G GAE g-1 reported by Muniz-Marquez et al. (2018) [29] and also the 21.56 mg GAE g-1 reported by Rincon et al. (2019) [37]. The values of total phenolic content material FCCP manufacturer obtained by UAE ranged from 24.43 to 36.74 mg GAE g-1 that is higher than the 17.32 mg GAE g-1 reported by Muniz-Marquez et al. (2013) [28] and comparable for the 24.77 mg GAE g-1 reported by Rincon et al. (2019) [37]. 3.1. Standard Heat-Reflux Extraction (CRE) The influence of ethanol Dorsomorphin Autophagy concentration utilised for MAE and UAE (50 and 70 ) on the yield of polyphenols was also examined in extracts obtained by CRE (Table two). It was shown that ethanol concentration had no statistically important influence around the yield of polyphenols, which was also observed inside the traditional extraction of polyphenols from Olea europaea L. leaves [38] with 50 and 70 aqueous ethanol, too as inside the traditional extraction of polyphenols from Limnophila aromatica [39] when 50 and 75 aqueous ethanol were applied. Thus, 50 aqueous ethanol solution was chosenProcesses 2021, 9,7 ofas optimal to receive maximum total phenolic content material inside the Laurus nobilis L. leaf extracts obtained by CRE.Table 2. Influence of extraction parameters on total phenolic content material of L. nobilis leaf extracts. Extraction Method CRE Source of Variation EtOH 50 w/w 70 w/w EtOH 50 w/w 70 w/w Temperature ( C) 40 C 60 C 80 C Time(min) five min ten min 15 min Microwave power (W) 400 W 800 W EtOH 50 w/w 70 w/w Time (min) five min ten min 15 min Amplitude ( ) 50 70 100 Total Phenolic Content (mg GAE g-1 ) p = 0.86 42.35 0.54 a 42.21 0.55 a p = 0.38 39.41 0.19 a 39.65 0.19 a p 0.01 35.22 0.24 a 38.25 0.24 b 45.12 0.24 c p 0.01 38.53 0.24 a 40.05 0.24 b 40.01 0.24 b p 0.01 40.05 0.19 b 39.01 0.19 a p 0.05 30.36 0.26 a 31.20 0.26 b p 0.01 27.70 0.31 a 31.84 0.31 b 32.80 0.31 b p = 0.17 30.99 0.31 a 31.ten 0.31 a 30.27 0.31 aMAEUAECRE = traditional heat-reflux extraction, MAE = microwave-assisted extraction, UAE = ultrasound-assisted extraction. Final results are expressed as imply SE. Values with various letters are statistically distinct at p 0.05. Statistically considerable variable at p 0.05. Statistically insignificant variable at p 0.05.3.two. Microwave-Assisted Extraction (MAE) Optimization Ethanol concentration (50 and 70 ), temperature (40, 60 and 80 C), time (5, ten and 15 min) and microwave energy (400 and 800 W) were varied through MAE of polyphenols from Laurus nobilis L. leaves. The obtained benefits have been statistically analyzed and the results are shown in Table 2. There was no statistically significant difference within the total phenolic content on the extracts obtained with 50 and 70 aqueous ethanol. Lovriet al. c (2017) reported the exact same observation during MAE of polyphenols from Prunus spinosa L. flowers [40], although Shang et al. (2020) [41] reported a greater total phenolic content material of the Lithocarpus polystachyus Rehd. extracts obtained with 60 ethanol in comparison to 50 ethanol. Moreover, Ismail-Suhaimy et al. (2021) [42] reported an increase in total phenolic content material of Barleria lupulina L. extracts with the improve in ethanol concentration from 40 to 80 . Alternatively, Dahmoune et al. (2015) [43] observed a decline in total phenolic content material in Myrtus communis L. leaf extracts with all the improve in ethanol concentration from 40 to 60 . The differences in the results obtained by these authors may be attributed to distinctive content material and polarity of polyphenols of your investigated plants cons.