Nurul Fadzlin Ab Llah¹, Noor Hafizoh Saidan^1a), Khomaizon Abdul Kadir Pahirul Zaman¹, Nurul Amira Zainurin¹, Maryana Mohamad Nor^1,2, Seri Intan Mokhtar¹

¹Faculty of Agro-Based Industry, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Jeli, Kelantan, Malaysia

²Institute of Food Security and Sustainable Agriculture, Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, Jeli, Kelantan, Malaysia

^a) Corresponding author: hafizoh.s@umk.edu.my 

Abstract. Three natural preservatives used in this study are chengal wood chips (Neobalanocarpus heimii), mangosteen rind (Garcinia mangostana Linn.), and guava leaves (Psidium guajava Linnaeus). Total yield extracts of different solvents from each natural preservative were determined. Chengal wood chips, mangosteen rind, and guava leaves were extracted with methanol, ethanol, and water using a water bath shaker (hot maceration technique). The total yield for each extract (methanol, ethanol, and water) of chengal wood chips is 17.5 %, 14.04 %, and 16.46 %, respectively. The total yield for methanol, ethanol, and water extracts of mangosteen rind is 22.58 %, 17.76 %, and 20.10 %, respectively. Besides, the total yield for methanol, ethanol, and water extracts of guava leaves are 16.64 %, 15.20 %, and 16.12%, respectively. The result has indicated that the best solvent to obtain the highest yield of extracts is the methanol solvent. Different natural preservatives' antimicrobial potential was performed against Escherichia coli (E. coli), Streptococcus aureus (S. aureus), and Candida albicans (C. albicans). Based on the results, none of the chengal and guava extracts can inhibit E. coli growth with 100 mg/mL concentration. Only water extract of mangosteen rind can inhibit the E. coli growth with a 12.0±2 mm inhibition zone. For S. aureus inhibition, chengal wood chips extract (methanol; 17±1.00 mm; ethanol, 17±0.00 mm; water, 17.33±0.58 mm) gives the best inhibition zone with only a slight difference between the solvents. The result for S. aureus inhibition is followed by mangosteen rind extract (methanol, 11.79±0.29 mm; ethanol, 10.5±0.50 mm; water; 11±1.00 mm) and guava leaves extract (methanol, 12±0 mm; ethanol, 11.33±0.58 mm; water, 10±0 mm). For C. albicans inhibition, none of the extracts shows antimicrobial activity. In conclusion, the results have shown that different extracts have had different antimicrobial activity against the selected microbes due to the different active compounds in the extracts.