Food Anal.
Methods
DOI 10.1007/s12161-012-9420-8
Comparison of Different Extraction Methods to Determine
Phenolic Compounds in Virgin Olive Oil
M. Luz Pizarro & Mercedes Becerra & Ana Sayago &
María Beltrán & Rafael Beltrán
Received: 10 February 2012 / Accepted: 10 April 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract A comparison between different extraction meth-
ods has been performed in order to assess their effectiveness
for the analysis of total phenols (liquid–liquid extraction
(LLE), liquid–liquid micro extraction (LLME), and ultra-
sound liquid–liquid extraction (USE)) and individual phe-
nols (LLME, USE, and solid-phase extraction (SPE)) from
virgin olive oil (VOO). Statistical analysis of the analytical
data obtained for the total phenol content of a VOO, showed
that LLME and USE can represent a reliable alternative to
the traditional procedure based on LLE that needs more
amount of sample, generates more wastes, and is more time
consuming. When an olive oil spiked with phenols was used
to test the efficiency of LLME, USE, and SPE methods, the
statistical analysis of the data obtained for each individual
phenol, again proved LLME and USE methods to be the
most suitable, in terms of precision and recoveries, for this
purpose. The analysis of real samples (Arbequina and Picual
cultivars) confirmed the results obtained for the spiked oil.
Keywords Phenols . Liquid–liquid extraction . Liquid–
liquid micro extraction . Ultrasound liquid–liquid extraction .
Solid-phase extraction
Introduction
Virgin olive oil (VOO) is the main edible oil of Mediterranean
diet. It is directly obtained from ripe olive fruits without any
M. L. Pizarro : M. Becerra : A. Sayago (*) : M. Beltrán :
R. Beltrán
Department of Chemistry and Science of Materials,
Area of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Experimental Sciences,
University of Huelva,
Agrifood Campus of International Excellence (ceiA3),
Avd. Tres de Marzo S/N. 21071,
Huelva, Spain
e-mail: ana.sayago@dqcm.uhu.es
further refining process. Among the other vegetable oils,
VOO provides beneficial effects to human health because of
its antioxidant capacity (due to its content of phenols, toco-
pherols, carotenoids, and other constituents) and its excellent
organoleptic and nutritional qualities (Méndez and Falqué
2007; Kiritsakis and Christie 2000).
The possible correlation between the antioxidant activity
and the quantity of phenolic compounds has been established
(Servili and Montedoro 2002; Ninfali et al. 2001). These
compounds contribute to the stability of VOO and prolong
its shelf-life compared to other vegetable oils (Angerosa et al.
2000; Toschi et al. 2005). Besides, these antioxidant species
give virgin olive oil an important role towards treatment and
prevention of chronic diseases associated to generation of
oxidants, such as atherosclerosis, neurodegeneration, and oth-
er normal process of aging. Phenolic compounds are also
related to the organoleptic characteristics affecting flavor and
taste (bitterness and astringency), and also to the nutritional
qualities of virgin olive oil (Andrewes et al. 2003; Gutiérrez-
Rosales et al. 2003).
Polyphenols is a broad term used to define substances that
possess a benzene ring bearing one or more hydroxyl groups,
including functional derivative (Harborne and Dey 1989). The
main structural feature responsible for the anti-oxidative and
free radical-scavenging activity of phenolic derivates is the
phenolic hydroxyl group. Phenols are able to donate the
hydrogen atom of the phenolic OH to the free radicals, inter-
rupting the propagation of the oxidation process.
The phenolic fraction of VOO consists of a heteroge-
neous mixture of compounds, such as phenolic acids
(hydroxybenzoic and hydroxycinnamic derivatives), phe-
nylethyl alcohols (tirosol and hydrohytyrosol), secoiridoids
(aglyconic derivatives of oleuropein), and lignans. The con-
centration of these species is influenced by many factors
(García-González et al. 2010) such as the area of production
(Tura et al. 2007; Vinha et al. 2005), climate (Kalua et al.
2005), cultivars (Tura et al. 2007), cultivation techniques

(Tovar et al. 2001), fruit ripeness (Gutierrez et al. 1999), oil
extraction process (Servili et al. 1996), and storage condi-
tions (Morelló et al. 2004).
Therefore, the qualitative and quantitative determination
of phenolic compounds in VOO is of special importance and
the development of efficient and rapid analytical methods
for its extraction is needed (Tsimidou et al. 1992). Many
analytical procedures for determination of phenolic com-
pounds have been proposed within the last decade (Brenes
et al. 1999; Brenes et al. 2000; Carrasco-Pancorbo et al.
2005). Several methods for the isolation of polar phenolic
fraction of VOO have been employed based on liquid–liquid
extraction (LLE) (Brenes et al. 2000; Owen et al. 2000a;
Owen et al. 2000b; Vázquez Roncero 1978; Cortesi and
Fedell 1983; Cortesi et al. 1995), and solid-phase extraction
(SPE) (Servili et al. 1999; Favati et al. 1994; Favati et al.
1995; Andreoni and Fiorentini 1995; Mateos et al. 2001).
Different solvents such as lipophilic solvents with several
portions of methanol (Owen et al. 2000a, b), methanol/water
(Vázquez Roncero 1978; Cortesi and Fedell 1983), tetrahy-
drofuran/water (Cortesi et al. 1995), or N,N-dimethylforma-
mide (Brenes et al. 2000) have been utilized for LLE methods.
In regard to SPE, different sorbents have been used for the
isolation of polar components from VOO, being the most
common C18-cartridges (Servili et al. 1999; Favati et al.
1994, 1995), although anionic exchange cartridges (Andreoni
and Fiorentini 1995), amino phase cartridges, and diol-bond
phase SPE cartridges (Mateos et al. 2001) have also been used.
Usually, quantitative determination of total phenolic com-
pounds in VOO is performed according to Folin–Ciocalteau
colorimetric method (Gutfinger and Am 1981), while separa-
tion and determination of individual phenolic compounds in
the extracts often employs HPLC-DAD (high-performance
liquid chromatography equipped with a diode-array detector).
The aim of this research work is to compare different
extraction methods based on liquid–liquid and solid-phase
extraction procedures in order to determine total and individual
phenol content optimizing the ratio quality-time of analysis.
Experimental Procedures
Chemicals
All the reagents used for spectrophotometric measures, such
us methanol, n-hexane, Folin–Ciocalteau reagent, glacial
acetic acid, and sodium hydroxide, were of spectrophoto-
metric grade (99.9 %) (Panreac, Barcelona, Spain). Tyrosol
(2-(4-hydroxyphenyl) ethanol) (97 %), caffeic acid (3,4-
dihydroxycinnamic acid) (98 %), vanillic acid (4-hydroxy-
3-methoxybenzoic acid) (97 %), p-coumaric acid (4-hydrox-
ycinnamic acid) (98 %), o-coumaric acid (2-hydroxycin-
namic acid) (97 %) and vanillin (4-Hydroxy-3-
Food Anal. Methods
methoxybenzaldehyde) (98 %) were purchased from Fluka
(Steinheim, Germany). Gallic acid (3,4,5-trihydroxybenzoic
acid) (99 %), rutin (2-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)-5,7-dihy-
droxy-3-[α-L-rhamnopyranosyl-(1-6)-β-D-glucopyranosy-
loxy]-4H-chromen-4-one) (95 %), and sinapic acid (4-
hydroxy-3,5-dimethoxycinamic acid) (98 %) were from
Aldrich (USA). Apigenin (5,7-dihydroxy-2-(4-hydroxy-
phenyl)-4H-1-benzopyran-4-one) (99 %), luteolin (2-(3,4-
dihydroxyphenyl)-5,7-dihydroxy-4-chromenone) (99 %),
and oleuropein ((4S,5E,6S)-4-[2-[2-(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl)
ethoxy]-2-oxoethyl]- 5-ethylidene-6-[[(2S,3R,4S,5S,6R)-
3,4,5-trihydroxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)- 2-tetrahydropyranyl]
oxy]-4H-pyran-3-carboxylic acid, methyl ester) (99 %) were
bought from Extrasynthèse (Genay, France). Hydroxytyro-
sol [(3,4-dihydroxyphenyl) ethanol] was synthesized at the
Department of Organic and Pharmaceutical Chemistry of
the Faculty of Pharmacy (Seville, Spain).
SupelcleanTM ENVITM—C18 SPE Tubes 6 mL (0.5 g)
(Supelco, USA) were used for solid-phase extraction. The
ultrapure water was obtained from a system of purification
Milli-Q (Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA).
Samples
A commercial extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) was used to
study the repeatability, reproducibility, and recoveries in
total phenolic compounds extraction. Four commercial
EVOO and a refined phenolics-free olive oil were used to
study the extraction methods for individual phenols.
For the individual phenolic compounds extraction assays, a
spiked olive oil was prepared adding the studied phenols.
Thirty grams of refined olive oil was weighed and transferred
to 100-mL round bottom flask. Stock standard solutions of
each compound were prepared in methanol and added to the
refined olive oil. The concentration of the 13 phenolic com-
pounds selected (gallic acid, hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol, vanillic
acid, caffeic acid, vanillin, p-coumaric acid, sinapic acid, o-
coumaric acid, rutin, oleuropein, luteolin, and apigenin) in the
spiked olive oil were 40 μg/g. For 24 h, the prepared olive oil
was stirred under nitrogen atmosphere. After this process, a
rotary vacuum evaporator was used to eliminate the solvent.
Doped olive oil and standard solutions were stored at 4°C.
Methods
Three different methodologies (liquid–liquid micro extrac-
tion (LLME), LLE, and ultrasound liquid–liquid extraction
(USE) (Hernanz et al. 2008; Rodrigues and Pinto 2007)
were used for the extraction of phenolic fraction from com-
mercial olive oils in order to determine the total content by
colorimetry. Figure 1 shows the scheme for the three pro-
cesses. Variations of two of these methodologies, LLME
and USE, and a solid-phase extraction method were also
Food Anal. Methods

EXTRACTION METHODS FOR TOTAL PHENOLS DETERMINATION

Liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) Liquid-liquid microextraction (LLME) Ultrasound extraction (USE)

10 g sample + 50 mL n-Hexane in funnel 0.5 g sample + 1 mL MeOH 80%

0.5 g sample + 1 mL MeOH 80%
in 50 mL centrifuge tube
in 2 mL Eppendorf tubes

Add 20 mL Methanol 60%

Place the tubes on ice bath
Shake Eppendorf tubes in a
vortex during 1 minute
Apply ultrasound for 30
Centrifuge Eppendort tubes at x2 seconds in cycles of 10 seconds
Shake for 2 minutes
13400 rpm for 5 minutes
x2
Transfer the sample to a
x2
Extract 2 mL Eppendorf tube
Extract
methanolic phase
methanolic phase Add 1 mL
Add 20 mL MeOH 80% Centrifuge Eppendort tube at
MeOH 60% 13400 rpm for 5 minutes

Dilute methanolic phase in 10 mL Extract

Dilute methanolic phase in 100 mL volumetric flask with ultrapure water methanolic phase
volumetric flask with ultrapure water
Add 1 mL
MeOH 80%

Dilute methanolic phase in

10 mL volumetric flask with ultrapure water

Fig. 1 Scheme of the extraction methods for total phenols determination

used to obtain the phenolic extract for quantifying individ- times. The three extracts were combined and the volume
ual species (Fig. 2). adjusted to 10 mL with ultrapure water.

Liquid–Liquid Extraction of Total Phenolic Compounds
The extraction procedure was performed according to the
method described in Vazquez et al. method (Vázquez Roncero
et al. 1973) slightly modified. In this method, 10 g of olive oil
were dissolved with 50 mL of n-hexane in a funnel. The
mixture was shaken for 2 min and the phenolic phase
extracted with three portions of 20 mL of methanol 60 %.
The lower methanolic phase was collected. The methanolic
phases were combined and diluted in 100 mL to the mark with
ultrapure water.
Liquid–Liquid Micro Extraction of Total Phenolic
Compounds
Ultrasound Liquid–Liquid Extraction of Total Phenolic
Compounds
Olive oil (500 mg) was placed into polyethylene centrifuge
tube (50 mL, conical bottom) containing 1 mL of methanol/
water mixture (80:20, v/v) and directly sonicated using an
ultrasound probe (Bandelin Sonoplus UW 2200, Progen
Scientific, London, UK) with a titanium tip probe immersed
2 cm into solution for three cycles of 10 s at 20 °C. Then, the
solution was placed into an Eppendorf tube and it was
centrifuged at 13,400 rpm for 5 min at room temperature.
This process was performed three times. The upper meth-
anolic phases were transferred into 10-mL volumetric flask
and diluted to the mark with ultrapure water.

Phenolic compounds were extracted using a variation of Mur-
kovic et al. method (Murkovic et al. 2004). Olive oil (500 mg)
were extracted with 1 mL of a methanol/water mixture (80:20,
v/v) in 2-mL Eppendorf reaction tubes. After vigorous shaking
for 1 min using a vortex (Heidolph relax top, JP Selecta,
Barcelona), the sample was centrifuged (Eppendorf MiniSpin
Plus Microcentrifuges, Eppendorf, Madrid) at 13,400 rpm for
5 min at room temperature. This process was performed three
Colorimetric Determination of Total Phenolic Content
The quantitative determination of total phenols in VOO
was colorimetric assay, following the method described
for Gutfinger et al. (Gutfinger and Am 1981), with
minor modifications. The method is based on the reac-
tion of Folin–Ciocalteau reagent with the functional
hydroxy groups of phenolic compounds. Five milliliters

EXTRACTION METHODS FOR INDIVIDUAL PHENOLS DETERMINATION
Solid-phase extraction (SPE) Liquid-liquid microextraction (LLME)
0.5 g sample + 7.5 mL n-Hexane
Pass the diluted sample
through the activated cartridges
Eliminate apolar fraction
Wash with 5 × 5 mL
n-Hexane
Recuperate polar fraction
Elut with 4 × 5 mL
Take 0.150 mL of methanolic phase and
MeOH
dilute with ultrapure water up to 0.5 mL
Evaporate the extraction to dryness
with a rotavapor Tª<40ºC
Re-dissolve with 500 µL
MeOH
Filter through a 0.45 µm pore size
and 17 mm diameter nylon filter
Take 0.150 mL of methanolic phase and
dilute with ultrapure water up to 0.5 mL
Fig. 2 Scheme of the extraction methods for individual phenols determination
of the aqueous-methanolic solution of phenolic compounds
extracted from VOO was diluted in 15 mL of ultrapure water,
followed by the addition of 1.25 mL of Folin–Ciocalteau
reagent and maintained for 3 min. Then, 2.5 mL of sodium
hydroxide 6 % (v/v) were added. After 5 min, the reaction
mixture was mixed and diluted with ultrapure water to 25 mL.
The absorbance of the solution was measured after 2 h against
a blank sample using a UV–vis spectrophotometer (Termo
Spectronic Helios-γ v4.60, Cambridge, UK) at a wavelength
of 725 nm. The calibration curve was constructed using stan-
dard solutions of caffeic acid within the range 0–10 mg/L.
Results were expressed as milligrams of caffeic acid per
kilogram of oil.
Liquid–Liquid Micro Extraction of Individual Phenols
The phenolic fraction for individual phenols determination,
was extracted following the method previously described
(“Liquid–Liquid Micro Extraction of Total Phenolic Com-
pounds” section) with minor variations in order to avoid
sample manipulation. Five hundred milligrams of olive oil
was extracted with 1 mL of methanol/water mixture (80:20,
v/v) in 2-mL Eppendorf tubes. The mixture was vortexed for
1 min and centrifuged at 13,400 rpm for 5 min at room
Food Anal. Methods
Ultrasound extraction (USE)
0.5 g sample + 1 mL MeOH 80% 0.5 g sample + 1 mL MeOH 80%
in 2 mL Eppendorf tubes in 2 mL Eppendorf tubes
Shake Eppendorf tubes in a
vortex during 1 minute Introduce the sample in an ice bath
Centrifuge Eppendorf tubes at
13400 rpm during 5 minutes Apply ultrasound for 30
seconds in cycles of 10 seconds
Filter through a 0.45 µm pore size
and 17 mm diameter nylon filter Transfer the sample to a 2 mL
Eppendorf tube
Centrifuge Eppendorf tubes at
13400 rpm during 5 minutes
Filter through a 0.45 µm pore size
and 17 mm diameter nylon filter
Take 0.150 mL of methanolic phase and
dilute with ultrapure water up to 0.5 mL
temperature. The other two cycles were eliminated to avoid
an excess of methanol that would dilute the extract and should
be eliminated by rotary vacuum evaporator. Methanolic phase
was filtered through a 0.45-μm pore size and 17-mm diameter
nylon filter. Of the methanolic phase, 0.150 mL was diluted
with ultrapure water up to 0.5 mL.
Ultrasound Liquid–Liquid Extraction of Individual Phenols
The extraction method was a variation of the one pre-
viously described (“Ultrasound Liquid–Liquid Extraction of
Total Phenolic Compounds” section) with minor variations for
avoiding sample manipulation. Only one extraction cycle was
performed. Methanolic phase was filtered through a 0.45-μm
pore size and 17-mm diameter nylon filter. Of the methanolic
phase, 0.150 mL was diluted with ultrapure water up to
0.5 mL.
Solid-Phase Extraction of Individual Phenols
For the solid-phase extraction of the phenolic compounds, a
modification of the method described by Pirisi et al. (2000)
was used. Olive oil (500 mg) was dissolved in 7.5 mL of
hexane and the mixture was stirred for 1 min with a vortex.
Food Anal. Methods
An octadecyl C18 phase cartridge was placed in a vacuum
elution apparatus and conditioned by consecutive addition of
2×5 mL of methanol and 2×5 mL of hexane. The vacuum
was then released to prevent the column from drying. The oil
solution was applied to the column, and the solvent was pulled
through, leaving the sample on the solid phase. To eliminate
the apolar fraction, the cartridge was eluted with 5×5 mL of
hexane, and the polar compounds retained were recovered
with 4×5 mL of methanol. Methanolic phase was evaporated
under vacuum and dissolved with 0.5 mL of methanol. Meth-
anolic phase was filtered through a 0.45-μm pore size and 17-
mm diameter nylon filter. Of the methanolic phase, 0.150 mL
was diluted with ultrapure water up to 0.5 mL.
HPLC
All individual phenols were analyzed by high-performance
liquid chromatography. An Agilent 1100 series (Palo Alto,
CA, USA) chromatograph equipped with a diode-array de-
tector was used. A gradient of solvent A (water–methanol–
acetic acid, 93:5:2, v/v/v) and solvent B (methanol–acetic
acid, 98:2, v/v) was applied to a reversed-phase Nova-pack
C18 column (4 μm, 300×3.9 mm I.D, Waters Co., Milford,
Massachusetts, USA) as follows: from 0 to 5 min,
100 %A:0 %B; from 5 to 50 min, 60 %A:40 %B; from 50
to 60 min, 40 %A:60 %B; from 60 to 65 min,
25 %A:75 %B; from 65 to 70 min, 0 %A:100 %B; and
from 70 to 80 min, 100 %A:0 %B. The flow rate was
1 mL min−1 and the column was termostatized at 20 °C.
The volume injected was 100 μL. Detection was performed
Fig. 3 Elution phenolic profiles of a standard mixture (a, b, c) and
Picual virgin olive oil extract (d, e, f) at 280 nm (a, d), 320 nm (b, e),
and 360 nm (c, f). 1: Gallic acid; 2: hydroxytyrosol; 2′: hydroxytyrosol
by scanning from 190 to 700 nm. Quantification of phenolic
compounds was carried out using the area values measure-
ments at 280 nm for gallic acid, hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol,
vanillic acid, caffeic acid, vanillin, o-coumaric acid, and
oleuropein, at 320 nm for p-coumaric acid and sinapic acid
and at 360 nm for rutin, luteolin, and apigenin. Figure 3
shows the elution phenolic profiles of a standard mixture (a–
c) and Picual virgin olive oil extract (d–f) at 280 nm (a, d),
320 nm (b, e), and 360 nm (c, f). The chromatograms show
that phenylethyl alcohols and simple phenols eluted in first
place before 45 min, while flavonoids due to their greater
hydrophobicity, elute after 60 min increasing the concentra-
tion of methanol in the mobile phase. Identification of
chromatographic peaks was carried out by comparing their
retention times and spectra with those of standards.
Quantitative assays were achieved using external calibra-
tion curves for all standard phenols. The extraction methods
were applied to the refined oil in order to use the results as
blank. All analyses were carried out in triplicate and the
results were expressed as mean values.
Statistics
Significant differences between extraction techniques were
tested by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistical
differences with p values under 0.05 were considered sig-
nificant and means were compared by 95 % least squares
differences test (LSD).
Two multivariate methods were used for the data analy-
sis: cluster analysis (CA) and principal component analysis
derivate; 3: tyrosol; 4: vanillic acid; 5: caffeic acid; 6: vanillin; 7: p-
coumaric acid; 8: sinapic acid; 9: o-coumaric acid; 10: rutin; 11:
oleuropein; 12: luteolin; 13: apigenin; 13′: apigenin derivate
 Food Anal. Methods

Table 1 Repeatability, reproducibility, and mean value of total phenol coefficient of variation (%RSD). The information of the re-
extraction methods
peatability was attained by analyzing five replicates of the
Method r (%) R (%) Mean value same oil sample (EVOO var. Picual for total phenol content
and prepared oil for individual phenol extraction methods) in a
LLE 2.7 6.8 427.08 a work session, while the internal reproducibility was studied by
LLME 5.1 7.4 449.58b five independent assays performed under the same analytical
USE 9.4 7.9 459.57b conditions in five different days by two different analysts.
Each day five replicates of the same oil sample were analyzed.
r repeatability, R reproducibility expressed as relative standard
deviation Concerning the precision of the total phenols extraction
Different letters (a,b) in the same column imply significant differences methods (Table 1), the coefficients of variation (%RSD)
were fine for the three methods, displaying values lower
(PCA). Cluster analysis provides means for classifying a than 9.4 % for repeatability and 7.9 % for reproducibility,
given population into groups (clusters), based on similarity being LLE the method that showed better values. In the
or closeness measures. PCA is one of the most powerful and other hand, USE method showed the highest values for
common techniques used for reducing the dimensionality of precision (9.4 % for repeatability and 7.9 % for reproduc-
large sets of data without loss of information. New variables ibility); this fact could be attributed to the difficulty on
obtained as linear combination of the original ones are maintaining the temperature of the sample during the pro-
calculated in such a way as to keep most of the information cess. Finally, LLME method presents good values of RSD
present in the original data set in the least possible number for repeatability (5.1 %) and reproducibility (7.4 %) and has
of new variables or principal components (PCs). PCA was the advantage of needing less amount of sample, generating
applied for visualizing data trends. less waste and being less time consuming.
All the statistical analyses were performed using Statis- Concerning the values obtained for total phenols (Ta-
tica® v.6.0 software (StatSoft Inc., Statistica 6.0 for Win- ble 1), a one-way ANOVA test was applied, significant
dows Computer Program Manual, Tulsa, OK, 2001). differences (p<0.05) were observed as a function of factor
“extraction method”. When LSD test was applied to deter-
mine the significant differences between the methods, no
significant differences were found among the LLME and
Results and Discussion USE methods, whereas they presented average values sig-
nificantly different compared to those obtained by LLE.
Precision and Recoveries Although the best results for precision were obtained by
LLE method, this technique showed the lowest values for
The precision of the method was evaluated by determining the total phenols extracted from olive oil. This method also
repeatability and internal reproducibility of the recoveries; the needs more amount of sample, generates more wastes, and
precision was estimated by means of the averages of the is more time consuming than the other studied methods.

Table 2 Repeatability and re-

producibility of individual phe- SPE LLME USE
nol extraction methods
r (%) R (%) Re (%) r (%) R (%) Re (%) r (%) R (%) Re (%)

Gallic acid 7.3 11.3 53.6 0.8 1.2 77.3 1.3 3.5 82.3
Hydroxytyrosol 7.7 9.3 73.0 4.7 3.7 83.6 2.7 4.4 93.0
Tyrosol 6.6 7.5 96.6 2.4 3.0 84.0 2.3 3.0 94.9
Vanillic acid 5.9 7.5 96.6 2.5 3.5 84.3 2.7 3.2 95.7
Caffeic acid 4.7 9.0 72.4 1.3 3.8 80.1 1.6 2.5 92.6
Vanillin 6.3 6.7 93.8 1.6 3.3 78.3 2.1 2.7 85.9
p-Coumaric acid 5.3 7.9 92.8 2.7 2.7 84.4 1.9 2.3 95.8
Sinapic acid 5.5 8.0 74.3 0.7 3.7 82.6 4.4 4.6 88.5
o-Coumaric acid 5.8 11.9 90.9 3.2 4.6 82.1 3.5 4.2 95.9
Rutin 6.3 10.7 40.6 0.9 3.2 81.6 8.3 6.6 82.2
Oleuropein 4.9 6.2 40.8 3.2 4.8 85.0 7.2 5.4 89.7
r repeatability, R reproducibility Luteolin 6.1 8.5 61.7 1.8 3.2 74.4 1.4 2.9 86.8
expressed as relative standard Apigenin 4.9 7.3 74.2 1.6 2.9 72.0 1.6 2.5 82.1
deviation, Re recoveries
 Food Anal. Methods

Table 3 Individual phenols values of four commercial extra virgin olive oils assessed by applying the three extraction methods (milligrams per kilogram of oil)

Arbequina Picual

I II I II

Phenolic compounds SPE LLME USE SPE LLME USE SPE LLME USE SPE LLME USE

Hydroxytyrosol 10.33±0.69 18.45±0.82 19.42±0.62 9.68±0.50 18.17±0.94 19.47±0.23 20.30±1.32 29.23±1.06 33.29±0.19 17.59±1.65 30.83±1.12 32.67±0.34
Tyrosol 7.24±0.55 6.62±0.41 6.63±0.23 6.08±0.14 6.53±0.73 6.63±0.58 13.22±0.58 14.82±0.58 15.99±0.66 13.73±0.50 14.74±0.21 15.10±0.09
Hydroxytyrosol 4.75±0.34 7.40±0.14 7.79±0.21 5.23±0.28 7.37±0.04 7.92±0.13 3.98±0.20 3.88±0.03 4.87±0.19 3.04±0.14 3.62±0.03 3.98±0.08
derivate
Σ Phenylethyl 22.31 32.48 33.84 20.99 32.07 34.02 37.50 47.93 54.15 34.36 49.19 51.74
alcohols
Gallic acid nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
Vanillic acid 0.43±0.04 0.44±0.01 0.46±0.01 0.43±0.02 0.44±0.02 0.46±0.03 0.45±0.02 0.45±0.01 0.52±0.01 0.45±0.02 0.46±0.01 0.51±0.03
Σ Benzoic acids 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.52 0.45 0.46 0.51
derivates
Caffeic acid nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
p-Coumaric acid 0.18±0.02 0.22±0.01 0.25±0.02 0.15±0.01 0.19±0.02 0.20±0.02 0.39±0.01 0.46±0.01 0.49±0.01 0.31±0.01 0.35±0.00 0.39±0.01
o-Coumaric acid 0.09±0.01 0.09±0.00 0.09±0.01 0.09±0.00 0.09±0.00 0.09±0.00 0.03±0.00 0.04±0.00 0.06±0.00 0.03±0.00 0.03±0.00 0.03±0.06
Sinapic acid nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
Σ Cinamic acids 0.27 0.31 0.34 0.24 0.27 0.29 0.42 0.50 0.55 0.34 0.38 0.42
derivates
Vanillin (phenylethyl 0.35±0.03 0.32±0.01 0.34±0.02 0.35±0.01 0.32±0.01 0.35±0.01 0.33±0.01 0.32±0.01 0.33±0.01 0.34±0.02 0.32±0.01 0.35±0.01
aldehyde)
Oleuropein nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
(secoiridoids)
Rutin nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd nd
Luteolin 2.23±0.27 3.12±0.06 3.36±0.12 1.61±0.12 3.28±0.07 3.52±0.21 1.99±0.23 3.60±0.06 4.11±0.20 2.13±0.13 3.38±0.06 3.95±0.01
Apigenin 0.85±0.02 0.98±0.01 1.08±0.03 0.79±0.07 0.97±0.04 1.03±0.06 0.77±0.05 1.00±0.01 1.13±0.04 0.84±0.06 0.91±0.01 1.03±0.00
Apigenin derivate 0.41±0.01 0.67±0.01 0.72±0.01 0.50±0.03 0.66±0.00 0.62±0.01 0.33±0.02 0.42±0.01 0.39±0.01 0.31±0.02 0.39±0.01 0.38±0.00
Σ Flavonoids 3.49 4.77 5.16 2.90 4.91 5.18 3.10 5.02 5.63 3.28 4.68 5.36

Therefore, and also in order to avoid the high generation of
wastes from LLE method, this method was excluded for the
following experience of determining individual phenols
compounds, and a new method based on solid-phase extrac-
tion was applied.
Concerning the precision of individual phenols ex-
traction methods, the recoveries and the coefficients of
variation (%RSD) for repeatability and reproducibility of
the individual compounds are displayed in Table 2. In
relation to SPE method, the repeatability shows values
ranging from 4.7 to 7.7 % of RSD while reproducibility
presents higher values, being greater than 10 % for
gallic acid, o-coumaric acid, and rutin, the lowest RSD
were obtained for oleuropein (6.3 %). With regard to
the repeatability of LLME extraction the RSD values
were lower than 4.7 % for all phenolic compounds.
Likewise reproducibility values show relative standard
deviations (%RSD) ranging from 1.2 to 4.8 %. Repeat-
ability of USE method showed RSD values around
1.5 % for gallic acid, caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid,
luteolin, and apigenin being in the 2–4 % range for
the rest of the compounds except to oleuropein (7 %)
and rutin (8 %). However reproducibility, displays val-
ues lower than 6.6 % for all the phenols studied.
Fig. 4 Cluster analysis obtained from the extraction methods for individual phenols. (A: Arbequina samples; P: Picual samples)
Food Anal. Methods
Taking into consideration the 13 phenolic compounds
studied, LLME was the best method in terms of precision
and hence the method providing highest repeatability and
reproducibility (Table 2).
To determine recoveries, an average value of the consec-
utive extractions performed on each method was applied to
the spiked oil. For each phenolic compound, the recovery
rate was calculated by the ratio (C1/C2)×100, where C1 is
the means of measured concentrations in sample, and C2 is
the amount of the analyte added to prepared oil. When the
SPE extraction procedure was applied, recoveries ranging
from 40 to 96 % (73.9 % in average) were obtained. The
lowest recoveries (<60 %) were obtained for rutin, oleuro-
pein, and gallic acid whereas the highest ones (>90 %)
corresponded to tyrosol, vanillic acid, and o-coumaric acid.
Recoveries of gallic acid, flavonoids (luteolin, apigenin, and
rutin), and secoroids (oleuropein) obtained with SPE meth-
od showed smaller values than the other extraction method.
With regards to the LLME method, recoveries varying from
72 % (apigenin) to 85 % (oleuropein) were obtained with an
averaged recovery of 80.7 %. When USE method was
applied, the best recoveries were found, achieving values
between 82 % (gallic acid, apigenin, and rutin) and 95 %
(vanillin acid, p-coumaric acid, and o-coumaric acid)
Food Anal. Methods
(89.6 % in average). The existence or not of significant
differences in the levels of phenols detected, as function of
the extraction method was evaluated by the analysis of
variance (ANOVA). The result obtained when the values
of all the phenols were considered, showed that there were
statistically significant differences (p<0.05) between the
methods applied. When the univariate results were ana-
lyzed, the existence of significant differences for individual
phenols extracted was obtained except for tyrosol, vanillin,
vanillic acid, and o-coumaric acid.
When LSD test was applied, similar behavior was ob-
served for phenols belonging to the group of acids and
phenylethyl alcohols, in which USE and LLME showed
no significant differences, and the percentage of extraction
was higher than for the SPE method, while phenols belong-
ing to the group of flavonoids presented significant differ-
ences between the three methods being the USE method
which offers higher rates of extraction.
Analysis of Real Samples
The phenolic profile of four commercial extra virgin olive
oils of two different varieties (Arbequina and Picual) was
assessed by applying the three extraction methods. The
values obtained have been summarized in Table 3.
Fig. 5 Principal component analysis from the extraction methods for individual phenols. (A: Arbequina samples; P: Picual samples)
Analyzing the information provided by the three extrac-
tion methods for individual phenols, it was found that for
Arbequina samples the predominant phenolic compounds
were phenylethyl alcohols, representing 84 % of total phe-
nolic compounds analyzed, followed by flavonoid com-
pounds representing 12 %, benzoic acids 1.3 %, phenolic
aldehydes 1 %, and the last one were cinamic acids, 0.8 % of
total phenolic analyzed. A similar profile was obtained for
Picual samples with 88, 8.7, 0.9, 0.8, and 0.6 % for phenyl-
ethyl alcohols, flavonoids, benzoic acids, cinamic acids, and
phenolic aldehydes, respectively, of total phenolic com-
pounds analyzed. When ANOVA was applied, significant
differences (p00.037) were observed as a function of vari-
ety. The univariate results showed that there were significant
differences (p<0.05) in levels of phenylethyl alcohols, ben-
zoic acids, o-coumaric acid, luteolin, and apigenin derivate.
The data set obtained from the three extraction methods
for individual phenols was employed to perform a cluster
analysis, applying city-block Manhattan distance algorithm
and Ward's method as linkage rule. The results were
reported as a dendrogram, shown in Fig. 4. On the basis of
the connecting distances, two main clusters were defined,
one for each of the varieties of olive oil. Each of the clusters
is subdivided into two groups, one including the samples
taken with a solid-phase extraction method (SPE) and the

other, those extracted by liquid–liquid methods (LLME and
USE). This confirms the results obtained for the spiked oil.
Similar results were obtained when principal component
analysis (PCA) was applied to the matrix of data. Three PCs
with eigenvalues higher than 1.0 were extracted (Kaiser's
criterion), which accounted for 95.6 % of the total variance.
Figure 5 shows the PC1/PC2 score plot, in which the first
two principal components summarize more variation in the
data than any other principal components, accounting for
84.73 % of the data variance. PC1 (52.95 % explained
variance) allowed the distinction between varieties of olive
oil. Hydroxytyrosol, tyrosol, and vanillic acid with positive
loading values and o-coumaric acid with negative loading
values were the variables corresponding to PC1. PC2
(31.78 % explained variance) led to differentiate the liq-
uid–liquid extraction method from the solid-phase extrac-
tion method. Luteolin, apigenin, and derivates of apigenin
and hydroxytyrosol with negative loading values, were the
variables correlated with PC2.
Conclusions
It was noticed that the method leading to higher mean values
for total phenols was USE. However, the existence of no
significant differences between this and LLME, added to the
latter has better values for repeatability and reproducibility,
and its inherent advantages such as lower solvent and time
consuming, makes LLME method of choice for total phenol
extraction from olive oil. When LLME and USE methods
were compared with SPE method for the extraction of
individual phenols, again it was proved that liquid–liquid
extraction methods were the most suitable for this purpose.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge Daniel
Sanchez Rodas (University of Huelva) for their helpful assis-
tance. We also thank industrial olive oil mills from Beas, San
Bartolomé, Trigueros, and Gibraleón (Huelva, Spain) for provid-
ing us with the samples for this work. This investigation has
been supported by RISE (0042_RISE_5_E) grant.
References
Andreoni N, Fiorentini R (1995) Riv Ital Sost Grasse 72:163–164
Andrewes P, Busch JLHC, De Joode T, Groenewegen A, Alexandre H,
Agric J (2003) Food Chem 51:1415–1420
Angerosa F, Mostallino R, Basti C, Vito R (2000) Food Chem 68:283–287
Brenes M, García A, García P, Ríos JJ, Garrido A, Agric J (1999) Food
Chem 47:3535–3540
Brenes M, García A, García P, Garrido A, Agric J (2000) Food Chem
48:5178–5183
Food Anal. Methods
Carrasco-Pancorbo A, Cerretani L, Bendini A, Segura-Carretero A,
Gallina-Toschi T, Fernández-Gutiérrez A, Sep J (2005) Sci
28:837–858
Cortesi N, Fedell E (1983) Riv Ital Sostanze Grasse 60:341–351
Cortesi N, Azzolini M, Rovellini P, Fedell E (1995) Riv Ital Sostanze
Grasse 72:241–251
Favati F, Carporale G, Bertuccioli M (1994) Grasas Aceites
45:68–70
Favati F, Carporale G, Monteleone E, Bertuccioli M (1995) Food
flavors: generation, analysis and process influence. Charalamous
G (ed), Elsevier, Amsterdam 429-438
García-González D, Aparicio R, Agric J (2010) Food Chem 58:12569–
12577
Gutfinger T, Am J (1981) Oil Chem Soc 58:966–968
Gutierrez F, Jiménez B, Albi MA, Agric J (1999) Food Chem 47:121–
127
Gutiérrez-Rosales F, Ríos JJ, Gómez-Rey ML, Agric J (2003) Food
Chem 51:6021–6025
Harborne JB, Dey PM (1989) Methods in plant biochemistry. Harborne
JB (ed), Academic Press, London
Hernanz D, Gallo V, Recamales AF, Meléndez-Martínez A, Heredia F
(2008) Talanta 76:929–935
Kalua CM, Allen MS, Bedgood DR, Bishop AG, Prenzler PD, Agric J
(2005) Food Chem 53:8054–8062
Kiritsakis AK, Christie WW (2000) Handbook of olive oil anal-
ysis and properties: analysis of edible oils. In: Harwood J,
Aparicio R (eds), Aspen Publishers Inc., Gaithersburg, MA
129–158
Mateos R, Espartero JL, Trujillo M, Ríos JJ, León-Camacho M, Alcudia
F, Cert A, Agric J (2001) Food Chem 49:2185–2192
Méndez AI, Falqué E (2007) Food Control 18:521–529
Morelló JR, Motilva MJ, Tovar MJ, Romero MP (2004) Food Chem
85:357–364
Murkovic M, Lechner S, Pietzka A, Bratacos M, Katzogiannos E
(2004) J Biochem Biophys Methods 61:155–160
Ninfali P, Aluigi G, Bacchiocca M, Magnani M, Am J (2001) Oil
Chem Soc 78:243–247
Owen RW, Mier W, Giacosa A, Hull WE, Spiegelhalder B, Bartsh H
(2000a) Food Chem Toxicol 38:647–659
Owen RW, Mier W, Giacosa A, Hull WE, Spiegelhalder B, Bartsh H
(2000b) Clin Chem 46:976–988
Pirisi M, Cabras P, Falqui C, Migliorini M, Muggelli M, Agric J (2000)
Food Chem 48:1191–1196
Rodrigues S, Pinto G (2007) J Food Eng 80:869–872
Servili M, Montedoro GF (2002) Eur J Lipid Sci Technol
104:602–613
Servili M, Baldioli M, Miniati E, Montedoro GF (1996) J Am Oil
Chem Soc 73:1589
Servili M, Baldioli M, Selvaggini R, Miniati E, Machioni A,
Montedoro G, Alm J (1999) Oil Chem Soc 76:873–882
Toschi TG, Cerretani L, Bendini A, Bonoli-Carbognin M, Lercker G,
Sep J (2005) Sci 28:859–870
Tovar MJ, Motilva MJ, Romero MP, Agric J (2001) Food Chem
49:5502–5508
Tsimidou M, Papadopoulos G, Boskou D (1992) Food Chem 45:141–
144
Tura D, Gigliotti C, Pedo S, Failla O, Bassi D, Serraiocco A (2007)
Scientia Horticulturae 112:108–119
Vázquez Roncero A (1978) Rev Fr Corps Gras 25:21–26
Vázquez Roncero A, Janer Del Valle C, Janer Del Valle ML (1973)
Grasas y Aceites 24:350–357
Vinha AF, Ferreres F, Silva BM, Valentao P, Gonçalves A, Pereira JA
(2005) Food Chem 89:561–568