{"id":53154,"date":"2023-12-31T10:28:13","date_gmt":"2023-12-31T10:28:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/?p=53154"},"modified":"2024-01-05T07:01:21","modified_gmt":"2024-01-05T07:01:21","slug":"phytochemical-composition-antioxidant-and-antibacterial-studies-on-celtis-timorensis-leaf-extract","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/biomedpharmajournal.org\/staging\/vol16no4\/phytochemical-composition-antioxidant-and-antibacterial-studies-on-celtis-timorensis-leaf-extract\/","title":{"rendered":"Phytochemical Composition, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Studies on Celtis Timorensis Leaf Extract"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Infectious\ndiseases caused by bacterial species are a major health issue for global\npopulation. The major human infections causing bacterial species are Pseudomonas aeruginosa, E. coli, Proteus\nvulgaris, Staphylococcus aureus<\/em> and Bacillus\nsubtilis<\/em>1,2<\/sup>.Medicinal\nplants used in traditional medicinal systems are a major source for the\ntreatment of infectious diseases caused by microorganisms. These plants are\nrich in a wide variety of chemical constituents such as alkaloids, terpenoids,\nflavonoids and tannins and essentials have been found as potent antimicrobial\nagents3,4<\/sup>. Scientific studies on the antibacterial activity of\nmedicinal plants have reported that traditional medicinal plant extracts\/ phytoconstituents\nhave potent antimicrobial activity 5, 6, 7<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Celtis timorensis <\/em>Spr.\nis a medium-sized tree of flowering plant belongs to the family Ulmaceae,\ndistributed in India, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia. Different parts\ni.e. leaf, stem, root, fruit, etc. of this plant have been used by the tribes\nof Indian states to cure various human diseases such as dysentery, jaundice,\nmemory enhancement, toothache, urinary tract infection and food8, 9, 10,\n11<\/sup>.  The review on phytochemical composition,\nantibacterial, antioxidant and pharmacological studies on Celtis timorensis <\/em>indicate that very few and sporadic attempts are\nnoticed on preliminary phytochemical 12<\/sup>, DPPH13 <\/sup>antibacterial\n14<\/sup>, antidepressant15<\/sup>, acute and sub-acute toxicity12<\/sup>\nand wound healing activity16<\/sup>of leaf extracts of Celtis timorensis<\/em>. But no previous report was noticed on\nphytochemical analysis, molybdate dependant antioxidant, DPPH and antibacterial\nactivity of Celtis timorensis<\/em>leaf part.\nHence, we selected Celtis timorensis<\/em>\nleaf extracts to evaluate the phytochemical analysis and antioxidant and\nantibacterial studies of five extracts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Materials\nand methods <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Plant\nmaterial<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Celtis\ntimorensis<\/em> leaves were collected from Tirumala hills of Andhra\nPradesh. The plant specimen was identified (Voucher #1379) by Dr K. Madhava\nChetty, Assistant Professor (Rtd.), Department of Botany, S.V. University,\nTirupati. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preparation\nof plant extracts <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The collected plant sample was washed with distilled water and dried at room temperature. Fifty grams of plant material was pounded and successively extracted with Petroleum ether (PE), chloroform (CE), ethanol (EE) and methanol (ME) using Soxhlet apparatus for 6-8 hours. The extracts were filtered and concentrated under reduced pressure to dryness and the extracts were used for the assay.  The yield of each extract was depicted (Table 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 1: Yield of Celtis timorensis<\/em> leaf extracts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

S. No.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Extract Type<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Yield (%)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Leaf Extracts<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Petroleum ether<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4.28%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Chloroform<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2.86%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

3<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Ethanol<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.32%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Methanol<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

14.56%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Water<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.0%<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Water extract preparation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One gram of plant material after the successive extraction was taken and soaked in 50 ml distilled water for 24 h and filtered. The filtrate was concentrated in a water bath at 400<\/sup>C, and subjected to phytochemical, antioxidant and antibacterial studies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preliminary\nphytochemical screening <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Qualitative phytochemical\ntests for alkaloids, saponins, phytosterols17<\/sup>, starch, glycosides,\nphenolic components, gums and tannins18<\/sup>were determined using\nstandard methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Total\nphenolic content of Celtis timorensis<\/em>\nleaf extracts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The total phenolic quantity of Celtis timorensis<\/em> leaf extract was estimated using methods as described\n19<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Total\nantioxidant capacity of Celtis timorensis<\/em>\nleaf  extracts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ammonium molybdate dependant antioxidant capacity of Celtis timorensis<\/em> leaf extracts was\ndetermined using methods as described20<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DPPH\nreducing activity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

DPPH scavenging capacity of Celtis timorensis<\/em> leaf extracts was determined using methods as described\n20<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Antibacterial studies<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Microorganisms used<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nmicroorganisms used in the present study are Micrococcus luteus<\/em> (MTCC 9341), Arthrobacter\nprotopharmiae<\/em> (MTCC 688), Alkaligenes\nfaecalis<\/em> (MTCC 10757), Enterococcus\nfaecalis<\/em> (MTCC 439),  Bacillus megatherium<\/em> (MTCC 5981), Lactobacillus acidophilus<\/em> (MTCC 10307), Salmonella enterica (MTCC 3858)\nand Pseudomonas aeruginosa<\/em> (MTCC 1688) to test the extracts. The organisms\nwere purchased from the MTCC center, IMTECH, Chandigarh, India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Antimicrobial activity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The\nantibacterial efficacy of C. timorensis<\/em>\nleaf petroleum ether (PE), chloroform (CE), ethanol (EE) methanol (ME) and water\nextracts were studied using the disc diffusion method21<\/sup>.  Paper discs (4 mm) impregnated with distinct\nconcentrations of plant extracts were placed on the petri-plates, containing\n20ml of Mueller Hinton Agar (MHA) media (Peptone 17.5 g, meat extract 2 g,\nstarch 1.5 g and agar-agar 17 g\/L) seeded with 0.1ml of overnight grown\nmicrobial suspension. The discs saturated with methanol ethyl acetate and\npetroleum ether served as negative controls. Bacterial-free zones present\naround the discs were treated as positive results. The zones were measured\nafter 24 hours and tabulated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Results&\nDiscussion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Preliminary\nphytochemical screening of medicinal plant extracts is essential to know the\nphytochemical components present in them. Qualitative phytochemical analysis of\npetroleum ether, chloroform, ethanol, methanol and water extracts C. timorensis<\/em> leaf showed the presence\nof alkaloids, phytosterols, phenolic components, tannins, flavonoids,\nterpenoids, glycosides and saponins (Table 2).Prasanth Kumar et al., (2014)12<\/sup> reported the preliminary\nphytochemical composition of C.\ntimorensis<\/em> leaf ethanol extract, revealing the presence of tannins,\nflavonoids, alkaloids, triterpenoids, saponins, glycosides and carbohydrates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The total phenolic content of petroleum ether, chloroform, ethanol, methanol and water extracts of C. timorensis<\/em> leaf was estimated using Folin Ciocalteau reagent method. Gallic acid was used as the standard component and the amount of total phenolic components were expressed in milligrams Gallic acid equivalents per gram dry weight (mg GAE\/g dwt.).  The results revealed that the total phenolic content of the tested extracts exhibited a range between 8.82 to 68.32 mg GAE\/g dwt. (Figure 1). The highest total phenolic content was observed in methanol extract (68.32\u00b11.03 mg GAE\/g dwt.). This may be due to the solubility of phenolic components in methanol. Higher amounts of the total phenolic content of methanol extract of different medicinal plant parts were reported and stated that methanol solvent is efficient for extraction of a good amount of phenolic components 22, 23, 24<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Type of component<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

PE<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

CE<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

EE<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

ME<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

WE<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Alkaloids<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Saponins<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Phytosterols<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Phenolic components<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Tannins<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Flavonoids<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Terpenoids<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Glycosides<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

+<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Gums and mucilages<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NR<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

PE: Petroleum ether extract; CE: Chloroform extract; EE: Ethanol extract; ME: Methanol extract; WE: Water extract; NR: No Reaction<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 1: Total Phenolic content of Celtis timorensis<\/em> leaf extracts<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Figure 1 Description: Total phenolic content of C. timorensis<\/em> leaf extracts was estimated using FCA reagent method. The total phenolic content was expressed in Gallic acid equivalents milligrams\/ gram dry weight (GAE mg\/g dwt.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The total phenolic content of leaf water extract of C. timorensis<\/em> was reported as 9.7 mg 25<\/sup>. In the present study, we found a higher amount of total phenolic content at 31.99 mg GAE\/g dwt. The variation in the chemical composition of medicinal plants may be influenced by environmental factors and geographical conditions of the plants growing, collection of plant samples, drying and the part that is used26<\/sup>, 27<\/sup>. In addition to the total phenolic content of water extract, we found the total phenolic content in petroleum ether, chloroform, ethanol and methanol extracts of C. timorensis <\/em>leaf sample. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The results on the ammonium molybdate-dependant antioxidant capacity of C. timorensis <\/em>leaf extracts ranged from 174.75\u00b10.29 to 700.0\u00b10.71 mg ASE\/g dwt. (Figure 2). The highest total antioxidant capacity was observed in the methanol extract of the leaf part (700.0\u00b10.71 mg ASE\/g dwt.). The strong antioxidant capacity of methanol extract may be the presence of a higher amount of phenolic components. The strong antioxidant capacity of methanol extract from different medicinal plants was well reported 28, 29, 30<\/sup>.The results were correlated with the phenolic content of leaf extracts. A similar type of correlation of total phenolic content with total antioxidant activity was reported by several researchers 31, 32, 33<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/td>\n\n

Figure 2: Total antioxidant capacity of Celtis timorensis<\/em> leaf extracts<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Click here to view Figure<\/a><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Figure 2 Description: Total antioxidant capacity of C. timorensis<\/em> leaf extracts was estimated using ammonium molybdate reagent method. The total antioxidant capacity was expressed in terms of  ascorbic acid equivalents milligams\/ gram dry weight (AAE mg\/g dwt.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

DPPH scavenging activity of petroleum ether, chloroform, ethanol, methanol and water extracts of C. timorensis <\/em>leaf part showed concentration dependant DPPH scavenging activity. The highest DPPH-reducing activity (>90%) was observed by methanol, ethanol and water extracts of the leaf part (Table 3).While petroleum ether extract failed to reduce DPPH purple colour. Ethanol and methanol extracts exhibited the lowest IC50<\/sub> values (50\u00b5g\/ml). The strong DPPH-reducing activity of ethanol and methanol extracts of the leaf part may be due to the presence of a higher amount of total phenolic content. Several researchers have reported strong DPPH quenching capacity of methanol or ethanol extracts of medicinal plants 34, 35, 36, 37<\/sup>. Rajaneekar et al., (2013a)13 <\/sup>reported the DPPH scavenging activity of methanolic extract of leaf sample. It showed maximum inhibition as more than 100% DPPH scavenging activity at 60 \u00b5l\/ml  (concentration not mentioned). In the present study, the methanol extract of C. timorensis <\/em>showed 92% as maximum DPPH scavenging activity at 250\u00b5g\/ml respectively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The antibacterial activity of petroleum ether, chloroform, ethanol, methanol and water extracts of the leaf part of C. timorensis<\/em> revealed that all the tested pathogens exhibited concentration dependant antibacterial activity (Tables 4 to 8). Ethanol and water extracts of the leaf sample strongly inhibited the gram-negative bacterial species Pseudomonas aeruginosa<\/em> and Salmonella enterica<\/em> (13 mm for each species) respectively (Tables 6 & 8). While gram-positive species i.e. Bacillus megatherium Artherobacter protophormiae<\/em> and P. aeruginosa<\/em> were moderately inhibited by chloroform, ethanol and water extracts (12 mm for each) respectively (Tables 5, 6, 8). Reaming tested organisms expressed very feeble antibacterial activity by all the tested extracts. The strong antibacterial activity of ethanol, chloroform and water extracts of the leaf part of C. timorensi<\/em>s may be due to the presence of a good amount of phenolic components. The phenolic components exhibit their antibacterial action in many ways. It can cause morphological changes in bacterial cells i.e. shapes, wrinkles on cell membrane and damage cell membrane in both outer and inner membranes. The mechanism of antibacterial activity of polyphenols is closely related to the chemical nature, and position of hydroxyl and methyl groups38, 39, 40<\/sup>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Table 3: DPPH scavenging capacity of leaf extracts of Celtis timorensis<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

(%) DPPH Scavenging capacity<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Ethanol Extract (EE)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Methanol Extract (ME)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Water Extract (WE)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Gallic Acid<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Concentration<\/strong><\/p>\n

(\u00b5g\/ml)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

% DPPH inhibition<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Concentration<\/strong><\/p>\n

(\u00b5g\/ml)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

% DPPH inhibition<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Concentration<\/strong><\/p>\n

(\u00b5g\/ml)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

% DPPH inhibition<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Concentration<\/strong><\/p>\n

(\u00b5g\/ml)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

% DPPH inhibition<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

12.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.86\u00b11.56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11.22\u00b11.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11.22\u00b11.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

16.21\u00b10.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

19.39\u00b11.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

25<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

23.47\u00b13.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

200<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27.21\u00b13.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

2<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

28.02\u00b10.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

*50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

50.16\u00b11.56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

*50<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

49.32\u00b11.18<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

*300<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

51.70\u00b11.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

4<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

48.11\u00b11.21<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

68.71\u00b12.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

75<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

68.03\u00b12.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

400<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

75.51\u00b11.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

60.04\u00b11.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

80.13\u00b14.68<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

78.23\u00b12.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

500<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

91.50\u00b10.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

72.00\u00b11.00<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

86.73\u00b11.56<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

125<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

84.35\u00b13.86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

11.22\u00b11.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

10<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

84.00\u00b11.1<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

250<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

91.84\u00b11.02<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

250<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

92.18\u00b10.59<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

200<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

27.21\u00b13.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

92.01\u00b11.12<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n

Table 4: Antibacterial activity of Celtis timorensis<\/em> leaf Petroleum ether extract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Microorganism<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Petroleum Ether extract Concentration (\u00b5g\/Disc*)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Zone of inhibition (mm)<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

50*<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

100*<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

150*<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

300*<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Micrococcus luteus<\/em> (MTCC 9341),<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.33\u00b10.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.00\u00b11.0<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.33\u00b10.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.66\u00b10.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Arthrobacter protopharmiae<\/em> (MTCC 688),<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.67\u00b10.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.50\u00b10.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.83\u00b10.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Alkaligenes faecalis<\/em> (MTCC 10757)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.00\u00b10.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.30\u00b11.08<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.67\u00b10.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.00\u00b10.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Enterococcus faecalis<\/em> (MTCC 439),<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.17\u00b10.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.30\u00b11.08<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.50\u00b10.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.83\u00b10.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Bacillus megatherium<\/em> (MTCC 5981)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.50\u00b10.86<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.00\u00b10.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.17\u00b10.17<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.00\u00b10.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Lactobacillus acidophilus<\/em> (MTCC 10307)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

NA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.66\u00b10.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.17\u00b10.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.17\u00b10.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Salmonella enterica (MTCC 3858)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.50\u00b10.5<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.67\u00b10.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

8.17\u00b10.57<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.33\u00b10.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

Pseudomonas aeruginosa<\/em> (MTCC 1688)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6.17\u00b10.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

5.67\u00b10.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

7.67\u00b10.76<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

9.33\u00b10.28<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n