Next Article in Journal
Determination of Prestress in Circular Inhomogeneous Solid and Annular Plates in the Framework of the Timoshenko Hypotheses
Next Article in Special Issue
Value-Added Products by Solvent Extraction and Steam Distillation from Elderberry (Sambucus nigra L.)
Previous Article in Journal
Brewing with 10% and 20% Malted Lentils—Trials on Laboratory and Pilot Scales
Previous Article in Special Issue
Single-Stage Fractionation of Vine Shoots Using Microwave Heating
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 11
Issue 21
10.3390/app11219818
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Anthocyanins, Phenolic Compounds, and Antioxidants from Extractions of Six Eucalyptus Species

by
Xana Álvarez
1,*,
Ángeles Cancela
2,
Yolanda Merchán
1 and
Ángel Sánchez
3
1
Engineering Department of Natural Resources and Environment, School of Forestry Engineering, University of Vigo, A Xunqueira s/n, 36005 Pontevedra, Spain
2
Chemical Engineering Department, School of Forestry Engineering, University of Vigo, A Xunqueira s/n, 36005 Pontevedra, Spain
3
Chemical Engineering Department, Industrial Engineering College, University of Vigo, Lagoas-Marcosende s/n, 36310 Vigo, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2021, 11(21), 9818; https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219818
Submission received: 18 September 2021 / Revised: 14 October 2021 / Accepted: 15 October 2021 / Published: 20 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioproducts, Biomaterial and Clean Technologies of Waste)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The leaves of Eucalyptus have multiple biological activities such as antimicrobial, antiseptic, antioxidant, and antifungal. A Soxhlet extraction, SLE, and HD were used to obtain extracts from the leaves of six Eucalyptus species, E. globulus, E. oblicua, E. pavaflora, E. camaldulensis, E. viminalis, and E. nitens, and to study their antioxidant capacity. Solvents such as acetone, dichloromethane, ethanol, hexane, methanol, and water were used to study how polarity influences extraction yields. The SLE method achieved higher or similar yields, depending on the species and its composition, than the Soxlet method at a temperature of 50 °C. The highest yields were obtained with E. viminalis with methanol (42.5 wt.%), the highest phenolic content was obtained with E. nitens with methanol (124.17 mg GAE/g of extract), and the highest anthocyanin levels obtained were with E. nitens with hexane (5.05 mg CC/g of extract). E. nitens obtained almost five times more phenolic content than E. globulus; therefore, it is the most promising species. The high content of the compounds analysed confirm the good potential of these species to obtain value-added compounds. Our results demonstrate that the differences in the extract contents depend on the polarity of the solvents used. In addition, the use of these species will reduce the residue in the forest, which is greatly beneficial.

1. Introduction

Eucalyptus is a genus of over 900 species and subspecies of flowering trees and shrubs found in the Myrtaceae family [1]. Originally from Australia, nowadays Eucalyptus can be found all over the world [2], and with 18 million ha planted in over 90 countries, it is one of the most widely scattered hardwoods worldwide [3]. Eucalyptus spp. are fast growing plants with the capacity to tolerate harsh environments such as wild fires, drought, and soil acidity [4]. Because of this, numerous species of Eucalyptus are used in the wood industry for the production of pulp, timber, and paper [5], while the bark, leaves, and branches are usually considered by-products utilised for energy production [6,7]. Even the production of pellets using mixtures of microalgae and Eucalyptus has been studied, reducing the negative impact on ecosystems and reducing waste. In Galicia, in north-western Spain, the first specimen planted was Eucalyptus globulus, in 1850. Nowadays, the numbers of species of genus Eucalyptus found in Galicia include 40 taxa (37 species and 3 subspecies), including several hybrids [8]. A study by Picos [9] showed that in Galicia, in 2017, 8.5 million of m3 of wood had been cut, which represented 47% of the total wood cut in Spain, and accounted for 1.9% of the round-wood production in the European Union. Fifty per cent of the total wood cut was eucalyptus. The forest industry in Galicia employed 20,320 people in 2017 and had a turnover of 2200 million euros [9,10].
In addition to its use to obtain paper pulp, other uses have been analysed that highlight its potential in other industries. The medicinal properties of Eucalyptus spp. have been reported in various studies [2] and high amounts of polyphenols are known to be found in Eucalyptus [4,11]. Polyphenols are complex bioactive molecules found naturally in trees and plant-based foods such as berries, cocoa, tea, and coffee [12,13]. Polyphenols can be divided into flavonoids, phenolic acids, stilbenes, and lignans [14]. Research on the characteristics and properties of polyphenols have linked these molecules to the prevention of cancer, diabetes, osteoporosis, coronary disease, neurodegenerative diseases, and diabetes mellitus [15].
Eucalyptus leaves are being widely studied as they contain volatile essential oil, with multiple widespread biological activities such as antimicrobial, antiseptic, antioxidant, and antifungal [16,17]. The leaves are evergreen, simple, hairless, and with a smooth margin, in other words without teeth or serrations. They usually have two types of leaves: those of the young specimens are wide and often lack stalks, while those of the adult specimens are more elongated, alternate, and always have an obvious stalk. The leaves can be classified according to the venation and the shape. The adult sheet has a central nerve and pinnate sides that are usually welded on a line next to the margin. According to the venation, they can be classified into almost parallel, oblique, and transverse, and according to shape, they can be classified into lanceolate, broadly lanceolate, narrowly lanceolate, elliptic, ovate, linear, and oblique [8].
Eucalyptus leaves are a great source of antioxidants, particularly flavonoids, which offer protection against from oxidative stress and free radical damage. The flavonoid subgroups are flavones, flavonols, flavanones, flavanonols, flavanols or catechins, anthocyanins, and chalcones [18]. The main flavonoids presented in eucalyptus are catechins, isorhamnetin, luteolin, kaempferol, phloretin, and quercetin [19]. On the other hand, Eucalyptus leaf extract can also be used to impart new functionality to textile fibres, such as the production of anti-UV and antimicrobial cotton fabrics through dyeing, thus improving cotton material [20]. This application works to mitigate the appearance of cyanotoxins in the water, toxic metabolites [21], ensuring the optimal state of water security. Other applications where Eucalyptus leaves extract can be used are in the mild steel industry as a source for inhibiting corrosion in acidic media [22], and as tool to control and reduce the proliferation of cyanobacteria in aquatic environments [23]. Moreover, there has been an increasing interest in the use of Eucalyptus leaves extracts from different fields such as pharmaceutical [11,24], cosmetic [25], and food industries [11,24].
The aim of this study was to determinate the most efficient methodology for obtaining extracts from the leaves of six Eucalyptus species, E. globulus, E. oblicua, E. pavaflora, E. camaldulensis, E. viminalis, and E. nitens. For this purpose, three extraction methods have been studied (Figure 1): solid-liquid extraction (SLE), which implies a more rational use of solvent quantities, temperature, and extraction time; hydrodistillation (HD), as the most economical method; and the Soxhlet method (Figure 1). However, optimal extraction will depend largely on the polarity of the solvent used, the chemical composition of the compounds to be extracted, the quantity and position of their hydroxyl groups, solvent concentration, temperature, time of contact, particle size, and mass-solvent ratio [26,27,28]. In this work, six solvents with different polarity were used: water, acetone, ethanol, methanol, hexane, and dichloromethane. The influence of the solvent polarity on the extraction yield was analysed and the extracts obtained were characterised according to their content in total phenols and anthocyanins. Due to the importance of phenolic and flavonoids compounds, studying the viability of the use and exploitation of these species, which are easy to grow and widely spread in the study area, is presented as a promising analysis. In addition to obtaining value-added compounds, we would reduce waste in the forest. The development of this technology promotes land conservation and restoration, as well as innovative industrial development. These goals are part of the EU’s political agenda, supported by the green agenda, and included in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [26].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Preparation

The eucalyptus leaves were supplied by Lourizán Forestry Research Centre in Pontevedra (Galicia), in north-western Spain. The fresh leaves were washed with distilled water to remove all impurities and then kept in the oven at 50 °C for two days to dry them. The leaves presented a moisture content of 5 wt.%. They were cut into small pieces of around 1 cm. The characteristics of the leaves are shown in Table 1.

2.2. Soxhlet Extraction

Studies have shown that Soxhlet extraction is the most effective method for the extraction of phenolic compounds [6,29,30,31]. All the solvents used in this study were purchased from Fisher and Sigma Aldrich. They all had a 99–100% purity. Their characteristics are shown in Table 2. The select solvents were water (W), acetone (AC), ethanol (ETH), methanol (MTH), hexane (HEX), and dichloromethane (DCH).
Every sample was mixed with 200 mL of each solvent. The mixture was introduced for six hours into a Soxhlet extractor, in which six extraction cycles took place. After extraction, the samples were introduced in a IKA RV 3V rotary evaporator (IKA, Staufen, Germany) for solvent removal at 100 °C for 24 h, and then weighed. All extracts were placed at room temperature before determining the extraction yield. Three experiments were carried out dividing every sample in smaller batches. The results were calculated by arithmetic mean.
Total extraction yield was calculated by Equation (1):
Y t o t a l = m e x t r a c t m r a w × 100
where:
mextract is the mass of extract weighted after evaporation solvent
mraw is the dry mass of the leaves.

2.3. Batch Solid-Liquid Extractions (SLE)

The SLE assays were carried out with the above compounds in Soxhlet extractions. Leaves of each species were extracted into a filter bag with 100 mL of the sample solvent for 7 h by shaking at 300 rpm. The solvent was kept under its own boiling point, and the yield was studied at 20, 35, and 50 °C. The liquid solutions were then evaporated to dryness at a rotary evaporator, followed by redissolving the extract in a pre-weighed sample holder, and final drying was carried out in an oven to verify the constant mass of the extract. The total extraction yield was calculated using Equation (1).

2.4. Hydrodistillation (HD)

The HD tests were performed with leaf samples (approx. 90 g), ground (particle size less than 2 mm) and unground, to evaluate the effect of particle size on extraction yield, and with deionised water (approx. 800 mL) for 3 h in a Clevenger-type apparatus. The hydrodistillation product corresponds to the fraction of extractives that was vaporised, condensed, and collected in a side collection vessel.

2.5. Chemical Characterisation

Based on the best performing extraction method, the following analyses were performed:
The total phenol content of extracts was determined by the Folin-Ciocalteu method [32,33]. An Agilent spectrophotometer, the Cary-60 VIS-UV (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), with double internal beam and pulsing xenon lamp was used, and absorbance was read at 760 nm. A gallic calibration curve at five gallic acid concentrations (0, 4, 10, 25, 50 mg/L) was obtained. The procedure described for the standard gallic acid was followed and the absorbance was recorded for each extract. Samples were prepared in triplicate for each analysis and the average absorbance value was used to plot the calibration curve to determine the level of phenols in the extracts. The total phenolic content of the extracts was expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per gram of sample on a dry weight basis (mg/g).
Anthocyanins measurements were done by the acid hydrolysis in butanol method [34]. The absorbance was recorder at 530 nm, absorption maximum observed to anthocyanin [30], and the results were expressed as based on cyanine equivalent. A cyanine calibration curve at five concentrations (0, 5, 10, 15, 30 mg/L) was obtained. A standard calibration method was followed, the commercial cyanine chloride standard, 1 mg, was dissolved in 1 mL of methanol and the 5 mL flask was made up to the mark with distilled water. From this solution, which is 200 ppm, the necessary dilutions are prepared to make the standard line. The results were expressed as mg cyanine chloride /g extract.
Antioxidant activity was assessed by two methodologies: (1) ABTS⋅ + method; 3 mL of ABTS⋅ + solution was mixed with 10 μL of extracts. A decrease in absorbance was measured at λ = 734 nm [30]; (2) CUPRAC assay: the CUPRAC solution included copper (II) chloride (0.01 M in water), ammonium acetate buffer (0.001 M, pH = 7), and neocuproine (0.0075 M in ethanol) (ratio 1:1:1:1). Then, 3 mL of CUPRAC reagent was mixed with 10 μL of extracts. An increase in absorbance was recorded at λ = 450 nm [31].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The values obtained were entered into statistical analysis using statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 16.0 version (SPSS, Inc., Headquarters, Chicago, IL, USA). All experiments were conducted in triplicates. The average of multiple measurements (triplicates or more) was listed in the tables together with the standard deviations. Comparisons were performed by a Student’s test and Kruskal-Wallis test. The statistical results confirm the hypothesis that the differences between the results are either not significant (p > 0.05), significant (0.001 < p < 0.05), or highly significant (p < 0.001).

3. Results

3.1. Total Extraction Yield

The results present in Figure 2 show important differences among solvents. High polarity solvents produced the highest yields (32.3–42.5 wt.% with methanol, 30.8–38.7 wt.% with ethanol, and 22.3–35.2 wt.% with water), followed by solvents with medium polarity (19.3–29.5 wt.% with acetone), and non-polar solvents (9.4–19.6 wt.% with hexane 15–19.5 wt.% with dichloromethane).
Finally, the results presented in Table 3 provide information on the expected productivity when approaching the production of these Eucalyptus species with boiling water. Although HD methods provide lower yields, the results are similar to those obtained by SLE and Soxhlet with hexane. Despite the low productivity obtained with hexane, it is one of the most widely used solvents in industrial oil production [32].

3.2. Extract Composition

The levels of total phenolics and anthocyanins obtained varied among species (Table 4 and Table 5). Our results show the highest phenolic content was obtained 124.17 mg GAE/g of extract for E. nitens with methanol. On the other hand, the lowest phenolic content obtained was 1.57 mg GAE/g of extract for E. oblicua with hexane.
Phenolic content was higher for all five species of Eucalyptus when using the polar solvents methanol (20.10–124.17 mg GAE/g of extract) and ethanol (17.72–112.57 mg GAE/g of extract), than when using non-polar solvents such as hexane (1.57–8.06 mg GAE/g of extract) (Table 4). The anthocyanin content varied greatly depending on the species and solvent (Table 5).
Two different antioxidant capacity assays (ABTS, CUPRAC) were evaluated for each of the study species. The ABTS assay was based on the ability of the antioxidants to remove ABTS-+, while CUPRAC measured the ability of the antioxidants to reduce Cu(II) to Cu(I). Knowledge of antioxidant activity could be useful for the standardisation of Eucalyptus raw materials. The highest antioxidant activity by ABTS and CUPRAC methods was for acetone extracts (10.72 and 3.44 mmol g−1, respectively for Eucalyptus globulus) (Table 6).

4. Discussion

4.1. Total Extraction Yield Analysis

Al-Sumri et al. [33] studied the effects of solvent type on palm seed oil and found that polar solvents such as methanol and ethanol gave better total yields than those with lower polarity such as acetone. However, they also suggested particle size could influence percentage of extraction yield. Thus, they determined the diminution in particle size caused an increase of yields. Markom et al. [35] discovered that polar solvents, for instance water and ethanol, gave better yields than non-polar solvents in a study in which they analysed the effects of solvent type on the extraction yield of bioactive compounds in Pinus niruri. In addition, incorporating water to acetone and ethanol did increase the extract yield [35]. On the same line, Muhammad Muhayyidin et al. [36] determined that the polar solvents methanol and water increased percentage yields compared to other non-polar solvents. As in other studies, they also suggested that particle size influenced the effectiveness of the extraction, and the larger the particle, the lower the yields obtained.
Extraction yields are different between species: E. viminalis gives the highest yields, ranging from 19.5 to 42.5 wt.%, while E. pavaflora gives the lowest yields ranging from 9.4 to 32.3 wt.%. Available literature also indicates variation in extraction yields between different species of Eucalyptus. Lima et al. [5] reported Soxhlet extraction yields of 11.3% for E. viminalis, 8.6% for E. globulus, and 14.8% for E. camaldulensis. These extractions were done with a 50% aqueous ethanol solution of the barks, which could confirm the influence of solvents and the parts of the plant used on the percentage of extraction. Rodrigues et al. [6] reported for E. globulus a Soxhlet extraction yield variation of 7.32 to 30.34 wt.%, obtained with the use of different polarity solvents. Achmad et al. [37] recorded variations of yields of different eucalyptus species leaves from 1.6 to 3.3%. They suggested differences depended on the species, plant growing location, and age of the leaves.
The yield achieved through SLE at different temperatures is expected to reach that obtained by the Soxhlet method. By heating the solvent, the temperature increases the solubility of the solutes, as well as improving the diffusion rate and mass transfer, decreasing the solvent viscosity and surface tension [38]. From the results obtained, it is possible to highlight the importance of temperature for ethanol, hexane, and acetone, which improves their yields by 57–50%, based on the average between the leaves of each species. The temperature benefit to achieve maximum yield is not related to the boiling point of the solvent. For example, hexane and methanol have close boiling points (68.5 °C and 64.7 °C, respectively), while the yields are disparate [39].

4.2. Extract Composition Analysis

The highest anthocyanin levels obtained were 5.05 mg CC/g of extract for E. nitens with hexane, and the lowest was 0.30 mg CC/g of extract for E. oblicua with acetone. These variation differences could indicate that different extract amounts will be obtained depending on the solvents used. This difference in distribution may be due to the different species, or in turn, the anthocyanin concentration may be altered by extraction methods, such as different extraction conditions [40]. Furthermore, Student´s test between anthocyanin content and the different solvents was statistically significant. Regarding the analysis of the anthocyanin content, the values obtained with methanol and ethanol were the highest. This is because methanol and ethanol are solvents with higher polarity, and anthocyanins containing a number of polar bonds, particularly the oxonium group, are more soluble in highly polar solvents [41].
The variations obtained for the phenolic composition are in agreement with other similar studies. Limam et al. [41] determined the chemical composition and antioxidant activity of thirteen species of Eucalyptus and found total phenols content varied significantly among species. Lima et al. [5] also reported differences in the composition and antioxidant properties of eleven Eucalyptus species with ethanol/water Soxhlet extractions. Most of the available literature data, however, centre on E. globulus, and they all reported different levels of total phenolics. For example, Dezsi et al. [42] recorded a high amount of phenolic content (235.87 mg GA/g) which they obtained with ethanol. Dos Santos-Ferreira et al. [43], on the other hand, reported a low amount of phenolic compounds (8.09 mg GA/g) but determined that the most efficient methods for extraction of phenolics for Eucalyptus globulus were highly polar solvents. In particular, 70/30 methanol/water extract increased phenolic content by 50% (13 mg GA/g) [43]. Pereira et al. [44] also obtained higher amounts of phenolic compounds when using high polarity solvents (47.16 mg GA/g with methanol and 53.42 mg GA/g with water) than with non-polar solvents (4.07 mg GA/g with dichloromethane). When using a 70/30 methanol/water extract, phenolic contents obtained increased to 62.10 mg GA/g [45]. The differences between concentrations may be due to a number of factors, including plant species, genetic factors, geographical location, soil type, time of collection, herb preparation, drying, and storage [45]. Dos Santos-Ferreira et al. [43] evaluated four solvents, chloroform, ethanol, methanol, and 70% methanol, for the recovery of phenolic compounds from E. globulus leaves, and found that methanol and aqueous methanol were the solvents leading to the highest phenolics yield. More recently, Nasr et al. [46] reported that 70% acetone is the most suitable solvent for the extraction of phenolic compounds from E. camaldulensis leaves, while the most prominent antioxidant activity is found in extracts obtained with 95% acetone. In this study, the results obtained show that by using AC, high concentrations are obtained, but lower than with MTH or ETH.
Solvent polarity seems to play an important role in the extraction efficiency of phenols. As this study and others have shown, high polarity solvents such as methanol, ethanol, and water will be more efficient than non-polar ones [47]. Student´s test was calculated between phenolic content and polarity (p = 0.057), and nonparametric test, Kruskal-Wallis was calculated (p = 0.497). There are no statistically significant differences, and the null hypothesis about the distribution between these variables is accepted. However, there are other factors that should be taken into consideration. Particle size has been shown to influence extraction efficiency: the smallest the size of particle samples, the highest the percentage of yields obtained [34,36,48]. Solvent proportion could also improve polyphenol contents by 50%, as stated by Dos Santos-Ferreira et al. [43], Pereira et al. [44], and Rhazi et al. [49]. A dewaxing pre-treatment of the leaves could also result in higher yields as suggested by Rodrigues et al. [6]. Methanol followed by ethanol obtained the value highest of phenolic content. This result is likely due to the greater polarity of methanol, resulting in the more complete extraction of the highly polar antioxidant and phenolic compounds present in the leave of eucalyptus [40].
González- Burgos et al. [19] point out that the different results obtained may be due to multiple characteristics between each method, as well as to the physicochemical properties of the antioxidants, including different environmental pH, hydrophilic-lipophilic properties, different and uneven distribution of antioxidants between lipophilic and hydrophilic media, and differences in the reaction mechanisms and in the qualitative and quantitative composition of the active antioxidant.
Our results are promising: SLE obtained similar results to Soxhlet but with a decrease in the amount of solvent used. Some future lines of research should focus on trying to increase the performance of the extracts obtained. This could be done by carrying out the analyses with different particle sizes, using different solvent proportions, and looking at the leaf age of the plants. Given the variety of Eucalyptus species found in Galicia, and the high amounts of wood from this species cut every year in this region, it is only logical to aim for optimising resources and reducing the amount of waste produced every year, such as the leaves, whose oils have been shown to have many applications not only in medicine but also in other industrial fields. This could bring both economic and environmental benefits to the region.

5. Conclusions

Extracts from the leaves of six Eucalyptus species, E. globulus, E. oblicua, E. pavaflora, E. camaldulensis, E. viminalis, and E. nitens were obtained through a Soxhlet extraction using different polarity solvents. The SLE yields of the batch converged to the Soxhlet yield in relation to the temperature increase by SLE. The SLE yields exceeded the Soxhlet results for some species when the temperature reached 50 °C, such as with methanol or ethanol. The highest yields were obtained with E. viminalis with methanol (42.5 wt.%), the highest phenolic content was obtained with E. nitens with methanol (124.17 mg GAE/g of extract), and the highest anthocyanin levels obtained were with E. nitens with hexane (5.05 mg CC/g of extract). The highest antioxidant activity was obtained with Eucalyptus globulus, 10.72 and 3.44 mmol g−1, by acetone extraction by ABTS and CUPRAC methods respectively. Results varied between species and our study shows that the highest yields and phenolic contents were obtained when using high polarity solvents such as ethanol and methanol. Of the six species studied, E. nitens obtained the best results for the compounds analysed. These variations could be due not only to the solvents used but to other factors such as the plant growing location and the age of the leaves. These species are a good source of phenolic and anthocyanin content; their exploitation as an approach to reduce waste would benefit the region, economically and environmentally.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, Á.C., Á.S. and X.Á.; methodology, Y.M.; software, Y.M.; validation, Á.C. and X.Á.; formal analysis, Y.M.; investigation, Á.C., Á.S. and X.Á.; resources, Á.S.; data curation, Y.M.; writing—original draft preparation, Á.C. and X.Á.; writing—review and editing, Á.C., Á.S., Y.M. and X.Á.; visualisation, Á.C. and X.Á.; supervision, Á.C. and X.Á.; project administration, X.Á.; funding acquisition, Á.C., Á.S. and X.Á. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Conselleira de Educación, Universidade e Formación Profesion-al, Xunta de Galicia, España, under project R815 131H 64502.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Carolina Acuña-Alonso (University of Vigo) for her valuable contribution, which led to the present study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Brooker, M.I.H.; Kleinig, D.A. Field Guide to Eucalypts. Volume 1. South-Eastern Australia; Inkata Press Pty Ltd.: Melbourne, Australia, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  2. Salari, M.H.; Amine, G.; Shirazi, M.H.; Hafezi, R.; Mohammadypour, M. Antibacterial effects of Eucalyptus globulus leaf extract on pathogenic bacteria isolated from specimens of patients with respiratory tract disorders. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2006, 12, 194–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. FAO. Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005-Main Report. 2005. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/a0400e/a0400e00.htm (accessed on 14 March 2021).
  4. Rockwood, D.L.; Rudie, A.W.; Ralph, S.A.; Zhu, J.Y.; Winandy, J.E. Energy product options for eucalyptus species grown as short rotation woody crops. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2008, 9, 1361–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Lima, L.; Miranda, I.; Knapic, S.; Quilhó, T.; Pereira, H. Chemical and anatomical characterization, and antioxidant properties of barks from 11 Eucalyptus species. Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2018, 76, 783–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Rodrigues, V.H.; de Melo, M.M.R.; Portugal, I.; Silva, C.M. Extraction of Eucalyptus leaves using solvents of distinct polarity. Cluster analysis and extracts characterization. J. Supercrit. Fluids 2018, 135, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Serra-Compte, A.; Pikkemaat, M.G.; Elferink, A.; Almeida, D.; Diogène, J.; Campillo, J.A.; Llorca, M.; Álvarez-Muñoz, D.; Barceló, D.; Rodríguez-Mozaz, S. Combining an effect-based methodology with chemical analysis for antibiotics determination in wastewater and receiving freshwater and marine environment. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 271, 116313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Darriba, A.; Silva-Pando, F. El Género eucalyptus (Myrtaceae) en galicia: Claves y descripción. Noca Acta Científica Compostel. 2016, 23, 23–51. [Google Scholar]
  9. Picos, J. A Cadea Forestal-Madeira de Galicia 2017. XERA 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vecino, A.J.; Fernández, R.; Bande, M.; Fernández, M.; Nóvoa, E.; Lopez Iglesias, F.; Martínez-Roget, L.; González, J.; Picos, B.; Valdês Paços, M.T.; et al. A Economia Galega. Informe 2017 Resumen Ejecutivo 2018. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Edelmiro-Lopez-Iglesias/publication/322749673_A_Economia_Galega_Informe_2016/links/5a6d1f0b458515d407571129/A-Economia-Galega-Informe-2016.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2021).
  11. Gullón, B.; Muñiz-Mouro, A.; Lú-Chau, T.A.; Moreira, M.T.; Lema, J.M.; Eibes, G. Green approaches for the extraction of antioxidants from eucalyptus leaves. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 138, 111473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Abbas, M.; Saeed, F.; Anjum, F.M.; Afzaal, M.; Tufail, T.; Bashir, M.S.; Ishtiaq, A.; Hussain, S.; Suleria, H.A.R. Natural polyphenols: An overview. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017, 20, 1689–1699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Williamson, G. The role of polyphenols in modern nutrition. Nutr. Bull. 2017, 42, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhu, H.; Song, D.; Zhao, X. Potential applications and preliminary mechanism of action of dietary polyphenols against hyperuricemia: A review. Food Biosci. 2021, 43, 101297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Scalbert, A.; Johnson, I.T.; Saltmarsh, M. Polyphenols: Antioxidants and beyond. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2005, 81, 215S–217S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Egawa, H.; Tsutsui, O.; Tatsuyama, K.; Hatta, T. Antifungal substances found in leaves of Eucalyptus species. Experientia 1977, 33, 889–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kumar, A.; Pandey, V.; Beg, S.; Rawat, J.; Singh, A. Biological, medicinal and toxicological significance of Eucalyptus leaf essential oil: A review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 98, 833–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Panche, A.N.; Diwan, A.D.; Chandra, S.R. Flavonoids: An overview. J. Nutr. Sci. 2016, 5, e47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. González-Burgos, E.; Liaudanskas, M.; Viškelis, J.; Žvikas, V.; Janulis, V.; Gómez-Serranillos, M.P. Antioxidant activity, neuroprotective properties and bioactive constituents analysis of varying polarity extracts from Eucalyptus globulus leaves. J. Food Drug Anal. 2018, 26, 1293–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. da Silva, M.G.; de Barros, M.A.S.D.; de Almeida, R.T.R.; Pilau, E.J.; Pinto, E.; Soares, G.; Santos, J.G. Cleaner production of antimicrobial and anti-UV cotton materials through dyeing with eucalyptus leaves extract. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 199, 807–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Acuña-Alonso, C.; Lorenzo, O.; Álvarez, X.; Cancela, Á.; Valero, E.; Sánchez, Á. Influence of Microcystis sp. and freshwater algae on pH: Changes in their growth associated with sediment. Environ. Pollut. 2020, 263, 114435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dehghani, A.; Bahlakeh, G.; Ramezanzadeh, B. Green Eucalyptus leaf extract: A potent source of bio-active corrosion inhibitors for mild steel. Bioelectrochemistry 2019, 130, 107339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhao, W.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, J.; Roger, S.-F.; Luo, X. Allelopathically inhibitory effects of eucalyptus extracts on the growth of Microcystis aeruginosa. Chemosphere 2019, 225, 424–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, Y.; Wang, J.; Ou, Y.; Chen, H.; Xiao, S.; Liu, G.; Cao, Y.; Huang, Q. Cellular antioxidant activities of polyphenols isolated from Eucalyptus leaves (Eucalyptus grandis×Eucalyptus urophylla GL9). J. Funct. Foods 2014, 7, 737–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Vecchio, M.G.; Loganes, C.; Minto, C. Beneficial and healthy properties of eucalyptus plants: A great potential use. Open Agric. J. 2016, 10, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Griggs, D.; Smith, M.S.; Gaffney, O.; Rockström, J.; Öhman, M.C.; Shyamsundar, P.; Steffen, W.; Glaser, G.; Kanie, N.; Noble, I. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 2013, 495, 305–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  28. Miranda, I.; Lima, L.; Quilhó, T.; Knapic, S.; Pereira, H. The bark of Eucalyptus sideroxylon as a source of phenolic extracts with anti-oxidant properties. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 82, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Shukla, V.; Kandeepan, G.; Vishnuraj, M.R.; Soni, A. Anthocyanins based indicator sensor for intelligent packaging application. Agric. Res. 2016, 5, 205–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Re, R.; Pellegrini, N.; Proteggente, A.; Pannala, A.; Yang, M.; Rice-Evans, C. Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 1999, 26, 1231–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Apak, R.; Güçlü, K.; Demirata, B.; Özyürek, M.; Çelik, S.E.; Bektaşoğlu, B.; Berker, K.I.; Özyurt, D. Comparative evaluation of various total antioxidant capacity assays applied to phenolic compounds with the CUPRAC assay. Molecules 2007, 12, 1496–1547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Burdock, G.A. Fenaroli’s Handbook of Flavor Ingredients; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  33. Al-Sumri, A.; Al-Siyabi, N.; Al-Saadi, R.; Al-Rasbi, S.; Al-Dallal, A. Study on the extraction of date palm seed oil using soxhlet apparatus. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 2017, 7, 1266. [Google Scholar]
  34. Athomo, A.B.B.; Anris, S.E.; Safou-Tchiama, R.; Santiago-Medina, F.J.; Cabaret, T.; Pizzi, A.; Charrier, B. Chemical composition of African mahogany (K. ivorensis A. Chev) extractive and tannin structures of the bark by MALDI-TOF. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 113, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Markom, M.; Hasan, M.; Daud, W.R.W.; Singh, H.; Jahim, J.M. Extraction of hydrolysable tannins from Phyllanthus niruri Linn.: Effects of solvents and extraction methods. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2007, 52, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Muhayyidin, A.H.M.; Ghazali, N.; Fitrah, A.B.N.; Ibrahim, W.; Sauki, A.; Hassan, Z. Tannin Extraction from bark of rhizophora mucronata using soxhlet and boiling techniques. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Eng. Inf. Technol. 2018, 8, 2525–2530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Achmad, H.; Rana, H.; Fadilla, I.; Fajar, A.; Manurung, R.; Abduh, Y. Determination of yield and chemical composition of eucalyptus oil from different species and locations in indonesia. Biol. Nat. Resour. Eng. J. 2018, 1, 36–49. [Google Scholar]
  38. Richter, B.E.; Jones, B.A.; Ezzell, J.L.; Porter, N.L.; Avdalovic, N.; Pohl, C. Accelerated solvent extraction: A technique for sample preparation. Anal. Chem. 1996, 68, 1033–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Rodrigues, V.H.; de Melo, M.M.R.; Tenberg, V.; Carreira, R.; Portugal, I.; Silva, C.M. Similarity analysis of essential oils and oleoresins of Eucalyptus globulus leaves produced by distinct methods, solvents and operating conditions. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 164, 113339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Johnson, J.; Collins, T.; Walsh, K.; Naiker, M. Solvent extractions and spectrophotometric protocols for measuring the total anthocyanin, phenols and antioxidant content in plums. Chem. Pap. 2020, 74, 4481–4492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Limam, H.; Ezzine, Y.; Tammar, S.; Ksibi, N.; Selmi, S.; Del Re, G.; Ksouri, R.; Msaada, K. Phenolic composition and antioxidant activities of thirteen Eucalyptus species cultivated in North East of Tunisia. Plant Biosyst. -Int. J. Deal. Asp. Plant Biol. 2020, 155, 587–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dezsi, Ș.; Bădărău, A.S.; Bischin, C.; Vodnar, D.C.; Silaghi-Dumitrescu, R.; Gheldiu, A.-M.; Mocan, A.; Vlase, L. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities and phenolic profile of Eucalyptus globulus labill. and Corymbia ficifolia (F. Muell.) K.D. Hill & L.A.S. Johnson leaves. Molecules 2015, 20, 4720–4734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Dos Santos Ferreira, C.I.; Pereyra, A.; Patriarca, A.R.; Mazzobre, M.F.; Polak, T.; Abram, V.; Buera, M.D.P.; Poklar Ulrih, N. Phenolic Compounds in Extracts from Eucalyptus Globulus Leaves and Calendula Officinalis Flowers. J. Nat. Prod. Resour. 2016, 2, 53–57. [Google Scholar]
  44. Pereira, V.; Dias, C.; Vasconcelos, M.C.; Rosa, E.; Saavedra, M.J. Antibacterial activity and synergistic effects between Eucalyptus globulus leaf residues (essential oils and extracts) and antibiotics against several isolates of respiratory tract infections (Pseudomonas aeruginosa). Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 52, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mocan, A.; Vlase, L.; Vodnar, D.C.; Bischin, C.; Hanganu, D.; Gheldiu, A.-M.; Oprean, R.; Silaghi-Dumitrescu, R.; Crișan, G. Polyphenolic content, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of Lycium barbarum L. and Lycium chinense mill. leaves. Molecules 2014, 19, 10056–10073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Nasr, A.; Khan, T.S.; Zhu, G.-P. Phenolic compounds and antioxidants from Eucalyptus camaldulensis as affected by some extraction conditions, a preparative optimization for GC-MS analysis. Prep. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019, 49, 464–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Peredo Pozos, G.I.; Ruiz-López, M.A.; Zamora Natera, J.F.; Álvarez Moya, C.; Barrientos Ramírez, L.; Reynoso Silva, M.; Rodriguez Macias, R.; García-López, P.M.; Gonzalez Cruz, R.; Salcedo Pérez, E.; et al. Antioxidant capacity and antigenotoxic effect of hibiscus sabdariffa l. extracts obtained with ultrasound-assisted extraction process. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Baldosano, H.Y.; Castillo, M.G.; Danica, C.; Elloran, H.; Bacani, F.T. Effect of Particle Size, Solvent and Extraction Time on Tannin Extract from Spondias purpurea Bark Through Soxhlet Extraction. In Proceedings of the DLSU Research Congress, De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines, 2–4 March 2015; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  49. Rhazi, N.; Hannache, H.; Oumam, M.; Sesbou, A.; Charrier, B.; Pizzi, A.; Bouhtoury, F.C.-E. Green extraction process of tannins obtained from Moroccan Acacia mollissima barks by microwave: Modeling and optimization of the process using the response surface methodology RSM. Arab. J. Chem. 2019, 12, 2668–2684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 11 09818 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the proposed methodology.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the proposed methodology.
Applsci 11 09818 g001
Applsci 11 09818 g002 550
Figure 2. Extraction yields obtained from leaves of six Eucalyptus species mixed with solvents of different polarity, using a Soxhlet extractor.
Figure 2. Extraction yields obtained from leaves of six Eucalyptus species mixed with solvents of different polarity, using a Soxhlet extractor.
Applsci 11 09818 g002
Table
Table 1. Leaf size of the six species studied and weights of the samples.
Table 1. Leaf size of the six species studied and weights of the samples.
SpeciesLength (±0.1 cm)Width (±0.1 cm)Samples Weight (±0.1 g)
E. camaldulensis5.0–15.00.7–1.51.5
E. globulus12.0–25.01.7–3.04.0
E. nitens20–31.02.0–3.54.0
E. oblicua10.0–17.02.0–5.03.0
E. pavaflora10.0–21.02.0–4.04.0
E. viminalis8.0–17.00.9–2.44.0
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of the solvents used.
Table 2. Characteristics of the solvents used.
SolventType of SolventDielectric Constant
F/m		PolarityBoiling Temperature
(°C)		Density
(g/mL)
HighMediumLow
Acetone (CH3COCH3)dipolar aprotic20.7 X 560.786 (25 °C)
Dichloromethane CH2Cl2Non-polar9.1 X401.326 (20 °C)
Ethanol (CH3CH2OH)polar protic24.3X 790.789 (20 °C)
Hexane (CH3CH2CH2CH2CH2CH3)non-polar2.02 X690.655 (25 °C)
Methanol (CH3OH)polar protic33X 650.791 (20 °C)
Water (H2O)polar protic80X 1001.000 (20 °C)
Table
Table 3. Total extraction yield results for SLE and HD methods (%).
Table 3. Total extraction yield results for SLE and HD methods (%).
SolventMethod.E. globulusE. oblicuaE. pavafloraE. camaldulensisE. viminalisE. nitens
DCHSLE 2010.238.7213.4410.1215.2811.10
SLE 3515.339.2114.2111.4920.6217.32
MTHSLE 2023.1120.5419.7622.1424.7123.18
SLE 3530.8223.6628.2234.1136.2932.17
SLE 5036.1229.7432.1440.8742.1140.26
ETHSLE 2015.178.5220.0812.4418.3314.01
SLE 3519.339.4426.7628.1929.1030.45
SLE 5032.159.7831.1135.8734.5230.74
HEXSLE 205.773.226.547.089.216.24
SLE 356.754.187.2610.0514.7010.83
SLE 5011.904.978.9413.2718.4318.22
ACSLE 2011.3312.0710.2714.0013.579.08
SLE 3515.8014.6611.3514.3515.2110.74
SLE5024.5117.1415.1420.1722.1419.72
WSLE 5020.7117.2116.1614.2115.1413.11
HD 5012.1111.0310.4413.1815.219.07
Water (W), acetone (AC), ethanol (ETH), methanol (MTH), hexane (HEX), and dichloromethane (DCH).
Table
Table 4. Total phenolics obtained, expressed as mg gallic acid/g extract.
Table 4. Total phenolics obtained, expressed as mg gallic acid/g extract.
Total Phenolics (mg GAE/g of Extract)
SolventE. globulusE. oblicuaE. pavafloraE. camaldulensisE. viminalisE. nitens
DCH10.09 ± 0.16 b,c,d,e,f7.96 ± 1.63 b,c,d,e,f8.87 ± 0.49 b,c,d,e,f8.52 ± 0,01 b,c,d,e,f14.23 ± 1.00 b,c,e,f24.99 ±.1,13 b,c,d,e,f
MTH26.88 ± 2.14 b,c,d,e,f20.10 ± 1.87 a,d,e,f20.27 ± 0.60 a,d,e,f49.73 ± 4.73 a,c,d,e,f44.13 ± 1.70 a,c,d,e,f124.17 ± 6.46 a,d,e,f
ETH17.72 ± 0.78 a,b,d,e,f20.82 ± 0.68 a,d,e,f19.81 ± 0.24 a,d,e,f30.84 ± 1.03 a,b,d,e,f29.32 ± 0.14 a,b,d,e,f112.57 ± 1.75 a,d,e,f
W7.68 ± 0.41 a,b,c,e,f4.23 ± 0.17 a,b,c,e,f15.66 ± 0.15 a,b,c,e,f17.32 ± 1.34 a,b,c,e16.95 ± 0.57 b,c,e,f36.21 ± 7.15 a,b,c,e,f
HEX2.00 ± 0.50 a,b,c,d,f1.57 ± 0.24 a,b,c,d,f2.99 ± 0.26 a,b,c,d,f2.67 ± 0.81 a,b,c,d,f8.06 ± 0.57 a,b,c,d,f4.11 ± 0.68 a,b,c,d,f
AC14.00 ± 0.10 a,b,c,d,e9.59 ± 0.20 a,b,c,d,e12.10 ± 0.10 a,b,c,d,e15.83 ±0.18 a,b,c,e15.63 ± 0.20 b,c,e,f10.95 ± 0.15 a,b,c,d,e
Statistical significances of phenolics values are shown in superscripts letters: a statistically significant differences versus values of DCH extract; b versus values of MTH extract, c versus values of ETH extract, d versus values of W, e versus values of HEX, and f versus values of AC (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 5. Anthocyanins obtained, expressed as mg cyanine chloride /g extract.
Table 5. Anthocyanins obtained, expressed as mg cyanine chloride /g extract.
Anthocyanins (mg CC/g of Extract)
SolventE. globulusE. oblicuaE. pavafloraE. camaldulensisE. viminalisE. nitens
DCH2.32 ± 0.16 d,e,f1.30 ± 1.63 d,f4.57 ± 0.05 b,c,d,f1.92 ± 0.24 d,e,f0.85 ± 1.01 b,c, d,e2.46 ± 0.29 b,c,e,f
MTH2.14 ± 0.01 d,e,f1.91 ± 0.06 d,f2.15 ± 0.02 a,e,f2.12 ± 0.11 d,e,f4.19 ± 1.71 a,c,d,f4.36 ± 0.55 a,d,f
ETH1.75 ± 0.00 d,e,f1.85 ± 0.06 d,f1.91 ± 0.04 a,e,f1.76 ± 1.03 d,e,f3.00 ± 0.14 a,b,d,e,f4.03 ± 0.22 a,d,f
W0.89 ± 0.01 a,b,c0.41 ± 0.00 a,b,c,e2.09 ± 0.04 a,e,f1.03 ± 0.01 a,b,c,e,f1.34 ± 0.57 a,b,c,,e,f2.75 ± 0.21 b,c,e,f
HEX1.00 ± 0.01 a,b,c1.98 ± 0.06 d,f4.16 ± 0.01 b,c,d,f3.64 ± 0.11 a,b,c,d,f4.48 ± 0.10 a,c,d,f5.05 ± 0.68 a,d,f
AC0.56 ± 0.10 a,b,c0.30 ± 0.00 a,b,c,e0.80 ± 0.11 a,b,c,d,e0.45 ± 0.11 a,b,c,d,e0.82 ± 0.11 b,c, d,e0.15 ± 0.01 a,b,c,d,e
Statistical significances of anthocyanins values are shown in superscripts letters: a statistically significant differences versus values of DCH extract; b versus values of MTH extract, c versus values of ETH extract, d versus values of W, e versus values of HEX, and f versus values of AC (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 6. Antioxidant capacity of extracts of Eucalyptus leaves assessed by ABTS, CUPRAC.
Table 6. Antioxidant capacity of extracts of Eucalyptus leaves assessed by ABTS, CUPRAC.
Antioxidant Activity (mmol g−1 DW)
Solvent E. globulusE. oblicuaE. pavafloraE. camaldulensisE. viminalisE. nitens
ACABTS10.72 ± 0.32 b6.21 ± 0.27 b7.54 ± 0.07 b,c3.45 ± 0.14 b1.75 ± 0.44 b9.43 ± 0.14 b
CUPRAC3.44 ± 0.21 b,c1.25 ± 0.46 b,c1.47 ± 0.21 b,c2.12 ± 0.15 b,c1.39 ± 0.24 b3.14 ± 0.06 b,c
ETHABTS1.68 ± 0.07 b,c0.85 ± 0.08 a,c1.71 ± 0.08 a,c0.65 ± 0.13 a,b1.01 ± 0.14 a,c1.23 ± 0.12 a,c
CUPRAC0.49 ± 0.08 a,c0.43 ± 0.04 a,c0.99 ± 0.11 a0.33 ± 0.02 b,c0.45 ± 0.16 a,c0.75 ± 0.04 a
MTHABTS9.27 ± 0.07 b5.34 ± 0.16 b4.23 ± 0.08 a,c2.42 ± 0.10 b1.55 ± 0.06 b8.08± 0.18 b
CUPRAC2.50 ± 0.10 a,b2.31 ± 0.05 a,b1.00 ± 0.01 a0.85 ± 0.06 b,c1.47 ± 0.14 b0.45 ± 0.09 a
Statistical significances of antioxidant capacities values are shown in superscripts letters: a statistically significant differences versus values of acetone extract; b versus values of ethanol extract, and c versus values of methanol extract (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Álvarez, X.; Cancela, Á.; Merchán, Y.; Sánchez, Á. Anthocyanins, Phenolic Compounds, and Antioxidants from Extractions of Six Eucalyptus Species. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 9818. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219818

AMA Style

Álvarez X, Cancela Á, Merchán Y, Sánchez Á. Anthocyanins, Phenolic Compounds, and Antioxidants from Extractions of Six Eucalyptus Species. Applied Sciences. 2021; 11(21):9818. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219818

Chicago/Turabian Style

Álvarez, Xana, Ángeles Cancela, Yolanda Merchán, and Ángel Sánchez. 2021. "Anthocyanins, Phenolic Compounds, and Antioxidants from Extractions of Six Eucalyptus Species" Applied Sciences 11, no. 21: 9818. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11219818

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop