Cited by 2,332Essential Oils and Antimicrobial ActivityAntimicrobial agents and applicationsBacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing

A Sensitive and Quick Microplate Method to Determine the Minimal Inhibitory Concentration of Plant Extracts for Bacteria

Eloff, J.·1998·Planta Medica

Abstract

Agar diffusion techniques are used widely to assay plant extracts for antimicrobial activity, but there are problems associated with this technique. A micro-dilution technique was developed using 96-well microplates and tetrazolium salts to indicate bacterial growth. p-Iodonitrotetrazolium violet [0.2 mg/ml] gave better results than tetrazolium red or thiazolyl blue. The method is quick, worked well with Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli and with non-aqueous extracts from many different plants. The method gave reproducible results; required only 10-25 microliters of extract to determine minimal inhibitory concentrations, distinguished between microcidal and microstatic effects, and provided a permanent record of the results. Using S. aureus, and a Combretum molle extract, the technique was 32 times more sensitive than agar diffusion techniques and was not sensitive to culture age of the test organism up to 24 hours. The S. aureus culture could be stored up to 10 days in a cold room with little effect on the assay results. This method was useful in screening plants for antimicrobial activity and for the bioassay-guided isolation of antimicrobial compounds from plants. MIC values determined for sulfisoxazole, norfloxacin, gentamicin, and nitrofuratoin were similar to values indicated in the literature but values obtained with trimethroprim and ampicillin were higher with some bacteria.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-2006-957563

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Acetone received the highest overall rating among a variety of extractants examined for ability to solubilize antimicrobials from plants, rate of extraction, ease of removal, and toxicity in bioassay.

    “[11] examined a variety of extractants for their ability to solubilize antimicrobials from plants, rate of extraction, ease of removal, toxicity in bioassay and acetone received the highest overall rating.”

    From Efficacy of plant extracts in plant disease management (2012) · cites this paper as [11]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eloff, J.
Affiliations
University of Pretoria (ZA)
Corresponding author
Eloff, J.
Venue
Planta Medica
Published
1998-12
Volume
64
Issue
08
Pages
711-713
ISSN
  • 0032-0943 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-0221
OpenAlex
W2015884448
Cited by
2,332
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 121 · 2022: 139 · 2021: 139 · 2020: 120 · 2019: 130 · 2018: 129 · 2017: 133 · 2016: 125 · 2015: 108 · 2014: 141 · 2013: 137 · 2012: 117
FWCI
8.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Planta Medica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Antimicrobial agents and applications
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Clinical Biochemistry › Bacterial Identification and Susceptibility Testing
Keywords
minimum inhibitory concentration, plant extracts, antimicrobial activity, microplate assay, 96-well plate, Staphylococcus aureus, Combretum molle, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, bioassay-guided isolation
MeSH terms
Anti-Bacterial Agents, Bacteria, Microbial Sensitivity Tests, Plant Extracts

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