Evaluation of essential oil and hydrolate from a new hyssop variety (Hyssopus officinalis L.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of essential oil (EO) and hydrolate (HY) obtained from a new Romanian variety of hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis L., Lamiaceae family), namely ‘Cătălin’. The chemical composition and the concentration of the compounds was established by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The main constituents identified in hyssop EO and HY were cis-pinocamphone (34.63% and 67.00%), trans-pinocamphone (11.72% and 14.58%), thujenol (1.39% and 6.05%). The evaluation of the antioxidant capacity was performed by three methods (DPPH, ABTS and FRAP), EO proving a higher oxidizing activity compared to HY one. The antimicrobial activity of the essential oil was evaluated in vitro, in order to detect its ability to inhibit G- phytopathogenic bacteria (Pseudomonas syringae) and plant pathogenic fungi (Fusarium oxysporum). Eugenol, linalool and estragole standards were used as reference volatile compounds. Regarding Pseudomonas syringae (LMG5090) bacterium, assays showed that hyssop oil does not inhibit its growth. Estragole and eugenol showed pronounced antibacterial activity in all tested concentrations, both in the first 24 hours of incubation and after 3 days. Linalool instead has bacteriostatic activity only at high concentrations (50% and 100%), an inhibitory activity that is maintained only in the first 24 hours of incubation. The results obtained against Fusarium oxysporum reveal that the EO tested has no fungicidal activity but only fungistatic, and it is able to delay mycelial growth and the degree of inhibition depending on the concentration used.
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 | 0.001 | 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".