ISSN: 2822-0838 Online

Profiling of Fatty Acids and Bioactive Organic Compounds from Lemongrass Essential Oil and its In-Vitro and In-Silico Antimicrobial Potential

Amal Sulaiman Abdullah Al-Hinaai, Rajaa Khalfan Abdullah Al Suleimani, Zulfa Idris Abdulrahman Al Kindi, Ghanim Salim Said Aal-Thani, Senthilkumar Kabilan, Ravi Akkireddy, Rameshkumar Angappan*, and Pratheep Thangaraj*
Published Date : April 20, 2026
DOI : https://doi.org/10.12982/NLSC.2026.060
Journal Issues : Online First

Abstract Lemongrass is regarded as a therapeutic plant has become familiar in Asia, treating various ailments. In this study, we evaluated the fatty acid content, screened bioactive organic compounds using GC-MS analysis, and assessed its antimicrobial properties. Initially, the fatty acid analysis showed an saturated fatty acids (91.91 g/100 g) and monounsaturated fatty acids (0.85 g/100 g). Followed by GC-FID-FAME analysis revealed the presence of 9 fatty acids among which eicosenoic acid and myristoleic acid were found in higher concentration. Meanwhile, lemongrass essential oil from both room temperature and refrigerated conditions sample retained higher percentage of bioactive organic compounds with averages of 95.03% and 96.05% respectively. GC-MS analysis screened more than 20 bioactive organic compounds from each sample. Further, with a relatively rich source of bioactive profile, it exhibits a potent antimicrobial effect with a higher zone of inhibition against E. coli, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, and C. albicans with different levels of susceptibility. Consequently, the study performed ADMET and molecular docking analysis to display the possible mechanism by which the bioactive organic compounds are involved in the inhibition of the target protein, PtsZ, which is primarily responsible for the microbial cell division. The docking analyses displayed a strong affinity between PtsZ and chosen ligands such as geranial hept-5-en-2-one, citral, linalool, etc. These findings suggest that lemongrass essential oil with potential bioactive principle can be employed as an effective anti-microbial agent.

 

Keywords: Lemongrass essential oil, Fatty acids, Bioactive compounds, Antibacterial activity

 

Citation:  Al-Hinaai, A.S.A., Suleimani, R.K.A.A., Kindi, Z.I.A.A., Aal-Thani, G.S.S., Kabilan, S., Akkireddy, R., Angappan, R., and Thangaraj, P. 2026. Profiling of fatty acids and bioactive organic compounds from lemongrass essential oil and its in-vitro and in-silico antimicrobial potential. Natural and Life Sciences Communications. 25(3): e2026060.

 

Graphical Abstract:

 

INTRODUCTION

Mostly grown for their essential oils, Cymbopogon spp. are quick-growing plant species belonging to the Poaceae family of grassesAmong the over 200 species of lemongrass, fragrant grasses are of significant commercial interest because of their numerous uses across the culinary, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic sectors. The plant spreads by producing thin, lanceolate leaves that seem to pop out of the ground without the need for a stem (Shah et al., 2011). The economy of lemongrass cultivation is expanding quickly. Despite being grown all over the world, Oman is home to a variety of plants with specific qualities, particularly in Jabal Akhdare mountain, where the climate is ideal for growing potential crops and herbs. Although the health benefits of lemongrass are well known worldwide, thorough research on the bioactive potential of lemongrass products grown in Oman is lacking. It's critical to comprehend the special qualities and possibilities of locally farmed lemongrass. Despite its established therapeutic advantages, lemongrass and its essential oil used in Omani traditional medicine or local healthcare procedures. Thus, recognising and highlighting its worth could advance knowledge of lemongrass in Oman, highlight its advantages, and possibly improve regional farming methods and financial prospects (Haneen et al., 2025).

 

Since more than 90% of its worldwide exports come from Cochin port in Kerala, India, lemongrass is also regarded as Cochin grass (Joy et al., 2006). The plant has nutrients, including vitamins A, C, E, folate, niacin, riboflavin, proteins, fats, antioxidant compounds, and minerals (N, P, K, S, Mg, Ca, Zn, Mn, Fe, and Cu) (Gaba et al., 2020). Lemongrass essential oil (LEO) and extract are effective against to pathogenic microbes because they contain antibacterial and antifungal agents that inhibit Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial and fungal species, including Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Candida albicans, and Staphylococcus aureus with various susceptibility levels (Nayak et al., 2010; Farias et al., 2019; Wan et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2020; Harintharanon et al., 2023).

 

The goals of the current study are to determine the nutrient profile, especially the fatty acid content and to profile the bioactive organic compounds of LEO GC-FID-FAME and GC-MS analysis, evaluate antimicrobial activities, assess ADMET properties, and display their attraction to microbial target protein that is responsible for preventing the propagation of selected micro-organisms.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Collection of sample

LEO samples were purchased from local market, Al Fawah Specialty Perfumes from Oman. After procuring, the samples were transferred to airtight glass containers and stored in dark and cool place for three days. The stored samples were subjected to intended experiments, fat-nutrient analysis using GC-FID, GC-MS analysis, refractive index assay, anti-microbial analyses, etc.   

 

Estimation of fatty acid composition of LEO

LEO was subjected to evaluate the composition of various fat components, total fat, total fatty acids, saturated fatty acids (SFA), monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), and trans fatty acids (Kostik et al., 2013).

 

Refractive index evaluation of LEO

The ratio of light speed in a vacuum to its speed via a medium is known as the refractive index (RI) determining with RM40, Refractometer, Mettler Toledo device (Riazi and Roomi, 2001).  A reference temperature of 20 ± 2°C was used to determine RI after a double prism was opened and a few drops of LEO were poured on it. The prism was routinely cleansed with a non-polar organic solvent and then dried with a clean tissue; the refractometer was cleaned by wiping off the oil with smooth tissue paper in between readings. Every RI measurement was carried out twice, and the control used for this assay was Milli-Q water.

 

Profiling of fatty acids from LEO using GC-FID-FAME analysis

The fatty acid composition of LEO was screened using GC-FID-FAME analysis (Samson and Ipeghan, 2020) with slight modification. With the Agilent: 7890-Jeol: Accu-TOF GCV system with a capillary column, GC-FID-FAME analysis was carried outHydrogen was used as a carrier gas with a split ratio of 50 and a steady flow rate of 2 milliliters per minute. The oven was programmed as follows: 120°C (hold for 1.0 minutes), then 10°C to 175°C, (hold for 10 minutes), 5°C to 210°C (hold for 5 minutes), finally reach 230°C at 5°C and hold for 5 minutes. The fixed air and hydrogen fluxes were 300 ml/min and 30 ml/min, respectively. The temperature of the detector (FID) was 280°C, whereas the injector was 250°C. A 1μl injection volume was maintained. By using GC-FID analysis, the percentage compositions of different chemicals were determined. The RI in co-injection with standard compounds of fatty acid was used to identify the composition of LEO while also comparing the data from the MS literature. Lastly, using GC-FID peak regions without correction factors, the percentage (%) composition of each element of LEO samples was ascertained.

 

Profiling of bioactive organic compounds of LEO using GC-MS analysis

The bioactive compounds of LEO were screened using GC-MS analysis (Mirghani et al., 2012). A 20 mL reaction container with a screw cap was filled with 100 microliters of LEO. Hexane (10 mL) was added to this and thoroughly dissolved.  These were well combined with 100 microliters of 2 N potassium hydroxide in methanol. For 30 seconds, the tube was vortexed while it was securely closedAfter centrifuging the solution until a clear supernatant was obtained, it was transferred to an autosampler vial for GC-MS analysis.

 

A GC-MS system was used to analyze the organic components of LEO both qualitatively and quantitatively. Thermo Trace 1310 GC & ISQ 7000 MS, in combination with a TGWAXMS column (60m×0.32mm) mm ID, 1 µm) was used to look into potential volatile and semi-volatile chemicals in the oil. Using an (Thermo Triplus RSH), split injection was done automatically. The concentration of the sample solution used was 1 mg/ml. Helium, the carrier gas, has a purity of over 99.99%. The oil sample (1 mg/ml) was injected into the column at 1 ml/min of flow rate with 15 ml/min as total flow along with a linear velocity of 35.5 cm/sec, 11 units as a split ratio, and a purge flow of 3.5 ml/min. A temperature of 280°C was chosen for ion source and (250°C) for the contact. The solvent cut time was kept at 4.5 minutes by using the relative detector gain mode. The injection temperature and pressure in split injection mode were 240°C and 55 kPa, respectively. The initial temperature of the column oven was 50°C, and it was held there for 2 minutesIt was then gradually raised to 180°C with 20 minutes hold time, and finally reached 240°C with a 20 minutes hold time at a rate of 20°C per minuteThe headspace incubation (Agitator) temperature was kept at 70°C and the incubation time was held for 20 minutes. The oil molecules were identified by comparing the patterns of the MS spectra of the bioactive organic compounds with the standard mass spectra from the provided Mass Spectra Database.

 

Antibacterial activity of LEO against potential bacteria and fungi

By employing the agar well diffusion model, antimicrobial potential of LEO was assessed. Nutrient agar medium and Malt extract agar (Oxoid, UK) were prepared following manufacturer's instructions. E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S. aureus, C. albicans cultures were smeared across the respective plates and incubated at 37°C for 24 hrs (Nisar, 2023). 50% and 100% of LEO samples were suspended with 10% dimethyl sulfoxide and filled in wells. To compare their efficiency, standard antimicrobial compounds such as amoxicillin/Fluconazole (125 mg/ml) were added to the respective microbial cultures and incubated. The resulting zone of inhibition formed around the wells were measured to ascertain the antibacterial efficacy of LEO (Al-Mariri et al., 2014).

 

In silico studies

Prediction of ADMET and drug likeness properties

The bioactive organic components of LEO were evaluated for drug-likeness, ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity), and convenience of use as a treatment using the ADMETlab 2.0 web program (Xiong et al., 2021). Compounds that satisfied the Lipinski rule and ADMET requirementswhich include neutral solubility, less hydrogen bond donors and acceptors, water solubility, less total polar surface atoms or topological polar surface area, and greater rotational bonds were evaluated using molecular docking to predict possible interactions with target proteins.

 

Molecular docking analysis and visualization

The several known mechanisms of action of antimicrobial medicines involve a multitude of biomolecular targets (Yasir et al., 2018). Our study focused on the mechanisms of action of filamenting temperature-sensitive mutant Z (FtsZ), a target protein crucial for microbial cell division by acting as a scaffold protein that initiates the development of the division machinery (Roy et al., 2018). The selected ligands of LEO can disrupt FtsZ under in silico molecular docking calculations, which is crucial to validate their potency against the growth of following bacteria and fungi: E. coli, S. aureus, P. aeruginosa and C. albicans.

 

Preparation of protein structure

The RCSB Protein Data Bank (PDB ID: 6UNX) provided the 3D crystallographic structure of the FtsZ protein at a resolution of 1.40 ÅInhibitors and redundant water molecules were among the complex elements of protein structure that were expelledThe polar hydrogen and Kollaman charges were added to the retrieved protein using Discovery Studio 2017 R2.

 

Preparation of ligand structure

The PubChem database (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) provided the three-dimensional crystallographic structures of a few chosen GC-MS screened chemicals in .sdf formatThe ligand structures were subjected to an energy minimization process based on the mmff94 force field in order to maximize the low-energy conformer of the ligandsAfter bond ordering was established, a docking experiment was conducted on the energy-minimized ligands.

 

Molecular docking and visualization of ligand-protein complexes

The FtsZ crystal protein was molecularly docked using PyRx 0.8 (AutoDock Vina).  First, the energy-minimized three-dimensional structures of ligands and target proteins were converted to PDBQT format. The molecules were docked in a covered grid-box using a rigid docking method the Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm. The binding affinities and binding mechanism were ascertained using AutoDock VinaFtsZ-ligand interaction was demonstrated using Discovery Studio 2017 R2 software, which included binding site identification, H-bond attractions with amino acid residues, binding force, distance and angles (Dinesh et al., 2020).

 

RESULTS

Fatty acid composition of LEO

The fat composition analysis of LEO was found to have a total of 99.90 g of fat content, in which 13.85 g of SFA and 80.12 g of MFA (Table 1). Whereas polyunsaturated and trans fatty acids were not found and total fatty acid content was estimated to be 94.78 g.

 

Table 1: Estimation of fatty acid content composition of lemongrass essential oil.

Fat components

Content (g/100g of sample)

Total fat

99.90

Saturated fatty acids (SFA)

13.85

Mono unsaturated fatty acids (MUFA)

80.12

Poly unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)

0.81

Trans fatty acids

<0.01

Total fatty acids

94.78

 

Profiling of fatty acid composition of LEO

GD-FID-FAME profiling identified various fatty acids in the LEO. 9 fatty acids were identified: butyric acid, undecanoic acid, myristoleic acid, pentadecanoic acid, palmitic acid, palmitoleic acid, stearic acid, linolenic acid and eicosenoic acid (Figure 1 and Table 2). Among these, eicosenoic acid and myristoleic acid with peak area percentage of 60.15 and 20.78 respectively.

 


Figure 1. GC-FID-FAME Chromatogram of fatty acids from lemongrass essential oil. Room temperature(A) and refrigerated conditions sample(B).

 

Table 2. GC-FID-FAME Spectral analysis of fatty acids of Lemongrass essential oil.

Peak no

Retention time (min)

Compound

Peak area

Peak area

 (%)

1

5.180

Methyl butyrate (C4:0)

1.55

3.06

2

8.140

Methyl undecanoate (C11:0)

4.09

2.06

3

12.060

Methyl myristoleate (C14:1 [cis-9])

10.49

20.78

4

13.556

Methyl pentadecanoate (C15:1[cis-10])

0.89

1.75

5

13.890

Methyl Palmitate (C16:0)

2.31

4.58

6

15.100

Methyl palmitoleate (C16:1 [cis-9])

0.75

1.49

7

18.190

Methyl stearate (C18:0)

1.63

3.23

8

22.680

Methyl linolenate (C18:3 [cis-6,9,12])

0.21

0.86

9

23.370

Methyl eicosenoate (C20:1)

30.37

60.15

 

Profiling of bioactive organic compounds of LEO

Storage of LEO sample at room temperature

GC-MS profiling of LEO sample maintained under room temperature during first day, identified various bioactive organic compounds (Figure 2 and Tables 3). Totally 20 active compounds were screened and ß-myrcene prominently present. A two-day sample contain 23 active compounds were screened and ß-myrcene prominently present (Figure 3 and Table 4). And 22 active compounds were screened in third-day sample (Figure 4 and Table 5).

 

 

Figure 2. GC-MS Chromatogram of bioactive organic compounds of Lemongrass essential oil from room temperature first day.

 

Table 3. GC-MS Spectral analysis of bioactive organic compounds in Lemongrass essential oil from room temperature first day.

S. No.

Peak name

Retention time (min)

Relative peak area %

Area counts*min

1

3-Butynoic acid

4.915

0.19

500,237.614

2

2-Thiapropane

5.810

0.51

1,358,657.602

3

Acetone

6.643

2.10

5,610,055.813

4

Bicyclo [3.1.1] heptane, 2,6,6-trimethyl-, [1R-(1a,2a,5a)]-

7.517

0.52

1,397,405.505

5

3-Buten-2-ol, 2-methyl-

10.054

1.21

3,220,585.224

6

Santolina triene

10.177

1.93

5,150,341.678

7

ß-Myrcene

12.418

72.82

194,456,223.148

8

Oxirane, 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methyl-

12.959

0.20

521,849.936

9

2,3-Dehydro-1,8-cineole

13.180

0.62

1,658,623.750

10

Limonene

13.340

1.68

4,475,538.971

11

trans-ß-Ocimene

13.585

2.32

6,197,305.236

12

1,3,6-Octatriene, 3,7-dimethyl-, (Z)-

13.915

1.77

4,723,633.020

13

Hept-5-en-2-one <6-methyl->

15.411

6.82

18,199,920.983

14

Furan, 3-(4-methyl-3-pentenyl)-

16.720

0.42

1,126,699.515

15

Pinene oxide

17.414

0.29

765,856.386

16

l-Gala-l-ido-octose

17.856

0.20

543,602.855

17

Linalool

18.584

0.70

1,856,745.429

18

Cyclohexene, 1,5,5-trimethyl-6-acetylmethyl-

18.924

0.38

1,023,467.998

19

cis-Verbenol

23.043

1.56

4,172,605.584

20

Geranial

24.604

3.77

10,062,137.904

 

Total

100

267,021,494.15

 

 

 

Figure 3. GC-MS Chromatogram of bioactive organic compounds of Lemongrass essential oil from room temperature - second day.

 

Table 4. GC-MS Spectral analysis of bioactive organic compounds in Lemongrass essential oil from room temperature second day.

No.

Peak Name

Retention time (min)

Relative peak area (%)

Area counts*min

1

Acetone

6.643

8.21

16,543,096.780

2

Bicyclo [3.1.1] heptane, 2,6,6-trimethyl-, [1R-(1a,2a,5a)]-

7.528

1.28

2,572,219.675

3

Methacrolein

7.674

1.24

2,503,891.036

4

2-Methyl-2,3-pentanediol

7.990

0.38

772,643.385

5

Oxirane, 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methyl-

8.810

0.38

772,899.350

6

1,5-Heptadiene, 2,6-dimethyl-

9.334

0.26

532,623.507

7

3-Buten-2-ol, 2-methyl-

10.055

5.19

10,454,842.879

8

Santolina triene

10.180

2.07

4,164,807.841

9

ß-Myrcene

12.418

56.78

114,408,143.751

10

Cyclopentanol, 2-methyl-, acetate, cis-

12.633

0.32

644,912.943

11

2,3-Dehydro-1,8-cineole

13.187

0.87

1,747,505.229

12

Limonene

13.340

2.41

4,848,453.991

13

trans-ß-Ocimene

13.585

0.84

1,688,666.359

14

(E)-3,7-Dimethyl-2,6-octadien-1-yl propionate

13.915

0.43

872,817.339

15

Hept-5-en-2-one <6-methyl->

15.411

7.45

15,021,129.052

16

l-Gala-l-ido-octose

15.615

0.23

459,988.583

17

Epoxymyrcene <6,7->

16.575

0.82

1,650,356.307

18

Pinene oxide

16.755

1.37

2,760,196.880

19

5-O-Methyl-d-gluconic acid dimethylamide

17.061

0.25

502,855.247

20

Linalool

18.591

0.98

1967319.400

21

3,3'-Methylenebis(1,5,8,11-tetraoxacyclotridecane)

18.928

0.27

540,249.951

22

cis-Verbenol

23.050

2.46

4,955,769.073

23

Citral

24.608

5.52

11,115,147.925

Total

 

100

201,500,536.480

 

 

 

Figure 4. GC-MS Chromatogram of bioactive organic compounds of Lemongrass essential oil from room temperature third day.

 

Table 5. GC-MS Spectral analysis of bioactive organic compounds in Lemongrass essential oil from room temperature third day.

No.

Peak Name

Retention time (min)

Relative peak area (%)

Area counts*min

1

Acetone

6.654

18.12

16,488,725.709

2

Bicyclo [3.1.1] heptane, 2,6,6-trimethyl-, [1R-(1a,2a,5a)]-

7.538

1.63

1,485,057.291

3

1-n-Butoxy-2,3-dimethyldiaziridine

7.684

0.72

657,324.793

4

Oxirane, tetramethyl-

8.004

0.79

718,695.098

5

Isocitral

9.341

0.46

422,609.981

6

Vinyldimethylcarbinol

10.065

10.20

9,280,276.866

7

Santolina triene

10.198

2.65

2,413,649.565

8

ß-Myrcene

12.429

31.03

28,233,522.222

9

Cyclopentanol, 2-methyl-, acetate, cis-

12.650

0.55

499,256.113

10

2,3-Dehydro-1,8-cineole

13.201

1.45

1,318,168.361

11

Sylvestrene

13.354

3.82

3,478,562.809

12

p-Menth-8-en-1-ol, stereoisomer

13.592

0.43

394,231.975

13

5-O-Methyl-d-gluconic acid dimethylamide

14.847

0.57

516,297.533

14

Hept-5-en-2-one <6-methyl->

15.425

10.78

9,808,850.555

15

Epoxymyrcene <6,7->

16.592

1.38

1,255,246.457

16

Pinene oxide

16.772

1.45

1,316,308.503

17

1-Nitro-2-acetamido-1,2-dideoxy-d-mannitol

17.075

0.78

711,458.587

18

a-Methyl-a-[4-methyl-3-pentenyl] oxiranemethanol

17.207

0.61

555,132.304

19

a-Methyl-a-[4-methyl-3-pentenyl] oxiranemethanol

17.734

0.64

583,761.407

20

Pinene hydrate

18.608

1.48

1,344,596.312

21

cis-Verbenol

23.071

2.78

2,528,185.595

22

Citral

24.639

7.68

6,984,560.296

 

Total

 

100

90,994,478.330

 

Storage of LEO sample at refrigeration

One day refrigerated LEO sample GC-MS profiling identified 24 bioactive compounds (Figure 5, and Table 6). A two-day sample shown 23 bioactive organic compounds (Figure 6, and Table 7). And 29 compounds present in third-day sample (Figure 7, and Table 8).

 

 

 

Figure 5. GC-MS Chromatogram of bioactive organic compounds of Lemongrass essential oil from refrigerated temperaturefirst day.

 

Table 6. GC-MS Spectral analysis of bioactive organic compounds in Lemongrass essential oil from refrigerated temperaturefirst day.

No.

Peak Name

Retention time (min)

Relative peak area (%)

Area counts*min

1

1-(Cyclopentylcarbonyl)-4-piperidinamine

4.915

0.20

558,546.922

2

2-Thiapropane

5.806

0.54

1,544,423.002

3

Acetone

6.640

2.10

5,966,740.434

4

Bicyclo [3.1.1] heptane, 2,6,6-trimethyl-, [1R-(1a,2a,5a)]-

7.521

0.68

1,943,339.327

5

Metronidazole

7.844

0.18

510,085.212

6

Argon

8.823

0.17

481,506.559

7

Vinyldimethylcarbinol

10.044

1.06

3,029,731.709

8

Santolina triene

10.177

1.79

5,091,691.162

9

ß-Myrcene

12.411

72.40

206,040,149.280

10

Oxirane, 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methyl-

12.962

0.23

643,582.330

11

2,3-Dehydro-1,8-cineole

13.180

0.63

1,794,089.516

12

Limonene

13.333

1.70

4,836,975.516

13

trans-ß-Ocimene

13.581

2.41

6,853,431.513

14

1,3,6-Octatriene, 3,7-dimethyl-, (Z)-

13.911

1.82

5,186,130.698

15

Carvone oxide

14.921

0.15

427,730.457

16

Hept-5-en-2-one <6-methyl->

15.404

6.81

19,394,816.481

17

Epoxymyrcene <6,7->

16.564

0.15

434,084.808

18

Perillene

16.710

0.39

1,111,414.023

19

Pinene oxide

17.404

0.24

674,140.378

20

Ketone, 2,2-dimethylcyclohexyl methyl

17.846

0.20

568,778.061

21

1,5-Dimethyl-1-vinyl-4-hexenyl butyrate

18.578

0.63

1,806,823.619

22

trans-Chrysanthemal

18.911

0.29

814,642.185

23

cis-Verbenol

23.033

1.64

4,680,151.138

24

Citral

24.597

3.24

9,222,586.412

25

2,6-Octadien-1-ol, 3,7-dimethyl-, (Z)-

28.050

0.35

985,658.594

Total

 

100

284,601,249.340

 

 

 

Figure 6. GC-MS Chromatogram of bioactive organic compounds of Lemongrass essential oil from refrigerated temperaturesecond day.

 

Table 7. GC-MS Spectral analysis of bioactive organic compounds in Lemongrass essential oil from refrigerated temperaturesecond day.

No.

Peak Name

Retention time (min)

Relative peak area (%)

Area counts*min

1

3-Butynoic acid

4.923

0.17

423,264.222

2

Acetone

6.640

2.47

5,983,812.862

3

Bicyclo [3.1.1] heptane, 2,6,6-trimethyl-, [1R-(1a,2a,5a)]-

7.521

0.50

1,206,772.305

4

Methacrolein

7.664

0.33

804,176.597

5

Metronidazole

7.848

0.16

395,972.135

6

Argon

8.814

0.20

487,333.676

7

Vinyl-dimethyl-carbinol

10.048

1.65

3,992,670.453

8

Santolina triene

10.177

1.84

4,447,084.524

9

ß-Myrcene

12.415

72.10

174,600,929.598

10

Oxirane, 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methyl-

12.953

0.25

604,352.873

11

2,3-Dehydro-1,8-cineole

13.184

0.66

1,595,367.130

12

Limonene

13.337

1.74

4,214,996.046

13

trans-ß-Ocimene

13.582

2.11

5,104,908.802

14

1,3,6-Octatriene, 3,7-dimethyl-, (Z)-

13.912

1.54

3,729,517.990

15

Hept-5-en-2-one <6-methyl->

15.408

6.54

15,831,854.301

16

Epoxymyrcene <6,7->

16.565

0.25

614,547.494

17

Perillene

16.718

0.49

1,178,242.609

18

Pinene oxide

17.408

0.19

452,761.126

19

l-Gala-l-ido-octose

17.850

0.17

417,987.481

20

1,5-Dimethyl-1-vinyl-4-hexenyl butyrate

18.581

0.71

1,716,206.627

21

trans-Chrysanthemal

18.918

0.29

694,096.782

22

cis-Verbenol

23.037

1.80

4,359,017.823

23

Citral

24.595

3.84

9,306,658.409

Total

 

100

242,162,531.860

 

 

Figure 7. GC-MS Chromatogram of bioactive organic compounds of Lemongrass essential oil from refrigerated temperaturethird day.

 

Table 8. GC-MS Spectral analysis of bioactive organic compounds in Lemongrass essential oil from refrigerated temperaturethird day.

No.

Peak Name

Retention time (min)

Relative peak area (%)

Area

counts*min

1

Acetone

6.647

13.77

19,110,034.055

2

Bicyclo [3.1.1] heptane, 2,6,6-trimethyl-, [1R-(1a,2a,5a)]-

7.528

1.37

1,902,973.760

3

Methacrolein

7.681

0.76

1,053,873.628

4

Oxirane, 2,3-diethyl-

7.987

0.52

715,998.205

5

Oxirane, 2-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-methyl-

8.810

0.31

436,594.661

6

Isocitral

9.334

0.35

483,585.299

7

Vinyldimethylcarbinol

10.055

7.30

10,139,768.532

8

a-Pinene

10.184

3.10

4,305,608.154

9

ß-Myrcene

12.419

33.71

46,796,995.694

10

Cyclopentanol, 2-methyl-, acetate, cis-

12.636

0.36

501,638.130

11

2,3-Dehydro-1,8-cineole

13.184

1.00

1,392,965.005

12

Sylvestrene

13.344

2.73

3,787,443.932

13

p-Menth-8-en-1-ol, stereoisomer

13.582

0.32

437,600.013

14

Verbenyl acetate

14.551

0.27

380,499.411

15

Mannosamine

14.833

0.39

543,913.617

16

cis-Z-a-Bisabolene epoxide

14.932

0.28

395,405.298

17

Hept-5-en-2-one <6-methyl->

15.411

7.54

10,471,007.587

18

Epoxymyrcene <6,7->

16.578

1.15

1,597,302.437

19

Pinene oxide

16.765

1.28

1,774,927.349

20

Tetraacetyl-d-xylonic nitrile

17.061

0.41

570,998.120

21

a-Methyl-a-[4-methyl-3-pentenyl]oxiranemethanol

17.200

0.33

460,803.070

22

l-Gala-l-ido-octose

17.721

0.32

446,518.810

23

1,6-Octadiene, 3-ethoxy-3,7-dimethyl-

18.595

1.13

1,571,021.981

24

cis-Verbenol

23.047

1.91

2,656,257.366

25

Citral

24.615

5.76

7,996,404.255

26

Octaethylene glycol monododecyl ether

41.630

0.58

806,574.108

27

[1,1'-Bicyclopropyl]-2-octanoic acid, 2'-hexyl-, methyl ester

42.246

0.92

1,278,825.277

28

Octaethylene glycol monododecyl ether

42.970

3.80

5,280,831.345

29

[1,1'-Bicyclopropyl]-2-octanoic acid, 2'-hexyl-, methyl ester

44.433

8.30

11,514,870.430

Total

 

100

138,811,239.530

 

GC-MS profiling data shown the major peaks of various bioactive organic compounds of LEO sample maintained under both conditions were compared for higher concentration (Table 9). First-day room temperature sample have higher retention area (97.9%) as compared to the two-day (95.8%) and third-day (94.45%). Whereas, from refrigerated conditions, first-day exhibited higher retention area percentage with 98.08% when compared to the two-day (95.8%) and third-day (94.45%). Among these two categories, LEO samples under refrigerated conditions retained higher percentage of bioactive compounds than room temperature counterparts.

 

Table 9. Comparative analysis of major peaks of bioactive organic compounds of lemongrass essential oil samples.

Major Peak Name

Room temperature

Refrigerated

 

1st Day

2nd Day

3rd Day

1st Day

2nd Day

3rd Day

 

1,3,6-Octatriene,3,7-dimethyl-(z)-

1.77

   

1.77

1.54

 

 

2-Thiapropane

0.51

   

0.81

   

 

3-Buten-2-ol,2-methyl

1.21

5.19

       

 

3-Butric acid

0.19

     

0.17

 

 

Acetone

2.1

8.21

18.12

2.02

2.47

13.77

 

a-Pinene

     

4.21

 

3.1

 

Bicyclo (3.1.1) heptane, 2,6,6-trimethyl- 1R -(1a,2a, 5a)-

0.52

1.28

1.63

0.49

 

1.37

 

cis-verbenol

1.56

2.46

2.78

1.64

1.8

1.91

 

Citral

 

5.52

7.68

3.35

3.84

5.76

 

Epoxymyrcene<6,7>

   

1.38

   

1.15

 

Geranial

           

 

Hept-5-en-2-one <6-methyl>

6.82

7.45

10.78

7.03

6.54

7.54

 

Limonene

1.68

2.41

 

1.65

1.74

 

 

Linalool

0.7

0.98

       

 

Methacrolein

 

1.24

   

0.33

0.76

 

Pinene hydrate

   

1.48

     

 

Pinene oxide

 

1.37

1.45

   

1.28

 

Pinene oxide

   

1.45

     

 

Santolina triene

1.93

2.07

2.65

 

1.84

 

 

ß-Myrcene

72.82

56.78

31.03

75.11

72.1

33.71

 

Sylvestrene

   

3.82

   

2.73

 

trans-ß-Ocimene

2.32

0.84

   

2.11

 

 

Vinylmethylcarbinol

   

10.2

 

1.65

7.3

 

Octaethylene glycol monododecyl ether

         

3.8

 

(1,1-Bicyclopropyl)-2-octanoic acid,2'-hexyl-methyl ester

         

8.3

Sum of Lemongrass Oil

97.9

95.8

94.45

98.08

96.13

92.48

 

 

The refractive index of LEO's revealed that they were ranging from 1.4890 to 1.4891. When compared to the corresponding refractive index values, the brix (Bx) value was found to be 79.34 Bx, which remained constant (Table 10).

 

Table 10. Refractive Index (RI) and Brix values of lemongrass essential oil.

Sample

Refractive Index

Brix (Bx)

Lemongrass oil

1.4890

79.34

1.4890

79.34

1.4891

79.34

 

Antibacterial activity of LEO against potential bacteria and fungi

The antimicrobial activity of LEO in two different concentrations: 50% and 100% (Table 11). Treatment with 100% form ZOI from 27.6 mm to no growth (complete inhibition) as shown in Figure 8. (E. Coli - 21.6 mm; S. aureus - 25.8 mm; P. aeruginosa - 16 mm; C. albicans - no growth). Whereas 50% showed lower ZOI shown, E. Coli - 20.2 mm; S. aureus - 23.3 nm; P. aeruginosa - 15.1 mm; C. albicans - no growth.

 

Figure 8. Agar well diffusion assay. A) E. coli, B) P. aeruginosa, C) S. aureus, D) C. albicans. Sample 1: 50% Lemongrass, Sample 2: 100% lemongrass, Sample 3: Amoxicillin (125mg/mL), Sample 4: DMSO (negative control).

 

Table 11. Antimicrobial potential of lemongrass essential oil against selected microbes in agar well diffusion model.

Organism

LG-100%

LG-50%

Antibiotic/antifungal (Amoxicillin/ Fluconazole 125mg/mL)

E. coli

21.6

20.2

37.2

Pseudomonas aeruginosa

16

15.1

20.8

Staphylococcus aureus

25.8

23.3

50

Candida albicans

NG

NG

No inhibition

Note: NG= No growth found due to high inhibition by the lemongrass essential oil.

 

In-silico studies

ADMET and drug likeliness properties

The analysis of ADMET properties of LEO is listed in the Table 12. Among the above compounds, citral, epoxymyrcene, geranial Hept-5-en-2-one, linalool, and bicyclopropyl-2-octanoic acid have better ADMET and Drug likeliness properties with lesser toxicity, better absorption, moderate to better rate of distribution, metabolism, and excretion, and suitable TPSA, log S, log P, and rotatable bond numbers.

 

Table 12. ADMET properties of bioactive organic compounds from lemongrass essential oil.

Compounds

Abs.

BBB perm.

Metab.

Excre.

Toxic.

TPSA

(Ų)

MW

log P

log S

HBA

HBD

RB

1,3,6-Octatriene, 3,7-dimethyl-(z)-

94.72

0.761

Yes

0.441

-

63.95

136.23

3.475

-4.446

-

-

3

2-Thiapropane

100

0.054

Yes

0.294

-

25.22

62.13

0.979

-0.697

1

0

0

3-Buten-2-ol,2-methyl

96.85

0.032

Yes

0.348

-

38.30

86.13

0.943

-0.184

1

1

1

a-Pinene Bicyclo-(3.1.1) heptane, 2,6,6-trimethyl-1R-(1a,2a,5a)-

-1.761

-0.149

Yes

0.63

-

68.32

154.25

0.566

-1.761

2

2

2

cis-verbenol

94.83

0.752

Yes

0.049

-

68.11

152.23

1.969

-2.393

1

1

0

Citral

95.31

0.626

Yes

0.376

-

68.80

152.23

2.878

-3.377

1

0

4

Epoxymyrcene<6,7>

96.43

0.696

Yes

0.262

-

68.75

152.23

2.686

-2.487

1

0

4

Geranial Hept-5-en-2-one <6-methyl>

96.00

0.657

Yes

1.389

-

92.96

210.31

3.440

-3.32

2

0

4

Limonene

95.89

0.732

Yes

0.213

-

63.63

136.23

3.308

-3.568

0

0

1

Linalool

93.16

0.598

Yes

0.446

-

69.43

154.25

2.669

-2.612

1

1

4

Methacrolein

100

0.04

Yes

0.272

-

31.30

70.09

0.761

-0.241

1

0

1

Pinene hydrate

93.83

0.744

Yes

0.967

-

68.80

154.25

2.193

-2.397

1

1

0

Pinene oxide

96.82

0.931

Yes

0.897

-

68.12

152.23

2.209

-2.742

1

0

0

Santolina triene

94.98

0.758

Yes

0.543

-

63.95

136.23

3.330

-4.116

0

0

3

B-Myrcene

94.69

0.781

Yes

0.438

-

63.95

136.23

3.475

-4.497

0

0

4

Sylvestrene

94.98

0.732

Yes

0.225

-

63.63

136.23

3.308

-3.619

0

0

1

trans-B-Ocimene

94.72

0.761

Yes

0.441

-

63.95

136.23

3.475

-4.446

0

0

3

Vinylmethylcarbinol

96.85

0.032

Yes

0.348

-

38.30

86.13

0.943

-0.184

1

1

1

Octaethylene glycol monododecyl ether

71.67

-1.913

Yes

2.684

-

226.29

538.76

4.032

-3.756

9

1

34

[1,1-Bicyclopropyl]-2-octanoic acid,2'-hexyl-methyl ester

94.37

0.114

Yes

1.309

-

80.33

184.27

3.211

-3.618

1

1

8

Note:  Abs. – Absorption, BBB perm. – BloodBrain Barrier permeability, Metab. – Metabolism, Excre. – Excretion, Toxic. – Toxicity, TPSA (Ų) – Topological Polar Surface Area (square angstroms), MW Molecular Weight, log P Logarithm of the partition coefficient (octanol/water), log S Logarithm of aqueous solubility, HBA Hydrogen Bond Acceptors, HBD Hydrogen Bond Donors, RB Rotatable Bonds

 

Molecular docking analysis of bioactive organic compounds of LEO with PtsZ protein

The grid-box based docking results visualized under Discovery Studio showed their interaction sites, binding mode, binding distance, and angles of the ligand-protein complex (Figure 9A-9E). Among the chosen ligands from LEO, Geranial Hept-5-en-2-one was effectively interact with target protein, FtsZ with a binding energy of -6.1 Kcal/mol with 29 amino acid residues. Citral and Linalool compounds interacted with PtsZ protein with -5.3 Kcal/mol with respectively 28 and 35 amino acids. Whereas, Epoxymyrcene and Bicyclopropyl-2-octanoic acid binding with -4.9 and -5.2 Kcal/mol energy with target protein PtsZ, with 22 and 34 amino acid residues.

 

Most of the interacting amino acid residues were conserved throughout all ligandprotein complexes (Table 13). A major binding interface was formed by Gly19Gly22, Asn24, Ala25, Gly103Gly109, Thr132, Lys133, Pro134, Glu138, Arg142, Asn165, Glu178, Leu179, Phe182, Ala185, Asn186, Leu189, which pointed to the stability of the binding pocket. In addition, certain ligands interactions, unique to their individual binding strength. Geranial Hept-5-en-2-one engaged Phe135 and Ala101, and Linalool from its baseline, formed additional contacts with Ala72, Asp45, Thr65, and Gly183. And bicyclopropyl-2-octanoic acid specific interactions with Thr110, Asp180, and Gly23.

 

Figure 9. Molecular docking visualization of protein-ligands complexes of bioactive compounds of lemongrass essential oil. CitralPtsZ complex (A), EpoxymyrcenePtsZ complex(B), Geranial Hept-5-en-2-one PtsZ complex (C), LinaloolPtsZ complex(D), Bicyclopropyl-2-octanoic acidPtsZ (E).

 

Table 13. Prediction of binding energy and interacting amino acids of the ligands of lemongrass essential oil.

Ligand-Protein complex

Binding energy (Kcal/mol)

Interacting amino acid residues

Citral – FtsZ

-5.3

Chain A: GLY19 GLY20 GLY21 GLY22 ASN24 ALA25 ALA102 GLY103 MET104 GLY105 GLY106 GLY107 GLY109 THR132 LYS133 PRO134 GLU138 ARG142 ASN165 GLU178 LEU179 PHE182 ALA185 ASN186 LEU189

Epoxymyrcene – FtsZ

-4.9

Chain A: VAL18 GLY19 GLY20 GLY21 GLY22 ASN24 ALA25 ALA102 GLY103 MET104 GLY105 GLY106 GLY107 THR108 GLY109 THR132 LYS133 PRO134 GLU138 ARG142 ASN165 GLU178 LEU179 PHE182 ALA185 ASN186 LEU189

Geranial Hept-5-en-2-one –FtsZ

-6.1

Chain A: GLY19 GLY20 GLY21 GLY22 ASN24 ALA25 ASN43 ALA101 ALA102 GLY103 MET104 GLY105 GLY106 GLY107 THR108 GLY109 THR132 LYS133 PRO134 PHE135 GLU138 ARG142 ASN165 GLU178 LEU179 PHE182 ALA185 ASN186 LEU189

Linalool – FtsZ

-5.3

Chain A: VAL18 GLY19 GLY20 GLY21 GLY22 ASN24 ALA25 ASN43 THR44 ASP45 THR65 GLY71 ALA72 ALA102 GLY103 MET104 GLY105 GLY106 GLY107 THR108 GLY109 THR132 LYS133 PRO134 PHE135 GLU138 ARG142 ASN165 GLU178 LEU179 ALA181 PHE182 GLY183 ALA185 ASN186 LEU189

Bicyclopropyl-2-octanoic acid – FtsZ

-5.2

Chain A: VAL18 GLY19 GLY20 GLY21 GLY22 GLY23 ASN24 ALA25 GLY71 ALA72 ALA102 GLY103 MET104 GLY105 GLY106 GLY107 THR108 GLY109 THR110 THR132 LYS133 PRO134 PHE135 GLU138 ARG142 ASN165 GLU178 LEU179 ASP180 PHE182 GLY183 ALA185 ASN186 LEU189

 

DISCUSSION

Fatty acids represent a critical category of fat nutrients essential for maintaining overall human health and well-being. Fatty acids existed in various forms based on their chemical existence SFA, MUFA, PUFA, and trans fatty acids (Pidigam et al., 2024). In order to explore the fat nutrients in the LEO, the present study has estimated the amount of SFA, MFA, PFA, and TFA. LEO contained SFA, MFA and total fatty acid, same levels are observed on other plant-based vegetable oils (Jain et al., 2020).

 

The RI of LEO was determined to assess its physicochemical characteristics and overall purity. The measured RI values indicating high consistency among the samples. RI defined as the ratio of the speed of light in vacuum to its speed in a given medium, is commonly used as an indicator of composition and quality in essential oils (Nayak et al., 2016). The uniform RI values suggest compositional stability of the analyzed samples. The soluble solid content expressed as degree Bx, typically used to estimate total soluble solids in liquid systems, it reflects the relative concentration of dissolved constituents. The observed Bx value was consistent with the refractive index measurements, further supporting the high concentration of soluble components in LEO. Moreover, these values are comparable to those reported for other edible plant-based oils (Martín-Torres et al., 2023), indicating that LEO possesses a substantial amount of soluble bioactive constituents.

 

GC-FID-FAME analysis of LEO from the present study revealed a total of 9 different fatty acids including butyric acid, undecanoic acid, myristoleic acid, pentadecanoic acid, palmitic acid, palmitoleic acid, stearic acid, linolenic acid, and eicosenoic acid. Among these, eicosenoic acid and myristoleic acid were found to be significantly present, indicating that LEO is composed of fatty acids like various other vegetable oils claiming numerous health benefits (Jain et al., 2020). Screen the bioactive inorganic compounds from LEO samples were maintained under room temperature and refrigerated conditions, subjected to the GC-MS analysis to find out the composition pattern in bioactive organic compounds. This shows that first-day room temperature sample have retention area (97.9%) among its group, while refrigerated sample exhibited higher retention area (98.08%). Refrigerated conditions retained a higher percentage of bioactive organic compounds with 96.05% of average against 95.03% of average by room temperature, indicating that maintaining under room temperature can retain bioactive organic compounds to a greater extent. Moreover, the bioactive organic compounds that were screened from LEO hold numerous health benefits including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial, anti-diabetic, anti-carcinogenic, etc. (Khongkhunthian et al., 2009; Farré et al., 2017; Pereira et al., 2018; Malti et al., 2019; Salehi et al., 2019; Surendran et al., 2021; Gutiérrez et al., 2023; Kumar et al., 2024).

 

The highest percentage was found for myrcene, Hept-5-en-2-one <6-methyl> (methyl-heptanone), cis-verbenol, and limonene. Among these, β-Myrcene is a pleasant-smelling compound, belong to olefinic, acyclic unsubstituted monoterpene which occurs in the essential oils of plants such as hops, cannabis, lemongrass, verbena, citrus fruits (Guenther et al., 1949; Simonsen et al., 1947; Madyastha and Srivatsan, 1987; Cesta et al., 2013; FDA, 2020). Myrcene is reported for various biological activities include analgesic, sedative, antidiabetic, antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, and anticancer effects (Rao et al., 1990; Gurgel et al., 2002; Inoue et al., 2004; Ojeda-Sana et al., 2013; Rufino et al., 2015; Bhai et al., 2020). Additional studies implicated the cytotoxic effect of β-myrcene against a cancer cells, such as breast carcinoma, colon adenocarcinoma, leukaemia cells, and other tumour cell lines (Okamura et al., 1993; Saleh et al., 1998; Silva et al., 2007; Ferraz et al., 2013; Bhai et al., 2020). Similarly, 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one is an unsaturated ketone with a citrus-like fruity odor. It is a volatile oil component of citronella, lemongrass, and palmarosa oils used in the fragrance and flavor industries, as well as in the synthesis of vitamin A, vitamin E, and vitamin K1 (Chemical book, 2024).

 

The LEO shown antimicrobial activity against E. coli and P. aeruginosa, S. aureus and C. albicans. The highest inhibition in the fungal cultures where it completely inhibited their growth. And it controlled the growth of the different bacterial pathogens showing more antimicrobial activity against gram-positive bacteria compared to gram-negative bacteria. Its bioactive organic compounds have shown success against a variety of human-based potential fungal and Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial species in earlier studies that tested the antibacterial activity (Naik et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2011; Adukwu et al., 2012; Chiamenti et al., 2019; Gao et al., 2020; Mukarram et al., 2021).

 

The ADMET properties of the LEO bioactive compounds that were screened, total of 20 compounds were shown to meet the ADMET necessities with improved gastrointestinal absorption rate, improved metabolic rate with sensible clearance while circumventing swift degradation, high BBB permeability, improved renal clearance, and low toxicity for safe drug development. Additionally, they had more rotational bonds for increased flexibility and possible binding interactions, fewer hydrogen bond donors and acceptors for enhanced permeability, lower topological polar surface area for improved oral bioavailability, and aquatic and fat solubility and better absorbency for improved oral administration. The compounds with highest qualities were then further vetted and put through molecular docking to see if they might interact with a particular target protein, FtsZ to validate anti-microbial effects. According to docking analysis, Geranial Hept-5-en-2-one from hexane extract had effectually interacted with target protein, PtsZ with minimized binding energy with 29 amino acid residues, followed by Citral and Linalool compounds interacted with PtsZ protein with minimized binding energy with about 28 and 35 amino acids. Whereas, epoxymyrcene and bicyclopropyl-2-octanoic acid exhibited their binding with target protein PtsZ, with 22 and 34 amino acid residues respectively, indicating that the bioactive organic compounds of LEO can interfere with the process of cell division, which would regulate the growth of numerous possible bacterial and fungal species. The current study's results are consistent with earlier research that found that inhibition of the PtsZ protein by a comparable range of minimized binding energy supported the mitigation of a number of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial and fungal species (Yamamoto et al., 2020; Alotaibi et al., 2023).

 

CONCLUSION

Natural products from plant origins have been utilized to treat a variety of illnesses. This study revealed the presence of quality fatty acids and bioactive organic compounds with a literature record of various pharmacological properties including antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-microbial, anti-diabetic, anti-carcinogenic, etc. In addition, the LEO found to exert a significant anti-microbial property against a series of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacterial and fungal species and the same proved with molecular docking experiments, which established a solid interface between the bioactive compounds of LEO with the target protein, PtsZ. Although many of its bioactive compounds have been reported as antibacterial agents, more work is needed to understand how they act, their safety, and their effectiveness against resistant pathogens. Exploring proper formulations and delivery methods will also be important for developing LEO as a potential therapeutic agent.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors are thankful to Al Fawah Specialty Perfumes for providing the original lemongrass oil from their production. The authors Pratheep Thangaraj are grateful to the DBT Star College Scheme, Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of India, New Delhi for research infrastructure support.

 

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Amal Sulaiman Abdullah Al-Hinaai and Rajaa Khalfan Abdullah Al Suleimani: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software (Equal); Zulfa Idris Abdulrahman Al Kindi and Ghanim Salim Said Aal-Thani: Data Curation, Writing- Original Draft Preparation (Equal); Senthilkumar Kabilan and Ravi Akkireddy: Visualization, Investigation (Equal); Rameshkumar Angappan and Pratheep Thangaraj: Writing- Reviewing and Editing (Equal).

 

REFERENCES

Adukwu, E.C., Allen, S.C., and Phillips, C.A. 2012. The anti-biofilm activity of lemongrass (Cymbopogon flexuosus) and grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) essential oils against five strains of Staphylococcus aureus. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 113: 1217–1227. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05418.x

 

Al-Mariri, A. and Safi, M. 2014. In vitro antibacterial activity of several plant extracts and oils against some Gram-negative bacteria. Iranian Journal of Medical Sciences. 39: 36–43.

 

Alotaibi, B.S. 2023. Targeting filamenting temperature-sensitive mutant Z (FtsZ) with bioactive phytoconstituents: An emerging strategy for antibacterial therapy. PLoS One. 18: e0290852. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290852

 

Cesta, M.F., Hard, G.C., Boyce, J.T., Ryan, M.J., Chan, P.C., and Sills, R.C. 2013. Complex histopathologic response in rat kidney to oral β-myrcene: An unusual dose-related nephrosis and low-dose alpha2u-globulin nephropathy. Toxicologic Pathology. 41: 1068–1077. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623313482057

 

Chemical Book. 2024. Organic chemistry, 6-Methyl-5-hepten-2-one: Properties, synthesis and uses. https://www.chemicalbook.com/ChemicalProductProperty_EN_CB4729000.htm

 

Chiamenti, L., Silva, F.P.D., Schallemberger, K., Demoliner, M., Rigotto, C., and Fleck, J.D. 2019. Cytotoxicity and antiviral activity evaluation of Cymbopogon spp hydroethanolic extracts. Brazilian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 55: e18063. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2175-97902019000118063

 

Dinesh, K.L., Prathiviraj, R., Selvakumar, M., Guna, R., Abbirami, E., and Sivasudha, T. 2020. HRLC-ESI-MS based identification of active small molecules from Cissus quadrangularis and likelihood of their action towards the primary targets of osteoarthritis. Journal of Molecular Structure. 1199: 127048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2019.127048

 

Farias, P.K.S., Lopes Silva, J.C.R., de Souza, C.N., da Fonseca, F.S.A., Brandi, I.V., Martins, E.R., Azevedo, A.M., and de Almeida, A.C. 2019. Antioxidant activity of essential oils from condiment plants and their effect on lactic cultures and pathogenic bacteria. Ciencia Rural. 49: e20180140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20180140

 

Farré-Armengol, G., Filella, I., Llusià, J., and Peñuelas, J. 2017. β-Ocimene, a key floral and foliar volatile involved in multiple interactions between plants and other organisms. Molecules. 22: 1148. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules22071148

 

FDA. 2020. Food additive regulations; synthetic flavoring agents and adjuvants.

 

Ferraz, R.P., Bomfim, D.S., Carvalho, N.C., Soares, M.B., da Silva, T.B., Machado, W.J., Prata, A.P., Costa, E.V., Moraes, V.R., Nogueira, P.C., et al. 2013. Cytotoxic effect of leaf essential oil of Lippia gracilis Schauer (Verbenaceae). Phytomedicine. 20(7): 615–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phymed.2013.01.015

 

Gaba, J., Bhardwaj, G. and Sharma, A., 2020. Lemongrass. In: Antioxidants in vegetables and nuts-properties and health benefits (pp. 75-103). Singapore: Springer Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7470-2

 

Gao, S., Liu, G., Li, J., Chen, J., Li, L., Li, Z., Zhang, X., Zhang, S., Thorne, R.F., and Zhang, S. 2020. Antimicrobial activity of lemongrass essential oil (Cymbopogon flexuosus) and its active component citral against dual-species biofilms of Staphylococcus aureus and Candida species. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 10: 603858. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2020.603858

 

Guenther, E. 1948. The Essential Oils: History. Origin in plants. Production. Analysis. United States, Van Nostrand.

 

Gurgel do Vale, T., Couto Furtado, E., Santos, J.G., and Viana, G.S.B. 2002. Central effects of citral, myrcene and limonene, constituents of essential oil chemotypes from Lippia alba (Mill.) n.e. Brown. Phytomedicine. 9: 709–714. https://doi.org/10.1078/094471102321621304

 

Gutiérrez-Pacheco, M.M., Torres-Moreno, H., Flores-Lopez, M.L., Velázquez Guadarrama, N., Ayala-Zavala, J.F., Ortega-Ramírez, L.A., and López-Romero, J.C. 2023. Mechanisms and applications of citral's antimicrobial properties in food preservation and pharmaceuticals formulations. Antibiotics. 12: 1608. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12111608

 

Harintharanon, R., Itthidecharon, C., Wanachantararak, P., and Sookkhee, S. 2023. Anticandidal activity of cajuput and lemongrass essential oils supplemented in alcohol-free mouthwash against Candida albicans biofilm formation on 96-well plate and acrylic surfaces. Natural and Life Sciences Communications. 22(4): e2023067.  https://doi.org/10.12982/NLSC.2023.067

 

Inoue, Y., Shiraishi, A., Hada, T., Hamashima, H., and Shimada, J. 2004. The antibacterial effects of myrcene on Staphylococcus aureus and its role in the essential oil of the tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia). Nature Medicine. 58: 10–14.

 

Jain, T., 2020. Fatty acid composition of oilseed crops: A review. Emerging technologies in food science: Focus on the developing world. pp.147-153. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2556-8_13

 

Joy, P.P., Skaria, B.P., Mathew, S., Mathew, G., Joseph, A., and Sreevidya, P.P. 2006. Lemongrass. Indian Journal of Arecanut, Spices & Medicinal Plants. 2: 55–64.

 

Khongkhunthian, S., Sookkhee, S., and Okonogi, S. 2009. Antimicrobial activities against periodontopathogens of essential oil from lemon grass (Cymbopogon citratus (DC.) Stapf.). Natural and Life Sciences Communications. 8(1): 11-22.

 

Kostik, V., Memeti, S., and Bauer, B. 2013. Fatty acid composition of edible oils and fats. Journal of Hygienic Engineering and Design. 4: 112-116.

 

Kumar, S., Kumar, D., Sahu, M., Maurya, N., Mani, A., Govindasamy, C., and Kumar, A. 2024. An in vitro and in silico antidiabetic approach of GC–MS detected friedelin of Bridelia retusa. Journal of King Saud University - Science. 36: 103411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2024.103411

 

Lee, J.E., Seo, S.M., Huh, M.J., Lee, S.C., and Park, I.K. 2020. Reactive oxygen species mediated-antifungal activity of cinnamon bark (Cinnamomum verum) and lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) essential oils and their constituents against two phytopathogenic fungi. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. 168: 104644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2020.104644

 

Madyastha, K. and Srivatsan, V. 1987. Metabolism of β-myrcene in vivo and in vitro: Its effects on rat-liver microsomal enzymes. Xenobiotica. 17: 539–549. https://doi.org/10.3109/00498258709043961

 

Malti, C.E.W., Baccati, C., Mariani, M., Hassani, F., Babali, B., Atik-Bekkara, F., Paoli, M., Maury, J., Tomi, F., and Bekhechi, C. 2019. Biological activities and chemical composition of Santolina africana Jord. et Fourr. aerial part essential oil from Algeria: Occurrence of polyacetylene derivatives. Molecules. 24(1): 204. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24010204

 

Martín-Torres, S., González-Casado, A., Medina-García, M., Medina-Vázquez, M.S., and Cuadros-Rodríguez, L. 2023. A comparison of the stability of refined edible vegetable oils under frying conditions: Multivariate fingerprinting approach. Foods. 12: 604. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12030604

 

Mirghani, M.E.S., Liyana, Y., and Parveen, J. 2012. Bioactivity analysis of lemongrass (Cymbopogan citratus) essential oil. International Food Research Journal. 19(2): 569-575.

 

Naik, M.I., Fomda, B.A., Jaykumar, E., and Bhat, J.A. 2010. Antibacterial activity of lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) oil against some selected pathogenic bacteria. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine. 3: 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1995-7645(10)60129-0

 

Nayak, P.K., Dash, U., Rayaguru, K., and Krishnan, K.R. 2016. Physico-chemical changes during repeated frying of cooked oil: A review. Journal of Food Biochemistry. 40: 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfbc.12215

 

Nisar, R. 2023. Analysis of antibacterial activity of indigenous Mirabilis jalapa, Solanum nigrum and Aloe vera. Pure and Applied Biology. 12: 120070. http://doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2023.120070

 

Ojeda-Sana, A.M., van Baren, C.M., Elechosa, M.A., Juárez, M.A., and Moreno, S. 2013. New insights into antibacterial and antioxidant activities of rosemary essential oils and their main components. Food Control. 31: 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.09.022

 

Okamura, K., Iwakami, S., and Matsunaga, T. 1993. Biological activity of monoterpenes from trees. Toyama-Ken Yakuji Kenkyusho Nenpo. 20: 95–101.

 

Pereira, I., Severino, P., Santos, A.C., Silva, A.M., and Souto, E.B. 2018. Linalool bioactive properties and potential applicability in drug delivery systems. Colloids Surface B Biointerfaces. 171: 578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2018.08.001

 

Pidigam and Banu, Z. 2024. A comprehensive review of omega-3 fatty acids: Sources, industrial applications, and health benefits. Annals of Phytomedicine An International Journal. 13: 20.

 

Rao, V.S., Menezes, A.M., and Viana, G.S. 1990. Effect of myrcene on nociception in mice. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 42: 877–878. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2042-7158.1990.tb07046.x

 

Riazi, M.R. and Roomi, Y.A. 2001. Use of the refractive index in the estimation of thermophysical properties of hydrocarbons and petroleum mixtures. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research. 40(8): 1975-1984. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie000419y

 

Roy, M., Tiwari, G., Donelli, G., and Tiwari, V. 2018. Strategies for combating bacterial biofilms: A focus on anti-biofilm agents and their mechanisms of action. Virulence. 9(1): 522–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/21505594.2017.1313372

 

Rufino, A.T., Ribeiro, M., Sousa, C., Judas, F., Salgueiro, L., Cavaleiro, C., and Mendes, A.F. 2015. Evaluation of the anti-inflammatory, anti-catabolic and pro-anabolic effects of E-caryophyllene, myrcene and limonene in a cell model of osteoarthritis. European Journal of Pharmacology. 750: 141–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2015.01.018

 

Samson, O.O. and Ipeghan, J.O. 2020. GC-FID and FT-IR characterization of lemon grass oil extracted with Soxhlet extraction apparatus using ethanol as solvent. IOSR Journal of Engineering. 10(5): 33-38.

 

Saleh, M.M.H., Hashem, F.A., and Glombitza, K.W. 1998. Cytotoxicity and in vitro effects on human cancer cell lines of volatiles of Apium graveolens var. filicum.  Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Letters. 8: 97-99.

 

Salehi, B., Upadhyay, S., Erdogan Orhan, I., Kumar Jugran, A., L D Jayaweera, S., A Dias, D., Sharopov, F., Taheri, Y., Martins, N., Baghalpour, N., et al. 2019. Therapeutic potential of α- and β-pinene: A miracle gift of nature. Biomolecules. 9(11): 738. https://doi.org/10.3390/biom9110738

 

Shah, G., Shri, R., Panchal, V., Sharma, N., Singh, B., and Mann, S. 2011. Scientific basis for the therapeutic use of Cymbopogon citratus Stapf (lemongrass). Journal of Advanced Pharmaceutical Technology & Research. 2(1): 3-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-4040.79796

 

Silva, N.B., Rangel, M.L., Castro, R.D., Lima, J.M., Castellano, L.R.C., Valença, A.M.G., and Cavalcanti, A.L. 2020. Anti-biofilm and hemolytic effects of Cymbopogon citratus (Dc) Stapf essential oil. Brazilian Research in Pediatric Dentistry and Integrated Clinic. 19: 5011. https://doi.org/10.4034/PBOCI.2019.191.103

 

Silva, S.L., Figueiredo, P.M., and Yano, T. 2007. Cytotoxic evaluation of essential oil from Zanthoxylum rhoifolium Lam. leaves. Acta Amazonica. 37: 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0044-59672007000200015

 

Simonsen, J.L. and Owen, L.N. 1947. The terpenes: The simpler acyclic and monocyclic terpenes and their derivatives. University Press, Cambridge. 

 

Singh, B.R. and Singh, R.K. 2011. Antimicrobial activity of lemongrass (Cymbopogon citratus) oil against environmental microbes, clinical and food origin. International Research Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 1: 228–236.

 

Surendran, S., Qassadi, F., Surendran, G., Lilley, D., and Heinrich, M. 2021. Myrcene—what are the potential health benefits of this flavouring and aroma agent? Frontiers in Nutrition. 8: 699666. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.699666

 

Wan, J., Zhong, S., Schwarz, P., Chen, B., and Rao, J. 2019. Physical properties, antifungal and mycotoxin inhibitory activities of five essential oil nanoemulsions: Impact of oil compositions and processing parameters. Food Chemistry. 291: 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.04.032

 

Xiong, G., Wu, Z., Yi, J., Fu, L., Yang, Z., Hsieh, C., Yin, M., Zeng, X., Wu, C., Lu, A., et al. 2021. ADMETlab 2.0: An integrated online platform for accurate and comprehensive predictions of ADMET properties. Nucleic Acids Research. 49(W1): W5-W14. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab255

 

Yamamoto, S., Saito, R., Nakamura, S., Sogawa, H., Karpov, P., Shulga, S., Blume, Y., and Kurita, N. 2020. Proposal of potent inhibitors for a bacterial cell division protein FtsZ: Molecular simulations based on molecular docking and ab initio molecular orbital calculations. Antibiotics. 9(12): 846. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9120846

 

Yasir, M.D.P., Willcox, D., and Dutta, D. 2018. Action of antimicrobial peptides against bacterial biofilms. Materials. 11: 2468. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma11122468

 

OPEN access freely available online

Natural and Life Sciences Communications

Chiang Mai University, Thailand. https://cmuj.cmu.ac.th

 

Amal Sulaiman Abdullah Al-Hinaai1, Rajaa Khalfan Abdullah Al Suleimani1, Zulfa Idris Abdulrahman Al Kindi2, Ghanim Salim Said Aal-Thani3, Senthilkumar Kabilan4, Ravi Akkireddy5, Rameshkumar Angappan4, 6, *, and Pratheep Thangaraj7, *

 

1 Department of Chemistry, Royal Court Affairs, Oman.

2 Department of Microbiology, Royal Court Affairs, Oman.

3 Department of Natural and Medical Science Research Center, University of Nizwa, Oman.

4 Biorks Analytical and life sciences, Dharmapuri, Tamil nadu 636705, India.

5 Texas Tech University, Health Sciences Center, Lubbock TX 79430, Texas, USA.

6 Department of Biotechnology, Karpagam University, Coimbatore, Tamil nadu 641021, India.

7 Department of Biotechnology, Rathinam College of Arts and Science, Coimbatore, Tamil nadu 641021, India

 

Corresponding author: Rameshkumar Angappan, E-mail: biorks2019@gmail.com

Pratheep Thangaraj, E-mail: pratheeptp@gmail.com

 

ORCID iD:

Rameshkumar Angappan: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-1140-8258

Pratheep Thangaraj: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8911-8555

 


Total Article Views


Editor: Sirasit Srinuanpan,

Chiang Mai University, Thailand

 

Article history:

Received: October 6, 2025;

Revised:  February 24, 2026;

Accepted: March 6, 2026;

Online First: April 20, 2026