Chemical Composition and Evaluation of Antifungal and Insecticidal Activities of Essential Oils Extracted from Jambosa caryophyllus (Thunb.) Nied: Clove Buds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jambosa caryophyllus has been used in traditional phytotherapy as a treatment against infections. In the present work, essential oils extracted from clove buds (Jambosa caryophyllus ) (EO-JC) were investigated for their composition, antifungal, and insecticidal properties. Extraction of EO-JC was performed by use of hydrodistillation using a Clevenger-type apparatus, and the EOs were analyzed by gas chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Antifungal activity of EO-JC was evaluated by the use of solid-state diffusion (disc method) and microdilution to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC), against three strains of fungus, Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus flavus, and Fusarium oxysporum. Insecticidal activity of EO-JC against the cowpea weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus, was determined to assess utility of EO-JC to control this pest. Several exposures including inhalation and contact were used to determine lethality, as well as the repulsion test was conducted at concentrations of 4, 8, 16, and 32 μL EO-JC. Characterization of EO-JC by GC/MS revealed 34 compounds accounting for 99.98% of the mass of the extract. The predominant compound was eugenol (26.80%) followed by β-caryophyllene (16.03%) and eugenyl acetate (5.83%). The antifungal activity of EO-JC on solid media exhibited inhibitions in the range of 49% to 87%, and MIC was between 3.125 and 7.80 μg EO-JC/mL. Insecticidal activity, as determined by the use of the inhalation test, and expressed as the LD50 and LD95 after 96 hours of exposure was 2.32 and 21.92 μL/L air, respectively. In the contact test, a 96-hour exposure resulted in LD50 and LD95 of 5.51 and 11.05 μL/L of air, respectively. EO-JC exhibited insecticidal activity against fungi and pest chickpea weevil.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".