Next Article in Journal
Methods for Cognitive Diagnosis of Students’ Abilities Based on Keystroke Features
Previous Article in Journal
A Study on the Zoning Method of Flash Flood Control for Mountainous Cities: A Case Study of Yunnan Province
Previous Article in Special Issue
Enhancing Mycotoxin Detection in Table Olives: The Role of Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay and Method Optimization
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Antimicrobial Potential of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze Essential Oils for Food Applications: A Review of Their Chemical Compositions and Antimicrobial Efficacy

1
Department of Food Science, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
2
Department of Technical Sciences and Soil Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3
Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Science and Veterinary Medicine, 400372 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
4
Department of Food Technologies, Faculty of Agriculture, “Ion Ionescu de la Brad” Iasi University of Life Sciences, 700490 Iași, Romania
5
Department of Nephrology, University of Medicine and Pharmacy “Iuliu Hatieganu”, 400347 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2025, 15(9), 4772; https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094772
Submission received: 14 March 2025 / Revised: 7 April 2025 / Accepted: 16 April 2025 / Published: 25 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Analyses of Hazards and Risks in Food Safety)

Abstract

:
The rising demand for natural and safe products has increased interest in essential oils (EOs) as alternatives to synthetic preservatives. EOs could be encapsulated in active packaging or incorporated in nano-emulsion systems and help extend food shelf life by inhibiting the growth of pathogens. H. officinalis and Agastache foeniculum (Lamiaceae) are widely used in food and beverages. This review aims to explores their potential food applications, focusing on their antimicrobial activities, chemical compositions, and toxicity. H. officinalis EO mainly consists of oxygenated monoterpenes (27.32–92.25%), with 1,8-cineole, isopinocamphone, and pinocamphone as key compounds. It also contains monoterpene hydrocarbons (3.84–67.24%), including β-pinene, β-phellandrene, and β-ocimene. A. foeniculum EO is rich in phenylpropanoids (22.39–84.67%), primarily estragole (3.2–94.89%) and methyl eugenol, along with oxygenated monoterpenes (0.08–54.51%), mainly menthone (31.58–34.3%). H. officinalis EO exhibited antimicrobial activity against Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, Salmonella Typhimurium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and various fungi, including Penicillium, Cladosporium, Candida, and Aspergillus species. A. foeniculum EO seemed to be effective against fungi and Gram-positive bacteria but showed lower activity against Gram-negative bacteria. H. officinalis EO showed no mutagenic or genotoxic effects in the available studies, while the toxicity of A. foeniculum EO remains unstudied. H. officinalis EO exhibited potential preservative properties when added to ground meat or used as coating for cheese and shrimp. The results of this study provide critical insights into the possibilities of integrating these EOs into food preservation strategies and their potential contributions to enhancing food safety and sustainability.

1. Introduction

The growing consumer preference for “natural” and “safe” products has sparked a growing interest in essential oils (EOs) as a promising natural alternative to synthetic preservatives [1]. Microorganisms and their toxins play significant roles in food spoilage, biodegradation, and food safety, making them key factors in food insecurity within the food chain. EOs and their phytoconstituents are known for their wide range of biological activities, including antibacterial, insecticidal, antiviral, and antifungal properties [2]. Their unique aromas, flavors, and antimicrobial qualities make them particularly valuable in food preservation [3]. As the food industry shifts toward becoming more natural, EOs offer an effective solution for extending the shelf life of perishable foods by inhibiting the growth of foodborne pathogens [4]. Despite the proven potential of EOs and their constituents in vitro, their application as food preservatives remains limited due to the high concentrations required for effective antimicrobial activity [5]. Also, their application in food preservation remains restricted due to their strong aromas and potential toxicity [6].
EOs, also referred to as volatile oils, are concentrated liquid extracts containing volatile aromatic compounds derived from the flowers, buds, leaves, and bark of the plant, with steam distillation being the most commonly used method of extraction. They are natural antimicrobial agents used to protect against plant infections, and they hold significant potential for combating foodborne pathogens and spoilage organisms. The effectiveness of a specific EO is largely determined by its concentration and chemical composition. These oils are typically complex mixtures containing 20 to 80 different chemical compounds, which could be categorized into two main groups: terpenoids and non-terpenoid hydrocarbons. Terpenoids are derived from the combination of isoprene units, forming monoterpenes (two units), sesquiterpenes (three units), or diterpenes (four units). Phenylpropanoids, which fall under non-terpenoid hydrocarbons, represent another structural class of phenolic compounds found in EOs. While terpenes and their oxygenated derivatives (terpenoids) are typically the most prevalent and abundant components in EOs, certain plant species contain high concentrations of phenylpropanoids that contribute to the unique fragrance and flavor of the plant [1,2].
Numerous studies have demonstrated a strong correlation between the chemical compositions of EOs and their antimicrobial properties. These oils and their constituents exhibit broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity against a range of foodborne pathogens, including Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and spoilage microorganisms. Their antimicrobial effectiveness largely depends on the primary constituents and their interactions with minor components. Their antimicrobial properties are primarily attributed to terpenes, terpenoids, and phenols [1].
The antimicrobial properties of EOs result from a complex mixture of compounds with diverse chemical structures, leading to multiple mechanisms of action. Their high lipophilicity plays a crucial role, enabling penetration of cell and mitochondrial membranes, disrupting their structure and function, and increasing permeability [7].
EOs exhibit antibacterial effectiveness (Figure 1) that can be either bacteriostatic (inhibiting bacterial growth and allowing microbial cells to recover reproductive capabilities) or bactericidal (destroying bacterial cells). Various methods can be employed to assess these antibacterial properties, including agar dilution, agar/disc diffusion, broth micro/macro dilution, direct bioautography, antimicrobial gradient method (Etest), time-kill test, adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence assays, and flow cytofluorometric analysis [2].
The Lamiaceae family has a long-standing tradition of use in flavoring, food preservation, and medicine owing to its curative and preventive properties. These plants have gained popularity as functional foods due to the bioactive components in their EOs, which are known for their distinctive tastes and fragrances and biological effects, such as antimicrobial, antioxidant, and anticancer activities [8]. This family includes more than 7000 aromatic species, such as lavender, mint, thyme, basil, oregano, rosemary, sage, hyssop, and anise hyssop, among others. [9]. The EOs from the last two species are less used in the food sector compared with the others. However, their bioactive proprieties (especially antimicrobial effects) and flavors could make them suitable for this industry.
H. officinalisus L. spp. and Agastache L. spp. are two representative genera from Lamiaceae family, Nepetoideae subfamily [9]. Morphologically, the Nepetoideae subfamily is characterized by herbaceous, shrubby, or occasionally arboreal plants. These plants are typically aromatic due to the variety of terpenoids they contain, along with the presence of the rosmarinic acid. Many species within this subfamily, found in various genera, are recognized for their medicinal and culinary uses as condiments [10]. In food industry, the total aerial parts of H. officinalisus L. spp. are used to spice several beverages and foods, such as green salads, chicken soup, fruit soup, fruit salads, liqueurs, lamb stew, poultry, fish, and meat [11], while A. foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze is used mostly as an insecticide [10].
H. officinalisus is a genus comprising herbaceous or semiwoody plants, encompassing approximately 10 to 15 species. H. officinalis L. is particularly prevalent in Mediterranean countries, including Central Asia and Northwest India [12]. H. officinalis L. contains numerous bioactive compounds, such as EOs, polyphenols, acids (e.g., rosmarinic acid and caffeic acid, among others), flavonoids, polysaccharides, tannins, pigments, and resins [13]. Due to its mildly bitter taste and minty aroma, it has been used for centuries to create flavors and fragrances in foods, particularly in sauces, seasonings, bitters, and liqueurs [8]. As a food ingredient, H. officinalis is valued for its distinctive flavor and it is commonly used in sauce formulations. Despite its slightly bitter taste, it is often incorporated as a minty flavoring and condiment. Additionally, H. officinalis extracts have been shown to inhibit lipid oxidation and prevent the degradation of heme pigments during cooking and storage. This suggests their potential as a valuable additive in meat processing to reduce lipid oxidation and discoloration [14]. The ethanolic extract of H. officinalis obtained from the plant residue that was subjected to industrial steam distillation exhibited antifungal proprieties against Penicillium verrucosum during the ripening process of cheese. This property can be due to the cyanidin 3-rutinoside content, a phenolic compound found at a concentration of more than 94% in the extract [15]. H. officinalis EO proves to be a valuable ingredient in the formulation of Benedictine and Chartreuse liqueurs [11].
The genus Agastache comprises 22 species of perennial ornamental and medicinal plants [16]. Agastache species are found mostly in North America and East Asia [17]. Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze, also known as Lophanthus anisatus (Nutt.) Benth., is a perennial herbaceous and honey-bearing plant widely valued for its EO production [18]. It has a diverse phytochemical composition, containing EOs and non-volatile compounds such as flavones, flavone glycosides, phenolic compounds (e.g., rosmarinic acid and caffeic acid), lignans, and terpenoids like triterpenoids, diterpenes, and sterols. Its leaves and purple flowers are widely utilized for ornamental purposes and as flavoring agents for sweets and other foods [16]. The leaves of A. foeniculum are commonly used for infusions, food flavoring, and in various low-alcohol beverages. For its unique aroma and flavor, blending anise seed and mint, A. foeniculum leaves and flowers are traditionally consumed raw or cooked to flavor salads, bread, and dishes such as pea and lamb preparations [18]. EOs of A. foeniculum are predominantly composed of methyl chavicol (estragole), which imparts a distinct anise-like flavor, making it a popular ingredient in the production of perfumes, liqueurs, various foods, and beer. However, variations in other aromatic compounds, such as menthone or pulegone, can modify the scent profile, occasionally imparting a minty fragrance [19].
The purpose of this comprehensive review is to explore the possible food utilization of the two EOs (H. officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EOs) from the antimicrobial activity, chemical composition and toxicity points of view. As far as we know, there are no reviews on the food utilization of these two EOs, and so this study proposes to cover this gap in the scientific literature.

2. Methodology of the Literature Review

The data for Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EOs were extracted from scientific databases and analyzed in order to present comprehensive insights into their volatile compositions, antibacterial and antifungal activities, and toxicity. Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases were used to search peer-reviewed research articles and book chapters written in English on Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze. The period between 2009 and 2024 was set in order to cover enough information about the EOs, which leads to the most accurate conclusions. The keywords used in the search were essential oils, H. officinalis EO, Agastache foeniculum EO, antimicrobial activity, antifungal activity, bioactive compounds, chemical composition, toxicity, food, food preservatives, and AEMS test, alone or in various combinations. The inclusion criteria were articles and book chapters that analyzed the EOs obtained by hydrodistillation and steam distillation, articles that analyzed the chemical composition by GC-MS, articles that tested the antimicrobial activity against microorganisms relevant for food applications by the microdilution method and inhibition zone, articles that used the AMES test or Comet assay, and articles that tested EOs’ antimicrobial activities after food incorporation. The exclusion criteria were articles that analyzed the chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of the EOs obtained under plant-independent growing conditions (such as weather conditions, soil composition, etc.) and articles that did not clearly present the methods or results. According these criteria, 33 articles and book chapters were included in the current literature review.

3. Chemical Composition of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EOs

Table 1 and Table 2 summarize the main insights related to the chemical compositions of the two plants. Hydrodistillation and steam distillation of the aerial parts of H. officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculm (Pursh) Kuntze produced light-yellow EOs, with a yield between 0.1 and 2% [20,21] for H. officinalis and 0.37 and 2.78% [19,22] for A. foeniculum. The difference in the yield of EOs could be attributed to harvest country, even to various regions of the same country. The differences may also depend on the type of plant used, as well as the harvesting period. Miladinovic et al., 2024 [21], state that the fluctuation in EO yield could vary throughout the vegetation cycle, being largely influenced by genetic factors, developmental stages, and harvest timing.
Similarly, the composition of the EO is influenced by various factors, including climatic conditions, the origin of the plant material, subspecies or variety, the plant’s developmental stage, age, cultivation methods, growing location and soil type, harvest timing, the specific plant parts collected and phenotype [7], extraction techniques, and storage conditions [1]. The differences in oil composition determine its organoleptic and physiological properties and, therefore, its potential for application in different industries [23].
Table 1. Presentation of the data for the H. officinalis EO.
Table 1. Presentation of the data for the H. officinalis EO.
Method of Extraction Part of the Plant Used for Extraction Stage of the Plant at Harvest Mass of the Plant Material Used for Extraction Yield Origin of the Plant Reference
Steam distillationNMNMNMNMBulgaria[24] 1
Steam distillationLeavesNM100 gNMSpain[25]
Steam distillationNMFloweringNM0.21% (v/w)Romania[26]
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsNM100 gNMSerbia[8]
Hydrodistillation using a Deryng apparatusAerial partsFlowering40 gEO1: 0.7%
EO2: 0.5%
Poland[7] 2
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsNM200 g0.6% (w/w)Serbia[14] 3
NMAerial partsNMNMNMItaly[27]
NMAerial partsNM10 kgNMEgypt[28]
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial parts (stems, leaves, and flowers)Flowering25 gEO1: 0.70%
EO2: 0.28%
EO3: 0.40%
Italy[29] 4
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsNM50 gEO1: 0.42–0.56 (v/w)
EO2: 0.24–0.56 (v/w)
EO3: 0.60–0.90 (v/w)
EO4: 1.70–2.00 (v/w)
EO5: 0.80–1.06 (v/w)
Kosovo[20] 5
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsNM50 gNMIran[30]
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsFloweringNM1.1% (w/w)Iran[31]
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusNMNM160 gNMIran[32]
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsFloweringNMEO1: 0.40% (v/w)
EO2: 0.54% (v/w)
EO3: 0.65% (v/w)
EO4: 0.79% (v/w)
EO5: 0.48% (v/w)
Montenegro[23] 6
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusInflorescence partsFlowering200 gEO1: 0.40 ± 0.09%
EO2: 0.45 ± 0.11%
Iran[33] 7
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsFloweringNM1.1% (w/w)Italy[34] 8
Hydrodistillation with an Aura Distillateur installationAerial parts (shoots and inflorescences)Flowering10 kg0.27% (v/w)Romania[35] 9
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsVegetative100 g0.17% (v/v)Serbia[36]
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsVegetative (June)
Flowering (September)
Flowering (November)
150 gJ: EO1: 1.3% (w/w)
EO2: 1.2% (w/w)
EO3: 1.4% (w/w)
S: EO1: 0.5% (w/w)
EO2: 0.4% (w/w)
EO3: 0.4% (w/w)
N: EO1: 0.1% (w/w)
EO2: 0.1% (w/w)
EO3: 0.1% (w/w)
Serbia[21] 10
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsFlowering10 g2015:
EO1: 1.20% (v/w)
EO2: 1.30% (v/w)
EO3: 1.00% (v/w)
2016:
EO1: 0.83% (v/w)
EO2: 0.79% (v/w)
EO3: 0.83% (v/w)
Poland[37] 11
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusLeaves and flowersFlowering500 gNMTurkey[38]
Steam distillationNMNMNMNMBalkan[39] 12
NM—not mentioned. 1—commercial EO. 2—EO1, extracted from a white flower plant; EO2, extracted from a pink flower plant. 3H. officinalis subsp. pilifer (Pant.) Murb (also named H. officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman). 4—The EOs were obtained from plants from 3 different regions of the same country. 5—The EOs were obtained from plants from 5 different regions of the same country. 6—The EOs were obtained from plants from 5 different regions of the same country (H. officinalis subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman). 7—EO1, extracted from a white flower plant; EO2, extracted from a purple flower plant (H. officinalis L. subsp. angustifolius (Bieb.). 8H. officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman. 9H. officinalis L. variety “Catalin”. 10—Three EOs extracted from plants harvested at in 3 different months: June—J, September—S, November—N (H. officinalis subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman). 11—EOs obtained in 2015 and 2016; EO1, extracted from a blue flower plant; EO2, extracted from a white flower plant; EO3, extracted from a pink flower plant. 12—commercial EO.
Table 2. Presentation of the data for Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EO.
Table 2. Presentation of the data for Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EO.
Method of ExtractionPart of the Plant UsedStage of the Plant at HarvestMass of the Plant Material Used for ExtractionYieldOrigin of the PlantReference
Steam distillation using a copper distillation apparatusAerial parts (flower and leaves)NM500 g0.37%Bulgaria[19]
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusStem, leaves, and flowersFlowering50 g1.86 ± 0.64% (v/w)Romania[16] 1
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsFlowering25 gNMIran[40]
Hydrodistilled using
a Likens–Nickerson apparatus with continuous extraction with dichloromethane
Aerial partsFloweringEO1: 24.78 g
EO2: 28.22 g
EO3: 13.77 g
EO1: 1.48%
EO2: 2.08%
EO3: 2.30%
Alabama[41] 2
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsFloweringNM0.83%Finland[42]
Hydrodistillation using a
Neo-Clevenger type apparatus
Aerial partsFlowering100 gEO1: 1.74 ± 0.10 mL/100 g
EO2: 1.76 ± 0.11 mL/100 g
Romania[17] 3
HydrodistillationEO1: Aerial parts
EO2: Leaves
EO3: Flowers
NM2000 gEO1: 0.62 ± 0.020 g/100 g
EO2: 0.75 ± 0.008 g/100 g
EO3: 1.22 ± 0.011 g/100 g
Romania[43] 4
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsFlowering40 gEO1: 1.32% (w/w)
EO2: 2.78% (w/w)
[22] 5
Hydrodistillation with a Clevenger-type apparatusAerial partsFlowering50 g Irana[44]
NM—not mentioned. 1—Variety “Aromat de Buzău. 2—Three samples of EOs that differ in the mass of the plants subjected to extraction. 3—Two EOs: Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze and A. foeniculum variety “Aromat de Buzău”. 4—The percentage of aerial parts subjected to extraction: leaves 27.3%; flowers 36.4%; strain 36.3%. 5—EO1, extracted from diploid plants; EO2, extracted from tetraploid plants; the aerial parts were composed of thin stems, flowers, and leaves in equal parts.

3.1. Chemical Composition of Hyssopus officinalis L. EO

The effective quality control of H. officinalis EO is based on the identification of plant samples at the intraspecific level and subjected to a precise chemical analysis. The H. officinalis EO international standard (ISO 9841:2013) [35] provides 13 compounds as representative and characteristic, where pinocamphone, isopinocamphone, and pinene are the most significant.
The volatile compounds of H. officinalis L. EO are listed in detail in Table 3. The H. officinalis EO constituents are categorized as oxygenated monoterpenes (27.32–92.25%) [21], monoterpene hydrocarbons (3.84–67.24%) [21], sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (0.64–28.31%) [23,37], and oxygenated sesquiterpenes (0–21.08%) [37]. Figure 2 presents the distribution of these classes.
The preponderance of the oxygenated monoterpenes in the oil composition is reflected in its major constituents: 1,8-cineole, isopinocamphone, and pinocamphone. This class is completed by linalool, myrtenol, and borneol, among others. The prominent monoterpene hydrocarbons were β-pinene, β-phellandrene, and β-ocimene, but α-pinene, sabinene, myrcene, and limonene can also be found. The main sesquiterpene hydrocarbons found in H. officinalis EO are β-caryophyllene, germacrene D, bicyclogermacrene, and alloaromadendrene. Spathulenol, caryophyllene oxide, and elemol are the most abundant oxygenated sesquiterpenes. Some authors reported compounds from the phenylpropanoid class, such as methyl eugenol. The chemical structures of the main compounds are presented in Figure 3.
The amounts of main compounds can vary, as can be seen in Table 3. The highest content of isopinocamphone was observed in the oils obtain from pink blooming plants of H. officinalis, compared with white and blue flower EOs [37]. Baj et al., 2018 [7] found that the main compounds of H. officinalis EO vary between plants with pink (pinocamphone 28.8%, isopinocamphone 21.9%) and white (pinocamphone 51.0%, isopinocamphone 1.9%) flowers. Miladinovic et al. (2024) [21] reported that H. officinalis should be harvested in November, as the concentrations of key EO compounds, such as eucalyptol and cis-pinocamphone (which significantly influence its antimicrobial effectiveness) are higher, but, from an economic point of view, the best time to harvest H. officinalis should be in June, during the vegetative stage.

3.2. Chemical Composition of Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EO

The volatile compounds of A. foeniculm (Pursh) Kuntze EO are listed in Table 4. The EO constituents are categorized as phenylpropanoids, (22.39–84.67%) [17,19], monoterpene hydrocarbons (2.4–10.23%) [19,41], oxygenated monoterpenes (0.08–54.51%) [17,19], sesquiterpene hydrocarbons (1.8–19.19%) [17,41], and oxygenated sesquiterpenes (0.2–3.96%) [17,41]. Figure 4 presents the distribution of these main classes of EO. Also, some researchers reported benzenoid aromatics (approximately 90%) or oxygenated aliphatics.
The high amount of phenylpropanoids can be explained through the concentrations of estragole or methyl chavicol (3.2–94.89%) [16,42], methyl eugenol, eugenol, and methyl isoeugenol. Some authors reported a high amount of oxygenated monoterpene menthone (31.58–34.3%) [17,42]. Limonene is the most representative compound (1.5–9.9%) [19,41] from the monoterpene hydrocarbons class; meanwhile, β-caryophyllene is the most common compound from the sesquiterpene hydrocarbon group. Caryophyllene oxide and spathulenol are the most representative of the oxygenated sesquiterpene class. The chemical structures of the main compounds are presented in Figure 5.
According to Lawson et al., 2021 [41], five distinct chemotypes of A. foeniculum were identified based on EO chemical profiles: methyl chavicol (estragole), spathulenol/bornyl acetate, δ-cadinene/β-cadinol, limonene and isomenthone. They also tested three samples of H. officinalis EO obtained from plants grown under similar conditions (full sun, clayey–loamy sand) and reported no significant differences in the composition of the compounds. Nechita et al., 2024 [17] showed a difference between two species of A. foeniculum in which one had the main compound estragole and the other menthone and pulogone. Stefan et al., 2022 [43] demonstrated a significant difference between H. officinalis EO obtained from different parts of the plant. EO obtained from flowers had the higher amount of estragole, at 88.09%, followed by limonene (8.01%). Meanwhile, EO obtained from leaves had a more balanced composition; the main compounds being estragole, chavicol, eugenol, and phenyl ethyl alcohol. Additionally, significant amounts of methyl eugenol were reported besides estragole in the EO extracted from the entire aerial parts. The major considerations related to the various chemotypes must be identified and standardized to ensure their efficacy and safety, thereby guaranteeing their safe use by consumers [29].

4. Antimicrobial Activities of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EOs

4.1. Antimicrobial Activity of H. officinalis EO

The EO extracted from H. officinalis exhibited a stronger antimicrobial activity than its components (α-pinene, β-pinene, trans-pinocamphone, cis-pinocamphone, and β-phellandrene) [24].

4.1.1. Antifungal Activity

The EO from H. officinalis demonstrated antifungal activity against P. verrucosum attributed to its main compounds: pinocamphone (22.1%) and isopinocamphone (25.5%). When used as a natural cheese coating, it effectively inhibited the growth of contaminant flora during cheese ripening. The correlation between the chemical composition and antifungal efficacy highlighted 16 significant compounds, with structural groups comprising α- and β-phellandrene emerging as the most influential in the antifungal model [46]. DeMartino et al., 2009 [27] demonstrated the inhibition of fungal growth of strains of agro-food interest: Penicillium simplicissimum, Aureobasidium pullulans, Penicillium citrinum, and Penicillium aurantiogriseum. Meanwhile, Tancinova et al., 2023 [39], demonstrated that H. officinalis EO had a potential antifungal effect against Cladosporium sp. obtained from moldy fruits.
Hristova et al., 2015, [24] reported the antifungal activity of H. officinalis EO against clinical isolates and reference strains from the genus Candida. C. albicans exhibited the highest sensitivity to the EO, followed by C. krusei, C. parapsilosis, and C. tropicalis, with C. glabrata having the lowest sensitivity. Other research groups also demonstrated antifungal activity against Candida albicans [7,26,47]. Mahboubi et al., 2011, [31] demonstrated the inhibitory effect of EO on A. niger and C. albicans. A higher concentration (8 µL/mL and 2 µL/mL, respectively) of oil was required to inhibit spore germination compared to the amount needed to suppress hyphal growth (0.5 µL/mL and 1 µL/mL, respectively). Dazmic et al., 2013 [14] reported the antifungal activity of EO against ten micromycetes. Aspergillus niger was the most resistant fungus, followed by Penicillium funiculosum. Cladosporium species, Aspergillus versicolor, and Trichoderma viride proved to be the most sensitive ones. Karbin et al., 2009 [30] demonstrated the effective inhibition of mold growth, demonstrating strong anti-Aspergillus flavus activity by suppressing its proliferation. Harcarova et al., 2021 [48] showed an inhibitory effect of H. officinalis EO on Fusarium graminearum, but mycelial growth inhibition was the least effective across all tested concentrations. Stan et al., 2022 [35] also demonstrated the antifungal activity of H. officinalis EO against a Fusarium strain, F. oxysporum. The data are comprehensively detailed in Table 5 and Table 6.

4.1.2. Antibacterial Activity

Baj et al., 2018 [7] demonstrated moderate activity of H. officinalis EO against Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and Streptococcus mutans, and weak activity against Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Proteus mirabilis, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Bacillus subtilis, and Micrococcus luteus. Micovic et al., 2023 [47] demonstrated a slightly better activity against E. coli and S. aureus. DeMartino et al., 2009 [27] tested H. officinalis EO against several Lactobacillus strains (Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Lactobacillus sakei, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus) and found no antibacterial activity, suggesting its suitability for food applications. Also, they showed slight antibacterial activity against Bacillus cereus, E. coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and S. aureus. Dezmic et al., 2013 [14] showed moderate antibacterial activity of H. officinalis EO against E. coli and S. aureus and weak antibacterial effect against Proteus vulgaris and S. aureus resistant strains. Mahboubi et al., 2011 [31] demonstrated that the oil showed considerable activity against S. aureus, B. cereus, and Staphylococcus saprophyticus. Gram-negative bacteria were less susceptible than Gram-positive bacteria. Additionally, the oil displayed bactericidal effects against the tested bacteria. Rosato et al., 2018, [34] demonstrated antibacterial activity against B. cereus, B. subtilis, S. epidermidis, Acinetobacter baumanni, E. coli, and most of the S. aureus strains, standard strains, and clinical isolates. Stankovic et al., 2016 [36] showed strong inhibitory and bactericidal effects against the strain of P. aeruginosa from sputum, while the weakest effect was against the strains S. pyogenes and Klebsiella sp. from wound swabs. Jianu et al., 2016 [26] showed that the H. officinalis EO is effective against S. aureus, S. typhimurium, E. coli, and P. aeruginosa. The data are comprehensively detailed in Table 5 and Table 6.

4.2. Antimicrobial Activity of Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze

To the best of our knowledge, data regarding the antimicrobial activity of A. foeniculum EO is significantly scarcer compared with the data on H. officinalis EO.

4.2.1. Antifungal Activity

Ownagh et al., 2010 [49] showed the fungistatic effect of A. foeniculum EO on A. flavus, F. solani, and A. fumigatus. Also, they demonstrated a fungicidal effect on the first two strains. Mollova et al., 2024 [19] demonstrated antifungal activity against two strains of yeasts: C. albicans and S. cerevisiae. Meanwhile, Hashemi et al., 2017 [40] showed antifungal effects on A. flavus and A. niger. The data are comprehensively detailed in Table 7 and Table 8.

4.2.2. Antibacterial Activity

Stefan et al., 2022 [43] concluded that the EO extracted from the flowers of A. foeniculum was the most effective against S. aureus, followed by the EOs extracted from whole aerial parts and from leaves. Nechita et al., 2024 [17] tested the EO against Escherichia coli, Salmonella Enteritidis, S. aureus, and Listeria monocytogenes and demonstrated its efficiency. Mollova et al., 2024 [19] showed that the EO was active against the Gram-positive bacteria S. aureus and B. cereus. Significant antifungal activity was also demonstrated by Hashemi et al., 2017 [40] against Gram-positive bacteria (B. subtilis, S. aureus, L. monocytogenes, and B. cereus). The Gram-negative bacteria were more resistant (S. enteritidis, S. typhimurium, and E. coli). The data are comprehensively detailed in Table 7 and Table 8.

5. Toxicity of Some Compounds of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EOs

Various international organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO), FDA (Food and Drug Administration), Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), and the European Commission (EC), among others, are firmly committed to regulating safety [50]. The FDA has classified 160 EOs as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for use in food preparation, cosmetics, and pharmaceuticals [51].
A community list of authorized substances is currently being developed, considering the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluation of each compound, and they are included in Regulation (EC) 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC, 2025) on flavorings and certain food ingredients with flavoring properties for use in and on foods [52]. Table 9 presents some of the compounds found in A. foeniculum EO that have restrictive use. Also, the Regulation provides the EFSA’s opinion on a large number of compounds found in A. foeniculum and H. officinalis EOs that can be use as food flavorings, such as limonene, α-phellandrene, β-caryophyllene, β-ocimene, linalool, menthol, myrtenol, elemol, and 1,8-cineole, among others [52].
There are few studies presenting the in vitro toxicity of H. officinalis EO. DeMartio et al., 2009 [27] and Guerini et al., 2021 [29] tested the EO from H. officinalis by the AMES test and demonstrated that it did not present any mutagenic effect. Micovic et al., 2021 [23] tested the genotoxic and antigenotoxic potential of EO using the Comet assay, and it did not exhibit a genotoxic effect. Regarding the antigenotoxic effect, EO displayed weaker yet statistically significant activity. These results could make H. officinalis EO suitable for food utilization, but further research is needed in order to establish the optimal dosage for food utilization.
To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies assessing the toxicity of the EO of A. foeniculum. There are, however, some studies regarding the insecticidal effects. The primary active compounds responsible for it are monoterpenes [51]. It was demonstrated that the EO of A. foeniculum had strong toxicity against Tribolium castaneum (the red flour beetle) larvae [53], against adult T. castaneum and Rhyzopertha dominica (the lesser grain borer) that affect grains during storage [44], and against adult Callosobruchus maculatus F. (cowpea seed beetle), an important pest of several plants [54].

6. Food-Related Applications of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EOs

In many food products, due to the hydrophobic nature of EO components, the bioactive potential is hindered by interactions with the food matrix, including fat, starch, and proteins [5]. Pure EOs are highly sensitive to environmental stress, making their long-term use in food and beverages challenging. Their water insolubility and volatility are key limitations, while additional factors such as light, heat, humidity, pH, and oxygen further impact their stability. These environmental stressors can lead to reactions between EO compounds and food matrix components, potentially reducing their antioxidant and antimicrobial effectiveness [55]. Besides these factors, their antimicrobial efficacy is also influenced by the microbial load of the food product. As a result, extrapolating in vitro findings to real food systems is challenging, often leading to reduced effectiveness in practical applications [5].
To preserve their biological activity, enhance their effectiveness, and minimize their impacts on food organoleptic properties, EOs could be encapsulated in a delivery system compatible with food applications. Encapsulation not only stabilizes EOs but also increases their contact area with food, ensuring better dispersion in regions where microorganisms thrive and proliferate [56].
One approach is incorporating EOs into active packaging instead of directly adding them to food products. They can be encapsulated in edible and biodegradable polymer coatings or sachets, allowing for controlled release onto the food surface or into the package headspace, which also facilitates their application in foods by improving their distribution in areas where microorganisms thrive, thus enhancing their antimicrobial effectiveness. Sachets releasing volatile EOs into the package headspace provide a simple yet effective preservation method for products such as fruits, meat, and fish [5,56]. Also, biodegradable films can enhance food quality. In meat preservation, they help reduce moisture loss and lipid oxidation [6].
Another method of incorporating EOs into food is by forming nano-emulsion systems. Nano-emulsions play a crucial role in food safety by enabling the controlled release of key compounds, ensuring prolonged antimicrobial effectiveness, and extending the shelf life of food and beverages. Additionally, they could enhance organoleptic properties and improve bioavailability by protecting the bioactive components of EOs during consumption [57]. The use of nano-emulsions in the food industry addresses the degradation of EOs caused by environmental exposure. Nano-emulsions act as a protective barrier for foods against bacteria, fungi, and viruses through a mechanism that involves the selective binding of their transparent or semi-transparent particles to the cell walls of prokaryotic cells, leading to destabilization. This passive absorption process does not affect eukaryotic cells, as their complex membrane structure provides resistance to disruption [55].
As far as we know, the incorporation of A. foeniculum EO in food has not yet been studied. Regarding H. officinalis EO, there are few studies available. Michalczyk et al., 2012 [45] tested the effect of the addition of H. officinalis EO to ground meat. They concluded that the most important benefit was on the sensory changes and Enterobacteriaceae growth. However, maintaining the samples at lower temperature for 3 days was more favorable. Nikolic et al., 2024 [58] tested the coating effect of a mixture of H. officinalis EO and Salvia officinalis EO on a cheese model against staphylococcal isolates. Mehraie et al., 2023, [32] demonstrated the effect of H. officinalis EO on shrimp preservation. They were coated by immersion in a chitosan nano-emulsion containing the EO. After drying the coating and storage for 12 days at 4 °C, the samples were tested for total psychrophilic and mesophilic counts. The conclusion was that the EO nano-emulsion had a better effect on the microbial evaluations, as well as on the chemical and sensory ones.
In general, the effectiveness of both added and naturally occurring antimicrobials may be diminished by certain food components. To successfully apply EOs in food systems, preliminary studies using representative food model media should be conducted to assess potential interactions between EOs and food components that could affect their antimicrobial efficacy. Also, combining EOs can enhance efficacy against both spoilage and pathogenic target organisms. Whole plant extracts often exhibit greater antimicrobial activity compared to mixtures of major components alone. Additionally, minor components in plant EOs may play a critical role in their activity, offering potentiating influences or synergistic effects [59].

7. Future Perspectives of the Food Utilization of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EOs

The research studies do not suggest any limitations on the use of EOs in food products, and their use as preservatives is even encouraged. However, conducting comprehensive safety evaluations and adhering to food regulations are crucial to ensure the safety, efficacy, and suitability of EOs. Further research may also be required to assess their impacts on food flavor, stability, and sensory attributes [19]. The acceptability of food products depends on the amount of EOs added, as their strong flavors may lead to palatability issues. Consequently, the use of EOs as preservatives in food has been limited, as achieving effective antimicrobial activity often requires high concentrations that could impact the sensory characteristics of the final product [5]. When used responsibly in food formulations, EOs can enhance shelf-life and food safety by utilizing their natural preservative qualities. Ongoing research in food science may broaden their applications, helping to overcome challenges in food preservation and catering to consumer demand for clean-label, minimally processed products [19].
Looking ahead, the chemical compositions of the studied plants present significant potential for applications in cosmetics and food products, particularly due to their strong antimicrobial properties. Nevertheless, more research is necessary to optimize their effectiveness for these applications. Furthermore, investigating synergistic combinations with other natural compounds could enhance their beneficial effects. Ongoing explorations of their properties and uses will drive innovative advancements in both industries, offering consumers safer and more sustainable options [19].
Many EOs are classified as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) by the United States FDA. However, regulatory restrictions exist regarding their acceptable daily intake, necessitating comprehensive daily intake surveys to assess safety. In Europe, a community list of authorized substances is being developed based on the EFSA’s evaluations. The level of toxicological data required for inclusion in this list depends on the anticipated migration into food. Therefore, careful consideration is necessary when determining suitable concentrations of active substances for use in food packaging to ensure both safety and efficacy [60].

8. Conclusions

The data presented in this review indicate that A. foeniculum and H. officinalis EOs exhibit antimicrobial activity, particularly against Gram-positive bacteria, and demonstrate antifungal efficacy against a wide range of strains. Oxygenated monoterpenes and monoterpene hydrocarbons, represented by isopinocamphone, pinocamphone, and β-pinene, are the main classes found in H. officinalis EO. Estragole and methyl eugenol (phenylpropanoids), and oxygenated monoterpene menthone are the main compounds found in A. foeniculum EO. These chemical compounds are responsible for the bioactive proprieties of these EOs. These findings highlight their potential as natural food preservatives, offering a promising alternative to synthetic additives. The antifungal activity of H. officinalis EO during the cheese ripening process and having no effect against Lactobacillus strains, but inhibiting the growth of S. aureus, makes it suitable for utilization in cheese factories. Additionally, its antifungal effects on mold strains on fruits make it suitable for preventing fruit spoilage. Moreover, the bitter and minty aroma of H. officinalis EO, along with the anise–minty flavor of A. foeniculum EO, can enhance the taste and overall acceptability of food products that incorporate these EOs. A key gap identified in this literature review is the lack of studies specifically investigating the application of these findings into the food industry. While various research efforts have explored the potential of bioactive compounds and antimicrobial properties, their direct implementation in food systems remains underexplored. Future studies should focus on evaluating these EOs in food matrices by assessing their performance in food preservation, sensory impacts, and regulatory compliance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.L.N. and A.M.R.; methodology, A.L.N., A.M.R. and C.R.P.; software, L.M.; investigation, A.L.N., A.M.R., C.R.P., L.M., G.M.C., F.D.L., C.C.R. and R.V.; writing—original draft preparation, A.L.N.; writing—review and editing, A.M.R., C.R.P., L.M., G.M.C., F.D.L., C.C.R. and R.V.; supervision, A.M.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Research and Innovation, CNCS-UEFISCDI, Romania (PN-IV-P2-2.1-TE-2023-1083).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rao, J.; Chen, B.; Mcclements, D.J. Improving the Efficacy of Essential Oils as Antimicrobials in Foods: Mechanisms of Action. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 10, 365–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rout, S.; Tambe, S.; Deshmukh, R.K.; Mali, S.; Cruz, J.; Srivastav, P.P.; Amin, P.D.; Gaikwad, K.K.; Andrade, E.H.d.A.; de Oliveira, M.S. Recent trends in the application of essential oils: The next generation of food preservation and food packaging. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 129, 421–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bhavaniramya, S.; Vishnupriya, S.; Al-Aboody, M.S.; Vijayakumar, R.; Baskaran, D. Role of essential oils in food safety: Antimicrobial and antioxidant applications. Grain Oil Sci. Technol. 2019, 2, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Angane, M.; Swift, S.; Huang, K.; Butts, C.A.; Quek, S.Y. Essential Oils and Their Major Components: An Updated Review on Antimicrobial Activities, Mechanism of Action and Their Potential Application in the Food Industry. Foods 2022, 11, 464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. 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] [PubMed]
  6. Sánchez-González, L.; Vargas, M.; González-Martínez, C.; Chiralt, A.; Cháfer, M. Use of Essential Oils in Bioactive Edible Coatings: A Review. Food Eng. Rev. 2011, 3, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Baj, T.; Korona-Głowniak, I.; Kowalski, R.; Malm, A. Chemical composition and microbiological evaluation of essential oil from H. officinalis L. with white and pink flowers. Open Chem. 2018, 16, 317–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Aćimović, M.; Todosijević, M.; Varga, A.; Kiprovski, B.; Tešević, V.; Čabarkapa, I.; Sikora, V. Bioactivity of essential oils from cultivated winter savory, sage and H. officinalis. Lek. Sirovine 2019, 39, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Frezza, C.; Venditti, A.; Serafini, M.; Bianco, A. Phytochemistry, Chemotaxonomy, Ethnopharmacology, and Nutraceutics of Lamiaceae. Stud. Nat. Prod. Chem. 2019, 62, 125–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ortiz-Mendoza, N.; Martínez-Gordillo, M.J.; Martínez-Ambriz, E.; Basurto-Peña, F.A.; González-Trujano, M.E.; Aguirre-Hernández, E. Ethnobotanical, Phytochemical, and Pharmacological Properties of the Subfamily Nepetoideae (Lamiaceae) in Inflammatory Diseases. Plants 2023, 12, 3752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Charles, D.J. Sources of Natural Antioxidants and Their Activities. In Antioxidant Properties of Spices, Herbs and Other Sources; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sharifi-Rad, J.; Quispe, C.; Kumar, M.; Akram, M.; Amin, M.; Iqbal, M.; Koirala, N.; Sytar, O.; Kregiel, D.; Nicola, S.; et al. H. officinalisus Essential Oil: An Update of Its Phytochemistry, Biological Activities, and Safety Profile. In Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; 8442734; 10p, Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2022/8442734 (accessed on 15 December 2024).
  13. Judžentienė, A. Hyssop (H. officinalis L.) Oils. In Essential Oils in Food Preservation, Flavor and Safety; EditorPreedy, V.R., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; pp. 471–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Džamić, A.M.; Soković, M.D.; Novaković, M.; Jadranin, M.; Ristić, M.S.; Tešević, V.; Marin, P.D. Composition, antifungal and antioxidant properties of H. officinalis L. subsp. pilifer (Pant.) Murb. essential oil and deodorized extracts. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 51, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. de Elguea-Culebras, G.O.; Sánchez-Vioque, R.; Santana-Méridas, O.; Herraiz-Peñalver, D.; Carmona, M.; Berruga, M.I. In vitro antifungal activity of residues from essential oil industry against Penicillium verrucosum, a common contaminant of ripening cheeses. LWT 2016, 73, 226–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bălănescu, F.; Botezatu, A.V.; Marques, F.; Busuioc, A.; Marincaş, O.; Vînătoru, C.; Cârâc, G.; Furdui, B.; Dinica, R.M. Bridging the Chemical Profile and Biological Activities of a New Variety of Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze Extracts and Essential Oil. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nechita, M.A.; Pralea, I.E.; Țigu, A.B.; Iuga, C.A.; Pop, C.R.; Gál, E.; Vârban, R.; Nechita, V.I.; Oniga, O.; Toiu, A.; et al. Agastache Species (Lamiaceae) as a Valuable Source of Volatile Compounds: GC–MS Profiling and Investigation of In Vitro Antibacterial and Cytotoxic Activities. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 5366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ivanov, I.G.; Vrancheva, R.Z.; Petkova, N.T.; Tumbarski, Y.; Dincheva, I.N.; Badjakov, I.K. Phytochemical compounds of anise hyssop (Agastache foeniculum) and antibacterial, antioxidant, and acetylcholinesterase inhibitory properties of its essential oil. J. Appl. Pharm. Sci. 2019, 9, 72–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Mollova, S.; Stanev, S.; Bojilov, D.; Manolov, S.; Kostova, I.; Damianova, S.; Fidan, H.; Stoyanova, A.; Ercisli, S.; Assouguem, A.; et al. Chemical composition and biological activity of essential oil from anise hyssop. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2024, 38, 2358995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hajdari, A.; Giorgi, A.; Beretta, G.; Gelmini, F.; Buratti, S.; Benedetti, S.; Merkouri, A.; Mala, X.; Kabashi, S.; Pentimalli, D.; et al. Phytochemical and sensorial characterization of H. officinalis subsp. aristatus (godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae) by GC–MS, HPLC–UV–DAD, spectrophotometric assays and e-nose with aid of chemometric techniques. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 1313–1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Miladinović, D.L.; Dimitrijević, M.V.; Miladinović, L.C.; Stamenković, J.G.; Mihajilov-Krstev, T.M. Study of hyssop Essential Oil from Southeastern Serbia. Chem. Biodivers. 2024, 22, e202401954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Talebi, S.F.; Saharkhiz, M.J.; Kermani, M.J.; Sharafi, Y.; Fard, F.R. Effect of Ploidy Level on the Nuclear Genome Content and Essential Oil Composition of Anise hyssop (Agastache foeniculum [Pursh.] Kuntze). Anal. Chem. Lett. 2016, 6, 678–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mićović, T.; Topalović, D.; Živković, L.; Spremo-Potparević, B.; Jakovljević, V.; Matić, S.; Popović, S.; Baskić, D.; Stešević, D.; Samardžić, S.; et al. Antioxidant, antigenotoxic and cytotoxic activity of essential oils and methanol extracts of H. officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae). Plants 2021, 10, 711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hristova, Y.; Wanner, J.; Jirovetz, L.; Stappen, I.; Iliev, I.; Gochev, V. Chemical composition and antifungal activity of essential oil of H. officinalis L. from Bulgaria against clinical isolates of Candida species. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2015, 29, 592–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Muñoz-Tebar, N.; González-Navarro, E.J.; López-Díaz, T.M.; Santos, J.A.; de Elguea-Culebras, G.O.; García-Martínez, M.M.; Molina, A.; Carmona, M.; Berruga, M.I. Biological activity of extracts from aromatic plants as control agents against spoilage molds isolated from sheep cheese. Foods 2021, 10, 1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Jianu, C.; Golet, I.; Misca, C.; Jianu, A. Antimicrobial Properties and Chemical Composition of Essential Oils Isolated from Six Medicinal Plants Grown in Romania Against Foodborne Pathogens. Rev. Chim. Buchar.-Orig. Ed. 2016, 67, 1056–1061. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306479909 (accessed on 15 December 2024).
  27. De Martino, L.; De Feo, V.; Nazzaro, F. Chemical composition and in vitro antimicrobial and mutagenic activities of seven Lamiaceae essential oils. Molecules 2009, 14, 4213–4230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Eldeghedy, H.I.; El-Gendy, A.E.-N.G.; Nassrallah, A.A.; Aboul-Enein, A.M.; Omer, E.A. Essential oil composition and biological activities of H. officinalis and Perilla frutescens. Int. J. Health Sci. 2022, 6, 9963–9982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Guerrini, A.; Sacchetti, G.; Guevara, M.P.E.; Paganetto, G.; Grandini, A.; Maresca, I.; Menghini, L.; Martino, L.; Di Marengo, A.; Tacchini, M. Wild italian H. officinalis subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman: From morphological and phytochemical evidences to biological activities. Plants 2021, 10, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Karbin, S. Antifungal Activities of the Essential Oils on Post-Harvest Disease Agent Aspergilus flavus. Artic. Adv. Environ. Biol. 2009, 3, 219–225. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228631568 (accessed on 15 December 2024).
  31. Mahboubi, M.; Haghi, G.; Kazempour, N. Antimicrobial Activity and Chemical Composition of H. officinalis L. Essential oil. J. Biol. Act. Prod. Nat. 2011, 1, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mehraie, A.; Khanzadi, S.; Hashemi, M.; Azizzadeh, M. New coating containing chitosan and H. officinalis essential oil (emulsion and nanoemulsion) to protect shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) against chemical, microbial and sensory changes. Food Chem. X 2023, 19, 100801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pirbalouti, A.G.; Mohamadpoor, H.; Bajalan, I.; Malekpoor, F. Chemical Compositions and Antioxidant Activity of Essential Oils from Inflorescences of Two Landraces of Hyssop [H. officinalis L. subsp. angustifolius (Bieb.)] Cultivated in Southwestern, Iran. J. Essent. Oil-Bear. Plants 2019, 22, 1074–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Rosato, A.; Maggi, F.; Cianfaglione, K.; Conti, F.; Ciaschetti, G.; Rakotosaona, R.; Fracchiolla, G.; Clodoveo, M.L.; Franchini, C.; Corbo, F. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of seven uncommon essential oils. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2018, 30, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Stan, C.; Muscalu, A.; Burnichi, F.; Popescu, C.; Gatea, F.; Sicuia, O.-A.; Vlăduț, N.V.; Israel-Roming, F. Evaluation of essential oil and hydrolate from a new hyssop variety (H. officinalis L.). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2022, 50, 12639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stanković, N.; Mihajilov-Krstev, T.; Zlatković, B.; Matejić, J.; Stankov Jovanović, V.; Kocić, B.; Čomić, L. Comparative Study of Composition, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Activities of Essential Oils of Selected Aromatic Plants from Balkan Peninsula. Planta Medica 2016, 82, 650–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wesolowska, A.; Jadczak, D. Comparison of the Chemical Composition of Essential Oils Isolated from Hyssop(H. officinalis L.) with Blue, Pink and White Flowers. J. Essent. Oil-Bear. Plants 2018, 21, 938–949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Metin, S.; Kara, N.; Didinen, B.I.; Kubilay, A. Antibacterial activity of essential oils and extracts of some medicinal plants against bacterial fish pathogens. Isr. J. Aquac.-Bamidgeh 2021, 73, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tančinová, D.; Barboráková, Z.; Mašková, Z.; Mrvová, M.; Medo, J.; Golian, M.; Štefániková, J.; Árvay, J. In vitro antifungal activity of essential oils (family Lamiaceae) against Cladosporium sp. Strains—Postharvest pathogens of fruits. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2023, 13, e9921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hashemi, M.; Ehsani, A.; Hassani, A.; Afshari, A.; Aminzare, M.; Sahranavard, T.; Azimzadeh, Z. Phytochemical, Antibacterial, Antifungal and Antioxidant Properties of Agastache foeniculum Essential Oil. J. Chem. Health Risks 2017, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lawson, S.K.; Satyal, P.; Setzer, W.N. The volatile phytochemistry of seven native american aromatic medicinal plants. Plants 2021, 10, 1061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Myadelets, M.A.; Vorobyeva, T.A.; Domrachev, D.V. Composition of the Essential Oils of Some Species Belonging to Genus Agastache clayton ex Gronov (Lamiaceae) Cultivated under the Conditions of the Middle Ural. Chem. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 21, 397–401. [Google Scholar]
  43. Stefan, D.-S.; Popescu, M.; Luntraru, C.-M.; Suciu, A.; Belcu, M.; Ionescu, L.-E.; Popescu, M.; Iancu, P.; Stefan, M. Comparative Study of Useful Compounds Extracted from Lophanthus anisatus by Green Extraction. Molecules 2022, 27, 7737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ebadollahi, A. Chemical constituents and toxicity of Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze essential oil against two stored-product insect pests. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 71, 212–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Michalczyk, M.; Macura, R.; Tesarowicz, I.; Banaś, J. Effect of adding essential oils of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) and hyssop (H. officinalis L.) on the shelf life of ground beef. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 842–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Moro, A.; Librán, C.M.; Berruga, M.I.; Zalacain, A.; Carmona, M. Mycotoxicogenic fungal inhibition by innovative cheese cover with aromatic plants. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 1112–1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Mićović, T.; Ušjak, D.; Milenković, M.; Samardžić, S.; Maksimović, Z. Antimicrobial activity of H. officinalis L. subsp. aristatus (Godr.) Nyman (Lamiaceae) essential oils from Montenegro and Serbia. Lek. Sirovine 2023, 43, e173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Harčárová, M.; Čonková, E.; Proškovcová, M.; Váczi, P.; Marcinčáková, D.; Bujňák, L. Comparison of antifungal activity of selected essential oils against fusarium graminearum in vitro. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2021, 28, 414–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ownagh, A.; Hasani, A.; Mardani, K.; Ebrahimzadeh, S.; Ghaffar Ownagh, A. Antifungal Effects of Thyme, Agastache and Satureja Essential Oils on Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus flavus and Fusarium solani. Vet. Res. Forum 2010, 1, 99–105. [Google Scholar]
  50. Es, I.; Khaneghah, A.M.; Akbariirad, H. Global Regulation of Essential Oils. In Essential Oils in Food Processing: Chemistry, Safety and Applications; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 327–338. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9781119149392.ch11 (accessed on 23 January 2025). [CrossRef]
  51. Inanoglu, S.; Goksen, G.; Nayik, G.A.; Nejad, A.S.M. Essential oils from Lamiaceae family (rosemary, thyme, mint, basil). In Essential Oils Extraction, Characterization and Applications; Nayik, G.A., Ansari, M.J., Eds.; Academic Press: Kolkata, India, 2023; pp. 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Flavourings and Certain Food Ingredients with Flavouring Properties for Use in and on Foods and Amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91, Regulations (EC) No 2232/96 and (EC) No 110/2008 and Directive 2000/13/EC, Consolidated Version on 19.02.2025. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02008R1334-20250219 (accessed on 25 February 2025).
  53. Ebadollahi, A.; Roya, K.; Jalal, J.S.; Parisa, H.; Rahim, M.A. Toxicity and Physiological Effects of Essential Oil from Agastache Foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze Against Tribolium Castaneum Herbst (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) Larvae. Annu. Res. Rev. Biol. 2013, 3, 649–658. Available online: https://journalarrb.com/index.php/ARRB/article/view/674 (accessed on 15 December 2024).
  54. Ebadollahi, A.; Nouri-Ganbalani, G.; Hoseini, S.A.; Sadeghi, G.R. Insecticidal activity of essential oils of five aromatic plants against callosobruchus maculatus f. (coleoptera: Bruchidae) under laboratory conditions. J. Essent. Oil-Bear. Plants 2012, 15, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Medeleanu, M.L.; Fărcaș, A.C.; Coman, C.; Leopold, L.; Diaconeasa, Z.; Sonia Socaci, S.A. Citrus essential oils—Based nano-emulsions: Functional properties and potential applications. Food Chem. X 2023, 20, 100960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ju, J.; Xie, Y.; Guo, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Qian, H.; Yao, W. Application of edible coating with essential oil in food preservation. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 59, 2467–2480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Medeleanu, M.L.; Fărcaș, A.C.; Coman, C.; Leopold, L.; Diaconeasa, Z.; Sendra, E.; Carbonell Pedro, A.A.; Sonia Socaci, S.A. Citrus Essential Oils’ Nano-emulsions: Formulation and Characterization, Bulletin Of University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-Napoca. Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 81, 95–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nikolić, I.; Čabarkapa, I.; Pavlić, B.; Kravić, S.; Đilas, M.; Iličić, M.; Bulut, S.; Kocić-Tanackov, S. Antibacterial and antibiofilm effect of essential oils on staphylococci isolated from cheese—Application of the oil mixture in a cheese model. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2024, 425, 110873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Gutierrez, J.; Barry-Ryan, C.; Bourke, P. Antimicrobial activity of plant essential oils using food model media: Efficacy, synergistic potential and interactions with food components. Food Microbiol. 2009, 26, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Llana-Ruiz-Cabello, M.; Pichardo, S.; Maisanaba, S.; Puerto, M.; Prieto, A.I.; Gutiérrez-Praena, D.; Jos, A.; Cameán, A.M. In vitro toxicological evaluation of essential oils and their main compounds used in active food packaging: A review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2015, 81, 9–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Antibacterial effectiveness of EOs (created with BioRender.com; accessed on 13 March 2025).
Figure 1. Antibacterial effectiveness of EOs (created with BioRender.com; accessed on 13 March 2025).
Applsci 15 04772 g001
Figure 2. The mean values (%) of the most reported compound classes in H. officinalis EO.
Figure 2. The mean values (%) of the most reported compound classes in H. officinalis EO.
Applsci 15 04772 g002
Figure 3. The chemical structures of the main compounds of H. officinalis EO (created with BioRender.com; accessed on 2 April 2025).
Figure 3. The chemical structures of the main compounds of H. officinalis EO (created with BioRender.com; accessed on 2 April 2025).
Applsci 15 04772 g003
Figure 4. The mean values (%) of the most reported compound classes from Agastache foeniculum EO.
Figure 4. The mean values (%) of the most reported compound classes from Agastache foeniculum EO.
Applsci 15 04772 g004
Figure 5. The chemical structures of the main compounds of A. foeniculum EO (Created with BioRender.com; accessed on 2 April 2025).
Figure 5. The chemical structures of the main compounds of A. foeniculum EO (Created with BioRender.com; accessed on 2 April 2025).
Applsci 15 04772 g005
Table 3. Volatile compounds of H. officinalis EO.
Table 3. Volatile compounds of H. officinalis EO.
Total Number of
Identified
Compounds
Total
Identified
Compounds
(%)
Main Classes
of Compounds
(%)
Main Compounds
(%)
Reference
5999.4Oxygenated monoterpenes: 67.8
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: 20.9
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: 6.4
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes: 2.4
Other: 0.1
cis-Pinocamphone: 41.1;
trans-Pinocamphone: 20.5;
β-Pinene: 12;
Myrcene: 1.5
[8]
EO1: 44
EO2: 49
99.6
99.0
Oxygenated monoterpenes:
EO1: 70.6, EO2: 59.3
Monoterpene hydrocarbons:
EO1: 23.2, EO2: 17.4
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons:
EO1: 4.9, EO2: 10.2
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes:
EO1: 0.6, EO2:10.9
Other compounds:
EO1:0.3, EO1:1.2
β-Pinene: EO1: 12.4, EO2: 9.8;
1,8-Cineole: EO1: 7.6, EO2: 1.9;
Pinocamphone: EO1: 51.0, EO2: 28.8;
Isopinocamphone: EO1: 1.9, EO2: 21.9;
Myrcene: EO1: 3.9, EO2: 1.7
[7]
EO1: 66
EO2: 55
97.2
98
Oxygenated monoterpenes: 61.69
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: 20.77
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: 15.19
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes: 1.39
Other compounds: 0.97
β-Pinene: EO1: 13.38, EO2: 13.54;
Myrcene: EO1: 1.90, EO2: 1.94;
cis-Pinocamphone: EO1: 48.98, EO2: 50.77;
trans-Pinocamphone: EO1: 5.78, EO2: 5.94;
β-Phellandrene: EO1: 4.44, EO2: 5.17;
Myrtenol: EO1: 1.62, EO2: 1.39;
Germacrene D: EO1: 1.92, EO2: 1.87;
Bicyclogermacrene: EO1: 1.53, EO2: 2.08;
Sabinene: EO1: 1.54, EO2: 1.70;
Limonene: EO1: 1.48, EO2: 1.50
[24] 1
3198.73Oxygenated monoterpenes: 59.78
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: 33.51
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: 4.54
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes: 0.87
Other compounds: 0.03
1,8-Cineole: 36.43;
β-Pinene: 19.55;
iso-Pinocamphone: 15.32;
Pinocamphone: 6.39;
Myrcene: 1.95;
Sabinene: 2.90;
Germacrene D: 1.65
[14]
5796.81Oxygenated monoterpenes: 54.08
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: 28.39
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: 13.64
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes: 0.35
Other compounds: 0.35
β-Pinene: 18.20;
iso-Pinocamphone: 29.10;
trans-Pinocamphone: 11.12;
Lavandulol: 4.43;
Myrcene: 1.84;
β-Phellandrene: 1.85;
Sabinene: 1.43;
Limonene: 1.27;
Myrtenol: 1.26
[27]
3699.83Oxygenated compounds: 58.77
Nonoxygenated compounds: 41.03
Monoterpene compounds: 88.76
Sesquiterpene compounds: 11.07
Isopinocamphone: 34;
Pinocamphone: 21.27;
β-Pinene: 13.19;
β-Phellandrene: 13.10;
Sabinene: 1.84;
trans-Caryophyllene: 1.77;
Germacrene-D: 1.28;
bicyclo-Germacrene: 3.47
[28]
EOEO1: 13
EOEO2: 33
EOEO3: 12
99.3
96.1
98.9
NM1,8-Cineole: EO1: 15.5, EO2: 4.4, EO3: 39.7;
Limonene: EO1: 5.8, EO2: 0.2, EO3: 7.6;
trans-Pinocamphone: EO2: 11.0;
iso-Pinocamphone; EO2: 43.2;
Methyleugenol: EO2: 15.8, EO3: 41.5;
(-)-Limonen-10-yl-acetate: EO1: 67.9;
β-Pinene: EO1: 1.7, EO2: 3.1, EO3: 4.3;
trans-Sabinol: EO2: 1.9;
Spathulenol: EO1: 0.4, EO2: 2.1, EO3: 0.9;
Caryophyllene oxide: EO2: 2.7, EO3:1.5;
Limonen-10-ol: EO1: 2.8;
Methyl ether: EO1: 1.9;
[29]
EO1: 57
EO2: 52
EO3: 44
EO4: 65
EO5: 66
NMNMβ-Pinene: EO1:3.3, EO2: 3.41, EO3:23.31, EO4: 13.66, EO5: 11.23;
Limonene, EO1: 3.36, EO3: 14.47, EO4: 7.75, EO5: 3.92;
Eucalyptol (cineol): EO1: 45.27, EO2: 7.15, EO3: 0.95, EO4: 12.29, EO5: 16.67;
iso-Pinocamphone: EO1: 0.33, EO2: 14.67, EO3: 1.01, EO4: 0.61, EO5: 1.46;
Pinocamphone: EO2: 57.73, EO3: 33.81, EO4: 37.86, EO5:30.44;
E-Caryophyllene: EO1: 2.15, EO3: 13.73, EO4: 9.04, EO5: 4.98;
Myrtenol: EO1: 1.55, EO2:2.36, EO3: 1.46;
Sabinene: EO1: 1.33, EO3: 1.22, EO4: 1.10, EO5: 1.54;
Z-β-Ocimene: EO3: 1.93, EO4: 4.43, EO5: 9.04;
Borneol: EO3: 1.17, EO4: 3.81, EO5: 4.11;
α-Pinene: EO1: 1.82, EO5: 1.12;
Myrcene: EO1: 1.39, EO3: 1.03, EO5: 1.02;
E-Anethenol: EO2: 4.83;
Bicyclogermacrene: EO1: 2.16, EO4: 1.13;
[20]
2498.12NMβ-Pinene: 10.39;
iso-Pinocamphone: 55.49;
Pinocamphone: 1.75;
Elemol: 3.74;
D-Germacrene: 4.55;
Myrtenol: 1.67;
Myrtenyl acetate: 2.26;
β-Bourbonene: 2.27;
Caryophyllene: 3.30;
Alloaromadendrene: 1.76;
γ-Elemene: 2.70
[26]
1893.9NMSabinene: 5.2;
iso-Pinocamphone: 44.7;
Pinocamphone: 14.1;
Elemol: 5.6;
Germacrene D-11-ol: 5.7;
β-Phellandrene: 2.4;
Myrtenol: 2.8;
Germacrene D: 1.6;
Spathulenol: 2.8;
Caryophyllene oxide: 1.6;
β-Caryophyllene: 1.4;
cis-α-Bergamotene: 1.4
[30]
4393.7NMIsopinocamphone: 22.1;
Isopinocamphopinone: 39.3;
2-Hydroxypinocamphone: 5.4;
β-pinene: 2.9;
β-Bourbonene: 1.7;
Myrtenal: 2.0;
Cymene: 1.2;
Spathulenol: 2.8;
Elemol: 1.7;
cis-Pinonsaeure: 1.8;
Caryophyllene oxide: 1.2
[31]
3399.75NMPinocamphone: 11.81;
Isopinocamphone: 35.45;
β-Pinene: 10.12;
Elemol: 5.11;
Germacrene D: 3.68;
Bicyclogermacrene: 4.04;
β-Phellandrene: 5.65;
β-Myrcene: 1.21;
Linalool: 1.14;
β-Bourbonone: 1.73;
E-Caryophyllen: 3.25;
γ-Eudesmol: 1.47
[32]
NMNMNMcis-Pinocamphone: 47.83;
trans-Pinocamphone: 14.65;
β-Pinene: 15.21;
Myrtenol: 2.26;
Sabinene: 1.53;
Spathulenol: 1.52;
β-Phellandrene: 1.47;
Limonene: 1.33;
β-Bourbonene: 1.06
[45]
EO1: 16
EO2: 13
EO3: 13
EO4: 12
EO5: 14
EO1: 86.84
EO2: 97.59
EO3: 99.21
EO4: 99.43
EO5: 98.47
Oxygenated monoterpenes: EO1:57.94, EO2: 41.7, EO3: 27.35, EO4: 58.14, EO5: 57.9
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: EO1:28.9, EO2: 36.65, EO3: 43.53, EO4: 37.77, EO5: 26.2
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons:
EO5: 0.67
Phenylpropanoids:
EO2: 19.24 EO3: 28.33, EO4: 3.52, EO5: 13.70
1,8-Cineole: EO1: 42.07, EO2: 9.77, EO3: 1.42, EO4: 38.19, EO5: 56.08;
cis-Pinocamphone: EO1: 5.61, EO2: 22.75, EO3: 14.72, EO4: 14.54;
β-Pinene: EO1: 9.13, EO2: 16.33, EO3: 15.79, EO4: 9.69, EO5: 5.48;
Limonene: EO1: 7.99, EO2: 16.11, EO3: 23.81, EO4: 21.77, EO5: 15.43;
trans-Pinocamphone: EO1:1.84, EO2: 3.34, EO3: 8.34, EO4: 4.72;
Methyl eugenol: EO2: 19.24, EO3: 28.33, EO4: 3.52, EO5: 13.70;
Sabinene: EO1: 1.24;
Z-β-Ocimene: EO1: 2.94, EO2: 2.06, EO3: 1.88, EO4: 3.11, EO5: 3.06;
Myrtenal: EO1: 3.71, EO2: 1.02
[23] 2
EO1: 26
EO2: 22
WF: 97.75
PF: 97.38
Oxygenated monoterpenes: WF: 74.22, PF: 63.82
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: WF: 17.93, PF: 28.96
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: WF: 4.59, PF: 4.60
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes: WF: 1.01, PF: 0.0
cis-Pinocamphone: EO1: 30.11, EO2: 55.14;
Camphor: EO1: 31.85;
β-Pinene: EO1: 12.26, EO2: 17.06;
Trans-pinocamphone: EO1: 6.09, EO2: 3.37;
Sabinene: EO1: 1.61, EO2: 3.17;
δ-3-Carene: EO1: 1.34, EO2: 2.57;
Myrtenol: EO1: 2.62, EO2: 3.50;
Germacrene D: EO1: 1.61, EO2: 1.69;
Bicyclogermacrene: EO1: 1.33, EO2: 1.47;
α-Pinene: WF: 0.EO1, EO2: 1.14;
Myrcene: EO2: 1.60
[33]
4499.6Oxygenated monoterpenes: 51.8
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: 22.7
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: 10.4
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes: 4.9
Phenylpropanoids: 9.9%
Linalool: 47.7;
(Z)-β-Ocimene: 6.2;
(E)-β-Ocimene: 5.4;
Germacrene D: 5.8;
Methyl eugenol: 9.9;
β-Pinene: 1.7;
Myrcene: 1.5;
Limonene: 4.6;
Palustrol: 2.4;
Ledol: 2.2
[34]
2896.15Oxygenated monoterpenes: 55.33
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: 24.51
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: 17.62
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes: 2.19
cis-Pinocamphone: 36.63;
trans-Pinocamphone: 11.72;
β-Pinene: 10.46;
Germacrene D: 7.27;
Terpiene: 7.19;
β-Elemene: 6.20;
α-Thujene: 2.05;
Myrcene: 1.78;
Carrenol: 1.86;
Pinenol: 1.74,
β-Caryophyllen: 2.63;
Longifolene: 2.02
[35]
4398.6NM1,8-Cineole: 49.09;
(Z)-β-Ocimene: 2.47;
Isopinocamphone: 22.69;
Limonene: 1.46;
Sabinene: 1.33;
α-Pinene: 1.13;
β-Pinene: 11.26;
trans-Pinocamphone: 1.24
[36]
NMNMNMCampholenone: 38.39;
trans-3-Pinanone: 25.05;
β-Pinene: 11.07;
Myrtenyl methyl ether: 2.87;
Caryophyllene: 2.16;
β-Phellandrene: 1.71;
(-)-β-Bourbonene: 1.66;
(-)-Myrtenol: 1.63;
Terpinene-4-ol: 1.22;
Linalool: 1.14;
D-Limonene: 1.10;
Germacrene D: 1.08
[39]
3893.47-β-Pinene + Mircene: 16.36;
1,8-Cineole: 48.23;
Pinocamphone: 3.42;
Isopinocamphone: 4.38;
Limonene: 6.02;
1-Octen-3-ol: 3.32;
Pinocarvone: 3.16;
α-Pinene: 2.67;
β-e-Ocimene: 1.97;
α-Terpineol: 1.87
[25]
J:
EO1: 25
EO2: 26
EO3: 23
S:
EO1: 41
EO2: 51
EO3: 51
N:
EO1: 53
EO2: 54
EO3: 52
J:
EO1: 97.86
EO2: 99.06
EO3: 99.67
S:
EO1: 99.73
EO2: 99.01
EO3: 97.87
N:
EO1: 98.05
EO2: 99.06
EO3: 98.82
Oxygenated monoterpenes
J: EO1: 61.43, EO2: 48.9, EO3: 27.32
S: EO1: 68.89, EO2: 78.74, EO3: 76.9
N: EO1: 86.47, EO2: 91.5, EO3: 92.25
Monoterpene hydrocarbons
J: EO1: 31.12, EO2: 45.12, EO3: 67.24
S: EO1: 28.98, EO2: 14.51, EO3: 14.98
N: EO1: 3.89, EO2: 3.84, EO3: 3.65
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons
J: EO1: 5.31, EO2: 5.04, EO3: 5.11
S: EO1: 1.62, EO2: 2.09, EO3: 4.09
N: EO3: 3.14, EO2: 1.19, EO3: 0.98
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes
J: 0
S: EO1: 0.16, EO2: 0.44, EO3: 1.58
N: EO1: 3.05, EO2: 1.9, EO3: 1.29
Others
J: 0
S: EO1: 0.08, EO2: 3.23, EO3: 0.32
N: EO1: 1.5, EO2: 0.63, EO3: 0.65
β-Pinene:
J: EO1: 13.62, EO2: 19.44, EO3: 45.43;
S: EO1: 12.75, EO2: 6.1 EO3: 5.79,
N: EO1: 2.72, EO2: 2.51, EO3: 2.22
Eucalyptol:
J: EO1: 16.46, EO2: 33.35, EO3: 25.88
S: EO1: 40.34, EO2: 63.91, EO3: 47.99
N: EO1: 17.15, EO2: 53.42, EO3: 53.85
Z-β-Ocimene:
J: EO1: 9.89, EO2: 14.32, EO3: 10.75
S: EO1: 11.3, EO2: 5.18, EO3: 6.59
N: EO1: 0.35, EO2: 0.12, EO3: 0.15
cis-Pinocamphone:
J: EO1: 41.69, EO2: 13.19
S: EO1: 18.41, EO2: 9.64, EO3: 21.53
N: EO1: 52.25, EO2: 25.99, EO3: 26.84
Sabinene:
J: EO1: 1.63, EO2: 2.35, EO3: 2.08
trans-Pinocarveol:
N: EO1: 2.02, EO2: 1.6, EO3: 1.42
trans-Pinocamphone:
S: EO1: 7.14
N: EO1: 5.92, EO2: 2.6, EO3: 2.68
Methyl eugenol:
S: EO2: 3.04
E-Caryophyllene:
J: EO1: 1.1, EO2: 1.04, EO3: 2.17
Germacrene D:
J: EO1: 3.27, EO2: 2.33, EO3: 1.27
Caryophyllene oxide:
S: EO3: 1.4
N: EO1: 2.68, EO2: 1.69, EO3: 1.15
α-Pinene:
J: EO2: 1.96, EO3: 2.76
S: EO1: 1.48
[21]
EO1:
2015: 57
2016: 65
EO2:
2015: 52
2016: 62
EO3:
2015: 57
2016: 60
EO1:
2015: 99.80 2016: 99.43
EO2:
2015: 99.24 2016: 99.40
EO3:
2015: 99.76 2016: 98.81
Oxygenated monoterpenes:
EO1: 2015: 50.73, 2016: 38.48
EO2: 2015: 53.03, 2016: 45.29
EO3: 2015: 54.04, 2016: 48.11
Monoterpene hydrocarbons:
EO1: 2015: 13.77, 2016: 10.15
EO2: 2015: 13.78, 2016: 12.68
EO2: 2015: 12.34, 2016: 10.46
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons:
EO1: 2015: 20.79, 2016: 28.31
EO2: 2015: 19.22, 2016: 24.45
EO3: 2015: 19.76, 2016: 23.12
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes:
EO1: 2015: 14.24, 2016: 21.08
EO2: 2015: 12.90, 2016: 15.91
EO3: 2015: 13.48, 2016: 16.00
Other compounds:
EO1: 2015: 0.27, 2016: 1.41
EO2: 2015: 0.31, 2016: 1.07
EO3: 2015: 0.14, 2016: 1.12
Isopinocamphone:
EO1: 2015: 28.02, 2016: 20.05
EO2: 2015: 43.02, 2016: 33.33
EO3: 2015: 31.85, 2016: 21.26
Pinocamphone:
EO1: 2015: 15.83, 2016: 12.17
EO2: 2015: 1.68, 2016: 3.45
EO3: 2015: 15.25, 2016: 19.62
β-Pinene:
EO1: 2015: 7.13, 2016: 4.53
EO2: 2015: 6.95, 2016: 5.83
EO3: 2015: 7.49, 2016: 5.82
β-Phellandrene:
EO1: 2015: 3.47, 2016: 2.99
EO2: 2015: 4.23, 2016: 4.37
EO3: 2015: 1.66, 2016: 1.46
δ-Elemene:
EO1: 2015: 2.38, 2016: 2.73
EO2: 2015: 1.80, 2016: 2.36
EO3: 2015: 2.15, 2016: 2.34
β-Caryophyllene:
EO1: 2015: 2.73, 2016: 3.36
EO2: 2015: 2.81, 2016: 4.13
EO3: 2015: 3.23, 2016: 3.87
Alloaromadendrene:
EO1: 2015: 2.12, 2016: 3.28
EO2: 2015: 2.93, 2016: 2.93
EO3: 2015: 2.38, 2016: 2.47
Germacrene D:
EO3: 2015: 4.34, 2016: 5.76
EO3: 2015: 3.85, 2016: 5.32
EO4: 2015: 4.11, 2016: 5.20
Bicyclogermacrene:
EO1: 2015: 3.01, 2016: 4.15
EO2: 2015: 2.40, 2016: 2.91
EO3: 2015: 2.30, 2016: 2.43
Elemol:
EO1: 2015: 8.74, 2016: 11.37
EO2: 2015: 8.04, 2016: 11.02
EO3: 2015: 8.77, 2016: 9.56
Spathulenol:
EO1: 2015: 1.78, 2016: 1.72
EO2: 2015: 2.00, 2016: 0.90
EO3: 2015: 1.68, 2016: 1.14
[37]
46NMNMβ-Myrcene: 10.16;
β-Phellandrene: 49.79;
Linalool: 10.04;
α-Elemol: 3.62;
Germacrene D: 2.79;
Linalyl acetate: 2.46; Bicyclogermacrene: 2.08; Alloaromadendrene: 2.07
[39]
NM—not mentioned. 1—EO1, SE-54 column for the separation and identification of the compounds; EO2, CW20M column for the separation and identification of the compounds. 2—commercial EOs, no details mentioned.
Table 4. Volatile compounds of Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EO.
Table 4. Volatile compounds of Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze EO.
Total Number of
Identified
Compounds
Total
Identified
Compounds
(%)
Main Classes
of Compounds
(%)
Main Compounds
(%)
Reference
799.99NMEstragole: 94.89;
Limonene: 2.91
[16]
1299.26NMEstragole: 94;
1,8-Cineole: 3.33
[44]
795.4NMEstragole: 83.;
Limonene: 3.4;
Spathulenol: 3.1;
Caryophyllene oxide: 3.1
[40]
EO1: 31
EO2: 45
EO3: 44
100Monoterpene hydrocarbons:
EO1: 2.4, EO2: 4.9, EO3: 2.9
Oxygenated monoterpenoids:
EO1: 1.0, EO2: 0.1, EO3: 0.1
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons:
EO1: 1.8, EO2: 2.5, EO3: 2.8
Oxygenated sesquiterpenoids:
EO1: 0.2, EO2: 0.2, EO3: 0.3
Benzenoid aromatics:
EO1: 94.1, EO2: 91.3, EO3: 92.9
Others: EO1: 0.5, EO2: 1.0, EO3: 0.9
Estragole: EO1: 93.2, EO2: 88.4, EO3: 91.5;
Limonene: EO1: 1.5, EO2: 4.9, EO3: 2.9;
β-Caryophyllene: EO1: 1.2, EO2: 1.6, EO3: 1.9
[41]
13100Oxygenated aliphatics: 1.98
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: 10.23
Oxygenated monoterpenes: 0.08
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: 3.04
Phenylpropanoids: 84.67
Methyl chavicol: 82.03 ± 0.80;
Limonene: 9.90 ± 0.09;
β-Caryophyllene: 2.35 ± 0.02;
1-Octen-3-ol, acetate: 1.84 ± 0.01
[19]
17NMNMMethyl chavicol: 3.2;
Menthone: 34.3;
Isomenthone: 14.4;
Pulegone: 9.1;
Methyl eugenol: 3.1
[42]
27100Phenylpropanoids: 69.79
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: 19.19
Monoterpene hydrocarbons: 6.29
Oxygenated monoterpenes: 0.46
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes: 2.42
Other: 1.85
Estragole: 63.27;
Caryophyllene: 10.44;
Limonene: 6.29;
Methyl isoeugenol: 4.34;
[17]
3499.63Phenylpropanoids: 22.39
Sesquiterpene hydrocarbons: 9.23
Mnoterpene hydrocarbons: 8.69
Oxygenated monoterpenes: 54.51
Oxygenated sesquiterpenes: 3.96
Others: 0.85
Estragole: 21.80;
Menthone: 31.58;
Pulegone: 21.44;
Caryophyllene: 5.03
EO1: 10
EO2: 8
EO3: 8
NMNMEstragole: EO1: 66.48, EO2: 30.16, EO3: 88.09;
Limonene: EO1: 5.24, EO3: 8.01;
Chavicol: EO1: 1.04, EO2: 14.22;
Methyl eugenol: EO1: 9.77;
Eugenol: EO2: 13.96;
Benzaldehyde: EO1: 5.20, EO2: 2.44;
Pentanol: EO1: 4.45, EO2: 3.13;
Benzyl alcohol: EO2: 2.44;
Phenyl ethyl alcohol: EO2: 20.19;
Ethyl lactate: EO2: 4.53
[43]
43EO1: 96.32%
EO2: 98.63%
-Methyl chavicol: EO1: 78.75 ± 3.18, EO2: 81.02 ± 2.00;
Limonene: EO1: 2.71 ± 0.12, EO2: 3.00 ± 0.12;
1,8-Cineole: EO1: 3.23 ± 0.03, EO2: 3.04 ± 0.07;
Globulol: EO1: 1.43 ± 0.04, EO2: 1.67 ± 0.11
[22]
NM—not mentioned.
Table 5. Minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal/fungicidal concentrations of H. officinalis EO.
Table 5. Minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal/fungicidal concentrations of H. officinalis EO.
MicroorganismMICMBC/MFCReference
Bacterial concentration: 106 cfu/mL[8]
Bacillus cereus ATCC 1177814.20 μL/mL28.40 μL/mL
Escherichia coli ATCC 8739227.25 μL/mL227.25 μL/mL
Salmonella Enteritidis ATCC 13076227.25 μL/mL227.25 μL/mL
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923227.25 μL/mL227.25 μL/mL
Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212454.50 μL/mL454.50 μL/mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853454.50 μL/mL454.50 μL/mL
Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 12228227.25 μL/mL227.25 μL/mL
Proteus hauseri ATCC 13315454.50 μL/mL454.50 μL/mL
Bacterial concentration: 106 cfu/mL[7]
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923EO1: 10 mg/mL
EO2: 5 mg/mL
EO1: 20 mg/mL
EO2: 10 mg/mL
Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633EO1:5 mg/mL
EO2: 0.625 mg/mL
EO1: 5 mg/mL
EO2: 2.5 mg/mL
Streptococcus pyogenes ATCC 19615EO1: 0.625 mg/mL
EO2: 0.312 mg/mL
EO1:1.25 mg/mL
EO2: 0.625 mg/mL
Escherichia coli ATCC 25922EO1: 5 mg/mL
EO2: 5 mg/mL
EO1: 10 mg/mL
EO2: 5 mg/mL
Proteus mirabilis ATCC 12453EO1: 5 mg/mL
EO2: 5 mg/mL
EO1: 10 mg/mL
EO2: 10 mg/mL
Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 13883EO1: 5 mg/mL
EO2: 5 mg/mL
EO1: 10 mg/mL
EO2: 10 mg/mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027EO1: 5 mg/mL
EO2: 5 mg/mL
EO1: 10 mg/mL
EO2: 10 mg/mL
Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 12228EO1: 5 mg/mL
EO2: 2.5 mg/mL
EO1: 20 mg/mL
EO2: 5 mg/mL
Micrococcus luteus ATCC 10240EO1: 2.5 mg/mL
EO2: 2.5 mg/mL
EO1: 5 mg/mL
EO2: 5 mg/mL
Streptococcus pneumoniae ATCC 49619 EO1: 0.625 mg/mL
EO2: 0.312 mg/mL
EO1: 1.25 mg/mL
EO2: 0.625 mg/mL
Streptococcus mutans ATCC 25175EO1: 1.25 mg/mL
EO2: 0.625 mg/mL
EO1: 1.25 mg/mL
EO2: 1.25 mg/mL
Streptococcus pyogenes ATCC 19615 EO1: 0.625 mg/mL
EO2: 0.312 mg/mL
EO1: 1.25 mg/mL
EO2: 0.625 mg/mL
Fungal concentration: 5 × 104 cfu/mL
Candida albicans ATCC 102231EO1: 0.625 mg/mL
EO2: 0.625 mg/mL
WF: 25 mg/mL
PF: 2.5 mg/mL
Candida parapsilosis ATCC 102231EO1: 1.25 mg/mL
EO2: 0.625 mg/mL
WF: 5 mg/mL
PF: 1.25 mg/mL
Fungal concentration: 0.5 × 103–2.5 × 103 cfu/mL[24]
28 strains of Candida albicans: 1 × ATCC 10231 and 27 × clinical isolates128–256 μL/mL256–512 μL/mL
8 strains of Candida glabrata: 1 × ATCC 90030 and 7 × clinical isolates512–1024 μL/mL1024–2048 μL/mL
6 strains of Candida tropicalis: 1 × NBIMCC 23 and 5 × clinical isolates512–1024 μL/mL512–1024 μL/mL
6 stains of Candida parapsilosis: 1 × ATCC 22019 and 5 × clinical isolates256–512 μL/mL512–1024 μL/mL
Candida krusei: 4 × clinical isolates128–256 μL/mL256–512 μL/mL
Fungal concentration: 1.0 × 106 spore/mL[14]
Aspergillus niger ATCC 627552.20 mg/mL104.40 mg/mL
Aspergillus ochraceus ATCC 1206626.10 mg/mL52.20 mg/mL
Aspergillus versicolor ATCC 1173010.44 mg/mL26.10 mg/mL
Cladosporium cladosporioides ATCC 1327610.44 mg/mL26.10 mg/mL
Cladosporium fulvum TK 531826.10 mg/mL26.10 mg/mL
Penicillium funiculosum ATCC 1050952.20 mg/mL52.20 mg/mL
Penicillium ochrochloron ATCC 911226.10 mg/mL52.20 mg/mL
Trichoderma viride AM 506110.44 mg/mL26.10 mg/mL
Proteus vulgaris ATTC 1331520 μg/mL-[28]
Escherichia coli ATCC 3521880 μg/mL
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 2592380 μg/mL
Staphylococcus aureus resistant30 μg/mL
Fungal concentration: 106 cfu/mL[48]
Fusarium graminearum CCM F-6830.4 mg/mL-
Fusarium graminearum CCM 82440.4 mg/mL-
Bacterial concentration: 1 × 107–1 × 108 cfu/mL[31]
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 259230.5 μL/mL0.5 μL/mL
Staphylococcus saprophyticus ATCC 135181 μL/mL1 μL/mL
Bacillus cereus ATCC 12471 μL/mL1 μL/mL
Escherichia coli ATCC 87394 μL/mL4 μL/mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 90274 μL/mL4 μL/mL
Fungal concentration: 1 ×107–1×108 cfu/mL
Candida albicans ATCC 102311 μL/mL2 μL/mL
Aspergillus niger ATCC 164040.5 μL/mL8 μL/mL
Bacillus cereus ATCC 108764.1 mg/mL-[34]
Bacillus subtilis ATCC 66334.1 mg/mL
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 29213, ATCC 6538, ATCC 25923 4.1 mg/mL
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 43300 Resistant
Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 292124.1 mg/mL
Acinetobacter baumanni ATCC 19606 4.1 mg/mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 27853Resistant
Escherichia coli ATCC 259224.1 mg/mL
Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 13883 4.1 mg/mL
Staphylococcus epidermidis ATCC 122284.1 mg/mL
Clinical isolates:
Staphylococcus aureus (IG22)

4.1 mg/mL
Staphylococcus aureus (IG23) 2.0 mg/mL
Staphylococcus aureus (IG24)Resistant
Staphylococcus aureus (IG5) Resistant
Staphylococcus epidermidis (IG1)Resistant
Staphylococcus epidermidis (IG6)4.1 mg/mL
Serratia marcescens (IG)4.1 mg/mL
Acinetobacter baumannii (BS1) MDR4.1 mg/mL
Acinetobacter baumannii (BS2) MDR4.1 mg/mL
Acinetobacter baumannii (BS3) MDR4.1 mg/mL
Klebsiella pneumoniae (BS1) MDRResistant
Klebsiella pneumoniae (BS2) MDR4.1 mg/mL
Bacterial concentration: 106 cfu/mL[36]
MDR clinical isolates:
Wound swab isolates:
Staphylococcus aureus22.15 mg/mL44.3 mg/mL
Streptococcus pyogenes88.60 mg/mL88.60 mg/mL
Enterococcus faecalis22.15 mg/mL22.15 mg/mL
Escherichia coli44.3 mg/mL44.3 mg/mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa44.3 mg/mL88.60 mg/mL
Acinetobacter sp. 22.15 mg/mL22.15 mg/mL
Proteus Mirabilis44.3 mg/mL88.6 mg/mL
Nasal swab isolates:
Klebsiella sp. 88.6 mg/mL88.6 mg/mL
Streptococcus pneumoniae22.15 mg/mL22.15 mg/mL
Staphylococcus aureus22.15 mg/mL22.15 mg/mL
Throat swab isolates:
Streptococcus pyogenes22.15 mg/mL22.15 mg/mL
Escherichia coli44.3 mg/mL44.3 mg/mL
Sputum isolates:
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 111.08 mg/mL11.08 mg/mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 244.30 mg/mL88.60 mg/mL
Klebsiella sp. 11.08 mg/mL22.15 mg/mL
Aspirate isolates:
Escherichia coli44.30 mg/mL44.3 mg/mL
Fungal concentration: 106 spores/mL[39]
6 fruits from which
Cladosporium cladosporioides was isolated:
7 days of incubation14 days of incubation
KMi-1034500 µL/L>500 µL/L
KMi-1035500 µL/L>500 µL/L
KMi-1036500 µL/L500 µL/L
KMi-1037250 µL/L500 µL/L
KMi-1038500 µL/L>500 µL/L
Bacterial concentration: 107–108 cfu/mL[21]
JSNJSN
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 25923EO138.5 mg/mL64.0 mg/mL8.8 mg/mL154.0 mg/mL64.0 mg/mL70.5 mg/mL
EO239.4 mg/mL65.5 mg/mL72.5 mg/mL157.5 mg/mL65.5 mg/mL72.5 mg/mL
EO3160.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL37.8 mg/mL160.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL75.5 mg/mL
Bacillus cereus ATCC 11778EO19.6 mg/mL64.0 mg/mL70.5 mg/mL9.6 mg/mL64.0 mg/mL70.5 mg/mL
EO239.4 mg/mL65.5 mg/mL72.5 mg/mL39.4 mg/mL65.5 mg/mL72.5 mg/mL
EO340.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL37.8 mg/mL40.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL75.5 mg/mL
Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 19433EO138.5 mg/mL8.0 mg/mL8.8 mg/mL77.0 mg/mL64.0 mg/mL70.5 mg/mL
EO278.8 mg/mL8.2 mg/mL9.1 mg/mL78.8 mg/mL65.5 mg/mL72.5 mg/mL
EO3160.0 mg/mL16.5 mg/mL9.4 mg/mL160.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL75.5 mg/mL
Salmonella enteritidis ATCC 13076EO19.6 mg/mL16.0 mg/mL8.8 mg/mL9.6 mg/mL64.0 mg/mL70.5 mg/mL
EO219.7 mg/mL32.8 mg/mL9.1 mg/mL39.4 mg/mL65.5 mg/mL72.5 mg/mL
EO380.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL18.9 mg/mL80.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL75.5 mg/mL
Escherichia coli ATCC 25922EO177.0 mg/mL32.0 mg/mL35.3 mg/mL77.0 mg/mL64.0 mg/mL70.5 mg/mL
EO278.8 mg/mL16.4 mg/mL18.1 mg/mL78.8 mg/mL65.5 mg/mL72.5 mg/mL
EO3160.0 mg/mL16.5 mg/mL18.9 mg/mL160.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL75.5 mg/mL
Enterobacter aerogenes ATCC 13048EO138.5 mg/mL64.0 mg/mL70.5 mg/mL38.5 mg/mL64.0 mg/mL70.5 mg/mL
EO239.4 mg/mL65.5 mg/mL72.5 mg/mL78.8 mg/mL65.5 mg/mL72.5 mg/mL
EO340.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL75.5 mg/mL80.0 mg/mL66.0 mg/mL75.5 mg/mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027 EO138.5 mg/mL16.0 mg/mL8.8 mg/mL38.5 mg/mL16.0 mg/mL8.8 mg/mL
EO2157.5 mg/mL32.8 mg/mL9.1 mg/mL157.5 mg/mL32.8 mg/mL9.1 mg/mL
EO3160.0 mg/mL16.5 mg/mL9.4 mg/mL160.0 mg/mL16.5 mg/mL18.9 mg/mL
Fungal concentration: 107–108 cfus/mL
JSNJSN
Candida albicans ATCC 24433EO12.4 mg/mL8.0 mg/mL4.4 mg/mL 2.4 mg/mL16.0 mg/mL17.6 mg/mL
EO219.7 mg/mL8.2 mg/mL4.5 mg/mL19.7 mg/mL32.8 mg/mL18.1 mg/mL
EO310.0 mg/mL8.3 mg/mL4.7 mg/mL160.0 mg/mL33.0 mg/mL9.4 mg/mL
Bacterial concentration: 2 × 108 ufc/mL [47] 1
EO1EO2EO3EO4EO5
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538>500 µg/mL400 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL-
Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633 >500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL
Escherichia coli ATCC 8739>500 µg/mL400 µg/mL>500 µg/mL400 µg/mL500 µg/mL
Klebsiella pneumoniae
NCIMB 9111
>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL
Salmonella Typhimurium
ATCC 14028
>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL>500 µg/mL
Fungal concentration: 2 × 106 ufc/mL
EO1EO2EO3EO4EO5-
Candida albicans ATCC 10231500 µg/mL500 µg/mL500 µg/mL500 µg/mL500 µg/mL
1—The description and the chemical compounds are described in Micovic et al., 2021 [23], and presented in the tables above.
Table 6. Inhibition zone of H. officinalis EO.
Table 6. Inhibition zone of H. officinalis EO.
MicroorganismInhibition Zone of Microorganism GrowthReference
Bacterial concentration: 1 × 108 ufc/mL[27]
µg of EO/5 mm disc 1
93 µg185 µg463 µg
Bacillus cereus DSM 4313Not activeNot active0.63(±0.06) cm
Bacillus cereus DSM 4384Not activeNot active0.60(±0.05) cm
Escherichia coli DSM 8579Not activeNot active0.77(±0.12) cm
Enterococcus faecalis DSM 2352Not activeNot active0.60(±0.04) cm
Staphylococcus aureus DSM 25923Not activeNot active0.60(±0.00) cm
Fungal concentration: 1 × 106 ufc/mL
µg of EO/5 mm
93 µg185 µg463 µg
Penicillium simplicissimum DSM 1097 0.60(±0.00) cm0.77(±0.6) cm0.27(±0.06) cm
Aureobasidium pullulans DSM 62074 0.43(±0.06) cm0.53(±0.06) cm0.80(±0.00) cm
Penicillium citrinum DSM 19970.50(±0.00) cm0.60(±0.00) cm0.73(±0.06) cm
Penicillium aurantiogriseum DSM 2429 0.27(±0.06) cm0.30(±0.00) cm1.03(±0.06) cm
Penicillium expansum DSM 1994Not activeNot activeNot active
Debaryomyces hansenii DSM 70238Not activeNot activeNot active
Proteus vulgaris ATTC 133155 ± 0.2 mm[28]
Escherichia coli ATCC 3521811 ± 0.3 mm
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 259238 ± 0.24 mm
Staphylococcus aureus resistant4 ± 0.23 mm
5 mm mycelial disc (10 days old)[48]
Media with EOs (concentration)
100 μg/mL500 μg/mL1000 μg/mL
Fusarium graminearum CCM F-683Day 1049.00 ± 2.00 mm42.00 ± 2.65 mm37.67 ± 1.15 mm
Fusarium graminearum CCM 824450.00 ± 0.00 mm40.67 ± 1.15 mm39.33 ± 0.58 mm
Bacterial concentration: 106 ufc/mL[26] 2
6 mm discs containing
5 μL15 µL10 µL20 µL
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 259236.93 ± 0.26 mm12.62 ± 0.69 mm13.91 ± 0.28 mm16.16 ± 0.33 mm
Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 140286.69 ± 0.31 mm9.03 ± 0.22 mm14.66 ± 0.69 mm18.16 ± 0.29 mm
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 259237.06 ± 0.17 mm8.32 ± 0.32 mm9.21 ± 0.34 mm10.81 ± 0.17 mm
Escherichia coli ATCC 259226.76 ± 0.35 mm9.09 ± 0.3 mm14.84 ± 0.35 mm18.13 ± 0.29 mm
Klebsiella pneumoniae ATCC 1388216.58 ± 0.28 mm17.6 ± 0.46 mm18.59 ± 0.48 mm19.51 ± 0.45 mm
Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 29212 10.4 ± 0.44 mm12.73 ± 0.3 mm13.64 ± 0.36 mm15.02 ± 0.37 mm
Fungal concentration: 106 ufc/mL
6 mm discs containing the following EO volumes
5 μL15 µL10 µL20 µL
Candida albicans ATCC 1023115.56 ± 0.3 mm19.89 ± 0.4 mm25.82 ± 0.32 mm29.81 ± 0.33 mm
5 mm mycelial disc (7 days old)[30]
Media with EOs (concentrations)
0.125%0.25%0.375%0.5%
Aspergillus flavus
isolated from
rotted and injured fruits
Day 2260.28 ± 0.5 mm2173.52 ± 0.5 mm2173.52 ± 0.5 mm2129.53 ± 0.5 mm2
Day 41711.06 ± 0.5 mm22418.65 ± 0.5 mm21976.76 ± 0.5 mm21474.75 ± 0.5 mm2
Day 65204.55 ± 0.5 mm23002.36 ± 0.5 mm22534.25 ± 0.5 mm21516.52 ± 0.5 mm2
Bacterial concentration: 1 × 107–1 × 108 cfu/mL[31]
6 mm disc containing the following EO volumes
1 µL2 µL
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 259231020
Staphylococcus saprophyticus ATCC 13518716
Bacillus cereus ATCC 1247919
Escherichia coli ATCC 8739-8
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9027--
Fungal concentration: 1 × 107–1 × 108 cfu/mL
6 mm disc containing the following EO volumes
1 µL2 µL
Candida albicans ATCC 10231--
Aspergillus niger ATCC 16404-10 µL
Mycelial plugs, 8 mm diameter
5 mm discs containing 10 µL of EO
[35]
EO concentration
25%50%75%100%
Fusarium oxysporum ZUM 2407Day 10insignificant compared with the control43.6%62.4%82.4%
1 The data do not include the diameter of the discs. 2 The data include the disc diameter.
Table 7. Minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal/fungicidal concentrations of Agastache foeniculum EO.
Table 7. Minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal/fungicidal concentrations of Agastache foeniculum EO.
MicroorganismMICMBC/MFCReference
Bacterial concentration: 1.5 × 106 cfu/mL[40]
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538125 µg/mL125 µg/mL
Escherichia coli ATCC 43894500 µg/mL1000 µg/mL
Bacillus cereus BC 6830 125 µg/mL250 µg/mL
Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633, 62.5 µg/mL125 µg/mL
Salmonella Enteritidis ATCC 13076 250 µg/mL250 µg/mL
Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 13311250 µg/mL500 µg/mL
Listeria monocytogenes ATCC 19118150 µg/mL250 µg/mL
Fungal concentration: 106 spore/mL
Food-borne fungal strains:20 µL EO5 µL EO
Aspergillus flavus200 ppm400 ppm
Aspergillus niger400 ppm800 ppm
Bacterial concentration: 1.5 × 108 cfu/mL[17]
ABFAFABFAF
Escherichia coli ATCC 2592218.72 ± 6.86 μL/mL18.72 ± 6.86 μL/mL22.68 ± 0.00 μL/mL18.72 ± 6.86 μL/mL
Salmonella Enteritidis ATCC 1307630.99 ±14.39 μL/mL22.68 ± 0.00 μL/mL47.62 ± 0.00 μL/mL22.68 ± 0.00 μL/mL
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 6538P22.68 ± 0.00 μL/mL10.80 ± 0.00 μL/mL47.62 ± 0.00 μL/mL18.72 ± 6.86 μL/mL
Listeria monocytogenes ATCC 1911422.68 ± 0.00 μL/mL22.68 ± 0.00 μL/mL22.68 ± 0.00 μL/mL22.68 ± 0.00 μL/mL
Fungal concentration: 107 spores/mL[49] 1
Aspergillus fumigates (PTCC 5009) 1000 μL/mL-
Aspergillus flavus (PTCC 5006) 500 μL/mL2000 μL/mL
Fusarium solani (PTCC 5284)500 μL/mL2000 μL/mL
1 The EO was obtained in Iran.
Table 8. Inhibition zone of Agastache foeniculum EO.
Table 8. Inhibition zone of Agastache foeniculum EO.
MicroorganismsInhibition Zone of Microorganism GrowthReference
0.1 mL of the bacterial suspension/plate; concentration 1.5 × 106 cfu/mL
20 µL of EO/6 mm disc
[40]
EO concentration 10–15 mg/mL
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 653816.33 ± 0.88 mm
Escherichia coli ATCC 438949 ± 0.58 mm
Bacillus cereus BC 6830, 14.67 ± 0.33 mm
Bacillus subtilis ATCC 6633, 19.33 ± 1.85 mm
Salmonella Enteritidis ATCC 13076 12.67 ± 1.2 mm
Salmonella Typhimurium ATCC 1331111 ± 1.15 mm
Listeria monocytogenes ATCC 1911815.67 ± 1.2 mm
100 µL of the fungal suspension/plate; concentration: 106 spores/mL
10 µL of EO dissolved in methanol
EO concentration
1 mg/mL2.5 mg/mL5 mg/mL10 mg/mL
Foodborne fungal strains:
Aspergillus flavus

13.2 ± 1 mm

18.67 ± 0.88 mm

21.33 ± 0.67 mm

25.33 ± 1.2 mm
Aspergillus niger12 ± 0.78 mm15.3 ± 0.3 mm19.67 ± 1.2 mm22.67 ± 0.67 mm
Fungal concentration: 108 spores/mL
10 µL of EO/6 mm disc
[49]
EO concentration
250 μL/mL500 μL/mL1000 μL/mL2000 μL/mL
Aspergillus fumigates (PTCC 5009) -7 mm16 mm21 mm
Aspergillus flavus (PTCC 5006) 7 mm12 mm18 mm24 mm
Fusarium solani (PTCC 5284)7 mm11 mm19 mm28 mm
200 µL of the bacterial suspension/plate; concentration: 1.5 × 108 CFU/mL[19]
50 µL of EO; concentration: 0.1 mL/mL
Staphylococcus aureus ATCC 653825.7 ± 0.5 mm
Bacillus cereus ATCC 1087612.3 ± 0.2 mm
Candida albicans ATCC 1023116.5 ± 0.5 mm
Saccharomyces cerevisiae ATCC 976316.3 ± 0.4 mm
Bacterial concentration: 1.5 × 108 CFU/mL
EO concentration:
10 µL on discs with a diameter of 6 mm
25 µL on discs with a diameter of 9 mm
100 µL in glass cylinders with a diameter of 6 mm
[43]

Staphylococcus
aureus hospital flora
Flower EO: 18 mm
Leaf EO: 9 mm
Whole plant EO: 10.5 mm
Table 9. Foods in which the presence of the EO compounds are restricted.
Table 9. Foods in which the presence of the EO compounds are restricted.
Name of the CompoundFoods in Which the Compounds Are RestrictedMaximum Level mg/kgReference
EstragoleDairy products50[52]
Processed fruits and vegetables, nuts, and seeds50
Fish products50
Non-alcoholic beverages10
Methyl eugenolDairy products25
Meat preparations and meat products15
Fish preparations and fish products10
Soups and sauces60
Ready-to-eat savories20
Non-alcoholic beverages1
PulegoneMint/peppermint-containing confectionery, except micro breath-freshening confectionery250
Micro breath-freshening confectionery2000
Chewing gum350
Mint/peppermint-containing non-alcoholic beverages20
Mint/peppermint-containing alcoholic beverages100
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nistor, A.L.; Pop, C.R.; Mitrea, L.; Cătunescu, G.M.; Vârban, R.; Lipșa, F.D.; Rusu, C.C.; Rotar, A.M. Antimicrobial Potential of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze Essential Oils for Food Applications: A Review of Their Chemical Compositions and Antimicrobial Efficacy. Appl. Sci. 2025, 15, 4772. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094772

AMA Style

Nistor AL, Pop CR, Mitrea L, Cătunescu GM, Vârban R, Lipșa FD, Rusu CC, Rotar AM. Antimicrobial Potential of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze Essential Oils for Food Applications: A Review of Their Chemical Compositions and Antimicrobial Efficacy. Applied Sciences. 2025; 15(9):4772. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094772

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nistor, Alina L., Carmen R. Pop, Laura Mitrea, Giorgiana M. Cătunescu, Rodica Vârban, Florin D. Lipșa, Crina Claudia Rusu, and Ancuța M. Rotar. 2025. "Antimicrobial Potential of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze Essential Oils for Food Applications: A Review of Their Chemical Compositions and Antimicrobial Efficacy" Applied Sciences 15, no. 9: 4772. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094772

APA Style

Nistor, A. L., Pop, C. R., Mitrea, L., Cătunescu, G. M., Vârban, R., Lipșa, F. D., Rusu, C. C., & Rotar, A. M. (2025). Antimicrobial Potential of Hyssopus officinalis L. and Agastache foeniculum (Pursh) Kuntze Essential Oils for Food Applications: A Review of Their Chemical Compositions and Antimicrobial Efficacy. Applied Sciences, 15(9), 4772. https://doi.org/10.3390/app15094772

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop