| Title |
Phytochemical composition, GC-MS analysis, in vitro antioxidant and antibacterial potential of clove flower bud (Eugenia caryophyllus) methanolic extract
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-015-2108-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
R. Hemalatha, P. Nivetha, C. Mohanapriya, G. Sharmila, C. Muthukumaran, M. Gopinath |
| Abstract |
Plant derived pharmacologically active compounds have gained importance in food and pharmaceutical industries. The aim of the present study is to identify and study the antioxidant, antimicrobial properties of the phytochemicals present in the crude extract of Eugenia caryophyllus flower buds. The antioxidant activity of the methanol, acetone and chloroform extract was evaluated by 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay. The methanol extract showed better radical scavenging activity than other selected solvents. Preliminary screening of phytochemicals was carried out in methanol extract and total phenol content was found high. Antibacterial activity was determined by well diffusion assay and methanol extract was found effective against Klebsiella pneumonia. FTIR and GC-MS results indicate the presence of aromatic compounds and major constituents were found to be eugenol and eugenyl acetate. Results of this study implied that Eugenia caryophyllus flower bud extract could be considered as health nutriments in food and pharmaceutical industries. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 107 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 11% |
| Researcher | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 10 | 9% |
| Lecturer | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 16% |
| Unknown | 36 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 16 | 15% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 11 | 10% |
| Chemistry | 11 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 10 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 44 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2016.
All research outputs
#20,325,615
of 22,869,263 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#1,101
of 1,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#323,836
of 386,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#30
of 41 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,869,263 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,446 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 386,569 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 41 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.