Antimicrobial Activity of Coconut Water Vinegar Powder to Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Candida albicans
Open accessAbstract
Vinegar powder is made from coconut water vinegar, then dried using a spray dryer with maltodextrin as a filler. Antimicrobial activity of coconut water vinegar was known can inhibit Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli growth, but there was no publication for Candida albicans. Powdered processing may cause antimicrobial activity to decrease. This research was aimed to study the effect of powdered processing of coconut water vinegar on the antimicrobial activity of S.aureus, E.coli, and C. albicans. Antimicrobial assay was carried out by diffusion method (wells method) and Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) test was done by dilution method. The resulting study showed that the inhibitory diameter of coconut vinegar powder to S. aureus was 6.38 ± 0.18 mm, 9.38 ± 0.18 mm, and 11.39 ± 0.19 mm, respectively. While to E. coli was 5.87 ± 0.18 mm, 8.01 mm, and 10.27 ± 0.018 ± 0.035 mm, respectively. MIC of S. aureus vinegar powder was at 0.22% acetic acid concentration. While in E. coli at levels of acetic acid at 0.43%. The result showed that the vinegar powder has potential as an antibacterial to Gram-positive and Gram-negative, but not potential to C. albicans.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Coconut water vinegar powder, produced by spray drying with maltodextrin, inhibited *Staphylococcus aureus* and *Escherichia coli* in vitro but did not inhibit *Candida albicans* at the tested concentrations. Inhibition increased with higher acetic acid levels, with MICs of 0.215% for *S. aureus* and 0.430% for *E. coli*.
Key findings
- At acetic acid concentrations of 1.00%, 1.25%, and 1.50%, inhibition zones against *S. aureus* were 6.38 ± 0.18 mm, 9.38 ± 0.18 mm, and 11.39 ± 0.19 mm; against *E. coli* they were 5.87 ± 0.18 mm, 8.01 ± 0.018 mm, and 10.27 ± 0.035 mm.
- Vinegar powder did not inhibit *C. albicans*: no inhibitory diameter formed at 1.00%, 1.25%, or 1.50%, and all MIC dilutions showed growth/turbidity.
- MIC by dilution was 0.215% acetic acid for *S. aureus* and 0.430% acetic acid for *E. coli* (the abstract rounds these to 0.22% and 0.43%).
- Powder yield was 79.14%, and acetic acid decreased from 2.60% before spray drying to 1.72% in the powder.
Methods
- Coconut water vinegar (1500 mL) was mixed with 30% maltodextrin, homogenized, and spray dried at inlet 160 °C and outlet 70 °C.
- Antimicrobial assay used the well diffusion method: PCA with 1% TTC for *S. aureus* ATCC 6538 and *E. coli* ATCC 25922 (10⁶ CFU/mL), PDA for *C. albicans* ATCC 10231; 20 µL samples at 1%, 1.25%, and 1.50% were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h for bacteria and at room temperature for 3–4 days for yeast, then inhibition zones were measured.
- MIC was determined by dilution method using 8 acetic acid concentrations from 1.720% to 0.014%, with growth assessed by turbidity after incubation.
Limitations
- Stated limitations: Not stated in the paper.
- Evident from the text: *C. albicans* was tested only up to 1.50% acetic acid in the diffusion assay and 1.720% in the MIC assay; the authors suggest 2.00% acetic acid may be needed, so the negative result is limited to the tested concentrations.
- Evident from the text: no replication number or statistical analysis is described for the inhibition-zone measurements; only mean ± SD values are reported.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
1 of 9 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Inhibitory diameter of coconut water vinegar powder against E. coli at acetic acid concentrations 1.00%, 1.25%, and 1.50% were 5.87 ± 0.18 mm, 8.01 ± 0.018 mm, and 10.27 ± 0.035 mm, respectively.
“Whereas the Gram-negative bacteria (E.coli) showed that the vinegar powder concentrated by acetic acid 1,00%; 1.25% and 1.50% respectively showed inhibitory diameter 5.87 ± 0.18 mm, 8.01 ± 0.018 mm, and 10.27 ± 0.035 mm.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“While to E. coli was 5.87 ± 0.18 mm, 8.01 mm, and 10.27 ± 0.018 ± 0.035 mm, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · plain
“while the E. coli were 5.87 ± 0.18 mm, 8.01 ± 0.018 mm and 10.27 ± 0.035 mm, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
- Findingown data
Vinegar powder has greater inhibitory effect against S. aureus than E. coli at the same acetic acid concentrations.
“The study also showed that vinegar powder has potential to inhibit S. aureus.It is seen from the results that diameter of the inhibitory area form was wider than E. coli.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Inhibitory diameter of coconut water vinegar powder against S. aureus at acetic acid concentrations 1.00%, 1.25%, and 1.50% were 6.38 ± 0.18 mm, 9.38 ± 0.18 mm, and 11.39 ± 0.19 mm, respectively.
“The inhibitory diameter at the concentration of acetic acid of vinegar powder 1.00%, 1.25%, and 1.50% against S. aureus were 6.38 ± 0.18 mm, 9.38 ± 0.18 mm, and 11.39 ± 0.19 mm, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“The resulting study showed that the inhibitory diameter of coconut vinegar powder to S. aureus was 6.38 ± 0.18 mm, 9.38 ± 0.18 mm, and 11.39 ± 0.19 mm, respectively.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · hedged
“Vinegar powder with acetic acid levels of 1.00%, 1.25%, and 1.50% has the potential as an antibacterial against S. aureus respectively 6.38 ± 0.18 mm, 9.38 ± 0.18 mm, and 11.39 ± 0.19 mm”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
- Findingown data
Vinegar powder did not inhibit C. albicans in the MIC dilution test.
“Vinegar powder did not inhibit Candida albicans.Candida albicans in test tubes did not form turbidity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Vinegar powder did not inhibit C. albicans at acetic acid concentrations 1.00%, 1.25%, and 1.50% in the well diffusion assay (no inhibitory diameter formed).
“Vinegar powder did not inhibit C. albicans.It was seen no inhibitory diameter (DDH) formed (Figure 3).”
- Also stated in: § 3.2.Inhibitory diameter of vinegar powder · hedged
“The results obtained showed that vinegar powder could not inhibit C. albicans at a concentration of 1.00%, 1.25%, and 1.50%.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2.Inhibitory diameter of vinegar powder · plain
“Vinegar powder did not inhibit C. albicans.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 3.2.Inhibitory diameter of vinegar powder · hedged
- Findingown data
The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of vinegar powder against E. coli was at an acetic acid level of 0.430% (reported as 0.43% in the abstract).
“Whereas Escherichia coli at acetic acid levels of 0.430%.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“While in E. coli at levels of acetic acid at 0.43%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
- Findingown data
With higher concentration of vinegar powder acetic acid levels, the inhibitory diameter formed wider against S. aureus and E. coli.
“With a higher concentration of vinegar powder acetic acid levels, the inhibitory diameter formed wider, which shows the greater antibacterial potential of the vinegar powder.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of vinegar powder against S. aureus was at an acetic acid level of 0.215% (reported as 0.22% in the abstract).
“Research showed that the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration (MIC) of vinegar powder against Staphylococcus aureus was seen at acetic acid levels of 0.215%.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“MIC of S. aureus vinegar powder was at 0.22% acetic acid concentration.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Conclusions · plain
“MIC of vinegar powder against S. aureus at acetic acid levels of 0.215%”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
- Premisecitation
A concentration of 1% acetic acid in vinegar is able to inhibit the growth of pathogenic microbes E. coli, S. thypimurium, and L. monocytogenes.
“The concentration of 1% acetic acid in vinegar is able to inhibit the growth of pathogenic microbes E. coli, S. thypimurium, and L. monocytogenes [9,10,11].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked - Interpretationown data
Vinegar powder is not effective against C. albicans.
“The result showed that the vinegar powder has potential as an antibacterial to Gram-positive and Gram-negative, but not potential to C. albicans.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2.Inhibitory diameter of vinegar powder · hedged
“The results obtained showed that vinegar powder could not inhibit C. albicans at a concentration of 1.00%, 1.25%, and 1.50%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § 3.2.Inhibitory diameter of vinegar powder · hedged
- Interpretationreasoning
Vinegar powder requires a greater concentration of acetic acid to inhibit E. coli compared to S. aureus.
“Therefore vinegar powder which was needed as an antibacterial to Escherichia coli must contain a greater concentration of acetic acid compared to Staphylococcus aureus.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Acetic acid causes instability in bacterial cell membranes, which underlies its antimicrobial ability.
“This type of acid is widely used as an antimicrobial because of its ability to cause instability in bacterial cell membranes.”
- Also stated in: § 3.1.Characteristics of vinegar powder · hedged
“Acetic acid in the sample was potential to inhibit microbes by damaging the stability of cell membrane of the test microbes [12].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [12] Ray, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Also stated in: § 3.1.Characteristics of vinegar powder · hedged
- May combine two claims. 7
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 4
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationA 10% vinegar solution reduced Candida spp. CFU/mL in saliva and the presence of denture stomatitis in patients, though it did not eliminate C. albicans.
“Using a 10% vinegar solution showed a decrease of CFU/mL counts was correlated with a reduction in cases of denture stomatitis.Although it was not able to eliminate C. albicans, the immersion of the complete denture in 10% vinegar solution, during the night reduced the amounts (CFU/mL) of Candida spp. in the saliva and the presence of denture stomatitis in the studied patients [14].”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [14] Pinto, 2008, J Appl Oral Sci source
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAcetic acid content of vinegar powder was 1.72%, decreased from 2.60% before spray drying.
“Acetic acid contained in vinegar powder was 1.72%, decreased from acetic acid contained before spray drying, 2.60%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataVinegar powder has potential as an antibacterial against Gram-positive (S. aureus) and Gram-negative (E. coli) bacteria.
“The result showed that the vinegar powder has potential as an antibacterial to Gram-positive and Gram-negative, but not potential to C. albicans.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2.Inhibitory diameter of vinegar powder · plain
“Vinegar powder has antibacterial activity against Gram-positive bacteria (S. aureus) and Gram-negative bacteria (E.coli) indicated by the inhibition zone of bacterial growth.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § 3.2.Inhibitory diameter of vinegar powder · plain
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationVinegar powder has the potential to inhibit the growth of S. aureus and E. coli.
“The results of the study indicate that vinegar powder has the potential to inhibit the growth of S. aureus and E. coli [7].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [7] Miskiyah, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe decrease in acetic acid content during spray drying was caused by heating and water evaporation.
“Decreased levels of acetic acid contained in vinegar powder were caused of heating process.During spray drying process water evaporated and caused acetic acid dropped.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationConditions of low acidity and a large percentage of undissociated organic acid molecules increase antimicrobial ability.
“Conditions of low acidity and a large percentage of undissociated organic acid molecules will increase antimicrobial ability [12].”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [12] Ray, 1992
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationLiquid vinegar has potential as an antimicrobial against C. albicans at twice the amount of acetic acid compared to antibacterial.
“Vinegar has potential as an antimicrobial against C. albicans at twice the amount of acetic acid compared to antibacterial 6 , but study of vinegar powder did not found yet.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [6] 1996
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAntimicrobial compounds act by inhibiting cell wall synthesis, interfering with cell membrane function, and inhibiting cell metabolism.
“The mechanism of antimicrobial compounds action : 1).inhibits cell wall synthesis.Antibacterial works by inhibiting reactions in the process of cell wall synthesis because the osmotic pressure in bacterial cells is higher than outside., 2).interferes with the function of cell membranes [13], 3) inhibits cell metabolism.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] Kwartiningsih, 2005, Ekuilibrium
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
The paper relies on this without support.
Gram-positive bacteria have one layer of cell membranes, thicker and layered cell walls, consisting of cytoplasmic lipid membranes (1-4%), peptidoglycan (50-80%); Gram-negative bacteria have two layers of permeable cell membranes, inner and outer, with outer membrane thickness 7-8 nm containing lipids, proteins, and lipopolysaccharides, thinner cell walls, consisting of cytoplasmic lipid membranes
“Gram-positive bacteria have one layer of cell membranes, thicker and layered cell walls, consisting of cytoplasmic lipid membranes (1-4%), peptidoglycan (50-80%).Whereas gram-negative bacteria have two layers of permeable cell membranes, namely the inner membrane and the outer membrane.The outer membrane has a thickness (7-8 nm) containing lipids, proteins, and lipopolysaccharides, thinner cell”
The paper relies on this without support.
The growth of bacteria is inhibited by compounds that have a pH lower than the growth pH of the bacteria or in an acidic atmosphere.
“The growth of the bacteria is thought to be inhibited by compounds that have a pH lower than the growth pH of the two bacteria or in an acidic atmosphere.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Abstract gives conflicting uncertainty for the E. coli result
MinorThe abstract attaches both ± 0.018 and ± 0.035 mm to the 10.27 mm result. The results section instead assigns ± 0.018 mm to 8.01 mm and only ± 0.035 mm to 10.27 mm.
“While to E. coli was 5.87 ± 0.18 mm, 8.01 mm, and 10.27 ± 0.018 ± 0.035 mm, respectively.”
“Whereas the Gram-negative bacteria (E.coli) showed that the vinegar powder concentrated by acetic acid 1,00%; 1.25% and 1.50% respectively showed inhibitory diameter 5.87 ± 0.18 mm, 8.01 ± 0.018 mm, and 10.27 ± 0.035 mm.”
Candida result cites a figure labeled E. coli
MinorThe text cites Figure 3 for the absence of a C. albicans inhibition zone, but Figure 3 is captioned as the E. coli result.
“Vinegar powder did not inhibit C. albicans.It was seen no inhibitory diameter (DDH) formed (Figure 3).”
“Figure: 3 Figure 3 . Figure 3. Inhibitory diameter vinegar powder against E. coli”
Candida turbidity conflicts with the reported lack of inhibition
MinorThe methods say turbidity indicates microbial growth. The statement that C. albicans formed no turbidity therefore conflicts with the conclusion that vinegar powder did not inhibit it; Table 1 also marks C. albicans (+) at every concentration.
“Candida albicans in test tubes did not form turbidity.”
“Vinegar powder did not inhibit Candida albicans.”
Cites
Vinegar as an antimicrobial agent for control of Candida spp. in complete denture wearers
Pinto, T. M. S., Neves, A. C. C., Leão, M. V. P., & Jorge, A. O. C. (2008) · Journal of Applied Oral Science · doi:10.1590/s1678-77572008000600006 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian 7(2)2002
Chairul, C., Poeloengan, M., Rahayu, R. D., et al. (2002) · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Gomes, T. A. T., Hernandes, R. T., Torres, A. G., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Microbiology · doi:10.1128/jcm.00779-11 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Kajian Potensi Kulit Sapi sebagai Bahan Dasar Produksi Gelatin Halal
Sasmitaloka, K. S., Miskiyah, M., & Juniawati, J. (2017) · Buletin Peternakan · doi:10.21059/buletinpeternak.v41i3.17872 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
EFIKASI CUKA KULIT PISANG DAN AIR KELAPA SEBAGAI PENGHAMBAT Listeria monocytogenes PADA DAGING AYAM
Widaningrum, W., Miskiyah, M., & Juniawati, J. (2017) · Jurnal Penelitian Pascapanen Pertanian · doi:10.21082/jpasca.v12n2.2015.93-104 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Miskiyah, M., Juniawati, J., & Andriani, A. (2016) · Journal of the Indonesian Tropical Animal Agriculture · doi:10.14710/jitaa.41.1.21-27 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Rahmi, 2015, Journal Medika Veterinaria, 9, 15
- Herlina, 2015, Prosiding Seminar Nasional Masyarakat Biodiversity Indononesia, 1, 413
- Juniawati, 2014, Jurnal Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian, 33, 11
- Kwartiningsih, 2005, Ekuilibrium, 4, 8
Cited by
Still being checked.
- Authors
- Miskiyah, Juniawati, & Hidayati, I.
- Affiliations
- Indonesian Agency for Agricultural Research and Development (ID)
- Pancasila University (ID)
- ORCID
- Juniawati
- Venue
- IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
- Publisher
- IOP Publishing
- Published
- 2022-05-01
- Volume
- 1024
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 012069
- ISSN
- 1755-1315 (ISSN-L)
- 1755-1307
- OpenAlex
- W4282979470
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Inorganic Chemistry › Coconut Research and Applications
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
- Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Organic Chemistry › Antimicrobial agents and applications
- Keywords
- antimicrobial activity, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Candida albicans, spray drying, maltodextrin, acetic acid, minimum inhibitory concentration, antibacterial activity, antifungal activity
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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
