## 3 Results and Discussion
### Evaluation of Z. officinal Roscoe rhizomes from Experimental Plots  
As mentioned earlier, five additional _Z. officinal_ rhizomes were acquired from a NR-5 producer, which were grown in experimental pilots for Grand Cayman and Hawaiian cultivars. Table 5 summarizes the characteristics for these samples. Sample NR-6, similarly to NR-5 corresponds to Grand Cayman variety, which is the main cultivar in Costa Rica; however, it was harvested at 20 weeks instead of at the ripe commercial maturity of 40 weeks. In turn, NR-7 and NR-8 correspond to Grand Cayman cultivars harvested at 40- and 20-weeks maturity, respectively, but both were cultivated in a high tunnel environment instead of the open-field environment for NR-5 and NR-6, thus allowing to evaluate the influence of this factor. Finally, NR-9 and NR-10 rhizomes correspond to a Hawaiian cultivar grown in a high tunnel environment and harvested at 40 and 20 weeks, respectively. Table 6 summarizes the results for the quantification of the main gingerols and 6-shogaol, following the same extraction and UPLC-DAD methods previously described. Results for the TG content range from 30.44 to 73.89 mg/g of the dry sample. One-way ANOVA followed by [PERSON]'s post hoc test shows a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)) between samples grown in open-field (OF) and samples grown under high tunnel (HT) conditions, with HT samples presenting higher TG content. At an individual level, gingerol profile analysis showed product NR-10 (73.89 mg/g dry sample) to be the sample with higher TG \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **TG (mg/g) 1,2,3** & **6-gingerol** & **8-gingerol** & **10-gingerol** & **6-gingerol** & **6-dehydrogenine** & **6-shogaol** \\
**(mg/g) 1,2,3** & **(mg/g) 1,2,3** & **(mg/g) 1,2,3** & **(mg/g) 1,2,3** & **(mg/g) 1,2,3** & **(mg/g) 1,2,3** & **(mg/g) 1,2,3** \\ \hline NR-5 & 30.44 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.08 & 20.36 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 3.37 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 & 4.13 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 1.06 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.02 & 1.54 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & N.Q. 4 \\ NR-6 & 38.91 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.82 & 26.12 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.08 & 2.50 \({}^{\text{e}}\)\(\pm\) 0.34 & 6.13 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.17 & 1.85 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.14 & 2.31 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.09 & 1.76 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.07 \\ NR-7 & 51.84 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 1.37 & 35.60 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.62 & 4.32 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.10 & 5.54 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.45 & 2.13 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.17 & 4.26 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 1.83 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 \\ NR-8 & 54.67 \({}^{\text{b,c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.98 & 36.94 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.54 & 3.59 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.28 & 10.24 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.65 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.11 & 2.27 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.04 & 0.67 \({}^{\text{d}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 \\ NR-9 & 56.91 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.62 & 36.32 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.13 & 5.61 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.10 & 9.99 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.09 & 1.56 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.16 & 3.45 \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(\pm\) 0.15 & 2.86 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 \\ NR-10 & 73.89 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.71 & 45.94 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.01 & 7.49 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.21 & 13.16 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.34 & 1.76 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 & 5.55 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 & 3.20 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.05 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{1}\) mg/g of dry sample. \({}^{2}\) Values are expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (S.D). \({}^{3}\) Different superscript letters in the same column indicate differences are significant at \(p<0.05\) using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with a Tukey post hoc as statistical test. \({}^{4}\) Not Quantifiable (N.Q.).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Phenolic content of _Z. officinal_ rhizomes from experimental plots.