Antibacterial Components of Honey conducted by (Paulus H. S. Kwakman et al.

,
2011). In this study, they reported that honey 's powerful action against antibiotic-
resistant bacteria has recently further expanded interest in honey use, but a major
obstacle to clinical applicability is inadequate awareness of antibacterial operation. High
sugar levels, hydrogen peroxide and low pH are well-known antibacterial factors in
honey and, more recently, methylglyoxal and antimicrobial peptide bee defensin-1 have
been identified as major antibacterial compounds in honey. Due to the extreme
presence of several compounds and the wide difference in the concentrations of these
compounds among honeys, the antibacterial action of honey is extremely complex.
https://iubmb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/action/doSearch?
ContribAuthorStored=Kwakman%2C+Paulus+H+S
Connection of the Study in terms of Antibacterial activity of Momordica
Charantia flower extract with honey against K. pneumoniae
According to Paulus H. S. Kwakman Sebastian A. J. Zaat (2011), they identify
honey as an organic compound with high sugar levels, hydrogen peroxide, and low pH
levels which disables the ability of certain microorganisms to live under acidic
environments. Thus, this study can strongly support our research as we aim to test the
Antibacterial activity of Momordica Charantia flower extract with honey against K.
pneumoniae.
Honey has effective antibacterial activities on the wound isolates as indicated by
the diameter of their zone of inhibition. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of
honey on P. aeruginosa and S. aureus was at 10% (v/v) while that of Kl. pneumoniae
and E. coli was at 20% (v/v). For P. aeruginosa and S. aureus, the maximum activity
was recorded at 100% honey concentration while Kl. Pneumoniae, the maximum
activity was observed at 80% honey concentration. At 10% (v/v) honey concentration, E.
coli and Kl. Pneumoniae were both resistant. E. coli was resistant to ceftriazone,
chloramphenicol and streptomycin; Kl. Pneumoniae was resistant to ceftriazone while P.
aeruginosa was resistant to cotromazole. Staphylococcus aureus showed high level of
susceptibility to the entire antibiotic tested. All the test isolates were susceptible to
amoxicillin, ofloxacillin, gentamycin, pefloxicin, ciprofloxacin and erythromycin.
http://eprints.covenantuniversity.edu.ng/4028/1/Oranusi_et_al_
%2826%29%5B1%5D.pdf
Antimicrobial Properties of Natural Honey (M Aurongzeb et al., 2011). Stated in
the report that the health benefits of Honey have been recorded under a variety of
conditions including microbial infections, wound healing, Inflammation, glucose
resistance and analgesia.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=mCQhjrEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra
 The inhibition zone diameter (IZD) of different Egyption Honey (Isis ) and Yemeni
Sidr honey concentrations (80-10%) were determined for Salmonella typhi, Neisseria
meningitides, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Haemophilus influenza, Shigella flexneri, Neisseria
meningitidis and Proteus vulgars Both Yemeni Sidr honey and Egyptian honey were
highly effective against Salmonella typhi, Neisseria meningitides, Shigella flexneri,
Escherichia coli. The effect on Klebsiella pneumonia and Staphylococcus aureus were
less than other bacteria showing Yemeni Sidr honey more ef ective than Egyptian
honey while there was no effect of both types of honey on Pseudomonas aeruginosa,
Haemophilus influenza and Proteus vulgaris. (Fig1 and 2). As Yemeni Sidr honey was
the highly effective the MIC and MBC against the tested organisms were determined
(Fig 3). The MIC was 20 mg/ml for Neisseria meningitides, Klebsiella pneumoniae,
Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginos while it was 10 mg/ml for
Salmonella typhi, Shigella flexneri, Escherichia coli, Haemophilus influenza and 40% for
Proteus vulgaris. The MBC was found to be 40 mg/ml for Salmonella typhi, Neisseria
meningitides, Shigella Flexner, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Haemophilus influenza,
while it was 20 mg/ml for E.coli and 60 mg/ml for Klebsiella pneumoniae and
Staphylococcus aureus but it was 80 mg/ml for Proteus vulgaris Figure (4) showed that
after the first 2 hours E. coli growth increased until the 9 th hour then it began the
stationary phase while a re- growth was shown at the hour 15 then decreased again,
while after treatment with Yemeni Sidr honey there were nearly no growth at the first 15
hours but there was a slight re-growth at the hour 15 then it decreased again. In figure
(5) it was obvious that after the first 4 hours the bacterial growth increased until the 8 th
hour then it began the stability phase while a re-growth was shown after the hour 13 to
the hour 17, while after treatment the growth were inhibited completely as there was no
growth at the treated 17 hours.
The antibacterial activity of Yemeni Sidr honey was higher than those obtained
by Isis honey. Variations seen in overall antibacterial activity were due to changes in the
level of hydrogen peroxide achieved and in some cases to the level of non-peroxide
factors. The content of non-peroxide factors was obviously related to the floral source
and sometimes accounted for the major part of the antibacterial activity in honey
(Alqurashi et al., 2013). Molan and Cooper (2000) reported that the difference in
antimicrobial potency among the different honeys can be more than 100-fold, depending
on its geographical, seasonal and botanical source
https://www.yemensidrhoney.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sidr_honey_2.pdf

It has been revealed that honey has antimicrobial activity against aerobic,
anaerobic, gram positive and gram-negative bacteria, molds and yeasts with unique
properties because of its bacteriostatic and bactericidal effect. Honey differs from other
sweets because of enzymes such as invertase, diastase and glucose oxidase.
Moreover, honey is effective on infections which cannot be treated with conventional
drugs. Studies have demonstrated that many bacterial and fungal pathogens that are
sensitive to honey include Bacillus anthracis, Corynebacterium diphtheriae, Escherichia
coli, Haemophilus influenza, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Listeria monocytogenes,
Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Pasteurella multocida, Proteus species, Pseudomonas
aeruginosa, Salmonella choleraesuis, Salmonella typhimurium, Serratia marcescens,
Shigella species, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus mutans, Streptoccus
pneumoniae, Streptococcus pyogenes, Vibrio cholerae, Alcaligenes faecalis,
Citrobacter freundii, Enterobacter aerogenes, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Mycobacterium
phki, Staphylococcus epidermis, E coli and Helicobacter pylori. Recently, studies have
focused on new aspects of honey application for various therapeutic purposes,
especially on its antibacterial properties.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3666059/
In two study of Saudi honey samples were tested for their antimicrobial activity
on E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii. The present study showed
varying degree of in vitro growth inhibition activity of Sidr and Mountain honeys against
the tested organisms. These might be due to the osmotic effect, the effect of pH, and
the sensitivity of these organisms to hydrogen peroxide which are unsuitable for
bacterial growth, represented as an inhibition factor in honey (Postmes et al., 1993;
Minisha and Shyamapada, 2011). All the different concentrations of both honey
samples (10 to 80%) showed growth inhibitory activity against E. coli. This contrasts
with the result reported by other workers (Hegazi, 2011; Hegazi and Fyrouz, 2012) who
reported that the different types of Saudi honey were less inhibitory against E. coli than
other bacteria. All the tested bacteria were sensitive to Sidr and Mountain honeys at 40
to 80% concentrations. The antibacterial activity of Sidr honey was higher than those
obtained by Mountain honey. Variations seen in overall antibacterial activity were due to
changes in the level of hydrogen peroxide achieved and in some cases to the level of
nonperoxide factors. The content of nonperoxide factors was obviously related to the
floral source and sometimes accounted for the major part of the antibacterial activity in
honey (Molan and Russell, 1988). Molan and Cooper (2000) reported that the difference
in antimicrobial potency among the different honeys can be more than 100-fold,
depending on its geographical, seasonal and botanical source. The IZD in case of gel
diffusion test were greater than those of disc diffusion test. This result was in agreement
with those previously reported by Mohammed et al. (2008). The different concentrations
of the two honey samples had good growth inhibitory effect on the tested
microorganisms. Similar result was previously reported by Mohapatra et al. (2011) for E.
coli and P. aeruginosa, (Agbaje et al. 2006) for E. coli, K. pneumoniae and (Hern et al.
2009) for A. baumannii. By visual inspection, the MIC assay showed that a lower MIC
was observed with Sidr honey (20 mg/mL) for the tested microorganisms while those of
mountain honey ranged from 20 to 40 mg/mL. The present findings are supported by
Kwakman et al. (2008). The MBC value of both honey samples was in the range of 20
to 40 mg/mL.The lowest MBC value (20 mg /mL) was against A. baumannii. The
present findings are consistent with the results reported by (Hern et al., 2009).
Comparing the mean ± standard deviation of the inhibition diameters of the tested
bacteria at different honey concentrations, we observed that there was statistically
significant difference in the values (P≤0.05) between microorganisms at all the honey
concentrations. Our results further show that there was an increase of inhibition zone for
the tested microorganisms with increase in the concentration of honey. This was
obvious by statistical analysis which revealed that there was significant difference in the
values (P≤0.05) between the different honey concentrations.
The present study reveals that local Sidr and mountain Saudi honeys were
effective in inhibiting the in vitro growth of E. coli, K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and A.
baumannii .Sidr honey was more potent than mountain honey in inhibiting these
bacterial growths in vitro. Both honey samples in the different concentrations were more
effective against E. coli than the other bacteria.
https://academicjournals.org/journal/JMA/article-full-text-pdf/07A43139644
Pharmacological Actions and Potential Uses of Momordica Charantia conducted
by (JK Grover et al., 2004). In this study, it is reported that Momordica Charantia is
common as a conventional medicine concentrating the investigator 's attention on this
plant for several diseases (antidiabetic, dysmenorrhea, abdominal pain, kidney (stone),
pneumonia, and many more). There are few studies available that have demonstrated
positive outcomes for the therapeutic use of Momordica Charantia in diabetes and
cancer patients.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037887410400159X
Both pulp and skin of M. charantia were found effective against tested organisms
with 16.16 mm ± 2.17 SD, and 15.88 mm ± 2.24 SD average zone of inhibition
respectively. Its active constituents are 5-a-stigmasta-7, 25-dien-3-b-ol, elasterol and
lanosterol which may be responsible for its antibacterial activity. Leaf extracts of M.
charantia showed broad spectrum antimicrobial activity since various water, ethanol and
methanol extracts of the leaves have exhibited antibacterial activities against E. coli,
Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, Salmonella, Streptobacillus.
http://www.pakbs.org/pjbot/PDFs/37(4)/PJB37(4)0997.pdf

Antibacterial compound, plumericin, was isolated for the first time from M.
charantia vine using the advanced extraction and separation technologies. Supercritical
fluid extraction provided a rapid extraction of a specific group of compounds while the
Separation box achieved a rapid isolation of the pure compounds. Plumericin showed
the antibacterial activity against 8 pathogenic bacterial strains, especially E. faecalis and
B. subtilis with the MIC values better than cloxacillin, the positive control. It also had the
high antiproliferative effect against leukemic (NB4 and K562), breast cancer (T47D) cell
lines, and moderate effect against liver cancer cell line (C3A). We also discovered that
fraction 1 was promising drug material for further clinical study on liver cancer.
 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/2015/823178/
Researchers found that Momordica charantia Linn. fruit powder, in the form of an
ointment (10% w/w dried powder in simple ointment base), showed a statically
significant response (P < 0.01), in terms of wound contracting ability, wound closure
time, period of epithelization, tensile strength of the wound and regeneration of tissues
at wound site when compared with the control group, and these results were
comparable to those of a reference drug povidone iodine ointment in an excision,
incision and dead space wound model in rats.
https://globalresearchonline.net/volume1issue2/Article%20018.pdf