Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of leaf and bark essential oils of Apodocephala pauciflora Baker (Asteraceae)

Noelinirina Raharisoa 1, Mihajasoa Stella Razanatseheno 1, Rahanira Ralambondrahety 2, Zara Nomentsoa Razafiarimanga 1, Lovarintsoa Judicael Randriamampianina 1, Hanitra Ranjana Randrianarivo 1, Danielle Aurore Doll Rakoto 1 and Victor Louis Jeannoda 1, *

1 Laboratory of Applied Biochemistry to Medical Sciences, Fundamental and Applied Biochemistry Department, Faculty of Sciences, University of Antananarivo, P.O. Box 906, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar.
2 National Environmental Research Centre (CNRE), P.O. Box 1739, Antananarivo 101, Madagascar.
 
Research Article
World Journal of Biological and Pharmaceutical Research, 2022, 02(02), 082–093.
Article DOI: 10.53346/wjbpr.2022.2.2.0036
Publication history: 
Received on 03 May 2022; revised on 09 June 2022; accepted on 11 June 2022
 
Abstract: 
The present work aims to study the chemical composition and the antimicrobial and toxicological properties of the essential oils (EOs) of Apodocephala pauciflora leaves (LEO) and stem bark (BEO). LEO and BEO were extracted from fresh material by hydrodistillation with a yield of 0.1%. They are light, light yellow, strong smelling and dextrorotatory. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) analysis identified 42 components in LEO and 38 in BEO representing 97.54% and 99.44% of the overall composition respectively. In LEO, the major components were α-pinene (27.5%), sabinene (13.62%) and β-pinene (12.0%) and in BEO, α-pinene (34.32%), myrcene (15.1%), sabinene (14.53%). Main components such β-pinene, phellandrene and limonene were common to LEO and BEO but at different rates. However, some components were not common to both EOs: for example, cubenol (5.07%) in LEO was absent in BEO and vice versa humulene (3.91%) in BEO was absent in LEO. Both EOs were effective against all microorganisms tested, including Gram (+) and Gram (-) bacteria and a fungus, with a strain-dependent intensity. BEO was more efficient than LEO. Streptococcus pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Vibrio fischeri and Candida albicans were the most susceptible. LEO was bacteriostatic against Clostridium perfringens and Candida albicans but bactericidal against the other germs tested, whereas BEO was bactericidal against all germs. With LD50 of 2.48 and 2.34 g/kg body weight, LEO and BEO were slightly toxic to mice by oral route. LEO and BEO could be used as alternatives to synthetic antibiotics against several pathogenic microorganisms.
 
Keywords: 
Apodocephala pauciflora; Essential Oil; Physico-chemical Properties; Antimicrobial Activity; Toxicity
 
Full text article in PDF: