| Literature DB >> 33255327 |
Vlad Tiberiu Alexa1, Camelia Szuhanek1, Antoanela Cozma2, Atena Galuscan1, Florin Borcan3, Diana Obistioiu4, Cristina Adriana Dehelean3, Daniela Jumanca1.
Abstract
Since ancient times complementary therapies have been based on the use of medicinal plants, natural preparations and essential oils in the treatment of various diseases. Their use in medical practice is recommended in view of their low toxicity, pharmacological properties and economic impact. This paper aims to test the antimicrobial effect of natural preparation based on clove, orange and bergamot essential oils on a wide range of microorganisms that cause infections in humans including: Streptococcus pyogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Shigella flexneri, Candida parapsilosis, Candida albicans, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium and Haemophilus influenza. Three natural preparations such as one-component emulsions: clove (ECEO), bergamote (EBEO), and orange (EOEO), three binary: E(BEO/CEO), E(BEO/OEO), E(CEO/OEO) and a tertiary emulsion E(OEO/BEO/CEO) were obtained, characterized and tested for antimicrobial effects. Also, the synergistic/antagonistic effects, generated by the presence of the main chemical compounds, were studied in order to recommend a preparation with optimal antimicrobial activity. The obtained results underline the fact that the monocomponent emulsion ECEO shows antimicrobial activity, while EOEO and EBEO do not inhibit the development of the analyzed strains. In binary or tertiary emulsions E(BEO/CEO), E(CEO/OEO) and E(OEO/ BEO/CEO) the antimicrobial effect of clove oil is potentiated due to the synergism exerted by the chemical compounds of essential oils.Entities:
Keywords: bergamot; clove; eugenol; limonene; orange
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33255327 PMCID: PMC7727698 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25235502
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
The composition of natural preparation.
| Emulsions | Composition | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CEO | BEO | OEO | Lecithin (mg) | Water (mL) | |
| Emulsion EOEO | - | - | 1 | 6 | 19 |
| Emulsion ECEO | 1 | - | - | 6 | 19 |
| Emulsion EBEO | - | 1 | - | 6 | 19 |
| Emulsion E(BEO/CEO) | 1 | 1 | - | 6 | 18 |
| Emulsion E(OEO/CEO) | 1 | - | 1 | 6 | 18 |
| Emulsion E (BEO/OEO) | - | 1 | 1 | 6 | 18 |
| Emulsion E (OEO/CEO/BEO) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 17 |
Mean particle size (nm), polydispersity index (PDI), Zeta-potential (ζ-Potential) (mV) of natural preparations.
| Natural Preparation | Size and Particle Homogenity | Zeta-Potential (ζ-Potential) (mV) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Particle Size (nm) | Proportion of Each Population (%) | Polydispersity Index (PDI) | ||
| EBEO | 277.3 | 100 | 0.3 | −21.03 |
| ECEO | 180.6 | 32 | 0.6 | −19.72 |
| EOEO | 320.2 | 100 | 0.4 | −24.16 |
| E(BEO/CEO) | 209.4 | 18 | 0.5 | −22.20 |
| E(BEO/OEO) | 315.5 | 100 | 0.4 | −24.31 |
| E(CEO/OEO) | 327.1 | 5 | 0.6 | −20.09 |
| E(OEO/BEO/CEO) | 292.9 | 37 | 0.8 | −22.47 |
Figure 1Antimicrobial activity of natural preparations expressed as Zone of inhibition (mm). (A) S. pyogenes, (B) S. flexneri, (C) S. typhimurium; (D) H.influenzae;; (E) P.aeruginosa; (F) E.coli; (G) S.aureus; (H) C.albicans; (I) C.parapsilopsis (different letters in columns indicate significant differences between values according to the T test, p < 0.05).
Figure 2Inhibition rate (%) of natural preparations (A) ECEO, (B) EOEO, (C) EBEO, (D) E(BEO/CEO), (E) E(OEO/CEO), (F) E(OEO/BEO), (G) E(OEO/BEO/CEO).
The MIC (µL/100 mL) for chemical compounds (eugenol, limonene and alfa-pinene), EOs: clove (CEO), orange (OEO), bergamot (BEO) and natural preparations.
| MIC (µL/100 mL) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strains Component | |||||||||
| EOEO | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 |
| ECEO | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 40 | 140 | 140 |
| EBEO | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 40 | 140 | 140 | 140 |
| E(OEO/BEO) | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 140 | 40 | 140 | 140 |
| E(OEO/CEO) | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 |
| E(BEO/CEO) | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 140 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 |
| E(OEO/BEO/CEO) | 140 | 40 | 140 | 40 | 140 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 40 |
| OEO | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| CEO | 2 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| BEO | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Pinene | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Limonene | 7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| Eugenol | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
The samples that had no inhibition effect, causing a mass growth of the strain are marked with the dark grey color. The light gray color represents the samples in which the MIC was found, but subsequent concentrations showed a potentiating effect, therefore the effect decreases with the concentration. The white color highlights the samples in which the MIC was determined and the effect is maintained with an increase in concentration.