Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 674

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Solid- and Vapor-Phase Antimicrobial Activities of Six Essential Oils: Susceptibility of Selected Foodborne Bacterial and Fungal Strains

López, P., Sánchez, C., Batlle, R., Nerín, C.·2005·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

Abstract

The antimicrobial activity of essential oils (EOs) of cinnamon (Cinnamon zeylanicum), clove (Syzygium aromaticum), basil (Ocimum basillicum), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), dill (Anethum graveolens), and ginger (Zingiber officinalis) was evaluated over a range of concentrations in two types of contact tests (solid and vapor diffusion). The EOs were tested against an array of four Gram-positive bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Enterococcus faecalis, and Listeria monocytogenes), four Gram-negative bacteria (Escherichia coli, Yersinia enterocolitica, Salmonella choleraesuis, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa), and three fungi (a yeast, Candida albicans, and two molds, Penicillium islandicum and Aspergillus flavus). The rationale for this work was to test the possibility of creating a protective atmosphere by using natural compounds that could extend the shelf life of packaged foodstuffs while minimizing organoleptic alterations. In the solid diffusion tests, cinnamon and clove gave the strongest (and very similar) inhibition, followed by basil and rosemary, with dill and ginger giving the weakest inhibition. The fungi were the most sensitive microorganisms, followed by the Gram-positive bacterial strains. The Gram-negative strain P. aeruginosa was the least inhibited. The composition of the atmosphere generated by the EOs, and their minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs), were determined using a disk volatilization method, in which no inhibition from rosemary or basil was observed. Cinnamon and clove, once again, gave similar results for every microorganism. As a general rule, MIC (fungi) << MIC (bacteria) with no clear differences between Gram-positive or -negative strains except for P. aeruginosa, which was not inhibited by any of the EOs in the vapor phase. The atmosphere generated from the EOs was analyzed by means of solid-phase microextraction combined with gas chromatography-ion trap mass spectrometry. Differences among the volatiles in the EOs, which may be responsible for the differences in their antimicrobial performances, were found.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jf050709v

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 674

Metadata

Authors
López, P., Sánchez, C., Batlle, R., & Nerín, C.
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
Published
2005-08-01
Volume
53
Issue
17
Pages
6939-6946
ISSN
  • 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5118
OpenAlex
W1984581661
Cited by
674
References
1
FWCI
20.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Solid- and Vapor-Phase Antimicrobial Activities of Six Essential Oils: Susceptibility of Selected Foodborne Bacterial and Fungal Strains. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1021/jf050709v
The paper
López, P., Sánchez, C., Batlle, R., & Nerín, C. (2005). Solid- and Vapor-Phase Antimicrobial Activities of Six Essential Oils: Susceptibility of Selected Foodborne Bacterial and Fungal Strains. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf050709v

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.