Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolis
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2014 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/21436 |
Resumo: | The antibacterial activity of propolis produced throughout the year by different methods of collection (‘intelligent’ collector of propolis - ICP; plastic screen - PC; conventional scraping - CS) on Staphylococcos aureus and Escherichia coli is investigated. Fifteen beehives (five per collector) of Africanized Apis mellifera were used. Monthly produced propolis, with the same collection technique, was mixed for the preparation of the extract. The ethanol extract of propolis (EEP) was prepared at the ratio of 30% (30 g of propolis, completing the volume for 100 mL with ethanol 70%). Two microorganisms, a positive bacterium Gram Staphylococcus aureus and a negative bacterium Gram Escherichia coli, through the methodology of diffusion in agar, were used for the biological activity evaluation of EEP. Results show that propolis presented antibacterial activity, affected by seasonality and by collecting method. |
id |
UEM-7_1fffda55aff7c484de414cd314598ce7 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:periodicos.uem.br/ojs:article/21436 |
network_acronym_str |
UEM-7 |
network_name_str |
Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolisapiculturebiological propertiesqualitybacteriaThe antibacterial activity of propolis produced throughout the year by different methods of collection (‘intelligent’ collector of propolis - ICP; plastic screen - PC; conventional scraping - CS) on Staphylococcos aureus and Escherichia coli is investigated. Fifteen beehives (five per collector) of Africanized Apis mellifera were used. Monthly produced propolis, with the same collection technique, was mixed for the preparation of the extract. The ethanol extract of propolis (EEP) was prepared at the ratio of 30% (30 g of propolis, completing the volume for 100 mL with ethanol 70%). Two microorganisms, a positive bacterium Gram Staphylococcus aureus and a negative bacterium Gram Escherichia coli, through the methodology of diffusion in agar, were used for the biological activity evaluation of EEP. Results show that propolis presented antibacterial activity, affected by seasonality and by collecting method. Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá2014-03-18info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionpesquisa de campoapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/2143610.4025/actascianimsci.v36i1.21436Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences; Vol 36 No 1 (2014); 49-53Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences; v. 36 n. 1 (2014); 49-531807-86721806-2636reponame:Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM)instacron:UEMenghttps://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/21436/pdf_9Souza, Edison Antonio deInoue, Hemily TiemiFernandes Júnior, AryVeiga, NaborOrsi, Ricardo de Oliveirainfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2022-02-17T21:51:49Zoai:periodicos.uem.br/ojs:article/21436Revistahttp://www.periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSciPUBhttp://www.periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/oaiactaanim@uem.br||actaanim@uem.br|| rev.acta@gmail.com1807-86721806-2636opendoar:2022-02-17T21:51:49Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolis |
title |
Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolis |
spellingShingle |
Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolis Souza, Edison Antonio de apiculture biological properties quality bacteria |
title_short |
Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolis |
title_full |
Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolis |
title_fullStr |
Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolis |
title_full_unstemmed |
Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolis |
title_sort |
Influence of seasonality and production method on the antibacterial activity of propolis |
author |
Souza, Edison Antonio de |
author_facet |
Souza, Edison Antonio de Inoue, Hemily Tiemi Fernandes Júnior, Ary Veiga, Nabor Orsi, Ricardo de Oliveira |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Inoue, Hemily Tiemi Fernandes Júnior, Ary Veiga, Nabor Orsi, Ricardo de Oliveira |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Souza, Edison Antonio de Inoue, Hemily Tiemi Fernandes Júnior, Ary Veiga, Nabor Orsi, Ricardo de Oliveira |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
apiculture biological properties quality bacteria |
topic |
apiculture biological properties quality bacteria |
description |
The antibacterial activity of propolis produced throughout the year by different methods of collection (‘intelligent’ collector of propolis - ICP; plastic screen - PC; conventional scraping - CS) on Staphylococcos aureus and Escherichia coli is investigated. Fifteen beehives (five per collector) of Africanized Apis mellifera were used. Monthly produced propolis, with the same collection technique, was mixed for the preparation of the extract. The ethanol extract of propolis (EEP) was prepared at the ratio of 30% (30 g of propolis, completing the volume for 100 mL with ethanol 70%). Two microorganisms, a positive bacterium Gram Staphylococcus aureus and a negative bacterium Gram Escherichia coli, through the methodology of diffusion in agar, were used for the biological activity evaluation of EEP. Results show that propolis presented antibacterial activity, affected by seasonality and by collecting method. |
publishDate |
2014 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2014-03-18 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion pesquisa de campo |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/21436 10.4025/actascianimsci.v36i1.21436 |
url |
https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/21436 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.4025/actascianimsci.v36i1.21436 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ActaSciAnimSci/article/view/21436/pdf_9 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Editora da Universidade Estadual de Maringá |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences; Vol 36 No 1 (2014); 49-53 Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences; v. 36 n. 1 (2014); 49-53 1807-8672 1806-2636 reponame:Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online) instname:Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM) instacron:UEM |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM) |
instacron_str |
UEM |
institution |
UEM |
reponame_str |
Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online) |
collection |
Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Maringá (UEM) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
actaanim@uem.br||actaanim@uem.br|| rev.acta@gmail.com |
_version_ |
1799315360814465024 |