The Inhibitory Concentration of Natural Food Preservatives May Be Biased by the Determination Methods.

Joana Gomes, Joana Barbosa, Paula Teixeira
Author Information
  1. Joana Gomes: Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, CBQF-Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina-Laboratório Associado, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Rua Diogo Botelho 1327, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal.
  2. Joana Barbosa: Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, CBQF-Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina-Laboratório Associado, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Rua Diogo Botelho 1327, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal.
  3. Paula Teixeira: Escola Superior de Biotecnologia, CBQF-Centro de Biotecnologia e Química Fina-Laboratório Associado, Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Rua Diogo Botelho 1327, 4169-005 Porto, Portugal. ORCID

Abstract

The demand for natural antimicrobials as food preservatives has increased due to the growing interest of the population for a healthy lifestyle. The application of screening methods to identify the antimicrobial activity of natural compounds is of great importance. The in vitro determination of antimicrobial activity requires determining their minimum inhibitory concentrations to assess microbial susceptibility. This study aimed to evaluate the minimum inhibitory concentrations of three natural antimicrobial compounds-chitosan, ethanolic propolis extract, and nisin-against 37 microorganisms (different pathogens and spoilage microorganisms) by the methods of agar dilution and drop diffusion on agar. Culture media at different pH values were used for both methods to simulate different food products. Most of the microorganisms were inhibited by chitosan (0.5% ) and propolis (10 mg/mL), and most of the Gram-positive bacteria by nisin (25 μg/mL). Different pH values and the in vitro method used influenced the inhibition of each compound. Generally, lower minimum inhibitory concentrations were observed at lower pH values and for the agar dilution method. Furthermore, some microorganisms inhibited by the compounds on the agar dilution method were not inhibited by the same compounds and at the same concentrations on the drop diffusion technique. This study reinforces the need for using defined standard methods for the in vitro determination of minimum inhibitory concentrations. Natural compounds with potential antimicrobial action are a bet on food preservation. The use of standard techniques such as those used for antimicrobials of clinical applications are crucial to compare results obtained in different studies and different matrices.

Keywords

References

  1. Biotechnol Rep (Amst). 2015 Nov 10;9:25-30 [PMID: 28507912]
  2. J Microbiol Methods. 2010 May;81(2):121-6 [PMID: 20171250]
  3. J Pharm Anal. 2016 Apr;6(2):71-79 [PMID: 29403965]
  4. J Appl Microbiol. 2016 Jun;120(6):1449-65 [PMID: 26678028]
  5. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010 Feb 28;137(2-3):175-80 [PMID: 20060188]
  6. N Biotechnol. 2011 Oct;28(6):713-8 [PMID: 21232643]
  7. Eur J Med Chem. 2018 Jan 1;143:922-935 [PMID: 29227932]
  8. Eur J Biochem. 1995 Jun 15;230(3):827-53 [PMID: 7601145]
  9. J Food Sci Technol. 2015 Sep;52(9):5408-17 [PMID: 26344957]
  10. Nanomaterials (Basel). 2020 Sep 24;10(10): [PMID: 32987697]
  11. J Appl Microbiol. 2013 Apr;114(4):956-63 [PMID: 23279192]
  12. Braz J Microbiol. 2011 Oct;42(4):1259-64 [PMID: 24031749]
  13. J Appl Microbiol. 2015 May;118(5):1137-43 [PMID: 25693498]
  14. Molecules. 2009 Feb 13;14(2):738-54 [PMID: 19223822]
  15. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 1996 Feb;69(2):193-202 [PMID: 8775979]
  16. Food Microbiol. 2008 Feb;25(1):120-7 [PMID: 17993385]
  17. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2008 Jun;61(6):1295-301 [PMID: 18339637]
  18. Microbiology (Reading). 2003 Aug;149(Pt 8):2015-2021 [PMID: 12904541]
  19. Microb Pathog. 2020 Oct;147:104212 [PMID: 32344178]
  20. Front Microbiol. 2012 Aug 08;3:287 [PMID: 23060862]
  21. Int J Food Microbiol. 1999 Apr 1;48(1):37-50 [PMID: 10375133]
  22. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 Aug;61(8):2873-8 [PMID: 7487019]
  23. Res Microbiol. 2020 Dec;171(8):351-356 [PMID: 32721519]
  24. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2018 Feb;25(2):361-366 [PMID: 29472791]
  25. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2007 Dec;23(12):1797-803 [PMID: 27517836]
  26. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005 Jul 15;102(2):213-20 [PMID: 15992620]
  27. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:3627463 [PMID: 26949701]

Grants

  1. SFRH/BPD/113303/2015/Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
  2. POCI-01-0247-FEDER-024524/European Regional Development Fund

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0agarantimicrobialconcentrationsdifferentfoodmethodscompoundsminimuminhibitorymicroorganismsdilutionnaturalactivityvitropropolisdropdiffusionpHvaluesusedinhibitedmethodantimicrobialspreservativesdeterminationstudychitosannisinlowerstandardNaturaldemandincreasedduegrowinginterestpopulationhealthylifestyleapplicationscreeningidentifygreatimportancerequiresdeterminingassessmicrobialsusceptibilityaimedevaluatethreecompounds-chitosanethanolicextractnisin-against37pathogensspoilageCulturemediasimulateproducts05%10mg/mLGram-positivebacteria25μg/mLDifferentinfluencedinhibitioncompoundGenerallyobservedFurthermoretechniquereinforcesneedusingdefinedpotentialactionbetpreservationusetechniquesclinicalapplicationscrucialcompareresultsobtainedstudiesmatricesInhibitoryConcentrationFoodPreservativesMayBiasedDeterminationMethods

Similar Articles

Cited By