Year: 2022 | Month: October | Volume 12 | Issue 5
In-vitro Assessment of Antibacterial and Antioxidant Capacity of Essential oils from Cumin (Cuminum cyminum) and Lemon (Citrus limon) for Future Applications in Meat Industry
Om Prakash Malav
Present study was planned to assess in-vitro antibacterial and antioxidant activities of cumin and lemon essential oils for future application in food products. In-vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of both essential oils was done against nine strains of gram-negative and gram-positive microbes. It was determined by Zone of inhibition (ZOI) and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) assays. Results of both oils showed good antibacterial activity against both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. The MIC values ranged from 2000 to 15000 ppm for cumin oil, whereas it ranged from 6000 to 15000 ppm for lemon essential oil. The antioxidant and antiradical scavenging activity of the both oils were determined by means of DPPH and ABTS assay. Examined essential oils showed a free radical scavenging activity, ranging from 19.31 to 92.41% of DPPH inhibition and 10.32 to 76.78% for ABTS assay for cumin oil and 8.63 to 66.03% of DPPH inhibition and 8.14 to 63.88% for ABTS assay for lemon essential oil. It was observed that cumin essential oil exhibited better antioxidant capacity in terms of free radical inhibition as compared to lemon essential oil. It can be concluded that both cumin and lemon essential oils possess strong antibacterial as well as antioxidant potential for applications as natural preservatives in meat and other food industries.
- Antimicrobial and antioxidant efficacy of cumin and lemon essential oils was investigated.
- The results are promising and strengthen the candidature of these essential oil for future application in food products as natural preservatives.
© This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited
Print This Article Email This Article to Your Friend