Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Reviews on Environmental Health

Editor-in-Chief: Carpenter, David O. / Sly, Peter

Editorial Board: Brugge, Doug / Edwards, John W. / Field, R.William / Garbisu, Carlos / Hales, Simon / Horowitz, Michal / Lawrence, Roderick / Maibach, H.I. / Shaw, Susan / Tao, Shu / Tchounwou, Paul B.

IMPACT FACTOR 2017: 1.284

CiteScore 2017: 1.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.438
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.603

See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 33, Issue 1


Antifungal properties of essential oils for improvement of indoor air quality: a review

Harriet Whiley
  • Corresponding author
  • Environmental Health, Science and Engineering, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5000, Australia
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Sharyn Gaskin
  • Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, 28 Anderson St Thebarton, Adelaide 5031, Australia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Tiffany Schroder
  • Environmental Health, Science and Engineering, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5000, Australia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Kirstin Ross
  • Environmental Health, Science and Engineering, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5000, Australia
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-10-27 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2017-0023


Concerns regarding indoor air quality, particularly the presence of fungi and moulds, are increasing. The potential for essential oils to reduce, control or remove fungi, is gaining interest as they are seen as a “natural” alternative to synthetic chemical fungicides. This review examines published research on essential oils as a method of fungal control in indoor environments. It was difficult to compare the relative performances of essential oils due to differences in research methods and reporting languages. In addition, there are limited studies that scale up laboratory results and assess the efficacy of essential oils within building environments. However, generally, there appears to be some evidence to support the essential oils clove oil, tea tree oil, oregano, thyme and lemon as potential antifungal agents. Essential oils from heartwood, marjoram, cinnamon, lemon basil, caraway, bay tree, fir, peppermint, pine, cedar leaf and manuka were identified in at least one study as having antifungal potential. Future studies should focus on comparing the effectiveness of these essential oils against a large number of fungal isolates from indoor environments. Studies will then need to focus on translating these results into realistic application methods, in actual buildings, and assess the potential for long-term antifungal persistence.

Keywords: fungicidal; indoor air; natural; plant-derived compound; plant extract


Indoor air quality is a public health issue of increasing concern (1), (2), (3). One of the leading indoor air quality complaints is the presence of fungi and moulds, which have been associated with increased risk of adverse health effects (4), (5). The most common adverse health effects associated with fungi in indoor environments, as recently reviewed by Nevalainen et al. (6), are various respiratory conditions. Other potential health effects include allergic responses, infection or toxigenic effects, for which the pathophysiology is less evident (2). Of these, infection and toxicity have serious consequences but are rare in occurrence, whereas allergic responses are commonly observed (7). These allergic responses include rhinitis, eye irritation, cough and aggravation of asthma, which is of emerging significance given that the incidence of asthma in children from developed countries is increasing (8), (9), (10). Burr et al. (11) conducted a randomised control trial to explore the effect of eradicating visible mould from the homes of asthma patients. It was found that the symptoms of asthma and rhinitis improved and medication usage decreased in the patients who had indoor mould removed, fungicide applied and a fan installed in the loft of their homes.

Fungi and moulds have also been demonstrated to contribute to sick building syndrome and other building related illnesses (7), (12). Sick building syndrome is recognised as a group of symptoms (e.g. eyes, nose and throat irritation; dry skin, headache and lethargy) that are related to spending time in a particular building. This is more commonly identified in offices; however, there have been reports of sick building syndrome in schools, hospitals, care homes and domestic houses (13). Research has demonstrated that one of the key risk factors of sick building syndrome is dampness, which promotes mould growth (14).

To reduce the potential risk of exposure, indoor areas with visible fungal growth must be immediately remediated (15). Early intervention for fungal contamination is essential; otherwise, professional remediation will be required (3). Remediation typically involves the removal of building material with visible mould contamination, in conjunction with treatment of surfaces with an antifungal product. Remediation should also include steps to prevent moisture build-up, which enables future fungal growth (16). An antifungal agent (otherwise known as a fungicide) is a compound used to kill or inhibit the growth of fungi and/or fungal spores (sporicide) (17). Antifungal agents recommended for indoor environments should be non-toxic to humans, odourless and hypoallergenic (18). It is ideal that the antifungal agent also provides long-term protection from fungal regrowth, especially in humid or moist environments that would promote fungal growth; however, in reality, this long-term persistent protection is difficult to achieve especially for non-toxic fungicides (19), (20).

Globally, there is increasing concern regarding synthetic chemical usage and residue and the potential human health effects of exposure (21). Consequently, there is a push from consumers for ‘natural’ alternatives to chemical antifungal products for use in residential and commercial indoor environments (2), (15), (22). As such, research on essential oils and their potential antimicrobial capabilities has received increasing attention (23). Essential oils are complex mixtures of volatile compounds biosynthesised by plants, the main groups of which include terpenes and terpenoids and aromatic and aliphatic constituents, and are characterised by low molecular weight (24). Essential oils have been widely used in medicine and the food industry for their antimicrobial properties; however, there are limited studies investigating their use for the control of indoor air quality. The increased interest in natural substances is driving the research community to find new applications of these substances. The aim of this review was to examine studies that have investigated the antifungal potential of essential oils specifically as a method for improving indoor air quality for building occupants.


A search was conducted through the Scopus (25), ProQuest (1), Science Direct (6) and Web of Science (26) databases. The search terms included (mould OR mold OR fungi OR fungal OR fungus) AND (“indoor air” OR indoor OR building OR buildings) AND (“essential oil” OR “essential oils” OR “plant-derived compound” OR “plant extract”) AND (antifungal OR fungicidal OR fungicide OR sporicidal OR sporicide OR anti-microbial OR biocide OR biocidal), and the search was limited to the title, abstract and keywords. Figure 1 presents the systematic approach to article inclusion or exclusion. Articles were screened by reading titles and abstracts and initially excluded if they did not describe original research or did not examine the fungicidal activity of essential oils. Articles were then read in full and excluded if they described a fungal control not relating to indoor air or buildings (e.g. articles describing the control of clinical isolates, animal, crop or food spoilage, etc. were excluded). A total of 19 studies that described the antifungal potential of essential oils or their extracts for the purpose of influencing indoor air quality were included and are summarised in Table 1.

Overview of search methods and article inclusion and exclusion criteria (1), (6), (25), (26).
Figure 1:

Overview of search methods and article inclusion and exclusion criteria (1), (6), (25), (26).

Table 1:

Studies investigating the antifungal activity of essential oils for the control of fungi in indoor environments.

Antifungal potential of essential oils for the control of indoor air environments

The biggest challenge when evaluating the antifungal potential of essential oils or their extracts (Table 1) is the lack of a standard method for both designing experiments and describing antifungal efficacy (43). The most commonly adopted screening method identified in the studies shown in Table 1 was the disk diffusion assay. This is where the essential oil or treatment is added to filter paper discs and placed in the centre of agar plates containing fungal lawn. The zone of clearing in fungal growth is measured as an indicator of fungal inhibition. Other studies also used modified versions of this method, including adding the essential oil through syringe injection or placing in a well in the centre of the agar plate (26), (36), (37). Rogawansamy et al. (15) used the disk diffusion assay in addition to a method adapted from Soylu et al. (44) to investigate the antifungal efficiency of the treatments in the vapour phase. Briefly, agar plates with fungal lawns are created and filter paper containing the treatment is placed on the inner surface of the agar plate lid, ensuring no direct contact with the fungal lawn. Plates are sealed with parafilm and antifungal efficiency is determined by measuring the zone of clearing. Another method frequently used was the serial dilution method, where serial dilutions of essential oils were prepared and inoculated with fungal cultures to determine the minimum concentration that inhibited fungal growth (25), (32), (40).

Even when the same method was used, it is difficult to compare results as a consequence of different reporting language used to describe antifungal efficacy. Using the disk diffusion assay, researchers reported the results as either diameter of zone of inhibition (15), (37) or as percentages of growth inhibition compared with the control plates (25), (29), (33). Using the serial dilution method, Šegvić Klarić et al. (40) reported antifungal efficacy using the term minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), which is the lowest concentration that allowed no more than 20% fungal growth (determined by a reduction in the number of colonies in 10 μL of the dilution inoculated onto Sabouraud Glucose Agar incubated at 25°C for 7 days), and minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC), which was the lowest concentration of essential oil that completely inhibited the growth of the fungi. However, this differs from the definitions used by Stupar et al. (32), who also used a variation of the serial dilution method but reported the MIC as the lowest concentration without visible growth (assessed using a binocular microscope) and the MFC as the lowest concentration with no growth after inoculation of the original inoculum. This definition of MIC was supported by Verma et al. (45), who reported MIC as the lowest concentration that resulted in no growth after the incubation period.

The other challenge when evaluating the antifungal efficacy of essential oils is that most of the studies identified in Table 1 are laboratory based and there is a lack of in situ experiments within building environments. This makes it difficult to translate the experimental findings into ‘real-world’ recommendations. Only one study, by Su et al. (23), investigated the antifungal efficacy of essential oils by evaporating essential oil in indoor rooms and measuring the changes in air quality. Another four studies assessed the antifungal efficacy of essential oils against fungal growth on different types of wood surfaces used in building construction; however, all other studies identified were conducted on agar plates or broth cultures (36–39). There is clearly need for further research designed to investigate the antifungal efficacy in indoor environments (in situ) in order to validate the translation of laboratory-based outcomes. There is also a need to investigate the potential long-term persistence of the treatment and any optimum reapplication requirements in order to characterise antifungal capabilities.

Clove oil

Of the essential oils identified in Table 1, clove oil has been researched the most extensively, and there are a number of studies (laboratory and in situ) that have demonstrated that clove oil has strong antifungal capabilities. The most robust study demonstrated that clove essential oil had fungicidal activity comparable to commercial disinfectants and had the highest antifungal efficacy compared with Siberian fir, common caraway, peppermint, willow-leaved gum tree, lemon thyme and bergamot orange against fungi isolated from indoor air and surfaces (A. versicolor, A. niger, A. fumigatus, C. sphaerospermum, C. cladosporioides, P. chrysogenum, P. aurantiogriseum, P. simplicissimum, U. chartarum and P. digitatum) (34). Another study that was designed to have moderate transferability of results, by Yingprasert et al. (31), demonstrated that particle board that had been dipped in 0.63% clove oil completely inhibited Aspergillus and Trichothecium for up to 5 weeks. By increasing the concentration to 3%, it was found that Aspergillus and Trichothecium were inhibited for up to 9 weeks and the percentage of mass lost as a consequence of Trametes and Gloeophylum was reduced by 5% (31).

These findings were supported by other studies that used agar plates spiked with clove oil to demonstrate that it had higher antifungal efficacy against A. niger and G. candidum compared with black pepper, castor-oil plant, cedar, eucalyptus and olive (36). Also, a study using the agar spiked method found that clove oil was 100% effective at controlling R. chinensis, a common white rot fungi found in wood surfaces (29).

Tea tree oil

Two studies from Table 1 identify tea tree oil as a potential antifungal agent. The most translatable study was Su et al. (23), which evaluated tea tree oil by evaporating it in a room and measuring the changes in fungal concentration using an air sampler. This study is one of the few investigations into applying essential oils as a fungicide in a real-world building environment. It was found that the concentrations of fungi in the air initially decreased as a result of the VOCs from tea tree oil, but after 30–60 min, the concentrations returned to normal background indoor levels. However, one of the limitations of this study was that it did not compare the efficacy of tea tree oil to that of commercially available fungicides. Another study used the disk diffusion assay method to test tea tree oil against A. fumigatus and P. chrysogenum isolated from indoor air samples and found that it had greater fungicidal activity compared with some commercially available antifungal agents (15).


Oregano was identified as an effective antifungal agent in a study by Zabka et al. (33) using the agar microdilution method. It was demonstrated to have high inhibition levels against all fungi tested (A. alternata, S. chartarum, C. cladosporioidesand A. niger) and was more effective compared to other essential oils, including English lavender, pennyroyal, corn mint, sage, bitter orange, bergamot orange, common juniper, basil, common sage, tansy and ginger. However, this study used stock culture fungi, which makes it difficult to translate these results compared to studies using environmentally isolated fungi, and did not compare efficacy to that of commercially available fungicides. These findings were supported by another study that also used the microdilution methods to demonstrate that oregano displayed antifungal properties against A. fumigatus, A. nidulans, A. versicolor and a Penicillium species isolated from the frescoes within a monastery in Serbia. However, it was not as effective compared to the biocide benzalkonium chloride, a quaternary ammonium compound (32).


Thyme was also identified as an effective antifungal agent in a study by Zabka et al. (33), with greater fungal inhibition potential compared to essential oils from English lavender, pennyroyal, corn mint, sage, bitter orange, bergamot orange, common juniper, basil, common sage, tansy and ginger. However, this study used stock culture fungi, which makes it difficult to translate these results compared to studies using environmentally isolated fungi, and did not compare efficacy to that of commercially available fungicides. It was also demonstrated to have fungicidal and sporicidal activity in both the liquid and vapour phases against fungal isolates collected from the walls of damp buildings in Slovakia (40). However, in other more robust studies, it was shown to be not as effective compared to clove oil, fir oil or marjoram (28), (34).


Verma et al. (41) demonstrated that the volatile essential oils from lime (C. aurantifolia) and mandarin (C. reticulate) exhibited significant antifungal potency against building fungi A. niger. This was followed up by another study using a modified disk diffusion assay method (the essential oil was needle-inoculated in the centre of the agar plate), which showed that 5 ppm concentration of lemon essential oil was as effective as 5 ppm ketoconazole (a synthetic antifungal drug) against A. niger and G. candidum isolated from the surfaces and indoor air of buildings. The study also demonstrated essential oil from lemon to have greater antifungal potential compared to castor oil, cedar and olive (36).

Other essential oils demonstrating fungicidal potential

Other essential oils that demonstrated potential antifungal activity in at least one study (Table 1) include heartwood, marjoram, cinnamon, lemon basil, caraway, bay tree, fir, peppermint, pine, cedar leaf and essential oil extracts from manuka (eugenol, cinnamaldehyde, thymol and carvacrol).

Essential oils demonstrating only moderate or low fungicidal activity

The essential oils identified in Table 1 which demonstrate only moderate or limited antifungal activity include eucalyptus leaves, crêpe ginger, ginkgo leaves, myrrh, English lavender, pennyroyal, corn mint, sage, bitter orange, bergamot orange, common juniper, common basil, nightshade, castor-oil-plant, olive, willow-leaved gumtree and thujopsene (a compound found in the essential oil of a variety of conifers).

Mechanism of antifungal activity

Understanding the mechanism(s) of action of different antimicrobial agents is important to characterise efficacy as one agent may not inhibit all microorganisms. It is important to acknowledge the principal differences between bacteria and fungi. The structures of fungi and bacteria differ in significant ways, for example most fungi are diploid in nature and have longer generation time compared with bacteria (46). This means that antibacterial and antifungal agents target structures and functions most relevant to the organisms to be inhibited. For example, many antibacterial agents inhibit steps important for the formation of peptidoglycan (47), the essential component of the bacterial cell wall. In contrast, most antifungal compounds target either the formation or the function of ergosterol (48), (49) an important component of the fungal cell membrane. This membrane interaction weakens the structure, increasing permeability, which is responsible for the leakage of solutes across the membrane and causes cell lysis. For example, Shao et al. (50) described this mechanism of action when applying tea tree oil on B. cinerea (an important fungus in viticulture and food spoilage). Tea tree oil was found to inhibit the growth of the fungus and germination of spores was suppressed. The cell wall structure was reported to have lost its ultrastructure and showed thickening and rupturing. The authors concluded that the cell wall integrity was destroyed, increasing the membrane permeability.

Overall, there is currently limited knowledge regarding the antimicrobial mechanisms of essential oils, particularly with regards to antifungal activity (36), (49). A few authors have mentioned the antimicrobial activity of essential oils; however, the mechanism of action has not been studied in great detail (49), (51). Chemical analysis of essential oils show that the major active components are phenols, terpenes, aldehydes and ketones (52), and it is generally believed that essential oils principally act against cell cytoplasmic membranes of microorganisms. Hydrophobicity is an important characteristic of essential oils and their components (51), which may enable them to accumulate in cell membranes, disturbing the structures and causing an increase of permeability.

One study by Pinto et al. (49) demonstrated that clove oil and eugenol (the main component of many essential oils) was found to be fungicidal as a result of extensive lesion of the fungal cell membrane. In addition, clove oil and eugenol reduced the quantity of ergosterol, a specific fungal cell membrane component. This resulted in inhibition of germ tube formation of C. albicans (49). Similarly, it has been suggested that the antifungal action of tea tree oil is as a result of its capability to change or damage the function of fungal membranes (50), (53).

A great deal remains to be learned about the mechanisms of action of essential oils against fungal species. Although some progress has been made with clinical investigations, a greater understanding of these mechanisms is clearly lacking for other environmental organisms. Studies of the mechanisms of action relevant to fungal species in indoor air would allow more efficient and effective use of these agents.

Potential health effects – is ‘natural’ safer?

The increasing interest in ‘natural’ products for controlling microorganisms in indoor environments is due in part to the perception of benefit (i.e. inhibition of fungal growth) without the need for using potentially ‘harmful synthetic chemicals’. However, this assumption that ‘natural’ products are not harmful to human health is flawed.

Currently, there are limited studies investigating the potential adverse health consequences of repeated exposure to essential oils. The oils themselves are complex mixtures, which may contain naturally occurring contact sensitisers. In fact, some evidence suggests that they are potential skin allergens or sensitising agents (23), (54), (55). An ideal antifungal agent would not generate toxic fumes during application and is non-irritating if accidentally exposed to skin. Skin irritation and skin sensitisation are different responses; skin irritation occurs on the first exposure to the agent; the inflammatory reaction is typically rapid and the severity will depend on the concentration of the irritant present, compared with skin sensitisation, which is a complex allergic immunological response, with the reaction typically occurring after repeated exposure to the chemical and is usually irreversible (i.e. once sensitised, always react). Schaller and Korting (55) described a case report of allergic contact dermatitis due to repeated exposure to essential oil use in aromatherapy (applied topically or released as aerosols). There have also been several studies that have demonstrated exposure to essential oils exacerbated respiratory problems including asthma, decreased pulmonary function and increased chest tightness (56), (57).

Thus, the perception that ‘natural’ is safer may not necessarily be appropriate when considering essential oils for fungicidal treatment, and care must be taken with their repeated application in the indoor environment. Essential oils should be considered in the same way that use of chemical fungicides would be, based on risk assessment.

Conclusion and recommendations

Fungal contamination of indoor buildings and indoor air quality is a health issue of increasing concern. There is a need for greater guidance regarding appropriate antifungal agents to treat fungal contamination of buildings, as well as a drive from consumers and other groups to consider the potential of essential oils as a ‘natural’ alternative to commercially available fungicides. This review identifies the studies assessing the fungicidal potential of essential oils against fungi relevant to indoor air quality. The biggest challenge with comparing the fungicidal efficacy of essential oils from different studies is the lack of a standard method and reporting language. Additionally, the efficacy of essential oils is also dependant on the fungal species being challenged which makes it difficult to compare studies using different fungal isolates.

However, despite these challenges, clove oil was identified as the best-performing essential oil within the more robust studies. Additionally, there appears to be some evidence to support the essential oils tea tree oil, oregano, thyme and lemon as potential antifungal agents with relevance to indoor air quality. Heartwood, marjoram, cinnamon, lemon basil, caraway, bay tree, fir, peppermint, pine, cedar leaf and manuka were also identified in at least one study as having antifungal potential; however, there is a need for more robust studies to examine these further.

Future studies should focus on comparing the efficacy of these essential oils against a large number of fungal isolates from indoor environments. Studies will then need to focus on translating these results with in situ studies investigating the effectiveness in actual buildings and assessing the potential for long-term antifungal persistence. The studies identified in this review, which were either moderately or comparatively translational (23), (28), (31), (38), (39), (40), can inform the design of these studies. However, they should additionally compare the efficacy of essential oils to commercially available fungicides and examine the effect of time on fungicidal activity. Furthermore, when considering the application of these essential oils in building environments, the effect of different concentrations, mechanisms of application and the potential human side effects must also be examined.


  • 1.

    Daisey JM, Angell WJ, Apte MG. Indoor air quality, ventilation and health symptoms in schools: an analysis of existing information. Indoor Air 2003;13(1):53–64. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Robbins CA, Swenson LJ, Nealley ML, Kelman BJ, Gots RE. Health effects of mycotoxins in indoor air: a critical review. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 2000;15(10):773–84. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Portnoy JM, Kwak K, Dowling P, VanOsdol T, Barnes C. Health effects of indoor fungi. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2005;94(3):313–20. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Bird C, Balshaw S, Anderson W. Getting the best answer by asking the right question-case studies in occupational exposure to mould. J Health Saf Res Practice 2012;4:19–27. Google Scholar

  • 5.

    Arthur R. Damp Indoor Spaces and Health. Institute of Medicine: Committee on Damp Indoor Spaces and Health. Washington, DC, The National Academy Press, 2004: 355. ISBN 0-309-09193-4. Google Scholar

  • 6.

    Nevalainen A, Täubel M, Hyvärinen A. Indoor fungi: companions and contaminants. Indoor Air 2015;25(2):125–56. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Singh J. Toxic moulds and indoor air quality. Indoor Built Environ 2005;14(3–4):229–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Asher MI, Montefort S, Björkstén B, Lai CK, Strachan DP, et al. Worldwide time trends in the prevalence of symptoms of asthma, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and eczema in childhood: ISAAC Phases One and Three repeat multicountry cross-sectional surveys. Lancet 2006;368(9537):733–43. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Guidelines on assessment and remediation of fungi in indoor environments. New York, USA: The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2008. Google Scholar

  • 10.

    Kim K-H, Jahan SA, Kabir E. A review on human health perspective of air pollution with respect to allergies and asthma. Environ Int 2013;59:41–52. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Burr ML, Matthews IP, Arthur RA, Watson HL, Gregory CJ, et al. Effects on patients with asthma of eradicating visible indoor mould: a randomised controlled trial. Thorax 2007;62(9):767–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Cooley JD, Wong WC, Jumper CA, Straus DC. Correlation between the prevalence of certain fungi and sick building syndrome. Occup Environ Med 1998;55(9):579–84. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Crook B, Burton NC. Indoor moulds, sick building syndrome and building related illness. Fungal Biol Rev 2010;24(3–4):106–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Hänninen OO. WHO guidelines for indoor air quality: dampness and mold. Fundamentals of mold growth in indoor environments and strategies for healthy living. Wageningen, Netherlands: Springer, 2011:277–302. Google Scholar

  • 15.

    Rogawansamy S, Gaskin S, Taylor M, Pisaniello D. An evaluation of antifungal agents for the treatment of fungal contamination in indoor air environments. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2015;12(6):6319–32. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    Chakravarty P, Kovar B. Engineering case report: evaluation of five antifungal agents used in remediation practices against six common indoor fungal species. J Occup Environ Hyg 2013;10(1):D11–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 17.

    Kemp P, Neumeister-Kemp H, Cheong C. Australian Mould Guideline. Osborne Park, Western Australia: Mycologia Australia Pty Ltd; 2005. ISBN: 9780980359404. Google Scholar

  • 18.

    Ogar A, Tylko G, Turnau K. Antifungal properties of silver nanoparticles against indoor mould growth. Sci Total Environ 2015;521:305–14. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Shoemaker RC, House DE. A time-series study of sick building syndrome: chronic, biotoxin-associated illness from exposure to water-damaged buildings. Neurotoxicol Teratol 2005;27(1):29–46. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Clausen CA, Yang VW. Mold inhibition on unseasoned southern pine. International research group on wood preservation. Stockholm, Sweden: IRG Secretariate, 2003:03-10465. Google Scholar

  • 21.

    Glegg GA, Richards JP. Chemicals in household products: problems with solutions. Environ Manage 2007;40(6):889–901. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 22.

    Mehra T, Köberle M, Braunsdorf C, Mailänder-Sanchez D, Borelli C, et al. Alternative approaches to antifungal therapies. Exp Dermatol 2012;21(10):778–82. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 23.

    Su H-J, Chao C-J, Chang H-Y, Wu P-C. The effects of evaporating essential oils on indoor air quality. Atmos Environ 2007;41(6):1230–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 24.

    Bassolé IHN, Juliani HR. Essential oils in combination and their antimicrobial properties. Molecules 2012;17(4):3989–4006. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    Al-Sabri AE, Moslem MA, Hadi S. Antifungal activity of Commiphora myrrha L. against some air fungi. J Pure Appl Microbiol 2015;8(5):3951–5. Google Scholar

  • 26.

    Ficker CE, Arnason J, Vindas P, Alvarez L, Akpagana K, et al. Inhibition of human pathogenic fungi by ethnobotanically selected plant extracts. Mycoses 2003;46(1–2):29–37. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 27.

    Salem MZ, Zidan YE, El Hadidi NM, Mansour MM, Elgat WAA. Evaluation of usage three natural extracts applied to three commercial wood species against five common molds. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 2016;110:206–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    So H-S, Jang H-S, Lee B-R, So S-Y. Antifungal performance of BFS mortar with various natural antifungal substances and their physical properties. Constr Build Materi 2016;108:154–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29.

    Xie Y, Yang Z, Cao D, Rong F, Ding H, et al. Antitermitic and antifungal activities of eugenol and its congeners from the flower buds of Syzgium aromaticum (clove). Ind Crops Prod 2015;77:780–6. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 30.

    Yingprasert W, Matan N, Chaowana P. Fungal resistance and physico-mechanical properties of cinnamon oil and clove oil-treated rubberwood particleboards. J Trop For Sci 2015;27(1):69–79. Google Scholar

  • 31.

    Yingprasert W, Matan N, Matan N. Effects of surface treatment with cinnamon oil and clove oil on mold resistance and physical properties of rubberwood particleboards. Eur J Wood Wood Prod 2015;73(1):103–9. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 32.

    Stupar M, Grbić ML, Simić GS, Jelikić A, Vukojević J, et al. A sub-aerial biofilms investigation and new approach in biocide application in cultural heritage conservation: holy Virgin Church (Gradac Monastery, Serbia). Indoor Built Environ 2014;23(4):584–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 33.

    Zabka M, Pavela R, Prokinova E. Antifungal activity and chemical composition of twenty essential oils against significant indoor and outdoor toxigenic and aeroallergenic fungi. Chemosphere 2014;112:443–8. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 34.

    Levinskaitė L, Paškevičius A. Fungi in water-damaged buildings of vilnius old city and their susceptibility towards disinfectants and essential oils. Indoor Built Environ 2013;22(5):766–75. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 35.

    Sasso S, Scrano L, Bonomo M, Salzano G, Bufo S. Secondary metabolites: applications on cultural heritage. Commun Agr Appl Biol Sci 2012;78(2):101–8. Google Scholar

  • 36.

    Verma RK, Chaurasia L, Kumar M. Antifungal activity of essential oils against selected building fungi. Indian J Nat Prod Resour 2011;2(4):448–51. Google Scholar

  • 37.

    Polizzi V, Fazzini L, Adams A, Picco AM, De Saeger S, et al. Autoregulatory properties of (+)-thujopsene and influence of environmental conditions on its production by Penicillium decumbens. Microb Ecol 2011;62(4):838. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 38.

    Hudson J, Kuo M, Vimalanathan S. The antimicrobial properties of cedar leaf (Thuja plicata) oil; a safe and efficient decontamination agent for buildings. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2011;8(12):4477–87. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 39.

    Singh T, Chittenden C. Efficacy of essential oil extracts in inhibiting mould growth on panel products. Build Environ 2010;45(10):2336–42. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 40.

    Šegvić Klarić M, Kosalec I, Mastelić J, Piecková E, Pepeljnak S. Antifungal activity of thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.) essential oil and thymol against moulds from damp dwellings. Lett Appl Microbiol 2007;44(1):36–42. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 41.

    Verma R, Chaurasia L, Katiyar S. Evaluation of antifungal potency of citrus essential oils against building fungi. Pestology 2007;31(1):29–31. Google Scholar

  • 42.

    Motiejūnaitė O, Dalia Pečiulytė D. Fungicidal properties of Pinus sylvestris L. for improvement of air quality. Medicina (Kaunas) 2004;8:787–94. Google Scholar

  • 43.

    Delespaul Q, de Billerbeck VG, Roques CG, Michel G, Marquier-Viñuales C, et al. The antifungal activity of essential oils as determined by different screening methods. J Essent Oil Res 2000;12(2):256–66. Google Scholar

  • 44.

    Soylu EM, Kurt Ş, Soylu S. In vitro and in vivo antifungal activities of the essential oils of various plants against tomato grey mould disease agent Botrytis cinerea. Int J Food Microbiol 2010;143(3):183–9. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 45.

    Verma RK, Chaurasia L, Katiyar S. Evaluation of antifungal potency of citrus essential oils against building fungi. Pestology 2007:31(1):29–31. Google Scholar

  • 46.

    Ghannoum MA, Rice LB. Antifungal agents: mode of action, mechanisms of resistance, and correlation of these mechanisms with bacterial resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999;12(4):501–17. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 47.

    McDonnell G, Russell AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999;12(1):147–79. PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 48.

    Hector RF. Compounds active against cell walls of medically important fungi. Clin Microbiol Rev 1993;6(1):1–21. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 49.

    Pinto E, Vale-Silva L, Cavaleiro C, Salgueiro L. Antifungal activity of the clove essential oil from Syzygium aromaticum on Candida, Aspergillus and dermatophyte species. J Med Microbiol 2009;58(11):1454–62. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 50.

    Shao X, Cheng S, Wang H, Yu D, Mungai C. The possible mechanism of antifungal action of tea tree oil on Botrytis cinerea. J Appl Microbiol 2013;114(6):1642–9. PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 51.

    Lv F, Liang H, Yuan Q, Li C. In vitro antimicrobial effects and mechanism of action of selected plant essential oil combinations against four food-related microorganisms. Food Res Int 2011;44(9):3057–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 52.

    Ceylan E, Fung DY. Antimicrobial activity of spices. J Rapid Meth Aut Mic 2004;12(1):1–55. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 53.

    Huang R, Pyankov OV, Yu B, Agranovski IE. Inactivation of fungal spores collected on fibrous filters by Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree oil). Aerosol Sci Technol 2010;44(4):262–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 54.

    Lalko J, Api A. Investigation of the dermal sensitization potential of various essential oils in the local lymph node assay. Food Chem Toxicol 2006;44(5):739–46. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 55.

    Schaller M, Korting H. Allergie airborne contact dermatitis from essential oils used in aromatherapy. Clin Exp Dermatol 1995;20(2):143–5. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 56.

    Galdi E, Perfetti L, Calcagno G, Marcotulli M, Moscato G. Exacerbation of asthma related to Eucalyptus pollens and to herb infusion containing Eucalyptus. Monaldi Arch Chest Dis 2002;59(3):220–1. Google Scholar

  • 57.

    Opiekun R, Smeets M, Sulewski M, Rogers R, Prasad N, et al. Assessment of ocular and nasal irritation in asthmatics resulting from fragrance exposure. Clin Exp Allergy 2003;33(9):1256–65. CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-08-01

Accepted: 2017-09-04

Published Online: 2017-10-27

Published in Print: 2018-03-28

Author Statement

Research funding: Authors state no funding involved. Conflict of interest: Authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. Informed consent: Informed consent is not applicable. Ethical approval: The conducted research is not related to either human or animal use.

Citation Information: Reviews on Environmental Health, Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 63–76, ISSN (Online) 2191-0308, ISSN (Print) 0048-7554, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2017-0023.

Export Citation

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Tiffany Schroder, Sharyn Gaskin, Kirstin Ross, and Harriet Whiley
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2017, Volume 23, Number 3, Page 181

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in