Journal of Chromatography A, 1143 (2007) 36–40

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
Guido Flamini a,∗ , Marianna Tebano a , Pier Luigi Cioni a ,
Lucia Ceccarini b , Andrea Simone Ricci c , Iginio Longo c
a Dipartimento di Chimica Bioorganica e Biofarmacia, Università di Pisa, Via Bonanno 33, 56126 Pisa, Italy
b Dipartimento di Agronomia e Gestione dell’Agroecosistema, Università di Pisa, Via S. Michele Degli Scalzi 2, 56124 Pisa, Italy
c Istituto per i Processi Chimico-Fisici, IPCF, Area di Ricerca del CNR, Via G. Moruzzi, 1, 56124 Pisa, Italy

Received 1 November 2006; received in revised form 9 January 2007; accepted 10 January 2007
Available online 13 January 2007

Abstract
A novel microwave method has been applied to the hydrothermal extraction of essential oil from plants. An insulated microwave coaxial antenna
was introduced inside a 1000 ml glass flask containing dry Laurus nobilis L. leaves and tap water. Microwave power up to 800 W at 2450 MHz was
emitted in continuous wave regime (CW) or in pulsed regime (PR) at 8 kW peak power. Stirring with a magnetic bar and a Clevenger refrigerator
connected to the flask enabled to complete the extraction in 1 h. The results of the in situ microwave extraction were compared with those obtained
by heating the same reactor with a conventional electric mantle by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) analysis. Differences were
observed both in the composition of the essential oil and from the energetic point of view. The essential oil obtained with microwave (MW)
methods contained substantially higher amounts of oxygenated compounds and lower amounts of monoterpenes than conventional method. The
in situ microwave heating is safe and versatile; it presents time and energy saving advantages, and therefore it can be considered useful also for
industrial applications.
© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Laurus nobilis L.; Bay; Microwave extraction; Innovative technologies; Microwave industrial applications; In situ microwave heating

1. Introduction vessel are important. The reactor walls must be non-metallic

Several techniques are currently available for the extrac-
tion of essential oils from plants including supercritical
fluid extraction, pressurized liquid extraction, pressurized hot
water extraction, hydrothermal extraction, water vapour extrac-
tion, solvent extraction, membrane-assisted solvent extraction,
solid-phase microextraction, stir bar sorptive extraction and
ultrasounds. Recently, microwave-assisted extraction (MAE)
methods appeared to be particularly attractive due to fast heating
of aqueous samples [1,2].
At the state of the art of MAE, the extraction of essential
oils is obtained introducing the plant sample in a multi-mode
microwave cavity. Consequently, the shape and the sizes of the
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 0502219686; fax: +39 0502219660.
E-mail address: flamini@farm.unipi.it (G. Flamini).
and the use of metal sensors and other devices with metal parts
is severely limited. The use of auxiliary devices or glassware
components directly connected to the reactor, such as a reflux
condenser, a stirring bar, a water cooling bath or a metal probe,
is not straightforward, and in general they must be placed out-
side the oven. Direct visual and manual access to the reactor is
forbidden to the operator.
Previous investigations have applied microwaves for the
extraction of essential oils. Lucchesi et al. compared the classic
hydrodistillation method for the extraction of the oils of Oci-
mum basilicum L., Mentha crispa L. and Thymus vulgaris L.
with a solventless microwave (MW) method. The essential oils
obtained in 30 min with the latter system were comparable, both
from a qualitative and from a quantitative point of view, to those
obtained after a 4.5 h hydrodistillation. The MW method permit-
ted a more efficient extraction of oxygenated compounds saving
time and energy [3].

0021-9673/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chroma.2007.01.031
 G. Flamini et al. / J. Chromatogr. A 1143 (2007) 36–40
Goretti et al. studied the composition of the essential oils of
three Ocimum species obtained by hydrodistillation for 3 h, by
MW-assisted hydrodistillation in a modified oven for 8 min and
by supercritical extraction with CO2 for 30 min. Hydrodistilla-
tion gave the highest yields. The highest percentages of eugenol
were obtained by hydrodistillation and supercritical extraction,
while the MW method gave higher amounts of 1,8-cineole and
of sesquiterpenes [4].
Although all authors point out the many advantages of MAE
and some authors found increased extraction yields [1,2,16–20],
the initially expensive microwave apparatus and the very poor
versatility/accessibility of the microwave oven are true disad-
vantages for the operators.
The use of a novel microwave heating technique, as we shall
show, practically eliminates all the aforementioned drawbacks.
2. Experimental
2.1. Plant material
Leaves from cultivated plants of Laurus nobilis L. (Lau-
raceae) have been collected during April 2006 and dried until
constant weight.
The essential oil was obtained by:
(1) Hydrodistillation in a Clevenger-type apparatus equipped
with an electric mantle heater for 1 h (traditional method).
(2) Hydrodistillation with a 200 W microwave system for 1 h.
(3) Hydrodistillation with a 300 W microwave system for 1 h.
(4) Hydrodistillation with a pulsed microwave system (average
total power 200 W) for 1 h.
Each experiment was performed at least in triplicate.
The results (essential oil yields and compounds chemical
classes), after their conversion to angular values, have been
statistically evaluated by analysis of variance (ANOVA). The
experimental design employed was “randomised block” and
“factorial A × B”, for the yield and chemical classes, √ respec-
tively. Percentage data were transformed arcsin % before
ANOVA. The means were separated on the basis of the least sig-
nificant difference (LSD) test only when the F test of the ANOVA
per treatment was significant at the 0.05 or 0.01 probability level
[5].
A factor experimental design was used to test two treatments
(A × B), where A = groups of compounds and B = method of
extraction.
2.2. Microwave apparatus
The experimental setup is shown schematically in Fig. 1. A
1000 ml glass flask (F) with two female cone joints (CJ) was
filled with 650 ml tap water and 30 g of dry L. nobilis leaves.
L. nobilis leaves, not shown, cut with scissors to a nearly
rectangular shape, (25 mm × 8 mm in the mean), were intro-
duced into the flask with water and thoroughly shaken. The flask
was provided with a magnetic stirring bar (SB) and with a ther-
mometric well (TW), useful for temperature measurements. A
37
Fig. 1. Experimental apparatus for the extraction of essential oil: C, coaxial con-
nector; CJ, conical joint; CR, Clevenger refrigerator; F, glass flask, 1000 ml; FC,
flexible coaxial cable; GS, glass sheath; EO, essential oil; MA, microwave coax-
ial antenna; MR, microwave radiate power; MS, microwave source; S, stopcock;
SB, stirring bar; TW, thermometric well.
Clevenger refrigerator (CR) provided with a glass stopcock (S)
and a circulating water condenser was applied to collect the
extracted essential oil (EO) in reflux conditions. A 6.3 mm outer
diameter semirigid coaxial dipole antenna was introduced inside
the flask through the glass sheath (GS), as depicted. The theory of
the dipole radiator immersed in a dielectric medium with losses
was presented by King et al. [6]. The antenna was connected to
the microwave source (MS) using a flexible coaxial cable (FC)
and a “N” type connector (C). The characteristic impedance of
all the microwave coaxial components was Z = 50 . The MS
was a Richardson magnetron, mod. PM740 (Richardson Elec-
tronics, La Fox, IL, USA), air cooled, emitting at the frequency
of 2450 MHz, featuring a continuous wave output power variable
from 160 W to 1.6 kW. A pulsed output regime with 8.0 kW max-
imum peak power was also selectable. The microwave power
(MR) was emitted from the antenna tip whose active section
was about 40 mm long.
During the operations, the intensity of the microwave stray
field in the space around the flask was monitored using a
microwave leakage tester (Robin Electronics, Norwich, UK,
model TX90) with a power density accuracy of ±1 dB. When
the applied power was of 800 W CW we measured the density
of the stray power radiated outward the flask, Ps . It resulted to
be Ps ≤ 5.0 mW/cm2 at about 10 cm from the flask surface, and
decreased rapidly to Ps < 0.1 mW/cm2 at 50 cm.
To eliminate the stray radiation the flask was wrapped with
aluminium foil ∼0.01 mm thick (not shown in the figure), leav-
ing two metal netting windows (W) of about 6 cm of diameter for
visual inspection of the process. This simple shielding procedure
permitted to work in absolutely safe conditions.
Temperature measurements were performed using a type K
shielded thermocouple or a fiberoptic temperature sensor (Sys-
tem Model 3100, Luxtron, Santa Clara, CA, USA) introduced
in the TW filled with silicone oil. The fiberoptic temperature
sensor was not affected by the microwave fields. The tem-
perature readings obtained using a non-shielded thermocouple
sensor submitted to a microwave power of a few hundreds W
38 G. Flamini et al. / J. Chromatogr. A 1143 (2007) 36–40

were affected by a systematic error. No arching was observed
between the microwave antenna and other metal parts during the
experiments.
The electric energy consumption was measured in kWh units
with an industrial energy counter.
2.3. GC–MS analysis
The GC analyses were accomplished with a HP-5890 Series
II instrument equipped with HP-WAX and HP-5 capillary
columns (30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 ␮m film thickness), working
with the following temperature program: 60 ◦ C for 10 min, ramp
of 5 ◦ C/min up to 220 ◦ C; injector and detector temperatures
250 ◦ C; carrier gas nitrogen (2 ml/min); dual flame ionization
detection (dual FID); split ratio 1:30; injection of 0.5 ␮l (10%
hexane solution). The identification of the components was
performed, for both the columns, by comparison of their reten-
tion times with those of pure authentic samples and by means
of their linear retention index (LRI) relative to the series of
n-hydrocarbons. The relative proportions of the essential oil
constituents were percentages obtained by FID peak-area nor-
malization.
Gas chromatography–electron impact mass spectrometry
(GC–EI-MS) analyses were performed with a Varian CP-3800
gas chromatograph equipped with a DB-5 capillary column
(30 m × 0.25 mm; coating thickness 0.25 ␮m) and a Varian Sat-
urn 2000 ion trap mass detector. Analytical conditions were:
injector and transfer line temperatures 220 and 240 ◦ C, respec-

Table 1
Compositiona of the leaf oils of L. nobilis obtained by traditional distillation 1, microwaves distillation 200 W 2, 300 W 3 and pulsed 4

Compounds LRIb Traditional Microwave distillation Microwave distillation Microwave distillation

distillation 1 (200 W) 2 (300 W) 3 (pulsed) 4

␣-Thujene 933 0.4 ± 0.1 1.0 ± 1.3 0.3 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0
␣-Pinene 941 3.2 ± 0.6 2.6 ± 0.4 2.6 ± 0.2 2.7 ± 0.2
Camphene 955 0.3 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.1
Sabinene 977 6.5 ± 1.0 6.0 ± 0.3 5.8 ± 0.4 5.9 ± 0.3
␤-Pinene 981 2.9 ± 0.5 2.5 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.1 2.5 ± 0.2
Myrcene 992 1.1 ± 0.2 0.9 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.0 1.0 ± 0.1
3-Carene 1013 0.5 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.0 0.5 ± 0.1
␣-Terpinene 1020 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0
p-Cymene 1028 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0
Limonene 1032 1.3 ± 0.3 1.4 ± 0.1 1.3 ± 0.1 1.3 ± 0.2
1,8-Cineole 1035 35.7 ± 2.6 34.9 ± 5.2 31.4 ± 1.0 35.7 ± 0.7
␥-Terpinene 1064 0.4 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.0
cis-Sabinene hydrate 1070 0.6 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.0 0.6 ± 0.0 0.6 ± 0.0
Terpinolene 1089 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0
trans-Sabinene hydrate 1100 9.7 ± 0.3 11.9 ± 0.9 9.8 ± 0.5 11.4 ± 2.0
␦-Terpineol 1166 – 0.4 ± 0.0 0.6 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.0
Borneol 1167 – 0.2 ± 0.0 – 0.2 ± 0.0
4-Terpineol 1180 1.4 ± 0.1 1.6 ± 0.0 1.6 ± 0.0 1.5 ± 0.1
␣-Terpineol 1190 2.8 ± 0.1 3.2 ± 0.2 3.3 ± 0.2 3.0 ± 0.2
Nerol 1227 0.2 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0
Linalyl acetate 1258 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1
Isobornyl acetate 1286 0.3 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.0 0.4 ± 0.0
Sabinil acetate trans 1291 0.1 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0
␣-Terpinyl acetate 1351 9.3 ± 0.6 12.1 ± 1.9 11.4 ± 0.3 10.4 ± 0.1
Eugenol 1356 4.8 ± 0.4 3.8 ± 0.5 5.5 ± 0.3 4.3 ± 0.3
␤-Elemene 1390 0.1 ± 0.0 – – –
Methyl eugenol 1404 6.8 ± 0.9 8.1 ± 1.4 9.4 ± 0.3 7.9 ± 0.2
␤-Caryophyllene 1420 0.6 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.0 0.5 ± 0.0 0.5 ± 0.0
Valencene 1492 0.3 ± 0.1 0.3 ± 0.1 0.4 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0
␤-Bisabolene 1509 0.2 ± 0.0 – 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0
Elemicin 1554 0.6 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.0 0.5 ± 0.0
Spathulenol 1577 0.6 ± 0.1 – – –
Germacrene d-4-ol 1574 1.2 ± 0.3 1.2 ± 0.3 1.6 ± 0.1 1.2 ± 0.2
Caryophyllene oxide 1581 0.2 ± 0.0 0.7 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.0 0.7 ± 0.1
Viridiflorol 1590 0.3 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.3 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0
epi-10-␥-Eudesmol 1619 0.3 ± 0.1 – – –
␥-Eudesmol 1630 0.2 ± 0.1 0.1 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0
Caryophylla-4(14), 8(15)-dien-5-ol 1637 0.2 ± 0.1 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.0
Bisabolol epi ␣ 1647 0.5 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1
␣-Eudesmol 1652 1.2 ± 0.3 0.8 ± 0.2 1.3 ± 0.2 1.0 ± 0.1
Total identified 95.8 98.8 95.5 97.3
a Percentages obtained by FID peak-area normalization.
b Linear retention indices (HP column).
 G. Flamini et al. / J. Chromatogr. A 1143 (2007) 36–40 39

tively; oven temperature programmed from 60 to 240 ◦ C at Table 3

3 ◦ C/min; carrier gas helium at 1 ml/min; injection of 0.2 ␮l
(10% hexane solution); split ratio 1:30. Identification of the
constituents was based on comparison of the retention times
with those of authentic samples, comparing their linear reten-
tion indices relative to the series of n-hydrocarbons, and on
computer matching against commercial (NIST 98 and ADAMS)
and laboratory-developed library mass spectra built up from pure
substances and components of known oils and MS literature data
[7–12].
Moreover, the molecular weights of all the identified sub-
stances were confirmed by gas chromatography–chemical
ionization mass spectrometry (GC–CI-MS), using MeOH as CI
ionizing gas.
3. Results and discussion
The compositions of the essential oils are reported in Table 1,
where the components are listed in order of their elution from the
HP-5 column. Altogether, 40 compounds have been identified,
accounting from 95.5 to 98.8% of the whole oils.
Some of the volatiles (␤-elemene, spathulenol and epi-10-␥-
eudesmol) have been obtained with the classic hydrodistillation
method 1 only. On the contrary, ␦-terpineol and borneol were
extracted by MW methods 2–4 only.
The statistical analyses (Table 2) evidenced significant differ-
ences between the mean values relative to the chemical classes
of compounds of the essential oils. The oxygenated monoter-
penes showed the highest mean percentage (62.7%) followed in
decreasing order by monoterpene hydrocarbons (15.9%), oxy-
genated sesquiterpenes (4.2%) and sesquiterpene hydrocarbons
(1.0%).
The second treatment, method of extraction, did not show
statistically significant differences relative to the main volatiles
(mean values). However, it is interesting to note that the interac-
tion among the treatments has produced statistically significant
differences: the different method used for the extraction of the
essential oil, influenced the amount of the chemical classes. In
fact, significant differences were evidenced in the content of
oxygenated monoterpenes and phenylpropanoids with respect
Table 2
Mean percentages of main chemical classes of volatiles obtained by different
methods
Chemical classes Methods
1 2 3 4
Oxygenated monoterpenes 60.43 BC* 66.19 A 59.87 C
Monoterpene hydrocarbons 17.37 D 16.11 DE 14.82 DG
Phenylpropanoids 1.24 G 12.40 FG 15.58 DE
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons 1.22 I 0.66 I 1.06 I
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes 4.76 H 3.60 H 4.38 H
Essential oil yields of different distillation methods
Method Yield (%)
1 0.784 b
2 0.813 ab
3 1.132 a
4 0.654 b
(1) Hydrodistillation in a Clevenger-type apparatus equipped with an electric
mantle heater for 1 h (traditional method); (2) hydrodistillation with a 200 W
microwaves system for 1 h; (3) hydrodistillation with a 300 W microwaves sys-
tem for 1 h; (4) hydrodistillation with a pulsed microwaves system; mean values
followed by different letters are different at P < 0.05 according to LSD test.
to the different extraction method used; while there were no sig-
nificant differences between sesquiterpenes (both oxygenated
and hydrocarbons) and monoterpene hydrocarbons.
In particular, oxygenated monoterpenes were extracted in
higher amounts using methodology 2 and 4 than with meth-
ods 1 and 3; for phenylpropanoids, methods 3 and 4 permitted
to obtain higher yields than methods 1 and 2.
These results are in good agreement with those previously
published [2] for the same species, but using a conventional
microwave oven.
The same statistical treatments, applied to the yields of essen-
tial oils (Table 3) obtained with the four different methods, at
99% level of significance did not present significant differences
relative to each extractive method. Only at 95% level, methods
2 and 3 showed a statistically significant higher yield, even if in
extremely modest measure.
The greater heating efficiency of the microwaves applied in
situ was confirmed by the measurement of the consumed electric
energy and of the time necessary to boil the aqueous mixture. The
flask reactor, filled with 650 ml of tap water and 30 g of leaves, at
room temperature T = 21 ◦ C, was heated with a standard electric
mantle at 400 W obtaining the boiling temperature in tc = 22 min
(±3 min). The time necessary to boil the same mixture start-
ing from room temperature and applying a microwave power
PMW = 736 W was tMW = 5 min (±2 min). The electric energy
necessary to obtain the boiling when using conventional heating
was Ec = 528 kJ and when using the microwave method it was
EMW = 368 kJ. Accordingly, the energy saving was ∼30% and
the time saving was ∼400%. When the applied microwave power
was PMW = 400 W the time necessary to reach the boiling tem-
perature was tMW ∼ 10 min and the time saving was of ∼20%.
Moreover, the energy costs for heating in industrial plants are
deemed to decrease. In fact the conversion efficiency, i.e. the
ability to convert electrical power input to microwave power out-
put of 1 kW magnetron source is η ∼ 60%, while the efficiency
64.32 AB
15.35 DF of a 5 kW magnetron goes up to η ∼ 71%.
12.67 EG
1.04 I 4. Conclusions
3.94 H

(1) Hydrodistillation in a Clevenger-type apparatus equipped with an electric
mantle heater for 1 h (traditional method); (2) hydrodistillation with a 200 W
microwaves system for 1 h; (3) hydrodistillation with a 300 W microwaves
system for 1 h; (4) hydrodistillation with a pulsed microwaves system.
* Mean values followed by different letters are different at P < 0.01 according
to LSD test.
In this study, microwave power in situ has been applied for
the first time utilizing an immersion insulated coaxial dipole
radiator at 2450 MHz. The results obtained in the hydrothermal
extraction of L. nobilis essential oil demonstrate that the method
is feasible and of low cost, and that microwave heating in situ has
40 G. Flamini et al. / J. Chromatogr. A 1143 (2007) 36–40
a number of advantages over conventional microwave extraction
techniques.
The classic extraction/distillation methods 1 and the
microwave methods utilized in the present work 2, 3 and 4
are comparable to the ones utilizing an oven [1,2,13–18] or a
microwave monomode cavity [19,20], both for the extraction
yield and for the mean percentages of the obtained compounds.
Taking into account the chemical classes of volatiles, it can be
noted a significant greater extraction capability of microwaves
methods for phenylpropanoids and oxygenated monoterpenes
with respect to the classic method. This characteristic should be
taken into account when essential oils rich in these chemicals
are to be processed.
The heating using a microwave antenna in situ has many
practical advantages and is of general application in chemistry,
according to a patent filed by CNR (National Research Council
of Italy). Ordinary glassware or metal vessels of any shape and
material can be used on the bench in safety conditions, also at
high temperatures and high pressures. The operator is given the
possibility of direct manual, visual and instrumental control of
the process. The method is versatile, easy to apply and of low
cost. Furthermore, the extraction of essential oils resorting to a
microwave antenna applied in situ is an energy and time saving
method. Finally, the use of a multiple antenna system enables to
break the scale-up barrier for industrial applications.
References
[1] F. Chemat, M.E. Lucchesi, J. Smadja, L. Faretto, G. Colnaghi, F. Visinoni,
Anal. Chim. Acta 555 (2006) 157.
[2] M. Kosar, Z. Tunailer, T. Őzek, M. Kürkcüoglu, K.H. Can Baser, Z. Natur-
forsch. C 60 (2005) 501.
[3] M.E. Lucchesi, F. Chemat, J. Smadja, J. Chromatogr. A 1043 (2004)
323.
[4] M.G. De Vasconcelos Silva, F.J. De Abreu Matos, P.R. Oliveira Lopes, F.
Oliveira Silva, M. Tavares Holanda, ARKIVOC vi (2004) 66.
[5] K.A. Gomez, A.A. Gomez, Statistical Procedures for Agricultural
Research, Wiley, New York, 1984.
[6] R.P.W. King, B.S. Trembly, W. Strohbehn, Theory Tech. 83 (1983)
574.
[7] E. Stenhagen, S. Abrahamsson, F.W. McLafferty, Registry of Mass Spectral
Data, Wiley, New York, 1974.
[8] Y. Massada, Analysis of Essential Oils by Gas Chromatography and Mass
Spectrometry, Wiley, New York, 1976.
[9] W. Jennings, T. Shibamoto, Qualitative Analysis of Flavor and Fragrance
Volatiles by Glass Capillary Chromatography, Academic Press, New York,
1980.
[10] N.W. Davies, J. Chromatogr. 503 (1990) 1.
[11] A.A. Swigar, R.M. Silverstein, Monoterpenes, Aldrich, Milwaukee,
1981.
[12] R.P. Adams, Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chro-
matography/Mass Spectroscopy, Allured Publications, Carol Stream, IL,
1995.
[13] B. Ondruschka, J. Asghari, Chimia 60 (2006) 321.
[14] X. Pan, G. Niu, H. Liu, Chem. Eng. Process. 42 (2003) 129.
[15] L. Wang, C.J. Weller, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 17 (2006) 300.
[16] A. Longarese-Patrón, M.P. Cañizares-Macı́as, Talanta 69 (2006) 882.
[17] M. Iriti, G. Colnaghi, F. Chemat, J. Smadja, F. Faoro, F.A. Visinoni, Flav.
Frag. J. 21 (2006) 704.
[18] A.M. Ferhat, B.Y. Meklati, J. Smadja, F. Chemat, J. Chromatogr. A 1112
(2006) 121.
[19] F. Priego-Capote, M.D. Luque de Castro, Talanta 65 (2005) 81.
[20] S. Labozzetta, L. Valvo, P. Bertocchi, L. Manna, J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal.
39 (2005) 463.