Inhibition of Carica Solid Soap to the Growth of Staphylococcus epidermidis Bacteria
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
E3S Web of Conferences 374, 00029 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337400029
3 r d NRLS
Inhibition of Carica Solid Soap to the Growth
of Staphylococcus epidermidis Bacteria
Roisatul Ainiyah1*, Cahyaning Riniutami1, and Muhannad Illayan Massadeh2
1Faculty of Agriculture, University of Yudharta Pasuruan, Jl.Yudharta No.7 Pasuruan 67162,
East Java, Indonesia
2Department of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Faculty of Science,
The Hashemite University 13133, Zarqa, Jordan
Abstract. Carica (Carica pubescens Lenne & K. Koch.) contains various
nutrients such as vitamins, minerals, and active substances that can be used
for skin care, and to bath soap products. The purpose of this research was
to determine the inhibition of Carica soap to the growth of Staphylococcus
epidermidis bacteria. The method used in this study was agar diffusion.
Samples in this research were 12 Carica soaps with different formulation,
and a control using papaya soap that has been circulating on the market.
The results of the study were analyzed using ANOVA with a confidence
interval of 5 %. The results showed that the significance value was 0.472 >
0.05 so there was no significant difference between the soap formulations
on the inhibition zone of the S. epidermidis bacteria. The highest inhibitory
zone is in soap with formula 1 (1.38 cm), the lowest inhibitory zone is in
soap with formula 7 (1.1 cm), while the papaya soap inhibition zone
(positive control) is 1.7 cm. Suggestion from this research is to reformulate
Carica soap to improve its quality.
Keywords: Carica pubescens Lenne & K. Koch., mountain papaya,
product diversification, Vasconcellea pubescens
1 Introduction
Carica (Carica pubescens Lenne & K. Koch.) is commonly known as mountain papaya.
This plant thrives in mountainous regions. In Indonesia, Carica can be found in the Dieng
plateau of Central Java and Tengger plateau of East Java. Carica has a close kinship with
papaya (Carica papaya L.). Carica contains various nutrients such as vitamins, minerals,
and active substances that can be used for skin care.
Kusnadi et al. [1] states that Carica fruit contains vitamin C, vitamin A, Calcium (Ca),
and Phosphorus (P). While Minarno [2] states that Carica fruit contains saponins,
*
Coressponding email: roisatul.ainiyah@yudharta.ac.id
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).E3S Web of Conferences 374, 00029 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337400029
3 r d NRLS
antioxidants, flavonoids, and antibacterial compounds because they contain polyphenol,
tannin and triterpenoid compounds. Total flavanoid of Tengger Carica (816.65 mg L-1) is
higher than that of Dieng Carica (633.35 mg L-1). With the various contents of the fruit
Carica is rich in nutrients needed by the skin so it is suitable to be applied to skin care
products. This is the basis for conducting research by utilizing Carica fruit as an additional
ingredient in making bath soap.
Bath soap is a mixture of sodium compounds with fatty acids that are used as body
cleansing agents, in the form of solid, foam, with or without other additives and does not
cause irritation [3]. Soap quality standards have been set based on SNI 3532:2021 (Standar
Nasional Indonesia — Indonesian National Standard for solid bath soap. The quality of
soap products can be determined and anticipated by looking at the quality of the Iodide
Value, Peroxide Value, and Saponification Value of the crude oil used as raw material [4].
As a skin cleansing agent, ideally soap can not only cleanse the skin of impurities but
also clean the skin of various pathogenic microorganisms that normally live on the surface
of human skin. One of the bacteria found on the surface of human skin is Staphylococcus
epidermidis (Winslow & Winslow 1908, Evans 1916). Therefore this study aims to
determine the inhibition of Carica soap on the growth of S. epidermidis bacteria.
2 Material and methods
2.1 Soap making
The soap ingredients consisted of oil, alkaline solution (NaOH), cocamide-DEA, and
Carica fruit extract. Carica as an additional ingredient of soap was taken from the Tengger
plateau. Carica fruit extract was taken as a concentration of 100 %. The extract was then
diluted by distilled water until the concentration of 80 % and 60 %. The palm oil was
heated to a temperature of 50 °C to 60 °C then cocamide-DEA was added. Then it was
mixed with an alkaline solution at a concentration according to the design of the experiment
(the mixing temperature of the alkaline solution and oil were the same). Carica juice was
added to the mixture at respective concentration. Furthermore, it was heated again with
temperatures above 70 °C. Then poured into molds and allowed to stand for 2 wk so that
the saponification process run perfectly. The experimental design of making Carica soap
was presented in Table 1.
Tabel 1. The experimental design
Consentration of Consentration of NaOH
Carica Extract K1 = 30 % K2 = 35 % K3 = 40 %
C0 (0 %) Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
C1 (60 %) Sample 4 Sample 5 Sample 6
C2 (80 %) Sample 7 Sample 8 Sample 9
C3 (100 %) Sample 10 Sample 11 Sample 12
2.2 Soap quality test
The quality of the soap was determined based on chemical variables (water content, amount
of fatty acids, free alkaline, free fatty acids, non-soapy fats, pH), physical variables
(hardness, foam stability), Hedonic tests (color, aroma, thickness, lots of foam), and the
antibacterial activity of soap against to the S. epidermidis bacteria.
2E3S Web of Conferences 374, 00029 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337400029
3 r d NRLS
2.3 Bacterial inhibition test
Bacterial inhibition test was carried out on 12 sample to the S. epidermidis with agar
diffusion method (diffusion of wells). Bacteria were grown on Nutrient Broth (NB) medium
for 24 h at 37 °C. Furthermore, for testing the inhibition of Carica soap against the
S.epidermidis using the medium Nutrient Agar (NA). Bacteria were inoculated on NA
media in Petri dishes by using the spread plate method. The soap sample was diluted using
distilled water with a ratio of 1:1, then put into the wellbore. The positive control used
papaya soap produced by RDL Pharmaceutical Laboratory, while negative control used
distilled water. Petri dishes were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C. Measurement of clear zone
diameter at 6th, 12nd, and 24th h. The data of antimicrobial test was carried out using the
ANOVA with a confidence interval of 5 % [5, 6].
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Chemistry and physics of Carica soap
Soap water content was tested by the gravimetry method. Table 2 showed that almost all
the water content of the treatment soap is not fullied SNI 3532:2021 provisions (maximum
15 %). Analysis with ANOVA showed a significance value of 0.000 < 0.05, meaning that
there were significant differences between treatments. The treatment without the addition of
Carica juice had the lowest water content. Kenna [7] stated that the proportion of water in
the soap base material influenced the saponification process. The higher the water content,
the slower the saponification reaction rate. Moisture content that was too high also causes
the soap structure to form a gel. The higher reaction temperature used, the water content in
soap would be lesser, it is caused by some evaporated water during reaction and mixing
process [8].
Tabel 2. The result of carica soap water content analysis
Consentration of Consentration of NaOH
Carica Extract K1 = 30 % K2 = 35 % K3 = 40 %
C0 (0 %) 9.35 8.60 8.66
C1 (60 %) 23.76 18.57 17.58
C2 (80 %) 20.61 15.10 15.64
C3 (100 %) 23.61 22.76 17.85
The measurement of the pH of Carica soap presented in Table 2 are high (pH 8.60 to
23.76). Generally, the pH of bath soap is safe to use at a pH of 7 to 10. Dlova et al. [9]
stated that 69.4 % of the soap and cleaning product samples studied had an alkaline pH in
the range of 9.3 to 10.7. The high pH of the soap can be caused by the concentration of
NaOH used is too high or the saponification reaction does not run optimally. This can also
be seen from the high level of soap-free alkali (Table 3) which exceeds the SNI standard
(< 2.5 %).
If it is associated with a fairly high level of unsaponifiable fat (Table 3), it can be
assumed that the saponification process is not running optimally, because if it runs
optimally, the high enough free alkali level can saponify all the unsaponifiable fat. The
inhibition of this saponification reaction can be due to the total amount of water from the
ingredients used is too high. High pH soap can disrupt the pH balance of the skin (5.4 to
3E3S Web of Conferences 374, 00029 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337400029
3 r d NRLS
5.9). Soap alkaline substances will damage the acid coat on the skin which plays a role in
protecting the skin from bacteria and viruses, and makes the skin dry so that it is susceptible
to irritation and allergies [10]. In addition, the amount of water contained in soap can affect
the characteristics of soap during storage [11]. Soap with a high water content will have a
softer texture than soap with a low water content [12].
Tabel 3. The result of carica soap pH, alkali free, and non-soapy soap test
Consentration Consentration of NaOH
of Carica K1 = 30 % K2 = 35 % K3 = 40 %
Ekstract pH AF NSS pH AF NSS pH AF NSS
C0 (0 %) 13 3.5 13.9 13 4.1 18.2 13 7.2 20.4
C1 (60 %) 12 2.7 24.3 13 4.9 15.6 13 5.8 13.9
C2 (80 %) 12 3.2 23.9 13 4.3 15.6 13 7.0 20.0
C3 (100 %) 13 2.7 17.8 13 3.9 17.3 13 5.5 38.2
*AF =Alkali Free, NSS = Non-Soapy Soap
The results of the analysis using ANOVA showed a significance value of 0.239 >
0.05, which means that there was no significant difference between the formulations of
Carica soap. Both from pH, free alkali, and unsaponifiable fat, the three parameters showed
a much higher number than that set in SNI 3532: 2021. This means that Carica soap has not
met the established standard. The high pH and free alkali can harm the skin, while the
unsaponifiable fat indicates the saponification process is not going well.
The high pH of the soap sample can be caused by several things, firstly, the amount of
alkali added is too much so that when the saponification process is complete there is still
residual alkali, this is also reflected in the results of the free alkali content test which tend to
be high. Second, the saponification process does not run perfectly due to the presence of
inhibitors. The saponification process is mainly influenced by the type of oil used, one of
which is determined by the iodine value of the oil. Oils with high saponification values
have low iodine values and vice versa [13]. Palm kernel oil has free fatty acids below 1 %
which indicates that the palm kernel oil used is of good quality, the higher the free fatty
acid content of an oil, the quality is not good because the free fatty acids in the oil come
from oxidation reactions, hydrolysis, heating, during processing and [14].
Tabel 4. Amount of fatty acid, foam stability, and hardness of carica soap test results
Consentration of Consentration of NaOH
Carica Ekstract K1 = 30 % K2 = 35 % K3 = 40 %
FS (%) H (N m–2) FS (%) H (N m–2) FS (%) H (N m–2)
C0 (0 %) 99.9 2.07 99.2 3.2 99.9 4.5
C1 60 %) 98.3 1.42 95.6 1.6 94.9 1.4
C2 (80 %) 98.1 1.33 96.6 1.5 98.8 1.9
C3 (100 %) 94.2 1.13 94.7 1.7 95.0 1.6
* FS = Foam stability, H = Hardness
Foam is a gas trapped by a thin layer of liquid containing a number of soap molecules
adsorbed on the thin layer. In bubbles, the hydrophobic group of the surfactant will point to
the gas, while the hydrophilic part will point to the solution and then the bubbles will come
out of the liquid body [15], Table 4 shows the foam stability ranging from 94.2 % to
99.9 %. The stability of the foam is very good, this can be due to the addition of cocomid
4E3S Web of Conferences 374, 00029 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337400029
3 r d NRLS
DEA which functions as a surfactant and foam stabilizer. Test the hardness of soap using a
penetrometer. Table 4 shows that the hardness of soap ranges from 1.13 N m–2 to 4.5 N m–2
The lower the liquid content in the soap-making material, the higher the hardness of
the soap. The use of olive oil as an ingredient will produce soap with a soft texture on the
skin but has low foaming ability, coconut oil makes the resulting soap has a slightly hard
texture but has high foaming ability, and palm oil will produce soap with very dense
properties and foaming ability low [16]. In this study, palm oil was used, so to increase the
foam, cocomid DEA was added. Good quality soap has a high total fat content and low
alkali content. The lower the total fat content, the higher the hardness of the soap [17].
3.2 Hedonic of Carica soap
The hedonic test was carried out on 30 untrained panelists [18] with the aim of obtaining
information on the level of panelists' preference for Carica soap. The test results show that
on average the panelists do not like or are neutral towards Carica soap products (Figure 1).
In the process of making soap, no dye or perfume is added, assuming the Carica fruit has a
bright orange color and a fragrant aroma. However, once applied to the soap, the color and
aroma of the carica fruit disappears. This is in line with Minarno [2] explanation that Carica
fruit does not contain essential oils. The original aroma of Carica fruit evaporates during the
soap-making process.
Fig. 1. Bar chart of Carica soap hedonic test results.
3.3 Antibacterial activity of Carica soap
The analysis showed that the significance value was 0.472 > 0.05 so there was no
significant difference among treatments for bacterial inhibition zones. The highest
inhibitory zone was in soap with formula 1 (1.38 cm), the lowest inhibitory zone was in
5E3S Web of Conferences 374, 00029 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337400029
3 r d NRLS
soap with formula 7 (1.1 cm) (Figure 2), while papaya soap inhibition zone (positive
control) was 1.7 cm and distilled water (control negative) 0.6 cm.
Fig. 2. Bar chart of Carica soap inhibition zone for S. epidermidis bacteria
The results of the analysis showed that the significance value was 0.472 > 0.05 so that
there was no significant difference between treatments on the bacterial inhibition zone. The
highest inhibition zone was in soap with formula 1 (1.38 cm), the lowest inhibition zone
was in soap with formula 7 (1.1 cm), while the inhibition zone for papaya soap (positive
control) was 1.7 cm and distilled water (control) was negative) 0.6 cm.
Some compounds that include antimicrobial compounds are saponins, flavonoids,
tannins, terpenoids, xanthones, alkaloids, and essential oils [19, 20, 10] which can be used
to replace synthetic antimicrobial compounds. Many synthetic antibacterial agents such as
triclosan and chloroxylenol are used to produce antibacterial soaps [21]. Minarno [2] states
that Carica that grow in the Cangar, Bromo and Dieng regions have a total flavanoid
content ranging from 600 mg L-1 to 800 mg L-1. Kusnadi et al. [1] stated that the fresh fruit
of Carica Dieng has vitamin C content of 65.12 mg 100 g-1 and vitamin A 1 771.1 μg
100 g-1. Laili [10] states that the Carica fruit in the Dieng plateau contains antioxidant
flavonoids, the higher the vitamin C content, the higher the antioxidant activity. The n-
hexane fraction of C. pubescens fruit peel contains alkaloids and tannins [22]. From some
of the results of these studies indicate that Carica fruit basically contains antimicrobial
compounds.
Insignificant test results can be caused by several things, firstly there is another reaction
(outside the discussion) of how the basic ingredients of soap to the juice of Carica is
synergistic or antagonistic, both samples of Carica soap when diluted have a thick texture
and the longer it forms a gel which prevents the diffusion process of the solution and active
ingredient of Carica soap into the agar medium, and thirdly it requires a higher
concentration of Carica fruit for example by adding fruit extracts.
4 Conclusion
The results of the inhibition test of Carica soap on the growth of Staphylococcus
epidermidis bacteria showed no significant differences between treatments for bacterial
6E3S Web of Conferences 374, 00029 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337400029
3 r d NRLS
inhibition zones. Bacterial inhibition zones range from 1.19 cm to 1.38 cm. Some
suggestions from this study are that it is necessary to test the antibacterial power of Carica
fruit extracts against Staphylococcus epidermidis bacteria, to reformulate the making of
Carica soap, and test bacteria can use other bacteria that are usually present on human skin.
References
1. K. Kusnadi, I. Tivani, W. Amanati, Parapemikir: Jurnal Ilmiah Farmasi, 5,2: 81–7
(2016). [in Bahasa Indonesia] http://dx.doi.org/10.30591/pjif.v5i2.384
2. E.B. Minarno, El-Hayah: Jurnal Biologi, 5,2: 73–82 (2015). [in Bahasa Indonesia]
https://doi.org/10.18860/elha.v5i2.3022
3. BSN [National Standardization Agency of Indonesia], Standart Mutu Sabun Padat
[solid soap quality standard] (BSN, Jakarta, 2016) [in Bahasa Indonesia]
http://sispk.bsn.go.id/SNI/DetailSNI/10343
4. R. Hidayat, Hidayat, R.M. Yusron, Wasiur, M. Jufriyanto, E3S Web Conf., 328,
05009: 1–7 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202132805009
5. P.G. Adinurani, Perancangan dan Analisis Data Percobaan Agro: Manual and SPSS
[Design and Analysis of Agrotrial Data: Manual and SPSS] (Plantaxia, Yogyakarta,
2016) [in Bahasa Indonesia]
https://opac.perpusnas.go.id/DetailOpac.aspx?id=1159798#
6. P.G. Adinurani, Statistik Terapan Agroteknologi (disusun sesuai rencana
pembelajaran semester) [Agrotechnology Applied Statistics (compiled according to
the semester learning plan)] (Deepublish, Yogyakarta, 2022) [in Bahasa Indonesia]
https://deepublishstore.com/shop/buku-statistika-terapan-3/
7. Kenna. Understanding Water Discounts And Lye Solution In Soapmaking. Modern
Soapmaking [online] (2019) [Acessed on 28 September 2019]
https://www.modernsoapmaking.com/lye-solution-in-soapmaking/
8. D. Paramadhanti, Dianursanti, AIP Conf. Proc., 2193,020009: 1–6 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5139329
9. N.C. Dlova, T. Naicker, P. Naidoo, SAJCH S. Afr. J. Child Health, 11,3: 146–148
(2017). https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJCH.2017.v11i3.1325
10. Setiawati, A. Ariani, Study of pH and Moisture Content in SNI of Bar Bath Soap in
Jabedebog, Prosiding Pertemuan dan Presentasi Ilmiah Standardisasi [Proceedings of
the Meeting and Scientific Presentation of Standardization], 293–300 (2020). [in
Bahasa Indonesia] https://doi.org/10.31153/ppis.2020
11. R. Maulidya, Y. Aisyah, D. Yunita, Proceedings of the 2nd ICEO, 112–118 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.5220/0009957701120118
12. I.P. Sany, Romadhon, A.S. Fahmi, IOP Conf. Ser: Earth Environ. Sci., 246,1: 1-12
(2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/246/1/012066
13. S.A. Zauro, M.T. Abdullahi, A. Aliyu, A. Muhammad, I. Abubakar, Y.M. Sani, Appl.
Chem., 96: 41479–83 (2016).
https://www.elixirpublishers.com/articles/1467635011_96%20(2016)%2041479-
41483.pdf
14. Prasetiyo, L. Hutagaol, L. Luziana, JJI, 5,2: 39–44 (2020). [in Bahasa Indonesia]
https://doi.org/10.29244/jji.v5i2.159
15. Iriany, L. Sukeksi, V. Diana, Taslim, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 1542,012046: 1–7 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1542/1/012046
16. A.D. Susanti, S. Saputro, W.A. Wibowo, EJChE, 5,2: 53–57 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.20961/equilibrium.v2i2.40435
7E3S Web of Conferences 374, 00029 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202337400029
3 r d NRLS
17. K.J. Betsy, M. Jilu, R. Fathima, J.T. Varkey, Asian J. Sci. Appl. Technol., 2,1: 8–12
(2013). https://www.trp.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/AJSAT-Vol.2-No.1-Jan-
June-2013pp.8-12.pdf
18. D. Damat, R.H. Setyobudi, P. Soni, A. Tain, H. Handjani, U. Chasanah, Cienc. e
Agrotecnologia, 44:e014820 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-7054202044014820
19. R.H. Setyobudi, L. Zalizar, S.K. Wahono, W. Widodo, A. Wahyudi, M. Mel. IOP
Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., 293,012035: 1–24. (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/293/1/012035
20. R.H. Setyobudi, M.F.M. Atoum, D. Damat, E. Yandri, Y.A. Nugroho, M.S. Susanti,
et al., Jordan J Biol Sci, 15,3: 475–488 (2022). https://doi.org/10.54319/jjbs/150318
21. S. Wijana, T. Puspita, N.L. Rahmah, AIP Conf. Proc. 2120,050020: 1–7 (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5115696
22. Sugiyarto, D. Novaliana, A. Susilowati, and H. Sasongko, AIP Conf. Proc. 2019,
050005: 1–7 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5061898
8You can also read
