Seasonal variation in essential oil content and chemical profile of mint in southeast of Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the influence of seasonality in essential oil (EO) chemical composition of Mentha x piperita L. and Mentha viridis L. grown in southeast of Brazil. Leaves were collected from November 2011 until August 2013, in the middle of the following seasons: Spring (November), Summer (February), Autumn (May) and Winter (August). EO extraction was carried out by hydrodistillation in Clevenger apparatus for 1 hour. Chemical composition of EO was analyzed by GC-FID and GC-MS. The EO content and its chemical composition were influenced by seasonality in both species. The highest EO content was obtained for M. x piperita during spring (4.26%) and for M. viridis during spring (3.30%) and summer (3.70%). Mentha x piperita increased menthol (16.31 to 41.26%), neomenthol (3.02 to 6.39%) and menthone (5.56 to 41.58%) contents during spring and summer, respectively. Whereas, M. viridis EO content did not show a quality response pattern in relation to seasonality. Therefore, harvest time for M. x piperita is recommended during spring, and for M. viridis is recommended during spring and summer.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".