Next Article in Journal
Deciphering the Structural and Functional Paradigms of Clostridioides difficile Toxins TcdA and TcdB
Previous Article in Journal
Molecular Detection of Colistin-Resistant E. coli in Village Chickens from Kelantan, Malaysia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Bacteria
Volume 4
Issue 2
10.3390/bacteria4020020
bacteria-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Brief Report

Antibacterial Potential of Essential Oils Against E. coli and Salmonella spp. in Minimally Processed Foods

by
Aline Sitowski
1,
Gladis Aver Ribeiro
1,
Emma J. Murphy
2,3 and
Gustavo Waltzer Fehrenbach
2,3,*
1
Institute of Biology, Department of Microbiology and Parasitology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas 96160-000, Brazil
2
Bioengineering Organ-on-Chip Research Group (BOC), Centre for Applied Bioscience Research, Limerick Campus, Technological University of the Shannon—Midlands Midwest, V94 E8YF Limerick, Ireland
3
Polymer, Recycling, Industrial, Sustainability and Manufacturing Research Institute (PRISM), Department of Engineering, Athlone Campus, Technological University of the Shannon—Midlands Midwest, N37 HD68 Athlone, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Bacteria 2025, 4(2), 20; https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4020020
Submission received: 1 January 2025 / Revised: 1 March 2025 / Accepted: 4 March 2025 / Published: 3 April 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Minimally processed foods (MPFs), often considered ready-to-eat, do not undergo cooking and therefore require proper handling and preparation to ensure safety. If not handled correctly, these foods can serve as a pathway for diseases caused by pathogenic bacteria, including Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. The antibacterial activity of essential oils (EOs) has been increasingly studied as a tool for controlling microorganisms in the food sector. Therefore, we aimed to verify the contamination of MPF by E. coli and Salmonella and to test the sensitivity of these strains to Copaifera langsdorffii, Schinus terebinthifolius, Citrus reticulata, Eucalyptus citriodora, Elettaria cardamomum, Ocimum basilicum, and Eugenia caryophyllus EOs using the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) methods. From 25 MPF samples, one E. coli strain and one Salmonella spp. were isolated. C. langsdorffii and C. reticulata EOs did not show antibacterial activity, while S. terebinthifolius and E. citriodora inhibited the growth of both strains. The E. cardamomum, O. basilicum, and E. caryophyllus EOs presented inhibitory and bactericidal responses at concentrations 0.78, 0.39, and 0.19% (v/v), respectively, compared to the two isolated strains. The present study reinforces the antibacterial potential of EOs and suggests their application in the MPF production chain.

1. Introduction

Intensive population growth and rapid urbanization have significantly altered dietary patterns, increasing the demand for convenient and nutritious food options. As urban centers expand and lifestyles become more fast-paced, consumers seek foods that require minimal preparation while retaining their natural nutritional value. The consumption of minimally processed foods (MPF) has grown substantially in the recent years [1,2]. According to the International Fresh-cut Produce Association (IFPA), minimally processed foods include vegetables and/or fruits that have undergone processes such as sanitization, peeling, cutting, and packaging, physically altered but have maintained their fresh nutritional aspect. Often marketed as ready-to-eat, salads and fruit salads are the most sought-after minimally processed foods on the market due to their health benefits and convenience [3].
Despite the several advantages of MPF, this product faces challenges related to shelf life and spoilage, as the absence of preservatives and structural modifications accelerates deterioration. Factors such as enzymatic browning, moisture loss, and microbial growth can compromise quality, leading to reduced consumer confidence and economic losses [4]. Moreover, excessive handling during the manufacturing of these products can act as a vehicle for the transmission of foodborne illnesses, since these foods do not undergo a cooking process before consumption [1]. According to Tresseler et al. [5] and Bergamini et al. [6], bacterial contamination of minimally processed foods can occur from irrigation on the plantation to packaging of the product and, when there is inefficiency in the sanitization process of these fruits and vegetables, they can act as sources of contamination among consumers.
According to the World Health Organization, it is estimated that each year 600 million people worldwide are affected by diseases related to unsafe food, while 420,000 of these people die. The pathogens that cause these diseases can be viruses, fungi, parasites, chemicals, pesticides and, the most common agent, bacteria. Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. are bacteria from the Enterobacteriaceae family that are commonly associated with intestinal diseases. Common strains of E. coli naturally inhabit the intestines of humans and warm-blooded animals. Shiga toxin-producing E. coli strains, however, can cause diarrhea, vomiting, abdominal cramps, and may progress to hemorrhagic colitis and in rare cases, death. Salmonella spp. is naturally found in the intestines of animals such as pigs and birds, and can survive in the environment for weeks or even months in moist places. Among enteric diseases, salmonellosis is one of the most recurrent in the world, causing abdominal cramps, fever, nausea, and intense diarrhea. Children and the elderly are at risk for salmonellosis [7].
The number of cases of foodborne diseases varies from country to country, considering cultural, environmental, and economic particularities [8]. The deficiency in basic sanitation programs and the lack of investment in sanitation technologies contribute to food contamination and, consequently, the development of foodborne diseases in underdeveloped or developing countries [9].
The Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) establishes as a sanitary microbiological standard the tolerance of 500 CFU/g mL−1 for thermotolerant coliforms in fruits and 100 CFU/g mL−1 in ready-to-eat vegetables, and the absence of Salmonella spp. for both cases, per gram of food [10]. Several authors have demonstrated that these products still do not comply with current regulations [11,12,13,14,15]. In fact, according to reports from the Brazilian Ministry of Health, Escherichia coli was responsible for 34.8% and Salmonella spp. for 9.6% of the outbreaks of diseases transmitted by water and food between 2014 and 2023 [16]. The number of outbreaks exposes the vulnerability of MPF to contaminants and the need for alternatives to support consumer safety and industry development.
Essential oils (EO) are complex compounds synthesized by plants as secondary metabolites generally for the purpose of protecting the plant from parasites such as insects and microorganisms [17]. These components have been increasingly studied and applied in the handling process of ready-to-eat foods, with the intention of increasing the antibacterial potential and preserving the sensory and nutritional characteristics of the product [18]. The objective within the present study was to evaluate the bacteriological quality of minimally processed foods sold in the city of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, through the detection of Salmonella spp. and generic Escherichia coli, in addition to verifying the sensitivity of these strains to different concentrations of EO from the botanical species Copaifera langsdorffii, Citrus reticulata, Schinus terebinthifolius, Eucalyptus citriodora, Elettaria cardamomum, Ocimum basilicum, and Eugenia cariofila.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling

Twenty-five samples of minimally processed food (MPF), including ready-to-eat fruits and vegetables, were obtained from four different supermarkets over the course of a year in the city of Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, southernmost region of Brazil. MPF was obtained from a local supermarket and its freshness was verified by the expiration date. Samples were obtained and kept at 4 °C in thermal boxes for transportation to the Microbiology Laboratory at the Federal University of Pelotas.

2.2. Microbiological Analyses

2.2.1. Escherichia coli

The sample packages were disinfected with 70% alcohol and opened in laminar flow under aseptic conditions. According to the American Public Health Association (APHA 9:2015) method for the presumptive test, 25 g of each sample were homogenized with 225 mL of 0.1% sterile peptone. Subsequently, serial dilutions were performed, transferring 1 mL from the first dilution and adding it to a tube with 9 mL of 0.1% peptone, thus reaching a dilution 10−2, and so on until reaching dilution 10−6. Then, 1 mL was removed from each tube with the diluted solution and added to tubes containing Lactose broth (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) with Durham tubes, in triplicate, and placed in the incubator at 37 °C for 48 h, to visualize the possible production of gas resulting from glucose fermentation.
After 48 h, two loops of the tubes that showed cloudy medium and the presence of bubbles in the Durham tubes were removed, then incorporated into tubes with EC broth (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) and Durham tubes and incubated in a water bath at 45 °C. The tubes with positive fermentation were used to calculate the Most Probable Number (MPN), using the Hoskins table [19].
For the isolation and confirmation of E. coli, a loop of the EC Broth tubes that showed positive fermentation was removed and streaked on an Eosin Methylene Blue (EMB) Agar plate (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and incubated at 36 °C for 24 h. The characteristic colonies (pink colonies with a black center, dry or mucous, with or without a metallic green shine) isolated were transferred to Plate Count Agar (PCA) tubes and incubated at 36 °C for 24 h, in order to perform biochemical tests such as the Indole, Methyl Red (MR), Voges–Proskauer (VP), and Citrate (INViC) tests.
For the Methyl Red (MR) test, a colony was inoculated in MR-VP Broth (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and left for 72 h of incubation at 36 °C, then five drops of methyl red were added and the development of red coloration in the medium was awaited (i.e., a positive MR test). For the Voges–Proskauer (VP) test, an inoculum was incubated in MR-VP at 36 °C for 24 h, and then 1 mL of the culture was removed, deposited in a sterile tube, and 0.6 mL of 5% α-naphthol and 0.2 mL of 40% KOH were added, respectively. After 10 min of incubation, a beige or brownish broth is expected for a negative VP test.
In the Indole test, a tube of semi-solid SIM Agar (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) sulfide–indole–motility was used, where a suspected colony was inoculated with an inoculation needle and incubated at 36 °C for 24 h. In the test result, it is possible to observe the capacity of bacterial motility through the turbidity or lack thereof of the medium, as well as the production of H2S with the darkening of the medium. Still in the same inoculum, 5 drops of Kovac’s reagent were added, expecting the formation of a reddish halo in the reagent.
For the citrate test, a light scratch was made on the surface of the Simmons Citrate Agar (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) in an inclined tube, with the same inoculation needle used in the Indole test. After 48 h at 36 °C, the expected result is the color of the medium remaining unchanged (i.e., green), confirming the negative citrate test.

2.2.2. Salmonella

The International Organization for Standardization Method (ISO 6579:2002) was followed for the Salmonella isolation process [20,21]. Samples were collected and 25 g of the weighed food was homogenized in 225 mL of lactose broth (VWR, Dublin, Ireland). Then, the pH was adjusted to pH 6.8 and the samples were incubated at 36 °C for 24 h. The lactose broth was used to recover injured cells.
For selective enrichment, an inoculum of 0.1 mL of this culture was removed and placed in a tube of Rappaport Broth (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) and 1 mL in a tube with Tetrathionate Broth (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) containing 0.2 mL of iodine solution and 0.1 mL of malachite green solution and incubated at 36 °C for 24 h. For differential plating, a loop of both broths was removed and plated on Hektoen Enteric Agar (HE) (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and Xylose Deoxycholate Agar (XLD) (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany), and then incubated at 36 °C for a further 24 h. Typical colonies of Salmonella in HE Agar (transparent or black colonies, blue-green, with or without a black center, or salmon-colored and without transparencies if it is a lactose or sucrose fermenter) and in XLD Agar (transparent or black colonies, with or without a black center or yellow with or without a black center), were seeded on Lysine Iron Agar (LIA) (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK), Triple Sugar Iron Agar (TSI) (HiMedia, Modautal, Germany), and Urea broth (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) to perform biochemical tests.
A typical isolated colony was inoculated onto solid LIA medium in two punctures with the aid of an inoculation needle and then incubated at 36 °C for 24 h. In TSI agar, the inoculum with a typical colony was made by puncturing and streaking the surface of the medium in an inclined tube with an inoculation needle. After incubation at 36 °C for 24 h, the expected reaction of the sample is the change in the colors of the medium to yellow and darkening of the agar at the base and reddish on the surface. A typical colony was dispersed in Urea broth to verify the action of the urease enzyme and incubated together with the other biochemical tests. The expected result of the biochemical tests is positive TSI, negative Urea, and positive Lia. However, we consider results different from the expected to be valid for the serological test, since Salmonella paratyphy strains can trigger changes in the biochemical tests.
For serological confirmation, two suspensions were made with the suspected colonies, one with a drop of polyvalent somatic anti-Salmonella antiserum, and another in saline solution for negative control. Agglutination in the emulsion with the antiserum was expected, confirming the presence of Salmonella spp.

2.3. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC)

The MIC evaluation was carried out with EOs from seven different plant species, namely: copaiba (Copaifera langsdorffii), tangerine (Citrus reticulata var.tangerine), pink pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus citriodora), cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum), basil (Ocimum basilicum), and clove bud (Eugenia cariofila). All essential oils mentioned were marketed by the company FERQUIMA (São Paulo, Brazil) and used in the Broth Microdilution method according to the technique described by the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards [22].
The previously isolated Salmonella spp. and E. coli strains were grown on Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany) agar slants and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. The bacterial suspension was prepared with freshly grown bacterial colonies according to the 0.5 MacFarland scale (1.5 × 108 CFU/mL), and then 50 μL of the suspension was added to 4.950 μL of BHI broth. Each analyzed EO was serially diluted with BHI broth and 1% Tween 80 and distributed in a 96-well plate, ensuring oil solubilization and varying its concentration by 25, 12.5, 6.25, 3.125, 1.562, 0.78, 0.39, and 0.19%. Finally, the bacterial suspension of E. coli and Salmonella spp. was distributed in the wells together with the EO dilutions, with a final volume of 200 µL in each well. For positive controls, the bacterial suspensions were incubated in BHI and EO volume replaced by sterile distilled water. A negative control consisting of BHI broth without bacterial inoculation was also prepared to verify medium sterility. The plates were then incubated at 37 °C for 24 h [22].
Biological activity was assessed by colorimetry, where 20 μL of 0.5% 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride was added to all wells. After 20 min of reaction, the inoculums that presented a reddish coloration indicated bacterial metabolic activity, while the transparent inoculums indicated the absence of biological activity. All analyses were performed in triplicate.

2.4. Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC)

Following the technique described in the National Committee for Clinical Laboratory Standards [17], 5 μL aliquots were taken from each well that showed bacterial inhibition, plated on Muller Hinton Agar (Millipore, Darmstadt, Germany), and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h.

3. Results

3.1. Microbiological Analysis

Of the 25 samples analyzed, two (8%) were contaminated and did not meet ANVISA regulations. Of the two contaminated samples, one indicated the presence of Salmonella spp. and the other of E. coli, accounting for 7 × 103 MPN, exceeding the maximum permitted by ANVISA, which is 100 bacteria per gram of food, making both samples unfit for human consumption [10].

3.2. Antibacterial Activity

The results obtained in the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) test indicate the lowest concentration of EO capable of inhibiting bacterial growth, rendering the bacteria unviable or killing them, while the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) is proof that the target bacteria has been degraded to the point of unviability or killed. The isolated strains of MPF, E. coli and Salmonella spp., responded equivalently in the analyses of minimum inhibitory MIC and CBM of the EOs tested. As shown in Table 1, Copaifera langsdorffii and Citrus reticulata var. tangerine EOs did not show inhibitory or bactericidal activity. In contrast, Eugenia cariofila EO obtained inhibitory and bactericidal action with 0.19% (v/v) of its concentration, while Ocimum basilicum and Elettaria cardamomum EO reacted, respectively, with 0.39% and 0.78% (v/v). Eucalyptus citriodora and Schinus terebinthifolius EOs demonstrated only inhibitory activity with 1562% and 3125% (v/v), respectively.

4. Discussion

Studies investigating the microbiological quality of MPF in Brazil have intensified in recent years. In the city of Fortaleza—CE, Pinheiro et al. [13], Bruno et al. [14] and Tresseler et al. [5] presented, respectively, 25%, 84%, and 12.7% of total samples contaminated with Salmonella spp. In Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil, 6.7% of total samples from a study reported by Smanioto et al. [23] presented E. coli colony forming unit (CFU) above the permitted level, while 5% of the samples from Santos et al. [15], in Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil, presented thermotolerant coliforms outside the established standards. In addition to our results and cited references, there are several other reports warning about the continued exposure of MPF consumers to possible sources of gastroenteritis. In this study, 8% of the MPF samples were contaminated and with a high variability in microbiological quality, similar to reported by these studies.
Salmonella spp. and E. coli are Gram-negative bacilli of the Enterobacteriaceae family, which largely form part of the intestinal microbiota of animals. Therefore, the presence of these bacteria in water or food may indicate contamination of fecal origin [24]. Bergamini et al. [6] investigated contamination points within vegetable production chains and described the presence of Salmonella spp. and thermotolerant coliforms in all stages of production, from irrigation water to washing water in the market. Data such as this reveal that, even with food safety regulations in force, there is a lack of inspection of commercialized MPFs. In addition, there is a need for methods that complement the antibacterial action, especially in the final stages of production of MPFs, providing a healthy and safe product for the consumer. The antimicrobial activity of EOs has been increasingly studied, both in their mechanism of action and in their potential use as preservatives in the production of ready-to-eat foods [25].
Interestingly, in this study, E. coli and Salmonella spp. strains isolated from MPFs responded similarly to all EOs tested. This equivalence may be related to the composition of the cell membrane, since both bacteria are gram-negative. Generally, gram-negative bacteria are described as more resistant to the action of EOs, due to their complex cell wall composition [26,27].
Eugenia cariofila essential oil demonstrated the best antibacterial performance against E. coli and Salmonella strains, revealing a bactericidal effect at 0.19% concentration, the lowest concentration tested. The biological response of E. cariofila EO has been increasingly used in challenging situations, such as in antibiofilm activity or against bacteria resistant to synthetic drugs [28]. The bactericidal action can be attributed to its main component, eugenol, which acts on the degeneration of the proteins that make up the bacterial cell membrane, consequently causing the death of the bacteria [29]. E. cariofila EO antioxidant activity helps prevent lipid oxidation in processed foods, maintaining flavor and nutritional quality.
In this study, Ocimum basilicum EO demonstrated bactericidal action at a concentration of 0.39% in both isolated strains. The inhibitory and bactericidal responses of the O. basilicum species against E. coli and Salmonella spp. strains are similar to those of other studies, such as Aquino et al. [30] with EO and the paper of Elansary et al. [31] with basil leaf extract. This biological activity is due to compounds such as menthone and estragole [32], which alter and lyse the bacterial cell wall [33].
As demonstrated by other authors [34,35], Elettaria cardamomum EO also has inhibitory and bactericidal capacity, and our results verified these actions of EO at 0.78% of its concentration on isolated strains of Salmonella spp. and E. coli. The chemical composition of cardamomum EO is quite diverse and generally presents the 1,8-Cienol component in greater quantity, however, its antibacterial efficiency is dependent on the other compounds in the oil [36]. Limonene is one of the components present in smaller quantities and helps in the process of bacterial cell lysis [37].
In this study, Eucalyptus citriodora EO demonstrated inhibitory action at 1.5% of its concentration and no bactericidal activity in both strains studied. However, studies reveal that Citronellal, the main compound in eucalyptus EO, can cause lysis of the cell membrane of bacteria, inhibit their DNA and ATP metabolism, or even alter the permeability of the cell membrane and interfere with the functionality of the proteins that act there [38].
The Schinus terebinthifolius EO demonstrated inhibitory activity, with 3.125% of its concentration for both E. coli and Salmonella spp. Dannenberg et al. [26] did not obtain sensitivity results with MIC of the EO from the S. terebinthifolius fruits against strains of E. coli and Salmonella Typhimurium, however, they recorded a decrease in colony growth in the micro-atmosphere test. Oliveira et al. [27] recorded the inhibitory activity at low concentrations of EO from the leaf of S. terebinthifolius against E. coli. Dannenberg et al. [26] obtained β-myrcene as the major component of the EO of the fruit of S. terebinthifolius, while Oliveira et al. [27] recorded γ-Gurjunene as the major component of the EO of the leaves of the same species. These results demonstrate that, among other factors, the different parts of the plant contain different chemical concentrations that can interfere with the analysis result.
The EOs of Copaifera langsdorffii and Citrus reticulata var.tangerine did not demonstrate inhibitory or bactericidal activity on the isolated strains. Although the tests with copaiba and citrus EOs did not show antibacterial activity, there are studies indicating the antibacterial activity of EOs from the species mentioned above [39,40]. According to Ju et al. [18], the chemical constituents responsible for the antibacterial action may vary depending on the location of the plant, climate, season, form of cultivation, phenological stage, the parts of the plant, the extraction method of the EO, and others. Therefore, results that indicate resistance of strains to EO should not be disregarded, but rather reevaluated.

5. Conclusions

This study identified the presence of two contaminated MPF samples, one with E. coli and the other with Salmonella spp., highlighting a potential risk for consumers and reinforcing the need for food safety measures in MPF production. In order to explore alternatives such as natural antimicrobial strategies, we evaluated the antibacterial activity of EOs against the isolated strains. Although C. langsdorffii and C. reticulata var.tangerine EOs did not show any inhibitory or bactericidal effects, S. terebinthifolius and E. citriodora EOs successfully inhibited bacterial growth at relatively low concentrations (3.125 and 1.562% v/v, respectively). EOs of E. cardamomum, O. basilicum and E. cariofila demonstrated the highest antibacterial activity, effectively inhibiting and inactivating bacterial strains at very low concentrations (0.78, 0.39, 0.19% v/v, respectively). These findings have direct implications for food safety and sanitation practices in MPF production, emphasizing the need for improved sanitary inspections, stricter hygiene protocols, and enhanced decontamination methods to mitigate contamination risks. The antibacterial activity of EOs suggests their applicability in natural food preservation systems. However, further research is needed to standardize the cultivation of plants and the extraction of EOs with antimicrobial properties. Future studies should investigate the mechanisms influencing EOs antibacterial activity, including environmental factors, plant genetics, and interactions with different bacterial strains and food practices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S., G.A.R. and G.W.F.; methodology, A.S., G.A.R., E.J.M. and G.W.F.; validation, A.S. and G.W.F.; formal analysis, A.S., G.A.R., E.J.M. and G.W.F.; investigation, A.S., G.A.R. and G.W.F.; resources, G.A.R. and G.W.F.; data curation, A.S., G.A.R., E.J.M. and G.W.F.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S. and G.W.F.; writing—review and editing, A.S. and G.W.F.; visualization, A.S., G.A.R. and G.W.F.; supervision, G.A.R., E.J.M. and G.W.F.; project administration, G.A.R. and G.W.F.; funding acquisition, G.A.R., E.J.M. and G.W.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Federal University of Pelotas.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Balali, G.I.; Yar, D.D.; Dela, V.G.A.; Adjei-Kusi, P. Microbial contamination, an increasing threat to the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables in today’s world. Int. J. Microbiol. 2020, 2020, 3029295. [Google Scholar]
  2. de Oliveira, V.C.; do Amaral, M.J.; Gonçalves, D.J.R.; de Almeida Costa, N.; Vieira, É.N.R.; Júnior, B.R.D.C.L. Minimally processed fruits with added probiotics: A review. J. Eng. Exact Sci. 2022, 8, 14894-01e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mir, S.A.; Shah, M.A.; Mir, M.M.; Dar, B.N.; Greiner, R.; Roohinejad, S. Microbiological contamination of ready-to-eat vegetable salads in developing countries and potential solutions in the supply chain to control microbial pathogens. Food Control 2018, 85, 235–244. [Google Scholar]
  4. Corato, U.D. Improving the shelf-life and quality of fresh and minimally-processed fruits and vegetables for a modern food industry: A comprehensive critical review from the traditional technologies into the most promising advancements. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 60, 940–975. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Tresseler, J.F.M.; De Figueiredo, E.A.T.; Figueiredo, R.W.; Machado, T.F.; Delfino, C.M.; De Sousa, P.H.M. Avaliação da qualidade microbiológica de hortaliças minimamente processadas. Ciênc. Agrotec. 2009, 33, 1722–1727. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bergamini, A.M.M.; Capuano, D.M.; Okino, M.H.T.; Oliveira, C.A.D.; Oliveira, M.A.; Castro e Silva, A.A.; Ribeiro, E.G.A.; Takayanagui, A.M.M.; Takayanagui, O.M. Análise da cadeia de produção de verduras em Ribeirão Preto, SP. Rev. Soc. Bras. Med. Trop. 2006, 39, 224–226. [Google Scholar]
  7. World Health Organization [WHO]. WHO Estimates of the Global Burden of Foodborne Diseases. Available online: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/who-estimates-of-the-global-burden-of-foodborne-diseases (accessed on 26 February 2025).
  8. Lee, H.; Yoon, Y. Etiological Agents Implicated in Foodborne Illness World Wide. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  9. Grace, D. Burden of foodborne disease in low-income and middle-income countries and opportunities for scaling food safety interventions. Food Secur. 2023, 15, 1475–1488. [Google Scholar]
  10. Anvisa. Agência Nacional De Vigilância Sanitária. Resolução da Diretoria Colegiada-RDC n° 12, de 2 de Janeiro de 2001. Available online: https://anvisalegis.datalegis.net/action/ActionDatalegis.php?acao=abrirTextoAto&tipo=RDC&numeroAto=00000012&seqAto=002&valorAno=2001&orgao=RDC/DC/ANVISA/MS&codTipo=&desItem=&desItemFim=&cod_menu=9434&cod_modulo=310&pesquisa=true (accessed on 20 January 2025).
  11. Welker, C.A.D.; Both, J.M.C.; Longaray, S.M.; Haas, S.; Soeiro, M.L.T.; Ramos, R.C. Análise microbiológica dos alimentos envolvidos em surtos de doenças transmitidas por alimentos (DTA) ocorridos no estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Biociências 2010, 8, 44–48. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ferreira, C.C.; Gregório, E.L.; Costa, J.D.; De Paula, R.B.O.; De Araujo Neta, H.A.G.; Fontes, M.D. Análise de coliformes termotolerantes e Salmonella sp. em hortaliças minimamente processadas comercializadas em Belo Horizonte-MG. HU Rev. 2016, 42, 307–313. [Google Scholar]
  13. Pinheiro, N.M.D.S.; Figueiredo, E.A.T.D.; Figueiredo, R.W.D.; Maia, G.A.; Souza, P.H.M.D. Avaliação da qualidade microbiológica de frutos minimamente processados comercializados em supermercados de Fortaleza. Rev. Bras. Frutic. 2005, 27, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bruno, L.M.; Queiroz, A.D.; Andrade, A.D.; Vasconcelos, N.D.; Borges, M.D.F. Avaliação microbiológica de hortaliças e frutas minimamente processadas comercializadas em Fortaleza (CE). B. CEPPA Curitiba 2005, 26, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Santos, T.S.; Campos, F.B.; Padovani, N.F.A.; Dias, M.; Mendes, M.A.; Maffei, D.F. Assessment of the microbiological quality and safety of minimally processed vegetables sold in Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 71, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ministério da Saúde. Surtos de Doenças de Transmissão Hídrica e Alimentar no Brasil–Informe 2024. Available online: https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/saude-de-a-a-z/d/dtha/publicacoes/surtos-de-doencas-de-transmissao-hidrica-e-alimentar-no-brasil-informe-2024/view (accessed on 15 December 2024).
  17. Murbach Teles Andrade, B.F.; Nunes Barbosa, L.; da Silva Probst, I.; Fernandes Júnior, A. Antimicrobial activity of essencial oils. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2014, 26, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ju, J.; Xie, Y.; Guo, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Qian, H.; Yao, W. The inhibitory effect of plant essential oils on foodborne pathogenic bacteria in food. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 59, 3281–3292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Da Silva, N.; Junqueira, V.C.A.; de Arruda Silveira, N.F.; Taniwaki, M.H.; Gomes, R.A.R.; Okazaki, M.M. Capítulo 9. Contagem de coliformes totais, coliformes termotolerantes e Escherichia coli. In Manual de Métodos de Análise Microbiológica de Alimentos e Água, 5th ed.; Edgard Blücher Ltda, Blucher: São Paulo, Brazil, 2017; pp. 117–137. [Google Scholar]
  20. Da Silva, N.; Junqueira, V.C.A.; de Arruda Silveira, N.F.; Taniwaki, M.H.; Gomes, R.A.R.; Okazaki, M.M. Capítulo 19. Salmonella. In Manual de Métodos de Análise Microbiológica de Alimentos e Água, 5th ed.; Edgard Blücher Ltda, Blucher: São Paulo, Brazil, 2017; pp. 291–323. [Google Scholar]
  21. ISO 6579-1:2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain—Horizontal Method for the Detection, Enumeration and Serotyping of Salmonella—Part 1: Detection of Salmonella spp. ISO (International Organization for Standardization): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  22. Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute. Methods for Dilution Antimicrobial Susceptibility Test for Bacteria That Grow Aerobically; Approved Standard M7-A10; Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute: Wayne, PA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  23. Smanioto, T.F.; Pirolo, N.J.; Simionato, E.M.R.S.; Arruda, M.C. Qualidade microbiológica de frutas e hortaliças minimamente processadas. Rev. Inst. Adolfo Lutz 2009, 68, 150–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rani, A.; Ravindran, V.B.; Surapaneni, A.; Mantri, N.; Ball, A.S. Review: Trends in point-of-care diagnosis for Escherichia coli O157:H7 in food and water. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2021, 349, 109233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. 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]
  26. Dannenberg, G.d.S.; Funck, G.D.; da Silva, W.P.; Fiorentini, A.M. Essential oil from pink pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi): Chemical composition, antibacterial activity and mechanism of action. Food Control 2019, 95, 115–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Oliveira, K.C.; Franciscato, L.M.S.S.; Mendes, S.S.; Barizon, F.M.A.; Gonçalves, D.D.; Barbosa, L.N.; Faria, M.G.I.; Valle, J.S.; Casalvara, R.F.A.; Gonçalves, J.E.; et al. Essential Oil from the Leaves, Fruits and Twigs of Schinus terebinthifolius: Chemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Potential. Molecules 2024, 29, 469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tatu, C.; Tănasie, G.; Tulcan, C.; Gaspar, C.; Păunescu, V.; Tatu, R.-F.; Păunescu, C. Essential Oils and Plants Extracts with Antibacterial and Anti-Biofilm Activities against Multidrug Resistant Bacteria. Proceedings 2021, 68, 3202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bai, J.; Li, J.; Chen, Z.; Bai, X.; Yang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Yang, Y. Antibacterial activity and mechanism of clove essential oil against foodborne pathogens. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 173, 114249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Aquino, L.C.L.; Santos, G.G.; Trindade, R.D.C.; Alves, J.A.B.; Santos, P.O.; Alves, P.B.; Blank, A.F.; de Carvalho, L.M. Atividade antimicrobiana dos óleos essenciais de erva-cidreira e manjericão frente a bactérias de carnes bovinas. Alim. Nutr. 2010, 21, 529–535. [Google Scholar]
  31. Elansary, H.O.; Szopa, A.; Kubica, P.; Ekiert, H.; El-Ansary, D.O.; Al-Mana, F.A.; Mahmoud, E.A. Saudi Rosmarinus offcinalis and Ocimum basilicum L. Polyphenols and Biological Activities. Processes 2020, 8, 446. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hassanpouraghdam, M.B.; Hassani, A.; Shalamzari, M.S. Menthone- and estragole-rich essential oil of cultivated Ocimum basilicum L. from Northwest Iran. Chemija 2010, 21, 59–62. [Google Scholar]
  33. Zhao, W.; Yang, C.; Zhang, N.; Peng, Y.; Ma, Y.; Gu, K.; Liu, X.; Liu, X.; Liu, X.; Liu, Y.; et al. Menthone Exerts its Antimicrobial Activity Against Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus by Affecting Cell Membrane Properties and Lipid Profile. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2023, 17, 219–236. [Google Scholar]
  34. Alam, A.; Rehman, N.U.; Ansari, M.N.; Palla, A.H. Effects of Essential Oils of Elettaria cardamomum Grown in India and Guatemala on Gram-Negative Bacteria and Gastrointestinal Disorders. Molecules 2021, 26, 2546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Molaveisi, M.; Noktehsanj, A.M.; Shahidi, N.M.; Mohammadi, M. Chemical Composition, Antioxidant Potential, and Antimicrobial Activity of Elettaria cardamomum Essential Oil. Infect. Epidemiol. Microbiol. 2020, 6, 51–62. [Google Scholar]
  36. Moo, C.-L.; Osman, M.A.; Yang, A.-K.; Yap, W.-S.; Ismail, S.; Lim, S.-H.-E.; Chongo, C.-M.; Lai, K.-S. Antimicrobial activity and mode of action of 1,8-cineol against carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae. Nat./Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 20824. [Google Scholar]
  37. Gupta, A.; Jeyakumar, E.; Lawrence, R. Strategic approach of multifaceted antibacterial mechanism of limonene traced in Escherichia coli. Nat./Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13816. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pinheiro, R.E.E.; Chaves, T.P.; Melo, E.S.; Ali, S.; Ali, S.W.; Umer, M.; Gama, G.S.P.; Lira, D.N.S.; Souza, J.S.N.; Soares, M.J.d.S.; et al. Modulatory-antibiotic activity of the essential oil from Eucalyptus citriodora against MDR bacterial strains. Cell. Mol. Biol. 2020, 66, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Yamaguchi, M.H.; Garcia, R.F. Óleo de copaíba e suas propriedades medicinais: Revisão bibliográfica. Saúde e Pesqui. 2012, 5, 137–146. [Google Scholar]
  40. Peng, J.; Chen, G.; Guo, S.; Lin, Z.; Zeng, Y.; Ren, J.; Wang, Q.; Yang, W.; Liang, Y.; Li, J. Anti-Bacterial and Anti-Biofilm Activities of Essential Oil from Citrus reticulata Blanco cv. Tankan Peel Against Listeria monocytogenes. Foods 2024, 13, 3841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of Essential Oils (EOs) against E. coli and Salmonella spp. strains.
Table 1. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) and Minimum Bactericidal Concentration (MBC) of Essential Oils (EOs) against E. coli and Salmonella spp. strains.
Essential OilE. coliSalmonella spp.
MIC (% v/v)MIC (% v/v)
MBC (% v/v)MBC (% v/v)
Copaifera langsdorffii>25>25
>25>25
Citrus reticulata v. tangerine>25>25
>25>25
Schinus terebinthifolius3.1253.125
>25>25
Eucalyptus citriodora1.5621.562
>25>25
Elettaria cardamomum0.780.78
0.780.78
Eugenia cariofila0.190.19
0.190.19
Ocimum basilicum0.390.39
0.390.39
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

Sitowski, A.; Ribeiro, G.A.; Murphy, E.J.; Fehrenbach, G.W. Antibacterial Potential of Essential Oils Against E. coli and Salmonella spp. in Minimally Processed Foods. Bacteria 2025, 4, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4020020

AMA Style

Sitowski A, Ribeiro GA, Murphy EJ, Fehrenbach GW. Antibacterial Potential of Essential Oils Against E. coli and Salmonella spp. in Minimally Processed Foods. Bacteria. 2025; 4(2):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4020020

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sitowski, Aline, Gladis Aver Ribeiro, Emma J. Murphy, and Gustavo Waltzer Fehrenbach. 2025. "Antibacterial Potential of Essential Oils Against E. coli and Salmonella spp. in Minimally Processed Foods" Bacteria 4, no. 2: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4020020

APA Style

Sitowski, A., Ribeiro, G. A., Murphy, E. J., & Fehrenbach, G. W. (2025). Antibacterial Potential of Essential Oils Against E. coli and Salmonella spp. in Minimally Processed Foods. Bacteria, 4(2), 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4020020

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop