## 4 Discussion  
The chemical profile of plant EOs may be influenced by various factors including extraction technique, plant issue, cultivar, plant tissue, environment, and geographical origin. Moreover, knowing this parameter is critical to understand EOs biological activities [49]. Among them, the compounds from EOs determine their antioxidant properties [50] and antifungal activity [51], as well. Therefore, chromatographic methods are a suitable tool for understanding the effectiveness of these volatile substances from plants. In agreement with our findings, [PERSON] et al. [52] analyzed the major components of EOs isolated from _C. cassia_ bark to be (_E_)-cinnamaldehyde (69.75%), and 2-methoxycinnamaldehyde (5.92%). Also, [PERSON] et al. [38] identified (_E_)-cinnamaldehyde (69.15%) as the main compound of CCEO used in their study. Similarly, we have found out that the major component in the conception of CVBEO was (_E_)-cinnamaldehyde (44.1%). In line with these findings, several researchers have stated that cinnamaldehyde is the main volatile substance of _C. verum_ bark essential oil [53; 54; 55; 56]. On the other hand, it is known that the most ordinary chemotype found in the EO of _C. verum_ leaf is eugenol [57] corresponding with our findings (70.8%). Based on our analysis we can conclude that the presence of individual components in EOs depends not only on the _Cinnammum_ species, but also on the extracted part of the plant. In general, DPPH testing has been used to evaluate the antioxidant properties of various food products [58; 59]. DPPH radical is a very stable nitrogen-centered radical, which can be applied to evaluate the free radical scavenging ability relating to their antioxidant efficacy [60]. Thus, the above-mentioned technique deals with the measurement of DPPH concentration changes with a spectrophotometer resulting from its reaction with an antioxidant [61]. Generally, it is known that the AA of EOs can vary depending on their chemical profile [62]. Both the minor and major chemical compounds can affect significantly the AA of EOs; therefore, it is not easy to attribute the AA of the EO to only some of its components [63]. This view is also confirmed by our results, where (_E_)-cinnamaldehyde as the main substance in both CCEO (77.1%) and CVBEO (44.1%) chemical conceptions was detected; however, the AA of these oils was very different (29.9 \(\pm\) 0.6%, and 82.4 \(\pm\) 0.1%, respectively). On the other hand, in our CVLEO (exhibiting the highest AA among all three EOs analyzed) as the main compound was found to be eugenol (70.8%), which is known as a substance with proven antioxidant characteristics [64]. Furthermore, [PERSON] et al. [65] determined in ethanolic extracts of _C. verum_ very high values for AA with a percentage of inhibition of 97.59%, which corresponds to our results (more than 82.4% inhibition exhibited by our EOs isolated from _C. verum_ bark and leaf). In addition, a comparable value for AA of _C. cassia_ bark EO (335.78 \(\pm\) 77.15 TEAC) with the data obtained from our CCEO (229.0 \(\pm\) 3.0 TEAC) was reported by [PERSON] et al. [66]. From these results, we concluded that AAs of EOs are on a large scale influenced by the species of plants [67], as well as their extracted parts [68]. The antimicrobial characteristics of diverse EOs isolated from plants are well-known since ancient times [69], and at present, more and more scientists have been focused on determining their ability to eliminate the presence of various foodborne pathogens [70]. Indeed, various types of research papers reveal antifungal activities of diverse EOs against a large scale of fungal strains, including _Penicillium_ spp. (_P. roqueforti, P. solitum, P. chinultatum, P. commune, P. camberti, P. polonicum_) [71]. [PERSON] et al. [72] evaluated the inhibitory effect of _C. verum_ bark EO (in four concentrations: 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 \(\upmu\)g/mL) on the growth of four fungal strains, _Aspergillus niger_, _P. notatum_, _Mycea hieralis_, and _Fusarium oxysporum_.