Next Article in Journal
Phenolic Compounds from Populus alba L. and Salix subserrata Willd. (Salicaceae) Counteract Oxidative Stress in Caenorhabditis elegans
Next Article in Special Issue
Hydroxytyrosol, Tyrosol and Derivatives and Their Potential Effects on Human Health
Previous Article in Journal
Investigation of Direct Model Transferability Using Miniature Near-Infrared Spectrometers
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Organic and Conventional Growing Systems on the Phenolic Profile of Extra-Virgin Olive Oil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 24
Issue 10
10.3390/molecules24101998
molecules-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

Evaluation of Phytochemical and Antioxidant Properties of 15 Italian Olea europaea L. Cultivar Leaves

by
Francesca Nicolì
,
Carmine Negro
,
Marzia Vergine
*,
Alessio Aprile
,
Eliana Nutricati
,
Erika Sabella
,
Antonio Miceli
,
Andrea Luvisi
and
Luigi De Bellis
Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences and Technologies, University of Salento, 73100 Lecce, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2019, 24(10), 1998; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24101998
Submission received: 4 April 2019 / Revised: 15 May 2019 / Accepted: 22 May 2019 / Published: 24 May 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Olive Bioactives: From Molecules to Human Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Olive leaf extracts are of special interest due to their proven therapeutic effects. However, they are still considered a by-product of the table olive and the oil industries. In order to learn possible ways of exploiting this waste for health purposes, we investigated the phytochemical profiles and antioxidant activities in the leaves of 15 Italian Olea europaea L. cultivars grown in the same pedoclimatic conditions. The phenolic profiles and amounts of their seven representative compounds were analyzed using HPLC ESI/MS-TOF. The antioxidant activities were determined using three different antioxidant assays (DPPH, ORAC, and superoxide anion scavenging assay). Wide ranges of total phenolic content (11.39–48.62 g GAE kg−1 dry weight) and antioxidant activities (DPPH values: 8.67–29.89 µmol TE mg−1 dry weight, ORAC values: 0.81–4.25 µmol TE mg−1 dry weight, superoxide anion scavenging activity values: 27.66–48.92 µmol TE mg−1 dry weight) were found in the cultivars. In particular, the cultivars Itrana, Apollo, and Maurino, showed a high amount of total phenols and antioxidant activity, and therefore represent a suitable natural source of biological compounds for use in terms of health benefits.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

In the Mediterranean area, the olive (Olea europaea L. subsp. europaea) is considered to be one of the oldest and important agricultural crops and is characterized by a large number of cultivars used for the production of olive oil and table olives [1,2,3]. While olive oil has been widely studied for its flavor and health benefits, the olive leaf and its chemical composition has only recently attracted interest [4,5].
Olive leaves are a by-product of drupe harvesting and result from the pruning and shaking of olive trees. Olive leaves represent about 10% of the total biomass collected during olive oil production [6], and they are considered to be a cheap raw material which can be used as a useful source of high added-value products (phenolic compounds).
In fact, several studies have investigated the presence of a high number of phenolic compounds in olive leaves such as hydroxytyrosol, rutin, verbascoside, luteolin-7-glucoside, oleuropein, oleuropein aglycone, ligstroside [7], and other compounds such as quinic acid [8]. Generally, oleuropein is the most abundant phenolic compound in olive cultivars [9], which is easily extracted as part of the phenolic fraction of olive fruits, leaves, and seeds, however, it has not been reported in virgin olive oils [7,10].
All these components have been proven to be beneficial in human health because of their antioxidant proprieties. The antihypertensive [11], anticarcinogenic [12], and hypoglycemic, which are antimicrobial activities against Helicobacter pylori and Campylobacter jejuni [13] have all been demonstrated, as well as the hypocholesterolemic effects of olive leaf extracts [14]. All these positive effects appear to be at least partly related to an antioxidative action [15,16], related mainly to low molecular weight polyphenols such as oleuropein, and polar compounds such as quinic acid.
To date, although quinic acid is well known and characterized in other plant extracts due to its antioxidant potential as an inhibitor of oral pathogens [17,18], it has received little consideration among the olive leaf components.
Biophenols have a wide range of bioactivities [19], and olive leaf extract could be used in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals, and also to improve the shelf-life of foods and to develop functional foods. In fact, olive leaves have been mixed with over-ripened olives to produce oils with a more marked flavor and a higher resistance to oxidation [20], used directly as olive oil supplements [21], and their phenolic extracts have been used to produce dietetic tablets and food supplements [22].
The residues of agricultural and food industries represent a serious problem from an economic and environmental point of view, and thus exploiting such by-products could lead to high value-added products. In this context, our study examined olive leaves from 15 Italian olive cultivars in order to provide basic data on their phenolic composition and antioxidant activities and to predict which one represents the best source of bioactive compounds for functional food, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals.
The leaves were extracted in ethanol to examine and compare the phenolic profiles, determine the total phenolic content, and quantify the most representative compounds. In addition, the antioxidant activity of the olive leaf extracts was measured using three different complementary assays (DPPH, ORAC, and superoxide anion scavenging activity), to test the potential applications for human use.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Phenolic Compound Analysis

Phenolic compounds were extracted from the leaves of 15 olive cultivars and analyzed using HPLC ESI/MS-TOF, thereby, identifying 26 different compounds. The phenolic compounds identified by negative ionization mode are shown in Table 1, including retention times, experimental and calculated m/z, molecular formula, errors, score, and literature references.
The base peak chromatogram (BPC) profiles did not show a significant qualitative difference between the extracts, indicating that there was no apparent qualitative variation among the phenolic profiles of the olive cultivars analyzed in our study. Figure 1a shows a representative BPC of one of the 15 extracts of the olive leaves belonging to the Itrana cultivar.
The compounds identified correspond to other molecules already reported in olive leaf extracts [23,24,25,26,27,28]. They can be classified into five different chemical classes: polar compounds, simple phenols, secoiridoids, flavonoids, and cinnamic acid derivatives (Figure 1b).
The chemical class of simple phenols and other polar compounds, each representing 3.85% of the total compounds, are represented respectively by hydroxytyrosol glucoside (peak 2, m/z 315.1095) and quinic acid (peak 1, m/z 191.0510) (Table 1, Figure 1b).
Twelve secoiridoid molecules (46.15% of the total detected compounds) were identified in the olive leaf extracts of the 15 cultivars: secologanoside isomer 1 (peak 3, m/z 389.1095), secologanoside isomer 2 (peak 4, m/z 389.1101), elenoic acid glucoside (peak 6, m/z 403.1262), oleuropein aglycone (peak 8, m/z 377.1459), hydroxyoleuropein (peak 10, m/z 555.1773), oleuropein diglucoside isomers peaks 15, 17, and 18 (at m/z 701.2307, 701.2306, 701.2291, respectively), 2-methoxy oleuropein isomer 1 and 2 (peak 19, m/z 569.1898; peak 20, m/z 569.1899, respectively), oleuropein (peak 21, m/z 539.1772), and ligstroside (peak 24, m/z 523.1823) (Table 1; Figure 1b).
Eleven chemical compounds were identified as flavonoids, which represent 42.30% of the total: rutin (peak 5, m/z 609.1774), quercitrin (peak 9, m/z 447.0960), luteolin 7-O glucoside isomer 1 and 2 (peak 11, m/z 447.0952; peak 13, m/z 447.0948, respectively), luteolin rutinoside (peak 12, m/z 593.1517), apigenin 7 glucoside (peak 14, m/z 431.0988), chrysoerinol 7 glucoside (peak 16, m/z 461.1071), luteolin (peak 22, m/z 285.0419), quercitin (peak 23, m/z 301.0351), apigenin 7 glucoside (peak 25, m/z 269.0461) and diosmetin (peak 26, m/z 299.0566) (Table 1; Figure 1b).
Verbascoside (peak 7, m/z 623.2013) belongs to the class of cinnamic acid derivatives which represented 3.85% of the total compounds identified (Table 1; Figure 1b).
Quantitative analyses were performed on the most representative components for each of the five chemical classes to which they belonged. All calibration curves of quantified compounds showed a good linearity between peak areas and analyte concentrations, and the regression coefficients were greater than 0.984 in all cases. Detection limits (LODs), quantification limits (LOQs), and other analytic parameters for calibration curve are reported in Table 2.
Table 3 shows the presence of quinic acid, hydroxytyrosol glucoside, luteolin 7-O glucoside, 2-methoxy oleuropein, oleuropein, luteolin, and verbascoside in the leaf extracts obtained from the 15 different olive cultivars. The most abundant compounds were quinic acid (about 6–25 g/kg−1 DW), luteolin 7-O glucoside (about 8–40 g/kg−1 DW), oleuropein (about 7–30 g/kg−1 DW), 2-methoxy oleuropein (about 2–22 g/kg−1 DW), and hydroxytyrosol glucoside (in the range 1–17 g/kg−1 DW, except for the cultivar Cellina di Nardò which was about three-fold higher). These results agree with previous studies concerning olive leaves grown in Greece, Tunisia, and Morocco [29,30,31,32].
According to the literature, oleuropein is one of the most abundant compounds in olive leaves [25,33]. Its properties for human health have been widely recognized and include the following: protects the membrane from lipid oxidation and consequently prevents heart disease; has antiviral, cardioprotective and anti-inflammatory properties; improves lipid metabolism; and causes the death of hypertensive cells in cancer patients [6,29,34].
In addition, quinic acid was detected at high concentrations in all the cultivars examined (Table 3). Although quinic acid has been identified in olive leaf extracts, few studies have reported its quantification [8,35]. In other plant species (fruits, vegetables, and commercial derivatives), quinic acid has been quantified because it contributes to their characteristic taste [36,37,38] and has beneficial effects for human health [18]. Conti et al. [17] reported that quinic acid had an antioxidant potential and acts together with other molecules as oral pathogen inhibitors. In addition, quinic acid has been positively associated with symptoms of Pierce disease in the grape variety [39] and in Olea during Xylella fastidiosa infection [35].
The other two molecules, luteolin (from traces to a maximum of 3 g/kg−1 DW) and verbascoside, were detected at low levels in all the cultivars examined, in accordance with the literature [4,26]. Verbascoside is a hydroxycinnamic derivative typical of olive fruit and it has been found in small amounts in olive leaves, as reported by Makowska-Wazs et al. [40] for wild olive trees and by Pereira et al. [41] for the Portuguese olive cultivar Cobrançosa.
The cluster analysis based on the amounts of the seven compounds in Table 3 revealed four statistically significant clusters (Figure 2). The olive cultivars attributed to the first cluster were Itrana, Apollo, and Carolea. Leaf samples of this cluster were characterized by higher levels of all the compounds identified and by a high level of quinic acid (25.19, 21.31, and 13.92 g/kg−1 DW, respectively) and oleuropein (30.46, 24.48, and 28.30 g/kg−1 DW, respectively). Cluster two was distinguished by the mean amounts of luteolin 7-O glucoside (values between 27.88 and 35.13 g/kg−1 DW) (p < 0.05). Cipressino, Ascolana tenera, Maurino and Nociara belong to this cluster. The cultivar Cellina di Nardò represents a third cluster characterized by the highest (p < 0.05) amounts of hydroxytyrosol glucoside (57.75 g/kg−1 DW). Lastly, Pendolino, Minerva, Moraiolo, Taggiasca, Ravece, Sant’Agostino, and Ogliarola were characterized by the mean values of all compounds quantified.

2.2. Antioxidant Activity

Olive trees produce various secondary metabolites to defend themselves against environmental stresses such as high temperatures and UV radiation [6]. The qualitative and quantitative biocompound profile changes depending on the cultivar, phenological stage, maturation degree of the leaf, phytosanitary state, climate, and cultivation area [42,43]. Therefore, olive leaves of the 15 cultivars were collected from trees grown in the same pedoclimatic conditions (same olive orchard, same soil, climate, and culture conditions). As a consequence, the differences found in the phenolic composition and antioxidant activity likely depend, primarily, on the genetic profile of the olive cultivars.
Figure 3 shows the total phenol content (TPC) detected in the selected olive cultivars, expressed as g of gallic acid equivalent kg−1 dry weight of leaf (g GAE kg−1 DW). The TPC in the 15 cultivars ranged between 11 and 49 g GAE kg−1 DW (p < 0.05).
Our results are generally in line with those reported in the literature for the same Greek [29,33] and Tunisian [32,44] olive cultivars, except for Apollo, Itrana, and Maurino which had considerably higher values. These results were also confirmed by the greater amounts, in these three cultivars, of the individual phenols quantified by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF and reported in Table 3.
The ethanolic leaf extracts were tested using three different in vitro assays (DPPH, ORAC, and superoxide anion scavenging), in order to evaluate the individual antioxidant properties. The tests were chosen because they are an accepted tool for estimating the antioxidant free radical scavenging activities. The DPPH and ORAC assays, had previously been employed on the same matrix [45,46,47].
The results of all assays, expressed as µmol Trolox equivalent mg−1 dry weight (µmol TE mg−1 DW), are shown in Figure 4. According to the data in the literature [6,46,48], the three assays showed good antioxidant activity for all the olive leaf ethanolic extracts, indicating statistically significant differences among the cultivars analyzed (p < 0.05).
Itrana, Apollo, and Maurino cultivars showed the greatest antioxidant activity in all three tests, and significantly correlated with the total phenol content (Figure 4) and with the high amounts of quinic acid, oleuropein, and luteolin 7-O glucoside (Table 3). In fact, a high phenolic content in extracts is generally a good indicator of the antioxidant properties because there is a direct relationship between the phytochemical content and antioxidant activity [49]. As shown in Figure 4, a close correlation was found between the total phenol content and the antioxidant activity of all the cultivars. This is due to the high number of phenolic components and their strong scavenging activity [42,50]. The data also highlight the importance of the synergistic activity of the bioactive compounds in the extracts, which is often more beneficial than an individually isolated constituent [6].
Figure 4 shows that the DPPH assay values ranged from 8.67 (Minerva) to 29.89 (Itrana) µmol TE mg−1 DW, the ORAC assay values varied from 0.81 (Cellina di Nardò) to 4.25 (Itrana) µmol TE mg−1 DW, and, lastly, the superoxide anion scavenging values ranged from 27.66 (Minerva) to 48.92 (Itrana) µmol TE mg−1 DW. Of the various parts of the olive tree, the olive leaves have the highest antioxidant and scavenging ability [48], however, it is difficult to compare antioxidant activity results with the literature because of the heterogeneity both in the sample preparation, and the tests and data expressions. However, albeit with some variations, the high values of antioxidant activity obtained through DPPH, ORAC, and anion superoxide scavenging assays are in agreement with the values reported for olive by-products by Orak et al. [5], Xie et al. [46], and Ciriminna et al. [51].
The data obtained concerning the biophenol composition and the antioxidant activity of the olive leaf extract appear encouraging for further potential uses of olive leaves [6].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Plant Material and Sample Preparation

The leaves of O. europaea were collected in October 2018 from 15 cultivars (Apollo, Ascolana tenera, Carolea, Cellina di Nardò, Cipressino, Itrana, Maurino, Minerva, Moraiolo, Nociara, Ogliarola, Pendolino, Ravece, Sant’Agostino, and Taggiasca). The trees of each cultivar were of the same age (about 10 years old), grown in the same agronomical and environmental conditions, and were negative for the most common olive pathogens [52,53]. The selected cultivars were among the most widespread and representative of the Italian oil and table olive germplasm (Table 4).
The leaf samples were collected from different parts of three trees for the cultivars and subsequently pooled into a single cultivar sample. The leaves were ground with a mortar and pestle in liquid nitrogen to which the ethanol solution at 60% (1:10) was added, and they were left to stir in the dark for 2 h. After centrifugation at a maximum speed (5000× g), the resulting solutions were filtered into glass vials using a 0.2 μm PFTE membrane and analyzed as described below. Three replicates for each harvested sample were carried out.

3.2. HPLC ESI/MS-TOF Analysis of Leaf Extracts

The phenolic characterization and quantification were performed using an Agilent 1200 liquid chromatography system (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA) equipped with a standard autosampler and analytical column Agilent Zorbax extended C18 (5 × 2.1 cm, 1.8 µm), as reported by Nicolì et al. [54] and Vergine et al. [55]. The HPLC system was coupled to an Agilent diode-array detector. The detection wavelength was 280 nm and an Agilent 6320 TOF mass spectrometer was equipped with a dual ESI interface (Agilent Technologies) operating in a negative ion mode. Detection was carried out within a mass range of 50–1700 m/z. Accurate mass measurements of each peak from the total ion chromatograms (TICs) were obtained by using an ISO pump (Agilent G1310B) using a dual nebulizer ESI source that introduced a low flow (20 μL min−1) of a calibration solution containing the internal reference masses at m/z 112.9856, 301.9981, 601.9790, 1033.9881, in negative ion mode. The accurate mass data of the molecular ions were processed using Mass Hunter software (Agilent Technologies).
The compounds were quantified using calibration curves of authentic standards (quinic acid, hydroxytyrosol, oleuropein, luteolin 7-O glucoside, luteolin, and verbascoside) and the regression equation and the correlation coefficient (r2) were calculated, as reported by Luvisi et al. [35].

3.3. Total Phenol Content (TPC) and Antioxidant Activity

The total phenol content was determined using the spectrophotometric Folin-Ciocolteau method [56]. Data were expressed as g of gallic acid equivalent kg−1 of Dry Weight (DW).
Antioxidant activity was evaluated using different assays: the DPPH test was carried out as reported by Bondet et al. [57]; ORAC test, as reported by Ou et al. [58]; superoxide anion scavenging was also analyzed as described by Dasgupta et al. [59]. All the assays were performed in triplicate. The antioxidant activities were expressed as µmol of Trolox equivalent mg−1 of dry weight (DW).

3.4. Statistical Analysis

The results were subjected to one-way ANOVA analysis, followed by the Tukey-HSD (honestly significant difference) post hoc test (p < 0.05). All data were reported as the mean ± SD with at least three replications for each olive leaf sample. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad version 6.01(GraphPad Software, San Diego, CA, USA).
Data from the quantitative analyses of seven compounds were also used for the hierarchical cluster analysis using Euclidean distances. Computations were performed using XLSTAT version 18.07.01. (Addinsoft Inc., Long Island City, NY, USA).

4. Conclusions

Olive leaves are considered as by-products of the olive tree cultivation and oil industry, however, in recent years, interest in the alternative uses of these agro-food by-products has increased considerably. In view of the large quantity of this “by-product” available in Italy, we analyzed the bioactive components and the antioxidant activity of leaves belonging to 15 Italian olive cultivars. The data obtained showed a high content in total phenols and a high antioxidant activity for all olive leaf extracts. Among the cultivars analyzed, three (Itrana, Maurino and Apollo) showed the highest content of phenolic compounds which correlated with the highest antioxidant activity.
Therefore, olive leaves collected from all the tested Italian cultivars represent an important and inexpensive natural source of antioxidants for use in various applications and in products with potentially beneficial effects on human health.

Author Contributions

F.N., M.V., A.M., and L.D.B. designed the research; F.N, M.V., and C.N. performed the experiments and analyzed the data; M.V. performed the statistical analyses; E.N. and E.S. contributed reagents, materials, and analysis tools; F.N., M.V., A.A., A.L., and L.D.B. organized and drafted the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. De la Rosa, R.; Angiolillo, A.; Guerrero, C.; Pellegrini, M.; Rallo, L.; Besnard, G.; Bervillé, A.; Martín, A.; Baldoni, L. A first linkage map of olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars using RAPD, AFLP, RFLP and SSR markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 106, 1273–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Gemas, V.J.; Almadanim, M.C.; Tenreiro, R.; Martins, A.; Fevereiro, P. Genetic diversity in the Olive tree (Olea europaea L. subsp. europaea) cultivated in Portugal revealed by RAPD and ISSR markers. Gen. Res Crop. Evol. 2004, 51, 501–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mataix, J.; Barbancho, F.J. Olive oil in the mediterranean food. In Olive Oil and Health; Quiles, J.L., Ramírez-Tortosa, M.C., Yaqoob, P., Eds.; CABI Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  4. Talhaoui, N.; Taamalli, A.; Gómez-Caravaca, A.M.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A.; Segura-Carretero, A. Phenolic compounds in olive leaves: Analytical determination, biotic and abiotic influence, and health benefits. Food Res. Int. 2015, 77, 92–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Orak, H.H.; Karamać, M.; Amarowicz, R.; Orak, A.; Penkacik, K. Genotype-Related Differences in the Phenolic Compound Profile and Antioxidant Activity of Extracts from Olive (Olea europaea L.) Leaves. Molecules 2019, 24, 1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sahin, S.; Bilgin, M. Olive tree (Olea europaea L.) leaf as a waste by-product of table olive and olive oil industry: A review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 1271–1279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ryan, D.; Antolovich, M.; Prenzler, P.; Robards, K.; Lavee, S. Biotransformations of phenolic compounds in Olea europaea L. Sci. Hortic.-Amsterdam 2002, 92, 147–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Taamalli, A.; Arráez Román, D.; Zarrouk, M.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Fernández Gutiérrez, A. Classification of “Chemlali” accessions according to the geographical area using chemometric methods of phenolic profiles analysed by HPLC-ESI-TOF-MS. Food Chem. 2012, 132, 561–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Benavente-García, O.; Castillo, J.; Lorente, J.; Ortunõ, A.; Del Rio, J.A. Antioxidant activity of phenolics from Olea europaea L. leaves. Food Chem. 2000, 68, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Silva, S.; Gomes, L.; Leitão, F.; Coelho, A.V.; Vilas Boas, L. Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Activity of Olea europaea L. Fruits and Leaves. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2006, 12, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Susalit, E.; Agus, N.; Effendi, I.; Tjandrawinata, R.R.; Nofiarny, D.; Perrinjaquet Moccetti, T.; Verbruggen, M. Olive (Olea europaea) leaf extract effective in patients with stage-1 hypertension: comparison with Captopril. Phytomedicine 2011, 18, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bouallagui, Z.; Han, J.; Isoda, H.; Sayadi, S. Hydroxytyrosol rich extract from olive leaves modulates cell cycle progression in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2011, 49, 179–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sudjana, A.N.; D’Orazio, C.; Ryan, V.; Rasool, N.; Ng, J.; Islam, N.; Riley, T.V.; Hammer, K.A. Antimicrobial activity of commercial Olea europaea (olive) leaf extract. Int. J. Antimicrob. Agents 2009, 33, 461–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lee, O.H.; Lee, B.Y. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of individual and combined phenolics in Olea europaea leaf extract. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 3751–3754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dekanski, D.; Ristic, S.; Radonjic, N.; Petronijevic, N.; Dekanski, A.; Mitrovic, D. Olive leaf extract modulates cold restraint stress-induced oxidative changes in rat liver. J. Serb. Chem. Soc. 2011, 76, 1207–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Raederstorff, D. Antioxidant activity of olive polyphenols in humans: a review. Int. J. for Vitam. Nutr. Res. 2009, 79, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Conti, B.; Colzani, B.; Papetti, A.; Mascherpa, D.; Dorati, R.; Genta, I.; Gazzani, G. Adhesive microbeads for the targeting delivery of anticaries agents of vegetable origin. Food Chem. 2013, 138, 898–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Papetti, A.; Mascherpa, D.; Carazzone, C.; Stauder, M.; Spratt, D.A.; Wilson, M.; Pratten, J.; Ciric, L.; Lingström, P.; Zaura, E.; et al. Identification of organic acids in Cichorium intybus inhibiting virulence-related properties of oral pathogenic bacteria. Food Chem. 2013, 138, 1706–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hassan, L.G.; Umar, K.J.; Atiku, I. Nutritional evaluation of Albizia lebbeck (L.) pods as source of feeds for livestock. Am. J. Food Technol. 2007, 2, 435–439. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ranalli, A.; Gomes, T.; Delcuratolo, D.; Contento, S.; Lucera, L. Improving virgin olive oil quality by means of innovative extracting biotechnologies. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 23, 2597–2602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Guinda, Á.; Pérez Camino, M.C.; Lanzón, A. Supplementation of Olis with oleanolic acid from the olive leaf (Olea europaea L.). Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Tech. 2004, 106, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Briante, R.; La Cara, F.; Febbraio, F.; Patumi, M.; Nucci, R. Bioactive derivatives from oleuropein by a biotransformation on Olea europaea leaf extracts. J. Biotechnol. 2002, 93, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Taamalli, A.; Abaza, L.; Arràez Romàn, D.; Segura Carretero, A.; Gutierrez Mokhtar Zarrouk, A.F.; BenmYoussef, N. Characterisation of Phenolic Compounds by HPLC-TOF/IT/MS in Buds and Open Flowers of “Chemlali” Olive Cultivar. Phytochem. Anal. 2013, 24, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fu, S.; Arráez-Roman, D.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Menéndez, J.A.; Menéndez-Gutiérrez, M.P.; Micol, V.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A. Qualitative screening of phenolic compounds in olive leaf extracts by hyphenated liquid chromatography and preliminary evaluation of cytotoxic activity against human breast cancer cells. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 397, 643–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Talhaoui, N.; Gómez-Caravaca, A.M.; León, L.; De la Rosa, R.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A. Determination of phenolic compounds of ‘Sikitita’ olive leaves by HPLC-DAD-TOF-MS. Comparison with its parents ‘Arbequina’ and‘Picual’ olive leaves. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 58, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Talhaoui, N.; Gomez-Caravaca, A.M.; Rolda, C.; Leo, L.; De La Rosa, R.; Fernandez-Gutierrez, A.; Segura-Carretero, A. Chemo-metric analysis for the evaluation of phenolic patterns in olive leaves from six cultivars at different growth stages. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 1722–1729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lozano-Sánchez, J.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Menéndez, J.; Oliveras-Ferraros, C.; Cerretani, L.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A. Prediction of extra virgin olive oil varieties through their phenolic profile. Potential cytotoxic activity against human breast cancer cells. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 9942–9955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Quirantes-Pine, R.; Zurek, G.; Barrajon-Catalan, E.; Bassmann, C.; Micol, V.; Segura-Carretero, A.; Fernandez-Gutierrez, A. A metabolite-profiling approach to assess the uptake and metabolism of phenolic compounds from olive leaves in SKBR3 cells by HPLC-ESI-QTOF-MS. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2013, 72, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Petridis, A.; Therios, I.; Samouris, G. Genotypic Variation of Total Phenol and Oleuropein Concentration and Antioxidant Activity of 11 Greek Olive. Hortscience 2012, 47, 339–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Erbay, Z.; Icier, F. Reviews International the Importance and Potential Uses of Olive Leaves. Food Rev. Int. 2010, 26, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Olmo-García, L.; Bajoub, A.; Benlamaalam, S.; Hurtado-Fernández, E.; Bagur-González, M.G.; Chigr, M.; Mbarki, M.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A.; Carrasco-Pancorbo, A. Establishing the Phenolic Composition of Olea europaea L. Leaves from Cultivars Grown in Morocco as a Crucial Step Towards Their Subsequent Exploitation. Molecules 2018, 23, 2524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Taamalli, A.; Arráez Román, D.; Gómez Caravaca, A.M.; Zarrouk, M.; Segura Carretero, A. Geographical Characterization of Tunisian Olive Tree Leaves (cv. Chemlali) Using HPLC-ESI-TOF and IT/MS Fingerprinting with Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2018, 2018, 6789704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Irakli, M.; Chatzopoulou, P.; Ekateriniadou, L. Optimization of ultrasound-assisted extraction of phenolic compounds: Oleuropein, phenolic acids, phenolic alcohols and flavonoids from olive leaves and evaluation of its antioxidant activities. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2018, 124, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jemai, H.; El Feki, A.; Sayadi, S. Antidiabetic and antioxidant effects of Hydroxytyrosol and oleuropein from olive leaves in alloxan-diabetic rats. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 8798–8804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Luvisi, A.; Aprile, A.; Sabella, E.; Vergine, M.; Nicolì, F.; Nutricati, E.; Miceli, A.; Negro, C.; De Bellis, L. Xylella fastidiosa subsp. pauca (CoDiRO strain) infection in four olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars: Profile of phenolic compounds in leaves and progression of leaf scorch symptoms. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2017, 56, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Da Silva, L.P.; Pereira, E.; Pires, T.C.S.P.; Alves, M.J.; Pereira, O.R.; Barros, L.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Rubus ulmifolius Schott fruits: A detailed study of its nutritional, chemical and bioactive properties. Food Res. Int. 2019, 119, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Flores, P.; Hellín, P.; Fenoll, J. Determination of organic acids in fruits and vegetables by liquid chromatography with tandem-mass spectrometry. Food Chem. 2012, 132, 1049–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Marrubini, G.; Appelblad, P.; Gazzani, G.; Papetti, A. Determination of free quinic acid in food matrices by Hydrophilic Interaction Liquid Chromatography with UV detection. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2015, 44, 80–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wallis, C.M.; Wallingford, A.K.; Chen, J. Grapevine rootstock effects on scion sap phenolic levels, resistanceto Xylella fastidiosa infection, and progression of Pierce’s disease. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Makowska-Wazs, J.; Galanty, A.; Gdula-Argasi, J.; Tyszka-Czochara, M.; Szewczyk, A.; Nunes, R.; Carvalho, I.S.; Michalik, M.; Paśko, P. Identification of Predominant Phytochemical Compounds and Cytotoxic Activity of Wild Olive Leaves (Olea europaea L. ssp. sylvestris) Harvested in South Portugal. Chem. Biodivers 2017, 14, e1600331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pereira, A.P.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Marcelino, F.; Valentão, P.; Andrade, P.B.; Seabra, R.; Estevinho, L.; Bento, A.; Pereira, J.A. Phenolic Compounds and Antimicrobial Activity of Olive (Olea europaea L. Cv. Cobrançosa) Leaves. Molecules 2007, 12, 1153–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ranalli, A.; Contento, S.; Lucera, L.; Di Febo, M.; Marchegiani, D.; Di Fonzo, V. Factors affecting the contents of iridoid oleuropein in olive leaves (Olea europaea L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 434–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vita, F.; Franchina, F.A.; Taiti, C.; Locato, V.; Pennazza, G.; Santonico, M.; Purcaro, G.; De Gara, L.; Mancuso, S.; Mondello, L.; et al. Environmental conditions influence the biochemical properties of the fruiting bodies of Tuber magnatum Pico. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 7243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Abaza, L.; Youssef, N.B.; Manai, H.; Haddada, F.M.; Methenni, K.; Zarrouk, M. Chétoui olive leaf extracts: influence of the solvent type on phenolics and antioxidant activities. Grasas Aceites 2011, 62, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Brahmi, F.; Mechri, B.; Dabbou, S.; Dhibi, M.; Hammami, M. The efficacy of phenolics compounds with different polarities as antioxidants from olive leaves depending on seasonal variations. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2012, 38, 146–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Xie, P.-j.; Huang, L.-x.; Zhang, C.-h.; Zhang, Y.-l. Phenolic compositions, and antioxidant performance of olive leaf and fruit (Olea europaea L.) extracts and their structure–activity relationships. J. Funct. Food. 2015, 16, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Moudache, M.; Colon, M.; Nerín, C.; Zaidi, F. Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of olive by-products and antioxidant film containing olive leaf extract. Food Chem. 2016, 212, 521–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Özcan, M.M.; Matthäus, B. A review: Benefit and bioactive properties of olive (Olea europaea L.) leaves. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2017, 243, 89–99. [Google Scholar]
  49. Gullón, B.; Gullón, P.; Eibes, G.; Cara, C.; De Torres, A.; López-Linares, J.C.; Ruiz, E.; Castro, E. Valorisation of olive agro-industrial by-products as a source of bioactive compounds. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 645, 533–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Japon-Lujan, R.; Luque de Castro, M.D. Liquid–liquid extraction for the enrichment of edible oils with phenols from olive leaf extracts. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 2505–2511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ciriminna, R.; Meneguzzo, F.; Fidalgo, A.; Ilharco, L.M.; Pagliaro, M. Extraction, benefits and valorization of olive polyphenols. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2016, 118, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Nicolì, F.; Negro, C.; Nutricati, E.; Vergine, M.; Aprile, A.; Sabella, A.; Damiano, G.; De Bellis, L.; Luvisi, A. Accumulation of Azelaic Acid in Xylella fastidiosa-Infected Olive Trees: A Mobile Metabolite for Health Screening. Phytopathology 2018, 109, 318–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sabella, E.; Luvisi, A.; Aprile, A.; Negro, C.; Vergine, M.; Nicolì, F.; Miceli, A.; De Bellis, L. Xylella fastidiosa induces differential expression of lignification related-genes and lignin accumulation in tolerant olive trees cv. Leccino. J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 220, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nicolì, F.; Vergine, M.; Negro, C.; Luvisi, A.; Nutricati, E.; Aprile, A.; Rampino, P.; Sabella, E.; De Bellis, L.; Miceli, A. Salvia clandestina L.: unexploited source of danshensu. Nat. Prod. Res. 2019, 19, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Vergine, M.; Nicolì, F.; Negro, C.; Luvisi, A.; Nutricati, E.; Accogli, A.R.; Sabella, E.; Miceli, A. Phytochemical profiles and antioxidant activity of Salvia species from Southern Italy. Rec. Nat. Prod. 2019, 13, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am. J. Enol. Viticult. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  57. Bondet, V.; Brand-Williams, W.; Berset, C. Kinetics and Mechanisms of Antioxidant Activity Using the DPPH• free Radical Method. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 1997, 30, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ou, B.; Hampsch-Woodill, M.; Prior, R.L. Development and Validation of an Improved Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity Assay Using Fluorescein as the Fluorescent Probe. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 4619–4626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dasgupta, N.; De, B. Antioxidant Activity of Piper Betle, L. Leaf Extract in Vitro. Food Chem. 2004, 88, 219–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sample Availability: Samples of the compounds are available from the authors.
Molecules 24 01998 g001 550
Figure 1. Chromatogram of olive leaves extract and compound classes detected: (a) Base peak chromatogram (BPC) of cultivar Itrana olive leaf extract obtained by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF (M − H)−: (1) quinic acid, (2) hydroxytyrosol glucoside, (3) secologanoside isomer 1, (4) secologanoside isomer 2, (5) rutin, (6) elenoic acid glucoside, (7) verbascoside, (8) oleuropein aglycone, (9) quercitrin, (10) hydroxyoleuropein, (11) luteolin 7-O glucoside isomer 1, (12) luteolin rutinoside, (13) luteolin 7-O glucoside isomer 2, (14) apigenin 7 glucoside, (15) oleuropein diglucoside isomer 1, (16) chrysoerinol 7 glucoside, (17) oleuropein diglucoside isomer 2, (18) oleuropein diglucoside isomer 3, (19) 2-methoxy oleuropein isomer 1, (20) 2-methoxy oleuropein isomer 2, (21) oleuropein; (22) luteolin, (23) quercitin, (24) ligstroside, (25) apigenin 7 glucoside, (26) diosmetin, (b) classes of compounds in ethanolic extracts of olive leaves. Detection at 280 nm.
Figure 1. Chromatogram of olive leaves extract and compound classes detected: (a) Base peak chromatogram (BPC) of cultivar Itrana olive leaf extract obtained by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF (M − H)−: (1) quinic acid, (2) hydroxytyrosol glucoside, (3) secologanoside isomer 1, (4) secologanoside isomer 2, (5) rutin, (6) elenoic acid glucoside, (7) verbascoside, (8) oleuropein aglycone, (9) quercitrin, (10) hydroxyoleuropein, (11) luteolin 7-O glucoside isomer 1, (12) luteolin rutinoside, (13) luteolin 7-O glucoside isomer 2, (14) apigenin 7 glucoside, (15) oleuropein diglucoside isomer 1, (16) chrysoerinol 7 glucoside, (17) oleuropein diglucoside isomer 2, (18) oleuropein diglucoside isomer 3, (19) 2-methoxy oleuropein isomer 1, (20) 2-methoxy oleuropein isomer 2, (21) oleuropein; (22) luteolin, (23) quercitin, (24) ligstroside, (25) apigenin 7 glucoside, (26) diosmetin, (b) classes of compounds in ethanolic extracts of olive leaves. Detection at 280 nm.
Molecules 24 01998 g001
Molecules 24 01998 g002 550
Figure 2. Dendrogram based on the amounts of seven compounds (g/kg−1 dry weight), carried out by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF (M − H)−, present in the ethanolic extracts of leaves from the 15 Italian olive cultivars.
Figure 2. Dendrogram based on the amounts of seven compounds (g/kg−1 dry weight), carried out by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF (M − H)−, present in the ethanolic extracts of leaves from the 15 Italian olive cultivars.
Molecules 24 01998 g002
Molecules 24 01998 g003 550
Figure 3. The total phenol content in leaves harvested from the different 15 olive cultivars determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu colorimetric method and expressed as g of gallic acid equivalent per kg−1 DW. Data are in triplicate and are presented as mean ± SD. Different letters correspond to statistically different means carried out using ANOVA followed by the Tukey-HSD post hoc test (above the histograms).
Figure 3. The total phenol content in leaves harvested from the different 15 olive cultivars determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu colorimetric method and expressed as g of gallic acid equivalent per kg−1 DW. Data are in triplicate and are presented as mean ± SD. Different letters correspond to statistically different means carried out using ANOVA followed by the Tukey-HSD post hoc test (above the histograms).
Molecules 24 01998 g003
Molecules 24 01998 g004 550
Figure 4. Antioxidant activity of 15 Italian olive leaf extracts evaluated by DPPH (a), ORAC (b), and superoxide anion scavenging assays (c) (results are expressed as µmol Trolox equivalent mg−1 of dry weight). Each graph also reports the total phenol content (TPC, expressed as g gallic acid equivalent kg−1 dry weight). Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA followed by the Tukey-HSD post hoc test. Different letters correspond to statistically different means.
Figure 4. Antioxidant activity of 15 Italian olive leaf extracts evaluated by DPPH (a), ORAC (b), and superoxide anion scavenging assays (c) (results are expressed as µmol Trolox equivalent mg−1 of dry weight). Each graph also reports the total phenol content (TPC, expressed as g gallic acid equivalent kg−1 dry weight). Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA followed by the Tukey-HSD post hoc test. Different letters correspond to statistically different means.
Molecules 24 01998 g004
Table
Table 1. List of compounds extracted from olive leaves of 15 cultivars and identified by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF.
Table 1. List of compounds extracted from olive leaves of 15 cultivars and identified by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF.
CompoundRT (min) a(M−H)−m/z Exp bm/z Clc cDiff. (ppm) dScore eRef.
*Quinic acid0.365C7H11O6191.0510191.0561−5.8990.44[23,24,25]
*Hydroxytyrosol glucoside2.965C14H19O8315.1095315.1085−1.2696.62[23,24,25]
Secologanoside isomer 13.960C16H21O11389.1095389.1089−1.1188.91[23,24,25]
Secologanoside isomer 26.116C16H21O11389.1101389.1089−2.6296.13[24,26]
*Rutin6.230C27H29O16609.1474609.1461−2.1590.20[24,26]
Elenoic acid glucoside6.630C17H23O11403.1262403.1246−3.6880.90[24,26]
*Verbascoside6.950C29H35O15623.2013623.1618−0.0593.73[26,27]
Oleuropein aglycone7.194C16H25O10377.1459377.1453−1.2392.94[24]
*Quercitrin7.944C21H19O11447.0960447.0933−6.0589.44[27]
Hydroxyoleuropein9.036C25H31O14555.1773556.1803−2.0497.55[24,27]
*Luteolin 7-O glucoside isomer 19.119C21H19O11447.0952447.0933−3.9377.64[24,25]
*Luteolin rutinoside9.517C27H29O15593.1517593.1512−0.8797.79[25]
*Luteolin 7-O glucoside isomer 29.998C21H19O11447.0948447.0933−3.0396.13[23,24,25]
Apigenin 7 glucoside10.010C21H19O10431.0988431.0984−0.7997.82[23,24,25]
Oleuropein diglucoside isomer 110.545C31H41O8701.2307701.2298−0.6093.83[23,24,25]
Chrysoerinol 7 glucoside10.650C22H21O11461.1071461.10894.0679.09[23]
Oleuropein diglucoside isomer 210.728C31H41O8701.2306701.2298−0.4994.85[23,24,25]
Oleuropein diglucoside isomer 310.893C31H41O8701.2291701.22983.2098.67[23,24,25]
2-methoxy oleuropein isomer 111.175C26H33O14569.1898569.1876−3.7685.77[25]
2-methoxy oleuropein isomer 211.258C26H32O14569.1899569.1876−3.6497.16[25]
*Oleuropein11.406C15H9O13539.1772539.17700.0397.14[23,24,25,27]
*Luteolin11.939C15H9O6285.0419285.0405−4.8797.08[23,24,25,27]
*Quercetin12.036C15H9O7301.0351301.03541.1096.04[24,25,28]
Ligstroside12.611C25H31O12523.1823523.1821−0.0397.55[26]
*Apigenin 7 glucoside14.263C15H9O5269.0461269.0455−1.7798.70[23]
Diosmetin14.694C16H11O6299.0566299.0561−1.4398.50[23]
a Retention time, b m/z experimental, c m/z calculated, d difference between the observed mass and the theoretical mass of the compound (ppm), e isotopic abundance distribution match: a measure of the probability that the distribution of isotope abundance ratios calculated for the formula matches the measured data. * Confirmed by authentic chemical standards.
Table
Table 2. Parameters of calibration curves, limits of detection (LODs), limits of quantification (LOQs) and relative standard deviation (RSD) for the HPLC method validation of phenolic assays in ethanolic olive leaf extract.
Table 2. Parameters of calibration curves, limits of detection (LODs), limits of quantification (LOQs) and relative standard deviation (RSD) for the HPLC method validation of phenolic assays in ethanolic olive leaf extract.
Standard CompoundSlopeInterceptr2LOD (µg mL−1)LOQ (µg mL−1)RSD (%)
Quinic acid2.19 × 105−7.17 × 1040.9991.816.030.82
Hydroxytyrosol1.95 × 105−2.57 × 1050.9992.608.660.78
Luteolin 7-O glucoside1.37 × 1061.53 × 1060.9881.254.150.77
Oleuropein1.81 × 1065.01 × 1050.9970.772.560.81
Luteolin1.61 × 1063.91 × 1060.9890.130.450.74
Verbascoside2.60 × 1053.08 × 1050.9840.150.500.87
Table
Table 3. Quantitative analysis of seven compounds (g/kg−1 dry weight), carried out by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF (M-H)−, of the ethanolic leaf extracts of 15 olive cultivars. Different letters correspond to statistically different means carried out using ANOVA followed by the Tukey-HSD post hoc test. All the data are triplicate and are presented as mean ± SD.
Table 3. Quantitative analysis of seven compounds (g/kg−1 dry weight), carried out by HPLC ESI/MS-TOF (M-H)−, of the ethanolic leaf extracts of 15 olive cultivars. Different letters correspond to statistically different means carried out using ANOVA followed by the Tukey-HSD post hoc test. All the data are triplicate and are presented as mean ± SD.
CultivarQuinic AcidHydroxytyrosol
Glucoside		Luteolin
7-O Glucoside		2-Methoxy
Oleuropein *		OleuropeinLuteolinVerbascoside
Apollo21.31 ± 0.29b8.17 ± 0.07e39.78 ± 0.03a10.51 ± 0.15c24.48 ± 0.07d2.66 ± 0.10b0.16 ± 0.02cd
Ascolanatenera12.71 ± 0.04h10.96 ± 0.05d32.75 ± 0.08c7.80 ± 0.05g22.06 ± 0.08f0.15 ± 0.02f0.18 ± 0.04bc
Carolea13.93 ± 0.01e17.34 ± 0.10b35.05 ± 0.06b12.71 ± 0.03b28.30 ± 0.07b0.10 ± 0.01f0.13 ± 0.01defg
Cellina di
Nardò		11.25 ± 0.07i57.75 ± 0.11a23.31 ± 0.22g22.14 ± 0.09a9.69 ± 0.02p2.62 ± 0.0b0.20 ± 0.04ab
Cipressino13.31 ± 0.06f3.58 ± 0.01il29.13 ± 0.07e9.42 ± 0.05d25.52 ± 0.03c0.21 ± 0.01f0.22 ± 0.05a
Itrana25.19 ± 0.04a1.13 ± 0.02q31.56 ± 0.09d8.42 ± 0.14f30.46 ± 0.12a1.54 ± 0.0c0.11 ± 0.01fg
Maurino14.81 ± 0.03d2.05 ± 0.05o27.88 ± 0.10f4.08 ±0.07m18.53 ± 0.07h3.02 ± 0.0a0.10 ± 0.02g
Minerva6.05 ± 0.02n2.42 ± 0.03n15.95 ± 0.05n3.32 ± 0.10o17.38 ± 0.17l1.06 ± 0.0de0.18 ± 0.02bc
Moraiolo9.20 ± 0.07m11.88 ± 0.08c20.12 ± 0.02i5.56 ± 0.04h14.61 ±0.01m1.41 ±0.03cd0.14 ± 0.04def
Nociara10.22 ± 0.02l7.14 ± 0.02g35.13 ± 0.10b3.92 ± 0.05n9.89 ± 0.10o0.18 ± 0.01f0.10 ± 0.02g
Ogliarola6.24 ± 0.07n7.90 ± 0.01f8.69 ± 0.16o8.82 ± 0.02e7.49 ± 0.04q0.21 ± 0.01f0.14 ± 0.02def
Pendolino12.55 ± 0.06h1.69 ± 0.15p17.84 ± 0.04m2.55 ± 0.05q12.58 ± 0.09n0.88 ± 0.02e0.15 ± 0.02cde
Ravece13.02 ± 0.01g3.72 ± 0.04i15.85 ± 0.06n3.07 ± 0.08p18.12 ± 0.03i0.09 ± 0.01f0.13±0.01defg
Sant Agostino16.50 ± 0.02c3.48 ± 0.01m21.57 ± 0.03h5.28 ± 0.01i23.55 ± 0.03e0.16 ± 0.01f0.11 ± 0.01fg
Taggiasca12.54 ± 0.02h4.58 ± 0.07h18.14 ± 0.09l4.14 ± 0.02l21.74 ± 0.05g0.95 ± 0.01e0.12 ± 0.02efg
* 2-methoxy oleuropein was quantified using the oleuropein standard.
Table
Table 4. List of Olea europaea L. cultivars analyzed, their attitude and principal area of cultivation.
Table 4. List of Olea europaea L. cultivars analyzed, their attitude and principal area of cultivation.
CultivarsAttitudePrincipal Area of Cultivation
Apolloolive oilTuscany (Central Italy)
Ascolana teneraoil and table oliveAbruzzo (Southern Italy)
Caroleaoil and table oliveCalabria, Basilicata (Southern Italy)
Cellina di Nardòoil and table oliveApulia (Southern Italy)
Cipressinoolive oilApulia, Sardinia (Southern Italy)
Itranaoil and table oliveLazio (Central Italy)
Maurinoolive oil and pollinatorTuscany (Central Italy)
Minervaolive oilTuscany (Central Italy)
Moraioloolive oilTuscany, Umbria (Central Italy)
Nociaraolive oilApulia (Southern Italy)
Ogliarolaolive oilApulia (Southern Italy)
Pendolinoolive oil and pollinatorTuscany (Central Italy)
Raveceoil and table oliveCampania (Southern Italy)
Sant’Agostinooil and table oliveApulia (Southern Italy)
Taggiascaoil and table oliveLiguria (Northern Italy)

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nicolì, F.; Negro, C.; Vergine, M.; Aprile, A.; Nutricati, E.; Sabella, E.; Miceli, A.; Luvisi, A.; De Bellis, L. Evaluation of Phytochemical and Antioxidant Properties of 15 Italian Olea europaea L. Cultivar Leaves. Molecules 2019, 24, 1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24101998

AMA Style

Nicolì F, Negro C, Vergine M, Aprile A, Nutricati E, Sabella E, Miceli A, Luvisi A, De Bellis L. Evaluation of Phytochemical and Antioxidant Properties of 15 Italian Olea europaea L. Cultivar Leaves. Molecules. 2019; 24(10):1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24101998

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nicolì, Francesca, Carmine Negro, Marzia Vergine, Alessio Aprile, Eliana Nutricati, Erika Sabella, Antonio Miceli, Andrea Luvisi, and Luigi De Bellis. 2019. "Evaluation of Phytochemical and Antioxidant Properties of 15 Italian Olea europaea L. Cultivar Leaves" Molecules 24, no. 10: 1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24101998

APA Style

Nicolì, F., Negro, C., Vergine, M., Aprile, A., Nutricati, E., Sabella, E., Miceli, A., Luvisi, A., & De Bellis, L. (2019). Evaluation of Phytochemical and Antioxidant Properties of 15 Italian Olea europaea L. Cultivar Leaves. Molecules, 24(10), 1998. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24101998

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop