## 3 Results and Discussion
### Antimicrobial Capacity of Hawthorn Extracts  
Hawthorn fruit extracts could show an antimicrobial effect according to previous studies [2], and the effectiveness of which may vary depending on the mode of extraction. In line with this, the growth inhibitory potential of Hawthorn fruit extracts prepared by acetate buffer and enzyme-assisted extractions was studied against _E. coli_, _P. aeruginosa_, _B. subtilis_ and _C. violaceum_ bacteria, and _W. anomalus_ and _D. hansenii_ yeasts. The results for MIC of the hawthorn fruit extracts are summarized in Table 2. As can be seen, the antimicrobial effect varied depending on the extract and microorganism during the applied microdilution tests. The results showed a MIC for each extract against the bacteria, while the yeasts tested were quite resistant to the activity of the extracts. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Compounds**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Type of Extract**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **C** & **S1** & **S2** \\ \hline Gallic acid & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.06 a & 2.16 \(\pm\) 0.21 b & 2.07 \(\pm\) 0.19 b \\ Dihydroxybenzoic acid & n. d. 1 a & 5.00 \(\pm\) 0.63 b & 5.06 \(\pm\) 0.54 b \\ Protocatechuic acid & 7.54 \(\pm\) 0.69 a & 11.33 \(\pm\) 0.89 b & 10.64 \(\pm\) 0.91 b \\ (\(+\))-Catechin & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.01 b \\ Protocatechuic aldehyde & 0.59 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.03 a & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.02 a \\ Chlorogenic acid & 94.03 \(\pm\) 7.15 a & 18.43 \(\pm\) 2.11 b & 19.85 \(\pm\) 3.25 b \\ (\(-\))-Epicatechin & 4.30 \(\pm\) 0.08 a & 1.64 \(\pm\) 0.12 b & 1.58 \(\pm\) 0.17 b \\ Caffeic acid & 1.28 \(\pm\) 0.37 a & 21.66 \(\pm\) 3.44 b & 21.87 \(\pm\) 4.11 b \\ Vanillic acid & 3.47 \(\pm\) 0.61 a & 401.20 \(\pm\) 47.13 b & 441.85 \(\pm\) 53.75 b \\ Syringic acid & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.05 a & 3.76 \(\pm\) 0.66 b & 3.79 \(\pm\) 0.54 b \\ \(p\)-Hydrovbenzaldehyde & 0.02 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 2.27 \(\pm\) 0.16 b & 2.31 \(\pm\) 0.18 b \\ Vanillin & 8.53 \(\pm\) 0.80 a & 13.68 \(\pm\) 1.12 b & 13.92 \(\pm\) 1.35 b \\ Taxifolin & 0.07 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\ Vitexin & 3.64 \(\pm\) 0.91 a & 1.39 \(\pm\) 0.11 b & 1.45 \(\pm\) 0.16 b \\ \(p\)-Coumaric acid & 4.24 \(\pm\) 0.07 a & 11.91 \(\pm\) 1.63 b & 11.59 \(\pm\) 2.11 b \\ Ferulic acid & 1.71 \(\pm\) 0.80 a & 160.66 \(\pm\) 19.82 b & 154.89 \(\pm\) 21.26 b \\ Isovitexin & 2.66 \(\pm\) 0.94 a & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.21 b & 0.95 \(\pm\) 0.19 b \\ Hyperoside & 99.31 \(\pm\) 3.56 a & 4.09 \(\pm\) 1.21 b & 4.31 \(\pm\) 1.62 b \\ Isoquercitrin & 22.57 \(\pm\) 1.06 a & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.23 b & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.16 b \\ Quercetin & 5.85 \(\pm\) 0.94 a & 12.70 \(\pm\) 1.02 b & 11.66 \(\pm\) 1.61 b \\ Apigenin & 0.06 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & n. d. b \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{1}\) Not detected. The values shown are averages of the concentration data obtained from three measurements \(\pm\) standard deviation. The different letters within a row indicate significant differences according to one-way ANOVA followed by [PERSON]’s multiple comparison test (\(p<\) 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Yields of phenolic compounds (in \(\upmu\)g/g DM) extracted from _C. orientalis_ fruit with acetate buffer solution (C), cellulase (S1), and cellulase–pecitinase (S2) cocktails. In the case of _P. aeruginosa_ and _B. subtilis_, the MICs were identified at the second step of dilution of extracts, i.e., in 4-fold diluted samples, regardless of the extraction method (Table 2). MIC against _E. coli_ was also obtained in a 4-fold dilution when the extract produced by the combined treatment of cellulase-pectinase was used in the tests. However, in _E. coli_, lower concentrations for extracts of acetate buffer and cellulase treatment were also active against planktonic growth, resulting in MIC in the 8-fold diluted samples (Table 2). _C. violaceum_ growth was less sensitive to extracts compared to other bacteria tested. Although the MIC against _C.