Effect of Essential Oils on Germination and Growth of Some Pathogenic and Spoilage Spore-Forming Bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of essential oils as a food preservative has increased due to their capacity to inhibit vegetative growth of some bacteria. However, only limited data are available on their effect on bacterial spores. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of some essential oils on the growth and germination of three Bacillus species and Geobacillus stearothermophilus. Essential oils were chemically analyzed using gas chromatography and gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry. The minimal inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations of vegetative growth and spore germination were assessed using the macrodilution method. Germination inhibitory effect of treated spores with essential oils was evaluated on solid medium, while kinetic growth was followed using spectrophotometry in the presence of essential oils. Essential oil from Drypetes gossweileri mainly composed of benzyl isothiocyanate (86.7%) was the most potent, with minimal inhibitory concentrations ranging from 0.0048 to 0.0097 mg/mL on vegetative cells and 0.001 to 0.002 mg/mL on spore germination. Furthermore, essential oil from D. gossweileri reduced 50% of spore germination after treatment at 1.25 mg/mL, and its combination with other oils improved both bacteriostatic and bactericidal activities with additive or synergistic effects. Concerning the other essential oils, the minimal inhibitory concentration ranged from 5 to 0.63 mg/mL on vegetative growth and from 0.75 to 0.09 mg/mL on the germination of spores. Spectrophotometric evaluation showed an inhibitory effect of essential oils on both germination and outgrowth. From these results, it is concluded that some of the essential oils tested might be a valuable tool for bacteriological control in food industries. Therefore, further research regarding their use as food preservatives should be carried out.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".