Singlet Oxygen Scavenging Activity and Cytotoxicity of Essential Oils from Rutaceae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since we have been exposed to excessive amounts of stressors, aromatherapy for the relaxation has recently become very popular recently. However, there is a problem which responds to light with the essential oil used by aromatherapy. It is generally believed that singlet oxygen is implicated in the pathogenesis of various diseases such as light-induced skin disorders and inflammatory responses. Here we studied whether essential oils can effectively scavenge singlet oxygen upon irradiation, using the electron spin resonance (ESR) method. Green light was used to irradiate twelve essential oils from rutaceae. Among these twelve essential oils, eight were prepared by the expression (or the compression) method (referred to as E oil), and four samples were prepared by the steam distillation method (referred to as SD oil). Five E oils enhanced singlet oxygen production. As these essential oils may be phototoxic, it should be used for their use whit light. Two E oils and three SD oils showed singlet oxygen scavenging activity. These results may suggest that the antioxidant activity of essential oils are judged from their radical scavenging activity. Essential oils, which enhance the singlet oxygen production and show higher cytotoxicity, may contain much of limonene. These results suggest that limonene is involved not only in the enhancement of singlet oxygen production but also in the expression of cytotoxic activity, and that attention has to be necessary for use of blended essential oils.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".