Cited by 145Essential Oils and Antimicrobial ActivityInsect Pest Control StrategiesAntimicrobial agents and applications

Evaluation of Common Antibacterial Screening Methods Utilized in Essential Oil Research

Hood, Jennie R., Wilkinson, Jenny M., Cavanagh, Heather M.A.·2003·Journal of Essential Oil Research

Abstract

The use of essential oils as therapeutic agents has become increasingly popular; however, research into the antimicrobial activity of these products has been hampered by the lack of standardized and reliable screening methods. The lack of standardized methods also makes direct comparison of results between studies impossible. In this study, the most commonly used antimicrobial assays cited in the literature were evaluated for reliability and their ability to accurately assess, and directly compare, essential oil antimicrobial activity. The methods used were disc diffusion, well diffusion, agar dilution and broth dilution. This study revealed that the disc diffusion, well diffusion and agar dilution methods were unreliable and produced inconsistent results. This was largely due to problems related to achieving stable dispersion of the oils in aqueous media, diffusion of lipophilic constituents in aqueous media and varying methods for determining numbers of viable bacteria remaining after the addition of the oil. An optimized broth dilution method, using 0.02% Tween 80 to emulsify the oils, was developed and shown to be the most accurate method for testing the antimicrobial activity of the hydrophobic and viscous essential oils. When evaluated against a range of oils, this method provided the most reliable and correct results and allowed direct comparison of the antibacterial activity of the test oils, irrespective of viscosity and hydrophobicity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10412905.2003.9698631

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The lack of a linear correlation between the essential oil concentrations and growth inhibition of F. proliferatum in the disc diffusion bioassay could be explained by the fact that dilute essential oil diffused more easily in the agar medium than the undiluted or less dilute oil.

    “This could explain the lack of a linear correlation between the essential oil concentrations and growth inhibition of F. proliferatum that was observed in the disc diffusion bioassay. Instances where more concentrated EO produce smaller inhibition zones in comparison to less concentrated oil have been reported in literature and are attributed to the fact that dilute EO diffused more easily in the”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hood, J. R., Wilkinson, J. M., & Cavanagh, H. M. A.
Affiliations
Charles Sturt University (AU)
Venue
Journal of Essential Oil Research
Published
2003-11
Volume
15
Issue
6
Pages
428-433
ISSN
  • 1041-2905 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-8152
OpenAlex
W2081004192
Cited by
145
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
3.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Essential Oil Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Insect Pest Control Strategies
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Antimicrobial agents and applications
Keywords
essential oils, antibacterial activity, broth dilution, disk diffusion, agar dilution, viscosity, method standardization, viable cell count

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