Evaluation of antimicrobial activities of commercial herb and spice extracts against selected food-borne bacteria
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial properties of extracts of thirty commercial herbs and spices commonly used in the production of ready meals. Various extracts of spices were evaluated for their antimicrobial activities against <em>Escherichia coli</em>, <em>Listeria innocua</em>, <em>Staphylococcus aureus</em> and <em>Pseudomonas fluorescens</em><sup> </sup>using<strong> </strong>a<strong> </strong>microdilution broth method. Ethanol and hexane extracts of oregano, clove, sage, rosemary and celery showed relatively strong antimicrobial activities against all bacteria tested. In contrast, water extracts displayed little or no antimicrobial activity. Flow cytometry revealed that cell membrane structures were damaged by spice and herb active extracts, while analysis of intra- and extracellular ATP contents of bacteria indicated that an increase in extracellular ATP was partially due to intracellular leakage. Extract combinations assessed using the checkerboard method did not display synergistic effects, however, some additive effects were observed when oregano was combined with sage or rosemary against <em>L. innocua</em> or <em>S. aureus</em>. This study has demonstrated that some commercial spice extracts have antimicrobial activity against food-borne bacterial species and may be considered as potential antibacterial agents for addition to ready meals.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it