Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Mechanistic Insights on Antibacterial Property of Essential Oil Components and Their Utility in Preserving Food Items

Submitted:

05 March 2026

Posted:

06 March 2026

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Foodborne diseases and food poisoning caused by bacterial pathogens is a significant global health as well as economic concern. While synthetic compounds are widely used as preservatives to ensure food safety, growing concerns regarding their potential health risks and the rise of antimicrobial resistance have driven the search for natural alternatives. Essential oils (EOs) and their individual bioactive constituents, known as essential oil components (EOCs), have emerged as promising, eco-friendly candidates for food preservation due to their robust broad-spectrum antibacterial properties. This review provides comprehensive mechanistic insights into how individual EOCs exert their antibacterial effects, detailing the disruption of bacterial cell membranes, inhibition of vital metabolic enzymes and ATP synthesis, modulation of virulence gene expression, and the prevention and eradication of biofilms. Furthermore, the review explores the practical applications and limitations of EOCs in food systems, addressing challenges such as chemical instability, toxicity at high doses, and adverse organoleptic effects. It also highlights advanced formulation strategies, such as micro/nano-encapsulation, nano-emulsions, and chemical derivatization, which significantly enhance EOC stability, bioavailability, and overall preservative efficacy. Ultimately, understanding the multifaceted mechanisms of individual EOCs paves the way for their optimized and sustainable use, ensuring global food safety.
Keywords: 
essential oil
;  
essential oil components
;  
food preservation
;  
food safety
;  
antimicrobial activity
Subject: 
Biology and Life Sciences  -   Food Science and Technology

Introduction

Food safety refers to all those hazards which make the food unsafe to human consumption. Unsafe food contributes to a vicious cycle of disease and malnutrition, impacting people of all ages, especially children, the elderly, and those who are ill (Chaudhuri, 2015). Foodborne diseases are significant contributors to increasing rate of morbidity and mortality (Bintsis, 2017; Kohli and Garg, 2015; Srikumar and Fuchs, 2011). Food-poisoning bacteria, fungi, and yeasts are major contributors to food spoilage; among them, bacteria contribute far more to food poisoning than fungi. Bacterial pathogens are among the most common causes of food borne illness, with bacteria like Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella spp, Clostridium perfringens, Campylobacter spp, Listeria monocytogens, Vibrio parahemolyticus, Bacillus cereus and entero-pathogenic Escherichia coli being responsible for a significant majority of cases (Li et al., 2023; Lorenzo et al., 2018; Muhammad et al., 2020; Rathod et al., 2022). Bacterial growth in certain food matrices encourages metabolism of certain pathways that are related to pathogenesis, virulence, and antibiotic resistance (Bhalerao et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2021; Pracser et al., 2025; Srikumar and Fuchs, 2011), which not only bestows upon them faster proliferative ability and survival within it but also enhances their capacity to pose a global threat to it. Each year, around 600 million people worldwide—nearly one in ten—become ill from foodborne pathogens (Zhao and Talha, 2022). It has been observed that low- and middle-income countries are mostly affected because of food safety issue, with an annual estimated cost of 110 billion USD in productivity losses, trade-related losses, and rise in medical treatment costs due to the consumption of unsafe foods (Jaffee et al., 2019). Moreover, the globalization of the food supply chain increasingly exposed to various threats, such as emerging pathogens, existing pathogens with new virulence traits and the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in foodborne pathogens (Gizaw, 2019; Rafiq et al., 2022). Food safety, nutrition and food preservation are closely linked. Unsafe food due to improper preservation creates a vicious cycle of disease and malnutrition, which in turn creates both economical and societal burden to any country (“Food Safety,” n.d.). Food preservation encompasses a range of techniques aimed at controlling internal and external factors that lead to spoilage, primarily by inhibiting microbial growth, with the main goal of extending shelf life.
Throughout history, essential oils (EOs) are important phytochemicals that have been widely employed in medical care including cosmetics as well as in the preservation of foods and beverages (Bolouri et al., 2022; Hyldgaard et al., 2012). Advancements in science have heightened researchers’ interest in the medicinal properties of essential oils, owing to their low toxicity, diverse pharmacological activities, and cost-effective solution in food preservation (Falleh et al., 2020; Raveau et al., 2020). EOs are plant secondary metabolites that play a significant role in plant adaptation and defense mechanisms against a myriad of environmental threats, primarily from pathogens, pests, herbivores, and extreme climatic conditions (Bennett and Wallsgrove, 1994). Almost all EOs are volatile, slightly miscible in water, colorless, having characteristic odor, optically active and are characterized by high refractive index (Burt, 2004; Chouhan et al., 2017a; Dima and Dima, 2015; Hyldgaard et al., 2012; Kalemba and Kunicka, 2003). Research has shown that EOs can be a promising means to combat food safety concerns. The EOs comprise of active pharmaceutical compounds often called essential oil components (EOCs) that are mostly low molecular weight with a great structural diversity (Wink, 2015). The majority of EOCs seem to be safe for human consumption and are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for their usage as food additives and in food preservation (Davis et al., 2022; Nisar et al., 2021). Given the membrane penetration potential, many EOCs are known to have bacteriolytic property (Davis et al., 2022; Nisar et al., 2021). With these attributes antimicrobial activities of EOCs have garnered particular attention (Angane et al., 2022), besides other biological activities (Ali et al., 2020; Ćavar Zeljković et al., 2022; Ilić et al., 2022; Zuo et al., 2020) as well as an increasing emphasis on environmentally sustainable solutions to control microbial propagation in food matrices (Jackson-Davis et al., 2023). Although, EOCs endowed with intrinsic antimicrobial traits, are a promising means to combat food borne pathogens; however, there is a lack of detailed knowledge about the mechanism of the individual essential oil components which thus attributes to our superficial understanding of governing synergy and antagonism in real time application.
The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of current knowledge regarding the components of essential oils, their antimicrobial properties, their mechanisms of action, and plausible effective food preservation strategies. Furthermore, the review explores the practical applications of these plant-derived compounds in food preservation, addressing key considerations such as dosage, stability, sensory properties, and regulatory requirements.

Antibacterial Activity of EOs and Their Components

Over the past few decades, essential oils (EOs), such as cinnamon, clove, oregano, and thyme, have been extensively used as natural preservatives to control food spoilage (Mith et al., 2014). All EOs have also demonstrated antimicrobial activity against a number of foodborne bacteria, including Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, Clostridium perfringens, Listeria, Salmonella, Bacillus cereus, Shigella, and Staphylococcus aureus (Table 1). Since essential oils (EOs) contain diverse components in varying proportions, their antimicrobial efficacy differs among bacterial species. For example, cinnamon essential oil consists of cinnamaldehyde (more than 70%), linalool (7%) and trace amount of eugenol, cinnamyl acetate, and safrole (Alizadeh Behbahani et al., 2020; Guo et al., 2024); whereas, major constituent of clove essential oil is eugenol (45–90%), followed by eugenyl acetate, β-caryophyllene, and α-humulene (Haro-González et al., 2021; Pires Costa et al., 2025). According to previous studies, clove oil exhibits stronger antibacterial activity than cinnamon oil (Falleh et al., 2020); however, antibacterial efficiency varies with the presence of the food components, pH of the food matrices etc. (Falleh et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2024). Since EOs present a diverse composition of EOCs, there have been multifaceted challenges in their utilization and in understanding their mechanism of action (Dima and Dima, 2015; Hyldgaard et al., 2012). There are also issues related to the standardization of essential oil formulations, determining the potential synergistic or antagonistic interactions among their components, and variations in terms of their efficacy against different bacterial strains, thus encouraging the necessity for further research to optimize their utility potential (de Sousa et al., 2023; Hüsnü et al., 2007; Simoben et al., 2023; Thomford et al., 2018). Therefore, it is more advantageous to study individual components (EOCs) in detail instead of focusing solely on essential oils as complex mixtures.
The bioactive constituents of EOs (EOCs) demonstrate a wide range of antibacterial effects, a favorable toxicity profile, and the ability to interfere with diverse bacterial pathways (Khwaza and Aderibigbe, 2025). The antimicrobial effects of EOCs are closely related to their physicochemical properties, such as lipophilicity, partition coefficient, and hydrogen bonding characteristics, which are attributed to similar structural arrangements and functional groups present in these compounds (Marinelli et al., 2018). Indeed, the effects of individual EOC varies across microorganisms due to differences in membrane thickness, composition, and metabolic activity among various bacterial species (Maurya et al., 2021).
For a long time, EOCs have demonstrated competence in hampering bacterial growth in controlled laboratory settings and living organisms (Almuzaini, 2023). It has been revealed that the EOCs ascribing to phenolic and aromatic aldehydes exhibit robust antibacterial properties, followed by ketones, alcohols, ethers, and other hydrocarbons, mostly due to their efficient permeability across cell membranes (Bai et al., 2022; Falleh et al., 2020; Kalemba and Kunicka, 2003; Zhou et al., 2007). In fact, majority of EOCs effective against food poisoning bacteria are phenolic monoterpenoids and phenylpropenes namely eugenol, trans-cinnamaldehyde, carvacrol and thymol (Ben Jemaa et al., 2018; Dhifi et al., 2016; Gutiérrez-del-Río et al., 2018).

Insights into Mode of Action

The antibacterial activity of antimicrobial agents is primarily attributed to their capacity to chemically disrupt the synthesis or function of essential biomolecules within bacteria, such as proteins, nucleic acids, cell membrane components, or metabolic pathways. This interference ultimately impairs bacterial growth, replication, or survival, leading to the inhibition or eradication of bacterial infections. Several studies indicated that individual components of essential oils have multiple target sites within bacterial cells (Table 2). This represents different susceptibility patterns across the strains of same genera and at varied surrounding environments (Hyldgaard et al., 2012). For instance, trans-cinnamaldehyde has been found to inhibit ATP synthase enzyme activity in Salmonella apart from cell membrane disruption (Silva et al., 2018). The same has also been observed to play a role in down-regulating carbohydrate metabolism and transport and amino acid metabolism (Kollanoor Johny et al., 2017).
EOCs are widely recognized for their effectiveness against various pathogens, which is attributed to the specific chemical properties of these compounds.
Disruption of cell membrane: The breakdown of bacterial cell membranes by essential oil constituents is a complex process that includes hydrophobic and/or hydrophilic interactions. The hydrocarbon backbone of EOCs is lipophilic, allowing them to interact with lipid-based structures in bacterial cells, while their hydrophilic functional groups enable interaction with aqueous environments (Kalemba and Kunicka, 2003; Koroch et al., 2007; Marchese et al., 2017; Marinelli et al., 2018). Several EOCs such as eugenol, carvacrol and thymol are the potent cell membrane disruptors. The principal mode of action of these compounds at bactericidal doses is cytoplasmic membrane rupture, which increases non-specific permeability (Figure 1). This hyperpermeability is accompanied by ion leakage, a significant loss of other cellular components, such as intracellular proteins, and eventually, cell death (Ahmed Khalil et al., 2017; Devi et al., 2010; Sharifi-Rad et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2022). A study conducted by Di Pasqua et al., in 2007 revealed that exposure of cells to five EOCs, namely eugenol, carvacrol, thymol, trans-cinnamaldehyde, and limonene for two hours led to a significant decrease in unsaturated fatty acids and an increase in saturated fatty acids (Di Pasqua et al., 2007). A high level of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) in the membrane lipid bilayer is associated with reduced membrane fluidity, leading to increased rigidity (Bayer et al., 2000). The change in the fatty acid composition of the organism is perhaps because of the adaptive mechanism of the organism where cellular reaction to membrane damage takes place which results in the reduction of unsaturated fatty acids and increase in the saturated fatty acid. This observation suggests that these compounds potentially interacted with the membrane lipid profile, inducing structural alterations in the bacterial cell (Di Pasqua et al., 2007). The individual and combined effects of eugenol, carvacrol, and thymol have been shown to induce cell membrane disruptions and reduce biofilm mass on the food matrix surface (Miladi et al., 2017). Several analytical techniques like scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopic (TEM) analyses confirm the changes in the cell membrane upon EOC treatment (Chauhan and Kang, 2014; Di Pasqua et al., 2007; Miladi et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2018).
Modulating expression of important genes: The impact of slight exposure of various essential oil components on several bacterial species has revealed significant effects on genes essential for survival as well as virulence and colonization (Ananda Baskaran and Venkitanarayanan, 2014; Giovagnoni et al., 2020; Kollanoor Johny et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2018; Wagle et al., 2019). The transcriptomics profiles of the pathogens following exposure of EOCs provided insights into their effects at the genetic level (Ananda Baskaran and Venkitanarayanan, 2014; Kollanoor Johny et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2018). Trans-cinnamaldehyde, eugenol, thymol and carvacrol at their sub-MIC level are able to down-regulate genes responsible of carbohydrate and amino acid metabolism and their transport, and vitamin B12 biosynthesis of Salmonella Enteritidis PT8 and Salmonella Typhimurium (Giovagnoni et al., 2020; Kollanoor Johny et al., 2017). Trans-cinnamaldehyde, eugenol and carvacrol also downregulate expression of genes related to stress response and cell surface modifying enzymes in Campylobacter jejuni (Wagle et al., 2019).
Reduction in biofilm formation and biofilm disrupting effect: Recent studies have highlighted the potential of EOCs to disrupt and prevent biofilm formation. Antibiofilm potential leverages great potential of EOCs in their utility in food preservation, as EOCs can be applied directly to the surface of food or incorporated into packaging, where it migrates and inhibits microbial activity. Phenolic monoterpenes, such as thymol and carvacrol, are among the most potent agents, in disrupting EPS, a potent structural component of biofilm. These EOCs can penetrate the EPS matrix, thereby eradicating existing structure (Touati et al., 2025). More recently, thymol and oregano demonstrated to be more effective in inhibiting biofilm formation by E. coli than carvacrol (Tadevosyan et al., 2025). However, carvacrol and thymol showed higher activity against Salmonella biofilms than oregano did (Tadevosyan et al., 2025). EOCs like cinnamaldehyde has ability to modify protein composition in biofilms, weakening structural integrity; whereas, thymol reduces biofilm synthesis by lowering glutamine, glutamate, and uridine diphosphate levels, impairing EPS production. Linalool, on the other hand, inhibits biofilm formation through microcolony disruption. Thymol reduces thickness and density of biofilm matrix in food poisoning E. faecalis (Touati et al., 2025). The presence of both thymol and carvacrol in L. origanoides EO exerts greater effectiveness in dispersing S. Enteritidis biofilms (Touati et al., 2025). In a study carried out by Purkait et al., eugenol and trans-cinnamaldehyde individually lowers established biofilm of S. Typhimurium by 51% and 54%, respectively (Purkait et al., 2020). A combination of both the compounds enhances the efficacy to 69% (Purkait et al., 2020). It has been revealed that trans-cinnamaldehyde is also effective in disrupting S. Typhimurium biofilms on solid surfaces, providing promise towards its utilization in food packaging industry (Silva et al., 2018). The proteomics analyses revealed that there is differential expression of proteins associated with energy metabolism, highlighting potential mechanisms by which cinnamaldehyde disrupts biofilm formation and promotes antibacterial effects (Silva et al., 2018). Linalool is recognized as another effective EOC with anti-biofilm activity in many food-spoilage bacterial species (Prakash et al., 2019). Recent study indicates that linalool interacts with quorum-sensing ComP receptor in Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (Shen et al., 2023). Menthol, on the other hand, reduces the AHL-dependent production of violacein, virulence factors, and biofilm formation, indicating broad-spectrum anti-quorum sensing activity (Tadevosyan et al., 2025). Figure 2 illustrates the general mechanism of anti-biofilm activity of EOCs against bacteria.
Inhibition of important metabolic activity: EOCs exhibit varying effects on a diverse array of enzymes depending on their functional groups.
Both EO and EOCs have been demonstrated to inhibit various enzymes involved in cellular processes such as protein and nucleic acid biosynthesis, ATP synthesis, amino acid metabolism, the citric acid cycle, and glycolysis aiming to inhibit pathogen growth. The EOCs present in cloves, cinnamon, sage, and nutmeg oils inhibit histidine, ornithine and lysine decarboxylase, where cinnamaldehyde and eugenol exhibit the highest effectiveness against these enzymes in Enterobacter aerogenes (Wendakoon and Sakaguchi, 1995). A recent study by Vimal et al. indicates that eugenol is effective against L-Asparaginase of Salmonella Typhimurium (Vimal et al., 2018).
EOCs were studied on the inhibition of ATP synthase activity of E. coli where thymoquinone, quercetin, and resveratrol were shown to be more potent inhibitors than other components (Issa et al., 2019). The inhibition mechanism as well as the potency of the EOCs varies depending on the interaction between residues of the enzyme and functional groups of the compounds (Ahmad et al., 2013; Issa et al., 2019). For instance, the effect of structural modulation of polyphenolic compounds on the inhibition of E. coli ATP synthase was studied by Ahmad et al. in 2012. Their findings indicate that structural modifications of polyphenols can inhibit E. coli ATP synthase to varying degrees (Ahmad et al., 2012). These modifications resulted in augmented inhibition with both natural and modified polyphenols showing inhibitory effects on ATP synthesis in E. coli (Ahmad et al., 2012) (Figure 3).
Lately, after treated with linalool, a significant changes in metabolites attributed to amino acid metabolism, central carbon metabolism, lipid metabolism, nucleic acid metabolism were observed in L. monocytogenes (He et al., 2022). This result indicates a promise towards utilization of linalool preventing bacterial contamination by L. monocytogenes in the food industry (He et al., 2022).
A study by Medina et al. revealed that the essential oil components thymol and carvacrol interact with topoisomerase IV, a key enzyme in Salmonella essential for DNA replication, thereby disrupting critical cellular processes (Rochín-Medina et al., 2023). Earlier Cox et al had shown that when E. coli cells were treated with carvacrol, the glycolytic pathway was modified, glucose accumulated and there was a shift from respiration to fermentation (Cox et al., 1998). Later, subsequent exposure of E. coli to cinnamaldehyde induced the accumulation of stress-associated metabolites, including indole, alkanes, alcohols, acids, esters, and dimethyl disulfide (Hossain et al., 2013) Essential oil component from clove oil has been shown to inhibit DNA synthesis in S. aureus (Xu et al., 2016). Another study by Song et al. found that treatment with Mandarin essential oil from Citrus reticulata L. led to a decrease in protein concentration in S. aureus, indicating that essential oils and their components can significantly inhibit protein synthesis in bacteria (Song et al., 2020). Germacrene B, an essential oil component, has been shown to interact with the active sites of DNA and RNA polymerase, potentially disturbing the cell replication process (de Souza Moura et al., 2020). Essential oil from ginger has also been seen as a potential inhibitor of the expression of certain genes that play vital roles in bacterial energy metabolism, the tricarboxylic acid cycle, cell membrane-related proteins, and DNA metabolism (Wang et al., 2020). According to Cui et al., oregano essential oil can alter the structure of DNA, thus interfering with the replication process (Cui et al., 2019). Additionally, the main component of oregano essential oil, carvacrol, can form chimeras with DNA and inhibit the expression of the pvl gene, which is important for virulence in methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) (Cui et al., 2019). Thymol causes DNA intercalation and leads to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species, eventually causing damage to DNA structure and functionality (Khwaza and Aderibigbe, 2025; Liu et al., 2020).
Inhibition of flagella synthesis, Motility and Cellular Adhesion: EOCs are also involved in modulating virulence related gene expression. A thorough microarray-based gene expression study in Salmonella reveals significant downregulation of genes associated with chemotaxis, motility, and adherence to host cells by both eugenol and transcinnamaldehyde (Kollanoor Johny et al., 2017). It was also revealed that trans-cinnamaldehyde, eugenol, thymol and carvacrol at their sub-MIC level downregulate propanediol and ethanolamine utilization in Salmonella spp. (Kollanoor Johny et al., 2017). The aforementioned metabolisms have direct impact on Salmonella pathogenesis and virulence (Bhalerao et al., 2025; Jakobson and Tullman-Ercek, 2016; Prentice, 2021). In a study with Campylobacter jejuni, the transcinnamaldehyde has been shown to be effective in reducing the expression of genes coding for motility (fliA) and attachment (cadF). Whereas, carvacrol and eugenol reduce flagella motor function (motA) and surface attachment (cadF). Eugenol also reduces toxin production by reducing expression of the corresponding genes (cdtA and cdtB) in C. jejuni (Upadhyay et al., 2017). Transcinnamaldehyde inhibits type I fimbriae by suppressing transcription of fimA, fimZ, fimY, fimH and fimW in Salmonella Typhimurium (Yin et al., 2022). Transcinnamaldehyde also downregulates regulatory T1F of Salmonella and reduces the ability of the bacteria to adhere to the cells (Yin et al., 2022).
Carvacrol and thymol are shown to downregulate the genes related to motility (fimH), adherence and cellular aggregation (csgD), and exopolysaccharide production (pgaC) in E. coli and in S. aureus (Martínez et al., 2023). Carvacrol also induces Heat Shock Protein 60 (HSP60) in E. coli O157:H7 and inhibits flagellin synthesis (Burt et al., 2007). Differential proteomics analyses indicate down regulation of two proteins viz. FlaA and FliM, related to flagellum assembly in L. monocytogenes after treatment of thymol, a major component of thyme essential oil (Sarengaowa et al., 2019).

Stability and Toxicity of EOCs

It is well documented that EOCs are known to be sensitive to light, temperature and other environmental factors once they deprived from their plant source which results into oxidation, chemical transformation and polymerization depending on their chemical nature (Dajic Stevanovic et al., 2020; Khwaza and Aderibigbe, 2025; Turek and Stintzing, 2013; Wang et al., 2024). Additionally, several challenges persist, including cytotoxicity at high concentrations, chemical instability, poor water solubility, and variable pharmacokinetics. Double-bonded compounds are more likely to undergo autoxidation due to the resonance-stabilized radicals produced by hydrogen atom abstraction (Dajic Stevanovic et al., 2020). Light enhances the breakdown of monoterpenes, catalyzes intramolecular isomerization events or trans-cis conversions in monoterpenes, and increases the rate of autoxidation and formation of alkyl radicals (Turek and Stintzing, 2013). Volatiles are thermally unstable and prone to rearrangement at high temperatures. Thermal degradation of terpenes is categorized into four types of oxidative reactions: breakage of double bonds, epoxidation, dehydrogenation to aromatic systems, and allylic oxidation to alcohols, ketones, and aldehydes (Dajic Stevanovic et al., 2020; Ingram, 1999). All these consequently reduce the quality of the EOCs. In a study, Michelies and co-workers examined the in vitro degradation and in vivo passage kinetics of four EOCs in the digestive tract of piglets. The four EOCs, namely carvacrol, thymol, eugenol, and trans-cinnamaldehyde were found to be stable in the stomach, even in an acidic environment, followed by minimal degradation in jejunal simulations and substantial degradation of eugenol and trans-cinnamaldehyde in caecal simulation studies (Michiels et al., 2008). The degradation of these two compounds may be due to microbial oxidation of the side chains to carboxylic acids prior to hydroxylation and cleavage of the benzene ring (Michiels et al., 2008; Shimoni et al., 2002). Perhaps, these compounds which were not degraded in the proximal areas of the intestinal tract of the piglets, must be absorbed in these areas (Michiels et al., 2008). Some portion of these compounds which was not absorbed in the stomach and small intestine is may be due to their interaction with organic matter (Michiels et al., 2008; Tavvabi-Kashani et al., 2024). In the above study, all the EOCs were mixed with the corn starch before feeding the piglets which suggests formulation can be made in such a way that it can increase the solubilization and bioavailability of the EOCs (Michiels et al., 2008).
Although, in vitro assays generally classify essential oils and their components as antioxidants, yet recent studies show that within eukaryotic cells, they can act as prooxidants, disrupting cell membranes and organelles (Bakkali et al., 2008). The high lipophilicity endows most EOCs with a remarkable ability to penetrate cellular components and other tissues (Akhmouch et al., 2022; Chi et al., 2023; Hou et al., 2021; Sadgrove and Jones, 2019). However, their effects vary with type and concentration, often leading to cytotoxicity at higher concentration and prolong exposure (Fujisawa and Murakami, 2016; Latorre et al., 2025).

Strategies to Enhance the Efficacy and Extended Shelf Life of EOCs

Although EOs and EOCs exhibit remarkable potential to serve as natural preservative in food systems, their practical application is constrained by intense aroma, high chemical reactivity, hydrophobicity leading to low solubility, poor stability, and potential adverse interactions with food components such as carbohydrates, fats, and fatty acids, which alter organoleptic properties. To overcome these limitations, several technological approaches have been developed to improve the preservative efficacy of the components (Maurya et al., 2021). Micro and Nano-encapsulation has become one of the promising strategies for increasing the overall efficiency of the EOCs. Encapsulation helps in decreasing volatility and provides protection from environmental interactions (e.g., light, oxygen, moisture, pH), thus enhancing physical stability of EOCs (Chouhan et al., 2017b; Ravi Kumar, 2000). Various encapsulating materials have been used and still research is currently in progress to check which material is more effective. Recently, use of cyclodextrins to encapsulate the essential oil and their components has been increasingly popular (Kfoury et al., 2019; Marques, 2010). Cyclodextrin is a cyclic carbohydrate derived from starch, which not only enhances the efficacy of the EOCs but also mask their unpleasant smell and taste (Marques, 2010). The formation of complex between cyclodextrin and the encapsulated molecule is done at molecular level with proper orientation as per the spatial requirement and in a lock and key manner (Marques, 2010). This complex has been shown to exhibit extended stability. Thymol, carvacrol and eugenol were encapsulated in the β-cyclodextrin by supercritical CO2 technique resulted into reduced volatility, oxidation and degradation of the EOCs (Locci et al., 2004; Marques, 2010) (Figure 4). In another study, β-cyclodextrin forms inclusion complex with trans-cinnamaldehyde and thymol. Cinnamonaldehyde and thymol interact with β- cyclodextrin through hydrogen bonding and hydrophobic interactions, resulting in a stable inclusion complex (Ponce Cevallos et al., 2010). Furthermore, the controlled release of the EOCs can also be done by modifying their formulations with cyclodextrin (Ponce Cevallos et al., 2010). Eugenol and trans-cinnamaldehyde entrapped in poly (DL-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticles have shown to exhibit more enhanced antibacterial activity against Salmonella spp. and Listeria spp. with concentration ranging from 20 to 10 mg/ml (Gomes et al., 2011). Nanoparticles functionalized with EOCs is another alternative to entrapment strategy. These have shown enhanced antimicrobial activity against multidrug-resistant pathogens, attributed to improved chemical stability and solubility, reduced volatility, and protection against degradation of active components (Chouhan et al., 2017b). Carvacrol and eugenol-grafted chitosan nanoparticles have been shown to have higher antibacterial activity than the individual components. The encapsulated EOCs exhibit thermal stability, higher antioxidant activity and lower cytotoxicity as compared to those of the pure eugenol and carvacrol, underscoring greater potential to utilize as food preservative (Chen et al., 2009; Feyzioglu and Tornuk, 2016). Synthesis of EOC nano-emulsion has been carried out in order to address instability and volatility of EOCs. To address this issue, Anand Prakash et al. synthesized nano-emulsions of linalool, which demonstrated enhanced stability and efficacy. Their study revealed that the nano-emulsions of linalool exhibited a potency 12% greater than linalool alone (Prakash et al., 2019). Recently, chemical modification in various EOCs has been shown to enhance antibacterial potency against food spoilage bacteria and multidrug-resistant pathogens (Dong et al., 2024; Malheiro et al., 2019; Maurya et al., 2021; Swain et al., 2021; Vimal et al., 2018). Vimal and coworkers had shown that a derivative of eugenol (R)-1-((2-(4-allyl-2-methoxyphenoxy) ethyl) amino)-1-(2-chlorophenyl) propane-2,2-diol] is more effective against L-Asparaginase of Salmonella Typhimurium than eugenol alone (Vimal et al., 2018). Lately, several chlorinated and allyl phenyl ether derivatives have been studied for their effectiveness against various food poisoning bacteria (Pinheiro et al., 2018), accentuating their potential in using food preservation strategies.

Comparison Between Synthetic Preservatives and EOC and Sustainable Practices

Synthetic preservatives, including benzoic acid, sorbic acid, propionic acid, nitrites, and sulfites remain integral to food preservation owing to their validated antimicrobial activity and cost-effectiveness (Carocho et al., 2014). Propionic acid suppresses microbial growth by lowering intracellular pH, whereas benzoic acid compromises cell membrane integrity and inhibits key metabolic enzymes (Jang et al., 2025). On the other hand, sorbic acid is extensively employed in the food industry to inhibit the growth of molds, yeasts, and other fungi (Jang et al., 2025). Nitrites, particularly sodium nitrite, serve as the primary preservatives in cured meats, specifically inhibiting the growth of Clostridium botulinum and preventing botulinum toxin production (Shakil et al., 2022). Sulfites are effective at controlling the growth of bacteria, yeasts, and molds and are employed in preserving beverages and wine (Dordevic et al., 2023). Although, synthetic molecules are approved and regulated by international regulatory systems such as the USA FDA, EU (Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008), and regulatory bodies of various Asian countries; however, there is ongoing debate concerning the potential health risks linked to long term consumer exposure to such molecules (Wang et al., 2024). It is suggested that use of synthetic chemical preservatives poses potential health risks through residue accumulation and migration in the body (Zhang and Rhim, 2022). Also, their prolonged use may contribute to the emergence of drug-resistant bacterial strains (Yang et al., 2023). The utilization of natural preservative agents, such as essential oils (EOs) and their components (EOCs) as substitutes for synthetic compounds has been encouraged in recent years; however, the use of natural antimicrobial agents is not devoid of limitations. A key limitation lies in the variability of their composition, which may result in inconsistent effectiveness and safety. Essential oils preservatives also exhibit allergenic properties, especially in individuals sensitive to plant-derived compounds, potentially causing adverse reactions (Türkmenoğlu and Özmen, 2021). Another limitation of natural antimicrobial agents is their narrow spectrum of activity, which can render them less effective than synthetic preservatives against specific microorganisms. Furthermore, determining the appropriate dosage of natural preservatives for effective use can be challenging, and excessive amounts may cause toxicity or adverse side effects (Bakkali et al., 2008; Sanchez Armengol et al., 2021). Additionally, EO and EOCs may reduce significantly organoleptic impact of the food matrix (Maurya et al., 2021). Therefore, when choosing between essential oil over synthetic agents, it is essential to consider factors such as the product’s intended use, the preservative’s efficacy and safety, and the sustainability of its source.

Future Directions

Essential oil components (EOCs) are increasingly acknowledged as promising natural substitutes for synthetic food preservatives, attributable to their broad-spectrum antimicrobial efficacy, antioxidant capacity, and antigenotoxic potential. This review highlights the antibacterial activity of EOCs, their mechanisms of action, toxicity and stability and strategies to enhance the efficacy and extended shelf life of EOCs. Nevertheless, several critical challenges persist with the practical application of EOCs, namely adverse sensory effects, stability limitations, compositional variability, regulatory constraints, and the risk of toxicity at elevated doses. Efficacy of the EOCs constantly diminishes in complex food matrices, where interactions with lipids, proteins, and carbohydrates hinder their bioavailability and compromise antibacterial activity (Diogo Gonçalves et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2024). Further, at higher concentrations, EOCs often impart undesirable organoleptic effects, as the altered profile excludes certain compounds that contribute to the food’s sensory characteristics (Smith-Palmer et al., 2001), suggesting the need to optimize the combinational dosage between specific EOCs at varied food matrices. An AI-based mathematical modeling could be implemented to determine correct combination and dosages of EOCs in different types of food system (Wang, 2020). Although several strategies to enhance the efficacy and bioavailability of essential oil compounds, such as nano-emulsion formation and chemical derivatization have been reported, their application remains limited due to the absence of safety approvals and the insufficient characterization of allergenicity or toxicity profiles (Khan et al., 2023). Given their multitarget attributes and natural origin, the EOCs are unlikely to develop resistance development (Iskandar et al., 2025); however, a recent gene expression studies in Salmonella spp. revealed upregulation of the acridine efflux pump genes (acrA and acrB), and multiple antibiotic resistance protein (mar) genes upon treatment of transcinnamaldehyde and eugenol (Kollanoor Johny et al., 2017). The application of EO and EOCs as food preservative agents therefore must be regulated through defined concentration thresholds and labeling obligations, which could be guided by a comprehensive assessment of each option’s risks and benefits, along with its impact on food quality and sustainability.

Author Contributions

CC and AAS were involved in conceptualization. AAS and PO wrote the Original Draft. AAS and CC Edited the Draft. CC Reviewed and finalized the Manuscript.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Adhoc research grant (Diarr/Adhoc/5/2022-ECD-II) from ICMR, Govt. of India to CC. CC also acknowledges Ramanujan Fellowship Award grant (SB/S2/RJN-128/2017) from Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB), Govt. of India. AAS acknowledges SERB, Govt. of India and Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Research Fellowship (MJPRF) for fellowship. The authors also thank Ms. Yashodhara D. Shinde for designing Figure 2.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.

References

  1. Ahmad, Z.; Ahmad, M.; Okafor, F.; Jones, J.; Abunameh, A.M.; Cheniya, R.K.; Kady, I.O. Effect of structural modulation of polyphenolic compounds on the inhibition of Escherichia coli ATP synthase. Int J Biol Macromol 2012, 50, 476–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ahmad, Z.; Okafor, F.; Azim, S.; Laughlin, T.F. ATP Synthase: A Molecular Therapeutic Drug Target for Antimicrobial and Antitumor Peptides. Curr Med Chem 2013, 20, 1956–1973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ahmed Khalil, A.; ur Rahman, U.; Rafiq Khan, M.; Sahar, A.; Mehmood, T.; Khan, M. Essential oil eugenol: sources, extraction techniques and nutraceutical perspectives. RSC Advances 2017, 7, 32669–32681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Akhmouch, A.A.; Hriouech, S.; Chefchaou, H.; Tanghort, M.; Mzabi, A.; Chami, N.; Remmal, A. The Combination of Amoxicillin and 1,8-Cineole Improves the Bioavailability and the Therapeutic Effect of Amoxicillin in a Rabbit Model. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ali, H.; Al-Khalifa, A.R.; Aouf, A.; Boukhebti, H.; Farouk, A. Effect of nanoencapsulation on volatile constituents, and antioxidant and anticancer activities of Algerian Origanum glandulosum Desf. essential oil. Sci Rep 2020, 10, 2812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alizadeh Behbahani, B.; Falah, F.; Lavi Arab, F.; Vasiee, M.; Tabatabaee Yazdi, F. Chemical Composition and Antioxidant, Antimicrobial, and Antiproliferative Activities of Cinnamomum zeylanicum Bark Essential Oil. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2020, 2020, 5190603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Almuzaini, A.M. Phytochemicals: potential alternative strategy to fight Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ananda Baskaran, S.; Venkitanarayanan, K. Plant-Derived Antimicrobials Reduce E. coli O157:H7 Virulence Factors Critical for Colonization in Cattle Gastrointestinal Tract In Vitro. BioMed Research International 2014, e212395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Angane, M.; Swift, S.; Huang, K.; Butts, C.A.; Quek, S.Y. Essential Oils and Their Major Components: An Updated Review on Antimicrobial Activities, Mechanism of Action and Their Potential Application in the Food Industry. Foods 2022, 11, 464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bai, X.; Li, X.; Liu, X.; Xing, Z.; Su, R.; Wang, Y.; Xia, X.; Shi, C. Antibacterial Effect of Eugenol on Shigella flexneri and Its Mechanism. Foods 2022, 11, 2565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bakkali, F.; Averbeck, S.; Averbeck, D.; Idaomar, M. Biological effects of essential oils – A review. Food and Chemical Toxicology 2008, 46, 446–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bayer, A.S.; Prasad, R.; Chandra, J.; Koul, A.; Smriti, M.; Varma, A.; Skurray, R.A.; Firth, N.; Brown, M.H.; Koo, S.-P.; Yeaman, M.R. In Vitro Resistance of Staphylococcus aureus to Thrombin-Induced Platelet Microbicidal Protein Is Associated with Alterations in Cytoplasmic Membrane Fluidity. Infection and Immunity 2000, 68, 3548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Belguith, H.; Kthiri, F.; Chati, A.; Sofah, A.A.; Hamida, A.B.; Ladoulsi, A. Study of the effect of aqueous garlic extract (Allium sativum) on some Salmonella serovars isolates. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 2010, 189–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ben Jemaa, M.; Falleh, H.; Neves, M.A.; Isoda, H.; Nakajima, M.; Ksouri, R. Quality preservation of deliberately contaminated milk using thyme free and nanoemulsified essential oils. Food Chemistry 2017, 217, 726–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Ben Jemaa, M.; Falleh, H.; Saada, M.; Oueslati, M.; Snoussi, M.; Ksouri, R. Thymus capitatus essential oil ameliorates pasteurization efficiency. J Food Sci Technol 2018, 55, 3446–3452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bennett, R.N.; Wallsgrove, R.M. Secondary metabolites in plant defence mechanisms. New Phytologist 1994, 127, 617–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bhalerao, M.R.; Davkhar, A.S.; Sawant, A.R.; Ghosh, A.S.; Harris, T.N.; Bobik, T.A.; Saha, A.; Agawane, S.B.; Chowdhury, C. Deletion of major shell proteins of ethanolamine utilization microcompartment reduces intrinsic antibiotic resistance, biofilm, and intracellular survival of Salmonella Typhimurium. Research in Microbiology 2025, 104356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bintsis, T. Foodborne pathogens. AIMSMICRO 2017, 3, 529–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bolouri, P.; Salami, R.; Kouhi, S.; Kordi, M.; Asgari Lajayer, B.; Hadian, J.; Astatkie, T. Applications of Essential Oils and Plant Extracts in Different Industries. Molecules 2022, 27, 8999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Burt, S. Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods—a review. International Journal of Food Microbiology 2004, 94, 223–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Burt, S.A.; van der Zee, R.; Koets, A.P.; de Graaff, A.M.; van Knapen, F.; Gaastra, W.; Haagsman, H.P.; Veldhuizen, E.J.A. Carvacrol Induces Heat Shock Protein 60 and Inhibits Synthesis of Flagellin in Escherichia coli O157:H7. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2007, 73, 4484–4490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Carocho, M.; Barreiro, M.F.; Morales, P.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Adding Molecules to Food, Pros and Cons: A Review on Synthetic and Natural Food Additives. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 2014, 13, 377–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ćavar Zeljković, S.; Schadich, E.; Džubák, P.; Hajdúch, M.; Tarkowski, P. Antiviral Activity of Selected Lamiaceae Essential Oils and Their Monoterpenes Against SARS-Cov-2. Front. Pharmacol. 2022, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Chaudhuri, D. Food Safety: A Public Health Priority. Indian Journal of Public Health 2015, 59, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chauhan, A.K.; Kang, S.C. Thymol disrupts the membrane integrity of Salmonella ser. typhimurium in vitro and recovers infected macrophages from oxidative stress in an ex vivo model. Research in Microbiology 2014, 165, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Chen, F.; Shi, Z.; Neoh, K.G.; Kang, E.T. Antioxidant and antibacterial activities of eugenol and carvacrol-grafted chitosan nanoparticles. Biotechnol Bioeng 2009, 104, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, S.; He, S.; Xu, X.; Wang, H. Transcriptomic responses of foodborne pathogens to the food matrix. Current Opinion in Food Science 2021, 42, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chi, M.; Zhou, Z.; Yan, T.; Gong, Z.; Li, Y.; Chen, S.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, L.; Huang, Y. Quantification of six volatile oil constituents of Oleum Cinnamomi in rat plasma and multiple tissues using GC-MS and its application to pharmacokinetic and tissue distribution studies. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis 2023, 223, 115128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Chouhan, S.; Sharma, K.; Guleria, S. Antimicrobial Activity of Some Essential Oils—Present Status and Future Perspectives. Medicines 2017a, 4, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Chouhan, S.; Sharma, K.; Guleria, S. Antimicrobial Activity of Some Essential Oils—Present Status and Future Perspectives. Medicines 2017b, 4, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cox; Gustafson; Mann; Markham; Liew; Hartland; Bell; Warmington; Wyllie. Tea tree oil causes K+ leakage and inhibits respiration in Escherichia coli. Letters in Applied Microbiology 1998, 26, 355–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cui, H.; Zhang, C.; Li, C.; Lin, L. Antibacterial mechanism of oregano essential oil. Industrial Crops and Products 2019, 139, 111498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cui, H.; Zhang, C.; Li, C.; Lin, L. Antimicrobial mechanism of clove oil on Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 2018, 94, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dajic Stevanovic, Z.; Sieniawska, E.; Glowniak, K.; Obradovic, N.; Pajic-Lijakovic, I. Natural Macromolecules as Carriers for Essential Oils: From Extraction to Biomedical Application. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2020, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Davis, B.P.F.; Amin, J.; Graham, P.L.; Beggs, P.J. Climate variability and change are drivers of salmonellosis in Australia: 1991 to 2019. Science of The Total Environment 2022, 843, 156980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. de Sousa, D.P.; Damasceno, R.O.S.; Amorati, R.; Elshabrawy, H.A.; de Castro, R.D.; Bezerra, D.P.; Nunes, V.R.V.; Gomes, R.C.; Lima, T.C. Essential Oils: Chemistry and Pharmacological Activities. Biomolecules 2023, 13, 1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. de Souza Moura, W.; de Souza, S.R.; Campos, F.S.; Sander Rodrigues Cangussu, A.; Macedo Sobrinho Santos, E.; Silva Andrade, B.; Borges Gomes, C.H.; Fernandes Viana, K.; Haddi, K.; Oliveira, E.E.; Nascimento, V.L.; de Souza Aguiar, R.W. Antibacterial activity of Siparuna guianensis essential oil mediated by impairment of membrane permeability and replication of pathogenic bacteria. Industrial Crops and Products 2020, 146, 112142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Desam, N.R.; Al-Rajab, A.J.; Sharma, M.; Mylabathula, M.M.; Gowkanapalli, R.R.; Albratty, M. Chemical constituents, in vitro antibacterial and antifungal activity of Mentha × Piperita L. (peppermint) essential oils. Journal of King Saud University - Science 2019, 31, 528–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Devi, K.P.; Nisha, S.A.; Sakthivel, R.; Pandian, S.K. Eugenol (an essential oil of clove) acts as an antibacterial agent against Salmonella typhi by disrupting the cellular membrane. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 2010, 130, 107–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dhifi, W.; Bellili, S.; Jazi, S.; Bahloul, N.; Mnif, W. Essential Oils’ Chemical Characterization and Investigation of Some Biological Activities: A Critical Review. Medicines 2016, 3, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Di Pasqua, R.; Betts, G.; Hoskins, N.; Edwards, M.; Ercolini, D.; Mauriello, G. Membrane Toxicity of Antimicrobial Compounds from Essential Oils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 4863–4870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dima, C.; Dima, S. Essential oils in foods: extraction, stabilization, and toxicity. Current Opinion in Food Science, Food Engineering and Processing • Food Mycology 2015, 5, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Diogo Gonçalves, S.; Paiva-Cardoso, M. das N.; Caramelo, A. Green Preservation Strategies: The Role of Essential Oils in Sustainable Food Preservatives. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dong, H.; You, Y.; Wang, N.; Wang, M.; Song, T.; He, Yani; Zou, Y.; He, Yujiao; Peng, T.; Mei, L. Development of amphipathic derivatives of thymol and carvacrol as potent broad-spectrum antibacterial agents. European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry 2024, 276, 116716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Dordevic, D.; Capikova, J.; Dordevic, S.; Tremlová, B.; Gajdács, M.; Kushkevych, I. Sulfur content in foods and beverages and its role in human and animal metabolism: A scoping review of recent studies. Heliyon 2023, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Falleh, H.; Ben Jemaa, M.; Saada, M.; Ksouri, R. Essential oils: A promising eco-friendly food preservative. Food Chemistry 2020, 330, 127268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Fathy, Reda.R.; Abaza, M.; Mohamed, Z.; Tantawy, Aya.H.; Abdallah, M.; khalaf, N.M.; Mohamed, S. Antibacterial effects of nano-emulsified cumin oil on performance and carcass characteristics in weaning rabbits infected by Clostridium perfringens type A. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci 2025, 14, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Feyzioglu, G.C.; Tornuk, F. Development of chitosan nanoparticles loaded with summer savory (Satureja hortensis L.) essential oil for antimicrobial and antioxidant delivery applications. LWT 2016, 70, 104–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Food Safety [WWW Document]. n.d. Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/food-safety (accessed on 2.28.26).
  50. Fujisawa, S.; Murakami, Y. Eugenol and Its Role in Chronic Diseases. Adv Exp Med Biol 2016, 929, 45–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Fujita, K.-I.; Chavasiri, W.; Kubo, I. Anti-Salmonella Activity of Volatile Compounds of Vietnam Coriander. Phytother Res 2015, 29, 1081–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ghosh, V.; Chandwani, S.K.; Lonhare, A.; Balan, N.S. Antibacterial Nanoemulsion of Oregano Oil for Food Preservation: In Vitro and In Situ Evaluation Against Escherichia coli. BioNanoSci 2024, 14, 1340–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Giovagnoni, G.; Rossi, B.; Tugnoli, B.; Ghiselli, F.; Bonetti, A.; Piva, A.; Grilli, E. Thymol and Carvacrol Downregulate the Expression of Salmonella typhimurium Virulence Genes during an In Vitro Infection on Caco-2 Cells. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Gizaw, Z. Public health risks related to food safety issues in the food market: a systematic literature review. Environ Health Prev Med 2019, 24, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Gomes, C.; Moreira, R.G.; Castell-Perez, E. Poly (DL-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanoparticles with entrapped trans-cinnamaldehyde and eugenol for antimicrobial delivery applications. J Food Sci 2011, 76, N16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Guo, J.; Jiang, X.; Tian, Y.; Yan, S.; Liu, J.; Xie, J.; Zhang, F.; Yao, C.; Hao, E. Therapeutic Potential of Cinnamon Oil: Chemical Composition, Pharmacological Actions, and Applications. Pharmaceuticals 2024, 17, 1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gutiérrez-del-Río, I.; Fernández, J.; Lombó, F. Plant nutraceuticals as antimicrobial agents in food preservation: terpenoids, polyphenols and thiols. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 2018, 52, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Haro-González, J.N.; Castillo-Herrera, G.A.; Martínez-Velázquez, M.; Espinosa-Andrews, H. Clove Essential Oil (Syzygium aromaticum L. Myrtaceae): Extraction, Chemical Composition, Food Applications, and Essential Bioactivity for Human Health. Molecules 2021, 26, 6387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hassanien, M.F.R.; Mahgoub, S.A.; El-Zahar, K.M. Soft cheese supplemented with black cumin oil: Impact on food borne pathogens and quality during storage. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences 2014, 21, 280–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. He, R.; Chen, Weijun; Chen, H.; Zhong, Q.; Zhang, H.; Zhang, M.; Chen, Wenxue. Antibacterial mechanism of linalool against L. monocytogenes, a metabolomic study. Food Control 2022, 132, 108533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hossain, S.M.Z.; Bojko, B.; Pawliszyn, J. Automated SPME–GC–MS monitoring of headspace metabolomic responses of E. coli to biologically active components extracted by the coating. Analytica Chimica Acta 2013, 776, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hou, M.-Z.; Chen, L.-L.; Chang, C.; Zan, J.-F.; Du, S.-M. Pharmacokinetic and tissue distribution study of eight volatile constituents in rats orally administrated with the essential oil of Artemisiae argyi Folium by GC-MS/MS. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 2021, 1181, 122904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hüsnü, K.; Başer, C.; Demirci, F. Chemistry of Essential Oils. In Flavours and Fragrances: Chemistry, Bioprocessing and Sustainability; Berger, R.G., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007; pp. 43–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hyldgaard, M.; Mygind, T.; Meyer, R.L. Essential Oils in Food Preservation: Mode of Action, Synergies, and Interactions with Food Matrix Components. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Ilić, Z.S.; Milenković, L.; Tmušić, N.; Stanojević, L.; Stanojević, J.; Cvetković, D. Essential oils content, composition and antioxidant activity of lemon balm, mint and sweet basil from Serbia. LWT 2022, 153, 112210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ingram, L. Thermal Degradation of Terpenes:� Camphene, ? 3 -Carene, Limonene, and a-Terpinene. Environ Sci Technol. 1999. [Google Scholar]
  67. Iskandar, K.; Ahmed, N.; Paudyal, N.; Ruiz Alvarez, M.-J.; Balasubramani, S.P.; Saadeh, D.; Ullah Baig, S.; Sami, H.; Hammoudi Halat, D.; Pavlović, N.; Roques, C.; Rizvi, M.; Salameh, P.; Hamed, F.; Van Dongen, M. Essential Oils as Antimicrobial Agents Against WHO Priority Bacterial Pathogens: A Strategic Review of In Vitro Clinical Efficacy, Innovations and Research Gaps. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Issa, D.; Najjar, A.; Greige-Gerges, H.; Nehme, H. Screening of Some Essential Oil Constituents as Potential Inhibitors of the ATP Synthase of Escherichia coli. Journal of Food Science 2019, 84, 138–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jackson-Davis, A.; White, S.; Kassama, L.S.; Coleman, S.; Shaw, A.; Mendonca, A.; Cooper, B.; Thomas-Popo, E.; Gordon, K.; London, L. A Review of Regulatory Standards and Advances in Essential Oils as Antimicrobials in Foods. Journal of Food Protection 2023, 86, 100025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Jaffee, S.; Henson, S.; Unnevehr, L.; Grace, D.; Cassou, E. The Safe Food Imperative: Accelerating Progress in Low-And Middleincome Countries. n.d. [Google Scholar]
  71. Jakobson, C.M.; Tullman-Ercek, D. Dumpster Diving in the Gut: Bacterial Microcompartments as Part of a Host-Associated Lifestyle. PLOS Pathogens 2016, 12, e1005558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jang, W.; Choi, J.; Yu, H.; Kim, S.; Ha, S.-D.; Lee, J. Determination of naturally derived propionic, benzoic, and sorbic acids in seafood, meats, and fruits during storage. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 2025, 137, 106897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jirovetz, L.; Buchbauer, G.; Stoilova, I.; Stoyanova, A.; Krastanov, A.; Schmidt, E. Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Properties of Clove Leaf Essential Oil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 6303–6307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Kalemba, D.; Kunicka, A. Antibacterial and Antifungal Properties of Essential Oils. Current Medicinal Chemistry 2003, 10, 813–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Kfoury, M.; Auezova, L.; Greige-Gerges, H.; Fourmentin, S. Encapsulation in cyclodextrins to widen the applications of essential oils. Environ Chem Lett 2019, 17, 129–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Khan, S.; Abdo, A.A.A.; Shu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Liang, T. The Extraction and Impact of Essential Oils on Bioactive Films and Food Preservation, with Emphasis on Antioxidant and Antibacterial Activities—A Review. Foods 2023, 12, 4169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Khwaza, V.; Aderibigbe, B.A. Antibacterial Activity of Selected Essential Oil Components and Their Derivatives: A Review. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kohli, C.; Garg, S. Food Safety in India: An Unfinished Agenda. MAMC Journal of Medical Sciences 2015, 1, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Kollanoor Johny, A.; Frye, J.G.; Donoghue, A.; Donoghue, D.J.; Porwollik, S.; McClelland, M.; Venkitanarayanan, K. Gene Expression Response of Salmonella enterica Serotype Enteritidis Phage Type 8 to Subinhibitory Concentrations of the Plant-Derived Compounds Trans-Cinnamaldehyde and Eugenol. Frontiers in Microbiology 2017, 8. [Google Scholar]
  80. Koroch, A.R.; Rodolfo Juliani, H.; Zygadlo, J.A. Bioactivity of Essential Oils and Their Components. In Flavours and Fragrances: Chemistry, Bioprocessing and Sustainability; Berger, R.G., Ed.; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007; pp. 87–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Latorre, R.; Valerii, M.C.; Benati, M.; Lewis, R.E.; Spigarelli, R.; Bernacchi, A.; Lippi, G.; Spisni, E.; Gaibani, P. Lights and Shadows of Essential Oil-Derived Compounds: Antimicrobial and Anti-Inflammatory Properties of Eugenol, Thymol, Cinnamaldehyde, and Carvacrol. Current Issues in Molecular Biology 2025, 47, 915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Li, X.; Gu, N.; Huang, T.Y.; Zhong, F.; Peng, G. Pseudomonas aeruginosa: A typical biofilm forming pathogen and an emerging but underestimated pathogen in food processing. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Li, Y.; Kong, D.; Wu, H. Analysis and evaluation of essential oil components of cinnamon barks using GC–MS and FTIR spectroscopy. Industrial Crops and Products 2013, 41, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Liu, X.; Omar, M.; Abrahante, J.E.; Nagaraja, K.V.; Vidovic, S. Insights into the Oxidative Stress Response of Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis Revealed by the Next Generation Sequencing Approach. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Liu, Y.; Chen, H.; Ting, L.; Wen, P.; Wang, B.; Liang, T.; Casper, D.P. Oregano essential oil as a natural preservative for extending the shelf life of pasteurized milk. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2026, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Locci, E.; Lai, S.; Piras, A.; Marongiu, B.; Lai, A. 13C-CPMAS and 1H-NMR Study of the Inclusion Complexes of β-Cyclodextrin with Carvacrol, Thymol, and Eugenol Prepared in Supercritical Carbon Dioxide. Chemistry & Biodiversity 2004, 1, 1354–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Main Groups of Microorganisms of Relevance for Food Safety and Stability: General Aspects and Overall Description, 2018. In Innovative Technologies for Food Preservation; Academic Press; pp. 53–107. [CrossRef]
  88. Malheiro, J.F.; Maillard, J.-Y.; Borges, F.; Simões, M. Evaluation of cinnamaldehyde and cinnamic acid derivatives in microbial growth control. International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, IBBS17 – 17th International Biodeterioration and Biodegradation Symposium 2019, 141, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Manilal, A.; Sabu, K.R.; Woldemariam, M.; Aklilu, A.; Biresaw, G.; Yohanes, T.; Seid, M.; Merdekios, B. Antibacterial Activity of Rosmarinus officinalis against Multidrug-Resistant Clinical Isolates and Meat-Borne Pathogens. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2021, 2021, e6677420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Marchese, A.; Barbieri, R.; Coppo, E.; Orhan, I.E.; Daglia, M.; Nabavi, S.F.; Izadi, M.; Abdollahi, M.; Nabavi, S.M.; Ajami, M. Antimicrobial activity of eugenol and essential oils containing eugenol: A mechanistic viewpoint. Crit Rev Microbiol 2017, 43, 668–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Marinelli, L.; Di Stefano, A.; Cacciatore, I. Carvacrol and its derivatives as antibacterial agents. Phytochem Rev 2018, 17, 903–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Marques, H.M.C. A review on cyclodextrin encapsulation of essential oils and volatiles. Flavour and Fragrance Journal 2010, 25, 313–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Martínez, A.; Stashenko, E.E.; Sáez, R.T.; Zafra, G.; Ortiz, C. Effect of Essential Oil from Lippia origanoides on the Transcriptional Expression of Genes Related to Quorum Sensing, Biofilm Formation, and Virulence of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Martucci, J.F.; Gende, L.B.; Neira, L.M.; Ruseckaite, R.A. Oregano and lavender essential oils as antioxidant and antimicrobial additives of biogenic gelatin films. Industrial Crops and Products 2015, 71, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Maurya, A.; Prasad, J.; Das, S.; Dwivedy, A.K. Essential Oils and Their Application in Food Safety. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Michiels, J.; Missotten, J.; Dierick, N.; Fremaut, D.; Maene, P.; De Smet, S. In vitro degradation and in vivo passage kinetics of carvacrol, thymol, eugenol and trans-cinnamaldehyde along the gastrointestinal tract of piglets. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 2008, 88, 2371–2381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Miladi, H.; Zmantar, T.; Kouidhi, B.; Chaabouni, Y.; Mahdouani, K.; Bakhrouf, A.; Chaieb, K. Use of carvacrol, thymol, and eugenol for biofilm eradication and resistance modifying susceptibility of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium strains to nalidixic acid. Microbial Pathogenesis 2017, 104, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Mith, H.; Duré, R.; Delcenserie, V.; Zhiri, A.; Daube, G.; Clinquart, A. Antimicrobial activities of commercial essential oils and their components against food-borne pathogens and food spoilage bacteria. Food Science & Nutrition 2014, 2, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Mith, H.; Yayi-Ladékan, E.; Sika Kpoviessi, S.D.; Yaou Bokossa, I.; Moudachirou, M.; Daube, G.; Clinquart, A. Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of Essential Oils of Ocimum basilicum, Ocimum canum and Ocimum gratissimum in Function of Harvesting Time. Journal of Essential Oil Bearing Plants 2016, 19, 1413–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Morshdy, A.E.M.A.; El-tahlawy, A.S.; Qari, S.H.; Qumsani, A.T.; Bay, D.H.; Sami, R.; Althubaiti, E.H.; Mansour, A.M.A.; Aljahani, A.H.; Hafez, A.E.-S.E.; Mahmoud, A.F.A.; El Bayomi, R.M.; Hussein, M.A. Anti-Biofilms’ Activity of Garlic and Thyme Essential Oils against Salmonella typhimurium. Molecules 2022, 27, 2182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Muhammad, M.H.; Idris, A.L.; Fan, X.; Guo, Y.; Yu, Y.; Jin, X.; Qiu, J.; Guan, X.; Huang, T. Beyond Risk: Bacterial Biofilms and Their Regulating Approaches. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Nisar, M.F.; Khadim, M.; Rafiq, M.; Chen, J.; Yang, Y.; Wan, C.C. Pharmacological Properties and Health Benefits of Eugenol: A Comprehensive Review. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity 2021, 2021, 2497354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Nuñez, L.; D’ Aquino, M. Microbicide activity of clove essential oil (Eugenia caryophyllata). Braz. J. Microbiol. 2012, 43, 1255–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Özkan, O.E.; Güney, K.; Gür, M.; Pattabanoğlu, E.S.; Babat, E.; Khalifa, M.M. Essential Oil of Oregano and Savory; Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity. IJPER 2017, 51, s205–s208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Petretto, G.L.; Fancello, F.; Bakhy, K.; Faiz, C.A.; Sibawayh, Z.; Chessa, M.; Zara, S.; Sanna, M.L.; Maldini, M.; Rourke, J.P.; Pintore, G. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of essential oils from Cuminum cyminum L. collected in different areas of Morocco. Food Bioscience 2018, 22, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pinheiro, P.F.; Menini, L.A.P.; Bernardes, P.C.; Saraiva, S.H.; Carneiro, J.W.M.; Costa, A.V.; Arruda, T.R.; Lage, M.R.; Gonçalves, P.M.; Bernardes, C. de O.; Alvarenga, E.S.; Menini, L. Semisynthetic Phenol Derivatives Obtained from Natural Phenols: Antimicrobial Activity and Molecular Properties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2018, 66, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Pires Costa, E.; Maciel dos Santos, M.; de Paula, R.A.; da Silva, D.A.; Lopes, R.P.; Teixeira, R.R.; Gonçalves, R.V. Antioxidant and Anti-inflammatory Activity of Eugenol, Bis-eugenol, and Clove Essential Oil: An In Vitro Study. ACS Omega 2025, 10, 31033–31045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Ponce Cevallos, P.A.; Buera, M.P.; Elizalde, B.E. Encapsulation of cinnamon and thyme essential oils components (cinnamaldehyde and thymol) in β-cyclodextrin: Effect of interactions with water on complex stability. Journal of Food Engineering 2010, 99, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Pracser, N.; Zaiser, A.; Ciolacu, L.; Roch, F.-F.; Quijada, N.M.; Thalguter, S.; Dzieciol, M.; Conrady, B.; Wagner, M.; Rychli, K. The type of food influences the behaviour of Listeria monocytogenes in a food-gastrointestinal-infection model. npj Sci Food 2025, 9, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Prakash, A.; Vadivel, V.; Rubini, D.; Nithyanand, P. Antibacterial and antibiofilm activities of linalool nanoemulsions against Salmonella Typhimurium. Food Bioscience 2019, 28, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Prentice, M.B. Bacterial microcompartments and their role in pathogenicity. Current Opinion in Microbiology 2021, 63, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Purkait, S.; Bhattacharya, A.; Bag, A.; Chattopadhyay, R.R. Evaluation of antibiofilm efficacy of essential oil components β-caryophyllene, cinnamaldehyde and eugenol alone and in combination against biofilm formation and preformed biofilms of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella typhimurium. Letters in Applied Microbiology 2020, 71, 195–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Rafiq, K.; Islam, M.R.; Siddiky, N.A.; Samad, M.A.; Chowdhury, S.; Hossain, K.M.M.; Rume, F.I.; Hossain, M.K.; Mahbub-E-Elahi, A.T.M.; Ali, M.Z.; Rahman, M.; Amin, M.R.; Masuduzzaman, M.; Ahmed, S.; Ara Rumi, N.; Hossain, M.T. Antimicrobial Resistance Profile of Common Foodborne Pathogens Recovered from Livestock and Poultry in Bangladesh. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Rathod, N.B.; Nirmal, N.P.; Pagarkar, A.; Özogul, F.; Rocha, J.M. Antimicrobial Impacts of Microbial Metabolites on the Preservation of Fish and Fishery Products: A Review with Current Knowledge. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Raveau, R.; Fontaine, J.; Lounès-Hadj Sahraoui, A. Essential Oils as Potential Alternative Biocontrol Products against Plant Pathogens and Weeds: A Review. Foods 2020, 9, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Ravi Kumar, M.N. Nano and microparticles as controlled drug delivery devices. J Pharm Pharm Sci 2000, 3, 234–258. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  117. Řebíčková, K.; Bajer, T.; Šilha, D.; Houdková, M.; Ventura, K.; Bajerová, P. Chemical Composition and Determination of the Antibacterial Activity of Essential Oils in Liquid and Vapor Phases Extracted from Two Different Southeast Asian Herbs—Houttuynia cordata (Saururaceae) and Persicaria odorata (Polygonaceae). Molecules 2020, 25, 2432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Rochín-Medina, J.J.; Mendoza-López, I.A.; Castro-del Campo, N.; Bastidas-Bastidas, P.J.; Ramírez, K. Activity of plant essential oils against clinically and environmentally isolated Salmonella enterica serotypes: in vitro assays and molecular docking. Letters in Applied Microbiology 2023, 76, ovad045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Sadgrove, N.J.; Jones, G.L. From Petri Dish to Patient: Bioavailability Estimation and Mechanism of Action for Antimicrobial and Immunomodulatory Natural Products. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Sallam, K.I.; Raslan, M.T.; Sabala, R.F.; Abd-Elghany, S.M.; Mahros, M.A.; Elshebrawy, H.A. Antimicrobial effect of garlic against foodborne pathogens in ground mutton. Food Microbiology 2024, 120, 104462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Sanchez Armengol, E.; Harmanci, M.; Laffleur, F. Current strategies to determine antifungal and antimicrobial activity of natural compounds. Microbiological Research 2021, 252, 126867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Sarengaowa; Hu, W.; Feng, K.; Xiu, Z.; Jiang, A.; Lao, Y. Tandem mass tag-based quantitative proteomic analysis reveal the inhibition mechanism of thyme essential oil against flagellum of Listeria monocytogenes. Food Research International 2019, 125, 108508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Shakil, M.H.; Trisha, A.T.; Rahman, M.; Talukdar, S.; Kobun, R.; Huda, N.; Zzaman, W. Nitrites in Cured Meats, Health Risk Issues, Alternatives to Nitrites: A Review. Foods 2022, 11, 3355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Sharifi, A.; Mohammadzadeh, A.; Salehi, T.Z.; Mahmoodi, P.; Nourian, A. Cuminum cyminum L. Essential Oil: A Promising Antibacterial and Antivirulence Agent Against Multidrug-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Sharifi-Rad, M.; Varoni, E.M.; Iriti, M.; Martorell, M.; Setzer, W.N.; Del Mar Contreras, M.; Salehi, B.; Soltani-Nejad, A.; Rajabi, S.; Tajbakhsh, M.; Sharifi-Rad, J. Carvacrol and human health: A comprehensive review. Phytother Res 2018, 32, 1675–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Shen, G.; Yang, L.; Lv, X.; Zhang, Y.; Hou, X.; Li, M.; Zhou, M.; Pan, L.; Chen, A.; Zhang, Z. Antibiofilm Activity and Mechanism of Linalool against Food Spoilage Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2023, 24, 10980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Shimoni, E.; Baasov, T.; Ravid, U.; Shoham, Y. The trans-Anethole Degradation Pathway in an Arthrobacter sp. *. Journal of Biological Chemistry 2002, 277, 11866–11872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Silva, A.F.; dos Santos, A.R.; Coelho Trevisan, D.A.; Ribeiro, A.B.; Zanetti Campanerut-Sá, P.A.; Kukolj, C.; de Souza, E.M.; Cardoso, R.F.; Estivalet Svidzinski, T.I.; de Abreu Filho, B.A.; Junior, M.M.; Graton Mikcha, J.M. Cinnamaldehyde induces changes in the protein profile of Salmonella Typhimurium biofilm. Research in Microbiology 2018, 169, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Simoben, C.V.; Babiaka, S.B.; Moumbock, A.F.A.; Namba-Nzanguim, C.T.; Eni, D.B.; Medina-Franco, J.L.; Günther, S.; Ntie-Kang, F.; Sippl, W. Challenges in natural product-based drug discovery assisted with in silico-based methods. RSC Adv 2023, 13, 31578–31594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Smith-Palmer, A.; Stewart, J.; Fyfe, L. The potential application of plant essential oils as natural food preservatives in soft cheese. Food Microbiology 2001, 18, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Song, X.; Liu, T.; Wang, L.; Liu, L.; Li, X.; Wu, X. Antibacterial Effects and Mechanism of Mandarin (Citrus reticulata L.) Essential Oil against Staphylococcus aureus. Molecules 2020, 25, 4956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Srikumar, S.; Fuchs, T.M. Ethanolamine Utilization Contributes to Proliferation of Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium in Food and in Nematodes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 2011, 77, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Sun, Y.; Cai, X.; Cao, J.; Wu, Z.; Pan, D. Effects of 1,8-cineole on Carbohydrate Metabolism Related Cell Structure Changes of Salmonella. Frontiers in Microbiology 2018, 9, 1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Swain, S.S.; Paidesetty, S.K.; Padhy, R.N. Phytochemical conjugation as a potential semisynthetic approach toward reactive and reuse of obsolete sulfonamides against pathogenic bacteria. Drug Development Research 2021, 82, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Tadevosyan, S.; Grabska, S.; Grabski, H.; Abagyan, R.; Trchounian, K.; Sahakyan, N. Menthol’s disruptive effects on kanamycin-resistant Escherichia coli energy metabolism and ion fluxes. Biophysical Reports 2025, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Tavvabi-Kashani, N.; Hasanpour, M.; Baradaran Rahimi, V.; Vahdati-Mashhadian, N.; Askari, V.R. Pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, toxicity, and recent advances in Eugenol’s potential benefits against natural and chemical noxious agents: A mechanistic review. Toxicon 2024, 238, 107607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Tejada-Muñoz, S.; Cortez, D.; Rascón, J.; Chavez, S.G.; Caetano, A.C.; Díaz-Manchay, R.J.; Sandoval-Bances, J.; Huyhua-Gutierrez, S.; Gonzales, L.; Chenet, S.M.; Tapia-Limonchi, R. Antimicrobial Activity of Origanum vulgare Essential Oil against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli. Pharmaceuticals 2024, 17, 1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Thomford, N.E.; Senthebane, D.A.; Rowe, A.; Munro, D.; Seele, P.; Maroyi, A.; Dzobo, K. Natural Products for Drug Discovery in the 21st Century: Innovations for Novel Drug Discovery. Int J Mol Sci 2018, 19, 1578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Touati, A.; Mairi, A.; Ibrahim, N.A.; Idres, T. Essential Oils for Biofilm Control: Mechanisms, Synergies, and Translational Challenges in the Era of Antimicrobial Resistance. Antibiotics 2025, 14, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Turek, C.; Stintzing, F.C. Stability of Essential Oils: A Review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 2013, 12, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Türkmenoğlu, A.; Özmen, D. Allergenic components, biocides, and analysis techniques of some essential oils used in food products. Journal of Food Science 2021, 86, 2225–2241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ueda, J.M.; Pedrosa, M.C.; Fernandes, F.A.; Rodrigues, P.; Melgar, B.; Dias, M.I.; Pinela, J.; Calhelha, R.C.; Ivanov, M.; Soković, M.; Heleno, S.A.; Carocho, M.; Ineu, R.P.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Barros, L. Promising Preserving Agents from Sage and Basil: A Case Study with Yogurts. Foods 2021, 10, 676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Upadhyay, A.; Arsi, K.; Wagle, B.R.; Upadhyaya, I.; Shrestha, S.; Donoghue, A.M.; Donoghue, D.J. Trans-Cinnamaldehyde, Carvacrol, and Eugenol Reduce Campylobacter jejuni Colonization Factors and Expression of Virulence Genes in Vitro. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Vimal, A.; Jha, A.; Kumar, A. Eugenol derivatives prospectively inhibit l-asparaginase: A heady target protein of Salmonella typhimurium. Microbial Pathogenesis 2018, 114, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Wagle, B.R.; Upadhyay, A.; Upadhyaya, I.; Shrestha, S.; Arsi, K.; Liyanage, R.; Venkitanarayanan, K.; Donoghue, D.J.; Donoghue, A.M. Trans-Cinnamaldehyde, Eugenol and Carvacrol Reduce Campylobacter jejuni Biofilms and Modulate Expression of Select Genes and Proteins. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Wang, L. Antimicrobial efficacy of carvacrol loaded antimicrobial packaging in food systems: influence of the food matrix. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Wang, L.; Dekker, M.; Heising, J.; Zhao, L.; Fogliano, V. Food matrix design can influence the antimicrobial activity in the food systems: A narrative review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2024a, 64, 8963–8989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Wang, X.; Shen, Y.; Thakur, K.; Han, J.; Zhang, J.-G.; Hu, F.; Wei, Z.-J. Antibacterial Activity and Mechanism of Ginger Essential Oil against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Molecules 2020, 25, 3955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Wendakoon, C.N.; Sakaguchi, M. Inhibition of Amino Acid Decarboxylase Activity of Enterobacter aerogenes by Active Components in Spices. J Food Prot 1995, 58, 280–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Wink, M. Modes of Action of Herbal Medicines and Plant Secondary Metabolites. Medicines 2015, 2, 251–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Wongkattiya, N., Sanguansermsri, P., Fraser, I.H., Sanguansermsri, D., 2019. Antibacterial activity of cuminaldehyde on food-borne pathogens, the bioactive component of essential oil from Cuminum cyminum L. collected in Thailand. J Complement Integr Med 16, /j/jcim.2019.16.issue-4/jcim-2018-0195/jcim-2018-0195.xml. https://doi.org/10.1515/jcim-2018-0195.
  152. Xu, J.-G.; Liu, T.; Hu, Q.-P.; Cao, X.-M. Chemical Composition, Antibacterial Properties and Mechanism of Action of Essential Oil from Clove Buds against Staphylococcus aureus. Molecules 2016, 21, 1194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Yang, J.; Goksen, G.; Zhang, W. Rosemary essential oil: Chemical and biological properties, with emphasis on its delivery systems for food preservation. Food Control 2023a, 154, 110003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Yin, L.; Dai, Y.; Chen, H.; He, X.; Ouyang, P.; Huang, X.; Sun, X.; Ai, Y.; Lai, S.; Zhu, L.; Xu, Z. Cinnamaldehyde Resist Salmonella Typhimurium Adhesion by Inhibiting Type I Fimbriae. Molecules 2022, 27, 7753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Zhang, W.; Rhim, J.-W. Recent progress in konjac glucomannan-based active food packaging films and property enhancement strategies. Food Hydrocolloids 2022, 128, 107572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, X.; Li, Wei; Wang, L.; Li, Wen; Du, J.; Zhang, S. Effects of cinnamon essential oil on the physiological metabolism of Salmonella enteritidis. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Zhao, X.; Zheng, S.; Wei, S.; Tian, Q.; Tao, Y.; Bo, R.; Liu, M.; Li, J. The protective effect and potential mechanisms of eugenol against Salmonella in vivo and in vitro. Poultry Science 2022, 101, 101801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Zhao, Y.; Talha, M. Evaluation of food safety problems based on the fuzzy comprehensive analysis method. Food Sci. Technol 2022, 42, e47321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Zhou, F.; Ji, B.; Zhang, H.; Jiang, H.; Yang, Z.; Li, Jingjing; Li, Jihai; Yan, W. The Antibacterial Effect of Cinnamaldehyde, Thymol, Carvacrol and Their Combinations Against the Foodborne Pathogen Salmonella Typhimurium. Journal of Food Safety 2007, 27, 124–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Zuo, X.; Gu, Y.; Wang, C.; Zhang, Jinrong; Zhang, Jing; Wang, G.; Wang, F. A Systematic Review of the Anti-Inflammatory and Immunomodulatory Properties of 16 Essential Oils of Herbs. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2020, 2020, e8878927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 201680 g001
Figure 1. Illustration of cell membrane destabilization by EOC.
Figure 1. Illustration of cell membrane destabilization by EOC.
Preprints 201680 g001
Preprints 201680 g002
Figure 2. Illustration of anti-biofilm activity of EOCs.
Figure 2. Illustration of anti-biofilm activity of EOCs.
Preprints 201680 g002
Preprints 201680 g003
Figure 3. Illustration of ATP synthase inhibition by various EOCs.
Figure 3. Illustration of ATP synthase inhibition by various EOCs.
Preprints 201680 g003
Preprints 201680 g004
Figure 4. Illustration of β-Cyclodextrin encapsulation of Eugenol.
Figure 4. Illustration of β-Cyclodextrin encapsulation of Eugenol.
Preprints 201680 g004
Table 1. Antibacterial attributes of commonly used essential oils in food preservation.
Table 1. Antibacterial attributes of commonly used essential oils in food preservation.
Essential oil plant origin Scientific name Major Components Use in food preservation Effectiveness on Bacterial species Reference
African basil Ocimum gratissimum, Ocimum basilicum, Ocimum canum
 Eugenol (7.42–74.83%) estragol (43.0–44.7%), linalool (24.6–29.8%), carvacrol (12.0–30.8%), p-cymene (19.5–26.2%), thymol (28.3–37.7%) and γ-terpinene (12.5–19.3%) Meat, fish, spaghetti sauces and cheese bakes
Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Listeria monocytogenes, S. Typhimurium, Escherichia coli 		(Mith et al., 2016; Ueda et al., 2021)
Cinnamon Cinnamomum verum, Cinnamomum loureirii, Cinnamomum cassia
Cinnamomum zeylanicum 		Trans-cinnamaldehyde (66.28–81.97%), Linalool (7.00%), Eugenol (4.6%) Semi-skimmed UHT milk, bakery foods, dairy products Listeria innocua, Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella Enteritidis and Bacillus cereus (Alizadeh Behbahani et al., 2020; Hyldgaard et al., 2012; Li et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2022)
Clove Eugenia caryophyllus Eugenol (76.8%), β-caryophyllene (17.4%), α-humulene (2.1%), and eugenyl acetate (1.2%) full-fat and low-fat soft cheeses, UHT milk, sea food, Fruits and vegetables S. enterica, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes (Cui et al., 2018; Jirovetz et al., 2006; Nuñez and D’ Aquino, 2012)
Garlic Allium
sativum 		Allicin (57.1%) Meat and poultry products, seafood, sauces and dressings Salmonella Typhimurium, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus (Belguith et al., 2010; Sallam et al., 2024)
Oregano Origanum
vulgare 		Carvacrol (63.97%), p-cymene (12.63%) and
linalool (3.67%), α-terpineol (2.54%), (-)-terpinen-4-ol (2.24%), thymol (1.93%)		 Pasteurized milk, meat and poultry, seafood, fruit juices and beverages Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Brochothrix thermosphacta, P. fluorescens (Ghosh et al., 2024; Liu et al., 2026; Martucci et al., 2015; Mith et al., 2014; Özkan et al., 2017; Tejada-Muñoz et al., 2024)
Menthol Mentha piperita L. Menthol (36.02%), menthone (24.56%), menthyl acetate (8.95%), and menthofuran (6.88%) Tzatziki (cucumber and yogurt salad), taramosalata (fish roe salad) and pâté Salmonella enteritidis and Listeria monocytogenes (Desam et al., 2019)
Savory Satureja thymbra
Satureja montana 		Carvacrol (42.7%), o-cymene (17.98%), linalool (9.65%),
caryophyllene oxide (5.25%), γ-terpinene (4.22%),
caryophyllene (2.73%) and (-)-borneol (2.24%)		 Meat, fruit S. Enteritidis, S. Infantis, S. Kentucky, S. Typhimurium, E. coli, L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, Clostridium perfringens (Hyldgaard et al., 2012; Özkan et al., 2017)
Thyme Thymus vulgaris Thymol (47.23%), p-cresol (20.37%) and 2,6-dimethylphenol (16.26%) semi-skimmed UHT milk, meats and meat products, Apple juice S. Typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus, Brochothrix thermosphacta, P. fluorescens (Ben Jemaa et al., 2017; Mith et al., 2014; Morshdy et al., 2022)
Vietnam Coriander Polygonum odoratum Dodecanal (55.5%), decanal (11.6%) Meat, Salami, Bakery Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus subtilis, Vibrio cholerae, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella choleraesuis (Fujita et al., 2015; Řebíčková et al., 2020)
Cumin Cuminum cyminum L Cuminaldehyde (27.10%), beta-pinene (25.04%) and gamma-terpinene (15.68%) Cheese, meat products S. Typhi, Clostridium perfringens, Staphylococcus aureus
 (Fathy et al., 2025; Hassanien et al., 2014; Petretto et al., 2018; Sharifi et al., 2021; Wongkattiya et al., 2019)
Rosemary Rosmarinus officinalis Genkwanin (26%), camphor (28%), endo-borneol (13%), alpha-terpineol (12%), and hydroxyhydrocaffeic acid (13%) Yogurt, mayonnaise, refined vegetable oil Salmonella Spp., Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus (Manilal et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2023)
Table 2. Mechanism of action of different EOCs.
Table 2. Mechanism of action of different EOCs.
Essential oil components Structure IUPAC Nomenclature Mechanism Reference
Trans-cinnamaldehyde Preprints 201680 i001 (E)-3-phenylprop-2-enal -Targets ATP synthase alpha chain protein and causes the reduction level of ATP.
- Antibiofilm effect
-Downregulate several metabolic and biosynthetic pathways		 (Doyle and Stephens, 2019; Anup Kollanoor Johny et al., 2010a; Silva et al., 2018)
Eugenol Preprints 201680 i002 2-methoxy-4-prop-2-enylphenol - Alters the membrane permeability followed by leakage of ions.
-Down-regulate several metabolic pathways
-Inhibit virulence gene expression of T3SS (Type 3 Secretion System)		 (Ahmed Khalil et al., 2017; Devi et al., 2010; Anup Kollanoor Johny et al., 2010a; Zhao et al., 2022)
Carvacrol Preprints 201680 i003 2-methyl-5-propan-2-ylphenol -Damages the enzyme for ATP synthesis.
- Rendering the membranes and mitochondria more permeable and disintegrating the outer cell membrane.		 (Imran et al., 2021; A. Kollanoor Johny et al., 2010; Sharifi-Rad et al., 2018)
Thymol Preprints 201680 i004 5-methyl-2-propan-2-ylphenol -Damages the enzyme for ATP synthesis.
-Disrupt the membrane integrity.		 (Chauhan and Kang, 2014; Escobar et al., 2020; A. Kollanoor Johny et al., 2010; Marchese et al., 2016; Sharifi-Rad et al., 2018; Tian et al., 2021)
Allicin Preprints 201680 i005 3-prop-2-enylsulfinylsulfanylprop-1-ene -Inhibit the RNA synthesis (Belguith et al., 2010; Feldberg et al., 1988)
Citronellol Preprints 201680 i006 3,7-dimethyloct-6-en-1-ol -Loss of membrane integrity (Guimarães et al., 2019; Victoria et al., 2012)
Cumin aldehyde Preprints 201680 i007 4-propan-2-ylbenzaldehyde -Disrupt the cell membrane integrity and enter into the cytoplasm, where it interacts with nucleic acid and stops the growth. (Li et al., 2023)
Coumarin Preprints 201680 i008 9-methoxyfuro [3,2-g]chromen-7-one -It binds to the B subunit of DNA Gyrase in Salmonella and inhibits DNA supercoiling by blocking the ATPase activity. (Basile et al., 2009; Feng et al., 2020; Lončar et al., 2020; Thakur et al., 2020)
Geraniol Preprints 201680 i009 (2E)-3,7-dimethylocta-2,6-dien-1-ol -Inhibit the mobility, adhesion, and invasiveness of Salmonella. (Ekonomou et al., 2022; J. m. Kim et al., 1995; Mączka et al., 2020)
1,8-cineole Preprints 201680 i010 1,3,3-trimethyl-2-oxabicyclo [2.2.2]octane -Disrupt the structure of cell wall and membrane (Cai et al., 2021; Sun et al., 2018)
Myricetin Preprints 201680 i011 3,5,7-trihydroxy-2-(3,4,5-trihydroxyphenyl)chromen-4-one -Inhibit the type III secretion system by downregulating the pathogenic island I gene regulatory pathway (Imran et al., 2021; Q et al., 2021)
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
bsky
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2026 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated