Studies on Antimicrobial Properties of Vegetable, Fruit & Spice ...

May 2013- July 2013, Vol. 3, No. 3; 1886-1899. E- ISSN: 2249 –1929Journal of Chemical, Biological and Physical SciencesAn International Peer Review E-3 Journal of SciencesAvailable online atwww.jcbsc.orgSection B: Biological ScienceCODEN (USA): JCBPATResearch article<strong>Studies</strong> on Antimicrobial Properties of Vegetable, Fruit &Spice Peels and Shells# Suvro Saha, ^Uma Ghosh and *John Barnabas*#Post Graduate-Department of Microbiology,*Centre for R &D in Life Sciences; Microbiology Research Laboratory,Dayananda Sagar Institutions, Dr.C.D.Sagar Centre for Life Sciences,Shavige Malleshwara Hills, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore-560078, India^Food Technology and Biochemical Engineering,Jadavpur University, Kolkata-700032, IndiaReceived: 27 May 2013; Revised: 18 June 2013; Accepted: 21 June 2013Abstract: The current study examines the extraction and assay of antimicrobialmetabolites from peels and shells of vegetables, fruits and spices. Peels and shells areprimarily discarded into environment as agro waste, nevertheless in our studies weinitiate that these may well be explored for therapeutics, which could be economic,eco-friendly, presumed not to cause side effects as they originate from a naturalsource and therefore also benefit the waste management. Peels and shells were dried,powdered, followed by extraction with solvents such as acetone, methanol, hot waterand cold water. Our findings report the antimicrobial effect of ten peels and shellsagainst six species of bacteria and three species of fungi. The significance of ourwork also goes to show that all peels and shells except for the orange peels wereprobably the earliest investigation of this sort to survey such wastes for antimicrobialproperties. Our findings demonstrate that, maximum antibacterial and antifungalaction were experiential to be found by cold-water extraction of jackfruit againstProteus vulgaris and Aspergillus niger respectivelyKey words: Antimicrobials, peels, shells, vegetables, fruits.1886 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899

<strong>Studies</strong> on….INTRODUCTIONSuvro Saha et.al.The antibacterial properties of plant extracts have been a searing area for investigators ofmicrobiology, pharmacology and related fields. Although there is a great sum of progress incontaining infectious diseases and the development of new drugs, diseases caused by variouspathogenic microorganisms are still contemplated to be a major threat to public health 1 . Thesepathogens have become resistant to many traditionally used antimicrobial agents. In the past fewdecades it is observed that there is a dramatic increase in microbial resistance to antimicrobial agents,therefore this has led the scientific community to ascertain new antimicrobials and consequently toformulate new drugs. A global problem of mortality due to drug-resistant infections and relatedillnesses is found on the rise at an alarming rate. An estimated twenty five thousand patients succumbto death as a result of antibiotic resistant in Europe each year and embody a cost of $1·85 billion 3 andin the USA an estimated $20 billion a year 4 alone and so in the Asian countries and the other parts ofthe world. It is thought that the antimicrobial resistance is one of the three greatest threats to humanhealth by The World Health Organization. The nosocomial infections are thought to be more severeworldwide meritoriously escape the effects of ratified antibacterial drugs 5-7 . This nature of antibioticpipeline struggle may actually alter the exercise of medicine as it is known.It is comprehended that the operational life span of any antibiotic is limited, for this reason there isgrowing interest of clinical microbiologists for antimicrobial plant extracts as these phytochemicalsmay find their way into the store of antimicrobial drugs recommended by physicians, several of whichhave already being tested on humans. It is exciting to note that, two or three antibiotics resulting frommicroorganisms are propelled each year 8 . Of late, the plant compounds their extracts are relishingboundless popularity and the sales of these medicines increase enormously. Factually, plants offer anatural source of creativeness for novel drug compounds, as plant derived medicines have made hugeimpacts on human health and well-being. Over fifty percent of the western drugs are understood tohave derived from plant materials 9 moreover these antibiotics made from these sources have not beenfound to cause side effects and are also found to be less expensive 10,11.Peels and shells of vegetables, fruits and spices are discarded as garbage and a great amount of suchwastes are produced during industrial processing. Most of the time these wastes are utilized asbiofertilizers but using this agro waste therapeutically is an innovative concept which is graduallygaining acceptance moreover, these are novel, natural, eco-friendly and biodegradable. These highlyeconomic sources for deriving antimicrobials, can be used in prevention of diseases caused bypathogenic microbes. It was estimated that only citrus waste amount was to approximately 350,000tons per year. This is probably a new alternative way of waste management. The current work focuseson the extraction and assay of antimicrobial components from peels and shells of vegetables, fruitsand spices. Peels and shells: orange (Citrus sinensis) peels, stone apple (Aeglem armelos) shells,coconut (Cocos nucifera) shells, pea (Pisum sativum) peels, jack fruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus)peels, Banana Inflorescence peel, pumpkin (Cucurbit apepol) peels, watermelon (Citrullus lanatus)peels, black cardamom (Amomum subulatum) peels, nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) shells. MicrobialCultures: Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus subtilis, Proteusvulgaris, Lactococcus lactis, Aspergillus niger, Candida albicans, Sporotrichum pruinosum.MATERIALS AND METHODSPlant Materials: Fresh samples of fruits, spices and nuts were obtained from industrial wastes. Theywere thoroughly washed with tap water. After air-drying, the peels were separated and cut into small1887 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.pieces. In case of coconut and stone apple the shells were neatly shaven. Then these peels and shellswere set aside for drying in sunlight for 24 hours and shifted to an hot air oven at 40 0 CMicrobial Strains & Culture Preparation:Bacterial Strains used: Staphylococcus aureus, Proteus vulgaris, Lactococcus lactis, Bacillussubtilis, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia.Fungal strains used: Sporotrichum pruinosum, Candida albicans and Aspergillus niger.The bacterial cultures were maintained on nutrient agar media (pH-7.0). They were sub-culturedweekly and subsequently stored at 4 0 C. The fungal cultures were maintained on Czapek Dox Agarmedia (pH-5.6) and they were sub-cultured weekly and subsequently stored at 4 0 C for another 24hours. After complete drying, peels and shells were subjected to homogenization to make finepowder. These powders were sealed in air tight bottles. They were then used for solvent extraction.Extraction Procedure: The dried powder of peels and shells were extracted individually by usingsolvents such as Acetone, Methanol, Hot water & Cold Water. The powder and solvent were mixed in1:10 (Powder: Solvent) ratio in a conical flask and the flasks were plugged tightly. The temperaturefor the hot water extraction and cold water extraction were maintained at 50 0 C and room temperaturerespectively. After 24 hours, these extracts were centrifuged at 4000rpm for 5 minutes and thesupernatant was collected and this supernatant was subjected for lyophilization to evaporate thesolvent. Then the resulting dried crude extract was used in a concentration of 3mg/ml by using sterilewater for antimicrobial susceptibility testing.Bacterial and Fungal Strains & Culture Preparation: The bacterial strains used in the study wereStaphylococcus aureus, Proteus vulgaris, Lactococcus lactis, Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli,Klebsiella pneumonia. The fungal strains were Sporotrichum pruinosum, Candida albicans andAspergillus niger.The bacterial cultures were maintained on nutrient agar media (pH7.0). They were sub-culturedweekly and subsequently stored at 4 0 C. The fungal cultures were preserved on Czapek Dox Agarmedia (pH 5.6) and were sub-cultured weekly and subsequently stored at 4 0 CANTIMICROBIAL ACTIVITY ASSAYThe antimicrobial activity of the obtained crude samples was performed by Agar Well Diffusionmethod which is also known as Kirby Bauer or Cup Plate method.Antibacterial Activity: Sterile nutrient agar media was poured onto the sterile petriplates and allowedto solidify. After solidification 20µl of each bacterial culture was spread with a sterile glass spreaderon respective plate labeled earlier as Staphylococcus aureus, Proteus vulgaris, Lactococcus lactis,Bacillus subtilis, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia. Using a sterile cup-borer, wells of diameterof 17.78mm were made and labeled on the back of the plate. To this, 20µl of each samples (3mg/ml)was dispensed in respective labeled wells. Bacterial plates were incubated at 37 0 C for 24hours. Afterthis the antibacterial activity of each extract was expressed in terms of mean of diameter, for the zoneof inhibition (mm) formed by addition of each extract.Antifungal Activity: Sterile Czapek Dox Agar media was transferred onto the sterile petri plates andallowed to solidify. After solidification, with a sterile glass spreader, 20µl of each fungal culture wasspread on respective plate labeled earlier as Sporotrichum pruinosum, Candida albicans andAspergillus niger. using a sterile cup-borer, wells of diameter of 17.78mm were prepared and labeledat the flipside of the plate. 20µl of each sample (3mg/ml) was dispensed in respective labeled wells.1888 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.The fungal plates were incubated at 30 0 C for 48 hours. After 48 hours of incubation the antifungalactivity of each extract expressed in terms of the mean of diameter of zone of inhibition (mm)produced by each extract.1889 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….RESULTS:Suvro Saha et.al.A.1-Orange Peel Methanol Extract,A.3- Orange Peel Hot Water Extract,B.1- Bael Shell Methanol Extract,B.3- Bael Shell Hot Water Extract,C.1- Pea peel Methanol Extract, ,C.3- Pea peel Hot Water Extract,D.1- Coconut shell Methanol Extract,D.3- Coconut shell Hot Water Extract,E.1- Jackfruit Peel Methanol Extract,E.3- Jackfruit Peel Hot Water Extract,F.1- Banana Inflorescence Peel Methanol Extract;F.3- Banana Inflorescence Peel Hot Water Extract,G.1- Pumpkin Peel Methanol Extract,G.3- Pumpkin Peel Hot Water Extract,H.1- Watermelon Peel Methanol Extract,H.3- Watermelon Peel Hot Water Extract,I.1- Black Cardamom Peel Methanol Extract,I.3- Black Cardamom Peel Hot Water Extract,J.1- Nutmeg Peel Methanol ExtractJ.3- Nutmeg Peel Methanol Extract,A.2- Orange Peel Acetone Extract,A.4- Orange Peel Cold Water Extract;B.2- Bael Shell Acetone Extract,B.4- Bael Shell Cold Water Extract;C.2- Pea peel Acetone ExtractC.4- Pea peel Cold Water Extract;D.2- Coconut shell Acetone Extract,D.4- Coconut shell Cold Water Extract;E.2- Jackfruit Peel Acetone Extract,E.4- Jackfruit Peel cold Water ExtractF.2- Banana Inflorescence Peel Acetone Extract,F.4- Banana Inflorescence Cold Water ExtractG.2- Pumpkin Peel Acetone Extract,G.4- Pumpkin Peel Cold Water Extract;H.2- Watermelon Peel Acetone Extract,H.4- Watermelon Peel Cold Water Extract;I.2- Black Cardamom Peel Acetone Extract,I.4- Black Cardamom Peel Cold Water Extract;J.2- Nutmeg Peel Methanol ExtractJ.4- Nutmeg Peel Methanol Extract1890 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.,1891 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.1892 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.1893 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.1894 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.DISCUSSIONAmongst the samples used in previous work, only the orange peel had been used for antimicrobialsubstance extraction by several previous investigators 12-16 . Our studies which include a whole range ofpeels and shells indicate that, certain peels were found demonstrating higher zone of inhibition thanthe earlier studied orange peels. The above four solvents utilized in the studies, have been used earlierby Kumar et al. 13, 15 ; Amandeep et al. 14 , Akhilesh et al. 12 . After lyophilization the extracts weresubjected to antibacterial and antifungal susceptibility assay by agar well diffusion method.In Fig.1 Effect of the extracts on Escherichia coli; The zone of inhibition for methanol and cold waterextracts of orange peel were respectively 46.48mm and 33.78mm against Escherichia coli but othertwo extracts of orange peels were not effective against this bacteria. The inhibition zone for themethanol, hot water and cold water extracts of stone apple shell were respectively 55.58mm,51.56mm and 33.78mm but the acetone extracts of this sample was not effective against E.coli. Themethanol extracts of the stone apple shell demonstrated a maximum inhibition zone among all thesamples used in this work. All the extracts i.e. methanol, acetone, hot and cold water extracts of peapeel were effective, their zone of inhibition demonstrated by these four extracts of the pea peels wererespectively 33.02mm, 33.02mm, 28.70mm, 23.62mm. Amongst the four extracts of coconut shell,only methanol extracts was found effective (49.78mm). 37.08mm of inhibition zone was observed forcold water extract of jackfruit but no inhibition zone was observed for the three extracts of jackfruitpeel. 30.48mm and 43.18mm of zone of inhibition was observed respectively for the hot and coldwater extracts banana inflorescence peel and other two extracts were not effective against E.coli. Theinhibition zone for the methanol and hot water extracts of pumpkin were respectively 27.94mm and35.56mm but no zone was observed by the two extracts of pumpkin peel. Among four extracts ofwatermelon peel, only methanol extracts were capable to inhibiting the growth (32.04mm) of E.coli.The inhibition zone of the extracts of methanol and cold water extracts of black cardamom were24.38mm and 38.86mm respectively and two other extract of this sample were not observed to beeffective. In case of nutmeg, the acetone extract (43.18mm) and cold water extract (38.1mm) wereeffective but inhibition zone was not shown by other two extracts of this sample.Fig.2 Effect of extracts on Klebsiella pneumonia: 43.94mm and 38.1mm of zone of inhibition wasdemonstrated by acetone and cold water extract of orange peel against K. pneumonia and two extractsof this extract were not effective against this bacteria. The inhibition zone observed for the twoextracts i.e. methanol and cold water extracts of stone apple were respectively 43.18mm and27.94mm. Out of four extracts of pea peel and coconut shell, the inhibition zone was observed onlyfor methanol extracts (35.56mm and 48.26mm respectively). The maximum zone was produced bymethanol extracts of coconut shell against K. pneumonia. The zone of inhibition which were observedfor hot and cold water extracts of jackfruit peel, were 26.16mm and 21.84mm respectively but noinhibition zone was produced by other two extract of jack fruit. Among the four extracts of bananainflorescence peel, the inhibition zone was produced by hot water extract (27.94mm). Except coldwater extracts of pumpkin peel the inhibition zones were observed for three extracts i.e. methanolextract (38.1mm), acetone extract (21.84mm) and hot water extract (40.64mm). No inhibition zonewas observed for all four extracts of watermelon peel. Inhibition zone of 38.1mm and 34.54mm wereobserved respectively for hot and cold water extract of black cardamom and other two extracts did notdemonstrate inhibition zone. Amongst the four extracts of nutmeg, the zone was observed formethanol extracts i.e. 23.62mm.In Fig.3 Effect of extracts on Staphylococcus aureus: except the acetone extract of orange peel, theother zone of inhibition were produced by remaining three extracts i.e. methanol extracts (27.94mm),hot and cold extracts (38.86mm and 37.08mm respectively). Except the acetone extract of stone apple,1895 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.the zone of inhibition were 49.78mm, 43.18mm and 35.56mm respectively for methanol whichdemonstrated a maximum zone, hot and cold water extracts of stone apple against S. aureus. None ofthe four extracts of the pea peel produced inhibition zone. The inhibition zones were producedrespectively by methanol extracts (47.75mm), acetone extracts (29.46mm) and hot water extracts(20.32mm) of coconut shell but no zone was observed for cold water extract of this sample. 30.48mmand 33.78mm of inhibition zone was observed respectively for the acetone and hot water extract ofjackfruit peel and no zone of inhibition was seen for other two extract of this sample. Among the fourextracts of banana inflorescence, the inhibition zone (32.04mm) was observed only for hot waterextract of this sample against S. aureus. Apart from cold water extract of pumpkin peel, the inhibitionzones were observed for methanol extracts (26.16mm), acetone extract (34.54mm) and hot waterextract (38.1mm). Inhibition zone of 33.02mm and 24.38mm were observed respectively for methanoland hot water extract of watermelon peel but remaining two extracts of this sample did not produceany observable zone of inhibition. Among the four extracts of black cardamom, inhibition zone(36.32mm) was observed only for methanol extract of this sample. Among the four extracts ofnutmeg, the zone was only observed for cold water extracts i.e. 42.16mm.In Fig.4 Effect of extracts on Bacillus subtilis; the zone of inhibition was observed by all four extractsi.e. methanol extract (40.64mm), acetone extract (30.48mm), hot water extract (26.16mm) and coldwater extract (45.72mm) of orange peel. Apart from acetone extract of stone apple shell, the zone ofinhibition was observed as 48.26mm, 39.62mm and 38.86mm respectively by methanol extract, coldand hot water extract of this sample; the highest zone of inhibition was shown by the methanol extractof stone apple. Among the four extracts of pea peel, the inhibition zone (40.64mm) was only observedfor methanol extract of this sample. Out of four extracts of coconut shell, only one extract i.e. acetoneextract was effective against B.subtilis; giving a inhibition zone of 21.84mm.Among the four extractsof jackfruit peel, the inhibition zone (38.1mm) was only seen for cold water extract of this sample.The inhibition zone of 42.16mm and 43.18mm was detected respectively for acetone and cold waterextract of banana inflorescence but no zone of inhibition for remaining two extract of this sample.Except cold water extracts of pumpkin peel, inhibition zone was observed for rest of the three extractsi.e. methanol extract (19.30mm), acetone extract (39.62mm) and hot water extract (38.86mm). Amongthe four extracts of watermelon peel, the inhibition zone (33.78mm) was only seen for hot waterextract of this sample. The zone of inhibition of 47.24mm and 38.1mm was shown by two extracts i.e.hot and cold water extracts of black cardamom out of four extract and no zone was detected forremaining two extracts of the sample. Among the four extracts of nutmeg shell, the inhibition zone(27.94mm) was only seen for methanol extract of this sample.Fig.5 Effect of extracts on Proteus vulgaris; the zone of inhibition of 23.62mm and 28.70mm wereobserved respectively for acetone and cold water extract of orange peel but the other two extractswere not to be effective against the organism. Except the acetone extract of the stone apple shell, theinhibition zone was observed as 41.40mm, 40.64mm, 36.32mm respectively for the methanol, hot andcold water extract of the sample. In case of pea peel, the inhibition zone (38.1mm) was only detectedfor methanol extract of pea peel. Apart from cold water extract of coconut shell remaining threeextracts are effective against P. vulgaris; the zones were observed as 49.02mm, 28.70mm and39.62mm respectively for methanol, acetone and hot water extract of the sample. Among the fourextracts of jackfruit peel, the inhibition zone (84.58mm) was only observed for cold water extract ofthis sample. The inhibition zone was not observed for all extracts of banana inflorescence and watermelon peel against P. vulgaris. In case of pumpkin peel, the inhibition zone (36.32mm) was onlydetected for methanol extract of pumpkin peel. Except the acetone extract of the black cardamompeel, the inhibition zone was observed as 75.18mm, 35.56mm, 48.26mm respectively for themethanol, hot and cold water extract of the sample. The zone of inhibition of 40.64mm and 38.1mm1896 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.were observed respectively for the methanol and cold water extract of nutmeg shell but the other twoextracts were not found to be effective against the organism.In Fig.6 Effect of extracts on Lactococcus lactis; among the four extracts of orange peel, the zone ofinhibition was observed for hot and cold water extract (28.70mm and 54.86mm respectively); themaximum zone was given by cold water extracts of the orange peel. Except the acetone extract of thestone apple shell, the inhibition zone was observed as 43.18mm, 37.08mm, 47.24mm respectively forthe methanol, hot and cold water extract of the sample. The inhibition zone for the methanol extract ofstone apple was same against K. pneumonia and L. lactis. Among the four extracts of pea peel andcoconut shell, the inhibition zone (30.48mm and 33.78mm) was only seen for methanol extract ofthese two samples. The inhibition zone (18.54mm) was observed only for the cold water extract ofjackfruit peel sample. 29.46mm and 34.54mm inhibition zones are observed respectively for hot andcold water extracts of banana inflorescence peel but no zone of inhibition was seen for other twoextracts of this sample. Among the four extracts of the pumpkin peel, the zones of inhibition weredetected for two extracts i.e. methanol extract (35.56mm) and hot water extract (45.72mm). No zoneof inhibition was produced by the four extracts of the watermelon peel. The inhibition zone by the hotwater extracts of black cardamom peel and methanol extract of nutmeg shell were observed as34.54mm and 27.94mm respectively but inhibition zone was not observed for the remaining extractsof these samples.Fig.7: Effect of extracts on Aspergillus niger; the zone of inhibition of 41.40mm, 23.62mm,21.84mm, 31.24mm, 49.02mm, 29.46mm, 30.48mm, 81.28mm (to note that highest zone of inhibitionwas observed against Aspergillus niger), 39.62mm were observed respectively for methanol andacetone extract of orange, methanol and acetone extract of stone apple, acetone and hot water extractof pea peel, hot water extract of coconut shell, cold water extracts of jackfruit peel and methanolextract of pumpkin peel.In Fig.8 Effect of extracts on Candida albicans; among the four extracts of the orange peel and stoneapple shell, the zone of inhibition were detected as 50.8mm, 54.86mm, 22.86mm, 55.88mm, 37.08mmrespectively for the methanol extract of the orange peel, acetone extract of stone apple shell and peapeel, cold water extract of jackfruit peel and banana inflorescence peel and area of inhibition was notobserved for other extracts of these five samples. The inhibition zone of 22.86mm and 41.40mm wasdetected respectively for methanol and acetone extracts of coconut shell but remaining two extractswere not effective against C.albicans. No zone of inhibition was observed for the pumpkin peelextracts against C. albicans. The inhibition zone of 74.42mm and 35.56mm was detected respectivelyfor acetone and hot water extracts of watermelon peel but remaining two extracts were not effectiveagainst the organism. Except for the acetone extract of black cardamom, the remaining three extractsi.e. methanol extract (45.72mm), hot and cold water extract (46.48mm and 40.64mm respectively)were effective. Zone of inhibition of 48.26mm, 68.58mm, 25.4mm were observed respectively formethanol, acetone and hot water extracts of nutmeg shell. The highest zone was given by acetoneextract of watermelon peel.Fig.9 Effect of extracts on Sporotrichum pruinosum, the zone of inhibition of 34.54mm, 66.04mm and56.64mm were observed respectively for the methanol, acetone and hot water extract of orange peelbut cold water extract was not observed against the organism. The zone of inhibition of 36.32mm,33.02mm and 66.04mm were observed respectively for the methanol, hot and cold water extract ofstone apple shell but acetone extract was not found effective against the organism. The zone ofinhibition of 39.62mm and 34.54mm were observed respectively for the hot and cold water extract ofpea peel and no zone of inhibition was observed for remaining two extract. Apart from methanolextract of coconut shell, the area of inhibition was observed respectively by acetone extracts1897 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.(43.94mm), hot water extract (38.86mm) and cold water extract (33.78mm). In case of jackfruit peel,the zone of inhibition was observed only for two extracts i.e. methanol extract (26.16mm) and coldwater extract (42.16mm). All the four extracts of banana inflorescence peel were not capable to inhibitthe growth of S. pruinosum. 54.86mm and 43.94mm zone of inhibition was observed respectively formethanol extract of pumpkin peel and acetone extract of watermelon peel but no zone of inhibition forremaining extracts of these two samples. The zone of inhibition of 49.78mm and 34.54mm weredetected for acetone and hot water extracts of black cardamom. Except the hot water extract ofnutmeg shell, the zone of inhibition was detected for methanol extract (40.64mm), acetone extract(38.1mm), and cold water extracts (38.86mm). The highest zone of inhibition was observed for bothacetone extract of orange peel and cold water extract of stone apple shell. From the aboveobservations of the results, it is therefore evident that the peels, shells of vegetable, fruits, spice andshells have caused significant levels of antimicrobial effects on selected bacteria and fungi.CONCLUSIONSThe experimental findings indicate that the peel extracts comprise imperative antibacterial andantifungal properties. Amongst the samples analyzed, the highest antibacterial and antifungal activitywas found with cold water extract of jackfruit peel against Proteus vulgaris and Aspergillus niger, andalso; methanol extract of black cardamom peel against Proteus vulgaris, methanol extract of stoneapple or bael shell against E.coli., acetone extract of watermelon peel against C. albicans, acetoneextract of nutmeg shell against C. albicans. Thus new aspects concerning the use of the wastestherapeutically are precisely interesting and attractive, as mentioned earlier, the present investigationfocuses on the possibility of using the peels and shells waste as a source of low-cost naturalantimicrobials. Except for the orange peel, antimicrobial activities of the other samples are thought tobe reported in a new perspective, thus opening up new frontiers for drug exploration. Further studiesare required to determine the nature of compounds responsible for the antimicrobial effects from theseextracts. The chances are elevated, that the study may lead to the formulation of an antimicrobial drugafter appropriate pharmacological evaluation and clinical trials. The above work on peels and shells,explore new therapeutic applications and also introduce an alternative method for agro-wastemanagement.REFERENCES1. Cosa P, Vlietink AJ, Berghe DV, Maes L. J Ethnopharmacol. 2006; 106: 290-302.2. Chopra I, Hodgson J, Metcaif B, Poste G. JAMA. 1996; 275: 401-403.3. Europe to boost development of new antimicrobial drugs. The Lancet, 2012, 16,379, 2229 -2230,4. Boucher HW, Talbot GH, Bradley JS, et al. Bad Bugs, No Drugs: no ESKAPE! an updatefrom the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin. Infect Dis 2009; 48:1–12.5. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control/European Medicines Agency JointTechnical Report. The bacterial challenge: time to react. EMEA-576176-2009.pdf. UpdatedSeptember 2009.6. David N. Gilbert, et al. The 10 ‘20 Initiative: Pursuing a Global Commitment to Develop 10New Antibacterial Drugs by 2020. Clin Infect Dis. 2010, 50 (8):1081-1083.7. Clark, A. M. 1996. Pharm. Res. 13:1996.8. Robbers, J., M. Speedie, and V. Tyler. Pharmacognosy and pharmaco biotechnology.Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore1, 996,. 1–14.9. Marjorie Murphy Cowan..Plant Products as Antimicrobial Agents. Clinical MicrobiologyReviews, 1999, 12(4): 564–5821898 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.

<strong>Studies</strong> on….Suvro Saha et.al.10. M.M.Nurmahani, A. Osman, A. Abdul Hamid,F. Mohamad Ghazali and M.S.Pak Dek,2012.Antibacterial property of Hylocereus polyrhizus and Hylocereusundatus peel extracts.International Food Research Journal,2012, 19(1): 77-84.11. Akhilesh Khushwaha, Raghvendra Pratap Sing, Vikas Gupta, Madhulika Sing. 2012.Antimicrobial Properties of Peels of Citrus Fruits. International Journal of UniversalPharmacy and Life Sciences.;2012, 2(2); 24-38.12. K. KumarAshok, A. Subanthini,M. Jayakumar, Antimicrobial Activity and PhytochemicalAnalysis of Citrus Fruit Peels- Utilization of Fruit Waste.;2011, 3(6): 5414-5421.13. Amandeep Sing, Ahmed R. Bilal,In vitro antibiotic activity of isolated volatile oil of Citrussinensis. International Journal of pharm. Res. and Development; 2009, 7(1): 1-4.14. Kumar Vivek R, 2010.Anti Typhoid Activity of Aqueous Extract of Fruit Peel Citrussinensis(L.). International Journal of Pharm. Res. And Development. 2010, 2(9): 217-221.15. Yoshiaki Miyake, Masanori Hiramitsu. 2011. Journal of food science and technology Isolationand extraction of antimicrobial substances against oral bacteria from lemon peel.Vol.48(5)635-639Corresponding author: Dr.John Barnabas, Post Graduate-Department of Microbiology, Centre for R&D inLife Sciences; Microbiology Research Laboratory, Dayananda Sagar Institutions, Dr.C.D.Sagar Centre for LifeSciences, Shavige Malleshwara Hills, Kumarswamy Layout Bangalore-560078, India. Email- johnbarnabas(at)gmail.com1899 J. Chem. Bio. Phy. Sci. Sec. B; 2013, Vol.3, No.3; 1886-1899.