The DOI matches its Crossref record; 78 of the 87 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 37 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea
Open accessAbstract
Ethnopharmacological use of plant natural extracts has been known since ancient times. The optimization of plant molecule extraction is fundamental in obtaining relevant extraction yields. The main purpose of this study was to understand the role of different extraction techniques (solid-liquid, ultrasound, Soxhlet, and microwave) and solvents (water, methanol, ethanol, acetone, dichloromethane, and hexane) on the antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of extracts from Olea europaea (olive) and Acacia dealbata (mimosa). Crude plant extracts were evaluated for their antimicrobial activity against Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli by the disk diffusion method. The antioxidant capacity of the extracts was determined by ABTS (2,2-azinobis (3-ethyl-benzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)) and DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) methods. In terms of extraction yield, ultrasound extraction and the solvents methanol, acetone (O. europaea) or water (A. dealbata) were found to be the best options. However, ethanol and acetone proved to be the best solvents to extract compounds with antimicrobial activity and antioxidant capacity, respectively (regardless of the extraction method employed). Soxhlet and microwave were the best techniques to extract compounds with antimicrobial activity, whereas any of the tested techniques showed the ability to extract compounds with antioxidant capacity. In most of the cases, both plant extracts (mimosa and olive) were more efficient against S. aureus than E. coli. In the present study, both mimosa and olive leaf crude extracts proved to have antimicrobial and antioxidant activities, increasing the demand of these natural products as a source of compounds with health benefits.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study compared four extraction techniques and six solvents on antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of Olea europaea and Acacia dealbata leaf extracts. Ethanol was generally best for antimicrobial extraction, acetone for antioxidant extraction, and Soxhlet/microwave with water gave the highest extraction efficiencies and antimicrobial activity.
Key findings
- Extraction efficiency: For O. europaea solid-liquid extraction ranged from 0.9% to 7.2% (hexane weakest, methanol best); for A. dealbata it ranged from 4.1% to 8.1% (dichloromethane weakest, water strongest, p < 0.05). Soxhlet and microwave with water gave 12.3% and 10.7% for olive, and 13.4% and 11.9% for mimosa.
- Antimicrobial activity: For olive solid-liquid extracts, ethanol (25.3 mm) and acetone (22.7 mm) gave the largest inhibition halos against S. aureus; for olive ultrasound extracts, ethanol was best against both S. aureus (27.3 mm) and E. coli (16.7 mm). For mimosa solid-liquid extracts, ethanol gave the highest S. aureus inhibition (28.0 mm), while methanol gave the highest E. coli inhibition (16.7 mm). At standardized 5 mg/mL, activity decreased markedly; for olive solid-liquid extracts only ethanol remained active, with about 58% and 52% reductions against S. aureus and E. coli, respectively.
- Soxhlet and microwave water extracts: Against S. aureus, halos were olive/Soxhlet 14.0 mm, olive/microwave 14.3 mm, mimosa/Soxhlet 14.7 mm, and mimosa/microwave 14.3 mm. Against E. coli, only olive extracts were active (Soxhlet 11.0 mm; microwave 11.7 mm); mimosa extracts showed no activity.
- Antioxidant capacity: Acetone was the best solvent for both plants by DPPH and ABTS. For mimosa, acetonic extracts gave 782.9 TE/g fresh mass (solid-liquid) and 770.1 TE/g fresh mass (ultrasound) by DPPH; aqueous extracts gave 765.8 and 756.5 TE/g fresh mass, and methanolic extracts 739.8 and 730.8 TE/g fresh mass. By ABTS, acetone extracts gave 607.9 TE/g fresh mass for both solid-liquid and ultrasound mimosa extractions. No single extraction method excelled for antioxidant capacity; it depended largely on solvent.
Methods
- Leaves of O. europaea and A. dealbata were collected in Braga, Portugal, in February 2013. Four extraction methods (solid-liquid, ultrasound, Soxhlet, microwave) and six solvents (water, methanol, ethanol, acetone, dichloromethane, hexane) were tested; Soxhlet and microwave used only water for safety reasons. Five grams of leaves were used per extraction.
- Antimicrobial activity was assessed by disk diffusion against Staphylococcus aureus CECT 976 and Escherichia coli CECT 434, first at non-standardized extract concentrations and then at a standardized 5 mg/mL (0.05 mg/disc), with DMSO as negative control and inhibition zones recorded in mm.
- Antioxidant capacity was measured by ABTS and DPPH radical scavenging assays, expressed as Trolox equivalents/g fresh mass. Experiments were performed in triplicate with at least three repeats; data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey–Kramer test, significance at p < 0.05.
Limitations
- The paper does not include a dedicated limitations section. It states that DPPH has limitations including restricted reactivity toward antioxidants and solubility in aqueous and organic solvents, and notes that different extraction conditions (e.g., higher time and/or temperature) might have changed results for aqueous extracts.
- Evident from the text: antimicrobial testing used only two bacterial strains (S. aureus and E. coli), and initial antimicrobial assays used non-standardized extract concentrations, limiting direct comparability across solvents. Soxhlet and microwave were tested only with water, so technique and solvent effects are confounded for those methods.
- Evident from the text: antioxidant activity was assessed only by chemical assays (ABTS, DPPH), with no cellular or in vivo validation, and the study did not quantify total phenolic or flavonoid contents of its own extracts.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
79 Own result · 21 Not checked yet · 9 No basis given · 5 Own interpretation · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For Soxhlet and microwave extraction techniques using water as a solvent, the extraction efficiency was 13.4% and 11.9%, respectively (Table 1).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For S. aureus, the highest antimicrobial activity was exhibited with ethanolic extracts (28.0 mm), followed by methanol (16.7 mm), acetone (12.0 mm), and hexane (11.3 mm) (p < 0.05)”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Significant antimicrobial activity was also obtained with methanolic (16.7 mm) extracts followed by hexane (11.3 mm) and dichloromethane (8.7 mm) extracts.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For E. coli, only ethanol (10.7 mm) and acetone (10.7 mm) demonstrated inhibitory activity (p > 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Methanol, ethanol, and acetone demonstrated similar activity against E. coli, with inhibition halos of 16.7 mm.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No significant differences were found for the other solvents, for both plants (p > 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, at this concentration, no differences were found with ethanolic extracts among Gram-positive and -negative bacteria (p > 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A good extraction efficiency was also found with methanol as extraction solvent (p < 0.05) for both solid-liquid (7.9%) and ultrasound (5.7%) methods.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The differences between them were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No antimicrobial activity was found with dichloromethane extracts against S. aureus and E. coli (p < 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 14
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
- The quote only partly states this claim. 5
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Additionally, in general, in the mixed form, individual components can modify their properties and interact synergistically, producing improved effects [18,25,39].”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Lee, 2010, Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of individual and combined phenolics in Olea europaea leaf extract, Bioresour. Technol. source
- Supportedcites [25] Pereira, 2007, Phenolic compounds and antimicrobial activity of olive (Olea europaea L. Cv. Cobrançosa) leaves, Molecules source
The Antimicrobial activity section says an individual component can change its properties in the presence of other compounds and that additive and synergistic effects contribute to the benefits of whole extracts. Its conclusion recommends extracts on that basis. The supplied passages do not specify page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Partly supportedcites [39] Mehmood, A., and Murtaza, G. (2018). Phenolic contents, antimicrobial and antioxidant activity of Olea ferruginea Royle (Oleaceae). BMC Complement. Altern. Med., 18. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion says that a bioactive component can change its properties in the presence of other compounds and that extracts can be more beneficial than isolated compounds. It does not establish that the components interact synergistically; that mechanism goes beyond what this paper says. (LLM, conf=0.83)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Extracts of ethanol (25.3 mm) and acetone (22.7 mm) caused the highest inhibition halo (p < 0.05) against S. aureus and the differences between these two solvents were not significant (p > 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, ethanol and acetone proved to be the best solvents to extract compounds with antimicrobial activity and antioxidant capacity, respectively (regardless of the extraction method employed).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of extraction yield, ultrasound extraction and the solvents methanol, acetone (O. europaea) or water (A. dealbata) were found to be the best options.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Antimicrobial activity was found for almost all solvents, except water against both S. aureus and E. coli, and dichloromethane against E. coli (Table 2).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No activity was found with dichloromethane extract against both S. aureus and E. coli and with water extract against E. coli.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For mimosa leaves, the values were 6.5% ± 1.7% and 4.4% ± 1.4% for solid-liquid and ultrasound extractions, respectively (p > 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For ultrasound extraction, dichloromethane (2.8%) and acetone (7.4%) were the solvents that showed the lowest and highest efficacy, respectively (p < 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this extraction method, hexane was the weakest solvent and methanol the best one.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Regarding A. dealbata, the efficiency ranged from 4.1% to 8.1%, where dichloromethane was the weakest solvent and water was the strongest (p < 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Concerning the mimosa leaves extracts, water (6.4%) also demonstrated higher extraction efficiency for the ultrasound method, whereas acetone (2.8%) showed lower efficiency (Table 1).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although, some activity was maintained for ethanolic extracts, a decrease in the inhibition halo of about 58% against S. aureus (p < 0.05) and 52% against E. coli (p < 0.05) was verified.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared to higher concentrations (no standardized concentrations), in general the inhibitory activity of the extracts decreased significantly (p < 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Soxhlet and microwave techniques using water as a solvent demonstrated good extraction efficiency at 12.3% and 10.7%, respectively.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the other solvents (hexane, ethanol, methanol, and water) the following efficiencies were obtained 3.2% < 4.6% < 6.0% < 6.2%, respectively.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Inhibition halos of 10.7 mm was obtained with ethanol, and of 9.3 mm were obtained with both water and acetone extracts.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bearing in mind all the solvents, for olive leaves, the average extraction yield with solid-liquid extraction was 5.1% ± 2.1% and for ultrasound extraction was 5.0% ± 1.8% (p > 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the present study, both mimosa and olive leaf crude extracts proved to have antimicrobial and antioxidant activities, increasing the demand of these natural products as a source of compounds with health benefits.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, dichloromethane (539.2 TE/g fresh mass) and ethanol (534.2 TE/g fresh mass) joined acetone as the best solvents in solid-liquid and ultrasound extractions, respectively (p < 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For E. coli, no antimicrobial activity was observed with mimosa leaf extracts.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The same behavior was observed with ultrasound extraction for E. coli (ethanol—9.7 mm).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At 5 mg/mL, the extracts obtained from mimosa leaves did not show activity against E. coli.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For ultrasound extraction, the extract obtained with acetone also demonstrated the best antioxidant capacity by ABTS, whereas by DPPH was the aqueous extract (p < 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A decrease in the concentration to 5 mg/mL led the extracts losing some activity, which was more evident against S. aureus (olive/Soxhlet—11.0 mm; olive/microwave—14.7 mm; mimosa/Soxhlet—10.3; mimosa/microwave—9.3 mm).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For S. aureus, at higher concentrations, there were no significant differences in the antibacterial activity found with both plants and between the type of extraction (olive/Soxhlet—14.0 mm; olive/microwave—14.3 mm; mimosa/Soxhlet—14.7; mimosa/microwave—14.3 mm) (p > 0.05).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The extractions with Soxhlet and microwave used water as solvent and the concentrations of extracts obtained ranged from 82.3 mg/mL to 123.5 mg/mL (Table 2).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This work allowed for the conclusion that extracts of O. europaea and A. dealbata leaves have antimicrobial and antioxidant activities.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 4. Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The leaf samples collected from Braga in February 2013 are representative of O. europaea and A. dealbata species.
In the paper
“According to Altıok et al. [35], the selection of the extraction solvent is the most important factor affecting the efficiency of solid-liquid extraction technique.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Bayraktar, 2008, Isolation of polyphenols from the extracts of olive leaves (Olea europaea L.) by adsorption on silk fibroin, Sep. Purif. Technol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Shirzad and coworkers [40] studied the effect of different parameters (extraction time, temperature, ethanol-water ratio) in order to optimize ultrasound-assisted extraction of O. europaea leaves and concluded that ultrasound extraction is a method highly efficient, requiring shorter extraction time when compared with other methods.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Shirzad, 2017, Ultrasound-assisted extraction process of phenolic antioxidants from Olive leaves: A nutraceutical study using RSM and LC–ESI–DAD–MS, J. Food Sci. Technol. source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Among all by-products, olives leaves have attracted growing attention as they contain an array of simple phenolics (phenylethanoids, hydroxybenzoic acids, and hydroxycinnamic acids) and polyphenolic compounds (secoiridoids and flavonoids) with biological properties, including antioxidant and antimicrobial [16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23].”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Brahmi, 2012, The efficacy of phenolics compounds with different polarities as antioxidants from olive leaves depending on seasonal variations, Ind. Crops Prod. source
- Not checked yetcites [17] Castillo, 2000, Antioxidant activity of phenolics extracted from Olea europaea L. leaves, Food Chem. source
- Not checked yetcites [18] Lee, 2010, Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of individual and combined phenolics in Olea europaea leaf extract, Bioresour. Technol. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“It has been described that microwave is an advantageous process of extraction, as it is simple, fast, and requires a small amount of solvent. Moreover, this technique facilitates the extraction of compounds with bioactivity due to the rapid heating of the matrix [21].”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] Grumezescu, A.M., and Holban, A.M. (2017). Chapter 11—Extraction of bioactive compounds from olive leaves using emerging technologies. Ingredients Extraction by Physicochemical Methods in Food, Academic Press. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These authors also verified that a methanol/water mixture was the best solvent to attain extracts rich in flavonoids and with considerable antioxidant properties.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [68] Abaza, 2011, Chétoui olive leaf extracts: Influence of the solvent type on phenolics and antioxidant activities, Grasas Aceites source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Phenolic compounds have antioxidant activity mainly due to their redox properties, which allows them to act as reducing agents, hydrogen donors, and singlet oxygen quenchers [49,54].”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [49] Gallo, 2010, Microwave assisted extraction of phenolic compounds from four different spices, Molecules source
- Not checked yetcites [54] Debib, 2017, Phenolic content, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of “Chemlali” olive leaf (Olea europaea L.) extracts, Int. J. Pharmacol. Phytochem. Ethnomed.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“According to Cowan [46], methanol and water are the solvents that can extract more diversity of compounds, which can explain the higher extraction efficiency.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [46] Cowan, 1999, Plant products as antimicrobial agents, Clin. Microbiol. Rev. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Moreover, some characteristics of acetone such as volatility, miscibility with polar and non-polar solvents, and moderately low toxicity to some microorganisms (e.g., S. aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa), makes it a very useful extraction solvent [70].”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [70] Eloff, 1998, Which extractant should be used for the screening and isolation of antimicrobial components from plants?, J. Ethnopharmacol. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In fact, acetone is very effective in extracting antioxidants such as phenolics, being one of the main solvents used to extract this class of compounds from plants [69].”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [69] Anokwuru, 2011, Effect of extraction solvents on phenolic, flavonoid and antioxidant activities of three Nigerian medicinal plants, Nat. Sci.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Some studies have already reported the antioxidant capacity of olive [17,18,22] and mimosa leaf [8,71] extracts.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Castillo, 2000, Antioxidant activity of phenolics extracted from Olea europaea L. leaves, Food Chem. source
- Not checked yetcites [18] Lee, 2010, Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of individual and combined phenolics in Olea europaea leaf extract, Bioresour. Technol. source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Lins, 2018, In vitro antioxidant activity of olive leaf extract (Olea europaea L.) and its protective effect on oxidative damage in human erythrocytes, Heliyon source
- Not checked yetcites [8] Luis, 2012, Antioxidant activities of extracts from Acacia melanoxylon, Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea and alkaloids estimation, Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci.
- Not checked yetcites [71] Tung, 2009, Free radical-scavenging phytochemicals of hot water extracts of Acacia confusa leaves detected by an on-line screening method, Food Chem. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The presence of an outer membrane in Gram-negative bacteria acts as a powerful barrier, restricting the diffusion of compounds through its lipopolysaccharide layer [56].”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [56] Vaara, 1992, Agents that increase the permeability of the outer membrane, Microbiol. Rev. source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Martysiak-Żurowska et al. [64] carried out a comparative study on the assessment of the total antioxidant capacity of human milk by the ABTS and DPPH methods, and concluded that the latter demonstrated lower sensitivity.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64] Wenta, 2012, A comparison of ABTS and DPPH methods for assessing the total antioxidant capacity of human milk, Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The results indicated that the phenolic compounds appeared to be mainly responsible for the effects observed.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [54] Debib, 2017, Phenolic content, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of “Chemlali” olive leaf (Olea europaea L.) extracts, Int. J. Pharmacol. Phytochem. Ethnomed.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This proposes that olive and mimosa leaf extracts the have identical ability to scavenge free radicals.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“These observations were probably due to limitations of the DPPH method that include restricted reactivity towards antioxidants and solubility in aqueous and organic solvents [74].”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of Olive and Mimosa Leaves
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [74] Cano, 2000, A method to measure antioxidant activity in organic media: Application to lipophilic vitamins, Redox Rep. source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The experiments were performed in triplicate with a minimum of three repeats.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 3. Materials and Methods > 3.7. Statistical Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Optimization of plant molecule extraction is fundamental in obtaining relevant extraction yields.
“The optimization of plant molecule extraction is fundamental in obtaining relevant extraction yields.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Health hazards are frequently associated with the use of chemical antimicrobial agents or food preservatives.
“This is of valuable importance, as health hazards are frequently associated with the use of chemical antimicrobial agents or food preservatives.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The leaf samples collected from Braga in February 2013 are representative of O. europaea and A. dealbata species.
“The plants selected for this study were O. europaea and A. dealbata, collected from the area of Braga (Braga, Portugal). Fresh leaves were collected in February 2013 and immediately processed.”
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Additionally, studies have shown that aqueous alcoholic extraction solvents, such as ethanol–water mixtures, can be highly effective in extracting a range of bioactive compounds, including flavonoids [53,54,55].”
From Comparative Analysis of Infusions and Ethanolic Extracts of Annona muricata Leaves from Colima, Mexico: Phytochemical Profile and Antioxidant Activity (2024) · cites this paper as [54]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Despite not being the optimum extraction solvent, water could effectively extract polyphenols across plant tissues [44].”
From Bioactive Compound Extraction of Hemp ( Cannabis sativa L.) Leaves through Response Surface Methodology Optimization (2024) · cites this paper as [44]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > Abstract
“In terms of extraction yield, ultrasound extraction and the solvents methanol, acetone (O. europaea) or water (A. dealbata) were found to be the best options.”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.1. Extraction Methods, Solvents, and Extraction Efficiency
“Considering all the extraction techniques used in this study, Soxhlet and microwave (using water as extraction solvent), provided the more efficient extraction for both plants (Table 1).”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
“A decrease in the concentration to 5 mg/mL led the extracts losing some activity, which was more evident against S. aureus (olive/Soxhlet—11.0 mm; olive/microwave—14.7 mm; mimosa/Soxhlet—10.3; mimosa/microwave—9.3 mm).”
§ Comparison of Techniques and Solvents on the Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Potential of Extracts from Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea > 2. Results and Discussion > 2.2. Antimicrobial Activity
“For S. aureus, at higher concentrations, there were no significant differences in the antibacterial activity found with both plants and between the type of extraction (olive/Soxhlet—14.0 mm; olive/microwave—14.3 mm; mimosa/Soxhlet—14.7; mimosa/microwave—14.3 mm) (p > 0.05).”
Citations
Cites
Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing by a Standardized Single Disk Method
Bauer, A. W., Kirby, W. M. M., Sherris, J. C., & Turck, M. (1966) · American Journal of Clinical Pathology · doi:10.1093/ajcp/45.4_ts.493 · Cited by 18,523
Plant Products as Antimicrobial Agents
Cowan, M. M. (1999) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.12.4.564 · Cited by 9,043 · cited 6×
“According to Cowan [46], ethanol and acetone are highly 13 efficient in the extraction of phenolic compounds.”
BackgroundInfluentialNatural products as sources of new drugs over the 30 years from 1981 to 2010
Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M. (2012) · Journal of Natural Products · doi:10.1021/np200906s · Cited by 4,687 · cited 1×
“Natural compounds from plant extracts are often used as source of food preservatives [4,5] and pharmaceutical agents [6,7] in the food and clinical sector, mainly with antimicrobial and antioxidant purposes.”
BackgroundThaipong, K., Boonprakob, U., Crosby, K. M., Cisneros‐Zevallos, L., & Byrne, D. (2006) · Journal of Food Composition and Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2006.01.003 · Cited by 3,768 · cited 2×
“The results were expressed in μM Trolox equivalents (TE)/g fresh mass [82].”
BackgroundMethodThe number of known plants species in the world and its annual increase
Christenhusz, M. J. M., & Byng, J. W. (2016) · Phytotaxa · doi:10.11646/phytotaxa.261.3.1 · Cited by 2,128 · cited 1×
“In fact, it is estimated that there are around 374,000 plant species in the world, and much more remain unidentified [2].”
BackgroundAgents that increase the permeability of the outer membrane
Vaara, M. (1992) · Microbiological Reviews · doi:10.1128/mr.56.3.395-411.1992 · Cited by 1,879 · cited 1×
“The presence of an outer 39 membrane in Gram‐negative bacteria acts as a powerful barrier, restricting the diffusion of 40 compounds through its lipopolysaccharide layer [56].”
BackgroundComparison of ABTS/DPPH assays to measure antioxidant capacity in popular antioxidant-rich US foods
Floegel, A., Kim, D., Chung, S., Koo, S. I., & Chun, O. K. (2011) · Journal of Food Composition and Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.jfca.2011.01.008 · Cited by 1,818 · cited 1×
“The DPPH test is based on the reduction of purple DPPH to 39 1,1‐diphenyl‐2‐picryl hydrazine [63].”
MethodNatural products and plant disease resistance
Dixon, R. A. (2001) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35081178 · Cited by 1,796 · cited 1×
“Since ancient times plants have been widely used as a sustainable source of biologically active products [1].”
BackgroundTrees and shrubs as invasive alien species – a global review
Richardson, D. M., & Rejmánek, M. (2011) · Diversity and Distributions · doi:10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00782.x · Cited by 1,197 · cited 11×
“Stock solutions of ABTS (Sigma‐Aldrich, Portugal; 7.4 mM) and potassium persulfate (Sigma‐ Aldrich, Portugal; 2.6 mM) were prepared, mixed in equal quantities, and allowed to react for 12 h at room temperature in the dark.”
BackgroundInfluentialEloff, J. N. (1998) · Journal of Ethnopharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0378-8741(97)00123-2 · Cited by 1,111 · cited 2×
“Acetone has the ability to dissolve hydrophilic and lipophilic compounds [70].”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Luis, 2012, Antioxidant activities of extracts from Acacia melanoxylon, Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea and alkaloids estimation, Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci., 4, 225
- Zaynab, 2015, Antioxidant activity of Olea europaea L. extracts from two different regions of Iran, Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci., 8, 68
- Keskin, 2012, Antimicrobial activity and chemical constitutions of West Anatolian olive (Olea europaea L.) leaves, J. Food Agric. Environ., 10, 99
- Anokwuru, 2011, Effect of extraction solvents on phenolic, flavonoid and antioxidant activities of three Nigerian medicinal plants, Nat. Sci., 9, 53
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Interactions between Polyphenols and Microorganisms, Especially Gut Microbiota
Makarewicz, M., Drożdż, I., Tarko, T., & Duda‐Chodak, A. (2021) · Antioxidants · doi:10.3390/antiox10020188 · Cited by 466
Plaskova, A., & Mlcek, J. (2023) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2023.1118761 · Cited by 342
“Water might enhance the efficiency of the extraction process by helping the diffusion of extractable components like polyphenols through plant tissues (40, 41).”
BackgroundCurrent Landscape of Methods to Evaluate Antimicrobial Activity of Natural Extracts
González‐Pastor, R., Carrera-Pacheco, S. E., Zúñiga-Miranda, J., Rodríguez-Pólit, C., Mayorga-Ramos, A., Guamán, L. P., & Barba‐Ostria, C. (2023) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules28031068 · Cited by 121
Using plant-based compounds as preservatives for meat products: A review
Olvera-Aguirre, G., Piñeiro-Vázquez, Á. T., Sanginés-García, J. R., Sánchez-Zárate, A., Ochoa-Flores, A. A., Campos, M. R. S., Vargas‐Bello‐Pérez, E., & Chay‐Canul, A. J. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e17071 · Cited by 83
Al-Ghanayem, A. A., Alhussaini, M. S., Asad, M., & Joseph, B. (2022) · Pharmaceuticals · doi:10.3390/ph15050528 · Cited by 81
“Extraction was carried out using methanol as a solvent in a Soxhlet extractor, followed by drying using a rotavapor [40].”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Borges, A., José, H., Homem, V., & Simões, M.
- Affiliations
- Universidade do Porto (PT)
- Corresponding author
- Simões, Manuel
- Venue
- Antibiotics
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2020-01-28
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 48
- ISSN
- 2079-6382 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7168226
- OpenAlex
- W3004378703
- Semantic Scholar
- 9031ff8fdeeb6265b96d7f4302121c5baf486d45
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3
- FWCI
- 11.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Antibiotics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Medicinal Plant Research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural and Biological Research
- Keywords
- Acacia dealbata, Olea europaea, herbal extract preparation, extraction solvents, ultrasound-assisted extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, Soxhlet extraction, antimicrobial activity, antioxidant capacity, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, olive leaf extract, extraction yield
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (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
