2016
DOI: 10.9734/ejmp/2016/25759
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Antimicrobial Effects of Leaves of Eucalyptus camaldulensis on Some Microbial Pathogens

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Aqueous and organic extracts of E. camaldulensis have been reported to have antifungal activity (Table 4). Methanol leaves extracts showed inconsistent activity against C. albicans: in one study it was in range 50-200 mg/mL (Chuku et al, 2016), while in another it was 0.2 mg/mL (Babayi et al, 2004), indicating difference in active concentration of one thousand times. The bark methanole extract was active in concentration 0.5 mg/mL.…”
Section: Antifungal Effectmentioning
confidence: 89%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Aqueous and organic extracts of E. camaldulensis have been reported to have antifungal activity (Table 4). Methanol leaves extracts showed inconsistent activity against C. albicans: in one study it was in range 50-200 mg/mL (Chuku et al, 2016), while in another it was 0.2 mg/mL (Babayi et al, 2004), indicating difference in active concentration of one thousand times. The bark methanole extract was active in concentration 0.5 mg/mL.…”
Section: Antifungal Effectmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…Crude aqueous leaf extracts show lower activity against various bacteria (range 25-50 mg/mL) (Abubakar, 2010), while bark aqueous extracts were more effective, with MIC from 0.1 mg/mL for Propionobacterium acnes to 4.0 mg/mL for P. aeruginosa (Mabona et al, 2013). The antimicrobial activity of methanol, ethanol or petroleum leaf extracts of E. camaldulensis showed significant variation; for instance, MICs against B. subtilis varied from 0.04 up to 200 mg/mL or against S. aureus 1.25-25 mg/mL (Chuku et al, 2016;Ayepola and Adeniyi, 2008). For most examined Gram negative bacteria MICs were in range 10-200 mg/mL, while P. aeruginosa was even more susceptible (MICs 10-100 mg/mL).…”
Section: Antibacterial Effectmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation