Major Antifungals in Nutmeg Essential Oil against Aspergillus flavus and A. ochraceus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aiming to substitute toxic synthetic fungicides, the activity of nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) essential oil (EO, obtained by hydrodistillation) was investigated against two important storage fungi-Aspergillus flavus A. ochraceus. The activity of crude nutmeg EO was investigated using poison food assay (PFA). At a concentration of 0.1%, the EO inhibited A. flavus and A. ochraceus growth by 43 and 65%, respectively. At a concentration of 0.3 %, A. flavus and A. ochraceus inhibitions were 84 and 79%, respectively. The crude nutmeg EO on fractionation by preparative TLC-bioautography presented one band from which two pure compounds were isolated by semi-preparative normal-phase high performance liquid chromatography. Myristicin and safrole were identified by nuclear magnetic resonance (1H and 13C) and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The relative % of myristicin and safrol in the crude EO was 10.8 and 2.9, respectively, determined by gas chromatography with a flame ionization detector. The crude EO, the isolated active fraction, isolated myristicin and standard myristicin presented similar activities against the two fungi at concentrations of 0.1 and 0.3% by PFA. Based on these results it is concluded that myristicin is the major antifungal in nutmeg EO against A. flavus and A. ochraceus.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".