| Literature DB >> 34066788 |
Nikola Puvača1,2, Jovana Milenković3, Tamara Galonja Coghill2, Vojislava Bursić4, Aleksandra Petrović4, Snežana Tanasković5, Miloš Pelić6, Dragana Ljubojević Pelić6, Tatjana Miljković7.
Abstract
The worldwide problem of infectious diseases has appeared in recent years, and antimicrobial agents are crucial in reducing disease emergence. Nevertheless, the development and distribution of multidrug-resistant (MDR) strains in pathogenic bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella Typhi and Citrobacter koseri, has become a major society health hazard. Essential oils could serve as a promising tool as a natural drug in fighting the problem with these bacteria. The current study aimed to investigate the antimicrobial effectiveness of tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden and Betche) Cheel), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus obliqua L'Hér.), and lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill) essential oils. The antimicrobial properties of essential oils were screened against four pathogenic bacteria, E. coli, S. aureus, S. Tyhpi, and C. koseri, and two reference bacterial strains, while for the testing, the agar well diffusion method was used. Gas chromatography (GC) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometric (GC-MSD) analyses were performed on essential oils. The obtained results showed that M. alternifolia essential oil is the richest in terpinen-4-ol, R. officinalis and E. oblique essential oils in 1,8-cineole, and L. angustifolia essential oil in α-terpinyl acetate. In addition, the main bioactive compounds present in the essential oil of tea tree are rich in α-pinene (18.38%), limonene (7.55%) and γ-terpinene (14.01%). The essential oil of rosemary is rich in α-pinene (8.38%) and limonene (11.86%); eucalyptus essential oil has significant concentrations of α-pinene (12.60%), p-cymene (3.24%), limonene (3.87%), and γ-terpinene (7.37%), while the essential oil of lavender is rich in linalool (10.71%), linalool acetate (9.60%), α-terpinyl acetate (10.93%), and carbitol (13.05%) bioactive compounds, respectively. The obtained results from the in vitro study revealed that most of the essential oils exhibited antimicrobial properties. Among the tested essential oils, tea tree was discovered to demonstrate the strongest antimicrobial activity. The recorded MIC of S. Typhi was 6.2 mg/mL, 3.4 mg/mL of C. koseri, 3.1 mg/mL of E. coli, and 2.7 mg/mL of E. coli ATCC 25922, compared to M. alternifolia. Similarly, only S. aureus ATCC 25923 showed antimicrobial activity towards R. officinalis (1.4 mg/mL), E. oblique (2.9 mg/mL), and L. angustifolia (2.1 mg/mL). Based on the obtained results, it is possible to conclude that tea tree essential oil might be used as an ecological antimicrobial in treating infectious diseases caused by the tested pathogens.Entities:
Keywords: C. koseri; E. coli; S. Thypi; S. aureus; antibiotic resistance; essential oils; microbes
Year: 2021 PMID: 34066788 PMCID: PMC8151751 DOI: 10.3390/antibiotics10050546
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antibiotics (Basel) ISSN: 2079-6382
Identified bioactive compounds of analyzed essential oils, % ± SD.
| Compound | Retention Indices | Retention Indices NIST 1 | Retention Time | Tea Tree | Rosemary | Eucalyptus | Lavender |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| α-Thujene | 922 | 924 | 5.636 | 1.10 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.06 ± 0.00 | 0.05 ± 0.01 |
| α-Pinene | 930 | 932 | 5.862 | 18.38 ± 0.08 | 8.38 ± 0.02 | 12.60 ± 0.01 | 0.72 ± 0.00 |
| Camphene | 945 | 946 | 6.241 | 0.08 ± 0.00 | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.10 ± 0.00 | 0.25 ± 0.01 |
| Thuja-2,4(10)-diene | 950 | 952 | 6.378 | 0.01 ± 0.00 | |||
| Sabinene | 970 | 969 | 6.932 | 0.35 ± 0.01 | 0.12 ± 0.00 | ||
| β-Pinene | 974 | 974 | 7.047 | 3.19 ± 0.01 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 0.84 ± 0.01 | 0.60 ± 0.02 |
| Myrcene | 988 | 988 | 7.428 | 0.45 ± 0.00 | 0.49 ± 0.00 | 0.58 ± 0.01 | 0.56 ± 0.01 |
| Carbitol | 1003 | 1001 | 7.863 | 13.05 ± 0.04 | |||
| α-Phellandrene | 1004 | 1002 | 7.9 | 0.09 ± 0.00 | 0.68 ± 0.00 | 0.94 ± 0.00 | |
| Δ3-Carene | 1009 | 1008 | 8.098 | 0.09 ± 0.00 | 1.45 ± 0.03 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | |
| Hexyl acetate | 1011 | 1009 | 8.146 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | |||
| 1,4-Cineole | 1013 | 1012 | 8.235 | ||||
| α-Terpinene | 1015 | 1014 | 8.311 | 2.35 ± 0.01 | 2.02 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.00 | 0.41 ± 0.00 |
| 1023 | 1020 | 8.598 | 4.30 ± 0.01 | 4.30 ± 0.05 | 3.24 ± 0.00 | 0.87 ± 0.01 | |
| Limonene | 1027 | 1024 | 8.758 | 7.55 ± 0.01 | 11.86 ± 0.01 | 3.87 ± 0.01 | 2.23 ± 0.02 |
| 1,8-Cineole | 1033 | 1026 | 8.864 | 2.15 ± 0.05 | 64.02 ± 0.04 | 64.71 ± 0.04 | 5.55 ± 0.01 |
| (Z)-β-ocimene | 1035 | 1032 | 9.035 | 0.28 ± 0.00 | 0.06 ± 0.00 | ||
| β-(E)-Ocimene | 1046 | 1046 | 9.45 | 0.08 ± 0.00 | 0.11 ± 0.00 | 0.02 ± 0.00 | |
| γ-Terpinene | 1058 | 1054 | 9.89 | 14.01 ± 0.01 | 4.06 ± 0.00 | 7.37 ± 0.00 | 0.05 ± 0.00 |
| 1085 | 1083 | 10.891 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | ||||
| Terpinolene | 1088 | 1086 | 10.991 | 3.56 ± 0.02 | 0.31 ± 0.00 | 0.35 ± 0.00 | 0.04 ± 0.00 |
| Linalool | 1099 | 1095 | 11.423 | 0.05 ± 0.00 | 0.10 ± 0.00 | 10.71 ± 0.02 | |
| trans-Sabinol | 1137 | 1137 | 13.036 | 0.06 ± 0.00 | 0.14 ± 0.00 | ||
| Camphor | 1143 | 1141 | 13.267 | 0.12 ± 0.00 | 3.72 ± 0.03 | ||
| Isoborneol | 1154 | 1155 | 13.787 | 1.04 ± 0.02 | |||
| Borneol | 1164 | 1165 | 14.24 | 0.14 ± 0.00 | 0.46 ± 0.01 | ||
| Isononyl acetate | 1171 | 1171 | 14.53 | 3.45 ± 0.01 | |||
| Terpinen-4-ol | 1180 | 1174 | 14.944 | 38.53 ± 0.04 | 0.95 ± 0.00 | 0.90 ± 0.02 | |
| α-Terpineol | 1190 | 1186 | 15.34 | 2.16 ± 0.03 | 2.50 ± 0.01 | 2.00 ± 0.00 | |
| γ-Terpineol | 1196 | 1199 | 15.606 | 0.21 ± 0.00 | |||
| Citronellol | 1226 | 1223 | 16.923 | 2.50 ± 0.00 | |||
| Geraniol | 1254 | 1249 | 18.11 | 1.28 ± 0.00 | |||
| Linalool acetate | 1255 | 1254 | 18.194 | 9.60 ± 0.02 | |||
| Bornyl acetate | 1285 | 1287 | 19.562 | 0.21 ± 0.00 | |||
| α-terpinyl acetate | 1349 | 1346 | 22.374 | 10.93 ± 0.06 | |||
| Neryl acetate | 1364 | 1359 | 23.038 | 0.44 ± 0.00 | |||
| Geranyl acetate | 1384 | 1379 | 23.898 | 0.80 ± 0.02 | |||
| α-Gurjunene | 1409 | 1409 | 25.023 | 0.12 ± 0.00 | |||
| (E)-Caryophyllene | 1420 | 1417 | 25.443 | 0.38 ± 0.01 | 1.80 ± 0.00 | ||
| Aromadendrene | 1439 | 1439 | 26.282 | 0.69 ± 0.01 | |||
| 9-epi-Caryophyllene | 1462 | 1464 | 27.225 | 0.17 ± 0.00 | |||
| Viridiflorene | 1497 | 1496 | 28.693 | 0.07 ± 0.00 | |||
| Total peak area | 564,685,150 | 117,582,225 | 142,637,552 | 98,030,240 | |||
| Total of identified compounds (%) | 99.76 | 98.12 | 99.91 | 74.53 |
1—Retention indices based on n-alkane series under identical experimental conditions and comparison was performed with the mass spectra library search NIST [33]; SD—standard deviation calculated for n (n = 3) GC–MSD analysis.
Figure 1The highest concentrations of bioactive compounds in analyzed essential oils, %.
Figure 2The peaks of chromatography analysis of tea tree (a), rosemary (b), eucalyptus (c), and lavender (d) essential oils.
Zone of inhibition of essential oils used in the study (mm).
| Bacteria | Tea Tree | Rosemary | Eucalyptus | Lavender |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 21 | |||
|
| 13 | 13 | 13 | |
| 18 | ||||
| 13 | 13 | 13 | ||
|
| 15 | 15 | ||
|
| 13 |
Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC); values of essential oils against bacteria (mg/mL) 1.
| Bacteria | Tea Tree | Rosemary | Eucalyptus | Lavender |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.1 | |||
|
| ||||
| 2.7 | ||||
| 1.4 | 2.9 | 2.1 | ||
|
| 6.2 | |||
|
| 3.4 |
1—Values expressed the MIC as >the maximum concentration tested (50 mg/mL).
Figure 3Minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC); values of essential oils against bacteria (mg/mL). Values expressed the MBC as >the maximum concentration tested (50 mg/mL).