Antimicrobial activity of oil bitter orange

The oil of bitter orange was tested for its antimicrobial activity against clinical isolates of different bacterial and fungal species. The oil was shown to possess antimicrobial activities against multiply resistant clinical isolates of Staphylococcus aureus [46 isolates], Escherichia coli [37 isolates] and Pseudomonas aeruginosa [36 isolates]. Among the tested bacteria, the Gram-positive isolates were more sensitive to the oil than the Gram-negative ones. The oil was shown to possess fungistatic and fungicidal properties towards clinical isolates of C and ida albicans as well as four clinical isolates of dermatophytes [two isolates of Epidermophyton floccosum and two isolates of Trichophyton rubrum]. The in vitro antifungal activity of the oil was found to be comparatively higher than its antibacterial activity. Preliminary clinical trials on the value of the oil in the treatment of dermatomycosis were promising

Biostatic activity of binary mistures of local anesthetics and preservatives

The biostatic activity of binary mixtures of five different preservatives with cinchocaine, Amethocaine, amylocaine, Lignocaine, and procaine was determined against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The preservatives used were Cetrimide, Chlorhexidine, Chlorocresol, Phenoxyethanol and phenylmercuric nitrate. The sensitivity of the three test organisms towards the different combinations varied to some extent. While 19,17 and 18 out of 25 combinations were synergistic with E. coli, S. Aureus, and S. cerevisiae respectively, 2,6 and 8 combinations were antagonistic against the same organisms. Out of the total 75 local anesthetic- preservative combinations studied, 55 showed synergistic biostatic activity while 12 displayed antagonism. The remaining 8 combinations were additive in action. The number of synergistic combinations were the following: amylocaine, 9; procaine, 9 Amethocaine, 11; cinchocaine, 12 and Lignocaine 13. More antagonistic combinations were observed with procaine [5], followed by amylocaine [3], then the other three local anesthetics. Regarding the preservative component of the local anesthetic-preservative combinations, those containing chlorocresol or Phenoxyethanol were mainly synergistic [13- 14 combinations out of 15 each] and showing no antagonism. Although local anesthetics mixed with Cetrimide, Chlorhexidine or phenylmercuric nitrate had synergistic combinations, their antagonistic ones were 1,5 and 6 respectively for the preservatives mentioned

Biostatic activity of binary mixtures of local anesthetics and preservatives

The biostatic activity of binary mixtures of five different preservatives with cinchocaine, amethocaine, amylocaine, lignocaine, and procaine was determined against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Saccharomyces cervesiae. The preservatives used were cetrimide, chlorhexidine, chlorocresol, phenoxyethanol and phenylmercuric nitrate. The sensitivity of the three test organisms towards the different combinations varied to some extent. While 19, 17 and 18 out of 25 combinations were synergistic with E. coli, S. aureus and S. cervesiae, respectively, 2, 6 and 8 combinations were antagonistic against the same organisms. Out of the total 75 local anesthetic preservative combinations studied, 55 showed synergistic biostatic activity, while 12 displayed antagonism. The remaining 8 combinations were additive in action. The number of synergistic combinations were as follows: Amylocaine, 9, procaine, 9, amethocaine, 11, cinchocaine, 12 and lignocaine 13. More antagonistic combinations were observed with procaine [5], followed by amylocaine [3], then the other three local anesthetics. Regarding the preservative component of the local anesthetic preservative combinations, those containing chlorocresol or phenoxyethanol were mainly synergistic [13-14 combinations out of 15 each] and showing no antagonism. Although local anesthetics mixed with cetrimide, chlorhexidine or phenylmercuric nitrate had synergistic combinations, there antagonistic ones were 1, 5 and 6, respectively, for the preservatives mentioned