Dear All
Last time, I have analyzed dragon fruit peel extract using UHPLC-MSMS. It can be seen for total 13 compounds were detected, only 6 compounds have the activity as antibacterial against S. aureus and E. coli include quinic acid , cinnamic acid (Guzman, 2014), isorhamnetin 3-O-rutinoside (Vagiri et al., 2017), 3,30-di-O-methyl ellagic acid (Nono et al., 2014), apigenin (Sousa et al., 2006) and protocatechuic hexoside conjugate (Stojković et al., 2013). All of these compounds even if have antibacterial activity but cannot be seen through the zone of inhibition test. May I know the reason? Can I said due to possibility is that the bioactive compounds is less diffusible and therefore does not enter the TSA agar?. This could be due to a high molecular weight, chemical reactivity and lack of solubility (Balouiri et al., 2016)
Regards
Azlan
Hi Azlan,
have you had a look at the litterature for potential interactions between your compounds and the agar? Binding or else?
Regards,
Paul
Paul Engler
Please,
Can you provide to me some article on interactions between compounds (phenolic) and the agar ?
The question is the other way around: why should the phenolic compounds have antibacterial activities? Bioactive does not mean magical. How does your method compare with that of the publications? Which concentrations were tested? How did you dissolve the phenolics notably?
Btw, none of them has such a high Mw that they would be rrapped in an agar gel.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Analytical Chemistry
- Extraction