Evaluation of Yield, Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Capacity of the Essential Oil From Leaves and Fruits (Seed and Bark) of Virola sebifera Aubl. (Myristicaceae) (2025)

1 Introduction

Oxidative stress, a physicochemical oxidation process, results from the harmful actions of reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as superoxide anion (O₂⁻), hydroxyl radical (OH•) and hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂). This process poses a significant concern for human health due to its association with the oxidative reactions of proteins, carbohydrates, lipids and DNA [1]. ROS can cause lipid peroxidation, protein oxidation and DNA damage, leading to the disruption of cellular functions and the progression of chronic diseases, including cancer, neurodegenerative disorders and cardiovascular diseases [2]. These reactions accelerate cellular aging and contribute to disorders such as cancer, neurodegenerative diseases and cardiovascular diseases [2]. To mitigate the detrimental effects of ROS, the body relies on antioxidant mechanisms that either prevent ROS formation or neutralise these species. The use of antioxidant substances capable of neutralising oxidative reactions of ROS is necessary [3].

Antioxidants play a crucial role in neutralising ROS and preventing oxidative damage. Among them, natural products, especially those derived from plants, have attracted significant interest for their potential health benefits. Essential oils (EOs) are complex mixtures of volatile compounds produced through secondary metabolism in plants and are known for their antioxidant activity[4]. These oils are commonly stored in specialised plant structures like secretory cells, ducts or glands and are found in different plant parts such as leaves, seeds, flowers and bark [5]. The antioxidant activity of EOs is primarily attributed to their compounds, such as monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes, which can scavenge free radicals, offering protection against oxidative stress-related diseases [6].

The scientific community has shown significant interest in the antioxidant potential of EOs, given their ability to counteract the harmful effects of ROS on the body [4]. EOs, products of aromatic plants' secondary metabolism, are primarily located in secretory cells or resin ducts [7]. They are distributed across various plant parts, including roots, stems, leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds, and other organs [5]. However, for certain botanical species, such as Virola sebifera Aubl., there is a scarcity of studies on the antioxidant activity of their volatile oils.

The bark of V. sebifera is widely recognised for its antiulcerogenic properties and is commonly used in Venezuela for treating rheumatism [8]. In Amazonian regions, indigenous populations utilise the bark of various Virola species in concoctions consumed during religious rituals. These mixtures are known for their hallucinogenic effects, attributed to the presence of indole alkaloids [9, 10]. Despite this cultural significance, there is limited research on the antioxidant properties of V. sebifera specifically, which underscores the need for further studies.

The literature contains few reports on the chemical composition of the EO of this species. Understanding a species' chemical profile can provide insights into the chemical diversity of EOs across related species [11, 12]. Studies on the Virola genus, however, have consistently demonstrated a robust presence of sesquiterpene hydrocarbon compounds. For instance, a study by Mesquita etal. [13] revealed that the EOs of V. calophylla and V. multinervia were predominantly characterised by β-caryophyllene (54.8% and 55.7%, respectively), whereas the EO of V. pavonis contained β-selinene (60.5%). The EO of Virola surinamensis was characterised by the major compounds aristolene (28.0% ± 3.1%), α-gurjunene (15.1% ± 2.4%) and valencene (14.1% ± 1.9%) [14]. These major compounds are linked to various biological activities, including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, analgesic and antimicrobial properties, as demonstrated in invitro, invivo and in silico studies [15, 16].

Given the limited studies on V. sebifera, particularly regarding its volatile constituents, this paper aims to investigate the EO from different parts of V. sebifera. Hydrodistillation was performed on the leaves and fruits (seed and bark) at different vegetative stages. The extraction yields were then evaluated. Additionally, we assessed the chemical profile of the EOs and their antioxidant capacities, employing the DPPH and TEAC methods.

2 Results and Discussion

2.1 EO Yields

Table1 below presents the yields of EOs (mL/100 g) derived from the leaves, bark, and seeds of V. sebifera fruits. These collections were made in August and November of 2017, and February and May 2018. The table also includes the respective moisture content (%) for each sample.

TABLE 1. Yield of EO from the leaves, bark and seed of V. sebifera dry fruits.

	Leaves	Fruits		Leaves
	August			November	February	May
	Leaves	Seed	Bark	Leaves
Moisture (%)	9.22	8.48	12.19	8.59	8.91	8.73
Oil (%)	0.69	< 0.06	0.26	0.69	0.87	0.73

Figure1 illustrates the EO content derived from a seasonal study of the species, indicating an equal percentage of leaves in both August and November (0.69%). This suggests that the species' fruiting period in August does not impact the EO production in the leaves.

The oil content in the fruit peels is approximately 23.08% higher than in the seeds. EO production in leaf samples collected in February (0.83%) and May (0.73%) demonstrated an increase compared to those collected in August and November.

2.2 Chemical Composition of EO

Table2 lists the 113 chemical constituents identified in the EO derived from the leaves, peel, and seeds of V. sebifera fruits. These fruits were collected in August and November of 2017, as well as in February and May of 2018. Ion-chromatogram of the EO is shown in Figure2.

TABLE 2. Percentage of chemical constituents identified in the EO of leaves, bark and seeds of V. sebifera fruits. Majority constituents are highlighted in bold.

IR_L	IR_C	Constituents	August			November	February	May
			Leaves	Fruits		Leaves
			Leaves	Seeds	Bark	Leaves
844	843	(3E)-hexenol	0.52			1.38		0.9
869	865	Isopentyl acetate		0.7
924	923	α-thujene	0.2			0.24	0.16	0.32
932	931	α-pinene	14.99	4.11	1.14	23.31	14.08	15.22
969	968	Sabinene	0.37	0.48				0.7
974	972	β-Pinene						2.23
981	980	6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one	3.00	5.65		5.28		1.21
988	983	Myrcene	0.36				1.95	1.0
1002	1006	α-phellandrene	0.25	0.69	0.22	0.26	0.2	0.74
1008	1014	δ-3-carene		0.7		0.14
1014	1015	α-terpinene	0.15					0.50
1020	1022	p-cymene		0.16				0.05
1024	1026	Limonene				0.89
1025	1028	Sylvestrene	0.85	0.86	0.33		1.09	1.94
1032	1031	(Z)-β-ocimene		0.74
1044	1044	(E)-β-ocimene		44.51				0.8
1051	1049	Bergamal	0.11			0.15		0.1
1054	1055	γ-terpinene	0.39			0.41	0.51	0.84
1086	1084	Terpinolene	0.07					0.28
1100	1103	n-nonanal		0.06
1128	1128	allo-ocimene		0.3
1174	1179	Terpinen-4-ol	0.47		0.1	0.3	0.97	0.7
1186	1194	α-terpineol	0.07				0.22	0.07
1235	1236	Neral		0.03
1264	1266	Geranial		0.06
1284	1283	Bornyl acetate	0.03				0.05	0.06
1293	1291	2-undecanone		0.06
1324	1322	Myrtenyl acetate	0.05		0.06		0.07	0.04
1335	1333	δ-elemene	1.54	0.18	1.78	0.25	2.3	3.30
1345	1345	α-cubebene	0.06	0.1	0.2	0.06	0.16	0.21
1359	1356	Neryl acetate					0.04
1373	1368	α- Ylangene	0.04					0.09
1374	1373	α-copaene	0.1	0.31	0.84	0.22	0.57	0.67
1380	1377	Daucene			0.04
1389	1387	ß-elemene	0.92	1.90	1.19	0.79	1.69	2.18
1405	1401	sesquithujene			0.1
1409	1410	α-gurjunene	0.06				0.15	0.07
1411	1411	cis-α-bergamotene		0.04	0.3			0.04
1417	1419	(E)-caryophyllene	13.19	11.43	10.99	11.11	11.67	10.76
1432	1431	trans-α-bergamotene	0.07	0.08	0.48	0.07
1434	1434	γ-elemene	1.38	0.4	1.37	1.05	2.26	2.74
1437	1438	α-guaiene		0.05			0.15
1439	1439	aromadendrene	0.34		0.14	0.32	0.61	0.82
1440	1441	(Z)-β-farnesene		0.05	0.2
1442	1442	6,9-guaiadiene	0.09		0.08	0.17	0.22	0.37
1454	1451	(E)-β-farnesene		2.63
1452	1453	α-humulene	1.33		1.87	1.03	1.99	2.22
1458	1457	alloaromadendrene	0.29	0.1	0.43	0.26	0.85	0.68
1464	1466	9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene				0.27
1471	1470	dauca-5,8-diene			0.1
1478	1479	γ-muurolene	0.16		0.1	0.96	0.41	0.90
1483	1481	trans-β-bergamotene		0.04	0.33
1484	1482	germacrene D	1.35	0.82	1.86	0.03	2.65	2.61
1489	1486	β-selinene		0.34			0.52	0.49
1492	1491	cis-β-guaiene						0.13
1493	1492	α-zingiberene		0.1
1495	1494	γ-amorphene			0.23
1496	1496	Viridiflorene	0.99		0.55	0.41	1.46	0.66
1500	1499	bicyclogermacrene	3.1	1.44	3.48	3.16	5.47	6.73
1500	1500	α- muurolene	0.12		0.07
1502	1501	trans-β-guaiene					0.2
1505	1505	(E,E)-α-farnesene	49.67	18.7	58.72	43.28	35.09	26.96
1509	1507	α-bulnesene				0.21
1511	1509	δ-amorphene	0.06		0.68	0.45
1514	1513	β-curcumene				0.28
1521	1522	β-sesquiphellandrene		0.06	0.23
1522	1523	δ-cadinene	0.47	0.11	0.61		1.38	1.43
1529	1526	(E)-γ-bisabolene	0.14	0.38	3.49	0.17	0.55	0.57
1532	1530	γ-cuprenene					0.19
1533	1531	trans-cadina-1.4-diene	0.04		0.07	0.03
1537	1535	α-cadinene	0.05			0.05		0.26
1540	1539	(E)-α-bisabolene			0.05
1545	1542	Selina-3,7 (11)-diene	0.04					0.13
1548	1547	Elemol	0.03		0.1	0.03	0.12	0.17
1559	1557	Germacrene B	0.51	0.12	0.6	0.57	1.33	1.05
1561	1559	(E)-nerolidol		0.18	0.22
1562	1565	Epi-longipinanol	0.05			0.03
1566	1568	Maaliol			0.11
1567	1569	Palustrol	0.05
1577	1574	Spathulenol	0.29		1.51	0.4	0.58	0.81
1582	1579	Caryophyllene oxide	0.12	0.23	1.05	0.17	0.19
1590	1586	Globulol	0.22		0.61	0.21
1592	1592	Viridiflorol	0.12		0.34	0.09	1.28	0.46
1594	1593	Ethyl dodecanoate		0.25
1595	1595	Cubeban-11-ol	0.14		0.22	0.11	0.33	0.38
1600	1602	Rosifoliol	0.05		0.16	0.04	0.21	0.3
1602	1603	Ledol			0.05		0.05
1607	1604	(Z)-sesquilavandulol			0.03
1608	1607	Humulene epoxide II			0.08			0.07
1622	1628	10-epi-γ-eudesmol						0.12
1629	1632	Eremoligenol	0.06				0.37
1632	1633	α-acorenol			0.28
1636	1637	Gossonorol			0.07
1638	1640	Epi-α-cadinol	0.06		0.12
1640	1642	Epi-α-murolol	0.02		0.12		0.11	0.44
1644	1643	α-muurolol			0.05	0.07		0.1
1645	1644	cubenol					0.05
1652	1653	α-cadinol	0.1		0.48	0.08	0.4	0.57
1658	1656	Selin-11-en-4α-ol				0.15
1661	1664	Allohimachalol					0.2
1665	1665	Intermedeol					0.18
1670	1668	Epi-β-bisabolol			0.41
1683	1684	Epi-α-bisabolol			0.1
1685	1686	α-bisabolol			0.23	0.11
1697	1697	2-pentadecanone		0.13
1698	1698	(2Z,6Z)-farnesol			0.1
1795	1792	Ethyl tetradecanoate		0.12
1921	1924	Methyl hexadecanoate		0.07
1959	1959	Hexadecanoic acid		0.08
1992	1992	Ethyl hexadecanoate		0.3
2141	2150	Oleic acid		0.1
		Hydrocarbon monoterpene	17.63	17.63	52.55	1.69	25.25	17.99
		Oxygenated monoterpene	0.54	0.54	0.09	0.1	0.3	1.19
		Hydrocarbon sesquiterpene	76.11	76.11	39.38	91.18	65.2	71.46
		Oxygenated sesquiterpene	1.31	1.31	0.41	6.44	10.9	4.07
		Others	3.71	3.67	7.56	0.06	6.81	0.57
		Total	99.3	99.26	99.99	99.47	99.05	95.28

Note: IR_C, derived from a series of n-alkanes (C8–C40) in a DB-5MS capillary column, contrasts with IR_L, as cited in references [17, 18]. IR_C represents the calculated retention index, whereas IR_L denotes the literature retention index.

Figure3 illustrates the variation in the primary chemical constituents identified in the EO of the fruit (peel and seed), derived from the August collection, which aligns with the species' fruiting period. A notable difference in the concentration of the principal constituent, the sesquiterpene hydrocarbon (E,E)-α-farnesene, is evident between the bark oil (58.72%) and the seed oil (18.7%). Conversely, the monoterpene hydrocarbon (E)-β-ocimene is solely present in the seed EO, boasting a high content of 44.51%, but is absent in the peel oil. Similarly, the compound 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one is exclusively detected in the seed oil (5.65%), whereas the sesquiterpene (E)-caryophyllene exhibits comparable levels in both the peel oil (10.99%) and the seed oil (11.43%).

The variation in the primary constituents identified in the EOs of dried V. sebifera leaves, collected in August and November of 2017 and February and May of 2018, is noteworthy. The principal component, (E,E)-α-farnesene, demonstrated a decrease from 49.67% in August to 43.39% in November, followed by 35.09% in February and 26.96% in May. E-caryophyllene displayed fluctuations of 13.19% in August, 11.11% in November, 11.67% in February, and 10.76% in May. In essence, the production of these constituents peaked during the species' fruiting period. Conversely, the monoterpene α-pinene exhibited a declining trend during the fertile period, with percentages of 14.99% in August, 23.31% in November of 2017, 14.08% in February, and 15.22% in May of 2018. Similarly, the ketone 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one showed variations in August (3.00%) and November (5.28%) of 2017 and a low concentration in May (1.21%) of 2018, with no detection in February (Figure4).

2.3 EO Antioxidant Capacity

To evaluate the antioxidant activity of V. sebifera EO, the elimination of ABTS• + and DPPH• free radicals was assessed. These methods are commonly used for the initial evaluation of the antioxidant activity of natural compounds and their potential antioxidant effects [19].

Figure5 presents the results for the elimination of ABTS and DPPH radicals by V. sebifera EO. These results are articulated in terms of the antioxidant capacity of the EOs, reflecting their ability to either eliminate or reduce the concentration of the radicals. Trolox served as a positive control in this experiment.

Secondary metabolites in plant EOs exhibit significant antioxidant properties, rendering them crucial for applications in medical and food-related industries, among others. In the DPPH assay, the EOs of V. sebifera harvested in May and August demonstrated robust TEAC values of 1.19 ± 0.07 and 1.54 ± 0.13, respectively. Conversely, the EOs from samples gathered in February and November exhibited commendable TEAC values of 0.62 ± 0.07 and 0.67 ± 0.03. In the ABTS assay, all samples displayed satisfactory antioxidant activity, albeit lower than that of the positive control.

The antioxidant activity of the EOs can be attributed to their chemical composition, especially the presence of bioactive compounds known for their ability to neutralise free radicals, such as (E)-caryophyllene and α-pinene, both of which have been extensively documented for their potent antioxidant properties[20, 21].

The results of this study indicated that V. sebifera EOs were able to effectively eliminate or inhibit ABTS• + and DPPH• radicals, highlighting a strong correlation between the chemical constituents of the EO and its radical scavenging potential. This suggests that specific compounds within the EO, such as hydrocarbon sesquiterpenes and oxygenated monoterpenes, may be responsible for the observed pharmacological activity, particularly in combating oxidative stress. Ferreira etal. [19] documented exceptional elimination activity for both ABTS• + and DPPH• radicals in the EO of M. floribunda. The authors attributed the potent radical scavenging capacity to the EO's chemical composition, primarily the high concentration of the oxygenated monoterpenoid 1,8-cineole, known for its antioxidant potential.

The current study primarily characterises the EO by its hydrocarbon sesquiterpenes, with (E)-caryophyllene as one of the major compounds. Additionally, α-pinene, another prominent monoterpene present in the EO, has also been widely reported in the literature for its radical-scavenging activity, as documented by Miguel [22]. These two major compounds likely play a significant role in the antioxidant activity observed in this study.

Additionally, the antioxidant activity observed in this study may be explained by the potential synergistic interactions among the EO's components, as well as their influence on different biological pathways related to oxidative stress. These variations might be influenced by the reaction medium, specifically ethanol for the DPPH assay and phosphate-buffered saline solution for the ABTS assay, and the reaction time, which is 5 min for the ABTS assay and 30 min for the DPPH assay. Collectively, these factors could potentially enhance the elimination kinetics of the (E)-caryophyllene radical and its derivatives. These derivatives are prevalent in plant oils and are known for their insecticidal, repellent, and antimicrobial properties[23, 24].

2.4 Statistical Analysis

Chemometric analysis was employed to evaluate potential similarities and differences among the samples based on their chemical composition results. Figure6 presents the results of the principal component analysis (PCA), indicating that the first component accounts for 47.6% of the variations, whereas the second component accounts for 23.3%. The combined contribution of these components explains 70.9% of the total variance. Distinct group formations, as depicted in Figure6, were further substantiated by the hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) applied to the identified chemical compounds in various fractions, as shown in Figure6.

Figure7 illustrates four distinct groups. The first group comprises leaf samples gathered in August and November, demonstrating a similarity of 55.28%. The second group is exclusively made up of seed samples collected in August. Despite a similarity of 30.06% with the first group, it is insufficient to form a larger group. The third group consists of fruit peel samples collected in August, which display a similarity of 15.86% with the fourth group. The fourth group is constituted of leaf samples collected in February and May, with these fractions showing a chemical composition similarity of 48.64%.

Following the HCA analysis, which illustrates the formation of distinct groups, Figure6 also allows for the observation of the chemical substances that carry the most weight in each group, that is., those responsible for the similarities. For instance, in the formation of Group I, the substance with the most weight is (E)-caryophyllene. In contrast, Group II is characterised by 6-methyl-5-hepten-2-one, (E)-β-ocimene, (E)-β-farnesene and (E)-hex-3-enol. Group III primarily consists of (E,E)-α-farnesene, globulol, caryophyllene oxide, (E)-γ-bisabolene, and spathulenol. Group IV, conversely, has the most substances contributing to its formation, with a total of 15.

3 Materials and Methods

3.1 Botanical Material

The leaves and fruits, including the husk and seed, were gathered from the research campus of the Emilio Goeldi Museum (MPEG) located in Belém, Pará. The taxonomic identification procedures and elaboration of the exsicata were carried out by Carlos Alberto. The voucher specimen was subsequently added to the João Murça Pires Herbarium (MG) collection at MPEG, specifically in the Aromatic Plants of the Amazon collection, also in Belém, Pará. The specimen was assigned the registration number MG17663.

3.2 Preparation and Characterisation of Botanical Material

The leaf and fruit specimens, including both husk and seed, underwent a drying process in an air-circulated oven set at 35°C for a duration of 5 days. Post-drying, these samples were ground with a knife mill (Tecnal, model TE-631/3, Brazil), homogenised, weighed, and then subjected to extraction. The moisture content of the samples was subsequently analysed using an infrared moisture analyser (ID50; GEHAKA, Duquesa de Góias, Real Parque, São Paulo—Brazil).

3.3 Extraction of EOs

The samples underwent hydrodistillation for 3 h in modified Clevenger-type glass systems, which were connected to a refrigeration system to keep the condensation water at approximately 12°C. Following extraction, the oils were centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 5 min, dehydrated with anhydrous sodium sulfate, and then centrifuged again under identical conditions. The oil yield was measured in mL/100 g. The oils were then stored in amber glass ampoules, which were flame-sealed and refrigerated at 5°C.

3.4 Yield Calculation (%) of Extracted Oil

The EO yield, expressed as a percentage, was derived from the plant biomass processed on a dry, moisture-free basis (DMF).

Equation(1) was used to calculate the gross oil yield, utilising the ratio of the volume of oil obtained (mL) to the mass of the plant material used (g).

$\%\mathrm{Gross}\ \mathrm{oil}\ \mathrm{yield}=\frac{\mathrm{Volume}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{oil}\ \mathrm{obtained}\kern0.5em \left(\mathrm{mL}\right)}{\mathrm{Mass}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{plant}\ \mathrm{material}\ \mathrm{used}\ \left(\mathrm{g}\right)}\times 100$ (1)

The oil yield was calculated on a moisture-free basis (DMF), the volume of oil obtained is expressed in millilitres (mL); the mass of the plant material is expressed in grams (g); m is the mass of the plant material before drying; U is the percentage of moisture in the plant material, as dictated by Equation(2).

$\%\mathrm{Oil}\ \mathrm{yield}\ \left(\mathrm{DMF}\right)=\frac{\mathrm{Volume}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{oil}\ \mathrm{obtained}\ \left(\mathrm{mL}\right)}{\mathrm{Mass}\ \mathrm{of}\ \mathrm{plant}\ \mathrm{material}\ \mathrm{used}\ \left(\mathrm{g}\right)-\frac{\mathrm{m}\times \mathrm{U}}{100}}\times 100$ (2)

3.5 Chemical Composition Analysis

The chemical compositions of the EOs of V. sebifora were analysed using a Shimadzu QP-2010 plus (Kyoto, Japan) a gas chromatography system equipped with an Rtx-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm; 0.25 μm film thickness) (Restek Corporation, Bellefonte, PA, USA) coupled to a mass spectrometer (GC/MS) (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). The program temperature was maintained at 60°C–240°C at a rate of 3°C/min, with an injector temperature of 250°C, helium as the carrier gas (linear velocity of 32 cm/s, measured at 100°C) and a splitless injection (1 μL of a 2:1000 hexane solution), using the same operating conditions as described in the literature [25]. The components were quantified using gas chromatography (GC) on a Shimadzu QP-2010 system (Kyoto, Japan) equipped with a flame ionisation detector (FID) (Kyoto, Japan), under the same operating conditions as before, except for the carrier hydrogen gas. The retention index for all volatile constituents was calculated using a homologous series of n-alkanes (C8–C40) Sigma-Aldrich (San Luis, USA), according to Van den Dool and Kratz [26]. The components were identified by comparison (i) with that of the experimental mass spectra with those compiled in libraries (reference) and (ii) with their retention indices to those found in the literature [17, 27].

3.6 Antioxidant Capacity

3.6.1 DPPH and TEAC Assay

The DPPH • scavenging capacity of V. sebifera EO was ascertained using the methodology outlined by Blois (1958) [28].

The capacity to eliminate the 2,2′-azinobis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid (ABTS) radical cation (ABTS•+) was ascertained using the ABTS assay. This followed the procedure suggested by Miller etal. (1993) [29] and the reaction conditions outlined by Re etal. [30].

The full description of the methodology can be found in Cascaes etal. [31].

3.7 Statistical Analysis

A multivariate analysis was performed in accordance with the methodology delineated in references [30], utilising Minitab 17 software (free version, Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA). The variables incorporated into the analysis were the chemical constituents of the EOs. This analysis was applied to samples with a compound concentration of 1% or higher.

4 Conclusions

In the study of V. sebifera plant organs, the leaves exhibited the highest EO content, extracted by hydrodistillation, with peak production in February, the Amazonian winter. Notably, among the various plant parts yielding EO, the fruit peel contained the highest oil concentration. The chemical profile of the leaf and fruit peel EOs is dominated by sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, particularly (E,E)-α-farnesene. However, this profile is subject to seasonal variations, with the highest yields occurring during the dry period or the Amazonian summer. In contrast, the chemical profile of the fruit seed oil is characterised by a predominance of the monoterpene hydrocarbon (E)-β-ocimene. (E,E)-α-Farnesene and (E)-caryophyllene, for instance, are widely documented in the literature for their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial activities. (E)-Caryophyllene, in particular, is known to interact with CB2 cannabinoid receptors, granting it potential applications in formulations aimed at treating inflammation and oxidative stress. Additionally, α-pinene, which is also present in significant concentrations, exhibits neuroprotective and bronchodilator properties. Therefore, the findings of this study highlight V. sebifera as a promising natural source of bioactive compounds, with potential applications in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and food industries.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.N.C.; methodology, M.S.O.; software, J.N.C.; validation, O.O.F., S.F.M.P. and E.H.A.A.; formal analysis, E.H.A.A.; investigation, S.F.M.P.; resources, E.H.A.A.; writing – original draft preparation, J.N.C., S.F.M.P. and O.O.F.; writing – review and editing, J.N.C. and M.S.O.; visualisation, E.H.A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

Partial support was also provided by the National Institute os Science and Technology in 3D Printing and Advanced Materials Applied to Human and Veterinary Health – INCT 3D-Saúde [CNPq, Brazil, Grant #406436/2022-3]. The Article Processing Charge for the publication of this research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) (ROR identifier: 00x0ma614).

Ethics Statement

The authors have nothing to report.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Open Research

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References