| Literature DB >> 23959191 |
Marcelo S Silvério1, Glauciemar Del-Vechio-Vieira, Míriam A O Pinto, Maria S Alves, Orlando V Sousa.
Abstract
The chemical composition of the essential oils obtained by hydrodistillation of different parts of Eremanthus erythropappus, including leaves, branches and inflorescences, was investigated by Gas Chromatography and Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. The antimicrobial activity of the oils was assessed by the disc diffusion and microdilution methods, while the antioxidant activity was evaluated by DPPH and reducing power tests. The main compounds found in the essential oils derived from the inflorescences and leaves were β-caryophyllene, germacrene-D, α-copaene and β-pinene. α-Bisabolol was the major component in the branches. The oils were active against Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes and fungi, but not Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. The MIC values ranged from 0.01 to 0.50 mg/mL. Using the DPPH test, the IC50 values ranged from 38.77 ± 0.76 to 102.24 ± 1.96 μg/mL, while the reducing power test produced IC50 values between 109.85 ± 1.68 and 169.53 ± 0.64 μg/mL. The results revealed that the E. erythropappus oils are new promising potential sources of antimicrobial and antioxidant compounds with good future practical applications for human health.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23959191 PMCID: PMC6270547 DOI: 10.3390/molecules18089785
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Main components of the essential oils from Eremanthus erythropappus.
| Compound | Retention Index | Yield (%) | Method of identification | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inflorescences | Fresh leaves | Dry leaves | Branches | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
| α-pinene | 936 | 0.9 | 2.0 | 3.0 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| β-pinene | 975 | 4.0 | 8.6 | 9.1 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| myrcene | 987 | 1.0 | 3.5 | 4.1 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| α-terpinene | 1018 | − | − | 0.2 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| β-phellandrene | 1031 | − | 0.5 | 0.6 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| limonene | 1033 | 0.2 | − | − | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| β-ocimene | 1040 | − | − | 0.3 | − | RI, GC-MS |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| linalool | 1096 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.7 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| terpinen-4-ol | 1174 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.2 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| α-terpineol | 1188 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| δ-elemene | 1336 | − | 0.7 | 1.0 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| α-cubebene | 1348 | − | 0.5 | 0.2 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| α-copaene | 1377 | − | 10.2 | 8.7 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| β-elemene | 1390 | 7.4 | 4.1 | 2.5 | 5.6 | RI, GC-MS |
| β-patchoulene | 1380 | 0.4 | − | − | − | RI, GC-MS |
| β-bourbonene | 1384 | − | 1.1 | 1.1 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| β-cubebene | 1388 | 3.5 | − | − | − | RI, GC-MS |
| cyperene | 1401 | 5.7 | − | − | − | RI, GC-MS |
| α-gurjunene | 1409 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.7 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| β-caryophyllene | 1420 | 17.7 | 21.8 | 22.4 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| β-gurjunene | 1434 | 1.2 | − | − | − | RI, GC-MS |
| β-selinene | 1489 | 3.1 | 5.0 | 5.5 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| valencene | 1496 | 4.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| germacrene-D | 1481 | 12.0 | 14.9 | 16.8 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| δ-cadinene | 1522 | 6.8 | 8.0 | 7.9 | − | RI, GC-MS |
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| spathulenol | 1575 | 1.2 | 4.3 | 2.1 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| caryophyllene oxide | 1578 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | − | RI, GC-MS, ST |
| humulene epoxide II | 1605 | 5.1 | − | − | − | RI, GC-MS |
| 10-
| 1609 | 1.3 | − | − | − | RI, GC-MS |
| di-
| 1616 | − | 1.1 | 3.1 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| hinesol | 1637 | 0.7 | 2.3 | − | − | RI, GC-MS |
| cubenol | 1642 | 0.5 | − | − | − | RI, GC-MS |
| α-muurolol | 1646 | 10.0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| α-cadinol | 1653 | 5.2 | 2.2 | 1.5 | − | RI, GC-MS |
| α-bisabolol | 1685 | − | 2.1 | 1.4 | 93.1 | RI, GC-MS, ST |
|
| 99.4 | 99.6 | 99.0 | 98.7 | ||
|
| 0.6 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 1.3 | ||
|
| 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 0.7 | ||
Retention index on a HP-5 column with reference to n-alkanes [25]; MS, NIST and Wiley library spectra and the literature; RI: Retention index; ST: authentic standard compounds.
Antimicrobial activity of the essential oils of Eremanthus erythropappus.
| Microorganisms | Inhibition zone (mm) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inflorescences (mg) | Fresh leaves (mg) | Dry leaves (mg) | Branches (mg) | Control | |||||||||
| 5 | 10 | 20 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 5 | 10 | 20 | 5 | 10 | 20 | ||
|
| 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 9 | 12 | 0 | 10 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 10 | 24 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 9 | 0 | 10 | 13 | 0 | 12 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 20 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 26 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 30 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 25 |
Experiments were done in triplicate and results were mean values. Control: chloramphenicol (1 μg/mL) for bacteria or fluconazole (20 μg/mL) for the yeast.
Minimal inhibitory concentrations of the essential oils of Eremanthus erythropappus.
| Microorganisms | MIC (μg/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inflorescences | Fresh leaves | Dry leaves | Branches | Control | |
|
| 125 | 310 | 310 | 500 | 2 |
|
| 40 | 20 | 10 | 250 | 4 |
|
| >1,000 | >1,000 | >1,000 | >1,000 | 8 |
|
| >1,000 | >1,000 | >1,000 | >1,000 | >64 |
|
| 125 | 15 | 60 | 100 | 15 |
|
| 125 | 60 | 125 | 100 | 45 |
Experiments were done in triplicate and results were mean values.Control: Ampicillin (64–0.0625 μg/mL) for bacteria or fluconazole (64–0.0625 μg/mL) for the yeast.
Antioxidant activityof the essential oils of E. erythropappus.
| Oils/Chemical | IC50 (μg/mL) | |
|---|---|---|
| DPPH | Fe+3 Reducing Power | |
| Inflorescences | 38.77 ± 0.76 | 109.85 ± 1.68 |
| Fresh leaves | 61.61 ± 1.01 | 140.56 ± 0.51 |
| Dry leaves | 49.06 ± 0.98 | 135.23 ± 1.53 |
| Branches | 102.24 ± 1.96 | 169.53 ± 0.64 |
| Rutin | 5.07 ± 0.04 | − |
| Ascorbic acid | − | 63.41 ± 3.87 |
Each value in the table is represented as mean ± S.D. (n = 3). The values are significantly different (p < 0.05) −ANOVA and Tukey test.