*2.5. Statistical Analyses*

Results were expressed as means of triplicates ± SD (standard deviation). Shapiro– Wilks test was employed to determine the normality of distribution, while the *t*-test was used to check for homogeneity of variances. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed, with Tukey's HSD test, as a post hoc test for multiple comparisons. Differences were considered significant at probability level (*p*) < 0.05.

### **3. Results and Discussion**

#### *3.1. Identification of Chemicals Comprising EOs of J. thurifera by GC/MS*

The yield of EOs of 0.96%, from leaves of *J. thurifera* provided was greater than that reported previously [27]. Essentially, all of the mass of the EOs of *J. thurifera* (99.99%) was accounted for by 31 phytochemical compounds (Table 1 and Figure 1). Previously, 99.46% of the mass of EOs of *J. thurifera* was reported to be accounted for by 24 compounds [28]. The phytochemical composition of the EOs of *J. thurifera* is dominated by α-thujene (25%), elemol (12%) and muurolol (12%) (Figure 2). The chemical composition of EOs of *J. thurifera* was quantitatively and qualitatively different from that reported previously [27]. In another recent study β-pinene (36%) were determined to be the predominant compounds in EOs of *J. thurifera*, whereas in this study β-pinene accounted for only 1.9% of the mass of EOs.


**Table 1.** Phytochemical compounds identified by GC/MS/MS in EOs of *J. thurifera*.
