Antibacterial Activities of Essential Oils Extracted from Leaves of <i>Murraya koenigii</i> by Solvent-Free Microwave Extraction and Hydro-Distillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solvent-free microwave extraction (SFME) for the isolation of essential oil from leaves of Murraya koenigii L. (Rutaceae) has been compared with the conventional hydro-distilled oil (HD) in terms of yield, composition, antioxidant activity, and antibacterial activity against Listeria innocua. The yield of essential oil obtained from 30 min of SFME was similar to that of HD for 180 min. By GC-MS analysis, the major compounds of the essential oil extracted by SFME, which were obtained in somewhat lower amounts than in the essential oil obtained by HD, were alpha-copaene (44.3%), beta-gurjunene (25.5%), isocaryophyllene (12.1%), beta-caryophyllene (8.7%) and germacrene D (2.9%). The content of oxygenated terpenes, slightly higher for the SFME-essential oil (2.3%) than the HD-essential oil (1.4%), were much lower than that of nonoxygenated terpenes in both oils. DPPH radical scavenging activities of both essential oils were relatively low (10%-24%). Complete inhibition of growth of L. innocua was observed with both SFME and HD essential oils, at 400 and 600 microg/mL (minimum inhibitory concentration), respectively. The SFME-essential oil at 300 microg/mL provided 92% inhibition, indicating its potential as a natural antimicrobial agent.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".