Inhibition of <i>Listeria monocytogenes</i> and <i>Salmonella</i> by Combinations of Oriental Mustard, Malic Acid, and EDTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The antimicrobial activities of oriental mustard extract alone or combined with malic acid and EDTA were investigated against Salmonella spp. or Listeria monocytogenes at different temperatures. Five strain Salmonella or L. monocytogenes cocktails were separately inoculated in Brain Heart Infusion broth containing 0.5% (w/v) aqueous oriental mustard extract and incubated at 4 °C to 21 °C for 21 d. For inhibitor combination tests, Salmonella Typhimurium 02:8423 and L. monocytogenes 2-243 were individually inoculated in Mueller Hinton broth containing the mustard extract with either or both 0.2% (w/v) malic acid and 0.2% (w/v) EDTA and incubated at 10 °C or 21 °C for 10 to 14 d. Mustard extract inhibited growth of the L. monocytogenes cocktail at 4 °C up to 21 d (2.3 log10 CFU/mL inhibition) or at 10 °C for 7 d (2.4 log10 CFU/mL inhibition). Salmonella spp. viability was slightly, but significantly reduced by mustard extract at 4 °C by 21 d. Although hydrolysis of sinigrin in mustard extract by both pathogens was 2 to 6 times higher at 21 °C than at 4 °C to 10 °C, mustard was not inhibitory at 21 °C, perhaps because of the instability of its hydrolysis product (allyl isothiocyanate). At 21 °C, additive inhibitory effects of mustard extract with EDTA or malic acid led to undetectable levels of S. Typhimurium and L. monocytogenes by 7 d and 10 d, respectively. At 10 °C, S. Typhimurium was similarly susceptible, but combinations of antimicrobials were not more inhibitory to L. monocytogenes than the individual agents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".