| Literature DB >> 25674469 |
Marufa Sharmin1, Ifra Tun Nur1, Mrityunjoy Acharjee1, Saurab Kishore Munshi1, Rashed Noor1.
Abstract
Present study attempted to assess the level of microbiological contamination in oral herbal medicines, frequently used for medications, through conventional cultural and biochemical tests along with the antibiogram of the isolates. Moreover, the anti-bacterial potential of the herbal medicines was also aimed to be checked by the agar well diffusion method and minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) assay. Out of 10 categories of liquid oral herbal medicine samples (n = 50) studied, all were found to be contaminated with bacteria (10(3)-10(5) cfu/mL), specifically with Staphylococcus spp. in 8 samples; while 2 samples harbored Klebsiella spp. Fungal presence was observed only in one sample. Study of antibiogram revealed Klebsiella spp. to be strongly resistant against penicillin G and erythromycin, whereas S. aureus possessed 80% sensitivity. The in vitro anti-bacterial activity was observed in 7 samples. Of them, one sample was found to exhibit the activity against almost all the test bacteria and another was found effective against 5 out of 8 test bacteria. Five samples showed the activity within a minor range while 3 samples were devoid of such trait. Samples 2 and 4 were found to stall the bacterial growth below 10 mg/mL of concentration in MIC test. Overall, the prevalence of specific pathogens was not so significant in the samples studied as well as only one drug-resistant isolate was identified. Besides, the anti-bacterial trait of 5 samples indicated that most of herbal medicines might be considered effective for medication.Entities:
Keywords: Drug resistance; In vitro anti-bacterial activity; Oral herbal medicines; Pathogens; Public health; Spoilage microorganisms
Year: 2014 PMID: 25674469 PMCID: PMC4320176 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-739
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Microbiological conditions of the samples (cfu/mL)
| Samples | TVB | Fungi | FCC | Actinomycetes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample 1 (N = 5) | 6.5 × 105 | 0 | 1.0 × 106 | 0 | 4.0 × 104 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 2 (N = 5) | 7.0 × 105 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.7 × 105 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample (N = 5) | 2.4 × 104 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.0 × 103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 4 (N = 5) | 1.14 × 105 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4.6 × 104 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 5 (N = 5) | 9.0 × 104 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3.0 × 103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 6 (N = 5) | 4.12 × 105 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2.1 × 104 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 7 (N = 5) | 1.06 × 105 | 1.8 × 104 | 4.5 × 104 | 0 | 2.0 × 103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 8 (N = 5) | 2.0 × 103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 9 (N = 5) | 3.5 × 104 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6.0 × 102 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 10 (N = 5) | 7.7 × 103 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
TVB: Total viable bacteria; FCC: fecal coliform count.
The average load has been shown.
Microbial limits (World Health Organization 2007).
Total aerobic bacteria 105 cfu/ml.
Escherichia coli 101 cfu/ml.
Salmonella spp. absent.
Enterobacteria 103 cfu/mL.
Figure 1Determination of resistance or susceptibility of spp. and spp. towards commonly used antibiotics. The arrows indicate the frequency of resistance/sensitivity of the isolates. Khebsiella spp. exhibited elevated resistance (60%) than Staphylococcus spp. (20%). P = Penicillin G (10 μg), G = Gentamicin (10 μg), O = Oxacillin (1 μg), A = Amoxicillin (30 μg), I = Imipeneme (30 μg), E = Erythromycin (15 μg), Te = Tetracycline (30 μg), C = Ciprofloxacin (5 μg), Tr = Trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (25 μg), Az = Azithromycin (15 μg), N = Nalidixic acid (30 μg), A = Ampicillin (10 μg), R: resistant, S: sensitive.
Antimicrobial activity of the herbal medicine samples tested
| Herbal medicine samples (concentration in mg/mL) | Zone of inhibition (mm) against test bacteria | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Sample 1 (2.4) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 mm |
| Sample 2 (0.4) | 11 mm | 15 mm | 20 mm | 20 mm | 17 mm | 20 mm | 18 mm | 20 mm |
| Sample 3 (0.6) | 0 | 11 mm | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 mm |
| Sample 4 (1.0) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 5 (3.5) | 0 | 18 mm | 0 | 10 mm | 11 mm | 10 mm | 0 | 10 mm |
| Sample 6 (2.5) | 0 | 16 mm | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 mm | 0 | 9 mm |
| Sample 7 (3.1) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 8 (6.4) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 9 (0.9) | 0 | 11 mm | 0 | 13.9 mm | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sample 10 (1.5) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 mm | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The experiments were conducted three times independently, and the results were found to be reproducible. One representative data has been shown.
Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of the samples
| Sample | Organisms | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| Sample 1 | 25 mg/mL | 25 mg/mL | 25 mg/mL | 25 mg/mL | 51 mg/mL | 25 mg/mL | 25 mg/mL | 25 mg/mL |
| Sample 2 | 1 mg/mL | 3 mg/mL | 3 mg/mL | 3 mg/mL | 7 mg/mL | 7 mg/mL | 3 mg/mL | 7 mg/mL |
| Sample 3 | 3 mg/mL | 1 mg/mL | 3 mg/mL | 3 mg/mL | 6 mg/mL | 3 mg/mL | 6 mg/mL | 6 mg/mL |
| Sample 4 | 5 mg/mL | 10 mg/mL | 10 mg/mL | 10 mg/mL | 10 mg/mL | 10 mg/mL | 10 mg/mL | 20 mg/mL |
| Sample 5 | 18 mg/mL | 36 mg/mL | 36 mg/mL | 36 mg/mL | 36 mg/mL | 18 mg mL | 18 mg/mL | 36 mg/mL |
| Sample 6 | 13 mg/mL | 13 mg/mL | 13 mg/mL | 26 mg/mL | 13 mg/mL | 13 mg/mL | 13 mg/mL | 26 mg/mL |
| Sample 7 | 16 mg/mL | 16 mg/mL | 50 mg/mL | 50 mg/mL | 50 mg/mL | 16 mg/mL | 50 mg/mL | 66 mg/mL |
| Sample 8 | 33 mg/mL | 66 mg/mL | 66 mg/mL | 66 mg/mL | 66 mg/mL | 66 mg/mL | 33 mg/mL | 66 mg/mL |
| Sample 9 | 9 mg/mL | 18 mg/mL | 9 mg/mL | 9 mg/mL | 9 mg/mL | 18 mg/mL | 9 mg/mL | 18 mg/mL |
| Sample 10 | 15 mg/mL | 15 mg/mL | 15 mg/mL | 15 mg/mL | 30 mg/mL | 7 mg/mL | 30 mg/mL | 30 mg/mL |
Residual concentrations of the herbal medicines have been provided.
The experiments were conducted three times independently, and the results were found to be reproducible. One representative data has been shown.