| Literature DB >> 33182843 |
Adriana Skendi1,2, Dimitrios Ν Katsantonis1, Paschalina Chatzopoulou1, Maria Irakli1, Maria Papageorgiou2.
Abstract
The antifungal effect of aromatic plants (oregano, thyme, and Satureja) in dry form and as essential oils was evaluated in vitro (in potato dextrose agar (PDA)) and in bread against two phytopathogenic fungi found in food (Aspergillusniger and Penicillium). Gas and liquid chromatography were used to analyze essential oils attained by hydrodistillation of the aerial parts of the aromatic plants and of the dried plant aqueous solutions that were autoclaved for 20 min at 121 °C before analysis. Carvacrol, α-pinene, p-cymene, and γ-terpinene were the main components of the essential oils, whereas carvacrol, rosmarinic and caffeic acids were the main components of the water extracts. In vitro antifungal test results showed that the addition of plants in dry form had great antifungal potential against both fungal strains studied. Penicillium was more sensitive to the presence of aromatic plants than Aspergillus. Among the three plant species tested, thyme was the most potent antifungal against both fungi. For the bread product, all three aromatic plants studied showed inhibitory effects against both fungi. Results presented here suggest that oregano, thyme and Satureja incorporated in a bread recipe possess antimicrobial properties and are a potential source of antimicrobial ingredients for the food industry.Entities:
Keywords: Aspergillus niger; GC-MS; Greek oregano; HPLC; Penicillium; Satureja; antifungal activity; bread; essential oil; phenolics; thyme
Year: 2020 PMID: 33182843 PMCID: PMC7696464 DOI: 10.3390/foods9111642
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Chemical composition (content %) of the essential oils of the three aromatic plants obtained by hydrodistillation and determined by GC/MS: Origanum vulgare ssp. hirtum, Thymus capitatus and Satureja thymbra *.
| Compound | Elution Time (min) |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ||
| Monoterpene hydrocarbons | 12.62 | 19.35 | 44.99 | |
| α-thujene | 7.8 | 0.64 ± 0.03 a | 0.69 ± 0.01 a | 1.45 ± 0.01 b |
| α-pinene | 8.1 | 0.78 ± 0.03 a | 0.84 ± 0.01 b | 1.17 ± 0.02 c |
| camphene | 8.8 | 0.15 ± 0.00 a | 0.16 ± 0.00 b | 0.31 ± 0.01 c |
| β-pinene | 10.1 | 0.14 ± 0.00 a | 0.14 ± 0.01 a | 0.40 ± 0.01 b |
| cis-sabinene hydrate | 16.0 | - ± - a | - ± - a | 0.09 ± 0.01 b |
| trans-sabinene hydrate | 18.1 | - ± - a | 0.71 ± 0.04 b | 1.01 ± 0.05 c |
| β-myrcene | 10.9 | 1.61 ± 0.06 b | 1.97 ± 0.02 c | 0.33 ± 0.01 a |
| α-phellandrene | 11.8 | 0.19 ± 0.01 b | 0.29 ± 0.01 c | 0.09 ± 0.00 a |
| β-phellandrene | 13.3 | 0.38 ± 0.01 a | 0.60 ± 0.01 b | 0.67 ± 0.01 b |
| α-terpinene | 12.5 | 0.97 ± 0.04 a | 1.66 ± 0.04 b | 3.40 ± 0.01 c |
| p-cymene | 13.0 | 5.00 ± 0.07 a | 7.18 ± 0.16 c | 6.67 ± 0.01 b |
| γ-terpinene | 15.3 | 2.62 ± 0.05 a | 4.90 ± 0.11 b | 29.28 ± 0.19 c |
| α-terpinolene | 17.3 | 0.14 ± 0.01 b | 0.21 ± 0.00 c | 0.12 ± 0.00 a |
| Oxygenated monoterpenes | 1.12 | 1.17 | 0.98 | |
| borneol | 23.6 | 0.25 ± 0.03 a | 0.28 ± 0.03 a | 0.38 ± 0.02 a |
| terpinen-4-ol | 24.6 | 0.87 ± 0.04 b | 0.89 ± 0.05 b | 0.60 ± 0.02 a |
| Sesquiterpenes | 2.14 | 1.94 | 4.92 | |
| trans-caryophyllene | 44.4 | 1.23 ± 0.00 a | 1.80 ± 0.02 b | 4.52 ± 0.06 c |
| α-humulene | 46.4 | - ± - a | - ± - a | 0.19 ± 0.00 b |
| β-bisabolene | 49.8 | 0.91 ± 0.00 c | 0.14 ± 0.00 a | 0.21 ± 0.01 b |
| Oxygenated sesquiterpenes | ||||
| caryophyllene oxide | - ± - a | 0.16 ± 0.01 b | 0.21 ± 0.01 c | |
| Monoterpene phenols | 82.64 | 76.37 | 46.34 | |
| carvacrol | 36 | 82.48 ± 0.62 c | 76.19 ± 0.18 b | 44.93 ± 0.35 a |
| thymol | 35.1 | 0.16 ± 0.03 a | 0.18 ± 0.01 a | 1.41 ± 0.02 b |
| Alcohols | ||||
| 1-octen-3-ol | 10.3 | 0.45 ± 0.06 b | 0.42 ± 0.04 b | 0.21 ± 0.03 a |
| Ketones | ||||
| 3-octanone | 10.8 | 0.15 ± 0.01 b | - ± - a | 2.02 ± 0.04 c |
| Total | 99.10 | 99.37 | 97.18 | |
* Values are means of duplicate measurements and reported with the respective standard deviation (SD); means with any similar superscripts in the same line are not significantly different (p = 0.05) by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Content (µg/mL) of phenolic compounds in aqueous solutions containing 1% dry matter of three aromatic plants autoclaved for 20 min at 121 °C *.
| Phytochemicals |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | |
| Phenolic acids and their derivatives | 90.53 | 22.66 | 55.44 |
| 4-hydroxybenzoic acid | 0.23 ± 0.02 a | 0.32 ± 0.04 b | 1.02 ± 0.04 c |
| gallic acid | 0.14 ± 0.02 b | 0.36 ± 0.03 c | 0.08 ± 0.01 a |
| protocatechuic acid | 0.93 ± 0.06 b | 0.68 ± 0.04 a | 0.73 ± 0.05 a |
| syringic acid | 0.22 ± 0.02 a | 0.64 ± 0.02 c | 0.35 ± 0.04 b |
| vanillic acid | 0.75 ± 0.01 a | 1.05 ± 0.07 b | 0.75 ± 0.05 a |
| trans-cinnamic acid | ND | ND | 0.04 ± 0.01 |
| caffeic acid | 5.66 ± 0.09 b | 2.79 ± 0.06 a | 6.85 ± 0.03 c |
| ferulic acid | ND | ND | ND |
| sinapic acid | ND | ND | ND |
| p-coumaric acid | ND | ND | ND |
| chlorogenic acid | 0.27 ± 0.01 a | 0.34 ± 0.01 b | ND |
| rosmarinic acid | 82.34 ± 0.13 c | 16.48 ± 0.09 a | 45.61 ± 0.16 b |
| Flavonoids | 9.11 | 17.15 | 10.01 |
| luteolin | 0.41 ± 0.03 | LLQ | LLQ |
| apigenin | ND | ND | ND |
| quercetin | ND | 1.18 ± 0.07 b | 0.78 ± 0.04 a |
| kaempferol | 0.67 ± 0.02 a | 0.70 ± 0.04 a | 0.78 ± 0.03 b |
| myricetin | ND | 5.62 ± 0.09 b | 0.28 ± 0.05 a |
| rutin | 1.62 ± 0.01 | ND | ND |
| (±)-naringenin | ND | ND | 1.17 ± 0.03 |
| (+)-catechin | ND | 0.71 ± 0.03 a | 1.93 ± 0.12 b |
| (−)-epicatechin | 5.96 ± 0.08 b | 8.78 ± 0.18 c | 5.07 ± 0.14 a |
| (−)-epigallocatechine | 0.46 ± 0.05 b | 0.16 ± 0.03 a | ND |
| Phenolic monoterpenes | 105.19 | 82.17 | 91.37 |
| carvacrol | 105.19 ± 0.15 c | 82.17 ± 0.22 a | 91.37 ± 0.18 b |
| thymol | ND | ND | ND |
| Total phenolics | 204.83 | 121.99 | 156.82 |
ND—not detected; LLQ—lower than LOQ (Limit of quantification). * Values are means of duplicate analysis and reported with the respective standard deviation (SD); means with any similar superscripts in the same line are not significantly different (p = 0.05) by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 1Average growth (cm2) in potato dextrose agar (PDA) medium for (A) Penicillium and (B) Aspergillus with treatment during 12 days of storage. Similar number superscripts (reported above each column) in the same incubation day are not significantly different (p < 0.05) by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 2Average growth (cm2) in bread for (A) Penicillium and (B) Aspergillus following treatment with dried aromatic plants after 7 days of storage. OD—oregano, TD—thyme, and SD—Satureja dry matter. Similar number superscripts (reported above each column) for the same plant are not significantly different (p < 0.05) by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 3Average growth (cm2) in bread for (A) Penicillium and (B) Aspergillus following treatment with essential oils after 7 days of storage. OE—oregano, TE—thyme, and SE—Satureja essential oil. Similar number superscripts (reported above each column) in the same plant are not significantly different (p < 0.05) by Duncan’s multiple range test.