July 1958 SCIENTIFIC
EDITION
REFERENCES
(1) Hams, T. H., and Hauser, A., J . A m . Mcd. Assoc.,
95,94(1930).
(2) Wagner, C. P., and Bunbury, D. E., ibid., 95, 1725
(3) Perkins, H.A,, Arch. Internal Mcd., 85.783(1950).
(4) Strecker, E. A., and Ebaugh, F. G.. “Practical Clini-
cal Psychiatry,” ed. 5, The Blakiston Company, Philadelphia,
Pa., 1940 pp 266-274.
(5) Hhes, F. M.. and Yates, A,, Southern Mcd. J . , 31.
667(1938).
(6 Campbell, J. D., ibid., 42,967(1949).
(71 Sensenbach, W.,J . Am. Mcd. Assoc., 125, 769
(1944
d‘ uth 0. Qid. 88 2013(1927).
g e t h h m : O., j . i c r v o u s Mcnfal Discosc, 71, 151,
278( 1930).
(10) Millikan, C. H ., J . Iowa Mcd. Soc., 35. lZO(1945).
The Antimicrobial Activity of Perfume Oils*
By JASPER C. MARUZZELLA and PERCIVAL A. HENRY
One hundredperfume oils were tested for anti-
microbial properties against a series of patho-
genic and nonpathogenic bacteria and fungi.
The in vim filter paper disk method was used
exclusively for testing activity. The erfume
oils were found to possess remarkahe anti-
microbial properties with greater activity
against fungi than against bacteria. It is sug-
gested that perfume oils be incorporatedmore
widely into common toilet articles applied to
the body surfaces as well as medicaments used
externally.
UNDREDS of substances are applied to the
skin and hair of the human body for cos-
metic and hygienic purposes. Many of these
substances are made aromatic to increase their
ornamental value and to mask unpleasant odors.
Yet the study of the antimicrobial activity of
perfume oils has been somewhat neglected. In
1924 Dyche-Teague (1) was apparently the first
investigator to demonstrate that alcoholic per-
fumes exhibited an antibacterial effect. He util-
ized the phenol coefficient method and as the test
organism a mixed culture of bacteria obtained
from the nose consisting essentially of Micrococcus
cutarrhdis. In that same year Bryant (2) con-
firmed the work of Dyche-Teague on the bacterial
activity of alcoholic perfumes using as the test
* Received October 14.1957, from Long Island University,
Biology Department, Brooklyn. N . Y.
This paper is based in part on a thesis submitted by Perci-
val A. Henry to the Graduate School of Long Island Univer-
sity in partial fulfillment of the requirements for thedegreeof
Master of Science.
The authors wish to extend their thanks and appreciation
to Magnus Mabee & Reynard, he., New York, N. Y. for
their Zener& supply of all of the perfume oils.
471
(11) Wohl, M. G., and Robertson, H. P., Penn. Mcd. J . .
47,802(1944).
(12) Tweed, A. R., Am. J . Psychol., 2,650(1948).
(13) Detweiler. H. K.,Con. Mcd. Assoc. J . , 46. 309(1943).
(14) Kolmer,,, J. A.. and Boerner, P., “Approved Labor-
atory Technic ed. 4 D. Appleton-Century Company, New
York. 1945, p i . 794. sis.
(15) Ibid., D. 914.
(16) Bodansky U. and Modell, W., J . Pharmocol. Exfill.
Therap., 73,51(1641).’
(17) Wolf, R. L., and Eadie, G. S., Am. J . Phys., 163,
4.1131
~i. g.
.m .. ~ ~
.,_
(18)Sollmann, T., “Manual of Pharmacology,” ed. 7,
W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, Pa., 1948, p. 809.
(19) Bernoulli, E., Arch. cxptl. Pathol. Phormokol., 73,
355(1913).
organism a pure culture of B. coli communis.
Recently Lord and Husa (3) found that some per-
fume oils inhibited mold growth in very low con-
centrations. These investigators suggested that
perfumery materials might be used as preserva-
tives. This report describes the in Vitro anti-
microbial activity of perfume oils against patho-
genic and nonpathogenic bacteria and fungi.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The detection of the antimicrobial activity of 100
perfume oils was made by observing their effects on
growing cultures of ten bacteria and ten fungi. The
test organisms used were: Pseudomoms aeruginosa,
E m i n k caratovora, Escherichia coli, Serratia mar-
cescens, Micrococcus pyogenes var. aureus, Mycobac-
terium phlei, Neisseria perfiva, Bacillus subtilis,
Salmonella typhosa, Candida albicans, Candida
tropicalis, Candida krusei, Streptomyces venezuelae,
Saccharomyces cereviseae. Aspergillus niger, Crypto-
coccus rhodobenheni, Nigrospora panici, Mucor
mucedo, and Penicillium notatum. All of the bac-
teria were cultivated in nutrient agar and nutrient
broth (Difco) for twenty-four hours at 37” with the
exception of E . caratovora which was cultivated in
nutrient agar and broth at room temperature for
forty-eight hours and M . phlei which was cultivated
in glucose yeast infusion agar and broth for forty-
eight hours at room temperature. All of the fungi
were cultivated in Sabouraud dextrose agar and
broth (Difco) for forty-eight hours at room tem-
perature with the exception of C. rhodobenhani, N .
panici, and M . mucedo which were incubated for
one week at room temperature. The mold-like
bacterium S. venezuelae m%5c;ult!vatea B ~autrient
I
 472 JOURNAL OF THE AMEXICANPHARMACEUTICAL
agar and broth for forty-eight hours a t room tem-
perature. Stock cultures of all organisms were sub-
cultured on fresh agar slants every seven days.
The method used for determining the presence or
absence of antimicrobial activity was a slight modi-
fication of Vincent’s (4) qualitative filter paper disk
diffusion plate method. In this method small
sterile disks of filter paper (12.7 mm. diameter)
were thoroughly moistened in the oil to be tested
and placed on the agar plates (100 mm. diameter)
which had been previously seeded with 1 cc. of the
broth culture of the organism. The plates with
bacteria were incubated at 37” for twenty-four
hours except E. caratovora and M. phlei which were
incubated a t room temperature for forty-eight hours.
The plates with the fungi were incubated at room
temperature for forty-eight hours with the exception
of C. rhodobenhani, N . panici, and M. mucedo which
were incubated for one week at room temperature.
The presence of a definite zone of inhibition of any
size surrounding the paper disks indicated anti-
microbial activity. The zones of inhibition were
measured to the nearest mm. by means of a metric
ruler and a n illuminated Quebec colony counter.
All tests were conducted in triplicate with three
disks (sometimes two) per dish. Therefore the
measurement of each zone of inhibition represents
the mean value of at least six recordings. I n some
instances the oils produced completely clear dishes.
When this occurred larger dishes (150 mm. diameter)
were used in repeating the experiment. I n no in-
stance did the oils produce complete clearing of the
larger dishes.
All of the zones of inhibition were tested t o ascer-
tain whether the activity was microbicidal or micro-
bistatic. This was accomplished by making trans-
fers from the clear zones into broths and incubating
for four days or more. Growth in the tubes was
indicative of microbistatic activity while no growth
indicated microbicidal activity.
As the oils arrived at the laboratory they were
immediately placed into sterile bottles and tested
for sterility. The test for sterility consisted of
streaking each oil on nutrient agar and Sabouraud
dextrose agar slants. The nutrient agar slants were
incubated at 37” for three to four days while the
Sabouraud destrose agar slants were incubated for
one week or more a t room temperature. All of the
perfume oils were found to be free of microorgan-
isms.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Of the 100 perfume oils tested, all were found to
exhibit antibacterial activity on at least two of the
ten organisms employed. Table I lists these oils
with their antibacterial activity and zones of inhibi-
tion. From Table I it may be observed that 75%
of the perfume oils tested were found t o be bacteri-
cidal, the remainder bacteriostatic. It isinteresting
t o note that 60% of the oils tested against B. sub-
tilis and B. brevis proved to be bacteriostatic in con-
trast to the remaining organisms where 10 t o 25%
of the oils exhibited bacteriostatic activity. Why
the spore forming organisms B . subtilis and B.
brevis should resist being killed by the perfume oils
is not known. The answer may lie in the fact that
these organisms were found t o produce many spores
after twenty-four hours of growth. Thus the oil
ASSOCIATION Vol. XLVII, No. 7
may not be able to penetrate the spore wall a s
readily as the vegetative cell wall.
Table I1 lists one hundred perfume oils and their
antifungal activity and zones of inhibition. These
are the identical oils tested against bacteria in
Table I. From Table I1 i t may be observed that
all of the perfume oils exhibited antifungal activity
on at least six of the ten organisms tested. From
Table I1 it may be observed that more than 80%
of the oils tested against fungi were found to be fun-
gicidal while the remainder were fungistatic. By
a comparison of the data from Tables I and I1 40%
of the oils show some antibacterial activity on the 10
bacteria while 84% of the oils exhibited some anti-
fungal activity on the 10 fungi. This seems to in-
dicate that fungi are more vulnerable to perfume
oils than bacteria. Table I11 lists the most effec-
tive perfume oils against each test organism. Thus
Almond S exhibits maximum effectiveness against
E. caratovora, S. venezuelae, C. rhodobenhani, and
M. mucedo; Cinnamon against N . perflava, M .
phlei, and C. krusei; Citrus Odor No. 50 B against
B. brevis. S. cereviseae, and A . niger; and Lemon
Bouquet No. 58 against N . panici, P . notaturn, and
C. tropicalis.
There appears to be little doubt that common
toilet articles treated with perfume oils (or their
constituents) such as soaps, creams, shampoos,
lotions, ointments, powders, sprays, and other such
preparations which are applied externally for vari-
ous hygienic purposes, would also kill microbes in
the areas applied. It seems rather fitting that
those perfume oils which possess marked antimicro-
bial properties might be incorporated more widely
into medicaments used externally t o ehnance their
aesthetic and germicidal properties as well as t o
mask unpleasant odors.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The antimicrobial activity of 100 perfume
oils was tested against growing cultures of 10
bacteria and 10 fungi with the i n vitro filter paper
disk method.
2. The perfume oils which exhibited the
greatest antimicrobial activity were: Almond S
against E. caratovora, S. venezuelae, C. rhodoben-
hani, and M. mucedo; Cinnamon against M.
phlei, N . per&va, and C. krusei; Citrus Odor
No. 50 B against B. brevis, S. cereviseae, and A .
niger; Lemon Bouquet No. 58 against C. tropi-
calis, P . notaturn, and N . panici; Compounded
Fruit Odor No. 1285 against E. coli and S .
murcescens; Wisteria against Ps. aeruginosa;
Pine Bouquet Supreme against M . aureus; Neu-
tralizer F.A. against M.phlei; Pine Bouquet Swiss
T y p e against B. subtilis; Orange Blossom “N”
against S. typhosa; Allspice against P . notaturn;
Cologne “F” European T y p e against C. albicans;
and Lilac Water against C. krusei.
3. All of the oils were found to possess anti-
microbial activity o n at least two of the ten
July 1958 SCIENTIFIC
EDITION 473

TABLE
I .-INHIBITORY OF PERFUME
ACTIVITY OILSON BACTERIA
-
Average Zone of Inhibition in mm.a
Ps . E. S. N. B. S.
aeru- B. carato- E. marce- M. M. per- sub- fY-
Oils ginosa brevis uora coli scens aureus phlei pava lilis phosa
Allspice 0” 1ZC 13 10 0 7 27 12 11 0
Almond S 0 0 7 3 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0
Apple Blossom No. 200 1 7 2 0 6 1 3 1 5 6 10 7
Apple Blossom B.S. 1 5 2 3 6 8 2 1 2 0 6 5
Arabian “N” 1 4 2 7 3 4 4 7 4 8 5
Ashton Villa No. 6 2 4 1 1 4 3 5 1 3 3 8 5
Bay Rum Essence 3 8 12 8 10 7 29 6 8 9
Blue Bell Bouquet 2 7 2 0 6 3 4 1 8 4 7 5
Bluestone Bouquet 2 8 2 4 5 4 9 8 3 3 4
Bouquet No. 21 0 9 38 7 5 13 24 7 17 8
Bouquet No. 22 0 2 1 0 2 1 6 8 0 4 2
Bouquet 821 Lemon Odor 0 11 12 8 4 10 10 8 15 8
Bouquet B.L.S. 0 7 1 5 7 1 5 1 0 6 10 10
Carnation No. 1162 3 4 1 5 3 6 4 6 3 5 3
Chypre. French Type 1 3 7 2 3 3 5 1 2 3
Chypre 66D 0 2 3 5 0 0 2 2 0 2 0
Cinnamon 2 0 28 0 0 8 35 23 15 0
Citrus Odor No. 50B 0 20 5 0 0 0 2 0 0 24 0
Cologne, American 3 1 0 2 1 3 4 9 1 0 3 4 5
Cologne “F,” European Type 0 8 4 3 3 3 7 1 5 3 3 4
Colonial Bouquet 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 5 2 6 4
CompoundedFruit Odor, No. 1285 5 13 15 12 21 6 30 8 17 11
Carylopsis No. 602 3 4 1 2 4 5 0 1 4 5 5 5
Carylopsis No. 604 3 5 2 5 5 5 6 8 4 4 5
Crab Apple Blossom 3 5 1 5 2 3 5 8 2 3 5
Eau de Cologne “S’ 0 5 3 3 0 3 1 5 0 20 2
Eau de Quinine M.O. 0 4 5 5 3 4 7 3 2 4
Elder Buds 2 4 2 4 4 4 3 3 0 0 9 6
Evergreen Bouquet 0 2 2 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0
Florida Water 2 9 3 3 6 2 5 8 3 9 4
Fougere No. 966 0 3 . 8 3 1 3 7 2 5 2
Fragipanni 3 7 1 5 4 0 6 9 4 8 5
Gardenia No. 1500 2 8 3 4 6 3 5 2 0 3 9 5
Gardenia G.H. 0 3 1 5 3 3 3 6 3 4 0
Gardenia J.M. 1 5 1 3 3 4 3 7 0 7 5
Gardenia “S’ 2 6 2 9 7 0 9 7 7 11 8
Geranium Bouquet 0 4 8 2 2 4 8 2 2 2
Heliotrope 3 5 30 0 4 6 8 4 5 4
Honey Suckle 5 3 20 5 5 4 6 4 6 6
Hyacinth “N” 0 4 14 0 4 0 13 3 5 0
Jasmine No. 11347 2 6 26 5 0 2 8 5 9 9
Jasmine No. 679 0 3 25 2 2 3 5 2 2 2
Jasmine “N” 2 10 27 0 10 8 15 10 12 7
Jasmine Ordinary 2 3 7 3 3 2 8 2 4 4
Jockey Club 1 4 24 3 2 6 10 2 5 4
Lavender “Y” 0 3 24 4 2 8 6 2 11 4
Lavender Bouquet D.R. 0 5 15 3 2 10 11 2 9 4
Lemon Bouquet No. 58 0 0 12 0 3 0 10 0 20 3
Lemon Bouquet No. 62 0 0 10 5 0 4 26 3 9 4
Lemon L.M. 18 2 6 3
Lilac Royal 3 7 20 10 10 5 16 7 10 6
Lilac Water 3 6 1 7 0 0 0 11 3 7 5
Lilas Blanc 2 5 1 5 0 1 0 15 3 6 3
Lilas Blanc L.S. 3 6 14 8 7 7 30 6 10 7
Lilas Vegital 2 10 21 10 8 7 25 7 10 8
Lilly of the Valley, Supreme 2 7 15 8 9 8 20 8 10 5
Lotus Blossom 3 7 10 10 8 10 30 7 8 8
Magnolia 2 5 14 8 6 6 6 5 7 7
May Apple Blossom 4 7 22 5 7 4 20 4 9 6
Mille Flews 3 8 13 8 8 8 22 5 10 12
Mimosa No. 11548 3 10 17 7 10 3 15 5 11 9
Mint Bouquet No. 122 0 5 12 6 5 6 18 3 6 5
Narcissus 3 9 10 8 9 5 23 6 8 10
Neroli Artificial 0 5 0 1 0 20 3 7 3
Neutraliier, F.A. 4 15 10 11 13 35 10 18 12
New Mown Hay. No. 100 4 7 8 6 7 20 5 7 8
Orange Blossom “N” 0 4 14 12 5 6 25 5 10 19
Oriental Bouquet No. 225 0 4 15 4 2 5 12 3 6 0
Osheana 0 2 16 1 1 3 16 1 3 2
Palma Bouquet 0 3 10 4 3 0 12 2 4 3
Pine Needle Bouquet No. 400 0 0 3 2 0 0 23 0 0 0
474 JOURNAL OF THE AMERICANPHARMACEUTICAL
ASSOCIATION Vol. XLVII, No. 7

TABLE
I. (continued)

Average Zone of Inhibition in mm.“

Ps. E. s
-. N. B. S.
aeru- B. caralo- E. marce- M. M. per- sub- lY-
Oils ginosa breois vora coli scens aureus phki Rava lilis phoso
Pine Needle Bouquet V.H. 0 0 2 0 0 0 15 0 0 0
Pine Bouquet, Supreme 0 3 7 4 2 15 15 2 8 3
Pine Bouquet, Swiss Type 0 4 5 5 0 4 8 2 29 3
Rose No. 81412, Otto Type 0 4 8 3 1 3 12 2 5 3
Rose D.B. 0 5 15 0 7 3 8 6 4 4
Rose Bleue 3 8 17 6 10 3 18 4 9 5
Rose Briar 0 5 17 5 3 3 12 2 5 5
Rose Gladis 2 9 22 3 6 4 33 5 11 1
Rose Odorata 0 8 10 5 6 6 14 5 9 6
Rose Red 4 9 33 4 0 7 17 7 11 7
Roxul Bouquet 0 4 5 6 2 2 6 2 8 6
Rose No. 225 0 5 9 3 1 1 14 2 4 3
Rosesol 0 0 4 1 1 0 3 0 2 0
Russian Leather 0 3 14 3 0 3 3 1 4 2
Sandalwood A-3 3 6 10 7 9 10 13 7 9 10
Spring Flower Bouquet 6 10 10 7 0 9 6 6 10 8
Sweet Grass 0 4 43 5 3 5 25 0 5 0
sweet Pea 2 10 11 9 5 6 10 6 13 7
Tre0e 0 5 25 5 0 6 6 2 9 5
Tuberose 5 10 12 9 10 7 35 7 10 8
Vanilla K-600 0 3 8 3 2 3 5 2 2 5
Violet No. 23 3 5 17 6 6 6 8 6 8 6
Violet No. 257 3 5 13 5 5 6 15 4 5 6
Violet “F” 2 2 10 3 3 5 11 2 3 0
Violet F.D. 5 8 11 8 5 8 5 7 10 8
Violet de Luxe 1 4 5 3 3 3 7 2 6 3
Violet, Supreme 1 6 10 5 3 4 8 3 9 4
Wisteria 9 8 10 11 12 9 5 8 10 10
Ylang Ylang, Artificial 0 4 3 4 2 0 2 0 3 4
-- -
a Measurement from disk edge to zone edge.
b Zone of inhibition absent.
C Zones inhibition in italics indicate bacteriostatic activity. All other zones in the table indicate bactericidal activity.

TABLE
11.-INHIBITORY
ACTIVITY
OF PERFUME
OILSON FUNGI
Average Zone of Inhibition in mm.‘
C. C. S. S. C. M. P.
oils
albi-
cans
tropi-
calis
C. new-
ktusci euelae
cwe-
utseac
P. rhodo- N.
sage,* bcnhani panici
mu-
ccdo
nola-
lum
Allspice 12 6 5 2 12 27 24 20 27 50
Almond S Ob 0 5 40 9 22 90” 45 78 29
Apple Blossom, No. 200 .3 7 5 4 11 15 15 18 16 15
Apple Blossom, B.S. 6 7 3 5 7 8 10 10 7 12
Arabian “N” 8 5 5 9 7 15 12 24 11 12
Ashton Villa No. 6 5 10 5 8 5 15 10 25 7 15
Bay Rum Essence 9 7 7 8 11 18 20 20 12 20
Blue Bell Bouquet 7 10 8 10 18 15 14 26 12 20
Bluestone Bouquet 8 10 6 10 12 27 14 38 20 20
Bouquet No. 21 8 8 4 10 10 17 33 22 4 21
Bouquet No. 22 3 5 2 9 2 7 10 6 6 10
Bouquet 821 Lemon Odor 15 6 7 17 12 20 26 22 20 20
Bouquet B.L.S. 10 7 7 9 5 20 20 30 7 20
Carnation No. 1162 5 6 5 6 8 20 1% 20 10 15
Chypre, French Type 5 5 5 7 7 11 9 7 10
Chypre 66 D 0 1 2 3 3 5 6 a 2 6
Cinnamon 9 7 10 11 25 15 20 38 23 20
Citrus Odor No. 50 B 3 15 5 25 30 35 4 25 4 45
Cologne, American 5 6 8 13 10 18 12 25 20 15
Cologne “F,” European Type 20 9 5 14 10 20 9 25 25 13
Colonial Bouquet 7 8 8 12 12 20 8 40 6 20
Compounded Fruit Odor 1285 8 7 7 12 12 8 25 25 3 14
Carylopsis No. 602 6 10 8 11 15 16 10 32 16 20
Carylopsis No. 604 7 10 5 11 10 15 12 20 15 15
Crab Apple Blossom 8 10 5 8 8 21 15 30 10 18
Eau de Cologne “S” 4 3 2 4 5 3 7 25 10 3
Eau de Quinine, M.O. 7 4 3 10 4 20 12 18 15 15
Elder Buds 9 7 4 12 12 16 12 18 20 20
Evergreen Bouquet 0 3 0 10 0 8 7 7 3 15
Florida Water 8 5 5 5 11 18 12 17 14 15
Fougere No.. Q66 0 3 3 2 3 10 12 20 6 15
Fragipanni. 5 5 0 9 13 14 14 17 10 15
July 1958 EDITION
SCIENTIFIC 475

TABLE11. (continued)

Avemge Zone of Inhibition in mm.a

c. C. 3. S. C . rho- M. P.
albi- Irofii- C. oene- <ere- A. doben- N. mu- nota-
Oils cans calis krusei ruelae vascac nigcr hani ganici ccdo fum
Gardenia No. 1500 0 6 5 9 9 15 12 20 9 15
Gardenia, G.H. 6 7 8 10 15 13 10 20 10 20
Gardenia, J.M. 5 6 0 8 9 15 14 17 11 18
Gardenia “S” 8 7 5 10 14 10 17 30 15 20
Geranium Bouquet 8 5 3 13 4 15 10 25 13 20
Heliotrope 6 7 7 1I1 10 14 15 30 10 18
Honey Suckle 7 5 7 9 7 15 10 25 5 18
Hyacinth “N” 5 8 7 10 t2 14 11 20 14 20
Jasmine No. 11347 6 7 7 10 J. 6 15 12 20 15 15
Jasmine No. 679 2 4
ii
3 5 7 6 11 5 10
Jasmine “N” 5 8 0 I0 17 14 22 17 18
Jasmine Ordinary 2 6 3 8 6 7 9 20
Jockey Club
Lavender “Y”
Lavender Bouquet D.R.
5
14
8
6
7
3
5
0
3
#)
33
19
:2
x
11
3i15 15
15
11
20
26
25
18
15
15
15
20
15
Lemon Bouquet No. 58 5 10 7 12 1’1 25 30 50 8 50
Lemon Bouquet No. 62
Lemon L.M.
Lilac Royal
8
7
10
3
6
6
3
3
6
8
8
5 4
20
8
13
8
9
11
10
8
20
25
5
6
3 15
17
18
Lilac Water 8 10 10 13 20 20 15 34 22 15
Lilas B I ~ C 6 10 9 12 20 23 17 35 5 20
Lilas Blanc, L.S. 8 10 8 11 7 17 20 25 5 15
Lilas Vegital 10 10 5 5 14 15 17 30 6 15
Lillv of the Valley.
- . SuDreme
. 5 8 6 4 10 14 21 30 9 15
Lotus Blossom 9 8 4 10 8 12 15 20 6 18
Magnolia 7 6 3 10 8 6 12 8 5 13
May Apple Blossom 5 6 5 8 25 10 10 15 6 15
Mille Fleurs 4 6 4 4 8 9 20 8 16 17
Mimosa No. 11548 6 7 3 9 10 10 9 20 4 13
Mint Bouquet No. 122 7 8 3 3 8 10 17 16 4 15
Narcissus 6 7 5 4 24 12 14 8 5 15
Neroli. Artificial 0 7 8 12 11 23 20 35 7 15
Neutraliier F.A. 15 12 8 20 20 22 23 42 15 20
New Mown Hay, No. 100 5 9 5 8 10 10 11 17 5 15
Orange Blossom “N” 0 6 4 7 5 15 20 35 11 30
Oriental Bouauet No. 225 5 10 5 9 10 35 14 40 6 20
Osheana 3 3 2 5 2 5 5 7 3 10
Palma Bouquet 3 8 5 10 15 20 13 32 10 25
Pine Needle Bouquet No. 400 0 0 0 16 15 5 5 2 15 10
Pine Needle Bouquet, V.H. 0 0 0 3 3 3 2 0 5 2
Pine Bouquet, Supreme 3 4 2 14 3 15 10 10 15 20
Pine Bouquet, Swiss Type 0 0 0 8 7 3 10 10 7 10
Rose No. 81412, Otto Type 3 8 3 8 5 12 9 22 3 25
Rose D.B. 6 6 0 8 10 15 14 30 15 18
Rose Bleue 6 5 4 5 6 10 12 15 5 20
Rose Briar 4 7 4 13 10 20 14 33 15 20
Rose Gladis 9 6 4 3 10 12 20 7 8 25
Rose Odorata 7 10 5 8 8 10 14 25 12 20
Rose Red 10 10 7 9 10 14 18 35 10 20
Roxul Bouquet 5 4 2 9 3 12 7 10 4 20
Rose No. 225 2 3 3 4 8 6 5 5 3 15
Rosesol 3 0 1 4 3 5 2 0 0 5
Russian Leather 3 4 2 4 8 5 7 5 3 9
Sandalwood A-3 2 4 3 4 10 7 3 10 8 10
Spring Flower Bouquet 7 7 5 10 12 11 14 20 9 7
Sweet Grass 3 8 6 11 10 24 10 37 21 20
sweet Pea 8 6 5 10 22 14 15 23 13 15
Trefle L.H. 7 5 3 8 7 10 11 20 9 15
Tuberose 6 7 6 10 11 15 14 22 10 17
Vanilla K-600 4 5 4 8 10 10 8 10 10 11
Violet No. 23 5 3 3 9 12 8 8 10 6 10
Violet No. 257 3 3 3 9 10 5 8 12 7 10
Violet “F” 3 5 4 8 10 10 8 10 10 11
Violet F.D. 8 8 5 8 12 12 15 19 5 15
Violet de Luxe 2 2 2 5 5 2 5 4 3 5
Violet, Supreme 3 2 3 8 4 5 7 10 6 10
Wisteria 8 6 6 10 12 17 15 25 3 16
Ylang Ylang. Artiicial 4 3 2 6 2 6 2 4 2 10

a Measurement from disk edge to zone edge.

b Zone of inhibition absent.
C Zones of inhibition in italics indicate fungistatic activity. All other zones in the table indicate fungicidal activity.
476 JOURNAL OF THE PEWUCEUTICAL
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION Vol. XLVII, No. 7
TABLE
III.-THE EFFECTIVENESS ORGANISMS~
OILSON INDIVIDUAL
OF PERFUME

Ps. aeruginosa (2) Bouquet 821 Lemon Odor and Neutralizer

(1)Wisteriab F.A.
(2)Spring Flower Bouquet (3) Lavender “Y”
(3) Compounded Fruit Odor No. 1285, Honey C. tropicalis
Suckle, Tuberose, and Violet F. D. ( 1) Citrus Odor No. 50 B
B. brevis (2)Neutralizer F.A.
(1)Citrus Odor No. 50 B (3) Ashton Villa No. 0, Blue Bell Bouquet, Blue-
(2)Neutralizer F.A stone Bouquet, Carylopsis No. 604, Crab
(3) Compounded Fruit Odor No. 1285 Apple Blossom, Lemon Bouquet No. 58,
Lilac Water, Lilas Blanc L.S., Lilas Vegital,
E . caratmora Oriental Bouquet No. 225, Rose Odorata,
(1)Almond S and Rose Red
(2) Cologne “F” European Type and Sweet Grass
(3) Bouquet No. 21 C. krusei
(1)c:innamon and Lilac Water
E. coli (2)Lilas Blanc
(1) Compounded Fruit Odor No. 1285 and Orange (3) Blue Bell Bouquet, Cologne American,
Blossom “N” Colonial Bouquet, Carylopsis No. 602, Gar-
(2) Wisteria denia G.H.,Lilas Blanc L.S., Neroli Artificial,
(3) Lilac Royal, Lilas Vegital, Lotus Blossom, and and Neutralizer F.A.
Neutralizer, F.A. S. venezuelae
S. marcescens (1)Almond S
(1) Compounded Fruit Odor No. 1285 (2)Citrus Odor No. 50 B
(2)Wisteria (3) Neutralizer F.A.
(3) Neutralizer F.A.
S. cereviseae
M . aureus (1) Citrus Odor No. 50 B
(1) Pine Bouquet Supreme (2)Cinnamon and May Apple Blossom
(2)Bouquet No. 21 and Neutralizer F.A. (3) Narcissus
(3) Bouquet 821 Lemon Odor, Lavender Bouquet A . niger
D.R.. Lotus Blossom, and Sandalwood A-3
(1)Citrus Odor No. 50 B and Oriental Bouquet
M . phlei No. 225
(1) Cinnamon, Neutralizer F.A., and Tuberose (2)Allspice and Bluestone Bouquet
(2) Rose Gladis (3) Lavender “Y” and Lemon Bouquet No. 58
(3) Compounded Fruit Odor No. 1285, Elder
Buds, Lilas Blanc L.S., and Lotus Blossom C. rhodobenhani
(1)Almond S
N . perflava (2)Bouquet No. 21
(1) Cinnamon (3) Lemon Bouquet No. 58
(2)Neutralizer F.A. and Jasmine N
(3) Bouquet 821 Lemon Odor, Compounded N . panici
Fruit Odor No. 1285,and L d y of the Valley (1) Lemon Bouquet No. 58
Supreme (2) Almond S
(3) Neutralizer F.A.
B. subtilis
(1) Pine Bouquet Swiss Type M.mucedo
(2) Citrus Odor No. 50 B (1)Almond S
(3) Eau de Cologne “S’ and Lemon Bouquet No. (2)Allspice
58 (3) Cologne “F” European Type
S. tygkosa P. nolatum

I l j Orange Blossom “N” (1) Allspice, and Lemon Bouquet No. 58

2) Male Flews and Neutralizer F.A. (2) Citrus Odor No. 50 B
3) Compounded Fruit Odor No. 1285 (3) Orange Blossom “N”
C. albicans Data taken from Tables I and 11.
(1) Cologne “F” European Type Oils arranged in the order of decreasing activity.

bacteria used and a t least six of the ten fungi
employed.
4. The most resistant bacterium was Pseudo-
monas aeruginosa while the most vulnerable was
Envinia caratmora. Candida krusei was found
to be the most resistant fungus wbile the most
susceptible was Nigrospora panici.
5. More than 70% of the perfume oils pro-
duced microbicidal activity.
6. The antifungal activity of p e r f m e oils
does not parallel its antibacterial properties.
7. Fungi are almost twice as vulnerable to
perfume oils as bacteria.
REFERENCES
(1) Dyche-Teague, F. C., Perfumery Esscnt. Oil. record,
15 G(1924).
i2) Bryant J. J. ;bid., 15 420(1924).
(3) Lord, j.J., &I H W ~ , ’ W .J., THIS JOURNAL, 43, 438
(1954).
(4) Vincent J. G. and Vincent. H. W. Proc. Soc. Exptl.
Biol. ,wed., 55: 1132(1644).