Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 662

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparison of chemical, antioxidant and antimicrobial studies of cinnamon leaf and bark volatile oils, oleoresins and their constituents

Open access
Singh, Gurdip, Maurya, Sumitra, deLampasona, M.P., Catalan, Cesar A.N.·2007·Food and Chemical Toxicology

Abstract

The antioxidant, antifungal and antibacterial potentials of volatile oils and oleoresin of Cinnamomum zeylanicum Blume (leaf and bark) were investigated in the present study. The oleoresins have shown excellent activity for the inhibition of primary and secondary oxidation products in mustard oil added at the concentration of 0.02% which were evaluated using peroxide, thiobarbituric acid, p-anisidine and carbonyl values. Moreover, it was further supported by other complementary antioxidant assays such as ferric thiocyanate method in linoleic acid system, reducing power, chelating and scavenging effects on 1,1'-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) and hydroxyl radicals. In antimicrobial investigations, using inverted petriplate and food poison techniques, the leaf and bark volatile oils has been found to be highly effective against all the tested fungi except Aspergillus ochraceus. However, leaf oleoresin has shown inhibition only for Penicillium citrinum whereas bark oleoresin has caused complete mycelial zone inhibition for Aspergillus flavus and A. ochraceus along with Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus terreus, P. citrinum and Penicillium viridicatum at 6 microL. Using agar well diffusion method, leaf volatile oil and oleoresin have shown better results in comparison with bark volatile oil, oleoresin and commercial bactericide, i.e., ampicillin. Gas chromatographic-mass spectroscopy studies on leaf volatile oil and oleoresin resulted in the identification of 19 and 25 components, which accounts for the 99.4% and 97.1%, respectively of the total amount and the major component was eugenol with 87.3% and 87.2%, respectively. The analysis of cinnamon bark volatile oil showed the presence of 13 components accounting for 100% of the total amount. (E)-cinnamaldehyde was found as the major component along with delta-cadinene (0.9%), whereas its bark oleoresin showed the presence of 17 components accounting for 92.3% of the total amount. The major components were (E)-cinnamaldehyde (49.9%), along with several other components.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.fct.2007.02.031

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 662

Metadata

Authors
Singh, G., Maurya, S., deLampasona, M. P., & Catalan, C. A. N.
Venue
Food and Chemical Toxicology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-09
Volume
45
Issue
9
Pages
1650-1661
ISSN
0278-6915 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2170783669
Cited by
662
References
1
FWCI
25.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of chemical, antioxidant and antimicrobial studies of cinnamon leaf and bark volatile oils, oleoresins and their constituents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.fct.2007.02.031
The paper
Singh, G., Maurya, S., deLampasona, M. P., & Catalan, C. A. N. (2007). A comparison of chemical, antioxidant and antimicrobial studies of cinnamon leaf and bark volatile oils, oleoresins and their constituents. Food and Chemical Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2007.02.031

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.