This journal article analyzes the antimicrobial activity of propolis, a substance produced by honeybees, on three strains of oral bacteria: Streptococcus gordonii, Streptococcus intermedius, and Streptococcus anguinis. The study found that 5% and 10% concentrations of propolis inhibited the growth of these bacteria. However, the reviewer provides several critiques, noting that using a wider range of propolis concentrations and additional bacterial strains would strengthen the results. The reviewer also suggests including positive and negative controls for comparison. Overall, the study demonstrates propolis' antimicrobial properties but could be improved by addressing the methodological issues raised.

1. JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE
Nam, S. H., Choi, Y. R., Jang, S. O., Shim, Y. S., & Han, G. S. (2015). Antimicrobial Activity
of Propolis on Different Oral Bacteria. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(36).
A. INFORMATION OF ARTICLE
TITLE OF ARTICLE : Antimicrobial Activity of Propolis on Different Oral Bacteria
NAME OF JOURNAL : Indian Journal of Science and Technology
ISSUE : 8
VOLUME : 36
DATE PUBLISH : December 2015
B. INTRODUCTION / OVERVIEW
This article is a study about the effect of the usage of propolis on the growth of bacteria
used which is the Streptococcus gordonii (S. gordonii), Streptococcus intermedius (S.
intermedius) and Streptococcus anguinis (S. anguinis). The effect of propolis studied will
reflect on its ability to act as the antimicrobial substance on oral bacteria.
C. CONTENT OF ARTICLE
i) TITLE AND ABSTRACT
The title of the article is brief and informative. The aim and the purpose of the study
is well shown in the title. From the title, reader will be able to know the substance of
interested which is the propolis and the properties of propolis to act as an
antimicrobial substance on oral health.
However, the abstract will make it confusing because it is not very well
compliment with the title. As stated from the title, the study will be carried out to
investigate antimicrobial properties of the propolis on the oral bacteria but the
abstract has stated clearly that the bacteria used in this experiment is only from the
strain of Streptococcus sp only. There are over 700 different strains of bacteria
(Colgate-Palmolive, 2016) that can be detected in the human mouth. The two major
strains of bacteria are from the Streptococcus sp and Porphyromonas sp.

2. Hence, it will be a better way of abstract writing if the author able to state that
the strain of Streptococcus sp bacteria used in the study is due to its abundancy. It
is a commonly found strain of bacteria in the normal bacterial flora of oral cavity.
Then, readers will be able to understand the objective and reason of author using
only this strain of bacteria for his research.
Anyhow, the abstract also has presented the data from the finding in a very
proper and clear statement. It is well understood that the concentration of the
propolis which is 5w% and 10w% will be able to inhibit the bacterial growth.
However, the concentration unit used in the abstract is not a standard
representative format. After reading through the article, the concentration unit
written as w% is actually representing the weight per weight percentage which is
normally represented in the normal unit of w/w%. Thus, it can be easily mistaken
as other unit of concentration if the author does not used the standard
representation format. Not just that, the naming of the strain of bacteria in the
abstract is not in italic word format. Suppose the naming of the bacteria species
will be in the italic word in scientific articles.
ii) INTRODUCTION
Introduction is very important in an article because reader will be able to
understand almost everything about the research carried out by reading the
introduction. This article has achieved the aim in conveying its main idea of
research and important components of the research in the introduction. From the
introduction, the substance of interest, propolis is very well described. The source
and the properties of the propolis is stated and described in details.
In my opinion, it will be better if the author able to provide more information
about the properties of propolis to act as the antimicrobial substance. The author
has make a very general statement that the propolis posses the antimicrobial,
antifungal, antiviral, antiprotozoal, hepatoprotective, antioxidant, antitumour,
immunomodulation and anti-inflammatory properties. The property of interest in
propolis is not very well told in the introduction.

3. It will strengthen the problem statement brought by the author if the
antimicrobial property of propolis in other health aspects is stated in the
introduction. It will be clear to reader that all these while the propolis is used as
the antimicrobial in other health aspects but rarely tested on the oral hygiene or
oral health. Thus, it is clear that the research about the function of propolis as an
antimicrobial in oral application or medication is needed.
iii) Research Framework
The materials and methods reported in this article is very brief but sufficient
enough to allow reader to understand the whole framework of the research. The
source of the propolis is clearly stated which is from the Australia honeybees.
However, if the reader is not aware about the source of the propolis, one might
think that the ‘Australia honeybee’ might be a type of honeybee found in Australia
or it may also be a company that selling the propolis by taking the name of
Australia honeybee. Hence, it is advisable that the author shall state more details
about the source of the propolis. From my finding, the Autralia honeybee is
actually a company that selling various product derived from the honey
(http://www.australianhoneybee.com.au/). It will also be a better way of
presentation if the author able to state the reason of taking the propolis from this
selected company to conduct his research. Then, reader will be able to justify
weather all source of propolis or the propolis from the company selected will
poses the antimicrobial properties.
In this study, author had used two concentrations of propolis which are 5w/w%
and 10w/w%. It is simple way of conducting the research and able to test the
efficiency of propolis to act as the antimicrobial substance. However, I personally
think that a wider range of concentration will make the result obtain more reliable.
At least from the wider range of concentration, we will be able to study the trend of
inhibition by the propolis on the growth of the Streptococcus sp. At the same time,
wider range of concentration might also able to allow use to determine the
optimum concentration for the inhibitory action of the propolis. Hence, I am
suggesting that the author carried out the study with the minimal concentration
maybe from 1w/w% to maximum concentration of 75w/w% of propolis.

4. As for the antimicrobial test, researchers have used three different species of
Streptococcus sp. This is a very good initiation for antibacterial testing. The more
number of species tested, the result obtained will be more convincing. Hence, the
validity of the result will be increased if researcher uses more than one strain of
bacteria rather than only Streptococcus sp only. As stated in the title, this research
is to study the properties if the propolis as the antimicrobial substance. It will be
convincing to state it as an antimicrobial substance if the inhibitory response acts
on more than one common strain of bacteria that can be found in normal bacteria
floral.
Other than that, researchers tested the antimicrobial activity based on the
growth of Streptococcus sp on the brain heart infusion agar. The growth is
determined using a common standard technique in bacterial growth which is
Colony Forming Unit, CFU and the optical density combined with ELISA. Both
techniques combined will be able to provide a viable result about the bacteria
growth in the brain heart infusion agar.
However, there is another method to test the antimicrobial activity which is
using the antimicrobial susceptibility test disc (Fluka, 2016) in which the propolis is
introduced onto the agar through the antimicrobial disc. The range of inhibitory by
each antimicrobial disc will be determined through the clear area around the disc.
from this technique, researcher can use different concentration on each disc and
able to determine the inhibitory properties of propolin as well as the optimum
concentration of propolin to act as antimicrobial substance.
In the other hand, the research conducted is without using any other
antimicrobial substance as control. Hence, it is not persuasive enough to convince
the reader that the result obtained is purely from the inhibitory action of the
propolin. Thus, it is a better framework of methodology if research able to apply
control experiment in their study. The might use other antimicrobial substance
(such as isopropyl alcohol) as the positive control and the distilled water as the
negative control. This way of presentation will make the result obtained more
vulnerable and convincing.

5. D. CONCLUSION
As a conclusion, the research is very well conducted. The researchers had carried out the
research in a very well planned framework of research. It will be better way of
presentation if they considered the aspects as discussed in this review.
E. REFERENCE
Colgate-Palmolive (2016). Retrived on April 08, 2016 from
http://www.colgate.com/en/us/oc/oral-health/basics/mouth-and-teeth-
anatomy/article/sw-281474979087677
Australian Honeybee (2016). Retrived on April 08, 2016 from
http://www.australianhoneybee.com.au/
Fluka (2016). Retrived on April 08, 2016 from
https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/content/dam/sigma-
aldrich/docs/Sigma/General_Information/antimicrobial_suscept_discs_leaflet.pd
f