Cinnamon Bark Essential Oil as a Natural Plant Protection Agent: Chemical Profile, Antimicrobial Activity, and Defence Induction
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. Chemical Profiling
2.2. Microbial Assay
2.3. Effect of Cinnamon Bark Essential Oil on Bacterial Metabolic Activity Assessed by the MTT Assay
2.4. Induction of PAL Activity in Winter Wheat by Cinnamon Bark Essential Oil
2.5. Evaluation of Phytotoxic Effects and Plant Dry Mass
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Chemical Composition of Cinnamon Bark Essential Oil
4.2. Antimicrobial Assay
4.2.1. Test Microorganisms
4.2.2. Agar Disc Diffusion Assay
4.2.3. Determination of Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC)
4.2.4. MTT Assay
4.2.5. Antifungal Activity
4.3. Induction of Plant Defence Mechanisms by Cinnamon Bark Essential Oil—Evaluation of Elicitor Potential
4.3.1. Determination of Phenylalanine Ammonia-Lyase (PAL) Activity
4.3.2. Phytotoxicity Assessment and Dry Mass Determination
4.4. Statistical Analysis
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| CBO | cinnamon bark essential oil |
| CDA | Czapek–Dox agar medium |
| DMSO | dimethyl sulfoxide |
| IC50 | half maximal inhibitory concentration |
| LB/LBA | Luria–Bertani broth/Luria–Bertani agar |
| MBC | minimum bactericidal concentration |
| MIC | minimum inhibitory concentration |
| MTT | 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assay |
| PAL | phenylalanine ammonia-lyase |
| PBS | phosphate-buffered saline |
References
- Savary, S.; Willocquet, L.; Pethybridge, S.J.; Esker, P.; McRoberts, N.; Nelson, A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of Food and Agriculture 2022: Leveraging Innovation for Sustainable Agri-Food Systems; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, R.; Huang, D.; Du, L.; Song, B.; Yin, L.; Chen, Y.; Gao, L.; Li, R.; Huang, H.; Zeng, G. Antibiotic resistance in soil-plant systems: A review of the source, dissemination, influence factors, and potential exposure risks. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 869, 161855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Islam, T.; Danishuddin; Tamanna, N.T.; Matin, M.N.; Barai, H.R.; Haque, M.A. Resistance Mechanisms of Plant Pathogenic Fungi to Fungicide, Environmental Impacts of Fungicides, and Sustainable Solutions. Plants 2024, 13, 2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- De Mio, L.L.M. Fungicide Resistance and Its Implications for Crop Protection. Sustain. Agri. Rev. 2024, 49, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkemade, J.A.; Hawkins, N.J.; Baraldi, E.; Buddie, A.G.; Cockerton, H.M.; Corkley, I.; Fraaije, B.A.; Gaya, E.; Gifford, D.R.; Hartig, F.; et al. Learning from fungicide resistance: Evolutionary insights to guide RNAi-based control of fungal crop pathogens. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2025, 53, 100443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Sustainable Crop Protection; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://www.fao.org (accessed on 11 February 2025).
- Kesraoui, S.; Andres, M.F.; Berrocal-Lobo, M.; Soudani, S.; Gonzalez-Coloma, A. Direct and Indirect Effects of Essential Oils for Sustainable Crop Protection. Plants 2022, 11, 2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, I.; Sharma, A.; Singh, A.; Verma, R.S.; Padalia, R.C.; Sundaresan, V. Plant Essential Oils as Biopesticides: Applications, Mechanisms and Prospects. Plants 2023, 12, 2916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burt, S. Essential Oils: Their Antibacterial Properties and Potential Applications in Foods—A Review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 94, 223–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bassolé, I.H.N.; Juliani, H.R. Essential Oils in Combination and Their Antimicrobial Properties. Molecules 2012, 17, 3989–4006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyldgaard, M.; Mygind, T.; Meyer, R.L. Essential Oils in Food Preservation: Mode of Action, Synergies, and Interactions with Food Matrix Components. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nazzaro, F.; Fratianni, F.; Coppola, R.; De Feo, V. Essential oils and antifungal activity. Pharmaceuticals 2017, 10, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dixon, R.A.; Paiva, N.L. Stress-induced phenylpropanoid metabolism. Plant Cell 1995, 7, 1085–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pandey, A.K.; Kumar, P.; Singh, P.; Tripathi, N.N.; Bajpai, V.K. Essential Oils: Sources of Antimicrobials and Food Preservatives. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mutlu-Ingok, A.; Devecioglu, D.; Dikmetas, D.N.; Karbancioglu-Guler, F.; Capanoglu, E. Antibacterial, antifungal, antimycotoxigenic, and antioxidant activities of essential oils: An updated review. Molecules 2020, 25, 4711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Utchariyakiat, I.; Surassmo, S.; Jaturanpinyo, M.; Khuntayaporn, P.; Chomnawang, M.T. Efficacy of cinnamon bark oil and cinnamaldehyde on anti-multidrug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa and the synergistic effects in combination with other antimicrobial agents. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2016, 16, 158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castro-Moretti, F.R.; Gentzel, I.N.; Mackey, D.; Alonso, A.P. Metabolomics as an emerging tool for the study of plant-pathogen interactions. Metabolites 2020, 10, 52. [Google Scholar]
- Ziemba, B. Advances in cytotoxicity testing: From in vitro assays to in silico models. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 11202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gębarowska, E.; Pląskowska, E.; Moliszewska, E. The Role of Trichoderma Fungi in Inducing Defense Mechanisms in Plants. In The Chemical Dialogue Between Plants and Beneficial Microorganisms; Sharma, V., Salwan, R., Moliszewska, E., Ruano-Rosa, D., Jędryczka, M., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2023; pp. 179–189. [Google Scholar]
- Yadav, V.; Wang, Z.; Wei, C.; Amo, A.; Ahmed, B.; Yang, X.; Zhang, X. Phenylpropanoid pathway engineering: An emerging strategy for broad-spectrum disease resistance. Pathogens 2020, 9, 312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mauch-Mani, B.; Baccelli, I.; Luna, E.; Flors, V. Defense priming: An adaptive part of induced resistance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2017, 68, 485–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EFSA. Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR). Guidance on the Risk Assessment of Plant Protection Products. EFSA J. 2013, 11, 3295. [Google Scholar]
- US EPA. Guidance for the Registration of Biopesticides. Fed. Regist. 2017, 82, 410–419. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, G.; Maurya, S.; DeLampasona, M.P.; Catalan, C.A. A comparison of chemical, antioxidant and antimicrobial studies of cinnamon leaf and bark volatile oils, oleoresins and their constituents. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2007, 45, 1650–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dongmo, P.M.; Dongmo, P.M.J.; Tatsadjieu, L.N.; Tchoumbougnang, F.; Sameza, M.L.; Dongmo, B.N.; Zollo, P.H.A.; Menut, C. Chemical composition, antiradical and antifungal activities of essential oil of the leaves of Cinnamomum zeylanicum Blume from Cameroon. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2007, 2, 1934578X0700201219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, B.R.R.; Kaul, P.N.; Syamasundar, K.V.; Ramesh, S. Chemical profiles of primary and secondary essential oils of cinnamon bark and leaf. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2014, 9, 121–127. [Google Scholar]
- Zengin, H.; Baysal, A.H. Antibacterial and antioxidant activity of essential oil terpenes against pathogenic and spoilage-forming bacteria and cell structure-activity relationships evaluated by SEM microscopy. Molecules 2014, 19, 17773–17798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Friedman, M. Chemistry, antimicrobial mechanisms, and antibiotic activities of cinnamaldehyde against pathogenic bacteria in animal feeds and human foods. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 10406–10423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, C.; Ge, L.; Li, Z.; Chen, B.; Liao, S.; Lu, L.; Wu, Q.; Jiang, X.; An, Y.; Wang, Z.; et al. Antibacterial activity of cinnamon essential oil and its main component of cinnamaldehyde and the underlying mechanism. Front. Pharmacol. 2024, 15, 1378434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ilijeva, R.; Buchbauer, G. Biological properties of some volatile phenylpropanoids. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2016, 11, 1934578X1601101041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalemba, D.; Kunicka, A. Antibacterial and Antifungal Properties of Essential Oils. Curr. Med. Chem. 2003, 10, 813–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakkali, F.; Averbeck, S.; Averbeck, D.; Idaomar, M. Biological Effects of Essential Oils—A Review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 446–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caputo, L.; Smeriglio, A.; Trombetta, D.; Cornara, L.; Trevena, G.; Valussi, M.; Fratianni, F.; De Feo, V.; Nazzaro, F. Chemical Composition and Biological Activities of the Essential Oils of Leptospermum petersonii and Eucalyptus gunnii. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Requena, R.; Vargas, M.; Chiralt, A. Study of the potential synergistic antibacterial activity of essential oil components using the thiazolyl blue tetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. LWT 2019, 101, 183–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Constante, C.K.; Rodríguez, J.; Sonnenholzner, S.; Domínguez-Borbor, C. Adaptation of the methyl thiazole tetrazolium (MTT) reduction assay to measure cell viability in Vibrio spp. Aquaculture 2022, 560, 738568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Veilleux, M.P.; Grenier, D. Determination of the effects of cinnamon bark fractions on Candida albicans and oral epithelial cells. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2019, 19, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tran, H.N.; Graham, L.; Adukwu, E.C. In vitro antifungal activity of Cinnamomum zeylanicum bark and leaf essential oils against Candida albicans and Candida auris. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 104, 8911–8924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jantan, I.B.; Karim Moharam, B.A.; Santhanam, J.; Jamal, J.A. Correlation between chemical composition and antifungal activity of the essential oils of eight Cinnamomum. Species. Pharm. Biol. 2008, 46, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kowalska, J.; Tyburski, J.; Matysiak, K.; Jakubowska, M.; Łukaszyk, J.; Krzymińska, J. Cinnamon as a Useful Preventive Substance for the Care of Human and Plant Health. Molecules 2021, 26, 5299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Ramírez, E.; Contreras-Oliva, A.; Salinas-Ruiz, J.; Hernández-Ramírez, G.; Spinoso-Castillo, J.L.; Colmenares Cuevas, S.I. Plant Extracts Control In Vitro Growth of Disease-Causing Fungi in Chayote. Plants 2023, 12, 1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raveau, R.; Fontaine, J.; Lounès-Hadj Sahraoui, A. Essential oils as potential alternative biocontrol products against plant pathogens and weeds: A review. Foods 2020, 9, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verdeguer, M.; Sánchez-Moreiras, A.M.; Araniti, F. Phytotoxic effects and mechanism of action of essential oils and terpenoids. Plants 2020, 9, 1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Werrie, P.Y.; Durenne, B.; Delaplace, P.; Fauconnier, M.L. Phytotoxicity of essential oils: Opportunities and constraints for the development of biopesticides—A review. Foods 2020, 9, 1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guzmán-Guzmán, P.; Etesami, H.; Santoyo, G. Trichoderma: A multifunctional agent in plant health and microbiome interactions. BMC Microbiol. 2025, 25, 434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, X.; Zhu, S.; He, L.; Cheng, G.; Li, T.; Meng, W.; Wen, F. Phenylalanine Ammonia-Lyase: A Core Regulator of Plant Carbon Metabolic Flux Redistribution-From Molecular Mechanisms and Growth Modulation to Stress Adaptability. Plants 2025, 14, 3811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leiva-Mora, M.; Bustillos, D.; Arteaga, C.; Hidalgo, K.; Guevara-Freire, D.; López-Hernández, O.; Saa, L.R.; Padilla, P.S.; Bustillos, A. Antifungal mechanisms of plant essential oils: A comprehensive literature review for biofungicide development. Agriculture 2025, 15, 2303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, Y.; Liu, Z.; Yang, Q.; Wang, H. Effects of Plant Essential Oil Treatment on the Activity of Defense-Related Enzymes in Blueberry Fruits. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 318. [Google Scholar]
- Łyczko, J.; Piotrowski, K.; Kolasa, K.; Galek, R.; Szumny, A. Mentha piperita L. micropropagation and the potential influence of plant growth regulators on volatile organic compound composition. Molecules 2020, 25, 2652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nöfer, J.; Lech, K.; Figiel, A.; Szumny, A.; Carbonell-Barrachina, Á.A. The influence of drying method on volatile composition and sensory profile of Boletus edulis. J. Food Qual. 2018, 2018, 2158482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matuschek, E.; Brown, D.F.J.; Kahlmeter, G. Development of the EUCAST disk diffusion antimicrobial susceptibility testing method and its implementation in routine microbiology laboratories. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 2014, 20, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gębarowska, E.; Łyczko, J.; Kmieć, A.; Bączek, P.; Twardowska, K.; Stępień, B. Invasive Goldenrod (Solidago gigantea Aiton) as a Source of Natural Bioactive Antimicrobial, Insecticidal, and Allelopathic Compounds. Molecules 2026, 31, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CLSI. Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing, 27th ed.; CLSI Supplement M100; Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Grela, E.; Kozłowska, J.; Grabowiecka, A. Current methodology of MTT assay in bacteria—A review. Acta Histochem. 2018, 120, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.; Shi, D.; Chen, K.; Palmer, J.; Popovich, D.G. An improved MTT colorimetric method for rapid viable bacteria counting. J. Microbiol. Methods 2023, 214, 106830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gleń, K.; Boligłowa, E. Evaluation the fungistatic activity of plant extracts in vitro tests. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2012, 57, 104–109. [Google Scholar]
- Peltonen, S.; Karjalainen, R. Phenylalanine ammonia-lyase activity in barley after infection with Bipolaris sorokiniana or treatment with its purified xylanase. J. Phytopathol. 1995, 143, 239–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]






| No. | Compounds | RT (min) | Contribution [%] |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cinnamaldehyde | 24.6 | 41.3 |
| 2 | Linalool | 14.0 | 18.3 |
| 3 | Eucalyptol | 10.6 | 6.8 |
| 4 | Eugenol | 29.3 | 4.0 |
| 5 | trans-Cinnamyl acetate | 35.1 | 3.3 |
| 6 | Caryophyllene | 33.2 | 3.3 |
| 7 | α-Terpineol | 19.6 | 3.2 |
| 8 | α-Pinene | 6.6 | 2.0 |
| 9 | Isobornyl acetate | 25.4 | 1.7 |
| 10 | p-Cymene | 10.2 | 1.4 |
| 11 | Benzaldehyde | 7.7 | 1.3 |
| 12 | β-Phenethyl alcohol | 14.7 | 1.3 |
| 13 | α-Terpinyl acetate | 28.9 | 1.3 |
| 14 | γ-Terpinene | 11.8 | 1.2 |
| 15 | Benzyl benzoate | 52.9 | 1.2 |
| 16 | β-Phenethyl acetate | 23.2 | 1.1 |
| Tested Pathogens | MIC | MBC | IC50 (MTT) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Burkholderia cepacia IOR 2151 | 0.625 | 1.250 | 0.410 ± 0.01 c |
| Dickeya dadantii IOR 1450 | 0.156 | 0.156 | 0.078 ± 0.00 a |
| Dickeya zeae IOR 2243 | 0.156 | 0.156 | 1.103 ± 0.01 a |
| Pantoea agglomerans IOR 2187 | 0.312 | 0.625 | 0.181 ± 0.00 b |
| Pectobacterium carotovorum IOR 1822 | 0.156 | 0.156 | 0.098 ± 0.00 a |
| Pectobacterium carotovorum IOR 1825 | 0.156 | 0.156 | 0.095 ± 0.00 a |
| Pseudomonas syringae IOR 2260 | 0.156 | 0.625 | 0.198 ± 0.00 b |
| Rhizobium radiobacter IOR 1830 | 0.312 | 0.625 | 0.084 ± 0.00 a |
| Xanthomonas hortorum var. carotae IOR 2384 | 0.156 | 0.156 | 0.300 ± 0.00 c |
| Tested Strains | KR (mm) | D1 (%) | D2 (%) | D3 (%) | Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phytophthora cinnamomi IOR 2080 | 24.3 ± 0.96 | 100.0 ± 0.00 a | 96.9 ± 3.95 a | 48.5 ± 2.38 abc | 81.8 ABC |
| Trichoderma harzianum P1 | 63.3 ± 0.96 | 100.0 ± 0.00 a | 88.9 ± 10.25 ab | 42.7 ± 5.06 c | 77.2 BCD |
| Trichoderma harzianum S1 | 70.0 ± 0.00 | 100.0 ± 0.00 a | 84.6 ± 5.99 ab | 42.5 ± 1.37 c | 75.7 CD |
| Rhizoctonia solani F93 | 75.0 ± 5.77 | 99.3 ± 0.77 a | 77.3 ± 15.28 b | 43.0 ± 2.28 c | 73.2 D |
| Fusarium graminearum IOR 1970 | 41.5 ± 0.58 | 100.0 ± 0.00 a | 98.8 ± 2.41 a | 47.6 ± 5.34 ab | 82.1 ABC |
| Fusarium culmorum IOR Fc6 | 48.3 ± 0.96 | 100.0 ± 0.00 a | 98.4 ± 1.04 a | 65.3 ± 8.35 a | 87.9 A |
| Fusarium culmorum IOR Fc12 | 27.8 ± 0.96 | 100.0 ± 0.00 a | 94.6 ± 2.08 a | 63.1 ± 3.45 ab | 85.9 A |
| Fusarium culmorum IOR Fc16 | 37.0 ± 4.62 | 100.0 ± 0.00 a | 98.0 ± 1.35 a | 56.1 ± 20.63 abc | 84.7 AB |
| X | — | 99.9 A | 92.2 B | 51.1 C | — |
| Tested Strains | KR (mm) | D1 (%) | D2 (%) | D3 (%) | Y |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P. cinnamomi IOR 2080 | 23.50 ± 0.58 | 47.55 ± 28.7 bc | 12.77 ± 2.4 b | 10.64 ± 3.5 b | 21.9 C |
| T. harzianum P1 | 38.50 ± 0.58 | −7.8 ± 1.5 d | −12.3 ± 3.3 d | −11.04 ± 4.4 d | −10.4 E |
| T. harzianum S1 | 54.00 ± 0.82 | 16.7 ± 0.2 cd | 14.3 ± 2.8 b | 14.35 ± 6.7 b | 15.1 D |
| R. solani F93 | 73.50 ± 2.38 | 69.8 ± 24.5 ab | 39.9 ± 0.8 a | 38.93 ± 0.8 a | 49.4 A |
| F. graminearum IOR 1970 | 37.50 ± 0.58 | 100.0 ± 0.0 a | 22.7 ± 3.8 ab | 5.33 ± 1.5 c | 42.6 AB |
| F. culmorum IOR Fc6 | 36.75 ± 0.59 | 63.3 ± 14.8 ab | 15.0 ± 1.5 b | 10.88 ± 4.1 b | 29.7 BC |
| F. culmorum IOR Fc12 | 39.25 ± 1.26 | 60.5 ± 4.4 b | 8.3 ± 2.1 bc | 4.46 ± 3.3 c | 24.4 C |
| F. culmorum IOR Fc16 | 33.75 ± 0.96 | 64.5 ± 21.1 ab | 5.19 ± 1.6 c | 8.15 ± 2.4 b | 25.9 BC |
| X | — | 51.1 A | 13.2 B | 10.21 B | — |
| Treatment | Dry Mass (mg) | Phytotoxic Effect (Scale 0–4) |
|---|---|---|
| KW | 527.33 ± 6.03 c | 0 |
| KR—solvent control | 527.33 ± 8.55 c | 0 |
| CBO_0.01% | 525.33 ± 12.50 c (99.6%) | 0 |
| CBO_0.05% | 600.33 ± 10.41 a (113.9%) | 0 |
| CBO_0.1% | 552.67 ± 5.03 b (104.8%) | 0 |
| CBO_0.5% | 505.00 ± 8.54 c (95.8%) | 0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Gębarowska, E.; Budek, K.; Gębarowska, M.; Kmieć, A.; Szumny, A. Cinnamon Bark Essential Oil as a Natural Plant Protection Agent: Chemical Profile, Antimicrobial Activity, and Defence Induction. Molecules 2026, 31, 1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31061036
Gębarowska E, Budek K, Gębarowska M, Kmieć A, Szumny A. Cinnamon Bark Essential Oil as a Natural Plant Protection Agent: Chemical Profile, Antimicrobial Activity, and Defence Induction. Molecules. 2026; 31(6):1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31061036
Chicago/Turabian StyleGębarowska, Elżbieta, Karolina Budek, Martyna Gębarowska, Anna Kmieć, and Antoni Szumny. 2026. "Cinnamon Bark Essential Oil as a Natural Plant Protection Agent: Chemical Profile, Antimicrobial Activity, and Defence Induction" Molecules 31, no. 6: 1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31061036
APA StyleGębarowska, E., Budek, K., Gębarowska, M., Kmieć, A., & Szumny, A. (2026). Cinnamon Bark Essential Oil as a Natural Plant Protection Agent: Chemical Profile, Antimicrobial Activity, and Defence Induction. Molecules, 31(6), 1036. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules31061036

