| Literature DB >> 29710862 |
Daniela Predoi1, Simona Liliana Iconaru2, Nicolas Buton3, Monica Luminita Badea4, Luminita Marutescu5,6.
Abstract
This study presents, for the first-time, the results of a study on the hydrodynamic diameter of essential oils (EOs) of basil and lavender in water, and solutions of EOs of basil (B) and lavender (L) and hydroxyapatite (HAp). The possible influence of basil and lavender EOs on the size of hydroxyapatite nanoparticles was analyzed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). We also investigated the in vitro antimicrobial activity of plant EOs and plant EOs hydroxyapatite respectively, against Gram-positive bacteria (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus1144 (MRSA 1144) and S. aureus 1426) and Gram-negative bacteria (Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 and Escherichia coli ESBL 4493). From the autocorrelation function, obtained by Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS) measurements it was observed that basil yielded one peak at an average hydrodynamic diameter of 354.16 nm, while lavender yielded one peak at an average hydrodynamic diameter of 259.76 nm. In the case of HAp nanoparticles coated with basil (HApB) and lavender (HApL) essential oil, the aggregation was minimal. We found that the lavender EO exhibited a very good inhibitory growth activity (MIC values ranging from <0.1% for E. coli reference strain to 0.78% for S. aureus strains). The biological studies indicated that HapL material displayed an enhanced antimicrobial activity, indicating the potential use of HAp as vehicle for low concentrations of lavender EO with antibacterial properties. Flow cytometry analysis (FCM) allowed us to determine some of the potential mechanisms of the antimicrobial activities of EOs, suggesting that lavender EO was active against E. coli by interfering with membrane potential, the membrane depolarization effect being increased by incorporation of the EOs into the microporous structure of HAp. These findings could contribute to the development of new antimicrobial agents that are urgently needed for combating the antibiotic resistance phenomena.Entities:
Keywords: Dynamic Light Scattering (DLS); antimicrobial studies; essential oil; hydroxyapatite
Year: 2018 PMID: 29710862 PMCID: PMC5977305 DOI: 10.3390/nano8050291
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nanomaterials (Basel) ISSN: 2079-4991 Impact factor: 5.076
Chemical composition of Ocimum basilicum L. oils from southern Romania.
| No. | Compound | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Linalool | 65.95 |
| 2 | 1,8 cineole | 10.57 |
| 3 | τ-cadinol | 4.74 |
| 4 | Eugenol | 3.76 |
| 5 | α-trans-bergamotene | 2.35 |
| 6 | α-terneol | 1.04 |
| 7 | Borneol | 0.9 |
| 8 | germacrene D | 1.38 |
| 9 | α-cadinene | 1.02 |
| Identified from total area | 91.71 |
Chemical composition of Lavandula angustifolia Sevastopolis oils from southern Romania.
| No. | Compound | % of Total |
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| 1 | Linalool | 47.55 |
| 2 | Borneol | 8.52 |
| 3 | Camphor | 9.67 |
| 4 | terpinene-4-ol | 3.8 |
| 5 | Myrcene | 0.68 |
| 6 | Camphene | 0.56 |
| 7 | α-pinene | 0.54 |
| 8 | Sabinene | 0.5 |
| 9 | Limonene | 0.24 |
| 10 | β-phellandrene | 0.16 |
| 11 | α-terpinene | 0.06 |
| 12 | 1-8-cineole | 8.6 |
| 13 | linalool acetate | 3.75 |
| 14 | α-terpineol | 1.35 |
| 15 | Cryptone | 1.25 |
| 16 | geranyl acetate | 0.98 |
| Identified from total area | 79.61 |
Figure 1The X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns of HAp (ICDD-PDF No. 9-432) and obtained HAp powders after centrifugation and drying at 100 °C in an oven.
Figure 2Scanning Eelectron Microscopy (SEM) images of the HAp (a), HApB (b) and HApL (c) samples. Size distributions of HAp (e), HApB (f) and HApL (g) samples.
Figure 3Experimental (markers) and fitted (red line) autocorrelation function obtained with DLS experiments for B (a); L (b); HApB (c) and HApL (d) samples.
Figure 4Particle size distributions of basil B (a); L (b); HApB (c) and HApL (d) obtained by fitting the experimental autocorrelation function.
Parameters comparison of mean particle size resulting from SEM and DLS analysis.
| Sample | SEM (nm) | DLS (nm) |
|---|---|---|
| HAp | 88.5 ± 3 | 273.86 ± 2 |
| HApB | 76.8 ± 5 | 265 ± 2 |
| HApL | 63.3 ± 6 | 257.76 ± 2 |
Screening of antimicrobial activities of plant EOs, HApB and HApL respectively, via an adapted diffusion method against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.
| Plant EOs and Plant EOs-HAp Combinations (Concentration) | Inhibition Zone (mm) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lavander EO | HapL | BasilEO | HApB | Hap | DMSO | |
| Bacterial strain | ||||||
| 20 ± 1 | 15 ± 1 | 9 ± 2 | 7 ± 1 | *- | *- | |
| 16 ± 0.5 | 10 ± 2 | 8 ± 1 | 6 ± 1 | *- | *- | |
| 25 ± 1 | 13 ± 2 | 10 ± 1 | 8 ± 1 | *- | *- | |
| MRSA 1144 | 24 ± 0.5 | 10 ± 2 | 7 ± 2 | 6 ± 1 | *- | *- |
* No inhibition zone observed.
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values determined based on conventional plating method for Plant EOs.
| Plant EOs Bacterial Strain | Lavander EO (1:1) | Basil EO (1:1) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIC (%) | MBC (%) | MIC (%) | MBC (%) | |
| <0.1 | <0.1 | 25 | 40 | |
| 0.19 | 0.19 | 30 | 45 | |
| 0.78 | 1.56 | 40 | 50 | |
| MRSA 1144 | 0.78 | 1.56 | 45 | 50 |
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) values and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) values determined based on conventional plating method for HAp, HApB and HApL.
| Sample | HApL | HApB | HAp | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterial Strain | MIC (mg/mL) | MBC (mg/mL) | MIC (mg/mL) | MBC (mg/mL) | MIC (mg/mL) | MBC (mg/mL) |
| 0.15 | 0.31 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| 0.62 | 0.62 | >5 | >5 | >5 | >5 | |
| 0.31 | 0.62 | 5 | >5 | 5 | >5 | |
| MRSA 1144 | 0.31 | 0.62 | 5 | >5 | 5 | >5 |
Figure 5Stain indexes for each tested strain. The stain index is the ratio of the intensity of fluorescence measured in the FITC channel (530/30 nm), of bacteria treated with plant EO and DMSO respectively to that of untreated cells.
Figure 6Stain indexes for each tested strain. The stain index is the ratio of the intensity of fluorescence measured in the FITC channel (530/30 nm), of bacteria treated with HAp, HApB and HApL to that of untreated cells.
Figure 7Overlays of control populations (not treated) onto exposed cells to HAp alone and HApB, respectively.