| Literature DB >> 34220240 |
Rebecca Tshabalala1, Adia Kabelinde1, Christ-Donald Kaptchouang Tchatchouang1, Collins Njie Ateba1,2, Madira Coutlyne Manganyi3.
Abstract
For centuries, spices have been utilized as flavourants, colourants and as preservatives in food. Moreover, spices possess various antimicrobial properties with massive health benefits for the treatment and management of ailments and diseases. The present study was focused on three (3) aspects; (1) isolation and molecular identification of bacteria from the meat; (2) to determine the antimicrobial activity of the spices against the pathogens; (3) to assess the organoleptic properties of the spiced meat. A total of twelve (n = 12) spices evaluated against forty (n = 40) spoilage food-borne pathogenic bacteria (Escherichia coli and Enterococci spp.). The spice extracts were tested using disk diffusion method to determine the inhibition abilities. The results show that clove and black seed cumin extract exhibited excellent antibacterial activity against most pathogenic bacteria. Clove displayed the highest inhibition zone of 18 mm against E. coli (EcFwS1). Clove extract was the most inhibitor followed by black cumin, whereas extracts of thyme and cinnamon showed weak antibacterial activities against the tested strains. The most sensitive strain to spice extracts was Enterococcus spp. (EnFmL1) and the most resistant strain being E. coli. (EcFmS1 and EcFpL1). Untreated meat showed that E. coli and Enterococcus spp. count was 4.4 * 105 ± 3.4 * 105 and 2.2 * 105 ± 3.6 * 104 cfu/mL respectively after 7 days while the single dose of clove showed 5.4 * 104 ± 4.4 * 102 cfu/mL of E. coli and 1.7 * 105 ± 4.1 * 104 cfu/mL of Enterococcus spp. The organoleptic characteristics such as colour, texture, odour, pH, shape of the single dose of clove on the meat was overall acceptable.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobial activity; Bacterial pathogens; Inhibition; Meat; Organoleptic; Spices
Year: 2021 PMID: 34220240 PMCID: PMC8241631 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.03.052
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Oligonucleotide primers used for amplification.
| Species/target gene | Primers Sequence (5′ – 3′) | Amplicon Size | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Forward 27F | AGAGTTTGATCATGGCTCAG | 1420 bp | ||
| Reverse 1492R | GGTACCTTGTTACGACTT | |||
| UidAF | Forward | AAA ACG GCA AGA AAA AGC AG | 147 bp | |
| UidAR | Reverse | ACG CGT GGT TAA CAG TCT TGC G | ||
| Forward | TGCATTAGCTAGTTGGTG | 356 bp | ||
| Reverse | TTAAGAAACCGCCTGCGC | |||
| Forward | CACCTGAAGAAACAGGC | 475 bp | ||
| ATGGCTACTTCAATTTCACG | ||||
Fig.1(a) Mean Total Viable Count for E. coli (n = %) (b) Mean Total Viable Count for Enterococcus sp. (n = %).
Determination of antimicrobial activity of spice water extract against pathogens by disc diffusion method.
Zone of inhibition: − no activity; + slight activity (>5mm); ++ good activity (6–10 mm); +++ very good activity (>10 mm).
Bacterial load of meat sample before and after 4 °C of storage for over a period of 7 days.
| Time / temp. | Source | Control mean value (cfu/mL) | Clove mean value (cfu/mL) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAY 1 | Ec | 1.3 * 102 ± 6.5 * 101 | – | – | – | – |
| Ent | 2.3 * 102 ± 5.4 * 101 | – | – | – | – | |
| DAY 7 | Ec | 4.4 * 105 ± 3.4 * 105 | 1.5 * 105 ± 2.8 * 102 | 1.1 * 105 ± 2.3 * 102 | 5.4 * 104 ± 4.4 * 102 | 9.1 * 104 ± 2.1 * 102 |
| Ent | 2.2 * 105 ± 3.6 * 104 | 1.9 * 105 ± 1.4 * 105 | 1.0 * 105 ± 1.5 * 104 | 1.7 * 105 ± 4.1 * 104 | 8.9 * 104 ± 2.1 * 102 | |
Ec = E. coli; Ent = Enterococci spp. Time / temp. Source Control mean value (cfu/mL) B. cumin mean value (cfu/mL) single/ double dose Clove mean value (cfu/mL) single/ double dose.
Fig. 2Effect of clove spice extract against Gram negative bacteria.
The organoleptic test results for meat samples.
| Storage temperature | Organoleptic parameters | Preservation time (days) with | Preservation time (days) with Clove | Control preservation time (days) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 °C | Colour | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 2 |
| Texture | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 1 | |
| Odour | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 1 | |
| pH | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |
| Shape | 6 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 | |
| Overall acceptability | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 1 | |
Overall acceptability.
Organoleptic hedonic scale used to determine quality of meat Scale Colour Texture Odour pH Shape Overall acceptability.
| Scale | Colour | Texture | Odour | pH | Shape | Overall acceptability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | Extremely desirable | Extremely hard | Extremely pleasant | Extremely alkaline | Raised | Extremely acceptable |
| 5 | Very desirable | hard | Very pleasant | Alkaline | Slightly raised | acceptable |
| 4 | Moderately desirable | Moderately hard | Moderately pleasant | neutral | Flat | Slightly acceptable |
| 3 | Moderately undesirable | Moderately slimy | Moderately smelly | acidic | Slightly flat | Slightly unacceptable |
| 2 | Very undesirable | Very slimy | Very smell | Very acidic | Very flat | unacceptable |
| 1 | Extremely undesirable | Extremely slimy | Extremely smelly | Extremely acidic | Extremely flat | Discard |
Fig. 3Meat samples on the first day (a) control, (b) meat treated with double the volume of black cumin, (c) meat sample treated with a single dose of black cumin, (d) meat sample treated with double the volume of clove, (e) meat sample treated with single dose of clove for day 1 and 7.