Lavender essential oils as natural food protectants: myth or a viable substitute?

Abstract

The widespread application of synthetic pesticides for food preservation and crop protection is a significant concern for both environmental sustainability and public health. Past and recent studies conducted worldwide revealed that botanical pesticides based on essential oils (EOs) have been developed against pests and pathogens deteriorating food commodities under both storage and field conditions. While EO-based botanical pesticides are less widely available, they offer considerable potential for managing pathogens and insects that affect food crops. The genus Lavandula also known as Lavender is one of the most important genera of the family Lamiaceae, comprising over 39 accepted species and many varieties distributed across the Iberian Peninsula, the Mediterranean coastline, parts of Southern & Eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Lavandula species can potentially be used in the food and pharmaceutical industries as medicinal herbs. The genus is known for its abundance of EOs, which exhibit high variability in chemical constituents between species owing to various extrinsic (geographical origin) and intrinsic (genetic variation) factors. Despite broad scientific interest in the bioprospection of Lavandula species, there is a general lack of information regarding the use of Lavandula EOs (LEOs) in protection of food commodities/crops from harmful organisms. The objectives of this paper were to systematically review the scientific literature on the efficacy of LEOs against pathogens and pests deteriorating food commodities/crops under both storage and field conditions. Besides, studies on chemical analysis of LEOs originating from different countries and recommendations for their use as an alternative to synthetic pesticides in food protection are described. We also discussed the challenges in the use of LEOs and safety assessments so that they can be used as safe botanical pesticides in food systems.

---

Sustainability spotlight

The genus Lavandula also known as Lavender, is one of the most important genera of the family Lamiaceae, comprising over 39 species and many varieties distributed across the Iberian Peninsula, the Mediterranean coastline, parts of Southern & Eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Lavandula species can potentially be used in the food and pharmaceutical industries as medicinal herbs. The present article summarizes that EOs and terpenoids derived from L. angustifolia and L. latifolia as well as other Lavandula species discussed in this review have broad antimicrobial and insecticidal properties against pathogens and pests deteriorating food commodities/hampering field food crops. There have been developments in the evaluation of LEO-based encapsulated products, such as thin films, biodegradable polymers, and nano-emulsion coatings against bacterial and fungal pathogens responsible for food spoilage, and investigators have found potential results. Therefore, botanical preservatives/pesticides derived from EOs of Lavandula species might be useful in combating microbial pathogens and insect pests in stored food commodities and field crops. A shift towards greener technologies directs an optimistic future towards safer deployment of LEOs in food preservation/crop protection.

1. Introduction

Lavandula also known as Lavender, a genus of over 39 species and 79 intraspecific taxa and hybrids¹ of higher plants in the mint family, Lamiaceae, has been recognized for its diverse therapeutic and aromatic properties since ancient times. The name Lavender is derived from the Latin “lavare” which means “to wash”.² One of the most prevalent species, i.e., Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (commonly known as English lavender), is native to the Mediterranean region. It thrives in countries such as Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Spain, Greece, France, Italy, India, and Turkey while Lavandula latifolia Medik. (commonly known as spike lavender) shares a similar Mediterranean basin origin. Like its counterpart, Lavandula species have been widely studied for their traditional and pharmacological uses.³ Lavandula is commonly used today in perfumes, candles, baths, soap, talc powers, scanted sachets, aromatherapy, and massage.⁴ In medieval and Renaissance Europe, Lavandula was commonly used in the preparation of 'nosegays' or small bouquets carried to ward off the plague, indicating its perceived antiseptic properties.⁵ Various folk traditions have used Lavandula for a variety of medical purposes such as Lavandula used in the traditional Chinese medicine, to treat infertility,⁶ infections, anxiety, and fever.⁶ It has also been used in Arabic medicine to treat stomach aches and kidney problems.⁷ It was considered an antispasmodic, antiemetic, antiflatulent, and antidepressant.⁸ The extract of the genus was used to enhance bile flow, cure varicose ulcers, and to reduce carpal tunnel syndrome.⁹

Lavandula angustifolia and L. latifolia are highly valued for their essential oils (EOs), which are extensively used in aromatherapy and treating ailments like anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders. Several reviews have been published on Lavandula essential oils (LEOs).^10,11 For instance, Lavandula aromatherapy has garnered attention for its potential cognitive enhancing effects, as reviewed by Aprotosoaie et al.¹⁰ In this review, they highlighted the chemical composition of LEOs, focusing on their main constituents such as linalool and linalyl acetate and discussed the variability in the chemical profiles due to different factors like geographical locations and harvesting times. Additionally, this review also emphasized the biological activities of LEOs, including their antimicrobial and antioxidant properties with reference to human pathogens, rather than against pathogens deteriorating food commodities.⁹

Another comprehensive review published by Malloggi et al.¹¹ explored the cognitive effects of LEO inhalation, focusing on arousal, attention, and memory and concluded that LEOs, particularly their main components linalool and linalyl acetate have the potential to decrease arousal and enhance sustained attention. Their review highlighted the importance of EO's quality and administration methods, noting that different diffusion devices and EO compositions can influence outcomes. Besides, in 2021, Heral et al.¹ described the taxonomy and morphology of Lavandula species along with a phytochemical analysis of their EOs. In particular, these reviews summarized the therapeutic and nutritional benefits as well as the phytochemical properties of LEOs rather than their application in food/crop protection. Therefore, a detailed review concerning the application of LEOs in food/crop protection is required to open opportunities for further research, especially in the areas of pest and pathogen control in food crops where the identification of potential biopesticides is still a limiting step. The objective of this paper was to provide a comprehensive review of the efficacy of LEOs, against insect pests and pathogens hampering/spoiling food commodities under both storage and field conditions. Besides, the chemical analysis of LEOs originating from different countries, challenges in using LEOs in food systems and safety assessments along with the scope of future research are also discussed.

The literature discussed in this review was explored and collected in 2023 and 2024. We surveyed the published research papers on the chemical composition and bio-efficacy of LEOs available through several online search engines, including Research Gate, Google Scholar, Sci Finder, Connected Papers, Web of Science, and Scopus using “Lavandula and essential oils” as the search keywords. Other keywords used for the survey of papers associated with LEOs were chemical composition, Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis, medicinal, antibacterial, antifungal, insecticidal, nano-encapsulated LEOs, and antioxidant properties. The literature we have discussed here were mostly from Scopus and Web of Science indexed journals.

2. Phytochemical analysis of LEOs

Lavender EOs derived primarily from the genus Lavandula, are characterized by a complex composition of volatile compounds (Fig. 1), which confer their distinctive aromatic and therapeutic properties.¹² The chemical composition of LEOs can be analysed and quantified using techniques such as gas chromatography (GC) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS).¹³ This method allows for the accurate identification of individual components and their relative concentrations, providing insights into the quality and therapeutic potential of EOs.¹⁴ The majority of studies used GC and GC-MS analysis to identify the chemical constituents present in LEOs.^14,15 In GC-MS analysis, the identification and quantification of compounds in EOs were performed based on their retention indices or retention times, and mass spectra. For instance, through GC-MS analysis, linalool, linalyl acetate, 1,8-cineole, camphor, and borneol were identified as the primary constituents of LEOs.¹⁶ It is found that each component contributes to the EO's unique chemical profile and biological activities.

Fig. 1 Basic structure of major volatile compounds reported in Lavandula essential oils.

The chemical profile of EOs from L. angustifolia, L. latifolia and other Lavandula species, analysed by GC and GC-MS methods, originating from different countries, are summarized in Table 1 along with the extraction methods used to obtain the EOs. Investigators used various extraction methods for the isolation of EOs from Lavandula species. These include, hydro-distillation, headspace solvent microextraction, supercritical CO₂ extraction, headspace solid-phase microextraction, microwave-assisted hydro distillation, steam distillation, solvent extraction, ultrasound-assisted distillation, turbo hydro-distillation, hydrodistillation–headspace solvent microextraction, supercritical water distillation, microwave-assisted extraction, and microdistillation (Table 1). Most researchers, however, used hydrodistillation methods because they are cost-effective and require less resources.

Table 1 Major chemical compounds present in Lavandula spp. essential oils originating from different countries and their extraction methods

Year	Lavandula spp.	Part used	Extraction methods^a	Major chemical compounds (%)	Origin	References
a Hydro-distillation (HD), headspace solvent microextraction (HSME), supercritical CO2 extraction (SCE), headspace solid-phase microextraction (HSPME), microwave-assisted hydro distillation (MAHD), steam distillation (SD), solvent extraction (SE), ultrasound-assisted distillation (UAD), turbo hydro-distillation (THD), and hydrodistillation-headspace solvent microextraction (HD-HSME), supercritical water distillation (SWD), microwave-assisted extraction (MAE), and microdistillation (MD).
2005	L. angustifolia	Aerial parts	HD-HSME	Linalool (32.8%), linalyl acetate (17.6%), and lavandulyl acetate (15.9%)	Iran	17
2008	L. angustifolia	Aerial parts	HD	Linalool (44.54%), geraniol (11.02%), and lavandulyl acetate (10.78%)	China	18
2009	L. angustifolia	Flowers	HD	Linalool (30.6%), linalyl acetate (14.2%), and geraniol (5.3%)	Poland	19
2012	L. angustifolia	Aerial parts	HD	1,8-Cineole (29.0–38.0%), linalool (6.8–19.2%), and camphor (9.6–14.6%)	Iran	20
2012	L. dentata	Aerial parts	HD	Linalool (47.30%), linalyl acetate (28.65%), and camphor (2.32%)	Tunisia	21
2012	L. latifolia	Dried flowers	HD, SCE	Linalool (53%), linalyl acetate, camphor, and borneol	Australia	22
2013	L. angustifolia, L. x intermedia	Inflorescences	SD	Caryophyllene (24.1%), beta-phellandrene (16%), and eucalyptol (15.6%)	Romania	23
2013	L. angustifolia	Aerial parts	HS-SPME, MA–HS–SPME	1,8-Cineole (41.37–54.84%), camphor (15.83–23.25%), and borneol (12.32–5.0%)	Iran	24
2015	L. angustifolia, L. latifolia	Aerial parts	HD	Linalool (35–51%), eucalyptol (26–32%), camphor (10–18%), α-pinene (1–2%), α-terpineol (1–2%), and α-bisabolene (1–2%)	Spain	16
2015	L. latifolia	Flowering stems	SD	Linalool, 1,8-cineole, camphor, borneol, α- and β-pinene	Europe	25
2015	L. latifolia	Aerial parts	SCE	Linalyl acetate (44.1–59.8%), and β-caryophyllene (6.3–7.3%)	India	26
2016	L. angustifolia	Aerial parts	HD, SCE	Linalyl acetate (44.1–59.8%), and β-caryophyllene (6.3–7.3%)	India	27
2016	L. angustifolia	Flowers	HD, SFE, SPME	Linalool (35.65%) and linalyl acetate (33.63%)	Jordan	28
2016	L. angustifolia	Flowers	HD	Linalool (24.63%), camphor (13.58%), and linalyl acetate (8.89%)	Iraq	29
2016	L. latifolia	Leaves, flower buds, flowers	SD	Linalool (23.9%), linalyl acetate (22.3%), γ-terpinene (3.3%), and terpinen-4-ol (5.0%)	Poland	30
2016	L. latifolia	Flowers	HD, SD, THD, UAD, SWD, MAE	Linalool, linalyl acetate, camphor, borneol, and 1.8-cineole	France	31
2017	L. angustifolia	Aerial parts	HD, MD	Linalool (22.1%), lavandulyl acetate (15.3%), and linalyl acetate (14.7%)	Turkey	32
2017	L. angustifolia	Flowers	HD, SFE, SPME	Linalool (51.8%), lavandulol, terpinen-4-ol, and α-terpineol	Bosnia and Herzegovina	33
2018	L. angustifolia	Aerial parts	HD, MAE	Linalool (34.70%), camphor (12.77%), and eucalyptol (11.50%)	Romania	32
2018	L. angustifolia	Flowers	HD	Linalool (34.70%), camphor (12.77%), and eucalyptol (11.50%	Syria	34
2018	L. stoechas	Flowers	HD	Fenchone (52.7%), camphor (25.94%), and 1,8-cineole (4.84%)	Algeria	35
2018	L. angustifolia	Fresh flowers, aerial parts and stems	HD	Linalool (26.5–34.7%), linalyl acetate (19.7–23.4%), terpinen-4-ol (2–4.9%), α-terpineol (2.8–5.1%), β-ocimene (2.9–10.7%), geranyl acetate (1.7–2.8%), and oct-1-en-3-yl acetate (0.9–3.6%)	Poland	36
2018	L. latifolia	Fresh flowers, aerial parts and stems	HD	Linalool (26.5–34.7%), linalyl acetate (19.7–23.4%), terpinen-4-ol (2–4.9%), α-terpineol (2.8–5.1%), β-ocimene (2.9–10.7%), and geranyl acetate (1.7–2.8%)	Croatia	37
2019	Lavandula latifolia	Aerial parts	SD	Carvacrol (78.2%), 2-methoxy-4-vinylphenol (2.5%), and spathulenol (2.2%)	Morocco	38
2020	L. angustifolia	Flowers	HD	Linalool (23.51–27.39%), and linalyl acetate (26.60–40.66%)	Romania	39
2020	L. angustifolia	Flowers	HD	Linalyl acetate (28.89%), linalool (24.30%), caryophyllene (7.89%), and borneol (2.60%)	China	40
2020	Lavandula latifolia	Aerial parts	HD	Linalyl acetate (26.1%), linalool (19.7%), and lavandulol acetate (12.6%)	China	41
2020	Lavandula latifolia	Inflorescences	SD	Linalyl acetate (46.76%), lavandulyl acetate (14.21%), lavandulol (1.54%), and linalool (16.82%)	China	42
2021	L. angustifolia	Inflorescences	HD	1,8-Cineol (eucalyptol) (2.0), β-caryophyllene (4.78%), (E)-β-farnesene (1.52%), and caryophyllene oxide (0.36%)		43
2021	L. angustifolia	Aerial parts	HD	Linalool (32.19–46.83%), linalyl acetate (17.70–35.18%), and terpinen-4-ol (3.63–7.70%)	Romania	44
2021	L. latifolia	Aerial parts	HD	Gamma-terpinene (26.8%), camphor (13.8%), and 1,8-cineole (10.2%)	Saudi Arabia	45
2022	L. angustifolia, L. x intermedia	Aerial parts	HD	Linalool (26.14–57.07%) and linalyl acetate (9.08–24.45%)	Ukraine	46
2022	L. angustifolia, L. latifolia	Aerial parts	HD	Linalool (39.5%), linalyl acetate (26.7%), and eucalyptol (43.08%)	Egypt, France, Australia	47
2022	L. spica	Leaves	SE	Linalool (39.5%), eucalyptol (43.08%), and linalyl acetate (26.7%)	Egypt	47
2022	L. angustifolia	Flowers	HD	Linalool (29.95%) and linalyl acetate (18.86%)	Morocco	48
2023	L. angustifolia	Flowers	HD	Linalool (31.27%) and camphor (16.21%)	Algeria	49
2023	L. angustifolia	Aerial parts	HD	Linalool (20.0–45.0%) and linalyl acetate (20.79–39.91%)	Bulgaria	50
2023	L. latifolia	Aerial parts (leaves, stems, flowers)	SD	Linalool (14.93%), camphor (14.11%), linalyl acetate (11.17%), and eucalyptol (10.99%)	Morocco	51
2024	L. angustifolia	Flowers	MAHD	α-Terpinolene (24.25%) and (−)-borneol (19.55%)	Turkey	52
2024	L. angustifolia	Stems	HD	Linalool (33.27%) and linalyl acetate (21.01%)	Tajikistan	53

---

Table 1 also shows that the chemical composition of LEOs can vary depending on the region and cultivation conditions. Using the GC-MS method, Jianu et al.⁵⁴ analysed the EO of L. angustifolia grown in western Romania, and reported significant variations in the major chemical components. These differences can influence the biological activities of the EO, highlighting the importance of regional studies in understanding their efficacy. In addition, high-quality L. angustifolia EO was typically characterized by high levels of linalool and linalyl acetate through GC-MS analysis, whereas L. latifolia EO was distinguished by its higher camphor content.⁴⁶ The table also provides evidence that linalool and linalyl acetate are the predominant compounds found in L. angustifolia EOs in the majority of the studies. In addition to the primary constituents, LEOs contain various secondary metabolites that contribute to their overall efficacy. These include terpenes such as lavandulol, geraniol, and α-terpineol, as well as sesquiterpenes like β-caryophyllene.^16,36

In particular, L. angustifolia and L. latifolia are native to the Mediterranean region, with L. angustifolia being widely cultivated worldwide, including in China, Morocco, Italy and Algeria, while L. latifolia is commonly cultivated in Spain, France, and Italy (Table 1). Among these species, L. angustifolia from Romania has the highest concentration of linalool (73.0%) extracted via microwave-assisted hydro distillation.⁵⁵ In contrast, L. latifolia, from Spain, shows a higher concentration of γ-terpinene (26.8%) and camphor (13.8%) extracted by hydro distillation.⁵⁶ Besides, unique chemical constituents have also been identified in regional variants, such as L. angustifolia from Northeastern Algeria, which contains rare compounds like 2-furanmethanol (7.49%) and linalool oxide (11.98%), and in L. latifolia, known for its significant γ-terpinene content.⁴⁹ Although, all these studies used GC-MS analysis for the chemical characterization of LEOs, these variations highlight the diverse chemical profiles of Lavandula species depending on their geological origin and extraction methods.³⁹

3. Use of LEOs as antibacterial agents against foodborne pathogens

Bacterial phytopathogens are a significant cause of yield losses in legumes, cereals, vegetables, fruits, and other food commodities/foodstuffs, affecting crops/commodities during pre-harvest, transit, and storage. These pathogens can lead to annual yield reductions in food crops or foodstuffs ranging from 20% to 40%, posing a serious threat to global food security and agricultural sustainability.⁵⁷ Their impact is particularly severe due to their ability to proliferate throughout the supply chain, from the field to the market, exacerbating economic losses and food waste.⁵⁸ The major bacterial species involved in food spoilage or crop loss include Clavibacter michiganensis, Pseudomonas syringae, P. solanacearum, P. putida, Erwinia carotovora, E. amylovora, E. herbicola, Xanthomonas citri, X. axanopodis pv. malvacearum, X. campestris, Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, among others.^57,59,60 Such bacterial pathogens cause substantial yield losses and quality degradation in many food crops of national and international significance.⁵⁹ In the United States alone, foodborne illnesses caused by 14 major pathogens are estimated to cost $14 billion annually and result in a loss of 61 000 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).⁶¹ Developing countries face amplified impacts due to inadequate food safety infrastructure, resulting in higher morbidity and mortality, particularly among children under five.⁶² For instance, in India, foodborne illnesses annually affect over 100 million people, contributing to significant economic losses from healthcare expenses and lost productivity.⁶³ In Canada, the annual societal cost of bacterial foodborne illnesses ranges from $9.3 to $12.9 billion, driven by healthcare expenses and lost productivity.⁶⁴ Such outbreaks also impact businesses through lawsuits, market losses, and consumer distrust, underlining the urgent need for improved food safety measures. Many EOs and plant extracts have been extensively evaluated by researchers from time to time for their antibacterial activity against these phytopathogenic and food spoilage bacteria under in vitro and in vivo conditions;^65–68 although LEOs are known for their significant antibacterial properties, particularly against foodborne pathogens,⁶⁹ there is limited information available about antibacterial properties of LEOs against phytopathogenic and food spoilage bacteria. The antibacterial activity of LEOs reported by researchers is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 Potential of essential oils derived from Lavandula species against foodborne bacterial pathogens

Lavandula species	Bacterial pathogens	Sources	Effective doses	Country	References
L. angustifolia	Listeria innocua, Pseudomonas fluorescens, and Escherichia coli	Fish	Applied in biodegradable films	Spain	70
L. angustifolia	Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli	Ostrich meat	2% EO in coating	Iran	71
L. angustifolia	Yersinia ruckeri, Aeromonas hydrophila, and Vibrio anguillarum	Fish	MIC: 62.5–500 μl mL^−1	Turkey	72
L. angustifolia	Bacillus subtilis, S. aureus, E. coli, and P. aeruginosa	Food pathogens	MIC: 0.4–4.5 mg mL^−1	Poland	36
L. officinalis	Aeromonas hydrophila, Lactococcus garvieae, and Vagococcus salmoninarum	Fish	MIC: 500–62.5 μl mL^−1	Turkey	73
L. stoechas	E. coli, L. monocytogenes, and Salmonella typhimurium	Common foodborne pathogens	MIC: 5–80 μl mL^−1	Turkey	74
L. angustifolia	Pseudomonas spp. and Enterobacteriaceae	Chicken	0.2% EO in vacuum packaging	Slovakia	75
L. angustifolia	E. coli and L. monocytogenes	Chicken	0.4 ml L^−1 in drinking water	Poland	76
L. stoechas	Pseudomonas spp. and Enterobacteriaceae	Poultry meat	100–200 ppm EO	Tunisia	77
L. angustifolia	L. monocytogenes and S. typhimurium	Common foodborne pathogens	MIC: 62.5 ml mL^−1	Turkey	74
L. angustifolia	E. coli	Pork sausages	(0.2%)	Seria	78
L. stoechas	E. carotovora	Causing potato soft rot	MIC: 5–10 μl mL^−1	Greece	79
L. angustifolia	Total mesophilic microorganisms	Cucumber	100–200 ml L^−1 of EO vapor	Greece	80
L. hybrida	E. coli, S. aureus, and B. cereus	Pathogenic food-borne bacteria	MIC: 0.25–0.5 mg mL^−1	Spain	81
L. angustifolia	S. aureus and E. coli	Food-borne bacteria	MIC: 0.16–20 mg mL^−1	Poland	82
L. angustifolia	S. aureus and E. coli	Cake	600 ppm EO	Egypt	83
L. stoechas	E. coli	Milk	59.4%	Tunisia	84
L. stoechas	S. aureus	Milk	6.8%	Tunisia	85
L. angustifolia	Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Bifidobacterium bifidum	Fermented milk and Yogurt	1–3% EO	Iran	86
L. angustifolia	Pseudomonas savastanoi	General food pathogens	3000 mg mL^−1 and 4000 mg mL^−1	Algeria	49
L. angustifolia	E. coli, S. aureus, S. abony, P. aeruginosa, and B. subtilis	Chocolate	MIC: 62.5–125 ml mL^−1	Italy	87
L. angustifolia	S. aureus and P. aeruginosa	General food pathogens	MIC: 0.25 ml mL^−1	South Africa	88
L. angustifolia	S. aureus, E. coli, and L. monocytogenes	Cherry tomatoes	50–300 ml/10 mL in nano-emulsions	China	89
L. officinalis	Aerobic Mesophilic Bacteria, and Psychotropic bacteria	Lamb meat	3% (W/W)	Turkey	90
L. angustifolia	Pseudomonas tolaasii	Button mushroom	0.1–0.4%	Netherlands	91
L. angustifolia	S. aureus, E. coli, B. subtilis, and Staphylococcus epidermidis, P. aeruginosa, and S. enterica sub sp. enterica	—	MIC: 17–97 μg mL^−1	Bosnia	33
L. officinalis	E. coli and S. aureus	General food pathogens	MIC: 1000–1200 ppm	Argentina	92
L. x intermedia, L. angustifolia	S. enterica	Food pathogens	MIC≥ 10.0 μl mL^−1	Italy	93
L. angustifolia	E. coli and S. aureus	Beef	MIC 0.25 μl mL^−1	Algeria	94

---

3.1. Antibacterial efficacy of free LEOs

Free LEOs have been extensively studied for their antibacterial activity. Researchers have demonstrated that LEOs exhibit broad-spectrum antibacterial properties, effectively inhibiting the growth of both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.⁹⁵ These properties have been confirmed through various studies showing significant antibacterial effects against a range of pathogens. For instance, LEOs exhibited potent antibacterial activity against fish pathogenic bacteria isolated from olive flounder.⁷³ The study demonstrated that LEOs were effective in inhibiting both Gram-negative (Aeromonas sobria, Aeromonas caviae, Aeromonas hydrophila, Vibrio anguillarum, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Yersinia ruckeri, Edwardsiella tarda, Lactococcus garvieae, and Vagococcus salmoninarum) and Gram-positive (Staphylococcus warneri) bacteria, highlighting their potential as natural antibacterial agents in aquaculture. A similar study by Walasek-Janusz et al.⁸² highlighted the antimicrobial activity of L. angustifolia crude oil against bacteria and yeast and concluded that LEOs showed antibacterial properties with MICs ranging from 2.5–10 mg mL⁻¹ against tested microorganisms. In addition to their antimicrobial properties, free LEOs also exhibit strong antioxidant activities,⁸² further enhancing their utility in food preservation. The presence of phenolic compounds such as rosmarinic acid and caffeic acid in free LEOs contributes to their ability to scavenge free radicals and reduce oxidative stress.

In another study, L. angustifolia EO was shown to inhibit the growth of E. coli, S. aureus and P. aeruginosa, with average MICs of 3.33, 1.33 and 42.67 μl mL⁻¹ respectively.⁹⁶ Similarly, L. latifolia EO rich in camphor and 1,8-cineole exhibits significant antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes at 2.5 and 5 mg mL⁻¹, respectively.⁹⁷ The antibacterial efficacy of LEOs is primarily attributed to their major constituents, such as linalool, linalyl acetate, camphor, and 1,8-cineole, which possess strong antimicrobial properties.⁹⁸ Few studies investigated the mode of action of LEO against bacterial cells. For instance, in the study by Benbrahim et al.,⁹⁹ L. dentata EO caused disruption of cell organelles of K. pneumoniae (Fig. 2). According to Benbrahim et al.,⁹⁹ the antibacterial efficacy of LEOs is largely due to their ability to disrupt microbial cell membranes, which leads to leakage of cellular contents and eventual cell death.

Fig. 2 Images showing the impact of L. dentata EO on the cell membrane and cell organelles of Klebsiella pneumoniae, A-bacterial cells of the control and B-bacterial cells treated with L. dentata EO showing disruption of cell membrane cell organelles (indicated with red arrow). Adopted with permission from Benbrahim et al.⁹⁹.

In a study, Speranza et al.¹⁰⁰ reported that LEOs showed strong antibacterial activity against L. monocytogenes and Salmonella enterica, two common pathogens in food products, with MICs as low as 0.3 μl mL⁻¹. Another study carried out by Salavati Hamedani et al.⁹⁸ demonstrated that LEOs effectively inhibit the growth of common foodborne pathogens such as E. coli, S. aureus, L. monocytogenes, B. cereus, and S. typhi. The oils caused significant leakage of intracellular components, leading to bacterial cell death even in the absence of linalool and linalyl acetate, compounds often thought to be key to Lavandula EOs' antibacterial properties. This ability to target multiple pathogens makes LEOs highly versatile as natural preservatives. In addition, Carrasco et al.¹⁶ found that the high linalool content in L. angustifolia EOs (37–54%) contributes to its broad-spectrum antibacterial activity by disrupting the integrity of microbial membranes, thus inhibiting the growth of bacterial pathogens involved in food spoilage.

Similarly, Benaiche et al.¹⁰¹ found that LEOs exhibited strong antibacterial effects against P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, pathogens known to contribute to foodborne illnesses. In this study, the EOs were especially effective in inhibiting P. aeruginosa growth, a notorious bacterium responsible for spoiling perishable foods. The study revealed that the MIC of L. angustifolia EO was as low as 0.3 μl mL⁻¹, demonstrating significant potential as a food preservative. These findings underscore the potential of LEOs as natural antibacterial agents against foodborne pathogens, offering a safer alternative to synthetic antibiotics. In particular, Gram-positive bacteria are more susceptible towards EOs than Gram-negative bacteria. The cell membrane of Gram-negative bacteria contains hydrophilic lipopolysaccharides that acts as a barrier to macromolecules and hydrophobic compounds, thus providing enhanced tolerance to hydrophobic antimicrobial compounds such as those found in EOs.¹⁰² Therefore, it is difficult to predict the susceptibility of microorganisms to EOs due to broad genetic variations among species.

Although LEOs are well-known for their antimicrobial properties, some studies have shown that their efficacy can sometimes be lower than that of other EOs. For instance, in a study, Sienkiewicz et al.¹⁰³ evaluated the antibacterial activities of LEOs and Thyme vulgaris EOs against 120 bacterial strains, and reported LEOs had lower efficacy than T. vulgaris EO screened against P. aeruginosa. Thyme oil exhibited significantly stronger antibacterial effects against Staphylococcus, Enterococcus, Escherichia, and Pseudomonas genera, making it a more potent option for food preservation and safety applications. In another similar study, Rota et al.¹⁰⁴ specifically found L. angustifolia and L. latifolia EOs to be less effective than thyme (T. vulgaris L), and savory (Satureja montana L.) EOs in combating foodborne pathogens such as Salmonella enteritidis, S. typhimurium, Yersinia enterocolitica, E. coli, L. monocytogenes, Shigella flexneri, and S. aureus. They evaluated several EOs such as EOs from T. vulgaris from Spain and France, Salvia sclarea, S. officinalis, S. lavandulifolia, L. latifolia, L. angustifolia, three hybrids of L. latifolia × L. angustifolia (Lavandin ‘Super’, Lavandin ‘Abrialis’, and Lavandin ‘Grosso’), Rosmarinus officinalis, Hyssopus officinalis, and S. montana. In each experiment, thyme EO showed more antibacterial activity than LEOs against all the test pathogens at lower concentrations. The variation in efficacy of LEOs and thyme EO may be due to variations in their chemical constituents as well as their origin. Furthermore, in cases where LEOs possess poor efficacy, their synergistic application with other EOs can be recommended as antibacterial agents against foodborne pathogens.

3.2. Antibacterial efficacy of encapsulated LEOs

In recent years, encapsulation techniques have revolutionized the application of EOs as antimicrobial agents in food systems or crop protection by overcoming their inherent limitations, such as volatility, low solubility, and sensitivity to environmental factors.¹⁰⁵ Nanoencapsulation, spray-drying, cyclodextrin encapsulation, and double-layer encapsulation techniques offer controlled release, improved stability, and targeted effects against harmful microorganisms in food systems.¹⁰⁶ The different techniques used for the encapsulation of EOs are summarized in Fig. 3 and have been discussed in our previous reviews.^107,108 Among these techniques, nanoencapsulation stands out for enhancing bioavailability and antimicrobial efficacy, as demonstrated by polymeric nanocapsules loaded with carvacrol and thymol, which exhibited superior bactericidal activity and stability over 20 days.¹⁰⁹ Spray-drying methods, employing protective matrices such as maltodextrin, have shown to stabilize thyme EO, significantly extending its antimicrobial properties in meat products.¹¹⁰ Cyclodextrin inclusion complexes provide another approach, with hydroxypropyl β-cyclodextrin encapsulation ensuring controlled EO release and sustained antimicrobial effects.¹¹¹ Double-layer encapsulation, combining proteins and polysaccharides, has been successful in protecting pink pepper EO and enhancing its bioactivity in dairy matrices.¹¹² High-frequency ultrasound emulsification produces stable microemulsions, effectively delivering antimicrobial action against pathogens like Listeria monocytogenes and E. coli.¹¹³ These encapsulation strategies not only preserve the functional properties of EOs but also enhance their controlled release and applicability as natural food preservatives. LEOs have also been encapsulated using these techniques to determine their effectiveness against harmful organisms that degrade food commodities/crops.

Fig. 3 Images showing scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) images of Monilinia fructicola, a fruit rot pathogen exposed to LEO (800 μL L⁻¹). A and C are control sets, B and D are treated colonies showing abnormal cell structure in SEM and damage of cell membrane and cellular organelles in TEM analysis, respectively (Adopted with permission from Xiong et al.¹³⁵).

In many studies, encapsulated LEOs in various emulsion/particle systems have shown greater efficacy against foodborne bacteria than the LEOs used in crude form. For instance, encapsulated L. latifolia EOs exhibited enhanced antibacterial activity against L. monocytogenes compared to the crude oil.⁹⁷ The study found that the encapsulated form was more effective in disrupting bacterial cell membranes and inhibiting cell growth, highlighting the potential of encapsulation to improve the bioavailability and efficacy of LEOs. In addition, Yuan et al.¹¹⁴ in their investigation found that encapsulated L. angustifolia EOs in alginate beads with 1.316 g hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin which provided a controlled release of linalool and linalyl acetate, resulting in a sustained antibacterial effect against B. cereus and S. typhimurium.

A study by Türkoğlu et al.¹¹⁵ explored the antibacterial efficacy of encapsulated L. angustifolia EO with bead sizes of 2.2 μm and 5.2 μm and found that it was more potent than the crude EO against E. coli and S. aureus. The encapsulation in these forms was not only effective in inhibiting bacterial growth but also demonstrated potential for use as an antibacterial agent due to its sustained release properties. Another study carried out by Balasubramanian and Kodam¹¹⁶ encapsulated L. angustifolia EO in electrolyte-assisted polyacrylonitrile nanofibers. The encapsulated EO, with 88.44 nm bead size and concentrations ranging from 12.5 to 200 μg mL⁻¹, exhibited potential growth inhibition (14–15 mm zone of inhibition) against S. aureus and Klebsiella pneumoniae. This method of encapsulation significantly enhanced the antibacterial properties of LEOs. Additionally, Silva et al.¹¹⁷ demonstrated the encapsulation of L. latifolia EO in gelatin nanoparticles with an average bead size of 100 nm and a concentration of 500 μg mL⁻¹. The study showed significant antibacterial activity against S. aureus, highlighting the potential of this encapsulation method in enhancing the antimicrobial properties of EOs. Encapsulated LEOs also offer controlled release properties, allowing for a sustained and gradual release of active compounds over time. This controlled release mechanism ensures a prolonged antibacterial effect, which is particularly beneficial in food preservation. The controlled release system not only enhance the antibacterial efficacy but also minimize the sensory impact on food products, making it a promising approach for natural food preservation. Additionally, the literature on the efficacy of encapsulated LEOs against phytopathogenic bacteria hampering food crops is limited and needs further exploration in future research.

4. Use of LEOs as antifungal agents against food pathogens

Food commodities are also affected by several groups of fungi during preharvest and postharvest stages. The major fungal communities responsible for the biodeterioration of food commodities and field crops are described in our previous review.¹⁰² During infection, these pathogenic fungi also produce mycotoxins and render food unhealthy for consumption.^118,119 In tropical climates fungal infection of food and foodstuffs is a major problem due to high humidity. Fungal infections deteriorate both quality and quantity of produce and losses have been estimated up to 60% worldwide.⁵⁹ By affecting quality, fungal pathogens reduce the nutrient content of food commodities, e.g. proteins in pulses.¹²⁰ During infection process, fungi also produce various types of mycotoxins depending upon the commodities, which can lead to famines in developing countries.¹²¹ In this regard, food contamination by Alternaria, Penicillium, Aspergillus, Rhizopus, and Fusarium spp. is of great significance because of the related health hazards and other environmental problems.¹²² Hence, prevention of fungal growth by EOs during storage and transit as well as at the field level could be a cost-effective approach to reduce economic losses of food commodities. Worldwide, the antifungal potential of LEOs and other EOs is increasingly considered as important.^123–126 From time to time many investigations have focused on studying the antifungal activity of LEOs both in their crude and encapsulation forms against fungal pathogens infecting various food commodities/crops. Some of the potential findings are discussed below.

4.1. Fungitoxic activity of free LEOs

The LEOs also exhibit notable antifungal activities, making them effective against various fungal pathogens that contaminate food products and infect field crops.^58,107,108 The previously published research papers on LEOs revealed that they have potential fungitoxic activity against a wide range of fungal pathogens causing food contamination and mycotoxin development. Studies have demonstrated that LEOs can inhibit the growth and proliferation of fungi such as Aspergillus niger, Penicillium expansum, and Fusarium oxysporum infecting food commodities during storage.¹²⁷ Another study found that the crude oil of L. stoechas exhibited strong antifungal activity against Candida albicans and Aspergillus niger.¹²⁸ In one study, 60 μL of EO derived from L. stoechas L. ssp. stoechas was effective against Rhizoctonia solani and Fusarium oxysporum, while less effective against A. flavus.¹²⁹ While in another study, L. stoechas subsp. luisieri EO showed strong fungitoxicity against all pathogens infecting strawberries fruits including A. carbonarius, Rhizopus stolonifer, Penicillium brevicompactum, Aureobasidium pullulans, and Saccothecium rubi, with MIC and MFC values ranging from 0.07–0.29 μl mL⁻¹ and 0.58–9.33 μl mL⁻¹, respectively.¹³⁰

Some important references on the antifungal activity of LEOs against fungal pathogens infecting food and food products/commodities are summarized in Table 3. As summarized in this table, the majority of studies showed that the potential antifungal activity of LEOs may be attributed due to presence of linalool, linalyl acetate, camphor, and 1,8-cineole.¹³⁰ The study also revealed that the higher concentrations of 1,8-cineole and camphor present in the crude oil disrupt fungal cell wall synthesis and inhibit spore germination, thereby reducing fungal proliferation. For instance, Xiong et al.¹³⁵ reported that LEO effectively inhibited the growth of Monilinia fructicola by damaging their cell walls and membranes. Later, Soylu et al.¹⁰⁸ also revealed that exposure of Botrytis cinerea infecting tomatoes to L. stoechas EO at 25.6 μg mL⁻¹ caused considerable morphological degeneration of the fungal hyphae such as vacuolations, cytoplasmic coagulation, hyphal shriveling and protoplast leakage and loss of conidiation (Fig. 4). In addition, recent reports showed that LEOs also interfere with protein synthesis and energy metabolism in fungal pathogens, e.g., Fu et al.¹⁶² found that treatment of Ustilaginoidea virens, an infectious agent responsible for rice false smut disease, with LEO resulted in the downregulation of genes related to cell wall synthesis, cell membrane synthesis, protein synthesis, and the energy metabolism pathway.

Table 3 Potential of essential oils derived from Lavandula species against fungal pathogens deteriorating food commodities/crops

Lavandula species	Target fungal species	Source	Effective doses	Origin	References
L. officinalis	Penicillium expansum and Botrytis cinerea	Apples	1% EO	Italy	131
L. angustifolia	P. expansum and P. crustosum	Meat ball	500 μl L^−1	Slovakia	132
L. angustifolia	Aspergillus niger and Penicillium spp.	Bread dough	2.5%	Bulgaria	133
L. angustifolia	P. expansum, P. crustosum, and Aspergillus flavus	Bread	125–500 μl L^−1	Slovakia	134
L. angustifolia	A. niger and P. expansum	Food pathogens	0.4 to 4.5 μg mL^−1	Poland	36
L. angustifolia	Monilinia fructicola	Flat peaches	800 μl L^−1	China	135
L. angustifolia	M. fructicola	Apricots	1%	Pakistan	136
L. angustifolia	P. chrysogenum, Fusarium moniliforme, A. niger, and A. flavus	Chocolate	MIC: 62.5–125 lL mL^−1	Italy	87
L. stoechas	B. cinerea	Tomato	1.6 μg mL^−1 air	Turkey	137
L. stoechas	P. infestans	Late blight in tomato	12.8–51.2 μg mL^−1	Turkey	138
L. angustifolia	A.nidulans, Leptosphaeria maculans and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum	Agricultural fungi	MIC: 0.5–2.0 μl mL^−1	Australia	127
L. angustifolia	Verticillium fungicola	Causing dry bubble in mushrooms	0.5–1 mg cm^−3	Poland	139
L. angustifolia	Pseudomonas tolaasii	Button mushroom	70% aqueous solution	Iran	140
L. stoechas subsp.Stoechas	P. infestans	Late blight disease in tomato	0.4–2.0 μg mL^−1 air	Turkey	141
Lavender	M. perniciosa	Button mushroom	2000 μl L^−1	Iran	142
L. stoechas	Cladobotryum sp.	Causing cobweb disease in mushrooms	1.6 μg mL^−1 air concentration	Serbia	143
L. angustifolia	Phoma exigua var.foveata	Causing potato gangrene	0.1–0.4%	Russia	144
L. angustifolia	B. cinerea, S. sclerotiorum, F. oxysporum, Phytophthora parasitica, Pythium aphanidermatum, Alternaria brassicae, Cladobotryum mycophilum, and Trichoderma aggressivum f.sp. europaeum	Vegetables and button mushroom	5–32 μl mL^−1	Spain	145
L. angustifolia	Colletotrichum nymphaeae	Strawberry anthracnose	EC50: 12.97 ppm (mycelial inhibition)	Iran	146
L. viridis	Cryptococcus neoformans	Agricultural fungi	MIC 0.32–0.64 μl mL^−1	Portugal	147,148
L. angustifolia	A. niger and A. tubingensis	Grapes	0.313 μL cm^−3	Slovakia	149
L. × hybrid	Botrytis cinerea	Grey mold in grapes	Vapors at 50 kPa reduced 65%	Italy	150
L. angustifolia	Epicoccum nigrum	Sugarcane, potatoes, and marine plant	MIC: 10.0 to 100.0 μl mL^−1	Serbia	151
L. stoechas	Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. radicis-cucumerinum	Cucumber	MIC: 0.125–1 μl mL^−1	Turkey	152
L. angustifolia	P. brevicompactum, P. citrinum, P. crustosum, P. expansum and P. griseofulvum	Stored fruits and vegetables	2.5, 1.5, 3.5, 3.0, and 3.25 μl mL^−1	Slovakia	153
L. angustifolia	A. niger and A. flavus	Cereal grains, legumes, and tree nuts	0.52 to 1.00 mg mL^−1	South Korea	154
L. officinalis	Monilinia laxa and B. cinerea	Stone fruits	1% EO	Italy	155
L. angustifolia	Rhizopus stolonifer, B. cinerea, and Aspergillus niger	Pathogenic fungi	EC50 (311.24 ppm)	Iran	156
L. angustifolia	Fusarium roseum	Pathogenic fungi	MIC: 3000 μg mL^−1	Algeria	49
L. angustifolia	Eurotium amstelodami, E. herbariorum, E. repens, E. rubrum, A. flavus, A. niger, and Penicillium corylophilum	Bakery products	MIC: 500 μl L^−1	Slovakia	157
L. angustifolia	C. cladosporioides	Lesions on berries	625 μl L^−1 air	Slovakia	158
L. angusti folia	Verticillium fungicola and Trichoderma harzianum	Button mushroom	0.1–0.4%	Netherlands	91
L. angustifolia	B. cinerea	Strawberry	0.125–0.25 g per plate or sachet	Thailand	159
L. angustifolia	B. cinerea	Grey mold in grapes	0.125–0.25 g in alginate beads	Thailand	160
L. angustifolia	Colletotrichum gloeosporioides	Avocado anthracnose	0.05–0.2% EO	USA	161

---

Fig. 4 Outline of the most common LEO delivery systems, materials used, fabrication techniques, and applications in food/crop protection.

Aside from their antifungal mode of action, LEOs have also shown inhibition of mycotoxin production in food commodities. For example, L. angustifolia EO was found to be effective in reducing mycotoxin production by A. flavus.¹⁶³ In their another study,¹⁶⁴ LEO was found to be less effective than thyme, clove, oregano, cinnamon and lemongrass in inhibiting mycotoxin production in bread samples by four strains of Aspergillus (A. flavus, A. parasiticus, A. ochraceus and A. westerdijkiae). Similar results were reported by Hlebová et al.¹⁶⁵ who found that L. angustifolia EO had a less toxic effect than cinnamon bark, lemongrass, and litsea EOs which were able to significantly inhibit the growth, sporulation, and mycotoxin production by toxigenic A. ochraceus and A. parasiticus. In the same line, LEO was less effective than star anise EO at 0.5 μl g⁻¹ against A. flavus and A. parasiticus causing aflatoxin production in sorghum and peanut.¹⁶⁶ Conversely, LEO completely inhibited the mycotoxin production and proliferation of Penicillium digitatum in lemon fruits at 350 μL per air and was found more effective than mint and basil EOs.¹⁶⁷ The study attributed this effect to the high levels of linalool and linalyl acetate in the crude oil, which inhibited the enzyme activities involved in mycotoxin biosynthesis. The variation in efficacy might be due to variation in the chemical constituents of EOs or the origin of fungal strains. Furthermore, where LEOs show poor effectiveness, their synergistic application in food systems to prevent mycotoxin contamination/production should be adopted. These findings highlight the potential of LEOs as natural antifungal agents in food preservation, offering an alternative to synthetic fungicides that are often associated with health and environmental concerns.

4.2. Fungitoxic activity of encapsulated LEOs

As previously described, encapsulation enhances the antifungal activity of EOs by providing a controlled release mechanism and protecting the active compounds from degradation. Encapsulated LEOs offer several advantages over their crude form, particularly in terms of improving their antifungal efficacy and application in food preservation. Researchers encapsulated LEOs including L. angustifolia and L. latifolia EOs in various forms to enhance their antifungal properties against pathogens infecting food commodities/crops. One decade ago, Soylu et al.¹⁰⁸ focused their study on L. angustifolia encapsulated oil with MIC values ranging from 0.32–0.64 μl mL⁻¹, which exhibited significant antifungal activity against B. cinerea, infecting tomato. Previously, Inouye et al.¹⁶⁸ also highlighted the encapsulated oil's inhibitory effects on A. fumigatus showcasing its broad-spectrum antifungal potential. The oils were composed of 3 groups. The first group included citron (Citrus medica L), LEO and tea tree oils (Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze). The 2nd group consisted of perilla (Perilla frutescens (L.) Britt.) and lemongrass oils (Cymbopogon citratus DC. Stapf.) and the third group consisted of cinnamon bark (Cinnamomum verum J.S. Presl) and thyme oil (Thymus vulgaris L).

In 2020, Hammoudi et al.¹⁶⁹ developed alginate–montmorillonite nanocomposite films incorporating LEOs. These films exhibited potent antifungal activity against common pathogenic fungi such as B. cinerea and Alternaria alternata infecting fruits and vegetables. The encapsulated LEOs provided sustained release and improved antifungal efficacy.¹⁶⁹ Another study by Fagundes et al.¹⁷⁰ tested the antifungal activity of food additives, including LEOs, in hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC)-lipid edible coatings. The coatings were effective in reducing fungal growth on cherry tomatoes, highlighting the potential of encapsulated LEOs in food preservation, because the antifungal properties of LEOs are preserved over a longer period, making them more effective in food preservation. The nanoemulsions provided a protective barrier around the oil droplets, preventing the loss of volatile compounds and maintaining their efficacy. The controlled release system not only enhanced the antifungal efficacy but also minimized the sensory impact on food products, making it a promising approach for natural food preservation.

5. Potential of LEOs in preservation of food commodities

A significant number of studies have been conducted on the potential applications of LEOs in food preservation, either in their free form or encapsulated, due to their potent antimicrobial and antioxidant properties. The active components of these oils, particularly linalool, linalyl acetate, and camphor, have been shown to combat foodborne pathogens and prevent oxidative degradation of food products. As consumers move toward more natural preservatives, these LEOs have emerged as effective alternatives to synthetic preservatives. LEOs exhibit both antibacterial and antifungal effects, helping to protect food products and perishables from microbial contamination while extending their shelf life.

In 2018, Blažeković et al.³⁷ demonstrated the potential of L. angustifolia EO against Candida albicans and food spoilage bacteria and reported that the EO showed a broad-spectrum of antibacterial (MICs 0.25–2.5 mg mL⁻¹) and antifungal (MICs 0.1–2 mg mL⁻¹) activities. The EO was able to inhibit spore germination and fungal growth, highlighting its potential use in controlling fungal spoilage in food products. Similarly, another study by Al-Ansari et al.⁴⁵ explored the antifungal activity of L. latifolia EO against Trichophyton mentagrophytes, a major fruit-spoliating fungus in custard apple. The results revealed that L. latifolia EO, which is rich in camphor and 1,8-cineole, exhibited a strong fungicidal effect, with an MIC value of 0.125 μg mL⁻¹. In another study, Sun et al.⁸⁹ used LEO nano-emulsions in the range of 50–300 μl/10 mL incorporated into gelatine films and found strong antibacterial effects against food spoilage bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Listeria monocytogenes. Applied to cherry tomatoes, the films effectively extended shelf life for over 7 days at 25 °C by reducing weight loss, delaying acid and phenolic component degradation, and suppressing microbial growth, indicating improved preservation compared to untreated controls.

The antifungal food preservative properties of Lavandula EO were further supported by Kahramanoğlu et al.,¹⁷¹ who studied the effects of L. angustifolia EO on B. cinerea, the fungus responsible for gray mold in strawberries. In an in vivo vapor application, L. angustifolia EO significantly reduced the severity of fungal infections while maintaining the fruits' weight and sugar contents during storage. They also found that strawberries treated with L. angustifolia EO showed a 50% reduction in mold growth compared to untreated fruits, which contributed to a significant increase in their shelf life. Untreated strawberries typically developed mold within 4 to 5 days, while those treated with LEO remained mold-free for an additional 5 to 7 days, thereby extending the total shelf life to around 10–12 days. This finding suggests that LEOs are effective natural alternatives to synthetic fungicides, especially in the preservation of high-moisture fruits.

The use of LEOs in food preservation is further enhanced by their incorporation into active packaging materials. A study conducted in 2023 (ref. 172) explored the application of LEO as a treatment for packaging paper, showing its effectiveness in extending the shelf life of packaged food items by preventing microbial spoilage. In this study, LEO-treated paper exhibited a 60–90% reduction in microbial growth within the first two hours, maintaining its effectiveness for up to 120 hours. The EO was particularly effective against S. aureus, B. cereus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, Salmonella abony, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Aspergillus brasiliensis, and Fusarium moniliforme, making it a promising solution for food preservation in biodegradable and eco-friendly packaging materials. In another study, Tancinova et al.¹⁵⁸ demonstrated that EOs from the Lamiaceae family, including L. angustifolia, significantly inhibited the growth of Cladosporium cladosporioides, a common pathogen responsible for post-harvest spoilage of berries. The study revealed that the application of L. angustifolia EO could extend the shelf life of fruits by inhibiting fungal growth by up to 100% during the 14-day cultivation period, compared to the control group, which showed complete fungal colonization and spoilage during this time. Such applications align with the growing consumer demand for natural preservatives and eco-friendly packaging solutions in the food industry.

Furthermore, Caprari et al.¹⁷³ investigated the effect of L. angustifolia EO on the shelf life of stored apples. The results indicated that the application of LEOs delayed the onset of fungal spoilage by 30% to 50% compared to the control group. While untreated apples developed fungal infections within 14 days of storage, the lavender-treated apples remained mold-free for an additional 7–10 days, significantly prolonging their shelf life. Thus, these LEOs can be used for the fabrication of botanical fungicides for the safe storage of food commodities. However, before making recommendations, their large-scale evaluation at the warehouse/at field level is required.

6. Use of LEOs as insecticidal agents in food commodities/crops

Food commodities/crops are deteriorated by several insects during storage and pre-harvest, as noted by Gupta et al.¹⁷⁴ Crops infested with insect pests have undergone significant changes since the dawn of the 21st century due to technological and ecological changes. While the numbers of many insect pests have declined, there has been an increase in the prevalence of other insect pests, including mealy bugs, particularly Phenacoccus solenopsis Tinsley, Spodoptera litura Fab., Callosobruchus species, diamond back moths, Plutella xylostella L., and Tribolium species, on various food crops or in stored grains. Globally, 40–80% crop losses have been estimated due to infestation by insect pests at both the field and storage levels.¹⁷⁵ Plant-based insecticides have become more popular in food crops due to the health hazards associated with synthetic insecticides used extensively for crop protection and post-harvest grain storage. There is no doubt that plant-based botanical insecticides are among the most promising, eco-friendly, and sustainable approaches for controlling insect pests on food crops. Since insect pests have developed resistance to commercial insecticides, EO-based botanicals developed from many aromatic plants have been evaluated as potential sources of repellents, ovicides, antifeedants, and insecticides to control insect pests.¹⁷⁶ In this section, we have summarized the efficacy of LEOs against insect pests under both storage and field conditions. The insecticidal activity of LEOs is well-supported by numerous studies compiled in Table 4.

Table 4 Potential of essential oils derived from Lavender species against insect pests

Lavandula species	Target insect pests	Sources	Effective doses	Country	References
L. angustifolia	Sitophilus zeamais	Maize, cereals	200 μl kg^−1	Cameroon	177
L. angustifolia	Tribolium castaneum, Rhyzopertha dominica, and Trogoderma granarium	Flour, grains, cereals	2–6%	Pakistan	178
L. angustifolia	T. castaneum, Sitophilus oryzae, Stegobium paniceum, and Plodia interpunctella	Cereals	100–300 μl g^−1	India	179
L. angustifolia	T. castaneum, Sitophilus granarius, and Oryzaephilus surinamensis	Stored cereals, dried fruits, and flour	42.51–374.16 μl L^−1 air	Iran	180
L.angustifolia	Sternechus pinguis and Rhyssomatus subtilis	Soybean plants	0.40–1 μl cm^−2	Argentina	181
L. angustifolia	Plutella xylostella and Cotesia glomerata	Cruciferous vegetables, including cabbage and broccoli	1–6 g L^−1	South Korea	182
L.angustifolia	Xanthogaleruca luteola	Elm tree leaves	287.5 ppm	Iran	183
L. angustifolia	Sitophilus granaries	Wheat, barley, and rye	0.449 mg per adult (contact toxicity)	Italy	29
L. angustifolia	S. oryzae	Stored rice, wheat, barley	6 mg cm^−2 (contact toxicity	Saudi Arabia	184
L. angustifolia	Ceratitis capitata	Citrus, stone fruits, and other soft fruits	0.1 μL per fly (topical application)	Italy	185
L. angustifolia	C. capitata	Citrus, stone fruits, and other soft fruits	0.1 μL per fly (topical application)	Italy	185
L. angustifolia	Tribolium confusum	Flour, stored grains, and cereal products	Various	Algeria	186
L. angustifolia	Plodia interpunctella	Dry food products, grains, and cereals	LD50 22.8 μg cm^−2 (contact toxicity)	Argentina	187
L. latifolia	Drosophila suzukii	Soft fruits such as strawberries, cherries, and blueberries	EC50 3.79 μL oil per L air (fumigation)	Canada	188
L. angustifolia	Rhipicephalus annulatus	Cattle	0.5–8% w/v (acaricidal)	Iran	189
L. angustifolia	Euphoria leucographa	Beetle larvae feed on crop roots	EC50 0.37% (fumigation	Saudi Arabia	45
L. angustifolia	Ephestia kuehniella	Stored flour and grains	225 μl per L air (fumigation)	Turkey	190
L. angustifolia	Acanthoscelides obtectus	Bean seeds	13.33–106.66 μl per L air (fumigation)	Algeria	191
L. angustifolia	Callosobruchus chinensis, and C. maculatus	Cowpeas, mung beans, and other legumes	0.5–1% (contact toxicity)	Egypt	192
L. stoechas	Tetranychus cinnabarinus	Tomatoes, cucumbers, beans, and other greenhouse crops	LC50: 2.92 μg mL^−1	Turkey	193
L. angustifolia	S. granaries	Wheat, barley, oats	LC50: 1.5 mg L^−1, LC90: 4.1 mg L^−1	Italy	194
L. spica	T. confusum	Flour, stored grains	LC50: 19.5 μL per L air	Algeria	195
L. angustifolia	S. oryzae		100% mortality at 6 mg cm^−2	Saudi Arabia	196
L. angustifolia	S. granarius	Wheat, barley, oats	LC50: 1.5 mg L^−1 without wheat, 10.9 mg L^−1 with wheat	Italy	197

---

A study by Al-Ansar et al.⁴⁵ evaluated the insecticidal activity of L. latifolia EO. The research revealed that gamma-terpinene, camphor, and 1,8-cineole were the predominant components, contributing to the oil's efficacy against Euphoria leucographa Gory and Percheron, a pest affecting custard apple fruit. The EO exhibited strong contact toxicity and fumigant activity, with an effective concentration (EC₅₀) value of 0.37%, highlighting its potential as a natural insecticide. L. angustifolia EO has also demonstrated efficacy against the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris.¹⁹⁸ The investigators conducted fumigation tests that showed increased mortality rates of aphids with higher concentrations of the oil (Table 4). The major components, including linalool and linalyl acetate, played a crucial role in achieving an LC₅₀ value of 11.2 μl L⁻¹ of air. The study emphasized the importance of the complete mixture of constituents for maximum toxicity, suggesting the potential of L. angustifolia oil as a bioinsecticide.

Furthermore, the combined use of 1.14 and 1.7 μl L⁻¹ air of L. angustifolia EO with 200 Gy gamma irradiation was explored for controlling the Mediterranean flour moth, Ephestia kuehniella Zeller. In this regard, Zallaghi and Ahmadi¹⁹⁹ found that the combination treatment significantly increased mortality rates and reduced growth rates compared to treatments with either the oil or gamma radiation alone. The results suggest a synergistic effect, enhancing the insecticidal efficacy of L. angustifolia EOs.²⁰⁰ In addition to direct insecticidal effects, LEOs can enhance the efficacy of conventional insecticides when used together. In this regard, Faraone et al.²⁰⁰ investigated the synergistic effects of L. angustifolia and T. vulgaris EOs with imidacloprid and spirotetramat against the green peach aphid, Myzus persicae Sulzer. The effective dose for the EOs in the study was approximately 0.3% v/v for both LEO and thyme EOs. The study revealed that L. angustifolia EO significantly enhanced the toxicity of imidacloprid, indicating the potential for using EOs to reduce the required doses of synthetic insecticides.

Lavandula angustifolia EO has also been found to be effective against the lesser mulberry pyralid, Glyphodes pyloalis Walker.²⁰² Yazdani et al.²⁰¹ reported that the major constituents of LEO, such as borneol and linalool, significantly reduced the total protein, carbohydrate, and lipid contents in the larvae of G. pyloalis, impacting their growth and development. The study highlighted the potential of L. angustifolia EO as a natural insect growth regulator. Moreover, the insecticidal activity of L. angustifolia EO against the rice weevil, Sitophilus oryzae L., has also been investigated by Al-Harbi et al.¹⁹⁶ who demonstrated that the EO caused 100% mortality at a concentration of 6 mg cm⁻² within 24 hours of exposure. The study also noted a significant upregulation of detoxification and cytochrome P450 genes, indicating the impact of EOs on the metabolic pathways of the insect.

Besides, Germinara et al.²⁰³ evaluated the contact and fumigant toxicity of L. angustifolia EO against the granary weevil, Sitophilus granarius. The study found that the major components of the EO, including linalool and 1,8-cineole, provided significant protection against the pest, suggesting its use as a natural preservative for stored grains. Furthermore, LEOs have shown potential in integrated pest management programs. Modarres Najafabadi¹⁷⁵ conducted a comparative study on the acaricidal activities of EOs from various plants, including L. angustifolia, against Tetranychus cinnabarinus Boisduval on cut roses. The study found that L. angustifolia EO significantly reduced the fecundity and fertility of the mites, supporting its inclusion in IPM strategies. Thus, these potential LEOs should be screened on a larger scale and after obtaining fruitful results they can be used for the development of botanical insecticides.

7. Challenges and safety assessment studies

While LEOs have received significant attention in food/crop research due to their natural origin, it is not easy to fix the dose for optimal in vitro effects in food preservation or crop protection. One of the major challenges in the application of LEOs is that their volatile natural compounds may interact with the proteins or carbohydrates present in food products/commodities, causing destabilization of LEOs and the development of new unwanted compounds, thereby decreasing their potential antimicrobial and insecticidal effects. This needs a higher amount of LEOs to ensure the effective preservation of food commodities. Nevertheless, the use of higher amounts of LEOs in food systems has been observed to modify the taste, quality and aroma of food commodities, making them less acceptable for consumption. But, the long-lasting aroma and flavour of LEOs allow for good effects at low doses instantaneously limiting negative organoleptic changes. The EOs derived from Lavandula species are considered safe for consumption due to their non-toxic nature and hypo allergenicity. The inappropriate application of LEOs and their derivatives in the preservation of food commodities or in pest protection may cause hostile side effects on human beings including respiratory issues, skin related problems, headache, and acute oral toxicity.²⁰⁴ With this perspective, anti-inflammatory and antinociceptive activities of LEO (L. angustifolia) has already been investigated by Silva et al.,¹¹⁷ which demonstrated its ability to decrease both acute and chronic forms of nociception. However, this aspect is not evaluated for EOs derived from other Lavandula species. It is important to be aware of their potential side effects before using these natural sources internally or as food additives or preservatives.

Besides, the LEOs, if applied at higher doses, may cause harmful effects on the human organs such as the liver and stomach.²⁰⁵ Thus, LEOs and their derivatives must be tested for safety, appropriate doses, and toxicity. In this regard, many toxicological studies have been conducted on LEOs and reviewed by Cardia et al.²⁰⁶ For example, genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of LEOs are well studied.²⁰² In another study, Arantes et al.²⁰⁷ studied the toxicological properties of L. stoechas subsp. luisieri EO in Alentejo (Portugal) and found that rats exhibited normal behaviour after administration of 200 mg per kg body weight, revealing low toxicity. Similar results were reported by Mekonnen et al.²⁰⁸ in Ethiopia; they found in their experiments that administering 2000 mg kg⁻¹ of L. angustifolia EO to rabbits caused no significant changes (p > 0.05) in body weight, gross abnormalities, biochemical parameters, food and water intake. Furthermore, they did not find abnormality in kidneys and livers after histopathologic analysis. Besides, application of 10% ointment formulation did not cause any skin irritation which showed that the EO was nontoxic.²⁰⁸ Thus, LEOs can be promising candidates for use as food supplement applications.

The deployment of LEOs as food preservatives/crop protectants has many advantages due to their efficient activity against pathogens and insects hampering food crops both in storage and in the field with negligible harmful effects on beneficial organisms. To date, many LEOs including L. angustifolia EOs have demonstrated mosquitocidal activity against Culex pipiens larvae, a vector for West Nile virus,²⁰⁹ with an LC₅₀ of 140 μg mL⁻¹. At present, LEOs and some of their major constituents are used in aromatherapy as well as for the development of medicines for urogenital, respiratory, digestive, nervous, and vascular disorders.²¹⁰ Additionally, past and recent studies have shown the potential of LEOs against pathogens and insect pests deteriorating food commodities^197,211 and hampering field crops.^212,213 In Asian, African, and European countries, as well as in the United States, the potential of LEOs has been recognized, but they have not yet been commercialized. Unfortunately, no bio-preservatives or biopesticides derived from LEOs are currently available on the market. Practical applications are rarer than published results at the field level, which is why published results are more common. Aside from the low production cost–benefit ratio, the low persistence of effects, and strict European Union regulations, LEOs have not yet been commercialized as botanical pesticides on a larger scale and remain confined to laboratory experiments.²¹⁴ In addition, the direct application of LEOs as food preservatives against pathogens and insect pests deteriorating food commodities/hampering field crops has several limitations, including short shelf life, poor stability, and regulatory problems regarding their exposure to the environment.

Although, many LEOs have been investigated for their efficacy against food deteriorating pathogens and insect pests, the majority of investigations were conducted under laboratory conditions or on a smaller scale. During the application of LEOs in fields or storehouses, they may lose their efficacy. Therefore, to re-store their efficiency, stabilization methods including encapsulation technology can be considered. For instance, many research studies have shown that the efficacy and shelf life of LEOs are extended after their encapsulation.^215,216 Thus, using LEOs to produce potential nano-preservatives could help to prevent their degradation. Thus, botanical preservatives fabricated from LEOs must be scientifically certified regarding their residual phytotoxicity on crops, deployment protocols, overcoming regulatory and toxicological barriers, and mitigating problems related to the environment for their long-term application for food preservation/crop protection. It is also challenging for LEOs to gain widespread approval for their compounds and legitimize them as biopesticides due to complex authorization procedures. Furthermore, their approval and registration procedures are very expensive due to their inherent toxicity costs and the need for a suitable evaluation environment.

8. Research gaps and future outlook

The LEOs and their derivatives have been evaluated for their functional properties in food system/crop protection including antibacterial, antifungal, and insecticidal activities; however, the majority of studies were focused on lab conditions. However, investigations regarding the field application of LEOs against phytopathogens and insect pests, as well as their impact on beneficial organisms including bees have not been conducted and need to be addressed in future research. Although, more than 39 species of Lavender exist worldwide, majority of pesticidal, food preservative, and toxicological studies have focused on EOs derived from L. angustifolia, L. latifolia, and L. stoechas. However, little attention has been given to L. lanata, L. viridis, L. dentata, among others, which could be evaluated against pests and pathogens of foods and food crops in future.

A higher concentration of LEOs in food systems was observed to affect the taste, quality, and aroma of the food commodities, resulting in less consumer acceptance. The encapsulation technology can be one of the possible solutions to this problem. The encapsulation technology not only decreases the instability of LEOs (e.g., their reaction towards substrate protein), but also safeguards the pesticidal properties through controlled release. On this aspect, few investigators studied the antimicrobial and insecticidal properties of encapsulated LEOs, i.e., L. angustifolia and L. latifolia EOs; however the majority of other Lavandula species remain unexplored. To ensure food safety, safe dosage limits, and food preservation composition, this aspect needs to be concentrated in food research. Encapsulating LEOs improves their bio-efficacy, controlled release, shelf life and provides a relatively safer approach for the protection of food crops from pest/pathogen attacks. Preventive measures should be taken before commercialization to ensure that LEOs and their related derivatives are not harmful to beneficial organisms. Therefore, future studies are needed in order to achieve the (i) safe dosage limit, (ii) stability and bioactivity of LEOs and their related compounds, (iii) interaction of surface proteins on food commodities with LEOs' bioactive compounds, (iv) allergic reactions, (e) their optimal dosage limit to prevent deterioration/spoilage of taste, quality, and aroma of food commodities, and (f) improved encapsulation methods and controlled release to ensure increased shelf-life of food commodities and related products.

Lastly, the EOs of Lavandula species from various countries were characterized through GC-MS analysis and the results revealed that LEOs exhibit a broad range of variations in their constituents in different plant samples. However, there are knowledge gaps regarding the modes of action of a particular compound derived from EOs of Lavandula species against harmful organisms deteriorating food commodities/crops. However, based on prevailing toxicological and pharmaceutical investigations, LEOs have raised no concerns regarding their use in food preservation or crop protection and can be considered eco-friendly at the normally recommended doses reviewed here after their field trials. As a result of their multifaceted antimicrobial and insecticidal properties, LEOs may be used as botanical pesticides once the government of the concerned country determines the cost–benefit ratio and conducts other regulatory risk assessments. Last but not least, a robust and sustainable environment in the future requires a gradual and efficient approach for approving LEO-based botanical pesticides to mitigate pests and pathogens without interfering with marketable public interests.

9. Conclusion

The present article summarizes that EOs and terpenoids derived from L. angustifolia, L. latifolia, and L. stoechas have broad antimicrobial and insecticidal properties against pathogens and pests deteriorating food commodities/crops. In several investigations these EOs were found to be non cyto/geno toxic. There have been developments in the evaluation of LEO-based encapsulated products, such as thin films, biodegradable polymers, nano-emulsion coatings against bacterial and fungal pathogens responsible for food spoilage and investigators have found potential results. Based on the toxicological and pharmacological studies available, LEOs appear to be safer to the environment and consumers than synthetic pesticides. Therefore, LEO-based botanical pesticides might be useful in combating microbial pathogens and insect pests in stored food commodities and field crops. Unfortunately, LEOs that have been reported as efficient against pests and pathogens, are often the most phytotoxic. Therefore, sustainable protection of food commodities and crops from biodeterioration needs special attention. Like other alternatives, LEO based biopesticides are not a panacea for controlling harmful organisms hampering food commodities/field crops; however there will be prevailing market niches focused on worker and environmental safety, where LEO-based bio preservatives/biopesticides will find wide acceptance among farmers/retailers. Therefore, extensive research is required to address the challenges associated with LEOs, particularly regarding safe dosage limits and potential adverse effects. These challenges include unfavourable organoleptic properties, low stability, and a lack of standardization, all of which hinder their broader application as biopesticides. A shift towards greener technologies directs an optimistic future towards the safer deployment of LEOs in food preservation/crop protection.

Data availability

No primary research results, software or code have been included and no new data were generated or analysed as part of this review.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

1. B. Héral, É. Stierlin, X. Fernandez and T. Michel, Phytochem. Rev., 2021, 20, 751–771.
2. N. Dobros, K. D. Zawada and K. Paradowska, Molecules, 2022, 28, 256.
3. K. Yaghoobi, G. R. Kaka, D. Sh and H. Ashayeri, J. Norman Bethune Univ. Med. Sci., 2016, 17, 1–9.
4. M. Hancianu, O. Cioanca, M. Mihasan and L. Hritcu, Phytomedicine, 2013, 20, 446–452.
5. P. H. Koulivand, M. Khaleghi Ghadiri and A. Gorji, Evid. base Compl. Alternative Med., 2013, 2013, 1–10.
6. M. Slighoua, I. Mahdi, N. Boucetta, F. Di Cristo, S. Boukhira, A. El youbi el Hamsas, M. I. Tattou, A. Grafov, A. Bari and D. Bousta, South Afr. J. Bot., 2022, 146, 354–364.
7. M. S. Ali-Shtayeh, S. Y. Abu-Zaitoun, N. Dudai and R. M. Jamous, Evid. base Compl. Alternative Med., 2020, 2020, 1–10.
8. T. S. Firoozeei, A. Feizi, H. Rezaeizadeh, A. Zargaran, H. R. Roohafza and M. Karimi, Compl. Ther. Med., 2021, 59, 102679.
9. M. G. Evandri, L. Battinelli, C. Daniele, S. Mastrangelo, P. Bolle and G. Mazzanti, Food Chem. Toxicol., 2005, 43, 1381–1387.
10. A. C. Aprotosoaie, E. Gille, A. Trifan, V. S. Luca and A. Miron, Phytochem. Rev., 2017, 16, 761–799.
11. E. Malloggi, D. Menicucci, V. Cesari, S. Frumento, A. Gemignani and A. Bertoli, Appl. Psychol.: Health Well, 2022, 14, 663–690.
12. V. D. Rabotyagov, A. E. Palii and Y. S. Khokhlov, Agric. Biol., 2016, 53(3), 539–546.
13. M. Jalali-Heravi, R. S. Moazeni-Pourasil and H. Sereshti, J. Chromatogr. B, 2015, 983, 83–89.
14. C. Virgiliou, C. Zisi, K. N. Kontogiannopoulos, A. Nakas, A. Iakovakis, V. Varsamis, H. G. Gika and A. N. Assimopoulou, J. Chromatogr. B, 2021, 1179, 122852.
15. R. Manor, E. Kumarnsit, N. Samerphob, T. Rujiralai, T. Puangpairote and D. Cheaha, J. Ethnopharmacol., 2021, 276, 114193.
16. A. Carrasco, R. Martinez-Gutierrez, V. Tomas and J. Tudela, Planta Med., 2015, 82, 163–170.
17. A. R. Fakhari, P. Salehi, R. Heydari, S. N. Ebrahimi and P. R. Haddad, J. Chromatogr. A, 2005, 1098, 14–18.
18. Y. Cong, P. Abulizi, L. Zhi, X. Wang and Mirensha, Chem. Nat. Compd., 2008, 44, 810.
19. K. Smigielski, A. Raj, K. Krosowiak and R. Gruska, J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants, 2009, 12, 338–347.
20. A. Tarakemeh, V. Rowshan and S. Najafian, Anal. Chem. Lett., 2012, 2, 244–249.
21. K. Msaada, N. Salem, S. Tammar, M. Hammami, M. Jamal Saharkhiz, N. Debiche, F. Limam and B. Marzouk, J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants, 2012, 15, 1030–1039.
22. L. T. Danh, N. D. A. Triet, J. Zhao, R. Mammucari and N. Foster, J. Supercrit. Fluids, 2012, 70, 27–34.
23. C. Jianu, G. Pop, A. T. Gruia and F. G. Horhat, Int. J. Agric. Biol., 2013, 15, 772–776.
24. M. Torabbeigi and P. Aberoomand Azar, Acta Chromatogr., 2013, 25, 571–579.
25. L. Lesage-Meessen, M. Bou, J.-C. Sigoillot, C. B. Faulds and A. Lomascolo, Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 2015, 99, 3375–3385.
26. H. Kamali, N. Aminimoghadamfarouj, E. Golmakani and A. Nematollahi, Acta Chromatogr., 2015, 7, 57.
27. G. D. K. Babu, V. Thakur and B. Singh, J. Herbs, Spices, Med. Plants, 2016, 22, 173–182.
28. F. F. Afifia, Arab. J. Med. Aromat. Plants, 2016, 2, 71–85.
29. K. J. Hamad, S. J. A. Al-Shaheen, R. A. Kaskoos, J. Ahamad, M. Jameel and S. R. Mir, Int. Res. J. Pharm., 2013, 4, 117–120.
30. M. Barazandeh, J. Essent. Oil Res., 2002, 14(2), 103–104.
31. A. Filly, A. S. Fabiano-Tixier, C. Louis, X. Fernandez and F. Chemat, C. R. Chim., 2016, 19, 707–717.
32. N. Kirimer, S. Mokhtarzadeh, B. Demirci, F. Goger, K. M. Khawar and F. Demirci, Ind. Crops Prod., 2017, 96, 120–125.
33. H. Niksic, E. Kovac-Besovic, E. Omeragic, S. Muratovic, J. Kusturica and K. Duric, J. Health Sci., 2017, 7, 35.
34. G. Al-Wassouf, Chem. Mater. Res., 2018, 10, 1–6.
35. L. Chekoual, A. Aissat, A. Ait-Kaciaourahoun and T. Benabdelkader, Ind. Crops Prod., 2018, 73, 16–27.
36. K. Smigielski, R. Prusinowska, A. Stobiecka, A. Kunicka-Styczyñska and R. Gruska, J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants, 2018, 21, 1303–1314.
37. B. Blažeković, W. Yang, Y. Wang, C. Li, M. Kindl, S. Pepeljnjak and S. Vladimir-Knežević, Ind. Crop. Prod., 2018, 123, 173–182.
38. B. Soulaimani, A. Nafis, A. Kasrati, A. Rochdi, N.-E. Mezrioui, A. Abbad and L. Hassani, South Afr. J. Bot., 2019, 125, 202–206.
39. M. Bogdan, S. Bungau, D. M. Tit, L. Copolovici, T. Behl, P. Otrisal, L. Aleya, G. Cioca, D. Berescu and D. Uivarosan, Res. Chin., 2020, 71, 307–315.
40. X. Chen, L. Zhang, C. Qian, Z. Du, P. Xu and Z. Xiang, Microchem. J., 2020, 153, 104458.
41. G. Dong, X. Bai, A. Aimila, H. A. Aisa and M. Maiwulanjiang, Molecules, 2020, 25, 3166.
42. X. Guo and P. Wang, Molecules, 2020, 25, 5541.
43. A. Ciocarlan, L. Lupascu, A. Aricu, I. Dragalin, V. Popescu, E.-I. Geana, R. E. Ionete, N. Vornicu, O. G. Duliu and G. Hristozova, Plants, 2021, 10, 1829.
44. M. A. Bogdan, S. Bungau, D. M. Tit, D. C. Zaha, A. C. Nechifor, T. Behl, D. Chambre, A. I. Lupitu, L. Copolovici and D. M. Copolovici, Molecules, 2021, 26, 4381.
45. M. M. Al-Ansari, A. M. Andeejani, E. Alnahmi, R. H. AlMalki, A. Masood, P. Vijayaraghavan, A. A. Rahman and K. C. Choi, Ind. Crops Prod., 2021, 170, 113740.
46. K. Pokajewicz, M. Białoń, L. Svydenko, N. Hudz, R. Balwierz, D. Marciniak and P. P. Wieczorek, Molecules, 2022, 27, 2152.
47. H. I. Eldeghedy, A. E.-N. G. El-Gendy, A. A. Nassrallah, A. M. Aboul-Enein and E. A. Omer, J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants, 2022, 25, 52–63.
48. C. Slimani, H. Sqalli, R. Chaimae, A. Farah, A. Lazraq, L. El Ghadraoui, S. Belmalha and G. Echchgadda, Not. Sci. Biol., 2022, 14, 11172.
49. H. H. Moussa, F. Benaliouche, I. Sbartai and H. Sbartai, Biodiversitas Journal of Biological Diversity, 2023, 24, 4535–4542.
50. V. Todorova, K. Ivanov, Y. Georgieva, D. Karcheva-Bahchevanska and S. Ivanova, Int. J. Environ. Anal. Chem., 2023, 2023, 1–6.
51. K. Diass, M. Merzouki, K. Elfazazi, H. Azzouzi, A. Challioui, K. Azzaoui, B. Hammouti, R. Touzani, F. Depeint and A. Ayerdi Gotor, Plants, 2023, 12, 1571.
52. S. Kırkıncı, Y. C. Gercek, F. N. Baştürk, N. Yıldırım, B. Gıdık and N. E. Bayram, Sci. Rep., 2024, 14, 20922.
53. S. R. Alieva, Z. U. Sherova, S. S. Mamadshoeva, S. R. Usmanova, Z. K. Muhidinov and S. Mou, Eur. J. Acad. Res., 2024, 4, 247–249.
54. C. Jianu, G. Pop, A. T. Gruia and F. G. Horhat, Int. J. Agric. Biol., 2013, 15, 772–776.
55. I. Calinescu, A. Gavrila, M. Ivopol, G. Ivopol, M. Popescu and N. Mircioaga, Open Chem., 2014, 12, 829–836.
56. C. El-Kalamouni, P. R. Venskutonis, B. Zebib, O. Merah, C. Raynaud and T. Talou, Medicines, 2017, 4, 30.
57. A. Di Matteo, M. Lavorgna, C. Russo, E. Orlo and M. Isidori, Appl. Food Res., 2024, 4, 100528.
58. A. K. Pandey, K. Dinesh, N. Sam Nirmala, A. Kumar, D. Chakraborti and A. Bhattacharyya, Curr. Res. Biotechnol., 2023, 6, 100144.
59. G. Agrios, Plant Pathology, Elsevier Academic Press, 5th edn, Amsterdam, 2005, vol. 26–27, pp. 398–401.
60. Y. El Abdali, G. Beniaich, A. M. Mahraz, A. El Moussaoui, Y. A. Bin Jardan, M. Akhazzane, M. Chebaibi, H.-A. Nafidi, N. Eloutassi, M. Bourhia and A. Bouia, Evid. base Compl. Alternative Med., 2023, 2023, 1–12.
61. M. Guenther, T. Driver and C. Saunders, The Overall Benefits of Food Safety – A Literature Review, Client Report prepared for New Zealand Food Safety Science and Research Centre, December, 2022, Lincoln University: Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit.
62. E. T. Seyoum, T. Eguale, I. Habib, C. J. B. Oliveira, D. F. M. Monte, B. Yang, W. A. Gebreyes and W. Q. Alali, Animals, 2024, 14, 786.
63. K. S. Almaary, Biosci., Biotechnol. Res. Asia, 2023, 20, 745–755.
64. A. Rana, S. Mishra, K. Soni, M. Samtiya, N. K. Taneja and T. Dhewa, Nutritional Science and Technology: Concept to Application, ed. T. Dhewa, A. K. Puniya and A. Panghal, Wiley, 2023, pp. 273–293.
65. S. I. Behiry, M. EL-Hefny and M. Z. M. Salem, Nat. Prod. Res., 2020, 34, 3394–3398.
66. T. Benali, A. Bouyahya, K. Habbadi, G. Zengin, A. Khabbach and K. Hammani, Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol., 2020, 28, 101696.
67. A. P. Martinazzo, R. de Oliveira Braga and C. E. de Souza Teodoro, Cienc. Nat., 2022, 44, e25.
68. E. Orlo, C. Russo, R. Nugnes, M. Lavorgna and M. Isidori, Foods, 2021, 10, 1807.
69. I. Dadalioǧlu and G. A. Evrendilek, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2004, 52, 8255–8260.
70. J. Gómez-Estaca, A. L. De Lacey, M. E. López-Caballero, M. d C. Gómez-Guillén and P. Montero, Food Microbiol., 2010, 27, 889–896.
71. S. Heydari, H. Jooyandeh, B. Alizadeh Behbahani and M. Noshad, Food Sci. Nutr., 2020, 8, 6497–6512.
72. B. Esin, Bol. do Inst. Pesca, 2020, 46(3), e565.
73. S. Metin, N. Kara, B. I. Didinen and A. Kubilay, Isr. J. Aquac., 2021, 73, 1305530.
74. I. Dadalioǧlu and G. A. Evrendilek, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2004, 52, 8255–8260.
75. J. Petrová, M. Terentjeva, C. Puchalski, J. Hutková, A. Kántor, M. Mellen, J. Čuboň, P. Haščík, M. Kluz and R. Kordiaka, Slovak J. Food Sci., 2016, 10, 132–138.
76. M. Adaszyńska-Skwirzyńska and D. Szczerbińska, Anim. Physiol. Nutr., 2018, 102, 1020–1025.
77. J. Sriti, M. Boulares, Y. Zarroug and R. Essid, J. Food Saf. Hyg., 2021, 7, 11–26.
78. I. V. Bulai, M. Georgescu, D. Tăpăloagă, O.-M. Ghimpeteanu and S.-M. Raita, Revista Lucrari stiintifice - Seria Agronomie, 2021, 64, 2.
79. D. Vokou, S. Vareltzidou and P. Katinakis, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 1993, 47, 223–235.
80. P. Xylia, C. Goumenos, N. Tzortzakis and A. Chrysargyris, Agronomy, 2023, 13, 2493.
81. S. Varona, S. R. Rojo, Á. Martín, M. J. Cocero, A. T. Serra, T. Crespo and C. M. Duarte, Ind. Crops Prod., 2013, 42, 243–250.
82. M. Walasek-Janusz, A. Grzegorczyk, D. Zalewski, A. Malm, S. Gajcy and R. Gruszecki, Agronomy, 2022, 12, 2955.
83. Y. M. Riyad and E. A. Elkholany, J. Food Dairy Sci., 2020, 11, 113–120.
84. H. Falleh, M. Ben Jemaa, K. Djebali, S. Abid, M. Saada and R. Ksouri, J. Food Process. Preserv., 2019, 43, e14257.
85. H. Falleh, K. Djebali, M. B. Jemaa, M. Hammami, S. Khammasi and R. Ksouri, Food Measure, 2021, 15, 376–385.
86. M. H. Marhamatizadeh, H. Mahmoudipour and E. Ehsandoost, BioTechnol.:Indian J., 2014, 9, 335–345.
87. Z. Denkova, B. Goranov, D. Blazheva, T. Tomova, D. Teneva, R. Denkova-Kostova, A. Slavchev, R. Pagán, P. Degraeve and G. Kostov, Appl. Sci., 2023, 13, 11281.
88. S. De Rapper, A. Viljoen and S. Van Vuuren, Evid. base Compl. Alternative Med., 2016, 2016, 1–9.
89. X. Sun, J. Wang, H. Zhang, M. Dong, L. Li, P. Jia, T. Bu, X. Wang and L. Wang, Lwt, 2021, 142, 110987.
90. C. Doğan, N. Doğan, M. Gungor, A. K. Eticha and Y. Akgul, Food Packag. Shelf Life, 2022, 34, 100942.
91. M. Soković and L. J. L. D. Van Griensven, Eur. J. Plant Pathol., 2006, 116, 211–224.
92. J. F. Martucci, L. B. Gende, L. M. Neira and R. A. Ruseckaite, Ind. Crop. Prod., 2015, 71, 205–213.
93. R. Tardugno, A. Serio, F. Pellati, S. D'Amato, C. Chaves López, M. G. Bellardi, M. Di Vito, V. Savini, A. Paparella and S. Benvenuti, Nat. Prod. Res., 2019, 33, 3330–3335.
94. D. Djenane, M. Aïder, J. Yangüela, L. Idir, D. Gómez and P. Roncalés, Meat Sci., 2012, 92, 667–674.
95. M. H. Lodhia, K. R. Bhatt and V. S. Thaker, Indian J. Pharmaceut. Sci., 2009, 71, 134.
96. M. Moussi Imane, F. Houda, A. H. Said Amal, N. Kaotar, T. Mohammed, R. Imane and H. Farid, J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants, 2017, 20, 1074–1082.
97. N. Karaca, G. Şener, B. Demirci and F. Demirci, Z. Naturforsch. C, 2021, 76, 169–173.
98. M. Salavati Hamedani, M. Rezaeigolestani and M. Mohsenzadeh, J. Nutr. Fasting Health, 2020, 8, 273–279.
99. C. Benbrahim, M. S. Barka, A. Basile, V. Maresca, G. Flamini, S. Sorbo, F. Carraturo, R. Notariale, M. Piscopo and A. Khadir, Appl. Sci., 2021, 11, 5688.
100. B. Speranza, A. Guerrieri, A. Racioppo, A. Bevilacqua, D. Campaniello and M. R. Corbo, Microbiol. Res., 2023, 14, 1089–1113.
101. H. Benaiche, N. Bouredja, R. Terbeche and A. Alioua, Int. J. Environ. Stud., 2023, 80, 1853–1862.
102. P. S. X. Yap, B. C. Yiap, H. C. Ping and S. H. E. Lim, Open Microbiol., 2014, 7, 6–14.
103. M. Sienkiewicz, M. Lysakowska, J. Ciecwierz, P. Denys and E. Kowalczyk, Med. Chem., 2011, 7, 674–689.
104. C. Rota, J. J. Carraminana, J. Burillo and A. Herrera, J. Food Protect., 2004, 67, 1252–1256.
105. A. K. Pandey, A. Sanches Silva, M. L. Chávez-González and P. Singh, Crit. Rev. Biotechnol., 2023, 43, 1257–1283.
106. A. K. Pandey, M. L. Chávez-González, A. S. Silva and P. Singh, Trends Food Sci. Technol., 2021, 111, 426–441.
107. S. Cassella, J. P. Cassella and I. Smith, Int. J. Aromather., 2002, 12, 2–15.
108. E. M. Soylu, Ş. Kurt and S. Soylu, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 2010, 143, 183–189.
109. F. Hossain, P. Follett, S. Salmieri, K. D. Vu, C. Fraschini and M. Lacroix, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 2019, 295, 33–40.
110. L. D. Do Nascimento, K. S. Da Costa, M. M. Cascaes and E. H. De Aguiar Andrade, in Essential Oils, ed. M. Santana De Oliveira, Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022, pp. 101–121.
111. G. Zhang, C. Yuan and Y. Sun, Molecules, 2018, 23, 1126.
112. A. R. Locali-Pereira, N. A. Lopes, M. E. C. Menis-Henrique, N. S. Janzantti and V. R. Nicoletti, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 2020, 335, 108890.
113. M. Dávila-Rodríguez, A. López-Malo, E. Palou, N. Ramírez-Corona and M. T. Jiménez-Munguía, J. Food Sci. Technol., 2020, 57, 4133–4142.
114. C. Yuan, Y. Wang, Y. Liu and B. Cui, Ind. Crops Prod., 2019, 130, 104–110.
115. G. C. Türkoğlu, G. Erkan, S. Y. Karavana, A. M. Sarıışık, A. Çetmeli Bakadur, B. Ütebay and A. Popescu, AATCC J. Res., 2023, 10, 332–345.
116. K. Balasubramanian and K. M. Kodam, RSC Adv., 2016, 6, 75420–75421.
117. L. S. Silva, J. M. Mar, S. G. Azevedo, M. S. Rabelo, J. A. Bezerra, P. H. Campelo, M. B. Machado, G. Trovati, A. L. Dos Santos, H. D. Da Fonseca Filho, T. P. De Souza and E. A. Sanches, J. Sci. Food Agric., 2019, 99, 685–695.
118. A. K. Pandey, P. Kumar, P. Singh, N. N. Tripathi and V. K. Bajpai, Front. Microbiol., 2017, 7, 2161.
119. P. A. Paranagama, K. H. T. Abeysekera, K. Abeywickrama and L. Nugaliyadde, Lett. Appl. Microbiol., 2003, 37, 86–90.
120. O. Dhingra, E. Mizubuti, I. Napoleao and G. Jham, Seed Sci. Technol., 2001, 29, 193–203.
121. J. M. Wagacha and J. W. Muthomi, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 2008, 124, 1–12.
122. A. K. Pandey and N. N. Tripathi, J. Indian Bot. Soc., 2011, 90, 326–331.
123. G. Arras and M. Usai, J. Food Prot., 2001, 64, 1025–1029.
124. P. Baruah, R. K. Sharma, R. S. Singh and A. C. Ghosh, J. Essent. Oil Res., 1996, 8, 411–412.
125. E. Bosquez-Molina, E. Ronquillo-de Jesús, S. Bautista-Baños, J. R. Verde-Calvo and J. Morales-López, Postharvest Biol. Technol., 2010, 57, 132–137.
126. V. Lalitha and K. A. Raveesha, Asian J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Environ. Sci., 2006, 8, 483.
127. T. Moon, H. M. A. Cavanagh and J. M. Wilkinson, J. Essent. Oil Res., 2007, 19, 171–175.
128. M. Zuzarte, M. J. Gonçalves, C. Cavaleiro, M. T. Cruz, A. Benzarti, B. Marongiu, A. Maxia, A. Piras and L. Salgueiro, Ind. Crops Prod., 2013, 44, 97–103.
129. A. Angioni, A. Barra, V. Coroneo, S. Dessi and P. Cabras, J. Agric. Food Chem., 2006, 54, 4364–4370.
130. J. Domingues, F. Delgado, J. C. Gonçalves and C. S. Pintado, J. Pharm. Pharmacol., 2021, 9, 98–106.
131. J. G. Lopez-Reyes, D. Spadaro, M. L. Gullino and A. Garibaldi, Flavour Fragrance J., 2010, 25, 171–177.
132. A. H. Dincoglu and Z. Caliskan, Int. Food Res. J., 2022, 29, 991–1004.
133. I. Vasileva, R. Denkova, R. Chochkov, D. Teneva, Z. Denkova, T. Dessev, P. Denev and A. Slavov, Food Chem., 2018, 253, 13–21.
134. V. Valková, H. Ďúranová, L. Galovičová, N. L. Vukovic, M. Vukic and M. Kačániová, Molecules, 2021, 26, 3859.
135. X. Xiong, L. Zhang, X. Li, Q. Zeng, R. Deng, X. Ren and Q. Kong, Can. J. Microbiol., 2021, 67, 724–736.
136. Q. Ali Sultan and S. Wahab, Hortic., Environ. Biotechnol., 2023, 64, 643–654.
137. E. M. Soylu, Ş. Kurt and S. Soylu, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 2010, 143, 183–189.
138. E. M. Soylu, S. Soylu and S. Kurt, Mycopathologia, 2006, 161, 119–128.
139. R. Górski, H. Dorna, A. Rosińska, D. Szopińska and A. Kałużewicz, Ecol. Chem. Eng. S, 2021, 28, 411–427.
140. F. Farokhian, M. Jafarpour, M. Goli and O. Askari-Khorasgani, J. Food Process Eng., 2017, 40, e12432.
141. E. M. Soylu, S. Soylu and S. Kurt, Mycopathologia, 2006, 161, 119–128.
142. M. Behnamian, Z. Najafi, M. Davari and S. Dezhsetan, Biol. Cult. Tests Control Plant Dis., 2017, 6, 111–119.
143. B. Tanović, I. Potočnik, G. Delibašić, M. Ristić, M. Kostić and M. Marković, Arch. Biol. Sci., 2009, 61, 231–237.
144. M. S. Rabie and M. A. Vasilevich, Agric. News J., 2020, 11, 39–42.
145. F. Diánez, M. Santos, C. Parra, M. J. Navarro, R. Blanco and F. J. Gea, Lett. Appl. Microbiol., 2018, 67, 400–410.
146. S. Hoseini, J. Amini, J. N. Rafei and J. Khorshidi, Eur. J. Plant Pathol., 2019, 155, 1287–1302.
147. M. Zuzarte, M. J. Gonçalves, C. Cavaleiro, J. Canhoto, L. Vale-Silva, M. J. Silva, E. Pinto and L. Salgueiro, J. Med. Microbiol., 2011, 60, 612–618.
148. M. Zuzarte, M. J. Gonçalves, M. T. Cruz, C. Cavaleiro, J. Canhoto, S. Vaz, E. Pinto and L. Salgueiro, Food Chem., 2012, 135, 1505–1510.
149. M. Císarová, D. Tančinová and J. Medo, Slovak J. Food Sci., 2016, 10(1), 83–88.
150. A. Servili, E. Feliziani and G. Romanazzi, Postharvest Biol. Technol., 2017, 133, 36–40.
151. M. Stupar, M. L. Grbić, A. Džamić, N. Unković, M. Ristić, A. Jelikić and J. Vukojević, South Afr. J. Bot., 2014, 93, 118–124.
152. E. M. Soylu and R. Incekara, J. Plant Pathol., 2017, 99, 437–444.
153. S. Felsociova, M. Kacaniova, E. Horská, N. Vukovic, L. Hleba, J. Petrová, K. Rovná, M. Stricik and Z. Hajduová, Ann. Agric. Environ. Med., 2015, 22, 38–42.
154. S. Shin, Arch Pharm. Res., 2003, 26, 389–393.
155. J. G. Lopez-Reyes, D. Spadaro, A. Prelle, A. Garibaldi and M. L. Gullino, J. Food Protect., 2013, 76, 631–639.
156. S. Behnam, M. Farzaneh, M. Ahmadzadeh and A. S. Tehrani, Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci., 2006, 71, 1321–1326.
157. M. E. Guynot, A. J. Ramos, L. Seto, P. Purroy, V. Sanchis and S. Marin, J. Appl. Microbiol., 2003, 94, 893–899.
158. D. Tancinová, Z. Barboráková, Z. Mašková, M. Mrvová, J. Medo, M. Golian, J. Štefániková and J. Árvay, J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci., 2023, 13, 1–6.
159. J. Sangsuwan, T. Pongsapakworawat, P. Bangmo and S. Sutthasupa, LWT, 2016, 74, 14–20.
160. J. Sangsuwan and S. Sutthasupa, Packag. Technol. Sci., 2019, 32, 595–605.
161. A. Sarkhosh, A. I. Vargas, B. Schaffer, A. J. Palmateer, P. Lopez, A. Soleymani and M. Farzaneh, Food Packag. Shelf Life, 2017, 12, 16–22.
162. R. Fu, L. Zhao, J. Wang, C. Chen, Y. Liu and D. Lu, LWT, 2024, 116315.
163. M. CísarováD. Tančinová, Scientific Papers Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 2015, 48, p. 55.
164. M. Císarová, L. Hleba, J. Medo, D. Tančinová, Z. Mašková, J. Čuboň, A. Kováčik, D. Foltinová, M. Božik and P. Klouček, Food Control, 2020, 110, 107007.
165. M. Hlebová, L. Hleba, J. Medo, V. Uzsakova, P. Kloucek, M. Bozik, P. Haščík and J. Čuboň, Foods, 2021, 10, 2993.
166. H. H. Abdel-Khalek, A. A. Hammad, R. M. A. El-Kader, K. A. Youssef and D. A. Abdou, Food Sci. Technol. Int., 2022, 28, 703–715.
167. R. M. Sumalan, R. Kuganov, D. Obistioiu, I. Popescu, I. Radulov, E. Alexa, M. Negrea, A. F. Salimzoda, R. L. Sumalan and I. Cocan, Molecules, 2020, 25, 1831.
168. S. Inouye, T. Tsuruoka, M. Watanabe, K. Takeo, M. Akao, Y. Nishiyama and H. Yamaguchi, Mycoses, 2000, 43, 17–23.
169. N. Hammoudi, H. Ziani Cherif, F. Borsali, K. Benmansour and A. Meghezzi, Mater. Technol., 2020, 35, 383–394.
170. C. Fagundes, M. B. Pérez-Gago, A. R. Monteiro and L. Palou, Int. J. Food Microbiol., 2013, 166, 391–398.
171. İ. Kahramanoglu, T. G. Kesimci, A. U. Bozhüyük, R. Gürbüz and H. Alptekin, Int. J. Agric. Environ. Food Sci., 2021, 5, 606–615.
172. D. Todorova, N. Yavorov, V. Lasheva, S. Damyanova and I. Kostova, Coatings, 2022, 13, 32.
173. C. Caprari, F. Fantasma, P. Monaco, F. Divino, M. Iorizzi, G. Ranalli, F. Fasano and G. Saviano, Molecules, 2023, 28, 392.
174. S. Gupta, Glob. Pediatr. Health, 2019, 8, 81.
175. S. S. Modarres Najafabadi, J. Med. Plants By Prod., 2014, 3, 13–19.
176. A. K. Pandey, S. Tripathi and P. Singh, Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Protect., 2018, 51, 696–728.
177. L. D. Jacob, F. C. Ntungwen, S. Christopher, A. A. Wilson, T. T. Roli, N. E. Nchiwan, P. A. Iakovlev, A. J. Cheruvan, L. Ragesh and M. ul Hasan, 12th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection (IWCSPP) in Berlin, Germany, October 7-11, 2018.
178. S. Akhtar, M. Sagheer and N. Javed, Pakistan J. Zool., 2015, 47(4), 1045.
179. J. Brari and V. Kumar, Int. J. Pure Appl. Zool., 2019, 7, 41–45.
180. N. Bayramzadeh, F. Mehrkhou, A. A. Pourmirza and M. Mahmoudian, J. Agric. Sci. Technol., 2019, 21, 857–872.
181. M. P. Zunino, V. A. Areco and J. A. Zygadlo, Bol. Latinoam. Caribe Plantas Med. Aromat., 2012, 11, 269–277.
182. M. P. Zunino, V. A. Areco and J. A. Zygadlo, Bol. Latinoam. Caribe Plantas Med. Aromat., 2012, 11, 269–277.
183. B. Valizadeh, J. Jalali Sendi, M. Oftadeh, A. Ebadollahi and P. Krutmuang, Agronomy, 2021, 11, 2015.
184. N. A. Al-Harbi, N. M. Al Attar, D. M. Hikal, S. E. Mohamed, A. A. H. Abdel Latef, A. A. Ibrahim and M. A. Abdein, Plants, 2021, 10, 829.
185. G. Benelli, G. Flamini, A. Canale, P. L. Cioni and B. Conti, Crop Protect., 2012, 42, 223–229.
186. L. Kheloul, A. Kellouche, D. Bréard, M. Gay, C. Gadenne and S. Anton, Entomol. Exp. Appl., 2019, 167, 826–834.
187. E. N. Jesser, J. O. Werdin-González, A. P. Murray and A. A. Ferrero, J. Asia Pac. Entomol., 2017, 20, 1122–1129.
188. L. A. Erland, M. R. Rheault and S. S. Mahmoud, Crop Protect., 2015, 78, 20–26.
189. K. Pirali-Kheirabadi and J. A. T. da Silva, Exp. Parasitol., 2010, 126, 184–186.
190. Y. N. Alpkent, Ö. Alaoğlu and H. Çetin, Plant Protect. Bull., 2013, 53, 115–125.
191. K. Khelfane-Goucem, N. Lardjane and F. Medjdoub-Bensaad, Afr. J. Agric. Res., 2016, 11, 1499–1503.
192. M. M. Sabbour and S. E. El-Abd, Research on Crops, 2022, 23, 676–681.
193. E. Sertkaya, K. Kaya and S. Soylu, Ind. Crops Prod., 2010, 31, 107–112.
194. G. S. Germinara, M. G. Di Stefano, L. De Acutis, S. Pati, S. Delfine, A. De Cristofaro and G. Rotundo, Bull. Insectol., 2017, 70(1), 129–138.
195. L. Kheloul, S. Anton, C. Gadenne and A. Kellouche, J. Asia Pac. Entomol., 2020, 23, 320–326.
196. N. A. Al-Harbi, N. M. Al Attar, D. M. Hikal, S. E. Mohamed, A. A. H. Abdel Latef, A. A. Ibrahim and M. A. Abdein, Plants, 2021, 10, 829.
197. G. S. Germinara, M. G. Di Stefano, L. De Acutis, S. Pati, S. Delfine, A. De Cristofaro and G. Rotundo, Bull. Insectol., 2017, 70, 121–128.
198. S. Attia, G. Lognay, S. Heuskin and T. Hance, J. Entomol. Zool. Stud., 2016, 4, 118–122.
199. N. Zallaghi and M. Ahmadi, Int. J. Pest Manag., 2021, 67, 203–215.
200. N. Faraone, N. K. Hillier and G. C. Cutler, PLoS One, 2015, 10, e0127774.
201. E. Yazdani, J. J. Sendi, A. Aliakbar and S. Senthil-Nathan, Pestic. Biochem. Physiol., 2013, 107, 250–257.
202. A. Mesic, I. Mahmutović-Dizdarević, E. Tahirović, I. Durmišević, I. Eminovic, A. Jerković-Mujkić and R. Bešta-Gajević, Drug Chem. Toxicol., 2021, 44, 190–197.
203. G. Germinara, M. G. Stefano, L. De Acutis, S. Pati, S. Delfine, A. De Cristofaro and G. Rotundo, Bull. Insectol., 2017, 70, 129–138.
204. A. Jafari-Koulaee, F. Elyasi, Z. Taraghi, E. S. Ilali and M. Moosazadeh, Cent. Asian J. Global Health, 2020, 31(1), e442.
205. M. Antonelli and D. Donelli, Int. J. Ther. Massage Bodyw., 2020, 13, 32.
206. G. F. E. Cardia, F. M. de Souza Silva-Comar, E. M. T. da Rocha, S. E. Silva-Filho, M. Zagotto, N. S. Uchida, V. do Amaral, C. A. Bersani-Amado and R. K. N. Cuman, Res. Soc. Dev., 2021, 10, e23310514933.
207. S. Arantes, F. Candeias, O. Lopes, M. Lima, M. Pereira, T. Tinoco, J. Cruz-Morais and M. Martins, Planta Med., 2016, 82, 1266–1273.
208. A. Mekonnen, S. Tesfaye, S. G. Christos, K. Dires, T. Zenebe, N. Zegeye, Y. Shiferaw and E. Lulekal, J. Toxicol., 2019, 2019, 1–8.
209. F. El-Akhal, A. Ramzi, A. Farah, Y. Ez Zoubi, M. Benboubker, K. Taghzouti and A. El Ouali Lalami, Psyche, 2021, 2021, 1–7.
210. H. M. A. Cavanagh and J. M. Wilkinson, Phytother Res., 2002, 16, 301–308.
211. M. Santamarina, M. Ibáñez, M. Marqués, J. Roselló, S. Giménez and M. Blázquez, Nat. Prod. Res., 2017, 31, 2675–2679.
212. Y. Akhtar, E. Pages, A. Stevens, R. Bradbury, C. A. G. Da Camara and M. B. Isman, Physiol. Entomol., 2012, 37, 81–91.
213. S. Dhaouadi, W. Rouissi, A. Mougou-Hamdane, I. Hannachi and B. Nasraoui, Tunis. J. Plant Prot., 2018, 13, 39–55.
214. A. F. Burlec, I. Macovei, A. Sacarescu, A. Corciova, C. Mircea, C. E. Iancu, O. Cioanca and M. Hancianu, Farmacia, 2020, 68, 992–998.
215. P. Velmurugan, V. Ganeshan, N. F. Nishter and R. R. Jonnalagadda, Surface. Interfac., 2017, 9, 124–132.
216. R. Zhang, L. Huang, X. Xiong, M. C. Qian and H. Ji, Flavour Fragrance J., 2020, 35, 157–166.

---