See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/279970273

Antimicrobials from herbs and spices

Chapter · July 2003

DOI: 10.1533/9781855737037.176

CITATIONS READS

173 884

3 authors:

George-John E Nychas Panagiotis N Skandamis

Agricultural University of Athens Agricultural University of Athens
508 PUBLICATIONS 25,996 CITATIONS 248 PUBLICATIONS 13,245 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chrysoula C Tassou
Hellenic Agricultural Organization DIMITRA
147 PUBLICATIONS 6,648 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by George-John E Nychas on 30 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Signpost
37/661 (2), Fort P.O., Trivandrum-695 023, Kerala, India

Microbial Implication for Safe and Qualitative Food Products, 2008: 87-103
ISBN: 978-81-308-0216-9 Editors: Costas Psarianos and Yiannis Kourkoutas

Essential Oils as natural

5 antibacterials in food
preparations
Nikos G. Chorianopoulos, Panagiotis N. Skandamis
George-John E. Nychas and Serkos A. Haroutounian
Agricultural University of Athens, Iera odos 75, Athens 11855, Greece

Abstract
The recent upward trend of foodborne illness
incidences caused by the consumption of food
contaminated with bacteria and/or their toxins, has
initiated a considerable research activity towards the
discovery of potent antimicrobial agents for use in
food preparations. The negative consumer perception
against artificial food preservatives shifted this
research interest towards the development of alternatives
that consumers conceive as naturals. In this regard, the
plant derived Essential Oils (EOs) and their components
represent intriguing candidates, since numerous studies
on meat products, fisheries, dairy products, vegetables,
Correspondence/Reprint request: Prof. Serkos A. Haroutounian, Chemistry Laboratory, Agricultural University
of Athens, Iera odos 75, Athens 11855, Greece. E-mail: sehar@aua.gra
88 Nikos G. Chorianopoulos et al.

rice and fruits have revealed that many of them display a significant
antibacterial effect. In addition, their activity was markedly enhanced in the
presence of low pH, temperature and oxygen. Some EOs (and components)
have already legally registered as flavourings in the European Union and
the USA. Their mode of action involves several targets in the bacterial cells,
since they contain a large number of constituents, while their hydrophobicity
permits their entrance in the cell membrane lipids leading to the cell
contents leakage.

Introduction
The recent upward trend of foodborne illness incidences which has been
resulted from the consumption of food contaminated with bacteria and/or their
toxins, has initiated a considerable research activity towards the discovery of
potent antimicrobial agents for use in food preparations. The public concern has
particularly been stimulated by the recent scares of BSE in many European
countries and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in the USA, Japan, Australia and
Scotland. The annual health care costs, traced to a few selected foodborne
pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp.
is estimated to 5-6 billion € per year [1]. Thus, a broad variety of natural and
synthetic compounds have been screened in order to determine their ability to
inhibit foodborne bacteria and/or extend the shelf life of the processed food. On
the other hand, the recent negative consumer perceptions against artificial
preservatives, many of which are believed to exhibit potential carcinogenic and
teratogenic attributes or residual toxicity, has created mistrust among consumers
shifting the research effort towards the development of alternatives that
consumers conceive as naturals. In this respect, the essential oils (EOs) and
extracts of edible and medicinal plants, herbs and spices present a very intriguing
source of compounds (or mixtures) which are candidate for use in food
preparations as natural preservatives/antimicrobials.
Plant tissues are known for many years as source for the production of the
EOs. The first reported EO –according to Greek and Roman historians– was
the essential oil of turpentine [2]. Distillation –a method developed 2000 years
ago by eastern civilizations (Egypt, India and Persia) [2] and improved by
Arabs in the 9th century [3]– constitutes the most common method to produce
an EO. EOs were well known in the middle ages, since during the 13th century a
considerable number of EOs was being prepared by pharmacies while their
pharmacological effects were described in the pharmacopoeias [3]. On the other
hand, the first experimental assessment of EO bactericidal properties was
carried out by Dela Croix on 1881 [4]. In the course of the 19th and 20th
centuries, however, the medical uses of the EOs were faded gradually and focus
was devoted on their uses as flavour and aroma introducing agents [2].
Essential Oils as natural antibacterials in food preparations 89

Currently, the major applications of the EOs concern their uses as

flavourings (in food preparations), fragrances (by cosmetic industry) and
functional additives in pharmaceuticals [5]. Additionally, various EO
components –either extracted from plant material or synthetically
manufactured– are also being used as food flavourings [6] and/or natural
antimicrobial substances in foodstuffs [7], since they have been found to
display a wide range of antimicrobial properties, e.g. against bacteria, fungi
and mycobacteria [8-10]. In this regard, some EO containing preservatives are
already available commercially. For example, ‘DMC Base Natural’ is a food
preservative which is produced by DOMCA S.A., Alhendin, Granada, Spain,
comprising by 50% from a mixture of the EOs of rosemary, sage and citrus
and 50% by glycerol [11].
Main objective of this review is to present various published data on the
EOs antibacterial activities and discuss the methodologies used for the
evaluation of their effectiveness in vitro and in situ. Moreover, the mode of
action of natural preservatives and the stress response mechanisms that induce
in foodborne pathogens will be reviewed along with the challenges that food
manufacturers face in respect with the use of EOs as antimicrobial agents in
food safety and prevention of spoilage.

Composition of essential oils

Steam distillation constitutes the most common method to produce EOs on
a commercial basis. An alternative production method refers to their extraction
by solvent or liquid carbon dioxide. It must be noted however, that the
chemical composition of an EO varies, depending on the production method
influences its organoleptic and antibacterial properties [12]. For example, the
EOs obtained by carbon dioxide extraction –an expensive method which
requires high pressure– have a more natural organoleptic as compared to the
corresponding EOs obtained by steam distillation, since the method is being
performed in low temperatures [12].
There are numerous reports in the literature on the chemical composition
of many EOs. The major components of the most economically interesting
EOs have been summarised by Bauer et al. [3]. Almost all these compositional
analyses have been performed using gas chromatography and mass
spectrometry of the respective EO, or its headspace [13-15]. For example, a
typical scan of an EO obtained from plant material of the Lamiaceae family
comprises by more than sixty individual components [16, 17]. The major
components account for almost the 85% of the EO, whereas minor constituents
are present only in trace amounts [3, 16]. Table 1 contains the major
components of several selected EOs that were found to possess antibacterial
properties. It must be noted however that minor constituents also play a critical
90 Nikos G. Chorianopoulos et al.

Table 1. Major components of selected EOs that display antibacterial properties.

role in their antibacterial activities, possibly via a synergistic effect with other
components. This has been delineated for Salvia officinalis (sage) [18] and
certain Thymous vulgaris (thyme) [19, 20] and Origanum vulgare (oregano)
[19] specimens.
Essential Oils as natural antibacterials in food preparations 91

The chemical composition of an EO may also vary considerably in respect

to its harvesting period and/or cultivation site [14, 20-26]. This can be
rationalized considering that most are formed via biosynthetic pathways. For
example, in Origanum, Satureja and Thymus species, the monoterpenes p-
cymene and γ-terpinene constitute the biosynthetic precursors of carvacrol and
thymol [23, 25, 27-29]. In this regard, the ratio of these four compounds in
distinct Origanum, Satureja and Thymus specimens varies greately, depending
on the cultivation site [25, 26, 30] and/or harvesting period [26, 27], while
their sum remains unaffected. It is also evident that EOs obtained from plants
which have been harvested during (or immediately after) their flowering
period, usually display the strongest antimicrobial activity [20, 25, 26, 31].
Finally, the chemical composition of the EOs that obtained from different parts
of the same plant also varies significantly. For example, the EO of Coriandrum
sativus seeds has quite different composition as compared to the respective EO
obtained from the immature leaves of the same plant [15].

In vitro antibacterial activity

The antimicrobial activities of plant derived compounds against various
types of bacteria –including foodbome pathogens– are well documented in the
literature [32-34]. These results are not directly comparable and many
distinct/contrasting data have been reported for the same antimicrobial
compound [35-37]. In addition, it is not always apparent whether a cited
method measures the bacteriostatic or bactericidal activity of an EO, or records
the combined results of both activities.
The most common methods used to assay the in vitro antibacterial
activities of the EOs refer to the measurement of the: (i) inhibition zone of
bacterial growth around paper disks containing a plant antimicrobial
compound (or mixture) on various non specific substrates [25, 38-42]; (ii)
minimum concentration necessary to inhibit (MIC) the bacterial growth [26,
42-44]; (iii) inhibition of bacterial growth on an agar medium with the
antimicrobial compound diffused in the agar [45-47]; (iv) optical density
changes of a growth medium (non selective broth) in which inoculum and
antimicrobial compound(s) were added [43, 44, 48]; (v) changes in the
impedance of a non specific growth medium (broth), with (or without) the
addition of EO [26, 45, 48]; and (vi) comparative bacteriostatic activities of the
antimicrobial compounds (e.g. EOs) in an agar-diffusion versus a serial
dilution assay [40, 42, 49].
The antimicrobial activity assessment of an EO may be influenced by the
following parameters: (i) sample composition (plant specimen, cultivation site
and collection period), (ii) microorganism (strain, conditions of growth,
inoculum etc), and (iii) method used to grow and enumerate the surviving
92 Nikos G. Chorianopoulos et al.

bacteria. In this regard, many of the literature data have been based on
subjective observations as in the disc diffusion method or the various rapid
techniques eg the measurement of the optical density (turbidimetry). More
specifically, the inhibition area in the disc diffusion method depends on the EO
ability to be uniformly diffused through an agar medium and/or the oil vapours
released on the bacteria [34].
Other parameters influencing the antimicrobial screening of an EO refer to
the presence of multiple active components. At low concentrations they act
antagonistically, additively, or synergistically, since their partition rates
between lipid and aqueous phase influence the antibacterial activity of the EO.
As a consequence, their antibacterial activity differs when measured in
complex (e.g. food) or in simple system [50].
With respect to the Viable Counts (VC) method, turbidimetry is a rapid,
non destructive, inexpensive and relatively easy to automate means which has
the disadvantage of low sensitivity. Furthermore, turbidimetry detects only the
upper part of growth curves, while often requires correction procedures and
calibration methods in order to correlate the turbidimetric results with the VC’s
[37, 51]. In addition, the absorbance changes are detectable only when the
population level reaches 106 - 107 cfu/ml and depend clearly on the bacterial
cells size at different growth stages of the tested organism. Correlation
between absorbance changes and viable counts numbers is possible only for
identically treated samples. Thus, specific calibrations must be performed for
differently treated samples, because the addition of the EO prior to inoculation
increases the initial absorbance in relation to the control. The bacterial cells
sizes, their physiological state (damaged/injured or healthy), the EO oxidation
as well as the inadequate dissolution of the compound(s) tested may also affect
the absorbance measured in the growth media.
Unlike the plate count technique, impedance monitors microbial
metabolism in a real time mode. In this regard, the impedimetric method is
recognized as a promising method not only for the rapid screening of the
biocide activity –against food spoilage and pathogenic bacteria– of novel
antimicrobial agents but also for the estimation of growth kinetics parameters
[48, 52]. The implementation of the aforementioned method refers to the
utilization of a medium that offers a sharp detectable impedimetric change as
the bacterial population grows, thus converting the low conductivity nutrients
to high charged products [53, 54].
Finally, VC –the traditional microbiological method– remains the gold-
standard procedure that determines the restrictions within each of the
aforementioned methodologies. This method has the major advantage to
require low capital investment but is laborious, material intensive, requires a
long elapse time and may exhibit low reproducibility.
Essential Oils as natural antibacterials in food preparations 93

Terms used to delineate the EOs antibacterial activity assessment outcome

are the: A) MIC, which is defined as the: (i) lowest concentration essential to
maintain the inoculum viability [55]; (ii) lowest concentration required for
complete inhibition of test organism up to 48 h incubation [56]; (iii) lowest
concentration inhibiting visible growth of test organism [15]; (iv) lowest
concentration resulting in a significant decrease of inoculum viability [23]; and
(v) concentration above which no growth is observed relative to the control test
[43]. B) Minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) which is the
concentration where 99.9% or more of the initial inoculum is killed [23, 56].
C) Non-inhibitory concentration (NIC), i.e. the concentration above which the
inhibitor begins to display a negative effect on growth [43]. Finally,
bacteriostatic concentration constitutes the lowest concentration at which
bacteria fail to grow in broth systems but they are cultured when broth is plated
onto agar and when bacteria are not culturable when broth is plated onto agar
have the bactericidal concentration [45].

In situ antibacterial activity

Currently, only few natural antimicrobials are used in food preparations,
mainly as dressing salads, sauces, fermented sausages, or other ethnic food etc,
since the relative research was scarce. The recent increased interest for more
‘natural’ food preparations and consumer’s attitude against chemical
preservatives has initiated a considerable interest to study the potential use of
plant-herbs and spices derived antimicrobial substances and essential oils [57].
On the other hand, more research is required towards the toxicological effects
of EOs when used in food preservation, since the only known relative data
concern their application by cosmetics industry (Table 2).
A potent antimicrobial essential oil has to be recognized as safe (GRAS)
by the food industry. Then, the Regulatory Authorities (e.g. Commission of
European Union) must amend and maintain list(s) of the authorized additives–
used as antimicrobials or antioxidants- among these EOs, with their purity criteria
and appropriate daily intake. They must also update the registry of their active
substances, establish an evaluation program and lay down a list of additives
authorized for food preservation. Moreover, a new amendment has to be
proposed demanding the indication of a full ingredient label which will ensure
the optimal consumer information in respect to the foodstuff composition.
Thus, the necessary information will be provided to consumers who − for
health or ethical reasons − have (or want) to avoid certain ingredients. Another
problem to be resolved is their carry-over additives, since they may contain
ingredients that act as allergens, when are in misuse or overdose. In this case,
the indication of name and category is sufficient to enable susceptible
consumers to avoid the consumption of such products.
94 Nikos G. Chorianopoulos et al.

Table 2. Lethal dose (LD50) of representative EOs determined on rats of various

Lamiaceae.

1
<1.0 g/Kg, Β: 1-2 g/Kg, C: 2-5 g/Kg, D: >5 g/Kg.

Therefore, the clear binding and labeling rules are expected to ensure that
consumers will have available the complete information of product
characteristics such as composition, storage and use allowing its proper choose.
Until the early 1990s, only few literature reports on the activity of EOs on
food preparations were available [58], while their commercial applications in
food preservation were also limited. Most of them record the foodstuff effects on
the microbial resistance of the EOs but fail to quantify or elucidate the respective
mechanism of action. An overview of the literature reports on the antibacterial
effect of EOs (or their components) in foodstuffs is presented in Table 3. It must
be pointed out that a potent in vitro antibacterial EO when is used in foodstuffs
in order to produce a similar effect has to be applied in higher concentration [59],
presumably because the larger quantity of nutrients contained in foodstuffs –as
compared to laboratory media– enables the bacteria to repair faster the damaged
cells [60]. Furthermore, the bacteria’s sensitivity is greatly influenced by both
intrinsic (fat/protein/water content, antioxidants, preservatives, pH, salt and other
additives) and extrinsic determinants (temperature, packaging in vacuum/gas/air,
characteristics of microorganisms) properties of the food [61]. Generally, the
susceptibility of bacteria to the antimicrobial effect of an EO is increasing when
parameters such as pH, storage temperature and amount of oxygen within the
packaging are decreasing [61-63]. In particular, at lower pH values the
hydrophobicity of an EO increases consequencing its easier dissolution in the
cell membrane lipids of the target bacteria [64].
Essential Oils as natural antibacterials in food preparations 95

It must also be noted that high levels of fat and/or protein in foodstuffs
protects their bacteria from the EOs action [61]. The low water content of foods
is also hampering the approach of antibacterial agents to the bacterial cell target
sites [65]. For example, the presence of mint oil in high fat products pate and fish
roe salad produces only a limited antibacterial effect against L. monocytogenes

Table 3. Antibacterial activities of varous Lamiaceae EOs (or their components) in

various foodstuffs.

1
Characterization of the EO or component effectiveness (extension of lag phase and/or reduction
in the final population) where, Α: intense, Β: mediocre, C: slight and D: negligible.
96 Nikos G. Chorianopoulos et al.

and Salm. ser. Enteritidis, whereas the same EO was much more effective
when used in cucumber and yoghurt salads (both are low fat and pH products)
[61]. The physical structure of a food is another parameter that limits the
antibacterial activity of an EO. Research reports on oregano oil action against
Salm. ser. Typhimurium in broth and gelatine gel revealed that the gel matrix
was dramatically reduced the inhibitory effect of the oil, presumably because
the diffusion was limited by the structure of the gel matrix [66]. In addition,
the MIC value of an EO on a bacterial isolate is slightly lower in broth than in
agar [42]. Research concerning the growth characteristics of L. monocytogenes
and Yersinia enterocolitica in oil-in-water emulsions has shown that,
depending on the mean droplet size of the emulsion, the bacteria can grow in
films, in colonies or as planktonic cells [67]. It is also well established that the
colonial growth restricts the diffusion of oxygen [68], while the cells that are
situated within a colony are somehow shielded by the outer cells from the
emulsion substrates. Thus, the size of the oil droplets of a food emulsion is
possible to promote the bacterial growth within colonies by protecting them
from the EO action.
In meat and meat products (Table 3), EOs display better antibacterial
activities as compared to other antibacterial agents. For example, carvacrol,
oregano and thyme oils are effective in inhibitors of pathogens and
autochthonous spoilage flora in meat products, causing a marked initial
reduction in the number of recoverable cells [62, 69]. On the contrary, in the
same systems mint and sage oils were screened as much less effective. It is
further evident that the high fat content reduces markedly the activity of EOs
in meat products [61]. In this regard, literature reports have indicated that the
encapsulated rosemary oil is much more effective against L. monocytogenes in
pork liver sausage as compared with pure rosemary EO [70].
In fisheries (Table 3) –in respect with the meat products– a high fat
content usually reduces the EO effectiveness. For example, oregano oil is more
effective against the spoilage organism Photobacterium phosphoreum on cod
fillets as compared to salmon, which is a fatty fish [71].
In dairy products (Table 3), mint oil is effective against Salm. ser.
Enteritidis in low fat yoghurt and cucumber salad [61], while in vegetables
(Table 3) –like meat products– the antimicrobial activity of EOs is benefited
by the decrease of storage temperature and/or the pH [63]. On the other hand,
the low fat content of vegetables is enhancing the antibacterial activities of the
EOs. Consequently, all EOs (and their components) tested on vegetables were
assayed as effective antibacterial agents against the natural spoilage flora and
food borne pathogens [72]. More specifically, oregano oil inhibited the growth
of E. coli O157:H7 in eggplant salads by reducing considerably its final
populations [63].
Essential Oils as natural antibacterials in food preparations 97

Mode of action
Although the antimicrobial effects of EOs are well established, their
mechanism of action is poorly investigated [73]. Literature abounds with
reports on the bacteriocins and weak acids mode of action while there are only
scarce reports on the insight of the EOs (or their active components) action. In
general, it is accepted that the EOs mode of action depends on the
concentration of their active components [74]. More specifically, their low
concentration affects the activity of enzymes associated with the energy
production, while their presence in larger amounts results in the precipitation
of proteins. It must be noted however that this argument is under dispute. For
example, it is not certain if the alleged damage caused to cell membrane is
directly related with the amount of active antibacterial compounds that act
directly on cells or the effect proceeds via the initial cause of small damages
which are followed by the cell breakdown.
To date, there are various mechanisms in the literature that delineate the
antimicrobial activities of the EOs (or their active components). For example,
it has been reported that the inhibitory action of EOs is implemented through
the impairment of various enzyme systems, including those involved in energy
production and structural component synthesis. Recent findings on the
antimicrobial action of EOs (and their components) have indicated that they
cause deleterious effects on cellular membranes, e.g. on their permeability and
structural–functional damages to the plasma membranes. This membrane
impairment is mainly reflected on the dissipation of the two components of the
proton motive force, the pH gradient (∆pH) and the electrical potential (∆ψ)
[75, 76]. In particular, carvacrol – the active component of many Lamiaceae
EOs – is reported to act through the destabilization of the cytoplasmic
membrane by disintegrating the outer membrane but also as a ‘proton
exchanger’ that results in a further reduction of the pH gradient across the
cytoplasmic membrane [44, 76]. This proton motive force collapse and the
depletion of the ATP pool leads eventually to the cell death [76]. These
detrimental effects of antimicrobial compounds on proton motive force are
strongly correlated with the leakage of specific ions [77]. Indeed, the action of
various preservatives including EOs, phenols and bacteriocins on the
permeability barrier of cytoplasmic membrane results in the leakage of various
substances, such as ions, ATP, nucleic acids and amino acids, e.g. glutamate,
etc. [78, 79]. In this regard, it is reported that the EOs of tea and mint, as well
as carvacrol are capable of causing leakage of cellular material, e.g. material
absorbing at 260 nm and K+ [80, 81]. Further cell damage may also be related
to nutrient uptake, nucleic acid synthesis and ATPase activity etc. Several
98 Nikos G. Chorianopoulos et al.

reports have demonstrated that most EOs (at approx. 100 mg/l) impair the
respiratory activity of different bacteria or yeasts (e.g. Saccharomyces
cerevisiae) [79].
Unlike many antibiotics, EOs are capable of gaining access to the
periplasm of Gram-negative bacteria, through the porin proteins of their outer
membrane [78], since the cell membrane permeability depends on: i) the
hydrophobicity of the solution which have to cross the membrane, and ii) the
membrane composition [76, 78]. Temperature is another parameter that also
affects their activity, since at low temperature their solubility decreases
hampering the membrane penetration [82]. Furthermore, the partition
coefficient of an EO on cell membranes constitutes a crucial determinant of its
inhibitory effectiveness, since is an indication whether the cell wall plays an
important role in the relative resistance of whole cells lysis. The latter explains
the quantitative differences on EOs activities reported in the literature against
bacteria (degree of sensitivity), especially when bacteria with different Gram
staining response were examined.

Concluding remarks
During the food chain (e.g. production, processing, and distribution at
retail level), preservation is responsible for the maintenance of raw material
quality, physico-chemical properties and functionality, while simultaneously
assure the product safety displaying low spoilage potential. The main means
used to maintain the microbiological quality and safety of foods should have
the following influence on microorganisms: (i) prevent their access to foods,
(ii) inactivate them, if nevertheless they gain access, and (iii) slow down,
suppress or prevent the growth of those that have not been inactivated. These
results may be achieved through a well designed process that varies in
accordance to the preserved foodstuff. In order to fulfill the aforementioned
objectives, food industry has developed various combined preservation means,
such as mild heat treatment in conjunction with low concentration of
preservatives. In addition, various alternative physical treatments that include
the use of ultra high pressure (UHP) or pulsed electric fields (PEF) are now
been investigated in order to replace the classical heat treatment. The detailed
exploitation of the potential application of ‘‘natural’’ preservatives presented
herein, in combination with physical treatments (i.e., mild-heat, UHP, PEF), is
expected to afford the development of novel, mild preservation regimes,
tailored to the organoleptic quality needs of each individual product. In this
regard, several reports have already shown that UHP ‘‘denature’’ microbial
cell wall proteins facilitating greatly the access of ‘‘natural’’ preservatives to
cell wall and membrane [83].
Essential Oils as natural antibacterials in food preparations 99

In order to extend our knowledge on the effectiveness of plant-derived

antimicrobials and explore their application in combination with other food
preservation systems, research must be focused on the following issues:
(i) The elucidation of the physiological and/or molecular cell mechanism
(signal transduction, stress proteins induced, energy cost, activation of specific
pathways etc) that microorganisms respond when they are treated with plant
derived antimicrobials.
(ii) The delineation of food matrix effects on the antimicrobial efficiency of a
plant derived antimicrobial in combination with other hurdles, by
evaluating/controlling the spatial distribution of ingredients and the physico-
chemical properties of the foodstuff.
(iii) The exploitation of food matrix effects on the respective organisms and
the elucidation of the surface adhesion role on the microbial physiology, with
(or without) the presence of natural preservatives.
(iv) The exploitation of emerging technologies which act synergistically for
food safety and their shelf life extension, in conjunction with the natural
antimicrobials.
(v) The development of mathematical models that permit the accurate
prediction of the shelf life or the true physico-chemical conditions pertinent to
either survival or inactivation of pathogenic bacteria in food products.
(vi) The validation of the procedures and mathematical models by their end
users in the food industry and the development of the corresponding software
to disseminate the results, and
(vii) The understanding of consumer attitude and quality perception.

The combined application of such models and methods will offer a

pioneering/novel alternative to the conventional evaluation (assessment) of the
safety and quality of specific food products.
Finally, more emphasis must be focused on the assay of pathogenic micro-
organisms prevalence in connection with the use of natural antimicrobials
during various production stages at the production plant and supermarket
levels. The inclusion of several factors (e.g. food matrix, physiological status
of micro- organisms under stress responses leading to adaptation or survival)
into mathematical models describing microbial growth and death would
represent a significant advance in comparison with the empirical, descriptive
models of microbial growth of limited predictive capability, currently in use by
the food industries.

Acknowledgements
The project was cofunded by the European Social Fund and Natural
Resources—O.P. ‘‘EDUCATION II.’’
100 Nikos G. Chorianopoulos et al.

References
1. WHO 2002, 7th report covering 1993-1998 period; WHO Pan-European
Conference on Food Safety and Quality Budapest, Hungary, 25-28/2/ 2002.
2. Guenther, E. 1948, The Essential Oils, D. Van Nostrand, New York, 427.
3. Bauer, K., Garbe, D., and Surburg, H. 2001, Common Fragrance and Flavor
Materials: Preparation, Properties and Uses, Wiley-VCH, Weinheim.
4. Boyle, W. 1955, The American Perfumer and Essential Oil Review, 66, 25-28.
5. Bauer, K., Garbe, D. 1985, Common Fragrance and Flavor Materials. Preparation,
Properties and Uses, VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim, 213.
6. Oosterhaven, K., Poolman, B., and Smid, E. J. 1995, Industrial Crops and Products,
4, 23-31.
7. Farag, R. S., Daw, Z. Y., Hewedi, F. M., and El-Baroty, G. S. A. 1989, Journal of
Food Protection, 52, 665-667.
8. Conner, D. E., Beuchat, and L. R. 1984 Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 47, 229-233.
9. Conner, D. E., Beuchat, L. R. 1984, Journal of Food Science, 49, 429-434.
10. Galli, A., Franzetti, L., and Briguglio, D. 1985, Industrial Alimentaries, 24, 463-466.
11. Mendoza-Yepes, M. J., Sanchez-Hidalgo, L. E., Maertens, G., and Marin-Iniesta,
F. 1997, Journal of Food Safety, 17, 47-55.
12. Burt, S. 2004, Journal of Food Microbiology, 94, 223-253.
13. Salzer, U. -J. 1977, Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 9, 345- 373.
14. Juliano, C., Mattana, A., and Usai, M. 2000, Journal of Essential Oil Research 12,
516–522
15. Delaquis, P. J., Stanich, K., Girard, B., and Mazza, G. 2002, International Journal
of Food Microbiology, 74, 101-109
16. Senatore, F. 1996, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 44, 1327-1332.
17. Russo, M., Galletti, G. C., Bocchini, P., and Carnacini, A. 1998, Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 46, 3741-3746.
18. Marino, M., Bersani, C., and Comi, G. 2001, International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 67, 187-195.
19. Paster, N., Menasherov, M., Ravid, U., and Juven, B. 1995, Journal of Food
Protection. 58, 81-85.
20. Marino, M., Bersani, C., and Comi, G. 1999, Journal of Food Protection, 62, 1017-
1023.
21. Arras, G., and Grella, G.E. 1992, Journal of Horticultural Science, 67, 197-202.
22. Marotti, M., Piccaglia, R., and Giovanelli, E. 1994, Flavour and Fragrance Journal
9, 125-129.
23. Cosentino, S., Tuberoso, C.I.G., Pisano, B., Satta, M., Mascia, V., Arzedi, E., and
Palmas, F. 1999, Letters in Applied Microbiology, 29, 130-135.
24. Faleiro, M. L., Miguel, M. G., Ladeiro, F., Venancio, F., Tavares, R., Brito, J. C.,
Figueiredo, A. C., Barroso, J. G., and Pedro, L. G. 2002, Letters in Applied
Microbiology, 36, 35-40.
25. Chorianopoulos, N., Kalpoutzakis, E., Aligiannis, N., Mitaku, S., Nychas, G-J. E.,
and Haroutounian, S.A. 2004, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 52,
8261-826.
Essential Oils as natural antibacterials in food preparations 101

26. Chorianopoulos, N., Evergetis, E., Mallouchos, A., Kalpoutzakis, E., Nychas, G-J.
E., and Haroutounian, S. A. 2006, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54,
3139-3145.
27. Jerkovic, I., Mastelic, J., and Milos, M. 2001, International Journal of Food
Science and Technology 36, 649-654.
28. Muller-Riebau, F., Berger, B., Yegen, O., and Cakir, C. 1997, Journal of
Agricultural Food Chemistry, 45, 4821-4825.
29. Ultee, A., Kets, E.P.W., and Smid, E.J. 1999, Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 65, 4606-4610.
30. Kokkini, S., Karousou, R., Dardioti, A., Krigas, N., and Lanaras, T. 1997,
Phytochemistry, 44, 883-886.
31. McGimpsey, J. A., Douglas, M.H., Van Klink, J. L., Beauregard, D.A., and Perry,
N.B. 1994, Flavour and Fragrance Journal, 9, 347-352.
32. Davidson, P.M., and Branen, A.L. 1993, Antimicrobials in foods, Marcel Dekker,
New York
33. Nychas, G-J.E. 1995, Natural Antimicrobials from plants, Gould, G.W. (Ed.),
Blackie Academic Professional, London, 58-89.
34. Nychas, G-J.E., Tassou, C.C., and Skandamis, P. 2003, Antimicrobials from herbs
and spices, Roller, S. (Ed.), CRC Press, Woodhead Publishers, New York , 76-200.
35. Mann, C.M., and Markham, J.L. 1998, Journal of Applied Microbiology, 84, 538-
544.
36. Manou, L., Bouillard, L., Devleeschouwer, M.J., and Barel, A.O. 1998, Journal of
Applied Microbiology, 84, 368-376.
37. Skandamis, P., Koutsoumanis, K., Fasseas, K., and Nychas, G-J. E. 2001, Italian
Journal of Food Science and Technology, 13, 65-75.
38. Kim, J., Marshall, M.R., and Wei, C-I. 1995, Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 43, 2839-2845.
39. Senatore, F., Napolitano, F., and Ozcan, M. 2000, Flavour and Fragrance Journal
15, 186-189.
40. Wilkinson, J.M., Hipwell, M., Ryan, T., and Cavanagh, H.M.A. 2003, Journal of
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 51, 76-81.
41. Proestos, C., Chorianopoulos, N., Nychas, G-J.E., and Komaitis, M. 2005, Journal
of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 53, 1190-1195.
42. Hammer, K.A., Carson, C.F., and Riley, T.V. 1999, Journal of Applied
Microbiology, 86, 985-990.
43. Lambert, R.J.W., and Pearson, J. 2000, Journal of Applied Microbiology, 88, 784-790.
44. Lambert, R.J.W., Skandamis, P., Coote, P.J., and Nychas, G-J.E. 2001, Journal of
Applied Microbiology, 91, 453-462.
45. Smith-Palmer, A., Stewart, J., and Fyfe, L. 1998, Letters in Applied Microbiology,
26, 118-22.
46. Wan, J., Wilcock, A., and Coventry, M.J. 1998, Journal of Applied Microbiology,
84, 152-158.
47. Dorman, H.J.D., and Deans, S.G. 2000, Journal of Applied Microbiology, 88, 308- 316.
48. Chorianopoulos, N.G., Lambert, R.J.W., Skandamis, P.N., Evergetis, E.T.,
Haroutounian, S.A., and Nychas, G-J.E. 2006, Journal of Applied Microbiology,
100, 778-786.
102 Nikos G. Chorianopoulos et al.

49. Quattara, B., Sabato, S.F., and Lacroix, M. 2001, International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 68, 1-9.
50. Stecchini, M.L., Del Torre, M., Sarais, I., Saro, O., Messina, M., and Maltini, E.
1998, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 64, 1075-1078.
51. Dalgaard, P., and Koutsoumanis, K. 2001, Journal of Microbiological Methods,
43,183-196.
52. Lachowicz, K.J., Jones, G.P., Briggs, D.R., Bienvenu, F.E., Wan, J., Wilcock, A.,
and Coventry, M.J. 1998, Letters in Applied Microbiology, 26, 209-214.
53. Dumont, L.E., and Slabyj, B.M. 1993, Food Microbiology, 11, 375-383.
54. Koutsoumanis, K., Tassou, C.C., Taoukis, P.S., and Nychas, G-J.E. 1998, Journal
of Applied Microbiology, 84, 981-987.
55. Carson, C.F., Cookson, B.D., Farrelly, H.D., and Riley, T.V. 1995, Journal of
Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 35, 421-424.
56. Canillac, N., and Mourey, A. 2001, Food Microbiology, 18, 261-268.
57. Beuchat, L., and Golden, P. 1989, Food Technology, 43, 134-142.
58. Board, R.G., and Gould, G.W. 1991, Future prospects, Gould, NJRaGW (Ed) Food
Preservatives, Blackie, Glasgow, 267-284.
59. Smid, E.J., and Gorris, L.G.M. 1999, Natural antimicrobials for food preservation,
Rahman, M.S. (Ed), Handbook of Food Preservation, Marcel Dekker, New York,
285-308.
60. Gill, A.O., Delaquis, P., Russo, P., and Holley, R.A. 2002, International Journal of
Food Microbiology, 73, 83-92.
61. Tassou, C.C., Drosinos, E.H., and Nychas G-J.E. 1995, Journal of Applied
Bacteriology, 78, 593-600.
62. Tsigarida, E., Skandamis, P., and Nychas, G-J.E. 2000, Journal of Applied
Microbiology, 89, 901-909.
63. Skandamis, P.N., and Nychas, G-J.E. 2000, Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 66, 1646-1653.
64. Juven, B.J., Kanner, J., Schved, F., and Weisslowicz, H. 1994, Journal of Applied
Bacteriology, 76, 626-631.
65. Smith-Palmer, A., Stewart, J., and Fyfe, L. 2001, Food Microbiology, 18, 463-470.
66. Skandamis, P., Tsigarida, E., and Nychas, G-J.E. 2000, World Journal of
Microbiology and Biotechnology, 16, 31-35.
67. Brocklehurst, T.F., Parker, M.L., Gunning, P.A., Coleman, H.P., and Robins,
M.M. 1995, Journal of Applied Bacteriology, 78, 609-615.
68. Wimpenny, J.W.T., and Lewis, M.W.A. 1977, Journal of General Microbiology
103, 9-18.
69. Skandamis, P., and Nychas, G-J.E. 2001, Journal of Applied Microbiology, 91,
1011-1022.
70. Pandit, V.A., and Shelef, L.A. 1994, Food Microbiology, 11, 57-63.
71. Mejholm, O., and Dalgaard, P. 2002, Letters in Applied Microbiology, 34, 27-31.
72. Singh, N., Singh, R.K., Bhunia, A.K., and Stroshine, R.L. 2002, Lebensmittel
Wissenchaften und Technologien 35, 720-729.
73. Nychas, G-J.E., and Tassou, C.C. 2000, Preservatives: Traditional Preservatives -
oils and spices, Robisnson, R., Batt, C., and Patel, P. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Food
Microbiology Academic Press, London, 1717-1722.
 Essential Oils as natural antibacterials in food preparations 103

74. Prindle, R.F., and Wright, E.S. 1977, Phenolic compounds, Block, S.S. (Ed)
Disinfection, Sterilisation and Preservation, Philadelphia, Lea & Febiger, 219-251.
75. Ultee, A., Slump, R.A., Steging, G., and Smid, E.J. 2000, Journal of Food
Protection 63, 620-624.
76. Ultee, A., Bennik, M.H.J., and Moezelaar, R. 2002, Applied Environmental
Microbiology, 68, 1561-1568.
77. Bakker, E., and Mangerich, W.E. 1981, Journal of Bacteriology, 36, 67-72.
78. Helander, I.K., Alakomi, H.L., Latva-Kala, K., Mattila-Sandholm, T., Pol. I.,
Smid, E.J., and von Wright, A. 1998 Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
46, 3590-3595.
79. Tassou, C.C., Koutsoumanis, K., and Nychas, G-J.E. 2000, Food Research
International 33, 273-280.
80. Cox, S.D., Gustafson, J.E., Mann, C.M., Markham, J.L., Liew, Y.C., Hartland,
R.P., Bell, H.C., Warmington, J.R., and Wyllie, S.G. 1998, Letters in Applied
Microbiology, 26, 355-358.
81. Gustafson, J.E., Liew, Y.C., Chew, S., Markham, J., Bell, H.C., Wyllie, S.G., and
Warmington, J.R. 1998, Letters in Applied Microbiology 26, 194-198.
82. Wanda, P., Cupp, J., Snipes, W., Keith, A., Rucinsky, T., Polish, L., and Sands, J.
1976, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 10, 96.
83. Pagan, C., and Mackey, P. 2000, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 66,
2829-2834.

View publication stats