4.7 Article

Evaluation and improvement of antioxidant and antibacterial activities of supercritical extracts from clove buds

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNCTIONAL FOODS
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 416-423

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jff.2012.11.014

关键词

Syzygium aromaticum; Origanum vulgare; Antioxidant activity; Antibacterial activity; Total phenolic content; Supercritical fluid extraction

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia [III 45017]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For the first time, extracts from clove buds obtained by supercritical carbon dioxide extraction were screened for antioxidant and antibacterial activities. Additionally, antioxidant and antibacterial activities of extracts obtained by the supercritical extraction of the clove bud-oregano leaf mixtures were studied. Supercritical extract of pure clove had the highest eugenol (64%) and total phenolic content (530.56 mg GAE/g(extract)). All extracts had antioxidant activity comparable to synthetic antioxidants against 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radicals and formation of peroxides. Presence of 0.6% and 5% of oregano extract in the clove extracts obtained from the clove-oregano plant mixtures improved their antioxidant activity with respect to the extract from pure clove. Clove extract showed moderate antibacterial activities against selected Staphylococcus and Enterococcus bacterial strains. Presence of 50% of the oregano extract improved antibacterial activity of clove extract against all tested strains and resulted in a synergistic antibacterial activity against Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus haemolyticus strain (MIC <= 1.25 mu g/mL). Study demonstrated great potential of supercritical clove extract as natural functional ingredient and the possibility of increasing its antioxidant and antibacterial efficiencies in order to apply lower concentrations and to reduce undesirable flavour notes and toxicological effects in final products. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据