| Title |
Evaluation of antimicrobial properties of cork
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
FEMS Microbiology Letters, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1093/femsle/fnv231 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Filipa Gonçalves, Patrícia Correia, Susana P Silva, Cristina Almeida-Aguiar |
| Abstract |
Cork presents a range of diverse and versatile properties making this material suitable for several and extremely diverse industrial applications. Despite the wide uses of cork, its antimicrobial properties and potential applications have deserved little attention from industry and the scientific community. Thus, the main purpose of this work was the evaluation of the antibacterial properties of cork, by comparison with commercially available antimicrobial materials (Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate copolymer and a currently used antimicrobial commercial additive (ACA)), following the previous development and optimization of a method for such antimicrobial assay. The AATCC 100-2004 standard method, a quantitative procedure developed for the assessment of antimicrobial properties in textile materials, was used as reference and optimized to assess cork antibacterial activity. Cork displayed high antibacterial activity against Staphylococcus aureus, with a bacterial reduction of almost 100% (96.93%) after 90 minutes of incubation, similar to the one obtained with ACA. A more reduced but time-constant antibacterial action was observed against Escherichia coli (36% reduction of the initial number of bacterial colonies). To complement this study, antibacterial activity was further evaluated for a water extract of cork and an MIC of 6 mg mL(-1) was obtained against the reference strain S. aureus. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 21 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 21% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Materials Science | 2 | 5% |
| Design | 2 | 5% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 23 | 55% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 November 2021.
All research outputs
#606,882
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from FEMS Microbiology Letters
#17
of 5,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,011
of 395,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age from FEMS Microbiology Letters
#1
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,773 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,296 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.