Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Sep 30;23(10):e02063. doi: 10.1002/cbdv.202502063

Comparative Analysis of Chemical Composition and Antibacterial Activity of Artemisia argyi and Artemisia lavandulifolia Hydrosols

Xiaoqing Gao 1, Yuxin Li 2, Ting Fang 2, Wenjie Jiang 1,✉
PMCID: PMC13626857  PMID: 42816150

ABSTRACT

Hydrosols from Artemisia argyi and A. lavandulifolia collected across different regions and seasons in Shandong Province, China, were comparatively analyzed for chemical composition and antibacterial activity. GC–MS results showed that A. lavandulifolia hydrosol contained higher levels of terpinen‐4‐ol and α‐terpineol and exhibited a chemical profile distinct from A. argyi. Variations in key volatile compounds suggested influences of harvest season and geographic origin. Antibacterial assays against five bacterial strains showed that both hydrosols inhibited Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Proteus vulgaris ATCC 49132, with A. lavandulifolia displaying stronger activity. Multivariate analyses, including HCA, PCA, and heatmaps, further supported species‐related differences with partial sample overlap. These findings highlight the compositional and bioactive diversity of Artemisia hydrosols and their potential as natural antimicrobial agents.

Keywords: antibacterial activity, Artemisia argyi, Artemisia lavandulifolia, chemical composition, GC–MS, hydrosol

graphic file with name CBDV-23-e02063-g002.webp

1. Introduction

Hydrosols, also known as floral waters or distillates, are by‐products obtained during the steam distillation of plant materials for essential oil extraction. These solutions contain water‐soluble volatile compounds and often retain several biological properties associated with their parent essential oils, including antioxidant, antimicrobial, and anti‐inflammatory effects [1, 2, 3, 4]. Recently, there has been renewed interest in hydrosols, spurred by their potential in cosmetic, food, and pharmaceutical applications [5, 6, 7].

Artemisia argyi and A. lavandulifolia are medicinal plants from the Asteraceae family, widely distributed across Asia [8]. A. argyi, commonly known as Chinese mugwort, is extensively used in traditional Chinese medicine for its reputed effects in warming meridians, dispelling cold, and alleviating inflammation and allergic responses [9, 10]. Its essential oil is rich in compounds such as eucalyptol, camphor, and borneol—well‐known for their antimicrobial and antioxidant activities [11, 12]. While the essential oil of A. argyi has been well‐studied, investigations into its hydrosol remain limited.

A. lavandulifolia, a closely related species, shares similar medicinal attributes and has been found to contain key volatiles like terpinen‐4‐ol and α‐terpineol in its essential oil [13, 14, 15]. However, detailed studies focusing on its hydrosol's chemical profile and antimicrobial potential are sparse, leaving an important research gap.

Moreover, environmental variables such as geographical origin and seasonal timing are known to influence the phytochemical profiles of plant‐based products [16, 17]. Previous research has demonstrated substantial chemical variability in Artemisia essential oils depending on location, climate, and harvest time [18, 19]. Despite this, few studies have systematically examined how such spatiotemporal factors affect hydrosol composition and associated bioactivities.

Recent investigations have advanced the understanding of Artemisia essential oils and related hydrolates. However, compared with essential oils, Artemisia hydrosols remain relatively underinvestigated despite their emerging commercial and therapeutic value [20, 21, 22]. Critically, although natural hydrolates have been investigated for their chemical composition and antimicrobial activity, studies on Artemisia hydrosols remain limited and still lack integrated evaluation of species‐specific, geographic, and seasonal influences, particularly in relation to antibacterial activity [23]. Moreover, although antimicrobial mechanisms of Artemisia essential oils have been increasingly elucidated, including membrane disruption and broad‐spectrum activity against Gram‐positive and Gram‐negative bacteria, such mechanistic insights are rarely extended to hydrosol systems or drug‐resistant pathogens.

To address these knowledge gaps, the present study offers a multi‐factorial comparative analysis of the chemical constituents and antibacterial activities of hydrosols derived from A. argyi and A. lavandulifolia. We hypothesized that species identity is an important factor associated with hydrosol chemotype, whereas geographic origin and harvest season may contribute to variation in volatile abundance and antibacterial activity. By evaluating samples harvested across different locations and seasons, this work explores the associations among environmental variability, chemical diversity, and antibacterial activity, providing foundational insight for the standardization and optimized use of Artemisia hydrosols in natural product development.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Chemical Composition of Artemisia Hydrosols

GC–MS analysis revealed clear differences in the chemical profiles of hydrosols derived from A. argyi and A. lavandulifolia. A total of 59 compounds were identified in A. argyi hydrosols, with eucalyptol, (+)‐camphor, and endo‐borneol as the major constituents. In contrast, A. lavandulifolia hydrosols were characterized by relatively high proportions of terpinen‐4‐ol and α‐terpineol (Supporting Information, Table 1). The total alcohol content was also higher in A. lavandulifolia than in A. argyi, suggesting a more oxygenated and water‐compatible volatile profile in this species.

TABLE 1.

Composition of Artemisia argyi and Artemisia lavandulifolia hydrosol.

No. RT RI Compounds Molecular formula Molecular weight M±SD (Relative content%)
AA1 AA2 AA3 AA4 AA5 AA6 AA7 AA8 AA9 AA10 AA11 AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5
1 4.43 750 Pantothenic acid C19H17NO5 339 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3.20 ± 0.54 — —
2 4.77 845 2‐Hexenal, (E)‐ C6H10O 98 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.24 ± 0.02 —
3 5.11 1400 Cyclobutane,1,1‐dimethyl‐2‐octyl‐ C14H28 196 0.73 ± 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — 2.46 ± 0.04 — — — —
4 7.59 960 2‐Furancarboxaldehyde,5‐methyl‐ C6H6O2 110 — — — — — — — — 0.41 ± 0.35 — — — — — — —
5 7.95 979 1‐Octen‐3‐ol C8H16O 128 0.95 ± 0.04 0.81 ± 0.02 — 0.45 ± 0.09 0.95 ± 0.24 1.32 ± 0.01 1.08 ± 0.08 1.24 ± 0.08 1.33 ± 0.03 1.23 ± 0.18 1.11 ± 0.03 0.86 ± 0.02 0.96 ± 0.13 — 0.64 ± 0.05 1.18 ± 0.09
6 8.15 990 6‐Methyl‐5‐hepten‐2‐one C8H14O 126 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.20 ± 0.17 4.04 ± 0.34 0.56 ± 0.07
7 8.24 1025 2,3‐Dehydro‐1,8‐cineole C10H16O 152 — — — 0.49 ± 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — —
8 8.52 1040 Yomogi alcohol C10H18O 154 21.01 ± 1.20 20.51 ± 0.26 32.19 ± 0.40 — 22.44 ± 0.17 23.54 ± 1.07 23.56 ± 1.71 24.77 ± 1.20 25.82 ± 0.56 25.98 ± 1.73 21.79 ± 0.08 5.30 ± 0.07 — — 2.46 ± 0.39 —
9 8.94 1060 Isocineole C10H18O 154 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
10 9.38 1030 Eucalyptol C10H18O 154 21.64 ± 0.49 22.85 ± 0.21 13.10 ± 0.28 33.90 ± 0.33 7.99 ± 0.09 10.87 ± 0.43 10.89 ± 0.90 17.86 ± 1.02 11.68 ± 0.11 14.41 ± 0.91 11.67 ± 0.18 33.04 ± 0.24 35.99 ± 1.06 4.41 ± 0.21 33.42 ± 0.16 22.11 ± 0.26
11 9.56 1050 (S)‐2,5‐Dimethyl‐3‐vinylhex‐4‐en‐2‐ol C10H18O 154 — — — — — 0.34 ± 0.10 — 0.24 ± 0.08 0.53 ± 0.05 0.25 ± 0.05 0.21 ± 0.01 — — — — —
12 9.67 1110 3‐Cyclohexen‐1‐one,3,5,5‐trimethyl‐ C9H14O 138 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.84 ± 0.17 — —
13 9.78 1040 Phenylacetaldehyde C8H8O 120 — — — — — 0.69 ± 0.04 — — 0.57 ± 0.28 — 0.27 ± 0.01 — — 6.28 ± 1.34 — —
14 10.45 1065 trans‐Sabinene Hydrate C10H18O 154 — — — 3.31 ± 0.03 — — — — — — — — — — — —
15 10.61 1070 cis‐Linalool oxide (furanoïd) C10H18O2 170 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 ± 0.04 — —
16 10.92 1090 Artemisia alcohol C10H18O 154 2.97 ± 0.10 3.06 ± 0.12 22.88 ± 0.19 — 3.48 ± 0.06 3.47 ± 0.02 3.21 ± 0.34 3.58 ± 0.26 3.75 ± 0.06 3.71 ± 0.05 3.00 ± 0.28 0.70 ± 0.05 — — — —
17 11.35 1120 cis‐Sabinene C10H18O 154 — — — 4.77 ± 0.04 — 0.76 ± 1.07 — — — — — — — — — —
18 11.50 1102 Linalool C10H14O 150 — — — 0.41 ± 0.08 — — — — — — — — 1.09 ± 0.05 0.65 ± 0.15 1.60 ± 0.15 1.77 ± 0.04
19 11.56 1105 α‐Thujone C10H16O 152 2.60 ± 0.05 2.88 ± 0.03 — — 1.72 ± 0.06 0.98 ± 1.14 1.70 ± 0.09 1.85 ± 0.17 1.96 ± 0.21 1.94 ± 0.21 2.87 ± 0.25 — 5.71 ± 0.09 — — —
20 11.99 1070 Cyclohexene, 1,5,5‐trimethyl‐6‐methylene‐ C10H16 152 — 0.27 ± 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
21 12.06 1135 cis‐p‐Menth‐2‐en‐1‐ol C10H18O 154 — — 0.75 ± 0.03 1.25 ± 0.02 1.11 ± 0.13 0.52 ± 0.11 0.89 ± 0.11 0.72 ± 0.14 — 0.76 ± 0.13 0.67 ± 0.07 — 1.21 ± 0.03 — 0.44 ± 0.07 0.97 ± 0.02
22 12.11 1140 2‐Pinen‐7‐one C10H14O 150 — — — — — — — 0.09 ± 0.08 — — — — 3.68 ± 0.37 4.50 ± 0.14 — 0.18 ± 0.02
23 12.43 1160 trans‐Chrysanthenol C10H16O 152 — 0.32 ± 0.01 — — 0.15 ± 0.13 — — 0.18 ± 0.01 — 0.12 ± 0.11 0.18 ± 0.02 0.25 ± 0.03 — — — —
24 12.56 1155 2‐Cyclohexen‐1‐ol,1‐methyl‐4‐(1‐methylethyl)‐, cis‐ C10H18O 154 — 0.28 ± 0.01 0.64 ± 0.01 1.33 ± 0.22 1.66 ± 0.01 1.01 ± 0.00 1.43 ± 0.05 1.16 ± 0.08 0.74 ± 0.05 1.16 ± 0.08 1.29 ± 0.08 — 0.77 ± 0.04 1.50 ± 0.03 0.68 ± 0.06 —
25 12.67 1145 (+)‐Camphor C10H16O 152 9.64 ± 0.21 9.83 ± 0.10 — 16.23 ± 0.31 13.68 ± 0.62 12.80 ± 0.26 14.16 ± 0.63 13.12 ± 0.98 13.89 ± 0.70 13.30 ± 1.04 10.61 ± 0.18 13.04 ± 0.29 3.29 ± 0.12 3.45 ± 0.06 14.22 ± 0.02 15.40 ± 0.20
26 12.80 1350 2‐Allyl‐2‐bornanol C12H22O 194 — — — — — 0.69 ± 0.01 0.82 ± 0.13 0.69 ± 0.02 0.49 ± 0.03 0.76 ± 0.03 0.89 ± 0.04 — — — — —
27 13.06 1165 Bicyclo[3.1.0]hexan‐2‐one,5‐(1‐methylethylethyl)‐ C10H16O 152 — — — — 0.18 ± 0.16 — 0.33 ± 0.08 0.27 ± 0.05 0.25 ± 0.01 0.28 ± 0.03 0.26 ± 0.01 — — — 0.19 ± 0.01 —
28 13.22 1175 cis‐Chrysanthenol C10H16O 152 — — — — 0.79 ± 0.06 0.69 ± 0.00 0.73 ± 0.07 0.57 ± 0.01 0.50 ± 0.03 0.64 ± 0.08 1.12 ± 0.01 — — 0.37 ± 0.04 2.49 ± 0.03 —
29 13.31 1167 endo‐Borneol C10H18O 154 12.38 ± 0.26 12.47 ± 0.06 — 16.18 ± 0.07 17.49 ± 0.12 14.97 ± 0.13 16.37 ± 0.65 12.77 ± 0.82 15.11 ± 0.43 14.60 ± 0.64 16.45 ± 0.18 6.75 ± 0.05 — — 3.53 ± 0.05 6.72 ± 0.07
30 13.35 1190 (‐)‐α‐Terpineol C10H18O 154 — — — — — — — — — — — — 1.49 ± 0.03 — — —
31 13.64 1176 Terpinen‐4‐ol C10H18O 154 7.78 ± 0.15 8.21 ± 0.07 8.93 ± 0.03 3.93 ± 0.12 5.75 ± 0.08 5.32 ± 0.02 5.07 ± 0.32 5.02 ± 0.19 5.04 ± 0.06 4.95 ± 0.33 5.59 ± 0.12 14.31 ± 0.28 17.42 ± 0.27 21.88 ± 0.97 13.81 ± 0.19 20.90 ± 0.25
32 13.88 1195 p‐Cymen‐8‐ol C10H14O 150 — — — — 0.34 ± 0.09 0.51 ± 0.08 0.34 ± 0.08 0.27 ± 0.03 0.54 ± 0.05 0.26 ± 0.08 0.43 ± 0.06 — — — — —
33 13.93 1200 trans‐p‐Mentha‐1(7),8‐dien‐2‐ol C10H16O 152 — — — — 0.38 ± 0.03 0.34 ± 0.04 0.33 ± 0.07 0.32 ± 0.03 0.37 ± 0.03 0.25 ± 0.03 0.31 ± 0.05 — — — — —
34 14.03 1192 α‐Terpineol C10H18O 154 — — — 2.94 ± 0.09 4.75 ± 0.21 4.42 ± 0.20 4.38 ± 0.04 3.76 ± 0.22 4.30 ± 0.07 4.20 ± 0.21 4.53 ± 0.15 8.53 ± 0.11 6.51 ± 0.59 19.55 ± 0.80 11.08 ± 0.05 13.94 ± 0.27
35 14.18 1190 Myrtenol C10H16O 152 — — — — 0.70 ± 0.05 0.48 ± 0.17 0.68 ± 0.11 0.56 ± 0.05 0.49 ± 0.02 0.49 ± 0.09 0.57 ± 0.06 — — — — —
36 14.30 1230 (‐)‐cis‐Isopiperitenol C10H16O 152 — — — — 0.44 ± 0.13 0.30 ± 0.42 0.41 ± 0.07 0.34 ± 0.09 — 0.25 ± 0.08 0.33 ± 0.07 — — — — —
37 14.54 1205 Verbenone C10H14O 150 0.85 ± 0.04 0.95 ± 0.02 — 1.21 ± 0.03 1.01 ± 0.08 0.77 ± 0.05 0.93 ± 0.09 0.78 ± 0.13 0.64 ± 0.03 0.71 ± 0.07 0.91 ± 0.07 0.44 ± 0.04 0.75 ± 0.07 3.22 ± 0.20 — 0.10 ± 0.03
38 14.66 1250 3, Trans‐(1,1‐dimethylethyl)‐4, cis‐methoxycyclohexan‐1‐ol C11H22O2 186 — — — — 0.52 ± 0.04 0.77 ± 0.12 0.42 ± 0.07 0.45 ± 0.07 0.58 ± 0.06 0.36 ± 0.01 0.57 ± 0.03 — — — — —
39 14.82 1222 trans‐Carveol C10H16O 152 3.16 ± 0.27 3.31 ± 0.06 — — 5.43 ± 0.03 4.72 ± 0.36 5.16 ± 0.08 4.10 ± 0.43 3.99 ± 0.30 4.05 ± 0.21 4.81 ± 0.13 2.59 ± 0.33 — 1.19 ± 0.13 1.70 ± 0.02 3.67 ± 0.07
40 14.94 1300 (+)‐cis‐Verbenol, acetate C12H18O2 194 — — — — — — — — 0.13 ± 0.11 0.11 ± 0.18 0.11 ± 0.18 — — 1.06 ± 0.24 — —
41 15.07 1225 cis‐p‐Mentha‐1(7),8‐dien‐2‐ol C10H16O 152 0.26 ± 0.02 — — 0.14 ± 0.01 0.42 ± 0.01 0.31 ± 0.07 0.35 ± 0.03 0.33 ± 0.04 0.31 ± 0.03 0.26 ± 0.05 0.35 ± 0.03 — — — — —
42 15.16 1223 cis‐Carveol C10H16O 152 — — — — 0.51 ± 0.03 0.64 ± 0.16 0.47 ± 0.13 0.41 ± 0.05 0.89 ± 0.06 0.38 ± 0.09 0.47 ± 0.04 — — 0.60 ± 0.04 — 0.49 ± 0.06
43 15.50 1242 D‐Carvone C10H14O 150 0.31 ± 0.09 0.23 ± 0.01 — — 0.18 ± 0.16 — 0.21 ± 0.04 0.16 ± 0.14 — 0.20 ± 0.05 0.22 ± 0.01 — — — — —
44 15.80 1238 Piperitone C10H16O 152 — 0.25 ± 0.01 — — 0.11 ± 0.09 — 0.15 ± 0.00 0.18 ± 0.11 — 0.24 ± 0.09 — 0.20 ± 0.02 — — — —
45 16.29 1245 (S)‐Isopiperitenone C10H14O 150 — — — 0.68 ± 0.06 0.25 ± 0.23 0.40 ± 0.09 0.11 ± 0.19 — — — 0.41 ± 0.15 — 1.45 ± 0.29 — — —
46 16.63 1351 p‐Menth‐1‐en‐3,8‐diol C10H18O2 170 0.82 ± 0.06 — — — — 0.38 ± 0.01 0.06 ± 0.10 0.14 ± 0.04 — 0.09 ± 0.08 0.23 ± 0.02 — — — — —
47 16.77 1450 Limonen‐6‐ol, pivalate C15H24O2 236 — — — — 0.24 ± 0.21 — — — — — 0.12 ± 0.21 — — — — —
48 16.96 1290 p‐Mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐ol C10H16O 152 — — — — 0.26 ± 0.23 0.36 ± 0.07 0.17 ± 0.14 — — — 0.26 ± 0.25 — — — — —
49 17.09 1300 p‐menthane‐1,8‐diol C10H20O2 172 1.38 ± 0.10 — — — — 0.54 ± 0.12 — — — 0.23 ± 0.09 — 2.64 ± 0.10 — — — —
50 17.11 1550 4‐(2,2,6‐Trimethyl‐bicyclo[4.1.0]hept‐1‐yl)‐butan‐2‐one C14H24O 208 — — — — 0.50 ± 0.14 — 0.29 ± 0.07 0.30 ± 0.02 0.30 ± 0.05 — 0.49 ± 0.13 — — — — —
51 17.42 950 1,3‐Cyclopentadiene,5,5‐dimethyl‐1‐ethyl‐ C9H14 122 — — — 1.58 ± 0.17 — — — — — — — — — — — —
52 18.26 1360 Eugenol C10H12O2 164 — — — — 3.88 ± 0.33 4.50 ± 0.14 3.05 ± 0.18 2.40 ± 0.25 3.25 ± 0.08 2.11 ± 0.24 5.61 ± 0.19 — — 2.74 ± 0.11 — 1.90 ± 0.44
53 18.42 1445 Acetyl isoeugenol C10H12O2 164 — — — — 0.10 ± 0.17 — 0.11 ± 0.20 — — 0.12 ± 0.20 — — — — — —
54 18.65 1310 Sobrerol C10H18O2 170 0.31 ± 0.04 0.24 ± 0.02 — — — — — — — — — 0.24 ± 0.02 — — — —
55 19.05 1405 cis‐jasmone C11H16O 164 — — — 0.17 ± 0.01 — — — — — — — — — — — —
56 21.84 1575 Spathulenol C15H24O 220 — — 0.16 ± 0.02 — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.24 ± 0.00
57 22.32 1625 α‐Asarone C12H16O3 208 — — 2.48 ± 0.11 — — — — — — — — — — — 2.64 ± 0.04 —
58 22.85 1640 Neointermedeol C15H26O 222 — — 9.03 ± 0.02 — 0.55 ± 0.11 0.33 ± 0.04 0.32 ± 0.03 0.33 ± 0.01 — 0.30 ± 0.07 0.36 ± 0.03 — — 0.50 ± 0.00 — —
59 22.95 1655 Patchouli alcohol C15H26O 222 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.17 ± 0.01 —
60 23.63 1590 Isoaromadendrene epoxide C15H24O 220 — — — — — — — — — — — 0.10 ± 0.00 — — — —
61 23.23 1750 Kessanyl acetate C17H28O3 280 — — — — 0.44 ± 0.05 0.39 ± 0.01 0.40 ± 0.08 0.27 ± 0.03 0.10 ± 0.08 0.27 ± 0.00 0.29 ± 0.03 — — — — —
62 23.29 1850 10‐Methyl–8‐tetradecen‐1‐ol acetate C17H32O2 268 — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.56 ± 0.07 — —
63 23.94 2000 Isocalamenediol C15H26O2 238 — — 0.32 ± 0.04 — — — — — — — — — — — 0.22 ± 0.01 —
64 24.70 2100 Cryptomeridiol C15H28O2 240 — 0.15 ± 0.00 — — — — — — — — — 0.21 ± 0.01 — — — —
Terpenes 43.61 44.57 34.65 63.44 38.39 37.42 40.60 45.66 38.31 42.60 39.61 71.26 77.16 53.08 78.06 75.51
Alcohols 41.60 40.72 54.68 22.08 53.99 53.65 52.49 49.45 53.15 51.99 51.98 16.69 1.51 1.24 10.80 11.77
Esters — — — — 0.44 0.39 0.40 0.27 0.23 0.38 0.40 — — 1.62 — —
Aldehydes — 0.38 0.44 — 0.41 1.40 0.39 0.23 1.75 0.29 0.51 — — 9.64 0.24 —
Ethers — — 0.71 — — — 0.28 0.17 0.38 0.42 0.08 — 0.90 0.92 0.24 0.29
Ketones 0.85 0.95 — 1.38 1.19 0.77 1.26 1.05 0.89 0.99 1.17 0.44 0.75 5.26 4.23 0.66
Phenols — — — — 3.98 4.50 3.16 2.40 3.25 2.23 5.61 — — 2.74 — 1.90
Others 0.73 — — 2.07 — — — — — 0.07 — 3.27 — 3.76 — —
Total 86.79 86.62 90.48 88.97 98.4 98.13 98.58 99.23 97.96 98.97 99.36 91.66 80.32 78.26 93.57 90.13
Open in a new tab

Note: Data are reported as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). The relative content percentage of each compound was calculated using the area normalization method.

Abbreviations: AA: Artemisia argyi; AL: Artemisia lavandulifolia.

These findings indicate that botanical origin is an important factor influencing the chemical composition of Artemisia hydrosols. Previous studies have mainly focused on essential oils, whereas hydrosols represent the aqueous distillate fraction and may selectively retain more water‐soluble volatile compounds [24, 25, 26, 27]. Several major compounds detected in A. argyi hydrosol, including eucalyptol, camphor, and borneol, are consistent with previously reported volatile profiles of this species [28, 29, 30]. For A. lavandulifolia, the predominance of terpinen‐4‐ol and α‐terpineol was broadly consistent with earlier reports on its volatile constituents. In addition, the species‐specific occurrence of α‐asarone in A. lavandulifolia hydrosol may serve as a potential chemical marker for distinguishing it from A. argyi, although further confirmation using authentic standards and larger sample sets is required.

Hydrosol composition also varied among samples collected from different geographic origins and harvest seasons. Differences in eucalyptol levels and alcohol content were observed among Zouping, Jinan, and Liaocheng samples, as well as between seasonal collections. These variations suggest that environmental factors and plant developmental stage may contribute to secondary metabolite accumulation [16]. However, because the sampling design was not fully balanced across species and locations, these geographic and seasonal effects should be interpreted cautiously.

2.2. Antibacterial Activity of Hydrosols

Both A. argyi and A. lavandulifolia hydrosols showed antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Proteus vulgaris ATCC 49132, with A. lavandulifolia generally displaying stronger inhibitory effects. Sample AL1 showed activity against all tested strains except MRSA ATCC 43300, whereas activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853 was limited to AA1, AA9, and AL1 at the undiluted concentration of 100% (v/v). MBC results further confirmed bactericidal activity mainly against P. vulgaris and E. coli. AL1 also displayed bactericidal effects against Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923 and Gram‐negative strains, while most samples showed no detectable MBC against MRSA ATCC 43300 or P. aeruginosa ATCC 27853 (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

MIC and MBC values of Artemisia argyi and Artemisia lavandulifolia hydrosol for five bacterial strains.

Sample Strains

 AA1 AA2 AA3 AA4 AA5 AA6 AA7 AA8 AA9 AA10 AA11 AL1 AL2 AL3 AL4 AL5
MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC MIC MBC
EC 100 100 100 — 100 — 100 — 100 >100 100 >100 100 >100 100 >100 100 >100 100 >100 100 >100 100 100 100 — 100 — >100 — >100 —
MRSA >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 —
PA 100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — 100 >100 >100 — >100 — 100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 —
PV 50 100 >100 — 100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — 100 100 >100 — >100 — 50 100 >100 — 100 100 100 100 >100 —
SA >100 — >100 — >100 — >100 — 100 >100 100 >100 100 >100 >100 — 100 >100 >100 — 100 >100 50 100 >100 — 100 — >100 — >100 —
Open in a new tab

Note: MIC and MBC values are expressed as hydrosol concentration, % (v/v). “>100” indicates no inhibitory or bactericidal effect at the highest tested concentration, namely undiluted hydrosol at 100% (v/v). “–” indicates that bactericidal activity was not detected at the tested concentrations or was not determined because no inhibitory endpoint was observed.

Abbreviations: AA: Artemisia argyi; AL: Artemisia lavandulifolia; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; MBC: minimum bactericidal concentration; EC: Escherichia coli ATCC 25922; MRSA: methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 43300; PA: Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853; PV: Proteus vulgaris ATCC 49132; SA: Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923.

The stronger antibacterial activity of A. lavandulifolia hydrosol may be associated with its higher content of oxygenated monoterpenes, especially terpinen‐4‐ol and α‐terpineol. Johansen et al. [31] reported that terpinen‐4‐ol and α‐terpineol can act synergistically against ESKAPE pathogens by reducing MIC and MBC values and enhancing membrane disruption. Although the present study did not directly test purified compounds or defined combinations, the results suggest that naturally occurring mixtures of oxygenated volatile compounds in A. lavandulifolia hydrosol may contribute to its antibacterial potential. The relatively limited activity against MRSA and P. aeruginosa indicates that the antibacterial spectrum of these hydrosols remains restricted and may require further formulation optimization or compound enrichment. The observed activity against Gram‐negative strains is also consistent with previous reports on antibacterial effects of Artemisia‐derived products [32].

2.3. Multivariate Analysis of Chemical Profiles

HCA, PCA, and heatmap analyses further supported the chemical differences between A. argyi and A. lavandulifolia hydrosols. HCA showed partial species‐associated clustering, although several samples from the two species were intermingled. PCA showed that PC1 and PC2 explained 36.8% and 16.8% of the total variation, respectively. Most AA and AL samples were separated, while AA10 and AA11 were closer to the AL cluster and AA7 appeared as an outlier, indicating sample‐specific chemical variation. The heatmap also revealed distinct abundance patterns of major volatile compounds between AA and AL samples (Figures 1, 2, 3).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) of Artemisia argyi (AA) and Artemisia lavandulifolia (AL) hydrosol samples based on chemical composition, showing sample‐level similarities and differences between the two species.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Principal component analysis (PCA) score plot depicting metabolic variation between Artemisia argyi (AA) and Artemisia lavandulifolia (AL) hydrosol samples. The plot shows species‐associated separation with partial overlap among individual samples.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Heatmap representing the relative abundance of detected volatile compounds across Artemisia hydrosol samples. Rows correspond to metabolites (z‐score normalized), and columns represent samples grouped by cultivar: Artemisia argyi (AA, cyan) and Artemisia lavandulifolia (AL, red). Hierarchical clustering of both metabolites (left dendrogram) and samples (top dendrogram) illustrates patterns of co‐abundance and sample similarity. Color intensity scales from blue (low abundance) to red (high abundance).

These multivariate results suggest that species identity is an important determinant of hydrosol chemotype, but it is not the only factor shaping chemical composition. Geographic origin, harvest season, and sample‐specific variation may also influence volatile profiles [33]. Compounds such as α‐asarone, terpinen‐4‐ol, and α‐terpineol may therefore be useful as candidate markers for species differentiation and quality control, but their diagnostic value should be validated in broader sample sets.

2.4. Application Implications

The chemical diversity and antibacterial activity observed in this study indicate that Artemisia hydrosols have potential applications in food preservation, personal care, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic products [34, 35, 36]. Compared with essential oils, hydrosols are aqueous, milder, and easier to incorporate into water‐based formulations. However, the compositional variability associated with species, harvest season, and geographic source highlights the need for standardization of plant materials, collection time, and distillation procedures. Further studies should focus on compound‐level validation, mechanism‐oriented antibacterial assays, and formulation strategies to improve reproducibility and bioactivity.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Plant Materials

Fresh aerial parts (leaves and inflorescences) of A. argyi and A. lavandulifolia were collected from three distinct locations in Shandong Province, China: Zouping, Jinan, and Liaocheng. The samples were gathered during two seasonal windows: early summer (June, 2024) and late autumn (November, 2024), to capture temporal variation in phytochemical profiles (Table 3). Plant identity was verified by Professor Lingchuan Xu from Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), China. Voucher specimens were deposited in the herbarium of Shandong University of TCM under the following accession numbers: STCM2024601–STCM2024616.

TABLE 3.

Species and geographic locations of Artemisia hydrosol samples.

No. Species Abbr. Origins Latitude and longitude Elevation (m) Date of collection Voucher number
1 A. argyi AA1 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.06 STCM2024601
2 A. argyi AA2 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.06 STCM2024602
3 A. argyi AA3 Jinan, shandong 116°48′06″E 36°33′38.50″N 60 2024.10 STCM2024603
4 A. argyi AA4 Liaocheng, shandong 116°15′10.53″E 36°52′54.49″N 30 2024.10 STCM2024604
5 A. argyi AA5 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024605
6 A. argyi AA6 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024606
7 A. argyi AA7 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024607
8 A. argyi AA8 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024608
9 A. argyi AA9 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024609
10 A. argyi AA10 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024610
11 A. argyi AA11 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024611
12 A. lavandulifolia AL1 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.06 STCM2024612
13 A. lavandulifolia AL2 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024613
14 A. lavandulifolia AL3 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024614
15 A. lavandulifolia AL4 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024615
16 A. lavandulifolia AL5 Zouping, shandong 117°46′20.58″E 36°45′46.86″N 399 2024.11 STCM2024616
Open in a new tab

Following collection, plant materials were air‐dried under shaded, ventilated conditions at 25°C ± 2°C for 7 days. The dried materials were then pulverized using a mechanical grinder to ensure homogeneity for subsequent distillation procedures.

3.2. Hydrosol Extraction

Hydrosols were obtained through steam distillation using a modified Clevenger‐type apparatus [37, 38]. For each distillation, 20 g of powdered plant material was combined with 200 mL of distilled water in a 1000 mL round‐bottom flask. To prevent bumping and enhance heating uniformity, zeolites were added to the suspension, which was then allowed to stand at room temperature for 2 h to facilitate proper hydration.

The mixture was heated and distilled for 2 h, beginning from the emergence of the first distillate drop. The distillation temperature was carefully maintained at 100°C. The resulting hydrosol, comprising the complete aqueous phase, was collected in amber glass bottles and stored at 4°C to minimize photodegradation and microbial contamination [38, 39]. No liquid‐liquid extraction or essential oil separation was performed, and no drying agents were employed, in order to preserve the native composition of the hydrosol. The hydrosol was used as the 100% concentration for subsequent experiments, and dilutions were prepared using sterile distilled water.

3.3. GC–MS Analysis

3.3.1. GC Conditions

The chemical constituents of the hydrosols were characterized using an Agilent GC–MS system equipped with a DB‐5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm × 0.25 µm; stationary phase: 5% diphenyl / 95% dimethyl polysiloxane). Helium (99.999%) was used as the carrier gas at a constant flow rate of 1 mL min−1. Injection was conducted in split mode (10:1), with an injector temperature of 250°C and injection volume of 1 µL. The column temperature was programmed as follows: initial hold at 50°C for 2 min, followed by an increase to 120°C at 5°C min−1, then to 250°C at 10°C min−1 with a final hold for 2 min [40, 41].

3.3.2. MS Conditions

Mass spectrometry was performed using electron impact (EI) ionization at 70 eV. The ion source temperature was maintained at 280°C, and spectra were acquired in the 50–500 m/z range. Retention indices (RI) were calculated using a homologous series of n‐alkanes (C7–C30, Sigma‐Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) under the same chromatographic conditions. Compounds in the hydrosols were identified through spectral comparison with entries in the NIST mass spectral library and confirmed by calculating retention indices against known standards [42].

3.4. Antibacterial Assay

3.4.1. Bacterial Strains and Culture Conditions

Five bacterial strains were selected to evaluate the antimicrobial properties of the hydrosols: Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853, Escherichia coli ATCC 25922, Methicillin‐resistant Staphylococcus, aureus (MRSA) ATCC 43300, Proteus vulgaris ATCC 49132 and Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923. These strains were procured from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC, Manassas, VA, USA). Prior to antimicrobial assays, all strains were cultured in Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB; Hopebio, Qingdao, China) at 35°C for 24 h and maintained on Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA) plates at 4°C for short‐term preservation [43].

3.4.2. Inoculum Preparation

Bacterial suspensions were prepared by picking a single colony from an overnight TSA plate and suspending it in sterile 0.9% (w/v) NaCl solution. The turbidity was adjusted to 0.5 McFarland standard (equivalent to approximately 1.0 × 108 colony‐forming units [CFU]/mL) using a densitometer (DensiCHEK Plus, bioMérieux, Marcy‐l'Étoile, France). The suspension was then diluted 1:100 in Mueller‐Hinton Broth (MHB; Hopebio, Qingdao, China) to achieve a final inoculum concentration of 1.0 × 106 CFU/mL.

3.4.3. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) Determination

The MIC values were determined using the broth microdilution method according to the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) guidelines M07‐A10. Native hydrosol samples were used directly as 100% (v/v) stock solutions without concentration, extraction, or any solvent addition. The hydrosols were filter‐sterilized through 0.22 µm polyethersulfone (PES) membranes and serially diluted two‐fold in MHB in 96‐well microtiter plates (Corning, NY, USA) to achieve final concentrations ranging from 100% to 3.125% (v/v) (100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.125%). PBS was added to the peripheral wells to minimize evaporation of the liquid. Subsequently, 100 µL of MHB medium was added to each experimental well. Each experiment includes the following controls: The antibiotic positive control consisted of 100 µL of streptomycin sulfate solution (Shanghai Sangong Biology, Beijing, China) and 20 µL of bacterial suspension. The negative control consisted of 100 µL of MHB, 100 µL of sterile distilled water, and 20 µL of bacterial suspension, and was used to confirm bacterial viability and normal growth in the absence of hydrosol or antibiotic treatment. The blank control consisted of 100 µL of MHB and 100 µL of sterile distilled water without bacterial suspension, and was used to confirm the sterility of the medium. The plates were incubated at 35°C for 24 h under aerobic conditions. Following incubation, 20 µL of 0.5% (w/v) 2,3,5‐triphenyltetrazolium chloride (TTC; Aladdin, Shanghai, China) solution, freshly prepared and filter‐sterilized, was added to each well. The plates were further incubated at 35°C for 2 h in the dark. Bacterial dehydrogenases reduce colorless TTC to red formazan in metabolically active cells; therefore, the MIC was defined as the lowest concentration of hydrosol that prevented the color change from colorless to red, as determined by visual inspection. All assays were performed in triplicate [44, 45].

3.4.4. Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) Determination

The MBC was determined by subculturing 10 µL aliquots from all wells showing no visible growth and no color change (TTC‐negative) in the MIC assay onto fresh TSA plates. The plates were incubated at 35°C for 24 h. The MBC was defined as the lowest concentration of hydrosol that killed ≥ 99.9% of the initial inoculum (corresponding to ≤ 1 colony on the agar plate, or a reduction of ≥ 3 log10 CFU/mL).

3.5. Data Analysis

Each experiment was repeated three times, and the MIC/MBC values are expressed as hydrosol concentration (%, v/v). Using the Origin 2021 software, Ward's connection method and Euclidean distance were employed for hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA) of the samples to group them based on chemical composition. Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted using the correlation matrix, and data were standardized using automatic scaling. A heatmap was generated using the same distance and connection parameters.

4. Conclusion

This study supports the hypothesis that hydrosols from Artemisia argyi and Artemisia lavandulifolia differ in chemical composition and antibacterial potential, and suggests that these differences may be influenced by plant species, geographic origin, and harvest season. Artemisia lavandulifolia hydrosol showed a distinct chemical profile characterized by relatively high levels of oxygenated monoterpenes, especially terpinen‐4‐ol and α‐terpineol, whereas Artemisia argyi hydrosol was mainly characterized by eucalyptol, camphor, and borneol.

The relatively stronger antibacterial activity of Artemisia lavandulifolia hydrosol may be associated with its oxygenated monoterpene‐rich composition, although the underlying antibacterial mechanisms require further validation. The species‐specific occurrence of α‐asarone in Artemisia lavandulifolia hydrosol may provide a potential chemical marker for quality control and botanical authentication, but this should be confirmed using authentic standards and larger sample sets. Overall, this study provides an integrated evaluation of plant species, geographic origin, harvest season, chemical composition, and antibacterial activity in Artemisia hydrosols, offering useful information for the standardized development of Artemisia lavandulifolia hydrosol as a natural antimicrobial material.

Author Contributions

Xiaoqing Gao: experimental operation, data analysis, and writing – original manuscript. Yuxin Li: experimental operation, data analysis. Ting Fang: experimental operation, data analysis. Wenjie Jiang: review and editing, supervision, and conceptualization.

Funding

This research was funded by the Cooperation Project for the Construction of the Full Industry Chain of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in Shandong Zouping Baiyun Mountain (2024) (761130).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Supporting File 1: cbdv71591‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx

CBDV-23-e02063-s001.docx (295.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

Sincere appreciation is extended to Professor Yingying Zhang from Shandong University of TCM for her guidance and assistance with GC–MS. Experimental support from Professors Li Qiao, is also gratefully acknowledged. Their contributions were vital to this investigation.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  • 1. Chaftar N., Girardot M., Labanowski J., et al., “Comparative Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of 19 Essential Oils,” Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 901 (2016): 1–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Değirmenci H. and Erkurt H., “Relationship Between Volatile Components, Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Properties of the Essential Oil, Hydrosol and Extracts of Citrus aurantium L. Flowers,” Journal of Infection and Public Health 13 (2020): 58–67, 10.1016/j.jiph.2019.06.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Jiang C. Y., Zhou S. X., Toshmatov Z., et al., “Chemical Composition and Phytotoxic Activity of the Essential Oil of Artemisia sieversiana Growing in Xinjiang, China,” Natural Product Research 36 (2022): 2434–2439, 10.1080/14786419.2020.1837806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Li J., Guo C., Wen X., Chen H., Du H., and Liu D., “Chemical Composition of Artemisia argyi Essential Oil and Its Antifungal Activity Against Dermatophytes by Inhibiting Oxidative Phosphorylation and Causing Oxidative Damage,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology 331 (2024): 118344, 10.1016/j.jep.2024.118344. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Lei G., Song C., and Luo Y., “Chemical Composition of Hydrosol Volatiles of Flowers From Ten Paeonia × suffruticosa Andr. Cultivars From Luoyang, China,” Natural Product Research 35 (2021): 3509–3513, 10.1080/14786419.2019.1709192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Almeida H. H. S., Fernandes I. P., Amaral J. S., Rodrigues A. E., and Barreiro M. F., “Unlocking the Potential of Hydrosols: Transforming Essential Oil Byproducts Into Valuable Resources,” Molecules 29 (2024): 4660, 10.3390/molecules29194660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Komnenić A., Lazarević Z., Jovović Z., Šavikin K., and Pljevljakušić D., “Multiple Liquid–Liquid Extraction of Dissolved Compounds in Immortelle Hydrosol With Four Different Solvents,” Chemistry & Biodiversity 21 (2024): e202301528, 10.1002/cbdv.202301528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Trifan A., Zengin G., Sinan K. I., et al., “Unveiling the Phytochemical Profile and Biological Potential of Five Artemisia Species,” Antioxidants 11 (2022): 1017, 10.3390/antiox11051017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Yu D., Huang N. N., and Du X. W., “Review of the Chemical Composition and Biological Activities of Essential Oils From Artemisia argyi, Artemisia princeps, and Artemisia montana ,” Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry 23 (2023): 1522–1541, 10.2174/1568026623666230330152345. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Li D., Wang R., You M., Chen N., Sun L., and Chen N., “The Antimicrobial Effect and Mechanism of the Artemisia argyi Essential Oil Against Bacteria and Fungus,” Brazilian Journal of Microbiology 55 (2024): 727–735, 10.1007/s42770-023-01172-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Yang M. T., Kuo T. F., Chung K. F., et al., “Authentication, Phytochemical Characterization and Anti‐Bacterial Activity of Two Artemisia Species,” Food Chemistry 333 (2020): 127458, 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Gu H., Zhang S., Liu L., Yang Z., Zhao F., and Tian Y., “Antimicrobial Potential of Endophytic Fungi From Artemisia argyi and Bioactive Metabolites From Diaporthe sp. AC1,” Frontiers in Microbiology 13 (2022): 908836, 10.3389/fmicb.2022.908836. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Wang Q., Zhang T., Ke C. Q., et al., “Sesquiterpene Lactone Dimers From Artemisia lavandulifolia Inhibit Interleukin‐1β Production in Macrophages Through Activating Autophagy,” Bioorganic Chemistry 105 (2020): 104451, 10.1016/j.bioorg.2020.104451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Bisht D., Kumar D., Kumar D., Dua K., and Chellappan D. K., “Phytochemistry and Pharmacological Activity of the Genus Artemisia ,” Archives of Pharmacal Research 44 (2021): 439–474, 10.1007/s12272-021-01328-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Wang X., Han X., Wang S., et al., “Extraction of Honokiol From Artemisia argyi and In Vitro and In Vivo Investigation of Its Antifungal Activity,” Natural Product Research 37 (2023): 651–656, 10.1080/14786419.2022.2071887. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Olivier D., Kooy F. V. D., and Gerber M., “Geographical and Seasonal Phytochemical Variation of Artemisia afra Jacq. Ex Willd,” Phytochemical Analysis 34 (2023): 175–185, 10.1002/pca.3191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Shinyuy L. M., Loe G. E., Jansen O., et al., “Exploring the Phytochemical Diversity and Anti‐Plasmodial Potential of Artemisia annua and Artemisia afra From Different Geographical Locations in Cameroon,” Molecules 30 (2025): 596, 10.3390/molecules30030596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Zheljazkov V. D., Astatkie T., Horgan T., Schlegel V., and Simonnet X., “Distillation Time Effect on Essential Oil Yield, Composition, and Antioxidant Capacity of Sweet Sagewort (Artemisia annua L.) Oil,” Hortscience 48 (2013): 1288–1292, 10.21273/HORTSCI.48.10.1288. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Aćimović M., Jeremić J. S., Todosijević M., et al., “Comparative Study of the Essential Oil and Hydrosol Composition of Sweet Wormwood (Artemisia annua L.) From Serbia,” Chemistry & Biodiversity 19 (2022): e202100954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Sainz P., Andrés M. F., Martínez‐Díaz R. A., et al., “Chemical Composition and Biological Activities of Artemisia pedemontana subsp. Assoana Essential Oils and Hydrolate,” Biomolecules 9 (2019): 558, 10.3390/biom9100558. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Wang J., Guan J., Ma X., et al., “ Artemisia argyi‐Mediated Synthesis of Monodisperse Silver Nanoparticles as Components of Bioactive Nanofibrous Dressings With Dual Antibacterial and Regenerative Functions,” Journal of Functional Biomaterials 16 (2025): 236, 10.3390/jfb16070236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Guan X., Ge D., Li S., Huang K., Liu J., and Li F., “Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activities of Artemisia argyi Lévl. Et Vant Essential Oils Extracted by Simultaneous Distillation–Extraction, Subcritical Extraction and Hydrodistillation,” Molecules 24 (2019): 483, 10.3390/molecules24030483. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Šilha D., Švarcová K., Bajer T., et al., “Chemical Composition of Natural Hydrolates and Their Antimicrobial Activity on Arcobacter‐Like Cells in Comparison With Other Microorganisms,” Molecules 25 (2020): 5654. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Abad M. J., Bedoya L. M., Apaza L., and Bermejo P., “The Artemisia L. genus: A Review of Bioactive Essential Oils,” Molecules 17 (2012): 2542–2566, 10.3390/molecules17032542. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Pandey A. K. and Singh P., “The Genus Artemisia: A 2012–2017 Literature Review on Chemical Composition, Antimicrobial, Insecticidal and Antioxidant Activities of Essential Oils,” Medicines 4 (2017): 68, 10.3390/medicines4030068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Huang X., Liu T., Zhou C., Huang Y., Liu X., and Yuan H., “Antifungal Activity of Essential Oils From Three Artemisia Species Against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides of Mango,” Antibiotics 10 (2021): 1331, 10.3390/antibiotics10111331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Bakhy K., Benlhabib O., Al Faiz C., Bighelli A., Casanova J., and Tomi F., “Wild Thymbra capitata From Western Rif (Morocco): Essential Oil Composition, Chemical Homogeneity and Yield Variability,” Natural Product Communications 8 (2013): 1155–1158, 10.1177/1934578X1300800832. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Cha J. D., Jeong M. R., Choi H. J., et al., “Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of the Essential Oil of Artemisia lavandulaefolia ,” Planta Medica 71 (2005): 575–577, 10.1055/s-2005-864164. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Roana J., Mandras N., Scalas D., Campagna P., and Tullio V., “Antifungal Activity of Melaleuca alternifolia Essential Oil (TTO) and Its Synergy With Itraconazole or Ketoconazole Against Trichophyton rubrum ,” Molecules 26 (2021): 461, 10.3390/molecules26020461. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Horváth A., Pandur E., Sipos K., et al., “Anti‐Inflammatory Effects of Lavender and Eucalyptus Essential Oils on the In Vitro Cell Culture Model of Bladder Pain Syndrome Using T24 Cells,” BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies 22 (2022): 119, 10.1186/s12906-022-03604-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Johansen B., Duval R. E., and Sergere J.‐C., “First Evidence of a Combination of Terpinen‐4‐Ol and α‐Terpineol as a Promising Tool Against ESKAPE Pathogens,” Molecules 27 (2022): 7472, 10.3390/molecules27217472. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Zhang J. J., Qu L. B., Bi Y. F., Pan C. X., Yang R., and Zeng H. J., “Antibacterial Activity and Mechanism of Chloroform Fraction From Aqueous Extract of Mugwort Leaves (Artemisia argyi L.) Against Staphylococcus aureus ,” Letters in Applied Microbiology 74 (2022): 893–900, 10.1111/lam.13684. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Hong M., Kim M., Jang H., et al., “Multivariate Analysis of Essential Oil Composition of Artemisia annua L. collected From Different Locations in Korea,” Molecules 28 (2023): 1131, 10.3390/molecules28031131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Kunicka‐Styczyńska A., Śmigielski K., Prusinowska R., Rajkowska K., Kuśmider B., and Sikora M., “Preservative Activity of Lavender Hydrosols in Moisturizing Body Gels,” Letters in Applied Microbiology 60 (2015): 27–32, 10.1111/lam.12346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Tomi K., Kitao M., Konishi N., Murakami H., Matsumura Y., and Hayashi T., “Enantioselective GC–MS Analysis of Volatile Components From Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Essential Oils and Hydrosols,” Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry 80 (2016): 840–847, 10.1080/09168451.2016.1146066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Labadie C., Cerutti C., and Carlin F., “Fate and Control of Pathogenic and Spoilage Micro‐Organisms in Orange Blossom (Citrus aurantium) and Rose Flower (Rosa centifolia) Hydrosols,” Journal of Applied Microbiology 121 (2016): 1568–1579, 10.1111/jam.13293. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Commission E. P., “Determination of Essential Oils in Herbal Drugs by Steam Distillation,” European Pharmacopoeia 10 (2020): 301–305. [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Aćimović M. G., Stanković J., Cvetković V., and Kiprovski D., “Chemical Composition of Essential Oil and Hydrosol of Artemisia annua L. and Their Biological Activity,” Chemistry & Biodiversity 19 (2022): e202100907. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Garzoli S., Laghezza Masci A., Turchetti A., Tiezzi F., Spano G., and Ovidi F., “Essential Oil Hydrosols: Composition and Biological Activity,” Molecules 25 (2020): 5636. [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Xie X., Xue H., Ma B., et al., “Comparative Analysis of Hydrosol Volatile Components of Citrus aurantium ‘Daidai’ and Citrus aurantium L. dried Buds With Different Extraction Processes Using Headspace‐Solid‐Phase Microextraction With Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry,” Molecules 29 (2024): 3498, 10.3390/molecules29153498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Guo L., Zhang D., Wang L., et al., “Comparison and Discrimination of Artemisia argyi and Artemisia lavandulifolia by Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry‐Based Metabolomic Approach,” Journal of AOAC International 102 (2019): 1814–1821, 10.5740/jaoacint.19-0080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Kunc N., Frlan A., Baričevič D., Kočevar Glavač N., and Kokalj Ladan M., “Essential Oil and Hydrosol Composition of Immortelle (Helichrysum italicum),” Plants 11 (2022): 2573, 10.3390/plants11192573. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Tejada‐Muñoz S., Cortez D., Rascón J., et al., “Antimicrobial Activity of Origanum vulgare Essential Oil Against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli ,” Pharmaceuticals 17 (2024): 1430, 10.3390/ph17111430. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Rodríguez‐Melcón C., Alonso‐Calleja C., García‐Fernández C., Carballo J., and Capita R., “Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) for Twelve Antimicrobials (biocides and antibiotics) in Eight Strains of Listeria monocytogenes ,” Biology 11 (2021): 46, 10.3390/biology11010046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Hu L., Yang X., Yin J., et al., “Combination of AgNPs and Domiphen Is Antimicrobial Against Biofilms of Common Pathogens,” International Journal of Nanomedicine 16 (2021): 7181–7194, 10.2147/IJN.S334133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting File 1: cbdv71591‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx

CBDV-23-e02063-s001.docx (295.4KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Articles from Chemistry & Biodiversity are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES