Back to all available

Exploring the antibacterial and antioxidant potency of Niaouli essential oil: encapsulation with one-step prepared nanoliposomes and phytochemical insights

biotechnology
pharmacology

Abstract

Niaouli essential oil (NEO), derived from Melaleuca quinquenervia, possesses bioactive properties attributed mainly to 1,8-cineole; however, its therapeutic application is limited by poor water solubility and chemical instability. In this study, one-step nanoliposomal formulations were developed using hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HPβCD) and Tween 80 as stabilizers to improve the bioavailability, antibacterial, and antioxidant activities of NEO. The chemical composition of NEO was characterized using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Nanoliposomes (NL1, NL2 with 0.05 % HPβCD, NL3 with 1% Tween 80) were produced through homogenization and analyzed by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR), and dynamic light scattering (DLS). The antibacterial activity against Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus was evaluated using agar diffusion and microbroth dilution assays, whereas the antioxidant capacity was determined utilizing DPPH and ABTS methods.

NEO-NL2 exhibited the highest encapsulation efficiency (88.3%) and demonstrated the most potent antibacterial activity, with MIC values of 5.24 mg/mL against E. coli and 1.52 mg/mL against S. aureus. Additionally, adding HPβCD and Tween 80 also improved the antioxidant performance of the formulations.

Overall, these findings indicate that one-step nanoliposomal systems offer an effective and biocompatible delivery platform for essential oils, representing a more straightforward and scalable alternative to complex nanosystems for enhancing antibacterial and antioxidant activities.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].