Next Article in Journal
Investigating How the Disclosure of Production Methods Influences Consumers’ Sensory Perceptions of Sparkling Wines
Next Article in Special Issue
Natural Nrf2 Activators from Juices, Wines, Coffee, and Cocoa
Previous Article in Journal
The Influence of Bottle Design on Perceived Quality of Beer: A Conjoint Analytic Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
Hydroxypropyl-β-Cyclodextrin as a Green Co-Solvent in the Aqueous Extraction of Polyphenols from Waste Orange Peels
Article

Antimicrobial Potential of Beverages Preparation Based on Fermented Milk Permeate and Berries/Vegetables

1
Department of Food Safety and Quality, Faculty of Veterinary, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Mickeviciaus Str. 9, LT-44307 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Institute of Animal Rearing Technologies, Faculty of Animal Sciences, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Mickeviciaus Str. 9, LT-44307 Kaunas, Lithuania
3
Department of Anatomy and Physiology, Faculty of Veterinary, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Mickeviciaus Str. 9, LT-44307 Kaunas, Lithuania
4
Institute of Microbiology and Virology, Faculty of Veterinary, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Mickeviciaus Str. 9, LT-44307 Kaunas, Lithuania
5
Institute of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Agriculture Academy, Vytautas Magnus University, K. Donelaicio Str. 58, LT-44244 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 10 October 2020 / Revised: 5 November 2020 / Accepted: 17 November 2020 / Published: 19 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Phenolic Compounds and Functional Beverages)

Abstract

Nowadays, taking into consideration the current dynamics of drug resistance development, many researchers are working to develop new antimicrobial compound combinations for the food and beverage industry, which can overcome this problem. The aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial properties of milk permeate fermented with Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, and Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206 strains in combination with berry/vegetable (B/V) pomace (gooseberries, chokeberries, cranberries, sea buckthorn, rhubarb) against a variety of pathogenic strains (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Citrobacter freundii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Salmonella enterica, Bacillus cereus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumanni, Proteus mirabilis, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus epidermis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Pasteurella multocida, and Enterobacter cloacae) as a potential antimicrobial combination for beverage preparation. The highest number of the tested pathogenic strains was inhibited by gooseberries, sea buckthorn, and rhubarb combinations with strain LUHS122 fermented beverages (13 pathogens out of 15 tested). Twelve out of 15 tested pathogens were inhibited by gooseberry combinations with LUHS135 and LUHS206 fermented milk permeate. Selected B/V in combination with fermented milk permeate are promising antimicrobial ingredients for beverage preparation, possessing antimicrobial activity almost against all the tested pathogenic strains.
Keywords: antimicrobial properties; fermentation; berries; vegetables antimicrobial properties; fermentation; berries; vegetables

1. Introduction

Nowadays, taking into consideration the current dynamics of development of drug resistance many researchers are working to create new antimicrobial compound combinations for food and beverage industry, which can overcome the problem.
Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) strains are used as technological starters for food preparation because of their important characteristics, especially their antimicrobial properties. Also, LAB can improve sensory properties, as well as nutritional value of food products [1]. Most of the LAB strains’ antimicrobial properties can be explained by their excretion of different compounds, such as organic acids, bacteriocin-like inhibitory substance (BLIS), and enzymes [2]. The incorporation of fermented foods and beverages to the main diet is a very important part of balanced nutrition, because fermented foods and beverages have many benefits for consumer health [3]. Functional beverages could be a healthy alternative in human nutrition. Also, for their preparation, food industry byproducts could be used. Our previous studies showed that fermented milk permeate beverage prototypes with selected LAB strains contained galactooligosaccharides (GOS) (from 8.7 to 26.8 mgGOS/100mLsample) [4]. The above-mentioned study proved a real possibility for milk permeate sustainable valorization to the fermented beverages of higher functional value.
Also, the nutritional value of fermented milk permeate beverages can be further improved by adding natural functional additives. Our previous studies revealed that berries and fruits possess a wide spectrum of antimicrobial properties against pathogenic and opportunistic bacterial strains [1].
In this study, gooseberries, chokeberries, cranberries, sea buckthorn, and rhubarb were selected as popular berries/vegetables (B/V) in the Nordic European diet.
Gooseberry, widely cultivated in Europe, belongs to the Ribes L. genus and the Saxifrgaaceae family [5]. The composition of this berry is very attractive, as it contains many nutrients, various sugars, organic acids, anthocyanins, inorganic micro- and macro-elements, and vitamins, as well as various amino acids [6]. For this reason, gooseberry is an important stock for the food industry. Gooseberry is rich in vitamin C, containing 200 mg/100 g [7]. Furthermore, these berries are rich in flavonoids, which have many desirable properties (antioxidant, diseases prevention, etc.) [7]. In addition, gooseberry is rich in iron and iodine, which are associated with a lowered risk of atherosclerosis. Gooseberry is used for the prevention of dysentery, foot pain, arthritis, bone dysplasia, and kidney diseases [7]. For above-mentioned reasons, gooseberry is a considered a medicinal plant [8].
Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa) is a fruit with specific taste and dark color, known as a very good source of phenolics, which are associated with many health benefits [9]. The chemical composition of black chokeberries, as well as their desirable effects on human health, have been very popular subjects of investigation [9,10,11,12]. The main biological active compounds in black chokeberry are anthocyanins, proanthocyanidins, and hydroxycinnamic acids, whereas quercetin, quercetin glycosides, and epicatechin are minor components [9,10]. A previous study found that black chokeberry and its extracts possess cardioprotective, hepatoprotective, anticarcinogenic, antidiabetic, antimutagenic, and many other effects [9].
Cranberries have a unique flavor and very intense reddish-purple color [13]. Cranberries sensory properties are related to their composition, which is rich in anthocyanin pigments [14,15]. The procyanidins of cranberries possess protective effects against urinary tract infections and cardiovascular diseases [14,16].
Sea buckthorn plant (Hippophae rhamnoides) belongs to the Hippophae genus and to the Elaeagnaceae family, and extracts of the different botanical parts of sea buckthorn are very popular in pharmaceutical preparations. Sea buckthorn is a good source of lipids, vitamins, phenolics, carotenoids, phytosterols, and tocopherols [17]. Sea buckthorn seeds and oils are used for the prevention of gastric ulcers [18], cardiovascular diseases [19], atopic dermatitis [20], dry mouth in Sjogren Syndrome patients [21], and depression [22]. Additionally, this plant and its products possess a wide range of desirable effects, including the effective regeneration of skin and mucous membranes, improved immune functions, reduced oxidation, and a lowered risk of cardiovascular diseases [23].
Rhubarb (Rheum rhabarbarum L.) is characterized by strong antioxidant properties. However, this plant is cultivated only for its petiole [24,25], because its leaves have a toxic oxalic acid [26]. In Europe, it is cultivated mainly in Germany, France, and England [27]. Rhubarb stalks are used for food and drink preparation, as well as in traditional medicine for the treatment of gastrointestinal hemorrhage and constipation jaundice [28]. A previous study found that this plant has anticancer properties [29]. However, it should be mentioned that the consumption of rhubarb in large quantities can lead to adverse effects, which are associated with accumulation of calcium in the body [26].
Finally, we hypothesized that the combination of the selected B/V with fermented milk permeate beverages can increase antimicrobial properties of the end-product.
The aim of this study was to evaluate antimicrobial properties of milk permeate fermented with Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, and Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206 strains milk permeate in combination with B/V pomace (gooseberries, chokeberries, cranberries, sea buckthorn, rhubarb) against a variety of pathogenic strains (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Citrobacter freundii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Salmonella enterica, Bacillus cereus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumanni, Proteus mirabilis, Enterococcus faecalis, Enterococcus faecium, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus epidermis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Pasteurella multocida, and Enterobacter cloacae) as a potential antimicrobial combination for beverage preparation.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Berries/Vegetables and Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains Used for the Development of Antimicrobial Combinations

The B/V used for the development of antimicrobial combinations included gooseberries, chokeberries, cranberries, sea buckthorn, and rhubarb. The B/V obtained from the local supermarket in Kaunas (Lithuania). All the used B/V were grown in Lithuania by local farmers. B/V were crushed with a blender, and the prepared pomace (from each B/V) was used for the development of antimicrobial beverage combinations. The Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, and Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206 strains were selected according to their carbohydrate fermentation, antimicrobial, and antifungal characteristics [30]. Pure LAB strains were stored at −80 °C in a Microbank system (Pro-Lab Diagnostics, Merseyside, UK) and grown in the Man, Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) broth (CM 0359, Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) under anaerobic conditions, at 30 °C for 48 h, prior to use. Selected LAB strains were used for beverages based on milk permeate preparation, as described by Zokaityte et al. (2020) [4]. Our previous studies showed that the fermentation with different LABs, as well as addition of apple byproducts, improved the sensory perception of the final fermented beverages and increased the acceptability [4]. The viable LAB count in fermented milk permeate beverages was higher than 6.7 log10 CFU mL1. The Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, and Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206 were incubated and multiplied in MRS broth culture medium (Biolife, Milan, Italy) at 30 °C under anaerobic conditions. A total of 3% (vinnoculum/vmilk permeate) of LAB with a cell concentration of 9.2 log10 CFU mL1 was inoculated in milk permeate, followed by anaerobic fermentation for 48 h at 30 °C. After fermentation, 15% (vB/V/vmilk permeate) of B/V pomace in milk permeate-based beverage was added.
The parameters of the nonfermented milk permeate are shown in Supplementary Materials Tables S1–S3.

2.2. Evaluation of the Berries/Vegetables and Fermented Milk Permeate Combination Antimicrobial Activity

All B/V and their combinations with fermented milk permeate were assessed for their antimicrobial activities against a variety of 15 pathogenic and opportunistic bacterial field isolates, recently isolated from clinical material of different domestic animal species (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus M87fox, Citrobacter freundii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Salmonella enterica 24SPn06, Bacillus cereus 18-01, Pseudomonas aeruginosa 17-331, Acinetobacter baumanni 17-380, Proteus mirabilis, Enterococcus faecalis 86, Enterococcus faecium 103, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus epidermis, Staphylococcus haemolyticus, Pasteurella multocida, Enterobacter cloacae) by the agar well diffusion method. For the agar well diffusion assay, suspensions of 0.5 McFarland standard of each pathogenic bacteria strain were inoculated onto the surface of cooled Mueller–Hinton agar (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) using sterile cotton swabs. Wells of 6 mm in diameter were punched in the agar and filled with 50 µL of the B/V. The antimicrobial activities against the tested bacteria were established by measuring the inhibition zone diameters (mm). The experiments were repeated three times, and the average of the inhibition zones was calculated. The antimicrobial activities against the tested bacteria were established by measuring the diameters of inhibition zone diameter of inhibition zones (DIZ) in mm [1,30]. The experiment design is shown in Figure 1.
The experiments were made in triplicate and the average and standard deviation of the DIZ were calculated.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All analysis was performed at least in triplicate (n = 3) and were expressed as the average ± standard deviation. Results were analyzed via one-way analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) using statistical package SPSS for Windows XP version 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA, 2007). The results were recognized as statistically significant if p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

The DIZ of gooseberry pomace and DIZ of gooseberry pomace with lactic acid bacteria (Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, and Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206) strains fermented milk permeate combinations against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms are shown in Table 1. Comparing the DIZ of pure gooseberry pomace, it was found that gooseberries inhibited 9 out of 15 tested pathogenic and opportunistic strains, and the highest DIZ against Pasteurella multocida and Streptococcus mutans was found (25.6 mm and 23.0 mm, respectively). Comparing the DIZ of pure gooseberry pomace and DIZ of gooseberry pomace combination with LUHS135 permeate combination, it was found that addition of LUHS135 led to a broader spectrum of pathogen inhibition (inhibited 12 out of 15 tested pathogens), and the combination showed antimicrobial activity against Enterococcus faecalis, Enterobacter cloacae, and Citrobacter freundii (DIZ 11.6 mm, 12.6 mm, and 12.3 mm, respectively). However, compared to DIZ against pathogens which were inhibited by both samples (pure pomace and the gooseberry pomace combination with LUHS135 beverage), in most of the cases, the DIZ induced by the combination against pathogenic and opportunistic strains was similar or smaller. Comparing pure gooseberry pomace DIZ with gooseberry pomace combination with LUHS122 beverage, it was found that the addition of LUHS135 led to additional inhibition of Enterococcus faecium, Bacillus cereus, Enterobacter cloacae, and Citrobacter freundii (DIZ 12.6 mm, 11.3 mm, 12.4 mm, and 11.1 mm, respectively). However, in most of the cases, the gooseberry pomace combination with LUHS122 showed a lower DIZ, compared to the pure pomace (except against Salmonella enterica and Streptococcus mutans). Moreover, the gooseberry pomace combination with LUHS206 showed a broader spectrum of pathogen inhibition (inhibited 12 out of 15 tested pathogens).
Many desirable properties of gooseberries fruit have been described. In addition, this fruit was reported to possess hypolipidemic, hypoglycemic and antimicrobial activities [31]. However, studies about the physical, chemical, and antimicrobial characteristics of different cultivars are very scarce [32]. Usually, this fruit is associated with the high concentration of vitamin C [33]. Gooseberries are also a good source of phytochemicals (polyphenols, tannins, emblicol, linoleic acid, corilagin, phyllemblin, and rutin) [34], which are related to antimicrobial activity of the fruit.
Pure chokeberries showed antimicrobial activity against 3 out of 15 tested pathogenic and opportunistic strains (Bacillus cereus, Streptococcus mutans, and Pasteurella multocida; Table 2). The combination of chokeberries with LUHS135, as well as with LUHS206 permeate, additionally showed antimicrobial properties against Staphylococcus epidermis and Staphylococcus haemolyticus. However, the combination of chokeberries with LUHS122, compared with the pure berry pomace, additionally inhibited only Staphylococcus haemolyticus. The highest DIZ of the chokeberry combination with LUHS206 against Streptococcus mutans was found to be 20.9 mm. For the pure berry pomace combination with LUHS135 and LUHS206 beverages against Pasteurella multocida, a DIZ higher than 20 mm was determined.
A previous study showed that chokeberry polyphenols differ in their biological activity, and only epicatechin and quercetin show antimicrobial activities against Candida albicans, but they do not inhibit Staphylococcus aureus and Proteus vulgaris. However, whole berries have many health benefits [35]. Tannin antimicrobial activity can be explained by the inhibition of extracellular microbial enzymes, direct action on microbial metabolism through the inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation, or the deprivation of the substrates required for microbial growth [36]. Taguri et al. [37] reported that different types of phenolics, as well as their oxidation products—proanthocyanidins and hydrolyzable tannins—possess antibacterial activities against food pathogens, and pathogen sensitivity to phenolics depends on bacteria species and bioactive compound structure.
Pure cranberry pomace and its combination with fermented milk permeate beverages inhibited the same number of the tested pathogenic and opportunistic strains (10 out of 15 tested pathogens) (Table 3). Also, in most of the cases, combinations with fermented milk permeate showed lower DIZ, compared to pure cranberry pomace, against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (except the combination with LUHS135), against Bacillus cereus (except the combination with LUHS135), against Streptococcus mutans (except the combination with LUHS122), and against Streptococcus epidermis.
Berries belonging to the Vaccinium species provide a very good source of compounds, which are associated with antimicrobial properties [38,39], e.g., the antimicrobial properties of cranberry concentrates against Staphylococcus aureus and E. coli O157:H7 are well known [40,41,42]. Česonienė et al. [43] showd that cranberry extracts inhibit a wide range of Gram-negative (Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium) and Gram-positive (Enterococcus faecalis, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, and Bacillus subtilis) pathogens. A previous study found that V. oxycoccus juice showed binding activity with Streptococcus agalactiae and Streptococcus pneumoniae due to S. pneumoniae binding activity to low molecular size fractions of cranberry juices [38].
Sea buckthorn pomace and its combination with LUHS135 and LUHS206 beverages inhibited 12 out of 15 tested pathogenic and opportunistic strains, and the sea buckthorn combination with LUHS122 additionally showed antimicrobial activity against Salmonella enterica (Table 4). Also, the sea buckthorn combination with LUHS206 increased its antimicrobial activity against Acinetobacter baumanni. The sea buckthorn combination with LUHS135 and LUHS122 beverages showed increased antimicrobial activity against Proteus mirabilis. The sea buckthorn combinations with all the tested LAB strains showed increased antimicrobial activity against Enterococcus faecalis. The sea buckthorn combinations with LUHS135 and LUHS122 beverages showed increased antimicrobial activity against Pasteurella multocida. Opposite tendencies (lower DIZ, compared with pure pomace) of the sea buckthorn combinations with LUHS135 against Bacillus cereus, Enterobacter cloacae, Citrobacter freundii, Streptococcus epidermis; combinations with LUHS122 against Enterobacter cloacae and Streptococcus epidermis; and combinations with LUHS206 against Bacillus cereus, Enterobacter cloacae, and Streptococcus epidermis were established.
The antimicrobial properties of sea buckthorn have the capacity to inhibit Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus subtilis and Streptococcus pneumoniae [44]. The antibacterial properties of sea buckthorn are associated with lipophilic bioactive compounds such as fatty acids (FA) [23]. FAs have the capacity to kill bacteria or inhibit their growth, and many organisms defend themselves against parasitic or pathogenic bacteria using this mechanism [17]. A previous study found that long-chain FAs have stronger antimicrobial activities against Gram-positive than Gram-negative bacteria [45]. Traditionally, buckthorn is used in medicine because of its wide spectrum of biologically active FAs and other compounds, e.g., antibacterial and antioxidant [46].
The diameters of inhibition zones of rhubarb and fermented milk permeate beverages against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms are shown in Table 5. Pure rhubarb pomace, as well as its combination with LUHS135 and LUHS206 beverages, inhibited 12 out of 15 tested pathogenic and opportunistic strains. The rhubarb pomace combination with LUHS122 additionally showed antimicrobial activity against Salmonella enterica (DIZ 13.1 mm). Moreover, the rhubarb combination with LUHS135 and LUHS122 increased its DIZ against Proteus mirabilis, Enterococcus faecalis, and Pasteurella multocida. The rhubarb combination with LUHS206 showed higher DIZ against Acinetobacter baumanni, Enterococcus faecalis, and Pasteurella multocida. Opposite tendencies of all LAB and rhubarb tested combinations against Enterobacter cloacae, Streptococcus epidermis, and Bacillus cereus (except combination with LUHS122) were also found. The above-mentioned combinations decreased DIZ against the mentioned pathogenic strains.
Usually, the combination of many compounds with different structures is responsible for inhibiting pathogens [47], antioxidative effects [48,49], health benefits [50,51] and plant protective properties [52] in plant materials. A previous study found that rhubarb root composition is rich in phenolic compounds [53]. Kosikowska et al. [54] and Raudsepp et al. [55] found that rhubarb roots possess very strong antimicrobial activity. Hasper et al. [56] showed that rhubarb root toxicity is very low, and they can be used for food preparation. The antimicrobial activity of the rhubarb is correlated with total polyphenolic concentration, but not with the total content of anthocyanins [57].
Finally, the highest number of the tested pathogenic and opportunistic strains was inhibited by gooseberries, sea buckthorn, and rhubarb combinations with LUHS122 (13 pathogens out of 15 tested). Twelve out of 15 tested pathogens were inhibited by gooseberries, sea buckthorn, and rhubarb combinations with LUHS135 and LUHS206, as well as with LUHS135 and LUHS206 fermented milk permeate (Figure 2). Other tested berries/vegetables and their combinations with LAB strains inhibited 10 strains and a lower number of the tested pathogenic and opportunistic strains.

4. Conclusions

The highest number of tested pathogenic and opportunistic strains was inhibited by gooseberries, sea buckthorn, and rhubarb combinations with LUHS122 (13 pathogens out of 15 tested). Twelve out of 15 tested pathogens were inhibited by gooseberry, sea buckthorn, and rhubarb combinations with LUHS135 and LUHS206, as well with LUHS135 and LUHS206 strains. Finally, selected B/V in combination with fermented milk permeate is a promising antimicrobial beverage, possessing antimicrobial activity almost against all the tested pathogenic strains. The results showed that further research should be directed toward the mechanisms of action of different origin compounds (microbial and plant-based) on their antimicrobial activity explanation.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/2306-5710/6/4/65/s1, Table S1: Average values and standard deviations (Mean ± STDV) (n = 3) of the acidity parameters, pH and total titratable acidity (TTA), and total lactic acid bacteria (LAB) viable counts in the milk permeate (MP) samples throughout fermentation (tsampling = 0, 6, 12, 24, 48 h); Table S2: Average values and standard deviations (Mean ± STDV) (n = 3) of the diameter of inhibition zones (mm) of the nonfermented milk permeate (MP) against 15 pathogenic and opportunistic bacterial strains; Table S3: Average values and standard deviations (Mean ± STDV) (n = 3) of the antimicrobial activities of the nonfermented milk permeate (NFMP) against 15 pathogenic and opportunistic microbial bacterial in liquid medium (+ indicates pathogen growth; - indicates that pathogen growth was not established).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.B.; methodology M.R.; software, E.M. (Erika Mozuriene); validation, R.R.; formal analysis, E.Z., V.L., V.S., P.Z., M.C., V.C., G.K., R.L., L.M., E.M. (Ema Monstaviciute), M.P., M.S., E.V., L.Z.; investigation, E.Z., V.L., V.S., P.Z., M.C., V.C., G.K., R.L., L.M., E.M. (Ema Monstaviciute), M.P., M.S., E.V., L.Z.; data curation, E.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, E.B., E.Z.; writing—review and editing, E.B.; visualization, E.M. (Erika Mozuriene); supervision, E.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the EUREKA Network Project E!13309 “SUSFEETECH” (No. 01.2.2-MITA-K-702-05-0001) and COST Action 18101 SOURDOMICS—Sourdough biotechnology network towards novel, healthier and sustainable food and bioprocesses.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bartkiene, E.; Lele, V.; Sakiene, V.; Zavistanaviciute, P.; Ruzauskas, M.; Bernatoniene, J.; Jakstas, V.; Viskelis, P.; Zadeike, D.; Juodeikiene, G. Improvement of the antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria in combination with berries/fruits and dairy industry by-products. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 3992–4002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Belahsen, R.; Naciri, K.; El Ibrahimi, A. Food security and women’s roles in Moroccan Berber (Amazigh) society today. Matern. Child Nutr. 2018, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gu, J.; Liu, T.; Hou, J.; Pan, L.; Sadiq, F.A.; Yuan, L.; Yang, H.; He, G. Analysis of bacterial diversity and biogenic amines content during the fermentation processing of stinky tofu. Food Res. Int. 2018, 111, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Zokaityte, E.; Cernauskas, D.; Klupsaite, D.; Lele, V.; Starkute, V.; Zavistanaviciute, P.; Ruzauskas, M.; Gruzauskas, R.; Juodeikiene, G.; Rocha, J.M.; et al. Bioconversion of Milk Permeate with Selected Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains and Apple By-Products into Beverages with Antimicrobial Properties and Enriched with Galactooligosaccharides. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gentili, R.; Fenu, G.; Citterio, C.; De Mattio, F.; Bachetta, G. Conservation genetics of two island endemic Ribes spp. (Grossulariaceae) of Sardinia: Survival or extinction? Plant Biol. 2015, 17, 1085–1094. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  6. Ramadan, M.F. Bioactive phytochemicals, nutritional value, and functional properties of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana): An overview. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 1830–1836. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ramadan, M.F. Physalis peruviana pomace suppresses highcholesterol diet-induced hypercholesterolemia in rats. Grasas Y Aceites 2012, 63, 411–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rabie, M.A.; Soliman, A.Z.; Diaconeasa, Z.S.; Constantin, B. Effect of Pasteurization and Shelf Life on the Physicochemical Properties of Physalis (Physalis peruviana L.). J. Food Process. Preserv. 2015, 39, 1051–1060. [Google Scholar]
  9. Denev, P.N.; Kratchanov, C.G.; Číž, M.; Lojek, A.; Kratchanova, M.G. Bioavailability and Antioxidant Activity of Black Chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa) Polyphenols: In vitro and in vivo Evidences and Possible Mechanisms of Action: A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2012, 11, 471–489. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kulling, S.E.; Rawel, H.M. Chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa)—A review on the characteristic components and potential health effects. Planta Med. 2008, 74, 1625–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Valcheva-Kuzmanova, S.V.; Belcheva, A. Current knowledge of Aronia melanocarpa as a medicinal plant. Folia Med. 2006, 48, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Chrubasik, C.; Li, G.; Chrubasik, S. The clinical effectiveness of chokeberry: A systematic review. Phytother Res. 2010, 24, 1107–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Howell, R.T.; Kern, M.L.; Lyubomirsky, S. Health benefits: Meta-analytically determining the impact of well-being on objective health outcomes. Health Psychol. Rev. 2007, 1, 83–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Prior, R.L.; Lazarus, S.A.; Cao, G.; Muccitelli, H.; Hammerstone, J.F. Identification of procyanidins and anthocyanins in blueberries and cranberries (Vaccinium spp.) using high-performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2001, 49, 1270–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. White, B.L.; Howard, L.R.; Prior, R.L. Impact of different stages of juice processing on the anthocyanin, flavonol, and procyanidin contents of cranberries. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 4692–4698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liska, D.J.; Kern, H.J.; Maki, K.C. Cranberries and Urinary Tract Infections: How Can the Same Evidence Lead to Conflicting Advice? Available online: https://0-www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.brum.beds.ac.uk/pmc/articles/PMC4863270/ (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  17. Desbois, A.P.; Smith, V.J. Antibacterial free fatty acids: Activities, mechanisms of action and biotechnological potential. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 1629–1642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Xu, X.; Xie, B.; Pan, S.; Liu, L.; Wang, Y.; Chen, C. Effects of sea buckthorn procyanidins on healing of acetic acid-induced lesions in the rat stomach. Asia Pac. J. Clin. Nutr. 2007, 16 (Suppl. 1), 234–238. [Google Scholar]
  19. Eccleston, C.; Baoru, Y.; Tahvonen, R.; Kallio, H.; Rimbach, G.H.; Minihane, A.M. Effects of an antioxidant-rich juice (sea buckthorn) on risk factors for coronary heart disease in humans. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2002, 13, 346–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Yang, B.; Kalimo, K.O.; Tahvonen, R.L.; Mattila, L.M.; Katajisto, J.K.; Kallio, H.P. Effect of dietary supplementation with sea buckthorn (Hippophaë rhamnoides) seed and pulp oils on the fatty acid composition of skin glycerophospholipids of patients with atopic dermatitis. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2000, 11, 338–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Le Bell, A.M.; Soderling, E.; Rantane, I.; Yang, B.; Kallio, H. Frontiers|The Anticancer Activity of Sea Buckthorn [Elaeagnus rhamnoides (L.) A. Nelson]|Pharmacology. Available online: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.00232/full (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  22. Tian, J.; Liu, C.; Xiang, H.; Zheng, X.; Peng, G.; Zhang, X.; Du, G.; Qin, X. Investigation on the antidepressant effect of sea buckthorn seed oil through the GC-MS-based metabolomics approach coupled with multivariate analysis. Food Funct. 2015, 6, 3585–3592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Erkkola, B.; Baoru, Y. Sea Buckthorn Oils: Towards Healthy Mucous Membranes|Request PDF. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287943514_Sea_buckthorn_oils_Towards_healthy_mucous_membranes (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  24. Jintao, X.; Yongli, S.; Liming, Y.; Quanwei, Y.; Chunyan, L.; Xingyi, C.; Yun, J. Near-infrared spectroscopy for rapid and simultaneous determination of five main active components in rhubarb of different geographical origins and processing. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2018, 205, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ye, M.; Han, J.; Chen, H.; Zheng, J.; Guo, D. Analysis of phenolic compounds in rhubarbs using liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2007, 18, 82–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Weaver, C.M.; Heaney, R.P.; Nickel, K.P.; Packard, P.I. Calcium Bioavailability from High Oxalate Vegetables: Chinese Vegetables, Sweet Potatoes and Rhubarb. J. Food Sci. 1997, 62, 524–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhou, K.; Yu, L. Total phenolic contents and antioxidant properties of commonly consumed vegetables grown in Colorado. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 39, 1155–1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Takeoka, G.R.; Dao, L.; Harden, L.; Pantoja, A.; Kuhl, J.C. Antioxidant activity, phenolic and anthocyanin contents of various rhubarb (Rheum spp.) varieties. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 48, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, Q.; Lu, G.; Shen, H.-M.; Chung, M.C.M.; Ong, C.N. Anti-cancer properties of anthraquinones from rhubarb. Med. Res. Rev. 2007, 27, 609–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bartkiene, E.; Lele, V.; Ruzauskas, M.; Domig, K.J.; Starkute, V.; Zavistanaviciute, P.; Bartkevics, V.; Pugajeva, I.; Klupsaite, D.; Juodeikiene, G.; et al. Lactic Acid Bacteria Isolation from Spontaneous Sourdough and Their Characterization Including Antimicrobial and Antifungal Properties Evaluation. Microorganisms 2019, 8, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Santoshkumar, J.; Manjunath, S.; Sakhare Pranavkumar, M. A Study of Anti-Hyperlipidemia, Hypolipedimic and Anti-Atherogenic Activity of Fruit of Emblica Officinalis (AMLA) in High Fat Fed Albino Rats-Indian Journals. Available online: http://www.indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ijmrhs&volume=1&issue=2&article=012 (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  32. Goyal, R.K.; Kingsly, A.R.P.; Kumar, P.; Walia, H. Physical and mechanical properties of aonla fruits. J. Food Eng. 2007, 82, 595–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Singh, S.; Singh, A.; Joshi, H.K. Standardization of Maturity Indices in Indian Gooseberry (Emblica Afficitlalis) Under Semi-Arid Conditions of Gujarat. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Standardization-of-maturity-indices-in-Indian-under-Singh-Singh/ed985ea2343fdc6ac6df8fe6628d256393312a9c (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  34. Murthy, Z.V.P.; Joshi, D. Fluidized Bed Drying of Aonla (Emblica officinalis). Dry. Technol. 2007, 25, 883–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Denev, P.; Číž, M.; Kratchanova, M.; Blazheva, D. Black chokeberry (Aronia melanocarpa) polyphenols reveal different antioxidant, antimicrobial and neutrophil-modulating activities. Food Chem. 2019, 284, 108–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Scalbert, A. Antimicrobial properties of tannins. Phytochemistry 1991, 30, 3875–3883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Taguri, T.; Tanaka, T.; Kouno, I. Antimicrobial Activity of 10 Different Plant Polyphenols against Bacteria Causing Food-Borne Disease. Available online: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bpb/27/12/27_12_1965/_article (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  38. Toivanen, M.; Huttunen, S.; Duricová, J.; Soininen, P.; Laatikainen, R.; Loimaranta, V.; Haataja, S.; Finne, J.; Lapinjoki, S.; Tikkanen-Kaukanen, C. Screening of binding activity of Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus agalactiae and Streptococcus suis to berries and juices. Phytother Res. 2010, 24 (Suppl. 1), S95–S101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Toivanen, M.; Ryynänen, A.; Huttunen, S.; Duricová, J.; Riihinen, K.; Törrönen, R.; Lapinjoki, S.; Tikkanen-Kaukanen, C. Binding of Neisseria meningitidis pili to berry polyphenolic fractions. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 3120–3127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Lian, P.Y.; Maseko, T.; Rhee, M.; Ng, K. The antimicrobial effects of cranberry against Staphylococcus aureus. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2012, 18, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lacombe, A.; McGivney, C.; Tadepalli, S.; Sun, X.; Wu, V.C.H. The effect of American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) constituents on the growth inhibition, membrane integrity, and injury of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in comparison to Lactobacillus rhamnosus. Food Microbiol. 2013, 34, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Rauha, J.P.; Remes, S.; Heinonen, M.; Hopia, A.; Kähkönen, M.; Kujala, T.; Pihlaja, K.; Vuorela, H.; Vuorela, P. Antimicrobial effects of Finnish plant extracts containing flavonoids and other phenolic compounds. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2000, 56, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cesoniene, L.; Jasutiene, I.; Sarkinas, A. Phenolics and anthocyanins in berries of European cranberry and their antimicrobial activity. Medicina 2009, 45, 992–999. [Google Scholar]
  44. Chaman, S.; Syed, N.; Danish, Z.; Khan, F.Z. Phytochemical Analysis, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Effects of Sea Buckthorn Berries. Available online: https://europepmc.org/article/med/21715268 (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  45. Agoramoorthy, G.; Chandrasekaran, M.; Venkatesalu, V.; Hsu, M.J. Antibacterial and antifungal activities of fatty acid methyl esters of the blind-your-eye mangrove from India. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2007, 38, 739–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wani, T.A.; Wani, S.M.; Ahmad, M.; Ahmad, M.; Gani, A.; Masoodi, F.A. Bioactive profile, health benefits and safety evaluation of sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.): A review. Cogent Food Agric. 2016, 2, 1128519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lu, C.; Wang, H.; Lv, W.; Xu, P.; Zhu, J.; Xie, J.; Liu, B.; Lou, Z. Antibacterial properties of anthraquinones extracted from rhubarb against Aeromonas hydrophila. Fish. Sci. 2011, 77, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Heinonen, M. Antioxidant activity and antimicrobial effect of berry phenolics—A Finnish perspective. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2007, 51, 684–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Skrovankova, S.; Sumczynski, D.; Mlcek, J.; Jurikova, T.; Sochor, J. Bioactive Compounds and Antioxidant Activity in Different Types of Berries. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2015, 16, 24673–24706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Celli, G.B.; Ghanem, A.; Brooks, M.S.-L. A theoretical physiologically based pharmacokinetic approach for modeling the fate of anthocyanins in vivo. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 3197–3207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. He, Z.-H.; He, M.-F.; Ma, S.-C.; But, P.P.-H. Anti-angiogenic effects of rhubarb and its anthraquinone derivatives. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2009, 121, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Stephan, D.; Schmitt, A.; Carvalho, S.M.; Seddon, B.; Koch, E. Evaluation of biocontrol preparations and plant extracts for the control of Phytophthora infestans on potato leaves. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2005, 112, 235–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Püssa, T.; Raudsepp, P.; Kuzina, K.; Raal, A. Polyphenolic composition of roots and petioles of Rheum rhaponticum L. Phytochem. Anal. 2009, 20, 98–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kosikowska, U.; Smolarz, H.D.; Malm, A. Antimicrobial activity and total content of polyphenols of Rheum L. species growing in Poland. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2010, 5, 814–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Raudsepp, P.; Anton, D.; Roasto, M.; Meremäe, K.; Pedastsaar, P.; Mäesaar, M.; Raal, A.; Laikoja, K.; Püssa, T. The antioxidative and antimicrobial properties of the blue honeysuckle (Lonicera caerulea L.), Siberian rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum L.) and some other plants, compared to ascorbic acid and sodium nitrite. Food Control 2013, 31, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hasper, I.; Ventskovskiy, B.M.; Rettenberger, R.; Heger, P.W.; Riley, D.S.; Kaszkin-Bettag, M. Long-term efficacy and safety of the special extract ERr 731 of Rheum rhaponticum in perimenopausal women with menopausal symptoms. Menopause 2009, 16, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Raudsepp, P.; Koskar, J.; Anton, D.; Meremäe, K.; Kapp, K.; Laurson, P.; Bleive, U.; Kaldmäe, H.; Roasto, M.; Püssa, T. Antibacterial and antioxidative properties of different parts of garden rhubarb, blackcurrant, chokeberry and blue honeysuckle. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 2311–2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Scheme of the agar well diffusion method: C—control (physiological solution); 1—pure berries/vegetables (B/V) pomace; 2—with Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135 fermented beverages + B/V; 3—with Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122 fermented beverages + B/V; 3—with Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206 fermented beverages + B/V.
Figure 1. Scheme of the agar well diffusion method: C—control (physiological solution); 1—pure berries/vegetables (B/V) pomace; 2—with Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135 fermented beverages + B/V; 3—with Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122 fermented beverages + B/V; 3—with Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206 fermented beverages + B/V.
Beverages 06 00065 g001
Figure 2. Total number of inhibited pathogenic and opportunistic strains, inhibited by the tested berries/vegetables (gooseberries, chokeberries, cranberries, sea buckthorn, rhubarb) and their combinations with milk permeate fermented with Lactobacillu plantarum LUHS135, Lactobacillu plantarum LUHS122, and Lactobacillu faraginis LUHS206. Goo—gooseberries; Cho—chokeberries; Cra—cranberries; SeB—sea buckthorn; Rhu—rhubarb; 135—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135; 122—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122; 206—Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206.
Figure 2. Total number of inhibited pathogenic and opportunistic strains, inhibited by the tested berries/vegetables (gooseberries, chokeberries, cranberries, sea buckthorn, rhubarb) and their combinations with milk permeate fermented with Lactobacillu plantarum LUHS135, Lactobacillu plantarum LUHS122, and Lactobacillu faraginis LUHS206. Goo—gooseberries; Cho—chokeberries; Cra—cranberries; SeB—sea buckthorn; Rhu—rhubarb; 135—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135; 122—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122; 206—Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206.
Beverages 06 00065 g002
Table 1. Inhibition zones of gooseberries and the ones with Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, and Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206 fermented beverage combinations against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
Table 1. Inhibition zones of gooseberries and the ones with Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, and Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206 fermented beverage combinations against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
Inhibition Zones, mm
Pathogenic and Opportunistic Bacteria Strains
B/V and LAB Klebsiella pneumoniaeSalmonella enterica 24 SPn06Pseudomonas aeruginosa 17-331Acinetobacter baumannii 17-380Proteus mirabilisMRSA M87foxEnterococcus
faecalis 86
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Bacillus cereus
18 01
Streptococcus mutansEnterobacter cloacaeCitrobacter freundiiStreptococcus epidermisStaphylococcus haemolyticusPasteurella multocida
Goond12.3 ± 0.2 b14.2 ± 0.6 a12.1 ± 0.3 c13.3 ± 0.7 a13.9 ± 0.2 bndndnd23.0 ± 0.4 andnd19.3 ± 0.2 b15.2 ± 0.3 b25.6 ± 0.4 c
Goo
135
nd11.1 ± 0.3 a14.2 ± 0.4 a11.3 ± 0.4 b13.4 ± 0.1 a14.2 ± 0.4 b11.6 ± 0.6 andnd23.2 ± 0.6 a12.6 ± 0.6 b12.3 ± 0.4 a14.4 ± 0.3 a15.3 ± 0.6 b23.4 ± 0.5 b
Goo
122
nd13.2 ± 0.1 c14.4 ± 0.4 a9.1 ± 0.2 a12.3 ± 0.4 a12.3 ± 0.8 and12.6 ± 0.311.3 ± 0.624.0 ± 0.3 a12.4 ± 0.4 b11.1 ± 0.3 a17.5 ± 0.2 b15.0 ± 0.4 b24.6 ± 0.3 b
Goo
206
nd11.1 ± 0.6 a14.9 ± 0.7 a9.2 ± 0.3 a11.6 ± 0.3 a14.3 ± 0.6 b15.6 ± 0.4 bndnd24.3 ± 0.7 a10.0 ± 0.6 a11.6 ± 0.4 a18.0 ± 0.6 b13.3 ± 0.6 a21.2 ± 0.3 a
Images of the Inhibition Zones
Beverages 06 00065 i001 Beverages 06 00065 i002 Beverages 06 00065 i003
Salmonella enterica 24 SPn06·Pseudomonas aeruginosa 17-331Acinetobacter baumanni 17-380
Beverages 06 00065 i004 Beverages 06 00065 i005 Beverages 06 00065 i006
Proteus mirabilisMRSA M87foxEnterobacter cloacae
Beverages 06 00065 i007 Beverages 06 00065 i008 Beverages 06 00065 i009
Citrobacter freundiiStaphylococcus epidermidisStaphylococcus haemolyticus
a–c Mean values with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05); MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; 135—Lactobacillu plantarum LUHS135, 122—Lactobacillu plantarum LUHS122, 206—Lactobacillu faraginis LUHS206; Goo—gooseberries; nd—not determined.
Table 2. Inhibition zones (mm) of pure chokeberry pomace and beverages against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
Table 2. Inhibition zones (mm) of pure chokeberry pomace and beverages against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
B/V and LAB Inhibition Zones, mm
Pathogenic and Opportunistic Bacteria Strains
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Enterococcus
faecalis 86
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Bacillus cereus
18 01
Chondndndndndndndnd10.6 ± 0.4 a11.4 ± 0.4 andndndnd20.3 ± 0.6 b
Cho
135
ndndndndndndndnd11.3 ± 0.9 a14.6 ± 0.9 bndnd11.3 ± 0.3 a10.2 ± 0.5 a20.4 ± 0.5 b
Cho
122
ndndndndndndndnd10.4 ± 0.2 a16.3 ± 0.4 cndndnd12.3 ± 0.4 b18.8 ± 0.4 a
Cho
206
ndndndndndndndnd11.3 ± 0.3 a20.9 ± 0.7 dndnd14.2 ± 0.2 b12.4 ± 0.7 b20.0 ± 0.6 b
Images of the Inhibition Zones
Beverages 06 00065 i010 Beverages 06 00065 i011
Bacillus cereusStreptococcus mutans
Beverages 06 00065 i012 Beverages 06 00065 i013
Staphylococcus haemolyticusPasteurella multocida
a–d Mean values with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05); MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; 135—Lactobacillu plantarum LUHS135, 122—Lactobacillu plantarum LUHS122, 206—Lactobacillu faraginis LUHS206; Cho—chokeberries; nd—not determined.
Table 3. Inhibition zones (mm) of pure cranberry pomace and beverages against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
Table 3. Inhibition zones (mm) of pure cranberry pomace and beverages against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
B/V and LAB Inhibition Zones, mm
Pathogenic and Opportunistic Bacteria Strains
Klebsiella pneumoniaeSalmonella enterica 24 SPn06Pseudomonas aeruginosa 17-331Acinetobacter baumannii 17-380Proteus mirabilisMRSA M87foxEnterococcus
faecalis 86
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Bacillus cereus
18 01
Streptococcus mutansEnterobacter cloacaeCitrobacter freundiiStreptococcus epidermisStaphylococcus haemolyticusPasteurella multocida
Crandnd17.8 ± 0.7 c10.6 ± 0.3 and15.0 ± 0.6 cndnd17.2 ± 0.4 b25.6 ± 0.7 b11.7 ± 0.7 a11.2 ± 0.3 a19.9 ± 0.8 b16.6 ± 0.9 a26.3 ± 0.5 a
Cra
135
ndnd17.9 ± 0.8 c9.2 ± 0.2 and14.6 ± 0.5 bndnd16.6 ± 0.9 b21.3 ± 0.3 a12.0 ± 0.4 a11.9 ± 0.7 a16.8 ± 0.4 a19.3 ± 0.4 b27.4 ± 0.6 a
Cra
122
ndnd12.2 ± 0.4 a11.3 ± 0.1 bnd15.3 ± 0.3 cndnd14.4 ± 0.8 a25.5 ± 0.4 b12.3 ± 0.3 a11.0 ± 0.9 a15.0 ± 0.9 a17.1 ± 0.5 a26.6 ± 0.4 a
Cho
206
ndnd15.1 ± 0.3 b12.0 ± 0.4 bnd12.2 ± 0.4 andnd14.5 ± 0.4 a20.6 ± 0.7 a11.1 ± 0.9 a11.4 ± 0.4 a15.3 ± 0.4 a16.2 ± 0.6 a26.9 ± 0.3 a
Images of the Inhibition Zones
Beverages 06 00065 i014 Beverages 06 00065 i015 Beverages 06 00065 i016
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 17-331Acinetobacter baumanni 17-380MRSA M87fox
Beverages 06 00065 i017 Beverages 06 00065 i018 Beverages 06 00065 i019
Bacillus cereus 18 01Enterobacter cloacaeCitrobacter freundii
Beverages 06 00065 i020 Beverages 06 00065 i021 Beverages 06 00065 i022
Staphylococcus epidermidisStaphylococcus haemolyticusPasteurella multocida
a–c Mean values with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05); MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; 135—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, 122—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, 206—Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206; Cra—cranberries; nd—not determined.
Table 4. Inhibition zones (mm) of pure sea buckthorn pomace and beverages against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
Table 4. Inhibition zones (mm) of pure sea buckthorn pomace and beverages against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
B/V and LAB Inhibition Zones, mm
Pathogenic and Opportunistic Bacteria Strains
Klebsiella pneumoniaeSalmonella enterica 24 SPn06Pseudomonas aeruginosa 17-331Acinetobacter baumannii 17-380Proteus mirabilisMRSA M87foxEnterococcus
faecalis 86
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Bacillus cereus
18 01
Streptococcus mutansEnterobacter cloacaeCitrobacter freundiiStreptococcus epidermisStaphylococcus haemolyticusPasteurella multocida
SeBndnd12.0 ± 0.6 a12.0 ± 0.4 a15.9 ± 0.2 a15.6 ± 0.4 a11.3 ± 0.9 and18.3 ± 0.4 b22.8 ± 0.6 a12.0 ± 0.6 b10.4 ± 0.4 b20.3 ± 0.4 b17.6 ± 0.3 a25.2 ± 0.3 a
SeB
135
ndnd12.3 ± 0.7 a11.0 ± 0.7 a17.8 ± 0.3 b15.3 ± 0.7 a17.2 ± 0.7 bnd15.5 ± 0.6 a23.7 ± 0.4 a10.2 ± 0.2 a9.5 ± 0.3 a16.3 ± 0.3 a18.4 ± 0.5 b26.6 ± 0.3 b
SeB
122
nd13.1 ± 0.413.3 ± 0.9 a12.1 ± 0.6 a17.9 ± 0.4 b15.4 ± 0.8 a17.1 ± 0.3 bnd18.9 ± 0.3 b23.5 ± 0.5 a9.6 ± 0.4 a11.6 ± 0.6 c16.6 ± 0.4 a18.8 ± 0.6 b26.1 ± 0.2 b
SeB
206
ndnd12.2 ± 0.3 a15.5 ± 0.3 b16.2 ± 0.6 a14.3 ± 0.9 a16.3 ± 0.5 bnd16.4 ± 0.2 a23.6 ± 0.4 a10.3 ± 0.4 a10.3 ± 0.4 b17.7 ± 0.4 a17.0 ± 0.4 a26.0 ± 0.4 b
Images of the Inhibition Zones
Beverages 06 00065 i023 Beverages 06 00065 i024 Beverages 06 00065 i025
Pseudomonas aeruginosa 17-331Acinetobacter baumanni 17-380Proteus mirabilis
Beverages 06 00065 i026 Beverages 06 00065 i027 Beverages 06 00065 i028
MRSA M87foxBacillus cereus 18 01Enterobacter cloacae
Beverages 06 00065 i029 Beverages 06 00065 i030 Beverages 06 00065 i031
Citrobacter freundiiStaphylococcus epidermidisStaphylococcus haemolyticus
a–c Mean values with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05); MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; 135—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, 122—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, 206—Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206; SeB—sea buckthorn; nd—not determined.
Table 5. Inhibition zones (mm) of pure rhubarb pomace and beverages against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
Table 5. Inhibition zones (mm) of pure rhubarb pomace and beverages against pathogenic opportunistic microorganisms.
B/V and LAB Inhibition Zones, mm
Pathogenic and Opportunistic Bacteria Strains
Klebsiella pneumoniaeSalmonella enterica 24 SPn06Pseudomonas aeruginosa 17-331Acinetobacter baumannii 17-380Proteus mirabilisMRSA M87foxEnterococcus
faecalis 86
Enterococcus
faecium 103
Bacillus cereus
18 01
Streptococcus mutansEnterobacter cloacaeCitrobacter freundiiStreptococcus epidermisStaphylococcus haemolyticusPasteurella multocida
Rhundnd12.0 ± 0.6 a12.0 ± 0.4 a15.9 ± 0.2 a15.6 ± 0.4 a11.3 ± 0.9 and18.3 ± 0.4 c22.8 ± 0.6 a12.0 ± 0.6 c10.4 ± 0.4 a20.3 ± 0.4 c17.6 ± 0.3 a25.2 ± 0.3 a
Rhu
135
ndnd12.3 ± 0.7 a11.0 ± 0.7 a17.8 ± 0.3 b15.3 ± 0.7 a17.2 ± 0.7 bnd15.5 ± 0.6 a23.7 ± 0.4 a10.2 ± 0.2 b9.5 ± 0.3 a16.3 ± 0.3 a18.4 ± 0.5 b26.6 ± 0.3 b
Rhu
122
nd13.1 ± 0.413.3 ± 0.9 a12.1 ± 0.6 a17.9 ± 0.4 b15.4 ± 0.8 a17.1 ± 0.3 bnd18.9 ± 0.3 c23.5 ± 0.5 a9.6 ± 0.4 a11.6 ± 0.6 b16.6 ± 0.4 a18.8 ± 0.6 b26.1 ± 0.2 b
Rhu
206
ndnd12.2 ± 0.3 a15.5 ± 0.3 b16.2 ± 0.6 a14.3 ± 0.9 a16.3 ± 0.5 bnd16.4 ± 0.2 b23.6 ± 0.4 a10.3 ± 0.4 a10.3 ± 0.4 a17.7 ± 0.4 b17.0 ± 0.4 a26.0 ± 0.4 a
Images of the Inhibition Zones
Beverages 06 00065 i032 Beverages 06 00065 i033
Streptococcus mutansStaphylococcus epidermidis
Beverages 06 00065 i034 Beverages 06 00065 i035
Staphylococcus haemolyticusPasteurella multocida
a–c Mean values with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05); MRSA—Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus; 135—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS135, 122—Lactobacillus plantarum LUHS122, 206—Lactobacillus faraginis LUHS206; Rhu—rhubarb; nd—not determined.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop