Antimicrobial Activity of Methanolic and Aqueous Extract of Rhodomyrtus tomentosa Leaves against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food poisoning is one of the riskiest illnesses caused by an organism like bacteria, viruses and parasites, which can contaminate food at any stage of food production. Most reports are associated with bacterial contamination through the food preparation process. Researcher nowadays attempts to discover a safer agent to use in food preparation as a food preservative agent. Thus, the potential of Rhodomyrtus tomentosa leaves as an antimicrobial agent was explored in this study. It was tested against two bacteria which are Staphylococcus aureus (gram-positive) and Eschericia coli (gram-negative). Antimicrobial activity of methanol and aqueous R. tomentosa leaves extract was compared using gram staining, bacterial identification, antimicrobial sensitivity testing (AST), minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC), minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC) and statistical analysis. The disc diffusion technique was used for AST where the mean area of inhibition methanol and aqueous extract against S. aureus was 18 mm and 16 mm respectively, whereas there was no area of inhibition for E. coli. MIC was done to determine the minimum concentration of the extract needed to inhibit the bacteria. After that, MBC was performed to confirm the previous MIC result. Statistical analysis was done by conduct it through SPSS software program. Then, the result for S. aureus is obtained from finding its p-value. Statistically, a significant difference between the two bacteria was analyzed by using independent t-test. A result of p-value less than 0.05 was considered significantly different as one another. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between methanol and aqueous extract on antimicrobial activity. In conclusion, both aqueous and methanol leaves R. tomentosa yielded similar antibacterial activity which susceptible to S. aureus and can be used safely toward foodborne pathogen.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".