Chemical Composition and Antifungal, Insecticidal and Repellent Activity of Essential Oils From Origanum compactum Benth. Used in the Mediterranean Diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essential oils (EO) of Origanum compactum Benth. ( O. compactum ) are well known for their biological and pharmacological activities. This study aimed to assess the chemical composition, antifungal, insecticidal and repellent activities of EO of O. compactum used in the Mediterranean diet. Phytochemical screening was conducted using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS). Antifungal activity was tested by the disc diffusion method followed by a minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay against Candida albicans (C. albicans), Aspergillus flavus (A. flavus), Aspergillus niger (A. nige) , and Fusarium oxysporum (F. oxysporum) . Repellent potential and toxicity of EO by contact and inhalation were tested against Callosobruchus maculatus ( C. maculatus ). The yield of essential oil obtained by hydrodistillation of O. compactum was 4.41 ± 0.35%, mainly composed of Carvacrol (38%) and Thymol (31.46%). Regarding antifungal activity, the results revealed a wide antifungal spectrum of the studied EO against the tested strains, which reached 100% growth inhibition, especially against A. niger and C. albicans even at the lowest MIC values (3.125 μg/mL). Concerning insecticidal activity, the EO caused total mortality of C. maculatus adults at a dose of 20 μL/L air with LC 50 value of 5.3 μL/L air. A significant reduction in the number of eggs and emergence was proportionally recorded with increasing doses up to 100% at 20 μL/L air. For repellent activity, the studied EO showed a moderate repellent activity with an average percentage of 39.16%. The outcome of this work revealed that O. Compactum EO could be a sustainable and environmentally friendly alternative bioinsecticide and bio-fungicide to replace the chemically synthesized forms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".