The effect of essential oils on the growth of bacteria from municipal wastewater treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial sensitivity to essential oils has been reported in the case of soil isolated bacteria, food isolated bacteria but there is little evidence available to support the fact that wastewater isolated bacteria show sensitivity to essential oils. Keeping in view this fact the present investigation aims to determine the wastewater isolated bacterial strains sensitivity to six commercially available plant essential oils including clove, cinnamon, oregano, tea tree, fennel, and wintergreen. The essential oils were tested against ten laboratory bacterial strains (Acinetobacter baumanii, Escherichia coli: DH5α, E.coli: AD202, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Pseudomonas poae, Pseudomonas putida, staphylococcus aureus, and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia) (2) and ten wastewater isolated bacterial strains (Acinetobacter baumanii, Acinetobacter bouretii, Aeromonas hydrophila, E.coli, Enterobacter cloaceae, Flavobacterium branchiophilum, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas staurtii, Serratia fonticola, and Staphylococcus muscae) using the Kirby-Bauer disc diffusion assay, and the broth tube macrodilution MIC assay. The disc-diffusion assay showed that three of the oils, clove, cinnamon and oregano, were the most effective at inhibiting the growth of all the known single isolates. The broth tube MIC assay found that the WWTP isolated bacterial strains such as E. coli, Staphylococcus muscae, Enterobacter cloaceae, Acinetobacter baumanii were most sensitive to clove oil at MIC concentration ≤ 0.52 mg/ml, cinnamon oil at MIC concentration ≤ 0.51 mg/ml, and oregano oil MIC concentration ≤ 0.47 mg/ml. Finally, wastewater microbial community samples from activated sludge, returned sludge and anaerobic digesters were reduced by 0% > 94.24%, 46% > 99%, 70% > 97% percent when tested against clove, cinnamon, and oregano oils.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".