We assume the presence of biologically active substances and the antioxidant potential of essential oils. Given the available literature, we assume the inhibitory effect of essential oils on the bacteria Stenotrophomonas maltophilia. We believe that essential oils could also have an inhibitory effect in the vapor phase.

The tested essential oils (Canarium luzonicum CLEO, Melaleuca leucadenron MLEO, Amyris balsamifera ABEO) were bought from the Hanus s.r.o (Slovakia).

Bacteria Stenotrophomonas maltophilia was got from the dairy industry. It was identified by 16S rRNA sequencing and MALDI-TOF MS Biotyper.

There was Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric (GC-MS, Agilent 7890B, Agilent 5977A, Agilent Technologies Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) and CombiPal autosampler 120 (CTC Analytics AG, Zwingen, Switzerland) parsing test of the essential oil used as well as in a previous study (Kačániová et al., 2020). The results were set as the average mean and standard deviation of three repeated measurements.

The activity of capturing free radicals with essential oil was determined in the same way as in the study of (Kačániová et al. 2020) by using 2,2-diphenyl-1- picrylhydrazyl (DPPH, Sigma Aldrich, Germany) method.

The bacterial culture was cultivated in the Muller Hinton broth (MHB, Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK)) at 37 °C for 24 h. One hundred μL inoculum with a density of 0.5 McF was inoculated into each well of a 96-well microtitration plate. There was 100 μl of the essential oil with a concentration from 0.3125 μL to 10 μL per well added after inoculation. Negative control contended a mixture of MHB with essential oil, while a mix of MHB with bacterial inoculum was used as a control of maximum growth (Hassan et al. 2011). The absorbance was measured and evaluated in the same way as it was in the study of (Kačániová et al. 2020). The experiment was carried out in three repeated measurements.

The measurements were repeated three times. Statistical variability of the data was processed with Microsoft™ Excel® software. Results The MIC value (concentration causing 50% and 90% reduction in bacteria growth) was determined by logit analysis. Statistical evaluation of the antioxidant activity of the obtained data was performed using the GraphPad Prism 8.0.1 (GraphPad Software Incorporated, San Diego, California, USA). One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey test was used for statistical analysis.

The main volatile compounds of the analyzed essential oil CLEO based on reduced percentage were limonene 36.38%, elemol 16.65%, α-fellandren 12.18% and elemicin 9.59% (Table 1). (Swift 2002) has stated 59.4%, α-phelandrene 8.01%, and sabinene 3.35% as the main constituents of Canarium luzonicum.

(Orchard et al. 2017) found out that the main components of the essential oil C. luzonicum were limonene 47.5%, elemol 18.4%, and α-phelandrene 9.2%.

(Malik 2019) indicated sabinene 5.7%, α-phelandrene 17.6%, limonene 56%, and elemol 6.3% as the main components of the essential oil C. luzonicum. (Silva et al. 2012) identified limonene, β-Cymene, β-fellandren, α- phellandren and β-pinene as the main components of C. luzonicum essential oil.

The main volatile compounds of the analyzed MLEO based on the reduced percentage were eucalyptol 49.23%, α-terpineol 9.92%, limonene 8.12%, and caryophyllene 5.65% (Table 2). (Pujiarti et al. 2011) in their study tested 9 varieties of M. leucadendron from Java and Indonesia, in which twenty-six compounds were identified. These samples had a very similar composition. The results showed that 1,8-cineole (eucalyptol; 44.76 – 60.19%) was the main compound in these oils, followed by α-terpineol (5.93 – 12.45%), limonene (4.45 – 8.85%) and β- carophyllene (3.78 – 7.64%). Sharifi-Rad et al. (2017) reported M. leucadendron terpinen-4-ol 30%, 1,8-cyneol 15%, α-terpineol 8%, and limonene 1.5% as the main antimicrobial compounds. (Tia et al. 2013) reported in their study terpinolene 29.21%, α-terpinene 22.55%, 2-γ- carene 8.53% and α-phelandrene 7.61% as the main components of M. leucadenron essential oil. (Fall et al. 2017) identified the 1.8-Cineol, α-Terpineol and β- Citronellol as main components M. leucadendron .

The main volatile compounds of the analyzed ABEO based on reduced percentages were valerianol 23.24%, guaiol 16.56%, elemol 9.62%, and γ-eudesmol 7.95% (Table 3). (Alves et al. 2015) analyzed the chemical composition of amyris essential oil (Amyris balsamifera L.) in their study. The main components are eudesmol 23.6%, elemol 14%, and valerianol 12.3%. (Uniyal et al. 2016) studied the chemical composition of essential oils by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. Their results show that the main components of amyris oil are β- cadinene 22.66%, (+) - calarene 23.29%, driminol 24%, and linalool oxide 8.48%. (Park and Park 2012) reported that the major compounds of A. balsamifera are β- sesquiphellandrene, elemol, γ-eudesmol and valerianol. (Yun et al. 2012) they determined chemical compounds essential oil A. balsamifera and the major constituents were elemol, γ-eudesmol and β-sesquiphellandrene.

CLEO essential oil in our study had an antioxidant activity of 33.43%. (Murthy et al. 2016) determined a DPPH radical inhibition value for the essential oil of 28%. (Lin et al. 2009) found the antioxidant activity of C. luzonicum 11.38%.

MLEO inhibited the DPPH radical at 18.43%. (Pino et al. 2010) reported that M. leucadenron essential oil achieved a free radical inhibition value of 19.9%. (Zhang et al. 2017) reported antioxidant activity of M. leucadenron of 15.7%.

ABEO essential oil achieved an inhibition value of 9.29%. (Nikšić et al. 2018) studied amyris essential oil in their study and recorded an antioxidant activity of 10.8%. (Dahiya and Manglik 2013) determined the antioxidant activity of A. balsamifera at 19.89%.

The essential oils tested were statistically significantly different (p <0.0001).

We determined the MIC 50 and 90 CLEO for S. maltophilia to be 6.67 μL.mL^-1 respectively 6.81 μL.mL^-1 by using an agar microdilution method. (Nikolic et al. 2016) focused on the inhibition of clinical isolates of the genus Candida by the influence of essential oils and found out that the MIC for C. luzonicum oil was 2.5 mg/ml. Zhang et al. (2017) reported MIC C. luzonicum for E. coli 10 μL.mL^-1 and P. fluorescens 12.3 μL.mL^-1. (Angelini et al. 2019) determined MIC of C. luzonicum for A. tubingensis 12.7 μL.mL^-1 and F. oxysporum 3.17 μL.mL^-1.

There was minimum inhibitory concentration 50 and 90 MLEO for S. maltophilia 8.25 μL.mL^-1 and 8.96 μL.mL^-1. (Siddique et al. 2020) reported in his study for M. leucadendron MIC values of 4 μL.mL^-1 for B. spizizenii, 8 μL.mL^-1 S. aureus and resistance to P. aeruginosa 250 μL.mL^-1 and S. enterica 250 μL.mL^-1. (Lieu et al. 2018) examined the antifungal activity of M. leucadendron in food storage and found out MIC of 20 μL.mL^-1 for A. niger. (Pintas and Quave 2019) focused on the antifungal activity of essential oils against Malassezia spp. They determined a MIC of 64 μL.mL^-1 for M. leucadendron. (Bautista-Silva et al. 2020) found MIC of M. leucadendra for Salmonella thiphymurium 7.8 μL.mL^-1 and Pseudomonas aeruginosa 31.2 μL.mL^-1.

We determined a MIC 50 and 90 of 10.31 μL.mL^-1 respectively 10.73 μL.mL^-1 for ABEO. (Xiao et al. 2020) studied the essential oils and their activity against the stationary phase of S. aureus. They determined the MIC for the essential oil of Amyris balsamifera 1.5 μL.mL^-1. (Santiago et al. 2018) examined the antibiofilm activity on Xylella fastidiosa and found out that the MIC for Amyris balsamifera was 125 μL.mL^-1.

The antimicrobial study of essential oils was determined by an in situ method. CLEO inhibited the growth of S. maltophilia on the surface of carrots and potatoes at a concentration of 250 mg/ml. Inhibition for apple was recorded at a concentration of 125 mg.mL^-1 (Figure 1).

MLEO showed inhibition of S. maltophilia growth on carrots at a concentration of 500 mg.mL^-1, on potato and apple surface at 250 mg.mL^-1 (Figure 2).

ABEO inhibited bacterial growth at a concentration of 125 mg.mL^-1 per carrot, 250 mg.mL^-1 per apple and up to 500 mg.mL^-1 per potato (Figure 3).