Pomegranate Peel Extract as a Natural Antimicrobial Agent: Extraction Methods, Biochemical Composition, Mechanism of Action, and Application in Food Packaging

Abstract

Natural antimicrobial substances derived from plants are increasingly used in the food industry as safer and more sustainable alternatives to synthetic additives for food preservation. One such example is pomegranate peel extract (PPE), which is increasingly being used as a bioactive ingredient due to its antimicrobial and antioxidant properties, primarily attributed to the presence of phenolic acids, flavonoids, tannins, and other phytochemicals. The phytochemical composition and resulting antimicrobial activity of PPE are strongly influenced by the pomegranate cultivar, geographical origin, and the extraction method used for the peel. This underscores the need to further optimize PPE extraction methods. Additionally, PPE is being incorporated into edible films and coatings to enhance both food safety and quality. PPE has antimicrobial activity against variety of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. The addition of PPE to food packaging has been found to improve and maintain the physicochemical and organoleptic qualities of food during storage, while reducing microbial growth and extending shelf life. Incorporating PPE into food packaging materials aligns with sustainable packaging principles and meets ‘clean-label’ requirements. This article reviews PPE extraction methods, its phytochemical constituents, antimicrobial mechanisms, and applications in food packaging, highlighting its potential role in promoting sustainable food production.

1. Introduction

2. Literature Search Strategy

3. Natural Antimicrobials

A compound or substance to be classified as a “natural antimicrobial” must exist naturally without adding any synthesized materials [26]. These natural antimicrobials can be derived from plants, animals, and beneficial MOs [26-30] (Figure 1).

Many of these compounds serve multiple functions, including enhancing sensory qualities, extending shelf life and nutritional value, and mitigating antibiotic resistance. These substances may exert antimicrobial effects by disrupting cell membranes, inducing cellular leakage, and inhibiting bacterial biosynthetic processes, including protein synthesis and folding, DNA and cell wall synthesis, and enzymatic activity [26, 29, 31-32]. Therefore, increasing public concern regarding the use of natural antimicrobial agents is largely driven by heightened awareness of the potential adverse effects associated with synthetic preservatives and additives commonly used in the food industry [26-27, 30]. Natural substances such as essential oils, plant-derived extracts, and secondary metabolic byproducts from bacteria, plants, and even enzymes are becoming increasingly favorable [26,33]. In general, natural substances are recognized as safe (GRAS) and, when used appropriately, do not pose a risk to consumer health [33].

Moreover, the widespread use of antibiotics has contributed to a rise in bacterial infections caused by drug-resistant strains [34]. By 2050, it is projected that antibiotic-resistant bacteria could cause approximately 10 million deaths worldwide annually [34]. Additionally, human health is significantly threatened by the consumption of residual antibiotics in food, which can accumulate in the body, disrupt the balance of normal gut microflora, and further contribute to the development of antibiotic resistance [29,34]. Therefore, plant-based compounds appear to be a plausible solution to the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. Furthermore, plant extracts have been shown to mitigate antibiotic resistance by promoting synergistic interactions between conventional antibiotics and naturally occurring antimicrobial compounds [32]. Thus, the significant impacts of synthetic preservatives on food safety, environmental pollution, and human health justify the pursuit of naturally derived alternatives from plant-based materials and other natural sources [27, 29, 34].

3.1. Plant-Based Natural Antimicrobials

Among natural antimicrobials from diverse biological sources, plant-derived compounds are the most extensively studied owing to their rich phytochemical profiles and proven safety in food applications.

Several plant-based parts, including seeds, flowers, peels, leaves, and pulps, can be extracted to obtain antimicrobial compounds [26,35]. In particular, fruit and vegetable processing wastes may provide useful supplies of phenolic compounds such as thymol (thyme), benzoic acid (cranberries), and eugenol (cinnamon) [26,35], as well as organic acid compounds such as citric acid (citrus fruit), and malic acid (apple) [26,36]. The potential antimicrobial mechanisms of plant extracts against microorganisms include damaging bacterial cells, disrupting the function of cellular enzymes, and compromising the phospholipid bilayer of the cell membrane [29,32].

The molecular structure of plant compounds significantly influences their antimicrobial activity. For instance, hydroxyl (−OH) groups are believed to interact with bacterial cell membranes, disrupting their integrity and causing cellular contents to leak out [29,37]. Moreover, the plant flavonoids can cross bacterial cell membranes, causing pH variations between cells and damaging the membranes [32]. Furthermore, membrane-disrupting compounds may cause leakage of cellular contents, interruption of metabolic and active transport processes, and loss of cellular energy in the form of ATP [17,32]. Pomegranate peel represents a promising option for food preservation, as it is an abundant and underutilized source of plant-derived phenolics and flavonoids, which exhibit strong antibacterial properties.

3.2. Pomegranate

Building on the general antimicrobial potential of plant extracts, pomegranate peel has received particular attention for its high phenolic content and potent activity against foodborne pathogens. The pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) is a member of the Punicaceae family, and is a small tree that can thrive in a variety of agro-climatic environments [19,24]. Pomegranate has been widely cultivated in the Mediterranean region, Southeast Asia, and the United States, and it has long been used as an herbal remedy for managing a variety of ailments [19]. It has recently been referred to as nature’s power fruit due to its delicious flavor and superior health advantages [38,39]. In addition, pomegranate is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an alongside other fruits, such as dates, as fruits of paradise [24,40]. This plant consists of both edible and inedible parts, which have been used to prevent and treat various infectious diseases, as well as to provide numerous benefits in food applications [17, 24, 40-42].

The inedible part of the pomegranate, primarily the peel, comprises 30–60% of the whole fruit and contains higher levels of biologically active substances than the edible components [19, 43-46]. Several studies have reported that pomegranate peels possess higher total phenolic content, as well as greater antibacterial and antioxidant activities, compared to the edible parts, including the pulp [17, 24, 45-46]. Therefore, the fruit processing sector noticed that this inedible layer could be a novel natural source of bioactive substances due to its significant financial advantages [19, 25, 28]. Understanding the antimicrobial potential of pomegranate peel requires examining how extraction techniques influence the yield and activity of its bioactive compounds.

3.2.1. Extraction Methods and Biochemical Composition

The overall effectiveness of natural antimicrobial compounds is significantly influenced by the extraction process. Thus, a variety of extraction techniques, such as solvent extraction, direct extraction, enzymatic extraction, and high-pressure extraction, have been employed to isolate and purify bioactive compounds for diverse applications [17, 32, 47]. In the solvent extraction method, a range of solvents including water, ethanol, methanol, and acetone are commonly used [17, 28, 41, 47-48].

The choice of solvent for pomegranate peel extraction greatly influences the yield of phytochemicals and the resulting antioxidant activity [17]. Previous studies have shown that methanol is a more effective solvent for extracting bioactive compounds from pomegranate peel compared to other solvents [17,49]. Orak et al. [50] reported that the greatest tannin content was found in the methanol extract compared to water and ethanol extracts. Also, Hanafy et al. [28] reported that the greatest antibacterial activity was observed with the methanol extract of pomegranates compared to the ethanol extract. Although various methods have been explored for pomegranate peel extraction, it has been observed that high-temperature heating can degrade the extracts, thereby reducing the functionality of their components, decreasing the total amount of active compounds, or altering their natural properties [17].

Comparative analyses across studies show that methanol consistently yields pomegranate peel extract with higher phenolic content and greater antimicrobial potency, owing to its superior capacity to solubilize hydrolyzable tannins and other phenolic compounds responsible for disrupting microbial cell membranes [17-18, 37, 42]. In contrast, aqueous extractions typically produce lower phenolic concentrations and weaker antimicrobial effects, as many of the bioactive compounds in pomegranate peel have limited solubility in water [19, 38, 44]. Due to their lower toxicity and regulatory acceptability, ethanol–water combinations generally exhibit an intermediate extraction efficiency, delivering slightly less antibacterial activity than methanol but greater appropriateness for food-grade applications [15, 17, 28]. These solvent-dependent variations highlight the importance of selecting extraction methods that optimize antibacterial efficacy while ensuring safety and scalability, tailored to the intended food application. The antibacterial and antioxidant qualities of pomegranate peels are attributed to a wide range of phytochemicals and bioactive compounds, mainly phenolic acids, flavonoids, and hydrolyzable tannins (Table 1) [17, 43, 46-47, 51-52]. Olaimat et al. [47] used gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-M) to identify the phytochemical components present in methanolic PPE. Twelve chemicals in methanolic PPE were identified, and 5-Hydroxymethylfurfural (5-HMF) was the most common constituent.

Table 1:

Major bioactive constituents identified in pomegranate peel extract. Adapted from [17, 43, 46, 51-52].

Bioactive Substance	Examples
Phenolic acids	cinnamic, ellagic, gallic, caffeic, ferulic, vanillic, syringic, chlorogenic, hydroxycinnamic, hydroxybenzoic, sinapic, and p-coumaric acids
Flavonoids	anthocyanins such as pelargonidin, delphinidin, and cyanidin, in addition to their derivatives such as catechin, epicatechin, rutin, and quercetin
Tannins	punicalagin, punicalin, castalagin, corilagin, pedunculagin, granatins, gallagyldilactone, and tellimagrandin.

However, the biochemical composition of pomegranate peels varies considerably among different cultivars and is influenced by factors such as climate, agricultural practices, and geographic origin [17,48]. Additionally, higher concentrations of phenolic acids and flavonoids, particularly anthocyanins, are responsible for the deep red color of pomegranates, which is important for consumer appeal [17,19]. Compared to extractions using water, ethanol, petroleum ether, or chloroform, methanol has consistently produced pomegranate peel extract with higher phenolic content and more potent antibacterial activity, as reported in published studies [17-18, 37, 42]. Methanol’s high polarity, which increases the solubility and recovery of hydrolysable tannins such as punicalagin and ellagic acid, which are closely linked to antibacterial action, is the main cause of this improved performance [19,38].

However, due to their lower toxicity and wider regulatory acceptance, ethanol–water mixtures are considered more suitable for food-grade applications, even though they often yield slightly lower total phenolic content and antibacterial activity compared to methanol [15, 17, 28]. These solvent-dependent variations show that the choice of extraction solvent has a major impact on PPE’s chemical profile and antibacterial efficiency; as a result, extraction conditions should be customized for the intended food application.

3.2.2. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity of Pomegranate Peel Extract

Once extracted, the biochemical composition of pomegranate peel extract directly influences its antimicrobial efficacy, which has been assessed in numerous in vitro and in vivo studies. PPE has been used to increase the antioxidant capacity of food products [17, 43-44]. For example, PPE showed great potential to extend the shelf life and increase the antioxidant capacity of meat and chicken products, ice cream, and wheat noodles [44]. Ghasemi et al. [43] reported that PPE extracted with methanol–water (50:50, v/v) at different concentrations (0, 0.25, 0.5, 1, and 2%) was effective in reducing lipid oxidation in tahini during 6 months of storage compared with the control (untreated with PPE), owing to the presence of phenolic compounds such as gallic acid, ellagic acid, and punicalagin.

The antimicrobial activity of pomegranate peel extract is primarily attributed to interactions between the hydroxyl groups of its phenolic compounds and the bacterial cell membrane, which can destabilize the membrane, cause leakage of cytoplasmic contents, and ultimately lead to cell death [17, 28, 37]. A conceptual diagram illustrating the antimicrobial mechanism of PPE would typically depict three primary actions: (1) adsorption of phenolic compounds onto the bacterial cell surface, (2) disruption of membrane phospholipid organization leading to increased permeability and leakage of intracellular components, and (3) inhibition of key microbial enzymes through protein binding and metal ion chelation [35-37, 50]. Collectively, these multi-level interactions contribute to the broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity consistently observed for PPE against foodborne pathogens [19, 37, 41].

For example, the inhibition zones of the methanolic PPE extract, as determined by the agar well diffusion method against four different bacterial species, including Enterobacter aerogenes, Salmonella typhi, Staphylococcus aureus, and Klebsiella pneumoniae, were 18.2, 18.3, 24.5, and 11.3, respectively [46]. Moreover, Devatkal et al. [53] studied the antibacterial effect of aqueous PPE at 1%, 5%, and 10% against the Pseudomonas stutzeri strain by broth dilution assay. The PPE effect was measured by counting cells on plates, indicating that the control was >300 CFU with a 10−1 dilution factor, compared to 36 CFU in 1% PPE, while cells were not detected in broth treated with 5% or 10% PPE. When comparing microbial susceptibility patterns, Gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes often exhibit larger inhibition zones and lower MIC values than Gram-negative bacteria such as E. coli or Salmonella spp. [37,46]. This pattern can be attributed to structural differences in the bacterial cell envelope. The outer lipopolysaccharide layer of Gram-negative bacteria acts as a permeability barrier that limits the penetration of many hydrophobic antimicrobial compounds, whereas the thick peptidoglycan layer of Gram-positive bacteria allows phenolic compounds to interact with and more effectively disrupt membrane integrity [35-36, 50]. These structural variations highlight the specific antibacterial activity of pomegranate peel extract (PPE) and underscore the importance of considering the pathogen type when determining the appropriate application concentration [37,41].

Wafa et al. [20] also studied the antibacterial effect of PPE extracted by a mixture of solvents (water, methanol, and ethanol) using the broth microdilution method against S. enterica (Kentucky and Enteritidis serotypes). The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and the minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) were 10.75 and 12.75 mg/mL, respectively, against S. Enteritidis and 12.50 and 12.75 mg/mL, respectively, against S. Kentucky. Furthermore, the in vitro examination of PPE extracted with diethyl ether, 80% methanol, and water showed that the MICs were 0.5 and 4 mg/mL for L. monocytogenes and S. Enteritidis, respectively. The L. monocytogenes numbers in fresh chilled fish dipped for 15 min in a solution containing 300 mL of 10 mg/mL PPE and stored at 4 °C were reduced by >1 log CFU/g after 6 days of refrigerated storage [38]. Moreover, the MIC and MBC of methanol PPE against E. coli O157:H7 were 15 and 20 mg/mL, respectively [37].

Pomegranate peel extract (PPE) obtained using different solvents also exhibits antifungal activity. For example, the minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) and MIC of methanolic PPE against Fusarium sambucinum were 120 and 20 mg/mL, respectively. Concentrations of 1.25 and 20 mg/mL reduced the growth of F. sambucinum on potato tubers by 23.7% and 75.5%, respectively, while complete inhibition of spore development was observed at 20 mg/mL [25]. Also, the antifungal activity of PPE extracted by methanol, ethanol, and water against Penicillium digitatum isolated from yellow citrus fruits was investigated. According to the findings, methanol, ethanol, and water demonstrated greater efficiency, with inhibition zones of 22–24 mm, 20–23 mm, and 18–20 mm, respectively [40]. Depending on the extraction solvent and experimental conditions, pomegranate peel extract (PPE) exhibits antibacterial activity comparable to or exceeding that of other plant-derived antimicrobials, such as thyme oil, clove phenolics, and citrus peel extracts [11, 22-23].

PPE offers broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity with relatively little sensory impact, making it more suitable for use in edible coatings and films where flavor neutrality is desired, in contrast to essential oils, which frequently have strong aromas and may negatively affect the sensory qualities of foods [27, 41, 50]. PPE exhibits competitive or better inhibitory activity against a variety of foodborne pathogens when compared to other plant-derived antimicrobials. Although clove and thyme essential oils exhibit strong broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity, their intense flavor and aroma often limit their use in sensitive food matrices. In contrast, citrus peel extracts, which are rich in limonene and organic acids, generally demonstrate stronger activity against Gram-negative bacteria [10, 12-13, 29]. PPE, on the other hand, is more suitable for incorporation into edible coatings, as it offers strong antibacterial and antioxidant benefits while causing minimal sensory impact [41, 47-48]. Furthermore, unlike plant extracts whose antimicrobial activity largely relies on one or two dominant compounds, PPE’s high tannin and phenolic content enable a multi-mechanistic mode of action, including membrane disruption, metal ion chelation, and enzyme inhibition [19, 35-37, 50].

4. Natural Antimicrobial Agents in Food Packaging

4.1. Food Packaging

Although PPE clearly has antimicrobial potential, its use in active food packaging systems best demonstrates its usefulness. An essential part of the food production process is food packaging. An appropriate packaging material is crucial for maintaining food quality and safety while minimizing food loss [54].

Nearly 30% of food produced is lost due to spoilage during harvesting, transportation, or other handling processes [45,55]. The primary purpose of food packaging is to protect food from potential hazards that could compromise its safety or quality [56]. Both edible and conventional inedible packaging materials can be used to contain and preserve food [54]. Typically, inedible food packaging is single-use and is discarded either when the packaged food is consumed or upon delivery to the consumer [55]. Although conventional food packaging commonly uses materials such as paper, plastic, glass, steel, cardboard, and aluminum, these materials are not environmentally friendly and contribute significantly to pollution through packaging waste [55,56]. Furthermore, most of these materials rely on non-renewable petroleum resources and may pose toxicological risks [55]. Even though certain materials (e.g., paper) have very high recycling rates, nearly above 20%, conventional packaging continues to have a significant environmental impact. On the other hand, other materials (e.g., plastics) typically have poor recycling rates of less than 20% [55].

Consumer demand for safe, environmentally friendly, and less toxic packaging materials is increasing due to growing concerns about the adverse effects of conventional packaging on both human health and the environment [57,58]. Therefore, novel edible packaging has grown significantly as a potential alternative to conventional packaging in the past few decades, achieving eco-friendly packaging, reducing food waste, and guarding against potential food contamination or spoilage [45, 54-55, 58]. On the other hand, some unresolved drawbacks of edible packaging include sensitivity to high or fluctuating temperatures, the occasional need for an additional outer package, lack of cost-effectiveness in certain cases, and the potential to trigger allergic reactions in susceptible individuals [55,58].

4.2. Edible Films and Coatings

Among the various forms of active packaging, edible films and coatings provide an effective vehicle for delivering PPE to food surfaces. Edible films and coatings are modern food safety solutions and represent the most commonly used form of edible food packaging [45, 58-59]. Edible packaging materials are being commercially developed in the food sector, primarily in the US, with an expected annual expansion rate of 14.31% from 2022 to 2030; while the global edible packaging usage was estimated to be worth $0.84 billion in 2021 and expected to increase to reach $2.8 billion by 2030 [58]. Generally, edible films and coatings are thin layers of edible material applied to the food surface, with all components and ingredients being safe and approved for consumption [59,60]. Furthermore, two main categories that distinguish edible films from coatings are the physical structure and the application method [57,58]. Edible films are thin sheets used as food wrappers and intended to remain on the food, typically produced by casting or extrusion. In contrast, edible coatings are biodegradable liquid materials applied directly to the entire food product using techniques such as dipping, spraying, panning, brushing, or fluidized bed methods [58]. Moreover, the application of coating methods on food products is determined by the food type, surface characteristics, and the coating’s primary goal [61]. The most traditional and widely used method for applying edible coatings in food packaging is dipping. In this technique, the product is immersed in a liquid coating solution and then dried to form a thin layer covering the food surface. Dipping is cost-effective, easy to perform, and particularly suitable for coating irregularly shaped food products [58, 61-62].

A standard edible film should be safe for human consumption, cost-effective, free from contaminants, and possess strong mechanical, sensory, and microbiological stability and functionality [58]. In addition, the thickness of edible films and coatings is a crucial physical characteristic, and it should be ≤ 0.3 mm [58]. Additionally, other characteristics of films and coatings, such as surface tension, viscosity, density, application method, and the size and shape of the food product, play a crucial role in determining the thickness of the film or coating [58,61]. Usually, the major components of edible coatings and films are biopolymer materials, including polysaccharides, proteins, or lipids (Figure 2), solvents (e.g., alcohol, water, citric acid, acetic acid, lactic acid, and hydrochloric acid), and additives (e.g., plasticizers, emulsifiers, antioxidants, and antimicrobials) [55, 58, 63].

5. Incorporation of Pomegranate Peel Extract as an Antimicrobial Agent in Edible Coatings

6. Conclusions

List of Abbreviations

Author Contributions

Conflict of Interest

Funding

Acknowledgments

AI Declaration

References

[1] Scallan, E.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Angulo, F.J.; Tauxe, R.V.; Widdowson, M.A.; Roy, S.L.; Jones, J.L.; Griffin, P.M. Foodborne Illness Acquired in the United States—Major Pathogens. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2011, 17, 7–15. [CrossRef]

[2] Lee, H.; Yoon, Y. Etiological Agents Implicated in Foodborne Illness Worldwide. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 1–7. [CrossRef]

[3] Lahra, M.M.; Shoushtari, M.; Hogan, T.R. Meningococcal Surveillance Australia: Reporting Period 1 January to 31 March 2021. Commun. Dis. Intell. 2021, 45. [CrossRef]

[4] Schirone, M.; Visciano, P.; Tofalo, R.; Suzzi, G. Foodborne Pathogens: Hygiene and Safety. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1972. [CrossRef]

[5] Technology Networks. Emerging Technologies in Combating Foodborne Illness. Available online: https://www.technologynetworks.com/tn/articles/emerging-technologies-in-combating-foodborne-illness-315787 (accessed on 17 December 2025).

[6] Aladhadh, M. A Review of Modern Methods for the Detection of Foodborne Pathogens. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 1111. [CrossRef]

[7] Olaimat, A.N.; Osaili, T.M.; Al-Holy, M.A.; Al-Nabulsi, A.A.; Obaid, R.S.; Alaboudi, A.R.; Ayyash, M.; Holley, R. Microbial Safety of Oily, Low Water Activity Food Products: A Review. Food Microbiol. 2020, 92, 103571. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[8] Erhabor, C.R.; Erhabor, J.O.; McGaw, L.J. The Potential of South African Medicinal Plants Against Microbial Biofilm and Quorum Sensing of Foodborne Pathogens: A Review. South Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 126, 214–231. [CrossRef]

[9] Mostafa, S.; Mohamed, H.; Ibraheem, I.; Abdel-Raouf, N. Controlling of Microbial Growth by Using Cystoseira barbata Extract. Egypt. J. Bot. 2017, 57, 469–477. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320423719_Controlling_of_Microbial_Growth_by_Using_Cystoseira_barbata_Extract.

[10] Pisoschi, A.M.; Pop, A.; Georgescu, C.; Turcuş, V.; Olah, N.K.; Mathe, E. An Overview of Natural Antimicrobials Role in Food. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 2018, 143, 922–935. [CrossRef]

[11] Behbahani, B.A.; Falah, F.; Arab, F.L.; Vasiee, M.; Yazdi, F.T. Chemical Composition and Antioxidant, Antimicrobial, and Antiproliferative Activities of Cinnamomum zeylanicum Bark Essential Oil. Evid.-Based Complement Altern. Med. 2020, 2020, 5190603. [CrossRef]

[12] Gedikoğlu, A.; Sökmen, M.; Çivit, A. Evaluation of Thymus vulgaris and Thymbra spicata Essential Oils and Plant Extracts for Chemical Composition, Antioxidant, and Antimicrobial Properties. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 7, 1704–1714. [CrossRef]

[13] Hussain, K.A.; Tarakji, B.; Kandy, B.P.P.; John, J.; Mathews, J.; Ramphul, V.; Divakar, D.D. Antimicrobial Effects of Citrus Sinensis Peel Extracts Against Periodontopathic Bacteria: An In Vitro Study. Rocz. Panstw. Zakl. Hig. 2015, 66, 173–178. [PubMed]

[14] Pal, J.; Raju, C.; Pandey, G.; Shukla, B. Antimicrobial Activity of Pomegranate and Orange Peel Extracts Against Selected Foodborne Pathogens. Pharma Innov. J. 2018, 7, 176–178. [View Online]

[15] Alexandre, E.M.C.; Silva, S.; Santos, S.A.O.; Silvestre, A.J.D.; Duarte, M.F.; Saraiva, J.A.; Pintado, M. Antimicrobial Activity of Pomegranate Peel Extracts Performed by High-Pressure and Enzymatic-Assisted Extraction. Food Res. Int. 2019, 115, 167–176. [CrossRef]

[16] Brar, P.K.; Danyluk, M.D. Nuts and Grains: Microbiology and Preharvest Contamination Risks. Microbiol. Spectr. 2018, 6, 105–121. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[17] Chen, J.; Liao, C.; Ouyang, X.; Kahramanoğlu, I.; Gan, Y.; Li, M. Antimicrobial Activity of Pomegranate Peel and Its Applications in Food Preservation. J. Food Qual. 2020, 2020, 8850339. [CrossRef]

[18] Fawole, O.A.; Makunga, N.P.; Opara, U.L. Antibacterial, Antioxidant, and Tyrosinase-Inhibition Activities of Pomegranate Peel Methanolic Extract. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2012, 12, 200. [CrossRef]

[19] Singh, B.; Singh, J.P.; Kaur, A.; Singh, N. Phenolic Compounds as Beneficial Phytochemicals in Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) Peel: A Review. Food Chem. 2018, 261, 75–86. [CrossRef]

[20] Wafa, B.A.; Makni, M.; Ammar, S.; Khannous, L.; Hassana, A.B.; Bouaziz, M.; Es-Safi, N.E.; Gdoura, R. Antimicrobial Effect of the Tunisian Nana Variety Punica granatum L. Extracts Against Salmonella enterica (Serovars Kentucky and Enteritidis) Isolated from Chicken Meat and Phenolic Composition of its Peel Extract. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2017, 241, 123–131. [CrossRef]

[21] Yousef, A.; Abd El-Moniem, E.; Mahmoud, S. Edible Coating of Soy Protein or Gelatin as a Carrier of Thyme Oil for Maintaining Quality of “Barhee” Dates Fruits During Cold Storage. Plant Arch. 2020, 20, 9311–9322. [View Online]

[22] Saleem, M.; Saeed, M.T. Potential Application of Waste Fruit Peels (Orange, Yellow Lemon and Banana) as Wide Range Natural Antimicrobial Agent. J. King Saud. Univ. Sci. 2020, 32, 805–810. [CrossRef]

[23] Manandhar, S.; Luitel, S.; Dahal, R.K. In Vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Some Medicinal Plants Against Human Pathogenic Bacteria. J. Trop. Med. 2019, 2019, 1895340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[24] Dahham, S.S.; Ali, M.N.; Tabassum, H.; Khan, M. Studies on Antibacterial and Antifungal Activity of Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Am. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2010, 9, 273–281. [View Online]

[25] Elsherbiny, E.A.; Amin, B.H.; Baka, Z.A. Efficiency of Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) Peels Extract as a High Potential Natural Tool Towards Fusarium Dry Rot on Potato Tubers. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 111, 256–263. [CrossRef]

[26] Fan, X.; Ngo, H.; Wu, C. (Eds.) Natural and Bio-Based Antimicrobials: A Review. In Natural and Bio-Based Antimicrobials for Food Applications; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, USA, 2018; pp. 1–24; ACS Symposium Series. [CrossRef]

[27] Batiha, G.E.S.; Hussein, D.E.; Algammal, A.M.; George, T.T.; Jeandet, P.; Al-Snafi, A.E.; Tiwari, A.; Pagnossa, J.P.; Lima, C.M.; Thorat, N.D.; et al. Application of Natural Antimicrobials in Food Preservation: Recent Views. Food Control. 2021, 126, 108066. [CrossRef]

[28] Hanafy, S.M.; Abd El-Shafea, Y.M.; Saleh, W.D.; Fathy, H.M. Chemical Profiling, In Vitro Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities of Pomegranate, Orange and Banana Peel-Extracts Against Pathogenic Microorganisms. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2021, 19, 80. [CrossRef]

[29] Quinto, E.J.; Caro, I.; Villalobos-Delgado, L.H.; Mateo, J.; De-Mateo-Silleras, B.; Redondo-Del-Río, M.P. Food Safety Through Natural Antimicrobials. Antibiotics 2019, 8, 208. [CrossRef]

[30] Stan, D.; Enciu, A.M.; Mateescu, A.L.; Ion, A.C.; Brezeanu, A.C.; Stan, D.; Tanase, C. Natural Compounds with Antimicrobial and Antiviral Effects and Nanocarriers Used for Their Transportation. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 723. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[31] Burt, S. Essential Oils: Their Antibacterial Properties and Potential Applications in Foods—A Review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 94, 223–253. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[32] Gyawali, R.; Hayek, S.A.; Ibrahim, S.A. Plant Extracts as Antimicrobials in Food Products. In Handbook of Natural Antimicrobials for Food Safety and Quality; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2015; pp. 49–68. [CrossRef]

[33] Lucera, A.; Costa, C.; Conte, A.; Del Nobile, M.A. Food Applications of Natural Antimicrobial Compounds. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 287. [CrossRef]

[34] Li, S.; Jiang, S.; Jia, W.; Guo, T.W.; Wang, F.; Li, J.; Yao, Z. Natural Antimicrobials from Plants: Recent Advances and Future Prospects. Food Chem. 2024, 432, 137231. [CrossRef]

[35] Lima, V.N.; Oliveira-Tintino, C.D.M.; Santos, E.S.; Morais, L.P.; Tintino, S.R.; Freitas, T.S.; Geraldo, Y.S.; Pereira, R.L.; Cruz, R.P.; Menezes, I.R.; et al. Antimicrobial and Enhancement of the Antibiotic Activity by Phenolic Compounds: Gallic Acid, Caffeic Acid and Pyrogallol. Microb. Pathog. 2016, 99, 56–61. [CrossRef]

[36] Gurtler, J.B.; Mai, T.L. Traditional Preservatives—Organic Acids. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology; Academic Press: London, UK, 2014; pp. 119–130. [CrossRef]

[37] Surendhiran, D.; Li, C.; Cui, H.; Lin, L. Fabrication of High-Stability Active Nanofibers Encapsulated with Pomegranate Peel Extract Using Chitosan/PEO for Meat Preservation. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 23, 100439. [CrossRef]

[38] Al-Zoreky, N.S. Antimicrobial Activity of Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) Fruit Peels. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 134, 244–248. [CrossRef]

[39] Yehia, H.M.; Elkhadragy, M.F.; Abdel Moneim, A.E. Antimicrobial Activity of Pomegranate Rind Peel Extracts. African J. Microbiol. Res. 2011, 5, 3664–3668. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/216069603_Antimicrobial_activity_of_pomegranate_rind_peel_extracts.

[40] Tayel, A.A.; El-Baz, A.F.; Salem, M.F.; El-Hadary, M.H. Potential Applications of Pomegranate Peel Extract for the Control of Citrus Green Mould. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2009, 116, 252–256. [CrossRef]

[41] Kumar, N.; Daniloski, D.; Pratibha; Neeraj; D’Cunha, N.M.; Naumovski, N.; Petkoska, A.T. Pomegranate Peel Extract—A Natural Bioactive Addition to Novel Active Edible Packaging. Food Res. Int. 2022, 156, 111378. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[42] Sharma, S.; Majumdar, R.K.; Mehta, N.K. Gelling Properties and Microstructure of Silver Carp Surimi Treated with Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) Peel Extract. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 59, 4210–4220. [CrossRef]

[43] Ghasemi, R.; Mohajeri, F.A.; Heydari, A.; Yasini, S.A.; Tafti, A.D.; Sadrabad, E.K. Application of Pomegranate Peel Extract, a Waste Agricultural Product, as a Natural Preservative in Tahini. Int. J. Food Sci. 2023, 2023, 8860476. [CrossRef]

[44] Kazemi, M.; Karim, R.; Mirhosseini, H.; Hamid, A.A.; Tamnak, S. Processing of Parboiled Wheat Noodles Fortified with Pulsed Ultrasound Pomegranate (Punica granatum L. var. Malas) Peel Extract. Food Bioprocess. Technol. 2017, 10, 379–393. [CrossRef]

[45] Kumar, N.; Pratibha; Petkoska, A.T.; Khojah, E.; Sami, R.; Al-Mushhin, A.A.M. Chitosan Edible Films Enhanced with Pomegranate Peel Extract: Study on Physical, Biological, Thermal, and Barrier Properties. Materials 2021, 14, 3305. [CrossRef]

[46] Malviya, S.; Arvind; Jha, A.; Hettiarachchy, N. Antioxidant and Antibacterial Potential of Pomegranate Peel Extracts. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 51, 4132–4137. [CrossRef]

[47] Olaimat, A.N.; Hamaideh, S.; Al-Holy, M.; Al-Nabulsi, A.; Alqudah, A.M.; Jaradat, Z.W.; Osaili, T.; Abughoush, M.; Holley, R.A. The Antimicrobial Activity of Chitosan and Gelatin Coatings Containing Pomegranate Peel Extract Against Listeria monocytogenes on Medjool Dates. Arab J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2025, 32, 198–214. [CrossRef]

[48] Hamaideh, S.; Olaimat, A.; Al-Holy, M.; Al-Nabulsi, A.; Al-Qadiri, H.M.; Hamed, S.; Al-Awwad, N.; Khataybeh, B.; Ababneh, A.M.; Osaili, T.; et al. The Antimicrobial Activity of Pomegranate Peel Extract Incorporated in Edible Chitosan and Gelatin Coatings Against Salmonella enterica on Medjool Dates. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2025, 37, 90–106. [CrossRef]

[49] Kharchoufi, S.; Parafati, L.; Licciardello, F.; Muratore, G.; Hamdi, M.; Cirvilleri, G.; Restuccia, C. Edible Coatings Incorporating Pomegranate Peel Extract and Biocontrol Yeast to Reduce Penicillium digitatum Postharvest Decay of Oranges. Food Microbiol. 2018, 74, 107–112. [CrossRef]

[50] Orak, H.H.; Yagar, H.; Isbilir, S.S. Comparison of Antioxidant Activities of Juice, Peel, and Seed of Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) and Inter-Relationships with Total Phenolic, Tannin, Anthocyanin, and Flavonoid Contents. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 21, 373–387. [CrossRef]

[51] Lisyanti, F.; Budi, S.; Zulfadhilah, M. Formulation Test of Preparations Face Mist Combination of Pomegranate Peel Extract and Mangosteen Peel as an Antioxidants. J. Adv. Med. Pharm. Sci. 2022, 1, 15–22. [CrossRef]

[52] Saadat, S.; Emam-Djomeh, Z.; Askari, G. Antibacterial and Antioxidant Gelatin Nanofiber Scaffold Containing Ethanol Extract of Pomegranate Peel: Design, Characterization and In Vitro Assay. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2021, 14, 935–944. [CrossRef]

[53] Devatkal, S.K.; Jaiswal, P.; Jha, S.N.; Bharadwaj, R.; Viswas, K.N. Antibacterial Activity of Aqueous Extract of Pomegranate Peel Against Pseudomonas stutzeri Isolated from Poultry Meat. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 50, 555–560. [CrossRef]

[54] Barbosa, C.H.; Andrade, M.A.; Vilarinho, F.; Fernando, A.L.; Silva, A.S. Active Edible Packaging. Encyclopedia 2021, 1, 360–370. [CrossRef]

[55] Petkoska, A.T.; Daniloski, D.; D’Cunha, N.M.; Naumovski, N.; Broach, A.T. Edible Packaging: Sustainable Solutions and Novel Trends in Food Packaging. Food Res. Int. 2021, 140, 109981. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[56] Alamri, M.S.; Qasem, A.A.A.; Mohamed, A.A.; Hussain, S.; Ibraheem, M.A.; Shamlan, G.; Alqah, H.A.; Qasha, A.S. Food Packaging Materials: A Food Safety Perspective. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2021, 28, 4490–4499. [CrossRef]

[57] Lu, Y.; Luo, Q.; Chu, Y.; Tao, N.; Deng, S.; Wang, L.; Li, L. Application of Gelatin in Food Packaging: A Review. Polymers 2022, 14, 436. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[58] Nair, S.S.; Trafiałek, J.; Kolanowski, W. Edible Packaging: A Technological Update for the Sustainable Future of the Food Industry. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 8234. [CrossRef]

[59] Jin, T.Z.; Chen, W.; Gurtler, J.B.; Fan, X. Effectiveness of Edible Coatings to Inhibit Browning and Inactivate Foodborne Pathogens on Fresh-Cut Apples. J. Food Saf. 2020, 40, e12802. [CrossRef]

[60] Al-Nabulsi, A.; Osaili, T.; Sawalha, A.; Olaimat, A.N.; Albiss, B.A.; Mehyar, G.; Ayyash, M.; Holley, R. Antimicrobial Activity of Chitosan Coating Containing ZnO Nanoparticles Against E. coli O157:H7 on the Surface of White Brined Cheese. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 334, 108838. [CrossRef]

[61] Suhag, R.; Kumar, N.; Petkoska, A.T.; Upadhyay, A. Film Formation and Deposition Methods of Edible Coating on Food Products: A Review. Food Res. Int. 2020, 136, 109582. [CrossRef]

[62] Tufan, E.G.; Borazan, A.A.; Kockar, Ö.M. A Review on Edible Film and Coating Applications for Fresh and Dried Fruits and Vegetables. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi Fen Bilim. Derg. 2021, 8, 1073–1085. [CrossRef]

[63] Younes, O. Utilization of Antibacterial Edible Coating and Nano-Silver to Enhance the Quality of Fresh and Dried Onion. Egypt. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 98, 613–633. Available online: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:236814539.

[64] Ramos, M.; Valdés, A.; Beltrán, A.; Garrigós, M.C. Gelatin-Based Films and Coatings for Food Packaging Applications. Coatings 2016, 6, 41. [CrossRef]

[65] Yuan, G.; Lv, H.; Yang, B.; Chen, X.; Sun, H. Physical Properties, Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity of Chitosan Films Containing Carvacrol and Pomegranate Peel Extract. Molecules 2015, 20, 11034–11045. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[66] Alsaggaf, M.S.; Moussa, S.H.; Tayel, A.A. Application of Fungal Chitosan Incorporated with Pomegranate Peel Extract as Edible Coating for Microbiological, Chemical and Sensorial Quality Enhancement of Nile Tilapia Fillets. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 99, 499–505. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

[67] Nair, M.; Saxena, A.; Kaur, C. Characterization and Antifungal Activity of Pomegranate Peel Extract and Its Use in Polysaccharide-Based Edible Coatings to Extend the Shelf-Life of Capsicum (Capsicum annuum L.). Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 11, 1317–1327. [CrossRef]

[68] Hanani, Z.A.N.; Yee, F.C.; Nor-Khaizura, M.A.R. Effect of Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) Peel Powder on the Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Properties of Fish Gelatin Films as Active Packaging. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 89, 253–259. [CrossRef]

[69] Abbas, A.; Abdul-Rahman, S.M. Antimicrobial Activity of Edible Film from Chitosan Isolate Incorporated with Pomegranate Peel Extract and Its Use in Chicken Breasts Coat. Plant Arch. 2020, 20, 1127–1132. [View Online]

[70] Mehdizadeh, T.; Tajik, H.; Langroodi, A.M.; Molaei, R.; Mahmoudian, A. Chitosan-Starch Film Containing Pomegranate Peel Extract and Thymus kotschyanus Essential Oil Can Prolong the Shelf Life of Beef. Meat Sci. 2020, 163, 108073. [CrossRef]

[71] Pirsa, S.; Sani, I.K.; Pirouzifard, M.K.; Erfani, A. Smart Film Based on Chitosan/Melissa officinalis Essences/Pomegranate Peel Extract to Detect Cream Cheeses Spoilage. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2020, 37, 634–648. [CrossRef]

[72] Khojah, S.M. Bio-Based Coating from Fish Gelatin, K-Carrageenan and Extract of Pomegranate Peels for Maintaining the Overall Qualities of Fish Fillet. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2020, 29, 810–822. [CrossRef]