Pharmacology & Pharmacy, 2011, 2, 299-305
doi:10.4236/pp.2011.24038 Published Online October 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/pp)
299
Antimicrobial Activity of Terminalia catappa
Extracts against Some Pathogenic Microbial
Strains
Abul Manzur1*, Arifuddin Raju1, Shahedur Rahman2
1Department of Microbiology, North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh; 2Department of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering,
Islamic University, Kushtia, Bangladesh.
Received September 4th, 2011; revised September 27th, 2011; accepted October 20th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
The methanol, acetone and N,N-dimethylformamide extracts of Terminalia catappa L. leaf were evaluated for antibac-
terial and antifungal activity. Piperacillin and gentamicin were used as standards for antibacterial assay, while nystatin
and flucanazole were used as standards for antifungal assay. 91 clinically important strains were used for the study
which were both clinical isolates as well as identified strains. The antimicrobial activity of all the extracts was deter-
mined by agar disc diffusion method. The antibacterial activity was more pronounced against bacteria than fungal
strains. The Gram positive bacteria were more suscep tible than Gram negative bacteria. The methanol extract showed
best antibacterial activity. T. catappa leaf extracts showed better antibacterial activity than commercially used antibi-
otics.
Keywords: Terminalia catappa, Antibacterial Activity, Antifungal Activity, Clinica l Strains, Organic Solvents
1. Introduction
Traditional medicine has been practiced for many centu-
ries in many parts of the world, including Bangladesh
especially in rural areas due to availability and low cost.
Nature has provided a source of medicinal agents for
thousands of years and an impressive number of modern
drugs have been isolated from natural sources, many
based on their use in traditional medicine [1]. There has
been an increasing incidence of multiple resistances in
human pathogenic microorganisms, largely due to the
indiscriminate use of commercial antimicrobial drugs
commonly employed in the treatment of infectious dis-
eases [2]. The development of bacterial resistance to
presently available antibiotics has necessitated the search
for new antibacterial agents. Numerous studies have been
conducted with the extracts of various plants, screening
antimicrobial activity as well as for the discovery of new
antimicrobial compounds [3-6]. The efforts of scientists
in establishing plants with promising antimicrobial prop-
erty is yielding fruitful results as a number of plants with
high antimicrobial property have been elucidated [7-13].
Terminalia catappa L. belongs to the family Combre-
taceae. T. catappa is used primarily as an ornamental,
shade, and salt-tolerant street tree, but the leaves provide
food for the Tasar silkworm, and the seeds are edible like
almonds with similar oils. On the Malay peninsular and
through the Canary islands this tree is known as the
tropical almond. T. catappa has been claimed to have
therapeutic effects for liver related diseases [14]. In Java,
it is attributed with cholagogue action. In India, it is u sed
as cardiac stimulant. Its leaves are widely used as a folk
medicine in Southeast Asia for the treatment of dermato-
sis and hepatitis [15]. More and more pharmacological
studies have reported that the extract of T. catappa leaves
and fruits have anticancer, antioxidant, anti-HIV reverse
transcriptase, anti-inflammatory, antidiabetic effects and
hepatoprotectiv e activities [16-19] but the effective com-
ponents and related mechanisms remain unknown.
In the present work, antimicrobial activity of T. catappa
leaf extracts were investigated against an array of clini-
cally isolated as well as standard microbial cultures.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Plant Material
The leaves of T. catappa were collected from the Boro
Parulia, Gopalgonj and Arappur, Madaripur of Bangla-

Antimicrobial Activity of Terminal i a c at a p p a Extracts against Some Pathogenic M i c r ob i a l Strai ns 300
desh, in January 2009 and identified by Dr. Masudur
Rahman, Bangladesh National Herbarium, Dhaka.
2.2. Extraction
The leaves of T. catappa were air dried and then pow-
dered in a homogenizer and 10 g was used for different
solvent extraction N,N-dimethylformamide DMF, ace-
tone and methanol, the sample was extracted in solvent
kept on a rotary shaker overnight, and then the filtrate
was collected and centrifuged at 5000 rpm. The solvent
was then evaporated to dryness under reduced pressure
and the extracted compound left was used for the antim-
icrobial assay. The percentage yield of N,N-dimethyl-
formamide DMF, acetone and methanol extracts were
20.92, 4.96 and 14.48 respectively.
2.3. Microorganisms Studied
91 clinically important microbial strains which included
20 Gram positive, 55 Gram negative and 16 fungal
strains were studied for the antimicrobial activity. These
strains included both clinical isolates as well as identified
strains. The identified strains were provided by Depart-
ment of Microbiology, North So uth University and clini-
cal isolates were obtained from Lab Aid Diagnostic
Laboratory, Dhaka, Bangladesh (Tables 1-5). The bacte-
ria were grown in the nutrient broth and maintained on
nutrient agar slants at 4˚C while fungal strains were
grown in Sabouraud broth and maintained on MGYP
slants yeast and potato dextrose agar slants mould at 4˚C.
2.4. Antimicrobial Assay
The Dimethylformamide extract TDE, acetone extract
TAE and Methanol extract TME were dissolved in
DMSO. The antimicrobial activity was evaluated at a
concentration of 250 g/disc. Antimicrobial activity was
performed by agar disc diffusion method [20,21]. The
bacterial strains were grown in nutrient broth while fun-
gal strains were grown in MGYP Malt glucose yeast
peptone broth. Mueller Hinton Agar No. 2 was the media
used to study the antibacterial susceptibility while Sa-
broaud agar was us ed to study the antifungal susceptibil-
ity test. The cultures were grown for 24 h, and the turb id-
ity of the culture was maintained according to the 0.5
MacFarland standards. The inoculum’s size was 1 × 108
cells/ml. The med ia Mueller Hinton Agar No. 2 and MR S
media and the test bacterial cultures were poured into
Table 1. Antibacterial activity of Terminalia catappa leaf extracts against some Gram positive bacteria.
Zone of inhibition (mm)a
Sr. No. Strain (Location of collection) TME TAE TDE G Pc
1 Staph-1 (Sputum) 14.67 ± 0.33 9.66 ± 0.33 10 ± 0.58 - -
2 S. aureus (Pus) 14 ± 0 11± 0.58 9 ± 1.15 18.67 ± 0.33 17.33 ± 0.33
3 S. aureus (Urine) 13 ± 0.58 9 ± 0.58 8 ± 0.58 - -
4 S. aureus (Pus) 16 ± 0.58 8 ± 0.58 14 ± 0.58 - -
5 Staph-2 (Pus) - - - - -
6 S. aureus (Sputum) - - - - -
7 S. aureus (Tracheal) 15 ± 0.58 10 ± 0.58 9.67 ± 0.33 - -
8 S. aureus (Tracheal) 15 ± 0.58 12 ± 0.59 13 ± 0.58 - -
9 Staph-3 (Sputum) 14.33 ± 0.66 12 .33 ± 0.88 10 ± 1.73 14.67 ± 0.33 -
10 S. aureus (Ear swab) 16.67 ± 1.53 14 ± 2.89 10 ± 1.73 - -
11 S. aureus (Sputum) 18.67 ± 0.33 14 ± 0.58 13 ± 0.58 20. 6 7 ± 0 .33 -
12 S. aureus (Pus) - - - - -
13 S. aureus (Pus) - - - 10.33 ± 0.33 -
14 S. aureus (ATCC25923) 14.5 ± 0.28 8.5 ± 0.86 10 ± 1.73 - -
15 S. epidemidies (ATCC12228) 11 ± 0.58 - - - -
16 S. subflava (NCIM2178) 19 ± 0.58 13.5 ± 1.44 11.5 ± 0.28 - 20.17 ± 0.44
17 B. cereus (ATCC11778) 11.5 ± 0.28 9.5 ± 0.28 11 ± 0.58 20.17 ± 0.16 1 8.83 ± 0.16
18 B. subtilis (ATCC6633) 9 ± 1.15 8.5 ± 0.86 - 18.33 ± 0.33 17.83 ± 0.93
19 B. mega (ATCC9885) - - - - -
20 M. flavus (ATCC10240) 14 ± 0.58 8.5 ± 0.86 15 ± 1.15 27.67 ± 0.33 12.67 ± 0.33
aValues are Mean ± SEM, n = 3, zone includes disc diameter 7mm, G: Gentamicin (10 µg/disc), Pc: Piperacillin (100 µg/disc), TME: Methanol extract, TAE:
Acetone extract, TDE: N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) extract, means no activity; Staph: Staphylococcus species.

Antimicrobial Activity of Terminal i a c at a p p a Extracts against Some Pathogenic Mi cr o bi a l Strai ns301
Table 2. Antibacterial activity of Terminalia catappa leaf extracts against some Pseudomonas species.
Zone of inhibition (mm)a
Sr. No. Strain (Location of collection) TME TAE TDE G Pc
1 Ps. aeruginosa (ATCC27853) - - - 17 ± 1.15 12.33 ± 0. 6 6
2 Ps. Aeruginosa (Sputum) - - - 16.67 ± 0.67 -
3 Ps. aeruginosa (Pus) - - - 19.67 ± 0.33 -
4 Ps. Fluorescence (Tracheal) 8.67 ± 0.33 - 12.67 ± 1.44 - -
5 Ps. fluorescence (Pus) 13.67 ± 3.18 8 ± 0.58 - - -
6 Ps. fluorescence (Urine) - - - - -
7 Ps. testosteroni (NCIM 5 098 ) - - - 22.33 ± 0.66 -
8 Ps. pseudoalcaligenes (ATCC17440) 15.5 ± 0.28 12.5 ± 0.86 14.5 ± 028 19.33 ± 0.6 -
9 Pseudo-1 (Sputum) 11 ± 2.31 13 ± 0.58 11.67 ± 0.33 14 ± 0.58 -
10 Pseudo-2 (Pus) 13.67 ± 3.18 8 ± 0.58 - - -
11 Pseudo-3 (Urine ) 14.67 ± 1.45 16 ± 0.58 1 4 .67 ± 0.33 - -
12 Pseudo-4 (Pus) 14 ± 0.58 10.6 ± 2.34 9.33 ± 1.23 - -
13 Pseudo-5 (Tracheal) - - - - -
14 Pseudo-6 (Wound swab) - - - - -
15 Pseudo-7 (Pus) 16 ± 0.56 10 ± 0.58 12 ± 1.15 - -
16 Pseudo-8 (Tracheal sec retion) 14 ± 1.15 9 ± 1.15 9 ± 1.15 - -
17 Pseudo-9 (Pus) 11.67 ± 0.88 9.33 ± 1.20 - - -
18 Pseudo-10 (Sputum) 17 ± 0.58 12 ± 0.33 13.67 ± 0.88 - -
19 Pseudo-11 (Sputum) 18.33 ± 0.33 16.33 ± 1.45 13 ± 0.58 20 ± 0.58 -
aValues are Mean ± SEM, n = 3, zone includes disc diameter 7 mm, G: Gentamicin (10 µg/disc), Pc: Piperacillin (100 µg/disc), TME: Methanol extract, TAE:
Acetone extract, TDE: N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) extract, means no activity; Pseudo: Pseudomonas species.
Table 3. Antibacterial activity of Terminalia catappa leaf extracts against some E. coli isolates.
Zone of inhibition (mm)a
Sr. No. Strain (Location of Collection) TME TAE TDE G Pc
1 E. coli (Pus) 10 ± 1.53 8.66 ± 0.88 7.66 ± 0.33 - -
2 E. coli (Urine) 12.33 ± 2.73 9.66 ± 1.4 5 - - -
3 E. coli (Urine) 16 ± 0.58 12.33 ± 0.88 11.67 ± 0.33 - -
4 E. coli (Urine) 15 ± 0.88 10 ± 0.33 13 ± 0.58 - -
5 E. coli (Urine) 15 ± 0.88 11 ± 0.58 14 ± 0.33 - -
6 E. coli (Pus) 10 ± 0.58 14 ± 0.88 13 ± 1.15 - -
7 E. coli (Urine) 14.33 ± 1.20 12 ± 0.58 14 ± 1.15 - -
8 E. coli (Stool) 15.67 ± 0.33 10.67 ± 0.33 13 ± 0.58 21 ± 0.58 -
9 E. coli (Pus) 12 ± 0.58 11.33 ± 0.88 14.67 ± 0.33 - -
10 E. coli (Urine) 14.33 ± 0.33 10.67 ± 0.33 14 ± 0.58 1 8.67 ± 0.33 -
11 E. coli ( Pus) 12.67 ± 0.66 11.67 ± 0.33 11.33 ± 0.66 - -
12 E. coli (Urine) 15.33 ± 0.88 12.67 ± 0.33 14 ± 0.58 2 0.33 ± 0.33 -
13 E. coli ( V aginal swab) 13.5 ± 0.28 - 12.67 ± 0.33 - -
14 E. coli (Urine) - - - - -
15 E. coli ( Blood) 14.5 ± 0.28 - - - -
16 E. coli ( ATCC25922) 14 ± 0.58 10 ± 1.73 - 17.83 ± 0.16 14.5 ± 0.50
aValues are Mean ± SEM, n = 3, zone includes disc diameter 7mm, G: Gentamicin (10 µg/disc), Pc: Piperacillin (100 µg/disc), TME: Methanol extract, TAE:
Acetone extract, TDE: N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) extract, means no activity.

Antimicrobial Activity of Terminal i a c at a p p a Extracts against Some Pathogenic M i c r ob i a l Strai ns 302
Table 4. Antibacterial activity of Terminalia catappa leaf extracts against some Gram negative bacteria.
Zone of inhibition (mm)a
Sr. No. Strain (Location of Collection) TME TAE TDE G Pc
1 Ent-1 (Tracheal) 8.33 ± 0.88 - - - -
2 Ent-2 (Tracheal) 11 ± 1.15 - 8 ± 0.58 19.67 ± 0.88 -
3 E. aerogenes (ATCC 13048) - - - - -
4 Kleb-1 (Urine) 13.67 ± 0.88 11 ± 0.58 11 ± 0.58 22 ± 0.58 -
5 Kleb-1 (Sputum) 14 ± 0.58 10.33 ± 0.33 10 ± 0.58 - -
6 K. aerogenes (Pus) 8 ± 0.58 - 8.67 ± 0.88 - -
7 Kleb-2 (Urine) 14 ± 0.58 12.33 ± 0.33 14.67 ± 0.33 - -
8 K. aerogenes (Urine) 13.67 ± 0.33 10.67 ± 0.33 13.33 ± 0.33 - -
9 K. pneumoniae (NCIM2719) - - - - 24.67 ± 0.33
10 P. mirabilis (Wound swab) 18 ± 1.20 10.33 ± 0.33 12.67 ± 0.33 - 14 ± 0.58
11 Prot-1 (Pus) 14.67 ± 0.33 10 ± 0.58 13.33 ± 0.33 - -
12 P. mirabilis (NCIM2241) - - - 18.67 ± 0.33 -
13 P. vulgaris (NCTC8313) 14.5 ± 0.28 - - 18 ± 1.00 -
14 P. morganii (NCIM2040) - - - - -
15 P. rettgeri (Pus) 16.33 ± 0.88 10.67 ± 0.33 11.67 ± 0.33 - -
16 Citro-1 (Pus) 12 ± 0.58 9 ± 0.58 10 ± 1.16 - -
17 C. freundii (Pus) - - - 12.33 ± 0.33 -
18 C. freundii (ATCC10787) - - - - -
19 A. fecalis (ATCC8750) - - - 18.33 ± 0.66 -
20 S. typhimurium (ATCC23564) 12 ± 0.58 8.5 ± 0.86 10.5 ± 0.86 18.5 ± 0. 28 -
aValues are Mean ± SEM, n = 3, zone includes disc diameter 7mm, G: Gentamicin (10 µg/disc), Pc: Piperacillin (100 µg/disc), TME: Methanol extract, TAE:
Acetone extract, TDE: N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) extract, means no activity; Ent: Enterobacter species; Kleb: Klebsiella species; Citro: Citrobacter
species; Prot: Proteus species.
Petri dishes Hi-Media. The test strain 200 µl was inocu-
lated into the med ia ino cu lums size 108 cells/ml when the
temperature reached 40˚C - 42˚C. The test compound 20
µl was impregnated in to sterile discs 7 mm Hi-Media
and was then allowed to dry. The disc was then intro-
duced into medium with the bacteria. For each microbial
strain negative controls were maintained where pure sol-
vent DMSO was used instead of the extract since it does
not possess any antimicrobial effect [22] and for positive
control the stand ard antimicr ob ics Gentamicin 10 µg/d isc
and piperacillin 100 µg/disc for bacteria, nystatin 100
units/disc and flucanazole 10 µg/disc Himedia Labs for
fungus were used for comparative studies. The plates
were incub ated ov ern ight at 37˚C for bacterial strains and
42˚C for fungal strains. The experiment was performed
under strict aseptic conditions. Microbial growth was de-
termined by measuring the diameter of the zone of inhibi-
tion. The experiment was performed in triplicates and the
mean values of the result are shown in Tables 1-5.
3. Results and Discussion
Herbal medicine in developing countries is commonly
used for the traditional treatment of health problems [23].
In recent years multiple drug resistance in human patho-
genic microorganisms have developed due to the indis-
criminate use of commercial antimicrobial drugs com-
monly used in the treatment of infectious diseases [24].
In addition to this problem, antibiotics are sometimes
associated with adverse effects on host including hyper-
sensitivity, immune suppression and allergic reactions
[25]. Therefore there is a need to develop alternative an-
timicrobial drugs for the treatment of infections obtained
from various sources such as medicinal plants [26,27].
In the present study T. catappa leaf extracts extracted
in DMF TDE, acetone TAE and methanol TME were
investigated for th eir antimicro b ial poten tiali ty again st 91
clinically important microbial strains. Drug resistance is
a new problem, but it is not a new phenomenon. Soon
after the introduction of penicillin, Staphylococci were
found to be very resistant to many of the antibiotics. Al-
though recognized earlier that antibiotics resistance was
only in the hosp itals, now resistance in the community is
also seen. Bacteria such as Staphylococcus have emerged
with resistance to six and more different antib iotics [28].

Antimicrobial Activity of Terminal i a c at a p p a Extracts against Some Pathogenic M i c r ob i a l Strai ns 303
Table 5. Antifungal activity of Terminalia catappa leaf extracts.
Zone of inhibition (mm)a
Sr.No. Fungus (Location of collection) TME TAE TDE Fu Ns
1 Candida spp. (Sputum) - - - - 14 ± 0.58
2 C. albicans (Urine) - 7.5 ± 0.29 10 ± 1.73 - 11.33 ± 0.33
4 C. albicans (Sputum) - - - - 18 ± 0.58
5 Candida spp.(Sputum) - - - - 14 ± 0.58
6 Candida spp. (Urine) - - - - 10 ± 0.58
7 C. albicans (ATCC2091) 8.5 ± 0.87 8.5 ± 0.87 - 17.67 ± 0.33 13 ± 0.58
8 C. albicans (ATCC18804) - - - - 14.33 ± 0.33
9 C. glabrata (NCIM3448) - - - 39.67 ± 0.88 22 ± 0.58
10 C. tropicalis (ATCC4563) - - - - 8.33 ± 0.33
11 C. apicola (NCIM3367) 19.33 ± 0.33 13 ± 1.15 14.33 ± 0.33 - 21.33 ± 0.88
12 C. neoformans (ATCC34664) - - - 21.33 ± 0.33 17 ± 0.58
13 C. luteolus (ATCC32044) 17.5 ± 2.60 8.5 ± 0.86 - 23.66 ± 0.88 17.66 ± 0.88
14 T. beigelii (NCIM3404) 12 ± 0.5 8 12 ± 0.58 7.5 ± 0.29 - -
15 A. flavus (NCIM538) - - - - -
16 A. candidus (NCIM883) - - - - -
17 A. niger (ATCC6275) - - - - -
aValues are Mean ± SEM, n = 3, zon e includes dis c diameter 7mm, Ns: N ystatin (100 un its/disc), Fu : Fluconazole (10 µg /disc) TME: Methanol extract, TAE:
Acetone extract, TDE: N,N-dimethylformamide (DMF) extract, means no activity; Fu: Fluconazole, Ns: Nystatin.
All the three extracts of T. catappa TDE, TAE and
TME were active against 70% of the total Gram positive
bacteria studied while only 63% of Gram negative bacte-
ria were inhibited Table 1-4, on the other hand, the three
extracts of T. catappa were active against only 25% of
fungal strains Table 5. The best antibacterial activity was
shown by the methanol extract. Similar results were also
shown by Babayi et al. , [29]. The Gram positive bacteria
were more susceptible than Gram negative bacteria. This
is in agreement with previous reports that plant extracts
are more active against Gram positive bacteria than
Gram negative bacteria [30-32]. These differences may
be attributed to the fact that the cell wall in Gram posi-
tive bacteria is of a single layer, whereas the Gram nega-
tive cell wall is multilayered structure [33]. The most
striking feature of the presen t finding s is that many of th e
clinical isolates were resistant to the standard antimicro-
bics used while the plant extracts showed moderate to
good antibacterial activity. The need of the hour is to find
new antimicrobics because the microorganisms are get-
ting resistant to the existing antibiotics [34,35]. The per-
sistent increase in multi drug resistant strain s compels the
search for more potent new antibiotics. Thus there is a
need for a continuous search for new effective and af-
fordable antimicrobial drug s. The results of present study
signify the potentiality of T. catappa leaf as a source of
therapeutic agents which may provide leads in the ongo-
ing search for an ti microbial botanicals .
REFERENCES
[1] G. M. Cragg and D. J. Newman, “Drugs from Nature:
Past Achievements, Future Prospects,” In: M. M. Iwu and
J. C. Wootton, Eds., Ethnomedicine and Drug Discovery,
Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 23-37.
[2] A. A. Allero and A. J. Afolayan, “Antimicrobial Activity
of Solanum tomentosum,” African Journal of Biotech-
nology, Vol. 5, No. 4, 2006, pp. 369-372.
[3] B. Abu-Shanab, G. Adwan, D. Abu-Safiya, N. Jarrar and
K. Adwan, “Antibacterial Activities of Some Plant Ex-
tracts Utilized in Popular Medicine in Palestine,” Turkish
Journal of Biology, Vol. 28, No. 2-4, 2004, pp. 99-102.
[4] M. R. F. De Lima, J. De Souza Luna, A. F. Dos Santos, M.
C. C. De Andrade, A. E. G. Sant Ana, J. P. Genet, B.
Marquez, L. Neuville and N. Moreau, “Antibacterial Acti-
vity of Some Brazilian Medicinal Plants,” Journal of Eth-
nopharmacology, Vol. 105, No. 1-2, 2005, pp. 137-147.
doi:10.1016/j.jep.2005.10.026
[5] J. Parekh, N. Karathia and S. Chanda, “Screening of
Some Traditionally Used Medicinal Plants for Potential
Antibacterial Activity,” Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical
Science, Vol. 68, No. 6, 2006, pp. 832-834.
doi:10.4103/0250-474X.31031
[6] J. Parekh and S. Chanda, “Antibacterial and Phytochemi-
cal Studies on Twelve Species of Indian Medicinal
Plants,” African Journal of Biomedical Research, Vol. 10,

Antimicrobial Activity of Terminal i a c at a p p a Extracts against Some Pathogenic M i c r ob i a l Strai ns 304
No. 2, 2007, pp. 175-181.
[7] S. Dash, L. K. Nath, S. Bhise and B. Nihar, “Antioxidant
and Antimicrobial Activities of Heracleum nepalense D
Don Root,” Tropical Journal of Pharmaceutical Research,
Vol. 4, No. 1, 2005, pp. 341-347.
[8] R. Nair, T. Kalariya and S. Chanda, “Antibacterial Activ-
ity of Some Selected Indian Medicinal Flora,” Turkish
Journal of Biology, Vol. 29, 2005, pp. 41-47.
[9] J. Parekh, R. Nair and S. Chanda, “Preliminary Screening
of Some Folklore Plants from Western India for Potential
Antimicrobial Activity,” Indian Journal of Pharmacology,
Vol. 37, No. 6, 2005, pp. 408-409.
doi:10.4103/0253-7613.19085
[10] R. Nair and S. Chanda, “Antibacterial Activity of some
Medicinal Plants against Some Medically Important Bac-
terial Strains,” Indian Journal of Pharmacology, Vol. 38,
No. 2, 2006, pp. 142-144. doi:10.4103/0253-7613.24625
[11] M. B. Tadhani and R. Subhash, “In Vitro Antimicrobial
Activity of Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni Leaves,” Tropical
Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2006,
pp. 557-560.
[12] S. Mandal, M. D. Mandal and N. Pal, “Antibacterial Po-
tential of Azadirechta indica Seed and Bacopa monniera
Leaf Extracts against Multidrug Resistant Salmonella en-
terica Serovar Typhi Isolates,” Archives of Medical Sci-
ence, Vol. 3, No. 1, 2007, pp. 14-18.
[13] R. Nair and S. Chanda, “In-Vitro Anti microbial Activity of
Psidium guajava L. Leaf Extracts against Clinically Im-
portant Pathogenic Microbial Strains,” Brazilian Journal of
Microbiology, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2007, pp. 452-458.
doi:10.1590/S1517-83822007000300013
[14] N. Y. Chiu and K. H. Chang, “The Illustrated Medicinal
Plants of Taiwan,” Vol. 1, SMC Publishing, Inc., Taipei,
1986, p. 129.
[15] C.C. Lin, Y. L. Chen, J. M. Lin and T. Ujiie, “Evaluation
of the Antioxidant and Hepatoprotective Activity of Ter-
minalia catappa,” American Journal of Chinese Medicine,
Vol. 25, No. 2, 1997, pp. 153-161.
doi:10.1142/S0192415X97000172
[16] A. N. Nagappa, P. A. Thakurdesai, N. Venkat Rao and J.
Singh, “Antidiabetic Activity of Terminalia catappa Linn
Fruits,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Vol. 88, No. 1,
2003, pp. 45-50. doi:10.1016/S0378-8741(03)00208-3
[17] Y. M. Fan, L. Z. Xu, J. Gao, Y. Wang, X. H. Tang, X. N.
Zhao and Z. X. Zhang, “Phytochemical and Anti-Inflam-
matory Studies on Terminalia catappa,” Fitoterapia, Vol.
75, No. 3-4, 2004, pp. 253-260.
doi:10.1016/j.fitote.2003.11.007
[18] Y. F. Zhai, J. Yao, Y. M. Fan, L. Z. Xu, J. Gao and X. N.
Zhao, “Inhibitory Effects of LR-98 on Proliferation of
Hepatocarcinoma Cells,” Journal of Nanjing University
of Natural Science, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2001, pp. 213-217.
[19] L. Z. Xu, J. Gao, L. Zhu, M. Xu, S. Y. Lu, X. N. Zhao
and Z. X. Zhang, “Protective Effects of LR-98 on Hepa-
totoxicity Induced by Carbon Tetrachloride and D-Galac-
tosamine in Mice,” Journal of Nanjing University of
Natural Science, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2000, pp. 197-201.
[20] A. W. Bauer, W. M. M. Kirby, J. C. Sherries and M.
Truck, “Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing by a Standard-
ized Single Disk Method,” American Journal of Clinical
Pathology, Vol. 45, No. 4, 1966, pp. 426-493.
[21] J. Parekh and S. Chanda, “In Vitro Antimicrobial Activity
of Trapa natans L. Fruit Rind Extracted in Different Sol-
vents,” African Journal of Biotechnology, Vol. 6, No. 6,
2007, pp. 766-770.
[22] M. J. Pelczar, E. C. S. Chan and N. R. Krieg, “Microbiol-
ogy Concepts and Applications,” McGraw-Hill Inc., New
York, 1993, p. 967.
[23] M J. Martinez, J. Betanc ourt, N. Alanso-Gonzalea and A.
Jauregui, “Screening of Some Cuban Medicinal Plants for
Antimicrobial Activity,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology,
Vol. 52, No. 3, 1996, pp. 171-174.
doi:10.1016/0378-8741(96)01405-5
[24] R. F. Service, “Antibiotics That Resist Resistance,” Sci-
ence, Vol. 270, No. 5237, 1995, pp. 724-727.
doi:10.1126/science.270.5237.724
[25] I. Ahmad, Z. Mehmood and F. Mohammad, “Screening
of Some Indian Medicinal Plants for Their Antimicrobial
Properties,” Journal of Ethnopharmacology, Vol. 62, No.
2, 1998, pp. 183-193.
doi:10.1016/S0378-8741(98)00055-5
[26] G. A. Cordell, “Biodiversity and Drug Discovery a Sym-
biotic Relationship,” Phytochemistry, Vol. 55, No. 66,
2000, pp. 463-480. doi:10.1016/S0031-9422(00)00230-2
[27] B. Dulger and A. Gonuz, “Antibacterial Activity of the
Endemic Hypericum kazdaghensis,” Fitoterapia, Vol. 76,
No. 2, 2005, pp. 237-239.
doi:10.1016/j.fitote.2004.12.010
[28] L. Stuart, “Infectious Diseases and Rise of Antibiotic Re-
sistance,” Pharmaceutical News, Vol. 3, 1996, p. 21.
[29] H. Babayi, I. Kolo, J. I. Okojun and U. J. J. Ijah, “The
Antimicrobial Activities of Methanolic Extracts of Euca-
lyptus camaldulensis and Terminalia catappa against
Some Pathogenic Microorganisms,” Biokemistri, Vol. 16,
No. 2, 2004, pp. 106-111.
[30] J. E. Kelmanson, A. K. Jager and J. Van Staden, “Zulu
Medicinal Plants with Antimicrobial Activity,” Journal of
Ethnopharmacology, Vol. 69, No. 3, 2000, pp. 241-246.
doi:10.1016/S0378-8741(99)00147-6
[31] J. Parekh and S. Chanda, “Screening of Some India Me-
dicinal Plants for Antibacterial Activity,” Indian Journal
of Pharmaceutical Science, Vol. 68, No. 6, 2006, pp.
835-838. doi:10.4103/0250-474X.31032
[32] V. Prashanth Kumar, S. C. Neelam, H. Padh and M. Rajni,
“Search for Antibacterial and Antifungal Agents from
Selected Indian Medicinal Plants,” Journal of Ethnophar-
macology, Vol. 107, No. 2, 2006, pp. 182-188.
doi:10.1016/j.jep.2006.03.013
[33] J. Yao and R. Moellering, “Antibacterial Agents,” In: P.
Murray, E. Baron, M. Pfaller, F. Tenover and R. Yolken,
Eds., Manual of Clinical Microbiology, The American
Society For Microbiology (ASM), Washington DC, 1995,
pp. 1281-1290.

Antimicrobial Activity of Terminal i a c at a p p a Extracts against Some Pathogenic Mi cr o bi a l Strai ns 305
[34] I. Bhattacharjee, A. Ghosh and G. Chandra, “Antimicro-
bial Activity of the Essential Oil of Cestrum diurnum L.
Solanales: Solanaceae,” African Journal of Biotechnology,
Vol. 4, No. 4, 2005, pp. 371-374.
[35] F. Scazzocchio, M. F. Cometa, L. Tomassina and M.
Palmery, “Antimicrobial Activity of Hydrastis canaden-
sis Extract and It’s Major Isolated Alkaloids,” Planta
Medica, Vol. 67, No. 6, 2001, pp. 561-564.