Assessment of the N-Alkylamide Content and Volatile Profiles in Two Cultivars of Acmella oleracea (L.) R.K. Jansen Grown in Aquaponics
Metadata
- Cite key: ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025
- Item type: Journal Article
- Authors: M. Ferrati, B. Bartolini, G. Lupidi, L. Freddi, V. Bolletta, M. Cespi, R. Giovannetti, M. Zannotti, R. Petrelli, F. Maggi, E. Spinozzi
- Affiliation: Chemistry Interdisciplinary Project (ChIP), School of Pharmacy, University of Camerino, Italy (1); MJ Energy srl Società Agricola, Macerata, Italy (2); ChIP Research Center, School of Science and Technology, University of Camerino, Italy (3)
- Journal: Plants 14 (2025) 1401
- Date: 05/2025
- Date added: [not reported]
- DOI: 10.3390/plants14091401
- Funding: ⚠️ Contradicts itself — the Funding statement (p.16) reads “This research received no external funding,” while the Acknowledgments (p.16), one paragraph later, state “This work was supported by the European Union–NextGenerationEU under the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR) National Innovation Ecosystem grant ECS00000041–VITALITY–CUP J13C22000430001.” Both verbatim statements recorded here; WARN-MINOR, does not affect any trials.csv/plant.csv cell (see Extraction notes).
- URL: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14091401
- PDF:
Ferrati et al. - 2025 - Assessment of the N-Alkylamide Content and Volatile Profiles in Two Cultivars of Acmella oleracea (L.pdf
Opinion
A clean, well-instrumented phytochemistry study (HPLC-DAD-MS + SPME-GC/MS + ICP-MS + IC, all methods fully described) whose headline finding for an aquaponics review is a genuine negative result, stated plainly and repeated in the Conclusion: cultivation system (aquaponic vs hydroponic) had no significant effect on N-alkylamide content, capitula production, chlorophyll, or volatile profile — all of the paper’s significant findings are cultivar effects (purple vs yellow) or harvest-timing effects, not system effects. That is a useful, citable data point for “does aquaponics compromise phytochemical quality” even though it complicates using this paper as evidence that aquaponics improves anything. The water-chemistry reporting is its weak point for this vault’s purposes: pH/EC/NO3- are given only as whole-experiment ranges from a time-series figure, with no trial mean ± SD, and most of the other water nutrients (SO4, Cl, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe) are described only by correlation trend and significance, never a number — so the aquaponic system itself is comparatively poorly characterised even though it is the one both cultivars share.
Abstract
Acmella oleracea (L.) R.K. Jansen, also called jambù, is a medicinal and aromatic plant native to the Brazilian Amazon rainforest and phytochemically characterized by N-alkylamides with spilanthol as the main active compound. Jambù recently attracted the interest of many companies because of its wide range of pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, and cosmetic applications. In this context, it is desirable to identify eco-friendly cultivation methods that not only minimize the environmental footprint but also support the biosynthesis of the plant’s valuable bioactive compounds. The zero-discharge approach of aquaponics makes this growing system an eco-friendly and sustainable production strategy for crops. Thus, a greenhouse experiment was conducted on two jambù cultivars, i.e., cv ‘purple’ and cv ‘yellow’, grown in aquaponic and hydroponic systems. The objective was to compare their contents of N-alkylamides, their numbers of capitula, which are the main source of these bioactives, and their volatile profiles. The results highlighted differences between the two cultivars and among plants harvested at different periods. Interestingly, aquaponics yielded plants with a high N-alkylamide content, which was comparable to that obtained with hydroponics. Overall, this study highlighted the feasibility of adopting aquaponics to grow A. oleracea, paving the way for circular economy-based and sustainable agricultural practices.
Summary
This greenhouse experiment (MJ Energy Srl, Macerata, Italy, July–September 2023) grew two jambù (Acmella oleracea) cultivars — ‘purple’ (Nazaré) and ‘yellow’ (Jamburana) — side by side in three replicate media-based aquaponic systems (goldfish, Carassius auratus, on expanded-clay beds) and three replicate hydroponic-only systems (Hoagland & Arnon solution), sampling leaves and capitula every two weeks across seven timepoints grouped into early/full/late flowering. The authors measured HPLC-quantified N-alkylamide content (focusing on spilanthol and NA2) and capitula counts as productivity/quality traits, spectrophotometric leaf chlorophyll as a stress indicator, and SPME-GC/MS volatile profiles of the capitula, plus a water-chemistry panel (pH, EC, and several ions) monitored biweekly in both systems. The cultivars differed significantly: purple had higher spilanthol and several sesquiterpene/spilanthol volatile signals, while yellow had higher NA2 and 1-pentadecene; full flowering was the most productive and phytochemically rich harvest window. The central result for aquaponics specifically is a non-finding: across every response tested (capitula number, spilanthol, NA2, chlorophyll, and the full volatile profile), the aquaponic and hydroponic systems did not differ significantly, and no PCA clustering by system emerged anywhere. The authors conclude aquaponics is a technically viable, comparably productive alternative to hydroponics for jambù, without describing an aquaponics-specific quality advantage.
Experiment data
- Location: Greenhouse, MJ Energy Srl Società Agricola, Treia/Macerata, Italy
- Design: 2 cultivars (purple, yellow) x 2 cultivation systems (media-based aquaponics vs hydroponics) x 7 biweekly harvests (7 Jul–29 Sep 2023, grouped into early/full/late flowering); 3 physical replicate units per system, 5 plants of each cultivar per unit
- Replicates / n: 3 physical systems per treatment (aquaponic, hydroponic), stated directly (Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2); [unclear] whether statistical n for the t-test/ANOVA/PCA equals these 3 systems, or the pooled individual-plant/sample count across the 7 harvest dates — not stated
- Duration: Fish feeding trial 120 days; plant harvesting spanned 7 July–29 September 2023 (3 months)
- Organisms: Jambù (Acmella oleracea) cv ‘purple’/‘Nazaré’ and cv ‘yellow’/‘Jamburana’; Goldfish (Carassius auratus), juvenile, 1.2 ± 0.2 g initial weight
- Statistics: Pearson correlation, t-test / one-way ANOVA + Tukey post hoc, p<0.05, GraphPad Prism v.6.01; PCA (correlation mode), Minitab v.18.1
- Spilanthol: cv purple 14.85–48.0 mg/g DW vs cv yellow 10.93–40.77 mg/g DW (capitula, HPLC), significant cultivar difference; no significant AQ vs HYD difference
- N-alkylamide NA2: cv yellow 0.34–0.76 mg/g DW vs cv purple 0.18–0.61 mg/g DW, significant cultivar difference; no significant AQ vs HYD difference
Water and nutrient chemistry
This paper: pH was suitable for fish/plant/bacteria in both systems over the whole trial (aquaponic 6.92–7.97, rising slightly over time, r=0.860*; hydroponic 6.98–8.37, stable, r=0.310 ns) — both ranges only, no trial mean ± SD reported. EC was consistently lower in the aquaponic system (258–824 µS/cm, i.e. 0.258–0.824 dS/m) than the hydroponic system (1113–1590 µS/cm, i.e. 1.113–1.590 dS/m), both rising significantly over time (r=0.770* and r=0.794* respectively). Aquaponic NO3⁻ increased over time (r=0.947**, attributed to increasing feed input as fish grew) but never exceeded 225 ppm/mg L⁻¹, judged non-toxic; hydroponic NO3⁻ stayed constant (r=0.542 ns), with no numeric value given. NH4⁺ was stable and “not harmful” in both systems (no numeric range stated in text). SO4²⁻, Cl⁻, Na⁺, K⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, and Fe were each discussed only by correlation trend/significance (Figure 2), never as concentration numbers in the running text.
Compared with:
- todo do Carmo et al. 2024 — EC effects on Acmella oleracea growth, nutrient levels, and essential-oil composition in southeastern Brazil, cited by title only, not compared numerically in the results text (p.4, ref. 15)
Capitula production, N-alkylamides, and chlorophyll
This paper: Capitula count did not differ significantly by cultivar overall (though cv yellow trended higher) or by cultivation system; during full flowering specifically, cv yellow reached 28–44 capitula/plant vs cv purple’s ~17–36. Spilanthol (HPLC, capitula) was significantly higher in cv purple (14.85–48.0 mg/g DW) than cv yellow (10.93–40.77 mg/g DW), and significantly affected by harvest period (lowest at early flowering, peak at full flowering) — the overall combined range, 11–48 mg/g, is noted by the authors as considerably higher than field-grown literature values. NA2 was significantly higher in cv yellow (0.34–0.76 mg/g DW) than cv purple (0.18–0.61 mg/g DW), with no significant harvest-period effect. Total leaf chlorophyll (20.2–46.8 mg/g DW, not split by cultivar in the text) showed no significant difference by cultivar, system, or harvest period — interpreted by the authors as evidence plants were not stressed in either system. Aquaponic vs hydroponic comparison was explicitly non-significant for every one of these responses, and PCA showed no system-level clustering.
Compared with:
- todo Sousa 2018 — found cv yellow 25.9% more productive (capitula/plant) than cv purple under organic fertilization; this paper’s t-test found no significant cultivar difference in capitula count, an explicit disagreement noted by the authors (p.6, ref. 28)
- todo Sut et al. 2020 — A. oleracea capitula from field cultivation in Southern Italy had spilanthol 0.92–1.45% (9.2–14.5 mg/g); this paper’s 11–48 mg/g range is markedly higher (secondary comparison, cited p.7, ref. 29)
- todo Nascimento et al. 2020 — phytochemical profile of jambù anatomical parts, hydroponic vs conventional cultivation, PCA/cluster analysis (cited p.9, ref. 23, not numerically compared in the results text)
- todo Sampaio et al. 2021 — jambù production and postharvest quality in hydroponics under nitrogen application (cited p.9, ref. 24, not numerically compared)
Volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS)
This paper: Sesquiterpenes were the dominant volatile class in both cultivars, led by (E)-caryophyllene (15.6–26.5% cv yellow; 19.3–34% cv purple) and germacrene D (1.1–8.6% cv yellow; 5.6–9.9% cv purple); monoterpenes β-pinene and myrcene and aliphatic compounds (1-pentadecene, (Z)-6-pentadecene-1-ol, (Z,Z)-1,8,11-heptadecatriene, 1-heptadecene) were also prominent; spilanthol itself appeared in the headspace (1.9–6.3% cv yellow; 2.1–14.3% cv purple). t-tests found significant cultivar differences for (E)-caryophyllene, spilanthol, and α-humulene (all higher in cv purple) and 1-pentadecene (higher in cv yellow); all other quantified compounds were non-significant by cultivar. Harvest period significantly affected only 1-heptadecene (highest at early flowering, tentatively linked to pollinator attraction). No significant difference between aquaponic and hydroponic capitula was found for any volatile compound, and PCA again showed no system-level clustering — this is stated as a direct confirmation of the N-alkylamide/chlorophyll finding above.
Compared with:
- todo Benelli et al. 2019 — A. oleracea essential oil from central Italy: (E)-caryophyllene 20.8%, β-pinene 17.3%, myrcene 17.1%, caryophyllene oxide 10.0%, spilanthol 3.9% — broadly comparable profile to this paper’s SPME-GC/MS headspace data (p.8, ref. 35)
- todo Jerônimo et al. 2024 — A. oleracea essential oil composition: caryophyllene oxide 0.3–2.43%, (E)-caryophyllene 6.71–27.10%, myrcene 1.14–25.03%, germacrene D 0.06–10.27%, 1-pentadecene 3.43%, β-pinene 4.46–10.04% (p.8, ref. 37)
- todo Kavallieratos et al. 2023 — analytical method source for HPLC N-alkylamide identification/quantification adopted in this paper’s Section 3.4.2 (p.13, ref. 42)
Linked claims
- Cultivation system (aquaponic vs hydroponic) can have no detectable effect on a medicinal plant’s bioactive-compound content
- Cultivar identity can outweigh growing-system identity in determining a plant’s phytochemical profile
- Harvest/flowering stage can be a stronger driver of secondary-metabolite content than cultivation system
- Aquaponic nitrate loading can rise over a trial as fish biomass and feed input increase
Citations to chase
- todo Sousa 2018 — agronomic performance of jambù with organic fertilization, disagrees with this paper’s null cultivar result for capitula count
- todo Sut et al. 2020 — biostimulant treatments in Acmella oleracea for alkylamide production; source of the field-grown spilanthol comparison value and the HPLC extraction method adopted here
- todo Nascimento et al. 2020 — phytochemical profile of jambù anatomical parts, hydroponic vs conventional cultivation
- todo Sampaio et al. 2021 — jambù production/postharvest quality in hydroponics under nitrogen application
- todo do Carmo et al. 2024 — EC effects on Acmella oleracea growth and essential-oil composition
- todo Benelli et al. 2019 — insecticidal A. oleracea essential oil, central Italy, comparison volatile profile
- todo Jerônimo et al. 2024 — A. oleracea essential oil composition, comparison volatile profile
- todo Kavallieratos et al. 2023 — HPLC method source for N-alkylamide quantification
Extraction notes
Design note: this paper compares aquaponics against hydroponics (not soil or organic farming) — both arms use the same 120 L unit design, the aquaponic arm receiving fish-tank effluent instead of Hoagland & Arnon solution. Two cultivars, each grown concurrently in both systems, are recorded as two trials.csv rows (T1 purple, T2 yellow) per CLAUDE.md’s guidance that labelled cultivar treatments constitute distinct trials; system-level facts (fish, pump, equipment, design) are identical and repeated across both rows.
⚠️WARN-CHECK — NO3-N vs NO3-. Results Section 2.1 (p.3) states, for the aquaponic system, “the level of NO3⁻, never being higher than 225 ppm, was not toxic to plants,” and separately references an accumulation threshold of “concentration over 300 mg/L” for NO3⁻. Materials & Methods 3.2.3 (p.12) describes the anion measured by ion chromatography as “NO3⁻” (nitrate ion), never “NO3⁻-N” (nitrate-nitrogen) — these differ by a factor of 4.43. The paper never states which basis the trials.csv NO3-N column should use. Recorded the reported ppm/mg L⁻¹ figure as-is (<=225 (upper bound only), range only) without converting, since converting would assume a species the paper does not confirm. Unresolved; added to REVIEW.md. Affects: interpretation of aquaponic nitrate loading relative to any NO3-N-based benchmark.
⚠️WARN-MINOR — Funding statement contradiction. The Funding section (p.16) states “This research received no external funding,” while the Acknowledgments (p.16) state the work “was supported by the European Union–NextGenerationEU under the Italian Ministry of University and Research (MUR) National Innovation Ecosystem grant ECS00000041–VITALITY–CUP J13C22000430001.” Both are recorded verbatim in the note’s Funding field. This is a metadata-only contradiction; it does not touch any trials.csv/plant.csv cell and does not count toward the quality score.
Not treated as a contradiction: Section 3.1.1 (p.10) states 1260 juvenile Carassius auratus were purchased and acclimated together in a single 500 L tank, but only 420 (3 systems x 140 specimens) were subsequently allocated into the three experimental aquaponic units. The paper does not explain the fate of the remaining ~840 fish. Per SCHEMA.md, a stocked total and a used subset are not two conflicting values for the same field, so this is noted rather than flagged; any downstream Initial Stock density calculation should use the 140-fish/600 L figure actually stocked into the trial units.
NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (140 fish, 600 L tank, and 1.2 ± 0.2 g initial weight are all stated, but density in kg/m³ is never stated); FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain (paper states fish “nearly tripled in weight” over 120 days but gives no numeric final weight or gain); Total Feed (kg) (2% body weight/day ration given, no cumulative total); Daily Water exchange rate (“3 water renewals/h” describes internal recirculation, not fresh-water make-up, and is a different quantity); Days Plant after transplant (transplant date given only relative to fish introduction, itself undated).
UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: pump capacity “1900 L/h” → 31.67 L/min (Water recycle); aquaponic water EC “258–824 µS/cm” → 0.258–0.824 dS/m; hydroponic water EC “1113–1590 µS/cm” → 1.113–1.590 dS/m (both range only, no trial mean given).
[not reported] / NR fields, grouped:
- Fish: Fish Category, Initial Stock density, FCR, SGR, Protein/N/P/K of feed, Fish size final, Total Feed (kg), Fish biomass created, Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain, Dissolved Oxygen, FUE AP/HYD, WUE.
- Water: Water type, Water classification, Daily Water exchange rate, pHOptimal, Water temperature (only “room temperature” stated qualitatively), TAN/NH4-N, NO2-N (not mentioned in the results text at all), and the entire SO4²⁻/Cl⁻/Na⁺/K⁺/Ca²⁺/Mg²⁺/Fe panel (trend/significance only, no concentration numbers in running text — see NO COLUMN below).
- Plant: Days Plant after transplant, SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD (this paper does not assay tissue nitrate at all), Lat/Long, Average room Temperature.
- Design flags: Biological system already in use, Air supplement, Iron supplemented, Remineralization, pH Buffers, Climate control, Artificial Lighting all NR (not addressed in the paper for this specific trial, beyond general background literature in the Introduction/Discussion).
NO COLUMN items:
- HYD-side water quality (no dedicated HYD columns exist): pH 6.98–8.37 (range only); EC 1113–1590 µS/cm = 1.113–1.590 dS/m (range only); NO3⁻ “remained constant,” no numeric value given.
- SO4²⁻, Cl⁻, Na⁺, K⁺, Ca²⁺, Mg²⁺, Fe: all reported only via Pearson r-trend direction and significance (Figure 2, p.3-4), never as concentration numbers in running text for either system — excluded per “never read a value off a figure,” not entered anywhere.
- No. capitula/plant: no dedicated
trials.csvcolumn; recorded only in Experimental Remarks (full-flowering range: cv yellow 28–44, cv purple ~17–36 capitula/plant).
Judgment call on fish tagging: Carassius auratus (goldfish) is present as the deliberately stocked water-production organism for the aquaponic arm (no growth/feeding performance data of the kind normally captured in trials.csv beyond initial weight and trial duration) — tagged Meta/Fish/Goldfish, reusing the exact facet already used for this species in abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022.
New tags introduced: Meta/Plant/Acmella-Oleracea (new leaf — no existing Acmella facet anywhere in the vault; hyphenation follows the existing two-word convention, e.g. Meta/Plant/Water-Spinach, Meta/Plant/Mustard-Green). Meta/Region/Europe, Meta/Type/Experiment, Meta/Fish/Goldfish all reused from existing vault entries (bragliaPhytochemicalsQualityLevel2022 for Europe; abbeyBasilOcimumBasilicum2022 for Goldfish).
Does this paper involve aquaponics? Yes. It directly compares a media-based aquaponic system (goldfish Carassius auratus feeding three 600 L fish tank + 120 L expanded-clay hydroponic-bed units) against a hydroponic-only control (Hoagland & Arnon nutrient solution, otherwise identical unit design), for two jambù cultivars over three months. The paper’s central conclusion regarding aquaponics is a null result: no significant difference from hydroponics in capitula production, N-alkylamide content, chlorophyll, or volatile profile.
Source: Ferrati et al. - 2025 - Assessment of the N-Alkylamide Content and Volatile Profiles in Two Cultivars of Acmella oleracea (L.pdf
Data Tables
Structured data extracted from this paper into the vault's
trials.csv/plant_measurements.csvdatasets. Fields the paper didn't report are omitted. Download the full datasets (measurements).
Trial Parameters
ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Carassius auratus (L.), juvenile (goldfish) |
| % of body weight | 2 |
| Fish size initial | 1.2 +/- 0.2 |
| Feed routine | Manual feeding, divided into morning and afternoon rations; ration adjusted every two weeks based on the weight of a representative fish sample per tank |
| Feed regime | Veronesi WW2 commercial pellets (Carp Lab, Voghiera, Italy), particle size 2 mm, at 2% of body weight/day |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 120 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 31.67 |
| Water volume in the system | 600 (fish tank) + 120 (hydroponic unit) [components stated separately, not summed by the paper] |
| Aq pH | 6.92-7.97, range only |
| EC | 0.258-0.824, range only |
| NO3-N | <=225 (upper bound only), range only |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Acmella oleracea (L.) R.K. Jansen, cv ‘purple’ (‘Nazare’ type) |
| Details | Jambu; leaves and capitula harvested biweekly from 7 Jul-29 Sep 2023 (7 timepoints), grouped as EF (7 Jul-4 Aug), FF (18 Aug-15 Sep), LF (29 Sep) |
| Plant Category | Medicinal and aromatic plant (jambu) (p.1-2) |
| Plants/m2 | 3.3 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Media-based aquaponics (recirculating; expanded clay media bed) vs. hydroponic control (identical unit design, Hoagland & Arnon nutrient solution, no fish) |
| Media Details | Expanded clay, both AQ hydroponic unit and HYD-only unit (Sections 3.1.1/3.1.2, p.10-11) |
| Equipment | Eheim pump (1900 L/h, both systems); HACH Intellical CDC401 (EC) and PHC101 (pH) probes; Agilent Cary 8454 UV-Vis (NH4+, Nessler method); Agilent 7500cx ICP-MS (metals); Dionex ICS-1000 IC (anions); Agilent 1100 HPLC-DAD-MS (N-alkylamides); Agilent 8890 GC + 5977B MSD, SPME fiber DVB/CWR/PDMS (volatiles); Varian Cary 1E UV-Vis (chlorophyll); Biosec dryer |
| Control Parameters | pH, EC, NH4+, NO3-, SO4(2-), Cl-, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Fe monitored every 2 weeks in both systems (Section 3.2) |
| Combination | 2 cultivars (purple, yellow) x 2 systems (aquaponic media-based, hydroponic) x 7 biweekly harvests (grouped EF/FF/LF), single greenhouse trial, Jul-Sep 2023, MJ Energy Srl, Macerata, Italy |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | mg/g DW (N-alkylamides, capitula); mg/g DW (total chlorophyll, leaves); relative % of total GC peak area (volatiles, capitula, SPME-GC/MS) |
| Statistic Details | Pearson correlation; t-test (2-group) or one-way ANOVA + Tukey post hoc (3-group), p<0.05; GraphPad Prism v.6.01; PCA (correlation mode), Minitab v.18.1 |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: this row = cv ‘purple’ (‘Nazare’ type), grown concurrently in an aquaponic (media-based, expanded clay, Carassius auratus wastewater) and a hydroponic (Hoagland & Arnon solution) system, three physical replicate units each, greenhouse of MJ Energy Srl Società Agricola, Macerata, Italy, Jul-Sep 2023. Paired control = the hydroponic arm for the same cultivar (no dedicated HYD water-quality columns exist in this schema; see NO COLUMN below). Companion trial T2 = cv ‘yellow’, grown in the same physical systems side-by-side (5 plants/cv/unit) over the identical period. | WARN-CHECK NO3-N: Results Section 2.1 (p.3) states, for the aquaponic system, ‘the level of NO3-, never being higher than 225 ppm, was not toxic to plants’, and separately references an accumulation threshold of ‘concentration over 300 mg/L’ for NO3-. Materials & Methods 3.2.3 (p.12) describes the anion measured by ion chromatography as ‘NO3-’ (nitrate ion), never ‘NO3-N’ (nitrate-nitrogen) — these differ by a factor of 4.43. The paper never states which basis the trials.csv NO3-N column should use. Recorded the reported ppm/mg-L figure as-is (<=225, upper bound only, no lower bound or trial mean given) without converting, since converting would assume a species the paper does not confirm. Added to REVIEW.md. Affects: interpretation of nitrate loading relative to any NO3-N-based benchmark. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (140 fish, 600 L tank, and initial weight 1.2+/-0.2 g are all stated, but no density in kg/m3 is given — computing one would be derivation); FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain (paper states the fish ‘nearly tripled in weight’ over the 120-day feeding trial but gives no numeric final weight or gain, only this qualitative multiplier); Total Feed (kg) (ration rate of 2% body weight/day is given, but no cumulative feed mass is stated); Daily Water exchange rate (‘3 water renewals/h’ via the recirculation pump describes internal loop circulation, not a fresh-water make-up/exchange rate — these are different quantities and no distinct exchange-rate figure is given); Days Plant after transplant (transplant stated only as ‘one day before fish were introduced’, with no calendar date given for fish introduction, so days-after-transplant per harvest date cannot be stated without derivation). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: pump capacity ‘1900 L/h’ -> 31.67 L/min (Water recycle; Sections 3.1.1/3.1.2, p.10-11; identical pump used in both AQ and HYD arms); AQ water EC ‘258-824 uS/cm’ -> 0.258-0.824 dS/m (Section 2.1, p.3, range only, no trial mean stated). | Water-quality block (Aq pH, EC, NO3-N) reflects the AQUAPONIC system only, per SCHEMA.md’s worked-example convention. Both pH and EC are given only as a RANGE over the whole 120-day monitoring period (Figure 2 time series), not as a trial mean +/- SD, so both cells are marked ‘range only’ per SCHEMA.md (‘If a paper reports only a time series with no summary, record the range… range only’). | NO COLUMN (HYD-side water quality; no dedicated HYD water-quality columns exist in this schema): HYD pH 6.98-8.37 (range only, r=0.310 ns, Section 2.1, p.3); HYD EC 1113-1590 uS/cm = UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.113-1.590 dS/m (range only, r=0.794 *, p.3); HYD NO3- described as ‘remained constant during the experimental period’ (r=0.542 ns, p.3), no numeric range given anywhere in text. | NO COLUMN (figure/trend-only, no numeric text values, EXCLUDED per ‘never read a value off a figure’): SO4(2-), Cl-, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Fe — all reported only as Pearson r-trend direction + significance (Figure 2, p.3-4), no concentration numbers stated anywhere in running text for either system. TAN/NH4-N similarly trend-only (r=0.248 ns HYD / r=-0.622 ns AQ, p.3; ‘not harmful’ stated qualitatively), no numeric range in text — recorded NR rather than reading Figure 2. NO2-N: not mentioned anywhere in the results text (only NO3- and NH4+ nitrogen species discussed) — NR. | NO COLUMN: No. capitula/plant (productivity trait, no dedicated trials.csv column) — t-test found no significant overall cultivar difference (Figure 4(A_1), no text numbers given); during full flowering specifically, cv purple reached ‘approximately 17-36 capitula/plant’ vs cv yellow ‘28-44 capitula/plant’ (p.6, Section 2.2.1, this trial’s own value: 17-36); AQ vs HYD comparison explicitly ns with no numeric split given (p.6, Figure 4(A_2)). | Note (not treated as a contradiction, per SCHEMA.md: a stocked total and a used subset are not two values for the same field): Section 3.1.1 (p.10) states 1260 juvenile Carassius auratus were purchased and acclimated together in a single 500 L tank, but only 420 (3 systems x 140 specimens) were subsequently allocated into the three experimental aquaponic units; the paper does not explain the fate of the remaining ~840 fish. Noted for transparency; any downstream Initial Stock density calculation should use the 140-fish/600-L figure actually stocked into the trial units, not the 1260-fish acclimation-pool figure. | Fish Category, Water type, Water classification, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, Dissolved Oxygen, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter, Days Plant after transplant, Lat/Long, Average room Temperature, Biological system already in use, Air supplement, Iron supplemented, Remineralization, pH Buffers, Climate control, Artificial Lighting, AP, HYD left NR — this is a phytochemistry-focused paper; no yield/tissue-nitrate/plant-morphometric/environmental-control data of these kinds is reported for either cultivar, and no general biomass/area yield metric is given for either system. | N-alkylamide, chlorophyll, and volatile-profile biochemistry data (this paper’s core content) are recorded in plant.csv, not here.
ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2
Fish
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Fish | Carassius auratus (L.), juvenile (goldfish) |
| % of body weight | 2 |
| Fish size initial | 1.2 +/- 0.2 |
| Feed routine | Manual feeding, divided into morning and afternoon rations; ration adjusted every two weeks based on the weight of a representative fish sample per tank |
| Feed regime | Veronesi WW2 commercial pellets (Carp Lab, Voghiera, Italy), particle size 2 mm, at 2% of body weight/day |
| Fish trial duration (days) | 120 |
Water
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Water recycle | 31.67 |
| Water volume in the system | 600 (fish tank) + 120 (hydroponic unit) [components stated separately, not summed by the paper] |
| Aq pH | 6.92-7.97, range only |
| EC | 0.258-0.824, range only |
| NO3-N | <=225 (upper bound only), range only |
Plant
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Plant | Acmella oleracea (L.) R.K. Jansen, cv ‘yellow’ (‘Jamburana’ type) |
| Details | Jambu; leaves and capitula harvested biweekly from 7 Jul-29 Sep 2023 (7 timepoints), grouped as EF (7 Jul-4 Aug), FF (18 Aug-15 Sep), LF (29 Sep) |
| Plant Category | Medicinal and aromatic plant (jambu) (p.1-2) |
| Plants/m2 | 3.3 |
System & Setup
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| System type | Media-based aquaponics (recirculating; expanded clay media bed) vs. hydroponic control (identical unit design, Hoagland & Arnon nutrient solution, no fish) |
| Media Details | Expanded clay, both AQ hydroponic unit and HYD-only unit (Sections 3.1.1/3.1.2, p.10-11) |
| Equipment | Eheim pump (1900 L/h, both systems); HACH Intellical CDC401 (EC) and PHC101 (pH) probes; Agilent Cary 8454 UV-Vis (NH4+, Nessler method); Agilent 7500cx ICP-MS (metals); Dionex ICS-1000 IC (anions); Agilent 1100 HPLC-DAD-MS (N-alkylamides); Agilent 8890 GC + 5977B MSD, SPME fiber DVB/CWR/PDMS (volatiles); Varian Cary 1E UV-Vis (chlorophyll); Biosec dryer |
| Control Parameters | pH, EC, NH4+, NO3-, SO4(2-), Cl-, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Fe monitored every 2 weeks in both systems (Section 3.2) |
| Combination | 2 cultivars (purple, yellow) x 2 systems (aquaponic media-based, hydroponic) x 7 biweekly harvests (grouped EF/FF/LF), single greenhouse trial, Jul-Sep 2023, MJ Energy Srl, Macerata, Italy |
Site
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Region | Europe |
| Country | Italy |
Results & Statistics
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Measured Unit | mg/g DW (N-alkylamides, capitula); mg/g DW (total chlorophyll, leaves); relative % of total GC peak area (volatiles, capitula, SPME-GC/MS) |
| Statistic Details | Pearson correlation; t-test (2-group) or one-way ANOVA + Tukey post hoc (3-group), p<0.05; GraphPad Prism v.6.01; PCA (correlation mode), Minitab v.18.1 |
| Statistically analysed | Y |
| Replicates (n) | 3 |
Experimental Remarks: TRIAL DEFINITION: this row = cv ‘yellow’ (‘Jamburana’ type), grown concurrently in an aquaponic (media-based, expanded clay, Carassius auratus wastewater) and a hydroponic (Hoagland & Arnon solution) system, three physical replicate units each, greenhouse of MJ Energy Srl Società Agricola, Macerata, Italy, Jul-Sep 2023. Paired control = the hydroponic arm for the same cultivar (no dedicated HYD water-quality columns exist in this schema; see NO COLUMN below). Companion trial T1 = cv ‘purple’, grown in the same physical systems side-by-side (5 plants/cv/unit) over the identical period. | WARN-CHECK NO3-N: Results Section 2.1 (p.3) states, for the aquaponic system, ‘the level of NO3-, never being higher than 225 ppm, was not toxic to plants’, and separately references an accumulation threshold of ‘concentration over 300 mg/L’ for NO3-. Materials & Methods 3.2.3 (p.12) describes the anion measured by ion chromatography as ‘NO3-’ (nitrate ion), never ‘NO3-N’ (nitrate-nitrogen) — these differ by a factor of 4.43. The paper never states which basis the trials.csv NO3-N column should use. Recorded the reported ppm/mg-L figure as-is (<=225, upper bound only, no lower bound or trial mean given) without converting, since converting would assume a species the paper does not confirm. Added to REVIEW.md. Affects: interpretation of nitrate loading relative to any NO3-N-based benchmark. | NOT DERIVED, left NR: Initial Stock density (140 fish, 600 L tank, and initial weight 1.2+/-0.2 g are all stated, but no density in kg/m3 is given — computing one would be derivation); FCR, SGR, Fish size final, Fish biomass created (kg), Fish survival rate, Fish weight gain (paper states the fish ‘nearly tripled in weight’ over the 120-day feeding trial but gives no numeric final weight or gain, only this qualitative multiplier); Total Feed (kg) (ration rate of 2% body weight/day is given, but no cumulative feed mass is stated); Daily Water exchange rate (‘3 water renewals/h’ via the recirculation pump describes internal loop circulation, not a fresh-water make-up/exchange rate — these are different quantities and no distinct exchange-rate figure is given); Days Plant after transplant (transplant stated only as ‘one day before fish were introduced’, with no calendar date given for fish introduction, so days-after-transplant per harvest date cannot be stated without derivation). | UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: pump capacity ‘1900 L/h’ -> 31.67 L/min (Water recycle; Sections 3.1.1/3.1.2, p.10-11; identical pump used in both AQ and HYD arms); AQ water EC ‘258-824 uS/cm’ -> 0.258-0.824 dS/m (Section 2.1, p.3, range only, no trial mean stated). | Water-quality block (Aq pH, EC, NO3-N) reflects the AQUAPONIC system only, per SCHEMA.md’s worked-example convention. Both pH and EC are given only as a RANGE over the whole 120-day monitoring period (Figure 2 time series), not as a trial mean +/- SD, so both cells are marked ‘range only’ per SCHEMA.md (‘If a paper reports only a time series with no summary, record the range… range only’). | NO COLUMN (HYD-side water quality; no dedicated HYD water-quality columns exist in this schema): HYD pH 6.98-8.37 (range only, r=0.310 ns, Section 2.1, p.3); HYD EC 1113-1590 uS/cm = UNIT CONVERSION ONLY: 1.113-1.590 dS/m (range only, r=0.794 *, p.3); HYD NO3- described as ‘remained constant during the experimental period’ (r=0.542 ns, p.3), no numeric range given anywhere in text. | NO COLUMN (figure/trend-only, no numeric text values, EXCLUDED per ‘never read a value off a figure’): SO4(2-), Cl-, Na+, K+, Ca2+, Mg2+, Fe — all reported only as Pearson r-trend direction + significance (Figure 2, p.3-4), no concentration numbers stated anywhere in running text for either system. TAN/NH4-N similarly trend-only (r=0.248 ns HYD / r=-0.622 ns AQ, p.3; ‘not harmful’ stated qualitatively), no numeric range in text — recorded NR rather than reading Figure 2. NO2-N: not mentioned anywhere in the results text (only NO3- and NH4+ nitrogen species discussed) — NR. | NO COLUMN: No. capitula/plant (productivity trait, no dedicated trials.csv column) — t-test found no significant overall cultivar difference (Figure 4(A_1), no text numbers given); during full flowering specifically, cv purple reached ‘approximately 17-36 capitula/plant’ vs cv yellow ‘28-44 capitula/plant’ (p.6, Section 2.2.1, this trial’s own value: 28-44); AQ vs HYD comparison explicitly ns with no numeric split given (p.6, Figure 4(A_2)). | Note (not treated as a contradiction, per SCHEMA.md: a stocked total and a used subset are not two values for the same field): Section 3.1.1 (p.10) states 1260 juvenile Carassius auratus were purchased and acclimated together in a single 500 L tank, but only 420 (3 systems x 140 specimens) were subsequently allocated into the three experimental aquaponic units; the paper does not explain the fate of the remaining ~840 fish. Noted for transparency; any downstream Initial Stock density calculation should use the 140-fish/600-L figure actually stocked into the trial units, not the 1260-fish acclimation-pool figure. | Fish Category, Water type, Water classification, pHOptimal, FUE AP/HYD, WUE, Dissolved Oxygen, Tissue nitrate AP/HYD, SPAD, Plant height, Leaf count, Plant fresh weight, Plant dry matter, Days Plant after transplant, Lat/Long, Average room Temperature, Biological system already in use, Air supplement, Iron supplemented, Remineralization, pH Buffers, Climate control, Artificial Lighting, AP, HYD left NR — this is a phytochemistry-focused paper; no yield/tissue-nitrate/plant-morphometric/environmental-control data of these kinds is reported for either cultivar, and no general biomass/area yield metric is given for either system. | N-alkylamide, chlorophyll, and volatile-profile biochemistry data (this paper’s core content) are recorded in plant.csv, not here.
Plant Measurements
| Trial | System | Category | Analyte | Value | Unit | Sig. | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Spilanthol (HPLC, capitula) | 14.85-48.0 | mg/g DW | * (0.05<p<0.01, cv purple higher) | p.6-7 (Section 2.2.2, Figure 4(B_1)) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Spilanthol (HPLC, capitula) | 10.93-40.77 | mg/g DW | * (0.05<p<0.01, cv purple higher) | p.6-7 (Section 2.2.2, Figure 4(B_1)) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (2E)-N-isobutyl-2-undecene-8,10-diynamide (NA2), HPLC, capitula | 0.18-0.61 | mg/g DW | *** (p<0.001, cv yellow higher) | p.7-8 (Section 2.2.3, Figure 4(C_1)) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (2E)-N-isobutyl-2-undecene-8,10-diynamide (NA2), HPLC, capitula | 0.34-0.76 | mg/g DW | *** (p<0.001, cv yellow higher) | p.7-8 (Section 2.2.3, Figure 4(C_1)) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Total chlorophyll (spectrophotometric, leaves) | 20.2-46.8 | mg/g DW | ns (cultivar, system, and harvest period all ns) | p.8 (Section 2.2.4, Figure 4(D_1-D_3)) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Total chlorophyll (spectrophotometric, leaves) | 20.2-46.8 | mg/g DW | ns (cultivar, system, and harvest period all ns) | p.8 (Section 2.2.4, Figure 4(D_1-D_3)) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (2Z)-N-isobutyl-2-nonene-6,8-diynamide (NA1), capitula | NR | mg/g DW | NR | p.5 (Section 2.2, Table S1) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (2E,7Z)-N-isobutyl-2,7-decadienamide and (2E)-N-(2-methylbutyl)-2-undecene-8,10-diynamide (NA4/5), capitula | NR | mg/g DW | NR | p.5 (Section 2.2, Table S1) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (2E,6Z,8E)-N-(2-methylbutyl)-2,6,8-decatrienamide (NA6), capitula | NR | mg/g DW | NR | p.5 (Section 2.2, Table S1) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (2Z)-N-isobutyl-2-nonene-6,8-diynamide (NA1), capitula | NR | mg/g DW | NR | p.5 (Section 2.2, Table S1) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (2E,7Z)-N-isobutyl-2,7-decadienamide and (2E)-N-(2-methylbutyl)-2-undecene-8,10-diynamide (NA4/5), capitula | NR | mg/g DW | NR | p.5 (Section 2.2, Table S1) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (2E,6Z,8E)-N-(2-methylbutyl)-2,6,8-decatrienamide (NA6), capitula | NR | mg/g DW | NR | p.5 (Section 2.2, Table S1) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (E)-caryophyllene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 19.3-34 | % of total GC peak area | significant (t-test, cv purple higher) | p.8 (Section 2.3); significance p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (E)-caryophyllene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 15.6-26.5 | % of total GC peak area | significant (t-test, cv purple higher) | p.8 (Section 2.3); significance p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Germacrene D, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 5.6-9.9 | % of total GC peak area | ns (not among the four cultivar-significant compounds) | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Germacrene D, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 1.1-8.6 | % of total GC peak area | ns (not among the four cultivar-significant compounds) | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | beta-pinene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 0.2-6.1 | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | beta-pinene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 3.9-8.3 | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Myrcene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 0.5-8.1 | % of total GC peak area | ns (cultivar); loading plot suggests higher in FF/LF (Figure 5D), but no numeric period value stated | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Myrcene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 4.1-7.5 | % of total GC peak area | ns (cultivar); loading plot suggests higher in FF/LF (Figure 5D), but no numeric period value stated | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | 1-pentadecene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 6.8-15.4 | % of total GC peak area | significant (t-test, cv yellow higher) | p.8 (Section 2.3); significance p.10 |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | 1-pentadecene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 10-20.7 | % of total GC peak area | significant (t-test, cv yellow higher) | p.8 (Section 2.3); significance p.10 |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (Z)-6-pentadecene-1-ol, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 1.2-7.8 | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (Z)-6-pentadecene-1-ol, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 3.9-9 | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (Z,Z)-1,8,11-heptadecatriene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 1.9-3.5 | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (Z,Z)-1,8,11-heptadecatriene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 2.3-4.8 | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | 1-heptadecene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 1.3-2.2 | % of total GC peak area | ns (cultivar); significant for harvest period — highest during EF (Figure S3, p.10) — no numeric per-period value stated in text | p.8 (Section 2.3); significance p.10 |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | 1-heptadecene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | 1.4-2.5 | % of total GC peak area | ns (cultivar); significant for harvest period — highest during EF (Figure S3, p.10) — no numeric per-period value stated in text | p.8 (Section 2.3); significance p.10 |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Spilanthol, volatile profile % (SPME-GC/MS, capitula; distinct from HPLC mg/g measure above) | 2.1-14.3 | % of total GC peak area | significant (t-test, cv purple higher) | p.8 (Section 2.3); significance p.10, p.15 (Conclusion) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Spilanthol, volatile profile % (SPME-GC/MS, capitula; distinct from HPLC mg/g measure above) | 1.9-6.3 | % of total GC peak area | significant (t-test, cv purple higher) | p.8 (Section 2.3); significance p.10, p.15 (Conclusion) |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | alpha-humulene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | significant (t-test, cv purple higher, per p.10 blanket list); exact range not stated | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | alpha-humulene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | significant (t-test, cv purple higher, per p.10 blanket list); exact range not stated | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Caryophyllene oxide, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | Caryophyllene oxide, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (Z,E)-alpha-farnesene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (Z,E)-alpha-farnesene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | beta-Phellandrene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | beta-Phellandrene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T1 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (Z)-beta-ocimene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |
| ferratiAssessmentNAlkylamideContent2025-T2 | AP+HYD (pooled, ns between systems) | biochemistry | (Z)-beta-ocimene, volatile profile (SPME-GC/MS, capitula) | NR | % of total GC peak area | ns | p.8 (Section 2.3, listed as detected); p.10 (Influence of Cultivars…) for significance |