<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.4 20241031//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-4.dtd">
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.4" xml:lang="en">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">aim</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Advances in Microbiology</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn pub-type="epub">2165-3410</issn>
      <issn pub-type="ppub">2165-3402</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/aim.2026.165012</article-id>
      <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">aim-151368</article-id>
      <article-categories>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Article</subject>
        </subj-group>
        <subj-group>
          <subject>Biomedical</subject>
          <subject>Life Sciences</subject>
        </subj-group>
      </article-categories>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Antibiotic Activity of Rosemary Plant (Rosmarinus officinalis) Extract against Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0009-0006-2478-231X</contrib-id>
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Alaleeli</surname>
            <given-names>Jawaher Ebrahim</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0000-0001-8012-8781</contrib-id>
          <name name-style="western">
            <surname>Mahasneh</surname>
            <given-names>Ihsan Ali</given-names>
          </name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
        </contrib>
      </contrib-group>
      <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label> Department of Applied Biology-Biotechnology Program, Faculty of Science, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates </aff>
      <author-notes>
        <fn fn-type="conflict" id="fn-conflict">
          <p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.</p>
        </fn>
      </author-notes>
      <pub-date pub-type="epub">
        <day>01</day>
        <month>05</month>
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <pub-date pub-type="collection">
        <month>05</month>
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>16</volume>
      <issue>05</issue>
      <fpage>220</fpage>
      <lpage>236</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received">
          <day>16</day>
          <month>04</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="accepted">
          <day>19</day>
          <month>05</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
        <date date-type="published">
          <day>22</day>
          <month>05</month>
          <year>2026</year>
        </date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>© 2026 by the authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
        <license license-type="open-access">
          <license-p> This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link> ). </license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <self-uri content-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4236/aim.2026.165012">https://doi.org/10.4236/aim.2026.165012</self-uri>
      <abstract>
        <p>The aim of the study was to determine the optimum parameters of the rosmarinic acid (RA) extraction of the Rosemary plant (<italic>Rosmarinus officinalis</italic>) and to investigate the antibiotic activity of the extracted RA against antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacterial strains. The bacterial strains were <italic>Klebsiella</italic><italic>pneumoniae</italic>, <italic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</italic>, and <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> as compared with the control strains of ATCC which were identified using the VITEK 2 system as parallel compared with the counter-control strains of <italic>E. coli</italic>ATCC 25922, <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> ATCC 27853, <italic>K. pneumoniae</italic> ATCC 13883. An extraction protocol using 70% ethanol was optimized for fresh leaves of <italic>Rosmarinus</italic><italic>officinalis</italic> grown in Umm Al Quwain, UAE, after which the bacterial strains were exposed to the prepared extract. The absorption spectrum of the extracted RA was scanned between 200 - 450 nm and the peak of the maximum absorption was determined to be at (<italic>λ</italic>max 330 nm) which was used for RA quantification and standardization. The mean value of the moisture contents of rosemary leaves was determined to be 85.27%. The optimum time of RA-equivalent extraction was determined to be 45 min of extraction in 70% ethanol using both fresh and dry leaves. The local isolates of <italic>Klebsiella pn</italic><italic>eu</italic><italic>moniae</italic> and <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> were resistant to ampicillin (10 µg), while both isolates were susceptible to imipenem (10 µg), ceftriaxone (30 µg), and ciprofloxacin (5 µg). The corresponding ATCC reference strains, <italic>K. pneumo</italic><italic>niae</italic> ATCC 13883 and <italic>E. coli</italic> ATCC 25922, were included as quality-control strains and showed the expected susceptibility profiles. The antibiotic activity of the crude RA treatment on the tested local strains <italic>Klebsiella pneumoniae</italic><italic>,</italic><italic>Pseu</italic><italic>domonas aeruginosa, and Escherichia coli</italic> showed no inhibition zone and therefore the strains were considered resistant. The control strain <italic>K. pneumoniae</italic> ATCC 13883 was sensitive to the RA treatment as it showed an inhibition zone of 12.3 mm diameter. The crude rosemary extract also showed weak antibacterial activity against <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> ATCC 27853, with inhibition zones increasing from 8.25 ± 0.12 mm at 100 mg/mL to 9.24 ± 0.13 mm at 400 mg/mL. The antibiotic activity of the crude RA treatment on the counter-control strain of <italic>E. coli</italic> ATCC 25922 showed no inhibition zone and therefore the strain was considered resistant. The inhibition zones for the combined treatment of crude extract with antibiotics against the local strains <italic>Klebsiella pneu</italic><italic>moniae</italic>, <italic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</italic>, and <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> were recorded as 29.34, 27.84, and 27.59 mm, respectively. Furthermore, the inhibition zones for the combined treatment of crude extract with antibiotics against <italic>K. pneu</italic><italic>moniae</italic> ATCC 13883, <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> ATCC 27853, and <italic>E. coli</italic> ATCC 25922 were recorded as 27.95, 22.13, and 30.10 mm, respectively. In the combination assay, neither rosemary crude extract nor equivalent pure RA enhanced the activity of the tested antibiotics, as all combination treatments produced smaller inhibition zones than the antibiotic alone. Overall, UAE-grown rosemary was validated as a quantifiable local source of RA, but its crude extract and equivalent RA exhibited a weak direct antibacterial effect and no antibiotic-enhancing effect against the Gram-negative bacteria under disk diffusion conditions.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group kwd-group-type="author-generated" xml:lang="en">
        <kwd>&lt;i&gt;Rosmarinus officinalis&lt;/i&gt;</kwd>
        <kwd>Rosmarinic Acid</kwd>
        <kwd>Antibacterial Resistance</kwd>
        <kwd>Disk Diffusion</kwd>
        <kwd>Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec1">
      <title>1. Introduction</title>
      <p>One of the most urgent challenges to global population health is antimicrobial resistance (AMR). In 2019 alone, drug-resistant bacteria directly caused 1.27 million deaths worldwide, and the United Nations forecasts that the number may rise to 10 million deaths annually by 2050, with the economic losses caused by these bacteria reaching up to 3 trillion a year [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B1">1</xref>]. More than 2.8 million cases of antibiotic-resistant infections are reported each year in the United States alone, which causes over 35,000 deaths [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B2">2</xref>]. The main mechanisms of AMR are well characterised. Bacteria use active efflux pumps to expel antibiotics, produce beta-lactamases and carbapenemases that enzymatically degrade drugs, alter antibiotic target sites through genetic mutation, reduce outer membrane permeability, and form biofilms that increase bacterial tolerance to antibiotic treatment [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B3">3</xref>].</p>
      <p>The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) region, including the UAE, carries a significant AMR burden. Meropenem resistance in <italic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</italic> across six GCC countries ranges from around 0% - 46%, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) accounts for 25% - 35% of <italic>S. aureus</italic> isolates [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B4">4</xref>]. The surveillance data indicate substantial cephalosporin resistance among <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> and <italic>Klebsiella pneumoniae</italic>, with <italic>E. coli</italic>showing ceftriaxone/cefotaxime resistance of 33.0%/30.3% in the UAE in 2020 and 37.0%/32.0% in Abu Dhabi in 2023, while <italic>K. pneumoniae</italic> showed corresponding resistance levels of 29.0%/23.0% and 24.0%/21.4%, respectively. In addition, MRSA prevalence was reported at 35.1% in the UAE in 2020 and 38.7% in Abu Dhabi in 2023 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B5">5</xref>]. Nevertheless, AMR is a significant health problem in the United Arab Emirates, and over 200 deaths have been caused due to this resistance since 1990. In 2021, there were an estimated 970 AMR-associated deaths in UAE, with the highest mortality rate among adults aged 50 - 69 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>]. The most lethal combinations of pathogens and drugs were methicillin-resistant <italic>Staphylococcus aureus</italic>, carbapenem-resistant <italic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</italic>, and carbapenem-resistant <italic>Acinetobacter bauma</italic><italic>nnii</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B6">6</xref>].</p>
      <p>Medicinal plants have gained renewed attention as potential sources of novel antibacterial agents, particularly because the development of new antibiotics has slowed [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B7">7</xref>]. <italic>Rosmarinus officinalis</italic> L. (rosemary), a perennial aromatic shrub native to the Mediterranean basin, is cultivated successfully across arid Gulf environments. Chemical profiling of Saudi-grown rosemary confirms terpene-rich essential oil profiles comparable to Mediterranean cultivars [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B8">8</xref>], suggesting that Gulf-cultivated rosemary retains its phytochemical potential. The major water-soluble phenolic of rosemary is rosmarinic acid (RA), which is an ester of caffeic acid and 3,4-dihydroxyphenyllactic acid [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B9">9</xref>]. RA has several antibacterial effects, including deterioration of bacterial cell membranes, interfering with their defence systems, and reducing their ability to form biofilms [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>]. Reports have indicated that RA had an antibacterial effect with <italic>S. aureus</italic> and MRSA, a combination effect with vancomycin, ofloxacin, and amoxicillin with <italic>S. aureus</italic>, and with vancomycin with MRSA, suggesting that RA could be used as an antibiotic adjuvant. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref>]. However, no systematic measurements of RA levels of rosemary cultivated under the Gulf climatic conditions and no thorough investigation of antibacterial activity of extracts prepared in the UAE against local isolates native to this region has been conducted. This study therefore, addresses these gaps by optimising ultrasound-assisted extraction and spectrophotometric quantification of RA, characterising the antibiotic resistance profiles of local isolates and evaluating its antibacterial activity.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec2">
      <title>2. Materials and Methods</title>
      <sec id="sec2dot1">
        <title>2.1. Plant Material</title>
        <p>Plants of <italic>Rosmarinus officinalis</italic> L. were obtained at a local market in Masafi, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE and then grown in Al Atheab, Umm Al Quwain, under greenhouse conditions using UAE sand as a substrate. The harvest was at a uniform vegetative pre-flowering stage of the plants. Fresh healthy leaves were picked in the evening, rinsed with distilled water, dried at 45˚C to constant weight and then ground to fine powder using the short-pulse electric grinding. Sampled material was placed in amber glass jars that were stored under refrigeration. Morphological leaf shape, aroma and growth habit were used to confirm species identity as <italic>R. officinalis</italic>.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot2">
        <title>2.2. Chemicals and Reagents</title>
        <p>The most common extraction solvent was analytical-grade absolute ethanol (99.9%). Calibration was carried out using a RA reference standard (96% purity). All microbiological work was performed using Mueller-Hinton agar, nutrient broth and nutrient agar. Antibiotic discs (MASTDISCS<sup>TM</sup>, Mast Group Ltd., UK) included Penicillin G (10 units), Ampicillin (AMP, 10 µg), Ciprofloxacin (CIP, 5 µg), Ceftriaxone (CRO, 30 µg), Imipenem (IMI, 10 µg), and Erythromycin (E, 15 µg).</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot3">
        <title>2.3. Moisture Content Determination</title>
        <p>Fresh rosemary leaves (~5 g per replicate, n = 4) were oven-dried at 100˚C ± 5˚C for 24 hours, cooled in a desiccator, and reweighed. Moisture content (percent) was calculated as </p>
        <disp-formula id="FD1">
          <mml:math>
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                    <mml:mrow>
                      <mml:mtext>Fresh</mml:mtext>
                      <mml:mtext>
                         
                      </mml:mtext>
                      <mml:mtext>weight</mml:mtext>
                      <mml:mo>−</mml:mo>
                      <mml:mtext>Dry</mml:mtext>
                      <mml:mtext>
                         
                      </mml:mtext>
                      <mml:mtext>weight</mml:mtext>
                    </mml:mrow>
                    <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
                  </mml:mrow>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Fresh</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>
                     
                  </mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>weight</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
              <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
              <mml:mn>100</mml:mn>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot4">
        <title>2.4. Rosmarinic Acid Calibration Curve</title>
        <p>The primary stock solution of RA was prepared in 70 (v/v) ethanol at 1000 µg/mL, and the purity of 96% was corrected. Ten-fold dilution was used to prepare a 100 µg/mL working solution. UV-Vis scanning (200 - 450 nm) in quadruplicate (BioTek Epoch 2 microplate reader) was used to determine the maximum analytical wavelength (<italic>λ</italic>max). Calibration standards were prepared between 5 and 30 µg/mL (n = 4 per level) in 70% ethanol and absorbance was recorded at 330 nm with 200 µL per well. Linear regression was used to produce the calibration equation that was used to quantify RA.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot5">
        <title>2.5. Extraction Optimisation</title>
        <p>Three parameters were optimised sequentially using ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) in an ultrasonic water bath at 45˚C with 70% ethanol: 1) plant-to-solvent ratio (1:40, 1:30, 1:20, 1:10 w/v, fixed at 10 mL; n = 4 per ratio); 2) extraction time (20, 30, 45, 60 min at 1:20 w/v; n = 4); and 3) number of successive extraction cycles (up to 3 cycles; 0.25 g dry material, 5 mL per cycle; n = 4). All extracts were filtered through 0.2 µm syringe filters, diluted 30-fold with 70% ethanol, and absorbance was measured at 330 nm. RA-equivalent concentrations were calculated from the calibration equation corrected for the 30-fold dilution factor. Precision was assessed by </p>
        <disp-formula id="FD2">
          <mml:math>
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mtext>CV</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mi>%</mml:mi>
              <mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>SD</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Mean</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
              <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
              <mml:mn>100</mml:mn>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
        <p>Optimum extraction conditions were selected descriptively based on three criteria: higher RA-equivalent recovery, higher absorbance suitable for RA-equivalent calculation, and lower coefficient of variation among four replicates.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot6">
        <title>2.6. Large-Scale Extraction, Concentration, and Freeze-Drying</title>
        <p>Ten grams of dried rosemary powder was extracted under optimised UAE conditions. The pooled extract was concentrated by rotary evaporation at 35˚C under reduced pressure, and the flask was rinsed with 90% ethanol to recover residual extract. All fractions were transferred to pre-weighed Falcon tubes and freeze-dried (lyophilised) over approximately four days. Crude extract mass was determined gravimetrically using the formula:</p>
        <disp-formula id="FD3">
          <mml:math display="inline">
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mtext>Extraction</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mtext>
                 
              </mml:mtext>
              <mml:mtext>yield</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mrow>
                <mml:mo>(</mml:mo>
                <mml:mtext>%</mml:mtext>
                <mml:mo>)</mml:mo>
              </mml:mrow>
              <mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Crude</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>
                     
                  </mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>extract</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>
                     
                  </mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>mass</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Initial</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>
                     
                  </mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>dry</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>
                     
                  </mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>plant</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>
                     
                  </mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>mass</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
              <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
              <mml:mn>100</mml:mn>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
        <p>RA-equivalent content in the crude extract was estimated spectrophotometrically and expressed as mg RA equivalents per gram of crude extract. Because rosemary contains other phenolic compounds that may absorb at 330 nm, the values are reported as RA equivalents rather than specific RA-equivalent concentrations.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot7">
        <title>2.7. Bacterial Strains and Identification</title>
        <p>Local isolates of <italic>K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and E. coli</italic>were used alongside ATCC reference strains (LYFO DISK<sup>®</sup>): <italic>E. coli</italic>ATCC 25922, <italic>K. pneumoniae</italic> ATCC 13883, and <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> ATCC 27853. All the 3 tested strains were isolated from urine samples and stored in the microbiology laboratory for routine work with the alphabetical serial number D2, E1, G1. Stocks were maintained at −80˚C in 50% (v/v) glycerol. Local isolates were identified by VITEK<sup>®</sup> 2 (bioMérieux) using GN identification cards following Gram staining.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot8">
        <title>2.8. Antibiotic Susceptibility Testing</title>
        <p>Susceptibility was assessed by Kirby-Bauer disk diffusion on Mueller-Hinton agar per CLSI M100, 36th edition [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B12">12</xref>]. Bacterial suspensions were adjusted to 0.5 McFarland (~1.5 × 10<sup>8</sup> CFU/mL) by DensiCheck. Antibiotic discs were placed on inoculated plates and incubated at 37˚C for 24 h. Zone diameters were measured and interpreted (S/I/R) per CLSI organism-specific breakpoints. Four independent replicates (n = 4) were performed. ATCC reference strains served as quality controls.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot9">
        <title>2.9. Antibacterial Activity of Crude Extract and Pure RA</title>
        <p>The freeze-dried rosemary crude extract was dissolved in 70% ethanol to make four concentrations of 100, 200, 300, and 400 mg/mL. The concentrations of these crude extracts were made depending on the weight of the crude extracts. For 2.50 mL final volume, 0.2500, 0.5000, 0.7500, and 1.0000 g of crude extract were dissolved in 2.50 mL of 70% ethanol to prepare the 100, 200, 300, and 400 mg/mL solutions, respectively.</p>
        <p>The RA-equivalent content of the crude extract was determined to be 55.74 mg RA equivalents/g crude extract. Thus, the corresponding pure RA-equivalent concentrations were determined by the following equation:</p>
        <disp-formula id="FD4">
          <mml:math display="inline">
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mtext>Equivalent</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mtext>
                 
              </mml:mtext>
              <mml:mtext>pure</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mtext>
                 
              </mml:mtext>
              <mml:mtext>RA</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mtext>
                 
              </mml:mtext>
              <mml:mtext>concentration</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>crude</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>
                     
                  </mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>extract</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>
                     
                  </mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mtext>concentration</mml:mtext>
                  <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
                  <mml:mn>55.74</mml:mn>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mn>1000</mml:mn>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
        <p>Based on this, the corresponding equivalent pure RA-equivalent concentrations of 100, 200, 300, and 400 mg/mL crude extract were 5.574, 11.148, 16.722 and 22.296 mg/mL, respectively. As an illustration, the RA-equivalent concentration of 400 mg/mL crude extract was computed as follows:</p>
        <disp-formula id="FD5">
          <mml:math>
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mn>400</mml:mn>
                  <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
                  <mml:mn>55.74</mml:mn>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mn>1000</mml:mn>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
              <mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
              <mml:mo>
              </mml:mo>
              <mml:mn>22.296</mml:mn>
              <mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>mg</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mo>/</mml:mo>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>mL</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mrow>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
        <p>Sterile filter paper discs were loaded with 7.5 µL of each solution, air-dried, and placed on Mueller-Hinton agar plates inoculated with standardised suspensions of six strains: <italic>E. coli</italic> ATCC 25922, <italic>E. coli</italic> local (E1), <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> ATCC 27853, <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> local (G1), <italic>K. pneumoniae</italic> ATCC 13883, and K<italic>. pneumoniae</italic> local (D2). The negative control was a 70% ethanol disc and the positive control was a standard antibiotic disc. Incubation of plates was done at 37˚C over 24 h and inhibition zones were measured.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot10">
        <title>2.10. Combination Disk Diffusion Assay</title>
        <p>The highest crude extract concentration (400 mg/mL) and its equivalent pure RA were combined with antibiotics selected by strain susceptibility: CIP 5 µg for <italic>E.</italic><italic>coli</italic>and <italic>Pseudomonas</italic>, CRO 30 µg for <italic>Klebsiella</italic>. Three-disc conditions were tested per plate: 1) antibiotic alone; 2) antibiotic + crude extract (7.5 µL of 400 mg/mL applied onto the antibiotic disc); 3) antibiotic + equivalent RA. Assays were conducted on three ATCC strains and three local isolates in triplicate. </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec2dot11">
        <title>2.11. Statistical Analysis</title>
        <p>Findings are presented in the form of mean ± standard deviation. Coefficient of variation (CV percent) was calculated as:</p>
        <disp-formula id="FD6">
          <mml:math>
            <mml:mrow>
              <mml:mtext>CV%</mml:mtext>
              <mml:mo>=</mml:mo>
              <mml:mfrac>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>SD</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
                <mml:mrow>
                  <mml:mtext>Mean</mml:mtext>
                </mml:mrow>
              </mml:mfrac>
              <mml:mo>×</mml:mo>
              <mml:mn>100</mml:mn>
            </mml:mrow>
          </mml:math>
        </disp-formula>
        <p>Linear regression was used to construct a calibration curve. The extraction optimisation and antibacterial assays were evaluated descriptively based on mean values, CV%, and inhibition-zone comparisons. No inferential statistical test was applied. All calculations were performed using Microsoft Excel.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec3">
      <title>3. Results</title>
      <sec id="sec3dot1">
        <title>3.1. Moisture Content of Fresh Rosemary Leaves</title>
        <p>The fresh rosemary leaves were analysed using the gravimetric analysis to identify the moisture content of the leaves in four replicates. <bold>Table 1</bold> summarises the results. The values of individual moisture content were between 85.03 and 85.46 percent among replicates. The mean moisture level was 85.27 + 0.18%, which implied that the moisture level was high and reproducible.</p>
        <p>Table 1. Moisture content of fresh rosemary leaves (<italic>Rosmarinus officinalis</italic>) (n = 4).</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl1">
          <label>Table 1</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Sample ID</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Fresh</bold>
                  <bold>weight</bold>
                  <bold>(g)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Dry</bold>
                  <bold>weight</bold>
                  <bold>(g)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Moisture</bold>
                  <bold>content</bold>
                  <bold>(%)</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>1</bold>
                </td>
                <td>5.0060</td>
                <td>0.7281</td>
                <td>85.46</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>2</bold>
                </td>
                <td>5.0012</td>
                <td>0.7372</td>
                <td>85.26</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>3</bold>
                </td>
                <td>5.0074</td>
                <td>0.7500</td>
                <td>85.03</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>4</bold>
                </td>
                <td>5.0002</td>
                <td>0.7336</td>
                <td>85.33</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Mean ± SD</bold>
                </td>
                <td>5.0037 ± 0.0035</td>
                <td>0.7372 ± 0.0093</td>
                <td>85.27 ± 0.18</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot2">
        <title>3.2. Maximum Analytical Wavelength and Calibration Curve</title>
        <p>The UV-Vis absorption spectrums of R measured in the wavelength range of 200-450 nm exhibited similar spectral patterns in four replicates with a maximum absorbance (lmax) of 330 nm (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). At this wavelength, the measured absorbance values for calibration standards increased with concentration from 5 to 30 µg/mL, yielding mean absorbance values of 0.50 ± 0.01, 0.77 ± 0.01, 1.02 ± 0.01, 1.24 ± 0.01, 1.66 ± 0.02, and 1.82 ± 0.01, respectively (<bold>Table 2</bold>). The analysis of the calibration data using linear regression yielded the equation y = 0.0542x + 0.2193 with a coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>) of 0.9905 (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>).</p>
        <fig id="fig1">
          <label>Figure 1</label>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2272269-rId32.jpeg?20260612110417" />
        </fig>
        <p>Figure 1. UV-Vis absorption spectrum of rosmarinic acid in 70% (v/v) ethanol and ethanol as control over the wavelength range of 250 - 450 nm, expressed as mean absorbance ± SD from four independent replicates (n = 4). </p>
        <p>Table 2. Rosmarinic acid calibration standards and corresponding mean absorbance values at 330 nm measured using a BioTek Epoch 2 microplate reader (n = 4).</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl2">
          <label>Table 2</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Standard ID</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Concentration (µg/mL)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Mean</bold>
                  <bold>absorbance</bold>
                  <bold>± SD (330 nm)</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>S1</bold>
                </td>
                <td>5</td>
                <td>0.50 ± 0.01</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>S2</bold>
                </td>
                <td>10</td>
                <td>0.77 ± 0.01</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>S3</bold>
                </td>
                <td>15</td>
                <td>1.02 ± 0.01</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>S4</bold>
                </td>
                <td>20</td>
                <td>1.24 ± 0.01</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>S5</bold>
                </td>
                <td>25</td>
                <td>1.66 ± 0.02</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>S6</bold>
                </td>
                <td>30</td>
                <td>1.82 ± 0.01</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <fig id="fig2">
          <label>Figure 2</label>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://html.scirp.org/file/2272269-rId33.jpeg?20260612110417" />
        </fig>
        <p>Figure 2. Standard curve of rosmarinic acid at 330 nm.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot3">
        <title>3.3. Comparison of Fresh versus Dried Plant Material for RA Extraction</title>
        <p>When extraction was performed on equivalent dry matter (0.50 g dry matter per 10 mL 70% ethanol), dried rosemary produced a marginally higher mean absorbance (0.912 ± 0.058; CV = 6.41%) than fresh rosemary (0.854 ± 0.092; CV = 10.79%) (<bold>Table 3</bold>). Converting these absorbance values using the calibration equation, the RA-equivalent yield from dried material was 7.67 mg/g dry weight compared to 7.03 mg/g dry weight from fresh material.</p>
        <p>Table 3. Comparison of absorbance values (330 nm) and calculated RA-equivalent yields from fresh and dried rosemary extracts on a dry-weight basis (n = 4).</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl3">
          <label>Table 3</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Parameter</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Fresh</bold>
                  <bold>rosemary</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Dried</bold>
                  <bold>rosemary</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Mean</bold>
                  <bold>absorbance</bold>
                  <bold>± SD</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.854 ± 0.092</td>
                <td>0.912 ± 0.058</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV (%)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>10.79</td>
                <td>6.41</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>RA-equivalent concentration in diluted sample (µg/mL)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>11.71</td>
                <td>12.78</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>RA-equivalent concentration in original extract (mg/mL)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.351</td>
                <td>0.383</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total RA-equivalent content extracted (mg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>3.51</td>
                <td>3.83</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Yield (mg/g dry matter)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>7.03</td>
                <td>7.67</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot4">
        <title>3.4. Optimisation of Plant-to-Solvent Ratio</title>
        <p>Four plant-to-solvent ratios were evaluated to determine the optimal balance between total RA-equivalent recovery and extraction efficiency (<bold>Table 4</bold>). Mean absorbance at 330 nm increased progressively from 0.521 ± 0.082 (1:40 ratio, 0.25 g dry mass) to 0.901 ± 0.038 (1:10 ratio, 1.00 g dry mass). However, when efficiency was expressed as RA-equivalent yield per gram of dry plant material, the inverse relationship was observed: yield decreased from 6.68 mg/g at the 1:40 ratio to 3.77 mg/g at the 1:10 ratio, consistent with solvent saturation effects at higher solid loadings. The 1:20 ratio (0.50 g dry mass, 10 mL 70% ethanol) achieved an acceptable balance between total RA-equivalent recovery (2.53 mg per extraction) and extraction efficiency (5.07 mg/g).</p>
        <p>Table 4. Effect of solid-to-solvent ratio on absorbance at 330 nm, total RA-equivalent recovery, and extraction yield from dry rosemary powder (n = 4).</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl4">
          <label>Table 4</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ratio (w/v)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Dry</bold>
                  <bold>weight</bold>
                  <bold>(g)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Mean</bold>
                  <bold>absorbance</bold>
                  <bold>± SD</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV (%)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total RA-equivalent content (mg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Yield (mg/g)</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>1:40</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.25</td>
                <td>0.521 ± 0.082</td>
                <td>15.7</td>
                <td>1.67</td>
                <td>6.68</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>1:30</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.33</td>
                <td>0.583 ± 0.115</td>
                <td>19.7</td>
                <td>2.01</td>
                <td>6.10</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>1:20</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.50</td>
                <td>0.677 ± 0.081</td>
                <td>12.0</td>
                <td>2.53</td>
                <td>5.07</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>1:10</bold>
                </td>
                <td>1.00</td>
                <td>0.901 ± 0.038</td>
                <td>4.2</td>
                <td>3.77</td>
                <td>3.77</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot5">
        <title>3.5. Optimisation of Extraction Time</title>
        <p>Mean absorbance values obtained at 20 min (0.712 ± 0.060, CV = 8.40%), 30 min (0.718 ± 0.049, CV = 6.80%), and 45 min (0.719 ± 0.036, CV = 5.00%) were closely comparable, suggesting that the majority of extractable RA-equivalent content is released within the first 20 minutes of sonication (<bold>Table 5</bold>). The longest extraction time (60 minutes) yielded the largest mean absorbance (0.804 ± 0.095) but with a significantly higher CV (11.80%). </p>
        <p>Table 5. Absorbance values at 330 nm obtained from the first extraction of dry rosemary using ultrasound-assisted extraction at different extraction times (n = 4).</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl5">
          <label>Table 5</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Extraction</bold>
                  <bold>time</bold>
                  <bold>(min)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Mean</bold>
                  <bold>absorbance</bold>
                  <bold>± SD</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV (%)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>RA</bold>
                  <bold>concentration</bold>
                  <bold>(µg/mL)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>RA</bold>
                  <bold>yield</bold>
                  <bold>(mg/g)</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>20</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.712 ± 0.060</td>
                <td>8.4</td>
                <td>272.71</td>
                <td>5.44</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>30</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.718 ± 0.049</td>
                <td>6.8</td>
                <td>276.03</td>
                <td>5.50</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>45</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.719 ± 0.036</td>
                <td>5.0</td>
                <td>276.59</td>
                <td>5.54</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>60</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.804 ± 0.095</td>
                <td>11.8</td>
                <td>323.63</td>
                <td>6.45</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot6">
        <title>3.6. Optimisation of Successive Extraction Cycles</title>
        <p>Three successive extraction cycles were performed on the same 0.25 g dry rosemary material using 5 mL 70% ethanol per cycle (<bold>Table 6</bold>). The highest percentage of RA-equivalent content was obtained in the first extraction (mean absorbance 0.8945 ± 0.0438, CV = 4.90%; yield 7.47 mg/g), which recovered 61.04% of the total RA-equivalent content recovered in three cycles. The second extraction yielded an additional 25.38% (mean absorbance 0.500 ± 0.030, CV = 6.0%), and the third cycle contributed only 13.58% of the total (mean absorbance 0.3695 ± 0.0343, CV = 9.3%). The cumulative RA-equivalent recovery after two cycles was 86.42% of the total.</p>
        <p>Table 6. Mean absorbance values and calculated RA-equivalent yields from successive ultrasound-assisted extraction cycles of dry rosemary (n = 4, per cycle).</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl6">
          <label>Table 6</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Extraction No.</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Mean</bold>
                  <bold>absorbance</bold>
                  <bold>± SD</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV (%)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Yield</bold>
                  <bold>this cycle</bold>
                  <bold>(mg/g)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>% of</bold>
                  <bold>total</bold>
                  <bold>RA-equivalent content</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>1</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.8945 ± 0.0438</td>
                <td>4.90</td>
                <td>7.47</td>
                <td>61.04</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>2</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.500 ± 0.030</td>
                <td>6.00</td>
                <td>3.11</td>
                <td>25.38</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>3</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.3695 ± 0.0343</td>
                <td>9.30</td>
                <td>1.66</td>
                <td>13.58</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot7">
        <title>3.7. Crude Extract Yield and RA-Equivalent Content</title>
        <p>Large-scale extraction of 10.0296 g dried rosemary yielded 1.69025 g freeze-dried crude extract (<bold>Table 7</bold>). The crude extract (diluted 1:30) was spectrophotometrically quantified at 330 nm with an absorbance of 0.320. The use of the calibration equation gave an RA-equivalent concentration of 1.858 µg/mL in the diluted sample, which is equivalent to 55.74 mg RA equivalents/g crude extract (0.55738 mg/0.01 g). The detailed calculation is presented in <bold>Table 8</bold>.</p>
        <p>Table 7. Weights of freeze-dried crude rosemary extract collected in individual Falcon tubes and calculated total yield.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl7">
          <label>Table 7</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Tube No.</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Empty tube weight (g)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Final</bold>
                  <bold>tube weight</bold>
                  <bold>(g)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Net</bold>
                  <bold>crude extract mass</bold>
                  <bold>(g)</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>1</bold>
                </td>
                <td>12.6757</td>
                <td>13.1703</td>
                <td>0.4946</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>2</bold>
                </td>
                <td>12.87585</td>
                <td>13.2695</td>
                <td>0.39365</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>3</bold>
                </td>
                <td>12.8375</td>
                <td>13.6071</td>
                <td>0.7696</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>4*</bold>
                </td>
                <td>12.6365</td>
                <td>12.6689</td>
                <td>0.0324</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total</bold>
                </td>
                <td>—</td>
                <td>—</td>
                <td>1.69025</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>* Tube 4 represents the additional fraction recovered from rinsing the rotary evaporator flask with 90% ethanol.</p>
        <p>Table 8. Calculation of crude extract yield and RA-equivalent content of freeze-dried rosemary extract.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl8">
          <label>Table 8</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Parameter</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Calculation</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Result</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Initial dry rosemary powder mass</bold>
                </td>
                <td>—</td>
                <td>10.0296 g</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total freeze-dried crude extract mass</bold>
                </td>
                <td>—</td>
                <td>1.69025 g</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Extraction yield (%)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>(1.69025/10.0296) × 100</td>
                <td>16.85%</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Crude extract used for RA analysis</bold>
                </td>
                <td>—</td>
                <td>0.0100 g</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Solvent volume used</bold>
                </td>
                <td>—</td>
                <td>10.00 mL</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Absorbance of undiluted sample at 330 nm</bold>
                </td>
                <td>—</td>
                <td>2.133</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Dilution factor</bold>
                </td>
                <td>—</td>
                <td>1:30</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Absorbance of diluted sample at 330 nm</bold>
                </td>
                <td>—</td>
                <td>0.320</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Calibration curve equation</bold>
                </td>
                <td>y = 0.0542x + 0.2193</td>
                <td>—</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>RA-equivalent concentration in diluted sample</bold>
                </td>
                <td>x = (0.320 − 0.2193)/0.0542</td>
                <td>1.858 µg/mL</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>RA-equivalent concentration in original solution</bold>
                </td>
                <td>1.858 × 30</td>
                <td>55.738 µg/mL</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Total RA-equivalent content in prepared solution</bold>
                </td>
                <td>55.738 × 10.00</td>
                <td>557.38 µg = 0.55738 mg</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>RA-equivalent content in crude extract</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.55738/0.0100</td>
                <td>55.74 mg/g crude extract</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot8">
        <title>3.8. Antibiotic Susceptibility Profiles</title>
        <p><bold>Table</bold><bold>s 9-11</bold> provide data on antibiotic susceptibility between local isolates and ATCC reference strains. The three local Gram-negative isolates were all ampicillin-resistant (zone diameter &lt; 13 mm). The local <italic>E. coli</italic> and <italic>K. pneumoniae</italic> isolates were susceptible to imipenem, ceftriaxone, and ciprofloxacin. Intermediate susceptibility of local <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> to imipenem and strong susceptibility to ciprofloxacin were observed. However, ceftriaxone was also tested against <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic>; however, no S/I/R interpretation was assigned because no CLSI breakpoint was applied for this organism-antibiotic combination. All ATCC QC strains performed within acceptable CLSI ranges (CV% &lt; 7%). </p>
        <p>Table 9. Antibiotic susceptibility of local <italic>Klebsiella pneumoniae</italic> versus ATCC 13883.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl9">
          <label>Table 9</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Antibiotic (disc load)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Local isolate (mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV%</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>ATCC 13883 (mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV%</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CLSI</bold>
                  <bold>breakpoint</bold>
                  <bold>(mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Local S/I/R</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Imipenem (10 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>26.48 ± 0.98</td>
                <td>3.7</td>
                <td>24.90 ± 0.84</td>
                <td>3.4</td>
                <td>S ≥ 23/R ≤ 19</td>
                <td>S</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ceftriaxone (30 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>30.01 ± 2.35</td>
                <td>7.8</td>
                <td>27.55 ± 0.45</td>
                <td>1.6</td>
                <td>S ≥ 23/R ≤ 19</td>
                <td>S</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ciprofloxacin (5 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>26.28 ± 0.23</td>
                <td>0.9</td>
                <td>28.75 ± 0.65</td>
                <td>2.3</td>
                <td>S ≥ 21/R ≤ 15</td>
                <td>S</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ampicillin (10 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>5.23 ± 3.56</td>
                <td>68.1</td>
                <td>6.22 ± 4.25</td>
                <td>68.3</td>
                <td>S ≥ 17/R ≤ 13</td>
                <td>R</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Penicillin G (10 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00%</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00%</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>-</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Erythromycin (15 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>8.72 ± 0.32</td>
                <td>3.6</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>-</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>S = susceptible; I = intermediate; R = resistant.</p>
        <p>Table 10. Antibiotic susceptibility of local <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> versus ATCC 25922.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl10">
          <label>Table 10</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Antibiotic (disc load)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Local isolate (mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV%</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>ATCC 25922 (mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV%</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CLSI</bold>
                  <bold>breakpoint</bold>
                  <bold>(mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Local S/I/R</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Imipenem (10 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>28.82 ± 0.83</td>
                <td>2.9</td>
                <td>28.57 ± 1.01</td>
                <td>3.5</td>
                <td>S ≥ 23/R ≤ 19</td>
                <td>S</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ceftriaxone (30 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>31.17 ± 0.39</td>
                <td>1.3</td>
                <td>31.24 ± 0.87</td>
                <td>2.8</td>
                <td>S ≥ 23/R ≤ 19</td>
                <td>S</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ciprofloxacin (5 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>29.82 ± 0.80</td>
                <td>2.7</td>
                <td>33.16 ± 0.98</td>
                <td>3.0</td>
                <td>S ≥ 21/R ≤ 15</td>
                <td>S</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ampicillin (10 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>9.90 ± 0.57</td>
                <td>5.8</td>
                <td>21.40 ± 0.51</td>
                <td>2.4</td>
                <td>S ≥ 17/R ≤ 13</td>
                <td>R</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Penicillin G (10 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00%</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00%</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>-</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Erythromycin (15 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>8.67 ± 0.46</td>
                <td>5.3</td>
                <td>9.31 ± 0.46</td>
                <td>4.9</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>-</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>S = susceptible; R = resistant.</p>
        <p>Table 11. Antibiotic susceptibility of local <italic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</italic> versus ATCC 27853. </p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl11">
          <label>Table 11</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Antibiotic (disc load)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Local isolate (mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV%</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>ATCC 27853 (mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV%</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CLSI</bold>
                  <bold>breakpoint</bold>
                  <bold>(mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Local S/I/R</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Imipenem (10 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>18.98 ± 1.17</td>
                <td>6.2</td>
                <td>19.10 ± 0.58</td>
                <td>3.1</td>
                <td>S ≥ 22/R ≤ 18</td>
                <td>I</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ceftriaxone (30 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>20.05 ± 1.24</td>
                <td>6.2</td>
                <td>10.24 ± 0.20</td>
                <td>1.96</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>-</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ciprofloxacin (5 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>34.37 ± 0.16</td>
                <td>0.5</td>
                <td>29.16 ± 1.81</td>
                <td>6.2</td>
                <td>S ≥ 21/R ≤ 15</td>
                <td>S</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Ampicillin (10 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>-</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Erythromycin (15 µg)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>-</td>
                <td>-</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
        <p>I = intermediate; R = resistant.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot9">
        <title>3.9. Antibacterial Activity of Crude Extract and Equivalent RA</title>
        <p>The antibiotic control yielded clear inhibition zones in all the bacterial strains tested whereas the 70% ethanol control did not yield any inhibition. No inhibition zones were observed for either rosemary crude extract or equivalent RA-equivalent concentrations (100 - 400 mg/mL) against <italic>E. coli</italic> ATCC, <italic>E. coli</italic>local isolate,<italic>Pseudomonas</italic> local isolate, and <italic>Klebsiella pneumoniae</italic> local isolate, with all measurements recorded as 0.00 mm. However, weak inhibition was observed against <italic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</italic> ATCC treated with crude extract, with mean inhibition zones of 8.25 ± 0.12 mm, 8.52 ± 0.11 mm, 8.92 ± 0.12 mm, and 9.24 ± 0.13 mm at concentrations of 100, 200, 300, and 400 mg/mL, respectively. Detectable inhibition was also observed only in <italic>Klebsiella pneumoniae</italic> ATCC treated with crude extract, with mean inhibition zones of 11.19 ± 0.31 mm, 11.11 ± 0.60 mm, 11.59 ± 0.57 mm, and 12.30 ± 0.29 mm at concentrations of 100, 200, 300, and 400 mg/mL, respectively. No inhibition was recorded for equivalent RA at any concentration against any of the tested strains (<bold>Table 12</bold>).</p>
        <p>Table 12. Inhibition zone diameters (mm) of crude rosemary extract and equivalent pure rosmarinic acid against selected bacterial strains. Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD), with coefficient of variation (CV%).</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl12">
          <label>Table 12</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Strain</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Sample</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Conc. (mg/mL)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Mean ± SD (mm)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>CV (%)</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>E. coli</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>ATCC</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Crude extract</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>E. coli</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>(Local)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Crude extract</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="4">
                  <italic>
                    <bold>P. aeruginosa</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>ATCC</bold>
                </td>
                <td rowspan="4">Crude extract</td>
                <td>100</td>
                <td>8.25 ± 0.12</td>
                <td>1.45</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>200</td>
                <td>8.52 ± 0.11</td>
                <td>1.29</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>300</td>
                <td>8.92 ± 0.12</td>
                <td>1.35</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>400</td>
                <td>9.24 ± 0.13</td>
                <td>1.41</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>P. aeruginosa</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>(Local G1)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Crude extract</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="4">
                  <italic>
                    <bold>K. pneumoniae</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>ATCC</bold>
                </td>
                <td rowspan="4">Crude extract</td>
                <td>100</td>
                <td>11.19 ± 0.31</td>
                <td>2.73</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>200</td>
                <td>11.11 ± 0.60</td>
                <td>5.37</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>300</td>
                <td>11.59 ± 0.57</td>
                <td>4.93</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>400</td>
                <td>12.30 ± 0.29</td>
                <td>2.36</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>K. pneumoniae</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>(Local)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Crude extract</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>E. coli</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>ATCC</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Pure RA</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>E. coli</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>(Local)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Pure RA</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>P. aeruginosa</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>ATCC</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Pure RA</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>P. aeruginosa</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>(Local)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Pure RA</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>K. pneumoniae</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>ATCC</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Pure RA</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <italic>
                    <bold>K. pneumoniae</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>(Local)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Pure RA</td>
                <td>100 - 400</td>
                <td>0.00 ± 0.00</td>
                <td>0.00</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec3dot10">
        <title>3.10. Combination Effect of Crude Extract and RA with Antibiotics</title>
        <p>The antibiotic control resulted in quantifiable inhibition areas on all strains tested with an average diameter of 24.60 + 0.12 mm to 31.54 + 0.26 mm. When used in combination, both antibiotic + crude extract and antibiotic + RA showed a decrease in the inhibition zones in all strains. For <italic>Klebsiella</italic> ATCC, inhibition zones decreased from 27.98 ± 0.54 mm (antibiotic) to 27.95 ± 0.23 mm (antibiotic + crude) and 25.52 ± 0.12 mm (antibiotic + RA). Similar reductions were observed in <italic>Pseudomonas</italic>ATCC (24.60 ± 0.12 mm to 22.13 ± 0.54 mm and 21.59 ± 0.42 mm), <italic>E. coli</italic> ATCC (31.22 ± 0.66 mm to 30.10 ± 0.06 mm and 27.80 ± 0.27 mm), <italic>Klebsiella</italic> (local) (30.13 ± 0.75 mm to 29.34 ± 0.70 mm and 27.73 ± 0.64 mm), <italic>Pseudomonas</italic> (local) (31.54 ± 0.26 mm to 27.84 ± 0.53 mm and 24.88 ± 0.11 mm), and <italic>E. coli</italic> (local) (30.09 ± 0.92 mm to 27.59 ± 0.60 mm and 25.56 ± 0.53 mm), respectively (<bold>Table 13</bold>). </p>
        <p>Table 13. Inhibition zone diameters (mm) of antibiotic alone and in combination with rosemary crude extract (400 mg/mL) or equivalent pure RA, tested against ATCC reference strains and local isolates.</p>
        <table-wrap id="tbl13">
          <label>Table 13</label>
          <table>
            <tbody>
              <tr>
                <td>
                  <bold>Strain</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Treatment</bold>
                </td>
                <td>
                  <bold>Mean ± SD (mm)</bold>
                </td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="3">
                  <italic>
                    <bold>Klebsiella</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>ATCC</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Antibiotic</td>
                <td>27.98 ± 0.54</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + Crude</td>
                <td>27.95 ± 0.23</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + RA</td>
                <td>25.52 ± 0.12</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="3">
                  <italic>
                    <bold>Pseudomonas</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>ATCC</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Antibiotic</td>
                <td>24.60 ± 0.12</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + Crude</td>
                <td>22.13 ± 0.54</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + RA</td>
                <td>21.59 ± 0.42</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="3">
                  <italic>
                    <bold>E. coli</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>ATCC</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Antibiotic</td>
                <td>31.22 ± 0.66</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + Crude</td>
                <td>30.10 ± 0.06</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + RA</td>
                <td>27.80 ± 0.27</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="3">
                  <italic>
                    <bold>Klebsiella</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>(Local)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Antibiotic</td>
                <td>30.13 ± 0.75</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + Crude</td>
                <td>29.34 ± 0.70</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + RA</td>
                <td>27.73 ± 0.64</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="3">
                  <italic>
                    <bold>Pseudomonas</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>(Local)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Antibiotic</td>
                <td>31.54 ± 0.26</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + Crude</td>
                <td>27.84 ± 0.53</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + RA</td>
                <td>24.88 ± 0.11</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td rowspan="3">
                  <italic>
                    <bold>E. coli</bold>
                  </italic>
                  <bold>(Local)</bold>
                </td>
                <td>Antibiotic</td>
                <td>30.09 ± 0.92</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + Crude</td>
                <td>27.59 ± 0.60</td>
              </tr>
              <tr>
                <td>Antibiotic + RA</td>
                <td>25.56 ± 0.53</td>
              </tr>
            </tbody>
          </table>
        </table-wrap>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec4">
      <title>4. Discussion</title>
      <sec id="sec4dot1">
        <title>4.1. Extraction and Quantification of RA</title>
        <p>The current experiment demonstrated that the <italic>Rosmarinus officinalis</italic> grown in the UAE is a quantifiable source of RA, with dry leaves containing slightly more RA-equivalent content than fresh leaves (7.67 vs. 7.03 mg/g dry weight) and lower variability. This is in accordance with the ultrasound extraction study by Albu <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>], who reported the enhancement of the dried rosemary extraction as compared to the fresh material and with Paniwnyk <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref>], who demonstrated that sonication enhances the extraction efficiency of rosemary antioxidants, as well as reducing the time of extraction. Likewise, Zu <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B15">15</xref>] also found that RA is recoverable under the ultrasound-assisted conditions in rosemary and could be observed at 330 nm, which is the same wavelength in the current study. </p>
        <p>The optimisation findings were also in agreement with earlier extraction studies. The findings of the current investigation indicated that as the amount of plant loading was increased, the total material recovered rose; however, the yield per gram decreased. 20 - 45 min of extraction times yielded comparable absorbance readings, and two cycles yielded 86.42% of the total extractable RA-equivalent content. Such results are consistent with Paniwnyk <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B14">14</xref>], who determined that ultrasound primarily increases the initial extraction phase, with lesser improvements in extraction, and with Bellumori <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B16">16</xref>], who observed that the recovery of rosemary phenolic under ultrasound is highly condition-dependent and selective instead of merely being dependent on extension of extraction. Overall, these findings justify the chosen protocol as a promising approach to extracting RA-equivalent-rich extracts of UAE-grown rosemary. </p>
        <p>The crude extract yield of 16.85 percent and an estimated 55.74 mg /g RA equivalents crude extract also suggest that rosemary grown under the UAE conditions has retained its useful phenolic content. Previously reported rosemary studies have also indicated that ethanol-based ultrasound extraction could yield phenolic-rich fractions expressed as RA equivalents, but with varying absolute values depending on cultivar, pretreatment, solvent composition, and analytical platform due to variation in studies [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B13">13</xref>]. In this respect, the current information positions rosemary cultivated in the UAE as a viable local source of RA-containing extract in the expanded literature on extraction.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec4dot2">
        <title>4.2. Antibacterial Activity against Gram-Negative Pathogens</title>
        <p>In the current experiment, there was mild direct antibacterial activity of the rosemary preparations against Gram-negative strains tested. Crude extract demonstrated weak inhibition of <italic>Klebsiella pneumoniae</italic> ATCC with zones of approximately 11 - 12 mm, and weak inhibition of <italic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</italic> ATCC with zones of approximately 8 - 9 mm, whereas pure RA had no inhibition of that strain, and neither preparation inhibited the tested <italic>Escherichia coli</italic> strains or the local <italic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</italic> isolate in the standalone test. The profile is more similar to the results of Khalil and Al-Lebathi [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>], who found only significant direct activity of ethanolic rosemary extract against multi-antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria and only determined inhibition zones of 7.50 ± 0.50 mm of <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> and 6.00 ± 0.20 mm of <italic>K. pneumoniae</italic> at 100 mg/mL.</p>
        <p>At the same time, the present results are weaker than those of Husein <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B18">18</xref>], who reported measurable antibacterial activity of rosemary extract against urinary isolates, including inhibition zones up to 16 mm in <italic>E. coli</italic>, MIC values of 4 mg/mL for <italic>E. coli</italic>and 32 mg/mL for <italic>Enteroc</italic><italic>occus faecalis</italic>, and marked biofilm inhibition. This comparison puts the existing results in the literature with great variability in rosemary extract activity depending on the set of strain and assay format. The present study, therefore, aligns more closely with reports of modest Gram-negative activity than with studies showing stronger inhibition in broth-based or biofilm-focused systems. </p>
        <p>A further result of the present study is that weak activity was observed with the crude extract against <italic>K. pneumoniae</italic> ATCC and <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> ATCC, whereas equivalent pure RA showed no activity. This difference is in line with the larger RA literature synthesized by Kernou <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B19">19</xref>], who found that antibacterial effects of RA and its derivatives are strongly reliant on the bacterial model and formulation, and with Ivanov <italic>et al.</italic> [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B10">10</xref>], who reported RA activity to be variable among organisms and experimental systems. In that scenario, the current evidence indicates that any low activity detected in this case can rather be ascribed to the crude phytochemical mixture than RA. </p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec4dot3">
        <title>4.3. Antibiotic Interaction of Crude Extract and RA</title>
        <p>The combination disk diffusion assay revealed that the combination of the chosen antibiotics with either rosemary crude extract or the same amount of pure RA did not enhance the antibacterial activity against any of the tested strains. The combined treatments showed no interaction under the current experimental conditions as the inhibition zones of the combined treatments were always equal or smaller than those of the antibiotic alone in both ATCC reference strains and local isolates <italic>of</italic><italic>Klebsiella pneumoniae</italic><italic>,</italic><italic>Pseudomonas aeruginosa</italic><italic>, and</italic><italic>Escherichia coli</italic><italic>.</italic> Furthermore, in several strains, the antibiotic-plus-RA condition had smaller inhibition zones than the antibiotic-plus-crude-extract condition, which suggests that pure RA did not show a greater antibiotic adjuvant effect than the crude extract in this assay. These results are in contrast to the earlier reports of combination effects between rosmarinic acid and antibiotics against <italic>Staphylococcus au</italic><italic>reus</italic> and MRSA, suggesting that these effects are highly dependent on bacterial species, antibiotic selection, and assay format [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B11">11</xref>]. Likewise, differences from more recent rosemary-based combination studies may reflect variation in organism type, extract preparation, and test design [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="B17">17</xref>].</p>
        <p>Overall, these results present valuable evidence that the antibiotic-modifying effect of rosemary crude extract and RA is assay- and strain-specific, which provides a clear foundation to continue the research with more sensitive techniques and wider bacterial models. </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec5">
      <title>5. Conclusion</title>
      <p>Conclusively, this research determines that <italic>Rosmarinus officinalis</italic> grown in the UAE is a local source of RA, and ultrasound-aided extraction with 70% ethanol is a viable and consistent method of extracting and quantifying it. The optimized protocol produced quantifiable amounts of RA-equivalent content in dry plant material and crude extract, which contributes to the phytochemical quality of rosemary grown in the UAE conditions. The microbiological results also revealed that the local Gram-negative isolates possessed unique and clinically pertinent susceptibility profiles, which offered a suitable platform on which rosemary-derived preparations can be assessed. Though the direct activity of crude rosemary extract was limited to weak inhibition of <italic>K. pneumoniae</italic> ATCC and <italic>P. aeruginosa</italic> ATCC, and the effect of pure RA was low in the conditions of disk diffusion employed, the study provides valuable background data on extract dynamics, isolate response, and plant-antibiotic interaction within a UAE environment. Future research should build upon this study by employing broth microdilution checkerboard assays, time-kill dynamics and biofilm-based models to further elucidate antibiotic-modifying possibilities of RA and whole rosemary extract against their clinically significant resistant pathogens.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec6">
      <title>Acknowledgements</title>
      <p>The authors acknowledge the support of the microbiology laboratory staff in the Department of Applied Biology, the University of Sharjah in providing local isolates and access to laboratory facilities. </p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      <ref id="B1">
        <label>1.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Tang, K.W.K., Millar, B.C. and Moore, J.E. (2023) Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). <italic>British</italic><italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Biomedical</italic><italic>Science</italic>, 80, Article 11387. https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2023.11387 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/bjbs.2023.11387</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">37448857</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2023.11387">https://doi.org/10.3389/bjbs.2023.11387</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Tang, K.W.K.</string-name>
              <string-name>Millar, B.C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Moore, J.E.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2023</year>
            <article-title>Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR)</article-title>
            <source>British Journal of Biomedical Science</source>
            <volume>80</volume>
            <elocation-id>11387</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3389/bjbs.2023.11387</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">37448857</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B2">
        <label>2.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Sutton, K.F. and Ashley, L.W. (2024) Antimicrobial Resistance in the United States: Origins and Future Directions. <italic>Epidemiology</italic><italic>and</italic><italic>Infection</italic>, 152, e33. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268824000244 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/s0950268824000244</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38343135</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268824000244">https://doi.org/10.1017/s0950268824000244</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Sutton, K.F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ashley, L.W.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2024</year>
            <article-title>Antimicrobial Resistance in the United States: Origins and Future Directions</article-title>
            <source>Epidemiology and Infection</source>
            <volume>152</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1017/s0950268824000244</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38343135</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B3">
        <label>3.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">C Reygaert, W. (2018) An Overview of the Antimicrobial Resistance Mechanisms of Bacteria. <italic>AIMS</italic><italic>Microbiology</italic>, 4, 482-501. https://doi.org/10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.482 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.482</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">31294229</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.482">https://doi.org/10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.482</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Reygaert, W.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2018</year>
            <article-title>An Overview of the Antimicrobial Resistance Mechanisms of Bacteria</article-title>
            <source>AIMS Microbiology</source>
            <volume>4</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3934/microbiol.2018.3.482</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">31294229</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B4">
        <label>4.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Alatoom, A., Alattas, M., Alraddadi, B., Moubareck, C.A., Hassanien, A., Jamal, W., <italic>et al</italic>. (2024) Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of <italic>Pseudomonas</italic><italic>aeruginosa</italic> in the Arabian Gulf Region over a 12-Year Period (2010-2021). <italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Epidemiology</italic><italic>and</italic><italic>Global</italic><italic>Health</italic>, 14, 529-548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44197-024-00191-y <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s44197-024-00191-y</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38856819</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s44197-024-00191-y">https://doi.org/10.1007/s44197-024-00191-y</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Alatoom, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Alattas, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Alraddadi, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Moubareck, C.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Hassanien, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Jamal, W.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2024</year>
            <article-title>Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the Arabian Gulf Region over a 12-Year Period (2010-2021)</article-title>
            <source>Journal of Epidemiology and Global Health</source>
            <volume>14</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1007/s44197-024-00191-y</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">38856819</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B5">
        <label>5.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="report">Al Marzooqi, A. and Al Kaabi, S. (2023) Abu Dhabi Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Surveillance Report 2023. Abu Dhabi Public Health Center.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="report">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Marzooqi, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Kaabi, S.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2023</year>
            <article-title>Abu Dhabi Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) Surveillance Report 2023</article-title>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B6">
        <label>6.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (2021) The Burden of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in the United Arab Emirates. University of Washington.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>The Burden of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in the United Arab Emirates</article-title>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B7">
        <label>7.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Allemailem, K.S. (2021) Antimicrobial Potential of Naturally Occurring Bioactive Secondary Metabolites. <italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Pharmacy</italic><italic>and</italic><italic>Bioallied</italic><italic>Sciences</italic>, 13, 155-162. https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_753_20 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_753_20</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34349474</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_753_20">https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_753_20</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Allemailem, K.S.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2021</year>
            <article-title>Antimicrobial Potential of Naturally Occurring Bioactive Secondary Metabolites</article-title>
            <source>Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences</source>
            <volume>13</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_753_20</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">34349474</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B8">
        <label>8.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Guetat, A., Al-Ghamdi, F.A. and Osman, A.K. (2014) 1,8-Cineole, α-Pinene and Verbenone Chemotype of Essential Oil of Species <italic>Rosmarinus officinalis</italic>L. from Saudi Arabia. <italic>International Journal of Herbal Medicine</italic>, 2, 137-141. https://www.florajournal.com/archives/2014/vol2issue2/PartC/30a.1.pdf</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Guetat, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Al-Ghamdi, F.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Osman, A.K.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2014</year>
            <article-title>1,8-Cineole, α-Pinene and Verbenone Chemotype of Essential Oil of Species Rosmarinus officinalis L</article-title>
            <source>from Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Herbal Medicine</source>
            <volume>2</volume>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B9">
        <label>9.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Guan, H., Luo, W., Bao, B., Cao, Y., Cheng, F., Yu, S., <italic>et al</italic>. (2022) A Comprehensive Review of Rosmarinic Acid: From Phytochemistry to Pharmacology and Its New Insight. <italic>Molecules</italic>, 27, Article 3292. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27103292 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/molecules27103292</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">35630768</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27103292">https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27103292</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Guan, H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Luo, W.</string-name>
              <string-name>Bao, B.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cao, Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cheng, F.</string-name>
              <string-name>Yu, S.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2022</year>
            <article-title>A Comprehensive Review of Rosmarinic Acid: From Phytochemistry to Pharmacology and Its New Insight</article-title>
            <source>Molecules</source>
            <volume>27</volume>
            <elocation-id>3292</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/molecules27103292</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">35630768</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B10">
        <label>10.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Ivanov, M., Kostić, M., Stojković, D. and Soković, M. (2022) Rosmarinic Acid-Modes of Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Activities of a Common Plant Polyphenol. <italic>South African Journal of Botany</italic>, 146, 521-527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2021.11.050 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.sajb.2021.11.050</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2021.11.050">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajb.2021.11.050</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Ivanov, M.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2022</year>
            <article-title>Rosmarinic Acid-Modes of Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Activities of a Common Plant Polyphenol</article-title>
            <source>South African Journal of Botany</source>
            <volume>146</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.sajb.2021.11.050</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B11">
        <label>11.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Ekambaram, S., Perumal, S., Balakrishnan, A., Marappan, N., Gajendran, S. and Viswanathan, V. (2016) Antibacterial Synergy between Rosmarinic Acid and Antibiotics against Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus. <italic>Journal of Intercultural Ethnopharmacology</italic>, 5, Article 358. https://doi.org/10.5455/jice.20160906035020 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5455/jice.20160906035020</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27757265</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5455/jice.20160906035020">https://doi.org/10.5455/jice.20160906035020</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Ekambaram, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Perumal, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Balakrishnan, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Marappan, N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Gajendran, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Viswanathan, V.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2016</year>
            <article-title>Antibacterial Synergy between Rosmarinic Acid and Antibiotics against Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus</article-title>
            <source>Journal of Intercultural Ethnopharmacology</source>
            <volume>5</volume>
            <elocation-id>358</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5455/jice.20160906035020</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">27757265</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B12">
        <label>12.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="book">CLSI (2026) Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. 36th Edition, CLSI Supplement M100, Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute.</mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="book">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Edition, C</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2026</year>
            <article-title>Performance Standards for Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing</article-title>
            <source>36th Edition</source>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B13">
        <label>13.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Albu, S., Joyce, E., Paniwnyk, L., Lorimer, J.P. and Mason, T.J. (2004) Potential for the Use of Ultrasound in the Extraction of Antioxidants from <italic>Rosmarinus</italic><italic>officinalis</italic> for the Food and Pharmaceutical Industry. <italic>Ultrasonics</italic><italic>Sonochemistry</italic>, 11, 261-265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2004.01.015 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ultsonch.2004.01.015</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15081992</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2004.01.015">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2004.01.015</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Albu, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Joyce, E.</string-name>
              <string-name>Paniwnyk, L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Lorimer, J.P.</string-name>
              <string-name>Mason, T.J.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2004</year>
            <article-title>Potential for the Use of Ultrasound in the Extraction of Antioxidants from Rosmarinus officinalis for the Food and Pharmaceutical Industry</article-title>
            <source>Ultrasonics Sonochemistry</source>
            <volume>11</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ultsonch.2004.01.015</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">15081992</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B14">
        <label>14.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Paniwnyk, L., Cai, H., Albu, S., Mason, T.J. and Cole, R. (2009) The Enhancement and Scale up of the Extraction of Anti-Oxidants from <italic>Rosmarinus</italic><italic>officinalis</italic>Using Ultrasound. <italic>Ultrasonics</italic><italic>Sonochemistry</italic>, 16, 287-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2008.06.007 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ultsonch.2008.06.007</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18778964</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2008.06.007">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2008.06.007</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Paniwnyk, L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cai, H.</string-name>
              <string-name>Albu, S.</string-name>
              <string-name>Mason, T.J.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cole, R.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2009</year>
            <article-title>The Enhancement and Scale up of the Extraction of Anti-Oxidants from Rosmarinus officinalis Using Ultrasound</article-title>
            <source>Ultrasonics Sonochemistry</source>
            <volume>16</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.ultsonch.2008.06.007</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">18778964</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B15">
        <label>15.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Zu, G., Zhang, R., Yang, L., Ma, C., Zu, Y., Wang, W., <italic>et al</italic>. (2012) Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Carnosic Acid and Rosmarinic Acid Using Ionic Liquid Solution from <italic>Rosmarinus</italic><italic>officinalis</italic>. <italic>Inte</italic><italic>rnational Journal of Molecular Sciences</italic>, 13, 11027-11043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms130911027 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/ijms130911027</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23109836</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms130911027">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms130911027</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Zu, G.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zhang, R.</string-name>
              <string-name>Yang, L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Ma, C.</string-name>
              <string-name>Zu, Y.</string-name>
              <string-name>Wang, W.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2012</year>
            <article-title>Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Carnosic Acid and Rosmarinic Acid Using Ionic Liquid Solution from Rosmarinus officinalis</article-title>
            <source>International Journal of Molecular Sciences</source>
            <volume>13</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/ijms130911027</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">23109836</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B16">
        <label>16.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Bellumori, M., Innocenti, M., Binello, A., Boffa, L., Mulinacci, N. and Cravotto, G. (2016) Selective Recovery of Rosmarinic and Carnosic Acids from Rosemary Leaves under Ultrasound-and Microwave-Assisted Extraction Procedures. <italic>Comptes Rendus. Chimie</italic>, 19, 699-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2015.12.013 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.crci.2015.12.013</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2015.12.013">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crci.2015.12.013</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Bellumori, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Innocenti, M.</string-name>
              <string-name>Binello, A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Boffa, L.</string-name>
              <string-name>Mulinacci, N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Cravotto, G.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2016</year>
            <article-title>Selective Recovery of Rosmarinic and Carnosic Acids from Rosemary Leaves under Ultrasound-and Microwave-Assisted Extraction Procedures</article-title>
            <source>Comptes Rendus. Chimie</source>
            <volume>19</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1016/j.crci.2015.12.013</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B17">
        <label>17.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Khalil, N.H.A. and Al-Lebathi, H.H. (2025) Evaluating the Synergistic Activity of <italic>Rosmarinus</italic><italic>officinalis</italic>Extracts with Antibiotics Against MDR Bacteria. <italic>Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research</italic>, 10, 44-49. https://doi.org/10.22270/ujpr.v10i4.1393 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22270/ujpr.v10i4.1393</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.22270/ujpr.v10i4.1393">https://doi.org/10.22270/ujpr.v10i4.1393</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Khalil, N.H.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Al-Lebathi, H.H.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2025</year>
            <article-title>Evaluating the Synergistic Activity of Rosmarinus officinalis Extracts with Antibiotics Against MDR Bacteria</article-title>
            <source>Universal Journal of Pharmaceutical Research</source>
            <volume>10</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22270/ujpr.v10i4.1393</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B18">
        <label>18.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="journal">Husein, N., Laban, N.A. and Owais, D.T. (2025) Exploring the Antimicrobial Potential of <italic>Rosmarinus</italic><italic>officinali</italic>s against Urinary Tract Infection Isolates in Amman, Jordan. <italic>Iranian</italic><italic>Journal</italic><italic>of</italic><italic>Microbiology</italic>, 17, 460-469. https://doi.org/10.18502/ijm.v17i3.18829 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18502/ijm.v17i3.18829</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">40612734</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.18502/ijm.v17i3.18829">https://doi.org/10.18502/ijm.v17i3.18829</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="journal">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Husein, N.</string-name>
              <string-name>Laban, N.A.</string-name>
              <string-name>Owais, D.T.</string-name>
              <string-name>Amman, J</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2025</year>
            <article-title>Exploring the Antimicrobial Potential of Rosmarinus officinalis against Urinary Tract Infection Isolates in Amman, Jordan</article-title>
            <source>Iranian Journal of Microbiology</source>
            <volume>17</volume>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.18502/ijm.v17i3.18829</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">40612734</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B19">
        <label>19.</label>
        <citation-alternatives>
          <mixed-citation publication-type="other">Kernou, O., Azzouz, Z., Madani, K. and Rijo, P. (2023) Application of Rosmarinic Acid with Its Derivatives in the Treatment of Microbial Pathogens. <italic>Molecules</italic>, 28, Article 4243. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28104243 <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/molecules28104243</pub-id><pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">37241981</pub-id><ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28104243">https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28104243</ext-link></mixed-citation>
          <element-citation publication-type="other">
            <person-group person-group-type="author">
              <string-name>Kernou, O.</string-name>
              <string-name>Azzouz, Z.</string-name>
              <string-name>Madani, K.</string-name>
              <string-name>Rijo, P.</string-name>
            </person-group>
            <year>2023</year>
            <article-title>Application of Rosmarinic Acid with Its Derivatives in the Treatment of Microbial Pathogens</article-title>
            <source>Molecules</source>
            <volume>28</volume>
            <elocation-id>4243</elocation-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">10.3390/molecules28104243</pub-id>
            <pub-id pub-id-type="pmid">37241981</pub-id>
          </element-citation>
        </citation-alternatives>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>