Honey concentrations Organisms 25 ve Control Streptomycin Bacillus

Honey concentrations organisms 25 ve control

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 7 pages.

Honey concentrations Organisms 100% 75% 50% 25% +ve Control Streptomycin Bacillus alvei 81±1.11 - - - 625±0.53 Bacillus polymyxa 225±0.04 121±2.22 - - 441±1.33 Bacillus subtilis 121±1.01 - - - 529±1.41 Staphylococcus aureus 361±1.73 169±2.47 - - 841±0.89 Pseudomonas aeruginosa - - - - 169±0.48 Klebsiella pneumonia - - - - 361±0.07 Enterobecter - - - - 729±1.11 Escherichia coli - - - - 576±0.71 “+ve” means positive control, “–” means the absence of inhibition
Image of page 4
30 The Open Microbiology Journal, 2015 , Volume 9 Iqbal et al. Table 5. Antibacterial activity of Islamic Shahad against bacterial isolates. Data are shown as mean zone of inhibition (mm 2 ) ± SD. Honey concentrations Organisms 100% 75% 50% 25% +ve Control Streptomycin Bacillus alvei 226±1.15 169±0.15 121±0.03 - 841±1.05 Bacillus polymyxa 441±0.05 289±0.11 196±1.18 121±1.98 961±0.19 Bacillus subtilis 400±0.40 225±1.77 144±1.24 100±0.14 900±0.10 Staphylococcus aureus 324±3.13 256±2.63 169±0.09 - 1024±2.13 Pseudomonas aeruginosa - - - - 169±0.00 Klebsiella pneumonia - - - - 400±0.03 Enterobecter - - - - 625±0.17 Escherichia coli - - - - 625±0.61 “+ve” means positive control, “–” means the absence of inhibition Table 6. Antibacterial activity of Langnese honey against bacterial isolates. Data are shown as mean zone of inhibition (mm 2 ) ± SD. Honey concentrations Organisms 100% 75% 50% 25% +ve Control Streptomycin Bacillus alvei 225±2.18 100±0.01 - - 729±0.57 Bacillus polymyxa 289±1.97 169±1.02 - - 784±1.86 Bacillus subtilis 676±3.22 121±1.25 - - 676±0.21 Staphylococcus aureus 289±1.24 196±1.71 121±0.62 - 841±0.92 Pseudomonas aeruginosa - - - - 121±0.32 Klebsiella pneumonia - - - - 361±0.68 Enterobecter - - - - 529±1.02 Escherichia coli - - - - 676±0.11 “+ve” means positive control, “–” means the absence of inhibition [5, 18-21]. The relatively higher bacterial counts were due to poor hygienic conditions and cause food spoilage and food borne illnesses. These findings about the bacterial load were against the findings of Tasnim et al. [22], who reported the bacterial counts of fruit juices within the standard limits. Higher levels of staphylococcal counts (SCs) in fruit juices were in accordance with the previous studies [21, 23], who have also reported significant levels of staphylococcal counts in fruit juices. Higher levels of staphylococcal counts (CCs) in fruit juices were in accordance with the previous studies of Rashed et al. [21], who reported the coliform count of 3.6 x 10 4 CFU/ml in fruit juices. These results sug- gested unsatisfactory hygienic practices during the prepara- tion of these beverages. The results are according to previous findings [14, 18, 23]. It suggests that although most of the microbes do not survive low pH of juices and processing methods also kill most of the microbes but certain spores of Bacillus spp. sur- vive and pose a serious threat to the consumers. It was sug- gested that quality of fruit juices should be monitored on regular basis to avoid any future outbreaks [19]. The present study revealed antibacterial activity of dif- ferent honey samples against gram positive bacteria at vari- ous concentrations and no activity was found against gram negative bacteria. Various studies had showed antibacterial activity of honey samples against various bacteria [24-26], which indicated that honey can be used as an alternative to antibiotics to treat various infections.
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 7 pages?

  • Fall '13
  • Omair Gul
  • Bacteria, Fruit juices, B. subtilis, Klebsiella pneumonia, antibacterial activity

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture