## 3 Results
### Antibacterial Activity  
The antibacterial activity (MIC values) of RoEO against _S. aureus_ was also assessed (Table 2; Figure 4). The Ro_Tunise sample, a commercially sourced RoEO from Tunisia, was included as a global reference point for comparison. It is displayed as a single data point at the end of the graph, as the specific collection period of this sample is unknown. This placement emphasizes its role as an external benchmark, rather than part of the temporally resolved dataset. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Activity** & **Ro\_1** & **Ro\_2** & **Ro\_3** & **Ro\_4** & **Ro\_5** & **Ro\_6** & **Ro\_7** & **Ro\_8** & **Ro\_9** & **Ro\_10** & **Ro\_11** & **Ro\_12** & **Ro\_Tunise** \\ \hline _S. aureus_ & 115.6 \(\pm\) & 194.4 \(\pm\) & 228.8 \(\pm\) & 131.5 \(\pm\) & 178.2 \(\pm\) & 249.7 \(\pm\) & 244.9 \(\pm\) & 186.8 \(\pm\) & 220.2 \(\pm\) & 236.7 \(\pm\) & 137.1 \(\pm\) & 53.87 \(\pm\) & 32.63 \(\pm\) \\ (mg/mL) & 3.902 & 9.131 & 5.913 & 1.415 & 4.756 & 7.905 & 9.287 & 6.911 & 7.288 & 4.588 & 2.512 & 1.295 & 1.307 \\ DPPH & 3.351 \(\pm\) & 3.307 \(\pm\) & 3.447 \(\pm\) & 6.158 \(\pm\) & 4.556 \(\pm\) & 2.763 \(\pm\) & 2.692 \(\pm\) & 3.008 \(\pm\) & 5.033 \(\pm\) & 4.517 \(\pm\) & 3.917 \(\pm\) & 4.233 \(\pm\) & 3.456 \(\pm\) \\ (mg/mL) & 0.129 & 0.146 & 0.046 & 0.13 & 0.059 & 0.137 & 0.031 & 0.036 & 0.113 & 0.053 & 0.053 & 0.194 & 0.067 \\ ABTS1C\({}_{0}\) & 4.283 \(\pm\) & 4.821 \(\pm\) & 4.941 \(\pm\) & 8.672 \(\pm\) & 6.348 \(\pm\) & 3.926 \(\pm\) & 3.281 \(\pm\) & 4.738 \(\pm\) & 6.591 \(\pm\) & 5.316 \(\pm\) & 5.423 \(\pm\) & 5.679 \(\pm\) & 4.190 \(\pm\) \\ (mg/mL) & 0.193 & 0.196 & 0.088 & 0.203 & 0.164 & 0.042 & 0.158 & 0.106 & 0.298 & 0.143 & 0.073 & 0.232 & 0.193 \\ H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\) IC\({}_{0}\) & 5.317 \(\pm\) & 5.824 \(\pm\) & 5.265 \(\pm\) & 9.398 \(\pm\) & 6.137 \(\pm\) & 4.579 \(\pm\) & 4.764 \(\pm\) & 4.448 \(\pm\) & 7.289 \(\pm\) & 6.642 \(\pm\) & 5.756 \(\pm\) & 6.919 \(\pm\) & 5.054 \(\pm\) \\ (mg/mL) & 0.154 & 0.271 & 0.187 & 0.142 & 0.069 & 0.059 & 0.112 & 0.069 & 0.29 & 0.115 & 0.077 & 0.34 & 0.126 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Antibacterial (_S. aureus_ MIC) and antioxidant (DPPH, ABTS, and H\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{2}\) IC\({}_{50}\)) activity (mean \(\pm\) SD) of Romania rosemary EO and Tunisian reference. Figure 4: Antibacterial activity of rosemary EO. EO: essential oil; MIC: minimum inhibitory concentration; Ro: _Rosmarinus officinalis_; Ro_1 to Ro_12: samples of rosemary EO (February 2022 to January 2023); Ro_Tunise: rosemary EO Tunisian reference. Figure 3: Main compounds in Romanian (**a**) vs. Tunisian (**b**) rosemary essential oils. Camphor was found in high concentrations ranging from 29.41% to 40.03%, but this did not consistently correlate with enhanced antibacterial activity. For instance, while February 2022 (Ro_1) had the highest camphor content (40.03%), its antibacterial activity (115.6 ug/mL) was not the most potent. Conversely, January 2023 (Ro_12), with a lower camphor content (29.41%), exhibited the best antibacterial activity (53.87 ug/mL), suggesting that other compounds or synergistic effects might play a role. Camphor is known for its antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory properties. A study showed that RoEO exhibited significant antimicrobial properties against _Bacillus cereus_, _Escherichia coli_, and _Pseudomonas_ spp., with camphor being a major component contributing to this activity [8; 56]. Eucalypt (1,8-cineole) was another dominant compound, ranging from 13.07% to 16.16%, which is significantly lower compared to the Tunisian reference (52.77%). Eucalypt is a major constituent with antimicrobial, expectorant, and anti-inflammatory effects, significantly contributing to the medicinal properties of RoEO. \(\alpha\)-Pinene and \(\alpha\)-myrcene also showed considerable variations. \(\alpha\)-Pinene ranged from 11.36% to 19.33%, while \(\alpha\)-myrcene ranged from 1.65% to 3.08%.