Cargando…

Antibacterial activity evaluation of selected essential oils in liquid and vapor phase on respiratory tract pathogens

BACKGROUND: The increasing number of multidrug-resistant bacteria and the fact of antibiotic resistance is leading to a continuous need for discovering alternative treatments against infections, e.g. in the case of respiratory tract diseases. Essential oils (EOs), because of their volatility, can ea...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ács, Kamilla, Balázs, Viktória L., Kocsis, Béla, Bencsik, Tímea, Böszörményi, Andrea, Horváth, Györgyi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6064118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30053847
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2291-9
_version_ 1783342668653264896
author Ács, Kamilla
Balázs, Viktória L.
Kocsis, Béla
Bencsik, Tímea
Böszörményi, Andrea
Horváth, Györgyi
author_facet Ács, Kamilla
Balázs, Viktória L.
Kocsis, Béla
Bencsik, Tímea
Böszörményi, Andrea
Horváth, Györgyi
author_sort Ács, Kamilla
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The increasing number of multidrug-resistant bacteria and the fact of antibiotic resistance is leading to a continuous need for discovering alternative treatments against infections, e.g. in the case of respiratory tract diseases. Essential oils (EOs), because of their volatility, can easily reach both the upper and lower parts of the respiratory tract via inhalation. Therefore, the aim of the present study was the antibacterial evaluation of clove, cinnamon bark, eucalyptus, thyme, scots pine, peppermint, and citronella EOs against respiratory tract pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, S. mutans, S. pyogenes, Haemophilus influenzae, H. parainfluenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Furthermore, we wanted to compare the antibacterial effect of these EOs in two different test systems to provide data for the development of an appropriate product formulation. METHODS: Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) were determined with in vitro vapor phase test (VPT) and broth macrodilution test (BDT). The chemical and percentage compositions of the EOs were determined by GC-MS and GC-FID analysis. RESULTS: Among the EOs, thyme was the most effective against S. mutans (MIC: 0.04 mg/mL in BDT, but cinnamon bark and clove oils also presented high inhibition in liquid medium with MIC values of 0.06 mg/mL and 0.1 mg/mL against S. pneumoniae and S. pyogenes, respectively. M. catarrhalis was the most sensitive to thyme EO (MIC: 0.09 mg/mL). Cinnamon bark EO was the most effective against Haemophilus spp. (MIC: 0.06 mg/mL). In the VPT, cinnamon bark was the most effective oil against all investigated pathogens with MIC values in the range of 15.62–90 μl/L. Surprisingly, the eucalyptus and scots pine showed weak activity against the test bacteria in both test systems. CONCLUSIONS: The EO of thyme, clove and cinnamon bark may provide promising antibacterial activity against respiratory tract pathogens either in liquid medium or in vapor phase. However, their effect is lower than that of the reference antibiotics. The combination of EOs and antibiotics may be beneficial in the alternative treatment of respiratory tract diseases. In vivo studies are necessary to calculate the effective dose of EOs in patients and determine their possible side effects and toxicity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6064118
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60641182018-08-01 Antibacterial activity evaluation of selected essential oils in liquid and vapor phase on respiratory tract pathogens Ács, Kamilla Balázs, Viktória L. Kocsis, Béla Bencsik, Tímea Böszörményi, Andrea Horváth, Györgyi BMC Complement Altern Med Research Article BACKGROUND: The increasing number of multidrug-resistant bacteria and the fact of antibiotic resistance is leading to a continuous need for discovering alternative treatments against infections, e.g. in the case of respiratory tract diseases. Essential oils (EOs), because of their volatility, can easily reach both the upper and lower parts of the respiratory tract via inhalation. Therefore, the aim of the present study was the antibacterial evaluation of clove, cinnamon bark, eucalyptus, thyme, scots pine, peppermint, and citronella EOs against respiratory tract pathogens such as Streptococcus pneumoniae, S. mutans, S. pyogenes, Haemophilus influenzae, H. parainfluenzae, and Moraxella catarrhalis. Furthermore, we wanted to compare the antibacterial effect of these EOs in two different test systems to provide data for the development of an appropriate product formulation. METHODS: Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) were determined with in vitro vapor phase test (VPT) and broth macrodilution test (BDT). The chemical and percentage compositions of the EOs were determined by GC-MS and GC-FID analysis. RESULTS: Among the EOs, thyme was the most effective against S. mutans (MIC: 0.04 mg/mL in BDT, but cinnamon bark and clove oils also presented high inhibition in liquid medium with MIC values of 0.06 mg/mL and 0.1 mg/mL against S. pneumoniae and S. pyogenes, respectively. M. catarrhalis was the most sensitive to thyme EO (MIC: 0.09 mg/mL). Cinnamon bark EO was the most effective against Haemophilus spp. (MIC: 0.06 mg/mL). In the VPT, cinnamon bark was the most effective oil against all investigated pathogens with MIC values in the range of 15.62–90 μl/L. Surprisingly, the eucalyptus and scots pine showed weak activity against the test bacteria in both test systems. CONCLUSIONS: The EO of thyme, clove and cinnamon bark may provide promising antibacterial activity against respiratory tract pathogens either in liquid medium or in vapor phase. However, their effect is lower than that of the reference antibiotics. The combination of EOs and antibiotics may be beneficial in the alternative treatment of respiratory tract diseases. In vivo studies are necessary to calculate the effective dose of EOs in patients and determine their possible side effects and toxicity. BioMed Central 2018-07-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6064118/ /pubmed/30053847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2291-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ács, Kamilla
Balázs, Viktória L.
Kocsis, Béla
Bencsik, Tímea
Böszörményi, Andrea
Horváth, Györgyi
Antibacterial activity evaluation of selected essential oils in liquid and vapor phase on respiratory tract pathogens
title Antibacterial activity evaluation of selected essential oils in liquid and vapor phase on respiratory tract pathogens
title_full Antibacterial activity evaluation of selected essential oils in liquid and vapor phase on respiratory tract pathogens
title_fullStr Antibacterial activity evaluation of selected essential oils in liquid and vapor phase on respiratory tract pathogens
title_full_unstemmed Antibacterial activity evaluation of selected essential oils in liquid and vapor phase on respiratory tract pathogens
title_short Antibacterial activity evaluation of selected essential oils in liquid and vapor phase on respiratory tract pathogens
title_sort antibacterial activity evaluation of selected essential oils in liquid and vapor phase on respiratory tract pathogens
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6064118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30053847
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2291-9
work_keys_str_mv AT acskamilla antibacterialactivityevaluationofselectedessentialoilsinliquidandvaporphaseonrespiratorytractpathogens
AT balazsviktorial antibacterialactivityevaluationofselectedessentialoilsinliquidandvaporphaseonrespiratorytractpathogens
AT kocsisbela antibacterialactivityevaluationofselectedessentialoilsinliquidandvaporphaseonrespiratorytractpathogens
AT bencsiktimea antibacterialactivityevaluationofselectedessentialoilsinliquidandvaporphaseonrespiratorytractpathogens
AT boszormenyiandrea antibacterialactivityevaluationofselectedessentialoilsinliquidandvaporphaseonrespiratorytractpathogens
AT horvathgyorgyi antibacterialactivityevaluationofselectedessentialoilsinliquidandvaporphaseonrespiratorytractpathogens