Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jul 17;15(7):e0235740. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235740

Evaluation of larvicidal potential against larvae of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and of the antimicrobial activity of essential oil obtained from the leaves of Origanum majorana L.

Renata do Socorro Barbosa Chaves 1, Rosany Lopes Martins 1, Alex Bruno Lobato Rodrigues 1, Érica de Menezes Rabelo 1, Ana Luzia Ferreira Farias 1, Lethicia Barreto Brandão 1, Lizandra Lima Santos 1, Allan Kardec Ribeiro Galardo 2, Sheylla Susan Moreira da Silva de Almeida 1,*
Editor: Horacio Bach3
PMCID: PMC7367459  PMID: 32678859

Abstract

This study evaluated the larvicidal activity of Origanum majorana Linnaeus essential oil, identified the chemical composition, evaluated the antimicrobial, cytotoxic and antioxidant potential. The larvicidal activity was evaluated against larvae of the third stage of Aedes aegypti Linaeus, whereas the chemical composition was identified by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometer, the antimicrobial activity was carried out against the bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus auereus, the antioxidant activity was evaluated from of 2.2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazila sequestration and Artemia salina Leach cytotoxicity. Regarding to the results, the larvicidal activity showed that O. majorana L. essential oil caused high mortality in A. aegypti L. larvae. In the chromatographic analysis, the main component found in O. majorana L. essential oil was pulegone (57.05%), followed by the other components verbenone (16.92%), trans-p-menthan-2-one (8.57%), iso-menthone (5.58%), piperitone (2.83%), 3-octanol (2.35%) and isopulegol (1.47%). The antimicrobial activity showed that E. coli and P. aeruginosa bacteria were more sensitive to oil than S. aureus, which was resistant at all concentrations. Essential oil did not present antioxidant activity, but it has high cytotoxic activity against A. salina L.

Introduction

Dengue remains an important public health problem in Brazil, even after the introduction and recent dissemination of the Zika and chikungunya viruses [1,2]. The disease presents a great epidemic potential, affecting all regions of Brazil [3,4].

The Aedes aegypti Linnaeus [5] mosquito is a vector of viruses that cause diseases known as dengue, chikungunya, and zika [6]. It has holometabolic development, with egg, larva, pupa and adult phases. Because it is a mosquito highly adapted to the urban environment, its most common breeding sites are artificial containers that accumulate water, such as bottles, tires, cans, and pots [7].

Among the control policies adopted in Brazil, the mechanical control is carried out by ACE (Agents to Combat Endemics), with the participation of the population, aiming at the protection, destruction or adequate allocation of potent breeding sites. The intensive collaboration of the population is crucial to hinder the proliferation and installation of the mosquito. In addition, it reinforces the need for adequate sanitary conditions in the cities, eliminating stocks of water that allow eggs to hatch. An important strategy is the promotion of educational actions during home visits made regularly by the health agents [8].

The spread and flow of various serotypes of the dengue virus over the years also have a significant influence on epidemics, as well as an increase in cases diagnosed for the most severe form of the disease. These factors demonstrate the importance of introducing preventive measures in order to reduce dengue rates [9].

To combat these disease vectors, insecticides are the most used products, but they have several disadvantages, as they can be the source of several environmental problems [10, 11]. In fact, most of the chemical insecticides used cause a major problem, especially the development of mosquito resistance [12, 13].

In addition, the literature reports that Origanum majorana species have attracted consumers' attention due to their antimicrobial, antifungal, insecticidal and antioxidant effects on human health [14]. The crude extract of O. majorana and essential oil show significant results in inhibiting the growth of bacteria and fungi and the synthesis of microbial metabolites [1517].

Origanum majorana Linnaeus [18] belongs to the Lamiaceae [19] family, and it contains several terpenoids, which are isolated from aerial parts of the Origanum plant and exhibit antimicrobial, antiviral and antioxidant properties, without toxic effects [20, 21].

Previous studies have reported the potential use of the O. majorana ethanolic extract as an anticancer agent [22, 23], while the tea extract has been shown to have immunostimulating, antigenotoxic and antimutagenic properties [24, 25]. These activities are attributed to the chemical composition, characterized as rich in flavonoids and terpenoids [26].

The antioxidant activity of essential oils through the elimination of free radicals and inhibition of oxidation of linoleic acid, can be useful for the food industry to prolong the stability of food storage [27].

Thus, the search for natural antimicrobial compounds has been of great interest at the scientific and clinical level, so that aromatic and medicinal plants play a central role in the search for biologically active molecules, against different microorganisms [28].

The antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of many spices and their essential oils have been known for a long time, but only in recent years have consumers given proper attention to the use of these substances [29]. Because many plants are toxic to mosquitoes, the mixture of essential oils may represent an efficient outlet for this problem, compared to the A. aegypti L. mosquito [30].

In the literature, there are no reports on larvicidal activity against A. aegypti L. and cytotoxicity against A. salina L. and few studies have been reported on the antioxidant and antimicrobial effects of the essential oils of this species.

The active effects of the O. majorana species are not as studied and especially the larvicidal effect. So far, we have not found such studies related to this species with unique chemical composition in the country. Thus, in this article a first study was carried out on the larvicidal activity of essential oil.

It is in this sense that the work was carried out for the first time in Macapá and aims to study the larvicidal activity of the essential oils of O. majorana (Lamiaceae), cultivated in the north of the state against the larvae of A. aegypti, the vector of the dengue virus, Zika, chikungunya and malaria. In addition, to determine the chemical composition, to evaluate the antimicrobial activity against E. coli, P. aeruginosa and S. aureus bacteria, to determine the antioxidant potential through the sequestration of DPPH and cytotoxicity against A. salina L. of O. majorana L. essential oil.

Materials and methods

Plant material

The leaves of O. majorana L. were collected in the district of Fazendinha (00 "36'955" S and 51 "11'03'77" W) in the Municipality of Macapá, Amapá. Five samples of the plant species were deposited at the Amapaense Herbarium (HAMAB) of the Institute of Scientific Research and Technology of Amapá (IEPA).

Essential oil obtaining

The hydrodistillation process using the Clevenger type apparatus, 131 g of O. majorana L. dried leaves were dried at 45 °C for a period of 2 h [31] obtained the essential oil (EO). The EO was kept under refrigeration (4 °C).

Identification of the chemical composition by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometer (GC-MS)

The EO analysis was performed by Gas Chromatography coupled to the Mass Spectrometer (GC-MS) of the Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. The Shimadzu equipment, model GCMS-QP 5000 A was used. A fused silica capillary column (OPTIMA®-5-0.25 μm) was used. It has 30 m of length and 0.25 mm of internal diameter and nitrogen as carrier gas. The operating conditions of the gas chromatograph were: internal column pressure 67.5 kPa, division ratio 1:20, gas flow at column 1.2 mL.min-1 (210 °C), injector temperature 260 °C, temperature detector or interface of 280 °C. The initial column temperature was 50 °C, followed by an increase from 6 °C.min-1 to 260 °C kept constant for 30 min. The mass spectrometer was programmed to perform readings at intervals of 29–400 Da, at intervals of 0.5 s with ionization energy of 70 eV. 1 μL of each sample with a concentration of 10.000 ppm dissolved in hexane was injected.

The identification of the chemical compounds present in the EO was made from the comparisons of the Indices of Retention (IR) and Kovats (IK) of the homologous series of n-alkanes (C8-C26) and the literature [32]. Identification was also made by combining the spectra obtained by the analysis performed on the Lab solutions GC-MS version 2.50 Sigma–Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA e software equipment of the mass spectra of the NIST05 and WILEY'S libraries.

Larvicidal activity against A. aegypti L. larvae

The data from this study were interpreted to identify compounds that showed toxicity of the essential oil of O. majorana. The identification of the active substances against A. aegypti larvae helped to interpret the toxicity of the essential oil.

The A. aegypti L. larvae used in the bioassay came from the colony (strain Rockfeller) kept in the Medical Entomology Laboratory of the Institute of Scientific and Technological Research of the State of Amapá (IEPA). The methodology used followed the World Health Organization standard protocol [33] with adaptations.

The procedure started with the separation of 18 beakers of 50 mL and in each Becker, there were added 25 larvae of the third instar of A. aegypti L. Then they were reserved in a room with conditions of ambient temperature between 25 to 30 °C and photoperiod of 12 h.

Preparation of the samples started after 24 h. The stock solution was prepared with 4.5 mL of Tween 80, 85.5 mL of distilled water and 0.09 g of the EO sample of O. majorana L. The positive control was prepared with 17.5 mL of Tween 80 dissolved in 350 mL of distilled water, and the larvicidal esbiothrin as the positive control.

After the preliminary tests, the aqueous solution was diluted in the following concentrations: 100, 80, 60, 40, 20, 10, and 1 μg.mL−1. Each concentration was tested in triplicate, and 25 larvae of the A. aegypti L. mosquito in the 3rd young stage (L3) were used. They were pipetted into a 100 mL beaker containing distilled water, then they were transferred into the test vessels, minimizing the time between the preparation of the first and last samples. During the experiment, the average water temperature was 25 °C. After 24 and 48 h, the dead larvae were counted, being considered as such, all those unable to reach the surface.

Statistical analysis

The experiment was carried out in triplicate. The larval mortality efficiency data were calculated in percentages using the Abbott formula and later tabulated in Microsoft Excel (Version 2013 for Windows). Probit analysis was performed with determination of the LC50 (lethal concentration causing 50% mortality in the population) and the LC90 (lethal concentration causing 90% mortality in the population) which were analyzed with a 95% confidence interval using the Statgraphics software Centurion XV version 15.2.11. The results were shown in the table. Differences that presented probability levels p≤0.001 for 24 h and p≤0.013 were considered statistically significant.

Antimicrobial activity

Microorganisms

The antimicrobial EO test obtained from O. majorana L. leaves was tested in vitro against two gram-negative bacteria (P. aeruginosa ATCC 25922 and E. coli ATCC 8789) and a gram-positive bacteria (S. aureus ATCC 25922).

For each microorganism, the stock culture was stored in BHI medium (Brain Heart Infusion) with 20% glycerol and stored at –80 °C. An aliquot of 50 μL of this culture was inoculated into 5 mL of sterile BHI broth medium and incubated for 24 h at 37 °C.

Determination of minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC)

The MIC and MBC were determined using the microplate dilution technique (96 wells) according to the protocol established by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [34], with adaptations.

Bacteria were initially reactivated from the stock cultures, kept in BHI broth, for 18 h at 37 °C. Subsequently, bacterial growth was prepared in 0.9% saline inoculum for each microorganism, adjusted to the McFarland 0.5 scale, then diluted in BHI and tested at 2 x 106 UFC.mL-1 concentration.

In determining the MIC, the EO was diluted in Dimethylsulfoxide (2% DMSO). Each well of the plate was initially filled with 0.1 mL of 0.9% NaCl, except for the first column, which was filled with 0.2 mL of the EO at the concentration of 2000 μg.mL-1. Subsequently, base two serial dilutions were performed in the ratio of 1:2 to 1:128 dilution in a final volume of 0.1 mL. After this process, 0.1 mL of cells (2 x 106 CFU mL-1) added in each well related to the second preceding item, resulting in a final volume of 0.2 mL. Control of culture medium, control of EO, and negative control (DMSO 2%) were performed. And for the positive control, amoxicillin (0.5 μg.mL-1) was used. After incubation of the microplates in an incubator at 37 °C for 24 hours, the plates were read in ELISA reader (OD 630nm).

The determination of MBC was performed based on the results obtained in the MIC test. Microplate wells were replicated in Müller-Hinton agar and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. MBC was established as the lowest concentration of EO capable of completely inhibiting microbial growth.

Statistical analysis

All experiments were performed in triplicate with the respective results categorized in Microsoft Excel (Version 2013 for Windows) and later analyzed in GraphPad Prism software (Version 6.0 for Windows, San Diego California USA). Significant differences between the groups were verified using the One-way ANOVA test with Bonferroni post-test. The data were considered statistically significant when p <0.001.

Antioxidant activity

The antioxidant quantitative test was based on the methodology recommended by Sousa et al. [35], Lopes-Lutz et al. [36] and Andrade et al. [37] by the use of 2.2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazila (DPPH) with adaptations.

A methanolic solution of DPPH (stock solution) was prepared at the concentration of 40 μg.mL-1, which was kept under the light. The EOs were diluted in methanol at concentrations 7.81; 15.62; 31.25; 62.5; 125 and 250 μg.mL-1. For the evaluation of the test, 0.3 mL of the oil solution was added to a test tube, followed by the addition of 2.7 mL of the DPPH solution. White was prepared from a mixture with 2.7 mL of methanol and 0.3 mL of the methanol solution of each EO concentration as measured. After 30 min the readings were performed on a spectrophotometer (Biospectro SP-22) at a wavelength of 517 nm. The test was performed in triplicate and the calculation of the percentage of antioxidant activity (% AA) was calculated with the following Eq 1:

(%AA)=100{[(AbssampleAbswhite)100]Abscontrol} (1)

AA%—Percentage of antioxidant activity

Abssample—Sample absorbance

Abswhite—White absorbance

Abscontrol—Control absorbance

Cytotoxic activity against A. salina L.

The cytotoxicity assay against A. salina L. Leach was based on the technique of Araújo et al. [38] and Lôbo et al. [39] with adaptations. An aqueous solution of artificial sea salt was prepared (35 g.L-1) at pH 9.0 for incubation of 45 mg of A. salina L. eggs, which were placed in the dark for 24 h for the larvae to hatch (nauplii), then the nauplii were exposed to artificial light in 24 h, period to reach the stage methanuplii. The stock solution was prepared to contain 0.06 g of EO, 28.5 mL of solution of synthetic and 1.5 mL of Tween 80 to facilitate solubilization of the same. The test tubes were marked up to 5 mL. For the negative control, it was used respectively Tween 80 with solution saline (5%) and the (K2Cr2O7) Potassium dichromate (1%) as the positive control.

The methanauplia were selected and divided into 7 groups of 10 subjects in each test tube. Each group received aliquots of the stock solution 100, 75, 50, 25, and 2.5 μL, which were then filled to a volume of 5 mL with the sea salt solution to produce final solutions with the following concentrations 40, 30, 20, 10, and 1 μg.mL-1. The tests were performed in triplicates. For the test control, saline solution was used. After 24 h, the number of dead was counted.

Statistical analysis

The results obtained from the bioassays were expressed through Averages and Standard Deviation, categorized in Microsoft Excel (Version 2010 for Windows, Redmond, WA, USA). Significant differences between treatments were assessed using the ANOVA test One criterion and the Tukey test using the BioEstat program (Version 5.0 for Windows, Belem, BRA). The graphs were built on GraphPad Prism software (Version 6.0 for Windows, San Diego, CA, USA). The LC50 values were determined in the PROBIT regression, through the SPSS statistical program (version 21.0 for Windows, Chicago, IL, USA). Differences that presented probability levels less than or equal to 5% (p ≤ 0.05) were considered statistically significant.

Results and discussion

Identification of chemical compounds by GC-MS of the O. majorana L. EO

This result corroborates with other studies that have shown that environmental factors may affect certain chemical compounds, while in others they have no influence on their production [40, 41]. The chemical composition was determined by GC-MS, where the chromatogram can be observed in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Obtaining gas chromatography of OE O. majorana L. gas trap: Helium (He); initial temperature 60 °C; initial time 1.0 min; the column temperature increased 3 °C/ min. at 240 °C, maintained at this temperature for 30 min.

Fig 1

On the chemical composition of the EO of O. majorana L. (Table 1), 95.8% are oxygenated monoterpenes and only 1.38% are monoterpene hydrocarbons. The major component of EO is pulegone (57.05%), followed by other components verbenone (16.92%), trans-menthone (8.57%), cis-menthone (5.58%), piperitone (2.83%), 3-octanol %) and isopulegol (1.47%).

Table 1. Chemical composition of O. majorana L. essential oil.

* IR IK Compounds Relative Percentage (%) Identification #
1 6.776 939 α-pinene 0.39 MS, IK
2 8.127 979 β-pinene 0.50 MS IK
3 8.617 991 3-octanol 2.35 MS, IK
4 9.995 1029 limonene 0.49 MS, IK
5 15.185 1162 iso-menthone 5.58 MS, IK
6 15.688 1199 Trans-p-menthan-2-one 8.57 MS, IK
7 16.174 1149 isopulegol 1.47 MS, KI
8 19.448 1237 pulegone 57.05 MS, IK
9 19.655 1165 lavandulol 0.77 MS, IK
10 19.883 1252 piperitone 2.83 MS, IK
11 23.873 1205 verbenone 16.92 MS, IK
12 24.482 1161 nonen-1-al-(2E) 0.26 MS, IK
Total 97.18

*The identification path of the compounds,

#the identification of the compounds was performed by the mass spectrum (GC-MS) of the Library softwary Labsolutions GC-MS solution version 2.50 SU1 (NIST05 and WILEY'S libraries of the 9th edition mass spectrum); Kovats Index (KI) [32].

Lima et al. [42], reports that piperitone has three organic functions in its chemical structure and it can be used for the synthesis of other compounds. Piperitone is derived from the metabolic pathway for the formation of piperitenone oxide, in which cis-pulegone is also, derived [43]. Macêdo et al. [44] observe that the variations of the active components of the plant are important parameters to correlate the activities, such as antibacterial and insecticide.

In addition, a number of biotic factors such as plant/ microorganism Stoppacher et al. [45], plants/insects Kessler and Baldwin [46] plant interactions, age and stage of development. As well as abiotic factors such as luminosity Takshak and Agrawal [47], temperature, precipitation, nutrition, time and harvest time Bitu et al. [48], they may present correlations with each other, acting together, and they may exert a joint influence on chemical variability and yield of essential oil [48].

Larvicidal activity of EO of the O. majorana L. against A. aegypti L. larvae

The results of the larvicidal activity of this study show that O. majorana L. EO is active against A. aegypti L. larvae.

A fact that Komalamisra et al. [49], Magalhães et al. [50] and Dias et al. [51], classified with the values of the minimum lethal concentration that eliminates 50% of the population (LC50) as a criterion for the activity. Because if LC50 <50 μg.mL-1, the product is considered very active, if 50 <LC50 <100 μg.mL-1 the product is considered active, and when LC50> 750 μg.mL-1 the product is considered inactive.

The percentage of dead A. aegypti L. larvae is shown in Table 2, at different EO concentrations of O. majorana L. in the 24–48 h exposure period. There was no mortality in the control group. Through the probit test, LC50 = 62.81 μg.mL-1, determination coefficient (R2) = 78.64 and quantitative evaluation (X2) = 24.238 in 24 h. After 48 h at LC50 = 4.84 μg.mL-1, X2 = 10.3872 and R2 = 55.16.

Table 2. Percentage of dead larvae (%) of A. aegypti L. produced by different concentrations of O. majorana L. essential oil in 24–48 h.

Concentrations Larvicidal Activity (%)
(μg.mL-1) 24 h 48 h
Control (-) 0.0 0.0
20 16 57.33
40 40 76
60 40 77.33
80 65.32 82.66
100 78.62 94.66a
LC50 (positive control) 0.0034 μg.mL-1 0.0034 μg.mL-1

a Statistically significant in relation to the positive control.

The probit analysis performed was not visible the slope values, but as the P of the model in Table 3 demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between the variables at the 95% confidence level in 24 h, thus, the adjusted percentage of 78,64% was more appropriate and more effective than in 48 h, allowing inferring that mortality was slower with increased concentration.

Table 3. Insecticide response-concentration on larvae of A. aegypti.

Time CL50 (IC95) μg.mL-1 CL90 (IC95) μg.mL-1 GL X2 R2
24 h 62.81 (50.87; 75.63) 124.17 (103.23; 171.63) 1 24.238 78.64
48 h 4.84 (NI; 27.95) 90.30 (70.16; 159.27) 1 10.3872 55.16

NI: not identified; CI confidence interval; X2; GL: Degree of Freedom; p <0.0001 for 24 h; p <0.0013 for 48 h.

There were no reports of studies on the larvicidal activity of O. majorana L. essential oil against A. aegypti L. larvae.

According to Cantrell et al. [52], larvicidal compounds act by absorption through the cuticle, via the respiratory tract, and/or enter by ingestion via the gastrointestinal tract. Once inside the larva, the substances may reach the site of action or may cause systemic effects by diffusion in different tissues [53].

Studies on the insecticidal effect of Mentha spp. reported that menthol, mentona, pulegone and carvone help to clarify the mechanisms of action on insects [54]. Previous studies indicate that limonene, camphene, and verbenone have insecticidal insect activity [55].

The effect of the tested essential oil of O. majorana L. can be explained by its chemical composition [56, 57]. The main components of essential oil, which belongs to the Lamiaceae family, are monoterpenes. In this context, the literature reports the larvicidal effect of monoterpene against mosquitoes [58, 59].

In the study by Pavela et al. [60] the essential oils of different species of Mentha L. and Pulegium showed varied chemical composition of monoterpenes, such as, for example, the major compound piperitone, which was effective and responsible for the insecticidal effects. Koliopoulos et al. [61] tested piperitenone oxide for larvicidal efficacy against the biotype Culex pipiens molestus and LC50 estimated at 9.95 mg/l.

In general terms, it can be considered that the main entrance to the channel in the larvae of mosquitoes exposed to larvicides is the cuticular. In this process, the polarity (expressed as an octanol-water partition coefficient) of the xenobiotic that entry through the integument plays an essential role in determining the rate of entry into the body [62]

The results found in the literature on the chemical composition of the essential oil of O. majorana L. differ with the results of the species of this study collected in Macapá. It is worth mentioning that the plant species have several very different types of chemo and, at times, the participation of the main constituent may be only minor in essential oil.

Recently, a study by El-Akhal et al. [63], demonstrated the insecticidal activity of O. majorana L. against Culex pipiens, the vector of the West Nile virus. LC50 and LC90. The obtained LC were 258.71μg/mL and 580.49 μg/mL, respectively.

The LC50 (107.13 μg/mL) and LC90 (365.90 μg/mL) of the essential oil of O. majorana L., found in the study by El-Kahal et al. [63] against An. Labranchiae, are significant when compared to those found in T. vulgaris. They are also very important compared to those found in O. majorana L. against Culex pipiens in research work carried out in the laboratory [59]. The non-significant difference between the essential oils tested: T. vulgaris and O. majorana L. (CI95 overlap) can be explained by their similar chemical composition [59, 63].

In fact, the main components of the two essential oils, which belong to the same family (Lamiaceae), are monoterpenes. In this context, the literature reports the larvicidal effect of monoterpene against mosquitoes [56].

Pavela and Sedlák [64] showed in their studies that insecticidal efficacy increased with temperature when OE was applied against S. littoralis larvae and revealed by a comparison of lethal doses, while LC50 and LC90 for S. littoralis larvae in 15° C were estimated at 52 and 84 μg/larva, respectively, LC50 and LC90 were significantly lower at 30° C (32 and 56 μg/larva, respectively).

Despite the insecticidal efficacy of OEs has been studied in many insect species, very little information is available on other limiting factors of the post-application configuration that can have a significant impact on the insecticidal efficacy of OE-based botanical insecticides. Understanding the relationship between post-application temperature and insecticidal efficacy of OE is important, particularly in terms of practical recommendations for applying botanical insecticides based on EOs [64].

That is why this study tests the insecticidal efficacy of an essential oil obtained from Thymus vulgaris L. (Lamiaceae), applied at different ambient temperatures. T. vulgaris E was chosen intentionally because, compared to other OEs, it provides significantly better insecticidal efficacy and, therefore, was considered a highly promising active ingredient for some potential and already manufactured BIs [65].

However, when applied in water against C. quinquefasciatus larvae, the opposite effect was found. The water at the lowest temperature reached the highest mortality rate of C. quinquefasciatus and LC50 (90) larvae were estimated at 21.3 (29.3) μg.L-1 at 15 °C, while LC50 (90) estimated 21.4 (33.1) μg.L−1 were obtained for the highest temperature tested (30° C). This suggests that the influence of post-application temperature on insect mortality varies not only by the method of application, but also on the chemical composition of the OE [64].

Some EOs are known to cause dissuasive or anti-eating behavior in insects suggesting a neurotoxic action Satyan et al. [66], while some act as growth-regulating insects through analogous effects or antagonistic endogenous hormones. In the present study, it was found that even short-term exposure of larvae to lethal doses can dramatically increase their mortality over time and thereby reduce the total number of viable adults, leading to a possible reduction in total populations [67].

Microbiological activity of O. majorana L. EO

In relation to the microbiological activity, it was possible to verify that gram-negative bacteria were more sensitive to O. majorana L. EO, than gram-positive bacteria.

The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) that were identified for O. majorana L. EO can be verified in Fig 2. The results show that gram-negative bacteria were more sensitive to EO presenting MIC = 31.25 μg.mL-1, compared to the negative control. The MBC for E. coli was at the concentration of 500 μg.mL-1 and for P. aeruginona was at the concentration of 1000 μg.mL-1 in relation to the negative control (amoxicillin). While the S. aureus bacterium did not present MIC, neither MBC.

Fig 2. This is the figure of Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of O. majorana L. essential oil.

Fig 2

a) EO O. majorana L. against P. aeruginosa ATCC 25922. b) EO O. majorana L. against E. coli ATCC 8789. c) EO O. majorana L. against S. aureus ATCC 25922. Test substance of essential oil of the O. majorana L. (Inline graphic), BHI with 2% of DMSO (■) and Amoxiline (□); ***P <0.001 statistically significant in relation to the negative control; # p <0.001 statistically significant in relation to the positive control.

According to Rosato et al. [68], the antibacterial activity in gram-negative bacteria occurs due to the high percentage of oxygenated monoterpenes present in the EO and consequently the synergism between these components. On the other hand, bacteria can also respond to adverse conditions in a transient way, through so-called stress tolerance responses. Bacterial stress tolerance responses include structural and physiological modifications in the cell, and complex genetic regulatory machines mediate them [69].

In the study by Duru et al. [70] pulegone showed high antimicrobial activity, particularly against Candida albicans and Salmonella typhimurium. Pulegone is classified as a monoterpene, in the same way as carvone. It can be obtained from a variety of plants [71, 72]. Menthone is a common volatile compound in Lamiaceae, which may also be active against a large number of bacteria, such as E. coli and Enterococcus faecalis [73, 74]. Some studies have argued that monoterpenes can cross cell membranes and interact with intracellular sites critical for antibacterial activity [75].

However, reports of non-adaptation or cross-adaptation of bacteria to sub lethal concentrations of major constituents of essential oils has also been reported [76]. Cross-resistance can occur when different antimicrobial agents attack the same target in the cell, reach common route of access to the respective targets or initiate a common pathway for cell death, the resistance mechanism is the same for more than one antibacterial agent [77].

Essential antioxidant activity of EO of O. majorana L. by DPPH radical capture method

The concentrations of EO obtained IC50 = 16.83 μg.mL-1 according to Table 4 and was compared with ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in Table 5 which showed IC50 = 16.71 μg.mL-1. The absorbance of EO was Y = 0.0196 x 17.0078. coefficient (R2) = 0.9600.

Table 4. Shows the percentage of the antioxidant activity of O. majorana L. EO.

Concentrations (μg.mL-1) AA (%)
7.81 16.95a a
15.62 17.15b
31.25 17.48b
62.5 18.9c
125 19.28d
250 21.85e

Different letters indicate that there was significant difference of Tunkey test (p≤0.05).

Table 5. Shows the percentage of antioxidant activity of ascorbic acid (vitamin C) in different concentrations.

Concentrations (μg.mL-1) AA (%)
7.81 18.57%a
15.62 30%b
31.25 99.93%c
62.5 99.99%d
125 99.99%d
250 99.99%d

Different letters indicate that there was a significant difference (p≤0.05).

Many antioxidants derived from natural products demonstrate neuroprotective activity in vitro and/or in vivo models such as flavonoid phenolic compounds [78].

The percentage of antioxidant activity of the essential oil showed a high IC50 = 16.83 μg.mL-1, whereas ascorbic acid presented 16.71 μg.mL-1 [79]. According to Rodrigues [80] the higher the consumption of DPPH for a smaller sample will be its IC50 and the greater its antioxidant capacity.

According to Beatović et al. [81], the antioxidant capacity of EO is related to its main compounds. However, this study did not present antioxidant activity. The importance concerning the performance of antioxidants depends on the factors types of free radicals formed; where and how these radicals are generated; analysis and methods for identifying damage, and ideal doses for protection [82].

Toxicity to A. salina L. EO of O. majorana L.

A. salina L. is a microcrustacean used in fish feed, and it is widely used in toxicological studies because of the low cost and easy cultivation. Several studies have attempted to correlate toxicity on A. salina L. with antifungal, virucidal, antimicrobial, trypanosomicidal and parasiticidal activities. Lethality assays are performed in toxicological tests and the median lethal concentration (LC50), which indicates death in half of a sample, can be obtained [83].

Table 6 shows the percentage of cytotoxic activity of O. majorana L. EO and the mean mortality readings after the 24 h period are expressed. The oil concentrations presented LC50 of 172.6 μg.mL-1, the coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.883 and X2 of 1.915.

Table 6. Shows the percentage of cytotoxic activity of O. majorana L. essential oil at different concentrations.

Concentrations (μg.mL-1) Mortality (%)
Control negative 0.0%a
50 9.37%b
100 48.48%c
250 67.39%d
500 75.40%e
750 80.26%f
1000 83.51%g
LC50 (K2Cr2O7) 172.60 μg.mL-1

Different letters indicate a significant difference between the concentrations (p <0.05).

According to Nguta et al. [84], both organic extracts and aqueous extracts with LC50 values of less than 100 μg.mL-1 show high toxicity, LC50 between 100 and 500 μg.mL-1 exhibited moderate toxicity, LC50 between 500 and 1000 μg.mL-1 presented low toxicity and LC50 above 1000 μg.mL-1 are considered to be non-toxic (non-toxic).

The lethal concentration of mortality against the A. salina L. larvae of this assay showed moderate cytotoxic activity. In order to evaluate the cytotoxicity of a given sample, it is possible to elucidate the cytotoxic effect of the cytotoxic mechanism and the mechanism of action of different compounds during their interaction with the tissues [85].

Conclusions

The results of the present study demonstrated that OE obtained from dry leaves of O. majorana L. showed good larvicidal activity against A. aegypti L. larvae with mortality from the concentration of 20 μg.mL-1 in 48 h. In relation to the chemical analysis, it presented a mixture of monoterpenes, with the major constituent being pulegone (57.05%), followed by the other constituents verbenone (16.92%), trans-menthone (8.57%), cis-menthone), piperitone (2.83%), 3-octanol (2.35%) and isopulegol (1.47%). The oil showed satisfactory antimicrobial activity against P. aeruginosa and E. coli bacteria. In addition, despite the lack of antioxidant activity by the DPPH radical capture method, the oil showed moderate cytotoxic activity against A. salina L. In summary, these results provide subsidies for future EO O. majorana L. studies in order to enhance the use of organic compounds with larvicidal activity against the A. aegypti L. mosquito, as well as the importance of the study of bioactive plant products that do not pollute the environment and that do not cause harm to human health.

Supporting information

S1 File. Mass spectrum of O. majorana essential oil, obtained by GC-MS as compared to the spectrum of the equipment library NIST05 e WILEY'S and Adams (2017).

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

To the Laboratory of Microbiology (LEMA) of UNIFAP under the responsibility of Prof. Aldo Proietti Aparecido Júnior.

To the Pro-rector of Research and Post-graduation—PROPESPG. Federal University of Amapá UNIFAP.

To the Laboratory Adolpho Ducke under the responsibility of Eloise Andrade.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Amapá Foundation for Research Support (FAPEAP). To the Research Program of SUS - PPSUS - Ministry of Health - Responsible for financing the research project. Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) / Ministry of Education (MEC) and to the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development - CNPQ - for the promotion of scholarships to students participating in the project.

References

  • 1.paho.org [internet] World Health Organization: Neglected, tropical and vector borne disease—dengue. c2017 [cited 2018 dec 28]. http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_topics&view=article&id=1&Itemid=40734.
  • 2.Bhatt S, Gething PW, Brady OL, Messina JP, Farlow AW, Moyes CL, et al. The global distribution and burden of dengue. Nature. 25 of April of 2013; 496 (7446): 504–7. 10.1038/nature12060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gonçalves NVS, Rebêlo JMM. [Epidemiological aspects of dengue in the municipality of São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil, 1997–2002]. Cadernos de Saúde Pública. 2004; 20: 1424–1431. Português. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Barbosa IR, Araújo LF, Carlota FC, Araújo RS, Maciel IJ. [Epidemiology of dengue fever in the State of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, 2000 to 2009]. Epidemiol Serv Saúde. 2012; 21: 149–57. Português. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Linnaeus C. Reise nach Palästina in den Jahren van. Salvii, Stockholm: 1762. 1–619. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Vasconcelos PFC. Doença pelo vírus Zika: um novo problema emergente nas Américas? Rev. PanAmaz. Saúde. 2015; 6: 9–10. Português. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lima-Camara T. N. [Emerging arboviroses and new challenges for public health in Brazil]. Ver Saúde Pública. 7 of March of 2016; 50 (36): 1–7. 10.1590/S1518-8787.2016050006791 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Zara A. L.; dos Santos S. M.; Oliveira-Fernandes E. S.; Carvalho R. G.; Coelho G. E. [Strategies for controlling Aedes aegypti: a review]. Epidemiol Serv Saúde. 2016; 25 (2): 391–404. Português. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Araújo VEM, Bezerra JMT, Frederico FA, Passos VMA, Carneiro M. [Increased burden of dengue in Brazil and federated units, 2000 and 2015: analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015]. Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia. 2017; 20: 205–216. Português. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Wang X, Li JL, Xing HJ, Xu SW. Review of the toxicology of atrazine and chlorpyrifos onfish. Journal Northeast Agric Univ, 2011, (18): 88–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mohammed MP, Penmethsa KK. Assessment of pesticide residues in surface waters of Godavari delta, India. Journal Mater Environ Sci, 2014, (5): 33–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Djogbénou L. Vector controls methods against malaria and vector resistance to insecticides in Africa. Med Trop, 2009, (69): 160–4. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.El Ouali Lalami A, El-Akhal F, El Amri N, Maniar S, Faraj C. State resistance of the mosquito Culex pipiens towards temephos central Morocco. Bull Soc Pathol Exot Ses Fil, 2014, (107): 194–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Azizi A, Yan F, Honermeier B. Herbage yield, essential oil content and composition of three oregano (Origanum vulgare L.) populations as affected by soil moisture regimes and nitrogen supply. Ind Crops Prod 2009, (29): 554–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Abdel-Massih R. M. and Abraham A., “Extracts of Rosmarinus officinalis, Rheum rhaponticum, and Origanum majorana exhibit significant anti-staphylococcal activity,” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, vol. 5, pp. 819–828, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Busatta C., Vidal R. S., Popiolski A. S., et al. , “Application of Origanum majorana L. essential oil as an antimicrobial agent in sausage,” Food Microbiology, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 207–211, 2008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Prakash B., Singh P., Kedia A., and Dubey N. K., “Assessment of some essential oils as food preservatives based on antifungal, antiaflatoxin, antioxidant activities and in vivo efficacy in food system,” Food Research International, vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 201–208, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Linnaeus C. Species Plantarum. 1753. 590 p.
  • 19.MARTINOV II. Tekhno-Botanicheskīĭ Slovarʹ: na latinskom i rossīĭskom iazykakh. Sanktpeterburgie. 1820.
  • 20.Mitropoulou G, Fitsiou E, Stavropoulou E, Papavassilopoulou E, Vamvakias M, Pappa A, et al. Composition, antimicrobial, antioxidant, and antiproliferative activity of Origanum dictamnus (dittany) essential oil. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease. 6 of May of 2015; 26: (1–9): 26543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Bina F, Rahimi R. Sweet Marjoram: A Review of Ethnopharmacology, Phytochemistry, and Biological Activities. J Evid Based Int Med. 2016; 22 (1): 175–185. 10.1177/2156587216650793 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Al Dhaheri Y., Attoub S., Arafat K., et al. , “Anti-metastatic and anti-tumor growth effects of Origanum majorana on highly metastatic human breast cancer cells: inhibition of NFκB signaling and reduction of nitric oxide production,” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 7, Article IDe68808, 2013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Rao S., Timsina B., and Nadumane V. K., “Evaluation of the anticancer potentials of Origanum marjorana on fibrosarcoma (HT-1080) cell line,” Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. S389–S394, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ramadan G., El-Beih N.M., and Zahra M. M., “Egyptian sweet marjoram leaves protect against genotoxicity, immunosuppression and other complications induced by cyclophosphamide in albino rats,” British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 108, no. 6, pp. 1059–1068, 2012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Khan J.A., Jalal J. A., Ioanndes C., and Moselhy S. S., “Impact of aqueous doash extract on urinary mutagenicity in rats exposed to heterocyclic amines,” Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 142–148, 2013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Vági E., Simándi B., Suhajda A., and Hethelyi E., “Essential oil composition and antimicrobial activity of Origanum majorana L. extracts obtained with ethyl alcohol and supercritical carbon dioxide,” Food Research International, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 51–57, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ebrahimi M., Khosravi-Darani K., 2013. Essential oils as natural food preservatives: antimicrobial and antioxidant applications In: Doughari James (Ed.), Antimicrobials from Nature: Effective Control Agents for Drug Resistant Pathogens. Transworld Research Network, Kerala, India. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bassalé J.R.N., Juliani H.R., (2012). Essencial oils in combination and their antimicrobial properties. Molecules, 3989–4006. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dussault D, Vu KD, Lacroix M. In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activities of various comercial essential oils, oleoresin and pure compounds against food pathogens and application in ham. Meat Science. 2014; 96 (1): 514–520. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.08.015 ;. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Pereira ÁIS, Pereira AGS, Sobrinho OPL, Cantanhede EKP, Siqueira LFS. [Antimicrobial activity in the control of larvae of the mosquito Aedes aegypti: Homogenization of the essential oils of linalool and eugenol]. Educ. quím. 2014; 25 (4): 446–449. 10.1016/S0187-893X(14)70065-5 Português. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Anvisa. National Health Surveillance Agency. [Brazilian Pharmacopoeia], 5a ed.; Fiocruz: Brasília, Brasil 2010, pp. 1–545. Português.
  • 32.Adams RP. Identification of Essential Oil Components by Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry, 4.1 ed. Biology Department: Baylor Universit, 2017.
  • 33.World Health Organization (WHO) [internet] Geneva: Guidelines for Laboratory and Field Testing of Mosquito Larvicides. 2005c –[cited 4 december 2018]. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/69101/1/WHO_CDS_WHOPES_GCDPP_2005.13.pdf.
  • 34.Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) [internet] Pennsylvania: Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing supplement M100. 2018 –[cited 5 january 2019]. https://clsi.org/media/1930/m100ed28_sample.pdf.
  • 35.Sousa CMM, Silva HR, Junior GMV, Ayres MCC, Costa CLS, Araújo DS, et al. [Total phenols and antioxidant activity of five medicinal plants]. Química Nova. 2007; 30 (2): 351–355. Português. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Lopes-Lutz D, Alviano DS, Alviano CS, Kolodziejczyk PP. Screening of chemical composition, antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of Artemisia essential oils. Phytochemistry. 2008; 69 (8): 1732–8. 10.1016/j.phytochem.2008.02.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Andrade MA, Cardoso GM, Batista RL, Mallet TCA, Machado FMS. [Essential Oils of Cymbopogon Nardus, Cinnamomum Zeylanicum and Zingiber Officinale: composition, antioxidant and antibacterial activities]. J Agron Sci. 2012; 43 (2): 399–408. Português. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Araújo MGF, Cunha RW, Veneziani RCS. Preliminary phytochemical study and toxicological bioassay against larvae of Artemia salina Leach. of extract obtained from fruits of Solanum lycocarpum A. St.-Hill (Solanaceae). J Basic Appl Pharm Sci [intenet]. 1 May 2010. [cited on 12 february 2019]; 31 (2): 205–209. https://repositorio.unesp.br/handle/11449/71676. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Lôbo KMS, Athayde ACR, Silva AMA, Rodrigues FFG, Lôbo IS, Bezerra DAC, et al. Evaluation of the antibacterial activity and phytochemical prospection of Solanum paniculatum Lam. And Operculina hamiltonii (G. Don) D. F. Austin e Staples, from the semi-arid region of Paraíba. Braz J Med Plants. 2010; 12 (2): 227–233. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Araújo TAS, Castro VTNA, Solon LGS, Silva GA, Almeida MG, Costa JGM, et al. Does rainfall affect the antioxidant capacity and production of phenolic compounds of an important medicinal species?. Ind Crops Prod. 15 December 2015; 76: 550–556, 2015. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.07.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Estell RE, Fredrickson EL, James DK. Effect of light intensity and wavelength on concentration of plant secondary metabolites in the leaves of Flourensia cernua. Biochem Syst Ecol. 2016. April; 65: 108–114. 10.1016/j.bse.2016.02.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Lima TC, Silva TK, Silva FL, Barbosa JMJ, Marques MO, Santos RL, et al. Atividade larvicida do óleo essencial de Mentha × villosa Hudson, rotundifolona e derivados. Chemosphere. 2014. June; 104: 37–43. 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Souza AVV, Santos US, Carvalho JRS, Barbosa BHS, Canuto KM, Rodrigues THS. Chemical Composition of Lippia schaueriana Essential Leaf Fight Mart. Collected in the Caatinga Area. Molecules. [preprint]. 2018. [posted 2018 september 27; accepted 2018 july 6; reiceved 2018 may 23]: [6p.] https://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/183650/1/Lippia-schaueriana-molecules-23-02480-3.pdf. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 44.Macêdo DG, Souza MA, Morais-Braga MFB, Coutinho HDM, Santos ATL, Cruz RP, et al. Effect of seasonality on chemical profile and antifungal activity of essential oil isolated from leaves Psidium salutare (Kunth) O. Berg. Peer J. 1 November 2018; 6 (1–19). 10.7717/peerj.5476 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Stoppacher N, Kluger B, Zeilinger S, Krska R, Schuhmacher R. Identification and profiling of volatile metabolites of the biocontrol fungus Trichoderma atroviride by HS-SPME-GC-MS. J Microbiol Methods. 2010; 81 (2): 187–193. 10.1016/j.mimet.2010.03.011 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kessler A, Baldwin IT. Defensive function of herbivore-induced plant volatile emissions in nature. Science. 2001; 291 (5511): 2141–4. 10.1126/science.291.5511.2141 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Takshak S, Agrawal SB. The role of supplemental ultraviolet-B radiation in altering the metabolite profile, essential oil content and composition, and free radical scavenging activities of Coleus forskohlii, an indigenous medicinal plant. Environ Sci Pollut Res Inst. 2016; 23 (8): 7324–37. 10.1007/s11356-015-5965-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Bitu V, Costa J, Rogrigues F, Colares A, Coutinho H, Botelho M, et al. Effect of collection time on composition of essential oil of LippiagracilisSchauer (Verbenaceae) growing in Northeast Brazil. Journal of Essential Oil Bearing Plants. [preprint]. 2015. [posted 2016 jul 09; received 2012 aug 08; cited 2019 jan 21]: [647–653 p.] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0972060X.2014.935043 [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Komalamisra N, Trongtokit Y, Rongsriyam Y, Apiwathnasorn C. Screening for larvicidal activity in some Thai plants against four mosquito vector species. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2005; 36 (6): 1412–22. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Magalhães LAM, Lima MP, Marques MOM, Facanali R, Pinto ACS, Tadei WP. Chemical composition and larvicidal activity against Aedes aegypti larvae of essential oils from four Guarea species. Molecules. 2010; 15 (8): 5734–5741. 10.3390/molecules15085734 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Dias CN, Moraes DFC. Essential oils and their compounds as Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae) larvicides: review. Parasitol Res. 2014; 113 (2): 565–92. 10.1007/s00436-013-3687-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Cantrell CL, Pridgeon JW, Fronczek FR, Becnel JJ. Structure activity relationship studies on derivatives of Eudesmanolides from Inula helenium as toxicants against Aedes aegypti larvae and adults. Chem Biodivers. 2010; 7 (7): 1681–97. 10.1002/cbdv.201000031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Souza TM, Cunha AP, Farias DF, Machado LK, Morais SM, Ricardo NMPS, et al. Insecticidal activity against Aedes aegypti of m-pentadecadienyl-phenol isolated from Myracrodruon urundeuva seeds. Pest Manag Sci. 2012; 68 (10): 1380–4. 10.1002/ps.3316 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kumar P, Mishra S, Malik AS. Insecticidal properties of Mentha species: A review. Ind Crops Prod. 2011. July; 34: 802–817. 10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.02.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Omolo MO, Okinyo D, Ndiege IO, Lwande W, Hassanali A. Fumigant toxicity of the essential oils of some African plants against Anopheles gambiae sensu stricto. Phytomedicine. 2005; 12 (3):241–6. 10.1016/j.phymed.2003.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.El-Akhal F, Greche H, Ouazzani CF, Guemmouh R, El Ouali Lalami A. Chemical composition and larvicidal activity of Culex pipiens essential oil of Thymus vulgaris grown in Morocco. JMater Environ Sci 2015;1:214–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.El-Akhal F, El Ouali Lalami A, Ez Zoubi Y, Greche H, Guemmouh R. Chemical composition and larvicidal activity of essential oil of Origanum majorana (Lamiaceae) cultivated in Morocco against Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae). Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2014;4:746–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Szczepanik M, Zawitowska B, Szumny A. Insecticidal activities of Thymus vulgaris essential oil and its components (thymol and carvacrol) against larvae of lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus Panzer (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae). Allelopathy J 2012;30:129–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Cavalcanti ESB, de Morais SM, Lima MAA, Santana EWP. Larvicidal activity of essential oils from Brazilian plants against Aedes aegypti L. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2004;99:541–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pavela R, Kaffková K, Kumsta M. Chemical composition and larvicidal activity of essential oils from different Mentha L. and Pulegium species against Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae). Plant Protect. Sci. 2014; (50): 36–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Koliopoulos G., Pitarokili D., Kioulos E., Michaelakis A., Tzakou O. (2010): Chemical composition and larvicidal evaluation of Mentha, Salvia and Melissa essential oils against the West Nile virus mosquito Culex pipiens. Parasitology Research, 107: 327–375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Lucia A, Zerba E, Masuh H. Knockdown and larvicidal activity of six monoterpenes against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) and their structure-activity relationships. Parasitol Research. 2013, (112): 4267–4272. 10.1007/s00436-013-3618-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.El-Akhal F, Guemmouh R, Maniar S, Taghzouti K, Lalami A E O, Larvicidal Activity of Essential Oils of Thymus Vulgaris and Origanum Majorana (Lamiaceae) Against of the Malaria Vector Anopheles Labranchiae (Diptera: Culicidae). 2016, International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. (8); 372–376, issue 3. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Pavela R, Sedlák P. Post-application temperature as a factor influencing the insecticidal activity of essential oil from Thymus vulgaris. Industrial Crops e Products. 2018, (113); 46–49. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Pavela R. History, presence and perspective of using plant extracts as commercial botanical insecticides and farm products for protection against insects–a review. Plant Prot. Sci. 2016, (52): 229–241. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Satyan RS, Malarvannan S, Eganathan P, Rajalakshmi S, Parida A. Growth inhibitory activity of fatty acid methyl esters in the whole seed oil of Madagascar periwinkle (Apocyanaceae) against Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Econ Entomol. 2009; 102 (3): 1197–202. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Chere JMC, Dar MA, Pandit RS. Evaluation of Some Essential Oils against the Larvae of House Fly, Musca domestica by Using Residual Film Method. Biotechnol Microb. 16 April 2018; 9 (1): 555752. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Rosato A, Carocci A, Catalano A, Clodoveo ML, Franchini C, Corbo F, et al. Elucidation of the synergistic action of Mentha Piperita essential oil with common antimicrobials. PLoS One. 1 January 2018; 13 (8):e0200902 10.1371/journal.pone.0200902 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Alvarez-Ordóñez A.; Broussolle V.; Colin P.; Nguyen-The C.; PRIETO M. The adaptive response of bacterial food-borne pathogens in the environment, host and food: implications for food safety. Int J Food Microbiol. 20 November 2015; 213: 99–109. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Duru ME, Ozturk M, Ugur AU, Ceylan O. The constituents of essential oil and in vitro antimicrobial activity of Micromeria cilicica from Turkey. J Ethnopharmacol. 94 (1): 43–48. 10.1016/j.jep.2004.03.053 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Siano F, Catalfamo M, Cautela D, Servillo L, Castaldo D. Analysis of pulegone and its enanthiomeric distribution in mint-flavoured food products. Food Addit Contam. 2005; 22 (3): 197–203. 10.1080/02652030500041581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Burt S. Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods-a review. Int J Food Microbiol. 1 August 2004; 94 (3): 223–253. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Singh R, Shushni MAM, Belkheir A. Antibacterial and antioxidant activities of Mentha piperita L. Arab J Chem. May 2015; 8 (3): 322–328. 10.1016/j.arabjc.2011.01.019 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Thosar N, Basak S, Bahadure RN, Rajurkar M. Antimicrobial efficacy of five essential oils against oral pathogens: an in vitro study. Eur J Dent. September 2013; 7 (1): 71–77. 10.4103/1305-7456.119078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Turchi B, Mancini S, Pistelli L, Najar B, Cerri D, Fratini F. Sub-inhibitory stress with essential oil affects enterotoxins production and essential oil susceptibility in Staphylococcus aureus. Nat Prod Res. Mach 2017; 32 (6): 682–688. 10.1080/14786419.2017.1338284 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Santos JMP. [Adaptation and Cross-Adaptation of Listeria Spp. Essential Oils from Condensed Plants and Acid Stress]. [dissertação]. Programa de Pós-Graduação em Plantas Medicinais, Aromáticas e Condimentares: Universidade de Lavras; 2018. Português.
  • 77.Chapman JS. Desinfectant resistence mechanisms, cross-resistance, and coresistance. International Int Biodeterior Biodegradation. June 2003; 51 (1): 271–276. 10.1016/S0964-8305(03)00044-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Kelsey N. A.; Wilkins H. M.; Linseman D. Nutraceutical Antioxidants as Novel Neuroprotective Agents. Molecules. 3 November 2010; 15 (11): 7792–814. 10.3390/molecules15117792 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Godói AA, Ishikawa BR, porto Ark, Roel RA, Xavier NCP, Yano M. [Evaluation of antioxidant, antibacterial and cytotoxic activity of Urera aurantiaca]. Rev Bras Farm [internet]. August 2011. [cited on 22 january 2019]; 92 (3): [198–202 2011]. http://www.rbfarma.org.br/files/rbf-2011-92-3-19.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Rodrigues JSQ. [Infusions based on leaves of passifloras of the cerrado: phenolic compounds, antioxidant activity in vitro and sensorial profile]. [dissertação] Universidade de Brasília. 2012. Português.
  • 81.Beatović D, Krstić-Milošević D, Trifunović S, Šiljegović J, Glamoćlija J, Ristić ME. Chemical composition, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of the essential oils of twelve cultivars of Ocimum basilicum L. grown in Serbia. Rec Nat Prod. [received 2012 augu 24; revised 2013 octo 22; cited 22 january 2019]: [62–75]. https://www.acgpubs.org/doc/201808071238455-RNP-EO_1208-054.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Singh B, Singh JP, Kaur A, Singh N. Phenolic compounds as beneficial phytochemicals in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) peel: a review. Food Chemistry. 30 September 2018; 261: 75–86. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.04.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Bednarczuk VO, Verdam MCS, Miguel MD, Miguel OG. [In vitro and in vivo tests used in the toxicological screening of natural products]. Visão Acadêmica [preprint]. 2010. [cited 2019 january 23]. https://revistas.ufpr.br/academica/article/view/21366/14087 10.5380/acd.v11i2.21366. Português. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Nguta JM, Mbaria JM, Gakuya DW, Gathumbi PK, Kabasa JD, KIAMA SG. Biological screening of kenya medicinal plants using Artemia salina L. (Artemiidae). Pharmacologyonline. [preprint] 2011. [cited 2019 january 23] http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/13906. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Marreiro RO, Bandeira MFCL, Almeida MC, Coelho CN, Venâncio GN, Conde NCO. [Evaluation of the cytotoxicity of a buccal mouthwash containing Libidibia iron extract] Braz Res Pediatric Dent Int Clinic. [preprint]. 2014 [cited 2019 january 23] file:///C:/Users/usuario/Downloads/AvaliaodacitotoxicidadedeumenxaguatriobucalcontendoextratodeL.ferrea%20(1).pdf 10.4034/PBOCI.2014.14s3.04. Português. [DOI]

Decision Letter 0

Horacio Bach

8 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-23621

Evaluation of larvicidal potential against larvae of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and of the antimicrobial activity of essential oil obtained from the leaves of Origanum majorana L.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr de Almeida,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The reviewers of your study require a significant change in the manuscript as detailed below. Please provide a letter addressing all of the comments raised by the reviewers.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Feb 22 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Horacio Bach

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:

https://peerj.com/articles/5476.pdf

In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "No"

a. Please provide an amended Funding Statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support received during this specific study (whether external or internal to your organization) as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

b. Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funder. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

c. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include authors Camila Mendes da Conceição Vieira Araújo and Talita Fernandes Sobral.

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

"To the Amapá Foundation for Research Support (FAPEAP). To the Research Program of SUS - PPSUS - Ministry of Health. To the Coordination of Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)/Ministry of Education (MEC). To the National Council of Scientific and Technological Development - CNPQ. To the Laboratory of Microbiology (LEMA) of UNIFAP under the responsibility of Prof. Aldo Proietti Aparecido Júnior. To the Pro-rector of research and post-graduation - PROPESPG. Federal University of Amapá UNIFAP. To the Laboratory Adolpho Ducke under the responsibility of Eloise Andrade."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

"No"

6. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

This manuscript deals with the chemical composition of Origanum majorana essential

oil and its mosquitocidal, antimicrobial, cytotoxic and antioxidant potential. The results of this laboratory study are interesting in that they extend our knowledge about larvicidal potential against Aedes aegypti and antimicrobial activity of Origanum majorana essential oil.

Further down you will find some suggestions of major importance that would probably benefit the manuscript.

Line 126: In the statistical analysis for the larvicidal bioassays it should be noted that the dose response data were analyzed by probit analysis and that LC50, LC90 values along with the confidential limits and the slope were generated.

Line 255: In the results concerning the larvicidal effect against mosquitoes, I propose to add a table with the LC50 and LC90 values with the confidential limits, along with the slope values and x2 and R2, for the treatment with the essential oil and the positive control at 24 and 48 hours in order for the reader to compare statistically the performance of the treatments.

Line 105: As a major drawback of the study design is that the major compounds, that were identified in the essential oil used, were note tested against Aedes aegypti larvae. The performance of the major compounds would help to interpret the toxicity of the essential oil and identify toxic active substances against Aedes aeypti larvae. Please comment.

Lines 273-274: The discussion concerning the larvicidal effect of the essential oil should be elaborated more presenting literature data for the larvicidal effect of O. majorana essential oil against other mosquito species.

Lines 279-282: The larvicidal effect of the major compounds of the essential oil used, namely pulegone, verbenone, trans-menthone, cis-menthone, piperitone, 3-octanol and isopulegol against primarily Aedes aegypti and other mosquito species from the literature should be discussed, in order to interpret the action of the current essential oil against Aedes aegypti.

Reviewer #2: The authors studied the larvicidal, antimicrobial, cytotoxic and

antioxidant potential of Origanum majorana essential oil.

Although the topic is relatively interesting and is suitable for publication in PONE, the MS shows some defects that prevent me from recommending the MS for publication.

Major comments:

1. In the introduction, explain goals of the work better. Why did you choose plant - Origanum majorana and why EO and not need extracts - in terms of industrial use of plants. What is the practical impact of work? How does antioxidant capacity and bactericidal activity relate to insecticidal activity? Why other non-target organisms have not been selected.

2. Results: The authors give lethal doses; however, if they want to find correct and relevant values, they should use the probit analysis and compare the CI95 intervals. Only in this way can they claim that a significant difference or progression in efficacy in time has been achieved. The term Positive Control (Table 2) is not correct. This term is used to describe the control variant where a commercial insecticide has been used (to compare biological efficacy of a standard insecticide and EOs). It is not clear if the percentages (eg Table 5) were transformed before statistical analysis. The calculation of LD50 (Table 2) for 48 hours is inaccurate because the lowest mortality was 57%, and for 24 hours the mortality for the two different concentrations was the same (40%) - it is not clear which of the values was taken to calculate the lethal concentration.

3. The discussion should be improved. Chemical composition is very important for the discussion and for understanding the mechanism of action. The authors should give a better comparison of their achieved efficacy to other authors who studied EOs with a majority content of pulegone (see e.g. DOI: 10.17221/48/2013-PPS; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.06.050 ect.) or EOs obtained from Origanum majorana against mosquitoes (see e.g. DOI: 10.12980/APJTB.4.2014APJTB-2014-0392; Int J Pharm Pharm Sci, Vol 8, Issue 3, 372-376 ect.). EO efficacy can be influenced by various external factors including the post-application temperature – this should be discussed (see e.g. DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.01.021). The efficacy of sublethal doses or concentrations has been studied – and this should be discussed, as well. The implementation method is yet another aspect to be discussed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 17;15(7):e0235740. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235740.r003

Author response to Decision Letter 0


29 Feb 2020

Response to Revisores

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

This manuscript deals with the chemical composition of Origanum majorana essential oil and its mosquitocidal, antimicrobial, cytotoxic and antioxidant potential. The results of this laboratory study are interesting in that they extend our knowledge about larvicidal potential against Aedes aegypti and antimicrobial activity of Origanum majorana essential oil. Further down you will find some suggestions of major importance that would probably benefit the manuscript.

Line 126: In the statistical analysis for the larvicidal bioassays it should be noted that the dose response data were analyzed by probit analysis and that LC50, LC90 values along with the confidential limits and the slope were generated.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 158-162 and 163.

Line 255: In the results concerning the larvicidal effect against mosquitoes, I propose to add a table with the LC50 and LC90 values with the confidential limits, along with the slope values and x2 and R2, for the treatment with the essential oil and the positive control at 24 and 48 hours in order for the reader to compare statistically the performance of the treatments.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 305-312.

Line 105: As a major drawback of the study design is that the major compounds, that were identified in the essential oil used, were note tested against Aedes aegypti larvae. The performance of the major compounds would help to interpret the toxicity of the essential oil and identify toxic active substances against Aedes aeypti larvae. Please comment.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 132-134.

Lines 273-274: The discussion concerning the larvicidal effect of the essential oil should be elaborated more presenting literature data for the larvicidal effect of O. majorana essential oil against other mosquito species.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 315 – 328.

Lines 279-282: The larvicidal effect of the major compounds of the essential oil used, namely pulegone, verbenone, trans-menthone, cis-menthone, piperitone, 3-octanol and isopulegol against primarily Aedes aegypti and other mosquito species from the literature should be discussed, in order to interpret the action of the current essential oil against Aedes aegypti.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 293 – 302.

Reviewer #2: The authors studied the larvicidal, antimicrobial, cytotoxic and antioxidant potential of Origanum majorana essential oil. Although the topic is relatively interesting and is suitable for publication in PONE, the MS shows some defects that prevent me from recommending the MS for publication. Major comments:

1. In the introduction, explain goals of the work better. Why did you choose plant - Origanum majorana and why EO and not need extracts - in terms of industrial use of plants. What is the practical impact of work? How does antioxidant capacity and bactericidal activity relate to insecticidal activity? Why other non-target organisms have not been selected.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines has 53–61 and 86-93.

2. Results: The authors give lethal doses; however, if they want to find correct and relevant values, they should use the probit analysis and compare the CI95 intervals. Only in this way can they claim that a significant difference or progression in efficacy in time has been achieved.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines -310-317.

The term Positive Control (Table 2) is not correct. This term is used to describe the control variant where a commercial insecticide has been used (to compare biological efficacy of a standard insecticide and EOs).

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 308 - 309.

It is not clear if the percentages (eg Table 5) were transformed before statistical analysis.

No. The percentages were calculated before statistical analysis. Statistical analyzes were performed based on percentages.

The calculation of LC50 (Table 2) for 48 hours is inaccurate because the lowest mortality was 57%, and for 24 hours the mortality for the two different concentrations was the same (40%) - it is not clear which of the values was taken to calculate the lethal concentration.

The statistical analysis was redone to understand the data more precisely. The requirement has been met, as can be seen on lines 303–305. The two 40% concentrations in Table 2 remain the same in 24 hours, as they are part of the larvae mortality control, but do not compromise the OE larvicidal activity, being more active in 24 h than in 48 h. Mortality decreased dramatically during 48 hours and in the static analysis it presented estimated values with very low and insignificant variation in larval mortality, but this result does not compromise the effective larvicidal activity of the EO.

3. The discussion should be improved. Chemical composition is very important for the discussion and for understanding the mechanism of action. The authors should give a better comparison of their achieved efficacy to other authors who studied EOs with a majority content of pulegone (see e.g. DOI: 10.17221/48/2013 PPS; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.06.050 ect.) or EOs obtained from Origanum majorana against mosquitoes (see e.g. DOI: 10.12980/APJTB.4.2014APJTB-2014-0392; Int J Pharm Pharm Sci, Vol 8, Issue 3, 372-376 ect.)

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 323-335 e 341–353.

EO efficacy can be influenced by various external factors including the post-application temperature – this should be discussed (see e.g. DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.01.021). The efficacy of sublethal doses or concentrations has been studied – and this should be discussed, as well. The implementation method is yet another aspect to be discussed.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines -354-377.

Tables:

Line 429: Table 3 changed to Table 4

Line 435: Table 4 changed to Table 5

Line 4561: Table 4 changed to Table 6

References

Line 511 correction

3. Gonçalves NVS, Rebêlo JMM. [Epidemiological aspects of dengue in the municipality of São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil, 1997-2002]. Public Health Notebooks. 2004; 20: 1424-1431. Doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2004000500039.

Line 516 correction

4. Barbosa IR, Araújo LF, Carlota FC, Araújo RS, Maciel IJ. [Epidemiology of dengue fever in the State of Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, 2000 to 2009]. Epidemiol Serv Health 2012; 21: 149-57. Doi:V10.5123/S1679-49742012000100015.

Line 524: correction

6. Vasconcelos PFC. Zika virus disease: a new emerging problem in the Americas? Rev. PanAmaz. Saúde. 2015; 6: 9-10. Doi: 10.5123/S2176-62232015000200001.

Line 856: correction

78. Santos JMP. [Adaptation and Cross-Adaptation of Listeria Spp. Essential Oils from Condensed Plants and Acid Stress]. [dissertation]. Postgraduate Program in Medicinal, Aromatic and Spice Plants: University of Lavras; 2018.

Line 874: correction

82. Rodrigues JSQ. [Infusions based on leaves of passifloras of the cerrado: phenolic compounds, antioxidant activity in vitro and sensorial profile]. [dissertation] Universidade de Brasília. 2012.

Line 629: correction

31. Anvisa. National Health Surveillance Agency. [Brazilian Pharmacopoeia], 5a ed.; Fiocruz: Brasília, Brasil 2010, pp. 1-545. Português.

Line 655: correction.

37. Andrade MA, Cardoso GM, Batista RL, Mallet TCA, Machado FMS. [Essential Oils of Cymbopogon Nardus, Cinnamomum Zeylanicum and Zingiber Officinale: composition, antioxidant and antibacterial activities]. J Agron Sci. 2012; 43 (2): 399-408. Doi: 10.1590/S1806-66902012000200025. Português.

Line 532-567 Added in References.

8. Zara, AL.; Santos, SM. dos; Oliveira-Fernandes, ES.; Carvalho, RG.; Coelho, GE. [Strategies for controlling Aedes aegypti: a review]. Epidemiol Serv Health. 2016; 25 (2): 391-404. Doi: 10.5123/s1679-49742016000200017.

9. Araújo VEM, Bezerra JMT, Frederico FA, Passos VMA, Carneiro M. [Increased burden of dengue in Brazil and federated units, 2000 and 2015: analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015]. Brazilian Journal of Epidemiology. 2017; 20: 205-216. Doi: 10.1590/1980-5497201700050017.

10. Wang X, Li JL ,Xing HJ, Xu SW. Review of the toxicology of atrazine and chlorpyrifos onfish. Journal Northeast Agric Univ, 2011, (18): 88-92.

11. Mohammed MP, Penmethsa KK. Assessment of pesticide residues in surface waters of Godavari delta, India. Journal Mater Environ Sci, 2014, (5): 33-6.

12. Djogbénou L. Vector controls methods against malaria and vector resistance to insecticides in Africa. Med Trop, 2009, (69): 160-4.

13. El Ouali Lalami A, El-Akhal F, El Amri N, Maniar S, Faraj C. State resistance of the mosquito Culex pipiens towards temephos central Morocco. Bull Soc Pathol Exot Ses Fil, 2014, (107): 194-8.

14. Azizi A, Yan F, Honermeier B. Herbage yield, essential oil content and composition of three oregano (Origanum vulgare L.) populations as affected by soil moisture regimes and nitrogen supply. Ind Crops Prod 2009, (29): 554-61.

15. Abdel-Massih RM, Abraham A. Extracts of Rosmarinus officinalis, Rheum rhaponticum, and Origanum majorana exhibit significant anti-staphylococcal activity, International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, 2014, (5): 819– 828.

16. Busatta C, Vidal RS, Popiolski AS. Application of Origanum majorana L. essential oil as an antimicrobial agent in sausage. Food Microbiology. 2008, 25 (1): 207–211.

17. Prakash B, Singh P, Kedia A, Dubey NK. Assessment of some essential oils as food preservatives based on antifungal, antiaflatoxin, antioxidant activities and in vivo efficacy in food system. Food Research International, 2012, 49.(1): 201–208.

Line 588-616 Added in References.

22. Dhaheri YAl, Attoub S, Arafat K. Anti-metastatic and anti-tumor growth effects of Origanum majorana on highly metastatic human breast cancer cells: inhibition of NFκB signaling and reduction of nitric oxide production. PLoS ONE, 2013, 8, (7) Article IDe68808.

23. Rao S, Timsina B, Nadumane VK. Evaluation of the anticancer potentials of Origanum marjorana on fibrosarcoma (HT-1080) cell line. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease, 2014, 4 (1): S389–S394.

24. Ramadan G, El-Beih NM, Zahra MM. Egyptian sweet marjoram leaves protect against genotoxicity, immunosuppression and other complications induced by cyclophosphamide in albino rats. British Journal of Nutrition, 2012, 108,.(6): 1059– 1068.

25..Khan JA, Jalal J.A, Ioanndes C,. Moselhy SS. Impact of aqueous doash extract on urinary mutagenicity in rats exposed to heterocyclic amines. Toxicology and Industrial Health, 2013, 29, (2): 142–148.

26. V´agi E, Sim´andi B, Suhajda´ Aethelyi´ EH. Essential oil composition and antimicrobial activity of Origanum majorana L. extracts obtained with ethyl alcohol and supercritical carbon dioxide, Food Research International, 2005, 38 (1): 51–57.

27. Ebrahimi, M, Khosravi-Darani, K, Essential oils as natural food preservatives: antimicrobial and antioxidant applications. In: Doughari, James (Ed.), Antimicrobials from Nature: Effective Control Agents for Drug Resistant Pathogens. 2013, Transworld Research Network, Kerala, (2): 37-661, ISBN: 978-81-7895-603-9

28. Bassalé, JRN., Juliani, H.R., (2012). Essencial oils in combination and their antimicrobial properties. Molecules, 3989-4006.

30. Pereira ÁIS, Pereira AGS, Sobrinho OPL, Cantanhede EKP, Siqueira LFS. [Antimicrobial activity in the control of larvae of the mosquito Aedes aegypti: Homogenization of the essential oils of linalool and eugenol]. Chemical education 2014; 25 (4): 446-449. Doi: 10.1016/S0187-893X(14)70065-5.

Line 754-805 Added in References.

56. El-Akhal F, Greche H, Ouazzani CF, Guemmouh R, El Ouali Lalami A. Chemical composition and larvicidal activity of Culex pipiens essential oil of Thymus vulgaris grown in Morocco. JMater Environ Sci 2015;1:214-9.

57. El-Akhal F, El Ouali Lalami A, Ez Zoubi Y, Greche H, Guemmouh R. Chemical composition and larvicidal activity of essential oil of Origanum majorana (Lamiaceae) cultivated in Morocco against Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae). Asian Pac J Trop Biomed2014;4:746-50.

58. Szczepanik M, Zawitowska B, Szumny A. Insecticidal activities of Thymus vulgaris essential oil and its components (thymol and carvacrol) against larvae of lesser mealworm, Alphitobius diaperinus Panzer (Coleoptera Tenebrionidae). Allelopathy J2012;30:129-42.

59. Cavalcanti ESB, de Morais SM, Lima MAA, Santana EWP. Larvicidal activity of essential oils from Brazilian plants against Aedes aegypti L. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz 2004;99:54 1-4.

60. Pavela R, Kaffková K, Kumsta M. Chemical composition and larvicidal activity of essential oils from different Mentha L. and Pulegium species against Culex quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae). Plant Protect. Sci. 2014; (50): 36–42. DOI: 10.17221/48/2013-PPS

61. Koliopoulos G., Pitarokili D., Kioulos E., Michaelakis A., Tzakou O. (2010): Chemical composition and larvicidal evaluation of Mentha, Salvia and Melissa essential oils against the West Nile virus mosquito Culex pipiens. Parasitology Research, 107: 327-375.

62. Lucia A, Zerba E, Masuh H. Knockdown and larvicidal activity of six monoterpenes against Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) and their structure-activity relationships. Parasitol Research. 2013, (112): 4267-4272. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-013-3618-6.

63. El-Akhal F, Guemmouh R, Maniar S, Taghzouti K, Lalami A E O, Larvicidal Activity of Essential Oils of Thymus Vulgaris and Origanum Majorana (Lamiaceae) Against of the Malaria Vector Anopheles Labranchiae (Diptera: Culicidae). 2016, International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. (8); 372-376, issue 3, DOI: 10,12980 / APJTB.4.2014APJTB-2014-0392

64. Cavalcanti ESB, de Morais SM, Lima MAA, Santana EWP. Larvicidal activity of essential oils from Brazilian plantsagainst Aedes aegypti L. Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz2004;99:541-4.

65. Pavela R, Sedlák P. Post-application temperature as a factor influencing the insecticidal activity of essential oil from Thymus vulgaris. Industrial Crops e Products. 2018, (113); 46-49. DOI: 10.1016 / j.indcrop.2018.01.021

66. Pavela R. History, presence and perspective of using plant extracts as commercial botanical insecticides and farm products for protection against insects –a review. Plant Prot. Sci. 2016, (52): 229–241.

67. Dias CN, Moraes DFC. Essential oils and their compounds as Aedes aegypti L. (Diptera: Culicidae) larvicides: review. Parasitology Research. 2014, 113 (1): 565- 592.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Revisores.docx

Decision Letter 1

Horacio Bach

23 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-23621R1

Evaluation of larvicidal potential against larvae of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and of the antimicrobial activity of essential oil obtained from the leaves of Origanum majorana L.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr de Almeida,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised by Reviewer #1 during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Horacio Bach

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

Thank you for considering my comments that have been addressed in the manuscript noting however the following:

In table 2 it should be clarified if the LC50 value for the positive control was at 24 or 48 hours. Also, the significant difference in the larvicidal effect between the tested EO and the positive control should be mentioned in the text since the positive control was included in the study.

Please note that the chemical analysis gives us an indication of the implication of the components to the effect of the essential oil, however the most appropriate approach is to test the major compounds against the target organism.

I recommend to remove Lines 357-373 from the final (clean) draft manuscript (That is why this study tests the insecticidal….composition of the OE [66]) as non-relevant detailed information about the effect of temperature in insecticidal effect, considering that this was not subjected in the current research work

Reviewer #2: Authors corrected the manuscript according to reviewers' comments, I have no further comments.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 17;15(7):e0235740. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235740.r005

Author response to Decision Letter 1


30 Apr 2020

Response to Reviewers

1. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation.

We note that you have included affiliation symbols '&' and '¶' beside author names, however there are no affiliations linked to these symbols.

Please amend to link an affiliation 4 to each or remove if added in error.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 5-8.

Renata do Socorro Barbosa Chaves1, Rosany Lopes Martins1, Alex Bruno Lobato Rodrigues1, Érica de Menezes Rabelo1, Ana Luzia Ferreira Farias1, Lethicia Barreto Brandão1, Lizandra Lima Santos1, Camila Mendes da Conceição Vieira Araújo2, Talita Fernandes Sobral2, Allan Kardec Ribeiro Galardo2, Sheylla Susan Moreira da Silva de Almeida1*

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement: 'N/A' and thank you for stating in your methods section that:

'The leaves of O. majorana L. were collected in the district of Fazendinha (00 "36'955" S and 51 "11'03'77" W) in the Municipality of Macapá, Amapá. Five samples of the plant species were deposited at the Amapaense Herbarium (HAMAB) of the Institute of Scientific Research and Technology of Amapá (IEPA).'

To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements for field studies, please provide the following information in the Methods section of the manuscript and in the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”):

a) Provide the name of the authority who issued the permission for each location (for example, the authority responsible for a national park or other protected area of land or sea, the relevant regulatory body concerned with protection of wildlife, etc.). If the study was carried out on private land, please confirm that the owner of the land gave permission to conduct the study on this site.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 103.

a) The study was carried out on private land with permission from the owner.

b) For any locations/activities for which specific permission was not required, please

- i. state clearly that no specific permissions were required for these locations/activities, and provide details on why this is the case

- ii. confirm that the field studies did not involve endangered or protected species

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 104-106.

i. There was no need for specific permissions for the study site/activity, as it is a private property where the owner has given authorization to collect the plant material.

ii. The study did not involve threatened or endangered species.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-1.docx

Decision Letter 2

Horacio Bach

4 May 2020

PONE-D-19-23621R2

Evaluation of larvicidal potential against larvae of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and of the antimicrobial activity of essential oil obtained from the leaves of Origanum majorana L.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr de Almeida,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address the new comment addressed by the reviewer.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 18 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Horacio Bach

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

My comments were partially addressed in the manuscript not affecting, however, the robustness of the study. As a final comment, please check if the LC50 values for the positive control (esbiothrin) against mosquito larvae were indeed the same for 24 and 48 records of mortality.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jul 17;15(7):e0235740. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235740.r007

Author response to Decision Letter 2


12 Jun 2020

Response to reviewers

Comments to the Author

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors,

My comments were partially addressed in the manuscript not affecting, however, the robustness of the study. As a final comment, please check if the LC50 values for the positive control (esbiothrin) against mosquito larvae were indeed the same for 24 and 48 records of mortality.

The requirement was met, as can be seen in the lines 298-300 and in the table 305-306.

Dear reviewer, analyzing Table (in the lines 312-313), it was necessary to use bold in the title of table 3; remove the spacing that existed between the title and table 3; add the parenthesis after the LC50 value 124.17 (103.23; 171.63) in 24 h, apply the superscript and subscript of the LC50 values (IC95) µg.mL-1, CL90 (IC95) µg.mL-1, R2, X2 and apply italic in X2. In addition, it was necessary to indent the paragraph after table 3 (in the lines 314-315).

Regarding the corrections in the references, the word "Portuguese" was removed on lines 357, 625, 656, 857, 874, 892 and 905.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers (1).docx

Decision Letter 3

Horacio Bach

23 Jun 2020

Evaluation of larvicidal potential against larvae of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and of the antimicrobial activity of essential oil obtained from the leaves of Origanum majorana L.

PONE-D-19-23621R3

Dear Dr. de Almeida,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Horacio Bach

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Dear authors

Thank you for considering my comments. After your last response the manuscript could be accepted for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Horacio Bach

30 Jun 2020

PONE-D-19-23621R3

Evaluation of larvicidal potential against larvae of Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762) and of the antimicrobial activity of essential oil obtained from the leaves of Origanum majorana L.

Dear Dr. de Almeida:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Horacio Bach

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Mass spectrum of O. majorana essential oil, obtained by GC-MS as compared to the spectrum of the equipment library NIST05 e WILEY'S and Adams (2017).

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: REBUTTAL LETTER.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Revisores.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers-1.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers (1).docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES