World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology 10, 232-233

Short Communication

Antimicrobial properties of cumin R.S. Shetty, R.S. Singhal and P.R. Kulkarni* Fungal (Aspergillus and Penlcillium spp.) and yeast (Saccharomyces and Candida spp.) cultures were more sensitive to cumin volatile oil and cuminaldehyde than bacteria. Among Gram-negative bacteria, Escherichia coli was the most sensitive to the volatile oil while Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most resistant. Staphylococcus aureus had an MIC almost double that of all other Gram-positive species tested, while the fungi had MIC values 10 to 20 times lower than those of the bacteria.

Key words: Antimicrobial properties, cumin, cuminaldehyde, essential oil.

Although the volatile essential oil fraction of spices has long been recognized as having antimicrobial activity (Shelef 1983), there are contradictory reports on the sensitivity of Gram-positive and Gram-negative organisms to spices (Bose et al. 1949, 1950; Maruzella & Sicurella 1960; Shelef et al. 1980). Cumin (Cuminum cyminum) is a spice commonly grown in India as a flavourant and constituent of household medicines. It does not usually become infected by moulds, unlike other spices. There are very few reports concerning the antimicrobial activities of cumin and its solvent extracts. The present study was aimed at studying the antimicrobial activities of cumin, its volatile oil a n d its major active constituent, cuminaldehyde, against organisms that frequently occur in food.

Materials and Methods Whole cumin (Cuminum cyminum) obtained locally was ground and sieved through 420-#m sieve. The volatile oil was collected by steam distillation. Standard cuminaldehyde (Sigma) was also used. The bacterial and fungal cultures used were Staphylococcus aureus 6538P, Bacillus cereus NCIM 2797, Bacillus coagulans NCIM 2030, Bacillus subtilis DSM 10, Escherichia coli 113-3D, Enterobacter aerogenes NCIM 2340, Pseudomonas aeruginosa NCIM 2036,

The authors are with the Food & Fermentation Technology Division, University Department of Chemical Technology, Matunga, Bombay400019, India; fax: 91-022-4145614. *Corresponding author. (~ 1994 Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd

232

World Journal of Microbiology & Biotechnology, Vo110, I994

Aspergillus niger NCIM 1196, Aspergillus flavus NCIM 594, Aspergillus parasiticus NCIM 564, Penicillium chrysogenum DSM 1095, Saccharomyces cerevisiae NCIM 3479 and Candida utilis NCIM 3469. Saline suspensions of each culture, 1 mL adjusted to optical density of 1.0 at 540 nm, were used to seed the assay plates, each containing 20 ml of nutrient agar or potato dextrose agar in sterile petri dishes. Wells, 6 mm diam, cut into the seeded agar, were filled with cumin powder, 0.01 ml volatile oil or cuminaldehyde. The dishes were then incubated at 3 0 _ 2°C for 24 (bacterial cultures) or 48 h (fungat culture). Using the standard cup assay method, MIC were determined for cumin, cumin volatile oil and cuminaldehyde.

Results and Discussion Table 1 shows the MIC of cumin, volatile oil, and cuminaldehyde against different bacteria and fungi. Of all the Gram-negative bacteria, Escherichia coli was the most sensitive to the volatile oil, while Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most resistant. Of the Gram-positive organisms, Staphylococcus aureus had an MIC almost double that of all the other species studied. Fungi gave MIC 10 to 20 times lower than those of the bacteria. Among the fungal cultures, Penicillium chrysogenum was the most sensitive and Aspergillus parasiticus the most resistant. In general, fungal and yeast cultures were more sensitive to cumin volatile oil and cuminaldehyde than the bacteria. Results from Table i confirm the antimicrobial properties of cumin, cumin volatile oil and cuminaldehyde.

Antimicrobia] properties of cumin Table 1. MIC (mg/ml) of cumin, cumin volatile oil and cuminaldehyde towards various microorganisms,* Organism Bacteria Staphylococcus aureus Bacillus subtilis Bacillus cereus Bacillus coagulans Escherichia coli Enterobacter aerogenes Pseudomonas aeruginosa Fungi Aspergillus niger A. flavus A. parasiticus Penicillium chrysogenum Yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae Candida ufilis

Cumin

Cumin volatile oil

Cuminaldehyde

30 20 20 30 30 30 30

2.5 1.0 1.0 1.25 0.75 2.0 5.0

2.0 0.75 0,75 1~0 0.75 1.5 3.25

10 10 10 10

0.125 0.125 0.15 0.10

0.05 0.05 0,10 0.025

ND ND

0.125 0.10

0.025 0.025

* Values are means from three determinations. ND--Not determined.

References Bose, S.M., Bhima Rao, C.N. & Subrahmanyan, V. 1949 Influence of organic matter on the bactericidal efficiency of Indian essential oils. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 8B, 157-160. Bose, S.M., Bhima Rao, C.N. & Subrahmanyan, V. 1950 Some factors affecting the bactericidal property of lemon-grass oil emulsions. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 9B, 12-37. Maruzzella, J.C. & Sicurella, N.A. 1960 Antibacterial activity of essential oil vapors. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association 49, 692-694.

Shelef, L.A. 1983 Antimicrobial effects of spices. Journal of Food Safety 6, 29-44. Shelef, L.A., Naglik, O.A. & Bogen, D.W. 1980 Sensitivity of some common food borne bacteria to the spices sage, rosemary and allspice. Journal of Food Science 45, 1042-I044.

(Received in revised form 10 September 1993; accepted I4 September 1993)

WorldJournalof Microbiology& Bio~echnology,Vo110, I994

233

Antimicrobial properties of cumin.

Fungal (Aspergillus and Penicillium spp.) and yeast (Saccharomyces and Candida spp.) cultures were more sensitive to cumin volatile oil and cuminaldeh...
113KB Sizes 4 Downloads 0 Views