| Literature DB >> 24119438 |
Rasheeha Naveed1, Iftikhar Hussain, Abdul Tawab, Muhammad Tariq, Moazur Rahman, Sohail Hameed, M Shahid Mahmood, Abu Baker Siddique, Mazhar Iqbal.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The main objective of this study was the phytochemical characterization of four indigenous essential oils obtained from spices and their antibacterial activities against the multidrug resistant clinical and soil isolates prevalent in Pakistan, and ATCC reference strains.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24119438 PMCID: PMC3853939 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6882-13-265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
MICs of essential oils against bacteria by micro broth dilution assay
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.4 ± 0.87* | 3.8 ± 0.96* | 6.6 ± 2.4* | 5.4 ± 1.08* | |
| 6.1 ± 2.3 | 2.9 ± 0.11 | 3.7 ± 0.94 | 3.26 ± 0.05 | |
| 14 ± 1.7* | 3.8 ± 0.96 | 4.1 ± 0.94 | 4.3 ± 1.08 | |
| 3.4 ± 0.87* | 3.8 ± 0.96* | 2.83 ± 0.11* | 5.4 ± 1.08* | |
| 29.7 ± 1.7* | 4.8 ± 0.96 | 9.4 ± 1.86 | 5.4 ± 1.08 | |
| 4.3 ± 0.87 | 3.8 ± 0.96 | 4.7 ± 0.94 | 7.6 ± 2.8* | |
| 12.2 ± 1.7* | 2.9 ± 0.12 | 7.5 ± 1.8 | 8.6 ± 2.1 | |
aMIC are presented as mean of triplicate values ± SE in mg/ml; ball tested bacteria showed resistant against amoxicillin (30 μg/ml) in MIC assay except B. licheniformis; *significant values at p < 0.05.
Figure 1Structures of the active components from tested essential oils.
Efficacy of main components and reference standards of indigenous essential oils against tested bacteria using TLC-bioautography
| | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20.0 ± 0.57d | 17.0 ± 0.57 | 24.6 ± 0.33* | 24.0 ± 0.57* | 25.0 ± 0.57* | 22.3 ± 0.33 | 22.0 ± 0.57 | 24.6 ± 0.66* | |
| 20.1 ± 0.60 | 18.5 ± 0.86 | 26.5 ± 0.28* | 25.6 ± 0.66* | 25.5 ± 0.28* | 23.0 ± 0.57 | 21.5 ± 0.28 | 21.0 ± 0.57 | |
| 24.5 ± 0.28 | 22.0 ± 0.1 | 25.5 ± 0.28 | 22.3 ± 0.33 | 24.6 ± 0.33 | 23.0 ± 0.57 | 20.0 ± 0.57 | 22.3 ± 0.88* | |
| 9.33 ± 0.33 | 8.66 ± 0.33 | Re | Re | 9.33 ± 0.33 | 11.3 ± 0.66 | 29 ± 0.57 | 31.6 ± 0.88* | |
| 12.0 ± 0.86 | 11.8 ± 0.60 | 23.5 ± 0.28* | 23.16 ± 0.60* | Re | Re | 22.6 ± 0.88* | 25.3 ± 0.66* | |
| 15.6 ± 2.18 | 18.6 ± 2.66 | 32.6 ± 1.20* | 31.6 ± 0.88* | 20.3 ± 0.88 | 19.6 ± 0.88 | 16.3 ± 0.33 | 19.3 ± 0.33 | |
| Re | Re | 15 ± 0.57 | 17.6 ± 0.33* | Re | Re | Re | Re | |
adiameter zone of growth inhibition were presented as mean ± S.E. in mm; bretardation factor; cmobile phase: n-hexane, ethyl acetate (9:1 v/v); deach value is presented as mean of three replicate; eresistant; *showed significant (p <0.05) values.
Chemical composition, retention time and concentration (%) of essential oils by GC/MS analysis
| 2.38 | 0.5 | ||
| 2.70 | 14.8 | ||
| 3.06 | 7.6 | ||
| 1,8-Cineole | 3.15 | 2.0 | |
| 3.38 | 23.2 | ||
| Cuminaldehyde | 5.78 | 17.2 | |
| Cuminyl alcohol | 6.45 | 3.9 | |
| Safranal | 6.52 | 10.8 | |
| Eucalyptol | 3.14 | 0.32 | |
| 3.37 | Traces | ||
| Cuminaldehyde | 5.77 | Traces | |
| 6.24 | 4.3 | ||
| Unidentified | 7.79 | -- | |
| 2.38 | Traces | ||
| 2.70 | Traces | ||
| Linalool | 3.10 | Traces | |
| Eucalyptol | 3.15 | 5.2 | |
| 3.38 | Traces | ||
| Eucalyptol | 3.17 | 4.6 | |
| Eugenol | 7.52 | 0.73 |
Figure 2Representative GC/MS chromatogram of essential oil from .