Next Article in Journal
Biochar Stimulated Actual Evapotranspiration and Wheat Productivity under Water Deficit Conditions in Sandy Soil Based on Non-Weighing Lysimeter
Next Article in Special Issue
Biocontrol Activity of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants and Their Bioactive Components against Soil-Borne Pathogens
Previous Article in Journal
Water Stress Identification of Winter Wheat Crop with State-of-the-Art AI Techniques and High-Resolution Thermal-RGB Imagery
Previous Article in Special Issue
Monoterpene Enrichments Have Positive Impacts on Soil Bacterial Communities and the Potential of Application in Bioremediation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 23
10.3390/plants11233343
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Maltodextrin-Coated Peppermint and Caraway Essential Oils Effects on Soil Microbiota

by
Maria Chmiel
1,*,
Gabriela Drzymała
1,
Jan Bocianowski
2,
Andreja Komnenić
3,
Agnieszka Baran
4 and
Agnieszka Synowiec
5
1
Department of Microbiology and Biomonitoring, The University of Agriculture in Kraków, 30-059 Krakow, Poland
2
Department of Mathematical and Statistical Methods, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznań, Poland
3
Department of Field and Vegetable Crops, Biotechnical Faculty Podgorica, University of Montenegro, 81000 Podgorica, Montenegro
4
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Chemistry, The University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Krakow, Poland
5
Department of Agroecology and Crop Production, The University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Krakow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(23), 3343; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233343
Submission received: 2 July 2022 / Revised: 25 November 2022 / Accepted: 28 November 2022 / Published: 2 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue On the Microbe-Essential Oil Interplay: Processes, Mechanisms, Impacts and Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Essential oils exhibit strong antimicrobial effects that can serve as a substitute for synthetic pesticides. However, many reports mention the use of essential oils in protecting above-ground plant organs and storing raw materials and seeds, but only a few address the effects of treatments on soil microbiota. Regarding this, it is necessary to find a solution that will prevent the rapid degradation of oils in soil and extend the period of their action on the soil microbiota. The solution to this problem can be microencapsulation, where the choice of carrier plays a key role. In our experiment, maltodextrin was studied, often used in the microencapsulation of essential oils. It was examined independently in two doses (M1 and M2, with 50 and 200 g kg−1, respectively) and a combination with two essential oils known for their antimicrobial activity. We hypothesized that the selected microbial communities would react differently to the stress caused by maltodextrin-encapsulated essential oils. The serial dilution method assessed the number of colony-forming units (CFU) of bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes. As the goal of microencapsulation was to prolong the effect of essential oils, their reaction was observed over a longer period. The soil microbial populations were examined in sandy and loamy soil at 1, 7, 14, and 78 days after encapsulated essential oils were mixed with the soil samples. In both types of soil, a significant increase in bacteria and actinomycetes was observed with maltodextrin in both doses. Encapsulated peppermint and caraway oils had different effects on microbes, both inhibitory and stimulatory. It is also important to note that peppermint with a smaller dose of maltodextrin significantly inhibited the growth of fungi in sandy soil in all measurements, as well as that caraway oil with a higher dose of maltodextrin significantly stimulated the growth of bacteria and actinomycetes in sandy soil. The higher dose of maltodextrin could explain this stimulation. Further research is recommended to test different doses of essential oils and maltodextrin, which would lead to the optimal dose of both wall and core materials.

1. Introduction

Essential oils contain a wide range of volatile molecules which possess several biological activities [1]. Due to their bactericidal, fungicidal, virucidal, and antioxidant properties, the application of essential oils in plant protection preparations has been known for a long time [2]. These non-synthetic preparations have gained popularity in organic agriculture as possible candidates for natural, botanical pesticides [3,4]. The most common problem faced by manufacturers of plant protection preparations based on essential oils is their stability, i.e., volatility. The control of their high volatility is the main challenge that has been solved by developing various techniques [5]. For this reason, in addition to essential oils, various wetting agents are added to the preparations, which prolong the effect of the active substance of the essential oil on the targeted plant organ.
Recently, microencapsulation of essential oils has begun to be used to achieve a delayed release and prolonged action. Encapsulation represents a viable and efficient approach to increase the physical stability of essential oils and protection from evaporation. Due to its narrow size range, it enables a controlled release and enhanced bioactivity [2]. The role of microencapsulation is to create a barrier that avoids chemical reactions and enables the controlled release of its core constituents at specific moments or over a prolonged period [6]. Selecting the right wall material for encapsulation in the case of essential oils can be very challenging. The wall material determines the core material’s encapsulation efficiency, stability, and level of protection. Materials mainly used in the microencapsulation of essential oils are different types of synthetic polymers and natural biomaterials (usually carbohydrates and proteins) [7]. The common material for the microcapsules carrier is maltodextrin, a carbohydrate containing D-glucose with its polymers and oligomers, with a glucose equivalent (DE) lower than 20. It is a product of acidic or enzymatic hydrolysis of starch [8]. Maltodextrins have functional, stabilizing, fluffing, filling, and freshness-extending properties [9,10]. As a carrier in microcapsules, they are characterized by several advantages, such as low price, good water solubility, availability in various variants of glucose equivalent (DE), formation of low-viscosity solutions, no off flavor, and the presence of glassy barrier coatings, which has a favorable effect on the stability of microcapsules. The main disadvantage of maltodextrins is their lack of emulsifying properties [9].
Both peppermint and caraway oil display several agro-biological activities [11,12] and are potential sources of botanical pesticides. Some authors accentuate soil application of these oils as microcapsules for effective pest and weed control [13,14,15,16]. Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) is a perennial herb from the Lamiaceae family [17], originating from the Mediterranean region but cultivated all over the world [18]. The essential oil obtained from this plant has long been used in various forms, such as in managing plant pathogens and insect pests, traditional medicine, culinary, and cosmetics [19]. Peppermint oil with menthol and menthone as the main components exhibits high antimicrobial activities against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, yeast, and fungi [20]. These compounds have been successfully commercialized in the industry as antimicrobials/insecticidal agents [19]. Caraway (Carum carvi L.) belongs to the Apiaceae family and probably originates from Middle Asia. Caraway essential oil has antioxidant, insecticidal, antibacterial, fungicidal, acaricidal, molluscicidal, and larvicidal activities [21]. For example, S-(+)-carvone, the main compound of caraway oil, inhibits the growth of some bacteria and fungi and can be used as a natural sprout suppressant during potato storage [22]. Antimicrobial activity of the caraway oil against, e.g., protozoa, bacteria, mold fungi, and dermatophytes was also confirmed by [23,24].
Many reports mention the use of essential oils to protect above-ground plant organs and store raw materials and seeds, but only a few address the effects of treatments on soil microbiota. Previous research has shown that the soil’s microbial community reacts differently to various types of stress because their behavior depends on species mortality, species-specific resistance, the type of interactions among the members of the community, different microbial strains, and colonies, and, considering this, they should be evaluated at the community level [25,26]. Moreover, the efficiency of encapsulated essential oils in soil depends on the soil type, so a higher content of clay and loam could reduce the inhibitory effect of essential oils [27]. Research on this topic could be interesting both from the aspect of suppressing undesirable microorganisms in the soil and also as a study of the risk of undesirable effects of aerosol application on beneficial microorganisms in the surface layer of the soil.
This research aimed to study the effects of microencapsulated essential oils on sandy and loamy soil microbiota in vitro. For this purpose, two essential oils, very active in terms of their effect on them, were chosen, peppermint oil and caraway oil. Maltodextrin was also chosen as the universal carrier for microencapsulated essential oils. Dose and time effect dependencies were recorded and presented in this work.

2. Results

The number of colony-forming units (CFUs) of microorganisms in the soils studied in this experiment was in the lower ranges (Table 1). Depending on the type of soil, the way it is used, or the season, one gram of it can contain from 106 to 1010 CFUs of culturable bacteria, from 105 to 107 of actinomycetes, and from 104 to 108 of fungi [28,29,30,31].

2.1. Effects on Bacteria

The effects of different treatments with microencapsulated essential oils on the soil’s microbiota in the case of sandy and loamy soil observed at different time intervals are shown in Figure 1A and Figure 1B, respectively and in Table S1. These logarithmically transformed data show a positive effect on the number of bacteria in the soil for almost all treatments against the control for sandy and loamy soils. In the case of sandy soil, only the encapsulated peppermint oil had antimicrobial activity, but only on the first day after mixing (DAM) the microencapsulated essential oils with soil. All treatments showed a positive effect in the remaining days compared to the control. At 7 DAM, all treatments, except microencapsulated caraway oil in a higher dose (CrOM2), were statistically different from the control. At 14 DAM, the maltodextrin treatments in both doses and CrOM1 (microencapsulated caraway oil in a lower dose) were statistically different from the control. The remaining treatments belonged to the same group as the control. In the measurements at 78 DAM, a significant increase in the number of bacteria was observed in all treatments compared to the control, except for CrOM1, which was not significantly different from the control.
In the case of loamy soil, at 1 DAM, there was no significant difference in the number of bacteria compared to the control in all treatments. At 7 DAM, only CrOM2 significantly reduced the number of bacteria compared to the control, while the other treatments were in the same group as the control. At 14 DAM, all treatments showed a significant stimulating effect on the growth of bacteria, except for CrOM1, which significantly inhibited their growth. In the measurements at 78 DAM, all treatments were in the same group as the control, except for CrOM2 and PmOM2 (microencapsulated peppermint oil in a higher dose), which significantly stimulated the growth of bacteria.

2.2. Effects on Fungi

The results shown in Figure 2A and Figure 2B, respectively and in Table S2, present the effects of different treatments on the growth of fungi in sandy and loamy soil, respectively. In the case of sandy soil, fungal abundance did not change compared to the control, but in some cases, an inhibitory effect was observed. In all measurement sections, PmOM2 affected the inhibition of fungal growth. At 1 DAM, only PmOM2 was statistically different from the control, showing a significant inhibitory effect on fungal growth. At 7 DAM, a low dose of maltodextrin in each combination (M2, CrOM2, and PmOM2) showed almost total inhibition of fungal growth, while the other treatments were the same as the control. In the measurements at 14 DAM, M2 and PmOM2 also inhibited fungal growth, while the other treatments had no effect compared to the control. At 78 DAM, the number of fungi was almost the same as on the first DAM, with the inhibitory effect of PmOM2 and the other treatments, which did not affect the growth of fungi compared to the control.
In the case of loamy soil, inhibition of fungal growth was observed at 1 and 7 DAM, while, in the remaining measurement days, most treatments had a stimulating effect on the growth of fungi. At 1 DAM, both doses of maltodextrin (M1 and M2) and peppermint oil (PmOM1 and PmOM2) showed inhibition of fungal growth, while other treatments had no effect compared to the control. Results for all treatments, at 7 DAM, were as for the control, except for M2 and CrOM2, which significantly reduced fungal growth. In the measurements at 14 DAM, fungal growth was observed in all treatments except for M1 and M2, which did not differ from the control. Measurements at 78 DAM showed that both doses of caraway oil and maltodextrin (CrOM1 and CrOM2) had a stimulating effect on fungal growth, while the other treatments had no significant effect.

2.3. Effects on Actinomycetes

The effect of different treatments on the growth of actinomycetes in sandy and loamy soil is shown in Figure 3A and Figure 3B, respectively, and in Table S3. In the sandy and loamy soils, the treatments mainly stimulated the growth of actinomycetes. Only the encapsulated peppermint oil with a lower dose of maltodextrin had an antimicrobial activity at 1 DAM in sandy soil. Treatments M1 and CrOM1 influenced the increased growth of actinomycetes, while the other treatments presented the same as the control. At 7 DAM, in all treatments, the stimulation of growth of actinomycetes was observed, except for CrOM2, which was the same as the control. In the measurements at 14 DAM, both doses of maltodextrin (M1 and M2) and CrOM1 positively affected actinomycetes’ growth, while the other treatments had no significant effect compared to the control. At 78 DAM, all treatments stimulated the growth of actinomycetes, except for CrOM1, which was the same as the control.
In the case of loamy soil, at 1 and 7 DAM, there were no significant changes in the number of actinomycetes compared to the control, except for PmOM1, which inhibited their growth only at 1 DAM. A significant stimulating effect in all treatments was measured at 14 and 78 DAM, except for encapsulated caraway oil with a higher dose of maltodextrin (CrOM1), which significantly inhibited the growth of actinomycetes at 14 DAM.
The best models for the influence of the day after mixing the microencapsulated essential oils with the soils (DAM (x)) on CFUs of bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes (y) are presented in the regression results in Table 2. From 14 DAM, the microcapsules with caraway oil in lower doses (CrOM2) and peppermint oil in both doses (PmOM1 and PmOM2) stimulated bacteria’s CFUs in both soils, as also confirmed by the high fit of the regression analyses, with a high value of determination coefficient R2, which shows a positive correlation between the application of microcapsules with peppermint oil and bacteria growth, especially for loamy soil. Regardless of high correlation coefficient values for the effect of DAM on fungi and both microcapsules, the best fit was found for microcapsules with caraway essential oil in a lower dose (CrOM1) and only for loamy soil (Table 2).

3. Discussion

The number of microorganisms varies in different soil types and conditions, with a predominance of bacteria [32]. The number of bacteria and actinomycetes in different soil types ranges from 106 to 109 g−1 in dry soil. Fungi are less numerous, usually around 104 to 106 g−1 in dry soil [32,33]. However, the number of microorganisms determined in the soil depends on many factors. The soil type, humidity, plant density, season of the year, or even the culture medium used in the laboratory could affect the microbial community profile. In the soil samples tested in this experiment, the overall number of different microorganisms, i.e., bacteria, actinomycetes, and fungi, was low but within the given range limits. A higher number of microorganisms in loamy soil than in sandy soil could result from richer soil nutrients.
The addition of maltodextrin, or as a wall material, in both doses mainly influenced the growth of bacteria and actinomycetes. This may be due to the fact that maltodextrin is built from D-glucose and its polymers and oligomers serve as C and energy sources for microorganisms [9,10], thus stimulating the transition of microorganisms from dormant or potentially active to active stages [34]. In the case of fungi, maltodextrin mainly did not affect their growth in all measurements in both soil types. In smaller doses, it inhibited fungal growth seven and 14 days after its addition in sandy soil and after one and seven days in loamy soil.
Encapsulated essential oils had different effects on soil microorganisms, both stimulating and inhibitory. Peppermint essential oil with a higher dose of maltodextrin mainly stimulated the growth of bacteria in both soil types. The encapsulation of peppermint oil with a lower dose of maltodextrin inhibits the growth of bacteria only on the first day in sandy soil. In later measurements, a stimulation effect was observed. Stimulating effects of Mentha spicata essential oil on the microbial community were reported earlier [26,35]; the latter observed a special favoring effect on Gram-positive bacteria that are more resistant to the denaturation of the cellular membranes. Stimulatory effects of essential oils on bacterial populations have also been repeatedly reported [36,37]. Furthermore, menthol, the main compound of the tested peppermint essential oil, showed low to intermediate antimicrobial activities against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [38].
In the case of fungi, encapsulated peppermint oil with a higher dose of maltodextrin did not affect their growth in sandy soil. They were significantly inhibited by peppermint oil with a lower dose of maltodextrin. This may also indicate a reduced inhibitory effect of the essential oil in the presence of a high dose of maltodextrin. Our results follow [19], which reported that different Mentha species, including M. piperita, possess a strong antifungal activity against tested plant fungi due to menthol being the main constituent. Antifungal effects of peppermint oil were also reported by other authors [20,26]. In the loamy soil, inhibition and stimulation were observed on the 1st and 7th day, respectively. Soković et al. [39] point out that the mycelial growth of the tested fungi reacted differently to the peppermint essential oil, which indicates that some fungi were able to overcome the effect of the essential oil or adapt to it. After its application in the soil, significant stimulation of soil fungi by Mentha piperita oil was observed after 28 days [35].
A different mode of action was observed in the case of actinomycetes. In sandy soil, peppermint oil stimulated the growth of actinomycetes on the 7th and 78th days, while in loamy soil, their number grew on the 14th and 78th days. The inhibitory effect was observed only on the 1st day of measurement. Previous researches indicate that Mentha piperita and Mentha spicata oils do not affect the growth of actinomycetes in the soil [26,35].
Caraway oil encapsulated with a higher dose of maltodextrin significantly increased the growth of bacteria in sandy soil. Its encapsulation with a lower dose of maltodextrin did not affect the growth of bacteria until the 78th day, when stimulation was also observed. Furthermore, the intermediate antimicrobial activity of caraway oil against some bacteria and fungi was reported by [22]. This might be due to carbohydrates from maltodextrin, which can stimulate intensive microbial growth and, consequently, accumulation of bacterial and especially fungal mucilage in the rhizosphere [40]. Inhibition of bacterial growth was observed only on the 7th and 14th days in loamy soil, depending on the dose of maltodextrin. A reduction in bacterial growth caused by encapsulated caraway oil with maltodextrin was also observed [14]. Iacobellis et al. [23] noticed a strong inhibitory effect of caraway oil against different bacterial genera responsible for plant diseases worldwide (Clavibacter, Curtobacterium, Rhodococcus, Erwinia, Xanthomonas, Ralstonia, and Agrobacterium).
Fungi reacted differently to treatment with encapsulated caraway oil. In sandy soil, encapsulated caraway oil did not affect fungi in any of the measurements. In both soil types, significant inhibition was only observed on the 7th day with encapsulation with a lower dose of maltodextrin. Poor antifungal activity of caraway oil in vitro and in vivo was also reported by [41], who examined its effect on postharvest diseases on tomato fruits. Contrarily, the inhibition of fungi with non-encapsulated caraway oil was observed by many authors [20,42,43]. Sokovic et al. [39] mentioned that limonene exhibits intermediate fungistatic and fungicidal activity, while carvone, the main compound in our essential oil, shows much higher antifungal activity. Strong carvone activity against fungi was also evidenced by [44].
The stimulation effect on actinomycetes was observed with caraway oil with a higher dose of maltodextrin. In comparison, a lower dose had an inhibitory effect, except on the 78th day when a stimulating effect was noted. In loamy soil, stimulation was mainly observed in later measurements.
The stimulatory effect of microencapsulated essential oils on the soil microbiota that was observed in the later measurements could result from the presence of maltodextrin coating and/or the rapid degradation of the essential oils by microbiota, which was reported by [16,45]. In summary, the microencapsulated peppermint and caraway oils display stimulatory or/and inhibitory effects on different groups of microorganisms in sandy and loamy soils. However, the overall result of microcapsules on microorganisms is a combined effect of the core oil and its maltodextrin coating. Maltodextrin exhibits a longer-lasting stimulatory effect on different groups of soil microbiota. Further research is recommended to test different doses of essential oils and maltodextrin for optimizing both the wall and the core materials.

4. Materials and Methods

The microcapsules with maltodextrin as a carrier and caraway or peppermint oil as a core were purchased from a commercial producer (Hoffmann Aroma, Zamysłowo, Poland). The oil content and chemical composition were characterized and presented in our previous work [13,15] and are summarized in Table 3.
Topsoil layers (0–25 cm) from arable fields in Mydlniki, south of Poland, were collected in the spring of 2019. One of the soils was sandy, and the other was loamy. The soils were kept in the laboratory at room temperature until the experiments.
The air-dry soils were sieved through a 2 mm sieve to remove all the impurities. The basic physicochemical properties of the soils were estimated (Table 4). The following methods were applied: soil pH in 1 mol ∙ dm−3 KCl (soil:solution = 1:2.5) was determined potentiometrically [46], whereas we estimated organic carbon using the Tiurin method. The content of Ca, Mg, K, and p in soil samples was determined after mineralization in the muffle furnace and the dissolution of the ash solution in a mixture of HNO3 and HClO4 (3:1 v/v) [47]. The element contents in the solutions were determined using an inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometer (ICP-AES) by Perkin-Elmer, model Optima 7300 DV. Each sample was subjected to chemical analysis twice. The quality of determinations was verified based on the element determinations obtained for certified materials: CRM 16-050 (total element content).
50 cm3 of soil was measured into sterile polystyrene opaque containers. Appropriate doses of microcapsules (0.18 g and 0.72 g) with peppermint oil, caraway oil, or maltodextrin alone were weighed, added to separate containers with soil, and mixed. The soil mixtures with microcapsules corresponded to doses of 50 and 200 g of microencapsulated oils or maltodextrin carrier per 1 kg of soil. Containers with soils were only used as a control. The dry matter of the soil was determined according to Polish standards (PN-ISO 11465:1999) [48].
For the microbiological soil analysis, the serial dilution method was used [49]. Dilutions from 10−1 to 10−6 were prepared, bacteria were cultivated on Tripticasein Soy Lab-Agar (Biomaxima), fungi on Malt Extract Agar (Biomaxima), and actinobacteria on Actinomycetes Cultivation Medium [50]. The cultivation of the bacteria was carried out for 24 h at 37 °C and next for 72 h at 22 °C, fungi for 5 days at 26 °C, and actinobacteria for 7 days at 26 °C. The grown colonies were counted, and the results were recalculated and expressed as the number of CFUs (Colony Forming Units) per 1 g of dry soil (CFU/g DW of soil) [51].
The microbiological analyses were performed on the first, seventh, fourtheen, and seventy-eighth day after mixing with soil, in triplicate. Between the analyses, the soil samples with the microcapsules were stored in the dark at about 22 °C.

Statistical Analysis

All counting measurements were done in triplicate. Since soil microbiota showed exponential growth, data were logarithmically transformed with the formula log10(x + 1) before performing a one-way ANOVA. Results are presented graphically in bar plots with statistical differences among means denoted with letters on error bars according to Duncan’s MLR post hoc test at p < 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed utilizing R-CRAN Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, package Agricolae.
The relationships between the observed traits were estimated using Pearson’s linear correlation coefficients. The influence of time (days) on values of observed traits (bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes) was assessed by regression analysis [52]. The GenStat v. 18 statistical software package (VSN International) was used for these analyses.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants11233343/s1, Table S1: Mean values [in millions], standard deviations and Fisher’s least significant differences (LSDs) for bacteria; Table S2: Mean values [in thousands], standard deviations and Fisher’s least significant differences (LSDs) for fungi; Table S3: Mean values [in millions], standard deviations and Fisher’s least significant differences (LSDs) for actinomycetes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.C. and A.S.; methodology, M.C. and A.S.; investigation, G.D. and A.K.; resources, M.C., A.S. and A.B.; data curation, J.B. and A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K. and M.C; writing—review and editing, M.C., A.S. and A.B.; visualization, A.K. and J.B.; supervision, M.C., A.S. and A.B.; project administration, A.S.; funding acquisition, A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Central European Exchange Program for University Studies (CEEPUS, Albertgasse 35, 1080 Vienna, Austria) Mobility Grant No. CIII-RS-1607-01-2122-M-155571 was awarded to Ph.D. candidate Andreja Komnenić.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dejan Pljevljakušić, Despoina Vokou (the Academic Editor), and the independent reviewers for their significant help in improving the quality of this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Raveau, R.; Fontaine, J.; Lounès-Hadj Sahraoui, A. Essential Oils as Potential Alternative Biocontrol Products against Plant Pathogens and Weeds: A Review. Foods 2020, 9, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Majeed, H.; Bian, Y.; Ali, B.; Jamil, A.; Majeed, U.; Khan, Q.; Iqbal, K.; Shoemaker, C.; Fang, Z. Essential oil encapsulations: Uses, procedures, and trends. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 58449–58463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Fierascu, R.C.; Fierascu, I.C.; Dinu-Pirvu, C.E.; Fierascu, I.; Paunescu, A. The application of essential oils as a next-generation of pesticides: Recent developments and future perspectives. Z. Nat. 2020, 75, 183–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Khare, P.; Srivastava, S.; Nigam, N.; Singh, A.K.; Singh, S. Impact of essential oils of E. citriodora, O. basilicum and M. arvensis on three different weeds and soil microbial activities. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2019, 14, 100343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Maes, C.; Bouquillon, S.; Fauconnier, M. Encapsulation of Essential Oils for the Development of Biosourced Pesticides with Controlled Release: A Review. Molecules 2019, 24, 2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Enascuta, C.; Stepan, E.; Oprescui, E.; Radui, A.; Alexandrescu, E.; Stoica, R.; Epure, D.; Niculescu, M. Microencapsulation of Essential Oils. Rev. Chim. 2018, 69, 1612–1615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bakry, A.; Abbas, S.; Ali, B.; Majeed, H.; Abouelwafa, M.Y.; Mousa, A.; Liang, L. Microencapsulation of Oils: A Comprehensive Review of Benefits, Techniques, and Applications. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2016, 15, 143–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hofman, D.L.; Van Buul, V.J.; Brouns, F.J. Nutrition, health, and regulatory aspects of digestible maltodextrins. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 56, 2091–2100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Madene, A.; Jacquot, M.; Scher, J.; Desobry, S. Flavour encapsulation and controlled release–a review. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 41, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sobolewska-Zielińska, J.; Fortuna, T. Retrogradation of starches and maltodextrins of various origin. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2010, 9, 71–81. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kalemba, D.; Synowiec, A. Agrobiological interactions of essential oils of two menthol mints: Mentha piperita and Mentha arvensis. Molecules 2019, 25, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Fang, R.; Jiang, C.H.; Wang, X.Y.; Zhang, H.M.; Liu, Z.L.; Zhou, L.; Deng, Z.W. Insecticidal activity of essential oil of Carumcarvi fruits from China and its main components against two grain storage insects. Molecules 2010, 15, 9391–9402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Możdżeń, K.; Krajewska, A.; Bocianowski, J.; Jop, B.; Synowiec, A. Microencapsulated Caraway Essential Oil Affects Initial Growth of Maize Cultivars. Molecules 2021, 26, 5059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Synowiec, A.; Lenart-Boroń, A.; Bocianowski, J.; Lepiarczyk, A.; Kalemba, D. How soil-applied maltodextrin with caraway (Carum carvi L.) oil affects weed and soil microbiological activity in maize (Zea mays L.) stands. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 29, 817–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Synowiec, A.; Bocianowski, J.; Krajewska, A. The phytotoxicity of microencapsulated peppermint oil on maize (Zea mays L.) depending on the type of growth substrate and maize cultivar. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Synowiec, A.; Krajewska, A. Soil or vermiculite-applied microencapsulated peppermint oil effects on white mustard initial growth and performance. Plants 2020, 9, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Rita, P.; Animesh, D.K. An updated overview on peppermint (Mentha piperita L.). Int. Res. J. Pharm. 2011, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  18. Loolaie, M.; Moasefi, N.; Rasouli, H.; Adibi, H. Peppermint and its functionality: A review. Arch. Clin. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  19. Singh, P.; Pandey, A.K. Prospective of Essential Oils of the Genus Mentha as Biopesticides: A Review. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Mahboubi, M.; Kazempour, N. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) Essential oil. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2014, 36, 83–87. [Google Scholar]
  21. Laribi, B.; Bettaieb, I.; Kouki, K.; Sahli, A.; Mougou, A.; Marzouk, B. Water deficit effects on caraway (Carum carvi L.) growth, essential oil and fatty acid composition. Ind. Crops Prod. 2009, 30, 372–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Seidler-Łożykowska, K.; Kędzia, B.; Karpińska, E.; Bocianowski, J. Microbiological activity of caraway (Carum carvi L.) essential oil obtained from different origin. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy 2013, 35, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Iacobellis, N.S.; Lo Cantore, P.; Capasso, F.; Senatore, F. Antibacterial activity of Cuminum cyminum L. and Carum carvi L. essential oils. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Simic, A.; Rančic, A.; Sokovic, M.D.; Ristic, M.; Grujic-Jovanovic, S.; Vukojevic, J.; Marin, P.D. Essential oil composition of Cymbopogon winterianus. and Carum carvi. and their antimicrobial activities. Pharm. Biol. 2008, 46, 437–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gibbons, S.M.; Scholz, M.; Hutchison, A.L.; Dinner, A.R.; Gilbert, J.A.; Coleman, M.L. Disturbance regimes predictably alter diversity in an ecologically complex bacterial system. mBio 2016, 7, 1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Konstantinou, S.; Monokrousos, N.; Kapagianni, P.; Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, U.; Gwynn-Jones, D.; Stamou, G.P.; Papatheodorou, E.M. Instantaneous responses of microbial communities to stress in soils pretreated with Mentha spicata essential oil and/or inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. Ecol. Res. 2019, 701–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Synowiec, A.; Hano, C. Phytotoxic and microbiological activities of soil-applied microencapsulated peppermint (Mentha x piperita L.) essential oil. LE STUDIUM Interdiscip. J. 2019, 3, 21–24. [Google Scholar]
  28. Weyman-Kaczmarkowa, W.; Pędziwilk, Z. The development of fungi as affected by pH and type of soil, in relation to the occurrence of bacteria and soil fungistatic activity. Microbiol. Res. 2000, 155, 107–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sveshnikova, A.A.; Polyanskaya, L.M.; Lukin, S.M. The effect of tillage and mesorelief on the structure of soil microbial cenoses. Microbiology 2001, 70, 484–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Filip, Z. International approach to assessing soil quality by ecologically-related biological parameters. Agric. Ecosyt. Environ. 2002, 88, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rousk, J.; Nadkarni, N.M. Growth measurements of saprotrophic fungi and bacteria reveal differences between canopy and forest floor soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009, 41, 862–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Vieira, F.C.S.; Nahas, E. Comparison of microbial numbers in soils by using various culture media and temperatures. Microbiol. Res. 2005, 160, 197–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Whitman, W.B.; Coleman, D.C.; Wiebe, W.J. Procariote the unseen majority. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 6578–6583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Blagodatskaya, E.; Kuzyakov, Y. Active microorganisms in soil: Critical review of estimation criteria and approaches. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2013, 67, 192–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ainalidou, A.; Bouzoukla, F.; Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, U.; Vokou, D.; Karamanoli, K. Impacts of Decaying Aromatic Plants on the Soil Microbial Community and on Tomato Seedling Growth and Metabolism: Suppression or Stimulation. Plants 2021, 10, 1848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vokou, D.; Chalkos, D.; Karamanlidou, G.; Yiangou, M. Activation of soil respiration and shift of the microbial population balance in soil as a response to Lavandula stoechas essential oil. J. Chem. Ecol. 2002, 28, 755–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chalkos, D.; Karamanoli, K.; Vokou, D. Monoterpene Enrichments Have Positive Impacts on Soil Bacterial Communities and the Potential of Application in Bioremediation. Plants 2021, 10, 2536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Jirovetz, L.; Buchbauer, G.; Bail, S.; Denkova, Z.; Slavchev, A.; Stoyanova, A.; Schmidt, E.; Geissler, M. Antimicrobial Activities of Essential Oils of Mint and Peppermint as Well as Some of Their Main Compounds. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2009, 21, 363–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Soković, M.D.; Vukojević, J.; Marin, P.D.; Brkić, D.; Vajs, V.; Van Griensven, L.J.L.D. Chemical Composition of Essential Oils of Thymus and Mentha Species and Their Antifungal Activities. Molecules 2009, 14, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gunina, A.; Kuzyakov, Y. Sugars in soil and sweets for microorganisms: Review of origin, content, composition and fate. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 90, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abdolahi, A.; Hassani, A.; Ghosta, Y.; Javadi, T.; Meshkatalsadat, M.H. Essential oils as control agents of postharvest Alternaria and Penicillium rots on tomato fruits. J. Food Saf. 2010, 30, 341–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Aminifard, M.H.; Mohammadi, S. Essential oils to control Botrytis cinerea in vitro and in vivo on plum fruits. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 93, 348–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Soliman, K.M.; Badeaa, R.I. Effect of oil extracted from some medicinal plants on different mycotoxigenic fungi. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2002, 40, 1669–1675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kadoglidou, K.; Lagopodi, A.; Karamanoli, K.; Vokou, D.; Bardas, G.A.; Menexes, G.; Constantinidou, H.I.A. Inhibitory and stimulatory effects of essential oils and individual monoterpenoids on growth and sporulation of four soil-borne fungal isolates of Aspergillus terreus, Fusarium oxysporum, Penicillium expansum, and Verticillium dahliae. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2011, 130, 297–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Karamanoli, K.; Ainalidou, A.; Bouzoukla, F.; Vokou, D. Decomposition profiles of leaf essential oils in the soil environment. Ind. Crops Prod. 2018, 124, 397–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. PN ISO 10390: 1997; Soil Quality-Determination of pH. Polish Committee for Standardization (PN): Warsaw, Poland, 1997.
  47. Ostrowska, A.; Gawliński, S.; Szczubiałka, Z. Methods of Analysis and Assessment of Soil and Plant Properties. A Catalogue; Institute of Environmental Protection, National Research Institute: Warsaw, Poland, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  48. PN-ISO 11465; Soil quality-Determination of soil dry matter content and soil water based on soil dry matter weight-Weight method. Polish Committee for Standardization: Warsaw, Poland, 1999.
  49. Pepper, I.L.; Gerba, C.P. Environmental Microbiology. A Laboratoy Manual, 2nd ed.; Elsevier AP: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2004; p. 209. [Google Scholar]
  50. Atlas, R.M.; Parks, L.C. Handbook of Microbiological Media; CRC Press: Boca Raton, NJ, USA, 1997; p. 1706. [Google Scholar]
  51. Chmiel, M. Microbiological characteristics and sanitary evaluation of the natural environment at the Ojcowski National Park with particular emphasis on anthropogenic pressure. Zesz. Nauk. UR w Krakowie 2013, 382, 200. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  52. Bocianowski, J.; Kozak, M.; Liersch, A.; Bartkowiak-Broda, I. A heuristic method of searching for interesting markers in terms of quantitative traits. Euphytica 2011, 181, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 03343 g001a 550Plants 11 03343 g001b 550
Figure 1. The abundance of bacteria in sandy (A) and loamy (B) soils depending on different treatments with maltodextrin (M1 and M2) and encapsulated essential oils of caraway (CrOM1 and CrOM2) and peppermint (PmOM1 and PmOM2). 1 and 2 refer to doses of microcapsules, 50 and 200 g per 1 kg of soil, respectively. Letters on error bars denote statistical significance among groups according to Duncan’s MLR post hoc test at level p < 0.05.
Figure 1. The abundance of bacteria in sandy (A) and loamy (B) soils depending on different treatments with maltodextrin (M1 and M2) and encapsulated essential oils of caraway (CrOM1 and CrOM2) and peppermint (PmOM1 and PmOM2). 1 and 2 refer to doses of microcapsules, 50 and 200 g per 1 kg of soil, respectively. Letters on error bars denote statistical significance among groups according to Duncan’s MLR post hoc test at level p < 0.05.
Plants 11 03343 g001aPlants 11 03343 g001b
Plants 11 03343 g002 550
Figure 2. The abundance of fungi in sandy (A) and loamy (B) soils depending on different treatments with maltodextrin (M1 and M2) and encapsulated essential oils of caraway (CrOM1 and CrOM2) and peppermint (PmOM1 and PmOM2). 1 and 2 refer to doses of microcapsules, 50 and 200 g per 1 kg of soil, respectively. Letters on error bars denote statistical significance among groups according to Duncan’s MLR post hoc test at level p < 0.05.
Figure 2. The abundance of fungi in sandy (A) and loamy (B) soils depending on different treatments with maltodextrin (M1 and M2) and encapsulated essential oils of caraway (CrOM1 and CrOM2) and peppermint (PmOM1 and PmOM2). 1 and 2 refer to doses of microcapsules, 50 and 200 g per 1 kg of soil, respectively. Letters on error bars denote statistical significance among groups according to Duncan’s MLR post hoc test at level p < 0.05.
Plants 11 03343 g002
Plants 11 03343 g003 550
Figure 3. The abundance of actinomycetes in sandy (A) and loamy (B) soils depending on different treatments with maltodextrin (M1 and M2) and encapsulated essential oils of caraway (CrOM1 and CrOM2) and peppermint (PmOM1 and PmOM2). 1 and 2 refer to doses of microcapsules, 50 and 200 g per 1 kg of soil, respectively. Letters on error bars denote statistical significance among groups according to Duncan’s MLR post hoc test at level p < 0.05.
Figure 3. The abundance of actinomycetes in sandy (A) and loamy (B) soils depending on different treatments with maltodextrin (M1 and M2) and encapsulated essential oils of caraway (CrOM1 and CrOM2) and peppermint (PmOM1 and PmOM2). 1 and 2 refer to doses of microcapsules, 50 and 200 g per 1 kg of soil, respectively. Letters on error bars denote statistical significance among groups according to Duncan’s MLR post hoc test at level p < 0.05.
Plants 11 03343 g003
Table
Table 1. The mean number of colony-forming units (CFU). Results are expressed in CFU/g dry weight of soil.
Table 1. The mean number of colony-forming units (CFU). Results are expressed in CFU/g dry weight of soil.
Group of MicroorganismsSandy SoilLoamy Soil
[CFU/g DW of Soil][CFU/g DW of Soil]
Bacteria5.6 × 106 7 × 106
Actinomycetes4 × 106 10 × 106
Fungi2.7 × 104 3.9 × 104
Table
Table 2. The best models for the influence of time (days) after mixing soils with the microencapsulated essential oils (x) on the soil populations of bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes (y) resulted from the regression analysis.
Table 2. The best models for the influence of time (days) after mixing soils with the microencapsulated essential oils (x) on the soil populations of bacteria, fungi, and actinomycetes (y) resulted from the regression analysis.
BacteriaFungiActinomycetes
AdditiveSoilModelR2 [in %]ModelR2 [in %]ModelR2 [in %]
ControlLoamy y = 0.0051x2 − 0.3855x + 8.684816.7y = −0.0043x2 + 0.2546x + 30.270.75y = 0.0114x2 − 1.0501x + 18.68652.13
ControlSandy y = −0.0035x2 + 0.3265x + 3.020448.27y = 37.558x−0.25819.6y = −0.233ln(x) + 4.51924.44
M1Loamy y = −0.0018x2 + 0.2652x + 9.487339.2y = −0.3391x2 + 28.238x + 1.039943.6y = −0.0235x2 + 1.8749x + 13.90814.15
M1Sandy y = −0.023x2 + 1.9201x + 2.161445.62y = −0.0544x2 + 4.228x + 11.77657.49y = −0.019x2 + 1.359x + 27.50928.64
M2Loamy y = −0.0456x2 + 3.8267x − 0.273669.76y = 6.0015x0.193912.72y = 16.225x0.14367.88
M2Sandy y = −0.0581x2 + 5.1497x − 6.309450.13y = 0.0421x2 − 3.4406x + 33.90442.77y = −0.0418x2 + 3.7111x + 4.997858.42
CrOM1Loamy y = 0.0087x2 − 0.5434x + 12.35133.26y = −0.0096x2 + 2.3335x + 35.51248.47y = 0.015x2 − 0.8572x + 17.55150.44
CrOM1Sandy y = 8.4257x0.14837.28y = 0.0145x2 − 1.3838x + 55.5572.65y = 44.896x−0.2517.79
CrOM2Loamy y = 2.0117x0.7550.81y = 0.0363x2 − 1.0267x + 23.89986.11y = 11.176x0.466927.74
CrOM2Sandy y = −0.0328x2 + 2.8279x − 5.897150.64y = 0.002x2 − 0.0903x + 4.724724.94y = 0.0057x2 + 0.1382x + 10.32834.8
PmOM1Loamy y = −0.0647x2 + 5.3902x − 1.105856.93y = 6.5295x0.59852.54y = 8.9653x0.453425.79
PmOM1Sandy y = −0.0117x2 + 0.8046x + 15.63811.44y = −0.093x2 + 7.5897x + 1.553350.91y = −0.0097x2 8.53
PmOM2Loamy y = 6.2719x0.481365.66y = −0.1445x2 + 12.252x − 19.257.06y = 6.2305x0.520369.06
PmOM2Sandy y = 2.2999x0.916585.53y = 0.0028x2 − 0.253x + 2.754558.62y = 1.8474x0.912271.4
Table
Table 3. Content and main compounds of peppermint and caraway essential oils in the microcapsules with maltodextrin as a carrier.
Table 3. Content and main compounds of peppermint and caraway essential oils in the microcapsules with maltodextrin as a carrier.
CharacteristicsPeppermint OilCaraway oil
Content of oil (v/w %)9.66.5
(−)-Menthone (%)20.6--
(−)-Menthol (%)60.1--
D-Limonene (%)--15.2
S-(+)-Carvone (%)--79.9
Table
Table 4. Chemical characteristics of top soils used in the experiments.
Table 4. Chemical characteristics of top soils used in the experiments.
CharacteristicsSandy SoilLoamy Soil
pH KCl6.86.5
Ca (g kg−1)0.942.45
K (g kg−1)0.491.65
P (g kg−1)0.220.45
Mg (g kg−1)0.361.68
C organic (g kg−1)13.2520.11
Soil dry matter (%)87.987.5
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chmiel, M.; Drzymała, G.; Bocianowski, J.; Komnenić, A.; Baran, A.; Synowiec, A. Maltodextrin-Coated Peppermint and Caraway Essential Oils Effects on Soil Microbiota. Plants 2022, 11, 3343. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233343

AMA Style

Chmiel M, Drzymała G, Bocianowski J, Komnenić A, Baran A, Synowiec A. Maltodextrin-Coated Peppermint and Caraway Essential Oils Effects on Soil Microbiota. Plants. 2022; 11(23):3343. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233343

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chmiel, Maria, Gabriela Drzymała, Jan Bocianowski, Andreja Komnenić, Agnieszka Baran, and Agnieszka Synowiec. 2022. "Maltodextrin-Coated Peppermint and Caraway Essential Oils Effects on Soil Microbiota" Plants 11, no. 23: 3343. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11233343

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