| Literature DB >> 28775846 |
Gutema Taressa Tura1, Wondwossen Birke Eshete1, Gudina Terefe Tucho1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Proper hand hygiene with soap and detergents prevents the transmission of many infectious diseases. However, commercial detergents are less likely to be accessible or affordable to poor people in remote rural areas. These people traditionally use some plant parts as a detergent even though their antibacterial activity has not been yet investigated. Therefore, this study aims to determine the antibacterial activities of some of the plants against bacteria isolated from humans.Entities:
Keywords: Antibacterial; Antimicrobial resistance; Hand hygiene; Phytochemical; Plants; Public health
Year: 2017 PMID: 28775846 PMCID: PMC5534096 DOI: 10.1186/s13756-017-0236-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control ISSN: 2047-2994 Impact factor: 4.887
Ethno-botanical and relevant information of the plants
| Name | Parts used | Traditional use | Picture of the plant part | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific | Family | Local | |||
|
| Phytolaccaceae | Andoodee (Indodi) | Fruit | Used for washing of clothes, hands and body |
|
|
| Polygonaceae | Timijii (Tult) | Leaf | Used for washing of hands and hair |
|
|
| Tiliaceae | Dhoqonu (Lenkoata) | Leaf | Used for washing hair |
|
|
| Tiliaceae | Dhoqonu (Lenkoata) | Bark | Used for washing hair |
|
The extract yields of the plants
| S.No. | Plant parts | Weight of powder (gram) | Weight of extract (gram) | Percent extract yield (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 200 | 15.47 | 7.74 |
| 2 |
| 200 | 7.10 | 3.55 |
| 3 |
| 200 | 6.40 | 3.20 |
| 4 |
| 200 | 11.14 | 5.57 |
Phythochemical constituents of the plants
| S. No. | Phytochemical components |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Saponins | ++ | + | +++ | +++ |
| 2 | Tannins | ++ | +++ | ++ | + |
| 3 | Flavonoids | +++ | + | +++ | ++ |
| 4 | Terpenoids | − | − | ++ | +++ |
Key: = absent; + = present in small amount; ++ = Present in moderate amount; +++ = present in high amount
Zone of inhibition (mean ± SD, n = 3) of the plants extracts in mm
| Extracts | Bacteria strains | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
| Isolate | Ref. | Isolate | Ref. | Isolate | Ref. | Isolate | Ref. | |
|
| 9.7 ± 0.6 | 11.3 ± 1.5 | 10.3 ± 2.1 | 12.3 ± 2.3 | 9.3 ± 2.5 | 12.0 ± 1.0 | 11.0 ± 1.0 | 16.3 ± 0.6 |
|
| 10.0 ± 1.0 | 12 ± 0.0 | 9.7 ± 0.6 | 11.7 ± 0.6 | 9.0 ± 1.0 | 10.7 ± 1.5 | 11.0 ± 1.0 | 14.3 ± 0.6 |
|
| 8.0 ± 1.0 | 12.0 ± 2.6 | 9.0 ± 1.0 | 11.3 ± 2.9 | 9.7 ± 2.5 | 10.3 ± 1.2 | 9.3 ± 0.6 | 16.7 ± 1.2 |
|
| 9.0 ± 1.0 | 10.3 ± 0.6 | 9.0 ± 1.0 | 12.0 ± 3.5 | NI | NI | 10.0 ± 1.0 | 20.7 ± 5.5 |
| Phenol | 7.3 ± 0.6 | 8.7 ± 1.5 | 8.0 ± 1.0 | 8.7 ± 1.2 | 7.7 ± 0.6 | 8.0 ± 1.7 | 5.0 ± 4.4 | 5.0 ± 4.4 |
| DMSO | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Key: ± SD = Standard Deviation, Ref. = Reference bacteria strain, NI = No Zone of inhibition, n = number of replicates
Fig. 1MIC and MBC of the test plants and the positive control against different bacterial species