Page 81 - IMO-2-1

Innovative Medicines & Omics Impact of lemon essential oil on anthropometrics

to essential oil was selected to achieve optimal dilution, The t-student independent sample t-test was used to
thereby ensuring the safety of topical application while assess differences in the means of various anthropometric
preserving the characteristic fragrance and the potential measurements between groups. A Mann–Whitney test was
therapeutic efficacy associated with lemon essential oil. applied to compare groups, and a Wilcoxon test allowed
The chosen ratio falls within the recommended range for comparison between initial and final measures in each
crucial oil dilution in massage oils, typically between 1% group. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.
and 3%, aligning with established safety guidelines. The
meticulous preparation of the massage oil aimed to create 3. Results
a harmonious blend that balances both safety and the 3.1. Sample characterization and initial group
desired aromatic and therapeutic outcomes. 34 comparisons
2.8. Intervention The sample, consisting of 26 individuals, was meticulously

Before participating, all individuals provided informed characterized, with findings presented in Table 1. The
consent following the principles of the Declaration of participants were randomly divided into two groups:
Helsinki. Subsequently, a baseline interview was conducted the treatment group (TG, n = 13) and the control group
to gather essential participant information, encompassing (CG, n = 13). The table provides medians, minimum and
age, weight, height, level of physical activity, and presence maximum values for age, height, weight, and BMI, along
of any underlying medical conditions or risk factors that with corresponding Mann–Whitney U-test results. These
could potentially impact lipid metabolism, and habits results confirm the comparability of the two groups, as
related to smoking and alcohol consumption. no significant differences were observed in any of the
examined variables.
The treatment group received a 5-min abdomen
exfoliation by a Clínica Áurea therapist, followed by a 3.2. Abdominal skinfold measurements analysis
30-min modeling massage once a week for 6 weeks. The In the subsequent analysis of abdominal skinfold thickness
massage utilized lemon essential oil diluted in sweet almond measurements (Table 2), the study sought to determine
oil with a ratio of 1:2 and a final concentration of 3%. differences between the treatment and control groups
The control group received the same intervention as through independent t-tests. The results reveal several
the aromatherapy group but with sweet almond oil only. intriguing findings. Notably, for most sessions (1, 2, 4),
Both the essential oils and sweet almond oil were packed the t-tests indicate no statistically significant differences
in similar bottles with the same color, shape, and size. The in the means of skinfold thickness between the groups,
researcher was the only one aware of the group assignments irrespective of whether equal variances are assumed. This
according to the number on each bottle. suggests that the treatment did not significantly affect
abdominal skinfold thickness in these specific sessions
2.9. Preparation of massage oil compared to the control group.
Assessments were done before and after each of the six However, in sessions 3, 5, and 6, the results indicate a
sessions. Measurements included height, weight, and significant difference in the means of skinfold thickness,
the perimeter measured for the abdomen. 35,36 Skinfold
measurements were taken at the triceps, suprailia, and Table 1. Sample characterization in the treatment and
thigh areas. 35,37 control groups at baseline
The percentage of body fat was estimated using skinfold Variable Group Median Minimum Maximum U P
measurements’ according to Equations I–II:
Age (y) TG 35.67 32 42 1.00 0.127
Body density = 1.0994921 - (0.0009929 × X1) + (0.0000023 CG 44.67 37 53
× X1 ) - (0.0001392 × age) (I)
2
Height (m) TG 1.59 1.54 1.64 2.50 0.376
CG 1.65 1.60 1.71
495
Percentageof body fat = − 450 (II) Weight (kg) TG 64.1 60.0 73.0 4.00 0.827
Bodydensity
CG 59.20 64.93 69.20
2
2.10. Statistical analysis BMI (kg/m ) TG 25.79 23.16 30.78 4.00 0.827
CG 23.96 22.28 25.94
The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis Note: U refers to the Mann–Whitney test scores.
using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Abbreviations: BMI: Body mass index; CG: Control group;
(SPSS) Statistics software (SPSS, United States), version 20. TG: Treatment group.

Volume 2 Issue 1 (2025) 75 doi: 10.36922/imo.5893