# Chemical composition and antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of Tunisian, France and Austrian Laurus nobilis (Lauraceae) essential oils

Mounira Mkaddem Guedri, Mehrez Romdhane, Ahmed Lebrihi, Florence

Mathieu, Jalloul Bouajila

► To cite this version:

Mounira Mkaddem Guedri, Mehrez Romdhane, Ahmed Lebrihi, Florence Mathieu, Jalloul Bouajila. Chemical composition and antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of Tunisian, France and Austrian Laurus nobilis (Lauraceae) essential oils. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanica Cluj-Napoca, 2020, 48 (4), pp.1929-1940. 10.15835/nbha48412145. hal-04754791

HAL Id: hal-04754791

https://hal.science/hal-04754791v1

Submitted on 4 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Chemical composition and antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of Tunisian, France and Austrian *Laurus nobilis* (Lauraceae) essential oils

Mounira MKADDEM GUEDRI<fnref n="1" />*, Mehrez ROMDHANE<fnref n="1" />, Ahmed LEBRIHI<fnref n="2" />, Florence MATHIEU<fnref n="2" />, Jalloul BOUAJILA<fnref n="2" />

## Abstract

Essential oil (EO) of *Laurus nobilis*, from Tunisian, France and Austrian were screened for their chemical composition, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities and compared. GC-MS analysis showed that leaves of Tunisian *L. nobilis* had camphor (34.43%), 1,8-cineole (20.21%) and α-terpineol (7%) as major components. France and Austrian EOs had a high content of 1,8-cineole (45.8% and 43.4%, respectively) followed by bornyl acetate (13.8% and 17.7% respectively) and methyl eugenol (7.7% and 10.9% respectively). Antioxidant potential was measured by ABTS and DPPH tests. Tunisian *L. nobilis* EO showed greater radical scavenging by ABTS activity (IC₅₀=44.8±0.1 mg/L) than the France and Austrian EOs (76.4±3.2 mg/L and 81.4±4.0 mg/L, respectively). However, for DPPH test system, French and Austrian EOs activities were excellent (IC₅₀=176.1±5.1 mg/L and 236.3±2.9 mg/L respectively) then Tunisian *L. nobilis* EO (IC₅₀=2859.7±99.0 mg/L). A good Antimicrobial activity was observed on the yeasts and fungi for all EOs. Tunisian laurel EO show a better antibacterial activity against gram-negative bacteria (*Klebsiella pneumonia*, *E. coli* and *Salmonella enterica* CMI: 0.004 mg/ml) than gram-positive ones (*Bacillus subtilis*, *Staphylococcus aureus* and *Listeria monocytogenes* CMI: 0.01 mg/ml). A significant antifungal activity of Tunisian EO was also observed against fungi and yeasts species (CMI: 0.004 mg/ml). France essential oil shows better activities against all organisms tested wail Austrian oil activity is more important against yeasts species tested and *Mucor ramannianus* (fungi). Chemical composition, antimicrobial and antioxidant activity of Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil, were different from that of France and Austrian and it give the opportunity for its uses in new pharmaceuticals and natural therapies of infectious diseases.

**Keywords:** antioxidant activity; antimicrobial activity; DPPH and ABTS, essential oil; GC-MS; *Laurus nobilis*

## Introduction

*Laurus nobilis* (Lauraceae) is cultivated in temperate parts of the world, mainly in south Europe and Mediterranean area. It is more used as flavouring in the culinary preparations. Specie was reputed for his

<footnote n="1">¹Université de Gabès, Ecole National d'Ingénieurs de Gabès, Laboratoire d'Environnement, Catalyse et Analyse des Procédés, Rue Omar elkhattab-ZRIG-6029 Gabès, Tunisie; mounira.mkaddem@gmail.com (*corresponding author); mehrez.romdhane1965@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Université de Toulouse, Laboratoire de Génie Chimique, UMR 5503, CNRS, INPT, UPS, Toulouse, France; lebrihi@ensat.fr; florence.mathieu@ensat.fr; jalloul.bouajila@univ-tlse3.fr</footnote>
ownership particularly stimulating and sedative analgesic (Arvy and Galloin, 2003). The essential oil obtained from the leaves of this plant has been used for relieving haemorrhoid and rheumatic pains (Zargari, 1990). It also has diuretic (Zargari, 1990), healing (Nayak *et al.*, 2006), antifungal (Hassiotis, 2010) and antibacterial (Seyed *et al.*, 1991; Bouzouita *et al.*, 2003) activities which are interesting and useful for food preservation (Brahmi *et al.*, 2015). Nevertheless, species became rare in Tunisia and subsist only in some regions of the North West (Pottier Alapetite, 1979).

Many studies of chemical composition of essential oil extracted from different part of plant (steam, leaves, seeds, floral) of *L. nobilis* cultivated from different geographical region in the world was carried (Lawrence, 1983; Anaç, 1986; Pino *et al.*, 1993; Bouzouita *et al.*, 2001; 2009).

Anticonvulsant activity, aflatoxigenic, insecticides and repellent activity of the leaf essential oil was reported in previous works (Sayyah *et al.*, 2002; Erler *et al.*, 2006; Atanda *et al.*, 2007). Antioxidant activity of *L. nobilis* essential oil was also being studied (Baratta *et al.*, 1998) Therefore, considering the importance of toxicogenetic investigation of plant the possible effects on Central Nervous System of laurel essential oil (Caputo *et al.*, 2017) and cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of the aqueous extract of *L. nobilis* leaves was recently prouved (Silva *et al.*, 2020). Tunisian *L. nobilis* floral buds' oil was evaluated for their antioxidant activity by two methods: β-carotene bleaching (BCB) test and 2,2-diphenyl-β-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay (Bouzouita *et al.*, 2009). The antimicrobial properties against some microorganisms (Seyed *et al.*, 1991; Bouzouita *et al.*, 2003; Marzouki *et al.*, 2009) and antifungal activity were reported (Christos and Evanthia, 2011). Quantitative and qualitative changes in Tunisian *L. nobilis* L. leaves essential oil as affected by different drying methods and total fatty acids laurel seed was recently studied (Sellami *et al.*, 2011; Dhifi *et al.*, 2018). Some previous study reports significant antimicrobial activities in Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil (Bouzouita *et al.*, 2003; Marzouki *et al.*, 2009). However, no earlier study reported the comparison of Tunisian essential oil composition in relation with his biological activities with the most commercialised laurel essential oil to better oriented industrials markets.

Here we reported the results of chemical composition, antioxidant, and antimicrobial activity of Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil compared with those of France and Austrian *L. nobilis* essential oil commercialized. Our objective is to present the Tunisian laurel essential oils as a new natural and effective antioxidant and antimicrobial agent and to study consequences of chemical composition variability associated with concept of chemotype in terms of therapeutic use of essential oils.

## Materials and Methods

### Essential oil isolation

Fresh leaves of *L. nobilis* cultivated species were collected from region of Mannouba, Tunisia. About 100 g of the fresh leaves of *L. nobilis* was placed in 400 mL of distilled water and subjected to hydrodistillation for 3 hours, using a Clevenger-type apparatus (British Pharmacopoeia, 1980) (1.5% yield). Anhydrous sodium sulphate was used to eliminate water traces from essential oil. The essential oil is stored at + 4 °C until tested and analysed. Condition of culture, extraction method and stockage were the same of that indicated for commercialized essential oils from France and Austrian *L. nobilis*.

### Chemicals used

All chemicals used were of analytical reagent grade. All reagents were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich-Fluka (Saint-Quentin France).

### GC and GC/MS analysis

The essential oil composition was determined by a VarianStar3400 (Les Ulis, France) Cx gas chromatograph equipped with a flame ionisation detector (FID) and DB-5 (30 m × 0.25 mm; film thickness
0.25 µm) capillary column. Oven temperature gradually rose from 60 °C to 260 °C with a gradient of 5 °C/minute and 15 minutes isothermal at 260 °C and finally rose to 340 °C at 40 °C /min. Helium (purity 99.99999%) was used as the carrier gas at 1 mL/minute. Total analysis time was 57 minutes. 1 µ of diluted sample (1/100 in petroleum ether, v/v) was injected in the split mode (ratio 1:10). The injector was operated at 200 °C. Quantitative data were obtained electronically from FID area percent data without the use of correction factors. Peak integration and quantification were performed automatically with Saturn 2100 Workstation software. A checking of the integration of each peak is carried out and corrected manually if necessary.

Essential oil analysis was performed also with GC chromatograph equipped with a Varian Saturn GC/MS/MS 4D mass selective detector in the electron impact mode (70 ev). MS was adjusted for an emission current of 10 µA and electron multiplier voltage between 1400 and 1500 V. The trap temperature was 150 °C, and that of the transfer line was 170 °C. Mass scanning was from 40 to 650 amu. The components were identified based on the comparison of their Kovats indices (KI), co-injection of standards, MS experimental data with those contained in commercial or literature libraries (NIST 02 version 2.62, Adams, 2001). Alkanes (C5-C24) were used as reference points in the calculation of KI.

GC and GC-MS analysis results are given in Table 1. All determinations were performed in duplicate and averaged.

### DPPH radical scavenging activity

The 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl free radical (DPPH) quenching ability of plant essential oil was measured according to Blois (1958) with some modifications. 1.5 mL of various dilutions of samples (extracts or essential oil [d=1.1]) were mixed with 1.5 mL of 0.2 mM methanolic DPPH solution. After an incubation period of 30 minutes at 25 °C, the absorbance at 520 nm was measured. The wavelength of maximum absorbance of DPPH, was recorded as A(sample), using Helios spectrophotometer (Unicam, Cambridge UK). A blank experiment was also carried out applying the same procedure to a solution without the test material and the absorbance was recorded as A blanck. The free radical-scavenging activity of each solution was then calculated as percent inhibition according to the following equation:

$$ \% \text{inhibition} = ((A_{\text{blank}} - A_{\text{sample}})/A_{\text{blank}}) \times 100 $$

Antioxidant activity of standard or samples was expressed as IC50, defined as the concentration of the test material required to cause a 50% decrease in initial DPPH concentration. Ascorbic acid was used as a standard. All measurements were performed in triplicate.

### ABTS radical-scavenging activity

The ABTS (2, 2'-azinobis-3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonate) quenching ability of plant essential oil was determined as described by Re et al. (1999). ABTS was generated by mixing a 7 mM of ABT Sat pH 7.4 (5 mM NaH₂PO₄, 5 mM Na₂HPO₄ and 154 mM NaCl) with 2.5 mM potassium persulfate (final concentration) followed by storage in the dark at room temperature for 16h before use. The mixture was diluted with ethanol to give an absorbance of 0.70 ±0.02 units at 734 nm using spectrophotometer (Helios, Unicam, Cambridge UK). For each sample, diluted methanol solution of the essential oil (100 µL) could react with fresh ABTS solution (900 µL), and then the absorbance was measured 6 min after initial mixing. Ascorbic acid was used as a standard. A blank experiment was also carried out applying the same procedure to a solution without the test material and the absorbance was recorded as A (blank). The free radical-scavenging activity of each solution was then calculated as percent inhibition according to the following equation:

$$ \% \text{inhibition} = ((A_{\text{blank}} - A_{\text{sample}})/A_{\text{blank}}) \times 100 $$

Antioxidant activity of standard or samples was expressed as IC50, defined as the concentration of the test material required to cause a 50% decrease in initial DPPH concentration. Ascorbic acid was used as a standard. All measurements were performed in triplicate.
*Antimicrobial activity*

Essential oils were individually tested against a panel of microorganisms (Table 1). Six bacteria including three Gram-positive: *Bacilus subtilis* ATCC 6633 (Bs), *Staphylococcus aureus* CIP7625 (Sa) and *Listeria monocytogenes* Scott A724 (Lm) and three Gram-negative, *Escherichia coli* ATCC10536 (E coli), *Klebsiella pneumonaea* CIP8291 (Kp) and *Salmonella enterica* CIP833 (Se) were used. Two yeasts *Sacharomyces cerevisiae* ATCC 4226A (Sc) and *Candida albicans* IPA 200 (Ca) and three fungi *Mucor ramannianus* ATCC 9314 (Mr), *Aspergillus parasiticus* CBS 100926(Ap) and *Fusarium culmorum* NRRL 3288(Fc) were also tested.

All strains were obtained from the Laboratory of Chemical Engineering, Bioprocess Systems Microbial Department of High National School of Agronomy, Toulouse, France.

*Discs diffusion method*

The paper disc diffusion method was employed for the determination of essential oil antimicrobial activity (Ennajar *et al*., 2009). A suspension of the tested microorganism (concentration to 4 10⁶ cells/mL) was spread on nutrient agar. We take 600 µL/200 mL for the bacteria and yeasts and 1 mL/200 mL for the fungi. The filter discs (9 mm in diameter) were imbibed with 15 µL of essential oil and placed on the inoculated plates. The plates were then covered with parafilm, finely punched to allow the circulation of air without allowing the mites to escape.

Ampicillin and nalidixic acid (0.5-20 mg/L) were used as positive reference standards to determine the sensitivity of Gram-positive, Gram-negative bacterial species tested, respectively. Nystatin (0.5-20 mg/L) was used as positive reference standards to determine the sensitivity of fungi and yeasts species.

After staying at 4 °C for 2 h, plates were incubated for 48 h (at 37 °C for bacteria and at 30 °C for yeasts and fungus). Antimicrobial activity was evaluated by measuring the zone of inhibition (in millimeters) against the test organism. Tests were carried out in triplicate. Values are presented as means± SD of three parallel measurements.

Oils minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) values were determined based on the agar dilution method. 15 concentrations of each essential oil were essayed (0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 40 and 50 µL/mL). The dilutions of essential oils were prepared in the methanol, the Tween 80 to 10% and 3 mL of nutrition's solid media. Bacterial suspensions of10⁶ bac/mL and of 10⁵ of yeasts and fungi were prepared and 1 µL was deposed on the solid environments already inoculated by the various microorganisms' tests and then incubated for 48 h (at 37 °C for bacteria and at 30 °C for yeasts and fungi). The same concentrations of every witness and of pure methanol were prepared and dissolved in the Tween 80 to 10% before tested.

*Statistical analysis*

All data were expressed as means± standard deviations of triplicate measurements. The confidence limits were set at P < 0.05. Standard deviations (SD) did not exceed 5% for most of the values obtained.

*Results*

*Chemical composition*

Analysis of the Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil revealed forty-two components representing 99.30% of the total volatiles (Table 1). The main components were oxygenated monoterpenes (73.1%). Camphor (34.43%) was the major compound followed by 1,8-cineole (20.21%), α-terpineol (7.19%), borneol (6.75%) and α-pinene (6.47%). Monoterpene hydrocarbons represent 10.8% of the total oil. However, sesquiterpenes hydrocarbons and sesquiterpenes oxygenated presented only by 4.42% and 2.19% of total essential oil, respectively (Table 1).
<table><caption>Table 1. Chemical composition (peak area (%)) of essential oils from *L. nobilis* leaves</caption><thead><tr><th>Compounds</th><th>KI</th><th>Tunisia oil</th><th>France oil</th><th>Austria oil</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>β-pinene</td><td>974</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>α-pinene</td><td>936</td><td>6.5</td><td>1.7</td><td>2.0</td></tr><tr><td>α-fenchene</td><td>951</td><td>0.5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>camphene</td><td>954</td><td>0.5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Sabinene</td><td>976</td><td>2.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>β-myrcene</td><td>985</td><td>0.1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>p-cymene</td><td>1025</td><td>0.3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Limonene</td><td>1028</td><td>-</td><td>2.9</td><td>3.8</td></tr><tr><td>α-phellandrene</td><td>1030</td><td>-</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>1,8-cineole</td><td>1030</td><td>20.2</td><td>45.8</td><td>43.4</td></tr><tr><td>eucalyptol</td><td>1038</td><td>0.5</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>γ-terpinene</td><td>1057</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>d-terpinene</td><td>1057</td><td>-</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>α-terpinolene</td><td>1086</td><td>-</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Linalool</td><td>1094</td><td>1.4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Fenchol</td><td>1108</td><td>0.1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>α-campholenal*</td><td>1128</td><td>0.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>cis-verbenol</td><td>1140</td><td>0.1</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>trans-2- menthenol</td><td>1141</td><td>-</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>Camphor</td><td>1143</td><td>34.4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>β-terpineol</td><td>1159</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>Borneol</td><td>1166</td><td>6.7</td><td>0.3</td><td>0.2</td></tr><tr><td>pinocarvone</td><td>1168</td><td>0.3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>terpinen-4-ol</td><td>1178</td><td>1.6</td><td>1.7</td><td>1.3</td></tr><tr><td>α-terpineol</td><td>1185</td><td>7.2</td><td>5.7</td><td>2.1</td></tr><tr><td>verbenone</td><td>1210</td><td>0.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Geraniol</td><td>1242</td><td>-</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.1</td></tr><tr><td>bornyl acetate</td><td>1285</td><td>5.0</td><td>13.8</td><td>17.7</td></tr><tr><td>Thymol</td><td>1290</td><td>0.6</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>carvacrol</td><td>1302</td><td>0.4</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>4-terpenyl acetate</td><td>1340</td><td>-</td><td>1.0</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Eugenol</td><td>1350</td><td>0.1</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>neryl acetate</td><td>1376</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.5</td></tr><tr><td>α-copaene</td><td>1388</td><td>-</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>β-elemene</td><td>1389</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.5</td><td>0.8</td></tr><tr><td>methyl eugenol</td><td>1406</td><td>2.0</td><td>7.7</td><td>10.9</td></tr><tr><td>β-caryophyllene</td><td>1415</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.4</td></tr><tr><td>β-gurjunene</td><td>1432</td><td>0.3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>terpinyl propionate</td><td>1435</td><td>0.1</td><td>3.8</td><td>3.2</td></tr><tr><td>α-guaiene</td><td>1440</td><td>-</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.6</td></tr><tr><td>α-himachalene</td><td>1450</td><td>0.1</td><td>1.3</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Ethyltrans-cinnamate</td><td>1460</td><td>-</td><td>0.4</td><td>0.3</td></tr><tr><td>γ-murolene</td><td>1480</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.2</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>germacrene D</td><td>1480</td><td>0.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>β-selinene</td><td>1482</td><td>2.6</td><td>1.7</td><td>1.0</td></tr><tr><td>calamenene*</td><td>1512</td><td>0.2</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>Cubenol</td><td>1514</td><td>0.3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>δ-cadinene</td><td>1524</td><td>0.1</td><td>0.2</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>α-cadinene</td><td>1534</td><td>0.2</td><td>0.5</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>β-caryophyllene oxide</td><td>1580</td><td>1.6</td><td>0.2</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>elemicine*</td><td>1582</td><td>-</td><td>0.7</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>α-cedrol</td><td>1596</td><td>0.3</td><td>-</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>β-eudesmol</td><td>1650</td><td>-</td><td>1.4</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>nootkatone*</td><td>1804</td><td>-</td><td>0.2</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td></td><td><strong>99.3</strong></td><td><strong>99.7</strong></td><td><strong>98.9</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Monoterpene hydrocarbons</td><td></td><td>10.8</td><td>6.7</td><td>7.2</td></tr><tr><td>Monoterpenes oxygenated</td><td></td><td>73.1</td><td>54.0</td><td>47.4</td></tr><tr><td>Sesquiterpenes hydrocarbons</td><td></td><td>4.4</td><td>6.3</td><td>6.7</td></tr><tr><td>Sesquiterpenes oxygenated</td><td></td><td>2.2</td><td>1.8</td><td>0.4</td></tr><tr><td>Phenolics</td><td></td><td>1.1</td><td>2.8</td><td>2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Others</td><td></td><td>7.8</td><td>28.2</td><td>34.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

<footnote>*: Tentatively identified supported by good match of MS. -: Not determined.</footnote>
Thirty-five components representing 99.7% of the total volatiles were identified for France *L. nobilis* essential oil. The main components were oxygenated monoterpenes (54%), 1,8-cineole (45.8%) was the major compound followed by bornyl acetate (13.8%) and methyl eugenol (7.7%). Monoterpene hydrocarbons represented only 6.7% of the total, when sesquiterpenes hydrocarbons and sesquiterpenes oxygenated were lowly represented (6.3 and 1.8%, respectively) (Table 1).

Thirty-one components, representing 98.9% of the total volatiles, were identified for Austrian *L. nobilis* essential oil and oxygenated monoterpenes (47.4%) were the abundant. The prominent component in *L. nobilis* essential oil from Austrian was 1,8-cineole (43.4%), bornyl acetate (17.7%) and methyl eugenol (10.9%). Monoterpene hydrocarbons (7.2%) and sesquiterpenes hydrocarbons were not mostly present (Table 1).

Antioxidant activity

We have investigated free radical scavenging activity, of the three *L. nobilis* essential oils by ABTS assay (Table 2). The ABTS was not tested for *L. nobilis* leaves. Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil (mixture of compounds) included a high activity (IC₅₀= 44.8± 0.1 mg/L) to scavenge ABTS radical cation comparing with standards (1.9± 0.1 mg/L). Although the ABTS radical scavenging activity of France and Austrian essential oils (IC₅₀= 76.4± 3.2 mg/L and IC₅₀= 81.4± 4.0 mg/L, respectively) were significant but less important compared to Tunisian essential oil.

<table><caption>Table 2. Antioxidant activity of *L. nobilis* leaves essential oils</caption><thead><tr><td>Samples</td><td>ABTS IC<sub>50</sub> (mg/L)</td><td>DPPH IC<sub>50</sub> (mg/L)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>L. nobilis</i> - Tunisia</td><td>44.8± 0.8</td><td>2859.7± 99.0</td></tr><tr><td><i>L. nobilis</i> - France</td><td>76.4± 3.2</td><td>176.1± 5.1</td></tr><tr><td><i>L. nobilis</i> - Austria</td><td>81.4± 4.0</td><td>236.3± 2.9</td></tr><tr><td>Vitamin C</td><td>1.9± 0.1</td><td>4.4± 0.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

By DPPH assay, results were in opposition to those obtained with ABTS assay (Table 2). Therefore, Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil (IC₅₀=2859.7± 99.0 mg/L) were feebly active and a moderate antioxidant activity were determined for France (IC₅₀= 176.1± 5.1 mg/L) and Austrian (IC₅₀= 236.3± 2.9 mg/L) essential oils compared to activity of standard (4.4± 0.2 mg/L).

Antimicrobial activity

Antimicrobial activity of *L. nobilis* essential oils was evaluated against 3 Gram-positive bacteria, 3 Gram-negative bacteria, 3 fungi and 2 yeasts species by zone diameter (Table 3). These micro-organisms are morphologically and physiologically different.

Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil (15 µL) exhibited a great potential for antimicrobial activities against the tow fungi: *M. ramamnianus* (43 mm of inhibition zone) and *A. parasiticus* (24 mm of inhibition diameter) and yeasts species (*C. albicans* and *S. cerevisiae* with 26 mm of inhibition zone) (Table 3). The strongest activity for bacterial strains sensitive to Tunisian laurel oil was observed against *S. aureus* (gram+bacteria) with 23 mm of inhibition zones more than that of antibiotic (Table 3). Activity against *B. subtilis* and *L. monocytogenes* (Gram+ bacteria) is moderate and it attends respectively 20 and 17 mm of inhibition zone. A low sensitivity of *K. pneumonia* and *S. enterica* (Gram-negative bacteria) (Table 3) comparing with standard one (10 mm of inhibition zone). However, *E. coli* (gram-bacteria) is insensitive to Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil. We can say that Gram positive bacteria are significantly more sensitive to Tunisian *Laurus nobilis* oil. However, gram negative bacteria are low sensitive to this oil as perhaps their resistance mechanism that manifests itself in the structure of their bacterial envelope (Moghtader and Farahmand, 2013) as well as in their enzymatic arsenals.
France commercialized essential oil reacted efficiency with fungi microorganisms: *M. ramamnianus* (43 mm of inhibition zone), *A. parasiticus* (28 mm of inhibition diameter) and *F. Culmorum* (ZI: 26 mm) compared to standard test (Table 3). The maximal inhibition zones for bacterial strains sensitive to the France laurel oil was also *S. aureus* (gram-positive bacteria) (30 mm of inhibition zone >20 mm standard zone). Activity against the two others gram positive bacteria as *L. monocytogenes* (ZI: 20 mm) and *B. subtilis* (ZI: 12 mm) are less important. The weakest activity was also observed against gram-negative bacteria (ZI: 10-13 mm) with a feebly sensitivity to E coli (ZI: 10mm). Activity of France laurel oil against yeasts species (ZI: 17-20mm) were relatively low then that of standard and that noted for Tunisian laurel leaves oil.

Important activity of Austrian laurel leaves oil against fungi: *M. ramamnianus* (ZI: 38 mm) and *F. culmorum* (ZI: 20 mm) are also distinguished compared to standard (31 and 24mm respectively). However, *A. parasiticus* (fungi) is insensitive to this oil. Yeasts activities were also important then standard ones for *C. albicans* (with ZI: 35) and *S. cerevisiae* (23 mm).

<table><caption>Table 3. Antimicrobial activity of *L. nobilis* essential oil</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="5">Zones of inhibition (mg/mL)</th></tr><tr><th>Laurus nobilis</th><th>Tunisia</th><th>France</th><th>Austria</th><th>Standards</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Gram positive bacteria</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Ampicillin</td></tr><tr><td><em>B. subtilis</em></td><td>20</td><td>12</td><td>17</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td><em>S. aureus</em></td><td>23</td><td>30</td><td>23</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td><em>L. monocytogenes</em></td><td>17</td><td>20</td><td>16</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gram negative bacteria</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Nalidixic acid.</td></tr><tr><td>Echerchia coli</td><td>0</td><td>10</td><td>10</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td><em>K. pneumoniae</em></td><td>10</td><td>12</td><td>10</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td><em>S. enterica</em></td><td>10</td><td>13</td><td>10</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Yeast</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Nystatin</td></tr><tr><td><em>S. cerevisiae</em></td><td>26</td><td>17</td><td>23</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td><em>C. albicans</em></td><td>26</td><td>20</td><td>35</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fungi</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Nystatin</td></tr><tr><td><em>M. ramamnianus</em></td><td>43</td><td>43</td><td>38</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td><em>A. parasiticus</em></td><td>24</td><td>28</td><td>0</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td><em>F. culmorum</em></td><td>0</td><td>26</td><td>20</td><td>30</td></tr></tbody></table>

“-”: Absence of inhibition zone detected. Essential oil concentration:

15 µL/disc; reference standards concentration: 0.33 mg/L.

The maximal inhibition zones for bacterial strains sensitive to the Austrian oil was also noted for *S. aureus* (gram-positive bacteria) (23 mm of inhibition zone) while activity against *B. subtilis* and *L. monocytogenes* (ZI: 17 and 16 mm respectively) are not significant compared to standard ones (25 and 35 mm). Activity against gram-negative bacteria is relatively insignificant as France and Tunisian oils in comparison with standard (ZI: 10 mm).

CMI of gram-positive bacteria of Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil was very important (0.01 mg/ml) compared to standard ones (0.02 mg/ml) and to France and Austrian activities (Table 4) and they confirm result obtained by screening test.

Although gram-negative bacteria tested found to be very sensitive to Tunisian *L. nobilis* oil (CMI: 0.004 mg/ml) in comparison with standard test (0.01 to 0.02 mg/ml) they present a non-significant screening test. CMI noted for yeasts species (*C. albicans* and *S. cerevisiae*) (0.004 and 0.005 mg/ml respectively) and fungi tested (*M. ramamnianus* and *A. parasiticus*) (0.003 to 0.004 mg/ml) proved a stronger activity confirm result obtained by screening test. *F. culmorum* and *E. coli* exhibit important value of CMI (0.004 mg/ml) nevertheless they appeared to be inactive in screening test (Table 3).
France essential oil exhibited an interesting antimicrobial activity against all microorganisms tested proved by CMI tests (0.003 to 0.004 mg/ml) (Table 4). These results prove the screening test only for *M. ramamnianus* (fungi) and *S. aureus* (gram-positive bacteria).

<table><caption>**Table 4.** Antimicrobial activity (MIC (mg/mL)) of *L. nobilis* essential oils</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="5">Zones of inhibition (mg/mL)</th></tr><tr><th></th><th>Tunisia</th><th>France</th><th>Austria</th><th>Standards</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Laurus nobilis</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gram-positive bacteria</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><em>Ampicillin.</em></td></tr><tr><td><em>B. subtilis</em></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><em>S. aureus</em></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><em>L. monocytogenes</em></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Gram-negative bacteria</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><em>Nalidixic acid</em></td></tr><tr><td><em>Escherichia coli</em></td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><em>K. pneumoniae</em></td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><em>S. enterica</em></td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Yeast</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><em>Nystatin</em></td></tr><tr><td><em>S. cerevisiae</em></td><td>0.005</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><em>C. albicans</em></td><td>0.004</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Fungi</strong></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td><em>Nystatin</em></td></tr><tr><td><em>M. ramamnianus</em></td><td>0.003</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><em>A. parasiticus</em></td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><em>F. culmorum</em></td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.015</td></tr></tbody></table>

The antimicrobial properties of essential oils from Austrian were significant also by CMI concentration which ranged from 0.01 mg/ml (for *S. aureus*, *L. monocytogenes* and *S. enterica*) to 0.005mg/ml (*B. subtilis* and *E. coli*) antifungal activity are also important (0.004 mg/ml for *M. ramamnianus* to 0.01 mg/ml for *A. parasiticus*). These results agree with screening test only for *S. aureus*, *C. albicans* and *F. culmorum*.

CMI concentration of all microorganisms are relatively effective in comparison with standards ones (Table 4), so we can conclude that essential oil of *L. nobilis* from Tunisian, France and Austrian have a good antimicrobial activity (Table 4).

Discussion

Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil was richer in terpenes (42 components) for the most part by oxygenated monoterpenes (73.1%) then France (54%) and Austrian (47.4%) essential oils. Monoterpene hydrocarbons were also relatively higher in Tunisian laurel oil (10.8%) then France (6.7%) and Austrian (7.2%) ones. In Tunisian laurel oil, camphor is the major component added to 1,8-cineole. This result is original and it make a difference with France and Austrian oil how the 1,8-cineole only is the more represented component. This difference can be attributed to bioclimatic and ecological conditions of three different provenances. camphor has a long tradition of use as antiseptic, antipruritic, rubefacient, abortifacient, aphrodisiac, contraceptive and lactation suppressant (Ashish and Aggarwal, 2007). It has also antifumigant and insecticidal effect (Quintai and Yongcheng (1998). The natural form of camphor (D-camphor) was not harmful (Belzt *et al.*, 2003). A few Studies of pharmacological interactions between camphor and other compounds are present in the literature (Tassell *et al.*, 2010).

*L. nobilis* leaves essential oils from all over the world were richer in 1,8-cineole (chahal et al., 2017). However, Linool, α-terpinol, α-terpenyl acetate and thymol were also revealed as major component (chahal et al., 2017). Camphor is present in essential oil of Tunisian *Laurus nobilis* (Ben Jemâa *et al.*, 2012) but it was not previously found as a major component.
Many studies have determined the potential antioxidant activity of various extracts (lives and seeds) (Chahal *et al*., 2017) but a little information is available about the antioxidant leaves essential oil (Bouzouita *et al*., 2009; Saab *et al*., 2012). Antioxidant activities for Tunisian laurel are essayed only in floral buds' essential oil by B-carotene bleaching test and DPPH radical scavenging method (Bouzouita *et al*., 2009).

In many reports, the antioxidant performance of essential oils was due to the presence of phenolic compounds (Bouzouita et al., 2009; Mkaddem et al., 2010; Ozen et al., 2011; Goudjil et al., 2015). The lowest antioxidant activity of Tunisian *Laurus nobilis* essential oil with DPPH test (IC₅₀= 2859.7 ± 99.0 mg/L) can be explained by the fact that the phenolic compounds in the essential oils are low (1.1% of total oil represented by carvacrol, thymol and eugenol). While the ABTS assay involved other anti-radical cationic compounds. The percentage of components with hydroxyl function (aromatic and non-aromatic) in Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil is 21.6% (Table 1). In fact, especially hydroxyls of tertiary carbon (terpinen-4-ol, linalool, β-terpineol...) forms a radical presenting an acceptable stability even if it is less stable than the phenolic hydroxyls. In France essential oil, components with hydroxyl function represent 20% of total essential oil when they represent only 18.1% in Austrian essential oil (Table 1).

Our sample shows an important variation in the essential oil composition in comparison with other sample from Tunisia due to geographical bioclimatic factors, age of plant and the season of harvest. It represents a new chemotype.

We noted a various antimicrobial activity due to the nature of microorganisms tested and to origins of plants and composition of the essential oil. In general, all laurel oils tested in our work were more active against Gram-positive than Gram-negative bacteria. *S. aureus* (gram+bacteria) is the most sensitive strain as proved by literature (Derwich *et al*., 2009) and *M. ramannianus* was the most sensitive fungi to laurel oil. However, the most resistant strains were *E. coli* (gram- bacteria). These results are different from those obtained for Tunisian laurel leaves essential oil with 1,8 cineole as major component how *E. coli* was revealed the most sensitive bacteria (Bouzouita *et al*., 2003).

This is the first study to report activities of *L. nobilis* essential oil against yeasts species. *C. albicans* and *S. enterica* (26 mm and CMI ringing from 0.004 to 0.005 mg/ml) and fungi species *M. ramannianus* and *A. parasiticus* (43 and 24 mm and CMI of 0.003 and 0.004 mg/ml respectively). These activities were important and it may be related to major compounds of the essential oil (camphor and 1,8-cineole) or to synergic effect between them. However, 1,8- cineole, has been known to exhibit antimicrobial activity against the bacterial strains (*E. coli*, *P. aeruginosa*, *S. typhi*, *Staphylococcus aureus*, *Staphylococcus intermedius*, *Bacillus subtilis*) (Saab *et al*., 2012) but there is no previous study that reported the activity of purified camphor components.

Conclusions

In recent years, the international demand for labelled and certified products is growing. The objectives of this study were: to orient seriously the choice of the essential oils replaying to the requirements of the markets, amplify their usage domains and envisaged conservation and improvement of variety with new specific essential oil composition suitable to pharmaceutical and industries food processing.

The results in this work showed that Tunisian laurel leaf essential oil represented a new chemotype of camphor and 1,8 cineole. Essential oils from France and Austrian were reached by 1,8-cineole. Ecological factors (climatic and soil conditions) have strong influence on the essential oil content (Bisio *et al*., 1999; Sangun *et al*., 2007)

A good antioxidant activity to scavenge ABTS radical cation was determined for Tunisian essential oil (IC₅₀= 44.8± 0.1 mg/L). This result is cited for the first time and it gives the opportunity for uses Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil in pharmaceutical industries. Therefore, Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil was feebly active against DPPH radical cation and moderate antioxidant activities were determined for France and Austrian leaves essential oils.
Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil exhibited a great potential for antimicrobial activities against fungi (*M. ramamnianus* and *A. parasiticus*) and yeasts species (*C. albicans* and *S. cerevisiae*). Gram (+) bacteria (*S. aureus* and *B. subtilis*) is more sensitive to all *L. nobilis* essential oil tested then gram (-) ones. This result was proved by screening test and CMI concentration.

France commercialized essential oil shows good activities against fungi (*M. ramamnianus*). However, sensitivity of gram (+) bacteria (*S. aureus* and *L. monocytogenes*) was more important than that of gram (-) ones. Important activity of Austrian leaves essential oil against *F. culmorum* (fungi), *C. albicans* (yeasts) and *S. Aureus* (gram (+) bacteria) are also noted by screening and CMI testes.

Austrian essential oil is similar to Tunisian and France essential oils to inhibit activity of gram (+) bacteria (essentially *S. aureus*) more than antibiotics.

We concluded that Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil has a good activity against fungi, yeasts, and bacteria globally different from France and Austrian commercialized essential oil. This significant difference is probably due to variability in their composition (major and minor components) (Derwich *et al.*, 2009; Dhifi *et al.*, 2018). Results concerning antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of Tunisian *L. nobilis* were important and different from commercialized essential oil and it give the opportunity to better use Tunisian *L. nobilis* essential oil as a new natural and effective antimicrobial agent in conservation, pharmaceuticals, natural therapies of infectious in human, and management of plant diseases.

## Authors' Contributions

Conceptualization: MR; Visualization, Methodology and Supervision: JB; Methodology and formal analysis AL and FM. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research.

## Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to this article.

## References

* Arvy MP, Galloin F (2003). Epices, aromates et condiments, Ed. Belin, pp 412.

* Anaç O (1986). Essential oil contents and chemical composition of Turkish laurel leaves. Perfumer and Flavorist 11(5):73-75.

* Ashish G, Aggarwal P (2007). Camphor: a lesser-known killer. Southern Medical Journal 100(2):134-135.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.smj.0000254202.13518.f3

* Atanda OO, Akpan I, Oluwafemi F (2007). The potential of some spice essential oils in the control of *A. parasiticus* CFR 223 and aflatoxin production. Food Control 18:601-607.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.02.007

* Baratta MT, Dorman HD, Deans SG, Biondi DM, Rubeerto G (1998). Chemical composition, antimicrobial and antioxidative activity of laurel, sage, rosemary, oregano and coriander essential oils. Journal of Essential Oil Research 10:618-627.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10412905.1998.9700989
Belz GG, Loew D (2003). Dose-response related efficacy in orthostatic hypotension of a fixed combination of D-camphor and an extract from fresh Crataegus berries and the contribution of the single components. Phytomedicine 10(4):61-67. https://doi.org/10.1078/1433-187X-00303

Ben Jemâa JM, Tersim N, Toudert TK, Khouja ML (2012). Insecticidal activities of essential oils from leaves of *Laurus nobilis* L. from Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco, and comparative chemical composition. Journal of Stored Products Research 48:97-104.

Bisio A, Corallo A, Gastaldo P, Romussi G, Ciarallo G, Fontana N, ... Profumo P (1999). Glandular hairs and secreted material in *Salvia blepharophylla* Brandegee ex Epling grown in Italy. Annals of Botany 83:441-452. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0838

Blois MS (1958). Antioxidant determination by use of free radical stable. Nature 181:1199-1200.
https://doi.org/10.1038/1811199a0

Bouzouita N, Nafti A, Chaabouni MM, Lognay GC, Marlier M, ... Thonat PH (2001). Chemical composition of *Laurus nobilis* oil from Tunisia. Journal of Essential Oil Research 13:116-117.

Bouzouita N, Kachouri F, Hamdi M, Chaabouni MM (2003). Antimicrobial activity of essential oils from Tunisian aromatic plants. Flavour and Fragrance Journal 18(5):380-383. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffj.1200

Bouzouita N, El omri A, Kachouri F, Watherlet JP, Marlier M, Chaabouni M (2009). Chemical composition and antioxidant activity of *Laurus nobilis* floral buds essential oil. Journal of Essential Oil Bearing Plants 12(6):694-702. https://doi.org/10.1080/0972060X.2009.10643777

Brahmi N, Scognamiglio M, Pacifico S, Mekhoukhe A, Madani K, Fioentino A, ... Monaco P (2015). ¹H NMR based metabolic profiling of eleven Algerian aromatic plants and evaluation of their antioxidant and cytotoxic properties. Food Research International 76(3):334-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2015.07.005

British Pharmacopoeia (1980). Adsorbed tetanus vaccine. HMSO, London pp 880.

Caputo L, Nazzaro F, Souza LF, Aliberti L, De Martino L, Fratianni F, ... De Feo V (2017). *Laurus nobilis*. composition of essential oil and its biological activities. Molecules 22:930. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules22060930

Chahal KK, Kaur M, Bhardwaj U, Singla N, Kaur A (2017). A review on chemistry and biological activities of *Laurus nobilis* L. essential oil. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 6(4):1153-1161.

Christos NH, Evanthia, ID (2011). The effects of laurel (*Laurus nobilis* L.) on development of two mycorrhizal fungi. International Biodeterioration& Biodegradation 65(4):628-634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2011.03.006

Derwich E, Benziane Z, Boukir A (2009). Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of leaves essential oil of *Laurus nobilis* from Morocco. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 3(4):3818-3824.

Dhifi W, Bellili S, Jazi S, Ben Nasr S, El Beyrouthy M, Mnif W (2018). Phytochemical composition and antioxidant activity of Tunisian *Laurus nobilis*. Pakistan Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 31(6):2397-2402.

Ennajar M, Bouajila J, Lebrihi A, Mathieu F, Abderraba M, Raies A, Romdhane M (2009). Chemical composition and antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of essential oils and various extracts of *Juniperus phoenicea* L. (Cupressaceae). Journal of Food Sciences 74(7):364-371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01277.x

Erler F, Ulug I, Yalcinkaya B (2006). Repellent activity of five essential oils against Culex pipiens. Fitoterapia 77:491-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fitote.2006.05.028

Goudjil MB, Ladjel S, Bencheikh S, Zighmi S, Hamada D (2015). Study of the chemical composition, antibacterial and antioxidant activities of the essential oil extracted from the leaves of Algerian *Laurus nobilis* (Lauraceae). Journal of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Research 7(1):379-385. https://doi.org/10.12692/ijb/12.1.187-192

Hassiotis C N (2013). Evaluation of essential oil antifungal activity against mycorrhizal fungi-the case of *Laurus nobilis* essential oil. Israel Journal of Ecology and Evolution 56(1):35-54. https://doi.org/10.1560/IJEE.56.1.35

Lawrence BM (1983). progress in essential oils: Laurel leaf oil. Parfumer & Flavorist 8(1):62-65.

Marzouki H, Piras A, Bel Haj Salah K, Medini H, Pivetta T, Bouzid S, ... Falconieri D (2009). Essential oil composition and variability of *Laurus nobilis* L. growing in Tunisia, comparison and chemometric investigation of different plant organs. Natural Product Research 23(4):343-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786410802076200

Mkaddem GM, Romdhane M, Ibrahim H, Ennajar M, Lebrihi A, Mathieu F, Bouajila J (2010). Essential oil of *Thymus capitatus* Hoff. et Link. from Matmata, Tunisia: gas chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis and antimicrobial and antioxidant activities Journal of Medicinal Food 13(6):1500-1504. https://doi.org/10.1089/jmf.2009.0117

Moghtadar M, Farahmand A (2013). Evaluation of the antibacterial effects of essential oil from the leaves of *Laurus nobilis* L. in Kerman Province. Journal of Microbiology and Antimicrobials 5(2):13-17.
Nayak S, Nalabothu P, Sandiford S, Bhogadi V., Adogwa A (2006). Evaluation of wound healing activity of *Allamandacathartica*. L. and *Laurus nobilis*. L. extracts on rats. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 6:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6882-6-12

Özcan M, Chalchat J (2005). Effect of different locations on the chemical composition of essential oils of laurel (*Laurus nobilis* L.) leaves growing wild in Turkey. Journal of Medicinal Food 8(3):408-411.
https://doi.org/10.1089/jmf.2005.8.408

Ozen T, Demirtas I, Aksit H (2011). Determination of antioxidant activities of various extracts and essential oil compositions of *Thymus praecox* subsp. *skorpilii* var. *skorpilii*. Food Chemistry 124:58-64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.05.103

Pino J, Borges P, Ronçal E (1993). The chemical composition of laurel leaf oil from various origins. Nahrung 37:592-595.

Pottier Alapetite G (1979). Flore de la Tunisie. Angiospermes-Dicotylédones-Apétale-Dialypétales. programme flore et végétation Tunisienne Imp. Off. de la Repub. Tunisienne, pp 164.

Quintai L, Yongcheng S (1998). Studies on effect of several plant materials against stored grain insects. In: Zuxun J, Quan L, Yongcheng L, Xianchang T, Lianghua G (Eds). Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Stored-product Protection, 14-19, Beijing PR. China, Vol. 1. Sichuan Publishing House of Science and Technology, Chengdu, P.R. China pp 836-844.

Re R, Pellegrini N, Proteggente A, Pannala A, Yang M, Rice-Evans C (1999). Antioxidant activity applying an improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radical Biology and Medicine 26:1231-1237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891-5849(98)00315-3

Saab AM, Tundis R, Loizzo MR, Lampronti I, Borgatti M, Gambari R, ... Menichini F (2012). Antioxidant and antiproliferative activity of *Laurus nobilis* L. (Lauraceae) leaves and seeds essential oils against K562 human chronic myelogenous leukaemia cells. Natural Product Research 26(18):1741-1745.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14786419.2011.608674

Sangun MK, Mahir EA, Karadeniz TH, Caliskan M, Ozkan A (2007). Comparison of chemical composition of the essential oil of *Laurus nobilis* L. leaves and fruits from different regions of Hatay, Turkey. Journal of Environmental Biology 28(4):731-733.

Sayyah, M, Valizadeh J, Kamalinejad M (2002). Anticonvulsant activity of the leaf essential oil of *Laurus nobilis* against pentylenetetrazole-andmaximal electroshock-induced seizures. Phytomedicine 9:212-216.
https://doi.org/10.1078/0944-7113-00113

Sellami HI, Aidi WW, Bettaieb I, Berrima S, Chahed T, Marzouk B, Limam F (2011). Qualitative and quantitative changes in the essential oil of *Laurus nobilis* L. leaves as affected by different drying methods. Food Chemistry 126(2):691-697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.11.022

Seyed M, Riaz M, Chaudhary FM (1991). The anti-bacterial activity of the essential oil of the Pakistani *Acotus calmus*, *Callistemon lanceolatus* and *Laurus nobilis*. Pakistan Journal of Sciences and Industrial Research 34:456-458.

Silva MC, Matos AF, Santos HLC, Gomes JV, Pastura DGN, Pereira GL, ... Lima VM (2020). *Laurus nobilis* L.: assessment of the cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of aqueous extracts by micronucleus and *Allium cepa* assays. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 56:e18302.

Tassell M, Kingston C, Gilroy D, Lehane M, Furey A (2010). Hawthorn (*Crataegus* spp.) in the treatment of cardiovascular disease Pharmacognosy Review 4(7):32-41. https://doi.org/10.4103/0973-7847.65324

Zargari A (1990). Medicinal plants. Vol. IV. Tehran University press, Tehran pp 325-328.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

The journal offers free, immediate, and unrestricted access to peer-reviewed research and scholarly work. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author.

**License** - Articles published in *Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca* are Open-Access, distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License.

© Articles by the authors; UASVM, Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The journal allows the author(s) to hold the copyright/to retain publishing rights without restriction.