Skip to main content
PMC home page
Heliyon logoLink to Heliyon
. 2019 Jun 4;5(6):e01860. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01860

Screening essential oils for their antimicrobial activities against the foodborne pathogenic bacteria Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus

Julian Thielmann a,b,∗, Peter Muranyi b, Pamina Kazman a,b
PMCID: PMC6551464  PMID: 31194064

Abstract

The application of essential oils as antimicrobials is a current subject of research and a promising approach in terms of natural food preservation. Due to the diversity of EO producing plant genera and the inconsistent use of susceptibility testing methods, information on the antibacterial potency of many EO varieties is fragmentary. This study was performed to assess the minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of 179 EO samples from 86 plant varieties, using a single method approach, excluding emulsifying agents. MICs were acquired in a broth microdilution assay, using a dispersion based approach to incorporate EOs in a concentration range of 6400 to 50 μg/ml. Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli were used as model bacteria. At concentrations below 400 μg/ml S. aureus was inhibited by 30, E. coli by 12 EO varieties. Azadirachta indica (50 μg/ml vs. S. aureus) and Litsea cubeba (50 μg/ml vs. S. aureus, 200 μg/ml vs. E. coli) essential oils were identified as promising new antimicrobial EO candidates with significant antimicrobial activity against the two foodborne pathogenic bacteria.

Keyword: Microbiology

1. Introduction

Investigating the antimicrobial activities of plant essential oils (EO) has concerned many scientific studies within the last two decades. Besides a few general screenings [1, 2, 3], most studies were focused on one type of essential oil only, mainly Thymus vulgaris, Origanum vulgare or Cinnamomum species. Significant activities of these and other EOs against certain foodborne pathogenic bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella typhimurium have been demonstrated [4, 5, 6]. Furthermore, there has been continuative work regarding the identification of single active compounds from well investigated EOs, such as thymol, carvacrol or eugenol and partial elucidation of their cellular mechanism of action [7, 8, 9]. Most work on antimicrobial EOs was inspired by the idea of identifying alternative preservative agents with an overall “green” and “natural” or “bio-based” character for modern food technology applications.

The findings published to date, are still very fragmentary regarding a wide variety of essential oils [10]. Some EOs are still untested or negative results remain unpublished. In addition, it is difficult to reliably compare results from literature data, due to the strong variance of the used antimicrobial susceptibility testing methods. This complicates the selection of the most suitable EO candidates for further antimicrobial research and applications. Additionally, there are some constraints for EOs concerning food application, especially their sensory impact. EO components are considered aroma compounds (e.g. Thymol, Citral, Limonene, α-/β-Pinene, etc.), meaning they generally induce sensory activity [10]. Regarding food application it is therefore recommended to choose an essential oil based on the sensory profile of the targeted food product [11]. EOs with low inhibitory concentrations are considered advantageous to achieve antimicrobial effects in the product without affecting the sensory properties. For this study we defined a critical minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 400 μg/ml in vitro, to select EOs with the most promising suitability for future application trials.

This study was performed to extent the available information on antibacterial activities of plant essential oils, intending to normalize the discussion on the antibacterial activity of plant essential oils with quantitative data for a large number of EOs. The comparability of the results is maximized by the use of a reproducible, quantitative method for MIC determination, combining the advantages of a dispersion approach, as developed by Remmal, Bouchikhi [12] and Friedman, Henika [13], with the reliability of a standardized broth microdilution assay [14]. Emulsifying agents and organic solvents were excluded when possible, as several authors argued that such additives distort susceptibility tests [12,15]. The trials included a wide variety of EOs, available from three different German essential oil retailers and was focused on the two foodborne pathogenic model bacteria: Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Essential oils

Essential oils were provided by three different German essential oil manufacturers (Neumond GmbH, Raisting, Germany; Frey&Lau GmbH, Henstedt-Ulzburg, Germany; Düllberg Konzentra GmbH, Hamburg, Germany). Overall, essential oils from 86 plant varieties were accessible, whereof 38 equal varieties where available in triplicate and 20 in duplicate, but from the different sources, respectively. Altogether 179 commercial oil samples were tested. The investigated samples did not contain additives or solvents and were confirmed to be natural by the manufacturers. Furthermore, EOs were considered sterile. EO samples were stored in resealable vials at 5 °C in the dark, but were allowed to adjust to room temperature prior to investigation. The samples were sorted in terms of plant name and the respective plant parts they originated from according to the manufacturer information. Geographical origins were excluded as information was mostly not available.

2.2. Bacterial strains and growth conditions

The Gram-positive bacterium Staphylococcus aureus DSM 1104 and the Gram-negative bacterium Escherichia coli DSM 1103 were used as test organisms. The strains were obtained from the Leibniz Institute DSMZ German Collection of Microorganisms and Cell Cultures (DSMZ, Braunschweig, Germany) and are both recommended for antimicrobial susceptibility testing. Stock cultures were grown in 100 ml sterile tryptic soy broth (TSB) (Oxoid, Hampshire, United Kingdom) (pH = 7.2) in shaking flasks at 37 °C for 18 h until their early stationary growth phase. Prior to use, cells were washed twice in sterile ¼*Ringer's solution (Oxoid, Hampshire, United Kingdom) at 9000 rpm for 10 min, respectively. Cell count was adjusted to 1.0*108 cfu/ml in ¼*Ringer's solution by turbidity measurement at 620 nm wavelength, using a McFarland 0.5 standard. The cell counts were preliminarily validated by plate counts. Cells were kept in Ringer's solution for no longer than 15 min before assay medium inoculation.

2.3. Essential oil incorporation

Essential oil incorporation was optimized for the execution of a broth microdilution assay for antibacterial susceptibility testing [16]. To avoid the interfering influences of organic solvents or emulsifying agents, a dispersion approach, as first described by Remmal, Bouchikhi [17], was chosen. To increase their viscosity, Mueller-Hinton broth (MHB) (Merck-Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) and deionized water were spiked with 0.15 % agarose (Merck-Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) prior to sterilization. All media were adjusted to pH 7.0 ± 0.1. EO stock solutions were adjusted to 12.8 mg/ml in glass vials which were sealed and vigorously shaken for 30 s. Oil containing stock dispersions turned slightly white and were stable towards phase separation for up to 48 h. Air bubbles were driven out by slight vortexing.

A small number of EOs was found to be unstable in dispersion, due to complex-formation and clouding. For these EOs dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) was used to aid oil incorporation. Final DMSO concentration was 4.4 % (v/v) and had no growth inhibitory effects. Oils incorporated in DMSO are marked separately in the results tables.

2.4. Broth microdilution assay

Antibacterial susceptibility testing was performed according the CLSI laboratory standard for broth microdilution assays [16]. Concentrations tested in the assays ranged from 6400 to 50 μg/ml in bisecting dilution steps. Assays were performed using sterile 96 well microplates (transparent, F-bottom) (Greiner bio-one, Frickenhausen, Germany). Each concentration was tested in triplicate and a single blank (broth with corresponding EO-concentration). Three oils were tested in parallel per plate (n = 3). Ultimately, each well contained 100 μl of EO dispersion. Inoculum was prepared by a hundredfold dilution of the adjusted cell suspension in double concentrated (2*) MHB. Each well was spiked with 100 μl inoculated 2*MHB resulting in a final cell count of 1.0*105 cfu per well. Inoculation media were used immediately to avoid growth dependent shifts in the cell count. Growth, sterility and quality controls were analyzed for every culture, but on separate microplates. Chloramphenicol (2.0–0.008 μg/ml) served as control bacteriostatic to assess cell susceptibility for each batch culture (data not shown). Prior to incubation for 24 h at 37 °C, the inoculated plates were shaken orbital for 30 s on a plate mixer (Kisker, Steinfurt, Germany). To avoid loss of volatile essential oil and humidity during incubation each plate was sealed with a sterile, gas-permeable seal (BREATHseal, Greiner bio-one, Frickenhausen, Germany). Turbidity measurement was performed after incubation in a microplate reader (Tecan, Männedorf, Switzerland) at 595 nm. The seals were removed and plates were shaken orbital for 30 s. Each well was measured at nine spots with 5 flashes per spot. Obtained spot-OD-values of each well were averaged as well-OD-values. Values of parallel wells were averaged afterwards and blank-OD-values were subtracted. The minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) was defined as the lowest concentration tested which did not allow cell growth within 24 h at 37 °C.

3. Results

The MIC values of 179 essential oils from 86 plant species against E. coli DSM 1103 and S. aureus DSM 1104, determined in a broth microdilution assay, are presented in Table 1. The results show growth inhibitory activities for the majority of the tested EO samples. Inhibition was generally stronger against the Gram-positive bacterium S. aureus than against Gram-negative E. coli. At or below the preliminary defined critical concentration of 400 mg/ml 46 EO samples from 30 plant genera inhibited S. aureus, whereas E. coli was only inhibited by 22 samples from 12 plant genera. EO varieties from different providers rarely revealed identical MIC values. Nonetheless, Azadirachta indica, Backhousia citriodora, Cinnamomum cassia, Cinnamomum verum, Leptospermum scoparium, Litsea cubeba, Nardostachys jatamansi, Origanum vulgare, Pogostemon cablin, Santalum album, Thymus zygis and Vetiveria zizanoides were found to be the most inhibitory EOs against S. aureus with MIC values of 50 μg/ml. Only four EOs, Cinnamomum cassia, Cinnamomum verum, Origanum vulgare and Thymus zygis could exhibit inhibitory effect against E. coli at 50 μg/ml. But certain other EOs from Backhousia citriodora, Cupressus sempevirens, Cymbopogon citratus, Cymbopogon martini, Cymbopogon nardus, Litsea cubeba, Origanum majorana, Origanum vulgare, and Syzygium aromaticum still revealed promising activity with MICs between 100 and 400 μg/ml against E. coli.

Table 1.

Minimal inhibitory concentrations (μg/ml) of essential oils from three different manufacturers (a, b, c) against Staphylococcus aureus DSM 1104 and Escherichia coli DSM 1103.

plant botanical name oil common name extracted plant part MIC (μg/ml)
S. aureus
 E. coli
a b c a b c
1 Abies alba silver fir branches n. I. n. I.
2 Abies procera noble fir branches n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
3 Achillea millefolium yarrow herb 6400 n. I.
4 Anethum graveolens dill seeds + herb n. I. n. I.
5 Angelica archangelica garden angelica roots 400 n. I. n. I. 1600 1600 n. I.
6 Anthemis nobilis roman chamomile blossom 200* n. I.*
7 Artemisia dracunculus tarragon leaves n. I. n. I.
8 Artemisia pallens davana herb 6400 n. I. n. I. n. I.
9 Azadirachta indica neem seeds 50* 1600*
10 Backhousia citriodora lemon myrte herb 50 200
11 Boswellia carterii olibanum resin 1600 n. I. n. I. n. I.
12 Cananga odorata ylang-ylang blossom n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
13 Canaricum luzonicum elemi resin 400 n. I. 6400 n. I.
14 Carum carvi caraway seeds 800 n. I. 3200 3200 6400 1600
15 Cedrus atlantica atlas cedar wood n. I. n. I.
16 Cinnammomum camphora ravintsara leaves 3200 6400
17 Cinnamomum camphora camphor branches n. I. n. I. 6400 6400
18 Cinnamomum camphora Sieb ho leaves 1600 800
19 Cinnamomum cassia chinese cinnamon branches 50 50 50 200 50 50
20 Cinnamomum verum true cinnamon bark 200 50 800 200 50 200
21 Cistus ladaniferus cistrose leaves + branches 400 n. I.
22 Citrus aurantifolia lime peel 1600 800 3200 6400 800 6400
23 Citrus aurantium amara bitter orange peel 1600 n. I. 3200 1600 n. I. 1600
24 Citrus aurantium amara neroli blossom 6400 800 3200 3200 800 6400
plant botanical name oil common name extracted plant part MIC (μg/ml)
S. aureus
 E. coli
a b c a b c
25 Citrus aurantium bergamina bergamot peel 6400 6400 n. I. 6400 n. I. n. I.
26 Citrus limon petit grain leaves + branches 1600 3200 6400 1600 3200 3200
27 Citrus medica limonum lemon peel 6400 n. I.
28 Citrus paradisi grapefruit peel 800 n. I. n. I. 3200 n. I. n. I.
29 Citrus reticulata mandarine peel 6400 n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
30 Citrus sinensi orange all n. I. n. I. 3200 3200
31 Citrus sinensi blood orange peel n. I. n. I. 3200 n. I.
32 Commiphora myrrha myrrh leaves + branches 100 n. I.
33 Coriandrum sativum coriander seeds 1600 1600 1600 800 1600 1600
34 Corymbia citriodora lemon eucalyptus leaves 800 1600
35 Cupressus sempervirens cypress leaves + branches n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
36 Cymbopogon citratus lemongrass gras 400 100 800 400 400 800
37 Cymbopogon martinii palmrose gras 400 200 800 200 200 800
38 Cymbopogon nardus citronella gras 200 200
39 Daucus carotta carrot seeds n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
40 Elettaria cardamomum cardamom seeds 800 6400 6400 n. I. 6400 6400
41 Eucalyptus globulus eucalyptus leaves 400 n. I. n. I. 6400 n. I. 6400
42 Eucalyptus radiata peppermint leaves 3200 6400
43 Foeniculum vulgare fennel seeds n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
44 Helichrysum italicum curry plant buds 1600 1600
45 Jasminum grandiflorum jasmin blossom 3200 n. I. n. I. n. I.
46 Juniperus communis common juniper fruits n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
47 Laurus nobilis bay laurel leaves 800 n. I. 800 n. I.
48 Lavandula angustifolia lavender inflorescence 1600 1600 800 1600
49 Lavandula hybrida lavender inflorescence 3100 800
plant botanical name oil common name extracted plant part MIC (μg/ml)
S. aureus
 E. coli
a b c a b c
50 Lavandula spica lavender inflorescence 400 800
51 Leptospermum scoparium manuka leaves + branches 50 3200 6400 n. I.
52 Lippia citriodora verbena herb 400 1600
53 Litsea cubeba litsea cubeba fruits 50 100 400 200
54 Matricaria chamomilla blue chamomile blossoms 6400* 800* 1600* n. I.* n. I.* n. I.*
55 Melaleuca alternifolia teatree leaves + branches 800 3200 n. I. 1600 3200 n. I.
56 Melaleuca cajuputi cajeput blossoms + buds 800 3200 3200 6400 n. I. 3200
57 Melaleuca quinquenervia niaouli leaves + branches 200 100 3200 6400 n. I. 6400
58 Melissa officinalis lemon balm blooming herb 100 800
59 Mentha arvensis field mint leaves 400 1600 800 1600
60 Mentha piperita peppermint blooming herb 200 1600 3200 1600 800 1600
61 Mentha piperita citrata bergamot mint blooming herb 1600 1600
62 Mentha spicata spearmint herb 800 6400 800 1600
63 Myrtus communis myrtle leaves + branches 3200 n. I. 6400 n. I.
64 Nardostachys jatamansi spikenard roots 50 6400 n. I. n. I.
65 Ocimum basilicum basil blooming herb 1600 6400 n. I. 3200 n. I. n. I.
66 Origanum majorana marjoram blooming herb 400 800 800 400
67 Origanum vulgare oregano herb 100 50 50 50 100 50
68 Pelargonium graveolens rose geranium leaves 200 1600 1600 800 3200 1600
69 Picea abies norway spruce leaves + branches 1600 n. I. 800 6400 n. I. 800
70 Pimpinella anisum anise seeds n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
71 Pinus cembra swiss pine needles n. I. n. I.
72 Pinus mugo mountain pine branches + needles 1600 n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
73 Piper nigrum pepper seeds 100 n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
74 Pogostemon cablin patchouli leaves 50 200 200 n. I. n. I. n. I.
Plant botanical name Oil common name Extracted plant part MIC (μg/ml)
S. aureus
 E. coli
a b c a b c
75 Pinus sylvestris scots pine needletips 400 n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
76 Rosmarinus officinalis rosemary herb n. I. n. I.
77 Salvia lavandulifolia salvia spanish herb 800 3200 6400 6400 n. I. n. I.
78 Salvia officinalis salvia herb 800 1600
79 Salvia sclarea clary sage blossoms + leaves n. I. 3200 n. I. n. I. n. I. n. I.
80 Santalum album indian sandalwood wood 50* 50* n. I.* n. I.*
81 Syzygium aromaticum clove buds 100 1600 400 800
82 Thymus mastichina thyme spanish blooming herb 1600 1600
83 Thymus zygis thyme linalool blooming herb 800 400
84 Thymus zygis thyme thymol blooming herb 100 50 200 50 50
85 Vetiveria zizanoides vetiever roots 800 50 3200 n. I. n. I. n. I.
86 Zingiber officinale ginger roots 800 n. I. n. I. 1600 n. I. n. I.
Open in a new tab

a – Neumond GmbH.

b – Frey&Lau GmbH.

c – Düllberg Konzentra GmbH.

blank space – EO not available.

n. I. – no inhibition.

* - contains DMSO.

Some EOs did not show any antibacterial activities. Cananga odorata, Cupressus sempervirens, Daucus carotta, Foeniculum vulgare, Juniperus communis, Pimpinella anisum oils were available from each provider, but did not show any activity against S. aureus or E. coli, respectively. Artemisia pallens, Boswellia carterii, Matricaria chamomilla, Pinus mugo, Piper nigrum, Pogostemon cablin, Pinus sylvestris and Vetiveria zizanoides only exhibited inhibitory activity against S. aureus. Growth of E. coli was not affected by these EOs. For Pogostemon cablin and Vetiveria zizanoides these findings were particularly distinct, as the three EO samples from the different providers revealed the same results for E. coli. Exclusive inhibitory potential against E. coli was only shown for samples from Cinnamomum camphora and Citrus sinensis.

4. Discussion

The number of scientific studies on the antimicrobial activity of plant essential oils has strongly grown over the last three decades. Due to the use of many different microbiological methods for susceptibility testing and different definitions of antimicrobial activity, the comparability of studies on essential oils is often critical. Many studies focus on selected EOs, providing insight into their activity against one or more microorganisms [4, 5, 7, 8,18], but only few publications compress information by testing multiplicities of essential oils with a defined single method [2, 3, 13]. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate as many EOs as possible with a single quantitative microbiological method, to achieve maximum comparability.

As scientifically reviewed elsewhere, thyme, oregano and certain cinnamon EOs, as well as their major constituents, carvacrol, cinnamaldehyde and thymol, are known to possess outstanding inhibitory potential against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria [3, 10, 13]. Therefore the MICs of thyme and oregano EOs can be set as the benchmark for other EOs. On this basis, it can be asserted that Azadirachta indica, Backhousia citriodora, Litsea cubeba and Nardostachys jatamansi exhibit comparably high antibacterial activity. These EOs were especially active against S. aureus, fully inhibiting its growth at 50 μg/ml (the lowest concentration tested). Furthermore, the EOs from these plants appear to be scientifically less well investigated in terms of antimicrobial activity, as only a small number of preliminary findings exist [19,20,21,22].

Backhousia citriodora and Litsea cubeba mainly consist of Citral [23,24], a monoterpenoid aroma compound which is generally known to possess strong antimicrobial potential [23,25,26]. Litsea cubeba inhibited S. aureus at 50 or 100 μg/ml and E. coli at 400 or 200 μg/ml, depending on the EO variety tested. In comparison to other essential oils Litsea cubeba EO is produced in high amounts and cheaply available. Further research is necessary to identify its full antimicrobial spectrum and to optimize its potential. As the tested Litsea cubeba EOs tested in this study fell below the defined food application limit of 400 μg/ml they might be considered a promising candidate for food preservative applications, also due to its unique, refreshing aroma [23,27]. The main active compound of L. cubeba EOs is the monoterpene Citral, which has been found to be positive in terms of sensory effects when used as an antimicrobial compound in food products [28].

Nardostachys jatamansi and Azadirachta indica might also become interesting regarding food preservation applications, as both plants are important in traditional Indian medicine and consequently have histories of safe use [29,30]. Nardostachys jatamansi is dominated by different sesquiterpenes which, to our best knowledge, have not been investigated concerning antimicrobial activities yet [30]. The essential oil from Azadirachta indica, commonly known as neem-tree essential oil, mainly consists of the compounds Azadirachtin and Nimbin. The compounds are known to possess antimicrobial activity, but are predominately used as spermicides [29,31].

By comparing the results of EOs from a single plant species, but from different manufacturers, it becomes evident that simple postulations regarding the antibacterial effect of a certain EO cannot be made easily. As shown in Table 1, most EO varieties revealed differing MIC values when purchased from another manufacturer. Possible reasons may be versatile, as chemical composition is affected by various external factors, such as geographic origin, environmental conditions, point of harvest or other processing dependent influences [32,33,34]. These findings are in line with the results from previous works [35,36] and enhance the often requested need for chemical characterizations of antimicrobial EOs to identify the active compounds and their interdependencies [3]. Consequently, EO optimization and standardization regarding antimicrobial activity appears to be inevitable for application.

This study also revealed results which differ greatly from those reported by others. The lacking growth inhibition by Cananga odorata, Cupressus sempervirens, Juniperus communis or Pimpinella anisum may be due to the comparably low concentrations used. Authors, who found these oils to be inhibitory, used way higher concentrations, revealing MICs ranging from 12.5 mg/ml for Cupressus sempervirens EO against E. coli [37] to 40 %v/v for Juniperus communis EO versus S. aureus [38]. In regard of future applications in food systems and the strong sensory impact of essential oils on food these EO varieties appear to be unsuitable. Given the focus of application it is apparent to select essential oils with very low MICs. As described before, we defined a critical MIC level of 400 μg/ml in order to identify EO varieties with a greater applicability concerning food preservation. In general it is recommended to couple food application studies with sensory profiling trials. Another peculiarity in this study is the fact, that none of the Foeniculum vulgare EOs showed any inhibitory activity. In previous studies fennel seed essential oil was found to be bactericidal at comparable concentrations between 20 μl ml and 80 μl/ml against E. coli and S. aureus by Dadalioglu and Evrendilek [39]. In this case clarification can only be achieved by chemical analysis of the respective oils which has not been performed as part of our investigations, due to the more broadened approach. On the other hand it was once more affirmed, that Daucus carotta essential oils completely lack antimicrobial activity, as also stated by Hammer, Carson [3].

5. Conclusion

In summary, this study provides insight into the in vitro antibacterial activity of a wide variety of essential oils from many different plant genera against E. coli and S. aureus. The data contributes to the ongoing scientific investigation regarding the application of essential oils as natural food preservative agents. As the comparison of MICs from different studies is most often difficult, due to the use of varying quantitative or semi-quantitative methods, this study aimed to normalize the discussion by testing a wide variety of plant essential oils with a single, standardized quantitative method for MIC detection. After benchmarking EOs from thyme and oregano as the most active, EO varieties from Azadirachta indica and Litsea cubeba were identified as promising candidates concerning possible applicability in food.

Declarations

Author contribution statement

Julian Thielmann: Conceived and designed the experiments; Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data; Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data; Wrote the paper.

Pamina Kazman: Performed the experiments; Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Peter Muranyi: Analyzed and interpreted the data; Wrote the paper.

Funding statement

This work was partially funded by the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi) via the industrial collective research program of the German Federation of Industrial Research Associations (AiF) under contract number IGF 99EN/1.

Competing interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

No additional information is available for this paper.

References

  • 1.Sacchetti G., Maietti S., Muzzoli M., Scaglianti M., Manfredini S., Radice M., Bruni R. Comparative evaluation of 11 essential oils of different origin as functional antioxidants, antiradicals and antimicrobials in foods. Food Chem. 2005;91(4):621–632. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Pawar V.C., Thaker V.S. In vitro efficacy of 75 essential oils against Aspergillusniger Mycoses. Mycoses. 2006;49:316–323. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0507.2006.01241.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hammer K.A., Carson C.F., Riley T.V. Antimicrobial activity of essential oils and other plant extracts. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1999;86(6):985–990. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.1999.00780.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Sivropoulou A., Papanikolaou E., Nikolaou C., Kokkini S., Lanaras T., Arsenakis M. Antimicrobial and cytotoxic activities of Origanum essential oils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1996;44(5):1202–1205. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ooi L.S., Li Y., Kam S.L., Wang H., Wong E.Y., Ooi V.E. Antimicrobial activities of cinnamon oil and cinnamaldehyde from the Chinese medicinal herb Cinnamomum cassia Blume. Am. J. Chin. Med. 2006;34(3):511–522. doi: 10.1142/S0192415X06004041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Oussalah M., Caillet S., Saucier L., Lacroix M. Inhibitory effects of selected plant essential oils on the growth of four pathogenic bacteria: E. coli O157 : H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control. 2007;18(5):414–420. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lambert R.J., Skandamis P.N., Coote P.J., Nychas G.J. A study of the minimum inhibitory concentration and mode of action of oregano essential oil, thymol and carvacrol. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001;91(3):453–462. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01428.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Xu J., Zhou F., Ji B.P., Pei R.S., Xu N. The antibacterial mechanism of carvacrol and thymol against Escherichia coli. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2008;47(3):174–179. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765X.2008.02407.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Paparella A., Taccogna L., Aguzzi I., Chaves-Lopez C., Serio A., Marsilio F., Suzzi G. Flow cytometric assessment of the antimicrobial activity of essential oils against Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control. 2008;19(12):1174–1182. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Burt S. Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods--a review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004;94(3):223–253. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gutierrez J., Barry-Ryan C., Bourke R. The antimicrobial efficacy of plant essential oil combinations and interactions with food ingredients. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008;124(1):91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.02.028. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Remmal A., Bouchikhi T., Tantaoui-Elaraki A., Ettayebi M. Inhibition of antibacterial activity of essential oils by tween 80 and ethanol in liquid medium. J. Pharm. Belg. 1993;48(5):352–356. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Friedman M., Henika P.R., Mandrell R.E. Bactericidal activities of plant essential oils and some of their isolated constituents against Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enterica. J. Food Prot. 2002;65(10):1545–1560. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-65.10.1545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Reller L.B., Weinstein M., Jorgensen J.H., Ferraro M.J. Antimicrobial susceptibility testing: a review of general principles and contemporary practices. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2009;49(11):1749–1755. doi: 10.1086/647952. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Juven B.J., Kanner J., Schved F., Weisslowicz H. Factors that interact with the antibacterial action of thyme essential oil and its active constituents. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1994;76(6):626–631. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1994.tb01661.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.CLSI . 26th edition. Clinical & Laboratoty Standards institute; Wanye, PA, USA: 2015. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Remmal A., Bouchikhi T., Rhayour K., Ettayebi M., Tantaoui-Elaraki A. Improved method for the determination of antimicrobial activity of essential oils in agar medium. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2011;5(2):179–184. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Rota M.C., Herrera A., Martinez R.M., Sotomayor J.A., Jordan M.J. Antimicrobial activity and chemical composition of Thymus vulgaris, Thymus zygis and Thymus hyemalis essential oils. Food Control. 2008;19(7):681–687. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.SaiRam M., Ilavazhagan G., Sharma S.K., Dhanraj S.A., Suresh B., Parida M.M., Jana A.M., Devendra K., Selvamurthy W. Antimicrobial activity of a new vaginal contraceptive NIM-76 from neem oil (Azadirachta indica) J. Ethnopharmacol. 2000;71(3):377–382. doi: 10.1016/s0378-8741(99)00211-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dupont S., Caffin N., Bhandari B., Dykes G.A. In vitro antibacterial activity of Australian native herb extracts against food-related bacteria. Food Control. 2006;17(11):929–932. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kumar V.P., Chauhan N.S., Padh H., Rajani M. Search for antibacterial and antifungal agents from selected Indian medicinal plants. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2006;107(2):182–188. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2006.03.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hayes A.J., Markovic B. Toxicity of Australian essential oil Backhousia citriodora (Lemon myrtle). Part 1. Antimicrobial activity and in vitro cytotoxicity. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2002;40(4):535–543. doi: 10.1016/s0278-6915(01)00103-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Liu T.T., Yang T.S. Antimicrobial impact of the components of essential oil of Litsea cubeba from Taiwan and antimicrobial activity of the oil in food systems. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012;156(1):68–75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.03.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Brophy J.J., Goldsack R.J., Fookes C.J.R., Forster P.I. Leaf oils of the genus Backhousia (Myrtaceae) J. Essent. Oil Res. 1995;7(3):237–254. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Onawunmi G.O. Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of Citral. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1989;9(3):105–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Onawunmi G.O., Yisak W.A., Ogunlana E.O. Antibacterial constituents in the essential oil of Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf. J. Ethnopharmacol. 1984;12(3):279–286. doi: 10.1016/0378-8741(84)90057-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Li W.R., Shi Q.S., Liang Q., Xie X.B., Huang X.M., Chen Y.B. Antibacterial activity and kinetics of Litsea cubeba oil on Escherichia coli. PLoS One. 2014;9(11) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0110983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Muriel-Galet V., Cerisuelo J.P., Lopez-Carballo G., Lara M., Gavara R., Hernandez-Munoz P. Development of antimicrobial films for microbiological control of packaged salad. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012;157(2):195–201. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.05.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Riar S.S., Devakumar C., Ilavazhagan G., Bardhan J., Kain A.K., Thomas P., Singh R., Singh B. Volatile fraction of Neem oil as a spermicide. Contraception. 1990;42(4):479–487. doi: 10.1016/0010-7824(90)90054-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Chauhan R.S., Nautiyal M.C., Figueredo G., Rana V.S. Effect of post harvest drying methods on the essential oil composition of Nardostachys jatamansi. J Essent Oil Bear Pl. 2017;20(4):1090–1096. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Negi P.S. Plant extracts for the control of bacterial growth: efficacy, stability and safety issues for food application. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012;156(1):7–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Juliano C., Mattana A., Usai M. Composition and in vitro antimicrobial activity of the essential oil of Thymus herba-barona Loisel growing wild in Sardinia. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2000;12(4):516–522. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Faleiro M.L., Miguel M.G., Ladeiro F., Venancio F., Tavares R., Brito J.C., Figueiredo A.C., Barroso J.G., Pedro L.G. Antimicrobial activity of essential oils isolated from Portuguese endemic species of Thymus. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2003;36(1):35–40. doi: 10.1046/j.1472-765x.2003.01259.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Marino M., Bersani C., Comi G. Antimicrobial activity of the essential oils of Thymus vulgaris L. measured using a bioimpedometric method. J. Food Prot. 1999;62(9):1017–1023. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-62.9.1017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lis-Balchin M., Deans S.G. Bioactivity of selected plant essential oils against Listeria monocytogenes. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1997;82(6):759–762. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.1997.00153.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lis-Balchin M., Hart S., Deans S.G., Eaglesham E. Comparison of the pharmacological and antimicrobial action of commercial plant essential oils. J. Herbs, Spices, Med. Plants. 1996;4(2):69–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Emami S., Asili J., Rahimizadeh M., Fazli-Bazzaz B., Hassanzadeh M. Chemical and antimicrobial studies of Cupressus sempervirens L. and C. horizentalis Mill. essential oils. Iran. J. Pharm. Sci. 2006;2(2):103–108. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Pepeljnjak S., Kosalec I., Kalodera Z., Blazevic N. Antimicrobial activity of juniper berry essential oil (Juniperus communis L., Cupressaceae) Acta Pharm. 2005;55(4):417–422. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Dadalioglu I., Evrendilek G.A. Chemical compositions and antibacterial effects of essential oils of Turkish oregano (Origanum minutiflorum), bay laurel (Laurus nobilis), Spanish lavender (Lavandula stoechas L.), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) on common foodborne pathogens. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004;52(26):8255–8260. doi: 10.1021/jf049033e. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Heliyon are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES