2012
DOI: 10.5539/jas.v4n10p144
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chemical Composition, Antibacterial and Antioxidant Activities of Leaves Essential Oils from Syzygium cumini L., Cupressus sempervirens L. and Lantana camara L. from Egypt

Abstract: Leaves essential oils of Syzygium cumini L. Cupressus sempervirens L. and Lantana camara L., from Alexandria, Egypt were analysed by Gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). The antibacterial and antioxidant activities were assessed for each oil using minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) methods; respectively. The main oil constitutes were α-pinene (17.53%), α-terpineol (16.67 %) and alloocimene (13.55%) in S. cumini, trans-caryophyllene (15.57%) and α-humulene… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
38
3

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 45 publications
(46 citation statements)
references
References 49 publications
2
38
3
Order By: Relevance
“…obtained in our study is lower than that reported by Amri et al (2013) and higher than that reported by Abi-Ayad et al (2011) and Raho (2014) but it was relatively similar to that reported by Dob et al (2005);Fekih et al (2014), and Hamrouni et al (2015). Also, the yield of EOs from leaves of C. sempervirens L. obtained in this study was lower than that reported by Mazari et al (2010); Elansary et al (2012) and Amri et al (2013), and lower than the yield of EOs from cone of Tunisian C. sempervirens L. which reported by Ben Nouri et al (2015). The yield of EOs isolated from leaves of J. phoenicea L. obtained in this study was lower than that reported by Stasis et al (1996); Mazari et al (2010); Derwich et al (2010) and Amalich et al (2015), but it was relatively similar when compared to that reported by Angioni et al (2003) and Achak et al (2009).…”
Section: Results and Discussion 1 Yield Of The Essential Oilscontrasting
confidence: 56%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…obtained in our study is lower than that reported by Amri et al (2013) and higher than that reported by Abi-Ayad et al (2011) and Raho (2014) but it was relatively similar to that reported by Dob et al (2005);Fekih et al (2014), and Hamrouni et al (2015). Also, the yield of EOs from leaves of C. sempervirens L. obtained in this study was lower than that reported by Mazari et al (2010); Elansary et al (2012) and Amri et al (2013), and lower than the yield of EOs from cone of Tunisian C. sempervirens L. which reported by Ben Nouri et al (2015). The yield of EOs isolated from leaves of J. phoenicea L. obtained in this study was lower than that reported by Stasis et al (1996); Mazari et al (2010); Derwich et al (2010) and Amalich et al (2015), but it was relatively similar when compared to that reported by Angioni et al (2003) and Achak et al (2009).…”
Section: Results and Discussion 1 Yield Of The Essential Oilscontrasting
confidence: 56%
“…Similar result was found by Mazari et al (2010), who reported that α-pinene was the major component of leaves EOs, but it is presented in upper content (60.5%) compared with our study (15.05 , 15.63 and 17.89%). Also the percentage of α-pinene was the same as obtained by Elansary et al (2012) However, compounds of α-cubebene and Tmuurolol were found in scale leaves of trees growing at altitudes of II and III. It is also noted that a carotol was detected in level I and III, respectively.…”
Section: Chemical Composition Of Essential Oils Of C Sempervirenssupporting
confidence: 53%
“…α-Terpineol is known for its antioxidant activity and has also demonstrated antimicrobial activity [26].…”
Section: Effect Of Melaleuca Alternifolia and Its Components On Candimentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Free radical scavenging activity of the samples was determined using 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl method (DPPH, Sigma-Aldrich) with some modifications (Elansary et al, 2012). An aliquot of 2 ml of stock solution of 0.1 mM DPPH reagent dissolved in pure methanol was added to a test tube with 2 ml of the sample solution in methanol (200 µg/l).…”
Section: Dpph Radical-scavenging Assaymentioning
confidence: 99%