Skip to main content
PMC home page
Molecules logoLink to Molecules
. 2021 Jul 3;26(13):4080. doi: 10.3390/molecules26134080

Essential Oil of Cannabis sativa L: Comparison of Yield and Chemical Composition of 11 Hemp Genotypes

Ylenia Pieracci 1, Roberta Ascrizzi 1,*, Valentina Terreni 1, Luisa Pistelli 1,2, Guido Flamini 1,2,*, Laura Bassolino 3, Flavia Fulvio 3,4, Massimo Montanari 3, Roberta Paris 3
Editor: Raffaele Capasso
PMCID: PMC8271456  PMID: 34279420

Abstract

Cannabis sativa L. is an annual species cultivated since antiquity for different purposes. While, in the past, hemp inflorescences were considered crop residues, at present, they are regarded as valuable raw materials with different applications, among which extraction of the essential oil (EO) has gained increasing interest in many fields. The aim of the present study is the evaluation of the yield and the chemical composition of the EO obtained by hydrodistillation from eleven hemp genotypes, cultivated in the same location for two consecutive growing seasons. The composition of the EOs was analyzed by GC–MS, and then subjected to multivariate statistical analysis. Sesquiterpenes represented the main class of compounds in all the EOs, both in their hydrocarbon and oxygenated forms, with relative abundances ranging from 47.1 to 78.5%; the only exception was the Felina 32 sample collected in 2019, in which cannabinoids predominated. Cannabinoids were the second most abundant class of compounds, of which cannabidiol was the main one, with relative abundances between 11.8 and 51.5%. The statistical distribution of the samples, performed on the complete chemical composition of the EOs, evidenced a partition based on the year of cultivation, rather than on the genotype, with the exception of Uso-31. Regarding the extraction yield, a significant variation was evidenced among both the genotypes and the years of cultivation.

Keywords: monoecious, dioecious, by-products, monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, cannabinoids, flowering behaviour, cannabidiol

1. Introduction

Cannabis sativa L. is an annual herb belonging to the Cannabaceae family, which has been cultivated since antiquity as a source of fiber, seed oil, food, and medicine, as well as for recreational and religious purposes [1].

It has evolved as a dioecious species, with female and male flowers on different individuals, but selection processes have led to the development of monoecious genotypes that bear male and female flowers on the same individual. Thus, depending on the intended use, the morphology of the plants varies significantly between genotypes, in terms of height, biomass, and seed yield [1,2].

Cannabis female inflorescences and leaves are covered in glandular trichomes, which are considered as bio-factories of phytochemicals [3] due to their ability to synthesize and store different secondary metabolites, of which phytocannabinoids are the best known and studied [4]. On the basis of their cannabinoid content, in particular of their cannabidiol (CBD)/tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) ratio, Cannabis sativa L. genotypes are divided into five distinguished chemical phenotypes: (i) chemotype I, or drug-type (the predominant cannabinoid is THC); (ii) chemotype II, or intermediate-type (the predominant cannabinoids are CBD and THC); (iii) chemotype III or fiber-type (the predominant cannabinoid is CBD); chemotype IV (with a prevalence of cannabigerol, CBG) and chemotype V, classifying materials with undetectable amounts of any cannabinoid [5,6].

Since 2001, when the EC No. 2860/2000 entered into force, the European Union authorized the cultivation of hemp complying with the 0.2% w/w Δ9-THC threshold [7]. As a consequence, hemp cultivation for fiber and seed production was resumed, and more attention was paid to agro-industrial waste of the hemp chain, among which inflorescences, as valuable sources of bio-active molecules to feed pharmaceutical, cosmeceutical, and manufacture industry, in the perspective of the sustainable circular economy. In recent years, the extraction of hemp essential oil (EO) has gained increasing interest as a value-added product [8], thanks to its various fields of application [9]. Hemp EO showed its best outcomes as an environmentally friendly insecticide against aphids, housefly populations, and mosquitoes [10], as a noteworthy toxic effect against Aedes albopictus is reported. Moreover, it exerts a good toxic activity towards the snail Physella acuta, an intermediate host of nematodes and trematodes human parasites, as well as being a common disease for rice fields [11]. In the agricultural field, the hemp EO exhibits a strong allelopathic activity against invasive weed germination, as well as seedling growth [12]. Interestingly, EOs were reported to be effective against dermatophytes species, thus exerting a role in preventing skin disorders [13]. Moreover, its use as a beverage flavoring agent was reported [9].

Essential oil from Cannabis is a complex mixture of volatile compounds made up of more than 100 terpenes and terpenoids (the oxygen-containing terpenes), known as the major contributors of the peculiar aromatic profile of different Cannabis strains [14,15,16]. Monoterpenes (10 C) and sesquiterpenes (15 C) constitute the largest content of the hemp essential oil, in both their hydrocarbon and oxygenated forms [17,18], followed by diterpenes (20 C). Almost every compound identified in the EO has its own characteristic fragrance, and their combination is responsible for the unique aromatic bouquet of different strains [19], which can influence consumers’ preferences: Generally, hemp varieties with high percentages of monoterpenes are considered more pleasant than those with high percentages of sesquiterpenes [20]. Several factors, such as genotype, flowering behavior (dioecy or monoecy), cultivation technique, plant density, stage of development at harvest, material processing, and storage conditions can influence the composition of hemp EO (chemical profile) and its extraction yield. [19,21,22,23,24]. Monoterpenes could be present in higher quantities in the fresh material, while drying and storage could determine their loss, leading to the increment of the relative portion of sesquiterpenes. The environmental [8,21] and the weather conditions seem to be an important factor for both the EO composition and yield; indeed, dry conditions between flowering stage and seed maturity can prevent trichomes damage and EO yield losses [22].

All these factors affecting the yield and chemical composition of hemp essential oils, as well as the lack of standardization of growing and operating conditions, make it hard to compare the chemical composition of the essential oils extracted from different Cannabis sativa L. genotypes in diverse studies.

The present study aimed to evaluate the EO yield and the volatile profile of 11 different hemp genotypes, both monoecious and dioecious, belonging to three chemotypes (III–V), and the differences that occurred during two years of cultivation, in order to promote their employment as value-added by-products based on their peculiar characteristics.

2. Results and Discussions

2.1. Plant Material Features

The cultivation in open field for two consecutive years included five monoecious (Uso-31, Carmaleonte, Codimono, Futura 75, Felina 32) and six dioecious (Bernabeo, Carmagnola, CS, Fibranova, Fibrante, Eletta Campana) European industrial hemp genotypes. The main characteristics of plant material, including chemotypes, flower type, and flowering time, are reported in Table 1.

Table 1.

Agronomic trial data from the years 2019–2020. Height is expressed in cm, the diameter at the collar in mm, the density as number of plants/m2, and the dried inflorescences yield is g/m2.

Genotype Chemotype Flower
Type		 Flowering
Time		 Sowing Date Harvest Date Height Collar Diameter Plant Density Dried Inflorescences Yield
2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020
Carmaleonte III Monoecious Medium 19 April 23 April 16 September 16 September 177 ± 42.5 223.6 ± 35.7 7.9 ± 2.8 13.8 ± 3.3 62 ± 24 2.2 ± 1.1 460 20
Codimono III Monoecious Medium 19 April 23 April 25 September 16 September 183 ± 39.9 255.2 ± 32.8 6.6 ± 2.2 13.0 ± 3.6 77 ± 27.2 5.7 ± 0.7 440 51
Futura 75 III Monoecious Medium 19 April 23 April 18 September 16 September 77.3 ± 17.6 238.6 ± 58.2 255.6 ± 4.9 13.1 ± 4.4 8.6 ± 0.3 7.4 ± 1.3 71 67
Felina 32 III Monoecious Medium 4 June 23 April 20 September 16 September 151 ± 33 222.3 ± 43.3 5.9 ± 1.9 13.3 ± 4.5 61.3 ± 23.8 4.2 ± 1.5 160 40
Uso-31 V Monoecious Early 4 June 23 April 20 September 31 August 108 ± 31 184.4 ± 26.0 5.2 ± 1.9 11.6 ± 2.3 60.6 ± 11.3 3.2 ± 0.3 200 29
Bernabeo IV Dioecious Late 19 April 23 April 28 September 8 October 211.6 ± 50.1 277.3 ± 38.9 8.6 ± 2.8 19.5 ± 6.7 64.3 ± 15.3 4.3 ± 3.2 430 39
Carmagnola III Dioecious Late 19 April 23 April 9 October 8 October 228.3 ± 44.8 272.4 ± 34.5 8.2 ± 2.5 19.2 ± 5.1 61 ± 1 2.7 ± 2.0 410 24
Fibranova III Dioecious Late 19 April 23 April 30 September 8 October 273.7 ± 45.6 314.5 ± 34.8 9.4 ± 2.8 17.1 ± 5.0 78.3 ± 14.4 6.3 ± 3.2 440 57
Fibrante III Dioecious Late 19 April 23 April 11 October 8 October 269.1 ± 47.6 202.8 ± 5.2 10.1 ± 2.7 15.0 ± 1.3 85.3 ± 11 0.7 ± 0.4 420 6
Eletta Campana III Dioecious Late 19 April 23 April 16 October 8 October 260.3 ± 44.3 304.5 ± 40.4 9.1 ± 2.6 17.5 ± 3.6 94.7 ± 29.1 5.7 ± 2.1 420 51
CS III Dioecious Late 19 April 23 April 1 October 8 October 246 ± 51.8 333.7 ± 37.5 9.2 ± 3 18.1 ± 3.8 60.3 ± 22.3 6.3 ± 1.7 440 57
Open in a new tab

Sowing was performed on 19 April 2019 and 23 April 2020, with a 25 cm distance between rows on randomized blocks with three repetitions, and a plot size of 20 m2.

The harvest date differed according to the flower behavior and flowering time of each genotype. Generally, monoecious and early-flowering strains were harvested earlier than dioecious and late-flowering genotypes in both years (Table 1).

The comparison between plant heights showed differences between the two years, with higher plants obtained in 2020. The same trend was observed when comparing plant collar diameters. Plant density, defined as number of plants/m2, and dried inflorescences yield/m2 were significantly lower in 2020, while dried inflorescences yield calculated for single plant was by far higher in 2020 than in 2019. These differences in plant growth in the two years of cultivation could be due to the lack of rainfall in the pre- and post-emergence period of 2020, compared to that of 2019, which could have caused a reduced germination rate and, therefore, a lower plant density; conversely, 2019 was very rainy in May–June, favoring seed germination and following plant density. This rainfall trend was inverted in June; indeed, the rainy period (July–August) in 2020 could have allowed for a biomass production greater than that observed in 2019, as is clearly shown in Table 1. Finally, September 2019 was rainier than 2020, and this could have influenced the EOs’ yield.

2.2. Essential Oil Compositions and Yields

The complete compositions and the yields of the essential oils obtained from the dried inflorescences of 11 genotypes of Cannabis sativa L., cultivated by CREA-CI (Italy) in an experimental farm located in Rovigo and harvested during the years 2019 and 2020, are reported in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively. In total, 116 compounds were identified, representing 90.6–99.4% of the total composition.

Table 2.

Complete composition and extraction yield (% w/w dry weight) of the essential oil obtained from the dried inflorescences and floral bracts of 2019 hemp samples.

Relative Abundance (%) ± SD
Monoecious Dioecious
Compounds l.r.i. 1 Carmaleonte Codimono Felina 32 Futura 75 Uso-31 Bernabeo Carmagnola CS Eletta Campana Fibranova Fibrante
heptanal 901 - - - 2 - - - 0.1 ± 0.06 - - - 0.1 ± 0.07
α-pinene 3 933 0.9 ± 0.21 AB;b 0.5 ± 0.10 ABCD;b 0.2 ± 0.00 BCD;b 0.8 ± 0.30 AB;a 0.8 ± 0.36 AB;b - D;b 1.0 ± 0.46 A;b 0.6 ± 0.09 ABCD;b 0.2 ± 0.11 BCD;b 0.1 ± 0.12 CD;b 0.7 ± 0.10 ABC;b
β-pinene 977 0.2 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.07 - 0.1 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.10 - 0.2 ± 0.09 0.1 ± 0.02 - - 0.2 ± 0.01
myrcene 991 0.1 ± 0.01 BC;b 0.1 ± 0.09 BC;b - C;b 0.1 ± 0.07 BC;b 0.2 ± 0.07 B;b - C;b 0.5 ± 0.18 A;b 0.3 ± 0.03 B;b - C;b - C;b 0.6 ± 0.03 A;b
δ-3-carene 1011 - - - - - - - - - - -
α-terpinene 1017 - - - - - - - - - - -
limonene 1029 - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - 0.2 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.04 - - 0.5 ± 0.01
1,8-cineole 1031 - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.07 - 0.1 ± 0.06 -
(E)-β-ocimene 1047 - - - - 0.1 ± 0.06 - - - - - -
γ-terpinene 1058 - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - -
terpinolene 1089 - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - 0.1 ± 0.01
nonanal 1105 - - - - 0.1 ± 0.08 0.2 ± 0.04 0.1 ± 0.07 - - - 0.1 ± 0.06
linalool 1101 - - - - - - - - - - -
fenchol 1114 - - - - - - - - - - 0.2 ± 0.04
cis-p-menth-2-en-1-ol 1122 - - - - - - - - - - -
trans-pinocarveol 1139 - - - 0.1 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.02 - 0.1 ± 0.09 - - - 0.1 ± 0.07
trans-verbenol 1145 - - - - - - - - - - -
ipsdienol 1147 - - - - - - - - - - -
β-pinene oxide 1156 - - - - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07
borneol 1165 - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - - 0.2 ± 0.05
lavandulol 1170 - 0.1 ± 0.07 0.1 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.08 - - - 0.2 ± 0.04 0.1 ± 0.07 0.1 ± 0.10 0.4 ± 0.10
4-terpineol 1177 - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.09 - - - -
p-cymen-8-ol 1185 - - - - - - - - - - 0.1±0.07
myrtenal 1194 - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - - - - -
α-terpineol 1191 - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.09 0.3 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.08 0.1 ± 0.08 0.3 ± 0.09
eugenol 1357 0.2 ± 0.04 - - 0.1 ± 0.05 - - - - - 0.2 ± 0.20 -
methyl eugenol 1405 - - - - - - - - - - -
α-ylangene 1371 - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.05 - - - -
isocaryophyllene 1407 0.2 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.01 0.4 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.08 - 0.4 ± 0.07 0.3 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.06 0.5 ± 0.11
cis-α-bergamotene 1416 - - - 0.1 ± 0.06 - - - - - - -
β-caryophyllene 1419 4.6 ± 0.21 C;b 6.6 ± 0.17 BC;b 2.9 ± 0.11 C;b 11.0 ± 0.70 A;b 4.9 ± 1.29 C;b 3.6 ± 0.62 C;b 10.2 ± 2.72 AB;a 9.4 ± 1.66 AB;b 3.1 ± 0.54 C;b 6.3 ± 2.32 BC;b 10.2 ± 1.27 AB;b
trans-α-bergamotene 1436 - 0.5 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.02 1 ± 0.02 0.5 ± 0.16 - 0.1 ± 0.07 - 0.1 ± 0.07 0.4 ± 0.17 -
α-guaiene 1439 - - - - - 0.3 ± 0.09 0.1 ± 0.07 - - 0.1 ± 0.08 -
aromadendrene 1142 0.1 ± 0.01 - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.05 - - - -
guaia-6,9-diene 1443 - - - - - - - - - - -
isogermacrene D 1451 - - - - - - - - - - -
α-humulene 1453 2.6 ± 0.08 DE;b 3.7 ± 0.10 BCD;b 1.7 ± 0.12 E;b 5.0 ± 0.12 AB;b 2.9 ± 0.73 CDE;b 2.7 ± 0.46 CDE;b 4.3 ± 0.99 ABC;a 5.0 ± 0.50 AB;b 1.8 ± 0.42 E;b 2.9 ± 1.04 CDE;b 5.7 ± 0.74 A;b
aristolene 1452 - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - - -
(E)-β-farnesene 1458 - 0.3 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.03 0.8 ± 0.11 0.5 ± 0.18 - 0.1 ± 0.06 - - 0.3 ± 0.08 -
alloaromadendrene 1460 0.2 ± 0.02 0.7 ± 0.03 - 0.8 ± 0.06 1.4 ± 0.44 0.2 ± 0.04 0.6 ± 0.15 0.4 ± 0.02 0.3 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.09 0.3 ± 0.05
4,5-di-epi-aristolochene 1468 - - - - 0.1 ± 0.06 - - - - - -
γ-gurjunene 1469 - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - - - - - -
β-chamigrene 1476 - - - - - - - - - - -
γ-muurolene 1477 0.4 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.10 - 0.2 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.08 0.4 ± 0.16 0.2 ± 0.08 -
α-amorphene 1482 - 0.1 ± 0.06 - 0.1 ± 0.01 - - - - - - -
γ-selinene 1483 0.1 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.03 0.5 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.08 0.3 ± 0.05 0.3 ± 0.13 0.3 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.09 0.3 ± 0.03
β-selinene 1486 0.8 ± 0.03 B;b 0.9 ± 0.02 B;b 0.9 ± 0.11 B;b 2.2 ± 0.05 A;a 2.4 ± 0.65 A;a 0.9 ± 0.13 B;b 1.2 ± 0.38 B;a 1.1 ± 0.07 B;b 1.2 ± 0.40 B;a 0.9 ± 0.36B;a 1.0 ± 0.14 B;b
δ-selinene 1491 - - - - - - - - - - -
valencene 1493 0.2 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.07 0.1 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.09 - 0.4 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.08 0.3 ± 0.06
α-selinene 1495 0.4 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.03 0.5 ± 0.07 1.5 ± 0.09 1.1 ± 0.32 0.6 ± 0.13 0.7 ± 0.11 0.7 ± 0.09 0.8 ± 0.23 0.6 ± 0.27 0.6 ± 0.06
eremophilene 1499 - - - - - - - - - - -
α-bulnesene 1505 - - - - - 0.6 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.09 - 0.1 ± 0.07 0.1 ± 0.10 -
epizonarene 1501 - - - - - - - - - - -
β-bisabolene 1509 - 0.1 ± 0.02 - 0.2 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.06 - 0.3 ± 0.08 0.1 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.08 0.2 ± 0.03
(E,E)-α-farnesene 1509 - - - - - - - - - - -
β-curcumene 1513 - - - 0.2 ± 0.03 - - - - - - -
trans-γ-cadinene 1513 0.3 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.09 0.3 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.07 - 0.2 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.06 0.3 ± 0.10 0.1 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.02
sesquicineole 1516 - - - - - - - - - - -
7-epi-α-selinene 1517 0.2 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.04 - 0.3 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.15 - 0.4 ± 0.09 0.3 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.12 - 0.3 ± 0.04
(Z)-γ-bisabolene 1519 - - - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.11 -
β-cadinene 1519 - - - 0.3 ± 0.04 - - 0.1 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.07 0.1 ± 0.12 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.07
trans-calamenene 1524 - - - - - - - - - - -
δ-cadinene 1524 0.2 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.04 0.1 ± 0.06 0.5 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.08 - 0.2 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.08 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.10
selina-3,7(11)-diene 1530 1.6 ± 0.10 ABCD;b 1.0 ± 0.11 BCD;b 0.6 ± 0.14 D;b 2.1 ± 0.59 A;a 0.9 ± 0.16 CD;b 1.6 ± 0.31 ABCD;b 2.5 ± 0.21 AB;b 2.1 ± 0.06 ABCD;b 2.3 ± 0.33 ABC;b 2.1 ± 0.59 ABC;b 1.9 ± 0.16 ABCD;a
(E)-γ-bisabolene 1531 - 0.5 ± 0.05 - - - - - - - - -
α-calacorene 1543 0.2 ± 0.01 - - 0.1 ± 0.14 - 0.2 ± 0.03 0.4 ± 0.06 0.3 ± 0.07 0.2 ± 0.01 - 0.3 ± 0.04
cis-sesquisabinene hydrate 1545 - - - 0.1 ± 0.02 - - - - 0.1 ± 0.08 0.6 ± 0.18 -
elemol 1550 0.8 ± 0.13 0.7 ± 0.07 0.4 ± 0.06 1.1 ± 0.14 1.0 ± 0.24 0.2 ± 0.05 0.7 ± 0.00 0.5 ± 0.05 0.3 ± 0.06 0.4 ± 0.08 0.6 ± 0.03
guaia-3,9-diene 1556 - 0.1 ± 0.01 - - - - - - - - -
(E)-nerolidol 1564 0.7 ± 0.05 0.7 ± 0.05 0.5 ± 0.16 1.2 ± 0.31 0.6 ± 0.14 1.3 ± 0.28 0.6 ± 0.07 1.0 ± 0.07 1.0 ± 0.25 1.5 ± 0.30 1.1 ± 0.13
palustrol 1568 - - - - - - - - - - -
caryophyllene alcohol 1570 - - - - - 0.9 ± 0.12 - - - - -
spathulenol 1577 0.1 ± 0.00 0.2 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.07 - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.00 -
trans-sesquisabinene hydrate 1581 - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - - - - - -
caryophyllene oxide 1582 16.0 ± 0.1 B;a 14.2 ± 0.82 BC;a 7.1 ± 1.39 D;a 10.2 ± 1.32 CD;b 23.5 ± 3.19 A;a 14.2 ± 1.83 BC;a 13.7 ± 0.17 BC;a 11.3 ± 0.85 CD;a 10.9 ± 2.56 CD;a 10.2 ± 1.12 CD;a 16.6 ± 0.78 B;a
globulol 1583 - - - - - 0.6 ± 0.09 - 0.1 ± 0.06 - - -
trans-(Z)-α-bisabolene epoxide 1586 - - - - - - - - - - -
isoaromadendrene epoxide 1589 - - - 0.9 ± 0.23 - - - 0.9 ± 0.13 - - 0.6 ± 0.60
epi-globulol 1590 - - 0.2 ± 0.04 - 0.2 ± 0.03 - 0.5 ± 0.32 - 0.6 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.01 0.9 ± 0.91
viridiflorol 1592 0.3 ± 0.03 0.5 ± 0.07 - 0.5 ± 0.11 - - 0.6 ± 0.20 0.3 ± 0.05 2.7 ± 2.20 0.3 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.10
guaiol 1596 - - - - 1.1 ± 0.10 - - - - - -
humulene oxide II 1608 6.1 ± 0.47 BC;a 6.6 ± 0.52 AB;a 3.7 ± 0.94 CD;a 4.8 ± 0.41 BCD;a 9.1 ± 0.76 A;a 6.9 ± 0.73 AB;a 2.7 ± 2.40 D;a 4.5 ± 0.56 BCD;a 2.6 ± 1.07 D;a 4.2 ± 0.68 BCD;a 7.0 ± 0.07 AB;a
cedrenol 1610 - - - - - 1.0 ± 0.04 - - - - 0.2 ± 0.20
humulane-1-6-dien-3-ol 1613 - - - - 0.1 ± 0.09 - - - - - -
selin-6-en-4-ol 1618 2.4 ± 1.09 AB;a 1.6 ± 0.56 ABCD;a 0.4 ± 0.05 D;a 1.5 ± 0.25 BCD;a 0.8 ± 0.11 CD;a 3.1 ± 0.77 A;a 1.7 ± 0.33 ABCD;a 1.3 ± 0.13 BCD;a 1.8 ± 0.06 ABCD;a 1.7 ± 0.28 ABCD;a 2.3 ± 0.70 ABC;a
13-nor-valenc-1(10)-en-11-one 1629 - - - - - - - - - - -
1-epi-cubenol 1627 1.0 ± 0.12 - 0.4 ± 0.12 1.0 ± 0.37 0.6 ± 0.00 0.8 ± 0.23 1.0 ± 0.78 0.2 ± 0.18 1.0 ± 0.49 0.6 ± 0.07 0.2 ± 0.25
γ-eudesmol 1631 - - - - - - - - 0.3 ± 0.31 - -
caryophylla-4(14),8(15)-dien-5-ol (unidentified isomer 1) 1633 8.3 ± 0.12 A;a 7.6 ± 0.37 AB;a 3.8 ± 0.78 CD;a 4.9 ± 1.83 ABCD;a 4.7 ± 0.35 BCD;a 2.5 ± 0.39 D;a 3.3 ± 2.85 D;a 3.8 ± 0.65 CD;a 3.5 ± 0.81 D;a 5.0 ± 0.36 ABCD;a 7.1 ± 0.90 ABC;a
caryophylla-4(14),8(15)-dien-5-ol (unidentified isomer 2) 1633 7.3 ± 0.18 A;a 5.7 ± 0.51 B;a 3.9 ± 0.65 DE;a 3.7 ± 0.57 E;a 5.4 ± 0.27 BC;a - F;b 4.1 ± 0.68 CDE;a 4.1 ± 0.35 CDE;a 3.5 ± 0.13 E;a 4.8 ± 0.24 BCDE;a 5.1 ± 0.65 BCD;a
T-cadinol 1641 - - - - 0.2 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.11 - - 0.3 ± 0.12 - -
cubenol 1641 0.1 ± 0.11 - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - 0.4 ± 0.02 -
β-eudesmol 1649 0.2 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.08 - - 0.1 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.21 0.7 ± 0.59 0.1 ± 0.06 - - -
α-eudesmol 1653 - - - - - - 0.3 ± 0.19 - - - -
neointermedeol 1655 0.2 ± 0.01 - 0.2 ± 0.22 - 0.5 ± 0.00 1.7 ± 0.11 - - - 0.5 ± 0.01 -
bulnesol 1668 0.4 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.07 - - - - - - 0.2 ± 0.24 - 0.1 ± 0.11
14-hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene 1670 13.5 ± 0.42 A;a 13.5 ± 0.71 A;a 9.2 ± 2.34 BCD;a 9.1 ± 0.46 BCD;a 12.2 ± 1.22 ABC;a 8.1 ± 0.67 CD;a 7.8 ± 2.73 D;a 8.7 ± 1.99 BCD;a 9.1 ± 1.33 BCD;a 10.2 ± 0.44 ABCD;a 12.6 ± 0.14 AB;a
ylangenal 1675 - 0.1 ± 0.08 - - 0.2 ± 0.01 - 0.1 ± 0.08 - 0.1 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.03 -
aromadendrene epoxide II 1680 0.6 ± 0.01 0.6 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.11 0.3 ± 0.03 0.5 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.11 0.4 ± 0.07 0.4 ± 0.07 0.3 ± 0.01 0.4 ± 0.05
α-bisabolol 1685 0.5 ± 0.02 FG;a 2.6 ± 0.20 C;a 0.4 ± 0.20 FG;b 0.8 ± 0.17 EF;a - G;b 1.2 ± 0.22 DE;a 1.6 ± 0.38 D;a 1.3 ± 0.13 DE;a 4.9 ± 0.30 A;a 4.0 ± 0.29 B;a 0.8 ± 0.06 EF;b
cedr-8-en-13-ol 1688 - - 0.1 ± 0.08 - - - - - - - -
juniper camphor 1694 1.0 ± 0.02 0.9 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.07 0.6 ± 0.08 0.2 ± 0.02 1.2 ± 0.11 0.6 ± 0.11 1.0 ± 0.31 1.1 ± 0.30 0.9 ± 0.05 0.9 ± 0.03
(Z)-α-trans-bergamotol 1700 0.2 ± 0.01 - - - - - - - - - -
α-phellandrene dimer 1801 - - - - - - - - - - -
nootkatone 1803 0.2 ± 0.00 0.2 ± 0.01 - - 0.2 ± 0.04 - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.06
(E,E)-farnesyl acetate 1843 - - - - - - - - - - -
hexahydrofarnesylacetone 1845 0.7 ± 0.05 C;a 1.4 ± 0.05 BC;a 1.0 ± 0.29 C;b 1.0 ± 0.03 C;a 1.9 ± 0.72 AB;a 2.3 ± 0.04 A;a 2.3 ± 0.02 A;a 2.0 ± 0.09 AB;a 1.4 ± 0.34 BC;a 0.7 ± 0.07 C;a 1.4 ± 0.21 BC;a
1-hexadecanol 1877 - - - - - - - - - - -
(E,E)-farnesyl acetone 1918 0.4 ± 0.03 0.3 ± 0.00 0.7 ± 0.22 0.4 ± 0.03 1.6 ± 0.04 0.5 ± 0.02 0.4 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.07 0.1 ± 0.00 0.3 ± 0.05
m-camphorene 1952 - - - - - - 0.3 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.06 - - 0.1 ± 0.07
p-camphorene 1986 - - - - - - 0.6 ± 0.06 - - - 0.1 ± 0.12
ethyl hexadecanoate 2000 - - - - - - - - - - -
phytol 2112 0.9 ± 0.10 DE;a 1.5 ± 0.03 CDE;a 3.1 ± 0.65 B;a 0.6 ± 0.03 E;a 2.8 ± 0.18 B;b 5.4 ± 0.91 A;a 1.1 ± 0.30 CDE;a 2.1 ± 0.45 BC;a 2.0 ± 0.15 BCD;a 0.8 ± 0.09 E;a 0.9 ± 0.25 E;a
cannabidiol 2369 18.1 ± 1.7 BC;a 19.6 ± 1.23 BC;a 51.5 ± 8.36 A;a 22.9 ± 6.33 BC;a 11.8 ± 7.97 C;a 25.0 ± 5.7 BC;a 21.9 ± 0.92 BC;a 30.5 ± 1.62 B;a 34.5 ± 7.88 B;a 32.1 ± 9.62 B;a 12.6 ± 1.07 C;b
cannabichromene 2373 0.5 ± 0.18 0.2 ± 0.07 1.2 ± 0.96 0.3 ± 0.18 0.7 ± 0.56 1.6 ± 0.26 0.3 ± 0.18 0.5 ± 0.40 0.2 ± 0.01 1.0 ± 0.43 0.2 ± 0.16
Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol 2468 0.2 ± 0.06 0.3 ± 0.09 0.8 ± 0.15 0.3 ± 0.10 0.1 ± 0.13 0.3 ± 0.07 0.3 ± 0.05 0.4 ± 0.06 0.4 ± 0.10 0.3 ± 0.13 0.1 ± 0.01
Total identified (%) 93.8 ± 0.43 96.4 ± 0.12 97.4 ± 0.98 95.9 ± 1.42 97.3 ± 0.24 90.6 ± 0.92 92.5 ± 1.13 97.8 ± 0.52 95.4 ± 1.95 97.1 ± 0.79 97.7 ± 0.65
Monoterpene hydrocarbons 1.2 ± 0.26 ABC;b 0.7 ± 0.25 BCD;b 0.2 ± 0.00 CD;b 0.9 ± 0.42 BCD;b 1.4 ± 0.65 AB;b -D;b 2.0 ± 0.73 A;b 1.3 ± 0.31 AB;b 0.2 ± 0.11 CD;b 0.1 ± 0.12 D;b 2.1 ± 0.12 A;b
Oxygenated monoterpenes -B;b 0.1 ± 0.07 B;a 0.1 ± 0.03 B;b 0.1 ± 0.13 B;a 0.2 ± 0.09 B;b -B;b 0.5 ± 0.32 B;b 0.6 ± 0.13 B;b 0.1 ± 0.14 B;b 0.2 ± 0.24 B;b 1.3 ± 0.47 A;a
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons 12.1 ± 0.23 CD;b 16.4 ± 0.66 BCD;b 8.0 ± 0.34 D;b 28.7 ± 0.84 A;b 15.9 ± 4.57 BCD;a 11.0 ± 1.99 D;b 22.3 ± 5.37 AB;a 20.8 ± 2.42 ABC;b 11.7 ± 2.83 D;b 15.5 ± 5.37 BCD;b 21.8 ± 2.90 AB;b
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes 59.6 ± 1.79 A;a 56.0 ± 1.50 AB;a 30.9 ± 7.02 D;a 40.6 ± 4.82 CD;a 60.9 ± 2.48 A;a 44.3 ± 3.81 BCD;a 40.5 ± 8.52 CD;a 39.3 ± 3.68 CD;a 44.6 ± 6.31 BC;a 46.0 ± 3.49 BC;a 56.7 ± 1.86 AB;a
Diterpene hydrocarbons - C;b - C;a - C;b - C;b - C -C;b 0.9 ± 0.08 A;a 0.1 ± 0.06 BC;b - C;b - C 0.2 ± 0.19 B;b
Oxygenated diterpenes 0.9 ± 0.10 DE;a 1.5 ± 0.03 CDE;a 3.1 ± 0.65 B;a 0.6 ± 0.03 E;a 2.8 ± 0.18 B;b 5.4 ± 0.91 A;a 1.1 ± 0.30 CDE;a 2.1 ± 0.45 BC;a 2.0 ± 0.15 BCD;a 0.8 ± 0.09 E;a 0.9 ± 0.25 E;a
Phenylpropanoids 0.2 ± 0.04 A;a - B;a - B 0.1 ± 0.05 AB;a - B,b B - B - B - B 0.2 ± 0.20 A;a - B
Cannabinoids 18.7 ± 1.93 BC;a 20.0 ± 1.24 BC;a 53.4 ± 9.47 A;a 23.5 ± 6.61 BC;a 12.6 ± 8.66 C;a 26.9 ± 5.89 BC;a 22.5 ± 1.05 BC;b 31.4 ± 1.97 B;a 35.1 ± 7.99 B;a 33.5 ± 10.18 B;a 12.9 ± 1.22 C;b
Apocarotenoids 1.1 ± 0.07 D;a 1.7 ± 0.05 CD;a 1.7 ± 0.51 CD;a 1.4 ± 0.01 CD;a 3.5 ± 0.76 A;a 2.8 ± 0.06 AB;a 2.8 ± 0.01 AB;a 2.2 ± 0.13 BC;a 1.6 ± 0.41 CD;a 0.8 ± 0.07 D;a 1.7 ± 0.26 CD;a
Other non-terpene derivatives - A;a - A - A;a - A 0.1 ± 0.08 A;a 0.2 ± 0.04 A;b 0.1 ± 0.15 A;a - A;b - A;a - A 0.1 ± 0.13 A;a
Extraction yield (% w/w) 0.04 ± 0.02 DE;b 0.07 ± 0.01 BCD;b 0.03 ± 0.01 E;b 0.12 ± 0.01 A;b 0.03 ± 0.00 E 0.03 ± 0.01 E;b 0.09 ± 0.02 AB;b 0.08 ± 0.01 BC;b 0.09 ± 0.00 AB 0.06 ± 0.01 CDE;b 0.08 ± 0.00 BC;b
Open in a new tab

1 Linear retention index on a HP 5-MS capillary column; 2 Not detected; 3 Compounds accounting for at least 1.000% of the dissimilarity rate (According to the SIMPER test, see Table 4) are evidenced in bold. For these compounds, for all chemical classes, and for the extraction yield, different superscript uppercase letters (A–G) indicate statistically significant differences between the each variety; superscript lowercase letters (a,b) indicate statistically significant differences among the cultivar withdrawn on different years (see Table 3 for 2020 samples). The statistical significance of the relative abundances was established by the Tukey’s post-hoc test, with p ≤ 0.05.

Table 3.

Complete composition and extraction yield (% w/w dry weight) of the essential oil obtained from the dried inflorescences and floral bracts of 2020 hemp samples.

Relative Abundance (%) ± SD
Monoecious Dioecious
Compounds l.r.i. 1 Carmaleonte Codimono Felina32 Futura 75 Uso-31 Bernabeo Carmagnola CS Eletta Campana Fibranova Fibrante
heptanal 901 - 2 - - - - 0.3 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.10 0.1 ± 0.04 0.1 ± 0.07 - -
α-pinene 3 933 2.7 ± 0.50 AB;a 2.0 ± 0.74 ABC;a 1.1 ± 0.40 CD;a 1.1 ± 0.11 CD;a 2.0 ± 0.26 ABC;a 0.5 ± 0.06 D;a 3.0 ± 0.04 A;a 2.1 ± 0.79 ABC;a 1.7 ± 0.01 BC;a 1.3 ± 0.39 CD;a 1.2 ± 0.06 CD;a
β-pinene 977 0.5 ± 0.06 0.5 ± 0.17 0.3 ± 0.07 0.2 ± 0.06 0.7 ± 0.18 0.1 ± 0.01 0.8 ± 0.09 0.7 ± 0.26 0.5 ± 0.02 0.3 ± 0.12 0.4 ± 0.03
myrcene 991 0.8 ± 0.09 CD;a 0.8 ± 0.33 CD;a 0.2 ± 0.02 D;a 0.4 ± 0.09 D;a 0.6 ± 0.12 D;a 0.4 ± 0.05 D;a 2.6 ± 0.16 A;a 1.3 ± 0.49 BC;a 0.6 ± 0.01 D;a 0.3 ± 0.10 D;a 1.8 ± 0.17 B;a
δ-3-carene 1011 0.1 ± 0.05 - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.09 -
α-terpinene 1017 - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.06 - - -
limonene 1029 0.1 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.08 - - 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.03 0.6 ± 0.10 0.7 ± 0.16 0.4 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.08 0.8 ± 0.08
1,8-cineole 1031 - 0.2 ± 0.05 - - - 0.2 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.09 0.2 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.06
(E)-β-ocimene 1047 0.1 ± 0.01 0.4 ± 0.13 - 0.1 ± 0.03 0.4 ± 0.02 - 0.3 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.07 -
γ-terpinene 1058 - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - -
terpinolene 1089 - 0.4 ± 0.14 0.2 ± 0.04 0.1 ± 0.09 0.1 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.03 0.8 ± 0.19 0.3 ± 0.01 - 0.5 ± 0.03
nonanal 1105 0.1 ± 0.07 - - - 0.1 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.04 - - - - -
linalool 1101 - 0.1 ± 0.06 - - - - 0.2 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.04 0.1 ± 0.03 - -
fenchol 1114 - - - - - - 0.2 ± 0.02 0.4 ± 0.07 0.2 ± 0.05 - 0.3 ± 0.00
cis-p-menth-2-en-1-ol 1122 - - - - - - 0.2 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.02 - 0.2 ± 0.01
trans-pinocarveol 1139 0.3 ± 0.03 - - - 0.1 ± 0.01 - - - - - -
trans-verbenol 1145 - - - - 0.2 ± 0.01 - - - - - -
ipsdienol 1147 0.1 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.07 - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - -
β-pinene oxide 1156 - - - - - - 0.3 ± 0.03 - - - 0.1 ± 0.01
borneol 1165 0.2 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.05 - - - 0.1 ± 0.00 0.2 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.00 0.1 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.01
lavandulol 1170 - 0.4 ± 0.09 0.3 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.05 0.4 ± 0.06 0.3 ± 0.01 0.6 ± 0.03 0.3 ± 0.01 - 0.6 ± 0.04
4-terpineol 1177 - - - - - - - - - 0.2 ± 0.03 -
p-cymen-8-ol 1185 - - - - - - - - - - -
myrtenal 1194 - - - - - - - - - - -
α-terpineol 1191 - 0.2 ± 0.03 - - - 0.2 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.04 - 0.2 ± 0.03 0.5 ± 0.02
eugenol 1357 0.2 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.07 - 0.1 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.01 - - - - 0.2 ± 0.07 -
methyl eugenol 1405 - - - - 0.1 ± 0.02 - - - - - -
α-ylangene 1371 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.07 - 0.1 ± 0.01 - - 0.1 ± 0.04 0.1 ± 0.02 0.3 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.07 -
isocaryophyllene 1407 0.4 ± 0.03 0.4 ± 0.00 0.3 ± 0.09 0.4 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.11 0.2 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.06 0.3 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.12 0.3 ± 0.01
cis-α-bergamotene 1416 - 0.1 ± 0.01 0.4 ± 0.14 0.1 ± 0.09 - - - - - - -
β-caryophyllene 1419 15.3 ± 1.44 AB;a 16.2 ± 1.46 AB;a 11.5 ± 3.55 ABC;a 13.8 ± 0.59 ABC;a 8.7 ± 0.77 C;a 10.4 ± 2.95 BC;a 14.4 ± 0.89 ABC;a 15.4 ± 2.45 AB;a 11.6 ± 0.09 ABC;a 16.8 ± 3.82 A;a 16.2 ± 0.8 AB;a
trans-α-bergamotene 1436 0.3 ± 0.00 1.1 ± 0.04 1.6 ± 0.42 1.5 ± 0.16 1.0 ± 0.06 0.3 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.08 0.3 ± 0.01 0.9 ± 0.2 -
α-guaiene 1439 - - - - - 0.6 ± 0.14 - - - - -
aromadendrene 1142 - - - - - - - - - 0.3 ± 0.04 -
guaia-6,9-diene 1443 0.2 ± 0.01 - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.05 -
isogermacrene D 1451 0.3 ± 0.03 - - - - - - - 0.2 ± 0.01 - -
α-humulene 1453 6.9 ± 1.00 ABC;a 7.6 ± 0.17 A;a 4.7 ± 1.23 DE;a 5.8 ± 0.38 ABCDE;a 4.1 ± 0.06 E;a 6.2 ± 0.27 ABCD;a 5.3 ± 0.10 CDE;a 7.5 ± 0.19 A;a 5.4 ± 0.13 BCDE;a 6.3 ± 1.44 ABCD;a 7.4 ± 0.38 AB;a
aristolene 1452 - - - 0.1 ± 0.05 - - - - - - -
(E)-β-farnesene 1458 0.3 ± 0.04 1.2 ± 0.07 1.4 ± 0.37 1.7 ± 0.19 1.1 ± 0.05 0.4 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.07 0.1 ± 0.09 0.3 ± 0.03 0.8 ± 0.19 0.1 ± 0.06
alloaromadendrene 1460 0.4 ± 0.07 0.9 ± 0.00 0.6 ± 0.16 0.7 ± 0.07 0.9 ± 0.01 0.4 ± 0.03 0.3 ± 0.03 0.5 ± 0.01 0.4 ± 0.02 0.5 ± 0.09 0.2 ± 0.01
4,5-di-epi-aristolochene 1468 - - - - - - - - - - -
γ-gurjunene 1469 - - - - - - - - - - -
β-chamigrene 1476 - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - 0.1 ± 0.03 - - - - -
γ-muurolene 1477 0.3 ± 0.02 - 0.2 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.04 - 0.1 ± 0.01 - - 0.4 ± 0.09 0.2 ± 0.04 -
α-amorphene 1482 0.2 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.04 - 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.03 -
γ-selinene 1483 0.5 ± 0.01 0.6 ± 0.04 0.5 ± 0.11 0.6 ± 0.10 0.4 ± 0.01 0.6 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.02 0.5 ± 0.03 0.5 ± 0.04 0.5 ± 0.11 0.4 ± 0.01
β-selinene 1486 1.3 ± 0.03 CDE;a 1.5 ± 0.10 CDE;a 2.1 ± 0.48 AB;a 2.2 ± 0.30 A;a 1.9 ± 0.02 ABC;a 1.5 ± 0.08 BCDE;a 1.2 ± 0.07 E;a 1.4 ± 0.13 CDE;a 1.8 ± 0.09 ABCD;a 1.3 ± 0.31 CDE;a 1.3 ± 0.05 DE;a
δ-selinene 1491 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.01 - 0.2 ± 0.04 - 0.3 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.04 0.1 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.05
valencene 1493 0.3 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.05 0.3 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.00 0.3 ± 0.02 0.3 ± 0.05 0.3 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.00 0.3 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.02
α-selinene 1495 1.2 ± 0.00 1.2 ± 0.04 1.7 ± 0.40 1.5 ± 0.20 0.9 ± 0.09 1.5 ± 0.06 1.0 ±0.20 1.1 ±0.07 1.5 ± 0.16 1.0 ± 0.26 1.0 ± 0.07
eremophilene 1499 - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.04 - - -
α-bulnesene 1505 - - - 0.1 ± 0.02 - 1.4 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.05 - 0.1 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.01 -
epizonarene 1501 - - - 0.2 ± 0.04 - - 0.2 ± 0.05 - 0.2 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.04 -
β-bisabolene 1509 0.1 ± 0.00 0.3 ± 0.02 0.3 ± 0.06 0.3 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.01 - - - 0.9 ± 0.11 0.4 ± 0.09 -
(E,E)-α-farnesene 1509 - - - - - 0.3 ± 0.01 0.4 ± 0.08 0.4 ± 0.06 - - 0.4 ± 0.01
β-curcumene 1513 - 0.1 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.03 - - - - - - -
trans-γ-cadinene 1513 0.5 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.00 0.3 ± 0.06 0.2 ± 0.01 - 0.1 ± 0.01 - - 0.4 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.03 -
sesquicineole 1516 - 0.6 ± 0.03 - - - - - - - - -
7-epi-α-selinene 1517 0.4 ± 0.37 - 0.4 ± 0.05 0.6 ± 0.08 0.3 ± 0.01 - - - - - -
(Z)-γ-bisabolene 1519 - - - - - - - - - - -
β-cadinene 1519 0.3 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.01 - 0.1 ± 0.14 - 0.2 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.02 0.4 ± 0.05 0.3 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.05
trans-calamenene 1524 - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.05 - - - - -
δ-cadinene 1524 0.5 ± 0.03 0.4 ± 0.02 0.6 ± 0.06 0.5 ± 0.07 0.2 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.02 0.5 ± 0.10 0.3 ± 0.07 0.1 ± 0.01
selina-3,7(11)-diene 1530 5.2 ± 0.47 BC;a 3.2 ± 0.05 DE;a 2.1 ± 0.65 DEF;a 3.8 ± 0.55 CD;a 1.3 ± 0,13 F;a 3.8 ± 0.26 CD;a 3.4 ± 0.33 DE 3.1 ± 0.20 DE;a 8.6 ± 1.01 A;a 5.6 ± 1.30 B;a 1.9 ± 0.09 EF;a
(E)-γ-bisabolene 1531 - - - - - - - - - - -
α-calacorene 1543 0.4 ± 0.05 - 0.2 ± 0.01 0.3 ± 0.03 - 0.4 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.02 - - 0.1 ± 0.01
cis-sesquisabinene hydrate 1545 - - 0.2 ± 0.05 - 0.1 ± 0.11 - - - - - -
elemol 1550 0.4 ± 0.04 0.4 ± 0.04 0.4± 0.09 0.4 ± 0.06 0.6 ± 0.09 0.2 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.00 0.3 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.02
guaia-3,9-diene 1556 - - 0.1 ± 0.10 - - - - - - - -
(E)-nerolidol 1564 0.6 ± 0.04 1.2 ± 0.04 0.9 ± 0.36 0.8 ± 0.07 0.7 ± 0.12 1.2 ± 0.13 0.3 ± 0.04 0.6 ± 0.12 0.9 ± 0.11 1.5 ± 0.27 0.6 ± 0.01
palustrol 1568 - - 0.4 ± 0.15 - - - - - - - -
caryophyllene alcohol 1570 - - - - - - - - - - -
spathulenol 1577 - - - - - - - - - - -
trans-sesquisabinene hydrate 1581 - 0.1 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.05 0.1 ± 0.06 - - - - - - -
caryophyllene oxide 1582 11.8 ± 1.18 BCD;b 11.3 ± 0.85 BCD;b 10.9 ± 3.38 BCDE;a 13.9 ± 0.24 BC;a 22.7 ± 0.45 A;a 14.4 ± 1.22 B;a 7.0 ± 1.06 E;b 9.9 ± 0.78 CDE;a 9.1 ± 0.74 DE;a 12 ± 2.03 BCD;a 9.2 ± 0.11 DE;b
globulol 1583 - - - - - - - - - - -
trans-(Z)-α-bisabolene epoxide 1586 - - 0.5 ± 0.16 - - - - - - - -
isoaromadendrene epoxide 1589 0.5 ± 0.10 0.5 ± 0.02 - 0.5 ± 0.06 0.8 ± 0.01 0.7 ± 0.07 0.3 ± 0.01 0.5 ± 0.04 0.5 ± 0.07 0.5 ± 0.08 0.4 ± 0.01
epi-globulol 1590 - - - - 0.1 ± 0.01 - - - - - -
viridiflorol 1592 0.2 ± 0.03 0.3 ± 0.05 - 0.3 ± 0.04 0.8 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.04 0.1 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.00 0.3 ± 0.07 0.2 ± 0.04 -
guaiol 1596 - - 0.3 ± 0.09 - - - - - - - -
humulene oxide II 1608 4.2 ± 0.58 BCD;b 4.1 ± 0.55 BCD;b 4.8 ± 1.08 BC;a 4.9 ± 0.19 BC;a 9.3 ± 0.46 A;a 5.2 ± 1.40 B;a 2.4 ± 0.24 D;a 3.6 ± 0.32 BCD;a 3.4 ± 0.28 BCD;a 4.0 ± 0.58 BCD;a 3.1 ± 0.03 CD;b
cedrenol 1610 0.6 ± 0.11 0.1 ± 0.07 - 0.4 ± 0.03 - 0.5 ± 0.25 0.2 ± 0.00 0.3 ± 0.02 0.3 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.02 -
humulane-1-6-dien-3-ol 1613 - - 0.3 ± 0.03 - - - - - - - -
selin-6-en-4-ol 1618 1.1 ± 0.02 CDE;a 1.1 ± 0.23 CDE;a 0.5 ± 0.17 E;b 1.2 ± 0.08 CD;a 0.6 ± 0.05 DE;b 2.0 ± 0.55 A;a 0.8 ± 0.23 CDE;b 0.8 ± 0.11 CDE;b 1.9 ± 0.06 AB;a 1.3 ± 0.14 BC;a 0.7 ± 0.11 DE;b
13-nor-valenc-1(10)-en-11-one 1629 - 0.2 ± 0.01 0.4 ± 0.06 0.5 ± 0.05 - - - - 1.0 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.34 0.2 ± 0.01
1-epi-cubenol 1627 0.4 ± 0.10 0.3 ± 0.07 0.4 ± 0.06 0.3 ± 0.26 0.5 ± 0.06 0.5 ± 0.10 0.2 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.07 0.2 ± 0.00 0.4 ± 0.04 0.2 ± 0.01
γ-eudesmol 1631 - - - - - - - - - - -
caryophylla-4(14),8(15)-dien-5-ol (unidentified isomer 1) 1633 0.7 ± 0.69 F;b 2.7 ± 0.46 AB;b 2.5 ± 0.25 ABC;b 2.6 ± 0.19 AB;a 2.7 ± 0.27 AB;b 3.0 ± 0.60 A;a 1.4 ± 0.15 DEF;a 0.9 ± 0.10 EF;b 1.6 ± 0.06 CDEF;b 2.3 ± 0.13 ABCD;b 1.7 ± 0.09 BCDE;b
caryophylla-4(14),8(15)-dien-5-ol (unidentified isomer 2) 1633 2.1 ± 0.21 ABC;b 2.6 ± 0.54 AB;b 2.8 ± 0.30 A;a 2.6 ± 0.16 AB;b 2.7 ± 0.31 A;b 1.8 ± 0.44 BCD;a 1.2 ± 0.09 D;b 1.3 ± 0.04 D;b 1.2 ± 0.03 D;b 2.2 ± 0.12 ABC;b 1.6 ± 0.07 CD;b
T-cadinol 1641 - - 0.3 ± 0.05 - - - - - - - -
cubenol 1641 - - - - - - - - 0.4 ± 0.02 - -
β-eudesmol 1649 0.2 ± 0.08 0.1 ± 0.00 - 0.2 ± 0.08 - 0.3 ± 0.09 - - - 0.2 ± 0.00 -
α-eudesmol 1653 - - - - - - - - - - -
neointermedeol 1655 - - 0.3 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.11 0.3 ± 0.02 1.2 ± 0.00 - - 0.2 ± 0.03 - 0.2 ± 0.00
bulnesol 1668 - - - - - - - - - - -
14-hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene 1670 3.8 ± 0.50 C;b 2.9 ± 0.56 C;b 5.8 ± 0.62 AB;a 5.4 ± 0.39 B;b 7.0 ± 0.53 A;b 5.5 ± 0.19 B;b 2.5 ± 0.12 C;b 3.0 ± 0.28 C;b 3.6 ± 0.81 C;b 3.6 ± 0.40 C;b 2.7 ± 0.21 C;b
ylangenal 1675 - 1.8 ± 1.66 - - 0.2 ± 0.02 0.2 ± 0.05 - - - 0.1 ± 0.06 -
aromadendrene epoxide II 1680 0.2 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.05 0.2 ± 0.02 0.1 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.12 - 0.2 ± 0.01 0.1 ± 0.09 0.1 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.02
α-bisabolol 1685 0.4 ± 0.06 E;a 1.7 ± 0.36 BC;b 0.8 ± 0.12 DE;a 0.4 ± 0.04 E;b 0.3 ± 0.03 E;a 1.2 ± 0.06 CD;a 1.1 ± 0.13 CD;a 0.6 ± 0.07 DE;b 5.2 ± 0.49 A;a 2.2 ± 0.36 B;b 1.1 ± 0.04 CD;a
cedr-8-en-13-ol 1688 - - - - - - - - - - -
juniper camphor 1694 1.0 ± 0.06 1.0 ± 0.24 0.4 ± 0.07 0.8 ± 0.08 0.5 ± 0.02 1.8 ± 0.03 0.9 ± 0.06 0.7 ± 0.07 1.0 ± 0.05 0.9 ± 0.18 0.7 ± 0.02
(Z)-α-trans-bergamotol 1700 - - - - - 0.2 ± 0.02 - - - - -
α-phellandrene dimer 1801 - - 0.1 ± 0.02 - - - - - - - -
nootkatone 1803 - - - - 0.2 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.01 - - - - -
(E,E)-farnesyl acetate 1843 - - 0.2 ± 0.02 - - - - - - - -
hexahydrofarnesylacetone 1845 0.6 ± 0.11 D;a 0.6 ± 0.15 D;b 1.7 ± 0.24 BC;a 1.0 ± 0.21 D;a 1.9 ± 0.11 B;a 2.3 ± 0.11 A;a 0.8 ± 0.14 D;b 1.5 ± 0.05 C;b 0.7 ± 0.03 D;b 0.7 ± 0.13 D;a 0.7 ± 0.01 D;b
1-hexadecanol 1877 - - - - - - - 0.1 ± 0.07 0.1 ± 0.05 - 0.1 ± 0.05
(E,E)-farnesyl acetone 1918 - - 0.6 ± 0.12 - 0.6 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.06 - - - 0.1 ± 0.01 -
m-camphorene 1952 0.1 ± 0.01 - 0.2 ± 0.06 0.1 ± 0.01 - 0.1 ± 0.02 0.3 ± 0.08 0.3 ± 0.03 0.1 ± 0.01 - 0.3 ± 0.00
p-camphorene 1986 0.2 ± 0.10 0.1 ± 0.06 0.5 ± 0.07 0.4 ± 0.07 - - 0.6 ± 0.11 0.6 ± 0.09 - - 0.6 ± 0.00
ethyl hexadecanoate 2000 - - 0.1 ± 0.07 - - - - - - - -
phytol 2112 0.5 ± 0.14 CD;b 0.4 ± 0.18 D;b 0.8 ± 0.27 BCD;b 0.4 ± 0.05 D;b 3.2 ± 0.11 A;a 2.7 ± 0.04 A;b 0.9 ± 0.06 BC;a 0.7 ± 0.19 BCD;b 1.0 ± 0.07 B;b 0.8 ± 0.23 BCD;a 0.9 ± 0.11 BC;a
cannabidiol 2369 23.2 ± 6.13 BCDE;a 21.8 ± 0.66 BCDE;a 28.2 ± 1.37 ABCD;b 20.9 ± 3.94 CDE;a 16.4 ± 0.36 DE;a 14.5 ± 1.27 E;b 35.9 ± 4.68 A;b 29.6 ± 2.31 ABC;a 22.2 ± 2.61 BCDE;a 21.3 ± 10.13 CDE;a 33.8 ± 0.98 AB;a
cannabichromene 2373 0.7 ± 0.36 0.7 ± 0.23 0.4 ± 0.23 0.7 ± 0.25 0.7 ± 0.11 0.4 ± 0.14 1.2 ± 0.39 1.1 ± 0.11 0.7 ± 0.12 0.5 ± 0.29 1.1 ± 0.07
Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol 2468 0.3 ± 0.09 0.4 ± 0.06 0.5 ± 0.01 0.2 ± 0.03 0.2 ± 0.00 0.2 ± 0.04 0.6 ± 0.16 0.5 ± 0.04 0.3 ± 0.08 0.3 ± 0.22 0.6 ± 0.01
Total identified (%) 94.5 ± 0.66 97.7 ± 0.08 98.1 ± 0.63 97.4 ± 0.09 99.4 ± 0.08 92.9 ± 1.03 96.9 ± 0.34 97.2 ± 0.25 95.8 ± 0.86 96.1 ± 1.06 97.2 ± 0.23
Monoterpene hydrocarbons 4.3 ± 0.71 BCD;a 4.1 ± 1.57 BCD;a 1.8 ± 0.52 DE;a 2.0 ± 0.36 DE;a 4.0 ± 0.60 BCD;a 1.2 ± 0.15 E;a 7.5 ± 0.42 A;a 5.7 ± 2.07 AB;a 3.7 ± 0.01 BCDE;a 2.5 ± 0.85 CDE;a 4.7 ± 0.35 BC;a
Oxygenated monoterpenes 0.5 ± 0.10 DE;a 0.9 ± 0.34 D;b 0.3 ± 0.06 E;a 0.2 ± 0.05 E;a 0.5 ± 0.07 DE;a 0.9 ± 0.15 D;a 1.8 ± 0.20 BC;a 2.3 ± 0.30 A;a 1.4 ± 0.12 C;a 0.6 ± 0.06 DE;a 2.0 ± 0.10 AB;a
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons 35.5 ± 2.88 A;a 35.6 ± 2.00 A;a 29.6 ± 6.37 AB;a 35.8 ± 3.03 A;a 21.3 ± 0.88 B,a 29.7 ± 3.84 AB;a 28.5 ± 1.67 AB;a 31.8 ± 3.45 AB;a 34.5 ± 2.15 A;a 36.9 ± 8.42 A;a 29.6 ± 1.31 AB;a
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes 28.2 ± 2.24 CD;b 33.1 ± 4.36 BC;b 33.2 ± 7.07 BC;a 35.6 ± 1.25 BC;a 50.3 ± 0.95 A;b 40.3 ± 4.64 B;a 18.6 ± 2.13 E;b 22.9 ± 1.59 DE;b 30.9 ± 0.22 CD;b 32.3 ± 2.09 BC;b 22.9 ± 0.47 DE;b
Diterpene hydrocarbons 0.4 ± 0.11 BC;a 0.1 ± 0.06 D;a 0.9 ± 0.14 A;a 0.5 ± 0.08 B;a - D 0.1 ± 0.02 CD;a 1.0 ± 0.19 A;a 0.8 ± 0.12 A;a 0.1 ± 0.01 CD;a - D 0.9 ± 0.00A;a
Oxygenated diterpenes 0.5 ± 0.14 CD;b 0.4 ± 0.18 D;b 0.8 ± 0.27 BCD;b 0.4 ± 0.05 D;b 3.2 ± 0.11 A;a 2.7 ± 0.04 A;b 0.9 ± 0.06 BC;a 0.7 ± 0.19 BCD;b 1.0 ± 0.07 B;b 0.8 ± 0.23 BCD;a 0.9 ± 0.11 BC;a
Phenylpropanoids 0.2 ± 0.06 AB;a 0.1 ± 0.07 CD;a - D 0.1 ± 0.03 BC;a 0.3 ± 0.01 A;a - D - D - D - D 0.2 ± 0.07 AB;a - D
Cannabinoids 24.2 ± 6.57 BCDE;a 22.8 ± 0.94 BCDE;a 29.1 ± 1.61 ABCD;b 21.8 ± 4.21 CDE;a 17.4 ± 0.47 DE;a 15.0 ± 1.45 E;b 37.7 ± 5.23 A;a 31.3 ± 2.45 ABC;a 23.3 ± 2.80 BCDE;a 22.1 ± 10.63 CDE;a 35.5 ± 0.91 AB;a
Apocarotenoids 0.6 ± 0.11 C;b 0.6 ± 0.15 C;b 2.4 ± 0.38 A;a 1.0 ± 0.21 C;b 2.5 ± 0.13 A;a 2.5 ± 0.06 A;b 0.8 ± 0.14 C;b 1.5 ± 0.05 B;b 0.7 ± 0.03 C;b 0.8 ± 0.14 C;a 0.7 ± 0.01 C;b
Other non-terpene derivatives 0.1 ± 0.07 B;a - B 0.1 ± 0.07 B;a - B 0.1 ± 0.08 B;a 0.4 ± 0.10 A;a 0.1 ± 0.10 B;a 0.2 ± 0.11 B;a 0.1 ± 0.12 B;a - B 0.1 ± 0.05 B;a
Extraction yield (% w/w) 0.12 ± 0.01 CD;a 0.23 ± 0.02 A;a 0.12 ± 0.00 CD;a 0.17 ± 0.01 ABC;a 0.03 ± 0.00 E 0.05 ± 0.01 DE;a 0.13 ± 0.00 DE;a 0.20 ± 0.02 AB;a 0.20 ± 0.00 AB 0.14 ± 0.04 BC;a 0.16 ± 0.01 ABC;a
Open in a new tab

1 Linear retention index on a HP 5-MS capillary column; 2 Not detected; 3 Compounds accounting for at least 1.000% of the dissimilarity rate (According to the SIMPER test, see Table 4) are evidenced in bold. For these compounds, for all chemical classes, and for the extraction yield, different superscript uppercase letters (A–F) indicate statistically significant differences between the each variety; superscript lowercase letters (a,b) indicate statistically significant differences among the cultivar withdrawn on different years (see Table 2 for 2019 samples). The statistical significance of the relative abundances was established by the Tukey’s post-hoc test, with p ≤ 0.05.

All the EOs, with the exception of Felina 32-2019, were characterized by a predominance of sesquiterpenes, in both their hydrocarbon and oxygenated forms, ranging from 47.1% in Carmagnola-2020 (Table 3) to 78.5% in Fibrante-2019 (Table 2). As reported in Table 4, both the hydrocarbon and oxygenated sesquiterpenes presented significant differences in all the EO compositions as a function of the genotype, the year of cultivation, and their interaction.

Table 4.

Two-way ANOVA performed on: (i) SIMPER-selected compounds; (ii) all detected chemical classes; (iii) EO extraction yield.

Genotype (G) Year (Y) Genotype × Year
(G × Y)
SIMPER-selected compounds (≥1% dissimilarity contribution)
cannabidiol *** n.s. ***
β-caryophyllene *** *** **
14-hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene *** *** ***
caryophyllene oxide *** ** ***
caryophylla-4(14),8(15)-dien-5-ol (unidentified isomer 1) *** *** ***
α-humulene *** *** ***
caryophylla-4(14),8(15)-dien-5-ol (unidentified isomer 2) *** *** ***
humulene oxide II *** ** ***
selina-3,7(11)-diene *** *** ***
α-bisabolol *** *** ***
phytol *** *** ***
α-pinene *** *** **
selin-6-en-4-ol *** *** **
myrcene *** *** ***
hexahydrofarnesylacetone *** *** ***
β-selinene *** *** ***
All detected chemical classes
Monoterpene hydrocarbons *** *** ***
Oxygenated monoterpenes *** *** ***
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons *** *** ***
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes *** *** ***
Diterpene hydrocarbons *** *** ***
Oxygenated diterpenes *** *** ***
Phenylpropanoids *** ** **
Cannabinoids *** n.s. ***
Apocarotenoids *** *** ***
Other non-terpene derivatives *** ** **
Extraction yield (% w/w)
EO hydrodistillation yield (% w/w) *** *** ***
Open in a new tab

LSR, ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.0001. n.s. = not significative.

In 2019 EOs, sesquiterpene hydrocarbons exhibited a significantly higher relative concentration in Futura 75, followed by Fibrante and Carmagnola. Lower relative abundances were, instead, found in Bernabeo, Eletta Campana, and Felina 32 (Table 2). In 2020 samples, instead, this class of compounds was significantly more abundant in Carmaleonte, Codimono, Eletta Campana, Fibranova, and Futura 75, while their lowest presence was detected in Uso-31 (Table 3). Furthermore, sesquiterpene hydrocarbons were significantly higher in 2020 than in 2019 for each analyzed hemp genotype, except for Carmagnola and Uso-31. Among this chemical class, the main volatile compounds were β-caryophyllene and α-humulene, in accordance with Ascrizzi et al. [9], Vuerich et al. [18], and Menghini et al., 2021 [25], who reported these constituents as being typical of hemp varieties.

Regarding the oxygenated sesquiterpenes, among the 2019 EOs, Carmaleonte and Uso-31 presented higher relative abundances (59.6 and 60.9%, respectively), whilst the lowest was exhibited by Felina 32 (30.9%). Conversely to the hydrocarbon forms, oxygenated sesquiterpenes were significantly more abundant in all the 2019 samples compared to those of 2020. These secondary metabolites are degradation products deriving from the oxidation of the corresponding terpenes due to air exposure (i.e., during prolonged storage), and are considered responsible for the antioxidant activity of many EOs [18,26]. Moreover, higher oxygenated compounds’ relative abundances reflect more favorable growth conditions, as was also confirmed by the higher plant density detected in the 2019 samples. The analyzed samples presented caryophyllene oxide and humulene oxide II as the main components of this chemical class, which were also reported as the main epoxides found in the hemp varieties analyzed by Micalizzi et al. [27]. Furthermore, 14-hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene, reported by Ascrizzi at al. [8], was present in low relative abundances.

The amount of selinene derivative compounds (α-selinene, β-selinene, selina-3,7(11)-diene, and selin-6-en-4-ol) in 2019 and 2020 is notable, as this is a common occurrence in hemp EOs; their presence was more consistent in Futura 75, Eletta Campana, and CS, as already reported in the literature [10,25,27]. Bernabeo EOs in both years were characterized by the presence of higher percentages of neointermedeol, α-bulnesene, and juniper camphor; Fibrante EOs by trans-α-bergamotene and (E)-β-farnesene.

Monoterpenes were poorly represented in all the samples, with no distinction between monoecious and dioecious varieties, but with differences induced by the year of collection and the genotype. They accounted for up to 9.3% in Carmagnola 2020 (Table 3). Overall, 9 hydrocarbons and 14 oxygenated monoterpenes were detected: among the former, α-pinene, β-pinene, and myrcene were the most representative, whilst in the latter, no compounds were revealed in appreciable relative abundances. Among the 2019 EOs, monoterpene hydrocarbons were significantly higher in Carmagnola and Fibrante (2.0 and 2.1%, respectively), and the latter presented a significantly higher content of oxygenated monoterpenes as well (1.3%). Fibrante-2019 also differed from the other genotypes in terms of its higher relative abundance in limonene (0.5%), which reached 0.8% in 2020. In the 2020 samples, hydrocarbon forms were found to be more abundant in Carmagnola (1.8%), while the oxygenated ones in CS (2.3%). However, with the exception of Codimono, 2020 samples were characterized by a significantly higher relative abundance of both hydrocarbon and oxygenated monoterpenes.

The amount of the compounds belonging to this class of secondary metabolites is very different from those reported by Bertoli et al. [21], Benelli et al. [10] and Nissen et al. [28], in which the main detected chemical class was represented by monoterpenes, with significant differences between monoecious and dioecious genotypes; in these papers, however, the starting material consisted of the fresh inflorescences, rather than the dried ones. Assuming that the monoterpene content decreased in the drying process and storage [26,27,29,30], the predominance of sesquiterpenes in the examined EOs might be due, at least in part, to the drying process, which might have induced some changes in the chemical composition of the starting material, such as (i) evaporation of the low boiling-point compounds [27], and (ii) the induction of oxidative reactions, as in the conversion of β-caryophyllene in caryophyllene oxide, and α-humulene in humulene oxide II [30]. Nevertheless, few of the literature studies used the dried hemp inflorescences for the collection and characterization of the EOs.

Finally, cannabinoids were the second relevant class of compounds in all the EOs, excluding that of Felina 32-2019, in which they were the main chemical group, accounting for the 53.4% of the total (Table 2). The detected cannabinoids were cannabidiol, cannabichromene, and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, but the first was the most abundant, with relative percentages ranging from 11.8 to 51.5% in Uso-31-2019 and Felina 32-2019, respectively (Table 2). In 2020 samples, these metabolites were detected in a greater relative amount in Carmagnola (37.7%) than in Bernabeo (15.0%, the lowest). In general, cannabinoids were meaningfully higher in the 2020 samples, except for Bernabeo and Felina 32, but according to the two-way ANOVA (Table 4), no significant differences were present between the two years of cultivation for this chemical class, which, on the contrary, showed significant differences among the genotypes. As for the sesquiterpenes, the predominance of cannabinoids in the EOs might be imputable to the drying process, during which the decarboxylation of cannabinoid acids into their relative volatile forms takes place [30].

Nevertheless, all the detected classes of compound, excluding the already mentioned cannabinoids, presented significant differences as a function of genotype (G), year of cultivation (Y), and genotype–year interaction (G × Y), as evidenced by the two-way ANOVA (Table 4), which was also conducted on the chemical compounds, selected by the SIMPER test, which contributed to at least 1.00% of the dissimilarities in the composition between 2019 and 2020 EO samples. The statistical analysis evidenced that 16 compounds were responsible for an overall dissimilarity contribution of 32.94%, and only seven accounted for a total dissimilarity contribution above 55%. They comprised (i) the two main sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, β-caryophyllene and α-humulene, (ii) four oxygenated sesquiterpenes, caryophyllene oxide, 14-hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene, and the two isomers of caryophylla-4(14),8(15)-dien-5-ol, and (iii) one cannabinoid, cannabidiol: all the selected chemicals had significant differences based on the genotypes, year of cultivation, and their interaction.

The essential oil extraction yield ranged from 0.03 to 0.12% w/w for the samples collected in 2019, and from 0.03 to 0.23% w/w for the 2020 samples, where the highest yield was comparable to those already published in the literature [20]. A statistically significant difference in percentage was found among genotypes, year of cultivation, and the interaction between genotype and year (Table 4). Regarding the dependence of the EO extraction yield on the hemp genotype, several studies are present in the literature [18,19,22,28,31], while no references are available for its dependence on the year of cultivation.

For the 2019 samples, the significantly highest EO extraction yield was obtained by Futura 75 (0.12%), followed by Carmagnola (0.09%) and Eletta Campana (0.09%), while the lowest (0.03%) from Bernabeo, Felina 32 and Uso-31. Regarding the 2020 samples, instead, Codimono, followed by Eletta Campana > CS > Fibrante (0.23% > 0.20% > 0.20% > 0.16%, respectively), were the most productive cultivars, whilst Uso-31 and Bernabeo were the least productive ones (0.03% and 0.05%, respectively). For Uso-31 (chemotype V), whose inflorescences are characterized by a negligible level of cannabinoids, the lowest EO extraction yield was found irrespective of the year. A positive correlation between the accumulation of total cannabinoids and total terpenes, both synthesized in glandular trichomes [22], was already reported [32,33,34], and explains the low EO yield obtained for Uso-31. Considering both the years of cultivation, all the 2020 samples were characterized by a significantly higher EO extraction yield than the 2019 ones (Table 2 and Table 3), and this could be at least partly due to the different meteorological conditions occurring in the two subsequent growing seasons, particularly regarding rainfalls and average temperature (Table 5). Higher temperatures might, indeed, cause a higher spontaneous evaporation degree of the EO from the plant trichomes.

Table 5.

Weather parameters during field trials at Rovigo. Rainfall is expressed as millimeters per day (mm/day), Relative Humidity (RH) is expressed as percentage.

Month First Season (2019) Second Season (2020)
Min Temp Max Temp. Av. Temp. Rainfall (mm) RH (%) Min Temp Max Temp. Av. Temp. Rainfall RH
January −1.1 6.3 2.6 16.6 81.1 0.0 8.0 3.5 2.0 87.6
February 0.9 12.2 6.6 26.6 76.3 2.3 13.2 7.3 2.8 73.0
March 3.3 17.0 9.9 6.4 66.7 4.4 14.2 9.2 30.4 70.1
April 11.7 12.1 16.9 86.4 73.7 7.1 21.1 14.0 9.6 59.4
May 11.3 20.0 15.1 151.2 78.9 12.7 24.6 18.5 13.0 67.5
June 18.8 31.7 25.3 5.6 65.5 16.1 27.7 21.6 77.4 69.5
July 19.7 31.7 25.3 66 69.0 18.3 30.3 24.1 76.8 69.6
August 19.9 30.7 24.8 46.6 73.4 19.0 30.7 24.4 91.8 73.0
September 15.1 25.7 19.8 71.8 73.7 14.9 26.6 20.3 19.6 70.7
October 11.9 20.8 15.8 29.4 82.7 8.9 18.4 13.1 70.4 80.6
November 7.6 13.5 10.4 172.6 89.2 7.8 12.5 8.4 11.0 78.1
December 2.2 9.0 5.4 82 87.6 3.4 8.0 5.6 73.0 92.0
Open in a new tab

2.3. Multivariate Statistical Analysis

The dendrogram of the hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) performed on the complete compositions of the EOs, extracted from all the samples of hemp of both years of cultivation, is reported in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Dendrogram obtained with the hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) performed on the complete composition of the essential oils extracted from all the hemp samples.

The samples were distributed in two macro-clusters: A and B. Cluster A, the more heterogeneous, was divided in two sub-clusters, A1 and A2; A2 (orange) was formed of a single sample (Felina 32-2019), whilst A1 comprised two sub-groups, A1.1 and A1.2. The latter (evidenced in blue) was homogeneous, as it only included 2020 samples. Group A1.1, instead, resulted in two additional homogeneous groups (pink and green), of which the former mainly includes 2019 samples (except Felina 32-2020), while the latter only uses 2020 samples. Furthermore, cluster B (light blue) presented only one group, made up of 2019 samples, with the only exception of Uso-31.

The statistical distribution of the EOs samples evidenced a grouping based on the year of cultivation, rather than on the genotype, except for Uso-31, whose EOs of 2019 and 2020 occurred closely in the same cluster.

The score and loading plots obtained by the principal component analysis (PCA), performed on the complete chemical compositions of the EOs extracted from all the analyzed hemp samples, is reported in Figure 2a,b, respectively.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

(a) Score plot of the principal component analysis (PCA) performed on the complete composition of the essential oils extracted from all the hemp samples; (b) Loading plot of the principal component analysis (PCA) performed on the complete composition of the essential oils extracted from all the hemp samples.

The distribution of the samples in the score plot evidenced a partition based on the year of cultivation, as the samples of 2019 were plotted in the bottom quadrants (PC2 < 0) of the score plot, and those of 2020 in the upper quadrants (PC2 > 0), with the exception of Uso-31-2020, which was placed in the bottom left quadrant (PC1 and PC2 < 0) as Uso-31-2019.

Furthermore, the grouping of the samples obtained by the PCA was comparable to that of the HCA. All the samples of the B macro-cluster, evidenced in light blue, were plotted in the bottom left quadrant (PC1 and PC2 < 0) of the PCA score plot, due to their relevant relative abundances in the oxygenated sesquiterpenes caryophyllene oxide, humulene oxide II, caryophylla-4(14),8(15)-dien-5-ol (isomer 1 or 2), and 14-hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene.

The samples of the A macro-cluster, instead, occupied the remaining three quadrants of the score plot, with few exceptions. In particular, the samples of the blue sub-cluster were plotted in the upper left quadrant (PC1 < 0 and PC2 > 0), while the EOs of the green cluster were positioned in the upper right quadrant (PC1 and PC2 > 0). The blue and the green sub-clusters included most of the 2020 EOs samples, excluding Uso-31-2020, as previously mentioned, and Felina 32-2020, belonging to the pink cluster, but also plotted in the upper right quadrant. The β-caryophyllene and α-humulene vectors were responsible for the positioning of the 2020 samples in the upper quadrants, whilst the discrimination between the left and the right quadrants was determined by minor sesquiterpeneshydrocarbons and monoterpenes vectors, respectively.

The only orange sub-cluster sample was plotted in the bottom right quadrant (PC1 > 0 and PC2 < 0), as three samples of the pink sub-group: this positioning was probably due to the cannabidiol vector. The other samples of the pink group were plotted very close to the bottom right quadrant: Bernabeo-2019 was plotted towards the rightmost area of the bottom left quadrant, due to its relevant relative abundances in cannabidiol, caryophyllene oxide and humulene oxide II. Although Bernabeo is reported as a CBG-chemotype cultivar, its presence in the EO was not detected: this was likely due to the lower volatility of CBG compared to CBD, its higher boiling point, and its overall higher polarity due to the positioning of its two hydroxyls on the benzenic ring, as they are less likely to engage in the formation of a pseudocyclic structure, as could, instead, occur in CBD. Finally, Futura 75-2019 and Carmagnola-2019, due to their relevant relative abundances in β-caryophyllene and α-humulene, were plotted next to each other, close to the PC1-PC2 axis intersection, on the left side of the score plot.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Plant Material

Plant material was obtained from experimental fields of CREA-CI located in Rovigo, Italy (45°04′43.4″ N 11°45′57.7″ E). For the two subsequent years of cultivation (2019–2020) the same fields were used, characterized by a cultural precession with straw cereals. Nitrogen fertilization was applied before sowing (40- and 54-units of nitrogen fertilizer in 2019 and 2020, respectively). Meteorological information (temperature and rainfall) was collected, and monthly averages are presented in Table 5.

The site had total rainfall during the outdoor growing season (from April to September) of 428 mm and 288 mm for 2019 and 2020, respectively. In the same period, the 2019 had an average temperature of 21.06 °C, slightly higher than those registered for the same period in 2020, when the average temperature 20.48 °C. In both years, the maximum temperature never exceeded 32 °C in the hottest months. At harvest, each plant was cut at its lower third and air-dried at ambient temperature and in the dark, to avoid photo-oxidation reactions. Material for EOs analysis included inflorescences and floral bracts, which were separated manually from stems and seeds, with a 2 mm diameter sieve.

3.2. Essential Oil Hydrodistillation

The extraction of the essential oil from the plant material was performed by hydrodistillation with a standard Clevenger-type apparatus, for 2 h. For both 2019 and 2020 samples, the hydrodistillation was carried out in triplicate, on 100 g of dried and shredded inflorescences and floral bracts, previously macerated in water under mechanical agitation (150 rpm) for 24 h prior to hydrodistillation. The collected essential oils were stored in a refrigerator until analysis.

3.3. Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry Analyses and Peaks Identification

The essential oils were diluted to 0.5% in HPLC-grade n-hexane and then injected into a GC–MS apparatus. The GC–EIMS analyses were performed with an Agilent 7890B gas chromatograph (Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with an Agilent HP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm; coating thickness 0.25 µm) and an Agilent 5977B single quadrupole mass detector. The analytical conditions were as follows: oven temperature programmed from 60 to 240 °C at 3 °C/min; injector temperature, 220 °C; transfer line temperature, 240 °C; carrier gas helium, 1 mL/min. The injection volume was 1 μL, with a split ratio of 1:25. The acquisition parameters were as follows: full scan; scan range: 30–300 m/z; scan time: 1.0 s.

The identification of the constituents was based on a comparison between the retention times with those of the authentic samples, comparing their linear retention indices relative to the series of n-hydrocarbons. Computer matching was also used against commercial (NIST 14 and ADAMS 2007) and laboratory-developed mass spectra libraries built up from pure substances and components of commercial essential oils of known composition and the MS literature data [35,36,37,38,39,40].

3.4. Statistical Analyses

The percentage of dissimilarity contribution of all the compounds of C. sativa EOs was evaluated by means of the Similarity Percentage Test (SIMPER) with the Bray–Curtis distance/similarity measure. The statistical significance of the difference in the relative abundances of the compounds accounting for at least 1.00% in the dissimilarity rate of the emissions was evaluated using the F- or t-test, for compounds with equal or unequal variances, respectively. The SIMPER, F- and t-tests were performed with the Past 4.03 Software [41].

The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out using the JMP Pro 14 software package (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). A two-way ANOVA was carried out in order to estimate the variance components of genotypes (G; Bernabeo, Carmagnola, Carmaleonte, Codimono, CS, Eletta Campana, Felina 32, Fibranova, Fibrante, Futura 75, and Uso-31), year of cultivation (Y; 2019 and 2020), and their interaction (G × Y). Averages were separated by Tukey’s b post-hoc test. p < 0.05 was used to assess the significance of differences between means.

The multivariate statistical analyses were also carried out with the JMP software package. The covariance data matrix for the statistical evaluation of the EOs composition was a 116 × 22 matrix (116 compounds × 22 samples = 2.552 data). The principal component analysis (PCA) was performed selecting the two highest principal components (PCs) obtained by the linear regressions operated on mean-centered, unscaled data; as an unsupervised method, this analysis aimed at reducing the dimensionality of the multivariate data of the matrix, whilst preserving most of the variance. The principal component analysis (PCA) was performed, selecting the two highest PCs obtained by the linear regressions: the chosen PC1 and PC2 cover 60.30 and 26.40% of the variance, respectively, for a total explained variance of 86.70%. The hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was performed using Ward’s method, with squared Euclidean distances as a measure of similarity. Both the HCA and the PCA methods can be applied to observe groups of samples, even when there are no reference samples that can be used as a training set to establish the model.

4. Conclusions

The essential oils obtained from hemp inflorescences constituted a high-value derivative by-product, contributing to a more sustainable agricultural system. The present study aimed to evaluate the chemical composition and the yield of the EO obtained from eleven genotypes of hemp, cultivated and collected for two consecutive growing seasons in the same cultural conditions, to promote their employment based on their peculiar characteristics.

The results of the present study showed that sesquiterpenes and cannabinoids were the main classes of compounds of the hemp essential oils obtained from dried inflorescences. Regarding the sesquiterpenes, the hydrocarbon form was more abundant in 2020 samples, while the oxygenated one was predominant in 2019 EOs: the major compounds belonging to this chemical class were β-caryophyllene, α-humulene, and their oxygenated derivatives caryophyllene oxide, 14-hydroxy-9-epi-(E)-caryophyllene, and humulene oxide II, all typical components of hemp EO. The cannabinoids identified in all the samples were cannabidiol, cannabichromene, and Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, but only the former was revealed in relevant percentages. The EO extraction yield ranged from 0.03 to 0.12% w/w in 2019 samples, whilst in the 2020 ones, it was comprised between 0.03 and 0.23% w/w. The obtained data have shown that both the EO chemical profile and extraction yield were significantly influenced by the genotype of the starting material, the year of cultivation, and the interaction between these two factors.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

The plant material used in this study was provided in the frame of the following projects: MAIDET research project “Metodi analitici innovativi per la determinazione del THC in matrici vegetali”, funded by the Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali (MIPAAF), grant decree D.M.34176/7303/2017; UNIHEMP research project “Use of iNdustrIal Hemp biomass for Energy and new biocheMicals Production” (ARS01_00668) funded by European Regional Development Fund (within the PON R&I 2017-2020– Axis 2 – Action II – OS 1.b). Grant decree UNIHEMP prot. no. 2016 of 27/07/2018; CUP B76C18000520005 and PROCAFAA “PRODURRE CANAPA NELLA FILIERA ALIMENTARE E AGROINDUSTRIALE” PSR Veneto 2014-2020. Reg. (UE) n. 1305/2013, Art. 35. DGR no. 736 of 28 May 2018. Misura 16 “Cooperazione”. Measures 16.1.1 e 16.2.1. BURV n°38 of 19 April 2019.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Samples of the compounds are available from the authors.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Bonini S.A., Premoli M., Tambaro S., Kumar A., Maccarinelli G., Memo M., Mastinu A. Cannabis sativa: A comprehensive ethnopharmacological review of a medicinal plant with a long history. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2018;227:300–315. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2018.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Chandra S., Lata H. In: Cannabis sativa L.—Botany and Biotechnology. Chandra S., Lata H., ElSohly M.A., editors. Springer International Publishing; Cham, Switzerland: 2017. pp. 79–100. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pollio A. The Name of Cannabis: A Short Guide for Nonbotanists. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2016;1:234–238. doi: 10.1089/can.2016.0027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Flores-Sanchez I.J., Verpoorte R. Secondary metabolism in cannabis. Phytochem. Rev. 2008;7:615–639. doi: 10.1007/s11101-008-9094-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fernandez Borroto E., Peterseil V., Hackl G., Menges S., Meijer E., Staginnus C. Distribution of Chemical Phenotypes (Chemotypes) in European Agricultural Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Cultivars. J. Forensic Sci. 2019;65:715–721. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14242. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mandolino G., Carboni A. Potential of marker-assisted selection in hemp genetic improvement. Euphytica. 2004;140:107–120. doi: 10.1007/s10681-004-4759-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Commission European . Commission Regulation (EC) No 2860/2000 of 27 December 2000 Amending Regulation (EC) No 2316/1999 Laying Down Detailed Rules for the Appli- Cation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1251/1999 Establishing a Support System for Producers of Certain Arable Crops. 2000. [(accessed on 1 July 2021)]. Available online: https://op.europa.eu/it/publication-detail/-/publication/3700d4bc-0c60-4f10-a329-b41db5b3e57c/language-en. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ascrizzi R., Ceccarini L., Tavarini S., Flamini G., Angelini L.G. Valorisation of hemp inflorescence after seed harvest: Cultivation site and harvest time influence agronomic characteristics and essential oil yield and composition. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019;139 doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111541. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ascrizzi R., Iannone M., Cinque G., Marianelli A., Pistelli L., Flamini G. “Hemping” the drinks: Aromatizing alcoholic beverages with a blend of Cannabis sativa L. flowers. Food Chem. 2020;325:126909. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.126909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Benelli G., Pavela R., Petrelli R., Cappellacci L., Santini G., Fiorini D., Sut S., Dall’Acqua S., Canale A., Maggi F. The essential oil from industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) by-products as an effective tool for insect pest management in organic crops. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018;122:308–315. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.05.032. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bedini S., Flamini G., Cosci F., Ascrizzi R., Benelli G., Conti B. Cannabis sativa and Humulus lupulus essential oils as novel control tools against the invasive mosquito Aedes albopictus and fresh water snail Physella acuta. Ind. Crops Prod. 2016;85:318–323. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.03.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Agnieszka S., Magdalena R., Jan B., Katarzyna W., Malgorzata B., Krzysztof H., Danuta K. Phytotoxic Effect of Fiber Hemp Essential Oil on Germination of Some Weeds and Crops. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants. 2016;19:262–276. doi: 10.1080/0972060X.2015.1137236. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Orlando G., Adorisio S., Delfino D., Chiavaroli A., Brunetti L., Recinella L., Leone S., D’Antonio M., Zengin G., Acquaviva A., et al. Comparative Investigation of Composition, Antifungal, and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of the Essential Oil from Three Industrial Hemp Varieties from Italian Cultivation. Antibiotics. 2021;10:334. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10030334. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Mediavilla V., Steinemann S. Essential oil of Cannabis sativa L. strains. J. Int. Hemp Assoc. 1997;4:80. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fischedick J.T. Identification of Terpenoid Chemotypes Among High (−)-trans-Δ9-Tetrahydrocannabinol-Producing Cannabis sativa L. Cultivars. Cannabis Cannabinoid Res. 2017;2:34–47. doi: 10.1089/can.2016.0040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Andre C.M., Hausman J.-F., Guerriero G. Cannabis sativa: The Plant of the Thousand and One Molecules. Front. Plant Sci. 2016;7:19. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00019. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sommano S.R., Chittasupho C., Ruksiriwanich W., Jantrawut P. The Cannabis Terpenes. Molecules. 2020;25:5792. doi: 10.3390/molecules25245792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Vuerich M., Ferfuia C., Zuliani F., Piani B., Sepulcri A., Baldini M. Yield and Quality of Essential Oils in Hemp Varieties in Different Environments. Agronomy. 2019;9:356. doi: 10.3390/agronomy9070356. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Abdollahi M., Sefidkon F., Calagari M., Mousavi A., Mahomoodally M.F. Impact of four hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) varieties and stage of plant growth on yield and composition of essential oils. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020;155:112793. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2020.112793. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Gilbert A.N., DiVerdi J.A. Consumer perceptions of strain differences in Cannabis aroma. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0192247. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bertoli A., Tozzi S., Pistelli L., Angelini L.G. Fibre hemp inflorescences: From crop-residues to essential oil production. Ind. Crops Prod. 2010;32:329–337. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.05.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Meier C., Mediavilla V. Factors influencing the yield and the quality of hemp essential oil. J. Int. Hemp Assoc. 1998;5:16–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Campiglia E., Radicetti E., Mancinelli R. Plant density and nitrogen fertilization affect agronomic performance of industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in Mediterranean environment. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017;100:246–254. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.02.022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.García-Tejero I.F., Durán-Zuazo V.H., Pérez-Álvarez R., Hernández A., Casano S., Morón M., Muriel-Fernández J.L. Impact of plant density and irrigation on yield of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) in a mediterranean semi-arid environment. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2014;16:887–895. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Menghini L., Ferrante C., Carradori S., D’Antonio M., Orlando G., Cairone F., Cesa S., Filippi A., Fraschetti C., Zengin G., et al. Chemical and Bioinformatics Analyses of the Anti-Leishmanial and Anti-Oxidant Activities of Hemp Essential Oil. Biomolecules. 2021;11:272. doi: 10.3390/biom11020272. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Hanuš L.O., Hod Y. Terpenes/Terpenoids in Cannabis: Are They Important? Med. Cannabis Cannabinoids. 2020;3:25–60. doi: 10.1159/000509733. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Micalizzi G., Alibrando F., Vento F., Trovato E., Zoccali M., Guarnaccia P., Dugo P., Mondello L. Development of a Novel Microwave Distillation Technique for the Isolation of Cannabis sativa L. Essential Oil and Gas Chromatography Analyses for the Comprehensive Characterization of Terpenes and Terpenoids, Including Their Enantio-Distribution. Molecules. 2021;26:1588. doi: 10.3390/molecules26061588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nissen L., Zatta A., Stefanini I., Grandi S., Sgorbati B., Biavati B., Monti A. Characterization and antimicrobial activity of essential oils of industrial hemp varieties (Cannabis sativa L.) Fitoterapia. 2010;81:413–419. doi: 10.1016/j.fitote.2009.11.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wanas A.S., Radwan M.M., Chandra S., Lata H., Mehmedic Z., Ali A., Baser K., Demirci B., ElSohly M.A. Chemical Composition of Volatile Oils of Fresh and Air-Dried Buds of Cannabis chemovars, Their Insecticidal and Repellent Activities. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2020;15:1–7. doi: 10.1177/1934578X20926729. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Fiorini D., Molle A., Nabissi M., Santini G., Benelli G. Valorizing industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) by-products: Cannabidiol enrichment in the inflorescence essential oil optimizing sample pre-treatment prior to distillation. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019;128:581–589. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.10.045. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Eržen M., Košir I., Ocvirk M., Kreft S., Čerenak A. Metabolomic Analysis of Cannabinoid and Essential Oil Profiles in Different Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) Phenotypes. Plants. 2021;10:966. doi: 10.3390/plants10050966. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hazekamp A., Fischedick J.T. Cannabis—from cultivar to chemovar. Drug Test. Anal. 2012;4:660–667. doi: 10.1002/dta.407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fischedick J.T., Hazekamp A., Erkelens T., Choi Y.H., Verpoorte R. Metabolic fingerprinting of Cannabis sativa L., cannabinoids and terpenoids for chemotaxonomic and drug standardization purposes. Phytochemistry. 2010;71:2058–2073. doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2010.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Elzinga S., Fischedick J., Podkolinski R., Raber J.C. Cannabinoids and Terpenes as Chemotaxonomic Markers in Cannabis. Nat. Prod. Chem. Res. 2015;3:2058–2073. doi: 10.4172/2329-6836.1000181. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Adams R.P.R.P. In: Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectroscopy. Carol S., editor. Allured Publishing Corporation; Carol Stream, IL, USA: 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Davies N. Gas chromatographic retention indices of monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes on methyl silicon and Carbowax 20M phases. J. Chromatogr. A. 1990;503:1–24. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9673(01)81487-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Jennings W., Shibamoto T. Qualitative Analysis of Flavor and Fragrance Volatiles by Glass Capillary Gas Chromatography. Volume 26 Academic Press; New York, NY, USA: London, UK: Sydney, Australia: Toronto, ON, Canada: San Francisco, CA, USA: 1982. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Masada Y. Analysis of Essential Oils by Gas Chromatography and Mass Spectrometry. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; New York, NY, USA: 1976. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Stenhagen E., Abrahamsson S., McLafferty F.W. Registry of Mass Spectral Data. Wiley & Sons; New York, NY, USA: 1974. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Swigar A.A., Silverstein R.M. Monoterpenes. Aldrich Chemical Company; Milwaukee, WI, USA: 1981. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hammer Ø., Harper D.A.T., Ryan P.D. PAST: Paleontological statistics soft- ware package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001;4:9. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Articles from Molecules are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES