Industrial Crops and Products 30 (2009) 259–264

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Crops and Products

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indcrop

Essential oil and by-products of distillation of bay leaves

(Laurus nobilis L.) from Argentina
P. Di Leo Lira a , D. Retta a , E. Tkacik b , J. Ringuelet c , J.D. Coussio a , C. van Baren a,∗ , A.L. Bandoni a
a
Cátedra de Farmacognosia-IQUIMEFA (UBA-CONICET), Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Junín 956, 2◦ piso, 1113 Buenos Aires, Argentina
b
Esencias Nuestras, Zona Industrial Planificada de Henderson, Prov. de Buenos Aires, Argentina1
c
Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias y Forestales, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, calle 60 y 119, 1900 La Plata, Argentina

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Preliminary chemical studies were undertaken during one year on plant materials collected in a 40 ha
Received 8 December 2008 field located in Henderson, Province of Buenos Aires, in order to determine the technical viability of the
Received in revised form 19 April 2009 industrial production of essential oil from bay leaves (Laurus nobilis L., Lauraceae) growing in Argentina.
Accepted 24 April 2009
The oils were extracted at a pilot scale plant and analyzed by GC–FID-MS. The apparent density of the
plant material used for the distillation ranged from 90 g L−1 to 170 g L−1 , depending on the type of material.
Keywords:
The quality of the volatile oils obtained complied with market requirements and were in agreement
Laurus nobilis L. (Lauraceae)
with values reported from other countries. No considerable variations were observed in the chemical
Bay leaf
Essential oil
composition of the oils throughout the year. Taking in account the composition of the sub-fractions
Argentina obtained during the distillation process, the quality of the final essential oil can be adjusted by fractional
Hydrolate distillation. The occurrence of alcohol terpenes and phenols in the condensed waters (hydrolate) makes
Nutritional value for ruminants them a possible alternative to be used in industry. Moreover, and due to the good energetic and digestibility
values obtained, our results showed that the exhausted plant material obtained after distillation could be
a putative fibrous feed for ruminants. Both, hydrolate and exhausted plant materials are resources that
can enhance added values in new endeavours. This is the first report on bay leaves essential oil production
at industrial scale in Argentina.
Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction
Bay laurel (Laurus nobilis L., Lauraceae) is a native species to
the Mediterranean region, which is cultivated in many countries
with moderate and subtropical climate. The global demand of bay
leaves is more than 3000 tons per year (UNCTAD, 2006). The com-
mercial value of this species lies on its essential oils. The chemical
composition of the volatile fraction as well as the composition and
bioactivities of the alcoholic and non-polar extracts have been stud-
ied extensively (Pino et al., 1993; Caredda et al., 2002; Dadalioglu
and Evrendilek, 2004; Conforti et al., 2006). The lack of local pro-
duction at industrial scale of bay leaves and the extraction of its
essential oils have prompted Argentina to import these products
(roughly 30 tons of bay leaves per year (SAGPYA, 2008). The attempt
to exploit an existing crop of bay laurel in a field of 40 ha in Hen-
derson, Buenos Aires province, by a group of local producers has
lead us to evaluate the quality of bay leaves essential oils from this
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +54 11 4964 8247; fax: +54 11 4508 3642.
E-mail address: cbaren@ffyb.uba.ar (C. van Baren).
1
http://www.esenciasnuestras.com.ar.
region, to investigate the seasonal variability and to seek for other
useful values in order to optimize the process and profitability of
this project. The following features were considered for this study:
(a) the apparent density of the raw material to estimate the load-
ing capacity of the still; (b) the chemical composition of a set of
sub-fractions separated each 15 min, during a whole cycle of the
distillation process; (c) the qualitative determination of volatiles
in the condensed waters (hydrolate); (d) the nutritional value for
ruminants of the remaining exhausted material.
2. Materials and methods
A crop of bay laurel of 40 ha, located at 20 km from the city of
Henderson, in the district of Hipólito Irigoyen (36◦ 10 S; 61◦ 20 W),
province of Buenos Aires, Argentina, was used in this study. The
plant materials were identified by J. Ringuelet, and a voucher sam-
ple was deposited in the collection of the Herbarium of the National
University of La Plata (collection name: Argentina, Province of
Buenos Aires, Henderson, 2007, Ringuelet s.n., LPAG). The harvest
dates, type of plant material extracted and yields of volatile oils
(based on dry weight) are shown in Table 1. The apparent density
of the plant material was calculated by filling the still up to 75% of
its total volume, compressed only by its own weight.

0926-6690/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2009.04.005
 260
Table 1
Harvest dates, essential oil yields (based on dry weight) and relative percentage composition (%) of essential oils of bay leaves collected during 2006/2007.

Compounds RInon-polar RIpolar Sample no.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
February 2006a March 2006a April 2006a May 2006a June 2006a August 2006a October 2006a November 2006a December 2006a March 2007a April 2007a May 2007a
ab db ab bb cb ab cb cb cb cb cb cb
1.2c 0.3c 0.7c 0.5c 0.9c 0.7c 0.8c 1.3c 0.8c 1.0c 1.2c 0.8c
Percentage composition (%)

␣-Thujene 924 1034 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5
␣-Pinene 932 1032 5.1 3.8 5.4 4.8 4.0 4.6 5.6 5.1 4.9 3.6 4.2 5.9
Camphene 946 1076 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.5

Sabinene 969 1132 9.3 4.5 9.2 9.2 7.0 8.7 8.4 8.7 8.3 6.3 7.5 10.0
Myrcene 988 1174 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.7 1.0 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.9 1.3
␤-Pinene 974 1118 3.9 2.7 4.0 3.5 3.1 3.5 3.1 3.7 3.5 3.0 3.3 4.1

P. Di Leo Lira et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 30 (2009) 259–264

(Z)-␤-Ocimene 1032 1246 – 2.2 – – – – – – – – – –
␣-Terpinene 1014 1188 0.4 – 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4
p-Cymene 1020 1280 tr – 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 tr
Limonene 1024 1203 1.3 0.9 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.3

1.8-Cineole 1026 1213 45.1 34.8 44.6 46.8 43.0 41.4 43.4 42.8 39.0 45.8 41.4 48.6
(E)-␤-Ocimene 1044 1276 – 23.0 – – – – – – – – – –
␥-Terpinene 1054 1255 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.8
(Z)-Sabinene 1065 1556 0.3 0.2 0.1 – tr 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2
hydrate
Terpinolene 1086 1290 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2

Linalool 1095 1553 11.9 9.7 11.7 13.0 15.9 12.8 13.9 11.1 10.6 13.0 15.3 10.1
(E)-Sabinene 1098 1474 0.2 – 0.1 0.2 – tr 0.2 tr 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2
hydrate
Terpinen-4-ol 1174 1611 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.1 1.5 1.7 1.6 2.7 1.8 1.8
␣-Terpineol 1186 1706 3.0 1.7 2.9 3.0 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.7 3.2 3.5 3.7 2.2
Linalyl acetate 1254 1565 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.3 tr 0.2 0.3
Bornyl acetate 1287 1590 0.2 – 0.3 – – tr 0.2 0.3 0.3 tr tr tr
Carvacrol 1298 2239 tr – tr tr tr – tr tr 1.8 tr tr tr
␦-Terpinyl 1316 – 0.5 – 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4
acetate
␣-Terpinyl 1346 1691 8.0 5.8 8.3 6.1 8.6 9.4 8.7 7.4 7.4 8.1 7.9 7.3
acetate
Eugenol 1356 2186 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.3
␤-Elemene 1389 1600 0.3 1.0 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.5 tr 0.2 0.3

Methyl 1403 1830 2.8 1.2 3.0 3.1 3.5 4.2 2.7 3.5 4.2 5.4 5.1 1.7
eugenol
␤- 1418 1612 0.6 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.6 1.4 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4
Caryophyllene
Spathulenol 1577 2144 tr – tr tr 0.1 tr tr 0.2 tr tr 0.2 tr
Caryophyllene 1582 2008 tr – tr tr 0.1 0.3 tr 0.4 tr 0.5 0.4 tr
oxide
Total 98.6 98.7 98.7 98.1 96.7 97.1 97.1 96.1 92.7 99.0 98.5 98.8

Compounds listed in non-polar column elution order; tr: minor than 0.05%.
(a) Green stems with leaves and flowers; (b) green stems with leaves, flowers and fruits; (c) green stems and leaves; (d) green stems with leaves and 83% of fruits.
a
Harvest date.
b
Material.
c
Yields (%, v/w).
 P. Di Leo Lira et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 30 (2009) 259–264 261

Table 2
Main volatiles (%) identified in the hydrolates and essential oils obtained from bay leaves essential oil distillation.

Compound Huergo and Retamar, 1978 Sample 11 Sample 12

Hydrolate Oil Hydrolate Oil

1,8-Cineole 45.7 39.5 41.4 69.2 48.6

Linalool 32.6 10.5 15.3 5.6 10.3
Terpinen-4-ol 7.5 1.8 7.7 1.8
␣-Terpineol 13.0 3.7 10.6 2.2
␣-Terpinyl acetate 8.2 0.5 0.4 0 0.4
Eugenol 10.0 1.0 1.9 0.3
Methyl eugenol 7.5 17.5 5.1 4.2 1.7

Each distillation batch was made up of a pool from several plants
(leaves and stalks with or without flowers or fruits, depending on
the season of collection). A sample of each collection was dried until
constant weight to determinate the loss upon drying. Essential oils
from 3 to 5 kg of plant material were extracted by steam distillation
during 2 h, using a stainless steel extractor with a capacity of 30 L.
The essential oils were analyzed by GC–FID-MS. In order to evaluate
the progression of the volatiles extraction, eight sub-fractions were
obtained separately during the distillation processes of sample no.
12 (each 15 min) and analyzed in the same conditions as the whole
volatile fraction.
Two samples of the exhausted plant material obtained after
the distillation of sample nos. 9 and 12 were analyzed according
to the classic Weende’s procedure (Crampton and Harris, 1974)
to determine the nutrients content. Humidity, total ash, crude
protein, crude fat, non-nitrogen extractive and crude fibre were
measured. All determinations were carried out according to the
AOAC’s methodologies (AOAC, 1990). The Total Digestible Nutri-
ent (TDN) was calculated according to Schneider (1954). Digestible
Energy (DE) was calculated considering the average caloric value
of TDN for ruminant feed corresponded to 4400 kcal kg−1 (Swift,
1957) and the Metabolizable Energy (ME) represented 82% of DE
(Crampton and Harris, 1974).
Hydrolates (approximately 120 L) were collected twice (dur-
ing the distillation of sample nos. 11 and 12) and volatiles were
extracted for GC–FID-MS analysis. A 100 mL of each hydrolate were
saturated with NaCl and extracted twice with 10 mL of hexane.
Organic layers were dried over anhydrous Na2 SO4 and the solvent
was removed under vacuum (Savant, centrifugal vacuum evapora-
tor). The residue was dissolved in 0.5 mL of hexane and injected into
the GC.
3. Identification of the volatile compounds
The GC–FID-MS analysis of the oils was carried out on a
Perkin Elmer Clarus 500, equipped with one injector (split ratio:
1:100) connected by a flow splitter to two capillary columns: (a)
polyethyleneglycol MW ca. 20,000 and (b) 5% phenyl–95% methyl
silicone, both 60 m × 0.25 mm with 25 ␮m of fixed phase (J&W Sci-
entific, Folson). The whole system operated at a constant flow of
1.87 mL min−1 . Helium was used as gas carrier. The polar column
was connected to a FID, whereas the non-polar column was con-
comparison of mass spectra obtained from literature (McLafferty
and Stauffer, 2005; Adams, 2007) or from mass spectra obtained
with reference compounds, except for ␣-thujene, (Z)-␤-ocimene, ␣-
terpinene, (E)-␤-ocimene, ␥-terpinene, terpinolene, (E)-sabinene
hydrate, carvacrol, ␦-terpinyl acetate, ␤-elemene and spathulenol,
which were tentatively identified considering the MS libraries pre-
viously cited and a laboratory-developed mass spectra library built
up from oils of known composition, and by their corresponding
relative indexes obtained in both columns. The relative percent con-
centration of the compounds was calculated according to the area
of chromatographic peaks (FID response), assuming a response fac-
tor of 1. The lowest response obtained from both columns for each
component was considered.
4. Statistical analysis
The variability in the composition of the essential oils was ana-
lyzed by a multivariate statistical procedure (Infostat vers. 05/2008,
2008). All collections and essential oil compounds were studied
simultaneously using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Sample
no. 2 was not considered for this analysis.
5. Results
The apparent density of dried plant material used for distilla-
tion (73% leaves and 27% green stalks, average of three samples)
was 110 g L−1 . When flowers were present, the apparent density
was lower, i.e. 90 g L−1 ; in contrast, when fresh material was used
(containing more water) the apparent density was higher, reaching
values of 170 g L−1 . Essential oil yields were 0.9 ± 0.5% (v/w) of dry
weight, and decreasing to 0.3% (v/w) when flowers or fruits were
present. A total of eleven samples were analyzed, during a whole
year (2006/2007). Table 1 shows the relative percentage compo-
sition of bay laurel essential oils analyzed during 2006/2007. The
average quantities and standard deviations for each component are
shown and compared with to those of other authors (Table 5). Main
volatiles identified in the hydrolates (two samples) are shown in
Table 2. The nutritional pattern obtained for the exhausted plant
material is displayed in Table 3. The fractionation of the distillation
Table 3
Nutritional pattern of the exhausted material obtained after distillation.

nected to a FID and a quadrupolar mass detector (70 eV) by a vent Values Sample 9 Sample 12
system (MSVentTM ). The temperature was programmed according
Dry material (%) 42.7 45.10
to the following gradient: 90–225 ◦ C at 3 ◦ C/min, and then isother- Total ashes (% of dry plant) 5.80 5.20
mic for 15 min. The injector and both FIDs were set at 255 ◦ C and Humidity (%) 4.90 4.00
275 ◦ C, respectively. The injection volume was 0.2 ␮L, except for the Crude protein (%) 10.5 12.20
analysis of the hydrolates, where 10 ␮L were injected instead. Tem- Crude fat (%) 6.60 5.10
Crude fiber (%) 30.80 28.90
peratures of the transfer line and the ionic source were 180 ◦ C and Non-nitrogen (%) 41.40 44.60
150 ◦ C, respectively; the range of masses (m/z) was 40–300 Da. Crude energy (Mcal/kg) 4.01 3.50
The identification of the compounds was achieved by the reten- TND (%) 55.80 58.3
tion indexes (relative to C8 –C20 n-alkanes) obtained in the two Digestible energy (Mcal/kg) 2.45 2.39
Metabolizable energy (Mcal/kg) 2.01 1.96
columns and compared with those of reference compounds; and by
262 P. Di Leo Lira et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 30 (2009) 259–264

Table 4
Fractionation of a distillation process of bay leaves essential oil and percentage composition (%) of main volatiles identified in the sub-fractions.

Fractionation of a distillation process of bay leaves essential oil Total

a a a a a a a a
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Distillation time (min) 0–15 16–30 31–45 46–60 61–75 76–90 91–105 106–120 120
Volume obtained (ml) 7.0 6.0 4.0 3.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 27
% of total volume 26 22 15 13 7 7 6 4 100
Accumulative % 26 48 63 76 83 90 96 100 100

Compounds Fractionation of a distillation process of bay leaves essential oil Total

1a 2a 3a 4a 5a 6a 7a 8a
Percentage composition (%)

␣-Thujene 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
␣-Pinene 3.0 4.9 2.6 7.1 7.8 9.1 8.4 7.9 5.9
Camphene 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5

Sabinene 8.1 10.1 9.3 9.4 8.4 8.0 5.9 4.8 10.0
Myrcene 0.6 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 1.3
␤-Pinene 2.6 3.7 4.1 5.0 5.2 5.6 5.1 4.7 4.1
␣-Terpinene 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.4
p-Cymene 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.4 0.4 0.5 tr
Limonene 1.0 1.1 2.3 1.4 1.4 0.2 1.4 1.3 1.3

1,8-Cineole 58.3 51.9 45.9 39.9 32.4 29.7 24.1 20.3 48.6
␥-Terpinene 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.4 0.8
(Z)-Sabinene hydrate 0.3 0.2 0.2 tr tr – – – 0.2
Terpinolene tr tr 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2

Linalool 13.1 12.0 12.3 12.3 12.2 11.6 9.9 9.4 10.3
(E)-Sabinene hydrate 0.3 0.2 0.1 – – tr tr – 0.2
Terpinen-4-ol 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.5 2.8 3.4 3.6 1.8
␣-Terpineol 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.6 3.2 3.5 4.0 4.2 2.2
Linalyl acetate 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3
Bornyl acetate tr tr tr tr 0.3 tr 0.4 0.4 tr
␦-Terpinyl acetate 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.4

␣-Terpinyl acetate 3.1 4.2 6.1 7.5 10.5 11.9 14.5 16.3 7.3
Eugenol 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 0.3
␤-Elemene tr tr tr tr tr 0.7 1.1 1.5 0.3

Methyl eugenol 1.7 1.9 2.5 3.2 4.5 4.7 6.6 7.3 1.7
␤-Caryophyllene tr tr 0.3 0.5 0.9 1.2 2.0 2.5 0.4
Bicyclogermacrene – – tr tr tr tr 0.5 0.6 tr
Spathulenol – – – tr tr tr tr 0.4 tr
Caryophyllene oxide – – tr tr tr tr 0.6 0.8 tr

Total 97.6 97.3 95.0 97.5 97.0 98.1 96.9 95.2 99.2

tr: minor than 0.05%.

a
Sub-fractions.

process of bay leaves (sample no. 12) and the chemical composition son, sample no. 2 was not included in the statistical analysis. The
of each sub-fraction is shown in Table 4. essential oils composition showed a similar pattern to those pub-
The statistical analysis of the chemical composition of the essen- lished for other geographical regions (Table 5). Nevertheless, the
tial oils analyzed did not show significant differences. The results bay leaves essential oil from Turkey, which is one of the major inter-
obtained by PCA showed that all the samples belonged to the same
group. The eleven samples analyzed showed a suitable projection
and 82% of the total variance was retained in this projection (Table 6
and Fig. 1).

6. Discussion and conclusions

The essential oil yields of the studied crop were found to be

low compared with values previously reported for other regions.
Besides, differences were observed in the yields within the analyzed
samples. If plant material included flowers or fruits (samples from
April 2006 vs. April 2007 and May 2006 vs. May 2007), the yields
were lower than if these were not present. In agreement with the
works of Zheng-kui et al. (1990), statistical analysis showed no sig-
nificant differences in the essential oils composition regarding the
harvesting time of the year. The presence of (E)-␤-ocimene in the
essential oils obtained from plant materials which included fruits
(83% in sample no. 2) increased considerably (23% of the oil). The Fig. 1. Principal component analysis (PCA) of 11 samples of bay leaves, based on the
latter results are in line with those of Kilic et al. (2004). For this rea- composition of their essential oils.
Table 5
Chemical composition (%) of bay leaves essential oil reported from different origins, including our own results.

Compounds Turkey (Ozcan and Turkey (Kilic China Tunisia Mediterranean Croatia–Serbia Italy (Flamini The Netherlands Argentina Our resultsa
Chalchat, 2005; et al., 2005) (Zheng-kui et (Bouzouita et (Zola et al., 1977) (Politeo et al., 2007; et al., 2007) (Hokwerda et al., (Huergo and
Dadalioglu and al., 1990) al., 2001) Simic et al., 2004) 1982) Retamar, 1978)
Evrendilek, 2004)

␣-Thujene 0.3–0.3 0.1–0.2 0.5 0.9 0.4 5.9 0.5 ± 0.07

␣-Pinene 2.9–6.0 3.9–5.0 1.0–5.2 7.8 3.8–6.5 2.1–7.2 3.2 3.6–4.6 4.8 ± 0.70

P. Di Leo Lira et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 30 (2009) 259–264

Camphene 0.6–1.1 tr–0.2 0.3 0.2–0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 ± 0.12

Sabinene 4.4–12.1 7.1–7.6 2.1–6.8 5.4 4.5–8.8 5.7 6.5 3.1–4.2 8.4 ± 1.10
Myrcene 0.9–1.4 0.3–1.4 0.3–1.2 0.9 1.1 1.0 ± 0.18
␤-Pinene tr–3.9 3.0–3.8 1.0–4.4 5.9 2.9–4.6 5.2 2.9 4.7–5.4 20.1 3.5 ± 0.38
␣-Terpinene 12.5 0.6 0.2–1.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 ± 0.05
p-Cymene tr–0.1 tr–0.3 0.6 0.6–1.2 0.2–2.5 0.2 1.3 0.3 ± 0.04
Limonene 2.0–2.5 tr 0.8–1.6 0.9–1.9 1.3 1.3 ± 0.12

1,8-Cineole 51.7–68.5 24.2-32.1 25.5-43.0 42.3 37.2–44.1 41.9–45.5 35.7 40.1–48.6 37.3 43.8 ± 2.74
␥-Terpinene 1.0 0.1–0.2 0.2–1.5 0.6 0.1–0.9 0.7 0.4 0.8 ± 0.09
Z-Sabinene hydrate 0.3–0.5 0.4–0.9 0.6 0.2 ± 0.11
Terpinolene tr–0.1 0.1–0.4 0.1–0.7 0.3 0.2 ± 0.05

Linalool 0.7 0.7–1.5 4.4-22.7 2.5 8.7–11.2 7.0–8.5 7.9–16.1 19.4 12.7 ± 1.84
E-Sabinene hydrate 0.1–0.4 9.7 0.2 ± 0.08
Terpinen-4-ol 1.3–3.3 0.3–0.7 0.9–3.7 2.5 2.4–4.6 1.6–2.1 1.4 0.9–2.2 1.9 ± 0.33
␣ -Terpineol 1.0–3.1 1.3–1.8 1.5–2.5 2.1 1.6–4.6 1.5–1.7 0.2 1.4–1.5 2.2 2.8 ± 0.60
Linalyl acetate tr–0.1 0.3–1.0 1.4 0.3 0.4 ± 0.12
Bornyl acetate 0.6 –1.1 0.1–1.1 0.4 0.3–1.2 0.3 0.3 ± 0.05
Carvacrol 1.8 ± 0.01
␦-Terpinyl acetate 0.2–0.4 0.4 ± 0.07

␣-Terpinyl acetate 4.0–9.9 4.8–6.5 9.5–18.0 11.2 6.1–10.0 5.5–9.1 9.3 2.3–3.8 10.6 7.9 ± 0.88
Eugenol 0.5 0.1–1.6 1.4–2.4 0.1–4.5 1.4–2.5 4.8 0.7 ± 0.22
␤-Elemene 1.4–1.8 1.3 0.9 0.1 0.4 ± 0.12

Methyl eugenol 0.7 0.2–1.2 1.7-8.9 3.5 2.1–5.1 2.5–10.0 6.8 6.3–7.7 3.0 3.6 ± 1.09
␤-Caryophyllene 0.4 0.3–0.8 0.1–0.6 1.3 0.3–0.6 2.1 0.6 tr 0.7 ± 0.29
Spathulenol 0.1–0.3 0.6 0.2 ± 0.06
Caryophyllene oxide 1.7 0.2 0.3 ± 0.14

tr: minor than 0.05%.

a
Sample no. 2 was not included in the statistical analysis.

263
264 P. Di Leo Lira et al. / Industrial Crops and Products 30 (2009) 259–264
Table 6
Eigen value for each principal component, % of total variance expressed by the %
component and accumulated variance.
Lambda Value Prop
1 8.94 0.57
2 4.09 0.26
3 1.47 0.09
4 0.67 0.04
5 0.28 0.02
6 0.16 0.01
7 0.09 0.01
8 0.06 4.0E−03
9 0.03 1.9E−03
10 0.01 5.9E−04
national suppliers, typically showed high contents of ␣-terpinene
and 1,8-cineole and a low percentage of linalool and methyl eugenol
in comparison with data reported for other origins (Dadalioglu
and Evrendilek, 2004; Ozcan and Chalchat, 2005) (Table 5). Sim-
ilar results have been reported by Huergo and Retamar (1978) for
plant materials obtained in the province of Tucumán, Argentina.
These authors have reported great differences in the content of
monoterpenes when compared with previous studies, including
our own results. These differences could be attributed to the use of
old packed columns with very low resolution in comparison with
the modern capillary column (Table 5).
The quality of the final essential oils obtained and the adequate
blending can be adjusted by controlling the time of the distillation
process. Taking in account the composition of the different sub-
fractions obtained during a whole distillation process (Table 4) and
the volatility and mass of the main compounds, the following con-
clusions could be drawn: (a) if the distillation time was less than an
hour, the concentration of 1,8-cineole (boiling point: 176 ◦ C; mass:
154), sabinene (BP: 163 ◦ C; M: 136) and linalool (BP: 198 ◦ C; M:
154) were higher and (b) in a prolonged distillation the last sub-
fractions showed higher contents of terpinyl acetate (BP: 210 ◦ C; M:
196) and phenols: eugenol (BP: 256 ◦ C; M: 164) and methyl eugenol
(BP: 255 ◦ C; M: 178).
Both hydrolates analyzed showed quantitative differences
between them, essentially due to the different composition of the
respective oils (samples 11 and 12). They also differed from other
previously published data (Huergo and Retamar, 1978). However,
these waters could be used as natural preservatives or antioxidants
due to the presence of the alcoholic terpenes terpinen-4-ol and ␣-
terpineol and phenols, all of them having well known antimicrobial
and antioxidant activities (Burt, 2004; Bakkali et al., 2008; Mitic-
Culafic et al., 2009). Nevertheless, features that affect their quality,
like pH or salt content, must be analyzed to ensure more homoge-
neous results. Observations made by our group on the acceptability
of the cattle that ate the leaves of laurel and according to the results
obtained, the exhausted plant material after distillation could be
considered as a fibrous feed having good energetic and digestibility
values for ruminants (bovine and ovine cattle). These results are in
agreement with the National Research Council reports (NRC, 1969).
Though palability studies were not undertaken, a good acceptabil-
ity could be verified by us by leaving these residues as feed for
cattle in a neighbouring farm. Both, hydrolate and exhausted plant
materials are by-products that can enhance the added value of new
projects concerning the exploitation of bay laurel crops. Therefore
the profitability of such projects must be carefully calculated. This
constitutes the first report on bay leaves essential oil production at
industrial scale in Argentina.
Acknowledgments
This work was done in the frame of a trade agreement (Res.
Acum (CD) 320/07 and 321/07), and was partially supported with Grants
0.57 UBACyT B-019 and B-014 (University of Buenos Aires).
0.82
0.92 References
0.96
0.98
Adams, R.P., 2007. Identification of Essential Oils Components by Gas Chromatogra-
0.99
phy/Quadrupole Mass Spectroscopy. Allured Publ. Corp., Carol Stream, IL.
0.99 AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th Edition. Association of Official Ana-
1.00 lytical Chemists, Arlington, Virginia.
1.00 Bakkali, F., Averbeck, S., Averbeck, D., Idaomar, M., 2008. Biological effects of essential
1.00 oils—a review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 46, 446–475.
Bouzouita, N., Nafti, A., Chaabouni, M.M., Lognay, G.C., Marlier, M., Zghoulli, S.,
Thonart, P., 2001. Chemical composition of Laurus nobilis oil from Tunisia. J.
Essent. Oil Res. 13, 116–117.
Burt, S., 2004. Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications
in foods—a review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 94, 223–253.
Caredda, A., Marongiu, B., Porcedda, S., Soro, C., 2002. Supercritical carbon dioxide
extraction and characterization of Laurus nobilis essential oil. J. Agric. Food Chem.
50, 1492–1496.
Conforti, F., Statti, G., Uzunov, D., Menichini, F., 2006. Comparative chemical com-
position and antioxidant activities of wild and cultivated Laurus nobilis L. leaves
and Foeniculum vulgare subsp. piperitum (Ucria) Coutinho seeds. Biol. Pharm.
Bull. 29 (10), 2056–2064.
Crampton, F., Harris, L., 1974. Nutrición Animal aplicada. Acribia, España, 756 pp.
Dadalioglu, I., Evrendilek, G.A., 2004. Chemical Compositions and antibacterial
effects of essential oils of Turkish Oregano (Origanum minutiflorum), Bay (Lau-
rus nobilis), Spanish Lavender (Lavandula stoechas L.), and Fennel (Foeniculum
vulgare) on Common Foodborne Pathogens. J. Agric. Food Chem. 52, 8255–8260.
Flamini, G., Tebano, M., Cioni, P.-L., Ceccarini, L., Simone Ricci, A., Longo, I., 2007.
Comparison between the conventional method of extraction of essential oil of
Laurus nobilis L. and a novel method which uses microwaves applied in situ,
without resorting to an oven. J. Chromatogr. A 1143, 36–40.
Hokwerda, H., Ros, R., Tattje, D.H.E., Malingre, Th.M., 1982. Composition of essential
oils of Laurus nobilis, L. nobilis var. angustifolia and Laurus azorica. Planta Med.
44, 116–119.
Huergo, H., Retamar, J.A., 1978. El aceite esencial de bay (Laurus nobilis L.). Riv. It.
EPPOS 60, 635–637.
InfoStat, 2008. InfoStat, Version 2008. Grupo InfoStat, FCA, Universidad Nacional de
Córdoba, Brujas, Argentina.
Kilic, A., Hafizoglu, H., Kollmannsberger, H., Nitz, S., 2004. Volatile constituents and
key odorants in leaves, buds, flowers and fruits of Laurus nobilis L. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 52, 1601–1606.
Kilic, A., Kollmannsberger, H., Nitz, S., 2005. Glycosidically bound volatiles and flavor
precursors in Laurus nobilis L. J. Agric. Food Chem. 53, 2231–2235.
McLafferty, F.W., Stauffer, D.B., 2005. The Wiley/NBS Registry of Mass Spectral Data,
8th edn. Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Mitic-Culafic, D., Zegura, B., Nikolic, B., Vukovic-Gacic, B., Knezevic-Vukcevic, J.,
Filipic, M., 2009. Protective effect of linalool, myrcene and eucalyptol against t-
butyl hydroperoxide induced genotoxicity in bacteria and cultured human cells.
Food Chem. Toxicol. 47, 260–266.
NRC, 1969. United States-Canadian Tables of Feed Composition. NAS-NRC Pub. 1684.
Ozcan, M., Chalchat, J.C., 2005. Effect of different locations on the chemical compo-
sition of essential oils of bay (Laurus nobilis L.) leaves growing wild in Turkey. J.
Med. Food 8, 408–411.
Pino, J., Borges, P., Roncal, E., 1993. The chemical composition of bay leaf oil from
various origins. Die Nahrung. 37, 592–595.
Politeo, O., Jukic, M., Milos, M., 2007. Chemical composition and antioxidant activity
of free volatile aglycones from bay (Laurus nobilis L.) compared to its essential
oil. Croatia Chem. Acta 80, 121–126.
Schneider, B., 1954. The Total Digestible Nutrient System of Measuring Nutritive
Energy. Washington Agricultural Experimental Station, Scientific Paper No. 1250.
USA.
SAGPYA, May 2008. www.sagpya.mecon.gov.ar/new/0-0/agricultura.
Simic, A., Sokovic, M.D., Ristic, M., Grujic-Jovanovic, S., Vukojevic, J., Marin, P.D., 2004.
The chemical composition of some Lauraceae essential oils and their antifungal
activities. Phytother. Res. 1, 713–717.
Swift, R., 1957. The caloric value of TDN. J. Anim. Sci. 16, 753–757.
UNCTAD, 2006. World Market in the Spices Trade 2000–2004. UNCTAD, Geneva.
Zheng-kui, L., Ying-fang, H., Guo-ping, G., Yu-hong, G., 1990. Chemical constituents
of the essential oils from the leaves of Laurus nobilis and tendency in changes of
the constituents month by month. Acta Bot. Sin. 32, 878–882.
Zola, A., Le Vanda, L.E., Guthbord, F., 1977. L’huile essentiele de Laurier noble. Riv. It.
EPPOS 59, 374–380.