqueous phase allowed us to obtain the high molecular weight material (HMWM), whose yield was 1.4% of the dried lemongrass byproducts. It was composed of 224 mg/g carbohydrates and enriched with total phenolic compounds (246.3 mg GAE/g), displaying higher antioxidant activity (4.4 TEAC).
The HMWM contained 31.7% of compounds insoluble in cold water. This fraction (WIM) was composed of 259 mg/g sugars, mainly glucose (45 mol%) and uronic acids (34 mol%). The cold-water-soluble material was submitted to an ethanol-graded precipitation, allowing us to obtain a fraction that precipitated in 50% ethanol (Et50), composed of 346 mg/g sugars, glucose (47 mol%), uronic acids (32 mol%), and phenolic compounds (127.7 mg GAE/g), displaying antioxidant activity (3.9 TEAC). The fraction that precipitated in 70% ethanol (Et70) was composed of 313 mg/g sugars, mainly glucose (26 mol%), uronic acids (18 mol%), arabinose (18 mol%), galactose (17 mol%), and phenolic compounds (210.4 mg GAE/g), displaying high antioxidant activity (4.6 TEAC). The fraction soluble in 70% ethanol (EtSn) was composed of 289 mg/g sugars, composed mainly of glucose (76 mol%), uronic acids (7 mol%), rhamnose (6 mol%), and enriched with total phenolic compounds (460.1 mg GAE/g), displaying high antioxidant activity (5.6 TEAC).

2.4. Hydrolate as an Ingredient for Beverage Development

The hydrolate derived from the hydrodistillation of lemongrass byproducts, if incorporated into beverages, should be able to provide pleasant flavors (Table 1 and Figure 1). To validate this hypothesis this byproduct was incorporated into a matcha tea formulation to improve its taste acceptability by decreasing the astringency perception and increasing its flavored scents. For this, a matcha tea beverage was prepared with the addition of 20 to 50% (v/v) of hydrolate (Table 4). The readily prepared beverage containing 35% of hydrolate was the most appealing from a consumer perspective. Beverages containing 30, 20, and 40% were also considered pleasant. The beverages with a percentage higher than 40% were negatively rated due to a strong citrus flavor, whereas those only containing matcha tea were considered astringent.

3. Discussion

The overall lemongrass EO yield was 0.42%. As these lemongrass leaves are an industrial byproduct, it was predictable to obtain an inferior yield, yet relevant compared to the 0.73% reported for the lemongrass EO extracted from marketable lemongrass leaves using the same method [3]. Other methods such as microwave-assisted hydrodistillation allow us to obtain a higher yield (1.46%) [39].
The hydrolate EO displays a lower amount of citral isomers (35%) when compared to the lemongrass EO (52%), possibly due to the high concentration and high hydrophobicity of citral (logP = 3.45), which results in a high partition in the oil phase despite its relatively high solubility in water (s = 400 mg/L). Compounds such as geraniol (logP = 3.56; s = 1370 mg/L), nerol (logP = 3.47; s = 1370 mg/L), and other terpenic alcohols such as citronellol (logP = 3.91; s = 350 mg/L), despite their high logP and relatively high solubility in water, did not migrate in great extension to the nonpolar phase due to their very low concentration in the solution (Table 1). The high logP of the geraniol ester geranyl acetate (logP = 4.48) and its low solubility in water (s = 190 mg/L) justifies the fact that it was found relatively more partitioned in the lemongrass EO (Table 1). The acidic compounds such as geranic acid and octanoic acid had concentrations higher in the hydrolate than in the EO, as the carboxylic acid structure confers them a lower logP (2.72 and 2.92, respectively) and a higher solubility in water (1220 and 910 mg/L, respectively).
Due to the relatively high logP and low solubility of myrcene (logP = 4.17; s = 78 mg/L; [26]) and rose furan oxide (logP = 3.74, s = 120 mg/L, [26]), their adsorption on the HS-SPME hydrophobic fiber is favored (Figure 1). As a consequence, these compounds were both found by HS-SPME/GC–MS but not by direct GC-MS injection, in accordance with the literature [2,40]. On the contrary, geranic acid is poorly sorbed by the HS-SPME fiber due to its relatively lower logP (Table 1).
The results obtained showed that it is possible to obtain from lemongrass byproducts two aroma-rich products: the EO and the hydrolate. The latter is a relevant source of emulsified EO compounds with a similar volatile profile to lemongrass EO, rendering it a suitable ingredient for food applications.
Both lemongrass EO and citral showed stronger antimicrobial activity against S. aureus than against the Gram-negative bacteria E. coli and S. enterica. These results are in agreement with the literature supporting higher EO resistance of Gram-negative bacteria, attributed to the presence of hydrophilic lipopolysaccharides in the outer membrane [41], rendering them resistant to lipophilic compounds. On the other hand, deprived of an outer membrane, Gram-positive bacteria are more easily affected by EO hydrophobic constituents which increase ion permeability and leakage of vital intracellular content [42]. It can be hypothesized that lemongrass EO has the potential to be used for similar applications to those already available for premium lemongrass EO [43], namely due to its antimicrobial activity. Citral isomers, used as standard, displayed slightly stronger antimicrobial activity against S. aureus (MIC = 105 μg/mL) than the lemongrass EO (130 μg citral/mL) (Table 2). The close range of MIC values suggests that citral isomers are the active EO compounds against S. aureus. On the other hand, for Gram-negative bacteria, citral isomers displayed clearly higher MIC values (1070 μg/mL and >2035 μg/mL for E. coli and S. enterica, respectively) than the lemongrass EO (322 μg citral/mL and >808 μg citral/mL, respectively). The lower MIC values obtained for the lemongrass EO suggest a synergism between citral and other lemongrass EO components. This effect may be due to the presence of geraniol. In fact, citral isomers and geraniol have synergistic activity against Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri, a Gram-negative bacterium, explained by the interaction of these compounds with the outer membranes of these bacteria, allowing their permeation into the cell [44].
Together with EOs, the hydrodistillation process of lemongrass byproducts produced a nondistilled aqueous phase (decoction) which was recovered accounting for 14.8% (w/w). This yield was higher than the 10.9% previously reported for premium lemongrass, using a longer extraction time (3 h) and the same sample-to-water ratio (1:15 w/v) [25]. The HMWM, whose yield was 1.4%, was composed of 224 mg/g carbohydrates and enriched with total phenolic compounds (246.3 mg GAE/g), displaying higher antioxidant activity (4.4 TEAC). These results suggest that phenolic compounds were bound to polymeric carbohydrates rich in glucose (66%), arabinose (9%), and uronic acids (8%). The high abundance of glucose in the WIM and Et50 fractions may indicate the presence of starch, which can occur in leaves [45], due to its insolubility in cold water and in ethanol solutions. The high abundance of glucose in the EtSn (76%) may derive from polymeric phenols, as observed in the HMWM that migrates from cork stoppers [46]. The presence of a high percentage of uronic acids in Et50 and Et70, together with arabinose, galactose, and rhamnose, mainly in Et70, allowed us to infer the presence of pectic polysaccharides, highly branched in Et70 [47]. The Et70 fraction also contains high antioxidant activity, although only presenting half of the phenolic compound content of the EtSn fraction, possibly due to the phenolic acids [48]. It suggests that phenolic compounds with greater antioxidant activity are present in Et70 rather than in the EtSn. These results are in accordance with the occurrence of phenolic compounds covalently linked with highly branched pectic polysaccharides [47]. This study showed that the nondistilled aqueous phase from lemongrass hydrodistillation is a source of food ingredients as functional polysaccharides with relevant antioxidant activity.
Pure matcha tea presents molds and yeasts (56 CFU/mL) immediately after its preparation as a result of a warm decoction. Nevertheless, the value of 56 CFU/mL is below the maximum admissible for molds and yeasts at 25 °C (103 CFU/mL) [49]. The incorporation of hydrolate prevents the proliferation of fungi after 79 days of beverages storage (Table 4), showing that the hydrolate also displays antifungal activity. Citral isomers as well as geraniol have been reported to inhibit eukaryotes’ ATP-dependent molecular chaperone (HSP90-ATPase) involved in protein folding [50]. This may explain the antifungal activity of lemongrass EO against Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici spores [9] and the elimination of molds and yeasts when incorporating hydrolate into matcha tea beverages.
Considering the growth of total mesophiles, a slight proliferation in this period was observed. Nevertheless, these values are far below the maximum values for total mesophiles at 25 °C (105 CFU/mL) [49]. These results demonstrate the active role of the lemongrass essential oil contained in the hydrolate, allowing this byproduct to be used to create novel healthy beverages with a pleasant aroma and an increased shelf life. According to FEMA (Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association of the United States), the average and maximum use levels of citral for nonalcoholic beverages is 17 ppm and 28 ppm, respectively [51]. The matcha tea beverage containing 20% hydrolate displayed a citral level (31 ppm) slightly higher than the maximum citral level recommended by FEMA, while being evaluated as pleasant. Thus, the results obtained encourage the application of lemongrass hydrolate in selected beverage categories to modulate astringency, namely in no-sugar-added beverages, and to extend shelf-life.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Collection of Plant Material of Cymbopogon citratus

Dried leaves agro-industrial byproduct of Cymbopogon citratus (DC) Stapf were provided by Ervital-Infusões e Condimentos Biológicos and were farmed according to organic standards in greenhouse facilities (40°58′30″ N 7°54′09″ W, altitude 910 m) in Montemuro Montain, Mezio, Castro Daire, Portugal. This agro-industrial byproduct was the first crop collected. It was considered a byproduct because it presented nonmarketable brown spots. The plant material was transported in dark bags and stored in the dark at room temperature until further analysis. All reagents used in the analysis were of analytical grade. Citral standard was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA).

4.2. Extraction of Essential Oils (EOs) and Polymeric Material

Dried leaves of lemongrass (100 g) were subjected to a simple steam distillation with distilled water (1:15 w/v) in a round-bottom flask. The flask was then kept in a heating mantle boiling at 100 °C for 2.5 h. Lemongrass EO was physically separated in a U tube and dried using anhydrous sodium sulphate. The hydrolate was collected in a beaker through the U tube siphon. To obtain the EO present in the hydrolate, it was extracted three times with 1 volume of dichloromethane to 5 volumes of hydrolate and dried over anhydrous sodium sulphate. Dichloromethane was removed by nitrogen stream. The oils were stored in sealed vials at 4 °C until GC–MS analysis. Hydrodistillation was performed three times obtaining three independent hydrolates and EOs. The hydrodistillation also resulted in a nondistilled aqueous phase which was filtered, rota-evaporated, freeze-dried, and dialyzed (cut-off 12–14 kDa) to obtain the HMWM, which is the dialysis retentate, containing compounds with a molecular weight superior to 12–14 kDa.
To further purify lemongrass HMWM, a graded precipitation with ethanol was performed. Lemongrass HMWM was dissolved in water (200 mg in 20 mL, final concentration 10 mg/mL) and precipitated by the addition of absolute ethanol [52]. Ethanol was added to obtain a 50% (v/v) aqueous solution. The aqueous solution was stirred for 2 h at 4 °C, centrifuged, and the precipitate at 50% ethanol concentration (Et50) was obtained. Ethanol was added to the supernatant to obtain a 70% (v/v) aqueous solution. This aqueous solution was stirred for 2 h at 4 °C, centrifuged, and the precipitate at 70% ethanol concentration (Et70) was removed from the supernatant solution (EtSn). In order to remove the ethanol completely, each precipitate was water-dissolved and rota-evaporated, frozen, and freeze-dried until further analysis.

4.3. Matcha Tea Preparation

To obtain the matcha tea concentrate, 12.5 g of Powder Matcha Bio Shine powder and 0.625 g of anhydrous citric acid (E330) were added to 1 L of preheated water, keeping the suspension under stirring (700 rpm) with a magnetic bar at 75–80 °C for 5 min, using a water bath. The concentrate was subsequently cooled with 1.5 L of water at room temperature. Matcha tea beverages containing hydrolate were readily prepared by stirring together the prepared matcha tea concentrate with the hydrolate in proportions as described in Table 4. The pH of the resulting solutions was then measured.
Sensory analysis was performed from a consumer preference perspective, using 5 people (3 females, 2 males, with ages between 23 and 55 years old, all working for the beverage company). After tasting the beverages, they scaled the product as (−) unpleasant, (+) acceptable, (++) pleasant, and (+++) very pleasant.

4.4. Determination of Essential Oils Composition

Lemongrass byproduct EOs and the hydrolate obtained were analyzed on an Agilent Technologies 6890 N Network gas chromatograph (from Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA), equipped with a 30 m × 0.32 mm (I.D.), 0.25 μm of film thickness DB-FFAP fused silica capillary column (J&W Scientific Inc., Folsom, CA, USA), connected to an Agilent 5973 quadrupole mass selective detector (MS, Agilent Technologies, Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA). Identification of volatile compounds was achieved by comparison of the GC retention times and mass spectra with those, when available, of the pure standard compounds. All mass spectra were also compared with the library data system of the GC-MS equipment (Wiley 275) and according to the compounds previously described for the plant EOs. The identification was also supported by the experimentally determined retention index (RI) values that were compared, when available, with the values reported in the literature for chromatographic columns similar to the one used in this work. For quantification purposes, 2-undecanol (49 μL) was added as internal standard along with dichloromethane (150 μL) and EO (1 μL) prior to analysis. All measurements were made with three replicates, each replicate representing the analysis of one different aliquot (1 μL) of each EO sample, which was injected directly into the GC [53].
The volatile profile of hydrolate samples was also assessed by headspace solid-phase microextraction HS-SPME/GC–qMS. For each HS-SPME assay, 3 mL of hydrolate sample was placed into 10 mL glass vial, with 0.6 g of sodium chloride, and the vial was capped. The SPME fiber (1 cm stable-flexTM fused silica fiber, coated with partially cross-linked 50/30 μm DVB/CAR/PDMS) was manually inserted into the sample headspace vial for 10 min at 40 °C with constant stirring. Then, the SPME fiber was manually inserted into the GC injection port at 250 °C and kept for 3 min for desorption. The injection port was lined with a 0.75 mm (I.D.) splitless glass liner. Splitless injections were used. The oven temperature program was as follows: initial temperature was 40 °C with a linear increase of 5 ⁰C/min up to 220 °C, followed by linear increase of 10 °C/min until 250 °C, remaining thus until the end of the run (42 min) [54].

4.5. Sugar Analysis

The sugar composition of the polysaccharides was assessed by gas chromatography-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) as alditol acetates and quantified using 2-deoxyglucose (200 μL) as internal standard following the general procedure described by Bastos et al. [55]. The hydrolysis was performed in 1 M H2SO4 at 100 °C for 2.5 h. After 1 h hydrolysis, 0.5 mL were collected to quantify the uronic acids. Monosaccharides were reduced with NaBH4 and acetylated, with acetic anhydride and 1-methylimidazole as catalyst. The alditol acetates were analyzed by a GC-FID PerkinElmer-Clarus 400 with a capillary column DB-225 (30 m length, 0.25 mm inner diameter, and 0.15 µm film thickness). The oven temperature program was as follows: 200 to 220 °C at a rate of 40 °C/min (7 min), increasing to 230 °C at a rate of 20 °C/min (1 min). The temperatures of injector and detector were 220 and 230 °C, respectively. Hydrogen was used as carrier gas at a flow rate of 1.7 mL/min. Free sugars were determined without the hydrolysis step. Fructose was quantified from the ratio that epimerized to mannitol (43%) during the reduction step [56]. Free glucose was determined by the difference between the total glucitol detected and the glucitol yielded by fructose reduction. Uronic acid content was determined by the m-phenylphenol colorimetric method using galacturonic acid as standard [55].

4.6. Antimicrobial Activity of EOs

The antimicrobial activity of EOs was evaluated using two Gram-negative bacterial strains (Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Salmonella enterica sv Anatum SF2) and one Gram-positive bacterial strain (Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538). S. enterica sv Anatum SF2 was isolated from seagull feces on the island of Berlengas (Peniche, Portugal) [57], whereas E. coli ATCC 25922 and S. aureus ATCC 6538 were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection [53].
For disc diffusion assays, cell suspensions were prepared according to Santos et al. [53] and used to inoculate Mueller Hinton agar (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) plates with a sterile swab. Sterile 6 mm filter paper discs (Liofilchem, Italy) were placed on the plates and impregnated with sterile water and EOs. Commercial discs containing antibiotics (Oxoid, UK) were used as positive controls, namely ciprofloxacin (5 μg) and gentamicin (10 μg). Negative controls consisted of paper discs with sterile water or dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).
After incubation at 37 °C for 18–24 h, the diameter of the inhibition zone was measured in millimeters. The assay was carried out three times for each strain. The amount of lemongrass EO added to each test disc was the same (1 µL) for all assays for each microorganism.
The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values were determined using a broth microdilution assay [53]. Aliquots of lemongrass EO were dissolved in 1% DMSO and tested in maximum stepwise increments of 25 µg/mL in Mueller–Hinton broth (MH broth; Merck). 96-Well plates were prepared by dispensing in each well 5 μL of the microorganism suspensions (optical density of microorganism suspensions at 625 nm between 0.09 and 0.13), aliquots of lemongrass EO or citral standard containing 2 μL DMSO emulsified in MH broth, and MH broth to reach 200 μL per well final volume. Negative controls were used with 5 μL of the microorganism suspensions and 2 μL DMSO in 193 μL MH broth. Microbial growth in each medium was determined by measuring the optical density at 600 nm, after incubation at 37 °C for 18–24 h. EOs were tested three times against each organism.

4.7. Total Phenolic Compounds

Total phenols were assessed by the Folin–Ciocalteu colorimetric assay as described in Singleton et al. [58]. Aliquots of samples (15 µL) were used in the concentration range of 0.1 to 1.2 mg/mL and were assessed by their reactivity with Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (15 µL) and sodium carbonate at 70 mg/mL (150 µL). The reaction mixtures (240 µL) were incubated at 30 °C for 60 min. The absorbance values were measured at 750 nm. A calibration curve of gallic acid, at concentrations ranging from 0.030 to 0.30 mg/mL, was built and the results were expressed as gallic acid equivalents (mg GAE per g of dry matter) using the equation y = 288.92x + 0.0439 (r2 = 0.995) for nondistilled aqueous phase and HMWM samples, whereas equation y = 330.78x + 0.0594 (r2 = 0.998) was used for ethanolic precipitation-derived fractions. The data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) of nine replicas.

4.8. ABTS•+ Radical Cation Decolorization Assay

In vitro, antioxidant capacity was evaluated according to 2,2′-azinobis-(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS•+) method [59]. For this, 6.6 mg of potassium persulfate were mixed with 5 mL of ABTS+ solution (3.8 g/L) and placed in the dark for 12 h. The obtained ABTS•+ solution was diluted in distilled water until an absorbance value of approximately 0.70 was reached at 734 nm. The prepared extracts were diluted in water, and 50 µL of the solution were mixed with 250 µL of ABTS•+ solution and stored in the dark for 20 min. Afterward, the absorbance was measured at 734 nm. A standard calibration curve was prepared with Trolox (6-Hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid), at concentrations ranging from 0 to 105 μg/mL, and the TEAC was measured as mM Trolox eq./g dry matter using the equation y = −14.78x + 0.5673 (r2 = 0.996) for aqueous extract and HMWM samples and the equation y = −18.104x + 0.7361 (r2 = 0.993) for ethanolic precipitation-derived fractions. The results were expressed in mM Trolox equivalents/g of sample.

4.9. Microbial Analyses of Matcha Tea Beverages

Microbiological analysis of matcha tea beverages was performed using the method adopted by the beverage company Uprel, Lda, Portugal. To determine total mesophiles, samples were inoculated on CompactDryTM TC chromogenic plates, containing nutrient agar medium supplemented with the redox indicator tri-phenyltetrazolium chloride, in which total mesophiles form red colonies, thus allowing for their counting. The incubation at 30 °C occurred for 48 h according to ISO 4833-1: 2013 standard.
To determine molds and yeasts, samples were inoculated on CompactDryTM YM plates (Ambifood) containing an X-Phos chromogenic enzyme substrate, in which molds and yeasts can be differentiated by color development. Most yeasts develop a blue color and molds appear as cottony colonies with characteristic colors. The procedure is similar to that used to determine total mesophiles. The incubation had a period of 3 to 7 days at 25 °C and the procedure was followed according to ISO 7959:1987 standard.

4.10. Statistical Analyses

Statistical analyses were performed in order to compare the antimicrobial effects of C. citratus byproduct EOs, being considered statistically significant when p < 0.05. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed followed by a multiple comparison test (Tukey’s HSD) using the GraphPad Prism version 5.00 for Windows (trial version, GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA). It was also performed to compare the volatile profiles of C. citratus EOs, being considered statistically significant when p < 0.05. Student’s t-test was performed followed by Welch-s correction using the same software.

5. Conclusions

C. citratus leaf byproducts are a source of citral (1.83 g/kg), geranic acid (0.32 g/kg), and geraniol (0.21 g/kg), among other terpenic compounds. This lemongrass EO showed antibacterial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, presenting MIC values of 250 μg/mL against S. aureus, 617 μg/mL against E. coli, and 1550 μg/mL against S. enterica. Regarding the Gram-negative bacteria studied, a synergism between citral and the remaining EO compounds enhanced the antimicrobial activity. Upon hydrodistillation to recover the EO, it was possible to obtain a nondistilled aqueous phase (decoction) composed of free sugars, phenolic compounds, and polysaccharides with antioxidant activity, with possible application as a functional dietary fiber in the food industry. The resultant hydrolate is composed of emulsified citral-rich EO with the potential to be successfully used in matcha tea formulations by providing taste and extended shelf life. Overall, lemongrass leaf byproducts can be potentially applied in sectors where lemongrass premium leaves find application, thus contributing to a circular economy, a driving force for sustainability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.C., M.A.C. and I.H.; methodology, E.C., M.A.C. and I.H.; software, L.R.; validation, E.C., M.A.C. and I.H.; formal analysis, L.R., R.M. and P.T.; investigation, all authors; resources, E.C., M.A.C. and I.H.; data curation, L.R., E.C. and M.A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.R.; writing—review and editing, E.C., M.A.C., I.H. and P.T.; visualization, E.C., M.A.C. and I.H.; supervision, E.C., M.A.C. and I.H.; project administration, E.C. and M.A.C.; funding acquisition, E.C. and M.A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Waste2Value project (PDR2020-101-031828, Partnership no.-94/Initiative n.-189, 1.0.1-Operational Groups-n.-01/Action 1.1/2016) through national funds, co-financed by PDR2020, FEADER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement. Thanks are due to the University of Aveiro and FCT/MCTES for the financial support, to LAQV/REQUIMTE (UIDB/50006/2020 and UIDP/50006/2020), CESAM (UIDP/50017/2020 + UIDB/50017/2020) and CFE (UIDB/04004/2020), through national funds (PIDDAC) and, where applicable, co-financed by the FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020. Pedro Teixeira thanks FCT for the doctoral grant (SFRH/BD/132046/2017). Elisabete Coelho thanks FCT for the funding through the program DL 57/2016—Norma transitória (CDL-CTTRI-88-ARH/2018—REF. 049-88-ARH/2018).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge Ervital—infusões e condimentos biológicos for kindly providing agro-industrial aromatic plant byproducts, and Abílio Silveira, CEO of Uprel, Lda for providing the industrial facilities to produce the matcha tea. They also thank to Sílvia Petronilho for helping in SPME analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Avoseh, O.; Oyedeji, O.; Rungqu, P.; Nkeh-Chungag, B.; Oyedeji, A. Cymbopogon species; Ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry and the pharmacological importance. Molecules 2015, 20, 7438–7453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Piasecki, B.; Biernasiuk, A.; Skiba, A.; Skalicka-wo, K. Composition, Anti-MRSA activity and toxicity of essential oils from Cymbopogon species. Molecules 2021, 26, 7542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ajayi, E.O.; Sadimenko, A.P.; Afolayan, A.J. GC-MS evaluation of Cymbopogon citratus (DC) Stapf oil obtained using modified hydrodistillation and microwave extraction methods. Food Chem. 2016, 209, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Peichel, C.; Nair, D.V.T.; Dewi, G.; Donoghue, A.M.; Reed, K.M.; Kollanoor Johny, A. Effect of Lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) Essential Oil on the Survival of Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Heidelberg in Contaminated Poultry Drinking Water. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2019, 28, 1121–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De Groot, A.; Schmidt, E. Essential Oils, Part V: Peppermint Oil, Lavender Oil, and Lemongrass Oil. Dermatitis 2016, 27, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kieling, D.D.; Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V.; Prudencio, S.H. Effects of high pressure processing on the physicochemical and microbiological parameters, bioactive compounds, and antioxidant activity of a lemongrass-lime mixed beverage. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Verma, T.; Sinha, M.; Bansal, N.; Yadav, S.R.; Shah, K.; Chauhan, N.S. Plants Used as Antihypertensive. Nat. Prod. Bioprospect. 2020, 11, 155–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sousa, R.; Figueirinha, A.; Batista, M.T.; Pina, M.E. Formulation effects in the antioxidant activity of extract from the leaves of cymbopogon citratus (Dc) stapf. Molecules 2021, 26, 4518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sharma, A.; Sharma, N.K.; Srivastava, A.; Kataria, A.; Dubey, S.; Sharma, S.; Kundu, B. Clove and lemongrass oil based non-ionic nanoemulsion for suppressing the growth of plant pathogenic Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 123, 353–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ekpenyong, C.E.; Akpan, E.E. Use of Cymbopogon citratus essential oil in food preservation: Recent advances and future perspectives. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 2541–2559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hu, W.; Li, C.; Dai, J.; Cui, H.; Lin, L. Antibacterial activity and mechanism of Litsea cubeba essential oil against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 130, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Long, N.; Tang, H.; Sun, F.; Lin, L.; Dai, M. Effect and mechanism of citral against methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in vivo. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 4423–4429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Masuda, T.; Odaka, Y.; Ogawa, N.; Nakamoto, K.; Kuninaga, H. Identification of geranic acid, a tyrosinase inhibitor in lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 597–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Venzon, L.; Mariano, L.N.B.; Somensi, L.B.; Boeing, T.; de Souza, P.; Wagner, T.M.; de Andrade, S.F.; Nesello, L.A.N.; da Silva, L.M. Essential oil of Cymbopogon citratus (lemongrass) and geraniol, but not citral, promote gastric healing activity in mice. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2018, 98, 118–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Boukhatem, M.N.; Ferhat, M.A.; Rajabi, M.; Mousa, S.A. Solvent-free microwave extraction: An eco-friendly and rapid process for green isolation of essential oil from lemongrass. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 36, 664–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Haque, A.N.M.A.; Remadevi, R.; Naebe, M. Lemongrass (Cymbopogon): A review on its structure, properties, applications and recent developments. Cellulose 2018, 25, 5455–5477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Goes, T.C.; Ursulino, F.R.C.; Almeida-Souza, T.H.; Alves, P.B.; Teixeira-Silva, F. Effect of lemongrass aroma on experimental anxiety in humans. J. Altern. Complement. Med. 2015, 21, 766–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Rehman, J.U.; Ali, A.; Khan, I.A. Plant based products: Use and development as repellents against mosquitoes: A review. Fitoterapia 2014, 95, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gavahian, M.; Chu, Y.H.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A.; Barba, F.J. Essential oils as natural preservatives for bakery products: Understanding the mechanisms of action, recent findings, and applications. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 310–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Al-Tayyar, N.A.; Youssef, A.M.; Al-Hindi, R.R. Edible coatings and antimicrobial nanoemulsions for enhancing shelf life and reducing foodborne pathogens of fruits and vegetables: A review. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2020, 26, e00215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Oliveira, T.L.C.; de Soares, R.A.; Piccoli, R.H. A Weibull model to describe antimicrobial kinetics of oregano and lemongrass essential oils against Salmonella Enteritidis in ground beef during refrigerated storage. Meat Sci. 2013, 93, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Salvia-Trujillo, L.; Rojas-Graü, M.A.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Martín-Belloso, O. Use of antimicrobial nanoemulsions as edible coatings: Impact on safety and quality attributes of fresh-cut fuji apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2015, 105, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tongnuanchan, P.; Benjakul, S. Essential Oils: Extraction, Bioactivities, and Their Uses for Food Preservation. J. Food Sci. 2014, 79, 1231–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bao, X.L.; Yuan, H.H.; Wang, C.Z.; Fan, W.; Lan, M.B. Polysaccharides from Cymbopogon citratus with antitumor and immunomodulatory activity. Pharm. Biol. 2015, 53, 117–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Tavares, F.; Costa, G.; Francisco, V.; Liberal, J.; Figueirinha, A.; Lopes, M.C.; Cruz, M.T.; Batista, M.T. Cymbopogon citratus industrial waste as a potential source of bioactive compounds. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 2652–2659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Wishart, D.S.; Feunang, Y.D.; Marcu, A.; Guo, A.C.; Liang, K.; Vázquez-Fresno, R.; Sajed, T.; Johnson, D.; Li, C.; Karu, N.; et al. HMDB 4.0: The human metabolome database for 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018, 46, D608–D617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ohtsubo, S.; Fujita, T.; Matsushita, A.; Kumamoto, E. Inhibition of the compound action potentials of frog sciatic nerves by aroma oil compounds having various chemical structures. Pharmacol. Res. Perspect. 2015, 3, e00127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Taherpour, A.; Maroofi, H.; Rafie, Z.; Larijani, K. Chemical composition analysis of the essential oil of Melissa officinalis L. from Kurdistan, Iran by HS/SPME method and calculation of the biophysicochemical coefficients of the components. Nat. Prod. Res. 2012, 26, 152–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Genovese, A.; Gambuti, A.; Lamorte, S.A.; Moio, L. An extract procedure for studying the free and glycosilated aroma compounds in grapes. Food Chem. 2013, 136, 822–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Griffin, S.; Wyllie, S.G.; Markham, J. Determination of octanol-water partition coefficient for terpenoids using reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 1999, 864, 221–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cheong, M.W.; Zhu, D.; Sng, J.; Liu, S.Q.; Zhou, W.; Curran, P.; Yu, B. Characterisation of calamansi (Citrus microcarpa). Part II: Volatiles, physicochemical properties and non-volatiles in the juice. Food Chem. 2012, 134, 696–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Romero-Frías, A.; Simões-Bento, J.M.; Osorio, C. Chemical signaling between guava (Psidium guajava L., Myrtaceae) and the guava weevil (Conotrachelus psidii Marshall). Revista Facultad Ciencias Básicas 2015, 11, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Cheong, M.W.; Loke, X.Q.; Liu, S.Q.; Pramudya, K.; Curran, P.; Yu, B. Characterization of volatile compounds and aroma profiles of malaysian pomelo (citrus grandis (l.) osbeck) blossom and peel. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2011, 23, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mebazaa, R.; Rega, B.; Camel, V. Analysis of human male armpit sweat after fenugreek ingestion: Characterisation of odour active compounds by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry and olfactometry. Food Chem. 2011, 128, 227–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mebazaa, R.; Mahmoudi, A.; Fouchet, M.; Dos Santos, M.; Kamissoko, F.; Nafti, A.; Cheikh, R.B.; Rega, B.; Camel, V. Characterisation of volatile compounds in Tunisian fenugreek seeds. Food Chem. 2009, 115, 1326–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ottavioli, J.; Bighelli, A.; Casanova, J.; Bang, B.T.; Van Y, P. GC (Retention Indices), GC-MS, and 13C NMR of two citral-rich Cymbopogon leaf oils: C. Flexuosus and C. tortilis. Spectrosc. Lett. 2009, 42, 506–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lopes, G.R.; Passos, C.P.; Petronilho, S.; Rodrigues, C.; Teixeira, J.A.; Coimbra, M.A. Carbohydrates as targeting compounds to produce infusions resembling espresso coffee brews using quality by design approach. Food Chem. 2021, 344, 128613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Righi, N.; Boumerfeg, S.; Deghima, A.; Fernandes, P.A.R.; Coelho, E.; Baali, F.; Cardoso, S.M.; Coimbra, M.A.; Baghiani, A. Phenolic profile, safety assessment, and anti-inflammatory activity of Salvia verbenaca L. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2021, 272, 113940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mathialagan, R.; Nour, A.H.; Sulaiman, Z.A.; Nour, A.H.; Raj S., T. A comparative study of lemongrass (Cymbopogon Citratus) essential oil extracted by microwave-assisted hydrodistillation (MAHD) and conventional hydrodistillation (HD) method. Int. J. Chem. Eng. Appl. 2014, 5, 104–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Krzyśko-łupicka, T.; Sokół, S.; Sporek, M.; Piekarska-Stachowiak, A.; Walkowiak-Lubczyk, W.; Sudoł, A. Effectiveness of the influence of selected essential oils on the growth of parasitic fusarium isolated from wheat kernels from central europe. Molecules 2021, 26, 6488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Mirjana, S.; Nada, B. Chemical composition and antimicrobial variability of satureja montana L. essential oils produced during ontogenesis. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2004, 16, 387–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Djenane, D.; Yangüela, J.; Montañés, L.; Djerbal, M.; Roncalés, P. Antimicrobial activity of Pistacia lentiscus and Satureja montana essential oils against Listeria monocytogenes CECT 935 using laboratory media: Efficacy and synergistic potential in minced beef. Food Control 2011, 22, 1046–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kieling, D.D.; Prudencio, S.H. Blends of lemongrass derivatives and lime for the preparation of mixed beverages: Antioxidant, physicochemical, and sensory properties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 1302–1310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mirzaei-Najafgholi, H.; Tarighi, S.; Golmohammadi, M.; Taheri, P. The effect of citrus essential oils and their constituents on growth of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. Molecules 2017, 22, 591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Oliveira, H.; Barros, A.S.; Delgadillo, I.; Coimbra, M.A.; Santos, C. Effects of fungus inoculation and salt stress on physiology and biochemistry of in vitro grapevines: Emphasis on sugar composition changes by FT-IR analyses. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2009, 65, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Reis, S.F.; Coelho, E.; Evtuguin, D.V.; Coimbra, M.A.; Lopes, P.; Cabral, M.; Mateus, N.; Freitas, V. Migration of Tannins and Pectic Polysaccharides from natural cork stoppers to the hydroalcoholic solution. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 14230–14242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Fernandes, P.A.R.; Le Bourvellec, C.; Renard, C.M.G.C.; Nunes, F.M.; Bastos, R.; Coelho, E.; Wessel, D.F.; Coimbra, M.A.; Cardoso, S.M. Revisiting the chemistry of apple pomace polyphenols. Food Chem. 2019, 294, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Costa, G.; Grangeia, H.; Figueirinha, A.; Figueiredo, I.V.; Batista, M.T. Influence of harvest date and material quality on polyphenolic content and antioxidant activity of Cymbopogon citratus infusion. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016, 83, 738–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Saraiva, M.; Correia, C.B.; Cunha, I.C.; Maia, C.; Bonito, C.C.; Furtado, R.; Calhau, M.A. Interpretação de Resultados de Ensaios Microbiológicos em Alimentos Prontos para Consumo e em Superfícies do Ambiente de Preparação e Distribuição Alimentar: Valores-Guia; Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge: Lisboa, Portugal, 2019; ISBN 9789898794529. [Google Scholar]
  50. Gaonkar, R.; Singh, J.; Chauhan, A.; Avti, P.K.; Hegde, G. Geraniol and Citral as potential therapeutic agents targeting the HSP90 activity: An in silico and experimental approach. Phytochemistry 2022, 195, 113058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Smith, R.L.; Waddell, W.J.; Cohen, S.M.; Feron, V.J.; Marnett, L.J.; Portoghese, P.S.; Rietjens, I.M.C.M.; Adams, T.B.; Gavin, C.L.; Mcgowen, M.M.; et al. Gras flavoring substances 24. Food Technol. 2009, 63, 46–62. [Google Scholar]
  52. Coimbra, M.A.; Waldron, K.W.; Selvendran, R.R. Isolation and characterisation of cell wall polymers from olive pulp (Olea europaea L.). Carbohydr. Res. 1994, 252, 245–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Santos, J.D.C.; Coelho, E.; Silva, R.; Passos, C.P.; Teixeira, P.; Henriques, I.; Coimbra, M.A. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of Satureja montana byproducts essential oils. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 137, 541–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Coelho, E.; Pinto, M.; Bastos, R.; Cruz, M.; Nunes, C.; Rocha, S.M.; Coimbra, M.A. Concentrate apple juice industry: Aroma and pomace valuation as food ingredients. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 2443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bastos, R.; Coelho, E.; Coimbra, M.A. Modifications of Saccharomyces pastorianus cell wall polysaccharides with brewing process. Carbohydr. Polym. 2015, 124, 322–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Nobre, C.; Sousa, S.C.; Silva, S.P.; Pinheiro, A.C.; Coelho, E.; Vicente, A.A.; Gomes, A.M.P.; Coimbra, M.A.; Teixeira, J.A.; Rodrigues, L.R. In vitro digestibility and fermentability of fructo-oligosaccharides produced by Aspergillus ibericus. J. Funct. Foods 2018, 46, 278–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Araújo, S.; Henriques, I.S.; Leandro, S.M.; Alves, A.; Pereira, A.; Correia, A. Gulls identified as major source of fecal pollution in coastal waters: A microbial source tracking study. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 470–471, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  59. Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.; Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1999, 26, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Molecules 27 02493 g001 550
Figure 1. HS-SPME/GC–MS chromatogram of the volatile composition of lemongrass byproduct hydrolate. Numbers above correspond to the peak numbers from Table 1. I—Myrcene. II—Rose furan oxide. The reliability of the identification is given on the basis of mass spectral data (Wiley 275 Library).
Figure 1. HS-SPME/GC–MS chromatogram of the volatile composition of lemongrass byproduct hydrolate. Numbers above correspond to the peak numbers from Table 1. I—Myrcene. II—Rose furan oxide. The reliability of the identification is given on the basis of mass spectral data (Wiley 275 Library).
Molecules 27 02493 g001
Table
Table 2. Inhibition zones (mm) and minimal inhibition concentration (μg/mL) of C. citratus byproduct EO.
Table 2. Inhibition zones (mm) and minimal inhibition concentration (μg/mL) of C. citratus byproduct EO.
Bacterial StrainsInhibition ZoneMIC
C. citratus EO aCIP bGen cSterile WaterC. citratus
Byproducts EO (μg/mL)		Citral Standard
(μg/mL)		C. citratus
Byproducts EO
(μg citral/mL)
E. coli ATCC 259223 ± 5 *
(0.91 mg/0.33 mg)		33 ± 1 #22 ± 0 $ND617 ± 31.2 *1070 #322 ± 19.9 *
S. enterica sv Anatum SF20 * (0.91 mg/0.33 mg)31 ± 1 #18 ± 2 $ND1550 ± 20.4 *>2035 #808 ± 13.0 $
S. aureus ATCC 653813 ± 2 * (0.91 mg/0.33 mg)26 ± 2 #20 ± 0 $ND250 *105 #130 $
Each value in the table is represented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3); different symbols (*, #, $) in the same line indicate significant difference (p < 0.05). a inhibition zone in diameter around the discs impregnated with the amount of essential oil/amount of citral in the essential oil described in parenthesis for each microorganism. b CIP, ciprofloxacin (5 μg). c GEN, gentamicin (10 μg). ND, no inhibitory effect was detected.
Table
Table 3. Carbohydrate composition, total phenolic content, and Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity from lemongrass nondistilled aqueous phase (free sugars and total sugars), HMWM lemongrass, and fractions (WIM, Et50, Et70, and EtSn) obtained after ethanol precipitation of HMWM.
Table 3. Carbohydrate composition, total phenolic content, and Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity from lemongrass nondistilled aqueous phase (free sugars and total sugars), HMWM lemongrass, and fractions (WIM, Et50, Et70, and EtSn) obtained after ethanol precipitation of HMWM.
SamplesYield (%)Total Carbohydrates
(mg/g)		Carbohydrates (%Molar)Total Phenolics a
(mg GAE/g)		TEAC a
(mM Trolox eq./g)
RhaAraXylManFruGalGlcUA
Free sugar14.8 *97960016952-20.7 ± 2.91.4
Total sugar40721tr3-36327
HMWM1.4 *2245941-7668246.3 ± 18.44.4
WIM31.72592831-74534--
Et509.23463621-94732127.7 ± 3.03.9
Et707.9313518142-172618210.4 ± 10.04.6
EtSn38.32896531-3767460.1 ± 49.45.6
Carbohydrates (%molar) are presented as average of 2 replicates from sugar analysis for all the above lemongrass samples. Rha: rhamnose, Ara: arabinose, Xyl: xylose, Man: mannose, Gal: galactose, Glc: glucose, UA: uronic acids. * Yields refer to the 100 g lemongrass leaves hydrodistilled. The remaining yields abovementioned were calculated relative to the pristine weight before ethanolic fractionation. WIM (water-insoluble material). Tr: traces. a Values are mean ± standard deviation of three replicates.
Table
Table 4. Consumer sensory evaluation and microbial analysis of matcha tea beverages, after 79 days brew preparation, containing different percentages of hydrolate from lemongrass byproduct hydrodistillation.
Table 4. Consumer sensory evaluation and microbial analysis of matcha tea beverages, after 79 days brew preparation, containing different percentages of hydrolate from lemongrass byproduct hydrodistillation.
% HydrolateConsumer
Evaluation		Citral (ppm)pHTotal Mesophiles (CFU/mL)Moulds and Yeasts (CFU/mL)
0−05.990>103
20+315.82260
30++47ndndnd
35+++545.92200
40+62ndndnd
45−70ndndnd
50−786.2000
Consumer evaluation (5 People) was rated in (−) unpleasant, (+) acceptable, (++) pleasant, and (+++) very pleasant. CFU: Colony Forming Units; nd: not determined.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rodrigues, L.; Coelho, E.; Madeira, R.; Teixeira, P.; Henriques, I.; Coimbra, M.A. Food Ingredients Derived from Lemongrass Byproduct Hydrodistillation: Essential Oil, Hydrolate, and Decoction. Molecules 2022, 27, 2493. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27082493

AMA Style

Rodrigues L, Coelho E, Madeira R, Teixeira P, Henriques I, Coimbra MA. Food Ingredients Derived from Lemongrass Byproduct Hydrodistillation: Essential Oil, Hydrolate, and Decoction. Molecules. 2022; 27(8):2493. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27082493

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rodrigues, Luís, Elisabete Coelho, Renata Madeira, Pedro Teixeira, Isabel Henriques, and Manuel A. Coimbra. 2022. "Food Ingredients Derived from Lemongrass Byproduct Hydrodistillation: Essential Oil, Hydrolate, and Decoction" Molecules 27, no. 8: 2493. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27082493

APA Style

Rodrigues, L., Coelho, E., Madeira, R., Teixeira, P., Henriques, I., & Coimbra, M. A. (2022). Food Ingredients Derived from Lemongrass Byproduct Hydrodistillation: Essential Oil, Hydrolate, and Decoction. Molecules, 27(8), 2493. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27082493

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop