A wide range of diseases affecting humans has been treated since ancient times with medicinal plants, as extracts, individually or as polyherbal preparations. A survey by the World Health Organization (WHO) has indicated that in the developing countries, nearly 70–80% of the population prefers to use non-conventional herbal medicines for their primary health care (Abba et al. 2009). The herbal medicines are safe, natural, relatively accessible, and cheaper than the synthetic drugs.
Factors that influence the contamination of medicinal herbs are several. These include certain environmental factors, mainly humidity, rainfall, storage conditions of crude and processed medicinal-plant materials, and handling and hygiene of people handling the herbs. Also, microorganisms derived from soil, air and water may contaminate the herbal raw materials leading to pathogenic effects to humans (Alonzo et al. 1994; de Freitas Araújo and Bauab 2012). The presence of such pathogens limits the use of medicinal plants and also exerts an important impact on the overall therapeutic quality of herbal drugs and preparations. Also, since the presence of such pathogenic microorganisms constitutes a potential hazard to human health, reducing their concentration from their source is critical.
Assessment of medicinal plants’ microbial load such as
The most widely used technique for a total count of microorganisms in plant materials is a technique recommended by the WHO. In this methodology, 10 g of sample is recommended to be suspended in 90 ml of buffer sodium chloride-peptone of pH to 7.0. Suitable dilutions of the sample is plated on casein-soybean digest agar and incubated at 30–35°C. The total aerobic count is measured after 48 h. For yeast and molds, the technique employed is the sowing depth in Sabouraud dextrose plus a solution of 10% tartaric acid to obtain pH 3.0 to 3.5 and incubated at 20–25°C for five days (WHO 1998). The specification of the WHO for total aerobic microorganisms is not more than 107 CFU/g, while the specification of the WHO for yeasts and molds is at most 104 CFU/g. Both the Brazilian Pharmacopeia (ANVISA 2010) and the United States Pharmacopeia (USP 2005) have recommended specifications for oral use: 104 aerobic bacteria/g or ml and 102 fungi/g. The European Pharmacopoeia (EDQM 2007) also gives guidance on acceptance criteria (5.1.8 for herbal medicinal products for oral use and 5.1.4 for other herbal medicinal products). The limits of microbial contamination given in European Pharmacopoeia for herbal medicinal products to which boiling water is added before use are total aerobic bacteria (107 CFU/g), fungi (105 CFU/g) as against 105 CFU/g), fungi (103 CFU) when water is not added before use.
In Ghana, around 65% of the population depends on herbal medicine and hence estimation of the accurate microbial load becomes essential in such cases to avoid health issues to herbal users (Agyeman-Duah et al. 2017). Herbal medicines in liquid form also have also been shown to have microbial contamination, and hence determination of quantitation of microbial load becomes critical (de Sousa Lima et al. 2020). In this paper, we describe the ease of detecting microbial load in
All the above three samples were examined for microbial analysis using Neogen’s Soleris® instrument and conventional method for total viable count, yeasts and molds, and total coliforms. The untreated extract was designated as SR011903.
precursor ion: 333.4, 333.4, 333.4
product ion: 97.0, 183.15, 231.05
Q1 pre bias voltage: 17.0, 17.0, 17.0
collision energy (V): 35.0, 21.0, 23.0
Q3 pre bias voltage: 16.0, 18.0, 22.0.
The Soleris® system consists of an incubator, ready-to-use vials, and system software that are 21 CFR complaints. The system’s flexibility is appreciable since 1 to 512 samples can be tested simultaneously, and up to four instruments can be connected to a single PC, allowing any combination of 32 and 128 sample units. The Soleris® instrument with a temperature-controlled incubator is equipped with a photodiode-based optical detection system that allows the growth of microorganisms when inoculated in incubation vials containing selective growth media, supplements, and substrates specific to the microbial species to be detected. The carbon dioxide produced metabolically by the growing microbes results in a color change as metabolic processes happen and it causes a change in pH and denotes a positive detection time (DT). The samples with a higher level of microbial contamination would show a faster DT, and hence this instrument gives a correlation between microbes present and DTs reliably.
The inoculated Soleris® vials are placed into the selected drawer location and experiments are initiated. The Soleris® software indicated positive test results in less than 24 hrs. Determinations producing no detection within 24 h were considered negative. In the case of positive results, the growth curves were evaluated, and the visual validation of medium color change was also carried out Fig. 1. In the case of positive results, confirmation was done using conventional methods. For yeast and mold, the completed system results are available after 72 h, although positive samples were indicated after three rises in CO2 levels at the preset threshold, usually within 48 h, whereas the yeast and mold detection plates required an incubation of four days and five or more days respectively.
Fig. 1.
Schematic representation of the Soleris® system. In Step 1, an aliquot (10 g) of the herbal extract powder is weighed in a sterile container and re-suspended in 90 ml of sterile peptone water. The solution was mixed by vigorous vortexing for 2 min and further dilutions up to 10–3 were prepared by adding 1 ml of the diluted solution to 9 ml of sterile peptone and 1 ml of the dilutions were placed in the Soleris® vials in a laminar biosafety hood under sterile conditions (Step 2). In Step 3, the inoculated vials are placed in the selected drawer location in Soleris® instrument and the vials incubated at an appropriate temperature based on type of assay chosen (TVC, yeast and molds or coliforms). As organisms grow in the broth medium, the carbon dioxide (CO2) produced diffuses through a membrane layer into a soft agar plug containing a dye indicator and the change in the color of the dye is read by the Soleris® instrument (Step 4). A detection curve is generated in real time (Step 5) and the Soleris® software indicates a positive test result in less than 24 h for a sample with microbial contamination and samples producing no detection curve within 24 h are considered negative at the test threshold selected.

The sensor in the Soleris® Non-Fermenting-Total Viable Count (NF-TVC) vial system utilizes detection of carbon dioxide, a universal bacterial metabolite, rather than detection of acid production, expanding the inclusivity of the vial to include non-fermenting organisms with a sensitivity of 1 CFU (Alles et al. 2009; Mozola et al. 2013). Optical readings from Soleris® test vials are graphed with time (h) in X-axis vs. optical units in the Y-axis. Table I gives the values of total viable count achieved through Soleris® and its comparison with the bacterial CFU enumerated by conventional method plating.
Soleris® results for total aerobic microbial count.
S.N. | Sample ID | Dilutions inoculated | Growth/No growth | Detection time (h) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SR011903 | 103 | Growth | 2.7 |
2 | RDP/SR/070/SS01 | 102 | Growth | 11.4 |
3 | RDP/SR/070/ES02 | 102 | Growth | 12.2 |
4 | RDP/SR/070/GR03 | 102 | Growth | 15.1 |
5 | RDP/SR/068 | 102 | Growth | 10.6 |
6 | RDP/SR/134 | 103 | No growth | No detection |
7 | RDP/SR/136 | 102 | Growth | 13.1 |
Fig. 2a shows the presence of bacteria for all dilutions. It is inferred through the observation of the bacterial growth curve above the baseline with the count of ~1×103 CFU/g, a value that corresponds well with the reports of Kumar et al. (2015). The dilution which does not detect any microbes shows a curve touching the baseline while a blue curve indicates the dilutions where bacteria is detected. On the other hand, the red curve indicates the highest amount of organisms present in that particular or lowest dilution. The conventional method for the SR011903 sample yielded 1.09 × 105 CFU/g, as evident from Table II. The conventional method for the SR011903 sample yielded 1.09 × 105 CFU/g as evident from Table II. The microbial count of the
Fig. 2. a)
Microbial growth curve in Soleris® NF-TVC vials of various dilutions. Red curve denotes growth with sample SR011903 of10–3 dilution while blue curve denotes 10–5 dilution of the sample. Microbial detection was seen in both the dilutions.

Comparison of a total aerobic count between Soleris® (NF-TVC) and the conventional method (Salacinol content).
S.N. | Sample ID | Total aerobic count by Soleris® (CFU/g)* | Total aerobic count by plating in Soleris® medium (CFU/g)** | Conventional plating method*** | RLOD# | Salacinol content (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SR011903 (Control) | > 100,000 | 109,000 | > 105 | 1.09 | 0.52 |
2 | RDP/SR/070/SS01 (Steam sterilized SR011903) | < 1,000 | 490 | 350 | 1.40 | ND |
3 | RDP/SR/070/ES02 (ETO treated SR011903) | > 1,000 | 1,100 | 2,700 | 0.41 | ND |
4 | RDP/SR/070/GR03 (Gamma irradiated SR011903) | < 1,000 | 280 | 890 | 0.31 | ND |
5 | RDP/SR/068 (anti-fungal agent treated SR011903) | > 1,000 | 1,600 | 1,500 | 1.06 | 0.506 |
6 | RDP/SR/134 (anti-bacterial agent treated SR011903) | > 10 | 10 | 20 | 0.50 | 0.48 |
7 | RDP/SR/136 (commercial | > 1,000 | 1,500 | 2,300 | 0.65 | 0.059 |
– time of detection < 24 h
– counts by plating the contents used for the Soleris® vials, and counts obtained after 48 h incubation
– time of detection ∼ 48 h
– relative limit of detection
Fig. 2. b)
Sample RDP/SR/070/SS01 showed positive results for NF-TVC in Soleris® at 10–2 dilution (red curve) while the blue curve denotes 10–3 dilution.

Fig. 2. c)
Sample RDP/SR/070/ES02 showed detection of microbes in all the dilutions in Soleris® NF-TVC vials. Blue curve denotes 10–3 dilution while the 10–2 dilution is represented by the red curve.

Fig. 2. d)
Sample RDP/SR/070/GR03 showed detection in all the dilutions in Soleris® NF TVC vials. Blue curve denotes 10–3 dilution while the red curve denotes 10–2 dilution.

The
Our results shown in Table II do indicate differences in efficiencies of microbial killing for the
It is evident from the current observations that none of the traditional methods are efficient enough to reduce the microbial load in
The sterilization methods using radiations are not readily adaptable for manufacturing plant processes since it requires special equipment and methods. The other methods, such as ethylene oxide, are banned in European Union countries due to the generation of carcinogenic substances such as ethylene glycol, 2-chloroethanol. Also, steam sterilization is not often used for herbal materials since the treated materials become clumped after steam treatment (Brodowska et al. 2014). A new alternative Electron-beam (E-beam) technology, is being used in the food industry to decontaminate food materials (Silindir and Özer 2009). Since installations of such specialized equipment would require investments, alternative methods that are cost-effective to sterilize materials, such as what we describe here, appear to be an attractive proposition.
It is also clear from Table II that the commercially available
Fig. 2. e)
Sample RDP/SR/068 showed detection in all the dilutions in Soleris® NF-TVC vials. Red curve denotes 10–3 dilution while the blue curve shows growth with 10–2 dilution of the sample.

Fig. 2. f)
RDP/SR/134 sample showed no bacterial growth in any of the dilutions (10–3 and 10–5) tested. This is represented by blue and black flat lines respectively.

Fig. 2. g)
RDP/SR/136 sample showed microbial detection only in 10–3 dilution in NF-TVC Soleris® vials denoted by the red curve. The blue flat line denotes no growth seen with 10–5 dilution of this sample.

It is evident from Table III that the Soleris® can detect yeast and molds when present within 24 h while it takes more than 5 days when tested by conventional methods. It is also clear that when the extract was pre-treated with the proprietary antifungal agent, the material (RDP/SR/068) showed > 99% reduction in the count of yeasts and molds (Table IV). The Soleris® Direct Yeast and Mold (DYM 109-C) method offers huge time savings for labs engaged in microbial identification in herbal powders. While the yeast and mold results are accessible within 48 h by Soleris®, the conventional methods take up to 5 days. None of the samples tested here showed a growth curve for yeast and molds with the least dilutions except for SR011903 and RDP/SR/136, represented by Figs. 3a and 3b, respectively. Supplementary figures represent the growth curve of other samples, namely SR/011903, RDP/SR/070/SS01, RDP/SR/070/ES02, RDP/SR/070/GR03, RDP/SR/068 and RDP/SR/134, Figs. S1a, S1b, S1c, S1d, S1e, and S1f, respectively. It is interesting to emphasize here that the total yeast and mold counts of the
Soleris® results for the total yeast and mold counts.
S.N. | Sample ID | Dilutions inoculated | Growth/No growth | Detection time (h) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SR011903 | 101 | Growth | 34.4 |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
2 | RDP/SR/070/SS01 (Steam sterilized SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
3 | RDP/SR/070/ES02 (ETO treated SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
4 | RDP/SR/070/GR03 (Gamma irradiated SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
5 | RDP/SR/068 (anti-fungal agent treated SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
6 | RDP/SR/134 (anti-bacterial agent treated SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
7 | RDP/SR/136 (commercial | 101 | Growth | 26.2 |
102 | No growth | – | ||
103 | No growth | – |
Comparison between Soleris® (DYM-109) and the conventional method for the total yeasts and molds.
S.N. | Sample ID | Soleris® (CFU/g) | Conventional method (CFU/g) | Acceptable/Not acceptable |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SR011903 | > 10 | 380 | Not acceptable |
2 | RDP/SR/070/SS01 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
3 | RDP/SR/070/ES02 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
4 | RDP/SR/070/GR03 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
5 | RDP/SR/068 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
6 | RDP/SR/134 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
7 | RDP/SR/136 | > 10 | 290 | Not acceptable |
Fig. 3. a)
Sample SR011903 showed microbial detection in 10–1 dilution in Soleris® DYM 109-C vials represented by blue curve. Black curve denotes 10–3 dilution while the red curve denotes 10–2 dilution, both of which did not show any growth.

Fig. 3. b)
Sample RDP/SR/136 showed microbial detection in 10–1 dilution for DYM 109-C Soleris® vials represented by the red curve.

As far as the total coliforms counts were concerned, we found similar results of Solaris® against the conventional method, indicating the specificity of the tests employed. None of the samples showed any count for total coliforms both by conventional method and by Soleris® test as evident from Table SIa and SIb (supplementary tables). The growth curve pattern on Soleris® also did not show any growth-related optical unit readings (data not shown).
Health surveys conducted in several countries have demonstrated the use of herbal medicines as a mainstream practice among the elderly population, and hence the risk of microbial contamination in herbal drugs might have an adverse effect on the health of such population (de Medeiros et al. 2013; Famewo et al. 2016). Several pathogenic bacteria have been detected in some of the herbal medicines, which is also a severe concern for such medicines’ quality issues (Abba et al. 2009; de Medeiros et al. 2013). Hence, it becomes imperative to estimate microbial load in such medicinal herbs and extracts so that such material consumption is safe without any side effects.
The killing of microorganisms contaminating the herbal extracts is dictated by the dose rate of the antimicrobial agent employed and also by the physical state of the growth of the microbial cells, and other external factors, such as oxygen, water, other chemical agents, and temperature (Halls 1992). Hence, our current data on achieving a microbial reduction of > 99% in
Microbial contamination in herbal extracts is one of the issues addressed by the new FDA regulations, and faster and more streamlined microbiological tests are therefore required by the herbal industry to meet the new challenges. Soleris® TVC method has been successfully used for rapid and accurate detection of microorganisms in a variety of food commodities, and its technology is based on monitoring pH change or CO2 production as a means of microbial growth activity in media vials. The performance of the Soleris® TVC method in detecting microbes in herbal extracts is the first report to date. The sensitivity of the Soleris® method was found to be comparable to that of the reference procedures for the detection of microorganisms. The Soleris® test from Neogen is approved from the AOAC Research Institute as a Performance Tested Method certification 071203 for detecting microorganisms in as little as 4 h, and only takes 24 h to a negative result. The Soleris® vial is substituted for the agar plate. The sensitivity of the equipment is 1 CFU/g. The significant reduction in the generation of biomedical lab waste concerning Solaris® compared to the conventional methods is really attractive. Since Solaris® system reads the vials photometrically by looking into the color change relative to the starting color, it would be the choice of method for all researchers in academics and industries alike who are engaged in determining the microbial contamination in food and other natural products.
Fig. 1.

Fig. 2. a)

Fig. 2. b)

Fig. 2. c)

Fig. 2. d)

Fig. 2. e)

Fig. 2. f)

Fig. 2. g)

Fig. 3. a)

Fig. 3. b)

Soleris® results for the total yeast and mold counts.
S.N. | Sample ID | Dilutions inoculated | Growth/No growth | Detection time (h) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SR011903 | 101 | Growth | 34.4 |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
2 | RDP/SR/070/SS01 (Steam sterilized SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
3 | RDP/SR/070/ES02 (ETO treated SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
4 | RDP/SR/070/GR03 (Gamma irradiated SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
5 | RDP/SR/068 (anti-fungal agent treated SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
6 | RDP/SR/134 (anti-bacterial agent treated SR011903) | 101 | No Growth | – |
102 | No Growth | – | ||
103 | No Growth | – | ||
7 | RDP/SR/136 (commercial | 101 | Growth | 26.2 |
102 | No growth | – | ||
103 | No growth | – |
Soleris® results for total aerobic microbial count.
S.N. | Sample ID | Dilutions inoculated | Growth/No growth | Detection time (h) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SR011903 | 103 | Growth | 2.7 |
2 | RDP/SR/070/SS01 | 102 | Growth | 11.4 |
3 | RDP/SR/070/ES02 | 102 | Growth | 12.2 |
4 | RDP/SR/070/GR03 | 102 | Growth | 15.1 |
5 | RDP/SR/068 | 102 | Growth | 10.6 |
6 | RDP/SR/134 | 103 | No growth | No detection |
7 | RDP/SR/136 | 102 | Growth | 13.1 |
Comparison of a total aerobic count between Soleris® (NF-TVC) and the conventional method (Salacinol content).
S.N. | Sample ID | Total aerobic count by Soleris® (CFU/g) | Total aerobic count by plating in Soleris® medium (CFU/g) | Conventional plating method | RLOD | Salacinol content (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SR011903 (Control) | > 100,000 | 109,000 | > 105 | 1.09 | 0.52 |
2 | RDP/SR/070/SS01 (Steam sterilized SR011903) | < 1,000 | 490 | 350 | 1.40 | ND |
3 | RDP/SR/070/ES02 (ETO treated SR011903) | > 1,000 | 1,100 | 2,700 | 0.41 | ND |
4 | RDP/SR/070/GR03 (Gamma irradiated SR011903) | < 1,000 | 280 | 890 | 0.31 | ND |
5 | RDP/SR/068 (anti-fungal agent treated SR011903) | > 1,000 | 1,600 | 1,500 | 1.06 | 0.506 |
6 | RDP/SR/134 (anti-bacterial agent treated SR011903) | > 10 | 10 | 20 | 0.50 | 0.48 |
7 | RDP/SR/136 (commercial | > 1,000 | 1,500 | 2,300 | 0.65 | 0.059 |
Comparison between Soleris® (DYM-109) and the conventional method for the total yeasts and molds.
S.N. | Sample ID | Soleris® (CFU/g) | Conventional method (CFU/g) | Acceptable/Not acceptable |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SR011903 | > 10 | 380 | Not acceptable |
2 | RDP/SR/070/SS01 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
3 | RDP/SR/070/ES02 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
4 | RDP/SR/070/GR03 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
5 | RDP/SR/068 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
6 | RDP/SR/134 | < 10 | < 10 | Acceptable |
7 | RDP/SR/136 | > 10 | 290 | Not acceptable |